Announcement

Collapse

Deeper Waters Forum Guidelines

Notice – The ministries featured in this section of TheologyWeb are guests of this site and in some cases not bargaining for the rough and tumble world of debate forums, though sometimes they are. Additionally, this area is frequented and highlighted for guests who also very often are not acclimated to debate fora. As such, the rules of conduct here will be more strict than in the general forum. This will be something within the discretion of the Moderators and the Ministry Representative, but we simply ask that you conduct yourselves in a manner considerate of the fact that these ministries are our invited guests. You can always feel free to start a related thread in general forum without such extra restrictions. Thank you.

Deeper Waters is founded on the belief that the Christian community has long been in the shallow end of Christianity while there are treasures of the deep waiting to be discovered. Too many in the shallow end are not prepared when they go out beyond those waters and are quickly devoured by sharks. We wish to aid Christians to equip them to navigate the deeper waters of the ocean of truth and come up with treasure in the end.

We also wish to give special aid to those often neglected, that is, the disabled community. This is especially so since our founders are both on the autism spectrum and have a special desire to reach those on that spectrum. While they are a special emphasis, we seek to help others with any disability realize that God can use them and that they are as the Psalmist says, fearfully and wonderfully made.

General TheologyWeb forum rules: here.
See more
See less

Book Plunge: Why Christianity Is Not True: Chapter 1

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Causality is important to science.

    I do have to give props where it is due. You stated in your first bit the idea of the denocracy of the dead and how that vote can shift with ideas. We must remember though that what is thought to be true is not always true.
    sigpic

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
      I do so because Aristotle's metaphysics in no way depend on his metaphysics. I notice you're saying his metaphysics are wrong, but the only example you gave was not metaphysics but rather something in physics.
      Metaphysics is not a topic on which things can be determined to be empirically false, because it doesn't make empirically testable predictions.

      So while I can disagree with basically everything that I've read in Aristotle on metaphysics or heard that he said, and can say I think its silly, and can point out that close to nobody today takes it seriously, and can point out that it was discarded centuries ago from the intellectual consensus, I can't prove it false because it's not a type of thing that can be proven false. While I could pick an example idea from Aristotle and argue that it's just silly, you could and probably would just reply "no, I think it's a great idea" because you're weird like that and have apparently been indoctrinated into believing those ideas.

      My general point is that your attempt to use Aristotelian metaphysics in your apologetics is... weird. Because you are using types of logic that almost nobody believes in to try to prove things, which comes across as utterly unconvincing at best and downright wacko at worst. Do you understand that it's only a few really obscure Christian sects that think Aristotelian metaphysics is worthwhile? The majority of Christians will never have heard of it. The majority of atheists likewise. A few, like me, will have covered it in undergraduate philosophy classes in the surveys of bad philosophical ideas throughout history. If you personally subscribe to Aristotelian metaphysics that's one thing, but if you think you can use it as an apologetics tool to convince other people of the existence of God that's quite another thing, because people in general are not going to understand or accept the tool you're trying to use.
      "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
      "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
      "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

      Comment


      • #33
        I am finding plenty of articles on Aristotles influence on science.
        Sciography.com has one for instance.
        Dailyhistory.com has one.
        Famousscientist.org has one.
        Mortimer Adler wrote a book explaining aristotle and argued that the great books should be used in schools.
        He used the shadow of the moon during an eclipse to prove earth was round.
        sigpic

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by TheWall View Post
          Causality is important to science.
          Aristotle didn't invent causality. He just did a linguistic analysis on how people of his time talked about "causes" and observed that in his own language there were 4 types of ways of talking about a cause of something (there are only 2 in English). He thought 'final causes' were the most important, but actually science has been able to achieve great success by in almost all cases completely ignoring the idea of final causes and focusing only on 'efficient causes' - studying how things work rather than asking why questions.
          "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
          "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
          "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by TheWall View Post
            I am finding plenty of articles on Aristotles influence on science.
            He inspired lots of people, yes. He was one of the most prominent early writers when it came to studying the natural world and writing down his findings. This was helpful in leading others to do the same (but better).

