The first few points concern the necessity of expressing ones faith - and whether it is necessary for salvation. Allan explains these as expressions of love. As we all are too aware expressing love is quite different to actually loving. Quite aside from the fact I don't see any god to love in the first place, it seems rather academic how you express that love. You either love that god enough for it to count or you don't. It doesn't matter if the required "amount" is tailored individually, such a threshold either exists or it doesn't. Either way I still challenge the need to pray, go to church or tithe for any reason beyond self-gratification.
The second point is more complex: how much Christianity is enough if non-Christians can be saved? Allan says:
I would agree that there are great difficulties in answering this question. I know that God is fair and just, and I think it is quite clear from the scriptures that God’s grace even extends to our ability to understand and attain to theological precepts.The real problem with this whole issue is that you are forced to look to scripture for answers. My question is which scriptures? What is wrong with those in the Qur'an? If a Muslim can follow the tenets of Islam to the letter and still achieve salvation then what use is the bible? Can an atheist achieve salvation? In that case why have religion at all? Why not just focus on being good people? Its the principle of simplicity - why complicate life with religious observations, dogma and other baggage if it makes no difference?
The point Allan makes is that the "amount" of Christianity required for salvation is exactly how much you need depending on upbringing. This to me suggests that throwing Christianity out the window would have exactly zero impact on salvation - in a thousand years (sans apocalypse) when all memory of Christianity had faded to history, we would be no less likely to achieve salvation than today. The answer to the question "how much is enough" seems to be exactly "zero".
The second you start ascribing a necessity to believe in Christianity specifically you immediately fall into the traps discussed in a previous post of mine (here) but unless you can do so, the whole religion seems kind of pointless.
6 comments:
POINT ONE:
There are a couple of problems here:
“I don't see any god to love in the first place…”
“I still challenge the need to pray, go to church or tithe for any reason beyond self-gratification.”
As long as this is your position then faith will make no sense at all. I note this is a discussion about religious diversity and whether or not salvation can be found in more than one religion. It is not about whether or not God exists, or the virtues or otherwise of praying, going to church and tithing. If you would like to discuss those topics in depth I would be happy to.
In the meantime…
POINT TWO:
You are right, this is an issue: “which scriptures”. But it is only an issue that will cause you to stress if you think God’s judgment depends on whetheror not you choose to read the right scriptures. As far as I can tell, what is important is your willingness to learn about your creator. If you choose to study Islam rather than Christianity because from what you can tell you think its more likely you’ll find your creator there, then I’m sure God will take that into account. However, if your unwillingness to investigate, accept or hold onto Christianity is grounded in selfish ambition, dissension, envy, jealousy, hate or unforgiveness then you would be better to deal to those things first and see if your picture of the faith does not change.
However, I would dishonour my Saviour to say you are as likely to find truth lies within another religion than in Christ. I have been earnestly seeking to know my creator for 8 years now. I have wrestled with the big questions, read the Qu’ran (not all of it), befriended people of other religions and worldviews, and I remain even more committed to the Jesus Christ of the scriptures today as ever. Only Jesus Christ satisfies the paradox that is God’s love and God’s wrath, and only this paradox, together with the juxtaposition of predestination and moral agency, provide a satisfactory explanation for human nature and behaviour. Responding personally to the challenges of Jesus Christ is the only way to make good sense of history. It is the only satisfactory response to the compulsion of his Spirit on my heart.
Lastly, I did not say that the faith required of you depends on your upbringing. What I did say was that it depends on the quality and quantity of revelation you have received. The Pharisees of ancient Judah tried what you suggested – throwing Christianity out the window – and the memory of God’s wrathful yet gracious character, and his love for justice and for the poor, was all but erased from memory. But then he sent his only begotten Son, born of a Virgin, perfect in obedience, with power and with a message that could not be resisted by those of his flock. It does not matter what man does to conspire against his creator, God remains sovereign and continues to speak prophetically to his people.
POINT ONE:
You are right, faith does make no sense to me and that is exactly why I question it. Gods existence/the virtues of expressing faith are actually irrelevant to the point I'm making - what matters is justifying why belief in a particular god (usually expressed by which church you go to etc) is a rational choice when it doesn't seem to matter.
And yes I'd be keen to discuss those issues in detail but lets bash this one around for a while and see where it takes us :)
POINT TWO:
"As far as I can tell, what is important is your willingness to learn about your creator."
I'm curious - what do you base this assertion on?
In response to God's judgement, it still seems clear that the complete disappearance of Christianity wouldn't impact the chance of salvation at all.
"However, if your unwillingness to investigate, accept or hold onto Christianity is grounded in selfish ambition, dissension, envy, jealousy, hate or unforgiveness then you would be better to deal to those things first and see if your picture of the faith does not change."
This is a strange statement, are you implying that the only reason someone would choose not to believe is because of those things? I would presume that god respects reason and sceptical enquiry - that if I stood at the pearly gates and said "I thought for myself and looked God, but you just didn't provide any reason to believe in you" God would be more impressed than if I said "I followed the flock God, and here I am".
