One of the recurring tropes seen in conservative blogs is the opposition of modernity to religion. The implication of this line of thought is that somehow a return to pre-industrial society would shore up the decline of Christianity. I don't particularly subscribe to this point of view but I can understand how it came about. That the the collapse of religion in the West is correlated with the industrialisation of Western society is true but as all the good text books say, correlation is not causation and the relationship of modernity to religious decline is much more complicated.
But first we need to define terms.
Modernity as a concept has both temporal and qualitative aspects. Temporal, in that it acknowledges that that whatever modernity is, it marks a discontinuity with the past in time. Qualitatively, it acknowledges a civilisational change irrespective of time. I think that one of the reasons why modernity is so difficult to define is because its is one word linked to two different two concepts.
The first thing to consider the is the temporal component of the concept which I think is its least important aspect. The Latin root of the term, modo, defines the present or contemporary. So the concept refers to the here and now. But the important point of the word modernity is that it is meant to distinguish a now that is different from the past, yet time itself is neutral with regard to modernity's qualitative aspect. The modern world is not modern because it is five hundred years away from the the 1500's, it's modern because there has been a qualitative change since then and its the change in things, not the passage of time that gives the term its major meaning. The reason why the 1500's are not modern is because the civilisation experience of then is different to what it is today.
So what then are the major qualitative changes in modernity? From the point of view of Western History, the two main factors would be the development of technology and the change in values, with technological aspect having greater value. Simply put, the modern world would be impossible without the technological innovations particularly of the last two hundred years. Technology has given Western modernity a large component of its qualatative aspect.
But technology does not apply itself and requires human agents for its implementation. Therefore the the expression of technology is conditional on the values used in its implementation. If a society decided, because of its values, to reject technology current technological modernity would be impossible. The point I'm trying to make here is that technology is "captive" to the values of society and these values modulate the expression of technology, and hence modernity. The interesting thing about this line of thought is that modernity can have many forms and the modernity we currently have is not necessarily the only modernity that could have been.
However, qualative changes can also occur in a society in the absence of technology, and history is full of societies which were technologically backward but which culturally changed over time. Here it's the change of values and not the passage of time which is the marker of change. The late Roman Emprie was "modern" in that it differed from the founding values of the Republic. Looking at the decadent values of the late empire and ours now, are we really that modern? Strip away the technology and we resemble a lot of "old" decadent societies.
Whats been interesting about the West is that it has undergone two transformations over the past few centuries. First, the material one, driven by technology, and secondly the cultural one, driven by other factors.
When religious conservatives talk about modernity they have to be quite specific. It needs to be understood is that incorporation of technology into our civilisation has bought, quite literally incalculable, benefits. The production of medicines, diagnostic equipment, food and safe transportation for instance, sits atop a vast mountain of technological capital. Turning the clock back would come at the price of an ocean of human misery. A more simpler existence, i.e. agrarianism, would be a more painful one as well.
Of course, none of these religious conservatives would dream of getting of getting rid of the beneficial effects of technology what they want to do is simply change morality, but even here we have a problem.
Now, while I have separated technology and culture, treating them separately, the reality is there is an interplay between the two of them. Formally, technology shouldn't really impact upon our values system but materially it does, and the medium of the interaction, from a civilisational level, is the midwit. Culture isn't just a product of the guys at the top of the intellectual food chains, it is a product of all levels of society and I don't think what isn't recognised enough is just how powerful this midwit engagement with science and technology is in the shaping of culture.
The point here is that technology, in it's success, undercuts a powerful psychological mechanism which powers moral values, namely dependency, especially in the midwit class. As they say, "there are no atheists in foxholes" which simply is a recognition that in desperate times the midwit is prepared to give God some consideration: atheism and degeneracy being luxuries of comfort.
Christian forensic philosophers have laboured to identify and combat the errors of modernist thought but the fact is that stupid ideas have been around since time immemorial. What distinguishes the modern world from the past is the traction these stupid ideas have now, or appear to have now. The average man does not engage life like a Pascal, Nietzsche, Heidegger or Kant: in fact he's probably never even heard of them. The fault of Christian philosphers has been to map the thought of dissident philosophers on the brains of midwits, combating a process that isn't naturally occurring in their minds, wondering why their arguments don't work. The fault lays in the failure to recognise that Homer Simpson doesn't do Heidegger and the widespread consumption of internet porn is not due the average man's acceptance of the arguments of Foucault.
