Intro: Eight years ago I was a young, and zealous apologist for the faith. Much has changed over the years. In any case, I enjoyed debates, more so than I do these days. I was turned on to an article in the local paper. I read it and I was invited by the editor to respond and it was published. After my response I received a call inviting me to debate Dr. Harvey. The moderator, his buddy Dr. G.W. Abersold asked me when did I retire. I laughed a bit, and said, "Sir, I am 23 years old." The debate went well and I am trying to locate the audio of the debate. Once I find it, I will post it.
By Robert A. Harvey
Highland Community News: Religion Section, June 8, 2006
What would, under normal circumstances be an amusing contradiction, if it were not so serious, is the predictable uproar by religious conservatives over the audacity of Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code.
Offering, even in the context of an admitted novel, a ‘humanized' Jesus as an alternative to the transparent magic, miracles, and mysticism of traditional Christianity, constitutes a significant threat to that entrenched and ‘inerrant' point of view. The mere suggestion that there are other ways of looking at religious history and theology is a major threat to faith, and is, for many self-styled ‘true believers,' just too problematic to contemplate.
Questioning someone's sacred myths -- their cherished, comfortable, and private fictions, is guaranteed to annoy, distract, and provoke the righteous indignation of the faithful. It threatens their tenuous grasp on just what is to be believed, against an avalanche of possibilities. That is to be taken as a serious challenge to beliefs based upon faith alone and unsupported by an impressive body of existing evidence to the contrary. After all, it must be recognized that all religions had their source at some time, some place, by someone, who simply made it all up, in spite of our ‘other worldly' insistence to the contrary. In that light, just WHO is passing off fiction and calling it fact?
In the ardor of devotion, it is easy to forget that religiosity is by nature, largely defined as the exercise of pious propaganda [The quality of being religious.Excessive or affected piety.]. Religious dictates, based entirely upon faith, are regarded as being ‘true' only because someone is willing to accept them as being true.
Validity is determined by the simple act of acceptance and requires no additional proof. Once you ‘know' the ‘truth' all other evidence becomes irrelevant to a ‘true believer.'
Any effort to inject reason into any serious discussion past this point, is like talking to a wall.
What we choose to embrace as ‘absolutes' are in fact most often mere presumptions of truth within narrow limits of some provincial doctrinal confinement. Religious debate centers upon just WHO has the most believable and therefore acceptable presumptions. This leaves little room for honest debate and a modicum of tolerance for the beliefs of dissenters with presumptions of their own.
For two thousand years, the Christian clergy has had its way, with their manufactured story about a mystical Jesus. They told it their way, as though it was the only way, to a captive audience that never questioned what was handed to them as “The Word of God.”
That ‘in-house creation' has been from its inception, a self validating, and clearly fabricated creation of ecclesiastical design and intent. It WAS and IS no more than a clerical OPINION -- an interpretation based upon certain evidence and supposition, presented as the unassailable TRUTH.
This is, of course, precisely what Dan Brown has done, in the Da Vinci Code, except that he clearly identified it as FICTION. What he proposes in suggesting the humanity of Jesus, is certainly no less believable than the officially acceptable myths of a virgin birth, resurrection from the dead and walking on water. Believing those things requires not only faith, but BLIND faith, because, aside from religion, they are fundamentally contradicted by natural law and common sense.
Right or wrong at least Brown's presentation makes more common sense than the orthodox point of view. Could it be that this is why, what he said is such a threat to those who are not comfortable with facts?
Many of the creeds, doctrines, and the seemingly endless anachronistic recitations of Christianity do in fact constitute obvious fiction.
Departures from historical evidence and the clearly stated intent of the person and ministry of Jesus is abundantly clear. Without question, Christianity in its ancient and modern dress is simply a religion ABOUT Jesus. It certainly is not the religion OF Jesus, because that was Judaism.
Even the faith OF Jesus was corrupted by perverting it into a body of faith ‘concerning' Jesus that bore no relationship to his message and intent. This was done AFTER he was no longer around to offer any objection to what was done in his name.
It is well to remember that Jesus himself was NEVER A CHRISTIAN. He was born a Jew and he died a Jew. Christianity was the achievement of other ‘interested' individuals, who fashioned it in their own image.
