Reader, beware: against my better judgment, I intend to write today on both religion and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Fortunately nobody ever writes in my comments section, but I'm putting on my helmet just in case.
Tomorrow an estimated 10,000 people will file into Cox Arena in San Diego to attend Epicenter '09, a conference led by evangelical novelist and non-fiction author Joel Rosenberg to "help you understand today’s global crises in the light of Bible prophecy." Thousands more will tune in live via the Internet. Rosenberg's book Epicenter, which sketches out an elaborate End Times scenario based on Ezekiel 38-39, spent months on the New York Times bestseller list. As of today his new book Inside the Revolution stands at #7 on the NYT bestseller list (for the COINdistas, that's 3 places above The Unforgiving Minute and 24 places above The Gamble). Rosenberg is one of the most important figures in a movement that outside observers call Christian Zionism. He is ideologically and personally connected to Jerry Jenkins and Tim LaHaye, the authors of the popular Left Behind series. Despite Rosenberg's influence, I have found few scholars bothering to engage with his ideas. Authors like Douglas Johnston and Madeline Albright have noted that the role of religion is frequently overlooked in statecraft. We ignore religion at our peril. Both the religious and nonreligious should be looking at figures like Rosenberg, because ideas have consequences--especially when this many people believe them.
Full disclosure: I am a Christian. I take my faith extremely seriously; my commitment to devote my life to the service of a better world springs directly from my theological beliefs. But in an age when bestselling books have titles like God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything and American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America, I am extremely sensitive to the damage Christians can do when their theology leads them down roads that diverge from goodness, morality, and justice. When history passes its judgments on the great moral issues of our age, I want to be sure that I stood on the right side.
Historically Christians have been at their best when they obey the words that Jesus himself cited as representing the sum of all the Law and the Prophets: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" This is the soul of the Christian gospel. The finest Christians I know strive to express their eternal gratitude to a God who has acted redemptively in history; they seek to extend this love and redemption to others through their own lives. They create where there is chaos, build where there is ruin, love where there is hate. They move into inner city neighborhoods, start nonprofits to fight sex trafficking, educate the poor, care for the sick and dying. This is the silent, humble work of the Church throughout history that authors like Hitchens fail to see. Occasionally the call of the gospel leads to extraordinary acts of moral courage, such as Desmond Tutu standing against racial injustice and leading post-Apartheid reconciliation efforts, or Dietrich Bonhoffer leading German churches against Hitler. Christianity--and religion in general, I should add--can be a powerful force for good.
But history has proven that Christianity becomes dangerous when an outside agenda is allowed to supersede the heart of the gospel. Most often this comes in the form of politics. In Jesus' own day he had to contend with religious zealots seeking violent overthrow of Roman occupation. During the Crusades many "Christians" engaged in the worst forms of cruelty and barbarism for the prize of Jerusalem. Many churches throughout history have wedded themselves to corrupt political regimes and ideologies, such as Nazism, Apartheid, and American slavery. More recently, America is reeling from the disastrous alliance between evangelicals and the political right. Many Americans increasingly view evangelicals not merely as an intellectual curiosity but as a malevolent force undermining American society. These evangelicals lost their way when "restoring America as a Christian nation" superseded the mission of faithfully living out the gospel in a world where Jesus promised his disciples would always live as strangers.
My concern with Christian Zionism, and Joel Rosenberg in particular, is that an apocalyptic agenda becomes the interpretive framework for understanding the Christian faith--rather than the clear teachings of Jesus. This agenda includes principles that are antithetical to peacebuilding in the region. Instead of approaching global issues through the lens of core Christian tenets like the character of God, the imago dei and the intrinsic dignity and value of man, and God's efforts to redeem a broken world, Christian Zionists interpret the world primarily with obscure prophecies and dispensationalist theology; they construct apocalyptic End Times scenarios that history has repeatedly proven to be wrong. The core text of Epicenter is Ezekiel 38-39, which describes a forthcoming war that Christians at various times have identified with Celts, Goths, Khazars, Mongolians, European nations, and Russia. Christian Zionists also elevate support for the modern state of Israel far above other Christian concerns. The most troubling aspect of this support is its unconditional nature. The Bible is emphatic that governments are fallible; indeed, a significant amount of the prophetic literature chastises the Israelites for neglecting God and their fellow man and tolerating social injustice. The Prophets repeatedly call their people to a higher moral standard. It is curious, then, that Christian Zionists offer unconditional support to all the policies of the Israeli government without asking critical questions or measuring these policies against fundamental Christian and moral principles. Very different issues like safeguarding Israel's security interests and pursuing illegal settlement expansion are lumped together under the umbrella of "supporting Israel." Internal debate within Israel is far more critical. The myopic focus on Israel also means that Christian Zionism generally neglects the physical and spiritual well-being of many other people groups in the region.
