|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: You're false. I'm true.
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
In the Hell thread called ‘I repent …’, a link was posted to this video clip, to general opprobrium.
I questioned whether the criticism was valid, given that the preacher was apparently quite sincere (about which there was agreement) and that the response in the congregation was ostensibly positive. It seems the negative reaction from Shipmates was based primarily on their personal taste being offended by the preacher’s style.
I’d like to look a bit more closely at this, as it touches on a particular issue about religious faith that I’ve never seen satisfactorily resolved.
It seems hypocritical to me that adherents of one religious faith should dismiss that of others on the basis that they think it false, when their faith is founded on exactly the same basis. That’s okay though. Religious people can be hypocrites. No earthquake here.
But how can a person uphold their faith as true with any kind of intellectual honesty when they dismiss that of others, similarly based, as false? To do so brings all religion down to the same denominator, right? If it’s just a question of asserting that all other religions are de facto false, and yours is a priori true, how do you refute their contrary assertion with any sort of integrity?
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211
|
Posted
Fair cop.
But I don't think hypocrisy is the issue here.
Christians are not hypocrites for sincerely believing that Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life - this is what He claimed for Himself, we didn't just make it up - and for sincerely believing that other faiths are wrong, because Jesus (not us) is right. Devout Jews are not being hypocrites for being unable to accept this claim. Devout Muslims are not being hypocrites for sincerely believing that it's Mohammed who had the last word.
Inconsistency, and a refusal to think things through, seem more apt charges than the one of hypocrisy. On this particular issue at least. I am not denying that religious folk of all stripes can be hypocritical.
I would happily be a universalist and believe that all paths lead to the same God, were it not for what the Founder of my faith actually said ...
(As for that YT video ... eww. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) )
--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien
Posts: 545 | From: The Shire | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
But how can a person uphold their faith as true with any kind of intellectual honesty when they dismiss that of others, similarly based, as false? To do so brings all religion down to the same denominator, right?
I agree.
All faiths have some of the truth, none has The Truth. In fact, I would say that all faiths (and none) have some of the truth as so much sense is spoken by atheists too.
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
It's a bit like the mating of hedgehogs, Yorick. If concern for defence of their sensitive areas was more important than the possibility of fruitfulness, then there wouldn't be much future for hedgehogs.
Seriously, I don't think intransigence has much of a future. But then, in terms of type, I'm much more a "Barnabas" (both here and IRL) than I am a "Paul". I'd have taken John Mark along.
Some overlapping categories here. I've got convictions too. In my understanding, which comes from the Bible, the work of conviction of sin and of teaching us all things is primarily a spiritual work. It is the sovereign province of the Spirit of God.
But I think the issue is always how do we apply those convictions both to our own lives and how we behave towards others who have different convictions?
I start from the different, obvious, starting place, that we are both human. So it's good to cut one another a lot of slack when talking about the things we most hold dear. Recognise that other "hedgehogs" have "sensitive parts" too.
That way, after some confidence and trust has been built, then it's possible to offer the convictions you hold most dear, which you live by and would die by, on an open hand. And leave the rest to the work of the Spirit of God, in whose sovereign role I place trust.
When it comes to convictions, we're all just messengers really. A good truth can be damaged by a bad delivery. A bad truth can be made more credible by a good delivery. So it isn't all about good delivery. But ultimately, according to my understanding, the work of teaching and conviction is an inner work, involving a person and God.
Offered on an open hand to another hedgehog.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
But how can a person uphold their faith as true with any kind of intellectual honesty when they dismiss that of others, similarly based, as false? To do so brings all religion down to the same denominator, right? If it’s just a question of asserting that all other religions are de facto false, and yours is a priori true, how do you refute their contrary assertion with any sort of integrity?
I think at a certain level, Christianity springs from historical events which either did or did not occur, in a sense which other faiths do not share (AIUI). IMO, Christianity stands or falls on the historical fact or fiction of the resurrection of the man known as Jesus Christ. The likelihood of this event being fact, not fiction, can be probed by reasoning and enquiry, at least to a certain extent.