Fundamentally negating the message and the religion of Jesus, the actual founders of Christianity contrived a religion of opposite warp and weave based upon salesmanship and literary skill that puts Dan Brown to shame. At least the Da Vinci Code is honestly labeled as FICTION, as a guide and a warning to the gullible. To those who are offended, by the novel, the movie, and by this defense, I say, “Me thinks thou protesteth too much.”
It is not Dan Brown's credibility that is in question. He is merely a self admitted story teller who makes no pretense of divine revelation. Our problem is with individuals and institutions that have no hesitation in speaking FOR GOD, WITHOUT BEING GOD, that demand our obedience to their exclusive proprietary vision of what they have chosen to regard as ‘THE ABSOLUTE WORD OF GOD.' Now, that constitutes a credible and significant threat to people in quest of an honest faith and higher spirituality.
The warning disclaimer that some people would put on the cover of the Da Vinci Code, would be more appropriate over the door of some Christian Churches.
The Da Vince Code: Why the furor over the furor?
By Laurence A. Gonzaga
Highland Community News: Religion Section, June 29, 2006
Psychology, B.A., Graduate student in Psychology (CSUSB), Christian Apologist, taught Church history, morality, and Sacramental preparation @ Sts. Adelaide and Anne Roman Catholic Church, former Atheist
“Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake.” –Matthew5:11
In response to Robert Harvey’s “Why all of the furor over the Da Vinci Code?” we must be clear on what is being discussed here, “right” and “wrong”, as it applies to protesting against The Da Vinci Code.
Harvey discusses truth and opinion, and the two need to be distinguished. Truth is a statement which corresponds with reality, regardless of the individual’s perspective. Saying “my shoes are blue” is only truthful if I am really wearing blue shoes. Opinion is different. If my favorite color is red and my friend’s favorite is green, which one of us is right? Can we argue over this? No, these are opinions, which are statements relating to taste, rather than truth. The old saying goes, De gustibus non disputandum est (There is no disputing about taste). However, in matters of truth, people ought to debate reasonably. Therefore, Christians are justified in protesting the movie because it is contrary to what we accept as historical truth.
Harvey claims that we are not open to a “humanized” Jesus because we’d rather believe in “transparent magic” and are threatened by “other ways of looking at religious history and theology”. Of course we are against it; this issue is related to history (truth). Why not stand up for what we believe in? Where’s his debunking evidence, the onus of proof is on Harvey! If it has been accepted as true for 2000 years then why would one doubt it? Do scientists need to re-prove gravity every 100 years?
Harvey uses the phrase “avalanche of possibilities”. He fails to list the possibilities, and the reasonable grounds for proposing such possibilities. Possibilities don’t equal realities. He says we believe in “private fictions”. One-third of this planet’s population is Christian, which is hardly “private”. He then says “beliefs…unsupported by an impressive body of existing evidence to the contrary.” What “impressive” evidence? Or are these his “private fictions”?
Harvey writes: “…it must be recognized that all religions had their source at some time, some place, by someone, who simply made it all up.” Unless Harvey proves that all Scriptures from every religion are “made up”, he can’t make such claims.
Harvey says Dan Brown “clearly identified it as FICTION”, yet on page 1, under a heading that says “FACT”, we read about the Priory of Sion and the Les Dossiers Secretes, both have been proven to be forgeries by Pierre Plantard and his collegues: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Plantard. Harvey here contradicts his own words because he then says later on “Could it be that this is why, what he [Dan Brown] said is such a threat to those who are not comfortable with facts?” I thought you said it was “clearly fiction”? Then Dan Brown writes on the same “facts” page: “All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.”
Then Harvey says that the Virgin birth, the Resurrection, and walking on water are “contradicted by natural law and common sense”. If he knew anything about theology, he would know that these are Miracles, and as such are not bound by the physical laws of nature.
Harvey then says that Christianity cannot be a religion OF Jesus, because Jesus was Jewish. How that contradicts Christianity’s claim, he doesn’t tell us. Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Matthew5:17). The first followers of Jesus were not called “Christians”, they were called “The Way”. “But Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord… so that if he found any belonging to the Way… he might bring them bound to Jerusalem (Acts9:1-2). “And in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians (Acts11:26).
