|
OwlFancier posted:It's not rocket science but it's basic 'if this, then that' logic. I think this is critical Cavaradossi, you really seem to be mistaking "logical" with "actively and/or consciously logical". Again, the breathing analogy: you are constantly running the process subconsciously, but that doesn't mean it isn't happening
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 01:02 |
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:I think this is critical Although technically I think breathing is actually automatic, I know heartbeat is controlled by a regular electric pulse from the brain but I can't remember what controls breathing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Although technically I think breathing is actually automatic, I know heartbeat is controlled by a regular electric pulse from the brain but I can't remember what controls breathing. Electric impulse to the diaphragm and the muscles along the rib cage
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:e: And the fact that a work has multiple interpretations speaks well of it, not poorly. If it was written for the purposes of art and entertainment? Absolutely. If it was written to be a clear moral guideline that one is supposed to apply to their entire life? gently caress no. Look, if your job is to create a poster to keep people from injuring themselves on the job do you want it to be vague and able to be interpreted multiple ways, up to and including shoving their hands in a running wood chipper, or do you want it to send a single clear message? You obviously want the latter unless you love getting slapped with multiple lawsuits. And most Christians will tell you that the primary purpose of the bible is to show you how to live a good and moral life that will ensure that you get to live in an eternal paradise after death. And by that metric it is incredibly at it's goal because of how unclear it is. Now, you might disagree with people that the bible is meant to be a basis for how you live your life but that makes you the minority. Nor is this a new phenomenon, the idea of living by the edicts and teachings of the religion go hand in hand with it's inception even if a word for word literal translation is not (though I don't believe this view is all that young either. Most Christians throughout history weren't professional theologians). Who What Now fucked around with this message at 01:35 on Dec 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 01:21
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:If it was written for the purposes of art and entertainment? Absolutely. If it was written to be a clear moral guideline that one is supposed to apply to their entire life? gently caress no. Do you believe there exists a single, objective morality that is knowable by humans and can be communicated perfectly through text? I'm guessing not. So then wouldn't being open to interpretation be a necessary component of being a religious text of any lasting value? Do you believe that the creators of the Bible considered it an unambiguous list of objective moral commandments? If so, why did they pad it with so many books of fiction and poetry and legends and letters and weird jacked up dream sequences?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 03:32
|
|
|
bobtheconqueror posted:we don't really use logic perfectly on a regular basis, cause that's hard and boring and gets into epistomological issues that most people don't even know about. Precisely. Faith is the same way. Applying reason to it is boring and gets into a bunch of dull unimportant stuff really quickly ("is God being omnipotent compatible with free will?" is not a question of any real importance to faith). So don't bother, just like you don't bother with most of the rest of the stuff in your life.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 13:31
|
|
|
Cavaradossi posted:Precisely. Faith is the same way. Applying reason to it is boring and gets into a bunch of dull unimportant stuff really quickly ("is God being omnipotent compatible with free will?" is not a question of any real importance to faith). So don't bother, just like you don't bother with most of the rest of the stuff in your life. Wait. You seem to be implying that, because we don't do so on a regular basis, there isn't value in critically analyzing things. The hard and boring applications of logic are sometimes the most valuable, and it's frequently worthwhile to question preconceptions. My overall point was that you were downplaying how much of a role logic and reasoning play in day to day life, and you've decided to cherry pick one phrase and try to turn it around in a frankly bizarre manner. Why? What's your point? Are you actually trying to say that accepting God based on faith alone is the right thing to do because it's easy; that questioning God is difficult, so why bother? I could just approach that from a different perspective. I've always lacked faith in much other than reality, and I basically boiled that down to just that reality is a thing I perceive. It must exist as a result of that, although mere existence doesn't explain the nature of reality, which is unknowable. Why bother trying to believe in a non-falsifiable deity? It's existence and prayers to it are only as valuable as the good feelings they create in those that already believe. By it's very nature, a God that cannot definitively be proven to exist or not to exist cannot act in a context we can perceive, because such perception would serve as proof, one way or the other.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 14:23
