Thursday, 18 September 2008
-
Advice Needed: Cynicism, Pessimism, and the Bible
We receive quite a few messages from people asking for help with certain issues, and often times, we're not sure how to relate or answer the person's question - which is where you guys come in! Every Thursday, we feature a reader's problem and leave it open for you guys to offer your two cents. Please feel free to message us for advice! It can be about anything from family, relationships, devotional life or struggles in faith. Don't worry, we'll keep you anonymous.Today's Advice Post:
I was talking with a good friend about faith and he revealed to me that because he's such a cynic, he's very skeptical about the Bible (and church in general). For him, he "picks and chooses" what to believe and if it doesn't have any historical evidence, he's more inclined to dismiss it. So, assuming that he was referring to the Resurrection, I told him that that was where the faith comes in; believing in something that you can't necessarily see (or prove). He acknowledged that, but he admitted that he was still cynical, so I asked him to give me a specific example and he asked the following:Why is there no historical reference of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah?
Well I was stumped to say the least, and I couldn't give him an answer. Rather than try to make something up, I admitted that I had no idea. Personally, I feel that if you put too much emphasis on finding facts in the Bible, you're going to miss the big picture. Second, I wondered if it's even possible to be a Christian and a pessimist at the same time?
If somebody has some ideas or a response I would like to hear them!
-
recommend
- recs 0
-
share
-
email
- sent 0
Related Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to revelife's Revelife Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in revelife's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
Comments (25)
Actually, there is some recent archaeological evidence that suggests Soddom and Gommorah actually happened. I'd have to dig up the research, but it's fascinating!
But off of that... I think it's possible to be a Christian and a pessimist, but as Christians we should not be CYNICAL about the Bible...
But I don't think it's a good idea to be pessimistic, either. We're supposed to try and radiate joy as much as humanly possible.
Like a conspiracy theorist might say - the lack of evidence proves something happened!
Truthfully, there is not much reason to expect written evidence of a people that were destroyed. If you demand other kinds of evidence, all you have to do is look around the Dead Sea. Those are where "the cities of the plain" were. Thousands of years later they still don't support life.
But even seeing a video tape broadcast of fire raining down on Sodom is not going to convince a true skeptic. Just like the Zapruder film only adds fuel to the Kennedy Conspiracy theorists fire... to the rest of us it looks like he was shot by a lone gunman.
But there is. It's in an ancient Hebrew historical narrative known to us as Genesis.
Much of what we know about ancient history depends on very scanty evidence; some things we regard as major events or figures in history would be completely unknown to us if it wasn't for some fragments of documents. We don't say there was no such person as Judas Maccabeus simply because his name only appears in the apocryphal books of Maccabees, even if (like most Protestants) we don't even accept the books as canonical.
And really, what evidence is the total annihilation of a city likely to leave other than a narrative of the event? Which is precisely what we do have. It's thus not even a matter of needing to accept it by faith but of exercising historical evaluation of a document. Outside confirmation is nice, when you can get it (which you often can), but it's not necessary; we can easily accept something as a historical event without it.
Also consider that there's never been a finding in archaeology that contradicts the history recorded in the Bible, and there are many confirmations of events recorded, showing that the writers of Scripture were diligent with their fact-checking. In other words, it has a reliable record for the events where we can confirm them, making it more trustworthy for the events we can't.
Can a Christian be a pessimist? Depends how you define it. If you mean someone who has no hope, then I don't think that is especially compatible with Christian beliefs like the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting.
Cynicism/Pessimism is generally not part of true faith.
We aren't called to be emotionally guarded nearly so much as vulnerably abandoned to God.
Cynicism is the entrenchment of self, build up the walls, pull out the guns, wave the rebel flag to say "No one can have me, they're all the same."
Unfortunately, the existence of those barriers also guard us from being to experience the goodness and optimism of God Himself.
Kind of like how Norton Anti-virus(or products like it) are invasive in their protection that it sometimes keeps the user from having a stable internet connection.
Just an example.
Yes, I'm a nerd.
In my book, if your religious beliefs bring peace to you, that is really the bottom line.
You can't pick-and-choose Scripture; doing so denies that the Bible is God-breathed and all Truth.