This process of historical enquiry is more difficult with other faiths, it seems to me, as they are much more strongly based on ancient communication between god / gods and humans which you either accept as valid or reject as fantasy, power trip, hallucination or whatever. Of course, Christianity has this divine-human communication too but it also has the claimed historical, miraculous events around Jesus, culminating in his physical resurrection.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211
|
Posted
![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif) (Barnabas's post.)
A person of deep religious conviction should not be obnoxious about their convictions.
Also: you can respect the person whilst still disagreeing with an idea or a belief. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
There are some (many) issues on which I would happily work alongside people of different faiths.
--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien
Posts: 545 | From: The Shire | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
I have a huge deal of respect for that position, B62. Thank you.
I feel the intellectual dishonesty isn’t in upholding exclusive belief, but in dismissing the exclusive beliefs of others when those are the same way based. In other words, it may be valid to believe you’re exclusively right, but it is invalid to deny others similar exclusivity in their opposing truth claim. And that’s not just hypocrisy; it’s illogical nonsense that undermines all truth claims so based.
Trouble is, you can’t sidestep the paradox with universalism. How can you meaningfully permit the validity of truth claims that directly contradict yours?
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
I would happily be a universalist and believe that all paths lead to the same God, were it not for what the Founder of my faith actually said ...
I think it would be more correct to say, 'what people believe he said.'
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
agree.
All faiths have some of the truth, none has The Truth. In fact, I would say that all faiths (and none) have some of the truth as so much sense is spoken by atheists too.
I think I'd want to qualify this a bit, speaking for myself. I'm a Christian because, AFAICS, Christianity (as I've come to understand through my own upbringing, experience and tradition - I wouldn't to claim my understanding of Christianity the whole of it) is true for me and more true (if that's possible) than other faiths/religions/atheism. I don't really know how to make that more specific, because I don't mean it necessarily in an "objective" sense: I haven't (for example) sat down and compared the different claims, histories etc of different religions to draw conclusions about which way I should follow.
It's a strange mixture of the subjective and objective: subjective in the sense that I've come to this as much on the basis of my own life and experience and God's worked through that and led shown Himself to me in particular ways; but also objective in the sense that unless I want to tie myself in knots, I have to live as if this is (for now) objective truth. My hope is that this will be vindicated at The End, whenever and however that may come.
But, while Christianity is "the truth" for me, I don't for a moment suppose that that entails me using language like "false religion" to describe people of other religions, or even other Christian traditions. That word "false" suggests (to me) deliberately, knowingly wrong; something that is created to mislead or deceive. I hope I would approach someone from another faith on the basis that they've come sincerely to that position in the same way that I've come to that position myself. We can take things from there...
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
I would happily be a universalist and believe that all paths lead to the same God, were it not for what the Founder of my faith actually said ...
I think it would be more correct to say, 'what people believe he said.'
More accurate still "what I think the founder of my faith meant when he was reported as saying..."
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
I wonder whether religiousleaders realise that if they acknowledge the truth claims of other faiths, they would really be on too shaky ground themselves?
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Just a paradox, Yorick. Or, if you like, another paradox.
You've heard it from me before, and I think this is a slightly modified version of it, but here is Montaigne, commenting on witch hunts.
"After all, it is rating one's own convictions at a very high price to roast a man alive on the strength of them".
Well, of course, some folks have this conviction that God is actually going to do quite a lot of "roasting alive", so as they see it, we should "go in hard" for the sake of their immortal souls. If indeed God is going to do some eternal roasting, and if I think that someone else is in danger of that, then shouldn't I say something?
For me, there is a kind of daftness in that approach. Montaigne is right. Not all who are God's people are in the church, and not all in the church are God's people. St Augustine said that. I don't second guess God when it comes to eternal judgment.
Besides, its a daft way to begin any dialogue with a stranger who has different convictions. Seems likely to produce a conviction in that stranger that there is something up with the speaker.