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:Do you believe there exists a single, objective morality that is knowable by humans and can be communicated perfectly through text? I believe that given a set of parameters that we can find actions that are objectively better at fulfilling those criteria than others, yes. But we're talking about a book presented by its followers in America as being written by men, but by an all powerful super-being. Now I can already feel you reaching for the reply button all ready to come at me with the whole "Nobody actually believes in the man on the cloud sky daddy stuff" spiel. But let's look at a few statistics. In 2012 46% of Americans said they believe God created man whole and as we are now. It was still 42% this year. In a BioLogos polling study (phone posting so I can't direct link) 51% agreed that the bible is literally true and without errors. So while you and I understand the history of the bible and how it was written if you go out of your house right now and ask random person off the street you have a drat good chance that they'll tell you it's either written or directly inspired by God himself. These aren't fringe beliefs and they aren't as new as you might think. So when we talk about why the bible is written and for what purpose we absolutely have to keep that in mind. Now, I'm not saying you or anyone else in this thread does or should believe believe in a literal interpretation of the bible. But again and again it's been hand waved away as if it's just all of five churches in rural Alabama that believe such. Well it's not true, and it's way more common that you think.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
bobtheconqueror posted:Wait. You seem to be implying that, because we don't do so on a regular basis, there isn't value in critically analyzing things. The hard and boring applications of logic are sometimes the most valuable, and it's frequently worthwhile to question preconceptions. Plus, why would God give us this fantastic tool to perceive and understand the world, then chastise us for using it on Him? Logic, reason, scientific processes - these are all virtues when applied to anything else. Why, when I read the Koran and apply logic and reason to it to find out it isn't true, that's proper and correct, but when I apply it to the Bible to find out it isn't true, I'm misunderstanding/taking things out of context/using reason where faith is better/etc? God would be capable of a Holy Book that stood up to scrutiny.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Plus, why would God give us this fantastic tool to perceive and understand the world, then chastise us for using it on Him? Logic, reason, scientific processes - these are all virtues when applied to anything else. Why, when I read the Koran and apply logic and reason to it to find out it isn't true, that's proper and correct, but when I apply it to the Bible to find out it isn't true, I'm misunderstanding/taking things out of context/using reason where faith is better/etc? And yet it quite obviously doesn't. Which means... _______________. Fill in the blank. edit: Literally the first lesson the bible teaches you is that people learning, using logic, and thinking about the world is the greatest sin possible. That's what the parable about eating the fruit of the tree of Knowledge means. Questioning the wisdom of your betters, or thinking about the world too much literally caused all the pain and regret people have ever felt according to this faith.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
bobtheconqueror posted:Are you actually trying to say that accepting God based on faith alone is the right thing to do because it's easy; that questioning God is difficult, so why bother? No. I'm saying that applying reason to faith doesn't work. Reason is not the be-all and end-all of how we interact with the world; in fact, it is very limited in its application. Applying reason to faith is simply a mistake, it doesn't make sense, it's not why people have faith.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
Cavaradossi posted:No. I'm saying that applying reason to faith doesn't work. Reason is not the be-all and end-all of how we interact with the world; in fact, it is very limited in its application. Applying reason to faith is simply a mistake, it doesn't make sense, it's not why people have faith. I've been reading some accounts of Christians who converted to Islam, and the thing that convinced many of them was the supposedly ahead-of-its-time science found in the Koran. That, and the Trinity was nonsensical, so the actual-just-one-God of Islam made more sense. So, in that respect, it very much is a product of using reason.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
Cavaradossi posted:No. I'm saying that applying reason to faith doesn't work. Reason is not the be-all and end-all of how we interact with the world; in fact, it is very limited in its application. Applying reason to faith is simply a mistake, it doesn't make sense, it's not why people have faith. If I was holding a syringe and told you I had a new, instantaneous cure for cancer within it. Which argument is more likely to convince you that what I claim is real: Numerous empirical independent studies showing a 95%+ success rate over tens of thousands of patients, including unedited video of people getting scans that show cancer then getting the injection and having a second scan that showed them cancer free, or a million people telling you that it's true and you just have to have faith in it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 02:21
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:If I was holding a syringe and told you I had a new, instantaneous cure for cancer within it. Which argument is more likely to convince you that what I claim is real: Numerous empirical independent studies showing a 95%+ success rate over tens of thousands of patients, including unedited video of people getting scans that show cancer then getting the injection and having a second scan that showed them cancer free, or a million people telling you that it's true and you just have to have faith in it? Depends, does the video have nice choral singing in the background and lots of images of clouds breaking and sunlight coming through, also are the before parts done in black and white while the after parts are done in colour?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 02:25
