The most abusive Christian phrase ...

[John317]

Quote:

cardw: You're not answering the question. Are you an atheist when it comes to Zeus or are you agnostic?

I am an atheist when it comes to the question of whether Zeus actually exists. I believe in Zeus only as a fictitious character in stories and myths.

The God of the Bible is the only Living, true God. Zeus is a made up god who has no power to do anything because he's a figment of [primarily ancient] people's imaginations. This is not at all to say that those myths don't have meaning or teach significant lessons.

Some of the characteristics of Zeus are those of the true God, but they are distorted and perverted so that they don't accurately represent any god that actually lives.

There's no real comparison between the evidence supporting the existence of the God of the Bible and the existence of Zeus. For one thing, there's a great deal of evidence showing the Bible to be reliable historically, spiritually, and prophetically, but there's no evidence showing the Greek classics to be anything more than fictitious stories based loosely on some historical events. My evidence is what you will find if you go to any good public or university library and study the books on the Bible and compare these to the books about Zeus.

[John317]

Quote:

aldona: ...I have had countless people say to me that "schizophrenia" is really demon possession.

This is a dangerous and very unwise thing to believe, although both demon possession and schizophrenia are real and sometimes a person may have both problems. People who are experienced in working with the possessed don't claim to be able to diagnose on sight and they don't even try. There are all kinds of reasons for people to be mentally ill or to have personality problems. Some are chemically based or have other causes, but many are also due to spiritual problems. It's usually impossible to tell unless the person having the problem seeks help and knows what their problem is. Many know what their problem is but don't seek help.

Quote:

aldona: When I ask them why it responds so dramatically to medication, the answer was that the demons continue to deceive by "pretending" to back off and make the person appear to be cured.

There is some truth to this, but the whole truth is that many people are possessed or controlled by demons, yet appear to be more or less normal and are able to function within the expectations of our society. Satan is not so foolish as to cause everyone he controls or possesses to be running around like a raving maniac as they do in the movies. As with any good military unit in a war, he works best when he's invisible and can lead the enemy to think he's either non-existent or dead. He's a master of deception. See examples of his work in Gen. 3, 1 Sam. 28, Matt. 4 and the book of Revelation.

[John317]

Quote:

Bravus: Leave Zeus specifically aside, though, and think about the hundreds of thousands (at least) of various gods believed in by various groups of humans throughout history. Christians are atheists of *all* of them, yet theists of one specific god.

Do you believe in any specific God? If you do, could you briefly explain why?

[John317]

Would you care to share with us why you believe in Christ and not in Zeus or all the thousands of other gods that Bravus mentioned? This is also Richard's question.

[Bravus]

My broader point above was that apologetics needs to get serious. If we really, really want to be able to argue strongly for the existence and nature of God, we need to stop thinking within our own framework, a framework that is alien to most of those we want to convince. It is circular reasoning to use the Bible as evidence of God's existence and nature at the same time as using Divine inspiration as evidence of the veracity of the Bible. Christian apologists need arguments that work within the context of the understanding that there are thousands of gods that humans have worshipped. And, unfortunately, most of the arguments they have and use are hangovers from times when they lived in monocultures where the only alternatives were the Christian God or atheism.

That is my project, and I hope people are able to recognise that it is coming from someone who is friendly to Christianity and Christian apologetics, and for that reason is unwilling to let it get away with sloppy thinking, and frustrated when apologists descend to abuse, or to crying abuse, when their sloppy thinking is challenged.

[karl]

1) You're not answering the question. Are you an atheist when it comes to Zeus or are you agnostic? I know why you aren't answering this and I think you do too.

2a) First of all cause and effect are quite different than reward and punishment. In reward/punishment system the rewards or punishments can have nothing to do with the action being rewarded or punished.

2b) And, second, I fail to see how stoning a man for gathering sticks on the Sabbath taught anything other than fear and the application of violence. It certainly didn't instruct the man himself since he was dead. I don't think it's very hard to improve on that method in terms of even human ethics.

3) This is pretty funny. What exactly can I know about the Easter Bunny?

4) This doesn't make sense since I am saying that I don't know anything about god.

1) I am not an atheist. If Zeus were to show up and challenge my God to a duel, I might believe in Zeus. That hasn't happened and I consider the possibility of it happening to be very low.

2a) How do you know that reward and punishment in the spiritual and/or the physical sense are not cause and effect?

