The Dawn Treader

I can not wait for the rebound effect. Despite what the intention of the movie is, it will cause more then a few people to start thinking, asking questions and maybe, just maybe opening a Bible.

We are a nation of seekers. We have to provide an answer to the question though when it is asked.

How about if I don't boycott it, but I don't go see it simply because it isn't my kind of movie. For some reason I just don't picture it as a musical comedy.

'Zat OK? Just curious. (hehe)

Just out of curiosity, what evidence do you have for the ressurection?

As for the boycott, normally I would agree with you, but this piece of tripe (the only books I hold in more contempt than the Da Vinci Code are the Left Behind books. Why oh why can't we have runaway bestsellers written by competant writers who can plot for a change?) has been hyped from here to gone. It was going to be huge anyway. This way, the Church gets its voice out on the matter and injects some skepticism into the coverage. While Opu Dei is a pretty revolting organization, they are hardly yhe evil masterminds of the novel, and the "theory" its "plot" is based upon is just pure dreck.

BK

LToC was a great movie. It saddens me that more people don't see just how affirming of Christian principles that movies like it and Dogma really are. Those are the best two religious movies of my lifetime, hands down.

Kevin,

I have only seen the tail end of LTofC and cannot comment about its theological significance. I know that I was not interested in the film when it came out, and what bits and pieces I have seen of it on the "Late, Late, Late Show" have not encouraged me to rush out and rent it.

You make a good point. Here in Knoxville, groups protested the play Corpus Christi when it was performed at U.T.; sellout crowds were the result. A play is just a play, and a movie is just a movie until it becomes a spectacle. When that happens, success is assured.

I would never have seen Farenheit 911 if people hadn't made such a fuss over it.

Kevin,

All I meant is that I have seen bits and pieces of the movie when it has run on some late night movie from time to time on television. The parts I saw haven't impressed me much, but that may be because I haven't seen enough to get into the flow of the movie. That's all I was saying.

"The empty tomb, the numerous post-resurrection appearances, the changed lives of the apostles, the explosion of the early church, and the circumstantial evidence supporting the resurrection."

Most of that is not really good evidence. the empty tomb and the post-resureection appearances have only been recorded at a time much removed from the original eyewitnesses. The eye witnesses themselves all had an agenda to advance that the ressurection compliments. It isn't court worthy, thats for sure.

The only thing that is compelling is that the disciples then wen ton to found a world religion, often at the cost of their lives. something happened to those men and women to motivate them so.

"Do you believe it happened?"

Dunno. Its possible. I will find out when I die, I suppose.

"If not, what evidence do you have against it? "

Uh-uh, not how this works. if I tell you that giant Leprecans are eating my brain, I must provide evidence for my contention -- you don't have to prove me wrong.

"What's everyone's opinion on DVC as a work of fiction -- overhyped, or interesting?"

I was entertained. Other than the historical gaffes and anti-Christian agenda, I thought the story line was interesting.

The book is clearly overhyped. It is not that good. I think it offers a useful opening to a conversation about church history and reliability of NT books -- and why the gnostic books were never seriously considered as part of Holy scripture. It has value for those reasons.

""What's everyone's opinion on DVC as a work of fiction -- overhyped, or interesting?""

Oh, it is awful. It is one of like three books in my life I haven't been able to finish. The writing is terrible, the characters are a joke and the plot is insulting to your intelligence.

"What difference would it make in your life if it really did happen? Seriously, what would happen?"

Nothing. I live my life in what I think is a moral fashion. Whether or not there is a God, whether or not there was a ressurection wouldn't change any of that. To be blunt - I find the Biblical case for "faith" alone to be almost as weak as the one against homosexuality, and I find the concept of hell completely incompatable with an a just and powerful God. Frankly, leaving lousy evidence for His exstance around and then punishing people who don't buy it, or who never got a real chance to see the evidence is a ridiculously human thing to do for an amnibenevolent, omnipotent God to do.

"Nothing. I live my life in what I think is a moral fashion. Whether or not there is a God, whether or not there was a ressurection wouldn't change any of that. To be blunt - I find the Biblical case for "faith" alone to be almost as weak as the one against homosexuality, and I find the concept of hell completely incompatable with an a just and powerful God. Frankly, leaving lousy evidence for His exstance around and then punishing people who don't buy it, or who never got a real chance to see the evidence is a ridiculously human thing to do for an amnibenevolent, omnipotent God to do."

I appreciate your honesty. I really mean that. That clears up a lot of things for me. Your issue has nothing really to do with evidence -- because if God left you an authentic video tape of the resurrection it simply would not change things.

