Calling All Atheists
79
Read Your Bible
I'm sorry, it's hard to write at the moment, I'm laughing too hard. I got your attention didn't I? With nothing but a title I got your blood boiling and your fingers waggling. C'mon, really? Relax, take a deep breath, and read this next statement: This is not another Christian attack ad! In fact, we should properly call it a book review, or more precisely, a review of four books. Any conversation that desires to be intelligent and seeks to be removed from the emotions requires honest study of the subject. So I took it upon myself to read extensively the best books I could find on atheism in order to be able to reasonably converse on the subject. To be fair, I excluded the major works of each side's modern day Apostles - Dawkins and Hitchens on the one side, Warren and Piper on the other side. What follows is a book review which I believe highlights the best thought of both sides. So, in all fairness, I ask - but do not presume to expect - that you read each of the following books in entirety before offering your comments. As a Christian I admit to some personal bias, but confess to no more bias than any person has about their own beliefs. I think - or at least I hope - that you will find an honest inquiry into the subject that allows for an open and unemotional dialogue - again something I ask but do not presume to expect.
Alex Rosenberg
The first book I read is "The Atheist's Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life Without Illusions" by Alex Rosenberg. In the book the author waxes eloquently on his belief that all religions are dangerous delusions which the world can - and must - do without. The author bases his belief on the natural sciences. The universe, and man, is entirely physical; there is no spirit/soul component to anything. Atoms, protons and electrons, indeed everything that science can observe comprise the entire universe, and there is no soul/spirit/immortal aspect to any of it, including man.
This means, of course, that there is no "free will" as only the "soul" of religion requires it. There is no objective moral truth, as there is no higher self to require it. There is only the physical world. The major problem with this view, as the author admits, is that the ultimate end of such reasoning is nihilism, which argues there is no objective meaning, purpose or intrinsic value to life. This leads to the despair of the pointlessness of existence, which in turn annihilates all human responsibility to live in a morally social context. That is to say, if there is no purpose to existence, there is no reason to live decently amongst ourselves.The author's solution to this is to propose that humans have evolved enough to treat each other nicely, what he terms "nice nihilism.".
It is at this point the author realizes the insufficiency of his argument, and he offers his ultimate solution. When the realization that life has absolutely no purpose begins to drag you down, you should simply "take two of whatever neuropharmacolgy prescribes." That's right, in the author's own words, religion can simply be replaced with Prozac.
Gavin Flood
The second book I read is "The Importance of Religion: Meaning and Action in Our Strange World" by Gavin Flood. When Rosenberg leaves the atheist feeling like there is an enemy in the fold, Gavin Flood comes to the rescue. The premise of the author's work is that the rituals and writings of religion are a legitimate, if altogether unnecessary, guide to living one's life. Flood believes religion teaches men how to live in a mysterious world in ways that are transforming for individuals and societies. He rightly concludes that atheists misinterpret religion in the scientific context rather than the expression of legitimate human need.
Flood is the antithesis to Rosenberg. Flood embraces the concepts of mystery and purpose which Rosenberg classifies as delusional (mystery) and non-existent (purpose). In doing so, Flood embraces the reality of lived experience; that is to say, reality is what we experience. Flood focuses his work on the subjective experience of the reality of life - religion exists because it addresses the emotional and social realities of life. The so-called "rituals" of religion, such as prayer or communal living, provide a necessary framework to life.
The inherent fault of Flood's lies in his assertion that religion is rational as long as it is internally coherent. Simply stated, if you believe it, then it's real. The fault in his logic lies in his failure to address the intellectual concerns of religion which find their expression in theology, archaeology and science. The intellectual difficulties of faith, such as the doctrine of the Trinity or historical accuracy of the Bible, cannot be deposited in such a limited definition of rationality. At least Flood's admiration of believers drawing on centuries of wisdom to navigate the complexities of life is more comforting than Rosenberg's advice to take two pills and don't call me in the morning.
Alain de Botton
The third book I read is "Religion for Atheists: A Non-Believer's Guide to the Uses of Religion" by Alain de Botton. Botton was raised in an atheist home, the son of two secular Jews, which one would think gives him an excellent viewpoint of both the secular and religious worlds. Indeed, if Rosenberg and Flood occupy opposite ends of atheism, than Botton paints himself squarely in the middle. Botton embraces the intellectual conclusions of those like Dawkins and Rosenberg, yet he expresses an exquisite appreciation for what religion has to offer.
The general theme of Botton's book is that secular societies are far less mature than they believe themselves to be, and thus require the guidance and purpose that religion has to offer. Secular society should recognize it's neediness and embrace what religion provides, albeit in a decidedly atheist way. He proceeds to detail numerous ways atheism can adopt the framework of religion without the doctrine of religion. For example, he calls for a celebration similar to the Jewish Day of Atonement where all men could seek the forgiveness of those they have wronged. However, along with exhortations for serious adaptation of religious rites, Botton also suggests decidedly infantile adaptations, such as the Feast of Fools where men could indulge every manner of debauchery.
The greatest fault lies in the underlying premise of Botton's work. There is a desire to benefit from all that religion has to offer without embracing the object of religion. That seems more like a dog hunkered down under the table pouncing on scraps than an intelligent framework for life. Why crouch under the table like a dog when religion freely offers a place at the table? Why lick up the bread crumbs when you can have the steak? In the end it seems to me that Botton does not so much recommend religion for the deluded masses as he reveals his own need and desire for its comforting embrace.
