In the comments sections dealing with different differing views Lumbee and I take towards the death penalty, Jose asks a question: How can different Christians interpret the Bible differently? It is an important question.
From a big picture standpoint, Lumbee and I are on the same side, Christian believers searching for truth, much like scientists, except we are examining the spiritual as opposed to the physical. We agree in many more ways than we disagree, so it is important that this perspective is maintained while we discuss "internal" differences. Neither of our positions are entirely original, and whoever may be wrong or right on this particular issue is not as important as the fact that we are on the same journey, searching for truth, working out our salvation both individually and together as a body (church/corporation) of believers, and doing so with love and (hopefully) some degree of humility.
That's the big picture answer. On the technical level, there are different approaches that differ with respect to biblical interpretation, and at any point in history, even within the writings of the New Testament, men have dissented as to the best approach. The Bible is a collection of books (perhaps fiction as well as non-fiction), poetry, essays, letters, songs, sayings, dream sequences, history, and laws that combined, and under the inspiration of God, reveal God's nature and will.
Christians can agree that the Bible is the inspired word of God, but that doesn't quite settle the interpretation problem, especially considering the number of literary forms present in scripture. I may read a passage in John's Revelation talking about a seven headed, ten horned monster, and in the context of a dream, interpret that to figuratively represent Rome's seven hills and ten rulers Someone else may read that passage and be convinced that a literal seven headed, ten horned monster will spring forth at some future point and wreak havoc on Earth. This is certainly an extreme example (although who knows what is possible with genetic distortions), but it offers a clue to the tension between the literal/figurative, Micro/Macro, historic/timeless, and many other competing interpretations available to a Christian reader.
The beauty and mystery of the Bible is that any passage can and perhaps should be interpreted on several different levels. As with the best literature, the Biblical texts can be both factual and allegorical, speak to the audience in history and to us today, and provide specific as well as general instruction. But the fact that the Bible and the Christian faith has stood the test of time, and every assault levied against it, confirms (to me) that the Bible is more than simply great literature, which is where Lumbee and I start and finish together.
I won't speak for Lumbee (he has explained his position previously), but I try to interpret any passage in the Bible against the context and trajectory (yes I love that word) of the rest of scripture, and try to weigh all possible interpretations against each other in this light. In every word, the Bible offers truth, but HOW to extract that truth is perhaps not always simple, at least to me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
48 comments:
For curiosities sake, which books of Scripture might be classified as fiction? I have not encountered that perspective before.
Wow. Bad grammar was in that last sentence writing that did I.
There are many that view the apocalyptic texts as fiction, inspired no doubt, but fiction because they don't relate actual events. The Psalms and the Song of Solomon are both poetry (some of it quite scandalous!). Proverbs records Solomon's inspired admonishions on how to live righteously - query whether that qualifies as fiction or non-fiction. Additionally, many theologians and biblical scholars (Barth, Pannenberg, Tillich, Borg, Crossan, Bruggeman, Hauerwas, Willemon, Wink, Craddock, just to name a few) view much of the the Torah and related works such as King and the Samuels as lying somewhere on a continuum between historical fiction and non-fiction mainly because (1) the texts themselves were written centuries or millennia after the events they describe and (2) the stories were passed down through the oral tradition for centuries before they were ever recorded in writing. Under this view, the Torah isn't non-fiction, but rather a collection of inspired storytelling passed down through the generations by the Hebrews. Thus, the most important aspect of the Torah isn't its historical accuracy, but rather the stories of how God revealed himself to a few early Hebrews and why those stories were important enough that the Hebrews decided to write them down.
For me, I'm fine with these views - saying something is fiction or even calling it mythical doesn't bother me all that much. For me, the bible remains primary, foundational, and also simply the introduction to God. So whether some of it is fiction, some of it is poetry, some of it is history really doesn't affect the impact of its underlying truth, at least for me. But I'm a Baptist like Justus, so I'm comfortable agreeing or disagreeing with different perspectives on scriptures.
NOTE: I'm not trying to win an argument, I'm only trying to offer a response (most likely inadequate) to Loathesome's question.
Lumbee, Loathsome,
I want to reiterate that I am not qualified to speak definitively on the subject, so not only do I not want to start a debate, but I don't want to attempt to argue either side of any possible debate. All I offer is that I believe strongly in the inspiration and spiritual authority of the scripture. Whether or not God's inspiration prevented mistakes in oral, written, or translated communication and copies, I simply don't feel comfortable with any of the hard line stances.
