Welcome to ASBO Jesus
Enjoy your stay and have your say! Cheers, Jon
Blogroll
- BigDaddyWhale
- birchmultimedia
- celtic difference
- changing worship
- dennis coburn
- frontier youth trust
- growing enthusiasm
- holy famoley
- iain cotton, sculptor
- jonny baker
- let them eat cake
- mark roques
- mindwriter
- naked pastor
- proost.co.uk
- Rainforest SOS
- reality bites
- sanctuary
- si smith
- sophia network
- stepping stones nigeria
Archives
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
heaven forbid that we be content to have the same limited tolerances of the olden days.
Agreed jon. Also would probably have helped the debate if people had actually looked at how marriage appears in the Biblical texts before pronouncing that a biblical model of marriage = 1 man and 1 woman, exclusive and forever! Or indeed had looked at the social and cultural history of marriage as a human institution.
I was also amazed at how some MPs in the commons debate yesterday linked marriage primarily to the function of child-bearing (not even child-raising!) without apparently realising that this leaves a great many people in marriages which are thus inherently ‘wrong’ (or ‘unbiblical’ if they choose to take that slant).
I had the impression that society moved forward within the Bible – first and foremost that it went from law and legalism to grace and mercy. With that as an undercurrent in a society’s foundation that would, to me, would by definition allow for advances as the burdensome weight of the law was lifted from the spirit and being.
Mm. Not so clear, IMHO: man and woman and other woman. Man and woman and woman and woman and woman and woman and woman….
i’m not clear what you’re unclear on, jennifer?
To clarify, I don’t think the Bible is clear on the man + woman marriage thing when you consider that clearly there are scriptural family arrangements that included concubines and multiple wives. Sorry I wasn’t clear. : )
(Opponents of a more inclusive definition of marriage will NOT want to follow up with “yes but that was the Old Testament, and things change…” because then the rest of us will just shout “Exactly!” and look all smug.)
haha! right… i get you. and agree.
One of the most interesting arguments I’ve heard regarding civil rights and the bible is from the book Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis. He argues that we need to view many of the claims of scripture, not as once for all declarations, but as trajectories.
So, regarding slavery, we see (1) The commands to Israel as improving the lot of slaves and servants, and (2) Paul’s statements increasing the equality and freedom of those in servitude (though NT Roman slavery was not the same as chattel slavery in the US, it was in most cases the only employment available for more than half the populace, and more of indentured servitude, though still not easy). Based on this trajectory, we should not be surprised that it was primarily Christianity that led in abolition. So the trajectory for slaves shows a pattern of broadening freedom and equality, compared to the world of the gentiles. The same trajectory can be seen for women from the gentile view, to the Hebrew view, to the NT view.
However, for sexuality, the pattern is one of increasing PURITY, not liberality – from the sexual immorality of the pagans, to the much more narrow prohibitions against adultery, bestiality, and homosexuality for Israel in the OT. Continuing into the NT, we see a NARROWING trajectory – forbidding polygamy (“husband of one wife”), promiscuity, and arguably homosexuality, and even a condemnation of effeminacy in men, and lewd talk.
But we don’t need the bible to recognize that all ‘races’ of men are equal, or to realize women’s human rights, or to see that homosexuality is against nature, since they are unable to reproduce. Right? Hmm, maybe we DO need help interpreting ‘self evident’ truths.
Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis
True! We don’t kill children for being disobedient like the bible instructs. So perhaps we can give a little ground on this one too.
Lance, I’m not sure that verse means what you think it means. Since the OT also contains a profundity of verses on how to correct and instruct your children, you may need to adjust your understanding of this verse. I see this as a punishment for a certain type or level of disobedience, what we might today call juvenile delinquency or thuggery – think teen gang members who flout parental and civil authority, and who threaten and endanger the community.
If my contention is true, then could you make another argument for why you disagree with my assessment of the biblical trajectories above? And of course, though I favor them, they are not my arguments, I was just reporting on what this book seems to teach.
