Yes, it is all Da Vinci Code all the time. My blog (partially) – my topics. Just kidding (partially).
I thought I had sufficiently answered the questions of Christians motives in responding to DVC in my two previous posts on the topic, but apparently not. So I hope this will clear up any lingering misconceptions.
While many Christians are somewhat afraid of The Da Vinci Code, I am not one of them. I am excited about the opportunities this presents to Christians. It is a great thing when the culture is already taking and asking questions about Jesus.
The reason why I have been writing on it so much lately, is that the topic interests me and judging by the sales of pro and con DVC books, millions of others. The movie is sure to be a hit and expose millions more to the theories Dan Brown promotes in the novel. I want to be ready with an answer for those who go searching for the Truth.
While it may seem like the regular commenters are the only ones who read this blog, that is not the case. Many other people stop by and simply read the posts without commenting. Some may be regular readers, while others may have stumbled on to the site through a search engine or any of the myriad of ways someone finds a website. With that in mind, I cannot simply write for those who comment (most of which are atheists, agnostics, questioners or Sams-who-don’t-care).
I write my posts about DVC to inform all the readers, regular or not, about the information in the book. I encourage everyone to go out and investigate the claims made by the book and the Bible. If Dan Brown’s version of Jesus is true, I want to know about him and possibly follow him. But if that Jesus is a made-up Jesus, then I want to challenge that concept.
Christians have found themselves between a rock and a hard place with this issue and how to respond. Among the non-Christians, many ridicule Christians for spending so much energy responding to a fiction novel. However, early on many were taking the lack of an assualt on the novel as a type of silent agreement. They claimed we didn’t respond because we knew DVC made legitimate claims.
Regardless of how we respond a group of non-Christians will complain. I have decided that I will let those complain about responding to much, instead of too little. It may be overkill, but no one should be under the impression that Christianity cannot respond to the novel’s claims.
Even among Christians, a debate is raging. Many Christians would rather not discuss this, not “dignify it with a response” or support the blasphemy. Others are encouraging people to see the movie, buy the book, wear the t-shirt, etc. I would fall somewhere in between. I think it is up to the individual Christian and the Holy Spirit’s guidance as to how best to react.
I feel I have been called to interact with this. I most likely will not go see the movie, only because having two little boys and living in the country I only get to go to the movies on rare occassions. I have read the book and I want to challenge the ideas presented, to point people to the Truth.
I am not frightened by it or worried that Christianity will crumble at the feet of Dan Brown’s rehashed, tailor-made Gnosticism. But I do not want to give anyone, Christian or not, the impression that the possibility for the collapse exists. I want to crush the false ideas, with facts and move on to the next challenge, whatever that may be.
So please understand that I am not writing about DVC because I am scared or because I think Jesus needs me to defend Him. I view it as a golden opportunity to point a world fascinated about Jesus away from the silly imposters and to the real thing.
Aaron do you think members of CHINO (Christian in name only) churches in particular are susceptable to the fiction in the DVC? Seeker said that it's what someone believes that make them Christian and rituals like baptism don't. I thought that by being baptised that makes me, technically a Catholic and hence a Christian. I base this on the dictionary definition of
baptism: A religious sacrament marked by the symbolic use of water and resulting in admission of the recipient into the community of Christians.
Then Seeker pointed me to The Four Spiritual Laws, which I don't think Catholics believe in so I guess that means Catholics are not Christian in Seeker's view? Is this correct? Would an example of a CHINO church be the Unitarian Church? Catholics? Please excuse my ignorance but I had never heard of a CHINO before. I would think CHINO's would view the DVC much like secular society does.
You better answer, Aaron. But my quick response is:
1. what the bible says is more important than what the catholic or lutheran church says.
2. baptism is a symbol, and does not have salvific power
You can be a member of any denomination and still be a christian in name only, because group membership doesn't save either.
It's gay hatred that's the key to salvation Cineaste, gay hatred.
Also, "Sams-Who-Don't-Care" is a great title for me. I'm proud to wear it.
Incidentally, I heard the local morning show talking about The Da Vinci Code, and wouldn't you know it, one of the hosts was talking about the need for blasphemy laws. "Nobody should criticize any religion, and nobody should get offended," was what he ACTUALLY said, which was unbelievable. My only issue with a book like TDVC is that we have to go through this nonsense: victimized Christians wailing about the book and the release of yet another boring Hollywood movie. (One of the other hilarious complaints of the radio host was that people weren't taking the Four Books of the Bible seriously enough. "Those are the truth," he said dead seriously. I mean, I assume that he actually believes that everything discussed in the four gospels, or books, or novels, or whatever, are true. But that's crazy.)
It's gay hatred that's the key to salvation Cineaste, gay hatred.
ROFL!
Ya Sam, I have trouble understanding it was well. Blasphemy laws; it's as if his mother was being insulted. I just can't wait to see if Seeker and Aaron think that Catholics are not true Christians because they interpret salvation differently. There can't be two paths to salvation! Perhaps it's a matter of interpretation? But that's crazy too.)
Blasphemy Laws indeed! Mr Bean has had problems with this kind of nonsense! In England there was much fuss about including religious folly in comedy as a hate crime . And this is almost 25 years after Monty Python !
My stand on this issue is as follows. There is no entity be it cultural ,political, scientific, OR religious that is beyond the scope of freedom of speech or rational inquiry. Any incursion on these freedoms is unacceptable .
Freedom of Religion is a two sided coin. The other side involves freedom from Religion or the tyranny of a Religious sect not your own, otherwise known as Separation of Church and State.
Cineaste, my guess is that you'll never hear Aaron or Seeker claim that Catholics are not Christians. They don't seem to have the intellectual objectivity that's necessary to make that kind of leap.
Which is not to say that they won't condemn other so-called Christian groups. I'm sure they'd have no trouble claiming that Mormons, for example, aren't Christians, in spite of the fact that Mormons themselves believe otherwise. They just won't hurl this particular would-be-insult at the Catholics, because it's part of their dogma that Catholics are their allies in the Deluded People's War Against Reasonable Thought.
