From: Dr. Blake Nelson (bnelson301@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue Nov 05 2002 - 08:51:09 EST
--- Jim Eisele <jeisele@starpower.net> wrote:
(SNIP)
> >The details are not clear
>
> I don't see how they could be clearer. Please
> elaborate. I respect
> your experience. But you're making it very
> difficult for me to respect
> any conclusions that you seem to have reached.
Jim,
Your approach to biblical exegesis seems very
straightforward. As much as we would like to assume
that texts actually say what we think they say, it is
important to understand translation issues, turns of
phrase, understand the text within the context of
other texts, etc. Your approach to the texts seems a
natural outgrowth of your previous approach to
Genesis, which a lot of folks on this list considered
a bit naive. Your new found agnosticism seems as
naive.
> >did Jesus live
>
> I think so. Some people are so fed up with the
> church that they don't
> even believe that.
To use a recently favorite expression of yours, is
that evidence? What does it matter whether someone is
fed up with the church? I do not agree with the
theology and actually the social policy of many
denominations, I can distinguish the church from those
exegetical or cultural glosses on the bible and do not
participate in those communities of believers.
> >how and why did he die,
>
> Don't know. Not surprising at all that a false
> prophet who was
> challenging the authorities developed enemies in
> high places.
Define false prophet. This presumes that you believe
that either the Judaic or Roman authorities at the
time represented the truth. Does that make you an
Emperor worshipper, now? :)
What in Christ's life and recorded statements do you
find false, exactly?
> >did he rise agian etc?
>
> No, but I guess that gives people false hope.
On what evidence do you believe this to be true? The
documentary evidence says that He did.
> >Well Christianty thrived for 300 years before
> Constantine c 323AD, also
> >consider church where harassed (Iron Curtain) or
> where no political clout -
> >Africa etc.
>
> Jesus is an answer to the God question.
> Christianity emerged from the
> pack as the "God winner." I'm not an expert on
> Constantine. My guess
> is that Christianity's success is not merely
> dependent on convincing
> evidence. The weak evidence for other religions
> aids its cause greatly.
This is a nonsensical statement without several
assumptions -- the first assumption is that people are
all looking for a God answer (apparently this
phraseology does not assume that God does indeed
exist). If you dig into Christian theology and the
practice of being a Christian you will find, among
other things commands to service and sacrifice --
things that I would not conceive as all that popular
to the mindset of people wanting to pick a God that
allows us to kick butt and gives us our Mercedes Benz.
This is an area where Dawkins too always exhibits the
poorest understanding of what it means to be a
Christian. Christianity requires sacrifice that goes
against some base human instincts.
Anyway, even if I accept what I think the premise of
your argument is, how come there were no "God pack"
winners for the thousands of years before Christianity
burst upon the scene? I.e., a world faith -- assuming
the Roman Empire as the world at the time.
> >In a sense that is true, but why does that mean we
> must jettison old ideas
> >e.g. trinity Jesus as Christ etc.
> >It is common practice by too many to put up a straw
> man of orthodox
> >Christianity - usually some kind of literalist
> fundamentalism , shoot it
> to
> >bits and say Christianity is wrong.
> >This is what Bish Spong , Schermer, dennett,
> Dawkins and others do.
>
> I wish I had firm numbers here. But church avoiders
> far outnumber
> churchgoers on any given Sunday. There's just not
> enough truth in
> Christianity. That is why alternatives are being
> chosen.
This says nothing about the truth of the matter. The
modern falling away from religion has more to do with
social and economic forces than it does with the truth
of religious practice. Religion isn't easy, it
requires personal costs, modern society is not big on
bearing costs that it does not see immediate pay outs
for. People, as they have always done, prefer systems
of belief and practice that demand as little as
possible and provide rewards. This is one of the many
lures of atheism, it gives me license to do what I
please and rationalize it. That doesn't make it true.
> >> 4. Our knowledge is growing.
>
> >So what!
>
> So, falsehoods, including Christian falsehoods, are
> being exposed. One
> little falsehood, no big deal. False creation
> account, no Adam and Eve,
> false Jesus prophecy, various other difficulties -
> who needs it!
Christianity is one belief system that has withstood,
intact, thousands of years of social, political,
economic and religious or anti-religious attacks. I
would defy you to produce a system of belief and
understanding that encompasses so much data (about the
nature of the world, human nature, etc) and has
survived so robustly.
The creation account is only false, if it is at all,
according to your narrow, naive reading of Genesis.
The same is true regarding Jesus' prophetic
statements. And, contrary to your belief, this is not
simply a matter of trying to twist the words to mean
something than they actually mean. Read a bit of
Wittgenstein for the problems with language, and then
we can start to talk about your pseudo problems.
> >We should not pit God agianst science but see that
> science "explains" what
> >we couldnt before and that an explanation does not
> exclude God. A moderate
> >grasp of the History of science would help here as
> we consider how science
> >and God went together from 1550 or so.
> >This type of statement is historically laughable
> even though it is widely
> >held by the chattering classes among agnostics.
> They need to do some
> >homework.
>
> God is invisible. Science is tangible. Science has
> disproved Christian
> "truths." It is merely wishful thinking that
> conflict can be avoided.
Which Christian truths has science disproved?
There are hundreds of modern, contemporary books on
science and religion that give accurate portrayals of
the interaction of science and religion. Try any book
by Polkinghorne -- Faith of a Physicist -- might be
good since you seem to believe Christian truths are
disproved by science, but Belief in God in an Age of
Science is also a good, although somewhat denser
book... if you prefer a more liberal bent there is
Arthur Peacocke. If you want an overview of views of
science and religion -- Ian Barbour's recent books are
a good overview. There are many academic accounts of
the real birth of science in a Christian culture of
Wester Europe -- you might want to check out some of
John Hedley Brooke's books and articles on the matter.
As to what God is or isn't, saying God is invisible is
about the worst definition one can imagine. Perhaps
Keith Ward's somewhat theologically liberal recent
book -- "God A Guide for the Perplexed" -- would be a
good start since it provides primer about God. Of
course, you can randomly pick any theologian and get a
better sense of what Christian tradition says about
God than simply God is invisible and intangible. (I
assume you also meant intangible, because you stated
science was tangible and something can be invisible
but tangible) And technically, science isn't
tangible, it is a body of knowledge, which is an
abstract, intangible concept. The results of
scientific experiments, however, certainly are
tangible.
Plainly, your statement is beyond naive, it is simply
ignorant. Please try to marshal the data and evidence
before making such sweeping statements.
(SNIP)
> >Well, it has sustained me for over 34 years now and
> I dont think I am a
> >wobbly christian.
>
> No, I don't think that you are. But an unstable
> foundation for a belief
> system is doomed. Maybe you're just holding back on
> Mt 24 :-)
Again, Jim, please show me a belief system that has
withstood critiques and criticisms for two millenia as
robustly as Christianity has.
Please try to do the logical thing and go out and read
a reasonable collection of atheists, theists and
agnostics and think critically about the issues.
Nothing you have written thus far demonstrates that
you are really thinking critically. You appear to be
accepting one set of naive beliefs for another.
Cheers,
Blake
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Nov 05 2002 - 19:55:34 EST