I shy away from the "Inerrant" position because it is a critically high bar. You asked for some examples, and I will try to link (watch out JB!) to an article that deals with an interesting passage that much more intelligent minds than myself have struggled over for centuries. It deal with Mark 2:26.
For some of the small ticky-tacky problems in the OT:
2 Chron. 36:9 and 2 Kings 24:8 - Was Jehoiachin eight years old, or eighteen years old when he began his reign?
2 Samuel 10:18 and 1 Chron. 19:18 - Was it seven hundred chariots or seven thousand chariots?
These two may be discrepancies from retelling or re-copying of historical events, but it brings in to question of inerrancy I previously asked - How far down the chain of custody does God make man, imperfect as they are by nature, perfect when it comes to communicating his Word?
Quick answers due to time.
I do beleive the text to be inerrant in the original autograph.
However, our 21st century manuscripts have been proven very reliable as compared to the oldest manuscripts of Isaiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls for example. 99.99% accurate is what I have read. Good enough for me.
I also beleive that there is absolutely no fiction in the bible at all. There may be allegory, symbolism and other literary usage, but fiction...I am strongly against this idea. Solomon in Proverbs and the Song of Solomon uses poetry and symbolism, but teaches historical fact. Ecclesiasties is akin to commentary on life...but not fiction.
Prophecy I beleive literal applicationally, often communicated figuratively. I beleive Christ will return on a white horse. I think literally until scripture deems other wise such as, "this is a parable"....this the only way the bible makes sense from Genesis 1 to Revelation.
I do appreciate Justus' position. I recognize our common views which are most of them. And I do not under any circumstances find Rosen Rosen or Alex in any way, or anyone else heretical. Just clearing that up...nippin it in the bud!
As far as your scriptural "problems": The ticky tack problems are copyist no doubt...the Luke issue..not sure need to study. But, you mention inerrancy as a high standard. Well...not sound like a jerk...but God and his Word are the highest standard! What other standard would the Bible be heald to?
If God even inspired someting imperfect...then He would be imperfect. Whatever God does is perfect and complete. Thus my view on scripture...in the original autographs.
So when we don't understand something. Or it doesn't make sense, why do we say scripture is errant? Or scripture is not inerrant? Why dont we say...hmmm..maybe my understanding of said passage is errant! Maybe I need more growth and understanding.
Now I am not preaching at you guys...in many respects I am preaching to the choir and myself, but I do think we approach scripture from a standpoint of Stoicism or Humanism rather than from that of a lesser creature approaching the words of a great Creator.
I agree with Lumbee's point that fiction is not the best word choice when referring to the literary styles of the Bible. There is a whole realm of writing out there beyond categories of fiction or non-fiction. Poetry, a personal favorite of mine, has the ability to communicate truths deeper than historical fact or scientific measurement. This is why the subjects of poetry are so often universal and abstract -- love, death, loss, sexuality, growth, new life, faith, seasons and cycles of time. Because these things are immeasurable, does this make them fiction? No, instead, they are ideas striking a chord of truth resonating across not just nationality or culture but throughout time as well. If human words can do all this, consider the impact of God's Word. Remember the Bible is a living book, and in some cases addresses issues outside of time or history. The fact such a book exists with the magnitude of relevance and impact it has after so many centuries is proof enough of its significance. I know this is a little off point, and we agree on this or else we wouldn't be spending time on these discussions, but what I'm reaching for is a bit of awe, I suppose. The idea that a human should submit his mind to a book without analysis and evaluation seems preposterous. And yet -- that is the point we must reach eventually, because analysis and evaluation can only take us so far. God's Word is alive -- it is His mind revealed to us -- His mind and His Son. And there is a point we all reach when we say "this book is greater than I am and I have a choice to follow the way presented within its pages or to go my own way." What makes this so difficult is the things we can't see. Faith is not easy, or natural to us, but the reward is that somehow we come out of the darkness and begin to see with a mind so much greater than our own. And the view from that perspective!
Not to get all Uber-spiritual on you guys, just following a train of thought.