Thanks.
Let’s also remember that the specific OT civil penalties were (a) given specifically to Israel to set them apart, not given as a rule for all civil societies, but (b) the moral law on which those are based is still valid. In the NT, there are some indications of the civil penalties we are to attach to them, but in general, these are not explicitly specified for us, I think. We are to apply the principles of the moral law, and for example, lex talionis, to our civil laws, rather than parroting the civil penalties given to Israel.
Hi dgsinclair, it’s a fair point you make. A lot of the verses are quite ambiguous, and I could have perhaps picked a better verse to make my point. For the record I was referring to Matthew 15 when Jesus said “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’”
But he may well have been trying to get out of washing his hands before dinner.
Outside of the original linguistic and historical context, that quote from Jesus sounds pretty harsh! And I think you make a good point that to some extent, Jesus did not always liberalize the OT, but confirmed its authority. That is a decent argument against a broadening trajectory, though on most issues, he went the other way (like allowing women followers, etc). One subject that I have not examined that you may be suggesting is the biblical view on children, and perhaps authority in general. Hrm…
cheers Jon, I get bugged that only a few get to share in the media, as though all Christians have one tiny mindset.- and also think we need to tell everyone how to live. so cool to find your fun lovin community still sharing the love with a light spirit
good point Forrest, let’s honour the good stuff – church is supposed to be a generous and fun loving place to hang out in and get blasted with hope and an excitement for the future
It was actually civil weddings that brought in the ‘one man, one woman’ language. The Church one didn’t specify. I find people sayihg that marriage is about procreation quite offensive as it’s quite likely that myself and many of my female friends will not be married in time to have children. Does that mean we won’t be having real marriages? Of course not. Even in ancient Israel, if a man or woman couldn’t conceive they would still think it important for them to marry because ‘It is not good for man to be alone’. The need for a ‘helpmeet’ is what has always been emphasised in the Bible in relation to marriage. There have always been marriages that aren’t focused around having children, simply because people need to look after each other.
Would anyone on here in the be interested in getting involved in or campaign group Christians for Equal Marriage, UK? We only formed six weeks ago and are already being invited onto local and national media and being quoted in the press. Because of this, and ambitious plans for the next few months, we’re currently looking to expand as we can’t do it all ourselves and need regional representatives. If you are, please contact us at Christians4emuk.org
Thanks, Tiggy.
Thanks for a cartoon that as always makes us think, whether we agree or not. My first thought was, the reason society doesn’t improve could be because we give the last word to the Bible. Or it could be that (human nature being what it is) we don’t live up to that word whatever it is. We all know that when a high jumper fails to clear at a given height it’s obviously the fault of the bar, not the jumper.
oh, well cool Tiggy, it bugs me that only a tiny minority of Christians’ view’s get representation in the media, so good to hear about your success at Christians4emuk.org
I’m fascinated by the “trajectory” argument and see some value there but I’m not convinced, and here’s why — it is as open to selective vision as scripture itself, in that the ‘points’ one chooses to create the trajectory determine the trend you see. For example, I don’t see a trend to “increased purity” when I hear Jesus say things like “well, yeah, ideally it would be a no-divorcing world but people are people, God knows, so God has loosened things up and given folks something a bit more workable”. Stopping a crowd from stoning a woman accused of a sexual sin is also not in a direction of tightening up sexual morality.
I am aware that Paul, and writers in the name of Paul, take a harder line on sexual behaviour and gender roles later, at a time when the early church was working out its relations (ha) with surrounding society …which makes me think “trends” aren’t always straight lines so much as cycles up down and around in response to circumstances and different agendas.
