RFG: ONE: There Can't Be Just One True Religion

“The Reason for God” (Keller) Book DiscussionPart 1: The Leap of Doubt
ONE: There Can’t Be Just
One True Religion

Keller does not refute the chapter’s title by arguing that Christianity ‘is’ the one true religion. He points out that not all religions can be true, because many of them contradict each other, for example: “‘If Christians are right about Jesus being God, then Muslims and Jews fail in a serious way to love God as God really is, but if Muslims and Jews are right that Jesus is not God but rather a teacher or prophet, then Christians fail in a serious way to love God as God really is.’ The bottom line was—we couldn’t all be equally right about the nature of God,” (4). However, saying that not all religions can be true does not go as far as saying that “only one religion can be true.” The closest he gets to saying this is when he shows the self-refuting nature of relativism. But Keller’s main purpose in this chapter is to go much deeper and address the fears and contradiction underlying the doubt in the chapter’s title.

The doubt here surrounds the perceived arrogance and feared danger (barrier to world peace) of religious exclusivity (often termed ‘fundamentalism’). Keller grants that this fear is reasonable regarding religion in general (including the apostate church), but not regarding the fundamentals of Christianity, which “can be a powerful impetus for peace-making in our troubled world,” (21). One could say that what went wrong whenever violence broke out in the name of Christ, was a straying from those fundamentals (from Christ).

Keller also points out that everyone (whether they consider themselves secular or religious) bases how they think people should behave on their own improvable fundamental faith-assumptions (see for example footnote 21, page 247-8) – and that “secular grounds for moral positions are no less controversial than religious grounds, and a very strong case can be made that all moral positions are at least implicitly religious,” (17). How? Keller defines religion as “a set of beliefs that explain what life is all about, who we are, and the most important things that human beings should spend their time doing. For example, some think that this material world is all there is, that we are here by accident and when we die we just rot, and therefore the important thing is to choose to do what makes you happy and not let others impose their beliefs on you. Notice that, though this is not an explicit ‘organized’ religion, it contains a master narrative, an account about the meaning of life along with a recommendation for how to live based on that account of things. … All who say ‘You ought to do this’ or ‘You shouldn’t do that’ reason out of such an implicit moral and religious position,” (15). “It is common to say that ‘fundamentalism’ leads to violence, yet as we have seen, all of us have fundamental, improvable faith-commitments that we think are superior to those of others. The real question, then, is which fundamentals will lead their believers to be the most loving and receptive to those with whom they differ? Which set of unavoidably exclusive beliefs will lead us to humble, peace-loving behavior?” (19-20). One might argue that this comes dangerously close to pragmatism (truth is what works) even though pragmatism is rejected in this chapter, however, the issue here is not “which fundamentals are true?” but “which fundamentals do not provoke the fear being addressed?” Keller notes the Greco-Roman religious tolerance versus their brutal cultural practices (see also footnote 30) as one example of tolerance of beliefs not necessarily translating into loving behavior. There is an excellent quote of Alister McGrath on page 5 showing the ironic intolerance of those who believed in tolerance. He also notes that we “cannot skip lightly over the fact that there have been injustices done by the church in the name of Christ” (21) but ends affirming that (again) the fundamentals of Christianity “can be a powerful impetus for peace-making in our troubled world,” (21).

Keller shows that if we weigh relativism, it comes up short because it refutes itself (see also footnote 10). “To deem all beliefs equally true is sheer nonsense for the simple reason that to deny that statement would also, then, be true,” (4, Zacharias, “Jesus Among Other Gods”). Outlawing, condemning, or privatizing religious belief also backfires, since it is shown that we all hold our own (potentially dangerous) improvable fundamental faith-assumptions (religious ones at that, whether or not they would pass as secular – secular beliefs are implicitly religious beliefs, as shown above). So, I agree with Keller when he says, “The reality is that we all make truth-claims of some sort and it is very hard to weigh them responsibly, but we have no alternative but to try to do so,” (11). We cannot escape the responsibility to weigh our world-view responsibly, just like we cannot escape the responsibility to choose – even if that means choosing to do nothing. To give up weighing is to affirm as true.

So how is Christianity fundamentally superior to other religions, as it concerns promoting humble, peace-loving behavior? Keller notes that there is an overlap of religions with regard to ethics, but Christianity stands out with regard to soteriology (footnote 29). “Most religions and philosophies of life assume that one’s spiritual status depends on your religious attainments [Ichthus: the ‘moral improvement’ view]. This naturally leads adherents to feel superior to those who don’t believe and behave as they do. The Christian gospel, in any case, should not have that effect,” (19). Why? “In the Christian understanding, Jesus does not tell us how to live so we can merit salvation. Rather, he comes to forgive and save us through his life and death in our place. God’s grace does not come to people who morally outperform others, but to those who admit their failure to perform and who acknowledge their need for a Savior,” (19). “At the very heart of [our] view of reality [is] a man who died for his enemies, praying for their forgiveness [Ichthus: ‘forgive them, for they know not what they do’]. Reflection on this could only lead to a radically different way of dealing with those who [are] different from [us]. It mean[s] we [can] not act in violence and oppression toward [our] opponents,” (20-21). It means we should love our enemies. Christ taught that we (the branches) cannot do any of this on our own, apart from Him (the vine) – so it is not cause for pride when He works through us, nor cause for judgment when others do not bear fruit they cannot bear apart from Him. All it takes to cut others slack, is to remember where we were at when we were on our own, apart from Christ, and to remember that it is Christ, not ourselves, who has brought us to where we are now. It is very humbling.

