homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » The Great Sin ... redefined? (Page 1)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: The Great Sin ... redefined?
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
In the early days of my Christian life I read Mere Christianity by CS Lewis, and the chapter that had the most impact on me was entitled: "The Great Sin" on the subject of pride.

Lewis defined "pride" as the attitude of always wanting to be better than other people, and the proud person derives his pleasure, not by being, for example, rich, but by being richer than others.

This is clearly correct, and as Lewis stated: "Pride gets no pleasure out of having something, only out of having more of it than the next man."

Recently I have seen the concepts of pride and humility redefined - especially in various debates. Confidence in God has been called "hubris". A desire to receive from God has been described in the language of pride. A rejection of certainty has been called "humility" (although strangely, holding to the certainty of this definition is not considered "proud"!!)

I find this utterly perplexing.

If someone is confident that something is true, how is he necessarily "looking down on other people" and wanting to be better than them? If he has a strong trust in something he has personally experienced, how is he being "arrogant" (especially as he makes no comment about other people's personal claims)?

How do others define "pride"?

Isn't it time we used this term with a bit more care?

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Possibly.

I take it you're referring to some of my accusations against you of possibly spiritual pride, 'prelest' and hubris on the 'speaking in tongues' and other spiritual gifts threads?

A lot of it comes down to perception and tone. I might well be wrong - and I'd concede that - but on the threads in question (and I don't want to go over old ground again) my perception - I stress perception - of your position was one of an unwillingness to accept challenge, however mild, and of clinging to putative experiences and apparent 'gifts' that may or may not be the 'real thing' as though they were Holy Writ and set in tablets of stone.

You called me to Hell on it. I apologised. I then started narking at you again and you left the thread. And I can understand why. I have since attemped to make amends ...

But, to get back to the plot ...

There is, I submit, a fine line between 'confidence in God' and presumption. Our mileage may vary in the language we use and the issues we choose to be confident about, but essentially I would prefer to err on the side of caution when making claims about things that might - I said, might - be questionable or capable of adjustment in the light of further data.

I know you have me down as a Doubting Thomas, but on the tongues issue - to pick just one instance - it wouldn't dent or dampen by faith in God if it could be proven that every single person who had ever spoken in tongues were deluded and the whole thing wasn't 'real' in any demonstrable sense.

You might call that a lack of confidence in God. I'd suggest it was the reverse. We walk by faith, not by sight. Whether or not 'tongues' or other apparent spiritual gifts, miracles etc are the genuine article or not doesn't affect whether I'm a Christian or not. I'd be a Christian irrespective of whether these things were legit' or otherwise.

On the other hand, if archaeologists dug up the body of Jesus of Nazareth in Palestine next week and it could be proven beyond any reasonable doubt that this was the same Jesus we believe to be the Messiah, the Son of God, the Second Person of the Holy and Undivided Trinity - then I would find myself having to make some considerable adjustments.

Can you see the difference I'm trying to highlight here?

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Oh - and while I'm at it, I don't accept that I have redefined the concepts you mention. Humility prevents me from suggesting that it is you have misunderstood them in the first place ... [Biased]

But it might be better if someone else tackled you on that one rather than me ...

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513

 - Posted      Profile for Alogon   Email Alogon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Trouble comes when two parties who both express total confidence that they have the truth straight from their own private line to heaven radically disagree on what that truth is. The most notorious example in American history is, of course, the debate over slavery, which split some denominations straight down the Mason-Dixon line. In this case, both the defenders and the opponents of slavery at least had scriptural passages to debate, which provided a modicum of substance for third parties to appreciate. But when it comes to claiming that my private line is obviously better than your private line, or that obviously you have no private line at all, how can this claim be other than prideful and hubristic?

Such controversies in the church are a scandal. What can the rest of the world do but scoff at our entire faith?

--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.

Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
churchgeek

Have candles, will pray
# 5557

 - Posted      Profile for churchgeek   Author's homepage   Email churchgeek   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dare I suggest...that CS Lewis...might not be the ultimate authority in the meaning of a word?

It has been part of the tradition that pride is the root of all sins, going back to Adam & Eve wanting to go above their station and be like God (on their own terms).

In the many decades since CS Lewis wrote, feminists and others have (rightly, IMO) pointed out that pride isn't the root of sin for everyone. In particular, they pointed to the ways in which victimized women could easily be further victimized by being accused of pride when they tried to stand up for themselves (or, gasp, leave an abusive husband, e.g.).

A wonderful definition of humility I've picked up from somewhere is that it's knowing yourself and being secure in yourself. In other words, if you are smarter, stronger, richer, etc., than others, you don't need to constantly prove it or have others acknowledge it. If you're less smart, strong, or rich than others, you don't have to pretend you're something you're not.

So maybe the desire for certainty can become a matter of pride if a person needs to seem to have answers.

I don't understand the objection to framing humility in terms of accepting uncertainty, though. Plato had Socrates say that the beginning of wisdom is to know that you don't know. If you don't know, but you think you know, then you're deluded. If you know, and know you know, then you might think you have nothing left to learn. And if you know, but don't realize it, then your knowledge does you no good. (Actually, contemporary philosophers would say that last one doesn't constitute knowledge, but that's a whole other can of worms...)

The Bible also says "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." I think that "fear" in this case has to do with reverence, which is a form of humility: knowing God is God and you're not, and knowing you should look to God for answers.

In academic circles - we've all known someone who has to be perceived as the one with all the answers. We tend to think of them as pompous. Charles Peirce had a wonderful little doctrine he called "fallibilism" (he liked making up names for things): You're more likely to arrive at the truth if you admit you could be wrong than if you don't. Think about it.

I think Peirce's fallibilism is pretty much the definition of intellectual humility. No matter how certain you may think you are, it's still a good idea to recognize that, being human, you could be wrong. That doesn't mean you're wallowing in a pretense of ignorance or confusion. It means you operate under the working theory you have, but realize you may have to adjust your lenses at some point.

--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.

My article on the Virgin of Vladimir

Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Indeed.

I'm wondering about C S Lewis in all of this. He once observed that 'miracles' and 'signs' were for those weak in faith.

'Jews seek signs and Greeks seek wisdom - but we preach Christ crucified,' and all the rest of it.

