Part 7
Discussion with Dr. Anthony Garrett, Part 7
The following 3 emails arrived together:-
----- Original Message -----
From: Dr Anthony Garrett
To: Steve Locks
Sent: 04 July 2000 16:38
Subject: Re: [1] Re: Let's keep going then...
At 10:49 PM 7/2/00 +0100, you wrote:
>At parenting classes we were advised to
>stand back and cool off if we ever felt our emotions turning to anger
>with our children. Anger is a weakness in a loving relationship. So
>much so worse for a "divine parent."
I don't have to agree with the people giving the class you attended. You
are entitled to feel angry with your children in some circumstances; to sy
their misbehaviour is all your fault is to deny their own personalities.
But how or whether you show that anger is important, and certainly never in
an uncontrolled fashion.
>>If Christianity is false in its divine claims, and truth lies outside of
>>it, would you want to be a Christian?
><< Of course not. >>
>
>Then answer my questions. If they are truly unanswerable then you may
>start to see that Christianity is false in its divine claims.
I guard my time, and as explained am not under any Christian duty to answer
all your questions. I look to deepen rather than widen this discussion, and
if I do not anwer many of your latest points including some that are new it
is because of this.
Think about
>what I am saying and take me completely seriously. Do not assume I
>do not understand, or am being maliciously hostile, but give me some
>credit as another human being. Do not automatically see me as somebody
>fit for damnation. I have been criticised in the past for not asking
>Christians enough
You are certainly making up for it now! I do NOT automatically see you as
fit only for damnation and never said so.
Best wishes
Anthony Garrett
Managing Editor,
____________________________________________
| |
| SCITEXT CAMBRIDGE |
| |
| WWW: http://www.scitext.com/ |
| E-mail: editor@scitext.com |
| Fax: +44-1223-329468 |
| Phone: +44-7020-936902 |
| Mail: PO Box 57, CAMBRIDGE CB3 9PP, UK |
|____________________________________________|
----- Original Message -----
From: Dr Anthony Garrett
To: Steve Locks
Sent: 04 July 2000 16:45
Subject: Re: [2] Tertullian and Christian love
At 10:52 PM 7/2/00 +0100, you wrote:
><< it wasn't Origen who reported the pagan comment "see how these
>Christians love each other" in fulfilment of John 13:34-5, as I erroneously
>said, but Tertullian. >>
>
>Let's see an early church view via Tertullian's Christian love:-
>
>"Ah! The broad magnificence of that scene! How shall I laugh and be glad and
>exult when I see these wise philosophers, who teach that the gods are
>indifferent and men soulless, roasting and browning before their own
>disciples in hell."
>[Tertullian (c. 160 - c. 220), "De Spectaculis"]
I am using Tertullian simply as the reporter of a comment that fulfilled
scripture. He got a lot else wrong, as you see.
>The idea that the early church was harmonious is a fiction.
I didn't claim that; you can see from Paul's letters, and from Jesus'
letters to the seven churches of Asia Minor in Revelation, that plenty of
correction was needed. Then Greek philosophy invaded its Hebrew mindset, a
disaster that has continued to the present. Trendy professors of theology
in this century have not helped.
Best wishes
Anthony Garrett
Managing Editor,
____________________________________________
| |
| SCITEXT CAMBRIDGE |
| |
| WWW: http://www.scitext.com/ |
| E-mail: editor@scitext.com |
| Fax: +44-1223-329468 |
| Phone: +44-7020-936902 |
| Mail: PO Box 57, CAMBRIDGE CB3 9PP, UK |
|____________________________________________|
----- Original Message -----
From: Dr Anthony Garrett
To: Steve Locks
Sent: 04 July 2000 16:59
Subject: Re: [4] Re: your testimony
At 11:29 PM 7/2/00 +0100, you wrote:
>If you claim God loves me, and he will send me to hell, then at least one of
>your claims is false. That which both is and is not something does not
>exist. That is logic.
Agreed. God hates not just sin but the sinner; that is in the scriptures,
and I can find it for you. My sin is my problem, your sin is yours, and the
question is not whether you like what the bible says but whether you
believe it is true. Decide that and THEN dicide what to do in the light of
your belief. And please don't rip scriptural quotes out of context. You can
do that from any book to show apparent self-contradictions when the real
message runs deeper.
><< Incidentally I am an ex-universalist Christian who changed to the
>traditional view, much against my desire, after being argued to a
>standstill by the exegesis in the book "The Road To Hell" by David Pawson.
>I now think, concerning hell and a God of love, that (1) we learn what
>agape-love is from God, and we cannot define agape-love and then define God
>afterwards; (2) Christians who speak of a God of UNCONDITIONAL love are
>being unscriptural. >>
>
>Again, once before you claimed that it is not intellectual argument that
>converts people, << just as people don't deconvert because of intellectual
>argument, neither do they convert. >> whereas here you say Pawson converted
>you to hell-belief by arguing you to a standstill.
