|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Intellectual and spiritual rape
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
Many times in discussion on matters religious and spiritual, I have encountered the view that Christians should submit to the pronouncements of the Church, and that these doctrines are validated, not with reference to reason and evidence, but tradition and an appeal to the (subjective) work of the Holy Spirit.
I struggle with this idea, especially when reference is made to the Holy Spirit, who is revealed in Isaiah 11:2 as "the Spirit of wisdom and understanding". I've always assumed that the process of 'understanding' involves engaging the critical faculty of the mind, which operates in concert with a person's free will (freedom is also a fruit of the work of the Holy Spirit - see 2 Corinthians 3:17).
I see a distinct parallel between this attempt to pressure people into believing certain ideas, on the one hand and rape, on the other. Both activities undermine consent. Both involve a stronger person forcing a weaker person to act in a certain way or have some unwanted experience. Both involve fear and threats. In the case of intellectual / spiritual rape within an ecclesiastical context, the threats may involve the possibility of excommunication and eternal damnation if certain ideas are not accepted.
Rape - as we normally understand it - ignores and undermines consent. I believe it's the case that some rapists have the twisted idea that some form of consent has been given ('no' really means 'yes'). This factor of lack of consent is key to defining rape. So why not apply the same criterion to other areas of life, and condemn those activities as constituting a form of rape (without wishing to trivialise the crime that we normally describe by the word 'rape')? If my consent is being undermined as a Christian, and, on pain of being disfellowshipped or thrown into eternal fire, I am being browbeaten into accepting ideas which are incoherent, and which are never explained rationally (and therefore which I could never freely accept), then I am suffering a form of intellectual and spiritual rape, am I not?
I've read comments recently on this site, which seem to suggest the need to submit to Church authority (otherwise why be a member of that church?) without necessary reference to reason, and I simply cannot understand why individual Christians cannot be invited and encouraged to evaluate doctrines and claims for themselves on the basis of logic and evidence. To say: "This is an infallible doctrine and therefore you must accept it on the basis of the authority of the Church alone, otherwise you are committing the sin of heresy" is to coerce people into thinking in a certain way without respecting their consent. Of course, if the idea is presented in a way that encourages rational evaluation, and it becomes clear that some people will not accept it, because they refuse to engage with logic and evidence, then perhaps they really need to question their membership of that Church. But people become members of a Church community for all sorts of valid reasons, and to exploit that allegiance to force people to think in a certain way without reference to the authority of reason and evidence, but by simply demanding submission to institutional authority, is, in my view, a form of rape.
I feel that I have been "intellectually (and spiritually) raped" by the Church many times in my life, and I have begun to realise that this explains much of the depression I have suffered over the years (thankfully much much less of it now). In fact, I think that violation of consent is one of the key causes of depression, but sadly it can happen in subtle ways.
How can we embrace and promote Christian tradition without violating people's consent, i.e. their need to think things through for themselves?
How can Church authority function while upholding the freedom of the flock?
How does freedom really work within the Church? How can it?
How can we communicate the faith to children without intellectually raping them?
How can we preach effectively in a way that does not use coercive language, tone and gestures, so as not to try to force our views into other people's minds?
--------------------
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
I wasn't forced in any way - I was persuaded.
Big difference.
I was persuaded by a lovely, intelligent woman who gently told me of her faith and never forced any of her ideas on me. It was her intelligence and care which impressed me in equal measure.
I have gone on to disbelieve much of the theology I took on board then (1990) but I still love, respect and admire the Church which brought me to faith (con-evo Methodist)
I'm sorry to hear your experience was so very different EtymologicalEvangelical, but it isn't always that way, for sure.
(I must say I dislike the use of the word 'rape' in this context, however bad your experience, it can't even begin to equate to physical rape)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie
(I must say I dislike the use of the word 'rape' in this context, however bad your experience, it can't even begin to equate to physical rape)
I anticipated this objection, and that is why I made clear in the OP that I didn't wish to trivialise physical rape. However, what word would convey as appropriately the idea of a person's consent being undermined and violated? 'Abuse' is too general.
We use analogies all the time, and I don't think an analogy should necessarily trivialise the thing being used as an analogy. Something can be serious and compared to something else which is more serious, without in any way detracting from the seriousness of the latter. I agree that we need to be careful how we do this, for example, not using the word 'holocaust' to refer to some experience of suffering that is nowhere near as horrific as the events we normally associate with the word.
Having seen the detrimental effects of the kind of 'rape' I am describing (not just in myself but others), I think that it is an appropriate word to describe the insidious manipulation and abuse that goes on in the name of religion.
--------------------
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
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
It's hard to argue with the following quote, isn't it?
"That although inferences and deductions from Scripture premises, when fairly inferred, may be truly called the doctrine of God’s holy word, yet are they not formally binding upon the consciences of Christians farther than they perceive the connection, and evidently see that they are so; for their faith must not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power and veracity of God. Therefore, no such deductions can be made terms of communion, but do properly belong to the after and progressive edification of the Church. Hence, it is evident that no such deductions or inferential truths ought to have any place in the Church’s confession."
Just askin'.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Yes, there is an element of submission. I don't necessarily see anything wrong with that. There are limits to human reason and logic and that's where submission starts. Ultimately, this is not a matter of Reason v. Submission though. It's a matter of ecclesiology and how we see the Church's role in defining the faith handed to us by the Apostles.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Many times in discussion on matters religious and spiritual, I have encountered the view that Christians should submit to the pronouncements of the Church, and that these doctrines are validated, not with reference to reason and evidence, but tradition and an appeal to the (subjective) work of the Holy Spirit.
I struggle with this idea, especially when reference is made to the Holy Spirit, who is revealed in Isaiah 11:2 as "the Spirit of wisdom and understanding". I've always assumed that the process of 'understanding' involves engaging the critical faculty of the mind, which operates in concert with a person's free will (freedom is also a fruit of the work of the Holy Spirit - see 2 Corinthians 3:17).
...How can we preach effectively in a way that does not use coercive language, tone and gestures, so as not to try to force our views into other people's minds?
Of course, many of us come from traditions that are formed by exactly what you describe. Traditions that don't have the weight of infallible or near-infallible tradition to lean on to give authority to our words, so we (preachers) do indeed have to rely on logical persuasion, biblical authority and, hopefully, the conviction of the Spirit to do our convincing. So in many ways I am sympathetic to your view.
There is much that is good about this-- the challenge to take your faith seriously, to wrestle with real questions of faith and life. The sense of the immediacy of the Spirit, the seeking after discernment. There are, however, some offsetting dangers of our more "Spirit-led" tradition, among them:
1. Undermining, whether explicitly or implicitly, the role of community in discernment. The pattern of the book of Acts appears to support the notion that God speaks primarily thru the gathered faithful community, rather than to isolated individuals (with notable exceptions).
2. Similarly, this view exasperates our cultural norm of individualism, so prevalent particularly in the US. It breeds a consumerist approach to faith/spirituality.
3. This pov requires a high degree of honesty and authenticity on the part of the congregant, and a disciplined approach to faith-- both in the mystical/spiritual sense (spiritual discernment) and in the more analytical/hermeneutical approach. Yet very few of our churches, including (or especially) those in my more pneumatic tradition, are doing a whole lot to train laity in these disciplines.
*aside: fwiw, even with your explanation, I find myself extraordinarily uncomfortable with the rape analogy. It's a rhetorical devise that needs to be used with care, in this case, I believe it's use provides more heat than light*
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
What cliffdweller said about using rape as an analogy.
Pressure and coercion can be applied many ways which colour the experience differently than rape.
--------------------
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
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick
It's hard to argue with the following quote, isn't it?
"That although inferences and deductions from Scripture premises, when fairly inferred, may be truly called the doctrine of God’s holy word, yet are they not formally binding upon the consciences of Christians farther than they perceive the connection, and evidently see that they are so; for their faith must not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power and veracity of God. Therefore, no such deductions can be made terms of communion, but do properly belong to the after and progressive edification of the Church. Hence, it is evident that no such deductions or inferential truths ought to have any place in the Church’s confession."