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Depends, does the video have nice choral singing in the background and lots of images of clouds breaking and sunlight coming through, also are the before parts done in black and white while the after parts are done in colour? It's a super boring science video with monotone British narration that constantly references making notes in a workbook that you were never supplied.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 02:33
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:It's a super boring science video with monotone British narration that constantly references making notes in a workbook that you were never supplied. Thanks Obama. Thobama.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:If I was holding a syringe and told you I had a new, instantaneous cure for cancer within it. Which argument is more likely to convince you that what I claim is real: Numerous empirical independent studies showing a 95%+ success rate over tens of thousands of patients, including unedited video of people getting scans that show cancer then getting the injection and having a second scan that showed them cancer free, or a million people telling you that it's true and you just have to have faith in it? But the purpose of faith is to find strength to transcend the material aspect of humanity, so making these sorts of comparisons doesn't make much sense. Using empirical reasoning in certain matters isn't opposed to simultaneously using faith in moral and spiritual guidance which deals with meaning rather than with immanent properties of any external phenomena.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 03:07
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Plus, why would God give us this fantastic tool to perceive and understand the world, then chastise us for using it on Him? Logic, reason, scientific processes - these are all virtues when applied to anything else. Why, when I read the Koran and apply logic and reason to it to find out it isn't true, that's proper and correct, but when I apply it to the Bible to find out it isn't true, I'm misunderstanding/taking things out of context/using reason where faith is better/etc? Why are you making claims about what God would or wouldn't do? Why should God care about some dumbass mortal's ideas on what is or isn't logical?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:But the purpose of faith is to find strength to transcend the material aspect of humanity, so making these sorts of comparisons doesn't make much sense. Using empirical reasoning in certain matters isn't opposed to simultaneously using faith in moral and spiritual guidance which deals with meaning rather than with immanent properties of any external phenomena. Faith is nothing more than gullibility by another name and is absolutely worthless for determining morality.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 04:18
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Faith is nothing more than gullibility by another name. You base this statement on...?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 04:56
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:You base this statement on...? Faith: believing in something without substantial empirical evidence. Gullibility: believing in something without substantial empirical evidence.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
If faith is something you're not supposed to apply reason to, then yeah, it's basically being painfully credulous. I would suggest therefore that faith should have some degree of reason involved somewhere, for most people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
The whole "it's faith! Logic doesn't apply!" crowd makes me think they all consider logic to be strictly "if p then q" type of stuff. Look, even if it's something I'm just supposed to feel out and believe, I can and do still have a logical problem: your faith doesn't provoke the same emotional response in me, so I have to analyze why, and come to some conclusion based on the fact that none of the faiths make a stronger emotional case for me than any other. So how do I arrive at one? By thinking about it....and using logic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 05:22
|
|
|
Yes but early on you ruled out the explanation that Christianity is not true so why are you so gung go on logic all of a sudden. Sure if you're not raised Christian then you can use fairly elementary reasoning to poke holes in the Gospels but if you start out with at least a vaguely Christian perspective then there is nothing special about logic. Perhaps the problem is that you are predestined for Hell, and your lack of faith is just a clue that you are not among the elect.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 05:32
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Perhaps the problem is that you are predestined for Hell, and your lack of faith is just a clue that you are not among the elect. No joke that is like the only explanation so far that actually satisfactorily answers my questions. It makes God kind of a dick, yes, but it answers everything. I'm just not in the club, straight up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 05:59
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Yes but early on you ruled out the explanation that Christianity is not true so why are you so gung go on logic all of a sudden. Sure if you're not raised Christian then you can use fairly elementary reasoning to poke holes in the Gospels but if you start out with at least a vaguely Christian perspective then there is nothing special about logic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 06:35
|
|
|
