by Jersey Flight
The student should be bothered by the teacher who isolates him, who seeks to control him, forbids him to use his mind and manifests insecurity at the sight of opposition. A strong theory should be able to withstand criticism, and will often earn greater respect under the knife. However, those who are afraid to ask questions are often afraid because their systems are threatened by reason. Essentially, the Christian admits, though not directly, that he is forced to suppress reason as a necessary sacrifice by which to retain his Christianity.
“By ‘dialogue’ people mean that you must not have the old wranglings we used to have, but you must come and exchange opinions and try to see the other person’s point of view… But where our friends of the ecumenical movement go so wrong is that they encourage dialogue with Roman Catholics, for instance, or with people who deny the very elements of the Christian faith. And my reply is that you must not, and you cannot, have a dialogue with people who either deny the faith altogether or so add to it that they deny it.”
(Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, “Romans, Exposition of Chapter 14:1-17, Liberty and Conscious”)
If the atheist was to suggest a similar approach to reason, it would look something like this:
“By ‘dialogue’ people mean that you must not have the old wranglings we used to have, but you must come and exchange opinions and try to see the other person’s point of view… But where our atheist friends go so wrong is that they encourage dialogue with Christians, for instance, or with people who deny the very elements of atheism. And my reply is that you must not, and you cannot, have a dialogue with people who either deny atheism altogether or so add to it that they deny it.”
Indeed, the above is an example, of precisely how an atheist, or any thinker for that matter, should not reason.
The Christian must prohibit counterfactual thinking because it remains antithetical to the content of his system; for he has been told, since the earliest stages of his emotional conversion, to avoid dialogue with non-believers, with those who fail to affirm his creed. And this is precisely because Christianity cannot withstand the legitimate assault of reason:
“I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them.” Romans 16:17 ESV
“If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting…” 2 John 1:10 ESV
The disciple is not encouraged to ask the skeptic why he rejects his dogma, but is simply told to avoid those who do not believe. This is backwards; it does not take mankind forward, but holds him captive to a mindless creed; a system he is never permitted to question. For religious leaders the risk is simply too great, they cannot afford to expose their followers to the benefits of reason, and this is because reason brings with it the danger of apostasy, and for those with power, could mean the painful loss of that power.
The deeper we probe the darker the light of religion becomes, for on the basis of its own principles Christianity cannot even justify a conversation with itself. The disciple remains confined by the teacher’s dogma; for he is not only commanded to keep away from non-believers, but is also commanded to keep away from non-corresponding-believers, away from all those who fail to affirm his creed. Hence, consistent Christianity, or at least the kind taught by Paul, must proceed against itself as a kind of suicidal solipsism. The question then, is how those who follow the dogma of Paul can logically follow the dogma of James, when the dogma of Paul is set against the dogma of James? And to those who reject the tension between Paul and James, I tell you, these men are only metaphors for the scope of Christianity!
Perhaps the point is that it is always dangerous to join a sect, which is so certain of the truth, that it admonishes its disciples to avoid reason. For a man who is taught to reject reason can made to believe anything. The Christian must control the mind precisely because he cannot convince it by reason, and hence, intelligent dialogue is forbidden. In the end, all religious converts, in one way or another, are warned against, prohibited to engage in, counterfactual thinking because it leads away from their sect.
With Christianity, what is often called darkness is really light and what is often called light is really darkness. We did not say always, but that this most often seems to be the case.
You gotta have Faith?
CORRECT TITLE OF POST:
Please note: The accurate title for this essay is, “CHRISTIAN MIND CONTROL.” Mr. Florien was kind enough to post it and I have no issues if he wants to tweak the title to suit his blog. I am just happy to be his guest.
Cordially,
Jersey Flight
I concur, mostly.
The church I still attend (because my family all goes there and I’ve gone since birth, and haven’t the heart to ruin everything by mentioning that I don’t believe it anymore) switched pastors about 5 years ago, losing a seminary-trained reverend and voting to replace him with a lay member. Said layperson is a mixed bag for me: old family friend, respectable, decent, hardworking – in short, a good man. But against that, he’s untrained, dogmatic, highly authoritarian, and growing more religiously defensive by the week.
His sermon two weeks ago made me downright mad – usually I can either tune him out or find something to support. That sermon, no. It was this post, but more blatantly.
His points (not in any particular order):
> the church has authority over the individual family
> nothing you find or think of in your private studies is new; everything true has been thought of before, and everything new is heresy
> the church’s enemies are not the atheists, they are the people who think differently from the leadership
> these enemies are usually intellectual and can back up their arguments with Scripture, but they are, in fact, servants of Satan on a mission to deceive the gullible congregation
> therefore, you have to be careful to interpret Scripture correctly and for that reason this church avoids topical studies because they’re set up to support opinions rather than the actual message of the Bible
> if people don’t feel welcome in the church, it’s probably their fault, as they’re either in sin and don’t want to change their rebellious ways, or they’re wrong on a doctrine and don’t want to change their mind
> having a different opinion from church leadership constitutes rebellion against God
> you should not read or think about things that teach differently than what you already know
> there is no free speech in the church
> the Bible commands elders to silence immediately anyone who teaches new or different ideas
> the church is close-minded and proud of it
> the Bible has stated the motives of anyone who thinks differently (rebellion and desire for “sordid gain,” based on his interpretation of course), so to judge all freethinkers based on those motives is not only fine, but Biblical
That said (I realize this is already a long comment – sorry!), I hesitate to say he adopts this out of a desire to consolidate power.
A lot of the posts on this site attribute the Christian reflex of forbidding certain thoughts or books or dialogues to a power-hungry leadership, and that’s true in some cases, but NOT in all. I don’t see this leadership as plotting out a slow and steady power grab as much as constantly reacting to things. I think fear is the basic driving mode of these tendencies (a la Karen Armstrong’s “The Battle For God”), and fear gets amplified in the ever-shrinking echo chamber that is fundamentalist Christianity.
One word for you: RUN!
I don’t know your family history but for their sake you may need to take a strong, even defining stand against this.
It seems the less educated someone is, the more certain they are of god’s will and motives. I once had a minister who also had a master’s degree in chemistry. One of our deacons, a recovering alcoholic and high school dropout had many theological differences with our minister. The deacon, speaking in a Sunday school class, claimed the minister had “too much book learnin” and this clouded his mind from the truth. This minister soon left and was replace with a semi-literate hillbilly from western Pennsylvania. Our new minister would regularly say in his sermons “people think too much”. My parents did not like this minister but stayed around to be with their friends. They later admitted it was a mistake.
This new minister also made my teenage years a living hell, but that is another story.
J1, this is the only life you get, stop wasting your life going to church! Your family will be upset when you tell them how you feel, but they will get over it and they will still love you. In return, you get to sleep-in two days of the week and get to save 10% of your income for yourself.
Last Sunday there was great weather in Maryland. I woke up early, got a cup of coffee and took a two-mile walk at the park near the Chesapeake Bay. It was a better experience then any church service I ever attended.
I agree with Mark.
But just know that some families won’t ever “get over it.” Be prepared for that.
Certainly there are some Christians who fear “reason,” but this article is so generalizing as to be almost useless. This article is merely the flip-side of the coin of Christians who paint all atheists as actively trying to destroy their faith, and fear Universities as cesspools of secular humanism. These sorts of arguments are straw men, logical fallacies, and merely a rhetorical device that is poorly employed. The proof-texting of the biblical verses is something I would expect from a reasonless Christian fundamentalist.
I argue much the same thing about some strands of evangelicalism without resorting to straw-men and painting with such a wide brush. You simply cannot generalize with a single term that accurately describes hundreds of millions of people. You might as well say “All Caucasians like green tea…” or “All Americans are Republicans…”
Though there numbers are fewer it is dishonest to not acknowledge that there are some Christians who respect the scientific process, recognize the human influence on their scriptures, and are actively engaged in a process that recognizes the totality of evidence and are trying to harmonize that with their faith.
Now whether they can succeed at that is another question…
I agree with you on this, especially given that most of the people who taught me to be a critical thinker during my student life were Catholic priests.
I think this article is generalizing a bit much.
This article is generalizing from one person to an entire faith. There are certainly those who reject reason, either because they’re idiots or because of their view of Christianity. Among my friends and family, both the best and worst critical thinkers are the Christians (don’t generalize that).
Of course the article is generalising, it’s just a short blog entry. Had it been entitled “How Christianity CAN Repress Reason” it would have been fine, since that it what it is looking at – the manner in which Christian teaching and authoritarianism can dissuade people from using reason. Also, considering it refers directly to the bible and how that itself discourages reason and speaks against critical thinking and open discussion, I think it’s fair to use a fairly broad brush here when referring to ‘Christianity’.
Jersey Flight,
(3) Your “if” ignores the fact that this is exactly how the most prominent atheists – Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris – do in fact argue. Which is why Dawkins pours out venom on people who wish to reconcile science with religion, because he does not want to see the dialogue take place; he does not want to see Francis Collins or Alister McGrath being taken as reliable people.
I might in fact re-phrase your next paragraph to read:-
“The atheist must must prohibit counterfactual thinking because it remains atithetical to his system; for he has been told, since the earliest stages of his de-conversion, to avoid dialogue with believers, with those who fail to affirm the non-creed. And this is precisely because Atheism cannot withstand the assault of reason.”
The only difference is where the “facts” lie, I guess.
Dawkins “pours his venom” on people who under the cover of reconciliation of science and religion try to insert an unsupported assumption about the supernatural. However I never heard Dawkins or any of the other say that you shouldn’t listen to these people, they just point out the holes in their claims which is exactly what theists are scared of giving the large number of holes in their holy books.
Hmm, how about when Dawkins calls Anthony Flew an apostate (or more accurately, the compelx term “tergiverisation” which means the same thing)?
I am a theist and I am not so much scared of giving “the large numbers of holes” as I am amused that people actually think that there are “large numbers of holes” to begin with. And of course, I tend to prefer to focus on what is around those holes.
If you have a glass with some liquid, you can either treat it has half-full or half-empty. Theists choose to treat it as half-full; atheists choose to treat it as half-empty. I personally see the first option as more desirable; at least it gives the possibility of deducing compassion from the Bible or the Koran, whereas the latter option only tends to produce venom and a negative disposition.
