Dilemma for the Christian Author

Right & Wrong
User avatar
Jason
Posts: 379
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: Dilemma for the Christian Author

Post by Jason » Wed Mar 11, 2015 3:49 pm

I agree with you about defending the inerrancy of the Bible, and usually avoid the issue altogether. Bruxy Cavey has a very good methodology when dealing with this by always bringing it back to Jesus (since Jesus has a pretty good reputation, even among skeptics and adherents of others religions). I once heard Bruxy debate an atheist and the argument went something like this (paraphrasing here):

Skeptic: We can't trust the bible so how do you know Jesus even existed?
Bruxy: Because we have his teachings.
Skeptic: But we don't even know if some guy named Jesus said those things.
Bruxy: The teachings came from somebody because they exist. So whoever taught these things is the dude I want to follow because they're amazing. And since Jesus was a very common name in first century Palestine, we might as well call him "Jesus."

Bruxy argues that we ought to deflate every tangential argument, which can quickly spiral into debating unimportant matters, by bringing it back to Jesus as quickly as possible.

"As a Christian, don't you reject evolution?"
"I have no idea whether we evolved or not, so let's talk about the historical Jesus."
"But don't you believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old?"
"Beats me. I wasn't around when it formed. But the records about Jesus are pretty impressive."
"Yeah, but the bible is full of contradictions."
"Some think so, others don't. But Jesus is an impressive figure. We actually know a lot about him. Do you know religious people hated him too?"
"Really? Why?"

That, to me, is an effective apologetic. Sure, a knowledgeable Christian can argue about evolution and try to defend inerrancy, but the question is "why?" If we can get to Jesus as quickly as possible, and the skeptic learns some things about Christ that they didn't know before, his or her internal bias softens. We only have to defend the historicity of the gospels when uninformed skeptics think Jesus was a jerk and his teachings are immoral. Once a skeptic begins to warm up to the person of Jesus, they become more open to arguments that favor his teachings. It's a different approach than used in classical apologetics, but certainly a valid method.

I do explore evidence and arguments in the book, but that comes much later. I'd rather the reader come to like and appreciate Jesus before getting into the reasons we ought to believe he's God incarnate.

User avatar
jriccitelli
Posts: 1317
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:14 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Re: Dilemma for the Christian Author

Post by jriccitelli » Wed Mar 11, 2015 4:28 pm

I read the first part of your post above, and said yes, that sounded very much like why I try to avoid the sidebar arguments and get back to Who God is to begin with, not dwell in the misunderstanding, mystery and circular arguments about the incarnation passages that had yet to be fully revealed in the cross and resurrection.

But your last line reminds me why I need to continue to stress the importance of why the true Jesus needs to be understood as being the same One as the True God, before false ideas of Jesus pour in from everywhere, which is what happens when the pulpits lazily think they are going to reverse engineer Jesus back into the Bible, rather than reasoning first that we needed a Savior. Explain God first, then reveal Christ prophesied from the beginning, the One whos goings forth are from long ago:
“But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His , From the days of eternity" (Micah 5:2)

In the discussion group I mentioned, the discussion quickly goes back to ‘is there a God?’, and if Jesus comes up it immediately, or quickly goes back to ‘Was he a man or was he God?’ It almost always hinges on these two points. If a man, or angel said it, it really doesn’t matter, even to unbelievers, especially when it comes back around to 'Jesus said this or that' and 'The God of the Old Testament said that and this…' Then the spiritualists often pipe up and say 'I believe in Jesus, but not the Old Testament God, because Jesus and God disagree'.

User avatar
TheEditor
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:09 pm

Re: Dilemma for the Christian Author

Post by TheEditor » Wed Mar 11, 2015 10:05 pm

But your last line reminds me why I need to continue to stress the importance of why the true Jesus needs to be understood as being the same One as the True God. . . .

In the discussion group I mentioned, the discussion quickly goes back to ‘is there a God?’, and if Jesus comes up it immediately, or quickly goes back to ‘Was he a man or was he God?’ It almost always hinges on these two points. If a man, or angel said it, it really doesn’t matter, even to unbelievers, especially when it comes back around to 'Jesus said this or that' and 'The God of the Old Testament said that and this…' Then the spiritualists often pipe up and say 'I believe in Jesus, but not the Old Testament God, because Jesus and God disagree'.


