Reconciling our differences

[§outh§tar]

Well so far this forum has been lowered to petty squabbles and frankly, nothing exciting happens anymore. No rabid Christians renouncing their faith, no threads dedicated to bashing c20 or proud muslim..

We are hear to find out why neither side will be swayed (me being the exception). Because picking on Christians has become so rampant, I will turn the tables a bit.

Argument by atheists (a summary list):

• Christians use circular logic
• Christians are arbitrary
• There is no evidence for God
• The Bible teaches wicked things
• The Bible is full of contradictions
• And finally, Christians refuse to see the truth

Now we're going to examine these claims:
Christians use circular logic
Atheists must now respond with a defense as to why circular logic is undesirable. Responses must not be circular and must certainly not be arbitrary, since that will most certainly be hypocritical with respect to the first and second arguments.

Christians are arbitrary
This is basically a generalized version of argument 4. As the charge goes, Christians will sting cling fiercely to faith despite all attempts to reason and rationalize with them. This stubborness leads to the atheist's frustration and usually leads to defamation of either party's character. The question for atheists is to show why they are not being arbitrary by rejecting simple faith. Responses must likewise not violate arguments 1 and 2.

There is no evidence for God
The basic response here is the argument from silence. The main rebuttal by Christians is: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." This argument has been abandoned because it is obviously futile, but nevertheless it rears its head from time to time.

The Bible teaches wicked things
The argument by atheists is any "Good Book" that teaches slavery, genocide, stoning and the like cannot be from an omnibenevolent creator. The response by Christians is: God cannot tolerate sin and therefore the harshest of punishments is justified. Responses from atheists usually follow one of two: "how do you know theses atrocities were from God?" (rehash of the third argument) and "a good God will not cause such suffering." The latter is simply a rehash of this same charge (#4) and is in direct violation of argument 1.


The Bible is full of contradictions
This argument is much more difficult since contradictions range from numerical inconsistencies to scientific inaccuracies to historical difficulties. This one irks me the most because an "explanation" wholly unsported by the context will usually be pulled out of some website or commentary.

Because of the diverse nature fo the charge I will quote from an ongoing "discussion" between MarcAC and I (from A Final Proof against Christianity).

The limits placed on interpretation of a text are based entirely on its context, be it textual, emotional, historical context. We obviously do not know the emotional mindframe of the writer as they wrote so we can only base our understanding on the contextual information provided and our knowledge of the times which inspired the writer to record the narratives.

Failure to prioritize context in these documents of antiquity leads to haphazard interpretation. Just look at strict/loose construction of the Constitution in the Jeffersonian era and the arguments propagated by the Republicans against Hamilton.

For a faithful Christian, there is much more than a historical context to God's Word. God is timeless, therefore God's Word is timeless. If one were to rationally, and faithfully apply Jesus, and the apostle's words, and the implications of their words, it becomes quite obvious that certain stresses were pointless. As was stated before, Jesus spoke using literary devices, many, many times. Of course people were confused about the tearing down of the temple and rebuilding in three days. They weren't confused after He was raised in three days, just as, possibly, the atheist's confusion will dissipate once He returns. Of course Jesus, in His wisdom, and the apostles in their inspired wisdom would correctly imply that they should live as though He will return on the next bat of their eyelids because His return 2 000 000 000 years later will make no difference to them in the 0-100 or so years they have in this existence.... and please... see below...

Excellent. I am sure you will understand why I find this to be an ad hoc and untenable interpretation but as always I give you a chance to defend your opinion. Why don't you actually provide the contextual evidence which leads you to such an understanding. Failure to do so means you are pulling conjecture out of the clouds to defend the untenable and you are a liar.

I would advise you to read the post again, read the Bible texts that were presented, then comment on their contextual sufficiency. Ignoring the texts and continuously asking where is the evidence doesn't add up. Discredit it first. And of a particular note, in science, ad hoc explanations often lead to seredipitous discoveries (and resolutions). I have a scientific mind - sue me.

-----------

And now let us compare MarcAC's "explanation" and the verse in question:

1Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2"Do you see all these things?" he asked. "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."
3As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?" [§§ - Note, this clearly indicates that whatever follows in context will pertain to the sign of Jesus' coming and of the end of the age]
...
... [§§ - Followed by an elaboration on just what will happen at the end of the age]
...
4I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

Compare to:

Of course Jesus, in His wisdom, and the apostles in their inspired wisdom would correctly imply that they should live as though He will return on the next bat of their eyelids because His return 2 000 000 000 years later will make no difference to them in the 0-100 or so years they have in this existence.

Is there any such "implication" in the verse above that Jesus meant His audience "should live as though He will return on the next bat of their eyelids"? No. Not one shred.


---------

The preceding quotes were just to show how much Christians take verses out of context to "prove" the accuracy of Scripture and their disdain for textual criticism. MarcAC still holds by his claim that this is what the verses meant despite my repeated calls for him to provide the contextual corroboration.

The point
There remains a disagreement between Christians and non-Christians over whether or not the context of a verse is necessary to "correctly" interpret its meaning. Christians (even though the burden of proof rests squarely on them) refuse (or are unable) to provide contextual basis for many of their claims and likewise, non-Christians as of yet refuse (or are unable) to show why a "Holy Book" is subject to the same methods of criticism as any other book (without violating arguments 1 and 2).

And finally, Christians refuse to see the truth
This is the final outcry when all other methods of reasoning by atheists have failed. Unfortunately, atheists fail to prove why their truth (that Christianity is false) is any less of a violation of arguments 1 and 2).




In summary

Faith and reason are two gods. Neither party is unable to defend their stance without violating arguments 1 and/or 2; atheists cannot show why reason is superior to faith and Christians cannot do the same for reason. This shortcoming allows any and all discussion between Christians and non-Christians to be futile since neither side can actually "prove" anything to sway the other party. Therefore it is better if discussions were devoted to something else than simply attacking / defending a position since everyone thinks their reality is true.

 

[MarcAC]

Is there any such "implication" in the verse above that Jesus meant His audience "should live as though He will return on the next bat of their eyelids"? No. Not one shred.

It would be good to quote the whole chapter or some of the other verses - not just one.

Otherwise, I adivse you to post a link to the relevant thread and stop this dishonest trickery... especially when you use MarcAC in it.
-
Let all who are honest to themsleves and don't want to be swindled take a look at the chapter of Matthew 24. Look at the verse, not in the context (for Star) of itself (looking at an isolated block and concluding it came from a mansion), but in the context of the rest of the chapter.

Matthew 24

Please note, particularly, vs 34 and the reference which states that the word generation could also be seen as race.

You aren't shining as Bright as you once did Star. The Black Hole of atheism is siphoning every bit of luminous gas from your outsides and it will strip you to the core and leave you "with your pants down" like some strange people on this site. You should not care what people think Star. You should care only what God thinks.

I'll have no further part in this treachery (towards oneself).