HelenM

Thanks for your comments, Don.

Isn't it the case that there was a tradition in the early church, that Mark got his information for his gospel from Peter the apostle? If that's true then Peter would have been an eyewitness to Jesus' ministry.

And I understand there's a difference between 'tradition says Paul wrote this' and 'Paul wrote this'.

If I may move from the canon of Scripture to the 'truth' of what is written in it: one thing I'm seeing as I read Spong and Borg is that Christians aren't really presenting all the options when they say "either the gospel authors wrote the truth or they lied".

Clearly Borg and Spong see at least some of the gospel material as 'midrashic' i.e. it is a symbolic story-form portrayal of certain things.

That was a common Jewish way to elaborate on what the Torah said, in an imaginative way that didn't have to be true in the same sense that we expect our newspapers to be relating actually happenings with some degree of accuracy. These Jewish stories were to instruct, to make people think, to teach timeless spiritual truths. The principle was something they believed was true but not necessarily how they wove it into an elaboration of a Torah text - a 'midrash'.

(I probably didn't explain that very well . Maybe it wasn't very accurate either . I don't know much about this stuff)

And I'm not saying I think that the gospels are made up symbolic elaborations. I don't know what they are. What I do think is that Christians cannot effectively address what nonChristians or more liberal Christians are saying about the Bible if they aren't even aware of it.

love
Helen

DMB

Originally posted by Tom:

I apologise for coming to this rather late -- I have only just seen this thread.

The above quoted statement is a variant of something I have seen many times. It seems in effect to be implying that the more feeble the evidence, the more one's merit for believing in the doctrine. You get rewarded for "faith", which is simply unjustifiable belief. The god behind all this seems to be a pretty shy character who isn't keen to reveal his/her/itself. Moreover, which particular variety of faith is to be adopted seems to be dependent on the chance of exposure to the doctrines, which is largely dependent on geographical location. So god evidently doesn't believe in a level playing field.

Toto

Perhaps Tom is part of the faction of Christianity that secretly admits that Christianity is not really historically accurate or logically consistant, but still is needed for a good or moral or drug-free life. I think George Bush falls into this category, along with all his fellow recovering alcoholics/druggies.

The problem with this theory is that simple observation shows that Christians have no monopoly on mental heath or happiness or morality. But some of the Christians who have posted here have provided much more direct evidence that Christianity was not a life-enhancing experience. Perhaps Tom is just trying to avoid that trap.

Tom in KC

I can see how you might say that. This, like most of what has been posted on this thread, appears to be an “eye of the beholder” issue. I would say that God has revealed Himself just the right amount. I’m repeating myself, but God has left us clues. Many millions have come to the same conclusion that I have, and not just because they refused to challenge Christianity. Many of the strongest Christians have either become believers or have strengthened their faith through diligent study.

I think that the whole idea of Christianity, or theism in general, is appealing to some and revolting to others. It’s not surprising that different people read the same thing, and one thinks that it proves while the other thinks that it disproves religion “x”.

I agree with various posts that followers of other religions have reported “spiritual contact” of some kind. I also agree that these stories could be viewed as lending credibility to these other religions. It could also mean that the Spirit of God is at work in everyone, regardless of his or her religious beliefs. The unique nature of Christianity that appeals to me is the “justification by faith” component. I can’t fathom how man can earn himself eternal life (or a favorable re-incarnation) by his own works. Justification by faith also impacts the issue of “how much should God prove his existence?”. Faith is not needed if God controls everything on earth to the point that the most skeptical believe. Even the most self-reliant, God-averse human would be beaten into submission and become a “believer”, making grace - and life itself - meaningless.

No disrespect intended to those who have posted that God should make His presence more forcefully known; but I’d like to know what you feel the right amount of revelation would be.

Love,
Tom

[ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: Tom in KC ]</p>

David Gould

I would like as much evidence for the resurrection as there is for the destruction of Jeruselum. (This is simply an arbitary thing that first popped into my head).

Alternativly, I would like as much evidence for creation as there is for evolution. That way, at least I have a 50/50 shot at salvation as it is a guess either way.

As a final alternative, I would like any objective evidence at all that there is a supernatural realm of some kind.

This last would not deny faith at all as I would still have to choose which possible supernatural entity to believe in.

Arrowman

Hi, coming in late to this discussion... The discussion is interesting but seems to have wandered from Tom's original topic onto more general discussions of the validity of Christian faith, rather than how that faith is witnessed by Christians.

I think David Gould (10 January) summed it up very well, in particular
"The Christian is thus morally obligated to use methods which are conducive to bringing someone closer to salvation. Anything which has the possibility of alienating the umbeliever must be eliminated. the price of failure is too high for any moral being to contemplate."
and
"As an atheist, I think it should be a moral imperative for all Christians who believe in a literal Hell to witness. How they do so should also be governed by this same moral imperative."
- although unfortunately David's post seems to have been ignored in the subsequent discussion.