I do think that 'prelest' - or spiritual pride and spiritual deception - is a very great and present danger. We all succumb to it at times.

'Who can discern his errors?'

That's why I think that the prayer for general sins and absolution that we find in the Anglican, Orthodox and other traditions are a good thing - they cover all bases as it were.

We can all of us do things that we think are right and noble and good and true, not discerning that there might be mixed motives, attention seeking or a whole load of other hidden faults involved.

We need to 'walk softly' as the old Puritans used to say.

I can only speak for myself, but during the whole 'Toronto Blessing' thing I used to go around praying over people and they'd keel over, collapse or, sometimes, tremble and shoot backwards as though they'd been given an electric shock. I began to feel proud of my apparent spiritual abilities and power. 'People fall over when I pray for them ...'

The realisation of this gave me pause. Whilst I cannot explain all that happened at that time, I'm generally of the view that it was a very human thing ... something encouraged and inculcated to a large extent by cues and suggestibility etc. By no means all of it, but a substantial amount, I would say.

Consequently, I backed off and began exploring more traditional forms of spirituality - probably a trajectory I was already on anyway.

I'm not trying to bash anybody (although I have been guilty of that) but I am, I'm afraid, quite firmly of the opinion that charismatic spirituality does have an inherent tendency to encourage spiritual pride. Hence the Apostle Paul's warnings and corrections to the Corinthians.

Of course, what we need is regulation and proper use rather than non-use, but I'm very wary of anything these days that holds out particular experiences, gifts or apparent manifestations of the Spirit as a barometer for spiritual power and 'success'.

I'm not sure I'm any more humble, though. My pride has probably simply found other outlets. Lord have mercy.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250

 - Posted      Profile for irish_lord99     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think in this context we find pride where we can object to other people's beliefs with reasoned, well thought-out arguments; but when others respond to our beliefs with reasoned, well thought-out arguments we reply with...

(Not thinking of anyone on these boards, but more thinking of my past encounters with various people in RL.)

--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain

Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Certainty can often come over as pride - as it doesn't allow that we could be wrong.

And, of course, any one of us could easily be completely wrong.

It's the only thing I look forward to about my death - because then I will be certain about all these things which are only held by faith (or I'll be nothing and know nothing of it)

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Gamaliel -

Can I take it that you admit that you could be wrong about everything that you have written on this thread so far?

Do you understand the point I am trying to make?

Those who see a connection between uncertainty and humility cannot actually say anything at all, because to say anything involves some element of certainty - even if it is just the "certainty" that "nothing is certain".

It's a bit like scepticism. A sceptic may say that "there is no such thing as knowledge", but fails to realise that that idea itself is therefore unknowable according to his own definition. As it happens, CS Lewis (not someone I regard as infallible) also recognised this danger, when he wrote: "There is therefore no question of a total scepticism about human thought. We are always prevented from accepting total scepticism because it can be formulated only by making a tacit exception in favour of the thought we are thinking at the moment - just as the man who warns the newcomer 'Don't trust anyone in this office' always expects you to trust him at that moment." (From: De Futilitate, Christian Reflections)

I touched on this point in the OP when I wrote: "...although strangely, holding to the certainty of this definition is not considered "proud"!!"

So it seems to me that you are being selective in what you are willing to be certain about, and therefore your "humility" is selective, and thus inherently unjust.

I was not at all unwilling to dismiss correction. I can see that you have your concerns about the Charismatic "movement" or "scene", but short of out-and-out cessationism, I doubt your concerns are any greater than mine. I am extremely critical of the Charismatic movement, and I was deeply opposed to the Toronto Blessing. The reason I was opposed to it was for reasons of discernment. But I had friends who were into it and even promoting it in writing (by which I mean: publishing books about it).

Now I can say that I don't agree with certain aspects of the TB, and a fellow Christian could tell me that he personally felt that his TB experiences were of God - on the basis of what he claimed to be the inner witness of the Holy Spirit. At that point we are out of the realm of the "Athenian marketplace" (i.e. the place where we can debate concepts) and into the realm of the personal and subjective. Once we are at that point, then all I can say is: "I have my views, which I hold on the basis of this evidence, but I cannot make any comment about your own subjective experience, because it is subjective. I have said my piece, but if you genuinely believe that your experience is of God, then we have to leave the discussion there." I might feel tempted to say something potentially smarmy like "I'll pray for you", but that's as far as it can go. In fact, critical though I may be of such a person's manifestations, it is perfectly possible that God may be doing a work in his life despite these experiences. It is not for me to say, and I would consider it an act of HUMILITY to respect that person's relationship with God. (Please note that last point, even if you ignore everything else I've written.)

If someone said to me that I cannot trust my mother to give me a slice of home-made cake that would not contain something unpleasant without there having been a full scientific analysis of the cake, I would think such a person was mad. I trust her because of the evidence of who she is, her character and her general competence. The same goes for God. If we are to humbly obey the first commandment, then surely that must involve at the very least the kind of trust that we would show towards our own loving human parents, mustn't it? "If your son asks for bread, would you give him a stone...?" Jesus recognised the importance of this basic trust in God, and on that basis we can have confidence in the validity and integrity of the things that he gives to us. How can it possibly be considered "proud" or "hubris" to exercise that trust?

It seems astonishing to me that "humility" before God should involve not actually trusting him. But that is what you seem to be suggesting.

You may think that my gift of tongues is dodgy. If I were arguing with a cessationist, then he would say that. I would just say: "Fair enough. You have to say that because of your theological position. Therefore we will just have to agree to disagree. End of conversation." Or we could have a protracted debate about the spiritual gifts. But I doubt such a person would pursue me on a personal level in the way that you have done.

Let me make it clear that I don't mind someone rubbishing my viewpoint. I have a video on YouTube (I'm not going to promote it here, unless you ask me to) on the subject of atheism. It has attracted many hundreds of comments, and some of them have been abusive. Here is an example of one of them (typos 'n' all):

quote:
pls tell me what other senses you have to get knowledge ? are you fucking stupid or insane...you dont have any other way to get information than your senses you moron even the bible is based on that you need to know how to read and to see the letters ahahhahah god could not give his message direct he had to made a illogical book...omg how retarded you are to believe somthing like that...people own you and you like a stuid child insist that your idiotic reasoning here is valid...get help
Do you honestly think I was upset when I read that? No. I almost wet myself with laughter. It really doesn't bother me when people just attack my views. But these atheists - even the worst of them - know where to draw the line. They may call me a moron, and retarded and needing help, but it's just a load of hot air. But your pursuit of me was of a completely different kind. It's as if you are personally offended that I should have any viewpoint at all, which I hold with a considerable level of confidence.

