"Some of us just go one God further" - Richard Dawkins
Do you now? Maverick Philosopher has this to say on this quotation:
"I've seen this quotation attributed to Richard Dawkins. From what I have read of him, it seems like something he would say."
I've seen this a bunch of times actually on various atheist websites. I didn't know until I searched that it was Richard Dawkins. From what I gather, I guess the idea is that Christians wouldn't go around worshiping Ra or Allah or Zeus. The idea is that we're all atheist to all but one God (unless your Hindu, then it's a bunch), so we just go one further than you. You don't believe in Surya, so why believe in the God of Abraham?
First off, this isn't really an argument against theism, this is more directed at religion. Atheists seem to think that all Gods are on the same level, and that there is no good reason to reject all but one - might as well go all the way and make it a clean sweep. What seems to escape Dawkins is the idea that perhaps 'Ra' or 'Zeus,' while depicting God in weird forms, is still mans search for the divine, some deep seeded desire to know one's maker. That's what it boils down to for me - going that last God, as Dawkins is saying, is removing all aspect of the divine, which is removing something most (not all) religions have in common. The fact that religion has become progressively more monotheistic, more simple and less human in it's idea of God - that's what I see. The statement implies no divine, no mind behind the universe, and man is the ultimate being.
Is this to say I think it's okay to go around calling God 'Ra'? Well, not exactly. If one looks at the progression of religion, I think we are getting closer and closer to God's true nature. To backtrack and start worshiping Mithra is probably something God wouldn't appreciate, especially since he sent his Son for us as an example. Do I think it's a big deal what God is called? Well, by calling him Ra or Zeus, you are associating not just the divine, but also a human image with Him (as well as any other character traits, stories, etc, that may not be appropriate). So while I don't think it's a big deal, I think it's a big deal.
Like the slow march of evolution, religion, and our concept of God has gotten gradually better and better with time, and to backtrack would be like wanting to go back to being an ape or single-cell organism. We grow up in a specific culture, and will most likely adopt that particular religion as our mechanism for serving God. Does that mean I think all religions have an equal slice of the pie? No, I think some are 'more true' than others, but it certainly doesn't mean that one can wipe out the divine completely just because persons have viewed God differently in the past (see Bertrand Russel - teapot). I think one's focus should be more directed at how our perception has matured with time - not at wiping the slate entirely.
I still have some cautions about this stuff. First of all, the evolution of religion approach is a very charged and assuming way of stating this. I mean perhaps God directs life on earth through stages of evolution, just like He is slowling giving more complete revelations of Himself to humans but this seems to take out some of the centrality I see in the divine narrative of the Bible that triumphs with the life and resurrection of Christ. It also suggests that better religions are developing over time so Islam and Mormonism, which argue a further revelation accepting the Old Testament and Christ, are likely enlightened perspectives. Not to mention it suggests that schisms in the Church including the Reformation and new age movements have fuller conceptions of God. If one is a Christian, I think you have to accept that Christ is the heigth of human history and God's fullest revelation on earth. God's revelations may have been progressive in the Bible leading up to Jesus, but these revelations were fairly exclusive in that other peoples and gods were wrong. I do not think the belief in the life, teachings, and revelation of Christ can be further evolved.
ReplyDeleteNone of this tamperiing is necessary to uncovery the foolery of this statement. If you are a theist than you will almost always adhere to a certain conception of who God is (religion). Therefore, whatever religion you are may (not necessarily) cause you to reject other conceptions of the divine, but you are never rejecting, in your worldview, that which is God. So really you cannot "go one God further" because these people never rejected God. I believed it is aimed to attack religion as subjective and futile because there have been so many conceptions of the divine, but this does not cast doubt on Theism because there is such a strong commitment to a "first mover" throughout history. I have discussed with you how religion has progressed, but I think this can be largely connected with human desires and initiative. Religion has slowly developed from an aggressive and irrational pantheon of human/spirit dieties to an all-powerful, eternal, loving God with a bonus of purpose in this life with a full development of the afterlife. Religion has become a way to gain peace, safety, success, and eternal reward. However, Christianity seems to be the one that breaks the mold. The only religion that rejects the human concept of earning salvation and goes against any conceivable human rationale for God' relationship with mankind.
