A Plea for Civilised Debate
After a promising start, Jordan unfortunately became quite confrontational and sarcastic, taunting me and making rather unfair accusations. Friendly Christian correspondents - and strangers wavering in their beliefs - have written expressing deep disappointment with Jordan's behaviour and that of similar Christians. I write about this at length below but to start I would like it to be known that I feel Jordan is letting me and our readers down by caustic writing. Although I hope such reactions to me are an anomaly that will pass, unfortunately it seems the majority of vocal on-line Christians do not behave well, so it is possible he will just become more antagonistic. Poor behaviour is common from fundamentalists when Christianity is criticised, but it is not inevitable. It is quite possible to discuss our thoughts without resorting to unpleasantness, as I have been able to do with others (e.g. ref).
In Birth and death of an atheist Jordan writes of his feelings following his altar call:
Then thoughts of my atheistic former colleagues flowed through my mind. Throughout my metamorphosis, I had developed an animosity toward them and what they represented, but that disappeared. A flowing love and compassion, only Jesus could feel for us and them, flowed in. I felt wise. I felt insightful. I enjoyed the peace. I knew I was saved.Jordan's initial emails promised a civilised and interesting discussion. He disapproves of ad-hominem material, praises gentlemanly behaviour and paints himself as somebody who can diagnose when people are not "trying Christianity." There were blunt moments in his first response which I let pass but unfortunately his latest page is rife with mockery and taunting behaviour. Puerile remarks such as "skepti-mania's la-la-Webland" and frequent gibing "may Steve enlighten us" and repetitious demand for statements of my supposed hidden views (repeated with comments like "here we go yet again" as if I'm standing in front of him, refusing to speak) are all quite rude and uncalled-for. Just in-case Jordan adjusts and tones down his page (like J.P. Holding has been known to do (ref)) I have saved a copy of the original, as I first found it on 19th Sept 2000, here.
Jordan taunts me saying "I thank Steve; I will use his work in further debates to strengthen my case." However, I recently received an email from a current agnostic who is becoming intrigued and somewhat persuaded by evangelical Christian literature. However, he wrote: "I would like to comment on the bluntness (both Jordan's and Tekton's); it isn't quite the way to show Atheists the Godly love that most other Christians exhibit. Just a pet peeve, but I really wanted to talk to a sympathetic ear about it." The email continues: " I guess I could tell you my story. I am an agnostic that is thinking about coming back to Christianity. I *know*, intellectually, that the fundies have a very strong case and that it is the rational thing to do is to "accept Christ." There's one problem: I can't. I have a very strong emotional blockage and have awful reactions to conservative Christians, especially fundamentalists, *especially* "Laodicaeans" like Jordan and the Tekton crew. That is the main stumbling block to accepting Christ" [ref.]
As I replied (see above ref), I doubt that Jordan and J.P. Holding see themselves as half-hearted "Laodicaeans", but their behaviour is very odd if they are inspired by a god of love. They should realise that such behaviour is demonstratively not helping their case, rather quite the opposite, even with those who find their arguments persuasive. As I write to many correspondents, although intriguing, it doesn't actually "bother" me what people believe, as long as belief does not lead to unpleasant behaviour. Christianity frequently does lead to unpleasant behaviour though, especially in the more conservative, fundamentalist or right wing varieties, as is evidenced by Jordan and Holding's taunting and Jordan's remarks about homosexuality.
