Dear KAG: 20200917 Constitution Day Open Thread, BOOM BOOM BOOM

That might work on some, blackmail and bribery (coercion) for others, but it’s the uniformity, the absolute comprehensive iron-fist control, nobody ever cracking or wandering off the reservation, that seems so inexplicable.
Like a program in the Matrix that forgot to take human nature into consideration.
There is something I have observed many times in discussions with some religious people that reminds me of what we’re talking about. They can be rational, coherent, intellectually consistent, etc., on a whole range of subjects, but when the discussion turns to religion, very suddenly logic and reason are out the window, everything becomes dogmatic and unquestionable, like talking to a child about Santa Claus.
If you go back to a non-religious subject, they’re rational again. If you go back and forth between religious discussion and other subjects, it’s almost like a switch they turn on and off. Reason and logic is never allowed to intrude on the dogma. And yes, that degree of compartmentalization is kind of creepy, like you’re dealing with someone who is not entirely there. And yet they are. They are, and they aren’t.
It’s like a form of denial, the ‘front’ has to be maintained, because if they concede any detail that touches a dogma, it’s like a ‘third rail’. They are instinctively aware of it, that the entire intellectual Jenga Tower could collapse if they ‘go there’, so they don’t. They won’t.
They will play the ‘game’ with you, but they simply will not ‘go there’ when you try, they just smile and/or change the subject. They know, and they know you know they know. They’re not at all stupid, and they’re not unaware. It’s like a psychological defense mechanism kicks in, a coping mechanism, where the mind shuts down when it’s cornered. And you can corner them. It’s not difficult to do, if their belief is based on dogma, because dogma doesn’t reconcile — and dogma doesn’t care if it doesn’t reconcile.
It functions like an intellectual Stop sign or yellow ‘crime’ tape, i.e., “there shall be no further inquiry tolerated or allowed on this matter”.
Which of course is very Orwellian, and it’s impossible that they don’t know that, too.
The nature of dogma is a departure from the normal rules of reality, the abandonment of logic and reason, so it can’t be understood (or defended) intellectually, it just has to be ‘accepted’, which (I think) is a very alien thing for most people. So it is a very interesting and curious thing for an ‘outsider’ to encounter.
Because from a rational standpoint there is every indication that the person is being intellectually dishonest, but often their body language (or other cues) is not consistent with deception. It sort of reminds me of Bladerunner, when Harrison Ford interviews the replicant played by Sean Young, and he realizes that she doesn’t know she is a replicant.
SD said something similar that reminded me of this the other day, but I wasn’t able to find it.

Steve — replying to your post below here, so there’s more width to the writing space.
“Interesting that you should say that about discussing religion.”
___________
Yes, the irony was not lost on me 😁
I was certain you would notice.
I was counting on it 👍
.
“Because from my standpoint I see it ANY time I discuss religion with ANY religious person. Yes, that includes you as well. So I generally DON’T. Nothing can be gained from it but a lot of frustration and even sometimes anger.”
____________
I know exactly what you mean, but there is a difference, and it’s definable. (and I will explain it below)
.
“(And I have NO doubt that the overwhelming majority of believers think the same of atheists. I know this because I’ve read enough rants about how stupid and clueless atheists are, a fine tradition dating at least as far back as Psalm 14, which starts off with an ad-hom against atheists, calling us “fools.” You can hopefully imagine my thought bubble when a Christian quotes Psalm 14 at me as if it were a logical argument, then wonders why I believe he has done nothing more intellectually serious than insulting me.)”
_______________
One of the great frustrations is the lack of unity in what is referred to as the ‘universal church’ or the body of all believers. The lack of unity is because many groups or denominations or churches follow the Bible plus.
The “PLUS” being some work(s) of men (sometimes LOTS of men), and each group has their own additions to God’s Word that are different from everyone else’s.
For example, the Methodists have the Bible plus the Book of Discipline. Baptists have the Bible plus the Standard Baptist Manual. Presbyterians have the Bible plus “The Book of Order” and “The Book of Confessions”. Roman Catholics have Aquinas’ “Summa Theologica” and lots of other books of men.
Every book or doctrine or tradition of man (as related to matters of God), no matter how well intended, becomes a source of division, because it is unique to the group that created it.
.
