Mistaken Paths

[Matthew]

I consider myself a strong Skeptic of the Christian faith. In my readings of both Christian and freethought literature I tend to notice that there are two kinds of "apostates" in terms of paths taken. There is the "Barker approach" followed by Dan Barker, Farrell Till, and countless other skeptics. Then there is what I call the "Price approach" which has been taken by skeptics such as Robert M Price, Gerd Ludemann, and Michael Goulder. There is one big difference between these approaches; the former are not Bible scholars whereas the second group are. I think that this is a mistake on a part of many Skeptics who believe that they are former Christians (I'm trying to avoid argument over "Eternal Security"; please, I don't want to go there). I believe that skeptics like Barker and Till should've gone to seminary or graduate school and mastered biblical criticism. Price went to Drew University and graduated with degrees in theology and New Testament criticism. Ludemann got a doctorate in theology and Goulder also got advanced degrees in New Testament studies.

The problem these days is that many folks in the freethought community have taken the "Barker approach" to skepticism. They didn't go to graduate school or seminary and get an advanced degree and so their ignorance of the Bible, its context, its cultural backgrounds, idioms, language, etc can only be expected. That's why Till gets his bronco busted in debates with J.P. Holding. This is why Barker sounds like such a moron when he states that Jesus teaches people to hate their families (not realizing it's a Hebrew idiom meaning "to love less than"). To my deep, deep regret, I also took the "Barker approach". If I was going to be a skeptic, I wish I had gotten a graduate degree in theology or New Testament studies first.

I am trying to rectify my stitutation by getting an undergraduate degree in history and then I would love to get a degree in New Testament studies and perhaps a degree in Hebrew Bible studies. But I still live in deep shame and regret over not having taken the "Price approach" instead. At least Price is a New Testament scholar and is in the position of understanding the biblical text and its background and context whereas I think that Farrell Till and Dan Barker could've taken that approach but took the worst approach imaginable.

Matthew

[Meh_Gerbil]

I consider myself a strong Skeptic of the Christian faith. In my readings of both Christian and freethought literature I tend to notice that there are two kinds of "apostates" in terms of paths taken. There is the "Barker approach" followed by Dan Barker, Farrell Till, and countless other skeptics. Then there is what I call the "Price approach" which has been taken by skeptics such as Robert M Price, Gerd Ludemann, and Michael Goulder. There is one big difference between these approaches; the former are not Bible scholars whereas the second group are. I think that this is a mistake on a part of many Skeptics who believe that they are former Christians (I'm trying to avoid argument over "Eternal Security"; please, I don't want to go there). I believe that skeptics like Barker and Till should've gone to seminary or graduate school and mastered biblical criticism. Price went to Drew University and graduated with degrees in theology and New Testament criticism. Ludemann got a doctorate in theology and Goulder also got advanced degrees in New Testament studies.

The problem these days is that many folks in the freethought community have taken the "Barker approach" to skepticism. They didn't go to graduate school or seminary and get an advanced degree and so their ignorance of the Bible, its context, its cultural backgrounds, idioms, language, etc can only be expected. That's why Till gets his bronco busted in debates with J.P. Holding. This is why Barker sounds like such a moron when he states that Jesus teaches people to hate their families (not realizing it's a Hebrew idiom meaning "to love less than"). To my deep, deep regret, I also took the "Barker approach". If I was going to be a skeptic, I wish I had gotten a graduate degree in theology or New Testament studies first.

I am trying to rectify my stitutation by getting an undergraduate degree in history and then I would love to get a degree in New Testament studies and perhaps a degree in Hebrew Bible studies. But I still live in deep shame and regret over not having taken the "Price approach" instead. At least Price is a New Testament scholar and is in the position of understanding the biblical text and its background and context whereas I think that Farrell Till and Dan Barker could've taken that approach but took the worst approach imaginable.

Matthew

While I appreciate what you are saying, it would be difficult for a skeptic who really thought it was all bunk to get a degree in what he considered lies, wouldn't ya think?

[technomage]

While I appreciate what you are saying, it would be difficult for a skeptic who really thought it was all bunk to get a degree in what he considered lies, wouldn't ya think?

