So, gavin wilde and I have spent the last few days debating the existence of a Christian God, and I want to post our conversation and receive feedback. I know this is not a book post, but it's intellectual and therefore deserves an exception. I learned a ton from this conversation, and would appreciate constructive dialogue.
Kenny Kitchen Brown
I don't think this is a fair way to speak of
Kenny Kitchen Brown
I don't think this is a fair way to speak of Christianity. It's like saying, "Remember that when it comes to 'the right thing to do', a lot depends on the perspective of the...." No it doesn't. The right thing to do is objective (though that's another discussion for another time), and that the 'Christian' chooses to label a particular act Christian doesn't make it so.
p.s. gavin, Christians didn't stone people, the followers of the Law of Moses did.
p.s. gavin, Christians didn't stone people, the followers of the Law of Moses did.
Friday at 17:25 · ·
Gavin Wilde
So the stoning stuff was nullified once the human sacrifice was made. I gotcha...
Friday at 19:16 ·
Bret Evans
However, it was Jesus (as Jehovah) who demanded stoning in the holy writ.
Friday at 19:31 ·
Bret Evans
And I don't think that Kirby was making grand assumptions about Christianity. He was just saying that deciding what is the Christian thing to do is certainly in the eye of the beholder. One says give aid to the poor, another says social justice is evil. I'm not suggesting one is correct and the other isn't, just that doing the Christian thing ...See more
Friday at 19:35 ·
Kenny Kitchen Brown
Gavin-What is wrong with a supreme sacrifice giving humanity a chance to realign its spiritual development and give it means to change? If the Jews as a society required such a stern law to enable them to survive amidst hostile forces, can't we look on the final consecration of Christ as the symbolic (and literal) end of that law and the moment mankind decides to move forward?
Bret-I don't dispute that Jesus commanded the Jews to stone people, but again, I hardly think it is fair to place our 21st century code of morality as an absolute stamp of the 'fairness' of another civilization. There were a multitude of reasons for the social forms of organization and coercion that existed in the days of Moses, as today, and I hardly think we stand in a fair place to judge that. I'm not saying it's good to stone people, I'm just saying that every culture has attributes developed for environmental and other reasons and sometimes they seem strange when compared to our own.
Bret - point 2, I also don't think that individual Christians really do decide what the 'Christian' thing is. I think individual Christians pretend to do that, but that doesn't make it valid. I also don't claim a monopoly on interpreting what the Christian thing is, and I read a lot of the scriptures, so I hardly think many people can claim such a lofty privilege.
and your slam was well received. take that sarah palin.
Bret-I don't dispute that Jesus commanded the Jews to stone people, but again, I hardly think it is fair to place our 21st century code of morality as an absolute stamp of the 'fairness' of another civilization. There were a multitude of reasons for the social forms of organization and coercion that existed in the days of Moses, as today, and I hardly think we stand in a fair place to judge that. I'm not saying it's good to stone people, I'm just saying that every culture has attributes developed for environmental and other reasons and sometimes they seem strange when compared to our own.
Bret - point 2, I also don't think that individual Christians really do decide what the 'Christian' thing is. I think individual Christians pretend to do that, but that doesn't make it valid. I also don't claim a monopoly on interpreting what the Christian thing is, and I read a lot of the scriptures, so I hardly think many people can claim such a lofty privilege.
and your slam was well received. take that sarah palin.
Friday at 23:30 · ·
Spencer Cawley
I ♥ Kirby. He makes me giggle over my Saturday eggs and toast.
Saturday at 00:48 ·
Gavin Wilde
Kenny- A few things:
A- The whole episode is not factual in the first place. The "exodus" never happened. The talmud is admitted by the world's foremost biblical archaeologists (Finkelstein, Herzog, et al) to be nothing more than mere legends, codified to consolidate political power by King Josiah. There is no evidence of Hebrews existing inEgypt, escaping from it, conquering Jericho, or that David's "kingdom" was anything more than a small desert clan. It even remains a point of debate whether the ancient Hebrews were even monotheistic. Biblical literalism, given the actual scholarship, is a bridge too far.
