Lisa Gungor's Most Beautiful Thing: An Ode to Relativism
You might recognize the name Lisa Gungor as one half of the singer/songwriter duo, Gungor, who have written and recorded widely beloved songs such as "Dry Bones," and "Beautiful Things." A few years ago, the Gungors made headlines after revealing they no longer believe in biblical historical narratives such as a literal Adam and Eve, or Noah's flood. They even compared these notions to believing in Santa Claus.
For many Evangelicals, this came as an utter shock. But for those who were paying attention, the Gungors had been veering from historic Christianity for a while, and none of this happened in a vacuum. To help connect the dots, Lisa Gungor recently penned her memoir, The Most Beautiful Thing I've Seen: Opening Your Eyes to Wonder.
The book tracks the couple's spiritual journey from hyper-legalistic fundamentalism to a more progressive type of Christianity to atheism, and finally to a wider spirituality that they no longer necessarily call "Christian." It's beautifully written, and Lisa manages to describe the desert of doubt and loss of faith with captivating tenderness, honesty, and vulnerability. She shares the pain of being sexually abused by a church leader as a young girl. She explains the disorienting control of a cult-like church environment. She takes the reader on a journey from childhood in a tiny New Mexico town to meeting the love of her life in college to touring the world as a successful music artist to becoming a mother.
Although I disagree with many of Lisa's conclusions, I by no means wish to trample on her thoughts and memories. It's not easy to open your heart to the world, lay it bare, and share your deepest reflections. I’m thankful for this book because it helps me, as an apologist and as a Christian, to interact more meaningfully with those who have adopted progressive Christianity. I wish I had the space to speak to all of the nuances in the book, but this post will deal primarily with Lisa's most fundamental assumption about reality. I pray it is helpful.
Dot
The Most Beautiful Thing I've Seen begins in an art class. Lisa's teacher draws a dot on a blank paper and asks the class what it is. Various students begin naming this dot things like "point" and "ball" and "cylinder" and" pencil" and "nail" and "tower" and "line." The teacher responds, "It may be a dot, but maybe it’s also something else. It’s all perspective, isn’t it?" (p. 17)
This is very clearly how Lisa sees reality. The most pervasive theme throughout the whole book is this: Reality is relative. It's all perspective. It's all what you see.
Here's the problem. Reality doesn't actually work like that. Our perspectives can shift throughout our lives, and we may see things differently than we did before. But that doesn't mean reality has changed. It means that we have either embraced reality more fully, or walked away from it to see something entirely different. The dot on the paper? It's a dot. It's not a line or a tower or a pencil. Although it may look like those things when you glance from different angles, it is still just….a dot. There can be deeper ways we grow to understand the dot, and more ways we can apply what we know about the dot to our lives, but that dot will never be a pencil. Once we call it a pencil, we are no longer operating in reality.
For example, imagine you deposit $808 in your bank account, and go back a few days later to withdraw it. Suppose your bank teller says, "Well, you may see $808, but I see the word ‘BOB.’ So sorry…have a good day.” There isn't one of us who would stand for that. We would appeal to reality, and say "You're wrong! Give me my eight hundred and eight bucks!" This is because we all innately know that reality is not just a matter of opinion.
Lisa writes, "Reality is one thing to you and another to me, but none of us sees it for what it is." (p. 18) While it's true that none of us has a fully accurate picture of reality, our goal should be to line up our perspective with what's real as best we can…not simply see it as an excuse to embrace a form of relativism.
Line
Lisa weaves her memoir around the theme: dot, line, circle. The "dot" is the tribe you are born into. It's the small part of the world in which you learn the basic things of life. On your dot, you learn your tribe's beliefs, customs, and way of seeing the world. But at some point, your dot begins to shake. As new questions rise up and unfamiliar ideas invade your small world, you begin to walk out on a scary new line that is emerging from the dot. Just when you begin to feel safe on your new line, it also begins to shake and disintegrate, dropping you into a circle, which Lisa describes as "the reality underneath and around the reality you could see." (p. 124)
In her view, the dot and the line weren't really a dot or a line at all, but that was just how you saw them because of your perspective. This may actually be an accurate metaphor for how her beliefs developed, but that doesn’t mean it’s applicable to everyone.
Lisa's writing is rich with metaphor, so she never explicitly explains what her dot, line, and circle are. But it's not difficult to see that her dot was the hyper-legalistic, almost cult-like sect of Christianity in which she was raised. Her "line" was Christianity in general, with its tenets, Scripture, and exclusivity. Her "circle" is now a more pluralistic view of spirituality, and a recognition that "the divine" isn't restricted to one religious group. (p. 116) In her estimation, this is ultimate reality.
She received this epiphany while attending a silent retreat she describes as employing a more Eastern approach to spirituality, complete with two hour meditation sessions and Buddha statues. At the end of the retreat, she felt something "almost like feminine arms" holding her. She began referring to God as "Divine Mother” and practicing "centering mindfulness." (p. 180) (Mindfulness is a meditative practice that is the seventh step on the Buddhist eightfold path.)
But this didn’t happen in a vacuum either. Prior to this new way of thinking, she had already given up on reading the Bible, dismissed historic Christian teachings about marriage and sexuality, and described the God of the Old Testament as a "bratty violent murderer who killed babies and desperately needed his son’s blood in order to save all the rotten humans he accidentally created." (p.174)
So, the book reads like an ode to relativism, but ends up bottoming out in absolutism: trading belief in one absolute truth for another.
Circle
So what do we make of all this? I've done my best to carefully analyze and understand Lisa's viewpoint, and I don't think that ultimate reality is what she thinks it is. I might suggest an alternative path:
Assess your dot. Peel back the layers. Question absolutely everything you were taught about God, the Bible, Christianity, religion, and the world. Reject the things that are false and hold onto the things that are true. Maybe your dot will have quite a bit of truth. Maybe it won't. But don't reject your dot just because it was your starting point.
Here's the bottom line. If Christianity is true, then it is, by nature, exclusive. This means all other religions are false. If Christianity is true, then the circle of reality Lisa fell into is really just someone else’s dot. In my view, she has rejected the exclusivity and moral demands of Christianity, and traded them for something equally as dogmatic and exclusive—religious pluralism, the belief that there isn’t just one road to God.
Jesus loves Lisa Gungor, and I am praying for her. I am thankful for her creative mind, poetic honesty, and raw vulnerability. This book won't soon leave me. I pray that God will lead His wandering daughter home…free from abuse and confusion.
I am hopeful He will do it—because He truly does make beautiful things out of the dust.
phil
10/31/2018 10:00:04 am
Fabulous post. I sense (and fear) a progressive "wave" making its way into mainstream Christianity in the USA. It may turn into a sunami before long. I'm thankful that you are willing (and very able) to take it on with such truth and grace. I'm praying more people will listen to and read what you are saying. It's so desperately needed.