Rosenberg claims to care about peace in the Middle East--he is leading a 300-person "Prayer and Vision" trip to Israel soon to pray for peace--but his stated positions undermine peacebuilding at almost every turn. On his blog he says, "Now more than ever, we need to stand with Israel, show all Israelis unconditional love, and pray for the peace of Jerusalem and the epicenter." This plea for peace and love is curiously one-sided. His February 9, 2009 blog post is titled, "REPORT FROM INDIA: Teaching Christians around the world about God’s love for Israel." Excuse me? Rosenberg's policy analysis is alarming for any informed person who cares about the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. When former Prime Minister Olmert said, "There will be no peace if a significant part of Jerusalem is not the capital of the Palestinian state", Rosenberg vehemently disagreed with him on his blog. He wrote, "It is not for any Prime Minister to give away that which is not his in the first place. The Bible says that Jerusalem belongs to the Lord. He has chosen it for Himself, and has not given permission for Israeli leaders to tear it asunder." I cannot begin to unpack the logical and theological fallacies in that statement.
Christian Zionism is by no means representative of all Christianity. In fact, other churches are outspoken about the movement's dangers--particularly churches in the Middle East. The Jerusalem Declaration on Christian Zionism states Christian Zionism is a "false teaching that corrupts the biblical message of love, justice and reconciliation." The movement is "detrimental to a just peace within Palestine and Israel. The Christian Zionist programme provides a worldview where the Gospel is identified with the ideology of empire, colonialism and militarism. In its extreme form, it places an emphasis on apocalyptic events leading to the end of history rather than living Christ’s love and justice today." The influential Israeli Palestinian Christian priest Elias Chacour has expressed harsh words for the unwanted intrusion of American evangelicals into regional politics. Some Christians have responded to Christian Zionism by creating their own organizations, such as the Evangelicals for Middle Eastern Understanding Coalition.
This is the situation as I see it: by elevating dispensationalist theology and apocalyptic End Times scenarios above the central tenets of the Christian faith, Christian Zionists risk being on the wrong side of vital moral and strategic issues. Instead of being ambassadors of peace, grace, and reconciliation in one of the world's most intractable conflicts, this movement weds itself to a specific right-wing political agenda that is controversial even within Israel. Ironically, some of the policies this movement endorses may actually hurt Israel's long-term security. These Christians are not part of the solution; they are part of the problem. They are obstacles to progress and to peace.
This does not mean Christians should not support Israel. By all means, they should. Israel is a friend with dire security concerns, and I am happy that Christians have transcended a toxic history of anti-Semitism to forge strong interfaith relationships with Israeli and Jewish people. But their support should not come at the expense of other people groups. It should not lead them to support injustice or endorse ill-conceived or immoral policies, on either side. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a bitter one; both sides have legitimate grievances and both sides have suffered injustice and tragedy. If Christians simply throw in their lot with one side or the other, they are no longer helping. When history judges me, I hope it will never be said that I was pro-Arab or pro-Israeli; I hope history will say I was on the side of the peacemakers.
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God" - Matthew 5:9
Friday, April 3, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Good post. I've enjoyed reading your blog as well. You should be commended for having the courage to post your feelings.
Your post about Christian Zionism got it exactly right. In working with Middle Eastern Christians, I have seen first hand the damage done by this uncritical support for Israel. I also believe that it is harmful to Israel's long-term security interests. It is another example of American involvement in the Middle East that reflects more our own assumptions rather than the realities of the region. Michael Oren's book Power, Faith, and Fantasy makes this point well.
