Dr. David Wilbur: Power and Illusion: Religion and Human Need. Part 5
by Ervin Taylor
This is part 5 of a discussion of Dr. Wilbur’s book which here considers his Chapter 4. It should be emphasized that all of the text in this series of blogs in bold font in the body of the text of the chapter summary has been kindly provided by Dr. Wilbur. If there are any of my own comments, they will follow in regular type.
There is nothing permanent except change.
Heraclitus
Religions claiming their origins in Divine action in the world seemed candidates for arriving perfected. Observation suggested evolving traditions so I needed an explanation for this.
Resistance to Change
The claims of a supernatural origin for a religious group may give the conservative a justification to resist change and to seek to return to some available description of the original. Thus most religions have a fundamentalist strand seeking the “pure vision” of the founders—sometimes forcefully.
The Human Component
Religions are virtual realities created to serve human purposes. They allow men to stand up and say they are speaking for “God” while in fact they remain men who have their own set of incentives which will shape their message in human ways.
The Problems of Language
Much of religious belief is founded on the interpretation of ancient documents such as the Bible and the Qur’an. The linguists tell us that we have a limited ability to get back to the original intent of these documents. The words change their meanings over time and the grammars also change. Evolving interpretations are quite possible and can lead to changes in beliefs or organizational schisms.
The Many Voices
The Bible contains the writings of many different people over a period of hundreds of years. Different writers had different concerns about both God and man. The messages of the Qur’an were supposedly given over a 22 year period when Mohammed’s political fortunes were quite varied. This may explain some of the seemingly contradictory recommendations there. Overall the documents of an established religion contain the voices of many people with many visions of God. Selective emphasis can usually be used to support change.
The Essential Plasticity of the Central Myth
Almost all religious traditions of substantial antiquity and even some only 100-200 years old have evolved multiple strands. These each claim to be the correct interpretation for those who accept the central myth that anchors their tradition—and is claimed by all the strands. Christianity is a wonderful example of this, especially the group of Protestant sects all claiming to be based on the Bible but being quite divergent. Islam and Buddhism have been no less prolific in multiplying versions of their myths.
Limitations on Religious Self Analysis
In seeking power over their followers religions find it helpful to claim some form of divine source. They do not support psychological, sociological or anthropological studies to understand how the religion fills human needs. They also do not offer any grounds for comparing traditions beyond the impossible-to-evaluate claims of divine inspiration.
In the world of religion there is a persistent tension between the “remembered” supernatural past and the constantly changing present. This can be a source of fundamentalist backlash and also of creative evolution of the traditions. Religious leaders generally find it impossible to admit the human origins of their belief systems and therefore are usually unable to engage in a critical analysis of the roles of religion in human culture.
I agree that religion and "self analysis" are a contradiction. Once a religion claims that their faith is of divine origin the possibility of objective critique of a faith tradition is impossible. I still do not understand how any rational person cannot see that their faith and concepts of God arise from the human cortex. Indeed we create God not the other way around.
Doctor F. There is not proof that we create the concept of God
May I ask Mr. Lindensmith how he explains the different ideas about God held by different religious traditions and even different groups within the same religious tradition. Who created those different concepts of God?
The more amazing thing is how almost all religions, across history, in all cultures and places, keep basically coming up with the same three basic models of God (albeit using different terminology and rites). If God is in the human cortex, then it is hardwired there. If it is in the human cortext, attempts by self-professed enlightened people to simply think away God is a pointless exercise.
I would add that at their deepest level, all religions are mystical in nature. Christian mysticism, Kabbala, Sufism, Eastern philosophies/religions are mostly mystical, ie, union of our true self (whihc is non-material) with the divine, which is mostly conceived as Life Itself. 'The One in whom we live and move and have our being.'
To limit our experience of teh divine to properties of our own material natures is admitting defeat. There is NO CHOICE available to matter. Only SPIRIT can stand over and above matter and so provide us with chioce, and that in limited form. Matter is eternally subject to the laws of cause and effect. That which we imagine to be choice is simple outworking of deterministic laws. As Einstien is reputed to have said, 'Reality is an illusion, albeit a persistent one.' (And I like Elaine's quotes below also, but I'm not convinced by the Hippocrates one, sounds a bit too 'modern.')
So consider this, if your view of religion is that it is constrained within and dependent on our material natures, You can't be right and I can't be wrong.
These have said it best:
"Mythology is what we call someone else's religion." Joseph Campbell.
"Men think epilepsy divine, merely because they do not understand it. We will one day understand what causes it, and then cease to call it divine. And so it is with everything in the universe." Hippocrates (450-377 B.C.)
"The Christian religion not only was at first attended with miracles, but even at this day cannot be believed by any reasonable person without one." (David Hume).
""Men dare not avow, even to their own hearts, the doubts which they entertain on such subjects. They make a merit of implicit faith; and disguise to themselves their real infidelity." (ibid.).
This would be like myself listing the mistaken concepts in science to prove science itself is stupid.
My argument itself would be stupid!
Yes I agree. I think people are confusing one's own limited view and understanding of God, is different from any concept of God, which IMO by definition is the thing/it/he/she which is beyond human understanding and definition.
If it is all so easy to disprove God, explain to me what 'existed' before existence itself came into being with the Big Bang? What caused it?
Yes, DL, i agree. i always have a tendency to cringe, & edge away when the one quoting "how any reasonable person", or "you can't believe that",or "that's stupid. Has the quoter conducted a nation wide poll w/97% of accuracy. "Eye hath not seen etc the things that God has prepared", Hubble has shown me the heavens, and i've witnessed God's earthly handiwork.
Creating a evil Devil figure is a very convenient way of "answering" the question of why evil exists. (By the way, the Satan figure in the Book of Job is not an evil figure. The idea of an evil Devil comes into Jewish religion late in its development and then appears in the New Testament)
A man has ten children each has a different impression of their father. Did the man beget his ten children or was he merely the collective mental construct of his children? Did the ten versions of him nullify his personal identity or the reality of his existence?
Philip, are you saying that 'either/or thinking' falls short? I agree! Good point!
Mr. Law makes an excellent point. Which child has the "correct" view of the father? Or do all of them, by definition, have only a small piece of the "reality" of the father? Are they all right? Or are they all wrong? Ah, the problem with "either/or" thinking. Does that exclude the existence of the one and only "True Religion."? Or are all religions just small parts of "The True Religion"–whatever that is?
I agree. However, I would contend that in those 10 children, there might be 1 or 2 who might know the father a little better, who see him more often, than say the other 8. One could imagine the little ones, who might rarely see Father and only see Him in a very limited capacity at the dinner table or when it is time for discipline. One could imagine the older boys, who spend hours every day working with Father in His workshop, and are more drawn into His adult world. Finally, one might even imagine the very oldest child, who was actually adopted out to another family and has never met the Father at all.
Do any of the children have a 'right' or the 'truth' of who or what the Father is – of course not. Does that mean all the views of children are 'equal' insofar as they all have an equal knowledge of the Father – that wouldn't be correct either.
In my respectful view, it is absurd for any religion to claim to have finite knowledge of 'the Truth' about a God who by definition is an infinite or undefinable in nature. The most a religion can claim, is to have a more complete knowledge of God. I do recognise that it is hard to quantify, because the little brother currently has a very different sort of knowledge than an older brother, and yet all views as in their own way limited but genuine.
After much reflection over the years, I personally believe Christianity is 'superior' (and I use that word cautiously) or more complete in the sense that it has a more complete view of the picture of God. I can't really think of any other religion that combines (although admittedly not perfectly) the three basic human ideas of God, but not as separate Gods but in a composite Triune single deity. That philosophical view of God has nothing to do with our usual historical-critical debates about the Bible and biblical figures.
Mr. Law makes an excellent point. Which child has the "correct" view of the father? Or do all of them, by definition, have only a small piece of the "reality" of the father? Are they all right? Or are they all wrong? Ah, the problem with "either/or" thinking. Does that exclude the existence of the one and only "True Religion."? Or are all religions just small parts of "The True Religion"–whatever that is?
Stephen,
Why should we be surprised that you believe Christianity is "superior"? Should we be surprised that a Buddhist likewise believes his religion superior, or that a Muslim prefers his religion above all other? You have all the reasons possible, proving only that you have made a choice, and most likely, because of your early exposure to Christianity and very limited exposure to the other three great religions.
Thousands, even millions of books have been marshalled to extol and show the superiority of Christianity and why it is preferred.
If it could only be admitted that man has created God and what he wants and asks of us and what our duties are, we might view all religions differently. But that will not happen and there will continue to be infinite separations in all religions over more and more minor details as history continues to demonstrate.
"If it could only be admitted that man has created God and what he wants and asks of us and what our duties are, we might view all religions differently."
Are you saying you believe God is indeed just a creation of mankind, and thereby God doesn't exist? What is your point exactly, because sometimes you suggest a deep theism, sometimes you seem to advocate a Christian position even quoting the scriptures, and sometimes, like here, you make statements that suggest an atheist position. To be honest, I am quite confused.
