Saw this today on Facebook and my blood started to boil. First of all, it was “liked” by one of my family members — a person who won’t discuss our differences. It really ticks me off to see her “like” a statement about truth, when she won’t defend that same statement.
Secondly, the quote says that a preacher would rather offend thousands than to fail to preach the truth to even one individual. Sadly, preachers don’t realize that they’re doing both the entire time.
Finally, if you bother to check out Answering Religious Error, it’s like shifting into another dimension. Each post is wrangling over some trivial detail, seemingly oblivious to the deluge of information that makes their entire stance irrelevant. I say “seemingly” rather than “completely,” because apologists of this stripe often do know some of the information that contradicts their stance, but they try very hard to keep their followers from discovering it.
I’ve gotten some flak over the years for the name of my blog, but I view “finding truth” as something aspirational — I’m not claiming to have found it. But “Answering Religious Error” definitely comes across as arrogant, especially when they’re so demonstrably wrong.
Finding Truth 
Archaeoptometry, I don’t understand your question. There are proper times to speak and proper times to keep silent. The quote of John T. Lewis was regarding being clear enough to be understood when someone hears a preacher speak, and not be able to say that they sat through hearing a preacher and not knowing what he said was truth or not because of lack of clarity. One proper time to be silent is when a person appreciates truth about like a pig appreciates a diamond (Matt.7:6).
LikeLike
Terry, I think arch is just messing with you about the differences in the gospels.
LikeLike
Sorry, Terry – clearly I overshot your comprehension level.
LikeLike
Let’s not be rude, arch. Terry’s been cool enough to visit us here — I’d like to hear what else he has to say. Hopefully, we can all have a cordial discussion. 🙂
LikeLike
Archaeoptometry, I don’t know if you did overshoot my comprehension level, or that you don’t have the comprehension level to communicate, but maybe you can try to show me “the differences in the gospels” that have Jesus being silent on the same occasion another writer has Him “chattering” away. I didn’t catch that, and suspect a problem in your comprehension level. But, put this on the table for examination if you don’t mind.
LikeLike
Hi Terry,
While you and Arch discuss how much Jesus spoke during his trial, let me offer an example of something that I think is a contradiction. In Galatians 3:16-17, Paul says that the Law of Moses was given 430 years after God made his promises to Abraham. However, we know from Exodus 12:40-41 that 430 years is the amount of time that the Israelites were in Egypt. The promises to Abraham were given much earlier than when the Israelites entered Egypt — probably making the time between the promises and the law something closer to 600 years.
To me, it’s pretty clear that Paul simply made a mistake. He knew the 430 year number, and he either used it as an approximation, or he forgot that it only covered the time in Egypt. But for Christians who believe in biblical inerrancy, I think this creates an issue. Thoughts?
LikeLike
Not be rude, Nate? Maybe you should have mentioned that to him when he fired the first shot by addressing me as Archaeoptometry —
LikeLike
a bird eye doctor?
LikeLiked by 2 people
“…maybe you can try to show me “the differences in the gospels” that have Jesus being silent on the same occasion another writer has Him “chattering” away. I didn’t catch that.”
That’s not surprising, coming from one whose spelling ability clearly qualifies you as dyslexic.
And then we have:
Considering your limitations, Terry, it might be simpler for you to look for the number of really dark words in the book of Matthew – spoiler alert, there are TWO – then compare those with the number of really dark words from the book of John. I just hope you can count better than you can spell.
LikeLike
I did notice that, but wasn’t sure if it was on purpose or not, especially since I don’t know what kind of insult that would be…
But mostly, if a theist decides to stop commenting here, I don’t want it to be because they felt that they were treated rudely. He feels like he’s in hostile territory, since most of us here are atheists — and even among the Christians that frequently comment here, most are more moderate than the version that Terry comes from.
Also, while Terry probably wouldn’t remember it, I’ve actually met him before. He seemed like a decent guy. And while it’s not very likely, it’s always possible that he’s simply unaware of all the problems in the Bible and with Christianity — much like I was. If that’s the case, I wouldn’t want any personality issues to turn him off from what we’re saying.