But as I say, I'm a Barnabas type. I cuddle to myself the self-aware observation from Luis Palau that "evangelists are dumb". He thinks they are called to be dumb, to preach for a decision by simple presentations. But we are at one in believing whether by public preaching or private dialogue that conviction is the work of the Spirit of God.
So I let "Pauls" be "Pauls", while I get on with being the best kind of "Barnabas" I can be.
There's an element of different strokes for different folks, Yorick, when confronting that paradox.
[ 28. March 2013, 10:27: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
I'm a Christian because, AFAICS, Christianity ... is true for me and more true (if that's possible) than other faiths/religions/atheism.
Myeah. May I ask if you were brought up in a Japanese culture in which Shinto was a strong influence in your upbringing? Or in Islamic Palestine?
No, I presume you were brought up in a Christian culture, and I therefore suppose your inclination to believe in the ‘higher truth’ of Christianity is the arbitrary consequence of that, nothing more, nothing less.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
As a card-carrying post-modernist, I tend to avoid words like 'truth'. I don't know what the truth is, and I don't see how I could know that. I find that Christianity works for me, so it is a kind of pragmatic thing, but I can see that other religions work for other people. That's about as far as I can take it.
One of the interesting aspects of this approach, is that science does not claim to be after the truth, contrary to the views of some naive realists. So truth seems to be forever out of our grasp. Relax, let the tension leave your body, and breathe.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
I'm a Christian because, AFAICS, Christianity ... is true for me and more true (if that's possible) than other faiths/religions/atheism.
Myeah. May I ask if you were brought up in a Japanese culture in which Shinto was a strong influence in your upbringing? Or in Islamic Palestine?
No, I presume you were brought up in a Christian culture, and I therefore suppose your inclination to believe in the ‘higher truth’ of Christianity is the arbitrary consequence of that, nothing more, nothing less.
You may be right (and actually I was hoping my post was woolly enough to have left that possibility open). I do sometimes wonder what would've happened if I'd been brought up in a Muslim, or Shinto or Hindu or whatever culture.
That said, I'm not sure it's entirely that. I can't prove it or anything, which is why I'd never want to ascribe anything other than sincerity to those who follow other faiths (unless there's good cause to believe they're being deceptive); but I do believe God had a hand in leading me to where I am now. Perhaps He did the same to those of other faiths as well through their cultures - I really don't know, I can only speak for me.
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
I would happily be a universalist and believe that all paths lead to the same God, were it not for what the Founder of my faith actually said ...
I think it would be more correct to say, 'what people believe he said.'
More accurate still "what I think the founder of my faith meant when he was reported as saying..."
Or even "What I interpret my church leadership as saying they think the founder of my faith meant when he was reported as saying..."
(Whenever I read the title of this thread, my mind wants to add "It bounces off me and sticks to you")
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
Well, this is all very reassuring, but does nobody here believe their religious faith is exclusively true whilst that of others is untrue?
Where’s a Roman Catholic when you need one?
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
(As for that YT video ... eww. )
Quite...
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Well, this is all very reassuring, but does nobody here believe their religious faith is exclusively true whilst that of others is untrue?
I think you might be sampling from a biased population.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I feel the intellectual dishonesty isn’t in upholding exclusive belief, but in dismissing the exclusive beliefs of others when those are the same way based. In other words, it may be valid to believe you’re exclusively right, but it is invalid to deny others similar exclusivity in their opposing truth claim. And that’s not just hypocrisy; it’s illogical nonsense that undermines all truth claims so based.
Trouble is, you can’t sidestep the paradox with universalism. How can you meaningfully permit the validity of truth claims that directly contradict yours?
That's all your feelings. Presumably people who hold exclusive beliefs feel differently. So the above beliefs and feelings have no more basis than the beliefs you're criticising.
So you're sawing off the branch you're sitting on. If you're right then you're wrong, and if you're wrong then you're wrong. Either way, one of your fingers is pointing at the Roman Catholics and three are pointing back at you.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Well, Yorick, I think the belief that the Spirit of God is sovereign over teaching and conviction is an exclusive truth.
