Why do atheists evangelize? [Archive]

Robyn Banks

February 20th 2003, 02:03 PM

TheFiveSolas:
I've always wondered why atheists evangelize non(nonbelievers)?
Of course, only some atheists join lists and enthusiastically defend their views. The vast majority of atheists I know, by contrast, usually don't mention their atheism unless asked their views.

But your question merely reveals a simple truth about humans - we love to win others over to our own worldview. This is a fact for everyone. Everyone tries to 'spread their seed'. It is the same for peace-protestors, politicians, teachers, sports-fans, children playing in the playground, your boss, or your family. Some do it more than others, but we all do it.

TheFiveSolas:
I don't believe in Bigfoot, but I know that there are those that do. However, I don't go around SEEKING OUT THOSE WHO DO and then debate with them for hours, days, and weeks on end trying to persuade them that they should give up their belief in Bigfoot (insert any other being that you consider to be a myth). In fact, I would probably think that someone who did this was bordering on a psychological disorder.
Of course, the earthy and heavenly consequences of the existence of a god are usually considered significantly more significant, than the existence of bigfoot. On the other hand, if you hung out on a UFO-strange phenomena site, you'd view as passionate opionions from believers and unbelievers as you'd find from any atheists. :smile:

TheFiveSolas:
I've often heard, mostly from fundamentalist atheists, that belief in God is similar to belief in Santa, both are equally mythological. IF that is the case, then why waste your time trying to disprove "Bigfoot"? I mean, who cares?
As noted above, the significance of belief in God - both on this earth (as demonstrated by history), and in heaven, is far greater than the significance of belief in Santa.

TheFiveSolas:
Perhaps, its as I hinted earlier, atheists have an INVESTED interest in disproving (suppressing?) God's existence for the simple reason that His existence would cause a Copernican revolution in their thinking (their whole concept of the world, themselves, morality, etc.), and this is something they find intolerable.
This is a part of the reason - and a reason for both atheists and theists. As explained in Festinger's theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Cognitive elements are the things a person knows or believes about herself, her behaviour or environment. Dissonance arises when the person is faced with having to choose between inconsistent or incompatible cognitions. Depending on the magnitude of the dissonance, she will want to reduce it in one of 3 ways:
(1) Avoiding the conflicting cognition, by avoiding situations in which it arises;
(2) Social support by association with a group that provides a worldview to deal with conflicting information, propaganda against alternative groups, and the ability to explain most major problems in terms consistent with its cognitive system; and
(3) Explanatory schemes designed to rationalise the source of dissonance.

For a similar thought, see my Northrop Frye signature.

Hope that helps.

Robyn

Jin-Roh

February 20th 2003, 02:07 PM

Christian extremists of yesteryear regarded infidels as agents of Satan-and reacted accordingly. Muslim extremists today regard all non-Muslims as agents of Satan and are acting in that belief. They think it is their duty to make the entire world Muslim, just as the Christians of yesteryear thought it was their duty to make the entire world Christian.

***Points to Solly's post***

How many death's did the very athiest ideal of marxism cause in the last century?

(If you say something like "that's not the way Marx intended it to be" or "those leaders perverted Marxism" I will just as easily respond by saying that the Inquisition, Crusades and such where also just as far removed from Christianity)

Also, GK Chesteron (this was back in the 19th Century) felt that by looking at newspapers and human history we could deduce that the Christian Doctrine of the fall is proven fairly scientifically.

TheFiveSolas

February 20th 2003, 02:13 PM

Great responses so far!
Thanks.

Gavin

February 20th 2003, 03:51 PM

great thread idea, FiveSolas. :thumb:

An even larger question is, if atheism is true why be an atheist? If you say, "to take a stance for truth," then I say, "what is truth, and what recompense is there for taking a stand for anything?"

It turns out atheism not only fails to provide sufficient motivation for evangelism, but also for personal belief.

Blake Reas

February 20th 2003, 03:54 PM

Atheist do evangelize! Here is an article from Infudgels (www.infidels.com) and another from Tektonics that I wrote commenting on the article. Here is my article and here is the infidels article http://www.secweb.org/a
sset.asp?AssetID=257!

http://www.tektonics.org/skephaven.html

In Christ,
Blake

ACow

February 21st 2003, 03:40 AM

Because, like most of us, atheists are human, and most humans(including christians), make the fallacy of feeling that their beliefs are more correct based on the number of people in their immediate vacinity whom also have those views.

Similarly, in case you haven't noticed, whether one has an athiestic viewpoint or, say, a christian viewpoint, can have a significant effect on the policies that a person will rally for, and indeed, which ones get enacted into law and general behaviour in the country. This provides a rational reason for most to try and bring people around to "see the light".

And if that isn't enough, some people don't like seeing other people being wrong. I'm one of them. I do feel sorry for them in many ways. (although i realise i could be wrong about everything i believe) But i recognize most people are not ready to change their beliefs and most people want purely to back up their own current world view when in a discussion or interaction with other people or society. Atheists, and indeed christians are no different in this case, and no offence intended, in both/all camps, some people, are just jerks.

And lastly, in case it isn't obvious, most non-athiests tend to think the athiest does things wrong in some way. Naturally, change the people who think differently, change the number of people who currently do not support your worldview/actions/thoughts.

Why do some atheists "evangelize"? While it may rub some of you the wrong way, it has to be said.

For the same basic human reasons some christians, hindus, muslims, wiccans, buddhists, and many others do. I'm kinda dissapointed the question even has to be asked.

Ryokan

February 21st 2003, 03:27 PM

as a sort of atheist, I "evangelize" to get closer to the truth. Obviously, my small opinions aren't very worthwhile unless they are tested against others. And then they change as new info comes up. And why do I do that? Because, at heart, being a theist is much easier because you don't have to die, or worse, never see dead loved ones again. So, I at least, want to believe.
And if I can't, well evangelizing helps me formulate ideas about the best way to live without a God.

markg

February 21st 2003, 11:21 PM

Jimbo wrote:

“Like Muslims, Christians believe that everyone who is not a fellow believer is evil and will be tortured forever and ever by their god. Personally, I don't enjoy living in a world filled with people who hold this delusion, who hold this opinion of me and those I care about. I would like to help these people overcome their delusion.”

I have seen Jimbo make this assertion on several threads now - or perhaps it was some like him, after a while all emotionally charged rants tend to look the same.

I am a Christian.
I do not believe that (1) “everyone who is not a fellow believer is evil”.
Nor do I believe that (2) non-Christians will be “tortured forever and ever” by God.
Nor do I personally (3) “enjoy living in a world where people hold to these notions.”

If you have met people who express these notions in these stark, one dimensional and simplistic caricatures - fair enough - take it up with them but please desist from including me as a Christian in such repugnant stereotyping and sweeping generalizations. I think you need to express your views less emotionally, and more rationally, and with a greater appreciation of the nuanced theological issues at stake. If you are theologically unsophisticated or even illiterate then it might be wiser to refrain from making such sweeping accusations at all.

Let me hasten to add that you, along with everyone else, is entitled to your opinions but opinions are a purely personal subjective matter and do not effect the objective reality or otherwise of a proposition like “hell”.

I am also interested in your use of the term “delusion”. Obviously you make use of it primarily for polemical and emotional effect but do you also have some valid objective definition of what constitutes a “delusion”, how one identifies it, and how one knows one’s own subjective thinking is not prey to delusional effects? Are delusions merely something your opponents suffer from, while you yourself are a paragon of logic, reason and rationality? And is this why you “feel” you can “help these people”? And if so, on what basis is this presumption made? Delusions usually refer to subjective personal opinions that have been exaggerated into projections upon the real world “out there”; they are the province of subjectivists more than objectivists. Biblical religion is based upon the concept of objective revelation from God, not of subjective feelings of the kind that seem to undergird the emotional tension evident in your posts. You may not “like” what the Bible or Christianity teaches but that is no basis for the rational rejection of it. As the ethicists say, all you posts are doing is shouting “Boo to God!” You don’t like God, you don’t like Christianity, you don’t like Christians. So what? Reality is not defined by your personal likes and dislikes.

Jimbo also wrote:

“We have seen throughout history that Christian extremists have persecuted, tortured and slaughtered those who did not share their religious beliefs. These Christian extremists were apparently unwilling to wait for God to torture unbelievers in the afterlife. Thankfully Christians lost their power over society in the last few centuries and so the excesses of Christian extremists has been curbed.”

So then, comes the historical objectivist argument…

If they were, to use your definition, “Christian extremists” then these “extremists” were obviously not representative of Christianity but merely an extreme distortion of it. This is not an argument against Christianity but against extremism. Rather what you seem to be implying is that Christianity is itself inherently extremist and evil. But mere assertion of this kind of generalized stereotype is no replacement for rationally presented evidence. As has been alluded to on this thread and elsewhere at TheologyWeb this charge can be leveled with greater force against “Atheist extremists” in Stalin’s Soviet Union, Mao’s Communist China, and Pol Pot’s Kampuchea - to name three examples from the blood bath that was 20th century secular history. Yet I do not believe that the latter argument is one you are prepared to make. Perhaps by consoling yourself with the belief that the excesses of some atheists does not impugn atheism? In which case you do not extend to your Christian interlocutors the same courtesy you allow yourself.

Nor is you view an example of the much vaunted espousal of modern liberal tolerance and respect for cultural and historical differences. Rather it is an expression of chronological snobbery, bias and prejudice - in other words, a replay of the same absolutist moral imperative you seem to find so repulsive. The folly of this kind of guilt by association argument should have been plain to you even before you embarked on this fallacious line of attack.

Finally, let me say as a trained historian, that your knowledge of history seems more informed by revisionist myths than from the actual investigation of the historical evidence. This is not the post to go into this, but let me say reputable and careful historians do not make the sort of wildly inaccurate and unsubstantiated claims that I see regularly emanating from self described “freethinkers” or post-modernist academics all over the Net.

Now I understand completely why you use the historical argument against “Christian extremism”. It is because, despite being a subjectivist/relativist, you need to ground your personal animosity to religion in the cloak of objective respectability. “Christianity is evil…and here’s why…!!” As I pointed out this approach is hypocritical and self-serving and relies upon the perpetuation of exaggeration, urban myth, historical snobbery and prejudice.

You don’t like Christianity; you find it personally loathsome. OK. Now shake the dust off your feet and get on with your life.

markg
.

ItalianGold

February 22nd 2003, 01:22 AM

Markg's response to what:

Jimbo wrote:

“Like Muslims, Christians believe that everyone who is not a fellow believer is evil and will be tortured forever and ever by their god. Personally, I don't enjoy living in a world filled with people who hold this delusion, who hold this opinion of me and those I care about. I would like to help these people overcome their delusion.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Markg's response:
I have seen Jimbo make this assertion on several threads now - or perhaps it was some like him, after a while all emotionally charged rants tend to look the same.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'll grant you that saying Christians believe all non-Christians are evil is not a generally true statement. However, the bit about evangelical (and thus the most vocal) Christians believing that everyone not "saved" (according to their many various definitions) will suffer for eternity IS true!

Markg:
I am a Christian.
I do not believe that (1) “everyone who is not a fellow believer is evil”.
Nor do I believe that (2) non-Christians will be “tortured forever and ever” by God.
Nor do I personally (3) “enjoy living in a world where people hold to these notions.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Your view number 2 above is enough to get YOU damned eternally by fundamentalists.

Markg:
If you have met people who express these notions in these stark, one dimensional and simplistic caricatures - fair enough - take it up with them but please desist from including me as a Christian in such repugnant stereotyping and sweeping generalizations.

Well, okay, but I think Jimbo was referring to orthodox or fundamental or evangelical (and therefore more vocal) Christians. Perhaps you could wear a button or something which identifies you as a sort-of-Christian who doesn't believe in hell?

Markg:
I think you need to express your views less emotionally, and more rationally, and with a greater appreciation of the nuanced theological issues at stake. If you are theologically unsophisticated or even illiterate then it might be wiser to refrain from making such sweeping accusations at all.

Well, hey there's a real UNEMOTIONAL statement.

Markg:
Let me hasten to add that you, along with everyone else, is entitled to your opinions but opinions are a purely personal subjective matter and do not effect the objective reality or otherwise of a proposition like “hell”.

I couldn't agree more!

I am also interested in your use of the term “delusion”. Obviously you make use of it primarily for polemical and emotional effect...
like [b]"unsophisticated" and "illiterate?"
but do you also have some valid objective definition of what constitutes a “delusion”, how one identifies it, and how one knows one’s own subjective thinking is not prey to delusional effects? Are delusions merely something your opponents suffer from, while you yourself are a paragon of logic, reason and rationality? And is this why you “feel” you can “help these people”? And if so, on what basis is this presumption made? Delusions usually refer to subjectivepersonal opinions that have been exaggerated into projections upon the real world “out there”; they are the province of subjectivists more than objectivists. Biblical religion is based upon the concept of objective revelation from God,

HUH?

not of subjective feelings of the kind that seem to undergird the emotional tension evident in your posts. You may not “like” what the Bible or Christianity teaches but that is no basis for the rational rejection of it. As the ethicists say, all your posts are doing is shouting “Boo to God!” You don’t like God, you don’t like Christianity, you don’t like Christians. So what? Reality is not defined by your personal likes and dislikes.