Hey Phil, thanks so much for this comment brother. I assure you that the wave is here and that it will be a tsunami very soon. I've been doing all I can to warn the church of this for the past ten years, with little to no success. Anyone who knows the history of liberal Protestantism in this country should be able to see that this is coming. Liberal Protestantism almost completely destroyed evangelicalism in this country in the late 1800's through the early 1900's. Evangelicalism barely held on in the rural South and in pockets of rural America elsewhere for the most part and then saw a huge resurgence in the 80's. But the same thing is happening now and with even more vigor and it is truly scary.
Audrey
10/31/2018 01:41:36 pm
Thank you for another good post, Alisa. I think you are right that pluralism is just as dogmatic and exclusive as the religions it claims to be above. Those I have heard making pluralistic claims have been insistent of them and upset at non-pluralistic views. This is in spite of the fact that pluralism isn't even compatible with (most of) the religions it claims to "include." Therefore, it is really it's own religion whose logical conclusion is that all other religions are wrong.
Also, I think pluralism can "feel" true only when one doesn't take the time to look at the various religious groups' claims and their logical conclusions.
I wonder if the goodness and providence of God to all people is misunderstood by pluralists to mean that there is no complete divine revelation, even though that doesn't follow. Do you have any thoughts on this, Alisa?
Thanks.
Jane Fix
10/31/2018 01:51:48 pm
My heart is heavy…for Lisa and for her sphere of influence. In all honesty, when I was reading her “thoughts” I was reminded of the pot smoking hippies of my generation. Satan and his demons hard at work…sad, very sad.
Dawn
10/31/2018 02:33:58 pm
Thank you – for your compassion and humility. For your willingness to listen and hear Lisa's heart and struggle. For your desire to understand first. I appreciate both the TRUTH of this post and the tone in which it is communicated.
Camelia
10/31/2018 03:55:44 pm
Nicely said. I will keep Lisa in my prayers.
Margie
10/31/2018 07:38:22 pm
For any of you struggling with the exclusivity of world views, and how Christianity best explains reality, one of the best and easiest to understand books on this is The Story of Reality by Greg Koukl. It is a great foundational book and a great evangelism tool. No prior knowledge of Christianity needed.
Aaron
11/1/2018 03:14:33 am
I appreciate the respectful tone you took here. As a former fundamentalist myself and current pastor of a progressive church in LA, I’d like to point out that conservative Christianity is actually rife with ambiguity and relativism because it cannot function without it.
When I was a conservative and someone asked me how an all-powerful loving God could allow so much unjust suffering, I’d eventually say, “It’s a mystery. Accept it and still believe God is all-powerful and loving.” Thus, believing in ambiguity under the guise of “mystery” was absolutely necessary to maintain a conservative faith.
Regarding relativism, nothing is more morally relativistic than to believe God is love yet incinerates people for wrong beliefs. I could go on and cite other examples but you get the point. Perhaps the difference between progressives and conservatives is not that one group is immersed in relativism and ambiguity and the other isn’t, but that progressives can admit it.
Alisa Childers
11/1/2018 09:00:08 am
Hi Aaron, thanks for sharing your thoughts here. I agree that Christians shouldn't simply appeal to mystery or a "just have faith" type of attitude when it comes to difficult questions. Thankfully, regarding the problem of evil and suffering, many conservatives are doing hard philosophical and biblical work on this, and are providing intellectually and emotionally satisfying answers. So, I don't agree that believing in ambiguity under the guise of “mystery” is absolutely necessary to maintain a conservative faith.
I don't agree with your characterization of how God punishes sin, but assuming you are talking about the traditional understanding of hell, can you help me understand how that is relativistic? Thanks.
Aaron
11/1/2018 04:56:40 pm
Thanks again for your respectful tone. I hope you can hear me in a similar way.
I obviously don't know you or the nuances of what you believe. Forgive me if my assumptions are off. My experience with most conservatives is that they believe in some kind of literal hell/place of eternal torment/annihilation for non Christians. If this is what you believe, no amount of reasoning and intellectual gymnastics can make that God loving in my mind. To claim that love can be defined as including such unspeakable acts of violence, is the very definition of moral relativism. Calling God good, loving, and just while believing he tells his people in the Bible to stone folks for religious infractions, is moral relativism. Words mean things. Love, if it means anything, probably cannot include me killing or torturing my child for having bad theology. I actually don't think a loving parent would torture their child for anything. Why does God get a pass? Because he's God? Is it a mystery that I should just accept?
I grew up as a theologically conservative Christian and was so until I was 30. I'm 42 now. I hold a BA in Biblical Studies and an MDiv. I've been a full time teaching pastor for ten years. I have published a book and numerous articles. I say all that not to brag but to say that I know the conservative arguments for theodicy very well because I used to believe them and make them myself.
Often when I engage a conservative their assumption is that there must be some key argument that I haven't heard or understood yet, and if I only I did I'd go back to being a conservative. The problem isn't that there's some key point I haven't heard or understood yet, the problem is I've heard them all. There's a big difference between disagreeing with something outright and disagreeing with something you once believed. The problem is not that I don't understand you. The problem is you don't understand me, and Lisa Gungor. Nor do I think you really want to. Maybe one day you will. I wish you well on your journey.
I’ve read both of your comments and I only respond here to the first one because it wouldn’t let me respond to the second. If you are such an expert on conservative Christianity as you say, then why do you so badly misrepresent it in both of your comments?
Aaron
11/2/2018 10:25:58 am
Dan and Alisa, respectfully, how have I misrepresented conservative Christianity? I understand that you disagree with my judgment of it. But how have I misrepresented or mischaracterized what the basic tenets of your beliefs are? I thought you believed in the following:
1. Hell as a literal place of conscious eternal torment.
2. God told the Israelites to execute people for religious infractions.
3. God will send us to hell for having the wrong beliefs (i.e., not believing in Jesus' atonement or his resurrection).
If this is what you believe, in my opinion that's toxic for you and others. In my opinion, this God is not good. You may disagree but I have not misrepresented your beliefs. Again, I used to have these same beliefs so I get where you're coming from.
Alisa, you ask how is it loving for God to allow a rapist to live in heaven with his victim(s)? I admit that's a great moral question. However, since I have no idea if heaven exists or how it works I can't answer that. But your question fascinates me for another reason:
Do you not believe that God in Deut 22:28 demands that a raped/assaulted woman marry her attacker? Do you not also believe that Numbers 31:18 is the Word of God? "But all the young girls [of the newly conquered Midian] who have not known a man by sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves."
This is sex slavery and rape. Moses told the Israelite men this was ok because women were part of the spoils of war like cattle and gold. This was common practice in the ancient near east, but it was evil and God sanctioned it. Again, I'm not misrepresenting what the Bible *actually* says or what you believe. I'm just sharing my opinion on it.
Alisa Childers
11/3/2018 09:53:13 pm
Aaron, the first thing I would say is that I don't think a word like "conservative" is helpful here. Depending on who you ask, that can mean anything from alignment with a particular political party to simply holding to orthodox theology. I prefer "historic" Christianity, because that implies a more broad theological definition of Christianity based on creeds and the historically agreed upon tenets.
