CONTACT US | TALK BACK | SUBMIT TIP | SUBMIT PHOTOS/VIDEOS | CORRECTION
I'm tired of saying goodbye and am afraid when saying hello.
This pastoral paranoia has grown over the years as I've witnessed the increasing callousness in which people drop in and out of one another's lives. As a child of divorce, I'm particularly attuned to the drama and trauma associated with vow breaking, home splitting and irreconcilable relationships.
When I came to faith in Christ I was deeply attracted to the idea of family and community. Reconciliation with God, and subsequently with one another through grace and faith was foundational in redeeming my hope for healthy relationships, home and marriage.
It didn't take too long inside the church to realize salvation doesn't save us from sin. There's always a snake in the garden. The blame game is still going on at the tree and spilled brother blood cries from the ground. Being together is as difficult as it was in Eden.
I've tried to comfort myself at times with the words of the Apostle John. "These people left our churches, but they never really belonged with us; otherwise they would have stayed with us. When they left, it proved that they did not belong with us" (1 John 2:19).
But honestly, it never seems to soothe the ache of loss, denial, betrayal and abandonment. We are seeing a church culture that is plagued by an allergic reaction to commitment and increasingly more wounded by a divorce rate rivaling people without faith. We hug, kiss and blather platitudes about love, forgiveness and community then jettison our commitments when our expectations aren't met, we're hurt or the season of testing grows too long.
Jesus said the world would know we were his disciples by our love for one another but by the looks of things there isn't much discipleship going on these days.
I'm starting to wonder if I really know what love is when it comes to community. I hope to witness something that reflects the kingdom I pray to come, but each year leaves me struggling with more and more disillusionment.
Tracy Simmons | Jul 2, 2012 | 8:15am
Beautiful article Eric. Divorce impacts our relationships so much, but until now I’ve never thought about how it effects our relationships with the church. I too am a child of divorce and have never really made a ‘long term commitment’ to a church. I thought it was more of a generational thing. So many of us tend to be transplants and don’t become ‘members’ of a church because nowhere ever really feels like home….But maybe the transplant thing has just been an excuse. Hmmm, you’ve given me something to chew on…
Eric Blauer | Jul 2, 2012 | 8:25am
Thank you Tracy.
I think many people struggle with committing to the now. There’s a hesitancy to commit or ‘bloom where one is planted’ due to the migrating nature of our era. People are peetually ‘renters’ in their lives instead of owners. We are tempted to treat many people and places like rental cars instead of investments. The sword cuts both ways too, we’ve been abandoned to often, cast aside to simply, and the message produces a non-attachment protective posture of the soul. It affects our relationships both earthly and heavenly.
People have a hard time believing in a “I will never leave you nor forsake you” Gospel in this day and age, because life has played out in the contrary.
Bruce | Jul 2, 2012 | 9:26am
I’ve been heavily influenced by Francois Fenelon and Jeanne Guyon from the 17th century in France. They had a different view of Christianity and the church. For them, being a Christian wasn’t striving to fulfill commandments or struggling to obey the Church. It was a simple yielding of the will to God. As they saw it, the more we try to obey commandments, the more we are going to fail. Rather, we give ourselves whole-heartedly to God and let him work his will through us, whatever that may be and wherever it may lead us.
Obviously this kind of teaching wasn’t popular with the church. Churches like to see the Bible as a book of commands. Guyon spent 14 years in the dungeon for her views, and Fenelon was cast down as Archbishop for defending her ideas.
But I like Fenelon’s writings on relationship: He saw them as spokes on a wheel, and God is the hub. As we get closer to God, we get closer to each other, like moving down the spokes of the wheel.
Eric Blauer | Jul 2, 2012 | 9:48am
Both the writers you reference were deeply committed to the body of Christ, Guyon was persecuted by religious leaders particularly for her interior communion message and Fenleon for his friendship with her.
In my understandig of discipleship and community as examples amd taught in the NT, one cannot fully commune with the head of the body while rejecting the body.
How and what that body looks like is another matter but for it to be truly the NT expression of church, it’s got to include the NT components…Christ as head, gospel/scripture as message, love as ethic, service/gifting as function, elders/leaders as mentors and relationships not mere spectators for context, accountability and practice.
Amy Rice | Jul 2, 2012 | 10:17am
Eric,
It seems that the two greatest commandments are deceptively simple: love God and love others. We seek a relationship with a being who is rather mysterious and intangible. And he asks us to love people—not just the likeable people, either. In fact, he tells us to love our enemies. To say that this is not our natural state of being is a pretty big understatement.
Perhaps we need mentors who will teach us to love others, just as couples may turn to mentors for examples of good marriages.
Eric Blauer | Jul 2, 2012 | 10:26am
Yah, that little word “love” holds within it the whole law and prophets according to Jesus. Living it out will be an exercise in futility without the grace and power of God.
Loving in the biblical sense, as a continual act of commitment and selflessness is defiantly counterintuitive to our turned in on oneself nature.
Ryan Downie | Jul 2, 2012 | 4:47pm
Bruce -
[“As we get closer to God, we get closer to each other, like moving down the spokes of the wheel.”]
I’m extremely curious as to how one can “get closer to God” under your view? Since nothing can be known about God, what could this possibly mean?
Bruce | Jul 2, 2012 | 7:42pm
You are correct that reasoning is very limited in what it can achieve. This has been attested by numerous philosophers, theologians, and scientists, including Kant, Ockham from the Middle Ages, and modern philosophers such as David Albert. There is nothing that can be known about God through human effort. Science and logic is so virtually useless it cannot even do such a basic thing as prove or disprove the existence of God.
But lucky for us, human reasoning isn’t all that important. I probably know nothing at all in the grand scheme of things, but those who are wise live by faith, not by effort. It’s by faith that I draw closer to God, not knowledge or reasoning.
If you want to give it a whirl, faith starts with humility. But if you’re putting yourself above God, saying you’re going to figure him out, then it’s probably not going to work very well for you. That’s just my puny little wisdom.
Ryan Downie | Jul 2, 2012 | 9:43pm
I’m not sure how “faith” solves anything! What is faith supposed to be that allows you to get closer to an unknowable being? If God is beyond reason, then “He” is unpredictable, completely random. So, what good is faith?