In summary, if you are a die-hard Dawkinian, I recommend Rosenberg. If you are a sensitive, new age atheist, you should read Flood. If you are a closet atheist/agnostic unsure of which side of the fence you are on, read Botton. If you truly want to see the end to which each will bring you, simply research the "Cult of Reason"- frankly, I'm done doing the work for you.
The Bible
I propose a compromise to make this task easier for you. It is universally recognized that the Old Testament portion of the Bible is the book of the Jewish faith, the New Testament portion of the Bible is the book of the Christian faith. Both sections of the Bible take up a considerable space and require much more time to properly read through than the three books I reviewed above combined. Here's my compromise: To join in the discussion, I suggest you only read the first four books of the New Testament. That should be an easy task, requiring far less time than any one of the books above. Just the first four books: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
Second, throw out the baby with the bathwater. That is to say, before you even begin reading the four books I suggested, throw out everything you have ever been taught, read about or experienced as a result of religion. Seems only fair that you would divest yourself of the mistakes in action and reason of mere men before you read what is purported to be the Word of God. In fact, if its easier, use a red-letter edition of the Bible and stick to only the words in red - those are the words of Jesus, upon whose life and works all of Christianity purposes to be based. If you do that, I think you can come to the same conclusion I have:
Jesus hates religion as much as Rosenberg does.
Jesus thinks life has mystery and purpose just as Flood does.
Jesus longs for the comfort of love just as Botton does.
Finally, in that, engage me in conversation. No personal attacks on my intellect - if you think you are smarter than I am I agree, so we don't need to deal with that. No drawn out accusations of what "religion" did to you, save that for your therapist. Simply compare the words of the authors above with the words of Jesus and let's see where the conversation takes us. Keep your language polite, keep your logic rational, and let's have a conversation. No one hating anyone here, just enjoying the chance to explore our thoughts on a sensitive subject. Think you can do that? I guess we'll see.
vote upvote downshareprintflag
- Useful (7)
- Funny (1)
- Awesome (4)
- Beautiful (1)
- Interesting (7)
CommentsLoading...
BRAVO!!! Encore! Encore! Armor and a sword...what more could a knight ask for? Voting up!
Haha I clicked this Hub title more or less involuntarily, ready to close the browser the second I detected something wasting my time, but I'm glad I stayed. As for the authors presented, the only ones I'm familiar with are not reviewed: Dawkins and Hitchens.
As for my own religious experience/opinions, I gain new perspective each time I trip on psychedelics (I'm only half joking).
Afternoon Sooner, that was the quickest reply I have ever seen. So, in respect, I shall answer as quickly as possible.
Matthew 19:21 "Jesus said to him, 'If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.'" Mark 10:21 is the same account. Luke 12:33 "Sell what you have and give alms; provide yourselves moneybags which do not grow old; a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches nor moth destroys."
First, you assume that I own a computer and that I have not given of what I have to help the poor - terrible assumptions which frame your comment as an accusation, not a question, which I specifically requested not be done - shame on you.
Second, choose any passage you like, but read the whole in context. Is there anything in Jesus' words that prohibit possessions? There is not. However, the immediately following verse in Luke explains exactly what Jesus meant, which I see you conveniently chose to leave out.
Luke 12:34 "For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."
That verse puts His words in complete context. Treasure the things of heaven and that is where your heart will be. Treasure the riches of the world, and that is where your heart will be. And one of those is better.
@Thank you Druid Dude, even a knight needs encouragement :)
@Steve Orion - dude, we could have another whole discussion on psychedelics and religion, which might require some serious research and a denial on my part on how I know - let me know how it goes :)
My use of a computer is a matter of charity. This isn't my com, and I have no internet. Nor do I have a car. Why concern yourself what others do? Concern yourself with self.
@DavePrice,
I'm sorry if you thought I was accusing you of something sinister. I was not implying you had not helped the poor. I was only implying you hadn't sold EVERYTHING you own, which is what Jesus commands. If you don't have a computer and you are at a public library or a friends house, my apologies.
Context also does not help you in the way you think.
Matthew 19:16-30 NIV,
Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
17 “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”
18 “Which ones?” he inquired.
Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,’[c] and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’[d]”
20 “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”
21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?”
26 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
27 Peter answered him, “We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?”
28 Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife[e] or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life. 30 But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first.
RIGHT AFTER the admonition to sell all possessions, Jesus quotes the famous eye of a needle verse. That isn't a coincidence by the biblical writers. And he continues by saying it's also wise to leave all of your family too, in order to follow Jesus and further the kingdom of God.
Also, Mark 10:17-31 NIV,
As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
18 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. 19 You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, you shall not defraud, honor your father and mother.’[d]”
20 “Teacher,” he declared, “all these I have kept since I was a boy.”
21 Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
22 At this the man’s face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.
23 Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!”
24 The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, “Children, how hard it is[e] to enter the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
26 The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, “Who then can be saved?”
27 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.”
28 Then Peter spoke up, “We have left everything to follow you!”
29 “Truly I tell you,” Jesus replied, “no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel 30 will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age: homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—along with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life. 31 But many who are first will be last, and the last first.”
Both passages say the same thing. I don't want to just fill up the comments section with verses, but I think you get the gist now. The context actually reinforces my point.
