Religion: Which way is up?
Human beings differ in many ways. Some are tall, others short. Some are black, others white. Some prefer cornbread, others sushi. One of the great things about being human is that we are diverse – and that is because we have had different experiences. Even identical twins can have markedly contrasting worldviews.
Yes, Tyler Durden, we are all beautiful, unique snowflakes.
This diversity is expressed most profoundly with regard to belief. Some people are Christians, others Muslim, others Buddhist…and the list could go on indefinitely, but I’ll stop there lest I be castigated for omitting an obscure sect in South Africa. The point is there are many religions.
As a further example of diversity, let’s consider Christianity. “Christian” is a rather broad term employed by many groups: Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostals, andChurch of Christ, just to name a few (again, there are many more, so don’t choke on your communion wafer if I left you out.
Continuing the example, from this brief list I shall select Baptists. At my last unofficial count, I identified over thirty types of Baptists: Southern, Missionary, Independent, Seventh Day, Primitive, Reformed, ad naseum. From these, let’s continue with Missionary Baptists. Believe it or not (pun intended), there are many types of Missionary Baptists, e.g., “One-Cuppers,” who believe that during the Lord’s Supper (Communion), the congregation must all drink from the exact same cup, spit and all.
Then you have the ones who believe baptism must be done only in running water or the ones who believe the King James version of the Bible is the one and only truly inspired text. I can’t remember the names of the myriad sects that exist, but from years of experience as a devoted Missionary Baptist, I can say with confidence that there is an astonishing amount of variety even among this small division of Baptists.
Now let’s consider those unsanitary One-Cuppers. I’ve only been to one church that styled itself such, but from the testimony of the members, apparently there are others. Nonetheless, even within that small congregation of dogmatic One-Cuppers, there exists a considerable array of diversity with regard to personal belief.
No two people believe exactly the same things, not even a tiny sect so well defined and legalistic as One-Cupper Missionary Baptists.
Certainly there is a great deal of agreement among those people, but there are differences, some of which the congregation itself may not even recognize.
Why have I dragged you, the innocent, patient reader through all of this? If you were hoping that it would knock off a decade or two from your pending purgatory or garner you a couple of extra virgins in the afterlife, I’m sorry to disappoint you.
Follow my rambling diatribe a bit further and you might get that jewel in your crown after all, but I’m not making any promises.
So, what if we were to do the same to Islam as we did to Christianity above, that is, divide it into specific, well defined, distinct groups? It makes me wonder what the Muslim counterpart to One-Cuppers might be.
Religion, and much more so, individual belief, is remarkably diverse, and most everyone believes he/she has the truth, the correct way of perceiving and living life. Who is right? What should I believe? To whom should I give ear?
I was born and raised a Missionary Baptist, and I’ve always had a Christian bias, and specifically, a conservative Baptist one. What if I would have been born and raised Muslim? There is little doubt in my mind that I would, in that case, have a strong bias toward Islam. Even Atheism and Agnosticism are belief systems, regardless of their claims.
Inevitably, someone will tell me that I can’t prove anything, that I just need to “have faith,” but why should I have faith in one religion as opposed to another? Others have told me that it matters not which religion you choose, but that the important thing is that you believe something. Others still suggest that it’s the search that counts, the quest for truth, i.e., “to strive in itself is noble,” but that, too is a belief system.
Maybe belief is necessary; perhaps faith is attainable even for the skeptic. It could be that the quest for truth is all that matters. Maybe God does intend for me to share a cup with Sister Slobberlips.
I don’t know, but that’s just me – you’re different.
Robert Lockett said,
March 20, 2007 at 6:12 pm
In reply to your musings on the mecurial, I wish to share some thoughts. I do not believe they are mine. I believe they are real quite in spite of myself. These thoughts may answer some of your questions.
Savage Philosophy
‘The Wheel of Religion’
‘Liberalism as a Mental Disorder’
I have been a casual fan of Mr. Savage’s radio show and thinking for about 10 years, and have read at least one of his books and found it very informative, entertaining, and accurate. In my opinion, he is generally a very clear thinker who is logically demanding. But on two issues, it is also my opinion, that he is suffering from what he very provocatively calls, ‘a mental disorder’ (liberalism). Michael has been seduced himself by the illogical traumas that result from philosophical contradictions. It is Savage’s ‘Wheel of Religion’, and ‘Liberalism as a Mental Disorder’ that I wish to address.