PRETRIB RAPTURE DISHONESTY
by Dave MacPherson
When I began my research in 1970 into the exact beginnings of the pretribulation rapture belief still held by many evangelicals, I assumed that the rapture debate involved only "godly scholars with honest differences." The paper you are now reading reveals why I gave up that assumption many years ago. With this introduction-of-sorts in mind, let's take a long look at the pervasive dishonesty throughout the history of the 179-year-old pretrib rapture theory:
Mid-1820's - German scholar Max Weremchuk's work "John Nelson Darby" (1992) included what Benjamin Newton revealed about John Darby in the mid-1820's during his pre-Brethren days as an Anglican clergyman:
"J. N. Darby was a very subtle man. He had been a lawyer, or at least educated for the law. Once he wanted his Archbishop to pursue a certain course, when he (J.N.D.) was a curate in his diocese. He wrote a letter, therefore, saying he had been educated for the law, knew what the legal course would properly be; and then having written that clearly, he mystified the remainder of the letter both in word and in handwriting, and ended up by saying: You see, my Lord, such being the legal aspect of the case it would unquestionably be the best course for you to pursue, etc. And the Archbishop couldn't make out the legal part, but rested on Darby's word and did as he advised. Darby afterwards laughed over it, and indeed he showed a copy of the letter to Tregelles. This is not mentioned in the Archbishop's biography, but in it is the fact that he spoke of Darby as 'the most subtle man in my diocese.'"
This reminds me of an 1834 letter by Darby which spoke of the "Lord's coming." Darby added, concerning this coming, that "the thoughts are new" and that during any teaching of it "it would not be well to have it so clear." Darby's deviousness here was his usage of a centuries-old term - "Lord's coming" - to cover up his desire to sneak the new pretrib idea into existing posttrib groups in very low-profile ways!
1830 - In the spring of 1830 a young Scottish lassie, Margaret Macdonald, came up with the novel notion of a catching up [rapture] of Spirit-filled "church" members before Antichrist's "trial" [tribulation] of non-Spirit-filled "church" members - the first instance I've found of clear "pretrib" teaching (which was part of a partial rapture scheme). In Sep. 1830 "The Morning Watch" (a journal produced by London preacher Edward Irving and his "Irvingite" followers, some of whom had visited Margaret a few weeks earlier) began repeating her original thoughts and even her wording but gave her no credit - the first plagiarism I've found in pretrib history. Darby was still defending posttrib in Dec. 1830.
Pretrib promoters have long known the significance of her main point: a rapture of "church" members BEFORE the revealing of Antichrist. Which is why John Walvoord quoted nothing in her revelation, why Thomas Ice habitually skips over her main point but quotes lines BEFORE and AFTER it, and why Hal Lindsey muddies up her main point so he can (falsely) assert that she was NOT a pretribber! (Google "X-Raying Margaret" for info about her.)
NOTE: The development of the 1800's is thoroughly documented in my book "The Rapture Plot." You'll learn that Darby wasn't original on any chief aspect of dispensationalism (but plagiarized the Irvingites); that pretrib was initially based on only OT and NT symbols and not clear Scripture; that the symbols included the Jewish feasts, the two witnesses, and the man child - symbols adopted by Darby during most of his career; that Darby's later reminiscences exaggerated his earliest pretrib development, and that today's defenders such as Thomas Ice have further overstated what Darby overstated; that Irvingism didn't need later reminiscences to "clarify" its own early pretrib development; that ancient hymns and even the writings of the Reformers were subtly revised to make it appear they had taught pretrib; and that after Darby's death a clever revisionist quietly made many changes in early Irvingite and Brethren documents in order to steal credit for pretrib away from the Irvingites (and their female inspiration!) and give it dishonestly to Darby! (Before continuing, Google the "Powered by Christ Ministries" site and read "America's Pretrib Rapture Traffickers" - a sample of the current exciting internetism!)
1920 - Charles Trumbull's book "The Life Story of C. I. Scofield" told only the dispensationally-correct side of his life. Two recent books, Joseph Canfield's "The Incredible Scofield and His Book" (1988) and David Lutzweiler's "DispenSinsationalism: C. I. Scofield's Life and Errors" (2006), reveal the other side including his being jailed as a forger, dishonestly giving himself a non-conferred "D.D." etc. etc.!
1967 - Brethren scholar Harold Rowdon's "The Origins of the Brethren" quoted Darby associate Lord Congleton who was "disgusted with...the falseness" of Darby's accounts of things. Rowdon also quoted historian William Neatby who said that others felt that "the time-honoured method of single combat" was as good as anything "to elicit the truth" from Darby. (In other words, knock it out of him!)
1972 - Tim LaHaye's "The Beginning of the End" (1972) plagiarized Hal Lindsey's "The Late Great Planet Earth" (1970).
1976 - Charles Ryrie"s "The Living End" (1976) plagiarized Lindsey's "The Late Great Planet Earth" (1970) and "There's A New World Coming" (1973).