I mean, for example, it excludes all those who think that the Spirit of God is not a real Person. If you believe, for example, that no such process of inner conviction is part of the Divine economy, or that there is no Divine Person in charge of it, then you're not likely to think much of an approach based on that truth.
Conversely, when I say that the Spirit of God is the ultimate guardian of Truth both within the church and outside it, I am making a huge claim. The fact that my personal application of it (and those who agree with me that it's the best for them) may be seen as more communitaire, less offensive, than some of the other approaches adopted is a kind of tick in a box for peaceful coexistence. But that doesn't really take away from the fact that it is a huge, exclusive claim.
I think you conflate exclusive claims with "in yer face".
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
That's all your feelings. Presumably people who hold exclusive beliefs feel differently.
So? I don't think this means I'm sawing off my branch, Dafyd. I'm simply asking those who hold exclusive beliefs to explain how they dismiss the opposing exclusive beliefs of others.
[ 28. March 2013, 11:46: Message edited by: Yorick ]
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Well, this is all very reassuring, but does nobody here believe their religious faith is exclusively true whilst that of others is untrue?
Where’s a Roman Catholic when you need one?
Well, I did, actually. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
This seemed clear enough to the folks all too keen to tell me I'm only hearing 'Chinese whispers' where the words of Jesus are concerned ...
--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien
Posts: 545 | From: The Shire | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Well, this is all very reassuring, but does nobody here believe their religious faith is exclusively true whilst that of others is untrue?
Where’s a Roman Catholic when you need one?
Er ... *puts up hand*
This seemed clear enough to the folks keen to tell me I'm only hearing 'Chinese whispers' where the words of Jesus are concerned ...
--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien
Posts: 545 | From: The Shire | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Well, this is all very reassuring, but does nobody here believe their religious faith is exclusively true whilst that of others is untrue?
Where’s a Roman Catholic when you need one?
See how the Satanic creed of relativism is eating into men's souls, Yorick? And the women's. Even as I speak, Beelzebub and his chthonic minions are lurking in every class-room, every university seminar room, hoping to see an increase in the 'I don't knows', which are uttered. Is this the pathway to hell, that I don't know the truth? I don't know.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ButchCassidy
Shipmate
# 11147
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Well, this is all very reassuring, but does nobody here believe their religious faith is exclusively true whilst that of others is untrue?
Where’s a Roman Catholic when you need one?
Actually, upthread South Coast Kevin made a very important point re historical fact of the Resurrection, which I would agree with, and which leads me to a broadly exclusivist view. IE, if Jesus really physically did rise from the dead, Islam, whatever excellent and true things it otherwise says about God, ultimately fails in at least half of its creed ("There is one god", yes, though Jesus is God, "and mohammed is his prophet", not if Jesus really did rise from the dead he ain't). If Xianity is left out of the equation, I think some of the (eastern?) religions could reach a relativist understanding with each other. Xianity however forces one to make a choice.
Posts: 104 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Well, this is all very reassuring, but does nobody here believe their religious faith is exclusively true whilst that of others is untrue?
Where’s a Roman Catholic when you need one?
Er ... *puts up hand*
This seemed clear enough to the folks keen to tell me I'm only hearing 'Chinese whispers' where the words of Jesus are concerned ...
Well, you might be, or might not be - as Captain Rum said to Lord Blackadder - "Opinion's divoided!" but consider this. John said that Jesus said lots of things and he didn't write most of them down. So he must have picked the statements he did pick with care. When John was writing his gospel, what was the pressing issue that might have led him to include the "I am the way" passage? Was it the question of other religions? Probably not; if John's audience was mostly Jewish, as the early church was (and certainly Jesus' audience, if he did say the things attributed to him here, was!) then the thought of the Roman or Greek gods being anything more than futile idols would probably never occur to them. They didn't need a saying of Jesus to shore that up. However, there was by all accounts a bit of a revolving door between Christianity and mainstream Judaism, and John's concern here may have been people going back through it into mainstream Judaism. So the thrust of the saying then might be an encouraging "No, I really am the way, don't go back!" - from what I can gather, John's gospel dates to a period when Christianity and Judaism were parting company, so that the former was beginning to be seen as a religion in its own right rather than as a fringe sect within the latter, so a very significant time for that message.
