Christians and Reality

[Radrook]

Can Christians agree with Hume concerning the ultimate unknowability of reality because of sense impression limitations. Or are Christians obligated to believe that what we perceive is exactly the way it is perceived because Goid has no need to deceive as Descartes tells us?

This is the first time I post this question on a forum so the responses should be very interesting.

 

[welshdean]

Speaking from experience; they appear to be mutually exclusive.

 

[Tricky]

Can Christians agree with Hume concerning the ultimate unknowability of reality because of sense impression limitations. Or are Christians obligated to believe that what we perceive is exactly the way it is perceived because Goid has no need to deceive as Descartes tells us?

This is the first time I post this question on a forum so the responses should be very interesting.

In some ways, the Christian view of reality is similar to Hume's. Ask a Christian why God does something, especially something horrible, like a killer flood, and they will say something to the effect of "nobody knows the mind of God".

So if, to a Christian or to any religious person, reality is "the mind of God", then they will admit that it is unknowable.

 

[Iacchus]

Re: Re: Christians and Reality

In some ways, the Christian view of reality is similar to Hume's. Ask a Christian why God does something, especially something horrible, like a killer flood, and they will say something to the effect of "nobody knows the mind of God".

And, if the soul was resurrected upon death, what difference would it make?

 

[Gestahl]

Can Christians agree with Hume concerning the ultimate unknowability of reality because of sense impression limitations. Or are Christians obligated to believe that what we perceive is exactly the way it is perceived because Goid has no need to deceive as Descartes tells us?

This is the first time I post this question on a forum so the responses should be very interesting.

I think Christians are obligated to do the best with what God gives them. However, care must be taken, lest you deceive yourself (most people are very good at it). You cannot take reality at first blush, you need to consider your own biases. God has no need to deceive, but we do (its called double-think by Orwell, or cognitive dissonance by psychologists). Also, if you take the stance that Satan influences the world as well, humans must account for Satan's deception. See the double-mind-screw-triple-reverse contortions over at Rapture Ready to see how, when you can't take things at face value and you second-, third-, and fourth-guess reality, you probably become very disconnected from what actually is.

However, it pretty much tells you straight up in the Bible that this reality is not the permanent, true reality, which is God in and of himself (he is omnipresent and all, you know). And, it is made pretty clear by God that his face may not be seen, and his mind may not be known by us. See Jobs questioning of God, and his response (near the end of the book, IIRC, and he had a damn good reason for questioning God's motive in this case). God has such a low opinion of us, he does not even consider it possible for us to understand what or who he is by the statement "I am that I am," which basically means STFU and just listen, all you need to know is I am and I am bigger and more powerful than you.

The answer, as always is in the middle (I am an athiest now, but when I was a Christian, these were my thoughts). God would not obfuscate, and why should he... it's a waste of time. Most of the time you should accept what you see and what you think as being the obvious thing. However, I also realized you had to keep yourself in check and question your own conclusions about it. Then again, I became an athiest, so I might not be the best person to ask what a Christian should think ;-).

As a parting thought, and I am too lazy to find a reference, consider this Bible verse (heavily paraphrased): "Look at the marvels of nature and you will see my hand." I.e. this reality is here for us to have evidence and awe at him. Seems like He wants us to think a little of both (strange how that happens all the time in religion, no?).

 

[Tricky]

Re: Re: Re: Christians and Reality

And, if the soul was resurrected upon death, what difference would it make?

I am trying very hard to see how this could possibly pertain to the topic, but it's a stretch:

Okay, here's a stab. It makes no difference whatsoever. You cannot speak to resurrected souls. They cannot pass on what they have learned about "the unknowable" to you. So whether they are resurrected or not is a moot point.

Now perhaps you envision that a resurrected soul is given privy to some (all?) of the knowledge of the universe by becoming "one with God". In that case, it might make some difference to the resurrected soul, but none whatsoever to humans on Earth. So the situation still stands that both theists and atheists agree that ultimate knowledge is out of the reach of us mere mortals.

 

[juryjone]

I agree, tricky, that Iacchus seems to be going off topic, but I would like to know what he meant by that statement. Coming right after you said something about horrible deaths, he said "f the soul was resurrected upon death, what difference would it make?"

That to me implied that one shouldn't worry what kind of horrible death God subjects them to, since they're gonna wake right up and be OK again! Gee, I guess being eaten alive by rats is not so bad after all!