Another ex-Christian writes in her testimony:
"On a number of occasions, I have unwisely become involved in email discussions with Christians who at first seemed friendly and rational but who quickly revealed themselves to be part of a movement I call Evangelists From Hell. These Christians have the peculiar notion that insults, taunts, and accusations are the most effective witnessing tools available and that the proper response to Revelation 3:15: ... is to be as aggressively belligerent to non-believers as is humanly possible. Over and over again, I have seen online Christians claim a sort of moral superiority, only to behave in a way that is abusive and ugly." [ref.]Such behaviour even comes from scholarly Christians. In his email debate with the conservative Christian Luke Johnson, Marcus Borg has to state:
"I trust the negative spin in the statement is not heard by only me. What am I (what is a reader?) to make of the statement? That I pretend (implying deceit) that this is seriously scholarship? That it is bad scholarship? That I may genuinely believe this is scholarship, but of course it isn't? I'm not asking you to choose - I'm simply indicating the range of possibilities your rhetoric implies. Can you hear the discrediting tone (perhaps even a sneer) in your language? It seems to me that it is possible to have a rigorous sharp-edged debate (the kind of "peer review" you rightly ask for) without introducing the red herring of tone-laden rhetoric. " [ref.]Robert J. Miller in his description of the criticism of the Jesus Seminar, writes:
"The first assumption I wish to address has to do not with the content of scholarship, but the conduct of scholars. The polemical rhetoric of some of the Seminar's critics is the ugliest I have ever encountered in scholarly writing. The operative assumption of these scholars and of the editorial committees who approve their writing is that it is proper not only to attack opponents' ideas but also to insult them personally, impugning their intellectual honesty and their moral integrity, and even their religious commitments. I can only hope that this assumption is not widespread. Perhaps I am saddened more than others by this verbal abuse because I belong to the group at which it is aimed. So I leave it to you to decide whether language like this brings shame on those to whom it is directed or on those from whom it comes." [ref.]I suspect that Jordan's initial reaction to all this (apart from anger) would be to claim that he was attempting to be witty. Luke Johnson and J.P. Holding make the same plea (even though Holding has been known to rewrite and tone down his worst rhetoric). However, I take a plea of witticism as quite insincere considering remarks such as the following:
"just because Steve finds them to be some almighty fountain of theological knowledge does not mean they are worthy of any more of my time... Steve (I am sure it was just an oversight) neglected to inform you that you may also read a review and summary here and here and here and here ...Steve can now enlighten us as to which of his referenced "scholars" have works used in academia rather than merely in pop readership and skepti-mania's la-la-Webland....Make no mistake; I will continue repeating myself until Steve gets the picture.....By the way, Steve also overlooked http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_BDB.html regarding Bultmann. Oh, and he overlooked http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_CSFS.html regarding Strauss...Buuuuut, does that mean (here we go yet again)....Boy, just when I thought Christianity was on to something, I learn that all I had to do was check with a stream of college drop-outs....Okay, okay, I am through laughing now (well, almost). You just about had me sold, but then I realized that I have read about and seen other persons discussed on TV. Now I feel like Gilligan on the island. "Golly, Skipper, that's a good point; oops, golly-gee, that's a good point, too, Ginger."....Once Steve throws in the towel in his feckless attempt at discounting even his own authorities' scholarship (assuming he is not so egotistical as to shift to a Christ-Never-Existed defense..."
Despite this mockery and repetitious demands for no double standards, Jordan thinks it is okay for him to quote TV documentaries, as he previously did with PBS online and the interview with Paula Friedrickson. My documentary included an interview with Michael Goulder, professor of Theology at Birmingham university, explaining how many of his students leave Christianity in the course of their studies. Why also is it egotistical to argue that Christ never existed? Not only can this argument be subtle (how far does any Christ of faith match a Jesus of history) but even those who argue against any Jesus at all are doing so as a result of their deliberations. Surely it is alright to present the results of ones research, even if it is a minority opinion? Earl Docherty [ref], for instance, has a degree in Ancient History and Classical Languages, giving him a working knowledge of Greek and Latin, which he has supplemented with some of the basics of Hebrew and Syriac. In addition to the New Testament (along with many parts of the Old), he has thoroughly investigated all the non-canonical Christian documents, the 2nd and 3rd century Apologists, all the relevant Jewish Pseudepigrapha of the era together with the Dead Sea scrolls, plus much of Christian and non-Christian Gnosticism. To this he has added a study of Philo of Alexandria, Middle Platonism and other philosophies, relevant ancient historians, Hellenistic mystery cults and the general religious thought of the era. Whilst he says he would never claim expertise in all these areas, he also feels that those who place an exaggerated focus on the Gospels in an effort to uncover the historical Jesus or prove his existence are being naive. Is it really egotistical of him to present his case after all this work? So far, I do not take his purely mythic line, as far as I understand it, but this is something I have not read enough on and intend to read later, rather than dismissing as egotistical.
Jordan views the effect of Christianity on himself in a very positive light but judging the tree of Christianity by its fruit makes this dubious. Jordan admits that to judge a tree by its fruit is relevant when he said it was right to pick him up on any supposed homophobic remarks his Christianity may have engendered.
