It has been several years, but I recently had the privilege to sit down with the local LDS missionaries and talk about our respective faiths. Even my son decided to sit down, listen in, and experience the painful but subtle attacks against the Bible.During our conversation and almost within the first half hour, the missionaries did something I had not experienced in a very long time. They pretty much gave their version of an altar call. Basically, my son and I listened patiently to the missionaries present their belief that Joseph Smith is a prophet. Then they quickly took their presentation to a point that called upon my son and I to decide if we wanted to know if Smith was truly a prophet. The room became quiet as we let the silliness of the moment sink. For the missionaries were not asking us to think but to feel if Smith was a prophet.
As awkward as the moment was, even I was at a loss for a moment as to what to say. I knew it was pure nonsense, yet I was doing everything I could not to run them out of my house by being over zealous. As calmly as I could, I steered the conversation back to Scripture. I went to Deuteronomy 13 as an answer to their "decision". The true prophet Moses states in that text:
"If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying, 'Let us go after other gods (whom you have not known) and let us serve them,' you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God is testing you to find out if you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. You shall follow the LORD your God and fear Him; and you shall keep His commandments, listen to His voice, serve Him, and cling to Him.Now we have every reason to believe Moses was a true prophet of God. We also have every reason to believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. We have every reason to believe the God has spoken to us in His Word. Yet when I pointed out that their view of the nature of God plainly and sufficiently contradicted what Moses had to say, they began their subtle attack on the sufficiency of the Bible.
It was here that the missionaries showed their true colors. Their arguments were exactly that of Rome's. One must have an infallible external authority in order to know and understand Scripture. So yet again, the issue became the sufficiency of Scripture. Is God able to speak in such a way that men are culpable for what is said? For the LDS church, and Rome for that matter, the answer is "no".
The conversation went for over two hours and all of my questions almost always reverted back to the sufficiency of Scripture. For LDS members, the answer will always be "Utah says so." For the Christian, the answer must always remain faithful to what God has spoken through Christ and His Apostles and Prophets.
In the end, one of the missionaries did say something that quite surprised me. He said that I had offered him the most thorough explanation of the Gospel he had heard. I guess on the one hand I take that as a compliment. On the other hand, I find it quite sad that for a 21 year old man, to have never heard the Gospel in a consistent presentation is more of an indictment and a blemish upon the Christian church.
To be honest, I know there are things that I did not say because I am in no way prepared to deal with LDS missionaries. It is far too much work. I feel lazy, and that is no excuse. Nevertheless, I pray for these young men. Perhaps God would be gracious unto them and show them the inconsistency of their beliefs and bring them to a place in which they would be willing to repent of their sin and polytheism, and turn to the One True and only living God and His Son.
53 comments:
We can never be prepared enough to answer all their questions and provide evidence of all the problems of their system. But if we tell them the truth of the Gospel from Scripture, we have given them what they really need to hear.
Then they quickly took their presentation to a point that called upon my son and I to decide if we wanted to know if Smith was truly a prophet. The room became quiet as we let the silliness of the moment sink. For the missionaries were not asking us to think but to feel if Smith was a prophet.
Is that so very different from what Christianity asks of us? Are only those who have sound philosophical arguments and historical or empirical evidence for Christianity required to become Christian?
Not all have that opportunity. I suspect relatively few have had the leisure and opportunity necessary to investigate the claims of the Christian missionaries who have visited them.
But are they not, none the less, required by God to believe?
William Lane Craig sounds much like these Mormons when he refers to "the self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit". Do you deny that God can and does convict the heart of people on hearing the Gospel (or something similar; I realize different Christian schools of thought characterize this sort of thing differently)?
Regarding your quote from Deutoronomy I suspect a member of the Jewish faith would view you Christians as having violated it as much as you think the Mormons have.
You call what they said a "subtle attack on the sufficiency of the Bible". But is it not possible that they are simply saying that you've misinterpreted it.
Yes, both Mormons and Catholics rely more on and defer more to the church leadership for interpretation of scripture. But I'm not sure that can reasonably be considered an attack on scripture. Rather it sounds more like an attack on protestantism.
Not that I don't think you're entirely right in thinking Mormonism quite clearly false (though the arguments I'd give for that might sometimes be different). The origins of Mormonism are far more recent than those of most other religions with millions of followers and we have more than sufficient basis for saying, beyond reasonable doubt, that Joseph Smith was a fraud and a con artist.
"Is that so very different from what Christianity asks of us?"
As much as I like William Lane Craig, his methodology is just radically different from Reformed thought. At times, I have to wonder where he is going. His views seem to lead to feeling one position over another. Kind of sad really since he is one of the world's leading scholars on the evidence for the resurrection.
We live in an age of irrationality and experientialism. Unlike the Mormons who were asking us to feel the "burning in our bosom", Christianity makes historical claims. So as a Reformed Christian, no, I do not ask people to feel if Jesus is real nor do I ask people to experience Jesus. I simply call men to repent and believe in Christ because of what Christ has done in history.
As for people not having the opportunity to investigate the historical claims of Christianity, that is a problem, nevertheless, it is a duty of men to do so.
"Do you deny that God can and does convict the heart of people on hearing the Gospel."
No I do not deny this at all. However, just because men do not "feel" saved and yet recognize their true need and repent, does not mean Christians should use American frontier style or methods of evangelism.
1) "Regarding your quote from Deutoronomy I suspect a member of the Jewish faith would view you Christians as having violated it as much as you think the Mormons have."
I have no doubt. The question though is on what basis do they object?
Christians do not proclaim a different God, a different faith or a different Messiah that Scripture predicts. Jesus fulfills the Scriptures. Of course that is the argument.
2) "Yes, both Mormons and Catholics rely more on and defer more to the church leadership for interpretation of scripture. But I'm not sure that can reasonably be considered an attack on scripture."
Not knowing your background, I will try to be clear. All people look to the pastors and leaders for assistance in the interpretation of the Bible. No one has ever denied that. The question is the sufficiency of the Scriptures and whether or not there needs to be an external infallible authority equal to it. Once it is granted that an external infallible authority is necessary, then Scripture by definition becomes subservient to man's traditions.
3) As for thinking Mormonism is false on purely historical grounds (aside from major theological contradictions and other problems), I would whole-heartedly agree. The problem though when arguing with a Mormon is that arguing historical sources is becoming more and more irrelevant since religion is a feeling.
I am often puzzled as to what kind of missionary I am speaking with as to whether or not I need to go down the historical road or to just try to get him to think consistently theologically, which is why I went to Deuteronomy 13.
Because they were so postmodern, I doubt anything I said made any sense at all.
"We live in an age of irrationality and experientialism. Unlike the Mormons who were asking us to feel the "burning in our bosom", Christianity makes historical claims."
Actually, Mormons do both (just as most varieties of Christianity do). They have apologists who argue for their religion on historical, empirical and philosophical grounds in addition to the "burning the the bosom" business.
"So as a Reformed Christian, no, I do not ask people to feel if Jesus is real nor do I ask people to experience Jesus. I simply call men to repent and believe in Christ because of what Christ has done in history."
However, as a presuppositionalist, do you not simply assume from the outset the truth of Christianity and the Bible? That hardly sounds any more reasonable than the approach of these Mormons.
"As for people not having the opportunity to investigate the historical claims of Christianity, that is a problem, nevertheless, it is a duty of men to do so."
And how, exactly, is some impoverished and illiterate villager in some remote part of South America supposed to investigate the claims made by the Christian missionaries he encounters?
"I have no doubt. The question though is on what basis do they object?
Christians do not proclaim a different God, a different faith or a different Messiah that Scripture predicts. Jesus fulfills the Scriptures. Of course that is the argument."