Let me be blunt. Your issue is that you think God, as you perceive him to be depicted in the Bible, is unfair.

That is why I am reticent to get into debating evidences about the resurrection and proving things because it is really tangential.

I noticed you talk a lot about God being unfair. Do you think Jesus Christ is unfair too?

"Your issue has nothing really to do with evidence -- because if God left you an authentic video tape of the resurrection it simply would not change things."

I think you are transposing two notions here, partly due to my glibness. The literal truth of the resurrection doesn't change my moral code, because it doesn't do anything to address the problems I have with the authenticity of the Bible and with certian interpretatiosn of the Bible. My lines about homosexuality and hell were not flippant -- they are very serious. I have looked into the case against homosexuality and the case for hell, and neither is supported by scripture very well at all. The literal truth of the resurrection , while ending my doubts about the existance of God of course, would do nothing to change my mind on those issues.

In the end, the mere existance of a God tells me nothing about the accuracy of the translation of the Bible, the decisiosn to put given books in the Bible, or even the choice of the Bible as the religious text as opposed to the Koran or whatever the Shintos use, if they use anything.

As for human evidence, well, miracles are next to impossible to prove. But if there was a gospel written down by a disciple shortly after the event, that would be more compelling than the current gospels. If there were several of those kinds of gospels, that would weigh even more, and if there were accounts by ancient historians detailing the belief in the resurrection very shortly after the death of Jesus, that would weigh even more. None of it would be absolute proof, but I would certianly have to give the story the benefit of the doubt at that point, especially comgined with the very tangible evidence of the existance of a new religion based on the event.

"Your issue is that you think God, as you perceive him to be depicted in the Bible, is unfair."

Not so much in the Bible, though I do think his answer to Job is kinda crap and that he needs to provide a better justification for a lot of the New Testament slaughter. (And yes, it is presumtious of me to question God to a certian extent. But, well, I am a little "d" democrat at heart. Power does not impress me ;), accountablity does). But man -- hundreds of children have been killed in Iraq. That's not fair. Millions of kids die before they reach voting age. That's not fair. rapists, murderes, all go free. That's not fair. Henry Kissinger will almost certainly die a free man. That's not fair. In all seriousness, the only question that I want to ask God if He exists is "What the hell are you doing?".

"In all seriousness, the only question that I want to ask God if He exists is "What the ---- are you doing?".

Maybe, kevin, instead of God not being fair, it is that your view of what He is doing is not complete. He can see the big picture, the plan, and we can only see a part of it. Maybe your judgement of Him isn't fair, as you don't know the full reason of His decisions. If someone judges you for making a decision they didn't think was right, but they do not know everything that happened, you might not think their judgement of you is fair.
The thing is, God does not tell us what He is doing or why He is doing things the way He does. Even if He did, we still probably would not understand it, because our sinful minds do not think about things the way God does - perfectly.

Tom,

So how would your life change if you found out God really did raise Jesus from the dead just like the Bible said and all the conservative evangelicals believe?

How would your priorities in life change? How would it affect the way you live?

Rachael:

re: "The thing is, God does not tell us what He is doing or why He is doing things the way He does."

I agree with this. I would add though, that He tells us why He is doing the things He is doing. For followers of Jesus Christ, the "why" is so that we are conformed to the image of His Son. All things work toward this end (Rom 8:28). Even our (sometimes) lousy circumstances and the pain we feel and the greater awareness of our sin and brokenness. That makes us more aware of our fallenness and our need for mercy and grace. It makes us humble people. Humility is an attribute of Christ -- true?

So while God does not let us in on what He is doing -- and how He is going about our sanctification -- he does let us in on the why. And that why, is ultimately because of his love and grace -- to God be the glory.

Jeff:
So how would your life change if you found out God really did raise Jesus from the dead just like the Bible said and all the conservative evangelicals believe?

Other than stopping me from arguing against his existence, I'd venture to say that not much would change. Part of the reason I find myself able to get along with Christians so well is that much of my ethic is largely compatible with theirs.

So I guess that in this hypothetical case, I would continue trying to learn more about Christianity, just as I do today, but my focus would change from wondering how many people cmae to follow a set of beliefs which I think are clearly false, to figuring out which of the believers are actually correct.

There are some two billion in the world who call themselves Christians, and they disagree about a great deal. (The resurrection of Jesus is about the only thing they do agree upon.) So at this point, as Kevin says, it becomes a question of figuring out what it is God actually wants, now that we know He exists.

Please note that inerrancy of scripture does not necessarily follow from the divinity and resurrection of Christ.

How would your priorities in life change? How would it affect the way you live?

