At least Matt tried to consider a context....!

[gaara4158]

Oh, I think we both can intuit what that means....

Watch as Loke reveals his pasty forearms in Japan? Interesting...

 

[zippy2006]

Of course. I and a few other nonbelievers around here have happily admitted that there is a sporting aspect to our participation here, and that's what I'm speaking to in this thread. There's just as much sport in working contradictions into interpretations of scripture as there is in working them out. It's just not going to get anyone closer to the truth.

I suppose I'm not fond of the idea of arguing for sport. I actually just re-read Plato's Gorgias, and it is on point to a large extent.

That's why I don't engage in that kind of thing when explaining why I don't believe Christianity is true (which is what I characterized earlier as anti-apologetics). I am thus far not convinced that investing the time to understand scripture as it was meant to be understood will bear fruits that justify the commitment. I only argue interpretations when someone seems Hell-bent on applying some scriptural condemnation to me.

That's fair. I was trying to make a broad point about the virtue that Philo is admiring in Matt, but it can apply in simple ways too. One person reads scripture with the intent of understanding it, another with the intent of exploiting it. There's no doubt that many self-proclaimed atheists of our day read scripture the same way they solve a wordfind, trying to identify contradictions in the mass of text. I wouldn't recommend reading any texts with that mentality, much less religious texts held to be sacred. But I digress...

When I was an agnostic I approached the words of Jesus in more or less the same way I approached the words of Socrates, or Confucius, or Buddha. I take it that if more CF atheists did that, the conversations on these forums would be much more interesting.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Watch as Loke reveals his pasty forearms in Japan? Interesting...

I see that I couldn't get these "tricky" semiotics by you, gaara! Impressive. And if this is the case, it's time for you to role up your hermeneutical sleeves and get to work!

 

[gaara4158]

I see that I couldn't get these "tricky" semiotics by you, gaara! Impressive. And if this is the case, it's time for you to role up your hermeneutical sleeves and get to work!

Yeah, it's like I told Zippy... I'll pass!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yeah, it's like I told Zippy... I'll pass!

You'll pass? Really? If all of this alighting done by you and dozens of other skeptics and atheists here on CF is just for 'sport,' then what does this leave for us to talk about other than how well the Washington Nationals did in the World Series?

 

[zippy2006]

While the topic is still fresh I want to make one point that I had planned to make, but which slipped my mind. No need to reply if it doesn't interest you:

That's why I don't engage in that kind of thing when explaining why I don't believe Christianity is true (which is what I characterized earlier as anti-apologetics).

It seems to me that the anti-apologist starts with the premise that Christianity is evil rather than that it is false. This premise makes more sense of the "military method" outlined here. The approach is as follows:

Christianity causes evil effects, therefore Christianity is evil. Evil things should be opposed by whatever means available. Contradictions and internal inconsistencies are inimical to a system's life, therefore a system of thought can be effectively undermined by identifying and publicizing such contradictions.
​

...that is the anti-apologist's raison d'etre.

I don't believe Christianity is true...

Truth and goodness are often conflated, but to truly begin with truth is much more complicated. It requires a great deal more rigor. To deny the truth of a 2,000 year old religious tradition is a difficult proposition.

Ideally one would first identify the essential truth-claims of the religion, investigate them, and come to the conclusion that they are false. Of course if the essential truth-claims are false, then the religion is false at heart. Yet I rarely see this approach.

What we find in reality are anti-apologists who are as happy to attack an accidental proposition as an essential one; as happy to hew a stray limb as a deep root. For many the differentiation is non-existent, they are just hacking away, ransacking the city instead of conquering it.

The problem here is a kind of intellectual dishonesty. Truth is not an umbrella concept. Just because Mein Kampf is evil or wrong does not mean that everything written in it is untrue. If you can't differentiate a critique from book burning, then the critique probably wasn't very rigorous.

 

[gaara4158]

You'll pass? Really? If all of this alighting done by you and dozens of other skeptics and atheists here on CF is just for 'sport,' then what does this leave for us to talk about other than how well the Washington Nationals did in the World Series?

Not all the alighting we do is for sport, but debating alleged contradictions within scripture would have to be, for me at least. And as I've already stated, I don't find that to be a fruitful exercise. It's much more edifying to engage in non-adversarial discussions concerning other philosophical questions or apologetics as a nonbeliever here.

That's not to say I won't discuss the Nationals' success with you. I could regale you with tales of Saturday's victory parade, since I was in attendance!

It seems to me that the anti-apologist starts with the premise that Christianity is evil rather than that it is false. This premise makes more sense of the "military method" outlined here. The approach is as follows:

Christianity causes evil effects, therefore Christianity is evil. Evil things should be opposed by whatever means available. Contradictions and internal inconsistencies are inimical to a system's life, therefore a system of thought can be effectively undermined by identifying and publicizing such contradictions.
...that is the anti-apologist's raison d'etre.

