Discussion Grounds

Luke,

Based on recent discussion in the comments, we have one more point of agreement we need to arrive at before we can proceed with this. Quite literally it is a matter of agreeing on the topic of the debate. We are entering into discussions whether Christianity or naturalism is a better explanation of x, where x could over time be many different things. But now it’s becoming apparent that we don’t agree on what the term “Christianity” signifies. Without that agreement, we might think we’re debating one thing but really be talking about two different things.

You persist in insisting that Christianity believes in an “imaginary magical friend who grants wishes” (see here, here, here, here, here, and finally your continued affirmation of that opinion just last night, even after I had explained in some detail the inaccuracy of that view). As I have said twice now (here and here), if that is what you are disputing, then we have nothing to debate, because we agree that’s false. Neither of us believes in that.

Because it’s so important that we work this out, I am going to quote my own comment, in which I explained the inaccuracy of that depiction.

God is not an “invisible friend” in any sense comparable to the usual childhood understanding of the term: a playmate whose participation is under the control and at the whim of the child who invents this friend. You know this is true.

Surely you know that melding words into a phrase can change the words’ meanings compared to their meanings taken individually. Consider “Hopeful,” “monster,” and “hopeful monster,” for example. If one were to argue against that aspect of evolutionary theory by saying, “Hold on, you blithering idiot: those early creatures could never have understood hopefulness!” that arguer would himself or herself be the actual blithering idiot.

You insert “magical” between “invisible” and “friend,” but in my mind that does not erase the allusion to the imaginary childhood playmate, it only adds a touch of fantasy to the image. Maybe (taking a gracious view of it) you’re not making that allusion intentionally, and maybe if pressed on it you would even disavow that connection; but I’m quite sure that’s what many of your readers would take as your intent. If that allusion is not what you want to communicate, you would be well advised to quit saying things that do communicate it.

Again: God is invisible and a friend, but he is not an “invisible friend” as the term is generally understood. To suggest there’s a parallelism there is to do considerable violence to both “God” and “invisible friend” as concepts, and it is irresponsible argumentation. I’m calling you on it.

Now for “magical.” God is decidedly not “magical” in the sense stated in answers.com. He does not “invoke the supernatural.” He is himself the being behind all other being, and his essence is of course supernatural, but he does not use some “art” to “invoke” himself! And he certainly does not (definition 2) use “charms, spells, or rituals to attempt to produce supernatural effects or control events in nature.” The term “magical” as applied to God is just wrong. God acts out of his own being, not out of some magical art.

And then, as for “granting wishes.” I thought you said you had a grip on Christian theology. Don’t you see how you have chopped off 98% of what it means to be in relationship with God? Don’t you see that our relationship with him is not one where he “grants wishes,” but where he builds character, molds our desires to be in tune with his good and ultimate moral nature (and thus molds our very wishes), calls on us to sacrifice ourselves and yield to him, calls on us to give him the worship that is due him?

An “invisible magical friend who grants wishes” is not what I believe in, and not what I’m arguing for. It is a red herring of amazing triviality. If integrity is your intention (and I believe it is), I would expect you would drop the term, both here and on your own blog.

Roman congratulated you for being able to handle your views being stated in a manner not entirely to your liking. You are not the only one who can do that, I assure you. Download the pdf here and search the document for “evangelistic efforts.” There’s one example of self-criticism. The difference in this case, Luke, is that you are repeatedly stating tendentious views that do not accurately apply to Christian belief, and expecting us to accept it not only with magnanimity but with agreement!

So let’s go back to working on common definitions. What is Christianity, and what do Christians believe? We have to come to better agreement on that before we can proceed with other matters.