Possibly.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
quote:
but does nobody here believe their religious faith is exclusively true whilst that of others is untrue?
Where’s a Roman Catholic when you need one?
Please, please, don't put all of us RCs into the same exclusivist bag! I for one am firmly, and happily, trinitarian inclusivist -or rather, what I would sign is quite along these lines.
And I'm happy and relieved to report that I'm not the only one.
As to your question, I guess by now everyone on deck knows where to turn for some true-blue Exclusivist RC-ism dished up with a generous dollop of thick neoscholastic sauce ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) ...
--------------------
"Prayer is the rejection of concepts." (Evagrius Ponticus)
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Well, this is all very reassuring, but does nobody here believe their religious faith is exclusively true whilst that of others is untrue?
Where’s a Roman Catholic when you need one?
Actually, upthread South Coast Kevin made a very important point re historical fact of the Resurrection, which I would agree with, and which leads me to a broadly exclusivist view. IE, if Jesus really physically did rise from the dead, Islam, whatever excellent and true things it otherwise says about God, ultimately fails in at least half of its creed ("There is one god", yes, though Jesus is God, "and mohammed is his prophet", not if Jesus really did rise from the dead he ain't). If Xianity is left out of the equation, I think some of the (eastern?) religions could reach a relativist understanding with each other. Xianity however forces one to make a choice.
I don't think that last comment is correct. Your previous paragraph is dotted with 'ifs'. OK, if you accept those points in the affirmative, then Christianity forces a choice. But if you keep the ifs as just iffy, then it doesn't. It's OK to say that you don't know.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Well, this is all very reassuring, but does nobody here believe their religious faith is exclusively true whilst that of others is untrue? Where’s a Roman Catholic when you need one?
Missing the sting of the philosophical whip, are we?
The OP is based on the idea that since all religions involve faith somehow, they are all essentially the same. That's a standard rhetorical move of dogmatic atheism. It is also Brightly brainless. One could just as well claim that since all fruits contain a seed, they are all essentially the same. The purpose of this is simply to compare apples with oranges.
But we don't really have to bother with the OP at that level. The principle of noncontradiction requires no source analysis. Consider:
A: I see the wall is white.
B: I see the wall is black.
Either A or B, or both, are stating a falsehood. A and B cannot both speak the truth. In consequence, it is logically consistent for both to continue with:
A: You are mistaken about the colour of the wall.
B: No, you are in error about that.
Of course, if for example the wall is black, then A is maintaining a falsehood there, but he does so in tune with what he's been saying from the beginning.
Now consider:
A: I believe that the wall is white.
B: I believe that the wall is black.
Again, at most one of them can be right. It doesn't matter at all that we have replaced seeing with believing. Consequently the following dialogue is logically consistent.
A: You are mistaken in your belief.
B: No, you are in error about yours.
There is hence not the slightest logical problem with declaring one's faith "exclusively true". Though only in the sense of "not all is agreed upon, and only this one gets it all right". Truth is of course not exclusive as such, but open to all. Consider:
A: I believe the wall is white.
B: I also believe that the wall is white.
A: But you believe in unicorns, therefore your belief about the wall colour is wrong.
Clearly A is not being logically consistent there.
There are of course consequences to switching from "seeing" to "believing". But they do not concern our ability to say that somebody else is wrong, they concern the question where we go from there. It is more difficult to invite people to have another faith than to invite them to have another look. But one wouldn't do either if one didn't think that they should.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
A: I see the wall is white.
B: I see the wall is black.
Either A or B, or both, are stating a falsehood. A and B cannot both speak the truth.
I don't think this is the case. Either A or B, or both, could have a condition that means the wall does indeed appear to be the colour they report it as, while in reality being a different colour.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
A: I believe that the wall is white.
B: I believe that the wall is black.
Again, at most one of them can be right. It doesn't matter at all that we have replaced seeing with believing.
