You're right to say that some of my criticism of Keller's stuff is objecting to his apparent inconsistency with how I used to read the Bible. That's because Keller is claiming to be a part of the community that I used to be part of, but as far as I can tell, he's doing it wrong. I'm not part of that community any more, so it's possible things have moved on since then. I'd take that as evidence that this community is of human construction, but it does mean I should not call my views of what evangelicals should believe "orthodoxy".
Instead, I'd like to talk about how things have moved on. That is, what has caused this change of mind? I'd claim it's an ad hoc response to modern rejection of the divine right of kings, which lead to a rejection of the right of the divine King (something which at least one evangelical seems to be bothered about). The most important thing for Keller and Lewis is that Christianity spreads. It won't spread easily to anti-authoritarians who no longer believe God has a right to judge them, so instead, there's this alternative where people effectively judge themselves. How does Keller know this alternative is right? How would he know if it were wrong? Is there anything which supports it, other than that he wishes it were true?
I'd argue not, even given a belief that the Bible's authors were correct (which is my objection to his Rich Man and Lazarus and Romans 1 interpretation). But even if we don't get into what "orthodoxy" is, Keller makes a number of other claims (those I've mentioned in the bullet points) which he needs to back up.
Your strategy is to try to take Christians at their word and give Scripture enormous authority so as to show how they don't respect that authority in practice themselves.
Yes indeed. Most Christians believe in belief more than they actually believe. If your beliefs don't lead you to anticipate that God will make any difference in the world, our arguments are concluded, and welcome to atheism.
I don't buy it. Some of your points are very strong, some are weak, but they all presuppose this notion of mimicry or ventriloquism, - not finding a good analogy - like what matters about being a Christian can be accessed by remote control.
I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you arguing that non-Christians can't know what Christianity is? Should we conclude that when Christians describe it, they don't know what they're talking about?
Seriously, what's longest you've ever gone since being a Christian without once consciously trying to think like a Christian?
I don't try to consciously think like a Christian most days. The exception is probably when I'm arguing with Christians, in which case I try to experience some sort of empathy, I suppose.
no subject
You're right to say that some of my criticism of Keller's stuff is objecting to his apparent inconsistency with how I used to read the Bible. That's because Keller is claiming to be a part of the community that I used to be part of, but as far as I can tell, he's doing it wrong. I'm not part of that community any more, so it's possible things have moved on since then. I'd take that as evidence that this community is of human construction, but it does mean I should not call my views of what evangelicals should believe "orthodoxy".
Instead, I'd like to talk about how things have moved on. That is, what has caused this change of mind? I'd claim it's an ad hoc response to modern rejection of the divine right of kings, which lead to a rejection of the right of the divine King (something which at least one evangelical seems to be bothered about). The most important thing for Keller and Lewis is that Christianity spreads. It won't spread easily to anti-authoritarians who no longer believe God has a right to judge them, so instead, there's this alternative where people effectively judge themselves. How does Keller know this alternative is right? How would he know if it were wrong? Is there anything which supports it, other than that he wishes it were true?
I'd argue not, even given a belief that the Bible's authors were correct (which is my objection to his Rich Man and Lazarus and Romans 1 interpretation). But even if we don't get into what "orthodoxy" is, Keller makes a number of other claims (those I've mentioned in the bullet points) which he needs to back up.
Your strategy is to try to take Christians at their word and give Scripture enormous authority so as to show how they don't respect that authority in practice themselves.
Yes indeed. Most Christians believe in belief more than they actually believe. If your beliefs don't lead you to anticipate that God will make any difference in the world, our arguments are concluded, and welcome to atheism.
I don't buy it. Some of your points are very strong, some are weak, but they all presuppose this notion of mimicry or ventriloquism, - not finding a good analogy - like what matters about being a Christian can be accessed by remote control.
I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you arguing that non-Christians can't know what Christianity is? Should we conclude that when Christians describe it, they don't know what they're talking about?
Seriously, what's longest you've ever gone since being a Christian without once consciously trying to think like a Christian?
I don't try to consciously think like a Christian most days. The exception is probably when I'm arguing with Christians, in which case I try to experience some sort of empathy, I suppose.