Jesus.
But some at DeConversion would disagree. Right now, there is a debate going on there that has ignited almost 200 responses in less than a day. It is currently the TOP post on WordPress, and is garnering some heavy attention. The foundation for this debate (which could easily be labeled a “heated argument”) is the difference between objective and subjective truth. I have written a post on this before, and have written an essay on the topic, to be found here. That said, I won’t write a massive post on the topic, but would like to point out 3 of the more interesting and recurring themes from the post on DeConversion.
Historical Validity of the Bible. It is no surprise that non-Christians do not see the bible as having historical legitimacy or authority. My question and challenge to this is, “Why is it any less authoritative than other historical documents from the same period?” The bible is the single most trusted ancient historical document. Period. Both Christian and non-Christian historians and architects agree, regardless of religious background. The Council of Nicaea is often cited as a “picking and choosing” of sections of scripture that most suited the political and personal goals of those involved, but it was far more a formal recognition of canon that was already being used independently in chruches across the world. The bible has just as much, if not more, authority as the records and transcripts found in Rome, or Josephus’ account of the Roman armies sacking Israel in 70 AD.
Objective Truth of Christian Faith. Partly because of the church, and partly because of our postmodern culture, many Christians have been led to believe that even if the Bible is not true, then our faith is still valid. This is working on the basis of subjective truth. In I Corinthians 15:14, Paul says,
“And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.”
IN VAIN. If Christ has not been raised, we believe for naught other than our personal comfort. If Jesus is not Lord and Savior over all, and not JUST for those who believe, we are fooling ourselves and should hop in a car and go binge drinking for the next several weeks, picking up hookers along the way.
Speaking the Truth in Love. Neither side does to the degree that we should, but it is rightfully used against Christians who are called to a higher standard. We are not called to judge, but simply to preach the gospel. God will do the rest. The dangers of taking on God’s role of judgment are clearly written in Romans 2:1-5:
“1 Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. 2 We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who do such things. 3 Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God? 4 Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? 5 But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.”
As I said, the conversation is very interesting, if incredibly long and disjointed. Some rational and respectful voices are definitely needed, so if you feel so called, join the fray! If not, then sleep like a Calvinist.
God Bless!
But some atheists insist that you read their holy books, as one of my agnostic friends discovered to his cost.
Hehe, well, even that can be a good thing. As you seem to insinuate, they need to be as ready for argument or critique as they expect others to be.
I think the key is to be respectful and open to both critique and affirmation (on both sides of the debate). Resting in the exclusive and objective truth of the gospel should mean we are not offended or disturbed by good, hard questions, because we have confidence in said truth.
“but in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you;”
(I Peter 3:15)
“The bible has just as much, if not more, authority as the records and transcripts found in Rome, or Josephus’ account of the Roman armies sacking Israel in 70 AD.”
Hahahaha.
“If Jesus is not Lord and Savior over all, and not JUST for those who believe, we are fooling ourselves and should hop in a car and go binge drinking for the next several weeks, picking up hookers along the way.”
I suggest you get started.
-ryan
therobot.org
Why do you laugh? I’m amused that you respond to a call for respectful dialog with laughter…
And I have been there, done that, got the T-Shirt (minus the hookers). I am already very much aware of the falsity of THAT “truth.”
And I’m amused by your ignorance. Please, show me one scholarly and respected article that supports your belief that the New Testament books, written at least several decades after the events they describe, have “just as much, if not more” historical authority than contemporary, secular, and governmental historical records. Here is Wikipedia on the historicity of Jesus:
“The historicity, teachings and nature of Jesus are currently debated among Biblical scholars. The earliest New Testament texts which refer to him, Paul’s letters, are usually dated from the mid-first century. Paul himself had seen Jesus only in visions; but he claimed they were divine revelations and hence authoritative. Most modern scholars hold that the works describing Jesus (primarily the Gospel accounts) were initially communicated by oral tradition and were not finally committed to writing until several decades after the crucifixion. It is therefore believed that these texts may not have retained the same level of historical accuracy as they might have, had they been direct first-hand accounts actually written during or soon after the life of Jesus.”
So we are to believe that reports communicated orally for decades by believers–that is, by people who, you must admit, probably lacked the striving after objectivity on which the historical method is founded–are “just as much, if not more” reliable than the reports of contemporary government officials?
Regarding the hookers: Why do you call them a (false) “truth”? There’s no “truth” in the secretion of hormones. The sooner you stop capitalizing or quoting “Truth” as if it were a tangible, knowable, independent, and Platonic entity–the better. Sex is a pleasurable activity, the Bible is a loose collection of spurious writings, and life is an interaction of neurons–and if this depresses you, you need to rethink yourself.
-ryan
therobot.org
Ryan,
Your sharp-tongue and cynicism are frail tactics that hurt your argument rather than support it. Yes, the books (i.e Gospels, letters, etc.) of the New Testament were written after the death and resurrection of Christ. Would you expect them to have been written beforehand?
This is how it works: the events happen and then the book is written. Jack Kerouac’s On the Road was published in 1957, but it regales his adventures following the immediate aftermath of WWII (you might recall from your elementary history class that WWII occurred in the 1940s). Here’s another example: Darwin took his journey on the Beagle in the 1830s, which is when he formed his ideas regarding evolution, but he didn’t publish his Origin of Species until 1859. There’s a 30 year gap between his trip to the Magellan strait and the publication of his magnum opus. Should we discredit him because he didn’t write it immediately?
Do you really hold government records, whether they be historical or contemporary, to be unbiased? If so, you’ve been duped.
You say that truth is not knowable and then you say that sex is a pleasurable activity. The second clause in that statement (i.e. “sex is pleasurable”) is a truth. Also, if truth is not knowable how do you know that truth it is not knowable? That’s a very bold statement for someone who doesn’t have a handle on what is true and what is not.
Last bit of advice, Ryan: focus less on hookers and more on seeking the truth and you might be surprised by what you find.
God bless!
I’ll keep this short. Please tell me which historical source on ancient China you would grant more authority: 1) Contemporary government records, or 2) Religious documents written decades after the aforementioned government records, said to have been transmitted orally from religious believer to religious believer. Do you really hold religious documents more reliable than government records? If so, you’ve been duped.
You badly misinterpret what I said about truth, and for your sake I hope you are doing it deliberately. Brad was using “truth” to mean Truth, that is, as a Platonic/metaphysical/ethical concept. I pointed out that there is no such thing to be found in sex, nor anywhere else. You take me to be saying that nothing is true, but sex is true, or—in fact I’m really not sure what you take me to be saying. But you’re wrong.
-ryan
therobot.org
Let me clarify two points.
1.) My reference to sex, hookers, and whatever lifestyle involved was based on the discussion about subjective truth, which in our cultural context is evidenced to justify whatever individual lifestyle or choice making we see fit. Most of us who choose our lifestyles do so on the basis of some kind of truth that gives them the justification to do so. Using your example, I would argue that there are many people out there who would vehemently disagree that sex is enjoyable based on their circumstances.
2.) I should have been more specific when I used the term “historical authority.” Let me now be more specific. The copies of the bible, the New Testament in particular, are the closest to the original source documents than almost any document prior to the end of the first millennium AD. This means they are more close to the original document than most can claim to be. Even Shakespeare’s writings and the earliest copies we have are much further from the source, yet you probably wouldn’t question his authorship.
Fact: The Bible (both old and new testament) has been used to locate and excavate archaeological sites previously unknown to even exist.
Fact: MANY events recorded in scripture are independently verified by third party sources, such as the historian Josephus.
Ryan,
I am very open and encouraging of debate, dialog, and discourse. But please, if you are truly interested in doing so beyond touting your own proposed superiority, keep the comments respectful and constructive.
That said, how exactly would you then define Truth? Is it subjective or objective? You obviously disagree withme on that point, so let’s establish a foundation to work on.
Blessings.