Rather, how modernity attacks religion is "psychologically", through material comfort, security and abundance. The "argument" of modernity is not logical but existential. God is not needed, or sought, among people who are fat, happy and in-control enough. Stupid ideas, which never would have been given the time of day in a precarious world are suddenly given a hearing. Hubris, ingratitude and sloth act on a population-wide level consigning "hard" religion as an irrelevancy. The rejection of God is more pragmatic rather than philosophical. The relationship of Christianity to modernity is much bigger than just the world of ideas.
35 comments:
The fall of Christianity is the result of acceptance of the Pericope Adulterae. "Only the sinless can punish women." That began feminism. The passage is missing in most MSS. In the mss that have it it jumps around different chapters in John AND LUKE (see NIV on John 7:52). In ancient times nobody bought it. KJV standardized it into the text in the 1600s. Its taken 400 years for its rotten fruit to deatroy the whole of Christianity but it now has.
Homer Simpson may not read Heidegger or Foucault, but his mangina church leaders henpecked by their wives preach the Pericope Adulterae to him, and worse to his wife and daughters, every Sunday. And its inauthentic (see NIV on John 7:52). Since you won't see it, here it is: "[The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53—8:11. A few manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53.]"
If technological progress is demonstrably more effective at, say, moving mountains than faith it suggests that faith was never true to begin with.
@Dave
""Only the sinless can punish women."
That's not how interpret that passage. It's a lot more complicated. Still, modern "interpretations" of Christianity have done much damage to it.
@Anon
Technological progress was only possible because of the intellectual infrastructure set up by Christianity, it's why the West forged ahead of all other civilisations in terms of science and technology. The relationship of the faith to material existence is an important one. It's one that I feel has also been badly managed by the guys in charge. But then again it's also something that cannot be "managed". If, as Christian teaching says, faith is a product of Grace then a third party element becomes involved. i.e. God. There's an element of "de Gracing" going on.
You don't seem to get it. Moving mountains was one of Jesus' explicit promises of what his disciples would be able to do. In actual fact we've found that faith cannot move mountains, but there is something else that can. This indicates that Jesus' promises were false, ergo that Christianity at its core is fundamentally untrue.
Which I'd think would be pretty clear to begin with, considering how obviously the entire religion is a coping mechanism for a failed 1st century apocalypse cult. Jesus promised that the generation he was speaking to wouldn't pass away until they saw angels gathering the elect from the four corners of the earth and the whole world judged by the Son of Man on a great white throne and, guess what, didn't happen.
Incidentally, you're quite wrong. Science only happened when faith was explicitly rejected axiomatically as evidence of anything, and material and effective causation was searched for and, surprise, found.
Interesting post. My thinking on these lines is that the industrial civilization strongly disincentivizes traditional Christian sexual morality, while agrarian civilization supports it. Its very hard to square Christianity with the sexual revolution, so the result of the large scale abandonment of Christian sexual ethics in industrialized societies is secularization.
A man in 1800 had very good material reasons for not sleeping around and instead marrying and having children in wedlock, particularly if he wasn't an aristocrat. There were no antibiotics for VD or birth control, so fornication was risky. At the same time, there was no reason to limit the number of children within wedlock (absent a famine) because even very young children had "low overhead" and could be put to work on the farm, essentially paying for themselves in the long run. Women worked on the farm and in the home, but had no reason to go into town and work in traditionally male professions.
In industrialized societies, fornication is less risky, while having children is costly. Large families, or increasingly any kind of family, are cost prohibitive for the working class, while middle class professionals cannot "keep up with the Joneses" if they raise 6 kids on one income while the Joneses raise 2 kids on 2 incomes. Low economic growth or decreased wages only makes the problem worse--poor people in agrarian societies can have large families, the poor in industrialized societies need to stop having kids to preserve what little quality of life they have.
As a result of industrialization, cultural norms arise where people start sleeping together after 3-5 dates and marry only after many years of "dating" (childless common-law marriages made possible by BC), if at all. These norms become widespread and reflected in pop culture (romcoms and sitcoms), and those who practice traditional Christian sexual ethics in these societies might have well have green skin and 4 heads. Louise Perry, a secular moderate conservative, recently wrote a book called "Against the Sexual Revolution" advising women to wait 3 months into a relationship to start having sex--this is considered a "counter-revolutionary" position. Even relatively conservative people who end up having families will be alienated from Christianity due to their sexual pasts and stay away from church. This will leave Christianity for a small, self-selected group of highly religious people who earnestly believe in, and attempt to adhere to traditional sexual ethics.
