Aspirin99

Next Tuesday, I have been invited to have dinner with a Christian Fundamentalist. This is someone I went to Bible College with some years ago. I want to explain my views to him, but I could use some advice in the approach.

A simplified snapshot of my views is that the story of Jesus evolved from being a teacher to Christ, and the Gospels prove that the resurrection was an invention by internal inconsistencies and lack of historical corroboration.

I know there is a mixture of views here. If you hold a similar view or could explain my view in about 5 topic points, what would the sequence be? This thread is not about proving or disproving this viewpoint, it's about explaining it - so, I 'm hoping a few might be interested in staying on topic. How would you explain it in about 5 topic points?

Here is my list. Tell me if you would do it differently.

1. Establish the chronology of views on the resurrection with Paul's view first, then Mark's and finally the other Gospel writers, showing a progressive mythology of fantastic claims.

2. Show that the historical problems and inconsistencies prove that the story was a later fabrication of events (eg. Herodian baby massacre, conflicting birth dates, zombie saints, 3 hr darkness, torn veil, bribed guards).

3. Show that Paul did not know of the miracles of Jesus, his conflict with the powers that be, his virgin birth and post-resurrection wonderings- That many stories about Jesus were obvious inventions to prove he could have been the messiah (Nazareth, Bethlehem, genealogies, donkey ride into Jerusalem).

4. The Gospels show a Jesus who believes in the Flood and in the worth of Moses, apparently including his atrocities.

5. The original witnesses were not necessarily martyred, and if they were killed it was not necessarily for refusing to denounce the message of Jesus.

Ruhan

As an ex fundi myself who also attended Bible college and have been in that exact same position myself, I would approach it in the following manner:

- Christian fundamentalism's foundation is in the innerancy of scripture. In discussions with my fundi friends I have always started by explaining that I came to realise that the Bible was in fact full of errors, not just textually but also in how it was formed. We know today that the oldest fragment of a copy of a manuscript from the NT that we have came from 125 AD. We have over 5000 different fragments and most of them differ significantly. When you look at how the Bible was formed (politcal environment at the Nicene Council) and what they used as the source for our NT, then the NT itself becomes highly questionable. In fact it has such large holes in it that you could drive a truck through it.

- Once you are in a position where you can no longer live your life based on a collection of fragements of copies of ancient manuscripts, then it simply comes down to faith and emotion. Emotional experiences are great but they are not real. People feel emotional about Buddha, Muhammed and Michael Jackson. You began to see how as emotional beings we developed a God because his existance would firstly explain how we came to be and secondly it would remove all our fears of death and loneliness. It's an emotional drug that is quite addictive and you decided to become sober.

Good luck.

Chili

Don't shoot the teacher. Just because his fundamentalist interpretation is wrong does not mean that the bible is wrong. It only means that he is wrong.

Just ask him how he is going to resolve his saved sinner paradox and let him explain how he plans to do that. Your point here is that victory is not much of a victory if you have to die to claim it.

Aspirin99

Good points. However, I should clarify one thing. While he is closest to the fundamentalist view, he has begun to break free from these views to an extent, and I hope to capitalize on this to explain my points. For example, he accepts that biblical manuscripts could contain copyist errors and interpolations. Also, last year, I succeeded in convincing him that evolution was more probable than Adam being the first person 6K years ago. In a previous conversation, the main reason he remained a Christian was that the disciples would not have died for something that was not true.

pharoah

We have ongoing examples today of Islamic fundies dying for religion. Besides, there's no real evidence that any of the disciples were martyrs. James is the only one mentioned in the Bible.

spin

If you can possibly do it, avoid talking about religion. Talk about old times, talk about football, talk about whatever you can that might be stimulating, but don't talk about religion, unless the guy stops being a host to push his beliefs. In that case ask him, how he distinguishes his personal god experience from those personal experiences recorded of schizophrenics who apparently commune with non-existent friends, companions, persecutors, etc.


spin

Aspirin99

Religion is the only thing we have in common. Frankly, I find him very boring otherwise.

spin

The average religionist is not a rational person (at least when it comes to things involving belief), so you can't be rational with him/her.

I recommend you politely cancel, unless you really and truly need to shit-stir.


spin

Aspirin99

It's my brother-in-law, so I have to visit him from time to time. My desire to explain my views to him stem from the terrible insult I feel when they tell me they are praying for me.

Zeichman

Um... you think that's going to make them stop?

*cough*