|
Get News & Event Updates
|
Suggested Links
Login Form
Syndicate
| "Dialogue with a Christian Proselytizer" and "Fundamentalisms" - Atheists Talk #045 - Nov. 16, 2008 |
|
What if the Christian god really existed? That's the premise that author Todd Allen Gates takes in his book "Dialogue with a Christian Proselytizer." What conclusions can we reach about this Christian god? One of the book's main themes is: "If you understand why you reject all the other religions, you'll understand why I reject yours." Then Grant Steves discusses "Fundamentalisms." What do religious, political, and other fundamentalisms have in common? Is there such a thing as atheist fundamentalism?
Produced by Minnesota Atheists. Directed by August Berkshire. Hosted by Bjorn Watland.
Grant Steves will speak on "Fundamentalisms" at the Minnesota Atheists public meeting, Sunday, November 16, 2008, 2:00 p.m. at Ramsey County Library, 2180 Hamline Ave. N. (Hamline Ave. & County Road B), Roseville.
"Dialogue with a Christian Proselytizer" - an interview of Todd Allen Gates by Mike Haubrich.
"Fundamentalisms" - an interview of Grant Steves by August Berkshire.
Recommended Books:
SPONSORS:
Listen to AM 950 KTNF on Sunday at 9AM Central to hear Atheists Talk produced by Minnesota Atheists.
Stream live online.
Call the studio at 952-946-6205 or email us at
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Bookmark
Email This
Hits: 5538 Trackback(0)
Comments (6)
Natasha Cramer
said:
|
|||||||||||||
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed|
... I watched the videos 1-5 Titled "Dialogue with a Christian Proselytizer". And was wondering if there were any way for me to contact Todd Allen Gates and inform him that he has made a substantial error with his logic. He uses the condition that the religion recognize one single God-instituted religion, and all others are man-made. Plus he states that the Christians, who believe there is truth in all religions are not proselytizers. This is actually stated as being exactly so in the catechism (far from being an obscure source of information) of the Catholic Church. It then proceeds to explain lightly how this fits into Catholic theology. His other discussions are very interesting, but this additional information also affects his point on similarity of occurrences between Christian documentation and that of other religions, as he describes briefly with the mentioning of "new age Christians". |
Natasha Cramer
said:
|
... I think I was a bit unclear. The Cathecism doesn't talk about proselytizers, rather that there is truth in all religions, in nature itself actually. Additionally, he probably should have omitted the comment that those who believe this are not proselytizers, simply because the Catholic Church is quite sizable, and I don't believe it would be terribly difficult to find liturgies, pamphlets or I even papal statements on this concept. |
Natasha Cramer
said:
|
... Darn-it, I keep forgetting pieces. I wanted to add: He brought up the fact that the concept of a virgin conceiving via the influence of the father God being found in other religions somewhat undermines the validity of Christianity is a bit strange. This happens in the the Old Testament (Jewish documented) in Isaiah (er, I'm pretty sure.). Catholic doctrine at no point claims that Jewish documentation is a "man-made" religion because it contains historical similarities to Jesus' life. Rather the concept is well-broadcast, that the New Testament must be read in the context of the Old Testament Because the former is the Fulfillment of the latter. It was considered prophesy by the Jews (as described in the story of Herod being visited by the 3 wise men, and he asks his courtly priests where the babe is supposed to be born. But we know that they knew that this Old Testament story was considered and actual, documented historical event. A virgin conceives a child who becomes a military liberator). Prophecy, by Christian standards, is God-revealed truth not yet come to pass in Human time. Some of it's obvious, some metaphorical. These above additional points, however, seem to require a complete restructuring of his Socratic method use, since he made these of the fundamental conditions to his argument. |
Todd Allen Gates
said:
|