It is notable that there is no modern society that is both industrialized and has great credentials from a social conservative viewpoint. Some societies (Japan, Mexico, Eastern Europe) are less feminist or pro-LGBT, but it is hardly the case that Christianity is strong in those countries or that Christian sexual ethics are normative there. They perhaps resemble the US in the 1970s or 80s. Iran is a Shiite Muslim theocracy and has a below replacement birthrate similar to a Western country.
The only hopes for a religious revival under these conditions are that religious conservatives will gain outsized cultural and political influence in the future due to their higher birth rates or, alternatively, that industrial civilization will eventually collapse, as "peak oilers" like John Michael Greer and James Kunstler predict.
>Other Anon
I don't think Jesus was referring to mining for coal with dynamite when he said faith will "move mountains". The predictions of destruction did come true in the lifetimes of Jesus' followers--the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD.
@Other Anon: That's one of aforementioning coping mechanisms. In reality Jesus did not prophecy generic "destruction", he was much more specific.
"Immediately after the tribulation of those days:
‘The sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
the stars will fall from the sky,
and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.’
30At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. 31And He will send out His angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather His elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.
32Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its branches become tender and sprout leaves, you know that summer is near. 33So also, when you see all these things, you will know that He is near, right at the door. 34Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have happened. 35Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will never pass away."
(Matthew 24:29-35)
Now, none of the aforementioned apocalyptic scenes actually happened at any point, and therefore Jesus was a false prophet. Thus, if Judaism were ever true (and it must have been for Christianity to ever be) then he deserved to die in accordance with the clear instructions of Yahweh vis a vis false prophets.
Also, you are correct. Jesus was referring to something a good deal more dramatic than coal mining:
"And He *said to them, “Because of the littleness of your faith; for truly I say to you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you."
(Matthew 17:20)
"Truly I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and cast into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says is going to happen, it will be granted him."
(Mark 11:23)
"And Jesus answered and said to them, “Truly I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and cast into the sea,’ it will happen."
(Matthew 21:21)
Of course, back in reality we know this doesn't actually work, but other things do, so true believers keep having to make up hollow coping mechanisms for why their supposed divine promises never quite end up getting fulfilled.
@Atheist Anonymous
This indicates that Jesus' promises were false, ergo that Christianity at its core is fundamentally untrue.
Look, I understand that you don't believe. You got your point across. But you're hijacking this thread. The point of the post was the relationship of modernity to religion, not the truth of the Christian religion.
Yeah, and the old trope that science and religion are incompatible are typical midwit positions and belong to reddit/twitter level discussion. But to be fair, contemporary Western modernity does champion the midwit. And their sheer numbers, especially in a democracy, means that they exert a disproportionate influence on the culture by mass effect. The "intellectual enfranchisement" of the midwit clearly is a corrosive effect on religion.
Goedel, Newton, Pastuer, Babbage, Ampere, for instance, and not to mention the Giga Chad of science, Maxwell, had no problems at all with reconciling their science with Christian religion. Are you smarter than them? Note, I'm not saying that atheism is an irrational position. It's just that a lot of the Giga brains that built modernity saw their discoveries as completely compatible with their Christianity.
So if they're OK with Christianity, what's your problem?
Should you decide to reply, could you include your scientific discoveries to legitimise your superiority over these men?
@Anon
My thinking on these lines is that the industrial civilization strongly disincentivizes traditional Christian sexual morality,
Not really really sure about this one. Sexual immorality is rather broad term. A lot of sexual immorality can occur within a marriage, with low rates of outside fornication or adultery.
A really interesting paper you might to want to have a look at is:
Premarital Pregnancy in America 1640-1971: An Overview and Interpretation
https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400854417.339
There were surprisingly quite high rates of premarital pregnancy even in agrarian/pre- modern US and other societies. I don't that that there ever was a really golden age of purity (with regard to fornication and adultery) given a consideration of human sexual nature. I also think that the societal shame associated with premarital pregnancy made it something that wasn't spoken about or hidden therefore numbers are really hard to get.
My own, limited, look into the subject was hampered by the lack of data pre-World War Two. But from what I remember, the uptick in Western promiscuity really started in the women who became sexually active in the 70's, well after industrialisation had become firmly established.
Women "gatekeep" sexuality. Shame is a powerful restraint but it can also be a powerful enabler. Given women's social natures, if it is considered shameful to be sexually inexperienced then women will pursue sex. I think Scruton's comment that "women have been shamed into being shameful" is a deep insight into the mechanics of contemporary sexual promiscuity.
