Questioning online apologetics

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]So us atheists should not bother reading the Bible...

What good would it do for you, a self-described atheist, to read the Bible? Seriously. None. Its contents are spiritually discerned, that is, you'd need a "secret decoder ring" (as this has been irreverently referred to) in order not to misunderstand the Bible's true profundity. T those who already believe in Christ. Thus, his letters to the churches...[/b]

What good would it do for you, a self-described atheist, to read the Bible? Seriously. None. Its contents are spiritually discerned, that is, you'd need a "secret decoder ring" (as this has been irreverently referred to) in order not to misunderstand the Bible's true profundity. The fact that you deny the need for a "decoder ring" in the first place is proof that the Bible alone wouldn't do you any good.

Well, there ya have it! 😉 How are you, my friend?

Okay, with that said—

I would suggest that online apologetics may simply need to take a different form to be effective. For example—and I’m just thinking out loud here—absent the kind of personal examples, and even personal presence, that are there in face-to-face, I think that Christians could work harder to show how the “secret decoder” apparatus is still rational: that is, whether or not reason will get one to know [that there is a] God, the written-word apologist might spend more time showing how both belief in a particular God-concept*, and that God-concept itself, is reasonable/rational/logical.

Take any putative attribute of God, “A”: Define for me, in general terms anyway, what A entails. Then, and only then, offer me the evidence, scriptural or otherwise, that A is in fact an attribute of God. Be prepared to deal with questions and counter-examples that I might come up with. Do not turn “A” into some kind of rubbery concept that changes at every turn, and then invoke a secret decoder ring. [I’m not saying that you do any of that; I’m speaking very generally.] Otherwise, the apologetics becomes, as SwissGambit puts it, “bizarro speech.” If “A”, as applied to God, has a kind of non-standard definition, that’s not problematic—as long as you can state it. But if you can’t tell me what “A” means, than I have no idea what it means to say that God is “A”, or I am “A”, or anyone/anything is “A”.

A—I hope!—noncontroversial example: jaywill recently offered a very specific (four-fold, as I recall) definition for the Biblical term “heart.” I’ve been on here for four years now, and—although I do not pretend that my memory is perfect—that is the first such specific definition of that oft-used term that I recall a Christian giving; atheists have been asking for years whether “heart” refers to the seat of the emotions, or just what? I suspect that he will have to repeat it. But at least now I know what he’s talking about when he uses that term (at least I think I do). And that seems to me to be a non-trivial thing on here. [Quite frankly, in all my studies, I think his is the most clearly specified definition I’ve seen.]

The same point applies, of course, to non-Christians, nontheists, me, or anybody else on here. If you can’t tell me what “A” means—even in terms of a spiritual secret decoder of some sort—then I will begin to suspect that you [again the general “you”] don’t really know what you’re talking about; and I am sure that I don’t. I personally have struggled with this issue in terms of trying to explicate Zen concepts; although sometimes frustrating, I have actually found it helpful for myself—I can’t simply sit back and say, “Well, if you don’t understand tathata, it’s because you don’t have the right spiritual decoder ring”. Or, “Well, if you had Zen, then you would know Zen”. If I am reduced to that, it’s better that I don’t say anything at all. (That may be better anyway, but that’s another matter... 🙂 )

We sometimes argue over the meaning of terms on here, but I am generally willing to grant another’s meaning (if they can articulate it) for purposes of discussion within a particular domain of discourse. [You and I have certainly been able to do that from time to time.]

All of this presumes that apologetics deals with the question of propositional truth-claims. Spiritual aesthetics (for lack of a better term) is another thing.

_________________________________

“Secret Decoder Ring” may be irreverent, but it’s not irrelevant. Try harder to decode for us, and show us that the resultant message is rational. Zen (my version) is rational; is Christianity (your version) rational?** If it’s not, then it’s not worth considering—even by a rational mystic. [Note: Unless you’re prepared to say that Christianity has no rational, propositional truth-claims to make; in which case, I, for one, would certainly entertain an aesthetic argument.]

Let me be blunt: I think that there is a rational, mystical-spiritual articulation of Christianity that can be made. I think that Meister Eckhart (for one) made it; I think (provisionally) that St. Gregory of Nyssa (who availed himself of no “supernatural” category) also did. I think that Bede Griffiths (and maybe Merton) got it. I suggest that Protestantism generally (which is not to say all Protestants) has so re-defined the original terms as to have lost it (again, not all Protestants: Paul Tillich comes to mind). That’s why I have, in the past, argued so much on here over singular Greek words such as logos, pisteo, hamartia, soterias, etc.

Tell you what—assuming you don’t think that the Christian message is irrational at root—I will interrupt my absence from here (well, I guess I have already) to entertain a single question: “What would a rational (albeit still mystical) Christianity look like?” I bet we can count on a bunch of the “usual suspects”—those of us across the spiritual spectrum who already know one another on here—to participate. If you give me some time, I’ll even lay out the opening post. It’s an argument I’ve wanted to make for some time; maybe twhitehead (or others) will lay me low; maybe my notions of the requirements for a rational Christianity will be proven wrong—maybe they will be proven not to be Christianity at all. But I’m willing to bite the bullet. It ought to be one helluva discussion (like our last “great debate” ). I am in no way (I think you know) being either cynical nor facetious. PM me if you think we can set it up.

Just to be clear: I will be arguing (contra some) that a rational Christianity is articulable, and (contra others) what I think are the criteria for such a Christian expression. From there, it goes where it goes.

_________________________________

* I have often mentioned that we don’t really argue about “God”, per se, on here, but only about various concepts of God(s).