1) Just like “storbakken,” you unwittingly slip between two different uses of “truth.” Watch:
a. “Most of us who choose our lifestyles do so on the basis of some kind of truth that gives them the justification to do so.”—Here you mean the Platonic “Truth” by truth, that is, you mean Ethical Justification.
b. “There are many people out there who would vehemently disagree that sex is enjoyable based on their circumstances.”—Here you mean that sex is actually not enjoyable for some people, that is, you mean “what is actually the case” by truth, not an ethical Concept.
2) This is either false and irrelevant, or true and irrelevant.
a. If false: Clearly it’s irrelevant. I have no wish to debate this, but I hope you did some research before making this claim.
b. If true: It still doesn’t matter. Should the fact that the Bible, once written, has claimed largely the same thing throughout history persuade us whatsoever of the truth of those claims? Of course not. It persuades us to believe that its textual transmission has remained relatively unaltered, not that its reports are reliable. If I write a fictional novel and bury it in the ground before handing out copies, and if a thousand years from now the copies then in print are seen to match up with the original I buried in the ground, should it persuade any of those people to believe in the truth of my novel? (The answer is no.)
3) I believe I have been both of these.
4) I don’t know what you mean by “how I would define truth.” What would a subjective truth be like, as opposed to an objective truth? Please understand that dichotomies like “subjective vs. objective truth” are simplistic creations of religious peoples in order to make disagreement/postmodernism/liberalism (the target varies) seem ridiculous. No one thinks truth is subjective in the way that you think people think truth is subjective—and if they do, they’re idiots. My only comment about truth in my first post was to suggest that phrases like “seeking after The Truth” are meaningless unless they mean something like “finding what is actually the case.” The trouble is, what “actual case” is there to “find” in, say, the choice of lifestyle? How could one be True and the other be False, when they are not propositions and thus truth is inapplicable. In short, I deny the first sense of truth I described above (1a)—in other words, I think Plato is flat-wrong. There is only the second sense (1b).
1.) “Unwittingly” is false, friend. I knew I was, that was kind of the point. You know, an “illustration.” Congratulations for noticing.
2.) It’s neither.
a.) I’m amused that you used wikipedia to prove me wrong. Nothing like using an open source to cite against open sourcing. I have, in fact, done my research (psst… read the title of the blog, it’s kind of my degree program).
b.) Yes, you are correct concerning the difference between accuracy and truthfulness of the historical claims in scripture. I suppose you should have done your research and read the post and comments I linked to. This would have explained your conclusion. All you have proven is that you have read this post out of context.
3.) Since when has laughter and accusations of ignorance been a respectful response to honest dialog? You have been warned. If you cannot engage in respectful conversation, your posts will be deleted.
4.) Concerning truth, I agree that subjective truth is inherently a fallacy. However, there are many people (some agnostics, theists, pluralists, etc.) who do hold it to be true. Want an example?
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003751274_redding17m.html
Let go of the illustration. I am not claiming, nor am I advocating the “truth” of a given lifestyle over or in combination with the objective truth of faith.
I welcome you to come back, read, and engage in the discussion. I’m stoked to talk about all subjects with all people of any philosophical or religious background. I ask only that you read with the intent to understand and discuss, and not with the intent to find holes in the argument and criticize. If, upon understanding, you disagree, that’s great. Let’s talk.
1) An illustration of what, Brad? The logical fallacy of changing the definition of a term mid-argument?
2) b.) What posts/comments? I see no links.
How am I deliberately misinterpreting you? Let me quickly summarize the debate. In your original post you boldly proclaim that “the bible is the single most trusted ancient historical document. Period.” Now you can mean three things by this. Either you mean that the bible’s historical reports are more trusted than any other contemporary text’s historical reports; or you mean that the bible has remained relatively unaltered throughout history; or both. In my first few posts I argued that to privilege the historical reports of the bible over contemporary government records seems unhistorical (that is, bad history) because the bible was written decades after the government records, passed down orally, and transmitted by people who already believed that the person described by these reports was a supernatural being; while the government records were contemporary and written by people who at least purported to strive after objectivity in their record-keeping. To respond to this, you claim that I misinterpreted you, and that you actually meant the second of these meanings (that is, you meant only that the bible has remained relatively unaltered.) I replied by saying that the truth of this by itself is unremarkable—most of Aristotle’s and Plato’s writings survive relatively unaltered, too—and that it only attains relevance if it attempts to serve as an argument for the first claim (that the bible’s reports are just as much, if not more accurate than the contemporary government’s). But if it attempts to do that, it will fail because, as you yourself say, truthfulness and accuracy are not identical. Now you claim I have misinterpreted you again: But where? How could I have possibly done so? I have followed you every step of the way, and at every step you simply call me a bully (a kind of negative ad hominem approach) and say I have misinterpreted you.
