Posted by Jason on: 08.18.2008 /
Four weeks ago I wrote about false assumptions and how Christians suffered in the past because of them just as atheists suffer today. Atheism doesn’t have a philosophy or principles to counter these false assumptions any more than it has a philosophy or principles to deserve them. Secular humanism does put forward a set of positive traits and promotes a world view. These are:
The search for truth is something that both secular humanists and those who belong to one theistic group or another can appreciate. Secular humanists, I think, take a slightly different stance to it though.
Search for truth – A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.
Clearly human beings are creatures of limited perception. We have five senses, none of them particularly finely tuned yet adequate for our survival. They serve us well and have certainly contributed to our success as a species. Our brains interpret the data that our senses provide. Evolutionary shortcuts mean that our brains can be fooled in a number of ways. I remember as a child sitting in a swing at a fairground. The swing was gently rocking but was entirely enclosed by a spinning tube with bright patterns of stars on it. As the tube spun I was convinced that I was looping round on the swing at an incredible speed. Shutting my eyes dispelled the illusion but for a moment my senses where completely fooled by my expectations and assumptions and the limitations of my perceptions.
Anyone who has been fooled by a card trick or a magicians illusion will understand that our senses and the brain’s ability to interpret data can be exploited sometimes with amusing results.
The reason for the clip is tenuous but it makes me laugh every time.
When searching for objective truth though we seek to explore the bounds of our reality. We can do so through the scientific method using our reason but these are just tools in our search. I think it is best explained by referring to the Bahá’í faith:
Baha’u'llah emphasizes the fundamental obligation of human beings to acquire knowledge with their “own eyes and not through the eyes of others.” One of the main sources of conflict in the world today is the fact that many people blindly and uncritically follow various traditions, movements, and opinions. God has given each human being a mind and the capacity to differentiate truth from falsehood. If individuals fail to use their reasoning capacities and choose instead to accept without question certain opinions and ideas, either out of admiration for or fear of those who hold them, then they are neglecting their basic moral responsibility as human beings. Moreover, when people act in this way, they often become attached to some particular opinion or tradition and thus intolerant of those who do not share it. Such attachments can, in turn, lead to conflict. History has witnessed conflict and even bloodshed over slight alterations in religious practice, or a minor change in the interpretation of doctrine. Personal search for truth enables the individual to know why he or she adheres to a given ideology or doctrine.
Bahá’ís believe that, as there is only one reality, all people will gradually discover its different facets and will ultimately come to common understanding and unity, provided they sincerely seek after truth. In this connection, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá said:
Being one, truth cannot be divided, and the differences that appear to exist among the many nations only result from their attachment to prejudice. If only men would search out truth, they would find themselves united.1And further
The fact that we imagine ourselves to be right and everybody else wrong is the greatest of all obstacles in the path towards unity, and unity is necessary if we would reach truth, for truth is one.2
I like this description for it’s simplicity. We seek truth for ourselves to help us to better understand ourselves. When we understand who we are we can better understand our place in the world.
Of course we don’t live in a vacuum and face many changes as we go through life. Something that we’ve always accepted as truth might crumble when presented with new information that contradicts it. Other truths might be confirmed or strengthened. As things change we need to constantly reevaluate what we have come to accept as true and be prepared to change our ideas.
Of course no explanation of truth would be complete without calling on Immanuel Kant
Truth is said to consist in the agreement of knowledge with the object. According to this mere verbal definition, then, my knowledge, in order to be true, must agree with the object. Now, I can only compare the object with my knowledge by this means, namely, by taking knowledge of it. My knowledge, then, is to be verified by itself, which is far from being sufficient for truth. For as the object is external to me, and the knowledge is in me, I can only judge whether my knowledge of the object agrees with my knowledge of the object. Such a circle in explanation was called by the ancients Diallelos. And the logicians were accused of this fallacy by the sceptics, who remarked that this account of truth was as if a man before a judicial tribunal should make a statement, and appeal in support of it to a witness whom no one knows, but who defends his own credibility by saying that the man who had called him as a witness is an honourable man.³
In other words we define truth by knowledge but assume that our knowledge is true. The search for truth then is a wonderful form of circular reasoning. Well I disagree. The search for truth is an iterative process. We learn something and test it, modifying our view accordingly. We use this knowledge to learn something else, modifying our view accordingly, and so on and so forth ad infinitum. Each step in the process draws us closer to the actual truth but we must always be aware that we may be close but we’re unlikely to ever reach it.
Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI (God’s Rottweiler) disagrees, he believes that truth is ultimately knowable and that “the modern self-limitation of reason” such as that described by Kant is a rejection of all that can not yet be observed. This is particularly so, in his view, where the ultimate questions of truth such as the origin of life or the power of love. &sup4 I’m not sure that I agree that it is self limiting. I’m sure that there is more to the universe than we can conceive of but we’ve barely begun to explore it. How can we tell which tools will best serve us in the future? As we seek to explore the truth of reality we will use our reason and we will use intuition and inventiveness. We will use whatever works the best. I see no reason to reject what has worked so far until it fails to work. If it fails to work.
Tools for searching for the truth aside I think we can all agree that it is a worthwhile exercise. Most religions have some doctrine that they hold as the truth. The Christian faith has the Bible, Islam has the Koran, Hindus have the Bhagavad Gita. Obviously this isn’t observed truth or scientific truth but the faiths often make the claim that they hold an inspired or sometimes revealed truth. Unfortunately there is no way to test the veracity of such claims.
The important thing, for me, is not where we search for the truth but that the truth that we search for is personal to us. We conceive things and perceive things in our own unique way so the truth is similarly unique for each of us. So is the search. That is why it is important for our growth.
Leave a Reply
Comment by: Mike O
1 08/19/08 12:57 PM | Comment Link |Sheesh, It’s been quiet out here lately!
Comment by: Jason
2 08/19/08 3:01 PM | Comment Link |I’m hoping it’s the summer break…or maybe I’m too wordy.
Comment by: Mike O
3 08/20/08 10:23 AM | Comment Link |It’s not you - I think what you’re writing on is fascinating.
It’s amazing how much you can learn from people when you stop to listen - even if we can’t agree on everyting, so what?
I listen to Christians talking like they know what atheists are thinking, or *why* you think the way you do - and it’s so skewed in our favor. it sounds good to people who don’t actually know any better, but it’s not entirely true.
I doubt all atheists are like what I encounter here, but it’s good for Christians to know that atheists like you are out there - you’re smart, you’re not “rebelling against God,” or any of the other stereotypes Cs put on non-Cs. You just don’t believe us - that’s all.
I’ve been sick the last couple of days so I haven’t responded, but I want to - I’m just having a little trouble wrapping my head around how I want to say it. But it has to do with this part of what you wrote:
I agree within the confines of “objective truth.” But is all truth objective? Or is there such a thing as non-objective truth? And if there is, does it fall within or outside the confines of this SH tenet? For example, there either is or is not a God - one of those answers IS true. But neither can be objectively proven. How does that fit to this tenet? Maybe SH don’t worry about this kind of truth? I don’t mean that to sound smart-alecky - how does a SH really handle such questions?
I diagree, too. I agree that we define truth by our knowledge (right or wrong!) but we assume the EVIDENCE (not knowledge) is true. That’s a better approach - one I think Christians struggle with.
For example, I have a fascination with Antarctica. I was going to write last week about the Piri Re’is world map (1513) and how it accurately depicts the coastline of Antarctica UNDER THE ICE CAP and how it was based on fragments dating back to 3- or 4,000 BC - the time of Adam! If Adam was the only person God actually “created” (everyone else is a descendant of that man), then who created the map?
I use this as an example of my truth (Christianity) being defined by my knowledge (Biblical history/personal experience), but now it’s being modified by evidence (Piri Re’is Map) that doesn’t fit within my “truth.”
Does that shake my faith? No. It raises questions regarding some of the unimportant details of my beliefs and why I believe them. That’s a good, healthy thing. I don’t want to believe because daddy believed or my wife believes. I want to believe because I really think it’s true!
