Mu!
Who else would rather read Nomad's book?
Well, there was that one you wrote at Hogwarts, but it broke.
Well, there was that one you wrote at Hogwarts, but it broke.
Well if SOMEONE, not naming names, hadn't stabbed it with a giant reptile tooth it might be available for all of us to read.
I read it a few weeks ago. One of the problems I have with it is that the use of Foucault to argue against recent thought is like citing Jim Jones as a good example of Christianity. Foucault is fringe, not mainstream. (If this were the 70's or 80's, it'd be different in academia, at least in some schools, but today? And Foucault did identify his own thinking as not post-modernist, but rather drawing directly from Nietzsche.)
But further, the idea he put forth in chapter one was that every position of thought is based on the same kind of belief as religion. Isn't that in itself post-modern, and in conflict with the idea that there is such a thing as truth (which, presumably, does not require belief)? How can religion promise us "truth" when it's dependent on the very same belief that puts skepticism on unstable ground?
Anyone else still reading?
I'm reading the thread, if not the book.
I returned it to the library. I skimmed though a whole bunch. Lot of arguments close to 200 years old thoroughly debunked by smarter men and women than I. I wonder if the guy ever read anything from Darwin, Michael Shermer, Dawkins, Jung, Mill, Kante, Satre, Cartwright, or Jefferson.
I said this earlier. This book gave me a vastly greater view of these people for being learned in the field of philosophy, metaphysics, theology, so they are not constantly shooting from the hip.
I have little doubt he may have read an occasional quote, an entire book? I am skeptical.
I have little doubt he is capable of cribbing quotes from other authors, without going to the source. In an effort to cherry pick whatever suits his myopic goal.
In a similar thread I wonder if Kirk Camron, prior to helping create that new forward to Origin of the Species, ever went cover to cover on it prior. Or if any fundamentalist have ever, actually, read the bible with any sort of literary or rational eye, looking for the subtext.
And the answer is either obviously not, or yes but he chose not to pay attention.
A brief aside to this post, Nomad. Part of my frustration with the churches I attended (particularly the last one I was a committed member to) is this belief that to be a good Christian you have to be a conservative/Republican. I found it ironic because, for the most part, the platforms of the Republican party (obviously not the abortion platform) seem to me to be based on greed and authoritarianism, neither of which I feel characterizes the outpouring of love for our neighbor that Jesus taught so stridently. Instead, I felt that the left side of the political spectrum actually espoused behaviors more in line with that of Jesus.
I viewed it as a moral compulsion to support the socially conscientious platforms of the politically liberal side of things (though I refuse to claim membership to any political party).
I was mocked for it. I was treated as somehow betraying my fellow Christians to be this way. I finally had enough of that treatment, and left the church. It angered and hurt me so much that I honestly have no interest in joining any churches again. I can have my personal relationship with God without a church.
I think this would be another topic for an interesting discussion. Separate from "A Reason for God", I could see an interesting discussion arising from the topic "A Reason for Church".
Jesus, as described in the Bible, is practically the archetype for liberals and liberalism.
If people are fanatics because they are not Christian enough, but they are taking the tenets incorrectly, then Christianity is still responsible for their errors. Also, who judges? By your standards I was not raised Christian, because Methodists don't take the Bible as inerrant. Should I judge you, or you judge me?
Keller's response to Christopher Hitchens (author of God is Not Great:How Religion Poisons Everything) was interesting. Keller says that "religion" was just the available tool used to manipulate the masses, and when religion isn't present, something else will be used instead. (ie. Russian Chinese and Cambodian regimes where race or the State were made absolutes)
I've thought about this a lot. One of the hardest things in any society is getting people to agree on rules of behaviour and to 'tow the line.' For me, as Keller says, religion is the answer to that problem. I hadn't thought that communism (and I guess fascism) are also attempts to solve the same problem.
Keller's insight into fanaticism was also interesting on page 56-57.
Fanaticism is as much a danger for non-believers as believers. Christopher Hitchens could be considered to be a fanatic. Many atheists don't agree with his hard line stances.
Nomad wrote:Keller's response to Christopher Hitchens (author of God is Not Great:How Religion Poisons Everything) was interesting. Keller says that "religion" was just the available tool used to manipulate the masses, and when religion isn't present, something else will be used instead. (ie. Russian Chinese and Cambodian regimes where race or the State were made absolutes)
I've thought about this a lot. One of the hardest things in any society is getting people to agree on rules of behaviour and to 'tow the line.' For me, as Keller says, religion is the answer to that problem. I hadn't thought that communism (and I guess fascism) are also attempts to solve the same problem.
