Month: May 2024

Book Plunge: Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught Part 9

Is the good news barbaric? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

For people who claim to follow logic and evidence, evangelistic atheists like David Madison sure make emotional appeals. Consider how in this section he starts with talking about John 3:16. For him, it sounds nice at the start, but then it gets to judgment. Naturally, before too long he gets to the cross.

I do wonder why Christians aren’t put off by this barbaric feature at the heart of their theology. Does it bother you?

Madison, David. Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (p. 66). Insighting Growth Publications. Kindle Edition.

Of course it does, because I know I’m in part responsible. It bothers me that sin is so evil that this is what it takes to redeem humanity. Madison sees it as bothersome, but for the wrong reason.

Another problem with John 3:16 is that it encourages religious arrogance, the assumption that “our religion is the one true religion.” That is, those who don’t believe in Jesus are excluded from the promise of eternal life. This means that the vast majority of humans have missed out on God’s love for the world. Tim Sledge has done the math: A few moments of simple analysis reveal that if we take the words of Jesus seriously, a clear majority of humanity is destined for an eternal address in hell. About 2.1 billion of the world’s 7.5 billion people alive today identify themselves as Christians—about one out of four—which leaves more than 5 billion people headed for hell. When you apply even a remotely similar ratio to previous millennia, according to the Gospels, an all-powerful, all-loving God created a world in which most of the beings made in his image are destined for torture—torture so extreme it would cause instant death in this mortal life.

Madison, David. Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (pp. 66-67). Insighting Growth Publications. Kindle Edition.

There’s a lot here.

First, it’s odd to talk about a religion being arrogant for thinking they’re correct, when it’s not arrogant apparently to think that all religious believers are incorrect and the non-believers are. If thinking you are correct means you are arrogant, then everyone is arrogant. The reason you hold to any belief is you think you are correct in holding to it.

Second, I have read Tim Sledge’s book already, though I don’t know why I didn’t write a response to it, and see him as someone who messed up his own life, had affairs, and then lo and behold decided Christianity was false. That doesn’t mean his arguments are wrong, so let’s take a look at his claim. To begin with, most evangelicals don’t hold to Hell being a place of torture. Sledge still has a fundamentalist viewpoint.

Third, we don’t have the numbers on all of history and many of us don’t think that those who never heard are automatically hellbound. You can read here for instance. Sledge would need to actually show the numbers which we don’t have. Besides that, if he wants to take Scripture as the authority on this point, Revelation also tells us about a great crowd no man could number from all over the Earth.

Finally, what does this have to do with if Jesus rose from the dead? If you are unsure about the status of those on the outside, it seems strange to say you yourself will stay on the outside. If Christianity is true, it doesn’t matter if 1 person believes it or 10 billion people believe it.

Madison goes on to look at other New Testament passages on judgment and says:

These verses undermine the assumption that God’s love is the essence of the New Testament. The wrath of God, so prominent in the Old Testament, is right here as well. And anyone who reads the letters of Paul can easily pick up on his certainty that wrath is God’s default emotion.

Madison, David. Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (pp. 67-68). Insighting Growth Publications. Kindle Edition.

Odd. I have read Paul’s letters several times and never thought that, but then again, I also do hold to impassibility so I hold that God does not have emotions. Basically, Madison’s argument is again “God is a judge and I don’t like that.”

By the way, these same atheists will complain about the problem of evil and then when God acts as a judge, they complain about that as well.

But no matter if 3:16 and 3:36 are the words of Jesus or simply the words of John, the author, the wrath motif is by no means rare in the teachings of Jesus. So, it’s no exaggeration to assert that his attitude was: Do what I say, or I will hurt you.

Madison, David. Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (p. 68). Insighting Growth Publications. Kindle Edition.

Which presumes that man is innocent and God comes and says “Hey! You’re doing great! Now do what I say or suffer!” A better analogy is man is on death row waiting to go to the chair for his last moments and God is the governor who offers Him a pardon in return for loyalty.

He then has something to say about the parable of the sheep and the goats.

And isn’t it too bad that quite a few categories of sinners aren’t included in this list of those who deserve eternal fire? What about slave owners, child abusers, murderers, and rapists? It’s easy for religious doctrine to stumble over itself and get into a hopeless tangle. In John 3:16, we read that those who believe in the son of God win eternal life, but in Matthew 25, “inheriting the kingdom” is based on feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and visiting those in prison.

Madison, David. Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (p. 70). Insighting Growth Publications. Kindle Edition.

Ah. Because Jesus didn’t give an exhaustive list, there’s a problem. Jesus is speaking to day to day people. Most of his audience would not have engaged in child abuse, murders, rapes, and even owning slaves. They would engage in the activities He did speak about.

As for the difference between John 3:16, an ancient Jewish mindset would not understand believing in YHWH and yet not living in obedience to Him. If you called someone Lord, you lived as Lord. If anything, this could be a way of saying that if you claimed John 3:16 and yet did not live it, then you did not really claim it.

The final objection he brings up in this chapter is about the coming judgment of Matthew 24-25, but since that’s the point of the next chapter, we’ll wait until then.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

 

 

Men, Women, and Praise

How does praise affect you? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I’m going to take a brief break to talk about a meme that has gone around the internet a number of times. Every time I see it, the reaction is always the same. There’s questions about who it came from, but the approach is to supposedly put men into what they think is a woman’s world and see how they like it.

The irony is that every man I have seen speak about this, and I count myself in agreement with them, says we would love this. We would indeed thrive to get a compliment like these. Even sadder is that very few men can think of a recent time they got a compliment like this. I can’t. (And no, your Mom giving you the compliment doesn’t count.)

The way men are, we generally thrive on praise. We soak it up. One of the worst things a wife can do if her husband does something good for her is to criticize. If your husband loads the dishwasher and he put in everything differently than how you did it, make sure to give multiple words of praise before even uttering one word of criticism. Criticize him first and you can be sure he will likely never do that again for you.

