Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion
This topic is about
The Swedish Atheist, the Scuba Diver and Other Apologetic Rabbit Trails
The Table - Group Book Reads
>
Swedish Atheist: chapter 1. (and introduction)
date
newest »
newest »
This book is hilarious, i'm really enjoying it. I'm not sure how useful it is for defending Christianity - it seems to be more about the procedures of chatting than Biblical Truth. But it might get alot deeper by the end.Is anyone else bothering to look into it?
I actually awarded this book one of my top 10 reads of 2012. http://www.dubiousdisciple.com/top-10...
I'm going to get to it in a few days...let's say it is a Jan-Feb book.
I'm half way through it: it's very entertaining.
I really liked his argument in regards to the demand for evidence. As I recall, he basically brought idealism into the conversation. To an idealist, there is no evidence that the natural world really exists.What do you think of this argument? It wouldn't "prove" God, but it does show, I think, disarm the "you need evidence for all your beliefs" approach.
You are not very good at understanding evidence are you C.J.? Good thing you are not a scientist or a detective. :D
CJ, the point is that all humans rationally believe lots of things without "evidence" and are fully justified in doing so. It is the idea of "properly basic belief". Point is: to an idealist, you accept the existence of the natural world on faith. There is nothing you can do to prove the real world, to prove we are not living in the Matrix, for lack of a better analogy.
Of course, most of us take the existence of the real world to be self-evidentially true.
It is a question of whether you are an evidentialist or a foundationalist or something else. I found this video helpful:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7377j...
Fair enough. Though, what if we reframe it. That is, instead of saying it is a choice between God and not-God, what if it is a choice between:A - Working for the common good of others, being a loving, kind, hardworking, self-sacrificial, forgiving, compassionate person. I see those sorts of traits as what it means to be a disciple of Jesus, though I recognize plenty of non-Christians also live in such a way.
B - Being a self-centered, narcissistic, mean-spirited person.
Clearly you think there is no evidence for God. The question you and I have never really talked about is whether there is enough evidence to live as person a and not person b. Forget "beliefs" for a minute, I'm talking about actions in life.
You should totally join us in our next read-through. As you can see, these are the lamest discussions we have and I'm sure you'd spice it up!
Good stuff David. What a brilliant thought.David quote:
"The question you and I have never really talked about is whether there is enough evidence to live as person a and not person b."
C.J. you strike me as a detective who comes to a crime scene and declares "We got nothing, nobody witnessed it firsthand so there's nothing more to do here. Lets all go home."
A real detective would start looking around carefully. There are 100's of clues.
Here's a fun one: how many religions mention Jesus? Why? When? Where?
Here's another: How come the Judaic scriptures mention Jesus the messiah? (not by name of course) Yet when this Jesus came the Jew's mostly ignored him - they still do. Yet both religions are intertwined for all time. Why don't the Jews see Jesus in their Old Testament scriptures? I know why - but do you?
Here's another: Look at the history of the Jews over the last 1900 years. Why are they persecuted when they haven't even been a nation until recently? Why did Hitler/Martin Luther and many others have so many problems with them? Why are they in the news everyday? Why are they so incredibly successful?
These are all clues God left us. I don't know why you have such a problem with a God who requires you to think.
Rod wrote: "Here's another: How come the Judaic scriptures mention Jesus the messiah? (not by name of course) "Rod, this isn't fair. You know full well that Jesus never fulfilled Jewish expectations, or even came close. He completely redefined what was expected of the Messiah, which is why Judiasm, even today, never recognized Jesus as Messiah.
So don't say Judaic scriptures mention Jesus. They don't; they mention a completely different kind of Messiah.
Lee quote:"You know full well that Jesus never fulfilled Jewish expectations, or even came close."
I know full well that Jesus totally fulfilled Jewish expectations. You should read a book by a Jewish Christian named Michael L. Brown. His book is Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus (vol. 4).
Why do you bother with apologetics Lee? What exactly do you ever claim to defend? You seem to have nothing to stand on but the THOUGHT that Jesus is lovey. I wouldn't base my life and beliefs on that with no core. What is your core Lee. Mine is the Innerant Word of God!
This is where I think many atheists have a blindspot. When it comes to God, you are all about wanting full-proof evidence. Then when you reject God you throw out all that need for evidence and just say, basically, you can be good without God. What happened to that desire for evidence?Of course, you CAN be good without God. It is not a question of what you can be, it is a question of what you ought to be or should be. And there is no evidence that you should choose one way over another. In other words, in a godless universe, there is no objective morality and all things are allowed.
Imagine one day aliens show up on earth who are as highly above us as we are above chickens. Imagine they start slaughtering us to eat, like we do chickens. In their worldview, might makes right and they are mightier. How could you say they are wrong? In the same way, many humans have argued might makes right and much in history bears this out so why not live that way? I like Nietzsche because he was honest: if God is dead then everything changes, it is a whole new morality.