            He used the shadow of the moon during an eclipse to prove earth was round.
            The ancient Greeks pretty much all knew the earth was round, which they proved in a variety of ways. They were able to calculate the circumference of the earth to within a 10% accuracy using some ingenious methods. Aristotle didn't invent that idea.
            "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
            "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
            "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Starlight View Post
              Aristotle didn't invent causality. He just did a linguistic analysis on how people of his time talked about "causes" and observed that in his own language there were 4 types of ways of talking about a cause of something (there are only 2 in English). He thought 'final causes' were the most important, but actually science has been able to achieve great success by in almost all cases completely ignoring the idea of final causes and focusing only on 'efficient causes' - studying how things work rather than asking why questions.
              Analysis is a why question.

              I know aristotle didnt invent causality. I think we have a communication kerfluffle. What exactly abput Aristotle do you have a criticism with?
              sigpic

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by TheWall View Post
                What exactly abput Aristotle do you have a criticism with?
                I don't have much problem with Aristotle himself - he was one of many ancient thinkers who had ideas. Naturally some were worthwhile steps forward at the time and some weren't. Since then people have built on the good ideas and moved forward and discarded the bad ones. As a result, as with pretty much all ancient thinkers, there's not a lot of good reason to read their writings because the good ideas they had have been fleshed out by subsequent thinkers and reading a more modern and advanced version of their ideas will give you a better analysis, while their bad or incorrect ideas (which are usually in the majority with any ancient thinker) have been discarded.

                The problem I have is with Nick wanting to use arguments that are based on ideas that have long been discarded because people all but unanimously agreed they were silly. He's obviously not going to convince anyone of anything much using such ideas. In this case his silly ideas happen to come from Aristotle.
                "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                Comment


                • #38
                  I think reading old books and old thinkers is worthwhile for a reason you said it helps us see how thinking and culture develop.
                  sigpic

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                    Metaphysics is not a topic on which things can be determined to be empirically false, because it doesn't make empirically testable predictions.
                    Which is a metaphysical claim about metaphysical claim and simply saying metaphysics isn't science.

                    Okay....

                    And?

                    So while I can disagree with basically everything that I've read in Aristotle on metaphysics or heard that he said, and can say I think its silly, and can point out that close to nobody today takes it seriously, and can point out that it was discarded centuries ago from the intellectual consensus, I can't prove it false because it's not a type of thing that can be proven false. While I could pick an example idea from Aristotle and argue that it's just silly, you could and probably would just reply "no, I think it's a great idea" because you're weird like that and have apparently been indoctrinated into believing those ideas.
                    Let's see. My Bible College was part of the Restoration movement. I'm not. My Seminary was pre-mill, pre-trib. I'm not. I even left it because I got into an argument with them on inerrancy.

                    Yep. Total indoctrination. Couldn't just be that I found the view convincing. Nah. Can't be that!

                    My general point is that your attempt to use Aristotelian metaphysics in your apologetics is... weird. Because you are using types of logic that almost nobody believes in to try to prove things, which comes across as utterly unconvincing at best and downright wacko at worst. Do you understand that it's only a few really obscure Christian sects that think Aristotelian metaphysics is worthwhile? The majority of Christians will never have heard of it. The majority of atheists likewise. A few, like me, will have covered it in undergraduate philosophy classes in the surveys of bad philosophical ideas throughout history. If you personally subscribe to Aristotelian metaphysics that's one thing, but if you think you can use it as an apologetics tool to convince other people of the existence of God that's quite another thing, because people in general are not going to understand or accept the tool you're trying to use.
                    That's interesting because I've spoken to a number of people who have understood the ideas very well. What I think is weird instead is thinking that because we have modern science, somehow a view on metaphysics is debunked because it's old or something like that.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by TheWall View Post
                      Analysis is a why question.

                      I know aristotle didnt invent causality. I think we have a communication kerfluffle. What exactly abput Aristotle do you have a criticism with?
                      It is times like this I thank the WSJ's James Taranto for bringing "kerfuffle" back into popular usage.