Recently, Mr. Savage has spoken quite openly and plainly of his inability and unwillingness to accept religious philosophies that claim to be exclusively true. He finds such exclusivity unacceptable, and to a point most of us would agree, since extremism is not in and of itself, a virtue. If it were, then certainly the Islamic Fundamentalists would have all of us beaten quite handsomely. As a substitute for what he finds to be offensive and narrow, he has offered a simple philosophical analogy, and he calls it, ‘The Wheel of Religion’. There is no doubt listening to him, that he believes this analogy to be accurate and true.
He asks his audience to imagine a wheel. And the spokes of that wheel represent the religions of the world and the hub represents God. The premise is simple; all spokes lead to God. And in this way, it is implied that we should view other religious methodologies as equal to our own in leading to existential peace and meaning. This philosophy is presupposed to be less antagonistic and more tolerant by avoiding a claim of exclusivity over the worldviews that are so deeply personal and uniquely treasured in each person’s life and culture. This is strange and mystical stuff from a man who frequently and openly mocks ‘tolerance’ with glee.
I want to make three main points:
1. Truth (by definition) is exclusive.
2. All philosophies such as ‘The wheel of Religion’ are exclusive by implication.
3. How we can best choose a coherent worldview.
1. Truth by definition is exclusive. Probably the simplest illustration of this is mathematics. There are an infinite number of digits available to us conceptually. The largest figure I have heard of is called a ‘Google’. But the point is that out of all of those possible numbers, only one of them is the correct solution to the problem 1+1+1=y. And the solution to that problem is the number 3.
The main function of the exclusivity of truth is to exclude the incorrect answer or answers. When we arrive at an answer accurately (logically) we can, with clear understanding, see the answer and make practical application of the knowledge.
2.’ The Wheel of Religion’, as with all philosophy, excludes alternative solutions to the existential questions that face all men. If ‘The Wheel of Religion’ is the way, and the truth, then the claim of Jesus Christ, that ‘I am the way, the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father but by me’, must be false. And the reason is simple. Jesus proclaims that we can only come to God by Him, and the ‘Wheel of Religion’ excludes that solution by saying that we can come to God by any religion we are cultured in or personally suits us. Mr. Savage cannot both imply that Christ a liar, and also imply that Christ spoke the truth.
All philosophy is exclusive by definition. There may be overlap and agreement on certain truths within differing worldviews, but ultimately they divide and become opposed to one another at their foundations.
3. When choosing a worldview, we must look for coherence. If it is found to be contradictory, then it must be assumed to be false. So when we are offered such a worldview as ‘The Wheel of Religion’; one that is invented with the sole purpose of freeing us from exclusivity, then we can immediately recognize the problem. It defeats itself, because it must then claim itself to be the way, the truth and the life, exclusively..
Now this presents an interesting opportunity when deciding what to believe in terms of truth claims. How can we choose at all, without excluding something else? So I ask you, ‘what is wiser to choose’? A worldview which is peddled by men who are unaware of their own claim to exclusivity? Or a worldview that is offered by a man who is fully aware of Himself and makes no apology for the clarity and sufficiency of His providence?
That’s what choice is all about. We have a lot of things available to us in this world, and we certainly would not be wise to choose some of them, or all. It would be plainly illogical.
“…The modern habit of saying ‘Every man has a different philosophy; this is my philosophy and it suits me’ (the habit of saying this is mere weak-mindedness). A cosmic philosophy is not constructed to fit a man; a cosmic philosophy is constructed to fit a cosmos. A man can no more possess a private religion than he can possess a private sun and moon”.
(Introduction to THE BOOK OF JOB “Man is most comforted by paradoxes.” by G.K. Chesterton)
Now, there is one more thing I would like to say about ‘Savage Philosophy’, and it is in regard to ‘Liberalism as a Mental Disorder’. Dr. Savage has mentioned on numerous occasions that it is not just Democrats (or self styled Liberals) who suffer from this condition, but also Republicans (and self styled Conservatives), and to an alarming degree, our whole culture. I think he is onto something absolutely pivotal.
