Does Education dull your senses of right and wrong?

[doug yowell]

Less educated people do see absolutes more quickly. And really there is nothing wrong with that as long as their beliefs do not carry over into judging others.

Another myth created by those who view themselves as more educated. Even a casual glance at higher academia reveals that they have created their own set of absolutes which they quickly and freely impose on those who they judge as being less educated and less moral. Today's secular education is generally geared to obliterate traditional Christian morals by attempting to portray Biblical teachings as simplistic, and the moral issues in question as being too complicated for the common Joe to understand (above our pay grade).Today black is now white and vice-versa. Your own statement stands in judgment on those who insist on judging others who do not share your beliefs on things that you judge as black and white.

[Igakusei]

Another myth created by those who view themselves as more educated. Even a casual glance at higher academia reveals that they have created their own set of absolutes which they quickly and freely impose on those who they judge as being less educated and less moral. Today's secular education is generally geared to obliterate traditional Christian morals by attempting to portray Biblical teachings as simplistic, and the moral issues in question as being too complicated for the common Joe to understand (above our pay grade).Today black is now white and vice-versa. Your own statement stands in judgment on those who insist on judging others who do not share your beliefs on things that you judge as black and white.

A hallmark of those who don't have a high degree of education is that they don't know what they don't know.

To quote Bertrand Russell: "One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision."

[Bravus]

How about, before it goes off into a full-on slanging match, we pause...

Education is like any other tool, and can be used for good or evil. As a general rule, having the tool is probably better than using your bare hands - some education is better than none.

(No-one posting here is in any position to debate that, since they can read and write.)

Higher education can be used to attack or to defend morality: and remember, the original question is one of morality, not religion.

It's a myth that all people without higher education are simplistic, and it's also a myth that all people with a higher education are morally relativistic.

A little more work on mutual understanding and respect would go far.

[doug yowell]

To quote Bertrand Russell: "One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision."

Well, I for one,am not certain as to what BR was referring to but have decided not to let my imagination determine my understanding of any implied meaning.

[doug yowell]

Higher education can be used to attack or to defend morality: and remember, the original question is one of morality, not religion.

It's a myth that all people without higher education are simplistic, and it's also a myth that all people with a higher education are morally relativistic.

Twas my point though not as well perpetuated.

[Igakusei]

Well, I for one,am not certain as to what BR was referring to but have decided not to let my imagination determine my understanding of any implied meaning.

Ah, touché

At the risk of derailing this thread further:

Knowing what we do about BR, though, I'd say it's a strong bet that I'm a lot less likely to be using that quote out of context than when creationists on here quote people like Eldridge, Gould, and Darwin.

[Gerr]

I'm not sure what you're getting at. He was implying that the SDA seminary probably does include writings by EGW. It was brought up in response to the "theology of men" idea condescendingly put forward by Gerry.

Condescension? No. Cynical? Yes. Look around, and you'll see that a number of those prominent theologians don't even believe in the resurrection much less Christ as Savior from sin.

[Flyboy]

Well, Gerry, the resurrection is not an issue of right or wrong, it is a matter of belief. And I think that other Christian religions would defend their beliefs just as aggressively as you defend yours. And guess what? The two of you just might pass by each other on the streets of gold.

Also, I don't like that there is no term to justly describe people who did not receive lots of formal education. "Less educated" or "not educated" is derogatory. I am well educated but my father is not, yet I look up to him and often make decisions based on what I think he would do.

Charles Darwin was well educated, but Pastor Terry Jones (Koran burner) was not. It cuts both ways. I like what Bravus said in an earlier post.

[doug yowell]

Well, Gerry, the resurrection is not an issue of right or wrong, it is a matter of belief. And I think that other Christian religions would defend their beliefs just as aggressively as you defend yours. And guess what? The two of you just might pass by each other on the streets of gold.

