For years now, I've been watching a dance. The legalist dance. I didn't realize it at the time, but back when I was a legalist in the Armstrongist system, I was doing this dance myself. What is it? Please allow me to explain.
Legalism is very much like a conspiracy theory. Everyone in the world has it wrong except the legalist and a few other people who think as closely as possible like they do. Everything else is a lie. History is wrong. Books are wrong. Statues and carvings tell a tale that's wrong. Tradition is wrong. Christians are wrong. Jews are wrong. Others in their own church are often wrong. Everything and everyone, but themselves, is wrong.
Once you dismiss everything that could possibly witness against the conspiracy, then you start piling on the theories as if they're true. You can't prove it right or wrong, because absolutely everything is a lie except their claims. Something has to be right. Guess what. It's them!
No proof, because proof is dismissed. Just baseless claims shouted into a vacuum.
The conspiracy bleeds into the Bible. The legalist's interpretations of the Bible do not come out of the Bible, they are forced into it, based on other things the legalist has accepted. The Bible has to change because they need it to change to get the conclusions they want. Conclusions are pre-determined. If you believe in a "lost century" and a "great falling away" after the Apostles died, and the Early Church Fathers were all liars and deceivers, then everything from mainstream Christianity must be false. Therefore, we have to force new interpretations into the Bible, where the Jews are wrong and the Christians are wrong but the conspiracy is right. This will require much proof-texting and cherry-picking.
Take Acts 15 for example.
They rush into the chapter, grab verse 1, then head off as quickly as possible.
The legalist must undo the decision of the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 in order to retain legalism. So, they will remake the discussion to one that's all about circumcision and Pharisaical customs. They reframe everything in the light of a misreading of verse 1, saying, "You have to understand the discussion was only about circumcision, and only because some Jews were saying circumcision is needed for salvation." (A guy said that to me just this week.) They must focus on verse 1, willfully blind to the context of the entire chapter and the culture in that place and time, purposefully skipping right past verses 5 and 24, and you can forget about Acts 21: 25. Then they are off once again.
In, grab, out, skip. 1-2-3-4.
But what happens if we linger a while and read?
The debate was never about circumcision only. No Jew ever thought circumcision all by itself was anything. No one at any point thought circumcision led to salvation. No Jew thought babies were saved at eight days old. Verses 5 and 24, with Acts 21: 25, make it abundantly clear that the entire point was law-keeping. If we stop interpreting three clear verses in the light of one, and start interpreting one unclear verse in the light of three, then we'll see this. Circumcision is merely the gateway to the law. Can't keep the law if you're not circumcised (for men, at least).
And those Pharisaical customs, yes, they were burdensome. They annoyed Jesus. They sometimes contradicted the very law they were meant to interpret. However, Peter threw the context backward in time to "our forefathers", which reaches back in time to Moses himself, before Pharisees existed (ACT. 15: 10). James didn't boast to Paul about Jewish converts being zealous for customs before saying, "But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing" (ACT. 21: 25). No, that was about the law. And if it was about the law, then it also handled circumcision and customs besides. And, at times, the legalist preaches that it was about the law. One moment, they boast about the law-keeping in Acts 21: 20, then spin right around the next moment and say it was only about circumcision and customs.
Verses 5 and 24, with Acts 21: 25, make it beyond clear that the debate was over teaching the Gentiles to be circumcised and keep the whole law, and that the decision of the Council was against this. But if it was about the law, then Mainstream Christians are right after all and the conspiracy disintegrates. This will not do. The legalist cannot allow it. Therefore it must be twisted into a new interpretation. They have little choice. It's either rewrite Acts chapters 15 and 21, or give up the beloved conspiracy.
After verse 1, they samba to verse 21. But not the whole verse! Only the second half.
They say, "Moses being read in the synagogue on Sabbath means the Gentiles were being taught to keep the Sabbath law." (That same guy said this to me, too.) Except this interpretation nullifies everything else in the chapter as well as James' reiteration of the decision in Acts 21. It makes Peter's words into a secret message, encoded for those with gnosis to understand that, despite what they clearly said and wrote, the real decision was against Paul and Barnabas - to teach the Gentiles to keep the law after all. Secret codes and hidden messages are like candy to a conspiracy theorist.
Oh wait! So, it is about the law after all. It's not about the law, but it is about the law, at the same time.
They want James to say, "Some came to us, troubling you. The Holy Spirit is against this. We only burden the Gentiles with these necessary things: the whole law (except the parts requiring circumcision, and the parts forbidding Gentiles to participate, and sacrifices, oh, and national laws, and some things we don't want to do like travelling to Jerusalem.) Never mind the whole law. Gentiles should keep 2% of the law. We could say that clearly, but instead we say, 'Moses is read in the synagogues.' So, leave your Christian house church and go to Jewish synagogue. And none of this is written in the letter we send with Paul and Barnabas. You'll find this out when Luke writes Acts later on. Many of you will be dead by then. Farewell."
Makes perfect sense.
Let's go back to verse 21 and look at the first half of the verse, which was ignored. "For Moses has had throughout many generations..." Guess what verse 21 is not doing. Speaking about the future! Had Gentiles been going to synagogue and listening about Moses for many generations? No. Gentiles had only been called to the faith for a short while, not generations. Who had? The Jews! It's about the Jews, who for many generations went to synagogue and listened about Moses. The Greek Interlinear reads, "from generations of old". Use of the Greek word "archion" proves this is not just past tense but quite old. And did Moses write about the Pharisaical customs? No. Moses wrote about the law. So, the burden no one could bear was not the Pharisaical customs. It was the law. And do these legalists believe Gentiles were going to synagogue in the first place? No. The legalist believes the Jews were corrupt, so synagogues would be avoided. Gentiles could not go to synagogue. Even Jews who believed in Jesus could not go to synagogue. Christians were meeting in Christian churches, not Jewish synagogues. So, Peter is referring to their forefathers, the Israelites, who, over centuries of time, sat every week and listened to the law given by Moses. This is not at all some secret code for instructing future Gentiles to keep the law.
I could give you multiple other examples of the legalist dance besides Acts 15. Jeremiah 10 and Christmas Trees, for one. The legalists read all the way to verse 4, then it's off like a shot. They got a tree and gold and they're gone before the rest of the chapter, the context of the book as a whole, the parallels in Isaiah, and the history of the Middle East can obliterate the conspiracy.
This same legalist I mentioned also said this to me, "You have to pay attention to what they are saying. Circumcision is not a custom of Moses, they {Judaism} added it from the Abrahamic covenant, into the instructions of Moses..."
Circumcision is a conspiracy! According to the conspiracy, circumcision was a lie stolen from Abraham by those evil Jews, then secretly added into the Old Testament in several places. All those verses about circumcision - lies! And that's the message we need to hear from Acts 15.
Now, even the Old Testament is false.
See what I mean?
You just go ahead and try to point this out to them. I'll wait.
What did they do? They ignored you, didn't they? They raced off to some other idea as quickly as they could, didn't they?
That's the dance. The dance is a metaphor for proof-texting, driven by conspiracy theories.
The legalist dance is diving in and out of ideas and verses as fast as possible, staying only long enough to get what they want from the selection, then they're off again to something else before the context can dissolve their conspiracy. A hop here. A pirouette there. Like a honeybee going from flower to flower. Stop, take a bit, move on. On and on and on. Perhaps I should have titled this post "Biblical ADHD".
And if you find the intestinal fortitude to follow them through this dance to its end, you will only discover it starts all over again from the beginning, as if nothing at all had been discussed up to that point. Round and round they spin. The conspiracy simply must be right. They have too much invested to abandon it.
As I said, I've been watching this dance for years. Longer than I've had this blog! Because I used to do this dance back when I was a legalist. I just didn't realize it.