2b) Is this going on today? Why pick an example from another culture and time to rail against? What has God stipulated for Christians to do that you take exception to? It was as a Christian that you were miserable. What did God tell you to do that you didn't want to do?

3) You can go to the store and buy an Easter Bunny. Get a chocolate one and eat him.

4) For a man who doesn't know anything about God, you surely have a lot of opinions about Him.

[BobRyan]

Leave Zeus specifically aside, though, and think about the hundreds of thousands (at least) of various gods believed in by various groups of humans throughout history. Christians are atheists of *all* of them, yet theists of one specific god.

[Bravus]

On the question of who I believe in, and why, that is indeed difficult to describe and explain. I have blogged about it a few times, and I'll share those posts here because I'm on deadline for some work and don't have a lot of time to write fresh stuff here. I'll be able to return to the discussion in more detail later this evening.

http://www.bravus.com/blog/?p=1310

http://www.bravus.com/blog/?p=1435

http://www.bravus.com/blog/?p=1635

http://www.bravus.com/blog/?p=1620

The very short version is that I take seriously the ideas of God being infinite, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent and omnipotent, and being the Creator of this universe and (possibly but undecidably) other universes. The Christian view of God, since it is not infinite, is therefore a projection that humans have placed onto the infinity of God. It is truth, but it is partial truth.

[karl]

!

[Bravus]

See above. But you won't like it.

[olger]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHRP0I2SrVs

[Bravus]

I should note that those blog posts:

(a) don't represent a thought-out position: they're musings, and likely not consistent with each other or my thoughts today

( don't really represent an attempt at a better Christian apologetics. This response was more to the question about what I personally believe, why, and how I defend that.

Some of the issues are similar, though: and I do recognize that I've dodged a lot of the hardest questions. I'd love to have credible responses, but I've never heard any, from anyone.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

1) You're not answering the question. Are you an atheist when it comes to Zeus or are you agnostic? I know why you aren't answering this and I think you do too.

I am not an atheist. If Zeus were to show up and challenge my God to a duel, I might believe in Zeus. That hasn't happened and I consider the possibility of it happening to be very low.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

As far as what god should be, I would expect that god to at least follow its own laws and rise above a petty punishment and reward system.

And what makes you think a created being should be so audacious as to say to the Creator, "This that you have done is wrong! Now, here's what you should have done."?

[John317]

Thanks for sharing those blogs, Bravus.

If you don't mind, I'm wishing you would say a little more about your view of the Bible. Is it the revelation of God to you? Do you view it as no more and no less than other "wisdom literature"?

I myself read the literatures of other religions and other cultures, but I see the Bible as in a completely different category all by itself.

Quote:

I oscillate between that belief (which I’ll explain in more detail below) and an entirely naturalistic/atheistic view.

But if there’s a God, then I take seriously the list of attributes: immortal, eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent....

The Bible, like all other wisdom literatures, is the attempts of the amoebas to understand the human: it has some usefulness but any claims it makes internally to be God exposing Godself[1] should be taken along with the entire Bonneville Salt Flats. Take what is worthwhile from *all* literatures and traditions, and reject what is unworthy.

[1] sorry about the awkward grammar but I’m avoiding the masculine pronoun since an infinite God contains all possibilities of sex, gender, asexuality and....

I also noticed this exchange:

Quote:

UnBeguiled Says:

It seems to me, you believe in a God that is irrelevant to anything. And worse, your belief is irrelevant to your own life.

Bravus Says:

Agreed in all points.

Just wondering if that particular blog still represents your thinking.

[John317]

Quote:

olger: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHRP0I2SrVs

Excellent, olger. I agree with the speaker about the Bible. I've concluded the same thing on the basis of my own reading over the years.

I would like to hear what Bravus and/or Richard or anyone else thinks of what he says.

[John317]

Quote:

Bravus: My broader point above was that apologetics needs to get serious. If we really, really want to be able to argue strongly for the existence and nature of God, we need to stop thinking within our own framework, a framework that is alien to most of those we want to convince. It is circular reasoning to use the Bible as evidence of God's existence and nature at the same time as using Divine inspiration as evidence of the veracity of the Bible.

Sure. At the same time it's important to remember that many people have come to accept the existence of God and of Christ as well, through the study of the Bible (often together with history). A case in point is German philosopher, Heinz W. Cassirer, who taught philosophy at Oxford and wrote commentaries on Kant's works. He writes about his experience in his book, Grace and Law: St. Paul, Kant, and the Hebrew Prophets (1988).