Thank God you're not making sweeping generalizations!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jimbo also wrote:

“We have seen throughout history that Christian extremists have persecuted, tortured and slaughtered those who did not share their religious beliefs. These Christian extremists were apparently unwilling to wait for God to torture unbelievers in the afterlife. Thankfully Christians lost their power over society in the last few centuries and so the excesses of Christian extremists has been curbed.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Markg:
So then, comes the historical objectivist argument…

If they were, to use your definition, “Christian extremists” then these “extremists” were obviously not representative of Christianity but merely an extreme distortion of it. This is not an argument against Christianity but against extremism. Rather what you seem to be implying is that Christianity is itself inherently extremist and evil. But mere assertion of this kind of generalized stereotype is no replacement for rationally presented evidence. As has been alluded to on this thread and elsewhere at TheologyWeb this charge can be leveled with greater force against “Atheist extremists” in Stalin’s Soviet Union, Mao’s Communist China, and Pol Pot’s Kampuchea - to name three examples from the blood bath that was 20th century secular history. Yet I do not believe that the latter argument is one you are prepared to make. Perhaps by consoling yourself with the belief that the excesses of some atheists does not impugn atheism? In which case you do not extend to your Christian interlocutors the same courtesy you allow yourself.

Nice try, but are YOU prepared to argue that the goal of these monsters was to make the world atheist? Of course not. These were power-hungry tyrants whose political goal was to dominate and repress. I won't even try to make the silly excuse that they aren't "representative" Atheists.

Markg:
Nor is your view an example of the much vaunted espousal of modern liberal tolerance and respect for cultural and historical differences. Rather it is an expression of chronological snobbery(I've been meaning to ask someone what that means), bias and prejudice - in other words, a replay of the same absolutist moral imperative you seem to find so repulsive.
How exactly?

The folly of this kind of guilt by association argument should have been plain to you even before you embarked on this fallacious line of attack.

Finally, let me say as a trained historian, that your knowledge of history seems more informed by revisionist myths than from the actual investigation of the historical evidence. This is not the post to go into this, but let me say reputable and careful historians do not make the sort of wildly inaccurate and unsubstantiated claims that I see regularly emanating from self described “freethinkers” or post-modernist academics all over the Net.

Now I understand completely why you use the historical argument against “Christian extremism”. It is because, despite being a subjectivist/relativist, you need to ground your personal animosity to religion in the cloak of objective respectability. “Christianity is evil…and here’s why…!!” As I pointed out this approach is hypocritical and self-serving and relies upon the perpetuation of exaggeration, urban myth, historical snobbery and prejudice. You don’t like Christianity; you find it personally loathsome. OK. Now shake the dust off your feet and get on with your life.

urban myth? historical snobbery? - Not sure what this means. As for personal justification, try tuning into a few hours of TV-Evangelism and then come back and tell me that you 1) kept a straight face b) didn't cringe and c)"felt the love"

Just so you know, I am NOT an atheist.

Blessings on all of us - ItalianGold

TheFiveSolas

February 22nd 2003, 01:42 AM

ItalianGold wrote:

try tuning into a few hours of TV-Evangelism

I thinks it's a violation of Theologyweb rules to recommend that people watch television evangelists, if not, it should be! :rofl:

Jin-Roh

February 22nd 2003, 01:54 AM

Nice try, but are YOU prepared to argue that the goal of these monsters was to make the world atheist? Of course not. These were power-hungry tyrants whose political goal was to dominate and repress. I won't even try to make the silly excuse that they aren't "representative" Atheists.

Actually Atheism was part of the intention. The Soviet Union had a nasty tendancey to suppress religion (Islam is included in this, it wasn't just Christianity) and The invasion of Tibet caused the death of many Buddhist monks because they where Buddhist monks. Suppression of thesitic (even the very non-theistic Buddhism) was part of that ideal.

Besides, I don't think markg (feel free to correct me on this one). was using that so much as attack on atheism, but as an illustration that objection to Christianity on the basis of "the murdering extremists" is a mute point becuase athesim has not shown itself to be any better when measured by that same rod.

It's actually a really weak argument. I'm kind of surprised that atheists still use it.

Jin-Roh

February 22nd 2003, 01:56 AM

I thinks it's a violation of Theologyweb rules to recommend that people watch television evangelists, if not, it should be!

:rofl:

In the words our District Youth Director, "Don't be Benny Hinn. We have one already."

jimbo

February 22nd 2003, 02:37 AM

markg,

I am a Christian.
I do not believe that (1) “everyone who is not a fellow believer is evil”.

So you disagree with the Bible on this subject?

Psalm 14:1-3: The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none that does good."

What do you think the fate of unbelievers is? Do you believe in hell?

Nor do I believe that (2) non-Christians will be “tortured forever and ever” by God.

Do you believe in the biblical doctrine of hell?

Nor do I personally (3) “enjoy living in a world where people hold to these notions.”

Re-read what I wrote. I wrote that I personally "don't enjoy living in a world people hold these notions."

One last question: If you knew that Christianity was false, would you make any attempt whatsoever to inform anyone else of this?

Jimbo

markg

February 22nd 2003, 06:00 AM

ItalianGold wrote:
I'll grant you that saying Christians believe all non-Christians are evil is not a generally true statement. However, the bit about evangelical (and thus the most vocal) Christians believing that everyone not "saved" (according to their many various definitions) will suffer for eternity IS true!

Thank you for the candid endorsement, in saying that “‘Christians believe all non-Christians are evil’ is not a generally true statement”, you have just concurred that Jimbo has made a sweeping generalisation…

What “bit” about “evangelical” are you referring to? Please point out where Jimbo posted any “bit” about evangelicals, please.

I am a committed Evangelical Christian. There are more than a few Evangelical scholars who do not advocate the view Jimbo ascribed to “Christians”. Let’s start with John Stott, Clark Pinnock, John Wenham, George Carey, Stephen Travis, Philip Hughes, Michael Green… Both the original comment and your own refinement of it are still nothing more than sweeping generalisations from those who know a lot less than they imagine about Evangelical theological reflection. Jimbo himself never said anything about “evangelicals” or “fundamentalists”; he used the blanket term “Christian” and then linked it with the term “extremists”. I suggest to you that you calm down, get off your high horse and read again what he wrote and what I said in reply.

ItalianGold:
Your view number 2 [that I do not believe that non-Christians will be “tortured forever and ever” by God] above is enough to get YOU damned eternally by fundamentalists.

Last I heard only God gets to say what has to be. It is he alone who will judge the eternal destiny of any human being, a view that “fundamentalists” would undoubtedly agree with. I have to answer to God not to men.

ItalianGold:
Well, okay, but I think Jimbo was referring to orthodox or fundamental or evangelical (and therefore more vocal) Christians. Perhaps you could wear a button or something which identifies you as a sort-of-Christian who doesn't believe in hell?

Your comment about wearing a button to identify me as a particular sort of Christian bears an unfortunate parallel to the wearing of yellow stars and pink triangles under the Nazi regime. I believe this is not what you had in mind when you made your comment but sometimes the things we say unreflectively expose our deeper attitudes and opinions.

Let me ask you, if you remove all the orthodox or fundamental or evangelical Christians from the churches how many parishioners do you have left? Tell me, if one doesn’t believe in the Christianity expressed in the Bible and the creeds, why would one bother to remain within the religious tradition? Habit? Laziness? Point out to me all the large and growing theological liberal churches and denominations. Almost all liberals, are in fact ex-evangelical or ex-orthodox; they would not be the “broad-minded, liberal Christians” they are to today if they had not become believers though the ministry and outreach of evangelicals. And many of these radicals and liberals are very vocal and political in their attempts to push their own agendas. The comment about vocal Christian pressure groups is misjudged when one examines what is actually going on in many of the mainline denominations.

For the record, I never said I do not believe in hell. I said that I do not believe in a god who will torture people for ever and ever. I was responding to Jimbos’ wild claim, and rejecting it. Orthodox historical Christianity , of whatever form, has always affirmed the reality of hell. It is a doctrine based clearly on the teaching of Jesus himself.

ItalianGold responded to my statement:
Biblical religion is based upon the concept of objective revelation from God

Thus:

HUH?

You surely are not seriously participating in a Theology Web site while possessed of a complete lack of comprehension of the essential Christian claim that God has revealed himself to humanity in nature, word and event, and supremely in the person of Jesus, are you? Christianity is a historical religion, it’s central affirmation is based upon real events in space time reality.

ItalianGold:
Nice try, but are YOU prepared to argue that the goal of these monsters [Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot] was to make the world atheist? Of course not. These were power-hungry tyrants whose political goal was to dominate and repress. I won't even try to make the silly excuse that they aren't "representative" Atheists.

Perhaps it would be in the interests of atheists everywhere that you do try to make the ‘silly excuse that they aren’t “representative” Atheists’. Because if they were representative of atheism then that ideology has much more blood on its hands then two millennia of “Christian extremists”. I personally would hope, that these power hungry tyrants whose goal was indeed to dominate and repress do not represent the views of the ordinary atheist members and supporters of Infidels.org or the American Atheists, etc. However, I am more than prepared to argue that an essential component of the ideology and worldview of “these monsters” and the regimes of which they were part was militant atheism. I am prepared to argue this on the basis of my reading of the history of Communism in the 20th century.

The study of the history of the Soviet Union under both Lenin and Stalin is a particular reaearch interest of mine and I have read and collected a great deal of material on this era. I am most certainly prepared to argue that “scientific atheism” was absolutely fundamental to the entire Marxist/Leninist /Stalinist edifice. As I said in my previous post careful and objective historians do not dispute this fact. Three scholarly sources you might like to begin investigating this issue are -

a) Dimitry V. Pospielovsky’s work published by St Martin’s Press, New York, 1987 entitled “A History of Soviet Atheism in Theory and Practice, and the Believer” and issued in three volumes:

Volume 1 : A History of Marxist-Leninist Atheism and Soviet Antirelligious Policies
olume 2@ AntirfligiousCampaigs and P!rsecutitns
Voltme 3: Soviet Studies on the Church and the Believer’s response to Atheism

[Pospielovsky is Professor in Modern European and Russian History at the University of Western Ontario, Canada]

b) Daniel Peris’ Storming the Heavens: the Soviet League of the Militant Godless, Cornell University Press, 1998

[Peris’ was formerly Assistant Professor of History at the University of Wyoming]

c) The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression by By Stéphane Courtois, Nicolas Werth, Jean–Louis Panné, Andrzej Paczkowski, Karel Bartosek, and Jean–Louis Margolin. Harvard University Press, 1999.

The authors are a group of prominent European historians from the political left.

There are numerous other very reputable and easily accessible sources - including some very good Internet sites - that can be cited if you do genuinely wish to pursue this matter. Any objective reading of both the documents - and the Soviets were meticulous record keepers - and the historical facts reveals just how fundamental the notion of atheism was to the whole Communist agenda.

I can recommend a whole list of books and articles but won’t post any more on this now because I am not convinced that it is appropriate on this thread, or that you really are interested in examining this issue. Forgive me for suspecting that your moral outrage over my supposed attack on atheists in my previous post is an exercise in rhetoric on your part.

ItalianGold interpolating my statement:
Rather it is an expression of chronological snobbery (I've been meaning to ask someone what that means), bias and prejudice - in other words, a replay of the same absolutist moral imperative you seem to find so repulsive.

How exactly?

Chronological snobbery, a term originally coined by C.S. Lewis, is the belief that one is wiser and smarter than people of the past. It refers to the uncritical acceptance of the intellectual climate common to our own age and the assumption that whatever has gone before is on that account discredited. This often takes the form of contempt for past virtues and ideas because they're not "hot off the press".

‘Chronological snobbery is the presumption, fueled by the modern conception of progress, that all thinking, all art, and all science of an earlier time are inherently inferior, indeed childlike or even imbecilic, compared to that of the present. Under the rule of chronological snobbery, the West has convinced itself that "intellectually, humanity languished for countless generations in the most childish errors on all sorts of crucial subjects, until it was redeemed by some simple scientific dictum of the last century" . It has become to believe that "anything more than a hundred years old is ancient" and "in the world of books, or opinions about books, the age at which senility sets in has now been reduced to about ten" .’
Owen Barfield

It pretty much describes the skeptical mindset. It is absolutist in that the holders of such views, while often professing a belief in relativism, actually stand in judgment and condemnation upon the past, usually based upon some shifting and changeable standard or value that is dominant in the present. Such condemnation is usually accompanied (ironically) by the fulsome moral outrage of an Old Testament prophet.

