An Atheist's Critique of … some other current Atheists

[2PhiloVoid]

present some for us to look into so that we understand the dilemma not to get us off track. I agree but if there is nothing in the bible that speaks of morality only justice, then the point is an even bigger problem for the atheist who tries to argue something to be immoral for a christian to do. IOW's there are absolutes in scripture that is why it talks about justice but the atheist and honestly very few christians take the time to understand what the law requires to know if something is just or not. This complicates the GMS's pov even more than he seems to understand.

I agree with you that from our perspective, there are indeed intricacies within both the Mosaic Law as well as in God's Will through Christ, theologically and morally speaking, that have to be discerned (usually with the help of the Church and by the help of the Holy Spirit).

However, from the atheistic viewpoint of GMS--who sees the entirety of the Bible as fallacious--the Bible with it's intricacies involving a divine sense of justice can just be written off. Thus, the nuances of justice we Christians within Scripture just don't register with atheists like GMS.

 

[cloudyday2]

I made it through half the video and I didn't agree with the idea that Christian behavior has no agreed standards.

And how does acknowledging that Christian standards exist create a problem for atheists? I don't believe in Christianity, because I don't believe Jesus was inspired by God.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The story of 300 Spartans as usually told is grossly inaccurate. Yet what happened at Thermopylae shaped the course of Western History. It seems to me that radical Christians and radical Atheists are almost working together to force a false dichotomy, that Scripture is either 100% true or 100% false. I doubt either. No a state as fact neither is true.

...well, that's another way of looking at it. In some respects, as a "student" of Philosophy of History, I can sympathize with your view. But of course, you know as well as I do that since I'm a Christian, I'm going to lean toward the other direction about the substance of the Bible ... but that's not something I want to discuss here. Right now, I'm focused on everyone's reaction to GMS's comments.

An interesting aside. I first came to understand that those on opposite sides can in the end toward a common evil goal when reading Double Star by Heinlein. Fiction often expresses truths in a far clearer form than dry history.

Yes, that is a good point about fiction. It's one that I thought of when watching the movie, Ender's Game.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I made it through half the video and I didn't agree with the idea that Christian behavior has no agreed standards.

And how does acknowledging that Christian standards exist create a problem for atheists? I don't believe in Christianity, because I don't believe Jesus was inspired by God.

Well.........some Christians think a person can be BOTH a practicing homosexual AND a Christian at the same time. And then there's Christians who obviously ... do not. Why's that, Cloudy?

 

[cloudyday2]

Well.........some Christians think a person can be BOTH a practicing homosexual AND a Christian at the same time. And then there's Christians who obviously ... do not. Why's that, Cloudy?

Because sexual practices aren't specified in the agreed standards? Is this a trick question?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Because sexual practices aren't specified in the agreed standards? Is this a trick question?

Maybe. Maybe not.

Some atheists seem to imply that the Bible is clear about all of the doctrines Christians should believe, whether those doctrines are moral or metaphysical. But, doesn't GMS have a point? Don't Christians have difficulty reaching agreement about an assortment of issues, even issues that seem as harmless as whether they should worship on Saturday rather than on Sunday? Or as to whether the wafer taken in communion is the literal Divine presence or just a sacred symbol, or that juice should be used instead of wine?

So, shouldn't atheists refrain from both citing the Bible as a definite source of moral standards AND from accusing Christians of being moral hypocrites?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It would seem that people will self define what it means to be "Christian," hence 30,000 separate denominations.

As for what constitutes staying within the Christian lane, that's not for me to say. I can only discuss a person's notion of Christianity in terms of what it means to them. And if they're being hypocritical, then that should be pointed out as well.

So, if a member of Westboro Baptist church failed to protest at a local Gay Parade or at the funeral of a fallen American soldier, then we should point that out to him or her?

 

[HitchSlap]

So, if a member of Westboro Baptist church failed to protest at a local Gay Parade or at the funeral of a fallen American soldier, then we should point that out to him or her?

If you feel the need to, have at it.

 

[cloudyday2]

Maybe. Maybe not.

Some atheists seem to imply that the Bible is clear about all of the doctrines Christians should believe, whether those doctrines are moral or metaphysical. But, doesn't GMS have a point? Don't Christians have difficulty reaching agreement about an assortment of issues, even issues that seem as harmless as whether they should worship on Saturday rather than on Sunday? Or as to whether the wafer taken in communion is the literal Divine presence or just a sacred symbol, or that juice should be used instead of wine?

So, shouldn't atheists refrain from both citing the Bible as a definite source of moral standards AND from accusing Christians of being moral hypocrites?

O.k, find me an example of an atheist criticizing a Christian for the "sin" of attending church on Saturday instead of Sunday or the "sin" of not believing in the real presence in communion. Nothing comes to mind - right?

Usually atheists criticize Christians for a lack of brotherly love, because everybody fails that test at least sometimes. If you always practice brotherly love then you rapidly find yourself hanging on a cross like Jesus, and most people don't want to go there.

Anyway, the brotherly love rule is part of the official homogenized agreed-upon standards of Christianity - it just isn't a practical rule for people who want to stay alive.

 

[cloudyday2]

@2PhiloVoid , one of Bart Ehrman's book ("Apocalyptic Prophet..." I believe) highlighted the upside-down characteristic of the teachings of Jesus. The world was imagined to be in the service of the forces of darkness. If you were succeeding in life then you were obviously serving darkness. Blessed were the poor for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven. (Cursed are the rich for theirs is the current kingdom.)

You can't follow Jesus and live a good life. Jesus essentially said this in the Sermon on the Mount. If you are wealthy, then you need to become poor. If you are admired then you need to become meek. Etc. ... The Son of Man is coming very soon, and He better not find you with money in your bank account...

Basically Christian teachings are not very practical and hypocrisy is a necessity. ... Of course this interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount is not part of the agreed Christian standards - otherwise Christianity would have died long ago.

 

[Tom 1]

@2PhiloVoid , one of Bart Ehrman's book ("Apocalyptic Prophet..." I believe) highlighted the upside-down teachings of Jesus. The world was imagined to be in the service of the forces of darkness. If you were succeeding in life then you were obviously serving darkness. Blessed were the poor for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven. (Cursed are the rich for theirs is the current kingdom.)

You can't follow Jesus and live a good life. Jesus essentially said this in the Sermon on the Mount. If you are wealthy, then you need to become poor. If you are admired then you need to become meek. Etc. ... The Son of Man is coming very soon, and He better not find you with money in your bank account...

Bit of an oversimplification, no surprise there as Ehrman does tend to cut away context that doesn’t ‘fit’ his argument. Cf Joseph of Arimathea, Cornelius, Lydia, the discussion of a related theme in 1 Cor 11. Like most 2 dimensional arguments of this sort a bit of context reveals all is not so simple as it might seem at first glance.

 

[cloudyday2]

Bit of an oversimplification, no surprise there as Ehrman does tend to cut away context that doesn’t ‘fit’ his argument. Cf Joseph of Arimathea, Cornelius, Lydia, the discussion of a related theme in 1 Cor 11. Like most 2 dimensional arguments of this sort a bit of context reveals all is not so simple as it might seem at first glance.

It's obvious from the NT itself that the earliest Christians agreed with Ehrman's interpretation. To become a Christian you first gave all your property to the cult leaders. Married or single, you abstained from sex. Your highest hope was to be martyred by officials of the current wicked social system, because that meant you were following Christ. If society approved of your behavior, then you needed to reexamine yourself.

 

[Tom 1]

It's obvious from the NT itself

Is it? If you can provide a thorough scriptural breakdown of your ideas that would support what you are saying. It appears that you are taking isolated examples as universally applicable ‘laws’. If you can refute that using NT references and relevant context (including a discussion of counter-examples), then you’ll have a starting point.

 

[cloudyday2]

Is it? If you can provide a thorough scriptural breakdown of your ideas that would support what you are saying. It appears that you are taking isolated examples as universally applicable ‘laws’. If you can refute that using NT references and relevant context (including a discussion of counter-examples), then you’ll have a starting point.

"Thorough scriptural breakdown"? What you need to do is read between the lines. Realize that the NT was assembled after Christianity had already sold-out and become a long-term religion instead of a doomsday cult. The traces of the cult are still there if you look.

 

[Tom 1]

"Thorough scriptural breakdown"? What you need to do is read between the lines. Realize that the NT was assembled after Christianity had already sold-out and become a long-term religion instead of a doomsday cult. The traces of the cult are still there if you look.

Thorough maybe is overstating it, all you need to do is compare passages covering the same topic - not actually complicated at all. That is a useful way to approach the text, because it provides you with a balanced view, as opposed to the narrow ideas you appear to have bought into. If you don’t want to/can’t defend those ideas then fine, but I think trying to do that would give you a better understanding of what the NT does actually have to say on this (hint: it isn’t what you think).

 

[razzelflabben]

No worries.

The context given is these are the moral standards of the kingdom of Heaven, the moral standards by which citizens of the kingdom of heaven are to live. As such, they are applicable to all who choose to follow Christ, but are also put forward as representing ideals of human behaviour, and so in that sense are applicable to anyone, anywhere, anytime.

The OP assumes there is a problem because the Bible is assumed to be a "made up" book. My point is that it is more complicated then that because this "made up" library of books isn't even understood enough to know what "morals" or even if morals are taught. IOW's the atheist can make up anything at all, call it christian and in that make judgements which is all kinds of wrong. As I said, the whole thing is complicated even further by the adding to the discussion what is moral and what is just.

 

[Tom 1]

The OP assumes there is a problem because the Bible is assumed to be a "made up" book. My point is that it is more complicated then that because this "made up" library of books isn't even understood enough to know what "morals" or even if morals are taught. IOW's the atheist can make up anything at all, call it christian and in that make judgements which is all kinds of wrong. As I said, the whole thing is complicated even further by the adding to the discussion what is moral and what is just.

Anything at all? Like what? What do you find particularly ambiguous about Matt 5, or some of the other biblical ‘sin lists’?

 

[Liza B.]

Hey Everyone-

Here we have an atheist youtube blogger who goes by the handle, “Genetically Modified Skeptic.”

In this short video, he delineates how he thinks some of his fellow atheists unneccessarily (and maybe unintentionally) legitimize a “correct” understanding of Christianity.

So, do you (whether as an atheist or as a Christian) agree with GMS's various criticisms about how his fellow atheists represent, or misrepresent, Christianity? If not, what's he wrong about?


Peace,
2PhiloVoid

I had to stop at 2:26--I simply could not take any more. Atheist youtuber takes to arguing that words on the page do not mean what words in the page mean and other assorted absolute nonsense that would never be accepted by any thinking people.

The Bible is the most comprehensive document from the ancient world. You don't just shrug that away--not if you want to retain any sort of credibility.

 

[Liza B.]

This is why there are over 30,000 Christian denominations. People tend to pick and choose the one that they think makes them a “true Christian.”

No. There are many Christian denominations because God loves diversity.

 

[HitchSlap]

No. There are many Christian denominations because God loves diversity.

Or confusion, as they can’t all be right.