The wikipedia says about him, "As a middle-aged adult, reading the New Testament for the first time, Cassirer was struck by the writings of St. Paul in relation to ethics. As he studied, he committed himself to the Christian faith."

And of course there are thousands of prisoners who've become believers because they studied the Bible. It really just depends on the individual. Some people aren't at that point yet where they're interested in the Bible. That's OK. God can speak to them in other ways. Like you say, there are other ways of approaching apologetics. We can focus either on God or on the human condition and human needs.

I've found that people simply have to come on their own to the point where they have a desire for God in their lives. (That's what happened to me.) They have to call out or reach out after God. It takes longer for some to come to that point than it does for others, and some never do come to it.

Quote:

BRAVUS: Christian apologists need arguments that work within the context of the understanding that there are thousands of gods that humans have worshipped.

Sure, I understand. It tends to show there's an historical pattern of humans having a desire to worship a higher power. It seems to be a basic human characteristic. It occurs even in societies that claim to be atheistic, such as under communist rule. Atheistic political organizations and ideologies frequently take on a religious aura. A good question is why do humans have this desire for God or for a higher power than ourselves?

Quote:

BRAVUS: And, unfortunately, most of the arguments they have and use are hangovers from times when they lived in monocultures where the only alternatives were the Christian God or atheism.

That can be a problem, and often is, for sure.

Since I live near Los Angeles, and around a lot of universities, I see all kinds of religions. You can't assume people are Christian here, or even religiously inclined.

I'm very conscious of the change in our culture and society. As you say, it's certainly not a monoculture any longer.

One of my closest friends is a post-modern-- he has no use for God or for any religion. He was brought up Baptist but he despises it now. He often ridicules Christians, calls them, "do-gooders." We've been very close friends since 1971 when we met at college.

All the interests we share are outside of religion. He's the one I stayed with in Denver while photographing the demonstrations during the 2008 Democratic Convention. He curses, watches porn, gets drunk and smokes marijauna and tries to get me to do the same things. So while I like him very much, I find that we have less and less in common any more-- except for photography and art. We've really grown apart the last five years, since I became a Christian. I didn't want it to be that way, but our interests and goals are different now from what they used to be. I no longer feel right doing the things we used to enjoy doing together, and I know it makes him wish I was still the way I was. But it can't be.

Quote:

BRAVUS: That is my project, and I hope people are able to recognise that it is coming from someone who is friendly to Christianity and Christian apologetics,

Why do you think that is? Do you believe that God is influencing you to have a love for Him or for truth?

[cardw]

Quote:

olger: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHRP0I2SrVs

Excellent, olger. I agree with the speaker about the Bible. I've concluded the same thing on the basis of my own reading over the years.

I would like to hear what Bravus and/or Richard or anyone else thinks of what he says.

While he is an engaging speaker, there is not a lot of substance here other than triumphal claims. His first premise on the book of Daniel assumes that it was written in 600 BC. There is far more evidence that it was written around 200 to 100 BC which would be after the events described in the book. This would pretty much negate the prophetic angle as proof.

Prophecy is a very weak argument in the first place because it relies on so much metaphorical interpretation.

He also appeals to a lot of majority claims and authoritarian endorsements. These are not strong evidences since the majority is often wrong and simply quoting an authority doesn't provide any rationale or context.

[Bravus]

Let me take the very last first. Yes, I believe God is the Creator, and that I am the way I am because He made me that way. (Of course, all religious and ethical traditions also acknowledge what Christians describe as the Fall, and I know that the way I am is far from perfect.) But part of that is definitely 'a love for the truth'. That's a small letter t you see there, though.

If you wanted to encapsulate my thoughts in a sentence, it would be that I want the big t Truth to be supported and argued for with and only with small t truth. That is, the arguments for what claims to be Truth have to be true. There's no such thing as lying for Truth, including lying by omission. (I'm not accusing anyone here of doing so, but arguing that many people do.)

OK, a bash at a few of your questions above (and I do appreciate your interest and willingness to dialogue and listen):

1. On the Ravi Zaccharius video, I found it very unconvincing. It worked well for persuading those already persuaded. But, for example, many scholars now date the book of Daniel to the second century BC (edit: posted this while Richard was posting), after Alexander, which deals with that prophecy. And the references to someone being 'pierced' are pretty general, and applying them specifically to Jesus' crucifixion is a bit of a stretch. I hate wrangling about the details of this stuff, but my broader point is that there was no evidence there that was anywhere near decisive for accepting the Bible... and incidentally the scriptures of other faiths do make similar claims.