** Isn’t this a conversation that we have promised to ourselves that we would one day have? Sadly, I am not available for it right now; but one day, I think we will, my friend.

Originally posted by vistesd
What good would it do for you, a self-described atheist, to read the Bible? Seriously. None. Its contents are spiritually discerned, that is, you'd need a "secret decoder ring" (as this has been irreverently referred to) in order not to misunderstand the Bible's true profundity. The fact that you deny the need for a "decoder ring" in the first plac e? Sadly, I am not available for it right now; but one day, I think we will, my friend.

It's good to hear from you again, friend, it's been a while.

One thing that occurs to me, vistesd, is that you are far more capable of articulating a "rational, mystical-spiritual" defense of Christianity than I am, and perhaps far more capable than any Christian on this website. Yet, none of that knowledge has brought you one bit closer to an actual saving faith in a living, resurrected Jesus, i.e., to the kind of faith which is purportedly the aim of Christian apologetics in general. And if your rational defense of Christianity cannot produce faith in one as intelligent and perceptive as yourself, how can we expect it to do so for anyone else?

My point is, faith isn't a matter of the intellect. My four-year-old daughter is an intellectual dwarf, relatively speaking, yet faith comes to her as naturally as breathing. My intellect is far more expansive than my daughter's, yet when we kneel together at bedtime to talk with Jesus we may as well be peers.

Faith is precisely the "secret decoder ring" which is missing from a skeptical inquiry of biblical text. The "secret" is that the word of God is the word of God. As long as you read the Bible as anything other than the word of God, it will not benefit you. None of the specific things of which Christ and his disciples speak, such as being "born again", will be anything more than intellectual concepts to you; a far cry from the bedrock realities which believer-followers come to know first-hand.

Spiritual discernment (or the secret decoder ring) is not due to any sort of enlightenment, it simply consists of a childlike faith. If my daughter is capable of faith without having to be convinced, and I am capable of the very same faith in spite of the natural doubts borne of a mature intellect, then it's safe to say that the sort of faith which God requires cannot be achieved through apologetics. I daresay, it cannot be achieved at all.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Faith is precisely the "secret decoder ring" which is missing from a skeptical inquiry of biblical text. The "secret" is that the word of God [b]is the word of God. As long as you read the Bible as anything other than the word of God, it will not benefit you. None of the specific things of which Christ and his disciples speak, such as being ...[text shortened]... cannot be achieved through apologetics. I daresay, it cannot be achieved at all.[/b]

Yet the question must be asked: Is it anything more than a grand delusion?
You claim that some people do in fact get meaning from the Bible, yet it appears that different people derive different - and conflicting - meaning from it. Also, since readers of the Quran seem to derive meaning from that text too, one wonders whether "the word of God" might not in fact be contained in many more books than just the Bible. The apparent differences are merely a result of the fact that they are in code.
You mention "bedrock realities" yet as far as I can tell they are nevertheless fundamentally different between different believers. Are they really real?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
It's good to hear from you again, friend, it's been a while.

One thing that occurs to me, vistesd, is that you are far more capable of articulating a "rational, mystical-spiritual" defense of Christianity than I am, and perhaps far more capable than any Christian on this website. Yet, none of that knowledge has brought you one bit closer to an actual t be achieved through apologetics. I daresay, it cannot be achieved at all.

One thing that occurs to me, vistesd, is that you are far more capable of articulating a "rational, mystical-spiritual" defense of Christianity than I am, and perhaps far more capable than any Christian on this website. Yet, none of that knowledge has brought you one bit closer to an actual saving faith in a living, resurrected Jesus, i.e., to the kind of faith which is purportedly the aim of Christian apologetics in general. And if your rational defense of Christianity cannot produce faith in one as intelligent and perceptive as yourself, how can we expect it to do so for anyone else?

Thanks, Epi. But I realize that that part of my post was arrogant. I didn’t intend it to be, but it is anyway. I apologize for that.

But—

After all this time (and this is likely my fault, here) I do not know what you mean by the word “faith”. I know what I mean when I use the word, but you will not know what I mean unless I try to tell you.

I don’t necessarily know what you mean by the word “salvation”. Here, I only have an ongoing patchwork myself: I lean heavily on the root meanings of the Greek soterias (verb: soza); I lean heavily on the Greek Orthodox view that human error (including moral error), hamartia (literally not hitting the mark, not necessarily due to any moral fault) is fundamentally the result of illusion rather than some innate moral wickedness—which I think makes more sense of the “fall” story, as well as being truer to the meaning of the words translated into English as “sin”; I lean heavily on metanoia as meaning a transformation of the nous...* I have spoken before of a soteriology of healing; jaywill describes a soteriology of transformation—we might differ on the details, but I think those fundamental understandings are not mutually exclusive.

With that said, your experiential point is well-taken: you can no more give me a salvific transformative experience than I can give you my toothache. If you’ve never had a toothache, it will be difficult for me to describe what one is in a way that you will understand. Even if you have had a toothache, you will only be able to understand my description through the prism of your own experience (which issues goes to any “one size fits all” insistence on the particular form of a salvific transformative experience).

The only role that “belief”—in its contemporary conventional usage anyway—has here is in terms of what one subsequently concludes about the experience. I think that “belief” ought to be completely jettisoned as a translation for pistis (verb: pisteo), which is not to say that it was a bad translation (albeit a somewhat poetic one) originally. [There are some words whose meanings are sufficiently multifaceted and deep, that I refuse to translate them anymore (e.g., logos) into a singular English word.]

