About Hardliner4freedom


Gender:
male
Member Since:
July 14, 2006
Last Signed In:
March 15, 2008
Profile Views:
26807
Blog Views:
13713
View Profile
Send a Message
Send To A Friend
Sign Guestbook
Add as a Friend

Previous Posts
Gay Marriage Based On Religious Freedom Must Be Consistent
A "Christian Nation" -- Impossible Even By Religious Right's Criteria
The Only Gay Marriage Argument You'll Ever Need
My Thoughts on the In God We Trust Scare
A Spooky (And True) Story of Precognition
World's 3rd Richest Man Says Taxes on the Rich Are Too Low
New Right's War on the Constitution: The Under-Reported Truth
Religious Right Group's Belief in Religious Freedom Does Not Extend to Others
Take The Time To Fight Phishing
Creationist Betrays True Motives (Again)
Archives
July 06
August 06
September 06
October 06
November 06
December 06
January 07
February 07
March 07
April 07
May 07
June 07
July 07
August 07
September 07
October 07
November 07
December 07
January 08
February 08
March 08
April 08
May 08
June 08
July 08
August 08
September 08
October 08
November 08
December 08
January 09
Onward Bound

News, views, and professional iconoclasm from the green side of libertarianism.

About the graphic:  Created by Yours Truly using Ray Dream Studio.

-

Take The Time To Fight Phishing

 

Subscribe!
RSS 2.0 feed RSS 2.0
Add to My Yahoo
Add to My Google
Add to Bloglines
Add to My AOL

Share!


Hardliner4freedom - > Starship Sigma +5 -> Philosophical conundra from religion to chew on
Philosophical conundra from religion to chew on

I'm posting this blog as sort of a continuation point for what began under my Creationism post.

So, with no further ado, let me toss out some assorted nuts to crack and kick about:

____________________

 

If it is possible for supernatural agents (like Satan, for example) to deceive people, how can any one person know that s/he is not being deceived right now?

How would you go about proving to yourself, or others, that you are not in a state of deception?  Think of the movie The Matrix, which, alas, has a character called Neo.

Impossible, you say?

____________________

 

If it is impossible for a victim of deception to know that s/he is in a state of deception, how can anyone (a God or anyone else) hold that person morally accountable for being deceived?  Is that not like punishing the victim of a crime?  Is it fair and just, for example, to punish a person for buying stolen goods, when that person -- in good faith -- believed that s/he were purchasing a lawfully obtained product?

Yet according to some versions of Christian theology, God eternally punishes people who have -- through no fault of their own -- been deceived into following "false gods" or into believing that God doesn't exist at all.

____________________

 

It is often suggested that we "follow Christ" rather than follow "Christian leaders."

Many theologians, Bible scholars, and lay believers do just that -- try to follow Christ directly. 

Yet they end up disagreeing on all manner of doctrinal points -- some of them potentially of soteriological import. 

Take the gift of tongues, for instance.  Some Christians, who claim to follow Christ rather than Christian leaders, insist that salvation must be accompanied by the speaking in tongues.  Other Christians, also claiming to follow Christ, are "cessationists" who insist that the gift of tongues has ceased.

How is it possible for two or more people -- who claim to follow Christ and prayerfully seek His guidance -- to come to opposite conclusions on issues of soteriological import?

 _____________________

 

In order to "reject the Gospel" or "reject God's gift of salvation," must'nt one first believe that such a message or gift is real?

Along the lines of the poser two blocks above, how can a person be faulted for "rejecting" something that s/he never became convinced was genuine?  Could a person be faulted for "rejecting" an alleged Picasso because it looks, to him, like a crayon drawing?

It's one thing to say "yes, I know this is real, and I don't want it."  But it's much less culpable to say "this don't look genuine."

Yet, according to some versions of Christian theology, God punishes people simply for "rejecting" things that appear, to them, to have no authenticity to accept.

How does this square with the simplest concepts of justice?

_____________________

 

Many people say that God led them to do certain things or make certain choices.  And people often pray to God in search of answers or guidance.  Presumably they receive these answers, because they keep relying upon prayer.

If this happens, how does one determine that God is the origin of the decision or the giver of the answer?  How do you verify the authenticity of a message or inspiration that seems to come from God -- especially if we throw into the mix all these other, evil beings like Satan who would be perfectly willing to deceive you into thinking that God led you to do this?

(1 John 4:1-4 runs into this problem.  I mean, any lying spirit worth his salt would pose as God or a good spirit.)

In other words, how do you distinguish a calling of God from a calling of an evil spirit -- or even just a calling in your own head?

 

Posted in these Groups:
Topics:
posted by Hardliner4freedom on Monday, June 11, 2007 at 01:38 PM
Report a Violation
Viewed 220 times
89 comments from 19 users

1 2

posted by mattloch on Jun 11, 2007 at 02:08 PM
Don't forget that Christian claims are all inherently self-referential ("how do I know I'm right? The Bible says so. How do I know the Bible is right? Because I say so"), or completely, individually subjective ("I've had a religious experience, so you can trust me telling you that God exists. Prove my religious experience? Well, take my word for it....).

