Alex,

I'm a charter member of Karen's fan club and have at least half a dozen or more of her books. The one must used is "A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Stretches the mind to read her, doesn't it?

I also have "The Bible" which is heavily highlighted. How many Christians, Adventist ones, have limited their reading to the Bible or EGW, fearful that they will "wander astray" by the questions these books elicit? Cicero was right when he said "To remain ignorant of what went before us is to remain forever a child (paraphrased).

I attended a class awhile ago where the leader made the point that the biggest mistake the fundamentalists make in their treatment of the Bible is assuming that it has one coherent message, one clear voice, one unified view, and that if something seems contradictory it is only because one isn't interpreting it quite right.

That was certainly the message I got growing up even though I wasn't raised by conservative parents and I always attended large, more liberal SDA churches. Everything fits together somehow if we just study it enough. There have been times in my past when I've wanted to just yell, "Are we reading the same book here? Yes it may say this here but it says something totally opposite over here and they simply can't both be right." Rarely, when studying the SS lesson, do people seem willing to tackle this. They use the texts provided that shore up the particular point and then move on.

It was like a weight taken off when I finally accepted that it really does have discrepancies and it's not just me. It freed me to try and build a belief system that was hopefully God-based but didn't have to account for every view in the Bible.

And starting by focusing on Jesus helped but even he said things that make you turn in circles trying to understand them. I'm not saying that therefore the Bible is useless and meaningless. I do think though that there is this kind of viewpoint accepted by many that everything fits together if we just read it right and we'll just pretend that all these discrepancies aren't really there.

Hi Beth...

these issues with the Bible also sound a bit like the issues that Alden Thompson was tackling in "Inspiration." Interesting...

Frank

Yes Frank I read Thompson's book and liked it. I thought it was a good start to try and introduce the concept to an audience who might find the message threatening. I thought his examples were kind of on the tame side though. A good introductory book but pretty gentle all in all in dealing with the problem. I know he caught a bunch of flak for it so it just goes to show that he knew his audience. I don't fault the book for that, I was just ready personally for more in-depth wrestling.

Beth: Amen and Ditto.

Right near the beginning there a description of no real Christians, just those aspiring to be Christians. sometime I feel that if I were to stand up and say "I am a follower of Christ" everyone I know could set the record straight.

"How to Read the Bible" by James Kugel, an Orthodox Jew, is a great read, although with nearly 700 pages is rather daunting.

Just yesterday I received a book and began devouring it: "The Bondage of the Mind" by R.D. Gold, also a Jew. He illustrates the affects of the fundamentalists who are textual literalists, whether they be Jew, Christian or Muslim. This type of bondage is mental slavery, but freely chosen. Fundamentalism is the enemy of rationality and freedom.

No group is free from this attitude. Is the SDA church an exception?

I would like to share a relevant passage by Gray Temple's book, The Molten Soul. In speaking of the Bible he says, "A deliberately diverse collection of scrolls has been edited and bound into a single volume, its diversity ignored if not indeed cloaked... Though the editors of the Bible deliberately went to little discernible trouble to square conflicting details or viewpoints with each other, you can find a vast literature dedicated to helping us pretend that the Bible is unitary and univocal."

I used to believe that mere verbal inspiration was the biggest bug-a-boo in our efforts to understanding the Bible. I now believe that the notion that the Bible is univocal is an equal hindrance.

While Desire of Ages is a classic devotional book, its effort to sweep the "synoptic problem" under the rug has resulted in a great lose to our spiritual growth as a people.

Pardon the redundancy, but accepting a book as authoritative and demanded by your religious belief should, at minimum, require some investigationof its writers (where possible), formation, and the convoluted manner in which it was put together. No other contemporary book would be so unquestioningly accepted; yet the Bible is "out of bounds" in the fear of losing one's faith if such an inquiry is done. Such fragile faith!

There are many paths to God. Those who believe otherwise are in for many surprises in heaven.

In Kugel's book mentioned above, he demonstrates how only one book, or part of a Bible book was on a single scroll and that no reader had the entire Bible at any time from which to read.

The presuppositions one brings to the Bible are unlike any other ancient book: some look upon it as the Word of God, others, usually scholars, compare it to other writings that were earlier, or contemporary with Scripture. In so doing, there are very similar stories in other cultures that are so alike in many details demonstrating a common origin for all. Accepting everything within the Bible's covers as being divinely inspired, inerrant and infallible has led to much mischief.

It is the history of the Hebrew people, told and greatly embellished, just as the epics of the Babylonians, Sumerians and Greeks have their own unique stories, which few regard as historically accurate. Why should the Bible be read differently?

BTW, Armstrong's best book, IMO, is "A History of God."

Dear Spectrum, I am asking news sources to carefully review Armstrong’s work before promoting it. Her “History of God” contains numerous factual errors and politically correct distortions of Jewish, Christian, and Muslim beliefs. For example, she states in her “History of God” that the Orthodox do not believe in Original Sin, which is silly and for which she offers no documentary evidence (87, 123-124, etc. She has also implied repeatedly in “The Great Transformation” that the Hebrew Tanakh is incoherent, for which she offers minuscule evidence save her convenient reading of polytheism into even the Torah (e.g. 46). She has even written recently in her "The Bible: A Biography" that even in the Gospels Jesus does not necessarily state that he is the Messiah. But for example in Jesus's trial before Sanhedrin in Mark's Gospel, he is asked; "Are you the Messiah" to which he rejoins, simply "I am, and…" (Mk 14:62). The other Gospels are also clear, as in Mt 16 where Christ approves Peter for calling him “the Messiah, the Son of the Living God”. Therefore she is foundationally irresponsible as a historian and can find no excuse save divine mercy, especially given the resources and money she must be able to use to check her facts carefully. (Indeed, though, her profitability may reflect her willingness to distort the historical record against truth and Judaism and Christianity, as happens often). Another example is her wanton distortion of the Qur’an Islam, together with her refusal to debate Robert Spencer, who represents—with Daniel Pipes—the counterpoint to her lopsided promotion of Islam.. She even claims (in a Speaking of Faith interview in ‘O8) that Islam is “pluralistic”, when in fact the Qur’an says repeatedly that all who deny Muhammed’s human message will go to hell; and that infidels must be either be converted, killed, or subjugated as specially taxed, second-class citizens. Yet to many she seems innocuous or praiseworthy because of her rhetoric about the Golden Rule, her promotion of which is suspect given her tendency to lie and do politically correct history. Please do what you can to expose her work to honest critique and protect herself and the public from embarassments. Thank you very much and bless you, Dan Schultz, MN

Having been an avid reader of Karen's prolific authorship for a number of years, I find her credentials impeccable. We do not know the credentials of those who find her writings questionable.

Even Mark's attribution of Jesus is his writing, not Jesus speaking.

Where in the Hebrew Bible can one find the doctrine of original sin?

Even their own writings (OT) give abundant evidence that for most of their existence, they WERE polytheistic, and even the Ten Commandments refers to "no other gods" recognizing that there were other gods at that time, known and worshiped by the Israelites.

Beware of the flea attacking the elephant. Such a highly respected religious historian could not have achieved the position in the religious historical world if she were as irresponsible as your claims. The false claims that she "distorts the historical record against truth and Judaism and Christianity" is only encountered by and from those who have far less scholarly accomplishments.

She is NOT a theologian, but an historian. Surely, everyone should know that there is a distinct difference: a theologian begins with a premise; the historian is searching and whatever is discovered it is not biased by a priori concepts.