As I thought about this further, it seems we have entered a sad state of affairs when you can’t praise a woman for her beauty at all. If you’re a Christian woman who is thinking that praising a woman for her beauty is shallow, I challenge you to do this. Go look through your Bible at many of the women that are mentioned. See how often they are described as beautiful. It’s a quite important trait to have according to Scripture.

I watch when parents come to my workplace and they have little girls with them and one of the first words that someone uses to describe the girl is “beautiful.” It’s just the most natural statement to make. Could it be because this is getting to something that femininity brings to the world? Perhaps women bring beauty into the world?

I like to watch old shows sometimes, but especially gameshows. I have been a gameshow junkie for as long as I can remember watching television. It is quite common when a female contestant comes on a show, she is complimented on her beauty. This is especially so when you go to the old black and white gameshows like What’s My Line, To Tell The Truth, and I’ve Got A Secret. (Note I am talking about the originals) Not only were they praised, but generally, when the women walked by the panel on these shows, the men would stand up to honor them.

But now, now we live in a generation where if you speak a kind word to a woman and tell her she’s beautiful, you are shallow, a predator, and can get a sexual harassment suit thrown at you. The problem is if women are beautiful, we are being told to deny reality. Being beautiful is a good thing. To be sure, it’s not the only thing, but it is a good thing, and while not every other trait a woman has is immediately apparent, beauty is.

Who loses at this? Guys who really honor women for one. It’s really hard to approach many women for guys today if you think you’re going to get hit with a sexual harassment charge and be pasted all over the internet. (Also along these lines, the women who complain about this often have OnlyFans accounts.)

The good girls also lose out. They miss out on the guys who don’t want to risk approaching a woman lest they suffer the consequences. Many of them also don’t celebrate their true femininity because they have been taught that real women should be praised for things other than beauty. While no one is denying that they should be praised for other things, that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be praised for beauty.

So it looks like the good guys don’t win because of this. Women who are bad women will go after any guy they want that they don’t deem good enough for them and open themselves entirely for any guy that they do want. Bad guys who don’t really care about their reputation and will happily use women will keep doing what they do.

Feminism doesn’t help women. It hurts them.

And by the way, please do praise the men in your life. Seriously. Give a man a compliment like the one above (And this works in person) and you will give him a smile the rest of the day.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught Part 8

Did Jesus want the message to get out there? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Jesus came into the world to preach the gospel and save the lost. Right? Then why do we find statements like this?

When he was alone, those who were around him along with the twelve asked him about the parables. And he said to them, ‘To you has been given the secret [or mystery] of the kingdom of God, but for those outside, everything comes in parables; in order that ‘they may indeed look, but not perceive, and may indeed listen, but not understand; so that they may not turn again and be forgiven.’ (Mark 4:10-12, NRSV)

Madison, David. Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (p. 59). Insighting Growth Publications. Kindle Edition.

Madison tells us that devout Christian scholars have been stressed about this verse. Unfortunately, he doesn’t cite any of them. He is correct that some scholars thought about a Messianic Secret. So let’s see what some such scholars say about this passage.

The phrase “in parables” in 4:11 takes on a different meaning from its use in 4:2. It now means bewildering puzzles. Revelation becomes riddles and stumpers to the hardened, shallow, and indifferent mind; and the end result is befuddlement. God’s mysterious revelation consequently reveals the blindness of the world, and that blindness is manifest in surprising groups: the religious authorities, the Pharisees and the teachers of the law (2:1–3:6; 3:22–30), Jesus’ nearest relatives (3:31–35), and even his disciples (8:14–21). They are wedded to old ways of perceiving and evaluate things only from human perspectives and potentialities. They see but see nothing special. These persons do not suffer from a thick skull but a hardened heart. The parables are therefore a “two-edged sword” that reveal the mystery of the kingdom to disciples who understand but create blindness in others. Edwards comments that they are

like the cloud which separated the fleeing Israelites from the pursuing Egyptians. It brought “darkness to the one side and light to the other” (Exod 14:20). The same cloud which condemned the Egyptians to their hardness of heart also protected Israel and made a way for her through the sea. That which was blindness to Egypt was revelation to Israel.

Outsiders see no revelation of the kingdom of God in Jesus’ miracles, his teaching, or his death. Only insiders, even if they are sometimes confused by its enigmatic concealment, can see the truth.
The secret is therefore revealed to those who respond to Jesus by hearing and following. Jesus’ charge to hear only occurs in the public parables and not in the private explanations because insiders have already heard and have responded by coming to Jesus to hear more. Disciples are not quicker than others, nor are they able to unravel mysteries for themselves. The mystery is something that is “given” to them. The understanding comes by grace as Jesus’ interpretation unlocks the mystery for them.
The quotation from Isaiah 6:9–10. The citation from Isaiah has long troubled commentators because it suggests that Jesus deliberately excludes people by making things hard to understand with dark sayings that cloak the truth. The context in Isaiah is helpful for interpreting what is meant. God tells the prophet to preach in spite of warning him in advance that it will only harden the hearts of the hearers until God carries out the punishment. That command brims over with irony and scorn. God calls a faithful prophet to preach to faithless people. Jesus’ explanation for the parables has the same ironic tenor and can be translated: “So that they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand; because the last thing they want is to turn and have their sins forgiven.” In Isaiah’s time the people could not understand the message until the land and Jerusalem were decimated (Isa. 6:11–13). What was true for the days of Isaiah holds true for the time of Jesus. The present time is one of concealment and suffering, and understanding may have to wait destruction—the death of the Son of God and the desolation of Jerusalem.
Insiders and outsiders. What is it that makes one an insider over against an outsider? Kermode objects that the outsider seems to be kept “outside, dismayed and frustrated in a seemingly arbitrary manner.” But this misreads the text, because the key element that distinguishes one from the other is that the insider gathers around Jesus as an honest inquirer (Mark 4:10). Disciples are no different from anyone in needing explanations for the parables, but they are different from outsiders in that they choose to come to Jesus for explanations. They also have to puzzle out the parables, but they ask questions sincerely. The decisive difference is that insiders are not indifferent. At the conclusion of this section of parables, Mark tells us that Jesus explains the parables to his disciples privately because they come to him and ask for an explanation (4:34). The fact that Jesus does this in private does not mean that he intends to exclude the others. Outsiders simply do not regard what he says to be critical enough to bother joining the disciples around Jesus in order to receive illumination.
Being an insider, however, does not mean that one knows everything. Insiders are elite only in the sense that they have knowledge that will save their lives. But insiders can be baffled and deceived and must watch how they listen. Malbon observes, “The resounding pattern is this: Hear. Understand? Listen again! See. Understand? Look again!” Insiders and outsiders are not separated by an unbridgeable chasm, such as the one that divided Lazarus from the rich man. So-called outsiders can become insiders, otherwise “the whole mission of preaching the good news of God’s kingship is a cruel hoax.” “The Twelve and the others around him” (4:10) must not be considered a closed group. So-called insiders can become outsiders; otherwise there would be no reason to caution them to pay heed to how they listen so that they can discern what lies hidden beneath the surface.