                      I'm always still in trouble again

                      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by TheWall View Post
                        I think reading old books and old thinkers is worthwhile for a reason you said it helps us see how thinking and culture develop.
                        This make me wonder: Out of the many old books and thinkers I have read, which would I most recommend, and why?

                        Having thought about it for a bit, I think my answer is actually: None.

                        That actually surprised me, on reflection. But I realized that I think for any writer/thinker who lived more than 100 years ago, a person today would be better served reading a short book about them and their writings and ideas that explains how their thinking fits into their time-period and explains how they interacted with previous thinkers and how subsequent thinkers interacted with their ideas, rather than reading the writings of the original thinkers themselves.

                        I think it's really worthwhile to have a good understanding of both history and of intellectual history. But you're much better to learn history from historians than you are to try to go to all the primary sources and piece it together yourself. And in much the same way you're much better to learn about the history of ideas from historical summaries and writings about those ideas than you are to go to all the primary sources and piece it together yourself. The only time, in my experience, when it is worth going to the primary sources is when you are the historian who is doing original research, but for everyone else they are much better spending their time reading the writings of those historians.
                        "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                        "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                        "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                          This make me wonder: Out of the many old books and thinkers I have read, which would I most recommend, and why?

                          Having thought about it for a bit, I think my answer is actually: None.

                          That actually surprised me, on reflection. But I realized that I think for any writer/thinker who lived more than 100 years ago, a person today would be better served reading a short book about them and their writings and ideas that explains how their thinking fits into their time-period and explains how they interacted with previous thinkers and how subsequent thinkers interacted with their ideas, rather than reading the writings of the original thinkers themselves.

                          I think it's really worthwhile to have a good understanding of both history and of intellectual history. But you're much better to learn history from historians than you are to try to go to all the primary sources and piece it together yourself. And in much the same way you're much better to learn about the history of ideas from historical summaries and writings about those ideas than you are to go to all the primary sources and piece it together yourself. The only time, in my experience, when it is worth going to the primary sources is when you are the historian who is doing original research, but for everyone else they are much better spending their time reading the writings of those historians.
                          Context is absolutely helpful to grasp the nuances of a thinker, but it should never replace the musings of the thinker. Not everyone who writes about a thinker is guaranteed to accurately sum up what the thinker wrote, and the writer may well have an agenda to push; it's important to check what is written about a thinker with the source material itself.
                          Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                          Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                          sigpic
                          I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Chatper 5 is on the Bible.

                            The link can be found here.

                            ----

                            Can we trust the Bible? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

                            We're continuing through David Pye's book. This chapter is on the Bible and I was really looking forward to dealing with something more meaty. Much of what I have seen so far seems to be much more experience oriented. I came here hoping to get a lot more.

                            I hate to say that I did not get that.

                            So let's go through and see what I did get.

                            Pye starts with the canon. In this, he asks some good questions Christians should ask. The problem is, that's all he does. He asks the questions. The only scholarship he goes with is Elaine Pagels. There is no hint of interacting with Michael Kruger or Lee McDonald. Both of these scholars have written well on canonicity and the forming of the canon, but their works are absent. A good basic look can be found here.

                            Generally, a book had to be by an apostle or an associate of an apostle, it had to be received by the majority of the church as a whole, and it had to be in line with the tradition known to everyone that went back to the historical Jesus. Pye instead quotes Pagels who says

                            Contemporary Christianity, diverse and complex as we find
                            it, actually may show more unanimity than the Christian
                            churches of the first and second centuries....Before that
                            time, [the end of the second century] as Irenaeus and
                            others attest, numerous gospels circulated among various
                            Christian groups, ranging from those of the New
                            Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, to such
                            writings as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip,
                            and the Gospel of Truth, as well as many other secret
                            teachings, myths, and poems attributed to Jesus or his
                            disciples.
                            She goes on to say that

                            We now begin to see that what we call Christianity - and
                            what we identify as Christian tradition - actually
                            represents only a small selection of specific sources,
                            chosen from among dozens of others. Who made that
                            selection, and for what reasons?
                            For the latter, as said, these are good questions. Unfortunately, no answers are apparently sought for them. For the former, I challenge Pye to find me one time where these other Gospels were accepted on a major basis by the early church. You can find an isolated church that used something, such as the Gospel of Peter, but these are the exception. There was never any doubt about the four Gospels we have today.