Please tell me, Iacchus, that I'm wrong about what you're trying to say there.

 

[Iacchus]

I agree, tricky, that Iacchus seems to be going off topic, but I would like to know what he meant by that statement. Coming right after you said something about horrible deaths, he said "If the soul was resurrected upon death, what difference would it make?"

That to me implied that one shouldn't worry what kind of horrible death God subjects them to, since they're gonna wake right up and be OK again! Gee, I guess being eaten alive by rats is not so bad after all!

Please tell me, Iacchus, that I'm wrong about what you're trying to say there.

Well, wasn't this the whole point behind throwing the Christians to the lions? What point would it serve if they didn't believe in an afterlife? In other words is there such a thing as unjustified suffering in God's eyes? In which case I would have to say no. Not if it serves the ultimate purpose which, is the resurrection.

 

[Radrook]

Re: Re: Christians and Reality

In some ways, the Christian view of reality is similar to Hume's. Ask a Christian why God does something, especially something horrible, like a killer flood, and they will say something to the effect of "nobody knows the mind of God".

So if, to a Christian or to any religious person, reality is "the mind of God", then they will admit that it is unknowable.

The problem with that answer that such a hypothetical Christian might give concerning floods, volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, or any other type of so-called natural disasters is that it shows that the Christian in question is deficient in biblical knowledge.

Ever since Eden the earth has been predominantly abandoned by God in order to permit man to go it alone as he requested. So such haphazard events have absolutely nothing to do with the mind of God. Such events are merely the malfunctioning of the earth when it doesn't receive the upkeep or blessing it needs from its creator.

That is why the Bible describes creation as being in a state of frustration and bondage.


Romans 8:20
For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope

21
that[ 8:21 Or subjected it in hope. 21 For] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.

NIV

BTW
That creation includes us.

 

[Bubbles]

Re: Re: Re: Christians and Reality

The problem with that answer that such a hypothetical Christian might give concerning floods, volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, or any other type of so-called natural disasters is that it shows that the Christian in question is deficient in biblical knowledge.

Ever since Eden the earth has been predominantly abandoned by God in order to permit man to go it alone as he requested. So such haphazard events have absolutely nothing to do with the mind of God. Such events are merely the malfunctioning of the earth when it doesn't receive the upkeep or blessing it needs from its creator.

That is why the Bible describes creation as being in a state of frustration and bondage.


Romans 8:20
For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope

21
that[ 8:21 Or subjected it in hope. 21 For] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.

NIV

BTW
That creation includes us.

Perhaps such a Christian would reply (speaking hypotheitically, of course) that worshipping a book is a rather pathetic form of idolatry. Of course, such a Christian (Literalists always assume that they are the only ones who know what the Bible says, when they usually just have a few 'proof texts' committed to memory) might also question whether your selection captured the full range of opinion within the Biblical texts. . .

 

[Radrook]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Christians and Reality

Perhaps such a Christian would reply (speaking hypothetically, of course) that worshipping a book is a rather pathetic form of idolatry. Of course, such a Christian (Literalists always assume that they are the only ones who know what the Bible says, when they usually just have a few 'proof texts' committed to memory) might also question whether your selection captured the full range of opinion within the Biblical texts. . .

First, I do not worship a mere book.
I worship the author of the book--God.
Quoting from scripture does not constitute worship of scripture.
If it did then Jesus and his apostles would not have continually quoted scripture since it would have been idolatry.
But they do..

Second, I am aware that there are divergent views. : )

However, when I detect a divergent view that is clearly wrong, as yours is, I have both the right and the obligation as a Christian to point it out. Not to annoy you or anyone else. But simply as an effort to shed some scriptural light on the subject.

If the scriptural light becomes too bright then you have options at your disposal to turn down the glare.

1 John 1:5
This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.


Second, you seem to be suggesting that I should consider all contradictory biblical views equal?

If so, how does one go about reaching that kind of mental state? Have you?

Or is it that you do not consider any of the biblical views the right one?

In that case what you really are demanding is that no biblical view be expressed--not just the ones I post.

BTW
I don't believe in basing doctrinal beliefs in just a few proof text that I have memorized. That would be stupid.

Any doctrine that I believe must be in full harmony with the rest of the scriptures. If it diverges, or if it causes a disharmony, then I reject it. Another option is to humbly admit that I do not know.