I really enjoy the debate and gentlemanly repartee -- there were some places I wished we had been in parliment so I could applaud :)
It's also stimulating to see the exchange between man of faith and man of reason -- and cool to realize you rely on each other to maintain balance, since Faith without Reason tends toward foolishness, and Reason without Faith can become empty. The tin man and the straw man must travel together if they want to reach the emerald city.
I love it!
Rebecca, I am a man of uncompromising Reason. I do not need faith, I am completely and utterly filled with content and full happiness for life without faith. I do not RELY on anyone of faith to MAINTAIN ANY BALANCE whatsoever. I would do just fine with a WORLD FULL OF REASON, without one speck of faith whatsoever.
Faith, for me, is the complete opposite of reason. It is the destroyer of reason, it is the Satan of reason. To acquiesce to faith, or depend on it, or even call oneself a person of faith, is to say that one has given up all capacity of the mind. Just like the good does not need the evil in order to exist, reason does not need faith in order to exist. Reason supersedes ALL authority.
Please don't speak for me.
Professor,
Do you not have faith in your reason? Do you not have faith in your mind? Do you not have faith that your idea of afterlife or no afterlife is correct?
We ALL have faith in something. Yours just happens to be in you and yours!
She was not speaking for you. Only making an observation.
Lumbee,
Let me be as clear as I possibly can on matters of faith: I have not one iota of faith in anything inside or outside of me. I do not have faith in reason. Reason is something one utilizes, not some entity existing outside of my consciousness. One CHOOSES to use reason, and that choice isn't automatic, it is rather intentional. And using reason isn't always fully gauged or fully focused, some have proven to use reason but only to a minimal degree.
I do not have faith in my mind, but rather I HAVE a mind, which I USE to perceive reality. I DEPEND on my mind (this includes my physical abilities: seeing, hearing, touching--which my mind then makes a judgment) to perceive all that is real, and create concepts based on reality. The moment I take away the connection between reality and higher-level concepts, I have begun to use my mind incorrectly and that leads to error, whether intentional (liars, evasion of reality) or whether it is a truly ignorant mistake (simply did not know).
I do not use faith in order to know there is no afterlife, I use reason AND ONLY reason to know this. Furthermore, to claim that THERE IS an afterlife is quite an extraordinary claim, which in essence requires EXTRAORDINARY PROOF. The onus of proof lies with the person who claims truth. In other words, if you claim there is an afterlife, then you must provide evidential proof of such. If this afterlife is a place that has physical properties, then you must state and show what physical properties it contains. If this afterlife is a SPIRITUAL realm, then you must show what elements comprise this realm.
Clearly, "We ALL" don't have faith in something. You do; I don't. Rebecca made an assertion that included: "man of reason" relies on man of faith to "maintain balance." I am a man; I am a man of reason AND ONLY reason. I have shown that I, AS A MAN OF REASON, DO NOT RELY ON man of faith to maintain balance. Her assertion and observation is therefore false.
But I'd like to keep the focus on scriptural interpretation.
I would like to know from EACH OF YOU what in essence leads to salvation(and please try not to be influenced by another's statement--truly tell me how YOU think). I prefer that you use your own words in describing your view of what leads to salvation, and in order to highlight your answer, you may quote the bible.
Professor, sweetie, I was not speaking of you personally. Actually in the context of this particular blog your presence had yet to enter the forum.
I was following a path of questions in my head which began with thinking about poetry. And I certainly intended no assertive claims whatsoever -- observation is a much better word. As such, I was experimenting -- trying to find a way of describing exactly what I see.
Truthfully, I was thinking more about the comments already written -- which was a context of Christian faith -- and I was admiring the previous comments from these men seeking greater understanding of that faith.
Then I started thinking of an equation -- if you will -- (again, trying to describe the thought process with all it's variables, visuals, and conceptual grasping) . . .
First of all, things do require balance. I would like to call it a law of nature, but I don't know enough about science to describe what I mean. What I do know is cultures, religions, literature, art, architecture etc. carry the idea of balance and counterbalance -- yin and yang -- sith and seth -- creation and destruction -- this idea of polar opposites bound together, each one incomplete, off-balance, often SELF-destructive without the other.
And it occurred to me -- faith and reason could be one such pairing. I can speak definitely about my personal faith -- without reason it would be foolish.