The mental disorder we all suffer from, to one extent or another is really just the illogical out-workings caused by avoiding certain realities and attempting to accommodate them in our own thinking. And these are the result of sin. The true condition is called ‘Sin’. And it is this ‘Spiritual Disorder’ that Michael Savage partially diagnoses with his tepid description of ‘Liberalism is a Mental Disorder’.
As a result of only partially diagnosing the problem, Dr. Savage falls into the same trap that so many of us do, and that is of throwing stones. The Liberals blame the Conservatives. The Jews blame the Muslims. The ACLU blames the ‘Christian Right’. The Father blames the Mother. The Son blames the Father, etc. And everyone lives ‘unhappily’ ever after.
The real solution to the problem lies in each individual’s responsibility to look into the mirror of God’s Ten Commandments and see for himself what he truly is. It is in ‘the light’ of that truth that we can begin to see what it is that Jesus was trying to tell us all along. He is the truth. And no man comes to the Father but by the truth. His words correspond to reality. He asks us to remember how far we have fallen, and that it is not even arguable.
“The depravity of man is at once, the most empirically verifiable reality. Yet at the same time, it is the most intellectually resisted fact.” (Malcomb Muggeridge)
If we are honest in your own hearts, we will hear His words clearly, and He counsels us to give it up. Our hollow philosophies do not even convince us, let alone an all seeing God who loved us enough to die in our stead. The problem with the world is not our enemies. The problem with the world is you and me. Until we admit that, we cannot begin to accept the solution which is openness and honesty. If we do not admit that, then we will only throw stones and accuse our neighbor of the very things we are guilty of ourselves.
Colossians 2: 8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.
————-
If I can add a quick comment to my copied and pasted article on the matter…
I believe Ravi Zacharius said it best… He reminds us that ‘Philosophy’ (our religious worldview) is the search for ‘unity in diversity’. E Pluribus Unum and the term quintessence describe the same thing. As does the term ‘University’.
He says that we seek unity in diversity in the effect (creation) and that to have unity in diversity in the effect, we must have unity in diversity in the first cause. And the only place we find unity in diversity in the first cause is in the doctrine of the Trinity, where there is unity, diversity, and community eternally. There is your reality. Not just Baptist dogma (or any other denomination) but rather the revelation given to fisherman some 2 thousand years ago. Not brought about by learning, but by revelation and a new birth.
gimelnus said,
March 21, 2007 at 6:42 am
Hi Robert. Welcome to the site. I appreciate your response. It was well crafted and organized. Feel free to post any of your articles on here – it will make for good discussion.
I take it from your comments that you are a conservative, as well as a Christian. You mentioned that you feel that truth is, by definition, exclusive. Have you considered the possibility that there is no absolute truth – that truth is relative? I am not necessarily endorsing this notion myself, just generating ideas. Your point of view is clearly contingent on the acceptance of the Bible as the inspired Word of God. This is the very issue that caused me to “leave” religion, for I could not find sufficient evidence to prove that the Bible was indeed the inspired Word of God.
If absolute truth exists, then your claim cannot but be true. Absolute Truth is, without question, exclusive. It behooves us then, to consider the plausibility of Absolute Truth. This quandary has been pondered for millennia. I am open to the idea, but I cannot devote myself to something of which I am not wholeheartedly convinced.
You cite mathematics as an example of absolute truth, or at least it seems so. 1+1+1=3 is somewhat of a straw man, for few would question its veracity. However, consider taking the square root of -1. That’s what is known as an imaginary number. Mathematics is necessarily a paradigm which we use to express the logical relationships we see in nature. This perception is unavoidably subjective. It is indeed useful and often appears quite accurate, but I would not commit myself to the assumption that it is flawless.
In addressing your second point, I do not intend to be antagonistic, but merely skeptical, as I feel we should all be: Question, re-question, and then question again. Why do you assume that all philosophies are exclusive by nature? Is it not possible to have a worldview that questions everything? We are all subjective creatures, so we cannot hope to attain to objectivity; thus, it is essential to take our own limitations into consideration when constructing worldviews.
