Approach to the Bible

This anti-Christian polemicist seems to be attacking newer ideas about Christianity, and not the faith and practice of the ancient Church.  This particular video appears to be a mirror of another video.

=================================================================

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dp4GmWg2xvo&feature=related

=================================================================

At 2:40 the polemicist uses a certain term that atheists often use which is false in its context and creates a logical fallacy in their argument: "religion."  As most atheist apologists do, this particular individual heaps everyone of faith together into the category of "religion," regardless of the doctrines they hold and subsequent disagreements they have with each other.  "Religion" is at fault for the ills of the world.  If one were to follow this flawed logic of course, one would arrive at the conclusion that Buddhists are at fault for the 911 Attacks just as much as Islamic militants.  The polemicist in question claims that "religion" is being defeated by modernity by calling to memory the example of the Virginia Tech' shooter, who supposedly underwent exorcisms to free him from mental problems, instead of seeking psychiatric help.  The polemicist is factually incorrect, in that the shooter did actually receive psychological therapy and did have a psychiatrist (LA Times).  Ultimately, the reason why humans have mental health problems, the root cause of that sickness is the existence of sin; for when sin entered into the world, so did death.  Every agony we suffer is due to the fallenness of this world.  So you see, the polemicist has actually skipped off to another unrelated point and created a false link between Christianity and the non-observance of mental health science.  God gave us the ability to remedy mental problems.  He gave us the power to heal one another, so that we might execute this healing as an act of love toward other human beings.  The veracity of "religion" is not disproved at this juncture.  Instead, the physical side of Christian ministry, of self-emptying love, is revealed in that we humans have the ability to heal mental ailments through physical means, just as we give alms of physical money to the poor.

At 4:27, the polemicist makes the statement: "...the universe did not come from religion, it came from science."  This particular statement was made in regards to a "wider understanding" of the universe that the polemicist claims he and those like him possess.  The quote in and of itself, actually makes no sense.  Is he referring to the creation of the universe/existence, or the revealing of truths about it?  One thing is certain: the weak-minded hear this quote, and subconsciously begin to see science as replacing God; for in the structure of the sentence, the term "science" has literally replaced the name "God."  Did "science" create the universe?  No.  Even Atheists would agree, since science is the empirical study of the universe, not an entity in and of itself.  However, this statement (perhaps made without the intention of playing a mind trick on the weak-minded) reveals that the polemicist views "God" in confrontation with "science."  This worldview is objectively false, since if God does exist, then science is simply the study of His creation, not an alternative to the knowledge that God exists as well as knowledge of righteousness.

At 4:40 in the video, the polemicist attacks another Protestant teaching: the idea that God Himself wrote the Bible.  He alleges: "...there is not a single line in the Bible or the Koran that could not have been authored by a first century person."  Orthodox Christianity does not believe that God wrote the Holy Bible word for word.  While the early Church (of which the Orthodox Church is the direct continuation, in doctrine and Apostolic Succession) taught that the books of the Bible were written with Divine Inspiration, the idea that God Himself wrote the text is a later Protestant creation. 

Furthermore, the polemicist asserts personal authority in judging the Scriptures.  He presents the presupposition that if there truly is a God, then the scriptures of God's human followers must contain various elements of physical, worldly knowledge.  This is the criterion that the polemicist sets fourth for the teachings of God to man.  The knowledge passed on to us by God, through Moses for example, was spiritual knowledge.  The Bible and other early Christian texts are not concerned with pure science, but with spirituality.  They are concerned with the fulfillment of the course of human affairs: re-connection with God. 

The polemicist even makes the statement at 5:43 in regards to the Bible: "There's nothing particularly useful, and there's a lot of, ahh, Iron Age barbarism in there and superstition.  Ahh, this is not a candidate book, I can go into any Barnes and Noble blindfolded and pull a book off a shelf which is going to have more relevance more wisdom, umm for the 21st Century than the Bible or the Koran..."  So, according to the polemicist, if he pulled the Communist Manifesto, or a trashy serial novel off of the shelf, it would have more relevance than the Bible.  Of course, his statement was still made in the context that the Bible is supposedly written by God.  But for the sake of discussion, let us continue knowing that he is critiquing the Bible regardless.  Another interesting bit: the ethics that oppose "barbarism" that this polemicist culturally inherited, were introduced to his ancestors by Christianity.  This wide-sweeping claim indeed illustrates the cosmological misunderstanding among Atheist polemicists, in that they presuppose what God is supposed to do for mankind if He exists.  In truth, God has given us spiritual knowledge through His servants who wrote the Holy Bible.  The fulfillment of this life, is found with God and in God.  God has given us truths much more valuable than physical knowledge: He has taught us the best way to live, and has taught us of His love and mercy both during the Old Testament, and most explicitly, in the incarnation of Jesus Christ.

