My question:
If we can immediately recognize the story of the three pigs when the story is altered, and we can tell someone is simply stealing the story line, why would anyone accept the authority of the Biblical records during the times of the Old Testament and the early Church? Are we supposed to think people were so stupid back then that they didn't recognize what, for them, would have been fairly contemporary tales? Maybe they did recognize them but felt the retellings so much superior that they were worth dying for. Methinks Dan is simply employing transference when it comes to the diminished capacity he suffers from.
Dan crying like a little girl:
Dan Barker: I object (to James White interacting with quotes from Barker's own book Godless) because we're not debating my book...you don't know that I may have changed my mind in the mean time...I may have changed my mind about ether, for example...for the record, I think it's inappropriate...I didn't quote anything you wrote...
James White: That's the point, that's the problem. We need to deal with what someone has actually put into the public realm.
19 comments:
MP3 audio can be found here.
Watched the debate. The athiest got trounced. I think one thing this debate really highlighted was the difference between an internet scholar and a real scholar.
I am a little disappointed in the wording of your post here. It seems to me, as christians, we should endeavor not to belittle our neighbors.
1 Peter 3:15-16
But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
1 Kings 18:27
27 And so it was, at noon, that Elijah mocked them and said, “Cry aloud, for he is a god; either he is meditating, or he is busy, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is sleeping and must be awakened.”
Tea and sympathy, that's what Elijah should've brought.
Surely you see the difference between Elijah's reducto absurdem argument here, and the phrases.
"This was apparently a brilliant set-up in the small mind of Mr. Barker."
and
"Methinks Dan is simply employing transference when it comes to the diminished capacity he suffers from."
and,
"Dan crying like a little girl:"
These phrases are immature and furthermore do nothing to help your argument.
Last of all I fail to see how your phrases show gentleness or respect as Peter has commanded us to do.
Aaron, you call Elijah's words reductio ad absurdem, God's Word calls it mocking. I assure you, Elijah wasn't in an argument, he was outright mocking idolaters...he even becomes crass and suggests that their god is relieving himself.
Can you harmonize that with Peter's writing? It's actually rather simple. I can use one word: context.
Peter is directing us how to live with others on an every day basis. If Joe atheist sits down with me, or I bump into him, and he says things similar to Dan Barker, I will engage him, but won't mock him.
Once Joe Atheist takes to actually proclaiming his folly and leading others to do likewise, then it's time to test him as a believer ought to test every unbelieving system: With truth, and yes, some mockery.
Dan was being a cry baby, and his arguments were so bad, and so stupid, that it is bewildering to think he has amassed a following. He is a fool, and is downright dumb...D-U-M-M, dumb. Beyond that, it is absolutely shameful, and he ought to be mocked.
What good do you achieve by mockery? Is it to turn the fool to repentence or to feed your own pride? Only you and God know the answer to that question.
James 3:13-18
Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show it by his good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom. But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth. Such "wisdom" does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, of the devil. For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you find disorder and every evil practice.
But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness.
Aaron, please stop trying to peer into my soul. What will that accomplish?
If you'd like to know what good mockery can do...ask Elijah.
I'd like to think that atheists will see the garbage Danny spews out and understand the New Atheist movement for the foolish, arrogant, idiotic pride it is...and atheists *do* read my blog.
If I really wanted to stroke my pride I'd go around guilting other believers with mishandled scripture.
In what way am I mishandling scripture?
Aaron,
I don't want to go through a meaningless exchange. Fact is, I believe mockery is warranted. I already gave you reason for this. I also stated the difference between Elijah's mockery and the admonition from Peter, which showed there is a place for mockery and Peter's words were not a universal principle pertaining to all mocking...it was specifically directed in its application.
If you'd like to think me prideful, and state as much publicly, then the onus (at this point) would be for you to go through the trouble of showing me how Peter's words apply to public discourse, especially discourse set about trying to convince people of error.
After you've done this, you must then try to mesh Elijah's actions with Peter's words...at this point, *you* would have a contradiction.