Discussion questions:

  1. Do you agree that even secular beliefs are implicitly religious? Why or why not?
  2. Considering that relativism refutes itself, then, of the available differing worldviews, only one, if any, can be correct (in an eternal sense, where it did not have to compete for its status in the marketplace of ideas). Does yours promote humble, peace-loving behavior, and, if so, how? Does yours base a man’s worth on his good deeds, or on God’s unearned love demonstrated on the cross – or does man have no worth in yours?
  3. “If morality is relative, why isn’t social justice as well?” If it is objective, what is its foundation?
  4. Feel free to critique anything I said up there or didn’t mention from the chapter.

Hi Ichthus,

In reference to your questions, I wouldn’t mind discussing the following paragraph a bit more in depth:

I have a problem with how Keller views the objection as a “religious belief”. He seems to equate “convinced” (or some such adjective) with “Religious” a bit too much. I would say my “atheist belief” (a problematic phrase, to be sure) is a belief “about” Religion, not a Religious belief. I may be religious about it, but I’m not Religious about it… indeed, I’m quite willing to give it up, if given reason. …sorry, gotta go, (W/L)ife beckons…

Ok, time for a quick reply. And thanks for replying.

You are saying you don’t have blind faith and aren’t immovably committed to your position, provided you are given good reason to change it. You feel you have good reasons to hold your position (Keller would say the same about his). What he attempts to do is examine those reasons (doubts about Christianity in part one… reasons in favor of Christianity in part two). He refers to your position as implicitly religious (sans religiosity, which he later denounces) because it is the conclusion you’ve reached, even if tentatively (for whatever reasons, or lack thereof), about the nature of reality and what really matters.

[Do you think your wife would like to join this discussion?]

I can’t agree with Keller.

The first thing I see is just a horribly tedious method of setting up a means to analyzing religion as close to objectively as Keller could accomplish.
Why this is worth doing, I’m not sure. Religion is, in fact, relative and relational. Everyone has their belief and opinion, so objectivism doesn’t seem to be the best approach to a stance of why there’s one correct religion.

It actually accomplishes the act of seeming like he wants the reader to believe that he’s not personally bias so that he can pitch his bias, right there at the end.

But here’s the reason I will choose to bother with that I can’t agree with Keller on.

This is the spring that allows for everything else Keller says to hold some weight, but I don’t believe this about relativism when we speak of religion.

Here’s why:

Six people approach a hanging box.
Each side of the box is a different color.
They agree that the box would look better with only one color.
They argue about which color would be best to paint the box.
In the middle of arguing, they all die from poison that was slowly seeping out of the box.

The following day, an investigator shows up to analyze the crime scene.

Which question will he ask:

  1. Which color should the box be painting?
  2. What did six men have in common with the box?

So what was important here?
Was it important what color the cube was colored, or was it important that the men approached the box?

Applying the same concept to religion, but obviously removing the poison metaphor as a negative, what is important in a relativism concept is that approach is made, not which form it is done in, as in relativism, all forms are part of the same form just as all colors of the box were part of the same box.

Attempting to discern which color would make the box more real, or which color is the real color of the box is pointless if you are only interested in people approaching the box.

Likewise, if God is interested in people approaching God, then it would be odd to see God concerned with exactly how they approach God; again, if God’s interest is foremost that people approach God.

Given the common tone of religions across time and distance, it seems a common theme that approach is the first interest, and the conduct is the second interest.
If this is some caliber of inherited understanding from an OmniGod, then one can only assume that approach is primary and conduct is relative.

Keller is attempting to diagnose the secondary, the conduct of the approach, as a means of discerning the primary.

Relativism in religion doesn’t actually hold an opinion of itself that it can be false.
Relativism in religion holds that it doesn’t matter if a religion holds relativism as false.

Those two are markedly different concepts.

Keller is looking for the absolute in the trapped relative world.

If fifty people were told information about what was behind a wall that no one could see beyond and they wrote down the description.
And then another hundred people took those descriptions and made more writings about what is beyond that wall.
And then another two hundred people took those descriptions and wrote more writings about what is beyond that wall.
And then another four hundred people took those descriptions and wrote more writings about what is beyond that wall.

And then one man comes along and attempts to define which of the original fifty people were right about what is beyond that wall from only having the writing from the four hundred people.

Now…how possible do you suppose it is that that one man will get this right?

