A Good Read

daily meditation

adulteration2Corinthians 4:2: But we have renounced the things hidden because of shame, not walking in craftiness, or adulterating the word of God deceitfully, but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.

To adulterate, in the context of the focus verse, is to mix the right thing with the wrong thing in a way that might be injurious to those who take it in or achieve less than it should, if anything at all. It is a product made to look like the original but when you unpack it falls short of the original. It does not deliver. It lacks potency. It could actually lead in the direction away from truth.

From the above verse we learn that the word of God can be adulterated. This could happen through dishonesty, walking in craftiness and handling the word of God deceitfully.

One thing…

View original post 1,232 more words


Filed under Christianity

5 responses to “

  1. My comment over at Daily Meditation is currently in moderation (which is typical of most religious sites) so I thought I’d repost it here for your own (and other readers’) amusement:

    Sorry to be a bit of a stickler, but you write that, “You cannot accomplish what God wants if you are not in, on his thoughts.” What does god want? You tell us its to accomplish what god sets out for us, namely, to spread the non-adulterated Word. And what is that non-adulterated Word? “Our messages should be nothing less than the manifestation of the truth.”


    Okay then.

    The truth is that you have no means at your disposal to determine god’s thoughts. Sure, you can quote what other people assert are god’s thoughts (and with this door supposedly open, we reap all kinds of ‘truth’, not just about god’s nature – all the omni’s – but his desires, preferences, biases, tastes, wishes, and so on) but, in keeping to the spiritus of the non-adulterated truth, honesty must prevail (over our own natures, desires, preferences, biases, tastes, wishes, and so on). So the honest answer to ‘knowing’ anything about god – the truth – is “I don’t know and you don’t either.”

    All the rest is fully and wholly adulterated, no matter how thoroughly you quote any flavour of various (and often conflicting) scripture. And that’s the honest truth.

    • I am always surprised at how many religious themed blogs moderate their comments. I can understand if someone is being profane, but typically it is someone who disagrees with their stance and they do not know how to handle the confrontation. I won’t censor you, typically.

      I agree with you, in part.

      I understand the sentiment they were going for with the adulterated, but Christians are so divided in their beliefs that someone has always adulterated the message in some degree.

      For me, knowing is not a precise science as I get it wrong often. I think I know but usually I put more emphasis on what I want and find a way for it to fit within the great plan. Then it fails or feels wrong and after prayer and humility I get a refinement which works and I wonder how I got it so wrong in the beginning.

    • My beef (other than the assumption that editorial moderation is needed) is with folks who make a faith claim and try to pass it off as a knowledge claim. When challenged, the usual response is to blame me first for all my ‘spiritual’ shortcomings and misunderstandings and then the very best method we have – science – for its spiritual shortcomings, and finally the nebulous nature of metaphysics.

      But if we care about what is knowable, what’s actually true independent of our beliefs that arbitrate it, then we need to be a lot more honest about what we know and what we believe we know. The two are not equivalent. I think this would go a very long way getting all of us on the same side, the same page, the same pursuit… the side of honest inquiry into reality and respect for its products.

      If more people would introduce a faith claim with “I don’t know, but I believe…” then I think would help considerably in framing the proper role of religious belief to be warranted (and protected by law) in the private domain and out of the public… a public we share where I suspect all of us really want our leaders and legislation they produce to be based on best knowledge, best practices, and geared for improving the entire public good and interest.

      Then we could argue more about sports!

      • From a personal perspective, cant knowing go beyond just believing even without proof?

        True, it might not be a common knowledge that everyone shares, but it can be something that you know with an absolute certainty.

        I keep going back to love, as it is the best example i can think of where a person can be certain without a need for proof.

      • Well, it’s the word ‘know’ that seems to cause some people great confusion. If we’re talking about a truth claim that describes something about the universe independent of our belief, then we can ‘know’ something about it. The term ‘know’ is appropriate here.

        If we’re talking about something dependent on our belief, then the better word is ‘believe’ in the religious sense of relying on faith that something is so. But what happens is that some people use belief to mean know when what they really mean is that they rely on faith to inform the claim. This is a very typical maneuver to get around having to show knowledge independent of the beliefs of the person, but when confronted by this absence of independent evidence, someone like Kayode Crown over at Daily Meditation refuses to admit it but accuses those who do provide independent evidence of using the same kind of faith-based belief that is belief dependent. This is dishonest because only the independent kind produces knowledge. Nevertheless, KC cannot accept this fact in terms of presenting his adulterated beliefs as unadulterated, which is straight up lie. When confronted, he deletes the comment and pretends he does so because the comment is offensive (ignoring that it is true). Yet he continues to post what he believes is true dependent solely on his beliefs and assumes they reveal knowledge statements even after being shown why and how they are no such thing. The dishonesty and lack of integrity by so many believers is no longer surprising to me because, after all is said and done, these folk respect their faith-based beliefs more than they care about what is true. And one cannot have a grown-up conversation with someone who doesn’t care about what’s true.

        It is always important to appreciate how easily we can fool ourselves with our unsupported beliefs. We further this credulity and gullibility when we allow ourselves to trust our faith-based opinions and beliefs as if they were equivalent to knowledge. This is how good people can be utterly convinced to do terrible and stupid things… whether the resulting action is motivated by a faith-based belief in religious terms or political or economic or emotional or medicinal or what have you. Faith-based beliefs never, ever, produce knowledge and we can prove this to ourselves when we find out they are dependent on our beliefs rather than independent of them. This is the key.

        So when you talk about love as some kind of knowledge, you have to first show how this emotional state (in all its facets) is knowable independent of the person experiencing it. I can know about all kinds of physiological responses but I still can’t know anything about this nebulous term independent of those who experience it… except how it generically applies to the specific context in which it is used (love of the game, love of a lover, love of spices, love of country, etc..)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s