Referring to the sciences, at 6:12 the polemicist makes the assertion: "Every one of our specific sciences has superseded and surpassed the wisdom of scripture...we know more about ourselves than anyone writing the Bible or the Koran did..."  Do sciences grant us eternal life?  Did sciences create the universe, or existence for that matter?  The Christian disagrees with the assertion for one simple fact: God created us for love, knows us better than we know ourselves, and reveals our true identity as a race (of humans), as well as individuals.  Once again, we find our ultimate fulfillment in God, both in this life, and in the next.


Perhaps there are additional points that could be fleshed out from this video.  If you think so, please post a comment regarding the points.  For now, the author shall leave the discussion of this video.  Pray for the polemicist; do not despise him.

* LA Times article: Report weaves dark tale of gunman's past  <<http://articles.latimes.com/2007/aug/31/nation/na-vatech31>>

Pray for them

The author of the articles in this blog would like to share a brief thought with his readers.

The literary style of St. Justin Martyr's Blog is direct and perhaps a bit terse.  Information is condensed down, into concise articles, accusations are addressed, accusations are made, and claims to authority are issued (without bravado).  The matters which are dealt with here are of immense importance and are of a contentious nature.  There are multiple debates going on regarding Orthodox Christianity.  Some are from other religions and some are from Atheists.  These debates are engaged on this forum, and the attacks on the Christian God and on His Church are picked apart.

However, the author does not intend to communicate a message of hostility, self-righteousness, or anger.  Instead, the author's objective is to speak the truth, which is true regardless of his own shortcomings, as well as his personal feelings.

So I, the author send a message to my fellow Orthodox Christians: pray for those who attack the Orthodox Church, the Church of the first century.  Do not react with anger, but remain in a prayerful state, transforming the pernicious claims of the enemies of the Church into positive corrections and contemplations for both sides.  Pray for those who disagree, that God may guide them.  But also, pray for yourself, that you may not be caught up in a moment of righteous indignation, and be filled with pride perceiving of some superiority to those who disagree.  Remind yourself of your own faults by meditating on your sins.  Also be sure to remember that any truth that has been revealed to you was done so not to your credit; but you were blessed by being enlightened.

A new article is on the way.  It is expected to be posted by the end of the week.

7 points, 7 misconceptions

The subject of the following refutation is an Atheist apologist and anti-Christian Polemicist on Youtube.  In the opening statement, he likens Christianity to an organism.  He says: "...its the survival of the fittest, and the religion with the best defense mechanisms is best suited to increase its numbers and flourish..."  Well the author has some news for the polemicist: this "defense" is an inherent attribute of truth!  Truth is self-evident (if not immediately, then after a period of study and meditation), and therefore has the "best defense mechanism:" itself. It therefore can be defended and believed in.  I must warn you, this one is a little dry compared to some.  Far too often, Youtube posters take long breaths and pauses that extend the length of their videos.  But, the author shall thoughtfully consider the points brought up none-the-less in a spirit of patience and in love for fellow human beings.

======================================================

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cB6sYnIDLdw

======================================================

This Youtube video is being refuted point by point.  The polemicist in question lists 7 points in his presentation.  He attacks Christianity in general.Therefore, this attack is more specifically on Orthodox Christianity, despite the fact that yet again, a Protestant straw-christ is attacked.  The Orthodox Christians know that their Church is the Church of the 1st Century A.D., and represents objectively true Christian doctrine, due to our direct maintenance of Holy Tradition for 2 millenia.

 

1.) Faith:

Whether we realize it or not, faith is not a concept exclusive to spiritual people and spiritual matters.  As a matter of fact, faith can be found within science.  Yes you read correctly, there is faith involved in scientific thought.  When an individual reads a physics textbook, they are putting their faith in the scientists and authors who provided the information within.  When one scientist utilizes the data published by another, they put their faith in the correctness of that data.  Who is to say, perhaps the information provided on the chemical/geologic composition of the moon isn't the product of some elaborate cabal, aimed at misguiding the general public's understanding of lunar science?

We know that stars are spheres of reacting gasses, yet no astronaut has ever been inside our own sun, let alone any other star.  An unmanned space module has never collected data inside of the sun either.  Yet we trust from what we do know that indeed certain specific reactions are occurring which emit visible light and radiation from stars.

Probably the majority of those who read this article have never seen a platypus up close.  They have never pet one, or witnessed one living in its natural environs.  Why do we who have never seen a platypus in person trust biologists and zoologists when they write scholarly documents regarding this peculiar species?  This furry, billed,venomous, web-footed little creature could be a fairy tale constructed by scientists complete with doctored photos, doctored videos, contrived taxidermic specimens, and animatronic models.  Yet we seem to have faith that this creature exists despite never having personally examined one.

