Stephen Munnings wrote:
In article <> 3BA8D340.48DA6C57@huarp.harvard.edu> >, > allen@huarp.harvard.edu
says…
Stephen Munnings wrote:
But truth is the truth.
And my belief is that the Bible is God’s revealed truth. How close to
(or how far from) the truth my interpretation is depends on how good my
interpretation is, not on whether the truth is there or not..
OK, so let’s say the Bible is God’s revealed truth. Surely it is not
the whole truth. It is what truth could be represented in the written
word in the languages of ~2000 years ago. Like Mario’s pen, there is
certainly much more truth that the Bible does not touch upon. I believe
that God is not constrained to conform to this one projection of his truth.
For all we know, Jesus may have pulled one of the apostles aside and
said “By the way, this all applies equally to women,” but they didn’t
write it down because they weren’t ready for that, or they lost that page.
But in a much much broader sense, God’s truth is beyond our understanding,
and hence cannot be fully revealed in a book.
Where did I say “fully” revealed! > 
I agree that we cannot comprehend the entire truth.
Right. I had no intention of putting words in your mouth. I was
going off on my own tangent.
In this sense, how we weigh truth is a subjective task. Since we cannot
know all of God’s truth, we have to develop strategies - heuristics if
you will - for making the best estimate of what is truth. This is
analogous to how the American legal system works. Lawyers and judges
will tell you that the rule of law is not the same thing as the rule
of justice. It is an imperfect system that works pretty well to approximate
justice. I’d go so far as to say that in America, we hold the rule of
law dear because we believe that by adhering to the rule of law, we actually
come closer to justice in the long run than if justice were our highest rule.
A great analogy, I agree. The strategy I have developed to know God’s
truth, however, includes the (somewhat startling) discovery that He gave
us a textbook to study (and yes it is a love letter too!).
Of course, part of the process is to establish whether or not that
textbook is “authentic” and trustworthy.
When we need to decide what is true, we are limited to some fraction of
the information required to make that decision. We only get to see that
which is projected onto our consciousness, that we can perceive with our
senses or with our faith. For the most part, we share the same material
perceptions, and in as much as the question is a material question, we
can agree on the most probable answer, but the further the questions get
from the material world, the more uncertainty arises.
Yes, that I also agree with - hence the need for the Bible in the first
place.
So I think I’m agreeing with Mario in tending toward at least considering
the possibility that many seemingly contradictory statements might be
true in some sense, particularly in matters of faith. What you believe
may be literally true for you and yet untrue for someone else in another
society. Jesus said (and I cannot quote verse) that anyone who would get
to His father in heaven must go through Him, and for you that may be
literally true - your way to God is through Jesus and Jesus alone. But
does that mean that followers of Mohamed cannot get to God? I believe
it is possible that they could as well, and perhaps in God’s eyes without
a contradiction. Jesus may offer a path to Muslims as well, but neither
they nor we recognize it as the same path since we cannot perceive
God’s whole truth.
Well, my (rather simple) view of things is that I would really feel
pretty uncomfortable about following someone who said that He is the ONLY
way and did not really mean it! Presumably He knows the truth if he says
He IS the Truth. Why would he mislead us? (And why would we want to
follow someone who would intentionally mislead us when his teachings
indicate that this is not according to God’s moral code?)
He might “mislead” us because he knows our limitations. He might
realize that if He said “You can listen to me or any of these n
other prophets and follow our teaching and get to God” we would not
listen. He may know that we need one true path to follow or we will
get lost. Or not - I certainly don’t know. I’m just suggesting the
possibility and suggesting that there may not be enough information in
the Bible to rule it out, even accepting it as God’s truth.
It makes sense (initally) to say that all “religions” may be a possible
way to God, but when the God of the “religion” says that HE is the ONLY
way, then a reasonable (to my mind anyway) response would be to say
“either He is right, or He is wrong”. If He is right, then I should
follow that way. If He is wrong, I want nothing to do with such
deception! It is a polarizing statment - it should prompt you to
eventually decide “all or nothing”, “commit to or reject”.
And there are other verses that indicate that this is what Jesus wanted
as a response!
I think you are right. But what about those who didn’t hear his words?
Is it not possible the He reached out to them with other words?
Of course, if I am reading you correctly, “our idea of truth is so far
from God’s idea of truth that we cannot even depend on Him to help us
separate fact from falsehood. It may not even bear a remote resemblance
to our truth.”
I don’t think I’d go that far (although I suppose it is possible). I’m
actually postulating that for most purposes our idea of truth is probably
aligned with God’s. It’s just that God’s has so many more dimensions
(to tie into the string theory thread.)
I believe that if that were indeed the case, that God would still relate
to us as we understand things. After all, if He is God, He is capable of
understanding us, even if we are not capable of understanding Him!
He would put things in terms we could understand! As such, the statement
that Jesus made - that he was THE Way, THE Truth, and THE Life - means
(to me anyway) that God intended us to accept or reject Jesus as the Way.
Yes, I think you are right. And to those He has reached, He is. But do
you think He would stop there? What if He found that some small fraction
of early christians set a bad example (perhaps by invading countries or
torturing people) and turned others away from Him. Do you think God would
just throw up His hands and say, “Oh well!” or is it possible He might
open another door to them? If He did, would that shake your belief?
Mind you, this all relates back to whether one believes that the Bible is
an authentic revelation from God in the first place. Of course, if it is
not authentic, why should we even begin to follow it? Since it claims to
be authentic, it is not self-consistent! (if it were not authentic)
Of course I am not advocating total moral relativism. We still have our
simple methods for deciding what is true and false and what is good and
evil, and they work well for us in many respects. I am just trying to
come to terms with my belief in God and the fact that people cannot
agree on the nature of God.
There are many, many reasons that people cannot agree on the nature of
God. Too many to discuss here.
I do want to make one thing clear. I am writing about my beliefs. It is
not from a sense that “I am better than you because I have found the
truth!” If that is what readers think my attitude is, then I am sorry
for giving that impression!
I have not read your posts that way, and I hope mine don’t give that
impression either. This thread is “difficult” as Mario said because we
are hearing others’ beliefs and our first reaction is often emotional,
which tells us something about ourselves. It takes reflection to
realize that if I tell you my belief then you tell me yours, it doesn’t
mean you think I am wrong or stupid.
I am writing more from the standpoint of - “I have my beliefs, I believe
they are true, and since someone has expressed some interest in them, I
am willing to debate on the reasons that I have my beliefs”
I would love others to find the truth also, but I know that people are
very sceptical of this claim. That is alright, be sceptical. But do
investigate the reasons people have to believe. Don’t just dismiss it as
“archaic and illogical thinking” just because you have been indoctrinated
to.
(And yes, anti-religious (or secular) thought patterns can be
indoctrinated into children just as easily as any religious thought
patterns can be indoctrinated! Think for yourselves, especially those of
you who are proud of doing that. Question everything! THEN form
conclusions! )
I have gotten into the debate of “Why I believe” partly to show that even
if you do not agree with my beliefs, they were not arrived at in a blind
following of childhood indoctrination. They have a reasoned and thought
out basis. You may not reach the same conclusions as I have, but I have
not “blindly followed irrational propaganda”.
.