JR, I really hate to say this, but I can't make heads or tails out of what you just wrote. Maybe you meant it differently than you wrote it. But let me see if I can dope this out with you:

‘is there a God?’, and if Jesus comes up it immediately, or quickly goes back to ‘Was he a man or was he God?’ It almost always hinges on these two points.


Okay, so far so good. I don't personally think it needs to hinge on whether or not he was God (as opposed to say being "divine") but I'll cede the point for the discussion. So, as I understand it, what you are saying by having this be the main issue is your following sentence:

If a man, or angel said it, it really doesn’t matter, even to unbelievers


meaning, that if it were merely human philosophy and not divine revelation, then it wouldn't carry any weight. Okay, still with you. But then you say this:

especially when it comes back around to 'Jesus said this or that' and 'The God of the Old Testament said that and this…' Then the spiritualists often pipe up and say 'I believe in Jesus, but not the Old Testament God, because Jesus and God disagree'.


???

So, if Jesus were God, it would be important, but if God were God (as in the OT God) then it doesn't? I don't understand.

Regards, Brenden.
[color=#0000FF][b]"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."[/b][/color]

User avatar
jriccitelli
Posts: 1317
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:14 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Re: Dilemma for the Christian Author

Post by jriccitelli » Thu Mar 12, 2015 12:53 am

I mentioned the group i attend, and sorry i didn't explain it in detail. This group meets once a month, it is called 'Think' it consists of 4-8 confirmed atheists and agnostics and 4-8 Theists, spiritualists or Christians, this varies, and so do the debate topics. here is the web page, that describes it: http://www.meetup.com/THINK-The-Critica ... -San-Jose/
This group seemed to be exactly the crowd that Jason is targeting. I was trying to relate how the discussion goes, but i will have to do so tomorrow.

User avatar
Jason
Posts: 379
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: Dilemma for the Christian Author

Post by Jason » Thu Mar 12, 2015 8:26 am

jriccitelli wrote:I mentioned the group i attend, and sorry i didn't explain it in detail. This group meets once a month, it is called 'Think' it consists of 4-8 confirmed atheists and agnostics and 4-8 Theists, spiritualists or Christians, this varies, and so do the debate topics. here is the web page, that describes it: http://www.meetup.com/THINK-The-Critica ... -San-Jose/
This group seemed to be exactly the crowd that Jason is targeting. I was trying to relate how the discussion goes, but i will have to do so tomorrow.
That group/setting looks quite interesting, but may or may not be who I'm targeting. I believe there are open-minded skeptics and then there are those looking to confirm a bias. The first category is my audience, and that's who I want to reach. Generally the fence sitting agnostic has poorly informed views on Jesus and his teachings. You discover this very quickly by talking to them. Bruxy Cavey's book "The End of Religion" actually helped me quite a bit on relating to this kind of person.

I recently engaged in a long conversation with a fellow author who is an atheist. At first, he told me he didn't find any compelling evidence for God, but then he went on to talk about his strict religious upbringing for the remainder of the conversation. His idea of God and the character of Jesus was entirely different from my own. I ended up actually agreeing with him on some points, but had to correct some mistaken notions he had. When he saw that Jesus was actually an attractive figure and there was some evidence to his claims, this particular atheist clammed up and ended the dialogue. He was looking to confirm his atheistic bias and it was being shattered, so he dropped out. It was friendly, but he made it clear that he wasn't looking for answers to his objections, he had already settled on his preferred view.

Which type of atheist is attending your group? If they are the hardened, irrational type of atheist then you're wasting your breath. I honestly don't even bother.

User avatar
TheEditor
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:09 pm

Re: Dilemma for the Christian Author

Post by TheEditor » Thu Mar 12, 2015 10:21 am

Hi Jason,

I would be curious as to what dynamic was that your atheist friend was raised in? I have been convinced for quite some time that Fundamentalist views of the Bible create atheists once the one holding to them is disabused of certain notions. I was raised a JW, which, despite their heterodoxy are essentially Fundamentalist. I can't tell you how many of my fellow ex-JWs have gone on to atheism, they're countless. This also seems to be the case with most ex-Evangelicals and ex-Mormons. It seems once the certitude of the matter is removed, the faith goes bye-bye.

