Pillars are Just Crutches

Now, I haven’t watched the whole debate (I’ve posted it’s entirety on my blog a few blogs back). I got through the actual debate and one question section and have yet to watch the rest as of yet. But judging by the sections I have watched I think that it is a very close debate. Both Hitchens and Wilson are incredibly intelligent men! However, I don’t think Hitchens’ arguments are as good as he may think they are. For example when pressed why the Universe should care if a race of people were destroyed his answer was along the lines of, “if I was that race I’d care” but the question wasn’t about whether the race cared, it was about the universe. And a problem that is inherent within the atheism debate is the problem of ‘meaning’. Everyone feels it to some extent and yet few can define where it comes from or why we have it. Things like beauty and reason are very difficult concepts to make sense of in the atheistic worldview.

I don’t know how any of you process your faith …

Actually, to be more accurate I might have to start with, “I don’t know if any of you process your faith.” I’m not trying to be demeaning by saying that, some people may see no need to go through what they believe and find out if they still believe it (or if they want to believe it). After all, it’s a nerve racking process to question the very core of how one lives. Other people may just throw reason to the wind. While reading the comments posted on an N.T. Wright article (most of the comments are very antagonizing) I came across one that simply read, “Faith overrides evidence and Jesus is truth.”

Some will most likely say ‘amen!’

I got a knot in my stomach

I process my faith. Some would call me faithless because I require answers for nearly everything, I would say that makes me faithful. I’ve been through different stages of my Christian doubting – some more serious then others. But through those stages I’ve learned that Christianity is based on historical moments where God has acted so other people can see.

Then I read a quote like the one above, “Faith overrides evidence and Jesus is truth.” And at first, I almost want to admire the person. Life would be so much easier if I could think like that, but then I wouldn’t really be thinking, would I. I know what the world thinks about such quotes, they’ll no doubt stereotype the person as a Bush voting, Bible thomping, Christian fundimentalist – then, based on that information, right the whole thing off!

And I start to wonder what god thinks about that. If He feels something like a knot in His stomach when such claims are made. Because ultimately, it’s a lie. Sure the last part is true but the first part? complete lie! Christianity is not based on some ‘metaphysical’ truth that makes it irrelevant whether the history recorded in the Bible really happened. It’s based on god acting in history, and if that history did not happen, Christianity becomes powerless.

It’s fitting that the article in question had to do with Jesus resurrection because when the Discovery Channel’s documentary about discovering the bones of Jesus (which was a complete joke!) came out I asked the question, “If it could be proven, unequivocally, that Jesus’ bones had been found, would you still be a Christian?”

The answer everyone gave me was, yes.

I was shocked … i had the opposite answer.

So I guess the question is this, when does evidence over rule faith?

There isn’t much on the site yet but here is the link to the Collision movie featuring the debate between Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson.  It should be good!

There is a documentary of Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson debating the existence of God coming out later this month – when exactly and by what mean, I don’t know.  Hitchens is an esteemed journalist and writer who wrote the book, “God is not Great”.  And Wilson is a pastor and renowned Christian author.

One of the stops on their debating tour was Westminster Theological Seminary and they have been kind enough to post the debate, in it’s entirety, on Youtube.  So I’ve taken the time to post the videos of the debate in order here.  Enjoy.

Read the rest of this entry »

I’ve been listening to William Webb recently as he has brilliantly brought some insights on finding God in the tough texts. So I thought I would take the time and share what he refers to as the ‘Redemptive Movement Hermeneutic’. This way of interpreting the Bible does not seek to find the ultimate ethic with in the static scripture, but finding the direction of where God is moving the ethics to.

Most will know that if you listen to the critics of the Christian faith for long enough you’ll no doubt be dragged through the law of Moses to be shown the hypocrisy of God. How could God love everyone if slaves and women are treated so poorly! A couple such verses may be brought to your attention:

When a slaveowner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner’s property. Ex. 20:20-21

or

If the ox has been accustomed to gore in the past, and its owner has been warned but has not restrained it, and it kills a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death … If the ox gores a male or female slave, the owner shall pay to the slaveowner thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned. Ex. 21:29, 32

In both cases, the penalty of the master for killing the slave is minimal. In the second example the slaves are definitely not on the same level as free people. The problems with these verses (and similar ones) are so evident that they are offensive in today’s society.

So what do we do with them? In comes “Redemptive Movement Hermeneutic”. The argument for this hermeneutic is that humans do not change quickly and require long periods of time to get out of former ways of thinking.  Second hand smoke is a prime, modern-day example. We’ve known that second hand smoke kills people for 50 years and yet (in Canada) smoking in public places has only been banned within the last ten years and meanwhile many of the States have no such law!  Still, it’s been proven for over 50 years that it kills people!!  Why the delay?  People do not change easily.

When the Bible is read it is usually read within the understanding of the reader (in my case, white Canadian 21st century male) instead of being read with the understanding of the writer (in Moses case, Ancient Near East nomadic tribe).  Therefore the text is not read correctly even though the words on the page are read the understanding is not there.

Through out the Biblical text God is moving the human race towards an ultimate ethic one step at a time.  In every other Ancient Near East nation at the time of Moses slaves had absolutely no rights.  The killing or beating of a slave would have been met with no punishment.  But in Israel’s case that was different.

In another example, any Ancient Near East slave owner could maim and disfigure their slaves (it was a form of intimidation so slaves wouldn’t run away!) while in Israel if a slave was maimed the slave was freed!

As well, foreign slaves were rejected from other nations while Israel was commanded to accept them (all of Israel became a ‘city of refuge’).

So although the treatment of slaves by Israel in our standard today was horrendous it was a big leap from how slaves were treated in every other nation in the Near East.

In Redemptive Movement Hermeneutics the ‘fossilized’ law is not the focus, the focus is on the movement of where the law is pointing.  In the case of slavery, the Bible does not speak directly against it but has pointed the human race in that direction.  So the Bible is not the ultimate ethical handbook, it’s history that moves us towards the ultimate ethic.

The campaign is in England and they have been trying the same thing in Edmonton, atheists are buying ad spaces on buses that read, “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.”

To the horror of a lot Christians, I have little problem with the ad campaign. I live in a free country, people can say what they like. I’m not going to get in the way because I don’t want anyone getting in the way when I talk to someone about Jesus.

But there are 2 things that I’d like to point out about the ads, each one expresses a certain amount of hypocrisy. And before I start it needs to be noted that it is not agnostics putting up the ads, it is atheists.

First, The ad claims that people who struggle to believe in God worry and don’t enjoy life – so they should give up that struggle. The problem with this is that first it’s a gross generalization also the head of the campaign in England (Richard Dawkins) is a scientist who would champion the quest for knowledge and truth, not give up on it – like the ad suggests.

Second, the slogan uses the word ‘probably’. This is equivalent to a Christian saying, “Jesus probably died for our sins”. These are atheists and yet instead of advertising what they really believe they’ve softened it up.

Why?

Well, agnosticism is an easier sell and because, just like theism, atheism is impossible to prove. They may have felt that they’ve taken the intellectual high ground, but they’ve compromised their beliefs to sway people to their ‘acceptable’ standard instead of their ‘ideal’.

Here’s my suggestion: If your going to put out an ad campaign sell your own brand (atheism), not someone else’s (agnosticism)