I'll have to admit that I'm somewhat perplexed as to where to go next since there are so many directions to pursue given the really terrific comments to the first posting. (good to see that the Weaver has joined in!) I've chosen to narrow my next post to the two comments that most attracted my personal attention and we can perhaps get to other issues later. The first is regarding the word "force" which the DoK uses twice in his comments and the second is the surprising (for me) statement that the DoK believes that Jesus has attained the highest level of revelation ever achieved by man!
FORCE: Commenting on the previous post, the DoK makes the following statement: "As a true Christian, one should not be concerned with HOW others believe and if that way is correct, only that others believe and do not force non-pious beliefs on others" and then "Everyone is entitled to their own belief, it is not anyone’s place to force them into any one direction, it is only our way to show them there are other paths that they might not see." (bold-faced emphasis is my own).
If the word 'force' is meant to be taken in the sense of 'physical coercion' such as "recant of your faith in Christ or we'll turn the lions loose on you" (used by early Rome against believers) or "confess your sins against Christ or we'll torture you" (used by the Catholic church against Jews and Muslims) then this statement is self-evidently true. It seems to me, however, that physical coercion is not what is meant here but rather 'logical persuasion'. According to this connotation , any attempt to merely persuade another of the truth of the Christian faith is somehow thought to be immoral or improper to some degree. But anyone who says that 'nobody should force their viewpoint on another' has violated the very rule that they state for they attempt to "force" that idea on someone else. This again is a self-refuting position and seems to be a way to stamp out dialog without actual debate. DoK, I know you well enough to understand that you are not trying to stamp out debate but I'm not really sure what you mean when using the word "force" in this context. Perhaps it is more related to something like 'judgmentalism' or perhaps I've completely misunderstood the issue here; it wouldn't be the first time.
JESUS: Again, commenting on the previous post, the DoK said that "None of us, that I’m aware of, have attained the same level of revelation as Jesus. Therefore it is necessary to learn how to be more like him through scripture via reading it, and via the example of others in the community (unless someone knows of a burning bush in the neighborhood that I don’t know about…)"
I'm just wondering what is meant by this. What exactly is it about the life and teachings of Jesus that is so admirable? I ask this because I'm still trying to figure out where the "source of authority" is actually located. If the response is something like "I believe that Christ is a good man because his life was lived like I think a good life should be lived" then the source of moral authority resides in the self and we're back to the "imperfect viewpoint" problem. If, however, the response is that "I believe that Christ is a good man because the Bible tells me so" then the source of moral authority lies outside of the self and is located in the mind of God since scriptures are his word.
Both the Bible and Christ himself claim that he was not just a good man, but the perfect man and also the omnipotent God of the universe. In John 8:58-59 the bible records the following conversation between Jesus and his fellow Jews. "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds. There are many other examples of his claims to be God but this seems to be one of the most clear - even the people who heard him understood what he was saying since they were going to kill him for (what they believed to be) blasphemy. Other examples include John 10:24-38 and Luke 5:20-24. DoK, I'm curious as to whether you believe, as the apostle John does, that "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God".
Finally, I found the burning bush comment to be right on target with respect to the source of belief. As imperfect people we can only rely on revelation to truly know anything about grace and fortunately for us there is a burning bush; probably lying on a bookshelf somewhere nearby. It's called the Bible.
Grace and Peace.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Dok vs. Doc : Source of Chrisitan Belief
A friend of mine, the Dok, recently became engaged and sent me some of his thoughts on getting married in a church setting. This led to a good discussion of Christian belief which we will begin to carry out online. With respect to the teaching of the 'Christian church' the Dok made the following statement.
If the people at the core of the church hold many negative qualities such as greed, dishonesty, pride, then it is quite easy to say that the church itself is somehow corrupt because of it. It is hard to receive teachings from a corrupt entity. All of my life I’ve been taught by others and have had it proven through experience that ideas, theories, thoughts, and hypothesis must be proven to be logically correct in order to be true. (bold-faced emphasis is my own)
First of all I agree with the Dok that anytime a debased person (someone who is consumed by greed or pride or dishonesty) speaks it will be difficult to believe even if what they say happens to be true. Since one of the fundamental tasks of the Church is to proclaim the Gospel of Christ, a message of truth, this serves as incentive for the church to live it's corporate life in such a way as to make belief in it's message as easy to swallow as possible for those who now stand outside of faith.
The important thing to note, however, is that the church is not the source of truth (regardless of what the Catholic church may teach) but is an institution that simply recognizes the authoritative teaching of the Bible as the source of truth. The Bible is itself the source of truth and the church merely recognizes this to be true. Hence, when debating Christian thought it is my task to always refer back to the teachings of Scripture, not to the teachings of a particular church or denomination or any other such group. While the church might make belief in the teaching of scripture more or less easy to believe by it's more or less pure life, the church does not make the teachings of scripture to be more or less true by it's more or less pure life.
One final note is also in order. In the Dok's initial post he indicates the premise by which he lives his life. His premise is that "ideas, theories, thoughts, and hypothesis must be proven to be logically correct in order to be true." He completely undermines this premise, however, since the premise itself is based not on precise logical reasoning but was established via the teaching of others and his own (imperfect) subjective experience. In addition, it should be clarified that things are true because we can prove them but they are believed upon proof. His initial statement is fundamentally self-refuting. As a christian my premise is similar but different in an important way. I would phrase my premise as "ideas, theories, thoughts, and hypothesis must be either proven logically correct or revealed in scripture in order to be believed.".
If the people at the core of the church hold many negative qualities such as greed, dishonesty, pride, then it is quite easy to say that the church itself is somehow corrupt because of it. It is hard to receive teachings from a corrupt entity. All of my life I’ve been taught by others and have had it proven through experience that ideas, theories, thoughts, and hypothesis must be proven to be logically correct in order to be true. (bold-faced emphasis is my own)
First of all I agree with the Dok that anytime a debased person (someone who is consumed by greed or pride or dishonesty) speaks it will be difficult to believe even if what they say happens to be true. Since one of the fundamental tasks of the Church is to proclaim the Gospel of Christ, a message of truth, this serves as incentive for the church to live it's corporate life in such a way as to make belief in it's message as easy to swallow as possible for those who now stand outside of faith.
The important thing to note, however, is that the church is not the source of truth (regardless of what the Catholic church may teach) but is an institution that simply recognizes the authoritative teaching of the Bible as the source of truth. The Bible is itself the source of truth and the church merely recognizes this to be true. Hence, when debating Christian thought it is my task to always refer back to the teachings of Scripture, not to the teachings of a particular church or denomination or any other such group. While the church might make belief in the teaching of scripture more or less easy to believe by it's more or less pure life, the church does not make the teachings of scripture to be more or less true by it's more or less pure life.
One final note is also in order. In the Dok's initial post he indicates the premise by which he lives his life. His premise is that "ideas, theories, thoughts, and hypothesis must be proven to be logically correct in order to be true." He completely undermines this premise, however, since the premise itself is based not on precise logical reasoning but was established via the teaching of others and his own (imperfect) subjective experience. In addition, it should be clarified that things are true because we can prove them but they are believed upon proof. His initial statement is fundamentally self-refuting. As a christian my premise is similar but different in an important way. I would phrase my premise as "ideas, theories, thoughts, and hypothesis must be either proven logically correct or revealed in scripture in order to be believed.".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
