The fact that the name "Saul" is found only in Acts and not in Paul's espistles stood out to me. Polhill observed that Paul never called himself by his Jewish name, Saul, but used his Roman name, Paul, in his letters. Luke is said to have written Acts and called him Saul; Paul wrote his espistles and refers to himself as Paul. Looking from Paul's perspective, I would not want to be known by who I was; but by who I am. For example, I was a Jehovah's Witness; now I am Baptist. I do not want to be know as a Jehovah's Witness; but a Baptist. Paul did not want to be known as a Christian killer but as a servant of the Lord Jesus.
Since Paul wrote the epistles, I can understand his use of the name "Paul". Paul's theology and practices were influenced by the cults of his day. Polhill states that Paul's teachings were derived from the contemporary mystery religions which where known as cults.
Vicky
Saturday, January 14, 2006
The Meme of Faith
Although this was written as a response to Danny's post below, the subject matter variance between the two posts merits this format.
I'd like to respond to two quotes from Danny's post:
1) "I feel there is a need to be well versed in these subjects, so that – if needed – I might be able to defend my beliefs and doctrines."
I have genuine difficulty accepting this line of thought in any broad sense. Perhaps when you're debating things with other Christians, this is an accurate portrayal of the nature of the debate; but when you move beyond the scope of the Church you can no longer characterize the dialogue as a "defense" of the debated belief or practice. All debate between a theist and an atheist must irrevocably end (from a logical standpoint) at the impasse of differing presuppositions, and there is no difference between victor and vanquished when discussing presuppositions.
2) "I feel we have at the very least a moral prerequisite to defend our beliefs. We as Christians are dedicated to the Truth. Any time that we let a chance for professing the Truth pass by unanswered, we have failed. Our obligations to teach and make disciples cannot be fulfilled if we hold unto silence."
My objection here is related to #1. Although the sentiment above is common among intellectuals of the Christian faith, it nevertheless contradicts the basic nature of all faith. In The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins summarizes the evangelistic activity of religion with the following quote:
My second objection, therefore, might be stated like this: Given both that conversion by blind faith is the meme of religion, and that psychological comfort is the aim of religion, then a universal imperative toward apologetics - such as you have proffered in this post - is unjustified. Intellectual defense of one's faith is a tool of the replication process, nothing more; to build a broad imperative toward this activity is to ignore both the purpose of the religion and the natural differences among adherents of the religion that are necessitated by statistical reality.
Steve (the Christianized atheist)
I'd like to respond to two quotes from Danny's post:
1) "I feel there is a need to be well versed in these subjects, so that – if needed – I might be able to defend my beliefs and doctrines."
I have genuine difficulty accepting this line of thought in any broad sense. Perhaps when you're debating things with other Christians, this is an accurate portrayal of the nature of the debate; but when you move beyond the scope of the Church you can no longer characterize the dialogue as a "defense" of the debated belief or practice. All debate between a theist and an atheist must irrevocably end (from a logical standpoint) at the impasse of differing presuppositions, and there is no difference between victor and vanquished when discussing presuppositions.
2) "I feel we have at the very least a moral prerequisite to defend our beliefs. We as Christians are dedicated to the Truth. Any time that we let a chance for professing the Truth pass by unanswered, we have failed. Our obligations to teach and make disciples cannot be fulfilled if we hold unto silence."
My objection here is related to #1. Although the sentiment above is common among intellectuals of the Christian faith, it nevertheless contradicts the basic nature of all faith. In The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins summarizes the evangelistic activity of religion with the following quote:
"Another member of the religious meme complex is called faith. It means blind trust, in the absence of evidence, even in the teeth of evidence... Nothing is more lethal for certain kinds of meme than a tendency to look for evidence... The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry." (emphasis added)I agree with Dawkins' assessment of the transaction of conversion; and therefore I disagree with your implication that rationality is key in "defend[ing] our beliefs." Professing the message of Christianity - like professing the message of any religion - is little more than an exercise in manipulation. Religion exists to soothe. For the intellectual, this is a highly cerebral comfort; for the person not concerned with the subtle nuances of esoteric debate, the comfort of religion is disproportionately emotional.
My second objection, therefore, might be stated like this: Given both that conversion by blind faith is the meme of religion, and that psychological comfort is the aim of religion, then a universal imperative toward apologetics - such as you have proffered in this post - is unjustified. Intellectual defense of one's faith is a tool of the replication process, nothing more; to build a broad imperative toward this activity is to ignore both the purpose of the religion and the natural differences among adherents of the religion that are necessitated by statistical reality.
