Part 8
Discussion with Dr. Anthony Garrett, Part 8
----- Original Message -----
From: Dr Anthony Garrett
To: Steve Locks
Sent: 16 July 2000 15:35
Subject: Re: Decorum
Hi Steve, whether or not you have insulted me I'm not offended, but I do
guard my time. Please never feel guilt about eliciting replies from me,
because I *choose* to reply. But please also accept that I choose not to
reply to some points. I can't put it better than I did last exchange: I
seek to deepen, not widen, our dialogue. There comes a point beyond which
this cannot be done without personal meeting.
>I'm know I've insulted you! I don't think however that conservative
>Christians realise what an insult hell is. You said << I do NOT
>automatically see you as fit only for damnation and never said
>so. >> I don't understand your comment here. You frequently refer
>to scripture as something you "of course" believe in. Since Mark
>16:16 says "... he that believeth not shall be damned" and John
>15:6 says "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth... and men
>gather them into the fire, and they are burned" I assumed you
>believed it. What is your position on this?
Jesus gave warnings about those who had seen the power of God in action
(which in his day meant he himself in action) yet who disbelieved. In
context he was silent about those who had never had a chance to see, eg
gentiles BC. A criterion for *universal* judgement - according to works -
is given in Revelation. This criterion operates rather differently for
Christians (see long Reformation tracts) and, say, BC-gentiles.
>I have not tried to do this hurting but have attempted to show why I find
>some arguments invalid. I have opened up about some of my inner feelings on
>my website and in emails and you have been very good about them for which I
>thank you. I don't think I've gleaned much about yours though so far,
>despite your claim that you wish to deepen the discussion.
That is because I'm not willing to open my heart to people I have never
met, ie the readers of your website. You may be willing to do so, but I am
acutely aware that this is not a private discussion, and is not even face
to face!
>You accused me of ripping scripture out of context. In what context is
>infanticide right? (Leviticus 26:22, Numbers 31:17-18, Ezekial 9:4-6, Judges
>21:10-12, 1 Samuel 15:3,7-8). In what context is it right for God to kill
>David's baby and arrange for his wives to be raped for a crime only David
>had committed (2 Samuel, chapter 12)? In what context is it right to stone a
>newly-wed woman for not being a virgin (and why omit any commands to stone
>non-virgin bridegrooms)? In what context does Jeremiah 3:12 sit harmoniously
>with Jeremiah 17:4? (There are plenty more like this). Since you castigated
>me for ripping scripture out of context then you must know what this context
>is, unless this is just wishful thinking that it all makes sense "in
>context." Why do you feel so sure that you can reject the possibility that
>this is not good, sensible or divine?
Previously I answered one or two such queries of yours, and you then just
threw a lot more questions of the same type at me. That - not an inability
to reply - is why I brought down a guillotine, and referred you to
commentaries on scripture. (As with anything some are better than others.)
><< 7: In the words of Ingersoll, "Man or woman are the highest titles that
>can be bestowed a person."
For me, "in the image of God" is the highest title. Too many Christians
have forgotten that this applies equally well to non-Christians in their
dealings with them.
>You wrote:
><< These are matters of FAITH. >>
>
>Then why have faith in what the bible says rather than one of the many other
>religious books?
We really are going round in circles here: faith is logically prior. "Why
have faith in X" cannot be answered if X really does represent your deepest
belief.
>Are you really listening to me? You replied the next day to my 4 long
>emails and, judging from the time in the headers, whilst at work when
>you shouldn't have had the time (correct me if you are on holiday.) Such
>a rapid and perfunctory response doesn't convince me that you are
>really listening to me either.
I am self-employed, and it is not good that you suggest on no basis that I
should not have replied because I was cheating on an employer. I've already
said that I reply to what I think is most important, and you replied that I
should respond to what YOU think is important. Why should I be condemned to
play away fixtures only? Do the same principles not apply to both sides in
a dialogue? Please remember that in deciding what is important I take into
account what I believe you and readers will think is important.
><< Do you deny that comments about third parties should
>sometimes be kept private? >>
>
>If they are slandering people then the victims of this slander should be
>given a chance to respond.
I wholly agree with that - but where was the slander in the conversation
about your deconversion that you reported to me? I saw deep differences,
and some lack of compassion and understanding, but no slander. There is a
place for private conversation.
You tend to write as if the God of the bible exists and is abhorrent to
you, rather than writing as if He is merely a human invention. I can't
develop this observation without knowing you well personally, but I find it
revealing.