For example, the idea put forth that the soul is immortal goes completely contrary to other scriptures that tell us that it is mortal.
When viewed in the light of what Satan said in Genesis concerning man being immortal, and in the light of recorded history which tells us that the idea was derived from Platonic philosophy, I am FORCED to reject it as nonbiblical.

Furthermore, immortality is a reward not a given.
Neither does the word nephesh signify an invisible entity inside of each person.

In view of this, to call my rejection or conclusion a conclusion and rejection based merely on a few memorized scriptures is silly to say the least.


About being a literalist, again you generalize wrongfully.
I do take parts of the Bible literally.
I do take parts of the Bible symbolically.
It all depends on how they were intended to be taken.
So what does that make me--a literalist or a symbologist?
Maybe we should form a copmpound word with which to neatly nich me in your hierarchy.
Let's see, how about symboliteraliist?

 

[Beancounter]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Christians and Reality

Slight derail perhaps - my apologies

However, when I detect a divergent view that is clearly wrong, as yours is, I have both the right and the obligation as a Christian to point it out. Not to annoy you or anyone else. But simply as an effort to shed some scriptural light on the subject.

If the scriptural light becomes too bright then you have options at your disposal to turn down the glare.

1 John 1:5
This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

Radrook, I appreciate that your knowledge of the bible appears to be good (certainly infinitely better than mine) but what you must understand is that quoting it is ad nauseam, even if in a manner relevant to your point, adds no weight to your arguments when debating christianity with the majority of people on this board.

I and, it would seem others, do not believe that the bible was written by god and therefore it is not the ultimate truth. If you do believe this then there would appear to be a bit of an impasse. The only way you will convince me that you are right is to prove (via sound historical evidence) that the bible was written by god or, more impressively, demonstrate a recent unequivocal miracle of god. The only way I (or more likely those more scholarly members of this board) will ever convince you of our view is to get you to understand that the weight of historical and scientific evidence as well as our knowledge of the physical world does not support much of what the bible has to say.

I don't think either is about to happen anytime soon, but I for one am more than willing to be convinced - but not via quotes from the bible!

 

[Radrook]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Christians and Reality

Slight derail perhaps - my apologies

Radrook, I appreciate that your knowledge of the bible appears to be good (certainly infinitely better than mine) but what you must understand is that quoting it is ad nauseam even if in a manner relevant to your point, adds no weight to your arguments when debating christianity with the majority of people on this board
I and, it would seem others, do not believe that the bible was written by god and therefore it is not the ultimate truth. If you do believe this then there would appear to be a bit of an impasse.

Thank you for the compliment.

I am not here to please or appease the majority of people on this board.


I quote scripture for two reasons/

1. For the benefit of those here who believe that the Bible is the Word of God and who will apreciate it.

2. In response to accusations by atheists and agnostics or skeptics and mockers who twist what the Bible says into something obscene or just plain ridiculous based on gossip, misunderstanding or just plain malice.

To prove their accusations are drivel and not what the Bible really says, I quote scripture.

If indeed that causes nausea to some sensitive souls, then those souls should protect themselves against that vertigo by not reading my posts. This way they can assure themselves of avoiding that unpleasant experience.

The only way you will convince me that you are right is to prove (via sound historical evidence) that the bible was written by god or, more impressively, demonstrate a recent unequivocal miracle of god. The only way I (or more likely those more scholarly members of this board) will ever convince you of our view is to get you to understand that the weight of historical and scientific evidence as well as our knowledge of the physical world does not support much of what the bible has to say.

Convince?
I have no such goal.

When I came to this board I found ridicule of the Bible and of those who live their lives based on its teachings. So I offered a response. If this response is seen as trying to convert, then that is your interpretation. The opposite would be not respond but sielently sit back watching the constant incessant ridicule.

Of course if my biblical responses annoy the Bible mockers--then they can either push the ignore button or else simply skip my posts. The solution to the problerm is as simple as that.

BTW
I am as much annoyed by the incessant biblical mockery as you are by the incessant Bible quoting. Yet I do not demand that posters cease their preferred activities because it is therir right to mock and ridicule as much as it is my right to contradict that ridicule.

 

[Beancounter]

I quote scripture for two reasons/

1. For the benefit of those here who believe that the Bible is the Word of God and who will apreciate it.

2. In response to accusations by atheists and agnostics or skeptics and mockers who twist what the Bible says into something obscene or just plain ridiculous based on gossip, misunderstanding or just plain malice.