Being positive is good for your health, no?
now now, arix, you’re overgeneralizing, and you’re making a very stupid mistake.
just as you can say not all theists are completely opposed to reason, you can’t say all atheists are pessimists. plenty of us see the glass as completely full — and aren’t waiting for it to be filled by an invisible, unprovable entity. and you have to admit that there is enough venom and negativity in the theist world to make the existence of the two or three “venomous” people you mention in the atheist community pale in comparison.
the fact is, theists outnumber atheists by quite a good deal. so i would be very quick to say there are many more hate-spewing, negative theists currently living on this planet than there are atheists. of course, that’s a generalization.
kat,
your patronizing comment mis-understands me.
My “glass” refers to the Bible (and any other work of Sacred Scripture), not to life.
In that case, many atheists would see your glass as full of poison.
Right, you are content ignoring that your book includes a lot of nonsense and violence, you are a cherry-picker. The rest of us can see those holes sort of point to the rest of it not being true or helpful. Whatever good stuff there may be around the holes in the bible, it need not confuse you that there’s a deity. You can still be a good person and lead a purposeful life. You can call it half-full, but I would call it half-ignorant and happy to stay that way, which is kind of yuck.
Kodie,
your comment only shows the degree of prejudice that you have; and Jersey wonders why there exists people like Jones who say that dialogue is impossible with atheists. You are living proof of Jones’ point.
There are in fact, very few instances in the Bible where God actually mandates violence to be carried out by the Jews against other peoples. And before you appeal to the usual atheist ad misericordiam, please note that the pagan nations around Israel did not believe in human rights or religious toleration or anything resembling the democratic values you believe in. Instead, they believed in stuff like god-kingship and human sacrifice and kinship-blood-bonds (i.e. literal “an eye for an eye”) so there are practical reasons for say the ban on the Medianites in Joshua.
There are of course many more instances of violence in the Bible, but these are not approved by God; they are recorded to show what men did which God disapproves of. Even the crucifixion of Christ is arguably allowed by God, not mandated by Him; the pharisees and Romans could have chosen to back-track at any time.
And yes, of course you are free to stick with the half-empty, or as you call it, the “half-ignorant” attitude, but that’s to your loss ultimately.
Seriously I find it ironic that atheists love to spout prejudicial statements like this, and then afterward chatise believers for not wanting to engage in dialogue. If all you see the purpose of dialogue as is a position to express your prejudice without listening carefully to what the other side has to say, then you are not really being sincere about engaging in dialogue.
I am not a “cherry-picker”; I am a literary critic who doesn’t believe in plucking random passages out of any book, and interpreting them out of context. I apply my same standards of literary analysis to the Bible as I do to other literature and academic papers. Whereas, you atheists are fond of “cherry-picking” Bible verses to force your prejudicial view of the text as a whole.
Then would you please explain to me in which context “Thou shalt not kill” is compatible with “And the LORD said unto Moses, Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the LORD against the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORD may be turned away from Israel.” Numbers 25.4
I must have missed that part of the bible where somebody else besides the israelites kills in the name of god.
> “There are in fact, very few instances in the Bible where God actually mandates violence to be carried out by the Jews against other peoples.”
What? The Old Testament, especially Joshua and Judges, is full of mentions of cities, city states, tribes, and kingdoms that were invaded (and often utterly destroyed) by God’s chosen people with the blessing of God himself (God “delivered them into their hand” as it says again and again).
Maybe there is a god out there. But the one in the bible is clearly not that god. Whatever it is it is full of poison.
apologies if it came off as patronizing, but i felt i was following a theme you put forward to start.
i think plenty of atheists also see the bible (and other religious scriptures) as great works of fiction or poetry, from which one can learn a lot about a culture, or about humanity in general. i don’t think all atheists “see the bible as a half-full text” in that sense, even if they don’t believe it’s absolute truth (which is typically a starting point from which christians start their arguments on the bible and an assumption you appear to make as well). particularly when taken as a work that was put together thousands of years later by people who didn’t write it, many atheists find the bible to be very interesting. the fact that you claim you aren’t a cherry picker is irrelevant — the book which you claim to be a critic of has already been cherry picked. talking about an individual book in the bible as a solid piece of literature often doesn’t work, either, as many of them were rewritten and pieced together after the fact as well. pretending that the bible is a whole text unto itself without acknowledging its physical history is a blind spot many atheists can’t condone. if you can’t get past a single argument (the pure holiness infallibility, and sent-from-god-ness of a text), obviously the conversation isn’t going to go very far.
and granted, i don’t have the time or interest level to read the rest of your commentary, so i may have missed some other points you brought forward.
Kat,
I get the “learn alot about a culture” bit, but so far you are the first atheist to claim that atheists see the Bible as a book where one can learn lots about humanity in general. Or perhaps I am misunderstanding the sense in which you mean “a lot about … humanity in general”. Please clarify what you mean.
When Christians say that the Bible contains “Absolute Truth”, we generally mean in the sense of faith and morals, except for the minority of fundamentalists who seem to think that the Bible is a science textbook. Because that is not its intent, the Bible does not have to be 100% correct about cosmology, or contain the Theory of Evolution or Relativity. And – even though atheists may find it hard to accept – the Bible does not have to be 100% correct in every historical detail, except for its accounts of miracles and its statements about morality, which are its main subject matter. Because just like it is not written as a science textbook, it is also not written as a piece of documentary history.
What is important about the Bible is not minor facts or “contradictions” here and there but its meaning and application.
The Books of the Bible – both in the New and Old Testaments – came as records of oral tradition. So yes, they were pieced together in the sense that if you wanted to gather a book of history of a person, you would have to interview a sufficient number of people to get the different aspects of the person, but piecing together is not the same as rewriting. Secondly, texts were recopied many times over, but no scribe would think of arbitrarily rewriting the text; in fact, such a practice was called “tampering with the sacred writ” right up to the Reformation. Insertions of new texts (if there were any) is not the same as the rewriting of existing texts, or even the recomposition of existing texts.
So yes, there was “piecing together”, but this was purposeful, not random, and not at the whim of a Byzantine Emperor. The Old Testament was already more or less in its complete form in the Septugint. The New Testament had no formal shape in the first three centuries, but from the 2nd century onward we hear of churches using a similar set of books. How did these churches come to a common decision, unless they all recognized something in these books that were not present in other works claiming to be Scriptures (e.g. the Gnostic Gospels).
So again, in a sense, the Bible Books were “cherry-picked”. But they were “cherry-pciked” after a meticulous process of verifcation (probably with the writers themselves, as to their credentials). Why would there be a process of verification? Because the early churches were extremely zealous about heresy; they were very concerned about the truth. The leaders of these churches, given their mentalities, would have quickly sought to verify that a letter from Paul was really from Paul, or at least written in a manner approved by him; or that a letter from Andrew was really a letter from Andrew, and not someone else pretending to be Andrew.
Secondly, the early churches were much less bureaucratic than the Vatican or a megachurch, partially because they were much smaller in size. So in the initial canons which were selected, there would have been much more spirited debate among the congregations as a whole. Think of them being more like today’s modern cell-groups, if you do know how cell-groups operate.
I get the “learn alot about a culture” bit, but so far you are the first atheist to claim that atheists see the Bible as a book where one can learn lots about humanity in general.
Well, then let me be the second one you’ve met. Honestly, you’ll find Atheistic opinions and orientations towards the Bible to be quite diverse if you ask around. The only thing we all agree on is that whatever else the Bible is, it is not divinely inspired, because there is no God to have inspired it.
I really like the old bible, especially the movie and I actually read the bible many times. It is one cool story, just like Star Gate Atlantis. I never ever though that this would be real. Just a story. And I still like the old movie. I would love to see one created in 3D with modern special effects.
I never liked the new testament, too boring and not interesting. But those teacher kept on pushing it.
You may not like Dawkins style (there was a whole discussion a few posts back) but I think that in order to stop the blurring of the line between science and non-science any amount of verbal poison is acceptable. If you get a personal satisfaction out of reading the bible or from the belief in god good for you, however the creeping of theism into science even wishy washy Francis Collins style should be rejected. If anyone comes up with a good scientific argument for a creator you have my word that I will listen with an open mind, and even though I can’t speak for them, I’m pretty sure so would Dawkins and Hichens.
If you would put a false jezus and a real jezus in front of a religious nut and an atheist. I guarantee you that the religious nuts would all follow the fake jezus. They just believe anything because someone said so.
An atheist on the other hand will test both jezus and choose the right one.
Oh, really? And what fantastic criterion does an atheist have to judge which is the real Jesus (mind your spelling)?
As Anthony Flew asks, “What would have to occur or to have occurred to constitute a reason to at least consider the existence of a Superior Mind (a.k.a. God)?”
And I’ll ask further,
“What criterion do you have for determining if that Superior Mind is consistent with the Christian concept of God and Jesus?”
If you can’t answer either question, then your statement is nothing more than a bland assertion.
“Oh, really? And what fantastic criterion does an atheist have to judge which is the real Jesus (mind your spelling)?”
Ever watch the last 15 min of Raiders of the Lost Ark?
Well, apparently this “Superior Mind” used to talk directly to people in ancient times. What stops him from just saying “This is God. I exist, and I want you to observe the ten commandments” out loud, at the same time and in the language of every nation, so everybody understands him?
(it is written jezus in my language)
An atheist would give the jesus a run for his money. He will not be ok with just colouring some water into something red. He would ask something really cool. Like time travel to seem some dinosaurs, hoovering 1000 km above the sun without protection. Fly to the Andromeda galaxy in 2 seconds…. Fly to the nearest habitable planet with intelligent life so they know where to look and how to contact us.
Dawkins refuses on the whole t o debate theologans of various flavours. He does this for a number of reasons which all go back to no real dialog is possible because I don’t believe that the person asking for one is doing so in good faith. He is largely correct in these assertions. However there I have to agree that there is an element of not respecting the other side.
As far as the New Atheism is concerned theology is the study of nothing. As such its a subject that is not worth studying and by conseqence while theologans might know a lot, they know a lot about nothing. So there is no point in trying to understand them. And you can’t engage in a dialogue if each side is talking in a different language, which in effect they are.
I think the point here is that Atheism cannot engage in a relgious dialoge unless it becomes a religeon, and if it does then it ceases to be atheism.