Jordan claims that the trouble with Christianity is that it has never been tried, presumably implying that he knows what it would look like if it was. He says he admires gentlemanly conduct and that Christians are to shine so that others will want Christ too. He also criticises "vile Christians" on his site and said "The good news is that those who follow Him, instead of bigoted and manipulative religious leaders, love others unconditionally." Taunting is hardly showing "unconditional love."
There is no need to walk on egg shells, one can be as hard hitting as possible with evidence and argument (see my conversation with Dr. Garrett), but please let's be polite! This is one lesson that can be learn from Christian apologists like William Craig and Glenn Miller who, from my reading of them, are always civilised with their most critical opponents. The debate between Glenn Miller and James Still [ref.] is a model of decorum whilst also being strongly argued on both sides. The worst "insult" is a humorous "who's a smarty pants!" Other apologists like J.P. Holding frequently resort to polemics and puerile mockery which is maybe where Jordan has picked this style up from. In the sites Jordan recommends there are many unpleasant and childish examples of Christian mockery.
J.P. Holding describes Bultmann as "60s-hippie gushing," says that D.F. Strauss "was too snotty" and whilst criticising him taunts the long dead scholar with remarks such as "Hello, Dave!...Say again, Dave?...goofball reasoning" and "To which I say: Poppycock!" etc.
In another of Jordan's approved links to Holding [ref.], Bishop Spong is criticised as follows:
"He actually drones on for two whole pages with more platitudes like this."
There is also the following bizarre suggestion of Spong's thought processes at another of the sites Jordan links to [ref]:
"by denying God as a Bishop and getting away with it I can make millions of dollars from TV, cable and book deals" Wow. Such deep thought! Spong may abandon reality in his comfortable US media-pundit existence..."Although in a secular world ones behaviour does not effect the truth or falsity of arguments, this would not work in the supernatural Christian world, if it were to exist. Part of the Christian worldview is the supposed transformed lives of Christians. In other words, there is supposedly a divine element in the lives of Christians. "They will know we are Christians by our love" as the song goes. Or as Jordan claims, true Christians gain "A flowing love and compassion, only Jesus could feel for us." I have been told all that those questioning Christianity need do is to take questions to knowledgable Christians who will gladly explain the truth of Christianity to us [ref]. However, the reaction we get is frequently quite otherwise than the rosy picture painted [ref].
According to Matt 6:20 Jesus said "Judge a tree by it's fruit." If the Christian tree frequently drops vengeful and mocking fruit then it falls by its own internal claims, whilst every "bad-Christian" is written off by others as "false Christians" in a complete circle of mutual condemnation. Some Catholics say non-Catholics will go to hell, plenty of fundies say Catholics will go to hell and so it goes on.
I frequently receive email from Christians telling me that I must have left Christianity because of a bad experience (e.g. ref). Somewhere in my Christian past I must have been put off by the "un-Christian" behaviour of those who "don't really know Christ" etc. I have also been told that I must have been put off by Christians who told me that there is a hell, when really there isn't (e.g. ref). Meanwhile, others tell me that I have been put off because a biblically faithful exegete has not explained to me why hell is necessary from a good and just god of love (e.g. ref).
I have been at pains to point out what really happened, not just to me but usually (though not exhaustively) for others, and have put some of this correspondence in my feedback pages. Personally, my time as a Christian was very enjoyable. I had and still have many good Christian friends. Everybody was very nice indeed! Sadly there are those (frequently Southern Baptists and other fundamentalists) for whom this is not the case, but the majority that I am aware of did not leave Christianity due to a bad experience. Indeed, even those who did have quite horrific times (e.g. ref) still leave because they come to the conclusion Christianity is not true, not because they merely disliked the people they were at church with.
Once a Christian's researches make belief untenable it becomes impossible to stay. However there are also other factors at work. In my testimony I ask "What is most primordial for a Christian? Is it love and truth, or is it Christianity?" As one of my Christian correspondents, Dr. Garrett said "If Spong is loving I am glad, but from what I have read he is very unscriptural!" and as Mark 16:16 says "... he that believeth not shall be damned." Love is not primal for Christians, despite 1 Corinthians ch.13. Rather this has been re-written in conservative Christian dogma to read "I may have love to move mountains, but if I do not have faith I am going to hell." Once we are not afraid of what a god might do to us or not give us if we dare to ask is this really good or true, then the hold Christianity has frequently starts to crumble. Few Christians believe Bertrand Russell was right when he said religion is primarily based on fear until they stop worrying about the state of their eternal soul - uncomplicated love and desire for truth becoming more important!