I think you are setting up a false dichotomy. Why does it have to be pure faith or the idea that you can completely “figure him out”?
Bruce | Jul 2, 2012 | 9:48pm
You’ve lost me somewhere. Why would God have to be unpredictable and random just because he is out of the reach of human reason? We don’t control God. God is who he is whether we know him or not.
I guess I don’t understand your comment.
Eric Blauer | Jul 2, 2012 | 10:52pm
Ryan, I struggle to understand what you are aiming for in a “faith & values” forum? You act surprised that people who write for this venue express faith in God. Maybe your interests lay elsewhere possibly? Its like a PC guy getting tense about Apple folks loving Apple products in an Apple store.
Ryan Downie | Jul 2, 2012 | 11:33pm
Eric - I’m only surprised and confused by the type of faith I see and how that term is understood. Are you saying that religion and faith is nothing more than a matter of preference?
Ryan Downie | Jul 2, 2012 | 11:43pm
Bruce -
Your view (as I understand it) is that God is not only beyond *human reason*, which I take to mean the human capacity to reason, but that reason does not even apply to God. Thus, it is not as if we were a million times smarter we would understand God better and know more about “Him”, rather no amount of rational capacity can know or understand God. “He” is irrational and therefore completely unpredictable and random.
When you say that God is who “He” is, you are assuming some sort of logic or rationality that applies to God to specify or identify who “He” is, entailing some sort of identifiable (even if only in principle) nature. But this goes against what you normally claim when insisting that logic/reason does not apply to God.
So, I’d like to know what this “faith” you mention *is*. *How* does it allow one to know an unknowable God and *how* does it specify the particular God that happens to exist out of all possible conceptions of such a being?
Ryan Downie | Jul 2, 2012 | 11:54pm
Eric -
I’ll add that if you think that faith is nothing but a matter of preference, then I suppose there is nothing much to criticize or gain here. It would be like criticizing a conversation between people commenting about their relative thoughts on why they favor the ice-cream flavors they do.
But that doesn’t seem to be what faith is all about. It regularly makes truth claims, which apparently apply everyone (depending on your view) and generally passes itself off as being correct. So, it seems that either faith is a duplicitous notion pretending to be about reality when it isn’t or it actually is supposed to be about reality, in which case criticism and a plea for coherence is entirely appropriate.
Eric Blauer | Jul 3, 2012 | 7:33am
Ryan,
If you think God is Santa Clause, the Demurge or Sinestro than why do you spend so much time and energy countering folk?
Most people of the Christian faith from the side of the fence you seem to reject, hold to the Bible as the primary foundation of faith. You initiate endless circular reasoning debates by ignoring or pretending that basis isn’t there.
A typical bible person has scripture as the basis for their understanding of faith, passages like:
Hebrews 11:1
Faith is the confidence that what we hope for will actually happen; it gives us assurance about things we cannot see.
Romans 10:17
So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.
Most evangelical types also believe that for many people the problem with faith is rooted in a choice not to believe more than a struggle to believe. “I won’t believe” is much different than “help my unbelief.”
Which seems to regularly lead to the knot of your ongoing angst about punishment related to choosing not to believe, as expressed in passages like:
“He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.” 2 Thess. 1:8
God commands all people to repent and believe in the gospel and that is an exclusivity claim of the Christian bible.
Some believe it and many don’t.
Bruce | Jul 3, 2012 | 8:03am
Ryan, in answering your comment above:
(Your view (as I understand it) is that God is not only beyond *human reason*, which I take to mean the human capacity to reason, but that reason does not even apply to God.)
No, I hold to what many modern philosophers say about logic. It is an extension of human language or human intuition. As human reasoning cannot know God, logic cannot either. To say that God must somehow hold to human logic is to commit what is called a “category error”.
(When you say that God is who “He” is, you are assuming some sort of logic or rationality that applies to God to specify or identify who “He” is, entailing some sort of identifiable (even if only in principle) nature. But this goes against what you normally claim when insisting that logic/reason does not apply to God.)
As a human being, I use logic in my speech all the time. I think I am entitled to think logically about God without believing God must hold to my worthless human understanding. So I believe that God exists through faith according to my puny and inadequate understanding of who God might possibly be. That understanding comes from word pictures drawn in the Bible such as “father” and “lord”. These are vague, unscientific pictures that inspire my faith. But that is not the same thing as having a complete scientific and logical understanding of some specimen under my microscope known as God.
Ernesto Tinajero | Jul 3, 2012 | 8:33am
Eric,
I found you post power. i wonder if community and love comes from us picking up the cross, and our lack of it comes from our fear of our own cross or vulnerabilities. We are afraid of dropping our own pretenses and sharing our weakness. I too am a child of divorce and I spent much of my early twenties believing that I was unloveable. A story that a child made up to survive his father cutting off contact. Jesus found me and I see the multitude of others around me as hurt children afraid of being rejected and so the create the masks to protect themselves. Jesus cuts through this and invites us to be with him (Emanuel) and with other hurt people, though we have to remember we are all hurt and fallen, so community is hard, but there is no other way.
Ryan,
You strike me as not wanting to be vulnerable with your life and hide behind your ideas and beliefs. I have yet to see you to share from your life in this forum. You seem stuck on ideas. You want to put God as a proposition as a way of containing you own fears whether about Hell or being with others. Your ideas about God do not have to be a stumbling block with others. Interrelating does not have to be about agreement. Love is more than a test.
Eric Blauer | Jul 3, 2012 | 8:43am
E:
The cross is something I’ve been wrestling with in relationship to community. Loving and forgiving, reaching out to fellow sufferers, handling rejection, accusation, belittling, cursing, abuse, darkness, abandonment…all these things wrapped up in the call to die daily.
“I die daily” has way more meaning in my life an it ever did in the past. I’m praying for he hope that accompanies the idea of resurrection. All of this comes down to love and even the ideas Ryan is poking at about being able to see, not see etc. becomes even harder when what you often do see…is less than love.
Ugh.
“If someone says, “I love God,” but hates a Christian brother or sister, that person is a liar; for if we don’t love people we can see, how can we love God, whom we cannot see?” -1 John 4:20
Ernesto Tinajero | Jul 3, 2012 | 9:08am
Eric,
Yes our fear of love is deep. I remember this man proclaiming. They stuck him on a cross. But the good new is he rose and came back to be with us, proving he was God. Community is never easy, but it is far easier than the alternative. Without love, we become monsters to others and ourselves.