Actually Sooner, still an accusation. You are accusing me of things you know nothing about, and I can't figure out exactly what your point is. If all you want to say is that I don't follow my own rules because I haven't given everything away, like I said, you don't know me and you don't know what I've given away, so your comment is just an accusation, which in point is directed less at me specifically than at the whole of "Christianity" in your eyes. If there is another point I'm missing you'll have to be more clear.
@DavePrice,
My first point was that to be consistent with the Gospels you claim to follow you should own NOTHING. Jesus makes the universal claim of selling ALL of your possessions. Unless you own absolutely nothing, except for perhaps the clothes on your back, you're being inconsistent. It doesn't mean you are an immoral person. You could be an amazing person. I don't know where you keep getting this idea I was accusing you of not being charitable. I never claimed that. But ALL POSSESSIONS is pretty clear. It's just a consistency issue.
Second point was that you were incorrect on the context. That's why I posted such long portions from Matthew and Mark, to show Jesus was in fact talking about physical possessions.
You have a log in your eye, yet concern yourself with a sty in someone else's. Is that your idea of being selfless? How touching!
Whether you are an atheist or not, this is a very interesting hub--
Alright, Sooner, if the context is that no Christian should own any possessions, let's run with that. First off, let's be clear: I haven't "claimed" anything, as you say - you read something and decided that I claimed it. If you read something in Jesus' words, then let's examine what He claimed.
Regarding mankind, no theme is more prevalent in the Bible than the morality of personal responsibility, for it is through this that man cultivates the inner development leading to his own growth. The Bible’s proclamation that “Six days shall ye work” is its recognition that on a day-to-day basis work is the engine that brings about man’s stated purpose. Work develops the qualities of accountability and urgency; With work, he becomes imbued with the knowledge that he is to be productive and that his well-being is not an entitlement. And work keeps him away from the idleness that Proverbs warns leads inevitably to actions and attitudes which injure himself and those around him. The Bible speaks positively of payment and profit: “For why else should a man so labor but to receive reward?” Thus laborers get paid wages for their hours of work. The Bible is not a business-school manual nor a socialist's manifesto. It is far less concerned with wealth creation, as indeed many were blessed with prosperity in the Bible, than its demands for honesty, fair weights and measures, respect for a borrower’s collateral, timely payments of wages, resisting usury, empathy for those injured by life’s misfortunes and charity. Many accuse Christians because all do not end up monetarily equal—or, as Churchill quipped,“all equally miserable.” But the Bible’s prescription of equality means equality under the law, as in Deuteronomy’s saying that “Judges and officers shall judge the people with a just judgment: Do not favor one over the other.” Nowhere does the Bible refer to a utopian equality. If your interpretation of Jesus' words is that we should all give away everything we have, in a perfect society, where does that leave us - everyone gets everyone else's stuff?
Jesus teaches that if we really trust God, we will act as if treasure in heaven is what matters (compare 1 Tim 6:8-10). Although Jesus illustrates his point here with images about treasure in heaven, yet for Jesus the treasure is not merely in heaven (Mt 19:21); it represents the kingdom of heaven (13:44). Idolaters who value Mammon too highly to abandon it for what Jesus values will have no place in his kingdom (19:21-30; compare Lk 14:33) - the same is true of His admonition concerning leaving family for His sake. Jesus is not against possessions or family because He supposes them to be evil; the issue is not that possessions themselves are bad but that a higher priority demands our resources. If we value what our Lord values rather than what our society values, he demands that we meet the basic needs of people lacking adequate resources before we seek to accumulate possessions beyond our basic needs (19:21; compare Lk 3:11; 12:33-34).
Still, I end up at the same place with you - what's your point? Are you accusing me of being guilty if I own anything? Why, because you don't? Perhaps you think you've been wronged - maybe someone didn't help you out when you thought they should? Perhaps you think a socialist economy is the way Christians ought to live - that worked for communism, huh? In any case, the point still is to be made, and you haven't made it clear. So, I'm open ears to the real issue.
Thankyou Audrey, I appreciate your compliment.
Voted up. An interesting read.
When those times come where I begin to doubt the existence of God due to personal circumstances, I come back to a philosophical argument much like Rosenburg's. If there is no God then not only is there no point to anything, but the universe has a sick sense of humour. That is, by some means or other the universe has brought about this wonderful intellectual and self aware being called man, who knows of its own mortality, and who knows that its collected wisdom, awe and wonder at the universe, is one day lost without a trace upon death. Yet this universe is completely ignorant of the man's existence, thus it is oblivious to its own sick sense of humour.
Only the existence of God can make any logical sense.
Disappearinghead - wonderfully said, beautiful words my friend.
@DavePrice,
You claimed all people should read the four Gospels and follow the teachings therein. And Jesus' teachings are quite clear with regards to how he feels about the accumulation of vast amounts of wealth. I am not endorsing anything Jesus has said. I am simply drawing out logical implications of his statements, and what his followers should do if they are going to be consistent.
You are also correct about personal responsibility. Obviously one's relationship with God would be up to them to cultivate in order to be "saved." But your quoting Proverbs and other parts of the Bible does not help your case one iota. Why? It does two things. First of all, it completely ignores Jesus' actual words, which you conveniently are trying to find ways around. Secondly, you are showing the Bible contradicts itself. Which should I follow? Your claim was read the four Gospels, and you have brought in other aspects of the Bible. That's fine, but contradictions now result.
