Christians witness according to what they consider the strength of their
personal testimony. I do not avoid the issue of hell. In fact, the
essential reason we pray for people to see the truth that is in Christ
is based on the reality of hell.
Moorad
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 1:08 AM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: [asa] Dawkins is at it again
Moorad said:
" I personally do not use the notion of hell in my arguments for the
truth"
Jesus taught about hell and how serious it is. If we are to be
Christ-like, does that mean you are not being Christ-like by avoiding
the issue of hell?
...Bernie
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Alexanian, Moorad
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008 3:48 PM
To: Schwarzwald; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: [asa] Dawkins is at it again
My point was that we Christians are not tortured by the notion of hell.
However, we do point to the Lord for people's salvation. I personally do
not use the notion of hell in my arguments for the truth that is in our
Christian faith.
Moorad
________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of Schwarzwald
Sent: Sat 11/8/2008 6:02 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Dawkins is at it again
Concern is different. I think most Christians are concerned about their
fate and others' in that context. If you mean why isn't it a constant
point of terror - my own response is that trust in God and a sincere,
rational faith speaks against such things. The same faith that speaks of
punishment also speaks of a God who is just and merciful, tremendously
so. As with most other things, ultimately I place my trust in God and do
what I'm able in the meanwhile. I would suspect others have similar (if
not exactly similar) ways of approaching the question.
And I have to thank Mike Gene for shooting down Dawkins so thoroughly on
this point. I think most people can recognize it's an inane claim at
first blush, but it helps to be thorough.
On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 5:02 PM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
wrote:
Moorad said:
" How many Christians are truly worried about hell? I am not."
I'm not worried either, but maybe that is our problem. If we
really believed people would be tormented and lost eternally, why
wouldn't it concern us???
...Bernie
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
[mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Alexanian, Moorad
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 6:34 PM
To: Murray Hogg; ASA
Subject: RE: [asa] Dawkins is at it again
How many Christians are truly worried about hell? I am not. Can
you really have someone become a Christian for fear of hell? I doubt it.
It is the love of Christ and the need of union with that love that turns
people into becoming Christians. This is what Christians teach their
children. Humans are causing all sorts of sufferings to other humans and
I hear nothing from Dawkins about such instances of abuse. Dawkins is
haughty and a rabid anti-Christian and if he is worried about hell, it
is because he fear and knows that he may end up there!
Moorad
________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of Murray Hogg
Sent: Fri 11/7/2008 7:37 PM
To: ASA
Subject: Re: [asa] Dawkins is at it again
Hi all;
Schwarzwald:
Simply at the level of apologetic argument I'd agree, however
I'd like to keep hammering on the value of remembering the pastoral
issues at stake.
In this respect, Bernie makes a hugely important point with
respect to the damage done to some individuals by religious communities,
but contrary to Dawkins I disagree that atheism is the solution to the
problem. Indeed, something Dawkins misses but which McGrath has pointed
out, is that in instances of spiritual, ethical, physical or other forms
of abuse, Christians have always been able to offer a positive response
on the basis of our own religious faith. Being MORE Christian rather
than LESS is always the proper response - hence the need to be the
church semper reformanda. Which, you'll notice, is a Christian
theological principle - which suggests, firstly, that we need to take
our faults seriously, second, that we need to respond to them in
Christian love and wisdom, and third, (I'm sure you'll be glad to hear!)
that we don't need Dawkins to tell us how to suck eggs.
Bernie:
I sympathize with your remarks at the level of pastoral
response, but philosophically I think you miss the point. One thing
that's critical to note is that this discussion has NOTHING to do with
whether God exists or not - it's really a form of Pascal's Wager: an
argument as to what would be "better" to believe given the relative
pay-offs.
In essence, Dawkins is arguing that (1) the psychological
pay-off for religious belief is overwhelmingly negative (whether or not
God exists), that (2) the psychological pay-off for atheism is at least
neutral (whether or not God exists) therefore (3) rejection of religious
belief results in maximal psychological pay-off (whether or not God
exists), therefore (4) one ought to be an atheist to accrue maximal
psychological pay-off (whether or not God exists).