When you listen to this tripe you understand why England is becoming Muslim.

Elaine, The theologians I respect begin with faith, something that is a gift from God, not an intellectual achievement. It might be that the reason you consider pagan works as valuable as Scripture is because of looking at them without faith. The Holy Bible would almost certainly be a hodge podge to those who approach it simply as a historical document.

The mystery is why some people who approach it are blessed with faith and participate in its spirituality. To others, it is just another ancient document of no greater value than various other writings.

Jesus said "the words I speak to you are Spirit and life." Various figures in Scripture suggest its spirituality. "Thy word is a lamp unto my feet." Lamps are fueled by oil. Oil represents the HS. Scripture is a vessel by which the HS is transmitted to men

The Word devoid of the Spirit, what an unspeakable loss to those experience it that way

Hansen,

I have asked you this before but so for you have chosen to prevaricate rather than even attempt to provide a reasoned answer; nevertheless I ask again.

How does your faith in the Bible differ from those who chose to approach the Koran or the Bhagavad-gita, or the Book of Mormon or any of the other “holy books” with their faith?

I think of the Bible not as book but as a specialized library of books. Thanks to some generous donors, the campus where I work has one the world's very best specialized libraries in bioethics. The books in it exceedingly diverse; however, its books are enough about the same general topic that it can be distinguished from, say, a specialized library in biochemistry. By analogy, the Bible explitly discusses neither Plato nor Aristotle. So, despite its very real diversity, it does exhibit some unity of focus. This is enough for historians to distinguish the "Hebrew Worldview" and the "Hellenistic Worldview" and so forth. In any case, I find it difficult not to overemphasize either the Bible's unity or its diversity because it exhibits so much of both.

The only unifying force to the 66 books of the canon is Jesus Christ. His walk to Emmaus is the focus of any Christian reading of Scripture. The diversity is part of its beauty. The sum of which one finds in the Christ Event. Any other reading is social and cultural anthrolopgy of Middle East antiquity. Tom

Sorry Courtenay, I really don't understand what you are asking. Could you ask a Muslim the same question, substituting Christianity for Islam, then post the response and comment upon it? Perhaps I can get a better idea of what it is that you seek.

Hansen I will try and put this as simply as possible.

You regularly seem to imply that in approaching the Bible all that is necessary is faith and that any attempt to apply reason to ones faith is a waste of time.

Read slowly now and try to take this in… It clearly is difficult for you…

What I am trying to understand is how it is that all YOU need to do is read the “Bible” just the Bible and all will be revealed to you. Now that is only the first part of the question. I suspect that you will tell me that this is through faith that you know this, or something along those lines.

But that is only part of the question

What I want to know is, how you would answer someone of another faith who claimed that all that was required of him to gain an understanding of God was for him to read, in faith, whichever book he considered to be holly?

He may, through faith, be just as certain that his book will provide him with all that is required to gain salvation.

I am terribly sorry but try as I may I cannot find a simpler way to put this question too you.

Elaine wrote:

--
Having been an avid reader of Karen's prolific authorship for a number of years, I find her credentials impeccable. We do not know the credentials of those who find her writings questionable.

--

Elaine's response is actually typical of most religious people (I know Elaine is not Christian religious, but Agnostic and Karen fan Religious anyway) when their accepted authority is questioned. She attacks the credibility of the one bringing up the issues.

That is the problem when any of us place our trust in the authority or accepted standing of anyone or anything. When problems come up we blindly defend and it is often a defense that does not even deal with the issues that someone brought up. In this case impeccable credentials is meaningless, is what they say true and accurate to history. Those things are more important then someone academic standing or achievements. There are many fundamentalist with impeccable credentials that I would have a hard time accepting their ideas. It is the ideas that matter however.

Ron

It would be nice to see Alden Thompson's book on Inspiration republished.

Ad hominem and Appeal to Authority fallacies? (Ron)
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

The one thing that stood out of Karen's entire conversation is that the Golden Rule, if followed, would be all that is needed for our lives today. This is what both Jesus and the apostles said, and it long predates the Torah. It is our actions, not beliefs that are the only method by which we are judged.

...the Golden Rule, if followed, would be all that is needed for our lives today...

**************************************************************

Gee Elaine...

Why do you suppose it generally isn't? Is it because humans haven't evolved to a high enough moral consciousness yet? Or maybe just some of us have? What is holding humanity back, both individuals and nations, from living something that is seemingly so simple?

Thanks...

Frank

Frank,
Your comment reminds me of a Buddhist tale that is one of my kids' favorites.

A very important gov't official decided to make the long journey to visit a monk who had a reputation for holiness. Upon arrival, he asked the monk for wisdom. The monk was quiet awhile and finally said, "Stop doing bad things and instead do good things."

The official was insulted at this, especially having traveled so far. He said, "What? A three year old knows that."

To which the monk replied. "Yes a three year old knows it but even an eighty year old who has lived a lifetime struggles to do it."

"I am terribly sorry but try as I may I cannot find a simpler way to put this question too you."

Courtenay, there are lots of people here more intelligent and better educated than I, ask one of them.

Ms Armstrong is simply repackaging righteousness by works. Nothing new here, nothing in the least bit respectable.

Aristotle taught the same thing. You become a good person in the same way you become a good musician, by practicing your instrument.

That kind of thinking was at the foundation of the medieval Papacy and characteristic of false religion. Christianity IS a religion about faith, not works. Works do not ease the conscience nor purge one of guilt. If they did, people would do their ritual and be done with it.

"As darkness to light , so is Aristotle to divinity." That would include Ms Armstrong's contribution to the subject.

Hansen,
You wrote, "The theologians I respect begin with faith, something that is a gift from God, not an intellectual achievement."

I need to ask, faith in what? - that every word and/or thought comes directly from God, without human (therefore faulty) input - that, the stories in the Bible are unique despite their ancient history - that all of the Bible has equal validity regardless of historical setting (also known as context)?

Or, is the faith in Christian traditions - in the accuracy of the manuscripts that have come through the ages - in the men who decided what manuscripts to include in the Bible and which to discard - in the church of which one is a member?

Or, is the faith simply in God's protection of the Bible by manipulating the human input?

May I suggest that everyone believes that THEIR faith is always placed properly; and that there must be something wrong with the other man's faith if it sounds different from theirs.

I would also suggest that all of us have to make choices as we read the Bible, as to how we understand what we're reading - and this is called interpretation. Is our faith, then, in our interpretation as apposed to the other guy's?
Should we investigate the credentials of those who give us these interpretations or do we just have faith that they must be correct?

I just need to know where to place my faith, because there have been times when I have prayed for understanding and I end up understanding things differently than what I hear from my church.

How closely should my faith agree with yours for it to be valid for me?

Sirje, "Valid for you." That's the point. If your belief system gives you peace of mind, if it is effective in resolving whatever led you to religion in the first place, why would you want to switch?

Christian faith works for me. If it doesn't work for you, don't be a Christian. Find a belief system that does work and go with that.

Just admit that you are not a Christian and move on. People who fail at being Christians and then want to destroy the faith of those who do believe, I've no use for them. Nothing they say is going to change the significance of Jesus Christ to me personally.

Perhaps in that sense I'm no different than the Mormon who raises his hand and testifies about Joe Smith. Not a problem for me. I'll tell you about Jesus all night long.