David E. Garland, Mark (The NIV Application Commentary; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996), 158–161.

And

Some have sought to avoid the conclusion that Jesus used parables to hide the truth by claiming that Mark or someone before him mistranslated Jesus’ Aramaic word “so that” rather than “who.” This is a possible explanation, but a better one focuses on the meaning of the quotation from Isa 6:9–10. God told the prophet to deliver his message even though it would be rejected. The seeing without perceiving, the hearing without understanding, and the failure to turn and be forgiven (Isaiah wrote “be healed”) were the result, not the purpose, of his message. So it was also with the parables of Jesus. Therefore the Greek word hina (translated “so that” in the NIV) at the beginning of v. 12 ought to be translated “as a result.” This is a well-established meaning. Jesus did not speak in parables for the purpose of withholding truth from anyone; but the result of his parables, the rest of his teaching, and even his miracles was that most did not understand and respond positively. He did speak in parables to provoke thought and invite commitment. Therefore parables are more than mere illustrations. They constitute spiritual tests that separate those who understand and believe from those who do not. Still another possibility is to translate hina “that is” (cf. its use in 9:12). This rendering and the translation “as a result” do not differ greatly.

James A. Brooks, Mark (vol. 23; The New American Commentary; Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991), 83.

Also

Then He quotes Isaiah 6:9–10 to drive home His point and to demonstrate that the Scriptures are being fulfilled in Him: “So that they may look and look, yet not perceive; they may listen and listen, yet not understand; otherwise, they might turn back—and be forgiven.” His point is that, just as the sun that hardens the clay also melts the wax, so the Word of the gospel offends the resistant and rebellious while it is enthusiastically received by the receptive. Those outside are not denied the possibility of belief, but if they persist in their unbelief, they will not receive more evidence or revelation. That clarifies verse 25: “For to the one who has, it will be given, and from the one who does not have, even what he has will be taken away.” Love the Word and you will get more satisfaction and understanding in who God has revealed Himself to be. Refuse the Word and even the understanding you do have will be taken away.

Daniel L. Akin, Exalting Jesus in Mark (ed. Daniel L. Akin, David Platt, and Tony Merida; Christ-Centered Exposition Commentary; Nashville, TN: Holman Reference, 2014), 88.

I could keep going on, but it looks like a number of scholars have an explanation for this. It’s the one I would use. Jesus speaks so that those who really want the truth will work for it. What a shock that we are dealing with someone who didn’t cite any New Testament scholars here and yet speaks about how perplexed they allegedly are.

He moves on then to another passage:

But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you. (John 14:26, NRSV) Which is it? Is it the role of the Holy Spirit to teach “everything”? Or is the Holy Spirit busy sowing confusion to pursue the goal of keeping people in the dark?

Madison, David. Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (p. 61). Insighting Growth Publications. Kindle Edition.

Well since Jesus was talking to His inner circle, like He did in the Markan parables when He explained them, then there’s really no difficulty here.

There are now more than 30,000 different Christian brands because Christians can’t agree on what God is like, what he wants humans to do, and how he wants to be worshiped. Was Jesus wrong in expecting that the Holy Spirit would keep everyone correctly informed?

Madison, David. Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (p. 62). Insighting Growth Publications. Kindle Edition.

Even Catholic sources are coming to realize the 30,000 denominations or however many they throw out is a false statistic.

But hey, it agreed with what Madison wanted to say so why bother researching it?

And it’s not just that God doesn’t want some people to understand the truth. Apparently, he also doesn’t want even his most loyal followers thinking too much. Jesus idealizes childhood, that stage in human development when critical thinking is least likely to occur. He seems to be saying that understanding is of far less value than credulity. Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever becomes humble like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 18:3-4, NRSV) The gospels were written well before critical thinking—especially about religion—had come into fashion, well before due diligence and fact-checking were common practice, and before literacy among the common people was widespread. But even today, religions—not just Christianity—are good at aiming their appeals at people who will simply believe and comply. What better audience, in fact, than children, who generally trust parents and authority figures, and adults who have similar levels of naiveté?

Madison, David. Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (pp. 62-64). Insighting Growth Publications. Kindle Edition.

Yes. That’s obviously the point. Jesus is telling His disciples to be stupid. It couldn’t possibly be He is referring to the way children trust those above them could it?

Madison. Before you talk to others about critical thinking, make sure you are doing it yourself. You’re not.

And next time, it looks like we cover judgment. Fun.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught Part 7

Can we pull a rabbit out of a hat? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

And for his next trick, Madison is going to try to convince us that Jesus taught we can do magic. Well, of course we can! I mean, it takes years of practice and learning how to trick people but get a wand and a hat and a book of tricks and….wait…you mean it’s not that kind of magic? Oh! You mean he thinks miracles and things like that are automatically magic!