Wouldn’t it be easier to simply be interested in approaching the wall and knowing that there is something behind it?
Wouldn’t it be easier to simply understand that it doesn’t matter what everyone thinks is behind it since they aren’t even in the building of the wall anymore?
Wouldn’t it be easier to simply just accept that you can wait until you walk behind the wall to determine what is behind that wall as an absolute, and until then just accept any method of walking up to the wall as being as good as any other since all paths get you past that wall?

Relativism in religion is only interested in faith being held and pursued. It does not concern which faith you choose.
Relativism only see’s a negative faith when faith is not held…which is, indeed, negative as a property.

Hi Ichthus,

I couldn’t resist …

I would say that the contradiction is in the way we interpret religion, since it is nearly always a question of subjective views because the whole issue is lacking an objective perspective. God isn’t an object we could examine and determine to be this or that, but is an experience that is filtered by our own perceptions. We are the weak point.

Understanding the “nature” of something, that is, its place in the material world, its character, quality, attributes or dimensions, requires a vantage point from which we make such observances. However, in this case, we are talking about a truth that becomes true after it has found acceptance, rather than a truth that simply is and common observance affirms.

OK, I can buy that to a certain degree, but fundamentalism is not just passive “religious exclusivity” that takes place behind closed doors, but an active rejection of other views and even a reduction of all knowledge, requiring it to be verified by the one “source of truth”.

The Roman Peace (Pax Romanum) was also “a powerful impetus for peace”, but what peace was, was defined by Rome. This is the attitude that the church also assumed as it became adopted by the Roman state and where the “fundamentals from Christ” were insensitively damaged from the start. It is the attitude (of many Christians today) that seeks to create an external peace before finding peace inwardly. In fact, the cross of Christ, like the “Chamber-Experience”, is something that has no value externally except as a symbol. Its real validity is found in its power to change the inward person.

The problem with this assumption is that it is merely observing ones own belly-button as the centre of the world (or of the universe) and continually applies a moral basis to all aspects of life. The question is, whether morality is the basis of everything, or whether the Gospels themselves are telling us that the Grace of God is of a far earlier foundation, before “the knowledge of good and evil”, and consequently superior to the moralist piety of Pharisees or Christian Fundamentalists. If morality is religion, as is suggested here, then we fail to find Grace. Discrimination always creates opposites, as the ancients in China have known for some time:

All in the world know the beauty of the beautiful,
and in doing this they suggest what ugliness is;
they all know the skill of the skilful,
and in doing this they suggest what the want of skill is.

So it is that existence and non-existence
give birth the one to the other;
that difficulty and ease produce the one the other;
that length and shortness fashion out the one the figure of the other;
that height and lowness arise from the contrast of the one with the other;
that the musical notes and tones
become harmonious through the relation of one with another;
and that being before and behind give the idea of one following another …
Tao te Ching

It is in non-judgement that we find Grace (Mat.7:1-5) and in forgiveness that we find mercy (Mat.6:14-15; 18:21-35). If Religion is only “a set of beliefs that explain what life is all about, who we are, and the most important things that human beings should spend their time doing”, you forget that before morality became the banana-skin on which we slipped, mankind was born just to “be” in the presence of God. If Religion doesn’t take us there, it isn’t worth while (Mat.6).

I doubt whether people are aware of their moral choices, but moral choices are based on the normality and acceptance of certain behaviour within a certain society. In the moment that acceptance is questionable, we choose to alter our behaviour or move against the customs. Very often normalcy becomes authoritative and even a measure of sanity – which leads people to surround themselves with those people, whose norm is more acceptable to them.

The second question would be that of what one should do if we actively reject other views and find that people in the housing estate next to ours actively reject our views? Do we build a fence? Do we proselytise? Do we choose to lead by example? Another question is as to what the larger community around both groups has laid down as terms of living together? If the constitution says that we have to accept each other, that will be the bottom line, and we must go about finding ways to mutually do that. It seems to me that having Christ as our measure, who said, “Love your neighbours as you love yourself!” and even “Love your enemies”, we don’t actually have a lot of room for anything else. If you also accept that loving ones “enemies” is actually an expression of wisdom, then we should even be trying to uphold such a constitution all the more.

But at the bottom line, “loving behaviour” seems to oppose what one witnesses amongst certain Christian groups towards other worldviews, regardless of what “Greco-Roman religious tolerance” brought about.

This argument lacks an understanding of what I was talking about at the beginning. You can only compare worldviews on objective issues like, for example, if one belief said that the world is flat and the other said that the world is spherical. All other issues are subjective perceptions and largely a question of semantics.

This sounds like, “I know I shouldn’t because I can’t really, but I have to …” You can’t weigh something that you can’t grasp and you certainly can’t compare the weight of things you can’t weigh. Responsibility would ask what these worldviews have in common and agree first of all upon that. We could then agree upon a code of behaviour within our community, based on the first agreement. We could agree to allow the practise of those things that we differ on as long as we do not infringe on the freedom of the other – or find rules by which such an infringement could be allowed. I have the feeling that you and Keller are in fact looking for ways to bypass such agreements.

