Collision documents an interesting friendship on the Atheism debate trail
You've got to hand it to Christopher Hitchens for making the decision to go out of friendly territory to debate Christians on their own turf across the US. Not content with doing a promotion tour for his infamous anti-theist screed God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, he decided to tour with Christian apologist Douglas Wilson.
You can hear some of Wilson's debates at Apolgetics 315, including one with "Hitch," as his atheist fans call him. You can also visit Richard Dawkins' site to watch a video of a Hitchens / Wilson Debate. Last, and probably best, you can read a six part back and forth email discussion between the two on Is Christianity Good for the World?
But if you really want to see what goes on on the Tour Bus as these two men travel together debating across the country, you should check out the new documentary Collision (some nice preview vids there).
For a mere $14, you can pre-order the video at Amazon: COLLISION: Christopher Hitchens vs. Douglas Wilson.
I wonder if Wilson was his first choice. More specifically, I wonder if William Lane Craig was ever asked. Hitch's closing remarks at the Emory U. debate with WLCraig left me wanting more (and I would commend atheist and Christian alike to look that up if you aren't well familiar with it).
This looks good. Nice post. I've already watched several of the Hitchens/Wilson debates but I was unaware of "Collision."
It's an interesting question, "Is Christianity good for the World?" I guess it depends on what type of Christianity. This is actually just part of a broader question, "Is religion good for the world?" I think it's the same answer though. It depends on what type of religion.
Regarding Dr. Craig. I think he focuses more on the existence of god and wouldn't be as good as Wilson regarding the topic above.
>> CIN: It's an interesting question, "Is Christianity good for the World?"
I think that Alvin Schmidt answers this convincingly in How Christianity changed the world.
The answer imo is, religion is bad for the world, but Christianity has unquestionably lifted humanity by almost singlehandedly creating the roots and foundations for modern science, education, human value, hospitals, and abolition. Without it, we would still be, for example, under the cruel hands or Rome, where slavery, sexual perversions of every sort (one historian notes that it was nearly impossible for any boy in Rome to reach manhood without having been ritually penetrated by an older man), paganism, and infanticide were rampant.
…religion is bad for the world, but Christianity…
Is a religion.
>> CIN: …religion is bad for the world, but Christianity…Is a religion.
Not in the way that I am using the term. I am using it in the sense that people say "I am not religious, but I am spiritual."
I am talking about the difference between external religion and internal holiness and devotion to God in a healthy manner.
The term religion, in both secular and Christian contexts, has come to have a negative connotation, though secularists use it in the broader sense.
So what I meant was "external, hypocritical religion" is bad for humanity. This does not preclude the healthy, sincere, non-hypocritical type – the type that has done so much good for humanity.
Rome, where slavery, sexual perversions of every sort (one historian notes that it was nearly impossible for any boy in Rome to reach manhood without having been ritually penetrated by an older man), paganism, and infanticide were rampant.
daniel is a really strange person. He just cannot help putting in the vicious dig no matter what the topic under discussion (here: "one historian notes" – I've somewhat conversant with Roman history and culture and I've never heard this. Slaves, it is true, were subjected to this from those so inclined, but Roman citizens? "Nearly impossible"? No, most definitely not. And to maintain otherwise is, itself, a perversion of history and evidence of bias.). Daniel himself is evidence of the type of Christianity that has been bad for the world imo.
What followed the golden age of Rome were the Dark Ages, thanks to Christianity.
>> CIN: What followed the golden age of Rome were the Dark Ages, thanks to Christianity.
That piece of anti-Catholic enlightenment spin is quickly being debunked by historians. Real historians refer to the period as the Middle Ages – the Dark Ages is inaccurate as a descriptor.
Perhaps you missed today's earlier post:
Europe's Dark Ages and Islam's Golden Age – two historic fictions?
BTW, regarding the Dark Ages, there *was* a bit of chaos after the fall or Rome, which you can't really BLAME on Christianity, nor can you blame Xians for the Barbarian hordes that came in the wake of Rome's Fall. So you may be right that there was perhaps a brief "dark" period. However, you can blame Christianity for the *recovery* of learning, social order, the rise of science, and the like. See:
Top 10 Reasons The Dark Ages Were Not Dark
Were the Dark Ages really dark or is this description inaccurate?