The other thing to note, is that sexual promiscuity has been a feature of decadent non technological societies. So I'm not really sure that modernity and sexual degeneracy are as closely linked as things would suggest.
Shame i.e cultural pressures, seems to me to be a more powerful sexual regulator than material conditions with regard to women.
Of note, I could envisage a situation where modern social media could be used to "shame" promiscuous women and thus shore up traditional morality.
@SocPath: I agree that there was never a golden age of sexual purity. The difference between then and now were social norms. Its one thing to have certain norms that are honored in the breach, and another to not have the norms in the first place. America would be a very different society if something like the Hays Production Code existed or if Comestock laws were on the books, or if there was a social stigma attached to sexual immorality. Even if most people would have significant moral shortcomings under those conditions, someone attempting to adhere to a moral lifestyle would not necessarily be seen as eccentric religious weirdo, as is the case today. Speaking from experience, I am basically ineligible to date 90% of women off the bat because I wouldn't want to sleep with them after 3 dates. The dating pool is a tiny niche of very religious Catholics and maybe very religious non-Catholic Christians.
The connection between industrialization and birth rates is very clear and discussed by demographers (the "demographic transition"), and seems to exist in every society. Low birth rates do not necessarily equal promiscuity, and high birth rates do not necessarily equal purity. However, generally (and that's a big qualifier), the irreligious have low birth rates, religious traditionalists have high birth rates. To the extent that being religious aligns with having more children, and industrialization makes having more children difficult, it will be very difficult for Catholics/Evangelicals/Orthodox Jews/Muslims/Mormons/etc. to evangelize in these societies. Increasingly, choosing to have even 1 or 2 children is a choice to have a lower standard of living than one's parents had.
RE: Peak oil, since nuclear fusion now works we will have to figure out another way to return to traditional norms.
RE: Shame. It's not at all obvious to me that women being shamed for NOT having sex is a social norm. But then I'm not a woman. It seems to me the way post-60s shame works is that shame has been reversed. Instead of slut shaming, we now have shaming of men who voice men's natural preference for female chastity (at least in a lifetime mate).
@Bruce
Oil will be around for a while.
@Anon and Bruce.
I think that there has been a concerted effort to shame sexual inexperience (i.e. virginity) in both men and women.
@Anon
Speaking from experience, I am basically ineligible to date 90% of women off the bat because I wouldn't want to sleep with them after 3 dates. The dating pool is a tiny niche of very religious Catholics and maybe very religious non-Catholic Christians.
I agree its a very difficult situation. Not only are cultural pressures hostile to chastity, many women view a man's commitment to chastity as a rejection of them.
"You don't seem to get it. Moving mountains was one of Jesus' explicit promises of what his disciples would be able to do. In actual fact we've found that faith cannot move mountains, but there is something else that can. This indicates that Jesus' promises were false, ergo that Christianity at its core is fundamentally untrue."
Once children in a Japanese orphanage told Jesus to move a mountain they saw. Then people with machines ended up moving that mountain afterwards.
Obviously you treat Prayer as like a magic spell. Put in formula and the mountain will just be pushed by an unseen force into the sea.
God can do that. But that would be redundant if he has technology and humans he can use.
@Social Pathologist
"I agree its a very difficult situation. Not only are cultural pressures hostile to chastity, many women view a man's commitment to chastity as a rejection of them."
Chastity isn't complete absence of sex. But the presence of sex within marriage. Just as Ritual Purity isn't merely an absence of something. But that everything is in its proper place:
tektonics.org/af/cleanman.php
I like the use the analogy of fire for sexuality. In the fireplace. Fire provides, warmth, heat and light. But outside uncontrolled it will consume and consume and consume.
Same with all the animalistic urges called "Passions" and which lead to sin. Since they are urges that by the corruption of sin have become weakly bounded, unbounded and perverted. Whereas when God created them first they were properly completely bounded within acceptable limits.
And hence all animalistic urges at its origin was Good at first.
"Faith atrophies rather than is rejected and it is lived as if it is increasingly irrelevant. Only the troubled and the deep end up engaging religion."
The de-gracing is because God I suspect must have determined that humanity at this stage must exercise more agency as Individuals.
Religion is no more about NPC's simply receiving the message and executing that message like Algorithmic robots. But more volition in and of themselves in seeking after God.
"So if they're OK with Christianity, what's your problem?"