Now, I agree with you 100% that we ought not to kid ourselves
that everything in our religious communities is rosy, but in terms of
simple logic, Dawkins argument indeed doesn't work because it's an
argument about psychological health and the scientific studies indicate
that he's simply wrong to argue for an overwhelmingly negative
psychological impact of religious belief - and this REMAINS the case
whether or not God exists.
So pastorally I see a major problem requiring attention here -
but as an argument against the psychological value of religious belief
it doesn't work. As an argument against the existence of God it's simply
a non-starter.
Blessings,
Murray.
Schwarzwald wrote:
> The bottom line simply doesn't work. As I've pointed out,
there are
> plenty of undeniable (by most atheist and christians alike)
facts about
> the world that would be cruel/abusive to tell a child,
especially
> depending on context. Further, if the cruelty depends on the
truth of
> the matter, then raising a child with atheist beliefs is cruel
if there
> is a God - and no one can say whether or not it's actually
cruel,
> because none of us are privy to that certain and demonstrable
knowledge
> on the question. This before noting the problems with
right/wrong or
> cruel/kind under an atheism-as-true perspective.
>
> And keep in mind that many people who leave one faith or
another don't
> do so entirely because of the faith itself. I'm sure some
people may fit
> the bill, but there are many, many people who are bitter about
> christianity because of their experience with other christians
> (hypocrites, etc), with political stances, or otherwise.
Mike's done a
> good job of pointing out where Dawkins' claim must go for it
to be true, > and why it fails.
>
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 11:50 AM, Dehler, Bernie
<bernie.dehler@intel.com
> <mailto:bernie.dehler@intel.com>> wrote:
>
> There are a lot of people who leave Christianity and feel
abused by
> it. Many are quite bitter about it... damaged goods. You
can read
> their "falling away" testimonies here:
>
> http://exchristian.net/
>
> Bottom line- if there's no God- it is cruel to say there's
a God who
> will send you to hell if you don't accept his imaginary
son. On the
> other hand, if there is a God and the gospel is true, a
person loses
> out on an abundant life in Christ if he rejects it.
>
> If someone yells "FIRE" in a movie house during your
favorite movie,
> would you be upset? It all depends- on whether the fire is
true or
> not. If true, you'll thank them. If false, you'll hate
them for
> wrecking the movie. Same exact thing... only different.
>
> ...Bernie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
<mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu>
> [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> <mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu>] On Behalf Of Iain
Strachan
> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 12:24 AM
> To: Nucacids
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
> Subject: Re: [asa] Dawkins is at it again
>
> Mike,
>
> Thanks for presenting this evidence. It confirms what
I've known
> through empirical observation for a long time; which is
why Dawkins's
> comments on child-abuse were the most offensive in the
entire book as
> far as I'm concerned.
>
> In my voluntary work ( a telephone support line for the
suicidal) I
> get to talk with appalling regularity with people who have
been
> sexually abused as children. The damage it does is
permanent - I do
> indeed get to see the lack of self-esteem, the feelings of
guilt
> (victims often think it's their fault), the depression,
the traumatic
> flashbacks when the victim re-lives the abuse vividly, and
the
> suicidal thoughts.
>
> But on the other hand, I can count on the fingers of no
hands the
> number of times when I've spoken to a person who was
traumatized by
> being taught about hell.
>
> Dawkins's approach is shameful in this part of his book -
as you say,
> it ignores the evidence, and, it seems to me, is
deliberately using a
> highly emotive subject (child abuse) to make his point. I
was quite
> disgusted by Dawkins's claims, so it's good to see real
evidence that
> counters it. Dawkins is without excuse for his sloppy
scholarship
> here.
>
> Regards,
> Iain.
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 1:15 AM, Nucacids
<nucacids@wowway.com
> <mailto:nucacids@wowway.com>> wrote:
> > Hi Bernie,
> >
> >
> >
> > "If Dawkins was right, then he would have a very good
point. If
> there was
> > no God heaven, or hell, then it could be mental torture
on kids."
