From: rlwinter@taco.ucdavis.edu (Richard Lee Winterstein)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: dealin w/atheist
Date: 9 Apr 92 08:29:10 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering - University of California - Davis

In article <Apr.8.04.31.48.1992.27847@dumas.rutgers.edu> superc@sam.ksu.ksu.edu (Shawn E Chase) writes:
>Keywords: dealin with atheist
>
>hi, i'm new to this newsgroup. i have been a christian since mid 1989, and
>lately, i have comeupopn a person who has presented me with some rather
>subversive questions dealing with god. and i dont have the answers for some of
>them, those of which i'm listing here:

  I (and probably alot of other people) enjoy wrestling with these topics; my
beliefs are still fairly rough so I'll just put up a few things that I consider
stepping stones that help me.  And remember!  Wisdom still calls aloud from
the streets to all who will answer her!

> 1. hypothetical situation: let's say that there is a group of people on an
>island who never hear the gospel in their lifetime. they die and go to hell.
>(athiest's question) "is that supposed to be some kind of a just god???"
>
  Note: far from hypothetical!  I also think it's fair to consider those who
receive a biased or inaccurate picture of Christianity.
  Hint...sheeps and goats...the whole bit about "Lord, we never knew you!" and
the response about feeding the hungry, aiding the ill, etc.

> 2. why is accepting Christ any diffe3rent than any other religion, because you
>still have to "do something" to an extent.???   (i tried to explain to him that
>christianity is a relationship, not a religion, in that in religion you are
>striving, doing, trying, having to go it on your own to make it to a farcical
>heaven which is actually hell, but in christianity, you have a personal
>realationship with Christi and He sends the3 Holy Ghost to guide and lead you,
>etc, etc.)
>
  I agree with the important distinction you draw between relation and religion
but it's worth realizing that there are many self-professed Christians who
are deeply enmired in "religion" and many practitioners of other religions
who clearly are in something which is a "relation" of some sort.  I believe
the greatest difference involves the role of the Christ in our relation with
God, but this only leads to the question of how do we know someone is
following Christ (I hear sheep and goats here again...) -- "By your fruits
ye shall know them." is something worth thinking about.
  I think part of the problem is the belief which has so strongly pervaded
Christian thought, at least here in America (don't know about the rest of
the world)--namely, the idea that "Simply say you accept Christ in earnest
(and there is a lot of emphasis on the vital importance of being earnest, what-
ever that means), and you will be saved and go to Heaven (accompanied by what
strikes me as a nearly pagan concept of "Heaven")"  If this were how I 
understood Christianity, I would certainly never consider it either.  
  I find it interesting that many atheists (and with some modification,
agnostics) consider the wide diversity of religions which do share in common
some essential teachings about morality, the nature of things spiritual, etc.,
and then decide the obvious conclusion is to discard all of it.  I
consider this viewpoint as naive and smug as its diametrically opposed 
counterpart, rigid fundamentalism.  (My apologies if the character of my 
comment was so simplified as to be 'naive' itself; but I am in no way attacking
those atheists who have reached their beliefs by their own careful reasoning
and experience, even though we disagree in our conclusions.)

> 3. what makes the bible any more acceptable than any other 2000 year old book???
>(i tried to explain him how many copies, etc. make the bible more historically
>credible, than , say the Illiad (by homer?)...i got it out of evidence that
>demands a verdict by josh mcdowell, a most excellent dude)!
>
  (I'm assuming you're referring to the NT based on the figure of 2000 years.
I find the OT to be a whole different ball of wax.)
  Be careful, t.r.m finished a fairly sound denouncing of McDowell's reasoning
in his ETDaV (I have no desire to read it myself, actually).  
  As I understand it, the evidence leads to the conclusion that over the
centuries, fidelity to the original documents is probably very high.  However,
this by no means implies that the contents are necessarily true or accurate!
  This is such a rich and discussed topic that no "off-the-cuff" posting (like
this one) is going to do it justice.  One's conclusions about the veracity of
the Bible will certainly have a pronounced effect on one's beliefs, and vice
versa.
  I really don't think much can be argued against the "accuracy" of Paul & co.'sletters, because it doesn't seem accuracy is really at issue when considering
epistolary works.  Even if they aren't his views, they are certainly somebody's
views!--and they do seem to fall in line with much of what Christ taught.  His
strong emphasis on becoming a new creation through the transforming power of
the resurrection is certainly in line with the Gospel message, and indicates
this was a very important part of early Christianity!
  Getting back to the Gospels, if you are really serious about this (and it is
a good thing to be, if you share the same active interest in apologetics as 
many other Christians!) I find the best approach is to start with the minimum
that is acceptable (aack! that's subjective! so be critical) and gradually
add to your understanding by looking for confirmation/interpretation/etc. in
the immense body of literature produced by scholars over the ages.  Make sure
you intake a wide variety of views; the works of staunch atheists, while 
probably as biased as staunch inerrantists, are nevertheless of some value.
And take things piece by piece, so you don't feel swamped (importance of the
_gradually_ above).  Continue discussing with others to get feedback, if 
nothing else it is a good safeguard against going too far into left field.

