Christianity Behind the Veil of Ignorance
Let's test the Bible and the history of the church with the Veil of Ignorance proposed by John Rawls. There is no discernible divine mind behind the human authors of the Bible or the church. It just looks exactly like what we would expect if they are human creations in their respective historical time periods. Behind the veil of ignorance tell me what you would expect from the Bible and the church if there was a divine mind behind them. Remember, you are behind a veil of ignorance. You cannot consciously try to argue that what we've seen is what we should expect to find unless that is truly what you would expect. Cognitive dissonance reduction sets in at this point and some believers might even refuse to do this, but it's a very simple thought experiment. What would you expect to find?
73 comments:
Well,according to Mark 16:17-18 believers should be able to drink poison without it causing any harm and heal people by "laying hands".
Then,if wine really'd turn to blood that should be pretty obvious too.
Also,how come we never see any christians walking on water or moving mountains with their faith? :)
Raul,
Do you take everything you read literally or do you allow for figures of speech?
1. Find me a biblical scholar who believes that Mark 16:18 is textually valid.
2. Find me a Scriptural command that says that Christians will actually walk on water
3. Find me a biblical scholar who believes that Christians will actually move mountains.
If you're unable, I guess we could legitimately say that you're hiding behind the veil of ignorance.
post 1 of 2
From the write up, Rawls' thought experiment seems just to be a way to get people to put themselves into other peoples shoes and apply that thinking to moral reasoning. At that, it seems to me to have some flaws. He suggests that no one would risk wanting to become a slave (which argues against the ethics of slavery). But for that matter, many people might not want to risk getting the role of mortician or ditch digger, and yet there is nothing morally wrong with a society with those roles. More to the point, as rawls makes personalities a feature of his hypothetical role swap, no one would want to get the role of criminal, but defining some people as criminals is a necessary part of a justice system that protects citizens actions by other citizens. From that, I doubt that the undesirability of certain roles which a society creates is a strong reflection on the moral quality of that society.
I wouldn't say that it isn't a decent thought experiment with some meditative virtues, but certainly has it's limits for the reasons I highlighted.
Course how good that thought experiment is a bit of a tangent and even more tangential for the following reason.
I'm confused as to how this suggestion is parallel to Rawl's thought experiment which is moral reflection on the basis of the risk that you might get a role that you'd otherwise consider an acceptable role to have in society. This thought experiment is about how we'd expect scripture to reflect divine involvement as opposed to only human involvement. A veil of ignorance in the two thought experiment establishes different things. In the first, it stands for the risk of getting a role of a questionable role in a moral society, in the other, it stands for whether our speculations on what a god is like and how he would interact with humans to produce a scripture.
So of course, how good Rawls' thought experiment isn't the best reflection of the thought experiment applied here since the connection between the two doesn't seem very strong.
But is this really a good test as applied here?
I'm not really sure how this could be applied practically. Our imagination untethered from something like scripture can come up with an infinite number of ways that a god/s could be and an infinite number of ways that the divine could interact with society. That scripture wouldn't match some prediction in light of this is hardly indicting.
post 2 of 2
Reason may provide some guidance though, but even that is not much. And of course, what we are saying here then is that we ought to do natural theology (which has been done in the western church for almost it's 2000 year history) focusing on dignum deo regardless of scripture and then see how scripture matches that. Course the problem with that is that the ability of natural theology, even that which has been developed in a tradition that has also felt a responsibility to be somewhat faithful to scripture (granted interpretation of scripture) is that it's not clear how reliable it is. The greek influenced dignum deo of much of classical theology has suggested that God is absolutely immutable and impassible with absolutely no changes in thought whatsoever. This was great according to a classical metaphysic that suggested that saw value in absolute permanence, but a different natural theology (in my opinion, more suitable and consistent with scripture) that suggests that personhood is the ultimate metaphysical category is at odds with that (but a natural theology that emphasizes personhood and doesn't value permanence as highly as the greeks did is not one that has developed apart from scripture either).
But such natural theology isn't useless. If God is a person, then we should expect that we'd need special revelation to know him as persons can be only known through some contact and communication. If God is a person, then it only highlight further limits that suggest we can develope strong expectations about God apart from some contact and communication which scripture is a part of and is an important part of the role that scripture plays.