1976 - After John Walvoord's "The Blessed Hope and the Tribulation" (1976) brutally twisted Robert Gundry's "The Church and the Tribulation" (1973), Gundry composed and circulated a 35-page open letter to Walvoord which repeatedly charged the Dallas Seminary president with "misrepresentation," "misrepresentations" (and variations)!
1981 - "The Fundamentalist Phenomenon" (1981) by Jerry Falwell, Ed Dobson, and Ed Hindson heavily plagiarized George Dollar's 1973 book "A History of Fundamentalism in America."
1984 - After a prof at Southeastern College of the Assemblies of God in Florida told me that the No. 2 man at the AG world headquarters in Missouri - Joseph Flower - had the label of posttrib, my wife and I had two hour-long chats with him. He verified what I had been told. But we were dumbstruck when he told us that although AG ministers are required to promote pretrib, privately they can believe any other rapture view! Flower said that his father, an AG co-founder, was also posttrib. We also learned while in Springfield that when the AG's were organized in 1914, the initial group was divided between posttribs and pretribs - but that the pretribs shouted louder which resulted in that denomination officially adopting pretrib! (For details on this and other pretrib double-mindedness, Google "Pretrib Hypocrisy.")
1989 - Since 1989 Thomas Ice has referred to the "Mac-theory" (his reference to my research), giving the impression there's no solid evidence that Macdonald was the real pretrib originator. But Ice carefully conceals the fact that no eminent church historian of the 1800's - whether Plymouth Brethren or Irvingite - credited Darby with pretrib. Instead, they uniformly credited leading Irvingite sources, all of which upheld the Scottish lassie's contribution! Moreover, I'm hardly the only modern scholar seeing significance in Irvingism's territory. Others in recent years who have noted it, but who haven't mined it as deeply as I have, include Fuller, Ladd, Bass, Rowdon, Sandeen, and Gundry.
1989 - Greg Bahnsen and Kenneth Gentry produced evidence in 1989 that Lindsey's book "The Road to Holocaust" (1989) plagiarized "Dominion Theology" (1988) by H. Wayne House and Thomas Ice.
1990 - David Jeremiah's and C. C. Carlson's "Escape the Coming Night" (1990) massively plagiarized Lindsey's 1973 book "There's A New World Coming." (For more info, type in "Thieves' Marketing" on MSN or Google.)
1991 - Paul Lee Tan's "A Pictorial Guide to Bible Prophecy" (1991) plagiarized large amounts of Lindsey's "The Late Great Planet Earth" (1970).
1991 - Militant Darby defender R. A. Huebner claimed in 1991 to have found new evidence that Darby was pretrib as early as 1827 - three years before Macdonald. Halfway through his book Huebner suddenly admitted that his evidence could refer to something completely un-rapturesque. Even though Thomas Ice admitted to me that he knew that Huebner had "blown" his so-called evidence, prevaricator Ice continues to tell the world that Huebner has "positive evidence" that Darby was pretrib in 1827! Ice also conceals the fact that Darby, in his own 1827 paper, was looking for only "the restitution of all things" and "the times of refreshing" (Acts 3:19,21) - which Scofield doesn't see fulfilled until AFTER a future tribulation!
1992 - Tim LaHaye's "No Fear of the Storm" (1992) plagiarized Walvoord's "The Blessed Hope and the Tribulation" (1976).
1992 - This was when the Los Angeles Times revealed that "The Magog Factor" (1992) by Hal Lindsey and Chuck Missler was a monstrous plagiarism of Prof. Edwin Yamauchi's scholarly 1982 work "Foes from the Northern Frontier." Four months after this exposure, Lindsey and Missler stated they had stopped publishing and promoting their book. But in 1996 Dr. Yamauchi learned that the dishonest duo had issued a 1995 book called "The Magog Invasion" which still had a substantial amount of the same plagiarism! (If Lindsey and Missler ever need hernia operations, I predict that the doctors will tell them not to lift anything for a long time!)
1994 - In 1996 it was revealed that Lindsey's "Planet Earth - 2000 A.D. (1994) had an embarrassing amount of plagiarism of a Texe Marrs book titled "Mystery Mark of the New Age" (1988).
1995 - My book "The Rapture Plot" reveals the dishonesty in Darby's reprinted works. It's often hard to tell who wrote the footnotes and when. It's easy to believe that the notes, and also unsigned phrases inside brackets within the text, were a devious attempt by someone (Darby? his editor?) to portray a Darby far more developed in pretrib thinking than he actually had been at the time. I found that some of the "additives" had been taken from Darby's much later works, when he was more developed, and placed next to or inside his earliest works! One footnote by Darby's editor, attached to Darby's 1830 paper, actually stated that "it was not worth while either suppressing or changing" anything in this work! If his editor wasn't open to such dishonesty, how can we explain such a statement?
