Capstone
Gold Member
- Feb 14, 2012
- 5,502
- 952
- 290
...for the lunacy of men like Harold Camping?
In the wake of his most recent failed prediction(s), I think it bears mentioning, that a couple of the tenets at the heart of the Rapture Loonies' worldview are mainstream beliefs! In fact, the 'Second Coming', Heaven, H-E double hockey sticks, and all of the baggage carried by those ideas, constitute an especially potent portion of the doctrinal fertilizer that's still in wide circulation in Christendom today. True, many in Camping's group live on the edge of Christianity (and probably sanity), at least where some of their beliefs are concerned, BUT Harold and his followers are in lock-step with the vast majority of Christians on certain other ...shall we say, more fundamental matters of belief; and I contend that those matters force Christians in general to 'worship' the worst kind of TYRANT imaginable: an ALL-POWERFUL ONE!
Now, there seems to be a rift between those who want to lay all of the blame for this Camping business on Camping and his followers, and those who see it as endemic of a larger problem for the Christian Faith. Fortunately, for eveyone involved, all that's needed to bridge the gap is a touch of logic and a simple appeal to the most commonly accepted teachings among Christians, specifically those involving the nature of the God they serve. In that vein, there's really no need to move from the acknowledgement that their omni-everything God should (and supposedly does) possess the power to clearly and objectively express "HIS" will concerning our actions here on Earth. Granting HIS omnipotence is completely sufficient to hold that HE could have inspired "HIS" chosen authors to write in a manner that would've avoided ANY apparent inconsistencies between the various 'books' and in such a way that would have left absolutely no question as to whats expected from "HIS" created playthings. Had "HE" done so, there would simply be no room for disagreement among Christians or anyone else on matters of doctrine. The unquestionable prevalence of such disagreement is thereby the proof, that, if "HE" does exist, "HE" apparently chose not to do so with the Bible. The presence of so many denominations and off-shoots (like Camping's group) is thereby directly attributable to that choice. In short: if the God of the Bible exists as conceived by the overwhelming majority of Christians, then the blame for some of the mistakes of men like Camping ...rests squarely on the shoulders of the notoriusly invisible and inexplicably silent Magic Genie of mainstream Christianity.
Whether the Bible is every bit as full of contradictions as it seems to be, or those apparent inconsistencies are simply the fruition of faulty interpretations, its reliability as an objective "guide" for doctrine, morals, or whatever, should never be granted, 'cuz in any remotely defensible paradigm, it can never be tested! Sure, an "infallible guide" would have been great, but minus an owner's manual or any other objectively verifiable guidance as to how to read it, I can't help but wonder: what good is it? Lets not lose track of when and where doubt is justified, nor forget that, in this case, doubt regarding a sources reliability is born of whats clearly absent (namely the objectivity and clarity of that source). In other words: the skepticism that arises from the Argument from Disagreement comes directly from the logical negation of the objectivity/clarity of a common source for competing and incompatible claims, which could not exist in the presence of inarguable clarity. The skepticism WRT the reliability of that source, is overwhelmingly justified by the available evidence -- namely a boatload of disagreement. True, my language here is very strong, but then, so is the argument on which it's based.
This much is certain: if it turns out that acceptance of any of these hotly-debated doctrines happens to be requisite to salvation (as many Christians claim), lets just hope and pray that the majority of past and present believers have gotten it right! That Christians must form their own beliefs as to their God's intended meaning, and that some of those beliefs will necessarily be wrong (despite their apparent scriptural basis), is an indisputable referendum on their God's preferred M.O. for guiding them, particularly in light of the purported consequences for failing to get some of this stuff right! This fact can be denied by Christians 'til they're blue in the face, but its truth will remain constant in the face of their denials.
Moreover, that there's any question as to whether sincere followers of the various denominations are actually "Christians", only further supports my case. Were the Bible "clear" on matters of doctrine, there would still be one "unified" denomination of Christianity specifically the one responsible for the canon. Bear in mind: it was opposing opinions on matters of faith and morals that led to the initial cracks in the walls of Catholicism, creating the chasm between "East" and "West", the Protestant Reformation, and ultimately the many fundified off-shoots of the Bible Belt, everyone claiming along the way to be grounded on the correct understanding of the scriptures. Who's right, their God only knows, but "HE'S" been notoriously silent throughout the ordeal!
So, I guess the most pertinent question to any Christian reading this is two-fold: first, how can a person put into practice this "holy guide" for doctrine and morals, when nobody's sure about a great deal of what it says; and secondly, on what basis then can any Christian condemn the readings and teachings of others (esp. those of men like Camping)?!
Of course, the more pressing question is this: what does all of this divinely-inspired confusion on matters of such grave and eternal importance say about the nature of the one supposedly responsible for it all?