Sorry. I forget evangelistic atheists are just ignorant and like to use the word magic as if that discredits everything.

Now you’re not going to find anything here like a reasoned case against miracles. I mean, at least throw out David Hume or something like that. But hey, when you’re arguing from his position, who needs to make a case for his worldview? It’s just those nutty Christians that have to defend theirs.

So let’s get to something he says about the Lord’s Supper.

The familiar words we know from Mark’s gospel, “this is my body…this is my blood of the new covenant,” are missing from John’s account of the Last Supper. Instead, much earlier in the story, in the 6th chapter of John, after Jesus had fed the 5,000, we find these words—and no matter how familiar you may be with communion—how can they not be disturbing?

 

Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me. (John 6:53-57, NRSV)

Madison, David. Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (pp. 51-52). Insighting Growth Publications. Kindle Edition.

Let’s agree on one point. These words should be very disturbing indeed! They were so disturbing that a majority of the people who had just witnessed a miracle and were ready to proclaim Jesus to be king turned and walked away. Jesus went straight from hero to zero in their eyes. They were at one moment ready to trust Him as king and the next they gave up any trust in Him.

So for a point, let’s consider Madison is right. We need to really take these words seriously.

Do I think Jesus is talking about the Eucharist here? No. I think instead that Jesus is pointing to the Wilderness wanderings and saying “Just as the manna was their sustenance in the wilderness, so it is that I must be your sustenance in all things.” Now you could say “And that takes place in the Eucharist” if you’re of that persuasion, but it is not a necessity.

Now moving on, we get this little gem:

I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If in my name you ask me for anything, I will do it. (John 14:13-14, NRSV) Very truly, I tell you, if you ask anything of the Father in my name, he will give it to you. Until now you have not asked for anything in my name. Ask and you will receive, so that your joy may be complete. (John 16:23-24, NRSV)

I suspect many Christians know these texts are falsified by their own prayer experiences. I urge you to think long and hard about prayer. How can it not be classified as a form of magical thinking? In many cases, even an attempt at conjuring?

Madison, David. Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (p. 53). Insighting Growth Publications. Kindle Edition.

There’s a rule of interpretation that is to try to avoid making what your opponent say look as stupid as possible. If you think your opponent is saying something that is manifestly false, you need to check to see if you have misunderstood Him. Unfortunately, Madison has not done that.

For one thing, it should be blatantly obvious Jesus is not offering a blank check because any prayer that would come back unanswered would immediately disprove that. What is He offering then? He is offering that if you are fully in line with the will of God, you will get what you want, and very few people will be in such a place and if they are, they are not going to be asking for selfish things.

Not only that, but ancient Jews spoke in terms of hyperbole. When Salome dances for Herod, he offers her half of his kingdom. She could have just asked for the one that gave her authority to execute John the Baptist and got him executed and a kingdom then. Everyone knew he couldn’t give that literally. He himself knew it. They also knew what the gesture meant.

Madison doesn’t because he doesn’t understand any culture but his own.

But Madison isn’t done with prayer.

But how do the thoughts inside our heads—trapped there by our skulls—escape to be perceived by God? There are no known mechanisms by which that would work, just as there are no known ways by which the popular spells in the Harry Potter stories would work. Nobody even tries to explain how the Fairy God Mother in Cinderella, waving a wand, changes a pumpkin into a carriage—because that’s fantasy. Does prayer amount to waving a wand in our minds? The efficacy of prayer should not be off-limits for legitimate inquiry. Indeed, scientific studies of prayer have not yielded hoped-for results.

Madison, David. Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (pp. 53-54). Insighting Growth Publications. Kindle Edition.

I am sitting here and typing out a response and I am telling my hands through my brain to type. How does that work? I have no idea. Do I conclude then that I am not doing it because I do not know the mechanism by which this works? Not at all. How does God know what I am praying? As a Thomist, I contend He knows all things by knowing Himself, but even if I don’t understand that, a God who is all-powerful and all-knowing I am sure knows what I am thinking.

Madison dismisses prayer studies. I am skeptical of them as well, but then there are researchers like Candy Gunther-Brown and others who have observed miracles after prayer in certain settings. Of course, if Madison were being fair, he would research those, but we all know he won’t.

The last thing I plan to cover is he says there are two things that are troubling about prayer.

The concept of prayer brings us face-to-face, again, with the grim specter of totalitarian monotheism, that is to say, God monitors our very thoughts—the ultimate invasion of privacy for every person on earth. Doesn’t that make God a nosy busybody? Aside from the fact that there is no verifiable evidence to back up this idea—our feelings about prayer instilled since childhood are not the kind of hard evidence required—it’s simply a terrible idea.

Madison, David. Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (p. 54). Insighting Growth Publications. Kindle Edition.

A terrible idea, therefore wrong. Got it. Besides that nonsense, why should I think I have a right to privacy from God? I owe everything to Him, including my very being. Also, if there is evidence that God exists, and there is, and that He’s all-knowing, and there is, then Madison’s claim is false. God knows what I am thinking. Yes, that should concern me, but knowing He is forgiving should also relieve me and I should seek to get my own thought life under control. Does Madison seriously have a problem with me wanting to have a good thought life?

It is incredibly implausible that a God who manages the cosmos, that is, who has hundreds of billions of galaxies, and trillions of planets under management, would be interested in monitoring the thoughts of more than seven billion human beings—as a way of keeping track of their sinful inclinations, their need for a parking space, or recovery from an ailment. Such an attentive God might have made sense long ago when the earth was regarded as the center of his attention, and when God was thought to reside in the realm above the clouds.

Madison, David. Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (pp. 54-55). Insighting Growth Publications. Kindle Edition.

This is just an appeal to incredulity. First off, the Christians never made the Earth the center of everything. God has always been. Second, God does not have limited resources or strength such that He has to use energy monitoring trillions of planets and everything else.