B- The same justifications you're giving for stoning here could just as easily be made from the point of view of a radical Muslim, if not moreso, as they have far more license to feel a need to "survive amidst hostile forces" in today's current world than the Jews did in a fairy-tale one. So how are you to prove your justification right, and theirs wrong?
C- I find it odd that you differentiate between the "morality" of ancient Judaism and that of the 21st century, especially in regards to Jesus. I thought god was unchanging? Why the inconsistency? Was it easier for him to watch an adulteress stoned to death back then than it would be today? Was it somehow less evil and barbaric? Why is it that the god of the Old Testament was such a vindictive, childish imp, and how is that somehow alleviated by a barbaric, bloody human sacrifice? You'd have to bend your mind into a pretzel to make that logic work.
Ultimately, the same supernatural rationalizations, superimposed into the world of reality - puts your arguments, and those of any other radical religionist on equal shaky footing.
A- The whole episode is not factual in the first place. The "exodus" never happened. The talmud is admitted by the world's foremost biblical archaeologists (Finkelstein, Herzog, et al) to be nothing more than mere legends, codified to consolidate political power by King Josiah. There is no evidence of Hebrews existing inEgypt, escaping from it, conquering Jericho, or that David's "kingdom" was anything more than a small desert clan. It even remains a point of debate whether the ancient Hebrews were even monotheistic. Biblical literalism, given the actual scholarship, is a bridge too far.
B- The same justifications you're giving for stoning here could just as easily be made from the point of view of a radical Muslim, if not moreso, as they have far more license to feel a need to "survive amidst hostile forces" in today's current world than the Jews did in a fairy-tale one. So how are you to prove your justification right, and theirs wrong?
C- I find it odd that you differentiate between the "morality" of ancient Judaism and that of the 21st century, especially in regards to Jesus. I thought god was unchanging? Why the inconsistency? Was it easier for him to watch an adulteress stoned to death back then than it would be today? Was it somehow less evil and barbaric? Why is it that the god of the Old Testament was such a vindictive, childish imp, and how is that somehow alleviated by a barbaric, bloody human sacrifice? You'd have to bend your mind into a pretzel to make that logic work.
Ultimately, the same supernatural rationalizations, superimposed into the world of reality - puts your arguments, and those of any other radical religionist on equal shaky footing.
Saturday at 06:36 ·
Laura Y. Pereyra
lol. I love you, bret.
Saturday at 10:05 ·
Kenny Kitchen Brown
Gavin - a response
A-I don't give absolute credence to every story in the Bible, nor to the veracity of its scale in many cases, but that doesn't undermine the theme. I believe unilateral dogmas on both sides concerning its origin fail to be either constructive or given to calm deliberation, wouldn't you agree?
B - While I personally feel that capital punishment is at best tenuously justified, that is my opinion, there are good arguments on both sides. The fact that Jews or Muslims stone(d) people for various crimes is obviously disconcerting to me, when viewed through my 21st century perspective, but before I look for the nearest pebble with which to stone other cultures, I prefer to take a moment wherein I consider the failings of our own culture. I'm not saying it's ok to stone people, I'm just saying it's not ok to do a lot of things, but various cultures have various reasons for doing the things they do and when it comes to a culture so near and dear to my heart like ancient Judaism I want to take a moment before I superimpose my enlightened sense of rightness on them.
C-God is unchanging, but neither requires him to establish uniform laws of social behavior for all people at all times regardless of circumstances. I believe God created us to be different, that He loves our diversity, and that His plan for our progression is best calculated to our individual and cultural characteristics. In answer to your question, I do believe that it was hard for God to watch an adulteress get stoned to death just the same as it is now.
Ultimately, the ultra-rational arguments of the enlightened ex post philosopher, superimposed with limited knowledge in a world of immense complexity, is just as shaky as the arguments postulating the world is 7000 years old.
A-I don't give absolute credence to every story in the Bible, nor to the veracity of its scale in many cases, but that doesn't undermine the theme. I believe unilateral dogmas on both sides concerning its origin fail to be either constructive or given to calm deliberation, wouldn't you agree?