I agree, discussing religion is for an atheist the same as discussing why Gandalf has become gray. And if you discuss Lord of the rIngs then you also must include Start Trek, Star Wars and Avatar. Waste of time.
I disagree! Discussing Lord of the Rings, Star Trek and Star Wars is infinitely more rewarding and fun than discussing religion. ;-)
Arixion,
Have you ever seen creationists science? You call that science?
A B-movie about naked women on Venus about to invade Earth has more science credibility than what the creationists call science.
Asume that I force that you want to debate in the religion lessons about the science of Alice in Wonderland as alternative theory opposed of the jezus story. How would you feel?
Olaf,
I have an idea of what you mean by “creationists’ science”. But this “science” that you despise is not the shared belief of all the Christians in the world, nor even of all the Christians in your country (I assume you are American).
In fact, for instance, the Vatican does not approve of that science.
Your analogy is totally false analogy. Discussing Alice in Wonderland in religious lessons is nonsensical because Lewis Carroll didn’t write his novel to discuss salvation or redemption or God. On the other hand, perhaps it is incorrect, but it is not illogical to teach creation in a science lesson since it after all deals with the same subject matter, the origin of the world. In a way, it is just a different hypothesis. (I think that an Agnostic would take very much the same view.)
Its appropriateness isn’t determined by how offended atheists feel by it. Inasmuch as it is true or has significant plausibility, it ought to be taught. Of course it doesn’t, which is why it shouldn’t be taught. But that is a different matter from whether atheists like you consider it to be “superstitious” or not.
So you know that ID science is a joke. So what does this part in your text mean?
“Which is why Dawkins pours out venom on people who wish to reconcile science with religion”
My analogy with Alice in wonderland is realy valid. It is a fictious story full of conflicting stuff. The bible sounds exactly the same to an atheist as reading Alice in Wonderland. Both are wierd.
No. Science is a systematic methodology that necessitates testable hypotheses. Believers in creation have not put forward a single testable hypothesis nor have they done any experiments submitted to peer review. Perhaps one could include creation suppositions in a social science class or philosophy course.
I read this several times, and it still doesn’t make any sense.
Reasoning and challenging and examining, and rejecting a religion’s premises, are not “exactly how the most prominent atheists… do in fact argue.” Not even slightly close. Much more opposite of avoiding hearing or discussing opposing beliefs.
Self-correction… my mind is frazzled from finals and I haven’t even had a drink yet. The statement that the suppressing of reason (which I also have seen, read, heard and felt in christianity) emphatically is not “exactly how the most prominent atheists… do in fact argue”. That’s nonsense. It is exactly contra to fact, that of my own experience and nearly everything I’ve heard and read by atheists.
The challenging and rejection and examining – and rejecting the premises of – religion, is how atheists argue, from my own experience and reading what others say.
In the same way that the body has an immune system which seeks out and destroys dangerous or even just “foreign” materials before they can make the body sick, so the human mind will construct an ideology which will then seek out and destroy dangerous or even just “foreign” ideas before they can cause “mental illness”– which in most ideological constructs can be defined merely as causing our beliefs to change.
It is not only Christians and other religious fanatics who suffer the effects of ideology on their ability to search for “the truth”.
See http://amasci.com/freenrg/bead.txt for an excellent model for the “scientific method” and a surefire way to make sure you don’t become a secular/atheist fanatic too.
As this short excerpt shows so brilliantly, atheists and scientists can exhibit fanaticism and thereby fall into “…a deep potential-well associated with every facet of non-scientific or even anti-scientific emotion. In some cases the depth may tend to infinity, especially with advancing years, and no amount of data conflicting with the certain belief or disbelief…” can sway such a person. Any attempts to do so may cause said person to “…manifest further attitudes unworthy scientifically. In some cases it may be useless to discuss the hypothesis or theory… ” at all with them (see link above for quotes in context).
I still value some things I learned while a born-again Christian. The value of the parable/analogy for one, but also the warnings against plucking things from others’ eyes without checking my own first, and avoiding physicians who are unable to heal themselves.
Jersey Flight Comments-
Yes, I do not deny that there is such a thing as dangerous dialogue, but we must engage is the process of dialogue to arrive at the dangers of dialogue. As for an atheism which prohibits dialogue; what kind of dialogue does it prohibit, and why? At least for me this will answer the nature, or value of its prohibition. I did not say there is no such thing as a good reason to abstain from dialogue- for there is, but to discover this, as mentioned before, is largely the task of dialogue.
As for those who claim that my thesis is too general, please note my relevant citations which evidence my point.
Facts are useful things, even as they add order to life, but they are not infallible things. Yes, I partially reject Christianity, and Christian dialogue, on the basis of the probability of facts; I also reject it for its own internal contradictions. I have been asked many times about my rejection of Christianity on the basis of the probability of facts, but my reply is always the same; we can either test mushrooms by hypothesis or we can eat them by chance. For my part, I prefer the hypothesis. The point is that Christianity 1) prohibits legitimate dialogue and 2) must do so because it’s contrary to the usefulness of reason and science.
Something is very clear, the Christian is never taught to ask why, he is only taught to reject. This means that creedal position is everything to Christianity, while reason is nothing. If we are true Greeks then we must warn men of the dangers of this system; for it’s more concerned with control then with truth, and in the context of society, the effect it has on freedom is devastating.
To be locked in any system of religion, on the basis of position, is one of the scariest things that the religious may never come to know.
Cordially,
Jersey Flight
Jersey,
(1) I find it extremely biased that you are not willing to apply the same thought procedure to religion, at least to Christianity.
All Christians do not dialogue God’s existence (some perhaps Jesus’ existence, but never God’s) because we have arrived at the point where we see the position of God’s non-existence as bereft of reason, except when conceiving of God in a very hackneyed way, which is what the overly-recycled “analogies” parrotted by the atheists do.
(2) I noted your citation from Dr Jones, and contend that there is an alternative way to interpret it.
The focus of the passage is in the sentence before that which you bolded: “deny the very elements of the Christian faith”. Perhaps the point might have been stronger if he said “totally deny”. In reference to the link Relles posted above, “totally deny” is equivalent to pushing the bead to zero. And once you have pushed the bead to zero, there is nowhere left to push the bead; the bead is fixed.
There is no possibility of dialogue with a person in that condition, because that person is totally fixed in rejecting each and every part of Christianity, down to the core (usually without realizing what the core is).
Talking to such a person is like talking to a stone wall. There is no possibility of gaining common ground, because the person has already started off with the goal of maintaining separate ground. So therefore, one cannot talk to such a person.
How is this translated into a prescription not to talk to that person? Given that the person has already planned to be unmoveable, the only one that will be moving position is the Christian i.e. the only possible active outcome is the Christian leaving the faith, not the other person joining the faith or amending his/her world view while improving the Christian’s.
In a similar manner, you take Bible quotes out of context.
The key issue in the Letter to the Romans is the tension between Jews and Gentiles, which Paul (or Tertius) argues is contrary to the spirit of the Gospel. Romans 16:17 must be seen in that light, especially since it succeeds a whole lot of verses welcoming individuals by name. So “divisions” here is in terms of divisions between Jews and Gentiles, not divisions in terms of opinion. Similarly, “obstacles” also refers to obstacles placed in the way of gentiles becoming Christians, such as the circumcision insisted upon by the Judaizers. There is nothing in this verse talking about people’s rights, or lack thereof, to criticize interpretations of scripture, which is the kind of repression you are imputing on Romans.
In short, you are reading into Romans 16:17 a meaning that is completely at odds with its context.
Similarly, you misread 2 John. 2 John argues against letting heretics come into people’s houses, not skeptics. The “teaching” in 2 John 1:10 does refer to a specific dogma, but it is not for the mere rejection of this dogma that these teachers are being shunned, but because of what else their rejection entails, which is against the spirit of Christ.
the “false teachers” in this case are Gnostics, whose core doctrine is the release of self from the body because the body is evil and imperfect, created by an evil God; they are not ancient “atheists”; in fact to the converse, they are theists to the core, albeit a different form. Gnostics believe in a female goddess called Sophia. Some Gnostics actually practiced ritual sex in order to release themselves from the corrupt body.
In which case, means that the Gnostics were not loving either themselves or their fellow believers, thus contradicting the “commandment” re-stated in 2 John 1:5: “love one another”.
So again, you have misread 2 John.
A common mistake by atheists, but a mistake nonetheless.
(I will continue my reply in my next post.)
Arix said, referring to deniers of Christianity, “Talking to such a person is like talking to a stone wall. There is no possibility of gaining common ground, because the person has already started off with the goal of maintaining separate ground. So therefore, one cannot talk to such a person.”
The irony is breathtaking.
Jersey Flight- Arix
ARIX SAID: “Similarly, you misread 2 John. 2 John argues against letting heretics come into people’s houses, not skeptics. The “teaching” in 2 John 1:10 does refer to a specific dogma, but it is not for the mere rejection of this dogma that these teachers are being shunned, but because of what else their rejection entails, which is against the spirit of Christ.”
My dear Arix, you simply must read more carefully next time, for your objection is a manifestation of your creed, as well as an affirmation of my thesis. That is, you admit believing specific things as a Christian, and you admit rejecting men who do not affirm the things you believe. “[These] teachers are being shunned… because of… their rejection… against the spirit of Christ.” This is precisely the kind of rejection of which I speak. For you have a definition of spirit and Christ (which is your creed) and you reject men that have a different definition of spirit and Christ (which is their creed).
“The Christian must prohibit counterfactual thinking because it remains antithetical to the content of his system; for he has been told, since the earliest stages of his emotional conversion, to avoid dialogue with non-believers, with those who fail to affirm his creed. And this is precisely because Christianity cannot withstand the legitimate assault of reason.” Ibid.
And this is all I have to say.
Cordially
Jersey Flight
Jersey,
(con-d from previously)
(7) In fact, the opposite is true. There are a number of instances where prophets are permitted to question God. In Genesis, there is an argument between Abraham and God over whether Sodom and Gomorrah should be burned, and God allows the argument to play out to the end. In Isaiah, God tells the prophet, “Come, let us reason”. The entire Book of Job contains Job questioning God about his life circumstances. In the Gospels, Jesus answers every question that is asked him, even when they are celarly meant to trap him.