Canonicity is, to me, the most crucial element of Christianity. After all, if you cannot rely on your guidelines, you have no basis for belief. This reflects a background where I was brainwashed to believe in the “verbal, plenary inspiration of scripture.” Some have asserted that believing the general message of Christianity functions as a replete worldview, which avoids the necessity of believing in the “word-for-word” inspiration of Scripture. I’m not sure which camp you fall into, but either way, the reliability of the Bible is a question of extreme importance.
There is much in your article that warrants discussion. Short from writing a book, I cannot address all of your points in this post. I hope we can have continued discussion here and strive mutually for a better understanding of our existence.
gimelnus
Robert Lockett said,
March 21, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Hello Gimelnus, you seem like a resonable man (or woman) to me. Your questions are important and very valid. I would like to address two of them which are related to each other and then I will try to answer your general skepticism. I also once gave up the faith…
I don’t know that I am offerring anything new to you, but one never knows until the discussion goes on…
You asked, ” Why do you assume that all philosophies are exclusive by nature”?
For the record, I am not ‘assuming’ that all philosophies are exclusive. I am positing that as an absolute. I am professing that it is inarguable. I am stating a fact. Please allow me to explain.. and feel free to criticize if I am unaware of some error that is my ’stumbling block’ on this note. (note the symbolism of the term ’stumbling block’)
First we must realize that one’s current worldview is always assumed to be true for that individual; at the very least, until proven wrong. That is an important point…
So moving from there, if your worldview says that all moral truth is subjective, then it excludes other worldviews which say otherwise. Therefore, a neutral worldview is an illusion.
One may say that the only legitimate thing to be prejudiced against, is ‘prejudice itself’, but one cannot ever claim neutrality unless they are willing to embrace all sorts of things they themselves consider evil.
Very often, the people most shaken and distrubed by the present evils in the world, are the very ones who claim that moral truth is always subjective and that we have no right to say that ‘this’ is good, and ‘that’ is evil.
Such an individual will both deny the Ten Commandments absolute claim to law and demand it’s inadmissability in public discourse, and yet judge the president as a liar in a public protest. It is such nonesense that provokes others like Michael Savage to label them as mentally deranged.
All philosophy (religion) is exclusive. Some exclude all others. And others exlcude only one. But they all exclude something to exalt themselves.
To illustrate further, consider that recently a man asked me to keep my morality to myself.
I was sharing my personal belief in Christ and he found it very offensive. He invoked the pluralist philosophy that all religious views are equal, and that my morality was mine and I should not attempt to impose that upon him.
Now please follow me carefully here…
I told him that I was imposing nothing. I was only sharing what I believe to be true, and that I would like to encourage him also to consider that it is indeed true for himself.
I then reminded him that if he believed that I should keep my moral beliefs to myself, that he should explain the reasoning behind his moral judgement on that matter and not just impose his will upon me.
You see? Pluralism is itslef an imposition. It has been exalted to swallow everything. ‘The new morality’ is that we cannot talk about morality in any detail. We are told to keep it to ourselves. We are pressured by ‘politically correct’ ‘postmodern theological doctrine’ that is never questioned but only assumed to be ‘True’!
That!… we are told, is what will lead to peace. “Keep the prince of peace to yourself!”
Interesting is it not?
You also asked, “Is it not possible to have a worldview that questions everything?”
Of course it is… A healthy worldivew will also examine itself. If skepticism is not skeptical of it’s own skepticism, then it is mere cynycism, and is motivated by less than healthy thinking.
However, bear in mind that we question in order to arrive at an answer. If our purpose is only to keep questioning endlessly and accepting nothing as concrete or legitimate in an ultimate sense, then why is it we accept ‘that infinite questioning’ itself as legitimate?
We cannot rebel against everything without cutting our own legs out from under us.
G.K. Chesterton addressed this issue marvelously, in light of modernity’s impact on critical thinking in the early 20th century:
“But the new rebel is a Skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be a real revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything, really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind, and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but also the doctrine by which he denounces it.
Thus he writes one book complaining that imperial oppression insults the purity of women, and then he writes another book (about the sex problem) in which he insults it himself. He curses the Sultan because Christian girls lose their virginity and then curses Mrs. Grundy when they keep it. As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is a waste of time. A man denounces marriage as a lie, and then denounces aristocratic profligates for treating it as a lie. He calls a flag a bauble, and then blames the oppressors of Poland and Ireland because they take away that bauble.