“Anyhow, to the current topic, believe me this weird behavior is a phenomenon atheists/agnostics are used to seeing. We call it “compartmentalizing.” A person who is rational enough to be able to use his mind to earn money to put food on the table nevertheless changes mode and then goes off and believes–and acts on–a ton of very specific things that appear to us to have no basis whatsoever in reality, or even be totally *counter* to reality in many cases.”
____________
And every time that happens, I suspect many atheists fall into the same trap of thinking all Christians are more or less the same, when that is no more true than Christians thinking all atheists are the same.
But we both recognize the same phenomenon, this ‘compartmentalization’, which is a good common ground for understanding.
.
“That doesn’t make the behavior any less puzzling, it’s just that I see it a LOT more often than you do, including in people on “my side” politically.”
_____________
I see it in the majority of people who self-identify as Christians, to a greater or lesser degree, because the majority of groups who self-identify as Christian follow the Bible Plus, and whatever that “Plus” happens to be, it’s unique to their specific group. And being written by men, by definition it will contain teachings which cannot be reconciled and harmonized with God’s Word.
So if you have a discussion with them that goes on long enough, you will get to one of those contradictions, and when you do, you will usually encounter the “phenomenon”, because their mind knows that:
1) two things which contradict each other cannot both be true
2) the Bible is a higher authority than any book written by men (in theory, if not in practice)
3) if they acknowledge that their group-specific doctrine is contradicted by the Bible — by God — that is a critical flaw in the foundation of their worldview.
Which of those things can be violated or ignored?
They can’t deny #1, and they can’t deny #2, and if they acknowledge that something their group believes contradicts #2, then either God is wrong or their doctrine is wrong.
Since God cannot be wrong, their doctrine must be wrong.
If their doctrine is wrong, and that doctrine is interconnected with other doctrines (they always are), then the whole paradigm begins to splinter and disintegrate.
Depending on how heavily one is invested in their group, this could be catastrophic to their worldview. The solution is to abandon the doctrines, commandments and traditions of men and adhere to God’s Word, but if you can’t convince the leadership of the group to repent and return to God’s Word (and the bigger the group, the more impossible that becomes), then leaving that group is a likely eventuality.
And beyond religious conviction, that group often includes family and longtime friends, so the idea of leaving is rarely easy or desirable.
When no good option is available, that is when the ‘phenomenon’ manifests.
.
“I just ignore it and move on, generally, and I’ll explain why in a bit. But you actually DID bring it up in a religious context and the irony was overwhelming to me.”
____________
As I said at the beginning, I knew you would see it, and I was counting on you to bring it up 😁
I was extremely aware of it as I wrote it.
And awareness didn’t change what I had to say even the tiniest bit — because I have no fear of being in the position where the ‘phenomenon’ would manifest itself in me.
Not because I’m better, or smarter, or anything like that. I’m not.
It’s because I am not beholden to any doctrines, commandments or traditions of men, only to God’s Word, and God’s Word has withstood the harshest critical examinations and attacks for thousands of years, so I am not concerned that the Scriptures will be broken this evening.
I think I’m pretty safe in that assessment.
I don’t have any beliefs (that I am aware of) that contradict God’s Word. That’s probably true for most people who self-identify as Christian.
What happens if one discovers something he or she believes or has been taught does contradict God’s Word?
If I find out something I believe does contradict God’s Word, I can drop it like a hot potato and be grateful for the correction. It’s not likely to happen, but if it did, it would really be unlikely to be connected to anything else, so there is no risk of a ‘domino effect’, because every belief or doctrine comes from God’s Word, it is not contingent or based upon some other belief or doctrine, which in turn is based on some other belief or doctrine, and so on.
But for the sake of argument, suppose that somehow it did cause a domino effect, which caused one’s entire belief system to collapse. Is it better to know the truth, or to remain in a state of untruth?
Truth is more important. If what I believe turns out to not actually be true, then what am I doing it for? The reason I became a Christian is because I was convinced it was true. If something occurs that convinces me otherwise, then what am I going to hang around for, the coffee and donuts?
It’s ‘truth or bust’.
Because truth matters. Whatever the truth turns out to be, that’s the side I want to be on. The Scripture makes the affirmative claim that God is true (John 3:33, 2 Cor 1:18) and His word is truth (cf. John 17:17). If that is not true, I want to know.
That’s pretty much the opposite of denial.
It’s pretty much impossible for the ‘phenomenon’ to manifest, if truth is your objective, regardless of the personal cost.