(8) And where does Paul contradict James? I usually realize that most of the Biblical “contradictions” identified by atheists are only contradictions because they have been taken out of context.
On Generalizing:
The point is that this kind of control is the logical outworking of Christian theology. Those who don’t exercise this kind of control are not being consistent with their Christianity; for consistent Christianity must prohibit rational discourse, and as such, must of logical necessity, by the very nature of its principles, seek control. The method of consistent Christianity is that of control. If one has a theological objection to my thesis, then by all means, one is welcome to argue, that the essence of Christian methodology is reason.
Jersey Flight
Only Sith deal in absolutes!
Or Christians. :)
Jersey is correct, being against reason is the logical result of following Christian theology. That many Christians aren’t entirely unreasonable is distinct from the framework they attach themselves to. Not every Pink Floyd fan loves every Pink Floyd song.
I suppose this is coming close to a no true Scotsman fallacy in reverse – that we see Christians as not being entirely Christian unless they uphold specific ideals, but I would say it is different from that. It is about the structure, not the individuals.
The essence of Christianity is neither control or reason; it is freedom, freedom to seek the truth, freedom to live, freedom to realize one’s true being.
Consistent Christianity does not prohibit rational discourse, insofar as the purpose of reason is to establish truth. Christianity prohibits rational discourse where the object of reasoning is to tie the thinker/philopher into a straitjacket of negativity.
The whole thesis underlying Christian Theology is that man seeks to control everything around him, because man is separate from God. In fact, man even seeks to control God, aka through idolatry. This control brings a negative disposition (read: original sin) that harms one’s relations with creation and other men.
The solution is thus to surrender control over to God. But the twist – that few theologians have managed to elucidate – is that surrendering control to God is not surrendering control at all, because God has already surrendered control to us in the form of free will (and in a very visual way through Christ dying on the cross). So therefore, all surendering control to God results in is us relinquishing our desire to control God, and thus control other people, which is a good thing, in sum total.
The so-called “oppressive” dogmas of Christianity have this as their purpose.
“The essence of Christianity is neither control or reason; it is freedom, freedom to seek the truth,”
So long as you agree with the truth that is already told to you. That’s not really freedom. Also, again, the very text that the faith is based on warns against questioning or listening to anyone who doesn’t tell you what is acceptable doctrine already, including Jesus himself.
But then the truth is about your freedom. So if you reject the statement “I am free” as a truth, then you are not being free. If you are forcing yourself to dismiss anything that is told to you, merely because it is told to you, then you are not being free either.
And before you criticize the warnings, just try and understand what is it in “acceptable doctrine” that renders it “acceptable”?
You’re not free with an omnipotent god deciding your destiny and only letting you enter his kingdom if you happen upon the “truth” he has decided upon. And freedom to seek the truth would also include freedom to not bother, but that results in an enormous, entirely out of proportion punishment. This isn’t freedom, it’s a game show.
Acceptable doctrine is rendered acceptable by tradition.
God doesn’t decide your destiny; you do. But of course in order for there to be destinies to decide upon, there must be a variety of destinies to choose from.
It is not God who refuses to let you enter the Kingdom; you yourself refuse to let yourself in, for whatever reason (perhaps because you believe that there is no Kingdom:P). The punishment is totally self-inflicted.
It isn’t a game show; it is called taking responsibility for your own actions and attitudes. You can’t have your cake and eat it at the same time.
That’s just absurdity. It is not a choice. God made the rules, god made the game, and what you end up believing (belief isn’t a choice, it is a result) determines where you spend eternity by his design. If Christianity were truly about freedom, one could find any path to the kingdom, and one could avoid hell and spend eternity elsewhere, or nowhere. Instead we are faced with an artificial binary decision, with our arms twisted behind our backs and a gun to our heads.
Again, I point out that freedom to seek the truth would include the freedom to not do so. Yet that would be “self-inflicting” a punishment. How is it freedom if when you exercise that freedom you get hammered for picking the wrong ‘choice’? And there’s nothing one can do about it, we cannot leave the system, we cannot walk away. We can’t stop playing the game, we are entirely at its creator’s mercy.
I think most people in the world are actually trying to lead decent, moral lives. Most of them probably are taking responsibility for their actions and attitudes – often in connection with their worship of some deity. Yet, because they happen to worship the wrong deity (or none at all) they’ll be thrown in hell and tortured forever, if I’m to believe the Bible.
Whether to believe in God or not isn’t the simple choice you make it sound like, for the simple reason that there are a number of mutually exclusive gods to choose from. A Muslim can use the exact same argument as you: You must decide whether to believe in Allah or not. In case you don’t, you must face the consequences – the Muslim version of Hell – but you brought it entirely upon yourself by refusing to believe in Allah. It was your own choice. “The punishment is totally self-inflicted”, as you said.
Does it sound fair to you that most people will go to Hell for the simple reason that they don’t live in a part of the world where Christianity is the dominant religion?
So, what you’re saying is…God doesn’t know the future?
The essence of Christianity is a heady pungent blend of heretical apocalyptic Judaism and neo-Platonist mysticism.
The excuses and explanations came later.
Oh, no you di’int, Elemenope! ;-)
Sigh …
Christianity didn’t start off as any mystic philosophy; if it did, it wouldn’t have spread so fast. In fact, Christianity was particularly down-to-earth; concerned with helping the poor and so on and so forth.
Neo-Platonism only entered Christian Theology with St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas. Before then, there are many Christian texts denouncing Greek philosophy, including notably St Basil’s Hexameron.
Christianity is Apocalyptic in the sense that it believes in a second coming; but then so does Judaism and even Islam. It is not “apocalyptic” in the way Hollywood uses the word “apocalyptic” or teh way Fred Phelps and Jakc Chick use it.
So your idea of Christianity as “a blend of heretical apocalyptic Judaism and mystic neo-platonism” is totally ahistorical.
Well, first off, Thomas Aquinas was primarily a neo-Aristotelian, not a neo-Platonist.
Second, Hellenic mysticism started entering the Christian traditions as early as the Gospel of John, the entire first chapter of which traffics in ideas contemporaneous with and borrowed from thinkers like Philo of Alexandria, including the mystic logos.
Third, there is no doubt that the Jews of the period (as well as ever since) have considered Christianity to be heretical, and they have solid theological grounds to do so.
By the time St. Basil wrote against overt neo-Platonic influence, he was way too late, as it had already become inextricably entwined with the theology of the new church. In any case, he ended up on the losing side of the Arian question and was not particularly influential afterward.
Christianity is apocalyptic insofar as its chief prophet preached the apocalypse. Over and over. Loudly. To anyone who would listen. Jesus’ enthusiasm for apocalyptic imagery and sayings is a major theme of the gospels, and eschatology itself is a major feature of Christian theology. And since there are prominent features of moral judgment, end-times, a destruction of the order of the world, and assorted metaphysical chiasms in these apocalyptic sayings of Jesus, the apocalyptic sense is not so far from the popularization of such has made it out to be.
Liberal Christians, tell us about the wonders of apocalyptic Jesus.
Elemenope,
(1) Neo-Aristotelianism is a species of Neo-Platonism.
(2) Using 1 word does not mean taking in an entire worldview. Just as American English is different from British English, so Judaic Greek would have a different cultural flavour from Roman Greek, especially since the Jewish culture abhorred gentiles to begin with. (And in case anyone wants to argue, no, this abhorrence of gentiles is not strictly Biblical.)
(3) I didn’t dispute your use of the term “heretical”, so this is a moot point.
(4) The Arian issue had nothing to do with Neo-Platonism. And many of the early famous Church fathers converted from Neo-Platonism to Christianity, including Justin Martyr.
(5) Really? You must be reading a very different edition of the Bible then, or cherry-picking passages, because I have read the Gospels at least ten times through and there is no sense in which Jesus is a Fred Phelps hell-fire-and-brimstone apocalyptic preacher. You are reading something into the text which simply isn’t there.
But well, that is what atheists usually do, isn’t it?
Then you haven’t read Matthew 24-25 or Matthew 11, or Matthew 12, just to name a few.
And you haven’t read the rest of Matthew.
Even so, the apocalyptic sayings are hardly sufficient content to regard Jesus as essentially “apocalyptic”. You are resorting to a Hasty Generalization Fallacy.
So are you saying Jesus didn’t say *anything* apocalyptic? Not even when his disciples asked him what the signs of the end would be? And that his followers didn’t construct a soteriology around his sayings that was in any way apocalyptic? You can claim I’m making a hasty generalization, but I’m saying you’re flat out ignoring what’s in the friggin’ text and ignoring the first couple of hundred years of Christianity, which was quite apocalyptic (why do you think Paul told people to abstain if they could, marry if they must? for shits and giggles?).
And what the frak do you think the Book of Revelation is? A how-to manual?
(1) This is akin to saying that bricks are a species of apple. In ontology, one was realist, the other nominalist. In epistemology, one held God as the end of knowledge, one as the beginning. They are often taught as directly opposed schools, and not without reason.
(2) It wasn’t one word (although that word was notably used in the same way with the same implication), but an entire philosophy transplanted from one to the other. On the general orientation of Judaic society towards Greek culture and Roman society, you are generalizing extensively. There were serious accomodationalist factions within the Jewish big tent, and particularly following the Hellenization of Christianity it became a moot point as most of the outreach from then on was to Gentiles.
(3) Just covering all the bases.
(4) I didn’t say the Arian controversy had anything to do with it, My point in bringing it up is that we were discussing the “essence of Christianity” and you brought up a guy to defend your position who was not really a major part of establishing that essence, being on the losing side of one of the establishing controversies of church doctrine. When we look for the essence of America, we do not quote Edward VIII or Jefferson Davis.
(5) Roger covered this pretty solidly.
(4)…or even George III.
Honestly, I don’t even know where the heck that Edward VIII came from. Though, I suppose we wouldn’t look to him to define the essence of America either. :)
Arix said, “Christianity was particularly down-to-earth; concerned with helping the poor and so on and so forth.” After following the health care saga, that’s one tradition that obviously died.
In what sense?
And even if it has died in the USA, what evidence do you have that it has died elsewhere in the world? Anyhow, the Bishops didn’t criticize the entire bill, just the aspect on abortion. And the Bishops are not the only members of the Church; the Catholic Church – the entire community that comprises – is the largest provider of aid in the entire world.
