Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

The Sin of Certainty


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I don't know what exactly?

Clearly, your way is better. You've already told us you detest people who don't accept the superiority of your way.

Not at all. The arrogance of superiority destroys the humility of faith.

I suppose that those who think their faith is better or is one-up on others should simply be dismissed without contention nor taken seriously. 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Calm said:

And you know this for certain how?

I thought the sin was certainty?

This reminds me of a Reformed friend of mine and his appeal to presuppositional apologetics. How do you know that what you know is correct? Who are you to assert what is correct? What is your basis? Can your source be trusted? Is your source even real? How do you know your source is real? What even is real?

In this sense I guess you're right and things are simply relative.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Valentinus said:

I suppose that those who think their faith is better or is one-up on others should simply be dismissed without contention nor taken seriously. 

Mate, I don't believe you're this thick. You're the one who created this thread to explain to us how much better your faith is when compared to ours.

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Mate, I don't believe you're this thick. You're the one who created this thread to explain to us how much better your faith is when compared to ours.

No. I'm giving Enns' book the benefit of the doubt. I want to give the book a voice because it cannot be dismissed out of fear of doubt or fear to question deeply held beliefs. We need to dispose of this "shelf" we've been asked to put our concerns on. The shelf is useless.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Valentinus said:

No. I'm giving Enns' book the benefit of the doubt. I want to give the book a voice because it cannot be dismissed out of fear of doubt or fear to question deeply held beliefs. We need to dispose of this "shelf" we've been asked to put our concerns on. The shelf is useless.

This is a contradiction. On one hand the shelf metaphorically holds those issues and concerns we have no certainty about while this book espouses that certainty is a sin. Surely this means you need the shelf now more then ever as it will be needed to hold all religious concerns.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Valentinus said:

No. I'm giving Enns' book the benefit of the doubt.

Quite apart from Enns's book, you have repeatedly stated how much you detest certainty, how wrong it is to be certain, etc.

In distinction, you have -- again, repeatedly -- spoken of the superiority of your faith position ... at the very same moment that you denounce the 'arrogance of superiority'. I find it impossible that you honestly can't detect this irony or grasp how thoroughly your posts keep self-deconstructing in front of everyone else's eyes.

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Valentinus said:

No. I'm giving Enns' book the benefit of the doubt. I want to give the book a voice because it cannot be dismissed out of fear of doubt or fear to question deeply held beliefs. We need to dispose of this "shelf" we've been asked to put our concerns on. The shelf is useless.

So you’ve actually read the book now? You hadn’t when you started this thread on Wednesday, and were just going by a blurb on the back cover, yet - hypocritically  - were attacking others for commenting without having read the book first. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Quite apart from Enns's book, you have repeatedly stated how much you detest certainty, how wrong it is to be certain, etc.

In distinction, you have -- again, repeatedly -- spoken of the superiority of your faith position ... at the very same moment that you denounce the 'arrogance of superiority'. I find it impossible that you honestly can't detect this irony or grasp how thoroughly your posts keep self-deconstructing in front of everyone else's eyes.

Not liking something in favor of something I do is not a superiority complex. I believe it more rational to set aside any ounce of superiority and simply do faith.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Raingirl said:

So you’ve actually read the book now? You hadn’t when you started this thread on Wednesday, and were just going by a blurb on the back cover, yet - hypocritically  - were attacking others for commenting without having read the book first. 

Please be reasonable and stop incredulously making assumptions. Don't read the book then. Remain in uninformed ignorance (concerning the book). I'll report back as to whether or not many assumptions are or are not founded. It seems odd that people become agitated when sin is used in reference to certainty. 

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

Not liking something in favor of something I do is not a superiority complex. I believe it more rational to set aside any ounce of superiority and simply do faith.

OK. It takes a great deal to convince me, but maybe you really are that blind ...

Link to comment
3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I doubt you truly believe this. All faiths are equal and just as good as each other? I doubt you believe this in practice.

The abusive and greedy practices of Scientology are morally equivalent to a devout Jew following the Torah?

The inbuilt castes of Hinduism with all their humiliation and degradation of the lesser are as worthy of divine approval as the egalitarianism of the Sikhs?

The petty self-indulgent pagan gods of the Greeks and Romans are as worth of devotion as Ahura Mazda?

The fiery child burnings of Molech are no less divine then the sacramental bread and wine/water honoring Christ?

Really? Can you say that with a straight face?

It sounds enlightened to say all paths lead to God until you actually look at all the paths and realize only a moral idiot could call them all equally moral or holy. Some also qualify as crimes against humanity.