As for the pessimism and being a Christian, I think it is possible to be a Christian and retain some form of pessimism. Now, is it right to be pessimistic and be a Christian? No, it's an oxymoron. Pessimism, in my definition, shows anxiety and does not show faith. Although we have a sense of cynicism as mere humans, we should strive to rid ourselves of that sense; just as you would any other sin. But this answer is incomplete...
here is the kicker, the question that I would like to know to complete my understanding of this: "is it possible to be cynical, yet joyful at the same time" (and by "joyful" I'm including Godly sorrow and joy through hardship and all that; I don't mean having a passive smile on your face)? To me, I think it could be possible, depending upon your definition of a cynical person of course. Because when you understand that everything happens to the Glory of God and His pleasure, you realize that everything that happens within God's will is good. So, it would be possible to be optimistic about everything in your heart (everything excluding sin), yet have the world think you are being cynical because what God sees as good and the world sees as good are two different things. But that's only what I think, I'm not sure if there can be a link between pessimism and joy or not; and that seems to be where the answer to the post lies.
I would check to make sure there isn't which is what another blogger said.
Then the other thing I would say is that there are many things which have happened which we do not have hard and fast archeological evidence for but we still believe in those based on recorded stories. Yes people pick and choose what to believe and what to not believe. If he has a problem with that particular story he can ask God about it when he gets to heaven perhaps.
In the meantime there are other things that he should concentrate on to make sure he and some of the people in his world are in heaven later. One of the important things is to build his spirit and to be aware of feeding his spririt. Looking for historical evidence to back up scripture is a way to feed his mind which is important. Using your muscles is a way to feed your body which is also important. Those things are often on the top of the list for Christians. Feeding your spirit and making it greater and stronger and closer to God and more like Jesus is very important.
I would challenge my friend to study what scripture has to say to him on this vital topic. And I would pray for him along those lines too.
Keep talking to him so he keeps seeking. He who seeks finds.
"Also consider that there's never been a finding in archaeology that contradicts the history recorded in the Bible"
But there are. I currently on a short break right now, so I don't have much time to expound on historical inaccuracies within the bible, but I'll start with the time period that the Israelities spent in Egypt. There are no records of a foreign people people being in Egpyt in the time that the Bible states under the pharoah mentioned in the Bible. Either the timespans are off, it was a different pharoah, it didn't happen, or the bible is right and everyother bit of evidence at the time is wrong. That was just the one I could think of off the top of my hand. Though I'm not saying that has been evidence in archaelogy that is a death blow to the Bible, there has been numerous amounts of conflicting information.
@metal_core1@xanga -
"You can't pick-and-choose Scripture; doing so denies that the Bible is God-breathed and all Truth."
But who said that the Bible must be all "God-breathed and all Truth"? (yes you can quote the scripture I know you're thinking of, and then I'll respond to how the applicability of said verse can be not as iron strong as some would believe).
And how do we know if there wasn't any human error involved when the church came up with the current cannon? Unless the church's choices were completely God-lead as well (which I don't see how that is a necessary belief for a christian), then there leaves for some open for error, right?
@whataboutbahb@xanga - But it's only a "contradiction" (properly understood) if the Egyptian records expressly say there were no foreign peoples in Egypt at that time. Otherwise it's an argument from silence, which signifies nothing. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
Also consider that it was typical ancient Egyptian historical practice to conveniently neglect to record their defeats. So if the Exodus account is true, the lack of corroborating evidence from Egyptian history is precisely what we would expect!
@Pass_the_Aura@xanga - Well the Egyptians kept very good records, favorable and not. If Exodus is the exact account there would be a mention in Egyptian records. I think that both is true. Exodus was written down centuries after it happened so it is possible that something happened and it was either a lot smaller and the Egyptians didn't see the need to record it, or it could've occurred during the period of time when other peoples, like the Hyksos, ruled Egypt and was lost when the native Egyptians retook their country. Food for thought I hope!
My whole feeling about this subject, Genesis in particular, is that the truth is in between. We have to remember that the Bible did not float down from the sky fully formed, and God did not possess the writers either. Each book was written down at a different time and human touches are definitely present. Most of the events in Genesis occurred at a time when writing was just getting started, or they predate "history" altogether. What Genesis is is the stories, told orally probably for a few centuries, and were recoded during the Babylonian Exile. What we have is how the people remembered the events, not necessarily exactly how they happened. So I think there is evidence for Sodom and Gomorrah out there, somewhere, but it might not be what we expect to find, or it might. Either way the facts don't change the importance of the story we are told for the Bible teaches us how to have a relationship with God, how to live with Him and know Him. Does it matter if every letter is correct? Does it matter if the "history" was remembered exactly as it happened? No. It doesn't change my relationship with God and Jesus. Does it change yours? I hope not....what a shame that would be....
