Announcement

Collapse

Deeper Waters Forum Guidelines

Notice – The ministries featured in this section of TheologyWeb are guests of this site and in some cases not bargaining for the rough and tumble world of debate forums, though sometimes they are. Additionally, this area is frequented and highlighted for guests who also very often are not acclimated to debate fora. As such, the rules of conduct here will be more strict than in the general forum. This will be something within the discretion of the Moderators and the Ministry Representative, but we simply ask that you conduct yourselves in a manner considerate of the fact that these ministries are our invited guests. You can always feel free to start a related thread in general forum without such extra restrictions. Thank you.

Deeper Waters is founded on the belief that the Christian community has long been in the shallow end of Christianity while there are treasures of the deep waiting to be discovered. Too many in the shallow end are not prepared when they go out beyond those waters and are quickly devoured by sharks. We wish to aid Christians to equip them to navigate the deeper waters of the ocean of truth and come up with treasure in the end.

We also wish to give special aid to those often neglected, that is, the disabled community. This is especially so since our founders are both on the autism spectrum and have a special desire to reach those on that spectrum. While they are a special emphasis, we seek to help others with any disability realize that God can use them and that they are as the Psalmist says, fearfully and wonderfully made.

General TheologyWeb forum rules: here.
See more
See less

Is Technology Killing Christianity?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is Technology Killing Christianity?

    Is the internet the death knell of the Christian claim?

    The link can be found here.

    The text is as follows:

    Because we live in a technical world, does that mean we can see religion is a scam? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

    Recently, my wife was browsing YouTube on our TV and we came across a video with someone making the claim that as technology has increased and we have the internet, that this means religion is going away. (Of course, we've heard claims about religion dying many times before.) The belief was that the internet is allowing people to become more educated. As they become more educated, they are starting to see that they believed something obviously foolish and abandoning it because they are finding out information they never found out before.

    There is some truth to that.

    People are finding out things they never found out before. People are also finding out things about secret Illuminati cover-ups or how NASA faked the moon landing or how 9-11 was an inside job or how Reptilians are secretly living among us. Yes. These claims are all out there and they are largely popular because of the internet. We could say the same about Jesus mythicism. If you stuck to reading scholarly books for instance no matter what worldview, you would not likely walk away being a mythicist. If you stuck to internet research, you could.

    Technology can be a wonderful tool for spreading truth and education. Unfortunately, it can also be a wonderful tool for spreading falsehood and destroying education. Google can bring up results to a question you may have, but it will not be able to tell you how you should access the information that you see. How will you evaluate it and weigh it out?

    Let's suppose I wanted to argue something that I don't argue, and that is that evolution is a myth. I make no claims on this one yes or no, but I know many Christians who do say that it is not true at all. So I go to Google like I just now did and type in "evolution is a myth." What do I come up with first?

    The first thing I see is Yahoo Answers. I see a long post that starts with this

    No, it's not a creation myth. Darwinian evolution is a theory, it has never been proven, and thanks to modern science it is now being disproven. It takes far more faith to believe in Darwinian evolution than it does to believe in creation and intelligent design. There is a lot more evidence for creation and intelligent design than there is for Darwinian evolution. A lot of people believe in the theory of Darwinian evolution because they were (and are still being) taught this theory in school. This theory should no longer be taught in school now that modern science is continueously finding more evidence against it. At the time Darwin came up with the theory science was not able to disprove it. Darwin's theory of evolution has not been proven. Only 9% of the population now believes in Darwinian evolution.

    Scientific evidence casts serious doubts on the theory of evolution, for example:
    From there, the person goes on to link to several articles. Now if you're not someone who does not know how to evaluate scientific information, this will all seem very impressive. The next thing I see is a site from a Matthew McGee arguing that evolution is a myth and the Earth is young. Again, that can look very impressive if you've never really thought about the claims before.