Post-1995 - Thomas Ice's article "Inventor of False Pre-Trib Rapture History" states that my book "The Rapture Plot" is "only one of the latest in a series of revisions of his original discourse...." And David Reagan in his article "The Origin of the Concept of a Pre-Tribulation Rapture" repeats Ice's falsehood by claiming that I have republished my first book "over the years under several different titles."
Although my book repeats a bit of the Macdonald origin of pretrib (for new readers), all of my books are packed with new material not found in my other works. For some clarification, "The Incredible Cover-Up" has photos of pertinent places in Ireland, Scotland, and England not found in my later books plus several chapters dealing with theological arguments; "The Great Rapture Hoax" quotes scholars throughout the Church Age, covers Scofield's hidden side, a section on Powerscourt, the 1980 election, the Jupiter Effect, Gundry's change, and more theological arguments; "The Rapture Plot" reveals for the first time the Great Evangelical Revisionism/Robbery and includes appendices on miscopying, plagiarism, etc.; and "The Three R's" shows hypocritical evangelicals employing occultic beliefs they say they have long opposed!
So Thomas Ice etc. are twisting truth when they claim I am only a revisionist. Do they really think that my publishers DON'T know what I've previously written?
Re arguments, Google "Pretrib Rapture - Hidden Facts" and also obtain "The End Times Passover" and "Why Christians Will Suffer 'Great Tribulation' " (AuthorHouse, 2006) by media personality Joe Ortiz.
1997 - For years Harvest House Publishers has owned and been republishing Lindsey's book "There's A New World Coming." During the same time Lindsey has been peddling his reportedly "new" book "Apocalyse Code" (1997), much of which is word-for-word the same as the Harvest House book - and there's no notice of "simultaneous publishing" in either book! Talk about pretrib greed!
1997 - This is the year I discovered that more than 50 pages of Dallas Seminary professor Merrill Unger's book "Beyond the Crystal Ball" (Moody Press, 1973) constituted a colossal plagiarism of Lindsey's "The Late Great Planet Earth" (1970). After Lindsey's book came out, Unger had complained that Lindsey's book had plagiarized his classroom lecture notes. It was evident that Unger felt that he too should cash in on his own lectures! (The detailed account of this Dallas Seminary dishonesty is revealed in my 1998 book "The Three R's.")
1998 - Tim LaHaye's "Understanding the Last Days" (1998) plagiarized Lindsey's "There's A New World Coming" (1973).
1999 - More than 200 pages (out of 396 pages) in Lindsey's 1999 book "Vanished Into Thin Air" are virtually carbon copies of pages in his 1983 book "The Rapture" - with no "updated" or "revised" notice included! Lindsey has done the same nervy thing with several of his books, something that has allowed him to live in million-dollar-plus homes and drive cars like Ferraris! (See my Google articles "Deceiving and Being Deceived" and "Thieves' Marketing" for further evidence of this notably pretrib vice.)
2000 - A Jack Van Impe article "The Moment After" (2000) plagiarized Grant Jeffrey's book "Final Warning" (1995).
2001 - Since 2001 my web article "Walvoord's Posttrib 'Varieties' - Plus" has been exposing his devious muddying up of posttrib waters. In some of his books he invented four "distinct" and "contradictory" posttrib divisions, claiming that they are either "classic" or "semiclassic" or "futurist" or "dispensational" - distinctions that disappear when analyzed! His "futurist" group holds to a literal future tribulation and a literal millennium but doesn't embrace "any day" imminency. But his "dispensational" group has the same non-imminency! Moreover, tribulational futurism is found in every group except the first one, and he somehow admitted that a literal millennium is in all four groups! On the other hand, it's the pretribs who consistently disagree with each other over their chief points and subpoints - but somehow end up agreeing that there will be a pretrib rapture! (See my chapter "A House Divided" in my book "The Incredible Cover-Up.")
2001 - Since my "Deceiving and Being Deceived" web item which exposed the claims for Pseudo-Ephraem" and "Morgan Edwards" as teachers of pretrib, there has been a piranha-like frenzy on the part of pretrib bodyguards and their duped groupies to "discover" almost anything before 1830 walking upright on two legs that seemed to have at least a remote hint of pretrib! (An exemplary poster boy for such pretrib practice is Grant Jeffrey. To get your money's worth, Google "Wily Jeffrey.")