Categories of “purity” also arbitrary and wording sometimes problematic. “Against nature” is a loaded term, and misleading given that homosexual behaviour does appear in “nature”. Also a bit of a disconnect between the yardstick of procreativity as part of sexual purity mandate and the increasing prohibition on polygamy – if you want to maximize the former, “nature” would suggest polygamy’s a great way to get there. Unless there is some other value at work…
A broader “trend” of Scripture from first creation is God increasingly reaching out to people and expanding the groups to be included. What Christianity has historically done since is often something else again, of course. (Applause to Tiggy and friends – if I weren’t across the pond I’d sign on!)
thanks for the clear thinking JenniferS, I think we imagine a trajectory because we feel pulled in different directions, and the current modern thinking we are pulled by is an evolutionary psychology world-view, whereby we are ‘saved’ by our ability to ‘evolve and move forward’ (the blind faith in this world-view, is that evolving will be progressive).
> JENNIFER: For example, I don’t see a trend to “increased purity” when I hear Jesus
First, we are looking at the whole NT, not just the words of Jesus, but I take issue with what you don’t hear, and your choice of scriptures. For example:
1. Jesus’ increased the condemnation of adultery to the point of lustful thoughts
2. Jesus’ clear definition of marriage as ONE MAN, and ONE WOMAN, referring back to the created order.
Also, there should be little argument that Paul’s views of sexuality were as narrowing as it could be, almost to the point of recommending celibacy.
>> JENNIFER: “Against nature” is a loaded term, and misleading given that homosexual behaviour does appear in “nature”
Actually, there are probably three possible definitions for ‘against nature’
One is ‘against what we see in nature,’ Obviously, we see homosexuality (as well as incest and infanticide) in nature, so what exists in nature is generally NOT used as a guide to morality, esp. by Biblical writers who understood that all of nature is under the curse.
The second, as argued by many homosexual apologists, is ‘against their nature,’ i.e. those engaging in gay sex who are actually straight. Unfortunately, I don’t think the original language or the context really support that view, despite the cultural context used to frame it that way (temple prostitution and Roman pederasty). As you may know, there is no mention of multiple partners or orgies, nor of temples (though there is of idolatry), and no boys are involved here – just two men or women burning in their lust for one another.
Additionally, some will focus on the term ‘lust’ saying that pure love between gays is not condemned here, only lust. However, Biblical Judaism knows of no support for any kind of approved gay relationship, so it is doubtful that Paul is referring to such a thing. Interestingly, some gay apologists claim that, since homo orientation was not known in Paul’s day, Paul could not have condemned it. But if that is the case, then he is CERTAINLY condemning homosexuality here, since his only conception of hx would have been lust-driven anyway.
The more probable meaning, is ‘against the ideal design’ – that is, a malformation of proper functioning, which is arguably how Paul is using that phrase.
>> JENNIFER: Also a bit of a disconnect between the yardstick of procreativity as part of sexual purity mandate and the increasing prohibition on polygamy – if you want to maximize the former, “nature” would suggest polygamy’s a great way to get there.
I’m not sure if i totally get your point, but i think this supports my point – if Paul (and Jesus) condemn or disallow polygamy, the fact that we see the desire for it in nature (in human nature too!) means that ‘in nature’ is not what Paul would have used when using the term ‘against nature’ to condemn something as ‘unnatural.’
>> JENNIFER: A broader “trend” of Scripture from first creation is God increasingly reaching out to people and expanding the groups to be included.
I agree that inclusion of people is part of the gospel trajectory, but not increased acceptance of what is considered sinful. Jesus recommended that we be more pure than the pharisees, i.e. outwardly AND inwardly. Inclusion of persons should not be confused with acceptance of our un-sanctified, unrenewed passions, lusts, ambitions, and attitudes of the heart, into which I would say that hx is included.
dgs… “our un-sanctified, unrenewed passions, lusts, ambitions, and attitudes of the heart, into which I would say that hx is included.”
would you? i wouldn’t. i believe that’s nonsense and i don’t believe you know very much about what it means to be gay. i believe also you are putting cartoon 1099 in to practise.