If my understanding is wrong, show me. I may not be happy about it, but I won’t hide from it.
It took an open heart and an open mind to find what I believe to be the truth about God. If I don’t still have that open mind (and heart) to consider views or challenges to what I believe is true, then my mind (and heart) are no longer in the right place to begin with.
There has to be truth, even if the truth isn’t what I want to hear — and usually isn’t.
Without truth, or being convinced that you are on the side of truth, what is there?
Between a harsh truth and a pleasant lie, the harsh truth is the better of the two, because it is real. A lie, no matter how pleasant, is still a deception. Deceiving oneself is to cheat oneself. Granted, cheating oneself of a miserable existence is not without its allure 😂 But hopefully a miserable existence isn’t the only option.
.
“(And you’re probably feeling the same sense of pot-calling-the-kettle-black irony, hearing an atheist accuse the religious of it right now.”
____________
Nope, I’m pretty sure I understand very well where you’re coming from on this point, and I can relate to it very well. I anticipated this very discussion.
.
“I’m aware of it as only someone of non-Christian beliefs in a country with lots of vocal Christians can be, so you can save your fingers some typing fatigue if you want.)”
___________
I see religious error everywhere, because it is so ubiquitous. Think about it. The New Testament was completed in the 1st century. From the moment the last word was penned, men have been trying to add to it, subtract from it, restate it, bend it to match the changing times, and on and on and on.
In nearly two thousand years, the volume of words written by men about God’s Word positively dwarfs, by orders of magnitude, the comparatively brief Word of God.
So to see God’s Word not only as the highest Authority in matters of God, but as the only Authority in matters of God, is the unusual thing, not the normal thing.
And by acknowledging only the Authority of God’s Word and no other, I am regularly in conflict with the beliefs of others who self-identify as Christian. Not always here though. Certainly somewhat, but I have noticed that there may be at least several people who participate here who are members of the same church as I am, and appear to believe as I do, that God’s Word is the only Authority (not just the highest Authority) in matters having to do with God.
.
“And yes, I do recall in the past having seen you go off on people for some aspect of their beliefs you believe has no scriptural merit. So I can well believe that you have this frustration with many other Christians.”
___________
Yes, but it is not out of hostility toward anyone, it is as you say, out of frustration. It is very similar to the frustration I experience trying to discuss 17 or the many related subjects we commonly discuss here, with friends or family, or in some cases with church members.
There is an information war, and people are getting their information from different sources, and some of those sources are better than others. Those who get the majority of their information from TV and FB (for example), though they may ‘know’ the news is ‘biased’, and hear DJT openly call it ‘fake news’ all the time, they don’t have any idea just how corrupt the MSM really is, or the effect is has on them subconsciously, if their habit or comfort zone limits them primarily to TV and FB.
We are on the same side, we are in much agreement on the big picture.
But breaking through the wall of disinformation in the political domain is no less difficult in the religious domain.
.
“As for why I ignore it and move on, I learned a long time ago when dealing with an old college friend of mine who had converted TO Christianity, that it all comes down to paradigms. His example was that a fishtank on the table is to some people just a cool thing to look at, and to others its a carefully balanced artificial environment (especially when it’s saltwater fish) controlling temperature, oxygen content, salinity, other chemicals in the water, etc., etc. Not the best example but I could see where he was going with it.”
_____________
One of the problems is that there are hundreds of different groups, denominations, churches, etc., who self-identify as Christian, but all believing different things, which can be overwhelming to any outsider who may be interested in finding the truth about God.
It was for me. If I hadn’t made a kind of game out of it, I would have given up looking for sure.
I followed the same process that I would apply to learning about anything else.
First I needed to familiarize myself with the subject matter, which meant getting the owner’s manual (the Bible). I knew there were at least several translations, so first I had to research which translation would be best.
I found that there are lots of “KJV only” people, and some of their reasons seemed good, and some not so good. There are also many people who appreciate the KJV, or at least had nothing much against it, but prefer some other translation for various reasons, and some of those reasons seemed good, and some did not.
Overall, while realizing no translation will be perfect, the KJV seemed to be the most conservative choice. There were several choices that seemed good, but I leaned toward older translations (KJV and ASV) because of concerns about political correctness finding its way into more modern translations. Some people prefer other translations, but almost nobody thought the KJV was a bad translation.
So I obtained a KJV Bible, and I read it.