Don't forget my favorite, "God works in mysterious ways, so you can't possibly comprehend the logical fallacies or moral conundrum found in the Bible or reality. But I'm certain that God hates fags, and wants me to hate them too."

Christ was a great humanitarian. And he should be held up as such. The real problems come when people start taking his example and tries to make rules about following them..... and then imposing them on others......
posted by randomfactor on Jun 11, 2007 at 02:18 PM

One simple rule for determining whether the voice is God's or not:  

If it's telling you to limit the personal freedom of another individual, where such freedom doesn't *DIRECTLY* affect your life, it's not God speaking.

.

Obviously this doesn't tell you much about cases where others' behavior is not to be limited, but it *DOES* cut out about 99 percent of "organized" Christianity.

posted by robbwillis on Jun 11, 2007 at 02:28 PM

If the supernatural being talking to you doesn't confirm the truth you're already positive of, that's Satan deceiving you.

Or, you're schizophrenic. 

posted by blognroll on Jun 11, 2007 at 03:15 PM

You've raised some incredibly great questions, Hardliner.  Your thread reminds me of a song by Andrae Crouch that seems totally out of character considering the rest of his songs.  It is much darker than anything this Grammy-award-winning, legendary gospel singer/songwriter has come up with before.  I think we all fear that we have been deceived.  It is part of the human condition.  We have all embarked upon a spiritual journey or quest for truth, though some of us have become disillusioned and disengaged along the way. 

Discernment is a gift that we must ask God to give us.  If we don't have the gift of discernment, we can easily deceive ourselves.  In terms of the notion that God punishes those who have become deceived, I would just say that I believe God is both just and that God is loving. 

Then there is that which bridges the two--the grace of God.  So if you believe that these three characteristics are ones God possesses, they you trust that justice will be done, and that it will be done with love and boundless grace. 

Hardliner has raised some very tough questions, but a strong faith needs to be put the fire of such questioning.

posted by Hardliner4freedom on Jun 11, 2007 at 03:22 PM

Hi, Doc, you wrote "I would just say that I believe God is both just and that God is loving.  Then there is that which bridges the two--the grace of God. "

That's why I carefully limited two of those questions to "some versions of Christian theology."  Not all Christians believe in a "you better be right" gamble.  Many Christians consider God more fair and just than that.

 

posted by mattloch on Jun 11, 2007 at 03:27 PM
Some atheists have a higher opinion of God than some Christians. Figure that one out.....
posted by randomfactor on Jun 11, 2007 at 03:36 PM

Hardliner/Mattloch, I believe the operative phrase is "God is forced in His professional capacity to do some things he finds deplorable or at least regrettable in His personal capacity."

.

I wonder--is there any theology (outside of Roman/Greek) that has a heirarchy of Gods, such that one God might have to answer to a Higher Power for His actions?  I guess that's a real drawback of monotheism:  The Buck Stops There.

posted by Hardliner4freedom on Jun 11, 2007 at 04:06 PM

Random, there is Yoruba religion, native to western Africa, in which the supreme god Olorun (and wife) have lesser gods, such as Obatala.

http://www.mythencyclopedia...

http://www.godchecker.com/p...

These lesser gods are called Orishas: http://www.godchecker.com/p...

The same goes for the religion's exported versions Candomble and Santeria, which have hybridized with Catholicism.

The Catholic saints could also be seen as a system involving lesser gods beneth a supreme God.

posted by blognroll on Jun 11, 2007 at 04:13 PM

Those of us who wholeheartedly embrace the Christian faith need to be every bit as honest about our doubts and the questions that haunt us about God and the nature of God as we are about our fatih and about those articles of faith that serve as the very foundation for our faith. 

As I heard it said in a song today, "satisfaction is the death of desire," and I might add that unshakable, dogmatically proclaimed faith is the death of the spiritual hunger that, in the end, draws us closer to God. 

posted by Hardliner4freedom on Jun 11, 2007 at 04:18 PM

Doc wrote, "I might add that unshakable, dogmatically proclaimed faith is the death of the spiritual hunger that, in the end, draws us closer to God. "

Maybe that's why many of the most dogmatic and self-righteous folks manifest so few fruits of the Spirit.  They must figure that they have picked the Tree of Life clean.

 

posted by antiextremism on Jun 11, 2007 at 04:19 PM

You're not going for the circular reasoning Matt????

I think there is a scientific formula that proves He exists, although it is still under peer review.......

 

posted by randomfactor on Jun 11, 2007 at 04:21 PM

I view Catholicism as a bridge between polytheism and monotheism.    I didn't know about the Orishas, thanks.   That piece on Obatala is priceless.  God as a frat boy.  It certainly explains certain aspects of the human design.   Of course, evolution explains them better.

