Using Celebrity Status to Stump for Jesus. Legendary Trick Shot Artist Mike Massey: "Jesus Loves Us"
In the pool world there is probably no one bigger than Mike Massey. He is probably the greatest trick shot artist of all time. So it was quite an honor when I met him last week in Vegas and he signed this poster for me.
I'm not a person who gets awestruck when I meet a celebrity. I know that people like him put their pants on in the morning just like I do. Since his back was hurting he was not participating in the competiton last week, but he did have a booth where he was signing cue balls and posters for a fee. I introduced myself as a monthly columnist for Inside Pool magazine, for which he had also written a few columns a year or so back. He said writing was too hard for him so he didn't write many of them.
Aside from that it seemed he was more interested in witnessing to people about Jesus than anything else. He was telling me how Jesus saved him from drugs, loose women and the ills of pool hustling in his younger years. Not interested in debating anything with this legend of a man, I told him that an autobiography of his life would sell very well. He informed me he had tried but needed a co-author. Knowing I was a columnist he was feeling me out to see if I might help him write it. At that point I merely said I wouldn't be a good co-author because I'm an atheist. In the pool halls he's met plenty of professing atheists in his life, so this was no surprise to him. But his response was typical:
"There are no atheists."
"But I am an atheist," I said.
"Not in your heart," he replied. "Inside, you believe in God."
To which I gave him my card and said if he was interested to get my book. He took it with some interest (after all, the title looks like a personal story). And then he said, "If you were a preacher then you KNOW there are no atheists."
Really, I do? What was the title to my book again?
;-)
I'm not a person who gets awestruck when I meet a celebrity. I know that people like him put their pants on in the morning just like I do. Since his back was hurting he was not participating in the competiton last week, but he did have a booth where he was signing cue balls and posters for a fee. I introduced myself as a monthly columnist for Inside Pool magazine, for which he had also written a few columns a year or so back. He said writing was too hard for him so he didn't write many of them. Aside from that it seemed he was more interested in witnessing to people about Jesus than anything else. He was telling me how Jesus saved him from drugs, loose women and the ills of pool hustling in his younger years. Not interested in debating anything with this legend of a man, I told him that an autobiography of his life would sell very well. He informed me he had tried but needed a co-author. Knowing I was a columnist he was feeling me out to see if I might help him write it. At that point I merely said I wouldn't be a good co-author because I'm an atheist. In the pool halls he's met plenty of professing atheists in his life, so this was no surprise to him. But his response was typical:
"There are no atheists."
"But I am an atheist," I said.
"Not in your heart," he replied. "Inside, you believe in God."
To which I gave him my card and said if he was interested to get my book. He took it with some interest (after all, the title looks like a personal story). And then he said, "If you were a preacher then you KNOW there are no atheists."
Really, I do? What was the title to my book again?
;-)
19 comments:
I would try and keep an open dialogue going with this guy. Clearly 'debating' him would be a breeze as he doesn't seem very well-versed in anything other than preaching. Could be entertaining.
No Atheists?
Are there no Buddhists either?
Odd.
John,
You must be pretty damn good at pool. And you're right about Mike Massey, that guy performs some of the craziest trick shots I've ever seen. He may not win every trick shot tournament, but he does trick shots that most of the contestants can't do. He puts more spin on the cue ball than anyone!
What this fella demonstrates is that Christianity isn't a pure intellectual endevor. And you may not have viewed it as such as a former minister, but I got the impression from some of your book and what i've read here that you think it is primarily about the world view and holding to a consistent set of demonstrable beliefs. And I think that's very important and a necessary task for the church as a whole, but it isn't the task for every single christian anymore than holding a "scientific" world view means that "thorough" scientific understanding requires every person layman or otherwise to understand it all.