Not at all. New Testament studies can be understaken just like any other literature corpus.

Justin

[Sacrificial Ram]

While I appreciate what you are saying, it would be difficult for a skeptic who really thought it was all bunk to get a degree in what he considered lies, wouldn't ya think?

That did not stop Wells from getting a degree in Biology, in order to try to 'debunk' evolution. Of course, it help to have someone like Sun Yen Moon finance it.

[wfaber]

I have major problems with the way I see the term "skeptic" used. I was a skeptic before I became a Christian. Now I'm a Christian and still a skeptic.

The term seems to be limited to people who refuse to accept the teachings of the Bible without clear proof. Why can't it apply to those who refuse to accept the teachings of secularism without clear proof.

Many who argue against the Bible and the Christian faith have preconceived notions, like the philosophy behind the Jesus Seminar, the "Q" document, the JEDP hypothesis, multiple Isaiahs, the presumption that the Gospels and some of Paul's letters were written in the second century, the Israelites coming out of Persia instead of Egypt, King David not existing. I could go on, and I'm sure others in T-Web could add lots more. Why aren't skeptics skeptical of these also? I'm sorry, but I can't consider them true skeptics if they automatically presume that the Bible must be false or that God doesn't exist, then adhere to unproven notions that support their views.

Personally, I think we need more Christian skeptics. It should have been us, not James Randi, exposing phony faith healers and fraudulent claims. Not to step on some toes, but there would certainly be a lot fewer dispensationalists and futurists if Christians took a skeptical view of Bible teachers.

Am I a skeptic? I will admit to taking the Bible on faith, the existence of God on faith, salvation through faith in Jesus. But outside of that, I question anything and everything I ever read or hear from any Bible teacher or preacher, no matter if he has more degrees than a walking thermometer.

[technomage]

Waitaminit! That's an awfully broad brush you're swinging.

...the philosophy behind the Jesus Seminar

They occasionally come up with an interesting tidbit ... kind of like a broken clock that's right twice a day.

the "Q" document,

Purest conjecture.

the JEDP hypothesis,

Best answer to the structure and language so far.

multiple Isaiahs,

Only answer to the trans-generational shift in focus.

the presumption that the Gospels and some of Paul's letters were written in the second century,

Maybe GoJohn. Just about everything else is pre-2nd century (TTBOMK).


the Israelites coming out of Persia instead of Egypt,

Neither. The Israelites were indigenous to the Canaan highlands.

King David not existing.

Existing ... probably. Existing on the scale that the exile-era writers attributed? Nope. So what's the problem.

Why aren't skeptics skeptical of these also? I'm sorry, but I can't consider them true skeptics if they automatically presume that the Bible must be false or that God doesn't exist, then adhere to unproven notions that support their views.

Well, that may be your problem--that's not how these "presumptions" came about.

OK, I've been kind of harsh so far ... harshness is not my intent. The point is that skepticism solves nothing and answers no questions. It's not the mature response of the scholar, it's the bratty spoiled child standing with his arms crossed saying "You can't make me!"

Instead of more skeptics, what we need are people on both sides of the discussion who are willing to engage in critical examination of the evidence--for and against--without the "I'm right, you're wrong" games that go on and on and on ad nauseum around here.

Justin

[Matthew]

I have major problems with the way I see the term "skeptic" used. I was a skeptic before I became a Christian. Now I'm a Christian and still a skeptic.

The term seems to be limited to people who refuse to accept the teachings of the Bible without clear proof. Why can't it apply to those who refuse to accept the teachings of secularism without clear proof.

Many who argue against the Bible and the Christian faith have preconceived notions, like the philosophy behind the Jesus Seminar, the "Q" document, the JEDP hypothesis, multiple Isaiahs, the presumption that the Gospels and some of Paul's letters were written in the second century, the Israelites coming out of Persia instead of Egypt, King David not existing. I could go on, and I'm sure others in T-Web could add lots more. Why aren't skeptics skeptical of these also? I'm sorry, but I can't consider them true skeptics if they automatically presume that the Bible must be false or that God doesn't exist, then adhere to unproven notions that support their views.