.

In the Roman system there were Gods below Gods, all the way down to the household gods good only within one home at a time.

.

Then we have George Carlin's system in which our God is merely third in command in the heirarchy--"he's the Western Marketing Manager," he explains.    I think such a view would go a long way towards reconciling some of the contradictions in Christianity.  "Gee, I'd *LIKE* to abolish Hell, but *I'D* catch Hell for doing so..."

posted by antiextremism on Jun 11, 2007 at 04:34 PM

I think I've found compelling evidence that Random has been right all along....

http://www.youtube.com/p.sw...

posted by RoyTullis on Jun 11, 2007 at 04:41 PM

This is long but something to think about.

Holy Wind and Natural Law

by Roman Bitsuie

NATURAL LAW and NAVAJO RELIGION/WAY OF LIFE

April 21, 1995

For the past two decades a group of Navajo families have been resisting an act of Congress to relocate them from their homes in the center of the Navajo reservation pursuant to the Navajo/Hopi Land Settlement Act. (P.L. 93-531). They have always maintained that moving away from their land would prevent them from practicing their traditional religion and eventually lead to the dissolution of their culture. In 1988, the families who are resisting relocation initiated legal action through Manybeads, et al v. the United States of America, arguing that forced relocation violates their right to the free practice of religion. Because of the inextricable ties that link traditional Navajo religion to the land, it can be argued that forcibly moving these families is outright religious persecution. The challenge that Congress and other officials have faced when dealing with the "land dispute" between the Hopi and Navajo people is the problematic role of religion. In order to understand why so many people do and will continue to resist relocation after more than twenty years of constant pressure, we must come to an understanding of what their religion is.

There is no word in the Navajo language for what we refer to as "religion," defined by Webster's Dictionary as "man's expression of his acknowledgment of the divine." The reason why this word does not exist in their language is simple. their way of expressing acknowledgment of the divine is a way of living. Traditional Navajo religion is not something that can be abstracted from or examined apart from traditional life in general. When traditional life is dissected by Western methods of categorization usually only the rituals and ceremonies are labeled 'religion.' These moments of sacred time, however, are but portion of the all-encompassing world view and philosophy of life that constitute the Navajo idea of 'religion.' The rituals and ceremonies carried out by traditional people are such an integral part of their daily routine that they themselves describe their religion as life itself. Even today, in these modern times, there are many Navajo people who still live in accordance with the traditional religious teachings. This is particularly true for those people living on the "disputed lands" of Black Mesa. These people, who live without many of the conveniences we take for granted (i.e. running water, electricity, paved roads) continue to survive in the harsh desert climate by following the teachings their ancestors have passed down from time immemorial. These teachings, the world view that emerges from them, the ceremonials, and living according to teachings are all what they consider to be 'religion."

While all of the particulars about traditional Navajo religion are so complex that many different anthropologists have written immense volumes on the subject there are a few basic ideas that may seem foreign to our Western, Judeo-Christian way of thinking, yet only require a willingness to understand to recognize their validity. It is natural for us, based on Western rules categorization, to think of religion as something that we can reserve for particular days or places. We tend to divide time and place into spaces that are either sacred or secular. The other division is western religion is based on a system of thought where divine actions take place not according to rules but according to the desire of a Supreme Being. This Supreme Being is essentially unknowable by human beings, who cannot predict or influence what He does. This sets western religion apart from day-to-day life, science, and cause-and-effect reasoning. The traditional Navajo viewpoint, in contrast, does not make such clear cut distinctions as it sees the earth and all that exists in the natural world as manifestations of the sacred.

The traditional teachings explain that the material world is replete with spiritual meaning and significance. This holistic approach to the world implies that all things in life are connected to one another and interact according to a natural order. Navajo religion dictates not only observing this order, but living in accordance with it based on a premise similar to the law we learn in high school physics which states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. That is to say, that the people believe that any disruption they make in the natural order will eventually result in irreparable damage to their environment and themselves. Failing to observe and imitate this universal order is an infraction of natural law, resulting in mental and physical illness for the individual and their family and will ultimately lead to the world's demise. Maintaining this equilibrium is a religious obligation they must meet by living a life that is in balance and harmonious with creation. Thus, the people who live according to the teachings are not so much concerned with a hereafter, but with the here and now, and with keeping themselves and the world in balance for future generations. They truly believe that if they abandon the practice of their religion the Hopi, the Dine and all the world is in danger of destruction perhaps by fire.