                            In response to all that Pagels says, Pye answers that

                            I shall not here be pursuing answers to this question. I'm simply flagging up that there were many writings about Jesus, but only some of them were included into the New Testament. Christians may assert that it was the hand of God that determined this - that is, it was God Himself who ensured that only those writings that He had inspired were included in the New Testament. But we may reasonably speculate that in fact it was "power struggles" in* the early Church and/or historical accident that determined what was included and what excluded.
                            Yes. Answers will not be pursued, but let us speculate sans history and make the judgment. I wonder if I would be allowed to do the same thing with the sciences. Perhaps sans evidence, I should say people who embrace atheism are just wanting to live sinful lives without having to face a judge one day. It is a reasonable speculation on my part, so why not?

                            Pye then goes on to say picking and choosing is a problem. Some people choose what they want to accept and what they want to reject. Absent is any consideration on looking at hermeneutics and how to examine a case and apply it properly or the relationship between the two testaments or even examining the cases historically and choosing to use that which holds up historically. Pye goes even further saying that even if you go with 100% in the Bible, you've still trusted your own fallible judgment.*

                            Heads he wins, tails you lose. So apparently if you don't believe everything, you're picking and choosing. If you do, you're also picking and choosing. Absent is any notion that someone could choose to believe the Bible because they have studied it and seen that it holds up.*

                            From there, Pye goes on to talk about moral problems. He treats the Bible as if it was an instruction book on how to live the good life. It contains instructions on that, but that is not the purpose. The ultimate purpose is how to know about Christ and His Kingdom. Living a good life is tied into that, but the Bible is much more than that.*

                            Pye then gives us Deuteronomy 21:18-21

                            When a man has a son who is rebellious and out of
                            control, who does not obey his father and mother, or take
                            heed when they punish him, then his father and mother are
                            to lay hold of him and bring him out to the elders of the
                            town at the town gate, and say 'This son of ours is
                            rebellious and out of control; he will not obey us, he is
                            a wastrel and a drunkard.' Then all the men of the town
                            must stone him to death, and you will thereby rid
                            yourselves of this wickedness.
                            So how many people have applied this to their lives? Pye says this thinking that the rules of a political nation in a covenant relationship with YHWH as their king and set apart from the rest of the world as a political institution and as an old covenant must surely apply to us the exact same way. It doesn't. Today, there are great works to read on this like William Webb's Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals or John Walton's Old Testament Theology For Christians here. It's understandable Pye did not read these if they were not yet written. It is not understandable that it appears that nothing was read. My own response to this can be found .

                            Sadly, Pye continues with listing some other passages. All he gives is the references. It strikes me more as "This offends me and therefore it's wrong." There's no attempt to understand the culture. There's no attempt to show that Israel was supposed to be a utopia on Earth for all time. Nothing.

                            I can happily say Israel was not the perfect society. It was not meant to be. It's a stepping stone. Slavery, for instance, was a reality for everyone in the ancient world. If you go to someone today and tell them you support slavery, much of the world will look at you aghast. If you go to the ancient world and say that, they will do the same.

                            One wonders what people like Pye expect. Was God supposed to create a Wal-Mart immediately for everyone to work at? The reality was that in the ancient world, if you didn't have money or resources, you had to serve someone who did. Actually, if we thought about it, that's still the way the world is.

                            Still, let's humor him. First, Exodus 21:7-11.

                            If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do.*If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter.*If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights.*If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.
                            Today, a woman can often work for herself and doesn't have to marry. Not so in the ancient world. A woman would be provided for by a man and one of the best ways also was making sure she had descendants. A man who sold his daughter was not getting rid of her. He was trying to assure a better life for her by giving her to someone who could provide for her and to unite two families together. In this case, the man must provide for her. He is not to deprive her even of marital rights, a good way to make sure she can still have children. This is a system to protect the woman in that society.

