We’ve tossed around the issue of absolute truth versus relativism many times and it has been stated that many people find belief in absolute truth offensive, and Christian absolute truth highly offensive. I’m not sure that we need to go over this ground again, unless anyone feels a great need for an argument. Suffice to say that I believe that acceptance of the Christian gospel is the ONLY hope of salvation and those who refuse it will face consequences. Case closed. Call me intolerant, I don’t really mind.
Anyway, I’ve looked at a few of the Richard Dawkins threads and been a little surprised at how many people are so confortable heaping praise on his various rumblings on religious life. Dawkins clearly holds an absolute worldview since he considers most other worldviews to be completely false. Thus, although his writings can be used as a stick to beat Christians, his worldview and thesis are actually antagonistic to any religion.
So, this is what I find a little surprising. We have these discussions here that usually end up pouring scorn on Christianity for having the audacity to claim absolute truth. How shocking! How intolerant! Then, we have other threads promoting the ideas of an anti-religionist, who claims that ALL religions are basically false. One would think such a claim for absolute truth would provoke the same comments about intolerance! But no, we end up with a series of mostly positive posts none of which castigate Dawkins for being intolerant.
Now, obviously I’m not bemoaning the lack of relativisim, I’m just pointing out that there are double standards here. When Christians talk about absolute truth everyone feels free to pour on the abuse, “those crazy Christians think everyone else is wrong”. But when a scientist talks about absolute truth no-one has the guts to say anything!
Therefore, I can only conclude that most of the nonsense about Christians being intolerant has nothing to do with the offensive nature of absolute truth, it’s simply a form of anti-Christian rhetoric. Is that fair?
I’ve been aware of this double standard for some time now, the thing that really bothers me is that the same proof method and tools used for science facts are considered unsupported and invalid when using it to show things like absolute or purpose.
You’re mostly right, Ned, but there’s another level to it. The Christian saying that they’re right and everybody else is wrong has consequences- if you accept the Christian is right, there’s certain things you have to do, and certain things you aren’t allowed to do anymore. It brings moral demands with it, in other words.
On the other hand, atheism leaves all that stuff in the air. A person can get behind Dawkins and that sort of position, and still take any side on any moral issue they feel like taking. So while atheism is absolutist, it’s not absolutist about the things that make people complain about intolerance. Also, Christianity actually claims to be reasonable. If Christianity isn’t reasonable, it is true in a lot of people’s eyes- so Dawkins can actually attack it, and people of other faiths can use him to attack it. The pagan doesn’t care if Dawkins refutes all religion- they are immune to logical argument because they don’t play that game, and realize they have no stake there.
Christianity has a long history of oppression nad pointless destruction, we have all seen it before, and we have reason to fear such things again because christian perceptions have not changed. As long as you push your beliefs and hurt others in doing so you will make enemys
Dawkins is athiest but his perceptions are not harmful to people who don’t beleive him, just those who try to prove him wrong.
Effectivly christianity is the singled out enemy because they are the ones who attack others beliefs and athiesm is seen as anti christian because it only effects those people who push their beliefs onto others.
I haven’t made much about Dawkins except to one person. Quite frankly I haven’t had any reason to. Dawkins makes a religion out of non-religion. All his murky memes chatter is no different than any other religion that asks for faith and belief in the unknowable. He’s popular, but I see nothing in his work that is any different that that of any other religious knower. Bashing the Christian religion is prevalent because it’s easy, not because it’s right. Fundamentalist extremism her in the U.S. make’s it even easier.
It’s great to be a heathen. I get to ignore all of the religious chatter.
Christianity doesn’t do anything of the sort, to be a Christian is to be literally Christ like and Christ never did any such harm. Blaming Christianity for the foolish and evil acts of individuals is like blaming all of science for the improper use or interpretation of it.
Whites have a history of bloodshed as well, many of my predicessors killed countless people for whats civalized. Just as many christians killed countless people in the name of God, eg. the crusades, the salem witch trials. need I go on.
Because a great number of christians caused these deaths christianity bears the burden of it, just as each day I must bear the hatred towards whites because that was the sin of my forebarers.With any title one must accept both sides to it, both it’s accomplishments and its faults,
As for being like christ, I admire those who do for their kindness and insight, but those who I am concerned with are the ones set in the idea that because I am not like them I am wrong. they are the ones who impale themselves, and unfortunatly they bring down the name of christ in doing so.
for my abruptness I appologise, situations have called for it, Farewell.