Perhaps we should ask ourselves - what is the difference between a Christian and an Amway representative (no offence, Christians!)? Some [atheists] would say - "No difference; they're both brainwashed and trying to convert you." But in fairness I would have to say that while it could be argued that the Amway rep is in some way motivated by what they see as a genuine attempt to share "something good", the commercial, self-interest motivation is much more prevalent and something which is not shared by the genuine, non-televangelist Christian.

I feel no obligation to extend courtesy to an Amway rep because their motivation is commercial. The extent to which I can extend courtesy to a witnessing Christian will depend on (a) what I perceive as their motive and (b) how they present themselves.

Christians, when witnessing, should be conscious of the need to "make a difference, not make a point" and also of common human decency, politeness and social practice.

Tom, I think your original post made some very good points. I would add that Christians sometimes:
1. Refuse to acknowledge that theirs is a belief not shared by you (ie they don't begin sentences with "I believe ...")
2. Refuse to respect your (non) belief as a legitimate position (albeit one which they would like to change)
3. Refuse to acknowledge that you may be motivated in your non-belief by factors other than those they would like to impose:
- "You reject God" - How can I reject something I don't believe in?
- "You hate God" - How can I hate something I don't believe in?
- "You reject God because you don't want to live under His rules" - What sane person would, believing God exists, reject his rules, knowing the consequences?
- "You've been led to this [Christian] message board by God; you just don't know it"
- "You're here [on this Christian message board] to convert people to atheism, or to mock other people's faith, or because God led you" - or it could just be because I enjoy the discussion.
- "God is speaking to you; you're just not listening" - pretty ineffectual for an omnipotent being who is supposed to be so interested in my salvation.
- "You are searching for something missing in your life; you just don't know it"
The first two of these are mere impediments to sensible discussion (and also expose the speaker to me as more seriously ignorant or deluded than most); the third is more serious because it displays a serious lack of respect for another person's (non) beliefs and intellect.

I'm happy to talk with a witnessing Christian, on a message board or at any time, provided my participation is voluntary, and there is a genuine two-way discussion going on - ie, whether I think they are prepared to listen as well as preach; to consider my point of view as well as their own, and to challenge their own beliefs to the same extent that they expect me to challenge mine.

PS Two little stories which are somewhat relevant:

1. Some years back there was a discussion on local talkback radio on junk mail, and in particular the effectiveness of "No Junk Mail" signs on letterboxes. One caller was a worker for a local political candidate. She said that the material she distributed was very important, and not "junk mail" - so she ignored the signs. The same sort of self-importance which afflicts some witnessing Christians.

2. A community of Plymouth Brethren lives in my area. On Saturday mornings 5 or 6 of the men stand for two hours in the car park at our local shopping centre, and shout at passers by about Jesus. No-one listens (or those that do, do so in an a amused and detatched sort of way). They are having absolutely no impact whatsoever. Yet they continue to consume every week 10-12 of the precious man-hours that their God gave them, in this pointless pastime, because, I suppose they think it's what their God wants them to do. I would have more respect for them if they went door to door - at least that way they'd stand some chance of reaching a convert or two.

Thanks for your original post, Tom; I am glad to see you have thought on these issues.

[ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: Arrowman ]</p>

-DM-

Tom:

It looks to me as if you generally sidestep the bigger issues mentioned in the two threads which you have started.

There are a number of questions which were asked in the Paul Doland thread which you never answered and there are several points made in this thread in direct response to your posts which you haven't addressed.

My guess is that people are going to tire of this rather quickly.

--Don--

HelenM

Well, of course, because you are a Christian and so you believe everything God does is perfect.

I would have been astonished had you said otherwise...!

love
Helen

doc58

Arrowman,
Those points you made about what Christians refuse to acknowledge are excellent. In my fundamentalist, inerrantist days, I thought that anyone who didn't believe in GOd was willfully rebelling against him. The possibility that someone could honestly look at the evidence and come to a rational conclusion of non-belief was not in my realm of thinking.
Now I see that many, many people do that. Those cliches you mentioned that are Christians stock responses nauseate me.

doc58

Tom in KC,
You have become fairly slippery in not directly addressing our posts in this thread and the Doland thread.
How about some simple yes and no questions? Please answer these questions yes, no, or I do not know.

1) Do you agree that the passage in Deut 22 that I mentioned in the other thread could not have been inspired by an omniscient God?

2) Do you agree that an omnipotent, omniscient God could make his existence known to every person as clearly as he does the existence of trees?

3) Do you agree that it is possible that some people (such as who are on this board) used to have genuine faith and were genuine Christians but found themselves without belief in the Christian God through thoughtful study and honest searching?


Thanks

[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: doc58 ]</p>