The people who are actually part of the religion whose scripture you think Jesus fulfills (and who more often are reading it in the original languages and having been immersed in the culture of the peoples who created that scriptures) almost always disagree.
So far as I can tell Christians are seeing Jewish scriptures through the lens of their Christian culture and upbringing projecting onto it things not really there and the Mormons are doing the same to Christian scriptures.
"Once it is granted that an external infallible authority is necessary, then Scripture by definition becomes subservient to man's traditions."
Since the choice of what is scripture is itself a human tradition I don't see how you escape this trap either.
"The problem though when arguing with a Mormon is that arguing historical sources is becoming more and more irrelevant since religion is a feeling."
I feel much the same in my encounters with Christians (including when they replace feeling with presupposition---which isn't an improvement).
Besides, those who base their beliefs on religious experience (they usually object to the characterization of it as "merely" feelings) often are willing to mount some version of the argument from religious experience in defense of that choice (though, obviously, I've not been impressed with those arguments).
Perhaps one big difference in the Mormon approach and that of Christianity is this:
1. The Mormons ask you to go by a burning feeling.
2. The work of the Holy Spirit brings light to the understanding and a spiritual knowing of the truth.
As to 1, most Christians I've encountered do the same, sometimes just implicitly (by making their efforts at "witnessing" an attempt to grab the emotions), but very often explicitly. I can't begin to count the number of Christians who've said something like "I just feel it in my heart" (often in those exact words) as the reason for their religious beliefs.
Regarding 2, I suspect Mormons would say something very similar.
Mr Ellis,
You are a good sport for putting up with me. :-)
1) "However, as a presuppositionalist, do you not simply assume from the outset the truth of Christianity and the Bible? That hardly sounds any more reasonable than the approach of these Mormons."
We all presume that our religious worldview is true. As a presuppositionalist though, I start with God's truth because it is God's truth. The evidence and methods must be consistent within such a claim.
2) "So far as I can tell Christians are seeing Jewish scriptures through the lens of their Christian culture and upbringing projecting onto it things not really there and the Mormons are doing the same to Christian scriptures."
This seems to presume a skepticism that basically assumes that one can't know for certain anything. I reject this merely cultural argument. Although I don't reject that your argument has some weight. I just don't think it is fully consistent.
3) "The people who are actually part of the religion whose scripture you think Jesus fulfills (and who more often are reading it in the original languages and having been immersed in the culture of the peoples who created that scriptures) almost always disagree."
Lewis Black makes the same argument ina comedy routine. Pretty funny too. However, if I were a funny guy, I would ask Mr. Black if the Jewish Jesus and His Jewish Apostles were Jewish enough for him.
4) "I feel much the same in my encounters with Christians (including when they replace feeling with presupposition---which isn't an improvement)."
Funny, based upon this argument, I have to emotionally accept the radical skepticism of the modern era. If we apply it to your own position of course.
So what is our common ground? I believe the common ground between us is the truth that you are made in the image of God and therefore are able to reason and think, ect.. Presuppositionalism simply calls you to understand these issues.
5) RS said, "2. The work of the Holy Spirit brings light to the understanding and a spiritual knowing of the truth."
DE said, "Regarding 2, I suspect Mormons would say something very similar."
This happened to Moses as well. This is the debate. Someone is lying is someone is telling the truth. I suppose both could be lying, but then I would be thinking my own position is a lie, and that would be silly of me. :-)
Hence we need to do what Moses commanded in Deuteronomy 13 as well as 1 John
1Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.
God Bless
David,
On this website, Ken Samples answers some of the issues you raise about testing worldviews. I know you may disagree with Ken, but I think Ken is of a personality that I think you would enjoy. Besides, he is much smarter than I could hope to be.
God Bless
http://www.christreformed.org/mp3s-and-real-audio-of-academy/
Scroll down and see May and November of 07.
We all presume that our religious worldview is true.
One's opinions about religion are not necessarily axiomatic assumptions. For example, none of my fundamental assumptions about the world include any religious claim for or against.
I do not take as axiomatic that atheism is true; nor that naturalism is true. Indeed, I find the very idea of doing so absurd. I CONCLUDE that these things are likely to be true on the basis of a variety of arguments that I won't bore you with the details of.
As a presuppositionalist though, I start with God's truth because it is God's truth.
And how do you know it's God's truth your starting with rather than a human religious tradition which you mistake for God's truth?
"This seems to presume a skepticism that basically assumes that one can't know for certain anything."
Whether we can know anything for certain has nothing whatsoever to do with what I'm saying. I've simply concluded, after long study and thought on the subject that Christians pretty badly misinterpret what the OT is saying. But debating that would be a long tedious discussion and I'm not sure either of us are interested in going into it in detail. I don't believe in Jewish scripture any more than do I the distinctively Christian ones so I've little interest in debating how consistent one is with the other---the bigger problem for me is that there's no reasonable grounds for believing either of them.
Lewis Black makes the same argument in a comedy routine..."
Yeah, I've seen that one. He's one of my favorite comedians (not surprising; he's both funny and has very similar beliefs in most respects to mine).
Funny, based upon this argument, I have to emotionally accept the radical skepticism of the modern era. If we apply it to your own position of course.
I'm not a radical skeptic (unless you're defining that term very differently from what I would). If you take what I've said as an endorsement of it you've misunderstood me.
So what is our common ground? I believe the common ground between us is the truth that you are made in the image of God and therefore are able to reason and think, ect.. Presuppositionalism simply calls you to understand these issues.
We can both reason and think. Whether we need to be made in the image of God for that to be possible is a belief you hold and for which I've yet to see a good argument.
This happened to Moses as well. This is the debate. Someone is lying is someone is telling the truth.
You've missed an additional option: that at least one (and maybe all) who think 2 is true of them are simply mistaken.
Hence we need to do what Moses commanded in Deuteronomy 13 as well as 1 John
1Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.
In other words, everyone who agrees with my religion is of God and the Truth and everyone who doesn't isn't.
I've heard similar claims from people of other religions.
Simply assuming you're right from the outset is no argument for your actually BEING right.
1) "And how do you know it's God's truth your starting with rather than a human religious tradition which you mistake for God's truth?"
Great question. I guess the problem comes that if someone that is speaking to us claims to be God or His representative, then how do we know that the person speaking is who they claim to be.
For instance, when God spoke to Moses, how would He know it is the true God or a false one (I mean talking burning Bushes don't exactly mean eternal God)? This is where evidence go hand in hand with your presupps. God made a claim over Moses' life. He demonstrated His claim in some mighty ways. Now if you reject Christainity's and Judaism's historical claims and basis, then we are at the end of our discussion. There is nothing more I can say that would convince you otherwise. If the parting of the Red Sea doesn't do it for you, then....
Another for instance, Jesus claimed to be God in the flesh. He claimed equality with God. He claimed He would eventually judge your soul and all of mankind. Now if you were standing there, you might ask the same question. How do I know that Jesus is telling the truth and every other religion is false? Why not all of them be false? As you asked,
"I've heard similar claims from people of other religions.
Simply assuming you're right from the outset is no argument for your actually BEING right."
I am not certain how Jesus, if He truly was who He claimed to be, could assume anything other than being God. Should Jesus have said, "I might be wrong about this, but..."
It is the resurrection that all of this stands or falls. If we are wrong, then there is absolutely no reason to not party and live it up in any way we desire. Either Jesus was a quack, or He was who He said He was (I realize there are other options, I am just summarizing).
2) "But debating that would be a long tedious discussion and I'm not sure either of us are interested in going into it in detail."