In response to my comment to Jimbo”
I think you need to express your views less emotionally, and more rationally, and with a greater appreciation of the nuanced theological issues at stake. If you are theologically unsophisticated or even illiterate then it might be wiser to refrain from making such sweeping accusations at all.

ItalianGold said:
Well, hey there's a real UNEMOTIONAL statement.

Actually it is a purely descriptive comment based upon the naive views expressed by the original writer, indicating that he does not have a nuanced and sophisticated understanding of theology. There is no shame in being theologically illiterate or unsophisticated, none whatsoever, but we all must recognize our own limitations and not pretend to understand more than we actually do. Jimbo has begun several threads by requesting explanations about Christian beliefs and doctrines. That many of these could be considered disingenuous is evidenced by his use of ever changing names to sign off his posts ( now thankfully ceased) and his refusal to consider any answer given as satisfactory.

ItalianGold:
urban myth? historical snobbery? - Not sure what this means. As for personal justification, try tuning into a few hours of TV-Evangelism and then come back and tell me that you 1) kept a straight face b) didn't cringe and c)"felt the love"

You are now up-to-speed on the concept of historical (chronological) snobbery... I think you feign ignorance about the nature of “urban myths”.

I don’t think it’s actually possible in my country to tune into a few hours of TV evangelism unless one gets up at 2 am. Even if I was interested in watching televangelists why on earth are you bringing this into the discussion from way out in left field? Why is Jimbo any less responsible for the views of atheist extremists and dunderheads than you seek to make me for Christian extremists and dunderheads?

Finally ItalianGold asserted:
Just so you know, I am NOT an atheist.

That is not saying much, the vast majority of human beings of the past and the present have also not been atheists…

Mark

jimbo

February 22nd 2003, 06:16 AM

markg,

~stuff about Soviet Union and atheism~

You don't believe in Santa Claus do you? Niether did Stalin, Mao or Hitler. They are linked by this shared nonbelief in Santa Claus-and you are linked to them as well. Their murders of millions of people is clearly the result of non-belief in Santa Claus. Asantaism is obviously a dangerous and destructive philosophical position.

In response to my comment to Jimbo”
I think you need to express your views less emotionally, and more rationally, and with a greater appreciation of the nuanced theological issues at stake. If you are theologically unsophisticated or even illiterate then it might be wiser to refrain from making such sweeping accusations at all.

I would be very much interested in seeing your answers to my questions. Specifically, I would like to know if you accept the biblical doctrine of hell and if you agree with the Bible when it describes unbelievers as evil. I would also like to know this: If you discovered that Christianity was false, would you make any effort whatsoever to inform any other person? Yes or no?

Thank you.

Jimbo

markg

February 22nd 2003, 12:00 PM

ItalianGold wrote:
I'll grant you that saying Christians believe all non-Christians are evil is not a generally true statement. However, the bit about evangelical (and thus the most vocal) Christians believing that everyone not "saved" (according to their many various definitions) will suffer for eternity IS true!

Thank you for the candid endorsement, in saying that “‘Christians believe all non-Christians are evil’ is not a generally true statement”, you have just concurred that Jimbo has made a sweeping generalisation…

What “bit” about “evangelical” are you referring to? Please point out where Jimbo posted any “bit” about evangelicals, please.

I am a committed Evangelical Christian. There are more than a few Evangelical scholars who do not advocate the view Jimbo ascribed to “Christians”. Let’s start with John Stott, Clark Pinnock, John Wenham, George Carey, Stephen Travis, Philip Hughes, Michael Green… Both the original comment and your own refinement of it are still nothing more than sweeping generalisations from those who know a lot less than they imagine about Evangelical theological reflection. Jimbo himself never said anything about “evangelicals” or “fundamentalists”; he used the blanket term “Christian” and then linked it with the term “extremists”. I suggest to you that you calm down, get off your high horse and read again what he wrote and what I said in reply.

ItalianGold:
Your view number 2 [that I do not believe that non-Christians will be “tortured forever and ever” by God] above is enough to get YOU damned eternally by fundamentalists.

Last I heard only God gets to say what has to be. It is he alone who will judge the eternal destiny of any human being, a view that “fundamentalists” would undoubtedly agree with. I have to answer to God not to men.

ItalianGold:
Well, okay, but I think Jimbo was referring to orthodox or fundamental or evangelical (and therefore more vocal) Christians. Perhaps you could wear a button or something which identifies you as a sort-of-Christian who doesn't believe in hell?

Your comment about wearing a button to identify me as a particular sort of Christian bears an unfortunate parallel to the wearing of yellow stars and pink triangles under the Nazi regime. I believe this is not what you had in mind when you made your comment but sometimes the things we say unreflectively expose our deeper attitudes and opinions.

Let me ask you, if you remove all the orthodox or fundamental or evangelical Christians from the churches how many parishioners do you have left? Tell me, if one doesn’t believe in the Christianity expressed in the Bible and the creeds, why would one bother to remain within the religious tradition? Habit? Laziness? Point out to me all the large and growing theological liberal churches and denominations. Almost all liberals, are in fact ex-evangelical or ex-orthodox; they would not be the “broad-minded, liberal Christians” they are to today if they had not become believers though the ministry and outreach of evangelicals. And many of these radicals and liberals are very vocal and political in their attempts to push their own agendas. The comment about vocal Christian pressure groups is misjudged when one examines what is actually going on in many of the mainline denominations.

For the record, I never said I do not believe in hell. I said that I do not believe in a god who will torture people for ever and ever. I was responding to Jimbos’ wild claim, and rejecting it. Orthodox historical Christianity , of whatever form, has always affirmed the reality of hell. It is a doctrine based clearly on the teaching of Jesus himself.

ItalianGold responded to my statement:
Biblical religion is based upon the concept of objective revelation from God

Thus:

HUH?

You surely are not seriously participating in a Theology Web site while possessed of a complete lack of comprehension of the essential Christian claim that God has revealed himself to humanity in nature, word and event, and supremely in the person of Jesus, are you? Christianity is a historical religion, it’s central affirmation is based upon real events in space time reality.

ItalianGold:
Nice try, but are YOU prepared to argue that the goal of these monsters [Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot] was to make the world atheist? Of course not. These were power-hungry tyrants whose political goal was to dominate and repress. I won't even try to make the silly excuse that they aren't "representative" Atheists.

Perhaps it would be in the interests of atheists everywhere that you do try to make the ‘silly excuse that they aren’t “representative” Atheists’. Because if they were representative of atheism then that ideology has much more blood on its hands then two millennia of “Christian extremists”. I personally would hope, that these power hungry tyrants whose goal was indeed to dominate and repress do not represent the views of the ordinary atheist members and supporters of Infidels.org or the American Atheists, etc. However, I am more than prepared to argue that an essential component of the ideology and worldview of “these monsters” and the regimes of which they were part was militant atheism. I am prepared to argue this on the basis of my reading of the history of Communism in the 20th century.

The study of the history of the Soviet Union under both Lenin and Stalin is a particular reaearch interest of mine and I have read and collected a great deal of material on this era. I am most certainly prepared to argue that “scientific atheism” was absolutely fundamental to the entire Marxist/Leninist /Stalinist edifice. As I said in my previous post careful and objective historians do not dispute this fact. Three scholarly sources you might like to begin investigating this issue are -

a) Dimitry V. Pospielovsky’s work published by St Martin’s Press, New York, 1987 entitled “A History of Soviet Atheism in Theory and Practice, and the Believer” and issued in three volumes:

Volume 1 : A History of Marxist-Leninist Atheism and Soviet Antirelligious Policies
Volume 2: Antireligious Campaigns and Persecutions
Volume 3: Soviet Studies on the Church and the Believer’s response to Atheism

[Pospielovsky is Professor in Modern European and Russian History at the University of Western Ontario, Canada]

b) Daniel Peris’ Storming the Heavens: the Soviet League of the Militant Godless, Cornell University Press, 1998

[Peris’ was formerly Assistant Professor of History at the University of Wyoming]

c) The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression by By Stéphane Courtois, Nicolas Werth, Jean–Louis Panné, Andrzej Paczkowski, Karel Bartosek, and Jean–Louis Margolin. Harvard University Press, 1999.

The authors are a group of prominent European historians from the political left.

There are numerous other very reputable and easily accessible sources - including some very good Internet sites - that can be cited if you do genuinely wish to pursue this matter. Any objective reading of both the documents - and the Soviets were meticulous record keepers - and the historical facts reveals just how fundamental the notion of atheism was to the whole Communist agenda.

I can recommend a whole list of books and articles but won’t post any more on this now because I am not convinced that it is appropriate on this thread, or that you really are interested in examining this issue. Forgive me for suspecting that your moral outrage over my supposed attack on atheists in my previous post is an exercise in rhetoric on your part.

ItalianGold interpolating my statement:
Rather it is an expression of chronological snobbery (I've been meaning to ask someone what that means), bias and prejudice - in other words, a replay of the same absolutist moral imperative you seem to find so repulsive.

How exactly?

Chronological snobbery, a term originally coined by C.S. Lewis, is the belief that one is wiser and smarter than people of the past. It refers to the uncritical acceptance of the intellectual climate common to our own age and the assumption that whatever has gone before is on that account discredited. This often takes the form of contempt for past virtues and ideas because they're not "hot off the press".

‘Chronological snobbery is the presumption, fueled by the modern conception of progress, that all thinking, all art, and all science of an earlier time are inherently inferior, indeed childlike or even imbecilic, compared to that of the present. Under the rule of chronological snobbery, the West has convinced itself that "intellectually, humanity languished for countless generations in the most childish errors on all sorts of crucial subjects, until it was redeemed by some simple scientific dictum of the last century" . It has become to believe that "anything more than a hundred years old is ancient" and "in the world of books, or opinions about books, the age at which senility sets in has now been reduced to about ten" .’
Owen Barfield

It pretty much describes the skeptical mindset. It is absolutist in that the holders of such views, while often professing a belief in relativism, actually stand in judgment and condemnation upon the past, usually based upon some shifting and changeable standard or value that is dominant in the present. Such condemnation is usually accompanied (ironically) by the fulsome moral outrage of an Old Testament prophet.

In response to my comment to Jimbo”
I think you need to express your views less emotionally, and more rationally, and with a greater appreciation of the nuanced theological issues at stake. If you are theologically unsophisticated or even illiterate then it might be wiser to refrain from making such sweeping accusations at all.

ItalianGold said:
Well, hey there's a real UNEMOTIONAL statement.

Actually it is a purely descriptive comment based upon the naive views expressed by the original writer, indicating that he does not have a nuanced and sophisticated understanding of theology. There is no shame in being theologically illiterate or unsophisticated, none whatsoever, but we all must recognize our own limitations and not pretend to understand more than we actually do. Jimbo has begun several threads by requesting explanations about Christian beliefs and doctrines. That many of these could be considered disingenuous is evidenced by his use of ever changing names to sign off his posts ( now thankfully ceased) and his refusal to consider any answer given as satisfactory.

ItalianGold:
urban myth? historical snobbery? - Not sure what this means. As for personal justification, try tuning into a few hours of TV-Evangelism and then come back and tell me that you 1) kept a straight face b) didn't cringe and c)"felt the love"

You are now up-to-speed on the concept of historical (chronological) snobbery... I think you feign ignorance about the nature of “urban myths”.

I don’t think it’s actually possible in my country to tune into a few hours of TV evangelism unless one gets up at 2 am. Even if I was interested in watching televangelists why on earth are you bringing this into the discussion from way out in left field? Why is Jimbo any less responsible for the views of atheist extremists and dunderheads than you seek to make me for Christian extremists and dunderheads?

Finally ItalianGold asserted:
Just so you know, I am NOT an atheist.

That is not saying much, the vast majority of human beings of the past and the present have also not been atheists…

Mark

Jin-Roh

February 22nd 2003, 02:43 PM

You don't believe in Santa Claus do you? Niether did Stalin, Mao or Hitler. They are linked by this shared nonbelief in Santa Claus-and you are linked to them as well. Their murders of millions of people is clearly the result of non-belief in Santa Claus. Asantaism is obviously a dangerous and destructive philosophical position.

False analogy.

No communist ever stated "Santa Claus is the opaite of the masses."

jimbo

February 22nd 2003, 08:02 PM

Jin Roh,

False analogy.

No communist ever stated "Santa Claus is the opaite of the masses."

Christians say that Santa Claus is the opiate of small children. Like these Christians, Mao, Stalin and Hitler did not believe in Santa Claus. Christians and these dictators share the ideology of asantaism.

Jimbo

Snowball

February 22nd 2003, 11:53 PM

I'm new to this forum, but in reading these threads I find it painfully evident that non-Christians really don't have a clue as to what Christians actually believe. :argh:

I guess it is good that they come here and try to burn straw men -- at least that way people like markg can teach them a thing or two.