“How is Christianity fundamentally superior to other religions”? Can you even see what you are doing? You are making assumptions without proving the point. There is no proof that Christianity is superior at all, or at least you haven’t provided such proof. The doctrine of salvation through Jesus Christ is singular, but that doesn’t make it superior.

Spiritual “status”, if there is such a thing, depends on what you are. What you are defines what you do. The fruit shows what the tree is. One could argue that if one “fruit” of Nato countries, being largely made up of “Christian” countries, is that they provide more weapons to the world than all nations outside of Nato altogether, one could say that these countries have a vested interest in military conflict. What would the spiritual status of Nato be?

It also means that we should love them and not pressure them to accept Jesus as their saviour, but contrarily, just be loving Christians. If doing has no value, being is all the more important. But, as Jon Kabat-Zinn and others have made abundantly clear, western society and increasingly the rest of the world, has vast problems with non-doing. The enormous task of psychologists and psychiatrists throughout the world, and the incredible fact that the more medicines we have, the more illnesses we have, all point to the fact that we are sick societies – and the more we are caught up in the need to “do more”, the less we are able to just be.

The “radical way” would be the crooked narrow path with a gate that is hard to find, aside from the broad causeway, where “all those labouring and being burdened” can find rest for their souls and learn from one who is “meek and lowly in heart”.

Shalom

Stumpy

Here are my innitial thoughts on your views as presented here…

You speak of approaching God, but it being irrelevant how God is to be defined… That leaves the question of which roads lead to God… and which roads don’t… without at least a partial difinition there’s no way tell, so far as I can see…

So in the end you’re saying something to the effect of “all roads lead to God”… and yet… I think you have a destination in mind… I think you have a few roads in mind… I don’t think you would actually think all roads lead to God based on the comment you made after you quoted Keller…

So now I’m left wondering… which roads lead to God… and how could you possible know that they do, if you have no idea where God is or what God is… ?

At least… that was the first thing that came to mind when reading your post…

Sorry for the brevity of my post… I’m just on my way out the door… thought I’d post a reply before I left.

Well, there is apparently never sufficient learning achieved of these ‘fundamentals’ in order to avoid that happening again. Why is that, I wonder? Because these ‘fundamentals’ referred to eternally pale in comparison to the human appetitite for power and property?

Also, I’m of the view that it’s a form of violence to invade a culture and seek to rob it of its traditions, beliefs. and unique heritage in the name of evangelizing. So some might say such forms of ‘religion’ are inherently violent…

I dunno, what’s a ‘secular belief’? And if you respond: “a non-religious one”, then you’ve found your answer yourself.

Relativism only refutes itself when you mistake the concept of relativism for the realm in which we construct concepts out of necessity (and, most often, ignorance).

Good deeds, eh? If your next deed is to offer up wording about worth that doesn’t smack me in the face as a female, I might be bothered to consider the question. Your choice. In any event, my reaction to the question indicates to me that today I’m in a ‘fuck sexist language that takes the male as the universal’ mood and so I might instead have to shelve the point to address later. LOL.

Nothing we invent or construct is objective.

I think this is rather implied on ILP. But it can’t hurt to reinforce our ‘freedom’ of commentary on a religious thread tackling secularism. :smiley:

It seems to be fairly simple that if there’s a way things are, a group of people could know it, and behave in a religious sort of way with respect to those facts, and then that would be your one true religion.

Dying probably helps.

Other than that, definitions are pointless.

Sure, why not. They might as well all lead to God.
If there is an OmniGod, then “all” roads literally do lead to that OmniGod whether you want them to or not at some point; it’s an OmniGod.

Now the question only becomes a problem if we remove theological OmniGod’s from religion.
Then it matter’s who’s right.

But as soon as you throw in an OmniGod into the mix, then that trumps everything, literally, and therefore everything else must be part of the OmniGod.

Like I said before, there’s only one road that leads to god’s: life, as that road ends in death.

You can’t.
That’s kind of the point.

See, even if you spent a thousand lifetimes tearing apart all manuscripts from all religions and historical documents to discover what the one right religion was, you would not find out an answer that is absolute; you would still have the same level of probability in being right as anyone else.

Therefore, if that is a fruitless effort, then one should just focus on what they believe and be with that faith as they are.

In the end, the end will be the end.

Hi Ichthus,

I’ll get back into gear here soon as I can, and let you synthesize the thread so far… but just wanted to let you know that as far as

…it is better that certain powers in this universe be left undisturbed… :astonished:

Cool discussion. I’ll get back here when I can.