... Hi Natasha, First, let me first summarize our two stances. I said that in trying to make sense out of the world's thousands of claims of possessing insight to Divine Knowledge (as found in Bahaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Sikhism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, all the unwritten claims from the oral traditions of pre-literate religions, and so on), the proselytizing Christian rejects the "New Age" idea that all the world's religions are all just different roads to the same Higher Power, but instead believes that just one religion was inspired by God, and all the rest came from nowhere but the fertile human imagination. Your first two objections, as I understand them: #1: it's not true that Christians reject all other religions: the catechism of the Catholic Church says there is truth in all religions. #2: people who believe there is truth in all religions can nonetheless be proselytizers: there are liturgies, pamphlets, and even papal statements on this subject. I think there may actually be no disagreement between us, as long as we make a distinction between: (a) theists who believe there is truth in other religions in those areas in which rival religions say nothing that contradicts his/her own religion, and (b) New Age theists who believe there is little difference from one religion to the next--it doesn't matter which one you follow, because they're all just different paths to the same mountain top. So I would say that the Catholic Church falls into "Category A." Yes, the Church recognizes that there are "truths" in a variety of religions (just as there is "truth" in Aesop's Fables), but in those areas where other religions (or Aesop's Fables, etc.) *contradicts* Catholicism, then Catholicism believes that its beliefs are the ones God approves of, and the rival contradictory beliefs are just things people made up on their own. I confess that I'm unfamiliar with the particular Catholic catechism that you're referring to, but I believe the following quote from C.S. Lewis does a good job of summing up Category A's position (this is from Lewis' book Mere Christianity, page 43): * * * "If you are a Christian you do not have to believe that all the other religions are simply wrong all through. If you are an atheist you do have to believe that the main point in all the religions of the whole word is simply one huge mistake. If you are a Christian, you are free to think that all these religions, even the queerest one, contain at least some hint of the truth. When I was an atheist I had to try to persuade myself that most of the human race has always been wrong about the question that mattered to them most; when I became a Christian I was able to take a more liberal view. "But, of course, being a Christian DOES mean thinking that where Christianity differs from other religions, Christianity is right and they are wrong. As in arithmetic--there is only one right answer to a sum, and all other answers are wrong: but some of the wrong answers are much nearer to being right than others." * * * So for example, yes, Christians and Muslims both think each other's beliefs are "right" when it comes to the belief in one god, and the general belief that this god doesn't want us to steal from each other or murder each other (at least not within our respective communities!). But when it comes to things like: "God forbids us from drinking alcohol, and wants us to pray in the direction of Mecca 5x a day," Vs. "God doesn't mind alcohol in moderation (Jesus Himself served wine) and issued no pray-towards Mecca rules, but you do need to accept Christ as your savior" ---well, Christianity & Islam *don't* recognize both of these as "truths." Islam believes the first is from God and the second "came from man's imagination," and Christianity believes the exact opposite. I think your second objection--that people who believe there is truth in all religions can still be proselytizers--can also be satisfied by making this same distinction: that is, again, there's a difference between: (a) theists who believe there is truth in other religions in those areas in which rival religions say nothing that contradicts his/her own religion, and (b) New Age theists who believe there is little difference from one religion to the next--it doesn't matter which one you follow, because they're all just a different paths to the same mountain top. So yes, Christians such as C.S. Lewis believe there are some truths in other religions, and yes, he still "proselytizes" (in that he wrote Mere Christianity in order to promote Christianity). But Lewis also believes that in every area in which Bahaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Sikhism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, tribal witchcraft, etc. contradicts Christianity--well, then Lewis believes that the others are wrong and Christianity is right. Or in other words, Lewis would say that the Christian doctrines are part of God's Word, and that which contradicts God's Word was just made up by people. Now, when it comes to the "New Age" Category B theists ... well, how would they even