Best wishes
Anthony Garrett
Managing Editor,
____________________________________________
| |
| SCITEXT CAMBRIDGE |
| |
| WWW: http://www.scitext.com/ |
| E-mail: editor@scitext.com |
| Fax: +44-1223-329468 |
| Phone: +44-7020-936902 |
| Mail: PO Box 57, CAMBRIDGE CB3 9PP, UK |
|____________________________________________|
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Locks
Sent: 02 August 2000 22:45
Subject: Re: Decorum
Dear Anthony,
<< Hi Steve, whether or not you have insulted me I'm not offended >>
When attempting replies I actually find it quite hard not to feel I've been
insulting. Afterall, you do believe in hell and I can't think of a worse
insult than believing that people should justly be tortured. So merely for me
to describe your beliefs makes me feel I've been insulting you for holding
them, but I guess you do not find hell an insult so maybe it's water off a
duck's back.
<< I do guard my time. >>
Me too which is why I choose to converse only when I have time. I've also been
up to other things. I recently uploaded this page
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/asym/jreply1.html which also
addresses some issues that a Christian whom you disagree with is adamant
about. I mention that you are adamant about opposite points on that page with
links to the relevant parts of our conversation.
<< please also accept that I choose not to reply to some points. I can't put
it better than I did last exchange: I seek to deepen, not widen, our dialogue.
There comes a point beyond which this cannot be done without personal meeting.
>>
I think it is easy to deepen the dialogue by truly tackling some of the points
I raise. You complain below that I raise too many questions. Don't shoot the
messenger! It is hardly my fault that Christianity is full of so many holes
that raise such damaging questions. If you seriously wish to deepen the
discussion then attempt to deeply answer just one of my questions. Remember
that you said those with questions should take them to the elders and I
complained that these "elders" do not tackle our questions seriously. It seems
you are proving me correct. I have tried to tie you down to a single question
before (why kill the children and animals) but maybe you missed this amongst
the other material. If you answer nothing else, then take this one question
below as deeply as you can to show me that you really do have answers
and are not just vainly hoping that there exists apologetics that can handle
this material. This question is not too personal for you to answer infront of
the readers of my website:-
You said one has to put scripture in context to understand it. In what context
is it right for God to kill David's baby and arrange for his wives to be raped
for a crime only David had committed (2 Samuel, chapter 12)?
Let's go really deeply into this one question and see how far your question
demonstrates justice and love (even conditional love). That is not too many
questions and by tackling one hard question really deeply we can see if
your claims that scripture makes sense in context is a claim that you make
from having seen this to be true, or if you are bluffing me and fooling
yourself. You said you "of course" wish to know if Christianity is not true.
Do not then shy away from tough questions.
I said:
<< I don't think however that conservative
Christians realise what an insult hell is. You said "I do NOT
automatically see you as fit only for damnation and never said
so." I don't understand your comment here. You frequently refer
to scripture as something you "of course" believe in. Since Mark
16:16 says "... he that believeth not shall be damned" and John
15:6 says "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth... and men
gather them into the fire, and they are burned" I assumed you
believed it. What is your position on this? >>
You answered:
<< Jesus gave warnings about those who had seen the power of God in action
(which in his day meant he himself in action) yet who disbelieved. In context
he was silent about those who had never had a chance to see, eg gentiles BC. A
criterion for *universal* judgement - according to works - is given in
Revelation. This criterion operates rather differently for Christians (see
long Reformation tracts) and, say, BC-gentiles. >>
It still looks like you think belief is a choice (see below about "blood
pressure!") Anyway, I am still unclear what your answer is to my question.
To clarify, do you see me and other ex or non-believers as dammed, like
the bible says we are? You chastise me for assuming that you do not believe
what a Christian "of course" believes because it is "clearly" in the bible.
Mark 16:16 and John 15:6 look as "clear" as the other verses you "clearly"
believe in. All it says is that those who do not believe shall be dammed ("he
that believeth not shall be damned.") If you believe this then how is your
respect for me or humanity "in the image of God" greater than Ingersoll's
accolade "Man or woman are the highest titles that can be bestowed a
person"? Remember you claimed "in the image of God" was "the highest title"
for you.
I wrote
<< I don't think I've gleaned much about yours though so far,
despite your claim that you wish to deepen the discussion. >>
You replied:
<< That is because I'm not willing to open my heart to people I have never
met, ie the readers of your website. You may be willing to do so, but I am
acutely aware that this is not a private discussion, and is not even face to
face! >>
Then in what way are you seeking to deepen the discussion? Show you are
sincere by tackling my question above about David's baby. Is discussing
why your god punishes people by killing their babies opening your heart or
too personal? If we took further discussion off my website then would you tell
me why non-virgin brides are to be stoned but no mention of non-virgin
grooms? If you convinced me that there is a good explanation would it be
all right if I told others - I don't understand what is too personal about
this sort of thing. If you wish to discuss the reasons for your conversion
then will you do so if I promise to keep it private? If you will not answer
any such questions then I do not see how we can deepen the discussion.