Just askin'.
You say that it is hard to argue with this quote, but what do you mean by the word 'argue'? We argue with something by means of reason, and so you are appealing to reason to ask me to accept a view that appears to undermine the function of reason, hence the claim that inferential truths ought to have no place in the Church's confession.
Now that doesn't make sense.
Just look at some of the language of the quote: "Therefore, no such deductions can be made terms of communion, but do properly belong to the after and progressive edification of the Church. Hence, it is evident that no such deductions or inferential truths ought to have any place in the Church’s confession."
The highlighted words are the language of logic. So how can we depend on logic to justify undermining its function? That is incomprehensible.
I agree that our faith does not stand in "the wisdom of men", but then reason itself is not something concocted by men, but comes from God Himself, who created our minds. The "wisdom of men" is the way of coercion and threats - "might is right" - whereas the way of God is much more patient and respectful of the freedom and intelligence of His people.
If reason is abandoned then on what basis are we to accept the 'truth'? Subjective experiences? Fear? Pascal's Wager? Community pressure? None of this affirms our freedom and consent, but is the way of coercion.
--------------------
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
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
EE,
Do you nevertheless accept that there comes a point where human reason ends (human reason by its nature being limited)? What happens then?
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
You say that it is hard to argue with this quote, but what do you mean by the word 'argue'? We argue with something by means of reason, and so you are appealing to reason to ask me to accept a view that appears to undermine the function of reason, hence the claim that inferential truths ought to have no place in the Church's confession.
Now that doesn't make sense.
Just look at some of the language of the quote: "[b]Therefore, no such deductions can be made terms of communion, but do properly belong to the after and progressive edification of the Church. Hence, it is evident that no such deductions or inferential truths ought to have any place in the Church’s confession."
The highlighted words are the language of logic. So how can we depend on logic to justify undermining its function? That is incomprehensible.
I agree that our faith does not stand in "the wisdom of men", but then reason itself is not something concocted by men, but comes from God Himself, who created our minds. The "wisdom of men" is the way of coercion and threats - "might is right" - whereas the way of God is much more patient and respectful of the freedom and intelligence of His people.
If reason is abandoned then on what basis are we to accept the 'truth'? Subjective experiences? Fear? Pascal's Wager? Community pressure? None of this affirms our freedom and consent, but is the way of coercion.
Did Paul abandon reason and the leading of the Spirit when he subjected himself to the Jerusalem council? When he gathered with the elders to pray about where to go next in his missionary journeys?
Recognizing the role of the community in spiritual guidance does not equate with abandoning reason and discernment. Similarly, an individualistic approach is no guarantee of accuracy or honesty. Again, in my experience it can just as easily lead to individualistic eisegesis as we try to co-opt the Spirit to wherever our own particular bias may lay.
[ 15. May 2014, 16:28: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller
*aside: fwiw, even with your explanation, I find myself extraordinarily uncomfortable with the rape analogy. It's a rhetorical devise that needs to be used with care, in this case, I believe it's use provides more heat than light*
and
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha
What cliffdweller said about using rape as an analogy.
Pressure and coercion can be applied many ways which colour the experience differently than rape.
Words such as 'pressure', 'coercion' and even the general word 'abuse' do not convey the idea that real damage can be done to someone who is force-fed religion. While, of course, I do not wish in any way to minimise the terrible experiences of those who have been physically raped, neither do I want to give the impression that the issue I am discussing is just a storm in a teacup, and that being forced or compelled to conform to a religious institution out of fear of rejection, is something that can just be trivially "put down to experience" and laughed off.
The definition of the noun rape (Collins):
1. the offence of forcing a person, esp. a woman, to submit to sexual intercourse against that person's will.
2. the act of despoiling a country in warfare; rapine.
3. any violation or abuse: the rape of justice.
So it is clear from the third definition that I am using the word correctly.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem
EE,
Do you nevertheless accept that there comes a point where human reason ends (human reason by its nature being limited)? What happens then?
Of course. There are issues that are quite evidently beyond our comprehension. But we don't then expect people to accept certain speculations about those matters for fear of an anathema or excommunication - or worse!
If someone said to me that I had to accept a certain non-rational explanation for the double-slit experiment in Quantum Mechanics, otherwise I would be thrown into hell for all eternity, and that I had to accept this unevidenced speculation because it was being promoted by a highly celebrated physicist (and for no other reason that he had authority in the 'tradition' of modern science), I think I would use some rather colourful language to tell the bloke what I thought of him!
--------------------
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
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem
EE,
Do you nevertheless accept that there comes a point where human reason ends (human reason by its nature being limited)? What happens then?
Of course. There are issues that are quite evidently beyond our comprehension. But we don't then expect people to accept certain speculations about those matters for fear of an anathema or excommunication - or worse!
If someone said to me that I had to accept a certain non-rational explanation for the double-slit experiment in Quantum Mechanics, otherwise I would be thrown into hell for all eternity, and that I had to accept this unevidenced speculation because it was being promoted by a highly celebrated physicist (and for no other reason that he had authority in the 'tradition' of modern science), I think I would use some rather colourful language to tell the bloke what I thought of him!
There is nothing we can infer from reason that God is Triune, for intsance, or that Christ has two natures. We believe these things because they have been revealed to us through the Church and which we accept by faith. Faith by it's nature is an act of submission. But as I said, ultimately this a matter of ecclesiology more than anything else.
[ 15. May 2014, 17:00: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
It's debatable we can prove the existence of God using reason. Any appeal to pure reason on theological issues after that is silly. Talking about God requires accepting certain presuppositions by faith. Once those presuppositions are established we can then use reason. What presuppositions we accept also determines what we count as evidence.
So, a person with his or her own presuppositions will convince few he or she is correct. The same person will likely not convinced he or she is wrong. Debate is probably pointless. That which is pointless is a waste of time.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem
There is nothing we can infer from reason that God is Triune, for intsance, or that Christ has two natures. We believe these things because they have been revealed to us through the Church and which we accept by faith. Faith by it's nature is an act of submission. But as I said, ultimately this a matter of ecclesiology more than anything else.
Well, I disagree that we cannot infer the Trinity or indeed the two natures of Christ. "God is love" implies at least some form of community within the Godhead (unless we want to believe that God's love is based on eternal self-love), and "man being made in the image of God" allows us to accept that God can manifest Himself in human form.
But anyway, even if you are right that we just have to accept these ideas without any rational or evidential justification, it is ludicrous to say that anyone should be anathema who, in good faith, states that he cannot find a reason to accept these propositions. Jesus certainly did not anathematise the people who only saw Him as a prophet, but rather blessed and healed them, while at the same time commanding the disciples not to reveal His true nature to them.
I don't agree with your definition of faith. I don't know where the Bible states that "faith by its nature is an act of submission" (i.e. submission in the sense that you are suggesting). Faith is a wholehearted response to truth, and this emphatically does not involve abandoning reason.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar
Once those presuppositions are established we can then use reason.
How are those presuppositions established then?
I presume you will say "by faith".
Which means what exactly?
Just deciding by a sheer act of will that something must be true, in the absence of any supporting evidence? If that is the case, then fine (not that I agree with such an approach, mind you). But that is hardly a basis to pass judgment on anyone who can't do it. Certain sections of the Christian Church, however, seem rather keen on passing judgment on such people, ISTM.
BTW, I think there is an abundance of evidence by which we can infer the existence of God (something the Bible affirms in Romans 1).
[ 15. May 2014, 17:23: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
--------------------
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
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
There are multiple problems with the OP.
First, the use of the word "rape" is not an innocent analogy if one also asks for people to "condemn those activities as constituting a form of rape". Rape is considered as a very serious crime indeed, hence this implies a massive upping of the ante. If we were to take this literally, then certain conversion attempts should incur long prison sentences... One can hardly use such language in such a way and intend a measured discussion.