But reason alone is not enough. When I read words resonating with truth -- either on this site, or in other books, and especially the Bible -- it satisfies my mind the way food satisfies the stomach -- filling a place previously empty. But there is no satisfaction if I do not believe the words I am reading. If this is not Faith, what would you call it?
You have taken issue with my post because you assumed I meant reason without faith IN CHRIST. But why? Why can Faith not be just faith? A trust that something (words, in our context) is true? And don't you need Reason to evaluate what is true and what isn't? Thus, the pairing.
You are clear in your preference for reality over "higher-level concepts" -- but I say why not have both?
Rebecca, I definitely disagree with you. You know my position; I know yours; we are at odds.
So what is, in your opinion, the key to salvation?
Salvation is in Christ. It is simple faith. Belief. Faith alone in Christ alone. Belief that He died for your sins and rose again. 1 Cor. 15:3-4
That is salvation.
To quote Paul: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved..." Acts 16:31
Professor, you asked us to put in our words what leads to salvation. I would first like you to clarify salvation from what problem?
I am happy to answer, but want to make sure I understand the question first.
Professor, you stated "I use reason AND ONLY reason to know [there is no afterlife]". Please explain this. Since you have never been to the afterlife or talked to someone who has, how do you know this to be true?
I will also turn your own statement back on you. "The onus of proof lies with the person who claims truth". If you claim that it is true there is no afterlife, you must prove it.
If you are saying that you don't know if there is an afterlife because "[you] DEPEND on [your] mind (this includes [your] physical abilities: seeing, hearing, touching--which [your]mind then makes a judgment) to perceive all that is real, and create concepts based on reality" then I will accept that. Because I strongly doubt you have seen, heard, or touched the afterlife.
Professor, if truth is determined through reason (using physical abilities to perceive what is real) that implies to me that you must be omniscient to know the truth. If not then you must put faith in someone else to come to some conclusions.
For example, I believe there is a continent called Africa and it looks exactly like Rand McNally says it does. I have never been there, I have never seen it, I have never touched it, I have only heard of it. I have faith that Rand McNally, National Geographic, Encyclopedia Britannica, etc have physically experienced it, so I trust their word. I put my faith in their claim. Faith is believing something with conviction. I am convinced and convicted that many have done accurate work in the field of geography, and so I believe what they tell me. I put my faith in them.
Because each of us have only limited physical experiences then we have to believe what others tell us. Certainly we should weigh what others tell us against what we know to be true, and the record of other things they have told us, but at some point we all believe things we have not seen, heard, or touched.
I believe that you are a professor in Miami. Why? Because I trust you. I put my faith in the fact that you are not lying to me. If I drove down to Miami and sat in one of your classes, I could know this through physical experience (assuming you didn't set me up), but that seems rather silly to me. I'd rather take your word for it because I believe you to be truthful. It is physically impossible for me to experience and validate everything I know. Not everyone can be a biologist, physicist, anthropologist, cartographer, and chemist at the same time, so again, unless you are omnicscient you must put your faith in others.
I guess that was really three separate comments for you, Professor.
One on salvation, one on the afterlife, and one on faith.
Loathsome,
Wow! This might be a long answer from me. We shall see.
First things first: In your first entry you said that I claim truth. Actually, it is impossible to show proof of a negative, only a positive.
If a police officer shows up at your home and says that you killed Person A, then it is up to the police to show proof or evidence of such, not your showing the negative. This is a no-brainer. It was wise of the Ancient Romans to claim that all subjects are innocent until proven otherwise.
Professor, if you can't show proof of a negative (I'm not arguing that) then you can't say a negative is true.
"I do not use faith in order to know there is no afterlife, I use reason AND ONLY reason to know this"
If my logic is correct you must either change that statement to say you don't know for sure there is an afterlife and only believe it to be true; or it is true and then you must prove it; or it is not true and therefore reason has led you astray.
Loathsome, in your second entry you stated: "if truth is determined through reason (using physical abilities to perceive what is real) that implies to me that you must be omniscient to know the truth." Omniscient means to KNOW EVERYTHING. It is impossible for any consciousness to have consciousness of everything at one time. Just as humans are limited in their physical abilities (for example, I cannot hit a golf ball 275 yards with a Pitching Wedge), they are also limited in their intellectual abilities.