Certainly, you’re free to write whatever you like, and you always offer great points. But if you could consider wiping the slate clean and giving Terry the benefit of the doubt, I’d appreciate it. 🙂
LikeLike
That would have been a lot easier to do Nate, had Archaeoptometry not shown up a second time. If a christian wants to come on an atheist blog and intelligently discuss, I can do that, but when he prefaces his comment with a deliberate insult, that, to me at least, is a good indication that intelligent discussion is not high on his list of priorities.
LikeLike
I hear you. Maybe he’s just one of those people who reads the first part of the word and assumes he knows what it is? Or maybe he was deliberately trying to insult you — I don’t know. Perhaps you can call him Terry Botanist for an equally scathing invective? 😉
LikeLike
Oh, I can do MUCH better than that, should the need arise.
LikeLike
and arch, we did go to his FB page first, on top of calling one of his posts, “so stupid”… so we can at least offer a wee bit more patience and focus on the issues?
I think you’re great with the issues, but you know as well as I that people often tune out the issues when they perceive insults or attacks – we can completely eliminate that leaving off the insults or attacks.
I’d like to see Terry’s responses.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I give what I get.
LikeLike
Must be boring at Christmas. 😉
LikeLiked by 2 people
I get that, arch. I mean, the dude does have a facebook page devoted to criticizing and correcting everyone else’s religion or non-religion… Maybe he’s willing to discuss the merits of his own beliefs in detail as well.
LikeLike
Bazinga!
It’s called regifting —
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think the big picture Arch is trying to present is this: In the Synoptics, Jesus is constantly telling his disciples and the people he heals to keep his identity and his deeds a secret, while in the Gospel of John, Jesus seems to tell everyone he meets that he is the Son of God.
Either Jesus had a split personality, and only showed the hidden identity to Matthew and the sources for John Mark and Luke and only showed his open identity to John, or there were two Jesus’.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That sometimes happens when people are just making things up as they go along.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As nonsupernaturalist mentions how Jesus is portrayed does seem to vary among the Gospels, especially when comparing John’s Gospel to the others.
In Mark’s Gospel Jesus is seeming to try to hide who he is, so much so that the German Scholar coined the phrase Messianic Secret to refer to the approach of Jesus in that Gospel. But in John’s Gospel it is open who he is.
In Mark’s Gospel Jesus only teaches in parables, in John’s Gospel Jesus does not tell a single Parable.
In the synoptic Gospels Jesus only goes to Jerusalem for the crucifixion but in John’s Gospel he goes there all the time.
In John’s Gospel miracles are a sign to help people believe, in synoptic Gospel it is the evil to ask for a sign.
In Mark’s Gospel it is noted how Jesus is silent before his accusers in fulfilment of prophecy, whereas in John’s Gospel Jesus is a real chatterbox.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I wish I’d said that —
I KNEW I’d heard it SOMEwhere before –!
LikeLike
Just giving you a hard time, Peter – imitation is the sincerest form of plagiarism.
LikeLike
Peter, and Archaeoptometry, perhaps you should reference your points. I see different contexts and different reasons to talk or be silent, but not a single point where Jesus was said to both be silent and a chatterbox at the same time to the same people. Maybe you can clear up this claim of yours by giving us the scripture references and actually quote them side by side and establishing the exact context or contexts. John is writing for a different purpose and audience. He is not trying to copy the others but to supplement the others. So, it appears to me that you need to go back and restudy. May the chemicals work in your favor!
LikeLike
“…not a single point where Jesus was said to both be silent and a chatterbox at the same time to the same people”
This, Terry, is exactly what I meant when I said that I feared that I had overshot your comprehension level – I left an entire, detailed comment regarding what both Matthew and John reported that Yeshua said to Pontius Pilate (‘same time, to the same people‘). If you were too lazy, too unconcerned, or too illiterate to read it, that’s on you.
I suspect that you’re the one who should slack off on the chemicals, whether inhaled or ingested. Or maybe it’s alcohol, how would I know –?
LikeLike