Ryan Downie | Jul 3, 2012 | 12:26pm
Eric -
[“If you think God is Santa Clause, the Demurge or Sinestro than why do you spend so much time and energy countering folk?”]
First, I don’t believe that I have ever compared God to Santa Clause, et al. But even if I were, it would still be important to address this issue, since many grown ups insist that God is real and don’t treat “Him” as merely a fun tradition.
Second, and related, people are putting forth a truth claim or existence claim and treating it very seriously. I am merely asking for evidence (of some relevant sort) and reason for accepting this claim. I actually desire to know the truth, but as with any remarkable claim, one does not simply get it for free.
[“Most people of the Christian faith from the side of the fence you seem to reject, hold to the Bible as the primary foundation of faith. You initiate endless circular reasoning debates by ignoring or pretending that basis isn’t there.”]
I disagree. I am very well aware of the fact that people base their faith on the bible. But this only moves the problem a step back! I want to know why one should do that. Also notice that the Bible doesn’t seem to be a good foundation on its own, since it does not produce a unique “faith” or understanding of faith and THE faith.
[“A typical bible person has scripture as the basis for their understanding of faith, passages like:...”]
Except that many cannot even agree on what these passages really mean! Nor can many defend why this idea should be valuable or accepted. A book says so… okay, so what? Furthermore, even if such verses serve as a foundation, many people use ‘faith’ in all manner of ambiguous ways. That is, many people equivocate on the meaning and usage of the term.
[“Most evangelical types also believe that for many people the problem with faith is rooted in a choice not to believe more than a struggle to believe. ‘I won’t believe’ is much different than ‘help my unbelief.’”]
I don’t agree that belief is a choice. One is either convinced or not. Belief is not a matter of willpower.
[“God commands all people to repent and believe in the gospel and that is an exclusivity claim of the Christian bible.
Some believe it and many don’t.”]
Yes, and why should THAT be believed? Do you even care WHY many might not believe such a thing?
Ryan Downie | Jul 3, 2012 | 12:48pm
Bruce -
[“No, I hold to what many modern philosophers say about logic. It is an extension of human language or human intuition. As human reasoning cannot know God, logic cannot either. To say that God must somehow hold to human logic is to commit what is called a “category error”. “]
Many philosophers? I’m not exactly sure what you mean by logic being only an extension of human language and intuition, but this is *not* the consensus view! In fact, I believe the general consensus is quite the opposite and very good arguments exist which weaken this view. In fact, all the most prominent Christian philosophers would disagree with your view, which is telling.
It is not a category mistake to say that God is subject to logic. The only way we can even talk about God or conceive of “Him” existing is if logic applies. Again, it may be that God is beyond our *capacity* to reason, but it seems rather impossible for God to be beyond reason simpliciter.
[” I think I am entitled to think logically about God without believing God must hold to my worthless human understanding.”]
I think that depends on what you mean by “entitled”. CAN you believe such a thing? Sure, but it doesn’t seem rational. Why would you even attempt to think rationally about God if you simultaneously hold that said rationality doesn’t result in anything true or trustworthy about God?
[“So I believe that God exists through faith according to my puny and inadequate understanding of who God might possibly be.”]
What does it mean to believe that God exists through faith? You still haven’t explained your understanding of this mysterious faith you speak of. How could God possibly be anything?
Eric Blauer | Jul 3, 2012 | 12:48pm
Well…no surprise, you don’t agree on about everything ever said in reposne. I hope you find answers that satisfy you and that there isn’t a wake of chewed up folk behind your crusade. Being right is a hydra.
“Why”...is a womb that bears differently for different things. I’ve not found many content people that bark up that tree obsessively. Job is a great text in that genre.
As for the issue of texts not being agreed upon, I think at is true on some issues but as a whole, the matters of Christianity are simple concepts but hard in practice, at least in my journey.
I love dialogue with seekers and doubters…I tire of agitators and insincere and obnoxious megalomaniacs. Thomas is one of my favorite disciples and shows me there’s plenty of room for those who need to touch and see before they believe. I think there’s been some great minds and hearts that have reasoned well in response to your debates.
I hope you can utilize the gifts offered in your own journey.
Ryan Downie | Jul 3, 2012 | 12:52pm
Ernesto -
[“You strike me as not wanting to be vulnerable with your life and hide behind your ideas and beliefs. I have yet to see you to share from your life in this forum. You seem stuck on ideas. You want to put God as a proposition as a way of containing you own fears whether about Hell or being with others. Your ideas about God do not have to be a stumbling block with others. Interrelating does not have to be about agreement. Love is more than a test.”]
I care about the truth.
Ryan Downie | Jul 3, 2012 | 1:01pm
Eric -
Are you insinuating that I am an insincere agitator and obnoxious megalomaniac?
Eric Blauer | Jul 3, 2012 | 1:21pm
Most men are…even Paul was an example of the type of person who will was driven by principle over people. A man who was eventually converted by love over law.
If we are obstinate, opinionated, unkind, divisive, argumentative, contrary, self righteous, egotistical, bullish and tend to drive people away from us…than we probably are such type of men.
In the church we call them ‘jerks’...on the street, we have other names.
I think you have an amazing mind but your heart is hard to hear over your intellect.
Ryan Downie | Jul 3, 2012 | 1:45pm
Eric -
What is the difference between heart and mind? Why shouldn’t I listened to my mind over and above my “heart”?
If people are only interested in sharing life experiences and their respective thoughts on them, that is one thing, but if people are also going to build elaborate systems based on these things and then also claim that they are correct or correspond to reality, then I feel compelled to put these ideas to the test. What is inappropriate about that?
Ryan Downie | Jul 3, 2012 | 1:47pm
Correction: Why shouldn’t I *listen* to my mind over and above my “heart”?
Ernesto Tinajero | Jul 3, 2012 | 2:23pm
Ryan,
“I care about the truth.”
Sounds good, but I really don’t buy it. Why? I once mention Wittgenstein and one of his profound insights. You did not engage it. Did not ask about it. You simply dismissed it. I have seen Brice mention things to you and you don’t engage it, rather you dismiss it. By the way, when you dismissed Wittgenstein, you dismissed one of the best mathematical geniuses and philosophers. When I engage him along with others, even if I disagree with him, I at least know what they are saying before I dismiss them. You did not. Truth or defending.