Well, Rob, for one thing you would not know behind the veil of ignorance whether or not you would be a woman, or a slave, or born with Leukemia. You would not know if you are a Christian apologist who wants to convince others that Christianity is true, or a skeptic who looks for that evidence. You might be born in China during the making of the Great Wall, or in Saudi Arabia during Mohamed's day.
From behind the veil what would you expect to see not knowing what you will be? What would you expect from a divine mind before actually knowing about the Bible, how it was written, which books were excluded and how it was interpreted and acted upon by the Church down through the ages?
There's nothing sinister with the question. It's a legitimate one. Answer it. The fact that you refuse is because you don't want to. You intuitively know that this question, if answered in any specific detail, undermines your faith. That's cognitive dissonance you're feeling right now. ;-)
I admit, I may not have completely understood just what your experiment was getting at. I suppose I took it for granted that you explained the whole thought experiment here and only refferenced the source of inspiration from an original thought experiment.
That said, I'm still not completely sure I know what you are getting at but I think I might.
What do I expect to see, if the veil of ignorance here works like Rawls', I expect a randomly assigned life, and from that life, I suppose the question is, would I have been able to discern the truth of the Christian scriptures. Well, I might be born one of those never to be evangelized, but it's not as if that is a problem if one is an inclusivist or holds to post mortem evangelization. But what about those who have heard? I'd say there could be no consistent definitive answer to that if one is consistent with belief in free will and we are talking about a free decision. If i never saw the truth of Christianity (and freely rejected or accepted that truth), then the Holy Spirit was not involved and I wasn't truly evangelized.
From behind the veil what would you expect to see not knowing what you will be? What would you expect from a divine mind before actually knowing about the Bible, how it was written,
But against this, I still believe that what I said before remains valid. Take away all that I believe right now, including my epistemic faculties that were developed and give me a random ones and question whether I'd still find scripture compelling, just what sort of test is that supposed to be to judge scripture? I don't expect scripture to appeal to just anyone. Scripture is for the church. I expect the church to live as a universal welcomer of all peoples into God's kingdom. And our failure to do so is our responsibility and our are in which to grow. yet even though we fail, the Holy Spirit can still work to that function and even use scripture for someone who is in the right place to hear it (not that they aren't free to reject that).
You intuitively know that this question, if answered in any specific detail, undermines your faith.
I don't buy that specific facts about how future libertarian free actions are decided are even logically valid... unless those specific details involve "maybe's", or as Greg Boyd has explained "conjoined mights".
To Thomas:
Well,since we're talking about a believers holy book I'm not sure what "textually valid" means in this context. Could you be so kind to clarify that for me? Oh,and are verses 5:14-5:15 "textually invalid" too or are they really not about faith healing? I mean,it obviously says something other than "Are you sick? Go see a doctor."
As for #2... Well,ok,the stuff described in Mathew 14 does look like a one-time offer. I agree. Still my point is that for some reason we don't see any biblical miracles happening,now do we? And are there practices more discredited than faith healings and exorcisms?
>Find me a biblical scholar who believes that Christians will actually move mountains.
What for? I mean,I don't believe that either.
I forgot to mention the name of the book in my previous post,sorry about that.I was talking about James 5:14-5:15:
"Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. "
To Thomas: there are many conservative Christians who believe that Mark 16:9-20 is "textually valid". And certainly the verses were widely accepted until the advent of modern textual criticism . . . which simply shows that whether the Bible is "the word of God" or not depends on the judgment of certain scholars, not on any objective criteria.
Read Numbers chapter 5, though. There's no dispute about it being "textually valid". Do you seriously believe that the "test for infidelity" described in that chapter is something a wise, holy, all-knowing God would prescribe? I mean, seriously? It's far closer to what a witch doctor would do than to anything I'd expect a so-called God to tell his people. It was the critical text for me that made my faith disappear.
If there was a divine entity, that legitimately cared for and watched over humanity and the rest of its creation, ie a theist instead of a deist God, I would expect that God's holy book to be reduced down to one paragraph;
"Be good to all of my creations, do not judge people, harm or enslave them. Do not kill my creatures for reasons beyond survival. Do not dig minerals out of, deforest or poison my earth. Do these things and know that I will reward you."
Everything else is window dressing.
"Behind the veil of ignorance tell me what you would expect from the Bible and the church if there was a divine mind behind them."