I also spent time reading arguments for evidence of God, for evidence that the Bible is true and accurate, etc. Archeological discoveries that keep proving Biblical accounts, and not yet once contradicting them. Arguments about the odds of successfully predicting future events (prophecy) and having such a prophecy come true.
Understanding how the 66 books of the Bible reconcile with each other, forwards and backwards, even though the books were written over a span of some 1,600 years, by at least 40 different writers (the writer of ‘Hebrews’ may have been Paul, but it is uncertain), of wildly varying backgrounds (from kings to fishermen), education levels, etc., and yet it all harmonizes. There was (to me) a surprising amount of well presented evidence and arguments for the truth of God and His Word, which I had simply never looked into before.
And the extra-Biblical references to Jesus in historically important documents were fascinating. There are not many (Josephus and Tacitus being two of the better known and documented, out of maybe 6 or 7 if I remember correctly), but imagine the chances that His name and any events associated with His life would be recorded by anyone (outside the Bible manuscripts) at all, much less by actual ancient historians.
The historicity of Jesus does not seem to be credibly disputed. For a long time the historical reality of Pilate was ridiculed, until coins bearing his name and then (in 1959, I think) the “Pilate Stone” was discovered, in Caesarea Maritima, a dedication stone naming Tiberius Caesar (confirming the time, because the the time of Tiberius’ rule is known) and Pontius Pilate, the prefect of Judea.
As evidence of ancient events or people goes, it doesn’t get much better.
https://www.bible-history.com/empires/pilate.html
https://www.deseret.com/2018/5/3/20644446/the-pilate-stone-in-israel-s-caesarea-by-the-sea#a-stone-with-a-latin-dedicatory-inscription-of-pontius-pilate-was-part-of-an-exhibit-of-holy-land-artifacts-at-emory-universitys-michael-c-carlos-museum-in-atlanta-in-june-2007-ap-photo-john-bazemore
No one credibly disputes the historical reality of Pontius Pilate anymore. There are many such examples. Archeology keeps uncovering evidence which proves the skeptics wrong.
The volume of surviving Biblical manuscripts (and often, fragments thereof) dwarfs the number of surviving copies of other historical works, over 20,000 if I remember correctly, and at least one or a few of those fragments of the New Testament date to the first century, which is incredible. Some of the other surviving notable historical documents are limited to one or two copies, and may have been copied 900 years (or more) after the original was written.
The more you dig, the more you find, and the more it starts to add up. Like putting together pieces of a puzzle, and the more pieces you fill in, the clearer the picture becomes. It’s not unlike 17 in that regard, in the sense that how much evidence does it take, and how many coincidences does it take, before you begin to realize they can’t be coincidences?
The answer will be different for every individual, but there was a lot more evidence and good arguments ‘out there’ than I suspected.
It can creep up on you, and then, whether suddenly or over a period of time, you begin to ‘see it’, in a similar way that all of our eyes have been ‘opened’ to all sorts of things over the past 4 years with regard to politics. Things which we might not have believed or even considered before DJT became president.
Once I was on that path, read the Bible, and was satisfied that there was more to all of it than a cartoon living in the sky, I wanted to find out if anyone really did what the people in the Bible do, i.e., follow God’s Word as it is written, today.
And that is where it became difficult.
Everybody teaches different things. So I began checking church websites, going to their “About Us” or “Statement of Faith” page, and comparing (as best I could) what they said about themselves to what I had learned by reading the Bible straight through. It may sound like a difficult thing, but it really wasn’t. You don’t have to be an expert to notice things that weren’t in a book you just read.
It’s a lot easier to recognize something you did NOT read in the Bible when you see it on some church webpage, than it is to recall everything that is IN the Bible, especially if you have only read it once.
And you get better at it, the more you do it. I got to the point where I could spot error (something not taught in the Bible) on a church website in about 30 seconds, and once I saw it, I closed out of that website, and went to the next one.
Do that for at least an hour a day, for 6 or 7 months, and you’ll go through a lot of websites, and you’ll get a very interesting overview and perspective on the volume (and the variety) of error being taught.
Having approached it from that angle, maybe it becomes more clear why I am so “sensitive” to religious error, defined as beliefs or practices which are not found in Scripture. I spent a lot of time looking, and I became pretty good at spotting it.
