Tolerance is often defined as letting everyone decide truth for themselves and respecting that truth no matter what it is. Who becomes the true authority when this definition of tolerance is held too? Is it not the person themselves then who ultimately decided there own moral code- what is right? What is wrong? This is a role that in most societies is left up to the society itself, in others up to God himself and still others to some ruler or authority. However, tolerance I think fits American culture which stresses the individual because it invites that individual to become their own God- make up all the rules and their is nothing with any authority that can then contradict you. Nothing outside of yourself can tell you something is right or wrong. The problem with this is that we are finite, limited creatures who do not and cannot ever know all details, circumstances, knowledge of a particular situation- heck we do not even understand ourselves and thus the need for counselors and psychotherapist- and so therefore cannot make wise decisions in and of ourselves without guidance. The Christian God on the other hand as an omniscient and omnipresent being does know every thing and if this is true can make a decision with all the information in mind both past, present and future. That is probably why the book of wisdom Proverbs states close to the very beginning - Trust not in our own understanding... . Therefore tolerance and the biblical approach are opposed to each other. Tolerance invites one to have faith in oneself- you and your wisdom are the supreme guide. Biblical wisdom would say the opposite. Thus Christianity sees a need for scripture to have something outside yourself that can contradict you. Robb
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I have a couple ofquick points in response to this line of thinking.
First, the reference to Proverbs and "not trusting in our own understanding". I can't help but wonder if this is truly wisdom or an attempt to bury the cognitive dissonance that exists within due to the disparity between believing in a supposedly omnipotent and omniscient God and what we experience and see in life. One can argue all he/she wants against this but, if honest, we all know the great discrepancies/paradoxes that exist within scripture related to God's nature and God's commands and the questions that plague our hearts in this regard. So, simply put, this phrase in Proverbs is an attempt to give us comfort in the midst of the million unanswered questions we have. Some omnipotent and omniscient God who can can't even have the decency to cut us a break on these despairing questions.
Second point. I don't believe if I were to wake up tomorrow believing absolutely (even if based on faith as many would have)that no God exists that I would behave any differently than I did today. Some of this might be to my religious upbringing and culture, but the claim that we have only ourselves to answer to does not address or answer why I would most likely act the same as if I were still a believer. If one concedes the point that I am affected by my upbringing, then the person concedes to environmental determinism, which quite frankly devalues the importance of God's rule in my heart.
In recent history we have had the tendency to take all we don't understand and attribute the explanation to God. This includes how we act in this world, accountability for our actions, and the concept of right and wrong. Is it not at all conceivable that we are not answerable to one another without God? Is it not conceivable that our actions are naturally distinguishable for some natural reason. When we see animals perform good deeds towards one another in nature we don't attribute this to God's moral code. We are content with natural explanations. I don't believe people have a hard time buying into this point of view because it is not reasonable but rather because it is uncomfortable and unfamiliar. Everything we approach in life is from an anthropocentric point of view. It is not surprise then to me that people try to attribute some grander cause to our actions than those of other animals.
Even if the thesis that we would act only in our own self-interest if we did not rely on God as a moral compass were true a certain relativism would still exist within the conflicting beliefs between religions. On top of this, if faith is allowed as the justification for action, a person can actually more easily justify an atrocity in the name of religion than in the name of self-interest. How can you argue with faith? You can't. If the premise is allowed, how can I tell the person that death required due to apostasy is wrong. I can't.
When thinking about faith, God, religion, we can't live as though our own beliefs are the only ones. All a person has to do is look around and see another religion's beliefs to realize their own holds no water. If not, they have to concede that their belief is the true one. The problem here is that this claim cannot be shown to be any more true than for the opposing religion or belief.
I agree with much of what you stated. I think truth in general as Foucault would say has been used in order for one group to gain power over another. Truth is often used as a battering ram. Under the word of faith people have justified all different types of evil and have proselytized others in order to oppress them. The caste system in India, apartheid in South Africa and one can argue the discrimination in Israel are all usually justified by truth claims or faith claims.
Yet, I do believe there is truth that liberates one from oppression. A truth that sets one free from that which would bind a man- pride, greed, gluttony, a hunger for power and money. A truth that reverses traditional power roles. A truth that preachers an upside down kingdom. The last shall be first and the first shall be last. A truth that states I will not use my truth to justify my error but rather to humble myself seeing the log in my own eye. Such a truth claim is different in that it does not seek power –the traditional reason people use truth- but rather it seeks to humble a person to see God outside of oneself rather the oneself as God.
As I stated in my post I need to have something outside of myself I give the authority to hold me in check. Many times I have needed an outside authority to hold in check my natural desires of lust, greed and pride. Tolerance preaches that truth comes from within so therefore there is no check on man’s pride or greed or lust etc. etc. Without that outside check…..
