For the same reasons I picked up Bossypants—that is, I liked the author’s speaking style and wondered if her book was equally good—I borrowed Elizabeth Gilbert’s memoir from the library. (She gave an encouraging talk about harnessing creativity on Ted.com, so I had high hopes for this best-seller.) Gilbert spent a year “searching for her center” across Europe and Asia, after an ugly divorce and sudden thirst for spiritual ideas sent her reeling… But, with another similarity to the Bossypants situation, I wasn't totally enthralled.
First, the positives: Gilbert is funny. (Yes, definitely more so than Tina Fey, if you're wondering!) She has a whimsical, sometimes-rambling voice, sprinkled with short, clever punchlines. As a writer, I gathered several techniques for conveying thoughts more thoroughly, without losing entertainment value to wordiness. (Whether I manage to use this new knowledge remains to be seen.)
So—while vehemently disagreeing with the moral of Gilbert’s story—the tale was very well-told.
So—while vehemently disagreeing with the moral of Gilbert’s story—the tale was very well-told.
She also hooked me with a chew-worthy quote on the very first page: “Sincere spiritual investigation is, and always has been, an endeavor of methodical discipline. Looking for the Truth is not some kind of spazzy free-for-all…”
"Wonderful!" I thought, "An educated, disciplined person wishes to find capital ‘T’ Truth in a methodical way… We ought to find some common ground!" And, yes, since Gilbert and I both desire for people to yank their heads out of their monotonous routines long enough to look for life’s Answers, I believe we do share similarities.
Unfortunately, Gilbert’s system for determining the goodness or rightness of something relied heavily on how she felt about it. Thus, I conclude her year-long quest only yielded a new personal truth (lower-case 't’), which Divine Reality doesn't always support.
Chapter one, though sparing the details of her looming divorce, Gilbert recalls sitting on the bathroom floor thinking, repeatedly, “I don’t want to be married anymore.” “I don’t want to live in this big house.” “I don’t want to have a baby.” Gilbert's strong emotions told her something was wrong, and it was time for drastic changes. She wanted something else. She didn’t feel the way she believed she should, regarding her husband and her home...
But--during an emotional crisis--how can the pursuit of "good feelings" be anything but a spazzy free-for-all? Where is the Absolute Moral Standard in Miss Gilbert's life? How can she trust unstable, often-changing feelings to lead her to Truth?
Gilbert's "reasons" for getting out of her marriage are similar to the method she uses to reject the Bible’s teaching about Jesus: “I can’t swallow that fixed rule of Christianity insisting that Christ is the only path to God.” So, what does she believe? “Traditionally, I have responded to the transcendent mystics of all religions.” Thus, Gilbert proudly reveals her cards. She embraces relativism and adopts whichever spiritual ideas give her an emotional response. She has chiseled a god who answers to her feelings, rather than using her head to find the Answer that doesn’t change.
Gilbert's "reasons" for getting out of her marriage are similar to the method she uses to reject the Bible’s teaching about Jesus: “I can’t swallow that fixed rule of Christianity insisting that Christ is the only path to God.” So, what does she believe? “Traditionally, I have responded to the transcendent mystics of all religions.” Thus, Gilbert proudly reveals her cards. She embraces relativism and adopts whichever spiritual ideas give her an emotional response. She has chiseled a god who answers to her feelings, rather than using her head to find the Answer that doesn’t change.
I should pause here to say Gilbert’s self-constructed "truth" system is no worse than the religion of Christians who stumble upon the all-powerful, unchanging Truth completely by accident. If you worship Jehovah, read the Bible, and say your prayers “In Jesus’ Name Amen,” but have no idea why, then you are equally guilty of the spazzy, free-for-all method. I realize it's tempting to base our knowledge of Divinity entirely on sampling exquisite cuisine, standing near oceans and mountains, or surrendering in tears during a beautiful concerto.
But God gave us minds to pair with those bleeding hearts. And I have no patience for brainless devotion in any of its forms.
