Topic: Sntjohnny in the News (Read 12384 times)

benjdm · « **Reply #20 on:** August 25, 2007, 04:15:50 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on August 25, 2007, 03:10:20 PM

Did you read the ChristianPost article yourself?

"The point that churches are turning people into atheists for not teaching the gospels properly is sheer nonsense."

You're talking out of ignorance. Is that actually what I say? That's the key here, Cop. What do I actually say?

The opening sentence, that summarizes the point of the article, is:

"Churches are producing atheists by not answering the questions of young people and explaining why they believe in the Bible, said a Christian apologist who works with young adults."

Copernicus, Austin Cline, and myself read that to essentially mean 'churches are turning people into atheists for not teaching the gospels properly.' How would you reword it ? What did you mean ?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #21 on:** August 25, 2007, 04:23:53 PM »

See, that's more like it. :) Seeking clarification. That's awesome. But why 'take' it to 'essentially' mean anything? What is the matter with the face value interpretation? In your experience, do you find that young people are able to explain why they believe in the Bible?

Also, did you read the article? That article provides a number of different areas. 'Teaching the Gospel Properly' is never one of them.

Copernicus · « **Reply #22 on:** August 25, 2007, 07:27:46 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on August 25, 2007, 03:10:20 PM

"The point that churches are turning people into atheists for not teaching the gospels properly is sheer nonsense."

You're talking out of ignorance. Is that actually what I say? That's the key here, Cop. What do I actually say?

Sorry, fella. I slightly misrepresented what you actually said. According to the article, you actually said that "Churches are producing atheists by not answering the questions of young people and explaining why they believe in the Bible". Cline didn't misrepresent you on that point, and he did have cogent arguments against the position. So did Ben.

Quote

It may be my old fashioned sensibilities, but it has always seemed to me that it is rude to launch into personal attacks without even giving the person an opportunity to defend himself, or ensure that the attacks are warranted. Mr. Cline's article was not a generalized one, inspired by the topics I raised. It called me out by name and put arguments in my mouth based solely on an interview that he read. This is not right.

I can understand your feelings. I would probably feel the same, if a web publication did the same thing to me. He did use your name quite a bit. On the other hand, what opinions did he attribute to you that you do not hold? You haven't actually said how you were misrepresented. Did he misrepresent your point of view?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #23 on:** August 25, 2007, 09:05:48 PM »

"On the other hand, what opinions did he attribute to you that you do not hold? You haven't actually said how you were misrepresented. Did he misrepresent your point of view?" "Cline didn't misrepresent you on that point,"

Ah, but he did. Read it again. This is a simple matter of reading the text.

Look, to begin with, start out with his first attack.

"Are we to sincerely believe that Christian churches and organizations are not engaging in apologetics? Is Anthony Horvath the first Christian to stop, look around, and think "Gee, maybe Christians should engage in some apologetics now and then in order to explain why they believe what they believe"? That's all just too ridiculous to take seriously."

Now, you tell me where in the first place I say that churches and organizations are not engaging in apologetics. Go ahead and check out the Christianpost.com article, and you post for me where I said anything of the sort.

The opening sentence is not very difficult to understand and is a good place to start, as he himself starts with it. There are just three assertions in it.

Quote

1. [Churches are producing atheists] 2. [by not answering the questions of young people] 3. [and explaining why they believe in the Bible,]

This does not in the slightest indicate that I think no one is doing apologetics, which he finds ridiculous. What, however, does he find plausible?

"Now, if Anthony Horvath had argued that Christian churches are doing a poor job at explaining why they believe what they do and must improve their apologetics, that might be plausible."

lol, what the snot difference is there between my assertion that churches are not explaining why the believe in the Bible and Clines assertion that Churches are doing a poor job explaining why they believe? It's virtually the same flipping assertion in almost the same flipping words! lol I mean, seriously Cop. This is cogent?

Next one.

"If he had argued that the questions being asked by young people today need different sorts of answers than what apologetics geared towards previous generations can provide, that might also be plausible."

lololol The ChristianPost article says,

"[Horvath] explained that some of the recurring questions young adults struggle with but churches often fail to address include the formation and development of the Bible, the presence of evil and suffering in the world, and the question of inspiration and inerrancy."