The fact I have not seen any evidence of god is not a function of any of those things you mention, it's a function of some pretty in depth searching and exploring the question. I don't discount religion for fun, I discount it because it is logically inconsistent with both itself and with the world around us.
I am curious that you state Jesus is the only entity that resolves that paradox you mention. A paradox that assumes the existence of the very thing with which you are claiming it satisfies seems a bit meaningless. However thats a whole other debate as well :)
Your last point is interesting - relating it back to the point at hand, did the Pharisees of ancient Judah go to hell?
“what matters is justifying why belief in a particular god (usually expressed by which church you go to etc) is a rational choice when it doesn't seem to matter.”
I don’t think that what I’ve said can lead you to conclude that belief in God deosn’t matter. As I mentioned in my last comment, I did not say that the faith required of you depends on your upbringing, but rather that it depends on the quality and quantity of revelation you have received. Belief in God/church attendance matters as much as you have revelation that it matters. If you have no revelation, no inclination at all, that it it matters, then there is nothing I can do for you. Thankfully there are many people who see the link between worshipping a loving God, allowing that love to change ourselves, expressing that love to those who don’t know it and sharing it with those who do.
"As far as I can tell, what is important is your willingness to learn about your creator."
What do I base this on?
A) IT JUST SEEMS TO MAKE SENSE
If you woke up one day and your room was full of chocolates and model trains and every book that’s on your Amazon wishlist then you’d want to know who’d given you those things. Same with life.
Further, imagine that as you tried to hunt down that gift-giver, people had put you on the wrong track and told you someone had given those gifts to you when it was someone else. Would discovering this person wasn’t the true gift-giver discourage you from finding out who really gave? Or would you remain curious and still do whatever was in your power to find out? Same with God.
“Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.”
Why, then, do so few seek to track down their gift-giver? Why does a prodigal son stay away from his loving parents despite their offers of home, warmth, friendship and good food?
Shame.
B) THE JUSTICE OF RECIPROCATION
When a person is given a gift, and they reciprocate with thankfulness and gratefulness, and even give in return – then justice is done. When a person is given a gift but snatches it with no thought, let alone thankfulness or gratefulness towards the giver, let alone reciprocal giving, then there is most certainly injustice.
“For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened…Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.”
C) RECIPROCATION AND MORALITY
Most expressions of love and morality are grounded in an understanding of life as a gift. Principles such as sharing, honouring and respecting people, even human rights, only make sense if life is seen as a gift requiring reciprocation. If there is no source or author of life then we are under no obligation in terms of how we receive it, and cannot be bound my any moral or relational restraints.
D) SCRIPTURE
The scriptures affirm that eagerness to learn of one’s creator is foundational to “the good life.”
“But if from there you seek the LORD your God, you will find him if you look for him with all your heart and with all your soul.” – Deuteronomy 4:29
“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” – Psalm 111:10
It is said of Abraham that he “called upon the name of the Lord,” and St. Paul says in the book of Romans that Abraham was justified by faith, “being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised.” God had promised to Abraham he would make him a father of many nations even though his wife had bore him no children and both were so old that in Paul’s words, their bodies were “good as dead.” Abraham trusted in the eternal and divine nature of his creator. Will not God judge all of us on this basis, according to the manner in which we allow that faith to express itself through love?
“it still seems clear that the complete disappearance of Christianity wouldn't impact the chance of salvation at all.”
(x) number of people have been saved due to God’s plan that he would offer his son as an atoning sacrifice for the elect, and that this good news would be preached throughout the world. The gospel, as St. Paul said, is the power of God for the salvation of those who believe. St. Paul, and, it seems, God, seem to have concluded that the gospel is able to impart revelation of God’s love to a greater degree and efficacy than any other means of divine-human communication. History also seems to prove the same. Perhaps you would like to provide a run-down in the history of some other salvation narrative and show how it has had the same results as Christianity.
“…are you implying that the only reason someone would choose not to believe is because of those things [selfish ambition, dissension, envy, jealousy, hate or unforgiveness]… I would presume that god respects reason and sceptical enquiry”
I agree that God respects reason and skeptical inquiry. He also respects integrity and consistency and despises hypocrisy. I also believe he cares more about how we love other people than the precision with which we know and understand theology.
“…if I stood at the pearly gates and said "I thought for myself and looked God, but you just didn't provide any reason to believe in you" God would be more impressed than if I said "I followed the flock God, and here I am".”
If you not yet satisfied that the Christian religion is truth, and you feel reasonable and skeptical inquiry would be more fruitful from a default position of agnosticism, and you feel that such a position would best enable you to love others, share love, and learn with people who also value God and value love, then do it. As soon as I arrived at university I realised my best hope of finding God would be amongst Christians, in church.