I think religion served its purpose in getting an uncivilized world to this point. But that doesn't mean it is the best tool available for society moving forward. The problem is that religions all have pretty much the same message, but the in-fighting between them leads to corrupt versions of those messages.
The rhetorical devices that are needed to day should be centered around science and knowledge. Religion can serve an important support role, but its influence on government leads to negative consequences. Society would do better to weed religion out, in favor is philosophical study. Religion would still be a source of study and learning, but it shouldn't be the primary source of values any longer.
I don't know, Jay. I think a lot of people have a strong desire for some kind of certainty that specifically addresses uncertain things. I don't see science providing that. Wonder, yes, but science is in many ways about uncertainty and facing it, not plastering it over with comforting avoidance.
I think religion will always have a place in society. I just don't think it should be political, and when it contradicts what we know of the world, it's going to hurt itself rather than change science.
I think you might be surprised. Keller would say that "religion" is part of the problem. As we move through the book, it becomes cleared that Keller is trying to put some distance between religion, or man's attempts toward enlightenment or reconciliation with the Divine, and the gospel, the finished work of Christ that makes our reconciliation possible. Even in this section on Fanaticism we see that intense morality leads to almost as many problems (if not more) as immorality.
This raises a corollary question. You've used Stalinism and the Khmer Rouge and the like to argue that religion is better than non-religion. But now you say that extreme morality AND extreme immorality are similar in their results. Will you refrain from the comparisons in the future, or include the disclaimer? Because if it's *extremes* that create problems, both religion and irreligion have them, and the usual assertions that atheism leads to horrors but religion doesn't are false.
Robear wrote:
If people are fanatics because they are not Christian enough, but they are taking the tenets incorrectly, then Christianity is still responsible for their errors. Also, who judges? By your standards I was not raised Christian, because Methodists don't take the Bible as inerrant. Should I judge you, or you judge me?Nomad wrote:
When are people responsible for their own actions?
Another way to put my question is "Here on Earth, who decides what is extreme?" Surely it's not based on actions; that would come into conflict with the doctrine of Grace (meaning that a murderer who accepts God will not attain heaven.) But if it's not based on actions, why would responsibility matter?
It seems to me that once we get away from works (actions) as a basis for moral judgements, things get difficult. Grace would seem to be a notion that encourages abuse, and indeed we've seen that at times in religious history.
Are you extreme because you believe in Biblical infallibility? Am I extreme because I don't believe in God? Neither? Both? And if our actions don't matter for salvation, what does "responsibility" mean?
I think you may misunderstand the concept of grace. In order for the murderer you reference to receive grace, he/she must first take responsibility for his/her own actions. Grace has indeed been at the brunt of much abuse, because men seek to bottle and sell what is freely given.
I understood that all that is required is simply to accept Jesus as one's personal savior. By adding "taking responsibility", aren't you sneaking works in via the back door?
What is meant by the term extreme? Outside the cultural norm? Does it really matter in the final scope of things who is extreme and who isn't, or is it just important that truth is discovered and applied?
I'll go back and reread, because this is the kind of question set I'd like to see answered. For me, in this context, it's following a "truth" which leads one to hurt others. I would argue that effects on others always matter, but then you know I favor works as a measure of goodness (don't take that to extremes lol). The question I raised matters because without actually defining extreme beliefs, one can place the center where one stands and point to others as extremists. Some external measuring stick is needed, and I fall back on my usual scale of helping/harming others as the measure. (I specifically don't intend to address trick questions on the subject, like killing one to save five; the point here is, how is the extreme defined in your system?)
I think it does matter in the end, because truth in religion is subjective, not objective. Not everyone will agree on it, unlike an observation in science. And that matters a great deal when it comes to actions (or works). (And I'm not sure you'd argue that discovering and applying truth is a good measure in the case of non-Christians, would you? Because their truth would be different from yours.)
Responsibility then is taking ownership for what I have done. If I come to you after throwing a rock through your front picture window and say something like;
"I see that someone broke your window and I would like to ask your forgiveness for doing it although I am not admitting I am at fault."
Would that not seem strange, if not insulting?
Yes, but I'm not sure how the latter part applies. I'm thinking more in terms of "Yes, I murdered your son, but now I'm saved. I ask your forgiveness." Are there no actions which cannot be wiped away by grace? In the strict version - no works - it appears to me there are none.
