Faced with the prospect of hell, it’s not surprising that there are people who are willing to support whatever their leader says is the will of god.

This has the huge advantage that you don’t have to think about your own position on – say – gay marriage, you just need to listen to what your church says.

Brad said: By “science” here, I mean specifically the results of experimentation. Sometimes what we seek to prove is not always proven, but the results are nevertheless true.

We know that the results of any given scientific experiment are “nevertheless true” due to the fact that they are consistent. The results of scientific experiments, if all variables remain consistent, are themselves consistent, regardless of the variability of religious, political, or philosophical conviction of the experimenters. This is what allows us to confidently state that those results are “nevertheless true”.

Due to the “argument from disagreement”, both the internal (within Christianity) and external (other religions), this agnostic/atheist has absolutely no confidence that divine guidance can ever be described as nevertheless true.

This thread of discussion at least seems to be suggesting that this problem undermines the truthfulness of God’s communication. I have not been able to think of a “truth” that we are 100% aware of and clear on, that we can all 100% agree on. Thus, how can we be sure of anything based on this (completely legitimate) complaint?

Which is why I don’t make the claim that there is no God, just that I really doubt it. At least any kind of God described by the doctrines of contradictory and exclusivist revealed religions, which are professed by followers who certainly aren’t lacking in what appears to be 100% confidence in the “truth” they’re communicating. Are you saying above that you’re not 100% sure that Christianity is true? If so, what would you gauge to be your percentage of doubt?

BTW, Brad, I for one genuinely appreciate your contributions here.

This is wrong, and I agree 100%. Amen.

“And just in terms of Christianity — you may say that all one needs is faith in Christ, but then you have to ask which Christ?”

That is a great question. My short answer is “I don’t know.” This is where having good doctrine strengthens faith. As I am sure can be verified by writers of this blog, legalism is not good doctrine and it wrecks the faith of those who hold it as well as those they are in relationships with. Truly, only God Himself knows the answer to that, and we must treat those who have differing views of Christ with love and respect, engaging in conversation on the topic. That’s why posts like this are so beneficial to understanding and discerning truth.

“So I can see why the lack of clarity can be troubling, when it controls so much of the believer.”

Also very true. But even if the truth were unmistakably clear, there would still be people who twist it for their gain (particularly in the examples you note).

My goal in asking the “so what” question was that this principle can be extended to all of life. Nothing, in all of life, is truly “clear.” As I said, even science sometimes has ambiguity and requires work in understanding implication and significance of results.

This thread of discussion at least seems to be suggesting that this problem undermines the truthfulness of God’s communication. I have not been able to think of a “truth” that we are 100% aware of and clear on, that we can all 100% agree on. Thus, how can we be sure of anything based on this (completely legitimate) complaint?

Again, I agree with you. Communication with God is often unclear, and sometimes confusing as hell!

So what?

Because there are a lot of people who say that they do have clear communication with God, and act on that “clear communication,” often in events that lead to harming others. This isn’t just Christianity, we can see this in a lot of religions.

And just in terms of Christianity — you may say that all one needs is faith in Christ, but then you have to ask which Christ? Some Christians don’t hold that the Bible is inerrant, or that everything in it occured exactly as stated. So their Christ would differ from yours. For others, their Christ is one who took their punishment, and then someone else might have a Christ who wasn’t required to take any punishment, but rather simply rescued/redeemed.

And yet this belief can guide every single action in their lives, including the treatment of others, or the treatment of the environment and so on. So I can see why the lack of clarity can be troubling, when it controls so much of the believer.

I definitely think I agree with you. However…

1.) Does truthfulness require absolute clarity?
2.) Agreed. Some are more “right” than others, but none have it exactly right. God will judge based on our faith in Christ, not whether our doctrine is 100% correct (although better doctrine helps with having stronger faith).
3.) See #2.

The best we can do, is put the effort into understanding, discerning, and interpreting contextually. For a given event:

1.) Some news reports are more accurate than others, but
2.) Not one will be singularly objective in their retelling.

I wrote on contextualization here:
http://seminarianblog.com/2007/08/02/anthrocentric-v-contextual-reading-of-scripture/

Again, I would say that your point is correct in that scripture is not 100% clear, and our “guidance” discerned to be from God is not always accurate. If they were, would “faith” be “faith”? Or would it be “common sense.” For truth is rarely common.

My question to you is, “Does truth require absolute clarity, and what truth has been claimed with surface-level clarity?” Even science requires work, experimentation, theorizing, and interpretation of results. Yet science is more often unclear than it is clear. That does not make all of its statements “untrue.”

Again, I agree with you. Communication with God is often unclear, and sometimes confusing as hell!

So what?

You wrote:

“and the issue of women being silent in church was reaction to a “vocal minority” of women who were probably speaking in tongues to build themselves up (see Witherington’s “Conflict and Community in Corinth” for more on this).”

But doesn’t that make my point. You are using the work of Biblical scholars to illuminate the text and generate a ‘reading’ of it. I personally don’t have a problem with that interpretation of the text. However, my point is that you have had to do that. And while you do that, there are still millions of Christians that will disagree with you, and scholars that will take a different reading. And that is the point I am making. The message isn’t clear!

And if it is true that the examples I have used can be explained away with textual criticism – isn’t that again the point! If you have to do that:
1) The meaning isn’t clear.
2) Millions of Christians will disagree with you and say the Bible is saying something else.
3) Other scholars will provide different interpretations.

The meaning just isn’t clear!

James