I would expect it to look exactly as it does. That is, I would expect the Church to be no different than any human institution and the Bible no different than any sacred text.
FYI, I'm an agnostic who recently discovered this blog.
Raul,
Let’s be clear: you can’t name any scholars who hold to the positions you first described. You seemed to have put zero thought or research into your post.
Now you want to jump to another passage and do the same thing. Why don’t you do some research on this? Have you taken the time to read some scholarly commentaries or writings on what this passage means? What do they say about this passage?
I’m happy to interact with you but I honestly have better things to do than talk to someone who doesn’t seem to be interested in anything but mindlessly bashing Christianity.
Lee,
To Thomas: there are many conservative Christians who believe that Mark 16:9-20 is "textually valid".
Then please name me the “many” that hold that position. For clarity, I asked for a biblical scholar who believes that Mark 16:18 is textually valid. Thanks.
Lee,
And certainly the verses were widely accepted until the advent of modern textual criticism
You have evidence for this, right? I'd love to see your proof.
Heck, one could open up just about any Bible to Mark 16 and find this out. Here is what English translations will tell you: "The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20"
"Behind the veil of ignorance tell me what you would expect from the Bible and the church if there was a divine mind behind them."
I'm anxious to see a Christian answer this excellent question, but in the meantime I'll offer some suggestions off the top of my head.
1. I would expect a "no slavery" rule because behind the veil of ignorance I don't know if I'll be a member of the slave class or the slave-owner class.
2. I would expect no discrimination based on gender or race in these divinely inspired writings, because behind the veil of ignorance I don't know what gender or race I'll be.
3. I would expect very few rules beyond the Golden Rule, and certainly no rules regarding minor stuff like most of the rules found in Exodus and Leviticus, for instance. I would expect any punishments dictated by this divine mind to seem "fair," meaning I would be ok with the punishment if I was the victim, if I was the accused, or if a close family member was the accused. Behind the veil of ignorance, I don't know which one of those scenarios I'll be in, if any.
4. I would expect this divine mind to tell people not to discriminate against anyone based on what their ancestors did, because behind the veil of ignorance I don't know who I will be descended from. I would expect the same from this divine mind, so darn, there goes original sin.
5. I would expect no promises of any land to any specific group of people, because behind the veil of ignorance I don't know if I'll be a member of the group receiving that land. Even if I am a member of the group receiving that land, I wouldn't want to appear unappreciative if I decided I didn't want it.
6. I would expect no requests for self-mutilation, because even behind the veil of ignorance I'm pretty sure I will like all my parts and would rather mutilate myself on my own terms.
I would expect the divine book to be consistent. I would expect it to have one true version of each story and if there were rules, for them to be consistent with each other and at the same level of specificity in relation to each other and for them to allow for exceptions. I would expect that if it described the natural world that the description should be accurate scientifically and factually. I would expect it to advocate gender and race equality, especially if it was claiming to be of and about the creator of such genders and races, that that creator would value all kinds of its creation equally.
If the church was based on claims of superior ethics, i would expect its members to be statistically less likely to be involved in crimes and to be obviously better behaved and take better care of people showing more compassion and sharing and giving.
Well, for one I would expect, as a minimum entry level requirement that we do not have other "holy scriptures" that predate the source of this Divine missive that are substantially more ethical, such as what we find in Hindu and Buddhist scriptures that pre-date the twaddle of the NT.
To Thomas:
I'm slightly dissapointed,cause you didn't answer any of my questions.
The veil of ignorance proposed by John Rawls seems to challenge double standards/hypocrisy which Jesus did as well.
If one were to go by scripture alone and had not experienced enlightenment, Jesus Himself said that we are all blind and deaf and that He came to bring light and freedom from captivity. Jesus said that the beginning of enlightenment was a thirst for righteousness -- that is a human hearted desire, which transcends geographical, cultural, gender, religious, etc. divides. (God is not confined in His ability to inspire ppl anywhere they reside or within any religious tradition, it is just that ppl tend to corrupt the power and image of the divine to serve territorial instincts.)
John wrote, "Behind the veil of ignorance tell me what you would expect from the Bible and the church if there was a divine mind behind them" Before I came to faith, I only had a base thirst for being relieved of inner dissonance and insecurity -- I had no idea how or what that salvation looked like (living in this country, I had been exposed to practically every religious tradition and had already rejected Jesus) exactly nor did I have the precise words to articulate the source of my unhappiness. I don't think God expects us to formulate or know everything about Him before we make His acquaintance. That would be presumptuous and idolotrous rather than faithful.