If you are going to analyse my own beliefs, which is perfectly fine with me, perhaps it might assist if you put your own on the table?
In life, it always seems easier to criticise than to offer viable alternatives. Perhaps your own explanation as to how we should view this issue might be useful?
"But that will not happen and there will continue to be infinite separations in all religions over more and more minor details as history continues to demonstrate."
Of course. If God is real, then to use the analogy of the Father with the 10 sons, when the 10 sons discuss who or what their Father is like, then of course these discussions will continue. To use my example, of course we could expect say the oldest sons, who have worked with Father in His workshop, to argue that they know Him on a deeper level than say the little sons, or the son who was adopted out and never knew Him. Then imagine when it is gransons, and then great-grandsons discussing the Father…
If on the other hand all people admitted God is a creation of humanity, like Santa Claus, then such discussions would be utterly pointless. If such a situation did, however, occur, then there wouldn't be infinite separations of religions because I doubt there would be religion at all.
I have not tried to fit my belief into a category, which is what most find quite uncomfortable. Most people on this site want to know:
1. Are you Adventist?
2. Are you atheist, or agnostic?
3. Exactly how to pigeon hole each individual.
We are always in change and growth, or should be; never static. What I presumed yesterday may be changed tomorrow given new information. Life is a journey and those who expect to find the goal, all the reason to live is gone.
All we can ever know about God can be known from nature alone. This, in contrast with supernatural religions based on particular revelations from God to particular people in certain times and places. I cannot believe that God would choose a particular time and place to give inowledge to only a select group of people not given to all.
The difference between natural and supernatural knowledge is that when scientists disagree, they can eventually persuade on another by appeal to evidence. When religious people disagree, such appeal to evidence cannot occur, and either education, coercion, or outright force may be used.
The pain and suffering cannot be reconciled with the omnipotence and infinite love of God. Evil and its problems is the insoluble problem and operate on physical laws and man's use of the faculties God gave us.
Any belief that God did not love humanity equally but singled out one people to receive his revelation is abhorent and contradicts the concept of God as the universal author of nature and the father of mankind.
When humans justify their actions by claiming that God commanded those actions, the moral judgment becomes wholly arbitrary.
The intolerance of the religious toward others who claim other, or no religions is a blight on the name of God.
"Why should we be surprised that you believe Christianity is "superior"? Should we be surprised that a Buddhist likewise believes his religion superior, or that a Muslim prefers his religion above all other?"
I guess the question then is, is my point legitimate? Can one say Christianity, or any religion for that matter, is 'superior' insofar as claiming to have a deeper, clearer knowledge of God (dismissing your point that God doesn't exist), realise that no religion can claim to have the complete and final truth?
In the alternative, must we be politically correct and insist all religions, no matter how riddiculous, have equal claim to knowledge of God? I personally don't think so.
Elaine said: I cannot believe that God would choose a particular time and place to give knowledge to only a select group of people not given to all. …. Any belief that God did not love humanity equally but singled out one people to receive his revelation is abhorent and contradicts the concept of God as the universal author of nature and the father of mankind.
Elaine, I suspect if you contemplate your role as a mother nurturing the offspirng you brought into the world, you can grasp a picture of God using whatever approach is required to ensure abundance of life to his off spring. Just think of Him as the "mother of all mankind".
Human beings seem hardwired to have some belief in an ultimate fairness and justice even though we have a pretty weak commitment to making it a reality. I presume that this same concept of fairness is the basis of your "abhorence".
One of the compelling ideas that grows out of the Judeo-Christian view of God and man is the idea of sin and fallenness. All my natural instincts concur with your idea of an absolute even handed "father or mother of all mankind". But, it seems quite reasonable that human fallenness and God's commitment to free moral agency of mankind may make that absolute fairness an impossibility, at least during the reign of sin in the creation. We may not be able to see His absolute fairness until sin and sinfulness is fully ended.
It seems very conceivable to me that God may have to do something that appears from our perspective as very unfair in order to guarantee a final outcome for fallen human beings that is absolutely fair. God's interventions may be much like a stone thrown in a pond. It enters the water at a certain place, but its effect will eminate from that location and be felt everywhere. The effects are experienced differently at each position in the pond. Is it all that surprising that God's interventions show up at specific times and places in humn history.
To a "father or mother of all mankind" it is not our perception of fairness that is most important, but actually producing an absolutely fair outcome for all the creatures of His creation.
The omnipotent omnisicient God can certainly discern the meaning of our responses and reactions to his revelation allowing for our exact position in the big pond of human history. Your abhorence of the notion that God might be arbitrary is just such a reaction. On the whole it is probably a very laudable reaction, but only God and perhaps you know if your reaction indicates your willingness to be redeemed by the "father of all mankind".. On the otherhand, believing you have sufficient knowledge and understanding to make the judgment you do could be another kind of reaction. It might betray some negative traits.
It seems to me that fallen human beings are bound to twist and distort any revelation God may send. As long as revelation passes through the minds of human beings it can never be pure. But, an ominpotent omnscient God can probably still discern whether or not we will .
I abhor the intolerance of religous people toward others. But, it is not that hard to see a potential in mankind that is redeemable. Until that redemption is fully accomplished it should not be all that surprising that fallen human beings misrepresent all that God is even when trying to promote Him.
Well said Rudy! (I hope that an endorsement from me doesn’t prompt some reconsideration.)
Rudy.Your observation, ie: "human beings seem hard wired to have some belief in an ultimate fairness and justice". Gen. 6:5 " Man's heart is evil continualy". Islamist belief is if not of their belief, you are not better than a dog and deserve death. History also demonstrates man's inhumanity to man has been of global hate & annihilation. This view of yours can only occurr after God returns for his people.
Earl,
"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," Romans 6:23
"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9
If we believe that the scriptures are inspired by God we should demonstrate our utmost integrity in quoting from it. The text you chose refers to mankind at a specific time in history and the condition spoken of evoked a singular action on God's part. You can make the same point with the two texts and not do the scriptures any injustice by misapplying them.
I don't think these texts contradict that human beings have a fundamental sense of fairness and justice that the fall into sin has not completely erased. You should read what C. S. Lewis says on this topic in Mere Christianity as evdence of the existence of God.
We consistently and persistently disregard what we know we "ought to do". So yes, we are evil, and what God said about the antediluvians may be true for us today also. Based on the words of Jesus we would expect the condition to be a true again before the end.
It is still true that human nature includes a moral component that has not been fully eradicated by the sin that has enslaved humanity. We have been granted our freedom, but still waiting to fully experience that freedom.
Yes Rudy, i agree the NT reference is more comprehensive, for all times. Christians in the world are a small sect compared to humanity as a whole, and non Christians aren't beholden to the Ten Commandments, the moral law of God. i'm thinking many who know not Jesus Christ and are ignorant of the Law of God, will be accepted by God, as they have the fruits of the Spirit. i find it difficult to believe all humanity have the same concept (hard wired) of fairness & justice, and the precious quality of life held in the same esteem. As exhibited by the tendency to murder & hold in slavery, the weakest and unfortunates. Even Christians have shown these deadly traits, ie: the Crusades, North/South Ireland, and those involved in WWII/Europe were generally all of Christian beliefs. And of course thats the sad history of Earth's humanity.
I did not claim that God doesn't exist; only that man created him. That should not be questioned if one recognizes the many descriptions of God that exist in the world today that cannot be compatible; even from the Bible, the God described in that book is not compatible and often very contradictory. Explain that.
Would you love and admire a friend who told you that he loved his child, but since he was not obedient he had to kill him?
I don't know if I understand the basis of your question. I presume you are suggesting that humans have created a God that solves disobedience by killing the disobedient. Well, I already suggested that revelation of God that comes through human minds will inevitably be distorted. But, I can imagine that if I had many offspring and one or some persisted in rebellion (disobedience) and ending the lives of others I would have to do something drastic to put an end to it.
Your question is an over simplification of what I think is generally claimed by Christianity. First, death as the wages of sin is a natural consequence not someone killing someone. And there is plauisble evidence that those wages are forestalled on an almost moment-by-moment basis. Maybe that is one of the major things for us to learn from the painfulness of life, is that the "father/mother of all mankind" is so against the loss of his children to death that He continually forestalls the consequence even when other of His children suffer. He may not be fair in the here and now, but He will make it fair in the future.
I don't pretend to understand all the ramifications of evil and our moral free will. It seems every human is both the victim and a willing participants in the rebellion of disobedience. I am willing to trust the benevolence that is claimed for God is true and apparent contradictions of that claim are my inability to comprehend the realm of an omniscient omipresent omnipotent God who has enabled us to act independently of His sovereign will.
One must either reject all religion due to the many conflicting beliefs of its adherents or try to find a plausible interpretation of the tainted revelations that we have as insight. I choose the later and find that it amazing how very cohesive and insightful beliefs can be constructed from the accumulative record of man's search to understand God.
If I were blind and trying to navigate and make sense of the physical world around me, it would not be very smart to give up in disgust because the testimony of those with sight didn't always align with my experience. I might eventually find that certain witnesses were unreliable and that none were totally reliable. But, my understanding of the physical world would be greatly improved by colating and analyzing what I learned from those who can see. The blind person who decided to base their understanding strictly on what they could learn for themselves because they could not rely 100% on the insights from witnesses would be foolish.