While tracing these changes through history, I don't see it as a slow development or maturation of religion, as if we were climbing spiritual steps to God and could take a few steps back by embracing the worship Zeus or Ra. While you can say they may represent a sense of Theism, these religions represent truths that are very different and often in opposition to how Christians believed God has revealed himself. It is just a completely different conception of the divine that I am not sure can be reconciled as being in the same stream of development as that of my faith. I could concieve of it being otherwise, but see it as dangerous to state ideas in the way you have in reference to God who seems to get very angry when people try to place Him within their own framework, compare Him to other avenues of truth, or call Him names.
In conclusion, I would tend to argue against religion as being viewed on an upward path in getting closer to a true conception of God.
As far as your first paragraph, I agree that religions after Christianity have tampered with the promise of Jesus, and was implied by saying that some religions have less of the pie. I obviously feel that Christianity is the highest and final form of religion for humankind, one that has the perfect concept of God in Christ coming and setting us an example. Perhaps I should have been more clear (or add a sentence or two to make that known). We both agree mormonism is just plain odd, if not worse. When I say that we've progressed, I more meant until Christ coming, which would exclude religions after Christianity.
ReplyDeleteThe first part of your second paragraph is pretty much what I'm saying, and the second part of that is pretty much the point I want to make - the religion has progressed to a certain extent. We went from (just roughly outlined) animism --> polytheism --> monotheism. We have gone from thinking almost everything is God, to refining that and having certain deities, giving them stories, etc, and then moving towards pure monotheism. Part of the reason the story of the Jews is so important for humanity as a whole is it really brought about a fuller back story for Christ to enter the world in, preserved through thousands of years of faithfulness (for the most part) to Yahweh. I think what you're saying in the end of the second paragraph is in short how I feel - with the pinnacle being Christ coming and showing everyone what pure religion is by his example. But I think society had to progress a little bit from the very early primitive religions in order for that to happen.
Third paragraph - I do see a slow progression up until Christ (obviously this is not absolute). Like I said, I agree that these religions have many things we don't accept now, but this evolution was something that helped humankind, because it helped us in a sense, get ready for Christ. I'm not trying to say this should be something where we take a step back, like I said in my entry, but my main thesis is that religion's progression, prior to Christ, did serve mankind in purpose.
So I agree with what some of what you're saying, especially that I should be clear about Christ being the final end all be all of religion. In relation to what Dawkins is saying, he seems to feel everything just conflicts each other, hence his statement. What I feel is that religion as a whole has served a greater purpose, and doesn't completely contradict each other.
The problem with calling it a progression is that the word progression implies that the earlier religions served as a foundation for later ones. While Judaism did serve as a foundation for Christianity because Christ lived in that context, and Islam does trace itself back to Ismael, I certainly wouldn't say that ancient animist and polytheistic religions led up to Christ.
ReplyDeleteA different approach would be to say that other religions were responses, albeit ones that missed the mark, to general revelation, while we have received special revelation through Jesus Christ. In this model, we can see other religions as attempts to seek the divine and can learn from what truths they may have stumbled upon, but we see that Christ is the pinnacle of God's revelation to us of who he is. Following this model, there is no issue with knowing how to deal with religions that emerged after Christianity. They are merely responses to general revelation made by those who have not yet heard the good news of God's special revelation to us through Jesus.
Well played Nick.
ReplyDeleteObviously I believe Judaism set the foundation for Christianity. In my head, I see the Jewish people, and then the coming of Christ as God's sorta "Main Quest" of Earth. Obviously lots of other things are going on, and are still yet to happen, but if you read the progression from OT to NT, the theme of going away from God, and then returning to him, going away, coming back really strike me, and then Christ comes and doesn't just come to the Gentiles, but was a wake up call for the Jews as well. It's such a parallel, at least for me, of many of our lives (we get prideful, fall away, come back again, fall away, come back).
I wouldn't say any earlier religion served as a foundation, but I think the perception of the divine progressed. I feel like people got the image of God, this sense of his presence, and just went nuts with it. Everything was God, rocks, trees, the sea, etc. It seems like the concept of God went from nature to a realization that God was not necessarily on this Earth (Greek mythology for example). So we at least got to that type of separation. I just think if Christ had come when people were worshiping volcanoes or something it would have been trickier than coming when he came.