go about proselytizing? "Proselytize" means "to try to convert someone to one's own religious faith"--but if these New Agers believe that all religions are just different paths to the same Higher Power, this means they don't have enough strong direction to try to "direct" anyone anywhere. A Christian proselytizer will try to direct you to Christ. A New Age proselytizer (if one existed) would say, "Christ, Buddha, Mohammed, Zoroaster, Zeus, Thor, The Pink Invisible Unicorn--it doesn't matter: many paths, one destination!" The New Ager's beliefs--at least generally speaking (there are always exceptions)--are for the most part simply too fuzzy to provide the firm frame of reference that's required for proselytizing. |
Todd Allen Gates
said:
|
... Comment 2 of 2: Your third objection was that the concept of a virgin conceiving via the influence of the father came not from rival pagan religions (Zoroastrian, Greek, and Roman mythology), but was mentioned in the Old Testament, in the book of Isaiah. My response is that on the one hand, yes, most Old Testament translations of Isaiah 7:14 say: Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. - the Old Testament, KJV But on the other hand, note that when you read the source of the Old Testament, the Hebrew Bible (which is nearly the same, but not identical to the Old Testament), you'll see that it's a "young woman" who will conceive, not a "virgin": Behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. - the Hebrew Bible Here's a chronological explanation of how the different translations of Isaiah 7:14 came about: 742–539 B.C.: The original chapters of Isaiah were written in Hebrew. The Hebrew word for the mother-to-be is *almah,* which means "a young woman sexually mature/capable of bearing a child." (It does not mean "virgin," the Hebrew word for which is *betulah*.) c. 250 B.C.: The Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek, a translation called the Septuagint. The Greeks translate the Hebrew *almah* into the Greek *parthenos,* a word that can mean either "a young woman" or "virgin" depending on its context. A.D. 1611 to the present: The Hebrew Bible's translation into English was based on the Hebrew text, not the Greek, as the Hebrew was recognized as the original. But when it came to Isaiah 7:14, most translations--from the first King James Version (1611) to the majority of today's versions--bypassed the Hebrew *almah* and switched to the Septuagint's *parthenos,* translating the word as "virgin" rather than "young woman." This switch made the Old Testament "fit" better with the New Testament (even if it's an artificial fit), particularly Matthew 1:23's line "Behold, a virgin shall be with child." At least four Christian translations, however--the Revised Standard Version, the New Revised Standard Version, the Bible in Basic English, and the Good News Translation--do not alter the Hebrew text, and translate *almah* as "young woman." A footnote to Isaiah 7:14 in the Good News Translation is even honest enough to acknowledge that the Hebrew word for "young woman" is not the specific term for "virgin," but that such a translation is based on the Greek version, which came about some five hundred years after Isaiah was written. (Main sources: John Gray, Near Eastern Mythology, p. 118; Andrew D. Benson, The Origins of Christianity and the Bible, p. 285–288; and the essay "A Virgin-Birth Prophecy?" by Kenneth E. Nahigian, from The Skeptical Review No. 2 [1993]). Judaism's teachings on Isaiah 7--and I believe this stands for any objective reading of the text--is that it only refers to a story about Jerusalem. The chapter starts out with the threat Jerusalem faced from the allied forces of Syria and Israel (Jerusalem was separate from Israel at the time), and then tells of God's promise to protect Jerusalem: God tells Isaiah and his wife they will have a son named Immanuel, and that before the child is old enough to know right from wrong, Jerusalem's enemies will be destroyed. Many Christians interpret the birth of Isaiah's son Immanuel (who appears in Isaiah 8) as "also" referring to Mary's conception of Jesus, but this comes out of nowhere. So I maintain that it is accurate to say that (1) the Hebrew Bible contains no mention of a virgin birth, and (2) the pagans (Zoroastrians, Greeks, Romans, etc.) have ancient myths about male gods impregnating mortal virgin maidens that pre-date the Christian version by centuries. And as evidence that this is not just something that skeptics have just made up by distorting the dates of pagan religions to make them only seem pre-Christian, note that even early Christian Church Fathers (in particular, Tertullian and Justin Martyr) acknowledged