Christians are so keen to be loving, but when people start criticising their religion this often melts away. This seems to be one area they frequently just can't tolerate. It is a poor show of love for prodigal children from Christians.
To be fair, there are some more loving examples, but these usually come from very liberal or radical Christians, such as John Spong who has been very thoughtful with ex-Christians from the first-hand reports I have heard. The odd fundamentalist has been polite to me during correspondence, but this is not usual, it is typically liberal Christians or non-Christians who write civil emails. More normal are aggressive emails from fundamentalists with much use of the caps-lock key and personal attacks. I have even had a death-threat. Meanwhile see here to see what some Christians think of the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance web site.
If my feedback to Jim Moretz is read, it can be seen that I do indeed take fair criticism well and acknowledge my mistakes. I can't stand arguments though where the time is not taken to stop and think about what has been said, instead writing emotionally, engaging in insulting rhetoric and snide remarks when I spend much time per email/webpage and do research where required. That just seems like time-wasting to me.
I too have occasionally stepped over the mark in debate (e.g. here) but nothing of the above order, and I quickly apologise and move on. So I hope Jordan's last performance was a glitch that we can put behind us. I know from early correspondence that he can do better. Nevertheless, there is still material worth discussing and I trust that gentlemanly style will return. Here is part of Jordan's testimony again:
"Then thoughts of my atheistic former colleagues flowed through my mind. Throughout my metamorphosis, I had developed an animosity toward them and what they represented, but that disappeared. A flowing love and compassion, only Jesus could feel for us and them, flowed in. I felt wise. I felt insightful. I enjoyed the peace. I knew I was saved."I put it to Jordan that he still has an animosity towards atheists and what we represent. It has not disappeared. "A flowing love and compassion, only Jesus could feel for us and them," is not being demonstrated, rather quite the opposite. Is unkindness peaceful? Is this what it feels like to be saved? Is this what I have to look forward to if I became a Christian again? Jordan may well feel wise, but it is not impressing non-Christians and waverers, or indeed other Christians who have written to me, saying such things as the following:
"Christianity remains for me seaworthy vessel, regardless of the callous and hypocritical nature of my fellow shipmates. I am sorry your words threaten so many Christians who ironically claim superiority of mind and heart."
and
"the biggest problem for us who are saved is trying to fix what people claiming to [be] Christians have done to turn others away from God."What is most important for a Christian - is it love, empathy, compassion and truth or is the most important thing Christianity itself, and woe betide anyone who criticises it? Unfortunately the Christian prime example of how to love is a god who tortures forever those who do not love him. This is just the sort of relationship abused wives have with their husbands and victims with their captors in the Stockholm syndrome. It is even worse for Christians as they believe God can see their innermost thoughts and they dare not even think "is Christianity really good - does the atonement make sense, is it really moral...etc."
Maybe though most Christians are to be commended in that they still stay humane despite the horrific world-view that traditional Christianity paints [ref.]. Nevertheless, I wonder just why Christians like Jordan get so angry with atheists. I never reacted like he does when I was a Christian and discussed Christianity with atheists. I was calm, listened, said what I thought I understood - and where I didn't know how to answer, I went away to think about it. Such serious reflection undoubtedly led me to eventually find Christianity false. Mocking ones opponents relieves you of that feeling of responsibility. We are not worth serious reflection.
Maybe Jordan gets angry with atheists because he does not see us for what we are. Maybe he sees us as making up theories to try and discredit Christianity, so seeing us as malicious and hateful, anyway I certainly have spoken to Christians who see us in that way. The truth is that we have come to our ideas through painful discovery that Christian apologetics do not work. It is hardly something we set out to do, maliciously or otherwise.
From Richard Carrier: "And this leads me to one final reason why I don't buy the resurrection story. No wise or compassionate God would demand this from us. Such a god would not leave us so poorly informed about something so important. [ref] If we have a message for someone that is urgently vital for their survival, and we have any compassion, that compassion will compel us to communicate that message clearly and with every necessary proof--not ambiguously, not through unreliable mediaries presenting no real evidence. Conversely, if we see something incredible, we do not attack or punish audiences who don't believe us, we don't even expect them to believe--unless and until we can present decisive proof."