Again, he is raising as 'plausible' something that is very nearly reflected in the CP article itself, this time not as close to my exact words, but more or less the same, but he assigns it to himself, leaving me shackled with this asinine assertion that I'm the first to think of doing apologetics, which is completely unsupported by the text. Cogent? I think not. Honestly, I personally don't think he read the article, because these mistakes would be impossible for a literate person to make, and I do think he can read.

"People don't become atheists because Christians aren't engaging in any apologetics; instead, people become atheists because Christian apologetics isn't working so well."

Here we see again this assertion that I'm saying "Christians aren't engaging in any apologetics."

Cop, I am on my knees, practically begging you to acknowledge that no where do I say that. I'd say that's a good first example of how he has misrepresented my position. The first sentence does not even say "Churches are not engaging in apologetics." No where is this found. No where.

"and he did have cogent arguments against the position. So did Ben."

I wouldn't expect you to say anything different.

But don't worry, while I'm annoyed at his article on a number of fronts, nothing he said or did surprises me. Aside from him not fact checking with me, I am mostly bothered by not even getting a link back to sntjohnny.com.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #24 on:** August 25, 2007, 09:18:23 PM »

Now, all the above is largely asking you to apply basic interpretation skills to unpack this quote:

"Churches are producing atheists by not answering the questions of young people and explaining why they believe in the Bible, said a Christian apologist who works with young adults."

In other words, from the CP article itself, his accusations are unfounded from the text, and the things he finds plausible are actually positions that I myself am characterized as having. But this leads to Cline's most serious error, and the thing that most illustrates Cline's own sloppiness...

I don't see any quotes on that sentence. Does it say:

Horvath explains, "Churches are producing atheists.... etc etc"

?

Nope.

That's not a quote, there. That's a summary of sorts. Is even the summary an accurate reflection of my views? Was it accurate as far as it goes, but nonetheless separated from context that might shade it differently?

Those sorts of issues are exactly the sorts of things that I think should be explored before I launched into a dismissive personal attack. At the very least, I would have given the person I'm attacking an opportunity to defend himself. But I assure you, I received no email from Mr. Cline, and trust me, he has it. There are no links back to my site here. There are no links back to any statements of mine defending myself.

Granted, he may not know that 'Anthony Horvath' is 'Sntjohnny' but again, there is no excuse for that, since google puts the two together pretty quickly, and as more evidence to me that he didn't actually read very far into the article, I had even gone ahead and posted my website in the comments of the CP article in two places, because the article itself didn't.

Mr. Cline's article is just a pile of sloppiness that probably wouldn't have happened at all if he had actually read the article.

Copernicus · « **Reply #25 on:** August 26, 2007, 02:01:32 AM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on August 25, 2007, 09:05:48 PM

"Are we to sincerely believe that Christian churches and organizations are not engaging in apologetics? Is Anthony Horvath the first Christian to stop, look around, and think "Gee, maybe Christians should engage in some apologetics now and then in order to explain why they believe what they believe"? That's all just too ridiculous to take seriously."

Now, you tell me where in the first place I say that churches and organizations are not engaging in apologetics. Go ahead and check out the Christianpost.com article, and you post for me where I said anything of the sort.

Well, you did say something of that sort, according to the article. The statement "Churches are producing atheists by not answering the questions of young people and explaining why they believe in the Bible" means that churches are not engaging in apologetics. They are not answering questions and defending the faith against challenges. I don't see any way that he can be blamed for paraphrasing your remark in that way, but maybe you have a specific sense of "apologetics" that I'm not getting.

Quote

The opening sentence is not very difficult to understand and is a good place to start, as he himself starts with it. There are just three assertions in it.

1. [Churches are producing atheists] 2. [by not answering the questions of young people] 3. [and explaining why they believe in the Bible,]

This does not in the slightest indicate that I think no one is doing apologetics, which he finds ridiculous.

Well, it does seem to indicate that to me. Maybe you can explain what the difference is between apologetics and defending the faith against attacks on it. The article reported that you suggested "apologetics" as a remedy to the problem, and Cline quoted that from the article. Am I missing something here?

Quote

What, however, does he find plausible?

"Now, if Anthony Horvath had argued that Christian churches are doing a poor job at explaining why they believe what they do and must improve their apologetics, that might be plausible."

lol, what the snot difference is there between my assertion that churches are not explaining why the believe in the Bible and Clines assertion that Churches are doing a poor job explaining why they believe? It's virtually the same flipping assertion in almost the same flipping words! lol I mean, seriously Cop. This is cogent?

