Sometimes the conflict we find ourselves facing in our families isn’t directly our fault. Instead, it’s the fault of somebody up the generational line from us who did some accidental tinkering along the way that resulted in things being where they are. One of the most potent sources of this accidental tinkering is when parents (or grandparents) play favorites with their children and grandchildren. This sets up the subsequent generations for all kinds of frustrating seasons of conflict. Let’s talk about how this can happen and what we need to do about it when it does.
Playing Favorites
Julie Andrews lent her voice to some of the most iconic movie songs ever. One that has always been among my favorites is “My Favorite Things” from The Sound of Music. In attempting to distract and reassure her nanny charges during a thunderstorm, she invites them to think about their favorite things. We all have favorite things. For instance, my favorite pie is pecan pie. (That’s not to be confused with pee-can pie or pee-cahn pie; those are different.) My favorite baseball team is the Kansas City Royals, who are in the midst of one of the most dramatic season turnarounds in baseball history. My favorite professional football team is the Kansas City Chiefs. I promise we will be magnanimous as we continue to outshine the Patriots’ dynasty in every way. College is all Kansas, of course. My favorite super spy is Ethan Hunt. My favorite drink is probably a cherry limeade from Sonic. My favorite book is probably still C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity, but his The Screwtape Letters would be a close second. Marvel is superior to D.C. Studios on the big screen in every way, and not even James Gunn will fix that. But in the animation department, D.C. owns everyone and it’s not close.
I could go on, but you get my point. I have my favorite things. So do you. Perhaps some of our things may line up, but I doubt we share too many of the same things. That’s because I’m me and you’re you. Yet what does it mean that these are our favorite things? It simply means that we are going to pick them over something else every single time we are given the chance. Now, for most things, having favorites really doesn’t matter very much. It’s inconsequential which thing you pick (unless you pick the wrong one, in which case you could wind up spending your life cheering for the wrong team or eating the wrong foods or listening to the wrong music). There are other places, though, where this whole exercise begins to matter a great deal more. One of these places is in our families. Playing favorites there matters a whole lot more, and not in a good way.
Today finds us in the third part of our teaching series, Stormy Waters. We all face conflict from time to time. This happens in all sorts of different situations in our lives, but some of the hardest and most painful conflict we face is in our families. Family conflict is hard. It’s anxiety-inducing. It can transform what should be a safe place into one fraught with danger. It can divide us from the people we should love the most in the whole world. Navigating these stormy waters without drowning along the way can be a real headache. Over the course of this six weeks, and with some wisdom from some of the families we meet in the collection of origin stories we find in the Scriptures called Genesis, we are talking about different kinds of conflict we face in our families and how to make it through them without losing our minds along the way.
So far along this journey we have talked about the conflict that can come from our being different from other members of our family, and the conflict that can happen when we feel like our rights have been denied. In both cases, turning toward God and away from our more natural inclinations is the way through the storm. From the story of Cain and Abel we were reminded that although differences can divide us, righteousness holds us together. Then, last week, from the story of Abraham and Lot’s conflict over land rights, we saw that when we can’t get what’s ours, we trust God to provide.
This morning, we are talking about another source of conflict in our families. This one springs from the fount of favoritism. If you are a parent, you’ve probably talked to your spouse about your kids. More specifically, you’ve talked to your spouse about your kids when you were irritated with them. In those moments, there’s a good chance you didn’t say the children, much less our children. You probably used the phrase your children. We do that kind of thing fairly lightly (or not so lightly, depending on the moment, but we mean it lightly even if the mood isn’t), but sometimes we can find ourselves falling into the mindset of thinking of one child as especially ours in a way that goes beyond a bit of situational silliness. Playing favorites in a family can be an entirely more serious affair, and the source of all kinds of conflict in our families. I’d like to spend a few minutes with you today talking about how we can navigate these stormy waters.
Like all of these different kinds of family conflict we are talking about in this series, showing favoritism in the context of a family is not a new thing. It is an old thing. A very old thing. We have stories of parents’ playing favorites in some of the earliest families we met in the Scriptures. Abraham did it with his children, causing all kinds of headaches. His grandson, Jacob, did it with his wives and his own children, resulting in no small amount of chaos. But lest you think the tendency toward favoritism in a family skipped a generation, let me assure you it did not. And the favoritism between those two bookends was a precursor to a conflict that unfolded over the span of centuries. This morning, I want to walk with you through some of the story of Abraham’s son, Isaac, his wife Rebekah, and the effects of their playing favorites in their family. If you have a copy of the Scriptures with you this morning, join me in Genesis 25, and we’ll see how all of this got started.
Now, Isaac was the son of Abraham and Sarah. Abraham had other children with other women as was unfortunately common in that culture, but Isaac was uniquely theirs. When Isaac grew up, in order to maintain the cohesion of their tribe, Abraham sent his most trusted servant to visit his brother, Nahor’s family in hopes of finding a wife for his son there among his cousins. Thankfully, that aspect of their culture was left in the past as well. As it turns out, the servant found Isaac’s wife in a woman named Rebekah. The two were married, but like his parents had, Isaac and Rebekah struggled to conceive. God finally granted them that blessing, and Rebekah found herself pregnant with twins.
Pick up in the story here with me in Genesis 25:19: “These are the family records of Isaac son of Abraham. Abraham fathered Isaac. Isaac was forty years old when he took as his wife Rebekah daughter of Bethuel the Aramean from Paddan-aram and sister of Laban the Aramean. Isaac prayed to the Lord on behalf of his wife because she was childless. The Lord was receptive to his prayer, and his wife Rebekah conceived. But the children inside her struggled with each other, and she said, ‘Why is this happening to me?’ So she went to inquire of the Lord. And the Lord said to her: ‘Two nations are in your womb; two peoples will come from you and be separated. One people will be stronger than the other, and the older will serve the younger.’ When her time came to give birth, there were indeed twins in her womb. The first one came out red-looking, covered with hair like a fur coat, and they named him Esau. After this, his brother came out grasping Esau’s heel with his hand. So he was named Jacob. Isaac was sixty years old when they were born.”
So, the two brothers were pretty radically different in just about every way from before they even left the starting gate. We could have examined this passage instead of the story of Cain and Abel back in our first week. But just because they were different, that by itself didn’t have to be a source of conflict. It often is, but in their case, another factor played into the potential problem. And this factor took what could have been mildly troublesome and turned it into a disaster.
We are introduced to this factor in the next story here in Genesis 25. The story is ultimately about Jacob—the child who came out grasping at his brother’s heel—successfully tricking his shortsighted brother into giving up his birthright as the oldest son. This didn’t really matter much right then, but given Isaac’s personal wealth, when it came time to sort out the inheritance for each boy, Jacob managed to literally double his inheritance at the expense of his brother’s. Before we get to that story, though, Moses gives us a general update on the two boys. Listen to this in v. 27: “When the boys grew up, Esau became an expert hunter, an outdoorsman, but Jacob was a quiet man who stayed at home. Isaac loved Esau because he had a taste for wild game, but Rebekah loved Jacob.”