> >
> >
> >
> > This is incorrect. Real child abuse and mental torture
bring
> about changes
> > in the brain and body that are detectable later on in
life. For
> example, if
> > you meet or know someone who has a low self-esteem, who
has poor
> social
> > skills, who battles depression, and who suffers from a
variety of
> ailments
> > (migraines, skin problems, digestive problems, anxiety
issues, etc.),
> > chances are good that this person was abused as a
child. But
> don't take my
> > word for it, look to science:
> >
> >
> >
> > "Childhood maltreatment strongly predicts poor
psychiatric and
> physical
> > health outcomes in adulthood. This overview of the
literature
> shows that
> > individuals who suffer abuse, neglect, or serious
family
> dysfunction as
> > children are more likely to be depressed, to experience
other
> types of
> > psychiatric illness, to have more physical symptoms
(both medically
> > explained and unexplained), and to engage in more
health-risk
> behaviors than
> > their nonabused counterparts. (Arnow BA. 2004.
Relationships between
> > childhood maltreatment, adult health and psychiatric
outcomes,
> and medical
> > utilization. J Clin Psychiatry. 65 Suppl 12:10-5.)"
> >
> >
> >
> > There is no evidence that teaching children about hell
results in
> these
> > adult outcomes. Dawkins, writing as the Professor for
the Public
> > Understanding of Science, ignores the extensive
scientific
> literature on
> > child abuse and its effects. What's more, there is
also a large
> body of
> > scientific evidence that shows a religious upbringing
is
> psychologically and
> > developmentally positive. An there are studies which
show
> religious people
> > are less likely to engage in child abuse:
> >
> > "Religiosity and the socioemotional adjustment of
adolescent
> mothers and
> > their children.Carothers SS, Borkowski JG, Lefever JB,
Whitman TL.
> > J Fam Psychol. 2005 Jun;19(2):263-75.
> >
> > This study assessed the impact of religiosity on the
> socioemotional and
> > behavioral outcomes of 91 adolescent mothers and their
offspring
> over 10
> > years. Religiosity was defined as involvement in church
and
> contact with and
> > dependence on church officials and members. Mothers
classified as
> high in
> > religious involvement had significantly higher
self-esteem and lower
> > depression scores, exhibited less child abuse
potential, and had
> higher
> > occupational and educational attainment than mothers
classified
> as low in
> > religious involvement; differences remained when
multiple
> factors, such as
> > stress and grandmother support, were held constant.
Children with
> more
> > religious mothers had fewer internalizing and
externalizing
> problems at 10
> > years of age, with maternal adjustment mediating this
relationship.
> > Religiosity, through increased social support, served
as a
> protective factor
> > for teenaged mothers and their children."
> >
> > Dawkins also ignores these data.
> >
> > Thus, there is a profound hypocrisy and intellectual
dishonesty
> in Dawkins
> > message. On one hand, he claims science has disproven
the
> existence of God,
> > yet there are no scientific studies that attempt to
determine
> whether or not
> > God exists. On the other hand, there are plenty of
scientific
> studies that
> > undercut his "religious upbringing as child abuse"
message, and the
> > scientist ignores these.
> >
> > What he instead offers in his book is rhetoric and
anecdote. He
> tells the
> > story about a letter he received from some unknown
woman who got
> over her
> > sexual abuse, but is still tormented by hell beliefs.
Of course,
> there is
> > no effort to substantiate this account; Dawkins trusts
it on
> blind faith.
> > But even if the story is true, I'd bet this woman has
many
> monsters in her
> > past and her mind has decided to "blame hell" as a
defensive
> mechanism. It's
> > often easier to lash out at an idea than relive the
hellish
> experience that
> > can come from *people.*
> >
> > Bottom line: Even if hell does not exist, there is no
evidence
> that such
> > belief generates the effects typically associated with
child abuse.
> > Furthermore, there is plenty of evidence that strong
religiosity
> during
> > childhood has a positive effect on development.
> >
> > -Mike
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Dehler, Bernie
> > To: asa@calvin.edu <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
> > Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 11:54 AM
> > Subject: RE: [asa] Dawkins is at it again
> >
> > If Dawkins was right, then he would have a very good
point. If
> there was no
> > God heaven, or hell, then it could be mental torture on
kids.
> However, if
> > Dawkins is wrong, then he'll burn in hell for it...
likely... but
> that would be
> > God's call.
> >
> >
> >
> > ...Bernie
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> -----------
> Non timeo sed caveo
>
> -----------
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu
> <mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu> with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu
> <mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu> with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Nov 10 08:35:14 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Nov 10 2008 - 08:35:14 EST