I think one of the ways people got revelation was from NDE's. The afterlife has been a very common thing in religions, and I think it makes more sense if that was not just made up off the cusp doctrine, but rather observed from persons coming back after seeing the light. So like what you're saying 'missed the mark' got a little bit closer moving towards Christ (In my opinion) and then Christ came and set us straight. And if you look at the world you have to say it was successful. The largest religion is based off of Him, and other religions continue to honor Him (although not for what He was).
Like N.T. Wright says in his book, the story of the Jewish people and the coming of the Messiah was God's "Rescue Mission" for Earth. I like that.
ReplyDeleteNick, I appreciated your concise argument that carried a distinction I was trying to make. I think viewing progression of religion is an issue because it suggest earlier religions served as foundations and further revelations will occur through other movements. Now if human responses to the devine got more refined throughout history this separates the issue from spiritual truth. Like I said, I think this historical progression is largely due to man forming religion to fit his needs and to conform to his increasing knowledge of nature, rather than a progression of spiritual revelation from the top down. It just makes much more sense with our knowledge and context to believe that God is separated from earth and has the power to guide events and judge mankind. Not only has science presented evidence against earlier forms of religion, but they were less secure and fulfilling. To me, mankind shaping religion to meet his desires does not necessarily conclude a better conception of God. While we may see some of these developments as closer to our Christian conception of God today, it does not require a progression of spiritual truth, but simply reflects the developments of mankind through increased scientific knowledge, technological advancement, and more refined moral and civil law. People likely did not turn away from animism because of spiritual revelation (through NDE's or otherwise) but because they realized this did not make sense with their increasing knowledge and did not serve there needs for security and fulfillment.
ReplyDeleteYou could say, regardless, that there is a progression in conception of the divine, but I think there needs to be a clear distinction that this does not require increased spritual truth. As far as we know, many other conceptions of theism or monotheism today may ultimately not be any closer to the "spiritual truth" than animism or Greek mythology. The fact that they agree with our scientific knowledge and fit a positive and stable conception of God just show that they are not ignorant, but their theology could be farther from the spiritual truth than Egyptian polytheism or Zoroastrianism. In this view, it does not make sense to stay we could take steps forward and backward on a sort of progressive staircase because certain religions or (depending on how inclusive you think) any other religion other than Christianity does not even belong on this same staircase (hopefully, these folks would posit that God judges people based on what knowledge of revelation they possessed, at least within the Judeo-Christian tradition) . Now ultimate spiritual truth is only something God understand, so we cannot really judge this, but I think it is problematic to present this as a slow progression toward something spiritually better.
I agree that progression in moral and religious conceptions helped humanity to understand the full revelation of God through Jesus Christ, which would have been difficult for those living during the time of monolatry, Moses, or even David. However, I am not sure if I feel comfortable about applying this Biblical narrative of true spiritual progression (in my view) to other conceptions outside of the Judeo-Christian tradition. I just have no basis for making such a judgment. What I believe is that the Bible is true and pinnacles with the full revelation and saving work in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. Nick's Gospel of special revelation works here because this tradition is supposed to serve as a model and reach out to other traditions and peoples of the world. However, these people and their traditions (outside of any Biblical basis) cannot be judged as having spiritual truth. As Christians, I think we have to say that our religion and revelation is the best and only sure way to salvation through Christ. While we do not know how God will judge other peoples (maybe they can find spiritual truth in other ways that God has provided) I do not think it is our place to claim that their religious changes over time represent the same spiritual progression allowing them to grasp the final revelation.
ReplyDeleteI know I have written a lot, but if you look closely I think each paragraph develops a specifically different important point. You may see it as splitting hairs, but we need to be careful how we phrase things and that we do not make any statements about spiritual revelation that we do not have authority to make. Perhaps, God could have had a hand in guiding all the earth's conceptions of the divine to draw closer to His truth over time allowing them to understand the complete revelation in Christ, but there are many reasons for not stating this did happen. I think we need do be careful about framing God in any way not specifically shown to us through Jesus or scripture because those things were given to us as a guide for a reason. Going beyond this to me represents a limiting of God who can do whatever He wants. In addition, using human logic to make statements of spiritual truth have often not worked well in the past and is something that God strongly opposes.
