You've made a nice argument for Calvinism. . .

Posted by blue on June 16, 1998 at 03:51:25:

In Reply to: Intelligent Religion posted by Matt Berry on June 14, 1998 at 17:59:12:

: Is someone who "builds faith upon the wisdom of the ages as revealed in the" Upanishads inferior to a believer in the Bible?
:
: If "No," then we're all OK ... and no single metaphor is superior to another ... and perhaps we can set aside this constant Biblical drumming, when it becomes inappropriate.

This is the age-old argument about "what if you're born on a desert island?" This was first addressed by the apostle Paul in his letter to the Romans even before the Gospels were recorded. The simple answer is that each person will be judged according to what had been revealed to them. The "desert island" will be found guilty of breaking the natural law he knows in his heart. You and I are also guilty of that, but we are also guilty of breaking the special revelation we have been exposed to through the Bible. So we are all guilty. We all belong in hell. Fine.
:
: However, this post implies and your other post directly asserts that the Bible is THE one and only true signpost. Then, if "Yes" is indeed your answer, then you are saying that believers in the Bible, as THE only true believers, are the elite. This is a key motive for the "true believer" of any sort of religion: the Flat Earth Society, Sokka Gakkai (new Buddhist cult in Japan, now making moves in the US), the Mormons, ... etc. All claim to be "elite."
:
: I have recognized this in my own Mormon life, for which I thank Eric Hoffer: This sense of "superiority" is the means by which the True Believer borrows self-esteem from some external source ... like the Christian from the infallibility of the Bible, the Mormon from the excellence of the institution, or the biker from a spiffy motorcycle outfit. It implies, however, a personal sense of worthlessness. One has no inherent confidence in one's own existence, one's own relationship to factual reality, one's own social status, one's own conclusions or ability. Consequently, one seeks externally for some sort of compensation, something special -- like an excessive collection of Biblical facts -- which would then present the opportunity to demonstrate to others a personal illusion of "moral superiority."
:
: I now rely on the "moral superiority" of grounded reasoning. This reliance increases a personal confidence in my own abilities, at the expense of external reliances (like the superiority over my own thoughts of the "Word of the Bible"). Ironically, scriptures begin to make sense, "The truth shall set you free," and "The Kingdom of God is within you." Ironically, the Truth sets me free ... even of the Bible.
:
: But, if the need for the moral superiority of some external "One and Only" is not your motive ... then there must be something more which distinguishes you from these other cults. Something which makes you truly superior. What is that something more?
:
: One possibility: Your personal cultural inheritance.
:
: If you were born in the heart of China, and throughout your entire life never heard a word of the Bible, you most certainly would not have a faith in the Bible. Are you, as a believer in the Bible, merely fortunate? Or is your acceptance upon the Bible entirely dependent upon an accidental cultural inheritance? (Please don't skip over this point.) Is God a respecter of persons? Or is Salvation regionally dependent? God saves souls, regionally, in the same manner that he plants a cactus which can only grow in one part of the world but not another.(?)

God saves whomever He wishes. He has chosen to work primarily, but not exclusively, through families. I can not claim any superiority to anyone. God had been merciful to me. I should be in hell even as we speak, as should you. But God has been merciful. That is the sum total of my claim to superiority: I belong in hell. Thank-you, God, I'm not there.
: :Was this a case of clear thinking or muddled thinking? (He obviously wasn't speaking gibberish.) I hope that you're saying that this was a case of clear-thinking and that you are simply making a distinction between the possession of academic credentials and real intelligence? (Real intelligence = clear-thinking, right?)

Yes, I think we agree.

But I hope you are not hinting that clear-thinking and spirituality just might be opposed to each other?

Nope. Again, we seem to agree.

These are two different issues. It is unclear to me which one you are asserting.
:
: a) There are people who have academic credentials but who are not clear-thinkers (I agree)

ditto.

: b) Thinking clearly is inconducive to Faith in God. (If this were so, would a frontal lobotomy be the easiest way to God? Won't I be a sucker for the nearest emotion-based religion? For example, Mormonism or the Flat Earth Society?)

Here your trolly has jumped its tracks. There is no relation between intelligence and faith. Intellegent people who have been saved tend to make better teachers and pastors than unintelligent people, but that has no bearing on their eternal destiny.
:
: What is the difference between thinking clearly and intelligence?

I don't know. You've got me there. Is there a difference? I've always felt my friends who picked up Fourier transforms quicker than I did were more intelligent than me, but I may be wrong.
:
:

You can't "think your way" into or out of the city of God. But we are all responsible to use whatever faculties we have been
: given to study and grow in the Lord. Without that, your life goes nowhere.
:

Yes, it makes sense. Do you wish to pursue? We have many strands going already.
:
: I'm confused: "You cannot think your way" but "we are all responsible to use whatever faculty we have been given."
:
: If we are "responsible" then we must keep up our guard so that we are not deceived. We don't want to be fooled away from Truth. So we need to be "responsible" and use our "faculties" to avoid this deceit. (So far we agree, right?)

Yes, to a degree. But we are probably already differing as to what the source of these "faculties" is.

However, once our guard is up for deceit (I.E., we use a little skepticism to uncover all lies and self-deceit ) then you suggest again, that we let that guard down: "You can't think your way."

No. You are implying that at some point we must abandon reason. That is NEVER the case. We never need to engage in "blind faith."

Now, when one stops thinking, when one's skeptical guard is no longer up, and any belief becomes possible again, and that will most likely be the nearest belief ... which is usually the belief of one's own inherited culture. No real choice has been made, even though the believer asserts, sincerely, to the contrary. This is the very definition of "smugness," but not genuine belief.

No. You took the wrong turn at the end of the last paragraph.
:
: The institutional survival of a religion requires, first and foremost, the condemnation of the intellect -- clear thinking. Once that is done, once the subject no longer thinks or questions, he is completely tractable. So my questions are:
:

:
• At what point do you suggest that we stop thinking?
  :
• But more importantly, at what point do we start thinking? Do we start with the presumption of the One and Only Bible or with the presumption of our own relationship to factual reality? Which is more responsible?

This is the non sequitur that you arrived at from the aforementioned wrong turn. Never stop thinking. Never leave your sense of reason. You are so close, but you are missing the key elements.