So, what’s this? Well, because of the personality differences between the two boys and the way those differences resonated or didn’t with their parents, Isaac gravitated more in the direction of Esau, while his wife, Rebekah gravitated more in the direction of Jacob. The language Moses uses is that Isaac loved Esau, while Rebekah loved Jacob. This doesn’t mean that each parent didn’t love the other child. Neither is it talking specifically about an emotional connection with one kid or the other. The language of love in the Old Testament often has a great deal more to do with will than emotion. Each parent was drawn more to the one than the other. They chose the one rather than the other. To put that another way: They each had their favorite kid.
When this kind of thing happens in a family, it is rarely intentional. Maybe a particular parent and particular kid just have personalities that happen to resonate really well with each other. Meanwhile, the personalities of the parent and other kids just don’t jive. It takes both of them a lot more effort to be able to find points of relational connection, and while they both want to find those points, the natural hurdles involved in their being discovered keep them from being discovered very often. Over time, the bond between the resonant personalities grows stronger and stronger. The favoring parent here can eventually start to see the other kids through the lens of the difficulties they have in connecting relationally resulting in their being more likely to give them a harder time than is given to the favored child. Lots of folks today have blended families. This pattern is even easier to fall into in that situation. You are drawn more to your kid than theirs. That’s natural, but it is also devastating to the kids. And again, none of this happens on purpose or overnight. It is a process that can unfold over many years.
Well, as it turns out, the Genesis account of Isaac’s family gives us the chance to see how things are going on the other side of this process. It’s not a pretty picture. Jump forward with several years and several verses to the beginning of Genesis 27. Here we find Isaac nearing the end of his life and preparing to give his patriarchal blessing to his children, more specifically his oldest and favorite child, Esau. This blessing, kind of like the birthright Esau had already foolishly traded away, was considered a serious and even legally binding pronouncement that would have made him the official leader of the household when Isaac died.
Check out how this all unfolds with me. “When Isaac was old and his eyes were so weak that he could not see, he called his older son Esau and said to him, ‘My son,’ And he answered, ‘Here I am.’ He said, ‘Look, I am old and do not know the day of my death. So now take your hunting gear, your quiver and bow, and go out in the field to hunt some game for me. Then make me a delicious meal that I love and bring it to me to eat, so that I can bless you before I die.’”
This was all pretty standard affair for families back then. Now, Isaac was perhaps being a little dramatic as it would be several decades still before he died, but he didn’t know that at the time. He was simply doing what any father then would have done. He was glad to do it, too, because Esau was his favorite son. Esau was not, however, his mom’s favorite son. Remember: Rebekah loved Jacob. And over the years, while Isaac had favored Esau to the point that Jacob had almost no real relationship with his dad, Rebekah had doubled and tripled down on her love for her baby. She wanted him to have the best of everything so far as she could make that happen for him.
As a result, when Isaac called Esau and gave him his instructions, Rebekah was listening just outside the tent, and she had her own plans in mind. “Now Rebekah was listening to what Isaac said to his son Esau. So while Esau went to the field to hunt some game to bring in, Rebekah said to her son Jacob [notice the language that’s being used here—his son and her son], ‘Listen! I heard your father talking with your brother Esau. He said, “Bring me game and make a delicious meal for me to eat so that I can bless you in the Lord’s presence before I die.” Now, my son, listen to me and do what I tell you. Go to the flock and bring me two choice young goats, and I will make them into a delicious meal for your father—the kind he loves. Then take it to your father to eat so that he may bless you before he dies.’”
This is just deception, plain and simple. Rebekah was conspiring against her husband to take what he meant for his favorite son and make sure that it was given to her favorite son. Jacob expresses some doubts about the plan, namely that Esau is much hairier than he is, and smelled like the outdoors where he spent all his time. If Isaac catches on to their scheme, he might curse Jacob instead of blessing him. Verse 13 now: “His mother said to him, ‘Your curse be on me, my son. Just obey me and go get them for me.’”
This was a risky scheme, but Rebekah didn’t care. She wanted what she wanted for her son, and she wasn’t going to worry about what might happen if things didn’t go as planned. She would figure that out when the time came. And, wouldn’t you know it, the time eventually came. It didn’t come right away. At first, it looked like things were going to go off without a hitch. Her plan to deceive Isaac went off beautifully. He didn’t have a clue. Jacob lied through his teeth at least three different times and Isaac wasn’t the wiser. In the end, he got Esau’s blessing just like Rebekah planned.
But then Esau came home.
Verse 36 now: “So he said, ‘Isn’t he rightly named Jacob? For he has cheated me twice now. He took my birthright, and look, now he has taken my blessing.’ Then he asked [his dad], ‘Haven’t you saved a blessing for me?’” Cheated twice. Once because Jacob was a conman and a scoundrel; once because his own mother conspired against him. How would you feel? Look down to v. 41: “Esau held a grudge against Jacob because of the blessing his father had given him. And Esau determined in his heart: ‘The days of mourning for my father are approaching; then I will kill my brother Jacob.’” And you thought your family had its drama.
So then, what do we see going on here? Well, at a glance, this is two brothers who are radically different from one another fighting with each other, and mostly it’s Jacob finding more and more creative ways to swindle his brother out of parts of the family inheritance that should have been his by right. In other words, this story could have sat in for either of the last two sermons. But when you take a closer look here, it’s really hard to escape the reality of the parental favoritism that played into their drama. The fact is that Isaac and Rebekah played favorites with their kids. Friends, that’s always a dangerous game. In truth, it’s a game that nobody wins. When we play favorites, nobody wins.
Esau’s totally understandable grudge was passed on to his children and their children and their children on down the line of history. Eventually, his family became the nation of Edom who were one of Israel’s most bitter rivals throughout their history. It wasn’t always a violent rivalry (although it certainly was on occasion), but the bitterness to it ran deep. They celebrated Israel’s getting defeated by other nations and actively gave help and encouragement to those nations in their conquests of Israel. And Israel returned the favor with equal vigor. It was a bad situation. It was a bad situation that could potentially have been avoided if two parents had just not shown such obvious and blatant favoritism to their kids. When we play favorites, nobody wins.
Okay, but what do we actually do with all of this? Well, for starters, just don’t play favorites. Maybe that seems a bit too on the nose as far as advice goes, but sometimes on the nose is just what we need. If you are playing favorites with your kids, stop it. And, be honest enough with yourself to acknowledge that you are if that’s honestly the case. If you’re not sure, ask your spouse for her thoughts or his thoughts. This is a bit riskier endeavor, but ask your kids too. Like we said a bit ago: It’s an easy pattern to fall into. We don’t mean to, but there we are all the same. If you’ve drifted onto this path, walk back off of it. Apologize to the child who has been the victim of not being the favorite. Apologize to the one who has been shown favoritism. Make a concrete plan for how you are going to avoid that path in the future. When we play favorites, nobody wins.