The main way I think you misrepresented historic Christianity is when you compared hell to a parent "torturing my child for having bad theology." The core tenet of Christianity is saving faith in Jesus as one's Savior. It's not just about believing certain theological things…even the demons believe.
Of course, to truly be able to put faith in Jesus as Savior requires that one realizes that they need a Savior. It's not just checking certain beliefs off a checklist. And putting faith in Jesus as Savior would require a person to recognize that they are a sinner in need of a Savior (which implies original sin, human depravity, the need for atonement etc…).
The thief on the cross is a beautiful example of this. He recognized his need for a Savior, believed, and asked Jesus to remember Him in His kingdom. He didn't necessarily know everything there was to know about atonement, resurrection, and heaven/hell. But had he survived, he would have learned more and would have affirmed these things as a believer.
Regarding the Old Testament, I talked with Paul Copan about the specific verses you brought up here:
https://www.alisachilders.com/blog/does-the-old-testament-condone-rape-and-genocide-with-paul-copan-the-alisa-childers-podcast-29
Aaron, I'm curious…what's the standard by which you claim the God of the Bible is good or bad? (I'm not asking you to tell me *what* is good or bad about God, but by what standard you justify making such claims).
Aaron
11/4/2018 05:04:48 pm
Hi Alisa,
I'm ok with you calling yourself a historical Christian instead of a conservative. However, you need to know that the creeds (Nicene and Apostles) were created to unite the church on doctrinal issues that went unresolved in the first **three hundred** years. Think about that. For the first three hundred years after Christ, there was a diversity of thought regarding his divinity, humanity, atonement, etc. Therefore, one could make the case that "historical Christianity" is a somewhat relative term, historically speaking.
It should also be noted that after Constantine, any deviation from creedal Christianity was often met with violence and excommunication. Thus, historical Christianity/orthodoxy was maintained by coercion, not because everyone in church naturally interpreted the Bible the same way. Plus, consider the Great Schism of the 10th-century (when the Eastern church separated from the Western) and the Protestant Reformation in the 16th. These controversies were over major differences in theology and politics. My point is, "historical Christianity" is a loaded term to say the least.
I read some of Mr. Copan's explanations of those texts in the OT. I agree with him that not every story is meant to be read as prescriptive (go and do likewise), like Lot's daughters getting him drunk so they can have sex with him and get pregnant. Holy mackerel. But he can't explain away Numbers 31 (women were spoils of war). His attempt to tie that text into Deut 21 and say that they weren't raped or forced into marriages is ridiculous. Aside from that, the OT (and parts of the NT) is **so** misogynistic. The woman is always "damaged goods" and not the man for being raped or for having premarital sex. She could be purchased and he couldn't. I could go on but I'll spare both of us the time.
You asked me what standards I use to judge the God we find often depicted in the Bible. I think empathy is a good guide ("do unto others as you would have them do unto you.") It's actually not hard to treat other people well, regardless of their religion or sexuality. I don't know you but you seem like a kind hearted and good person. My guess is that you're not a sociopath and know what's hurtful to others. One doesn't need a degree in ethics to say that a God who damns people to eternal torment for being an atheist, Muslim, or gay, is not good. Thus, one doesn't need religion to make them moral. If one can't determine the difference between good and evil, one lacks empathy, not religion.
It's funny, one of the things that brought me out of conservative Christianity was thinking about the Bible's relationship to other sacred stories from the ancient world. Don't you think it's strange that we've been taught the Israelites were the **only** ancient culture without myths and legends? Their neighbors all had them (i.e., Sumerians, Babylonians, Akkadians, Persians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans). Are we to assume the Israelites did not and that their myths and legends are all real history? Their stories are rife with similar mythological elements as those of other cultures (magic, anthropomorphic views of God, talking animals, etc.)
Hope that helps clarify my position. Although, I'm sure you will still find it frustrating. I wish I could share my story with you because I think you would at least understand how I arrived here better. We're all products of our experiences. Our beliefs are too. Peace to you.
Alisa Childers
11/4/2018 05:45:46 pm
Thanks for continuing the conversation. I'm sure neither one of us is going to change each other's minds, but I find that these exchanges can be helpful for those who are reading and assessing the two different viewpoints.
To clarify, when I'm speaking of historic Christianity, I am not simply speaking of the Nicene and Apostle's creed. Rather, I would appeal to the earliest creed in Christian history, which virtually no scholar (even liberal and atheist ones) contests is from 18 months to seven years after Jesus' death and resurrection, found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5. Contained within is Jesus death and burial being *for our sins*, and his resurrection. Both the resurrection and his death are connected with the Jewish Scriptures. So the earliest and most historically consistent form of Christianity included Jesus' substitutionary atonement, resurrection, and a high view of Scripture. This was maintained throughout church history through the writing of the creeds to today.
With that said, your implication that the Nicene and Apostles creeds were simply resolving doctrinal issues that were undecided for 300 years is a gross misunderstanding of church history. I recommend Michael Kruger's *The Heresy of Orthodoxy,* if anyone wants to learn more. Yes, these creeds put the nail in the coffin of heresies that were springing up after the gospel started to spread throughout the known world. But the earliest gnostic gospels don't even start showing up until the early to mid 300's. And that's only the gospel of Thomas. The others were later.
And again, regarding morality, I'm not asking you to describe what *is* morally right (do unto others) which I'm sure we would agree upon. I'm asking you *why* that is moral. If you simply say that it's a matter of "empathy" or what's "hurtful to others," I think we could both agree that many different people will have different ideas about what is hurtful to others. For example, Hitler thought what he was doing was morally right. Who decides between you and him?
Aaron
11/4/2018 09:29:16 pm
Alisa,
While the creeds were created for more than ending the controversies in the early church, the fact remains, the many councils and debates that took place during this era reveal ipso facto that the early church was a very diverse place theologically. Not sure how you can get around that, especially considering the events of the 10th and 16th century.
Your readers may find it interesting that the Cappadocian Fathers (Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Basil the Great) who were responsible for creating the "orthodox" view of the Trinity still in place today (380 CE., Council of Constantinople), were universalists. Thus, the authors of orthodoxy were many years later deemed heretics by the very church they helped establish. Apparently, this wasn't a problem at the time. Thus, what gets called orthodoxy and heresy is remarkably arbitrary and often evolves over time. Orthodoxy is always determined by those in power to suit their agendas and does not necessarily reflect who has the best interpretation of scripture.
Finally, your question – how is my moral compass better than Hitler's and who decides if it is? is really problematic. I'm sure you believe this question is sincere, but I think you're fooling yourself. I think you know there's a big difference between me and Hitler. If you think we're morally equivalent then you don't understand anything about morality or people. But again, I don't believe that about you.
More to the point, yes, definitions of good and evil can vary culture to culture. Definitions of love and empathy can vary. The Bible's depictions of these values is diverse too because it was the product of a particular culture with particular values that weren't always good. Thus, you have not escaped subjectivity by appealing to scripture. Once you begin interpreting/reading scripture subjectivity only increases.