That was off-sided, perhaps, but look at the evidence: Catholics pray to saints; Catholics pray and create idols and temples to The Virgin Mary; Catholics believe that priestly confession is an additional requirement of salvation; Catholics have a slightly different Bible; Catholics believe that the current Pope is the infallible apostolic successor; the list of significant differences goes on…
I'm not arguing that Catholics aren't Christians. I believe that they are. But if this post of Aaron's is any guide, it would be surprising if he actually could legitimize his own beliefs on the issue. To me it just smells like a huge Members Only Club that stretches way back to the Nicene Council, and manifests itself as contemporary religious bullying.
So many points, so little time.
Cineaste, I don't know if "susceptable" is the right word for it. Clearly liberal churches ("CINO" or not) are going to be more open to accepting alternate ideas about who Jesus was since most doubt the authenticity and historicity of the NT. Also, the stats bear this out. According to a Barna study, liberals were twice as likely to alter their religious beliefs based on DVC.
As to the baptism and Catholicism questions – huge questions that cannot be answered in simple short, comment style terms, but I will give it a shot.
No, I do not believe that baptism or communion or any other ritual can do anything to make one a follower of Christ. In John 3, Jesus himself said one had to be "born again." Those are His words, not mine. Rituals, just like works, are outward signs of our inward change.
To the Catholics – much different, complex issue. If you want my honest opinion, I think Catholics are saved in spite, as opposed to because, of what their church teaches for many of the reasons that Stewart lists.
Jesus said he is the way, the truth and the life – not a way. I believe that if someone places their trust in Him as their Savior, believing that He died and rose for their sins and committ their life to follow Him, they have found the Way.
I will not limit it to my own understanding of things, but neither will I expand it farther than Jesus did. He said the way was narrow and few would find it – Him.
So back specifically to Catholics, I think (just my opinion) that all the things they add on top of faith – confession, saints, Virgin Mary, Pope, etc. – is a hinderance to developing their personal relationship with Jesus. For some it may keep them from finding Jesus completely, for others it may just keep them from fully understanding what their relationship with Jesus means.
Mormons are a different story because they stray much father away from orthodox Christian teaching. They deny the divinity of Jesus, add an entire new source of Scripture – The book of Mormon, and several other things that put them at odds with Christianity. Again, it may be possible for a Mormon to understand who Jesus is and find a relationship with Him, but they would have to do it outside the teachings of their church.
Salvation is an individual issue, so not all Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, Pentacostals, etc. are saved. Many are simply church members. Christianity is strictly about having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, denominational affliations can only help or hinder the relationship not prevent or enable it.
Sam, you comment about gay hatred would possibly be funny, if you didn't actually mean that. And I thought you would like my tag for you.
I do and would oppose blasphemy laws. I think they serve no purpose. Out of human decency, we should probably not do things just for the sake of offending someone, but I don't want the government demanding that.
Stewart, I am glad you mention the Council of Nicaea, that is scheduled for a later "The Da Vinci Code's ignorance of …" post, but I will hit the highlights here.
The Council in 325 did not establish Jesus as God or pick the books they wanted to establish Jesus as God in the New Testament. The Council never really dealt with the canon of Scripture.
It is clear from the the NT, the writings of the early church fathers and secular historians that Jesus was worshiped as God by Christians from the beginning. The Council of Nicaea was formed because a stray church leader claimed Jesus was semi-divine and the first of God's creation, instead of being the same nature as God. Unlike what DVC claims the vote was 316-2 in favor of Jesus being fully God.
Also unlike what DVC claims, Gnostics did not view Jesus in a purely human way. They viewed the physical body as evil, so they taught that Jesus only seemed human – denying his humanity not his deity.
As for the canon of the NT, 20 of the 27 books (including the four Gospels) were already accepted by Christians as authentic scripture before the second century.
In the second century (well before the Council of Nicaea), the 27 books that make up the NT were established as Scripture based on a three fold test that prevented a single group from manipulating the process and contected all of the writings to eyewitnesses of the events in question.
None of the Gnostic "gospels" were considered because none of them were written in the first century and they clear contridicted the eyewitness reports of the events. Why trust someone who wrote things down 100's of years later as opposed to people who saw the events first hand?
It is not "religious bullying" to demand that people understand and stay true to history. Even if you ignore the theological teachings, the books included in the NT are the ones that should included because they were written by eyewitnesses and were affirmed by numerous people in the years after that.
I'm sure this didn't address everything, but this gives everyone enough to reply to.
There is no entity be it cultural ,political, scientific, OR religious that is beyond the scope of freedom of speech or rational inquiry.
I totally agree.
Cineaste, my guess is that you'll never hear Aaron or Seeker claim that Catholics are not Christians. They don't seem to have the intellectual objectivity that's necessary to make that kind of leap.
Stewart, that's just plain mean. Don't make me b*tch slap you, ok?
Actually, the standard protestant/evangelical is like this:
1. the bible defines what makes on a christian
2. the clear teaching of scripture is that if you believe that you are a sinner, and that Christ died in your place to pay the penalty for sin, and in so doing, cleared you of wrongdoing, then you are and will be saved from the coming judgement.
3. when you say you believe the above statement, it should result in a visible change in your life – if not, you may need to check yourself
4. scripture is also clear that believing that he rose from the dead to prove these claims is part of biblical faith. Paul the apostle argued that if he did not rise from the dead, then we are pitiable, and our faith is worthless.
Now, you can be a Catholic or Protestant or JW or Mormon and believe this, or you can be a member of any of these organizations and NOT believe this. Some of the finest christians (and intellectuals) I have met are Catholics, but also, as a former Catholic (both myself and my wife), I can tell you for sure that you can be Catholic and consider yourself a Christian but not be one (usually out of ignorance of the message and years of Catholic training that somehow fails to communicate the gospel clearly).
Christians may differ on non-central doctrines of the faith, but in the essential doctrines, if you are not a "believer", you are not a Christian. If ou don't believe that Christ is who the scriptures say He is, well, then you may be of some spiritual pursuasion, but you might want to call yourself something else – you could say you follow the Christian ethic, or whatever.
Unlike what DVC claims the vote was 316-2 in favor of Jesus being fully God.
It would be interesting to know about those two dissenters. Who were they? What happened to them? Were they murdered by a secret order of monks?
I think an albino monk strapped cement shoes on them on tossed them in the Jordan river.
Actually I don't know if it was a secret ballot or not. But one was probably the teacher who caused the stir, a North African elder named Arius. He taught that there was a time when Jesus was not, contrary to the teachings of the apostles, the NT church and the orthodox church for the last 2,000 years.
Also, I pretty much agree with what seeker said about salvation. Also being a former Catholic, seeker would have more insight into those things.
I'll apologize for my "mean" comment. I didn't intend to be cruel, Seeker, but I really do believe that there's a lack of objectivity here. You say that being a Christian is defined by the scripture, but you interpret the meaning of the scripture to be what you and similarly-minded Christians believe. Am I alone in seeing the circular logic?
Both testaments of the Christian Bible are deeply complex and misunderstanable. To suggest otherwise is (even if you believe your own interpretation to be accurate) to ignore that most everyone else disagrees with you. Therefore, regardless of who might be right, most everyone is wrong.
I understand your point about "basic" Christian beliefs, but that point is just as contestable. You and Aaron, (and a thousand other Members-Only Christians) can point to some ancient council, and say that they've defined what it means to be Christian, or claim some organic concept of Christianity pre-dates even that, but that's just semantic nonsense. Your own admission about who may or may not be "saved" is proof that any basic Christian requirements that you set forth are essentially meaningless.
Because unless I missed something, and you two have established yourselves as modern-day prophets, it seems unlikely that you'd have any authority on the issue of someone's personal relationship with God. If you honestly believe that it's this magic relationship that determines a persons status as a Christian, then you ought to remove the concept of CINO from your mind.
"Judge not, lest ye look like a closed-minded elitist, and alienate thy potential converts."
I did like the name Aaron. And I do believe that gay hatred (Love!) is a requirement for Christianity, because as nearly as I can tell, a majority of Christians clearly hate (Love!) gays.
Agreed, there are multiple interpretations of scripture. However, one of the reasons that the Protestants broke away from the Catholic church was not just over doctrinal interpretation of the bible, but because of the fact that the RCC was promoting unbiblical doctrines, because they elevate the teaching of the church and popes over the scriptures themselves. This is why one of the rallying cries of the reformers was "sola scriptura".
In truth, core Catholic doctrine about salvation is pretty much the same as protestant, except they emphasize works a little bit more (to a fault, because they end up clouding the issue of salvation, confusing people into thinking it is works-based), and de-emphasizing the doctrine of conversion/being born again. The main beef is that, like the Pharisees (and I don't mean that in a demeaning way, just a valid comparison on this one point), they pile on doctrines like those Aaron mentioned, making it nearly impossible for people to actually find and understand the gospel message.
But please don't pull out the old "judge not" canard. You can't build an entire theology around one verse. There are plenty of verses that clarify what this means and what this doesn't mean. For example, if you read the writings of Paul, you'll see that, for a man practicing open adultery, he recommended that if he did not repent and quit it, he should be basically kicked out until he did. Would you call that judging? Paul called it spiritual discipline.
And while only God knows the soul of each person, we are given clear definition with which to judge ourselves (so if I tell you that Jesus said "Don't be amazed when I tell you, unless you are born again, you can not see the kingdom of God", I am not judging you.
Also, Paul instructs us to judge rightly among ourselves, and not allow teachers with bad doctrine to continue teaching among us. Scripture is for reproof, he says. While a haughty attitude is not called for, honest discussion of what is scriptural and what is not, and by extension, what is Christian and what is not, is certainly acceptable behavior.
I must also add that the saying below applies, and that what makes one a Christian most certainly is "essential" or core to the faith.
In the essentials, unity
In the non-essentials, liberty
In all things, charity
And I would retort to your quote:
Judge rightly, lest you allow your potential converts to be self-deceived into thinking that they are already in the fold.
You'll have to develop a theology that includes rebuke and reproof, while not judging. If not, how would you ever be able to correct someone? How do you determine what is right?
Protestants start with saying that the Scriptures are the final word. And not a private interpretation, but one that holds to reasonable rules of biblical hermeneutics. While certain gray zone areas are certainly negotiable and up to the individual (see Navigating Moral Gray Areas, based on Romans 14), the central doctrines are not.
Seeker,
I wasn't aware you were a former Catholic – we had a number of conversations about this (?) and my former Catholicism…
OK, now I'm officially confused.
Yeah, well, I don't play it up much. I went to CCD and was confirmed around age 12, but never went back afterwards, so I was a nominal Catholic. I knew little about the bible or Catholisism – it was just a social passage for me.
Seeker, the "Judge not" comment was a joke. Obviously, as an atheist, I don't place the slightest bit of authority in that particular statement.
But how can you explain the fact that this particular statement, like so many others, seem to be either mutually exclusive, or at the very least at odds with one another. Comparing Biblical authors shows us people who are practically arguing with each other in its pages. Even if such opposing statements are ultimately reconcilable (as I know you believe they are), they force a reader to conclude that — in order to accept the Bible's veracity — he must also accept that the book is intentionally confusing.
Of course, I don't believe that it's intentionally confusing. That's just a natural side-effect of being written and edited by hundreds of different people over thousands of years, without any assistance from a supernatural editor-in-chief. But if, like most every other Christian, you're going to claim that these words are completely intentional, I don't see how you can deny the intentionality of such utter and immense confusion over it.
Okay, tell me if I’m correct…
Catholics vs. Protestants
Protestants don’t view me as a Christian because I have not accepted Jesus as my savior. Moreover, Protestants believe Christians (Catholics) who do not accept Jesus as the only means to salvation cannot be saved and therefore are CINO.
Wow! I once asked Seeker and Aaron if heaven included Christians from other denominations. They said there are Catholics in heaven along with Protestants. What they didn’t tell me was that for Catholics to go to heaven, they must practice Protestantism!
According to the chart, the Catholic Church recognizes me as a Christian, though I practice agnosticism and existentialism. Moreover, I’m guaranteed salvation because I have been baptized, unless I commit a mortal sin or I’m excommunicated.
…Not that this matters to me as I’ll show later.
Judge rightly, lest you allow your potential converts to be self-deceived into thinking that they are already in the fold.
This tells me that the reward each denomination of Christianity is selling to win converts is the possibility of salvation. Each denomination has a preferred method for winning converts. For Protestants it’s evangelism. For Mormons it used to be polygamy; breeding followers. For Catholics, and this was especially effective in the middle ages, it’s making God more accessible to common folk through worship of local patron saints, relics, churches, etc. The truth is, as Stewart pointed out, that the Bible can be and is interpreted differently by the various denominations and it is impossible to know, for sure, how one can attain salvation.
For those reading this, I would like to offer an alternative viewpoint on salvation. The Atheism/Agnosticism C.Y.A. salvation plan was put forth by Blaise Pascal and known as Pascal’s Wager I’ll copy a post from The Atheologian by Mark I. Vuletic to illustrate my point…
********************************************************
For those who are unfamiliar with the wager, Barbara puts it clearly:
I had rather be wrong here on earth for believing there is a heaven and I am going there, because of my relationship with the Father, than to leave this earth not knowing, and find I was wrong. I’d rather be HOT for Jesus here on earth, than to be HOT for Satan in hell.
Though not exactly faithful to Pascal, that’s more or less the way the argument is offered in contemporary popular apologetics. Can you spot the problem with it? If not, consider the following:
I had rather be wrong here on earth for believing Valhalla is real and I am going there, because I am a heroic warrior for Odin, than to leave this earth not knowing, and find I was wrong. I’d rather be CHILLIN’ with the Valkyries here on earth, than to be CHILLIN’ with the Nidhogg in Helheim.
Can you spot the problem now?
Extra credit question: How can the problem be generalized to show that the wager does not even justify rejection of atheism?
At 9:41 PM, D B Ellis said…
How can it be generalized?
That’s pretty obvious. Perhaps a god exists but what he values most highly is rationality, objectivity and intellectual honesty. Therefore, skeptics go to heaven and the ‘true believers’ suffer his wrath.
At 10:16 PM, Mark I. Vuletic said…
Good job! That didn’t take long at all. Here’s more extra credit: how could you generalize the problem differently, so it would retain its force even for someone who thinks skeptics have none of the virtues you list?
At 10:57 AM, D B Ellis said…
God exists but is deeply offended by the presumption that human beings are his central concern or the pinnacle of creation. So those that do not presume God’s particular concern for them (including those skeptical of his very existence) please him best. Basically, any conception of God in which God does not place a high value on belief in his existence. And, really, why would he?
At 8:47 PM, Mark I. Vuletic said…
Nicely done! I wish it were that transparent to everyone.
********************************************************
In conclusion, the best way to achieve salvation is objectivity, rationality and ”intellectual honesty!”
You remind me of Vincini from the Princess Bride. Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
Despite your cynicism and undertandable mistrust, those faithful to the Christian scriptures, regardless of denomination, will teach you that without genuine faith in the substitutionary death of Christ on your behalf, no baptism, no rite, no excuses about hypocrites or how confused you were will save you from the judgement which is promised to come.
If you don't believe that there is such a judgement, then perhaps you don't need xianity! In fact, perhaps you've got the old sin problem licked all on your own. Bully for you! Choose to believe no one.
But I'm telling you, not all biblical interpretations are equal – if you investigate for yourself, you will see that some obviously don't make sense – like your CAtholic stuff above – do you really think that you are a believer if you don't believe, but were baptized? Will you use that as your excuse to not believe protestantism, because it's just "a difference of opinion?" That is an intellectual copout.
I mean, now I'm pissed.
No, I'm not really pissed. It's just that I really don't like trying to discuss catholic doctrine because it is convoluted, and often just plain anti-christ, in that it is anti-gospel.
According to the chart, the Catholic Church recognizes me as a Christian, though I practice agnosticism and existentialism.
Does that sound like the truth to you? You've undergone a ritual, but without reallly following or knowing Christ, and you think that entitles you to the benefits of real faith in Christ? What a deception! It reminds me of Jesus' description of the day of judgment (Matt 7:22-23):
Many people will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not preach in Your Name? Did we not put out demons in Your Name? Did we not do many powerful works in Your Name?' Then I will say to them in plain words, 'I never knew you. Go away from Me, you who do wrong!'
Put simply, here's how I think true xianity is different from works-based religions like the Catholicism you describe.
All monotheistic religions, and many others believe in personal culpability for our sins. You don't have to believe in original sin to know that you have sinned. Who has not?
But most of these religions are works-based religions, teaching that you have to pay your debt through good works – maybe your good works can outweigh your bad, maybe you can die in martyrdom, maybe you live multiple reincarnations to work off your karma. Or maybe you get baptized or added to the church membership role, or maybe you walked forward for an altar call.
But biblical xianity is different. It says that there is NO way you can unbreak what is broken through your own efforts or rituals – no way you can earn your right standing with God by being good. Rather, it teaches that Jesus, who did not sin, was penalized on our behalf, and salvation (that is, from the judgment to come, and from sin's power in this life) are FREE gifts from God, if we receive Him and his teaching.
Free is good – the scriptures teach that it is this way because (1) that way, no one can boast about being better than another, (2) even the worst sinner can be saved, and (3) to attempt to pay for it by good works would be like trying to pay for love – it is an affront to God.
Paul the apostle was previously a devout jew, and he said, "if anyone could be justified by keeping the law, it would be me. But by keeping the law, NO ONE shall be justified. All my works (to make myself righteous) are filthy rags compared to the righteousness which is given to me by Christ."
This is an affront to people who think that they are better than others and good enough to pass muster on their own merit, but good news to those of us who realize that we are in need of God's help and mercy. For a good story of someone who thought he was pretty good, see the story of the Rich Young Ruler who approached Jesus – right away, Jesus challenges his definition of good, knowing that he thinks he is a pretty moral person. You'll note that he did not like Jesus' answer – that he must surrender all and follow, and that his measure of goodness was a bit short.
In this true xianity, there is a change of heart – the development of visible "fruits" of change. There is no change of heart if you are merely baptized. That kind of faith is worth nothing. It's a false hope.
Real faith produces changed lives, changed hearts, and a desire to flee sin and seek God. If these things are absent or replaced by devotion to ritual and tradition, you have dead faith, empty piety, and most of all, no saving faith.
I'd give you scriptures for all this, but it's late. I realize this is a bit of a rant, but maybe Aaron could back me up with some more reasoned, calm commenting ;)
Two quick things.
1. Seeker, you DO think that you're better than practically everybody else who is on here. Or at least, that's how you present yourself and your political opinions. You clearly believe yourself to be almost everybody's moral superior (save those who agree with you in LOCKSTEP), and you generally believe yourself to be smarter than everybody on here (what with your fantastic ability to brush every argument that you don't agree with immediately off the table if it conflicts with what you hold dear). And I'm not writing this to be mean, but to point out that this is precisely how you are Seeker, or at least, how you present yourself.
For the record, I own the fact that I believe my position is both the best and the most correct.
2. Every time I read you guys get into the more serious side of your beliefs, I find my own view's of religion's ridiculous nature reinforced to the nth degree. What I seem to be reading here is that as long as you "accept Jesus" and all of that hullaballoo, you're in. In other words, you can take vicious political positions, advocate horrible things, step all over the liberties of others, but you accepted Jesus, so its cool. Sorry, but I'm not going to believe that it works that way.
>>Some of the finest christians (and intellectuals) I have met are Catholics, but also, as a former Catholic (both myself and my wife), I can tell you for sure that you can be Catholic and consider yourself a Christian but not be one (usually out of ignorance of the message and years of Catholic training that somehow fails to communicate the gospel clearly).
>>Yeah, well, I don't play it up much. I went to CCD and was confirmed around age 12, but never went back afterwards, so I was a nominal Catholic. I knew little about the bible or Catholisism – it was just a social passage for me.
Not to beat up on you Seeker, but I do think it perhaps disingenuous to present yourself as a former Catholic in the context of claiming that Catholics do not understand the Gospel clearly. As a former Catholic myself who was raised in the tradition, I will say that my previous conversations with you revealed a limited understanding of Catholic theology and that too, from a Protestant and not a Catholic or even ecumenical perspective.
For those not familiar with issue, Sola Fide can be explained by the historical context of the Reformation; it was not part of Christian belief for 15 centuries but was introduced to create theological justification for the Lutheran revolt.
Martin Luther added the word "alone" to his translation of Romans 3:28: "For we hold that a man is justified by faith [alone-addition] apart from works of law" and constructed a new theology from this personal addition. Please see http://www.scborromeo.org/papers/solafide.PDF under "Origin of Sola Fide". Luther's justifications for this reveal a certain tone not dissimilar to us today; apparently the art of politicial spin is not new.
For those interested, the following links provide more context: http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/rule.htm (overview of Catholic theology) http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/fathers.html(detai… on the non-historical roots of sola fide)
RationalSean (apparently the Catholic part of lapsed Catholic still applies to me ;)
but I do think it perhaps disingenuous to present yourself as a former Catholic
Perhaps. But there was a time that if you asked me what my faith was, I would say I was Catholic – but only because I was baptized, not because I thought or acted like one. In our discussions, I identified more as an agnostic hedonist, since that was how I actually thought and lived.
Sola Fide can be explained by the historical context of the Reformation; it was not part of Christian belief for 15 centuries but was introduced to create theological justification for the Lutheran revolt.
My understanding of this was not a justification for revolt, but one of the distinctions needed to contradict the Catholic tendency to require works as penance for sin, which is clearly anti-gospel.
Martin Luther added the word "alone" to his translation of Romans 3:28: "For we hold that a man is justified by faith [alone-addition] apart from works of law" and constructed a new theology from this personal addition.
Well, I think that this "alone" is understood from the text, and adding it only makes it more clear. There are many other scriptures in Romans to support the idea that trying to earn salvation through works are really "dead works." And while works may in some sense "complete" one's salvation, it is arguably not in a sense of earning something, but of staying in a faith which produces real works.
Seeker, you DO think that you're better than practically everybody else who is on here. Or at least, that's how you present yourself
You are probably right, but perhaps you could give specific examples.
You clearly believe yourself to be almost everybody's moral superior
You'll definitely have to give an example of that. I may think that my conclusions are superior, but I certainly don't think of myself as morally superior.
generally believe yourself to be smarter than everybody on here
Not so. Aaron is much smarter than me ;) You, however, are probably somewhere just below me ;)
In other words, you can take vicious political positions, advocate horrible things, step all over the liberties of others, but you accepted Jesus, so its cool.
I'm not exactly sure what horrible nazi-like things you are talking about, but let me guess:
vicions political positions, horrible things, and
steping all over liberties = opposition to gay marriage and trying to stop the killing of the unborn
Wow. I suppose I should go don my SS uniform now.
Every time I read you guys get into the more serious side of your beliefs, I find my own view's of religion's ridiculous nature reinforced to the nth degree.
Well, if you are understanding more clearly the bible's position on man's guilt and need for God, and how you can't earn your right standing with God, good. Better to be clearly in opposition to the teachings of Jesus than to be mired in the backwater of misunderstanding.
The bad part about being away from work and a decent internet access – I miss all the good discussions!
Way too many points to try to hit in a comment here, so I will try to just hit some highlights.
Cineaste why does the lack of evil in nature disprove original sin. It also supports the notion that human beings are the only part of God's creation capable of rational thought and emotions. Animals have only instincts they cannot choose to disobey God, but people can and do.
This issue is a lot like the debate between evolution and creation – same evidence, different conclusions. But one is infalliable, inerrant, unquestionable and the other believes God created everything. ;)
There are key internal differences between Roman Catholic theology and Protestant theology, but neither is the end all, be all of Christianity.
Do I think my general understanding of Christianity is correct? Yes. Do I think all of my understanding of Christianity is correct? No, I am imperfect human being with a failable mind.
