A Christian Philosophy Professor Confronts the Sin of Certainty
I've always thought the liberal wing of Christianity will be the one which survives over the next few generations. Of course, there is no way to know this for certain, just that when one lines up the part of the faith that takes part of all of the Bible literally against the part which treats it as an old but unreliable friend the latter wins hands down. Among the sites I follow only occasionally is there an articulate and credentialed academic professor of philosophy. One appeared today.
The blog author, a Christian and Professor of Philosophy, argues that "certainty" is the enemy of Christianity. Those who claim to know what the Bible means or what its message is are part of the problem. Another part are professors of philosophy who "prove" God or Jesus exists by tricks from logic. All of these, this professor says, create walls between believers and none destroy their opponents.
The link author has been asked, "How can you be a Christian and a professor of Philosophy?" His answer is this is possible because that is who and what he is.
He is tough on those who use scripture as "proof" God exists. He points out as I have done many times here the Bible was written by many unknown people over a long period of time in several different countries and in various languages. It is obviously written by humans and not by a god. Using it as "certainty" is harmful to the faith he writes.
To me, this critique of "certainty" is perfect for this time in history. It is a time when vast amounts of information is at our finger tips.
He is often accused of being among those without a moral foundation, moral relativism. He replies that he believes there are firm moral foundations--does not believe in moral relativism. What we do not yet know, he says, is what these universal moral rules are. Our ancestors tried and failed to find them and we are still seeking them.
Trying to fit "certainty" into a box labeled "religion" has never worked during the 200,000 years of human history. Perhaps it is possible, but it has not happened yet.
strange that you should talk about the "sin of certainty". you, who some time back, assured us that only atheists had truth by the balls.
ReplyDeleteUmpteen times I have explained nearly all atheist admit there are questions we do not have answers for--some about the creation of the universe. Anyway, we don't have a concept of sin, that's a Christian thing.
Deletego back and read your previous posts. I well remember one in which you said exactly what I accuse you of saying. that aside, just about every day you assert some "truth" or other (as in telling us that it is absurd to believe this that or the other thing). granted you may be agnostic on some points but that is certainly not what comes through most of the time.
DeleteUnknown--Yes, I refer to lots of ideas some Christians hold as absurd. And, if you want to say that reflects certainty, please do. The blog above was about a philosopher who is a Christian discussing other Christians. I can't put myself in his shoes because he is an active Christian, teaching a class on Sundays twice a month. If you have issues with what I wrote they are really issues with the philosopher. As I wrote, I think Christians who hold tenaciously to their views of what is a "true Christian" theology are losing ground because anyone has at his/her finger tips information to take issue. It could be said I am reflecting quite a bit of certainty with that observation. But, it's not theology and it's not a sin anyway because non believers don't believe there is sin.
DeleteSince you are a Catholic you are very certain I will burn in hell for eternity. You need to remind me of that once in a while because I have a tendency to forget all about that.
testing
ReplyDeleteto say that some view/assertion is absurd means (to me at least) that it is false, illogical, whatever. I assume that absurd means the same to you. thus, whenever you dismiss a statement is absurd you claim to know with certainty that it is false. as to roasting in hell, I make so such claim. I would note, however, that, as some wag, said of Richelieu that if there is a God he has a lot to answer for, but if there is no God he had an interesting life.
ReplyDeleteUnknown--Yes, mostly when I say something in religion is absurd it means I am certain, as least in my own mind, about it. That is not related to my blog where certainty within the faith was critiqued.
ReplyDeleteAbove you write, "I make so such claim." I assume you meant to write "no" such claim. In not accepting a punish in hell you are consistent with what Jesus (and Paul) was said to have taught, annihilation of the sinner but not eternal suffering in hell, but you are in violation of Catholic orthodoxy. On the other hand in the Catholic Encyclopedia it says you can not believe in eternal torment and still be within church teaching. It also says God may at times release a sinner from the torment if he so desires. There are pages and pages about fire in hell--I finally had to quit reading it.
It was interesting to read in the Catholic Encyclopedia the Catholic excuse to abandoning the views of hell and punishment allegedly taught by Jesus. I mean, after all, is not the Catholic Church a Christian church and was not Jesus the Christ? Why would they believe something different?