Graham Maxwell used to contrast two different definitions of faith: The little school boy who said: "Faith is believing something you know ain't so." And I paraphrase the second:
Graham's own: "Faith is trusting in a person well known for the rest of eternity." That is why the Gospel story, retold so well in Desire of Ages carries such a riviting appeal despite the abuse of sources. Tom

Hansen,
You assume "the Christian faith doesn't work for me" just because I ask you what your faith is in? It's easy enough to just say that you approach the Bible with faith, but you're not sure what your faith is in? You didn't answer my question, instead you diverted to a discussion about my faith not working for me.

Faith based on nothing is superstition. Is it a lack of faith to want to know where the Bible came from - who was responsible for putting it together? Ideas have histories as well as people and nations. Is it a lack of faith to want to know the history of the ideas in the Bible? Does God speak only to the Jews (in the past) and only Christians today? Am I to believe that my accident of birth is the only thing responsible for my embracing the correct concept of God? Is my eternal destiny dependent on you taking up your Christian responsibility to tell me the correct story? What if you fail?

To continue ...

Job, the quintessential man of faith, was not afraid to question God. Is it faith to follow, lock-step, what you have known since you teethed on the leather binding of your dad's Bible, without asking any questions?

Faith, comes alive when the bottom falls out of your theological world and you can still say, "I trust that God loves me and that He is fair". Real faith believes in God's love even when good people die prematurely and when the diagnosis is bad. Not to question the validity of teachings you've been spoon fed since infancy - not to want to explore your faith because, in doing so, you might lose it, is a religious life lived in fear, not in faith.

Sirje,

If you want to understand faith, get a concordance and look at the definitions and illustrations found in the Bible. Once you have gotten a good idea of what the Bible says about it, ask yourself if you have it or not. If not, get it or get a new religion, or forsake religion entirely.

That's what I would do, if I had no faith.

Well, thank you Hansen for your advice, but I gave you a definition of my faith. You have clarified your position by not answering my questions to you. Either you don't have the answers or you don't think I'm worth bothering about. But I must say it's a little cowardly to resort to personal attack in order to keep from discussing the issues, which, by the way, was the validity of researching the history of the Bible.

Sirje,

I'll file this exchange with Courtenay's. I really don't understand what either of you are getting at.

Hudson Taylor's biography has some good real life examples of how faith worked in his life.

A few of the China Inland Mission workers were killed during the Boxer Rebellion, if I recall correctly. Not sure about their faith, however.

That's OK, Hansen. We all have our blind spots. Have a good evening.

Hansen said, “Courtenay, there are lots of people here more intelligent and better educated than I, ask one of them.”

Hansen I was not asking a deep theological question but rather I was trying to gain an understanding of YOUR faith. You see I make no claim to having any great faith. I have studied prayed, no begged God to increase my faith but either He is simply not their, or for some reason He has decided not too grant my request. I hope it is the latter. I long for more than merely hope.

In order to try and gain a better understanding of faith I have tried to discover from those who claim great faith, what it is and how it works. Sadly I have again found that those who trumpet their faith seem to be mistaking hot air and arrogance for faith.

Maybe it is all a delusion and those who are better at self delusion are better able to persuade themselves that their arrogance is faith. I truly hope that there is more to it than that. Clearly at the moment there is nothing that I can learn from you. I pray that one day God may grant us both real FAITH. In the meantime please exercise caution; arrogance dose noting to help build faith.

Karen Armstrong is a prolific writer. One that has a cogent message built upon scholarship, and a life of experience in religious institutions and culture. The point is not if one agrees or disagrees but one cauptures the thrust of her message. Which is pomp, puffery, and process just won't cut it any more. There must be a product, a service, a relationship not only with God but with one's fellowman. Rather than the Goldern Rule she might just have reference the two great commandments: "To Love the Lord God with all your heart, mind and soul and your neighbor as yourself".

Christ's ministry and parables all point to that conclusion.

It is a shame that the best of Adventism is hid under a basket while the errors of its exegesis are banner headlines in public evangelism.

For no other reason than that: Every passtor and every evangelist should make Karen Armstrong a must read. Tom

Multiple faiths, in Karen Armstrong's book, evidently point to the world's major faith traditions or religions.

From a human point of view (Is there another perspective we can claim?), we can trust the Bible, wrote A. Graham Maxwell, based on the "consensus of opinion of centuries of believers".

So here's my favorite definition of faith (following the faith chapter of Hebrews 11):

Hebrews 12 (The Message)

1-3Do you see what this means—all these pioneers who blazed the way, all these veterans cheering us on? It means we'd better get on with it... When you find yourselves flagging in your faith, go over that story again, item by item.... That will shoot adrenaline into your souls!

Joselito: Thanks. Tom

It is kind of an interesting thought how does one increase faith. I don't think there is any clear answer. But I think there are some lessons one can look at to help individually come to some better understanding. For me one story that really helped is the article "the day they killed Polycarp"
http://www.cowart.info/John%27s%20Books/Polycarp/polycarp.htm

My take away from that is that faith and love of others are very closely related. While I don't have any problem with people recanting something under duress. (in other words if some authority says "say this or we will kill you", I don't think it is a sin against God to say it because frankly it is possible to force someone to say anything). But the story I think can have a powerful effect on others through history. So while it may be hard to figure out how to increase your faith it is not quite so hard to increase your kindness, even to those out to get you. And perhaps that is what faith is really all about.

Ron

God's spirit certainly has moved across all cultures and in all peoples hearts. I don't like works religion with little or no reference to the Compass. The Golden rule is the second most important rule. It can lead to an overly narcissistic philosophy, if you can get away with it, and it doesn't harm anyone, then why not do it. Believing in the common global good is beyond the golden rule.

Sirje and Courtenay,

In my opinion. Hansen gave you beautiful honest answers. I reckon I would have tied myself up in knots trying to answer your questions.

He stated what he believes in, as well as the source of his personal faith. Is that not sufficient to say what his faith is in? Is that not enough to indicate to you if his faith might differ from others?

Sirje,

You said of Hansen, "You assume "the Christian faith doesn't work for me""

No, he did not assume that. Read again what Hansen said, "Christian faith works for me. If it doesn't work for you, don't be a Christian" Don't miss the "If." You yourself implied that it might not work for you by you questioning his faith, because his is a faith in Christ. You seem to have an issue with his faith in Christ?

To be honest, if his answer wasn't good enough for you, I have no idea what you were trying to ask him either.

Courtenay,

A few things you brought up challenge me. One is faith/hope. Two is faith/arrogance. Three is faith/delusion.

I can only share my experience with faith. Even if you completely understood the cognitive model, that alone does not give you faith. I can give you what I understand, but only you can choose its value to you.

Firstly, it is deeper than hope, it is about choice as well. Actually, starting to write this, I realize its not easy for me to put into words. You can hope for something, without choosing to let yourself believe that it might be real. But faith comes in when you allow yourself the possibility that the hope is real.

How can I illustrate? I can hope to win lotto, wouldn't that be good! But I never play lotto or buy lotto tickets. So, although I hope to win lotto, I really have no faith in it. So faith is deeper than hope. While of course hope is still a part of faith.

Another illustration. Faith in my wife, that is something that continues to grow and grow. I mean, I have actually known her since I met her, but the faith is something that started small, and grows over time. Actually, the faith enhances the value of the hope as well - this makes it even more valuable to my life. Time and experience accumulate faith.

Am I also growing in my arrogance with my faith in my wife? If confidence is arrogance, then guilty as charged. But it is not confidence in myself, it is confidence that I have in her.