Cavaradossi posted:No. I'm saying that applying reason to faith doesn't work. Reason is not the be-all and end-all of how we interact with the world; in fact, it is very limited in its application. Applying reason to faith is simply a mistake, it doesn't make sense, it's not why people have faith. You don't apply reason to faith. It's not an ointment, and faith isn't a rash. You apply reason to the sorts of questions people use faith to answer. Reason and faith are methodologies for arriving at conclusions. There are very, very few questions that reason can't be used to answer, and faith doesn't really answer those either, at least not in a manner that will satisfy everyone. So, the problem is this. Faith is wishy washy. Every answer is pretty much equally valid given sufficient faith. Reason is definitive. Given a set of circumstances and a question, you can arrive at a conclusion. Given the exact same set of circumstances, with the exact same question, the answer will always be the same. Faith can answer every question, because you simply have no need for circumstance. However, faith can't ever tell you whether or not your answer is right before testing it out. That's why I'm faithless. The questions I need faith to answer simply aren't worth asking. They provide no purpose or value beyond establishing those basic principles, and if I'm interested in having useful basic principles, those that are more likely to result in correct conclusions when tested, they should be as simple as possible. That rules out pretty much everything other than the existence of perception. I suppose I just applied reason to faith, so maybe my initial statement doesn't stand. Whoops. Can I ask you why, in your opinion, people have faith without tempting you to make the same mistake, as you call it? Edit: I suppose I'll also put this out there. The limit of reason is faith. We don't have all the information in those imperfect situations we find ourselves in. We have to fill the gaps. That's what makes us wrong. That's what causes mistakes. Faith. Givens we accept without testing, or reasoning them out. I suppose with this it might seem like I'm arrogant in calling myself faithless, but I use that in a mostly religious sense. I take lots of things for granted long enough to screw up all the time, but I will readily admit that my faith was misplaced when it proves incorrect. The faithful, in my experience, lack such readiness. Also, I probably am a little arrogant, but I try like hell not to be. bobtheconqueror fucked around with this message at 10:20 on Dec 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 09:59
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:No joke that is like the only explanation so far that actually satisfactorily answers my questions. It makes God kind of a dick, yes, but it answers everything. I'm just not in the club, straight up. You'd rather ignore evidence that Christianity is man-made in order to believe that you're predestined for hell? Why?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 11:12
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I believe that given a set of parameters that we can find actions that are objectively better at fulfilling those criteria than others, yes. But we're talking about setting the parameters of what is moral, not just about discerning how to accomplish those goals. (I also think that you're entirely too optimistic about our ability to create objective, communicable correct solutions for moral questions of any kind of scope or complexity, but that's irrelevant if we can't even all agree on the questions in the first place.) quote:But we're talking about a book presented by its followers in America as being written by men, but by an all powerful super-being. I haven't seen anyone in this thread disputing that some people, even a large and powerful group of people*, have tremendously stupid and harmful hermeneutics. In fact, I am specifically saying: those people exist, and the fact that you are taking their side of a theological argument should really make you rethink your position. You (and them) are attempting to read a perspective into the Bible that it was not written or compiled with any intent of communicating, getting a stupid result, and then just running with it instead of wondering if maybe your assumptions might be at all flawed. Then you (both) turn around and claim that others don't "really" believe in the Bible when they undertake serious, rigorous scholarship and criticism. Of course it's perfectly possible, and fine, for there to be no interpretation of the Bible that makes it resonate with you. I think it's got some cool stuff in there about wealth (and some really questionable stuff, of course), but I've never felt like it was indispensable to my life. That's why I'm not a Christian. That's why the obvious answer for GAINING WEIGHT... is "apparently you're not a Christian." But the last thing they, or anyone, need is for people gleefully to reinforce the harmful assumptions that are causing their problem in the first place, like arguing for a reading of the Bible "without interpretation". * Indeed, I'd argue that the fundamentalist hermeneutic was developed specifically to try to force the Bible to justify aggressive pursuit/defense of temporal power, particularly with respect to white supremacy. Mornacale fucked around with this message at 11:44 on Dec 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 11:40
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Why are you making claims about what God would or wouldn't do? Why should God care about some dumbass mortal's ideas on what is or isn't logical? Nope nope, you don't get to do this. The Bible wasn't written by God. It was written by dumbass mortals and other dumbass mortals are claiming God is speaking through those authors. And it's in competition with thousands of other traditions authored by dmbass mortals claiming to have some special insight into the divine. So it absolutely is appropriate to evaluate these claims and decide which ones appear to have the kind of wisdom and moral sense that a perfect being would possess, and which ones were written by petty busybody assholes intent on controlling and guilting everyone about their sex lives.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 13:22
|
|
|
nopantsjack posted:You'd rather ignore evidence that Christianity is man-made in order to believe that you're predestined for hell? No no, sorry, I'm not saying I do believe it, just that it's the only answer that isn't nonsensical or "of course it isn't logical, you're supposed to have FAITH".