3) I apologize if I have offended anyone seriously. But this is the internet, and I think we can take a little hardball. If I’ve really crossed a line, I apologize.
4) That article describes a laughably unsophisticated religious person—is this supposed to bother me? What illustration do you want me to let go of? What is the “objective truth of faith” you refer to? Don’t say “Jesus.” I mean, why are you using “objective” here? Are you referring to the faith-lifestyle, or the particular propositions of your faith? I have been arguing all along that truth will only make sense of the latter claim.
5) “I ask only that you read with the intent to understand and discuss, and not with the intent to find holes in the argument and criticize. If, upon understanding, you disagree, that’s great. Let’s talk.” How could I find holes in an argument without already understanding it? Where have I misunderstood anything that has been written here? I have understood you quite well—these are not original arguments, neither mine nor yours—and I have disagreed, and we have talked. Speculation: could it be that you’re simply upset with what I am saying, and you express that frustration by complaining about how I say it?
-ryan
therobot.org
Ryan wrote: “…the bible was written decades after the government records…”
What government records are you referring to? If you are talking about Chinese records, as you referred to earlier, that is not relevant to this post. Please keep on topic. The Bible, as you mention in your last comment, was written over a period of a couple thousand years. It includes historical accounts, parables, poetry, songs, prophetic works and even government records.
I believe that when you say Bible you are referring to the New Testament and, more specifically, the Gospels. Three of the Gospels were written by people who knew Jesus intimately. They were eye witnesses. The Gospel according to Luke was written by a doctor who investigated first hand the events surrounding the life, death and resurrection of Christ. The Gospels are followed by the Book of Acts. Acts details the founding of the church soon after Christ’s ascension. Acts is followed by a series of letters written in the present tense. I suggest you give the New Testament a read before attempting to lambast it.
1.) Nope. An illustration that demonstrates the futility of relativism and the post modern trend of subjective truth. Is it that hard to see?
2.) It’s right there, in the second line, right under “Jesus.” If you need it again, happy reading:
http://de-conversion.com/2007/07/03/dont-ask-me-to-read-your-holy-book/
“every step of the way… you have called me a bully.” Negative ad hominem? No kidding? Hmmm… I guess I was attacking your person by responding to your questions with valid and clarifying answers. I asked for a tone of respect and constructive criticism because, with the sole exception of point #3 of your last post, your tone has been sarcastic and bordering on hostile.
And please, do not mistake understanding with disagreement.
Also, see Storbakken’s response, as it covers anything else I have to say in Re: to this point.
3.) Apology accepted, as I just said, it was very questionable. Let’s move on.
4.) Again, the article illustrated the cultural trend towards subjective truth claims (which would include the very broad term of “postmodernism”). It was not meant to bother you. I think we are in agreement that viewing truth, and our interaction with it in reality, as objective is the only viable option. I think I’ve made that pretty clear as to what I’m talking about, and yes, I am also including “Jesus” in that. Why? Well, if we define truth as that which is in accordance with fact and reality, He qualifies. Don’t like that? Sorry. But faith is not off limits on this blog, and is rather the point.
5.) Thank you for illustrating my point. I spent the first 20 years of my life ignoring what I didn’t want to hear, but once I had some small measure of humility to give it a chance, the Truth took hold of me. No, I don’t always like what I’m hearing, but it in no way impedes with my ability to do so and engage in conversation about it. I am not upset at all with what you have to say, and generally don’t have a huge problem with how you are saying it, but I have a responsibility to keep it a “clean fight” for others who may want to join in.
In general, let’s just leave our pride at the door and have a cup of joe, shall we?
Brad, I am spending far too much time talking to you, but here goes. You have talked past me on every substantial issue. Rather than reiterating what I have said, could I ask you to explain to me what your position now is regarding: 1) the relation between “Truth,” “truth,” and lifestyle; and 2) your support for the claim that the bible is just as if not more authoritative than contemporary government records? It seemed that you in your second post, you equated a false Platonic Truth to lascivious behavior. Then you seemed to be ironic about being able to do that, after I argued that you swapped your definitions of “truth” mid-argument (which is not a clever achievement, but almost always a mistake, by the way). Now I have no idea. Likewise, you have not responded to my very clear and thorough summarization and plea for response in my last reply, under 2b. Instead you have discussed my sarcasm, and let storbakken do your arguing. But storbakken’s post misses my point entirely, because he commits one of the major fallacies pointed out by the author of that d-C article (which I read before I commented the first time): a text cannot be self-corroborating.
So I don’t know what valid and clarifying answers you are referring to, as I have no idea where you stand now on any of the main issues we’ve been debating—probably because your every post is mostly about me and not about my arguments.
By the way, postmodernism is a philosophical umbrella term, and you’re using it (in your last post) in the informal and cultural sense and not in a technical one by equating it with subjectivism generally. That’s like equating existentialism with atheism. It’s just bad philosophy.
Of course Jesus qualifies to be either true or false, if by “Jesus” you mean propositions about him, like “Jesus existed” and “Jesus is supernatural.” I have never understood what our debate in this area has been about. Throughout I have only been trying to talk about your original post, which is about the historicity of the bible. I am only attempting to debunk the terribly unhistorical claim—to my mind—that the bible is “just as much, if not more” authoritative than other contemporary sources.
Again I apologize if this fight isn’t clean. Besides the laugh, my only “weapon” has been a sarcastic tone of voice. And I think we can all handle that, or if we can’t, we probably should be able to. But here’s to us actually replying to each other.
ryan
Ryan wrote: “…storbakken’s post misses my point entirely, because he commits one of the major fallacies pointed out by the author of that d-C article: a text cannot be self-corroborating..”
I notice that you are employing sophistry, rather than philosophy or reason in your arguments. You are attempting to debunk the Word at any cost, even if it takes a deviant route (i.e. sarcasm, cynicism, convoluted rhetoric). When I defended the validity of the text being written after the event occurred you did not respond. Rather you pulled a red herring out by bringin up China, which has no relevancy to this post.
Later, you made the wild statement that “…the bible was written decades after the government records…” This showed that you have little or no understanding of the Bible. Thus I shared with you a bit about the New Testament. Then you have the nerve to say that I was using the text to corroborate the text, rather than adequately responding to my comments. Logicians and reasonable communicators don’t like red herrings because they stink up an argument.
If you want to read historical works that deal explicitly with Jesus Christ in the 1st century, I suggest you check out the Babylonian Talmud, Josephus’s unadulterated work, Tacitus, or Suetonius. There are Greek, Roman and Jewish accounts of the person of Jesus Christ. But the primary source is the New Testament. Check it out. Might I suggest, start with the Gospels. They’re gold.
storbakken, I haven’t replied to you because, honestly, I didn’t see the need. But here we go.
“When I defended the validity of the text being written after the event occurred you did not respond.”—Um, of course the text would be written afterward, as you yourself pointed out. Did you expect me to dispute this? The point is that it was written decades afterward. And the examples you give of authoritative texts written after similar lengths of time are not histories.
“Later, you made the wild statement that ‘…the bible was written decades after the government records…’ This showed that you have little or no understanding of the Bible. Thus I shared with you a bit about the New Testament.”—Really. This is sad. Please research your own religion:
Jesus died ~33 AD. So the earliest gospel was written somewhere around 35 years later. Wild, huh?
“Then you have the nerve to say that I was using the text to corroborate the text, rather than adequately responding to my comments.” —Sorry, I realize I didn’t quite justify this. I just assumed that the only way you could believe that the gospels were not written decades after the life of Jesus was through passages in the Bible, since certainly nothing extrinsic to it supports your claim.
“There are Greek, Roman and Jewish accounts of the person of Jesus Christ.” —Again, wikipedia:
So we can agree without appealing to the Bible that a figure named Jesus may have existed. But not much else.
Also, might I ask you research the authorship of the individual gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The general concensus is that none of these authors were among the 12 apostles. None were eyewitnesses. Instead, they wrote decades after the life of Jesus—John writes almost an entire century afterward)—and rely on oral reports from other believers. I brought up China as an argument by analogy (this is not considered off-topic). If you were asked to compare the authenticity of contemporary government sources on ancient china with religious documents written decades afterward which relied on oral transmission, which would you pick? The answer seems obvious—and yet, why do you answer differently when your own religion’s claims are being evaluated? As a freethinking, rational person, you need to be able to adopt a critical distance to your own beliefs.
To conclude, I’m not trying to be mean here. Your mistaken beliefs about the origin of your own religion simply surprise me.
-ryan
Whooooooa. Flame war.
Brad, once again ,you bring validity and a call for calm, rational discussion to the topic at hand. Always good to read your stuff. Food for thought. Good food for thought.
I think part of the problem is maybe in the us v. them attitude a lot of people take regarding this topic. Maybe it’s called for, and maybe it is necessary, but even a respectful us v. them, in my opinion, still doesn’t really call for rational discussion. I mean, it does, maybe, but sort of on your terms, you know?
Perhaps that’s allowed considering this is your blog. Hmmm.
Consider:
“If Christ has not been raised, we believe for naught other than our personal comfort. If Jesus is not Lord and Savior over all, and not JUST for those who believe, we are fooling ourselves and should hop in a car and go binge drinking for the next several weeks, picking up hookers along the way.”
I read bits of the flame war up there, and Ryan hit this briefly (before inciting a fire-fight), but to equate a negation of your Christian worldview and faith to complete lawlessness and disrespect for oneself is to say that without Jesus, no person can respect him/herself or the world around him/her.
I think at first it seems like a nit-pick, but it is that kind of veiled language that, to me, is most dangerous. It displays latent judgment. I’m not saying you meet someone who is not Christian and instantly assume they have no respect for themselves or others, but equating Atheism (or not being a Christian) with such behavior even on an ideological idea creates the rift of us v. them.
My two cents.
Keep it up,b yo.
“but equating Atheism (or not being a Christian) with such behavior even on an ideological idea creates the rift of us v. them.” = I meant to say “ideological scale.” oops.
Ryan,
I’m sorry, but you are just wrong. Your information is just not accurate. Wikipedia is an open source website where anyone with a somewhat legitimate citation can contribute to and add on. It is far from a scholarly article, and very shaky foundation.
If you are truly interested in reading some legitimate material, please read some from the following books on the historical reliability of the bible’s record:
“The Historical Reliability of the Gospels,” by Craig Bloomberg
“The Son Rises: The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus,” William Lane Craig
“The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ,” by Gary R. Habermas
So Ryan, please stop insulting our intelligence by claiming we haven’t done our research. I am honestly disappointed that your idea of research is wikipedia anyway.
Kyle,
Thanks bro, for the continued encouragement and example for respectful and genuine dialog. It is very much appreciated.
“I think part of the problem is maybe in the us v. them attitude a lot of people take regarding this topic. Maybe it’s called for, and maybe it is necessary, but even a respectful us v. them, in my opinion, still doesn’t really call for rational discussion. I mean, it does, maybe, but sort of on your terms, you know?
Perhaps that’s allowed considering this is your blog. Hmmm.”
That is a very good point. To a certain degree, it needs to be on my terms for the sheer sake of regulating conversation in an intelligible and constructive way. You and I have done so on my terms yet (at least as far as I am aware!) it has not impeded it.
“I think at first it seems like a nit-pick, but it is that kind of veiled language that, to me, is most dangerous. It displays latent judgment. I’m not saying you meet someone who is not Christian and instantly assume they have no respect for themselves or others, but equating Atheism (or not being a Christian) with such behavior even on an ideological idea creates the rift of us v. them.”
And I see where you are taking the first quote towards, and I very much see that point as well. Let me explain the why of it a little more and that may help clear up my intent.
One of the things that I (and most Christians) struggle with is simultaneously being respectful but also maintaining a firm grasp on the objective truth claims of our faith (as opposed to the subjective postmodern, as already discussed). Our culture views even the simple statement of that objectivity as an insult and judgment.
Yes, we believe that those who do not accept Christ as Lord and Savior will spend eternity in Hell, regardless of the moral record of their current life. That is something that any Christian cannot (or at least should not) avoid. Yet at the same time, that is not OUR judgment to make, but God’s. It is a bit of a paradox, I know. But to concede on that point would undermine our entire faith. God calls us neither to judge nor disrespect others while holding to that claim. Your point that it creates an “us v. them” attitude is very much correct. It is unavoidable because the objective truth of the Christian faith specifically and undeniably creates that. Hence Heaven v. Hell, Believer v. non-believer, having Jesus and not having Jesus.
The key is to maintain an “us AND them” without it being an “us v. them.” Respect and love must be maintained, but some degree of differentiation cannot and must not be avoided.
Again, thanks for the comment and contribution to the discussion. If this hasn’t answered your question, or it has spurred more, please let me know!
Oh, also Kyle, because I do not think that it should be discussed ONLY on my terms, I try to be very active on other blogs and conversations as well. I am very active on both DeConversion and Myster of Iniquity, two agnostic/atheist/ex-Christian blogs linked on the right side of this page.
Brad,
Do you use/trust Wikipedia on other issues, or only regarding ones whose conclusions you already accept? The three books you mentioned have their conclusions in their titles—do you think that, maybe, the authors are Christian, and are looking for evidence for beliefs they already hold? Wikipedia is “an open source website,” yes, but that ought to add to its credibility, as people of opposing viewpoints separate the “subjective” and “objective” elements of the others’ contributions (as Jesus separates the goats from the sheep). Moreover, most of the pieces I quoted from wikipedia were themselves quotes from reliable, scholarly sources.
In fact, I find it difficult to believe that you actually discredit all of Wikipedia. No doubt you’ve used it before and found it adequate on other matters. Do you really think that a conspiracy has taken over all of the Christian articles? And do you really think that there are no active Christian Wikipedians who would fight very, very hard to make sure such a conspiracy does not occur? (And it is I who has insulted your intelligence?) I agree that wikipedia is not the best place for research, but I’m only using it to discover what other places of research have concluded. For instance, see my first quote in my last post.
I’m a little upset, Brad, that you dismiss with the least commentary my post with the most substance. I thought we wanted to stay on topic about the historicism of the Bible. I supplied an entire argument with quotes, and your only response to it is to question the entire encyclopedia’s legitimacy in which I found those quotes—which, by the way, describe the consensus between the sorts of books you posted and the sorts of books that disagree with those books. Am I being mean by attempting to be thorough?
By the way, this is the first and last time I will ever argue with someone about religion on his or her blog. I respect you and your opinions, Brad, but I feel like I’ve had to repeat and contort myself over and over in order for us actually to talk to, rather than past, each other about any of the issues raised in your blog post (that is the purpose of comments, yes?). I admit that this is largely my own fault, as I started off with a kind of intellectual arrogance. But I hoped that people would see that arrogance as just a dramatic costume dressing the real meat of what I was saying. I realize now that that doesn’t work, and I apologize. But in the last two or three posts, I feel I’ve been respectful and straightforward, and my posts are still largely dismissed or answered obliquely. Why is this?
ryan
Brad,
You write: “I am very active on both DeConversion and Mystery of Iniquity, two agnostic/atheist/ex-Christian blogs linked on the right side of this page.”
Just to clarify. I know I play Devil’s Advocate quite a lot on my blog, but I would call myself an agnostic Christian. I’ve not yet de-converted and I’m certainly no atheist. Many Christians who comment over at deConversion put me in the atheist camp and even many who comment on my blog do also, without having read my previous entries or followed my journey. They all just assume that just because I don’t “toe the party line” about many Christian dogmas or believe in their many views of the bible that I’m excluded from the faith.