In the traditional Navajo view, life is a constant cycle of growth, death and new life, that flows in a circular motion - all things must begin and end at the same point. For instance, a person's umbilical cord is buried at birth and when that person passes away he is return to the Earth the same way. The religious teachings offer a guide for daily living that flows with the cycles of the days and seasons. The teachings say that each quadrant of the day, as well as each season of the year, hold in them specific lessons for living a complete and whole life. Many of the elders continue to live with this ideal in mind. They rise at dawn and offer prayers and corn pollen to the spirits in return for clear thoughts and guidance in the days events. The rest of the day-light hours are intended to be time for building work ethics and responsibility so that one can both take care of their livestock, provide for the family and in turn build self- reliance. They reserve the evening hours for enjoying the fruits of the day's labor and for gathering the family together to strengthen familial bonds. The darkness of night is a time for rest and contemplation of the spiritual realm and the natural order of the universe which humans should strive to imitate. The seasons of the year continue this cycle on a larger scale, as do the phases of one's life.

In addition to the mandate of living in accordance with natural law, Navajo religion is "site-specific" - that is to say the people have particular places which serve as the foci of religious activity. There are sites, including the whole of Navajo territory, that are significant to the entire Nation, as well as to individual clans (extended families). These are places where: an event in sacred history (such as those mentioned in the creation story) took place; people can communicate with the supernatural to ask for protection or healing; medicinal plants or ceremonial materials can be gathered or places where something supernatural occurred. It is because of the ties to these religiously significant places that these families are unable to move to another location with the same kind of ease as nontraditional people.

The land in which the Navajo Nation lives is defined and bound by four sacred mountains and four rivers. Their land within these boundaries is the place they call "Din'e Be keyah," meaning "Navajo land." (the Navajos call themselves the Dine, "the people".) These boundary mountains and everything on the land between them are sacred. According to the traditional teachings, it is only on this land that the creator intended the Dine to live and all that they need to survive would be provided for within its borders. It is here that the people known to us as the Navajos developed the unique culture which defines who they are today. Here is where their history as the Dine began, long before they became the Navajos. Here is where all of the stories of their religious lore took place. This land within the four sacred mountains is their Jerusalem, Mecca or Bethlehem. Din'e Be keyah, like these great religious centers, is truly beloved by the people, yet it is not sufficient for the Navajos to make an occasional pilgrimage to it. Their teachings dictate that they must live on this land and care for it, as well as the plants and animals which were bestowed upon them as gifts from the creator and other the other holy beings.

The story of their genesis, passed down verbally from generation to generation, is at the heart of their religious teachings. The creation story tells of the people's spiritual journey through several 'lower worlds," to emerge onto the site where they now live. Along the way, the people were confronted with disasters resulting from their own wrongdoings such as adultery, corruption and fighting. The effects of these past mistakes were no small disasters. The end result each time was the total destruction of that world. The people had to learn from each mistake and develop methods of cooperation with each other and their neighbors (including members of other nations, such as the Hopi). They also had to learn to make contributions to the community in order to continue their survival as a group. They had to learn to achieve a level of balance within the human society between men and women, just as they perceive the natural order of the universe to be one of balance between the male and female forces of nature. They were offered guidance through this journey by spirit-beings called the Holy People. Those Holy People who aided the people in those early days continue to reside in specific locations around Din'e Be keyah, and are available to aid those who know how and where to communicate with them. These Holy People are not omnipotent deities to be feared or awed, but to be respected and honored because they embody the essence of the natural order, and can help the people to achieve this equilibrium within themselves.

In addition to describing how the Navajo's forebears came to be, the story also explains the methods by which individuals (and families) who have fallen out of balance can return to equilibrium through various ceremonials and rituals. More importantly, however, the teachings explain how not to fall out of balance by respecting all of creation and living with it, rather than in opposition to it or vying for dominion over it, and by respecting the four elements of life and destruction; earth, wind, fire and water. They people also learn that by making daily offerings of corn pollen and prayers to the Holy People at the places where they reside they can continue to maintain balance and harmony.

One of the greatest difficulties for those involved in making the legal decision on this "dispute" has been recognizing that, based on their religious teaching, the traditional Navajo have a very different view of the earth itself from the dominant culture. They believe that the earth, as the source from which all life comes, is the mother of all people and a living being herself. She, like any other person, has organs, which are various geological formations and veins and arteries, which are rivers and streams. If too much of her insides such as water, coal, and other mineral, are removed then she will eventually, yet assuredly, die as would any human whose had their vital organs removed. If, however, the land is cared for and respected properly, it will continue to provide for the people.

With the earth as a spiritual mother, the traditional people see their family as a complicated network that includes the Holy People, the livestock and certain other animals in addition to their human relatives. A Navajo child is incorporated into this network even before birth through a Blessing Way ceremony. After the child is born, the umbilical cord and afterbirth are returned to the earth in a special place around the home site to ensure that the child will nurtured by their spiritual mother for the rest of his or her life. That spot will always be sacred to that child. As that child matures, each phase of his or her growth - the first laugh, the first steps on the earth, puberty and marriage - will all be celebrated through ceremony. Each ceremony prepares them for their role in the community and renews their connections to the family and to the land.

