Johnny Skeptic

I assume that Christians would not be interested in defending the very same quality of evidence if they believed that the evidence said that God will send everyone to hell. If that is what the evidence said, most Christians would no doubt use the same kinds of arguments that skeptics now use.

Perceived self-interest can easily overcome logic.

Chris Weimer

What are you talking about? There are plenty of Christians who are uncomfortable with where the evidence leads. Chris Heard wrote that he didn't like the idea of a genocidal god, but that's still what the text says.

It seems to me though that your purpoted skepticism is really your inability to rationally come to the text, instead needing this "Jesus" figure to disappear because he still looms over your life.

How personal do you want to go?

Toto

Christopher Heard defends Hector Avalos from attack by the Discovery Institute for comparing the Bible to Mein Kampf: I know that Johnny Skeptic has said in the past that he is only opposed to fundamentalist Christianity. Let's be more careful with words, ok?

p.s. - thanks to Chris for getting me to look this up. There's a lot of good material on Heard's website.

Riverwind

As Toto said, it's good to get terms spelled out.

What exactly is a fundamentalist? This has become a pejorative term, but all it really means is someone who believes in the fundamentals of their faith. In my book, anyone who believes in the fundamental tenets of Christianity is a fundamentalist. However, I think that fundamentalist surely doesn't refer to all Christians who believe in the fundamentals. It seems, rather, to imply those who are very legalistic and hateful in their interpretation of the Bible, focusing more on condemning the wrong in others than fixing the wrong in their own lives.

I would say the same thing for evangelicals. This has also become something of a pejorative term, and probably represents the same group mentioned above. Evangelicals, however, are those who believe in the Great Commission (end of Matthew), that is, in telling others the "good news" (that most here are already familiar with, whether they believe it to be "good news" or not). To some, evangelism is annoying...understood. To others, it reflects the care and concern for fellow human beings that Johnny Skeptic seems to think is lacking when he condemns Christians. If Christians didn't care, and didn't want others to be "saved from a fiery hell" (if said Christians believe in a fiery hell), then he'd have a valid criticism.

In short, saying Christians are evil and bad people doesn't make them so, in spite of one's human perception of their God. Taking a more understanding approach, one can understand their motives and have a better rapport with them.

youngalexander

Indeed there is. Would I be correct in assuming that the guys on E/C are familiar with CH? I cannot recall any mention, but have not hung out there much since KvD was decided. I'm sure many would be interested in the site. These things are sometimes missed due to lack of cross-fertilisation.

Chris Weimer

How is this related to E/C? Heard is a Hebrew professor - his pro-evolution stance is that of a layman, and his beef with the Discovery Institute here is actually over another Biblical Scholar here, not anything to do with creationism, evolution, or intelligent design?

Toto

Heard has written quite a bit about the interaction between science and religion which might be of interest to the Ev/Cr crowd. You can read more of his blog following the archived post on Hector Avalos - he discusses issues such as

youngalexander

I emed RBH with the link.