Again, you try to argue the same point you did before about it being "whatever is closest to your heart." If that was the case, Jesus would not have IMMEDIATELY said in Matthew 19:24, "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." It's not simply a random coincidence that Jesus would talk about selling your possessions, and then say that immediately after in 3 OF THE FOUR GOSPELS (only using caps for emphasis, since there is no bold or italics in the comment section, fyi). You have failed to give any sort of adequate response as to why your interpretation should be favored over mine.
Who is accusing who now? I don't mind, but hypocrisy again raises it's head. Do I believe a socialist economy is the way to go? I'm undecided, but the Apostles believed in a communistic system!
Acts 4:32-37 NIV,
32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.
36 Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”), 37 sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.
So at least among fellow believers, that is equal ownership of all the profits! Novel idea. And that's not the only place this occurs.
Acts 2: 42-47 NIV,
42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43 Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles. 44 All the believers were together and HAD EVERYTHING IN COMMON (my emphasis). 45 They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. 46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47 praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.
Perhaps that will clear up more of what Jesus meant. Sell all your possessions, put the money into a giant pile, and "give to anyone who has need."
Does that answer your question about the Bible's stance on the distribution of resources?
Ok, Sooner, I'm game. But let's be factual first: I didn't claim people should read the gospels and follow them - I said read the gospels and compare them to the authors whose books I reviewed - none of your conversation has held to that. But, like I said, I'm game.
How much am I required to give? The short answer is 100 percent. Jesus said that anyone who does not give up all of his possessions cannot be his disciple (Luke 14:25-35). At the same time, we recognize that God graciously lets us use and enjoy some of the material resources that he entrusts into our care (e.g., Numbers 14:8; 26:53-56)- remember that Jesus was Jewish, so the context of using the Scriptures that He knew and quoted from is fair. The Bible does emphasize several guidelines over and over again. So if we want to give what God requires, we must faithfully observe these guidelines. First, we must care about what God cares about—“the weightier matters of the law”—like justice, mercy, faithfulness and God’s special concern for the poor (Matthew 23:23; cf. Micah 6:6-8; Deuteronomy 10:18-19). As Jesus told the Pharisees, careful obedience is not enough—it is more important for us to seek justice, mercy and faithfulness, especially for the poor and oppressed (James 1:27; Hosea 6:6; Isaiah 58; Ezekiel 16:49). Refusing to care for the needs of the poor means that we are not merely lacking in generosity—it means that we have forsaken Jesus himself (Matthew 25:31-46). We must apply the Greatest Commandments to our money and possessions (see Luke 10:25-37) - the emphasis here is not on the Samaritan's money, but on the fact that he showed mercy. Everything in God’s law hangs on these two commandments: to love God wholeheartedly and to love our neighbors as ourselves (Matthew 22:36-40). So, when confronted by financial decisions, we should ask ourselves, “Have I considered the financial needs of others to be as important as my own?” (see also Philippians 2:3-4). We must imitate the sacrificial example of Jesus on the cross. His self-emptying death should become a way of life for us as generous Christians. This applies not only to our lives in general (Ephesians 5:1-2) but to our possessions in particular (2 Corinthians 8:9). “Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers. If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?” (1 John 3:16-17). Our generosity ultimately will be judged by the degree to which it brings us into greater conformity with Jesus Christ and his death on the cross. In conclusion, the Bible envisions givers who give freely within form — there is freedom within form when it comes to biblical generosity.
Sooner, shall I expand my response?
Is it realistic for anyone to sell his possessions and give all his money to the poor? Yes. The idea tends to strike us as strange, but only because of our modern, secular assumptions about money. In the Bible, giving away large parts of one’s income is quite realistic. John the Baptist taught that the man with two tunics should share with the man who has none (Luke 3:11). Zacchaeus the tax collector, when he converted to faith in Jesus, thought it fitting to give half of all he owned to the poor (Luke 19:1-10). Jesus praised a certain widow in the temple who gave away the last pennies she had to live on (Luke 21:1-4). The first Christians in the Jerusalem church willingly sold their own possessions to give to those in need (Acts 2:45). They were normal people, just like us. The only difference is that the life-changing power of the gospel had made its way even into their personal finances. And the same is possible for us, as well. Above all, we should remember that Jesus promises that we cannot out-give him. Whatever we do for his sake, he will take care of us and reward us. If we give away a fortune for Jesus’ sake and earn a lower living standard, social status and health care, he may not give it back all in this life; but we do have the promise that our blessings soon will be eternal and that we can “store up treasure in heaven” rather than on earth precisely by doing such acts for the poor. And we may just find ourselves “reaping generously as we have sown generously ... having all that [we] need, [so that we] will abound in every good work ... rich in every way so that [we] can be generous on every occasion” (2 Corinthians 9:6, 8, 11). So, would I say personally that I strive for a certain perfection? Yes, I do. I should also say that in such neither I nor any man has reached that perfection. It isn't the attainment of perfection that counts, no man can attain - it is the pursuit that counts.
You are brave Dave. This is opening a can of worms, but you go for it. I think the Bible is the easiest to understand and makes much more sense. That other stuff is just way to complex for me and it ends on the road to no where.