I just want to add as a point of interest that many religions have deep similarities, but I do not think we can make the statement that these represent footprints of God. I want to believe that many religions seeking to uncover the divine can find a degree of salvation through their honest and committed attempts, but how do I even begin to judge this. Buddhism and Jainism are two incredible religions that share a great deal of morality with Christianity (and more specifically Mennonites), but ultimately neither believe in a God. There is an eternal spirit essence which could be judged as a "first mover" but certainly do not reflect an accurate understanding of God.
This is a good discussion, I wish more people could be in on this and weigh in their opinions. I still feel like your hung up a little on me implying there was necessarily spiritual truth in religions before Christ, which is not what I'm saying. Again, I still feel like religion progressed from it's earliest stages a hundred thousand years ago or so to a point that it was in around the time Christ came. You seem to think it was only in their knowledge of nature and science. I disagree with moral law - as the concept of morality is not a societal thing, in my opinion. People will put in practice morals that differ from ours, but we still feel it's okay to say that without a doubt this was definitively wrong, suggesting appeal to a higher moral power. That's a discussion for another blog post though.
ReplyDelete"I think viewing progression of religion is an issue because it suggest earlier religions served as foundations and further revelations will occur through other movements."
Again, like I tried to reiterate I of course don't see further revelations after Christ as being, well, further along. And I don't feel earlier religions served as foundations, but that knowledge of the divine as a whole increased, inevitably.
"Now if human responses to the devine got more refined throughout history this separates the issue from spiritual truth." - yes.
"Like I said, I think this historical progression is largely due to man forming religion to fit his needs and to conform to his increasing knowledge of nature, rather than a progression of spiritual revelation from the top down."
This is where I would have to differ slightly. Increased knowledge had a factor for sure, maybe even more so than not, but I do believe our knowledge got better through things not just by observing the world around us. For example, many people who study NDE's believe that the sun was so commonly worshiped because of the prominence of 'clear, bring light' in all NDE's. People would have only assumed this to be the sun. So I think these people got an increased knowledge of God through this type of spiritual interaction, but we're off the mark in their interpretation of what it meant.
"To me, mankind shaping religion to meet his desires does not necessarily conclude a better conception of God."
No, it does not, but I don't believe religions were completely inspired by men, but mans perception of the divine, regardless of missing the mark. I'm not saying they're inspired by God, but are led to the beliefs they held by their increased knowledge of what the divine would entail. In response to your first paragraph I agree that knowledge of nature did play a role, but it also seems perfectly reasonable, and due to the progression I see, to assume some things were interpreted properly by revelation, even if it was still flawed.
"In this view, it does not make sense to stay we could take steps forward and backward on a sort of progressive staircase"
ReplyDeleteAgain, I feel like your hung up on this staircase, like mankind is just on this gradual progression towards God, which is not what I'm trying to imply.
"certain religions or (depending on how inclusive you think) any other religion other than Christianity does not even belong on this same staircase"
I don't think I can agree with you here, but I'm sure you could have guessed that. I don't think it's right to say that those in other religions who are earnestly seeking God are just completely flawed. I think they have less of the truth, yes, but I believe God wants us to be seeking him, and he understands that we grow up in different cultures (like C.S. Lewis's quote)
"I am not sure if I feel comfortable about applying this Biblical narrative of true spiritual progression (in my view) to other conceptions outside of the Judeo-Christian tradition."
I agree to an extent, but I still feel that the progression of knowledge outside of religions outside of the Judeo-Christian narrative helped society get to a point to better understand Christ when he came. (We disagree on exactly how all of that knowledge came out)
"Nick's Gospel" This made me chuckle. Nick, you hear that, you got your own good news!
"As Christians, I think we have to say that our religion and revelation is the best and only sure way to salvation through Christ."
I agree, but this is harshly worded in my opinion - sounds a little southern baptist or something.
"Going beyond this to me represents a limiting of God who can do whatever He wants."
See, I don't think I'm trying to limit God, but rather understand the framework and story that's being told on Earth.
"I just want to add as a point of interest that many religions have deep similarities, but I do not think we can make the statement that these represent footprints of God."