I know we all have sinful passions of the flesh, and that sexual appetites are easily corrupted and something that we all must watch in ourselves. I understand that homosexuality is more than just a sexual lust, but a self-concept, a deeply rooted emotional preference for romantic and sexual bonding with one’s own gender (in my view, due to poorly developed gender identity development, as well as perhaps biological factors), but I still maintain that such things are against nature. At the very least, I think those who want to make hx compatible with the scriptures (and nature) are fooling themselves.
The “… society will never move forward and improve.” thing largely depends on what the definitions of forward and improve have been chosen to be.
BTW, perhaps my hermeneutic is too narrow and I am unnessecarily restricting the scriptures, but perhaps I should be free enough to justify slavery, abortion, and bestiality too? I mean, Jesus never condemned the latter. Perhaps you need a cartoon prompting the other abuse – justifying our pet sins using scripture, or asking “whom would Jesus abort?” I seriously want a bumper sticker with the latter.
true forrest. my hope is we try to make the best choices to bring about a future world where people aren’t constantly at war and we look after our planet and one another.
dgs… “I think those who want to make hx compatible with the scriptures (and nature) are fooling themselves.” indeed you do dgs, you’ve made that clear on many occasions. i am a fool, i cannot deny that.
>> FORREST: The “… society will never move forward and improve.” thing largely depends on what the definitions of forward and improve have been chosen to be.
Well said. Progress should be towards the two poles of truth and love. As it is said
Love without truth is powerless sentimentality
Truth without love is brutality.
That is, if our love excuses lack of virtue and perversion, there is no power to positively save people from the very real power of sin and personal and corporate darkness. And of course, we are all familiar with truth without love – in fact, I am sure some of you perceive me to be acting in that manner.
Well, we can be a fool for Jesus, and that is good. Or we can be a fool for deception, in which case God will kindly bring ‘the rod of correction to the back of the fool.”
Given the effects of the fall in Eden, effects which are likely almost infinite beyond our comprehension, it is quite logical, at least to me, for one of the effects to be that some people are born homosexual. After all, people are born with a hermaphrodite body. Which then brings up the thing of feeling one’s self to be in the wrong gender of body: that could also be very much a real thing and an effect of the fall
>> FORREST: After all, people are born with a hermaphrodite body. Which then brings up the thing of feeling one’s self to be in the wrong gender of body: that could also be very much a real thing and an effect of the fall
And if so, do we treat it the same as other defects? With surgery and drugs and therapy? I mean, don’t trans sexuals treat their problem with therapy and hormones?
Kind of tangential but kind of connected because of this thought, “In some interpretaions of Genesis, the primal Adam was a hermaphrodite, and the cleaving of this original person into male and female is evidence of the Fall. ”
(will this thing let url be in a comment?
HOME :: CHAPTER 14 (sex determination) :: 14.5 FORMS OF HERMAPHRODITISM :: HUMAN HERMAPHRODITES
PREVIOUS :: NEXT
Human Hermaphrodites
From Book
Developmental Biology, Ninth Edition
Scott F. Gilbert
© 2010
711 pages, 699 illustrations
casebound
From biology textbook book mentioned above
“In the 1990s, some of the individuals who were surgically assigned their sex founded the Intersex Society of America (ISNA) and lobbied to speak to physicians to have them change their usual practice of surgically amending nature. Their arguments convinced many physicians that having a baby of ambiguous sex was not a medical emergency, that interventions should be reversible, and that time should be taken to discuss these issues with parents and patients with such conditions. Some physicians have argued that having a child with ambiguous genitalia is an emergency to the parents of such a child who want to know what sex their child is and to tell their friends and relatives that they have either a girl or a boy. The arguments of the ISNA group are summarized in an article by Alice D. Dreger and in presentations comparing surgical intervention with what they hope will be a patient-centered therapy approach.”