Let me offer a caution here, though. Not playing favorites isn’t the same thing as saying that all children must be treated identically. They are not the same, so you can’t treat them all the same. When they are different ages, it’s okay to have growth milestones that they don’t hit at the same time. Their personalities are different (we talked about that a couple of weeks ago). This means that what works for one kid, may not work for another. So, don’t do the same thing for both of them. Showing favoritism, however, is different. It involves holding them to genuinely different standards and giving greater deference or opportunities to one versus another. It involves investing more in a relationship with one than another. This is an easy pattern to fall into, especially when our personality resonates more with one child than another. It takes real effort to invest equally in your relationship with the child with whose personality you don’t resonate naturally. Do it anyway. When we play favorites, nobody wins.
There’s one other side of things here that we cannot ignore. If you are the object of favoritism—or the collateral of its being shown to someone else—you didn’t have anything to do with that. That wasn’t your fault. You didn’t have any control over it. You were the victim in that. Being a victim, though, can’t serve as a justification for any amount of unrighteousness in our lives. This is especially true if you were the one who wasn’t favored. What you need to do is to forgive your parents for their favoritism. This doesn’t mean it was okay that it happened. It doesn’t mean it didn’t still hurt. It doesn’t mean that you don’t still need to recover from the wound. It only means that you are stepping down from God’s throne of judgment over their lives and letting Him do the job that was always His to do in the first place. You are releasing them from the debt they owe you because of the offense they have dealt you. When we play favorites, nobody wins, and in this case, you lost. The only way to begin recovering from that loss is to forgive.
If you don’t, that bitterness you feel is not going to go away. Time won’t heal that wound. It will instead eat you up inside and make sustaining healthy family relationships harder for you. This goes with the family members who showed the favoritism. It goes with your own family too. Until you forgive so that healing can begin to happen, whenever that hurt gets triggered by something, you’ll respond with an avalanche of emotion that seems wildly out of proportion to the actual situation, and which will leave the family members around you utterly bewildered by the explosion. You’ll do wounds to them by it for which they’ll eventually have to forgive you. What’s more, if you don’t extend that forgiveness at least in your heart, you’ll be more likely to play favorites yourself. Hurt people often hurt people, and in the same kinds of ways they were hurt. When we play favorites, nobody wins.
There’s an old religious cliche that says the ground at the foot of the cross is level. God loves each of His children the same. That doesn’t mean our outcomes are all the same. That doesn’t mean the path He has for us through this life is all the same. We are all created uniquely, and God treats us accordingly. But His love for us is consistent. The opportunities for relationship He extends to us are uniform. We all have the same access to Him in Christ. The same Spirit dwells in each of His children. That’s the model for us to follow. If we take any other path, confusion and chaos will inevitably be the result. When we play favorites, nobody wins. So, let’s commit in our families to living toward each other with the impartial love of God that sees each member becoming more each day who God made them to be. When we play favorites, nobody wins. Let’s play a game where everybody wins.
The Nexus 
“Let’s play a game where everyone wins. “
As an active member of a religious cult that has tens of thousands of different sects/denominations may I suggest the “game” of secular humanism?
No ‘sign-on fee’, ( confession etc) and no supernaturalism.
By the way, did you watch the Sam Harris video I posted?
LikeLike
Well, calling the world’s largest religion a “cult” is needlessly pejorative and reflects your negative bias rather than any serious interest in a real conversation. The same goes with wildly overestimating the number of branches on the tree of orthodoxy there are. We’ll set all of that to the side for now.
I am curious, in a “game” of secular humanism, how does one win and what does one win? What is somehow inherently wrong with supernaturalism?
I haven’t watched the video yet, but plan to budget some time for that this week. I believe your challenge there was for me to find a Chrisitan video that can convince you of its worthiness.
Number one, no, I’m not going to spend time scrolling through YouTube in hopes of finding one that you will consider convincing. I don’t have anything like time for that in my day. Number two, you don’t have any interest in being convinced of the worthiness of the Christian worldview. You will find a problem with whatever video I send your way. And while you may be tempted to use that fact as some kind of an argument against the Christian worldview, it’s really just illustrative of your own hardened bias against it.
So, I will give the video a watch as I do my best to engage with all the various things you send me. But, no, I’m not planning on sending you any back. Besides, I sent you the information for a podcast the other day and you completely ignored that. Why search for a video?
LikeLike
Secular humanism does not involve deities or unsubstantiated supernatural crap. That eliminates a whole plethora of dogma and doctrinal garbage.
No sin, no Creationist rubbish, no ridiculous ID.
That’s a win for everyone.
The number branches/ denominations or sects if you will are widely available on the internet.
Why would I be interested in being converted to any thing that relied on misinformation, lies and supernatural rubbish that requires me to admit I am a sinner, and needing salvation?🤦
LikeLike
All you’ve done here is to define secular humanism as not being the mostly straw man version of Christianity you love beating around with a stick. I’m still waiting for what the actual wins would be. What does secular humanism offer the world that Christianity doesn’t?
And the real truth is that it doesn’t really eliminate any of those things. It merely changes how they look. You’ve really got to bone up on your philosophy chops when it comes to understanding worldview thinking.
And your last comment just makes my point. Why waste my time trying to convince someone who doesn’t want to be convinced? Jesus Himself said that when someone doesn’t have any interest in being convinced of the truthfulness of the Gospel, don’t waste any more time on the effort. Go on to the next person who is interested.
You still didn’t answer my question, by the way, regarding what is apparently inherently wrong with the supernatural.
LikeLike
What does Secular humanism offer the world ( That Christianity most definitely does not!)
Commonsense( No indoctrination of children).
Honesty.
Rationality.
No doctrine.
No dogma.
No supernatural crap.
No hell.
Just these things alone make secular humanism the much better option and is worth ditching your vile religion for.
What else did you want?
Sorry, forgot the supernatural question.
It is wrong in a similar way telling lies is wrong.
Example. Telling kids (or adults) if you do not believe in Jesus and ask for forgiveness for your sins you might very well spend eternity being tortured in hell.
Utter and absolute bullshit, and when this aspect of your revolting religion is indoctrinated into kids it is tantamount to child abuse.
How’s that? Good enough?
It would not be a waste of time if you truly believed in the veracity of the claims made by your religion.
LikeLike
Okay, you responded by just repeating yourself. Yes, I understand that secular humanism is not Christian theism. What does secular humanism actually offer the world? If all you can do is to define it as “not Christianity” you’re not actually offering anything positive. You’re simply staking out an anti position. And something like the claim to “honesty” is entirely perspective rooted. That’s not a real contribution. That’s still defining it negatively. Every worldview claims to be honest in their assessment of the world.
The trouble you’re facing here is that secular humanism is a weak worldview. It doesn’t offer anything that any other worldview doesn’t already offer and in a stronger form. What SH can’t offer, though, is any kind of larger purpose or meaning for our lives that is rooted in something larger than ourselves. This is why where it once looked like it was going to take hold and take off in places like Western Europe, it is starting to more and more fade into the background. Most people want more than what SH can give them. As a result, even where they are not turning back to Christianity at all, they are at least turning to various other forms of spirituality which all include a belief in the supernatural in one form or another. You are advocating for a losing proposition. I appreciate and respect that you are a passionate evangelist for it, but it’s a fruitless endeavor all the same.