ReplyDeleteI think we can get a better understanding of the progression by looking at doctrine and how it has progressed, and using our resources to find how these doctrines could have been adopted (i.e. the afterlife)
If we go back to Dawkins quote, he implies that all images of God conflict absolutely, and should therefore just all be disregarded, and that's just not how I see it. I still believe ancient religions (even outside of the Bible), got humanity to a more mature interpretation of the divine (we disagree on exactly how) and this increased perception of what the divine would entail helped Christ be more effective. I think there's a reason he came when he did.
I'm not trying to imply anything about spiritual truth, as we would both agree ancient religions were seriously misguided in this area (it can be seen by how radical Christ's teachings would have been at the time!) But I can't agree that only mans perception of nature had a hand to play, and anything spiritual was completely vacant. Having studied NDE's, I really believe they helped man understand a little more, even if it was warped and confused. God wants us to come to him, and for those who earnestly seek him, I do believe he will present himself to those who seek - even if the mechanism of their seeking is misguided and twisted by the culture around them.
By the way, I didn't mean to seem critical with my whole copy and pasting of your sentences - it was just splitting apart your comments helped me comment better on how each made me feel/organize my thoughts.
ReplyDeleteThat was an easy to follow format, but I did not appreciate your repeated use of "hung up"...which brings me to ask why is this format unable to correctly represent quotation marks?
ReplyDeleteWhat you are thinking and what someone could interpret your words as saying may not be matching...
"Like the slow march of evolution, religion, and our concept of God has gotten gradually better and better with time, and to backtrack would be like wanting to go back to being an ape or single-cell organism."
Now if you are not suggesting that spiritual truth is involved then I must believe you, but to me when you suggest religion has progressed, knowledge of the divine has increased, and that we should not take a step back, it sounds like spiritual truth is involved. It also sounds like we are on a progression and that other religions coming before Christianity have served as foundations. I think this comparison, using the single-cell organism and the ape as necessarily coming before (prerequisites, i.e. "foundations") the pinnacle of humanity, suggests that these prior religions play a role in the realization of Christian truth and that they are on the same continuum. In order to backtrack or take a step back, something must be connected to allow us to go back, meaning the conception of the divine is on an upward progression connecting animism to Christianity. Even if you admit they were misguided, it still suggests to me a fuller knowledge of God or spiritual truth.
Maybe we should define spiritual truth, but I would say if your conception and knowledge of the divine is increasing, that represents spiritual truth. Therefore, these other religions, while maybe possessing little, have increased on a sort of staircase, line, contiunuum, etc on the way to the revelation through Christ. Now, I am not saying that non-physical (NDE's) or God did not have a hand in forming these religions, but I do not think we can state that they did. We have no basis from which to judge this and I believe it assumes something about God. Therefore, there could be, and likely are, other reasons besides human increased knowledge and our desire for spiritual fulfillment that have led to this "progression of religion", but I don't know how we could begin to address these.
As a side question, did many NDE occur before we recently developed knowledged of recessitation? Are any documented? Not saying these have not had an effect on the refining of religion, but I think you may be overstating their effect. There are many more obvious or natural suggestions for why humans would worship the sun.
I think we are in a sort of agreement, but I am not content with everything your writing seems to suggest. I think your statements do suggest that God or spiritual truth has been involved in the development of other religions and I don't think we have a basis for this statement. I am only comfortable with saying that God has had a role in the progression of the Judeo-Christian tradition as revealed in the Bible. If I am a Christian, than this is my faith. And I do think that following universally accepted Christian doctrine demands we believe that our "religion and revelation is the best and only sure way to salvation through Christ." It may not sound inclusive, but it certainly does not rule out other faiths and people reaching salvation. God will judge as He sees fit, but if this is my faith then I believe it is best. Otherwise, you may actually have a person who is just a genuine "Theist." I am a Christian working with the revelation that I believe God has provided humans for a reason.