                            Exodus 21:20-21

                            Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result,*but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.
                            This is again a society that out in the wilderness does not have a jail and also since slaves were day-wage earners, depriving them of financial income would mean starvation of some kind. Physical discipline was what was done. Why is the slave owner given the benefit of the doubt? Because the slave is his property. The slave represents his income. The owner wants to keep his income. Note also as we see later that if even a tooth is knocked loose, the slave goes through. This is set up to put limitations on things and protect the slave.

                            Deuteronomy 7:1-2

                            When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess*and drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girgashites,*Amorites,*Canaanites, Perizzites,*Hivites*and Jebusites,seven nations larger and stronger than you—and when the Lord your God has delivered*them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy*them totally.*Make no treaty*with them, and show them no mercy.
                            Again, this is common in acts of war and also hyperbolic. One only needs to go through Joshua and find out that the land is described as having the inhabitants driven out and lo and behold, there they are. Pye could see this as a contradiction. It's not. It's hyperbole. Ancients spoke this way. Keep in mind also these people knew Israel was coming. If they wanted to escape, just pack up and move. Again, Pye could bear to read people like Copan, Flanagan, and Walton.

                            Joshua 6:20-21

                            When the trumpets sounded, the army shouted, and at the sound of the trumpet, when the men gave a loud shout, the wall collapsed; so everyone charged straight in, and they took the city. They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.
                            This is more of the same and we need not say more. We could say that these acts of war are not mandated for all people in all times and all places. They are for a specific people in a specific place at a specific time in a specific situation.

                            Pye goes on to list contradictions. He gives two. How did Judas die and what about the genealogies of Jesus? I will happily grant the genealogies of Jesus is one that has had much wrestling done with it. The early church itself had a number of solutions to the problem. For Judas, many say that Judas hung himself and later the rope broke and his body fell and burst open. Even if this is not what happened, it is still something possible and plausible. Finally, none of this shows Jesus did not rise from the dead. Christianity does not depend on inerrancy.

                            Pye also brings up the whole "Dear Dr. Laura" letter. My ministry partner has a great video on that. By the way, just on the side here, I think the lady who does the voice work for the main female character in the video sounds totally hot!

                            But now, Pye comes to what he thinks is the most important section of the chapter and one of the most important ones of the book. This is where he is going ot show the Trinity is unbiblical. As one who has interacted with cults in the past, I came here hoping for a great metaphysical argument.

                            Instead, I got a question.

                            Where does the Bible say to worship the Holy Spirit?

                            That's it.

                            No. Really. That's it.

                            So because this command is not there, then it doesn't matter if the Holy Spirit is called God, speaks as God, is personal, and does everything else. The Bible has to explicitly say that you are to worship the Holy Spirit. Without that, every other piece of data can be there, but it's somehow incomplete.

                            The only reference he makes here is to Billy Graham. Billy Graham was indeed America's pastor, but he would have been one of the first to tell you he wasn't an academic. There are a number of scholarly works on the Trinity that are available to be read and these by academics. Why weren't they sought out?

                            Pye goes on then to say that

                            The absence of authority in the Bible for worship of the Holy Spirit should be a cause of disquiet for all Christians. And for those Christians who are adamant that the Bible alone is their authority the problem is enormous. Such a Christian faces the following choice:-


                            1. He must find a passage in Scripture in which the Holy Spirit is worshipped (ideally several - to avoid reliance on a single “proof text”)

                            or

                            2. He must stop worshipping the Holy Spirit given that there's no authority for this in the Bible

                            or

                            3. He continues worshipping the Holy Spirit - but thereby accepts that the Bible is not his sole authority for what he believes.
                            To begin with, a Catholic or Orthodox Christian would say the Bible is not the sole authority and have no problem. Do Protestants have one? Not at all. Pye has confused Sola Scriptura with Solo Scriptura. No Reformer ever said the Bible was the only authority. None of them said the church fathers or tradition were irrelevant.*

                            What Pye is doing is taking the position of the Bible as the ONLY authority. Anyone who has ever attended a church service and heard what the pastor said would have already violated that rule. The Reformers said that nothing could be accepted as Biblical if it contradicted Scripture.