I do think you make a good point about eternal consequences and heaven and hell. I don't think the proper motivation for Christian ethics is reward in heaven. If that is the motivation, then you are still living selfishly. But I don't think the Bible, in general, teaches that as the motivation. They talk about heaven and hell a lot less than we do. Their motivation seemed to be, Jesus is real and his way is the right way.
But to turn the question around, if there is no life after this one, why be kind, compassionate, self-sacrificial, forgiving? It is admirable if you choose to do so, but there is no reason why choosing to do so is better then choosing to, say, play video games and watch porn in your basement.
Rod and Lee, as usual I think I am somewhere between you. I think Jesus fulfilled some expectations, but certainly not all of them. Case in point, most Jews expected a violent messiah who would lead armies over Rome and Jesus died. This was not expected.
But the Messiah's job is not done yet David. So it's fair to be cautious. I'll give them that.Many Jews assumed God would do things THEIR way. How smart is that?
Rod wrote: "But the Messiah's job is not done yet David. So it's fair to be cautious. I'll give them that.Many Jews assumed God would do things THEIR way. How smart is that?"
When Jesus comes back and fulfills Jewish dreams of a political Messiah, THEN you can say Jesus fulfilled the expectations. Not before.
Rod, if apologetics means I have to defend lies like Creationism, then I'm out. If it means I can defend the goodness and value of Christianity, I'm in.
If creationism matches the Bible then you SHOULD defend it. If you aren't defending the Bible then you are standing on nothing but gossip and wishes.
Don't worry Lee - I consider you OUT anyway.
Your video is nice to look at but pointless C.J.! Sorry.Maybe I should make a video that says:
In the beginning there was an idea -
After God's idea there was atheism and confusion -
This has always been a delusion, a delusion deceiving billions
There IS a Kingdom Come. Get over it!
Seems like many Atheists I know well are far too comfortable in their own life and way too sure of themselves. They're just way too smart to have been outsmarted by an invisible "God." That, or they say a god Could exist, as long as it fits within their parameters... A lot of "Christians" believe the same thing.
I remember years ago thinking Christians were one big happily family. Now I'm sure we are a very small minority of folks who Trust God at his Word. )C:
Yeahhh... Ya know... Here's my thing. If God exists, He's been here longer than life has. How do I know this? Because He said so. I mean if He does exist, He's already here. I can't give Him characteristics, nor can I take them away... Just like I already exist. I have lots of characteristics that I'm sure the masses don't love, but that doesn't mean I don't have those characteristics. I Am already who I am. Whoever Joe Blow or Sam Smith say I am doesn't change me. Just like they don't change who God already is. I have a feeling that you guys could tell a stranger who I am, but it wouldn't be a very accurate description, because you don't know me well enough... I think a lot of people assume more than they should about God or leave characteristics at the door. Christians love getting to know Him, the Real Him, more and more.
Kris quote:"I think a lot of people assume more than they should about God or leave characteristics at the door. Christians love getting to know Him, the Real Him, more and more."
Awesome! I'm surprised so many people just can't accept the God of the Bible. They insist the Bible must be wrong so they ignore portions of it to THEIR idea of a deity - a deity that agrees with them.
I decided years ago that if the God of the Bible and I have a disagreement: Then I better change and learn. ;D
C.J. question:"You do realize there is no verifiable evidence in the realm of reality that proves ANY god exists?"
Once again C.J. - YOU would make a horrible detective. WE have lots of evidence. You only want it verifiable so that you won't have to THINK about it.
I've verified MY evidence. But everyone's evidence is different: to a blind person visual evidence is useless. Same goes for someone who can't smell.
You are a person who doesn't WANT evidence C.J.! What you require is dangerous. God often takes people like you to the bottom so they can look up. I've seen this happen to people numerous times. "OUCH!"
I've intentionally taken a long hiatus to see if CJ could come up with a new talking point. Good to see I haven't missed anything. I'll return to my cave now. Clark
CJ, there's no "verifiable evidence" that we are not living in a virtual world...that this whole existence is not just the matrix.There is no "verifiable evidence" that my memories or your memories are reliable. Can you prove to me your memory is accurate, such as you report in your book?
There is no "verifiable evidence" that only things true are things that have verifiable evidence" so really, the claim collapses on itself.
Maybe instead of throwing ideas out haphazardly, we should seriously study and discuss logical positivism, as that seems the basic philosophy CJ is putting forth.
Here's the Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_...
It is a philosophy that has critics and has been debated for a while. We are not the first ones. Should we have a serious debate on it?
CJ...read a philosophy book. :)What argument do you want to have?