In our world, everyone and everything are flawed and imperfect. It is silly to limit our understanding to only what we can discern on our own. Those who speak of absolute truth as something that human beings can possess are silly. But, that doesn't mean we can't realize when we have gotten closer to absolute truth than we have been and therefore the its pursuit is a worthwhile goal.
Elaine,
It seems that you are simultaneously making contradictory statements while asking a contradictory question:
God has been created by man; but can only be known through nature.
Since He demands obedience, why is this same God—who has been created by man—worthy of man’s love or worship?
Yet you perceive God to be contradictory. As has been previously noted, those who believe that God has been created in man’s image can reinvent Him in theirs.
Stephen,
I know you intend to make a positive contribution, but what you choose to says implies to me a slightly arrogant an disrspectul posture.
IMO, there is nothing wrong in confidence in your own beliefs, interpretations, and convictions as long as you convey and awareness that is your confidence (as a flawed human being) and every other flawed human being has the right to arrive and confidence and conviction in the way that works for them. Your retorts often presume a foundation that you never take the time to establish, either that or you expect people to accept interpretation on "your authority".
We have had numerous exchanges about the way you express yourself. As I have often said, I'm not picking on you. I wouldn't bother if I didn't feel that its not what you would choose if you could see it from the other side. But, this is my opinion and I do not expect you to simply accept I am right without your seeing for yourself.
I don’t know how many times we have to go over this, but please allow me to again stipulate that I am truly a worse person, from a character standpoint, than anyone who posts or regularly participates on this site; without exception.
I am holier than none of us. I might also add that I am not a clergyman, much less a prophet.
This is just a suggestion: if we could address what I say on its merits, or lack thereof; or if we can focus on what others say, we might maximize our time. My comment was about what Elaine said. I have previously written a blog entitled Reinventing God. (https://atoday.org/article/302/blogs/foster-stephen/2011/reinventing-god)
Believe it or not, we’re all opinionated—with an edge of perspective/personality—without exception. Then again, that is merely my opinion. (There is no accompanying judgment of you.)
Elaine and I have exchanged views before. We actually often agree with each other. Elaine is aware that I personally respect her. Elaine often challenges the beliefs, views, and perspectives of others; particularly those of SDAs. Unless her position is indefensible or untenable, Elaine is capable of explaining herself. This is not unlike any of us. This is not unlike either of us.
It is not my intent to convey you are a "truly worse" as you say. Believe it or not my comments to you are triggered by a belief that you are truly motivated by your devotion to God. Consequently, I have no doubt you truly respect Elaine and the others you interact with on this blog.
My negative feedback is about your communication. I have been trying to get you to notice some negative impact of your zeal on your communications. No one has time to absorb everything posted here, but when you respond directly to someone's comments it is disrespectful to do so without making an effort to understand their point of view.
You have a habit of responding and ignoring very legitimate arguments. And, your zeal seems to blind you to the assumptions underlying your own arguments. Communicating in this way can come across as arrogant or disrespectful. In your case I am convicted it is your zeal and not bad character traits that is the reason for this in your communication. That is why I bothered to provide feedback.
I had felt I had said enough and did not intend to provide any additional feedback, but felt compelled to respond to the way in which you responded to my response to Elaine. Your first comment expressed agreement with my comments and wondered about the impact of your endorsement. I reacted to that positively. And although not absolutely sure how to interpret your concern about the impact of your endorsement, it seemed like a humble comment.
Your next post was directed to Elaine and did little besides accuse her of making contradictory statements. I to thought she had made contradictory statements and had already responded. But, I suspect in all that gets said here it is easy to say something that after some thought we might revise. My response tried to take very seriously Elaine's comment and ideas and try to continue examine the ideas by expressing my own view and interpretations. If she persisted in making what I believed were self contradictory statements then I might eventually point that out.
I don't imagine anyone who posts here intends to put forward ideas that we think are wrong. Hopefully, most of us has some degree of commitment to learning from the process. That can only happen if we truly listen and respond.
What bothered me was after reading several in depth exchanges the only thing you bothered to contribute is to confront Elaine with her apparent self contradicting statements. I remember a blog of yours recently when quite a few people made similar observations about your column. Many gave lengthy explanations of the flaws they believed were in your reasoning. It didn't seem you took very seriously the evidence presented in their arguments. The impression I have gotten is that your zeal permits you to interact with a presumption of your rightness.
My intent has always been to have a constructive effect on your efforts as a columnist here on ATODAY. I have said more than enough and will not offer addional criticism. Regardless of how you respond to my criticism I admire your devotion to God and appreciate your efforts to honor him here on this forum.
Rudy: I know you intend to make a positive contribution, but what you choose to says implies to me a slightly arrogant an disrspectul posture.
Rudy, maybe I am missing something, but I don't find Stephen Foster's comments at all arrogant or disrespectful.
Rudy: Your retorts often presume a foundation that you never take the time to establish, either that or you expect people to accept interpretation on "your authority".
This is somewhat my own personal annoyance about this site. I would have thought that on a site called Adventist Today, whose stated mission is to provide a place for Adventist members to discuss contemporary issues, I would have thought that there would indeed by certain foundations that would could presume, without having to continually keep restating. In my mind, those foundations include belief in God, Jesus and the Bible. However, whilst I know others might disagree, perhaps it is a bit rich to have a go at others who do presume such foundations?
Rudy: IMO, there is nothing wrong in confidence in your own beliefs, interpretations, and convictions…
I do agree Rudy, however, I do worry to what extent that double-standards appear to be applied in this place, and political correctness used as an Orwellian modus operandi to stiffle genuine debate.
Stephen Foster: Elaine often challenges the beliefs, views, and perspectives of others; particularly those of SDAs. Unless her position is indefensible or untenable, Elaine is capable of explaining herself.
Totally agree. In Elaine's case specifically, I do indeed find many of her positions contradictory at times, and it is difficult to have meaningful dialogue without knowing where she is coming from.
Ferguson,
My response to Foster above might address some of your comments.
I don't understand why some of the folks bother with this forum either. But, it does not occur to me to want them to go away. There is always a chance it will have a positive spiritual impact. If one cannot consider difficult issues and questions regarding their faith in God they will find ATODAY a challenging place with or without agnostics and atheists.
I think your concern about the double standard is very misguided. I believe that those who bear testimony to the existence of a God with whom we can have personal realationship should expect to be held to a very high standard by those not yet persuaded of that truth. I believe that Christians are still vulnerable to sin and will be dismayed at our failures to live and interact as Christ would. But, there should be an impact on how we relate. We must strive for a much higher standard. And this higher standard should not be religious piety. It must be good will toward all men and women.
also, I think is a good thing for us to have explain what we believe and why to skeptics. Some of the simplistic answers offered by some Christians are and insult to the intelligence God has given and is not unlike trying to convince adults who once believed in Santa Claus to embrace that belief again. If despite of lot of impressive rhetoric our rationale for belief in God is much th same a child' s belief in Santa Claus, it's not worth much.
All that said, I think it is fair to hold all to a high standard of respect on this forum. There is nothing wrong with confronting folks who do not. For me, I begin with holding those who present themselves as Christian thinkers accountable. Yes, that probably creates what some would call a double standard.
Mr. Ferguson,
I appreciate your observations, personally.
Allow me to make a few comments. First of all, I think that much of what we observe insofar as the so-called double standard is concerned is, in actuality, a simple result of our venue.
For theologically conservative and politically liberal (African American) Seventh-day Adventists, these are what they call in American sports parlance 'road' games. In other words, this is not a neutral site; but that’s not necessarily unfair.
As we are aware, a conservative Adventist perspective is certainly represented on this site. Personally I am thankful and privileged to blog and otherwise participate in this forum. This is however not a site for conservative Seventh-day Adventists, as we also know.
This site is largely for moderate to liberal/progressive to disaffected to former to skeptical to agnostic to perhaps atheistic Seventh-day Adventists.
Your frustration, as I understand it, is that we should at least know and understand that we’re all connected to Adventism; and therefore certain things, or starting points, should be considered as givens, without reiterating. In other words, a conservative Adventist shouldn’t be expected to re-explain the God concept, or that he/she regards the Bible authoritatively; and others should at least be expected to tell us what they do believe.
I would say that Rudy’s his frustration is that we are not C.S. Lewis; nor for that matter Rudy Good, either. I also sense some severe level of projected disaffection with some or many aspects of what he considers traditional Adventist dogmatism.
I have repeatedly shared with Rudy that I am not a theologian, or a clergyman, or an intellectual. I have also admitted severe character deficiencies. I am therefore bound to come short of his standards. But I now have a suspicion that we have a cultural problem as well.
I suspect that an opinionated theologically conservative, politically liberal African American Adventist from New York may be 'a bridge too far.'
Thankfully, at the risk of mixing metaphors, this site is also 'a big tent.'