So why is it such a stretch to put faith in a man who willingly died on a cross, in a death he could have avoided due to His insightful teachings which the corrupt could not bare; a man Whose life was documented by people who later suffered torture and death for their faith in Him, Whom they could/would have denied had their religion been connivery for the sake of material affluence (which is the reason for the synthesis of false religions)?  What about the historical account's of Jesus of Nazareth from those who were not His followers (Flavius Josephus, et al.)?  What is wrong with placing faith in the Christian God after hearing of those who say they have had their lives improved by this God, whether by embracing his teachings or through a Divine miracle?  Is it really that unreasonable?

Regarding what the polemicist says about those who question the Christian faith, he ought to investigate the "Doubting Thomas Incident" (John 20:24-29).

2.) Sent by Satan:

If indeed there is an unholy being, a father of evil, a great deceiver, then certainly all untruth would originate with him.  But of course if one does not believe in Satan, then they aren't going to believe that deceptions and spiritual delusions are a product of his rebellion against God, and thus, against all truth.

3.) We cannot know the mind of God:

A question to the polemicist: If divinity actually exists, if there is indeed true spirituality, do you honestly think that you would be able to comprehend it?  As for the "mind" of God, you can't even read your neighbor's mind, sir, let alone understand and visualize the essence of God!  You can't even comprehend the atoms that compose the Enter Key on your computer!

Also: the Orthodox Church does not believe in "Total Depravity," another Protestant teaching.

4.) Different Denominations:

Why are their different "denominations?"  The answer is simple; so simple that some may overlook it.  Each group which calls itself a church whether they be Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, Evangelical, or whatever "denomination," possesses different doctrines.  They believe different things, and are therefore in disagreement.  They are not 1 united group.  In some cases, like in many Protestant circles, there is a lack of preserved, guarded doctrine.  Sometimes, the concept of "doctrine" is even looked down upon.

One of the common logical fallacies that Atheist apologists propagate, is heaping everyone who calls themselves Christians into one contiguous, or in some cases homogeneous group.  In fact, this is not the case at all.  If you are going to attack Calvinists over the teaching of predestination, you cannot implicate Roman Catholics since they do not believe in this.  Likewise, when attacking Protestantism in general, often (perhaps the majority of the time) the Orthodox Faith itself is not being attacked, but rather, Protestant concepts such as the "blood atonement" come under fire.  But still, the Atheist apologist claims to attack "Christianity" by showing the inherent falsity of a Protestant doctrine, and therefore, sets fire to a straw-man wearing a name tag saying: "Orthodox Christianity."  If one really desires to critique Christianity, they ought to talk about Orthodox Christianity, not about Protestantism.

5.) That's Allegory:

The Bible stories are considered to be true events and not mere allegory.  Some particularly liberal Protestant ministers have claimed that the stories therein regarding "physical impossibilities" are allegory.  However, as stated before, their view of Biblical events is false.  Their view of ecclesiology and theology is not that of the 1st century Church, but rather of later invention.  Thank you for attacking a straw-christ once again.

The polemicist claims that the story of The 3 Little Pigs is more plausible than certain Biblical stories.  No supporting evidence or discussion is given for this fallacious claim.  It would be interesting to see him try to defend his reasoning on this one.

If an event is "physically impossible" given medical science or anything else, the logical conclusion is that there was some operation going on that was not of this world.  If indeed God exists, what is so hard about believing that He has power over physics and chemistry?

6.) Heaven and Hell:

As in the preceding article, the Orthodox understanding of Heaven and Hell is quite different from that of Protestantism, and a clarification is therefore required.  The angry "God" of Protestant thought is the one attacked by this polemicist.  He ought to educate himself about the Christian God: the God of the Orthodox Church.

7.) That's the Old Testament:

The polemicist needs to gain a better understanding of Old Testament violence.  God's "just retribution" or "punishment" is always corrective.  On a different note, in order to protect and preserve the Hebrew people, their unjust enemies had to be stopped from annihilating them.  

"I have no desire in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live..." (Ezek 33:11).

What is most interesting when it comes to atheist attacks on the Old Testament, is that they attempt to use Christian morals and ethics to attack specific, prescriptive acts in it! 

Conclusion:

Ultimately, what was described in the polemic video is not the Christian faith, but rather a nicely packaged set of misunderstandings; a category composed by the polemicist and labeled: "Christianity."  The Orthodox Church knows and upholds the doctrines of the Apostles, and unfortunately many people who believe in Jesus Christ do not have these truths.  May God have mercy on them and on the polemicist and guide them to truth.  Also: may the polemicist in question educate himself on the faith of the 1st Century Christian Church, which is present in its fullness in the Orthodox Church today.