But God gave us minds to pair with those bleeding hearts. And I have no patience for brainless devotion in any of its forms.
The book was exciting, from a travel-guide perspective. Its style tickles the ears, and it is loaded with personality. But, the most important summarizing paragraphs, those meant to reveal pieces of Truth, only left me wondering, “By what Authority are these conclusions drawn?” I’m not interested in someone’s personal truth, developed around getting what she wants and feeling happy. I’m one of those “strictly speaking,” close-minded Christians about whom she scoffs in the first chapter. But her beliefs may be simplified in a phrase as well: Moralistic Therapeutic Deism, a religion of comfort and convenience.
How is my uncompromising doctrine worse than wishy-washy self-indulgence?
How is my uncompromising doctrine worse than wishy-washy self-indulgence?
Jesus cannot be both the only way (as He claimed) and one of many ways (as Gilbert would prefer). I want to know if Jesus was the Lord or just a liar. And, if He is Lord, then I want Him to tell me whether I should be happy in my house or stay married to my husband or have a brood of kids... I want real answers, straight from THE Answer, even if His will turns out less gratifying than twirling pasta by the sea in Italy.
I'm glad Miss Gilbert enjoyed her search for "herself."
But she is not the god whose will concerns me.
I'm glad Miss Gilbert enjoyed her search for "herself."
But she is not the god whose will concerns me.
Nice, but I have a question.
ReplyDeleteFor the Christians who stumble upon Christianity, do you not have patience for those with no apologetic knowledge, or who just don't know why they believe at all?
The reason I ask is that I think there probably are a lot of Christians out there who can't lay out a logical argument for God, but they believe He's Truth because of emotional experiences. And yet, what separates them from Gilbert is that what appears to be emotional is often the conviction or comfort of the Holy Spirit.
I know the Bible says to always have an answer for the hope that is in us, but couldn't that answer be our testimony--not only of a change life, but of continual communion with God? Not everyone is a scholar, but every mature Christian can point to God's hand in their life.
AND I would say that a lot of those people with absolutely no idea why they believe are probably not actually saved, so....
Did I totally read you wrong?
To be honest, I don't know exactly *what* I mean by "brainless devotion." I've always struggled with balancing the roles of logic/reason and purely-spiritual ("warm fuzzies") in a Christian worldview.
DeleteGenerally, I think we should be extremely wary of emotions, which are so fickle. And we should think carefully before attributing any one "feeling" to the Holy Spirit. A couple times, Gilbert describes events which make me think she DID interact with the One True God. But, it's only my knowledge of His Words in the Bible which make me comfortable saying that. Therefore, I ought to have *rational* reasons why I point to the Bible's authority in the first place--especially since some of Gilbert's conclusions clearly *contradict* this source. She comes so close to the Truth, and then misses it. And I can't help but think a strictly emotional pursuit of God will always lead to this problem eventually.
I realize not everyone majors in Apologetics. But if we rely on personal testimonies (based on mutable emotions), won't the seeds we plant grow fairly shallow roots? Is it possible this is the reason so many Christians fall away when confronted with "science" and "facts" in the world--assuming they are far superior to a Christian's testimony of warm-fuzzies?
Again, I really don't know where I stand. Because, having said all that, my own mother told me once, "I don't have a logical basis for my faith. Your father was kind to me, and I wanted to be a Christian like him...."
My only solution is to encourage brothers and sisters to prepare for BOTH logical and emotional conversations with non-believers.
You should write more.
ReplyDeleteWhere is your version of Eat, Pray, Love?
It's hard enough to get more than 30 people to read what I put here!
DeleteI'd have to condense my book into a script, 6 minutes or less. Then, I'd video tape myself reading it, while standing in front of a green screen, so someone later could add pertinent cartoons to the background, for the benefit of the attention-span-impaired.
Actually, that'd be kind of fun...