Don’t think much of society, do they,
“It was thought that society could not deal with people who were not either one or the other sex. (And, as Dreger demonstrates, this was stated explicitly by several physicians). “
“Hermaphroditism occurs rarely in human populations, and the view that it is pathological (i.e., a disease state) is changing.”
dgs… “but perhaps I should be free enough to justify slavery, abortion, and bestiality too?”… that’s silly.
and re. “if our love excuses lack of virtue and perversion, there is no power to positively save people from the very real power of sin and personal and corporate darkness.” i’m guessing you don’t mean the darkness of having a “rod” taken to my back for disagreeing with you. i’m beginning to understand what you might mean by ‘love’ and ‘kindly’.
forrest… i think i set it to allow one url. let me know if you have a problem.
One more quote on the hermaphrodite tangent and then I’m dropping the tangent.
“Anne Fausto-Sterling (1993, 2000) and Alice D. Dreger (1998) have written eloquently about the problems of hermaphroditism. Often, if not always, she claims, the problems are those of a society that insists on one sex per body and that is uncomfortable with the concept of hermaphrodites. The hermaphrodites, themselves, seem rather well adjusted. Indeed, our language does not recognize any sexual system except that of dualism, and one can’t even write about the experiences of hermaphrodites without using phrases such as (s)he or his/her. “
Rod of Correction? Well, it looks like the hitting has started. Much as I’d love to stay for “the stick” (love that t-shirt, Jon!) I’m going to stop following this thread. I trust that those who are convinced God’s Word makes a good club to use on GLBTQ folks will continue to use it as such.
Meanwhile, I do encourage anyone interested in reconciling a Biblical faith with full acceptance of people regardless of sexual orientation to seek out the resources and studies that exist to support that position – they are out there, and they are certainly a way for society to MOVE FORWARD and IMPROVE (less killing and hating of neighbours!). : )
>> FORREST: Don’t think much of society, do they, ” It was thought that society could not deal with people who were not either one or the other sex. ”
I think they were right. But it does beg the question – is it fair to put hermaphrodites into the same argument as those who have no issues with their genitalia, but only an inner orientation that they perceive as atypical?
I mean, perhaps there is a spectrum of biological involvement for the LGBT (though the well done Australian twin studies show very little genetic determinism of gay orientation), but since the majority influence is environmental (as far as we know now), perhaps arguments that pertain to hermaphrodites can not be applied to LGBT.
Re: ” is it fair to put hermaphrodites into the same argument as those who have no issues with their genitalia, but only an inner orientation that they perceive as atypical?”
“… and in the early 1900s, knowledge of the “true” sex of a person was thought to be critical to prevent inadvertent homosexual relations.”
BTW, I find it interesting that celibate gay Christians quote the following verse as applying to them:
Mt. 19:12
Some are born as eunuchs, some have been made eunuchs by others, and some choose not to marry for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.
forrest… i find scientific discovery fascinating, but i’m afraid there will always be those who will refuse to believe that which is based on evidence. one day, were it to be proved that being gay is purely genetic and that to be a hermaphrodite is perfectly within the pattern of life, there would still be those ready to bash them to within an inch of their life with a big black bible… sadly.
i think those creatures who at a moments notice can change to become the opposite sex when there just aren’t enough of the other to go around are cool. off the point, i know, but darned cool
>> FORREST: “… and in the early 1900s, knowledge of the “true” sex of a person was thought to be critical to prevent inadvertent homosexual relations.”
For the sake of argument, let’s say that a hermaphrodite actually had hidden biology (in the brain or organs or genes) that actually made them lean one way or the other, but we chose to deactivate the wrong set of organs.
jennifers… i’ll join you and leave this thread too as these discussions always lead nowhere. except that i have a sore back now.
and yes, there are loads of very good resources out there. i’ll see if i can’t make some links on this site.
On the “For the sake of argument,… but we chose to deactivate the wrong set of organs.
“thing, look about 10 or 11 comments back, for “February 9, 2013 at 12:20 am”.
Did you miss the fact that I said the Lord is the 1 who brings such correction? How fascinating that you would interpret that as me wanting to hit you.
It also appears that you find the Lord’s correction as something that isn’t kind. Have you not heard the scripture that says do not despise the chastening up the Lord for those who he loves he chastens?
