fayfreethinkers.com

"Is Christianity Good for the World?"

Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson debate.

Theologian Douglas Wilson and atheist Christopher Hitchens, authors whose books are already part of a larger debate on whether religion is pernicious, agreed to discuss their views on whether Christianity itself has benefited the world. Read their exchange, here: Christianity Today.

Hitchens is a bit irritating, but Wilson is more so. The latter is better at creating a strawman to bat down than say, Hogeye, but it's still a strawman. The idea that people won't have any reason for being "good" without an overseeing deity totally ignores Hitchens comments about morality or ethical behavior being known and practiced in all societies, since a society without such a structure tends to come unglued relatively quickly. Wilson's comments that checks and balances and/or other methods to limit power came from that idea of an overseeing deity is really stretching things - especially considering many of our Founders were only "christian" by virtue of the family pew in the Piskie church in Williamsburg, VA.

Wilson, in Part 1, dismisses "damnation by history" as "who cares" since they are all dead.

Most Catholics I talk to also dismiss their religious heritage of violence when I first make them aware. Since the church has evolved its position on so many subjects (except birth control) and has come of age...we are all happy campers again. I commonly hear expressions like "we don't believe that anymore" or "the church has reformed itself". None ever grasp the point that if the church or its cannon (small "c" deliberately) were ever wrong in its history, it is fallible.

If their god, who allegedly exists continuously through all time:
A. Cannot provide sound law that stands the test of time, and
B. Protect his divine word through the various translations and cultural developments, then

What basis do Christians have that can be trusted to be true now?

Since god's Number 1 on Earth (e.g., Pope) authorized crusades and silenced Galileo in times past, then the church was wrong in history. Since Wilson claims that god provides a standard for ethics that cannot be provided by other means, then the church and especially the holy writ must stand the test of history. That means that what is immoral now, must neccessarily have been immoral between 313 AD (or 325) to the 1500's. It means that if Christians believe slavery to be immoral now, then they have to concede that it was immoral 3,000 years ago. The standard of ethics for such human issues do not change over time. Thus, if we take the bible literally, and I would claim that the old testament law is to be taken literally even if cute stories may be claimed to be allegorical, then that law fails the test of time. Historically, the bible and the church fails even the most basic tests of decency.

If their system failed in history, given the nature of their all-powerful god, how can Christians or Jews have faith in that system's authenticity now. When my Catholic friends say the church is better now, how can they miss the point that if the church was so perverted at its inception and remained so only until society would have completely rejected it otherwise, that at it roots it was wrong? If it was wrong then, why is it right now?

If I was to believe in their god, I would HAVE to accept the Mosiac ethics as still binding. (Except of course, those laws that were recinded by Paul...such as eating pigs....love my ham.) If Christians believe that the old ethics are flawed, then god failed to preserve his word. If god failed to preserve his word and they have errors in the holy writ, then where are the errors? Could there be errors in "Believe....and thou shalt be saved"?

Without the inerrant word, I can not have sound faith even in the plan of salvation. Thus, to keep the faith, the old code was not wrong and it is okay to offer up my virgin daughters (if I had them...daughters that is) and to take as part of the plunder of war those girls who have not known men. If I can not stomach that idea, and I can't, then obviously my morales are contrary to god's morals. Historically, god and I then have different standards. I would have to reject the standards of Wilson's god. I would have to conclude that I have developed my own set of moral standards independent of religion. I would further suggest that my moral standards would be in keeping with those moral standards of many people who developed their own without the benefit of a religion. Thus, most of us can behave well without Wilson's absolute supernatural authority...actually better. I have to reject Wilson's point that man did not known any better before or that man still does not know any better.

In the end, since I digresed (without apology), history matters. If the church or cannon was wrong anytime in the past it can not be trusted to be right now. One hundred years from now, how will those Christians still waiting for the rapture judge the moral convictions of the present church, Pope, or cannon versions? Answer: "The church is better now."

Neil

"One hundred years from now, how will those Christians still waiting for the rapture judge the moral convictions of the present church, Pope, or cannon versions? "
Neil

One hundred years from now they will say "Prepare your self ! The end is near ! The Lord is coming to sweep up his chosen ones. His craft will land anyday."

Just like they said 100 years ago and still do in today's atomic age. Never underestimate the power of myth. That a reward comes after death makes it all so seductive.

Billy Crystal once told this joke about funerals, which involved what characters wanted said about him/her while friends and relatives were gathered around their coffin. He goes thru a few character then comes to a Jewish guy.."What do I want people to say about me in my coffin?... "Look, he's moving."

You mean they can really keep this up for another 100 years? Please tell me it's not true.

NeilS wrote:You mean they can really keep this up for another 100 years? Please tell me it's not true.

DAR
Glad to have you aboard Neil.

Good heavens, they have been playing "the end is near" game for almost 2000 years without missing a step. The Jehovah's Witnesses have given several very specific dates for "the end" but it really hasn't hurt membership all that much. The people just adjust their thinking and move on to the next prediction which always has, and always will, fail. If you don't think Christians have a near infinite ability to rationalize the perfectly insane and completely impossible then you should brush up on their doctrines. For instance, read a Chick tract (I just found one yesterday and read it "The Beast"). What unbelievable pap. I keep forgetting just how insane the basic premises of Christianity are.

The Bible specifically and repeatedly states that the end was supposed to come very soon (1900+ years ago). Here are some examples:

***
The END was nigh.
Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. Matt. 16:28

But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God. Luke 9:27

See Acts 2:15-17 in which Peter invokes a prophecy by Joel to explain why a gathering of diverse peoples understood each other's language. This outpouring of God's Spirit was a sign that the end was near.

But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none; 1 Cor. 7:29

Let your moderation be known unto all men. The Lord is at hand. Phil. 4:5

For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven... Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds... 1 Thess. 4:15-16

God...Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son... Heb. 1:1-2

For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. Heb. 9:26

For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry. Heb. 10:37

Be patient therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord... stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh...behold, the judge standeth before the door. James 5:7-9

But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer. 1 Peter 4:7

Christ...was manifest in these last times for you,... 1 Peter 1:19-20

Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. 1 John 2:18

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass;... Rev. 1:1

Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand. Rev. 1:3

Behold, I come quickly. Rev. 3:11

And he said unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand... He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus. Rev. 22:10, 20.

But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come. Matt 10:23

DAR
Where is their "Lord?" Where is their "Son of Man?"

Dead as a doornail. Just like everyone else from the first century.

D.

Regarding the Acts 2 reference:

Establishing that Joel, cited by Peter in Acts 2, was written no earlier than 835 BC. At Peter's telling of the prophecy, the prophecy was then at most...say...835 + 62 or around 897 years old. For the end to be near in the context of the Joel prohphecy, that end would need to happen in a substantially shorter period than the age of the prohphecy itself. It failed.

Sooner or later Christians will be forced to acknowledge their "soon" isn't happening. It will be too easy to replay their claims from TV sermons or cite their projections from their books. After some period of time, it will be totally unreasonable to suggest the end is nigh when the elapsed period has already extended way beyond the context all the prophecies.

Here's what I know: Theologians and bible schools are already diluting their doctrines because of more recent scientific and historical discoveries. They can't shut up our Galileos' anymore. So they have to conceed on many of their old beliefs in order to save face and keep the faith. So now, what use to be literal, is now understood to be allegorical, for example. They will have to conceed on their literal creation story once the knowledge that the Hebrews stole the story from the Sumarians (who had the identical story 2,000 years earlier) is better circulated. As more theologians discover the history problems of the manuscripts and the decisions behind the composition of cannon, their faith in inerrnacy will have to fail. The bible schools will continue to diliute the strength of their holy books. It will be compromise or die for theology. The bible schools train the ministers, the ministers teach the people.

*** once enough people recognize inerrancy fails, they have the problem of figuring what parts are true and what parts are false. Their entire system will have to fail without inerrancy. It is unreasonable to believe a god incapable of protecting his own word and contructing his holy writings perfectly could have possibly constructed the universe in six days, or constructed it at all!!!!!

Here's what I don't know: Can they last another 50 years? 100 years?

NeilS wrote: Here's what I don't know: Can they last another 50 years? 100 years?

DAR
It's interesting to go back and read the conversations and debates (Ingersoll, Voltaire, Paine) from 100-150+ years ago. There was a resurgence of freethinking and the fundies were on the run. It seems we (USA) have slid backwards in some ways (with about 45% accepting young earth creationism). How long can they last? Well, when you base your beliefs about the world on faith, tradition, authority and the common established beliefs in your community you are remarkable immune from reality. Contrary to the optimisim some had during the enlightenment I don't see an expiration date on this silliness. Mormons have some of the wackiest baseless beliefs around and they are growing.

D.

Freethinker:
a person who forms opinions on the basis of reason, independent of authority or tradition, esp. a person whose religious opinions differ from established belief.

Darrel wrote:Contrary to the optimisim some had during the enlightenment I don't see an expiration date on this silliness. Mormons have some of the wackiest baseless beliefs around and they are growing.

DOUG
I'm more optimistic. Never before in history have the refutations of their nonsense been at the tips of anyone's fingers, as we have them because of the Internet.

I think their days are numbered.

Doug wrote:I'm more optimistic. Never before in history have the refutations of their nonsense been at the tips of anyone's fingers, as we have them because of the Internet.

I'm not so optimistic. The internet is a place where one can find damn near any misinformation/disinformation one wants to find, which makes it easier to believe. Looking for apologetics? Check the internet. Want some anti-evolution arguments that sound great to the layman (yet have no basis in reality)? Internet. Fear-mongering religious drivel? On the web. Check any nutjob site (e.g. Briney's) or, say, conservative blog. There may be some great stuff that can be found on the internet, but there's a lot of bullshit, too.

As long as people have a vested interest - be it emotional, financial, or whatever - in believing this stuff, they will. My brother-in-law once decribed neopaganism as "anything you want it to be" - all religion is like that. You may just have to hunt a little to find the one that suits you. To a large extent, people WANT to believe. For one thing, it lets them off the hook, they don't have to think (thinking is hard work - our president said so) or make ethical judgements. For another, at least with the fundies (especially male fundies) of any authoritarian religion, it gives a sense of self-worth/superiority to people who apparently would otherwise not have any. All you have to see is the change in a young man (late teens, early 20s), high school dropout, brought up around strong women when he joins a fundy church and you will understand that this stuff will never go away. (You can see the same change after Marine training - and I really don't know which is worse for brainwashing.)

Barbara Fitzpatrick wrote:For one thing, it lets them off the hook, they don't have to think (thinking is hard work - our president said so) or make ethical judgements.

I think your answer is better than Dawkins' explanation of why people continue to believe. I am not refuting Dawkins' memes. But of the people I know, they really do not want (or seem to want) to do the work of reasoning things through...including ethical issues. So I might just call it lazy.

P.S. I don't consider thinking to be hard work. It's fun work. It's part of what makes being alive exciting.