Well, I know one thing. I wouldn't expect to find the Bible. That book turned me into a schizoid. Thank God the fear is gone today. I can see clearly. I'm done with the Bible.
What would I expect if there really were a God? I would expect that a really existing god would interact with people but that those interactions would quickly become garbled and grossly misinterpreted by their tribal customs, fears, prejudices, their own will to power and so on.
I would expect of Jesus that he would deliver his message but that there would be confusion and dissent over what was really intended.
If I were god the creator I would create a world where life is possible and freedom of will is possible. But if life is possible then disease and death is also. If freedom is possible then suffering is too. Earthquakes and floods, disease and parasites, suffering due to ignorance or bad intent, all of these things are the natural consequence of creating a world fit for human habitation.
If I were Jesus then I would expect my disciples to bicker among themselves seeking favor, misunderstanding what I said, trying to use their position for their own ends and so on. I would expect the church I founded to be at first very egalitarian and communitarian but to then become more and more corrupted by human greed and selfishness. I would expect that people would lie cheat and steal, murder torture and maim in my name. There would be little I could do about that.
If I were a really existing God the Father I would interact with my people early in their development but after a while I'd take a fairly hands off approach. They have free will and I have to respect that. Raising humanity would be a lot like raising a child. You try to give them a good foundation but you are limited in what you can do because you have to respect their personhood.
That's what I would do.
Brenda says:
"I would expect of Jesus that he would deliver his message but that there would be confusion and dissent over what was really intended."
Because an omnipotent god obviously couldn't make himself clear...
"Earthquakes and floods, disease and parasites, suffering due to ignorance or bad intent, all of these things are the natural consequence of creating a world fit for human habitation."
And a world without earthquakes,floods and parasites wouldn't be fit for a human habitation?
"If I were Jesus then <...> I would expect that people would lie cheat and steal, murder torture and maim in my name.There would be little I could do about that."
Wouldn't condemning such practices in NT be a good thing? Or at least not saying stuff like "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me." (Luk. 19:27) ?
I mean,if you're a founder of a religion and you care about what your followers will do,then aren't you supposed to avoid dubious metaphors that involve murder and self-mutilation (like one in Matthew 5:29-30)? Unless you actually want your followers to murder and to perform acts of self-mutilation,that is.
"I would expect the church I founded to be at first very egalitarian and communitarian but to then become more and more corrupted by human greed and selfishness"
Wouldn't you expect it to be transformed by works of the holy spirit?
I'm anxious to see a Christian answer this excellent question, but in the meantime I'll offer some suggestions off the top of my head.
I'm anxious to see if anyone can really make sense of the question because so far, it's not clear to me that anyone else has.
I don't know that anyone has taken the time to see just what the "veil of ignorance" actually is that is not explained here but in the link.
You see, strangely, as a Christian, I'm not allowed to suggest that what I see in the bible is indeed the evidence of God's interaction because after the veil of ignorance, I could be anyone else, a muslim, an atheist, a buddhist, even an evangelical.
But why do the atheists think they'd get to keep their western post-Christian modernistic values?
1. I would expect a "no slavery" rule because behind the veil of ignorance I don't know if I'll be a member of the slave class or the slave-owner class.
What if after the veil of ignorance was lifted, you were a pimp or slave owner with no such scruples? They you clearly wouldn't expect this.
I understand the question of what we'd expect if the Bible were written by God, and such a question is a matter of natural theology of which i have already raised an issue, but adding this veil of ignorance just doesn't do anything for the question.
Wisdom and reality from a common man:
Nature is cruel at times; beautiful at times; gentle at times, and violent at times. It shapes all it touches. We do the same. (Henry Haggerty 1891 - 1972 Sage of Jocassee, SC and my friend)
Now, if we simply substitute God for Nature, we have a basic reality that exceeds the Bible!