Amazing that humility from some means border-line slander is a-okay while it is the height of arrogance to mock those who make fools of themselves mocking God.
The Main difference is that Elijah was not mocking the false prophets directly. He was mocking their god and their idea of god.
I do not accuse you of pride. I merely suggested as a possibility for you to look at in yourself. I couldnt possibly know what goes through your head. I know it is a possibility because when I mock people myself it is usually out of pride.
Thus the pattern for public debate using the principles of 1 Peter is to heap scorn and ridicule on ideas worthy of such but for the person themselves we should treat with gentleness and respect. We should remember that unregenerate man is full of pride and the whole reason why we are talking to them is because we are attempting to reform them and reclaim their souls for Christ. If we anger or insult them their pride will rear its head and cause them to not listen to what we have to say.
CA: "The Main difference is that Elijah was not mocking the false prophets directly."
It seems your use of "directly" is an attempt at wiggling around what Elijah was doing. God's Word is not embarrassed. God says: "Elijah mocked them".
CA: "I do not accuse you of pride. I merely suggested as a possibility for you to look at in yourself."
That's disingenuous. Here's what you said before: "What good do you achieve by mockery? Is it to turn the fool to repentence or to feed your own pride? Only you and God know the answer to that question."
You presented an either/or...either I'm seeking Barker's repentance, OR I'm feeding my own pride. I'd say "not necessarily either"...but since it's not necessarily the former, then (according to you) it's me feeding my pride.
You were careful to couch your most recent comment by suggesting this was simply you presenting me the opportunity for introspection...I wonder why it comes across as though you're weaseling out of what you've already said and are trying to put a halo on it?
Be a man, Aaron. Tell me I'm arrogant and proud or admit you're being weaselly.
CA: "We should remember that unregenerate man is full of pride and the whole reason why we are talking to them is because we are attempting to reform them and reclaim their souls for Christ. If we anger or insult them their pride will rear its head and cause them to not listen to what we have to say."
What's amazing is that Elijah didn't seem to care about reforming the objects of his ridicule...in fact, he didn't send out an altar call after God vindicated him, this prophet who scoffs evangelized thusly:
And Elijah said to them, “Seize the prophets of Baal! Do not let one of them escape!” So they seized them; and Elijah brought them down to the Brook Kishon and executed them there.
Perhaps that was gentle...maybe Elijah use a ginsu sword...those are so sharp they don't hurt (so I've heard).
Craig,
I think you come off sounding proud and arrogant. Whether that's true or not is beside the point. When you sound that way, it hurts your witness.
CA has done an excellent job of gently suggesting this to you, I think. Yet you keep defending yourself. To me, that looks like pride. Whether it is or not, I don't know.
He made a valid point worth considering. Personally, I think Peter's prescriptive exhortation (among many others in the NT) outweighs one descriptive narrative in the OT. But that's just me.
It seems your use of "directly" is an attempt at wiggling around what Elijah was doing. God's Word is not embarrassed. God says: "Elijah mocked them".
Its not wiggling its hermeneutics. Elijah was mocking by heaping scorn and contempt on their god, in order to show the falsity of their beliefs. You mock by calling Dan stupid. Surely you can see the subtleties there.
That's disingenuous. Here's what you said before: "What good do you achieve by mockery? Is it to turn the fool to repentence or to feed your own pride? Only you and God know the answer to that question."
You presented an either/or...either I'm seeking Barker's repentance, OR I'm feeding my own pride. I'd say "not necessarily either"...but since it's not necessarily the former, then (according to you) it's me feeding my pride.
This is a false accusation. I never used the word either. I mentioned two possibilities and never had in mind an either or dichotemy. there could be other reasons.
You were careful to couch your most recent comment by suggesting this was simply you presenting me the opportunity for introspection...I wonder why it comes across as though you're weaseling out of what you've already said and are trying to put a halo on it?
So when I attempt to clarify what I was saying it is weasel like? It was clear to me that I had not communicated effectively what I meant to say so I said it differently.