Stephen Foster,
There is only one standard I have been urging you to raise higher. It's not your theology, not your character, and not your intelligence. I am urging you to give a better listen to the bloggers you respond to. I do not presume you you are badly motivated. I have described the arrogant impression I get, not because I presume that is your character, but because I thought if you thought you came across that way you would want to rectify it. Please read and really hear what I said in my last response above.
Well Rudy, I will take your constructive criticism in the spirit in which it is given. But you surely realize that I must also consider it within the larger context of all of our exchanges; with regard to double standards, for instance.
I will confess to some intensity, shall we say, with regard to certain issues.
You may continue to offer construction criticism; but the intensity with which I approach certain issues is not likely to fade. Hopefully my listening skills will however improve.
Without any question, listening to and understanding another’s perspective is indispensible to effective communication. (Effective communication doesn’t necessarily lead to agreement.)
This site facilitates conversation of important/controversial subjects. Everyone who posts on these boards is opinionated. Everyone thinks that they are right. So to some extent, we’re all “zealous.” We are simply intense about different things. Sometimes we are intense about the same things, from differing theological or political perspectives.
When you add to that the reality that, although we share some connection to Adventism, we come at these subjects (and regretfully at each other) from varying cultural backgrounds (even differing parts of the globe); it is inevitable that some of us have different 'approaches' than others of us.
I have a feeling, although I could be wrong, that if you agreed with me more often, you would have less of a problem with my communication style.:-)
You just said a number of things I agree with. I suspect we all feel we are right, are zealous and opinionated. My intention is also to always assume I may be wrong. It is hard to learn from exchanges unless one does that. Consequently, I try very hard to understand opposing points of view. That used to be uncomfortable and still is at times, but I trust my beliefs much more when truly tested and refined by other perspectives. I had to give up the idea of denominational orthodoxy, but I now feel less internal conflict over what Jesus referred to as the weightier matters of the law.
I believe in a new birth, but am still learning what that means. One of the most important aspects of that experience for me has been the certainty of God's rightness. That conviction has caused me to wrestle with a great many issues, but always emerging with a broader perspective regarding His rightness (and goodness). It is an intense awareness of His rightness that makes me distrust of my rightness (as well as that of other human beings),
Rudy: 'I think your concern about the double standard is very misguided. I believe that those who bear testimony to the existence of a God with whom we can have personal realationship should expect to be held to a very high standard by those not yet persuaded of that truth.'
Sorry to flog a dead horse, but what do you mean by a 'higher standard' exactly? In what way exactly?
Part of the problem with blogs, is inflection and tone is not conveyed well, so whether a statement comes across as meanspirited or merely passionate is often in the eyes of the reader more than the author themselves.
For example, Stephen Foster is much more conservative than me on many issues, and we often disagree, and yet I can't think of a time when I found his comments to be out-of-line in the way you describe. I certaily can't recall Mr Foster engaging in the level of name-calling that many on the more liberal side of things routinely use. On that basis, I wonder if the problem is not so much in what Mr Foster is writing compared with what frame of mind you are reading his comments? Are you reading him with your own bias, which is colouring your view?
Moreover, if you are suggesting that self-professed Christians shouldn't defend their own points of view passionately, and should be subject to an additional scrutiny of their views, whilst non-Christian and ex-Adventist contributers shouldn't, I am not sure if I entirely respectfully disagree. In particular:
There is a double-standard on this site against conservatives, including in how it is moderated and the cultureal pressure of the place, and I again I don't so this with some personal interest involved because I am no conservative myself. No one expects everyone to agree, and it is perfectly fine if people who chose not to believe in God, Jesus or the Bible want to contribute. I also agree that it is essential to listen to people, especially when they disagree with you, in order for there to be meaningul dialogue.
My major concern is that many of the wonderful issues open for discussion, that should be discussed between liberal and conservative Adventists, often get lossed by tangent debates over whether there really is a God, or whether the Bible is authority as a source of Divine knowledge. If I continually kept making comments about Star Wars on a Star Trek website, what do you think many of the bloggers would think?
My other major concern is what I consider to be 'guerrilla commenting'. We Adventists can be at a distinct disadvantage, as it is obvious what we believe, whereas we often have no idea what or where the ex-Adventist commentator is coming from. Within such a context, I don't think it unreasonable to expect the commentator to ellaborate on where they are coming from – that is if the commentator wants to continue in the discussion thread. Otherwise, the point of the article itself never gets discussed, but rather this place just becomes a forum for those disgruntled with their upbringing in the SDA Church to throw the kitchen sink in venting their frustration of real and imagined slights.
Finally, I am very wary of Orwellian attitudes that use political correctness to silence conservative voices at every turn, whilst allowing ex-Adventists to say pretty much whatever they want, whenever they want. I get Steve Foster's point that this is a moderate-to-liberal site, but that shouldn't be an excuse should it? Should those who dominate this site themselves be held to a 'higher standard' in ensuring a more even hand.
To win an argument but forceably silence opposing views is not much of a win in my book. As a litigator, I have always hated 'technical tricks' to win debates not on the merits.
Rudy,
It’s possible that, at this point, we have taken our differences about as far as they can reasonably be taken.
We approach doctrine—or should I say Adventist doctrine—differently and from differing perspectives. (Mr. Ferguson makes a good point regarding the backgrounds of the participants on Atoday.)
In the end, beliefs are not hunches. I think that I allow my stated beliefs to be “tested” by other perspectives. (Remember, my friend, this isn’t exactly a conservative venue. Here, belief is occasionally associated/conflated with self-righteousness.) I do not, however, allow my beliefs to be “refined” by certain skeptical/non-believing perspectives.
If we deny that certain perspectives on this site are of skepticism/non-belief, it is because we choose such denial.
Perhaps we can both agree that only God is right all of the time.
Stephen and Stephan,
You both spend a lot more time reading and responding here than I do. So, I may not have an accurate perspective. Perhaps there is a double standard. I have seen what seem like salvos launched from both liberals and conservatives. Personally I am disappointed to see that from either direction.
It has not occurred to me to complain about the plight of conservatives here for several reasons. First, it has always appeared to me that AToday exists in part to give those on the liberal side to interact in a more accepting environment than typically occurs in official SDA forums which are dominated by a more traditional/conservative perspective. I know it is not fair to all conservatives to class them as traditionalists. but, believe this is true on a collective level.
I am just as bewildered by the conservatives who blog expecting people to align with their point of view as I am with the atheists who do. I was raised as an Adventist with very conservative view and gradually changed to a more liberal perspective based entirely on my spiritual journey and deep convictions about truth instilled my conservative roots.
My experience has been that Adventism has been guilty of a.kind of self certainty (and legalism) that often gets in the way of a healthy spiritual journey. When I discovered ATODAY it was great to discover a public dialog that was friendly to those who question the party line. That there were some far left participants seemed very understandable result of the openness.
My surprise was to find conservative columnist who came to AToday and expected others to accept their narrow definition of Adventism based on the same line thinking that has been typical for Adventists for many years. A large portion of the more liberal folks have very consciously rejected that line of reasoning. This forum will attract all types, but I have in particular opposed those columnists who degrade the freedom to express unorthodoxed views. Some have done that with harsh attitudes and some with a silver tongue. But, their self certainty can often be an intimidating influence on dialog.
After interaction with some these self-certain conservatives I come to believe that some are not seekers and searchers. They may very polite, but they are not truly open to new interpretations.
Right or wrong, I have always perceived Mr. Foster as someone who is a conservative, but is not trapped in the self-certainty of some of the others. However, there have been times when to me he came across as self-certain. As I have tried to say in different ways, it has been my respect for Stephan that provoked my criticism. I did not criticize Stephan because I thought him especially guilty, but because I thought He would appreciate and respond to the observations, it has not turned out to be the simple exchange I originally intended, but have not changed my mind about Stephan's positive motivations.
Thanks Rudy, that all sounds fine to me. I would just add that I too found a breath of fresh air in discovering AToday, in a forum to discuss thoughts and issues that I would otherwise probably not feel comfortable discussing in my own Adventist community. I do after all live in the most isolated capital city in the world (Perth Australia), with about 5,000 Adventists, most of whom would be considered 'conservative' by AToday standards (although many would consider themselves 'liberal' if you asked). Our 'conservatives' are really, really 'conservative.'
That all said, I do think that conservatives should be given the same rights and opportunities to feel welcome here as ex-Adventists. My major concern is that there seem to be a vitriol towards conservatives that doesn't apply to ex-Adventists here. Conservatives are routinely asked to explain their idiological views, as well they should, but why isn't the same scrutiny then applied to ex-Adventists – even atheists?
I for one think this whole site is better of because of the likes of Stephen Foster, someone who is 'conservative' (by AToday standards but not probably a liberal by my Adventist community's standards), but someone who I do think listens. When some of the really left-field things are said here on AToday, including by me, it is good to have someone like Mr Foster who can articulate in a logical and meaningful manner a more conservative or 'traditional' (he might say Bible-based response).
Even when I don't agree with that response, I like that at least someone has put that point of view on the table, which is what this place should all be about. I find that Mr Foster's approach as persuasion is a much different approach than some other bewildered conservatives who occasion here who like to cry 'traitor, traitor', but without really explaining themselves.