My experience tells me also that most atheistic objections will, in about the span of five minutes turn to questions of theodicy. In fact, I coined a new aphorism (at least I googled it in quotes and found no hits), it goes; Theodicy is the mother of atheism.

Regards, Brenden.
[color=#0000FF][b]"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."[/b][/color]

User avatar
jriccitelli
Posts: 1317
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:14 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Re: Dilemma for the Christian Author

Post by jriccitelli » Thu Mar 12, 2015 10:41 am

Theodicy is definitely one of a half dozen predominant arguments, but who the God of the Bible is, is the Answer.
Which type of atheist is attending your group? If they are the hardened, irrational type of atheist then you're wasting your breath. I honestly don't even bother.
The guy who started it has been doing it for four years in a coffee shop of a church. I am surprised that non-believers go since it is in a church. But after going you start to understand, most these atheists had been church going or raised, a recent atheist attendee was a former pastor.

This confirms my belief, that the church does not engage or know its own members or pastors, as in having conversations. Nor is there any allowance to question or ask good Theological and Ecclesiological questions of most these institutions of religion we call churches (and it confirms my belief that many thinking people have simply given up on the churches. Pastors blame unbelief, but I blame their disconnection and unwillingness to converse with the congregation, and the congregations continued belief that the pastors hold the keys to the kingdom, but I digress).

When I say confirmed atheist or agnostic, I only mean they are honest and up front about their current position. They acknowledge they can and will be persuaded by good argument and reason. And we all agree we can be persuaded by good argument, and that no one man has all the answers (except maybe Jesus, which brings up the previous point). Since the topics vary from Gun control - Euthanasia - Israel - the Middle East - Faith - Love - the afterlife - there is never a consensus between either side or person. It is almost exactly like here on this forum, no two seem to agree on everything, but most agree on everything else. I wrote about this group on the forum here under the thread ‘Strategies for Unity?’ Including the following:

‘My feeling is that a lot of intellectual people gave up on Christianity for lack of good reasoning, lousy answers, and often lack of knowledge on the part of the Christian. Many Christians avoid the objections because they don’t have any answers, which is why I like to encourage more apologetics and Theology classes.
http://theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f= ... 2&start=10

I might note that a few ‘christians’ weeded themselves out of this group, complaining ‘these people don’t want to convert!!!’ (said a pastor from the group). One Christian apologist author guy who wrote two recent books stood up and literally pointing his outstretched finger at the other people, and said in a sense ‘No matter what I tell you, you won’t listen!’ A wiser lady in the group said to him while he was physically talking loudly and angrily at the rest, she said ‘without love you’re a clanging gong’ (he did not understand the rebuke). This same guy talked to me at the beginning of the meeting, he never asked me how I was, never stopped rambling on about his book, never said hello or acknowledged any of the other people who were coming in and sitting around us, or engaged them in this conversation, the conversation which he was having with himself. His lack of interaction and consideration was embarrassing (aside from that he’s a nice smart guy). Then to have him stand later and wonder why people weren’t ready to convert at his prompting was very revealing. Another Christian author attends once in awhile also, similar story, bent on themselves, long winded, disinterested in anyone but their own agenda, makes you really have no wonder why people are so turned off by so many Christians and preachers. So many people just love to hear themselves talk (they should go on forums and get it out of their system like me).

So yes, most these attendees were former / seeking believers, turned off by bad attitudes and misinformation, lack of information, intellectual content and reasonableness. They do share much of what we believe in: honesty, good will, good behavior, good character, love, hope, charity, reason, intellect, conversation, and quite often churches have no place for these people.

I could go on all day about this, but lets hear what your thinking now… thanks for asking.

User avatar
Jason
Posts: 379
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: Dilemma for the Christian Author

Post by Jason » Thu Mar 12, 2015 1:55 pm

TheEditor wrote:Hi Jason,

I would be curious as to what dynamic was that your atheist friend was raised in? I have been convinced for quite some time that Fundamentalist views of the Bible create atheists once the one holding to them is disabused of certain notions. I was raised a JW, which, despite their heterodoxy are essentially Fundamentalist. I can't tell you how many of my fellow ex-JWs have gone on to atheism, they're countless. This also seems to be the case with most ex-Evangelicals and ex-Mormons. It seems once the certitude of the matter is removed, the faith goes bye-bye.