ReplyDelete"certain religions or (depending on how inclusive you think) any other religion other than Christianity does not even belong on this same staircase"
If I am working from my faith and revelation, then I think we cannot say with assurance that other religions are on the same staircase. As I said before, being on the same staircase suggests a continuum of spiritual truth, and I don't know if God has put His truth into these religions, I just have faith that Jesus is the complete revelation of God. It is possible that God does not accept any other religions and that the only way to salvation is through Jesus in the Christian understanding, leaving other religions on a different staircase. One is human and one is of God...and this difference cannot be bridged by a sort of contiunuum for God is limitless and eternally above us. Now I prefer to see the situation as more inclusive and that other religions part of a progression (perhaps gaining a lesser slice of the pie), but again I don't think we can make this statement.
I think one of the important points Caleb is trying to make is that we have to be careful of what we can and can't say is certain. We know the Bible tells us the only way to heaven is through Christ. Whether or not other religions can offer a path through Christ by a different name we cannot say. We can certainly hope so, and our concept of an all-loving God suggests that it is possible this may be the case, but we simply do not know. We only know the one certain way is through Christ and that we are called to share it with the world.
ReplyDeleteIn the interest of making these comments shorter (cause this is a little time-consuming) I'm going to try and summarize what I hear you saying, and what I would differ from you.
ReplyDeleteFirst - when I think 'concept of the divine,' I am thinking of, more or less, 'If we are to imagine God, what would he be like?' 'Spiritual Truth,' to me, would be more along the lines of believing God is omnibenevolent. I feel like the water is a little (ok, maybe more than a little) between the two, but I mean by the first phrase that God, or the concept of the divine, went from nature at first, to the realization that the divine would not be on this earth, and we go to polytheism which attributes the divine to these things, but not actually being this things. Since then, mankind has cut off the stories, man-life image, etc. So this is what i'm trying to infer by 'concept of the divine.'
As far as NDE's, they are everywhere. Once the world became more globalized, and people realized how common these things are (~5% of the population), people looked into it, and found evidence of NDE's across all of history, across cultures. Just off the top of my head, I know the Epic of Gilgamesh has one in it. One people realized what we to look for, they realized how much these have most likely effected spirituality throughout time.
If I've interpreted right, like Nick said, you don't feel comfortable with saying God played a hand in other religions outside of the Judeo-Christian story. To me, it seems more unreasonable to think he was not apart of people's lives outside of the Bible. My understanding of God is that he rewards those who seek him, and desires to be apart of all our lives. I'm not saying it was extremely prevalent, but to say that God was not working in other cultures, other religions at all,seems unrealistic. It only takes a couple of people who God is working through to change the way things are done, and help others better understand God.
And when I say Bible in the last paragraph, I mean the overarching Judeo-Christian storyline.
ReplyDeleteHow could a more accurate conception of the divine not represent spiritual truth? This is the main purpose of revelations - to allow us to understand God and how He interacts with us. Spiritual truth is to know and follow God. So lets say that religions have been progressing in this form of spiritual truth throughout history...I can accept this. As far as spiritual truth dealing with salvation, we cannot make this claim.
ReplyDeleteNow you keep saying that it makes sense that God would be part of peoples lives outside of the Bible. Again, I agree with you...it seems like a good possibility and would allow for a more inclusive and fair view of spirituality and salvation. But I don't think we can say this IS what happened. We would be making a judgement based on incomplete evidence that would state that God worked in this way...thereby placing a limitation on God from our earthly understanding.
"To me, it seems more unreasonable to think he was not apart of people's lives outside of the Bible. My understanding of God is that he rewards those who seek him, and desires to be apart of all our lives. I'm not saying it was extremely prevalent, but to say that God was not working in other cultures, other religions at all,seems unrealistic."
So I still fully agree with this. I never said God was NOT a part of peoples lives or the "progression" of religion. I think it would be more reasonable (from my point of view) that God was at work in other cultures who were seeking the divine. My point is that as Christians, we cannot say that God WAS doing this. We simply cannot KNOW for sure, and to make a judgement or conclusion on the matter would be wrong. I believe God revealed to us what He wants us to know. This information was not revealed to us, therefore, we do not need to know. If we do not need to know, then we should not be using our earth-bound logic to make a final statement about such things. That is my stance. Do not conclude things that were not revealed to us because it places a sort of limit on God and it is not our place.
If there is a disagreement on the issue, I think it is smaller than you are making it. I did not understand the thing about the water between. However, I do believe it is important that we do not make conclusions that are not supported by what has been revealed to us. If you think that is OK then I disagree with you.