Ryan Downie | Jul 3, 2012 | 4:37pm
Ernesto-
How did I dismiss Wittgenstein? I may have dismissed your use of him, but I’m not sure I dismissed him.
As for Bruce, I pretty well engage everything he says and argues. Is there a particular point that you feel I dismissed? If so, I’d be happy to address it.
Bruce | Jul 3, 2012 | 5:04pm
(Many philosophers? I’m not exactly sure what you mean by logic being only an extension of human language and intuition, but this is *not* the consensus view! In fact, I believe the general consensus is quite the opposite and very good arguments exist which weaken this view. In fact, all the most prominent Christian philosophers would disagree with your view, which is telling.)
Most prominent Christian philosophers? Are you including to Ockham? The Faith Seeking Knowledge project of Christian philosophy was abandoned for precisely this reason. I think you are simply wrong on this point. If you have other proof than I invite you to present it. Otherwise I doubt your scholarship.
(I think that depends on what you mean by “entitled”. CAN you believe such a thing? Sure, but it doesn’t seem rational. Why would you even attempt to think rationally about God if you simultaneously hold that said rationality doesn’t result in anything true or trustworthy about God?)
Why would it be irrational to think that God does not need to hold to logic that is of human origin? I don’t see any reason why God must hold to my logic. I think your issue is that you still have a different view of logic. We have round and round and round this so many times and you still can’t seem to grasp that my view of logic is different than yours. I see your view of logic as simply wrong, and I don’t feel I need to hold to it. Go back to my previous point and do your homework.
Ernesto Tinajero | Jul 3, 2012 | 9:39pm
Ryan,
How I used him? It is okay to admit you have not read Wittgenstein. He is certainly not easy. But in his later philosophy he made the observation that a words are not abstractions but embedded in how they are used. Their functionality is buried in their use. Example If I ask you what time is it, You look at your watch and tell me. If I ask you what is time? You make a philosophical question.Or one try to answer the question scientific mannor. Wittgenstein pointed out that in reality these are two or three different sort of conversations. Each one with its own logic within its own language game. Most of the Gu Atheist fail to grasp this and use language in illogical manner by trying to make all discourse fit into one “language game.” This insight about looking at how humans use words rather than abstract meaning lead to modern linguistics, speech act theory, and many other development. Now, since certain discourse has its own internal rules, and we one tries to apply one set of rules of one vocabulary to another, you end up with what he called non-sense. Most of Dawkins and the other Gu Atheist and much of what you write about religion falls into this logical non-sense. Take the “God does not exist.” God is diverse a word in its use to pin down is just the beginning. Add to the problem of ontology ie what is meant by the simple word is and you can only tangle in a linguistic mess. Science has moved beyond what you what it to say. It makes models that offer pragmatic and testable results. The models are subject to change. Christianity have always claimed at the core revelation. God has become known to us by God self-revelation. So, when you say to Bruce that God has to be know logically or that we could not be known at all, it is non-sense because he says God chose to reveal himself in Jesus. So, whether we either deduce God or God does not able to be seen fails in the belief of God acting and revealing God-self.
By the way, there is no evidence of God, and that is the same amount of evidence for randomness. NEITHER, being teleological, can be proved logically or illogically. I rely on my own encounters with God to know that God is real. Encountering the revealed God, encounter love, these are real and where I find my authentic self. Many practicing Christians would agree. You may disagree with me, but that is all you can do. To say that I am illogical or don’t face the truth, really shows that you are not familiar with the limits of logic.
philip | Jul 3, 2012 | 9:48pm
Thanks for the thought Father Pry. Potent as usual. Your encouragement and dialogue is awesome.
On the edge of another “transition” here, I am struck by my reckless hope for the next community we will become a part of. My excitement to experience relationships with people that go beyond the “getting to know you” phase has often resulted in some brokenness. But also some deep lasting bonds.
Regardless we are committed to following Jesus and becoming a couple of people who reflect love.
Ryan Downie | Jul 3, 2012 | 11:51pm
[“Most prominent Christian philosophers? Are you including to Ockham? The Faith Seeking Knowledge project of Christian philosophy was abandoned for precisely this reason. I think you are simply wrong on this point. If you have other proof than I invite you to present it. Otherwise I doubt your scholarship. “]
Yes, I am including Ockham. He was a great logician and praised logic. Where are you getting the idea that his ideas are in line with yours? As for the other prominent Christian philosophers, I am thinking of the still influential Anselm, Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus. From the contemporary scene there is Alvin Plantinga (the most highly regarded Christian analytic philosopher), William Lane Craig, Norman Geisler, Richard Swinburne, William Dembski, Doug Guivett (sp?), Ravi Zacharias, Ronald Nash, R.C. Sproul, C.S. Lewis along with just about every Christian apologist. And these are just some of the more well known.
[“Why would it be irrational to think that God does not need to hold to logic that is of human origin?”]
Logic is not a human invention. The form and symbols we use may be, but logic itself is not of human origin.
[” I see your view of logic as simply wrong…”]
Yet, you never address on what basis you could possibly argue that I am, in fact, wrong!
Ryan Downie | Jul 4, 2012 | 12:05am
Ernesto -
[“How I used him?”]
Yes, I question your application of his ideas.
[“Most of Dawkins and the other Gu Atheist and much of what you write about religion falls into this logical non-sense.”]
How so? Give an example.
[“God has become known to us by God self-revelation.”]
I call bull! Prove this or give some evidence that this is the case. At this point, this seems quite circular. On what basis do you recognize or judge something to be God’s self-revelation?
[“So, when you say to Bruce that God has to be know logically or that we could not be known at all, it is non-sense because he says God chose to reveal himself in Jesus.”]
No, you don’t get that for free. The claim that God chose to reveal himself in Jesus is a truth claim, a claim to fact (even historical fact) that purports to be logically coherent and meaningful, as well as true.
[” I rely on my own encounters with God to know that God is real. Encountering the revealed God, encounter love, these are real and where I find my authentic self.”]