Not a contradiction - Pawson changed my opinion about hell, once I was a
Christian, by exegetical argument. But he didn't convert me by exegetical
argument. By conversion I mean belief/unbelief in Jesus as Christ, not
points of doctrine, however important.
>If Pawson talked you into hell-belief, then in my opinion you don't believe
>in a god, you have been talked into believing in a devil. You even had to
>shout "unconditional" in capitals, as if you are uneasy, or as if a humane
>part inside recognises that it is a weak and wicked argument so you have to
>shout it to make effect! No humanist would have been convinced by arguments
>for torture, the only way that Pawson could have talked you into hell-belief
>is by using appeals to biblical interpretation. It is circular argument to
>use the bible to prove the bible.
Of course it is. Why ever did you think I meant otherwise? These are
matters of FAITH. And yes, I do believe Satan is real. He and his character
are spoken of in scripture, after all.
>The wholly Christian perspective as you present it is not one of attempting
>to understand, or love, but fitting a real human in a moment of enormous
>upheaval in life into a dogmatic world view. This shows absolutely no
>attempt to drop Christian arrogance and look at what is going on without
>prejudging.
It is impossible to look at any situation without applying your prior
beliefs to it. I regret that the Christians you knew did not really listen
to you, though.
><< They certainly have a right to quote those words of Jesus to
>each other - but not to you. >>
>
>If they have anything unkind to say, then they should say it to my face!
It is not unkind! Do you deny that comments about third parties should
sometimes be kept private? Do you want think all your personal gossip
should be posted on the Net...?
Best wishes
Anthony Garrett
Managing Editor,
____________________________________________
| |
| SCITEXT CAMBRIDGE |
| |
| WWW: http://www.scitext.com/ |
| E-mail: editor@scitext.com |
| Fax: +44-1223-329468 |
| Phone: +44-7020-936902 |
| Mail: PO Box 57, CAMBRIDGE CB3 9PP, UK |
|____________________________________________|
I replied as follows:-
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Locks
Sent: 08 July 2000 19:22
Subject: Decorum
Dear Anthony,
I saw the following decorum guidelines recently - the original can be found
via the discussion starting at
http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9634.htm
<< 1: Most importantly, never write to someone who doesn't want to be part
of a debate. Someone's personal views are sacred to them, and if they do
not want to change them, we have no right to force such a change. If we did,
we'd be no better than a fundamentalist sect. >>
I always feel guilty of this one (to some extent), and have asked a few
times if you want me to stop, but you have assured me it's okay to write. As
I said I am interested to see where (if anywhere) our discussion can go. I'm
sure if we reached stalemate then we will both loose interest. Nevertheless,
I wouldn't go into so much detail if I wasn't also writing these posts for
my website. I want my readers to be able to see the quality of some of the
arguments from both sides.
<< 2: Always be courteous and open to new ideas, never insult people since
it only hurts and angers. >>
I'm know I've insulted you! I don't think however that conservative
Christians realise what an insult hell is. You said << I do NOT
automatically see you as fit only for damnation and never said
so. >> I don't understand your comment here. You frequently refer
to scripture as something you "of course" believe in. Since Mark
16:16 says "... he that believeth not shall be damned" and John
15:6 says "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth... and men
gather them into the fire, and they are burned" I assumed you
believed it. What is your position on this? If it is not that non-believers
shall be dammed than I have prejudged you for which I am sorry. It would
also seem that you are not making your position on scripture very clear.
<< 3: Be truthful, never invent "facts" to win an argument. If your opponent
does, call him or her on it and if she or he apologizes, drop it. >>
I have not knowingly invented anything and I have apologised when I think
I've overstepped the decorum mark. I am careful to check my sources and
think them through. Speaking of which, I got one URL wrong last time (one of
my own). My "Resurrection link" should have been
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/asym/jordan.html
<< 4: Do not try to "win" your opponent over. Be happy if you can make him
or her think. In the religion-no religion debate, making both sides think is
the most important step. >>
I do not know how one can debate without some form of attempting to
put forward persuasive argument! Even if we do not make each other
think, we can at least learn a little about how, or at least what, each
other think, which should be valuable.
<< 5: Try to follow the rules of a debate: stay on the subject, answer
direct questions if possible and try to be as honest in your opinions as
you can. >>
This is where I feel you fail as there are many direct questions you are not
answering. I agree though that you have no duty to answer me particularly.
