Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!noc.near.net!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!igor.rutgers.edu!geneva.rutgers.edu!christian
From: alvin@spot.Colorado.EDU (Kenneth Alvin)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Certainty and Arrogance
Message-ID: <Apr.16.23.15.31.1993.1841@geneva.rutgers.edu>
Date: 17 Apr 93 03:15:32 GMT
Sender: hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Lines: 48
Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu

Responding to the moderator:

>In article <Apr.14.03.09.07.1993.5494@athos.rutgers.edu> alvin@spot.Colorado.EDU (Kenneth Alvin) writes:
>>
>>Choosing what to believe and rely on are important areas of personal 
>>sovereignty.  What bothers me is when others suggest that, in these 
>>matters of faith, their specific beliefs are not only true to them 
>>but are absolute and should be binding on others.  It follows from this
>>that God must give everyone the same revelation of truth, and thus 
>>anyone who comes to a different conclusion is intentionally choosing
>>the wrong path.  This is the arrogance I see; a lack of respect for the
>>honest conclusions of others on matters which are between them and God.
>
>[It is certainly reasonable to ask for some humility about our own
>ability to know the truth.  There are also different paths in some
>areas of practice.  But I'd like to see more clarification about what
>you mean when you reject the idea of saying "their specific beliefs
>are not only true to them but are absolute and should be binding on
>others."  If something is true, it is true for everyone, assuming that
>the belief is something about God, history, etc....

Yes, I agree.  What I'm trying to point out is that, in matters of faith
(i.e. tenets which are not logically persuasive), one may be convinced
of the truth of certain things through, for instance, personal
revelation.  And its certainly fine to share that revelation or those
beliefs with others.  And I don't think that its arrogant, persay, to
accepts matters of pure faith as truth for oneself.  Where I think the
conflict arises is in assuming that, where disagreements on beliefs
arise, all others *must* have been given the same truth, and that God 
must reveal His truth to everyone in such a way that all would 
honestly agree.  I think this can lead to the conclusion that anyone 
who disagrees with you are being sinful or dishonest; that they are 
rejecting something they *know* to be truth because it is inconvenient 
for them, or because they wish to spurn God.

I would say that this is equivalent to assuming that *all* truths one 
holds are universal and absolute.  And the problem I see with this is 
that it negates the individuality of humans and their relationships with
God.  This does not mean there is no absolute truth; just that some areas
of doctrinal disagreement may be areas where God has not established or 
revealed that truth.  

-- 
comments, criticism welcome...
-Ken
alvin@ucsu.colorado.edu

[I agree with you.  --clh]