B - While I personally feel that capital punishment is at best tenuously justified, that is my opinion, there are good arguments on both sides. The fact that Jews or Muslims stone(d) people for various crimes is obviously disconcerting to me, when viewed through my 21st century perspective, but before I look for the nearest pebble with which to stone other cultures, I prefer to take a moment wherein I consider the failings of our own culture. I'm not saying it's ok to stone people, I'm just saying it's not ok to do a lot of things, but various cultures have various reasons for doing the things they do and when it comes to a culture so near and dear to my heart like ancient Judaism I want to take a moment before I superimpose my enlightened sense of rightness on them.
C-God is unchanging, but neither requires him to establish uniform laws of social behavior for all people at all times regardless of circumstances. I believe God created us to be different, that He loves our diversity, and that His plan for our progression is best calculated to our individual and cultural characteristics. In answer to your question, I do believe that it was hard for God to watch an adulteress get stoned to death just the same as it is now.
Ultimately, the ultra-rational arguments of the enlightened ex post philosopher, superimposed with limited knowledge in a world of immense complexity, is just as shaky as the arguments postulating the world is 7000 years old.
Saturday at 11:07 · ·
Gavin Wilde
Kenny- You're switching the goalposts here. The argument isn't about capital punishment, it's about why the Judeo-Christian god sanctioned stoning, and why it's not ok today. Your statement that that god isn't required to "establish uniform laws of social behavior for all people at all times regardless of the circumstances" flies in the face of the very doctrines you espouse. As far as your god "loving diversity", I could very easily quote Ezra Benson, Bruce McKonkie, Mark Petersen, etc. as a sound rebuttal that your god clearly favors the "white and delightsome"...but I'm sure they were merely "speaking as men", right?
Further, you make the mistake of expounding on what "god" is, does, and doesn't do...only to close out your argument by insinuating that we're too "limited" in our knowledge to make any rational arguments. If the world is "immensely complex", you ought not make extraordinary claims to know the mind of a therefore unknowable deity.
Further, you make the mistake of expounding on what "god" is, does, and doesn't do...only to close out your argument by insinuating that we're too "limited" in our knowledge to make any rational arguments. If the world is "immensely complex", you ought not make extraordinary claims to know the mind of a therefore unknowable deity.
Saturday at 18:30 ·
Whitney Trover Goodrich
how come you guys failed to mention moutain medows masacure?? Just a thought..
Saturday at 19:16 ·
Whitney Trover Goodrich
Since you guys are mormon...that's why i asked. Lots of controversey behind that massacre.
Saturday at 19:20 ·
Kenny Kitchen Brown
I don't know why the Judeo-Christian God sanctioned stoning in the good old days. I don't claim to have a supernatural understanding of the cultural fabric of any time or people or God's relationship with them. How the fact that God isn't required to establish uniform laws of social behavior undermines my thesis eludes my grasp. Why is it either a logical or eternal imperative that God give every person regardless of circumstance in mortality an exactly similar code of conduct?
Further, I agree that I offered a personal interpretation of God's interaction with His children, which is neither authoritative nor comprehensive, but I nowhere claimed extraordinary insight into His thinking or behavior. I offer lay opinions from a biased perspective for the sake of expounding my thoughts. But that still leaves my point about absolutism. I doubt either extreme of the faith argument has the requisite knowledge to make these definite irrefutable claims, and I believe that applies to your arguments of social and religious criticism. I've been trying to advocate the open-minded perspective (which is ironic considering my position) considering the reasons for various practices of etc....
I also will maintain that racist comments made by any person of authority in the Church were not expressed with the mind of Christ or the spirit of His inspiration.
FURTHER! I love you like a brother gavin, though I have not seen you in far too long.
Further, I agree that I offered a personal interpretation of God's interaction with His children, which is neither authoritative nor comprehensive, but I nowhere claimed extraordinary insight into His thinking or behavior. I offer lay opinions from a biased perspective for the sake of expounding my thoughts. But that still leaves my point about absolutism. I doubt either extreme of the faith argument has the requisite knowledge to make these definite irrefutable claims, and I believe that applies to your arguments of social and religious criticism. I've been trying to advocate the open-minded perspective (which is ironic considering my position) considering the reasons for various practices of etc....
I also will maintain that racist comments made by any person of authority in the Church were not expressed with the mind of Christ or the spirit of His inspiration.
