Aspirin99

When someone tells me that they are praying for me specifically because I'm agnostic, it implies that he is morally superior whether he is well meaning or not. A well articulated explanation of my views will, at least, level the playing field a bit. Then, if he tells me he's praying for me, I will reply that I'm hoping he overcomes his ignorance (ahaha - I'm fantasizing now).

spin

Quite.

Let it be water off your back, my old duck. It might seem a little sick to you, but it's no skin off your nose. They won't change. Just think of it for what it is, paganism. And let it be. In-laws don't need alienating. You won't communicate, especially as you see this person as boring -- communication is already hampered. You can't do much to get the schizophrenic to stop. (Ever see A Beautiful Mind?)

Talking to christians to communicate from a non-religious position is a complex art. Rarely do contradictions, errors, horrors, false prophecies or any other of those discussions ever work with them.

If you have to talk about religion, in no way should you get angry. You have to out-control them, ie be more in control of yourself. You need to be able to provide a personal ethic superior to theirs (showing that their definition of good is ultimately meaningless, when it is tied to god, because they have no criterion for judging the actions of god). The line I already gave about the difference between a christian and a schizophrenic is something that does communicate, if you can deliver it in a caring, genuine manner . But the whole task is usually fruitless.


spin

Aspirin99

At least it's not my father-in-law. He's a 70-yr old missionary. He just pats me on the head and tells me I'm confused. I think there's still hope that my brother-in-law might think things through. I don't think he's been exposed to many of the ideas discussed here.

Toto

I wouldn't give up on your brother in law. I think you might look at Richard Carrier's essay in the Empty Tomb or his online essay Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story - he thinks that Paul believed in a spiritual-type resurrection, that the old body was tranformed into heavenly material.

Your outline looks plausible.

Aspirin99

Thanks. Yes, I'm a big fan of Richard Carrier's writing. I even have his DVD.

funinspace

One can always reply with "May the Force be with you". I find ones that say the above tend to get the message :devil3: Humor can sometimes go where rational argument fails.

Or you can always steer the conversation towards some theological debating points, if you have any interest, such as free will vs. predestination. One doesn't have to be a Believer to engage in such discussions of merit based on canonical references.

Aspirin99

That's a great line to use. Thanks. I have a friend who always replies with "Praise Batman!," but your suggestion is much less abrassive.

Asha'man

You are praying for me? Well then, I guess I'll have to do some thinking for you. :devil3:

Also, seen on a Bumper Sticker:
Don't Pray in my School, and I won't Think in your Church

Vorkosigan

IMHO the best place to start out isn't Jesus. Most fundies lack even the most basic knowledge of the Bible and the amount of education they have to absorb is too much for one evening, especially on a topic as complex as that of Jesus in history and the New Testament. My attitude is, if you are dealing with a Sola Scriptura type, begin with 2 Tim 3:16, the "all scripture is inspired of God" one that so much of their belief is based on (verbal plenary inspiration is based largely, though not solely, on this). Then discuss the translation problems with that verse, including the notorious hapax theopneustos, which is found only in that verse and nowhere else in Greek except in a disputed passage in Plutarch and in the (later?) Sybilline oracles. Also point out that 2 Tim does not define what scripture is, so how does he know? Indeed, when 2 Tim was written, scripture meant the Hebrew Bible. Then after you have shown how doctrine defines the translations and meanings of that, you can gently point out that 2 Tim is thought by mainstream scholars to be pseudoepigraphical epistle, and present evidence for that. Then leave an Intro Text, like Bart Ehrman's Intro to the New Testament which is very accessible. All you can do is plant a seed, don't expect any changes.

Then invite him here. :devil3:

I wrote this on 2 Tim to a fundy once....

..... the Greek says "All Scripture is..." not inspired but God-breathed, a term whose meaning is not clear. The Greek term is theopneustos, a hapax legoma, or a word that is found only once in all of Greek. Inspired is not found in 2 Tim 3:16, it is a meaning inserted there by the translator, who has let doctrine interfere with the translation of the text. The reality is that no one can say whether and how well God-breathed maps onto the definition of inspired as defined by your modern doctrinal position, which I assume must be something like sola scriptura. Its meaning can only be guessed at, even by scholars.