I consider that it is an act of humility to respect a person's testimony and to desist from trying to control that person's private life.

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
[Confused]

'Can I take it that you admit that you could be wrong about everything that you have written on this thread so far?'

Of course. I might very well be wrong. So might you be. Have the humility to accept that possibility.

With the greatest respect, EE, I can see why you were narked at my 'pursuit' of you. Fair enough. I've apologised. I continued to do it after I'd apologised. You called me on it. I apologised again.

Forgive me, but you do seem to have a tendency to be rather binary about these things. I did not say that your 'speaking in tongues' was a load of baloney, I simply suggested that ALL of us who can apparently speak in tongues should be open to the possibility that our version of it is no more 'authentic' or legitimate than instances that can be demonstrated to be capable of explanation by other means.

I wasn't very gracious in the way I tried to explain that, nor was I explaining myself very well. But I certainly wasn't trying to stop you speaking in tongues or attempting to control your spiritual life. Give me some credit for goodness sake.

You also seem incapable of distinguishing a position of agnosticism or uncertainty on various secondary issues as evidence of lack of faith or lack of confidence in God. Now who's being judgemental?

I'm not saying that we can't be certain about anything. I am not denying the supernatural. I am not denying the historic Creeds. I am perfectly capable of asserting things in a dogmatic way.

But I am not infallible. YOU are not infallible.

From where I'm sitting it sounds as if you're setting yourself up as judge and jury in these matters and don't like it when anyone else proffers an opinion that differs from yours. But then, you'd probably say the same about me.

I actually think that there's more common ground between us than is apparent at first sight.

On the selectivity thing - you are just as selective as I am - it's just that you need to remove the whopping big telegraph pole from your eye in order to see it.

On the Toronto thing - so you had the discernment 'in advance' to suss it all out before I did. I had to be involved for a wee bit before my own discernment sensors kicked in (although I had initial reservations from the outset). Well, whoopy do, bully for you. Your discernment quotient was higher than mine on that occasion. Top marks, pass Go, collect your Ł200 ...

Seriously, there will be issues where your discernment strike-right, as it were, will be greater than mine. On other instances it might just possibly be the other way round. It doesn't really matter though, does it? This isn't a competition.

On the point about respecting other people's experiences and so on. Well, you might not think so, but I have done so in your case. Nowhere have I suggested that you stop speaking in tongues, for instance.

All I've done (admittedly clumsily) is suggest that we 'know in part' and should remain open to the possibility that we might get things wrong and you've gone up like a scalded cat. How dare that Doubting Thomas Gamaliel question MY ability to speak in tongues!'

Ok, so I rubbed you up the wrong way. I can see that. But I'd be prepared to accept the rest of your charges if I came along saying, 'That stupid pillock EE, he thinks he can speak in tongues. What a wally!'

But I've said no such thing. I am not a cessationist.

I submit that there are degrees of difference and shades of grey between an out-and-out cessationist and someone who is open to the charismatic dimension and yet sceptical about some aspects. What's the big deal about that?

You are right that there probably isn't a great deal of difference in our respective approaches to the charismatic thing in general. Great. Let's agree to agree on the things we agree on and to disagree on those minor points where we might diverge.

I've not helped, I admit, by adopting a rather strident and snarky tone. I apologise for that.

But on the other hand, and my offence is greater than yours on this one, you haven't helped either by suggesting that I'm more selective than you are and that I've moved the goal-posts and 'redefined' what it means to show a modicum of humility and even open and honest doubt when it comes to certain areas.

That doesn't seem good enough for you. You seem to want everything in black and white and - dare I say - seem so convinced of your own discernment abilities that you are unwilling to accept any suggestion that you might possibly get it wrong at times.

That doesn't count as humility in my book. It counts as hubris, it counts as 'prelest.'

And I'm saying that, I'm very, very conscious that I am equally guilty of the same thing. We all of us are. It simply manifests itself in different ways and over different issues. 'Who can discern his errors?'

'We know in PART ...'

But we still 'know'. We 'see through a glass darkly', but we can still 'see'.

Now, hear me right, I'm not saying that it demonstrates pride or hubris to trust God. What I am saying is that it CAN stray into pride or hubris if we hold on to a claimed experience or insight as though it were a really big deal - we have these things on trust. They are not OURS.

I'm not saying that this is the case with you. Just that (and I might be wrong) I've found your tone and your approach rather defensive and you've become entrenched as though I am out to 'get' you - which I am certainly not.

That's all I'm saying and beyond my rather clumsy explanations and sometimes strident tone, I don't really see what I've said that is so objectionable. I've apologised for having a personal go at you. Is that not sufficient?

'It seems astonishing to me that "humility" before God should involve not actually trusting him. But that is what you seem to be suggesting.'

Well, now it isn't. It's what you THINK I am suggesting. I'm not. So drop it.

'You may think that my gift of tongues is dodgy.'

I'm not saying it is. I was hypothesising. The mistake I made (and it WAS a mistake) was to use YOUR tongues speaking as a model. I should have used my own as an example and then you wouldn't have been upset.

'But I doubt such a person would pursue me on a personal level in the way that you have done.'

I've apologised for that and will apologise again. Please trust me, it wasn't meant to be personal but as Snags correctly 'discerned' my blood was up as some of the language and the tone you were adopting reminded me of some charismatics I've met in the past and opened old wounds. I was probably, unconsciously, pursuing them rather than you - if that makes sense. I was taking out on you some of the baggage from the past.

I'm not excusing my pursuit of you, just putting it in context. I hope you can see where I'm coming from.

'Let me make it clear that I don't mind someone rubbishing my viewpoint.'

I'm not rubbishing your viewpoint. I was trying to engage you in robust debate. Rather too robust it seems.

On the You Tube video thing - well sure, I would have a similar reaction if that were my You Tube video and I received those sort of comments.

'But your pursuit of me was of a completely different kind. It's as if you are personally offended that I should have any viewpoint at all, which I hold with a considerable level of confidence.'

