Click here (about.com) to read a short article by a self-professed agnostic/atheist regarding the exorcisms of Jesus...
And click here (beliefnet.com) to browse an article by a Christian professor at Louisville Presbyterian Seminary...
What are your thoughts/observations about how each of these individuals approaches the matter? What are their respective insights and limitations?
4 comments:
I feel as though in each article, the author is very clear in their approach. The agnostic/atheist clearly approaches from the outside, analyzing from a distance using only clear-cut facts. The professor analyzes from the inside, using multiple scripture quotations to back her argument. In addition to scriptural citation, the professor also writes with the implicit understanding that the reader is Christian. This would mean that there would be a small degree of emotional appeal or connection between the reader and the professions of the writer. Just something interesting to note.
While both articles were insightful, I don't necessarily feel as though they were balanced. They walked both ends of the argument but found no middle ground. This would be their primary limitation.
I found these two articles interesting. In the Athiest/Agnostic one the author seems to come from the belief that since the scriptures don't talk about exorcisms in the Old Testament that the facts must be questioned. The Professor on the other hand eludes to many examples in the Old Testament of evil spirits afflicting people. Both authors present their arguments in an informed and compelling way. Te interpretation and which one you choose to believe is up to personal views of Christianity or whether God truly exists or is in control.
Bob
Both of the articles are written by two people that have very different opinions and very different view points about the same subject. They are not very balanced at all, looking at each argument from one side and not the other and never meeting up in the middle where there could be some neutral ground.
The agnostic/atheist writes from an outside point of view and expresses his opinions of the facts instead of presenting facts, which makes his article questionable. Most of his audience is also under the same belief he has or people trying to find out more about it. On the other hand the professor writes from the point of view from being inside the religion, supporting everything she says with facts and quotations from scripture to back her up. Although she isn't specifically writing about her opinion, she writes with the understanding that the people reading her article are Christian and will understand what she is talking about.
These articles were very interesting though, being able to see what the different spectrum between the two articles.
Saryn
The agnostic/atheist approaches the article from a distant perspective, outside and uninfluenced by personal religion. While this could be beneficial for an article like this, I believe too much opinion based writing occurs in this article. On the other hand, the article written by the Christian professor, probably for a Christian audience, has more supported arguments and less of a basis on opinion.
While typically an article from an agnostic/atheist point of view might appeal more to me, I appreciate the supportive references in the article by the Christian professor. However, due to the lack of compromise between either author, and the lack of middle ground between the opposing positions, I believe the arguments are subsequently limited and lack the extra depth that a discussion on the middle ground would give.
Lauren
Post a Comment