As for your response to the supernatural question, that is entirely dependent on your worldview position. In other words, the problem isn’t with the supernatural per se. It is with your worldview’s understanding/approach to it. Or, to put it another way, it’s a you problem, not a supernatural problem.
And of course I believe in the veracity of the claims of my religion. Why do you think I keep engaging with you on here rather than merely shutting you down? But, you’ve also made clear over and over and over that you don’t have any real, genuine interest in Christianity. At the point you start to show that, I’ll be more than happy to invest more into the effort.
LikeLike
I listed several things including commonsense and honesty.
Rather than me trotting out a cut & paste, which is what I would do, it is no great effort even for one so strapped for time as you to simply Google the benefits of secular humanism.
The larger than life bullshit is the nonsense of supernaturalism. False promises from archaic ignorance.
We can do much better than that and do not need an imaginary overbearing overseer.
It is only a fruitless endeavor for the terminally indoctrinated, something I do not subscribe to, by the way, unless one is mentally ill.
It isn’t perspective orientated if it is fact.
Which, in this case it is.
If you tell your kids they are hell bound for non-compliance that is dishonest ( not to mention tacit child abuse) as you have no evidence whatsoever to support such an assertion.
Or the opposite – a ticket to heaven for being good little sunbeams for Jesus.
Which ties in nicely with your supernatural problem. Again, more vacuous claims, I’m afraid.
In essence, simply lies.
Yes, you say you believe. But when you consider all the evidence that undermines and even refutes so much of what you claim to accept as fact from Genesis to Revelation you are really just clinging to something you know has nothing to support it.
This is why apologetics is such big business To quell the tremolous hearts f the ignorant sheep.
You know the HGP refutes Adam and Eve.
You know the Noachian Flood tale is nonsense, and deep down, you know the archaeological evidence flatly refutes the Exodus tale. Because the hard core evidence tells you so.
As someone who studies the bible you also know the gospels are anonymous, you know the scholarship is accurate on this point as I know you are way too smart to believe otherwise.
And because you know this you are also fully aware of the interpolations, the forgeries and the large slices of redaction.
You are aware the epistles are not all genuine. You surely know some are cobbled together.
I know you know all this because if I am aware of it you surely are and must have studied everything and a lot more than me.
This is why, as the late Dan Denett once noted, most Christians simply believe that they believe but don’t really believe.
And yes, I do have an interest in Christianity.
Much like my passion for gardening and trying to grow food for my family – sometimes the crop return from the seeds I sow turns out to be a real surprise.
LikeLike
Jesus said the same thing about growing God’s kingdom. And Daniel Denett wasn’t entirely wrong. The rest of that really isn’t anything I need to respond to. None of it makes the first bit of sense apart from your worldview perspective which I reject. Your passion as an evangelical atheist is still admirable, though.
LikeLike
In fact it makes perfect sense.
You know full well it does and no matter how you try and hide it evidence will always undermine everything about your religion you claim as truth.
And this is why secular humanism is everything that Christianity is not.
Dennett nailed it.
LikeLike
As much as I appreciate your telling what I know and believe, you’re simply not correct on this one. I have evaluated a secular worldview from several different angles many different times. All of them come up short on sense and long on tragic nonsense. What you argued there only makes sense on a secular worldview which, again, I reject as worldview because it ultimately fails to properly account for reality.
I am still waiting for what SH actually gives to the world that Christianity does not. As I said before and you ignored and repeated the point anyway, claiming that SH somehow gives honesty to the world is a worldview-dependent claim and doesn’t offer anything like a meaningful answer to my question.
And, yes, Dennett was insightful and far-too-often correct in his observation. Too many claim faith and don’t live it. That’s something that gets mentioned in the New Testament more than once, calling believers to guard against. Not a few claim atheism of some variety and instinctively turn to prayer when things get bad enough. Lots of people claim they believe something but turn out not to really believe it when push comes to shove. That’s not a particular fault of Christianity, but of people generally.
LikeLike
Secular humanism is all about logic and commonsense.
Christianity does not embody either of these qualities.
What about the above is tragic nonsense? It makes sense, period. There is no damnation, no guilt trip, no supernatural bullshit, no built in lies, all of which are encompassed in your religion.
In fact, your indoctrination has simply blinded you to these facts, and this is probably why you pass such rubbish on to your children.
Now THAT is tragic.
I offered several positive qualities of secular humanism which are absent from the vile and ridiculous crap inherent in your faith based worldview.
If you are simply too bone headed to Google and take the time to read then that is an issue you will have to deal with.
It is telling you refuse to acknowledge or even respond to the Bible topics I listed.
That you know full well hard core evidence refutes every foundational religious claim of the OT and much of the NT how do you manage to deal with the cognitive dissonance and more importantly, how do you rationalize such rubbish when talking to your children?
Do you simply not discuss such issues, or equivocate in order not to openly lie to them?
Dennett’s observation is spot on and his argument was directed toward people exactly like you.
If you have never listened to Dan Barker speak you should take the time to listen to one of his videos.
He once personified the type of believer you profess to be.
LikeLike
Near as I can tell, you have offered exactly two things that could be understood as being positive qualities of SH, honesty and commonsense. Those two, as I am now explaining for the third (fourth?) time, are perspectivally-rooted. The only people who agree with that assessment are other secular humanists. That’s a circular argument. I’m looking for things SH has given to the world that weren’t there before, which have contributed positively to the state of the world, and which are broadly recognized as being positive contributions that are unique to SH (and not merely touted by secular humanists). You have yet to do that. Other than insisting on logic and now commonsense, you just keep defining it by pointing out ways you think it is superior to Christian theism.
I didn’t acknowledge or respond to the Bible topics you listed because we’ve talked about those over and over again, because they’re the same three or four topics you always raise, and it didn’t seem worth my time to follow you back down that rabbit hole.
And there you go again insisting to me what I know. You insist that I must have some amount of cognitive dissonance. Have I ever said anything in the last year that would suggest to you some amount of cognitive dissonance on my part? As for how I rationalize teaching my children the Christian worldview, that’s easy. It’s true, and so I teach with gladness and confidence.
What seems to be the real challenge here for you is that you literally cannot imagine not being right. At the very least, I haven’t seen any evidence of such a category in your mind over the course of our engagement. As a result, it seems to remain mystifying to you that I not only don’t agree with you, but continue to not agree with you on any of these matters.
As for Dennett’s observation, I have agreed with you twice that he was insightful in making it. You keep responding like I’m not agreeing with you. What’s interesting is your observation that he directed it at people like me. That’s you once again assuming that I don’t really believe what I have confessed to believe. So, I ask again: have I said something along the way that suggests some amount of doubt to you, or are you just assuming that because you can’t imagine that I really believe it?