From one evangelical to another, markg, thanks! :thumb:

jimbo

February 23rd 2003, 12:49 AM

Snowball,

I'm new to this forum, but in reading these threads I find it painfully evident that non-Christians really don't have a clue as to what Christians actually believe.

I used to be a Christian and I have read the Bible. I know what Christians believe.

The question that started this thread was: why do atheists evangelize? Let me ask you a question. If you discovered that Christianity was false, would you make any effort whatseover to tell anyone else?

Jimbo

jimbo

February 23rd 2003, 01:20 AM

Jin-Roh,

Besides, I don't think markg (feel free to correct me on this one). was using that so much as attack on atheism, but as an illustration that objection to Christianity on the basis of "the murdering extremists" is a mute point becuase athesim has not shown itself to be any better when measured by that same rod.

It is a strawman. These dictators did not kill in the name of "atheism" but in the name of national socialism, communism, and to effect the "Final Solution." Atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief in a god or gods. That's all. People do not kill for "atheism." People DO kill in the name of their gods, however.

Jimbo

spl_cadet

February 23rd 2003, 01:23 AM

02-22-2003 @ 08:49 PM
jimbo:
If you discovered that Christianity was false, would you make any effort whatseover to tell anyone else?

No.

spl_cadet

February 23rd 2003, 01:24 AM

Oh, and it's St Ignatius of Loyola not St. Ignition. That's really been bugging me.

flipper

February 23rd 2003, 01:30 AM

Snowball:
Jimbo:
I find it painfully evident that non-Christians really don't have a clue as to what Christians actually believe.

Nice generalizing smear. Like all good generalizations, it's quite inaccurate. I also think it's quite hard to generalize about what it is that Christians actually believe because there's so many different kinds of Christian - apparently you don't. The number of schisms and heresies that have characterised the Christian churches should tell you that.

As it happens, I read quite a lot of Christian apologetics because I think it is vital to be aware of the best arguments against your position. I am not going to go to the level of learning aramaic or hebrew to help me in my exegesis (which is generally something I don't bother with anyway, as most of the roots of my disagreements with the bible can be found in Genesis). I note that most Christians don't bother with that either.

jimbo

February 23rd 2003, 03:17 AM

spl_cadet,

jimbo:
If you discovered that Christianity was false, would you make any effort whatseover to tell anyone else?

spl_cadet: No.

What if your young daughter was being taunted and bullied by a bunch of other children who threatend her with eternal torture in hell for not going to church? Would you inform these children that they were wrong? And would you tell your daughter that these other children were wrong? Or would you just sit by and do nothing?

St Ignatius of Loyola

Thanks.

Jimbo

Alden

February 23rd 2003, 06:06 AM

02-22-2003 @ 09:20 PM
jimbo:

Jin-Roh,

It is a strawman. These dictators did not kill in the name of "atheism" but in the name of national socialism, communism, and to effect the "Final Solution."
Jimbo

you seem to fail to realize that, as has already been stated, atheism is a central concept in the aforementioned governments concepts of communism, etc...

jimbo

February 23rd 2003, 07:14 AM

Alden,

you seem to fail to realize that, as has already been stated, atheism is a central concept in the aforementioned governments concepts of communism, etc...

I understand your eagerness to associate atheism with all the evils of the world. but atheism is simply a nonbelief in a god or gods. That is all it is. It is not an ideology. The communists were atheists, but that does not mean that atheism is evil. The commies did not persecute, torture and massacre in the name of atheism, but rather they did it to maintain their corrupt hold on power.

Back to the topic of this thread: Why do atheists evangelize? Because like any other people who feel that they know the truth, they want to share their knowledge with others in order to benefit others.

Jimbo

markg

February 23rd 2003, 10:31 AM

Jimbo, I don't care if you are the pope's son. And it makes no difference if you declare:

“I used to be a Christian and I have read the Bible. I know what Christians believe.”

Your knowledge of Christian theology is abysmal. I am not saying this as some sort of rhetorical piece of one-upmanship. Rather, I simply cannot take seriously your demand for ‘yes’ and ‘no’ answers to questions that you have framed based upon a completely false and uninformed understanding of the Bible’s teaching about the soul or hell or “evil unbelievers” or whatever. I find it inexcusable that you can describe yourself as a former Christian or as someone who has really read the Bible but then write as one who has apparently only splashed around in the toddler’s pool instead of diving into the deep end of the big kid’s pool. It is not that Answers are not appropriate to even the most basic honest enquiries; it is that I cannot take your presence here, and that of a few more of your “soul-mates” as anything more than troll-like in its intent.

You knowledge of history, particularly the history of Communism, totalitarianism and the Soviet Union in the 20th century is equally abysmal. If you had pondered rather than merely snipped my comments about Marxism and atheism, you would have been a little wiser and we would have been spared your truly embarrassing and sophomoric diversion about Santa Claus. We would also have been spared such naïve diatribes as this:

‘It is a strawman. These dictators did not kill in the name of "atheism" but in the name of national socialism, communism, and to effect the "Final Solution." Atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief in a god or gods. That's all. People do not kill for "atheism." People DO kill in the name of their gods.’

You may - or perhaps may not - have heard of a very famous book written by Arthur Koestler, a Marxist who woke up from the utopian dream turned nightmare that was Communism and whose expose was entitled “The God That Failed”…

You may reassure yourself that the dialectical materialism of Marxism has no connection to atheism, or that the kind of atheism you espouse means nothing more than a lack of belief in God rather than militant and obsessive hatred of religion and God. Or that National Socialism was really about “Christian extremism” and not born of a debased Neitschean atheism and glorification of the ubermenschen coupled with Social Darwinism and an obsession with “blood and soil”. Or that the butchery and democide of the 20th century was really due to people killing in the name of their religion and not largely the work of men without God. You live in a free country and, I guess, ignorance is a right guaranteed by your constitution.

Let me repeat it again: Atheism was an essential ideological component in all Marxist/Leninist/Stalinist regimes. It was not a mere add-on or an afterthought; it was a foundational principle of Marxism. Karl Marx himself asserted: "Communism begins at the outset...with atheism." Marx of course was a passionate and violent atheist and anti-theist with a profound hatred of Christianity, as have been all the Marxist ideologues and “revolutionaries” who have followed in his footsteps – Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, etc.

From its origins the Marxist philosophical tradition has been irrevocable linked with atheism. Marxists have always taken pride in proclaiming that Marxist ideology is at its root a thorough scientific critique of religion. Thus aggressive and intolerant atheism has always played a central role in the world's Marxist regimes. For example leading historians specializing in Russian history such as James Thrower and Bohdan Bocuirkiw have clearly shown that militant atheism coupled with the suppression and persecution of religious faith, had a high priority with all Soviet leaders up to and including Gorbachev.

Marxist- Leninism has always aimed at the “demystification” and “destruction” of all religious beliefs and sentiments. Thus State enforced atheism was the order of the day throughout Soviet history. Every school student and every university student was made to attend compulsory courses on atheism right up until the fall of Communism. This atheism even had its own official title: "scientific atheism" with its own chairs of scientific atheism in the universities; it was promulgated in a blizzard of pamphlets, books, posters and lectures. Accompanying the anti-religious propaganda was some of the most savage persecution of believers and clergy witnessed in history, along with the wholesale destruction of churches and cathedrals.

The Government sponsored its oown atheist journal entitled "the Godless" and by the early 1930s the official policy of attacking and persecuting religion had spawned the League of the Militant Godless - its motto" struggle against religion is the struggle for socialism" (I am not making this up!) - which had a membership of 5.5 million - several million more than the Communist party itself. Soviet intolerance towards any faith in God was an inseparable part of Marxist Leninist doctrine and persecution of religious believers was ongoing throughout the 70+ years of the regime's existence. The Black Book of Communism puts the victims of Marxism in the 20th century as a MINIMUM of 100 million.

Read, research, find out the facts and then come back and tell me atheism is a pure as the driven snow…

Let me now deal with your recent questions:

Jimbo:
“Do you believe in hell?
Do you believe in the biblical doctrine of hell?”

Yes, I most certainly do affirm the Biblical doctrine of hell, but not the caricature of it which you are obsessed with - that of a cosmic torture chamber, or even the caricature of it that many theologically illiterate Christians may hold. I don’t look to the naïve if totally sincere beliefs of little lambs for theological knowledge. I do often look to them for lessons about trust and faith, though.

The question that you need to address first is: What is the Biblical doctrine of hell? And how does it compare and contrast to the notion that you hold?

Jimbo:
“What do you think the fate of unbelievers is?”

My thoughts on the issue are irrelevant as it is thankfully not my call. I leave such matters to the One who judges justly and impartially. But I suggest that the Apostle Paul’s words to the Christians in Rome might repay careful reading and reflection:

“God will give to each person according to what he has done. To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For God does not show favoritism.

All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.”

…
You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!
…
Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death.

Your inclusion of the quote from Psalm 14 ([the fool has said in his heart there is no God...] shows your misunderstanding of the context. This passage is not about some evil “them” distinct from good “us”; it is about the universal human condition; how all of us can easily fall into moral laxity or moral cowardice and thereby deny any profession of religion or goodness. The “fool” who says there is no God, refers in Hebrew to the morally deficient person, Jew or Gentile, who by his immorality effectively mocks the reality of God.

Jimbo:
“If you knew that Christianity was false, would you make any attempt whatsoever to inform anyone else of this?”

I do not know Christianity to be false. It rings true to me, both in its assessment of the human condition and in its remedy. This kind of hypothetical question is another example of the tail wagging the dog. If you “know” Christianity to be false and I “know” it to be true then like a good subjectivist and relativist you should respect my position and not seek to impose your personal feelings and ideas upon me. On the other hand if I as a objectivist know Christianity to be true perhaps it is my duty to inform you of this fact, because it remains true whether you believe it or not and thus you cannot escape the consequences that flow from its objective reality. Personally I am not able to live up to this as I do not care what you believe. Well, I do, but not enough to stop you making your own choices and decisions.

In conclusion let me admit I am on a learning curve in life; I do not have it all worked out, nor do I have all the answers. Nor do I ever expect to in this life. For I’m peering though a dim and dusty mirror; I see glimpses of glory amidst the mist and murk and I think I catch sight of a heavenly city from time to time but mostly I see men like trees walking around. I long to soar on wings of eagles but mostly I slither on my belly like a snake. But I have found, or perhaps have been found, by the only one who has the words of eternal life and having encountered him, where else can I go? I cannot be true to what I have found and go back into my old skin nor would I enter the cold hard steel box of naturalism and atheism, a box locked firmly and defiantly from the inside. I have more than enough serious questions, doubts and fears of my own to deal with, without having to listen to adolescent mockery. I am not always sure of “the truth” but I hold the hand of one who says “I am”.

After this post I do not think there will be much profit to be had in my responding to your questions and declarations. I suspect you of disingenuity: I doubt that you are a sincere and honest seeker, your mind appears to be already made up, and you are here for sport having chosen your own path. Fine, I can respect that, in a limp, post-modern kind of way. But don’t come whinging about there not being compulsory fun and games for all on judgment day or moaning about the fact that if one reaps what one sows that is some kind of nightmare dredged up from Hellraiser I.

Each day has more than enough troubles of its own for me to waste my time kicking against the pricks.

mark

jimbo

February 23rd 2003, 03:00 PM

markg,

Communists disavow established religions because communism itself is a form of religion. But communism and atheism are not one and the same thing. Atheists on this board are not communists or dictators. I well understand the desire to link atheism with evil--after all, that is precisely what the Bible does. But it just doesn't wash.

As I said, unbelievers are portrayed as evil by the Bible. The Bible says that unbelievers will go to hell when they die. I have had several Christians tell me that I will go to hell and suffer terribly when I die. You seem to be at least implying it here: "But don’t come whinging (sic) about there not being compulsory fun and games for all on judgment day." Throughout history Christians preachers have railed on and on about the torments of hell.

Atheists think that Christians are being mislead and so they try and tell them that. That is why atheists "evangelize." If you realized that Christianity was false, you would try and inform others that it was false--if you were a morally righteous and caring person that is.

Jimbo

Piebald

February 23rd 2003, 07:45 PM

unbelievers are portrayed as evil by the Bible. The Bible says that unbelievers will go to hell when they die.

The Bible says that all deserve hell, and it's only through unmerited grace that believers enter heaven.

"But don’t come whinging (sic)

That's how "Whining" is spelled in certain non-American countries.

Alden

February 24th 2003, 06:35 AM

:rofl:

Vorkosigan

February 25th 2003, 09:57 AM

02-23-2003 @ 10:06 AM
Alden:

you seem to fail to realize that, as has already been stated, atheism is a central concept in the aforementioned governments concepts of communism, etc...