Ferguson,
I hope it is clear that I too welcome Stephen Foster (fear I have spelled both your names wrong at times) and share your desire that conservatives feel as welcome as liberals. I also agree that Mr. Foster is different from those who cry traitor, traitor.
I do believe however, there are conservatives (and liberals) even more treacherous than those who cry traitor, traitor. They are those who refuse to recognize the significant role personal interpretation plays in human reasoning. These folks are often polite, diplomatic, and politically correct, but never really view anyone's conclusions legitimate but their own. It is to distinguish himself from these truth squelchers that I urged Stephen to be more careful about his communication style and habits.
I am a lot more opposed to these truth squelchers (many of them conservatives) than those who do not believe in God and openly express their cynicism.
There is no escape! Rudy you have fairly carefully crafted a response that, no doubt, gets me—and anyone who has a strong conviction as to a correct interpretation of a given passage of Scripture.
A “personal interpretation” is the key, right? Are we actually supposed to interpret the Bible individually and privately; everyone an island?
What happens when scriptural narratives conflict with what “human reasoning” tells us makes sense?
Will the Holy Spirit lead every individual into his or her own private version/interpretation of the veracity or reliability of scripture?
Why would those who disagree with an approach toward interpretation be labeled “truth squelchers”? Imagine if a conservative had said that! Even if we are “polite” about it, are we “(more) treacherous” if we don’t agree?
You have stated that you have forsaken denominational doctrine; which is your absolute prerogative. But at what point does that become intolerance toward those who perhaps have not. I’m trying to listen, but it seems to me that you perceive that listening and agreeing are, in fact, synonymous.
“I am a lot more opposed to these truth squelchers (many of them conservatives) than those who do not believe in God and openly express their cynicism.”
Well, sometimes perfect candor is what is necessary.
First, let me say, you were definitely listening to what I said and I appreciate your thoughtful response.
I don't know if I used the most appropriate word when I said personal interpretation. That wasn't meant to be a synonym for private interpretation. It is pretty dangerous to hold an interpretation that is rejected by all reliable scholars. But, that statement is a good illustration of what I meant by personal interpretation. We each will make personal decision about which scholars (or authorities) are reliable.
I was trying to point out that there is personal element in all interpretation. When we accept an interpretation, there is always at least one flawed human mind involved. I referred to those who deny that reality by claiming more confidence in the rightness of their interpretation than human beings can rightly claim as truth squelchers. Those people tend to intimidate others rather than bear testimony and the people they persuade will have learned an unreliable way to discover truth.
Without a certain level of healthy skepticism people can mistake passion for conviction. Passion is good, but it should grow out of carefully developed convictions. Convictions grow when we discover better and better reasons for our beliefs, when we purge the flawed conclusions, when we discover the vulnerability of alternative beliefs, and when we discover that other truth seekers adopt the same beliefs.
We cannot do any of these things without using our personal and somewhat subjective judgment. The longer I journey the more I am persuaded that what God wants most is for us to have a desire and heart for truth. When His kingdom and its citizens are no longer blighted by sin, our capacity to discern and live by truth will far exceed our present capacity. But, I believe that it is now that we decide if we are truth seekers or truth squelchers maquerading as truth seekers.
I don't remember saying I have forsaken denominational doctrine. It would be accurate to say I no longer trust a denomination to define the true doctrine. I can go even further and say I do not believe God desires that we align or beliefs 100% with any denomination. Also, I would say the more a denomination instilla loyalty to a set of doctrines the more that denomination will drift from the truth.
Culture, history, and the demands of and era will change the way we need to understand the truth. Doctrine that is not applied is worthless, and doctrine misapplied to the time and place is dangerous. Doctrinal positions will gradually shift as they are applied to new times, places, and mind sets. If the search for truth has been replaced by loyalty to a denomination and the doctrines as interpreted and applied at certain times, then gradual shift will be dominated by the unholy agendas and ambitions.
It seems to me that our spiritual enemy will always attempt to get us to focus on something that will compete with our loyalty to God. He doesn't care if that thing is money, pleasure, family, work, or the church.
Stephen F.
Is it your contention that the descriptions we have of God found in the Bible are not contradictory?
Where has God demanded obedience other than found in the Bible? Which demands would that be: to kill rebellious sons? An adulterous wife? Pagans with other gods? Or only minor demands of wearing two fabric mixtures or
eating lobster or pork?
Is the Bible the whole and entire source of man's understanding and description of God? Is God limited to man's finite knowledge; and more particularly, were the Bible writers far better than humans today in understanding God?
No, Elaine, I am not suggesting that God has never given instructions, or directions, or demanded that something be done, that seemed to be strange, puzzling, or contradictory. As you well know, this is what the story of Abraham and Isaac typifies.
In my view, however, Rudy put it rather well in his pond ripple illustration. God is dealing with all of humanity; and we are all in a different position from which to feel His effects. What seems mysterious from one perspective or position may have a reasonable, deductive, and beneficial effect somewhere else; for someone else.
But the descriptions of God, and His character, and His attributes are one thread. Psalm 19:1 tells of an example of how God’s glory is manifested in nature. But the knowledge of what God is like is found in Scripture—and in the lives of all of His servants.
Obviously man is too limited to even comprehend the concepts of preexistence and self-existence. 1 Corinthians 2:9 indicates that our minds can’t even imagine what is in store.
Yes, I think that holy men of God, who were inspired by God, are—or were—in a much better position to understand what there is for finite man to understand about God, than are those (we) who are not holy and not inspired; if that answers your question.
It seems to me that what you (and others) are having trouble reconciling is how man can have created a God who is infinitely smarter than he is.
Elaine: All we can ever know about God can be known from nature alone. This, in contrast with supernatural religions based on particular revelations from God to particular people in certain times and places.
…I did not claim that God doesn't exist; only that man created him.
I agree with some of the above comments, including both Stephen's and Rudy's, that this position doesn't entirely make sense to me. Are you saying that you really only believe in a kind of deism, or naturalism? Do you believe that God does exist, but that we can only know God through nature?
I do agree that nature is a source of Divine Truth, which the Bible itself affirms (Rom 2) but it can't be the only source. Moreover, just how objective is scientific observation, and any deductions one might gain from it about God, anyway? Even science relies on human methods of observation, procedure, language and symbols. Thus, isn't even a God known from nature alone still a God largely created in the minds of men?
Finally, if the only source of knowledge about God is from nature or science, then what picture of God does that paint? A pretty terrible God in my view – an evil monster who uses pain, suffering and death, over billions of years.
For me, much of the Garden of Eden story, and the life of Jesus, and the eschatological hope of a New Heaven and New Earth, with the destruction of death itself, is in many ways an affirmation of the 'goodness' of God as Creator and of creation despite what we see in nature. The 'natural law' or 'Eden principle' that is found in our hearts doesn't reflect a reality we see in nature around us, with all its tooth and claw; it is a reflection of what should be – a Paradise lost.
Thus, to consider God can only be understood from nature alone (or rather their current limited understanding of nature through limited science), is just as 'fundamentalist' as those who say God can only be understood from a literal understanding of the Bible alone (which really is a limited subjective interpretation of the Bible). God is best understood from a range of sources or formative factors, many if not most of which are of course largely subjective: science, revelation, experience, scripture, tradition and reason.
Is the Bible, a book written by and compiled by humans ages ago, the final and most complete revelation of God? Recall that there were no written stories about God for most of this world's history, so where did the idea originate if not with humans?
Long before there was a Hebrew people and religion, there were people who believed in a god or gods in many parts of the world. Were they not worshiping a god they created? Who, if not they, determined how their god should be worshiped? The Hebrews also had their idea of God and even from their own writings, this god evolved and changed (or their ideas of God) went through many changes of worship and practice until after the Exodus they compiled hundreds of ways of proper living, all in the name of their god.
Fast forward to the 21st century. Why should we today accept that the ideas of God developed by the Hebrew people should be the last word? Even Christians developing a new religious belief brought few of the many rules and practices from Judaism, and they have been eliminating more ever since.
Limiting one's understanding of God from a book written thousands of years ago by humans who were also limited in their knowledge, is to be stunted and refuse to accept the many changes in the world and society since those times.
Think of how many religious practices and beliefs have been adopted from the Bible, regardless of the difficulty of living by ancient standards and rules with today. FWIW, the one lasting gem from all belief systems, including the Hebrews, is the Golden Rule; and as the rabbi Hilel said: "All the rest is commentary." How simple it would be but man always must tinker with things, including basic systems.
Elaine, you seem to be deflecting the question. We were not talking about the limits of the Bible as a source of truth – and yes, I think I made it clear – the Bible is indeed limited. That is why I advocated a variety of sources for knowledge of God, including science, revelation, experience, scripture, tradition and reason.