Again, I'm not so sure all that much would change. But I think if I learned that the Bible is literally true in all its parts, and in particular that conservative evangelicals (CEs) have it "right," that this would depress me greatly. I'd have a very hard time bringing myself to worship the sort of God that CEs imagine, for reasons we've discussed many times here.

Now that I think on it, I suppose learning this might change my behavior, and not in a good way. If I became totally convinced that conservative evangelicals have it right, this would come with the realization that my damnation is essentially unavoidable. You can't fake love, and I would not be able to bring myself to love God as described by the CE's. So with damnation virtually guaranteed, I suppose that could do away with some inhibitions and make me a far worse person.

So I guess we need to hope I don't become convinced of any of this. :)

And if all Christianity amounted to was an ethical system

Never said it was. I only said that this is a large area of common ground. In any case, what governs how you live your life more than your sense of what's right and wrong? What might cause you to dramatically change how you live your life without dramatically changing your perception of right and wrong?

It could just be that knowing the living Christ turns out to be something totally different than you thought

Could very well be... but was talking about was Christ as described by conservative evangelicals, and God as described by the same, and if their description turns out to be the correct one, then that would result in the depression I mentioned. If, on the other hand, the UCC turned out to be correct (or, for that matter, even the Presbyterians), that wouldn't be so bad.

But at the end of the day, if you wind up with an all-powerful God who knowingly created millions of souls that are doomed to eternal damnation, with no possible hope of redemption, that's not a God I could ever bring myself to worship. And I certainly hope that nothing could ever blind me to that ugly fact about His creation. True or not, I'm much more comfortable with the idea that conservative evangelicals are flat wrong about hell and damnation. Because if they're right, God's anything but a loving one in my book.

Jeff:
Then why are you not UCC or Presbyterian?

Because I lack the whole "believing in God" part, which most would consider to be a key prerequisite. :)

And what do they believe that you find attractive?

I find them (and especially the UCC) to be far less judgmental, and far more welcoming of all people from all walks of life. They concentrate far more on the "love the sinner" and far less on "hate the sin" than other churches I've encountered. They don't seem interested in officially establishing America-as-Christian-Nation the way many conservative churches do. With the exception of some anti-war stuff that the UCC stuff occasionally does, they don't engage in the type of blatantly partisan political grandstanding (a la "Justice Sunday") that conservative churches do. They view the world and all of its creatures ("Creation," I guess) as gifts to be cherished and cared for rather than resources to be exploited. And they seem, to me at least, to be far less hypocritical in terms of wanting the government to get involved in some social issues (like gay marriage) but not others (like poverty).

What is it about Christ (as believed by conservative evangelicals) that you find you upsetting?

Egad, where to begin? The idea that Christ loves me but would damn me for all eternity, even if I treated everyone I encountered with love, fairness, and kindness, simply because I doubted him. The idea that he was speaking only in the narrowest possible sense in John 8 and Matt 7 (the "he who is without sin" and "judge not" stuff). The idea that he was apparently kidding in Matt 6:5-6 (being seen dressed to the nines in a megachurch is not my idea of praying behind a closed door in secret). Those are just a couple of big ones. In a more general stuff, the parts of his ministry that they choose to de-emphasize. I don't recall Jesus ever following "love thy neighbor" with "as long as he's not gay or an abortionist."

I guess if I were to sum it up, the idea that "Faith isn't everything, it's the only thing" seems totally misguided to me. The best person in the world, absent faith, is damned. The worst person in the world, given faith, is saved.

Jeff:
I wouldn't be too sure of that ... seriously.

Actually, I'm quite sure the UCC would welcome me despite my atheism. But it seems disingenuous to me to join an organization whose foundational premise I disagree with.

Where does Christ say he will damn you to hell for all eternity for doubting him

Well, see, that's just it: I'm not aware of anywhere that he does. Yet somehow evangelicals seem to believe this. I guess I should ask you point blank: If I were to die right now, today, without having accepted Christ into my heart, would I go to heaven? Hell? Neither? Among most conservative Christians (if not evangelicals), "hell" seems to be the answer to that question.

I have to believe that if God exists and truly loves everyone and is truly all powerful, something like the Catholic conception of purgatory is closer to the truth.

Jeff:
Modern liberal churches exist as a form social community who rally around social liberal causes -- I don't think theology is or ever was really their gig.

Here I think you're flat wrong. It's not that theology isn't their "gig." It's precisely because of their theology that they rally around certain "social liberal causes." They don't go to church because they hate war; they hate war because they go to church.