Incidentally, Elemenope and I are discussing about the Church in early years, not the Church in modern times.
The catholic church is also the provider of pedophelia.
Really? Where is your evidence that Catholicism – not Catholics – produce paedophilia?
Really, Arix? Really?
Catholicism demands that it’s exclusively male priests deny their own humanity by living a life of celibacy (i.e. extreme sexual frustration), and then puts those virile, sexually repressed, frustrated young men in positions of power and influence over vulnerable young people. Further, it provides them the instant, easy, bullshit, cop-out excuse that “the devil made them do it”, so allowing them to rationalise the child rape that they commit as being not their fault.
Or perhaps you can think of a reason that’s not to do with Catholicism itself to explain why so many Catholic priests have been child rapists. Please, do share, I’m rapt with attention.
Arix, the papers are full of paedophilia scandals the last few weeks. More than proof enough.
Were you there when it happened? Did anyone take a picture or write about it in the newspaper, with a lot of witnesses?
I was in the parking lot at Target today and noticed the car next to me had a sticker of Jesus on his rear window, and when I came out, after putting my stuff in the car and putting my cart in the cart-leaving place, I noticed another truck with a rosary dangling from the mirror, who let me cross back to my car.
I just started then thinking, not for the first time, who are these adults, wandering around my community, who among them would believe any other story that sounds like such a wild dream after a hard night drinking? With so little to go on, and a couple thousand years of legend built up so, who would believe this if you told them? It’s in the bible…. sorry if I don’t think that’s convincing! I wonder a lot to myself what kind of person actually does.
Kodie,
(1) No I wasn’t there. But there were people who were there and recorded it; their records are called the Bible. :P
(3) Lots of reasoned people – who by the way totally abhorred drinking – do and did before. There may be “so little to go on” now, but when the events were still fresh, there would have been “lots to go on”. Remember, the texts were written for people in that time as well who had first-hand encounters of those events and merely used the texts to re-inforce them.
Except they most likely weren’t there. The earliest records of the Bible, afaik, were written *at least* 70 years after the events allegedly ocurred. Add to that that there’s not a record that mentions those same events outside of the followers of the creed and really… it’s no first-hand accounts.
Siberia,
30-40 years is more exact. And incidentally, that is the shortest period for any ancient text whose authorship is confirmed. The next shortest period is 500 years, for the works of Aristotle and Plato. So if we can believe the works of Aristotle and Plato to be written by Aristotle and Plato, we can certainly believe that the Bible was authored by the Apostles or their very close proteges.
Secondly, the Gospels were written as Testimonies. You only need a person to record a testimony (in the ancient world) if that person cannot repeat the testimony over and over again due to lack of time (old age) or logistical arrangements (no Skype or teleconferencing or cameras in those days!).
(Incidentally, you don’t write testimonies unless you have something to testify to. The Gospels are written as testimonies, not fables.)
So, very much like Anthony Flew asking Roy Abraham Varghese to scribe “There is a God” for him to explain his viewpoint, so the apostles had the “real” writers of Scripture scribe the Gospels for them in their old age (or when they were about to be martyred).
“So if we can believe the works of Aristotle and Plato to be written by Aristotle and Plato, we can certainly believe that the Bible was authored by the Apostles or their very close proteges.”
If we overlook the other contemporary authors who mention Aristotle and Plato’s work you might actually have a point there.
Since you ignored that part of Siberia’s post I can only assume you will ignore mine.
“Incidentally, you don’t write testimonies unless you have something to testify to. ”
On Planet-Arix testimonies are always true.
I testify Arix is a nincompoop.
TESTIFY, Sunny Day! ;-)
Jersey,
Reading your response is sort of like listening to a Ray Comfort talk about evolution: you clearly have little idea what you are talking about. Consistent Christianity? Really?
“The point is that this kind of control is the logical outworking of Christian theology.” Really?
I’m sorry that you had an abusive Christian experience, but what you utterly fail to grasp is that Christianity is not a blanket term that can be used to describe the movement. Really, what you are describing is a form of evangelical behaviour and theology that is primarily located in the USA. For an example of those that do not fit into your boundaries check out “liberation theology” and “social justice” theological arguments from actual theologians who conclude from using the Bible with far more skill and nuance than you have demonstrated (your actual exegesis demonstrated above is at the dilettante level at best) that consistent Christianity is not about control. You could also check out Christian scholars who argue for evolution.
Good scientific method considers the totality of evidence and modifies its theories if new information is available; likewise, good theological or philosophical critique must also consider the totality of evidence and modify its theories if new information is available. Your thesis is not sustainable when the totality of Christianity is considered. You are describing a portion of it, and are badly mistaken if you think you are describing all of it. Perhaps, more frightening is that I suspect you are unwilling to give up your theory or modify it regardless of how many examples I give you. Sort of like a young Earther when they come to evolution.
You will perhaps be kind enough to present a theological argument for the rationality of the Christian method, since you seem to believe this is a possibility?
Cordially,
Jersey Flight
Jersey,
First, what Christian method? You’re not grasping this, there’s more than one. The one that reads the Bible literally (which I believe you are reacting against), the one that reads it literarily, the one that argues for preferential treatment of the poor, the reform story, the one that views the Bible as inspiring but not inspired… which one?
Second, this question is not really what you’re arguing. Above you’re saying all Christianity is about rejecting all reason, and about controlling its members. I am not suggesting anything for the rationality of Christianity or that it can be worked out in a sustainable manner, but I am suggesting that your characterization of Christianity as a whole is tendentious and misleading. Actually, I would suggest it is about as fair as when a Christian says all scientist believe in evolution because they just want to destroy faith and the church. You see, ultimately, I do agree with much of what you said (except your exegesis), but it requires much more nuance for your thesis to work. That nuance first comes from recognizing that as all Americans don’t believe the same thing, or all scientists, neither do all Christians.
Cheers!
“That nuance first comes from recognizing that as all Americans don’t believe the same thing, or all scientists, neither do all Christians.”
Being American and being a scientist are entirely different from being a member of a religion. You don’t have to believe ANYTHING to be American, and scientists have no central creed or code either, though they do voluntarily tend to follow similar methodology. Methodology, however, is different from belief.
John,
I guess I’ll leave your fellow Americans to rebut you on this point, but then there is certainly something that defines the American identity and you have to believe in that or else you are not American.
I’m not an American. And what defines your Americanism is your passport or birth certificate.
PS: Hawaii still counts!
Ummm, thanks for that, uh, “clarification”… I guess it added something to the conversation? Not sure what, but something.
You don’t have to “believe” anything to be American and yet: Americans believe stuff! Political beliefs (Republican vs Democrat), social beliefs, etc. The point of my point was that Christianity is pluriform in its beliefs; the entity is too varied to shrink to a single identifiable ideology.
There is a horrible, virulent, anti-intellectual stain upon the Earth in fundamentalist, conservative, literalistic, simplistic, young-earth Christianity… but that brand, as offensive as it is, cannot be correlated on a one to one level with every form of Christianity. You would have to do no study (which is poor methodology) to be able to hold that conviction. Any sort of social religious study would soon come to the conclusion that Christians (almost a useless word in this discussion) do not all believe the same thing and do not simply reject reason on principle.
You’re misunderstanding. This isn’t about saying all Christianity = fundamentalism. It is about saying that the Christian method, at its core, is anti-reason. Being faith-based, that’s a no-brainer to begin with, but beyond that the documents that are at the root of the faith express a dire warning against open discourse.
Well, there is the Fideist position, whose most famous proponent is the previous Pope, John Paul II, which argues that Reason leads to Faith, so that Faith is not anti-Reason, but rather the culmination of proper reasoning.
As I have been trying to explain elsewhere in this thread, the documents do not express a dire warning against open discourse; they express a dire warning against one-sided manipulation.
Dude, I’m a scholar. I work for the Dead Sea Scrolls Institute and the Canada Research Chair in Dead Sea Scrolls studies. I am not an evangelical. I am an agnostic (whatever that means). I am not trying to defend Christianity, but I know the documents fairly well, even some of them in the original languages. You’re going to have to “demonstrate” this to me: “beyond that the documents that are at the root of the faith express a dire warning against open discourse.” That’s a theory that I’m not sure will be able to bear the brunt of scrutiny when the actual texts themselves are investigated… I think there is a lot of polemical elements in the texts, but I also think that anti-discourse is not one of them.
The source text for Christianity is NOT the Dead Sea Scrolls – that’s the source for the Torah, or Old Testament. Christianity’s source texts are the Gospels in the New Testament – and I’m pretty sure that there’s stuff in them about not following the OT anymore (funny how fundies like to ignore that one).
The passages above are from Romans and John – both of which are New Testament.
You fail at reading comprehension on that one, I’m afraid.
Cue frantic back-pedaling and excuses….
Ummmm… read the comments. I am not a fundie or a defender of modern Christianity. I have an undergrad in Biblical Studies with a minor in Greek and Hebrew and a MA in Biblical Studies. Now this is actually more historical studies. I am trained in Hebrew Bible and New Testament… I just happen to work on the scrolls. If any research paper I ever wrote on the OT or the NT was ever read at a church they would try to hang me as a heretic.
I have forgotten more about the source texts and their context than you know.
Custador. You are quite mistaken about me, and have little idea what you are discussing in general. Cue the frantic back-pedaling and excuses… thanks for your ignorant comment but every once in awhile, experts actually know what they are talking about in their field of their expertise. Your distinction is dumb because people in my field are called Second Temple scholars which covers the totality of these texts.
So just like you listen and trust scientists when they talk science, you might want to trust the historian and Second Temple scholar when he talks about the texts… just sayin’!
Attacking Custador, making presumptions about his knowledge and spewing your CV at us does not an argument make. You are also making presumptions that we think you an evangelical, when no one said so. If this passes for scholarly debate, we really are in trouble. Until you learn to reign in the arrogance, there’s no point attempting a discussion. Plus, the text speaks for itself.
Scott,
This may be a side channel off the flow of this thread, but your credentials sound pretty impressive to me, and I understand where you’re coming from in your last several posts. I especially appreciate your emphasis that Christianity is pluriform (I like that word). So, most seem to be unaware, is Judaism.