So alas, Madison again really gives us nothing.

We’ll continue next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

 

Book Plunge: Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught Part 6

Should you watch what you say? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Well it looks like David Madison might have finally found something!

36 But I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty word they have spoken. 37 For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.”

Now why would we wish Jesus hadn’t have taught this? Because Madison is right in his next point.

This is, in fact, a terrifying warning: God is monitoring every word you utter and plans to get even on judgment day. I really do wonder how many Christians take this seriously. Do you live in constant terror of saying the wrong thing, with such horrible consequences?

Madison, David. Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (p. 43). Insighting Growth Publications. Kindle Edition.

I wouldn’t phrase it this way, but yes, we should be watching what we say. We all know that the best way to tell someone is not by their actions, but by their reactions, when they don’t have time to think out what they are going to say. Anyone can plan out a speech and look good, but to be a person of high character when you are caught off guard is something different.

So would it be easier on us if Jesus hadn’t taught this? Yes. Should we take it seriously? Yes. Does not liking it mean that it is wrong? No. This is something atheists like Madison seem to always go by. It’s an idea of “I don’t like it, therefore it’s wrong.”

Then he quotes this passage:

I say to you, “Do not swear at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let your word be ‘Yes, Yes’ or ‘No, No’; anything more than this comes from the evil one.” (Matthew 5:34-37, NRSV)

And says about it:

One positive way to interpret this text could be, “Say what you mean and mean what you say. Just tell the truth all the time.” But, come on, isn’t the rest of this teaching worth a big yawn? Especially from those who place their hands on the Bible to swear, “So help me God.” This is worthless advice anchored to ancient cosmology that views heaven as a throne and the earth as a footstool. And so much trouble has been caused by giving special status to Jerusalem.

Madison, David. Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (p. 45). Insighting Growth Publications. Kindle Edition.

Gotta love the, “It’s boring, therefore false” implication. It would make a lot of church sermons and school lectures easier to deal with. Unfortunately, this is not how hard scholarship works.

Craig Keener says about this passage that:

The point of this passage is integrity. Letting one’s “yes” function as a “yes” and “no” as a “no” seems to employ ancient Jewish figures of speech simply to demand that one be as good as one’s word, that one keep one’s word. Jesus observes that since God witnesses every word one says anyway, one should be able to tell the truth without having to call God to witness by a formal oath (cf. Harrington 1982: 30; Jeremias 1971: 220; Manson 1979: 158–59).
Jesus addresses a popular abuse of oaths in his day. To protect the sanctity of the divine name against inadvertent oath-breaking, common Jewish practice introduced kinnuyim, surrogate objects by which to swear (Vermes 1993: 34–35). Some people apparently thought it harmless to deceive if they swore oaths by something like their right hand (t. Ned. 1:1; cf. its use in agreements, e.g., Jos. War 2.451). Others took all oaths more seriously, but specifically warned against using God’s name lest if one break the oath one profane God’s name (Philo Spec. 2.4–5; cf. 1 Enoch 69:13–16; Pesiq. R. 22:6); sometimes vows could not be fulfilled (m. Ned. 3:1). Jewish teachers had to arbitrate which oaths were actually binding as allusions to God’s name (m. Shebu. 4:13; cf. CD 15.1–5; Smith 1951: 136). The further removed the oath was from the actual name of God, the less danger they faced for violating it (Schiffman 1983: 137–38; Sanders 1990: 53–54). Some later teachers had to insist that all roundabout substitutes for vows were equivalent to vows (m. Ned. 1:1; Nazir 1:1). Sages undoubtedly had to evaluate vows’ validity frequently because they had acquired the role of canceling bad vows (e.g., t. Pisha 2:16), extending an Old Testament privilege accorded male guardians of unattached women (Num 30:3–15).
Thus people swore by heaven and earth (many cite Philo Spec. 2.5; m. Shebu. 4:13), Jerusalem (many cite m. Ned. 1:3; others in Lachs 1987: 102), one’s head (m. Sanh. 3:2), God’s throne (Apoc. Mos. 19.2) and the temple service (Sifre Deut. 1.3.2). Jesus teaches that all oaths invoke God’s witness equally. Just as heaven, earth (Is 66:1–2), and Jerusalem (Ps 48:2; Mt 4:5; 27:53) belong to God (5:34–35), so do the hairs on one’s head (5:36; cf. 10:30); one has no genuine control over their aging (cf. 6:27; Pub. Syr. 215). (The assumption would have been that hair was black and turned white with age—Soph. Antig. 1092–93; Phaedrus 2.2.9–10; Babrius 22.2–3. Only deities and magicians could change colors—cf. Ovid Metam. 11.314.) All oaths implicitly call God to witness because everything that exists was made by him. This implies that for Jesus God was actively involved in all aspects of life; no part of life except sin was purely secular.

Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2009), 194–195.

In other words, this is about integrity and not making flippant oaths. It is not a violation to go into a courtroom and make an oath when you are required to do so. Too often, the people you are interacting with there do not know you and do not know a reputation that you have.

In the end, Madison says that:

The requirement that we manage our words perfectly should be deeply troubling to any follower of Jesus.

Madison, David. Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (p. 48). Insighting Growth Publications. Kindle Edition.

Yes. Yes it should be. This brings to mind a saying of Chesterton. Christianity has not been tried and found wanting. It’s been found difficult and left untried.

Perhaps we should ask why Madison doesn’t like this teaching. What are the words he would not want to be judged on?

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught Chapter 5

Is remarriage adultery? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So in this one, according to Madison, Jesus says all remarriage is adultery. We can be thankful that at least he went through the work of scholars like David Instone-Brewer and Craig Keener and….

If you’re laughing now, you know what’s coming.

Of course, he didn’t. Who needs to waste time with scholars?