_______________________________________

Returning to the subject of apologetics: You use a word, “G-o-d”. That word is a sign consisting of a signifier (the letters g-o-d, or their pronunciation verbally) and a signified, which is what the word is intended to mean. Different theologies, different religious perspectives have differing understanding about the nature of that signified. But the signified is not the referent. There is either a real-world referent for the sign “God” or there is not. (Or “goat” or “unicorn” or “ego” or any other word-sign we use.)

Now, if there is a real-world referent for the word-sign “God”, that referent precedes, is prior to all our talk about it—all our words, concepts, ideas; all our thinking-about, believing-about, etc. Every word we say is either (a) about some referent itself, or (b) about other concepts, thoughts-about, etc. Either way, it is always about. That is why I say that we never really argue about God (the referent) on here, but only our various God-concepts.

And I think the prism analogy is apt here...

There is another use of language, which might be called evocative (or, to steal from bbarr, elicitive). I think that much (most?) Biblical language—whether story or poetry or parable—is intended to be evocative, not propositional. (I am not saying that there is no propositional content there.) Such evocative language is aimed—like a Zen roshi’s whack on the head—at evoking (maybe “provoking” is better) a direct experience of the referent.

“God” is either an experiencable real-world presence (like light), or he/she/it is just an idea. And no one, from any religious tradition, ought to presume that someone else has not had some such direct experience—whether fleeting or sustained—because they now use the “wrong” concepts to talk about it. That statement is not aimed at you; I have been guilty of that very presumption. Once again there’s an either-or: it is either the experience that is transformative/salvific,** or it what you think about afterward, whether or not you “believe” the right doctrinal statements, have the correct theology, etc.

This also all goes to my claim that all religious language is properly iconographic, or it becomes idolatrous. In the latter case, people can find themselves worshipping the concept (as an idol graven in the mind, or even “scripture”—Greek graphe, writing) rather than the referent itself.

Now, what I am doing here is a kind of apologetics vis-à-vis a particular religious philosophy or perspective. I view Christian symbology and language as representative of that—or, as a body of “iconographs” pointing to a referent. Here is (a possibly paltry) example of the other kind of language, a “Zen” koan-question that can be cast in Christian terms:

Behind all the makings of your mind,
before all thoughts, concepts, ideas, names or words—

What is “God”?

Apologetics cannot answer that; theological doctrine cannot answer that—such things are after thinking, conceptualizing, naming, choosing word-signs. One person can no more give another the answer than she can give another her toothache.

_________________________________

So, I think I partly agree with you, but still think that an attempt at rational apologetics has its place here.

There is, however, one more either-or:

Either it makes sense to say anything to one who has not had already the transformative experience, or it does not. (In the same way, the Biblical texts intend to say something to that person, or they do not.)

To me, at least, it is clear that the experience does not lead all people to understand it in the same way, let alone by the same symbols. Someone who has never heard/read the word-sign “Christ” is not going automatically know what that word-sign means. They may well end up using other word-signs, and have some different understanding—they may not even use the word-sign “God”.

Now, does soterias flow from the experience, or from having the right thoughts, concepts, words about that experience?*** If someone just responds by crying out, “Ah!” and then drops dead, the soteriological effects of grace are complete—even if the first word-concept that was beginning to pop into their head, based on their cultural conditioning, was about to be, “Krishna...?”. Otherwise, I do not see how you can escape some kind of “thought-righteousness.” If the metanoia is there, the result will be “faith”—as I use that term! [** again] It does not mean “believing/thinking-right”. That pistis will deepen the metanoia and the process of soterias. On the counter-stroke, if one lives the existential attitude of “faith,” that will facilitate metanoia. On the one hand, metanoia/pistis “go-together”; on the other, metanoia/soterias “go-together”. Any attempt to separate them leads to “chicken and egg” games.

All of that is, I think, pretty Orthodox—though it might not be “orthodox” Protestantism (although one should not treat Orthodox thought as being univocal here). I think perhaps now that the veils of my particular Protestant heritage have led me to be too dismissive of Christian expression generally, and that I need to revisit that. This conversation has helped.

__________________________________

* nous is sometimes translated as “intellect”, but not in the way you are using the word here, or how I would use it. It refers to a particular faculty of consciousness. To put it roughly, metanoia is that transformation of consciousness that dispels illusion [see ** below]. Only in that sense might I use the word en-light-enment.

** And this can be thought of dynamically, rather than as a one-time affair; the former is the view of the Eastern Orthodox churches, the latter is more prominent in Protestantism. The same kind of different understanding is responsible for the two major schools of Zen (Soto: gradual enlightenment; Rinzai: sudden enlightenment). I think it’s a fallacious dispute.

*** I am saying nothing here whatsoever about pure grace versus activities (such as meditation/contemplation, study, etc.) that might help provoke the experience—or whether grace works through such activities.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yet the question must be asked: Is it anything more than a grand delusion?
You claim that some people do in fact get meaning from the Bible, yet it appears that different people derive different - and conflicting - meaning from it. Also, since readers of the Quran seem to derive meaning from that text too, one wonders whether "the word of God" might not are nevertheless fundamentally different between different believers. Are they really real?

Yet the question must be asked: Is it anything more than a grand delusion?

Possibly.

Everything in me, besides my intellect, tells me that Jesus Christ is real, but I'd have to concede that I can't prove it. I've grown familiar with what I call "God's presence" and the attendant joy of what I can only describe as a "supernatural" peace; I've had prayers answered in brilliant fashion; I've learned how to decipher what God shows me in my spirit, and as a result have gained valuable insight into God's plan for myself and how I should proceed, bearing much fruit in the process, etc., etc.. Time and time again God's word has proved itself reliable to me, simply because I exercise a childlike faith.