This seems circular and question begging. How do you know you’ve encountered a revealed God? It seems you must have some criteria for judging whether or not something is, in fact, God, that it is a revelation of God and not just your imagination.
rob.hinkforth | Jul 4, 2012 | 7:34am
Ryan,
Remember the book Moby Dick?
When Herman Melville wrote it, part of what Melville was getting at is as follows.
In the story Captain Ahab of the Pequod is on a revenge mission. He wants to get the great white whale Moby Dick. At essentially any cost necessary. While going after this whale Ahab looses the original reason why he wants Moby Dick apart from just wanting him dead.
Doing so is what this ship captain thought would give him a sense of justice; regarding his personal loss. This is because this ship captain wanted the truth about this whale (but like the roadrunner outsmarting Wile E. Coyote) Captan Ahab couldn’t kill this whale.
I want to challenge you on something and please don’t do that intellectual judo: to be frank with you. I personally see you as being similar to Captan Ahab on a fool’s quest to kill a whale that transcends his understanding. Why are you doing this, Ryan.
Being the after truth cannot be found by going after people of faith. It’s as simple as that. I challenging you on this in the open. If you do not answer this simple question (why you are doing this…why.) Failing to answer this question means you will get a reply from me; regardless of what is said. For me not answering this question would be like an empty can that rattles the most and I don’t hear it.
Since your posts…from what I have seen (I’m sorry if reading this hurts but you like to play hardball, it thus is warranted): your comments are like a cyber stocker looking to pick a fight with someone. Enough is enough Ryan…you a smart guy and I admire you in more ways then one. Now I am in this thread and I challenge you to answer a simple question.
Why are you doing this…why?
Truth is not math. It is an ethical question related to moral character; in this case the character of God. If any debate is given to me from you on this. I will not entertain it. I will answer the same question if you do the same. Apart from that I will not waste my time debating the issue of God’s existence or anything that. I have no need to get validation from anyone on that. For me the answer to the question is settled. I am sorry you’re not able to say the same with full certainly.
rob.hinkforth | Jul 4, 2012 | 7:40am
sorry for the typo: Being the after truth cannot be found by going after people of faith. It’s as simple as that. I am challenging you on this in the open. If you do not answer this simple question (why are you doing this…why.) Failing to answer this question means you will not get a reply from me; regardless of what is said. For me not answering this question would be like an empty can that rattles the most and I don’t want to hear it. I know what atheism is and I am done trying to be empathic towards when its own adherents want to make God into a morally offensive idea.
Bruce | Jul 4, 2012 | 8:24am
Ryan-
Your comment- (Yes, I am including Ockham. He was a great logician and praised logic. Where are you getting the idea that his ideas are in line with yours? As for the other prominent Christian philosophers, I am thinking of the still influential Anselm, Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus.)
You’ve actually got that backwards. Anselm, Thomans Aquinas, and the others you mention from the Faith Seeking Knowledge project used universal entities to prove their points. It was a common practice back then. But that is why they are believed by many to have failed and the project was abandoned. During the time of Ockham, and even before Ockham, Scholastics began to see that universal entities could not be proven. The entire project including the work of Anselm and Aquinas fell apart. That doesn’t mean they weren’t great philosophers, and much of their work still stands, but the conclusion was that human reason is far too limited to prove anything about God.
See my post on Anselm (http://spokanefavs.com/culture/science/proving-the-existence-of-god). Gaunilo opposed Anselm on this very point, that God was beyond the reach of human reason. Most prominent philosophers today agree with Gaunilo. Yes there are some you mentioned from the conservative fundamentalist side of life who believe God can be proven with logic. But they also believe the Bible is infallible and inerrant. Do you believe that also?
If you are not willing to see my point, then it looks like we are at an impasse. I wish you the best in your future posts.
Ernesto Tinajero | Jul 4, 2012 | 9:34am
Ryan,
I am calling your bluff, Tell me in particular how I am missing Wittgenstein ideas? Which Wittgenstein am I using?
Second, the faith has never been dishonest about it being a faith as a revelation. You may not like it because you use a stale philosophical ideas of how science function. By the way I don’t have to prove revelation, by the nature of logic a faith statement is that a faith statement. (For someone who claims logic you have trouble with logic. But reading the people you have, i can see how you got confused in your thinking.)
On Dawkins, too much work has been done by professional philosophers and theologians of all stripes that to go through all his misfiring of language and the word God. That is why he was received a big YAWN but that professional logicians.
By the way, “No, you don’t get that for free.” And here is the solution to the question that haunts your soul. To take such a stand poisons your relationships. If all you ask for is agreement, then you will be lonely. There is no circular claim, faith is that faith. You don’t get to say what others think or logically deduce. Muslims, Buddhist, Christians, all have propositions and logically deduce from them. Logic only gets your logically valid but not truth. That is the insight of current logical. To tell adults and lecture them, badly I might add, places a stumbling block.
Finally, I would ask you to be vulnerable and human. Dr Brene Brown’s research found that this vulnerability makes for a better life.
Bruce | Jul 4, 2012 | 11:53am
Rob- I like the reference to Moby Dick. Very cool!
rob.hinkforth | Jul 4, 2012 | 7:54pm
PART ONE
Hi Bruce…thank you.
I am reading Moby Dick again. In 8th grade I remember the book and not wanting too. Now, soon to be 38 in August I recently pick up a nice copy from a bookstore. No eBooks please when reading for pleasure. It’s nice to feel and smell the paper, especially with a classic like Moby Dick. Of course, I like eBooks too. Don’t get me wrong. I have a kindle.
Relating to the topic…
When someone doesn’t affirm the existence of God or anything to close it.
The ability to know objective truth becomes difficult…at times an anxiety with no relief.
This is because objective truth is dependent on something that doesn’t change through time or changes very little. It is constant and offers comfort. In our universe this tends be a very hard thing to find. Everything constantly changes; this can create a lot anxiety.
Outside of the God question, it’s possible: there are objective truths that have little to do with theology. Like all human beings need air or things like that. Ultimately however one will be left their own personal truth. It may not be THE TRUTH but it is a true experience nonetheless.
Wouldn’t you agree?: everyone has a story.
For me the only way to really know the truth is to look at a life story and start from there.
That is why I asked earlier to Ryan: “why are you doing this…why”
It’s not because I was trying to get personal it is because Ryan wants to know the truth.