If you have something deep you wish to discuss, then write to me about it.
If you wish it to be kept private then I will do so just as I do with others
who request privacy.
You wrote:
<< Previously I answered one or two such queries of yours, and you then just
threw a lot more questions of the same type at me. That - not an inability to
reply - is why I brought down a guillotine, and referred you to commentaries
on scripture. (As with anything some are better than others.) >>
Is this really why you are silent? It is a terrible shame if you have the
ability to reply to the cruel verses that you refuse to do so. If your claims
are true then would be the only Christian I have come across who could explain
such verses, and yet you refuse. I think the opportunity for an evangelical to
assuage the doubts of a sceptic with good answers they have the ability to
provide is too great an opportunity to miss. So, instead it looks like you are
bluffing, and even worse lying to yourself that infanticide can be the action
of a good god. As I asked, answer just this one question. Why do you
believe the bible god is just when he killed David's baby because of a
crime David committed? You claim you have the ability to reply, this is
hardly too personal and is just one question.
<< For me, "in the image of God" is the highest title. Too many Christians
have forgotten that this applies equally well to non-Christians in their
dealings with them. >>
You avoided my point again which is will anyone you claim you venerate so
highly go to hell? If so I cannot fathom your lack of respect for your fellows
"in the image of God." If you do believe I, or anyone, is going to hell then
your claim to venerate people more highly than Ingersoll's quote
is false and Christianity has corrupted you, reducing yet another Christian
to a lesser lover of humanity than they could have been without this religion.
You wrote:
<< These are matters of FAITH. >>
I replied:
<< Then why have faith in what the bible says rather than one of the many
other religious books? >>
You replied:
<< We really are going round in circles here: faith is logically prior. "Why
have faith in X" cannot be answered if X really does represent your deepest
belief. >>
We are not going around in circles, rather you are getting yourself in a knot
attempting to explain a nonsense. Unless there is a reason for belief then
belief is arbitrary and anything goes. The fact that you appear to have
faith that infanticide is just seems to demonstrate this arbitrary and hence
amoral nature of faith. Do you have a reason for having faith? Are you
afraid that I will pick your reasons for faith apart if you tell me? Do you
feel you are being completely self honest about these questions?
Self honesty and research were important ingredients in how I
discovered Christianity is a fiction, something you said you wish to
know if it is the case.
I asked:
<<Are you really listening to me? You replied the next day to my 4 long emails
and, judging from the time in the headers, whilst at work when you shouldn't
have had the time (correct me if you are on holiday.) Such a rapid and
perfunctory response doesn't convince me that you are really listening to me
either. >>
You replied:
<< I am self-employed, and it is not good that you suggest on no basis that I
should not have replied because I was cheating on an employer. I've already
said that I reply to what I think is most important, and you replied that I
should respond to what YOU think is important. Why should I be condemned to
play away fixtures only? Do the same principles not apply to both sides in a
dialogue? Please remember that in deciding what is important I take into
account what I believe you and readers will think is important. >>
Now it's time for you to apologise. You previously chastised me for making
presumptions about you. Not only did I ask for correction if you are on
holiday (self-employed amounts to the same thing), but I did not suggest you
were cheating on your employer, that is something you read into my remarks.
I assumed you were writing in your lunch hour or tea-break (like I and my
colleagues do for simple personal emails) and the point is that by so doing
you should not have had time for an adequate response to such long and
tough questions. Your desire to paint me as an unfair accuser is based on
your presumption.
The reason why you should respond to what I think is most important is because
I initiated the conversation and I am writing to you with questions. Also
these are the sort of questions that somebody leaving Christianity or having
doubts might ask or take to their elders, and this is your chance to assuage
doubts. If you refuse to answer then your whole point about taking questions
to elders is demonstrated once again to be the useless task I said it was near
the beginning of our conversations, and it looks like Christianity is not able
to stand up to scrutiny.
Why make your own judgement about what I and (at least the majority of) my
readers will find important, when I can tell you what I/we find important! I
think I'm in a far better position to know.