The Christian faith is primarily about our relationship to God and others, and it seems to me that you made the mistake of assuming that the situation with Linda (I think that was the name given) or the info from your cousin was the first of major challenge to your faith, when really, you alluded to marital problems beforehand (at least I thought you implied this) which was the attack on your faith that really instigated it all. I'm not brushing off your arguments on that account, but I say this to question your former priorities. I just don't buy that apologetics is our first concern even if it happens to be
If this fella were to read your book, I hope and expect he'd hold on to the inheritance that he has and has already received down payment in a redeemed life and not exchange it for the crackerjack box prize of atheistic "enlightenment" embraced for the mere lack problems with scripture and a christian world view (many of which are answerable anyway including much of what I've read in your book (granted I haven't finished it))
Debating him will do nothing; I have heard from others in the pool community that he is sober now. I think his "faith" is the result from some sort of famous 12-step program.
I would guess that his would not debate you and would not change his mind, no matter how well you argue your point. In his view, God had saved him from the demon rum and all of the bad stuff that interjected into his life.
I also believe that Tom "Dr. Cue" Rossman is a Christian.
There is also a theme in the pool culture of redemption from "bad behavior and such. If you ever get a chance to read "Buddy Hall Rags to Rifleman" which is the Biography of Buddy Hall (Hall of Fame 9 Ball player) there is a whole section of Jesus based commentary on how to let go assist you back into the righteous path.
There is a motif of substance abuse, spiraling downward into loss of ability and family and friends, and then the redemption in a non-intellectual faith in Jesus and the power of miracles.
It seems that the gambling/hustling/carney culture that many of the past stars and characters uses the Christian myths as either a path to something else or as a cover.
In sum, Mike is probably not the place you want to begin to de-convert.
I would guess that his would not debate you and would not change his mind, no matter how well you argue your point. In his view, God had saved him from the demon rum and all of the bad stuff that interjected into his life.
Yes, the thing about skills at the pool hall, believe it or not, they don't contribute to an ability to debate. It's a good thing that that doesn't matter as much anyhow given the limits debate as a form of communication. It's a good thing that truth doesn't hinge on our ability to debate. Sure it's an essential thing. somebody's got to do it, but it's just not essential for all individuals, even those who would be rational in embracing faith.
What this fella demonstrates is that Christianity isn't a pure intellectual endeavor.
While I'd agree that love and compassion need not be a purely intellectual endeavor, this in no way requires it to be a supernatural endeavor. This does not follow.
As a non-theist I can share many goals and see similar results without needing to invoke God.
but it isn't the task for every single christian anymore than holding a "scientific" world view means that "thorough" scientific understanding requires every person layman or otherwise to understand it all.
I wouldn't expect everyone to understand complex issues such as biological or cultural systems of morality without God. In fact, I think that's one reason why Christianity is so popular. But his response suggests a view that all atheists secretly think God exists. This is a fundamental lack of understanding about atheism which isn't rocket science.
Furthermore, it seems to indicate an inability put oneself in someone else's shoes. If he thinks every believes what he does, but some keep it a secret, how objective can he be regarding the beliefs of others?
While I'd agree that love and compassion need not be a purely intellectual endeavor, this in no way requires it to be a supernatural endeavor. This does not follow.
Okay. Well. I wasn't addressing this issue. It's not my postion anyhow that one can't be compassionate or loving without being a Christian. However I do believe that love and compassion have a stronger base in Christianity (where everyone has the worth that comes from being designed in the image of God and as God suffers with those who suffer) than in secularism... especially atheism.
But his response suggests a view that all atheists secretly think God exists. This is a fundamental lack of understanding about atheism which isn't rocket science.
His response to the effect of the denial that there are atheists is not from an angle I personally would pursue or defend. I wasn't defending that specifically but just the validity of his faith to begin with.
But I think you misunderstand the claim that there are no atheists. The claim usually proposes not that so called atheists really believe in God but are just keeping it a secret. RAther, the belief is that while some people tell themselves that there is no God, they are in denial.