I can see why you would suggest that but that certainly isn't the case at all. I would certainly not dispute your right to hold a viewpoint of whatever kind with a considerable level of confidence.

That wasn't the issue. The issue was your apparent insistence that you could be 100% sure that your 'tongues-speaking' was 'of God' and that to suggest that it may or may not be was tantamount to a lack of trust in God.

It really doesn't affect my faith in God one iota if you were speaking Mongolian or else going 'babababababa' and thinking that you were speaking the language of the Solomon Islands.

But I don't want to go over that again...

I hope I've made myself clearer. I was speaking hypothetically - 'some tongues might be legit', others aren't. How can we tell?' - and made the very big mistake of using your own as an example rather than keeping it abstract or applying it to myself.


I consider that it is an act of humility to respect a person's testimony and to desist from trying to control that person's private life. [Razz]

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Whoops - I'd copied and pasted parts of your post into mine, EE.

I didn't mean to leave this bit in:

'I consider that it is an act of humility to respect a person's testimony and to desist from trying to control that person's private life.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Humility is inversely proportional to the length of one's posts.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
But I am not infallible. YOU are not infallible.

From where I'm sitting it sounds as if you're setting yourself up as judge and jury in these matters and don't like it when anyone else proffers an opinion that differs from yours. But then, you'd probably say the same about me.

Thanks for your long post, and like I said in "hell", I accept your apology.

But I am still not sure you accept that when I express confidence about my own experience of God, that I am not thereby judging anyone else. This is what really gets to me. It's the charge of pride that I find baffling and which was your response to the initial question you asked me on the "Tongues" thread, which I answered honestly and politely. There was nothing in what I wrote that even so much as hinted at an attitude of judging others.

You seem to be offended that I express confidence in something relating to my experience of God, as if I am a self-deluded Christian version of a Jihadist. I could understand your concern if I was saying that "God" had commanded me to go and commit some terrorist atrocity. This moral position is something that can be debated in the "Athenian marketplace". But suppose I said: "I feel a wonderful sense of peace which has come to me from God" how would you debate that? It's personal and subjective. No one can start telling me that I am not allowed to make such an assertion with such confidence and insisting that I must continually remind myself that "of course, this peace may not really be peace at all, and it may not have come from God. And I mustn't say it has, otherwise I'll be arrogantly looking down on other people who may not be living peace-filled lives". The same goes for tongues.

We can debate objective issues, but trying to debate subjective experiences is problematic.

If you insist that humility requires that I admit that "my gift of tongues could be something entirely made up by me", then I could mouth those words, if you like. But I would be lying! I say this, because I do not believe that to be true.

Let me give you another analogy. I say that I have two arms. I am utterly confident that I have two arms. I do not look down on amputees. I feel absolutely no disrespect for amputees or those born with one or no arms. I am outraged that anyone could feel any disrespect for such people. But the fact is that, by the grace of God, I happen to have two arms. Would humility require me to assert that "I have only one arm"? No, that is not humility, but lies and self-delusion (or a very weird sense of humour), because it is not consistent with the truth. Therefore I am not being conceited when I affirm something that I believe is true of myself. It is called "reality".

I really don't know what else I can say.

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Steve H
Shipmate
# 17102

 - Posted      Profile for Steve H   Email Steve H   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If you insist that humility requires that I admit that "my gift of tongues could be something entirely made up by me", then I could mouth those words, if you like. But I would be lying! I say this, because I do not believe that to be true

You're not being asked to believe that it's true; you're being asked to believe that it could be true. Obviously, everybody believes that what they believe is true; that's what 'believing' means. You can't believe that any of your beliefs are false without immediately falling into a rather obvious logical contradiction; but you can, and indeed should, admit the possibility that they might be wrong: that's proper intellectual humility, and if you don't admit it, you're a bigot, bigotry being a form of pride.

[ 03. June 2012, 12:02: Message edited by: Steve H ]

--------------------
Hold to Christ, and for the rest, be totally uncommitted.
Herbert Butterfield.

Posts: 439 | From: Hemel Hempstead, Herts | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve H
You can't believe that any of your beliefs are false without immediately falling into a rather obvious logical contradiction; but you can, and indeed should, admit the possibility that they might be wrong: that's proper intellectual humility, and if you don't admit it, you're a bigot, bigotry being a form of pride.

Since I don't want to be a bigot, I will therefore submit to what you say.

Therefore...

... "I affirm that it might be wrong to say that we should admit that our beliefs might be wrong."

Do you affirm this as well? I hope so. I wouldn't want you to be a bigot now!

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

If you insist that humility requires that I admit that "my gift of tongues could be something entirely made up by me", then I could mouth those words, if you like. But I would be lying! I say this, because I do not believe that to be true.

No you wouldn't be lying! I think this is at the centre of your 'problem' here. Saying you
could be wrong doesn't mean unbelief at all.

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Humility is inversely proportional to the length of one's posts.

[Killing me] You can't help noticing the long, long explanations of Gamaliel and EE!

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Steve H
Shipmate
# 17102

 - Posted      Profile for Steve H   Email Steve H   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve H
You can't believe that any of your beliefs are false without immediately falling into a rather obvious logical contradiction; but you can, and indeed should, admit the possibility that they might be wrong: that's proper intellectual humility, and if you don't admit it, you're a bigot, bigotry being a form of pride.

Since I don't want to be a bigot, I will therefore submit to what you say.

Therefore...

... "I affirm that it might be wrong to say that we should admit that our beliefs might be wrong."

Do you affirm this as well? I hope so. I wouldn't want you to be a bigot now!

Go away, you silly little boy.

--------------------
Hold to Christ, and for the rest, be totally uncommitted.
Herbert Butterfield.

Posts: 439 | From: Hemel Hempstead, Herts | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959

 - Posted      Profile for tclune   Email tclune   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If I may use an old expression to define pride, it is being born on third base and thinking you've hit a triple. Lewis has once again said something that sounds good but misses the mark. Or so ISTM.

--Tom Clune

--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.

Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve H
Go away, you silly little boy.

How very humble of you to acknowledge the logical inconsistency of your uncalled for insult.

Along with the moral absolutism of the moral subjectivists, the illiberality of certain liberals we now have the "certainty" of the "humble" sceptics.