Second, there is a deficient understanding of consent in the OP. Consent is not defined by achieving some kind of final state of being, here apparently a specific form of enlightened religion. Consent simply means giving the permission for something to happen. I can give my consent to terrible things happening to me, like somebody cutting me open. Of course, I may well be motivated to give my consent because I want to achieve a specific final state, e.g., that the surgeon opening me up will fix my heart. But I can also consent to genocide being carried out, or any number of other evil and horrible things. That the final state of a person is objectionable to the OP hence tells us nothing about whether consent was ever violated.
Third, the OP strangely seems to assume that religious life is some kind of natural state of the individual, rather than a cultural and social activity carried out by groups of people. But the reason why anybody can be "excommunicated" is because they were first "communicated". Obviously, it can be unjust if someone gets thrown out of a group of people. But the mere fact that someone is being expelled does not tell us that. It can be perfectly justified to throw someone out of a group. People can get expelled from school, fired from work, struck off the register, thrown into prison, etc. And yes, sometimes that is as it should be, no matter how regrettable one might find the loss of that former member. And indeed, groups quite commonly impose rules on their members, and usually the existence of such rules indicates more, not less, justice, because it removes the arbitrariness of decisions. If you steal from your employer and get caught, then likely you are going to be fired. Just because there are rules in your contract that allow such actions against you under such circumstances doesn't mean that this is unjust.
Fourth, the OP suggests that "scare tactics" are used to impose certain religious norm onto people. That can be the case, of course. However, once more the simple fact that something is being warned about does not mean that this is "scare tactics". A simple warning of actual horrible danger has just the same format. If I warn you against having a holiday in Chernobyl and Fukushima, then I will probably paint a very grim picture of the damage that radioactivity can cause. But that is not a "scare tactic". If you do not listen to my words, and have your holiday in those places, then likely you will get very sick or even die from radiation damage, just as I claimed. So there is a question about what is true behind all this. Obviously, with a truth of faith it is not so easy to check whether it warns accurately or scares unnecessarily. However, at least for most of us it is true that we don't have to believe anything. So at least at an adult level, we choose the "threats" we are confronted with by virtue of choosing our faith. If you choose to be a (traditional) Christian, then complaining about getting scared with stories of hell is mildly absurd. In that context that is a warning one expects. There are admittedly problems there concerning what happens to children and young adults. But that really is a different discussion. My point here is simply that we cannot conclude that there is foul play just because somebody fears damnation, or other things.
Fifth, the OP has a rather naive approach to religious doctrine. If it was the case that the truth of religious doctrine could be established compellingly by regular logic operating on widely available evidence, then we all would be of one religion, a religion that would essentially just be seen as common sense. People that would not accept this common sense religion would be considered mentally handicapped. Perhaps the OP thinks of people who disagree with him concerning religion in this way. But a realistic appraisal of religions and their claims leads to the conclusion that there is very little indeed that anybody can argue someone else into, in matters of religion. The assumption that "everybody with any brain must see religion my way" may be comforting, but is unfortunately clearly false. Religion can have considerable internal coherence, hence it is possible to argue with those who share the same beliefs. But argument cannot establish all those beliefs, and cannot generally falsify the beliefs of those who disagree. Rational inquiry is a tool of religion, it cannot create religion. Everybody bootstraps religion by authority somehow, pretending to be much more rational about it all often just hides a non-rational rejection of the authority the other uses.
--------------------
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
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
You can't have evidence without accepting presuppositions. The presuppositions define what we accept by evidence. Yes, we accept presuppositions by faith. If presuppositions weren't accepted by faith, then Christianity wouldn't have lasted very long or spread very far. I do think you use a very broad and peculiar definitions of reason and evidence that leads you to think that what you believe is more rational than what others do. And, if we can't agree on what constitutes evidence or even what reason means, then debate is both pointless and a waste of time.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
[QB] quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick
It's hard to argue with the following quote, isn't it?
"That although inferences and deductions from Scripture premises, when fairly inferred, may be truly called the doctrine of God’s holy word, yet are they not formally binding upon the consciences of Christians farther than they perceive the connection, and evidently see that they are so; for their faith must not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power and veracity of God. Therefore, no such deductions can be made terms of communion, but do properly belong to the after and progressive edification of the Church. Hence, it is evident that no such deductions or inferential truths ought to have any place in the Church’s confession."
Just askin'.
You say that it is hard to argue with this quote, but what do you mean by the word 'argue'? We argue with something by means of reason, and so you are appealing to reason to ask me to accept a view that appears to undermine the function of reason, hence the claim that inferential truths ought to have no place in the Church's confession.
Now that doesn't make sense.
Oh, ok. Whenever I see someone getting baptized all I hear them confess is that they believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God.
As for other stuff, it seems that your OP and the quote I offered are actually in agreement, advocating that people be allowed to grow in understanding, realizing that people don't believe something until they believe it. That seems the gist of both to me, anyway.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think there is a case for faith to be seen as something that is rational up to a point, but then becomes 'supra-rational' if you like.
I'm darned if I can pin-point where that point is, though.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
'Natural theology' and reason will take us a fair way. But there's more to it than that.
That doesn't make faith unreasonable, though.
As to the thing about how we avoid abusive and coercive ways of encouraging faith ...
Well, a High Church Anglican priest once said to my brother that he will readily 'submit' to the Church (understood in a High Church sense) and go along with anything it teaches to the point where it begins to conflict with is conscience.
So, bluntly, if the Church were expecting him to tell lies, then he could not in all conscience do that.
Where one's conscience kicks in may well vary. There is a point where a 'willing suspension of belief' can tip over into uncomfortable territory. Where that point lies will probably vary from one to another of us.
And as Ad Orientem says, much of it boils down to our ecclesiology.
But I'm not sure there's any easy answer. If you look at the way Wesley ran the orphanages he helped found then they'd look pretty coercive from our point of view today. At the time they probably didn't look that coercive at all.
A lot of it will have to do with our own individual values and also our societal values. The 18th century British Navy believed that press-ganging was far more liberal and enlightened than the conscription that prevailed in France and Spain. Because there was always a chance of someone eluding a press-gang or even violently resisting one - and people regularly used to get off scot-free when charged with doing just that.
That looks bonkers to us but in 18th century England it may have looked quite different.
So context has a lot to do with it.
The amount of wriggle-room will also vary. For all the concerns people have about the Magisterium or nasty old Tradition, there appears to be more wriggle-room in the historic Churches than one might ever encounter in most Pentecostal or conservative evangelical churches it seems to 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
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB
There are multiple problems with the OP.
First, the use of the word "rape" is not an innocent analogy if one also asks for people to "condemn those activities as constituting a form of rape". Rape is considered as a very serious crime indeed, hence this implies a massive upping of the ante. If we were to take this literally, then certain conversion attempts should incur long prison sentences... One can hardly use such language in such a way and intend a measured discussion.
Well, I made clear in a later post on this thread that a legitimate meaning of 'rape' is "any violation or abuse". Furthermore, I clarified my use of the analogy of rape:
quote:
I see a distinct parallel between this attempt to pressure people into believing certain ideas, on the one hand and rape, on the other. Both activities undermine consent. Both involve a stronger person forcing a weaker person to act in a certain way or have some unwanted experience. Both involve fear and threats.
Instead of respecting the context in which I used the word, you have put your particular construction on its use, in order to invalidate it. Rape is a serious crime, but the mere fact that it attracts a prison sentence does not imply that I am suggesting that more subtle forms of 'rape' (i.e. violations of a person's consent) should also be punished in that way. I used the analogy in a particular way, drawing one parallel between physical rape and other types of behaviour, and if you want to try to dismiss the analogy by focusing on some other aspect of it, that doesn't fit my argument, then you are free to do so. The trouble is that anyone can do that with any analogy. I am sure I could get to work on some of your many analogies in the same way (but I really have better things to do in life!).
quote:
Second, there is a deficient understanding of consent in the OP. Consent is not defined by achieving some kind of final state of being, here apparently a specific form of enlightened religion. Consent simply means giving the permission for something to happen. I can give my consent to terrible things happening to me, like somebody cutting me open. Of course, I may well be motivated to give my consent because I want to achieve a specific final state, e.g., that the surgeon opening me up will fix my heart. But I can also consent to genocide being carried out, or any number of other evil and horrible things. That the final state of a person is objectionable to the OP hence tells us nothing about whether consent was ever violated.