The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.”
(Orthodoxy, Chapter title – The Suicide of Thought / 1908)
G.K. Chesterton had a way of putting things. He said regarding the philosophy of pluralism: “The modern habit of saying, “Every man has a different philosophy; this is my philosophy and it suits me” (the habit of saying this is mere weak mindedness). A cosmic philosophy is not constructed to fit a man; a cosmic philosophy is constructed to fit a cosmos. A man can no more possess a private religion than he can possess a private sun and moon.”
Now don’t get the worng idea Gimelnus. I am only a truck driver who has been doing his homework. I haven’t read as extensively as these quotes may lead some to conclude. But what I have done is focused on what is logical. If we are to build a legitimate and real (true) culture, then one of it’s qualities must be that it is coherent.
The reason officials look for contradictions when questioning witnesses is because contradictions are the only fool proof way to uncover a liar. And there are many contradictory philosophies out there which by definition are false. And by implication, they are professed by ‘false prophets’.
Gimelnus, you also asked, “Have you considered the possibility that there is no absolute truth – that truth is relative”?
I have… I considered that the truth is… that there is no truth…
…and then I asked myself… ‘Is that true?”
You see? Relativism cannot be absolute unless logic is invalid as a means of real understanding.
The reason Jesus words are not understood by so many, is because He is simply telling the truth. they are exquisitely logical and coherent with all the rest of scripture.
A man speaking truth in a land full of liars, is like a man speaking English in a land full of Chinese.
Consider Jesus words to the ‘Pharisees’ (too often you and me):
John 8:43-45 “Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me!”
I hope you don’t mind the direct answers to your questions. I mean no disrespect. I only speak what I believe.
Feel free to communicate privately at rob.lockett@sbcglobal.net
gimelnus said,
March 22, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Robert,
Thanks for the reply. I don’t think we are going to get anywhere unless we select a narrower topic, perhaps one element of the above debate at a time. That is not to say I have ignored your comments, however. I read them carefully, and would have responded, but decided that it would take days to write.
So, let’s narrow here. Just in general summary, I’ll say this: I don’t consider my current worldview to be true, but I am forced to live from its perspective, for it is all I have. Language is amazing in that it can be used to make almost any proposition seem plausible. Note that in another article I wrote here, I challenged Michael Shermer’s position – http://gimelnus.wordpress.com/2007/03/17/it-all-started-when/
My line of questioning in that article was probably more creationist in flavor than agnostic, atheist or skeptic. I’m just saying that I do try to consider all positions. And yes, I am seeking an answer. Ok, moving on to the narrowing…
We can start wherever you like, but may I suggest Canonicity? As I mentioned previously, this was the main issue that fueled my spiral away from Christianity. First, let me ask this: Do you believe in the verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture, both Old and New Testaments? If so, why? You have mentioned the Ten Commandments many times, but do you accept them only, or the entire Old Testament. Let me know, and we can move on from there.
I am enjoying the discussion and hope that we can both profit from it.
Robert Lockett said,
March 22, 2007 at 9:30 pm
I am going to get a little cynical here, so take up your shield…
I’ve been burned quite a bit at EVC. Over a thousand posts that were basically a complete waste of time…
I will answer your question even though I am not at all confident that it benefits my position in your opinion.
If you do not believe your current worldview is true, I am
curious how you might go about sustaining that something else (my own) is not.
You asked, “Do you believe in the verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture, both Old and New Testaments? If so, why”?
I do…
The reason is simple… I have been born of the Spirit that wrote it in exchange for my life. And as such, I am able to understand what is written.
Not to a total degree mind you, but to an extent I never dreamed possible…
Not because
I am any better than you. It is simply the Gospel. We can trade our life for seeing God. That is why it is good news. We can ‘actually know the truth’ about reality, if we are willing to give up everything in exchange for Him.
I was quite in need of assistance, since I could not conceive of how I could ever truely know what reality is without God’s help.
It’s not easy you know? It is the greatest thing and the most frightening thing. Yet it is so.