Of course the claim is fine with me, but it's not something I would hang my hat on. But I've seen psychologists argue this very thing.
how objective can he be regarding the beliefs of others?
REgardless on his position here, no one is perfectly objective to begin with, especially those who think they are. We all emotionally affected by these issues and we all have preferences. We all look through the world through lenses that shape our look through that world. And that's not a problem for those who don't believe that truth must be perfectly objective to begin with.
I'd guess that he's merely a believer in the "god of the good parts" of the Bible.
As with just about any other Christian, you would not be able to get him to publicly say (for one of many examples), "I want the vast majority of Holocaust victims in Hell." Or "I would feel honored to participate in a defenseless woman's stoning." (Challenge him to see and publicly comment on the apostatesofislam video.) At least not without a great deal of waffling and shame.
Hence, he doesn't really believe in Christianity per se, does he?
Then ask him by what authority he cuts out the parts he doesn't enjoy believing.
I bet you can get him to sound an awful lot like you, with little effort at all.
Now it's no longer "Loftus vs the Bible." It's really "Massey vs the Bible."
This is the realization that made me take a step backward. I still hope for a "god of the good parts" myself (and therefore don't necessarily wish to run Christianity into the ground), but I haven't a clue about how to justify it anymore.
Oh, no, what happened here - Bruce Droppings is gone?
http://brucedroppings.com/
I hope he's still doing well, and at least will put the old posts back up. I miss him already.
Or "I would feel honored to participate in a defenseless woman's stoning." (Challenge him to see and publicly comment on the apostatesofislam video.) At least not without a great deal of waffling and shame.
Hence, he doesn't really believe in Christianity per se, does he?
Why should we feel honored to participate in an old covenant when the old testament says that God would make a new covenant with us and througout the new, Jesus as his disciples teach that the old is fulfilled and we who uphold it as a teaching tool are nevertheless not under it any more. (and from the instruction to stone adulterers, we learn that the relationship of husband and wife is as important as life itself... I'm not ashamed of that at all. It's a profound and beautiful teaching)
Then ask him by what authority he cuts out the parts he doesn't enjoy believing.
By the authority of Jesus and his apostles, we do not follow the old covenant.
Rob R, it doesn't matter what covenant we're currently under (and at any rate, that still wouldn't address the "I wish an eternal Hell upon all my unsaved loved ones, and would condemn them myself, if I could" issue, would it?)
See my exchange with "Heather" from last year, halfway down the page:
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2008/11/what-would-you-want-to-see-more-of-here.html
Can you do any better than she did?
You must agree that participating in a stoning *had you lived under the old covenant*, together with Jesus (which he would have participated in also, to set the example, had he been there in person during those times) would have been an honor for you, right?
Here's the full video I mentioned there:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b1e7e992d7
I find it very odd, that God apparently gives people a faith which they readily deny, when asked about it.
(And would you help Jesus kill a captive child, etc...? Do you get the point of these questions, now?)
It's such an easy thing to point out, that most people's theological views aren't really being held seriously.
It would circumvent so much needless debate.
But I still wish that the "good parts" were true.
We really have much in common, I keep telling everybody. You just don't all know it yet...
Rob wrote: What this fella demonstrates is that Christianity isn't a pure intellectual endeavor.
Okay. Well. I wasn't addressing this issue.
If the there is an aspect of Christianity isn't intellectual and isn't compassion or love, then what were you refereeing to?
RAther, the belief is that while some people tell themselves that there is no God, they are in denial.
Which implies they are keeping it a secret from themselves.
And that's not a problem for those who don't believe that truth must be perfectly objective to begin with.
I don't think It's necessary to be perfectly objective. And I know from experience that bias is a factor and attempt to compensate for it.
But but say there are no atheists (wink, wink) indicates a significant disconnect from the beliefs of billions of non-theists, including buddhists, etc.