Also, the video clip was AWESOME! I’ve watched it about 10 times now, and still chuckle - he’s so serious!
Comment by: Jason
4 08/21/08 7:01 AM | Comment Link |Mike said:
There’s subjective truth. I’d say that, as truth has different meanings for all of us, all truth is subjective to a degree.
Not necessarily. It depends largely on semantics. For you there is God, he is very real to you and you trust in the truth of that. For me God is unreal to the point of being an elabourate fiction. Even if you are right the “truth” of God will mean something different to you than it does to your wife or another Christian simply because your belief is personal to you.
In addition to this there is no agreed definition for what we mean by the term “God”. We cannot even begin to test the truth of any claim except through our own internal assumptions. Does that make sense?
Excellent and just what I was talking about with truth being an iterative process where new knowledge helps us to change our idea of the truth.
On the video I have to say that it still makes me laugh and I must have watched it a hundred times already. Shame it doesn’t seem to be embedded at the moment.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
5 08/24/08 5:26 AM | Comment Link |Mike/Jason, which video are you referring to?
Jason wrote:
I would say, it’s worthwhile only to the point it makes an actual difference or when we have time to spend on it and want to engage in it.
For example, I don’t think it’s a worthwhile exercise me trying to find out if the all the Chinese gymnasts in the Olympics are old enough to compete (it’s being alleged that some aren’t). That would be a search for truth but a pointless one because it doesn’t affect my life. Also I wouldn’t enjoy it, so it wouldn’t be a fun ’spare time’ activity.
After a while trying to figure out if God exists and if so what he’s like I decided that was a waste of time for me because I wasn’t getting anywhere and it was taking up attention and time that it would be more worthwhile for me to devote to other things. That search didn’t get my kids to school on time or get dinner cooked. And it wasn’t fun once I realized I was going in circles because none of the answers I could find worked. So I intentionally got off that ’search for truth’ bandwagon.
I ask those questions sometimes and listen to/read the answers out of curiosity, open to something new but not expecting it.
Did I stop searching because I found truth or because it was unattainable? It feels like it was unattainable and I let go of the need to have truth in that area.
The searches for truth I’m engaged in tend to be ones that are directly related to ‘making my life work’ or ‘trying to make my life better/more worthwhile’. Like, who has the lowest nonstop airfares to the next place we’re getting together with my extended family. Or, which days are my carpool driving days? Maybe that’s a search for information rather than truth.
Comment by: Jason
6 08/24/08 6:56 AM | Comment Link |http://www.youtube.com/v/kUKA92yvFFI&hl=en&fs=1
I’ve just tried to embed it again and failed. ::roll eyes::
That’s a very good point. We do have to decide for ourselves where the search for truth is most important. That isn’t to say that we should ignore things that might be challenging or unpleasant when our search takes us there though. Of course if you find yourself reaching an impasse then the best option might be to put that question aside rather than get bogged down with something that you just can’t answer.
That doesn’t invalidate the question though. It just means that it isn’t something that you can answer or that needs to concern you. Rather than the question of God, the question of how to make the world a little better for your children (and coincidentally everyone else) might be of more value.
A while ago we talked about where to start of the journey of spreading happiness. I’ve since concluded that it isn’t that important a question as long as you do start somewhere. That’s not a search for information unless you look at the detail question of where the best place to get a book on happiness is.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
7 08/24/08 9:27 AM | Comment Link |Right - that’s not a good reason to stop the search. However if that happens to trigger a reevaluation of whether the search has any significant benefit to you and the reevaluation indicates it doesn’t, then I think it would make sense not to continue it. Not because it’s challenging or unpleasant but because you realized it wasn’t helpful in any way.
Some people are able to live with more unanswered questions than others. I used to have trouble with that concept and judge them for not being curious enough but now I would say it’s helpful to be able to live with them. I’d say those people may be better off than those who feel driven to search because they can’t possibly live without certain answers.
Right - that’s more like what happened to me. If I’d stopped when it got challenging/unpleasant I wouldn’t have got as far as changing my beliefs from “I believe” to “I don’t know (and I’m quite skeptical but trying to be open neverthless)”.
