At 02:29 PM 2/11/2007, Alexanian, Moorad wrote:
> I believe you are looking at the telescope not from the eyepiece but
> from the objective lens. Christians must believe in the
> supernatural, otherwise the content of Nature is all that there is
> and hence the notion of divinity is nonsensical. The questions I was
> raising is what remains to be explained if one takes evolutionary
> theory seriously as an explanation of the present state of the
> earth, or universe, from, say a Big Bang origin of the universe? I
> was not asking any question regarding some unique, historical event,
> e.g., who Jesus the Christ is? For instance, are human life,
> consciousness, and rationality reducible to the purely physical?
> ~Moorad
@ You may want to take this item below into consideration. ~ Janice
Excerpted from item below:
[14] Myth: The supernatural exists. Uh oh, what am I saying? Don't
panic: I'm saying that we've all fallen prey to the
post-Enlightenment distinction between the natural and the so-called
supernatural. In other words, this is an artifical category, one that
has led to such silly ideas as that miracles (acts of God) "violate
natural law". God works in and through the natural world and within
its "laws" -- while some miracles are beyond human capacity to
duplicate, they hardly require any violation of nature's "laws"
(other than perhaps, creation ex nihilo, and even that is not
certainly a "violation"). Put it this way: Why is it not a
"violation" of the law of gravity when I pick up a box? Why IS it
such a violation when God picks up that same box? The inconsistency
was invented of itself, and unfortunately, we continue to let the
debate continue on these terms, and this makes our apologetic for
things like the Resurrection more difficult than it needs to be.
Leading Christian Myths http://www.tektonics.org/af/
christianmyths.html
This item is nothing new, but rather a contextualization and
collation of what has been found in these pages before. There are
certain of what can be called myths dispersed in the church today,
and it seemed good to collect these in one place for new readers and
provide as well links for further study when possible. As of now
there are 14, but the number is not set in stone.
These myths I believe cause harm to the church as a whole ranging
from simple cognitive dissonance in individuals to outright apostasy
in those who cannot reconcile the inconsistences.
I've also added lately (4/06) an addendum of commentary on a list by
a magazine called The Church Report on the 50 Most Influential
Christians. I've put this here because many of these myths are being
spread (or aided) by many of the people on this list. But first, to
the myths.
* Hell is a place of physical torture. This myth has caused
numerous people to question the fairness and justness of God. It is
grist for numerous atheist critiques. While I once defended this view
myself (albeit not to great depth, since I discovered the error in
the process of research), and while I do not necessarily think
atheist critiques of the idea are sound, there is certainly no reason
to make things harder on ourselves and others.
* Hell is actually more of a state than a place, and it is a
state of shame, of exclusion from God's honor and presence, not a
place of torture. See
<http://www.tektonics.org/uz/2muchshame.html>here. A side point here
is the related myth that Christians as a whole want to see people go
to hell -- that's done by assuming that a Fred Phelps is the plumb
line for believers.
* God is my buddy, Jesus is my friend. The modern hymn calls
Jesus a "friend" and some may appeal to a verse in John where Jesus
calls his disciples "friends". But the understanding of the word is
decontextualized. People of the time of the Bible did not "get to
know" each other as modern persons in the West do. A "friend" meant a
person who looked out for your practical interests -- not someone you
had beer and watched football with.
* Even some preachers today (I am thinking of John MacArthur, but
there are others) have lamented the modern view of God as a "buddy"
as detracting from God's holiness. The result has been numerous
corrupt theologies which see God as one who dispenses wealth like a
gumball machine, and whose voice is constantly in one's head,
sometimes defeating sound practice and doctrine but sometimes even
just giving advice on what house to buy or what have you. This myth
is a common one perpetrated by some persons of influence listed below.