Rawls's VoI works, to the extent that it does work, because it's designed to test our moral intuitions concerning the nature of justice and equality while precluding any residue of self interest that may obtain due to our actual position in (any)society. John's reformulation of the question, however, doesn't question our moral intuitions, but our ontological expectations, and it seems to me that this is the reason it simply does not work. Think about it: would any of us expect a world described by quantum weirdness and general relativity from behind a VoI? That, however, is precisely what we find. So, while Rawls's VoI may have some limited application as far as our moral intuitions are concerned (though I tend to agree with Sandel's criticisms of it), it seems to me that it's not at all applicable to our ontological expectations.
Eric, glad you showed up. My reformulation does indeed test our moral intuitions against what we would expect given the Anselmian conception of God. Given that God and not knowing who we are going to be in the created world, what would you expect from such a God? I'm taking for granted your concept of God and asking what we would expect to find. I think I'll develop this reformulation in the days to come. Maybe it does have some bugs to work out though, but it applies to what we'd expect the Bible to say, what the church as his representative has done and suffering in the world.
Raul says:
"Because an omnipotent god obviously couldn't make himself clear..."
That's right. If people have free will you can't force them to understand you. All you can do is give them information.
"And a world without earthquakes,floods and parasites wouldn't be fit for a human habitation?"
No it wouldn't. A plaent with no tectonic activity and with no rainfall is a dead planet. Parasitism is a natural consequence of biology.
"Wouldn't condemning such practices in NT be a good thing? Or at least not saying stuff like "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me." (Luk. 19:27) ?"
You sound like a fundamentalist. Yeah, I would expect people to take parables and metaphors out of context in a craven attempt to insert their own ideology into them. I would like to request that you argue honestly instead of lying as you have here Raul. Lying doesn't help you one bit.
Hi John
Perhaps I should have asked for clarification before I shot my mouth off. ;)
I'll wait for your more thorough working out of your idea before I comment on it again.
To Brenda:
"A planet with no tectonic activity and with no rainfall is a dead planet."
The question here is "Could God create life on a planet with no tectonic activity?"
Well,since he's supposed to be omnipotent I think,that the answer should be "yes".
"Parasitism is a natural consequence of biology."
This phrase is meaningless. Biology is a science,that aplies to the world we live in. In a different world we'd have different biology.
"Lying doesn't help you one bit."
And what exactly do you call "lying" here?
p.s.
Can I get a straight ("Yes" or "No") answer to this question:
"If you're a founder of a religion and you care about what your followers will do,then aren't you supposed to avoid dubious metaphors that involve murder and self-mutilation?"
John,
Couldn’t this test be applied to atheism? What would you expect the world to be like/look like if there was absolutely no purpose and if it was all started by an explosion (which came from nothing)? Would you expect that something would come from nothing; that the purposeless universe would go from disorder to order; that non-intelligence would produce intelligence; that human consciousness would exist; that laws of logic would exist and be consistent and universal; that the human body would be more complex than the most complicated computers and technology that humans intelligently designed; that there would be a general uniformity of nature laws; and that the future would be like the past?
Would you honestly expect that a purposeless universe would be anything like this? Why or why not?
"The question here is "Could God create life on a planet with no tectonic activity?" Well,since he's supposed to be omnipotent I think,that the answer should be "yes"."
God can't make square circles.
"This phrase is meaningless. Biology is a science,that applies to the world we live in. In a different world we'd have different biology."
And that different biology would also have diseases.
"And what exactly do you call "lying" here? "
Falsely misrepresenting something in order to further your argument.
"If you're a founder of a religion and you care about what your followers will do,then aren't you supposed to avoid dubious metaphors that involve murder and self-mutilation?"
I would expect that those how are against me would falsely interpret parables and metaphors to their own ends.
To Brenda:
Somehow I fail to see life on a planet with no tectonical activity as a logical contradiction.
"And that different biology would also have diseases."
Not necessarily.
"Falsely misrepresenting something in order to further your argument"
I didn't interpret Luk 19:27 at all. I only said,that those words belong to biblical Jesus. It could be a dubious metaphor for all I care.
"I would expect that those how are against me would falsely interpret parables and metaphors to their own ends."
Maybe,but you obviously fail to understand the question asked.F.e.,I don't think,that people who performed acts of self-mutilation based on Matthew 5:29-30 were "against Jesus".
Let me try to make myself clear once again:
Let's assume I'm writing a holy book for billions of people. Would I use dubious metaphors,that involve self-mutilation,slavery or murder? No.