When you read the rod of correction is for the back of the fool, are you reading it like a literalist fundamentalist instead of hearing it as a metaphor for the fact the Gods correction can be stern? God’s correction most certainly is kind. Especially when we are hardened fools against his truth.
Anyway, That love without truth is powerless to deliver people from darkness It’s really jus It’s really just sentimentality.
And just to be clear, I am not calling you a hard and full. We have all got places where we are hardened and foolish, and cannot receive wisdom. In those cases, I believe God does not discard us, but lovingly brings the rod of correction to break us, break up those hardened places so that we can be saved.
Spoiled by speech to text. I said hardened fool.
Re: “It also appears that you find the Lord’s correction as something that isn’t kind. Have you not heard the scripture that says do not despise the chastening up the Lord for those who he loves he chastens?”
You don’t know jack shit about what I find. Get off your high horse about what conclusions you draw about me.
dg, I’ve had my fill of you, drop dead and go to hell you fucking prick.
I don’t usually come here any more because I don’t want to have to read his offensive comments. He doesn’t understand our culture and how people here find the things he says sickening and backward. He must be very thick-skinned or he’d realise and piss off, especially as he’s got no hope of convincing any of us towards his way of thinking and is just wasting his time here.
I certainly am thick skinned. While I hold no animus against you, you obviously are unable to discuss such issues with any rationality. I leave you to your sentimentality and positive thoughts. However, I also write for those who also enjoy Jon’s work, but who are more committed to reason and the scriptures. You are not the only one here, even if the majority in this community may think like you. I may be wasting my time on some, but the reactions i get here are an education in themselves. I am disappointed that my ‘style’ gets such poor results here, so I’ll consider that. However, I may have to dust off my feet regarding some like Tiggy.
Fuck me. Groundhog day.
Just what the hell do you think you’re doing here, you patronising twat? I don’t bother to engage with you because you’re a dickhead who will probably have changed his mind in a few years time when he grows up. Then you’ll look back and see what an absolute arsehole you were. Dust off your feet a nd piss off.
Since the whole question of human sexuality and gender is very complex, it behoves us to tread warily, gently and graciously when we make pronouncements on the issue – from whichever perspective we do that.
Daniel – I think the assumption you seem to find so unjust and mystifying might spring from the fact that you do tend to speak and argue in a manner which suggests that you see yourself as one whose God-given mission it is to confront others with their errors of interpretation and faults of understanding. So – whether or not it was what you meant – I guess you should perhaps not be too surprised if people make a link between your not infrequent modus operandi and your comment that the fool must expect God to bring down ‘the rod of correction’ on their backs.
whilst I admit to tending to pick & choose which comments I read, and avoid comments much longer that a couple of sentences. I do value the presence of this blog, and it’s acceptance of dilemma’s.
it is at the end of the day useful to have a place where people can own their own views, and express their faith. I do hope people will find a way to continue to discuss stuff
I do wish it were possible for people to simply put their own point of view across without trying to point fault in other peoples arguments to make their point. State your belief, interpretation, understanding of a given without saying others are wrong. It’s one thing that has made me not engage with this conversation.
yep, spot on bigdaddywhale, it’s a blog not a pulpit, respect to all, come to think of it, arn’t pulpit’s are a place for sharing love & respect?
subo, the problem that I have with your statement, and that of many who unfairly attack my motives and call me names, is that you left out one thing – TRUTH. Not just love and respect. As I said, love without truth is powerless sentiment.
>> PAT: I think the assumption you seem to find so unjust and mystifying might spring from the fact that you do tend to speak and argue in a manner which suggests that you see yourself as one whose God-given mission it is to confront others with their errors of interpretation and faults of understanding
Pat, thanks for your kind reply. However, where I come from, this is called debate, or reasoned argument. There’s no implicit value judgement, just a desire to avoid sentimental interpretation of scripture, and to use reason to make one’s case. I find little audience here for such a thing – when I claim that scripture should be understood a certain way, I am not speaking from my own authority, but from that of reason – now, you may find fault with my reasoning, that is what I am looking to engage on – not, instead, attacks on my motives, character, etc.