************
It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )
Acts 17:11
************
Most Legalists, including Armstrongites, acknowledge that part of Torah has been fulfilled (usually the sacrificial system and circumcision). This acknowledgement presents them with an unresolvable theological dilemma. Why didn't Christ fulfill all of Torah? Didn't he say that he came to this earth to fulfill Torah, Prophets, and Writings? Moreover, if some of the provisions of Torah are still in full force and effect, what is the standard that we must use to identify them? Are civic, cleanliness, and agricultural laws still in effect?
ReplyDeleteWhen confronted with such questions, the Legalist will inevitably resort to some system for justifying cherry picking Torah. In other words, the Legalist cannot accept Torah as a whole. In order to make their legalism work, they are forced to divide Torah into a number of categories and justify why some categories have been rendered irrelevant. You won't find many Legalists who are ready to embrace Torah as a whole and defend the keeping of all of the instructions found therein. They simply cannot acknowledge that Christ fulfilled ALL of Torah (including the Ten Commandments), and that Christians are bound by the Law which comprehends the whole (Love for God and each other).
They seem unable to comprehend or acknowledge that Torah represents the terms of the Old Covenant. It was designed to meet the needs of primitive and agrarian Israelites in the Levant. The Law of Love is applicable to all humans everywhere for all times.
I agree completely. And I blame their teachers for this. (In some cases, they are so arrogant they refuse any teachers. So, their teachers are themselves. And so I still blame their teachers.)
DeleteAsk 15 concerns whether or not GENTILES should be compelled to be circumcised. It went to the question of whether that was desired by God for non-Abrahamites. The council decided either it was not, or simply they did not know for sure and so would err On the side of not compelling it. Much like Romans 14, which can be applied to the issue of whether or not Leviticus 23 and Leviticus 11 apply to Gentiles. And there’s nothing to do with abolishing any sort of law.
ReplyDeleteDeut 4:1-2;12:32-13:4;30:1-10 would render any religious ideology counter to this invalid, as Anything being “abolished” or such (“fulfilled”) Would not be according to the Scriptures of the time (note Isaiah 8:19-20). You cannot just assume the New Testament. Don’t go Marcion and act like Jesus just dropped out of Heaven.
But don’t worry. You can take the Noachide-only Approach, reject Anglo-Israelism (Or use Jeremiah 3), And just do the other nine commandments of the Decalogue. That basically puts you where you want to be obedience-wise.
I think the distinction of Gentiles is an important one. James makes it clear in Acts 21 that the Jewish converts were zealous for the law. It was the Gentiles to whom they gave no such command.
DeleteI used to take the Noachide-only approach. Now, I'm not so convinced. There is an argument to be made that the specific laws mentioned as being given to the Gentiles were carried forward simply for the sake of peace with the Jewish converts who were still zealous for the law. Those items were expected of Gentiles. I don't think either method of explaining those specific items indicates the Old Covenant was still in effect or that its laws were binding on Gentiles.
I Cited where the Torah Laws are still in effect. That would not be the issue. It was not the issue in the first century. The question was applicability to Gentiles. Jews were And are required to observe. Northern Israelites may also be. If NT Theology says otherwise, then it is in error.
ReplyDeleteYour “keeping peace” argument nullifies NT as divine Word. It makes it sound like it was just those Christians of the time making a human compromise and writing that into what would be called “scripture”. It is simply your conclusion based on what you want to be the case.
Those Deuteronomy passages set the test for all that comes later in the biblical tradition. Don’t read things backwards.
What you cited are verses about the Jews from the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant is dissolved. It has no applicability in the New Covenant, and never had applicability to Gentiles even in the Old Covenant period. You can review my posts on how covenants work if you wonder where I'm coming from on this. I'm not going to debate here with you the nature of contracts, or that the Old Covenant is dissolved.
DeleteThe "keeping peace" argument isn't mine, as if to say I came up with it. It's quite popular. I was merely mentioning it as an option. If you think it nullifies the NT, please elaborate. Those specific requirements given to the Gentiles are literally taken from the Old Covenant and were the items always expected of Gentiles to be among the Jews, and would naturally be expected of Gentiles if the Jewish converts were still zealous for the law. How does that nullify the New Testament?