Just as Din'e Be keyah is sacred to the whole of the Navajo Nation, each family's home site and certain areas around the home are sacred. These are places where events in that family's own beginning took place. These are places where the umbilical cords of every child in the family and the bones of every ancestor have been buried for generations. The elders know the places where they can acquire the necessary materials for healing ceremonies and make prayers and offerings to the Holy People. If the people are forced to move away from their land, and thereby denied daily access to the sacred places around their home sites they simply cannot practice their religion freely. If they cannot make the offerings to the holy people on a daily basis, or even in times of dire need, they will be denied the clarity and peace of mind necessary to live out the day. If they cannot ensure the protection of their ancestors bones and their own umbilical cords their connection to their history and familial ties will collapse.

Everything about the way the traditional people live strives to recognize and repeat the order they see in the universe. All of the people, for example once lived in the circular structures now generally reserved for ceremonies. Called a hogan (meaning house) these structures replicate Din'e Be keyah in it's entirety. Just as Dine'tah has four mountains, one in each of the cardinal directions, the hogan has four main post to correspond with each mountain. The door to the hogan faces east, where things begin, and has a fire place in the center, from which life emerges. Safely hidden in each hogan is a 'medicine bundle' containing soil and the sacred minerals from the four boundary mountains. All ceremonies require the use of this re-creation of the Navajo world. Because the families live in widely dispersed unites, ceremonies are crucial for maintaining family bounds. When people are relocated, usually there is no room for, or permits granted to build a hogan. When the ancestral lands are lost, so is the family 'church,' and with it is lost their sense of hope for their own future for that their descendants.

The sheep and livestock hold a central role in traditional Navajo life, and the religious teachings explain that they are gifts from the Holy People that need to be cared for in return for sustenance. The people include the livestock in their thoughts and prayers for their family. The people's relationship with the animals is one of reciprocation, where the animals will provide wealth and sustenance in return for care and protection. The loss of these animals, as with the loss of land, damages the people's sense of pride in themselves and their ability to provide for their families on their own.

In brief, the traditional religion of the Dine', the Navajo people, places everything in an orderly, but complex web of existence. Every aspect has purposes and meaning. Every effect has a cause and every cause has an effect. They see their world as bound by natural markers, and all that exists within these boundaries is intimately related to one another. All life and geological formations are animated and connected by means of life giving holy winds. The same winds that bring life to humans give life to the four sacred mountains and surround each home site. The holy wind like everything else in Din'e Be keyah obeys natural law. For instance when the BIA erected fences on Star Mountain, it resulted in a weakening of a holy wind which originates at that point. The fences cause certain adverse forces to enter the sacred mountain from the north, east and south, literally pinching the source of the holy wind. It was to prevent the disturbance of this holy wind at Star Mountain that a Din'e medicine man attempted to block the fencing with his body, and spent time in jail for his act. All of the animals have their place in the order of the world and have been placed there to serve a purpose explained in the sacred mythology. It is the people's role of to be the stewards of the land and to live in balance with the rest of the creation.

For those who are resisting relocation, leaving the place designated as their home by the creator would also mean that they could not fulfill their duties as caretakers of the land and of their mother earth. Care- taking of the earth is both an obligation to reciprocate the earth's nurturing of the people and a way to maintain the balance of the universal order and the forces that generate and re-generate life. This balance cannot be maintained if they allow the earth's natural state to be disrupted. Not only would they suffer but the continuation of the life process in general would be hindered.

The traditional Navajo religion, like all religions, provides meaning and ascribes value to the lives its adherents. It is their religious teachings that have enabled them to survive in the arid desert land and will, if allowed, will be their path into the future. Their religious obligations to the earth and to their family and community is their purpose of life. All of these things that are important to them spiral back to the land itself. The land is the center of their orientation in experience and the base of their sense of reality and identify. To separate them from it would cause them to lose contact with all that is sacred and holy to them. To force people to live such a life or meaninglessness is religious persecution and a condemnation to a slow death, for believing in and practicing their religion is living. When we recognize the religious persecution is, by definition, the infliction of pain and suffering on a group of people because of their religious beliefs, then there is no doubt that forced relocation is indeed this.

posted by Hardliner4freedom on Jun 11, 2007 at 04:48 PM

Dang, Roy, that's beautiful.

 

posted by adampayne on Jun 11, 2007 at 04:57 PM
Thanks, Roy. Thanks, H4F.
posted by woofwoof on Jun 11, 2007 at 05:46 PM

H4F, I still think anyone who hears "God's voice" in their head is schziophrenic.

posted by allRED on Jun 11, 2007 at 06:46 PM

h4f: Acts 2: 38-39- Then Peter said unto them Repent and be Baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

For the promise is unto you and to your children and to all that are afar off even as many as the Lord shall call.

