The discussion of authority, how to submit to it and when to challenge it is a fascinating one. However, upon reflection, I feel that the topic reinforces a suspicion I've held for some time now - that the successful running of society depends very heavily on trust.
Consider for a moment how important trust is in your everday life. You drive on the left side, trusting that the opposite traffic stays on the other side. You hand over a R100 note at the supermarket and don't count the change, because you trust that the change will be correct most of the time. How often have you counted the notes that come out of an ATM. Doctors also hold a highly esteemed position of trust. We're more happy to trust an eTV news bulletin than the government they portray. In fact, how often do we question the contents of a front cover story in the local newspaper? Have you thought about whether the speedometer on your dashboard can be trusted? And are you sure that your favourite bank isn't investing your cash in a Colombian drug cartel?
While these kinds of thoughts may cause us to trust less, society actually depends on a certain level of trust. Imagine having zero trust in each of the scenarios painted above - we'd hardly be able to move. The reason the whole question of authority comes up is simply an issue of trust.
What produces trust? I'm sure there are many, but two spring to mind. Firstly, a track record. The longer a service functions successfully, the less likely you are to doubt it. Secondly, a point of reference. If your favourite uncle says that the corner butcher is the best in town, you're more likely to trust it.
In the case of the ACDP, the point of reference is the Bible. The Bible is a trustworthy book. It has a track record of 2000 years, has been used to fight against drug use, to pull down slavery, to promote honesty, to encourage faithful marriages, to hold governments to account and to provide a platform for the analysis of morality. The real question then is: how faithfully do the ACDP adhere to the Bible?
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Who Can You Trust?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Why do you believe the Bible is a trustworthy book? That is almost os laughable as etv has a trustworthy news bulletin.
As much as you would like to put forward that the bible has been used,
"to fight against drug use, to pull down slavery, to promote honesty, to encourage faithful marriages, to hold governments to account and to provide a platform for the analysis of morality."
It also has been used, to promote slavery, promote segregation, keep fascists governments in power, create totally immoral societies. So in fact due to its total dual nature, it must be one of the hardest sources to trust. At least with change from a shop i CAN count it if I wish. With the bible I just need to look at a different verse, use it in the context I need it to be used and it becomes almost as untrustworthy as the South African media and wikipedia.
JP,
Your illogical rant against the Bible proves how little you know about the Bible and what it teaches, but how much you know from what others have claimed!
To point at the misuse of the Bible and disclaiming the Bible itself is completely disingenious.
Because someone misuses the Bible doesn't put the Bible at fault. The one that misuses it is at fault.
It makes me think of the current American culture that likes to sue anyone for their own stupidity. Like the woman who sued MacDonalds for burning herself with the coffee she bought there. She blamed MacDonalds, instead of using her brains, knowing that coffee is served hot!
In the same way, blaming the Bible for someone's stupid application of the Bible is just not on!
With this argument that you came up with, I can use a dictionary to justify fascism!
You see, if I come to any text with my mind made up (a foregone conclusion), I can perceivably make that text say just what I want it to say! However, that simply does not mean that the text actually says that!
So, the Bible does not have a dual nature as you claim, it is people that come with false, depraved motives that are to blame. They are the ones who create the perception in the minds of people that have already made up their minds about the Bible, that the Bible is at fault.
So, if you knew just a little about history, you would know that it was true Christianity that brought an end to myriads of immoral notions in many countries, from ending wife burning in India, to ending slavery in Britain (Wilberforce), to ending cannibalism in Papua New Guinea, to ending human sacrifices among the Aucas of South America and amongst the Romans, etc.
You wrote, "With the bible I just need to look at a different verse, use it in the context I need it to be used and it becomes almost as untrustworthy as the South African media and wikipedia."
By saying the above, you simply prove my point. You want to "use it in the context [you] need it to be used" and so the one at fault would be you, and not the Bible!
I think some examples would be appropriate here. There's a lot of hearsay going on.
JP, can you furnish us with some specific examples? Ie. What specific event was motivated by the Bible that you find deplorable?
sorry it has taken me so long to reply...
My point was not about the bible, but about the end of the post.
When william Dicks, explains to me about my "illogical rant" telling me that,
"To point at the misuse of the Bible and disclaiming the Bible itself is completely disingenious.
Because someone misuses the Bible doesn't put the Bible at fault. The one that misuses it is at fault."
is of course true, but then again he should have aimed that rant straight at the author of this blog, by saying that it was not the bible that brought about the fight against drug use, pull down slavery etc etc, but the people, some of them holding a bible, a hell of a lot of them doing it by fighting against those holding the bible.
So though my friend willima states, "So, if you knew just a little about history, you would know that it was true Christianity that brought an end to myriads of immoral notions in many countries, from ending wife burning in India, to ending slavery in Britain (Wilberforce), to ending cannibalism in Papua New Guinea, to ending human sacrifices among the Aucas of South America and amongst the Romans, etc."
which again is using the context of the bible in the way those people who did this would like, it also was used to justify the exceptionally violent crusades, the wiping out of the indigeneous people of much of south and north america, the spanish inquisition, supported the slavery and racism in europe, america, was waved around in apartheid South Africa, and was used evily in many other circumstances. (I personally like the putting to death of middle age scientists who said the earth revolved around the sun rather than the other way around.)
Good and evil have nothing to do with the bible. It has to do with the people who are wanting to make a change. Much like old william says, " it is people that come with false, depraved motives that are to blame. They are the ones who create the perception in the minds of people that have already made up their minds about the Bible, that the Bible is at fault."
So it is the good, pure and caring people, that too have already made up their minds, who read it, find the good parts, and do the good things. So in the end the bible almost becomes irrelevant.
It is nothing more than a good fiction book, that can be used to justify anything one really wants, much like the writers and commentators of this blog want it to justify good, yet in the same breath will probably use it to justify, bigotry and segregation against homosexuality.
Thanks for your insight JP.
At least you've spotted the common problem with attacking the Bible. It's simply this: just because you wave around your Bible doesn't mean you're doing what it says or speak on its behalf.
The Crusades for instance are not condoned by the Bible and cannot in the slightest be used as the basis for an attack on the Bible. You would have to prove that a specific Scripture or command of Jesus was given to justify it, which is where you will come short. Let me know if my logic is not clear on this.
Now homosexuality is an interesting one, because the Bible does very clearly speak against it. What's important from here is to remember that there is an appropriate response to sin. If you spend a bit of time in the Bible, you'll realise that much of the vitriolic hatred poured out against homosexuals is ungodly.
Homosexuality is wrong because it intrinsically messes around with the natural human identity God created. However, when you encounter a homosexual you are treat them with love, with the objective if possible of correcting their behaviour. Jesus treatment of the adulterous woman was a wonderful example.
Finally, with regards to finding Scriptures that suit a position you already hold, it may surprise you to spend some time with Christians and find out just how much the Bible changes their behaviour for good. Many people join the church not because they already agreed with the views of the church, but because they realised they were sinners and needed to submit to a better way. If you don't believe that, perhaps you should visit my church and chat with some people. You'd be pleasantly surprised.
Post a Comment