To me it is. It is hard to believe that churches don't even try to answer such questions or defend the faith. They might be doing a poor job of explaining faith, but it seems ridiculous to claim that they aren't engaging in apologetics already. Churches do try to answer these questions. People just aren't accepting the explanations as readily as they did in the past. The defenses don't work as well as they used to. That's the real problem.

Quote

"If he had argued that the questions being asked by young people today need different sorts of answers than what apologetics geared towards previous generations can provide, that might also be plausible."

lololol The ChristianPost article says,

"[Horvath] explained that some of the recurring questions young adults struggle with but churches often fail to address include the formation and development of the Bible, the presence of evil and suffering in the world, and the question of inspiration and inerrancy."

Again, he is raising as 'plausible' something that is very nearly reflected in the CP article itself, this time not as close to my exact words, but more or less the same, but he assigns it to himself, leaving me shackled with this asinine assertion that I'm the first to think of doing apologetics, which is completely unsupported by the text. Cogent? I think not. Honestly, I personally don't think he read the article, because these mistakes would be impossible for a literate person to make, and I do think he can read.

I've read and re-read the article, and I still don't see where he misrepresented you. You still haven't pointed out any significant inaccuracies, as far as I can tell. Here is the passage from the original article that Cline quoted and based his remarks on:

Quote

Churches are producing atheists by not answering the questions of young people and explaining why they believe in the Bible, said a Christian apologist who works with young adults. ...[Anthony Horvath] further noted,

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #26 on:** August 26, 2007, 05:24:27 AM »

Man, you'll really go to bat for the man, won't you?

"The statement "Churches are producing atheists by not answering the questions of young people and explaining why they believe in the Bible" means that churches are not engaging in apologetics."

Is a looooooong way off from the statement "Is Anthony Horvath the first Christian to stop, look around, and think "Gee, maybe Christians should engage in some apologetics now and then..."

That's off the charts long way off. There is no connection.

"To me it is. It is hard to believe that churches don't even try to answer such questions or defend the faith"

I am simply stunned that you see a significant difference between 'a poor job explaining why they believe' and '[not] explaining why they believe.' We're talking about the difference between the man setting one position up as ridiculous, mine, and one as plausible, his, based on a difference of just one teeeny weeny modifier... 'not' versus 'a poor job' where the following clause is identical, WORD FOR WORD. That is quite the chasm to leap.

I'll put the same question to you that I did to Ben. In your experience with young Christians, do you find them to be knowledgeable about why they believe what they believe? I give examples, ie, problem of pain, etc. What is your experience working with the 5th grade Christian? What about the 9th grade one? Do you find your 12th grade Christians as they enter college can list reasons for why they believe the various things they believe? Do you find your college freshmen competent to engage various issues?

"The defenses don't work as well as they used to."

Apologetics doesn't work very well when the first you've heard it is as a college freshmen. But this would be an excellent example of where context and more clarification would have worked out. That such a clarification is practically begging to be exposed is in this statement from the CP article:

"

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #27 on:** August 26, 2007, 05:34:13 AM »

If you are still unable to fathom the basic difference here, you and Cline are both thinking of apologetics as consisting only as the outward defense of the faith by Christians or the Church. I cite a Bible passage for the express purpose of helping the Christians see that 'being able to explain why you believe what you believe' is a command actually in the Scriptures. My focus on the youth of the church helps one draw the connection easily enough: I am talking about apologetics as an internal component of transmission of the faith, one Christian to another.

benjdm · « **Reply #28 on:** August 26, 2007, 05:52:26 AM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on August 25, 2007, 04:23:53 PM

But why 'take' it to 'essentially' mean anything? What is the matter with the face value interpretation?

That is the face value interpretation.

Quote

In your experience, do you find that young people are able to explain why they believe in the Bible?

To explain why they believe in the bible ? Of course.

Quote

Also, did you read the article? That article provides a number of different areas. 'Teaching the Gospel Properly' is never one of them.

I've read the article several times now.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #29 on:** August 26, 2007, 06:03:13 AM »

"That is the face value interpretation."

Nonsense.

"To explain why they believe in the bible ? Of course."

Oh really. Please do expound on your experience with asking young people to explain why they believe in the bible.