I think the best way to define empathy is to ask ourselves – what's best for human well-being and human flourishing? I think we can all agree that things like: murder, rape, racism, and sexism are not what's best for human well-being and human flourishing. Societies and communities where these things are allowed to go on unchecked do not foster the greatest quality of life.
Alisa Childers
11/4/2018 10:10:37 pm
Aaron, I think you may have misunderstood my question about Hitler. My apologies if I wasn't clear. I wasn't asking *if* your moral compass is better than Hitlers. I am assuming that it is. And no, I am not appealing to Scripture on this…you assumed that. I was simply asking a question.
But I'll give this question a third shot. Let's assume you and I agree on the definition of basic morality. Again, I'm not asking you to define morality, but to tell me *why* something is defined as moral or immoral. As you pointed out, definitions of good and evil can vary from culture to culture. So, what makes one culture right and the other wrong?
Aaron
11/4/2018 11:38:39 pm
Alisa,
I honestly think I've answered your question as best as possible – what makes one culture right and the other wrong? Obviously, cultures are complex social constructs and not totally "right" or "wrong." The culture that is better for human well-being and human flourishing is morally superior, IMO. Sorry, if I'm misunderstanding you. I'm concerned we're talking past each other a bit.
I'm assuming your pushing this issue to show that we need some objective source of morality from on high to *actually* have morality. Am I right? I used to believe that too. The inescapable problem for that position is the inherent subjectivity of theology. Theology, no matter how much you may want it to be, is not science. It does not occupy the same epistemological category as science. You may think you know God exists and that he thinks gay sex is immoral because the Bible says so, but you don't actually *know* that. It's an article of faith. You can't prove in some kind of falsifiable way that that's true. Thus, appealing to scripture or theology as *the* objective moral standard doesn't work. The closest we can get is the above mentioned empathetic standard. Again, I think my point of view is a Christian one as Jesus teaches this standard as the "golden rule."
Alisa Childers
11/5/2018 08:38:52 am
Aaron, I'm not "pushing an issue," or "appealing to Scripture or theology." I'm simply asking a question. Because of the many claims you've made about the immorality of the Bible, God, and the beliefs of others in this thread, I'm curious what standard you appeal to to make such claims. Again, I'm not asking you to define or describe what *is* moral (human flourishing etc..). I'm asking you *why* such a thing is moral or immoral. It seems you can't or won't answer, so I'm not sure the conversation can go much further.
Aaron
11/5/2018 09:19:32 am
I feel like your question is akin to asking a parent why they love their child – as if they need a coherent theological or philosophical argument to justify it. They don't. Some things are "unconditional." Meaning they have inherent beauty and worth, without-why. Why do human beings, regardless of culture, race, religion, time, and place; love their children? Why do we seek meaning? Why do all cultures create art? Why do all cultures create moral categories?
I believe there is something divine about that which is "unconditional." Call it a divine spark. This could be the root of our morality, our innate sense of good and evil, right and wrong – even though we often come up with different definitions of these terms. I believe it may have a divine source. What that divine source is I have learned to be humble and refuse to make any definitive claims.
Perhaps if you tell me why you think we're moral creatures I'll have a better understanding of what you're asking.
Aaron, I am actually responding to your comment below addressed to both Alisa and myself. I again only respond here because it won’t let me respond in the proper place. Hopefully, it will get rearranged and put in the right spot like my first comment to you.
I am more than happy to continue the conversation with you, but I often get too fiery and long winded for Alisa’s tastes and I want to respect that. So if you want to continue the conversation, we would need to do so on my website. If you do not wish to move things over there, that’s fine, that’s your choice. But at that point my lack of further response should not be interpreted as my inability to prove that you are misrepresenting us.
I just went ahead and responded to your many misrepresentations on my blog if you or anyone else is interested. Thanks Aaron.
David Richardson
11/1/2018 10:01:12 am
You are quite correct. The idea that there are many roads to God is deceptively tolerant. If one claims to know this to be true, then one certainly cannot know it while walking a particularly path. Instead, one must rise above the ground where these various paths lie to gain a God's-eye view of the terrain. From this viewpoint, one can see where the various paths start, how they progress, and where they end.
In short, one must claim to see how God sees. That is an absolute claim, not a relativistic one. It will also prove to be less than tolerant.
How Lisa was treated by a church leader is tragic. But her evaluation of the Bible and Christianity is less than rational. Her embrace of religious pluralism carries with it severe intellectual challenges. Moreover, her more feminine view of God will still leave her with unanswered moral problems. Unfortunately, any attempt to resolve these in a pantheistic framework will lead her to a position in which good and evil ultimately become the same thing. As we learn from Hinduism, that we see good and evil as different is simply part of the illusion.
Thanks for your post, and there's much to learn from it. Lisa Gungor got on the train leaving fundamentalism and road it all the way to atheism. Perhaps it's possible to get on the train but to get off at some other stop–one that still reveres Jesus as Lord, but without the cultural baggage of a fundamentalist approach that would have been unrecognizable throughout most of Christian history.
Alisa, I would like to express one caution. Toward the end of your post you write, "Here's the bottom line. If Christianity is true, then it is, by nature, exclusive. This means all other religions are false." While I have great sympathy for your position, I'd like to suggest this, too, is part of the problem.
May I refer you to C.S. Lewis (a prophetic Christian if there ever was one)? He instructss: "If you are a Christian you do not have to believe that all the other religions are simply wrong all through. If you are an atheist you do have to believe that the main point in all the religions of the whole world is simply one huge mistake. If you are a Christian, you are free to think that all these religions, even the queerest ones, contain at least some hint of the truth. When I was an atheist I had to try to persuade myself that most of the human race have always been wrong about the question that mattered to them most; when I became a Christian I was able to take a more liberal view. But, of course, being a Christian does mean thinking that where Christianity differs from other religions, Christianity is right and they are wrong. As in arithmetic—there is only one right answer to a sum, and all other answers are wrong: but some of the wrong answers are much nearer being right than others."
Lewis' position requires that orthodox believers still look for whispers of the truth, and to use those whispers to start a redemptive dialogue.
I’m what way does Alisa’s statement that you quote in any way contradict what Lewis wrote in your quote from him?
Kaleb
11/1/2018 01:03:01 pm
I think that Gungor, post-modern thinkers in general, and the zeitgeist of the age has been terribly misinterpreted by Evangelicals.
Instead of actually dealing with the main issue at hand, a complete strawman is constructed. Postmodernity and its pragmatic workings in Gungor and others is about the ontology of the observer and empistemology towards the observed. With the analysis present in this article and general apologetics, it's flipped. Instead, postmodernity is presented as if its ontology is in question.
Postmodernity does not actually say that there is no absolute truth about or absolute nature of an object or event. Instead, postmodernity states that the core being of the observer and their epistemology makes it impossible to objectively describe or even understand the objective nature of an event or object. Instead, we craft elaborate and inevitably incorrect metanarratives about our surroundings that we pretend is "objective."