Again, you are playing the same game as with the rape analogy. My reference to 'consent' is not deficient at all. Just because it is possible to give consent to evil acts does not invalidate the role of consent in normal daily life or in the spiritual life. I may expect the Church to respect my desire to think things through for myself, but, of course, it is understood that I may go out and choose to commit some evil act, which the Church rightly should condemn. Because it condemns that evil act, does that mean that it is justified in forcing me to abandon my reason when considering the Church's doctrinal claims? Well, of course not. That would be utterly absurd. You are employing an argument that seeks the invalidate something, simply on the basis that it can be abused.
quote:
Third, the OP strangely seems to assume that religious life is some kind of natural state of the individual, rather than a cultural and social activity carried out by groups of people. But the reason why anybody can be "excommunicated" is because they were first "communicated". Obviously, it can be unjust if someone gets thrown out of a group of people. But the mere fact that someone is being expelled does not tell us that. It can be perfectly justified to throw someone out of a group. People can get expelled from school, fired from work, struck off the register, thrown into prison, etc. And yes, sometimes that is as it should be, no matter how regrettable one might find the loss of that former member. And indeed, groups quite commonly impose rules on their members, and usually the existence of such rules indicates more, not less, justice, because it removes the arbitrariness of decisions. If you steal from your employer and get caught, then likely you are going to be fired. Just because there are rules in your contract that allow such actions against you under such circumstances doesn't mean that this is unjust.
This entire paragraph is a straw man argument. I was talking specifically about doctrines that are imposed on believers by ecclesiastical authority alone without reference to reason. You then counter this with a stream of moral examples from daily life: all aspects of behaviour which can be easily appreciated and understood rationally.
quote:
Fourth, the OP suggests that "scare tactics" are used to impose certain religious norm onto people. That can be the case, of course. However, once more the simple fact that something is being warned about does not mean that this is "scare tactics". A simple warning of actual horrible danger has just the same format. If I warn you against having a holiday in Chernobyl and Fukushima, then I will probably paint a very grim picture of the damage that radioactivity can cause. But that is not a "scare tactic". If you do not listen to my words, and have your holiday in those places, then likely you will get very sick or even die from radiation damage, just as I claimed. So there is a question about what is true behind all this. Obviously, with a truth of faith it is not so easy to check whether it warns accurately or scares unnecessarily. However, at least for most of us it is true that we don't have to believe anything. So at least at an adult level, we choose the "threats" we are confronted with by virtue of choosing our faith. If you choose to be a (traditional) Christian, then complaining about getting scared with stories of hell is mildly absurd. In that context that is a warning one expects. There are admittedly problems there concerning what happens to children and young adults. But that really is a different discussion. My point here is simply that we cannot conclude that there is foul play just because somebody fears damnation, or other things.
This is again a straw man argument for the same reason as the preceding paragraph. I understand why it would be foolish to have a holiday in the shadow of Chernobyl or Fukushima. Good reasons can be given to warn people of this danger. That is a far cry from the demand that we should accept, say, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception (which, in my view, is incoherent).
quote:
Fifth, the OP has a rather naive approach to religious doctrine. If it was the case that the truth of religious doctrine could be established compellingly by regular logic operating on widely available evidence, then we all would be of one religion, a religion that would essentially just be seen as common sense. People that would not accept this common sense religion would be considered mentally handicapped. Perhaps the OP thinks of people who disagree with him concerning religion in this way. But a realistic appraisal of religions and their claims leads to the conclusion that there is very little indeed that anybody can argue someone else into, in matters of religion. The assumption that "everybody with any brain must see religion my way" may be comforting, but is unfortunately clearly false. Religion can have considerable internal coherence, hence it is possible to argue with those who share the same beliefs. But argument cannot establish all those beliefs, and cannot generally falsify the beliefs of those who disagree. Rational inquiry is a tool of religion, it cannot create religion. Everybody bootstraps religion by authority somehow, pretending to be much more rational about it all often just hides a non-rational rejection of the authority the other uses.
You call me naive, but I find it rather odd that you seriously think that everyone would accept a logical argument. People have their own reasons for believing incoherent and irrational ideas, and I think it is quite unrealistic (to put it mildly) to class such people as "mentally handicapped" - a phrase which implies something structurally wrong with the functioning of their brains. Ironically your position is a denial of consent and free will. I would have thought it was obvious that we can accept incoherent ideas without having a structurally malfunctioning brain!
You seem to imply that I am being arrogant by wanting to understand the doctrinal claims of the Church, hence your comment: "Perhaps the OP thinks of people who disagree with him concerning religion in this way. But a realistic appraisal of religions and their claims leads to the conclusion that there is very little indeed that anybody can argue someone else into, in matters of religion. The assumption that "everybody with any brain must see religion my way" may be comforting, but is unfortunately clearly false." This is really quite extraordinary. What am I to do? If the Church tells me that 2 + 2 = 5, what am I to do? Am I being arrogant if I decide to analyse that claim and conclude that actually 2 + 2 = 4? Is thinking an act of arrogance? Perhaps there are people who have their reasons for concluding that 2 + 2 = 5 or even 2 + 2 = 10. Do I not have the right to disagree with them? I may not dismiss them as mentally ill or even "mentally handicapped". I may respect them, but it is simply unrealistic to expect me to agree with their conclusion.
As for authority: well I may be the most devoted and committed member of a Church which tells me what I must believe. Great. But if I am being required to believe ideas which are incoherent, then there is no point actually believing those ideas. If they are incoherent, then there is nothing I can do with such ideas. They are impotent. I could confess to the whole world that I believe these claims, but it is mere words. Without understanding, all ideas are useless. They are merely slogans and wallpaper. Ecclesiastical graffiti. Nothing more. Or just badges to mark out the territory of a community, a bit like dogs who urinate or defecate to mark the boundaries of their patch. Hardly something to excommunicate or anathematise people over.
--------------------
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
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
If a group defines itself essentially by belief in propositions X, Y and Z, but you cannot believe in proposition Y, then it is entirely reasonable and fair for that group to deny membership to you - or if you currently have membership, to revoke it. It is largely irrelevant why you cannot believe in proposition Y. Perhaps if you can argue (or more likely: have argued for you by an able person) that you are too immature or too mentally handicapped to arrive at a belief in proposition Y, then the group might charitably decide to waive the requirement of belief Y for you. But you are not appearing here as someone who appeals for leniency with his own insufficiencies. Instead you claim in the full possession of your mental faculties that proposition Y is incoherent. Yet you are somehow upset that the group requiring proposition Y (as one of several) does not want you. This is baffling, and so in two ways. First, it is just outright silly to expect a group founded on X, Y and Z to drop Y just because you don't get it. This would make your membership more foundational than proposition Y to the group, and unsurprisingly it isn't. Second, given that you consider Y to be incoherent, a group that requires Y must be some kind of stupid. Now, why precisely are you trying to join a group that is so stupid as to require incoherent things of its members?
--------------------
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
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
Forget what the Church may or may not say. Why believe anything just because it is in Scripture? This whole "I trust God, not men, so I'll take my truth from the Bible and the Bible alone" (or more nuanced and sophisticated versions of the same) seems just as nonsensical to me as a blind adherence to the words written by a human being who happens to share a body with the office holder of some ecclesiastical title or other.