Yet, it is possible that it is all a grand delusion, yes. I have to concede that... intellectually speaking. (I concede this because of the limitations of our reason, not of any limitations on what is ultimately possible.)

Also, since readers of the Quran seem to derive meaning from that text too, one wonders whether "the word of God" might not in fact be contained in many more books than just the Bible.

The Bible and the Qur'an are mutually exclusive texts; both can't be right. Either they're both lying texts, or one or the other is true. But both of them can't be true (in the ultimate sense).

I am a believer-follower of Jesus Christ, so you can anticipate which book I would be a proponent of.

All I know is, faith is not easily transferable from one book to another. The faith that I have in Jesus Christ, particularly his claim to be the only way to God, isn't compatible with the Qur'an's claim that Jesus Christ was merely a prophet. I can't have faith in both of those statements of truth simultaneously. In that respect, I think it's safe to say that the word of God cannot be attributed to this text or that text without discrimination.

My experience with the Bible is that it is true. The Bible's claim, simplified, is that there are higher realities of which we are incapable of knowing or perceiving on our own. The only way to operate within those higher realities is by exercising faith in God's promises, i.e., in what is revealed by God in his word. "Exercising faith" in God's promises entails, first of all, believing that God is capable of doing what he promises, and secondly, acting upon the expectation of God fulfilling his end of the bargain. In this way, God proves himself to those who believe in him.

In just this way my faith in Jesus Christ has grown. Whether or not what the Qur'an offers is superior, that's for you to decide. For myself, I've seen only empty religiosity arise from belief in the Qur'an.

You mention "bedrock realities" yet as far as I can tell they are nevertheless fundamentally different between different believers. Are they really real?

I believe they are real. For instance, Christ says that whatever you ask for in his name will be given to you, so long as you believe. If I come to understand God better and how he works, could I ever believe that he'd give me a one night stand with a supermodel of my choosing, provided I ask for her in the name of Christ? No way. However, God has revealed in his word that it's not good for a man to be alone and that a man who finds a wife finds a good thing. Therefore, I can ask for a wife and believe that God would be willing to bless me with one. Asking and receiving is a fundamental spiritual reality, only accessible through faith.

Whether one "Christian" believes in the power of God and another "Christian" doesn't, is quite irrelevant, I think, in light of the fact that the practical effects of these truths are accessible.

Originally posted by vistesd
One thing that occurs to me, vistesd, is that you are far more capable of articulating a "rational, mystical-spiritual" defense of Christianity than I am, and perhaps far more capable than any Christian on this website. Yet, none of that knowledge has brought you one bit closer to an actual saving faith in a living, resurrected Jesus, i.e., to the kind of , etc.) that might help provoke the experience—or whether grace works through such activities.

Thanks, Epi. But I realize that that part of my post was arrogant. I didn’t intend it to be, but it is anyway. I apologize for that.

If it was arrogant, I didn't notice.

After all this time (and this is likely my fault, here) I do not know what you mean by the word “faith”

I'm not sure if my intent for the word is anything out of the ordinary. I find no fault in the dictionary definition.

I don’t necessarily know what you mean by the word “salvation”.

I like your understanding of sin, what you call the Greek Orthodox view, as 'missing the mark'. I don't think 'missing the mark' and 'innate moral wickedness' are mutually exclusive, since moral wickedness is most likely a symptom of human error. However, I believe this state is not only the result of illusion, but that it is also a legal reality.

The referent of the term "salvation", I think, embodies all of the ideas to which you allude, i.e., metanoia, a soteriology of healing, transformation, etc., along with the more typical descriptions like redemption, deliverance, protection from harm, etc.

Basically, salvation is a good thing. 🙂

(which issues goes to any “one size fits all” insistence on the particular form of a salvific transformative experience).

I wouldn't insist on a particular form of salvific transformative experience. I've had well-intentioned folks tell me in the past that if I didn't speak in tongues, then I wasn't yet saved. There is no question that I received false information in this respect, and I've grown to distrust others' insistence on such experiences or phenomena.

I myself have never had a "salvific transformative experience". This worried me for a time, but as my understanding of God's plan has grown, it's become clear why I hadn't: the theological right, the crowd I fell in with after first declaring my faith in Christ, places and continues to place an exorbitant degree of importance on salvation (read, "getting into heaven" ), resulting in a disassociation between salvation and the way a believer actually lives his or her life.

Properly, the stress should rest on the development of a friendship with God, involving a faithful reliance upon him for provision, protection, guidance, knowledge, care, etc. Meanwhile the theological right places the stress on "getting saved" and often denies the relevance of how a Christian lives, whether their lives are indecipherable from non-believers' lives or not.

The result of placing undue stress on salvation has been the introduction of all sorts of absurdities, some of which you alluded to, e.g., the "bar-code" faith problem, where some obscure mental assent to the Gospel message is supposedly sufficient to attain salvation, and how one lives becomes merely a secondary consideration. But, as has been pointed out, how can anyone genuinely trust God for their eternal salvation, if they do not trust him to take care of them in this present life?

Thus, salvation ought to recede into the background, and be considered a given for those who faithfully depend on the Lord for everyday things and do his will.

I think that “belief” ought to be completely jettisoned as a translation for pistis

Agreed.

Either way, it is always about. That is why I say that we never really argue about God (the referent) on here, but only our various God-concepts.