Whether one should ask harder questions of oneself is another matter. Also
whether you have no Christian duty to answer hard questions is debatable. 1
Thessalonians 5:21 "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good" and
1 Peter 3:15.
Nevertheless, I wrote to you initially (and said I wouldn't debate, but
things evolved from there...). I can but try to elicit answers, but if
Christians evade tough questions, then at least you may appreciate
a little of one of the reasons why people leave Christianity and how
poor the response is likely to be when doubters attempt to find
Christian answers to the really tough questions.
<< 6: Never, ever try to deliberately "hurt" anyone. I have had several
opportunities to strike a real low blow on someone after telling me about
their personal experiences of Jesus, etc. Resist the temptation and just
state your opinion and why you don't think your opponent's argument is
valid. >>
I have not tried to do this hurting but have attempted to show why I find
some arguments invalid. I have opened up about some of my inner feelings on
my website and in emails and you have been very good about them for which I
thank you. I don't think I've gleaned much about yours though so far,
despite your claim that you wish to deepen the discussion. So even if I had
bad intentions I haven't had the opportunity! I also previously explained
that when discussing with my old home-group leader about why I had to leave,
I stopped when it became apparent I could hurt his feelings. This is much
more difficult by email/letters as the human contact is minimal. Writing has
significant pros though, as people are surprisingly open online and we have
the opportunity (admittedly not always taken) to take time to think things
through before opening our mouths with the first daft thing that pops up!
You said, << I look to deepen rather than widen this discussion >>. How can
you deepen the discussion if you won't answer hard questions? Rather I get
the impression that you are evading what may trouble your beliefs.
Nevertheless, if you have something you consider deep then if you really do
want to widen this discussion, then write to me about it. Bare in mind
though that you admitted that if Christianity was false in its divine claims
then you would not want to be a Christian. If you will not tackle the hard
questions, then how could you ever find that out?
You accused me of ripping scripture out of context. In what context is
infanticide right? (Leviticus 26:22, Numbers 31:17-18, Ezekial 9:4-6, Judges
21:10-12, 1 Samuel 15:3,7-8). In what context is it right for God to kill
David's baby and arrange for his wives to be raped for a crime only David
had committed (2 Samuel, chapter 12)? In what context is it right to stone a
newly-wed woman for not being a virgin (and why omit any commands to stone
non-virgin bridegrooms)? In what context does Jeremiah 3:12 sit harmoniously
with Jeremiah 17:4? (There are plenty more like this). Since you castigated
me for ripping scripture out of context then you must know what this context
is, unless this is just wishful thinking that it all makes sense "in
context." Why do you feel so sure that you can reject the possibility that
this is not good, sensible or divine?
<< 7: In the words of Ingersoll, "Man or woman are the highest titles that
can be bestowed a person." Remember this, your opponent may have a
differing view than you but in the end he or she is a human and is worth
no less, nor more than yourself. >>
Which is why I can't fathom your condoning of hell.
You wrote:
<< the question is not whether you like what the bible says but whether you
believe it is true. Decide that... >>
You still think that people decide to disbelieve in Christianity!!
You wrote:
<< These are matters of FAITH. >>
Then why have faith in what the bible says rather than one of the many other
religious books?
You wrote:
<< I regret that the Christians you knew did not really listen to you >>
Are you really listening to me? You replied the next day to my 4 long
emails and, judging from the time in the headers, whilst at work when
you shouldn't have had the time (correct me if you are on holiday.) Such
a rapid and perfunctory response doesn't convince me that you are
really listening to me either. If you didn't have time then why not leave a
response for weeks, months or longer? Immediate replies in religious
debate are usually emotive and not well thought out. This is what I said
near the beginning of our exchanges, "The possibility that we have
truly discovered something is not acceptable to Christians and so they
are not really listening from the start."
How carefully could you have read and thought what I wrote in the time
between my 4 long emails and your response? You said you do not mind the
length or frequency of my emails and also say that you ponder all questions
and yet refuse to tell me what you have pondered about mine. If you are
finding me a mere annoyance then let me know and I'll go away, but please
don't say you don't mind me writing and then brush off hard work with
perfunctory remarks.
<< Do you deny that comments about third parties should
sometimes be kept private? >>
If they are slandering people then the victims of this slander should be
given a chance to respond.
<< Do you want think all your personal gossip should be posted on the
Net...? >>
Much already has been! Anyway, the point is I do not find it admirable if
people shore each other up in their mutual beliefs and condemnation of
others without having the grace or charity to find out what is really going
on. That is one of my reasons I do not admire faith.
I'm getting fed up with debate. I wish it was just possible to examine the
hard questions honestly and openly without aggressive gainsaying. Why take
sides? Who wants to know anything other than what's true?
Best wishes,
Steve
----------------
Leaving Christianity: www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html
The conversation continues here.