To prove that it doesn't I show them that it doesn't.

Radrook

Then I support you in the above as in doing so (the second point at least), one is arguing facts/interpretation rather than faith/non-belief.

Following on from that then I retract my "implied accusation" that you are aiming to use bible quotes to convert, that was just am impression I had gained but that could quite possibly be due to my own prejudices.

You are certainly not playing on an even playing field on this forum but power to you for playing at all.

I will not hit the ignore button as I enjoy discussing this stuff (even if it is from a position of little "technical" knowledge!)

 

[Bubbles]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Christians and Reality

One is quite free to take different parts of the Bible in different ways. Once you do, however, you cannot with intellectual honesty quote parts of it as absolute truth because 'it say so in the Bible'. You are bringing a standard outside of scripture to scripture and judging scripture relative to it.

Now, that is a fine and nessecary thing to do, but it means that you believe something because it conforms to your standard, not simply because it is in the Bible says it. You believe parts of the Bible literally because they conform to your standard. You do not believe certain parts literally because they do not conform to that standard. That is a good and nessecary thing to do. It does not let you pull a verse out and say 'this is true because the Bible says it!'

I could pull out a number of Bible verses that expressly state God causing a natural disaster (I bet mine would outnumber yours!). You say they shouldn't be taken literally? Fine, you are free to say it. If I say that your's shouldn't be taken literally? Why is that position not as defensible as yours?

Simply put, you are quite free to believe 'the whole Bible, the plain Bible, and nothing but the Bible'. You are quite free to go insane. If you attempt the first, I predict it will end in the second. If you want to chart a middle course of being a Christian and not a literalist, one of the things that you have to give up is 'proof-texts'.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Christians and Reality

Simply put, you are quite free to believe 'the whole Bible, the plain Bible, and nothing but the Bible'. You are quite free to go insane. If you attempt the first, I predict it will end in the second. If you want to chart a middle course of being a Christian and not a literalist, one of the things that you have to give up is 'proof-texts'.

It sounds as though there could be any number of Christians who are wrong, but you are quite confident you have it right.
How would you convince me, or anyone, that you have it right?

You, like many Christians seem to be oblivious ( or choose to ignore ) the fact that relatively few of the billions of people who are alive, or who have ever lived, have never seen the ' Bible ' or heard of the God, it claims to bear tidings of..

Claiming to be one of the chosen few, bespeaks of an incredible arrogance on the part of the believers, not to mention a very narrow minded God.. ( hardly a just and loving one... )

I'm reminded of a quote from Homer Simpson, which goes something like " What if I'm going to the wrong Church, and God is just getting madder and madder ? "

 

[Ipecac]

Re: Re: Re: Christians and Reality

The problem with that answer that such a hypothetical Christian might give concerning floods, volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, or any other type of so-called natural disasters is that it shows that the Christian in question is deficient in biblical knowledge.

Ever since Eden the earth has been predominantly abandoned by God in order to permit man to go it alone as he requested. So such haphazard events have absolutely nothing to do with the mind of God. Such events are merely the malfunctioning of the earth when it doesn't receive the upkeep or blessing it needs from its creator.

I see. So how do you explain the volcanos on Mars and Io? Did human sin screw up the whole solar system? How about the rest of the galaxy? The universe?

 

[Yahzi]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Christians and Reality

I do take parts of the Bible literally.
I do take parts of the Bible symbolically.
It all depends on how they were intended to be taken.

How, exactly, do you determine how they were intended to be taken?

Taking the parables symbolically is obvious. But what about Jonah and the whale? What about "kill everything that breathes?" What about Revelation? What about the resseruction?

How, exactly, do you distinguish between what is symbol and what is literal?

 

[Radrook]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Christians and Reality

I see. So how do you explain the volcanos on Mars and Io? Did human sin screw up the whole solar system? How about the rest of the galaxy? The universe?

Why do you feel that the rest of the universe is screwed up?

 

[Beancounter]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Christians and Reality

Why do you feel that the rest of the universe is screwed up?

Because you stated that volcanos and other natural disasters occured because the earth wasn't receiving blessing from god. This in turn was because mankind requested to be left alone (or screwed up depending on how you look at it). Given that no such request was made by the other planets on which mankind has never set foot, the obvious question arises - why are there volcanos on other planets?