Do you want to argue a biblical thing, discuss whether whatever happened between Thomas and Jesus is normative? We could argue that. Your premise would be pretty much what you said in the previous post: Thomas demanded evidence, Jesus gave evidence, therefore we all deserve evidence.
Or, do you want to argue that only things that have "verifiable evidence" ought to be believed? That is a philosophical argument. Unless you think you are simply the smartest person whose ever lived, maybe it would be worth our humble while to listen to and read what both supporters of and critics of logical positivism have said.
Clark wrote: "I've intentionally taken a long hiatus to see if CJ could come up with a new talking point. Good to see I haven't missed anything. I'll return to my cave now. Clark"
LOL I've thought the very same thing COUNTLESS times... And I think it's safe to say it won't stop.
C.J. How long do I have to stay in here to find out you're a delusion?
Clark
Good to hear from ya Clark. Same old - same old. :DC.J. have you ever wondered why maybe Thomas got what he asked for and you didn't? Did everyone in the Bible get what they asked for?
Thomas made the step of REJOINING the disciples. What have you done that makes you worthy of any blessing or proof from God?
I'm not worthy, but God has shown me alot of proof. God is NOT going to come to your aid after the way you have been acting - you are attempting to side (and pathetically beg approval) with God's enemies. You have chosen. God owes you nothing. :D
But it's never too late. Forgiveness is one heartbeat away. God is awesome that way!
(Thanks for hanging in there Kris, you are an inspiration! This is depressing business we are involved in.)
Ecclesiastes 4:10
If one falls down, his friend can help him up. But pity the man who falls and has no one to help him up!
I finished this book. It had an honest ending. It really does show the futility of debating with atheists. The author is correct that its really about leaving them with something to ponder.
I liked the ending too. I think sometimes Christian apologists come across way too confident, even arrogant at times. It seems their point is almost if anyone just listens to these arguments, they'll believe. It is not that simple. Rauser's book showed this and I liked that.His take on the OT violence is one place I really saw this. He did not trot out the usual arguments defending the violence (not that there is anything necessarily wrong with such arguments). Instead he admitted he didn't know for sure (and on his blog right now, he is pointing out flaws in the usual Christian response).
That's a good point C.J. - although after God reaches out to us we must respond. Salvation should be followed by good works.I think you are trying to put the cart before the horse. As if God owes you MORE.
I'm curious about the true state of your heart during those 14 years? Was your religion really about Jesus or YOU? Why 14 years? Why not 6 years? Or 27 years? Why not 14 days?
I see churches filled with people who are there for ONE reason: themselves. They prove this by getting upset when Jesus doesn't accomplish or approve of all their desires.
Back to the book.The big problem I saw with this author is that he doesn't take God at his word. He really doesn't approve of the God of the Bible. He basically mumbled that God should always be NICE.
My Bible clearly doesn't say that.
What does it mean to take "God at his word"? I mean, Jesus said "it has been said, but I say unto you." Its the same debate we always have: do we squeeze Jesus into the OT violence or do we squeeze the OT violence into Jesus?I liked how he basically argued that if God is the greatest being and if genocide is always wrong, then God could not command genocide. He didn't go the step some take and throw out the Old testament stories, but he did admit he is not sure about them. I like that.
I think its time the author tried to get sure about a few things. :DDavid statement:
" Its the same debate we always have: do we squeeze Jesus into the OT violence or do we squeeze the OT violence into Jesus?"
When 2 things agree - just sit back and allow them to function. Is the God of the Bible against violence? Not always...then neither is Jesus.
I beg to differ. Read the gospels. Nowhere, absolutely nowhere, does Jesus allow violence. The only people who do not get this are Christians.
What does Jesus think about Hell? Judgement? False teachers? Scribes and pharisees? And the eventual death of Ananias & Sapphira?You better throw the book of Revelation out David. It doesn't fit your picture of Jesus. Who exactly is the Leader of the Lord's ARMY? Last time I checked it was Jesus. :D
He wouldn't make much of a military man if he's against violence.
Jesus is a total warrior. He won't back down from a battle.
I bet you have lots of imaginary friends. Are they space robots? That would be much more logical than Jesus.
Yes Kris (and Rod), Jesus won't back down from battle. And based on scripture, if we care what it actually teaches about Jesus, he won the biggest battle by dying on a cross. He allowed his enemies to crush him and he called on his followers to take up their cross also.I know this goes against everything we humans want to hear. We like people in movies who get revenge, kill their enemies. Jesus showed us the counter-cultural, counter-everything we humans believe way to win the battle - sacrifice.
Rod, whatever Jesus thinks about those things, it is clear Jesus had the least patience for religious people, those most certain they were right and on God's side. Jesus was no Pharisee, all about purity and staying separate from "those people" and he was no Zealot, ready to kill Romans to win the day for God.
