Christian skeptic here again.
Aren’t controversial and unprovable (uninterpretable) things like the shroud and NDEs a distraction from the actual thing to be supported (DDR, I think you called it, Terry.)? This feels like the layers and layers of “evidence” proposed by conspiracy theorists.
1 Like
It’s hard to imagine going on a road trip and using paper maps for navigation.
Speaking of road trips the most remarkable set of coincidences happened to me this summer while trying to make it to the water park.
Some time ago, last year I think, on a whim I presented a problem to a philosophy of science sub and noted the problem science has in determining whether the universe is beginning or expanding at the observable beginning. It was a solid discussion which confirmed my suspicion.
How does one endure the body of philosophy texts long enough to achieve any level of comprehension, much less expertise?
1 Like
Plantinga had a great talk, which I can no longer find, where he asked what happens for the seasoned philosophy professor, when a freshman student turns the pyramid on its head.
Was not able to pm you. I’ll at least hear you out. Don’t have time now for more research, though.
1 Like
I readily concede that they can be, but for me they aren’t.
- If and only if you willing to talk or hear me talk about either, I’ll do so by invitation only, here or in a PM. My friend, @marta , is familiar with my views, so feel free to ask her opinion. If you want a referral to two people who object to my views on the Shroud or the one person–that I know–who thinks NDEs are "mere medical resuscitations, let me know and I’ll PM their names to you, if they don’t “jump out of their seats” here to volunteer their services.
-
So happens that “Jesus Mythicism” is a wild and wacky conspiracy theory, typically presented by several atheists mentioned in the Jesus and Paganism.
-
A great, IMO, site hosted by a rational and reasonable atheist, to wit: Jesus Mythicism sheds some light on the subject. Fascinating “rabbit holes”.
-
What, then, is the thing to be supported? I have my opinion: It’s the Kerygma. Each Christian must decide for her- or himself. But here, I must confess: as I shared with another, my identity as “Terry Sampson” is completely inseparable from my past as the beneficiary of a small number of people who loved me more than I deserved AND believed in the crucified and resurrected Jesus of Nazareth. That says nothing about me, but everything about Jesus and some saints who believed and trusted in his Name.
5 Likes
Merv,
[Edit and correction] I think I had actually had the questions you posed for chapter 1 in mind. Sorry for the confusion.
What did you learn from the responses to your questionnaire?
I didn’t notice a poll. Was it mentioned in thread?
I confess I’m not interested in the details but I am curious whether you think these NDE’s and/or the shroud are sources of reassurance for believers or reasons to believe for everyone. Is that a fair question for a non to ask a non non?
1 Like
I’m not sure if Kendel was referring to this question I posed?
Or the earlier poll (I think from Ch. 1) where I had put forward 5 different options beginning with … was one committed most to 1: Truth … or 2: Christ … etc.
Or was there some other place I asked questions? I’m having trouble remembering at the moment.
1 Like
Meanwhile … (and without forgetting your question to me, @Kendel - I do want to respond to that, but like Mark, want to be sure which question you asked about); here is an initial observation I have about Penner’s view of apologetics as highlighted in Ch. 3.
It seems to me that Penner is to the apologetics industry what Wendell Berry is to the agricultural industry.
I.e. (for those who may not be familiar with Berry), he laments - and sees no good coming of - the vast majority of us distancing ourselves from the land, and our food sources. Farming has now become professionalized (and fossil-fuel dependent) to a degree such that very few larrge corporate operations are now responsible for so much of our food production in the west. And highly-processed food it is, generally not good for our bodies or the land either one.
In the same way, I hear Penner lamenting the “professionalization” of our (or now their) witness for Christ. (p. 82). So could we say Penner is advocating for a return to a more ‘organic’ form of witness?
2 Likes
1 Like
Thanks, Merv. I had been confusing the second, which I still hoped to answer, and the first, which I had already answered.
I still want to work on the second, relevant to this chapter question.
1 Like
Very good then. So you had asked what I might have learned from any resonses to (the second?) question where I asked “What age or decade might be identified as any kind of ‘zenith’ for modernism.”
And I speculated something of an answer of my own, but if anybody else ever addressed it, it escaped my notice.
1 Like
Another chapter 3 gem catching my eye here this morning … (p. 83)
When I witness, I do not take up a self-centered, asymmetrical stance closed off to the needs, wants, desires, goals, dreams, story, or insights of the person to whom I witness. That is to say, witness is not a monologue but is dialogical in nature.
I think this may be key to why so many people are turned off by apologetics today. So much of it is assymetrical. I.e. I have something for you … you have nothing for me. You need to shut up and just listen to me. I am the teacher … you are the learner. You are nothing more than a repository for the wisdom that I have to deliver to you, and in fact you are a responsibility of mine, which I mean to discharge by informing you of my received wisdom, thereby washing my hands of further responsibility for you and your rejection of my message. On judgment day, I want a checkmark beside your name so that I don’t get dinged for not fulfilling my obligation to you. Because it is all about me, and my own self-perceived standing before God.
That is putting it all in the direst, uncharitable terms - and (one hopes) that any self-styled modern apologists with any human sensibility at all would be properly horrified at the above characterization and think to themselves … “surely I don’t do that!!?”
And yet that is how so much of it is perceived and received (or more commonly … rejected). And when it is received, it might invoke the warning that “you travel far and wide to win a single proselyte, and when you do, you turn him into twice the son of hell that you yourselves are!” (or words to that effect, spoken by somebody who I think we all agree knew what he was talking about.)
Christians would do well to take stock of “the other side of the ledger” in this assymetrical imbalance that we unwittingly or even wittingly perpetuate.
1 Like
Definitely a gem.
This frequently comes through loud and clear. Oh what a burden we nons can be!
1 Like
CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY SOURCED THOUGHT QUESTIONS
PM me questions, please, to add to this slide, while we read chapter 3.
Check for additions. Last edited: 8/11/2022
From Kendel:
These are Penner’s stated goals for Chapter 3 (pg 76):
- To look at the question of how we can think and talk about God in a way that focuses on edification (building up).
- To explore the question of how we may believe and witness to Christian truth in a postmodern situation in light of human finitude and fallibility and the fragility of faith.
- To pursue the connection between hermeneutics and edification, and to attempt to reorient the task of Christian apologetics around this notion.
Okay I have a question for the rest of the book regarding a complaint I’ve had with apologists. That has to do with the whole “you’ll be sorry” shtick. I always feel if you’re not already feeling it, that shows something is off for you. It shouldn’t be about pie in the sky after you die. So I’m hoping he’ll touch on this too.
1 Like
OMG! Now you’re really gonna be sorry!
3 Likes
This is a gem as well as your unflattering portrait of the worst kind of apologist. Like George Burns checking the obits to see if his name had appeared yet, it’s good to look at myself and ask, if I fit the description. In many, many ways and contexts I do/have/probably will again.
One thing I really want from Penner is the positive side, that is, what message, how presented. We’re getting clues here and there, but I’m anxious for more.
1 Like