That it's promises manifestly aren't true and it follows the textbook coping mechanisms of apocalypse cults after its end of the world never came. And I don't know why you would think displaying some list of people who found ways to rationalize their beliefs while compartmentalizing them from science would prove anything - it's been demonstrated that high IQ oddballs are more likely to join bizarre cults, not less. Aum Shinrikyo had a number of expert biologists, chemical engineers, and highly qualified, intelligent people in its ranks.
"Obviously you treat Prayer as like a magic spell. Put in formula and the mountain will just be pushed by an unseen force into the sea."
This is the sort of thing Jesus is purported to have done, which he promised his followers would do greater than he.
@Atheist
And I don't know why you would think displaying some list of people who found ways to rationalize their beliefs while compartmentalizing them from science would prove anything
Because that is what they did, isn't it? What amazes me about you guys is just how intimate you are with people's thinking processes. You never imagine that a guy like Pasteur may have agonised over his faith, particularly some of the passages that are "hard" to reconcile with reality. I particularly put Goedel on that list because he is considered even by smart atheists, as one of the greatest logicians that ever existed. Clearly, you're better.
You're still trying to hijack this thread. This is a post about the relationship between religion and modernity, not about the truth of the faith.
Now, care to enlighten us about YOUR scientific discoveries.
@anon
"The de-gracing is because God I suspect must have determined that humanity at this stage must exercise more agency as Individuals."
I'm not sure why and I think we must be very careful to attribute a motive to God.
There is a line in Catholic mysticism starting in the 19th Century which see's God as putting his Church "to the test". i.e that the long 20th C will be a period of pressure under which the church is put.(Mystical vision of Leo XIII).There are also biblical texts where God "hides" himself, and texts where God abandons people to their wickedness.
Religion is no more about NPC's simply receiving the message and executing that message like Algorithmic robots. But more volition in and of themselves in seeking after God
I agree.
I often compare it to an old fashioned dance. He asks, and you have to accept. On the other hand, you may want him to ask and He has to notice you. Ultimately it's a mutual relationship. If you reject Him, he may hang around for a bit, but then will leave. I think that there is definitely an element of that at play here.
What interests me though is the guiltlessness of those who "have never been asked to dance". Atheism is a legitimate intellectual position. (Sort of, Agnosticism is the intellectually more solid of the two.) And I understand how many people could not believe in God.
Religious leaders constantly tell us that God is inviting us to believe, but as our Atheist commentator has demonstrated, there are many who have never even felt the pull at all. And then there are those who want to believe but can't. Lack of belief is not always due to malice. Something else is clearly at play here and hence my lack of enthusiasm in attributing a particular motive to God.
@Atheist
And I don't know why you would think displaying some list of people who found ways to rationalize their beliefs while compartmentalizing them from science would prove anything -
Cope is not just confined to the Christians.
I think in my case I was curious about the world and seeking after the truth. That ultimately led to faith. But for others such ultimate questions never came to mind.
just wanted to say if you haven't read both schopenhauer and otto weininger on christianity you haven't kept up with the times. see ya
@Anon
if you haven't read both schopenhauer and otto weininger......
Meh. Schopenhauer does have some interesting things to say.
@Atheist
As I said. You don't know what Jesus was referring to when he said what he said about moving the mountain.
He never specified by what method. Which gives God more flexibility in operation than you think.
Much thanks for these thoughts. I think you are correct that for many the rejection of God is more practical than philosophical. But when pushed, everyone's got to come up with some reason. Now, not everyone gets pushed to answer straight up, but when they are, they will offer up some excuse, because no one wants to be thought an idiot.
I do think you give a short shrift to the ideas filtering down. Sure, almost no one reads Heidegger or Nietzche. But the idea of history being one on a path of progress, and the thought that we are not only better off, but better people now is rampant today - and used to argue against Christian mores. The firm notion that power is what matters, and how to get your way, has more than a few disciples.
The biggest one that undercuts much belief is Darwin - which is as just widely accepted today as any idea down through time (outside of Christianity).
That midwits are the chunk of unbelievers is true just as a fact of the Bell Curve. We could easily say that most believers are midwits, and it'd be true as well.
Thanks again. This is a good line: "The experience of penicillin and fertiliser have probably been more effective de-Christianisers than nominalism."
@ Scott
Good comments.
I do think you give a short shrift to the ideas filtering down.