I am not sure why you inferred from my statement that to know means to know everything. Knowledge, just like many other intellectual abilities, comes in degrees. One can have knowledge of "man" at age 5, but clearly the concept man is short and perhaps incomplete. Perhaps, a five-year-old sees man as "an animal who talks," or "an animal with thumbs," or something limited like that. But that doesn't mean they are WRONG. They ARE correct by saying that man is an animal who talks and has thumbs. Clearly, as the child becomes older, he will gain more knowledge about man and ADD TO the original definition he had of man at 5 yrs old.
Even if we find out something next year about man that we didn't know about in the past, that does not change the fact that man is, in essence, "a rational animal." The new characteristic will only ADD to that list of characteristics.
The Africa example: There are actual satellite photos of Africa.
Believing someone who tells you that Africa looks like this (insert picture or outline of Africa) is not the same as having faith in what they are telling you. You believe them because your belief is based on maps, pictures, research, all done by others before you. My questions to you are: Given all the evidence you have seen and read, would there be any reason for you NOT TO BELIEVE that there is a continent known as AFRICA? What evidence to the contrary have you found that would make you think that Africa is made up by a HUGE CONSPIRACY THEORY? But, in essence, your best bet is to fly over the continent itself--just as many others did before you. You'll soon figure out that flying over each and every city, county, state, country, and continent just to physically see what others before you have seen is a COLOSSAL WASTE OF YOUR TIME.
Loathsome, you stated
"I put my faith in the fact that you are not lying to me. If I drove down to Miami and sat in one of your classes, I could know this through physical experience (assuming you didn't set me up), but that seems rather silly to me. I'd rather take your word for it because I believe you to be truthful."
Faith does not mean taking someone's word for it--c'mon Loathsome, you know better than that. Faith is a blind devotion or loyal allegiance. If you are to appear in a court of law and are asked "how do you know Jose is a professor?," I find it hard to believe that you will say, "I don't know, I just have faith that he is." You'll be held in contempt or dismissed from the court! I gather your answer, objectively, would be "he told me that he is a professor." Is there any reason to believe that I may not be? Is there some evidence contrary to the fact? I agree with you when you said that someone telling you something is not considered full knowledge, but you can build and add more knowledge to that fact by learning more about me, seeing me in action over a period of time, having other testimonies from others claiming to have had me as a professor, video recording me in class, reading my teaching contract, talking to human resources department, etc.
Loathsome, I missed your entry at 8:14PM tonight.
Again, I refer to you to VENERABLE RULE OF LOGIC: "The onus of proof is on him who asserts the positive, and that one must not attempt to prove a negative."
You assert there is an afterlife, then you must prove there is one.
If you want an answer from me as far as how I know that no afterlife exists, here it is (it may sound familiar):
EXISTENCE EXISTS
EXISTENCE EXISTS
EXISTENCE EXISTS
To elaborate further through example:
If gremlins do not exist, then they are nothing and have no consequences. To say, "Prove that there are no gremlins," is to say, "point out the facts of reality that follow from the nonexistence of gremlins." There are simply NO such facts. Nothing follows from nothing.
Conversely, if you accept that afterlife may exist simply because no one can prove or disprove it, then you are in for a helluva conversation trying to prove why ALL OTHER AFTERLIVES EVER PROPOSED BY ANYONE AND EVERYONE IN THE PAST do not exist, and why YOURS does.
Happy Hunting!
Professor, there are two separate issues here related to the afterlife. The first is my assertion that there is one. I would use the Bible to support my claim. Since you do not accept that as valid, we can agree to disagree.
Next, is that you clearly asserted to KNOW that there is no afterlife. If you assert that to be fact, you must prove it. You say that "existence exists", but are you saying that you are fully aware of all existence? You must admit to not having a full set of knowledge to make a dogmatic assertion about the afterlife. Why? Because you have never been there, and you do not know anyone who has. For all you know there is a different type of existence that exists in the afterlife. You can say you don't believe there is an afterlife, but you cannot say you know for a fact it is true. I can comfortably say there are no gremlins because in the history of man and his experience there has never been one. Man does not have the same experience in the afterlife, and so cannot assert a claim without knowledge from one who has. I think we will quickly reach the point of arguing in circles here, each not accepting the other's argument.