FURTHER! I love you like a brother gavin, though I have not seen you in far too long.
Saturday at 21:10 · ·
Gavin Wilde
It's the very illogic inherent in the Judeo-Christian model that initially led me to reject it. If I lived back then, I'm punished if I eat shellfish, and admonished on the correct way to treat my slaves. Nowadays such issues aren't even mentioned. For an infinite deity, that seems curious to me. However, with even a cursory reading of the very cultural and archaeological history that you mentioned, the narrative's inconsistencies begin to emerge as part of a clever political consolidation by Bronze-age leaders, and make sense within that framework, rendering the Bible, particularly the Talmud, into an interesting book of legend, useful as literature, but not as a guiding philosophy.
As far as absolutism is concerned, I run into this line of thought all too often. For me its troublesome, because it essentially claims that since neither 87 nor 11 equal the requisite 100, both numbers are equal in value, which is absurd. Don't confuse my rejection of deity and biblical ideas for a positive assertion.
As far as the racist comments, that is also troubling to me. Prophetic statements, given history of the last century, seem to run squarely with the political and social mores of the time, rather than with some divine providence. Today's current anti-gay crusade will be looked on by tomorrow's saints as "not with the mind of Christ or spirit of his inspiration". Thought I'd agree, it would certainly be beneficial for the church to be on the right side of history for once, rather than have to explain away the demons of its past.
That said, I echo the brotherly love. I rarely turn down a debate, and appreciate the level-headed nature you approached it with. And thanks be to Bret for the use of his wall!
As far as absolutism is concerned, I run into this line of thought all too often. For me its troublesome, because it essentially claims that since neither 87 nor 11 equal the requisite 100, both numbers are equal in value, which is absurd. Don't confuse my rejection of deity and biblical ideas for a positive assertion.
As far as the racist comments, that is also troubling to me. Prophetic statements, given history of the last century, seem to run squarely with the political and social mores of the time, rather than with some divine providence. Today's current anti-gay crusade will be looked on by tomorrow's saints as "not with the mind of Christ or spirit of his inspiration". Thought I'd agree, it would certainly be beneficial for the church to be on the right side of history for once, rather than have to explain away the demons of its past.
That said, I echo the brotherly love. I rarely turn down a debate, and appreciate the level-headed nature you approached it with. And thanks be to Bret for the use of his wall!
Yesterday at 07:07 ·
Kenny Kitchen Brown
The principle that God adapts His commandments for His people to meet their realtime environments and exigencies doesn't appear to be either illogical or inconsistent. Why not command a people to not eat shellfish if physiological risks outweigh the calorie count? Why not command men and women to be nice to their household slaves if they insist on maintaining slavery as a primitive form of labor and political organization? I see a progressing standard of discipline and morality being required of those who choose to keep God's commandments (remember that Jesus comes to amplify, not destroy, the law) and that appears to be perfectly consistent with the story of humanity. I will admit wholeheartedly that I too have questions about why God didn't impose a more enlightened view at time, but that doesn't require a categorical denial of the faith.
As far as the legitimacy of the Bible and other scriptures, while I obviously can't jump into the fundamentalist camp and say every verse in every book of every testament is not only the literal word of God but the literal accurate portrayal of historical events, I do believe that the majority of scripture is inspired text. While it might contain unsubstantiated legend, I believe that it is useful for both literature and philosophy. I understand that all scripture contains inconsistencies and the occasional anachronism, but I believe that is the price we pay for our humanity. We get things wrong sometime, but don't let this undermine your faith in the theme.
Finally, on the mores of the Church. I am not an expert on this issue (I have a hard time believing anyone is), but I think the Church is trying to walk a very difficult position between protecting a social institution it venerates and honoring the truest Christian principle. It's not going to walk this line perfectly, I no doubt will find myself questioning the wisdom of its course at times, but I think this requires me to participate in the intra-ecclesia discussion even more, not abandon it.