While I think the Buddhist parable of the blind men and the elephant was taken overly literally, I can pretty much agree with what he outlined here. That is to say that things can at the very least be said to be “more right” and “more wrong” if not outright “right” and “wrong” for the sake of convenience if nothing else. As for the questions:

  1. Do you agree that even secular beliefs are implicitly religious? Why or why not?

I suppose it depends on how one defines “religious”. I’m openly influenced by Fingarette’s thesis that the Confucian tradition embraces the secular as sacred so certainly the two can (and ought!) bleed into each other but I think Keller goes too far and makes “religion” synonymous with “metanarrative”. It is essentially the same mistake that atheist critics of religion make where any system of authority is rendered “religious” but coming from the opposite angle. So are we defining religion as a traditional system that deals with and engages the sacred (however that is conceived) or is it merely a philosophy?

  1. Considering that relativism refutes itself, then, of the available differing worldviews, only one, if any, can be correct (in an eternal sense, where it did not have to compete for its status in the marketplace of ideas). Does yours promote humble, peace-loving behavior, and, if so, how? Does yours base a man’s worth on his good deeds, or on God’s unearned love demonstrated on the cross – or does man have no worth in yours?

While vulgar relativism does indeed refute itself (and Keller does a fine job addressing that), when most philosophers describe relativism they don’t mean vulgar relativism but rather sophisticated relativism. I discussed religious pluralism in another thread and I think it details some of my views on the subject. So I do not think the notion of relativism defeating itself is a given. To use an example that I think occurs in a later chapter, we may be drunks looking for our keys by the streetlight . . . but where else are we to start? That said, I do agree with his sentiment on the issue as he has presented it so in good faith I’ll move forward.

With respect to the first question, I would say “yes, it does.” And I’d say it does it in a manner quite similar to Christianity – through the use of various moral exemplars, an emphasis on a variety of virtues which promote those ends (amongst others) and a means of self-cultivation which allows those elements to actually work.

As for the basis of a man’s worth, I would say that social engagement would be the best answer. Conflicting with the manner in which he is often conceived in the popular imagination, Confucius was openly in awe of the young because their potential (which he holds to be essentially limitless) was not yet realized and therefore open. So while one clearly must do good deeds, good deeds alone cannot be said to be the measure of a man.

  1. “If morality is relative, why isn’t social justice as well?” If it is objective, what is its foundation?

There are a variety of different answers to this question. Russell and Sartre, for example, were both ardent relativists but they openly campaigned against various perceived injustices. They both openly admitted that others were free to campaign against them, that an ardent Nazi had as much a claim to the truth as they did, but they felt the need to try and spread the truth as they conceived it. While I hold relativists tendencies because I do not believe the truth has been fully fleshed out yet (I deal with this in the thread I linked earlier), I ultimately embrace a universalism similar to Keller’s though I root mine in humanity as opposed to God.

  1. Feel free to critique anything I said up there or didn’t mention from the chapter.

I thought you hit the major points quite nicely.

Bob and Xunzian, much of what I say below also answers your replies (but I reply to you more specifically using your quotes as well below).

Stumps–it is so important, if you want to get anything out of this discussion, to read along in the book so you are on the same page as everyone in the discussion. If you would like to get the book at a bargain, PM me and I’ll hook you up.

That quote wasn’t from the book… it was my little addition (from Zacharias), to say in shorter words what Keller said at more length.

The examples you came up with… Keller used the elephant example that Xunzian mentioned. If you don’t think objective truth is important, then it really doesn’t matter who was more or less right about the elephant, or (to fit your reply) how to relate with it or approach it. Make something up. But, if what you really value is truth, then you won’t be satisfied with making something up (or accepting what someone else made up). And, if that elephant is God, and the truth involves love, then how we “approach” (or reject approaching, or being approached)–matters more than anything else matters. It matters if we think of Him as unapproachable, when He is actually (whether or not we accept it as “true”) approachable and made us to approach Him. It matters if we think of Him as someone who accepts child sacrifice, rather than (wether or not we accept it as “true”) finding it detestable. It matters if we think we can earn His love through doing good deeds, rather than (whether or not we accept it as “true”) accepting His love as freely given, and letting that motivate us. If God is love (whether or not we accept it as “true”), then He has revealed His love, and His evidence is on display for all (whether or not we accept it as “true”)–and see my thread on faith (against blind faith). Religion is about what “really” matters–truly (whether or not we accept it as “true”)–not about something we make up, not about something we “pretend” matters. Or, at least… it shouldn’t be. If Christianity is true (whether or not we accept it as “true”), all other religions (which contradict with Christianity at different points) are false, because (to quote an old friend) contradiction is the proof of error. This (as well as arguments in favor of Christianity) is shown in the Reason for God.

You said death leads to God. God is here, God is now.

– Bob

I’m not sure what you mean by “Chamber-Experience”. How does the cross have value externally as a symbol? I’m not sure I’m following you completely. Christ did speak much about the heart. He reigns within the heart of the believer, and that chain-reacts into peace-making among others (genuine peace, not pseudo-peace).