2. I really don't see the Bible as in an entirely separate class. Taking only what can be actually taken from it, short of its own claims and the claims made for it, it is a collection of books that reveals much about God - but also much about the cultures it was written in and the people who wrote it. It's very controversial to say so, but the Bible, too, partakes of the Fall. It is not perfect. (And yes, I know you can quote texts from it showing that it claims to be.)

3. When I agreed with 'UnBeguiled' that this god I was describing is irrelevant to my life, I was being lazy because I didn't want to have a huge argument on the blog at that moment. More precise would have been to say that God is not relevant to my life in most of the ways Christians typically think of (and since most atheists are in reaction against Christianity, they tend to have the same frameworks, though they like to deny it). That is, God does not find parking spots for me. He doesn't even find food for starving children. If he does actually intervene in the world, it's not in any visible or systematic way, and it's not something my entreaties can influence. Rather, God is in/through the universe and every place and person. We interact whenever I interact with anyone or anything, but he is not either a loving daddy or a petulant tyrant... he is more like the ocean including everything in it. Fish don't pray to the ocean... but they wouldn't exist without it.

I was discussing this with my daughter this afternoon. I was saying that if I was required to accept all of the Bible, I would have to reject all of it, because many parts are simply unacceptable. By regarding it as simply a book among many books that teaches me about who God is, and I can discern his presence in the majority of the Bible, then it becomes Scripture for me.

I know, I know, 'picking and choosing' and all that. Heard all the arguments. But as I said the other day, I'm hanging on to God, no matter how much his supposed servants jump up and down on my fingers. But Richard has done a good job above of talking about why the 'traditional' Christian God is not a God I can worship or even tolerate. God is greater than all of the petty prejudices that humans project onto him.

[cardw]

Let me take the very last first. Yes, I believe God is the Creator, and that I am the way I am because He made me that way. (Of course, all religious and ethical traditions also acknowledge what Christians describe as the Fall, and I know that the way I am is far from perfect.) But part of that is definitely 'a love for the truth'. That's a small letter t you see there, though.

Not all traditions recognize a fall. One interesting thing about the Aramaic language is that there is no word for evil. The word used is immature. An interesting change comes when you read the words of Jesus and substitute the word evil for immature. It makes rather more sense.

Other than the issue of the fall you may be very close to a Deist. You would be in the company of a great many modern philosophers and American founding fathers.

I would consider Deism, but I am rather more cautious about moving into any claims for an attribute of god without an ability to defend it honestly. I am not content with an agnostic view, but it's the one I can honestly claim.

[LifeHiscost]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHRP0I2SrVs

What I had time for was very worthwhile, Og. On a tangent I skipped over to "Rob Bell Exposed" and felt I had discovered the greatest reason modern day Christianity is floundering in a mental morass of so-called spiritual enlightenment.

Much obliged for the link.

"But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe. You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life. "John 5:38-40 NKJV

Blessings!

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

Bravus: It is circular reasoning to use the Bible as evidence of God's existence and nature at the same time as using Divine inspiration as evidence of the veracity of the Bible.

Which then would identify one major reason why the difficulty in believing above one's own reasoning.

"But the LORD is the true God; He is the living God and the everlasting King. At His wrath the earth will tremble, And the nations will not be able to endure His indignation."Jeremiah 10:10 NKJV

"But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him." Hebrews 11:6 NKJV

Regards!

[John317]

Quote:

cardw: His first premise on the book of Daniel assumes that it was written in 600 BC. There is far more evidence that it was written around 200 to 100 BC which would be after the events described in the book. This would pretty much negate the prophetic angle as proof.

If the book of Daniel was written in 600 BC, would it make a difference in your thinking?

It couldn't have been written in 100 BC, and probably not in 200 BC, because it is part of the Septuagint, and was translated about 200 BC. Therefore it is certain that it was written some time before 200 BC.

There are also internal evidences which make it likely that it was written much earlier than the third century. In fact, the book of Daniel refers to things that someone living in the second and first century could not have known about Babylon.

According to most Bible scholars, the book was written or redacted no later than about 250 BC. Theodotion version(ca. 2nd cent. AD)contains the same version of Daniel as found in the Masoretic text, without the parts that were added later about 100 BC,

This, from the wikipedia--

Quote:

The Septuagint: A column of uncial text from 1 Esdras in the Codex Vaticanus, the basis of Sir Lancelot Charles Lee Brenton's Greek edition and English translation.The Septuagint (pronounced /ˈsɛptʊ.ədʒɪnt/), or simply "LXX", referred to in critical works by the abbreviation , is the Koine Greek version of the Hebrew Bible, translated in stages between the 3rd and 2nd Centuries BC in Alexandria. It was begun by the third century BC and completed before 132 BC.