David have you read the letters of Paul? Jude? John 2 & 3?You seem to have a problem differentiating between religious people and religious truth. :D
David quote:
" Jesus showed us the counter-cultural, counter-everything we humans believe way to win the battle - sacrifice."
I agree - but don't confuse the battle with the WAR! This is about the very essence of Good & Evil.
What does Jesus think about Hell? As I've pointed out multiple times, this is a very tricky question. Jesus didn't seem to envision hell anything like what we do. I think this would be a fun study sometime, to go verse-by-verse and discuss.
Judgement?
Different Gospel writers will recall different sayings, of course. Matthew loves the thought of getting even. But John gives no hint of personal judgment (only corporate). Put these two verses together, from John's Gospel:
Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son,
You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one.
False teachers?
He who is not against me is with me.
Scribes and pharisees?
People who have managed to interpret the law such that they can be unmerciful and uncompassionate.
And the eventual death of Ananias & Sapphira?
I'm pretty sure he would be appalled at their treatment, aren't you?
Haha, I love the "did you read" card...it seems like a pissing match. Should I respond "did you read the Gospels?" As I think I have said many times, I do believe God will ultimately judge and punish evil (evil will be destroyed to no longer exist). I don't think God is going to everlastingly torture people simply for having the wrong set of beliefs about God. God will judge evil. But in terms of how we live, our center for ethics ought to be the life of Jesus.
Also, there is a lot of question in what it means for God to judge, punish, etc. It is one thing to point out people like self-righteous religious folk who harm others or false teachers who get rich out of manipulation. I think what Rauser was getting at in the book, at least in terms of the OT violent stories, is the genocide factor: the command to massacre all children, everybody. Unless you're going to say children deserved it (which would mean you'd also say the Jewish children deserved the Holocaust) you have to question such violence.
Somebody help me out with an honest question. What I've never understood about these conversations is why we assume the Bible writers had a perfect understanding of God. Why do we think, because O.T. writers attributed expectations of hatred etc. to God, that God actually had those emotions? People simply used to give the gods much more human qualities, of jealousy and indifference and such, and in fact, it seems like much of the Bible involves trying to talk folks out of these ideas. The Bible itself hints that earlier writers lacked understanding of God.Does a belief in inerrancy require belief in perfect understanding by the ancients?
Pavlo pops whenever the words inerrancy comes up. I don't know why. :)To me, the "All scripture is God-breathed" statement means perfect, and never faulty. That would mean that if anything made it into the Bible then it must be true. As opposed to some people, I don't see the commandment to kill all as evidence that God is cruel, but an insight into how we are, in that sin in Canaan corrupted all, and room to spare the children as a leeway to question whether the altars (which could have lead them to research the previous way of life that they may know it and accept it, maybe even aided by the children they left alive) should be destroyed also. Give 'em an inch, sort of logic. To me, it is a look into God's attitude towards sin, as well as its effect.
Lee, in answer to your final question - yes.
The great thing about Jesus is: We have written accounts of his life and sayings by his friends. I'll continue trusting those over all other opinions.Can you imagine people standing before God and hearing him say: "I gave you 4 accounts of the life of Christ and you confused or ignored them. How many did you want? 5? 6? 30? 100? You Humans can be soooo annoying and stubborn.?
Rod wrote: "The great thing about Jesus is: We have written accounts of his life and sayings by his friends. I'll continue trusting those over all other opinions."You're aware that critical Bible scholars have their reasons for skepticism that any of the Gospels were written by eye-witness accounts, right?
One does claim to be, though (John) and it might interest you to know that I actually argue in my book that it's reasonable to believe the author really is John the Apostle. Of course, I also point out how different John's teaching is from any of the other three Gospels.
I'm very aware of what Critical Scholars claim. Doesn't mean I trust them. Most scholars force things to play out in THEIR favor. Such is life. :DI've found that the four Gospels are in wonderful agreement. You just have to read them carefully. There's a reason God allows people to confuse the issue - it allows people's hearts to justify their sins.
It seems like a fun book. I'm guessing this author is NOT a Calvinist. So we'll see how that plays out.
I enjoyed his 4 definitions of Christian Apologetics:
1) The branch of theology that defends Christian belief and critiques opposing belief systems.
2) Christian intellectual warfare with non-Christian belief systems that utilizes the weaponry of sound argumentation.
3) The discipline of making converts to Christianity through the use of argument and evidence.
...and the definition he now embraces:
4) The rigorous pursuit of truth in conversation.
Of course number 4 removed Christianity and left it wide open for all beliefs to play the game. I wonder how often the Bible does that?
I enjoy what the author is doing - but I'll have to see if he thinks sharing the Truth of Christianity is as important as questing for truth with those who may not want it?
AS long as the author and us agree that:
John 14:6
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."