FINALLY!!!  Christianity is, as you mentioned, a relationship, and the
proof of it lies in the fruits we produce.  Exegesis and apologetics are fun,
but don't get so caught up in it that you miss out on what is truly important.
Remember, there were Christians for decades before the New Testament as we
know it existed; Christ's message of love and compassion is so basic, sometimes
it shames all of our (humanity in general here) endless theology and philosophy.


>  anyways, here are some of the main questions, but the principal one is: WHY
>DOES GOD ALLO SUFFERING AND PAIN IN THIS WORLD? ?? i tried to tell him that satan
>is the ruler of this present world system, because of the adam and eve stuff,
>etc. but the dude just wont accept the bible as credible in the first place. i
>try to explain to him that GOd is not willing that any should perish, but then he
>brings up hypothetical situation number 1 (above). 
>
 
 I think setting up Satan-as-ruler moves unsettlingly close to Manicheanism,
setting up a battle between equal and opposite Good and Evil which, although
common in modern Christianity, does not belong there.
  To get you started, try thinking about what 'pain and suffering' really are.
What about animal 'pain and suffering?'  What would it mean if there was no
pain and suffering?  Why does your acquaintance believe it exists (if he
does) and if so, what does it mean to him?  What does he conclude from it,
and why?  C.S Lewis has a book called "The Problem of Pain" which I believe
discusses this; I haven't read it but given the clarity of other books of
his that I have read, it's probably a good place to start.
  In Luke 13 we are told of a group that asked Jesus for what sin a group of
Galileans were slain by the Romans.  Jesus's answer (forgive my paraphrasing)
is direct and avoids the whole mess of bringing up hypothetical situations
(like Spock said, "Nothing unreal exists!" :-) ): No special sin.  It happened.
The group that died when the tower collapsed, what sin had they committed?
None, of course.  Realize this, and repent. -end paraphrasing-
  Pain and suffering are.  In most cases they are inflicted by one upon another,
and from this we learn of sin, and detest it.  By pain and suffering we learn
to appreciate joy and what is good, and desire it.  If there was no demarc-
ation we could not experience the essence of the "peace that passes under-
standing" that comes by walking with God.  And it is only a taste of what 
awaits us, in this life and thereafter.
  Fine for the individual, but if the existence of pain and suffering in others
offends you, then go and serve those so burdened as you are able. I know I
wish and pray for the conviction to overcome my own lethargy and therby serve
more. 
>
> are there any true bible scholars who read this newsgroup??? if so, i'd really
>appreciate a direct email to my address, or a followup on this news network, as
>i'm sure we've all had and are going to have more runins with atheists. 
> 
>   thanks for any and all who respond...in christ, shawn e chase 1cor 15:57,58...
Yes, true scholars, please respond! (not that anyone needs encouraging from me!)
For the record, I have had nor formal training in these matters, nothing I
can frame and put on the wall at least.  What I have posted is a very rough
distillation of limited experience, sermons and study groups, thinking 
and philosophizing, and many hours spent in the library reading books suggested
by s.r.c and t.r.m. readers and catalog searches.  And most importantly,
prayer for guidance, the willingness to learn more, and the readiness to 
challenge and rethink my convictions.

Now, after dozens of lines of blathering, I hope this has been of some value!
I look forward to replies and comments.

Rick