Tongues are for as many as God calls.

posted by RoyTullis on Jun 11, 2007 at 07:34 PM
The Navajo Religion makes a lot of sense.  The best part is that they live it daily.  Many Christians do whatever they wish 6 days a week and go to church for religion on Sunday. I said MANY, not ALL.
posted by johnburnssucks on Jun 11, 2007 at 08:12 PM

It is often suggested that we "follow Christ" rather than follow "Christian leaders."

Many "Christian leaders" will claim that they are "Christ's representative," so you must obey them as you would obey Christ. Most who try to pull off a stunt like that are lay ministers, not seminary graduates. You'd never hear Billy Graham say something pretentious like that.

Take the gift of tongues, for instance.  Some Christians, who claim to follow Christ rather than Christian leaders, insist that salvation must be accompanied by the speaking in tongues. 

Teen Challenge (Assembly of God) tries to foist that on its "students." Those who do not "speak in tongues" are said to be "not trying hard enough," so many just fake it (my version of "tongues" was "Yellow 80! Yellow 80! HUT! HUT!" - the spirit of Dan Fouts had come upon me).

Other Christians, also claiming to follow Christ, are "cessationists" who insist that the gift of tongues has ceased.

“Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.” I Corinthians 13:8

Many will say that "knowledge has not vanished away." Knowledge per se hasn't, but the kind of knowledge Paul is talking about here is the kind that the men who wrote the Bible claim to have received from above. Unless you're a Mormon, you'll agree that no other testaments have been written. That type of knowledge has "vanished away."

Tongues are for as many as God calls.

Or for as many as who decide to fake it, with their "shamalama" and other subconscious mimickings.

posted by antiextremism on Jun 11, 2007 at 08:51 PM

Hail the Prophets!..... John the Baptist. Ezikiel........and

Dan the strong armed.......

posted by bnfl on Jun 11, 2007 at 09:15 PM
Johnburnssucks,

I agree with you on the point that no one should be forced to "speak in tongues" and also not everyone will have that gift. I don't agree with everything else you stated, however.

It really seems like you've been hurt terribly by Teen Challenge. I'm truly sorry that happened to you, but must you continue to slam all of Christianity because of it?

-Anony..(I forgot. I don't have to write the whole "but not for long" thing anymore! :)
posted by Hardliner4freedom on Jun 12, 2007 at 07:16 AM

Ah, but this discussion is falling right into one of my questions.

We have all of these different Christians (and some ex-Christians) looking at the same Bible, and praying and listening to the same God -- yet they reach opposite answers to questions so important as salvation itself.

Another similar debate is the three-way dispute over baptism.  Must you be baptized to be saved?  Christian theologians can't seem to settle that one -- even though they prayerfully turn to the exact same God. 

Some say "no."  Others say "yes."  Still others, like the Church of Christ, insist that not only must you be baptized, but it must be done correctly to be valid and salvific -- by immersion.

Why would God send such mixed, conflicting and contradictory messages to people seeking His guidance on how to be saved?  We're talking eternal destiny here!

 

posted by bnfl on Jun 12, 2007 at 08:33 AM
You're taking what is possibly human error in one's own interpretation of what is written in the bible or simply one's own misunderstanding of the bible and twisting it into blaming God for sending "mixed" signals.

Are there no arguments or misunderstandings between  the humanists among you? If you say there aren't, you're a liar.   

And if you're trying to imply that this sort of thing only exists among "religious" people regarding their beliefs, give me a break.
posted by randomfactor on Jun 12, 2007 at 08:41 AM

Of course there are arguments between humanists.  The difference is, that humanists *CAN* cite evidence in favor of their particular view, rather than quoting "scripture." 

.

Theology is the only area of study which cannot define its subject.

posted by bnfl on Jun 12, 2007 at 08:43 AM
Random,

You're funny.

How can you prove to me that God did not create the very "evidence" with which you claim to base your arguments upon?
posted by steveeswenson on Jun 12, 2007 at 08:50 AM
Okay. Let's not make this complicated, because it isn't.

God and Jesus left moral principles — the 10 commandments and love Him and your neighbor.

It's no trick knowing when you violate those principles. So if it's Satan, Joe or anyone or anything else that leads you into violation, that's a deception, and one that in your heart of hearts, you know you have violated.

Following Christ is the best road. All Christian leaders are sinners. Some succumb to their own self importance. Most others do their best to lead people to Christ and ask them to follow Christ's principles.

A dedication to Christ is a conscious act -- baptism or confirmation, if you will. God doesn't care how much water is used. It's the commitment to Him. He also doesn't care if you can speak in tongues -- only that you speak to Him.

The trickier question is do only Christians go to heaven. According to Christian beliefs, the answer is yes. But I personally am not sure. I would like to think that God welcomes all who acknowledge Him as the creator of all things.

I do know that religion or belief in God is a 24/7 operation. Anyone who restricts it to an hour or two on Sunday is cheating himself.