_________________
In the wake of his most recent failed prediction(s), I think it bears mentioning, that a couple of the tenets at the heart of the Rapture Loonies' worldview are mainstream beliefs! In fact, the 'Second Coming', Heaven, H-E double hockey sticks, and all of the baggage carried by those ideas, constitute an especially potent portion of the doctrinal fertilizer that's still in wide circulation in Christendom today. True, many in Camping's group live on the edge of Christianity (and probably sanity), at least where some of their beliefs are concerned, BUT Harold and his followers are in lock-step with the vast majority of Christians on certain other ...shall we say, more fundamental matters of belief; and I contend that those matters force Christians in general to 'worship' the worst kind of TYRANT imaginable: an ALL-POWERFUL ONE!
Now, there seems to be a rift between those who want to lay all of the blame for this Camping business on Camping and his followers, and those who see it as endemic of a larger problem for the Christian Faith. Fortunately, for eveyone involved, all that's needed to bridge the gap is a touch of logic and a simple appeal to the most commonly accepted teachings among Christians, specifically those involving the nature of the God they serve. In that vein, there's really no need to move from the acknowledgement that their omni-everything God should (and supposedly does) possess the power to clearly and objectively express "HIS" will concerning our actions here on Earth. Granting HIS omnipotence is completely sufficient to hold that HE could have inspired "HIS" chosen authors to write in a manner that would've avoided ANY apparent inconsistencies between the various 'books' and in such a way that would have left absolutely no question as to whats expected from "HIS" created playthings. Had "HE" done so, there would simply be no room for disagreement among Christians or anyone else on matters of doctrine. The unquestionable prevalence of such disagreement is thereby the proof, that, if "HE" does exist, "HE" apparently chose not to do so with the Bible. The presence of so many denominations and off-shoots (like Camping's group) is thereby directly attributable to that choice. In short: if the God of the Bible exists as conceived by the overwhelming majority of Christians, then the blame for some of the mistakes of men like Camping ...rests squarely on the shoulders of the notoriusly invisible and inexplicably silent Magic Genie of mainstream Christianity.
Whether the Bible is every bit as full of contradictions as it seems to be, or those apparent inconsistencies are simply the fruition of faulty interpretations, its reliability as an objective "guide" for doctrine, morals, or whatever, should never be granted, 'cuz in any remotely defensible paradigm, it can never be tested! Sure, an "infallible guide" would have been great, but minus an owner's manual or any other objectively verifiable guidance as to how to read it, I can't help but wonder: what good is it? Lets not lose track of when and where doubt is justified, nor forget that, in this case, doubt regarding a sources reliability is born of whats clearly absent (namely the objectivity and clarity of that source). In other words: the skepticism that arises from the Argument from Disagreement comes directly from the logical negation of the objectivity/clarity of a common source for competing and incompatible claims, which could not exist in the presence of inarguable clarity. The skepticism WRT the reliability of that source, is overwhelmingly justified by the available evidence -- namely a boatload of disagreement. True, my language here is very strong, but then, so is the argument on which it's based.
This much is certain: if it turns out that acceptance of any of these hotly-debated doctrines happens to be requisite to salvation (as many Christians claim), lets just hope and pray that the majority of past and present believers have gotten it right! That Christians must form their own beliefs as to their God's intended meaning, and that some of those beliefs will necessarily be wrong (despite their apparent scriptural basis), is an indisputable referendum on their God's preferred M.O. for guiding them, particularly in light of the purported consequences for failing to get some of this stuff right! This fact can be denied by Christians 'til they're blue in the face, but its truth will remain constant in the face of their denials.
Moreover, that there's any question as to whether sincere followers of the various denominations are actually "Christians", only further supports my case. Were the Bible "clear" on matters of doctrine, there would still be one "unified" denomination of Christianity specifically the one responsible for the canon. Bear in mind: it was opposing opinions on matters of faith and morals that led to the initial cracks in the walls of Catholicism, creating the chasm between "East" and "West", the Protestant Reformation, and ultimately the many fundified off-shoots of the Bible Belt, everyone claiming along the way to be grounded on the correct understanding of the scriptures. Who's right, their God only knows, but "HE'S" been notoriously silent throughout the ordeal!
So, I guess the most pertinent question to any Christian reading this is two-fold: first, how can a person put into practice this "holy guide" for doctrine and morals, when nobody's sure about a great deal of what it says; and secondly, on what basis then can any Christian condemn the readings and teachings of others (esp. those of men like Camping)?!
Of course, the more pressing question is this: what does all of this divinely-inspired confusion on matters of such grave and eternal importance say about the nature of the one supposedly responsible for it all?
_________________