Are you suggesting that if those persons didn't believe in the resurrection of Christ that they would be resurrected anyway to join Gerry in the group of resurrected saints who had preached the resurrection in opposition to those who had preached to others that Gerry was wrong? Would ya give Gerry the freedom to gloat a little if your scenerio was correct? A little,"See, I told you!!" (Which would mean that the entire Bible had lied about the resurrection if Gerry was wrong)

If the resurrection is proven to be a fact then it would seem like those who believe in it could be considered better "educated"?

[Gerr]

Well, Gerry, the resurrection is not an issue of right or wrong, it is a matter of belief.

True enough. Bbbbuuuut, if a theologian who is supposed to be an expert on God does not even believe in the resurrection, how likely are you to believe his stand on the very basis of right and wrong that supposedly came from the very hands of the One resurrected?

[Flyboy]

Are you suggesting that if those persons didn't believe in the resurrection of Christ that they would be resurrected anyway to join Gerry in the group of resurrected saints who had preached the resurrection in opposition to those who had preached to others that Gerry was wrong? Would ya give Gerry the freedom to gloat a little if your scenerio was correct? A little,"See, I told you!!" (Which would mean that the entire Bible had lied about the resurrection if Gerry was wrong)

If the resurrection is proven to be a fact then it would seem like those who believe in it could be considered better "educated"?

I'm not sure I follow that whole thought... but to the first part of the question, yes, I am suggesting that people who didn't believe in the resurrection will be in Heaven, and perhaps even some people who led a good life, loved others, worshiped a higher being, and sought to always serve other people. To claim that someone's wrong spiritual beliefs will keep them out of Heaven is dangerous ground. What if SDA have some significant belief that is different? Does that mean if we preached against what turns out to be the real truth then we won't be saved? I mean, think about it, that's a pretty gutsy stand to make, to exclude people from Heaven who don't have the same theological interpretation as you subscribe to.

When we get to Heaven I don't think there will be any gloating. I believe that ALL of us will realize how far off the mark we all were, all religions from all periods in history, and thank Jesus that much more for overlooking our collective stupidity.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted By: Flyboy

Well, Gerry, the resurrection is not an issue of right or wrong, it is a matter of belief.

True enough. Bbbbuuuut, if a theologian who is supposed to be an expert on God does not even believe in the resurrection, how likely are you to believe his stand on the very basis of right and wrong that supposedly came from the very hands of the One resurrected?

My point here was not belief vs disbelief, rather contrasting *a* belief vs. a moral value. To contrast, a follower of a non-Christian religion may have similar concepts of what is right and wrong, I know plenty of very good people who subscribe to other religions, but as non-Christians, not to the resurrection. Thus, if your statement means to imply that only those who believe in the resurrection can have a firm grip on the moral values that God has written on all men's hearts, then I disagree.

But if you mean that a Christian theologian doesn't believe in the resurrection, then I would simply say he's not a Christian theologian and I would not trust him.

[doug yowell]

, yes, I am suggesting that people who didn't believe in the resurrection will be in Heaven, and perhaps even some people who led a good life, loved others, worshiped a higher being, and sought to always serve other people. To claim that someone's wrong spiritual beliefs will keep them out of Heaven is dangerous ground. What if SDA have some significant belief that is different? Does that mean if we preached against what turns out to be the real truth then we won't be saved? I mean, think about it, that's a pretty gutsy stand to make, to exclude people from Heaven who don't have the same theological interpretation as you subscribe to.

On what basis do you arrive at your conclusions? Does the Authoritative Source of Christian Understanding (of what it takes to be resurrected)state this anywhere? Can a kingdom divided against itself stand? Is human goodness and good intentions enough to qualify everyone for the resurrection? "Worshipped a higher being?" "And this is eternal life that they know you, the One True God and Jesus Christ whom You have sent." That sounds like an education of necessity and a somewhat exclusionary requirement, don't you think?

[doug yowell]

When we get to Heaven I don't think there will be any gloating. I believe that ALL of us will realize how far off the mark we all were, all religions from all periods in history, and thank Jesus that much more for overlooking our collective stupidity.