Second, the Greek actually says pasa graphe or "every writing/scripture" not "all." Third, and most importantly, the Greek can be punctuated to say either Every scripture is God-breathed or Every scripture [that is] God-breathed is profitable...." with the implication that some scripture (writings) is not in fact "God-breathed." Your translator has once again let doctrine control his translation. Consider how silly the translation is as it stands: All Scripture is inspired by God. Well of course! If it's scripture, by definition, it's been inspired by God! That's like saying "All girls are female" or "All counterfeits are frauds." The other punctuation actually makes more sense in some ways: Every writing that is God-breathed is profitable for....since that implies, reasonably, that some writings are not actually "God-breathed."

Turning now to the larger issues, when 1 Tim was written the term "scripture" referred only to the Old Testament, the New Testament would not achieve canonical status for a few more centuries, and Christians regularly studied writings such as Barnabas and Hermas and the Gospel of Peter that are not read in the Churches today. Thus, the writer of 1 Tim could not possibly have been referring to anything in the New Testament. There was no such "scripture."

Further, 2 Tim presents another problem. It does not list or otherwise define what scripture is. The believer must still work out just what is scripture and what is not -- and nowhere does the Bible offer any guidance on that. Only tradition and doctrine do that. For example, looking at 2 Tim 3:16, is it possible to learn whether the Gospel of Peter should be regarded as "scripture?"

Finally, of course, modern Bible scholarship has concluded that the writer of 2 Tim was not Paul but a later writer. Outside of a tiny band of religiously conservative scholars, the Pastoral epistles (1 & 2 Tim and Titus) are widely considered late first-early second century documents from a later hand. You're reposing authority in what is essentially a later forgery in Paul's name.

Let me consult my trusty copy of Udo Schnelle's The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings, a good mainstream introduction to the NT that I heartily recommend. According to Schnelle, a recognized scholar and Christian, it's been argued since the 19th century that the Pastorals (1 & 2 Tim & Titus) are not Pauline in origin. F.C. Baur, the great critic of the Paulines who believed that they were second century, laid out the case initially, although issues were raised as early as the first decade of the 19th century. Holtzmann wrote the definitive work in 1880. Here are some of the arguments against Pauline authorship. :

1. The historical situation in the Pastorals cannot be reconciled with either the authentic Paulines or Acts. In 1 Tim 1 Timothy is staying in Ephesus while Paul gallops off to Macedonia -- with no indication of imprisonment. In Acts it is Paul who stays in Ephesus while Tim goes (thus three different historical pictures!). There is more, of course.... in 2 Tim, Paul is suffering as a prisoner and is near death (2 Tim 4) so why does he ask Tim to bring him the cloak and boots he left in Troas (2 Tim 4). In 2 Tim 1 and 4 everyone has abandoned Paul except Luke, but in 2 Tim 4 Paul sends greetings from four co-workers and "all the brothers" (!). Titus similarly has Paul going to Crete and wintering in Nicopolis, which the Paulines and Acts are silent on (in Acts Paul visits Crete briefly as a prisoner).

2. The Church organization is at least third generation and far more advanced than the letters of Paul.

3. Style and linguistic differences are dramatic: there are 66 hapax legoma in 1 Tim, 60 in 2 Tim, and 32 in Titus. (A hapax legoma is a word or phrase that occurs once in the text/collection of texts)(one of these hapax is of course theopneustos, the word for "God-breathed" in 2 Tim 3:16). There are 3,484 Greek words in the Pastorals, and 335 are found nowhere else in Paul -- that's 50 more than Romans, which is more than twice as long (!).

4. The theology of the Pastorals is totally different. Lacking are concepts such as righteousness of God, freedom, cross, son of God, and body of Christ. Some Pauline vocabulary is used differently as well. In Paul faith saves, in 1 Tim faith is doctrine to be believed. By contrast, the central idea of the pastorals is teaching (didaskalia), which appears 15 times in the Pastorals but only 6 elsewhere in the entire NT. Thus faith becomes a belief in the right thing against heresy.

Schelle concludes that "the overwhelming majority of exegetes regard the Pastorals as psuedoepigraphical writings." In other words, writings written by someone else in Paul's name. Conservatives who defend Pauline authorship typically argue that the Pastorals were composed by a secretary. In effect, this concedes the mainstream argument that someone else wrote the Pastorals.

Other arguments that I know of offhand are based on manuscripts and history. The heretic Marcion, who seems to have made the first collection of the Paulines, collected 10 Pauline epistles, but the Pastorals were not among them. Similarly p46 (the Chester Beatty manuscript), the earliest manuscript of the Paulines, does not contain the Pastorals and there does not seem to be space for them either. In other words, the earliest collections of the Pauline letters don't contain the Pastorals.

spin

Yes, I like that. You leave them a book. How ironic.


spin