I’ll give Dan Barker a listen when you have spent some time listening to Dr. John Wise. He once personified the type of atheist you profess to be. His most recent four podcast episodes touch on many of the issues we have discussed back and forth.
LikeLike
If you cannot distinguish between honesty and dishonesty then you have serious issues.
And for the third or fourth time if you are too damn lazy to simply Google the benefits of Secular Humanism then that is an issue you have to deal with.
Besides, simply Not having to deal with the supernatural nonsense and the revolting dictune abd signs Christus bity pushes is a relief in itself.
Ask any deconvert. Listen to Dan Barker.
Also, remember a few comments back you stated you have limited time? Considering how much time you have now spent replying with all this waffle I would say this was an example of dishonesty.
So when you teach your children that the tales in the bible are fact you are ostensibly lying to them.
Do you not feel any shame for this?
Re: Dennett.
You agree yet do not include yourself in Dennett observations.
How did you arrive at the conclusion you are exempt?
It would seem you do not agree because of your indoctrination.
He discussed this point.
However, by utilizing compartmentalism the believer is able to separate religious beliefs so they do not interfere with certain aspects of daily life. The commonsense ones.
You probably accept geology and plate tectonics which is why you know the Noachian Global Flood is a myth.
But on the other hand you will suggest it could have happened because it says so in the bible. 🤦
It is a similar story for the HGP and the Exodus and any number of other tales.
You see, Jonathan, evidence refutes your beliefs at every turn. You cannot escape this.
I must have missed your Dr John Wise link.
Sorry about that..
You can post it again if you like but if there’s a video I would prefer that.
Meantime when I’ve sent this reply I will Google him.
LikeLike
On Dennett, what have I said that makes you sure I’m included in his observation? You’ve made lots of assumptions about what I believe and know, but I’m not aware of when I’ve given justification for those assumptions. Beyond assumptions you’ve made that are dependent on your own worldview perspective, where’s your evidence?
On time, I can type quickly, and I’m a writer. Writing doesn’t take long. Spending time searching the internet for this or that, however, does take time. Time I’m not interested in giving.
I keep asking you to furnish real benefits of SH because you seem to be such a fan that such benefits must surely be easy for you to call to mind. You’re evading the question by telling me to Google it and otherwise blustering about how bad Christian theism is rather than actually answering the question. If there are all of these vast benefits that make SH so profoundly superior to Christian theism that any rational person would jump eagerly from one to the other, then what are they?
LikeLike
Not evading at all. As I said before anything I offered would be cut and paste.which I can easily do if you are too lazy to take the time.
And once more, simply NOT having the supernatural crap and lies that underpin your religion is reason enough not to follow your religion.
It isn’t bluster, it is fact. The doctrine and dogma of your faith based religious beliefs are based on supernaturalism.
They do not comport with reality and have no evidence to support them.
That you refuse to address in any honest fashion the very pertinent issues that are the foundational tenets of your faith illustrates you cannot justify them on any real terms and this demonstrates why indoctrination is such a crucial part of the longevity of Christianity.
Stop indoctrinating your kids and see how quickly they drop Christianity.
And if you did, your grandchildren will almost certainly be non-religious
LikeLike
So, you’re just not going to answer the question then? And that’s somehow my fault? Should I include a facepalm emoji for good measure?
LikeLike
I have offered severalkl reasons already.
Would you like the cut and paste version?
It will take me two minutes.
LikeLike
You’ve offered basically two, but sure, we can call that several. By all means, have at it. But my greater curiosity is why you have to go cut and paste from somebody else rather than just being able to offer them up from your own thinking.
LikeLike
Because a cut and paste is far easier.
But if you could not be bothered to Google – you know, all those time constraints you have – why will you bother to read a C&P?
LikeLike
So you don’t have a single thought off the top of your head of what SH has actually given positively to the world beyond two things that are only valid on the worldview from which you’re operating? Really?
LikeLike
Do you really need to resort to be an asinine arse, Jonathan?
LikeLike
I asked a simple question, and you blustered about for several comments about how dumb my position is rather than merely answering the question, and then you insisted it was my fault that you wouldn’t answer the question. And you’re calling me names over that? Good grief.
LikeLike
There is too much to copy and paste.
This should tell you all you need to know.
https://secularhumanism.org/a-secular-humanist-declaration/#:~:text=Secular%20humanism%20has%20provided%20an,of%20human%20exploration%20and%20adventure
LikeLike
Other than a near total lack of self-awareness, is that the best you’ve got? Nearly all of those are borrowed from religious worldviews (especially Christian theism) and merely retrofitted to take out the God stuff.
LikeLike
And by taking out the supernatural garbage look how much better things are.
What is your objection to this?
LikeLike
How does the rejection of the supernatural (which is a philosophical position rooted in worldview commitments) make things better? Stalinist Russia took out all the “supernatural garbage” from Russian culture. So has Maoist China. I assume you don’t include those in your broad assessment of “better”? And in the absence of Christian theism, Western Europe is awash in “supernatural garbage.” I understand you can’t build a highway in some parts of Ireland (I think it was there) without first confirming that your project won’t disturb any fairies. Those are people who left Christian theism, embraced secularism for a while, and then went in search of some other kind of spiritualism. Taking out the “supernatural garbage” of Christian theism seems to have accomplished little more than bringing back in a whole bunch of “supernatural garbage.” How exactly is this better?
LikeLike
Rejection of the supernatural requires one to deal with reality.
Remember, Jonathan your religion is not the only one that clings to such nonsense.
I am sure with a little effort on your part you could see the benefits for society as a whole without the polarizing effects religion causes?
And you are correct. It manifests in other ways as well.
But rejecting religious supernaturalism is a good start especially as it encompasses far more than fairies in the garden.
LikeLike
I asked how rejecting the supernatural makes things better and you responded by talking about religion. That wasn’t my question. I didn’t even specify religious supernaturalism. And rejecting the supernatural only “requires” one to deal with reality when you’re operating from a worldview of methodological naturalism.
As for the benefits of removing the polarizing effect of religion, sure, that has caused no small amount of trouble over the centuries of human history. However, we are a tribal people. It is in our nature to divide ourselves along some sort of lines and duke it out from our respective sides. If it’s not religion that polarizes us, it’ll be politics or something else. Religion itself isn’t the real issue here, but rather human nature. Until you deal with that, focusing on religion is just a scapegoat for the real problem…for which secular humanism doesn’t have a good solution. And, this argument completely ignores the plentiful evidence pointing to the beneficial impact of certain religions on a society. You’re cherry picking your data in light of what’s most convenient to your cause.
LikeLike
Yes, we do tend to be tribal. However removing the idiocy of supernatural garbage that is the foundational basis of religion – or rather stop teaching it – is at least a step in the right direction. And if we start with our children, even better.
Why don’t try an experiment with your kids?
Just deal with facts. No need for hypererbole or long drawn out sermon type explanations.
Announce at the dinner table that you have decided to inform your kids that there is no evidence whatshever for the foundational claims of Christianity and your personal beliefs are based on faith.