Quote

Also, did you read the article? That article provides a number of different areas. 'Teaching the Gospel Properly' is never one of them.

I've read the article several times now.

This is more then we can say for Mr. Cline, then. Now that you've read the article, "Teaching the gospels properly" you see is not in there. Specific areas are mentioned, however. Did you miss them? Problem of pain? Suffering? OT+NT development? In your mind, this constitutes 'the gospels'?

If so, this is again fodder for my point, because there is no way that the Christian community is doing its job if you atheists are walking around thinking that these things are 'the gospels.'

benjdm · « **Reply #30 on:** August 26, 2007, 06:15:10 AM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on August 26, 2007, 06:03:13 AM

"To explain why they believe in the bible ? Of course."

Oh really. Please do expound on your experience with asking young people to explain why they believe in the bible.

I get answers like "because it has so many fulfilled prophecies," "because it is the only book that has so many different authors from so many different time periods with no contradictions or errors," "because it is the word of God," things like that.

Quote

This is more then we can say for Mr. Cline, then. Now that you've read the article, "Teaching the gospels properly" you see is not in there. Specific areas are mentioned, however. Did you miss them? Problem of pain? Suffering? OT+NT development? In your mind, this constitutes 'the gospels'?

It was a short paraphrase. My own phrasing was that your article read to me like: 'It reads to me like 'when you are having trouble convincing people, it must be because they misunderstand you.''

To my mind, the gospels are Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John.

The 'problem of pain' has answers. God is either less than omnipotent (which would include non-existent, of course) or other than omnibenevolent. No one can explain any other answers, not 5th graders, not 7th graders, not phDs. Or, to put it another way, all who dispute the answers have explanations that they personally find sufficient but that I do not.

OT+NT development - very few bother to learn this. I was amazed at what I learned when I researched it.

benjdm · « **Reply #31 on:** August 26, 2007, 06:44:41 AM »

I think I see much of the disconnect here. I don't know Austin Cline's or Copernicus' backgrounds, but I was raised Catholic. I listened, found what the instructors were saying to be wrong, and in short order stopped listening. It wasn't that the church did not attempt to answer the problem of evil, suffering, etc., (though I don't think we ever got into how the OT/NT came to be.) They did teach what they thought were answers. I thought the answers were wrong and so remained a non-Christian and atheist. (If you would like to use a different term for children who have not yet been exposed to theistic ideas, feel free to substitute 'went from X to atheist' in place of 'remained an atheist.') The only way I see that the church could have changed this outcome is by emotional pressure - indoctrination.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #32 on:** August 26, 2007, 07:04:20 AM »

By raised Catholic, what does that mean exactly. Did you attend a Catholic grade school? High School? Or are we talking about just Sunday morning classes? And how old are we talking about here in terms of when you disagreed?

More context of my position on this was available, but did not make it into the publication. But note that the CP article does say:

"Young people question whether they should trust the Bible since it

benjdm · « **Reply #33 on:** August 26, 2007, 08:05:31 AM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on August 26, 2007, 07:04:20 AM

By raised Catholic, what does that mean exactly. Did you attend a Catholic grade school? High School?

No, public schools.

Quote

Or are we talking about just Sunday morning classes? And how old are we talking about here in terms of when you disagreed?

After school religion classes and Sunday church services. How old was I when the topics were introduced and I disagreed ? I don't remember, exactly, but grade school, I think. When do you take First Communion ? First grade ? I vaguely remember First Communion.

Quote

I find that in most Christian education, nearly across the board, 'answers' and 'arguments' are not given, rather positions are given, dogmatically.

Please compare your statement

Quote
"I get answers like "because it has so many fulfilled prophecies," "because it is the only book that has so many different authors from so many different time periods with no contradictions or errors," "because it is the word of God," things like that."

with

Quote
"Young people question whether they should trust the Bible since it

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #34 on:** August 26, 2007, 09:14:52 AM »

"After school religion classes and Sunday church services."

After school every day, or just once a week?

"When do you take First Communion ? First grade ? I vaguely remember First Communion."

In the Lutheran denomination I grew up in, communion did not happen until after Confirmation, which for me was after 8th grade.

"Your contention is that detailing how these beliefs are arrived at would result in fewer atheists. I would contend the opposite - that teaching people that how you arrive at beliefs is important would produce more atheists, not fewer."

