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 4:27, 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.
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>>
No comments:
Post a Comment