Does this mean those who don't believe in God are not moral? No. It might mean they are not saved in the end, but they can lead moral lives in which they care for each other and the earth.

As for the Navajos, it is easy to respect their devotion to the land and each other.




posted by GotREALITY on Jun 12, 2007 at 08:51 AM

Haven't we had this discussion? bnfl YOU PROVE to me that God does exist.

posted by Hardliner4freedom on Jun 12, 2007 at 08:55 AM

Bnfl wrote, "You're taking what is possibly human error in one's own interpretation of what is written in the bible or simply one's own misunderstanding of the bible and twisting it into blaming God for sending "mixed" signals.

Are there no arguments or misunderstandings between  the humanists among you? If you say there aren't, you're a liar.   "

You're missing the point.  Christians are claiming to have supernatural help.  They claim to have a God who helps them understand the Scripture.  Surely you've heard the term "spiritually discerned."

You are the one, specifically, suggesting that Christians follow Christ, and not Christian leaders.  They're trying to do just that -- yet even with prayerful help, they get different answers.

Some of those disagreements are on issues so basic as salvation itself.

Pplease explain how Christians -- allegedly with supernatural aid -- are led in conflicting directions on critical, life-and-hell doctinal issues.

 

posted by Hardliner4freedom on Jun 12, 2007 at 08:58 AM

Steve, I think you're missing the point.

Please carefully consider the first three questions on the blog post.

The impossibility of knowing that you're deceived -- while still in a state of deception -- is akin to the Dream Argument in Philosophy.

It's less all-encompassing, of course, which is why I used the stolen-goods or fake painting argument.

posted by bnfl on Jun 12, 2007 at 09:01 AM
Hardliner,

I did. You aren't paying attention. Human error.

posted by Hardliner4freedom on Jun 12, 2007 at 09:02 AM

And you aren't paying attention.  You have a supernatural helper who allegedly wants you to understand His Word.

His name is Jesus Christ, the Father, and the Holy Spirit.

Edit:  When Christians pray to God for help understanding His Word, they are admitting their human error.   They are looking for something more reliable than human error.

Why aren't they receiving it?

posted by randomfactor on Jun 12, 2007 at 09:02 AM

BNFL, I don't *HAVE* to prove it.  I'm not the one claiming things unsupported by evidence. 

.

Is the Flying Spaghetti Monster (blest be His Noodly Appendages) causing the evidence to change before my eyes?  What proof do *YOU* have? 

posted by Hardliner4freedom on Jun 12, 2007 at 09:09 AM

I think he's admitting that there isn't a God around to help him understand Scripture.  Some god he has, that doesn't care enough to help his own followers understand His Own Word -- even when they plead and pray

Is that blunt enough?

(Apologies to Steve.  I'm not interested in dissuading you.  I'm only interested in taking on people whose faith makes them worse people rather than better people.)

posted by bnfl on Jun 12, 2007 at 09:11 AM
Random,

If you think there is no "evidence" you ought to check out more books at the library, because there is evidence. It's probably not the section you are likely to visit: the religion section (gasp!). And I don't mean mythology, as in Zeus and such.

There are several books I can recommend if you'd honestly like to know. If not, we can just keep the banter going, "I've got evidence!" "NO, you don't!" "Yes, I do!" "NO, you don't!"  It's getting old.

It seems obvious to me that the evidence I would present would be discounted by you, so why bother? I'm not talking strictly use of the bible, either, however, the bible itself is quite an extraordinary book if you know anything about it's origins and preservation throughout the years.
posted by randomfactor on Jun 12, 2007 at 09:21 AM

BNFL, if you think "somebody wrote it down in a book" constitutes evidence, you don't know what evidence is.

.

How do *YOU* know Zeus is mythology.  There's every bit as much evidence of Zeus' existence as your God.

.

Yes, I do know a bit about the Bible.  Possibly more than you.  Hardliner (and Possummomma) still more.

posted by Hardliner4freedom on Jun 12, 2007 at 09:26 AM

Maybe this will help zero in on what I'm trying to pry out of this guy:

1 Cor. 2:12-16:

"We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.  The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment: 
 "For who has known the mind of the Lord
      that he may instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ."

What's your take on this?

How is it possible that people -- who allegedly have the Spirit and the aid of Christ -- can't even reach the same conclusion on soteriological doctrines?

posted by Hardliner4freedom on Jun 12, 2007 at 09:59 AM
posted by Hardliner4freedom on Jun 12, 2007 at 10:15 AM

Meanwhile, if we're wondering which side of the creation/evolution debate has more motive to lie, creationist Ken Ham has revealed his motive quite plainly.

A representative excerpt: "To solve the abortion crisis, this nation needs to get "Back to Genesis" and submit to the God of Creation."

And:

"The sad truth is that the majority of our colleges and church leaders of all denominations have compromised with evolution and are teaching that we should not take the book of Genesis literally.