- From Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story (2000) by Richard Carrier.On the alt.bible.errancy newsgroup recently there was a thread on the resurrection started by a Christian with very similar arguments to Jordan's [ref.] After much discussion and previously appearing quite civilised, [ref.] this Christian flew into a rage when it became so clear that people were not accepting his arguments, rather giving him problems that he was not addressing. He said "You are listening to Satan. Repent or eternal punishment in hell awaits you. You have nothing to lose, and everything to gain. You are either FOR Jesus, or AGAINST him. You sit here surrounded by other occultists, atheists, and New Agers, in your own little world, and mock your Creator. I will not be a party to it. It is up to God, I have presented the truth, so you will have no excuse when you face Jesus on judgement day. "[ref.] It seems to me that some Christians feel that we terrible atheists are deliberately making up or looking for problems in Christianity. This will never impress an atheist, let alone an ex-Christian because the truth is that we really do see intractable problems with Christianity. To get cross with us merely shows Christianity up as a religion that clouds feelings for others, reduces empathy and makes its adherents highly emotional and unstable.
So let's try and be more adult in our discussions. As it says at the secular web's Submission Guidelines page: "More importantly, however, we will not accept papers that sound closed-minded, contain inflammatory language, or an indignant tone. A writer's credibility comes from the tone of his or her words. This is not to say that writers should not be passionate and diligent in their defense of a point-of-view, only that common-sense and good manners should prevail in the end." [ref.]
Now look up Collosians 3:12 etc...
Footnote on "J.P. Holding"
- A few days after this was uploaded, J.P. Holding wrote to me and in the course of our exchange he wrote:
If you're in hellfire, that's your choice. Getting disturbed about it won't help, but at least if you want to remain stubborn we can keep you from dragging others with you....deceive others into jumping into hellfire with you? I have a REAL problem with that!
Footnote on "ad hominem"
- Taken From Dennis McKinsey's Biblical Errancy Issue 104, August 1994
Letter #450 from Dan Barker of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, P.O. Box 750, Madison, Wisconsin 53701
Dear Dennis.... I have noticed that some readers of B.E. have been using the phrase "ad Hominem" incorrectly. It is not ad hominem to notice that someone has a bad attitude. It is not ad hominem to point out that someone is using bad logic. It is not ad hominem to mention that someone has bad character traits. It is not ad hominem to warn others that a certain person habitually bases arguments on faulty premises, or on a lack of evidence. It is not ad hominem to say that "so-and-so is a jerk." It is only ad hominem when you base an argument on another person's character. To say, "Mr. Smith's conclusions are wrong because Mr. Smith is an alcoholic (wife beater, drug addict, bad attitude, stupid person, etc.)" would be a true ad hominem argument, and therefore illogical. To accuse a person of using "ad hominem character attacks" is only valid if those attacks take the place of logical premises. There is nothing illogical about complaining about a person. The only time character attacks become irrelevant is if the whole question of "character attacks" is being debated. For example, if a Christian claims that following Jesus causes one to become more peaceful and tolerant, then that person's use of character attacks can be introduced as evidence to the contrary. The same is true of any other trait which believers claim to possess. If Christians say that they are more loving, then it is not ad hominem to attack their character where it is vulnerable. Christians should deal with the perceived "ad hominem attacks" by either 1) becoming more loving or 2) giving up the claim that belief leads to morality. They can't skirt the issue by simply claiming that we are engaging in the despicable practice of "ad hominem." Robert Ingersoll dealt with the same issue in his day when he said, "And here, it may be proper for me to say, that arguments cannot be answered by personal abuse; that there is no logic in slander, and that falsehood, in the long run, defeats itself. People who love their enemies should, at least, tell the truth about their friends. Should it turn out that I am the worst man in the whole world, the story of the flood will remain just as improbable as before, and the contradictions of the Pentateuch will still demand an explanation." ( Some Mistakes of Moses, 1979)
This page has been discussed by a very friendly Christian called James Juris at:
Glaring Problems on the Evangelical Front
Approaching Effective Dialog and
Conclusions.I gave some feedback.
Go to the next Section - Straying
Back to "Leaving Christianity" Contents | Back to Resurrection part 3 | Email me