Evangelicalism could really benefit from the criticisms of postmodernity about modernity, but unfortunately it seems that they'd prefer to create fear about the "relativist" boogeyman.
A lot of what you say here is technically true, but functionally postmodernism is exceedingly relativistic and that is largely what the culture and progressive Christianity especially have embraced. And on that front we have not misrepresented a thing.
Aaron, while it's true that we can freely discuss whether the God revealed in Scripture is loving or not, the day may well come when our judgment of him will be eternally overridden by his judgment of us. If a literal hell is possible–which it is–then the consensus of untold numbers of people that it's unfair will really not make any difference.
Aaron
11/2/2018 12:03:28 am
Diane, I pray for you as Meister Eckhart (14th century) once prayed, “May God rid you of God.”
If there is such a God as you describe, he doesn’t deserve our devotion or adoration. The only moral and Christian response to such a monster is complete disavowal. Perhaps God is only pretending to be evil to test us – to see who really has the moral courage to stand up for righteousness and justice by condemning him. What could be a greater test than this?
But rest assured, such a God doesn’t exist and neither does his hell.
Alisa Childers
11/2/2018 09:04:11 am
Aaron, with all due respect, you've made quite a few assumptions about the beliefs of the people you are interacting with. That makes it very difficult to have a meaningful conversation. While I (and I assume, the others with whom you've addressed) don't agree with your characterization of the gospel, the existence of hell does not make God evil…it makes him just. A robust understanding of love can't be defined as forcing rape victims to spend eternity alongside their abusers with no justice for those crimes ever being done. If the God you hate…the one you call "monster" is actually the real God, would it be loving of Him to force you to spend eternity in His presence? There is so much more to say, but I suspect we won't get very far. As the Apostle Paul said, "The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."
May the one and only true Triune God who has specially revealed Himself in the Bible and the Bible alone take a hold of your heart if it is in His will to do so, causing you to enter into eternally intimate fellowship with Him, removing your blasphemy, and save you from the very real hell that you deny.
I am responding here because for some reason it just won't let me respond to your comments in the right places. Thankfully each time they get rearranged. Anyway, I was genuinely ready to be done with you since I gave you a full response on my blog and you clearly are not interested. And the convo is mostly between you and Alisa at this point and that is fine. But I do get all the new comments in my email and I couldn't let your last one go. Your last two comments are once again filled with multiple errors. One blatant example is regarding what you said about the Cappadocian Fathers all being universalists. That is patently false. I am confronted with this type of thing all the time from Progressives. They read like one church history book and all of a sudden they are experts. It is unimaginably frustrating.
Hey Aaron, Alisa asked me to elaborate on what I said about the Cappadocian Fathers, not because she is not capable of doing so, but because I first responded to you on that front. I told her it would be difficult for me to do so in a short comment and that we both know I can get long winded sometimes, and she told me to go for it anyway. So here it is.
First and foremost the only one of the Cappadocian Fathers who can legitimately be accused of universalism was Gregory of Nyssa. Out of all the church Fathers the only ones that can legitimately be called universalists were Origen, Clement, and Gregory. And it is not even a definitive conclusion that Origen and Clement were universalists. This is due to the theological controversy over apocatastasis. This was a very common word used by the Fathers in the early church to describe the biblical doctrine of the restoration of all things. However, when the Bible speaks of this teaching it is using the concept of "all things" to speak of all things in general terms and not in particular terms. Hence, the earth will be completely renewed, but this does not mean that every plant that has ever existed on the earth will be resurrected. In regard to humans it means that all humans will be resurrected and the redeemed will be fully renewed to live on the new earth for all eternity, while the reprobate will be quarantined for all eternity in hell. But because the term can sound so universalistic it is often misinterpreted both in Scripture and when it is used by many of the Fathers, most notably by Origen and Clement. Many have argued that the same is probably the case with Gregory, and while a case can be made for that, I personally do believe that Gregory was a universalist.
Origen was later condemned by the West, but it is debatable as to whether or not he was specifically condemned for universalism for the reasons stated above. He was condemned for many doctrines and it is debatable if he was condemned for being an outright universalist or for simply having too strong of universalist tendencies in his articulation of his doctrine of apocatastasis. But the east never accepted this condemnation, not because they were universalists, but because they were not convinced that Origen ever rose to the full level of being a heretic. Even those that revered Origen in the east agreed that a lot of what he taught was terribly problematic, but often Origen simply put things forward as theory and he did so in the very early days of the infant church and so the east argued that he should be given the benefit of the doubt. The east also said the same thing in regard to Gregory and in regard to him the west agreed. I do not agree with the early church's assessment of Gregory, but it is very important to understand that the universal orthodox Bible believing church never ever accepted universalism and no appeals to these men change that fact for the reasons I have just elucidated.
If you read the writings of the Fathers carefully and if you read the early liturgies of the church and the many prayers of the common Christians, it is painfully obvious that the traditional doctrine of hell was the doctrine of the church. For this reason it was often not referred to explicitly in the earliest of creeds. When the earliest creeds talk about Christ coming to judge the quick and the dead, all understood this to be referring to the final judgment when the reprobate would be sent to hell for all eternity and the redeemed would enter into the new earth to spend all eternity with Christ. It was not until after some of these early Fathers had gone from the scene and some of their statements were examined with more scrutiny that the early church felt the need to become more explicit in creedal form. This is why you see in the Athanasian Creed the statement early on that, "Which Faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled: without doubt he shall perish everlastingly."
The doctrine of the Bible is clear. The doctrine of the historic church is clear. Countless godly Christians have disagreed over the details, but the core doctrine has always been there. Hell is a literal physical place of eternal conscious torment where Satan, the demons, and all of the reprobate will be truly sent at the final judgment according to God's just wrath towards them. To deny any of these core elements is heresy.
And the Cappadocian Fathers were never later condemned by any orthodox group so I have no idea what on earth you were talking about at that point. And while orthodoxy does develop and is refined over the years, the core elements are always present, either explicitly or implicitly and the creeds and confessions simply clarify and fully hash out the details. So your representation of the early creeds is just nonsense. And to say the first 300 years is highly misleading. The canon of Scripture was not completed until 70 AD at the earliest and many very godly, conservative, historic, and orthodoxy scholars
Aaron
11/5/2018 12:33:46 pm
Hi Dan,
You're making my point for me. The complexity and length of your response lends credence to my point that church theology, while consistent in some ways, is very inconsistent in other ways, is endlessly complex, and evolved over time. You acknowledge that Nyssa, the principle architect of Trinitarian doctrine, was himself a universalist along with some other church fathers. So I guess they held *some* heretical views? My point is, the more one learns about church history and where our "orthodoxy" comes from, the less simple and clear it becomes. Why not just accept that? It doesn't have to destroy your faith unless your faith is a house of cards.