It is heartening to see that you, and often Jon, show such virtue. I am disappointed that so many supposed Christians feel free to engage in such unchristian language and hateful rejoinders, fooling themselves into thinking that they are in any way mature.
Hey everyone, dgsinclair has TRUTH on his side. And REASON!
Not a chance! The TRUTH is that we do not even know whether there is a God. And if there is, we do not know if he is the Judeo-Christian one. That, my friends, is the TRUTH.
So anyone who wants to by-pass even these fundamental unknowns and then go on to not only claim to KNOW the TRUTH about God’s mind, but also to beat you around the head with their viewpoint is not being honest with you. And they are not even being honest with themselves.
REASON will lead most people to quickly realise that faith is a personal experience that fits with an individual’s own needs and experiences. That is why there are so many different strands of individual religions… including those within Christianity, as we are seeing. It is therefore not reasonable, nor is it truthful (in any objective sense) to say to anyone “No, God is not like that, he is like THIS!”.
Can we just have some real honesty and real TRUTH please?
the truth, JF, is we are magically wonderful creatures, – celebrity spotting is a buz allright, but thinking of those you love, the cool folk on ASBO, and all the special people who’ve blessed your life, gives such a deep warm happy buz – because we really are awesome
I so hope the folk who’ve got cheesed off with the vibe on this trail, won’t stay away for long, as have got to feel I know asbo folk & start looking out for peeps
& just to wish everyone a little 14/2 bliss
don’t worry dgsinclair, about ‘the problem that I have with your statement, and that of many who unfairly attack my motives and call me names’, God will blow you away with bliss one day, just keep holding out and waitin on Him man. we are made to be overwhelmed by God’s delight in us,
Subo, sounds like you’ve been ‘toking the ghost’ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKUrUUvpMxE
John, are you a bible believing Christian? what is your view on the bible and its role in your life and in society?
dawn… hey there. sorry, i’m no longer commenting on this thread… by all means ask me on another thread if the question troubles you.
Interesting thread, even if somewhat volatile in places, pity I’ve only just got back to this site after it went quiet some months ago. So I don’t suppose the following thought will get read. Still, I think it worth posting (else I wouldn’t
Faith is an unreliable process for discovering the truth.
Just a thought.
What is faith?
Faith is trusting in and acting on information you can not immediately confirm, based on the historic trustworthiness of a person. So if you’ve told me the truth repeatedly about things which I have confirmed as true, when you tell me something that I can not immediately confirm, I trust you and act on that information. That’s one way to look at it – warranted trust in another.
@dgsinclair
Yes, the bottom line is, as you say, if you want to know if something is true you have to confirm it by other means. You cannot use faith alone to decide, by definition.
Just reread this bit…
“That’s one way to look at it – warranted trust in another.”
…if by “warranted trust in another” you mean you’re guaranteed to have been told the truth then I disagree. It does not matter how many times someone’s told you the truth, next time they could be telling you a non truth, either on purpose or by mistake.
However, if we lived only by what we can immediately confirm or understand, we will live a very limited life. Finding trusted sources and exercising faith in them can allow us to access and apply real truth before we understand or confirm them. In real life, we practice this in many ways, like trusting the doctor or the mechanic even though we don’t understand the inner workings. In reality, faith is a quite sensible way to operate. However it is not risk-free.
Indeed, we trust the doctor and mechanic, as they have no reason to deceive us. In fact they have good reason to get things right – their reputations depend on it. If they get things wrong and we suffer they suffer too (loss of custom/legal action/etc), so it’s not open ended trust. Such trust (or faith if you like) is okay for day to day living (sensible way to operate, as you put it), but I don’t think it a sensible process for discovering truths about this universe, and that’s what my original statement alludes to. So let me get back to that.
My original statement was “Faith is an unreliable process for discovering the truth”, which I claim is true (not sure if you agree), simply because faith never asks questions.