Mention the scientific and archaeological evidence that has refuted such things as Adam & Eve, Noah and his flood and the geopolitical foundation myth of the Exodus narrative.
Add that henceforth there will be no more religion discussed in the house and encourage your kids to do research.
I’ll wager they’ll be non-believers within two years.
LikeLike
On the first part, no, it wouldn’t be a step in the right direction. It would just migrate the problem and do nothing to solve it. In giving all your attention to hating religion, you are misidentifying the source of the problem you profess to want to solve. Because of this, none of your suggested solutions will do anything to meaningfully solve it. And again, there’s a fair bit of sociological evidence that good religion is greatly beneficial to a society, so really, you’re committing a double fault. You’re getting the source of the problem wrong and taking away something that is a known mitigating factor for the real problem.
On the second part, I’ll pass. I don’t like to present my kids with arguments and ideas that aren’t true, but whose falsity is obscured by worldview commitments that are ultimately out of sync with reality.
LikeLike
Well at least you acknowkedge religion exacerbates our tribalistic nature.
And again, by moving away from religion the divisivness it causes ( tribalism) will not be removed but it will be weakened. Just consider the Middle East as the perfect example.
It is unfortunate that you wish to cling to your supernatural beliefs and not look for solutions. This is telling. But then, we must remember, your faith encourages ( demands?) you to spread it, and all religious faiths are wrong and their adherrents are destined for Hell.
And of course you may have to answer to Yahweh of you have let slide the opportunity to save a sinner, am I right?
Yes, there are good aspects of religious community, I agree. I enjoyed similar communal friendships and bonding when I was a teen and part of a local table tennis club. There was a similar spirit of comraderie when I ran marathons for a local running club
One of the other benefits was we got to go to the pub and nonone suggested I was going to hell.
From a sociological pov, look at the most stable countries. The Scandinavian nations rank as some of best in this regard, and sadly this stability is recently being threatened… by extreme religion.
What about anything I suggested regarding the HGP, Noah and his big boat, evolution, etc is not true?
Again, from the point of honesty and integrity I would appreciate specifics. Thanks.
LikeLike
No, I didn’t acknowledge that religion exacerbates it. I said that religion is a way that it gets expressed. Those are two different things.
I’m curious, did you and the local table tennis club ever do any community service together? (By the way, I love table tennis and would be delighted to have a match if we ever land in the same place) How about with the local running club? Did you ever collect money for the purposes of giving generously to bring relief to an ongoing social or personal issue in your community? A spirit of comradery is good, sure, but churches tend to be a whole lot more beneficial for their communities on the whole than mere social clubs. This is because our foundational instructions mandate our doing that.
By the way, just for fun, my wife’s work had a gathering at a local bar one Friday night. Personally, I don’t drink because I don’t care for it, but I have zero issues with anyone else drinking. The Scriptures don’t prohibit it, and they’re adults who can make their own decisions. There were several members of my church there when we arrived. They saw me and about flipped out and started trying to hide their drinks. It was hysterical. You can enjoy the pub to your heart’s content, and I won’t ever suggest you’re bound for Hell because of it.
The Scandanavian nations are being threatened by extreme Islam, not merely religion. That kind of non-specific language is unhelpful and inaccurate, and used to score illegitimate points. And they are being threatened by radical Islam precisely because the secular humanism they have so broadly embraced does not have the worldview wherewithal to meaningfully oppose and prevent it. A strong worldview is only going to be successfully opposed by another strong worldview. Because of the weakness of secular humanism, many in those nations are turning to various forms of rightwing nationalism because they offer a stronger worldview approach. But they aren’t nearly so sunny and happy-go-lucky as the secular humanism that you are and they once boasted about.
LikeLike
Thectabkectennus club was run out of our local community centre in Westminster Park in my old home town.
I know they did charity drives but I don’t recall if these were table tennis specific.
The running club was organized through Scaw Metals. I didn’t work for the company but I believe they did invest in local communities around the plant.
Because rekigion is expressed by different cults/ sects and each one considers they are right and everyone else is damned the social issues that accompany such crap… Consider Jerusalem… are exacerbated.
Now if religion, and especially the absurd differences, were not part of the scene we could all go home for milk and cookies.
Have you ever watched the movie Kingdom of Heaven with Orlando Bloom?
If not, you should. It will explain quite a bit.
Yes, Islam. They are now where Christianity was a few centuries ago and it is because of secularism that Chtjtisnitybwas forced to change.
No more burning witches and heretics.
Why a bunch of killjoys, eh?
But the point us made. Religion is a major disruptive factor.
Damn, your god Yahweh. You would think an omni everything deity would have seen this coming?
Obviously not. What a prick!
But give it time. Your god Yahweh will eventually have to go sit with Odin, Thor, and all the other make believe deities.
LikeLike
Such a limited understanding of the nature and purpose and impact of religion. I’m not even sure what kind of an answer would make a difference here.
I did watch Kingdom of Heaven years ago and remember thoroughly enjoying it. I’m not sure what it explains that would be helpful for your point here though.
LikeLike
Religion is quite simple. It relies on belief in the supernatural.
LikeLike
Some religion does, yes, but not all. Religion is an organized way of engaging with powers that we believe to be higher than us whether those are powers supernatural or not is a separate question.
LikeLike
“… that we believe…”
Yes, quite. But no evidence to support that belief, of course.
This is where good old indoctrination comes into its own.
And those powers are supernatural, even if you are referring to the Pope or Kings and Queens, who are supposedly Chosen by God( sic).
LikeLike
And how about Buddhists who don’t believe in anything supernatural at all?
LikeLike
Errrr….. You were saying?
Beliefs found in Buddhism that could be called supernatural are rebirth, the working of karma over multiple lifetimes, heavens and hells, devas and Māras, miracles, merit and merit transfer, and many of the psychic powers mentioned in Buddhist texts (e.g., walking through walls, flying, and talking with gods.)
LikeLike
Yes, there are some Buddhists who hold to all of that. There are some who treat it all as little more than moral teachings without any kind of a reference to any sort of higher power at all. Your definition of religion is too small. Religion can take many different forms. Some of them are theistic of some flavor. Some of them are not.
LikeLike
My definition of religion is how is generally describes itself, the foundational tenets of which invariably involve some degree of supernatural clap trap.
LikeLike
And you are perfectly free to have that definition. I just don’t agree with you on it so your points on this matter fall flat.
LikeLike
As this, seems to upset you, let us simply deal with those religions that embrace the supernatural?
The foundational tenets of the Abrahamic religions all rely on supernaturalism, for which there is no evidence whatsoever.
LikeLike
I apologize if I’ve communicated in a way that suggests I’m upset at all. I’m not.
LikeLike
Excellent! Then perhaps we can deal with supernaturalism and the complete lack of evidence?
LikeLike
Sorry about the typos.
LikeLike
You spend an inordinate amount of time telling me it is my worldview that frames my perspective of your religion and therefore my definition of evidence and truth in these matters is wholly dependant on this lens I view them through and not whether they are in fact based on verifiable evidence and fact.