Steve (the Christianized atheist)
Wrangling Words
In the reading for our first day, we are told "not to wrangle about words, which is useless, and leads to the ruin of the hearers (2 Tim 2:14 NASB)" and to "avoid worldly and empty chatter, for it will lead to further ungodliness (2 Tim 2:16 NASB)," yet we are in a Christian school – taking a Biblical Studies class. How do we not wrangle about with words? I have been in at least five or six theological discussions in the past week. I will admit that these two verses are troubling for me, because I talk all the time and theology, modern Western Christian philosophy, and modern Biblical Interpretation are my favorite subjects. I feel there is a need to be well versed in these subjects, so that – if needed – I might be able to defend my beliefs and doctrines.
I would take the idea of championing one’s beliefs a step further. I feel we have at the very least a moral prerequisite to defend our beliefs. We as Christians are dedicated to the Truth. Any time that we let a chance for professing the Truth pass by unanswered, we have failed. Our obligations to teach and make disciples cannot be fulfilled if we hold unto silence.
If we do speak are beliefs then we run the chance of offending the listener, even if that listener claims to be of the Way. Paul says, "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled (2 Tim 4:3a NASB)." The discussion of doctrine will be what lead Christianity into a new age, because only out of discussion can new doctrines be formed and older doctrines sharpened.
May Peace Favor You,
Danny
I would take the idea of championing one’s beliefs a step further. I feel we have at the very least a moral prerequisite to defend our beliefs. We as Christians are dedicated to the Truth. Any time that we let a chance for professing the Truth pass by unanswered, we have failed. Our obligations to teach and make disciples cannot be fulfilled if we hold unto silence.
If we do speak are beliefs then we run the chance of offending the listener, even if that listener claims to be of the Way. Paul says, "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled (2 Tim 4:3a NASB)." The discussion of doctrine will be what lead Christianity into a new age, because only out of discussion can new doctrines be formed and older doctrines sharpened.
May Peace Favor You,
Danny
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Welcome to Pauline Epistles!
Greetings Class,
I am really looking forward to some excellent discussion on EUTHUS this Spring. The Apostle Paul and his writings are a significant part of our heritage as Christians.
Be patience with the blog, you will figure it out! Please remember that you need to post one paragraph a week. The paragraph should be a response to an item or issue discussed in class or in one of the reading assignments. In addition to this paragraph, you should also respond (a paragraph in length) to another students post. Please make these paragraphs substantive and not just a catalogue of likes and/or dislikes. AND please avoid "cheerleader" paragraphs! Try to critically react with the material to the best of your ability.
Please sign each post with your name, especially if your userid is odd. Remember that your paragraphs and responses are due each Monday by 3:00PM. Please remember the note bene in the syllabus (page 2). Finally, please remember to be analytical of your classmates and to respect them as well.
One more piece of advice from past experience with Blogger. It might not be a bad idea to type your paragraphs/responses in a word processor and then cut and paste them into the blogger gui. Some students in the past have had an occassional problem of loosing material that was not adequately backup. At the very least, you might use the "Save as Draft" feature that Blogger offers (you will see this feature below the window into which you type your material in Blogger).
And, finally (for real this time), remember that everyone in the class can see your paragraphs and responses, typos and awall!
peace,
RFoster
I am really looking forward to some excellent discussion on EUTHUS this Spring. The Apostle Paul and his writings are a significant part of our heritage as Christians.
Be patience with the blog, you will figure it out! Please remember that you need to post one paragraph a week. The paragraph should be a response to an item or issue discussed in class or in one of the reading assignments. In addition to this paragraph, you should also respond (a paragraph in length) to another students post. Please make these paragraphs substantive and not just a catalogue of likes and/or dislikes. AND please avoid "cheerleader" paragraphs! Try to critically react with the material to the best of your ability.
Please sign each post with your name, especially if your userid is odd. Remember that your paragraphs and responses are due each Monday by 3:00PM. Please remember the note bene in the syllabus (page 2). Finally, please remember to be analytical of your classmates and to respect them as well.
One more piece of advice from past experience with Blogger. It might not be a bad idea to type your paragraphs/responses in a word processor and then cut and paste them into the blogger gui. Some students in the past have had an occassional problem of loosing material that was not adequately backup. At the very least, you might use the "Save as Draft" feature that Blogger offers (you will see this feature below the window into which you type your material in Blogger).
And, finally (for real this time), remember that everyone in the class can see your paragraphs and responses, typos and awall!
peace,
RFoster
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)