You can justify belief with either authority, perception, or reason. None are absolutely trustworthy, but authority should rightly be the most suspect. Any authority - even the authority claimed Scripture or by person or group of people in the Church - is only as trustworthy as perception and reason show them to be. And at the end of the day, we have to admit that if any religion were really that convincing, we would all just belong to that religion. Sin and the limitations of the human mind are simply not enough to explain why no religious text or institution has any valid claim to authority outside of its own happy little bubble built on arbitrary a priori assumptions. Religion is a wonderful game to play that enriches many people's lives and perhaps more people should play it. But people should stop pretending that anyone knows for sure if any of it is true or not - and people should also therefore stop caring what anyone else believes religion-wise and just go on enjoying the game.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Words such as 'pressure', 'coercion' and even the general word 'abuse' do not convey the idea that real damage can be done to someone who is force-fed religion. While, of course, I do not wish in any way to minimise the terrible experiences of those who have been physically raped, neither do I want to give the impression that the issue I am discussing is just a storm in a teacup, and that being forced or compelled to conform to a religious institution out of fear of rejection, is something that can just be trivially "put down to experience" and laughed off.
The definition of the noun rape (Collins):
1. the offence of forcing a person, esp. a woman, to submit to sexual intercourse against that person's will.
2. the act of despoiling a country in warfare; rapine.
3. any violation or abuse: the rape of justice.
So it is clear from the third definition that I am using the word correctly.
No one has suggested that you used the word incorrectly. We have suggested that you used it unwisely. The fact that roughly 40% of the thread has been taken up with that discussion I think proves my point-- it is an inflammatory analogy that only distracts from the point you are trying to make.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If a group defines itself essentially by belief in propositions X, Y and Z, but you cannot believe in proposition Y, then it is entirely reasonable and fair for that group to deny membership to you - or if you currently have membership, to revoke it. It is largely irrelevant why you cannot believe in proposition Y. Perhaps if you can argue (or more likely: have argued for you by an able person) that you are too immature or too mentally handicapped to arrive at a belief in proposition Y, then the group might charitably decide to waive the requirement of belief Y for you. But you are not appearing here as someone who appeals for leniency with his own insufficiencies. Instead you claim in the full possession of your mental faculties that proposition Y is incoherent. Yet you are somehow upset that the group requiring proposition Y (as one of several) does not want you. This is baffling, and so in two ways. First, it is just outright silly to expect a group founded on X, Y and Z to drop Y just because you don't get it. This would make your membership more foundational than proposition Y to the group, and unsurprisingly it isn't. Second, given that you consider Y to be incoherent, a group that requires Y must be some kind of stupid. Now, why precisely are you trying to join a group that is so stupid as to require incoherent things of its members?
My thoughts exactly! If you don't believe in the authority of the Church, why the heck do you care if the Church or it's representatives suggest that you might burn in hell for all eternity?
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I've read comments recently on this site, which seem to suggest the need to submit to Church authority (otherwise why be a member of that church?) without necessary reference to reason, and I simply cannot understand why individual Christians cannot be invited and encouraged to evaluate doctrines and claims for themselves on the basis of logic and evidence. To say: "This is an infallible doctrine and therefore you must accept it on the basis of the authority of the Church alone, otherwise you are committing the sin of heresy" is to coerce people into thinking in a certain way without respecting their consent. Of course, if the idea is presented in a way that encourages rational evaluation, and it becomes clear that some people will not accept it, because they refuse to engage with logic and evidence, then perhaps they really need to question their membership of that Church. But people become members of a Church community for all sorts of valid reasons, and to exploit that allegiance to force people to think in a certain way without reference to the authority of reason and evidence, but by simply demanding submission to institutional authority, is, in my view, a form of rape.
I haven't had your difficult experience of church life, and I can't speak with your passion on this issue. My point, though, is simply this. There are now many churches. If you are fairly mobile and live in or near a large town or city and wish to engage in Christian worship, there is usually no need to choose a church that will demand absolute and unquestioning obedience, if that's not what you want.
Secularisation has arguably created a set of churches whose expectations are fairly low when it comes to doctrinal orthodoxy. Of course, they don't appreciate members who publicly and disrespectfully criticise official church teachings. However, their theologians have been knocking away at orthodox teachings for a long time. The questioning posture has gradually spread to the pews too, for those people who are engaged with the issues. Each to his own, then!
By way of example, my life has been spent in the Methodist Church, where doctrinal purity is hardly discussed, as such. Church liturgies ensure unity and cohesiveness, but how people believe and behave otherwise is left to their own conscience. There are now forums where groups can discuss their doubts and 'heretical' sensibilities. Yet Methodism is quietly in deep trouble. The freedom to question doesn't attract many people to the church, and doesn't prevent many others from leaving. But people are often attracted to strict churches - and then they proceed to chafe against the 'rules'! This is what I find strange, not the fact that some people might be inclined to apply logic and critical thinking to church teachings.
We're not quite as rational as we think we are, obviously!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by stonespring:
You can justify belief with either authority, perception, or reason. None are absolutely trustworthy, but authority should rightly be the most suspect.
Most of what we believe is based on acceptance of authority.
quote:
originally posted by stonespring:
And at the end of the day, we have to admit that if any religion were really that convincing, we would all just belong to that religion. Sin and the limitations of the human mind are simply not enough to explain why no religious text or institution has any valid claim to authority outside of its own happy little bubble built on arbitrary a priori assumptions.
Why not?
quote:
originally posted by stonespring:
But people should stop pretending that anyone knows for sure if any of it is true or not - and people should also therefore stop caring what anyone else believes religion-wise and just go on enjoying the game.
Well, some people are more convinced they are right than others and believe it matters. As a result, they refuse to pretend like they don't think it matters. Morally, they are right to do so.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I SvitlanaV2 has nailed it. One of the reasons why I only visit but don't actually 'join' a church near me which in many ways would suit me to a great extent - if we are going on personalities, preferences etc - is that IS so vague and woolly - it's actually difficult to work out WHAT it stands for and what it believes - other than a generally benign and liberal fuzziness ...
I know EE might find it hard to believe that I don't drop everything and go there like a shot, but there it is - I DO want something substantial, something to hang a hat on ...
So yes, SvitlanaV2 is right. Many of us are drawn to more 'committed' forms of church life - and once there we spend our time railing against the strictures ...
There's nowt so queer as folk ...
--------------------
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
Saying that, I can well understand EE's perspective here. Even if we aren't directly affected by, say, a requirement to believe in the Immaculate Conception, we may feel inclined to 'transfer' feelings and emotions we've experienced in settings where we have been expected to toe particular lines to issues which don't directly concern us but which we see as parallel or analogous.
I certainly do this.
I s'pose the bottom-line has to be that any of us are prepared to submit to whatever authority it might be - whether based on a sacred text, a group of people or a heirarchy of some kind - to the extent that it doesn't interfere with our consciences.
Where that line runs will vary according to a range of factors.
Some people can tolerate more 'pressure' than others. Back in the day I put up with abusive settings for a lot longer than I should have done.
--------------------
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
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Recognizing the role of the community in spiritual guidance does not equate with abandoning reason and discernment. Similarly, an individualistic approach is no guarantee of accuracy or honesty. Again, in my experience it can just as easily lead to individualistic eisegesis as we try to co-opt the Spirit to wherever our own particular bias may lay.
Everyone tries to co-opt the Spirit to their own biases. That doesn't change if a bunch of people with the same biases put on pointy hats and declare themselves to be The Representatioves Of The Community.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Everyone tries to co-opt the Spirit to their own biases. That doesn't change if a bunch of people with the same biases put on pointy hats and declare themselves to be The Representatioves Of The Community.