Pathetic.

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Steve H
Shipmate
# 17102

 - Posted      Profile for Steve H   Email Steve H   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Read your own sig.

--------------------
Hold to Christ, and for the rest, be totally uncommitted.
Herbert Butterfield.

Posts: 439 | From: Hemel Hempstead, Herts | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Steve -

So what are you then?

Humble or proud?

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie
No you wouldn't be lying! I think this is at the centre of your 'problem' here. Saying you
could be wrong doesn't mean unbelief at all.

Could you be wrong about that?

Are you prepared to apply your rule to that assertion? Are you willing to admit that you could be wrong to say: "Saying you could be wrong doesn't mean unbelief at all"?

You cannot have it both ways (which means that I am suggesting that your assertion is actually self-refuting).

And where do you draw the line? Surely there are certain things it would be insane to doubt, such as one's own existence? On what epistemological basis do you apply your rule?

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie
No you wouldn't be lying! I think this is at the centre of your 'problem' here. Saying you
could be wrong doesn't mean unbelief at all.

Could you be wrong about that?

Are you prepared to apply your rule to that assertion? Are you willing to admit that you could be wrong to say: "Saying you could be wrong doesn't mean unbelief at all"?

You cannot have it both ways (which means that I am suggesting that your assertion is actually self-refuting).

And where do you draw the line? Surely there are certain things it would be insane to doubt, such as one's own existence? On what epistemological basis do you apply your rule?

Not at all - if we both agree we could be wrong, problem solved.

[Smile]

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250

 - Posted      Profile for irish_lord99     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

So what are you then?

Humble or proud?

I was once given an award for humility. They took it away after I put it on display. [Yipee]

--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain

Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged
Robert Armin

All licens'd fool
# 182

 - Posted      Profile for Robert Armin     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Is that the award they gave to Akinola after you?

--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin

Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250

 - Posted      Profile for irish_lord99     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Eh... sorry, I don't get the reference? [Confused]

--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain

Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599

 - Posted      Profile for footwasher   Email footwasher   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Boogie wrote:
Not at all - if we both agree we could be wrong, problem solved


Hi Boogie, what's the point in debating a view that we don't feel confident about ourself and which we feel will edify and mature the body of Christ?

If you feel it's wrong, prove it. Even that helps to edify and grow the body of Christ.

2 Cor 10:5
We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.

In the NT church, the Apostles weren't always around:

1 Cor 14:26
What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.


These guys were forming doctrine! But there were checks and balances:

1 Cor 3
10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building on it. But each man must be careful how he builds on it. 11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 13 each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work. 14 If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. 15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

See modernism reached wrong conclusions because, let's face it, the language is archaic. Postmodernism rejects ALL conclusions, skeptically asking, ”Sez who?”

Or ”Prove it”, like the men from Missouri, the ”Show me State”!

Well, current Biblical scholarship doesn't jump from the certainty and hubris of modernism into the skepticism of post modernism, but operates in the realm of probability:

Quote

DBW: Up until the last few years, I would say—and have said—that the practice of textual criticism neither needs nor deserves any theological presuppositions. For example, I am not convinced that the Bible speaks of its own preservation. That doctrine was first introduced in the Westminster Confession, but it is not something that can be found in scripture. But with the rise of postmodern approaches to biblical studies, where all views are created equal, it seems that theology is having a role in the discussion. The question is, Is it the right theology? What I didn’t care for about modernism was its tendency toward dogmatism; what I don’t care for about postmodernism is its tendency toward scepticism. I think we’ve jumped out of the frying pan of modernist certainty and into the fire of postmodern uncertainty. At bottom, historical investigation has to deal with probabilities. These fall short of certainty, but all views are not created equal.

Interview of Daniel B. Wallace on Textual Criticism


Daniel Wallace

--------------------
Ship's crimp

Posts: 927 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm sorry I write long posts. I don't always have time to write short ones.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
On a serious note, but I doubt EE will let it lie, I'm with Boogie on this one. If we could all acknowledge that we might be wrong then the problem's solved.

For some reason EE doesn't seem to want to do that.

I'm not holding myself up as an example, but when I was a full-on charismatic and used to speak in tongues regularly, I was simultaneously open to the possibility that I might be wrong. I've had several quite powerful experiences that I would consider to be experiences of the supernatural and the presence of God - and I believe that they were very, very real. But at the same time I remain open to the possibility that there was a natural explanation all along.

I can hold both ideas in tension.

I don't see the problem at all.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599

 - Posted      Profile for footwasher   Email footwasher   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
To put it in a nutshell, we can attack the issue, not the person or his attitude?
Posts: 927 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
Steve H
Shipmate
# 17102

 - Posted      Profile for Steve H   Email Steve H   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
EE - clearly, there are some things which must be true, because doubting them leads immediately into logical contradiction, such as one's own existance: that's the point of Descartes's "I think, therefore I am". There are also things which are not necessarily true, but which we have to assume if we're to reason and debate at all, such as the validity of human reason, and the reliability of our senses. Let's call these beliefs 'type-1 beliefs'. All other beliefs may or may not be true - you can hold them or not, without falling into immediate logical contradiction, or making all sensible debate impossible. I suggest that we call these 'type-2 beliefs'. Religious beliefs are type 2. You and I both believe in God, and in the full divinity and humanity of Christ, but we could be wrong: you can disbelieve in either or both without falling into a logical contradiction, or making reasoning impossible. I suggest to you that a belief that you might be mistaken in your type-2 beliefs is itself a type-1 belief, because it is clear that other people disagree with you, so unless you arbitrarily assume that you are right about everything, which is illogical (as well as incredibly arrogant), you must assume the theoretical possibility that you might be wrong in at least some of them. This is not the same thing as assuming that you are wrong, which, as I pointed out earlier, is logically contradictory.
No-one is asking you to renounce any of your beliefs - just to admit to the purely theoretical possibility that you might be wrong about some of them.

[ 03. June 2012, 17:59: Message edited by: Steve H ]

--------------------
Hold to Christ, and for the rest, be totally uncommitted.
Herbert Butterfield.

Posts: 439 | From: Hemel Hempstead, Herts | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, yes, and I should have done. I get things wrong. I am not infallible.