FINALLY: Don't take my word for any of the above. Read my 300-page book "The Rapture Plot" which has a jillion more documented details on the long-hidden but now-revealed history of the dishonest, 179-year-old, fringe-British-invented, American-merchandised-until-the-real-bad-stuff-happens pretribulation rapture fad. If this book of mine doesn't "move" you, I will personally refund what you paid for it!
[sharing above web shock. Jack]
Outstanding post. I personally think part of the divergence between what I consider to be Christ-like Christians and the often more vocal and less Christ-like Christians is the concept of faith. My studies show that the concept of faith (believing something regardless of the evidence for or against it) has been warped in order to compete with a scientific viewpoint. At some point church leaders began introducing language into their definitions of faith that began to rival definitions of empiricism. The result, it seems to me, has been that many Christians don't actually have faith but rather they have faith in the evidence for their beliefs. I think this breeds a bit of arrogance and self righteousness. Christianity goes from being a faith based system of beliefs that can be offered to others in the spirit of sharing, "it has worked for me...maybe it will work for you" and instead becomes "the truth" and people who don't see it are then wrong, evil, etc. Intolerance replaces the love and spirit of sharing I think.
As a non-Christian I often find myself trying to get Christians to discover and live by faith. Ironically, it's not good enough for them. So instead, they sacrifice their integrity intellectually and they end up coloring Christianity negatively as I think we see today in America.
Anyway, just my thoughts. It's a real pleasure seeing a Christ-like Christian. Thanks for your words.
I'll agree with you that Christians are sometimes far too militant in their evangelism and have perhaps lost a full understanding of "faith", but I disagree with your central point.
The idea that religion is purely arational and has no relationship whatsoever to truth or falsehood is not a charitable, tolerant perspective; it is a sweeping proclamation that all religions are equally false, and have value only to the degree that people receive some degree of comfort from them.
Most religions are not merely about moral values or comfort; they propose descriptions of the universe that adherents believe are objectively true. God exists; God does not exist. A man named Jesus was crucified and resurrected from death in approximately 33 AD; he did not resurrect, or maybe he never even existed. Mohammed received the Qur'an through a series of angelic visitations; he was a charlatan or delusional. These are all claims which are either true or false, and which the tools of reason and inquiry are theoretically equipped to answer--or at least shed light on. That is why philosophers, scientists, and historians on all sides continue to try.
The problem is that the evidence is frequently inconclusive, and there's a lot we simply can't know. At the end of the day, a person has to make a choice about what to believe and how to live. That, in my view, is where faith enters.
Tolerance cannot begin with the idea that the factual content of all religions is false. It must begin with the understanding that atheists, Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc. are all convinced of "truths" that they believe hold true not just for them, but for everyone. From there we have to figure out how to get long with charity and respect.
I think perhaps my message got lost in translation and got confused with intolerance.
I didn't say that religion was purely arational or lacked a relationship with truth. I also did not say that all religions are false and limited in value to the person deriving comfort from them.
I made no such claims and I don't believe any of those claims above to be true. I'm not sure how you pulled that from comments.
It seems you disagree with my definition of faith. I'm curious about your definition.
It appears you think religious beliefs are based on evidence and are objective and "faith" only comes in when the evidence is inconclusive. Is that correct?
If so, then we have a different view of the definition of faith. It makes me wonder what do you do when the evidence is stacked in favor against your religious belief? Do you change your belief or is your concept of faith good for something other than inconclusive empirical searches?
If you change your belief based on the majority of the evidence then I would submit your idea of faith is really just good old fashioned scientific method. If, however, your concept of faith trumps majority evidence when you don't want to follow that evidence to its conclusion then it's something different.
I would suggest it begins to take on a character more like my definition of faith, though not quite, which is believing something regardless of the evidence for or against. Except in your case it would be belief in something if the evidence can support it, otherwise still believe it but call it faith. Is that right?
You wrote, "Tolerance cannot begin with the idea that the factual content of all religions is false."
While I made no claim that the factual content of all religions is false (and don't believe that to be true) it begs a question. Would you say disagreeing with somebody is intolerant? Perhaps I don't understand your definition of tolerance either. I disagree with many people on many things but I realize they have a right to be wrong, may be right and I may be wrong, or may be wrong and will one day learn what is right just as I have. I don't consider that intolerant but then again our definitions may be different.
Do you think disagreeing with somebody is intolerant?
Post a Comment