Alisa Childers
11/5/2018 12:51:53 pm
Aaron, I'm sorry, but that is a tremendously naive and illogical thing to say. Dan isn't proving your point, he's refuting it. It is so simple to come on a thread and make a wild claim with no evidence to back it up. The process of refuting such a claim will often involve some length, energy, information, and articulation. As the saying goes, "A lie goes halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes."
It is a non-sequitur to claim that because there was some disagreement on universalism, all theology developed over time and no one agreed on anything in the first three hundred years. As Dan articulated, and as I pointed out in the oldest creed, the core essentials were never up for grabs. The councils were in response to heresies that were springing up in opposition to established orthodox belief. They were not simply a "hey let's all try and figure out what we believe" type of situation as you interpret them to be.
I would encourage anyone reading this thread to do your own research. Read the early eye-witness testimonies (gospels) and the epistles. Read church history. Read about the councils. There is no evidence that early Christianity was a grab-bag of beliefs for the first 300 hundred years. In fact, the evidence points to the contrary.
This response is to your response below regarding Gregory of Nyssa and connected matters that was in response to my long email regarding your blatant and overt misrepresentation of the facts concerning the Cappadocian Fathers.
With all due respect Aaron, this a completely evasive and non-response, something I have become quite accustomed to from Progressives over the past ten years. You said very plainly that the Cappadocian Fathers were universalists and I demonstrated that this is false. Do you at the very least admit this basic point? No you don't because it would show that you are not nearly as educated on these matters as you have tried to portray yourself as being. That is simply dishonest on your part.
I never ever said or remotely implied that church theology was anything but extremely complex, is often inconsistent, and evolves over time. And the fact that these things are true in no way, shape, or form proves anything you have said in the slightest degree. Theology is complex. So stop trying to over simplify it. The church is sinful and flawed and so naturally it is going to be inconsistent at times. And the Holy Spirit is always leading the church forward and so the church's theology will always evolve. But that does not change one iota what I said in regard to the core elements always being present and you in no way refute that precisely because you can't because it is an incontrovertible fact of history.
Gregory of Nyssa was not the principal architect of Trinitarian doctrine, but he did greatly contribute to it. And I made it clear that it is not an established fact that either Origen or Clement were dogmatic universalists if ones at all. Read things carefully please. And yes it is altogether possible that some of the Fathers may have indeed been heretics after all after further reflection by the church. I think that is in fact the case with Gregory, but that is not absolutely certain and even if it is the case that does not change the fact that this only proves that the church failed to fully see this at the time. If he made excellent points regarding Trinitarian dogma that other great lights used to the advantage of the church, so what? Heretics often get things right on other matters and if the church does not realize that a teacher is a heretic at the time then they cannot be faulted for utilizing a teacher to their full advantage. Judas preached the gospel authoritatively as an apostle and when he did so he spoke the truth and was used by God despite the fact that he was an unbeliever deep down and this fact was later revealed. Stop obfuscating the actual issues.
I do accept that it is not as simple as many on both sides make it out to be. I've never said otherwise. But all matters in life are far, far, far more complex when you start to dive in more deeply. Does that mean that the original assertions are therefore somehow magically wrong? Of course not. One still has to prove or disprove one's assertions regardless of the complexities involved. I can do that precisely because my faith is not a house of cards. You cannot do that, but avoid many of my responses, evade Alisa's question, constantly misrepresent us, and dance all over the place. This is because your faith is a house of cards as it is built on your sole opinion as I make quite clear to you in my response to you over on my blog.
Clark Bates
11/5/2018 01:30:39 pm
Aaron,
Earlier you wrote this:
"Your readers may find it interesting that the Cappadocian Fathers (Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Basil the Great) who were responsible for creating the "orthodox" view of the Trinity still in place today (380 CE., Council of Constantinople), were universalists. Thus, the authors of orthodoxy were many years later deemed heretics by the very church they helped establish. Apparently, this wasn't a problem at the time. Thus, what gets called orthodoxy and heresy is remarkably arbitrary and often evolves over time. Orthodoxy is always determined by those in power to suit their agendas and does not necessarily reflect who has the best interpretation of scripture."
And I'm afraid you've got some wrong or merely superficial information. 1. The Cappodocian Fathers did not "create the orthodox view of the Trintity" in 380 CE. The First Council of Constantinople merely affirmed the Nicene Creed of 325, adding only the Filoque clause regarding the Holy Spirit. Orthodox Trintitarian theology was formulated long before then and was not dependant on anything they wrote. 2. Of the three examples you've given, the only universalist that may have existed among them was Gregory of Nyssa, and even this is not agreed upon given the partucular way in which the Eastern Fathers used language. It's not debatable that we in the West struggle with understanding the spiritualism that is prevalent in the writings of the Eastern Church, but the idea that all will be "saved" in the writings of Nyssa, does not mean "salvation" in the sense that you or I might understand it. In reality, Nyssa's "salvation" was related to his belief in anhilationism wherein the "salvation" of the unbeliever was their returning to an original state of being wherein they would possess knowledge of the divine but not be permitted to take part in the divine. Elsewhere, he would write that they would be saved through their destruction.
Granted, that a cursory reading of Nyssa and others seems like they profess universalism, but that's becasue we import Western definitions into Eastern terminology. That being said, your point is a non sequitur. Even if these three men were universalists, they were never responsible for the doctrine of the Trinity and disagreeing about a point of doctrine in the late 4th century does not mean that the church never agreed on anything. Additionally, none of them were labeled as heretics by anyone other than Rome, not becasue of their universalism but becasue of their unwillingness to accept that papacy. This is an issue completely irrelevant to the point you're attempting to make.
I appreciate you wanting to know more about the history of the church, but it can rarely be summarized in sucha small statement as you have made, and the conclusions you attempt to draw from that statement are flawed.
Aaron
11/5/2018 02:34:29 pm
Alisa, Dan, and Clark,
You've persuaded me that my source on the Cappadocian fathers *all* being universalists is wrong. I'm also willing to concede that none of us may understand Nyssa's understanding of these matters. Such is the nature of theology! I also appreciate Dan's words, "And yes it is altogether possible that some of the Fathers may have indeed been heretics after all after further reflection by the church. I think that is in fact the case with Gregory…"
Thus, I maintain my underlying point to all of this. Church theology, while consistent in some ways, is very inconsistent in others and evolved over time. Orthodoxy becomes heresy and vice versa. Again, this doesn't have to destroy your faith but I'd hope it make you a little more humble.
This response is to your response to me, Alisa, and Clark.
With all due respect Aaron, please don't trot out the humble card. This is done by Progressives all of the time and it really is rather irritating. You were the one who came on this blog talking about your degrees, your experience, your knowledge, how none of us could ever teach you anything because you've heard it all before. That of course turned out not to be true and now we are not humble enough for pointing this out to you? What a bunch of bunk. This is again something I've dealt with from Progressives time and time and time again. Come out firing with chests out and proclaiming that we conservatives are such mindless fundamentalists who are oh so toxic. And then we refute you guys and it's well we don't really know anything at the end of the day and you guys don't really know anything at the end of the day and so we should all just be humble and accept that everyone's positions are equally valid. Um no. There is nothing that lacks humility in calling out falsehoods for what they are and that is all that we are doing here. If we get fiery, it is only because you guys always start out fiery first.
