Christianity's inconsistent critics Subscribe   
  From:  StevenJn316   6/21/2001 12:23 pm  
To:  ALL   (1 of 8)  
 
  74.1  
 
This post is in the general sense as there are always exceptions, but I am amazed how often critics of Christianity and the Bible are 'guilty' of the same things they accuse others. Consider these five areas of inconsistentcy. 
1) Christians accused for 'not thinking for themselves' and rather always looking to the Bible to guide their life and beliefs. Yet, every religion or spiritual discipline has its founders in either written or (if living) spoken form. Even atheists have a belief system often shaped by the philosophical writings of the past. One poster speaks of the 'left hand path'. That concept is not original with the poster - it was learned from another. 

2) Christians are laughed at for a belief in 'unprovable' ideas as Satan, hell and even God - despite our belief that Jesus knew what he was speaking of in these areas. Yet, many of these same critics believe in life on other planets (usually on the testimony of another), also unprovable. And of course, they also can not PROVE we are WRONG in the belief of the existence of Satan etc. 

3) Christians are called intolerant, apparently for the 'crime' of knowing what and why they believe, and not bending those beliefs to what is politcally correct. Yet, one poster here displays with every post 'doing my part to P&*& off the religious right' apparently proud of being intolerant and seeking to upset others. A Christian's beliefs may upset some, but the GOAL is not to do so. 

4) Christians are criticized for seeking to convert someone to their belief system. Yet, it is nonChristians who come to this and other Christian forums seeking to convert others to their belief systems. I realize a couple threads here are addressed to witches etc., and it makes sense there would be serious debate in those threads. But unbleievers also seem to enjoy posting their unChristian viewpoints within purely Christian theological discussions, and even post new discussions on why they do not believe in God etc. Why do that here and not in the skeptic/atheist forum?? Do not get me wrong, I personally have no problem answering any objections or sincere questions, and am not looking to silence critics...my only point on this is do not then criticize Christians for 'conversion' tactics if you do the same for your views. 

5) Finally, Christians are criticized for studying areas like Wicca from unbelievers and not the true practitioners. Fair enough. However, these same people recycle the same tired arguments against the Bible (such as the gospels being written 400 years after Christ) which have been answered and dealt with for years by competent Christian scholars. Clearly, the skeptic and critic has been reading other critics and not Christians seeking to defend the faith, or they would drop old ideas that even most critics now discard due to the manuscript evidence. 

So the bottom line is Jesus. Was he a legend (mythical), liar (claiming to be God knowing He was not), lunatic (thinking He was when not) or Lord (God incarnate). Tied with that is the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Yes or no, if no then explain why everything else happened based on a lie? 

Christianity stands or falls on this alone, all other is secondary, as Paul wrote so clearly in 1 Corinthians 15, for those of you wanting to go to the source.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Ruth (RUTHMARX)    6/28/2001 1:57 pm  
To:  StevenJn316   (2 of 8)  
 
  74.2 in reply to 74.1  
 
Very well written Steven. It takes just as much faith to believe there is no God then it does to believe in Him. I can't convince anyone that God exists, that the Holy Spirit's job, but I can share my beliefs. If I'm wrong to share my beliefs in God, one who I have a personal relationship in and have experienced Him moving in my life, then they are just as wrong to share their disbelief in God. 
Ruth


Recent Discussion Topics: 
How many old songs can you name? 
 Are you a oldie but goodie? Well come name some of those songs with us and let's meet each other.
 
- In Sheepgate
 
 
 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SheepGate Christian Forum
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Never be afraid to try something new.
Remember, amateurs built the ark.
Professionals built the Titanic.  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  ManafterGod   6/28/2001 2:23 pm  
To:  StevenJn316   (3 of 8)  
 
  74.3 in reply to 74.1  
 
You may not know why, and probably will find out later, that I smiled at your little speech.

 Check out what the Holy Spirit is burning in the Holy Room! And see if you got the fire in you in my webpage! 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   6/28/2001 3:19 pm  
To:  StevenJn316   (4 of 8)  
 
  74.4 in reply to 74.1  
 
Let's give this a try, just to clear up some misconceptions but not meant to start an argument:
1) Christians accused for 'not thinking for themselves' and rather always looking to the Bible to guide their life and beliefs. Yet, every religion or spiritual discipline has its founders in either written or (if living) spoken form. Even atheists have a belief system often shaped by the philosophical writings of the past. One poster speaks of the 'left hand path'. That concept is not original with the poster - it was learned from another. 

Atheism is a LACK of any belief system in a spiritual or supernatural sense.

2) Christians are laughed at for a belief in 'unprovable' ideas as Satan, hell and even God - despite our belief that Jesus knew what he was speaking of in these areas. Yet, many of these same critics believe in life on other planets...

No, you used the wrong words. They believe in the POSSIBILITY of life on other planets based on the evidence and the structure and size of the universe. BIG difference.

...(usually on the testimony of another), also unprovable.

If you mean the testimony of some 3-fingered hillbilly in the Ozarks who claimed to be "abducted", no. Based on the testimony of the research that astrophysicists publish and their findings, then yes.