The same is with faith in God. The fact that you ask God for faith is evidence of that proverbial mustard seed. That the hope is there, and that some part of you wants to believe in the reality of God.

If you want to believe that God is real, why don't you let yourself? For me, one of the things holding me back was the fear of delusion, or irrationality. But you know what, I learnt something, that I can allow myself to believe the possibility that God is real, even when not knowing for sure that He is real. It is not irrational if we say that we have faith in God. It just means that we are allowing the possibility, it doesn't mean that we know God. I have not met God face to face, but I have faith in the possibility of it, and that faith grows stronger the more I see the evidence. It accumulates over time.

Perhaps some people think that is delusional. But I don't see a problem with it, as long as I don't claim to know him without meeting him face to face.

Anyway, why not turn the question around? If it is something that you want, if it is something that you think would add value to your life, and there is no rational reason to reject the belief, then why not try to believe it until proven otherwise. Isn't the rational thing to accept what adds value to your life, and be happy with it - innocent until proven guilty. Why not try giving it some defense, instead of being scared that it is not true?

Anyway, that's the type of thinking that helped me when I was desperately praying for some faith. Don't give up, God intervenes in unexpected ways.

I need to expand and ajust my earlier entries on this thread.

It must be clear that morality and Christian ethics are the consequence of hearing, believing and accepting the Gospel.

Without the alien righteousness of Jesus--there can be no proper righteousness. Karen glosses over that point.

I personally appreciate the way Edward Heppenstall states it in his book: The Man Who is God. page 180

"The transforming power of the gospel is not in its ideology or its ethics, but in Christ, our divine Mediator. He brings eternal life from God in place of our mortality. He brings righteousness in place of our unrighteousness. He brings redemption and sanctification in place of our sinfulness. He bring reconciliation to the Father in place of our alienation."

Isn't it wonderful that it is Jesus, Our Lord, who separates the Sheep from the goats?

Faith is total trust in His righteousness, His Mercy and Justice. That trust will shine forth in moral humanitarianism. An ethic that flows from the Gratitude for His assurance. Tom

Here are a few of the whoppers conveyed in just the opening few lines of this video:

Religion is: a matter of practice rather than belief

doing things that change you

behave and be transformed

This is absolute rubbish.

It's incredible to me that any person with the least understanding of the gospel could consider this kind of stuff helpful.

Chris,
If you were to recheck the posts, you would find that I was not questioning Hansen's "faith in Christ". He stated that the theologians he respects begin by having faith - simple enough of a statement. My question was "a faith in what?"

Not to belabor the point but, just "having faith" is pretty ambiguous. Faith must have an object. In this discussion of who gets to be a valid theologian worth listening to, Hansen feels "faith" is the prerequisite. To go with his statement, anyone who has faith (in Christ your assumption) is qualified to be a theologian. Is that what you feel as well?

Karen Armstrong writes as a historical researcher, not as a theologian. This includes research and an ability to write, which she does enormously well. If you knew her background you would know that she has plenty of reason not to blindly follow what the church dishes out.

I guess what gets your knickers in a knot is that she respects other peoples' belief systems because they are important to the people who hold them. Personally, I can't accept the Jewish, Muslim, Hindu etc. religions but they have a place in religious history, along with Christianity and that's all she's saying.

Christianity also has a history, as does the Bible it uses as a guide. For SDAs it must be upsetting to realize that it, too, is based on the bad boy Constantine and his politically motivated call for the council of Nicaea where most of the Christian tenets were established, including the nature of Christ and the Trinity. We reject his involvement in Sunday worship, along with Christmas and Easter, but we accept the conclusions of what constitutes THE WORD OF GOD as declared by the Council of Nicaea. So, when someone haughtily declares that he only respects theologians (K. Armstrong is not theologian but a historian) who have faith, I need to ask, IN WHAT - and what does that have to do with the history of any of the religions?

Sirje, great post!

To claim "faith" has become a mantra similar to
"God said it, I believe it, that settles it."

Every institution, and that surely includes the church, has a history. Karen's specialty is the history of religions and beliefs and how and where they originated and the commonalities as well as differences among them. As an historian, faith is a meaningless word. Historians look for documented facts without preconceived opinions, unlike theologians who often look for clues to augment and fortify their faith.

The history of Christianity is not always pretty and Adventistism also has it uglier side. We adopted many of the church decisions formed in the fourth century and while some were rejected (Sunday), most of them also became Adventist positions.

The latest archaeological findings thoroughly refute the biblical claims for a glorious temple by Solomon; and the size of David and his dominion, were sheer Hebrew hyperbole. There is only evidence of small tribal buildings similar to that found in that area of the Middle East.

It should be common knowledge that there were similar Creation stories in other cultures originating in that area; that there were also similar law codes from which the Ten are so alike; that there was never a complete monotheism practiced until after the Babylonian Exile. These are all historical facts.

There has never been anything but the Bible story claiming a mass exodus of 600,000 (? figures vary) from Egypt that crossed the Red
Sea and survived, miraculously in the Sinai desert for 40 years without a leaving a single trace. There is a story, much earlier than Moses, about an infant, Sargon, who was placed in a reed basket and adopted by royalty and raised as a prince with such striking similarity to Moses that it stretches credulity not to see the correlation.

So, what and where should one place her faith? In the Bible and its stories? Are they all 100% true and literal? Do we read them as written by ancient people who had many superstitions and believed in all sorts of magic and supernatural happenings?

Faith is very powerful, and if it is misplaced, and it proves fallacious, another agnostic or atheist is born each time that discovery is made.

"Faith is very powerful, and if it is misplaced, and it proves fallacious, another agnostic or atheist is born each time that discovery is made."

Well, that's it Elaine. Once someone finds that they have been duped, either on purpose or otherwise, it's difficult to then have confidence in anything that comes from the same source. It would be far better to honestly trace those histories; but, at the same time, understand that all events in history (as well as biblical history) must also be interpreted and placed in proper perspective. If religion is found to be covering up and telling half truths it loses credibility and the baby gets tossed with the bath water.

I have to believe that God's cause can be furthered honestly and He does not need anything to be covered up, whether it be history or science. "It is what it is", as the saying goes, and if history doesn't square with what is theologically believed, then reevaluate and go on. That's called growth and the Christian God seems to invite us to "reason together"; but then, change is always difficult, especially when insecurities are involved.

"There has never been anything but the Bible story claiming a mass exodus of 600,000 (? figures vary) from Egypt that crossed the Red
Sea and survived, miraculously in the Sinai desert for 40 years without a leaving a single trace."

And there would never have been anything but a story of
Akhenaten's moving the capital of Egypt's capital city, Thebes either if all there was to go by was the oral history. Akhenaten founded a new capital city in the desert 200 miles north of Thebes. He called the city 'Akhetaten', meaning 'the Horizon of the Aten'. It is known today by the Arabic name, el-Amarna.

Thank goodness Jean Francois Champollion screwed up and was at least interested in excavating what he thought as a Roman Alabastronopolis from a nearby alabaster quarry.

http://touregypt.net/featurestories/amarna.htm

The point is, the lack of evidence of something means nothing. You cant prove a negative or say definitively that something did NOT happen from silence.

Hansn and Chris have explained the faith concept as well as anyone can. Someone who approaches the issue requiring evidence as a starting point will always struggle as Elaine does.

To say Armstrong is a historian is to misrepresent her starting point too.
Sirje is closest to honesty when she says,
"Karen Armstrong writes as a historical researcher, not as a theologian. This includes research and an ability to write, which she does enormously well. If you knew her background you would know that she has plenty of reason not to blindly follow what the church dishes out."