It turned into a game. It was amusing to see how fast I could spot some obvious error. You don’t have to be an expert in what is right, you just have to recognize something that wasn’t “in there” (in God’s Word) when you see it. That’s very easy, anyone can do that. Read any book, or watch any movie, and then go read reviews about it. If someone mentioned a character, or a scene, or anything at all that you didn’t read or see in the movie, it’s going to jump out at you.
That never happens in movie or book reviews, because people would call them out immediately. The feedback would be instantaneous (and probably hilarious).
But it happens all the time in ‘religion’!
That’s the norm.
Eventually I stumbled across a Bible study website, and I couldn’t find anything they were saying that jumped out at me as not being in the Bible. Not only that, but everything they did teach was extensively documented with book, chapter and verse, and they encouraged everyone to always look the references up in the Bible and see for themselves.
I spent a lot of time investigating that website, and learned a lot in the process. A month or so later I stumbled across another Bible study website that was incredibly extensive and thoroughly documented with Scripture references (one that Wolfmoon happened to independently reference here a while back, and I recognized it immediately).
It was not until some time later, after I was baptized, that I found out both websites (one in Canada, the other in Illinois) were managed and run by members of independent and autonomous congregations of the same church. A church organized according to Scriptural example, not a denomination, no umbrella governing body of men overseeing the congregations, but each congregation in fellowship with other faithful congregations, with each congregation under the Authority of God’s Word.
Like the congregations in Corinth, and Ephesus, and Thessalonica, and Laodicea, and Galatia, etc. There was no “president” or board of directors or other governing body having oversight authority over those congregations. They were independent and autonomous, and in fellowship with other people of like faith and belief.
They teach what the Bible plainly says, and they practice according to the authoritative examples and commands given in Scripture. No more and no less.
.
“If you’ve ever heard that phrase “you and I aren’t watching the same movie” (which someone used to me a couple of weeks ago), that’s the sort of thing they’re talking about. A couple of years back someone used that as an analogy.”
____________
I always get the sense that you think very rationally, or maybe that’s just my own bias because I recognize similarities to my own ways of thinking. Either way, I seem to relate very well to the way you approach things, generally.
.
“I once talked to someone who had read Atlas Shrugged…but insisted on regarding John Galt as the bad guy. (!!!!) He was able to cite enough things from the book to convince me that he had read it, but Holy Shit he had got it totally wrong!!! And I’ve run into a fair number of Christians who have read Atlas Shrugged–and interpreted it in their framework as an End Times story, not Ayn Rand’s framework which has no such concept in it at all. They couldn’t help but do that, they’re thoroughly locked into their paradigm and can’t even drop it long enough to read a work of fiction and imagine that what it is trying to say has nothing to do with it. Even being able to do that is not the same as agreeing with it…but they can’t do it at all. So how do you talk to someone who cannot even imagine for a piece of fiction “what if” this thing they believe just wasn’t part of the world?”
____________
I liked The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged very much. I read them both when I was in college, some 12 years or so before I became a Christian. I identified very easily with both books, in the sense that I already agreed with many of the concepts, but those books helped me to better define and organize and focus on them (and defend them) much more clearly.
I never understood Ayn Rand’s opposition to God though. Her core concepts with regard to self-determination and self-reliance and capitalism are not in conflict with Christianity. I’m not even sure how she arrived at a lot of her ways of thinking without being informed by Christianity.
.
“I sweat bullets, constantly, wondering if all the stuff I see here on this site is *completely wrong* and I’ve fallen prey to just hearing the stuff I *want* to hear. What if there IS no process in motion that will result in the bad guys getting their comeuppance? Hell, I’ve even entertained the possibility that Trump is a black hat, whose job it is to just jerk us off for four years.”
___________
I do the same thing 😂🤣😂
Not nearly so much anymore as I used to though. That’s not to say it couldn’t return with a vengeance between now and November 3rd… or the day after, depending on how things go.
I don’t think the stuff we discuss here is likely to be wrong, for the most part. Especially not completely wrong. I’m more concerned about whether or not the bad guys will ever be arrested and convicted. I have also considered whether Trump could be doing as you suggest, and I’ve mentioned it here before, but I can’t get very far along that line of thinking before I’m reminded of too many examples to the contrary.
Trump is one of the few people I’m pretty sure about.
I think it’s healthy to wonder about those things, to be aware, to question, to allow for the possibility that we might be wrong, whatever the subject. We all have blind spots, and questioning and thinking about the possibility of being wrong helps a great deal to minimize the impact of blind spots hearing what we want to hear.