Be a man, Aaron. Tell me I'm arrogant and proud or admit you're being weaselly.
Oh I have no doubt you are arrogant and proud. Just as I am at times. Praise God that we have grace and forgiveness through the blood of Christ. But by no means should we go on sinning but instead we should seek to reform our ways with His help.
1 John 1:8-10
If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.
What's amazing is that Elijah didn't seem to care about reforming the objects of his ridicule...in fact, he didn't send out an altar call after God vindicated him, this prophet who scoffs evangelized thusly:
And Elijah said to them, “Seize the prophets of Baal! Do not let one of them escape!” So they seized them; and Elijah brought them down to the Brook Kishon and executed them there.
Perhaps that was gentle...maybe Elijah use a ginsu sword...those are so sharp they don't hurt (so I've heard).
You do realize that Elijah was before Christ right? Elijah was not there to reform the false prophets. He was there to kill them and turn the people of Isreal back to God.
Brian,
I take words like you shared in stride. CA has a tendency of doing this...I'm taking him to task.
I realize that, generally speaking, this just doesn't look pretty. That's because it isn't.
Aaron: Its not wiggling its hermeneutics. Elijah was mocking by heaping scorn and contempt on their god, in order to show the falsity of their beliefs. You mock by calling Dan stupid. Surely you can see the subtleties there.
I haven't simply called Dan stupid. By using Dan's debate tactics, lack of research (probably a result of quote-mining), I made clear (I hope) he has a blind hatred of God that makes him do and say absolutely stupid things. Similarly, the prophets of Baal, from blind hatred of Yahweh, took to screaming and cutting themselves to drown out the error of their ways that was crying out. New Atheists are no different. It is Romans 1 in action.
This is a false accusation. I never used the word either. I mentioned two possibilities and never had in mind an either or dichotemy. there could be other reasons.
I can't read your heart, but certainly you can see by presenting two possibilities: A) seeking the repentance of a sinner "Or" (your word) B) feeding my own pride...it's not like I took a giant leap. I'll leave that between you and God. He searches out all things.
Oh I have no doubt you are arrogant and proud.
You'd be right on the money. No denials here :)
You do realize that Elijah was before Christ right? Elijah was not there to reform the false prophets. He was there to kill them and turn the people of Isreal back to God.
John 8:56
Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.
Romans 4:3
What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."
Romans 9:8
In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring. (and this is using Gen 21:12 as a proof text, btw)
Do you see a discontinuity between what you're saying and what God's Word says, Aaron? The Promise that Abraham believed was his righteousness...Christ's blood is effectual from the beginning of the world. The Gospel of Jesus was in effect in the OT. There was even Law in place to protect sojourners and including them as part of God's people...the very Promise of salvation was intended (from the beginning) to go to all peoples...after all, Paul uses that as a proof text.
Writing Elijah off as simply being B.C. won't cut it. If the inclusion of foreigners by way of converting from false religion to true religion was in operation in the OT by statute, then your application of Peter's words cannot jive with Elijah's actions.
Writing Elijah off as simply being B.C. won't cut it. If the inclusion of foreigners by way of converting from false religion to true religion was in operation in the OT by statute, then your application of Peter's words cannot jive with Elijah's actions.
They surely can. In the old testament God brings temporal judgement for two reasons.
1. to purify the earth from the corruption of man
2. to discipline man in order to induce repentence and righteous action.
This story has a little bit of both. Elijah was the only prophet of God left. All the others had been hunted down and killed by Ahab and his false prophets. The people of Isreal had turned away from God, again, to bow their knees to gods who were not. Thus God sent a drought throughout the land for 3 years. at the end of this time we have this capstone event. In the end the people of Isreal turn from their wicked ways and put to death the false prophets, who by their own blasphemous actions have rejected Gods grace. There is nothing left for them but destruction.
You are also mishandling scripture by saying that the actions of a fallible man, even a prophet of God, are righteous. The bible is full of righteous men doing unrighteous deeds. That does not mean we can emmulate their unrighteousness.