@whataboutbahb@xanga - Unless I misread something (which could have happened) what you mentioned is not an archealogical find that contradicts the Bible, but rather a lack of archaelogical evidence to support the Bible. Big difference.
i've been wondering about sodom & gomorrah too. I'm a cynic myself and i do question but i realize half the crap that had happened is true so why doubt the lack of evidence for the others?
@whataboutbahb@xanga - When the cannon of Scripture was put together, they weren't just thrown into a book after being picked out of a hat. The ones who put most of the Old Testament together and those who put in the books and letters of the New Testament researched the history and credibility of the books (although, the OT was more about the books lasting over a course of several centuries). You can see this most clearly through the fact that we don't have the Book of Paul or any of those other books that didn't make it in. The problem with those rejected books was that for being generally newer books and letters (compared to those of the OT) there was little known about where the writings had originated from (almost next to nothing); not to mention that the teachings in the books were almost completely contrary to other Scripture. But this alone still leaves room for human "error" with the formation of the Bible.
In response to your final question over "error", it would be good to explain the purpose of the Bible. Aside from housing the Gospel of Christ's redemptive work and his good news, the Bible is, in it's most general state, the Word of God. Now, you can say men have written it and that it could be flawed, but the purpose for the Bible makes that seem improbable. The purpose of Scripture is for God to speak to us through, so why would he give us a flawed "Word of God"?
It would seem odd for a Holy God to give us an imperfect message to live for. I guess what it comes down to is: do you believe our Lord is divine or not; that he would work in the writers and researchers to form His Word.
"Correct vision is often called cynicism by those who have not got it."
- George Bernard Shaw
It is not cynical to be skeptical about the bible, skepticism is merely saying "is this true" before swallowing dubious claims whole.
Check out the cities of Bab edh-Dhra and Numeira.
Many things that the Bible says are doubted at first, but then something comes up that proves, or at least supports them.
Is it just me or is it pretty clear:
If both cities were "smited" by God down to the ground, then what evidence would there be left?
Just a thought.
&& I really do hate all this talk about "Well, cynicism isn't a part of being a Christian.." Well guess what? Sin isn't supposed to be either. We are all human and flawed and for people to say that Christians should be "happy" or "joyous" all the time is not only absurd but incredibly impossible.
That is the big reason why alot of people find Christianity fake. They get into it and find that their life does not get better and their existence does not become "happier" --to say that we should be is one thing...to say that we are is something totally different. I am a cynic and pessimist and I am a Christian. I am also a sinner, a believer, and a child of God. I can be those and more at the same time, but only because of God's grace.
@Pass_the_Aura@xanga -
"Also consider that it was typical
ancient Egyptian historical practice to conveniently neglect to record
their defeats. So if the Exodus account is true, the lack of
corroborating evidence from Egyptian history is precisely what we would
expect!"
I wasn't just talking about the exodus, I was talking about the 400 years the Israelities were suppose to have spent in Egypt (Exodus 12:40), when based on the timeline given to us by the Bible, there is no mention of a conquered foreign people living in Egypt around that time. I recognize Egyptians weren't the most accurate with their historical accounts of defeat. That does not mean these foreign people would not have been mentioned at all for 400 years. What is known was there was an expulsion of foreign people called the Hyksos around 1534, and these people are viewed by most historians as most likely semetic. But problems exist if you try to match them up with the biblical account of the Israelites since these people were actually rulers of part of Egypt, not slaves, and the years don't match up.
""Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.""
But must it be a little disheartening that there is no corraborating evidence to the Israelies ever being in Egypt for 400 years, leaving Egypt, a million to two million people wondering the dessert for 40 years and then the conquest of Canaan, which was suppose to happen around 1400 BC, doesn't match up with Israel archeology at all. There are destruction levels of Caanatite cities around 1200 BC, but that is a little off.
"Also consider that there's never been a finding in archaeology that contradicts
the history recorded in the Bible, and there are many confirmations of
events recorded, showing that the writers of Scripture were diligent
with their fact-checking. In other words, it has a reliable record for
the events where we can confirm them, making it more trustworthy for
the events we can't."
Then why is the field of archeology moving more and more away from claiming things in the bible to be historically acurate? Either there are alot of athiests out there with such a hatred for the bible and God that they are trying to distort the facts, or simply the facts we are discovering are showing many of the events that took place to be less and less historically possible.