This means that, according to Jesus, adultery is rampant among Christians, given the number of good believers who have been divorced and remarried. And one must wonder whether these followers of Jesus are admitting, when they get divorced, that God joining them together was his mistake?

Madison, David. Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (p. 40). Insighting Growth Publications. Kindle Edition.

First in response to this, he at first assumes all these divorces are mutual. As someone like myself who is wrongfully divorced, I fought tooth and nail to save my marriage. I also don’t claim all marriages are joined together by God directly, in the sense of God leading people to marry one another, but I do say that even if God does do something, that doesn’t mean we can’t resist His will and go against it. God didn’t make the mistake. We did.

“…except on the ground of unchastity…” Is it possible that even the writer of one of the gospels was embarrassed by something Jesus taught and added a qualifier to tone it down?

Madison, David. Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (p. 41). Insighting Growth Publications. Kindle Edition.

No. This either something explanatory put in, or else part of what Jesus said in the sermon. If anyone was divorced in Jewish thought, it would likely be assumed that they could remarry. The problem was that there were two schools of thought. One said you could divorce for any reason such as if she burned toast. Instone-Brewer has a quote from one rabbi who says divorce could take place if a prettier girl was found. (I got the book at the library and so am unable to quote it now.) The liberal side was from the Hillel school. The Shammai school tended to say divorce could only be allowed in the case of adultery.

Jesus steps into this discussion which is not about remarriage, but more about divorce. He sides with Shammai, but His case is strong. It needs to be a case of unfaithfulness to the covenant. I have had to do papers here on both the Gospels on divorce and Paul on divorce and came to the same conclusion. Scripture allows for remarriage in the case of wrongful divorce.

Madison goes on to say about Jesus’s command against lust that

So now Jesus is condemning sexual feelings, a teaching that ignores how we are built and has led to unnecessary shame and guilt for centuries. The Greek word translated “lust” in the passage could also mean “longing for” or “desiring.” Even the most devout Christians can’t help noticing when someone comes across to them as “really sexy” and feeling something that is more than simply appreciation. And anyone—Christian or not—who has ever had a partner understands how important sexual feelings can be in creating a mutual attraction between two individuals.

Madison, David. Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (p. 41). Insighting Growth Publications. Kindle Edition.

No. Jesus is not condemning sexual feelings and desires. He condemns an action in this case. It is looking at another man’s wife with the intention to lust after her. He is right that the word used does refer to strong desire, but He forgets there is an action involved. Why does He condemn this? Because if you are willing to look, it means you are closer to doing. The same could be said for emotional affairs. Open the door for something that seems innocent and it’s not too long many times before it ends in a hotel room.

So once again, Madison doesn’t really understand the passages.

We’ll continue next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught Chapter 4

Will you give me everything you have? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Remember the greatest commandment? Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength? Well, David Madison doesn’t like that commandment.

If you’re a follower of Jesus, ponder the implications of this text for your own life. Is it even possible to give God all? And why does the powerful God who is described as self-sufficient require this level of commitment—a level that few, if any, believers even strive for, let alone attain.

Madison, David. Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (p. 31). Insighting Growth Publications. Kindle Edition.

So in Christian thinking, God is the greatest good of all, the one who gives every good gift, redeems eventually from every suffering, forgives all your sin, loves you beyond measure, and everything else. Please, make sure you don’t overdo it in loving Him back.

God calls for the best and He deserves the best. What would it say if Jesus had said, “Oh, and make sure you give a little bit of honor to this God dude. Alright?”

He also talks about Ananias and Sapphira as an example and says most Christians either ignore it or explain it away.

I guess explain it away means “Give an explanation for it.”

Quite simple. They were never required to give everything. Peter says so in the text. They could have kept back some of it for themselves had they wanted. The problem was dishonesty and lying. They wanted to get all the glory for giving it all. For the fledgling church, it was needed to show that God is still serious about sin.

Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the treasury. For all of them have contributed out of their abundance; but she out of her poverty has put in everything she had, all she had to live on. (Mark 12:43-44, NRSV) This script fits Mark’s theme about extreme commitment earlier in the same chapter, and religious bureaucrats have commonly championed “giving until it hurts.” Yes, it’s a legitimate point that the rich don’t deserve high praise for giving away what they won’t miss, but commending the poor widow for her deed? That’s another matter. Under any normal, rational idea of what makes sense, it was not smart that the widow “put in all she had to live on.” It’s more logical to wonder why Jesus didn’t help her get the money back. Why would Jesus commend a mindset that prompts a widow to give away—to a mammoth religious bureaucracy—all the money she has to live on?

Madison, David. Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (p. 33). Insighting Growth Publications. Kindle Edition.

Something to note here is all Jesus says is she gave more than the others did since she gave all she had to live on. He never directly praises her. Could He have been doing that in showing her faithfulness? Yes. Could it be though that the temple was charging higher taxes and she had to give in all that she had? Also, yes. Did Jesus do anything to help this widow out after? The text doesn’t say.

So what about this one?

So therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions. (Luke 14:33 NRSV) Certainly this teaching has not stood the test of time. Even the most faithful believers pay little or no attention to it—sure evidence that Christians wish Jesus hadn’t said it.

Madison, David. Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (pp. 34-35). Insighting Growth Publications. Kindle Edition.

Actually, the original text doesn’t say possessions. It says all that he has. Looking at the text, what Jesus is talking about is total devotion. Don’t start building a tower unless you are ready to give it your all to finish it. Don’t go to war unless your all is sufficient to handle it. In the same way, if you want to be a disciple, make sure you’re all in.

Which would be standard for a disciple if he wanted to be devoted to a master’s teaching.

So once again, Madison gets basic things wrong that simple research could have answered.

We’ll continue next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

 

 

Theology And Suffering

Where do we live? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I have said a lot this week about atheology and the idea that we have God in a specific niche for how He is supposed to work in the world. Atheists think that God is not filling this niche and then abandon theism. We need to realize that we can be just as prone to that kind of thinking where we see God on a functional basis. God is not the ground of being, but rather a being who fills in the gaps for us and is supposed to comfort us. This has been known as moral therapeutic deism.