Ismellarat, in a sense, you are asking me to ignore the flow of the narrative when our faith is all about stepping into that flow into that history. It's like the challenge to the believers if they would sacrifice their children if they had been asked to do so by God. The thing is, even though that happened in the narrative, alot of other things happened to that would controvert the idea that God would actually want us to do that. So when you ask if I am willing to engage my faith in half measures, the answer is obviously no. If you ask if I would have obeyed these sorts of things if I was in that situation, Well, that's kind of a meaningless question. There's no way of knowing what I would do in that situation given the fact that I just would not have had the same kind of personal developement that I have now. Now if I had the same developement that I have now, if I had the gospel but I was put into a time machine and sent back to particpate in this sort of thing, I don't think I would be able to do it. And I shouldn't. You don't put new wine into old wine skins. (fyi, I'm sure you know that was a thought experiment... I don't buy that time travel is possible as I am a presentist... but that's beside the point).
But for whatever it's worth (which I don't think it is worth much as mentioned, speaking about what we would've done isn't very meaningful) I hope that I would've been as faithful to the law as one could've been. I hope that I wouldn't have viewed stoning as an honor to perform, but rather as a grievous duty and response to a grievous act that is just about as bad as murder and almost about as potentially destructive in it's harm to society (but sometimes it is as much). The act of adultry ravages a relationship that is as sacred as life and we need to hang on to that today and learn that lesson. I embrace that these harsh punishments were a part of God's plan and they teach us something very very valuable.
But I can't ignore the situation of grace where God has placed his people now where the act of adultery, which is still no less wicked does not create a situation that is just as unredeemable since through the death and resurrection of Jesus, the worst sins can be forgiven, and through the holy spirit, the damage can be reversed.
We really have much in common, I keep telling everybody. You just don't all know it yet...
But of course, and I just hope to demonstrate that that which is good that we have in common is most consistent with a humanity that has sacred aspects that go to the to the very root of the value of life itself, A just God is concerned for those aspects and a merciful God who is suffers because of us, for us and with us so that we may find reparation when we compromise our sacredness.
Rob R, I think you're making it much too complicated.
I think the issue is
1. Should you, as a Christian, be willing, or have been willing, to agree with and follow God's dictates at any time or situation you could have been living in?
and
2. Would you, or wouldn't you?
What's so hard about these questions - obeying orders from God, in other words - unless you have disobedience in your heart?
And don't forget, you're taught that even WANTING to do something is identical to actually doing it.
It's all about your motives, and God knows them. There's no hiding the fact that you don't like all he says. Why else did you tell me what you did, instead of a resounding "YES! YES! YES!" at every turn?
You can't compare my scenario to "what if God asked you to do something wrong," because the Bible says my examples are RIGHT.
And you MUST agree they are - nothing can be said to controvert the idea that God wouldn't actually want you to do them.
If a woman were duly convicted of a crime (such as gathering sticks on the Sabbath), and the penalty is stoning, God says to carry it out. Simple.
I don't see how your "personal development" comes into play, either. Can "personal development" absolve you from doing the right thing? Did God say that his laws can be disobeyed by those with a different "personal development?"
Speaking about what we would have done isn't meaningful? How would "in his place, I would have stolen the money, but fortunately God didn't put me in that situation" fly with God?
Could Jesus ever say such a thing?
In the next paragraph, you seem to be warming to stoning a little, but remember it wasn't just for adultery.
I'd still welcome your views on killing captive children. Would you have done it? Have you given your preferred method any thought?
I meant with "we really have a lot in common" that most of us really go by some other standard - by which we then judge the Bible - which point I find very easy to illustrate through debates such as this.
That's not to say that there's not a lot of good in Christianity, also, but just about everybody I've ever known I can show up as someone who really only believes in "the god of the good parts."
Nobody will support the whole package. And I'm sure God knows that.
ismellarat
Post 1 of 2
Rob R, I think you're making it much too complicated.