And of course, they also can not PROVE we are WRONG in the belief of the existence of Satan etc. 

Of course. This is a common trick used by theistic debaters. But of course you cannot DISPROVE any entity that is not present to begin with and undefined in nature. Until someone DEFINES the nature (physical and conceptual) of a god or a devil, then someone can work on disproving it, so this is a meaningless challenge. It would be like if I challenged you to disprove the existence of a "mingblatt", but I'm not going to tell you anything about the NATURE of a "mingblatt" other than it is all-powerful and all-knowing.

3) Christians are called intolerant, apparently for the 'crime' of knowing what and why they believe, and not bending those beliefs to what is politcally correct.

I don't think so. What people call christians "intolerant" about is that they tend to openly CONDEMN others who don't share their belief. They gleefully tell people that they will burn in hell forever if they don't believe what they believe. "Tolerance" is more about letting others do what they want to do and believe what they want to believe. 

I think what you meant to say is that christians are accused of being "closed-minded". In this regard I know both open and closed-minded xtians and I know both open and closed-minded atheists.

Yet, one poster here displays with every post 'doing my part to P&*& off the religious right' apparently proud of being intolerant and seeking to upset others. A Christian's beliefs may upset some, but the GOAL is not to do so. 

True, but you are comparing an individual to a group. Yes, there is ONE non-xtian here doing that. But also, YES, there are individual christians who DO have the similar goal. And of course, the general GROUP of non-christians have no such goal.

4) Christians are criticized for seeking to convert someone to their belief system.

This is not a criticism, it is a fact and a doctrine of many christian churches. Don't sugar-coat it.

Yet, it is nonChristians who come to this and other Christian forums seeking to convert others to their belief systems.

You are being one-sided. Yes, there are those that come here to "convert" people out of christianity, but there are also just as many christians frequenting the non-christian sites doing the same for their religion. It happens on both sides of the coin.

I realize a couple threads here are addressed to witches etc., and it makes sense there would be serious debate in those threads. But unbleievers also seem to enjoy posting their unChristian viewpoints within purely Christian theological discussions, and even post new discussions on why they do not believe in God etc. Why do that here and not in the skeptic/atheist forum?? 

Uhhh, what good would it do to post them in a forum where everyone agreed with the post and no enlightening conversation ensued?

Do not get me wrong, I personally have no problem answering any objections or sincere questions, and am not looking to silence critics...my only point on this is do not then criticize Christians for 'conversion' tactics if you do the same for your views. 

Well, for MY part it is a learning exercise as I usually learn a little more in the better researched threads. 

5) Finally, Christians are criticized for studying areas like Wicca from unbelievers and not the true practitioners. Fair enough. However, these same people recycle the same tired arguments against the Bible (such as the gospels being written 400 years after Christ) which have been answered and dealt with for years by competent Christian scholars.

But can't you see the conflict in this statement? There are CHRISTIAN scholars and there are SECULAR scholars. On the one hand, you have a scholar who is most likely biased in his research, and on the other hand you have scholars who are unbiased and impartial. As an outsider looking to learn more, it only makes sense to consider the unbiased reports a little more heavily than the ones that are most likely biased (not to mention that some of the stuff that is printed by the christian scholars is verifiably and blatantly false).

When I see a report that is compiled and printed by the Harvard Theological Seminary with assistance from Texas Christian University publishing their findings on the ages of the books (70-300 years after the birth of Jesus) and then I see some lone Christian author with questionable credentials trying to dispute those institutions (and the research was done by Christian and non-christian professors, Phds and researchers), I have to make an educated decision as to who might have been more thorough in their research. Likewise there is the MUCH bigger issue of the credibility of a couple of fine institutions at stake if they were to publish disputable and questionable data.

Clearly, the skeptic and critic has been reading other critics and not Christians seeking to defend the faith, or they would drop old ideas that even most critics now discard due to the manuscript evidence. 

Just because a Christian seeking to "defend the faith" says that the manuscripts are older, doesn't make it true nor does it justify discarding other research. It all has to be weighed and scrutinized and currently the most reliable sources still support the later dates. You are going to have to work pretty hard to convince most people that Christian Scholar X has better access to the evidence and more researched insight into the ages of the texts than the research power and credibility of two very fine theological institutions. 






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  StevenJn316   7/3/2001 12:02 pm  
To:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   (5 of 8)  
 
  74.5 in reply to 74.4  
 
I sure do not want to argue with you on this either. I think if you reread my post (especially the first paragraph) you will see much of your reply already addressed (ie. I did not say atheists had a 'spritual' belief system, just a belief system - how they live their life and why.) 
But I want to address one important issue and give you an example based on your parameters - having to do with research. 

<But can't you see the conflict in this statement? There are CHRISTIAN scholars and there are SECULAR scholars. On the one hand, you have a scholar who is most likely biased in his research, and on the other hand you have scholars who are unbiased and impartial.> 

Why is a belief in God a bias and an unbelief in God NOT a bias? Many of these secular scholars are atheists, they state that openly. How does an atheist's study of textual criticism make him impartial?? They are two sides of the same coin. 