This is somewhat related. I am curious just for one reason why you think Jesus and His Apostles misinterpreted the Old Testament. Jesus does make the claim that all of the OT is about Himself. That is pretty radical.
I understand that many of the prophecies in Matthew, for instance, are a type and shadow method of prophecy, but the reason Matthew was able to use this argumentation was because this Christological method was not unique to the Apostles. It is my understanding that more scholarship is discovering that the Christological method of looking at the OT was common among the teachers of Jesus' day.
BTW: I enjoy Mr. Black's comedy. It is always good to be challenged. I just thought his funny point about Jews walking among us misses the obvious and is purely arrogant and a-historical in one sense. The original church was Jewish, not Gentile.
God Bless
David B. Ellis said...As to 1, most Christians I've encountered do the same, sometimes just implicitly (by making their efforts at "witnessing" an attempt to grab the emotions), but very often explicitly. I can't begin to count the number of Christians who've said something like "I just feel it in my heart" (often in those exact words) as the reason for their religious beliefs.
RS: Perhaps, despite the words being rather close, there is a radical difference between the two. There is a massive difference between a feeling that one has inside (like the Mormons) and the living God dwelling inside. There is little difference if any between a feeling inside and heartburn. The Bible never asks a person to feel something and then choose this day based on that. But it does say for a person to examine him or herself to see if they have eternal life dwelling in them. But eternal life has far more evidences than a simple feeling.
Regarding 2, I suspect Mormons would say something very similar.
RS: Again, they may say something similar in a response, but they certainly do not mean what I am saying. The Gospel has the truth of the glory of God (who comes to us full of grace and truth) shining in the face of Christ and it is God who shines this light into the soul. This is to see with the eyes of the soul and to behold the glory of God in truth. The Mormons just ask you to feel something. These two things are an infinite distance apart.
"Regarding 2, I suspect Mormons would say something very similar."
This is one of the problems. Mormons and JWs, ect, use Christian language but pour wholly unbiblical definitions into the terms. This is what Dr. Walter Martin used to call the language barrier.
For instance, when God spoke to Moses, how would He know it is the true God or a false one (I mean talking burning Bushes don't exactly mean eternal God)? This is where evidence go hand in hand with your presupps.
We don't actually need the religious presupps. Just good evidence.
God made a claim over Moses' life. He demonstrated His claim in some mighty ways. Now if you reject Christainity's and Judaism's historical claims and basis, then we are at the end of our discussion. There is nothing more I can say that would convince you otherwise. If the parting of the Red Sea doesn't do it for you, then....
So if we don't assume from the outset that the historical claims of your religion are true discussion is at an end? Is this not a tacit admission that the historical evidence for your religion's claims is quite weak?
Another for instance, Jesus claimed to be God in the flesh. He claimed equality with God.
Actually, all I know is what was written about him 30+ years after he died. And even in those writings some of the writers depict him speaking very differently about his relationship to God from others. Some have him saying things quite at odds with what you say above. You assume the books of the NT are harmonious---but what they actually say frquently ISN'T and it requires some serious pretzel logic to make them so.
I am not certain how Jesus, if He truly was who He claimed to be, could assume anything other than being God. Should Jesus have said, "I might be wrong about this, but..."
I'm referring to YOUR assumptions. Not those of Jesus. Jesus left no writings behind and those who did write about him are anonymous and, at best, writing 30 years after his death---not the ideal circumstances for accuracy about a man's views.
It is the resurrection that all of this stands or falls. If we are wrong, then there is absolutely no reason to not party and live it up in any way we desire.
Nonsense. First, because your religion might be wrong doesn't mean some other isn't true.
Second, you've given no argument that hedonism is the rational response to a naturalistic world. Do you really find love and compassion so lacking in intrinsic value that you would abandon them without the reward of heaven and the fear of hell to motivate you?
I rather doubt it. Unless you're a sociopath and I have no reason to think that.
Either Jesus was a quack, or He was who He said He was (I realize there are other options, I am just summarizing).
In other words, you're giving a grossly inaccurate summary.
I am curious just for one reason why you think Jesus and His Apostles misinterpreted the Old Testament.
I was referring to the writers of the NT. Jesus wrote none of them and I don't think the evidence supports the books of the NT having been written by the apostles (other than Paul, who never met Jesus when he was alive).
1) "We don't actually need the religious presupps. Just good evidence."
No, I reject such a claim right up front. Jesus raised the dead and the Pharisees sought to kill Him all the more. The story of the Rich Man and Lazarus, Jesus tells us we would not believe even if someone were raised from the dead.
The Pharisees also saw the same miracles that Jesus was doing and attributed them to the Devil.
Therefore, two people can see the same thing and radically interpret them in different ways. Your assumption of moral neutrality is pure fiction according to the Bible and observable experience. You do not know your own sin if you really can make such a claim.
2) "So if we don't assume from the outset that the historical claims of your religion are true discussion is at an end? Is this not a tacit admission that the historical evidence for your religion's claims is quite weak?"
I guess if you think the historical event of the parting of the Red Sea is weak, then of course I have nothing to say. That would be like me saying to you that Isaac Newton didn't really come up with his scientific theories.
It all depends on what kind of evidence and argumentation you will accept. If your standard is based upon a ridiculous standard that no one may overcome, then of course I can not demonstrate to you the parting of the Red Sea. If your standard is normal historical standards, then....
3) "I'm referring to YOUR assumptions. Not those of Jesus. Jesus left no writings behind and those who did write about him are anonymous and, at best, writing 30 years after his death---not the ideal circumstances for accuracy about a man's views."
There are huge problems and underlying assumptions that go into this statement.
4) "In other words, you're giving a grossly inaccurate summary."
I guess if I claimed to be God and I was not God, I'd be psychological just fine with you?
5) "Second, you've given no argument that hedonism is the rational response to a naturalistic world. Do you really find love and compassion so lacking in intrinsic value that you would abandon them without the reward of heaven and the fear of hell to motivate you?"
This is the presupp I was trying to get at. There is no justification for such a claim. This is just your own personal view of the world which I see no reason to accept. Basically, this is another religious revelation claim that comes from a worldview that can not even begin to account for it. If I disagree with you, your only response has been I'm sorry you don't see it that way.
Basically, you are just adding one more religion to the world.
Even if it is true, I say, "so what?" I am going to die in a few years and that is that. No guilt, no judgment, I may do whatever I see is right in my own eyes.
6) "I was referring to the writers of the NT. Jesus wrote none of them and I don't think the evidence supports the books of the NT having been written by the apostles (other than Paul, who never met Jesus when he was alive)."
The idea of second century authorship came about due to naturalistically driven higher criticism of the last few centuries. More and more scholars are now abandoning much of the earlier claims since archeology has discredited much of the earlier positions.
It is my understanding that most scholars today, including both liberal and conservative all agree that Jesus was a real man, that He really died on the cross, that He really was buried in Joseph's tomb, and most importantly, the tomb was in fact empty on the third day. Noe the explanation for it being empty will depend upon if you are a naturalist or you allow the testimony of the Apostles and their worldview.
God Bless
5) b) I must agree at one point though. Fearing hell is not going motivate everyone for the same reasons. Trying to go to heaven just to escape hell is not a good reason to go to heaven. That is like the bank robber who is trying to avoid prison. He loves the thrill of robbing banks and getting the money. If he behaves, it is only because he is trying to avoid prison.
So you have nailed the Christian teaching of sin. We love our sin but we stand up straight because we do not want to be punished. That is man's religions.
Christianity is a heart transplant because of what Christ has done legally in our place. I do not desire to go to heaven to escape hell, but because I have come to love a God who has first loved me in Christ.
God Bless
David B. Ellis said...