As an undergrad in history I had around 20 hours in the history of Christianity, the Reformation, the Renaissance, Religion in American History, etc. In grad school I took such courses as Roman Decline/Medieval Origins, Byzantine history, history of Judaism, Anti-Semitism, Jews in American History, Ancient Near East, Hellenism, etc.
My question for you then is this– have you read ‘Excavating Jesus’ by Crossan and Reed? With the amount of history in Christianity and Judaism I’d taken, along with having been a born-again Christian for several years when I was younger and thinking myself quite the Bible scholar, I was astonished at how much had fallen in the cracks between the two spheres of history for me (Christianity and Judaism), and really came away from reading the book with an entirely new appreciation of the continuum of belief, as well as resistance offered to Rome evidenced by the Herodian Jews, the Pharisees and Saducees, and groups like the Essenes, followers of the Baptist, Christ, and the Sicarii (not necessarily in that order).
I’d love to hear your thoughts on the book, Before going on then, I’ll wait for your response as to whether you’re familiar with it or not.
Thanks.
Thank you Scott for proving yourself to be an utter cock who is not worthy of debate.
You are an arrogant prick who claimed one set of expertise which you (incorrectly) deemed to be relevant to the debate. When this was pointed out, you then claimed an entirely different field of expertise, while at no point conceding that you attacked the original article from an erroneous angle over an irrelevant point.
You then did exactly what I predicted you would do – back-pedaled and made bullshit excuses (which, frankly, I neither believe nor care about).
Further, your main method of arguing is appeal to authority – however, you appeal to your own authority, which is not established here and which we have no reason to believe given that you claim to be a scholar and yet failed to read and comprehend an article designed for popular consumption – I can only imagine how atrocious you are at dissecting scholarly articles.
To top all of this off, you not only wrote your reply to me as if I should have somehow known that (you claim) you are a New Testament scholar based on the fact that (you claim) you are a scholar of the Dead Sea Scrolls, despite this never having been mentioned, but you have then made assumptions about my own knowledge being inferior to yours. Well, it’s possible – but given my obvious superiority to you in both comprehension and debate, I very much doubt it.
Maybe it is the wording? Sure, some Christians, maybe even most people who identify as Christians, have reasoned their way out of believing the whole bible literally. I don’t say that one is not really Christian because one lets a little reason get to him or her. I don’t think the article generalizes all Christians as lacking reason either. It merely says, and reality bears this out, that Christianity warns against exposing oneself to things that punch big holes in it and makes you think.
Obviously, for some, being exposed to reason was the best thing to happen to them and they are deconverting or deconverted. Many speak of being frightened by it, because they were strictly warned against becoming a non-believer, and that the devil lays traps for anyone who doesn’t bolt up their mind thusly, and that god will still send them to hell when they die.
Obviously, in many other cases, it’s possible to be exposed to reason and still retain religious faith, because so many people are doing it, aren’t they? They bend and warp things so they stay true. They ignore things they don’t want to know, or excuse things or try to explain them in “context,” and do not fear science education, and to some extent, understand the world as it really works. They’re not afraid of rational influence because they have their faith like a barrier, they are strong enough to roam around and not have that broken by an offhand conversation with a heathen. At least as the bible warns, they are still taking a risk.
It is a feat to mash reason and theism. To the hardline fundie, obviously, this won’t cut it, reason has corrupted these people too. To me, it is the act of creating a new religion based on an old god right in front of my eyes. Brilliant proof that religion and god was invented by humans.
This was posted here last week and I found a great new resource for myself:
http://atheismblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/facing-facts.html
I thought it was interesting and maybe you could help answer some of the questions at the end.
Jersey Flight- Scott
Christian method? I have cited one in my paper, an irrational one, while you keep on referring to the invisible possibility of a rational one. However my friend, we are still waiting to see the manifestation of that which you speak.
No disrespect, just a healthy contempt for Christianity. If you will argue the existence of a rational Christianity, then by all means, produce the system.
Of course, in another sense I concede that you’re right, for not all crows are black, at least, I can’t know this for sure. Nevertheless, what has been presented retains a sufficient probability of truth. Nor was it my purpose to argue universality, but to expose the conclusions of Christian presuppositions. For Christianity to exist on the basis of reason, in the context we have spoken of reason, would ultimately produce a kind of non-Christianity. That is, one can affirm a creed against reason or one can deny a creed by reason, but what one cannot due is produce a Christianity of reason; for that would be the end of Christianity, and the destruction of the concept of faith.
Cordially
Jersey Flight
Jersey,
In no way, at no time, have I even begun to attempt a defense of a “rational” Christian method. What I have taken great umbrage with, and what you have tried at all costs to avoid, is that you accused ALL Christians of being anti-discourse and dismissing all reason out of hand. Following any sort of sociological or scientific method this would not be too hard to disprove.
I am not trying to “prove” anything concerning Christianity other than you misunderstand how pluriform it is, and that your generalizations are tendentious and not sustainable. I’m not sure you have understood anything I have suggested at this point and that we are not talking past each other saying much the same thing sometimes… in your contempt I think you sometimes lose the ability for balanced discourse on what may be more of a sociological or philosophical issue. I mean at this point: you might as well say “Every Russian hates dogs!” because some of them trained them to wear grenades and blow up tanks in WWII.
Over generalization.
I looked up “Signs of an Abuser” on some domestic violence sites – because the first one I can think of is controlling and isolating others! Another was “rigid gender roles”…. and my favorite was “rigid religious beliefs”. (Nice crossover there.)
I’ve noticed that too.
The other one I’ve noticed is that special appeal of christianity to druggies, drunks, abusers, dissipated lowlifes in general. And they even rationalize that it’s good that way! It keeps away any nagging self-doubts that maybe people with intelligence who are using it the best they can to engage in life don’t need christianity not because Jeezus hasn’t brought them to their knees with misery yet, but because the faults and uselessness and harmfulness lie in christianity!
This is a good corollary article to UF’s last year’s article, “3 Ways Christianity Prolongs Immaturity”.
Really? Just where are you getting your data from, I wonder?? Or perhaps it is a biased sample, that at most reflects the situation in the USA, and cannot be hence generalized to the rest of the world.
JMW,
You have not made an argument yet. You have made nothing but uniformed opinions poorly argued. Let’s follow the argument. You said the texts were anti-discourse, I said I knew them well and thought they were not, Custador thought I had no idea what I was talking about, I informed him he had no idea what he was talking about, my academic credentials suggest maybe, just possibly, I might know what I am talking about when it comes to the texts.
I am not trying to enter a “scholarly” discussion, I am making comments on a blog post. Your rhetoric of avoidance is sad at best. The only arrogant person in this discussion is you. You are as bad as any fundamental evangelical young-earther that doesn’t have to listen to the scientists because “they know…” Your ignorant foolishness is just the other side of the coin. “You “know” but I’m just “spewing”. You would make a good fundie.
Plus, I really doubt you know the texts in any significant way to know what they actually say in their original context… thus the avoidance.
Scott,
you may be well be correct in your interpretation (I think you are), but it is very doubtful that you will make any inroads here. No matter their rhetoric about being open-minded, that is strangely a prescription that doesn’t apply to themselves.
You and I are interested in “context”, but neither Jersey, Custador, JMW or many of the others here are, since the “context” may prove dangerous to their creed. Just look at how they have responded to me.
Jersey doesn’t bother to deal with my points on exegesis; instead he repeats his same passage.
Custador – in the past – is merely satisfied with brushing me off as a superstitious freak.
JMW merely repeats the cliched atheist response to the Free Will Defence, without examining my argument properly. He obviously doesn’t understand philosophy. And unsurprisingly, he attacks you for showing off your academic credentials. But I have gotten used to this tactic on atheist sites, and you should get used to it too.
That having been said, I am interested in furthering a discussion with you off-site and reading your “heretical” papers. My email is: arixion@gmail.com, if you are interested.
Cheers,
Arix
Ugh. Try again, Arix, and read what people are saying this time. I did examine your argument properly – just because I disagree doesn’t mean that I ignored it. It’s just poor, I deconstructed it for you, and you failed to rebuff that attack. And I did not attack Scott for citing his academic credentials, I attacked him for showing them off in an irrelevant manner while he tried to use them to bolster his position with an entirely transparent appeal to authority, coupled with an incredibly snotty attitude.
And for the last time, we don’t have a creed! That’s the point!
@ Arix: I am unaware of ever having replied to any of your posts. Would you kindly point out some occasions when I have addressed you?
You addressed me under another pseudonym which contains the word “Christian” in it.
Can you fix on one name? You have already used 3 in this one, albeit, easy to recognize, but… I don’t know, decide what your name is? If you went by another name formerly, that makes a 4th, and how is anyone supposed to remember what that was?
HA! take that Custador, Mr Atheist Smarty Pants!!
Not so smart that you couldn’t even figure out which sock-puppet Arix was using.
Your credibility here has been completely shattered. I leave you now to nash your teeth in the impotent fury that so fills your blackened soul.
Yes. I feel so ashamed that I don’t ask Daniel to check the IP address of every poster on UF and give me a comprehensive list. My life is filled with fail. I apologise.
I have a God child named Christian (yes, I know, the irony is strong with this one), and I don’t dismiss him as a kook every time I speak to him based purely on his name. I think perhaps you need to consider that if I brushed you off as a superstitious loony it may perhaps be because you said something superstitiously loony. Since you still haven’t told me where this (these?) alleged responses is (are?), I can’t really explain it to you any better than that.
You had your chance to explain it on those threads, in fact several. I don’t see the point of bringing those threads into this discussion, when they are long overdue.
Uhu. So you’re full of shit then? Thought so.
You spectacular Fucktard.
“I don’t see the point of bringing those threads into this discussion, when they are long overdue.”
It suited your purpose to bring it up earlier, “Custador – in the past – is merely satisfied with brushing me off as a superstitious freak.” But when you’re called on your bullshit and asked for specifics its suddenly unimportant.
So which is it you lackadaisical twit?
It was just important enough for you to bring it up to play the beleaguered victim, but frivolous enough to avoid answering Custador’s question?
Oh you poor baby. I’ll prepare the fainting couch.
@ Sunny – Arix isn’t quite a politician grade liar, but it’s sirloin steak versus fillet steak, you know? Not much between them.