                            Does worshiping the Holy Spirit do that? No. The Holy Spirit is shown to be God and it is proper to worship God. That would not even be saying the Bible does not say that. Look at it this way.

                            We are to worship God.
                            The Holy Spirit is a person of the Trinity with the full nature of God.
                            Therefore, it's okay to worship the Holy Spirit.

                            Pye goes on to say that anyone then who believes in the Trinity is doing something unbiblical because we are never explicitly told to worship the Holy Spirit. Again, this is not a big problem. It is also a false understanding to say that any Christian says the Bible is the sole authority. Even from the beginning of the church, some were given to be teachers.

                            The next chapter is on narrative formation, but I find this one still extremely weak and wish Pye would have interacted with more real scholarship.

                            In Christ,
                            Nick Peters

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Chapter 6. Not much here.

                              The link can be found here.

                              ----

                              How do we form our narratives? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

                              The sixth chapter of Pye's book is about what he calls narrative formation. In this, a person goes through their life and they see the hand of God as do others and that leads them to think Christianity is true. I am sure this is the case for some people, but apparently absent is the idea of "A person looks at the metaphysical evidence for God and the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus and concludes that Christianity is true."

                              Pye's look reminds me of what's wrong with Christianity in the West today. It's an all about me approach. We know the will of God through our experiences. We know what God requires of us through our experiences. We know the nature of God through our experiences. Experiences are really incredibly difficult to interpret.

                              The main point Pye wants to make is that a Christian can interpret anything in line with what they believe. Pye asks those of us who are Christians to come up with an experience that could cause us to abandon Christianity. That's quite easy actually. An experience where I encounter a better explanation for the rise of the early church than the one the apostles gave. My Christianity is not based on what happens to me today, but it's based on what Jesus did 2,000 years ago.

                              Pye also says that this disconfirming evidence does exist for atheism. An atheist would be hard pressed if he saw an amputated limb grow back right before his eyes. I think it would really depend on the atheist. An atheist could come up with an explanation such as extra-terrestrials or perhaps even something more like an X-Men superpower before ascribing it to theism.

                              What Pye has done is just taken something everyone of us does. We all see evidence and experience through the filter of where we are. This is one reason I also encourage people to really read material that disagrees with them. We need to know what it is that we are arguing against. We need to know what the other side thinks.

                              It's also why I am extremely skeptical of people who try to read the will of God into everything today. I hope before too long to on YouTube be interacting with people who are Christians and constantly predicting when the "rapture" will take place. Doing such does no good benefit to Christianity and there are not enough people who are holding them accountable.

                              I am also skeptical of a me-centered Christianity. These are the people who think God is communicating with them on a regular basis and that we need to listen to the voice of God in our daily lives and that the Holy Spirit is trying to guide us into every right decision. I see no basis for thinking that this is a normative practice in Scripture.

                              Pye thinks that this is an important chapter, but I just don't see it. An important chapter to me would be one that focused on the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. Until then, we're getting some criticisms of modern Christianity, but nothing to show at all that Christianity is not true.

                              In Christ,
                              Nick Peters

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                The fact that professing Christians disagree on the day and date of crucifixion is in evidence. Whether this fact was presented or not. I have studied this one issue over 40 years. While this disagreement is not deemed an essential of the faith, this is a very real issue.
                                . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                                . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                                Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-15-2024, 10:19 PM
                                14 responses
                                75 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-13-2024, 10:13 PM
                                6 responses
                                62 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-12-2024, 09:36 PM
                                1 response
                                23 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-11-2024, 10:19 PM
                                0 responses
                                22 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-08-2024, 11:59 AM
                                7 responses
                                63 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Working...
                                X