Thank you Kristeen - its not really that complicated, I'm sure you do fine, but you're right, the road leads to nowhere
Again, Dave...once again you write in such a way that it makes one smile and keeps one reading. God bless! Thanks for your gift.
His daughter thank you, your encouragement is always sweet.
Just a quick comment on the part where you say, Dawkins and Hitchens on one side, and Warren and Piper on the other. I never would have put those two, Warren and Piper on the Christian side of defending the faith necessarily. For the purposes at hand here, I would have thought people like William Lane Craig would top the list. Many atheists won't even debate him, and those that have haven't fared well. He is an amazing thinker, and I am not saying that Piper and Warren are not. I am just not as familiar with them for the sake of debating atheists.
Norman Geisler is another mental giant, in my opinion. For this topic, you cannot leave those two guys out, and there are more. J Warner Wallace at pleaseconvinceme.com, and Greg Koukl have weekly radio shows that invite live discussion with atheists and theists alike. They are incredible thinkers. Greg Koukl wrote Tactics, an amazing book about debating tactics, and Relativism, feet firmly planted in mid air.
J Warner Wallace was a devout atheist for most of his life. He was an admittedly nasty, know it all, atheist. He is a criminal detective by trade and argues with logic and science as do others.
I just thought you might find this of interest, as you like to read, clearly and are welcoming of different views. To all that care about what they believe and why whether atheist or theists, it is good to look into all the different authors and debaters out there.
One last note, and I apologize for my lengthy reply here, but I recently got finished critiquing a debate that was done just this last fall in 2011, at Notre Dame by William Lane Craig and Sam Harris. Very interesting indeed. Just more food for thought. Thank you for your thoughts on all these things and books. Have a great day.
Hi Dave, I wanted to add, that I in no way was putting down the two authors you did mention on the Christian side of things! I will have to pay a little better attention to these things, clearly. Just wanted to share some others I respect very highly in that regard.
Thoughtful hub, thanks again for sharing.
@DavePrice,
I'm not sure exactly what your point is. You quoted a lot of different Bible verses, but seemed to be agreeing with me for the most part. You just provided more examples of the Biblical concern for the poor, which is what my point was anyway. I could copy and paste your response when Christians believe voting Republican is the way to go!
"Is it realistic for anyone to sell his possessions and give all his money to the poor? Yes. The idea tends to strike us as strange, but only because of our modern, secular assumptions about money." I would say you were agreeing with me, but you also said this, "At the same time, we recognize that God graciously lets us use and enjoy some of the material resources that he entrusts into our care (e.g., Numbers 14:8; 26:53-56)." I'm not sure how this part squares at all. Selling ALL possessions is a universal claim, so it covers everything one owns.
Quoting the OT will also cause immense problems. You quote Numbers, Hosea, and Deuteronomy. Interesting choice. Let's see a few verses from these books of the Bible.
Deuteronomy 13:12-19,
12 If you hear it said about one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you to live in 13 that troublemakers have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods you have not known), 14 then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, 15 you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. You must destroy it completely,[a] both its people and its livestock. 16 You are to gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt, 17 and none of the condemned things[b] are to be found in your hands. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger, will show you mercy, and will have compassion on you. He will increase your numbers, as he promised on oath to your ancestors— 18 because you obey the LORD your God by keeping all his commands that I am giving you today and doing what is right in his eyes.
So according to God's holy word, we should kill any town that is not Christian, even pregnant women and children. That sounds quite "pro-life" to me.
Deuteronomy 22: 17-21,
17 Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels[a] of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.
20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you."
So apparently there has to be PROOF that a man's daughter was a virgin on her wedding night. Otherwise she must be STONED to death.
Numbers 25:1-9,
"1 While Israel was staying in Shittim, the men began to indulge in sexual immorality with Moabite women, 2 who invited them to the sacrifices to their gods. The people ate the sacrificial meal and bowed down before these gods. 3 So Israel yoked themselves to the Baal of Peor. And the LORD’s anger burned against them.
4 The LORD said to Moses, “Take all the leaders of these people, kill them and expose them in broad daylight before the LORD, so that the LORD’s fierce anger may turn away from Israel.”
5 So Moses said to Israel’s judges, “Each of you must put to death those of your people who have yoked themselves to the Baal of Peor.”
6 Then an Israelite man brought into the camp a Midianite woman right before the eyes of Moses and the whole assembly of Israel while they were weeping at the entrance to the tent of meeting. 7 When Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, saw this, he left the assembly, took a spear in his hand 8 and followed the Israelite into the tent. He drove the spear into both of them, right through the Israelite man and into the woman’s stomach. Then the plague against the Israelites was stopped; 9 but those who died in the plague numbered 24,000. "
So kill unbelievers, and in this case 24,000! And the Koran is the troublesome book that orders unbelievers to die...
Hosea 9: 11-16,
11 Ephraim’s glory will fly away like a bird—
no birth, no pregnancy, no conception.
12 Even if they rear children,
I will bereave them of every one.
Woe to them
when I turn away from them!
13 I have seen Ephraim, like Tyre,
planted in a pleasant place.
But Ephraim will bring out
their children to the slayer.”
14 Give them, LORD—
what will you give them?
Give them wombs that miscarry
and breasts that are dry.
15 “Because of all their wickedness in Gilgal,
I hated them there.
Because of their sinful deeds,
I will drive them out of my house.
I will no longer love them;
all their leaders are rebellious.