Really? But there are theistic communists. The Communists in the USSR killed for the same reason that all authoritarian belief systems killed for: because they cannot tolerate a thought that is not their own. That is true of the more militant forms of Christianity, Islam, Nationalism, Facism, etc. Once people have the idea that authority for their behavior lies outside of their own mind, the end result is always a bloody mess, whether they cite Marx, Jesus or Mohammed.

A little history might be in order here. The Communists killed numerous atheists, from Buddhists to freethinkers, including other Communists. They killed them because they fear alternative forms of thought and authority. If atheism is so deadly, why do other atheistic forms of belief -- Buddhist, Confucian, metaphysical naturalism -- exhibit such high levels of tolerance for religious thought and theistic belief?

Alden

February 26th 2003, 04:57 AM

Atheism and Communism are closely related in the history of the 20th century, as all of the major communists countries of the cold war era (China, North Korea, the Soviet Union) enforced a strictly atheistic social perspective, and actively crushed any religious activity within their borders.

In Marx's communist society...religion would become unnecessary - hence a communist society would also be an atheistic one.
http://66.34.103.193/ufc/Religions/Atheism/Atheism.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

02-25-2003 @ 05:57 AM
Vorkosigan:
Really?

Yes, really.

But there are theistic communists. The Communists in the USSR killed for the same reason that all authoritarian belief systems killed for: because they cannot tolerate a thought that is not their own. That is true of the more militant forms of Christianity, Islam, Nationalism, Facism, etc. Once people have the idea that authority for their behavior lies outside of their own mind, the end result is always a bloody mess, whether they cite Marx, Jesus or Mohammed.

yes, it's true that there are theistic communists, but that is not the point here. My statement was directed toward Jimbo, who said that the aforementioned dictators did not kill in the name of atheism. I was simply stating that Atheism was a central concept of these governments, which it was. They most definitely held with marx's "opiate of the masses" statement. I wasn't seeking to say that atheism is responsable for every travesty unleashed on mankind, only that atheism and communism are very closely related.

A little history might be in order here. The Communists killed numerous atheists, from Buddhists to freethinkers, including other Communists. They killed them because they fear alternative forms of thought and authority. If atheism is so deadly, why do other atheistic forms of belief -- Buddhist, Confucian, metaphysical naturalism -- exhibit such high levels of tolerance for religious thought and theistic belief?

This isn't "history," it is a statement. For this to be history, it should be accompanied by dates and facts.

INDIA
New Christians in northeastern Indian state of Nagaland are standing up for the faith despite incredible persecution. An indigenous evangelist with Gospel Revival Ministries visited some 48 converts recently. He says one month after they came to Christ, Buddhist priests assembled the whole community. That's when community leaders publicly beat these new Christians and drove them out of their village.
buddhist persecution of christians (http://www.strategicnetwork.org/index.asp?loc=pray&mode=v&type=&id=539)

That's pretty tolerant huh?:bonk:

flipper

February 26th 2003, 10:58 AM

Alden:

That is shameful and I have little doubt that most Buddhists would condemn such a thing outright. However, I think you'd be fairly hard-pressed to paint the history of Buddhism as anything like as bloody as Christianity or Islam. Buddhism certainly does not have a flawless record (Japanese Zen apologists for Japan's war of agression in WW2 is another good example) , and it is still vulnerable to local, cultural, and nationalist pressures but arguably less so than a great many of the other world religions.

We could play the reference game if you like, and I bet I could paint Christianity as a much bloodier engine - we could start with some links detailing the role of the Christian church in Rwanda - but what's the point?

Alden

February 26th 2003, 08:03 PM

That is shameful and I have little doubt that most Buddhists would condemn such a thing outright. However, I think you'd be fairly hard-pressed to paint the history of Buddhism as anything like as bloody as Christianity or Islam. Buddhism certainly does not have a flawless record (Japanese Zen apologists for Japan's war of agression in WW2 is another good example) , and it is still vulnerable to local, cultural, and nationalist pressures but arguably less so than a great many of the other world religions.

We could play the reference game if you like, and I bet I could paint Christianity as a much bloodier engine - we could start with some links detailing the role of the Christian church in Rwanda - but what's the point?

Flipper-

You have missed my point entirely.

I was not trying to say that Buddhism is "bad, violent, terrible," or whatever. I posted that in response to someone who made what sounded like an absolute statement regarding the "high tolerance" of other "atheistic forms of belief." This assertion was flawed and any kind of factual support. My response was to that.

It seems that we are playing the "Philosophy/religion A is worse than b" game. Who cares about the amount of horrible things that have happened? That is not the point. The point is that Atheism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, etc, are not faultless. This has been my contention from the beginning.

jimbo

February 27th 2003, 05:27 AM

Alden,

Atheism is not an ideology or a religion. It is simply the absence of a belief. I don't think it is correct to lump it in together with ideologies and religions.

Jimbo

flipper

February 27th 2003, 06:37 AM

I would agree with you. However, I would also contend that the hands of Buddhism are much less bloody than the other big three, on the whole, so Vorkosigan's point still seems to stand.

Of course, some major Buddhist traditions are theistic.

Vorkosigan

February 27th 2003, 08:10 AM

[QUOTE][i]02-27-2003 @ 12:03 AM

I was not trying to say that Buddhism is "bad, violent, terrible," or whatever. I posted that in response to someone who made what sounded like an absolute statement regarding the "high tolerance" of other "atheistic forms of belief." This assertion was flawed and any kind of factual support. My response was to that.

Hmmm... I suggest you sit back and do some reading on the problems in that part of India. The strife between Christianity and other religions there is not one-sided. In many places where Christians are the majority in Nagaland, they have forbidden other religious practices. Naturally there is a counterattack. It is not for nothing that Gandhi wished devoutly that missionaries be forbidden. But that is a side issue.

I used the phrase "high tolerance" not "perfectly tolerant." In general, Buddhism is far more tolerant than Christianity of other religions. No one who knew anything about history would dispute that. So why the straw man?

It seems that we are playing the "Philosophy/religion A is worse than b" game. Who cares about the amount of horrible things that have happened? That is not the point. The point is that Atheism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, etc, are not faultless. This has been my contention from the beginning

No, your contention was that atheism was somehow to blame for the problems Communism has with religion. But everywhere we see other forms of atheisms -- metaphysical naturalism, Buddhism, Confucianism, and various others -- they are generally highly tolerant of other religious beliefs (note that I didn't say "perfectly tolerant"). For example, Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism all co-exist peacefully in China, sometimes in the same individual. Only Communism among atheisms behaves in this way; further, it behaves this way toward a host of competing authoritarian and totalizing beliefs -- monarchism, facism, right-wing capitalistic conservatism. The fundamental issue is not atheism per se, but Communist intolerance of any other form of thought, including religious thought.

Communist persecution of atheists who are not Communist is well known (read up on Tibet lately??).

Atheism is just a lack of belief in god. It has no particular ethical stance, except to say that ethics cannot be god-derived. Any behavior engaged in by atheists, such as persecuting theists, must have some other ethical basis than atheism. Like Communism, for example -- an authoritarian belief with strong similarities to Christianity, Islam, or Facism.

Vorkosigan

citizenkyle

February 27th 2003, 01:28 PM

I somewhat skimmed the thread, so my apologizes if I repeat anything that has already been stated.

Here's my take on "why do atheists evangelize?". I would suggest that the question itself is misleading. Atheists may evanglelize, but generally not for "pure atheism". In other words, atheism, in and of itself, is not much of a position. If a person's entire belief system consisted of the idea that "there is no God", I don't think they'd bother with evangelizing. However, as some in this thread have noted, atheism is not a "stand alone" worldview. It is a component of several different worldviews, including communism, Objectivism, and my own--secular humanism. And it is with these broader worldviews in mind that people usually evangelize. Why? The reasons may differ from view to view. Generally speaking though, I would say that people think the world would be a better place if others shared their worldview.

crazyfingers

February 27th 2003, 10:43 PM

02-23-2003 @ 03:53 AM
Snowball:

I'm new to this forum, but in reading these threads I find it painfully evident that non-Christians really don't have a clue as to what Christians actually believe. :argh:

The problem of course is that there are about as many types of christians as there are christians. Christians can't seem to even agree among themselves what the TRUE belief is.

spl_cadet

February 27th 2003, 10:45 PM

02-27-2003 @ 06:43 PM
crazyfingers:
The problem of course is that there are about as many types of christians as there are christians. Christians can't seem to even agree among themselves what the TRUE belief is.

That's why you simply look back in history to see what the true belief is.

crazyfingers

February 27th 2003, 10:51 PM

02-28-2003 @ 02:45 AM
spl_cadet:

That's why you simply look back in history to see what the true belief is.

Oh? And what is the TRUE belief?

RufusAtticus

February 27th 2003, 11:06 PM

If no one has mentioned it before:

Atheists who evangelize do so because they were taught so as Christians. The only fundy atheists that I know, are ones who used to be fundy christians. Old habits are hard to break.

RufusAtticus

February 27th 2003, 11:08 PM

02-27-2003 @ 09:45 PM
spl_cadet:
That's why you simply look back in history to see what the true belief is.

Well looking at history, I can see that "the true belief" with respect to baptism is to sprinkle and not dunk. Of course I know many baptists who'd violently oppose such a statement. But then again, I know many catholics who'd violently support such a statement. Catholics win by precident in my book.

Edit to add:
Doh, I didn't realize that you were such a catholic when I posted this, so the point I'm trying to get across probably won't work.

Let me try something else. The Catholic and Orthodox churches are equally old. Which one has historical precident on the other?

spl_cadet

February 27th 2003, 11:19 PM

02-27-2003 @ 06:51 PM
crazyfingers:
Oh? And what is the TRUE belief?

The one started by Jesus. Which, if you follow the trail of history and add in a slight test of orthodoxy turns out to be the Catholic Church.

crazyfingers

February 27th 2003, 11:27 PM

I do not think that very many atheists evangelize - at least not for nontheism. Most atheists are generally in the closet for the simple reason that there is so much bigotry directed against atheists in this predominantly theistic world and the US in particular.

If there is anything that I could be described as evangelizing for, it would be for strong separation between church and state and for equal respect and dignity for nontheists as well as theists – essentially civil rights issues. I am sick and tired of hearing people say that nontheists have no morals because they don’t believe in a god. I’m very tired of a government that proselytizes religion and has a motto that states that the preferred belief is monotheism. It’s not the place for this secular government to tell anyone what the preferred belief is. And I am really tired of having to worry that my livelihood could be damaged simply because either an employer or a client find out that I do not believe in a particular fairy tale.

crazyfingers

February 27th 2003, 11:28 PM

02-28-2003 @ 03:19 AM
spl_cadet:

The one started by Jesus. Which, if you follow the trail of history and add in a slight test of orthodoxy turns out to be the Catholic Church.

Please demonstrate that the Catholic Church represents the true belief.

spl_cadet

February 27th 2003, 11:48 PM

02-27-2003 @ 07:28 PM
crazyfingers:
Please demonstrate that the Catholic Church represents the true belief.

Sure.
In Matthew 16:18 we can see that Christ founds a Church (incidentally on St. Peter but that's another thing). If you go back from now, you'll see Protestant denominations start popping as they were formed. When you get to the 15th century, no Protestants. Only the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches. You go back another half millenia and you have only one Church due to the unfortunate split in 1054. Now then, on to the orthodoxy test since we have to determine which of these is the one founded by Christ and which is the schismatic. For 1900 years, until the Lambeth Conference in 1930, all of Christianity had proclaimed the use of contraceptives to be immoral. Now only the Catholic Church holds to the orthodox view as the Orthodox Churches allow the use of barrier contraceptives. Therefore, they must be false due to Christ's promise about His Church also in that verse.

crazyfingers

February 27th 2003, 11:54 PM

02-28-2003 @ 03:48 AM
spl_cadet:

Sure.
In Matthew 16:18 we can see that Christ founds a Church (incidentally on St. Peter but that's another thing). If you go back from now, you'll see Protestant denominations start popping as they were formed. When you get to the 15th century, no Protestants. Only the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches. You go back another half millenia and you have only one Church due to the unfortunate split in 1054. Now then, on to the orthodoxy test since we have to determine which of these is the one founded by Christ and which is the schismatic. For 1900 years, until the Lambeth Conference in 1930, all of Christianity had proclaimed the use of contraceptives to be immoral. Now only the Catholic Church holds to the orthodox view as the Orthodox Churches allow the use of barrier contraceptives. Therefore, they must be false due to Christ's promise about His Church also in that verse.

Nothing there demonstrates that the Catholic Church represents the true belief. To be a true belief, the teachings of the catholic church have to be correct.

spl_cadet

February 28th 2003, 12:13 AM

02-27-2003 @ 07:54 PM
crazyfingers:
Nothing there demonstrates that the Catholic Church represents the true belief. To be a true belief, the teachings of the catholic church have to be correct.