I’m avoiding talking to you until you learn to behave and stop talking down to people. Read Custador’s post – your academic credentials that you brought up were irrelevant, then you switched gears to pull another set of academic credentials out of thin air and seemed annoyed at us for not knowing your CV in advance. You showed a complete lack of understanding of the original article, making your supposed authority suspect anyway, and all you are saying is “I know these texts better than you, so I am right in my interpretation!” which is not an argument.
JMW,
You have shown yourself time and again in this conversation to be a complete ignoramus of the task at hand. You are just a different version of Ray Comfort. What is more hilarious is that you spew accusations and talk down to people while demanding they stop. It is ridiculous and sad at the same time. You have failed to address anything I have brought up and merely tried some poor rhetorical ad hominem devices mostly. Really sad stuff from a supposedly open-minded person.
I’m sorry that I had to clarify for your ignorance what a Second Temple scholar is actually trained in… how “arrogant” of me! I’m sorry that I have studied these texts in the original languages. My pride knows no bounds!
Obviously, you are close-minded and just want to argue. In fact, everything you have written on here has demonstrated nothing but a desire for anti-dialogue. I don’t even want to talk about a rational defense for modern Christianity. Here’s a big hint, read closely now, pay attention: I don’t like modern Christianity. I’m not interested in apologetics. I study ancient history. It’s what I do. I’m interested in ancient history; nothing more or less. In fact, I’m somewhat knowledgeable. From that experience I suggested Jersey’s thesis was not comprehensive enough. For some reason you needed to sling mud. Whatever.
As I have mentioned several times you obviously have no academic training. It’s obvious from your argumentation style and clear lack of any reading skills whatsoever. You have missed the point of so many sentences one wonders if your native tongue is even English.
You are as ignorant, close minded, uniformed, and philosophically immature as any fundamentalist or young-earther I have debated that demands we ignore science and instead trust in the Bible’s creation narrative. I didn’t know there was a flip side to that coin until I came on this site yesterday. Fellow atheists and any scientists should be embarrassed by your “reason” that makes silly statements without any evidence.
Hey Scott, I would really like to have a discussion with you. Email me at arixion@gmail.com if you are interested.
I am still waiting for your critique of Fideism.
As an aside, I think you’ve got your terms cocked up. Fideism is the fundamental position that faith and reason are separate, if not antagonistic, modes of knowing, and that faith is the superior epistemological mode for knowing certain classes of entities and concepts. John Paul II was an ardent anti-Fideist, as his encyclical Fides et Ratio goes to some length to articulate.
Elemenope,
I think that you have misread the Encyclical. JP II’s argument is that both Faith and Reason come from God, therefore True Reason illuminates Faith, and Faith illuminates True Reason. This is certainly a Fideist position.
Then you have misunderstood what Fideism is, because what you are describing is a position antithetical to Fideism as it is normally defined, which emphasizes the fundamental irrationality of faith, from Tertullian’s “I believe because it is absurd” all the way through to Kierkegaard’s subjective truth categories and William James’ will to believe absent evidence or reason. JPII’s argument was that faith and reason are complementary and overlapping, emphasizing faith as a rational result. This is literally about as far from Fideism as it is possible to get.
From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
“Fideism” is the name given to that school of thought—to which Tertullian himself is frequently said to have subscribed—which answers that faith is in some sense independent of, if not outright adversarial toward, reason. In contrast to the more rationalistic tradition of natural theology, with its arguments for the existence of God, fideism holds—or at any rate appears to hold (more on this caveat shortly)—that reason is unnecessary and inappropriate for the exercise and justification of religious belief. The term itself derives from fides, the Latin word for faith, and can be rendered literally as faith-ism. “Fideism” is thus to be understood not as a synonym for “religious belief,” but as denoting a particular philosophical account of faith’s appropriate jurisdiction vis-a-vis that of reason.
But, of course, Arix knows better….
Jersey, I have a question for you:
Who is this Lloyd-Jones guy, and does he, in your opinion, accurately represent the majority of Christian, protestant, or even evangelical religious teaching? The reason I ask is because this quote indeed expresses a terrible sentiment. I can’t help but agree that this does not provide a solid basis for a Christianity that interacts with the non-believer, or is capable of reasoning through its own doctrines.
However, you’ve built your entire article on this single quote. You move from its implications for the believer to its implications for the religious teacher. This is all logically coherent, given that your implicit premise (that this quotation is representative of Christianity) is true. Or, I suppose, given that your entire article is an elaborate hypothetical: “If/when Christians believe this, they relegate themselves to incompatibility with reason.” I think that hypothetical is certainly true, but I don’t agree that that quotation is representative of Christianity. It is too general in too many ways. It neglects not only people who disagree with Lloyd-Jones (which incidentally is likely to include most Catholics) but also the people whose Christianity is primarily driven by a particular kind of rational interaction with the world around it: namely the discourse surrounding conversion. When presenting an argument intended to convince, it behooves the missionary to appeal to logic and reason as well as emotion.
I admire how firmly you defend your thought. I nevertheless strongly disagree with your conclusions, and with the way that you frame your argument.
Jersey Flight- JonJon
There is of course, a variety of Christian theologies, but the problem with arguing that they are all relevant is that it undermines the reality of Christian presuppositions. Either an author has a definitive meaning in mind, or he has written indecisively, in which case, there is validity assigned to every prospective interpretation. In the case of scripture, capriciousness is not an option, as it would logically destroy the possibility of theological authority.
What people can’t seem to get over is the reality that consistent Christianity is irrational; and this manifestation simply stings too badly. Of course, other individuals would attempt to argue the validity of a rational Christianity, but this is something they must do, and not something they can merely allude to!
The more an objector of my position reads the words of scripture, the more he will come to understand the validity of my thesis. For we did not invent the Christian method, we merely sought to interpret it, even as Christianity is a form of interpretation. As for the reality of its invention, that was something that took place long ago.
Unlike other schools of thought, say philosophy for instance, Christian theology is the communication of very specific things- and this is because it must be the communication of specific things! There is of course, a bit of room for variation, but if one goes too far, in the process of this variation, they will usurp the authority of Christianity altogether.
So yes, one can mold a different thesis, but the question is what kind of Christianity will result from the effects of this thesis? Will it be rational, at the cost of destroying the authority of one’s theological propositions, or will it be faithful, at the cost of rationality? I know there are men who think Christianity and rationality are compatible, but they don’t have the option of modifying their presuppositions; and this means they are forced to affirm the conclusions of those presuppositions, or repudiate the foundation of their Christianity altogether.
I think the objection seems to be that not all Christians would agree with me, and my reply; well, of course they wouldn’t agree to the conclusion that their system is based on irrational techniques of control! But voicing their disagreement is one thing, proving the rational method of their Christianity is another.
This will be my final reply.
I would like to thank each person that contemplated my thesis enough to articulate an objection. For objections are not something we should reject or fear, but things we should welcome and embrace. And hopefully it will be evident that this is what I have done?
Cordially,
Jersey Flight
Jersey,
(1) Agree with you here. But Authority is not equal to Irrationality.
(2) Your assertion that “consistent Christianity” is irrational, as Scott pointed out, is an assertion until you have proven it.
(3-4) Same applies for the other philosophies. Materialism cannot embrace the immaterial without deviating too far from its precepts. So of course, one cannot deny God and still be a Christian! Your point here is totally pointless.
(5) And you (and other atheists) don’t give yourselves room for the modification of your own presuppositions either. So I guess then that atheism is irrational too?
This will be my final reply too. As always, I came onto this thread hoping that there is some atheist who is really willing to talk seriously about Christianity. Usually, I fail; and mostly this time round too, except for Scott and (perhaps) you. The others are still still stuck with their presupposition that Christianity is junk. As long as they don’t abandon that presupposition, no theist is going to be willing to dialogue with them, because that is a simply infantile attitude and hardly open-minded.
The others are still still stuck with their presupposition that Christianity is junk. As long as they don’t abandon that presupposition…
You fail to grasp the difference between presupposition and a decision arrived at following varied experience and careful consideration of the known facts and evidence.
But then you fail at a lot of things – things like admitting to ‘Nope that s/he knows a lot more about philosophy than you do after you’ve argued yourself into a corner and been proven wrong. Things like making unfounded accusations against me and then failing to back them up when called on them. Things like understanding that atheism is not a religion or creed and demands no suspension of disbelief or blind, fanatic loyalty (unlike Christianity). Things like understanding that if you could prove a deity (or even argue a strong case for one), a lot of us would have our religious positions altered, rather than assuming that, because you can’t give any evidence or good arguments, we must all be dogmatic and slaves to our (non)belief.
In circles I used to run in Lloyd-Jones was a very influential figure. Of course he doesn’t represent all of xianity, though.
“Perhaps the point is that it is always dangerous to join a sect, which is so certain of the truth, that it admonishes its disciples to avoid reason.”
Yes – but the sect appeals to *Emotion* not Reason. Reason is cold and harsh. Reason provides no comfort when you lose your only child suddenly. Reason gives no security when you are dying of cancer. Reason does not hold your hand and cry with you – praying to some higher power. Reason provides no embrace in a time of need.
Reason does not forgive.
That is why there will always be sects with just the right superstitions to provide that emotional comfort….to provide the embrace when it is needed most.
What reason should you pray to God or a higher power and not a potted plant during times of hardship?
It doesn’t matter. Pray to God, Pray to a Potted Plant, the results are the same.
Because a response is not tangible or the way we wanted, doesn’t mean a response was not made. For example, a child comes to us and says he hopes and asks his mom to get, buy, or do something for him. Sometime later, the child returns and says nothing what he wanted to happened occured. Should we then say that the boy’s mother doesn’t exist? No! The mother could have said, “Wait” or “No” among other things.
The difference is that even if we have no direct evidence for the existence of this specific mother there is large body of evidence for the existence of mothers in general. On the other hand no evidence for the existence of any god is available (The buybull say god exist doesn’t count as evidence).
Actually, we have just as much evidence for God as we do a mother.
The beginning of universe demands an explanation which only God can give since He is outside of the universe and not bound by time. Matter can not be eternal, and useful energy is not eternal either, so an infinitely old universe makes very little sense.