And while I am very grateful that you did show a lot of humility in admitting your mistake, something that I often do not see from Progressives, liberals, atheists, and agnostics (like literally almost never; you should honestly go back and look at a lot of the posts from Alisa and from my blog to see the insane pretzels people twist themselves into all because they simply CANNOT admit when they have been defeated), you go right back to the misrepresentations. You say, "Orthodoxy becomes heresy and vice versa." Where in the world do you get that from anything that any of the three of us said to you. I said that Gregory may have indeed been heretical on the doctrine of hell and this was not realized at the time. That doesn't mean that universalism was orthodoxy and then became heresy!!! I have belabored the point that the traditional doctrine of hell has always been the recognized orthodox teaching of the church and you simply won't answer me on that. And how many times do Alisa and I have to say that some level of inconsistency and evolution does not lead to your conclusions. We've both admitted the reality of both and so what is with the inane statement about how this shouldn't destroy our faith. Clearly we both have faith, we've admitted the reality of both, so what are you talking about?
Aaron
11/5/2018 05:44:29 pm
Dan,
I never said there was nothing I could learn from you or Alisa. I said that there was nothing she could say that could make me into a conservative again – primarily meaning someone who could believe in hell and a God who torments people there. There is no definition of love that can include such violence and brutality, especially by a father against his children for not believing the right things or for being Muslim or gay or whatever. There's nothing you can say, no metaphysics or theology of sin and holiness that can make that into love. That's what I was talking about.
Your anger with progressives and their questions and doubts is palatable. I too am angry. I'm angry with the amount of spiritual trauma I've had to recover from growing up in a tradition that taught me to fear God and fear hell. Fear everyone who is different. I'm angry about the sexism and xenophobia. I'm angry about how many LGBTQ Christians suffer from depression, self hate, and suicide because of intolerance in the church. I could go on but I'm exhausted.
Earlier I raised the following question and it went unaddressed: Don't you think it's strange that we've been taught the Israelites were the **only** ancient culture without myths and legends? Their neighbors all had them (i.e., Sumerians, Babylonians, Akkadians, Persians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans). Are we to assume the Israelites did not and that their myths and legends are all real history? Their stories are rife with similar mythological elements as those of other cultures (magic, anthropomorphic views of God, talking animals, etc.)
The main problem in the church is that we've taken myths, legends, folk hero tales, and parables and turned them into real history. We've taken the worldview of a late Bronze Age people (including their misogyny, superstitions, violence, and tribalism) and made it into *the* eternal will of God. How sad.
Don't get me wrong, I think that we find wonderful life lessons in the Bible. I think it contains profound wisdom. I love the gospels and consider myself a disciple of Jesus. His radical teachings on love and grace, his deconstruction of his religion, his sacrificial death; it's all deeply meaningful to me in ways I can't put to words. But to be clear, Jesus didn't just tell parables, Jesus was a parable. The historic Jesus is so couched in a matrix of symbols and myths that he cannot be extracted from it. But this is great! The miraculous and mythological aspects of the gospels are a language that expresses the real significance and depth dimension of the historic event of Jesus of Nazareth.
Anger does not adequately convey how I feel about Progressive Christianity. Rage would be a better word because I know that is how Christ feels about it. This movement is doing all in its power to attack Jesus and His beloved church. And true Christians are duty bound to fight against it to the death if necessary. But that doesn't mean I don't love you guys. I really do and want to see you guys saved. Both can be true at the same time and are true with me. It also doesn't mean that I am an angry person. I don't sit around thinking about or deal with heresy all day. I enjoy my life with Christ more than I can put in words. But when I do have to deal with heresy, especially Progressive Christianity, it is indeed upsetting.
The deception among you guys is rampant and you displayed that deception quite vividly in your last few responses especially. I am happy to respond to all that you have said here, but wish to do so on my own blog. If you are genuinely interested in truth and not misrepresenting us (especially the repeated canard [which I thoroughly address on my blog] that we believe God sends people to hell merely for having the wrong beliefs) ad nauseum, I strongly encourage you to take me up on the offer. If not, I'm done talking with you, but will continue to pray for you as I have been the past few days.
Aaron
11/5/2018 09:20:45 pm
Dan,
You'll understand why I might turn down your enthusiastic, albeit rage filled offer to continue this dialogue. The fact that you ended your rant with, "But that doesn't mean I don't love you guys." is laughable and insults my intelligence. But then again, you're simply mirroring the rage filled love of God. On a side note, let me reassure you that I don't think you'll need to "go to your death" anytime soon in warring against progressive Christians. I hope you come to understand one day how unhealthy your views are and how hurtful your treatment of others is.
Since coming to Christ almost 20 years ago I’ve worked tirelessly serving others, including Muslims and those in the LGBTQ+ community. So don’t lecture me.
And why is it ok for you to be angry, but not me? The hypocrisy knows no bounds with you guys and that is precisely why we get so livid with you. It matters not whether you believe me or not, I do love you and would do anything for you short of sin. You don’t want to continue because you are not interested in the truth, and no I don’t understand that at all and never will.
Aaron, I've decided to respond to you again, not so much because I think I might change your perspective, but more for the benefit of Alisa's other readers.
You wrote, "If this is what you believe, in my opinion that's toxic for you and others. In my opinion, this God is not good." I don’t think any devout Christian is entirely comfortable with everything in the Old Testament, including the examples you cited, or with hell itself. There is much in Scripture that challenges us deeply.
I take my cue from John 6:41-69. It is clear that Jesus did not intend to make following him either easy or fully comprehensible. The people who chose to follow him saw a greater value that allowed them to set aside their personal sense of how things should be.
Although apologetics does give us good answers for many questions, at some level each of us must humble ourselves before a God who doesn't intend to "seem" good. Why would we do this? There are many reasons, some of which are rational and others which are experiential.
For example, only the Bible's explanation of reality adequately accounts for what we experience. Evolution certainly doesn't. Survival of the fittest does not explain deep and meditated cruelty. Nor does it explain today's escalating destruction of the family unit. Only the concept of a rational and volitional evil being explains the really hard things we witness.
From another view, Christianity raises suffering itself from an unfortunate accident to something of value. Suffering is what drives us to seek God in the first place. If we didn't feel our need for him, we would probably never find him. Suffering is also his means for conforming us to the image of his Son. No one gives up his innately rebellious nature of his own accord. And finally, it is in the context of suffering that the qualities of love are revealed. If no one was hurting or in need, there would be no place for comforting, for healing, for generosity, or for heroism.
One key reason that so many people in today's culture especially have a hard time understanding the Christian God is because we have learned to view everything based on its impact on ourselves (or vicariously, by putting ourselves in the place of others). I have discovered that the only way to "break the code" of Scripture, if you will, is to put God at the center.