Actually it rather does. Christ promised that Hell wouldn't prevail against His Church so by default whatever Church survives both the orthodoxy and historical tests is the true Church with all the true teachings. Besides, I've never yet seen someone show a teaching of the Church to be false.

spl_cadet

February 28th 2003, 12:14 AM

02-27-2003 @ 07:08 PM
RufusAtticus:
Let me try something else. The Catholic and Orthodox churches are equally old. Which one has historical precident on the other?

Neither really. However, that's why I have the orthodoxy test which I explained in my post to crazyfingers.

Sauron

February 28th 2003, 01:47 AM

I don't think atheists evangelize, so much as they resist indoctrination by the majority culture.

The majority culture in this country, being judeo-christian, sees the attempt to resist that indoctrination, as well as the explanation for resisting it, as an attempt to evangelize.

It really isn't evangelization. But christians are conditioned to view each person they meet in terms of their "evangelization potential" ie., they're either a christian, or a target to be evangelized.

So when they see the atheist resisting and explaining, the christian interprets that through their "evangelization bifocals".

Jin-Roh

March 2nd 2003, 01:50 AM

:no:

Communists disavow established religions because communism itself is a form of religion. But communism and atheism are not one and the same thing. Atheists on this board are not communists or dictators.

Hmm, Atheists on this board are not Communists dictators. Communism and Atheism are not the same thing. Because of all this Atheism and Communism cannot be linked.

Therefore the Christians on this board are not members of the Spanish Inquisition. Christianity and the crusades are not the same thing. That was a particular form of religion, and Christianity was only part of it. It was actually mostly a political maneuver…

If you can make the arbitrary separation between Communist violence and atheism, then we as Christians are able to do the same in regards to violence in the name of God. Rendering this argument:

We have seen throughout history that Christian extremists have persecuted, tortured and slaughtered those who did not share their religious beliefs. These Christian extremists were apparently unwilling to wait for God to torture unbelievers in the afterlife. Thankfully Christians lost their power over society in the last few centuries and so the excesses of Christian extremists has been curbed. What we are seeing coming from the Muslim extremists today is similar to what we saw from the Christian extremists of yesteryear. Christian extremists of yesteryear regarded infidels as agents of Satan-and reacted accordingly. Muslim extremists today regard all non-Muslims as agents of Satan and are acting in that belief. They think it is their duty to make the entire world Muslim, just as the Christians of yesteryear thought it was their duty to make the entire world Christian.

…completely impotent

Unless of course, there is a double standard.

:argh:

Jin-Roh

March 2nd 2003, 01:56 AM

02-27-2003 @ 09:47 PM
Sauron:

I don't think atheists evangelize, so much as they resist indoctrination by the majority culture.

The majority culture in this country, being judeo-christian, sees the attempt to resist that indoctrination, as well as the explanation for resisting it, as an attempt to evangelize.

It really isn't evangelization. But christians are conditioned to view each person they meet in terms of their "evangelization potential" ie., they're either a christian, or a target to be evangelized.

So when they see the atheist resisting and explaining, the christian interprets that through their "evangelization bifocals".

I dunno.

A friend of mine over at our Junior College was reading his Bible one day (minding his own businesses) and this guy (who we affectionantly refer to as "Atheist Al") came up and give him a nice bit of "that book is stupid" attack.

I can think of a few more people who like to pick on Christians the same way.

I'd also like to ask how Jimbo wanting to "help us out of delusion" is somehow resisting indoctrination.

jimbo

March 2nd 2003, 02:20 AM

Jin-Roh,

I'd also like to ask how Jimbo wanting to "help us out of delusion" is somehow resisting indoctrination.

A person who resists Christian indoctrination can help Christians see through their false beliefs.

Jimbo

crazyfingers

March 2nd 2003, 08:27 PM

02-28-2003 @ 04:13 AM
spl_cadet:

Actually it rather does. Christ promised that Hell wouldn't prevail against His Church so by default whatever Church survives both the orthodoxy and historical tests is the true Church with all the true teachings.

That Christianity exists says nothing about whether it's right. It says nothing about whether Christ existed, whether he was a god, whether the Christian god exists.

Besides, I've never yet seen someone show a teaching of the Church to be false.

Actually, it's your job to demonstrate that Christianity is right. You can start by showing that your god exists.

spl_cadet

March 2nd 2003, 08:37 PM

03-02-2003 @ 04:27 PM
crazyfingers:
That Christianity exists says nothing about whether it's right. It says nothing about whether Christ existed, whether he was a god, whether the Christian god exists.

Well, the two tests I mentioned do operate under the assumption that Christianity is true which is what I thought you were asking for. As for the rest of your stuff:
1. That Christ existed is supported by so much evidence it's really fallacious to even suggest that He didn't.
2. Well, His divine claims are rather numerous and are connected to...
3. His Resurrection which kinda proves all that stuff. (www.geocities.com/spl_cadet/apol/resurrection.html)

Jin-Roh

March 2nd 2003, 08:53 PM

1. That Christ existed is supported by so much evidence it's really fallacious to even suggest that He didn't.

:thumb:

I'm sure that if people ask, many of us on theist camp would be willing to give any of the skeptics reason to know that a man named Jesus walked around the earth in the sometime around the first century in the middle east. Trying to disprove the existance of Jesus is, in the words of Dr. Yamuguchi, "a Lost Cause."

I'd also like to point out that God exists or does not exists regardless of our oponions. So I'd like to ask the skeptics to get off these "Christianity sucks" and "you people are deluded" standpoints.

crazyfingers

March 2nd 2003, 08:56 PM

03-03-2003 @ 12:37 AM
spl_cadet:

Well, the two tests I mentioned do operate under the assumption that Christianity is true which is what I thought you were asking for. As for the rest of your stuff:
1. That Christ existed is supported by so much evidence it's really fallacious to even suggest that He didn't.

Show me evidence that he existed. I believe that the evidence is slim.

2. Well, His divine claims are rather numerous and are connected to...

There is nothing to show that he was devine. There is just the Bible that could easily be 100% fantasy as regards to his divinity.

3. His Resurrection which kinda proves all that stuff. (www.geocities.com/spl_cadet/apol/resurrection.html)

That link is a laugh. You do realize that the first secular records of a suggestion that Jesus even existed was not written until about 70 years after? And those writings by Tacitus only mention that the Christians believed that their leader was killed. Nothing about a resurection. That story would be written later.....

Do you believe in Who's just because Horton is said to have heard them in a book of fiction?

crazyfingers

March 2nd 2003, 08:59 PM

03-03-2003 @ 12:53 AM
Jin-Roh:

So I'd like to ask the skeptics to get off these "Christianity sucks" and "you people are deluded" standpoints.

I have not said that Christianity sucks. I have challenged you to demoinstrate that there is any evidence that essential christian doctrine is true. I think that it's up to you to show that your god exists. It's not up to us to show that it doesn't.

Vorkosigan

March 2nd 2003, 09:46 PM

3. His Resurrection which kinda proves all that stuff. (www.geocities.com/spl_cadet/apol/resurrection.html)

Cadet....that article is full of errors, misunderstandings, and impoverished presentations.

The biggest problem for the myth theory is that it requires several generations to pass in order for myth to arise without eyewitnesses who would contradict it.

This is of course false. As we know from the experience of the Lubavitchers, who made Rebbe Schneerson the Messiah while he was still alive, and infirm from a stroke, and now attribute miracles and divine status to him. And he died in the 1990s.

However as archeologist William Albright stated, then the world’s foremost authority on biblical archeology
"We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today."

There is nothing radical about a date after 80 for most of the NT books, that is in fact the mainstream position -- see Kirby's wonderful website www.earlychristianwritings.com for a range of dates that are given for most books. Only the most conservative scholars date the entire NT before 80.

In addition, the part of the Gospel according to Mark which involves the Resurrection is dated to approximately 39 AD (only a few years after the events).

No one has demonstrated that part of the Gospel of Mark dates to 39. Citation, please.

But let’s assume that the New Testament did take several generations before being writtten down. In that case let’s use the letters of St. Paul. There is no doubt that these were written while there still witnesses who could refute them if they were false. So what does St. Paul say? “And that he was buried, and that he rose again on the third day, according to the scriptures:?

An interesting claim that, in light of the fact that there is no such scripture that claims that for the messiah. Also, what makes you think the refutations of witnesses would be preserved? Do you think that Paul's insistence on the Resurrection implies that there were in fact those who denied it ever happened?

(First Corinthians 15:4). Now then, is this letter (and the rest of his letters) myth?

No, but this passage has all the earmarks of a later interpolation. See Price's article here (http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/rp1cor15.html)

Of course not, where are the several generations needed for the myth to come about and be accepted due to lack of remaining witnesses?

An additional problem with this claim is that it is circular. The circularity runs like this:

A. Jesus was executed in the 30s.
B. How do you know?
A. Because the gospels are reliable.
B. How do you know they are reliable?
A. Because the gospels were written within 40 years of the events.
B. How do you know they were written within 40 years of the events?
A: Because they are reliable!

Of course, there are a couple of schools of NT thinking that Paul's letters are all second century forgeries. Certainly the Pastorals are, for example.

If it isn’t, then the Gospels aren’t myth either because the letters of St. Paul echo the message of the Gospels.

They do not. Actually, Paul says very little about the historical Jesus, and certainly not when he was executed. There is a persistent tradition outside of the canon -- for example, in the Talmud -- that Jesus was executed more than a century earlier. An additional problem is that by the time the gospels were written, two crucifixion stories were running around, one that he was executed by Pilate, the other that he was executed by Herod (see the Gospel of Peter). As Loisy pointed out, Luke knows both of those stories, and has attempted to harmonize them with that odd sequence in which Jesus is shuffled back and forth between the two. Now, if "everyone knew" that Pilate executed Jesus in the 30s, how is it that there are several different stories about it?

Why would a myth have the first witnesses be women? In the society of that time women had low status and couldn’t legally serve as witnesses. A writer of a myth surely wouldn’t have had the first witnesses be those whose witness was worthless.

Women are prominent in dying-and-rising god myths. See, for example, the myth of Dionysus, where he is followed around by women, raised by a girl, etc.

St. Peter states that “We did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty.?(2 Peter 1:16 New American Bible).

2 Peter is a much later letter. Apocryphal, and not written by Peter.

As William Lane Craig notes:
"The Gospels are a miraculous story, and we have no other story handed down to us than that contained in the Gospels....

As Craig certainly knows, the 30-odd gospels contain many variations on the Jesus story -- that he wasn't executed by Pilate, that someone else died in his place, etc.

The letters of Barnabas and Clement refer to Jesus' miracles and resurrection. Polycarp mentions the resurrection of Christ, and Irenaeus relates that he had heard Polycarp tell of Jesus' miracles.

The author must know that Polycarp and Irenaeus are second century. Heck, Irenaeus was active around 180.

Ignatius speaks of the resurrection.

Even the letters accepted as authentic date from 110, and some scholars believe the whole kit and kiboodle are forgeries dating from the mid second-century.

Puadratus reports that persons were still living who had been healed by Jesus.

Who is this?

Justin Martyr mentions the miracles of Christ.

Writing in 150 AD....120 years after the events...

No relic of a non-miraculous story exists.

Wrong again. The 30 odd gospels contain many variations on the story, and the earliest writings -- Q -- contain no mention of the Resurrection either.

That the original story should be lost and replaced by another goes beyond any known example of corruption of even oral tradition, not to speak of the experience of written transmissions.

Incorrect again. The original Robin Hood and Arthur have been completely lost. Who was Jon Frum, the head of one of the Cargo cults? Nobody knows. And the cargo cults themselves have completely replaced the original story, which actually dates from the 19th century.

These facts show that the story in the Gospels was in substance the same story that Christians had at the beginning. This means...that the resurrection of Jesus was always a part of the story.

Meaningless. Similar tales are told all over the world. Are all of them true.

Also erroneous. In fact numerous variations are told on this story across the literature of early Christianity, and some, such as the sayings collection, do not contain the Resurrection.

So what must we conclude?

That the author of this piece didn't do his homework!

Vorkosigan

ACFaith.Com

March 3rd 2003, 02:33 PM

An additional problem with this claim is that it is circular. The circularity runs like this:

A. Jesus was executed in the 30s.
B. How do you know?
A. Because the gospels are reliable.
B. How do you know they are reliable?
A. Because the gospels were written within 40 years of the events.
B. How do you know they were written within 40 years of the events?
A: Because they are reliable!

Hi Vork :)

The gospels can be dated with a fair degree of certaintly though we do not have absolute assurance. I think the standard dating of ca 70 ad for Mark and Matt and Luke being 80-90 has decent attestation that has actually produced a consensus on the issue. I could cite the basic arguments if necessary.

Further, even if we are ultra-skeptical, general time limits are clearly put on the life of Jesus when the Gospels (and some of Paul!) are treated as hostile witnesses and studied through sober canons of historicity. This is the "outside vector" that is needed to avoid cirularity.

