An interesting article

[Ivory Keys]

[soul101]

I realise, Allan, that you started this off, however, I think the question I have been attempting to address is not the merit of intelligence, but whether or not it holds a place in the kingdom of God. I think as you have pointed out, that, biblically, intelligence is not something to be proud of. But then technically, neither is love (in fact, according to 1 Cor, love implies a lack of pride). A strawman perhaps, but please see my point.

I think i am trying to balance what appears to be "an outright attack on intelligentsia." And you seem to lump the christians in with the non-christians on your grounds... Men like the man in the article have their place in the kingdom of heaven, because they have realised that their intelligence isn't enough. But this doesn't make them any less intelligent. In fact, I would argue that it is greater wisdom (and i think scripture would back me on this?).

[rusmeister]

[soul101]

[Melodee]

[soul101]

From what allan was saying, it was difficult to tell exactly what he was trying to say (on my part anyway), and I'm not saying that he was saying that. I am saying that what he appeared to be saying seemed to be leading down that track, i.e. to that extreme.

[alecto]

The myth that you have to be stupid to be Christian, the belief by some Christians that intelligence stands in the way of faith, and that belief by some Christians and non-Christians alike that faith is some kind of non-intellectual intuition are together the reasons why many in the modern world believe Christianity is a superstition, like belief in the Oracle at Delphi. They feel they are morally justified to attack it as a primitive, destructive belief. Since all bigotry, including anti-intellectual bigotry, is immoral, they are in fact justified in some cases, escept where they blame all Christians for the anti-intellectual views of a few.

Once upon a time, neither this anti-intellectualism nor the propagation of it as a myth about all Christians was a hindrance to the Faith. In the first centuries, Christianity gained adherents partly because the arguments of the Fathers, based on reason, could destroy the unreasonable beliefs of pagans, despite the fact that the pagan beliefs were backed by the state.

Now that Christianity has become "dogmatized", there is for some no more room for reason. All of the answers have been found. Many so-called Christians are the very philosophers who think they know the Truth, who are therefore unable to learn. This is one of the reasons Christianity loses adherents today, despite being favored by powerful nations, while it gained in the beginning despite state-sponsored persecution of believers.

We must remember that there are still those, who may be a "silent majority", who believe reason is a support of faith, that it is reasonable to be an ally of God, and that science and philosophy must ultimately be allies of religion.

[AllanS]

Christianity flourished in a world that could think it reasonable that thunder was God's voice, the Flood explained geology, that Heaven was up beyond the stars (you could see the light) and Hell was down below (hot springs, lava flows etc), the world was recently made in 6 days, women were innately inferior to men, homosexuality was not natural, animals had no 'soul', human sin answered the problem of pain, and so on and on.

One by one, these reasons proved groundless. Now we resort to Anthropic Principles and Big Bangs, dreading the day when they are also snatched away.

People just don't get it. God gives no sign (None. Squat. Zilch). No reason. No argument. No science. No neon lights in the sky. No mass miracle on prime-time TV. Why not? Because he is beyond all signification. Nothing can demonstrate that someone is infinite and eternal. Or better, only everything can demonstrate such a thing, and we are too small to receive it.

All signs are ambiguous. A spurious confidence in signs will deceive many in the last days, just as spurious reasoning has mislead the multitudes since the beginning.

The blind man healed by Jesus: he was convinced that Jesus was from God. The miracle proved the opposite to the Pharisees.

So why did the man believe? Not reason or intelligence. The Pharisees were far more reasonable, educated and intelligent than a blind beggar. Rather, his belief was an intuition towards the good. A movement of love and gratitude in his heart. He believed because he wanted to.

[rusmeister]

[alecto]

[soul101]

I disagree with you, Allan, where you say that God does not reveal Himself in any way, shape or form. We may not be able to comprehend Him in His fullness, in His infinity, but we can comprehend that which he reveals to us of Himself, through scripture, and by scripture. I would maintain that homosexuality is unnatural, but more than that is sin. How do I know? because God revealed that it was not in His plan, through the writings of the law.

It stands to reason that if you believe in the God of the bible, you would believe that which the bible says of Him. If not, then we believe in different Gods, meaning our argument is moot. So if you believe that which the bible says of God, then you believe that the bible has revealed a part of God. Or else you don't believe the believe the bible, which is a collection of documents that describe the God of Abraham, and the father of Jesus Christ, and the undertakings of His chosen people on His behalf (at a bare-bones level anyway).

Bear in mind we don't need to know God in His entirety in order to worship Him. In fact, knowing that we can never come to a complete understanding of Him provokes a sense of awe and a desire to worship ("How unsearchable are your depths, oh God," or somesuch). So to say that "because we cannot know God in His entirety, we cannot know Him at all, or he will not reveal Himself at all," is a bit rash and illogical IMO.

On your comments about the blind man and the pharisee, it is true that one will see a sign and say "this is from God," and another will say of the same sign "this is not from God." Biblically, we accept that not all people will see. Not all will believe. That is a given. That doesn't mean we cannot believe, or that our "level of intelligence" will have an effect on how we perceive the action. I know some pretty stupid people who consider themselves intelligent, who really just have loud mouths, on both sides of the fence (as well as some on the fence). Equally, I know some highly intelligent, well-learned and diverse people, who also fit in all over the spectrum of belief. Often the difference is the level of humility. But this has nothing to do with intelligence, as intelligence can lead to either.

Anyhow, I'm just frustrating myself here, so I'm going to pull out. I'll read responses, but won't respond to those.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to air myself and direct my thoughts(even if they aren't quite straight as an arrow yet)

[rusmeister]

[AllanS]

[AllanS]

Hi Soul,

I also believe in Divine Revelation. So do Moslems, Mormons, Hindus and the local witch-doctor. Unfortunately, I have no way of knowing which of the many 'revelations' is Revelation. For all I know, the latest Women's Weekly might be God's Word in subtle code (very subtle.)

Because God is good, people can know truth about him without knowing they know it. Revelation is God's gift to us, but because he is beyond our understanding, it's a gift we can never be certain we have. It's like a man who (unbeknown to him) has an alien for a friend. Tho the man truly knows an alien, he doesn't know he knows. But they are good friends for all that.

Mohamed simply knew that Gabriel spoke God's revelation in that cave. How do you know he was wrong? I wonder if the world would be a more peaceful place had he realised such certainty is impossible?

For me, I have a test for revelation. "Does this sound like the voice of a good God, a loving Father, a faithful shepherd?" Others have a different test (eg. does some authority say it's revelation?), but that's up to them.

[Noontidal]

I think this is in some way akin to the parable about the rich man getting into heaven. It's just as possible for a rich man to get into heaven, but not as 'easy' in a manner of speaking. Perhaps the same applies here.