I recognize this as Vistesd 101, and I can't argue with it. 🙂

Once again there’s an either-or: it is [b]either the experience that is transformative/salvific,** or it what you think about afterward, whether or not you “believe” the right doctrinal statements, have the correct theology, etc.[/b]

This may be a false dichotomy. I think there is at least a third option as well. Neither a perfectly correct theological belief nor a transformative experience is necessary for salvation. What is necessary for salvation is a faith in Jesus Christ, or love of Jesus Christ, the Logos of God, sufficient enough to eventually translate into real-world obedience. Mere experience or mere belief is impersonal and does not necessarily translate into a relationship with God characterized by obedience. Being "born again", for instance, may not involve a transformative experience (as in my case), but it can be identified by its practical effects, i.e., in a life characterized by obedience, "alive to God."

Behind all the makings of your mind,
before all thoughts, concepts, ideas, names or words—

What is “God”?

Agreed, we cannot answer that question. However, that does not mean there are not certain "thoughts, concepts, ideas, names or words" that are more correct about God than others. A.W. Tozer wrote a wonderful book called, The Knowledge Of The Holy, which tackles this issue quite successfully, from a Christian theological point of view. His contention was that that which God is, i.e., the referent of our word G-O-D, is infinitely beyond comprehension or description, yet there are attributes which God has nevertheless revealed about himself, e.g., his omniscience, infinitude, eternal nature, transcendence, self-sufficiency, holiness, triune nature, immutability, omnipresence, sovereignty, etc. God as he is in himself cannot be identified with any one of his many attributes, but they are nevertheless true of him.

Now, does soterias flow from the experience, or from having the right thoughts, concepts, words about that experience?

As I said earlier, I no longer consider salvation of utmost importance. It is important, don't get me wrong, extremely so, but not nearly as important as obedience itself. Salvation flows from Jesus Christ, not an experience and not exactly from right-thinking (though right-thinking is certainly important). The mark of salvation is a life characterized by faithful righteousness (obedience) and is found in a relationship with Jesus Christ or, as you say, the Logos; not Krishna, or Buddha, or Meher Baba, etc.

I make a strong distinction between the Logos and any other person besides Jesus Christ. One may not know Jesus, the ancient Jewish carpenter, but one may nevertheless know Jesus as Logos; though obedience to the Logos, I believe, must necessarily involve the rejection of false gods and idols. Jesus Christ, I believe, is absolutely unique in that he is identified with the Logos to the point of being effectively indistinguishable from the Logos (though the same incomprehensible, indescribable referent for G-O-D applies to Jesus Christ as well; it is through Christ we are capable of learning more of God's personal attributes).

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]Yet the question must be asked: Is it anything more than a grand delusion?

Possibly.

Everything in me, besides my intellect, tells me that Jesus Christ is real, but I'd have to concede that I can't prove it. I've grown familiar with what I call "God's presence" and the attendant joy of what I can only describe as a "supernatural" peace; I'v t the practical effects of these truths are accessible.[/b]

Time and time again God's word has proved itself reliable to me, simply because I exercise a childlike faith.

Epi, could you comment on what is meant by your "childlike faith" and further why you take this as an indicator of reliability? Additionally, what is meant here by 'reliable'? Do you mean roughly that putting the word of God into practice (whatever we decide that means) is reliable at effecting personal growth and enrichment? Or do you mean that the word of God is reliable in that its metaphysical and propositional claims about the world are characteristically true? I see these two as potentially very different, and I am inclined to think you mean something more like the former. If that is the case, it gets us back to the problems I remember discussing with you (and bbarr) at length some time ago: basically, you are not prepared to provide me with epistemic reasons for the truth of Christianity; further, someone like me will see no good reasons to think that following the model of Jesus is any more reliable (in the former sense above) than following, say, some model of the Buddha or some model of an Aristotelian virtue ethics or etc....

By the way, it's really nice to see you in the forum again.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
The Bible and the Qur'an are mutually exclusive texts; both can't be right. Either they're both lying texts, or one or the other is true. But both of them can't be true (in the ultimate sense).

This is a very stark, black-and-white viewpoint. It takes the position that, if there is but a
single error in the Bible, then it is lying. I think that's a pretty impoverished view. Given that
it's pretty trivial to find contradictions in the Gospels (I've pointed them out before -- the account
at the tomb, the day Jesus was crucified, the details surrounding the entry into Jerusalem), then
is the whole Bible 'lying?'

First of all, the question is bizarre, because people are personifying the Bible. People frequently
use the term 'The Bible says ...' as if it were a person. It's not. It's a compilation of stories
written by many, many authors over a very long time (at a minimum 800-year spread). The
Bible doesn't 'say' anything. The Bible doesn't 'lie' or 'tell the truth.'

Now, we can reflect on the motives, interests, and desires of a particular author of the Bible --
say Amos -- but those reflections have no bearing on the motives, interests, and desires of
any other author -- say Jeremiah.

The fact that the certain books (including the ones ignored by Protestants, which despite their
bizarre claims are part of the Bible) are compiled together only reflects the interests, motives,
desires and beliefs of the compilers. Isaiah (and deutero-Isaiah, &c) has no comment on
the theology of I Maccabees. Daniel has no comment on the theology of I Peter, and so on.

So, to say it is only possible either the Bible is true and the Koran is false, vice versa,
or they are 'both lying' is really not a coherent way of viewing the text.

Another, more organic way of viewing it might be to say that certain books or even passages
of either book lead to an enlightenment about the human condition as a reflection of God,
and some passages don't help much at all. It is certainly legitimate to say that one collection
speaks more clearly to you than another collection -- that the Bible, because of your Western
background, your experience with Christianity before you were able to reflect upon your 'self'
and your lack of experience with Moslem worship and theological practice, gives you a better
lens through which to experience the Divine.

But, to say that because you experience the Bible this way, thus the Koran must be 'lying' is really
both arrogant and incoherent.

Nemesio

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]Thanks, Epi. But I realize that that part of my post was arrogant. I didn’t intend it to be, but it is anyway. I apologize for that.