The answer in the Catholic encyclopedia is the precisely the same as the views attributed to Christianity some 100-200 years after Jesus as explained by Bart Ehrman. The Catholic Encyclopedia and Ehrman explain the innovation was put there for "JUSTICE." Allowing a sinner to just be annihilated as Jesus taught was not adequate punishment, i.e. justice. The innovation was put into Christianity to make it more popular. Christians wanted to feel smug about themselves. If the could feel their future was better than that of non Christians they were happier and, I'm sure, contributed more money.
This fits the topic of "certainty." It is certain the Christian church has changed its fundamental views to fit changing views in society. It has changed regularly since day one.
interesting reply to what was intended as a humorous quote about Richelieu. actually it could apply to just about any of us. good to see that Bart is back. suggested read: Dante's Inferno. of course you are right in one sense: the notion of hell has something to do with "justice," something that we don't get much of in this life. BTW, I think that the "fires" are analogical. that, of course, doesn't make hell a nice place. anyway, maybe I should be concerned about going there myself, for giving you a rough time and for lots of other reasons besides.
DeleteInknown "..you are right...the notion of hell has something to do with "justice"...
ReplyDeleteMy curiosity antenna is up...if Jesus (those who put their words in the mouth of Jesus) thought adequate justice was served when the righteous went to a heaven and sinners were annihilated, why was that not enough "justice" for Christians 100-200 years later? It seems like Christians would take their cues from Jesus, not opportunists that came along later.
I am aware of the annihilation take on the "hell" question. there is also the universalist notion: ultimately every one will be saved. and I know that Christian thinkers have, from time to time, embraced both such views. hate to disappoint you tho' but I am not competent to argue the matter one way or the other. I would, however, remind you of the words of Mathews Gospel and the last judgment. BTW you should like Matthew, he was a sort of social justice fella. in fine let me remind you that you are certain about matters that, in contrast, are notably arguable.
DeleteThe Catholic church does not teach annihilation. The Jehovah's Witnesses do.
DeleteHelper--"The Catholic church does not teach annihilation."
DeleteThat's my point. The Bible writers had Jesus believing in annihilation, not eternal torcher. Paul also, though a little vague. The two did not preach torcher in a firey hell. The firely hell was a Christian innovation that came along much later. Christians who "believe in Jesus" should not preach the eternity in fire because Jesus did not believe that is what happened to the unrightious. They were destroyed but not torchered.
Unknown "let me remind you that you are certain about matters that, in contrast, are notably arguable."
DeleteSo far as I know, the words attributed to Jesus never say he believed in the eternity in a fire of hell. If that is arguable please argue.
If you find it not arguable, then all the pages in the Catholic Encyclopedia dealing with an eternity of torcher in hell and not truly Christian. They are a control strategy not intended by the "real Jesus" character in the Bible.
re. annihilation; Nice try. Your claim Jesus did often speak of "hell", Gehenna. But with your rejection of anything said to have been said by Jesus in the NT by the NT writers, you reject it, and with it, Jesus. Thus making anything of hell as after Jesus. Unfortunately for you some of his words relate back to references of what became known as hell directly from and to the Hebrew Bible. Different terminology, (Hebrew to Greek,) same intent. As you are bored with verses, I will not use verses (there are many in context) from the OT, to debate the subject with you. To try to convince you, or even reason with you on this, would be a fools errand.
Deletehelper: sorry but I know of those in the Catholic church that have accepted annihilation. and I suspect that some Lutherans do as well. it is, of course, not the mainstream/official position but is does come up from time to time. Jon, again I cite Mathew. it also seems to me that there are quite a number of other passages that speak of eternal punishment. as an aside, I don't think that the church teaches that God sends us to hell: we do that on our own. and again, fire in analogical, not literal.
DeleteJon; Your strategy is simple. Invalidate the writers; invalidate anything Jesus said, to the point of invalidating Jesus himself, resulting in the invalidation of the entire New Testament. Unfortunately for you, the several hundreds of cross references in the concordances in the NT with the Hebrew Scriptures voids your and Bart's proposals, in spite of Bart's word manipulations. Even Bart accepts the person Jesus. I would prescribe an interlinear Hebrew / Greek / English Bible, an exhaustive concordance, with verse by verse word study, including a translating dictionary. Strong's is good. In addition get a NASB-NIV interlinear parallel NT in Greek and English by Marshal. There are others. You cannot appreciate the NT without the OT. nor can you comprehend the OT without the NT. The connectivness between the two is absolutely necessary.