This projection of political sensibilities on religion is nonsensical to me. There simply is no fight for democratic rights going on here. A popular vote cannot establish religious truth. The real issue here is quite simply that you believe in some form of "individual truth search" loosely based on some writings whose authority to speak about Divine things is established somehow (better avoid looking too hard at that). From that perspective, the "pointy hats" are usurping the natural mode of individual inquiry. But that is not the perspective of those of us who like the "pointy hat" model, at all. Or at least it certainly is not my perspective. Hence your critique falls completely flat, and becomes simply an echo-chamber of your preconceptions. Honestly, you are basically talking gibberish to me. Not that the "pointy hats" cannot be critiqued in what they do, but precisely not in this sort of fundamental "they are stealing my free thought about all this" mode. To the contrary, from my perspective the "pointy hats" are the very means by which one can think about any of this at all. Take them away, and you have precisely nothing. Diddley-squat. A total absence of any useful information.
This discussion will get nowhere as long as it confuses bitching about power structures and their abuse with fundamental concepts about obtaining theological information. I can bitch about "pointy hats" no end, seriously. But not in your mode. Your mode of bitching means nothing to me, because your way of doing religion appears entirely misconceived to me. If we have something to talk about, then about that. What the "pointy hats" are up to can only be discussed once we have sorted out our differences concerning their appropriate function.
[ 16. May 2014, 09:53: Message edited by: IngoB ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Everyone tries to co-opt the Spirit to their own biases. That doesn't change if a bunch of people with the same biases put on pointy hats and declare themselves to be The Representatioves Of The Community.
This projection of political sensibilities on religion is nonsensical to me. There simply is no fight for democratic rights going on here. A popular vote cannot establish religious truth.
That wasn't the point I was making. My point was more about critiquing the sort of model that says a flawed, bias-ridden individual cannot establish truth for themselves, therefore they should submit to an authority even though that authority also consists of flawed, bias-ridden individuals.
quote:
The real issue here is quite simply that you believe in some form of "individual truth search" loosely based on some writings whose authority to speak about Divine things is established somehow (better avoid looking too hard at that).
Again, no. I have no higher regard for Biblical Authority than I do for any other form.
quote:
To the contrary, from my perspective the "pointy hats" are the very means by which one can think about any of this at all.
If you said "a means" I'd agree with you. "The means"? No.
quote:
Take them away, and you have precisely nothing. Diddley-squat. A total absence of any useful information.
Even if every bishop, priest, pastor or elder in the world disappeared and every copy of the Bible was burned, still the Holy Spirit would be guiding His people.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I SvitlanaV2 has nailed it. One of the reasons why I only visit but don't actually 'join' a church near me which in many ways would suit me to a great extent - if we are going on personalities, preferences etc - is that IS so vague and woolly - it's actually difficult to work out WHAT it stands for and what it believes - other than a generally benign and liberal fuzziness ...
I know EE might find it hard to believe that I don't drop everything and go there like a shot, but there it is - I DO want something substantial, something to hang a hat on ...
Aye, but does that "something" have to be a set of doctrines? What of a church whose "something" is a positive commitment to inclusivity, acceptance and the building of community, for example?
[ 16. May 2014, 12:16: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB
If a group defines itself essentially by belief in propositions X, Y and Z, but you cannot believe in proposition Y, then it is entirely reasonable and fair for that group to deny membership to you - or if you currently have membership, to revoke it. It is largely irrelevant why you cannot believe in proposition Y. Perhaps if you can argue (or more likely: have argued for you by an able person) that you are too immature or too mentally handicapped to arrive at a belief in proposition Y, then the group might charitably decide to waive the requirement of belief Y for you. But you are not appearing here as someone who appeals for leniency with his own insufficiencies. Instead you claim in the full possession of your mental faculties that proposition Y is incoherent. Yet you are somehow upset that the group requiring proposition Y (as one of several) does not want you. This is baffling, and so in two ways. First, it is just outright silly to expect a group founded on X, Y and Z to drop Y just because you don't get it. This would make your membership more foundational than proposition Y to the group, and unsurprisingly it isn't. Second, given that you consider Y to be incoherent, a group that requires Y must be some kind of stupid. Now, why precisely are you trying to join a group that is so stupid as to require incoherent things of its members?
What I find rather strange and ironic is the fact that you are clearly appealing to reason in order to persuade me that my position is wrong. Can't you just say: "I declare, on the authority of the Church, that you are wrong"? End of. That is generally the non-rational approach. You even use the word "reasonable" to describe a group that would deny membership to someone who questions one of their "sacred cow" doctrines.
Your view has a veneer of reasonableness about it, but actually it is rather simplistic and, in fact, fallacious. Let's take an example from your own denomination: the infallible doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Now as you know, this was decreed to be truth by Pius IX on December 8th, 1854:
quote:
We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.
Now suppose I am a Catholic seeking to be submissive and faithful to my church, which I regard as The Church, and I am living at the time of the publishing of this papal bull, Ineffabilis Deus. On December 7th 1854 I don't have to believe this idea, but on December 8th I do. Now you may argue that the doctrine was implicit within Catholic theology prior to December 8th, 1854, but that is not the case. There were centuries of debate about this idea with even Thomas Aquinas stating his belief in Mary's original sin, even though he believed that she was cleansed of all sin before her birth.
Now one could say that this is a hair-splitting difference. Maybe it is, but then if it is, then why make a big deal about it, such that the faithful are required to believe in one particular version of this "angels on a pinhead" doctrine, and are threatened with grave consequences if they don't? Hence the warning which immediately follows the pronouncement:
quote:
Hence, if anyone shall dare -- which God forbid! -- to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he thinks in his heart.
If I sat down and thought through the doctrine and came to the honest conclusion that it didn't make sense logically, and did not accord with the testimony of Scripture, then all of a sudden I am anathematised from the Church of which I have been a faithful member. Simply because I decided to commit the sin of thinking. For example, I may wonder why the doctrine does not accord with the statements of Scriptures that speak of the universality of human sinfulness ("all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God..."). Or I may wonder why God has allowed the human race to be infected with original sin, when He has revealed in Mary that He is able to eradicate original sin by a mere act of authority. If He can do it for her, then why not for everyone else? The doctrine therefore implies the blasphemous proposition that God has deliberately chosen that the vast majority of the human race should be enslaved by sin. It also speaks of a God who is a respecter of persons.
Now you may perhaps argue that my thinking was shoddy, and if I had been committed to thinking accurately, I would draw the same conclusion as Pope Pius IX. OK. Then if the doctrine does make sense, then why not simply explain it clearly to the flock (i.e. refute legitimate objections to it), without the need to threaten people who have problems with it? I can well understand that a child in a school may stubbornly refuse to accept that the circumference of a circle is equal to the diameter times pi, and one would then consider the child either mentally deficient in some way or morally rebellious. But to say that all children should accept that idea without it having been explained to them and without any objections being thoroughly and honestly addressed, is absurd. And then to say that "you just have to accept this idea without explanation, otherwise we are going to expel you from the school" is just a form of fascism.
I would have thought that an idea that is foundational to an organisation which claims apostolic authority, and therefore claims to uphold the "faith once delivered to the saints" should have been defined from the beginning, and also that idea, being considered precious and important, would be explained and thought about very carefully. Furthermore, such an idea, being important and precious, would be appreciated by the true membership of the organisation, such that they would not need to be threatened with any sanctions were they to question it. If an idea has merit, then it should stand up for itself. An idea that needs to be propped up by absurd and sinister threats is quite obviously untenable.
In fact, I would have thought that the threat is self-defeating. Surely it would be better to encourage the membership to question the idea, so that those who cannot accept it can freely leave the organisation, or at least remain in the organisation as members who have had the integrity to follow their conscience in a spirit of honesty. If they feel compelled to accept the idea for fear of making shipwreck of their faith, then the organisation has to accept that it may contain many members who are committed to it only under sufferance. What sort of church is that?
You say that "If a group defines itself essentially by belief in propositions X, Y and Z, but you cannot believe in proposition Y, then it is entirely reasonable and fair for that group to deny membership to you - or if you currently have membership, to revoke it." But, as I say, the group should have defined itself by these propositions from the start, not change the goalposts at some later date in the organisation's history.
You then say: "It is largely irrelevant why you cannot believe in proposition Y."