It is also important to realize her bias and how she approachs these issues given the history Sirje speaks of.

Yes, Karen is "biased" as an historian. She never claims to have "faith," which may be a requirement for a theologian but is detrimental to an historian who must rely on facts.

"Faith" is endless in the claims it may make. What cannot be explained by "faith"? Is there anything impossible when faith is the only requirement?

There is not 1 side to this coin Elaine.
You cant say Karen is a good historian because she doesn't have faith. All that is is one side of the bias or coin.
A theologian who believes in the historical aspects of the bible can be just as right. He is just biased on the other side of the coin.

Probably the one thing that the theologian has going for him that Karen never would is that his viewpoint doesn't flip flop 180 degrees every 4-7 years like Karen's has.

Sirje,

You said. "Karen Armstrong writes as a historical researcher, not as a theologian"

That's fine, I wasn't questioning her historical facts, I wasn't challenging her ability to articulate (I actually admire her ability to articulate), I wasn't challenging her academic credentials.

I was questioning her theology. She made a lot of theological statements in that video. She certainly does have a model of theology that she tries to explain. She tries to fit Christianity into that model. I don't think that our theology fits into her model.

I rejoice that all religions have some truth. Don't misunderstand my objection. But, religions do have various different theologies, are you denying that? Am I not allowed to point out where my theology differs from her model?

Hansen was not ambiguous. You said to me, "If you were to recheck the posts, you would find that I was not questioning Hansen's "faith in Christ". He stated that the theologians he respects begin by having faith - simple enough of a statement. My question was "a faith in what?""

Hansen did answer that directly. What are you talking about?

You said, "To go with his statement, anyone who has faith (in Christ your assumption) is qualified to be a theologian."

Not my assumption, Hansen detailed it with his original statement, if you read the whole thing, "Jesus said "the words I speak to you are Spirit and life." Various figures in Scripture suggest its spirituality. "Thy word is a lamp unto my feet." Lamps are fueled by oil. Oil represents the HS. Scripture is a vessel by which the HS is transmitted to men"

And when you asked for more detail. He said "Christian faith works for me." How much more clear can he be?

An honest person changes his mind when given new evidence, especially if it is contradictory to previous views. Good scholarship requires that integrity and discipline.

If a theologian encounters contradictory evidence to what was previously believed, what then? If his faith is imperiled by changing, what then?

Didn't Paul make a 360 degree turn in his theology?

Didn't Martin Luther change his original perceptions?

Didn't John Wesley make changes in his theological views?

Didn't Ellen White also change her views?

What should an honest person do when convinced that previous beliefs have no foundation or evidence?

Elaine,

Perhaps we should redefine the Reformation as the purgative that changed the world. Heikko Obermann, a person described as a theologian and historian reduced Luther's theological breakthrough to simply this: A constipated monk experiencing the relief wrought by an effective purgative.

Durant, in his Reformation volume related an incident wherein people who had recently received their copies of the Bible in English for the first time became unruly because of different understandings of the text.

A reader might conclude from that bit of information that it is not a good idea for people to have the Bible in their own language, that it can lead to social unest. Indeed, that has happened, but considering the good that has been done, it is hardly justification for keping the Bible from the people.

Critics often quote Luther's work, "On the Jews and their Lies" to reduce him to a mean spirited anti Semite who brought forth Nazi anti Semitism. Rarely do these people ever quote from "That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew," also from Luther's pen.

The tone is entirely different. He said, for instance, that he could understand why the Jews rejected Jesus based on the doctrines of Rome that permeated society prior to the Reformation. He admonished his readers to treat the Jews with kindness in hope of winning their souls to the gospel cause.

Even handed historians such as Martin Brecht consider both treatises and then try to figure out why the change. Partisans simply use whatever dirt they find to advance an existing agenda.

Throwing mud on the wall to see what sticks is hardly the work of a true historian.

Historians such as Wylie and D 'Aubigne wrote fantastic accounts of the Reformation. Sure, they were partisans of a sort. But what a noble cause for which they fought. Their Christian faith is what makes their accounts such a pleasure to read, an elevating experience.

"Historians such as Wylie and D 'Aubigne wrote fantastic accounts of the Reformation."

What would EGW have done without using those historians in her writings?

Is an atheist historian considered unreliable because of his beliefs? Is the message, or the messenger judged?

Durant is an excellent historian. Is his beliefs relevant to his accounts? His "Story of Civilization: Caesar and Christ" is one of the best accounts of early Christian history. He wrote:

"Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it."

Do you know his religious beliefs? Would it make a difference?

EGW provided a valuable service by introducing inspirational Christian historians to contemporary Adventists. Many people who look for the good in EGW have been rewarded for so doing. Leslie Hardinge got an idea for doctoral research from a single sentence in Great Controversy.

The record of the men of faith who blazed the way for us today can be an inspiring and faith building one. Even modern writers such as Roland Bainton or Martin Brecht provide insight into the way God's spirit worked in the lives of our spiritual forbears. I say spirtual because the most fulfilling way to discover and understand church history is to see the hand of God in the various and unique situations illustrated by certain events. It's also possible to see the shortcomings and learn from the mistakes of those who went before.

Wylie's account of the apostasy of Briconnet, the Bishop of Meaux, is an intriguing and frightening look at a man who buckled under the multitudinous pressures of the day. No doubt considered a hero by those sympathetic to papal interests, his fall is a cause for consternation and a warning to those who walk the path of faith.

The thoughtful student can come away from a study of church history ennobled and impressed or defiled and depressed. Just depends on whose account and interpretation you read and, I might add, believe.

Chris and Hansen

Maybe it is because I live in a multi-cultural society that I have so much difficulty with your reasoning.

I am a South African and lived for many years in the city of Durban. Durban is a very multi-cultural city; the Durban Mosque is the largest Mosque in the southern hemisphere. Durban also has one of the largest Indian communities outside of India and as a result there are hundreds of Hindu Temples in and around the Durban area. In addition to these major world religions there are the many indigenous belief systems.

As a result of living in this type of community I have over the years had many Islamic and Hindu friends and acquaintances and have found that many of them claim to have, and I have no reason to doubt them, the same faith that you do in their religious belief systems. Their expositions of their faith have been no less passionate, and often more eloquent, than yours. Reading your explanations of your faith it seems clear to me that if either of you had been born in an Islamic country you would in all probability have been Muslim fundamentalists; no less passionate about your Islamic faith than you now are about your Christian faith.

Hansen clearly exhibits some of his partisan reasoning when he says, “Historians such as Wylie and D 'Aubigne wrote fantastic accounts of the Reformation. Sure, they were partisans of a sort. But what a noble cause for which they fought.” Is it then acceptable to you if Hindus or Muslims excuse the partisan nature of their fundamentalists because of the, for them “noble cause for which they fought”.

I am afraid that for me a meaningful belief system has to be more than an accident of birth; I know that you will probably claim that it is not merely an accident but the experience of a personal relationship with Christ, but many of my non-Christian friends claim an equally strong experience with their understanding of God.

My questions remains; how do I know that we are both, Christian and non-Christian, not merely practicing self-delusion?

As an Old Testament prophet chided Israel--you take the same tree and use part for making a fire, part for making a house, and part for making a god. Religion, as Karen correctly observed is a human behavior. Christianity, in its many sub-sets demonstrates a wide range of human behaviors many dishonorable.