Final Fantasy IX has as its intro a song called “A Place To Call Home.” That’s really what we are to think as theists. This world is supposed to be our home. Yes. I am going to dispute the song that says “This world is not my home. I’m just passing through.” This world was created for God to dwell with man forever in, and if we read the end of Revelation, He has not abandoned that plan.

When we have suffering in our lives, we can dwell on it and get stuck in and let it consume us. Note I am not saying to never be depressed. When something tragic happens, by all means mourn. I am not telling you to be a stoic and to suppress all emotion and never feel sad.

That being said, there comes a time when you have to move on with your life. My divorce hurt immensely when it happened, but I couldn’t stay there. Did I have to spend some time mourning? Yes. Some times will take longer than others and to some extent I still mourn everyday, but when it comes to fighting evil in my own life, I couldn’t stay there.

If we focus on ourselves in the evil, we will likely have an entitlement mindset and think that we are even owed by God the solution that we want to our problem. It’s easy to go from “God didn’t do what He was supposed to” to “God doesn’t care about me” to “God doesn’t exist.”

However, we can also go another route and say that we are aware of the evil and we are going to do something to fight against the evil. I make it a point to try to help men who are going through divorce now whenever I can. I have been pleased to hear that my forthrightness has been a blessing to some men. I don’t want any man to walk this road alone.

That sense of injustice that we can have can drive us to do something about evil. If you think sex trafficking is an evil, you’re more prone to do something about it. The same with abortion or cults or anything else out there. Rather than give up on what you see as a problem, you go out there and do your part to help deal with the problem.

Yet I need to say one more thing about suffering. Some people can get so caught up in themselves and their suffering that they can think that they don’t belong at all in the world. We can claim the internet has led us to have global connections, but we have also missed local connections. How well do you know your next-door neighbors? Do you even know them at all? I notice living in an apartment complex on a seminary that most of us when we go home at the end of the day, we stay there.

It’s easy to feel alone in the world and feeling alone can easily lead to an idea that you don’t belong, especially when suffering hits. This can then lead to suicide. In order to think that is the best response, in some level, you must have built in an idea of God that He is supposed to do XYZ or else He doesn’t love you.

To a degree, it makes sense to us, but it is also very much focused on ourselves. One of the greatest helps we could have to dealing with suffering is to have good doctrine about God and our relationship to Him. That has made a tremendous difference in the suffering that I have experienced. If you are thinking this way, please go somewhere like here. Reach out to someone. You are not an accident and you do belong here.

Please.

Possibly tomorrow we will return to reviewing the atheist book I have been reviewing.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth.)

Atheology and the Problem of Evil

What kind of God should deal with evil? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

In yesterday’s post, I wrote about a certain idea of God that many evangelistic atheists have. We could describe this as a functional god. This god is meant to explain the universe. This god is meant to be a presence to me in suffering.

When it looks like the universe works scientifically on its own and that there is no emotional presence, then atheism seems rational to these people. Let’s consider another aspect of this. What about evil?

Too often, we theists have been on the defensive end in this area. It is up to us to explain why a good God allows evil. What never seems to go answered is “Why should God be obligated to deal with evil at all, let alone in XYZ manner?” To say that God has to deal with evil is to assume that God has an obligation to us.

Note I am not saying that God will not deal with evil. I am questioning the why He will and the how and when of His doing so. If an atheist says that God needs to deal with evil, they have in mind a certain theology of the God that they think should defeat it, but what is this God like? We need to know.

For instance, why should God have to deal with what we deem to be a problem on our terms? Why should He have to deal with it as a being with unlimited resources in a way that we think is amenable to our limited resources? You need more of an answer than “I want Him to” or “If He really loved us, He would do it this way.” Why?

Could it be that evil really became a problem when we thought the universe was meant to be a place that was just to make us happy and that it was all about us? I get that people have talked about suffering and wondered about it for awhile, but at the same time, they didn’t jump to atheism. Job and his friends never doubted the reality of the deity, but just debated what He was like.

The problem of evil is in many ways asking a question about justice. Will there be any justice in the universe? We often have the saying of justice delayed is not justice denied, and it is true. Just because justice isn’t happening immediately doesn’t mean it’s not happening at all.

A Christian specifically views this world as intentional and while this world is not all about our happiness, it is meant for us to live in. We were made for this place. In a sense, this is our home. Someone else like Richard Dawkins will instead look at the world and say in River Out of Eden.

“In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”

Yet if this is the way the universe is, then why do we have this longing for justice? Why do we cling to ideas of good and evil? Does Dawkins? Not at all. Look at any moral crusade Dawkins goes on, whether he’s right or wrong in it, he certainly thinks he’s going out for something good. He certainly thinks science is a good worth pursuing. He certainly thinks Christianity is damaging to young people.

And this is what we really need to be asking atheists. What is this idea of good that you hold to? What is this idea of evil? We use these terms and speak about them as if we all know what they mean when they really don’t. I, as a classical theist, ask atheists to tell me what they mean by good. If good boils down to what you want and evil to what you don’t want, then you are saying that the universe should bow to your desires and that if God were real, He would do the same. Not much of a god then.

Then, we need to go beyond that and ask what their idea of God is like. Yes. Atheists have an idea of what God would be like if He existed. One such seems to be He would deal with evil in such and such a way in such and such a time. They also think that this is an obligation on His part.

There is another point I would like to make on this and this is in the question of suffering, but that is for another day.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Atheism And The Search For Purpose

Is Atheism looking for meaning? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I am reading through a book for a class now called Bulwarks of Unbelief. I am finding it quite good and the main question being asked is “What made atheism a strong enough possibility that many people now embrace it?” Now some might go the route of Richard Dawkins and say it was Darwin who made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. Is that it? Is it really that we found a scientific explanation for something and then God was out of a job?