DeleteWhich includes the subject at hand, among many other subjects.
Jon; In fact Google ; "Jesus' words on hell Bible." scroll and click. Scroll some more. Click some more.
Deletehelper--I never said Jesus denied a hell. I said he did not believe in an eternal torture in hell. Thus, when the four dozen or so people here who have said I face an eternity in the fire of hell they are not quoting the word ascribed to Jesus. They are using a concept that was invented long after the alleged time of Jesus.
DeleteIf you find a passage, "quote," of Jesus that explicitly states sinners face a long time in a the fire of hell I would stand corrected.
The other day Matt quoted Jesus about hell but no quote referred to an eternity of torture.
Unknown; "Those in the Catholic church that have accepted annihilation", They don't know the Catholic teaching. Re. some Lutherans", They are equally as ignorant at the Catholics you mention. That they knew what they were talking about in conversation. HOWEVER, I have spoken with thousands of Lutherans over the years, and have never run into one single Lutheran that believes in annihilation. It is clear in several places in our confessions.
Deletere. "I dont think that the church teaches that God sends us to hell; we do that on our own" (by rejecting that which saves). On that I can agree with you.
Yes, I also agree; "fire is an analogy, not a literal fire. "A burning for what is lost you could poetically say. The Bible does not describe the mechanics, or physics of "fire". Anything more is speculation. As is the description of Heaven or Hell.
Jon; ""I said he did not believe in an eternal torture in hell". As long as you believe Jesus said something; See Mat; 25;46. @a "And these will go away into eternal punishment, (concordance)=Dan 12;2--John 5;29--Acts 24;15)
Delete@b but the righteous into eternal life". (Concordance)= Mat 19;29--John 3;15-36, 5;24, 6;27-40-47-54; Acts 13;46,48; Romans 2,7; 5;21,6;23, Gal 6;8, 1 John 5;11
I am done here.
Jon; Yes, you stand corrected. You're welcome.
Deletehelper -- "Jon; Yes, you stand corrected."
ReplyDeleteKeep trying. The B.S. scripture you supplied does not negate the conclusion that writers who put words in the mouth of Jesus (no writer claims he heard Jesus say anything) had Jesus saying sinners will suffer the flames of hell for eternity. All your references, except one, were about reward for the righteous, not punishment for the wicked. I think you did what Matt always does, enters some category and copies down the scriptural references the source provides--not actually reading the scripture to see if it actually applies. So much of that goes on here in the comments it is a waste of time mostly to even check out what posters claim as their source.
There is but one that makes a reference about eternity for the wicked, Matt 25:46. Bart Ehrman spends a page or two on this -- it is not clear at all this refers to an eternity of suffering in hell. It could refer, as the words of Jesus does everywhere else, to "eternal punishment" by death or annihilation. The sentence tells us the righteous get a LIFE of reward, the wicked eternal punishment. Are the wicked dead or alive? It is, of course, in a parable and not in a statement of prediction or fact.
We're each at liberty to see the Bible differently. I find the careful and detailed review of the Bible Ehrman does is superior to others to anything you have provided.
Jon @ 9;40; Your accusations are baseless. In fact you catagorize and copy down references without actually reading the scripture to see what it applies, based much on Ehrman says, which is beyond your actual knowledge of the subject, yet ignorantly defend it . Much like a trained monkey. Verbal gymnastics on par with the Magisterium in creating new dogma, In fact, identical.
DeleteYour; "It could", "not clear", "waste of time mostly to even check what posters claim as their source" reveal arrogance, lazyness, and a total lack of scholarship, of which you so loudly brag about.
re. "righteous get a LIFE of reward" Wrong again. "Eternal life" are the words. Shit, you can't even read and copy.
I doubt you will print my last posts, and will surely not print this one. Sure indication of your dishonesty in debate. If you are as dishonest in debate, I seriously question your honesty with others.