Anyway, just wanted to be clear.
Ryan,
You really miss the point. You come off as intellectually stifled and your arguments are unoriginal and weak. You came off hostile when this blog’s host gave a call for open and respectful dialogue. Your arrogance is too much. You need to get humble or else nobody will talk you serious.
So Us V. Them is a necessity of the structure and tenets of your faith.
Thanks for clarifying.
Ryan,
No, actually, I do not depend on wikipedia for anything of substantial research. I use it to find further sources and investigate them myself, but I will not use it as a primary source (because it isn’t one). This assumed biasness and unobjectivity is simply unfounded.
I’m sorry you are upset, bro, and that those books are automatically discredited by yourself. I also find it disappointing that because an author is Christian, he is automatically disqualified as authoritative and regarded as having irrational conclusions. Is it not possible that they reached their current conclusions BECAUSE they are objective, fair, balanced, and unbias? Don’t worry, that’s a rhetorical question.
MOI,
Apologies for any misunderstandings. I do remember you saying this and have no contention with it whatsoever! I generally do more dialog with those who fit that category on your blog than yourself! Again, thanks for stopping by and contributing, you rock and I’m stoked to continue the awesomely constructive conversations we’ve had so far.
Moe,
While I do agree with you, let’s try to keep the tone a tad more respectful. Again, I do sympathize and agree, but “speaking the truth in love” is paramount here, so please rty to be a little more intentional about the “love” part, no matter what the other party happens to think or say.
BTW, nice… err… crack…
Thanks for posting!
Kyle,
I really think the distinction should be made as an “us and them,” not an “us v. them.” There is no intended fight, contest, or conflict, but ONLY a degree of distinction differentiating between the true.
John 17 makes this distinction for us when Jesus is praying in the garden of Gethsemane before he is crucified:
“14 I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 15 I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one. 16 They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world.”
Thus we (Christians) are to be in this world, loving and in fellowship with all, but there is that distinction that we are not quite the same as those “from the world.”
Paul also discusses this in Philippians 3:20:
“But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ,”
Again, NO contention, conflict, or fight. Not “versus” but “and.”
Everyone,
I give up.
As Moe so eloquently put it, nobody here is talking me serious.
Science bless,
ryan
but it’s still the same thing, isn’t it? I mean, “us AND them” is just more passive and a little nicer than “us VS them.” You’re still in opposition to the other party both in your personal disapproval of their actions and your differing religious ideas. You can be as nice as you want, but supposing you do have the knowledge someone else is going to hell or is doing something wrong, that automatically makes you opposed to them (maybe from a physics sort of angle…).
The “us and them” distinction is nothing more than a “Christians and non-Christians” distinction made on the basis of belief. If one believes in the objective truth of justification by faith, then the question of “final destination” (heaven or hell) is a result of that belief, but not a cause of the distinction. It is an aspect or result thereof.
“You’re still in opposition to the other party both in your personal disapproval of their actions and your differing religious ideas.”
Not exactly. It is entirely possible to disapprove of an action without disapproving of the person. “Hate the sin, love the sinner,” while colossally overused and often seen as a carte blanc for judgmentalism, should truly be the standard. And just to be clear, we are ALL sinners, Christians and non-Christians alike, so that is not a judgment either.
…that automatically makes you opposed to them…
Why must that be? Why must disagreement automatically equal personal opposition? I can see that I may be opposed to a belief, but that tension can be maintained without also being opposed to the actual person.
[...] thought that reading through all those comments was “mentally draining.” On the “Confessions of a Seminarian” blog Brad Edwards encourages his readers to either “join the fray” or [...]
[...] week, Brad posted a link to an interesting discussion that started over a critique of believers often circular [...]
Kyle-
Although it is something of a semantic, I think the distinction of “us and them” as opposed to “us verses them” is a good one. We are both on a quest to discern truth, and to search for truth. I am not interested in defending something I am told to believe, I am only interested in portraying that which I hold to be true.
I also welcome to scrutiny of the skeptic because by digging deep into the issues they bring up, my faith has been made stronger. Through the doubt I have, because of skeptics in my life, my belief has been made much deeper.