I need to contemplate further whether tolerance and the Biblical approach are truly opposed to one another.
Tolerance means a lot of different things to different people. Thinking aloud.... I wonder if a lot of tolerance has less to do with moral relativism (i.e. I want to be a law unto myself) and more to do with the abuses of those laying claim on absolute truth.
I agree with Paul's observation that people often use truth claims to seek power, especially over others. A cynical view of truth is that truth=power, or truth=control. Thus, we are understandably suspicious of the motives of those making truth claims especially on the basis of "belief" or "faith."
Are these people using religion to short-circuit reason and gain control over my life?
A lot of people advocating tolerance press for a more fair-minded approach to faith (to use a phrase from Obama). In other words, belief should be in constant dialogue with the principles of reason. The tolerant person though possibly interested in the "what" of belief is much more interested in the "why."
Without answering the why in a compelling way there can never be true commitment, only a soft of pseudo, exterior compliance.
Having said this there are many elements of my belief system, especially in regard to ethics and morals, for which I cannot offer a compelling "why."
Perhaps someone can entertain for us the extent to which belief should influence behavior. If we had to come up with a why to justify all we do, or all that we think others should do, it seems a large part of our humanity would be robbed. Can belief ever be eliminated from the equation of morality?
I am still not convinced that I require God for the check outside myself. In fact, it is not God but rather the impact of my actions on others and in return on myself that truly keep me in check.
What can be said to or what consolation can be made in this world, today to the person who despite his belief in a greater power than himself as a check for his actions still continues to act in a way that he despises? What good does his belief do him or those around him? Is it not patronizing to tell this person that "it works for me,not sure why it doesn't work for you"?
What is this truth of which you speak that liberates people? Is not this same truth used to oppress? If so, how can you say holds the truth?
My final question is this. Do you believe that the actions for which you find it necessary to be kept in check are the same actions which all should be accountable too? If not, why? If not, how can you justify your checks as valid then?
Jon,
I believe the final statements you make about the why of behavior is quite lucid and sheds a clear light on why religion/belief in God is not necessary for morals and exposes the tendency of humans (at least in the U.S and historically in other countries) to attribute the unknown why to God for lack of an understood natural explanation.
Paul- I think the person who holds himself in check without some external moral code does not exist. Even you when you see someone�s reaction to something you did you are held in check by a deeply ingrained belief of -do unto others as you would have done unto you. Something that no doubt was pounded into you since youth.
I am amazed as I do discipline at the high school level at how two students involved in an altercation can see the same event so differently. Each rarely sees their own fault but quite readily the other. The benefit of an external moral code is it provides this common reference point. Without which I believe all conversations about -was your behavior right or wrong is meaningless.
Now to answer your questions
What is this truth of which you speak that liberates people? Is not this same truth used to oppress? If so, how can you say holds the truth? No the truth that is used to oppress- I label blasphemy- taking what is scared and making it profane. This truth that liberates is one that states that all are equal- equally depraved before God. This liberates because it makes the rich and poor, male and female, black and white, gay and straight all equally dependent upon the mercy of God for salvation. No one is better then anyone else. Being totally dependent on Jesus taking the rap for our sins is the most egalitarian doctrine ever written. Murders, child pornographers, rapist, Gandhi, Mother Theresa all stand on equal need of God and his mercy. Under this doctrine it is just as much a miracle that God saves me as he does a serial murder. There is no room for pride in this view. And pride is what causes all oppression.
After a nice 8 mile run, and rereading this past comment, I think I can contribute further to this conversation. Two quick notes. Heresy is all too easy of a scapegoat to invoke. It is invoked by all believers in dissonance. I am not sure whether we agreed on the outside moral code or not, but I still hold that if we attribute it to God it is no more less relativistic than if attributed to human nature.
On the topic of the oppressed. I am a big believer in plight of the oppressed and have found this as possibly the only appealing aspect of Christianity for me although I think it is harvest by picking the prettiest fruit. I know you are thinking "Paul, what is it that makes you care for the oppressed".
First, I would hate to be on the wrong side of the oppressed that are being freed as was the case for many in the old testament. Who is Jesus? A Different God? Different Religion? Did God Change? I know the answer coined to fit this is that God has progressively revealed himself which is to say pretty much nothing.
Second, if the oppressor is nature's heat, drought, disease, or winds who will be held accountable? God? Can God be the subject of his own liberation theology? Will God receive the equal scorn that King Leopold, Castro, Omar Hassan al-Bashir, Mobutu, Mugabe, etc. receive from you? Probably not. We will write it off outside our understanding. Or maybe we will invoke the afterlife as the last resort to give us peace about their struggles "here on Earth". Oh wait, we can't due that because not enough of the oppressed people are Born Again. Or as George Michael says, "You gotta have faith, faith, faith".