Knowing Christ is selling your soul out to God. It is Spiritual posession. Let’s just get that out in the open right now and avoid wasting words with senseless sparring.
But being a recovering Baptist I have no doubt you know all of these things…
At the very least you know the words. Did you ever actually see the concepts?
Now, being empowered to understand the Bible on God’s own terms, does not mean that I have all of the answers to questions you may have or even my own personal ones. But I will do my best to endure the criticism.
——–
As an aside you said, “Language is amazing in that it can be used to make almost any proposition seem plausible”.
I emphatically disagree! Otherwise your statement could itself be only nonsense. But it wasn’t!
I know exactly what you said, because words do serve their intended purpose of conveying concepts (be they convoluted or not).
‘The word’ is not the word as in ‘letters’ or ‘language’, but the concepts and ideas (wisdom) conveyed.
If words do not have any meaning, then you wouldn’t be able to read this and grasp the concepts being conveyed.
Just remember that it is the concept and not the vehicle which has the power. You cannot deny the concepts I presented to you earlier philosophically (conceptually). Avoiding them by calling them only words, is like denying your tax return and calling it mere numbers. Tell that to the IRS auditor or the presiding Judge in tax court and see where it gets you…
Such a response is not only foolish, but twisted.
Ideas are the most powerful weapons in the universe. If you wish to share them, I am willing. If you wish to twist them, I will be forced to incinerate you with your own words. Not because I hate you, but because I wish for you to understand the gravity of the subject and have some respect for the God who is watching us.
If the IRS will not tolerate word games, then what do you think a Holy God will do to such sophistry when it is finally exposed for what it is?
Do you want to have an adult conversation or not?
You said, “I’m just saying that I do try to consider all positions”.
Really?
So you think Jeffery Daumer might have been on to some great fun that mankind is missing out on?
How about the Branch Dividians and David Koresh’s claim to be God?
The same with the Heavens Gate cult???
Nazi Germany?
Perhaps we should consider the ideas of NAMBLA? Yes, perhaps a little child porn is just what the world needs to fulfill peace and nonjudgementalism…
Luke 19:22 “His master replied, ‘I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow?
You know these things???
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men.
5 The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it. 6 There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. 9 The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God– 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God. 14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Rob
gimelnus said,
March 22, 2007 at 11:55 pm
Rob,
Thanks for your reply. As I mentioned before, it’s best if we consider only one point at a time, so, though I read your entire post carefully, I shall only, for now, consider the point at hand – that of the verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture. The reason you gave is as follows:
The reason is simple… I have been born of the Spirit that wrote it in exchange for my life. And as such, I am able to understand what is written.
Your argumentation seems circular – You can’t understand it unless you believe it. Because you are a believer, you believe the scriptures are inspired. Why then, can the Muslim not say, “Because I am a believer, I can understand the Koran”? He, of course, can, and his reasoning is just as circular.
Beyond that, let us consider the issue of canonicity as it relates to the notion of the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Bible. By canonicty, I mean the process by which there came to be 39 books in the Old Testament and 27 in the New. Who decided which books would be in and which would be out? Councils of men. They met together, and based on rules that they themselves made up, decided which books were inspired and which were not. Many of the apostles wrote letters to the various churches that do not appear in the New Testament.
You might counter that God led these councils of men to make the exact decisions that he wanted them to make. However, there is no proof of this whatsoever, and no reason to believe it except because you want to. If you try to use the Bible to prove that certain books were to be selected and others kept out, it will not work. Besides, why can Muslims not use the Koran to prove that the Koran is inspired?
Though there are other aspects of canonicity and inspiration to consider, I’ll stop here and let you respond.
Robert Lockett said,
March 23, 2007 at 8:51 am
Imagine a child. That child is facing algebra for the first time. It is giberish to him and completely unecessary to his immediate self centered needs. He does not believe in it. He has no interest in it. And he really doesn’t care whether or not he gets a failing grade or a passing one because he cannot understand what the point of any of it is anyway. School that is, algebra, or getting a job, or the political rancor, why Mom and Dad split up etc etc. What’s the point of any of it? What is life’s purpose?
You said, “Your argumentation seems circular – You can’t understand it unless you believe it.”
Well fine! The same thing applies to algebra.