This is a concern I have with reason alone. It is limited by the experience of a particular person or group of people. Centuries ago, rational man thought that the earth was flat. Why? Because he had no evidence to the contrary. It wasn't that he had incomplete knowledge, he had WRONG knowledge (to combat your example of the child).
Faith is not blind devotion or loyal allegiance. We both agree that's foolish. I don't know where you got that definition.
Faith is believing something with conviction. If someone asks me why do you say Jose is a professor, I would answer this way. "Jose has told me he is. Jose has told me about his students and about his classes. I have spoken with others who know Jose and they know he is." However, I believe these things because I trust those who told them to me. I believe it with conviction.
We are obviously not in disagreement over whether or not you are a professor. As it turns out we just disagree over the definition of faith.
-"You believe them because your belief is based on maps, pictures, research, all done by others before you." You are right, I believe them, but without the conviction that they are correct (faith), I do not know it for certain.
-"What evidence to the contrary have you found that would make you think that Africa is made up by a HUGE CONSPIRACY THEORY?" None, I believe in Africa, but if you want to get technical, I put my faith in the work of others who present evidence. I did not experience Africa for myself.
-"But, in essence, your best bet is to fly over the continent itself--just as many others did before you. You'll soon figure out that flying over each and every city, county, state, country, and continent just to physically see what others before you have seen is a COLOSSAL WASTE OF YOUR TIME." I agree. That's why I believe the research of others.
Where I was going with this is that if you depend on your mind and your physical abilities your realm of truth is limited unless you allow yourself to trust others. There is an element of faith to this. Now, it doesn't take much faith to believe in Africa, but it would have if you lived in China 2500 years ago. Who would have been right, the Chinese man who had faith in an Africa that couldn't be proved or the Chinese man that said, there is no Africa because there is no evidence of it.
Yep, we disagree on the definition of faith.
Faith: Loyalty; allegiance. The American Heritage Dictionary, p. 308.
I believe that you have a strong belief in the afterlife (strong belief or opinion = conviction, American Heritage, p.195). Strongly believing in something doesn't make it true. The issue is: show me evidential (physical and/or spiritual) proof of an afterlife. I want you to give me the names of the elements that comprise this afterlife. Tell me who exactly is there.
You stated:
"You must admit to not having a full set of knowledge to make a dogmatic assertion about the afterlife. Why? Because you have never been there, and you do not know anyone who has."
--There is nothing to know about nothing. There is nothing valid about nothing. There is no consequence in nothing. There is nothing nowhere for me to physically go to in order for me to know that there is nothing. There is no one in nothing. Proving a nothing is absurd and a colossal waste of my time. C'mon, Loathsome, think, brother, think. The venerable rule of logic applies here.
Centuries ago rational man MADE MISTAKES TOO. Who misled them to think it was flat? The church. Who discovered the fact that it may not be flat? Not who you may think it is. Here is the true story: In Ancient Greece, around 200 BCE or so, a man named Eratosthenes thought that the Earth was round, like a sphere, rather than round and flat. It was not an original thought, but he wanted PROOF OF A POSITIVE. He did an experiment in Egypt in which he had an assistant stand about 50 miles north of him to measure the degrees of the shadow the Sun made at exactly noontime. He found out that the shadow was 7 degrees in the northern city when in southern city there was no shadow whatsoever. He later calculated that for every 50 miles (they used strada back then) there would be 7 degrees of shadow. Since 7 degrees is roughly 1/50 of a full circle (360 degrees), he multiplied 50 x 50miles and calculated the Earth to be roughly 25000 miles in circumference. He was off by about 1%.
So why didn't this information survive? The Church destroyed all scientific writings from that ugly and disgusting and Satanic paganic Greek tradition. But they couldn't get their hands on all manuscripts, so a few survived. Why didn't the church save a few intellectual writings from the Greek and early Romans? Were those cultures so vile and evil to Christians that they had destroy all remnants of the paganic cultures? How irrational is that? Thanks, Church, but I'd rather use reason. You can keep your faith. It has done you wonders in the past.
Jose, how can you state that there is nothing there in the afterlife? You are not stating a posotive...you are asserting a negative about what you perceive as a negative statement. But, how do you know it is negative? In your case the non existence of an afterlife is a posotive. Because, if there is no afterlife, then there is no accountability. So you had better hope (or shall I say have faith) that you are correct.