I think I understand this approach, since I had a similar attitude some years ago. Don’t you think that he is right to the degree that we pick our cherries when we read the Bible? There are numerous statements of the Bible which do not corroborate our idea of salvation; especially the discontinuity between the Torah and the NT gives reason to rethink. This is why I follow the idea of a substitutional sacrifice so far in that it was interpreted in the light of the Passah and Isaiah 53, but it is the faith of Jesus that is the light that shines in the darkness.
Additionally, I would see our salvation in the following of this meek and caring son of God, in revering him as the supreme Kyrios (meaning the sovereign, prince or the Roman emperor) rather than Caesar, who loved to give himself that title. Indeed, it is the use of the language that emperors used for themselves by Christians for a man who in his life and death showed himself truly to be a unique “Son of God†that leads me to believe that people could only see this example of selfless sacrifice as a divine intervention – but one that ruptured all conventions.
It is this example that leads me to say that such witness can only be humble, anything else is arrogant. That is the true reason why many people find Christian belief in absolute truth – in the way you have described it – offensive. I am afraid that once you put “absolutes†in the hands of people they are misused. Give a Christian absolute power and he will be as much a tyrant as anyone else. Humbleness and humility is the secret.
This is what I would expect from an atheist, but he does have a point, especially when he points to the fact that after eight years of a born-again Christian as the most powerful man in the world, the experience has been somewhat sobering. I’m surprised that so many Christians still hold on as though any moment G.W. Bush will turn water into wine after all. The thing is, I find that Dawkins criticises in a respectable manner – despite my not agreeing with him.
In fact, if you would actually listen to him, he isn’t intolerant. He just presents a contra point and has a lot of evidence to support it. Again, I disagree with him, but I find the way he presents his case as fitting.
Well, I’m not sure I agree or maybe I just don’t understand fully what you mean. If someone rejects the absolute truth of the bible as I describe it to them, then my comments place no more moral demands on them than Dawkins does. I personally have no desire to legislate how non-Christians live.
His claim of absolute truth is mostly offensive in an intellectual sense, “I’m right, and you’re wrong buddy!”. From past experience this has also been the usual complaint I’ve heard about Christian absolute truth. The moral implications of Christianity would seem to me to be a different ball game and are only offensive if I decide to impose my morality on another. No?
I think that’s a stupid argument for an athiest to engage in. Either the bible contains truth, or it does not contain truth. If the athiest believes that the bible does not contain any spiritual truth at all, then why is it relevant that some Christians tend to focus on some verses more than others or interpret some parts more literally? This is an important issue to be sure, but it’s an issue that Christians can discuss with each other AFTER they agree that the bible contains truth. But it makes no sense for an athiest to bring this issue up unless he’s simply trying to muddy the waters.
Self-sacrifice is not the Christian’s destination in life, it’s merely part of the journey. And the Jesus described in the book of Revelation is anything but meek, and neither was Peter or Paul. Why you particularly choose to focus on one aspect of Jesus character is a mystery to me.
Humbleness and humility are only part of the package. Christians are called to declare openly the absolute truth of a unique resurrected savior who is the ONLY way for man to be united with God. We should be unashamed to assert this truth in the modern marketplace whether it is offensive or not. If we simply pander to society and create a religion that is 100% humble, but ends up denying the centrality of Jesus then we have created a false religion to suit our own ends.
No doubt Dawkins is polite and he isn’t bombing people in Iraq, but he is intolerant in the sense that he would not agree that religious people MAY be correct. Therefore his view is as absolute as the evangelical Christian gospel. H may be a nice, polite perosn who calls his Mum on her birthday, but that seems rather beside the point.
Humans and absolute truth are mutually exclusive, they cannot exist within the same realm, completely antithetical.
Atheism, is humanistic secularism, so the only truth is that which feeds the beast of ego.
Dawkins has taken the road of a zealot. Which he is completely oblivious to, and it further demeans his arguments.
Much like that Muslim puke in his “Root of All Evil” secular dogma video, he can’t see his own forest for the trees.
What’s sad is that he is truly intelligent enough to be otherwise, he attacks “faith”, where it is religiosity that is the issue. In this case, I see no reason to believe other than that many find him “patently offensive”, and it is most deserved.
Further saddening is the fact that an individual like Ted Haggard, played the patsy fool, just as Dawkins represented him, further damaging Christianity, most unnecessarily.
Truth, of any variety, like justice, is little more than an academic artifact. Passingly interesting to study, but no longer useful or existent in the world of humanity.
Fear isn’t a solid ground for a position. If you argue against Christianity, and persecute it because your fear, it’s important to acknowledge that, but it’s not in any way defensible.
tentative
If only!
Ned Flanders
Well, it's not the denial, it's the acceptance. To accept Christianity, means to accept that a person has to change their life. So the more plausible Christianity is, the more desperate people will be to 'defeat' it. On the other hand, you can 'accept' atheism, and still do pretty much whatever the hell you want. So, even an atheist pushing as hard as Dawkins does isn't really advocating you do anything beyond accept some abstract position that doesn't affect your life- unless you're a church-going Christian, and of course, church-going Christians rail against Dawkins as hard as the heathens rail against evangelism, in their own way.
The lesson here is that people don’t really care about that, they just say they do. Fact is, nobody can really care about that sort of attitude, because everybody on earth has that attitude. Everyone on this forum thinks that they are right, and that everybody who disagrees with them is wrong, no matter what they say. It doesn’t become an issue unless the thing that ‘you’re right and everybody else is wrong’ about has behavioral demands, like a religion- or politics.
I think that it is the inconsistency that he stirs in, particularly when we are talking about “absolutesâ€. He is typical for someone who watches others perform and comments on what he sees. Like I say, I don’t agree with him, but I have made the same observations in too numerous occasions. The more such occasions become typical for a movement, the more they will be commented upon.
Yes, I am aware of that. Self-sacrifice, altruism and philanthropy are a mystery to many people, but as Scripture says, “the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve†and “… the King will say to those on His right, come, the blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I hungered, and you gave Me food to eat; I thirsted, and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger, and you took Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.â€
Added to that, if you take into account that the seven deacons of the early church were “men … receiving testimony, … full of Holy Spirit and wisdom†who “served tables†– then you may be able to see why I choose to focus on one aspect of Jesus character. Wait a minute, there was something else, “there are different ministries, yet the same Lord†– a minister or a deacon is a servant.
You really have no idea, do you? Your world is black and white, wrong and right, up and down, left and right. Either you are standing preaching or you are denying Christ. You dismiss the very aspect that makes witness trustworthy – and that is the offensive part! To you, service is “pandering societyâ€, which my friend makes you contra Christ! There is another word for that, but I’m sure you are familiar with it!
I admire Dawkins, but I will concede that he perhaps goes too far. I disagree that he makes a religion of atheism, but he probably expects a bit too much out of people. There are complex reasons that people believe in the various religions- there’s no logical reason that you have to have a replacement for something you demolish, but humans probably aren’t “evolved” enough now to get by without that crutch. Still, I understand why he’s doing it. Bob makes an excellent point re Bush. If all men of faith were as enlightened and Bob, men like Dawkins wouldn’t be necessary. Sadly, few men are like Bob, thus men like Dawkins are essential.
Btw, Daniel Dennett is a much better ambassador for enlightened & compassionate atheism than Richard Dawkins.
Yes, I agree that Christianity demands much more than Dawkins, but I’m not sure that this explains the heightened antagonism. Many of those who reject Christianity do so without ever seriously considering it’s merits or the moral aspects of accepting it. I suspect the increased anatgonism against Christianity derives from it’s historic place in our culture combined with the modern glorification of independent thought and rebellion. Christianity has somehow become “the man” and people have a knee-jerk reaction against it simply because it’s “uncool”.
I agree with most of that except that I think it’s the identification of Christianity with “the establishment” rather than the moral demands that raises the anti-Christian sentiment. Or maybe a bit of both.
As I said above, the argument about “consistency” is only relevant if someone accepts that there is some truth in the bible to be taken seriously.
I think you misunderstood my comment. I do not find it a mystery at all that Christians talk about self-sacrifice and humility, there is ample biblical evidence to support teaching on this subject.
What I find mysterious is that some Christians can focus almost exclusively on this topic, and in doing so ignore other biblical teaching. For example, you have promoted the idea that Jesus came to bring peace, yet he clearly stated that he did not. A little mysterious, don’t you think? Similarly, you regularly promote the idea that the central aspect of Jesus’ ministry is humility and self-sacrifice, and in doing so ignore clear bible teaching on the Lordship of Christ and his judgement of those who stand against him.
I think your approach is typical of those who come to the bible with a prior agenda in mind, they simply read into the text what they want to see and recreate a Jesus that suits their own preconceived ideas. This can be accomplished from many different starting points and most people are guilty of this in some shape or form. Indeed, I think your imbalanced focus on self-sacrifice and peace is little different from the imbalanced right-wing Christian who thinks that Jesus loves America and wants the US to bomb the living daylights out of Iraq. Both start from a preconceived idea of who Jesus is and find ample support for their view in the bible. Both ignore huge chunks of scripture simply because it suits their purpose to do so. The “mystery” to me is how you can skip past all the verses that are not about humility and self-sacrifice. Maybe you could try this one to start with…
Romans 11
22Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off.
I wouldn’t say my world is quite black and white, but is not the murky gray of your world either. If a Christian chooses to ignore the mandate of Christ to declare the gospel to those around him simply because it will be unpopular then I would define that as “pandering to society”. Similarly, if a Christian chooses to shout the gospel from the rooftops while having no interest in serving those around him, then I think they are probably more guilty of “pandering to themselves”. Both are a problem for the church. I’m only emphasising the issue of pandering to society because we seem to agree on the requirement for service and self-sacrifice. You don’t need to paint me into a corner, I’m not disagreeing about the need for humility and self-sacrifice, I’m arguing that we need more than that.
the sad part is that regardless of our disposition we will continue to fight uselessly because we are all human, and we will continue to deny our own faults as we continue to accept that things are not our own.
As long as we fight we will cuntinue to do so, as long as we trust our fate to others we will continue to do so. I am sorry but I have lost intrest in such selfperpetuating nonsense.
I will ask this however, if christians were to stop questioning others, would they still fight you, and if athiests chose to ignore christians insted of arguing, would they continue to hound you?
I would like to see that for myself, it would be interesting.
If you think that the “setting at variance†explains the examples of “non-peace†that we have seen in history and continue to see today, I think you have turned the whole thing on its head. Of course the witness of Christians living in the Realm of God will draw both attraction and animosity, but it isn’t his purpose to just stir it up. The animosity is to be seen as the “birth-pains†of the new life that is about to be born. The “sword†is the inevitable reaction to a life so dissident to the powers that be, but not the aim.
On the contrary, the peace of the Realm of God is to be passed on wherever it is accepted: “if the house truly is worthy, let your peace come upon it,†(Mat 10:13) “be at peace with one another,†(Mar 9:50) “you will go before the face of the Lord to prepare His ways … to direct our feet into the way of peace†(Luk 1:79). Probably the hardest part about being a Christian is being peaceful whilst expecting animosity from others, and the reason why Jesus told his followers to think about the costs.
Are you not concerning yourself with something that is his alone? You and I are to be humble and selfless and leave judgement to him who it is given. It doesn’t play a role in our task, except to know that I am not the one who can judge, or be lord over anyone else. Therefore, I ask myself why I should concern myself with it. If you notice, the saints in the parable do not have this awareness, they just do what they are inspired to do.
My agenda is to follow Christ wherever I can. Sometimes I am wrought between two choices, but I have found that the measure of love is what helps me best choose. My agenda is to realise what the daily Bible study reveals to me after understanding what it means. This is often the point where I notice that people who try a literal or word for word interpretation are often disappointing. Some are even outright hypocrites, but then again, they are only human.
Hmmm, you really try to get me angry don’t you! The difference is that my life is service, and was very nearly self-sacrifice until a loved one pulled me out. I think that my real problem is retaining my distance rather than imbalance. In fact, I have written a lot about sin being imbalance in the past.
This is in fact a very good example! Paul is talking to people who had started criticising the Jews and saying that the Sacrifice of Christ superseded the Covenant with the Jews. He calls upon these people to see that if God is stern with his people, what stops him from being equally as stern with those he was writing to, if they do not stay in the kindness he has shown them. In fact, I hear the parable of the thankless slave (Mat 18:23) in what he says:
Because of this the kingdom of Heaven has been compared to a man, a king, who desired to take account with his slaves.
And he having begun to reckon, one debtor of ten thousand talents was brought near to him. But he not having any to repay, the lord commanded him to be sold, also his wife and children, and all things, as much as he had, even to pay back.
Then having fallen down, the slave bowed the knee to him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay all to you. And being filled with pity, the lord of that slave released him and forgave him the loan.
But having gone out, that slave found one of his fellow slaves who owed him a hundred denarii. And seizing him, he choked him, saying, Pay me whatever you owe. Then having fallen down at his feet, his fellow slave begged him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay all to you. But he would not, but having gone away he threw him into prison until he should pay back the amount owing.
But his fellow slaves, seeing the things happening, they were greatly grieved. And having come they reported to their lord all the things happening.
Then having called him near, his lord said to him, Wicked slave! I forgave you all that debt, since you begged me. Ought you not also to have mercy on your fellow slave, as I also had mercy?
The early witnesses had no Bible in their pockets, but they won people by their living witness. They also received criticism and came into grave danger by the same way. They didn’t stand on the street corners praying or preaching, but they reached out their hands to people in need. They went into the Temple, into Synagogues and spoke to people in places aside from the everyday rush.
What appeals to me about Paul is the fact that his Gospel was adapted to his hearers. The fact that it led to a divorce from the Semitic influences is not so good, but at the time he was spreading the Gospel, he was translating and interpreting into a Greek/Roman context. I think that in a modern context, you would accuse Paul of what I have been accused of.
I think the main issue is to identify the recipients of God’s peace and God’s “sword”. Those who follow him will have peace, indeed the angels at his birth promised peace to men on whom God’s favor rests. But clearly Jesus’ purpose (or part of his purpose) was also to bring a sword. It seems most likley that this signifies judgement as well as simple animosity since the image of a sword has always signified judgement in the OT. Thus, Jesus’ incarnation had a duality that brings peace to a few and judgement to many. It is “good news” for some and bad news for others.
In one sense you are correct since Jesus is the ultimate arbitrator and judge, we need to be careful of overstepping our mandate and pronouncing ultimate judgement when that is clearly not our responsibility. But this does not mean that Christians are supposed to sit quietly and passively. We are told to defend the truth in the face of erronious teaching. We are told to uphold personal moraility and judge and warn our fellow borthers so that they will not face ultimate judgement. And we are also expected to speak out against injustice and social imorality. Thus, Christians are required to use their brains, use their mouths, and use their energy to communicate the gospel.
I think it’s a cop-out to refrain from being vocal on issues where the bible clearly makes a stand, be it social injustice or imorality.
I suppose I was trying to rattle your cage a little, but I’m being honest. I see absolutely no difference between the right-wing Christian who finds biblical support for US aggression and the left-wing Christian who finds biblical support for promoting tolerance and peace. I think neither have come to terms with the real Jesus in the gospels and Revelation who is a humble self-sacrificial individual but all one who will judge and condemn the peoples of the earth. As it says in Psalm 2…
“You will rule them with an iron sceptre and dash them to pieces like pottery.”
We have to include both these aspects of Christ’s character into our worship, whether we like to or not, otherwise we have simply created a God in our head that is pleasing to us.
I agree for the most part with your interpretation and the parallel with the gospel passage. But my point concerned the nature of God, not simply our response to his kindness. The warning implicit in the passage is that our God is both kind AND stern. From your writings I sense that you are confortable with a kind God, but a stern God creates a little more tension for you.
I’m not disagreeing that Christians need to act. I’m emphasising that Christians also need to speak clearly about what the bible says and doesn’t say. If we don’t then we run the risk that Christianity is simply identified as a “nice” religion for old ladies and do-gooders. We need both words and actions. I’ll anticipate your reply that Christians are usually better at the words than the actions. Granted.
I don’t think so. The central message of the gospel was not changed by Paul even though he borrowed widely from greek sources to communicate. I have no difficulty with people communicating the gospel in a different context, but when they change the content of the gospel then we have a problem. As Paul said best…
Galatians 1
Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!