<< where was the slander in the conversation
about your deconversion that you reported to me? >>
It was in the assumption that I had fallen by the wayside, "just as Jesus
predicted." (That was said to me). There was little charity to investigate
what really happened. The chance that I had truly found something is ruled
out of court from the beginning. If it is thought that Jesus said something,
then to evangelical Christians that is the bottom line. No open reflection
on what conflicting evidence might imply is allowed to interfere with such
a theology.
<< You tend to write as if the God of the bible exists and is abhorrent to
you, rather than writing as if He is merely a human invention. I can't develop
this observation without knowing you well personally, but I find it revealing.
>>
Rather a vain hope that I might have some glimmer of theistic belief. You
could get to know me quite well by spending more time going through my site.
You claim you wish to discuss "face to face" and yet are not willing to read
the detail that can give you just the answers about my opinions, experiences
etc. you wish to glean. So your claim that I am shaking my fist at a god I
secretly believe in is another presumption, and one you really should know
better about by now anyway. It is common though for Christians to merely
repeat what has already been shown to be false to them. That is
part of the hypnosis and the real reason for high blood pressure you
described amongst sceptics. It is very frustrating to explain something and
then have to listen to the same apologetics again (though often with more
capital letters).
I have already discussed that it was research that lead to my deconversion
which would have happened even without any cruel biblical passages. As I
said the worst passages I was unaware of until years after my deconversion
and my Christian past was quite a positive and happy experience.
I did indeed deconvert because I came to the shocking and initially upsetting
conclusion that god-beliefs are human constructions, as you read in my
"testimony." However, now I am picking up the cruel verses with you because
it surprised me to discover that an intelligent person like yourself believes
in wicked things like hell and attempts to justify infanticide. I am not
"angry at God" rather I am trying to examine how an intelligent person can
believe this material. You should also not try to concentrate on my personal
reasons for disbelief because if you read some of the deconversion stories
via my site you will find that it is indeed research that is the main reason
for deconversion.
In your attempt at justifying indiscriminate slaughter (and again ignoring my
question about the babies and animals) you said:
<< As for God being good and ordering this slaughter,
remember that the Amalekites had behaved atrociously for a long time by the
time of their expunging; this was in an era when loyalty was to the tribe
and tribal deity so that there was no chance of individual repentance. And
God knew that any Amalekite who was good would be judged fairly at the end
of time. >>
You also said:
<< The Hebrew invasion was judgement on them. Also,
death is not the end - any righteous Canaanites will be judged fairly at
the final judgement; all other judgements are provisional. >>
Maybe you should think on this quote I stumbled across recently:
'In order to wipe out Catharism, a religion thriving in the south of
France, the predominant Christian power of the time ordered a crusade. The
crusade, named the Albigensian Crusade, lasted thirty-years. The death toll
from this butchery is estimated at one-million lives, many of whom were
Catholics, indistinguishable from Cathars by the marauders. Even children
were slaughtered. One commander told his men: "Kill them all, for God knows
his own!" '
This apologetic, and hence your version of Christianity, is not
good. Why can you not see this?
<< For me, "in the image of God" is the highest title.
Too many Christians have forgotten that this applies equally well to
non-Christians in their dealings with them. >>
Then I deserve an answer. Why do you believe the bible god is just
when he killed David's baby because of a crime David committed?
Best wishes,
Steve
----------------
Leaving Christianity: www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html
----- Original Message -----
From: Dr Anthony Garrett
To: Steve Locks
Sent: 03 August 2000 22:38
Subject: Re: Decorum
At 10:45 PM 8/2/00 +0100, you wrote:
>them, but I guess you do not find hell an insult so maybe it's water off a
>duck's back.
I believe it's a fact. A fact cannot be an insult or a compliment -
different categories.
You might not think we are going round in circles, but I do. I must leave
it to your readers to decide, for my editing business has taken an upwards
turn and I cannot go on with a dialogue that is low priority for me.
"Building the kingdom" is how I should spend what time I explicitly allot
to Christian matters, and I doubt
that our dialogue is helping to do so. If I have offended you in any way, I
apologise. The exegete I find most faithful and who deals with many of your
tough questions is David Pawson, but it seems you do not so much fail to
understand the bible as disagree with it. I accept your freedom to do that.
With best wishes
Anthony Garrett
Anthony Garrett
Managing Editor,
____________________________________________
| |
| SCITEXT CAMBRIDGE |
| |
| WWW: http://www.scitext.com/ |
| E-mail: editor@scitext.com |
| Fax: +44-1223-329468 |
| Phone: +44-7020-936902 |
| Mail: PO Box 57, CAMBRIDGE CB3 9PP, UK |
|____________________________________________|
The conversation concludes here.