16 Ephraim is blighted,
their root is withered,
they yield no fruit.
Even if they bear children,
I will slay their cherished offspring.”
Apparently God is so vengeful, women from Ephraim are in trouble. He will cause them to miscarry and kill their children. And you thought Obama was "pro choice!"
Are these versed divinely inspired, or do you take a less inerrant interpretation of scripture? I can't be sure from this hub or your comments thus far, so I am curious as to how you deal with troublesome verses like the ones I quoted. But I am glad you see that Jesus does command generosity.
Oceansnsunset - I actually agree with you, I only used Piper and Warren because their names are constantly in the press, figuring their names would be more recognizable to most readers, just as I used Dawkins and Hitchens, even though I don't think they are the best of their side either. I'm a personal fan of NT Wright, and I have read Wallace - there is a great website called the Last Seminary which carries free PDF's of Philosophy and Theology which is a great source. Thanks for your comments, you spoke very well.
@Sooner28 - I've played along so far, but as usual someone like you can't stay on topic. Is this a discussion of the inerrancy of the Bible, or did I ask for a discussion of the authors reviewed in the article. I'll give you a compromise: if you just want to discuss the Bible, I'll start another hub on difficult passages in the Bible and we'll explore any verse you prefer, beginning with the ones you mentioned most recently above. For the purpose of this hub, go read the books I read and we'll discuss those, which was the purpose of this piece. If you don't want to read those books, I don't blame you, but further discussion is limited to subject of the hub. Let me know what you'd like to do.
I had a feeling from the beginning that this was going to be a schooling! Not only interesting but completely compelling. Sorry I cannot enter the discussion. I am afraid I wouldn't be of much help there. Absolutely awesome hub! I had a few laughs too! :-)
Love, J
@DavePrice,
I'd like for you to clarify whether you were agreeing with me or not about Jesus requiring all Christians to sell ALL possessions, because it was entirely unclear by your post. At points you seemed to be with me, and at others you seemed to disagree. You failed to respond to my request for clarification completely.
Furthermore, you are the one who first quoted from the OT, not me. You brought the OT into the discussion, so it was your decision to make it. You quoted Numbers, Deuteronomy, Isaiah, Hosea, and Ezekiel. "At the same time, we recognize that God graciously lets us use and enjoy some of the material resources that he entrusts into our care (e.g., Numbers 14:8; 26:53-56)- remember that Jesus was Jewish, so the context of using the Scriptures that He knew and quoted from is fair." I never quoted one OT verse in our discussion of the Gospels. I could have taken the route that Jesus says not one iota of the law shall pass away, and then quote a barrage of sick verses, but I stuck with Jesus. Apparently, using your own standard is not what you were after.
And finally, from your own hub, "To join in the discussion, I suggest you only read the first four books of the New Testament. That should be an easy task, requiring far less time than any one of the books above. Just the first four books: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John." I pointed out many many passages from those four books that I am supposed to read. You felt like quoting the OT would support your position, so you opened up the can of worms which involve barbaric Bible verses.
But this can stay on topic. Since you quoted the OT, and you want me to stick with Jesus, you are agreeing that Jesus would condone stoning your non-virgin daughter and all of the other issues mentioned in the verses I quoted?
Hey Jinny, thanks kiddo, I always love making you laugh
Sooner, when you've read the first three books in the piece, come back and we'll have something to talk about. As I said the last time, if you want a piece on difficult passages in the Bible, I'm all for doing another hub on those - easy enough to work on it together, just email me and we'll collaborate.
Thanks Dave, you seem very fair and well thought out about things. A hub like that that makes people think hard about things that matter, is a good thing.
Thank you oceans, it's pretty much what we all try for isn't it? Just hoping our thoughts and words are significant enough to make someone else think.
@sooner. You present a tu quoque argument. Because you use a specific verse that was intended to a specific person, you want to apply it erroneously and broadly.
Jesus knew that this particular man had wealth that he would not part with and that it was more important to him than anything else. And Jesus was correct, he refused.
While the disciples were with Christ they lacked for nothing. Crowds of 4000-5000 people were fed miraculously. Is Jesus over at Mr. Price's house with enough food to feed 5000? Nope.
In the story of Job, you will see that God gives Job twice the wealth he had before, So God is not against wealth and neither is Jesus, only against the putting wealth above everything else as in that particular verse.
There was a wealthy Pharisee called Nicodemus. He asked Jesus how to get to heaven and Jesus didnt say "sell all you got", He said, you have to be born again. Different person different requirements. Later Nicodemus would bring 100 pounds of myrrh for Jesus burial which could have been worth it's weight in gold.
But back to the point: Your tu quoque argument is invalid. Whatever an individual does is really up to God to decide whether it is good or bad, and it is illogical to negate a worthy philosophy based on your irrelevant opinion of their life, of which you know nothing of.
@Phoenix,
You are completely misunderstanding what I am saying. And you are incorrect on what the tu quoque fallacy even is. It is when someone accuses you of doing something wrong, say stealing, and you reply "well you steal too" as if somehow that makes it acceptable. A person being a hypocrite doesn't negate the validity of their argument. Hitler could lecture on the value of human life, and if his arguments were good, they should be believed, despite what his personal actions were. So if Christianity is true, it doesn't matter whether the person who is teaching it doesn't actually follow it. It would still be either true or false. I didn't say Christianity was false because DavePrice owned possessions...That would be a ridiculous argument!