I think this is an interesting argument because:
ReplyDeletea. Christians disagree so wildly, yet theoretically are all using the same "one true way." I realize that most Christians believe that Christians with opposing beliefs are interpreting the Bible incorrectly, which brings me to the next point...
b. Logic is not necessarily consistent. We can reach paradoxical conclusions using logic. Thus, our interpretation (which is subjective) is always relevant, even if we believe a larger Truth exists. I think this goes hand-in-hand with very authentically acknowledging that we are inherently flawed beings. For example, people interpret John 14:6 in many different ways.
c. How do you really know that you are interpreting everything the "right" way and believing in the "right" God if you are so uncertain about what faith even means? I find the cognitive dissonance between your faith and your understanding of your faith to be kind of bizarre. (I am not trying to single you out here, I wonder this about all religious people who think that their religion is the the ONLY way. I don't think there is anything bad about engaging in a personal spiritual journey, but again I think it comes back to humility and acknowledging that we do not have all the answers.)
Hi, Nony.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I'd like to clarify when I use the term "Christian" I always mean "people who believe Christ is the only way." Shortly after Jesus rose, the Syrians were overrun by His crazy followers, whom they called “Little Christs.” Of course, people can take their chances without Him...but, by definition, they should use another title.
Now, you’re right that Christians *do* interpret things differently--but, I’d argue their common ground in Jesus makes the differences less "wild" than you say. Some squabble about, music, dress code, leadership, and whether alcohol is bad, to name a few. But, again, you don’t affect the belief in One Way to Heaven. Since you want to hear it, I confess: I don’t have all the answers. :) But, anyone who trusts Jesus as their Savior has the most important one.
Second, to clarify my frustration with “brainless devotion”: I don't struggle to understand my faith. I struggle with the most-convincing way to share it. Understand, the word faith doesn’t have to mean “totally blind.” For example, I have faith Neil Armstrong walked on the moon, even though I wasn’t alive when it happened. My conclusion comes from weighing the facts.
Likewise, there are very interesting historic, scientific, and logical arguments which support my faith in Jesus, yet even some CHRISTIANS don’t know them. It bothers me they use emotional arguments (like—“I just know in my heart that Jesus is God!”), because OF COURSE people will begin assuming science and faith are opposites. It would be like teaching a child, “We know Neil walked on the moon because I feel proud of America when I see him.”
Admittedly, there is no *concrete* proof of God’s existence, but there are people who “aren’t convinced” about Neil, either. We must figure out whether faith in Jesus or faith in something else is most supportable—so that we don’t wander blind and brainless… That goes especially for uninformed Christians.
Part 2: It seems to me people rarely bring up “logical inconsistency” and “personal interpretation” outside of the God debate. For example, when somebody asks about the plot of Harry Potter, we don’t say, “I’m flawed, so, ultimately, I can’t know for sure…” There are no Harry Potter Agnostics. :)
ReplyDeleteEither you believe Harry Potter is about a wizard with a lightning scar, or it isn’t. But one of those beliefs lines up with reality. Now—we can argue about other details, such as whether Dumbledore seems gay. But once we agree on a piece on a piece of truth, we can reason from there.
I say this because I agree with your comment that “experiences are always relevant.” I’d like to know what your experiences are, to find that common ground. If you shared some personal info and an explanation of your basic spiritual beliefs, we’d be off to a good start. As you know, I believe in relativity of perception—but NOT relativity of reality. There is an Absolute Truth which applies to all of us, and it’s our job to find it.