Wanting to know the truth is a good thing. His approach is what’s messing him up. Debating others to find it? What good is that! Debate is generally not an avenue to the truth. Debate has its place but in the area of truth, it is a difficult road to travel.
When I contribute in an open thread (for instance) I don’t view myself as a gadfly. Far from that.
When I share ideas and insights it is to build consensus and open dialogue: if someone disagrees that’s cool by me. As long as the discussion continues and people are left with a sense of encouragement. I don’t write openly as such to be confrontational. Unfortunately, that seems to be what Ryan wants to do.
I am not trying talk about Ryan behind his back. From what I know (and I only know Ryan through Facebook) but from what I know he’s a good guy that has an interesting story. I wish he would talk about that for once. That’s where he’ll likely find whatever truth he’s looking for.
I say this because I worked and was trained as a clinical pastoral counselor once: walking with people who were dying, facing a terminal illness and so on. When I was asked deep questions about God and I answered them in relation to their life story. In reality I let them tell me their life story and offered a sense of ritual to help them process it out. Sometimes prayer, other times reflection: often I played guitar and that helped. That’s the only way to really find truth.
rob.hinkforth | Jul 4, 2012 | 7:54pm
Now I will now answer the same question..
“why am I doing this…why”
After my ex-wife did what she did to me, I was deeply hurt. She hurt me in ways that no other human being has. So, much of what I do now when interacting with others isn’t about “who’s right / who’s wrong”.
That type of nasty thinking is what partly cost me a marriage.
Why do I want to build consensus and open dialogue?
It’s because I resent what happened. I loved my wife; she left me for another man and never said why.
I wished I could have worked things out.
I wish she had the inspiration to work things out with me.
All she wanted to do was blame me for the bad and leave it at that.
The worse thing I ever did to her was yell at her by telephone; only after once I surprised with being served with divorce papers.
She was not honest with me. The only way I was able to begin healing from all this was when I began taking a different approach with other people. (and after I learned the truth about what happened; during the divorce she got engaged to another man…6 months after the divorce she was remarried.)
No one owes me anything for what happened with my ex wife. What I didn’t get from her…what I craved the most…other people simply cannot give. This was a very, very hard lesson to learn. But that was the truth, that is what helped set me free.
Instead of looking towards others at making up for what I lost, I learned it is better and gives less anxiety when people are encouraged by what I say. Not discouraged.
I cannot punish others for what happened in my marriage. Yet, this would have been my behavioral pattern if I continued on that destructive pattern of “I’m right / you’re wrong”...generalizing that towards other people without knowing I was doing it.
What is truth? Well, Ryan that is a very generalized statement…the right question should be this: “why did this happen to me and what I can do now; letting it be my strength.”
I think this why St. Paul said “grace is sufficient for me, it’s power is perfected in weakness”
This is true. It takes real grace to let those things that could have destroyed us, help move us into a better place. But it begins with a seed of faith. What is faith? It is an informed belief that says yes you can move on.
For this reason…I think…the writer of Hebrews was inspired to say the following: “faith is the evidence of things not yet manifested.”
What is faith? It allows us to have permission to get from under the bad and into something better. It becomes a self-evident truth that allows one to transcend the ordinary for something that might a little extraordinary. This is the truth (at least it is my truth). It is my story. Amen
Eric Blauer | Jul 5, 2012 | 9:12am
Philip
“Reckless Hope”...beautifully said.
Indeed it is.
I pray that the soldier life will blossom into a season of deep healing in communion with Christ both without and within the experience of church gathered and scattered.
You deserve to drink at the cup of fellowship that revolves around symbols of not just death…but resurrection.
deadmessenger | Jul 13, 2012 | 9:43am
Healthy relationships? What exactly are those. Ones that do not disagree with pastor and company? That has been my experience.
Callously dropping in and out of peoples lives? At what point is it appropriate for a pastor to drop out of someones life? When does it become ok to simply cast people aside? When does it become right to disregard them as friends, family, and most of all brothers and sisters in Christ.
What about ignoring them? Is that what Jesus did? Is that how we should treat others? I wonder how relationships work if they can so easily be cast aside by those trusted to be your friends?
What about reconciliation? Doesn’t the bible call for this?
People are more that just tools to further a story. They can’t be just thrown away when their usefulness is gone, or when the leadership disagrees with something they say.
When does someone become untrustworthy? When should a “leader” be told to “turn in their keys”? When they disagree with the pastor?
When should pastors block people from finding them on facebook?
Allergic reactions to commitment? What commitment might that be? The one to relationships outside immediate family?
etrayal? Denial? These are things some of us know well.
Denial - That’s the big one isn’t it. Why can’t people face people and work out their issues? Why do they choose to ignore, to run the other way. Why do they lie, pretend, and create illusions for others and present a false perception of who they really are?
Ryan Downie | Jul 13, 2012 | 2:32pm
Ernesto -
Your reply to me is disappointing. You are not addressing my points at all, but resorting to ad hominem-like reasoning. If you have to resort to insulting my use of logic and the people I have read, or to pointing out how poorly you feel I supposedly “lecture”, then I have no interest in conversing with you. I’m all for hard and honest critiques, but this “I think you’re bad at logic” response is just garbage and seems to say more about your use of it.
Ryan Downie | Jul 13, 2012 | 2:46pm
Rob -
Why should debate not be a good avenue? The truth should stand up to challenge, critique and scrutiny. I want to know what evidence or reasons there are for believing these things and if there are none, or they are found wanting, that is important to know.
This is why I appreciate science, philosophy and math so much. In these areas analysis and critique are not shunned or considered insulting. Such things are welcomed. Reasons and arguments are advanced, some survive and we gain in understanding, others are destroyed and this is recognized. People are willing to change their minds based on evidence and sound reasoning.
With faith, it seems like one big free-for-all. According to Ernesto, we can’t get anywhere because of this goofy “faith-game” whereby a faith statement is just that, a faith statement. Thus, truth doesn’t matter, just believe whatever you want and claim that it is true. Since it’s a faith statement it’s immune to rational inquiry. How neat!
rob.hinkforth | Jul 19, 2012 | 10:41pm
Hello Ryan…
...you did not answer my question: trying to deflect and redefine what was previously asked are not good manners.
...why are YOU doing this…
That is the question I asked and it remains as such.