I've also already pointed out the context in all three of the Gospels. I'm not belaboring the point again. Reread what I said. I quoted the before and after context of Jesus saying to sell all of your possessions. If you choose to ignore that, so be it. And my point about quoting the OT was simply about being consistent with the Gospels, so asking if Jesus, who says to love your enemies, is in favor of killing a non-virgin on her wedding night is fair game.
I also did not say Jesus was WRONG to sell all your possessions. I don't know where I stand on that. I simply argued that to truly follow him in a literal way, you would need to sell everything you have. But I am not replying to anything else, due to this being the hub of DavePrice.
You simply reiterated your tu quoque argument and added a no true scotsman.-truly follow him in a literal way, you would need to sell everything you have.
The reason why is because your personal interpretation isn't accurate or at least is challenged.
Here is an example of how and why- Jesus allowed a woman to anoint his feet with expensive perfume. A disciple objected because he said that the perfume could be sold and the money used to feed the poor.
True scotsman- Jesus did not sell all to give to the poor, so he was not a "true christian"
tu quoque- Jesus was a hypocrite for not following His (according to your personal interpretation you say :quote "exhorted to do" later you change it to Jesus commands us all)" for not selling perfume (or computer) to feed poor.
Jesus was speaking to a particular person on a particular occasion. Nothing more.
It seems Sooner is maybe purposely missing the points, and not open to the idea that Jesus gave many directives to many people. Where is the same emphasis on those things?
I have seen people use logic and reasoning to help, but to no avail. Some people won't consider their held belief and position could be wrong.
I can only recommend to you Sooner, that to do justice to the texts in question (the gospels I mean), you need to apply equal weight too all scenarios where Jesus is telling people to do anything.
The fact that you apply added emphasis for whatever personal reasons you have (maybe that no one would ever give away all their possessions, perhaps not even Mother Teresa), does not mean you have a valid point. The text isn't written even in the way you insist. So this shows your personal bias for your own beliefs, and that against another set of beliefs.
If you were being more fair and logical, we could say otherwise I sense you think you have a solid case or argument against a whole group of people, when you so clearly do not. Luckily, its a free world, and you get to think whatever you want for whatever reasons you want, be they good or bad, logical or illogical. I had been quiet on the topic till now, but you keep pushing it after repeated attempts to nicely correct you.
I do appreciate you sharing your opinions and ideas however. People have to go with the best evidence and reasoning in the end.
Because Mr. Price owns a computer doesnt mean he is amassing great wealth while other people are in need.
Mr. Price is witnessing to the Gospel of Jesus Christ with his computer. It would be a sin for Mr. Price to sell his computer to feed the poor of earthly food when he feeds all with a better food that satisfies an eternal soul not a corporeal body.
Phoenix, Sooner and oceans - NOW we're getting somewhere! Thank you for embracing the spirit and purpose of what I wrote... and please please continue!
My only comment is, veritas non cognoscitur, nisi amatur—
“the truth is not known unless it is loved.” St. Gregory
For those of you who will never read the first three books discussed above, here is an excerpt from author Alain de Botton on Google news:
Winsome, funny, logical, well written, and gospel centered: Well done young fella!! OOORAH, OOORAH!!
Well hey there Bob! Glad ya liked it - OORAH!
I realize that what I have produced here is an exercise in logical thinking, of which I profess no expertise. When questioned on my method of "critical thinking", I offered this reply:
There is one issue which critical thinking always fails when it comes to religion, and that is the subjective nature of life and faith. Critical thinking involves objective information that is observable, recordable, reproducible - thus science, mathematics, etc. are objective pursuits of critical thinking. Religion, on the other hand, is a subjective experience, in that it is the specific, individual, discerning interpretation of a religious doctrine, scripture or experience. Subjectivity belongs to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought. Philosophy and theology relate to the nature of an object as it is experienced in the thought of the subject distinct from the object itself.
I suggest that your description of critical thinking above is not actually critical thinking, as belonging to the exact sciences, but logical thinking, which is an entirely different animal in itself. Therein lies its difficulty. Philosophy is the study of logical thinking, learning to think rightly about subjective experience. Theology is the philosophy of religion. The difficulty of both when it addresses the questions of faith is the subjective nature of faith. Faith is, and belongs to, the one who believes according to his own interpretation of his experiences, however he might come to those conclusions.
For at least 1700 years it has been debated whether or not reasoned, or objective, thinking about the divine is even possible. The long history of defining the Divine Unknowable continues to this day. Christian theologians have recorded struggles with this problem for at least 1800 years. There is an extent to which doctrine, or dogma, can be concluded through the study of Scripture, tradition and the history of the church. There will always remain,however, the fact that in the end faith is subjective - it has and always will belong to the subjective experience of the believer - and there is a very real aspect of faith which must and always will remain so. As it is said, if we knew everything, God wouldn't be God, and faith wouldn't be faith.
That being said, the issue of literalism is an entirely different question. I defer to a quote from the Anglican priest and scientist John Polkinghorne: "For the Christian, the unique significance of the Bible is that it gives us indispensable accounts of God’s acts in Israel and in Jesus Christ. Without that scriptural record we would know little about Israel and very little indeed about Jesus of Nazareth. These events happened in the course of history and the accounts that we have of them necessarily originated at specific times and in particular cultural contexts. Yet the revelatory character claimed for them implies that insights of enduring significance are embedded in the pages of Scripture. A central task for the Christian interpreter of Scripture is to discern what in the Bible has lasting truthful authority, rightly commanding the continuing respect of successive generations, and what is simply time-bound cultural expression, demanding no necessary continuing allegiance from us today. Absolutely no one is free from having to make judgements of this kind."