I'm not excusing my rants, but EE has suggested that I've been nagging at him because I'm some how wound up by his certainties. It ain't that so much as what I've taken (rightly or wrongly) to be the tone in which he says things. The same kind of tone he uses to scoff at RCs or Orthodox or anyone who has a higher view of Tradition than he has, for instance.

And the way he apparently sets himself up and his wonderful discernment as the arbiter of all that's good and holy and true.

I might very well be doing him a disservice. But it doesn't sound like it to me.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds his posts hubristic. Irish Lord has said similar.

I can't remember whether anyone else has tackled him over it. Rightly or wrongly, I have done so.

But you're right - it's the issue not the person.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Steve H
Shipmate
# 17102

 - Posted      Profile for Steve H   Email Steve H   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Steve -

So what are you then?

Humble or proud?

I'm humble and proud of it. [Big Grin]

--------------------
Hold to Christ, and for the rest, be totally uncommitted.
Herbert Butterfield.

Posts: 439 | From: Hemel Hempstead, Herts | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What Steve H said.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
... About admitting the theoretical possibility that we might be wrong about our Type 2 beliefs. I don't see any problem with acknowledging that.

Not about the pride thing ... although it's a good line. [Biased]

@Irish Lord - the Akinola reference was to a quotation of this Nigerian Bishop's which appeared, rather amusingly, on a Shipmate's sign - I forget whose - 'People often tell me how surprised they are at my humility.'

[Big Grin]

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599

 - Posted      Profile for footwasher   Email footwasher   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Gotta admit he tends to pontificate, walk the Sir Oracle walk. And his loopy logic doesn't help!

[Smile]

--------------------
Ship's crimp

Posts: 927 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
On a serious note, but I doubt EE will let it lie, I'm with Boogie on this one. If we could all acknowledge that we might be wrong then the problem's solved.

For some reason EE doesn't seem to want to do that.

What "problem" are we talking about? I'm not aware that there is a problem with my confidence in something entirely personal to me. This seems to be a problem of your own making. What I personally think about my own personal experience of speaking in tongues does not affect anybody else. So why is this a "problem"?

It's the fact that you seem completely obsessed with getting me to have a particular view about something entirely personal that flabbergasts me. I really don't get it. I could understand it if I was saying something along the lines of "you have to speak in tongues to be a true Christian" (which is, of course, BS). I could understand it if I was trying to impose this on other people. And I could even understand it if I was speaking in tongues in the earshot of other people, who may find it offensive. But what I have been talking about is private. What's the friggin' issue here?

But let me see how far I can go to concede to your point of view. After all, I am trying my utmost to be open-minded and willing to learn and take correction. OK. So what percentage doubt do you think I ought to have in order to be humble?

Shall we say 0.000001%? Let's call that Cartesian doubt. I could live with that.

Or should I plump for 10%? A pretty good probability that it's true. Beyond reasonable doubt (whatever that is supposed to mean).

What percentage of doubt do I have to achieve in order to become "humble" and cease to be the arrogant sod you have portrayed me as?

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It doesn't work like that EE. Nobody is one or the other. We all have our moments of pride - the type of pride which is wrong, conceited and bigoted. We all have our moments of pride - the type which is right and good. We all have our moments when we are truly humble, but I'll bet they don't last long!

Admitting you might be wrong isn't humble - it's simply realistic.

Any one of us can be wrong on matters of faith, we'll never know for sure this side of death. That's realism, not humility imo.

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
You are an arrogant sod, EE. I am an arrogant sod. We can all be arrogant sods at times.

At other times we can be capable of great humility, even altruism.

But the fact is, we don't know ourselves sufficiently to rightly discern what is what and which is which at all times and in all circumstances.

Which is one reason why we need one another, one reason why we need the Church (however we define it) and one reason why we need to be open to correction or to accept that what we might have taken as proof positive for something or other might not actually be the case ...

I don't have a big issue with your tongues. That's a bit of a red-herring, even though it was the trigger for the resulting spats.

As I've acknowledged already, I shouldn't have used YOUR tongues as an example to illustrate what I was trying (clumsily) to say. What I should have done was used my own - and that way I would have avoided it becoming personal.

I'm not for a moment suggesting that you are trying to impose your experience on anyone else. I should have kept it hypothetical in the first place and not directed it at you. I was questioning Daron and yourself in a somewhat rhetorical way as you both seemed inordinately certain about this particular aspect - or so it seemed to me.

Boogie and Steve H have both said what I was trying to say better than I have.

That's all I was trying to say. I apologise if I upset you. The point I was making was that we can't be 100% certain about subjective experience - and tongues, it seems to me, falls into that category.

I don't see how simply suggesting that we CAN hypothetically be mistaken calls either your spirituality or integrity into question.

That's the point I was trying (badly) to make. That is ALL.

I really don't see what's so difficult to grasp.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Robert Armin

All licens'd fool
# 182

 - Posted      Profile for Robert Armin     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
Eh... sorry, I don't get the reference? [Confused]

Akinola was the previous Archbishop of Nigeria, and once said in an interview, "People have told me that I embarass them with my humilty". It caused much mirth on the Ship, and someone had it as their sig for a while.

--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin

Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
But the fact is, we don't know ourselves sufficiently to rightly discern what is what and which is which at all times and in all circumstances.

Which is one reason why we need one another, one reason why we need the Church (however we define it) and one reason why we need to be open to correction or to accept that what we might have taken as proof positive for something or other might not actually be the case ...

Fine. I am very happy to take correction if the evidence is sound and convincing. What I will not do is be railroaded into accepting the views of other Christians just because they're Christians, as if they have a right to run my spiritual life and "speak into it". Having been in a highly manipulative fellowship I know what it's like to be under the ministry of someone who thinks he has a right to "speak into" other people's spiritual lives on a self-appointed basis (although he would think he was appointed by God). I don't need that at all. If that is how the church is supposed to function then I don't need the church, and never will need it. If that is arrogant, then so be it. But I think such intrusiveness is the very antithesis of humility. Real humility involves respecting people's space and BACKING OFF.