Now your assertations about the church....look we have been down this road before. You do not deliniate between Christians and the Catholic Church. You also attemp to malign or discredit Christianity based on actions of men who claim it. You cannot discredit my Christianity due to actions of others, especially those dead for HUNDREDS of years.
I am sure that if I dug a bit, I would find some objectivists that have murdered, raped, been radicals...etc...but to use them to discredit Objectivism is dishonest.
So, professor, table the old argument of the crusaders and zealots and lets get real with the church as it is today.
Jose, I take issue with your assumption that anyone who is a Christian agrees with the religious system of the Catholic church.
and I posted that comment before I read Josh's
Lumbee, Objectivist murderers and rapists (if there even is such) have never MURDERED AND RAPED IN THE NAME OF OBJECTIVISM.
Newsflash! Catholicism IS Christianity.
The Pope and priests do not marry IN THE NAME OF CHRISTIANITY. The crusades happened IN THE NAME OF CHRISTIANITY. The Inquisition happened IN THE NAME OF CHRISTIANITY. They circumcise WOMEN in the name of the church. They tell everyone who doesn't believe in Jesus as having died on the cross for their sins, that they are going to hell in the name of Christianity. At some point, you have to say that there were some evil characters running the church. You should read what Martin Luther wrote about Jews! It's almost disgusting to think that people even followed him after the despicable and egregious things he said about Jews.
Had the church use reason, rather than irrationality, it would have been better off.
One more point, if you don't want me to listen to those church leaders because they were evil, then why should I listen to you? Because I have faith, and faith is a method of cognition? Because I have strong convictions in what you say, and strong convictions is a method of cognition? Or because I have reason, and reason is a method of cognition? How can I detect who is right and who is wrong?
Lumbee and Rebecca, I ask you the same thing. If you believe there is an afterlife, I want you to tell me where exactly it is, what elements comprise this place, who is there, what are their names, what are they doing there, what do they look like, what are their bodies (physical or spiritual) are comprised of, what is the size of this afterlife world, is there a limited space or limited membership, who decides who goes there, how long they stay, can these entities in the afterlife see, can they hear, can they feel, can they touch, are they mobile, how do they see, hear, feel, touch, and move, do they eat, how do they eat, do they digest, how do they digest, do they communicate, how do they communicate, do they think, how do they think, do they create, how do they create, how do they physically concretize that which they create, what is the essential physical element that sustains their life? And remember that you must use the concepts of this afterlife world to describe it in full detail. And if you cannot offer supporting evidence, then I will dismiss your claim without argumentation. We will just disagree.
So Loathsome, what is the key to your salvation?
Professor, let me ask for clarification again. Salvation from what?
Professor, we have now made the same arguments twice to each other in relation to the afterlife, so I'm going to move on since we are not going to come to an agreement here.
My main question was does reason or rational man make mistakes. You agreed he does, so we can move on. At least I think that's what you said.
Your implication that those mistakes are the fault of the church by using that example as your proof case is so asinine I'm not going to respond. Frankly I'm disappointed in you. I expect a little more reasonable argument.
Professor, let me be clear about one more thing.
Christianity is those who follow the teachings of Christ. Pretty obvious if you break down the word. If you are going to ask me to limit my judgements of Objectivism to Rand and Peikoff I am going to demand the same of you.
Please only accept and believe teachings claiming to be Christian that follow the teachings of Christ. That is how you know who to listen to about Christianity. If you continue to use examples of those clearly acting outside of the teachings of Christ then you will prove you have no knowledge of Christianity and are spreading lies. Christ and Christ alone is the authority on Christianity.
Oh, and by the way, yes we disagree on which dictionary is better.
Faith: believing something with conviction (Webster's)
Also, blind devotion and loyal allegiance is different than "loyalty, allegiance". As specific as you require me to be (and I thank you for it), I expect the same. In my opinion, you had an emotional reaction to the word faith and lashed out initially with the definition that best suited your argument. Now that we know our definitions of preference (although many words have multiple definitions) perhaps another time we can discuss faith. I will add that to my list of things to read on the Ayn Rand Lexicon, which one day I will actually do.