From this view, human history can be seen as an elaborately staged drama intended to reveal God's nature as supremely loving. Humans were created with a different sort of freedom than that enjoyed by prior spiritual beings (with the exception of Lucifer). We were given the ability to respond positively or negatively to God when and to the extent we encounter him. Without exception, once we are capable of making a choice, each of us has responded negatively to some aspect of him, justifying his commensurate rejection of us (i.e. his judgment).
It is in this context that God himself provided the most incomprehensible and yet the most profound expression of his love—the excruciating torture of his sinless Son as the recipient of the judgment we deserve. Some might see the Father as an ogre and the Son as the victim, but any good father knows that to watch (let alone inflict) such pain on his child is a different but also an unimaginably severe pain. When in eternity we are allowed to see more clearly, I believe we will then grasp in a way not yet humanly possible the immensity of this centerpoint of the drama.
So, yes, you can continue to choose an interpretation of reality that gives you permission to judge God based on your sense of what is best for us or what seems ethically palatable. But I would suggest that leaves you with no real explanation for why humans exist, why evil exists in the form it does–or why so many millions of people across history have found the gospel story to be worth the sacrifice of their sense of fairness, their personal comforts, and sometimes even their lives, choosing instead to cling to the hope that this God of the Bible is who he says he is and because knowing him and experiencing his love is truly the "pearl of great price."
As it pertains to abuses received from active members of a church, I have never been able to understand how anybody thinking critically could possibly blame any ideology for the actions of those NOT following its precepts.
It simply makes no sense to blame God for those not doing what he asked.
People should be free to search for "THE" truth… Not "THEIR" truth….There is only one truth….
Truth is like a mountain. People see it from many sides and at different distances. Depending on their individual view point the mountain may look very different to each person. They can even travel all around it and get closer to it. As they do, they learn more about the mountain. By this learning, their understanding about the mountain changes, sometimes in very drastic ways. Hopefully that understanding becomes more accurate to the facts of the real mountain (truth). In fact, some will definitely understand the mountain much better than others. But let's not forget that it is the people and their individual understanding about the mountain that is changing, not the mountain.
The mountain (truth) does not morph itself into whatever the 8 billion individual viewers thinks it is. It is, what it is. End of argument.
One is, and should be free to look for that truth. Even show others their current view of the mountain (truth). But one must never forget that nobody, not even they understand it all. And so have no right to force their view of the mountain (truth) onto others.
So, are you a relativist or not?
Dean Heller
11/25/2018 10:28:40 pm
Objective and Subjective moral standards
Let me propose another definition of Objective and Subjective moral standards. Something is Objective if its existence is independent of consciousness. Something is Subjective in so far as its existence is dependent on consciousness. Something is Objective only in so far as it could continue even if all consciousness in the universe were eliminated. Now if we think of God as consciousness, as most definitions of God do. Then the morality that comes from that consciousness, according to the definition that I have just set out, would also be just as Subjective as your own morality.
If this is correct……..The question we must now ask is. Dose God not have the right to impose his moral standards on his own creation? And if so, does that not make those standards Objective rather than Subjective in that creation? If those Subjective morals are built into this creation, then would not that in itself, make those Subjective morals Objective in and to this universe?
To explain farther, let’s use a video game as a parallel.
A programmer can build into his game any morality he chooses. Those that play the game as well as the NPCs (non player character) are locked into its built-in moral system as well as the consequences for breaking that system. Because the players avatar is part of the game universe itself it is also subject to the rules of that universe including any morals built into it.
Do you not have the right to make the rules (morals) for your own house? Are you then not allowed to impose your rules (morals) on others entering your house? If they refuse to accept and live by your rules while in your house do you not have the right and responsibility then to force them to do so or remove them from your house? The fact that this is God's universe, one that he made and owns justifies his absolute, universal morality here…….. It must be pointed out that we are his creation… We live in his universe….And must live by his rules (morals) while in his place…..If we don't like his rules (morals) and refuse to live by them, do not be surprised if we all start having difficulties when we find ourselves bumping into those morals and realities that we refuse to accept.
That said……. God did give us free will to do as we please while in his universe. Sure God gave us instruction on how this universe works best. What set of rules (morals) to follow that would reduce pain and suffering to a minimum. But one can chose to ignore those instructions and do things his/her own way if that is what one insist. And we all get to suffer the consequences of each other's chosen actions wile in this universe.
This, of course all rests on whether or not God exists. But that is a question for another time.
P.S. Some try to postulate that because the morals of God are subjective rather than objective that he then does not exist. Or that because mankind can make a set of his own Subjective morals that God and his morals then do not exist….. These arguments of course would both be a very big and obvious non sequitur….
Alison
12/20/2018 01:53:11 pm
Aaron,
I have read all of your comments, and I am a fairly new Christian who 3 years ago came out of 20 years of New Age beliefs including Wicca, Hinduiam, Buddhism and bouts of atheism and agnostic beliefs… and a lot of your perspectives are super close to what I believed as a nonbeliever.
The most disturbing thing you wrote is this:
"Don't get me wrong, I think that we find wonderful life lessons in the Bible. I think it contains profound wisdom. I love the gospels and consider myself a disciple of Jesus. His radical teachings on love and grace, his deconstruction of his religion, his sacrificial death; it's all deeply meaningful to me in ways I can't put to words. But to be clear, Jesus didn't just tell parables, Jesus was a parable. The historic Jesus is so couched in a matrix of symbols and myths that he cannot be extracted from it. But this is great! The miraculous and mythological aspects of the gospels are a language that expresses the real significance and depth dimension of the historic event of Jesus of Nazareth. "
I am sorry but you either believe that Jesus is the Son of God or you do not. Either the Bible is the Word of God, or it is not. Either Jesus came down to save us from our sins by dying on the cross and was resurrected or He did not.
You have likened Jesus to myth. A mythic creature who taught good morals. You may as well believe in false gods like Zeus and Aphrodite.
By the above paragraph I quoted that you wrote, I can only conclude that you think Jesus is a good idea and not your Christ. It makes my heart very sad and I truly hope the Holy Spirit speaks to you regarding this heresy and that this false doctrine you believe. I pray you do not lead other sheep to the enemy as you are showing the heart of a wolf.
Wow, amen! Thanks so much for writing this Alison, extremely well said. We are so grateful for your conversion three years ago and to have you in the body of Christ.
Randy Trautwein
7/23/2021 11:53:33 am
Fascinating exchange that generally stayed cordial, which I know can be difficult for everyone.
I kept thinking of Chapter 38 of the Book of Job as I read how God allegedly should be condemned, words from a created being to the Creator.
Tanya Baker
7/23/2021 12:20:43 pm
So, because someone cannot understand the Almighty God of the universe, that gives them the right to give up seeking to understand Him and just simply redefine Him in a way that makes them comfortable? Wow.
Tanya Baker
7/23/2021 12:25:06 pm
I'd like to edit the comment I just submitted to add "By what authority are they doing this?" Thank you.
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