Harvey claims that the early Christians “corrupted” and “perverted” the faith, and bore “no relationship to his message and intent”. How has Harvey come across an infallible knowledge of what Jesus’ real message and intent was? He sounds rather dogmatic about his beliefs. Irony? I would also ask for his evidence that the early Christians changed the real teachings of Jesus “after he was no longer around to offer any objection…”?
Mr. Harvey had too many contradictions and assumptions in his piece to discuss in my space allotted. But, he is more than welcome to discuss further. God Bless.
Harvey discusses truth and opinion, and the two need to be distinguished. Truth is a statement which corresponds with reality, regardless of the individual’s perspective. Saying “my shoes are blue” is only truthful if I am really wearing blue shoes. Opinion is different. If my favorite color is red and my friend’s favorite is green, which one of us is right? Can we argue over this? No, these are opinions, which are statements relating to taste, rather than truth. The old saying goes, De gustibus non disputandum est (There is no disputing about taste). However, in matters of truth, people ought to debate reasonably. Therefore, Christians are justified in protesting the movie because it is contrary to what we accept as historical truth.
Harvey claims that we are not open to a “humanized” Jesus because we’d rather believe in “transparent magic” and are threatened by “other ways of looking at religious history and theology”. Of course we are against it; this issue is related to history (truth). Why not stand up for what we believe in? Where’s his debunking evidence, the onus of proof is on Harvey! If it has been accepted as true for 2000 years then why would one doubt it? Do scientists need to re-prove gravity every 100 years?
Harvey uses the phrase “avalanche of possibilities”. He fails to list the possibilities, and the reasonable grounds for proposing such possibilities. Possibilities don’t equal realities. He says we believe in “private fictions”. One-third of this planet’s population is Christian, which is hardly “private”. He then says “beliefs…unsupported by an impressive body of existing evidence to the contrary.” What “impressive” evidence? Or are these his “private fictions”?
Harvey writes: “…it must be recognized that all religions had their source at some time, some place, by someone, who simply made it all up.” Unless Harvey proves that all Scriptures from every religion are “made up”, he can’t make such claims.
Harvey says Dan Brown “clearly identified it as FICTION”, yet on page 1, under a heading that says “FACT”, we read about the Priory of Sion and the Les Dossiers Secretes, both have been proven to be forgeries by Pierre Plantard and his collegues: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Plantard. Harvey here contradicts his own words because he then says later on “Could it be that this is why, what he [Dan Brown] said is such a threat to those who are not comfortable with facts?” I thought you said it was “clearly fiction”? Then Dan Brown writes on the same “facts” page: “All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.”
Then Harvey says that the Virgin birth, the Resurrection, and walking on water are “contradicted by natural law and common sense”. If he knew anything about theology, he would know that these are Miracles, and as such are not bound by the physical laws of nature.
Harvey then says that Christianity cannot be a religion OF Jesus, because Jesus was Jewish. How that contradicts Christianity’s claim, he doesn’t tell us. Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Matthew5:17). The first followers of Jesus were not called “Christians”, they were called “The Way”. “But Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord… so that if he found any belonging to the Way… he might bring them bound to Jerusalem (Acts9:1-2). “And in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians (Acts11:26).
Harvey claims that the early Christians “corrupted” and “perverted” the faith, and bore “no relationship to his message and intent”. How has Harvey come across an infallible knowledge of what Jesus’ real message and intent was? He sounds rather dogmatic about his beliefs. Irony? I would also ask for his evidence that the early Christians changed the real teachings of Jesus “after he was no longer around to offer any objection…”?
Mr. Harvey had too many contradictions and assumptions in his piece to discuss in my space allotted. But, he is more than welcome to discuss further. God Bless.
The Da Vinci Code Debate: Are the Traditionally Accepted Scriptures (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) Historical and Reliable? Informal Debate
Dr. Robert Harvey, Ph.D. Biology: Negative
Laurence A. Gonzaga, B.A. Psychology: Affirmative
Friday, July 28, 2006
10:00AM-11:30AM
Highland Senior Center
Address: 3102 Highland Ave, Highland, CA 92346
Phone: (909) 862-8104
No comments:
Post a Comment