Personally, I think we need more Christian skeptics. It should have been us, not James Randi, exposing phony faith healers and fraudulent claims. Not to step on some toes, but there would certainly be a lot fewer dispensationalists and futurists if Christians took a skeptical view of Bible teachers.

Am I a skeptic? I will admit to taking the Bible on faith, the existence of God on faith, salvation through faith in Jesus. But outside of that, I question anything and everything I ever read or hear from any Bible teacher or preacher, no matter if he has more degrees than a walking thermometer.

I try to be skeptical of everything. I don't think skepticism is incompatible with the Christian faith or even theism. Martin Gardner ( the so-called "skeptic's skpetic") was a theist although I am not sure if he was a Christian. From what I understand, David Hume may have been a skeptical Christian. His writings seem to indicate that he might have found the design argument's conclusion persuasive although he critiqued the logic underlying the arguments.

For me personally, I am open-minded to the possibility of the supernatural. I either affirm or lack belief in something. I affirm belief in the objective reality of our world outside of my mind and I lack belief in god and the supernatural. I think it's definitely possible that miracles happen although I might give them a low prior probability. I doubt anything would ever convince me that Jesus Christ rose from the dead short of an actual road-to-Damascus type of Christophany or the one that doubting Thomas is reported to have gotten. But then again, I would need to prove that it was really a miracle and that I wasn't hallucinating, imaginging it, or that some kind of superhuman cause wasn't responsible for it.

Matthew

[wfaber]

Instead of more skeptics, what we need are people on both sides of the discussion who are willing to engage in critical examination of the evidence--for and against--without the "I'm right, you're wrong" games that go on and on and on ad nauseum around here.

Justin

On that I agree. And I was mistaken about Israelites out of Persia. The argument is that they arose from higlands. But I did once hear somebody make the comment about Persia. Can't remember where.

Granted, we need more skeptics. I occasionally read The Skeptical Inquirer and find their research interesting. But I often see skeptics that appear to have an axe to grind, and wonder if they are indeed really skeptics.

By the way, has anybody ever investigated the Laura Hatch story that occurred somewhere near Seattle last October? If true, and I have not yet seen anything in print to doubt it, it's a wonderful story of God's deliverance.

[wfaber]

For me personally, I am open-minded to the possibility of the supernatural. I either affirm or lack belief in something. I affirm belief in the objective reality of our world outside of my mind and I lack belief in god and the supernatural. I think it's definitely possible that miracles happen although I might give them a low prior probability. I doubt anything would ever convince me that Jesus Christ rose from the dead short of an actual road-to-Damascus type of Christophany or the one that doubting Thomas is reported to have gotten. But then again, I would need to prove that it was really a miracle and that I wasn't hallucinating, imaginging it, or that some kind of superhuman cause wasn't responsible for it.

Matthew

My mother turned her back on the Catholic Church during her high school years. My adopted father totally rejected his Jewish background and even changed his name. I had no religious training whatsoever and became an atheist by my senior year in high school. That's when I came into contact with Christian classmates and a church youth group. Several people tried using apologetica and Christian evidences to convert me. I thought, and still think, that much of their literature was pure nonsense.

I take a neutral stand on creation. If this is a young earth and young solar system, then God did an excellent job of hiding every possible evidence of it. But maybe He did. After all, Jesus spoke in parables so that those unwilling to hear would not understand (Matthew 13:13). But I certainly can't accept the arguments creationists use to support the young earth. But then again, I'm skeptical about the theory of evolution also.

At the risk of sounding like some of the kooks that have claimed special revelation or claim to be one of the two witnesses, I have seen God at work in supernatural ways in the first year or two of my Christian life. I seldom talk about it, and won't go into it any further. Maybe God worked that way to give me, as a new and weak believer with almost no Bible knowledge, a boost in my Christian walk. Since then I have learned to base my faith on the written word and not experiences. This is the only area in my life in which I set aside my skepticism.

But occasionally I get myself into a little trouble because I don't accept some things I hear others teach in church.