Second, you've given no argument that hedonism is the rational response to a naturalistic world. Do you really find love and compassion so lacking in intrinsic value that you would abandon them without the reward of heaven and the fear of hell to motivate you?
RS: Perhaps, as another said, if we live in a truly naturalistic world the only real question is whether to commit suicide or not. All other questions are simply meaningless. It is interesting that you speak of love and compassion and their value. What value can love have in a naturalistic world? It is a world that came into being by sheer accident and so has utterly no meaning at all. It means that all who are born on it have no meaning and are headed toward utter extinction. Then the planet dies off there will be no memories of anyone or of anything they have done. Why, then, would love and compassion have any meaning?
But, to see it another way, love and compassion are meaningless apart from a God who lives in perfect love within Himself. Apart from God there is no love and there is no true compassion for another. Humans would only commit acts toward others as they help themselves. In fact, that is what all unbelievers do.
I John 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God.
8 The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love.
No one apart from being born of God and knowing God has any true love at all. So when a person talks about love and compassion as having any real meaning, that person reveals that s/he has been created by God and has the image of God in them regardless of the words of the mouth or keyboard.
The doctrine of hell tells us what existence apart from the love of God is like. It should teach us to pursue the only love possible in the universe and that is found only in Christ.
No, I reject such a claim right up front. Jesus raised the dead and the Pharisees sought to kill Him all the more. The story of the Rich Man and Lazarus, Jesus tells us we would not believe even if someone were raised from the dead.
Belief systems with little or no evidence in their favor often make this sort of claim. Sorry to sound like a broken record but I've heard similar things in the past from Mormons I've talked to.
Besides, when I said we I had in mind reasonable people willing to believe what the evidence supports. I wasn't by any means trying to imply all people are reasonable and would be convinced by good evidence. What I'm mostly saying is that, even though I don't presuppose Christianity, there are lots of examples of evidence that would be sufficient to convince me that the resurrection of Jesus occurred and that the Christian God and afterlife are real.
It's just you don't actually HAVE any good evidence. Which is why, as I mentioned before, there was a need to invent things like presuppositionalism.
Your assumption of moral neutrality is pure fiction according to the Bible and observable experience. You do not know your own sin if you really can make such a claim.
I never said anything about moral neutrality. I was referring to the evidence for claims like the resurrection, the Christian God and the Christian afterlife.
I guess if you think the historical event of the parting of the Red Sea is weak, then of course I have nothing to say. That would be like me saying to you that Isaac Newton didn't really come up with his scientific theories.
I didn't say "the historical event of the parting of the Red Sea is weak". I said the evidence that such an event occurred is weak.
Huge difference.
It all depends on what kind of evidence and argumentation you will accept. If your standard is based upon a ridiculous standard that no one may overcome, then of course I can not demonstrate to you the parting of the Red Sea. If your standard is normal historical standards, then....
Most historians, in fact, DON'T accept the parting of the Red Sea as a historical fact. Probably the only ones who do are those who started their historical studies as religious fundamentalists.
Again, I've heard very similar arguments made by people of other religions.
I guess if I claimed to be God and I was not God, I'd be psychological just fine with you?
I'd consider it just as likely that you were a liar as that you were a nut.
And if I heard someone claim you made this claim at I don't know how many hands removed I'd also have to consider it quite possible that you were being misrepresented, misquoted or misunderstood.
There is no justification for such a claim. This is just your own personal view of the world which I see no reason to accept.
Actually there's quite good empirical evidence that atheism doesn't lead to the sort of life you describe. The nations (and regions within nations) with the highest rates of atheism consistently, for decades, have scored best on measures of social well-being. Lower crime. Lower drug use. Lower teen pregnancy. Lower domestic violence. Even lower abortion rates.
The idea of second century authorship came about due to naturalistically driven higher criticism of the last few centuries.
I said 30+ years (which would be around 63 AD on). Well within the first century.
It is my understanding that most scholars today, including both liberal and conservative all agree that Jesus was a real man, that He really died on the cross, that He really was buried in Joseph's tomb, and most importantly, the tomb was in fact empty on the third day.
Then I suggest you not limit your reading on this to Christian apologists. Most historians think Jesus probably was a real man. Most would agree that he probably died on a cross. Beyond that I've seen far less agreement than Christian apologists claim.
It is interesting that you speak of love and compassion and their value. What value can love have in a naturalistic world? It is a world that came into being by sheer accident and so has utterly no meaning at all.
I do not share your belief that life's worth derives from how it came into existence. In fact, I find the very idea absurd. Can you explain why you would think such a weird thing?
Imagine two planets. One we'll call, oh just picking something out of a hat: Earth.
The other we'll call Mars.
Suppose that on Earth sentient beings were created by wise beings from an immaterial realm of existence. But on Mars sentient beings resulted from natural processes (natural selection acting one some primordial self-replicating molecules that emerged from purely natural chemical reactions).
The beings of Mars are just as intelligent, altruistic, selfish, wise, foolish and all the rest of the mix as the beings of Earth (lets us call them "humans"---a strange name, I know, but this is a thought experiment; we can have some fun and pick silly names).
Should we regard the Martians lives as meaningless and worthless while those of humans are rich in meaning and worth?
Why or why not?
Apart from God there is no love and there is no true compassion for another. Humans would only commit acts toward others as they help themselves. In fact, that is what all unbelievers do.
Really? And how do you know that's what I and all other unbelievers do? Oh, of course, because your religion says so.
I guess that settles it. It must be true.
It means that all who are born on it have no meaning and are headed toward utter extinction. Then the planet dies off there will be no memories of anyone or of anything they have done. Why, then, would love and compassion have any meaning?
Which is better:
For us to live but not forever (even as a species).
or
For us to have never existed at all.
You are claiming that the one is no better than the other. However I, for one, would certainly chose the former if I had a choice and those were the only two options.
It seems only sensible that if the experience of life is worth having then living forever is best, living for a while second best and not living at all is worst.
Besides which, I don't know that intelligent life is doomed to extinction. Who knows what may be possible to sentient life with thousands or millions of years more time as a technological civilization?
1) I never said anything about moral neutrality. I was referring to the evidence for claims like the resurrection, the Christian God and the Christian afterlife.
But I am saying it. I am saying you can not accept the resurrection because of your moral disposition. Even if you did, its meaning would be radically different to you. For instance, the debate with Jesus in his day was not that He could produce miracles, but that men refused to believe in His authority. The reason is because of who Jesus is and the moral depravity of man.
2) It's just you don't actually HAVE any good evidence. Which is why, as I mentioned before, there was a need to invent things like presuppositionalism.
First Presuppositionalism was not needed during times when people were not naturalists in the sense it is being used today. Also, Van Till was not the first to come up with this. It is not a new idea. It has just been expressed differently in the past.
Second, as for evidence, you mentioned that the New Testament was written at least 20-30 years after Christ, thereby this is a bad thing. Again, this assumes that just the four Gospels were written as a record of Christ. It also seems to assume that the oral proclamation of the Gospel was not able to be united and consistent and that when someone finally wrote them down that no one could fact check them. It also seems to assume that the Gospels were written down 20-30 years later. We simply do not know that the earliest Gospel could not have been written sooner.
If we doubt the historical reliability of the Gospels, then to be consistent, we know nothing about ancient history. I know you will beg to differ here, but....
3) Actually there's quite good empirical evidence that atheism doesn't lead to the sort of life you describe. The nations (and regions within nations) with the highest rates of atheism consistently, for decades, have scored best on measures of social well-being. Lower crime. Lower drug use. Lower teen pregnancy. Lower domestic violence. Even lower abortion rates."
I am not arguing that people do good who are atheists. I am arguing that there is no sound reason for there being some intrinsic good that you see. You are making a presuppositional (dare I say religious revelatory claim) claim that there is intrinsic goodness in life and therefore we ought to live according to that intrinsic goodness. Why should we live according to that intrinsic goodness? I have no idea. Where does this intrinsic goodness come from? I have no idea. You seem to have no idea. You are just making a religious claim that you expect everyone to accept because you think you live consistently with that claim. Well, there are others who have also said they have lived consistently with that claim and who are wicked.
So pointing to men who live good or bad is not going to solve this dilemma. In fact, I am glad Christ has saved this poor sinner in spite of my wickedness. No other religion can say that at all and be consistent with God's Law.
4) And if I heard someone claim you made this claim at I don't know how many hands removed I'd also have to consider it quite possible that you were being misrepresented, misquoted or misunderstood.
But there is no reason to think that Jesus was misquoted. There is no dispute between the letters of Paul, Peter, James, John, ect, about what Jesus said. The apparent contradictions comes from a modern (post printing press) journalistic idea of how history is to be recorded. If we allow the ancient historians to be themselves, I think many of the problems you think exist vanish.
God Bless
But I am saying it. I am saying you can not accept the resurrection because of your moral disposition.
Another thing typically claimed by belief systems who want to make converts but don't have evidence in support of their claims: If anyone who doesn't believe my religion it's because their heart is twisted by sin.
First Presuppositionalism was not needed during times when people were not naturalists in the sense it is being used today. Also, Van Till was not the first to come up with this. It is not a new idea. It has just been expressed differently in the past.
I agree with everything above but the first sentence. It does, however, reflect a serious problem in presuppositionalist apologetics: it tends to characterize the issue as a choice between Christianity and naturalism but tends to ignore the plethora of other religions out there.
Presuppositionalism is, indeed, a reaction to the rise of naturalism. In that respect I agree even with the first sentence (but I wouldn't say it is "needed" since I think it pretty obviously doesn't work).
Really? And how do you know that's what I and all other unbelievers do? Oh, of course, because your religion says so.
I guess that settles it. It must be true.
This sounds so postmodern. Of course we believe God has the right to define reality and what it means. Of course the Eternal Creator has the right to explain to us our true condition.
As the Apostle Paul taught in Romans 1, you by nature suppress the truth in unrighteousness. That is a truth claim, yet somehow we are not allowed to declare it. Your postmodern view basically says, your religion isn't allowed to make such a claim until it is proved by some higher external authority (you?).
I thought this question was interesting. I had to reread it just to make certain I read it right.
Suppose that on Earth sentient beings were created by wise beings from an immaterial realm of existence. But on Mars sentient beings resulted from natural processes (natural selection acting one some primordial self-replicating molecules that emerged from purely natural chemical reactions).
The beings of Mars are just as intelligent, altruistic, selfish, wise, foolish and all the rest of the mix as the beings of Earth (lets us call them "humans"---a strange name, I know, but this is a thought experiment; we can have some fun and pick silly names).
Now I know that I am not the brightest bulb, but this sounds like a question that is asking what if my world and worldview is true AND what if your world and worldview is true, then what?
I once heard a question that asked, "What time is it on the sun?" The question is obviously asking a question without a reference point. Your question seems to be attempting 2 reference points. From the get go, the question is irrational from my perspective.
Second, as for evidence, you mentioned that the New Testament was written at least 20-30 years after Christ, thereby this is a bad thing. Again, this assumes that just the four Gospels were written as a record of Christ. It also seems to assume that the oral proclamation of the Gospel was not able to be united and consistent and that when someone finally wrote them down that no one could fact check them. It also seems to assume that the Gospels were written down 20-30 years later. We simply do not know that the earliest Gospel could not have been written sooner.
I don't have to assume any of the above. It's the ones claiming the Bible is accurate who need to back up their claims.....just as it's the people who claim the Book of Mormon is accurate (and God's Word) who need to back up that claim.
They can't. You can't. And that's why it's reasonable to be skeptical of both.
If we doubt the historical reliability of the Gospels, then to be consistent, we know nothing about ancient history. I know you will beg to differ here, but....
Indeed, since what you're saying is a blatant absurdity. We have vastly more historical and archaeological evidence for a host of other claims about ancient history than we do concerning the life of Jesus.
Not to mention that it's perfectly reasonable to be more skeptical of things that aren't demonstrably possible (miraculous, supernatural, magical or paranormal claims) than it is to things that we know can happen (like having participated in some battle or other).
A standard which even you probably apply to the miracle and supernatural claims of other religions.
You are making a presuppositional (dare I say religious revelatory claim) claim that there is intrinsic goodness in life and therefore we ought to live according to that intrinsic goodness. Why should we live according to that intrinsic goodness? I have no idea. Where does this intrinsic goodness come from? I have no idea. You seem to have no idea. You are just making a religious claim that you expect everyone to accept because you think you live consistently with that claim.
No, I'm stating an opinion I hold on metaethical questions and one I've explained my thinking on at length before in discussion on this blog.
So pointing to men who live good or bad is not going to solve this dilemma.
There is no dilemma. You claim that one ought to be a selfish hedonist if there is no God but you've provided no basis for thinking this. I've explained before my reasons for thinking otherwise. They haven't changed.
But there is no reason to think that Jesus was misquoted. There is no dispute between the letters of Paul, Peter, James, John, ect, about what Jesus said.
I think some of the gospels characterize Jesus quite differently from one another. But that's a long discussion in it's own right (and not one crucial to my position).
We have quite a few topics going at once here. I'll willing to go into the matter of the historical evidence for the NT in more detail if you like but we'll probably need to focus on that by itself if we do. It's a big topic with many parts in it's own right.
This sounds so postmodern.
Only if I weren't being ironic. I find postmodernism utterly contemptible. If you take me for a postmodernist you're far off the mark.
Of course we believe God has the right to define reality and what it means. Of course the Eternal Creator has the right to explain to us our true condition.
I wasn't talking about what God's doing. I'm talking about YOU assuming that your religion is correct rather than actually presenting good reasons for thinking it's correct.
As the Apostle Paul taught in Romans 1, you by nature suppress the truth in unrighteousness. That is a truth claim, yet somehow we are not allowed to declare it.
You're more than welcome to declare it. And I'm more than free to point out you have no evidence that it's true.
It's one of the axioms of your worldview but the question is: is the axiom correct? And why should any reasonable person take that as axiomatic?
Your postmodern view basically says, your religion isn't allowed to make such a claim until it is proved by some higher external authority (you?).
Again, I'm not a postmodernist by any remote stretch of the imagination. My views are diametrically opposed to the postmodernist "everyone has their own truth" garbage.
Calling me a postmodernist is about as accurate (and as personally insulting) as being called a Satanist would be to you: the very opposite of what you stand for and believe in.
What I'm doing is pointing out that you're just assuming that the reason for my unbelief is sin.
You can assume it if you like. That doesn't make you any more likely to be correct.
Now I know that I am not the brightest bulb, but this sounds like a question that is asking what if my world and worldview is true AND what if your world and worldview is true, then what?
What I'm pointing out is that the idea of life being created by a wise and benevolent supernatural being is not inherently contradictory to the idea of life having evolved by natural process. We could, without contradiction, imagine a universe in which both occurred: sentient species A was created by God while sentient species B evolved by natural processes.
And my question stands: would sentient species A have meaning while sentient species B doesn't? And whichever you answer, what's your reason for thinking so?
It's the ones claiming the Bible is accurate who need to back up their claims.
Then you are aware that the New Testament was widely circulated without a printing press literally all over the world by the second century. There is also internal evidence that there was a body of teaching that dates to Christ Himself. So if we are looking at dates, I have no problem with the idea that the majority of the NT corpus was written prior to AD 70.
So I guess I don't see a problem.
You claim that one ought to be a selfish hedonist if there is no God but you've provided no basis for thinking this. I've explained before my reasons for thinking otherwise. They haven't changed.
I read your reasons and I see them as begging the question. You are basically arguing for your position because you see it that way. It is your revelation verses Jesus of Nazareth and His Apostles gave to us.
I see no reason to not go out and eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die. Simply saying things have inherent goodness doesn't make it true.
I think some of the gospels characterize Jesus quite differently from one another. But that's a long discussion in it's own right (and not one crucial to my position).
Of course. Each writer has his purpose for why he wrote his Gospel which determined what his target is.
I would be curious for you to pick one issue that you see is a problem.
You're more than welcome to declare it. And I'm more than free to point out you have no evidence that it's true.
It's one of the axioms of your worldview but the question is: is the axiom correct? And why should any reasonable person take that as axiomatic?
I think original sin has got to be one of the easiest things to observe. The fact that men everywhere do exactly what Paul describes throughout Romans 1-3 is either going to persuade you or it isn't.
What I'm doing is pointing out that you're just assuming that the reason for my unbelief is sin.
You can assume it if you like. That doesn't make you any more likely to be correct.
What I was trying to point out in a poor way is that you are equally making claims that you do not need to justify.
And my question stands: would sentient species A have meaning while sentient species B doesn't? And whichever you answer, what's your reason for thinking so?
Only in a Trinitarian Christian worldview is my position.
But we have been through all of this before, and so I'll drop the ball and let you go into your historical issues.
I wasn't talking about what God's doing. I'm talking about YOU assuming that your religion is correct rather than actually presenting good reasons for thinking it's correct.
I should probably say here that the Apostle Paul and Jesus made this religious claim. I see plenty of evidence for original sin everywhere. Paul describes us to a T. So I am not just assuming. I think Paul is right based upon experience as well. Plus Paul argues presuppositionally in Romans 1. Just thought I'd throw that in there.
Then you are aware that the New Testament was widely circulated without a printing press literally all over the world by the second century.
So what? Remember our Mormon friends? Their Book of Mormon was circulated more widely in a much shorter time and they had printing presses but even so we'd probably both agree that it's a load of rubbish.
You're using arguments which you'd immediately recognize as flawed if they came from someone of another religion.
There is also internal evidence that there was a body of teaching that dates to Christ Himself.
Many biblical scholars think there are some sayings which actually WERE spoken by Jesus, yes. But so what? I'm not claiming that nothing in the bible reflects what Jesus said. Even if something was said by Jesus it's still debatable whether it's true.
I see no reason to not go out and eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die. Simply saying things have inherent goodness doesn't make it true.
No, and I'm not claiming it's so because I say so. Moral propositions aren't math. They aren't provable by syllogism to someone of too shallow a character as to be able to grasp them. But this is territory we've already been over. I'll simply point out that, unlike me, you haven't even proposed a metaethical theory. If you ever do I'll be happy to compare them.
Of course. Each writer has his purpose for why he wrote his Gospel which determined what his target is.
I would be curious for you to pick one issue that you see is a problem.
OK. Is Jesus characterized as God, as equal to God or and less than God? When one sets the passages of the 4 gospels side by side on this subject they certainly don't sound like they're endorsing the same position.
I'll be more specific later, probably tomorrow; today's going to be mostly taken up with study for a calculus test.
I think original sin has got to be one of the easiest things to observe.
Your claim was that my reason for not believing is my sin. And that is not something simply observable---the question at hand is the cause of my nonbelief that the claims made by Christianity are true. Not whether I sin.
Again, you're using a sort of argument you'd immediately see for the rubbish it is if your Mormon visitors had employed it: "You don't believe the Book of Mormon was God's Word because you're blinded by sin."
Even if we assumed my nonbelief in the One True Religion was sin there's still the question of which religion fits that description.
OK. Is Jesus characterized as God, as equal to God or and less than God? When one sets the passages of the 4 gospels side by side on this subject they certainly don't sound like they're endorsing the same position.
I'll be more specific later, probably tomorrow; today's going to be mostly taken up with study for a calculus test."
I understand the shortness of time. I probably should not be stopping by my computer during the day to make these quick comments. But then if I wait till evening, it might not happen.
I also recognize your argument about the Mormon comparison. I understand what your saying. What I am saying is that I reject Mormonism on its own presuppositional AND evidential grounds. Mormonism is irrational, inconsistent and just plain demonstrably wrong no matter how you look at it. In fact, I have no idea where to start it is soooo bogus. But it is not because Joseph Smith claimed to have a vision of God. That doesn't bother me. The problems are far greater than that.
You asked me for reasons. I believe the Scriptures are accurate AND true because I accept the testimony of the nation of Israel in her preservation of the Hebrew text and its truthfullness. I have listened to the Bart Ehrmans and others point out what they see as being problems with the NT. In the end, I see the text as reliable, and I believe the testimony of its authors as to the events which they speak. I see this is all consistent in the worldview they teach.
Unlike the Book of Mormon, the apparent problems in the NT are harmonizable (I realize that is not a word). I see the teachings consistent with itself and the whole. I see the teaching of Christ and His claims have been verified by His miracles (neither which Mormonism nor Islam have in comparison, they have no miracles to be witnessed and verified), miracles which I see are recorded faithfully by men who have no reason to lie or make it up. I believe in the testimony of the Apostles. Most of whom sealed their testimony with their own blood and gained absolutely nothing monetarily.
They were monotheistic Jews who would never have had taught the Trinity had it not been revealed to them. They did not die merely for what they believed, but what they believed they saw and heard, which I see is a major difference. It is part and parcel of their proclamation to unbelievers of their day, especially those who also knew of what they saw.
I realize that you will reject these reasons because of other issues that you will probably articulate later. Nevertheless, I remember as a kid hearing about problem after problem with the bible. For example, I remember that John's Gospel was unreliable because of it supposed historical inaccuracy. Yet archeology has demonstrated John to be correct in several places that were thought to be wrong. Therefore I have come to the agreement of Christians that say we should accept John's Gospel until he is absolutely and conclusively proven wrong.
Another for instance, Jesus claimed to be God in the flesh. He claimed equality with God.
John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
Of course, any statement that appears to contradict one's position can simply be reinterpreted to fit one's preferred theology---little wonder that there's such a diversity of denominations in Christianity.
One has to wonder why an omniscient God wouldn't have actually stated in clear unambiguous language that says in its first sentence that the following is not to be interpreted anything but in its literal sense giving a creed that states explicitly the correct doctrines fundamental to Christianity.
No debate over "do you have to have been immersed when baptized to be save"---that issue caused my mother enormous anxiety for years before she finally decided, because of Baptist family members saying she wasn't saved because she was sprinkled rather than immersed, to get rebaptized.
No debate over sola scriptura.
And wouldn't it have been helpful if Jesus had just written the thing himself and said "this and only this is to be added as holy scripture to the OT"?
Then people like you wouldn't have been left in the pickle of having to rely on the judgment of man as to what was and wasn't divinely inspired scripture.
What I am saying is that I reject Mormonism on its own presuppositional AND evidential grounds. Mormonism is irrational, inconsistent and just plain demonstrably wrong no matter how you look at it.
True. But even they, despite us knowing so much more about Smith than Jesus, are able to reinterpret anything that appears to contradict their beliefs.
It's even easier for Christians (and people of most other religions) there being so much less historical evidence and hard data to go on.