.
“But some people just CAN’T do that. They can’t even see that it might make perfect sense to others. And hence the “how could they be so totally delusional yet act normal?”
_____________
With regard to religion particularly, in some ways I can relate to non-believers, because I did not grow up in a church-going family.
So I have that background, that life experience. I can relate to skepticism, because I was skeptical myself. When I see many of the arguments atheists make, I can understand where they’re coming from, I recognize many of their questions because I asked some of them myself, so I don’t generally assume that their arguments are in bad faith, or anything like that.
I never considered myself an atheist, but I didn’t have any real understanding about Christianity either. Christianity was part of the culture I grew up in, so from that standpoint I related positively to it in a general sense, but I didn’t think about it a lot one way or the other. I do remember being angry toward God a lot in my early teens. I was in a bad situation, and there wasn’t anything I could really do about it, so I was angry about a lot of things. God seemed like the only one who could know what was going on, and He didn’t do anything about it — at least nothing I was aware of — and that made me angry too.
It’s hard to be angry at someone you don’t believe in, so there’s that.
.
“I have Trump-supporting relatives who have NO IDEA what Q is. We would look nuts to them, AND I CAN ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND THAT.”
____________
Yep, me too.
Where do you begin, how do you begin that discussion, without the other person having at least some basic exposure to it first? If it’s someone you’re reasonably close to, you can send them articles and links and gauge their response and build on that, or just say “check this out” and send them a link to the Q-map and then see what they say.
It’s not so much a problem to handle a newbie’s questions, the problem is getting them to look at the information at all. If they’ll do that, I can take it from there, but trying to explain it without having them at least see it for themselves is a hard way to go.
You can give a very general explanation, but they’re likely to think you’re nuts until they get their own sense of it, by seeing it first hand. Once they have done that, there is a context or framework in which you can answer questions and explain things.
.
“Because I see this phenomenon operating on people I can agree with, but not on everything, and people who seem to be bat shit crazy top to bottom.”
___________
I get the sense that it’s completely psychological, that it’s part of the human condition, at least in the way people construct their worldviews and invest in them and defend them, even when it no longer makes sense to do so. And in a way, that scares the *&^% out of me.
Because that’s a powerful thing, and everyone is vulnerable to it, and there are people who will absolutely exploit it (and us) because of it.
And it ‘scares’ me because that could be me. Why am I different. I realize you don’t think I am, that the phenomenon we’re referencing, the ‘compartmentalization’ which you found ironic coming from me — which I anticipated — you also associate me with it, because you lump me in with all believers.
I understand that.
But what question about my beliefs am I unwilling to address? Where do I ‘freeze’, or smile and change the subject? When do I ever say (or imply) “there shall be no further inquiry tolerated or allowed on this matter”? Where have I been intellectually cornered? What is my dogma?
There is a simple difference, an advantage that I have, over any person who utilizes extra-Biblical writings or traditions, doctrines and commandments of men, in association with their beliefs.
In one sense it is difficult, but on the other hand, I have the much easier argument.
And the difference is this. My only source of Authority in matters having to do with God is God’s Word, all I have to do is stand on His Word, and if I handle His word correctly, it will do all the heavy lifting. In other words, if someone has a disagreement, it is not with me, I am nobody. Their disagreement is with God’s Word, and I have never once seen anyone defeat God’s Word. People have been trying for thousands of years, so I’m not worried it will happen tonight.
But the words of men are a different matter. Doctrines, traditions, commandments of men are guaranteed to conflict with God’s Word, in some way, and once that way is discovered and pointed out, the person adhering to that doctrine or tradition of men has a dilemma, one which I do not have.
If God’s Word says one thing, and their extra-Biblical doctrine says different, they are in a conflict with God (not with me). I’m just pointing it out. They may want to attack me, as messengers frequently are attacked, but I will keep redirecting back to God’s Word, because that’s who their argument is with. They don’t want the argument framed that way of course, because they know they can’t win an argument with God’s Word, and that’s exactly where I will keep going, for exactly that reason. Because I know they can’t defeat it, and I know they know it too.
Why am I not subject to this same dilemma?
I would be, if I held any doctrines, commandments or traditions of men.