Saying that religions ARE on a staircase or continuum like evolution suggests that prior forms are foundational (if not required). May not be what you are thinking, but its what you said. Since it is possible that the Christian God was not at work or present in these other religions, the this comparison is inaccurate because they are totally seperate entities. I understand you may have been thinking that religions have progressed toward a concept of God more similar with the Christian God allowing other peoples to understand Jesus and Christianity, but the words and imagery you used suggest more.
ReplyDeleteTo add, I also think that NDE's while intriguing sources of evidence, are clearly not enough for us to make such a statement about God's involvement in our world. We would still be using earth-bound logic and conclusions about these phenomena that are not completely understood. NDE's are marvelous pieces of evidence for theism and the presence of an afterlife, but are inconclusive when considereing this issue.
I had said a couple comments ago that perhaps my wording in original posting was a bit strong, and I should have elaborated more on what I meant, which is what I'm fleshing out in these comments. And I also agree that the difference between what we're saying isn't that wide.
ReplyDelete"My point is that as Christians, we cannot say that God WAS doing this. We simply cannot KNOW for sure, and to make a judgement or conclusion on the matter would be wrong. I believe God revealed to us what He wants us to know. This information was not revealed to us, therefore, we do not need to know."
This seems to be the jist of what you're trying to convey in my opinion- that while we may have reason to think God COULD be working in other religions, we cannot say for sure. To that, I would agree - we cannot say for sure, you're right.
But I don't agree that to make a judgement on the matter is wrong in any way. I don't agree that we should only be allowed to use what God revealed to us (I assume this means revelation originating from the Bible). As humans who seek God, we want to better understand Him, and the way he has/is worked/working in the world. We have used scientific/historical understandings in the past to better understand Scripture, which has furthered our understanding of God, so I don't see anything wrong using our understanding to better conceptualize God. Am I saying it had to happen this way? No, I'm not saying it has to, but in my opinion this makes more sense with my understanding of God.
You seem to saying a lot about earth-bound logic and understanding, but we have to use this earth-bound logic to understand and interpret scripture - which is probably part of the reason people interpret it differently in the first place.
"I think it would be more reasonable (from my point of view) that God was at work in other cultures who were seeking the divine. My point is that as Christians, we cannot say that God WAS doing this."
I mean this is pretty much it right here. I'm not saying it HAS to be this way, like you said, but I don't see anything wrong about your first sentence in order to better understand things in your mind.
"This information was not revealed to us, therefore, we do not need to know."
Do we need to know? No. But I don't believe there is anything wrong with using the evidence available to better understand God.
I don't feel like we differ much. To put it short, you believe it's wrong to make assertions based on things not based in scripture, and I don't see anything wrong with trying to better conceptualize God using all of our resources.
To me its about making definite statements. We have been given our great capacity to think and reason so that we can seek God and understand part of His nature and greatness. I do not think we should only use the Bible for spiritual information. Throughout Church history we have expanded and grown our understanding of God through seeking Him and learning about His creation. My personal experience and conscience has a big role to play in the way that I think. I just think we need to be humble and not make definite statements about God that are not shown to us.
ReplyDelete"I don't agree that we should only be allowed to use what God revealed to us." I never said we should not use other things. Obviously the knowledge of this world is part of God's creation and we should use everything we can to better understand God. I feel like you keep mentally overstating my point...we should research, debate, and wrestle with what we have been given. We just need to remember that while what we have been given is great, we still cannot understand the full TRUTH.
There are things I believe to be true about God and correct doctrine, but I don't usually believe my thinking is the TRUTH on the matter. I explore a lot of issues and have a lot of opinions on many issues, but I don't make final statements on things that I believe it is impossible to know. I think all we need to know in following our faith is given to us in scripture. We should seek to expand upon that revelation, but we need to realize that we are still human. Assertion is "a forceful statement of fact or belief"...As long as we are leaving room that we cannot know and not going around suggesting that we do, then I will cede the point.
Therefore, "I don't see anything wrong with trying to better conceptualize God using all of our resources," but we just need to realize that we are ultimately not the ones who know or get to make the final decision.
“For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the LORD.
“As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts."