Pages

Tuesday, January 11, 2011

Atheism is evil

Randal Rauser has posted a critique of a post by Dustin:

http://randalrauser.com/2011/01/is-biblical-christianity-the-only-rational-worldview-and-is-atheism-wicked/

Dustin can speak for himself (he left a comment at Randal’s blog, although he’s pressed for time), but I’ll venture some comments of my own.

Randal begins by quoting Dustin’s statement that “While atheism is wicked…”

Randal then says:

Yoiks! This is wrong on so many levels it is hard to know where to begin. The problems begin when we simply try to figure out what the claim actually is.

From what I can tell, Randal never gets around to directly addressing the charge of “wickedness.” However, that’s worth remarking on.

There should be nothing controversial about a Christian believing or stating that atheism is wicked. For that reflects the viewpoint of God’s revelation in Scripture.

Offhand, the only reason I think the why Randal might take umbrage at that statement is if Randal regards Christianity as just a hypothesis, more likely than not, but quite possibly wrong. Put another way, Randal may take the position that you can’t really know if God (specifically, the God of the Bible)  exists. Hence, denying the existence of God may be a morally and intellectually respectable option, from his standpoint. Since the truth of the matter is unknowable, there is nothing inherently culpable about atheism.

If that is his position, then it reflects a major dividing line in one’s view of infidelity. Some attribute the lack of faith to natural ignorance. We can’t help ourselves. We don’t know any better. Maybe God exists and maybe he doesn’t.

By contrast, the Bible attributes lack of faith to willful rebellion. Not ignorance of the truth, but fear and loathing of the unwelcome truth. To see the light, but love the darkness. To stare goodness in the face, but turn to evil. Sin as primordial apostasy.

Perhaps Randal is hedging his bets. He is genuinely sympathetic to the plight of the atheist because he sees himself in the same boat.

Moving along:

So what are the beliefs one must hold to have the worldview of “biblical Christianity”? Well there are two words here for our consideration: biblical, and Christianity. First off, the only rational worldview according to this author is a biblical one. What is that supposed to mean? It could mean holding the set of beliefs held by one of the authors of the Bible. Or maybe we should also extend it to the beliefs of one of the main characters in the Bible that plays for the home team. (Thus Herod the Great probably doesn’t get included. Neither does Jezebel. Although maybe they did have a biblical worldview and they just didn’t live according to their beliefs. It’s hard to say.)

Is this a sincere question? Is Randal that confused? Or is this facetious?

In general, we might say that Biblical Christianity represents the “narrative” viewpoint of Scripture. I’m using “narrative” somewhat broadly. We can extend the principle to other genres, such as the epistolary viewpoint of a letter writer like Paul. That sort of thing.

Put another way, Scripture has an “editorial” viewpoint. It doesn’t merely record speeches and events. Rather, it records Bible history in a way that reveals the writer’s assessment of what transpires. It directs the reader to identify with the moral and theological perspective of the writer. This can be done through parenthetical asides, but it can also employ more oblique literary techniques to guide the reader’s perception of events. And, of course, there are more explicitly didactic genres, where the writer openly states his position–or sets his own position in contrast to the opposing viewpoint.

A writer can also use certain speakers within the story to echo the editorial voice. Likewise, some (but not all) speakers within the Biblical narrative are inspired speakers in their own right. So they too, convey the evaluative aspect of Scripture.

Underlying this is the dual authorship of Scripture, with the inspired fusion of authorial intent. What Isaiah meant to convey is what God meant for Isaiah to convey (to take one example).

The reference to “Christianity” helps us narrow this down a bit. Perhaps then the only rational biblical worldview for us today is the one that was held by New Testament figures and characters post-Jesus in the fledgling Christian church. This would help us with the diversity problem because it would narrow us to Paul and Timothy and Mary. So the only rational worldview is that held by Paul and other New Testament, early church Christians. And that’s the worldview of biblical Christianity that we should hold as well.

No. The biblical viewpoint is ultimately the canonical viewpoint. The Bible has collective outlook. Each book contributes to a cumulative perspective.

I’m confused. What does this mean for many of the beliefs in our worldview? Science, for instance.

A Biblical worldview is an interpretive framework. Scripture itself points to events outside itself. But extrabiblical information is still evaluated from a Biblical perspective. The viewpoint of Scripture canonizes a God’s-eye viewpoint of reality. And that revelatory perspective is necessary to appreciate our place in the world.

This author apparently believes that there was not significant disagreement among New Testament Christians. But that is very far from obvious. Did Paul and James (brother of Jesus and leader of the Jerusalem church) see eye to eye on the role of the law in the church? There certainly is much rational room to doubt this. (And remember, all we need to throw a wrench into the author’s claim is to point out rational grounds for dissent.) But if they didn’t agree, or at least if we have reasonable grounds to think it possible that they didn’t agree, then which one was the biblical Christian?

i) Well, that’s far from self-evident. Acts and Galatians don’t say that Paul and James disagreed. Rather, the direct confrontation involves Paul and some anonymous second parties who presume to speak on behalf of James.

ii) Moreover, there’s no reason to assume that James had firsthand knowledge of what Paul was saying and doing on the mission field. Even if, let us say, James were to condemn a position which second parties attributed to Paul, that’s not the same thing as James condemning Paul, or James attributing a position to Paul.

It would only be on those occasions when Paul and James met face-to-face and talked specifics (or corresponded), that Paul and James would even be in the hypothetical position to disagree with each other’s theology.

iii) There is also a difference between doctrine and tactics. Even if, for the sake of argument, Paul and James differ on the best way to evangelize the Gentiles, that’s not a doctrinal agreement. Rather, that’s a tactical disagreement on missional strategies.

And that might also reflect certain inherent tradeoffs. If James is ministering primarily to Jews while Paul is ministering primarily to Gentiles, then they have different priorities.

What works best for Gentiles may be offensive to Jews, and vice versa. Therefore, one might have to settle for a tactical compromise. Indeed, that’s exactly what took place in Acts 15.

iv) But perhaps Randal is alluding to the fabled conflict between James and Paul on the doctrine of justification. If so, it’s not as if this hasn’t been dealt with in the exegetical literature.

Needless to say there are other possible areas of disagreement as well. For example, would James have agreed with the christology packed into the Gospel of John? Maybe, but possibly not. At the very least, it would surely be naive to deny that there is not development in the New Testament church’s theology. For instance, there is a pretty big gap between the tacit adoptionism of Peter’s preaching in Acts 2:36 (‘Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.’) and the lofty declaration of John 1:1 (In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.)

Here Randal’s is simply tipping his hand when it comes to his low view of Scripture.  That would take us deep into the inerrancy debate.  It also turns on how we interpret his prooftexts.

His next paragraph is a dismissive straw an argument.

Finally:

Sadly, the author of Triablogue appears to be doing nothing more than providing empty rhetorical bluster to perpetuate the delusion that only he, and those who agree with him, are rational.

Of course, that’s a demagogical falsification of what Dustin actually wrote. If you compare Dustin’s post, where he quotes verbatim from prominent unbelievers to document his claims, with Randal’s parting shot, there’s no resemblance between the two.

43 comments:

  1. "Atheism is evil"

    Of course it is.

    Why would any clear-thinking biblical Christian say otherwise?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Steve,

    In the original post Dustin made the claim that anyone who does not hold to the worldview of biblical Christianity is irrational. That's what my "yoiks" is a response to.

    In order to assess the plausibility of his claim we first have to identify what the worldview of biblical Christianity is. I presume it is, minimally, a set of metaphysical/theological claims. So what are those claims? What is that set of claims the denial of which is sufficient to deem one irrational? You've talked in general terms about adopting the narrative and canonical perspective of scripture but like Dustin you have provided virtually no insight into what that set of claims is. So could you please get down to brass tacks? What is the set of claims about the nature of reality called "biblical Christianity" the denial of which constitutes an irrationality?

    I'll respond at my blog separately to the "evil atheist" stuff because that is a secondary point.

    ReplyDelete
  3. One other thing.

    You said that I hold to a "low" view of scripture. I wonder how you could know that since I didn't say anything about my view of scripture (or inerrancy, though I have been a member of ETS for 8 years in good standing, if it matters to you).

    I didn't say anything about my view of theological diversity in scripture. I only said that a reasonable person could believe such exists and thus come to a different set of beliefs about the claims that constitute a biblical Christian worldview than another person. And that's a problem for Dustin's (and I presume your) views.

    If you have evidence how there is only one theological perspective that can be discerned from scripture then I guess all the Christians who woudl disagree with you are irrational?

    ReplyDelete
  4. The obvious problem is that Randal doesn't actually believe God's word himself. He has trouble understanding what biblical Christianity is because he has trouble understanding that the Bible is a truthful and coherent communication from God about specific aspects of our world.

    But if you don't believe the Bible is truthful and coherent, without error or contradiction, it follows that you can't believe it represents a single worldview. And if you can't believe it represents a single worldview, you certainly can't try to discern what that worldview is and believe it.

    In other words, Randal is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He neither believes in the Christian worldview, nor tries to faithfully understand it. Or so it appears.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I didn't say anything about my view of theological diversity in scripture. I only said that a reasonable person could believe such exists and thus come to a different set of beliefs about the claims that constitute a biblical Christian worldview than another person.

    1. You ought to be more careful. If you don't believe your own statements about theological diversity, it'd be wise to preface them with a declaration to that effect. Otherwise people will be inclined to take what you say at face value, and label you a liberal.

    2. Saying that a reasonable person can believe in theological diversity in Scripture begs the question. If, in fact, Scripture is God's truthful and coherent revelation, and if failing to believe that is both intellectually and morally reprehensible, then a reasonable person cannot believe it contains theological diversity. At least certainly not in the sensus plenior.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Professor Rauser,

    Do you, per chance, see any of yourself in this recent Triablogue post titled Old Queens in Chamois Vestments?

    I know it's a temptation to want to be liked by unbelievers and all, but please do be careful of being a compromising appeaser (Not saying that you are).

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Wolf in sheep's clothing"?

    Too bad you can't see my eye roll and hear my withering sigh.

    Is there nobody out there posting at this blog you can respond to a simple question? What is the set of beliefs that constitute the worldview of biblical Christianity the denial of which is irrational?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Blogpost Title: "Atheism is evil"

    Dr. Rauser: "I'll respond at my blog separately to the "evil atheist" stuff because that is a secondary point."

    Dr. Rauser, please note the difference between Steve's title of "Atheism is evil" and your calling it the "evil atheist" stuff.

    That would be a misrepresentation.

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I love the title of this post. Atheism (i.e. the non-belief in god or gods) is evil.

    The Bible has been used for centuries by Christians as a weapon of control. To read it literally is to believe in a three-tiered universe, to condone slavery, to treat women as inferior creatures, to believe that sickness is caused by God's punishment and that mental disease and epilepsy are caused by demonic possession. When someone tells me that they believe the Bible is the 'literal and inerrant word of God,' I always ask, 'Have you ever read it'?" Does this quote mean John Shelby Spong is evil?

    I could accept Jesus as a martyr, & embodiment of sacrifice, and a divine teacher. His death on the cross was a great example to the world, but that there was anything like a mysterious or miraculous virtue in it, my heart could not accept. Does this quote mean that Mahatma Gandhi was evil?

    Have you read Peter Singer's The Life You Can Save? Is he evil?

    I won't ask you about me. I'm off to read the Malleus Maleficarum.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Dr. Rauser, please note the difference between Steve's title of "Atheism is evil" and your calling it the "evil atheist" stuff."

    Let's say that atheism is constituted by the proposition "God does not exist." That can't be evil. It's just a proposition! If anything would be evil here it would be the state of affairs of a person assenting to the claim "God does not exist" despite evidence to the contrary. So in fact we are talking about the evil of atheists and not the evil of a proposition that denies God's existence.

    I'm still waiting for a simple answer to my question ... Steve? Dustin? Anyone?

    Oh yeah, and you might want to take up Atheist Missionary's suggestion to read some Peter Singer. I'd suggest you also read some Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein, atheists who demonstrate more moral integrity on a whole plethora of issues than most Christians I meet.

    ReplyDelete
  11. RD Rauser said:
    If you have evidence how there is only one theological perspective that can be discerned from scripture then I guess all the Christians who woudl disagree with you are irrational?

    No, anyone who disagrees with scripture is irrational, all atheists are evil, and scripture identifies them as such. If one has a problem with stating that athiests are evil they're at odds with scripture, and hence they're...irrational. Same for those who hold to any non-Christian worldview. The Christian worldview is delineated by revelation, ie scripture. Unless you wish to defend the idea that to rebel against God is "rational", to which I'd have to reply "yoiks".

    ReplyDelete
  12. First-time commenter here. This blog gets lively!

    "Offhand, the only reason I think the why Randal might take umbrage at that statement is if Randal regards Christianity as just a hypothesis, more likely than not, but quite possibly wrong. Put another way, Randal may take the position that you can’t really know if God (specifically, the God of the Bible) exists. Hence, denying the existence of God may be a morally and intellectually respectable option, from his standpoint. Since the truth of the matter is unknowable, there is nothing inherently culpable about atheism."

    There are some distinctions that need to be made here. In order to know, does one have to be certain of what one knows, precluding the possibility of being mistaken?

    Also, the truth about God may be knowable, but not by all persons at all times. So there may be times and situations when one is not culpable for lack of knowledge of God, even though the knowledge is attainable in some situations, and in those situations failure to attain knowledge of God would be culpable (see below).

    "By contrast, the Bible attributes lack of faith to willful rebellion. Not ignorance of the truth, but fear and loathing of the unwelcome truth. To see the light, but love the darkness. To stare goodness in the face, but turn to evil. Sin as primordial apostasy."

    St. Paul would beg to differ, at least in his speech on the Areopagus:

    "From one man he made every nation of the human race to inhabit the entire earth, determining their set times and the fixed limits of the places where they would live, so that they would search for God and perhaps grope around for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. For in him we live and move about and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we too are his offspring.’ So since we are God’s offspring, we should not think the deity is like gold or silver or stone, an image made by human skill and imagination. Therefore, although God has overlooked such times of ignorance, he now commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has set a day on which he is going to judge the world in righteousness, by a man whom he designated, having provided proof to everyone by raising him from the dead.” (Acts 17:26-31)

    Paul says very clearly here that God hopes people would 'grope around' for him and find him, and that God overlooked a time of ignorance (Greek: agnoian) before sending Christ. This does not seem to square with your depiction of people being fully aware of God but constantly running from Him. That may be true sometimes, but not always.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Atheist Missionary:

    The Bible has been used for centuries by Christians as a weapon of control.

    Yeap, I use it daily to keep my religious minions under my jackboot, where they belong. Especially the women.

    Does this quote mean John Shelby Spong is evil?

    Duh? Of course he is. How is someone calling himself a bishop yet denying the Christian faith and leading lost souls into hell not evil?

    Does this quote mean that Mahatma Gandhi was evil?

    Of course. All false prophets are evil by definition of the fact that they're in opposition to God's truth. What about this is difficult to grasp?

    Have you read Peter Singer's The Life You Can Save? Is he evil?

    Is it evil to promote abortion, infanticide and euthanasia? You'd have to be pretty morally corrupt to not think so.

    Randal:

    Is there nobody out there posting at this blog you can respond to a simple question? What is the set of beliefs that constitute the worldview of biblical Christianity the denial of which is irrational?

    How was I unclear before? It's the set of propositions contained in the Bible. Are you just complaining that I haven't listed every single one? If you asked me what the set of natural numbers was, and I told you it was every number from 1 onwards, would you complain that I hadn't answered your question because I hadn't listed every natural number?

    Do you seriously want someone to list every proposition the Bible contains?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Randal:

    Oh yeah, and you might want to take up Atheist Missionary's suggestion to read some Peter Singer.

    I'm really curious about why you suggest this. Are you advocating Singer's views? Or are you acknowledging that some atheists take their worldview to its consistent conclusion, and thus clearly demonstrate how evil it is by the moral theories they promote?

    ReplyDelete
  15. eklektos says "anyone who disagrees with scripture is irrational...."

    So your definition of rationality is "Assent to whatever scripture says"?

    I suggest you read an introductory textbook in epistemology (Robert Audi's is great) as well as an introductory textbook in hermeneutics.

    As for Dominic who declares that a biblical Christian worldview is "the set of propositions contained in the Bible" I would point out that (a)the doctrine of the Trinity is not listed among those propositions, (b) there is enormous debate over what propositions are expressed by many of the sentences in scripture so there is no agreement about what we are assenting to.

    If that is a surprise to you I suggest you borrow the hermeneutics book when eklektos is done with it.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I strongly disagree with Peter Singer's views on abortion and infanticide (not to mention bestiality).

    But my concern is with people who can't find the good in somebody with whom they disagree strenuously on other matters. Close to forty years ago Singer wrote a powerful paper in ethics on the culpability of rich people in allowing the poor of the world to die. And yet rather than read that paper and Singer's other work on the plight of the world's poor, self-righteous suburban evangelicals continue to drive their big fat SUVs, tithe 4% of their income (on average) and stand in judgment of his views on abortion. What damnable hypocrisy. Before you call Peter Singer evil try reading the parable of the sheep and goats half a dozen times whilst setting aside your self-righteous certainty that you're a sheep and Singer is a goat.

    ReplyDelete
  17. RD Rauser: "Oh yeah, and you might want to take up Atheist Missionary's suggestion to read some Peter Singer. I'd suggest you also read some Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein, atheists who demonstrate more moral integrity on a whole plethora of issues than most Christians I meet."

    I'll just use your own words to describe my response:

    "Too bad you can't see my eye roll and hear my withering sigh."

    ReplyDelete
  18. Truth...

    No doubt your sigh is due to your extensive familiarity with their corpus of writings, your wrestling with their views in Christian charity, and your conclusion that you can find absolutely nothing of value in them.

    Or could it be due to the fact that somebody asked you to read something beyond the confines of your narrow sectarian vision?

    ReplyDelete
  19. I encourage all theists and atheists to take the pledge: http://www.thelifeyoucansave.com/

    I also wish everyone would read both Singer's The Life You Can Save and Peter Unger's Living High, Letting Die.

    Back to my witchcraft.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Randal:

    As for Dominic who declares that a biblical Christian worldview is "the set of propositions contained in the Bible" I would point out that (a)the doctrine of the Trinity is not listed among those propositions, (b) there is enormous debate over what propositions are expressed by many of the sentences in scripture so there is no agreement about what we are assenting to.

    Sorry, let me clarify: The set of propositions contained within or deducible from the Bible.

    Of course, correctly interpreting those propositions is part of a Christian's obligation. The fact that we sometimes get it wrong (and are thus irrational) should hardly come as a surprise, nor give us any reason to think that these propositions aren't nonetheless definite and comprehensible.

    But my concern is with people who can't find the good in somebody with whom they disagree strenuously on other matters.

    I don't see that you're in a situation to say this about anyone here. How could you possibly know that I, for example, can't (or won't) find the good in someone with whom I disagree?

    And yet rather than read that paper and Singer's other work on the plight of the world's poor, self-righteous suburban evangelicals continue to drive their big fat SUVs, tithe 4% of their income (on average) and stand in judgment of his views on abortion.

    Spoken like a true liberal. Your assumption that I'm an SUV-driving American evangalical (I'm a motorbike-riding Kiwi Calvinist) is as offensive as your implied beliefs about economics and social justice are tendentious. Not that I think the rich don't have an obligation to help the poor. But on the other hand, let those who will not work not eat. New Zealand's government takes most of the good money I earn, and gives it to free-loaders who see no reason to make their own. Not only do I get no choice in how to fulfill my fiscal obligations, but I'm forced into a position where I'm less able to fulfill them at a local or personal level, because I have so little left over.

    your self-righteous certainty that you're a sheep and Singer is a goat.

    Seriously? You're implying that Singer is saved and I might not be? I mean, I don't mind you implying the latter. But implying the former belies your incompetence as a systematic theologian, I'm afraid.

    ReplyDelete
  21. RD Rauser: "I'd suggest you also read some Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein, atheists who demonstrate more moral integrity on a whole plethora of issues than most Christians I meet."

    "Before you call Peter Singer evil try reading the parable of the sheep and goats half a dozen times whilst setting aside your self-righteous certainty that you're a sheep and Singer is a goat."

    "Yoiks! This is wrong on so many levels it is hard to know where to begin. The problems begin when we simply try to figure out what the claim actually is [by Pastor Dusman]."


    Dr. Rauser, it looks like you'd rather get into blistering polemics with faithful Christians than to affirm that atheism is evil.

    ReplyDelete
  22. RD Rauser said:

    I suggest you read an introductory textbook in epistemology (Robert Audi's is great) as well as an introductory textbook in hermeneutics.

    Ok, so your view is that to disagree with the revelation of God is "rational" or is it that you don't view scripture as revelation, so it's what? Optional? Audi's book trumps Gods word? Inform me of the "rational" epistemology, you know the one which is derived "rationally" without unproven assumptions. Audi didn't do it, nor has any other philosopher. So rationally prove to me you exist, apart from Gods revelation, give me a purely rational epistemological basis for existence. And spare me your, to use your own words, "self-righteous" appeals to authority. Evil is only a valid argument when defined against a standard, not your opinion. The standard of a Christian is God's word, not your or anyone elses opinion.

    But my concern is with people who can't find the good in somebody with whom they disagree strenuously on other matters

    I'm sure a great many evil men had some admirable qualities, did some laudable things, ect. So what? Does that make them less evil?

    And yet rather than read that paper and Singer's other work on the plight of the world's poor, self-righteous suburban evangelicals continue to drive their big fat SUVs, tithe 4% of their income (on average) and stand in judgment of his views on abortion. What damnable hypocrisy.

    How do you know I'm guilty of any of these things, or any of your other critics? If I am does that make Singer any less evil, or good, or anything else? What are you aspiring to, a caricature? The failings of others do not make Singer any less evil. Btw, how much does Singer tithe? Just curious.

    Parable of the sheep and the goats? Really? I thought the goats were the ones who don't believe, and doesn't Singer identify himself as an unbeliever? Doesn't John say those who don't believe are condemned? And if he doesn't repent prior to death then he'd remain a goat wouldn't he? It would appear that I'm not the one in need of an introductory textbook in hermeneutics

    You also might try one in logic, making fatuous assumptions about the extent of anothers "readings" doesn't address arguments, it merely shows you to be without one.

    ReplyDelete
  23. DBT,

    Take a verse like Romans 9:5. The Greek can be translated a couple different ways. It is quite ridiculous to suggest that only one of those translations is rational but we don't know which one!

    "Spoken like a true liberal...."

    Wow, you're great at labelling people. You should get one of those price labellers they use at the discount stores so you can quickly label anyone you disagree with and then stop thinking about what they say.

    The Singer quote you respond to wasn't directed to you or any other specific person. I made a general point about the way that evangelicals tend to slight individuals like Singer.

    Thanks for letting me know what your arbitrary criterion for "competent systematic theologian" is.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Atheist Missionary,

    I have written on Unger's book here:

    http://randalrauser.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/On_the_Immorality_of_Disproving_Peter_Unger.pdf

    How sad that none of the theologically correct Calvinists at this blog thread seem particularly interested in what you, or Singer, or Unger, have to say about the world's poor and our moral obligations to them.

    ReplyDelete
  25. eklektos says: "Parable of the sheep and the goats? Really? I thought the goats were the ones who don't believe, and doesn't Singer identify himself as an unbeliever?"

    No, that's not what the parable says. Rather, Jesus makes the point that the sheep are identified not by their confession of a set of propositions but rather by their aid to the poor and disenfranchised. There is NOTHING about belief there.

    And note that many sheep will be surprised to find themselves sheep while many goats will be equally surprised to find themselves goats.

    A Christian really has to be reading scripture with blinders not to see how this text might apply to them.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Nobody answered my question apart from saying you are irrational unless you assent to every proposition affirmed in the Bible (though we don't know what many of those propositions are).

    Along the way I've been called a wolf, a liberal, and a few other things.

    Well it's been fun but I've got to move on.

    Adieu

    ReplyDelete
  27. Randal:

    Take a verse like Romans 9:5. The Greek can be translated a couple different ways. It is quite ridiculous to suggest that only one of those translations is rational but we don't know which one!

    Well, that's a nice assertion just hanging around, waiting for an argument to come by and pick it up.

    Wow, you're great at labelling people. You should get one of those price labellers they use at the discount stores so you can quickly label anyone you disagree with and then stop thinking about what they say.

    It seems to go without saying, yet here I am having to say it: a label is just a shorthand way of identifying something about someone. So when you identify me as someone who labels people in order to quickly disagree with them and stop thinking about what they say, you're just taking a longhand approach of labeling me a bigot. Seems a mite hypocritical.

    The Singer quote you respond to wasn't directed to you or any other specific person. I made a general point about the way that evangelicals tend to slight individuals like Singer.

    You're dissembling. By making a "general point" about how evangelicals "tend" to act in a discussion with people who can be broadly considered evangelical, you were directing it toward all of us.

    Thanks for letting me know what your arbitrary criterion for "competent systematic theologian" is.

    If you were a more competent exegete you'd see I was drawing a general principle out of a specific instance. It's an elementary metaphor in Scripture that goats are unbelievers and sheep are believers. A systematic theologian who can't properly apply this basic metaphor is clearly incompetent.

    How sad that none of the theologically correct Calvinists at this blog thread seem particularly interested in what you, or Singer, or Unger, have to say about the world's poor and our moral obligations to them.

    1. You have no idea what any of our interest is in the world's poor and our obligations to them. For all you know everyone here has founded a charity dedicated to helping the destitute. Your assumptions about our priorities and activities are as baseless as they are unflattering.

    2. It's telling that you seem to see no problem with shouldering us with your own views about where our priorities should lie in ancillary matters of deed, while you simultaneously complain bitterly when we try to shoulder you with the Bible's view of central doctrines such as plenary inspiration and the moral status of unbelief.

    3. It's also telling that you're more interested in promoting the work of atheist philosophers than Christian ones. Yet when we don't show the same interest, you assume it's because we have no interest in the topics they're writing on. Did it occur to you that we might just be more interested in reading about what the Bible and Christian ethicists have to say on those topics, rather than people who also recommend murdering babies and old people, and who defend radical skepticism?

    4. I'd add that this whole line of reasoning seems to be a diversionary tactic. It's irrelevant to the topic.

    5. And of course, as TUAD observed, given the choice between affirming central Christian truths and taking a stand against atheism, or vice versa, you've chosen the side of atheism. How is it unfair to then suggest that you're a goat; and a wolf too, given your pretense of Christian piety?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Randal:

    Take a verse like Romans 9:5. The Greek can be translated a couple different ways. It is quite ridiculous to suggest that only one of those translations is rational but we don't know which one!

    Well, that's a nice assertion just hanging around waiting for an argument to come by and pick it up.

    Wow, you're great at labelling people. You should get one of those price labellers they use at the discount stores so you can quickly label anyone you disagree with and then stop thinking about what they say.

    It seems to go without saying, yet here I am having to say it: a label is just a short-hand way of identifying something about someone. So when you identify me as someone who labels people in order to disagree with them and stop thinking about what they say, you're just taking a long-hand approach of labeling me a bigot. Seems a mite hypocritical.

    The Singer quote you respond to wasn't directed to you or any other specific person. I made a general point about the way that evangelicals tend to slight individuals like Singer.

    You're dissembling. By making a "general point" in a discussion with people who can be broadly considered evangelical, you were directing it toward all of us.

    Thanks for letting me know what your arbitrary criterion for "competent systematic theologian" is.

    If you were a more competent exegete you'd see I was drawing a general principle out of a specific instance. It's an elementary metaphor in Scripture that goats are unbelievers and sheep are believers. A systematic theologian who can't properly apply this basic metaphor is clearly incompetent.

    How sad that none of the theologically correct Calvinists at this blog thread seem particularly interested in what you, or Singer, or Unger, have to say about the world's poor and our moral obligations to them.

    1. You have no idea what any of our interest is in the world's poor and our obligations to them. For all you know everyone here has founded a charity dedicated to helping the destitute. Your assumptions about our priorities and activities are as baseless as they unflattering.

    2. It's telling that you seem to see no problem with shouldering us with your own views about where our priorities should lie in ancillary matters of deed, while you simultaneously complain bitterly when we try to shoulder you with the Bible's view of central doctrines such as plenary inspiration and the moral status of unbelief.

    3. It's also telling that you're more interested in promoting the work of atheist philosophers than Christian ones. Yet when we don't show the same interest, you assume it's because we have no interest in the topics they're writing on. Did it occur to you that we might just be more interested in reading about what the Bible and Christian ethicists have to say on those topics, rather than people who also recommend murdering babies and old people, and who defend radical skepticism?

    4. I'd add that this whole line of reasoning seems to be a diversionary tactic. It's irrelevant to the topic.

    5. And of course, as TUAD observed, given the choice between affirming central Christian truths and taking a stand against atheism, or vice versa, you've chosen the side of atheism. How is it unfair to then suggest that you're a goat; and a wolf too, given your pretense of Christian piety?

    ReplyDelete
  29. And note that many sheep will be surprised to find themselves sheep while many goats will be equally surprised to find themselves goats.

    A Christian really has to be reading scripture with blinders not to see how this text might apply to them.


    27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.
    28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.
    29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
    30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
    31 ¶ When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
    32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
    33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.


    Hmm, focus doesn't seem to be the poor, but unprofitable servants. So is Singer, or any unbeliever, a profitable servant? Granted profitable servants will see to the poor, sick, ect., But the focus here is on what? The talents. What are the talents? The Gospel? Isn't this the increase. What did the unprofitable servant not do, invest the gospel? Pretty standard interpetation. Doesn't Jesus say that they don't believe because they aren't his sheep? Nice how you ignore John, very selective of you. What would you wish for a man, that he is fed today and spends eternity in hell? I would rather he starve to death and spend eternity with God. Isn't that more merciful, more caring? Of course it's not either/or, but if I had to make a choice I'd chose to share the Gospel rather than a sandwich. Your focus seems to be temporal, but shouldn't it be eternal?

    Also I don't see why you'd object to being labeled a liberal, you clearly are one. As to the answer you claim never got, well that's just untrue. You received it, you just keep pretending you didn't.

    ReplyDelete
  30. "Well it's been fun but I've got to move on.

    Adieu"


    Goodbye.

    And I do want to thank Dusman for his post for it exposed theology professors like you when you responded with such vehemence to his remarks.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Additionally one can of course expand this lack of investment to any God-given resources we have that we don't invest in His work, but again it's doing His work, not ours. We should do it to His glory, athiests even when doing "good" are not doing it to His glory, but for their own. So how "good" is it really?

    ReplyDelete
  32. eklektos wrote: athiests even when doing "good" are not doing it to His glory, but for their own.

    That's b.s. Why do I leave tips for chamber maids I have never met in hotels that I know I'll never return to?

    ReplyDelete
  33. The Atheist Missionary said:
    ---
    Why do I leave tips for chamber maids I have never met in hotels that I know I'll never return to?
    ---

    To take away your guilt.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcdtVD8X1-A (Warning: contains R-rated profanity.)

    ReplyDelete
  34. Peter, great video - thanks. No doubt the irony that Jesus will supposedly take away your guilt for free is not lost on you. Rest assured that Minchin's $50 will do much more for those in need than the vacuous concept of substitutionary atonement. I'll take responsibility for my own wrongs - I don' require a metaphysical get out of jail free card.

    ReplyDelete
  35. "That's b.s. Why do I leave tips for chamber maids I have never met in hotels that I know I'll never return to?"

    Is the driving motivation behind that action the glory of God? I'd wager not. As a result, it is not good in the truest sense of the word; good in accordance with God's standard of what is good.

    "Rest assured that Minchin's $50 will do much more for those in need than the vacuous concept of substitutionary atonement. I'll take responsibility for my own wrongs - I don' require a metaphysical get out of jail free card."

    1.Maybe the $50 will do some good, maybe it won't. Maybe it will be spent wisely, maybe it won't.

    2.However, the substitutionary atonement of Christ will most definitely accomplish something good with no ifs, ands, or buts. The salvation of one's eternal soul.

    3.Interestingly enough, I'd wager that "get-out-of jail-free card" carries a more expensive price than you are willing to pay.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Did Dr Rauser really point us to Peter Singer as an example of commendable and moral treatment of children? Or is it just that I haven't had my coffee yet?
    I'm glad I haven't; else I'd've spit it all over my keyboard I think.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Rest assured that Minchin's $50 will do much more for those in need than the vacuous concept of substitutionary atonement.

    If it's vacuous, which of course is merely a claim, you've yet to begin to demonstrate it. Besides, wasn't the discusion about what a Christian view was? If you claim to be an athiest you don't really have a dog in this hunt do you? I mean if we're just a collection of chemicals responding to stimuli why would you care what the Christian view is? It would be inevitable wouldn't it? Why do you bother?

    I'll take responsibility for my own wrongs - I don' require a metaphysical get out of jail free card.

    Another irrelevant claim. This is not a Christian view, it's yours. Christians view us as saved to something, not simply from something. I suspect it's something Christians are saved to that bothers you. I'm sure you'd be happy enough not to be condemned, providing of course you could get it "for free". Besides, what "wrongs" could you possibly commit? Against what standard. Why bother to use terms like evil, good, bad, or wrong. I mean the $50 given may be good to you, but that's nothing but an fallible opinion. Maybe it was spent on ammunition used to kill someone. So how "good" was the $50 now?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Did Dr Rauser really point us to Peter Singer as an example of commendable and moral treatment of children?

    Does seem to have cut the branch off after himself. I imagine he'd like to take that one back.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Rest assured that Minchin's $50 will do much more for those in need than the vacuous concept of substitutionary atonement. I'll take responsibility for my own wrongs - I don' require a metaphysical get out of jail free card.

    I would argue that a robust and genuine commitment to traditional metaphysical beliefs such as the atonement lead to a life of generosity characterized far beyond the mere donation of money. The communities of the oppressed and the impoverished have more hope from the self-denying beliefs of Christianity than from the self-exalting beliefs of atheism. Consider Timothy Keller's new book, Generous Justice, for an exposition on how internalizing doctrines of grace naturally leads to sacrificial living on behalf of the orphan, the single mother, the refugee and all other underprivileged persons:

    http://timothykeller.com/books/generous_justice

    ReplyDelete
  40. "By contrast, the Bible attributes lack of faith to willful rebellion."

    So faith is a choice and the commenters here who consider themselves among the Elect can pinpoint the time when they "chose" to believe?

    If rebellion is "willful", then so is it an act of will to believe.

    ReplyDelete
  41. James,

    You apparently lack a command of idiomatic English.

    ReplyDelete
  42. The Atheist Missionary said:
    ---
    No doubt the irony that Jesus will supposedly take away your guilt for free is not lost on you.
    ---

    No doubt you don't know what the definition of irony is if you think it applies here.

    Others have already responded to the rest of what you've said. I generally concur with them, so won't repeat it here.

    James said:
    ---
    So faith is a choice and the commenters here who consider themselves among the Elect can pinpoint the time when they "chose" to believe?
    ---

    How long have you been commenting on posts here and you still don't even pay lip service to actually interacting with our beliefs?

    Keep on burning those strawmen.

    ReplyDelete
  43. THE PRAYING MANTISS SAID:

    “There are some distinctions that need to be made here. In order to know, does one have to be certain of what one knows, precluding the possibility of being mistaken?”

    Certainty, as you define it, is second-order knowledge, not to be confused with first-order knowledge. A reflection on first-order knowledge.

    “Also, the truth about God may be knowable, but not by all persons at all times.”

    That’s an assertion in search of an argument.

    “Paul says very clearly here that God hopes people would 'grope around' for him and find him, and that God overlooked a time of ignorance (Greek: agnoian) before sending Christ. This does not seem to square with your depiction of people being fully aware of God but constantly running from Him. That may be true sometimes, but not always.”

    i) Paul doesn’t say God “hopes” people would find him. And if God wanted everyone to find him, he could find them first.

    ii) Paul also says, in Ephesians, that God left the heathen in darkness.

    ii) You also confuse knowledge with awareness. But that doesn’t follow. For instance, I have buried memories that I can’t consciously access because I lack the associative trigger. It’s there in the “back of my mind,” but I’m not aware of what I know (i.e. buried memories). In addition, it’s common for people to be in denial.

    ReplyDelete