the presence of virgin birth stories that pre-date Jesus. These early Church Fathers of course didn't say that this is because the gospels copied the pagan myths--their explanation was that Satan pre-plagiarized the Bible. That is, the Church Fathers argued that centuries before Jesus came to earth, the devil made something of a pre-emptive strike against Him by planting these early virgin birth stories in pagan religions in order to trick the public into thinking Jesus's virgin birth was just a copy of those stories. The Church Fathers referred to this ploy of Satan's as "plagiarism by anticipation" and "diabolical mimicry." Take the ancient Greek story of Zeus impregnating the virgin Princess Danae by visiting her in the form of a ray of sunlight (which Homer describes as a "shower of gold"), resulting in the famous half-human half-god Perseus (the hero who slays Medusa). The early Christian apologist Justin Martyr commented on this story in his work called Dialogue of Justin: "When I hear ... that Perseus was begotten of a virgin, I understand that the deceiving serpent counterfeited also this." As for which explanation for pre-Christian virgin birth stories is the more plausible: (a) the Christian apologist answer that Satan planted those stories in the pagan religions to fool us (b) the people who wrote the New Testament were influenced by pre-existing religious beliefs ---well, that goes beyond the scope of our current conversation! Besides, I'm happy to just let people ponder this question on their own. Thanks for writing! - Todd |
Natasha Cramer
said:
|
... Wow! Thank you so much for taking the time to do this for me! I hope you don't mind my follow up. I agree that Catholics=Type a. That said, I wasn't actually saying that "New Age" can proselytize, because I thought you were defining "New Age" by type a. However, you said that Christian "New Age" do not proselytize. In your description above, you simply said "New Age theists". That's a horse of a different color:) I don't think anyone can actually be a "New Age Christian" by your Type B definition, simply because to be a Christian, the name implies you believe in Christ - which means savior. Jesus is our Christ/Savior from sins. And the "new age" as you define it, must believe that all beliefs are valid and true. Thus there could be no sin, and no savior from it. I also seemed to have misrepresented myself with regards to "comment 2". I said "...the concept of a virgin conceiving via the influence of the father God being found in other religions somewhat undermines the validity of Christianity is a bit strange". I AM aware of the historical point, that the woman in the old testament was a young woman. And I was not saying that the virgin concept came solely from the old testament and did NOT come from pagan religions. Rather I was using the example of Judaism and the "virgin" story to show that this 'searching and recognizing truth in other religions' does not undermine the Christian faith, nor to finding these similarities serve as a proof that the other religion is man-made.The Church recognized and embraced the Old Testament book similarities to Jesus' life. As they display (for example) by this interpretation of the word meaning both/either "young maid" and "virgin". They sought, rather to find the similarities wherever they further evangelized, Jewish or not. I'll need to look at some of Paul's writings to verify that this is displayed in the New Testament (my vague memory says yes), but this was certainly practiced by other Christian missionaries. So, in case I've been unclear (which I worry I have), I meant to say I don't agree, that stories in the New Testament being pre-dated in any way, leads to undermining the validity of Christianity, since it is our practice and justification that God Himself foretold Jesus before He came - as the example of the Jewish books shows. I wouldn't be one to argue with the Church fathers, but as far as my education of the present Church views, this seems to fit and hasn't been specifically disproved. |
Write comment
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Freethought Events
Wednesday, September 1, 2010 7:00 PM
Minnesota Atheists Burnsville Book Club
Thursday, September 2, 2010 6:00 PM
Taping of Atheists Talk
Saturday, September 4, 2010 1:00 PM
Fargo/Moorhead - Brain Food
Sunday, September 5, 2010 9:00 AM
"Atheists Talk” Radio AM 950 KTNF
Sunday, September 5, 2010 9:00 AM
Duluth - Lake Superior Freethinkers. Radisson Hotel
Sunday, September 5, 2010 6:00 PM
Atheist/Agnostic Alcoholics Anonymous
Monday, September 6, 2010 5:00 PM
Atheists for Human Rights Happy Hour Ol' Mexico restaurant
Polls
Podcast
| Atheists Talk |
|