Tweet
Not sure if this is the best place to post this, but I suppose it'll do. This will be a pretty open thread, and you can make of the title what you'd like, but I recently had a conversation with someone on another forum that I found totally frustrating, and I've run into this more than once over the years.
Basically it goes something like this: Someone makes a point about something the Bible says. Skeptic offers typical skeptic response. Someone corrects typical skeptic response as objectively as possible. Skeptic thinks that corrector is attempting to Evangelize rather than simply explaining what the Bible says, or what the audience understood it to say.
So, for example: Topic of tattoos and Christians comes up. Someone notes the irony of a Christian getting a tattoo based on the prohibition in Leviticus. Someone else points out that the Old Testament is not binding in the same way towards Christians as ancient Jews. Skeptic leaps in to point out that Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law, but did not come to destroy it, thus the Law is binding on Christians, and they're just picking and choosing what they want to keep. I point out that according to one mainstream Christian view, that, yes, Jesus didn't destroy the Law. It is still in full effect to those not in Christ, but because Jesus fulfilled the Law, that one, in a sense, bypasses the Law by making Jesus first in their life. In a way, Jesus become the umbrella for the believer. They no longer must follow the letter of the law with its sacrifices and rituals, but the heart of the Law. Jesus, Christians believe, did the hard part. This is confirmed in Paul's Epistles (particularly Galatians), as well the Gospels themselves, and in Jesus own words on the subject to the Pharisees and religious leaders. Skeptic replies that he doesn't believe in "the heart of the law", or "fulfilling the law". There is no such thing. A law is a law, and it has rules that one must follow. There is no escape clause. It's all gibberish, and, he's honestly not trying to offend me, but it's the same as reading about Harry Potter doing spells to remove rats... I attempt to explain to the skeptic that that misses my point entirely. What I had just told him wasn't an attempt to get him to believe that Jesus actually did X,Y, and Z (though I believe he did), what I'm trying to get the skeptic to understand is that this is one exegetical approach to the text. What I want him to understand is what the original author intended, and what the initial audience (and audiences since then) have received. It does not require him to believe that it is true to recognize that others have this view, and that this view is wholly consistent with the rest of their worldview.
This, of course, did not go over well with the skeptic, who, throughout the exchange, kept reminding me that he didn't believe in this supernatural garbage, and that I was being condescending. I just could not get him to understand that I was not attempting to preach to him. I even cited a respected scholar on the subject, and made the point that even non-Christian scholars exegete on passages in this way all the time. It just didn't sink in. After about a half dozen posts, attempting as best I could to be patient with him. Giving him examples I thought he might understand. Explaining over and over again that I wasn't attempting to Evangelize to him, he left, calling me a moron.
I've come to the conclusion that with some people there is just a mental block. They can't or they won't make sense of a thing. Will not actually read what is being written to them, and conceptualize it correctly. The skeptic here was fine with assuming that the Bible taught a thing, and that Christians believed the Bible taught this thing, but when I corrected him, showed him what some scholars actually teach, he all of a sudden assumed I was attempting to convert him. There's a line between willful ignorance, and spiritual blindness, and I'm attempted to say this is the latter, but perhaps not. Perhaps some people simply do not want to see what they do not want to see.
Can anyone relate? Anyone have any other common issues they run into, and/or solutions to these issues?
Basically it goes something like this: Someone makes a point about something the Bible says. Skeptic offers typical skeptic response. Someone corrects typical skeptic response as objectively as possible. Skeptic thinks that corrector is attempting to Evangelize rather than simply explaining what the Bible says, or what the audience understood it to say.
So, for example: Topic of tattoos and Christians comes up. Someone notes the irony of a Christian getting a tattoo based on the prohibition in Leviticus. Someone else points out that the Old Testament is not binding in the same way towards Christians as ancient Jews. Skeptic leaps in to point out that Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law, but did not come to destroy it, thus the Law is binding on Christians, and they're just picking and choosing what they want to keep. I point out that according to one mainstream Christian view, that, yes, Jesus didn't destroy the Law. It is still in full effect to those not in Christ, but because Jesus fulfilled the Law, that one, in a sense, bypasses the Law by making Jesus first in their life. In a way, Jesus become the umbrella for the believer. They no longer must follow the letter of the law with its sacrifices and rituals, but the heart of the Law. Jesus, Christians believe, did the hard part. This is confirmed in Paul's Epistles (particularly Galatians), as well the Gospels themselves, and in Jesus own words on the subject to the Pharisees and religious leaders. Skeptic replies that he doesn't believe in "the heart of the law", or "fulfilling the law". There is no such thing. A law is a law, and it has rules that one must follow. There is no escape clause. It's all gibberish, and, he's honestly not trying to offend me, but it's the same as reading about Harry Potter doing spells to remove rats... I attempt to explain to the skeptic that that misses my point entirely. What I had just told him wasn't an attempt to get him to believe that Jesus actually did X,Y, and Z (though I believe he did), what I'm trying to get the skeptic to understand is that this is one exegetical approach to the text. What I want him to understand is what the original author intended, and what the initial audience (and audiences since then) have received. It does not require him to believe that it is true to recognize that others have this view, and that this view is wholly consistent with the rest of their worldview.
This, of course, did not go over well with the skeptic, who, throughout the exchange, kept reminding me that he didn't believe in this supernatural garbage, and that I was being condescending. I just could not get him to understand that I was not attempting to preach to him. I even cited a respected scholar on the subject, and made the point that even non-Christian scholars exegete on passages in this way all the time. It just didn't sink in. After about a half dozen posts, attempting as best I could to be patient with him. Giving him examples I thought he might understand. Explaining over and over again that I wasn't attempting to Evangelize to him, he left, calling me a moron.
I've come to the conclusion that with some people there is just a mental block. They can't or they won't make sense of a thing. Will not actually read what is being written to them, and conceptualize it correctly. The skeptic here was fine with assuming that the Bible taught a thing, and that Christians believed the Bible taught this thing, but when I corrected him, showed him what some scholars actually teach, he all of a sudden assumed I was attempting to convert him. There's a line between willful ignorance, and spiritual blindness, and I'm attempted to say this is the latter, but perhaps not. Perhaps some people simply do not want to see what they do not want to see.
Can anyone relate? Anyone have any other common issues they run into, and/or solutions to these issues?
Sometimes, I get the feeling they're really trying to convince themselves that God doesn't exist, or that -- whatever it is they're arguing.
Comment