Thank you, I stand corrected on my improper use of the term "anti-apologetics." I really only wanted to designate a term to describe "the nonbeliever with whom an apologist is debating."

Truth and goodness are often conflated, but to truly begin with truth is much more complicated. It requires a great deal more rigor. To deny the truth of a 2,000 year old religious tradition is a difficult proposition.

Ideally one would first identify the essential truth-claims of the religion, investigate them, and come to the conclusion that they are false. Of course if the essential truth-claims are false, then the religion is false at heart. Yet I rarely see this approach.

This is because you'll rarely find someone who actually claims to have concluded the truth-claims are false. It takes some very serious and rigorous examination of scriptures and church history to determine what exactly those truth-claims even are, and there are hundreds of denominational branches of Christianity each claiming to have done so, each with its own distinct set of truth-claims with enough variance between them to span from quasi-atheism to full-on fundamentalism. So it's no simple task to investigate these claims (especially since humankind's most successful and rigorous method of investigation, science, can't be used on them) and conclude that they are false.

Instead, you're far more likely to come across agnostic atheists and Huxlian agnostics. These types appreciate the cultural significance of scripture, but aren't impressed by arguments meant to make a positive case for Christianity or even classical theism. After all, for the same reasons stated above and more, it's incredibly difficult to conclude that the core truth-claims of a religion are true, too.

What we find in reality are anti-apologists who are as happy to attack an accidental proposition as an essential one; as happy to hew a stray limb as a deep root. For many the differentiation is non-existent, they are just hacking away, ransacking the city instead of conquering it.

The problem here is a kind of intellectual dishonesty. Truth is not an umbrella concept. Just because Mein Kampf is evil or wrong does not mean that everything written in it is untrue. If you can't differentiate a critique from book burning, then the critique probably wasn't very rigorous.

I agree wholeheartedly. I think part of why this is so common is the lack of depth of religious education many Americans get growing up. For many, it's just Sunday School, church services, and the odd lecture from religious relatives here and there. It's easy to reject things like speaking in tongues, faith healers, and creationism as obvious nonsense and decide there's nothing of substance to Christianity if that's all you've ever known it to be. Many denominations, fundamentalist ones especially, really do collapse like a house of cards when one truth-claim is shown to be false. Assuming this applies to Christianity as a whole is a mistake many newly-deconverted atheists make because they haven't been exposed to the more nuanced versions of Christian faith that are available.

 

[zippy2006]

Thank you, I stand corrected on my improper use of the term "anti-apologetics." I really only wanted to designate a term to describe "the nonbeliever with whom an apologist is debating."

Sure. I wasn't so much trying to define the term as express an idea, though "anti-apologist" is an apt coinage in some ways.

This is because you'll rarely find someone who actually claims to have concluded the truth-claims are false. It takes some very serious and rigorous examination of scriptures and church history to determine what exactly those truth-claims even are, and there are hundreds of denominational branches of Christianity each claiming to have done so, each with its own distinct set of truth-claims with enough variance between them to span from quasi-atheism to full-on fundamentalism. So it's no simple task to investigate these claims (especially since humankind's most successful and rigorous method of investigation, science, can't be used on them) and conclude that they are false.

Instead, you're far more likely to come across agnostic atheists and Huxlian agnostics. These types appreciate the cultural significance of scripture, but aren't impressed by arguments meant to make a positive case for Christianity or even classical theism. After all, for the same reasons stated above and more, it's incredibly difficult to conclude that the core truth-claims of a religion are true, too.


I agree wholeheartedly. I think part of why this is so common is the lack of depth of religious education many Americans get growing up. For many, it's just Sunday School, church services, and the odd lecture from religious relatives here and there. It's easy to reject things like speaking in tongues, faith healers, and creationism as obvious nonsense and decide there's nothing of substance to Christianity if that's all you've ever known it to be. Many denominations, fundamentalist ones especially, really do collapse like a house of cards when one truth-claim is shown to be false. Assuming this applies to Christianity as a whole is a mistake many newly-deconverted atheists make because they haven't been exposed to the more nuanced versions of Christian faith that are available.

Thanks, these are good points.

I should also make the admission that the basic error I've outlined isn't a uniquely atheist problem. Inter-religious conflicts are almost as common today as they have been in history, and fallacious generalization often accompanies such conflicts.

One of my old philosophy professors had a felicitous phrase for the Christian cudgel, "Any stick to beat the devil!"

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Not all the alighting we do is for sport, but debating alleged contradictions within scripture would have to be, for me at least.