Also, there are a conversations I’ve already had with non-Christian readers which I’d like you to read:
“Love Feels like a Trick.” More frustrations with logic vs. emotion. http://selfishintoservice.blogspot.com/2011/02/if-love-feels-like-trick.html
“Can’t Know Anything About God?” If there IS an absolute Truth—is it ever possible to discover? (the comments are important) http://selfishintoservice.blogspot.com/2011/03/cant-know-anything-about-god.html
“The Role of Faith.” My realization that different experiences can and do lead to the same (absolute) Truth. http://selfishintoservice.blogspot.com/2011/03/emotions-are-not-all-bad-or-role-of.html
There's a pretty big difference between agreeing on basic plot lines in a book and interpreting what Jesus meant when he discussed religion. Religion is much more abstract. For example, John 14:6 reads, "I am the truth, the way, the life" not "I am the ONLY way for all people of all time." Jesus was talking to his disciples specifically, not making a proclamation to everyone on the planet. Maybe Jesus was the way for the people he was talking to, but other religious figures are the way for people in other cultures who never encountered Jesus. It's kind of like when an adult explains something complex to a child. I wonder if Jesus wasn't simplifying it for them so they would be reassured. I understand that to you, logically, belief in a Christian God makes sense based on the evidence you've seen. I'm not questioning it's legitimacy in your mind. But other cultures and people have different logic, beliefs systems, context (ie experience). Their Gods make sense to them based on their own history and culture. You've grown up Christian. These ideas and this way of looking at things is all you've ever known. That doesn't make it less legitimate, but I think you have to consider relativity of logic and human experience.
ReplyDeletePersonal interpretation is brought up all the time outside of religious debate, but it's usually about abstract topics that are less concrete than a movie/book plot. I mean, even fashion is incredibly subjective and based on "personal taste" (ie personal interpretation) because it's about how we see things and involves judgment (in the analytical sense, not the derisive sense). The whole abstract nature an issue is what makes it so debatable. Put simply, the human mind really struggles with abstract thoughts. This is the basis for our humility.
As for belief in Jesus being the defining factor of Christianity - I agree and disagree. Of course, Jesus is the defining factor of Christianity. But why is it that Jesus matters? I tend to think it's the TEACHINGS of Jesus that matter the most. If someone says, "Oh yeah, I believe in Jesus but screw half the stuff he talked about" then I don't think that's really a very meaningful faith. It has to be sincere and purposeful to really matter much. Interpretation of the teachings of Jesus are certainly up for debate because they are fairly abstract, especially when it comes to applying the teachings of Jesus to our lives. This is why I believe faith is a very personal thing, and while there may exist a Truth, I think that our quest for Truth should involve a lot of humility. To be honest, I think it's almost a moot point if Absolute Truth exists, because I think we do our best with the heart and brain that God gave us.
I'm an agnostic theist. I have faith (ie I believe in God), but I don't claim that I am *right* about it. To me, the entire concept of faith is that you are making that leap. I don't believe that the Bible is God's word because of all the inconsistencies and because I don't think it logically makes sense for billions of people to condemned to hell just because they have a different culture. I also think any Absolute interpretation of a book makes zero sense given the limitations of the human mind. I think that God gave me a heart and a mind to use both in unison to the best of my ability. I believe I'm flawed and do the best I can - and I believe that of most people.
Sorry for a few typos!
ReplyDeleteSo...you believe in something you don't think is right?
ReplyDeleteHaha, I believe in something I am not SURE is right. As you say, we can't concretely prove that God exists. In my mind, it makes sense to me that God exists, but it is an unproveable position. Thus, the emphasis on the word believe. Wikipedia sums it up pretty well:
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism
I agree as a likely historical fact that the man Jesus did exist. I feel there is sufficient evidence of that. (I also think most history is biased based on who tells it. Have you read Howard Zinn? It's fascinating how subjective history is.) But I don't see ample evidence that Jesus is actually the son of God, or that the Bible is God's word. Sorry to confuse you with my references to the Bible (if that is a source of confusion). I grew up in the South, so I know a little about the Bible, even though I am not a Christian. My thoughts on Christianity (teachings of Jesus versus merely belief in Jesus) also stem from spending much time around Christians. I like to think about Christianity because so many people in the US identify, at least to some extent, with that particular religion.
Is there anything you believe certainly enough that other people should believe it, too?
ReplyDeleteYou'd have to operationalize the word "should."