– Bob

I’m sorta having this conversation with Omar in another thread. The Law does not conflict with Grace. The Law is, in essence: God, love (a command… because love fulfills). Grace is just that: love (unearned). But He can’t just come out of nowhere and say, “I love all of you despite your imperfections, so much that I would die for you,” without some foreshadowing, and without putting His money where His mouth is, so to speak. He’s got to show us the “what” in “I love you no matter what” (give the Law). Then He’s got to die for us (also with foreshadowing)… write it in blood… it was all written in blood before it even began, from His perspective. It was all part of the plan of how He would share His love with as many as will accept it. The Pharisees knew nothing of this. They were legalistic and missed the point. I am a Christian fundamentalist, in that I agree with the “fundamentals” of Christianity… and this paragraph is part of those. It is why Christians say “we ought to love”–because God is love, Jesus commands us to love… those who say we are not obligated to love have their own reasons (whether rational or irrational) for “WHY” which may be “implicitly” rather than explicitly religious (based on unprovable faith assumptions).

– Bob

Agreed. But, saying Religion will take us there sounds so Tower of Babel. It is God who finds us, though we thought it was lonesome we who were seeking Him (or, even if we weren’t seeking at the time).

– Bob

We shouldn’t compare ourselves to others to see if we are good. We should enjoy God’s love and let it flow through us, and not worry about the assessments of others. If we are loving them as God loves, then any negative assessment is God’s to handle. If they reject love, do not force it upon them. Love cannot be forced. But, give them a chance to at least accept it.

– Bob

Worldviews are not people. Ideas are fair game (if we play nice… not “act” nice… play nice).

– Bob

Syncretism, right? But that would leave God out (since He is not in common with all worldviews). If you leave God out (that would be a sort of “disagreement” right there), you have no essential basis for “responsibility” or even “agreement” (as a loving behavior). Agreement isn’t necessarily loving, if, for example, we all agree to hate. Better: everybody seek the truth… and common ground will follow.

– Bob

You aren’t going to find proof in The Reason for God, as it requires omniscience to be “certain”. As it concerns promoting humble, peace-loving behavior, Christianity is superior due to the doctrine of salvation, which, if we accept Him whole-heartedly, humbles us and makes us into peacemakers. Not placaters–not people who allow evil to go unchecked–not those who settle for pseudo-peace–but peacemakers.

Shalom.

Mad Man P – glad to see your thinking, and glad to see the discussion between you and Stumps. If I fall off the face of the planet and can’t finish this discussion, I hope y’all will still carry it on.

Ingenium

I dunno… could be a lot of different reasons. The church’s lack of discipleship could be one reason. Nothing inherently wrong with power and property, as long as you have your “loves” in the right order (God’s). If you think about it, God is all-powerful and owns everything. Ain’t nothin’ wrong with that… 'cause He’s love. He made it all to share His love. If we do the same with the power and property He gives us, we’re good to go.

If that were the consequence, I would think it tragic. I think culture and tradition should be preserved at all cost, except the truth. The movie “End of the Spear” (also a book I haven’t read) was cool on that note. The way they explained the Gospel… they said Jesus was speared, instead of hung on a cross… stuff like that is so interesting to me. “Eternity in their Hearts” by Don Richardson is full of stuff like that.

Yeah… it can get kinda confusing… 1) good connotation in both cases: explicitly religious vs. implicitly religious (secular)… 2) negative connotation compared with the Gospel: religion (religiosity), irreligion (secular), and the Gospel. In ‘1’ the secular is “implicitly religious” and in ‘2’ the secular is “irreligion”. But I think the point would be that “irreligion” is implicitly religious. If we call all beliefs about icecream to be “icecreamigious” beliefs, then if we take a stance that icecream doesn’t exist, that is our “icecreamigious” stance… even if it is an “iricecreamigious” one…

No comprendo, mi amiga.

I’ll rephrase that gender-biased question for you: Does yours base our worth on good deeds, or on God’s unearned love demonstrated on the cross – or do we have no worth in yours?

Are you saying social justice is relative?

– Uccisore

Some believe “the way things are” does not demand a particular way of behaving… such a belief is implicitly religious (the believer thinks it is the “one true way of believing about the way things are”), even if irreligious (si, no?).

– Xunzian

Is social engagement your answer because a man has no worth unless someone assigns it to him? Does he not even assign himself worth? :frowning:

– Xunzian

Cool. You do not think those virtues are the way humans are supposed to be? I get that impression from this paragraph:

That relativists/voluntarists still act like universalists/essentialists is something that comes up in a later chapter. I am very interested to hear your take on my “Moral Truth: Discovered or Created?” thread, if you have time.

Thanks, man.

And thanks to all of you; this is awesome.

Lately I’ve been toying with the idea that final causes can only be attributed to a thing by something else. So far, it seems entirely consistent with the Confucian narrative and actually clarifies a number of elements. At this moment, I can say that I believe it but I am still working on figuring out whether or not it is a) compatible with relatively orthodox Confucianism (which is something of a nebulous category, admittedly) and b) if it actually works as well as I think it does, it still needs some work. The idea first clicked a few months ago, so it is a relatively fresh way for me to think about things. Regardless, yes, I think that a thing’s value exists only inasmuch as an other determines it to be. Though it is worth noting that the default state for humans ought be to value them.