Thus we come to the real crux of the matter. If one is a studied philosopher or theologian, versed in the art of intelligent conversation, does that make his conclusions about faith or Scripture or the Divine any more legitimate than those of the simpleton (and I don't say that all who take Scripture literally are simpletons) who takes each word of Scripture at face value? We can each be proud that we have, to the extent of our own abilities, made sense of those things which we can understand and made peace with those we can not understand. Polkinghorne is no less insistent on the need to do so individually than the Apostle Paul is to Timothy and to us all: "Meditate on these things, give yourself entirely to them, that your progress may be evident to all. Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you." I Tim 4:15-16. As Christians, however, we are also admonished by Jesus' words to take heed that our own actions do not lead someone astray. Matthew 18 begins with a question, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom?" Jesus replies that we must come to God with the simple faith of a child, and anyone who does harm to that simple faith would be better off tying a rock around their neck and casting himself into the sea.
I do believe there is purpose and legitimacy to the philosophical and theological discussion of the Bible. I also believe that there are greater minds than mine who have wrestled with these subjects to no universal conclusion. Thus I say that to pursue knowledge of the Divine may indeed be a noble pursuit, yet we ought also to approach it with the deepest humility and honest confession of our own ignorance, lest by our ignorance we cause the smallest one to stumble. At least then, whether we come rightly or not to the proper understanding of the knowledge we seek, we stand not on our own finite capacity but on the infinite grace and mercy of the One whose mind is beyond our mortal comprehension.
I really enjoyed reading your hub, and the comments were very interesting as well. I applaud your ability to handle difficult questions.
Thank you so much calynbana
A well-written Hub and stimulating conversation to boot.
Voted up and away.
Best wishes to you and yours - C.J. Sledgehammer
Hi Dave i found this hub to very interesting and the topic very attracting to me, I try to understands why fools like atheist bother to argue with Christians, also why do they try to pursaude people to believe satan like they do? They claim Christians try to convert but they fuss and rant and rave to try to get followers too. If they don't believe in God and they believe in Mother Nature and Evolution then they needs to shut up and believe in their fake myths. But no they argue because deep down inside their wicked conscience tells them there is an Omnipotent Being and each time they hear that name their soul quakes (JESUS) (SAVIOUR) (G0D) (ANGELS) etc. Also the same devil who fool them into such unbeliefs is a believer , because He was in heaven and knows much more about GOD than any of us do. "Sooner28" is just PLAIN IGNORANT and very stupid, he/she is an atheist and does not understand the parables that Jesus spoke in Why should you have nothing when God has blessed you with the things you posses? quoting a scripture like he did is so dumb it has no logic behind it! Don't waist time even arguing with him, because someday he'll die and he will know that GOD is real but that time it will be too late for him!! I pray God turn him around before its to late.
Have a bless day Dave
and keep on keeping on and proclaiming that JESUS CHRIST IS LORD OF LORDS and He reigns FOREVER MORE! When atheist shall pass away we will live ETERNALLY.
Peace be unto you
Shalom
"The heavens declare the glory of God the handiwork of his fingers". Grateful to see the clarity and kindness of your remarks.
Well............ I wasn't actually answering the "call," ;-) but I did stop by to check out what you've been up to............. you've been busy. More than that............. just wanted you to know what a pleasure it was meeting you and your beautiful family; we enjoyed your hospitality, and the company............. a pleasure.
“Is any pleasure on earth as great as a circle of Christian friends by a good fire?”
C.S. Lewis
The answer.............. no, the circle of Christian friends is irreplaceable! Take care- Kaie
Thank you so much. Words cannot express how much we enjoyed the day with you.
Dave, thank you so much for putting this out there, and I know you have on the full armor of God. In His Love, Faith Reaper
Thank you Faith, its a pleasure to meet you.
Hi Dave, stopping by to visit as I was notified you were following me. I am blown away by all this, very thrilled you are following me, and I will return as one of YOUR followers. What an honor and what a great writer you are! I agree with Faith Reaper and CJ Sledgehammer's comments. I look forward to reading your hubs. You sure stimulate conversation. God bless you read good and keep on your armor! Blessings, Sparklea :)
Thank you Sparklea, its a pleasure to be enjoyed by someone who writes as well as you do.
Your arugment holds much truth and is so refreshing to read. I applaud your research and application to this topic. What a great inspiration on this subject... Jesus is the absolute truth and personifies it in all ways. Your have such depth of the scripture and I look forward to following your hubs. Thanks for the follow. Be srong my friend!
Thank you teach, finding new friends is always a pleasure here.
Sooner28 Level 6 Commenter 3 months ago
Before I start, I found this hub to be interesting and easy to read. So I applaud you for that.
I'm curious though. Why do you own a computer? Why do you own a house? Jesus has specific instructions about what to do with your possessions. This is exhorted in 3 different Gospels. And if I am to read them and follow them as you say, I have to ask why you are not following them also.
Matthew 19:21, Mark 10:21, and Luke 12:33.