ReplyDeleteJesus had to agree with Torah (Those verses). Jesus was indeed “under the Law” By the NT’s own statement (Gal 4:4). Thus, he could say nothing that would contradict those Deuteronomy statements. So any Gospel Argument for aggregation of Torah must be wrong, because Jesus could not have made such a statement. The apostles were Jewish, and thus could not make such a statement. And they could not disagree with Jesus. If they did, then they are not in accord with Isa 8. This is a legal analysis that does not depend on the person making the analysis being subject to Torah. It is an academic action, not an evaluation of one’s own relationship to God.
You need not be under a covenant in order to evaluate a covenant and read things historically. A Buddhist if honest will reach the same conclusion I have. An atheist will reach the same conclusion. A Jew will reach the same conclusion.
Your approach presumes the NT. But if NT disagrees with OT, then it is NT that falls. Just applied the same principle that leads you to reject the Quran and the Book of Mormon.
As for that “keeping peace“ theory, it makes it out as if there is a compromise with what is supposedly the truth. If scripture compromises with truth, it ain’t scripture.
I get that you can take Acts in isolation as simply history, and that’s fine. But that sword cuts both ways. If those three or four specific points were just a human compromise, then the core decision in Acts 15 might be wrong as well.
Look, I have negative thoughts about Herbert Armstrong even more than you do. But if you’re going to be a Bible Christian, you can’t set Your beliefs doctrine by simply saying, “Herbert Armstrong believed X, therefore I believe -X.” A broken clock is right twice a day. The Devil can quote Scripture. Liars don’t always lie. And ditch jumping is rarely the way to truth.
I have given you a way to not observe Leviticus 11 and 23 (and we both know that’s all you really care about here) without having to go all Tkach. Indeed, your protestant friends probably disagree with Tkach as well.
If you want to convince Armstrongists not to follow that cult, The answer is not to tell them things they already have strongly disproven.
Jesus was under the law. He had to be. And He did perfectly satisfy the entire law. In that, we seem to be completely in agreement.
DeleteHowever, Jesus lived during the Old Covenant period. Jesus was under the Old Covenant. It was His death that dissolved the Old Covenant. To say that because He lived under a particular contract that contract must continue in perpetuity is exactly contrary to the nature of contracts. His death by necessity dissolved the Old Covenant and made way for the New. This is the critical difference between your position and mine. I accept that Jesus lived in the Old, and died to remove the Old, and lives forever now in the New with us all who believe. I do not see the Old continuing on. I have multiple articles on this if you're interested in where I'm coming from here.
I am not taking Acts in isolation. In my view, Acts 15 is a natural outflow of the Old Covenant being dissolved, and Gentiles now coming together with Jews in the New Covenant.
The converted Jews who were zealous for the Old Covenant law because they had always been, but don't know how to take this where Gentiles are concerned, and they felt the entire law was needed for Gentiles just as it was for themselves. That is not how the Council concluded. But being zealous for the law still comes with certain mindsets. A compromise was needed to be made to keep the peace, and that compromise was to require the Gentiles to do what the Jews felt and what the Old Covenant law stated was the bare minimum for a Gentile to be accepted in their presence. One group compromising their liberty to accommodate another fits with Paul's patterns elsewhere (for example his compromises in Romans 14). The Holy Spirit stepped in, and the decision in Acts was stamped with God's own approval. That's not a nullification of anything.
Don't misunderstand my disagreement with you as being something personal. I am not against you in any way.
By The way, you’re unwillingness to discuss the status if oh see it’s just as bad as that of an Armstrongist to discuss the status of their apostle.
ReplyDeleteI didn't say I was unwilling to discuss. I think the fact that I've responded to you at all should prove that much. What I said was, I am not going to debate the nature of contacts. If that is indeed what you wish to do. I will not waste my time debating something so settled as that. If you want to change the nature of contracts, then we truly have nothing to discuss. Instead, I pointed you to articles if you want to know more about my thoughts on contracts.
