Let’s Talk Shop

Christianity’s critics have no shortage of complaints.  They offer many reasons for rejecting religion, some are understandable, some are unreasonable. But what about when those reasons are shown to be based on a faulty understanding of what it is they are rejecting?  Of the Atheist’s I encounter who offer reasons for rejecting religion/God which are based on faulty understandings, it is my experience that in nearly every instance they will not abandon those reasons. 

I am a semi-regular reader of a blog called, Belief in People.  In this particular post, the author, Shawn, talks about “how religions co-opt normal words for their own purposes. They distort and alter definitions to serve their ends.” and provides a short list of words he believes Christians use as rhetorical tools with dishonest intentions.

I think we can all agree that words have a range of meaning depending on the context in which they are used.  It is not uncommon for words to be used as “terms of industry“, or, “shop talk” in which they have understandings which are outside of common usage in everyday conversation, but are within an acceptable range given the arena of discussion.  I think this has been overlooked by Shawn.  Keep in mind that whether the Bible offers a reliable record or not is irrelevant to my response.  Shawn has offered a complaint against Christian usage of terms and concepts.  Christians operate within their worldview.  If you want to criticize Christian’s beliefs, you must criticize their beliefs as they are represented by Christians, refuting a caricature of Christian beliefs doesn’t actually refute anything.

Forgiveness

Is it really forgiveness if you have to believe in Jesus to avoid hell? Would not “true forgiveness” mean all flawed and sinful people go to heaven regardless? If mere belief is what you have to do for salvation, that’s still an act. Salvation is still earned, only the payment is reduced.

Biblically speaking, belief is a trusting faith, not simply an intellectual acknowledgment.  In fact James 2:19 notes: “You believe that God is one You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.”  Mere belief is not what saves.  Additionally, the Bible distinguishes faith from works.  Faith is not considered a work.  Romans 4:5 — “But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness.”

Love

Yahweh is a jealous, vengeful god who punishes people who don’t believe in him. He creates flawed people and then tortures them for eternity for lack of belief. He condones slavery and instructs his followers to commit genocide. In what way does any of this match the human definitions of love?

As it stands, biblically speaking, God does not create flawed people.  The effect of sin has had a damaging effect on the character of people to the point where they act in a manner inconsistent with the initial creation of Adam.  People are not punished because a lack of belief.  People are punished for breaking God’s law.  This is a fundamental misunderstanding the vast majority of critics make of Christianity.  When people are punished for breaking laws, it cannot be said they are being tortured.  Torture is very different from punishment.  Torture carries with it the connotation that a punishment whether physical or mental is unjustified or unwarranted.  It also does not follow that because slavery was regulated, that it is somehow endorsed or desirable by God.  By justly punishing evil, and regulating slavery in such a way as to protect the slave from abuse is in no way inconsistent with the biblical idea of love.

Alive

This came up because of Easter. Jesus rose from the grave and is now alive. God is alive. But neither of these uses of the word “alive” match our current definitions of life. From Wikipedia:

“Living organisms undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt to their environment in successive generations. More complex living organisms can communicate through various means.”

Except for the parts about communication and responding to stimuli (which is questionable), Jesus and god do not have the normal characteristics we see for life. Both are noncorporeal, and timeless.

This complaint fails to take into account the description of Jesus being raised in a glorified body which is no longer contaminated by sin.  Again, biblically speaking, death is now a natural process brought about by Adam’s sin.  Jesus’ body post-resurrection was immune from the effects that sin has on our bodies.  Acts 13:34-37 — “As for the fact that He raised Him up from the dead, no longer to return to decay, He has spoken in this way: ‘I WILL GIVE YOU THE HOLY and SURE blessings OF DAVID.’ “Therefore He also says in another Psalm, ‘YOU WILL NOT ALLOW YOUR HOLY ONE TO UNDERGO DECAY.’ “For David, after he had served the purpose of God in his own generation,fell asleep, and was laid among his fathers and underwent decay, but He whom God raised did not undergo decay.”  Jesus was in fact alive post-resurrection.  Whether the modern biological definition, which was conceived during a period of time when sin’s effects are present in all living organisms has no bearing on the status of Jesus post-resurrection.

Resurrection

Also because of Easter. I’m not sure how we can people can say Jesus was resurrected if he just went up to heaven. Some passages write that he appeared to his disciples, but appearing and being alive again (per above definition) are two different things. Don’t you have to be alive again to be resurrected?

This objection is built upon the faulty reasoning in the previous example.  The New Testament speaks of more than mere appearances.  Luke 24:36-43 for example records Jesus physically interacting with the disciples.  Thomas, in his doubt demanded physical evidence of Jesus being raised from the dead saying in John 20:25 —  “Unless I see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.”  Thomas was obliged in his request and reacted by saying, “My Lord and my God!”.  Paul in 1 Corinthians records the earliest creed regarding the resurrection.  He notes that if Jesus was not raised from the dead, the Christian’s faith is in vain and they ought to be pitied.

Good

Just review the Euthyphro Dillema [sic]. Also, since last friday was “Good Friday”, what is good about torture and murder as part of a protection racket?

The Euthyphro Dilemma has been addressed by theologians ever since its inception.  It offers a false dichotomy by offering only two possible explanations for the source of the goodness of God or His commands.  Are things good because God says so, in which case goodness is arbitrary.  Or are things good and God is Himself in obedience to a power, of sorts, greater than He?  But a third option is available.  “Morality is not grounded ultimately in God’s commands, but in His character, which then expresses itself in His commands.” 

To revisit torture, and in addition murder, these terms have specific definitions.  Murder is biblically and commonly understood to be the unjustified taking of human life.  One would have to argue that God has no justification to take human life, even through the means of man.

Truth

This one annoys me the most. Most definitions of truth speak to reality, accuracy, and facts. Christian beliefs don’t speak to any of them, so why call it truth?

Since Shawn offered no examples of Christian beliefs which violate reality, accuracy, or facts there is not much to address.  I don’t expect him to provide an exhaustive list complete with citation to sources proving his assertions.  But a few examples would have been nice.

Now, given that his objections have been addressed, we will leave it to Shawn to either abandon his complaints on this particular issue, or offer a rejoinder.  I will not consider no response by him as an admission that he cannot refute my rebuttals.  We cannot expect everyone who critiques one’s work to offer a response.  But perhaps it will give him something to think about.