All in Love:-)
As I read the Old Testament I do not see Jesus changing anything but fulfilling that which was spoken of. He is the conclusion of the story so to speak that was being written. There is a lot to say here so I will just give one thought right now. If as the bible claims we are all depraved then we all justly deserve death. I do not think we like that notion. Surely my life does not deserve death- I think if we could only have our thoughts exposed. But let me take it back a step farther. If God is God then he is the one who invented the notion of death in the first place, and appoints in every case. Why do people die? God causes all people to die whether of old age, or car accident or tornado. In the Christian mind set God causes all to come into existence and God has determined all should die. Let me even go a step farther and say if God is in control then he also allows and thus sovereignly controls all death whether by murder or otherwise. If we step back and think this way then we realize that if God appoints all death, old age, disease, then there is a purpose in death. So when God commands a nation be wiped out in the Old Testament we must remember that this is from the author of all who commanded life to exist in the first place and invented the notion of death. It also means there must be something good about death. In fact, we see in this story called the bible that God clearly redeems even the most ignoble death – that of a perfect person -his own Son- going to horrific death in a horrific way and yet redeems it for a glorious purpose the saving of your soul and mine. Now in most deaths we do not get to see the whole story as we do with the cross so we do not get to see all things made new and thus redeemed. But if so, I do believe that one day we will see the beauty in even the most heinous death not because the person doing it was somehow good but God was able to take their sinful act and even redeem. This gives a much better lens to look at death if we see that God has even triumphed over the grave and can redeem that which we think unredeemable. But after all this is from the being that created us in the first place along with the heaven and earth. So redeeming death is shall we say all in a days work for God.
Well, I definitely think this topic has made a great run! Robb, thanks for your thoughts and your honesty.
For my last comment, I would like to reiterate a few previous points because they speak to Robb's last comment. I am still curious how this belief you claim plays into the faith of others in this world and how one can hold an unacceptable faith accountable when acceptable faiths are tolerated. I believe tolerance has made this impossible, but I do not claim to have an acceptable, diplomatic, reasonable solution or alternative to tolerance, at least not yetJ. I think the tolerance of many modern day evangelical Christians is an external, superficial tolerance that maintains intolerance on the quiet (i.e. I am okay with you believing whatever you want to believe but know you are wrong and are still going to hell my friend.)
Now, I believe Robb is free to believe what he has honestly and clearly stated. I think an honest reading of the Old Testament demonstrates a God who is very inconsistent and calls people on occasion to break the very laws he calls people to obey. I believe humanity has created a doctrine that tries to force the pieces to fall together rather than the pieces coming together to form a whole picture. These contradictions cannot be ignored nor spun through modern day theological doctrine. If you deny that these questions don’t cross your mind than I believe one of two things: 1. you haven’t read the Old Testament over time and therefore are not affected by its content and/or 2. you are simply not being honest about its uncomfortable content. I think Robb attempts some honesty here with the claim that God, the creator, can do whatever he likes. This argument doesn’t work for me though. I don’t believe God contradicts himself and if he does, I don’t believe it is just to hold people accountable to the unpredictable/uncertain nature of God.
In the past, I think I have been guilty of using the Bible to create my idea of what a great God would look like on paper. A fairy tale with a fairy tale ending that yearns to help all people. This essentially looked a lot like what Robb has posited in the past comment. I think many people are guilty of this, a God that remains after the pruning of scriptures. The truth is that when you look at the New Testament, God’s message is much more complicated than this especially when considering the so-called salvation for the few (and I seriously mean few) in this world who either by accident of birth or chance meeting with an evangelical Christian.
The biggest problem I have with Robb's previous comment is that anyone can speak with such passion about their beliefs invoking faith in their scripture and the power of God’s word. Who is the clay to ask the potter questions, right? The point I have put forth previously about religious relativism comes forth here. Robb's values seem harmless to me, at least at the surface. But someone on the other side of the world or on this same side of the world, can make the exact same claims but with terrible consequences for others. People exist in this world who feel that the end is near and that they should be helping the process along. Some people claim to know where the world needs to be headed and plan to make that happen, even if by force (yet another odd contradiction). You can frame this in terms of Islam, but don’t forget about those who hate gays, blacks, non-believers, or believers in science. Once again, where do you start with this? How can you talk down a person who says "it doesn't matter what you think, I believe God is calling me to bring forth the end of the world. Nothing you can say can be more important that God's calling of his people." I don’t believe reason works under the banner of God. And quite frankly, Robb’s comment and the comments of many of my dear family and friends’ of have comments has tones similar to that of the most fanatic believers. I simply cannot reconcile these faith claims in my heart or my mind with what I see in scripture and this world.
Post a Comment