If someone came to me and presented me with convincing evidence that my gift of tongues was just "made up" - i.e. there was absolutely nothing of God in it, then would I be prepared to accept that evidence and submit to it? The answer to that is a resounding 'yes'. Of course I would. If they make such an accusation, but are unable to present evidence, then I guess I would feel justified in telling them (as politely as I could) to sod off. And I don't care whether they are a "concerned Christian brother", a "Christian leader", a self-appointed "spiritual director" or who the hell they are. If someone has taken it upon himself to correct me, then come up with sound and logically coherent evidence (and also he could explain to me why he feels the need to correct me anyway. Does he go around assessing everybody in this way?).

As a matter of fact I have actually engaged with the linguistic evidence - hence my forays into linguistics on the "tongues" thread. I have not seen any evidence at all that my "tongues" would not qualify as a legitimate language (although I am not quite sure who has the right to decide how that category should be defined anyway).

I suppose if it could be shown that my exercise of the gift of tongues was having a directly detrimental effect on me, and I was having weird and unhealthy experiences while doing this, then, of course, I would accept that as evidence that it was dodgy.

And I know the difference between making up a load of gobbledygook and the consistent articularion of this gift of tongues. So I have assessed this evidence also.

I believe that I have gone through the evidence pretty thoroughly and concluded that this gift is indeed genuine. So why would I still need to doubt something that I have already investigated to my satisfaction? As I say, if someone could come up with convincing evidence that I am wrong, then I would listen and consider that evidence, but this openness to evidence does not compromise my conviction that my gift of tongues is indeed genuine.

When we say "I could be wrong", this has two different meanings. I could say "I could be wrong" in the sense that I live with a constant suspicion that something I am doing is dubious. This is inevitably going to have an effect on my whole attitude to this thing, and will probably prevent me from doing it, for fear of the detrimental consequences if my suspicion is correct. I thoroughly reject this kind of doubt as regards my experience of "tongues".

But there is another meaning to "I could be wrong". This is simply the general attitude that says that "if someone could show me that I am wrong by producing genuinely convincing evidence, then I will listen to that evidence and assess it as honestly as I can". But this attitude does not undermine confidence in those things, which I have been convinced are true.

I just cannot see how coming to a conclusion about something is "arrogant". I certainly don't see the slightest evidence in the Bible that doubt is an inherent virtue or a sign of humility - in fact, the very opposite. Of course, there is the kind of "doubt" that is a legitimate part of "testing all things", but I am not talking about that temporary form of doubt, in which ideas are held provisionally while being investigated. I am talking about the kind of chronic scepticism that prevents us from ever coming to any conclusions - especially about spiritual matters.

I can see that we may not agree on this, but this is my position and I am not going to lie as a result of being forced to say something different just to please people on this website or in the Church.

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250

 - Posted      Profile for irish_lord99     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I wonder if what we're all dancing around here is the fine line between confidence in our beliefs and the need to be right?

Now, this is a discussion board and we're all here to discuss things, but I think there's good wisdom in what Johnny S said above, as well as in EE's sig.

--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain

Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged
gorpo
Shipmate
# 17025

 - Posted      Profile for gorpo   Email gorpo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
I wonder if what we're all dancing around here is the fine line between confidence in our beliefs and the need to be right?

I didn´t think a discussion about pride and humility would end up as a discussion about beliefs. I tend to think of pride and humility as things you demonstrate on your everyday life, in how you treat your neighbours and family, and not necessarily as having to do with how you believe in your religion.

I know so many people that seem so nice in boards and social networks as they explain their ideas in a very humble and open minded way, but when you end up knowing them in person they´re total bitches. I know people who are very closed-minded in their beliefs and would never admit being wrong at all, yet they treat others nicely and put the interests of others above their own.

Most of all, being humble with other people doesn´t necessarily means being humble to God. A humble person might be tempted to believe he deserves something from God for being humble, and that´s a very sinful form of pride.

Posts: 247 | From: Brazil | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve H:
Go away, you silly little boy.

Commandment 3

quote:
3. Attack the issue, not the person

Name-calling and personal insults are only allowed in Hell. Attacks outside of Hell are grounds for suspension or banning.

Purg Guideline 1

quote:


1. No personal attacks

We all have different opinions about weighty matters, some strongly held. Disagree with the view, not the person. The statement, "View X is stupid," is acceptable. The statement, "Person X is stupid," is not.

Steve H

Do I need to say more? You definitely crossed the line. Please don't do that again. I see what provoked the vent of course. You can vent as much as you like in Hell. Not here.

EtymologicalEvangelical and Gamaliel

On the Commandment 3 line cross, I'm giving you both a "close call" pass. But you would be wise to leave your personal differences out of these discussions, because a clear continuation of them in Purg crosses another line.

Commandment 4

quote:
4. If you must get personal, take it to Hell

If you get into a personality conflict with other shipmates, you have two simple choices: end the argument or take it to Hell.

Clearly, and despite apologies, some mutual personal conflict remains. There is clear evidence that you continue to get up each others' noses. Feel free to "explore" that some more in Hell. But you really are pushing the envelope by even discussing your conflict here. Please drop any further references to it. That is importing Hell back into Purgatory and you just can't do that.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host


[ 04. June 2012, 06:08: 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
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119

 - Posted      Profile for Kaplan Corday         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The (admittedly shaky!) analogy which occurs to me when I read EE is my own knowledge that my wife would never be unfaithful to me.

From a formal epistemological point of view, I think - or believe, or think I know, or am of the strong opinion, or feel I have experiential evidence - that she would never be unfaithful to me, but all such terms are inadequate.

I just know - there is no other word for it - and that's that.

Of course I am forced to admit that such knowledge is theoretically challengeable, in that contrary evidence could come to light in the future (rather like Gammy's possibility of the discovery of a conveniently labelled corpse of Jesus), but at the same time I know that that is never going to happen.

Incidentally, my favourite example of radical epistemological humility comes from G.K. Chesterton's essay on Charles II: "When he took the Sacrament according to the forms of the Roman Church in his last hour he was acting consistently as a philosopher. The wafer might not be God; similarly it might not be a wafer".

Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Steve H
Shipmate
# 17102

 - Posted      Profile for Steve H   Email Steve H   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve H:
Go away, you silly little boy.

Commandment 3

quote:
3. Attack the issue, not the person

Name-calling and personal insults are only allowed in Hell. Attacks outside of Hell are grounds for suspension or banning.

Purg Guideline 1

quote:


1. No personal attacks

We all have different opinions about weighty matters, some strongly held. Disagree with the view, not the person. The statement, "View X is stupid," is acceptable. The statement, "Person X is stupid," is not.