If it was arrogant, I didn't notice.

After all this time (and this is likely my fault, here) I do not know what you mean by the word “faith”

I'm not sure if my intent for the word is anything o ...[text shortened]... ble of learning more of God's personal attributes).[/b]

I'm not sure if my intent for the word is anything out of the ordinary. I find no fault in the dictionary definition.

Here is a quick dictionary entry (not the most comprehensive one, I’m sure):

1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions 2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust 3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

synonyms see BELIEF

—Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.

Now, the entry for “belief is:

1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing 2: something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group 3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence.

Now, I would accept only 1. as a proper synonym for pistis/faith. (I think we are agreed that 2, or the notion of an opinion or conclusion of thought, etc., are where the problems are in conventional modern discourse. 3. begs the question of epistemic warrant for belief/faith, or “conviction of the truth.”

And it is the idea of faith itself having some epistemic content, or purveying some epistemic warrant, that we have always disagreed about.

With that said, I think that “faith” stands in need of a more specified definition within at least a Christian theological context. (You also recall how many disagreements the have been on here over the meaning of the word, among theists and atheists.)

The root meaning of pistis is certainly confidence or trust. The verb pisteo is an active verb, that would mean “to faith”, rather than to “have” faith—and I suspect that the search for an appropriate verb form in English led to the choice of “believe” as well as “trust”. I only use the word faith in the following specific way, which I think captures the needed specificity of the word in a Christian (or Buddhist, for that matter) context:

>> An attitude of confidence and openness to possibility in the face of [existential] conditions of uncertainty.

—I put the word “existential” in brackets just because, although that is the context in which I am using it here, I often, as you know give sports examples. The athlete may approach the difficult, near impossible shot with all the conviction she can muster (and sports psychologists and athletes both testify that that increases the likelihood of actually making the shot).

Living in a state of faith means, to me, living from that existential attitude. The more you do, the more you can. I don’t always manage it.

In sum, (1) I think faith does need a more specified definition, and (2) your ideas about faith and epistemic warrant for understanding imply that you yourself have something more specific in mind. Maybe I’m wrong.

__________________________________

However, I believe this state is not only the result of illusion, but that it is also a legal reality.

And this is where we have long disagreed. I am not saying that acts of wickedness as the result of the human error term as a result of illusion have no moral (and socially, legal) implications. Nor am I denying that the juridical model of salvation has some scriptural reference. However, I think that the NT message(s) of soterias is one of transformative healing which transcends the juridical paradigm. When it does not, we get into all the grace/works arguments, as well as the question of pardon based on faith being just, one-size fits all sentencing being just, mercy versus justice—etc., etc., etc. You know them as well as I do. I still find that the juridical model leads to inconsistencies and incoherencies, that cannot be dealt with by claiming that if one had faith, they would simply somehow dissolve. (I am not saying that’s a fair summary of your position!)

Caveat: We have sometimes argued over whether or not (and which) passages might be addressed only to (or are only in reference to) the faithful. If the whole thing is only so addressed, then those question may need to be recast along the lines of, “Is justice for the faithful the same as justice for the nonfaithful? How and how not? How is any difference ‘justified’ (pun intended)?” Or: “Is God’s love for the faithful than for the nonfaithful. Etc. etc.?”

[Recall my open question on the word pantes, “all” in 1st Corinthians 15:22, just for example. Of course, one view is that all are made alive in Christ, but some of them only so they’ll know they’re going to hell, final destruction, whatever. I reject that as an un-agapeic act.]

___________________________________

I wouldn't insist on a particular form of salvific transformative experience.

I withdraw that expression; badly phrased on my part. I think that the soteriological transformation can be a lifelong process (as do the Orthodox).

Thus, salvation ought to recede into the background, and be considered a given for those who faithfully depend on the Lord for everyday things and do his will.

In a sense, I agree. Especially if salvation is thought of as a one-time event, either in this mode of life or another. My linking of word-pairs (metanoia/pistis and metanoia/soterias), in the context of a process soteriology, is a crude attempt to “shorthand” my developing thought here. [An Orthodox Christian, upon being asked, “Are you saved?” is likely to answer, “I trust that I am being saved.”]

__________________________________

I recognize this as Vistesd 101, and I can't argue with it. 🙂

You know me too well. 🙂 I know that you also recognized (once again!) all the talk about word-signs, reality prior to thought-about, etc.

_________________________________

I have some uneasiness about the whole “obedience” thing, on a number of levels. To shortcut it, one obeys the “lord and master” (and neither the Hebrew adonai nor the Greek kyrios ought to be taken to mean something like the English concept of “lord of the manor” ); one walks with a friend. One can argue with a friend (e.g., rabbis arguing with God). Neither Judaism nor Christianity are properly religions of submission, but of dynamic covenant. Even in a strictly [existentialist?] philosophical sense, one might say that we live “in covenant with” the way of nature, as both actors and responders.

In any event, people can be both obedient and disobedient for good or bad reasons (e.g., fright).

_______________________________

Re God’s attributes—

There are again a list of word-signs that stand in need of definition/explication. 🙂 We likely disagree on the nature of the Biblical texts as “revelation”—or the degree of human, both questioning and creative, participation in forming that revelation. In any event, though, a linguistic revelation cannot avoid the issue of the meaning and interrelationships of word-signs.