You're right. And you're also right that a large amount of believers are midwits as well. Belief in God is not a function of IQ but a consequence of Grace, (Very important point), the Bible is full of references of faith filled midwits being more calibrated to reality than the Godless intellectuals. A large part of the problem in understanding the phenomonon of Faith is seeing it as an endpoint of a rational chain as opposed to experience consistent with rationality.
Might add to this later on but I have to go to work.
"You don't seem to get it. Moving mountains was one of Jesus' explicit promises of what his disciples would be able to do."
No, you don't understand what Jesus was saying. He wasn't talking about excavation. He was saying a small amount of faith in him is sufficient, anything more is overkill.
By the way this illustrates one of the problems of technology/magic, we want to use it to change nature. The same spirit wants to rub God/Jesus like a magic lamp and get our modification to nature granted. And when that doesn't work, turn our back on it.
@scott
Yes, I do agree that some ideas do undercut Christianity, but I just wonder how much the idea drives the unbelief or the idea is made acceptable by unbelief.
The other issue here is just how much an idea like evolution is actually intellectually digested or simply a good enough explanation that satisfies the midwit. This fascinating talk has on the mathematical problems of Darwinian Evolution has the great line "The theory of Evolution was good enough for Darwin, and it's probably good enough for us, but it is not true."
https://youtu.be/noj4phMT9OE?t=649
There are serious intellectual problems with Darwinism which are apart from the Christian critique yet these are never given any legitimacy by the midwit who thinks that the "science" is settled. What the midwit looks for is a plausable explanation, not the engagement of an idea. Socialism is a similar such "idea" that on deep reflection is stupid yet passionately held by millions, not because of its truth but because is synches with some kind of emotional state. Churchill's comment, "If you aren't a socialist at the age of 20 then you don't have a heart. If your still a socialist at the age of 30 then you don't have a brain." Gets to the point of the matter.
Idea's sometimes do influence men, but not at the level of logic and reason but at a psychological "emotive level".
Yep, I totally agree with you that, for the midwit, the idea is often secondary, and used as an excuse. But there is also something to broad ideas filtering down to midwits and the underclass (to use Dalrymple's word), and then becoming a mindset that drives their actions. Love=love, there are no absolutes, you can be whatever it is you want to be - these kinds of things get taught to the young and impressionable and shape their actions.
But, yes, pragmatic and emotional are the major factors, I agree with that.
@SP Just because, not blowing sunshine, but I do want to say keep writing, you’re engaging on a deeper level than most. For whatever reason you’re not showing up in blog aggregators where you should, so I think your readership is lower than it should be but it is good work.
Just as one thought, I believe those on the spectrum have difficulty understanding metaphors, which can be a crippling condition. I haven’t moved literal mountains, but have seen figurative mountains moved. Sometimes it seems as though God answers my prayers all the time and I understand the grain of mustard seed because my shock at answered prayers certainly reveals my faith isn’t what it could be.
To the broader point, this is why I, like CS Lewis, believe that a direct presentation of the gospel is a powerful and neglected method for changing the lives of men. They’ve got so much junk clogging up their minds that introducing them directly to God can bypass it I believe. It’s a long story but there’s a basic cartoon tract called “A Love Story” by Jack Chick that I leave places (I know I know, but this tract doesn’t have anything I think a Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, or Oriental Orthodox Christian could object to.possibly object to).
I’ve got a lot of education and was born with some native intelligence, but I became a Christian by reading an evangelical comic book by Jack Chick. I believe God revealed Himself to me directly. I had gone to church consistently as a child, but I do not recall the gospel being presented so directly. If you believe God is leading you to do so, I believe this basic direct presentation of the gospel bypasses the aforementioned mind junk and presents a man with real direct knowledge and a choice.
Everything else is important either as a preparatory artillery barrage for gospel presentation, or as a buttress to the believer afterwards, but there is no substitute for spreading the gospel itself. And I think that’s very neglected.
@ Hoyos
Thanks.
I believe those on the spectrum have difficulty understanding metaphors, which can be a crippling condition.
I agree. It's not just a problem with regard to reading the bible but also with regard to understanding Christian morality, and they fail to see that context (and other issues) are modulating factors.
As for my not appearing in blog aggregators, I imagine my Ukraine position has "triggered" quite a few, resulting in my "unpersoning". I lost a lot of hits following my anti-Nazi posts and I imagine I'll lose more.
Thanks for staying on.
What I want to discuss here is about how we should comment. However, first I want to make it clear that everything I put forward is a personal opinion and it is your right to agree and apply it or disagree and forget about it. Comment wisely. https://bit.ly/EunoiamediaID
Post a Comment