Steve H

Do I need to say more? You definitely crossed the line. Please don't do that again. I see what provoked the vent of course. You can vent as much as you like in Hell. Not here.Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

Fair enough. Sorry.

--------------------
Hold to Christ, and for the rest, be totally uncommitted.
Herbert Butterfield.

Posts: 439 | From: Hemel Hempstead, Herts | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged
Steve H
Shipmate
# 17102

 - Posted      Profile for Steve H   Email Steve H   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If someone came to me and presented me with convincing evidence that my gift of tongues was just "made up" - i.e. there was absolutely nothing of God in it, then would I be prepared to accept that evidence and submit to it? The answer to that is a resounding 'yes'. Of course I would. If they make such an accusation, but are unable to present evidence, then I guess I would feel justified in telling them (as politely as I could) to sod off. And I don't care whether they are a "concerned Christian brother", a "Christian leader", a self-appointed "spiritual director" or who the hell they are. If someone has taken it upon himself to correct me, then come up with sound and logically coherent evidence (and also he could explain to me why he feels the need to correct me anyway. Does he go around assessing everybody in this way?).

At last! That's all anyone wanted you to admit to! (Well, it's all I wanted you to admit to, anyway, But I think Gamaliel and Boogie also) I'm not trying in the least to get you to say that your gift of tongues is not from God - it may well be: I don't dismiss tongues, or other gifts, absolutely - just to admit to the theoretical possibility that it could be, which you've now done. Now maybe we can all have a nice group-hug and make friends! [Big Grin]

[ 04. June 2012, 07:43: Message edited by: Steve H ]

--------------------
Hold to Christ, and for the rest, be totally uncommitted.
Herbert Butterfield.

Posts: 439 | From: Hemel Hempstead, Herts | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes, I'm satisfied with that too, if that doesn't sound too pompous a thing to say.

And yes, I accept Barnabas62's warning shot across my bows. I can foresee that they may sometimes remain tensions between EE and myself given the spat we've had over the last week or so - and yes, I started it ... [Hot and Hormonal]

But I'm prepared to put that behind and engage properly and appropriately with EE whenever I come across him on the Boards (which hasn't been very often so far as I can recollect). I have no desire to have another Hell bout.

I reiterate, my big mistake - my Capital M Mistake - was to use EE as an example rather than myself. Had I done so I doubt that EE would have felt that I was 'getting' at him. It would have remained in the realm of the hypothetical, the abstract as it were - which is where it should have remained.

Kaplan Corday's example is a good one. I like the Charles II quote. I also agree with him that a conveniently labelled corpse of Jesus of Nazareth is never going to be found. Hallelujah!

There, I told you I could do 'hwyl' at times ... [Big Grin]

@Etymological Evangelical, I too have suffered from involvement in a very controlling fellowship and my reaction to that sort of thing is very similar to yours. I suggest that both of us may have been 'damaged' by this in different ways - but I can really only speak for myself and not presume to do so on your behalf.

I'm not suggesting I was RIGHT in this assumption but to some extent the certainty of your position reminded me of attitudes and stances adopted in that particular fellowship. Which is why I rounded on you.

It seems that an equal and opposite reaction was happening in your case, insofar as you took my challenge as an attempt to 'control' or regulate your private and personal spiritual life.

I was as non-plussed by that assertion as you were by mine. So perhaps our prior experiences coloured our perceptions of what each of us were saying?

If that was the case, then let's clear the air and bury the hatchet - and not in one another's heads ... [Biased]

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660

 - Posted      Profile for Drewthealexander     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
@Gamaliel. You wrote 'The point I was making was that we can't be 100% certain about subjective experience.' Which I think captures the essence of much of the preceding discussion.

Reflecting on this, I reckon you can be more certain of your experiences than you seem to give yourself credit for.

Philosophers acknowledge beliefs which they describe as 'incorrigible.' Even though there is no external verifiable reason for that belief, it cannot be refuted in the experience of the individual. So I may experience physical pain. There may be no discernible medical reason for this but if I am experiencing pain, then this belief is, nonetheless, incorrigible. It's a subjective experience of which I am 100% certain.

Let's take this a step further. You love your wife and daughters. When you tell them you love them I have no doubt that does not come witn caveats like "But I might discover that I don't really love you, that what I think is love is actually a chemical reaction in my brain, or a desire to conform to an external set of social conventions regarding how a man should treat his family." Now being a deeply thoughtful individual you may well have considered all these possibilities and concluded that none of them are valid.

You therefore have *every* reason to believe that you do love your wife and daughters, and *no* reason to doubt it.

And even with my less than impressive grasp of mathematics that would appear to add up to a 100% certainty of the validity of your subjective experience.

Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, I can see what you're driving at, Drewthealexander - but I submit that there is quite a bit of difference between suggesting something like, 'I love my wife and daughters' and, 'I have just spoken in a language I have not learned and which I believe to be one given directly by God the Holy Spirit ...'

I'm not dismissing the possibility of the latter, simply suggesting that even if it does conform sufficiently to a linguistic pattern to satisfy the speaker (if not the hearer?) then it doesn't automatically follow that it IS a language.

It might be. It might not be.

That's all I'm saying. I may upset some people by suggesting that but that's all I'm suggesting.

It can only remain an assertion or a belief. And that's fine. I can live with the ambiguity of that.

I believe I've had various spiritual experiences over the years. I believe that I once heard angels singing, for instance. There was one other witness who also believed that they'd heard the same. I can't 'prove' it one way or another. My faith doesn't depend upon whether I was right or wrong.

If it were proven to me that I imagined it or mistook some ethereal sounding noises in the distance that appeared, by virtue of atmospheric conditions, to sound like angelic singing then fine ...

I'm not a million miles with EE on this one. He believes that he has spoken in a language he has not learned. I used to believe that too. I'm less convinced now but that doesn't mean that I'm not open to the possibility that I may have done.

I may have done. I may not have done.

I really don't see what the big problem is with entertaining some ambiguity here. I can live with the ambiguity.

I'm not suggesting that EE should entertain the same level of ambiguity - or that you should - or that anyone else ought to. Although I would like them to accept the theoretical possibility that they can do so - which seems to be where we're at now.

Which is fine.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools