"The Case Against Christianity Doesn’t Get Much Better Than This."

Apart from the derogatory remarks made by Steve Hays in this post at Triablogue, he has offered us quite the backhanded compliment while explaining to his audience why he's chosen to target us at DC. He said "the case against Christianity doesn’t get much better than this." Here's also what he said:

The Secular Web is the world’s leading website in the cause of militant atheism.

As such, it has quite a constituency.

A while back, it started a weblog (The Secular Outpost), which is a spin-off of The Secular Web.

This was an attempt to extend its reach. Extend its sphere of influence.

I assume The Secular Outpost draws from the preexisting constituency of The Secular Web.

The Secular Outpost also has a number of links to other secular sites.

DC is one of these. I assume that it gets a lot of crossover traffic from The Secular Outpost.

Of the various links, DC is the only site that regularly assails the Christian faith.

I assume that DC attracts a certain audience because its contributors are ex-Christian and ex-ministers. They have the inside dish, right?

Loftus bills himself as a student of Craig. This has PR appeal.

Well, if someone who trained under a Christian apologist to be a Christian apologist defects from the faith, then what does that tell you about the Christian faith. The more you know, the less you believe, right?

So DC presents a nice, compact target….when you get right down to it, the case against Christianity doesn’t get much better than this.


It is for that reason that Steve and his fellow colleagues have decided to dog us "every step of the way."

34 comments:

Error said...

yeah, the claim is that there's not much by way of challenge to the Christian faith.

It was a backhanded slap, not compliment.

Unknown said...

Oh, but Paul, you guys really think you're hot stuff when it comes to apologetics, don't you? The egos of folks like you and Engwer are almost right up there with Robert Turkel (which was not only backhanded slap, it was a bitchslap as well!)

Matthew

Anonymous said...

Matthew, YOU are the one who has been made the intellectual bitch.

As for Loftus, people give him a lot of praise, but deep down nobody respects a turn coat.

Unknown said...

The anonymous coward says "Matthew, YOU are the one who has been made the intellectual bitch.

As for Loftus, people give him a lot of praise, but deep down nobody respects a turn coat."

Hahahaha! How have I been made an "intellectual bitch"? What is it with your cowardly insistence on hiding behind anonymity? Why don't you grow a pair or try and stitch a pair on and come out into the open?

As for the "turncoat", I take it you mean "apostate"? No one respects them? Oh you mean those blind, unthinking, feel-good dronish pew-sitters who don't bother to think for themselves because it's so much comforting to let your pastor do your thinking for you? Is it the repsect of these pathetically blind boobs that I should be seeking?

Oh, the blind boobs in the Church won't respect me or John! Woe be us!

Listen, Mr/Ms/Mrs Anonymous. Unless you grow some testicles and come out into the open, don't bother wasting our time with your whimp-ass comments.

Matthew

Error said...

Oh, but Matthew, I do not think I'm "hot stuff" when it comes to apologetics, which makes it even worse for you guys when amateures can take you to school, on a daily basis.

openlyatheist said...

Confucius say:
Trading insults with Christians like poop throwing contest with orangutan: Even if you win, why would you want to?

I first started reading this blog because there was interesting research to be read and interesting insights into religious and irreligious thought.

I would like to encourage posters here to move away from empowering hecklers by degenerating this blog into a running commentary on other blogger's running commentaries on the comments originating here. I do not come to this blog because I care what OTHER blogs are writing. I care what YOU GUYS are writing.

Commenting on comments (and imitating the worst traits) of Christians does not seem in line with this blog's mission statement.

Disallowing anonymous comments would also be a step in the right direction I think.

Anonymous said...

I hear you openlyatheist. We're looking into the anonymous comments thing, with having to moderate comments. They seem to get the same comments at their site as we do about this. Readers on both sites are saying the same thing. Their readers are sick of it, and some of ours are too. But this post of Steve's explains why there is the fight in the first place and who initiated it. I wish it weren't so, and I for one am tired of it and will seek to do something about it from now on, at least on our site.

paul said...

Maybe we should just turn the other cheek and love our enemies.

Anonymous said...

That's "without having to moderate comments." It's now done. No more anonymous comments.

paul said...

Seriously John,
It just cracks me up every time I read comments like Paul Mantanas because they are so blatantly "unchristian." Please leave them and don't delete them as they are a valid form of debunking (odd christians would debunk themselves, still, the purpose of this site is served). I think it best not to respond though, and certainly not in kind. Ultimately, a pissing contest is just a pissing contest and of little value.

Anonymous said...

Paul, that's pretty much how I want to respond to them, but it's tough when they sometimes act like idiots. I need more resolve on this, but I think you're right. Thanks.

Error said...

Paul,

Oh, would the "Christian" thing be to lie? Okay,

Yes, John, we cannot touch you, you're the best debater, a master debater. Your arguments are the best, no one compares, nothing compares, to you.

I bow down to all the debunkers and I love you. I just want to love you back into the kingdom. Please come back, because we love you so much. If you come back I'll wash your feet, I'll pay your bills, I'll do anything, as long as you come back, and I love you.

Anonymous said...

Paul Manata, that was good! A little good natured humor isn't bad for any of us. Thanks Paul, I think I'll quote from what you just said from now on. ;-)

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
paul said...

In response to Paul Mantanas last post...

We're here to "debunk" christianity, i.e. expose the falseness. So it seems that either Paul Mantana is not a christian, or if he is a valid representative, that christianity is not what Jesus dictates. Jesus is believed by christians to have said "...love your enemy, if you love only those who love you, what more do you do than the heathen...", that "love is the greatest commandment..."
The bible further says of love that it "is patient, kind, does not boast, is not rude, is not self-seeking, keeps no record of wrongs..."

We "will know christians by their love..."

So, all you who are reading these posts have a great opportunity to judge christianity in action, first hand.

paul said...

Hello shining and burning light,

Really, I don't 'know' Paul Mantana. He may be a fine person for all I know, and I wouldn't make a deal except as a christian, it's my understanding that he represents Jesus. Kind of like the kosher hot dog, christians are held to a higher standard.

Christians are saying "Jesus is real, I have a relationship with Jesus..." They act and do things in Jesus name (which means in His stead). So I look and listen for Jesus and what I see is just regular folk, no God. Just people who want to win arguments, score points, feed the ego, but not really get at the truth. That's hard to do, we all fail, but I do expect someone with God on their side to have an edge, be different, since they claim to be...haven't seen that so far. Still,anyone can be an ass and be right, so I'm glad John doesn't restrict or discriminate.

Error said...

Hi Paul,

Christians can't be sarcastic?

Anyway, the claim that we are demolishing your arguments is, actually, a VERSE IN THE BIBLE!

Now if it's unloving and unbiblical to claim such then [a] the Bible is unloving and unbiblical, and [b] what, do you want us to lie? The people here do not hjave good arguments, period.

Lastly, please make sure you do hold me to Jesus' standard, and not your own wimpy blue-eyed, blond haired, effeminate *idea* of Jesus.

You know, hold me to the standard of the one who said:

"You brood of vipers."

"You white washed tombs."

'Their father is the devil."

"Whoever does not believe my will be judged by my words."

"NO ONE comes to God but through me."

"I never knew you."

And, what about the OT prophets? WHat about when they mocked the false prophets? What about when they asked if the baal was relieving him self? They mocked them.

What about when the Bible says "THE FOOL says in his heart there's no God?

What about when Paul said he wished the judaizers would cut their members off?

Indeed, hold me to a biblical standard.

It appears that you'd have me be *more* holy than Jesus. It appears that to be a Christian, in your book, is to act un-Christ-like when the situations call for it.

Look, if you don't turn to Christ he's going to throw you in hell. You'll probably tell him that he's a big meany also.

Your pious, pompous, false humility is a sham.

nsfl said...

[munching popcorn, sipping soda, on edge of seat]

paul said...

Daniel...:)

Hi back at ya Paul Mantana,

Those are some great biblical examples of sarcasm. I've always liked the story of Elijah and the priest of Baal. I had the opportunity to study with a rabbi for about 10 years and he once told me that the translators have softened things up, that Elijah is literally asking if their god is taking a shit. Some might call that rude, but, you're right...there it is. And really, why stop at sarcasm or rudeness, didn't Elijah also chop the infidels up into little pieces?
We can make a scriptural argument for killing, lying, marrying a whore, and on. We can make a scriptural argument for not lying, not murdering, not marrying a whore, and on.
So, to answer your question: "Christians can't be sarcastic?" Depends on which christian you're asking. Shining Light would seem to say no (and has his scriptures to back him up), you would say yes (and have your scriptures to back you up). I don't know, God seems to be equal opportunity.

You also ask: "Ok, would the Christian thing be to lie?" I don't know. God sent out lying spirits and I wouldn't have you be more holy than God, so I guess the choice is yours there also.

I'm sorry, I can't relate to the "blond haired, whimpy blue eyed, effeminate 'idea' of Jesus." I don't know any whimpy blue eyed, blond haired, effeminate people, and I have brown hair and eyes...who knew there were such people? Thanks for the heads up. Really, I was just quoting from the bible, if that's what you take the bible to mean, what can I say?

I can take your side to: how about where Jesus turned over the money changers tables in the temple and lashed out at them with a whip he had fashioned himself (premeditated)?

So, on the one there's Shining and Burning Light and on the other Paul Manata. I'm pretty familiar with both lines of reason (so far), so I guess I could take either side and have my scriptures to back me up. Having the scriptures is kind of like the Good Housekeeping Seal, except with the Good Housekeeping Seal one can reasonably verify whether the person has earned it. With the God Housekeeping Seal, there's no independent place to go to verify who chose the right scripture, who knows Gods will.

Error said...

S & BL:

Hello,

My context was that they complained that we said their *arguments* were weak.

I then said, "what, should we lie."

Saying someone's *arguments* are weak is not the same as saying *they* are weak.

Furthermore, we can address the man. The Bible copnstantly says that unbelievers are *fools.* Now, if I were to say that, they'd call me a big meany.

As far as your verses go, yes, I understand the direct context. But are you saying that I can go to a Jewish blog spot and call them names? It sounds a bit prejudiced to say that it's okay to talk tough to the Jews but not the apostates.

Furthermore, nothing I said was directed towards you but rather to Paul. I called him the pseudo-pious one. So, *nothing* I said was directed towards you. There are perspectives on approaching the fools here, both yours and mine is valid, both yours and mine is biblical. it's just that we have different goals and purposes. We're working together.




Now, in response to Paul,

Mosty of your responses were tu quoque fallacies. Nothing you said directly dealt with my post.

I pointed out that you are very disingenuous because you call me unbiblical and unChristian yet you'd call Jesus a big meany also.

You also pointed out verses in the Bible which you think are examples of people being rude or mean. Therefore my response, and your walk into my trap, has proven that I'm not unChristian or unbiblical. You don't call me unbiblical and then turn around and show how the Bible agrees with some of the things I do, that's callwed self-refuting. In case you're wondering, that's an outsome of your sin rotted mind, always refuting yourself, or, as Paul say, "opposing" yourself.

Now, if you'd really like to make "scriptural" arguments for what you said you could, then go ahead. Remember, they must be *internal* critiques since you said *scriptural arguments.* If not, then don't try to bully me. Christians are a bit more intellectually tough than to get bullied by some kid.

ANyway, you're done here buddy. Your original argument was discected and dismsmbered. You didn't even see what I did to you, you never saw it coming.

Remember, your *original* claim was that I was *unbiblical* and *unchristian.* Then, note that you *just admitted* that I've acted *biblical* and *Christian.*

QED

paul said...

Paul Mantana,
I keep reading my posts and cannot find where I used the word "unbiblical" or "unchristian." I didn't use the word "mean" either. Since you like the philosophical terms identifying fallacy, what's it called when you put words in someones mouth to try and make a point? I did say, after relating the story about Elijah and his saying of Baal that "he is taking a shit" that "some might call that rude." "Some" might. I was connecting that to something I quoted earlier from ICor. 13, i.e. "love is not rude." I'm just connecting dots, "God is love," "...the greatest commandment is love...", "...love your enemy..." I know, I'm a 'fool.' So how do I get to be like you? I tried receiving Jesus and I never quite became like you. Where did I go wrong?

I'll let others judge whether I'm "done buddy," it's all here for people to read for themselves and draw their own conclusions. Since we both seem to think we are right, we can both hope people carefully read what's been said and see all of our grand insights and flaws.

I actually thought (not sure why) you might go down the path of giving scriptures to justify sarcasm, etc. I know they are there, so maybe the trap was in reverse. It does demonstrate that the bible contradicts itself, which seems like a problem to me...and I think to other fools as well.

I took one christian stance (on purpose), you took another. I wonder why you take the sarcastic stance instead of the love stance? But, leaving me out, even two christians disagreed. So it's not like there was just an enlightened christian and a "fool" going at it. You tell Shining Light that you just have different perspectives and both are right....wonder if he agrees with that conclusion?

Error said...

paul,

Sorry, but you're done buddy.

Here's what you said,

"Seriously John,It just cracks me up every time I read comments like Paul Mantanas because they are so blatantly "unchristian." (10th post down).

You also said,

"So it seems that either Paul Mantana is not a christian, or if he is a valid representative, that christianity is not what Jesus dictates. Jesus is believed by christians to have said "...love your enemy, if you love only those who love you, what more do you do than the heathen...", that "love is the greatest commandment..."
The bible further says of love that it "is patient, kind, does not boast, is not rude, is not self-seeking, keeps no record of wrongs..." (13th post down).


What's it called when you accuse someone of putting words in your mouth, but you actually said those words?

Note that to contrast what I'm doing with what the Bible says is to say that I'm *un*-biblical. It's called logical inference.


So, the trap was set and you blindly walked into it. You said I was unChristian, unbiblical, but then were caught admitting that Christ and the Bible engage in the very thinsg I do! That's called "being done buddy."

Lastly, there's no contradiction. You've not established A and ~A. You've simply *assumed* a humanistic theory of ethics and then drew the conclusion that when the Bible makes human's arguments and positions look absurd and stupid then, therefore, that's "unloving." What's that called when you pour your meaning into someone elses?

So, I think we're done. You've been decisevely refuted. Again, remember, you *started* by saying that I was unbiblical and then *ended* by pointing out things I do are inded things the Bible supports.

Cheerio

paul said...

Paul Mantana,

Yeah, we are almost done. Two clarifications. One, you'll note that my comment to John about you being "unchristian" was in quotes. There was a reason for the quotes, (I can see how you misunderstood) there are plenty of christians who would consider your attitude "unchristian," for all the reasons given...even Shining Light did, briefly.

And you didn't find the word "unbiblical" either. I do wonder still why you chose sarcasm instead of, say, kindness. It's a problem to me that you can justify your behavior just because it's in the bible, but I'm not going to rewrite all that stuff.

paul said...

Shining lIght,
Thanks for participating in all this. At one point you did indeed "hear me." The truth is, I am not an atheist, one can pick up on it in some of the stuff I write. My stance on God/Jesus is "i don't know." It's also true that at one time I thought I did know this, so, this may make me an "apostate" in your book. I am more comfortable being honest and saying "i don't know." I wandered onto this site thinking that others might be asking questions like myself (indeed they are). Some have gone so far as to call themselves "atheist", I haven't gotten to that point. I also figured I'd find christians here responding to the questions, some do. As I've stated above, I find contradictions in the scripture, I won't rehash the things I've written, you can reread them if interested. Anyway, these contradictions make it posible for anyone to do what they want and still claim to follow God/Jesus, as long as one can find a scripture to justify them. You and Paul Mantana illustrated this really well, at first. Both of you are biblical christians and each fell on different sides, who's right? Okay, you did recant and apologize to Paul M., but you do say that christians can differ, but will all agree in heaven. Why not now? If you have the ability to discern the truth now, why wait?
Yes, I do question the bible and anyone claiming to know God, and will continue to until my questions are answered.

paul said...

Hi Shining Light,

Thanks for your reply and clarifications.
I guess it's time to sum up.

My original response to John about what Paul M. had written as being "unchristian" still stands. I put "unchristian" in quotes because not being a Christian means I was quoting Christians. Shining Light, as a Christian, confirmed my statement that Paul M. had an attitude that was "unchristian." It was a simple point, missed by Paul M. because he either didn't see or understand the quotation marks around "unchristian."

Paul M. added more sarcasm to the pot when he asked if the ""Christian" thing [would] be to lie?, etc." Here he shows that he understands the use of quotation marks, because he also employs them around "Christian." I knew he was referring to someone elses definition of Christian and not his own. I even answered his question: "Would the 'Christian' thing be to lie?" My response was: "I don't know. God sent out lying spirits and I wouldn't have you be more holy than God, so I guess the choice is yours there also." It seems christians can make an argument either way, based on scripture, as to whether or not to lie.

Re Paul M. and his question: "Christians can't be sarcastic?" I complimented him on his choice of scriptures supporting his christian right to be sarcastic. I even added that, scripturally, it's okay to be rude and chop up infidels into pieces (literally!). I was careful to say that "some might" consider my example of Elijah as rude, clarifying some might not.

Paul M. thinks he designed a clever trap that I walked into. Though I wasn't trying to manipulate Paul M., I suggest that the trap was reverse of what he claims, as I figured he'd come up with scriptures to justify his sarcasm.

Paul M. incorrectly infers that I accuse him of being "unbiblical", missing my previously clear point that one can make a scriptural argument for either side (e.g., it's okay to be sarcastic vs. it's not okay to be sarcastic) and that it "depends on which christian you're asking." My point being the contradictions, double standards in the bible and christianity.

Paul M. decides the discussion is over, appoints himself judge and jury and excercises his christian right to be superior by declaring "your done here buddy."
Yet, Paul M. accuses me of being "pseudo-pious" and "pompous." I'll let the readers decide.

paul said...

Shining Light,

I understand. If I were to presume on you, I would have guessed you'd give me those answers.

As you have also noted, however, different "Christians" have different answers on the same topics, which is the majority of my point. No doubt you would have good arguments against the Spanish inquisition (me too, even from a 'christian' perspective), killing abortion doctors in the name of Jesus or selling healing hankies for a "donation." Unfortunately, all these things, and more, have been done in Jesus name and using scripture. I wonder what Hoseas wife thought and felt when he told her he was going to marry a prostitute? The list goes on and on.
Simple issue. Sarcasm. You believe you are right, Paul M. is wrong. Both of you are "praying people, attending a faithful church that preaches the bible, you both read commentaries and other good books." Still you both manage to end up on opposite sides of the fence, both with equally wordy and persuasive arguments. I'm still looking for the person whos "message and preaching[are] not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirits power, so that [ones] faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power." Instead (and apparently because of the lack of "a demonstration of the Spirit" to back one up), I see "christians" learning all the techniques and words employed by any other philosopher who wants to win people over to their persuasion. Where are all the illiterate fisherman doing miracles?

Sorry (sigh), I have a few miles on me. You haven't quite pegged me (not that you're trying), another indication to me that your words and insights are your own and not from a God, who "sees my heart."

paul said...

Shining Light,

No, your analogy doesn't help. From my perspective you are on opposite sides of the fence, as regards your approach to sarcasm at least. Not to mince words here, the fence can be in the same field. And no, I am not in the same field with either of you. Either way, how one puts it is not that important of a point to me.

I appreciate your honest approach to discussion. I have no problem with philosophy or philosophers. I very much appreciate that people like John Loftus have spent enormous amounts of time and effort studying such things and are kind enough to share their expertise. I am very wary of "amateurs." I'll give you an example. I'm a martial artist, I have been studying under a 9th degree grand master (a recognized expert in karate) for 11 years. I am working on my second degree black belt. As part of any class, we spar. It is traditional that higher belts spar with lower belts on occassion to help teach them. Having studied for 11 years, I've acquired a certain level of expertise myself, and a level of self control. For example, I can throw a kick at someones nose and come within a half inch. It takes time and study to achieve that level of skill. Invariably there are people new to the sport who have something to prove, who want to be Bruce Lee and prove they can best someone of higher rank, and indeed they can do damage...they miss the point of the sport. A scalpel in the hands of a trained physician can cure, in the hands of an amateur it can murder.

We both have different purposes for being here. You want to find the lost sheep and bring them back, convert people. I'm here to listen, ask, contribute when I think I can in an effort to discuss the problems with christianity. I've been at this (christianity) awhile, have taught, counseled, was asked to pastor a church but declined because based on scripture I didn't qualify (I've had a hard time finding someone who does qualify based on scripture). I was raised in Vernon McGees church, was babtized by John MacArthur and attended his church for quite some time as well. I even attended Jack Hayfords church to throw a little bit of the charasmatic in. For 35 years I ate the scriptures for breakfast, lunch and dinner. I read nothing but christian literature (I'm really having to catch up now!). So, there's some of my christian credentials.

"Do [I] require that [you] perform miracles before [I] believe what [you] say is from God?" At this point, absolutely! It would take a miracle. Sure, why not? There is scriptural precedence. I know you have an answer for this, chances are I've given it to others myself. It doesn't matter, yes I require a miracle. And no, not one that others have writen about that I can't confirm happened.

paul said...

Shining Light,

A little more.

I said earlier that "you haven't pegged me." Why not? Jesus purportedly pegged the woman at the well, He pegged lots of people. Now, Jesus said you'll do what He did, and even greater works. So why not a miracle? At least you could address me with the knowledge that I'm not a neophyte (no rancor in my tone here, just being matter of fact)because it is "no longer you that lives but Christ who lives in you." And Jesus would know these things about me. Okay, so maybe your not all Jesus, just a "gifted" member of His body. Which gift do you have (ICor.12), I'm going to guess not "miracles" or "prophesy" or (you need the greek on these, they're esoteric) "word of knowledge" or "word of wisdom." I never encountered any of these gifts during my tenure. If God gave these "manifestations of the Spirit..for the common good" I think I can safely assume He would not be against a miracle or a lessor thing like you knowing me without my telling you about me. Or are these particular parts of Gods word not for this dispensation? That's a way that many get around expecting God to do what He purportedly says He will do.
When I say I am not an atheist, it's not to say I believe in God, it's to say "I don't know." As nice as you are, I do not see what I can call "God" in you. Nor can I say I've seen God in the mocking for Jesus approach, but who knows, I'll keep listening.

I think there's some good stuff in the bible. I like the story of Baalam and his jackass. I think there is a valuable lesson in that story,i.e., the truth can come even from a jackass. No! I am not calling you a jackass. Truth is, I think we all have a bit of jackass in us...guess it's an evolutionary thing (kidding).

paul said...

Hey S&BL,

Looks like it's just me and you.

When I use bible scripture it's because you believe it to be Gods word, not because I believe that. Using it as an example of why I am right or wrong doesn't really work for me as I do not give it the same weight as you. I don't know that any of what you say of Judas is true. Furthur it is presumptuous of you to say that "if [you] or anyone else performed a miracle,[I] still wouldn't believe." You simply do not know that...you may believe it for your own reasons, but you do not know that. You chose to contrast me with Judas who you believe saw miracles and didn't believe. Why not instead think of me as Saul? He was a religious man going around killing christians(i don't!), who when Jesus spoke to, blinded, then healed him, believed? Why do I have to be Judas?

I don't expect a carnival show. If you saw my heart, you would know that. If the bible is Gods word and is true then I think it's okay for me to expect that God would do what He says He will do.

There's nothing "sad" about being honest and saying "I don't know." I don't think you don't "know" either. For what you have to be knowledge, I think you would need to be able to verify it in some reasonable way. I think you believe. I don't. I haven't heard any adequate reasons to believe, and I've heard a few. By saying "I don't know," I can be open. When one says "I know" one stops looking/seeing because one thinks they already know. I don't have a problem with faith, but I can verify certain things about my car even though I have faith it will start in the morning. I can't do that with God.

I don't know you well enough to say you are delusional.

Anonymous said...

It's not just you two. I read every comment. I'm planning on creating a post about why I do not believe the Bible, sooner than you think.

paul said...

S&BL,
I meant to say I don't think you know either, not "I don't think you don't know." typo.

John,
Look forward to what you have to say, as always. S&BL thinks that DC is a bad place for me to be. I disagree, I've found some great folks here, I'm particularly fond of you, Daniel and DagoodS, I'm sure I'll find others, I haven't been here long. Besides, if God is for me, who can be against me? So, I'm foolishly unafraid of y'all.

paul said...

Shining and Burning Light,

whew, what a name, you must have had a lot of fights growing up. :) (hehe, sorry). I hope we both live to discuss another day.

I'm going to beg the DC gods indulgence one more time here.