Well, of course you would think that. Just as I would think the opposite. That we would disagree on that point is self-evident, as you represent one side and I the other. The question is whether or not the Church is actually detailing how these beliefs are arrive at. My contention is that it is not. Certainly, there are pockets of exception.

"The church's method of presenting answers dogmatically is more standard because, historically, it works the best."

Yes, exactly. The dogmatic method is in fact more standard, just as I am contending, and it no longer works. Or at least, it works with much less success. Being dogmatic is not the same as employing an apologetic mindset. See 1 Peter 3:15. It does not say 'be prepared to state your dogmas.'

If you are agreeing with me that presenting answers dogmatically is more standard and that this is no longer satisfactory, you are very close to agreeing with my position, even as it is stated in the CP article. This is clearly alluded to in:

"Horvath explains that though they understand that to be the Christian position, they want to know how they can be sure of that."

and

"He added that these youth will be less likely to trust what the Church says as they continue to be fed easy answers which do not really explain why."

and

"He called for believers to not only be able to say that Jesus rose from the dead as church dogma and doctrine, but to be able to explain why they believe this."

"Presumably you find astrology false."

That's just a red herring.

"Would Contact or Demon-Haunted World sell well in a society that understands what astrology is all about ?"

You are not in a position to ask that sort of question, because neither the CP article or Mr. Cline allow me to elaborate on that particular point. You are as ignorant as they are on exactly what I think the connection is. Don't assume. Ms. Vu did not ask me any questions about that statement, so all you have is the statement itself, which does not explain the connection.

"Then your quote -

benjdm · « **Reply #35 on:** August 26, 2007, 10:17:42 AM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on August 26, 2007, 09:14:52 AM

After school every day, or just once a week?

Once a week.

Quote

In the Lutheran denomination I grew up in, communion did not happen until after Confirmation, which for me was after 8th grade.

Wiki says age 7 or 8 for Catholics, so first or second grade.

Quote

If you are agreeing with me that presenting answers dogmatically is more standard and that this is no longer satisfactory, you are very close to agreeing with my position, even as it is stated in the CP article.

I would say it is no longer working instead of no longer satisfactory, but yes.

Quote

"Presumably you find astrology false."

That's just a red herring.

"Would Contact or Demon-Haunted World sell well in a society that understands what astrology is all about ?"

You are not in a position to ask that sort of question, because neither the CP article or Mr. Cline allow me to elaborate on that particular point. You are as ignorant as they are on exactly what I think the connection is. Don't assume. Ms. Vu did not ask me any questions about that statement, so all you have is the statement itself, which does not explain the connection.

"Then your quote -

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #36 on:** August 26, 2007, 11:34:38 AM »

"Once a week."

And did you think that this really was enough to thoroughly acquaint you with Christian theology before rejecting it. The Catholic catechism is quite extensive all on its own.

"So in the very article where you're complaining about the church providing its positions without providing the basis for its positions, the basis for this position is not included ? I never would have interpreted it that way. Can you say irony ?"

heh yes, it is ironic, and it didn't escape my attention. On the other hand, I can see why she didn't probe that issue further because most Christians who think about such things know exactly what I'm talking about. In general, I think it would be mostly atheists that would have wanted to know more about that. I think that is a mistake, though. I think the Christian community itself would have been interested in my reasoning there.

" OK. What is the basis for your claim ?"

After lunch.

"As long as Copernicus and I are working to understand you here, try and read the article from the 'red herring' point of view to understand where we are coming from."

You guys and Cline aren't the first I've seen the POV. I have found other atheists that have said the same thing, and even before this point. For example, my conversations with Cop about Dawkins's grasp of Christianity. More in a minute.

"Then stop taking all this so personally and consider our responses as being to the article, not you and everything you believe."

Oh well, I can probably set you straight there. I'm not actually taking it personally. :) I don't pin my self-identity on what other people think of me. At least I try not too. I actually appreciate you pointing out Cline's response to me and appreciate you working to clarify. But note that I have repeatedly said that the article itself does not support your interpretations.

I would be most appreciative, though, if one of you could agree that contrary to Cline's representation, I no where at all said or implied that I was the first person to think of apologetics.

"First person experiences are often like that. I can't say I truly understood where people who are discriminated against were coming from until I learned of the BSA's policies and actions against a group I belong to."