Then you won't like discussing things with me much after a spell. My goal is not primarily to answer questions simply but rather adequately. The questions in a complicated world will often have complicated answers. And if you must always have things spelled out simplistically, I can't say that understanding will always be available to you.
1. Should you, as a Christian, be willing, or have been willing, to agree with and follow God's dictates at any time or situation you could have been living in?
As a Christian, I believe that God's dictates were always wise even though there are times when I might not understand fully the reasons for what God has commanded. But this is not one of those times. I explained to you that I do believe that what God commanded was wise. If you find my answer inadequate, you will have to interact with what I said. If you will not interact with what I said, then you're ability to advance the discussion is greatly reduced.
2. Would you, or wouldn't you?
If you press me on an answer, I'll say that yes I would. And I will swiftly add that my answer isn't worth very much for the reason I explained. I tried to answer you two ways because your question is not a simple one. Would I if I was born and raised in that period (as if that was enough detail), perhaps but even John Loftus knows that this is a meaningless answer (I am 95% sure he has dealt with your type of question in another context) to a meaningless question. Would I with the type of character that I have now with the values instilled in me given the development of the Judeo-Christian narrative. No, the way we are to view sinners has changed. If you don't understand this, you will never understand Christianity, sufficiently to hope to have a valid criticism of it.
Why else did you tell me what you did, instead of a resounding "YES! YES! YES!" at every turn?
We see God grieving in the process of punishing sinners. Why, if I were to be put in that place, should I be any different.
I don't see how your "personal development" comes into play, either. Can "personal development" absolve you from doing the right thing?
How can you ask me what I would do without enquiring of my character? How can you enquire of my character without dealing with how that character has developed. And of coarse I would have been in a situation with a whole host of different libertarian free choices. Had God rewound the clock to the day I was born and let history play out again from that day, I very well could've been a different person. So it's even more meaningless to ask what I would have been like in a radically different culture and time.
But it's not just about my character. It's the development of the Judeo-Christian faith. It's clear that you think you're asking me If i'm really dedicated to the whole of scripture. What I'm explaining is that you aren't really doing that at all but you are asking me to embrace it at a fractured and undeveloped level (not my development, the developement Jewish-Christian message) ignoring what has happened since. There was a time when that was appropriate, when it actually WAS less developed. That time is not now.
Scripture does not represent a homogenous picture of moral absolutes. I do believe that there are some moral absolutes but I don't buy nor do I think that scripture indicates that all morals absolutely are absolute. Their is a relativity to the situation and to the current stage of God's rescue plan for his world that is in crisis.
post 2 of 2
Did God say that his laws can be disobeyed by those with a different "personal development?"
I'm not under those laws and those laws didn't even apply to everyone at the time. The Mosaic laws were for the Jews, and yet throughout the old testament, there were gentiles who could please God even though they did not follow that covenant.
And again, the personal development I speak of is that which is a response to God's grace as I have received it. To answer your question, no you were not allowed to disobey God's laws depending on your personal development if your development also took place in a context where those laws applied to you (born as a Jew prior to the new covenant).
It's all about your motives, and God knows them. There's no hiding the fact that you don't like all he says. Why else did you tell me what you did, instead of a resounding "YES! YES! YES!" at every turn?
God has given us new motives (or at least a new prioritizing of motives). Our motive amongst other things is the redemption of the sinner. Under the old community, it was, amongst other things, the purity of the community safe gaurding a very sacred relationship and justice. So again, you ask me to ignore the motives that we are to have now.
The thing is, it seems that you count it for nothing that Jesus said many things about how the law of Moses said one thing "but I tell you this..."
I'd still welcome your views on killing captive children.
My views parallel what has already been said. They time for wiping out a people (children and all) has passed. God's people are no longer defined by geographical/political/racial and now that the Holy spirit has been poured out and grace has been made abundant, even the most wicked people can be redeemed.
Would I have done it? I've already explained this. It's no more of a yes or no question than the question I could put to you as to whether you have quit beating your wife.