So are you suggesting a universal salvation along with a total spiritual reeducation program? If all religions from all periods of history were that far off then wouldn't that include the Author of Christianity who claimed that He alone was the mark that clarified the truth about who God really was?

[Flyboy]

On what basis do you arrive at your conclusions? Does the Authoritative Source of Christian Understanding (of what it takes to be resurrected)state this anywhere? Can a kingdom divided against itself stand? Is human goodness and good intentions enough to qualify everyone for the resurrection? "Worshipped a higher being?" "And this is eternal life that they know you, the One True God and Jesus Christ whom You have sent." That sounds like an education of necessity and a somewhat exclusionary requirement, don't you think?

Let me counter with this question. On what basis do you exclude all people who haven't believed in Jesus Christ. Cite me the text and the *definitive* interpretation. Don't give me "I am the way" stuff because I have already provided an alternate interpretation which neither of us can prove or disprove. It's one that is out of you comfort zone, and you don't like that, but show me *definitively" where I am wrong, or where you are correct.

What about people who lived before Christ's time? Don't say "lamb offering" because quite honestly, they really had NO idea about Christ. They were about on the same par as would Islam and Judaism are now: Worshipping one God.

Let me ask you another question. Am I to go into a small village in China (or Africa, or anywhere) and essentially say this: "Your fathers and their forefathers before them were all good people and will be in Heaven, they lived good lives, served others, and loved their neighbors, and I'm sorry for the timing but I'm here with the True Word now and so if you reject it for whatever reason, you won't go to Heaven even if you live as they lived." Is this what I am supposed to think? I know some of you may say, "if they are good people they will accept your message" but this is too simplistic a view and ignores reality.

A kingdom divided against itself cannot stand, you are right. But you seem to be suggesting that Christians = kingdom. That suggests a human centered kingdom. I rather think that the Kingdom is God centered, thus making us subjects.

[Bravus]

We seem to have strayed somewhat from the topic...

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted By: Flyboy

When we get to Heaven I don't think there will be any gloating. I believe that ALL of us will realize how far off the mark we all were, all religions from all periods in history, and thank Jesus that much more for overlooking our collective stupidity.

So are you suggesting a universal salvation along with a total spiritual reeducation program? If all religions from all periods of history were that far off then wouldn't that include the Author of Christianity who claimed that He alone was the mark that clarified the truth about who God really was?

Of course the Author of Christianity wasn't off the mark. But what he *was* was a "heretic" and someone who brought a new kind of truth that very few were, at that time, willing to accept. Jesus did not care about personal comfort zones when it came to theology, He cared about the truth. I wonder if we are so set on what we believe that we think there is no more room for new kernels of truth. This is, in my humble opinion, a very arrogant position to take. Pride goes before the fall, so they say. Or is it not pride, is it that we are not comfortable changing our views. Or, perhaps both? That said, I'm not suggesting that any of the 28 be changed, only suggesting that we should have an attitude which suggests that we are willing to accept new ideas, or rather, change old ideas.

[Flyboy]

We seem to have strayed somewhat from the topic...

Yes, I agree. I thought the same thing as I was writing my last reply. But I think at the core, bringing back to the topic, there is a general tug-of-war, unmentioned generally, between the average church member (who may or may not have lots of education) and the person who others would call an academic, including pastors. The average member accepting doctrine in a much more black and white manner, where the academics take more time and see more gray areas. Often the time put into sorting out the complexities of theology are seen by an average member as the inability to see right and wrong or as a lack of common sense. On the same token, the academics often view the needs of the average member as too simple.

Is that an accurate stereotype?

[Gerr]

Thus, if your statement means to imply that only those who believe in the resurrection can have a firm grip on the moral values that God has written on all men's hearts, then I disagree.

At crunch time, how one views the origin of the 10c is of vital importance. Whether Christian or non-christian, would you put your life on the line if your reference point for right & wrong is merely of human origin?

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted By: Flyboy

Thus, if your statement means to imply that only those who believe in the resurrection can have a firm grip on the moral values that God has written on all men's hearts, then I disagree.