Why not? Because I know,that among those billions certainly some people will understand them litterally. I mean,if there's no clear distinction in the text,then it's either a metaphor or not. Obviously, some people will go with the second option.
So just what is Christian apologetics about?
It’s an exercise in mental rhetoric in defense of the subjective metaphysical (Example: This is what I or what my sect believes about God or the gods.)
Since the religious apologists is defending a non-tangible entity, the defense is any premise one deems defendable. In this sense, one has as much chance at disproving a non-tangible religious entity as a Dream Catcher has at catching a dream! In view of the above, there has never been a world religion that has ever been disproved.
Facts prove that while the gods of Egypt, and Mesopotamia are no longer worshiped, they have NEVER been disproved.
As such, the Hebrew god Yahweh believed in them because, as a non-tangible entities, even he could not disprove them and thus the Israelites were given the first commandment (Exodus 20: 2-3)!.
While Christianity claims it is the truth (and has all the truth), it has never once disproved another world religion. The best Christianity can do is gain a proselyte here and there as one world religious tradition feeds on the weakest members of its fellow world religion’s herd (beleivers).
"I fail to see life on a planet with no tectonical[sic] activity as a logical contradiction."
Not directly but since we are assuming that I created the universe out of Logos then all contingent existence flows from my necessary first cause. Perhaps there are other worlds where planets do not have tectonic activity but they are going to have *some* kind of geology that is potentially life threatening.
""And that different biology would also have diseases."
Not necessarily."
So your claim is that in the entire universe of organic carbon based chemistry, or even non-carbon based, that it is possible to construct a self replicating organism that is not subject to error or disruption from rival organisms. My guess is that you don't really understand the role that parasites and viruses have had in evolution.
"I didn't interpret Luk 19:27 at all. I only said,that those words belong to biblical Jesus. It could be a dubious metaphor for all I care."
Yes you did interpret it. You quoted Jesus as if he were himself saying that when in fact he was speaking parenthetically. This is called quote mining and is something that creationists and fundamentalists do. Are you a fundamentalist? You sure act like one.
"Maybe,but you obviously fail to understand the question asked.F.e.,I don't think,that people who performed acts of self-mutilation based on Matthew 5:29-30 were "against Jesus". "
I wasn't talking about them, I was talking about you and your fundamentalist understanding of the text.
"Let's assume I'm writing a holy book for billions of people. Would I use dubious metaphors,that involve self-mutilation,slavery or murder? No. Why not? Because I know,that among those billions certainly some people will understand them litterally[sic]. I mean,if there's no clear distinction in the text,then it's either a metaphor or not. "
First of all the meaning *is* clear from the text and second I, as Jesus, didn't write the book, humans did. People wrote it and people interpreted it. Those people have free will and I can't help it if they choose to misunderstand my words during my brief time on earth. In your case however you are being deliberately willful in misunderstanding it. You are being consistently intellectually dishonest.
Thomas said..."Raul,
Do you take everything you read literally or do you allow for figures of speech?"
Thomas is the bible supposed to be a very serrious book .Dealing with matters of Gods holy word,and being a book for a manual of life suggesting how humans should live etc.
Or is it supposed to be some book written as a type of creative humans writings ...Mingling fact and fiction and literal truth mixed in with whats creative fiction not expected to be taken as literal word of Gods.
Mixing factual truths,with figures od speech?
Behind the veil of ignorance,should we take this book the bible as either actually being valid word of god expected to be read literally, or is it creative writings and thoughts of fiction written by men.
Thomas said..."1. Find me a biblical scholar who believes that Mark 16:18 is textually valid."
What is this book the bible really supposed to be,textually valid?, or is it really HONESTLY supposed to be some fictional textually invalid book?.
Thomas why would you have us believe your god would wish his manual for human life and salvation which i think you would admit should be taken very serrious if actually honest, to be a mixture of the textually valid and texually invalid ? ....Was your god hoping to hopefully confuse some folks ??,like it obviously actually has done !.
What reason is there that we should believe and accept,any personal decisions of any of your selected bible scolars ?.Who actually gives any of them the authority on such matters?
What reason do you suggest there is that we should be expected to accept,any god there might be would actually have a book written as a manual of life for all humans to be able to follow to find salvation etc ....That takes following the decisions of some bible scholar?.
Its not really honestly such a great manual this bible is it then,for all humans to be able to follow and be able to find salvation is it Thomas.