Everyone has the right to decide how much searching for truth works for them. And people who judge them for stopping ‘too soon’ might actually be worse off because they can’t stop even if they don’t really have time to continue their searches.
Yes, I think “start somewhere” is great advice.
Getting caught up in not starting until you find the best book on happiness seems like a good example of when a search could be more unhelpful than helpful in reaching a person’s goal.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
8 08/24/08 9:28 AM | Comment Link |Let’s see if I can embed the video:
Hmmm…not sure why I could and you couldn’t. Anyway, very funny - thanks :)
Comment by: Jason
9 08/24/08 10:29 AM | Comment Link |How does this all relate to the idea of “backsliding”? If the search for truth is going off in the wrong direction does the Christian support system hinder abandoning it or help to provide people with a new direction? I can see it going both ways but also see it steering people away from those uncomfortable questions that might be of some value.
Comment by: Jason
10 08/24/08 11:02 AM | Comment Link |Aha, got the video embedded too.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
11 08/24/08 5:40 PM | Comment Link |Jason, good question about ‘backsliding’. In my experience, Christian communities vary in their ability to handle people who are ’searching’. In my experience conservative Christians who start to ask major questions often have a hard time finding someone who will listen to them without judging them. After a couple of attempts that didn’t go well, they tend to give up trying to discuss their questions with their conservative Christian community and by the time the community next hears about it they’ve probably moved too far from conservative Christianity to be likely to want to come back.
But some Christian communities assume everyone is searching anyway and they’re fine with questions.
The feel of these communities is very different and it can be hard to believe they all come under the one label ‘Christian’.
Comment by: Mike O
12 08/24/08 9:27 PM | Comment Link |I don’t understand the question. Can you give me an example?
Could be, but so what? It’s so easy to say people are judging you, when really they just think you’re wrong. Would it be better for everybody to just accept whatever you think and do with no direction or input? Is that the goal of ‘not judging?’
That may be a fair accusation.
Yes!
Yes. My belief is that the differences you speak of are merely the religious trappings of a central faith. Here in America we’ve not given much thought to the difference - we treat our methodologies as though they were inspired, but they weren’t.
THe different denominations have different ways of going about it, but the intent is (should be?) the same - love God and love people.
Comment by: Jason
13 08/25/08 12:50 AM | Comment Link |Mike, as I understand the church it is more than just a place to come together in common belief. There’s an element of support and help there to answer questions that trouble individuals and to support them when they feel their faith waning. Christians, like members of any close knit community, don’t want to see their fellows going off the rails or delving into areas that might separate them from the community. I’m pretty much talking about things from a second hand perspective now so forgive me for generalising.
Backsliding, from what I’ve read, is where the questions and faith of an individual run contrary to the established ideas of Scripture and tradition. Backsliders need “correcting” before they stray too far from the right path.
Maybe you’ve had as little contact with the idea as I have and it’s just limited to very conservative churches.
Comment by: Mike O
14 08/25/08 5:57 AM | Comment Link |Well, my experience is this. There are a couple of tenets of Christianity that drive (or at least, should drive) what we do and believe:
1) Jesus really was the son of God - God in human form. He is still alive in heaven. He guides us now through the Holy Spirit, but it’s all current and real. It’s today, not 2,000 years ago.
2) The Bible is true. If a Christian begins to hold to beliefs that run contraray to the Bible, then yes, that person’s beliefs are incorrect according to Christianity, and that person should be counseled as to what the Bible teaches. The obvious “sticky wicket” here, though, is that it is not at all clear on some points. But in an honest “trying to live by what the Bible teaches” and being Guided by the Holy Spirit, I think that’s a safe mentality to keep from backsliding - even if you get it wrong. If your heart is “for” God, “for” Jesus, and “for” the Bible, and you try to live by that code, I think you’ll be fine.
3) There really is a heaven and eternal afterlife. How it works, exactly, is wide open for debate. But the belief is that there is a reward waiting for us is there - however it actually works.