So Karen is correct in her observations of nominal Christian practice and its mind numbing legalism or litergy. However, she throws the Baby Jesus out with the bath water.

The Pauline Gospel is built upon another premise: Acceptance of a gift from a loving Creator/Redeemer with graceful generosity towards God and our kin.

Karen--dismisses the necessity of Acceptance as the substrate of the Golden Rule. Christianity calls for a consequencial ethos and ethic. Karen advocates a primary ethos and ethic--a salvation by works under any banner. Given the history of man and his religions--it is difficult to dismiss her.

One must read Karen to learn how we really are. Then one must read Paul to learn what we can become and why. Tom

Courtenay,

Australia is also very secular and multicultural as well. We have the complete spectrum of religious view here.

I think you are having difficulties with my reasoning because your questions are loaded with assumption. And I'm not sure what you are really wanting to know.

You asked, "how do I know that we are both, Christian and non-Christian, not merely practicing self-delusion?"

Issue 1. On a literal reading of your question, you might be asking how to know if all religious faith is not a self-delusion.

I tried to answer this above, I tried to explore the distinction between self-delusion and religious faith, I have never really worked out how to put that into words, so perhaps I was not clear enough? Or perhaps you don't accept it? I tried to talk about religious faith in general, and not specifically in Christian terms.

Issue 2. You are also comparing Christian with non-Christian faith.

I don't pretend to know how a Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist etc feels. I can only share how I feel based on my own experience. I certainly don't deny anyone else's experiences. For example Moslem suicide bombers, I am sure that they have tremendous confidence in their beliefs, I don't doubt that at all. Scary actually. I also acknowledge there have been converts in all directions.

Issue 3. You might be asking me personally if my own faith is real, and how do I know that it is not a self-delusion.

I'll restate my perspective. Certainly it is possible that what I have faith in may be wrong, so I am not (completely) irrational. But that is the thing about faith, you never fully know for sure. That doesn't mean to say that you can't become confident in your faith, because you can. If you need evidence, just look at the billions of people who do find value in their choice. And I'm pretty sure that all people of faith struggle with doubts at times as well. But it's more value for me to think that I am not self delusional. It would be irrational for me to go around thinking that I am self delusional wouldn't it?

Issue 4. You also appear to be asking me, how do I know that my faith is the right faith.

I think by this, you would be really asking about how do I know that my belief system is correct, rather than simply faith, because all belief systems have faith. The terms seem to be interchangeable in some contexts and not in others. Both contexts have been discussed in this thread. I have looked at the claims of the major belief systems, and I find that Christianity fits my worldview the best. This is a personal decision. I can not deny that is what I was brought up in.

I think the bottom line is, that you have to decide what is right for you personally. Christ does not force us, and He will not. And people are still allowed to change their minds, because they do. I heard an interesting saying, I can't recall who first said it "If you come to a fork in the road, take it!"

If you are sitting on the fence, that is up to you if that is valuable to you. I don't deny that is a perfectly rational position to be in. But I question its value, to me I imagine it would be frustrating, but then I have to admit that I still have doubts sometimes as well. Overall I am happy that my confidence and faith is growing, at least I can tell you it makes me happy.

There you go, I have tied myself up in knots trying to answer your question.

Chris I apologise if I am being over sensitive but some of your post comes across to me as tainted by that arrogance that I believe is often mistaken for faith. I know that this may be wrong, but that is how some of your post reads to me.

You say that you think I am having difficulties with my reasoning because my questions are loaded with assumption. This may be true; I have been through difficult times that have caused me to question many of my assumptions. If anything my assumptions now are that many of my previous assumptions were wrong. I grew up in the SDA church and am still a regular member and most of my previous religious assumptions were informed by this association.

You say, and I quote.

“You asked, "how do I know that we are both, Christian and non-Christian, not merely practicing self-delusion?"
Issue 1. On a literal reading of your question, you might be asking how to know if all religious faith is not a self-delusion.”

That is exactly what I am asking. Sorry I clearly did not understand your explanation. If you are saying that believing in something is worth the risk/effort because it makes me feel better then that concerns me because then I am more likely to delude myself, simply because it makes me feel better. This is surely a motivation to self delusion.

"Issue 2. You are also comparing Christian with non-Christian faith."

The faith of others in their religious belief clearly demonstrates to me that at least some of us are indulging in self delusion rather than faith. Clearly we can’t all be right can we; Christian and non-Christian can’t all be exercising real faith? Or can they?.

"Issue 3. You might be asking me personally if my own faith is real, and how do I know that it is not a self-delusion."

Chris I would not question the integrity of your faith any more than I would question the integrity of the faith of my Muslim or Hindu friends. How we know, both us and them, that we are not practicing self delusion is THE question. If we cannot know for sure then, recognising the possibility that we are all delusional, perhaps we should treat each other with a little more respect and all be willing to state our positions, both in life and on this forum, with a little less certainty.

Courtenay, One of the issues Luther, as a pastor, had with the Papacy, was the "faith" of Rome robbed people of, or failed to provide, certainty, also known as Christian assurance.

In the context of justification by faith, the issue was whether or not the people could be assured that they were truly accepted by God, good enough to be saved. To that end Rome piled on works, whereas the Reformers pointed to Jesus as good enough.

Of Abraham Paul wrote, "He staggered not at God's promise through unbelief, but was strong in faith giving glory to God. He figured what God promised, he was also able to deliver. Therefore [that faith] was counted to him for righteoussness."

That's the only kind of faith that is worth anything, faith which takes hold of God's word and won't let it go until it is fulfilled.

"Faith comes through hearing the word of God." Many years ago, I decided to go on a fast. During the fast, I obtained a
Bible. The words of Scripture went into my mind like red hot steel into ice.

The words "Our Father, which art in Heaven" prostrated me before God's throne.

To those without faith of this nature, religion is toxic. It poisons our minds. Better not be religious than not have faith.

Courtnay
Very well put. In general, religion is a function of geography and ethnicity. In pivotal periods of human history, old gods have died and new ones have emerged, but over all, people's faith is rarely individually acquired.

If you believe that Christianity is the only valid religion, and if "valid" to you means the only one which will keep you from being burned to death or tortured throughout eternity, you must indeed conclude that hard-core calvinists are right: God selects some people to be saved and some people to be damned, even before they're born.

The very people who would argue that that's not true, that Muslims and Hindus are free to embrace the saving Christian "truth", are often the very ones who promote the idea that it's treasonous to question your holy scriptures and put them to any kind of verficiation test.

Fundamentalism is a method, not a message. If it's good for the goose, it's always going to be good for the gander, whether it's a Hindu or a Muslim gander. You can't ask others to reevaluate their faith, to "test the spirits" unless you're willing to do so yourself.

Hansen
Your statement below is wildly off the mark:
"To those without faith of this nature, religion is toxic. It poisons our minds."

A lot of people, such as myself, take great interest in religious studies without having any personal faith. I don't resent your faith--I used to be where you are--but when I read about the subject of religion, I'd like to know that the writer is respectful of the known facts. It seems to me that by declaring non-believers to harbor animosity towards believers you're trying to insulate yourself from scholarship that challenges your beliefs.

Stephen Colbert used to argue that Bush should stay away from facts because they had a known liberal bias and instead go with his gut. The issue is not Karen Armstrong, a respected scholar, but the factual basis for her analysis. I'm sure some of her conclusions will have to be revised as knowledge progresses but I have seen nobody advance a credible reason why her scholarship is suspect.