I must say that that is one of the most absurd things I have ever read on this site. Of course it matters! We are not talking about the local tiddlywinks club, which decides that if anyone cannot accept the new size of the counters - no explanation given for the change - then they should sod off. No. We are talking about the Church of Jesus Christ, the Creator and Saviour of the entire human race!! Nothing could be more serious. To suggest that it is largely irrelevant why people cannot accept dogmatically promulgated ideas makes a mockery of the justice, wisdom and mercy of God. Certainly it makes a mockery of the claim that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of wisdom and understanding. We are called to "get understanding" as a priority - see Proverb 4:7. That is a command of Almighty God!
The true Church should affirm our humanity. It should uphold a proper anthropology. It does not and should not subvert the human mind, created by God to be used for His glory. The Church cannot just decide that it is going to impose some irrational or incoherent or unexplained idea on the masses, and threaten them with dire consequences if they don't 'believe' it (whatever "believing an incoherent idea" actually means in practice).
--------------------
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
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
One of the reasons why I only visit but don't actually 'join' a church near me which in many ways would suit me to a great extent - if we are going on personalities, preferences etc - is that IS so vague and woolly - it's actually difficult to work out WHAT it stands for and what it believes - other than a generally benign and liberal fuzziness ...
I know EE might find it hard to believe that I don't drop everything and go there like a shot, but there it is - I DO want something substantial, something to hang a hat on ...
Aye, but does that "something" have to be a set of doctrines? What of a church whose "something" is a positive commitment to inclusivity, acceptance and the building of community, for example?
The problem is that 'inclusivity' seems to go hand and hand with the 'liberal fuzziness' that Gamaliel mentions. It would be wonderful it could be proved that this doesn't have to be the case.
Maybe we need more churches that deliberately follow an inclusively exclusive policy, discouraging adherents who are unlikely to take the tolerant attitude espoused by the church leaders. The trouble is that this is a risky policy for churches that already exist; they don't want to alienate the stalwarts who are frequently of a more traditionalist cast of mind. So you end up with a kind of fuzziness that tolerates everything obliquely, but doesn't speak out for anything openly and unambiguously.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Recognizing the role of the community in spiritual guidance does not equate with abandoning reason and discernment. Similarly, an individualistic approach is no guarantee of accuracy or honesty. Again, in my experience it can just as easily lead to individualistic eisegesis as we try to co-opt the Spirit to wherever our own particular bias may lay.
Everyone tries to co-opt the Spirit to their own biases. That doesn't change if a bunch of people with the same biases put on pointy hats and declare themselves to be The Representatioves Of The Community.
If you look at the context of my comment, you'll see I wasn't attempting to formulate an argument for hierarchical church structure-- I am part of a church with very little hierarchical structure/ authority, in part for all those reasons EE is arguing. I was simply attempting to demonstrate the other side of the coin-- that choosing the individualistic self-oriented path EE is suggesting has it's own dangers.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller
I was simply attempting to demonstrate the other side of the coin-- that choosing the individualistic self-oriented path EE is suggesting has it's own dangers.
Except that I am most emphatically not "suggesting the individualistic self-oriented path"!!
I would be if I decided to believe ideas based on my own dreams and fantasies. But the whole point of reason is that it is communal. It is the means by which we engage with objective reality - a method which is the very opposite of the "individualistic self-oriented path".
--------------------
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
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller
I was simply attempting to demonstrate the other side of the coin-- that choosing the individualistic self-oriented path EE is suggesting has it's own dangers.
Except that I am most emphatically not "suggesting the individualistic self-oriented path"!!
I would be if I decided to believe ideas based on my own dreams and fantasies. But the whole point of reason is that it is communal. It is the means by which we engage with objective reality - a method which is the very opposite of the "individualistic self-oriented path".
Can you say more about that? I haven't heard anything in what you've said so far that sounds communal.
Using reason as a source of authority can be either individual or communal. In order for it to be communal, you really need some systems and structure to make that happen, things that, at least on the surface, don't look all that different than the hierarchal structures you're arguing against. Sometimes we assume that our individualistic use of reason as a source of authority is "communal" because what we believe/learn thru reason feels to us as self-evident-- "everyone who uses reason would of course believe precisely as I do." But experience shows us that's not the case.
So can you say more about what sorts of structures/ processes you would advocate that make your use of reason communal rather than individualistic?
(Again, noting that I'm not disagreeing with you re: the inherent problems in communal structures, whether hierarchical or otherwise. Just observing the other side from my position in a less hierarchical/ more individualistic tradition).
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
cliffdweller -
Well, let's take science. A true scientist investigates a claim by means of reason and evidence, and through that method comes to an assurance - or reasonable level of confidence - that the claim is objectively true. Truth is not (or ought not to be) established by democratic vote or mere authoritative pronouncement in the scientific community, but by the evidence. The evidence brings us out of our own speculations and hunches and into the realm of reality.
Therefore the scientific community has (or ought to have) 'fellowship' around the evidence.
Likewise with theology. If, say, a church leader stands up and makes a theological claim, am I being individualistic or self-obsessed by asking him to justify that claim? But suppose he refuses to justify that claim with reference to Scripture and reality, and says that, because he is the pastor, I am required to just submit to that claim without question and without engaging critically with it, and if the majority of my fellow church members agree with this approach, then am I being 'individualistic' by refusing to accept the validity of that approach? He could have dreamed up this idea, and it could be a reflection of his own individualism, but because he is the church leader, he is able to garner support for his idea from many of the membership. So the idea is given an appearance of objectivity, but unless the idea is justified with reference to authoritative sources - Scripture and the objective reality in which we live - then it is a subjective - and therefore individualistic - idea.
My demand for that idea to be justified is an attempt to draw the idea out of the realm of the individualistic and subjective and into the realm of the truly communal, because I am seeking to submit the idea to the verdict of objective reality. Even if I am the only one making this demand, and I am therefore grossly outnumbered in the church, nevertheless my method is objective whereas this pastor's method is subjective if he rejects the need to justify the idea. The number of people in each camp is irrelevant. It's the method that matters.
--------------------
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
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
cliffdweller -
Well, let's take science. A true scientist investigates a claim by means of reason and evidence, and through that method comes to an assurance - or reasonable level of confidence - that the claim is objectively true. Truth is not (or ought not to be) established by democratic vote or mere authoritative pronouncement in the scientific community, but by the evidence. The evidence brings us out of our own speculations and hunches and into the realm of reality.
Therefore the scientific community has (or ought to have) 'fellowship' around the evidence.
Likewise with theology. If, say, a church leader stands up and makes a theological claim, am I being individualistic or self-obsessed by asking him to justify that claim? But suppose he refuses to justify that claim with reference to Scripture and reality, and says that, because he is the pastor, I am required to just submit to that claim without question and without engaging critically with it, and if the majority of my fellow church members agree with this approach, then am I being 'individualistic' by refusing to accept the validity of that approach? He could have dreamed up this idea, and it could be a reflection of his own individualism, but because he is the church leader, he is able to garner support for his idea from many of the membership. So the idea is given an appearance of objectivity, but unless the idea is justified with reference to authoritative sources - Scripture and the objective reality in which we live - then it is a subjective - and therefore individualistic - idea.
My demand for that idea to be justified is an attempt to draw the idea out of the realm of the individualistic and subjective and into the realm of the truly communal, because I am seeking to submit the idea to the verdict of objective reality. Even if I am the only one making this demand, and I am therefore grossly outnumbered in the church, nevertheless my method is objective whereas this pastor's method is subjective if he rejects the need to justify the idea. The number of people in each camp is irrelevant. It's the method that matters.
And, again, I'm not arguing with your point re: the problem with the hierarchical church leader who demands submission to his/her authority w/o question. That's why I've chosen a different sort of church community.