You're right. All religions have acted reprehensibly. Not a single one blameless before God. Perhaps none lead to God. Maybe God exists outside religion and doesn't care. Maybe our back and forth is meaningless and we're arguing for nothing. What are we getting so bent out of shape about?

At times like this, I think I'd rather be an atheist than argue about the merits of faith and certainty. Maybe I shouldn't care about a God who really couldn't and shouldn't be bothered with me.

Link to comment
10 hours ago, Valentinus said:

Not at all. The arrogance of superiority destroys the humility of faith.

I am reminded here of Alma 26 (emphasis added):

Quote

1 And now, these are the words of Ammon to his brethren, which say thus: My brothers and my brethren, behold I say unto you, how great reason have we to rejoice; for could we have supposed when we started from the land of Zarahemla that God would have granted unto us such great blessings?

2 And now, I ask, what great blessings has he bestowed upon us? Can ye tell?

3 Behold, I answer for you; for our brethren, the Lamanites, were in darkness, yea, even in the darkest abyss, but behold, how many of them are brought to behold the marvelous light of God! And this is the blessing which hath been bestowed upon us, that we have been made instruments in the hands of God to bring about this great work.

4 Behold, thousands of them do rejoice, and have been brought into the fold of God.

5 Behold, the field was ripe, and blessed are ye, for ye did thrust in the sickle, and did reap with your might, yea, all the day long did ye labor; and behold the number of your sheaves! And they shall be gathered into the garners, that they are not wasted.

6 Yea, they shall not be beaten down by the storm at the last day; yea, neither shall they be harrowed up by the whirlwinds; but when the storm cometh they shall be gathered together in their place, that the storm cannot penetrate to them; yea, neither shall they be driven with fierce winds whithersoever the enemy listeth to carry them.

7 But behold, they are in the hands of the Lord of the harvest, and they are his; and he will raise them up at the last day.

8 Blessed be the name of our God; let us sing to his praise, yea, let us give thanks to his holy name, for he doth work righteousness forever.

9 For if we had not come up out of the land of Zarahemla, these our dearly beloved brethren, who have so dearly beloved us, would still have been racked with hatred against us, yea, and they would also have been strangers to God.

10 And it came to pass that when Ammon had said these words, his brother Aaron rebuked him, saying: Ammon, I fear that thy joy doth carry thee away unto boasting.

11 But Ammon said unto him: I do not boast in my own strength, nor in my own wisdom; but behold, my joy is full, yea, my heart is brim with joy, and I will rejoice in my God.

12 Yea, I know that I am nothing; as to my strength I am weak; therefore I will not boast of myself, but I will boast of my God, for in his strength I can do all things; yea, behold, many mighty miracles we have wrought in this land, for which we will praise his name forever.

13 Behold, how many thousands of our brethren has he loosed from the pains of hell; and they are brought to sing redeeming love, and this because of the power of his word which is in us, therefore have we not great reason to rejoice?

14 Yea, we have reason to praise him forever, for he is the Most High God, and has loosed our brethren from the chains of hell.

Ammon got it right, I think.  He was not praising his own strength or wisdom, or boasting of himself.

If Jesus Christ really is the person we believe him to be, if He really did the things we believe He did, if He really is the sole means of salvation, then a person is fully justified in affirming these things, in declaring these things in others, and in inviting others to join in that faith.  That's not arrogance.  That's a straight-up demonstration of love for one's fellow man.

10 hours ago, Valentinus said:

I suppose that those who think their faith is better or is one-up on others should simply be dismissed without contention nor taken seriously. 

Every religious group and school of thought thinks their faith in their system of thought "is better or is one-up."  I don't see anything particularly problematic about this.  A person seeking truth will, quite sensibly, seek out a system of beliefs that he/she finds to be the most correct.  That is not an expression of arrogance, but of an earnest desire to find and adhere to truth.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Valentinus said:

No. I'm giving Enns' book the benefit of the doubt. I want to give the book a voice because it cannot be dismissed out of fear of doubt or fear to question deeply held beliefs. We need to dispose of this "shelf" we've been asked to put our concerns on. The shelf is useless.

I think the "shelf" is quite helpful.  It's a place to put imponderables, questions to which we presently lack sufficient light and knowledge.  Putting such questions on the shelf does not dispose of them forever, but rather allows us to taken them back off the shelf and re-examine them once in a while, sometimes under the illumination of further "light and knowledge."

I have had many experiences in which I have re-examined a "shelved" idea or question, and have found an answer to it.  It's actually quite an exhilerating experience, and one I would not have had without the "shelf."  The scriptures are replete with exhortations to seek truth "by study, and also by faith" (D&C 109:7, 14), with the understanding that learning usually comes in increments (D&C 98:12, D&C 128:21), and also that much patience is required (Luke 21:19, 2 Peter 1:5-7, Alma 17:11, D&C 98:26, etc.).

