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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I must confess, I followed Kyle Borg over here. I hope it's alright if I ask something, even though I may have missed it when I all too quickly read this discussion you've been having. Are you arguing in a circle, Mr. Modern? Are you saying, I believe the Bible because the Bible tells me to believe the Bible? I think you're saying more than that, which is good I believe, but I also think you're doing the circular thing, which is also good, especially when mixed with the not-so-circular thing. If I'm not making any sense, please ignore my question altogether. I probably don't understand what I'm asking myself. At any rate, good discussion and I hope the other anonymous fella chimes back in.
Good question Ben, to which I will respond with a qualified 'yes'. More specifically, however, I believe the Bible because it is God's revelation and hence completely believable in every detail.
Why do I believe that the Bible is God's revelation? In part, because the Bible says so but also because of other "non-circular" evidences such as the testimony and life of Christ, the testimony and life of the church, and the internal testimony of the Bible itself. Not only does the Bible say that it is the revealed word but it gives evidence of being the revealed Word of God through things like it's internal consistency, fulfilled prophecy, and universally acknowledged literary genius.
Good question Ben, to which I will respond with a qualified 'yes'. More specifically, however, I believe the Bible because it is God's revelation and hence completely believable in every detail.
Why do I believe that the Bible is God's revelation? In part, because the Bible says so but also because of other "non-circular" evidences such as the testimony and life of Christ, the testimony and life of the church, and the internal testimony of the Bible itself. Not only does the Bible say that it is the revealed word but it gives evidence of being the revealed Word of God through things like it's internal consistency, fulfilled prophecy, and universally acknowledged literary genius.
Force: I mean any kind of force, anything other than letting one find their own way. It can be physical, such as the Crusades, or something as simple as distancing yourself from a friend because of their beliefs. I ask myself why the early Spanish Colonists forcefully tried to convert the native population of the Americas. Trying to convert someone by force to a religion (when they might not truly believe in the religion) that teaches that one will be saved if they accept Jesus Christ as their savior at any time, up until the very end of their life, rather contradictory to me. I think the only way that someone can truly believe in something is if they do so naturally. “You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.” By water I mean faith, and by horse I mean human, by lead I mean show. I am by no way trying to stamp out debate by taking a some sort of passive position on forced conversion. If you would like to debate with me the pros and cons of forcing individuals into a certain religion I will more than gladly take the position that it is morally wrong and debate it.
Jesus: Who’s ready to stir the pot a little bit? “DoK, I'm curious as to whether you believe.” No, I don’t. I don’t believe in any singular established religion, faith, or prophet in particular. I feel the Judeo-Christian bible, even though it may be a revelation, was still written, printed, and manipulated by man, and sometimes by men with conspicuous motives. Even the Bible you speak of has been translated into multiple different languages changing the meaning of some, if not most, of its passages. The idea of Jesus is a great idea, as the lessons passed down in The Bible are wonderful. The lessons passed down by other books and other religions are also great. Do I believe that there is an 8 armed deity with blue skin wandering around in some afterlife? No. Do I believe that if I screw up this life I’m going to come back as a rat or a fly? No. Do I believe there was once some guy that turned water into wine? No. Do I believe that the lack of aforementioned beliefs means I don’t have to be responsible for what I do while alive? No. All religions, at their core, boil down to “Life is wonderful, short, and never fair. Don’t take it for granted, don’t take anyone else’s, and try not to screw it up while you are here.” The particular religions are merely a conduit for trying to teach individuals what screwing up is and how not to do that. They are all effective or ineffective for different individuals and everyone has to find their own. I think that you, Mr. Modern, are a wonderful example of that. Do I think you are somehow a bad person because you have a different faith structure than me? Most certainly not, I hold a lot of respect for you and anyone else that believes so strongly in something that is good.
To summarize my thoughts on individual modes of belief: I think that if there is a God, and that God chooses to not take me into his special group in some sort of afterlife simply because I didn’t believe in his existence but still lived life by the essence of his rules, wishes, and guidelines, I probably don’t want to be in that special group. The threat of not being in that special group will not stop me from being honest with my beliefs.
Sometime before this point whoever is reading this has probably beem getting ready to ask why I justified my previous arguments by implying that Jesus lived a perfect life. It was simply to argue the point of judging someone for their beliefs with Mr. Modern, who previous told me “While I’m not committed to a particular denomination I am committed to a person. Jesus is a person who claims to have been God in-the-flesh; who lived the only perfect life ever lived and who died so that we can exchange our evil lives for his perfect life. “ If he tried to argue against me, he would be proving himself invalid. Simple debate tactic. :o
-Dok
Modern has interpreted the Bible as the Word of God, and therefore the very definition of "good".
Dok has interpreted the Bible as "good", but where does Dok's definition of "good" come from?
The rational individual appealing to some Platonic Universal Truth of mankind? The individual as uniquely able to define good for him or herself? Some "super" god from which humanity derives all other god's and their subsequent religions? Some mathematical formula leading to some biological maximization of symmetry or balance or pleasure?
Are their other options to add to this list? What are the philosophical issues related to each?
What is the good? How do we know?
Therein lies the problem to which there is no definite answer. Although I like situations that can be bundled neatly with a definite answer very rarely in life does that ever occur; not everything is in binary code. Every culture, group of people, and even individuals have their own idea of what is good. Every culture, and even every family, has its own way of passing down their ideas of what is moral and what is not. -Dok
Dok? Where have I heard that name before?
I'd have to say you may have heard it @ UWL, I'm famous there :)
Kenny's Yahoo Sports Fantasy Football may be the location as well...
- Dok
Good words.
Post a Comment