That doesn’t really fit since in the medieval period science was being done and none of it was thought to be the end of God. If anything, it was thought to be explaining and upholding God. If anyone was filling in the gaps of our scientific knowledge, it was the Christians. Yet nowhere in this do you see them saying “Does this put God out of a job?”

The writer of the book, Joseph Minich, brings up Marx and how Marx thought man felt alienated from his labor. Now I oppose Marxism through and through, but while I don’t care for the man, that doesn’t mean he was wrong on everything. Could there be a sense of alienation Marx was right to find, but that he had the wrong solution and explanation for?

Consider this as an example. Before I came here to the seminary, I worked at a Wal-Mart in Tennessee. Now when the time came that I left to come here, what happened? Did the store shut down because I was gone and obviously, no one could do the work that I did and so that was it?

Nope. Hire someone else. I was entirely replaceable. This can be in contrast to a time when a son learned his father’s trade and the business was passed on from generation to generation and there was an investment in one’s labor.

Not only this, but while I was there, did I really care about my job? Nope. I hated it. I liked some of the people that I worked with, but I hated the work that I did. I knew I was expendable and that I was underutilized and that my skills were not being used to the best of their ability.

So yes, I do think the alienation is real.

Minich thinks the main culprit here is technology. We have made the world more and more impersonal. As the world becomes more impersonal, we have a harder time seeing a person behind it all. The world seems to function like a machine.

As a divorced man, I do think there is something to the disconnect from society. I notice when I come home, I go to my apartment building and there are several other apartments. Truth be told, I hardly know anyone in my own building. I have hardly ever had guests over to do anything with me. I also suspect that I am not alone in this. Many of you probably know your Facebook friends better than people you see every day.

As a gamer, I also miss a certain time in life. That was the time of what is now known as couch gaming. Yes, I can play games online with several people and that’s fine, but really, nothing beats getting together and playing Goldeneye, Street Fighter, Smash Brothers, and other multi-player games together in person. Now I can play a game with people I know nothing about and have no investment in other than a desire to win.

Now I think technology could be a part of it, but I also think there is something even bigger looming in the background. If there is a sense of alienation from one’s work and then from the society as a whole, what if there is also that sense from the world entire? What if it seems like we have a world that because we have fostered the natural/supernatural divide, seems to work on its own?

What does this give us but a world without purpose? I find this especially interesting since in my study into game theology, I am noting that purpose is something we all long for. When we think we have a quest, a battle, a goal, we can come alive.

Now this post is a sort of thinking out loud, but it does explain to me not just atheism in that sense, but a certain kind of atheism. You probably know the type. Let’s be clear this is not all atheists as I suspect some atheist readers of this blog will be able to hear the description and say “Yes. I know someone like that. I agree with their atheism, but I don’t agree with their other beliefs about it.”

For sake of discussion, let’s refer to these as a sort of evangelistic atheist. These are atheists who think that they have been delivered from the shackles of irrationality and superstition by being embracing atheism. They now think that all theists they meet are ignorant fools who stay cloistered away from anything that goes against them, believe anything without evidence (Constantly thinking faith is belief without evidence), hate science, are sexual prudes entirely, always vote Republican, and that Christianity has done nothing but harm for the world.

These are the people you find in Facebook groups who seem to do nothing all day long but argue against Christians and other theists. I consider it something akin to many that I see on the left who have what is called Trump-Derangement Syndrome. Whatever you think of him, these are people who seem to have their lives more dominated by Trump than any conservatives that I know. As many of my fellow conservatives say, he lives rent-free in their heads.

If you are an atheist who says “I don’t think God exists, but I know that there are many Christians who do and many of them are smart people and have good reasons for what they believe”, then you are not one of the people I am speaking of. You can also say “I do agree that Christianity has done a lot of good for the world and many people are better for being Christians.” You will debate with Christians, but it is never about who is smarter than the other based on worldviews alone.

When I have seen these evangelistic atheists in the past, I have been confused by it. If you really thought this was the way the world was, why are you wasting your time here? Go on vacation regularly and hit the beach. if you think there is ultimate wrong and right, why not just go out every night sleeping around?

If I am correct, the answer now is obvious. These people are still wanting to find some sort of reading, something that they can do in the world, and they have decided they will be evangelists for atheism to set people free from the shackles of theism into the glorious light of science and reason. Dare I say it, this could be considered a cultic form of atheism.

When I have met atheists like this, they are amazingly like the idea of Christians that they always go against. They refuse to read anything that disagrees with them. They have the entire side painted in an us vs. them battle and the other side is just ignorant of the real truth out there. They alone are the sole bearers of freedom and they must deliver the good news. They will often go about their personal experiences of how they were once Christians. They will not investigate any other ideas contrary to what they believe. They also love the fellowship of other like-minded atheists and seem to have a mutual admiration society going on.

When it comes to the Bible, it must always be interpreted literalistically. They will believe anything whatsoever provided it agrees with them without researching it. If anything could make the other side look bad, it is automatically true. If anything makes it look good or at least is neutral to it, it is automatically false.

I suppose I could go on if need be, but I suspect you get the idea. So, why they do it then is they do it to at least give themselves some sense of purpose. They can think that they are accomplishing something. If work doesn’t give fulfillment and pleasure doesn’t, you have to go somewhere else to get ultimate fulfillment.

Part of my study into gaming theology has been that we have a need for quests in order to find fulfillment. We want to be part of a grand story. If my theory is true, why should that be just the case for Christians? It will be just as true for atheists or any other position. Evangelistic atheists get some fulfillment then out of what they do in spreading their gospel of atheism.

This is a theory that for me is just in its opening stages. This post is a sort of thinking out loud. i do invite your opinions on the matter and especially if you are an atheist that would be not an evangelistic atheist and can say “I know some of the atheists you talk about and yes, this does seem to describe them.”

I look forward to hearing from you.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)