The Bible itself in several parts notes its limitation. The Bible itself also in my view isn't technically the Word (captial W) but merely another w (lower w) of God. Christianity is unique in holding that ultimate source about God comes from a Word incarnate – the person of Jesus Christ. By contrast, John himself in his gospel notes that the recounts of Jesus are limited, as there would not be enough books in all the world to describe him. So we can only have a limited and subjective view of Jesus, and in turn, a very limited and subjective view of God.
However, what I was trying to get to grips with, is understanding your own 'fundamentalist' view of God, which only sees nature alone as the source of knowledge about God. Again, what sort of picture of God does that paint? What sort of God do you believe in?
Some of us surely are enignas to others. Some of us wish not to have labels, or to be pigeon holed. Some of us are not as fixed in our personal beliefs,or, are willing to consider additional information that may be forthcoming, or future reasoning to negate or substantiate our positions. This may be a description of a agnostic.
That is not an excuse for failing to explain those beliefs when asked, or pigeon-holing others.
The other thing Earl, I am not sure if you comment is a veiled attempt to say Elaine shouldn't explain her own beliefs of what she exactly means in saying the only source of God is nature alone. If so, it does worry me of the tendency, often seen here, that sees it perfectly ok to challenge those who do hold to more 'traditional' beliefs about God, Jesus and the Bible, and in fact to often have those beliefs pigeon holed or stereotyped, but that says the challengers themselves somehow shouldn't be challenged. It worries me when Orwellian cries of tolerance or bullying or invoked to prevent challengers from being challenged even though they are the greatest challengers.
Dialogue requires discussion and disclosure. If one says man created God, and that we can only ever know God from nature, in the name of dialogue, it isn't unnecessary to ask for a further explanation of what those statements actually mean.
Conservatives and those who are certain of what they believe have no reason to discuss on such sites. It's like wanting to discuss whether your children or the most beautiful and intelligent–it's a given for parents; and the same feeling is what those who are certain that their beliefs are settled and there is no need for such conversation.
OTOH, not everyone is content with beliefs espoused by the church and has many questions. This should be a place where there can be discussion without rancor if there is disagreement. Rarely, will two people be of the same mind in either politics or religion, unless they are content with a dictatorial monarchy that decrees what should be believed, which is how the Christian church operated for centuries–no dissent allowed or heresy would be the charge.
Surely, such ideas as heresy should have no place in a Christian church or one's life. When there are no questions, complacency results.
Elaine, first, everyone who believes in God, Jesus and the Bible, and remains an active member of the SDA Church, or believes in the 28 Fundamentals, is probably a 'conservative' to you.
Secondly, I think 'conservative' Adventists have as much right to discuss on this site, in fact more right IMO, that ex-Adventist and semi-Adventist 'liberals'. This site is after all called Adventist Today, not ExAdventist Today.
Third, Elaine, no one is suggesting we can't disagree – in or outside the Church. I certainly am not suggesting at such. You will find I often disagree with a range of people, on my left and right. In my view, you can say whatever you want, as 'heretical' as some might find it, because as the AToday rules state, this place isn't meant to be a mouthorgan for the SDA Church.
Fourth, my question or issue was only that you often seem to make statements challenging others, but then questioned yourself, don't ellaborate. I was genuinely interested in your point of view, in explaining what to me seemed like a very contradictory and indeed 'fundamentalist' view of God, that only sees nature alone as the only legitimate source of divine knowledge of God. In my view, there is a big difference between dialogue in a discussion compared with throwing fruit at someone speaking.
Fifth, my issue wasn't one of disagreement. I am merely affirming Stephen Foster's earlier comment that:
Elaine often challenges the beliefs, views, and perspectives of others; particularly those of SDAs. Unless her position is indefensible or untenable, Elaine is capable of explaining herself.
For example, I do recall you once saying about me, 'If it is too hot to stay in the kitchen…'; however, I am not suggesting the same in your case.
Sixth, if you don't feel comfortable answering further, in explaining what you meant when you said:
Elaine: All we can ever know about God can be known from nature alone. This, in contrast with supernatural religions based on particular revelations from God to particular people in certain times and places.
…I did not claim that God doesn't exist; only that man created him.
…then that is perfectly fine with me – please don't feel obligated to answer. However, I do agree with Stephen Foster then that your position seems indefensible or untenable.
Finally, I wasn't actually having a go at you at all, and please consider this an apology if you felt I was. I was actually addressing both Rudy (when he had a go at Stephen Foster) and then Earl, who in my view adopt Orwellian and politically correct attitudes, which are counterproductive to creating a place where genuine dialogue can occur.
Stephen, i have no desire to offer veiled positions. i believe each should be able to offer what they wish & no more. There have been several requests, from several here, for others to declare a specific belief or position they have, and when not forthcoming, they continue to press the issue. Respectfully i request no bullying when there is no answer to the request for a definite answer.
Earl that is fine. However, if Elaine or anyone else makes an explosive statement challenging traditional Christian-Adventist beliefs, in God, Jesus and the Bible, shouldn't such a person expect a request for clarification or explanation of said position. The challenger certainly is under no obligation to explain or clarify further, but if they don't, I agree with Stephen Foster when he said:
Elaine often challenges the beliefs, views, and perspectives of others; particularly those of SDAs. Unless her position is indefensible or untenable, Elaine is capable of explaining herself.
With respect, my issue is not with Elaine. My issue is with people like you, who suggest Elaine can make such strong challengers, and then not be expected to clarify or explain those positions.
We can absolutely disagree, but in order there to be meaningul dialogue, there needs to be an exchange of ideas. IMO an open battle of ideas is exactly what we do want; my concern is guerrilla warfare where some might feel they can launch ambushing challengers and then complain when those challenged are themselves challenged.
True tolerance and freedom of speech doesn't merely mean the right to challenge 'conservative' or 'traditional' views. It includes the right of those with 'conservative' or 'traditional' views to challenge those same challengers. This is the essence of natural justice and procedural fairness.
…And back to the topic, for those who do want to keep paticipating…
As to any notion that science or nature is a better source of knowledge of God or about the universe than other formative factors (say scripture, experience, revelation, tradition and reason to name a few), do all the problems or limitations Dr Wilbur lists about religion equally apply to science?
Is science, merely being the human observation of nature, not nature itself, is in some ways more subjective and less objective than many think? Is science:
Mr. Ferguson asks reasonable questions of the current scientific enterprise:
Is science:
Resistent to change? No, it changes all the time.
Created by Humans: Yes, obviously
Have problems with language?: Sometimes, but that is one reason why mathematical models are used.
Has many voices?: Yes, there are many scientists, but to do science there are certain rules you have to follow
Has its own foundation myths of a sort?: If by "myth" you mean, "narratives" based on empircal data then, of course.
Has limitations of self-analysis? If you mean there are limits to what is "scientific," yes, obviously. But "self-analysis" is what science does best.:
Combared to theology and religion in general, science comes off looking a lot more reasonable based on all of your criteria.
Judge, make her answer the question!!! Mr Ferguson, the defendent has taken "the Fifth". LOL. Stephen, forgive me. i understand your frustration. believe all here have been perplexed by the enigna of Elaine's seemly contradictions at times. some statements she makes seem very conservative, while others border on the atheistic. i am utterly in awe of the two of you, with the astounding breadth & depth of reading you have done, and able to recall it instantly.
Back to fundamentals.the human genome has been a gamechanger in many pursuits of research. perhaps ongoing study of it will bring much more enlightenment on many fronts pertaining to life.In that regard: Adam was handfashioned by God. Isn't it ironic that Cain the first seed would be flawed??
i am a Christian believer because of A. Evidence of intelligent design. B. The Bible. C. The heavens.
D. As far as we know, there are no other special creations of life in our solar system.
Being a exclusive creation, the parameters or limits of our Earth, our existance, are peculiar perhaps to
this planet & this life. i believe the elemental makeup is so complex, that even what man is ever able to discover will not break the crust of its nano to the thousandth power. With GOD all is infinity. We humans are so insignificant, and GOD is all in all, "COMPLETE". GOD is incomprehensible.GOD is the "ALMIGHTY".
Out of man's cognizance he created God, by that logic nature itself is created by man. Ultimately what one belives and values is a cognitive choice.
With regard to interpretation of prophecy 2Peter 1:20-21. "Not every prophetic writing is made clear in its own book. "but holy men of God spoke when inspired by the Holy Spirit. (from the Peshitta/Church of the East/ from the Aramaic spoken, of the generation of Jesus on Earth).
Question? The above scripture informs us of the validity of prophecy. In our generation who is qualified to interpret prophecy as God wished us to understand it? Is the church the lone arbiter of interpretation? If so, which church? To whom do you trust to interpret it? We know of the many Bible translations, of which the above quote is from a version you may not know. Genesis1 & 2, relates duration of creation of 6 evenings/mornings, and finished on the 7th day. In Daniel & Revelation there are a few metaphoric & coded references most vital for us to understand. Who do you trust, to interpret them perfectly, for you?
Mr. Calahan poses a question: "Who do you trust to interpret [Biblical prophecies] perfectly, for you?" Answer: Absolutely no one. If someone could please point out to me one instance — just one — where someone over the last 200 years on the basis of interpreting a Biblical prophecy has foretold a specific historical event ahead of it happening, I would like to know about it. As far as I know, the batting average for such an activity is 000%. Am I wrong about that?