At crunch time, how one views the origin of the 10c is of vital importance. Whether Christian or non-christian, would you put your life on the line if your reference point for right & wrong is merely of human origin?

I would agree with that. Most religions do have canonized writings that include a code of ethics, although perhaps not codified in the same way. Honor thy father and mother, for example. This is very cultural, and was common in all ancient cultures, particularly in Chinese culture. While we should still do it today, we should not consider that the 10c gives Christians a monopoly on moral values. Most of the latter half of the commandments are ingrained on the hearts of men.

I would die for my beliefs, as I expect most Christians would. But what beliefs should we be willing to die for, the 10c, or the love and service that Christ preached when He was on Earth. Jesus himself seemed to suggest that love and service to fellow man should be the focus of our interaction with other people.

[Igakusei]

I would die for my beliefs, as I expect most Christians would. But what beliefs should we be willing to die for, the 10c, or the love and service that Christ preached when He was on Earth. Jesus himself seemed to suggest that love and service to fellow man should be the focus of our interaction with other people.

This will probably run contrary to the views of most conservative SDAs since EGW would have us believe that the 10c are what will separate the wheat from the chaff at the end. The majority view around here will probably be that you can't choose between the two, since you have to be willing to die for both.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted By: Flyboy

I would die for my beliefs, as I expect most Christians would. But what beliefs should we be willing to die for, the 10c, or the love and service that Christ preached when He was on Earth. Jesus himself seemed to suggest that love and service to fellow man should be the focus of our interaction with other people.

This will probably run contrary to the views of most conservative SDAs since EGW would have us believe that the 10c are what will separate the wheat from the chaff at the end. The majority view around here will probably be that you can't choose between the two, since you have to be willing to die for both.

Yes, I realize this of course. But Jesus, not EGW, paid the price for my ride up to the Pearly Gates.

I'm not against the 10c, nor against EGW. The 10c guides us in our lives, yet can we escape the fact that Jesus himself, seemingly tired of the debate and efforts to entrap him, tried to lay this to rest by saying love your neighbor as yourself and love God with all your heart? As for EGW, she was a messenger, but is there anyone here who will claim that she was infallible? I think not. Then how do we engage in a debate about which parts of her writings are incorrect? Ooh.... dangerous ground I think. And quite irrelevant ground, I think, as long as EGW is kept in perspective.

[Bravus]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

We seem to have strayed somewhat from the topic...

Yes, I agree. I thought the same thing as I was writing my last reply. But I think at the core, bringing back to the topic, there is a general tug-of-war, unmentioned generally, between the average church member (who may or may not have lots of education) and the person who others would call an academic, including pastors. The average member accepting doctrine in a much more black and white manner, where the academics take more time and see more gray areas. Often the time put into sorting out the complexities of theology are seen by an average member as the inability to see right and wrong or as a lack of common sense. On the same token, the academics often view the needs of the average member as too simple.

Is that an accurate stereotype?

'Accurate stereotype' might be a bit of a contradiction in terms, but 'accurate description of a stereotype' - definitely!

(And, in case it was not already obvious, that little quibble probably makes it clear which side of the stereotype I'm on... )

I think the answer to the question in the topic line is 'it depends' - but then, I would, wouldn't I?

[Flyboy]

To further a completely irrelevant point, I did mean 'accurate stereotype'. Stereotypes are very useful devices but should be understood as just that, stereotypes, and it should be understood that there may be many exceptions. Outside of the US, where I imagine many of you are writing from, things are not so PC, and we can use stereotypes much more freely.

Adventists do not eat meat. That's a stereotype I hear all the time, and has some historical semi-truth to it, at least in western cultures it does.

As for the subject line of the thread, yes agreed, it depends. Too many factors to just say that people with lots of formal education can no longer see clear lines between right and wrong although I can see how people with less formal education would form that stereotype.... because right and wrong should be easy to understand right? Well, no.... I suppose it depends.