There are parts of Daniel that speak of things that happened after 100 BC, so that even if it is granted that it was written at that time, how does one explain the fact that it predicts events long after the first century BC?

Quote:

cardw: Prophecy is a very weak argument in the first place because it relies on so much metaphorical interpretation.

What about Deut. 28; Ezekiel 26: 1-5; Daniel 9: 24-27; and Obadiah 18? The latter verse was written long before the last of the Ediomites died, but yet it says all Ediomites would perish. Herod the Great was an Ediomite and of course so were the other Herods. Edomites continued to live until the second century AD.

The book itself was written sometime between 800 and 556 BC. There were tens of thousands of Edomites still in existence at the time of Christ, over 500 years after the book was written.

Notice by contrast that the Bible said the Jews would continue to live, and would NEVER perish, and over 4000 years later, they are still a very important part of history. When you study history, it becomes plain that Deut. 28 is a description of exactly what happened, and is happening, to the Jews. If any nation seemed doomed to die off from earliest times, it was the Jews. They were persecuted and slaughtered by the millions all through history and driven to the ends of the earth.

One last verse, Matt. 26: 13. "Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, what this woman hath done will also be told as a memorial of her."

When Jesus said these words, about 30 AD, it didn't appear possible for this to happen. Jesus would die on a Roman cross and his few followers would be scattered. No one outside an obscure area of the world had even heard of Jesus, and even here, not too many had paid much attention to him. Yet here here he is, saying that the story of what this woman had done would be preached in the whole world. Has it happened? Ineed it has-- it has happened and is still happening today. There's not a piece of writing that has been translated into more languages than the gospels, which contains this very story about the woman. It can be proven that this book, Matthew, was written no later than 200 AD, because there are manuscipts dating to that time. And most conservative Bible scholars believe it was written some time around 60 AD. But in any case, there was not a whole lot of reason for anyone in 200 AD or before to think the prophecy in Matt. 26: 13 could be fulfilled, but it has. You can hear her story told to tens of thousands of Chinese in China and you can hear the same story told in an African village or in Mexico or in New York city.

This is only a small part of the evidence showing the truth of Bible prophecy.

[John317]

Quote:

Bravus: There's no such thing as lying for Truth, including lying by omission. (I'm not accusing anyone here of doing so, but arguing that many people do.)

Yes, I agree, but we have to be careful about determining that someone is lying. There's a difference between being wrong and lying. I may think someone should know what the truth is, yet they may honestly believe what you know to be misinformation. There's also the fact that no one can give all the information about the Truth.

But I do agree that there's never any excuse for lying about the truth or for Truth.

Quote:

Bravus: 1. On the Ravi Zaccharius video, I found it very unconvincing. It worked well for persuading those already persuaded. But, for example, many scholars now date the book of Daniel to the second century BC ..., after Alexander, which deals with that prophecy.

OK, sure, but could I ask what you believe about the dating of Daniel? Do you have a firmly held belief either way?

I think it's interesting to trace the history of the dating of Daniel.

It stands to reason that if someone doesn't believe in true prophecy (that is, predictive prophecy), he will certainly attempt to find ways of denying the prophecy. So when it was obvious that the book of Daniel was right in its prophetic teaching, people who didn't believe in predictive prophecy concluded that the book must have been written after the events it purported to predict.

I posted something about the dating of Daniel a few hours ago on this same discussion. In recent years, more evidence has emerged which supports a 6th century dating of the book of Daniel. I forgot the exect details but I read about a year ago that some information had come out about events that occurred in Babylon which a person living in the second century BC would not have known. Only one living close to the events would have known about them, because over the centuries, those events were forgotten, but they were rediscovered or uncovered by archeologists. Some time I could get the exact information for you if you're intersted.

There's also linguistic reasons for beleiving Daniel was written in the 6th century and not in the second century.

However, the big point is that there are things predicted in Daniel that were fulfilled long after the 2nd century. For instance, there's the prophecies in Daniel 2, 9, and 11.

It's time to hit the sack. I'll be back Monday and finish this.

[chuks]

Faith is something personal if you know you got the faith don't listen to them go ahead and believe in your faith....they only question your God hum