BSA?

"I read the article and came here as a result of it. It reads to me like 'when you are having trouble convincing people, it must be because they misunderstand you.' "

Indeed. But I've got close to a dozen emails from Christians that knew exactly what I meant and most of the blogs got it, too. I personally think the problem is that I was not given the opportunity to elaborate on the Dawkins and Da Vinci Code quote. I think that would have headed off some of this. But not the hard core cases. :)

benjdm · « **Reply #37 on:** August 26, 2007, 01:03:14 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on August 26, 2007, 11:34:38 AM

"Once a week."

And did you think that this really was enough to thoroughly acquaint you with Christian theology before rejecting it. The Catholic catechism is quite extensive all on its own.

I rejected what they presented me with. There is nothing in my experience, learning, or thinking since then that causes me to propose anything remotely resembling Catholicism / Christianity / theism.

Quote

"Then stop taking all this so personally and consider our responses as being to the article, not you and everything you believe."

Oh well, I can probably set you straight there. I'm not actually taking it personally. :) I don't pin my self-identity on what other people think of me. At least I try not too. I actually appreciate you pointing out Cline's response to me and appreciate you working to clarify. But note that I have repeatedly said that the article itself does not support your interpretations.

Hmm. Maybe we can mutually agree to a couple of poll options and post a question to some non-involved readers, say at uberchristians.org or somewhere.

Quote

I would be most appreciative, though, if one of you could agree that contrary to Cline's representation, I no where at all said or implied that I was the first person to think of apologetics.

Of course I agree. That read like hyperbole to me, not a literal claim. If evaluated literally it is clearly false.

Quote

"First person experiences are often like that. I can't say I truly understood where people who are discriminated against were coming from until I learned of the BSA's policies and actions against a group I belong to."

BSA?

Boy Scouts of America.

Quote

"I read the article and came here as a result of it. It reads to me like 'when you are having trouble convincing people, it must be because they misunderstand you.' "

Indeed. But I've got close to a dozen emails from Christians that knew exactly what I meant and most of the blogs got it, too.

That doesn't surprise me, though. You see the same effect among atheists - giving a long list of pop-psych reasons (most of them unflattering) for why theists are theists. A long way down the list would be 'an honest conclusion given the same evidence we are looking at.' I'm aware of the effect and try and counter it in myself. I do not hide that I can't understand how one can reach that conclusion, but I don't try and claim that others haven't done exactly that. Similarly, Christians will often give a long list of pop-psych, unflattering reasons for atheists being atheists.

Actually, I can give a perfect recent example of this phenomenon:

Other poster:

Quote

She's an atheist now because it's expedient for her to be one, just as it was expedient for her in the past to have professed Catholicism.

Next year, if a persuasive and charismatic hassidic rabbi shows up at her door, rather than a mormon or an atheist, she might convert to orthodox judaism.

You think that's far-fetched? Please tell me then why Madonna has claimed to be a follower of "Cabala" (mystic form of judaism)?

Me:

Quote

I'm not a mind-reader. Presumably because she believes it to be true.

Quote

I personally think the problem is that I was not given the opportunity to elaborate on the Dawkins and Da Vinci Code quote. I think that would have headed off some of this. But not the hard core cases. :)

A different article would give different impressions.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #38 on:** August 26, 2007, 03:25:53 PM »

You participate in way too many boards. I used to do all that, but I don't have the energy anymore. I didn't realize the BSA had come out against bikers.

"I rejected what they presented me with. There is nothing in my experience, learning, or thinking since then that causes me to propose anything remotely resembling Catholicism / Christianity / theism."

Well, consider this possibility. What you were presented with was pathetic. It was condescending, an insult to your intelligence, and transmitted dogmatically. This put you in a 'bad mood' and future investigations were interpreted through the lens of this other experience.

Consider this. A student has math class from 4th grade to 9th grade for an hour every day. In 10th grade he drops out of math class, believing he now possesses the essential information about mathematics to be able to speak for the rest of his life about math. In my education, this would be like abandoning math right after geometry, forgoing calculus, advanced algebra, etc.

Do you think this student is in a position to say he understood math well enough to reject it into the future? (I've met students that have done this, actually). Now, what if the student didn't have math every day, but only twice a week for an hour. Still competent to speak to the whole field?