Unfortunately this meant sticking my head completely in the clouds for the first few years. However it is not unusual for doubt and skepticism to be a hot potato for new believers. For some reason we think doubt is a good excuse to throw away faith, even though for years we had committed to sinful Non-Christian lifestyles, the validity of which we doubted whenever God had crossed our minds. Instead of dealing with doubt in a mature manner, for what it was, we would avoid it at all costs, out of fear it would destroy our faith.
Such an experience is common to evangelicals. For some reason many fail to comprehend that faith is belief in spite of doubt – not the absence of doubt, just as courage is boldness in spite of fear – not the absence of fear. When I was 19 I journalled that “not all of me is converted,” and asked God whether that part of me that always questioned the faith would ever be converted!
However, in the words of Kristen Williams, “I learned to doubt my doubts.” I learned that, instead of avoiding them, by investigating those doubts I would actually a discover a deeper, higher, longer and broader understanding of God and his love. For most often a doubt which seems to uncover an inconsistency in the character of God is actually an inconsistency in our own ability to think clearly and logically.
And while the level of reasonable and skeptical inquiry might often be lacking in “Christian congregations”, my challenge is whether or not the same is true of any community or social circle. I certainly don’t know a more open-minded or reasonable community than the Christian community I am part of. Every Non-Christian community I have been part of has exonerated superficiality, small-mindedness, selfishness and pragmatism to a far greater degree than my Christian community.
Which brings me to the crunch. Most often, a person’s willingness to become a Christian or go to church depends more on their willingness to identify with that community than their conviction of whether or not the religion is true. For most people, comfortable and historic relationships are far more important than ontological truth.
This is why Jesus said things like;
"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.”
And;
“Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.”
The fact is, the only way you will be able to successfully search for and learn to know God is within a godly community. If this describes your current social situation then don’t go changing. If Moslems look godlier to you then have a look there. But whatever you do make sure your aversion to Christianity is based on truth and not on the sinful attitudes and desires of your heart.
“I don't discount religion for fun, I discount it because it is logically inconsistent with both itself and with the world around us…A paradox that assumes the existence of the very thing with which you are claiming it satisfies seems a bit meaningless.”
Perhaps its time to move onto the theontological debate (is that word already in existence or did I just make it up?): Proving the existence of God.
p.s. Jesus seemed to think the Pharisees were going to hell. He called them children of the devil, and said it would be worse for them than it was for Sodom and Gomorrah. Gentle Jesus meek and mild huh!
p.p.s. Thanks for getting amongst it…
The key point I am pushing towards in the last couple of comments is an almost catch 22. I will try and simplify that so you can see where my other points fit in:
1. You claim the amount of love/attention/whatever required for salvation is dependent on the level of revelation/upbringing/etc required.
2. Therefore it is possible for non-christians to be saved.
3. Therefore if, over time, Christianity (as an organised church) dissapeared it would not effect the populations chance of salvation.
4. Therefore practicing christianity is unnecessary
5. This means it must be done for other purposes, whether following the flock, group comfort, social reasons or whatever. I'd argue many church goers actually don't truly believe, and that many others believe only because other people do.
On the other hand if being Christian does matter then those who are not Christian are in trouble, and whats more, you have to find the right Christianity somehow as I discussed at length previously.
Strikes me as a bit messy :)
Now in response to some of your points:
"A) IT JUST SEEMS TO MAKE SENSE"
This is a false analogy because the notion of a gift not demonstrable. I'll leave that discussion until we tackle your "theontology" (nice word by the way!) but the same applies to points B,C and D.
Perhaps you would like to provide a run-down in the history of some other salvation narrative and show how it has had the same results as Christianity.
I am simply going by your description that non-christians can find salvation (see above). In my view salvation is obviously a myth so I'm just operating under your premises on the subject.
I agree that God respects reason and skeptical inquiry. He also respects integrity and consistency and despises hypocrisy.
What is your basis for saying this? I would suggest God might be a little grumpy with the authors of the bible if he respects consistency ;)
If you not yet satisfied that the Christian religion is truth, and you feel reasonable and skeptical inquiry would be more fruitful from a default position of agnosticism...
I'm not satisfied that any religion is truth. And its important to note that agnosticism is not the "default position" - atheism is. It is no coincidence that almost every child takes the religion of their parents - it's part of nurture not nature.
For some reason many fail to comprehend that faith is belief in spite of doubt
I comprehend this all to well. In fact it is my primary problem with religion. Belief despite the lack of any reason to believe and the notion that if you believe strongly enough the reasons will come is by far the most harmful aspect of religion. (I'm going to write a post on exactly this point so I'll leave my discussion until then).
I think starting to tackle the god hypothesis is a good idea. I'll start by saying there is actually no reason to ask the question "does god exist" in the first place because it is a meaningless question.
And thanks for getting amongst it yourself, I know we both respect each other so this should be fun :) We should catch up over a beer or two some time and get a real discussion going!
Mate I'm heading to Palmy this weekend. Text me or give me a call 027 362 8375. Do you like Monteiths?
Sounds good - I'm away Saturday though so might have to be Sunday?
Post a Comment