So with respect, I disagree with you.  The "shelf" is very helpful.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am reminded here of Alma 26 (emphasis added):

Ammon got it right, I think.  He was not praising his own strength or wisdom, or boasting of himself.

If Jesus Christ really is the person we believe him to be, if He really did the things we believe He did, if He really is the sole means of salvation, then a person is fully justified in affirming these things, in declaring these things in others, and in inviting others to join in that faith.  That's not arrogance.  That's a straight-up demonstration of love for one's fellow man.

Every religious group and school of thought thinks their faith in their system of thought "is better or is one-up."  I don't see anything particularly problematic about this.  A person seeking truth will, quite sensibly, seek out a system of beliefs that he/she finds to be the most correct.  That is not an expression of arrogance, but of an earnest desire to find and adhere to truth.

Thanks,

-Smac

I agree.  I’ve never presumed anyone who has said “I’m so grateful to be a member of the one true church” as being arrogant.  Especially knowing them and understanding the people and the repetition and the prose, and the belief. 

I also understand how it sounds to the outside, and to someone who hears it as criticism of their belief, regardless of intent.  

Timing, circumstance, nuance, the actual Spirit, all matter in communicating effectively.  Misunderstanding abounds. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Valentinus said:

Not liking something in favor of something I do is not a superiority complex.

I invite you to reconsider your position here.  A "superiority complex" is, by definition, "a psychological defense mechanism that compensates for an inferiority complex."  (See also here: "an attitude of superiority which conceals actual feelings of inferiority and failure").

I like the rule of law over anarchy.  I dislike the latter in favor of the former.  This is not "a superiority complex," though, as I am not attempting to compensate for or mask feelings of inferiority and failure.  My sentiments about the rule of law are based on reasoned analysis and evidence.

Are you really going to suggest that my preference for the rule of law instead of anarchy is "a superiority complex?"  Or that the rule of law is not innately superior to anarchy?

1 hour ago, Valentinus said:

I believe it more rational to set aside any ounce of superiority and simply do faith.

Like Ammon did?

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
19 hours ago, smac97 said:

Isn't Enns saying that we should trust in Christ and expression of orthodoxy as much as orthopraxy? If not more so?

With my opinion based solely on what was provided in the OP, I think that by deemphasizing “right beliefs” the author is deemphasizing orthodoxy.

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I agree.  I’ve never presumed anyone who has said “I’m so grateful to be a member of the one true church” as being arrogant.

Yep.

By way of analogy: Last night I took three of my children to see "Spider-Man: Far From Home."  Honestly, it was a lot of fun.  We went home and told my wife about it and how much we enjoyed it.  She is going to take two of our other kids to see it tomorrow.

Here's the think: Our comments and recommendations about the movie, our desire to share our appreciation and enjoyment of it, were not "arrogant" feelings.  We didn't make the movie, after all.  We simply watched it and were entertained by it.  We left the theater talking about it and wanting family and friends to see it and enjoy it, too.  That's not "arrogance" at all.  To the contrary, it is one of the better aspects of human nature to want to share good things with other people.

If it is not "arrogant" to want to share my appreciation for something as transient and fleeting as a superhero movie, perhaps it is also not "arrogant" to want to share my appreciating for something much, much more important: the message of Jesus Christ.

9 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I also understand how it sounds to the outside, and to someone who hears it as criticism of their belief, regardless of intent.  

Timing, circumstance, nuance, the actual Spirit, all matter in communicating effectively.  Misunderstanding abounds. 

Well said.  Message boards are not an ideal medium for communication.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, pogi said:

With my opinion based solely on what was provided in the OP, I think that by deemphasizing “right beliefs” the author is deemphasizing orthodoxy.

I can't help but wonder if the author's reference to "right beliefs" center not on fundamental truths, but on ancillary matters about which reasonable minds can disagree.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I can't help but wonder if the author's reference to "right beliefs" center not on fundamental truths, but on ancillary matters about which reasonable minds can disagree.

Thanks,

-Smac

I’m not sure what he would think about that.  If I had to guess, I would think he is talking about beliefs in general - moving away from the certainty of fundamentals in favor of a more faith (uncertain) based approach that requires an open mind, ears, and heart to be directed into a more malleable and evolutionary/progressive belief system rather than the more rigid and stagnant orthodox way.  His approach seems to remove the certainty of fundamentals as a preventative measure against faith crisis.  I don’t think he is suggesting that we should treat all beliefs as equal, but that we should remove the blinders that are common to orthodoxy.

 

 

OP asked for thread to be closed

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...