Hansen

The part about justification by faith I accept. If we as Christians are not self delusional in our belief system then that is indeed the only way we can be saved. To believe that there is anything that we can do to earn salvation is I believe the worst kind of self delusion.

It is the rest that I have difficulty with. It seems to me that there is very little difference between your definition of faith and the faith of a suicide bomber.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion; he is not, however, entitled to the facts. The facts are what true historians seek; and if new information changes those facts formerly accepted, those newer facts will replace the old ones.

When you read a book must you first determine what religious belief or no belief that the author has? Truth can stand alone, regardless of the messenger. However, for those who view certain writings as sacrosanct, not to be questioned, then park your mind on the shelf when reading. Some of us prefer to use our minds, not fearful of where it might lead. Those who refuse to read because of the questionable bias of the author, should stick with the prosaic, unquestioning facts with which he has learned to be comfortable.

Hey, My mind's made up - don't confuse me with facts!

Chris,
Sorry this took so long - I must take one more shot at answering your posts. You repeatedly tell me that Hansen replied to my question, "faith in what?" Both he and you have totally misunderstood the question. I never asked what Hansen's faith was in. That was never the issue. Hansen stated that he READS only THEOLOGIANS who have faith; and, I repeat, what must those theologians have faith in, in order for Hansen to read them? The answers seems to be that they must have faith in Christ. Now that makes sense if you are a Christian and are reading a THEOLOGY book, you would want the author of that book to have faith in the same Christ as you do, but even then you might want to hear from someone else as well.

Karen Armstrong writes books about HISTORY. In her case the history is about religions. She does not write theology. She probably has her own ideas about theology and various beliefs, but those are irrelevant to the books she writes. At least no more relevant than if she were to write books about the history of Rome or Jerusalem or any other earthly place.

Are Christians supposed to only read books written by people of the same faith as yourself? That does limit the field a bit. How about music - only music written by people of faith?

I never questioned Hansen's faith; nor do I question Karen Armstrong's faith as I read her books about the history of religious beliefs. I guess what's throwing you and Hansen is the word RELIGIOUS. Any time that word appears as a subject it must carry with it a theological viewpoint, and if that doesn't agree with yours, it must be dangerous. I guess encyclopedias are off limits?

Remark:

"The theologians I respect begin with faith, something that is a gift from God, not an intellectual achievement. It might be that the reason you consider pagan works as valuable as Scripture is because of looking at them without faith."

Misrepresentation:
"Hansen stated that he READS only THEOLOGIANS who have faith; and, I repeat, what must those theologians have faith in, in order for Hansen to read them?"

http://www.hookersforjesus.net/home.cfm

Correction:
Hansen RESPECTS only those theologians (and apparently historians) who have the same faith as his.

My last comment on the subject - I kid you not.

Sirje and Courtenay,

Language is a funny thing. Strange how we can read the same words, and get different meanings from them. I am sorry if I misunderstood your questions.

Courtenay,

Forgive me for my insensitivity. I have struggled also, and been through bad times. I really mean to encourage you, and say don't ever give up.

You asked, "How we know, both us and them, that we are not practicing self delusion is THE question" It is not self-delusion if we don't claim to know it as a fact.

Faith is a different type of understanding.

The claim that I make, is not that I know God. I have not met him face to face. It's that I choose to believe the possibility, while my mind still leaves room for the posibility that He is not real.

I don't actually know either way. So, for the time being, I find it more valuable to think more about the possibility that He is real.

I suspect this is true for most people's belief systems. For me Christianity makes the most sense.

What I am suggesting to you, is that if you are looking to choose a belief system, and if you can't tell which one is technically proven right or wrong, then what shall you base a decision on? For me, I base the decision on what fits my world view. I can do this while still being rational and accepting the possibility that I am wrong.

Of coarse, I don't dwell on the possibility that I am wrong, that would not be healthy, would it? But I admit that I consider it from time to time, therefore I am not deluded or irrational. I do listen to other people, and I do change my mind about things when there is sufficient reason.

And I do learn about other belief systems. But I don't have a pre-occupation with proving myself wrong, just to prove myself sane. I don't find that valueable.

My advice is to keep questioning, but also take into account the value that these things have to your own self as well. Being happy is not a bad thing. Although its not like euphoric or anything. Actually happy is not a sufficient word to describe it, but its the best I have for now.

I like how Hansen used the words 'Christian assurance', that might sum it up better than happy. It's valueable to me to have 'Christian assurance'

It might sound arrogant, but it's really not meant that way. I truly have the utmost respect for other people's integrity in their faith. But I don't have to accept the content of their faith is correct if it doesn't make sense to me.

You seem to be worried about accepting the possibility of something, without knowing for certain if it is right. Do you have faith that the world is round? Have you ever examined how you came to know this? You are probably so confident in it that you don't leave any room for it being flat. What types of evidence have you accepted for this certainty?

OK, God is different, he can't be disproved as easily as flat earth. But, on the other hand, we believe many things without seeing with our own eyes. Should we all demand to be taken into space to see that the world is round, wouldn't that be the rational thing to do? Should we refuse to believe it until we know for sure? Were the people in the dark ages delusional for believing the world was flat?

What value is insisting that it is probably delusional? Especially when we can't prove either way. As long as we understand this process of faith, then we can have respect for everyone's faith.

It's OK to choose to a accept the possibility of model even knowing it might be wrong. As long as we are aware of the possibility.

Christianity is unique amongst monotheism, in my opinion, in that God saved us, and works are not a prerequisite for salvation. That's why I chose Christianity over other major religions. I know that the need for a saviour is not even required in some other religions, but there are other reasons for me not accepting those religions.

I guess that in one sense I am saying Pascal's wager over and over again. Sorry if I am repeating myself, but I do not know why you have to be worried about making a choice. Making a choice does not have to mean any disprespect to other people. Making a choice does not have to be delusional. You are allowed to change your mind if you are proven wrong.

Do you understand why I say that faith is not delusional? It is only delusional if we should know that we are wrong? So, even though other religions believe different things to Christianity, I do not think that the people in those other religions are delusional.

Your conclusion was "If we cannot know for sure then, recognising the possibility that we are all delusional, perhaps we should treat each other with a little more respect and all be willing to state our positions, both in life and on this forum, with a little less certainty."

The only one word that I don't like in that, is the word delusional. I believe that we might be wrong, but not deluded. Do you understand the difference? If you just changed that one word from delusion, to wrong, then I would completely agree,

'If we cannot know for sure then, recognising the possibility that we are all WRONG, perhaps we should treat each other with a little more respect and all be willing to state our positions, both in life and on this forum, with a little less certainty.'

Yes, I like that better. But I still think we can have a little faith in our own belief system. And the truth is that whenever we say that we think something is right, we automatically have to accept that we are also saying the alternative view is probably wrong. It's an unfortunate side effect, and I hope that more mature people can understand that. I am sorry if that sounds arrogant, it is honestly not meant to be. The alternative would be to say that I can't have any opinoin, and that would not be fair either.

Chris thank you for a very thoughtful response.

Clearly, as in all analogies, there are weaknesses in some of yours. Take for instance the analogy of the earth being round. No I don’t have to go up in a space craft myself and orbit the planet in order to believe that the world is round. I can trust the word of those who have done it. If however half of all the astronauts who had been up in a space craft came back and reported that the earth was flat, well then we would all find it a lot harder to believe. With belief systems we have exactly that problem.