Until a person accepts the possibility that said doctrine is at least useful and perhaps utterly essential, he will not believe in it. The motives or reasons are irrelevant to the point, but they exist.
The child I described pretty much sums up my own experience in high school. The apathy and the despair.
As far as Cononicity goes. I don’t think the issue is even remotely as simple as you’ve made it out to be.
I read many non-biblical texts. Some of my favorites are C.S. Lewis’ books.
It is not that nothing else is useful. It is that the books contained in the Bible are complementary in ways that are truely astonishing. They are of the same Spirit.
I you walk into a college Frat party, and then walk accross he street into a home where a young family of five has finished dining and is tending to studies, you will find a completely different atmosphere.
It is this atmosphere or Spirit that repels or attracts our attention.
If I pick up the so called ‘Gospel of Thomas’, I immediately recognize a different Spirit and meter to the scripts.
It plainly doesn’t fit. Not just mechanically, but Spiritually.
If you really want to investigate this, I highly reccomend Lee Strobel’ book, ‘The Case for Christ’.
As a skeptical seeker a few years back, I was astonished by the facts when I actually became interested in seeking objectively and willing to give up my own ambitions.
Your problem is not that the Bible doesn’t make sense. It is that it conflicts with your own ambitions. I don’t know what those ambitions are. But you have them.
Perhaps you want to be included into the mainstream of society and accepted and respected by those who follow the winds of change.
Perhaps you are a homosexual who refuses to compromise on just one point of contention.
It doesn’t matter what the reason is, and I am not suggesting that any of those represent you, but only giving an illustration.
I am not condemning the desires illustrated or even the conflict they create in one’s own mind. I am only pointing out that if you believe in one thing with all your heart minus your mind… then you will exclude alternatives irrespective of their sufficiency.
The Biblical Canon is solid. It contains a message with a particular Spirit which the world is not interested in embracing. It says what it says, because it is what it is.
Perhaps it is false, but it is not human in origin. It is quite inhuman in the sense that it threatens every point of selfishness which we consider to be quite natural for all of the animals.
The reason I know this, is because at the age of 33 (about 4 years ago) I returned to Church with my wife and newborn son, to re-xamine the message I had rejected as a 16 year old rebel.
The message was one of surrender, not belief. It was one of seeing faith, not blind obedience. Starting from the undeniable reality of my own depravity and sin, and moving into the clear and methodical provision which God made to turn that around.
There is nothing more clear than God commanding willing obedience. Not forced or coerced, but willing and understanding submission to Him as the God of my life instead of me.
The theme of the messiah to come who would fulfill the requirements of the law and redeem mankind. The messiah revealed in the flesh, and then the gift of the Holy Spirit that remains to this day.
The humble and forgiving heart of God, who was willing to come and take responsibility for this whole mess to grab our attention and cause us to investigate with our entire being.
Any book which contradicts this concept does not belong in the Canon.
It is a unique message, complete with an alien visitation of God Himself, who is subsequently misunderstood as a threat to man rather than reality Himself.
He is crucified, raised to life, and then ascends into heaven in a way more natural than the writer of Star Trek could ever have imagined when he thought the transporter was an original concept.
A guy once told me he was waiting for the aiens to save us from oursleves. He siad this in response to my Christian beliefs which he found quite rediculous.
I said to him, “It already happened two thousand years ago, and we crucified Him.”
You should have seen the look on his face!
I could tell he suddenly realized that he desperately sought a savior.
Your free to disagree. You can create your own canon if you wish.
But at that point in my life, I was not looking for my truth. I was looking for something real, that is greater than my immediate animal pleasure.
I didn’t create the truth. What ever it is, it created me. That was really the only thing I needed to understand in order to move forward.
gimelnus said,
March 23, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Rob,
You did not address any of the facts I set before you. You used subjective experience and subjective interpretation of biblical content to explain your viewpoint. You cannot deny the information I set before you. It is distasteful to you, so you find an explanation around it. Moreover, you presume to know things about me, such as my motivation and “ambition”. I could tell you personal things about myself, but they should not be relevant to the discussion.
If you would consider the arguments and information I present, and address it directly, then we can continue. That is, take my claims and negate them specifically, if you can. Otherwise, there is no point in extending this thread.
gimelnus