I often stress to my Sabbath School Class that prohecy is not for use to buy stock or other time advantage endeavours. It is truth in big wave of time and fuzziness in ripples.
You may be wrong in the basic premise of your question; if nowhere else. If I understand your question, it presumes that within the past two centuries there have been time-sensitive Biblical prophecies made within this same time period that have been predicted to have occurred within this time period, at a particular point in time.
There are, of course, certain prophecies that many SDAs believe have been fulfilled but for which there is no physical evidence. There are others for which, depending on your theology or eschatology, are believed to have been fulfilled if you believe that the particular occurrence has indeed been prophesied.
You wouldn’t be scoffing by any chance? (Scratch that, I’m just messing with you.)
Prophecy is only of worth to those who believe it.
Some have suggested the primary purpose of prophecy is to demonstrate that God is sovereign. The implication is that we may not know exactly what was predicted until after it has been fulfilled. While that can't be the only reason I think it may indeed be the primary reason.
How deliberately did you choose the "positive" adjective? perhaps relative to the choice of "epic".
Apparently I was not clear in my previous comment about the 000% batting record for an accurate interpretation of prophecy. Let me restate: Can anyone provide an example of any individual within the last 500 years (I expanded my time period) who correctly ahead of time made an accurate prediction of some event occurring within the last 500 years on the basis of interpreting any passage of predictive prophecy in any part of the Bible? I hope that this question has been stated in such a manner that it cannot be misunderstood.
Let me see if I understand, are there any individuals within the last 500 years who have accurately predicted an event that has occurred within this same time period based on the interpretation of any predictive prophecy in the Bible; at all?
Does my previous answer (in my previous post) address this question at all, Erv? If not, could a scoffer, in say David or Isaiah’s day, possibly/reasonably have posed the identical question regarding the first prophecy?
I think the question is … Can anyone give an example where someone interpreted biblical prophecy in a way that allowed them to predict an event that was actually fulfilled. Meaning the interpretation and fulfillment must have been within the last 500 years.
Stephen, your previous comment is pretty vague and doesn't cite any specific prophecy. It seems you are saying that some Adventists might claim that there are qualifying interpretations and events. But, I guess you are waiting for someone to step up and make the claim.
The obvious ones that Adventist might consider are 1798 (as the termination of the 1260 days) and 1844 (as the termination of the 2300 days). However, I think these both fail Erv's criteria in that what is now claimed as the fulfillment was not predicted from prophetic interpretation before the terminating dates.
Erv, this is a very interesting way to highlight the hype around prophecy that is not justified by what has really occurred.
D.M. Canright (a naughty naughty man according to Adventists) pointed out another odditiy in Adventist predictions. Adventists predict a future showdown regarding Sabbath worship on Saturday vs. Sunday. Adventists ostensibly predict this showdown will occur because of Sunday laws (not Saturday laws). But, EGW recommended to Austrailians that they cooperate with laws designed to promote spiritual activities and worship on Sunday as long as they could also continue to worship as God required on the Seventh-day Sabbath. Canright found it odd that Adventists predict this showdown over the Sabbath that is based on Sunday (not Saturday) laws, if they are willing to make the EGW accommodations for Sunday laws.
I don't think this proves the prophecied showdown will not occur, but it does point out that popular interpretations of how this will unfold probably include some distortion that could never match any real events.
As is so often the case one of the most certain ways to destroy confidence in a thing (prophecy or otherwise) is to make grandeous claims that will eventually be proved falsed. Then it will be difficult for that thing to serve its more modest but legitmate purpose.
Apparently, there was a sense of impending prophetic fulfillment in the time of Jesus birth. Christians, after the fact, identified a lot of OT prophecies that Jesus fulfilled. It is rather ironic that those most knowledgable and equipped to make precise interpretations of the OT prophecies didn't see Jesus as the fulfillment at all. So, evaluating what has been really predicted and fulfilled based on the Bible is a very interesting question even thousands of years ago.
I will offer an example of somewhat recent fulfilled prophecy in that the Christian Church successively warred against three unorthodox Arian Christian groups–the Heruls, the Vandals and the Ostrogoths. This according to the Historian Procopius, and predicted in Daniel Seven.
The last of these groups, the Ostrogoths were removed from power in 538-540 AD. “When the Roman emperor Justinian sent reinforcements, Witigis was forced to agree to a three-month truce, which Belisarius broke, invading Picenum and threatening Ravenna. In March 538 the Ostrogoths abandoned the siege of Rome.”
“They held out in northern Italy for two more years, but, by the spring of 540, they held only the stronghold of Ravenna.” Witigis. (2008). Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica 2007 Ultimate Reference Suite . Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica.
“And he shall speak words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and plot to change times and laws. And they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and one-half time.” Daniel 7:25 Until a time and times and one-half time
Beginning in 538AD or 540AD, The Church having removed three Arian People groups in Europe, as predicted in Dan. 7:8 and 25, began its 1260 years of Church Politics.
One day equals a year in Bible prophecy. “A Time” is a ‘Lunar Year’ with 360 days or prophetically speaking–260 years.
A ‘time’ equals a lunar year (360 days/ years). The expression ‘times’ equals two lunar years (720 days), while ‘half a time’ equals (180 days) totaling 1260 days/years. A major historical validation of this Classical Method of interpreting prophecy comes by applying the 1260 days/years to the history of the Christian Church.
The marriage of Church and State lasted from 538AD / 540AD to 1798AD or 1800AD This is 1260 years The Church domination of Europe lasted until the rise of Political Atheism in the 18th century. The Secular Revolutions would gut the church of its real-estate and political power.
“From 1790 the Papal States were profoundly affected by the French Revolution and the subsequent wars of Napoleon Bonaparte. In 1791 Avignon removed itself from papal control and was annexed by France. In 1797 Napoleon's conquest of Milan and his seizure of several papal territories was confirmed by a treaty that established the Cisalpine Republic.”
“In 1798 the French seized the rest of the papal territories and proclaimed the Roman Republic; the refusal of Pius VI (1775–99) to recognize the new state led to his arrest and imprisonment.” "Papal States." Encyclopædia Britannica from Encyclopædia Britannica 2007 Ultimate Reference Suite . (2009).
538AD – 1798AD = 1260 Years Amazingly Accurate!
Based on the above method of interpreting prophecy in the year A.D. 1689 an English Bible Scholar named Drue Cressener (1638-1718) published his predicted date for the end of the 1260 days.
“He began the prophetic period in the time of Justinian in the sixth century A.D., and by applying the year-day principle to these 1260 days, Cressener came to the conclusion: ‘The time of the beast does end about the year 1800.'" L. E. Froom, Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers (Vol. II) : 595
Because the methods of interpretation that we are used in this seminar are biblically based, they have proven to fit actual history with great fidelity. Drue Cressener, using these methods was able to predict accurately over 100 years before, the ending of the church/state problem in Europe.
You forgot to disclose how the year for a day was a conclusion; or is it a day for a year that the Bible has also used?
Was Moses in the wilderness 40 days or 40 years? Did the Israelites likewise wander in the Sinai for 40 days or 40 years? Was Jesus in the wilderness for 40 days or 40 years?
Check how many times the number 40 is used in the Bible with either years or days and ask were those the exact figures each time or symbolic or literal? What was the manner of calculating time before there was writing or calendars?
So, the answer is 'yes.' Drue Cressener!
I am impressed. Drue Cressener in 1689. Let me look into what actually he said. If confirmed, the batting average will go from 000% to 000.5% I stand corrected.
Assessing batting averages of predictors referencing bible prophecy is using the wrong matrix on the wrong subjects for the wrong purpose. A zero batting average should be a perfect score. It is an exercise in futility.
What a revelation! Events that occurred hundreds of years ago can now, retrospectively, be determined today to be fulfillment of Bible prophecy! That is absolute amazing.
There are other Bible prophecies which also can be proved: "Knowledge shall be increased; and there will be wars and rumors of war". Simply pick a date and then correlate it to an event as fulfillment of Bible prophecy.
Don't reveal this secret to your very analytical and historically informed non-SDA friends. Keep it for you SDA friends who will believe you.
Retrospectively, determined Today? Elaine, don't scan, but read carefully please-1689!
My son has been a college English teacher for a number of years and occasionally students will furnish Wikipedia as a research evidence. Need I say that Wikipedia is NOT reputable source and even so states on its page. Drue Cressener has a few paragraphs as an apocalyptic in the 17th century. As for his predictions, there have been much earlier ones of equal questionability, including Froom.
I guess there are lots of ways to contemplate prophecy. Elaine is not impressed with the prediction of wars and rumors of wars. That is probably because we assume the wrong purpose (and therefore precision for prophecy. What we can take from that is those who claim mankind will build a utopian society are wrong. It is a statement about the true condition of mankind.
Darrel,
I read it carefully. I also checked Drue Cressener on Wikipedia, a wonderful source for accurate historical facts. So what! He began at a date and worked backward, as all such interpretations have been made. I am underwhelmed that so much importance is given to anyone's claim to be able to accurately interpret Bible prophecies. How did that work for Miller? Or Joachim Fiore?