DeleteYour position presumes Jesus. But what if Jesus was a false Messiah? Then you are believing OC/Torah is abolished when it in fact may not be. That is the logical flaw in your entire approach. The Israelites were to evaluate prophets by Moses. A prophet couldn’t just say to disregard Moses. Therefore Jesus must be evaluated by Moses and the previous prophets. He could not abolish Moses. And the apostles likewise must be evaluated by Moses, the prophets, and even Jesus. They can’t abolish Moses either. OC/Torah was not abolished simply because it cannot be abolished. Those Deuteronomy verses locked it in. The God of the Bible sets his own limits, and that’s a limit he set.
ReplyDeleteIf someone comes along, and tells you, the Bible is abolished, you would not believe him, because that would contradict the Bible. Same principle here.
I get that you simply believe what you wanna believe. I was hoping you’d be different after all these years. God will judge the contradiction in your belief system which I appointed out to you.
Yes, my approach does presume Jesus. And your position presumes Moses. What if he never existed? I don't see him anywhere. What if he was made up after the fact, as some Jews say he was?
DeleteSaying "what if" does not introduce a fallacy. That's not how logic works.
My presumption of Jesus is based on a lifetime of my own study and others' besides. It's not as if I picked up Jesus from a shelf and said, "Hey! That's neat. I think I'll accept Him."
If Moses never exist existed, then Jesus is a fraud. But if Jesus was a fraud, Moses might still be legitimate.
ReplyDeleteGood thing we both accept Moses, then!
DeleteBut my point remains - we both presume it. I would give up on the presumption argument because it tries to prove too much.
I actually agree with you In the sense that presumption is not an argument. I am no longer a Christian Because it cannot be proven. If God wants me to be a Christian, he has to come to me in person and tell me with absolute proof that he is who he claims to be. So personally, I Disregard all religious dogma.
DeleteThat said, you need to be true to your own Bible. If Moses was false — And for your view to be correct, those Deuteronomy passages must be false — Then Jesus is false.
I am grateful you can be so open and honest there. I wish I could convince you to join Christianity, but it looks like you've set a condition I cannot meet. I don't know why He doesn't come to everyone. I know people who changed their life because He did show up. I have no answers to explain it.
DeleteI disagree with Deuteronomy proving my view false. I think that statement misunderstands the Covenants. I really do recommend you read Confusing The Covenants. Not to convince you, but I believe if you read it you would understand why I do not believe Deuteronomy proves my view false.
If Jesus abolished the OC in his teachings, then he is a false Messiah. We know this because Deut 12:32-13:4 Shows that a legitimate prophet of the God of the Bible, won’t do that. So if Jesus in his life as a human did that, he would have to be rejected.
DeleteSo, you say it had to wait for the apostles to do that. That means Jesus really couldn’t tell the Gospel. That is one stupid God you have if that’s the case. He apparently didn’t know the end from the beginning. And since the apostles would be contradicting Jesus if they did that (Matt 5:17-20), they would fail. You could still hold onto Jesus himself (sorta), but you would have to give up the only statements that you can use to argue OC was abolished. The Gospel accounts can’t do that, remember.
By the way, if the God of the Bible is real, I have beaten him. He can’t hold my rejection of that book Or Jesus or Moses against me, because it came through humans and he didn’t just come to me. If I am right, the Bible is Doesn’t matter. As long as I strive to be a benevolent soul — because if God is not benevolent, then none of this matters — I’ll be fine. If the Bible is actually from the true God, I’m still OK. I have that ironclad legal defense. I will stand before him, present it, and he will go, “Huh. You’re right.” Otherwise, he will be lying before the whole host of Heaven.
But for you, if the Bible or Jesus is not genuine, you will have a lot of ‘splainin’ to do.
Fortunately, I have no doubt the true Creator and Judge of the universe is smarter than the God of the Bible.
I would be remiss if I did not point out that Deut 12:32-13:4 do not actually say anything like what you claim they say. Those verses are about idolatry and going after other gods. If you're going to take the words at all, then take the words in context. Or else what's the point of reading anything.
DeleteSame goes for what I say. I didn't say we had to wait for the Apostles to do that. I was pretty clear that Jesus Himself did that - which you recognize by trying to refute my saying that. Should I read what you say as you intended it, or can I just read it any way I want?