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:No no, sorry, I'm not saying I do believe it, just that it's the only answer that isn't nonsensical or "of course it isn't logical, you're supposed to have FAITH". Does it count as nonsensical if it's one of the main lessons in the book you're attempting to hamfist logic into?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 16:09
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:By their fruits shall thee know them. I'd like to bring this back up: it seems like you are contending that the way to sort out genuine revelation from false is to assess the person who gives it. However, I feel that even this would fall quickly into absurdity. First of all, what do you define as a "fruitful" person? Let's say it's something like how much they pray and how charitable they are. Are you arguing that the most pious person is also the most correct? And that if there is a "tie" - that is, if there is a group of extremely pious and charitable people, but no most pious and charitable - are you arguing that they would all agree on everything theological 100%? I mean, maybe that's the case, but it seems like a stretch. If the most fruitful people disagree on something, then what? How do we figure out the truth in that case? Also, if an extremely pious person told you that women are unfit to teach in church or that gay people are unfit for the kingdom of god or something, would you by default adopt their views? What I'm saying is, examining the "fruits" of a person still does not seem like a good enough standard of proof to determine correct revelation. nucleicmaxid posted:Does it count as nonsensical if it's one of the main lessons in the book you're attempting to hamfist logic into? I'm not sure I take your point
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:I'm not sure I take your point You missing an obvious point has been the case since you first posted. One of the main points in the Bible, throughout Old and New Testaments, is to spurn logic and rely on faith alone. It's mentioned over and over, and explored and explained in parables all the way through. It could, arguably, be seen as the main lesson of the Bible (I'm not saying it is, just that there could be a strong argument for it.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
nucleicmaxid posted:You missing an obvious point has been the case since you first posted. quote:James 3:17 quote:1 Peter 3:15
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
Cool let's look at these two quotes. What they actually say. My quotes are from the NIV, but the KJV is way closer to my quotes than to yours. I'm not even sure what version you were using. quote:James 3:17 This quote says the wisdom of Heaven, which is clearly the word of God. Not only that, but one of the adjectives given when discussing what Heaven wants you to believe, is submissive. So that seems to support me, not you. quote:1 Peter 3:15 The 'reason' he's talking about here is Christ. Always be prepared to tell people about Christ as the reason for your hope. You're bad at homonyms.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 16:13
|
|
|
I'm a little annoyed at the occasional hostility GAINING WEIGHT is getting! It seems like a lot of people are being very judgmental of him because he's willing to entertain the notion of "what would it take for me to be a Christian?" to death even though he doesn't currently do the faith thing and likes applying the same arguments for the validity of Christianity to lots of other religions -- and even some of its adherents (not all!!!!!) seem to have started mocking him or telling him it's not useful for him to keep asking because his questions are too weird or difficult. I think it's pretty easy and obvious to say "you are obviously not a Christian" here, but I don't think everyone who's making that response is exploring the implications. If the straightforward answer (coming from the Christians) really is "there is no way you will ever become a Christian, and although I believe your [epistemological views|moral views|???] views are wrong in this case, there is no way I will ever be able to convince you of that" I think that should raise a lot of bigger questions for whoever says it! In addition, I think a lot of people are making statements relevant only to specific interpretations of the religion while claiming they represent the religion in general. Granted, they have a right to do this in a lot of cases, because most of the atheists in this topic are hacking away at Christianity-in-general more than they're hacking away at Christianity-in-the-specific -- which went disastrously (for example) for CommieGIR, even though I like his spirit! It's acceptable to respond to "Christianity-as-a-whole says x!" with "Sect-z actually says y!" but it's not acceptable to respond to "Not-sect-z says x" with the same answer, because what sect-z says is irrelevant to that interpretation. I think this has led to some arguments that shouldn't have necessarily occurred, because I don't think they can be settled -- just now, does Christianity-in-general allow its adherents to use logic to interpret the holy book? (in alternative to using what, by the way? It's a hard book to read!) I feel that while nucleicmaxid's viewpoint is potentially valid as an interpretation, I don't believe it's necessarily representative of the religion as a whole! It generally seems that these arguments have fallen into back-and-forth in the pattern of "[anonymous] sect-z says x" // "but [anonymous] sect-q says y" // "but sect-z says x" // "well it shouldn't!" and it seems that even efforts to bring textual evidence into the matter have started up accusations of cherry-picking and affiliation with fundamentalist cliques! I'm really confused by that because it seems like something most of the Christians in this thread agree on is that the Bible is open to interpretation -- that is, it's not unambiguous. Even though