This post is a continuation of Getting Around the Wall. Below is a summary of the situation:

Glancing at the bottom of one of my posts where WordPress links to “related” posts from other bloggers, I was intrigued by the title, Please Stop Making These Arguments to Christians [Part 1]. It’s written by an atheist who finds that the general gotcha questions prevalent in the intercommunications between her side and the Christian side are not conducive to a proper conversation or debate. Listing three points overly used by atheists, she gives the general counterpoints employed by Christians, and then proceeds to suggest better objections to raise instead. Always ready to give an answer, I hope to herein respond to these updated atheistic points.

Continuing to answer the Author of Confusion, and the post Please Stop Making These 3 Arguments to Christians [Part 1]:

Item 2: Myth, Textual Criticism, and the Historicity of Jesus

The Author of Confusion dismisses the assertion that Jesus is merely a popular instantiation of a general body of myths regarding a dying and resurrecting God. However, the reasons presented seem weak. The argument is not cited as untrue or weak, but is discredited as offensive to Christians, thereby a barrier to conversation, and one for which a quick answer is ready. Going from there to an alternative argument, one ostensibly less offensive, which incorporates the aspersion that Christ had homosexual relations with His followers seems contradictory. As to the speed in which this myth argument can be answered:

The common responses to the argument that Christ is just another myth follow two recourses, an appeal to authority, and the real verses shadow argument. The appeal to authority rests on the fact that most learned in the subject, even those who disbelieve in Christ, do not consider Jesus just another myth, however we need bring in no authority. Anyone familiar with the forms of myth cannot then treat the four gospel accounts as belonging to that category. It is true that the abstraction of Jesus’ history, a short summation of his life, may be constructed in the format of myth, but the actual accounts presented are not in themselves myth; they are, true or false, presented as history.

The real verses shadow argument is by way of an explanation as to the human tendency to construct myths which arguably resemble Christ’s death and resurrection. This should be no great surprise to any Christian: our theology declares Christ to be the Word by which all was created, the Meaning for the existence of everything. In our separation from Him, should it surprise anyone that we should see a need for something or someone like Jesus, see His fingerprints in the creation around us, see the shadows of the real thing before the real is in view? But this, according to the Author of Confusion, is some sort of Christian chauvinism. Why should Christ be the real and the others the myth?

The answer seems that Christ claims to be real, and the others claim to be myth. Jesus cited as proof of His claims His eventual resurrection; the myths cited no proof as they only claimed to be story. Christians hold that real fruitful relation can be had with God through Jesus; very few adherents of the myths exist to hold anything anymore. Myths are useful, wonderful tools to express truth, and Christ is the Truth.

Item 2.1-4: Textual Criticism

There are four alternative arguments presented which could all fall under the same category of textual criticism. Here, I admit I am out of my depth. I am not an historian, nor am I well-studied in the canonization process. I would point to others to contend with the exact particulars presented. However, as a general argument, assuming the veracity of all the points made by the Author of Confusion, I cannot help but shrug my shoulders and say, “So what?”

Is it surprising that the Bible was compiled, that some parts were rejected and some accepted? I hope no one has the idea in his head that at some point an angel came and delivered down to earth a copy of the King James. No. The same God who created the natural world is not liable to interfere with Himself, to work miracles which are in dissonance with the rest of His craft. Even in His incarnation, Jesus did not just suddenly appear on earth as a man: He came as a baby, as a fetus, He went through all the points of life which every man goes through.

Item 3: Evolution

This one is a touchy subject. Christians themselves are still in debate whether Evolution is at odds with Christianity, and a good number of bad arguments, on both sides, have been lobbed. On this subject, I am as good as an agnostic: If evolution is true, I see no reason not to treat the early parts of Genesis as mythology, or perhaps metaphor. The point is that evolution seems more a distraction from theology. The more knowledge of the natural world we have the greater ability to refine our theology, but in general, science does not change the core of the belief.

Item 3.1: What of the hostility of nature?

This always seemed an odd attack on Christianity, for nowhere can I find the Bible ever even hinting that life would be ship-shape-tipsy-topsy. Indeed, we are promised as Christians great pain and suffering for our faith. I think this confusion regarding nature stems from a misunderstanding of what Christians claim our relationship to the creation is. It may have been C. S. Lewis who called her our sparring partner, which seems an apt description. She is presented as something which we are to struggle with. As the ground is cursed for our sakes, so she resists us that we have something to resist.

Is earth dangerous? Yes, and space more so. What a grand moment it will be when we conquer, when we surmount the unsurmountable.

The last question, “[W]hy did [God] do such a terrible job making sure we weren’t going to die in [the universe]?” holds the faulty assumption that God meant for us not to die. Sure, in a sinless creation death would have no purpose, but in the imperfect reality which is this fallen world, the remedy for sin is death.

Invitation

But what of us, the slaves of sin, which must die? Here the answer, if you’ll accept, is the grace given by a loving creator, the God who knew you before you were; knew you would fall short of what you were meant to be. He is willing to trade you His Righteousness for your blemishes, your death for His Life.