A word on debating…
Outside the academic world: debates can destroy marriages; can rip friendships apart and cause one to remain in an insanity based pursuit. If one has an inherent need for debate then chances are they’re afraid of being wrong on something that is personal in nature.
If I was from an Asian culture (for instance) I would completely be turned off with what you just said about faith (and religion).
From what I can tell and with all due respect, you approach the subject from strictly a western perspective. Unfortunately (for rational agnosticism to work) by default you have to approach this topic from a purely western perspective. Thinking truth is what’s most rational to the human mind!
If you want to debate me on these points…save the energy…my arguments will win when all is said and done.
This is because debating is a matter of putting the other perspective in check mate, by defining the issue with a series of silver bullet questions.
I would aim to define the issue as being the pursuit of a sense of justice and the question regarding “why are you doing this”? will be framed and reframed again and again (in more then one way). I would cite a lot you have said and I prove my thesis.
I would be relentless in this task.
This is why I don’t want to debate you or anyone else…
It can come across as hurtful and cold hearted (I don’t want to be that way, it’s nasty).
I prefer to encourage people. You have a story that brought to where you’re at. If you want to know the truth…this is where you’re going to find it. Not in some ever changing mind game where egos are in competition.
Listen, did you not study apologetics at one time? Well…the zeal which brought you into a world that wanted to defend historical Christianity I think is still present. You’re still an apologist but for a different creed….right.
If you don’t want to go here…then it is best not to debate with me. This is where I will go and I would double down by sharing my story and what happened to me.
If you want a purely intellectual exercise of rational inquiry…
I tell you what: if you answer my initial question I will debate you on anything you want. That is my deal.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my point of view.
Take care, Rob.
rob.hinkforth | Jul 20, 2012 | 12:15am
PS: Ryan…if you want counter argument anything I say, let’s first consider a knowledge tester on the world of religion.
Let’s pretend I’m Dr. Rob Hinkforth and you’re earning a PHD on the subject. You don’t want an M.DIV…rather you’re going for a critical scholarship doctor of philosophy degree.
Okay..
but now you have to pass this final exam.
What follows are stand questions that any standard religion scholar should be to answer (WITHOUT injecting personal bias).
Even though I am not a PHD, I can answer all these questions without bias.
So why not give it a try…
FINAL EXAM
(1) What are the 4 principle teachings that the Buddha taught, regardless if he existed as a historical person?
(2) True or False: Hinduism is 100% polytheistic?
(3) What is Nostra Aetate, what year did it get published: who published it and why?
(4) What is the best definition for Henotheism? How is it different form Monotheism and Polytheism?
(5) Parse this Greek New Testament: Έ
rob.hinkforth | Jul 20, 2012 | 12:16am
(5) Parse this Greek New Testament: Έ
rob.hinkforth | Jul 20, 2012 | 12:18am
[question 5 didn’t go through:(
(6) What are the similarities between Judaism and Hinduism?
(7) What is the Latin root for religion. How can this root be used as a most adequate working definition for the world of religion.
(8) Can you provide a rough estimate on many sub-traditions are there in Buddhism, how are they similar and dissimilar to denominations in the Christian World?
(9) Which one of the following are monotheistic religions:
(a) Judaism
(b) Shintoism
(c) Islam
(d) Zoroastrianism
(e) only a and c
(f) none of the above
(10) How is the western understanding of “God” different from the eastern understanding; how are they similar?
(11) Who are the religion scholars that coined the concepts of the Unconditioned Reality and the Conditioned Reality?
(12) In Christian Theology, what are the TWO primary schools of doing Theology: which school is preferred by Western Christianity….i.e. The Roman Catholic Church and Protestant Christianity: and Eastern Christianity….i.e. The Eastern Orthodox Church and The Oriental Non-Calcedonian Orthodox Churches.
(13) Who is Lao Tzu?
(14) What is the difference between Philosophical Taoism and Religious Taoism?
(15) Who is considered the leading scholar on the historical Jesus debate:
(a) Marcus J. Borg
(b) Richard Dawkins
(c) Robert W. Funk
(d) E.P Sanders
(e) Albert Schweitzer
rob.hinkforth | Jul 20, 2012 | 12:24am
(16) How is Liberation Theology different from Neo-Orthodox Theology?
(17) Would you considered a critic like Sam Harris to be a qualified, bona-fide religion scholar? Is his work on par with scholars such as Huston Smith and Rudolph Otto? Why or why not.
(18) Name at least TWO religious traditions that don’t emphasis belief in a deity?
(19) Are these the seven components that make a religion, a religion: according to the most credible scholar on the issue (true or false):
(a) Belief (creed)
(b) Ritual (cultus)
(c) The Uncanny (the Sacred)
(d) Character (self-identity based on religious experience)
(e) Truth Claim (dogma)
(f) Sacred Memory (tradition)
(20) What did Martin Luther mean by Justification by Faith alone: do you think he misinterpreted Paul’s Letter to the Romans when articulating this article of faith.
(21) What are the main differences between the Roman Catholic view of justification and the Classical Protestant view? Hint: one view sees the human will as only damaged by original sin, the other understands the will as not being born in a state of freedom.
(22) What is the Eastern Orthodox view of “justification”. How does it differ from the Roman Catholic and Classical Protestant viewpoints?
(23) Does Eastern Orthodox Christianity affirm the idea of original sin? Is this primarily a Western Christian concept only?
(24) In the United States today: name at least 4 different Jewish denominations…
________ ____________ ____________ ______________
(25) What are the three main “denominational” like traditions in Islam…
_________ _____________ _______________
I’m posting all this on purpose, if it’s not obvious: I’m giving you an idea of what a debate would sound like if I get involved in one.
To be honest, I don’t know much about advance mathematics as you would. Hence. I am cautious when speaking on advanced mathematics or anything like that. With all due respect..if you cannot honestly answer these questions…then perhaps you ought to reexamine why you debate people on religion.
You did this with me on face book…you slammed your comments into a thread thinking you could challenge me. A complete stranger to you. The thread was a dialogue with me and a friend. Your comments ware insensitive. Do you ever stop and consider things like this?
If you want to debate faith while being you’re unable to answer at least half of these questions, then pause and consider why: I wouldn’t challenge you on advanced mathematics, it would partly be out of respect and because I don’t want to make embarrass myself.