Dark Ages (Wikipedia)
Were the Dark Ages All That Dark?
So again, I must say that Christianity has been overwhelimingly positive for humanity, not something I can say for most other ideologies, though secularism has made contributions worth mentioning.
Lipstick on a pig.
Some of my favorite courses recently have been the history classes. In church history, we spent a good deal of time looking at this transitional period between the age of Rome and the Middle Ages.
Part of the confusion between what Daniel is saying and what Cineaste is arguing is over the issues of defining Christianity.
Those of us who come from a Protestant perspective view the combination of Christianity with the Roman Empire as a bad thing. When church and state became too intertwined it was a negative thing for both sides. We do not view that as a Christian development, but rather as a human error (power grab) made through the vehicle of the church and Christianity.
One could argue that it is nit-picking and it is all the same, all Christianity, but the countless Christians who were martyred because they did not hold to the Roman Catholic view would beg to differ.
Any philosophy or ideology can be hijacked and used for other means, even if those means do not line up with the ideology. The idea of freedom of speech can be used as an excuse to lie about someone else. We all recognize that is a wrong application of that idea.
The same holds true for Christianity. Simply because someone misapplies the faith for their own personal gain, that does not mean the faith itself is to blame. The individual using the faith as an excuse is to blame.
Most evangelicals (if not all) would be Protestant and would therefore want to make a clear distinction between what the Roman Catholic church did and taught and what Christianity taught and teaches.
You forget that, at the time you mention, there was no such thing as "Roman Catholicism" and "Protestantism." There was just Christianity, still struggling to define itself and its relation to the world, the empire, and to various movements within itself. The problem you touch on, I think, is more salient: where it made the fatal grab for power, modeling itself upon the state and granting the emperor power over itself. Christianity chose power over truth, I think, and still suffers for it (even in its Protestant guise). It seems to me that religion – all religion – should always be counter-cultural in that it counters power and all its uses. The thing which always strikes me about Jesus is his refusal of power, political or otherwise, to his detriment. The church has done, by and large, the opposite.
>> LOUIS: There was just Christianity, still struggling to define itself and its relation to the world, the empire, and to various movements within itself.
I think that 'evolution of Christianity' idea is a little inexact. Institutional Christianity, perhaps, as far as big organizations, is in flux, and perhaps 'evolving', but Xianity on the individual level has existed since the first century, though it became more understandable and uniform after the formation of the canon, through the preaching of Godly Catholics, and through the spread of literacy via the mass printing of the bible via the printing press.
The teachings of Jesus, unchanged no matter how poorly communicated in particular times and places, and the indwelling of the Spirit, have been consistent from the beginning.
>> LOUIS: The thing which always strikes me about Jesus is his refusal of power, political or otherwise, to his detriment. The church has done, by and large, the opposite.
He may have done this as an example, but he also may have done it as part of his particular calling, and not as a prescriptive – that is, his refusal to engage political powers as part of his life does NOT make it forbidden for Christians.
Paul the Apostle's letters, as well as other parts of the New Testament, are filled with instruction and principles with regard to government. And just because we can't expand the kingdom of God through government doesn't mean that, for example, we should ignore legal/political justice for slaves or women just because Jesus didn't do that.
You forget that, at the time you mention, there was no such thing as "Roman Catholicism" and "Protestantism.
I didn't forget that, but it seems you are not recognizing that Christianity was not a monolithic organization with no dissenters during that time. There have consistently been Christians who have opposed the manner in which Roman Catholicism has been and was practiced.
The Reformation was a final product of hundreds of years of Christians working within and without the Catholic church to enact changes. There were popes and leaders who tried to turn the tide some, but they were overwhelmed by the sinful tendencies of men seeking to grab as much personal power as possible.
The thing which always strikes me about Jesus is his refusal of power, political or otherwise, to his detriment.
I think the historical Baptist distinctive belief of religious freedom and eschewing of state-tied churches is reflective of Jesus' example and teaching.
One can believe in religious freedom for all individuals, while still exercising your political influence from your personal religious perspective.
…it seems you are not recognizing that Christianity was not a monolithic organization with no dissenters during that time.
I must not have expressed myself correctly. Though certainly, no expert on the period, I have done some reading on the history of Christianity, and I certainly don't think that Christianity was some kind of monolithic organization without dissenters. Quite the opposite, in fact. As I understand it, there were several movements within the religion, often violently at odds with each other over doctrine. To claim some pure, unadulterated, Christianity existed just wasn't the case (witness Paul's sometimes exasperated efforts to rein in his errant flock, even in the beginning). I want to be clear: I'm talking about the early church and it's struggles to define what it means to be a Christian, the nature of Christ and His relationship with God, salvation, etc. Certainly, there was faith on the individual level, but it could vary from town to town, province to province, east from west. Indeed, until the Council of Nicea, this was a burning issue – and even that didn't solve everything. The disputations continue to this day.
btw: I think that the pursuit and wielding of power, particularly power over others, is what Jesus meant by "the world." We all know Lord Acton's formulation of the danger, but we can also look to Tolkien's Ring of Power for an imaginative vision. That's what I meant.
" I think that the pursuit and wielding of power, particularly power over others, is what Jesus meant by "the world." "
That would be an interesting word study to read. :p I suppose you started with the TDNT? :p
As I understand it, there were several movements within the religion, often violently at odds with each other over doctrine.
To some extent that is true and is true of all religions. However, you cannot claim, as many do today, that Christianity was some ill defined movement that made no specific, detailed religious claims until the Council of Nicea.
Yes, Paul's writings shows that aberrant beliefs were present from the beginning, but they were just that aberrant. In Peter's writings, he called those letters of Paul "scripture," which was a specific term used to equate Paul's cannonical writings with the Old Testament, what Jews considered to be God's holy word. That demonstrates that from the beginning the teachings of the apostles (the disciples, plus Paul) was considered authoritative.
Orthodoxy has always been present, but aberrant teachings and distorted practices have also been present from the beginning. Sometimes incorrect, unbiblical views have been promoted by the most powerful factions within the faith (perhaps that is even the case now, I'm sure I have not interpreted Scripture perfectly).
However that does not mean that Christianity itself has been fractured and factionalized. It simply means that we are faliable humans who do not understand perfectly and sometimes those misunderstandings are promoted from powerful positions.
I do think the desire for wielding power is a trap that virtually every human being is tempted with – including Christians, especially those that have the ability to exercise some type of political influence.
Orthodoxy is a slippery concept, one over which many battles have been, and are still being, fought. Here's but one famous example. It seems to me that orthodoxy could easily have gone another way had historical events played out differently. I don't agree with your statement that Christianity hasn't been fractured and factionalized – just look around. It seems that you think there is a pure, abstract, idealized "Christianity" which exists independent of what humans think and do – and you may well be right. But appealing to that is pointless – how can we know for sure which brand is the true one (do I detect the influence of Plato's pure forms here?)? Why should I accept your version rather than, say, the RC one? Much blood has been spilled over this nonsense.
As to James' snarky question: I merely present my opinion and not the "official" one. Take it as you will.
It wasn't really that snarky. I start any word study I do with the TDNT. Then I use my Logos software to find every instance of the word in the Bible. Then, depending on the language, I'd use one of several concordances that give extra biblical sourcing. Then I'd check primary sourcing on more of a longitudinal look (though I'm much more interested in current use than etymology, it can have some value).
Kosmos, one of the words that is commonly translated as "the world", though there are a few others, has a broad connotation, but it is all phsyical/geographical. In its broadest sense it can mean "the universe", or it can mean "the earth", or it can mean the world *as specifically opposed to heaven*, which is to say sinful earth. Sure, you merely present your opinion, but it's an opinion based on nothing of merit and has no real value. It's not that it's not "orthodox" or "official", it's unsupportable and untenable.
Point is, I really think you have no concept of Christian scholarship, and it's illuminating. Just as with the evil neo-cons, you make an assumption of stupidity towards those that disagree with you, and never allow a challenge to enter your mind. That's why you think one opinion is as good as another. That's also why you are stunningly ignorant of the arguments of those that disagree with you.