As far as the legitimacy of the Bible and other scriptures, while I obviously can't jump into the fundamentalist camp and say every verse in every book of every testament is not only the literal word of God but the literal accurate portrayal of historical events, I do believe that the majority of scripture is inspired text. While it might contain unsubstantiated legend, I believe that it is useful for both literature and philosophy. I understand that all scripture contains inconsistencies and the occasional anachronism, but I believe that is the price we pay for our humanity. We get things wrong sometime, but don't let this undermine your faith in the theme.
Finally, on the mores of the Church. I am not an expert on this issue (I have a hard time believing anyone is), but I think the Church is trying to walk a very difficult position between protecting a social institution it venerates and honoring the truest Christian principle. It's not going to walk this line perfectly, I no doubt will find myself questioning the wisdom of its course at times, but I think this requires me to participate in the intra-ecclesia discussion even more, not abandon it.
9 hours ago · ·
Gavin Wilde
Well, for me the argument is tertiary. About a thousand unprovable and unreasonable assumptions would have to be true to validate a debate on the logic of Christian deity. For me, it equates to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I find the current empirical, verifiable, and material evidence for the origins of the universe and man to be sufficient without invoking the magical world-view that most religions require. Hence an "intra-ecclesia" discussion for me is unnecessary. My approach is that of theological noncognitivism (see wiki for more) - that is, you can't even begin the tertium non datur debate on the existence of deity without a clear delineation of what defines "deity".
3 hours ago ·
Kenny Kitchen Brown
Hm. Well, I suppose here we reach the ultimate impasse. I do not believe that God works by magic any more than quantum theory or the theory of gravity. These various forays into the physical/natural science I find likewise require the occasional acceptance of that which cannot be immediately verifiable.
As for the theological noncognitivism as it relates to Christianity, I truly believe that there exist truths about God and Christ that have been clearly defined and can form a basic conceptual idea of who and what They are. VERY basic admittedly, but still delineated. I also believe the consistency of these attributes so much contested in the preceding posts to be manifest in the scriptures, even the Old Testament (although I freely admit it takes serious sallies into the insane at times, which I'd like to credit to fractious compiling, bad redaction, and just the occasional crazy rabbi). I especially feel that the Christian conception of God described in the New Testament through Christ's example and teachings and and in the Book of Mormon through various sermons and revelations hits truer to the mark than any other philosophy or creed.
All these things said, I recognize the metaphysical debate leaves much for the faith to answer. I would never contend that the religion of Christianity be completely rationally provable with our current knowledge of the universe. My personal experiences with Christ lead me to believe in His existence and verify the things I learn, but these are individual sensory perceptions based on the faculties of a young ignorant high school graduate, and ultimately rest on my personal faculties (and I won't make the Cartesian leap into asserting their ultimate validity, though I'd like to think it is the case).
THEREFORE! Gavin my brother. I concede your superior IQ and admit my admiration for your advanced conceptualization but obstinately maintain my defense of the fundamental tenets of Christianity like a true unreasonable zealot! I do this with no malice and having sincerely enjoyed the debate. We must collaborate on source material, I would very much enjoy reading some selected treatises from your bibliography.
As for the theological noncognitivism as it relates to Christianity, I truly believe that there exist truths about God and Christ that have been clearly defined and can form a basic conceptual idea of who and what They are. VERY basic admittedly, but still delineated. I also believe the consistency of these attributes so much contested in the preceding posts to be manifest in the scriptures, even the Old Testament (although I freely admit it takes serious sallies into the insane at times, which I'd like to credit to fractious compiling, bad redaction, and just the occasional crazy rabbi). I especially feel that the Christian conception of God described in the New Testament through Christ's example and teachings and and in the Book of Mormon through various sermons and revelations hits truer to the mark than any other philosophy or creed.
All these things said, I recognize the metaphysical debate leaves much for the faith to answer. I would never contend that the religion of Christianity be completely rationally provable with our current knowledge of the universe. My personal experiences with Christ lead me to believe in His existence and verify the things I learn, but these are individual sensory perceptions based on the faculties of a young ignorant high school graduate, and ultimately rest on my personal faculties (and I won't make the Cartesian leap into asserting their ultimate validity, though I'd like to think it is the case).
THEREFORE! Gavin my brother. I concede your superior IQ and admit my admiration for your advanced conceptualization but obstinately maintain my defense of the fundamental tenets of Christianity like a true unreasonable zealot! I do this with no malice and having sincerely enjoyed the debate. We must collaborate on source material, I would very much enjoy reading some selected treatises from your bibliography.