I'm not sure how many Bible scholars you would be able to find that would profess that incredible historical accuracy of the Bible. If you can, I'd be very interested in seeing them and what they say.
A video of Hector Avalos on the topic: A mention of Exodus and it's likehood happens at 16:55.
More background reading on just the Exodus.
Now this is just one example, do you really want me to get into a very detailed, very specific breakdown of all the apparent historial inaccuracies within the Bible? Not to say that the Bible most be completely inaccurate historically, but based on the evidence, a much more complelling case can be made for it's inaccuracies, rather then the other way around- which was what I understood you to be saying (basically it's so reliable in so many different places, we should assume it is in others).
@hubbaduh@xanga -
Yeah, I probably misspoke when I said contradict, rather then just a startling lack of evidence. I might try to find a better example that has actual contradictory evidence. The fact that there seems to be a lack of verifiable archeological evidence of most of the Old Testament does seem to cast doubt on it as a reliable source of historical evidence.
"The purpose of Scripture is for God to speak to us through, so why would he give us a flawed "Word of God"?
It would seem odd for a Holy God to give us an imperfect message to live for."
Who are we to question what God does? In all honesty there are plenty of things from a christian perspective that we have no clue why God commands something or does something.
It would seem odd for a Holy God to have an imperfect creation that is faulty by it's very nature.
" I guess what it comes down to is: do you
believe our Lord is divine or not; that he would work in the writers
and researchers to form His Word."
In no way does not fully believing in the accuracy of the Bible prevent a person from believing in the christian God. (Sorry I couldn't use the phrase divine lord. Breaking it down like that and phrasing it as it is an issue of believing if the Lord is divine or not simply doesn't make sense, seeing as that's essentially asking if you think God is godly or not. Of course if you believe in a God you would believe him to be godly, though that definition of what godly is depends on the person's definition of God.)
"When the cannon of Scripture was put
together, they weren't just thrown into a book after being picked out
of a hat. The ones who put most of the Old Testament together and those
who put in the books and letters of the New Testament researched the
history and credibility of the books (although, the OT was more about
the books lasting over a course of several centuries). You can see this
most clearly through the fact that we don't have the Book of Paul or
any of those other books that didn't make it in. The problem with
those rejected books was that for being generally newer books and
letters (compared to those of the OT) there was little known about
where the writings had originated from (almost next to nothing); not to
mention that the teachings in the books were almost completely contrary
to other Scripture. But this alone still leaves room for human "error"
with the formation of the Bible."
Why is Esther a part of the Old Testament?
No, really.
Here is a book that doesn't mention God once. It is most likely not one of the older books, since a copy of esther wasn't even among the Dead Sea Scrolls, though every other book of the OT was represented, either in full or by a fragment. It reads more like an historical fiction meant to teach lessons, rather then an account of actual events. Oh, and there is no known author.
Hell, why is Revelation? From my understanding, most bible scholars today view it merely as apocalyptic literature that was written for the people of the time it was written in (at least that is how all the bible teachers at my college taught it as, this coming from a very conservative christian college). How is Revelation even applicable for people today? Why did so many churches take so long to recognize Revelation as part of the New Testament canon (it took over 100 years in some cases) ?
A link i posted on a previous comment-(I hate repeatedly citing one link as a source, but the video talks about the issues were talking about at 29:00 minutes).
This is a great discussion, and exactly what I was hoping to see at Revelife. As a christian, and a science buff, this is a topic I spend much time pondering.
I am not so sure that the Bible is meant to be translated so literally. The fact that one can read the same passage at different times, and gain new insights each time, seems to suggest, in my opinion, that the Bible is meant to teach lessons through stories. How did Jesus teach the masses? ..through parables.
Also, the stories from Genesis were lessons from God, which were told in a way that the people of that time could understand.
I feel that today's trend of Bible Literalism is a bit out of hand at times and it is my concern that this trend is turning people away from Christianity. The fact that the creation museum shows people riding dinosaurs is the extreme example of this.
Again, this is a topic I feel is not debated often enough.
I always thought God destroyed it so much that no trace of it can even be found.
Critics used to claim that the Hittites never existed either, until archaeologists discovered the remains of their cities, proving the Bible accurate yet again.
There is nothing wrong with being skeptical. After all, the Bible exhorts us to use our minds, and the disciples were pretty skeptical people - see 'Scepticism' http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5100#scepticism.