Read the very first verse in that passage. Adding to and taking away from Torah is very essence of what that false prophet is doing. Abolishing it is exactly that. Plus, didn’t Jesus say something about “revealing the Father” And that the Jews really didn’t know him? It’s almost as if he was in introducing them to a new god! You can see how that fits.
ReplyDeleteAnd then your second claim destroys your religion: If Jesus did that, then he violated Torah, and thus was a false Messiah. This is the problem with your presumption of Jesus. Because you think Jesus had to be true, you can’t fathom the possibility that he was false. So just because he said something that would contradict Torah, it would not mean to you that he was false. That is where you are going wrong. You are making Jesus out to have failed.
Tkach and company made that same mistake. They used Jesus’ words to support their claim. Then the same thing was pointed out, and they had to back off fast. It was hilarious.
You say "read the very first verse" as if I haven't been doing that my entire life. Why don't you try reading the these things in context.
DeleteJesus is not adding to nor taking away from in the sense Deuteronomy is mentioning. He's not trying to skirt around the law. He's not escaping parts of it. He kept the law blamelessly. Can't keep it blamelessly and skirt parts of it at the same time. So, context is gonna be key here.
Perhaps you have some particular situation in mind where Tkatch backed off fast, but considering their GCI is at this very moment still teaching exactly what I'm saying to you now, this would tend to demonstrate Tkatch never backed off.
“ He's not escaping parts of it. He kept the law blamelessly.”
DeleteHow do you know that? Because he said so? Because it’s apostle said so? Of course they’re gonna say that. But does the record show that? If Jesus said when you claim he said, then he didn’t. But because You presume him to be legitimate As a Messiah, he presume him to Be blameless. And then, because He was blameless, he presume him to be legitimate as a Messiah. Circular reasoning.
According to you, He was escaping parts of it. Every single part of it.
As for packing off by Tkach, You weren’t around in 1995. I was. I remember the rhetoric. You don’t. You can go back and look at what was written at that time. The change was quite stark. The idea was the same, but the argument had to change.
AutoCorrect and voice to text failed me.
DeleteHere’s that one paragraph corrected
How do you know that? Because he said so? Because the apostles said so? Of course they’re gonna say that. But does the record show that? If Jesus said what you claim he said, then he didn’t. But because you presume him to be legitimate As a Messiah, you presume him to Be blameless. And then, because He was blameless, you presume him to be legitimate as a Messiah. Circular reasoning.
Well, isn't your position basically, "The record is wrong, so who cares what the record shows?" Correct me if I'm wrong on that. So why bother asking what the record shows? I believe the New Testament, so yes, so far as I'm concerned that's what the record shows. I've already said earlier that I am taking into consideration a lifetime of looking into this. So, when you come back to me with the "blind faith" accusation, just know I reject that.
DeleteWhat I'm saying is not complicated. One need not violate a contract to dissolve it. Contracts are created, kept, and dissolved every day. To say that it must be violated in order to be dissolved doesn't even comport with reason. He wasn't violating the law. He was dissolving the entire Covenant. VERY different thing.
No. I wasn't in the church in 1995. I stepped out right before then and joined one of the churches that formed UCG. But I was still around. And I knew several people who were in. It's not like I didn't know what was going on.
I need to break off now. I will respond to any responses of yours later.
DeleteBut I met one thing: This is all I academic to me. The Bible has too many flaws to be legitimately from God. And Jesus was a wimp.
Oh, I stand corrected. I thought you had entered Armstrong as a metal later date. In that case, you should remember.
DeleteJesus didn’t ended by breaking it. Jesus just didn’t end it. I don’t necessarily believe that was his intent, based on the present scriptures, and if it was, then he failed because he was a sinner by trying that.
You know what I mean. You’re just choosing not to believe it. It doesn’t really matter, because it’s all false.
Looking forward to The 40th anniversary of Armstrong dying. I’m actually planning a little party that day. It’s beautiful.
Have a good day.