I however accept your solution. As it is not possible to be certain we may as well pick a system that supports our world view. For me this would have to be Christianity because in my understanding of Christianity it is the only system in which my salvation is dependant on what God has done, not on what I need to do. If my salvation is dependant on me then I might as well give up on the whole thing now.

I can live with your substitution of the word WRONG for delusional. As you said in your opening paragraph language is a funny thing and the same word can mean different things to different people.

My problem with Hansen remains. When unable to answer a question he replies by saying, “Courtenay, there are lots of people here more intelligent and better educated than I, ask one of them.”

One would hope that his self acknowledged lack of “intelligence” (his words not mine) and education would result in some modesty and a willingness to express his views with a little less certainty. Sadly I see that elsewhere on this Forum he continues to express his views, this time on homosexuality, with that familiar certainty of a of a suicide bomber.

Courtenay,

Thanks, I'm actually very grateful for your response. When I thought your suggestion was that my choosing a belief system was delusional, I guess that got to me and all that stuff came out. I recognized that it was overly verbose. And I guess that I take Hansen differently than you do. My understanding is simply that he recognizes the sorts of things that work for him. I respect that. I too am learning what works for me, and I can't help but be certain that it works for me, because that is my personal experience, it can't be denied. Your question may have sounded like it was denying his personal experience, in which case I understand why he had no further answer.

Also, I don't think you were fair to belittle his intelligence. I too have seen some extremely intelligent people on this forum, and I also happily admit that I am not as intelligent or educated as them as well. Hansen has shown me where I have been wrong before also, and so I have to acknowledge his intelligence and education.

As to the flat earth analogy, sorry that's all I could think of at the time. Although we don't really have half the people telling us that God is not true as a fact. The negative can not really be proved. And so, I acknowledge that there is a popular swing towards equating religious faith with delusion. But I strongly reject this association. Even the strongest opponents of faith, like Richard Dawkins, do not say that he knows God is not true for a fact. On a scale of 1 to 7 toward atheism, Dawkins puts himself at 6. Even he is rational enough to to leave room for the possibility. But Dawkins is not being consistent to his own standards by suggesting that religious faith is delusional. Because, the way I see it, I can put myself at position 6, on a scale of 1 to 7 of faith in God, and I am not irrational or delusional for doing that.

Faith is not really a binary proposition. It's an ongoing value decision. And I respect that for any person's faith.

Once we have established that choosing a faith is not delusional, we are more free to make a choice on which faith makes sense for us. For me it is Christianity, and I praise Christ as my Lord and Saviour. That is offensive to some people, but I can't deny my own experience when asked, my experience is what I know. And thankfully, for some other people, it's enriching to share it.

Thanks again for your kind response, I hope we are untying the knot of a response that I made :)

When someone says they have chosen Christianity, it is because they were given choices: Christianity or something else. In believing in free will, we like to think we have the freedom to choose many different ideas or philosophies.

However, had you been raised in a Buddhist country where nearly everyone was a faithful follower of Buddha, and never having heard of Christianity, what would you beieve?

Or, if you were born a Jew in modern Israel, what are the chances of your becoming a Christian? If you were born in Afghanistan, what are the chances you would NOT be a Muslim?

Christianity was the most viable choice for those born in a country where Christianity is practiced or claimed by the majority of its citizens. If one's salvation depends on becoming a Christian, will only Christians be saved? Isn't that the real question: "Must one become a Christian to spend eternity in Heaven"? And the obverse: "All those who reject Christianity will be damned to Hell"?

Elaine,

I don't think that Adventists believe as you said, "If one's salvation depends on becoming a Christian, will only Christians be saved?" But I must admit, some of the rhetoric/dogma sounds like that at times. And I agree that is unfortunate. I think Christianity is meant to be about freedom, not restriction. That's one of the reasons it makes the most sense to me personally.

There is a difference between salvation and right vs wrong. One can be wrong, but also saved! Thank God for that. Don't you think that is good news?

Also, yes knowing my personality, I may have been a good Buddhist or something if I was born elsewhere, I understand that. Or maybe actually I would have been a total rebel, maybe it wouldn't have gelled with me the way Christianity has, who knows? That was obvious to me from very very young. I have been through phases of acceptance and rebellion as a Christian also. But as an adult, I have looked at Buddhism, at Islam, and other major religions. Some of them, I admit that I can see God working through them as well. The picture you paint of my perspective is not quite accurate.

Elaine,

I don't quite understand this sentence: "In believing in free will, we like to think we have the freedom to choose many different ideas or philosophies"

I am not sure what your position is. Do you believe that we just like to think that we have the choice, or do you believe that we really do have the choice? If it is just that we like to think it, then why fight it? If we really do have the choice, then I am happy with my choice. What other options have I got?

It was Bertrand Russell who said: "A man's religion, almost wthout exception, is the religion of his community." Few adults--and literally no children--have the independence of mind to dismiss the prevaiing majority opinion as being total nonsense.

This is directed at no one in particular, but is, pretty much, a universal truism. Few people step out of their comfort zones, whether they are surrounded by Christians, Muslims, or Hindus, and adopt an entirely different religious belief. That some do, is noticeable by its rarity.

So, to believe that we all have "free will to choose" is a comfortable assumption, but how free is it really? You are free to marry only those who you either know or will know in the future; you are free to choose any vocation, but may not be given permission to pursue it (if the qualifications are not met); you are free to try to become a concert musician, but what are the odds? We are all limited by our biological, mental, emotional and physical surroundings.

Elaine,
Thanks for the clarification. It seems to me from that perspective, that I would be more on the 'why fight it' end.

PS On the other hand, I actually do believe "the prevailing majority opinion as being total nonsense". Most especially equating religious faith with delusion - that is complete nonsense. The dynamic is different these days, in the atheistic secular multicultural mix up of a society that we live in. So, while I accept that Christianity was there from the start for me, so was a lot of choice as well - there is Buddhism and Islam in my immediate family. Choice was always in my face. So, while I admit there is some truth to it, even that is not so simple as portrayed in that Bertrand Russell quote.

Elaine and Chris

Without doing my cofirmation research, I believe there is a quote from Jesus something like this: "God know who was born here and who was born there". It seems God does factor in
environment and opportunity. After all, God is the perfect mix of Justice and Mercy! We also have the text: "That whom much is given much is expected." Those who have have a fair opportunity to hear the Gospel are held to a higher standard, I must believe. But who could say, "Amazing Facts" is a fair opportunity?

Certainly the Universe must rejoice that we are not in charge. Tom

"A man's religion, almost wthout exception, is the religion of his community." Few adults--and literally no children--have the independence of mind to dismiss the prevaiing majority opinion as being total nonsense.

**************************************************************

As an atheist, Bertrand Russell had no idea what conversion to Christ was about, having never experienced it himself.

As one who has, I can say that it was totally out of line with the religion of my family and the community in which I was raised...and came with much initial angst. I would say that anyone who truly experiences the birth from above in some way leaves the religion of their community of origin...no matter where and what it was.

Thanks...

Frank

Peter Berger, sociologist of religion, argues "that pluralism – not secularization – and the resulting emergence of religious choice is the best model for understanding religion in a globalizing world."
http://pewforum.org/events/?EventID=136

Moreover, significant religious switching, to non-religion, has been going in this country, especially since the 1990s, we're told.

- American Religious Identification Survey
(ARIS 2008)
SUMMARY REPORT, March 2009
Barry A. Kosmin and Ariela Keysar
http://b27.cc.trincoll.edu/weblogs/AmericanReligionSurvey-ARIS/reports/A...