I disagree again; both could be giving truthful statements of their beliefs. Which means, of course, that I agree with you regarding the equivalence of 'seeing' and 'believing' in this context.
This is why I was keen to shift the discussion on to historical events such as Jesus' resurrection. That either did or did not happen, and each of us can use the tools of historical enquiry to make our mind up. Other religious claims are much more in the realm of belief (e.g. Mohammad - apols for spelling - believed he heard from Allah) and are therefore harder to probe, than the claimed historical events at the heart of Christianity.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I questioned whether the criticism was valid, given that the preacher was apparently quite sincere (about which there was agreement) and that the response in the congregation was ostensibly positive. It seems the negative reaction from Shipmates was based primarily on their personal taste being offended by the preacher’s style.
The problem with your analysis is that there isn't really anything BUT 'style' to be offended about.
You're presenting this, both originally in Hell and now here, as if we got terribly negative about the man's theology. I'm not sure we did, because I'm not sure there was actually much in the way of theology to discuss. All of the reactions were because his style of talking about how much he appreciates his Bible was... well, the best word I can find for it off the top of my head is 'schlocky'.
That's not a negative reaction to his religious beliefs. It's a negative reaction to him conveying our shared religious beliefs in a fashion we find tasteless.
[ 28. March 2013, 14:46: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal
... John said that Jesus said lots of things and he didn't write most of them down. So he must have picked the statements he did pick with care. When John was writing his gospel, what was the pressing issue that might have led him to include the "I am the way" passage? Was it the question of other religions? Probably not; if John's audience was mostly Jewish, as the early church was (and certainly Jesus' audience, if he did say the things attributed to him here, was!) then the thought of the Roman or Greek gods being anything more than futile idols would probably never occur to them. They didn't need a saying of Jesus to shore that up. However, there was by all accounts a bit of a revolving door between Christianity and mainstream Judaism, and John's concern here may have been people going back through it into mainstream Judaism. So the thrust of the saying then might be an encouraging "No, I really am the way, don't go back!" - from what I can gather, John's gospel dates to a period when Christianity and Judaism were parting company, so that the former was beginning to be seen as a religion in its own right rather than as a fringe sect within the latter, so a very significant time for that message.
Karl, fair enough.
On the other hand ... maybe, you know, Jesus really did say the things He is reported as saying ...
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien
Posts: 545 | From: The Shire | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
...historical events such as Jesus' resurrection. That either did or did not happen, and each of us can use the tools of historical enquiry to make our mind up. Other religious claims are much more in the realm of belief (e.g. Mohammad - apols for spelling - believed he heard from Allah) and are therefore harder to probe, than the claimed historical events at the heart of Christianity.
I think those two positions are much nearer that you suggest. It is not a matter of undisputed historical fact that Jesus was resurrected- the oral account of the event was recorded in written documents some time later, and it is only a matter of belief. In that respect, it is no different from the historicity of the account that Allah spoke to Mohammed.
Your claim that the Christian story is more ‘highly true’ than the Islamic one is basically unsound. You're all in the same dodgy boat.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
BTW, Ingo's colour examples immediately face difficulties because recognition of colours is language- and culture- based, and there is no such thing as universal agreement as to which parts of the spectrum get which names. But apparently, 'black' and 'white' are the most universally recognised concepts so he might just be on safe ground there.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The problem with your analysis is that there isn't really anything BUT 'style' to be offended about.
Granted. But like I said, it got me a thinking about this other more substantial matter.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I don't think this is the case. Either A or B, or both, could have a condition that means the wall does indeed appear to be the colour they report it as, while in reality being a different colour.
In which case both are stating a falsehood, and we have additional insight why they are doing so (i.e., not intentionally, but due to corrupted sensory input). This changes nothing in my analysis though.
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I disagree again; both could be giving truthful statements of their beliefs.
A statement can be false or true concerning its content (here: the proposed wall colour) or concerning the act of speaking (whether words reflect mind). I've been talking about the former (which is about "reality"), not the latter (which is about "honesty"). For religious belief, I assume in general that people believe what they say they do. That doesn't change the fact that where beliefs contradict each other in content, at most one of them can be true.