4) There really is a hell. Like heaven, we may differ on how it works, exactly, but as a matter of belief, Christians believe that it does exist. And for the record, I wish that part wasn’t true - I have great difficulty with the idea of hell. But based on #2, I believe it while I don’t really understand it or why God would do that.
So when it comes to backsliding, in particular, it is when Christians begin to hold to beliefs that run contrary to what the Bible actually says, and reject what the Bible defines as “truth” - that is considered “backsliding.”
Another way of looking at it is as a sort of “lazy” Christianity. When people tire of it and stop really caring about what Jesus wants them to do, that’s when I think backsliding starts. Don’t get me wrong - everyone tires. After all, we’re living a life that runs contrary to the secular world. But it’s when the Christian stops caring what God wants/thinks, and starts doing what they want for themselves, that’s when backsliding can begin. If you think of the “sliding” part of backsliding, you should be able to get what I mean - it’s a sliding away from God.
On the other hand, questioning or even doubting is not considered backsliding. If you are seriously trying to “get it right” in God’s eyes, I don’t believe you are backsliding. I don’t know how that fits with Helen or Karen’s stories. while I do think they both “backslid,” I’ve never had their experience, but I do think that’s what happened to them. With or without good reason, they slid away from their belief in God and they’re OK with it. So, yeah, I think they backslid. I think they probably think so, too.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
15 08/25/08 9:48 AM | Comment Link |Mike wrote:
When people add assuming motives to thinking others are wrong, then I’d say they’ve crossed over into inappropriate judging.
It’s not that they have opinions about whether others are right or wrong; it’s that they prejudge why others are having trouble with beliefs they formerly held; and they don’t listen enough that the other person can explain their reason.
You posted a good example of judging motives here:
If backsliding is laziness then I wouldn’t say it fits me. ‘Apostate’ is probably the more accurate term as far as Christians are concerned since I can no longer say I believe the list of tenets you posted.
Comment by: Mike O
16 08/25/08 11:04 AM | Comment Link |I did not intend to say either you or Karen were lazy - not at all! Both of you struggled with the dilemma hard.
I was talking more about the people who just find themselves too busy for God, so they just sort of stop caring. You decided to not care for your own sanity - that’s different I think.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
17 08/25/08 6:59 PM | Comment Link |Right - my sanity was definitely an issue.
Comment by: Jason
18 08/26/08 5:49 AM | Comment Link |Mike said:
The issue with this is that the Bible is open to interpretation and is silent on some issues.
Take the subject of female bishops for example. The bible says nothing about church hierarchy because it says nothing about the structure of a Christian church. The church came much later than the message. Some theologians claim that Jesus didn’t want to split from Judaism as all.
Women were barred from high rank in the hierarchy based only on the fact that Jesus made use of 12 Apostles who were all male. Some claim this indicates a rule that should be followed. Others that it was a sign of the period. I think it’s sexism by tradition.
You can only make the best of your interpretation and hope that you get the spirit of the message right. There’s a lot of wiggle room. Not that this is a bad thing.
Comment by: Mike O
19 08/26/08 7:43 AM | Comment Link |Yes, you make a good point that it is open for interpretation on many points. There are some, however, that are more clear. For example, the Bible says that we should not commit adultery. Let’s say you decide that it’s not *really* wrong to commit adultery - that would be an example of “running contrary to wha the Bible says.”
There’s always room for forgiveness and Christians will always continue to do things they shouldn’t. But if they modify/ignore the Bible to allow/justify what they do, rather than modifying their lives to at least attempt to live according to the Biblical standard, that’s what I’m talking about.
Comment by: Jason
20 08/26/08 8:59 AM | Comment Link |Well, that’s a different topic. In short I’ve no problem with adultery but I do have a problem with betrayal of trust. They aren’t the same thing and it isn’t a simple, black and white issue. Maybe we’ll come back to that at some future date. ;)
I read somewhere some time ago that the Bible is a good place to start building your life from. It isn’t and shouldn’t be the end. We all need to grow and develop and the bible shouldn’t be a place to stop, rather a place to start. I quite like this description as it appeals to my dislike of absolutes. It’s also not judgmental.