"When we look at our nation and observe the increase in abortion, homosexual behavior, suicide, etc., many Christians are saying that the nation has a problem, and there is need to change the laws of the nation to stop this increasing slide into immorality. It is not changing the laws, however, that will provide the solution. There has to be a change of the hearts of people toward God so they will want to have laws in accord with the principles of God's Word. The problem is that the world has abandoned belief in absolutes because it has rejected the God of creation and devised a world view that is in direct opposition to Christian ethics based on God's Word."

If that's not evidence of a very strong motive to lie for creation, I don't know what is.

posted by randomfactor on Jun 12, 2007 at 10:29 AM

I've always wanted to ask Creationists how they would feel if I could *PROVE* to them that scientists were knowingly lying about evolution in order to further a political agenda. 

.

Then say, "well, then I guess you can appreciate how *I* feel about Creationists knowingly lying about evolution in order to further *THEIR* political agenda..."  Sadly, I think they'd be outraged by the former "lie," and have no problem with the latter.

posted by talkofthetown on Jun 12, 2007 at 10:52 AM
Hard,

   I'm not accepting the premise that someone would not know they are being deceived. The moral principals are the guide. People know when they fall short.

   Let's take the receiving stolen property argument.  If a watch is worth $200 and a guy sells it to you for $50, it's probably stolen property. If he sells it to you for $150, you're probably safe.  The crime of receiving stolen property (496 P.C.)  has a requirement that the buyer knows it's stolen property.

   Good questions though.

Sorry, I meant this to be signed Steve E. Swenson, not talk of the town
posted by Hardliner4freedom on Jun 12, 2007 at 11:00 AM

Hey, Talk .. er.. I mean Steve!

If a person knows of the moral principles, knows them to be true, and knows when they are falling short, I'd say they are not deceived.

Rationalizing their behavior to themselves?  Likely.  But they are not deceived.

To be deceived, for the purpose of my questions, is when someone has been led to honestly and truly believe that the information that he holds to, and is acting on, is correct -- when in fact, it isn't.

To truly believe a lie is -- still -- to believe it.  The liar is the deceiver, and if the victim truly believes the lie, he is deceived.  And as long as he truly believes the lie, he remains in deception and, by definition, is not aware of being deceived.

Once you discover that you are being deceived, then you aren't deceived anymore.

Hope this helps.  Philosophy is a tough topic that often demands careful definition of terms and clarification of premises.

 

posted by dusty1215 on Jun 12, 2007 at 11:02 AM
The 10 commandments are just rules to live by..they aren't religious in nature, to me they are common friggin sense.
posted by Hardliner4freedom on Jun 12, 2007 at 11:05 AM
Actually, many of the Ten Commandments are specifically religious, but I see the essence of your point.
posted by dusty1215 on Jun 12, 2007 at 11:11 AM
Well, I meant that they are just morals by which to live..they don't necessarily have to be taken in a religious pov.
posted by RoyTullis on Jun 12, 2007 at 11:11 AM
Good comment Dusty.  As far as discussing religion, It's an exercise in futility.  Minds that are made up over a lifetime of experiences can rarely be changed.
posted by Hardliner4freedom on Jun 12, 2007 at 11:13 AM

"Minds that are made up over a lifetime of experiences cannot be changed."

Not by someone else, anyway.

The only thing that can change one's mind is the further accumulation of one's own experiences.

posted by bnfl on Jun 12, 2007 at 11:15 AM
Hardliner,

While possessing the mind of Christ, are they not still, in fact, human, and thus prone to human error?

It floors me how such seemingly intelligent ( I say seemingly not to insult, but because I don't know you.) people can be so steadfastly holding to "truths" as they see them which they have derived from books (I'm referring to Random's comment) and yet cannot seem to conclude that the opposing side would, indeed derive their own truths from books as well.  Random has not completed all of the various evolution theory's experiments and research physically, himself, has he? Of course not. He's gathered information from books

So have I.

You just happen to disagree with the authenticity of one of the books I've chosen to derive my beliefs from. Fair enough. It goes both ways, though.

And Mr. Hardliner, you talk big, or should I say you write big, but  you don't have all the answers to this life, although you might think you do. I don't either.

At least I'm willing to admit that I could be wrong.  You still haven't been willing to do that. I understand it takes a lot of guts to admit it, doesn't it?

By the way, how do you know you aren't being deceived?
posted by RoyTullis on Jun 12, 2007 at 11:15 AM
H4F. Note I edited my comment before I read yours.  My comment was too inclusive.
posted by randomfactor on Jun 12, 2007 at 11:16 AM
And an important one of those experiences can be reading others' experiences.  If young people can see from an early age that there are those who *DO* question the existence or nature of God, and they're *NOT* struck down by lightning, it can encourage such free inquiry.
1 2

  (You need to be signed in to leave a comment)

BAKERSFIELD.COM HOT TOPICS:

Advertisement