I love symmetry, so love the fact that a reliable way to discover truth is to use doubt, which is the opposite of faith. We have further symmetry in that you wouldn’t use doubt on a day to day basis, you’d be forever procrastinating. But when it comes to things you need to be sure of there’s no doubt you cannot beat doubt. Or perhaps I should say, put your faith in doubt?
I guess it hinges on how YOU define faith. The way I define it, it is faith in a personal entity or resource created by one (like a book of wisdom). Or by trusting in science that you don’t completely understand. This is not to say that we fail to try to understand things, but that is not necessary for us to act on an idea that comes from a trusted source. This is why Augustine coined the phrase “faith seeking understanding.” We never stop testing ideas, but we don’t hang around waiting for full understanding first.
The type of faith you are describing is a sick kind, one that many religious people employ, and the one type that critics of faith like to present. This ‘blind faith,’ which relies only on an appeal to authority, is not healthy. However, there are much healthier models of faith that incorporate reason (“reasonable faith”), wisdom gathered over time (tradition), and experience, while maintaining a place for an authority like scripture. Check out my articles on the Wesleyan Quadrangle at http://www.wholereason.com/2011/01/the-wesleyan-quadrangle.html.
Cheers.
BTW, I love symmetry also – in theological circles, this is sometimes called ‘truths in tension’ – I prefer my own phrase, truth paradoxes. Many ideas appear in diads, but some are in triads or more. Common diads are love and truth, mercy and justice, predestination and free will. In my article mentioned above, I take the three subservient faculties (reason, experience, tradition) and examine them in diads, each paired with scripture. The reason I mention this is that, while doubt and truth may be in a diad, that does not prevent either from being part of another diad – so excluding faith (which itself is also in a diad with doubt) from reason is not a reasonable move just because you can pair truth with doubt.
BTW, common triads include faith/hope/love, body/soul/spirit, gas/liquid/solid, father/son/spirit, self/others/god, hook/line/sinker, good/bad/ugly, sex/drugs/rockandroll
Nice post (the first of your last three). That, together with the link, clarified things, thanks. I think I was slowly getting to understand your approach, but it was a slow process, no doubt made slower by my own prejudices regards how most people of faith seem to use faith. This discussion has reminded me that I have encountered this point of view (it’s not blind faith, it’s reasoned faith) once before. I’ll endeavour to keep it in mind for future debates.
Mind you, I’ll not be changing my maxim to “Blind faith is an unreliable process for discovering the truth”, it’s just not got the same punch. I may well add a new one, “put your faith in doubt” or “have faith in doubt”, hmm, needs more work I think.
Thanks for the replies, and your patience.
Faith is a tool to get you to a defined place (i.e. to help you believe something you want to believe). Reason is a basis for believing that to which the objective evidence points .
@JF: ” help you believe something you want to believe”
I’m not sure what you mean by, “help you believe something you want to believe”.
I can understand “wanting something to be true”, is that what you mean?
Ideally, I only want to believe things that are true, but I doubt we can ever be 100% sure of anything (we can be sure of that:-)). So, I only believe things there is credible evidence for. If there’s not credible evidence for, or against, then I have to settle for saying I don’t know. Having said that, there may be situations where I have insufficient information to decide the best course of action, yet have to act there and then. All I can do in such a situations is guess.
TGF, you are right about needing credible, though always incomplete evidence. This, btw, is part of the underpinning of J. Warner Wallace’s new book, Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels – as a self-proclaimed ‘evidentialist,’ he is often attacked by presuppositionalists and others that prefer the appeal to authority for claims of metaphysical truths, but he approaches the claims of scripture like he would a homicide investigation. It’s a novel and useful approach, and I dig him. He has a podcast, and a book, here are the links. Peace to you!
Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels: J. Warner Wallace, Lee Strobel: 9781434704696: Amazon.com: Books
http://pleaseconvinceme.com/
Just for the record fides quaerens intellectum was actually Anselm, not Augustine
THanks Pat.