Christian Maximus to Mithraist Gratillonius:
"'For your soul's good, understand. You'll burn for ever after you die, unless you take the Faith.'"
-Rome Mater, p. 23.
Intolerable.
Maximus exhibits one of the three bad features of Evangelical Christianity.
(i) An inability to speak except on the assumption that their belief is true. Thus, an inability to recognize, respect and engage in dialogue with any alternative point of view. If we question any of their beliefs, they continue to speak on the apparent assumption that that very belief is an established and acknowledged fact: "You'll burn..." Some people resort to saying, "But what if it is true...?" The same question can be asked about any belief.
(ii) They expect us to change our belief not on the basis of reason or evidence but by an act of will. This is impossible - or, if somehow possible, it would count as intellectual dishonesty.
(iii) The belief that they expect us to accept is absurd. Having created us, God is so outraged by our behaviour that he consigns us to endless torment but he loves us so much that he required his son to be tortured to death on our behalf but we will still be consigned to endless torment if we do not believe this nonsense.
Evangelicals spoil the peace of Market Square in Lancaster by endlessly repeating their beliefs. Unfortunately, a situation in which they were banned would be worse. We now have Muslims at least presenting an alternative.
13 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I thought your first given name was Paul, not Stanley?
I disagree with how some, not all, evangelical Protestants speak and act.
I disagree with your point (ii). I believe it is possible, by an act of will, for people to change their beliefs. Because that is exactly what happens in conversions.
Your point (iii), the Catholic teaching is that no one is damned unless he obstinately refuses the mercy of God. Also, I continue to believe God the Son truly suffered and died, of His own free consent, on the Cross--and then rose from the dead on the third day. And that was the means, like it or not, chosen by God bridging the gap between Him and fallen mankind.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Stanley Paul Shackley: Stanley after my already dead paternal grandfather; Paul the name I was known by.
In conversion, someone comes to see (as he thinks) that a particular belief is true. He does not simply to choose to believe it. Think what that would imply. I believe that Earth is a sphere, not a plane, because of testimony and evidence, not because I choose to believe it, the way I choose coffee instead of tea. If I merely chose to believe, which I can't, then there would no guarantee that what I had chosen to believe was true.
CS Lewis' conversion was preceded by philosophical argumentation which I disagree with. He thought that he was finding truth, not making a choice. How we respond to the (alleged) truth is a choice but recognition of the truth necessarily precedes that choice.
Paul.
One too many "to"s.
People actually arrive at their beliefs (usually) not by rational argument, but by deciding emotionally to believe something, and then employing reason to rationalize that.
We are not rational beings, we are rationalizing animals.
I agree. But the Evangelical appeal that we should change our belief by an act of will alone is particularly absurd.
Paul: it evidently has considerable appeal to a large number of people, though.
It doesn't for -me-, and never did. But I try not to project my sentiments or habits of mind onto others.
There has to a psychological explanation. I agree with Evangelicals that we are what they call "sinful" although I do not put it like that but what is to be done about it? I also agree that none of us can by a mere act of our own will change ourselves from a bad person into a good person. But there the agreement ends.
Kaor, Paul!
And I still disagree with you. E.g., I have personally read accounts by converts to Catholic Christianity of how they came to believe the Church was right, a classic example being that of John Henry Newman. He began as a fairly standard low church Anglican--but, as time passed and his studies of the Scriptures, Fathers, history of Christianity, etc., deepened his knowledge, his views changed. He became a high church Anglican, and then because of the furor caused by his Tract 90, Newman concluded his beliefs were CATHOLIC and he could no longer honestly remain any kind of Protestant. That certainly looks like drawing conclusions and making an act of the will based on those conclusions.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I agree and I read Newman's APOLOGIA. His decision followed his conclusions. Evangelicals ask us simply to believe, to reach a conclusion, by an act of will.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Good! We finally agreed about something!
Btw, I had Newman's earlier work, AN ESSAY ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE, in mind. That, along with his APOLOGIA, gives us a history of how his beliefs changed.
And I disagree with the methods of those evangelical Protestants. I would point out that either 1 or 2 Peter exhorts Christians to explain to non-believers why Christians believe as they do. IOW, something like the process followed by Newman.
Ad astra! Sean
Things like feelings of sin and guilt are psychological phenomena which I can only understand intellectually. I've never experienced them.
Anyone who does not feel guilt at, e.g., harming someone else must have some other motivation for trying to set things right. It is interesting how we differ internally.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I am not like that. There are plenty of things I regret doing or not doing.
Nor do I think you are a sociopath/psychopath. One of the most alarming books I ever read was Taylor Caldwell's WICKED ANGEL, giving us what I believe is a disturbingly accurate picture of how such a creature thinks and acts.
I doubt many people still read Caldwell these days, but some of her books are worth reading.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment