An ongoing conversation

Anonymous: Listen, I am not interested in theological arguments because when you come to the core claims, the miraculous claims, what evidence is provided? Jesus, if the story is based in fact, could only expect those who witnessed his life, death and resurrection to accept what happened. To us it is hearsay, and there is no reason why I should accept this, just as you don't accept Muhammad's "revelation" nor Joseph Smith's. Theological proofs are ridiculous, and they simply don't prove anything other than people are willing to accept argument without evidence. I am inclined to go with Thomas Paine's analysis of theology:

"The study of theology, as it stands in the Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authority; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion."

Myself: Thomas Paine doesn't have a very clear understanding of good theology.

Good theologians have to have more than just a working knowledge of ancient history and ancient societies, ancient languages, philosophy, archeology as well as a knowledge of what scripture says. And that's not even an exhaustive list as far as I'm aware of.

Just like any other study, there's different schools of thought, but all Christian theology shares a few basic principles.

Just like any other study, there are quacks who know just enough to make themselves and their peers look incredibly stupid.

Just like any other study, it is evolving and learning more as time goes on and taking note of certain truths that it didn't take note of before. That's why we had things like The Reformation.

The only real difference between Theology and any other study such as mathematics, or biology, or musicology, or psychology is the profoundness with with it changes lives, and people don't have a relationship with their studies or the thing that they are studying in quite the same way as many theologians do with the God that they are studying.

Well, I suppose I should admit that clinical psychology and biology do change lives a great deal. Therapists and medicine and the like. But they both still lack that relationship building.

And as far as Jesus only expecting eyewitnesses to accept what happened, how does that work with any other historical or archaeological subject? Why must Jesus be held to such a higher standard than other such figures in these studies?

Anonymous: "The only real difference between Theology and any other study such as mathematics, or biology, or musicology, or psychology is the profoundness with with it changes lives, and people don't have a relationship with their studies or the thing that they are studying in quite the same way as many theologians do with the God that they are studying."

How does one study God? This brings me back to the Thomas Paine quote.

Myself: "How does one study God? This brings me back to the Thomas Paine quote."

That's a good question.

How does one study psychology? You can't see a person's thoughts. All you can do is see how their mind affects certain things about them, like their personality, their decisions, their mannorisms, their moral and ethical code, and the like.

A cognitive psychologist would study how a person's cognitions change the way they act, and how things can change a person's cognitions.

You don't have to be well versed to know that the Bible claims that it is inspired by God, so the first thing a theologist would study is the Bible. And not just the Bible, but it's context. What do other histories say about the stories in the Bible? What were the methods of keeping these histories? What were the societies and the people like? You would study the areas of Archeology which are relevant to the Biblical stories. The languages of the people of the day. The culture of those people.

What does the Bible say about an even which we know happened? What does the Bible say about a city that we know existed? How many (if any) successful archeological endevors have been so succesfull because of knowledge gained from Biblical stories? How would the culture and language of the day change the way those people interpreted the Bible and what would their reaction to it be?
These are just some questions you would ask yourself, none of which assume the Bible's truth or falsehood.

All of these things you would study in order to acertain as to the reliability of the Bible, what the Bible is trying to tell you, and how much of the Bible is or isn't inspired divinely.

BTW, not all theology is in favor of Christianity.

You, yourself have drawn theological conclusions not in favor of Christianity by some pretty impressive means here. You've started with an assumption that the creation story of Genesis is literal (not something I agree with,) which is a fact that you either gained from some outside source or came upon in your own study. You then put that side by side with other data and studies you have seen showing that the literal interpritation of the Creation story isn't possible, which left you with two choices:
1) you were wrong in your assumption about a literal creation story in Genesis
B) The Bible is wrong about God.

And you chose B.

As a side note, Acts 1:18 doesn't say that Judas Hung himself. It says that Peter said Judas hung himself.

Anonymous: "You don't have to be well versed to know that the Bible claims that it is inspired by God, so the first thing a theologist would study is the Bible."

The problem is that the field of theology hasn't progressed since the beginning. What has it found? What convincing evidence has it presented that god exists? The ontological argument? Aquinus' proofs? What? You can dig up cities and read accounts of people written other than the bible authors two hundred years after the events...but how does this lead them closer to uncovering virgin births, walking on water, resurrection....divine inspiration?

"What does the Bible say about an even which we know happened? What does the Bible say about a city that we know existed?"

Pick up most any novel and real places and real people will be discussed...but we know it is fiction.

Also, the psychology analogy fails because we know the mind exists and we know the person with the brain exists....theology is the "study" of god...which begs the question from the get-go.

Thanks

Myself: "The problem is that the field of theology hasn't progressed since the beginning. What has it found? What convincing evidence has it presented that god exists? The ontological argument? Aquinus' proofs? What? You can dig up cities and read accounts of people written other than the bible authors two hundred years after the events...but how does this lead them closer to uncovering virgin births, walking on water, resurrection....divine inspiration?"

Theology hasn't progressed? Theology isn't just the study of wheather or not God exists, it's studying him. I think I would call the Reformation and emergence of certain denominations a progression of theology.

If theology had never progressed, then there wouldn't be any protestant churches. If we were to assume that theology didn't progress today, then I would still have to believe in an inerrant Bible with a strict literal translation throughout all of the scriptures in order for such a statement to be true.

As far as convincing evidence goes, I am sort of a baby theologist. I haven't even finished reading Bruce Metzger's "The New Testament: It's Background, Growth, and Content." By the way, his work is awesome. His obituary in Princeton's news called him "one of Princeton's truly great alumnus." His work is the leading authority on Canonical studies, and even atheists who are known in the field reference him. I recomend him to every one and any one.

Any way, I haven't got much for you, I'll be straight up. But I'm learning, and I'm starting at the same place every good theologist has to start: an inteligent look at the Bible.

As far as the miracles of the new testament go, I can tell you that we have some eye whitness testimonies outside of the Bible.

The Babylonian Talmud talks about him about half a dozen times, and even though it wasn't reduced to writing until the fifth century, it's an accumulation of much earlier materials, some of which go back to the first Christian century.

They called him Ben Pandera (that is, son of Pandera). Though the Pharasees did not believe that Mary was a virgin, they did believe that Jesus didn't have a proper father and that he was born outside of wedlock.

Obviously, if you believe that the Bible is reliable, (which I do,) you would interpret this as their rationalisation of the fact that Jesus didn't have a father.

He was said to have been in Egypt, where he learned magic., and was able to perform miracles in order to decieve people.

This doesn't bother any one who has already acertained the reliability of the Bible, as the Pharasees are seen in the gospels telling people that he can cast out demons only by the power of beelzebulb.

It was said that he called himself God. Something that agrees completely with Biblical accounts.

He was tried by the Sanhedrin as a deciever and a teacher of apostasy. Something else that agrees completely with the Biblical accounts.

He was put to death on the eve of passover, which as well agrees with the Bible. However, they have two traditions here. One says that he was crucified, and the alternative tradition says he was stoned and then hanged.

The Babylonian Talmud says that he had five disciples, whose names are given as Matthai, Neqai, Netzer, Buni, and Thodah.

Bruce puts it all this way:
"It is commonly agreed by both Jewish and Christian scholars that these Talmudic tradidions add nothing new to the authentic history of Jesus in the Gospels. In general, they confirm early Christian tradition by giving independent-and even hostile-testimony that Jesus of Nazareth really existed. It is noteworthy also that the Talmud refers to Jesus' power to perform miracles (although it attributes them to his knowledge of magic) and to his claim to be the divine Son of God. The defamatory account of his birth seems to reflect a knowledge of the Christian tradition that Jesus was the son of the Virgin Mary, the Greek word for virgin, parthenos, being distorted into the name Pandera." (Third edition, revised and enlarged, page 93. Emphasis is mine.)

There's also Josephus, and the like, but I'll assume that you know Josephus. Every one seems to these days. ^_^


"Pick up most any novel and real places and real people will be discussed...but we know it is fiction."

The diference there being that there aren't historical records or archeological findings to support the events of a fictional novel, and there are all kinds of literary and culteral cues that ficional stories are, in fact, fiction. That's why a good theologian has to know all of those things.

"Thanks"
Thank you for not automaticaly declaring my stupidity. It seems there's a lot of mud-slinging around here, and it's nice to see a clean hand every once in a while. ^_^

Why have I started this Blog?

Well, I'm using this blog because I've recently started posting on someone else's Blogger. I am thinking that in case any one should read my comments and want to know who the heck I think I am, they can come here to see what I'm about.

I posted on one of my xangas a response to some videos I recently watched on NBC's website. They were of Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron debating the existence of God on live television.

The wrong way.

There are basically five overall problems with the methods that they used.

Firstly, never ever claim that you can prove God's existence without using the Bible, only to turn around and quote the Bible. Ray and Kirk did this in the opening statements, even before the actual debate started. Once you claim to be able to do something, you will be held to it by those who are trying to prove you wrong, and failure to follow through is a mark against God, not you.
It's a really bad idea to try talking about God without using the Bible to begin with. At some point, you have to describe the God that you're discussing. What is the authority on God's Character? Where do we, as Christians, go to discern truth from lies concerning the creator of the universe? What is the "yard stick" by which we measure all other experiences in our faith?
The canon. The Bible. talking about God without it is not likely to ever be a successful endeavor.

Secondly, realize what kind of person you're talking to, and adjust your speech accordingly. Talking to scientific people in "Christianeese," or overtly spiritual terms, is always a bad idea. Things get lost in translation. It produces an image of "holier-than-thou." It creates a separation between the believer and the nonbeliever to whom they are speaking. That is a devastating mistake, because no one cares what you know until they know what you care.
What the heck does it mean when you say "God is eternal," "He dwells outside of time?" People in Christianity know, but nonbelievers who haven't been surrounded by the Christianeese terms may not be thinking the same thing we are.
Also, if you meet a person who is overtly spiritual, then talking in scientific terms is a bad idea. You have to adjust your speech to the person you're talking to.

IF YOU KNOW THAT AN IMPORTANT CONVERSATION IS COMING, YOU'D BETTER BE PREPARED FOR IT! I can't describe to you how angry I was that Kirk and Ray were so unable to answer simple questions as "Who created God?" "But the Bible says that you will be forgiven for whatever you ask forgiveness for, right?" Most of their questions were based off of scriptures that are taken out of context.
If you're "preparing" for a conversation, know what the other side thinks as much as possible. If the other side has a WEB SITE ON THE INTERNET, then look at it and base your points around their beliefs.

A woman took a statement that Ray made which was something like "It's clear that God made man because man's body is designed so well," and asked the obvious question. "If God designed humans so well, why is there cancer?"
Now, if you look at this woman as she's asking, it is very clear that this is a personal question. This woman is hurting. She is in pain. The absolute worst thing to do in this scenario is to take an obviously personal question, and generalize it. Rather than direct your answer to the world, direct it to her.
Let me explain this further. Ray started his answer by looking at the entire audience and saying "There is suffering in the world because..." and the woman repeatedly interrupted him and said "NO, NOT suffering, I'm asking about CANCER!" He did this two or three more times, with the woman interrupting him two or three more times before he finally asked the woman to stop butting in. Yeah, he used those words.
The way to help a person in pain is to treat them like a real person. Look her in the eyes, and talk about why there's cancer in the world. Don't talk to the world about all of the world's suffering. Talk to her about her suffering. That's the way to bring people healing.
People don't care what you know until they know that you care.

Throughout the entire ordeal, Kirk and Ray gave off copious amounts of holier-than-thou vibes. There is nothing wrong with showing the world that you're a new creation. There is nothing wrong with telling people that without God, they are sinners. It's all about how you do it. That's what makes the difference. If you impress people with how righteous you are, they won't care what you have to say.
Because people don't care what you know until they know that you care.

It amazes me that these kinds of Christians get so much publicity. I was thoroughly embarrassed when I finished watching that debate. I was angry at the way Ray and Kirk handled the situation. I really hope that, through this blog's connection to Ray Comfort's blog, people can see that not all Christians are like that.

So, here it is

My first post here. I've seen two blogs by serious theologians. One I really enjoy, and the other I don't agree with so much, but it's nice to be able to say my stuff and know that any one can reply.

I'll post a real blog tomorrow. It's late, and I'm tired, so I'm going to finish up my stuff and head off to bed, now.