    The next I see is a link to an Amazon book. Again, this looks impressive, but someone who doesn't know better will not realize the book is self-published and I see no information about the author. Could his case be true? That's not for me to decide. What I am saying is that we live in an age that it's easier to self-publish. There is some good stuff out there, but just because someone has a book does not mean that they are an authority.

    I could go on from here, but I hope you see the point. Right now, I don't care what side you take on the evolution discussion. You can see that if someone just typed in what they wanted to know, they could easily find plenty to support it. Now I'll do a search for something I do know something about. How about "Jesus is a myth."

    The first one I come to is here. Now again, if you don't know how to evaluate historical claims and you're not familiar with leading scholars, this is all very impressive. The person who has never encountered this information will likely be flummoxed. This is why movies like Zeitgeist get so much popularity.

    Interestingly, you will find some dissent as there is a Gotquestions article that shows up in the search early on and there are more here. Now what is the danger here? You might walk away concluding Jesus existed, but you would also walk away likely thinking that this is a debate in the academy. It's not. I prefer to go with what Jonathan Bernier has said.

    As I wrote the paper I returned to Meyer's scathing book review of John Dominic Crossan's The Historical Jesus. Here I will quote a passage that comes near the end of the view.
    Historical inquiry, with its connotations of a personal wrestling with evidence, is not to be found. There are no recalcitrant data, no agonizing reappraisals. All is aseptic, the data having been freeze-dried, prepackaged, and labelled with literary flair. Instead of an inquiry, what we have here is simply the proposal of a bright idea. But, as Bernard Lonergan used to say, bright ideas are a dime a dozen—establishing which of them are true is what separates the men from the boys.

    As I reread this passage, which I quote in the paper discussed above, it occurs to me that this describes well what we see in mythicism. It's always good form to critique the best version of a position, and for mythicism that is surely Richard Carrier's work. It's well-written, an exemplar of rhetoric and of making one's historiography appear like a hard science. But that's all smoke and mirrors. Carrier's got a bright idea, but that's all. That bright is that there is a 2 in 3 chance that Jesus did not exist. That doesn't tell me that Jesus did not exist. In fact, "Did Jesus exist?" is not even Carrier's question but rather "Is there a conceivable world in which Jesus did not exist?" And the answer to that is "Yes." But that's not enough. One must further ask "Is that world the one that best accounts for the totality of the relevant data?" Does it account for the most data whilst adopting the fewest suppositions? Does it resolve problems throughout the field of study, or does it in fact create new ones? And on those matters Carrier fails, as has been shown repeatedly by various NT scholars, professional and amateur, here on the interwebs (which, one should note, is just about the only place that this "debate" is taking place. It's certainly not taking place in the academy. Kinda like what fundamentalist Christians euphemistically call the evolution "debate"; the debate, it turns out, exists primarily in their heads). (bold parts highlighted by myself.)
    In this case then, Google is helping to spread misinformation because people do not know how to evaluate the data. Many of us can remember this commercial from State Farm years ago.

    https://youtu.be/v_CgPsGY5Mw

    We often laugh, but what are we saying when we say the internet gives us more knowledge than ever before and then play this? We play it because we all know there's a lot of bogus information on the net. Unfortunately, if you do not know how to evaluate claims, you will just believe whatever you find either most aligns with what you already believe or whatever you just don't answer.

    By the way, this is also why education of Christians in the church is so essential. It used to be our students would have to go off to university before they'd encounter a challenge to their faith. No more. Today, all you have to do is go to the internet. You can listen to a favorite Christian song on YouTube and see a link on the side of something like "Ten Questions Christians Can't Answer." That's all it takes. Then they go to a pastor who says "Well you just have to have faith."

    Please church. Never hire a pastor who answers a question like that. Our youth are too valuable. A lot of people are ignorant and don't know how to debate and take on opponents they can't handle and then they become atheists who don't know how to debate either and remain just as ignorant but think that because they've "seen through the lies" now that they're somehow enlightened.