God has given us new motives (or at least a new prioritizing of motives). Our motive amongst other things is the redemption of the sinner. Under the old community, it was, amongst other things, the purity of the community safe gaurding a very sacred relationship and justice. So again, you ask me to ignore the motives that we are to have now.
He's not ignoring the motives we have now. In fact, it appears to be the key point in his questions.
If you look at the history of God, you'll see that morality didn't arrive until relatively late in the game. Even then, it evolved gradually as we grew from small villages into towns, cities and regions.
In other words, God's morality changed with human morality, which coincided with expanding cultural needs and situations.
The thing is, it seems that you count it for nothing that Jesus said many things about how the law of Moses said one thing "but I tell you this…"
No, it does count for something. Jesus isn't always depicted as having a clear position regarding universal love for the Gentiles. For example the Q sources seems to assume that the Gentiles were outside the sphere of salvation. Instead, it was Paul that really pushed for universal acceptance as part of the growth of Christianity. Even then, this appears to be more of a tactic in which to expand Christianity into the diverse cultures of the Roman empire.
It's no more of a yes or no question than the question I could put to you as to whether you have quit beating your wife.
Again, It's a valid question should God's moral laws actually be a reflection of human beings who created him. Your answers seem to support this hypothesis.
He's not ignoring the motives we have now. In fact, it appears to be the key point in his questions.
Ismellarat and you are saying two different things. The challenge he was bringing was not the challenge you are raising and in the context of his challenge, my statement stands.
If you look at the history of God, you'll see that morality didn't arrive until relatively late in the game. Even then, it evolved gradually as we grew from small villages into towns, cities and regions.
When I look at the history of God as I understand it (which is not something undisputed and non-controversial, nor is it one of those things we can look at as unnaffected observers so I'm not going to necessarily agree with you on that history), I do see developement with that relationship and a response in moral expectations according to human developement.
In other words, God's morality changed with human morality, which coincided with expanding cultural needs and situations.
While I do believe that there are some core absolutes that have not changed and could note that a moral consistency can be found, I'm just not scandalized by your claim for the reasons already given. Of course I would add details, that the changes that happened are fostered by God's guidance. Another aspect of change is merely to note as the scriptures say that God judges with equity, that is he judges people by just standards which are affected by our situation. Such different standards have already been alluded to here such as with the gentiles who pleased God in the old testament scripture without following the mosaic covenant.
No, it does count for something. Jesus isn't always depicted as having a clear position regarding universal love for the Gentiles.
No, he and much of scripture isn't always clear and there are misunderstandings. It is a good thing that God has not finished teaching the church and no church historian could claim otherwise.
For example the Q sources seems to assume that the Gentiles were outside the sphere of salvation.
I don't even know what that means. If you are taking this to mean that Q implies all gentiles are hell bound, well I suppose you'd have a non-jewish understanding of it, and I'd say that your interpretation is off. Of course you may think that Q should not be understood in a Jewish mode of thought, and there may be some historians who claim that, but it would not represent the scholarly consensus. For that matter the existence of Q as an independent document is not held in consensus either.
Instead, it was Paul that really pushed for universal acceptance as part of the growth of Christianity. Even then, this appears to be more of a tactic in which to expand Christianity into the diverse cultures of the Roman empire.
That's even less Jewish since Jesus views himself as fullfilling the whole point of Judaism spelled out to Abraham which is to bless all the nations of the world. And Jesus gave the great commision to exactly that end.
Again, It's a valid question should God's moral laws actually be a reflection of human beings who created him. Your answers seem to support this hypothesis.
You can pose the question as a valid thought experiment but the response I gave to it is in my estimation (and I believe also John Loftus' opinion) is the most reasonable one.
But I agree that there is a connection with the image of God and morality, and the Law of Moses was given was a part of the process of restoring that image which has been warped, but it was not restored to its completion. Through Jesus we find that completion possible.
Post a Comment