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
This is why I was keen to shift the discussion on to historical events such as Jesus' resurrection. That either did or did not happen, and each of us can use the tools of historical enquiry to make our mind up. Other religious claims are much more in the realm of belief (e.g. Mohammad - apols for spelling - believed he heard from Allah) and are therefore harder to probe, than the claimed historical events at the heart of Christianity.
And I'm saying that you are wrong to do so, as far as this discussion is concerned. At best, this makes a difference concerning whether one can "prove" one party to be right and the other to be wrong. But I believe X and you believe not-X, then I need no further "proof" to say that you are wrong. That is an automatic consequence of me saying that X is true, and the law of noncontradiction.
There is of course a whole discussion lurking there whether it is licit to assert something as true if one does not have universally compelling evidence for it, etc. But once one agrees that one can make statements of belief, rather than just of knowledge, then there is no question that one can reject one belief on account of another.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Your claim that the Christian story is more ‘highly true’ than the Islamic one is basically unsound. You're all in the same dodgy boat.
I wasn't meaning to say it is 'a matter of undisputed historical fact that Jesus was resurrected', rather that its veracity can be investigated to a greater extent than claims of receiving a vision from God can be.
What can you do when someone claims to have heard from God? You can weigh up whether the message makes sense, perhaps consider the person's character (do they seem genuine?), and look at whether they follow through in their own life with the implications of the message they've claimed to receive.
But this all feels a whole lot more speculative than trying to decide whether someone did indeed do all the things claimed for Jesus. Notably for me, how do you explain the apparent transformation of Jesus' first followers into courageous martyrs if not by a genuine belief on their part that their failed, executed leader had come back to life? This is a question of historical enquiry and ISTM we can discuss it with some level of objectivity.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Re OP. It is the conflation of obvious sexual imagery and actions with the religious that makes me react with incredulity and then laughter. The preacher is so sincere that it is an anti-mockery in the same way that anti-folk music subverts and mocks folk music. The layers of the joke with the video also remind me of some country music lyrics, where they are both being serious and silly at once, e.g., "Drop kick me Jesus through the goalposts of life, end over end neither left nor to right, right the heart of the righteous of right." or "I gave her a ring ans she gave me the finger".
The added layer of joke with this preacher, is that he doesn't seem to realize he is doing mock-worthy preachifying (though some of his audience seem to), and thus, he personally is the joke himself.
I asked Jesus, and he said he laughed at him too.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
Actually, upthread South Coast Kevin made a very important point re historical fact of the Resurrection, which I would agree with, and which leads me to a broadly exclusivist view. IE, if Jesus really physically did rise from the dead, Islam, whatever excellent and true things it otherwise says about God, ultimately fails in at least half of its creed ("There is one god", yes, though Jesus is God, "and mohammed is his prophet", not if Jesus really did rise from the dead he ain't). If Xianity is left out of the equation, I think some of the (eastern?) religions could reach a relativist understanding with each other. Xianity however forces one to make a choice.
Quite - some people can be very disingenuous when it comes to christian truths - they imply that we think if christianity is true then all other religions must be completely and utterly wrong. This isn't true at all - why can't christianity be more true than other religions? Why can't it be THE truth, while still other religions have some truth in them?
Oh, I just thought I'd mention that in recent years "exclusive" has been redefined - it used to mean a closed church (ie brethren) where only members could partake in Holy Communion, not christians from other churches. But now it's been redefined to mean "anyone who isn't a religious pluralist." Nobody actually got round to telling me this, I had to find out for myself that the word had been redefined.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
Actually, upthread South Coast Kevin made a very important point re historical fact of the Resurrection, which I would agree with, and which leads me to a broadly exclusivist view. IE, if Jesus really physically did rise from the dead, Islam, whatever excellent and true things it otherwise says about God, ultimately fails in at least half of its creed ("There is one god", yes, though Jesus is God, "and mohammed is his prophet", not if Jesus really did rise from the dead he ain't). If Xianity is left out of the equation, I think some of the (eastern?) religions could reach a relativist understanding with each other. Xianity however forces one to make a choice.
