Posted on 12/09/2010 1:55:42 PM PST by InvisibleChurch
I think we can disagree without being dismissive. It appears the majority of those commenting on my recent column don’t think so.
Two weeks ago I wrote a column titled "The Resurrection of Jesus: Believing the Impossible Is Possible." I affirmed the simple assertion, believed by billions of people throughout the centuries, from the Apostles Creed: On the third day, Jesus rose again and ascended into heaven.
The column generated more than 1,500 comments on the Huffington Post, the majority of them dismissing even the possibility of Jesus' resurrection. Most objections were made by materialists who argue that if it can't be measured, it doesn't exist and isn't real.
"There is no `faith' involved in science. A question is asked ...either data supports a conclusion about the question, or it does not," one commenter said. "If the data doesn't support the conclusion then that data is discarded and more data is collected."
Many comments centered on the unreliability of the biblical texts.
"I just find it hard to believe in something that offers no evidence besides from the one book which the story originated from," read another.
"I don't see how Doubting Thomas is evidence of the resurrection when it is in the same questionable book that teaches about the resurrection."
"Outside of the Bible, there's no credible evidence that Jesus, as portrayed, even existed."
But it was the hostile tone more than the content of the arguments that really caught my attention.
"We have brains," read one. "Sorry if that's inconvenient for you."
Ouch.
“Atheists see no credible evidence to believe in any gods or to subscribe to any religion or dogma. That's it.”
"Oh, puleeeeeez-e," read another. "Resurrections, ascensions, transubstantiations, immaculate conceptions, etc., are nothing more than the coins of the realm of psychosis! Who cares?"
Dismissive quips were more common than reasonable dialogue.
"Talking logic and reason with a religious person is like talking about discrete mathematics to a poodle."
Double ouch.
"More make-believe concepts. It's just pixie dust and science fiction."
"When it comes to religious beliefs, we suffer a regression that turns us into children that still believe in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy."
"God IS impossible."
What can we learn from this thread of comments?
First, the scientific method, which is useful for measuring the material, is being used to dismiss the spiritual -- a radical position not historically taken by scientists.
Even the late evolutionary biologist Stephen Gould said, "Science simply cannot adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists."
Second, it appears the opinions of the Jesus Seminar and fictional books like "The Da Vinci Code" are trusted more than contemporary textual research about the New Testament.
Most scholars now date the New Testament manuscripts earlier rather than later, making them, as even liberal scholar John A. T. Robinson agrees, "by far the best-attested text of any writing in the ancient world."
By comparison, the earliest extant copies of Julius Caesar's works are dated 1,000 years after his death, those of Plato 1,200 years after his death and those of Aristotle 1,400 years after his death. Yet scholars universally accept the authenticity of these manuscripts.
Third, as online commentary replaces in-person, interactive dialogue, civility and reason have given way to the kind of caustic, dismissive one-liners you might hear from Jon Stewart, "Saturday Night Live" or Bill Maher. People are entitled to their own opinions, and my column is an opinion editorial. All of us, however, could benefit from ratcheting down the one-liners and beefing up the substance and relevance of our comments.
Actually caring about people we encounter online would be nice. I picked up that spirit from one post: "This has been an interesting thread. I have enjoyed the exchange and sincerely hope I have not offended any religious folks with my dogged skepticism."
Finally, there seems to be an almost irrational hostility toward belief on the part of unbelievers. I would simply urge unbelievers to consider the fact that throughout the centuries, many of the best and brightest thinkers -- even in the sciences -- have believed in the resurrection and ascension of Jesus.
That's not to say they are right, but it is to say that all believers can't be dismissed as brainless, deluded psychotics.
We can disagree without being dismissive.
Yours for the pursuit of God in the company of friends, Dick Staub.
PS. And remember, “these are the best of times and the worst of times, but they are the only times we have.” (For Now).
Ravi Zacharias addresses this very question brilliantly. One of the best Apologetics in the business.
Hussein's favorite web site. Go figure.
And this is why they fail...no faith...in anything...but death.
Good thing that nevers happens on FR! /sarc
>>...materialists who argue that if it can’t be measured, it doesn’t exist and isn’t real. <<
I wonder if they think human consciousness exists. It can’t be measured.
Idiots.
Why bother to toss any pearls of the Gospel to the swine at the Huffington?
>>...scientific method, which is useful for measuring the material, is being used to dismiss the spiritual...<<
I don’t know who said this, but I like it: Science is about how. Religion is about why.
Our Creator can make anything happen just as a programmer of video games can make anything happen on a two-dimensional computer screen -- and perhaps one day in a holographic display. In fact I believe that some physicists believe that we and our universe could be in fact holograms.
>>Why bother to toss any pearls of the Gospel to the swine at the Huffington?<<
Actually, I think there is some Biblical support for that in a way. That is, you are not to spend your entire life trying to convince the same people. You present it, and either rejoice in their addition to the faith or “shake the dust off your feet”, depending on their response. But you have to at least share it and let the chips fall where they may.
It's just a huge bias, an unscientific and antihistorical bias, against ancient sources if those sources are Judaic (or, later, Judeo-Christian.)
He writes for a syndicated group called National Religious News. HuffPo subscribes to the service.
Yes, as much as I want to agree with the poster, the Christian way is as you speak. That is the hard part. The fact that such people can achieve eternal life on their deathbed is always a tension with me, but it is God’s gift.
Drudge:
F O (F*** Obama)
Yep. Had variations of this conversation many times in college.
I remember one dude who argued passionately that Carlos Castenada’s teachings that men could turn into a bird and fly (or astrotravel or whatever it was, it escapes me at the moment) was absolutely true if you just believed REALLY REALLY hard, but . . . a virgin birth? . . . resurrection of Christ? NO WAY. WHO would EVER believe that far-out garbage?
Right up there with the people I knew who would rather die than let a piece of meat, or even a potato chip, touch their mouth, but after a , dinner of tofu, soy milk and sprouts, they started popping qualudes and smoking weed.
Response: This type of objection appears quite frequently and implicitly confuses the distinction in meaning between the terms "evidence" and "proof." "Evidence" is testimony, writings, material objects and other things presented to the senses. "Proof" is the effect of the evidence on the mind. The Gospels are "evidence;" but, whether or not they prove their case in the readers mind is up to him and the Good Lord.
Or put into IPCC reports to support global warming.
We have become a society that perceives opinion(their own) as truth. And any digression from that said opinion is a lie. They won’t even consider it food for thought. Or try to begin to understand how you formed your opinion.
Their thoughts are the end of the story.
Sad for them.
“Why bother to toss any pearls of the Gospel to the swine at the Huffington?”
Because those the ones that need it the most. As you know, that is elemental to biblical teaching.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.