Jesus doesn't send anyone to hell for doubting. Doubting ain't a sin -- just ask the other Thomas ;)

I think we're conflating two concepts here (in part because of my wording): doubt, and absence of faith. Also, in Thomas' case, he doubted, but he overcame that doubt, so I'm not sure he's the best example here.

If you live a sublime, Christ like life where you never sinned, in word, thought or deed, then heaven awaits.

Even if I never accept Christ? That sounds an awful lot like the doctrine of works. :) I'd like to agree with this assessment, but it seems to run directly counter to the Pauline epistles (not to mention John 3:16), where faith and faith alone is the lone criterion for salvation: with it, you're saved, and without it, you're not.

All I am saying, is that if you end up in hell for all eternity, it won't be for doubting.

Which, again, is why I need to rephrase the question. Is denying God or Christ a sin? I'm not talking about having mild doubts here. I'm talking about having serious doubts, to the extent that one doesn't believe in God or the divinity of Christ.

The rest of us who have plenty of sins on our record have only our trust in Christ and the promises in God's word to cling to on that day.

Ok, so are you saying that your two tickets to heaven are to trust in Christ, or to be absolutely sin-free? This brings us back to the question of whether a guy who sinned a little but didn't trust Christ is worse off than someone who sinned a lot but did.

You've got it exactly backward. It's not that I understand Christian doctrine to boil down to a test; it's that I'm using tests to try and help myself understand Christian doctrine.

But I also admittedly have difficulty with the concept of God's grace, and how it can even be meaningful. Things are as they are because God created them that way. If He is truly omniscient and omnipotent, it can be no other way. Everything is as it is because God intended it to be so. "Grace" isn't terribly meaningful in this equation, because whether or not I receive it is predetermined and inherent in God's design. My actions and thoughts have nothing whatever to do with it (except to the extent that God made them what they are).

And this, I think, is much of why we're talking past one another. You are asserting things as truths that only make sense if one already believes them to be true. To one who does not believe them, they are nonsensical.

Jeff:

While I appreciate the thought, I'm not quite sure how the little prayer makes any difference at all. My destiny is already written, as is yours. There's nothing either of us can do to alter it.

Unless, of course, the future is not set, in which case it cannot be known. And that opens up a whole can of worms.

Actually, the concepts in question here are free will and omniscience, concepts which I still hold are incompatible. That's at the core of this disagreement.

As for fatalism not being true, I would swear that you have argued here that the future is set, and that all that is yet to come is predestined.

You seem to be implying that because you cannot comprehend how the two attributes are reconcilable, then a transcendant, multi-dimensional, eternal creator of everything that is cannot reconcile them either.

No, I'm saying that if logic is applicable at all, then the two concepts are not logically reconcilable. They are mutually exclusive by definition. So if your premises are true, then either our definition of omniscience must be flawed, or our definition of free will must be flawed. To me, free will must involve a real choice between two or more possible outcomes. Period. Omniscience involves the future being known, which means only one outcome is possible. These concepts are directly at odds with one another, logically speaking.

So which is it? Is my definition of free will flawed? Is my definition of omniscience flawed? Or does logic simply not apply here?

everyone is a mindless robot who either accepts Christ or rejects Christ because God is calling all the shots.

"Is calling" might be an inappropriate tense. "Has called" would be better. The future can only be known if it is certain. And I suspect most Christians have simply never pondered this paradox, so I'd argue that they unknowingly hold nonsensical beliefs.

The free will that Christians describe is not true free will to me. True free will absolutely requires an uncertain future, at least on the details. (That we will all eventually die is, of course, certain, but there is a great deal of uncertainty as to when, where, and how this will happen. Without at least that sort of uncertainty, free will is meaningless.)

When you take God's attributes in their entirety, you are forced to accept that the paradox must be resolvable from God's vantage point

In other words, logic is completely useless in cracking this nut, so there's little point in discussing it further. It is, after all, not a conclusion that one can draw rationally, but must instead be accepted as an article of faith.

As I recall, you have plenty of unsolved mysteries in your own worldview that you cannot resolve, and you seem content to accept them and move on.

Fair enough. That said, being agnostic on logical contradictions, or reserving judgment on them, is one thing. Insisting that both must be true is quite another. And to my mind, it's perfectly reasonable to accept both while acknowledging that one or the other must be incorrect, even if it is a bit of a cop-out. That's different in kind than insisting that both must be true, even though this is a logical impossibility.

Well, it only "doesn't matter" if we don't have free will. If we do have free will, it matters a great deal. :)

And I'm not sure the claims of divinity necessarily follow from being raised from the dead, otherwise Lazarus could also rightly claim divinity.