But even so it's still not difficult to find major problems. Irrational doctrines (including the central idea: that Jesus had to die on the cross for salvation to be possible).
There are several passages in the gospels where Jesus says he will return in the disciples' lifetime (Mark 13:30, Matthew 10:23, 16:28, 24:34, Luke 21:32, etc.).
The same expectation held during the period the apostle Paul wrote his letters. In 1 Corinthians 7:29-31 Paul says that the time is so short that believers should drastically change the way that they live. But Paul had a problem - some believers had died, so what would happen to them when Jesus returned?
Paul's answer in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 shows that Paul expected that at least some of those he was writing to would be alive when Jesus returned - "we who are alive, and remain..." The same passage also indicates that Paul believed that those believers who had died remained "asleep in Jesus" until he returned. However, as the delay in Jesus' return grew longer, the location of Jesus' kingdom shifted from earth to heaven and we later find Paul indicating that when believers die they will immediately "depart and be with Christ" (Philippians 1:23).
It is quite obvious that Jesus never intended to start any type of church structure since he believed he would return very shortly to rule his kingdom in person. It is also quite obvious that Jesus was wrong about when he was coming back
The above from an article here:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_carlson/nt_contradictions.html
Though I would point out that internal inconsistencies are a very minor issue for me--one reason I'm loath to bother with the subject.
It's the lack of credible evidence for the claims of any of the religions of the world (including yours) which is the problem for me. Any internal inconsistencies are a purely secondary issue. After all, internal consistency and avoidance of direct contradiction with observable fact are a low bar to set. The Harry Potter novels could probably pass on standards that low.
HEY, I think we be typing at the same time!
No debate over "do you have to have been immersed when baptized to be save"---that issue caused my mother enormous anxiety for years before she finally decided, because of Baptist family members saying she wasn't saved because she was sprinkled rather than immersed, to get rebaptized.
I would not argue that position. I don't believe in baptismal regeneration. Could it be that they were Baptists who believed to enter their church one needed to be baptized, not for salvation but for covenantal purposes? Perhaps there was a misunderstanding? Anyway I'll move on.
One has to wonder why an omniscient God wouldn't have actually stated in clear unambiguous language that says in its first sentence that the following is not to be interpreted anything but in its literal sense giving a creed that states explicitly the correct doctrines fundamental to Christianity.
I guess I don't know what Jesus was supposed to say. As a Trinitarian, I don't see any problem with this at all. Why God has purposed to do things the way He did is up to Him. We miserable little creatures always not only think we could do things better, we assume so because we think we are trying to accomplish the same purpose. What if God is not trying to offer creeds precisely because He has a different purpose.
Besides, I think the Jews did not have a problem with understanding Jesus' claims. They sought to stone for blasphemy precisely because they knew exactly what He was saying.
And wouldn't it have been helpful if Jesus had just written the thing himself and said "this and only this is to be added as holy scripture to the OT"?
Would it really have mattered? Moses wrote what he wrote, and it didn't help. (I realize that the end of Deuteronomy is an issue but...)
I personally think that God's method of bringing the church to recognize the canon of Scripture is a supernatural work, whether there is some magic index or not. As I have written prior, God's Word by definition is self authenticating. I am not certain how that problem would be solved under your position. If there was a canonical index, wouldn't you just question the index?
Besides, Jesus did validate the Jewish Scriptures. So we at least have that much according to your own position. But I don't see that changing anything from your perspective.
I am sorry that your mom experienced such a difficult time. However, I think appealing for what my friend calls the "infallible fuzzies" won't solve the problem. We all have to interpret whatever it is we are interpreting.
God Bless
It's even easier for Christians (and people of most other religions) there being so much less historical evidence and hard data to go on
You keep saying this. but I must confess I am not certain what you mean by it. Are you referring to external evidence? Corroborating eye witnesses of others outside the faith? Archeology?
I did not know the Book of Mormon has any of these things. As far as I know, they do not even have the original Golden Plates that the Book of Mormon was supposedly copied from.
Matthew 24 and Jesus' prediction of His return is a difficult one indeed. It is one that I have struggled with for many years and have written about on this blog in the past. However, my reasons for struggle are quite different from yours. But both SEEM to have a similar basis, that of Dispensationalism. I have to wonder how much of Dispensational thinking and presuppositons have influenced even your own approach to this issue.
As a convert to A-Millenialism, I think your objections have a sound answer, but I must confess, I think you will not find my answer satisfactory because you will probably just see me as doing what Mormons do. Ye I think if you study this topic (I have no idea why you would want to) I think you will find that the Amill position is quite ancient. It is the Dispy thinking that is the new guy on the block, and I think it has caused much confusion.
Nevertheless, no matter what position one takes, the question about this prophecy is still difficult because there really is this tension of the now and not yet that runs throughout all of the NT. I would argue this tension is on purpose and Jesus Himself creates this tension.
For a really facinating series of lectures on the Amill position, I very highly recommend Kim Riddlebarger's MP3s. You will enjoy them whether you agree or not.
As for answering your objections though, I will try to post later when I get a chance.
God Bless
It is quite obvious that Jesus never intended to start any type of church structure since he believed he would return very shortly to rule his kingdom in person. It is also quite obvious that Jesus was wrong about when he was coming back
I think if I get time this evening, I will try to make this a separate Blog post. There is so much to unpack of the entire citation of the atheist website, I am not certain as to where to start.
David: It's even easier for Christians (and people of most other religions) there being so much less historical evidence and hard data to go on
Howard: You keep saying this. but I must confess I am not certain what you mean by it. Are you referring to external evidence? Corroborating eye witnesses of others outside the faith? Archeology?
I mean the obvious fact that we simply have more data of all kinds about Joseph Smith, his life and the times in which he lived. We have original documents rather than copies of copies (no, we don't have the golden plates---but we do have the original "transcription" of them to english. We have Smith's own words as dictated and written as he spoke them and printed and widely distributed in his own lifetime. We have original documents written by people who knew him personally. We have a huge wealth of original documents, contemporary accounts of his life by family, by followers and by enemies, and a much greater knowledge of the times in which he lived.
With Jesus we have no original documents. Accounts of his life written anonymously decades after the time he is said to have lived and no evidence from non-christian sources contemporary to Jesus even indicating that he actually lived (not that I have any strong doubt that he existed but it's far from unquestionable).
In this sense the Mormon case has problems and strengths are the inverse of those of older religions like Christianity. With the Mormons we have lots of uncomfortable facts to hit them over the head with. But we also have little or no debate about what Smith actually said and taught and the events of his life (other than the visitations by an angel and the other supernatural claims).
With Christianity we simply have the unverifiable accounts of Christians written decades after the events. There's much room for questioning whether the Bible accurately describes Jesus and his life and teachings---even some room for doubt about his existence. But with the lack of hard evidence you Christians also suffer from fewer uncomfortable facts to have to deal with....other than the failed claim that Jesus would return in their lifetimes. That one's a doozy though.
As a convert to A-Millenialism, I think your objections have a sound answer, but I must confess, I think you will not find my answer satisfactory because you will probably just see me as doing what Mormons do.
That has been the trend so far.
Break over. Back to the books.
This inverse nature of the Mormon and Christian apologetic issues is one of the reasons Mormonism is so useful in discussions with Christian apologists. The death of Joseph Smith is, for example, a good counter example to the common Christian apologist claim that "no one would die for a lie".
The death of Joseph Smith is, for example, a good counter example to the common Christian apologist claim that "no one would die for a lie".
Well that is interesting since he was not exactly put on trial with the though that he would be put to death. Also, men do die for lies, but in this case did Joseph Smith willingly die for something he really believed he saw? Being a cult leader, he stood to lose a lot if he didn't keep his flock in the dark. So I don't think that was the case. I think Mormonism would have died a typical cult death if his life was not abruptly ended by a mob.
Thanks for clarifying that other point.
Also, men do die for lies, but in this case did Joseph Smith willingly die for something he really believed he saw?
That's the whole point. When fraudster who leads a cult is arrested or grabbed by a mob they don't typically say "oh, he's recanting, well then, jolly good! You can go your merry way sir."
If some of the early Christian leaders were frauds knowingly perpetrating a fraud for the reasons cult leaders typically do that sort of thing the fact that they were martyred means nothing. Same as with Smith.
Means nothing as evidence for the truth of Christianity, I mean. It's a horrible thing in and of itself.
Means nothing as evidence for the truth of Christianity, I mean. It's a horrible thing in and of itself.
LOL. I read what you meant. After reading your comments for this length of time. I did not even entertain you would have thought such an idea.
As for the martyr issue, I am wondering if we are speaking past each other. The Apostles knew full well that by teaching what they were teaching, they were going to die. Their response was that they had to testify to what they saw. I see no evidence that Joseph Smith knew he would die. I suppose there is a fine line. You could argue that Smith was attempting to build a kingdom that would financially make him wealthy and that he might die for such a thing. Perhaps that is what you are saying. If so, I still see that as quite a different category from the Apostles and Jesus.
The Apostles knew full well that by teaching what they were teaching, they were going to die.
And what evidence do you have in support of this claim?
And what exactly is the evidence that they actually did get martyred?
And what exactly is the evidence that they actually did get martyred?
I realize this comes from a Tradition you would not accept. Church historians such as Eusebius have given us some information. Plus we also have records from the Apostolic fathers going their own martyrdom. If you have read Polycarp's epistles you may remember his desire to go to Rome where he would meet his fate.
And what evidence do you have in support of this claim?
First and foremost, they crucified Jesus. I think that was probably their biggest clue that they were not going to be popular. Also Jesus said so. John 16:1-4. I am sure you remember the "take up thy cross" passage. The stoning of Stephen in Acts 7. The Apostle Paul hunting them down as recorded in Acts. Later, men sought to kill Paul. Paul gives a list of his experiences 2 Cor 11:22-29.
It seems to me, that the entire NT corpus speaks of dying to oneself in every way that God may call you to in this life.
Also Jesus speaks to Peter as recorded in John's Gospel chapter 21.
Jesus said, "Feed my sheep. 18 I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go." 19Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, "Follow me!"
20Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, "Lord, who is going to betray you?") 21When Peter saw him, he asked, "Lord, what about him?"
22Jesus answered, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me." 23Because of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?"
I realize this comes from a Tradition you would not accept. Church historians such as Eusebius have given us some information. Plus we also have records from the Apostolic fathers going their own martyrdom. If you have read Polycarp's epistles you may remember his desire to go to Rome where he would meet his fate.
That was around 110 AD. Which provides no support for your claim that "the Apostles knew full well that by teaching what they were teaching, they were going to die." Even if there were some persecutions and some martyrdoms it does not follow that they had reason to feel certain they would die (the Mormons experience persecution too, but I doubt Smith assumed he'd be martyred).
Christians have the idea that there was enormous persecution of the early church but I haven't seen the historical evidence to support this and I've read many historians who think it was far less than is commonly imagined.
First and foremost, they crucified Jesus. I think that was probably their biggest clue that they were not going to be popular.
Not being popular is not the same as certain death. A person can be willing to take risks when the potential gain is great enough---and being viewed as one of the spokesmen for God can be quite tempting. Why do you think cult leaders so frequently crop up?
Besides which the idea that there were some followers of Jesus who perpetrated a fraud doesn't mean all of them were---there could have been a handful of fraudsters who were careful and avoided serious risk while the dupes courageously took huge risks out of sincere belief.
Not that I'm saying this scenario is what happened. It's just one of dozens of perfectly plausible options. That's the problem. We have too many reasonable possibilities and no way to narrow them down other than just taking the whole thing on faith (or pretending that one's articles of faith are reasonably concluded from "normal historical standards" when so clearly they aren't).
Besides which the idea that there were some followers of Jesus who perpetrated a fraud doesn't mean all of them were---there could have been a handful of fraudsters who were careful and avoided serious risk while the dupes courageously took huge risks out of sincere belief.
This is where we disagree presuppositionally. I simply don't approach Mormonism nor Christianity or any religion for that matter from such a view. I would consider your position from my own, what has been called by conservative Christians, "radical skepticism" (I realize you would not prefer that but...). This is why I said there is nothing I could say that would convince you. I don't believe there is any argument that would convince you. As you stated, there will always be a thousand ways of explaining the evidence other than it is telling the truth. BTW: That is a problem with William Lane Craig's form of argumentation. He is simply arguing that Christianity is one possible explanation. That will never satisfy someone such as yourself. Perhaps he isn't concerned about those who would disagree fundamentally from the starting point?
You already have a view of how the bible was recorded that I simply don't share. I don't see some kind of controlling authority over the writings of the New Testament. I don't share there being the idea that the NT was written in different communities generations later that no one could verify. So many of the liberal higher critical argument are based upon an anti-supernatural bias that I don't share. So we will have to agree to disagree.
Christians have the idea that there was enormous persecution of the early church but I haven't seen the historical evidence to support this and I've read many historians who think it was far less than is commonly imagined.
I have to agree here. It is my understanding that persecution was often localized to specific regions. Rarely would this have been worldwide at once.
I also want to say that even though I reject your skepticism, I appreciate some of your arguments on this issue. Although I still think the main argument works, it is not as simple as the popular notion puts it. I am not saying the popular statement is wrong. But as you have rightly pointed out, the conclusion may not be arrived at glibly. You have caused me to rethink the issue and challenged me.
God Bless
This is why I said there is nothing I could say that would convince you.
There is nothing you can say that would convince me for the same reason there's nothing that Mormon missionary could say that would convince me:
because there isn't rational basis for believing what's being claimed---the evidence necessary just isn't there.
That is a problem with William Lane Craig's form of argumentation. He is simply arguing that Christianity is one possible explanation.
Actually, Craig explicitly states in one of his papers that arguments are of secondary importance. The foundation of belief is, he claims, the "self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit".
In that sense, he's like you. He thinks those who don't believe in his religion do so out of sin.
You already have a view of how the bible was recorded that I simply don't share. I don't see some kind of controlling authority over the writings of the New Testament. I don't share there being the idea that the NT was written in different communities generations later that no one could verify. So many of the liberal higher critical argument are based upon an anti-supernatural bias that I don't share. So we will have to agree to disagree.
You're misunderstanding certain things about my position. I simply don't share your assumptions about the formation of the NT for the single reason that the evidence doesn't support them. Unlike like you I simply approach the Bible with the same critical attitude that I do ALL ancient writing. It doesn't get a free pass.
....an anti-supernatural bias that I don't share.
Really? Suppose I told you my grandmother was a werewolf. Would you not consider this implausible?
Skepticism about extraordinary claims is not a bias in any negative sense of the word. I'm perfectly prepared to believe supernatural claims if good evidence is provided. In the absence of such evidence, though, skepticism is the rational response. When it comes to things other than your own religion you probably think much the same way.
Even if I was a believer in the supernatural it would still be the rational thing to be skeptical of particular supernatural claims until good evidence was provided. Supernatural events of the sort under discussion are rare (assuming they occur at all). Fraud, exaggeration, the unconscious embellishment of stories in the retelling and human error, on the other hand, are regular occurrences.
In the absence of clear evidence, the odds regarding any particular claim favor the latter.
Post a Comment