But what you're describing in the scientific community-- the process of peer review where truth claims are tested-- doesn't really happen within religious communities, at least on the lay level (it does within academia). What happens instead is, in my experience, entirely individualistic. You sit in your pew listening to the preacher give his or her 20 min. exegesis, and you critique it-- silently, individually. There may be 100 or more people sitting around you, but you are really isolated in this process-- you aren't interacting with that community. You decide, individually, whether to accept or reject the preacher's argument on your own-- usually in ways that are shaped almost entirely by your own individual biases. You do so isolated from the community around you, and usually isolated as well from the community that has gone before-- the 2000 years of Church tradition that has wisdom to speak to us today. That's all built into the very DNA of non-hiearchical churches like mine, which encourage that sort of individualism.
I think there probably is a way to shift the structures so that you have the best of both worlds-- a real communal experience, where your faith is shaped not by your own individual, isolated bias nor dictated by a hierarchical unquestionable authority. I suspect some Quaker communities may come closer to this. But for the most part, it's not what usually is the end result of the process you're advocating unless great care is taken to build that into the structure.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Comparing religion with science in this way is quite odd. Scientists make empirical observations, and then seek to predict other observations. And of course, other scientists will join in, so that you have a community effort, or what is called today intersubjectivity.
But religion does not work like that, does it? A theologian does not make empirical observations, at least, as far as I can see. He speculates about various religious ideas.
Well, it does seem odd to me to violate someone else in some way, with those ideas, since they are so speculative. One cannot really insist that someone else believe them, in good faith.
[ 16. May 2014, 16:27: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
Believing that anything written in the Bible is true is just as arbitrary as believing in any doctrine of any religious institution. I don't see the point of this thread.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
I think an analogy from medicine might be helpful.
The situation in hierarchical churches which EE is decrying seems analogous to the situation a few decades ago when doctors were treated like gods, their diagnoses and prescriptions to be followed without question. And there was some justification for that, due to their superior training and access to knowledge and resources accumulated over many generations. Yet many patients found themselves harmed by incorrect diagnoses/treatment.
What EE is hoping for would be similar to the situation today when you have a well educated patient, possibly someone with some medical background, who is able to take advantage of the same resources the doctor has, seek a 2nd or 3rd opinion, research the best information available, and make an informed decision.
What I'm describing though is analogous to what I fear is even more common-- the authority of the doctor as medical authority has been diminished, but along with it, all of the training, expertise, and wealth of accumulated wisdom that s/he draws upon. So you have patients with little or no medical background 2nd guessing their doctors on the internet, buying into shoddy conspiracy theories ("vaccines cause autism") with little or no scientific validity. What they end up doing is seeking an easy answer that is comforting rather than the hard reality that is true.
The challenge is not to diminish the centuries of accumulated wisdom that trained clergy draw from. It's not even to give laity those same resources in an isolated, individualistic context. The challenge is to invite laity into that same communal conversation. Again, I think there are places where that happens, but they are not as easily acquired nor as common as EE supposes. They take discipline, humility and effort on both ends of the equation-- from clergy, yes, but also from the laity.
[ 16. May 2014, 17:59: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Backing up a bit, I think the church I've mentioned does have a role to play in building community and demonstrating that Christianity can have an 'inclusive' face and isn't at all about being judgemental towards other people ...
I'm not knocking it on that score.
It's simply that, however we cut it, it does seem that more dogmatic standpoints do serve as rallying points - be they evangelical ones ('The Bible says ...') or Catholic ones, ('The Church believes ...')
The issue I have with the example that EE cites, the Immaculate Conception, is that it was laid down as 'binding on the faithful' - leaving absolutely no wriggle-room whatsoever it seems to me.
Rome does that. She paints herself into a corner time and time again. Papal Infallibility is another one.
Of course, that's not a practical problem for either EE or myself unless we were considering conversion to Roman Catholicism - but it does rather sound as if the 1854 pronouncement was making the doctrine binding on everyone - not just RCs - but I may have read more into it.
There are looser examples elsewhere, in all Christian traditions.
At the risk of reviving Dead Horses, I'd suggest that particular views on scriptural inerrancy and infallibility are similar sticking points within forms of evangelical Protestantism - particularly if they are allied to views of the absolute historicity of certain OT incidents (the Joshua genocides for instance) ...
One might suggest that there's a certain inconsistency in finding the Immaculate Conception 'incoherent' yet considering the OT genocides to be completely commensurate with Christian beliefs about the love of God and so on.
I'm not trying to kick-start that debate, simply using it as illustration to show that what seems logical and irrefutable to some of us won't to others.
--------------------
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
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
Gamailiel: As always, spot on.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sorry to double-post, but yes, I think Cliffdweller's medical analogy is a good one.
I'd also like to punt in the thought - which I am sure she is aware of already - that whilst the tradition she represents is pneumatic, the same claim is made by the older and historic traditions (or Traditions) when it comes to their decision-making ... 'Peter has spoken by Leo!' etc ...
The idea that the Holy Spirit has led and is leading the faithful into 'all truth' - as witnessed (according to taste and predeliction) by the canon of scripture and the early creeds and councils - whether we accept Seven as the Orthodox do, however many the RCs do - 14? 21? - or whether we are pretty ok with 2 or 3 or even 4 of them (with some caveats) as many (if not most) Protestants are ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stonespring
Believing that anything written in the Bible is true is just as arbitrary as believing in any doctrine of any religious institution. I don't see the point of this thread.
Likewise your opinion as expressed here is just as arbitrary as any claim that anyone else ever makes. So why should I bother paying any attention to it?
In fact, why bother with the Ship at all? If you are right, there is no point to it. Let's all throw in the towel shall we, and accept that no one can know anything about anything!
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
One might suggest that there's a certain inconsistency in finding the Immaculate Conception 'incoherent' yet considering the OT genocides to be completely commensurate with Christian beliefs about the love of God and so on.
I'm not trying to kick-start that debate, simply using it as illustration to show that what seems logical and irrefutable to some of us won't to others.
For obvious reasons I don't really want to revisit that discussion at the moment, but I will just say that the correct approach is to discuss these issues with recourse to reason and evidence, not try to demand that the majority opinion on a thread (even the overwhelming majority opinion) is correct simply on the basis of force of numbers. Which is a manifestation of the very thing I am talking about on this thread.
Nuff said about that.
--------------------
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
Sure, I don't think that it should be a weight of numbers thing either.
I agree with Cliffdweller that there should be a community aspect to the process of discernment and the thrashing out of doctrine - but that's very different to 'group-think' and the top-down imposition of particular ideas.
Like you, I find the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception incoherent - but if one accepts a particular RC stand-point on issues like Original Sin and so on then one might perhaps understand why they felt the need to articulate things that way.
The Orthodox, for instance, don't see Original Sin in the same way so the interior logic of their position hasn't led them to the same conclusion.
Protestantism is also coming at it from a different direction to the RCs in other respects -even though the position on Original Sin tends to be closer to the RC one than the Orthodox (by and large) due to the shared Augustinian influence.
So it's hardly surprising that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary is going to appear incoherent to most Protestants.
We all approach these things in the context of our own particular tradition. None of us approach these things in a vacuum.
And yes, we all use reason. IngoB would undoubtedly claim that there are logical and coherent reasons for the development of the belief in the Immaculate Conception.
He may well conclude that our logic is flawed.
Just because his position seems incoherent to thee and me it doesn't mean it appears so to him.
That's not to argue for a relativistic position, simply to say that people use logic to arrive at different conclusions - because our application of logic doesn't happen in a vacuum but within a socio-cultural and theological framework.
Which is where the community aspect kicks in.
--------------------
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
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
But if it is all a matter of community bias, and the process of logical enquiry is subsumed under that, then I have to ask: what is truth?
Can we ever know what is actually objectively true, or do we just go with whatever community position takes our fancy?
If this is correct, then no church has any moral justification to threaten anyone with damnation, because nobody can ever be held responsible for refusing to accept the truth, since the truth apparently can never be known!
This all seems a very far cry from the confident claims of Jesus Christ, I must 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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