I guess I can understand some of the attraction of that kind of thing since, for my part, I do love to use pretty highlighter pens to "color" in various atheistic coloring books.

And as I've already stated, I don't find that to be a fruitful exercise. It's much more edifying to engage in non-adversarial discussions concerning other philosophical questions or apologetics as a nonbeliever here.

Philosophical edification can most certainly be a great thing.

That's not to say I won't discuss the Nationals' success with you. I could regale you with tales of Saturday's victory parade, since I was in attendance!

Nah, that won't be necessary since I can't believe that the Washington Nationals are a real baseball team.

 

[gaara4158]

I guess I can understand some of the attraction of that kind of thing since, for my part, I do love to use pretty highlighter pens to "color" in various atheistic coloring books.

Philosophical edification can most certainly be a great thing.

Nah, that won't be necessary since I can't believe that the Washington Nationals are a real baseball team.

Yeah, I can’t believe baseball is even a real sport, but as a Washington fan, I’ve got to get my wins from somewhere. It’s sure not coming from our football team!

 

[Carbon]

Matt D means well but this is difficult to watch. Instead of looking at Matthew like a historian he pretends to look at it like a fundamentalist then logic chop it down to powder. Boring stuff.

Matthew is remixing Mark as usual. He’s not writing a systematic philosophy treatise.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Matt D means well but this is difficult to watch. Instead of looking at Matthew like a historian he pretends to look at it like a fundamentalist then logic chop it down to powder. Boring stuff.

Matthew is remixing Mark as usual. He’s not writing a systematic philosophy treatise.

Matt D is a very intelligent guy, so I was kind of surprised to see him at least put a toe or two on the side of admitting and recognizing that 'context' has something to do with how we may interpret the passage he chose to evaluate. On the other hand, I was also kind of disappointed that he didn't go far enough in acknowledging that there can be several, more expansive contexts that apply to the passage he chose, not just one 'context.'

Not that having interpreted the passage more expansively would have made it possible for Matt D to 'believe,' I don't think it would by all counts, but at least on a literary level, he would perhaps come to see that the passage more accurately means something other than what many Christians and a number of skeptics have thought it means. And this is why I'm always harping on the importance of hermeneutics, both Philosophical and Biblical (both types).

 

[Carbon]

Matt D is a very intelligent guy, so I was kind of surprised to see him at least put a toe or two on the side of admitting and recognizing that 'context' has something to do with how we may interpret the passage he chose to evaluate. On the other hand, I was also kind of disappointed that he didn't go far enough in acknowledging that there can be several, more expansive contexts that apply to the passage he chose, not just one 'context.'

Not that having interpreted the passage more expansively would have made it possible for Matt D to 'believe,' I don't think it would by all counts, but at least on a literary level, he would perhaps come to see that the passage more accurately means something other than what many Christians and a number of skeptics have thought it means. And this is why I'm always harping on the importance of hermeneutics, both Philosophical and Biblical (both types).

I just feel it’s much more interesting to discover what the original writers actually meant to say, rather than contradiction-hunting to score cheap points against Sunday school children. Counter apologetics serves a purpose but shooting fish in a barrel eventually gets old.

Mark wants members of the kingdom to be possessionless itinerant faith healers. Matthew agrees but unlike Mark, Matthew doubles down on following the law, downplays self-reliance, and arguably wants the gospel only for Jews. He agrees that followers should fully expect their prayers to be granted but caveats this expectation must joined with good behavior and group assent. Agree with this or disagree, at least the conversation is interesting.

It’s not that there aren’t good reasons for doubting the Bible is divinely inspired. To the contrary there aren’t any good reasons for believing the Bible (or any other set of books) is divinely inspired. But that’s the point. This conclusion is so obvious it just isn’t worth much time fussing over it. Like, maybe a 5 minute conversation should do. No need to turn it into a career. Maybe I just bore too easily.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I just feel it’s much more interesting to discover what the original writers actually meant to say, rather than contradiction-hunting to score cheap points against Sunday school children. Counter apologetics serves a purpose but shooting fish in a barrel eventually gets old.

I very much agree, even if I don't always hold out hope that any of us can indeed fully understand every jot that is written in the Bible since some of the data is either undiscovered or simply lost to the ravages of time and chance.

Mark wants members of the kingdom to be possessionless itinerant faith healers. Matthew agrees but unlike Mark, Matthew doubles down on following the law, downplays self-reliance, and arguably wants the gospel only for Jews. He agrees that followers should fully expect their prayers to be granted but caveats this expectation must joined with good behavior and group assent. Agree with this or disagree, at least the conversation is interesting.

This might be the case, but since this thread is only looking at one specific passage, I'm going to have to say that it's important for us to try to understand that the way in which the Gospel of Matthew is written, the verses in question have a specific limit in their reference and meaning.

It’s not that there aren’t good reasons for doubting the Bible is divinely inspired. To the contrary there aren’t any good reasons for believing the Bible (or any other set of books) is divinely inspired. But that’s the point. This conclusion is so obvious it just isn’t worth much time fussing over it. Like, maybe a 5 minute conversation should do. No need to turn it into a career. Maybe I just bore too easily.

Forgive me if I say that your conclusion here is contingent on some other epistemological and metaphysical factors that play into whether or not the Bible can be seen as something "inspired"---and I use the term somewhat more loosely than does the average Christian. So, sure. I have can agree with you that from a certain angle that the bible can be seen to be nothing but a dead book; but from another angle it can be seen as the Word of God. However, this latter topic isn't one that I'm really interested in exploring here other than in how the whole idea of what the act of properly understanding the text which Matt D is scrutinizing might change our expected views on some things.

 

[Carbon]

I very much agree, even if I don't always hold out hope that any of us can indeed fully understand every jot that is written in the Bible since some of the data is either undiscovered or simply lost to the ravages of time and chance.

This might be the case, but since this thread is only looking at one specific passage, I'm going to have to say that it's important for us to try to understand that the way in which the Gospel of Matthew is written, the verses in question have a specific limit in their reference and meaning.

Forgive me if I say that your conclusion here is contingent on some other epistemological and metaphysical factors that play into whether or not the Bible can be seen as something "inspired"---and I use the term somewhat more loosely than does the average Christian. So, sure. I have can agree with you that from a certain angle that the bible can be seen to be nothing but a dead book; but from another angle it can be seen as the Word of God. However, this latter topic isn't one that I'm really interested in exploring here other than in how the whole idea of what the act of properly understanding the text which Matt D is scrutinizing might change our expected views on some things.

The arguments for the Bible being the words of a deity are no better than the arguments for any other religious texts. It’s always possible to explain the existence of any random book on the shelf as having come from divine inspiration. But never necessary.

We agree on the more relevant point though. Whoever wrote Matthew wrote his gospel for a specific time and place. Out of respect to the author we should ask what he wanted to say to those people. Most likely Matthew was writing for the Jewish church similar to the author of James, and against the school of Paul and Mark. It’s quite unnecessary to pretend he had any intention of communicating to 21st century folk. He didn’t think there was going to be a 21st century.

 

[FireDragon76]

Most atheists I encounter have basically a fundamentalist hermeneutic and don't understand religion very well.

The Bible was put together over centuries by people who made it their life’s work to ensure its coherence

I don't think there was as much of that going on as some might assume. Tradition doesn't always work in a systematic, well-thought-out fashion. The reason some books are in the Bible and not others is often more haphazard (like why exactly is Revelation in the New Testament? Some early Christians considered it inauthentic, and it's status was disputed).

Given that we’re so far removed from the original context, this means a plain reading will almost always be incorrect. But what’s that mean for the parts of the Bible that are generally taken at face value?

That's why biblical scholarship is a thing. And usually their conclusions are better than interpretations that rest on religious tradition or "plain reading", which are often filled with unexamined cultural assumptions.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The arguments for the Bible being the words of a deity are no better than the arguments for any other religious texts. It’s always possible to explain the existence of any random book on the shelf as having come from divine inspiration. But never necessary.

We agree on the more relevant point though. Whoever wrote Matthew wrote his gospel for a specific time and place. Out of respect to the author we should ask what he wanted to say to those people. Most likely Matthew was writing for the Jewish church similar to the author of James, and against the school of Paul and Mark. It’s quite unnecessary to pretend he had any intention of communicating to 21st century folk. He didn’t think there was going to be a 21st century.

I'm sorry, but these are irrelevant points to the focus of the OP. The point here that I'm attempting to assert---the only one that really matters and the one that Matt D and many Christians even seem to miss due to the complexity of the contexts in which Matthew 18:18-20 is embedded---is that here, where prayer is mentioned, its application has to do essentially with either the application of Forgiveness or the application of Church Discipline toward Offenders. It has essentially little or nothing (really nothing) to do with any 21st century person coming along, haphazardly and flippantly opening the Bible, pointing to and reading Matthew 18:18-20 and then (erroneously) thinking that this set of verses HAS ANYTHING to do with two or three Christians asking God to 'fill in' their spontaneous requests for some 'thing' they've asked for, as if He were a Genie-In-A-Bottle offering any Christians the possibility of cashing a blank check.

But, I suppose as with anything, wishful thinking often plays into how many of us read the bible and we end up not only disappointing ourselves by misappropriating biblical verses that never intended to mean what we wanted them to mean, but many of us also thereby shoot ourselves in the spiritual foot because of our bouts of wishful thinking.

Sad, but true!