The general time frame of 7-4 B.C. to sometime around 30-34 A.D. seems well attested through various means.

Even if one goes so far as to dispute crucifixion under Pilate (whose reign can be datted), can it be reasonably disputed that Jesus was alive when Paul was converted? Probably not. That would impose an upper limit itself (later 30s). Can we show that Jesus' life overlapped with JBap's? I would say so on the basis of embarrassment and the baptism. There are other elements as well (e.g. Jesus had a brother named James (http://www.acfaith.com/jamesjesus.html) a la Paul, Josephus and GMark and Paul says to have known James personally, meaning he was still alive sometime before Paul's writing. Unless we say Joseph was 15 when he had Jesus and was 65 when he had James we see the basic 4bc to 30 ad time frame is generally supported by this as well. Also, in a verse that does not have any real significance to lucan theology, he says that Jesus was about 30 years old when he began his [short] ministry.

Overall, a lot of minor details would converge and make a persuasive case even if you dispute Matthew and Luke's alleged birth towards the end of Herod's reign (4bc) and even if you went so far as to dispite crucifixion under Pilate. The general time frame could be extended either way only slightly (more backwards than forwards) even if certain elements are disputed but not much at all from my perspective.

Meier's conclusions may be far too conservative for you but he offers a decent discussion on chronology in V1 Marginal, pp. 372-433.

Vinnie

Vorkosigan

March 4th 2003, 07:19 AM

Hello Vinnie! Good to see you here.

Further, even if we are ultra-skeptical, general time limits are clearly put on the life of Jesus when the Gospels (and some of Paul!) are treated as hostile witnesses and studied through sober canons of historicity. This is the "outside vector" that is needed to avoid cirularity.

The general time frame of 7-4 B.C. to sometime around 30-34 A.D. seems well attested through various means.

Yes, I understand the principle you are appealing to here. The problem is that the birth stories are calculating by extrapolating backwards from the stories in the gospels. As Ellegaard argued, the later writers looked back, saw that Paul -- who seems to have no idea when or where Jesus was executed -- was active in the 40s, and made the assumption. Paul cannot provide the vector that allows us to exit that circle, because the famous passage in 1 Cor is most probably a later interpolation.

That would impose an upper limit itself (later 30s). Can we show that Jesus' life overlapped with JBap's? I would say so on the basis of embarrassment and the baptism. There are other elements as well (e.g. Jesus had a brother named James a la Paul, Josephus and GMark and Paul says to have known James personally, meaning he was still alive sometime before Paul's writing.

That is only true if James was the actual physical brother of Jesus, and did not wield that phrase as a title, or, as the Spiritual Brother, like Hong Xiu-chuan and Nxele in our own time. Note that even though Paul uses the term "brother" James does not derive his authority from the blood relationship, but from his position in the Church based on visions of the Risen Jesus. Paul is very clear that legitimacy depends on seeing the vision, a common position in charismatic cult movements -- see Spence's wonderful study of the Taipings God's Chinese Son.

Finally, I believe that the passage is an interpolation, as Price argued, based on its (1) unique language (2) political stance (3) legendary structures and other features.

Also, you must be aware that the Slavonic Josephus places JBap in Archelaus' reign, some forty years earlier. I think JBap is in the gospels as a stock legendary character, and also because his followers were a big problem for later Christians. The various approaches to JBap in the Gospels/Acts (ex: Acs 19) represent attempts to Christianity to undermine his claims and show his inferiority to Jesus, in order to assimilate his supporters.

Meier's conclusions may be far too conservative for you but he offers a decent discussion on chronology in V1 Marginal, pp. 372-433.

I've already marked this out for my Next Big Purchase. Can't wait.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

March 28th 2003, 07:19 AM

I'm still waiting for an answer to my "On the eternal scale, what makes atheism worth fighting for?" question from the atheists though.

Nothing. How is "Lacking a belief in gods" worth fighting for? When one contemplates the body counts of authoritarian beliefs systems like Christianity, Communism, Islam, Facism and similar, I am quite relieved that atheism is neither worth fighting for, dying for, or especially, killing for.

There is nothing in atheism that compels anyone to anything. Whatever people kill and die for, it ain't the lack of a belief.

Why do atheists evangelize? You'll have to ask each one individually.

Vorkosigan

lordsnooty

March 28th 2003, 07:39 AM

02-20-2003 @ 10:06 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=19885#post19885)
Solly:
Like...like...

Oh yeh, ending slavery.
False assertion, this was not due to Christianity. In actual fact, a huge number of Christians opposed abolition. You may recall that they lived in the South.

raising of moral standards
Yes, by making sex 'dirty', by punishing people for ludicrous 'sins' (such as blasphemy) - oh, Christians rose the moral bar enormously!

inspiring scientific research on the basis of a rational explorable created universe.
Oh right, so you like science now. Except when it comes up with stuff you don't like, then it's part of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy.

Whereas the atheists, what do they have?
A genuine sense of morality, and a desire to do 'the right thing' for it's own sake, and not to try and earn brownie points with an invisible man.

Well, Nietzsche was an inspiration for Nazism. And they killed a lot of people. Stalin killed a lot of people. Moa killed a lot of people. Pol Pot killed a lot of people.
So did the famous Christian Adolf Hitler. And any other number of Christian leaders, now I come to think of it.

Abortionists kill a lot of people.
No, abortionists kill fetuses. A fetus is not a person, it's a small blob with no thoughts or feelings.

Drug pushers kill a lot of people.
Yes, all drug pushers are atheists.

Reckless Capitalists kill a lot of people.
Yes, all capitalists are atheists.

Oh, wait. Didn't we have the crusades and inquisition and stuff? But wasn't that based on a false premise of what Christianity is?
There's a nice double standard. Some atheists did evil things, but when people kill in the name of Christianity - that's because it's 'not my kind of Christianity'.

Funny, the atheists expect perfection of Christians, but never expect the same in return.
Atheism is not a religious group, and so atheists tend not to group together in the name of their atheism. And so you have absolutely nothing by which to judge the morality or goodness of atheists.

Read some Robert Ingersoll, get a clue, then come back and apologise for your false characterisations.

Paul

Snowball

March 28th 2003, 12:35 PM

Today @ 06:39 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46819#post46819)
lordsnooty:
No, abortionists kill fetuses. A fetus is not a person, it's a small blob with no thoughts or feelings.

Really? How do you know?

I notice you did, correctly, use the word "kill," so at least you admit that the fetus was alive.

By your rationale, it should be ok to kill someone who is mentally impaired and cannot express their feelings or thoughts. Kill everyone in a coma too, while your at it.

There's a nice double standard. Some atheists did evil things, but when people kill in the name of Christianity - that's because it's 'not my kind of Christianity'.

There is only one kind of Christianity, the one detailed in the Bible and exalts Jesus Christ and His teaching. Can you find justification for the Crusades or the Inquisition in the Bible? Where did Jesus say "go kill anyone who doesn't believe?"

Zakath

March 28th 2003, 12:52 PM

02-20-2003 @ 12:52 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=20202#post20202)
Jin-Roh:

From a believers prespective, I'm an agreement with everyone here.

I'm still waiting for an answer to my "On the eternal scale, what makes atheism worth fighting for?" question from the atheists though.
I'll concur that I would not "fight for" atheism.

On the other hand I feel strongly about religious freedom and would fight for that as long as it includes freedom from religion as well as freedom of religious expression. Of course your freedom to swing your fist as a religious expression stops where my nose starts.

lordsnooty

March 28th 2003, 01:17 PM

Today @ 04:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47000#post47000)
Snowball:
Really? How do you know?
Well, if something has no functioning brain or nervous system, it can't think or feel. That's actually pretty obvious.

By your rationale, it should be ok to kill someone who is mentally impaired and cannot express their feelings or thoughts. Kill everyone in a coma too, while your at it.
Yes, interesting misrepresentation of my position, I must say.

If someone is mentally impaired, they can still think and feel. So that one's out. Coma victims - similar thing, their brains still function. And they will often come out of their comas and recover. I suppose you think that atheists demand that sleeping people be killed too?

There is only one kind of Christianity, the one detailed in the Bible and exalts Jesus Christ and His teaching. Can you find justification for the Crusades or the Inquisition in the Bible? Where did Jesus say "go kill anyone who doesn't believe?"

You can justify any number of evil acts by referring to the Bible. What was it Jesus said about carrying a sword? I forget.

Paul

TheFiveSolas

March 29th 2003, 12:58 AM

lordsnooty wrote:

Well, if something has no functioning brain or nervous system, it can't think or feel. That's actually pretty obvious.

For the record, brainwaves can be measured starting about 42 days after conception (of course, this doesn't mean that there aren't brainwaves prior to this. Rather, our machines might not be sensitive enough to measure them.) Either way, less than a month and a half into the pregnancy is enough to silence snooty's argument.

TheFiveSolas

March 29th 2003, 01:19 AM

lordsnooty wrote:

So did the famous Christian Adolf Hitler.

Not this old canard again!?! Please, please, for the sake of your own integrity read up on the facts. A good place to start would be the Nuremburg Project which can be read online at the Rutgers Journal of Law & Religion archive. See the following link:
http://www-camlaw.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/nuremberg.htm

I'll also suggest J.S. Conway's, The Nazi Persecution of the Churches 1933-1945.

Woman

March 29th 2003, 01:27 AM

AC is this your quote??

can it be reasonably disputed that Jesus was alive when Paul was converted? Probably not.

You don't mean you think Christ was alive when Paul converted do you?

Please tell me you don't.

Socrates

March 29th 2003, 01:59 AM

lordsnooty wrote:

So did the famous Christian Adolf Hitler.

TheFiveSolas rightly pointed out:
Not this old canard again!?! Please, please, for the sake of your own integrity read up on the facts. A good place to start would be the Nuremburg Project which can be read online at the Rutgers Journal of Law & Religion archive. See the following link:
http://www-camlaw.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/nuremberg.htm

I'll also suggest J.S. Conway's, The Nazi Persecution of the Churches 1933-1945.TheFiveSolas has shown why most atheist websites are not only highly unreliable but utterly contemptible, to come up with this "Hitler is a Christian" bilge. They really must be desperate in their efforts to smear Christianity. But the evidence that Gen. Wm. Donovan compiled at Nuremberg is compelling. It is also consistent with the leading prosecutor Justice Robert Jackson (portrayed by Alec Baldwin in the recent Nuremberg movie) said at the time (from Nuremberg Trial Proceedings 2, The Avalon Project at the Yale Law School (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/11-21-45.htm)):

The Nazi Party always was predominantly anti-Christian in its ideology [and] carried out a systematic and relentless repression of all Christian sects and churches.’ [Leading Nazi, Martin Bormann said:] ‘More and more the people must be separated from the churches and their organs, the pastors.’ [The viciously anti-Jewish propagandist and pornographer Julius Streicher] complained that Christian teachings have stood in the way of “racial solution of the Jewish question in Europe.”

And from the article Was Hitler a Christian? (http://answers.org/Apologetics/Hitquote.html):

By John Baskette - but the information came from Marty Helgesen in a soc.religion.christian post.
The claim is sometimes made that Hitler was a Christian - a Roman Catholic until the day he died. In fact, Hitler rejected Christianity.

The book Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944 published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc.first edition, 1953, contains definitive proof of Hitler's real views. The book was published in Britain under the title, Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944, which title was used for the Oxford University Press paperback edition in the United States.

All of these are quotes from Adolf Hitler:

Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:
National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7) 10th October, 1941, midday: Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43) 14th October, 1941, midday:
The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52) 19th October, 1941, night: The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity. 21st October, 1941, midday: Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65) 13th December, 1941, midnight: Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119) 14th December, 1941, midday: Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120) 9th April, 1942, dinner: There is something very unhealthy about Christianity (p 339) 27th February, 1942, midday: [list]It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold ." (p 278)

For the real motivation of Adolf, the atheistic and anti-Nazi evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith wrote (Evolution and Ethics, Putnam, NY, USA, p. 230, 1947):

The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.

Socrates

March 29th 2003, 02:21 AM

Another reason for my complete contempt for most atheist and infudgel sites is the pathetic way they push the Christ Myth nonsense, gullibly swallowing the nonsense by a historically ignorant professor of German. Then one a similar line, one such Christ-Myther Vork managed to spare us some time from his duties as a major apologist in Saddam's cheerleading squad:
There is nothing radical about a date after 80 for most of the NT books, that is in fact the mainstream position -- see Kirby's wonderful website www.earlychristianwritings.com for a range of dates that are given for most books. Only the most conservative scholars date the entire NT before 80. I want to see actual EVIDENCE that any NT book was written after AD 70. That was a challenged of JAT Robinson, hardly a conservative but one of the most LIBERAL bishops of his day.