The believer can then accept the horrible stuff in the Old Testament with the genocides and unpleasantness as a starting point in a harsh environment. Then move on the the New Testament as a new beginning. It still leaves you where you are now but the old books are guides to help rather than laws to bind.
I don’t know that’s an unusual way of looking at it or not. It did give me something to think about though. Which was nice.
Comment by: Mike O
21 08/26/08 11:57 AM | Comment Link |That’s interesting - I’m going to see what other Christian friends of mine think.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
22 08/29/08 6:05 AM | Comment Link |Mike O wrote:
I hear what you’re saying, but actually I think every Christian modifies/ignores things in the Bible to allow/justify what they do.
Not in a blatant “In your face, God!” way, but how is it even possible to avoid prefering interpretations that line up with the way we’d like things to be?
For example, not many Christians go with the interpretation that Jesus’ words about selling everything being the way to eternal life apply literally to them. I suspect that their preference not to sell everything influences them towards a different interpretation. And I think this goes on continually in small subtle ways as Christians read the Bible and consider what it ‘means’.
So who decides where the line gets drawn that divides Christians who do this from Christians who are sinfully twisting Scripture to excuse their own behavior?
You mentioned adultery as clear cut but what happened to keeping the Sabbath holy? How come one commandment is clear cut but another is out the window (for most Christians - very few try to keep Saturday holy)?
Comment by: Mike O
23 08/29/08 6:23 AM | Comment Link |We’ve been talking lately in other posts about spirituality. That plays a part here, too. If there really is a spiritual realm, and the Christian really does give a rip about what God want’s them to do, and their desire really is to get it right according to God, then the specifics are debatable. If someone feels strongly that they should sell all they have, and they don’t, I think that maybe a red flag.
Also, a lot of it is, I think, open for debate. I don’t believe there’s one single way for Christians to behave. We all have our own personalities and yes, opinions, and that all adds spice and color to it.
I think if you look at what Jim’s trying to accomplish with his Born Again Church Tour, I suspect focusing on these debatable differences is a problem the church needs to get past. We Christians need to be Born Again (again) and get back to what it was that Jesus really asked us to do - Love God and love people - whatever that looks like for any particular individual. I believe the spiritual side of this is important for Christians as our guidance is actually coming from a spirit - the Spirit of God.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
24 08/29/08 10:41 AM | Comment Link |Mike O wrote:
That makes sense to me. But as long as Christians claim anything is “clear” I think they invite the response “it’s not clear to me” or “I see the opposite from what you see” and that leads right into another debate about differences.
I see Christians convinced they’re led by the Spirit who are seemingly led to different conclusions from each other and then they argue over who is correctly interpreting the Bible and God’s will. That doesn’t make sense since there’s only one Spirit.
Mike, I think we largely agree on what attributes make a Christian fun/pleasant to be around. If you say it’s the Spirit which makes them that way I won’t argue with you. On the other hand I will continue to wonder why people who aren’t Christians are able to have those attributes without consciously depending on or being influenced by the Spirit of God.
Anything I’ve written is not because I want to argue, but because I want to try to show you what life looks like from where I stand. The questions I have and the things that don’t make sense to me.
I wish we were going to be at the same Born Again Church Tour location because it would be fun to see you again. I might disagree on various things but that doesn’t alter the fact that I enjoy spending time with you.
Comment by: Mike O
25 08/29/08 11:09 AM | Comment Link |Great. This is one of those statements that is going to get stuck like a sliver in my brain and I’ll end up spinning internally on it for the next month. Thanks for that! :)
Just yesterday at the Minnesota State fair, my wife and I happened to be looking at an “automatic Bible.” We asked the lady how it worked and long story short, she uses tattooing as an example and pulls up Leviticus 19:28 - “‘Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD.” and says, “It’s CLEAR what the Bible says about tattooing.” That’s when we sprung on her that I’m actually getting a tattoo in about 3 weeks, which was kind of funny to watch her squirm/blow the sale (which she didn’t have anyway!). But I tell that story because that plays right into what you just said, Helen. When Christians say something is “clear,” it invites debate. A lot of times, it’s not clear at all. A lot of times, what Christians mean when they say “it’s clear,” is that they’ve found support for their position. To which I’m fond of saying, “Give me 20 minutes, a good Bible, and a slide-rule, and I can prove any position you like using ONLY scripture.” (toungue firmly planted in cheek, of course!)