    Keep in mind in all of this, I am not saying the internet is the root of all evil. There is a lot of good information on the internet. The problem is there is no way you have apart from your own study of being able to evaluate the claims you find on the internet. Unfortunately, most people, when it comes to an area they have never studied, have no way of doing that. (How many doctors have told you to never diagnose yourself using the internet?)

    So can the internet spread knowledge? Yep. Sure can. Can it spread ignorance? Yep. Sure can. That's why when I hear people say "We have the internet so now we know better", I do not take it seriously. Google is a great tool, but it is a terrible teacher.

    In Christ,
    Nick Peters

  • #2
    The "just have "faith"" canard is SUPER annoying. Especially since there are plenty of verses that say we're supposed to believe based on evidence and use our minds to not fall for false teachers. Being loyal doesn't mean being an unquestioning idiot.

    Kinda off topic, but the internet stuff claiming that the Bible/God is evil based on verses taken out of context makes as much sense as using a cover of an old comic book showing the hero supposedly being evil to show that the hero is a evil jerk. Context is important folks. You can make ANYONE look evil by taking their words and actions out of context.
    Last edited by Christianbookworm; 03-23-2016, 10:14 AM.
    If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
      The "just have "faith"" canard is SUPER annoying. Especially since there are plenty of verses that say we're supposed to believe based on evidence and use our minds to not fall for false teachers. Being loyal doesn't mean being an unquestioning idiot.
      Faith is not just believing in something because you are told. Hebrews 11:1 makes that clear. "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." Faith is having enough to make you confident of what you can not yet see. The old "leap of faith" is not a valid argument.
      Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
        Faith is not just believing in something because you are told. Hebrews 11:1 makes that clear. "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." Faith is having enough to make you confident of what you can not yet see. The old "leap of faith" is not a valid argument.
        No kidding, Sherlock! I'd love to know where the "just have blind faith" people get that dumb idea from!
        If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
          No kidding, Sherlock! I'd love to know where the "just have blind faith" people get that dumb idea from!
          Probably from 2 Cor 5:7
          Originally posted by NKJV
          For we walk by faith, not by sight.
          We know J6 wasn’t peaceful because they didn’t set the building on fire.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by alaskazimm View Post
            Probably from 2 Cor 5:7
            If so, they completely ignored the context of the passage! It's about the promise of a future resurrection body.
            If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by alaskazimm View Post
              Probably from 2 Cor 5:7
              And the faith we walk in is based upon the confidence we have learned being part of the body and touched by the Holy Spirit. It is not blind faith in something mama told me.
              Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

              Comment


              • #8
                Do you seriously think anyone other than a Muslim or a Christian follows these conspiracy theories?
                "Look at what happened after the European peoples succeeded in removing the clergy from public life and restricting them to their churches. They built up human being promoted enlightenment, creativity and rebellion. States which are based on religion confine their people in the circle of faith and fear."-Raif Badawi

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Secular Liberation View Post
                  Do you seriously think anyone other than a Muslim or a Christian follows these conspiracy theories?
                  Yes, there are plenty of conspiracy theorists out there who don't subscribe to either religion. Do you get out much?
                  "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Secular Liberation View Post
                    Do you seriously think anyone other than a Muslim or a Christian follows these conspiracy theories?
                    Pretty sheltered, eh? Yeah, I've known plenty of atheist who hold to conspiracy theories that 9/11 was an inside job or that JFK was killed by the CIA. I wasn't aware that religion had a monopoly on crazy (you're living proof of that).
                    "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                    GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I've come across Holocaust deniers online. I don't want to tar their follow nonbelievers by association but let's just say they weren't Christian.
                      "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                        Is the internet the death knell of the Christian claim?
                        ...
                        So can the internet spread knowledge? Yep. Sure can. Can it spread ignorance? Yep. Sure can. That's why when I hear people say "We have the internet so now we know better", I do not take it seriously. Google is a great tool, but it is a terrible teacher.
                        The internet gives people access to information, and that potentially allows them to find the truth - and in my opinion, that means that Christianity is wrong. A hundred years ago virtually everyone sat in church will have been sure the Gospel of Matthew was written by the apostle Matthew. I am sure many Christians still think that, but nowadays atheists (and more liberal Christians) can point to good evidence that the gospel was not written by Matthew. That does not directly contradict the resurrection, but it certainly makes the case weaker.