Has it been 40 years already?? I remember it. It doesn't feel that long.
DeleteI think we could debate this same thing in circles, but that sounds boring. I just want to ask you this because I'm curious to your solution.
Granted, I accept you do not believe this can or will happen, but it's all academic anyway, so...
If Jesus did appear to you, how could you prove it to others? But if you can't prove it to others, should you then deny your own experience?
I don’t have to prove it to others. And my inability to prove it to others should not impact my own belief in it in truth, erases the question of WHY he didn’t appear to others?
DeleteBut to be more meaningful, I didn’t talk so much about Jesus appearing, but rather God appearing. God appearing to me and telling me to religiously believe in this Jesus dude. There is a difference there, if you can think beyond your Jesus box.
Religious belief is different than any other belief we can have because we have to hold and be true to that belief not simply because of the evidence, but sometimes in spite of the evidence. And we have to do it no matter who or what it hurts. Literally every other belief we have — historical, political, scientific, personal, family — can be subject to conscientious and moral questioning. But if the belief Is religious — I don’t mean theory or “seems really likely,” But rather that deep conviction — then you have no grounds for challenging it. If you believe God requires you to do something that will end up hurting yourself or others, you can’t come up with some sort of, “Sorry, God, I think you’re wrong this time.” (I saw an episode of Highway to Heaven where Jonathan did that and got in trouble.) No, you have to do it, even if it causes the painful death of an innocent kitten, when there was no compelling reason besides being told by God to do it.
So, if I am to yield my thinking and conscience and whatever to such a belief, I am going to need a higher degree of proof than “beyond a reasonable doubt.“ It’s going to take an undeniable proof, for want of a better term. I might be on a jury and convict somebody with less than undeniable proof. I might go to war with less than undeniable proof. A lot of things I might do with less than undeniable proof, but all of those could be subject to thought and conscience. But sacrificing your family’s well-being in order to observe seventh-day Sabbath? Or letting them be persecuted because they believe in the messiahship of this Jesus dude? No, those require that higher level. And that level can only be achieved by the direct divine communication.
And no, “faith” is not proof. That is what cult leaders and charlatans tell you in order to get you to drop your God-given intelligence in favor of what they tell you. And that would very easily include people like Jesus and the apostles. God gave us our minds, and so does his responsibility to prove it is him.
In law, we have a concept of “best evidence.” In essence, we don’t accept the deposition when the Witness can be produced. God is making his case before our court. We don’t need to accept documents going back 2000 years and more, because he is more than capable of appearing in person to every single person – or at least ones he wants to – whenever he wants.
This is why I believe it most likely (note the qualification there) that God does not appear to us, at least not very often. Thinking people who realize what I’ve said would not be able to believe him anyway, at least not very easily. Too much science fiction shows us how things can be faked. I’m not saying God has never appeared to people. Some of those ancient stories may have truth to them. That is fine. But I can’t confirm those things because I was not there. And I really have no way in the flesh to confirm it was God if he did appear to me today.
Yes, I know that brings to mind Jesus asking whether there would be faith on the Earth when he returns, but again every cult leader would say something like that. Bones was wrong and Star Trek V: We CAN ask the Almighty for his ID.
Continued.
Part two.
DeleteSo, armed with all of this legal argument, I take the approach that what we can and must do is be benevolent. That is, benevolent as opposed to ambivalent or malevolent. I PRESUME God to be benevolent because if he is one of those other two, none of this really matters. We are all screwed then. And if God is benevolent, then we should be benevolent. Then, because a benevolent God would have to be one who rewards good and punishes evil, it makes sense that there would be a judgment and an afterlife. Too much unrewarded good and unpunished evil in this universe. I don’t claim to know how that will work. I don’t know if there will be an American Valhalla for veterans like me, or a Rainbow Bridge where I will finally see again my four-legged friends from childhood and my feline children of my adulthood. I hope those things will be, but bo matter. I know a benevolent God will have the afterlife as benevolent for us.
That went a little long, but I trust you can get the picture.
END
You were monologuing there.
Delete