My experience tells me also that most atheistic objections will, in about the span of five minutes turn to questions of theodicy. In fact, I coined a new aphorism (at least I googled it in quotes and found no hits), it goes; Theodicy is the mother of atheism.
He's not really a friend, just an acquaintance, but he mentioned that his father was a pastor and never allowed him to watch movies growing up. That was big with him for some reason, and he mentioned that his father kept a little TV in his bedroom, but the children weren't allowed to watch it. Seems like a strange complaint to me, but he felt strongly about this. Apparently, his parents were not hypocrites, to his knowledge, only strict on entertainment.

His main complaint, however, was that his father and the people in his church never allowed him to ask questions because it shows a lack of faith. He went off to very small seminary and said nobody would give him straight answers there either, and he dropped out after one semester. I told him he could ask me anything and I'd be open and honest, but he politely declined. That's what gave me the impression that he didn't really want answers, just confirmation of his atheism.

So I suspect that your experience is very common. Your quote about theodicy strikes me a true as well. If you offer a skeptic one or two or a dozen decent answers, it will inevitably swing around to the problem of evil. I find that CS Lewis' version of the moral argument works very well here. Not "well" in the sense that the skeptic will convert on the spot, but just giving someone an alternative viewpoint makes a lot of headway.

User avatar
Jason
Posts: 379
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: Dilemma for the Christian Author

Post by Jason » Thu Mar 12, 2015 2:13 pm

So yes, most these attendees were former / seeking believers, turned off by bad attitudes and misinformation, lack of information, intellectual content and reasonableness. They do share much of what we believe in: honesty, good will, good behavior, good character, love, hope, charity, reason, intellect, conversation, and quite often churches have no place for these people.

I could go on all day about this, but lets hear what your thinking now… thanks for asking.
It's funny you mention the apologists getting angry and finger pointing, because that was the impression my colleague had when reading the opening chapters of I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. I've mentioned Bruxy Cavey a couple times already, but I will do so again because I'm trying to model his manner of relating to people humbly. This may sound ridiculous, but a self-deprecating attitude on the part of the Christian apologist changes the tone of the conversation.

I had lunch with a non-Christian one time to discuss matters of faith, and whenever he made a good point I told him so, instead of jumping in right away to thrash his argument. He was a former evangelical and said he lost his faith when a bunch of gays he was visiting in SF (as part of his job) were far more hospitable to him than his fellow Christians ever were. I think he spent a week with that group and came back a changed man (he was not gay himself). This was an emotional plea on his part, but I understand where he was coming from. A group of homosexuals were kind and Christ-like to him when fellow believers were often rude and unwelcoming, so I have to admit that he had a point here. After confirming his right to feel disturbed by this, I reminded him not to judge a philosophy by its abuse. He walked away unconverted, but he'd met at least one Christian (me) who welcomed anything he had to say, without preaching at him.

We have to remember that we don't always need to rush people to conversion, and perhaps your apologist friends were forgetting that. Greg Koukl talks about "putting a stone in their shoe," which is often times our only job. As much respect as I have for the rational arguments for our faith, I think a humble demeanor is more important. If you're a jerk, I'm not going to listen to your argument, no matter how eloquently it's presented. People who don't bark at folks when attacked and who show genuine humility are rare in the world, and this makes people curious. Shane Claiborne likes to say, "Christianity used to make folks curious, but it's lost its curiosity." I think that's true, and the remedy is to cloth ourselves in rags and lift up the dignity of the skeptic while also addressing their genuine concerns rationally.

User avatar
jriccitelli
Posts: 1317
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:14 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Re: Dilemma for the Christian Author

Post by jriccitelli » Sun Mar 15, 2015 12:07 pm

As much respect as I have for the rational arguments for our faith, I think a humble demeanor is more important
I so agree. The problems of atheism aren't tired to just Theodicy; all the doctrines are tied together. But my answer to the problem of evil is to address the problem of love. If the church actually loves, people can find the biblical explanations of evil palatable, after all Gandhi may have accepted Christ he said if it were not for the Christians. The world is full of bad things and evil, but evil can be traced directly to human behavior, and that is exactly what God called evil, and He was right. If Christians could actually 'model' the alternative, we might shed some light on the problem of evil. Amen

Post Reply

Return to “Ethics”