For this reason a debate with me shouldn’t be that. It should be an honest dialogue of one simple question…why are you doing this (my friend). What is your motivation behind it all?
Answer that question, the debate motive is replaced with an open and honest discussion.
Ernesto Tinajero | Jul 21, 2012 | 8:54am
Ryan,
“According to Ernesto, we can’t get anywhere because of this goofy “faith-game” whereby a faith statement is just that, a faith statement. Thus, truth doesn’t matter, just believe whatever you want and claim that it is true. Since it’s a faith statement it’s immune to rational inquiry. How neat!”
Actually, you misrepresent me. What I have been saying is that you (as in Ryan) consistently and persistently misuse language as to make one wonder if you can rise out of your sophist mist.
Hannah Adrendt wrote a very good book on Adolf Eichmann. Her thesis was that he so often misused language that she came to understand that language played him. All he could do is quote meaningless slogan after meaningless slogan.
rob.hinkforth | Jul 22, 2012 | 11:15pm
For Ryan…
By now I would have hoped that “the tester” would have been taken. As well as the question about motive being addressed.
Even so, I would like to post an extra credit question. It is a direct challenge to what I see as being a miss informed apprehension of faith. I hope it gets your attention.
EXTRA CREDIT QUESTION:
There are some things in human experience that are not tangible.
Take personality for instance.
What is personality?
How can it be measured?
Is it real or just an illusion?
Faith is similar…
like one’s personality, faith cannot be measured and/or physically touched. Like music, it is only manifested and formed through the passage of time.
If a faith statement is truly immune to rational inquiry…given that faith is similar to other non-quntifiable human qualities: if this so, then constitutes rational inquiry? What systematic approach is there to rate a faith statement. Especially when it is noted that faith isn’t the only non-tangible that human beings have.
If the economy for example cannot literally be seen; only experienced…how do we know it is real.
Yes, we see the affects of an economy everyday. The unemployment setbacks to people winning the lottery.
People talk about the economy as if it had a form of being of some kind. Like God, metaphors are generally used when describing what is happening in the economy.
Well…what is the economy?
Can we actually touch the economy with our bare hands.
Money is an act of faith according to some economists.
Money represents…in good faith…the measure of buying and exchanging. It is the evidence that points to something larger then itself.
Yet, even though money is real. It doesn’t necessarily mean the economy exists. Money doesn’t prove the economy actually exists.
What money is, is a leap of faith…a symbolic expression of a belief given to support another belief that the economy exists (as some would argue). Until it can be proven to be otherwise, the economy is imaginary. An explanation given to explain our ignorance of what is nothing more but a socially defined reality (as many have argued).
Given all this: is faith truly immune to rational inquiry? Why or why not. If there are other non tangible experiences (such as the economy, love, memories, and so on): then what makes faith so special. Support your thesis, please.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Ryan Downie | Jul 23, 2012 | 9:51pm
Rob -
To me, your test seems like a diversion, a red herring. I see no reason why one (anyone) would need to be able to answer such questions before being able to raise doubts, questions or criticisms concerning specific faith/truth claims of some particular religion or to question the internal consistency of certain belief systems as presented by proponents of that system.
I, personally, do not believe faith to be immune to rational inquiry, but some treat it that way. You said, “support your thesis”. But why should you get to ask this of me when this is what I have been asking of those who pass their faith off as truth? I asked first.
Why do I do this? Because I want to know and understand truth. I know that I often come off as abrasive and harsh, something I am working on. But when you have been raised and taught most of your life to believe something as important as God, eternity, heaven and hell as true all to have it come crashing down with no real answers or depth of thought, it can be quite aggravating! It is frustrating to see the amount of truth claims made contrasted with the level of intellectual laziness that lies behind most of them. It is also frustrating to see the amount of disinformation thrown about along with the disparagement of rational investigation in favor of what appears to be more or less emotional appeals.
Ryan Downie | Jul 23, 2012 | 9:53pm
Ernesto -
[“What I have been saying is that you (as in Ryan) consistently and persistently misuse language as to make one wonder if you can rise out of your sophist mist.”]
Unsubstantiated.
rob.hinkforth | Jul 23, 2012 | 10:54pm
Ryan…
With all due respect…
...my test is what many academic scholars of religion would ask. Since this is your preoccupation, wanting to talk about religion and faith in an academic setting is what led me to create it. This has nothing to with red hearing. It is not a diversion. It was given to illustrate the discipline of religious studies and what to expect if you ever really debate someone from that field.
Part of your reply sounds like grade school.
According to you and this is a direct citation: “support your thesis. But why should you get to ask this of me when this is what I have been asking of those who pass their faith off as truth? I asked first.”
You asked WHAT first.
Excuse me if the world somehow started to move when you were born.
I am next to certain someone…before you…came on the scene; asking the same thing as you.
“I asked first” Oh my…
So, Ryan is the first person on earth to ask “support your thesis” first.
WHATEVER
You should at least to play by same rules you ask of everyone else.
Instead of saying (this is a direct citation): ” I see no reason why one (anyone) would need to be able to answer such questions before being able to raise doubts, questions or criticisms concerning specific faith/truth claims of some particular religion or to question the internal consistency of certain belief systems as presented by proponents of that system.”
It would have better if you said, ‘what reverence does anyone of this has to do with the issue at hand.’ This is more timely and to the point.
If the best you can do is counter argue what another says..than there is no thesis on your part. Just rationalizations. This long sentence sounds like one HUGE rationalization, “I see no reason why one (anyone) would need to be able to answer such questions before being able to raise doubts, questions or criticisms concerning specific faith/truth claims of some particular religion or to question the internal consistency of certain belief systems as presented by proponents of that system.”
It is said that a human being can go 20 days without food…7 days without water perhaps. But the same man is incapable of going at least 10 seconds without the need for a rationalization.
Let me share what I do appreciate in your reply…
You closed your reply with a most honest and sincere ending.
This is what you ought to be focusing more on. This is because I can relate with your story. I think you’ll find a lot people saying the same thing. People don’t like feeling stupid for their religious beliefs, so instead of going after people of faith (as I see you doing)...challenging them for what they believe: it is better to speak from personal experience and show why it never worked for you.
This is what dialog is about. Being this way will likely cause people to want to listen to you. Isn’t that what you want?
Add Your Comment