Scripture can be interpreted differently, but it cannot be interpreted as opposite of the clear, given meaning. What if I read what Sam writes about his thoughts and Christianity and said, "Wow, Sam I didn't know you were a Christian and that you were really seeking to tell other people about Jesus." Clear that is a wrong interpretation of what Sam wrote. It is the exact opposite. The same is true with Scripture. While we can (and Christians do) quibble over the meanings of many things – basics of the faith are solid and foundational.
When Jesus presents Himself clearly as the only path to salvation, that becomes a qualifying belief for Christianity. It is hard to be a follower of Jesus if you don't accept what He said. You may respect Him as the Muslims do, but you can't be a follower if you pick and choose His words, looking for the ones you like.
As to having horrible positions, but everything being okay because one accepts Jesus – we go back to interpretation again. Sam clearly thinks that some positions (against gay marriage, welfare and abortion) are bad things. Okay I can accept that, but what cannot be said is Sam (or anyone) deriving an evil motive for things he does not like.
As much as I may dislike abortion, the welfare state and the push to redefine marriage (all in varying degrees), I cannot assign evil motives to Sam because he disagrees with me. I think his motives are pure. He honestly thinks those are good things for our society, but those who disagree with me or seeker should be able to extend the same courtesy – to assume that we hold our positions not out of hatred or any other evil motives but because we believe we are doing the right thing for others.
As to how Jesus or Christianity play into it, just as there are Catholic and Protestant Christians – there are liberal and conservative Christians who feel very passionate about different sides and issues. I feel my beliefs are right, they disagree, but we can find unity in Christ – in who He is and what He has done in our lives. That is not to say that we are "both right." One of us is right and one wrong. But we can have an understanding to basically agree to disagree.
Why is such a hard thing to accept that there is a right way and a wrong way? I always find it so odd when non-Christians accuse Christians of being so closed minded and judgemental, all the while being closed minded to the possibility that the Christian is right and judging the Christian for not agreeing with them.
Each side assumes they are right and goes forward from that premise, but in most cases only the Christian is chastized for judging and not being tolerant.
And Sam, while salvation begins with "accepting Jesus and all that hullabaloo" it does not end there. Christianity is about the growing relationship of a person with Jesus. Just as you grow and learn more things physically. Christians grow and learn more things spiritually about that relationship and what it calls them to do. If they have nothing but a moment in their past where they said a prayer to "get saved" without any lifestyle change or growth, then it can be just like any other ritual – useless.
I will save refighting the Reformation for another day.
And seeker, thanks for the compliment, but I am sure that you along with most of our agitators are my intellectual superior, but we do have an advantage over them. That being the fact that we are arguing from a position of truth. That puts them at a horrible disadvantage. ;) There that should stir the pot a little more while I am gone.
I will try to check in and even post occassionally, but for the next two weeks, I will only be at work for 1 1/2 days. Vacation time (at least time away from work, well work I get paid for) is here.
We do have an advantage over them. That being the fact that we are arguing from a position of truth. That puts them at a horrible disadvantage.
You say this as a joke but I want to squash it anyway as a prelude to my argument. I didn’t know about Martin Luther’s edit to scripture until Rational Sean made an excellent point with it. Seeker said, “Well, I think that this “alone” (Romans 3:28) is understood from the text, and adding it only makes it more clear.” In the tradition of Martin Luther, I will amend Aaron’s sentence to “make it more clear”, “That being the fact that we are arguing from a position of truth [as we see it].” Well now, that does change things a bit. But already I can see the rebuttal coming, “We do speak from a position of truth, scripture!” Stewart’s point (You say that being a Christian is defined by the scripture, but you interpret the meaning of the scripture to be what you and similarly-minded Christians believe. Am I alone in seeing the circular logic?) addresses this rebuttal. I framed it like this…
Protestants don’t view me as a Christian because I have not accepted Jesus as my savior. Moreover, Protestants believe Christians (Catholics) who do not accept Jesus as the only means to salvation cannot be saved and therefore are Christians in name only.
I once asked Seeker and Aaron if heaven included Christians from other denominations. They said there are Catholics in heaven along with Protestants. What they didn’t tell me was that for Catholics to go to heaven, they must practice Protestantism!
This is a contradiction between Protestant and Catholic interpretation of salvation. It proves the Bible can be and is interpreted differently by the various denominations and it is impossible to know, for sure, how one can attain salvation.
Now, the manner in which Seeker responded to this argument was essentially, “But the Catholic interpretation makes no sense and those who believe works are a path to salvation are going to Hell!” Sentiment like this is much more offensive to Catholics than “The Da Vinci Code” ever was. This leads to Sam’s point, “You (Seeker) clearly believe yourself to be almost everybody’s moral superior.” It’s because Seeker thinks following his interpretation of scripture gives him moral authority over those that do not. How else can one explain his belief in the Cultural Mandate which is a type of Theonomy. Theonomy is, according to Wikipedia, the idea that in the Bible, God provides the basis of both personal and social ethics. In that context, the term is always used in antithesis to Autonomy, which is the idea that Self provides the basis of ethics. Theonomic ethics asserts that, the Bible has been given as the abiding standard for all human government: individual, family, church and civil; and that, Biblical Law must be incorporated into a Christian theory of Biblical ethics. Ironic, because do you want someone who believes, “Not all biblical interpretations are equal. –Seeker” to set the ethical standards of this country? This moral hegemony smacks of pride, one of the 7 deadly sins.
Now, I would like draw a parallel between Protestant/Catholic interpretations of salvation and CINO vs. when a person is considered Un-American…
• Salvation is attained with baptism.
• Salvation comes from genuine faith in the substitutionary death of Christ on your behalf, no baptism, no rite, no excuses about hypocrites or how confused you were will save you from the judgment which is promised to come. –Seeker
• If a “Christian”, such as a Catholic or any other person, does not practice this Protestant belief, then they are CINO, Christian in name only. Correct me here Seeker, but this is essentially how you see it?
…and this parallels with…
• The term “American” comes with citizenship.
• The term “American” comes with the practice of patriotism, supporting our President in the time of war, waving the flag, knowing you are one nation under God, belief in conservative Christian values. A person like Ann Coulter thinks this way.
• If an “American”, such as a Liberal or any other person, does not practice this Patriotic belief, then they are AINO, American in name only. Again, a person like Ann Coulter thinks this way.
Aaron, Seeker the point I’m trying to convey is it’s dangerous when you present the “truth as you see it” as simply the “truth.”
Cineaste, why does the lack of evil in nature disprove original sin. It also supports the notion that human beings are the only part of God’s creation capable of rational thought and emotions. Animals have only instincts they cannot choose to disobey God, but people can and do. –Aaron
I don’t believe in Good and Evil period. So, in a newborn infant, there can be no “evil” or sin, original or otherwise. Good and evil are really perceptions of what is moral and immoral. It shows that human beings have a sense of right and wrong, which can mean different things. One man’s right is another person’s wrong. Maybe some animals also have a sense of right and wrong. I think my dog knows when it’s being disobedient. Morality is different from good and evil though. There are animals that are capable of rational thought and I know for sure there are animals capable of emotion. Shocking as this may sound to you, I think human beings are also animals, advanced animals. I do place our interests above those of other animals though. I am a carnivore (sorry Stewart). Was Hitler evil or was he amoral? Perhaps, at a later time, we can discuss why, if genesis was true, why it was a “good” thing we were thrown out of paradise.
I forgive you, Cineaste, but that doesn't mean I won't try to convert you :)
Sentiment like this is much more offensive to Catholics than “The Da Vinci Code” ever was.
Aww, poor babies. Paul the apostle wasn’t opposed to rebuking such lies either. I am not saying that I am on his level, just that scripture is clear, even if bad theologians and fault finders want to obscure it.
This moral hegemony smacks of pride, one of the 7 deadly sins.
Oh, good one. (Eyes rolling).
I support that concept of theonomy, but the implementation of such an idea makes the difference between totalitarianism and democracy. You are fear-mongering again. I don’t promote any radical legislation, and in fact, am more liberal than most conservatives.
BTW, your segway from theonomy to theocracy (baptism as Americanism?) is an interesting comparison, but not a good one, because there is no official “bible” that we can refer to to define what an american is – unless you count the Constitution. Now, as a constitutional constructionist, I *might* argue that your ideas are unamerican if you want to legislate something against the constitution, like reverse discrimination (hiring quotas). :D
If a “Christian”, such as a Catholic or any other person, does not practice this Protestant belief, then they are CINO, Christian in name only.
Yes, that is how I see it, and I have no problem declaring such a conviction as THE truth. You can repeat this to yourself all night long in the mirror to give yourself a scare. This is the gospel. Paul said that if anyone preaches to you another gospel, even an angel, let them be accursed. I concur.
There’s always a possibility I could be wrong. But I am telling you that I think I am not. You can do what you want with that, and we will both face God on that one.
original sin
I think debating this with an unbeliever is not really useful, since I think it presupposes a belief in the fall of man through Adam and the redemption of man through Jesus.
Also, as with many doctrines, it has clarifications, and overimplifying it to prove it is wrong is bad hermeneutic. I mean, some might conclude from a simplistic view of this that young children that die must therefore go to hell. Believe it or not, Christians who support original sin do NOT teach that conclusion.
But I don't think this is a central question. What's more important is whether or not you believe that YOU are a sinner. If you don't, the bible says you "are a liar and the truth is not in you." If you think you are saved by your works, the scripture says you are decieved.
And don't believe me because I think I have THE truth – go read for yourself, it's your *ss, er, soul on the line.
"Better is open rebuke than hidden love."
Seeker, you are the Jonathan Edwards of our time :)
Young children that die must therefore go to hell
Wait, I thought young children who die go to purgatory?
There's always a possibility I could be wrong. But I am telling you that I think I am not. You can do what you want with that, and we will both face God on that one.
Oh, perish the thought! ROFL Seeker, I can't recall, and perhaps you can correct me, you ever conceding you were wrong in any of the topics we have discussed. If so, your batting 1.000! Truly, you have a dizzying intellect. :)
Sentiment like this is much more offensive to Catholics than “The Da Vinci Code” ever was.
“Aww, poor babies.”
Ya, I threw that in there in an attempt to pay homage to the original topic of the post.
What a truly weird conversation! What are you guys going to debate next, the number of angels who can be induced to dance on the head of a pin?
The best comment on all this I can come up with was presented by Christopher Hitchens:
"what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
Where is the evidence for all this?
Here is a good podcast link that gets down to the nitty gritty . Mr Stefan Molyneau , I find his views on Religious issues compelling. (I suggest podcast #29,Ten Questions to ask Religious Friends), as a start. http://podfeed.net/category_item.asp?id=3476#
Not sure if the comments in this can be "redeemed" or not. We seem to have went to a lower level of discourse, but I did want to clarify what I was saying about Stewart's comments toward Roman Catholics and Mormons.
The big difference lies in, not surprisingly, Jesus. Mormons view Jesus as the actual physcial offspring of God (and the brother of Satan, but that's another story). So they deny the deity of Jesus, which puts them outside the circle, so to speak.
Catholics, while clouding up the issue of salvation (I think Cineaste's belief about baptism makes this abudantly clear), they do not deny that Jesus is God. They (and others, probably myself included) may add things that hinder or confuse, but ultimately they view Jesus as God and the only way to salvation.
I keep coming back to this question, why do those outside of Christianity seem determined to tell Christians who they should and shouldn't "let in." The very nature of any group or organization (although Christianity is way beyond that) is the simple fact that some people are included and some are excluded.
While you may think we are being exclusionary, that is not my purpose. All are free to join, but in order the join membership requirements must be met. And all I see from scripture is one requirment, believe in and acceptance of Jesus as God the Son to be your Savior and Lord for the forgiveness of your sins.
As to the issue of being wrong, I am not sure any of us here have said we were wrong at any point. Why else would we be disagreeing. Each of us thinks we are right, so let's not "judge" anyone for thinking they are right.
I allow for the possibility that I am wrong about some things. I am not God. I am most certain that when I see Him, I will realize I made many mistakes, but the one mistake I will have not made was rejecting his free gift of salvation. I know the factual evidences for what I believe. I know the meaning, joy, peace, love, hope, etc. that Jesus has brought to my life. I have seen the difference it has made in countless lives.
It is for those reasons I debate and talk about my faith, not because I want to be right, but because I want others to experience what I have. As briliant thinkers such as C.S. Lewis and Pacal have spoken – the God=shpaed hole or vaccum that is each of our lives longing to be filled. Many people go through life searching in vain for something – they may not even know what they are searcing for.
I long to see everyone I come in contact with fill that hole with the only thing that can honestly satisfy it, a relationship with the Creator through Jesus.
Scoff at the statement all you want. You do not know of what you speak – at least when it comes to the relationship with God and what all that means.
I keep coming back to this question, why do those outside of Christianity seem determined to tell Christians who they should and shouldn’t “let in.” The very nature of any group or organization (although Christianity is way beyond that) is the simple fact that some people are included and some are excluded.
Aaron, I don’t think anyone is trying to tell you who should or shouldn’t be considered a Christian. The fact of the matter is that it is not Christians who determine this, it’s God (If the Christian God exists). What I was trying to point out was that I don’t consider myself to be a Christian, but the Catholic Church does. I pointed out a contradiction which demonstrates the inherent contradiction in the interpretation of scripture. (One of my favorite thinkers, Peter Abelard did this and was accused of heresy a millennia ago) So, it does not matter what the Catholic Church thinks, it does not matter what Protestants think, it is God who will judge. Can we agree on that?
I know the meaning, joy, peace, love, hope, etc. that Jesus has brought to my life. I have seen the difference it has made in countless lives. It is for those reasons I debate and talk about my faith, not because I want to be right, but because I want others to experience what I have.
Of this, I have no doubt. I enjoy speaking about these topics with you and Seeker. I think the other regular commenters on 2and3 do as well. I love to discuss religion and politics. I usually don’t get the chance because they are such serious topics. Being able to discuss these topics with you guys has helped me express my thoughts and get things I have wanted to say off my chest. By writing out my arguments I have found they have become more and more refined. Arguments I had never thought of before have become clear to me, especially regarding evolution. I think this is due largely to the fact I am speaking with people who DO NOT agree with me at all. I am not “preaching to the choir,” so to speak. That you and Seeker respond to every one’s posts frequently and with integrity makes me happy to try to contribute to what you are doing here. I try to do the same. In no way am I “scoffing” at you and Seeker. Sometimes it may appear that way due to the emotion we place behind our respective viewpoints but I say to you now, I am not here to scoff, I am here to converse and hopefully learn from a viewpoint not my own. Believe me when I say I am curious about spirituality. That is way I love the classic foreign films about this topic; it helps me explore what life means. I worry sometimes that you get offended when I question God and your beliefs. I try to be honest about doing so but of course the questions are meant to deconstruct because the religion that can’t stand up to questioning is not the one for me. I do this with everything, movies, evolution, etc. I do stand by what I have said in the posts above, I didn’t think that they needed “redeeming.” I do think it is dangerous to present “the truth as you see it” as simply the “truth.”
Regarding "The Davinci Code" ,from a secular perspective.
I don`t think you`ll find a well read Atheist or even a Freethinker that really cares all that much about the DVC as anything that should be taken all that seriously.
I am quite familiar with Christian belief and the Bible, as well as many other religions ,including the origins of some of the alternate Christian mythology involved in the DVC. Even with (Christian turned Secular) Bible scholars such as Robert Price ,the substance of the claims don`t hold water. http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/
I think that there are far more important and obvious reasons to question Christianity (and religion in general) ,and I know that can be hard to do, but that is something you have to take on .
Apolegetics don`t even engage the issue at hand ,that is a concept inside the bubble.
If you want to be an honest Christian I think you must examine the issues the Atheist /Agnostic has with Christian belief . If you can do that, you have my respect for making a fully informed choice .
The DVC however is "just a novel" . Do some research if you like ,don`t take my word for it.
Here are some URLs for the curious. http://www.ffrf.org/ http://infidels.org/ http://www.infidelguy.com/ http://hem.passagen.se/nicb/atheism.htm
Thanks for the links Richard, but I may have to dig deep to find something that isnt' unimpressive. I'm not saying that to be mean, but first I checked infidels.org. Seems like a typical superficial antheist humor and rant site, not too much substance.
I went to the ffrf, and read some of Dan Barker's stuff, and for a guy who has gone from preacher to atheist, his approach to Jesus and the bible is very unsophisticated, if not simplistic – it smacks of someone who barely knows the scriptures, and is merely skimming the top for objectionable sayings – not the impression his bio gives. I'll read a little deeper, but if this is the best you've got against the xian faith, I think the dvc is more scary.
I think guys like Bart Ehrman are more impressive as a critic of xianity. I'll check out that Price guy too. Thanks again, but if you could pick out particularly well done links, that would be helpful.
Hey Seeker
I chose these sites because of their notoriety and large (hub) content. Infidels.org is the hub of much valuable content.
Dan Barker was an evangelist living an itinerate lifestyle (preaching the word) for some 19 years ,and is intimately familiar with the scriptures. He is also a musician and has spent much of his Christian life composing and arranging original Christian music. Why he left this life is a matter I`m sure he can put more clearly than myself. ffrf.org
Mr Robert Price is ,well, just damn facinating! His knowledge of the Bible and all it`s intricacies is the result of a lifetime of study . You can listen to him on the infidelguy.com site in the free downloads section as (the Bible Geek) which I believe he still hosts every Sunday (somewhere after 1 and 4,depending on your time zone).
If you examine the links with an open mind (as well as the Swedish one) ,then you will have a good primer for the next level of examination.
thanx
As for Bart Ehrman . I don`t understand why you would say he is smarter than yourself . Intelligence is the capacity to learn and integrate knowledge into a higher understanding of how things work .
I am here to examine how the Christian mind works . In hearing your responses I learn more about the Christian mindset as well as offer a secular perspective.
I am as much offended by Religious parody as you may be. I see that as just another form of bigotry.
Reasons to believe something are contagious-Sam Harris
I really liked Bart Ehrman's tale of how the "smoked tuna" was resurrected.