43 minutes ago · ·
Gavin Wilde
So let it be written, so let it be done! Haha, good form fellow traveler. I'll PM you with some rec's should you so desire.
7 comments:
I didn't finish the whole thing it bored me, as all religious debates do. I will say a few things though. First I find it interesting how hard Gavin is working to prove that God doesn't exist, how many people he has tried to badger. Second, (Now this is a debate tactic that I never condone, which is personal attack) Having grown up with Gavin Wilde it has been my repeated experience that he always seeks to be the biggest douche possible, this to get attention. I feel that he has become Mr. Super Athiest in order to increase his doucheing capacity, supersize his vinegary potency as it were. As this is my feeling I refuse to comment on the actual subject GW and his absurd opinions are literally not worth my time. Third, I hope that these comments and the Rtards that made them are only on facebook and haven't infiltrated our lovely blog stagnant though it has become. Last word: No one cares what you think Gavin Wilde, no one ever has and probably never will. Accept it and move on with your life you'll feel much better.
An interesting debate between two very intelligent people. There were times when I wanted to jump in and share my opinion (as I was keeping up with the discussion in real time) but was afraid of looking stupid and inadequate (like some of the people who attempted to splice this discussion with their ridiculous comments).
Also, this debate has reinforced my desire to serve a mission, so I can learn more about the gospel and have excellent, eloquent arguments like this one.
I think my problem with Gavin's position is that it really requires just as much of a leap of faith as ours. While believing in a God and a Christian Savior and etc. might be a stretch for someone who insists on everything being proved, doesn't string theory require just as much of a leap of faith? Both happen in ways no one understand, both have evidence to support them, both have people to testify to their veracity. What's the deal?!
The problem I see here (if I may..if not just stop reading I guess) is that Gavin is trying to have faith proven/explained and/or defended to him through intelectual means rather than from a spiritual stand point which we all know doesn't work very well (just ask korihor or any of the other anti-Christs), which brings me to my favorite quote and motto from my youth and what my stance would be had I joined this lovely debate (which I would not have because I am terrible at debating with people).
"I acknowledge that I do not understand the processes of creation, but I accept the fact of it. I grant that I cannot explain the miracles of the Bible, and I do not attempt to do so, but I accept God’s word. I wasn’t with Joseph, but I believe him. My faith did not come to me through science, and I will not permit so-called science to destroy it." (Thomas S. Monson, BYU speech, Nov 13, 2007)
I really really like that quote, Kelsha, a lot. Especially the last line.
What I've been thinking is the faith in God isn't (or shouldn't be) a negative experience (in the sense of absence of experience). In other words, I don't think we should believe in God b/c we don't have other answers for the questions and problems of the universe. Gavin says he is content to let his material evidences support his faith, and I think a really bad reply is "well I don't trust the material evidence, therefore I trust supernatural theory." I think these kind of statements leave you open to a blindside from advancing scientific understanding and the continual chippings of the secularists.
My response to Gavin's faith in materialism is that I too have positive evidence, that of my personal relationship with my Heavenly Father. I have personally experienced the veracity of His existence like any other sensory perception, which is just as valid as any other non-physical experience.
In response to Kelsha, I do believe that there is a strong role for intellectual verification in faith. I think things should make sense. If God is rational (and I think we'd all agree He is), then why shouldn't His gospel message be? I'm not saying we will have all the answers for various questions of various import (why did the Jews stone people, how does the Atonement work), but I do believe, as one (of 5) of my favorite General Authorities said, "God will speak to us in an emotional way and a reasonable way." Therefore, I see no problem with people like Gavin attempting to intellectually work out these metaphysical problems. I think Gavin errors in assuming there are only physical answers to the metaphysical questions, but I approve of the process none the less. That being said, I still love the quote by Pres. Monson. I think the reason we shouldn't allow faith to be destroyed by 'science' is that 'science' really isn't all it's cracked up to be most of the time, and any attempt to build on the continually shifting sands of secular knowledge is likely to put you out to sea, which just isn't cool.
Post a Comment