Which is another reason why many Christian sects include works in their definition of salvation. (And I think you'll find that taken separately, grace and works are both cited in the NT.)
I think you may misunderstand the concept of grace. In order for the murderer you reference to receive grace, he/she must first take responsibility for his/her own actions. Grace has indeed been at the brunt of much abuse, because men seek to bottle and sell what is freely given.I understood that all that is required is simply to accept Jesus as one's personal savior. By adding "taking responsibility", aren't you sneaking works in via the back door?
What is meant by the term extreme? Outside the cultural norm? Does it really matter in the final scope of things who is extreme and who isn't, or is it just important that truth is discovered and applied?I'll go back and reread, because this is the kind of question set I'd like to see answered. For me, in this context, it's following a "truth" which leads one to hurt others. I would argue that effects on others always matter, but then you know I favor works as a measure of goodness (don't take that to extremes lol). The question I raised matters because without actually defining extreme beliefs, one can place the center where one stands and point to others as extremists. Some external measuring stick is needed, and I fall back on my usual scale of helping/harming others as the measure. (I specifically don't intend to address trick questions on the subject, like killing one to save five; the point here is, how is the extreme defined in your system?)
I think it does matter in the end, because truth in religion is subjective, not objective. Not everyone will agree on it, unlike an observation in science. And that matters a great deal when it comes to actions (or works). (And I'm not sure you'd argue that discovering and applying truth is a good measure in the case of non-Christians, would you? Because their truth would be different from yours.)
Responsibility then is taking ownership for what I have done. If I come to you after throwing a rock through your front picture window and say something like;
"I see that someone broke your window and I would like to ask your forgiveness for doing it although I am not admitting I am at fault."
Would that not seem strange, if not insulting?Yes, but I'm not sure how the latter part applies. I'm thinking more in terms of "Yes, I murdered your son, but now I'm saved. I ask your forgiveness." Are there no actions which cannot be wiped away by grace? In the strict version - no works - it appears to me there are none.
Which is another reason why many Christian sects include works in their definition of salvation. (And I think you'll find that taken separately, grace and works are both cited in the NT.)
Technically, I think blaspheming the Holy Ghost is the only unforgivable. Genocide is not on the "no save" list, but making fun of the HG is right out.
I'm not sure I follow how taking responsibility for your actions is tagged as works.
Because if you are not responsible for your actions, why would they matter to you? Good, bad, what's the difference? But if you are responsible for them, then the distinction can be drawn, and the intent and effects of your actions matter. Saying that you have to suffer the consequences of your actions after being saved is a bit strange to me, since the whole point of being saved is to go to heaven, correct? If you know that is your end state, what does what you do and what happens to you on Earth really matter? (Isn't the is the argument that was used to strengthen the martyrs?)
I note that you cite James saying that "Faith without works is dead".
20You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[d]? 21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,"[e] and he was called God's friend. 24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
Note the last thing he says - "...a person is justified by what he does, and not by faith alone." And yet the doctrine of Grace is that faith *alone* is how one becomes saved. Romans tells us that Christians no longer are judged by their adherence to the Law (ie, works), but by their faith. Ephesians states that grace saves through faith in God. So there is a split here - in fact, the Catholic Church states that faith AND works are required for salvation, as against the Protestant ideal of faith only.
By insisting on the need to take responsibility for actions, deeds become important in salvation. But if deeds are *not* an integral part of the path to salvation, then responsibility goes out the window. We go back to the arrogance and selfishness Keller cites as problematic.
Technically, I think blaspheming the Holy Ghost is the only unforgivable. Genocide is not on the "no save" list, but making fun of the HG is right out.I believe you are referring to Matt. 12:22-32. It reveals a heart-attitude of unbelief and unrepentance. Deliberate, ongoing rejection of the work of the Holy Spirit is blasphemy because it is rejection of God himself. The only thing that can keep a person from God is their own intentional rejection of the gift of His grace.
12:31-32 in particular
MAT 12:31 This is why I say to you, all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.MAT 12:32 Whoever speaks a word against the Son of man it shall be forgiven him. But whoever speaks against (falsely accuses) the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world and neither in the world to come.
The bit about it being a heart-attitude of unbelief and unrepentance isn't supported by the text. In point of fact, belief itself is entirely insufficient as demonstrated by James 2:19:
You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
Pages