If Christians are sinful, then why listen to them?
- Thread starter greenberg
- Start date
Could be! Of course, they would probably have a defense along the lines of "Well, at least we know and admit we are wrong, sinful, and fallible."
But what does that say about the Bible, and moreover, it's many translations, all of which were crafted at the hands of imperfect humans?
But what does that say about the Bible, and moreover, it's many translations, all of which were crafted at the hands of imperfect humans?
I don't. I liken it to listening to a completely shady, transparent sales pitch from a used car salesman.
It is. You're 'preaching to the choir', dude. (pun fully intended, LOL)
No. We're all imperfect and fallible, I don't see how that negates what they have to say.
*************
M*W: All christians are not on the same page as one would expect them to be. Therefore, there are a lot of contradictions and misinterpretations which can be confusing to non-christians and other theists as well. Having been a christian, I know the spiel, but it doesn't make sense to me anymore. I wouldn't call them "sinful," but I would call them gullible and totally misinformed.
*************
M*W's Friendly Atheist Quote of the Day:
"Gullibility and credulity are considered undesirable qualities in every department of human life--except religion.... Why are we praised by godly men for surrendering our "godly gift" of reason when we cross their mental thresholds?" ~ Christopher Hitchens
If they are imperfect and fallible - how then can they be taken as reliable messengers of the Gospel??
Would you listen to someone telling you about God if that person himself declared to be imperfect and fallible?
If an accountant told you right away that he is imperfect and fallible, you wouldn't hire his services, would you?
I might, if everyone were as fucked up as he was.
They would say they are just messengers. There's a book which they feel is reliable.
Grantywanty
Registered Senior Member
Oh, yes. I am fallible. Still I have been touched enough by God's grace to recognize the book and God's greatness. In these words there are no flaws, praise God. Even sinner such as we, can, when touched by God, see that one light in the darkness and move toward it and know in our movement we follow God's light. It is that light that fills these words. If I told you what to do at your job, or how to fix you car, or how to get along better with your wife, yes I would make mistakes, but I cannot make mistakes when I implore you to come closer to God and his book. In this it is not me but God's grace that is present and there is no error in that. Praise Him. This is the one shelter from error. The one thing I can say to you and be certain.
A fallible person cannot knowingly discern whether something is true or reliable. A fallible person cannot tell the truth from a lucky guess.
Thus, a fallible person cannot be trusted to speak the truth.
Grantywanty
Registered Senior Member
Would you trust a person who said they were infallible and never immoral?
Most likely not. But neither would I trust someone who came forward and professed to be fallible.
The Buddha's first sermon begun to the effect of "I am the All-enlightened one ..." and it was a fiasco, the listener shook his head and left. The Buddha then changed the way he approached listeners and was able to reach them.
This is a good example where the speaker didn't simply expect that the audience take his abilities and knowledge for granted and believe him blindly.
Grantywanty
Registered Senior Member
The savvy gurus out there today allow others to say they are perfect and in their silence collude.
My point above was that we are skeptical of those who say they do not make mistakes and you are now wondering if we should listen to those who say they do make mistakes - which most of us here would admit. Why listen to anyone?
Or is the question really why should one 'simply trust' someone who claims to be fallible? In other words why accept claims we cannot verify ourselves because others, who have claimed to be fallible, have made them?
This I can connect to more.
But even here aren't their Christians, even fundamentalists, who would suggest, essentially, a process of trying out what they are suggesting? Try reading the Bible, praying and beseeching God for help, etc. and see if you feel better. I mean, I'd love to throw them all into the appeal to authority basket, but as far as actually being a member of the Christian faith - despite the irony of that last word - isn't there a 'don't simply trust me come and see and feel for yourself element'. And a big one.
I can see on issues of relating to society and non-Christians, that there tends to be an appeal to authority - the Bible, God, various interpreters of these - in regard to anything from homosexuals to teaching evolution - but as far as moving towards belief and participation isn't there more than simply 'trust me.'
In your life of course you were born into the milieu which is not the same situation. The very development of your mind was controlled intended to be limited by various practices. Those tools or outlooks or intuitions that might have allowed you to really choose were attacked from early on - I assume.
(In none of this am I saying that Oh, they're really as open and logical or induction-based as a scientist or tourist guide. I'm just not sure this is the root (I mean route) to reject them. (though I have this nagging feeling I used a very similar line to reject something else here on sciforums.)
Of course. But in order to go through with this "test" properly, in accord with their instructions, one has to be willing to give it the rest of one's life.
Not a day, not a week, not a year, not ten years - but the rest of life.
One is expected to go through with this "test" without imposing any limitations in terms of time and effort.
To say "I am going to give God a chance, I will do as the Christians have instructed me for 5 years. And if I am not convinced, I will give up." is considered unacceptable.
No, for the simple reason that everyone is fallible.
So, you agree that not listening to Christians on account of their fallibility is bad reasoning?