                        I appreciate you are not a creationist, but there are organisations out that that insist you are not a true Christian unless you believe God created the world about 6000 years ago. It becomes easy for atheists to point out these groups on the one hand and the abundance evidence for an old Earth on the other hand.

                        I can look up lists of Bible atrocities and contradictions in seconds. I appreciate they vary in quality, but they are enough to show the Bible is not the inspired word of an all-loving god. Anyone with a serious interest can check verses in seconds and decide for himself if they are reasonable or not.

                        So even the easy access to the Bible on-line helps the atheist case. We can readily look up Bible passages, checking the Hebrew or Greek even. How many Christians know Number 22:22 says God sent satan to oppose Balaam? Or that Lucifer was merely a sarcastic title for the King of Babylon? All those prophecies about Jesus: When it takes seconds to look them up it is easy to discover that many actually foretell a military leader who would lead the Jews to greatness.

                        And it is not just the internet. A couple of centuries ago prayer was the only resort of the desperately ill. Nowadays modern medicine gives us hope of recovery. If you have cancer modern medicine gives you a better than 50% chance of survival. How does prayer compare to that?
                        My Blog: http://oncreationism.blogspot.co.uk/

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
                          How many Christians know Number 22:22 says God sent satan to oppose Balaam?
                          It doesn't. It took me seconds to look up the verse on the internet and see that. You're confusing a proper name with its meaning. Context makes it clear that Satan is not in view here.
                          Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                          Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                          sigpic
                          I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                            It doesn't. It took me seconds to look up the verse on the internet and see that. You're confusing a proper name with its meaning. Context makes it clear that Satan is not in view here.
                            Not Satan, but satan. An angel appointed by God to be his satan. It is the satan that talks to God in Job; not a fallen angel, but an angel appointed by God. The meaning of the word has changed over time, and by Jesus' era, it was Satan, the author of evil. The earlier verses have then been retrospectively modified, so now the Bible presents it as though the angel in Job appointed by God is actually Satan, the author of evil.

                            So what does it mean in Psalm 109:6? I ask because it is translated as "accuser" in most Bibles, but as "Satan" in several (including the KJV). Which is right? Great thing about technology is I can get you a list of parallel verses in seconds:
                            http://biblehub.com/psalms/109-6.htm

                            In Zechariah 3:1, why is Satan there is a heavenly court? How could the ultimate evil stand to be in the presence of God? The answer is that this originally meant an angel appointed by God to be the prosecution. Christianity has corrupted the text. Similarly in Job, how can Satan stand to be in God's presence, to talk to him, to provoke him into a wager?

                            I would also be intrigued to understand the different contexts for שָׂטָ֤ן in 1 Chronicles 21:1 and 1 Kings 11:25; translated as adversary in the former and Satan in the latter. Can you talk me through that?
                            My Blog: http://oncreationism.blogspot.co.uk/

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              It's really nice to have the point proven right here.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-15-2024, 10:19 PM
                              14 responses
                              75 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-13-2024, 10:13 PM
                              6 responses
                              61 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                              Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-12-2024, 09:36 PM
                              1 response
                              23 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-11-2024, 10:19 PM
                              0 responses
                              22 views
                              2 likes
                              Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                              Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-08-2024, 11:59 AM
                              7 responses
                              54 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post whag
                              by whag
                               
                              Working...
                              X