In an earlier thread from last year, Jagella (R.I.P.) argued that Matthew 24:29 demonstrates that Jesus had a pre-scientific understanding of the stars and that this somehow belies Christian claims about Jesus' divinity.
Arguments like this are always predicated on a number of unstated (and sometimes unexamined) assumptions. And yet, what stands out to me about this particular example is precisely how common it is: The peculiar assumptions underlying this argument appear to underly many, if not most, atheist critiques of the Bible and the divinity of Christ on this site.
Which got me wondering:
1. Is there a common atheist hermeneutic of the Bible? That is, do many atheists follow a distinctive (even if informal) set of principles or methods when interpreting a passage like Matthew 24:29?
2. Is there a common Christology assumed by many atheists? That is, when atheists assail the divinity of Christ, are they often critiquing a distinctive conception of Christ's nature?
3. Do either of those distinctive views correspond to orthodox Christian interpretations of the Bible and the divinity of Christ? If not, then are atheist critiques of the Bible and the divinity of Christ properly critiques of Christianity, or are they something else?
Atheist interpretation of the Bible?
Moderator: Moderators
-
Tcg
- Savant
- Posts: 8494
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
- Location: Third Stone
- Has thanked: 2147 times
- Been thanked: 2295 times
Re: Atheist interpretation of the Bible?
Post #41Yes, indeed. Of course the fact is he lost it before any other posters responded. Trying to build an argument against all atheists based on one atheist's claim is a failure from the start. As you have pointed out, the fact that Jagella was right only adds to the reality of historia's failure. It's a double whammy.
Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
-
unknown soldier
- Banned
- Posts: 453
- Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2020 7:32 pm
- Has thanked: 17 times
- Been thanked: 122 times
Re: Atheist interpretation of the Bible?
Post #42Hisatoria tends to argue from authority. Which is to say, he asserts that certain individual Christians are authorities, and if we want the low-down on true Christianity, then we need to believe what those authorities say rather than what some "flunky Christian in the street" might say. Of course, different Christians recognize different authorities who often contradict each other, and if you're not a Christian, you may recognize no Christian authorities at all.Tcg wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 11:40 pmYes, indeed. Of course the fact is he lost it before any other posters responded. Trying to build an argument against all atheists based on one atheist's claim is a failure from the start. As you have pointed out, the fact that Jagella was right only adds to the reality of historia's failure. It's a double whammy.
I think that this argumentation from authority was the downfall of Historia's argumentation on the issue of this thread. Rather than try to directly use reason and evidence to determine why Christ could be God yet so apparently ignorant of the facts of the world, he kept citing "traditional Christianity" and its strange ideas of Christ losing knowledge. All that demonstrates is that Christian theologians are adept at explaining away difficulties in the claim that Christ was divine.