* But really, even a more common view can be misleading. Many
evangelists speak of a "personal relationship with Jesus". The phrase
is used to mean something not too far from the "God is my buddy"
idea, in essence meaning we can talk to Jesus any time, and so on. If
I had to correct this, I would say that what is required of us is a
patronal relationship with Jesus. The NT explains our relationship
with God in terms of a client-patron relationship, one in which God,
patron, is remote; and Jesus, as a broker, mediates between ourselves
and God. Then we do have the indwelling Holy Spirit as a broker as
well; but though the Spirit supplies us with mediation and perhaps
power, there is nothing to show that the Spirit is some sort of
intimate conversation partner. And finally, since people of the
ancient world seldom "got to know each other" personally (as is taken
for granted in modern, Western society) there is no way that NT
writers could have had an idea like a "personal relationship with
Jesus" in mind in the first place -- not as we perceive it.
* Ironically, the view of God as a remote patron is the one that
is most conducive to the view concerned Christians like MacArthur
wish to see us return to. Perhaps then we would see a greater respect
for God and His holiness, and less obsession with self-fulfillment,
ranging from best-selling books having titles like The Purpose-Driven
Life to our most popular songs being titled, "I Can Only Imagine"
(focus on experience, not on fact).
* The end times are coming! The entire package of "end times"
belief and literature has resulted in excessive waste of resources --
pedantically, all the paper that has gone to print end-times novels
and books; productively, encouraging a "pie in the sky" approach that
engenders irresponsible stewardship. This is perhaps our most
damaging myth, internally speaking, though it has also done harm
externally by making Christians look foolish and paranoid.
* I would add that the present state of understanding has also
encouraged excessive credit to Satan as performing all sorts of deeds
which detract from human responsibility. In turn this has encouraged
Christians to see Satan under evey rock and in every passage he is
not in (like Is. 14 and Ez. 28). The "end times" in fact took place
in the first century, and we await only resurrection and final
judgment. Satan is bound and not tempting anyone or hiding their car
keys or whatever the myth of the week is....see
<http://www.tektonics.org/esch/eschatology.html>here. This myth also
appears among persons of influence.
* Faith is blind and has nothing to do with evidence. This myth
has enabled Christians to ignore, indeed wave off, education and
scholarship. It has made believers look foolish before those who do
value knowledge.
* Faith in fact means loyalty based on prior performance. See
<http://www.tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html>here.
* Heaven is a place to relax. Like the end times myth, this has
encouraged lackadaisical behavior and in some cases has inspired
dread among those who think Heaven will be a boring place.
* Here I recommend, actually, a popular book by Randy Alcorn
titled Heaven. Once past the first portion of dizzying anecdotes,
this settles down into a fairly sound exegesis/narrative showing the
Heaven is a place where we will have work to do.
* Certainty is a sin. Modern persons, and postmodernism, have
encouraged the myth that everyone's opinion is valid and deserves
"respect" and/or wider hearing. This is not only non-Biblical (for
those who respect that authority) but also self-contradictory, for it
fails to respect the "opinion" that not everyone's opinion is valid.
The price of this myth has been to ineffectualize rational argument
(and in turn, increase dependence on "blind" faith as above).
* Sanitized for your protection. Modern versions of the Bible,
and everyday preachers, have often failed to deal with "hard sayings"
of the Bible, whether it be language that we would call objectionable
(Malachi's "dung in your faces" phrase, etc.) or behavior that we
would regard as immoral (the destruction of the Amalekites, etc.) The
results of this myth have ranged from cognitive dissonance to
apostasy (since Christians confronted with these passages are often
shocked by them and have no idea how to defend or explain them) to a
false "Victorian" understanding of Biblical morality. Literature of
the ancient world, as much as the Bible, was frank and
straightforward; see <http://www.tektonics.org/af/
ancientmores.html>here.
* Related to this is a myth that Christians are "anti-sex." As a
reader put it, when God told Adam and Eve to "go forth and multiply",
we doubt He was talking about doing mathematics problems. The Song of
Solomon isn't a case of Sol singing "Achy Breaky Heart". As bad as it
gets: the apostate's site "ex-christian.net" has featured "Christian
Nude Art" as some sort of "naaaaaah naaaaaaah" precisely because of
this myth.