I think, at the end of the day we are all subject to the laws of probability (like it or not, mostly not). The fact of those laws is so ingrained in our psyche that we even have cliche' like "the only absolute is there is no absolute." Some have changed that one and added "there are no absolutes but God and taxes." I laughed and was delighted (not in a mocking sense, just in recognition of our human condition) when reading the debate between Craig and Ehrman on the "Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus." During the debate, Craig appealed to the laws of mathematical probability in an attempt to argue his point that Jesus did arise. Craigs brand of Christianity relies on absolutes, yet here he is, one of its' main proponents, arguing that he's 'probably' right. Do you see the irony? Even a top evangelical christian advocate realizes, he doesn't really "know." Which is my point. Knowledge seems progressive to me, none of us has arived. We're all climbing the ladder. Not that we don't acknowledge that we see something when we do, I just think it's wise and accurate to always reserve a healthy amount of doubt about whatever we currently "see." When I say "I don't know", I mean I don't know absolutely. I think that cautious acknowledgement of doubt could save the human race a lot of grief if we all espoused it. Think about it, wars, disagreements are usually based on the notion of being "right". We'd probably be less adamant, less inclined to have to fight to win an argument if we could admit our ultimate ignorance, and of course, we'd all have to agree to do this. Right. I think what happens here at DC is a good thing because an absolute notion is being challenged. I think some make the mistake of challenging the absolute notion with another absolute notion (which never goes unchallenged!), rather than just exposing the fallacy of an absolute notion. Still, "walking in the light" is a very scriptural principle, no? (no, of course not, Jesus is the light). sigh

Okay Jesus. A great evolutionist, whoever wrote that stuff. Sorry, don't stumble at the word "evolution," I simply mean it in terms of progress. "Jesus" deconstructed the law. He realized that trying to follow something absolute and carved in stone made pharisees out of people. Pharisees who want to throw rocks at and control other people. Instead "Jesus" invoked the law of love, explaining that there is no greater love than to give up your life for another. Yet people still want to be pharisees!

If you study evolution, you'll find a discipline called "group selection." (Most evolutionists are "individual selectionists" so you have to hunt around, try Robert Wright if you are in the least interested). Individual selection is kind of like the pharisees were, everyone is out for themselves, "survial of the fittest." Group selection is like what "Jesus" taught (I'm really oversimplifying this, I know) in that it it argues that individuals should/will give up their lives for the interests of a larger collectivity. "Collectivity?" "Now the body is not made up of one part but of many" (ICor.12:14NIV) Intriguing, no? What I am saying, poorly and briefly, is that we could all benefit by following "Jesus'" command to love one another. Instead people qualify love, and it fails. Love gives up it's life for another. Pretty cool really when you think of it. I like to look at it as giving up our absolutes for one another. Most people glaze over when I talk this way...it's really just a tease because of its' brevity, but I'll stop now.

paul said...

Shining and burning Larry,

I think your approach to sharing your belief is easier to justify biblically than Craigs. In my opinion it's more consistent with what the bible teaches. I found Craigs approach ironic, for stated reasons.

Your statement that the DC people opperate from the premise that God does not exist is not quite true. In the defined format it is written (like that?) that some are atheists here and some are not. The general premise I think, is that the evangelical christian idea/definition of God has some serious, false problems. It's not a blanket "there is no God" with everyone here.

Again, I don't think you "know" anything absolutely, not by any normal standard of knowing. You believe by faith and that is counted to you as righteousness, no? And faith is a gift from God, otherwise you have cause to boast. What you call absolute knowledge would negate the need for faith. Or will you now answer that you have absolute knowledge because of your faith?

I've never been drunk a day in my life. Remember, I've said everything you've said to me, and more, to others on many occassions.

paul said...

S&BL,
rats, I wrote you a long response on my lunch break and blogger com went down when I tried to post it.
no offense taken. from a biblical perspective i would guess you have the quandary of knowing when to shake the dust from your feet and move on to the next town.

the gist or what i said: Knowing God and knowing there is a God are two very different things.

You probably have already heard my objections to the bible being how God reveals Himself. There's Currently a new post that John promised that covers many of the problems. Add one more, most people didn't have access to the bible till the industrial revolution for reasons of illiteracy or rarity. they were out of luck when it came to knowing God in the relationship sense that you speak of.

I've understood every word you've said so far (so I guess I understand your language), I just cannot agree.
cheers