ReplyDeleteI believe certainly enough to debate my beliefs. I've thought about this a lot, and I am very comfortable with my conclusions. Because I'm agnostic, I think there is a lot of value in the debate itself. I think we are challenged to constantly question ourselves and our assumptions. Parallel to evolution, this makes us better people.
I don't think everyone's logic necessarily works the way mine does, though. I admit that I am biased in ways I may not even realize by my culture, upbringing, and brain chemistry. I also admit that what takes me over the edge from generally considering the possibility of a God (pure agnosticism) to believing in God (agnostic theism) is the feeling of love. What if I do not experience that feeling the way others do? How can I ever truly know what another person feels and experiences?
My conclusions are not provable - they are just the result of my logic. Even if I conclude that God exists, it's not GOD concluding this, it's ME. Even if someone BELIEVES that the Bible is God's Word, they have to be very careful, because it is THEIR judgment, not God's. You may be right. But you might be wrong, because you are an inherently flawed human being. Just because you interpret signs that you are believing the right thing does not mean you are objectively correct. Billions of people believe that they have the correct outlook, but they are believers of Islam, Judaism, and many other religions.
Of course, my agnostic perspective makes life messy because there is no agreement on One Truth. Then again, Christians (who all theoretically share a religion and holy text) stand at all ends of the political spectrum, interpret the Bible in radically different ways, and are divided into many subgroups. The same goes for all other major religions. To me, the subjectivity of human experience (which leads to the wide variety of religious interpretations) points to agnosticism.
I appreciate the honest reply, but you weren't totally clear with your answer. Maybe I didn't ask very well...
ReplyDeleteYou say, "I believe there is value in the debate itself...[constantly questioning ourselves] makes us better people."
So, should other people believe that debate makes them better?
Again, I'm unsure what you mean by "should." I believe that being open to debate is a good thing, but I am not claiming divine insight. Should according to what authority? Mine? Yes, I believe I'm right and I will argue it. God's (based on my interpretation of God)? Definitely not. Thus the agnosticism. I can only theorize about God.
ReplyDeleteI have trouble with Christians (or anyone else) when they say, "You should do this because I KNOW what God's will is!" versus "I BELIEVE you should do this because I INTERPRET it to be God's will!" --- Do you see how the source changes? Claiming you KNOW God's will is a pretty big statement, and in a way it's pretty arrogant. Even if someone believes there is One Truth, it is still possible to be humble in acknowledging their limited certainty about what that One Truth is. On the flip side, I do not believe in One Truth, but I admit I could be wrong. I even admit I could be wrong about my emphasis on humility. I am just making an argument about what I believe.
I'm trying to be gentle, because I don't want to offend you. But, frankly, you are NOT "making an argument" about what you believe. You are suspending judgment, which is saying: "I don't know. The jury is out. I don't think anything is true...but I could be wrong."
ReplyDeleteIf you appreciate debate, surely you understand that it's not two people, agreeing to disagree. It's two people, taking a opposing positions and then supporting themselves with facts. It sounds humble to say, "You believe this; I'll believe the opposite, and we both win." But, this gets us nowhere, if in reality, there's such a thing as correct/incorrect or truth/falsehood.
The closest you've come to taking a stand was saying "religion is abstract." But, you haven't explained *why* you don't trust your brain when searching for God, in the same way you can search for facts about whether Neil walked on the moon. If you are certain about ANYTHING (like good/evil exist, or it's bad to kill, or Neil walked on the moon), then why can't you discover God with the same level of certainty?
I am answering your specific questions. This isn't a debate, it's you asking one liner questions and me responding. Actually discussing why you believe in Christianity and I believe in agnostic theism would be a different conversation. My point has simply been that I am willing to debate my beliefs and I am willing to make arguments (in a general sense). The point I've been trying to make is that they are MY viewpoint, not what I believe to be GOD's viewpoint.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with you in regards to debate. I think you are taking a very limited perspective on what debate can be. I don't think people need to take opposing viewpoints to debate or discuss a topic, and I don't think there is always a clear "winner."