You suggest we have need of following one of the bible scholars decisions.
How many bible scholars are there leading their followers right up the gum-tree Thomas? ....Isnt this idea of yours of the supposed need of us following bible scholars,a great receipe for failure! and many humans to be easily led astray!?.
Isnt this what has actually happened Thomas ,dont many bible scholars differ ....Hense why we actually have so very many differing groups of faithful.
Hi Thomas:
You stated to Raul: Find me a biblical scholar who believes that Mark 16:18 is textually valid.
The again: Raul, Let’s be clear: you can’t name any scholars who hold to the positions you first described. You seemed to have put zero thought or research into your post.
Then to Lee: Then please name me the “many” that hold that position. For clarity, I asked for a biblical scholar who believes that Mark 16:18 is textually valid. Thanks.
I’m not certain why you think Raul has put “put zero thought or research” into his post when you seem to have done little to no research yourself on Mark 16: 9 - 20.
If you would like a list of European scholars who support the last twelve verses in Mark, I will provide you more titles in French and German.
For now, I’ll refer you the two major works in English by established scholars. (For lesser known Fundamentalist scholars who support Mark 16: 9 - 20, you might want to Google up the same.)
The Last Twelve Verses of Mark (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series), by William R. Farmer (Perkins School of Theology, Retired)
Book Description:
A study of the authenticity and interpretation of the last twelve verses of St Mark's Gospel. These verses are omitted from at least one important manuscript tradition and queried in most modern translations (though not from the NEB). Professor Farmer traces the history of the text tradition for omission back to Egypt, and argues that one important factor contributing to their omission was the dangerous teaching they seemed to contain: they appear to encourage Christians to handle deadly snakes and drink poisons to prove their faith, a practice which has been revived today by some Christian sects who accept the scriptural authority of these verses. The teaching of these verses has, however, never become established in orthodox Christianity and indeed most Christians are unaware of their doctrinal significance. Professor Farmer reviews all the textual and patristic evidence and examines the most plausible solutions that have been canvassed. This is another substantial contribution to a series that has set the highest standards of scholarship in biblical and New Testament studies.
The Last Twelve Verses of Mark, by Dean John William Burgon (Nineteenth Century Biblical and Patristic Scholar from Oxford University)
Book Description:
This present book is filled with dynamite in its impact! Dean John William Burgon has amassed overwhelming evidence from manuscripts, lectionaries, ancient versions, and church fathers proving the genuineness of the last twelve verses of Mark! In the 350 pages of this book, Dean Burgon has proved that Mark 16:9-20 (the last twelve verses of Mark), is a genuine part of Mark's Gospel about which we should have no doubts whatsoever! A thorough grasp of Burgon's methodology of textual criticism such as is exhibited in these pages will convince the honest reader to reject the false conclusions regarding these twelve verses (and other verses as well) which have been accepted by the NASV, the NIV, the RSV, the NRSV, the NEB, TEV, CEV, and the other modern versions! If indeed, as Dean Burgon shows clearly, "B" (Vaticanus) and "Aleph" (Sinaiticus) are in serious error here, they can not be trusted elsewhere either! The manuscripts, the lectionaries, the ancient versions, and the quotations from the church fathers all unite to show that Mark 16:9-20 was in Mark's Gospel from the very beginning!
I hope this helps!
Code talking can defeat the Veil of Ignorance. Christianese, dog whistle, logocide. The Veil of Ignorance must be manifested as a person that can filter out discriminatory questions. If the mediator can not understand the Christian cant, then discrimination is possible.
To Brenda:
"Yes you did interpret it. You quoted Jesus as if he were himself saying that when in fact he was speaking parenthetically."
If he was speaking parenthetically does that mean,that someone else was saying that?
"First of all the meaning *is* clear from the text"
Well,Origenes had a different opinion on what this meaning *is*,but you probably know better. Could you please demonstrate why Matthew 5:29-5:30 can't be understood as verses about literal self-mutilation?
"You are being consistently intellectually dishonest."
Yeah,right,you expect people to place their faith into contradictory non-eyewitness accounts of a miraculous story,that presumably happened about two thousands years ago and I'm the one,that's being c.i.d. .
What good such a book would be anyway? Written by humans,filled by misunderstandings and latter additions... That'd be like a result of playing the "Broken phone" game for a thousand years.