Loathsome,
In closing, here is how I truly think:
Each person is an individual in him/herself. Each person has their own mind and they use it ignorantly, fully, half-cocked, not at all, or at some level in between. As for past Christian, Muslim, Jewish leaders who have made some very irrational choices and actions, I only blame THAT PARTICULAR PERSON, not the entire religion or religious denomination. That is, when Luther wrote what he thought about the Jews (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/Luther_on_Jews.html)
I only blame LUTHER for thinking in such a manner, not my Lutheran friend Peter Hoesing (I think Lumbee and Rebecca know him too). When I hear that Cardinal Bernard Law had covered up all those Catholic priest sex abuse scandals, I don't blame the church for it nor do I blame my Catholic students for it, I blame Cardinal Law himself. When I hear about an Objectivist, EVEN AYN RAND HERSELF, saying that women ought not to be nor seek to be the President of the U.S., I don't blame Objectivism for this, I blame Ms. Rand for her shortsightedness (I also do not fully agree with her views on homosexuality and Art!).
As for my conversation in previous posts, I was trying to see if any of you fall into the age-old pitfall of collectivism. Collectivism is basically the idea that you are a PART OF a race, or culture, or group, or tribe and must act as such. Collectivism forgives such actions of, for example, a Black American who is showing road rage by stating that, "he couldn't help it, his ancestors have been abused, therefore, we shouldn't condemn him for his irrational behavior." Collectivism IS irrational and evil. I know that Lumbee, for the most part, is not a collectivist. That's probably why I HATE IT when he interferes in my discussions with others, because he knows exactly where I'm going with this--PROPS TO YOU LUMBEE! (Stop interfering, b*tch, LOL)
As for definitions, my main argument is that faith does not include reason, just as reason CANNOT include faith. These two concepts are antithetical to one another.
The way I see it is that faith is not nearly enough for me to have a strong conviction about something. I need reason because reason is the "basis or motive for a conviction" (American Heritage, p. 698). For me, reason is "an underlying fact or cause that provides a logical sense for a premise or occurrence" (p. 698). Faith only takes me so far--I'll even accept your definition, Loathsome, in that faith may give someone enough trust (firm reliance on the integrity of a thing, p. 873) to believe (accept as true; to credit with veracity p. 80) in God, afterlife, angels, Jesus Christ, and all that is supernatural. But faith does not provide "the underlying fact or cause" giving me a logical sense enough so for me to believe. For you, it is enough; for me, it's not even close. Perhaps, and correct me if I am wrong, most of you place faith ABOVE reason, whereas I place reason above faith (well, let's just say--WELL ABOVE faith).
As for salvation: I want to see who exactly believes that (1) simply believing in Christ and that He died on the cross for your sins is enough for you to be saved, or (2) if it is one's good deeds that will lead to one's soul being saved from damnation, or (3) if it is a combination of the two (or include any other aspect that I may not have mentioned above)?
Actually, what I have been saying all along is that neither reason nor faith is mutually exclusive. They are opposite sides of the same circle.
When you say "most of you place faith above reason. . . I place reason above faith" -- you choose to limit your perspective to one side of the circle, AND THEREFORE ASSUME I AM DOING THE SAME FROM THE OTHER SIDE. But no. That is NOT my point.
I am saying there is a third perspective including both. You are missing out because you are afraid admitting validity of faith is a betrayal of reason. What I am arguing is you don't have to sacrifice reason in order to accept something by faith -- because if faith rests in something TRUE, then reason is satisfied.
There is proof enough of this in your own rationale: Your reason is satisfied because you believe your premises.
7/27/2009 09:36:00 AM
I would also like to hear your answer to Loathsome's question: salvation from what?
Rebecca, I disagree with you.
I guess I mean salvation from eternal damnation.
Professor, to answer your salvation question, I would use the same words Lumbee used. I could state by using different words, but it would mean the same thing. i.e. that color is green or that color is a combination of blue and yellow. I agree 100% with what Lumbee said in reference to salvation.
As to faith and reason, I don't believe they are as mutually exclusive as you, but I think we have discussed that to its end here on the blog. I'm sure we shall again sometime.
Loathsome, you have got to come down to TLH this coming weekend. I'll be there this Friday and staying through Sunday (playing golf Saturday morning at Seminole too, if you're interested). You are only 4 hours away, so take a road trip with the fam! It will be a nice surprise for Pastor Tad to see you.
Professor, I would love to take that trip, but can't make it this weekend. Thanks for the invite! We will certainly connect sooner than later.
Post a Comment