So, you are asking why I don't trust my brain when searching for God. I've touched on a few reasons already, but maybe not explicitly. Here are a few:
1. I do trust my brain. I believe my conclusions. But I don't have PROOF of my conclusions. They are not testable. Trust (faith) is different from certainty. Am I certain about my brain? Of course not. I am a flawed human being, so why not conclude that my logic, even if it makes sense to me, could be flawed as well? (I think we can agree that humans are flawed, but if not let me know and I'll fully explore that argument.)
2. People who seem just as intelligent as me reach very different conclusions, often based on their cultural context. Who am I to say that I am *right* and they are *wrong*?
3. So, how is this different from Neil Armstrong walking on the moon? First, it matters a lot more. My fate/life/existence does not depend on whether someone walked on the moon. So, I am more willing to not worry too much about whether or not he actually did. It seems like a safe conclusion to me, but there's always the possibility I'm wrong. Two, the proof is a lot more recent that Armstrong walked on the moon. Jesus lived a long time ago. Most history is very contestable. Historians spend their whole lives deciding what happened, whose accounts to believe, etc. I actually think a lot of history if very biased based on who tells it. (If you get the chance, read Howard Zinn! He is a fascinating historian!)
4. You are wondering why I think religion is abstract. I guess my point is more that it COULD be abstract. Sure, it's very possible that Jesus meant everything he said literally. It's also possible he did not. We don't know that because he never addressed it. (And of course, even if he did, there are issues with how contestable history is. Many historians believe that the Bible was written by multiple...flawed... people.) You can take anything anyone says and interpret it in a number of different ways. Because religion relates to things that are not very tangible (spirit, belief, God, etc) ... things that we do not understand very well ... it's a lot different than the basic premise to a book plot.
I agree we haven’t been debating. That was my point. I’m still trying to find common ground before we can even begin that process. We haven’t really "discussed" or "debated" much because I’m worried I'll present a fact that sways “possibility” in my favor and you will answer, “We can’t trust our brains.”
ReplyDeleteIf I point to history, you wouldn't even have to read my comment to reply, “History is biased.” Or you could say, “Everything can be interpreted a number of different ways.” Christianity absolutely relates to things which are tangible—but, if I mention the places, will you just return to your fall-back answer that “we can't know things FOR SURE?”
Your latest response just UN-declared the only solid thing you gave me. You now "conclude" that “religion COULD be abstract,” which isn't a conclusion at all. I know it's tough committing to a position for the sake of argument--especially when you've been taught 'certainty' is arrogant. But, I can’t have a rational conversation if someone believes people determine their own reality--and we can't know anything anyway.
Again, I can't stress enough, I’m not trying to insult you. But, I’m trying to figure out what your standard is. What proof is “good enough” for you? Are ANY of your beliefs unwavering? There are religions which teach that God wants child-sacrifices to relieve famines. Do you say, “Who am I to tell them they're wrong?” Would you defend the tribe, since, “that’s just their culture" and you are too flawed to know their actions are wrong? I hope not. I know you are afraid of the word “should,” but I think we *should* keep others from slaughtering babies.
But, unfortunately for those who want to say "I don't know" about everything, they can’t even state absolutely that murder is evil until they acknowledge there IS an unchanging standard of right/wrong that applies to ALL people EVERYWHERE.
I tell people I think that they are wrong all the time. I think many things are wrong based on my logical reasoning. I can tell baby-sacrificers they are wrong for a long number of reasons (cruelty, for one), but I can't claim that God is saying they are wrong. You haven't been listening (not to insult you, as you say). My point is simply that I, as a flawed person, cannot claim that I am speaking God's word. I can argue what I think God's word might be, but I can't claim to be speaking God's word. IN NO WAY am I saying we can't make moral judgements. I'm just saying you can't pin it all on God and claim moral superiority.