Speaking of oughts, yes, I believe the fullest and most authentic expression of humanity is found in the virtues. Lest that statement be taken as naive, think of an acorn. I would say that it is the acorn’s nature to become an oak, that not all reach this lofty goal does not change that teleology. I’ve actually been meaning to tie this into the moral truth thread for a while but I just haven’t gotten around to it. I’ll probably hit that up sometime in the following week or so.

Icthus

And if those people are right, then they’re right. It’s just a matter of happenstance that they don’t approach these ideas with an attitude that we’d call religious. They just as easily could, and if they did, that would be your ‘one true religion’. I really don’t see what the complex issue is here.

Hi Ichthus,

The “Chamber-Experience” is taken from Mat.6:6 (depending on your translation) and is about prayer “in secret” instead of “standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the open streets”, and listening in silence rather than “babbling vain words”, because “your Father knows what things you have need of before you ask Him”.

The cross is, as far as I am concerned, the symbol of substitutional death (Isiah 55) and does something for me internally rather than externally, which is one reason I don’t wear a cross. I think that the cross has often been used to bludgeon people (turned around it looks like a sword) and was worn by the crusaders as they killed Jews and Moslems alike in their holy mission. It was also worn by both sides of the First World War, both remembering Constantine’s decisive Roman victory under the sign of the labarum.

What on earth would you define as “pseudo-peace” in our context?

I’m not sure whether you actually read what I have written. I disagree that the Law equates with God, since it may be spiritual, but it clearly does not encompass all of what God is. Paul says that the nations sometimes “do by nature the things of the Law” and “not having Law are a law to themselves, who show the work of the Law written in their hearts.” This means that people can do those things that the Law tells the Jews to do without realising it.

What I was saying is that morality is what Mankind chooses when he grows of age (the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) but it isn’t the first thing mankind experiences, but instead it is Grace. Abraham also didn’t have the Law, but still his faith was accredited to him as righteousness. Morality condemns because the “wrong/right” struggle doesn’t encompass all of reality, but instead discriminates within the whole of creation. So, we should rather understand that we are a part of creation that cannot see one part as being good and the other as bad. It is all creation and all of it is called “good” by God.

A Fundamentalist is one who reduces religion to strict interpretation of core or original texts. Originally Christian Fundamentalism referred to an adherent of an American Christian movement that began as a response to the rejection of the accuracy of the Bible, in particular of the deity of Christ, Christ’s atonement for humanity, the virgin birth and the miracles. These points were first listed in a book series entitled “The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth” published in 1909 and affirmed by the PCUSA in its 1910 Minutes of the General Assembly.

The problem with these things is that they are portrayed as being some kind of cosmic drama, which isn’t unlike narratives of other traditions. Only, people know that in other traditions they are analogies and legends. The disagreement between you and me isn’t in the meaning given to these things, but in expecting me to accept that your belief is a blueprint of the material universe. Not only that, but you say that if I don’t believe as you do, I am a sinner and a lost soul, whereas I would say that you are overdoing the analogy.

Again, I wish you would read what I write. There is no mention of comparing anyone with anyone else in what I wrote, but it was simply a description of what happens with morality within society. The terminology “enjoy God’s love and let it flow through us” shows that you are prone to croon a little in what you say, a little like the evangelists you listen to. Then you start advising me in things I didn’t ask for advice on and are not subject of the debate.

I don’t attempt a union of different or opposing principles, practices, or parties. I do look for reconciliation though, because I don’t believe that the reality behind our metaphor “God” can be left out. I don’t believe either, that God has a human need for identity (this is me, not that), but that God has numerous names amongst sentient creatures. I think that my perception of God is in reality far greater than the ideas that you are promoting.

I think that the attempt to discriminate and claim that “God” has been left out is really the aim of this whole issue. If you watch the videos of Keller, you can actually observe how he is desperately trying to sound intellectual and diplomatic. But he can’t hide the obnoxious need to exclude those who do not trust his ideas of God, although they may in fact not be atheists, but just disagree with him. Occasionally his logic slips and when he quickly covers up and moves on, he is embarrassed and nearly blushes.

It is proof for superiority that I find lacking, not proof for God. You may say that you find that Christianity is humble and promotes peace, but as I said before, it is a peace that you dictate to others – just like the Romans did. It is an imperial “humility” that expects people to admire their generosity and goodness and laugh at its show of humour, whilst lurking in the background is a threatening show of force, ready to pounce on anything declared to be “evil”. It sounds more like some dictators we have known than the Jesus we have come to know from the Gospels.

Shalom.

Your replies are interesting. I haven’t had time to fully process them, and this week is going to be hectic… probably next week, too. Please forgive the delay.