Au contraire, there is much internal evidence for pre AD 70. E.g. the conspicuous absence of mentions of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 as an event that has already happened. Matthew was always on the lookout for prophetic fulfilments, so it's highly implausible that he would ahve missed the chance to say "as Jesus foretold" IF he had written after the event.

Also Luke's Acts closes before the execution of Paul in the 60s, and John refers to archaeological features of the pre-Fall Jerusalem.

Further, the Gospels are full of Jesus's teachings which were relevant for pre-70 Israel, e.g. his dialogue with the Syrophoenecian woman, but irrelevant to a Gentile church. Conversely, the flaring controversies of the early Church, e.g. circumcision and food laws, could have easily be settled by putting words into Jesus's mouth about them. But this never happened. Au contraire, Paul was careful to distinguish his own (still inspired) teaching from things Jesus said while on Earth. This is the reason for Paul saying "I, not the Lord" in 1 Corinthians 7 10-12.

lordsnooty

March 29th 2003, 09:23 AM

Today @ 05:59 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47598#post47598)
Socrates:
They really must be desperate in their efforts to smear Christianity.

If I wanted to smear Christianity, I'd simply point you out as an example of a 'good christian'. Nothing could be a greater smear on the name of your religion, nor any man more strongly contrasted against the personality of Jesus. Every time you use abusive language in your posts, you score an own-goal for Christianity.

None the less, I conceed that Hitler was not a Christian, if those quotes are accurate and reliable.

He was not, however, an atheist (he certainly believed in the supernatural), and his troops were undeniably Christian.

Paul

Zakath

March 29th 2003, 03:19 PM

Yesterday @ 11:58 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47538#post47538)
TheFiveSolas:
For the record, brainwaves can be measured starting about 42 days after conception...

You have a source, I presume????

Vorkosigan

March 30th 2003, 10:27 AM

None the less, I conceed that Hitler was not a Christian, if those quotes are accurate and reliable.

He was not, however, an atheist (he certainly believed in the supernatural), and his troops were undeniably Christian.

Hitler was obviously some kind of fruitcake theist. He revered Jesus but apparently had a low opinion of Christianity (Go figure). However, the quotes above appear to be from Hitler's table talk, taken down in steno by a secretary and edited by rabid anti-Catholic Bormann, and thus may not be Hitler's words at all.

In any case, Hitler said whatever he thought the listener might want to hear. You can find all sorts of evidence in both directions, from the institution of school prayer in German schools to the SS oath, that Hitler was a Christian of some kind, and all sorts against, such as these quotes, and numerous others. <shrug> Really, it's not worth discussing. Christian or not, the man was a monster.

Vorkosigan

flipper

March 30th 2003, 06:20 PM

I think it's pretty clear that Hitler was not a Christian in any meaningful sense of the word.

AtheistArchon

March 30th 2003, 06:22 PM

I think it's pretty clear that Hitler was not a Christian in any meaningful sense of the word.

- Because of his actions, yes? Perhaps history will judge GWB in the same light. :smile:

flipper

March 30th 2003, 06:37 PM

AtheistArchon:

It's also due to his general lack of observance of the forms and doctrines of Christianity. A certain amount of lip service was paid, but that's all.

Bush seems to have more in common with Oliver Cromwell, a different kind of dangerous absolutist, than with Hitler.

But you're right, historians will judge him by his actions. But they will also look carefully at his perceived motives.

markg

March 31st 2003, 01:09 AM

Yesterday @ 05:19 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47935#post47935)
Zakath:

You have a source, I presume????

Brain waves have been recorded at 40 days on the Electroencephalogram (EEG). H. Hamlin, "Life or Death by EEG," JAMA, Oct. 12, 1964, p. 120

Brain function, as measured on the Electroencephalogram, "appears to be reliably present in the fetus at about eight weeks gestation," or six weeks after conception. J. Goldenring, "Development of the Fetal Brain," New England Jour. of Med., Aug. 26, 1982, p. 564

DBoone

April 21st 2003, 11:53 AM

Jimbo - you complain about the Christian extremists, but have you considered: 1) Non-christian and atheist extremists also have done great violence to humanity, 2) Without excusing the actions of extremists, have you ever thought about why they feel so strongly as to reach the point of physical conflict?

Jezz

April 22nd 2003, 12:07 AM

I think perhaps the main point of this thread has been lost. Never mind. I would like to make one point in this thread, however, regarding one point which has surfaced out of this thread - the issue of the wrong-doings of people in past history.

I am about to include a summary of arguments thus far - thus by its nature I will generalise. This is not necessarily meant to reflect the opinions of any one person in this thread in particular - so please don't flame me with "you misrepresented my position!" :smile:

It would appear to me that this argument started with someone (forget who) using the past wrongdoings of Christians in history to condemn Christianity. A Christian then counter-punched, pointing out the wrongdoings of many atheists in history. Now, this is a valid counter-punch, but the problem is that thereafter both sides of the argument stopped landing their punches and started missing...

The atheists reacted to the counter-punch by pointing out that not all atheists are like Stalin, Mao et al. Thus it is wrong to say the actions of these people are truly representative of what atheism stands for. I see this as a valid argument, however if such a person wants to be consistent they must then also accept the fact that it is wrong to say that the actions of people like the inquisitors and the crusaders are truly representative of what Christianity stands for.

And of course, the same argument applies (in reverse) to the Christians in this argument.

Peter Kirby

April 22nd 2003, 03:41 AM

Hello Socrates! :hi:

03-29-2003 @ 06:21 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47611#post47611)
Socrates:

I want to see actual EVIDENCE that any NT book was written after AD 70.

Here is the earliest recorded statement on the date of Revelation.

"We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign." (Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 5.30.3)

Many people put no stock in the patristic traditions, but there is no strong motive for Irenaeus to fudge on this point, and in this case the internal evidence agrees. Please excuse me for lazily doing a cut and paste from my web site.

Kummel provides the following information on dating the Apocalypse of John (Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 466-8):

According to the oldest tradition [in Iren., Adv. Haer. 5.30.3] Rev was written toward the end of the reign of Domitian (81-96). The book's own testimony indicates that it originated in the province of Asia in a time of severe oppression of Christians, which is most readily conceivable under Domitian. In the letters included in Rev, persecutions by the officials are expected (2:10), the blood of the martyrs has already flowed (2:13; 6:9), the whole of Christianity is threatened with a fearful danger (3:10): the immediate prospect is for the outbreak of a general persecution of Christians throughout the Roman Empire. In 17:6 John sees the harlot who is Babylon-Rome drunk on the blood of the saints and the blood of the witnesses of Jesus (cf. 6:10; 16:6; 18:24; 19:2). In 20:4 participation in the thousand-year reign is promised to the martyrs who have been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and for the word of God, and who have not worshiped the beast and his image and have not accepted his sign on their forehead and in their hand, i.e., those who have refused divine honors to the emperor (13:4, 12 ff; 14:9, 11; 16:2; 19:20). Christianity has collided with the state and with the state religion, the Christ cult with the imperial cult. In the interest of faith, Rev raises passionate objections to Rome and the imperial cult. That corresponds to the situation under Domitian.

Prior to Domitian, the state religion did not direct itself against the Christians. Nero's mad acts in Rome against the Christians had nothing to do with the imperial cult. Under Domitian, who according to the Eastern pattern laid claim to divine honors for himself as emperor during his own lifetime, there arose for the first time the persecution of Christians by the state on religious grounds. In 96 in Rome members of the imperial household were called to account for the charge of aqeoths; i.e., violation of the state religion. And in the Christian tradition Domitian is unanimously regarded as the first persecutor of Christians after Nero. In the province of Asia imperial cult was promoted with special zeal. Under Domitian, Ephesus received a new imperial temple. Thus it was precisely in the province of Asia, the classical land of the imperial cult, that at the time of Domitian all the prerequisites were present for a severe conflict between Christianity and the state cult, which is what Rev has in view (cf. also I Pet). The seer nowhere points directly to Domitian as the then reigning emperor, and the Antichrist, the "beast" (13:1 ff, etc.), does not bear the features of any specific ruler but rather those of the demonic form of Nero redivivus, which was still a popular expectation in that time. But the temporal scene which Rev sketches fits no epoch of primitive Christianity so well as the time of the persecution under Domitian.

Kummel goes on to propose an interpretation of 17:9 wherein the counting of the emperors begins with Caligula so that Domitian would be the sixth in succession. He concludes (op. cit., p. 469):

Also favoring the end of the first century as the time of origin of Rev is the fact that according to 2:8-11, the church of Smyrna has been persevering for a long time, while according to Polycarp (Phil 11:3), at the time of Paul it did not even exist; and 3:17 describes the community of Laodicea as rich, while this city had been almost completely destroyed by an earthquake in A.D. 60/61.

In all likelihood, therefore, Rev was in fact written toward the end of the reign of Domitian, i.e., ca. 90-95, in Asia Minor, in order to encourage Christian communities threatened by a destructive persecution to endure and to make them confident of the imminent victory of Christ over the powers of the Antichrist.

I realize that some people put Revelation in the time of Nero, but I don't think that the evidence is as good.

That was a challenged of JAT Robinson, hardly a conservative but one of the most LIBERAL bishops of his day.

Here is what Raymond Brown says: "Indeed, if one does not accept Bishop John A. T. Robinson's maverick attempt to date the whole NT before A.D. 70, it can be claimed intelligently that most of the NT was written after the death of the last known apostle." (emphasis original, The Churches the Apostles Left Behind, p. 14) By this, Brown refers primarily to the deaths of Peter and Paul. Brown says as a footnote: "Among the many critical reviews of his Redating the New Testament (London: SCM, 1976), helpfully incisive is that by J. V. M. Sturdy, Journal of Theological Studies 30 (1979) 255-62: 'an ultimately unconvincing tour de force.' Robinson 'one-sidedly ignores difficulties for his views, streamrollers the evidence, again and again advances from an improbable possibility into a certainty.'" I myself have read Robinson and found it unpersuasive, for Robinson states that his method is to assume that all of the NT documents date before 70 and then see if nothing absolutely forbids such a scheme (while needing absolute certainty is folly--the reverse image of Robinson, to assume a later date until disproven, is equally wrong-headed).

Conversely, the flaring controversies of the early Church, e.g. circumcision and food laws, could have easily be settled by putting words into Jesus's mouth about them. But this never happened.

Mark 7
14 And he called to him the multitude again, and said unto them, Hear me all of you, and understand:
15 there is nothing from without the man, that going into him can defile him; but the things which proceed out of the man are those that defile the man.
16 If any man hath ears to hear, let him hear.
17 And when he was entered into the house from the multitude, his disciples asked of him the parable.
18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Perceive ye not, that whatsoever from without goeth into the man, it cannot defile him;
19 because it goeth not into his heart, but into his belly, and goeth out into the draught? This he said, making all meats clean.
20 And he said, That which proceedeth out of the man, that defileth the man.

best,
Peter Kirby

AtheistArchon

April 22nd 2003, 11:12 PM

- Why do some atheists evangelize? I can give you my own reasons.

- First, I think it's important to understand that I don't wish to deprive ANYONE of their right to worship whomever or whatever they like. It's not my right to take that away from anyone, and I wouldn't force anyone to be an atheist... in fact, I don't think that's even possible.

- However, FiveSol did bring up an interesting point in his analogy. He mentioned bigfoot, and how he's not running about trying to convince bigfoot-believers that they're wrong. This strikes me as interesting, because I'm the kind of person who does actually believe that imagination is extremely important to our continued existence... where would we be without storytelling and myth? It's only when these stories are taken as fact, and when those who believe it begin to shape and interact negatively with the rest of society that I have a real problem.

- Bigfoot, for example, is a relatively harmless belief. For that matter, so is Christianity for the vast majority of believers. A guy might spend his life's fortune hunting for bigfoot, but he's only financially hurt himself, and if such a hunt makes him happy, so be it. However, if the same guy proclaims bigfoot to be the author of morality, and that everyone should follow the way of the bigfoot (lest ye be punished by his minions), then I begin to have a problem.

- In this vein, we have people like Pat Robertson, Franklin Graham, Benny Hinn, Jerry Falwell, Roy Moore, and a slew of people like these who feel that all of society should conform to their own beliefs. Some of these people could even be labeled as scam artists, equivalent to the folks who sell Penta water or other homeopathic products: http://www.skepdic.com/homeo.html

- These people are the ones I have problems with, because their own evangelism produces either dupes or dullards, or both. Worst case scenario for some of them: theocracy, a nation governed by and for (their) god and not by and for human beings. THAT is what scares me. And I won't allow it to happen. I could never live with myself if I did.

- Everyone is entitled to their beliefs. I may call them silly, but if you're not harming anyone, I'm content to let you be. I argue in the forums like this for many reasons, none of which are altruistic of course, but this explains why I believe "atheist evangelism" has a place. I very very rarely speak about atheism or religion in real life unless the topic comes up first.