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
26 08/29/08 1:07 PM | Comment Link |Mike, thanks - great example of what I was saying and a fun story too!
Comment by: Jason
27 08/30/08 2:19 PM | Comment Link |Mike said:
I know you said this in jest but doesn’t it worry you that people can actually do this? Fred Phelps takes Scripture and twists it to say that God hates….just fill in the blank yourself. Yet you and many other Christians take Scripture and tell me that God is all about love. Which is positive and a much better message all round if you ask me. I’d rather someone love me that damn me to hell.
As a believer do you ever get a “horror moment” when you read a bit of Scripture and think that God really does hate … whatever and your position might be wrong? Even the idea that a being who, for you, is perfect love, is capable and willing to hate where much less perfect human beings aren’t?
As an atheist I feel at an advantage in that I can take the message of peace and love if I like and integrate it within my own life. Similarly I get to reject anything I don’t like as unhelpful to my own personal journey in life. I get to cherry pick from Buddhism, Chinese and European philosophy, Hinduism, Japanese Bushido, Native American oral history or anything else that takes my fancy as well as Christianity. There’s nothing stopping you doing the same, of course, except your own preference and beliefs.
Christianity does seem to be awfully successful though. Maybe it is enough without all that other stuff.
Comment by: Mike O
28 08/31/08 4:05 PM | Comment Link |Why would it worry me? Everything is abusable, and people have an uncanny ability to find ways to back up what they already believe. You can’t worry about the fringe whackos who are going to twist the truth. Just ignore them.
No. I’m not exactly sure how God works, but there are a lot of facets to the nature of god, including justice, love, and when it comes to evil, yes - hate. But I never wonder if God hates people. It just doesn’t fit the whole picture the Bible paints of him. To get a hateful god, you need to ignore a lot of other stuff.
Comment by: Jason
29 09/1/08 9:11 AM | Comment Link |I agree but the same could be argued the other way round. To get an all loving god form the bible you need to ignore other parts of the bible where God is clearly less than all loving.
You could validly argue that God doesn’t easily fit into our feeble definitions of “good” and “evil” but then how can we know with any degree of certainty that our own ideas of what is right or wrong conform to God’s will? The simple answer is that we can’t so we must make up our own minds on the rightness of our actions and simply hope that it benefits us in the long run.
An interesting conundrum for Christians who ponder such things. For me I can reject the whole idea of divine will and divine good or evil as unworkable and get on with making the most of my life. I imagine that Christians need to adjust their idea of God when they think about the character of God portrayed in things like the story of the flood or the various plagues on Egypt. Maybe not.
Comment by: Mike O
30 09/1/08 5:19 PM | Comment Link |I think when Christians think they have God figured out, they’re being a bit presumptuous, to say the least.
when it comes to the “all-loving” nature of God, there’s more to love than just the gooey whatever-I-can-do-to-make-your-life-better stuff. The whole father-child comparison to God and his followers has been done to death, I know. But that’s really what it’s like. I love my son, but part of that is trying to guide him and let him take his lumps himself. if I give him everyting and never let him work through his struggles, I think I am somehow robbing him of growth.
You have a point when you talk about the flood and Egypt and situations like that - I actually want to do some kind of study on “the wrath of God” or whatever, because I personally think there is an element of that that Christians don’t like to address. I don’t know how to address it, but ignoring it doesn’t seem right, either.
I can see that for people who don’t believe in God. But I do - how could I do that? How could I just not be concerned with what my God wants me to do? If your kids don’t know what you want, would you rather have them at least try to make you proud of them, or simply not give a rip about what you think?
I see what you’re saying about how it’s easier to just work it out for yourself, but for the people who do believe in him, that would be a cop out, don’t you think?