Religious exclusivity has been touched by many here before, so let me give a bit of a background as to why I have taken up this again. Tim Keller has a website devoted to his book which Ichthus desires to discuss. Haven’t read the book but the website offered recorded lectures by Keller. The first in these recordings is his take on religious exclusivity. Feel free to go there and see the man of flesh and blood whom I am about to attack.

Pope Benedict wrote a book about tolerance in which he went more in detail but pretty much agreed with Keller’s book. At the beginning, Mr Keller characterizes the opposition narrative he has encountered in the story of the elephant and the three blind men. As the story goes, three (maybe four, depending on how many characteristics of the elephant one narrator wishes to accentuate) blind men run into an elephant and described said elephant as completely like the part each has grasped but which the outside observer, who knows it’s an elephant they are touching, knows cannot really describe the animal as a whole. You cannot define an elephant by it’s trunk, or legs or girth etc, etc. Mr Keller points out the arrogance of such argument in that it is intelligible only if the teller thinks he alone can see while the other are blind. But at this point I follow him. It points to the collective blindness of man and the need of faith. In fact he then goes to present the necessity of faith even to criticize religious exclusivity claims. That is fine, an excellent argument…now how are you going from this absolute skepticism towards religious absolutism?

He envisions an experimental approach in which the true religion must lead to peace and sees christianity as such religion because it is humble, because it comes from the fundamental belief that is embodied by Jesus on the cross, a man loving those who do not love him and a core of belief that does not depart from a belief in merit but in mercy. Other religions, his case goes, feel superior because they base their salvation upon works. What they do makes them special, saved. But in Christianity they believe that salvation comes in spite of what we do, that nothing we do earns us salvation but simply God’s grace…this is the calvinist in him talking.

Now, I have to defend proper agnosticism and secular toleration.
I agree that man, any man or woman, is not without some acknowledged or unconscious form of faith. We are finite beings and so when big questions are raised, our answers require a bit of faith in order to form. But, can we, from any position of faith, judge on what IS the case?
Let us look at the blind men, but take away the outside observer that thinks that he has the total view and instead join the gang of blind men. This man says that what the totality (say “God”) is. Now this is either the case or his own personal opinion on the matter. Second man joins in the discussion and says that the totality is not like what the first man said it was but like he now say it is. You could add on blind observers ad infinitum, the only restrain being what is imaginable, but I am going to stop at two. The third man walks up to the two other men. He sees that both are dedicated to their view and that for either there is no shadow of doubt. But whose man should he believe if he himself cannot fanthom the totality? What does the first man has that the second cannot claim? Shall it be peace? It cannot be and here is why:
Mr Keller has produced an argument divorced of history. It would be nice to think that Jesus is love and that Christianity leads to peace, but the fact is that any religion worth it’s salt can lead to peace or so they advertise themselves but are historically poor in providing actual instances and instead point to a future where the real vision comes to fruition. However, it is my contention that regardless of the good-will of Mr Keller, absolute claims, claims to exclusive truth prompts the nagging problem on what to do with the non-compliant, the doubter or the outright rebel, the satan in our mist.
Ahh…here Mr Keller should look at history and the persecutions, inquisitions and wars made in the name of religions which claimed exclusive truth. It is not arrogance that leads one to the argument of the elephant, but humility and most important humanity, the ability to accomodate yourself as blind too in order that there is a chance of communion because there are two scenarios for the blind men:
1- they can agree that the men were talking of different objects since there stories are so varied that they cannot speak of the same reality…or that there are several gods rather than one god…
2- they can disagree, and each claim that what they saw was the totality and that the other only saw a fantasy…this is arrogance at it’s finest…

A third way is to allow that the totality might indeed be wide enough to incorporate both narratives, even if disparate and apparently disconnected. This is the meaning of the elephant. The second alternative is Mr Keller’s but it contradicts his criticism of the outside observer. he calls him imperialistic, but what is more imperialistic than to deny the truth of another witness, another faith based on the same criteria- …faith.

Ack!!! I lost everything again!

sighhhhh

Ok.

In a nutshell.

Xunzian, I like the acorn illustration, but think it is cool how we humans cannot become an oak blindly, but that free will is part of our oakness… and would love your input on the virtue section (speaking of final cause) in my paper… and am thinking that only when reality is essentially love (a simple Person) are humans intrinsically valuable… and it is intrinsic value that ought be recognized in humans, rather than extrinsic value that ought be placed upon humans… what do you think?

Uccisore, Keller was clearing the way for doubting doubts (beliefs about reality and what really matters that conflict with a ‘religious attitude’ towards that reality) by pointing out that being “iricecreamigious” is not the same as having no beliefs about icecream.

Bob and Omar, I’ll be back.

COPY then SEND!

If you want to define ‘love’ as ‘that which provides the intrinsic worth of people’, then sure. But ‘love’ is such a nebulous term that I’m not really sure what it would mean in this case beyond that. I’m more comfortable taking the worth of humans as given. I admit that is a cop-out, since I think certain values are innate I am simply defining that value as being innate. Furthermore, I can point to times where that value has been occluded and the disastrous results that followed.