I give this analogy not to dismiss your learning. I am definitely the sort of person that believes that the curious and disciplined soul can learn quite a bit outside the classroom. What I'm really aiming at here is not you, but rather the general Christian student, the great majority also only has had an hour or two a week. As these people fade away out of the church, do you really believe that they do so, with such a limited exposure to the material, traded positions from a position of knowledge? You wouldn't tolerate such an attitude out of the 10th grade math student that thinks he knows all there is to know about math at age 15.

Thus, my contention that the way Christianity does business needs to change, and change fast.

"Hmm. Maybe we can mutually agree to a couple of poll options and post a question to some non-involved readers, say at uberchristians.org or somewhere."

If it's important to you. It's not all that important to me, but I would go along with it if you took the lead.

"Of course I agree. That read like hyperbole to me, not a literal claim. If evaluated literally it is clearly false."

Well, he concludes that paragraph dismissing it as ridiculous and proceeds immediately to two hypotheses that he himself considers plausible (which are nearly identical to my own statements). Where exactly does he get around to laying out what my position really is? And if he doesn't, how is that not a misrepresentation?

"That doesn't surprise me, though."

You misunderstand. I'm not talking about the pop-psych reasons. I agree with you on that. We need to take people's objections seriously and give them the benefit of the doubt unless we have a compelling reason to do otherwise. What I was referring to was not the motivations, but rather the methods. My correspondents have almost uniformly agreed that the educational methods of the Church are sorely lacking, and apologetics would be a very helpful addition to what the Church is about. So, far from interpreting my comments as saying that 'Christians aren't doing apologetics' or that the Church never 'defends itself' as Mr. Cline inferred, they resonated with the general substance of my remarks, even without the clarifications that I would have liked to have added.

benjdm · « **Reply #39 on:** August 26, 2007, 04:15:38 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on August 26, 2007, 03:25:53 PM

You participate in way too many boards. I used to do all that, but I don't have the energy anymore. I didn't realize the BSA had come out against bikers.

Ha. Seriously, the BSA national council...well, I can't say much nice about them.

Quote

Consider this. A student has math class from 4th grade to 9th grade for an hour every day. In 10th grade he drops out of math class, believing he now possesses the essential information about mathematics to be able to speak for the rest of his life about math. In my education, this would be like abandoning math right after geometry, forgoing calculus, advanced algebra, etc.

Do you think this student is in a position to say he understood math well enough to reject it into the future?

If he was introduced to the concept of a number line in grade school and found it to be wrong, nonsensical, useless, etc., then I would say he is in a position to reject the whole of math into the future. If the number line is false, then everything built up from that point is false.

Quote

(I've met students that have done this, actually). Now, what if the student didn't have math every day, but only twice a week for an hour. Still competent to speak to the whole field?

To the whole field ? Of course not. To whether the field has any truth and / or utility to it ? Yes.

Quote

I give this analogy not to dismiss your learning. I am definitely the sort of person that believes that the curious and disciplined soul can learn quite a bit outside the classroom. What I'm really aiming at here is not you, but rather the general Christian student, the great majority also only has had an hour or two a week. As these people fade away out of the church, do you really believe that they do so, with such a limited exposure to the material, traded positions from a position of knowledge?

I don't understand the question - is there a typo in there ?

Quote

You wouldn't tolerate such an attitude out of the 10th grade math student that thinks he knows all there is to know about math at age 15.

But we're not claiming to know all there is to know about Christian theology. We are claiming there is no basis for arriving at a belief-system that would typically be described as Christian.

Quote

Well, he concludes that paragraph dismissing it as ridiculous and proceeds immediately to two hypotheses that he himself considers plausible (which are nearly identical to my own statements). Where exactly does he get around to laying out what my position really is?

In the second sentence, of course. The first sentence intros a common myth that the post is not about. The second one introduces the topic that we get out of your article. Basic reading / writing - summarize at the beginning and the end, with details in the middle. The second to last sentence also summarizes.

Quote from: Austin Cline's second sentence

An interesting twist on this myth is the idea that atheism is caused by Christian churches failing to adequately explain or defend Christian doctrines.

Quote from: Austin Cline's second to last sentence

This represents a denial that anyone could read the same information and consider the same arguments but come to a different conclusion

Author Topic: Sntjohnny in the News (Read 12384 times)