Helper 8:37 "Your accusations are baseless"
ReplyDeleteAs I have pointed out several times, the argument here is whether Jews at the alleged time of Jesus and the alleged Jesus himself, and Paul, believed in an eternity of torture in hell. In addition, it is about whether this idea of eternity in torture was an innovation added long after the alleged time of Jesus. That Christians want revenge, the word they use is "justice", for non believers and sinners is evident. It is even evident even here in the comments about me on this blog.
How many pages of "quotes" from Jesus are there in the Bible? Dozens, a hundred? If I've been warned dozens of times I will spend eternity in the flames of hell you would think the pages of "quotes" from Jesus would have made this crystal clear. It is crystal clear by those who wrote later, but not from those who made up what Jesus was supposed to have said. Your rant does not refute what I'm saying.
Ehrman and many many others make a living reading the Bible and writing about what they find there. It's crazy even one person makes a living doing this, but we are a society that has lots of money to spend on crazy things. Lots of those making a living this way disagree with Ehrman. Yesterday, on his blog he discussed and posted a long article criticizing his book. It was written by a man who has published several books on heaven. I read the review twice and could not find anywhere a disagreement about Ehrman's observations about the Jesus quotes. There is just the conclusion Ehrman is wrong. Sort of like your rant. There were three books published to criticize Ehrman's book on forgery in the Bible. As Ehrman says, none of them took issue with the facts he based his argument on.
Here is the review criticizing Ehman's book:
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/reviews/bart-ehrman-christianity-heaven-hell/
baseless accusations ="...enters some categories and copies down the scriptural references the source provides--not actually reading the scripture to see if it actually applies". Patently false.
Deletere 9;40; 2nd paragraph; Your " The sentence tells us the righteous get a LIFE of reward". My 8;37 pointed out your gross error, following yours, yet you continue in the same vein.. Just what in the hell is "get a life of reward"? That is meaningless. Go Back and see my 8;37 response . Then get our a Bible, I don't care which one. None of them say what you present. None of them say; "REWARD". Only a money grubbing economist would be concerned about a reward. Your words betray you.
Dare you print this?
On a non-related matter; Just got some numbers from church office. Our contributions are up considerably up from the same time period last year, in spite of being closed for three months. Your wailing and gnashing of teeth is wrongly applied.
Both the righteous and un-righteous recieve eternity. The question is where. It's not up to me or you to decide.
"Both the righteous and un-righteous receive eternity."
DeleteJesus begs to differ with you. Sorry.
And---If you had a recording of Jesus, you wouldn't hear him disagree.
DeleteThe proponderance of scripture agrees.
"The proponderance of scripture.."
DeleteThat's where Ehrman's beats you, in showing the preponderance of scripture says neither Jesus nor Paul believed in fire in hell for eternity. They were all about the coming end, coming soon. Later, when the end did not come, wealthy goat herders decided to write about something other than the end. That's when the fire for eternity showed up.
In the Jesus period there was a horizontal time line--later would come the end when the faithful would be rewarded and others vaporized. The story a century later was a vertical line. The decision about heaven and hell took place instantly at death. That vertical concept required revenge, an eternal suffering hell. That's what is popular today among conservative Christians, it's what you like.
I'm guessing the conservative academic community, like the critic I linked, will really dislike Ehrman's book. But they will face an uphill battle taking down his persuasive case. Like the critic, they will say, "Look at this, look at this other..." Ehrman came along just at the when time there is a broad market of something different than the old song and dance. He is reaching that borad audience and the orthodox folks are just talking to each other.
"Vaporized" " revenge" "reward" . I see none of that anywhere. Only in the subliminal mind of risk / reward. The secular economist.
ReplyDeleteThere is the concept of horizontal and vertical however. The vertical of God (Christ) to us. The horizontal of Christians sharing the vertical. Entirely different to the self centered concept of atheism.
It's not my intent to change your mind, but your mind is of a different kind. You have become more strident as of late. A "Hardened Heart "possibly. It is beyond you. I understand completely.
re vaporized, revenge
DeleteOf course I was just using modern language--my goodness, am I dealing with an adult here?
The horizonal and vertical were Ehrman's ways of explaining the ancient Christian innovation.