<When I see a report that is compiled and printed by the Harvard Theological Seminary with assistance from Texas Christian University publishing their findings on the ages of the books (70-300 years after the birth of Jesus) and then I see some lone Christian author with questionable credentials trying to dispute those institutions (and the research was done by Christian and non-christian professors, Phds and researchers), I have to make an educated decision as to who might have been more thorough in their research. Likewise there is the MUCH bigger issue of the credibility of a couple of fine institutions at stake if they were to publish disputable and questionable data.> 

OK, but who said you have to limit yourself to "some lone Christian author with questionable credentials". So allow me to introduce you to a Christian scholar named Gleason L. Archer. 

Archer has a B.A.,M.A.,PhD., from Harvard Univeristy 
He has a B.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary 
Also a L.L.B. from Suffolk Law School 

He is professor emeritus of Old Testament and Semitic languages at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. 

This man is a world renowned scholar expecially in the area of languages and textual criticism - our field of discussion here. Surley you will not argue his credentials, especially since you mentioned Harvard in YOUR example. 

He has authored numerous books but his definitive work is "A Survey of Old Testament Introduction" 

I would urge you to grab a copy of this book where he discusses from the conservative viewpoint the dates and authorships of the various Old Testament books. Then by all means, make up your own mind.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   7/3/2001 12:08 pm  
To:  StevenJn316   (6 of 8)  
 
  74.6 in reply to 74.5  
 
Will do. 





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited 7/3/2001 3:09:28 PM ET by SEABREN 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  DougOfCal (Doug32205)   7/8/2001 2:13 am  
To:  StevenJn316   (7 of 8)  
 
  74.7 in reply to 74.1  
 
Yet, every religion or spiritual discipline has its founders in either written or (if living) spoken form.

I, for one, quite agree that other religions and spiritual disciplines are just as irrational as Christianity. None of them makes any sense to me.

Even atheists have a belief system 

It's pretty hard to function without some kind of belief system. The question is not whether anyone should have beliefs. The question is how we should decide what to believe.

That concept is not original with the poster - it was learned from another. 

I make no apologies for believing something I learned from someone else, and I don't expect anyone else to apologize for it. But before I believe anything I hear from anybody, I will first figure out why they believe it. If their reasons are sound, I will believe, too. If their reasons are unsound, I will not believe. 

Christians are laughed at for a belief in 'unprovable' ideas as Satan, hell and even God - despite our belief that Jesus knew what he was speaking of in these areas. Yet, many of these same critics believe in life on other planets 

Many non-Christians are fools. So what? Are there no fools among Christians?

Christians are called intolerant . . . . Yet, one poster here displays with every post 'doing my part to P&*& off the religious right'

Yes, many non-Christians are hypocrites.

Christians are criticized for seeking to convert someone to their belief system. Yet, it is nonChristians who come to this and other Christian forums seeking to convert others to their belief systems.

I'm a non-believer, but I disagree vehemently with those who fault you for trying to convert others to your way of thinking.

Finally, Christians are criticized for studying areas like Wicca from unbelievers and not the true practitioners. Fair enough. However, these same people recycle the same tired arguments against the Bible (such as the gospels being written 400 years after Christ) which have been answered and dealt with for years by competent Christian scholars. Clearly, the skeptic and critic has been reading other critics and not Christians seeking to defend the faith, or they would drop old ideas that even most critics now discard due to the manuscript evidence. 

If some of your critics are using invalid arguments against you, too bad for them. I am certainly aware that not all Chrisitians are alike. I appreciate your acknowledgement at the start of your post that not all of your adversaries are alike. You might want to keep in mind that we non-Christians are probably, if anything, a bit more diverse than Christians. You at least all agree that a particular book contains the truth about God, and there is some kind of consensus about what that truth is. The rest of us don't agree on anything at all. Some non-Christians worship a different god from yours, some believe in no god at all. Some non-Christians admire Christianity a great deal, some hate it, and some are indifferent. Some think Jesus was a great man who was misunderstood by his disciples, some think he was a crackpot, some think he never lived. Some think the Bible is a good moral guide, some think it morally abhorrent. Some are scientific rationalists, some think science is evil and reason a delusion. 




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas of California 
dougofcal@hotmail.com
   
"I am in earnest. I will not excuse; I will not equivocate; I will not retreat a single inch. And I will be heard." 
--William Lloyd Garrison 
 
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


   From:  StevenJn316   7/9/2001 11:34 am  
To:  DougOfCal (Doug32205)   (8 of 8)  
 
  74.8 in reply to 74.7  
 
Thank you for noticing my post 'warned' that I was speaking in generalities...obviously you do not seem to fit the model I was speaking of, but you recognize that model to be valid in many cases. 
Honest disagreement, as we probably share is quite another thing and rational discussion is usually profitable for both sides, if for no other reason than to learn the other's POV and why they hold their positions.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit  
 
