Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 9
David calls Hislop’s reasoning “guilt by association” and compares it to atheist arguments about pagan parallels; where do you see modern Christians (including evangelicals) still using guilt-by-association logic in debates about worship practices, holidays, symbols, or church traditions, and what would change if we rejected that logic consistently?
Another way to ask: Where do you see Christians today using “guilt by association” in arguments about worship styles, holidays, symbols, or church traditions? What would change if we stopped using that kind of reasoning across the board?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
The transcript itself doesn’t list modern evangelical examples, but it strongly critiques the general method of rejecting a practice merely because pagans did something similar. If Christians rejected that logic consistently, they would evaluate meaning and truth more carefully instead of assuming “similarity proves borrowing.”
- David says Hislop argues: pagans used symbols similar to a cross, “therefore… the Christian cross came from the pagans,” and calls this “faulty logic” and “guilt by association.”
- He compares it to atheists claiming biblical events are copied because pagans had stories of “a universal flood,” “a slain and risen Savior,” “virgin mothers,” and “heavenly ascensions.”
- He states the key principle: “the fact that two things are similar doesn’t prove that one thing was copied from the other. It proves nothing at all.”
- He gives counter-examples: pagans also practiced “kneeling,” “raising hands,” “taking off shoes,” “offering first fruits,” yet Christians don’t reject those.
- He adds that if pagan association disqualifies a symbol, then even a “pole” could be condemned since the OT mentions pagans worshiping “sacred poles.”