that still allows some interpretations to be completely, unambiguously wrong (i.e. "the Bible advocates baby-eating"), I think that in cases where there's a wealth of textual evidence for multiple competing viewpoints, it's more reasonable to acknowledge both (and argue from a standpoint that assumes the validity of either) than to butt horns over which one is unambiguously right. There's still at least a few people, particularly the atheists trying to defend the literalist viewpoint, who seem to have a pretty hosed interpretation, although it's such a common one that I think it's still a good idea to acknowledge it. I think some Christians, especially the literalists, are so far from a reasonable reading of the Bible it may not always be best to bring the Bible into the discussion to begin with! Thanks to those of you who have kept cool, and even those falling into the above classifications who have kept cool to a moderate or inconsistent extent! This topic is fun to read. Apologies if any of you feel misrepresented.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
ok
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
After a great deal of consideration from the discussion in this thread and elsewhere, I think I'd like to approach my question from a different perspective to see if we can get any closer to an answer: Let's say I have been convinced of Christianity in the very basic sense - that is, I think there is a God, and I think Jesus is his son who died on the cross. However, I am still unsure of which denomination to choose (and thus, which specific interpretations of many of the finer theological points to follow). This may seem arbitrary or unimportant: well gee, do you like choirs or rock bands? Pageantry or a casual setting? But there are many things the denominations differ on that seem vitally important to get right (like, I dunno, which of the five solae do I consider?). Let's further assert that I'm not interested in choosing a denomination based on what I like the best, or what feels right, or what is easiest, or what would require the least change in my lifestyle; rather, I am interested in finding out what is correct. I think even those arguing that logic can't be applied to religion would have to agree that there is a right answer (even if that right answer is "God does not care which religion you follow, just be someone of any faith at all") and that it is a reasonable goal to find out what that right answer is before committing yourself to a creed. And let's say that the first issue I want to solve is: do I take the Bible as the literal word of God, or not? So I go to two hypothetical friends of strong faith: a Presbyterian and a Pentecostal. The Pentecostal tells me, "Gaining, it's important you realize that the Bible is the inerrant and literal word of God, and that you must follow all the rules prescribed therein. I've prayed on this many times and have consulted God in every instance when I had a doubt, but He has reassured me every single time that I am meant to follow this book exactly. I am certain of it." I then sit down with my Presbyterian friend, who says, "Gee-dubs, it's important you don't take the Bible as the literal word of God. Doing so could lead to many poisonous views, such as hating gay people or not allowing women to teach in church. Personally, after reading verses like those, I turned to God in prayer, and He assured me that the Bible was written by fallible humans, and should not be taken exactly as is. Rather, I should take just the central message of Jesus's sacrifice for me. I am certain of it." Two people, both claiming to speak on behalf of God, both certain they're right, and yet their views are in direct conflict. I think we can agree they can't both be right; rather, it is simply unavoidable that one of them - at least - has made a mistake in their interpretation. So how do I further investigate to determine who is correct? Just to head this off in advance: I don't accept that praying on the issue myself is a valid answer. For one, that's just one extra subjective interpretation to add to the mix, and two, I don't think my powers of interpretation are any better than either hypothetical friend - indeed, as someone who has been a nonbeliever so long and who is just coming around to an acceptance of the faith (in this example, not in real life), I would value my interpretations of God less strongly than my friends, who have been in communion with Him for a long time. When it's just two Christians differing on one viewpoint, from my neutral position, they seem to have about a 50/50 shot of being right. But when it's 2 billion Christians, each with varied and nuanced views on hundreds (if not thousands) of viewpoints, just based on pure probability, it is a near certainty that any given Christian is dead wrong about something, if not most things, that they believe. And I think we can agree that, since there are so many conflicting views out there on what God is and what God thinks and what God wants, most people have to be wrong. And it's not a stretch from there to say that they all are, at least in part. How, then, do I trust communication with God, when that method is so demonstrably faulty? How can I simply have faith when it's impossible to decide which thing to even have faith in? If you are a believer, how do you take your own communications with God as more valid than anyone else? Do you think that you are the best at interpreting God, better than everyone else on Earth? Are you really willing to argue that when another believer disagrees with you on something, that they are necessarily wrong? And if not - if you recognize that many people have to be wrong about many things, despite their certainty - why do you trust the conclusions you've drawn over any other?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 01:02 |
|
|
You can't, because it's all made up. hth.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 21:29
|
|