Very intentionally, I don’t. At least not that I am aware of. But if one is brought to my attention, or if I am in error in some other way that reconciles with all other scripture on the subject (and explains how my prior belief was wrong), I will not cling to it or defend the error, I will discard it. I don’t want anything to do with it, if it is not true according to God’s Word.
Error is an issue that is taken very seriously in the church where I am a member. Not just the congregation where I attend, it’s not a local issue, but across all congregations.
I don’t have anything invested in anything that is not true according to God’s Word. That is my advantage. If I ‘stand’ on God’s Word, I know that God’s Word cannot be defeated. If I am accidentally standing on something else besides God’s Word, I want to get off it as quickly as possible, and back to standing on the solid rock of God’s Word, which (as far as I can tell) is undefeatable.
As long as your stand, your case, is made on God’s Word, you can never be intellectually ‘cornered’. You can only be cornered if you hold some position which contradicts God’s Word, because then you are in a conflict which you cannot win.
You’re cornered.
Remaining in conflict with God, once you are aware of it, is untenable.
And if you concede that God’s Word is right and your tradition or doctrine of men is wrong, then what else have you believed or practiced that is wrong… and who is it that has taught you this error… and what are the implications of that… but the bigger issue is how most doctrines and traditions of men do not exist in isolation, they are intertwined with many other doctrines and beliefs, so if you pull on one string, the whole ball of yarn starts unraveling. Jenga Tower implosion. Worldview collapse. Potentially a lifetime investment in a belief system that is falling apart under your feet.
What are you going to do?
You can abandon ship and jump on God’s Word like the life raft that it is. That’s the best move, but very few people will do it, at least not in the moment of the discussion. Hopefully they will come to that conclusion sometime not long after, when they can do so on their own terms.
Or you can double down, and go down with the ship. You can say (for example) I don’t know about God or His Word, but I know my doctrine and my traditions, and it was my Ma and Pa’s doctrine and traditions, and their Ma and Pa’s before them, and I ain’t about to leave it.
Or you can do what many people will do, just smile and change the subject, because you’re cornered 🙂
That is the phenomenon manifesting itself.
The person who is able to reject or abandon any doctrine or tradition that conflicts with God’s Word cannot be put into a conflicting position with God and His Word, therefore that person cannot be ‘cornered’.
That person is immune from the ‘phenomenon’.
I do believe in God, and the Scriptures, but there are plenty of rational reasons for both. I cannot prove them beyond any doubt, but I can’t prove 17 beyond any doubt either. There is a lot more evidence for God and the Scriptures than there is for Q. But like Q, explaining about God and the Scriptures is not something one can do in a soundbite or even in a forum like this one very well, at least not without all parties having been exposed to enough information to have a common frame of reference.
It is possible for two people to examine the same evidence or arguments and reach different conclusions, neither of which can be proved or disproved beyond any doubt. I think God (and the Scriptures) can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, but that would require a fair amount of preparation, and a preliminary discussion to find out where the other person is, what their level of knowledge and understanding is, where they’re ‘coming from’, in order to pick up at that point and present a case.
And even then, I risk running into the same phenomenon with an atheist as I would with some religious people. What if I presented a case that was compelling enough to raise serious doubt in your mind with regard to your own position, i.e., that God may be real, and the Scriptures may be true?
Could that not cause a similar cognitive dissonance, a similar threat to worldview or paradigm, as discussed above?
.
“A paradigm shift is the hardest thing to effect. This has been noted by science historians, who have studied the history of MANY paradigm shifts in science–you’d think those scientists would know better yet it plays out ever time; it takes decades to truly change the community’s mind when something comes up–after that, it’s “of course.” ”
__________
Yes, one would think they would know better, they can certainly cite specific historical examples, and yet they are caught in the same trap as everyone before them, because they either can’t see it when it applies to themselves, or they do see it, but for various reasons, can’t do anything about it.
But once the ‘new thing’ is accepted by their peers, then naturally, it’s ‘of course’. No different than high school peer pressure. It’s true for doctors, for scientists, for lawyers, for business leaders. Because it’s true for human beings, for the most part.
And there are lots of reasons why the well established and the most successful in society are compelled to conform to accepted legal dogma, or scientific dogma, or medical dogma, while the average person, who may not have a reputation or high visibility career to protect, has much more freedom and lattitude to exercise independent thought.
A paradox, of sorts.
The people who should know better don’t (or can’t do anything about it), while the common man can (and sometimes does).