The universe and earth contain factors like gravity, nuclear force, etc. which play huge roles for life as we know it. If gravity were to shift in the smallest fraction we would be crushed or gravity could not hold us. If the forces in the nucleus of an atom were slightly weaker, then atoms could not hold together and life could not occur. Because all of these factors are so finely tuned to allow life to exist, it is improbable to believe it all happened by chance. The infinite number of universes theory lacks evidence and the origin of all of these universes would need explanation.
Life itself is quite complex for random acts of chance. DNA contains orderly information to help a cell function properly. Orderly information, as we have observed, comes from an intelligence. Life also is irreducibly complex at the basic level, the cell. The cell needs not only a functioning strand of DNA, but also various organelles to produce energy, store energy, synthesize proteins, move proteins, destroy wastes, etc. Without one of these things, the cell’s chance of life drops considerably. Yet, for Darwinian evolution to work the cell could only start with one thing at a time. The fossil record lacks the needed transitional fossils. Instead, we see a sudden jump from “simple” to “complex” organisms in the Cambrian era. Such design for life and the lack of evidence for macro-evolution, indicates a creator for life which the Bible offers.
Morality is a puzzling problem. Why is doing something right, even if it might mean hurting my chances to survival? Why do anything right? Atheism lacks the answers to these questions. While atheists may lead moral lives, they can not explain how they know what they are doing is moral. Christianity explains this by saying a morally good God made us in His image, so the idea of there being a right and wrong is ingrained into our minds.
The existence of the conscience poses another problem. While scientists can tell that people are thinking or dreaming, they are unable to know what a person is thinking or dreaming. This because they are only scanning the brain. It is the conscience side of a person which contains the capacity to form thoughts and have dreams. How can nature randomly produce such a thing?
Then we have the historical person named Jesus. He is recorded outside the Bible and several of the references summarize the accounts given in the four gospels. He lived in Judea, taught people, supposedly did miraculous things, tried under Pilate, and was crucified. Shortly thereafter, His disciples are preaching how He arose from the dead. There is no record indicating the tomb was not empty, in fact Jewish sources declared the disciples stole the body thus indicating an empty tomb. Yet, there is very little reason to believe that the disciples stole the body. So why was the tomb empty?
“Actually, we have just as much evidence for God as we do a mother.”
This ought to be good…
“The beginning of universe demands an explanation which only God can give since He is outside of the universe and not bound by time.”
If he was outside of the universe and outside of time then he could not interact with the universe and therefore couldn’t have created it.
” Matter can not be eternal”
Prove it. Seriously – prove it. How is it less of a stretch to assume an intelligent, omnipotent organism has just “always existed” than to assume that matter/energy (which are interchangeable and essentially the same thing as any physicist can tell you) has?
“and useful energy is not eternal either”
Chicken and egg, egg and chicken. The energy was there before the use for it was.
“so an infinitely old universe makes very little sense”
You display a spectacular lack of understanding of the well proven concept of space-time. I suggest you study some before expressing an opinion.
The rest of your post is so full of bog-standard creationist arguments that have been debunked here a thousand times and elsewhere a billion times and more that I’m not going to got through them – do it yourself with Google Scholar.
Godis Truth– So who made god? Why can god be eternal but not energy or matter?
Look, so you don’t spend any time doing any deep thinking and don’t read any books that don’t agree with what you already believe. That much is clear from what you have written. But there are plenty of outstanding, scientific explanations for each and every one of those silly questions you so simplistically purport can only be answered by the existence of god.
First of all, Christianity does not eradicate or try to step over the use of reason. In Acts 17:22-31, Paul gives a logical argument before the thinkers of Athens as to why Christianity was true and should be adhered to instead of the pantheon the Greeks were worshipping at the time. In fact, the style of most of Paul’s letters are arguments using various devices like logos, pathos, ethos, allusion, etc. in order to persuade logically how to live a Christian life. In Hebrews 11:1, faith for a Christian is not blind but based upon evidence. While this evidence may not give 100% certainty, the logical inference of the evidence indicates that Christianity is true. Even Peter calls Christians to provide a reason for the hope that they have (I Peter 3:15).
Second, Christians must not welcome false teachers into their homes because that would be a sign of condoning what they taught. We are commanded to love, but not to be yoked or to tolerate those who do not follow the gospel given to us by the apostles. This is not because we don’t want to be questioned, but we do not want others to be deceived by demons who “masquerade as angels of light.” We are of the Light, and children of the Light have nothing in common with those of the Dark.
Third, doctrine may not comfort you in times of trouble. But how did you know that God comforted you times of trouble? Because this is a doctrine! This is a teaching given to us by Scripture. Emotions are fine, but they are fickle and do not last. Sound doctrine though is based on truth which always lasts no matter how we may think or feel. If you believe feelings and passions are better than reasons and doctrines, did you not realize that you had to think and decide that feelings and passions are better?
The passage you cite in Acts is Paul giving an expert *rhetorical* argument, not a logical one. The easy way to tell the difference is that the entire content of the argument is assertion; there is no syllogism or other basic logic structure. If one were to diagram the argument, it would resolve to simply be an unconnected series of premises.
Sorry, my bad. Anyway, Paul does use reason in other places like Thessalonica’s synagogue.(Acts 17:2-3).
The premises are not unconnected. Paul begins with acknowledging the Greeks’ strong sense of there being supernatural forces at work and specifically references an altar in the city of Athens dedicated to “Unknown god.” Paul procedes to tell them about this unknown God by giving a very, very brief summary of God and how God created mankind to seek Him. Paul then admonishes their way of worshipping idols, that God was now going to punish those who did not obey, how God provided a way to be saved, and the proof of this salvation was through a man God raised from the dead.
No, they are unconnected premises that happen to be thematically similar. It’s the difference between:
1.) A is true, and B is true, and C is true, and D is true…, where A, B, C, and D are all concepts or objects that bear some general relationship.
and
2.) A is true and B is true, therefore C must be true; if C is true then D is necessarily true, where A, B, C, and D are all concepts or objects that bear some general relationship, and C & D are direct logical consequences of A & B.
(1) is simply rhetorical storytelling, in specific a rhetorical method popular in Hebrew and other languages that favor syntaxis. Koine Greek, though I am not sure about this, I am willing to bet since it is a trading language, also favors syntaxis over hypotaxis. (2) is the skeleton of a logical structure, moving from premises to direct consequences of those premises. What Paul does in the passage is (1), not (2).
GodisTruth: “Emotions are fine, but they are fickle and do not last. ”
I completely agree, which is why I find it odd that God would display human emotion such as anger, jealousy, sadness etc. If emotions are fickle – then why would your God have them?
I said that because emotions are not a good way to find truth. If I was not clear, which I believe I was, I am sorry. For example, if I jump out of a plane and my parachute doesn’t open, no matter how much I feel that the chute has opened it hasn’t and I will most likely die. A girl may feel she is in love, but discovers later on that she was just infatuated and really can not stand the guy she is dating.
Christians believe God is personal and can therefore display personal feelings like love, anger, jealousy (like a husband has for his wife), grief, etc. I would like to know why you think they are human emotions? Why couldn’t God have given them to us?
GodisTruth – I’m talking about God displaying emotion. You don’t find it the slightest bit odd that an omnipotent being, that created trillions upon trillions of stars, would get ANGRY regarding strange smoke offered to him or get angry about a small ancient tribal conflict on a seemingly small and insignificant planet? Does not the fact that God gets angry point more to the idea that we created God in our image – rather than the other way around?
Yes, I know and as I said the Jews and Christians believe God is personal. Persons express emotions. While God does show these emotions, He doesn’t do it like the Greco-Roman gods. Zeus is often seen as being relatively stupid, getting into arguments he can’t solve, and often ruled by his emotions especially when it came to the ladies. God on the otherhand was not ruled by emotions, shows great insight as He describes to Job creation of the cosmos, and conveys a message when He is angry or pleased.
True, smoke from an altar really has no value to Him. However, the smoke of sacrifices revealed that the people were truly convicted of and repentant of theirs sins. The sacrifices were not His food and the smoke not a vaporous fume that He got high on like we do with weed.
When God is angry, it is not a mere temper tantrum. He created us in His image meaning whatever we say or do is to be a reflection of who God is. If we lie, we are essentially saying God is a liar. But that isn’t the case, God can not lie. By doing such things is to dishonor Him which He will not tolerate. Being completely, holy, pure, and demanding justice, God simply will not condone sin no matter how insignificant we think it is.
You have a huge opinion of yourself to think you have a superior personal knowledge of the creator of the universe. Are you familiar with the concept of solipsism?
That sounds like a load of excuses. You sound like an abuse victim making excuses for the threats and emotions of an abuser, for your own good, because they filled your head that you will be cast to hell otherwise, so you choose a punch in the eye and call it a kiss.
He can and he did: “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” (Gen 2.17)
That’s a lie: Adam ate the fruit and not only he didn’t die, he lived another 930 years.
I’m learning what God is outside the bible.
GodisTruth: You say “God can not lie” but how do you know this? You say “God simply will not condone sin” but how do you know this as well?
God gets angry, jealous, has wants, wishes for things to be different, gets offended, has to ask questions about reality, feels compassion, punishes the innocent/guilty, uplifts those he agrees with, etc. God is exactly like a human who is given extraordinary power.
Exodus 4:24-26
At a lodging place on the way, the LORD met Moses and was about to kill him. 25 But Zipporah took a flint knife, cut off her son’s foreskin and touched Moses’ feet with it. “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me,” she said. 26 So the LORD let him alone.
Yep, the maker of the universe bumped into Moses at a lodge and was in a bad mood. God wanted to kill him but changed his mind. An omnipotent being behaving exactly like a human. Next time you read your bible look for the human like behavior of God – that is your first clue to revealing the fairy tale….
All that is good and all that is evil is a part of God.
Because christians project their own roiling emotions onto the deity of their particular mythology. The ancient Greeks did it too: all those bawdy, roisterous gods made in our own unlovely image, just like yours.
Emotions are survival fight-or-flight. Jealousy (a kinda nasty one) is a different interpretation of survival, wanting not just survival, but primacy and all the goodies. No reason any god worthy of respect would need those. Even less reason that he/she/it would value those.
“Christians believe God is personal” – i.e. he only exists in your heads?
I believe everyone has a personal God. and yes…he is also in my head.
I think when I talk to someone that knows it all and everything about me and says I am sinful and need to find Jesus…that is a good time to walk away.