I would like to tell you of a devout Christian chap, a regular visitor to my blog, who goes by the handle of Colorstorm. He can recite the bible til the cows come home and always has a verse or two which he unleashes on non believers such as myself.
There are two other interesting aspects of Colorstorm.
1. He is a Flat Earther. People who have not dialogued with him before, even fellow Christians, are surprised at this and the vehemence in which he defends this belief.
2. He does not believe humans have visited or walked in the moon.
Of course, as you would imagine, for both these firmly held beliefs he has an answer for every argument thrown at him.
Except for one.
I never usually engage him in these beliefs but a while back I came across a piece of evidence about the moon landing that cannot be refuted by such conspiracy theorists as Colorstorm.
The evidence is this.
Aldrin ( and a few others) left reflectors on the moon surface.
Scientists are now able to accurately bounce a laser off the moon, thus measuring the distance between the moon and the earth, among other things, demonstrating unequivocally there is evidence humans walked on the surface of the moon.
He refuses point blank to engage me whenever I ask about this.
Now, is this evidence dependant on my particular worldview or is it a fact, whether Colorstorm accepts it or not?
LikeLike
You’ve mentioned Colorstorm before. It was ironic that you brought him back up and I saw the comment shortly after I was telling my son about a question a Christian podcaster I was listening to answered on his show. It was from someone asking if their church should make someone an elder who sounded very much like Colorstorm. He was faithful in every way…he simply was convinced the world is flat. (The host assured them that, no, elevating such a person to a leadership role in the church would not be wise.)
In any event…to your question. The evidence itself is not dependent on your worldview. It simply is. How you or Colostorm or anyone else understands the evidence, though, is.
Evidence simply is. There are raw facts about the world that cannot be changed no matter how much we may want them to be changed. It is a fact that we landed on the moon. It is fact that the world is not flat. It is a fact that the pull of gravity on earth is about 9.8 m/s2. It is a fact that followers of Jesus started proclaiming that He rose from the dead when there was not a single good reason for them to do so unless it had really happened. It is a fact that the church exploded into existence in the first century, powered by the testimony that Jesus had risen from the dead and that a whole bunch of people saw Him alive again after He had been killed. Those are all facts of the natural world or of history. They simply are.
How we interpret those facts depends entirely on our worldview. Somehow, Colorstorm has gotten bought into a worldview that has some flavoring of Christianity to it, but which has been corrupted by conspiracy nonsense. As a result, he is convinced beyond reason that the earth is flat. You can present the evidence all you want, but his worldview won’t allow him to process it in a way that accepts that reality. Your worldview doesn’t allow for anything supernatural. As a result, you can only interpret the facts related to the resurrection in ways that don’t allow for it to have happened. The facts are what they are. We don’t always get the facts right which, when combined with worldview considerations, can lead us to believe some things that are decidedly untrue. It is amazing, though, how those factual errors when combined with worldview considerations can lead to points of dogma for people that don’t always make a lot of sense.
LikeLike
The evidence I mentioned was regarding reflectors used to bounce lasers off the surface.
While other aspects of the moon landing can be argued by conspiracy nuts like Colorstorm the evidence about laser is irrefutable.
This is Not dependant on worldview as you acknowledged.
However…..
The fact that believers Claimed the character Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead is NOT evidence he did.
There is a written CLAIM but there is no independant verification, or evidence and as mentioned the long ending of gMark is a forgery.
Evidence is NOT dependant on worldview, and there is no evidence the character Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead.
The same applies to Adam and Eve, the Noachian Global flood and Moses and the Exodus narrative.
In fact, evidence refutes these claims at every stop and this has nothing to do with worldview.
As you write it isn’t dependant on worldview it just is.
LikeLike
You’re several responses up on me right now. I may try to combine multiple lines here.
Evidence is unavoidably tied in with worldview considerations. The facts simply are, but how we interpret those facts is going to be determined by the worldview position we hold. I’m not sure what continues to be so perplexing about this idea for you.
On the resurrection…
When a cold case detective works to solve a case that was once considered unsolvable, the case he often builds in order to secure a conviction is not one rooted primarily in the kind of empirical evidence you insist (because of your worldview commitments) is the only kind that can count as evidence. Instead, he will look to build a pattern of facts. He will work to establish a whole collection of facts that independently don’t amount to much, but when assembled together, paint a picture that points to the guilt of the true offender that is beyond reasonable doubt. Could someone look at those facts and make an argument in another direction? Certainly. And depending on the worldview position (not necessarily a large-scale worldview position, but a small-scale one related to that particular issue) they hold, they might be hard to dissuade from their interpretation. But for the observer of these facts – what the cold case detective might call “evidence” – who is not so limited by a particular worldview position, the conclusion is obvious.
There are a number of historical facts surrounding the supposed resurrection of Jesus from the dead. I mentioned a couple of those before. As isolated bits of history, they don’t amount to much. When you put them all together, though, the most reasonable conclusion about the case they make is that Jesus rose from the dead.
LikeLike
The only historical fact regarding the resurrection is at some point a group of people came to believe that the character Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead and wafted off into heaven.
From this the religion of Christianity eventually began. A couple of hundred years later the Church codified it and established official doctrine. This included the compilation of the Bible.
That is it.
LikeLike
I’ll go with what the scholars who have spent their lives carefully investigating this matter have to say on the matter. They present a far more compelling case.
LikeLike
What scholars? There are no proper scholars/historians who regard the resurrection claim of the Bible character Jesus of Nazareth an historical fact! There mere notion risible.
Oh, and please don’t be asinine and come back with your pedantic worldview rubbish.
LikeLike
How could I not? If I don’t keep pointing out the truth to you every time you put it on display, you’ll never learn to accept it. Your assessment of who should be considered a “proper scholar” is entirely worldview dependent, and not particularly honest. People who agree with your position are acceptable, and literally (that I can tell) no one who doesn’t is. That’s not a reflection of the rightness of your position, it’s a reflection of your blindly devoted faith in your worldview position. I can’t help that much.
LikeLike
The fact the earth is a sphere is not worldview dependant.
When you understand the relevance of this you will cease being willfully ignorant when it comes to your faith.
There is no (genuine) historian who will assert there is evidence the bible character Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead.
To suggest otherwise is a lie.
LikeLike
The first part of that is a red herring and the rest just makes my point. There’s really not need to say more.
LikeLike
It refutes your point.
No historian worthy of the name will assert there is evidence for the resurrection of the Bible character Jesus of Nazareth simply because there is only the claim but no evidence.
What I find distasteful and thoroughly disingenious about your position is the fact there IS evidence that refutes things like Adam and Eve, Noah and the Flood, and the Exodus and yet you flatly refuse to acknowledge these facts yet are almost fanatical in your assertion about supposed evidence for the resurrection forvehich the rebus nothing.
LikeLike
Your entire comment is just dripping with your worldview commitments. They’re so thick here it’s really not worth trying to respond to this.
LikeLike
Then identify any recognized historian
( we can start with non Christian but you can include Jews and Muslims if you like) that accepts there is evidence for the resurrection of the Bible character Jesus of Nazareth.