I do think, however that all such writing represents (legitimate) human attempts to express/point-to the ultimately ineffable. Another vistesd-ism: All religious language (and religious art, for that matter) is either iconographic or tends toward becoming idolatrous. Images graven on paper/parchment [word-signs], or in the mind, are no less subject to idolatrous thinking than images carved in stone. In some sense, almost all of my writing/thinking on religious philosophy reflects an utmost concern for idolatry, and my own attempts not to fall into it. If one understands that, it might lend some understanding to some of my overly cumbersome articulation as a personal grappling with that issue. 🙂

__________________________________

The mark of salvation is a life characterized by faithful righteousness (obedience) and is found in a relationship with Jesus Christ or, as you say, the Logos; not Krishna, or Buddha, or Meher Baba, etc. . . . I make a strong distinction between the Logos and any other person besides Jesus Christ.

Here, on the issue of exclusiveness (as opposed to uniqueness), we continue to empathically disagree. [See my entry on page 4 of the “Def: Christian” thread. Once again, you will likely recognize it. 🙂 ]

I do not, however, disagree with your following statement:

Jesus Christ, I believe, is absolutely unique in that he is identified with the Logos to the point of being effectively indistinguishable from the Logos (though the same incomprehensible, indescribable referent for G-O-D applies to Jesus Christ as well; it is through Christ we are capable of learning more of God's personal attributes).

I likely interpret such a statement differently from your intent, however. 🙂 The point of our difference may be that I see the person as pointing to (through incarnation) the Logos, rather than the Logos pointing to the person. It is in this iconic sense that Jesus is the Christ. But you are also the Christ to the extent that you realize and reflect the Logos. Jesus’ iconic uniqueness becomes the guide to that realization. [Again, see my entry on p. 4 of “Def: Christian”.] And that also links with my word-pairs...

St. Augustin once said, with regard to the Eucharist: “Become what you receive.” You already know, I suspect, how I read Galatians 2:20...

____________________________________

Good stuff, though. You press my thinking, and that is always a good thing. (I’m not sure, though, that I haven’t wound myself around to your initial view on online apologetics. 🙂 Maybe online “explication” would be a better word?)

Originally posted by Nemesio
This is a very stark, black-and-white viewpoint. It takes the position that, if there is but a
single error in the Bible, then it is lying. I think that's a pretty impoverished view. Given that
it's pretty trivial to find contradictions in the Gospels (I've pointed them out before -- the account
at the tomb, the day Jesus was crucified, the details su oran must be 'lying' is really
both arrogant and incoherent.

Nemesio

Another, more organic way of viewing it might be to say that certain books or even passages
of either book lead to an enlightenment about the human condition as a reflection of God,
and some passages don't help much at all.

What I for the moment call religious formalists claim exclusivity for their particular form of expression (formal paradigm), including written texts.

A nonformalist (such as myself) will tend to see it exactly as you have put it here, even if she actually walks within a particular form. She may even see her form as generally, as well as personally, the best one. But will not exclude the possibility that other forms are paths than can also lead to enlightenment, salvation, living according to the Logos/Tao, etc.

There are both formalist and nonformalists, of varying degrees, in all of the religions. Most mystics would say that the deeper one reads down into the texts (Jewish midrash; Origen’s or Gregory of Nyssa’s approaches, say, in Christianity), the less the formal differences matter. Even where they do, the nonformalist is unlikely to claim that such differences are crucial salvifically.

Formalists run the risk of idolatrous attachments to their particular forms; nonformalists run the risk of shallow religious dilettantism, and a spirituality that lacks—can I say, “existential definition”? (As opposed to language definition.) Digging one’s spiritual well deep in one place, or venturing in the spiritual wilderness—one is more suitable for some people, the other for others (who may still want a singular oasis to return to). Since both are risky (and self-deception possible), continuing discernment is required. We both know where my struggle lies, as it is reflected often enough on here...

One of my favorite NT verses (in my own poetic rendering):

The spirit where it wishes blows,
the sound of it you here but do not know
whence it comes nor where it goes—
All who are born of spirit wayfare so.

(John 3:8. pneuma can be translated as either spirit or wind in both occurrences in the verse.)

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]Time and time again God's word has proved itself reliable to me, simply because I exercise a childlike faith.

Epi, could you comment on what is meant by your "childlike faith" and further why you take this as an indicator of reliability? Additionally, what is meant here by 'reliable'? Do you mean roughly that putting the word of God into pract ...[text shortened]... an virtue ethics or etc....

By the way, it's really nice to see you in the forum again.[/b]

Epi, could you comment on what is meant by your "childlike faith" and further why you take this as an indicator of reliability?

I'm not sure what you mean when you say I take "childlike faith" as an indicator of reliability. I don't think I've ever suggested that. But I can certainly comment on what I mean by "childlike faith".
__________

Life consists of a great deal of intellectual uncertainty, as you are probably aware. The more a person learns from science and philosophy the more uncertain the world becomes. Plato hit the nail on the head, I think, when he said that true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing. The problem is, we tend to presume that whatever level of knowledge we have attained in life is sufficient and despite philosophical underpinnings suggesting the contrary, tend to live as though there is no uncertainty.

Childlike faith means to me the capacity to disentangle oneself from that intellectual web. A child doesn't know the beginning from the end, and offers no claim of understanding any significant aspect of reality, making him or her quite capable of taking it on faith that God, for example, is in charge and everything is therefore peachy keen. As an adult this, of course, becomes more difficult. It takes considerable effort sometimes to rest in faith or exercise faith in the face of evidence seemingly to the contrary. Superficially, though, this process is necessary for any kind of faith put into action; I'd call it intellectual humility (although you might call it active ignorance). Plato calls it wisdom.

Whatever we call it, it is necessary in order to demonstrate faith in the teachings of Jesus Christ. The non-rational realm of faith is a realm of practical effectiveness. If by placing our faith in some propositional truth and acting on it, we discover that our results are other than advertised, we can therefore disregard the proposition.

