[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

Without mentioning the unmentionable locked dungeon, I agree alternative views can get wild. And aron and I prolly produce the most far out alternative views ... me being the worse.

Here's what I think is the big problem with entertaining alternative theories and views: An example is the internet. It's packed full of alternative theories and views.

I'll allow Josh McDowell to explain it:

Quote clip:
“Now here is the problem,” said McDowell, “going all the way back, when Al Gore invented the Internet [he said jokingly], I made the statement off and on for 10-11 years that the abundance of knowledge, the abundance of information, will not lead to certainty; it will lead to pervasive skepticism. And, folks, that’s exactly what has happened. It’s like this. How do you really know, there is so much out there… This abundance [of information] has led to skepticism. And then the Internet has leveled the playing field [giving equal access to skeptics].”
End Quote

Yes, the internet has created a greater problem in many ways that it has solved in terms of Christian thought. The problem with the internet is somewhat linked to the old-school thinking that if it gets into print, then it must be true.

I know that we are not all that stupid. But the fact that so many things that could be the questions are stated as fact on the internet means that there will be a bunch of people who come across one version of some particular disagreement before they come across any other perspective. And it has been fairly well documented that once you have taken in any particular perspective as true, or likely so, you will be more likely to ignore contradicting information, even if it is ultimately true. Sort of a case of personal "first mention."

So a free-for-all of information is not always helpful to any discussion. Especially when some have an agenda — even if not recognized — to direct things in the direction of their perspective.

This is a difficult analysis because on one hand, if we presume that we are all intelligent and open to find the truth, then there should be no problem with differing perspectives as we enter the discussion because there is the expectation that as we exit, the answer (singular) will be found. Or the reasons why the different perspectives (or some of them) are valid in differing circumstances will be seen.

But we are not talking about truth in the scientific realm which can be established by careful analysis and observation. we are talking about things that relate to faith and belief. And that belief is to some extent into things that are not entirely if at all) observable as in a scientific experiment.

So there is a tendency to enter discussions about things of faith with an undue bias. Sometimes having already dismissed some of the possibilities, or having determined that perspective "X" is the only valid alternative. When that happens, there is no true discussion. Everything becomes strictly a matter of defending turf. Alternative perspectives are not even given enough thought to determine whether it might actually fit the place in the belief system better than the perspective already held.

Of course, if there are no absolute touchstones to refer to, then, unlike a true scientific analysis, there is no solid basis to change the mind anyway.

And that is the reason that in discussions of faith, there is generally something that is agreed as such a touchstone. But even then there can be problems. When discussing Christianity, most would agree that the Bible is a close to (and I believe should be seen as solidly) such a touchstone. But even if we all agree on that, there are reasons that it is not viewed evenly among those who refer to it.

And the internet is, once again, not helping in this endeavor. Since most people who do not have regular theological training never hear about many of the controversies that have arisen over the centuries concerning Christianity and the Bible in general, they are set in their thinking about it, whether positive or negative, and if positive, whether Calvinist or Arminian, infant baptism or believer baptism (sprinkling or immersion), open communion or closed communion, etc. (etc., etc.) and the only reason for most of it is "that's the way I learned it." And that is too often based on into which family they were born.

I would suggest that the two named camps on security fo salvation — Calvinist and Arminian — are neither entirely right nor entirely wrong. I honestly tend toward Calvinist with reservations. But I am unsure.

But most people are sure because they were raised that way. Or they first came into Christianity within that "tradition." Of those who seriously contemplate what they believe a few will become so annoyed with the limitations of their base teaching that they make drastic changes. Recently the leader of the Evangelical society (or very recently past leader) converted to Catholicism. Not common by any means, but no unheard of, although at that level you don't expect it. Probably was a step taken because the way his journey in learning was taking him was not acceptable to those around him and he decided that his only way to continue in peace was such a drastic move.

But you might be interest to hear that when my son was in seminary, he heard on at least one occasion that one of the most dangerous things for the Christian faith is the Bible in the hands of the average person. That was moderated quickly by stating that they did not intend to suggest that the average person should not have a Bible, but that the average person is quite unequipped to deal with the Bible as a whole on their own and are easily prone to lead themselves astray. Remember that the early church started with breaking bread from house to house, but listening to the Apostles for their teaching. Later, there began to be some who were trying to teach things other than what the Apostles had taught. And for a while, the Apostles were still around to counteract those teachings. But eventually, there were no original Apostles. No matter what you called the ones who were your teachers, they were looking back to ones before them for teaching.

But despite the efforts to keep the teaching pure and proper, odd things crept in. Peculiar teachings about relics and icons. Then later about Mary. Then about the authority fo the Pope. And Saints. But through all of this, the core that could bring us back was still available. And some who were trained were able to find their way out of some of these. Even the RCC tended to "right ship" on some issues after enough time. (clearly not on everything.)

Then came the printing press. And once people could afford it, they could own their own Bible and read it for themselves. That was both good and bad. The bad was that now we could think our ideas were better than those that went before. Add advances in education and the internet and the potential for chaos is rampant.

But, after all of that, I believe that the truth is in the Apostle's teaching. And that teaching was not in numerology and ciphers, but in clear teaching from some rather straightforward words that were written down long ago.

The truth in in there. It is within what we already have and know and see. It is not something never seen before that is buried within a novel new approach.

For example, for a couple of years now, I have been asking whether the "great commission" was actually given to anyone outside of the eleven remaining apostles. Every time I ask the question, the idea is rejected because they have always heard it to apply to everyone. (And I do not mean to suggest that it does not in any way apply to all of us, just that the brunt of it was actually applied to certain ones and not everyone.) Jesus didn't give it to the rest of the people that had seen him after his resurrection. And when the church took off after Pentecost, it was not the rest that were teaching in the temple. It was the Apostles. And when we hear about who was going out to spread the gospel, it was the Apostles.

And we really continue to follow that model in virtually every aspect of Christianity — even the LRC. It is the ones who have been trained at some level that are the ones who are sent to preach and teach, not everyone.

Except that we think that the average person can just walk up to anyone else and present the gospel. And not only that, we think that it should be a regular part of their living. And if it is not, they are deficient Christians.

I submit that if many of us just walked up to the average non-Christian and tried to convince them that the answer to their problems was Christ, they would laugh because it is clear to them that the answer to our problems is not dealing with our problems. And it is obvious to them. Yet we think that we are simply under grace and just need to confess and move on. Don't worry about it. It will change one day.

Is that the image of God?

Very long post. Rambled a bunch. Short of it is that novel ideas not yet heard are not worth their weight in the electrons they are now written in. Yet we still do not have a solid grasp of what it is that we are dealing with. I would submit that my questions are not invalid. But when I ask them, I expect that the real answer will come from several persons together who have real theological training that does not manage to simply dismiss me because I don't fit in their box.

And in that I admit that I think that the best answer to many questions is dismissed out of hand by the only potentially reliable source because it does not fit in their box.

And that makes even our little sandbox here of questionable value because few if any of us really have the training and knowledge to be those persons.