ReplyDeleteHere's the counter to your statement about murder: What about self-defense? You want the world to be a black and white place, but it's not. You can believe whatever you want, and you can believe that deeply, but even you have to admit that there is no concrete proof that you are right.
There's one question of mine that you never answered: Why exactly have you concluded that even though you are a flawed person, your logic is flawless? And if your logic is flawed, how can you really insist WITH CERTAINTY that the Bible is God's word? I am not questioning your ability to BELIEVE the Bible is God's word. I am questioning your self-righteousness.
My logic isn't flawless.
ReplyDeleteBut I'm trying to help you understand this emphasis on "certainty" is a smoke-and-mirrors strategy (I believe used by Satan) to distract people, when they NEVER think about all the things they're incapable of knowing in an average day. Can we know FOR SURE the grass will be green when we walk outside? Can we know FOR SURE we even exist? Some people have wrestled themselves into insanity trying to prove these--and I agree with you--they technically can't. So why bring it up? Unless it's an excellent way to avoid believing uncomfortable things.
I'm not going to have (another) "conversation" with somebody whose position boils down to: The only thing I know for certain is I can't know anything for certain. I wish you would visit the links I included several responses ago, to save yourself a lot of typing (and me, as well). You're not the first person to go down this path of "reason." They won't be happy until I'm just as "uncertain" as they are. (Although, strangely, all of us are allowed to continue stating the grass is green and we exist, with certainty. It's just regarding God which I must feign ignorance.)
No matter how much evidence I give, these individuals insist upon hovering in limbo between two "possibilities" forever. But it won't be forever. All of us will find out "for sure," and they're going to wish they spent less time being humble.
I believe: God gave us logic, and He gave His Son to clear things up and live by example. God also arranged for the information ABOUT His Son to be recorded and (miraculously) preserved. The Bible talks about self-defense, too. Unfortunately...you suspect it's too "inconsistent" and was written too long ago to be valid. And, since you can't know "for certain" anyway, I doubt you'll do the research.
Therefore, the only source of authority left is yourself.
And all I can do is pray you never get the hankering for child-sacrifice. Because, though you give "cruelty" as a reason for avoiding it, you have no way to prove with logic, for certain, that "cruelty" is bad, either.
People argue about their interpretation of things all the time. We argue about politics, fashion, parenting, whether or not global warming is real, historical events, etc. Arguing about whether the grass is green is a) not very relevant to our lives (versus religion, which is) and b) not as abstract as the concept of a God we cannot directly talk to. I've made this point several times. Your analogies are flawed.
ReplyDeleteLet's turn the tables a little and think of all the things done in history that are justified with the Bible (using someone's interpretation of the Bible). "Spare the rod, spoil the child" (Proverbs 13-24) has been used to justify child abuse, for example. I'm not saying that the Bible advocates child abuse - I'm making the point that the Bible is interpreted in many ways. In the end, it always comes down to your "authority" because you are always interpreting the world around you and you are always making decisions for yourself. This does not mean that non-Christians ignore all morality. I believe God gave us logic and a conscience as well, and that's why most people do not practice child sacrifice. But I also believe that while God gave us logic, it is flawed.
All I can do is pray for you that you don't interpret the Bible in a dangerous way and justify a horrendous act.
Also, I think your comment about logic and discomfort is insightful, but I think it applies to both of us. As I've said, I think logic can be manipulated/biased in many ways. I have already admitted that I am biased based on my upbringing, culture, etc. However, you insist that even though your logic is imperfect, you have reached the "correct" conclusion. It seems to me that you could also be using logic to justify an idea because you are too uncomfortable with the alternative. In other words, I think it would be very uncomfortable for someone with black-and-white thinking to have to truly consider alternatives.
ReplyDeleteMy point with this table-shifting is just to show you that your arguments in opposition of my belief system can also be used to question your belief system. You claim that God gave you this logic to help you find the Truth, yet I do not see you using it successfully to make your point.
Okay.
ReplyDeleteBest response to this post so far.
Delete