Quite - some people can be very disingenuous when it comes to christian truths - they imply that we think if christianity is true then all other religions must be completely and utterly wrong. This isn't true at all - why can't christianity be more true than other religions? Why can't it be THE truth, while still other religions have some truth in them?
Oh, I just thought I'd mention that in recent years "exclusive" has been redefined - it used to mean a closed church (ie brethren) where only members could partake in Holy Communion, not christians from other churches. But now it's been redefined to mean "anyone who isn't a religious pluralist." Nobody actually got round to telling me this, I had to find out for myself that the word had been redefined.
That's an interesting point, about some religions being half-right or partly right, but I'm always curious as to how people evaluate this. Is there a handy checklist which we can tick off, and then give a particular religion a score? Monotheistic, tick; having a creator God, tick; involves participatory worship, tick; I can't think of any more. I suppose lizards get you negative points.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
...how do you explain the apparent transformation of Jesus' first followers into courageous martyrs if not by a genuine belief on their part that their failed, executed leader had come back to life? This is a question of historical enquiry and ISTM we can discuss it with some level of objectivity.
Er, no. At least, not any more so than we can with the Islamic story. The 'transformation of the early followers' you describe is an historical 'fact' only in the same way that Allah's chat with Mohammed is an historical fact. It's no more historical and it's no more factual.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose lizards get you negative points.
Thanks. Now my screen needs to be wiped of coffee.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
There have been plenty of courageous martyrs throughout history, haven't there? Many communists for example, accepted death as the price to pay for the success of the revolution, or whatever. We don't normally conclude that this indicates the correctness of their beliefs.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
But Yorick, we can investigate whether someone claimed to have received a vision from God, because that is about behaviour and events, which people might have witnessed and wrote about. Likewise, of course, the events around Jesus' life, death and resurrection.
But surely probing whether someone actually had a vision from God is a different matter, in that there can't be any witnesses to the communication. (I mean in-the-mind visions, not audible voices and suchlike.) The difference seems obvious to me; what am I missing?
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
We only have stories about claims in both cases.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
]I wasn't meaning to say it is 'a matter of undisputed historical fact that Jesus was resurrected', rather that its veracity can be investigated to a greater extent than claims of receiving a vision from God can be.
How? The best case you have is some blokes who think they talked a bloke they thought was dead. And they did not recognise him at first encounter. That is if you accept the gospels were written by the listed authors.
As to the martyr claim, there are martyrs long after who had no chance of witnessing. And, inconvenient to your theory as it may be, martyrs to other faiths.
Regarding the OP, I would expect people to believe their chosen faith is the correct one. I would hope they would respect that other people have equal conviction in their own beliefs.
ETA: What is this, a cross post conspiracy? ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
[ 28. March 2013, 15:47: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
That's an interesting point, about some religions being half-right or partly right, but I'm always curious as to how people evaluate this. Is there a handy checklist which we can tick off, and then give a particular religion a score?
Monotheistic, tick; having a creator God, tick; involves participatory worship, tick...
If one believes his own religion is the true religion, then yes, he would do exactly that - using his own religion as a checklist. Some may not like that, but at least it retains a bit of integrity.
quote:
...I can't think of any more. I suppose lizards get you negative points.
Right again! You're doing well today quetzalcoatl. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
We only have stories about claims in both cases.
I think what we have in all cases is that people look at their own experience, and weigh the experiences of others in light of them. If for instance someone thinks they had a vision of Christ, then it makes perfect sense for them to think Christ exists and is real, and to say that someone who says otherwise is flat-out wrong.
The two people look alike to you, because you've never had that vision. You're outside of their experience and judging it from outside. They cannot stand outside their own experience, by definition.
Now, one can consider one's own experience in the light of the existence of hallucinations, for example, and decide that one really didn't see Christ, but had a false vision induced by eating the flesh of some weird fish, but even then they're going to have to weigh their own experience versus their own understanding of scientific reality and probability, from within.
No?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