Or all the many such "prophetic interpreters of the past? All equivalent to the Mayan prophecy in recruiting a few believers looking for answers in the stars, secret hidden codes, or something to get excited about. Having survived Y2K, what's the next one?
As usaul, Elaine has done it again. But this I would like to check out for myself because it might be a classic. Anything included in Froom is suspect but let's all go to the primary source on this. On the other hand, I agree with Mr. Law, these things tend to be exercises in frutility. (By the way, what a title for a book: Exercises in Frutilty: The Interpretations of Prophecy") Even if clear evidence is brought forward that the Cressner example is not as proposed, another and another and another will be brought forward. Believers will be believers no matter what the evidence.
Erv,
Are you suggesting to us that the admittedly general (and, as Rudy put, it “vague”) answer that I gave; and the more specific answers from Rudy and Darrel are not germane to your question(s)?
How about sharing just why it is important (to you)—or how important it is to you—that someone should accurately predict something based on interpretation of a Biblical prophecy within the past 500 years? (This is not to say that it shouldn’t be important to you.)
“Believers will be believers no matter what the evidence.”
Is this meant to be a compliment? Even if it wasn’t intended to be, most "believers" would consider it as one (in accordance with Hebrews 11:1, of course).
'Began at a date and working backwards'. How on earth could he begin at the date (1800) and work backwards when the guy died before that date????????????
He died a generation before "the fulfillment' so how could he 'work backwards' from the fulfillment to do the math ???????
Ervin: "Combared to theology and religion in general, science comes off looking a lot more reasonable based on all of your criteria."
These are Dr Wilbur's criteria – not mine. But if you are suggesting science is a better source of divine knowledge about God, or the only source as Elaine suggested, what type of God does that portray? Elaine wouldn't answer this question, but perhaps you will? Don't get me wrong, I do believe science is a divine source about God (as it suggests in Rom 2), but only one amongst many, including: revelation, experience, scripture, tradition, logic and reason.
I would suggest if we only knew God through science, it wouldn't paint a very flattering picture of Him.
If on the other hand you suggest science suggests there is no God, which Elaine herself denied, then what is the point of this discussion as contemplated by your article?
Perhaps this is a “post-modern” idea, but truth is hard to come by on our own because of our subjectivity. I believe scientists can be as subjective as any religionist. Could it be said there are as many scientific theories and ideas as religious ideas out there? They may have a central belief, but they still separate into many strands as religions are accused of doing.
People, to be mentally healthy, need to seek their own truth/belief system. But even that is not theirs but based on education, background, experience, disappointments, relationships. To be cynical in one area, honesty and fairness calls us to be cynical about all opinions.
Take medicine for example. It changes yet doesn’t always get better or more efficient. The solution for the best health can be ignored by its practitioners out of frustration, convenience, or even for profit. It’s the same with drugs even though we also need them sometimes. We all know people who have suffered because of mistakes made in medicine as well as lifestyle.
So I can’t help being cynical when people attack religious beliefs or condone toxic religious thoughts and practice.
Now if we don’t think our religion is better than some others, then why would we want to keep it or talk about it? I believe in Christ because of the story of His love for us. If God is not love and more merciful than humans can imagine, then He does not exist. But yet we know evill exists. Then I have the choice of believing He has an adversary (the Jewish term)that causes evil or I am back to saying He doesn’t exist. Because good also exists to a greater degree than evil, I believe in both. (I don’t understand the rational of believing in a good God, if one denies the existence of a devil.)
Had I never heard of these alternatives or lived in another religious culture, I believe God through His great laws (that we don’t understand) would still be communicating with me on my knowledge level.
Theologians see through a glass darkly, and so do scientists. What each learns, we can use to be in awe of God’s workings or deny Him. It’s not just an intellectual argument to be won or some other more personal need to fill, it can involve our destiny.
Thank you Ella, I was trying to say much of what you have just said also.
Ella M's comment is very helpful in that it highlights the need to always distringuish between the moral principles associated with the teachings of Jesus and the theological systems of institutional Christianity including those of institutional Adventist Christainity. There are no conflicts that I can detect between the elements of Jesus system of ethics and any scientifically-based pronouncement primarily because they are addressing such diffferent areas of human life. Regretfully, the theological systems of some institutionalized Christian groups including the Adventist variety create conflicts with scientifically-based conclusions where none need to exist for reasons which often have to do with past historical conditions. For example the view of insitutional Adventism that it must defend problemtatical theological constructs such as Young Earth or Young Life Creationism because of the statements of EGW is a perfect example..
“There are no conflicts that I can detect between the elements of Jesus system of ethics and any scientifically-based pronouncement primarily because they are addressing such different areas of human life.”
The problem with this may be that, in and of itself, Jesus’ “system of ethics” was of no more meaning than that of the proverbial man the moon; but that its significance is based on who He was. Jesus’ system of ethics is: loving Him/God with all your being and loving all other humans as you love yourself. It isn’t the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule is what those who love according to Jesus’ “system of ethics” will do because they love others thusly. It is impossible to continually follow the Golden Rule if you do not actually regard (love) others as you regard yourself.
So then, in order to subscribe to His system of ethics, do you not have to believe that He was God? If He was God, then that reality alone would conflict with some scientifically-based pronouncements.
“For example the view of institutional Adventism that it must defend problematical theological constructs such as Young Earth or Young Life Creationism because of the statements of EGW is a perfect example.”
There are many creationists, or even Young Earth or Young Life Creationists who, of course, have never read anything EGW has ever written. It wouldn’t be unreasonable to presume this to be true with most creationists, Young Earth and/or Young Life Creationists?
I sense a feeling of déjà vu.
Mr. Foster seems to have missed the point that my comment was directed at explainiong why traditional Adventism has adopted a young earth/young life creationism. The principal reason has to do with defending the views of EGW on this topic. Non-Adventist young earth/young life creationists have adopted that position based on literalist intepreations of the Genesis creation narratives. On his other point, if Mr. Foster wishes to believe that the ethical witness of Jesus is based on"who he was," that certainly is his right even if historically it might not be the case.
Actually, SDA young earth/young life creationists, non-SDA young earth/young life creationists, and EGW have each adopted their position based on a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative.
Dr. Taylor is convinced that the defense of EGW’s views of creation is the reason for “traditional Adventism” believing that the Genesis creation narrative is what literally happened.
It seems Dr. Taylor is underestimating the persuasive influence of what the Bible says. Of course he does not underestimate this influence when it comes to non-SDAs (who believe what EGW and historical SDAs believe).
As to the other point, is Dr. Taylor suggesting that the “ethical witness of Jesus” (if he prefers) is not based on who he was, who He claimed to be, and who His followers believed Him to be; from an historical perspective?
Dr Taylor, please, would you restate the following in additional informative context? i am unable to understand the meaning. "belief that the ethical witness of Jesus is based on who He was-if historicallly it might not be the case"?
I believe most thinking Adventists are not basing their belief on EGW about the age of life but on the salvation concept of sin and when it began. This is my problem with long ages of life–how could it have gone on for billions of years with death and violence? It seems we would have to reject Christ's salvation story to believe it. There may be some other explanation for this "scientific evidence" of long ages of death and violence, but we aren't given any further biblical evidence. It seems like one of those rare either/or biblical quandries. I am not a biblical literalist and believe we need to be more concerned about meanings than details. The one thing we can't deny or be wishy-washy on, however, is the salvation story–the life, death, and resurrection of Christ which was presented first to our spiritual ancestors in the sanctuary service. One being resurrected from the dead is certainly not "scientific" yet all Christians are expected to accept it or use another label.* I have yet to see anyone try to scientifically prove it. *Maybe there should be another designation for Christian nonbelievers. Like imitation meat, perhaps we should have imitation Christians.
Hmm. Conservatives develop terms such as like "false Christians," "pseudo-Christians," "Unbelievers" and worse to chararacterize other Christains who have different opinions. Now we have "imitation Christians." How about just "other-Christians-who-don't-see-things-the-way-we-do."
Good idea – they could be called OCWDSTWWD for short 😉
I guess it brings up an interesting question though, of what is Christianity, and what is a Christian exactly? I guess likewise goes for Seventh-day Advenitst. Some will say labels shouldn't be used, but we all know in life, labels are necessary otherwise there can't be meaningful dialogue. Each trade or industry has its own jargon, scientists classify to no end, and even Adam was tasked by God to name all the animals.
Here’s another question for Dr. Taylor to at least ponder, and anyone to actually answer: what is the difference between a Christian who does not believe that Jesus was/is God (and/or was resurrected, and will return), and a non-Christian unbeliever who theoretically subscribes (ethically speaking) to the Golden Rule?
A clarifying answer to this sincere question, preferably from an OCWDSTTWWD, would be helpful.
Hinduism may not be far from the truth, reincarnation, "rebirth of the soul in another body". But the body like unto His glorius body!! not a continual rebirthing until we earn the stripes to return to the bosom of our Creator.