* The Bible was written yesterday and for me personally.
Christians and critics alike are guilty of this one, what is properly
called "decontextualization". The text is read as though the writers
shared the same values and understandings we do (as one rather odd
person allegedly suggested, "The Apostle Paul used the KJV and that's
good enough for me.")
* This has encouraged, as well, a refusal to do depth study, and
to rest rather in "listening to the Spirit" for instruction on
exegesis. From this has sprung things not all bad, but in some cases
rank heresy. See more <http://www.tektonics.org/qt/solex.html>here.
* "Love" means sentimentality. The Biblical word for "love"
rendered from agape does not refer to sentiment or good feelings, but
rather, to looking out for the greater good. The false view has led
to misleading understandings of the role of confrontation, and to the
excusing of criminal actions (eg, refusing to enact the death penalty
out of "love"!), among other things. See on the true definition
<http://www.tektonics.org/whatis/whatlove.html>here.
* OT prophecy fulfillment is a good apologetic. It actually isn't
useful in the way it was at first. We need to understand (as do
Skeptics) Jewish
<http://www.christian-thinktank.com/baduseot.html>exegesis of the
first century. It is not so much that the OT predicted the NT events
as that the NT writers looked at history and sought OT passages that
echoed what they had seen. This does not mean that there is not
actual predictive prophecy at all (for even then God may have
orchestrated the pattern) but rather that we cannot present an
apologetic on this basis as we normally have; or else we are forced
into a corner of explaining ie, why the NT allegedly uses OT passages
"out of context".
* Saints are "super-Christians". We are all saints, according to
the New Testament. This is not a Catholic thing I refer to; I mean
that Protestants have a version of this in which Christian
celebrities are idolized. Personality cults are a product of modern
individualism. This leads to a secondary point which is a myth from
the other side: That Christians are "holier than thou" and/or that
they are required to be. While some no doubt do act this way, it's
not because they are Christians; there are plenty of people in other
religions (and even atheists) who have the same attitude -- such as
the guy who throws together a site titled "10001 Bible
Contradictions" and uses nothing but Ingersoll as a source. In that
case it's more like "smarter than thou" but it all runs down to the
same base assumption that "I'm better than you" when there's no
evidence for it.
* "A" church is a building. The ancient word ekklesia meant the
people and the assembly of people, not where they met. The same goes
for the precursor, the Jewish synagogue (which required ten men, not
ten bricks). This seems to be a minor semantic point, and for some
people it is, but it has often taken the focus away from the body
where it belongs and put it on things and programs where it doesn't
belong. It does tend to encourage a view of people as statistics.
* All Christians are... There are several things this sentence
ends with that don't work, such as: "anti-Semitists" (which is
particularly funny, considering the ethniticity of Jesus, the
disciples, Paul...); "Republicans" (I'm an independent myself);
"brainwashed/don't think for themselves" (presumably this includes
scholars like N. T. Wright), and more that I am sure you can think
of. It's just comforting generalization by a mass readership not able
to deal with the actual arguments.
* The supernatural exists. Uh oh, what am I saying? Don't panic:
I'm saying that we've all fallen prey to the post-Enlightenment
distinction between the natural and the so-called supernatural. In
other words, this is an artifical category, one that has led to such
silly ideas as that miracles (acts of God) "violate natural law". God
works in and through the natural world and within its "laws" -- while
some miracles are beyond human capacity to duplicate, they hardly
require any violation of nature's "laws" (other than perhaps,
creation ex nihilo, and even that is not certainly a "violation").
Put it this way: Why is it not a "violation" of the law of gravity
when I pick up a box? Why IS it such a violation when God picks up
that same box? The inconsistency was invented of itself, and
unfortunately, we continue to let the debate continue on these terms,
and this makes our apologetic for things like the Resurrection more
difficult than it needs to be. ~ James Patrick Holding
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Feb 12 13:59:41 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Feb 12 2007 - 13:59:42 EST