Thus Peters exhortation here would apply also to Elijah, by your argument, and Elijah was sinning. (if your interpretation of the mocking is correct.)
CA: "In the old testament God brings temporal judgement for two reasons.
1. to purify the earth from the corruption of man
2. to discipline man in order to induce repentence and righteous action."
Why would these be limited to the OT? Think of Annanias and Sapphira. Think of Paul telling Christians many are sick and have died because they partook of the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner.
CA: "This story has a little bit of both."
I would agree.
CA: "You are also mishandling scripture by saying that the actions of a fallible man, even a prophet of God, are righteous. The bible is full of righteous men doing unrighteous deeds. That does not mean we can emmulate their unrighteousness."
You are correct that the Bible records many things, but doesn't necessarily commend those actions just by recording them. Contextually, everything that's going on is an antithesis set between God and His prophet and Baal and his prophets.
While it is true that many things are recorded but not commended, we see here a powerful antithesis between a man chosen by God to be His mouthpiece and those serving Baal. Why should anyone take an anachronistic reading over the one I've laid out?
CA: "Thus Peters exhortation here would apply also to Elijah, by your argument, and Elijah was sinning. (if your interpretation of the mocking is correct.)"
There's consistency on your part, at least. God's Word did say Elijah was mocking the prophets of Baal, so you ought to conclude he was sinning.
But mockery was limited to Elijah. Paul used it in his epistles, referring to men as "super apostles", and recommending those preaching a false gospel of circumcision cut off their manhood.
So I've demonstrated that there is continuity between the OT and NT...that Elijah's actions were part of the antithesis established at Carmel, and that even in the NT mockery was used (by another Apostle, no less...and it's inscripturated).
There is a place for mockery...note, I'm not giving a blanket statement of "Go around mocking people"...I'm saying there are circumstances where mocking is not merely permissible, but advisable:
Proverbs 1:25-27
25 Because you disdained all my counsel,And would have none of my rebuke,26 I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your terror comes,27 When your terror comes like a storm, And your destruction comes like a whirlwind,When distress and anguish come upon you.
In the context of dishonest Danny, we don't have an ignorant atheist (well, we do in one sense). We have a *former* professing Christian...one who even wrote worship music (and still collects the royalties)...who now seeks to openly, unabashedly lead men away from sound words. He does this by deceit, stupidity, and arrogance. Yes, he fits the role of the prophets of Baal quite nicely and he's fit for mocking.
As with Elijah, Paul is mocking the concept/Idea, not the person. There is a difference between mocking an impersonal idea and a personal human being.
Just because he was a christian at one time and is now an athiest does not mean he is irredeamable. I too rejected God and became an athiest and yet God saw fit to grant me mercy and grace. Praise be to God from whom all blessings flow.
Aaron,
I never said atheists are beyond redemption, and I never implied that Dan Barker is beyond redemption.
You insist that some impersonal concept is being mocked...yet Scripture says Elijah *mocked THEM*. Paul didn't encourage a conceptually false gospel to take a flying leap into a lake, he told *men* to go cut their penises off. Proverbs gives clear indication that there is place for mockery, and God Himself *mocks* sinners.
Are you sure you want to stand by your assertion (contrary to what is actually stated in the Bible) that Elijah was merely mocking a concept? Was he so tactful when he shortly thereafter executed them?
I too rejected God and became an athiest and yet God saw fit to grant me mercy and grace.
I am glad for that...and perhaps it's that you feel a kinship with atheists since you were one (just as Paul ached for his brethren in the flesh). Just as Paul was a Pharasaical legalist before he was converted, and he loved fellow Jews, he also wasn't afraid of confronting the circumcision. Peter wasn't afraid to tell his kinsman that they crucified our Lord.
I know you don't agree with me, but I think I've taken the time to be clear about what is acceptable mocking. I have said it is suited for those who would publicly blaspheme and lead others into said blasphemy. There may be other times, but at this point, I can't think of another.
Post a Comment