Important Point for you to take note of.
I am NOT referring to interpretation of evidence, I am asking you to identify historians who acknowkedge the bible tale is regarded as evidence.
LikeLike
Why would I limit my response to only non-Christian (of some variety) historians? That’s an artificial limitation you impose on the question because of your worldview commitments. Everything about this comment assumes on things that I reject. I’m just not going to play the game by your rules.
LikeLike
Because secular historians do not regard the tales in the bible as evidence of a resurrection.
They abide by the historical method and are not guided in any sense by faith.
And the others also consider the tales unhistorical lacking in any evidentiary basis, but their reasons are also underpinned by their own ridiculous faith based beliefs.
Does my worldview determine whether there was a global flood as described in the Bible or does the scientific and geological evidence hold sway?
LikeLike
So, as long as the historian agrees entirely with your perspective, they count as a “real” historian. Everyone operates from within the framework of their worldview. That applies across the board and is utterly inescapable. What you are saying is that you’ll only accept historians as “real” if they share your worldview. I reject that artificial limitation. So, no, I won’t indulge your biased line of questioning here.
LikeLike
As long as the historian is NOT encumbered by faith based religious issues.
There… Fixed it for you.
One reason no historian I am aware of credits the deity claims attached to Julius Caesar or Vespasian for example
However, if any historian religious or otherwise, can provide evidence for the supernatural claims of the Bible then let’s discuss it.
Have you any evidence in particular you would like to put forward?
LikeLike
So then, to repeat my point that you continue to demonstrate is correct: as long as the historian shares your worldview commitments, you will consider them a “real” historian. Such a standard unavoidably sets you up to have all of your thinking tainted by confirmation bias. I simply won’t indulge such silliness masquerading as serious thinking.
LikeLike
Again, why do you consider historians not encumbered by faith based religious beliefs don’t consider supernatural claims as evidence?
Conversely, if not from faith, on what grounds do historians who are Christians deem there is evidence for the resurrection?
LikeLike
Because, as I have tried to explain again and again, their worldview commitments preclude it. On the second question, go actually read the books by Mike Licona or Gary Habermas.
LikeLike
Preclude what, exactly.
LikeLike
A question for you.
Are you able to offer a single valid reason that anyone should become a Christian?
LikeLike
What do you mean by “valid”?
LikeLike
Do you seriously not understand the meaning of the word?
For crying out loud, must I be your personal online dictionary?
Give me one valid reason anyone should become a Christian.
LikeLike
I thought that question was fairly clear. What do YOU mean by valid? That’s a worldview-dependent criterion. What one person considers valid may not be what another does. So again, what do you mean by “valid”?
LikeLike
No. It is not worldview dependant.
Do you understand the meaning of the word valid. Yes or no?
LikeLike
Of course I do, and, yes, it is entirely worldview dependent. We keep coming back to this point that you seem incapable of really understanding: you can’t escape worldview thinking. You are one again blustering rather than just answering the question.
LikeLike
Valid. Having a sound basis in logic and fact.
So, is there a single valid reason to become a Christian.
LikeLike
What do you mean by having a sound basis in logic and fact? What do you consider to be facts? I can do this all day. What you want – and I say this based on the evidence of our conversations over time – is for me to give you a reason to become a Christian that fits within the worldview framework of methodological naturalism and can be counted a valid from within that framework. On that worldview, though, there is not a valid reason to become a Christian. Does that therefore mean there’s no valid reasons whatsoever? As a committed and evangelistic methodological naturalist, you’ll insist that’s absolutely the case, but once again, that’s a worldview dependent observation. So, for you, no, there’s probably not a valid reason. For someone else with a more open mind to matters of faith and spirituality, sure, I could offer some reasons.
LikeLike
What do I mean by facts?
Well for example:
The HGP is a fact.
The Noachian Flood tale is a myth. This is a fact.
Evolution is as fact.
Are there any facts about the claims of Christianity you could cite as a valid reason for becoming a Christian?
LikeLike
The resurrection of Jesus from the dead is a good starting point.
LikeLike
Well, first of all this is not a fact, but a claim, and this does not address why this is a valid reason to become a Christian.
After all, there are a number of examples of people resurrecting in other religions.
LikeLike
None like what Jesus did were the same before He did it. All the ones since have been merely copies of Him. And, yes, Jesus’ resurrection is an historical fact. It is simply an historical fact that your worldview commitments won’t allow you to accept.
Okay, that’s it from me today. Time to give attention to more pressing matters here.
LikeLike
It is not an historical fact as you have no evidence to support it.
And even if it were you still did not identify why this is a valid reason to become a Christian.
Try again.
LikeLike
No, your worldview commitments and the scientism that undergirds much of your thinking on these matters don’t allow you to honestly engage with the evidence that exists. We’ve talked about that before, though, and I have no interest in making the presentation to you again.
If Jesus rose from the dead, that means we have to take seriously everything else He said and did. Once you start doing that, the reasons to follow Him become obvious. It all starts with the resurrection.
LikeLike
Except there is no evidence of the resurrection of the Bible character Jesus of Nazareth. Conflicting accounts in anonymous texts does not count as evidence, but merely unsubstantiated claims.
And the long ending of gMark is a forgery. The other authors simply added it into their versions of the story.
But once again, you began your reply with “if”.
Abd even if it were true, you still did not lay out why this is a valid reason to become a Christian.
Are you referring to such things as going to heaven or being condemned to hell?
Please be specific.
LikeLike
And here I thought you liked things that were true. Didn’t you say that honesty should be reason enough to see SH as more beneficial than Christianity? If the Gospel is true, that should be reason enough to become a follower of Jesus.
On the resurrection itself, I thought I made clear that there is indeed evidence, but that your worldview and philosophical commitments prevent you from engaging with it honestly. We’ve been over that before. A lot.
LikeLike
If the gospel is true.
There is that word IF again.
But you are Still not laying out the specifics I asked for.
I want you to outline a valid reason one should become a Christian.
Merely stating the resurrection is not a valid reason.
I suggested eternal life or eternal damnation but you did not respond.
So, a valid reason?
LikeLike
I keep using the word “if” because I have the intellectual humility to acknowledge that I may not be right. I have yet to encounter any amount of evidence or argument that has been convincing of the opposing case, but I don’t know everything, so I use “if.” Perhaps I should start using the word “since,” as if seems to create unnecessary confusion on your part.
If…since…Jesus rose from the dead and thus everything He said is true, that’s a valid reason to follow Him as Lord. This is why I asked what you meant by “valid” when you started this conversation path. What I consider valid and what billions of other people over the centuries of human history have considered valid and what you consider valid may not be the same thing because of the respective worldview commitments at play in that designation. I tried to tell you that, but you were just snarky in response and didn’t listen.
LikeLike
You are commended for acknowledging you could very well be wrong.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Still waiting for you to acknowledge that evidence has nothing to do with worldview.
LikeLike
Hope you brought a lawn chair and some snacks ;~)
LikeLike