What separates the practical effects of Christianity from any other "model", e.g., the teachings of Buddha, Aristotelian virtue ethics, etc., is, I think, its specific reliance upon the supernatural interventionist power of God. For instance, the spiritual principle introduced by Christ of "ask and you shall receive," is a call to actively rely upon the faithful provision of a loving God. Jesus guarantees the effectiveness of this principle, provided that one believes God is not only willing but able to do all that he promises.
__________

As an example, during a church worship session a few weeks ago I was speaking to God wordlessly, with my eyes closed. I was petitioning him about something in particular, which I won't mention here, and I suddenly had an image in my mind appear of my pastor turning and looking in my direction.

At my church there is a roughly half-hour sermon followed by about fifteen minutes of worship, after which there is an opportunity to come forward and have someone pray with you about whatever is on your heart. I've gone forward many times, and I've always been met by a person on the prayer team. This time, however, I had an abnormally heavy burden on my heart and was longing for a strong answer to my prayer, such that no doubt would be left in my mind that God's love and concern for me was real.

While I stood there I recalled the image that appeared in my mind of my pastor turning and looking in my direction. I noticed that he was standing way off to my left. I said to God, "If you are truly intending to meet me where I'm at, Lord, you will have the pastor come way over here and pray with me." Sure enough, my pastor walked all the way across the church to pray with me.

It was a special moment, because I'd never met my pastor before (we go to a pretty big church) and I'd always looked up to him and admired the sermons he gave.

After we prayed I told him about the image of him turning and looking at me that arose in my mind during worship, and how that led me to expect God to send him over to pray with me. He didn't seem astonished at all, due to a familiarity with these kinds of incidents, and went on to tell me that he was just about to pray for the lady standing in front of him, but hesitated when he heard God say in his spirit to go over and pray with me.

As one comes closer to this kind of radical reliance upon Christ's teachings regarding the availability of God's kingdom, the more these kinds of instances arise. There are practical effects effecting personal growth and enrichment involved, but also, uniquely, the definite sense of a God at work supernaturally in the lives of his people.

By the way, it's really nice to see you in the forum again.

I always enjoy our conversations, LJ. Being persistently skewered by you and bbarr is a refreshing reminder that I mustn't put any stock in online apologetics. 🙂

Originally posted by Nemesio
Given that
it's pretty trivial to find contradictions in the Gospels (I've pointed them out before -- the account
at the tomb, the day Jesus was crucified, the details surrounding the entry into Jerusalem), then
is the whole Bible 'lying?'

First of all, the question is bizarre, because people are personifying the Bible. People frequently
use the ter Koran must be 'lying' is really
both arrogant and incoherent.

Nemesio

This is a very stark, black-and-white viewpoint. It takes the position that, if there is but a single error in the Bible, then it is lying. I think that's a pretty impoverished view.

I agree, but I also think you're presenting a straw man argument. I've never indicated that a single error in the Bible means that the Bible is lying. What I did say was that there are key beliefs in Christianity and Islam which are unavoidably mutually exclusive, and therefore, one must be wrong and one must be right. I went on to give an example of Christ's claim that he is the only way to God, compared with the Qur'an's account of Jesus as merely a human prophet. Another example would be the Muslim claim that Jesus escaped the cross and a stand-in died on the cross in his place. The Bible contradicts this claim explicitly.

Is it really as arrogant and incoherent as you claim that I cannot accept both sides of the issue simultaneously?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Is it really as arrogant and incoherent as you claim that I cannot accept both sides of the issue simultaneously?

It is arrogant to say that the Koran is lying simply because you do not believe it to be true.

It is incoherent to say a book is 'lying' as if it had motives. And to say that the author was 'lying'
as the only option against saying that the contents of the text are true is also incoherent. The
author could be mistaken, or could be communicating something other than the literal story, using
some contemporary literary device which is not nearly as clear to us today without hermeneutical
study.

Nemesio

I don't understand this argument at all. If one thinka something is true, he don't have to prove it. It could simply be a matter of faith. Faith is not arrogance unless you try to rip other people for not being of the same faith as you.
If one thinks something is UNtrue (Koran, Bible, etc), that's not arrogance; that's individual decision-making and opinion. And no one needs a reason for DISbelieving something either. If I say, "I don't believe the Koran", it's the same as saying "I don't believe carbon-dating works", or "I don't believe man landed on the moon." Regardless of how ludicrous the belief is, it's still an opinion that one has a right to hold, and there's bothing "arrogant" about it.
I am sure there are religious zealots of all stripes who feel the need to convert everyone to their faith, but these people are few and far between (at least in my limited experience). Most Christians I find are like me: We believe there is one and only one way to eternal life. If someone disagrees, fine...it's not my job to drag anybody, kicking and screaming, to the pearly gates. Believing in "One Way" to salvation is NOT arrogant nor intolerant. It might be considered exclusive, but there's nothing wrong with that. SOME raving, delusional poster seems to believe I have a religious agenda; I trust this will put to rest that vicious, insulting attack. You don't want heaven? More power to ya, hoss--hell's got plenty of room. No skin off my nose what you believe.
Now, does THAT sound like a religious agenda to you?

Originally posted by Nemesio
It is arrogant to say that the Koran is lying simply because you do not believe it to be true.

It is incoherent to say a book is 'lying' as if it had motives. And to say that the author was 'lying'
as the only option against saying that the contents of the text are true is also incoherent. The
author could be mistaken, or could be communicating ...[text shortened]... ary device which is not nearly as clear to us today without hermeneutical
study.

Nemesio

You're right, 'lying' was a poor choice of words.