-DM-

Where, exactly, does Jesus state that this is "the central tenant [sic] of Christianity" (or something equivalent)?

Keep in mind that Christianity did not exist at the time.

Keep in mind that the partial quote that you supplied is from John (whoever he was), not Jesus.

Keep in mind that "Gospel" allegedly means "Good news" and the good news is "the proclamation of the redemption preached by Jesus and the Apostles, which is the central content of Christian revelation" [American Heritage Dictionary definition of "gospel"].

-Don-

P.S. Perhaps you are saying essentially the same thing, but I couldn't be sure.

Richard Carrier

Reply to Tercel in second page at:

Just to conclude this sub-thread:

Nevertheless, there are other statements by Jesus that are clear enough, IMO:

"But he who disowns me before men will be disowned before the angels of God" Luke 12:9

"But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven" Matt. 10:33

(It is not clear what "blaspheming the Holy Spirit" means, but it also secures absolute damnation: Lk 12:10, Mk 3:28, Mt 12:31-32. It is hard to fathom how atheism (or, say, an idolatry like Hinduism) is not a blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, but I concede that's an undecidable matter of interpretation)

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6

"Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son" John 3:18

All the above seems pretty clear to me.

There are also these passages:

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be my disciple. And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple." Luke 14:26-27

"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me." Matt. 10:37-38

The context certainly corroborates the view above--even if these can be "interpreted" your way in isolation, the fact that they occur in the context of Jesus discussing salvation and damnation is a pretty strong link to the verses above and their meaning.

The fact that this passage doesn't answer these questions your way is exactly my point (it is not about belief or nonbelief anyway, but whether Gentile Christians must follow Jewish Law to be saved). You have to put this in the context of what else Paul says, and what else was standard belief in his day. For example, you can bet Paul believed, like all Jews, that not loving God was an act of evil (the first commandment makes this plain--it is a death penalty offense--and Jesus at several points says loving God with all your heart and soul is the primary teaching). Thus, when he talks about people doing evil, he is including atheism in that statement (and this is made explicit by Paul at several points, e.g. Rom 1:18, 1 Tim. 6:10, 2 Tim. 2:16, Hebr. 12:16, Jude 1:4-5ff., etc.--of course, you can reject some of these as pseudo-Pauline, but that doesn't mean they are false doctrine--and even if they are, that is an opinion most Christians do not share, or else they would not put these books in the canon--and we are, again, talking about what Christianity appears to preach, regardless of what you have revamped it into).

Likewise, since Paul everywhere preaches Jesus as God, to reject Jesus is to reject God (exactly as Jesus says, per above), and is therefore atheism, which is, again, wicked. So I really don't think you can make a Biblical case for your position. It still seems to me that you must reject a lot of what's in the Bible to maintain your view. Fair enough--but let's not pretend otherwise!

That is a clever way to reinterpret things, I agree, but it doesn't really work against all the passages above, and again it is an interpretation not explicit anywhere in the bible. We are, after all, talking about what seems to be the case about Christianity, not what we can creatively reinterpret it into.

This curiosity should be solved at once: Unitarian Universalism, Deism, New Ageism, and other "God-is-a-Nice-Guy" religions abound for the taking here in the West. Yet would-be atheists are not driven to them, but to atheism. So it can't just be about bad gods. Of course, there is also the evidential argument from evil: no matter what you say about God, there is very little evidence he is a nice guy--to the contrary, all actual empirical evidence leads any objective observer to the opposite conclusion. But even without that, the main reason there are atheists is simply this: there is no evidence.

Thus, my take on history is different than our Orthodox friend. There is a reason, after all, that the West had a Scientific Revolution, and the East, despite having far more wealth and knowledge, never even got close. That reason is very likely a lack of rational skepticism, essential to a scientific mind, yet that very skepticism is what acts, like Dawkins' "universal acid," to slowly burn away all kinds of god belief. Thus, it isn't about bad gods. It's about bad thinking.

But you needn't agree with any of the above. I just put it out there by way of explaining the reason for my take on things.

Richard Carrier

That isn't what I am saying, though--I am talking about the way the religion is presented in its own central holy text (see my response to Tercel above--more than half a dozen passages from the Bible make my point plain). Yes, individuals may respond to an opportunistic message for different reasons, but the message still, as I said, "seems opportunistic," since that is the plain and obvious way it is repeatedly presented in the Bible.

Now, I understand everything else you have to say here, and I agree with most of it. I am only seeking to explain why I believe Christianity as a religion (not necessarily any particular Christians) seems opportunistic--and I have given numerous Biblical passages explaining why I believe that. I think you can agree this isn't "selective interpretation" I am engaging in here. This is the plain, contextual reading of numerous passages from numerous NT books.

That isn't my argument, though. My argument is "passage A, B, C, D, E , F and G all agree in saying clearly and in context that belief in Jesus saves, denial of Jesus damns, and no passage in the Bible explicitly refutes or denies this conclusion. Therefore, Christianity, on a plain and contextual reading of its own central founding text, seems inherently opportunistic." There is no big leap here. Indeed, I don't even have to take a step: the bible itself is already standing where I see it. It is Christians like you who are making leaps beyond what the text plainly says, and selectively ignoring passages like those I cite, and playing up the importance of even more ambiguous and obscure passages that don't in fact even contradict the passages I am pointing to and thus don't undermine my point at all.

Now, let me close my role in this thread with a final point explaining myself: I say all the power to you. If you can actually convince conservative Christians (who by every poll far outnumber you) of your 'reinterpretation' of Christianity, then you would be doing us atheists a favor, IMO. It would be a strong and important social step towards tolerance and acceptance of unbelievers. I just don't see your war strategy having any chance. Your book doesn't support you--if it supports anyone, it supports the conservatives, and if it doesn't support them, it doesn't support you any more securely than them. So what do you have? At best you can try to appeal to logic or inspiration by the holy spirit, but the latter is subjective (they will claim the same, and no progress will be possible) and the former inconclusive (conservatives can build just as coherent a case as you can, both internally and externally). Thus, everything balances out--except the Bible, which leans away from your liberal view toward the damnation of atheists, or else leans neither way and thus wins no one over.

Maybe I am wrong. Indeed, it would be nice if I was. I just don't think I am. And that's why I am not very encouraged by the bright light of a few liberals like yourself who offer hope to unbelievers, but no real game plan to bring that hope to fruition. That's just the way things look to me so far.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Richard Carrier,
I see. Then it seems your position is slightly more precarious than I originally thought. You see...the above scriptures don't really seem opportunistic. Let's have a look at one of your examples:

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6

This statement doesn't really seem opportunistic as used in common language (which means 'taking advantage of opportunities as they arise'). In fact given the definition it feels quite the opposite of opportunistic...there doesn't seem any foothold to take advantage of here. I think most would categorize this particular passage as 'matter of fact' more than anything else. A simple statement of truth.


Now I grant you that one could (as you do) interpret this in some manner other than a mere statement of truth...perhaps opportunistic. However, I would add with this concession that such an interpretation seems highly biased and lacking in 'freethought'. That is I have no idea, all things being equal , why one would interpret this passage the way you do.



I guess this is what resides at the center of our contention: I grant you that scripture can be interpreted in different ways...yet I see no reason one would interpret the above scriptures as 'opportunistic'.



Agreed. More or less. I don't think you are taking some obscure selection of scriptures and presenting those as the theme in toto of Judeo-Christian theology. However, (and again) though I grant that one could interpret these scriptures as opportunistic I fail to see why one would do so. You must understand, I am not playing dumb. This is really how I feel. I'm being honest.


Correct. But passages 'A, B, C, D, E, F and G' really do seem like mere statements of fact. That is the scripture you present seems exactly analogous to a fireman ushering people out of a burning building, saying 'Listen, the only way out of here is down THIS hallway. Not THAT hallway or THAT hallway over there. If you want to live...run down THIS hallway.' To me this situation just doesn't seem opportunistic.


First, I completely accept and tolerate people with positions like your own. In fact, I even claim that in some cases (not all)that an unbelievers position can be downright rational.

Second, I think most Christians actually do accept, tolerate and even welcome unbelievers. Every Christian I know feels this way. This seems to be the norm not the exception. Granted this may not be your experience. Allow my apologies if this is not.

Lastly, 'tolerance and acceptance of unbelievers' is a completely futile endeavor. For what is really at hand is 'Is there a God or not?' If there is not then convincing people to believe something false in a more cohesive manner is meaningless. If there is then convincing people to be 'more accepting' of people who believe a falsehood is meaningless.




Regardless...good discoursing with you.





Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Tercel

Richard,

The idea of trying to convince an atheist my theology is Biblical strikes me as rather absurd. I would agree that there are verses in the Bible that disagree with my interpretation, but I would submit that the Bible is sufficiently contradictory that there will inevitably be verses that disagree with any interpretation. I simply believe that my theology is the most consistent and logical possible theology holding as closely as possible to the spirit of what the Bible teaches.

Whether you, personally, agree with that or not, I am not particularly concerned with. If you do not, as it appears, I would remind you that the Eastern Orthodox church is the second largest Christian sect and, as such, has included numerous very competent theologians over the centuries. Regardless of what you personally think, I hope you can accept that a large number of very competent people have considered this theology to be Biblical. I am not particularly well read in their reasons for coming to the conclusions they did, nor do I have any authoritative listing of Bible verses supporting their position, nor am I familiar with what responses they would give regarding the verses you quote. I can merely give a few of my own thoughts on the matter, based on what comes to mind from my own limited experience and memory.

As much as I guess you would like to dismiss Orthodoxy out of hand as "unbiblical" and concentrate on the straw-man of Protestant Fundamentalism and then claim to have defeated "Christianity", I would suggest that that is not really very "intellectually honest". If you are going to refuse to take Pascal's Wager for that reason, then it is only fair you don't straw-man Christianity for that reason.

Except of course, that this person will be forgiven. (Luke 12:10)

This is an easy one. Nothing says we have to know about and believe in Jesus to go "through" him. We can only live "through" breathing air, but that doesn't mean that an African tribeman's who's never heard the word "Oxygen" (nevermind an understanding of why it's important) can't live.

But a quick browse of verses 19-21 will show that "judgement" is actually based on how we feel about what we have done, and that John has reasoned from this that "people who are the sort of people that are going to be saved will be the sort of people more likely to accept Jesus" and hence "those that will be saved can be loosely equated with those who accept Jesus". A read of 1 John will show this same logic prominent.

The way I read it, it equates good people with the saved (vs 7,10) and the bad people with the damned (vs 8,9) and reiterates that judgement is based on whether we are such a person (vs 6, 11,16) and notes that those who lacked knowledge won’t be worse off based on this lack (vs 12-15).

As for analysing Paul’s views in the context of this day, my understanding is that NT Wright does just exactly that in his book What Saint Paul Really Said (though unfortunately I haven’t yet read the book) and comes to effectively the same conclusion as the standard Orthodox teaching (despite Wright being an Anglican), which has (understandably) upset a number of Protestants.

I have revamped it? Appears to preach?
I don’t doubt that in many cases atheism is a deliberate act of evil. But acts of evil can be forgiven, and in many cases atheism appears to have honest causes.

No. What is at issue is what Christians actually believe. Not what Richard Carrier thinks real Christians should believe.
You also seem to have a rather amusing Protestant bias: you’re trying to shoot down church teaching with random Bible verses.

Of course it can. For a huge number of people the choice is really between accepting the religion they’ve been brought up with/is the predominant religion in their culture, and rejecting it.
People’s beliefs have a very high inertia and it generally takes a lot to get someone to change their beliefs. Thus once people reject Christianity on the basis and migrate to the “no-religion” category they usually remain.

Certainly, some atheists are atheists because they think there is no evidence. However for the vast majority of posters I have talked to on this board, the driving factor in their rejection of what they had been taught was that it contained contradictory or illogical teachings.

Richard Carrier

Thank you everyone for your perspective and insight. I will take these views into consideration from now on.

Be groovy.

Jobar

Tercel:
I simply believe that my theology is the most consistent and logical possible theology holding as closely as possible to the spirit of what the Bible teaches.

I'm sure that every single believer who knows what the word 'theology' means says exactly the same thing, Tercel. From Fred Phelps to the Pope. We have no evidence that yours is any better- or worse- than their interpretation.