I would expect that people like Thomas wouldn't have to say anything about not taking any section or verse literally. I hate that we can take Mark:17-18 as a figure of speech, but then have to buy into walking on water, and resurection, burning bushes, feeding with a fish etc. as literal truth.
If you apply the logic to the bible that you apply to people it stands pretty clear. An individual is either trustworthy, or he isn't. You wouldn't hang out with someone who you don't believe 50% of what they say, and reccomend him to others as a notable source for anything would you?
"If he was speaking parenthetically does that mean,that someone else was saying that?"
Why yes, it does! If you'll read the parable you will discover who was speaking. It was the king in the story. You lied when you falsely implied that they were Jesus' own words.
"Could you please demonstrate why Matthew 5:29-5:30 can't be understood as verses about literal self-mutilation?"
It's part of the background. If I ask you to "cut the cake" you know to use a knife. If I ask you to "cut the grass" you know to use a lawnmower. If you reverse the two you are considered a fool because you lack the background knowledge required of adults. In the same way we know that when a teacher, and Jesus was considered to be one, speaks in parables we understand we are meant not to take them literally. The consept of the background is simular to Wittgenstein's private language only in this case it is held publicly but is assumed to be understood.
"Yeah,right,you expect people to place their faith into contradictory non-eyewitness accounts of a miraculous story,that presumably happened about two thousands years ago and I'm the one,that's being c.i.d."
I don't care, I'm agnostic. Did you miss the part where we were asked to engage in a hypothetical? You appear to have trouble understanding social cues, maybe you are autistic?
"What good such a book would be anyway? Written by humans,filled by misunderstandings and latter additions... That'd be like a result of playing the "Broken phone" game for a thousand years."
Yeah, that's what I would expect would happen even if Jesus were who he said he was. Thank you for proving my case for me.
To Brenda:
"If you'll read the parable you will discover who was speaking. It was the king in the story. You lied when you falsely implied that they were Jesus' own words."
Oh,that's a funny argument,since this king is supposed represent Jesus anyway,but this is actually irrelevant. The relevant part is that even if I'm telling a fairy-tale I still am the person,who's saying the words of that fairy-tale,not someone else. Not Peter Pan,not Mother Goose or any other fairy-tale hero. Though I might not share their views.
"maybe you are autistic?"
Maybe you are being impolite?
"Yeah, that's what I would expect would happen even if Jesus were who he said he was. Thank you for proving my case for me."
Hm,ok,then it seems,that we both agree,that bible is a useless piece of garbage in any case. Cheers.
Brenda said:
"That's right. If people have free will you can't force them to understand you. All you can do is give them information."
Just because some people might refuse to understand God's message doesn't mean that God has communicated his message as well as we might have expected given the Veil of Ignorance.
Given that the Bible contains sections that apparently are not to be taken literally, and some that are, God could have improved on his communication skills if he had merely indicated, unambiguously, which sections were literal and which were not. Because he didn't, people who actually do want to understand the Bible now disagree as to which sections are literal and which aren't.
The “veil of ignorance” test looks similar to Schrodinger’s cat thought experiment! Unless the box is opened one cannot know whether the cat is dead or alive! Both possibilities are possible! Opening of the box actually sets the reality of the cat! Similarly, before the veil is opened God could be both dead and alive! Only when the veil is opened, we see, for people like John God is dead and people like William Lane Craig God is alive. But, the important question to ask is, whether the state/reality “God is alive” exists as one of the possibilities before opening the veil? (similar to two possibilities existed for Schrodinger’s cat). From extrapolating the reality as exist today, that is from the existence of many different views about God ( which are not nothing but the outcome of opening box/veil for each worldview (ideas, belief, individual)), the possibility of view of God as experienced by Christians (Church, Bible) also should exist as one of the possibilities before opening the veil! Possibility of me believing Christian worldview also should exist as one of the states of wave function (possibilities) before the veil is opened!
On a side note… your application of “veil of ignorance” to Christian God only have let the Schrodinger’s cat out for you because this also should have existed as one of the possible states!
"Oh,that's a funny argument,since this king is supposed represent Jesus anyway,but this is actually irrelevant."
He is? I suppose that some might interpret the parable that way. I don't think it is necessary however.
"the relevant part is that even if I'm telling a fairy-tale I still am the person, who's saying the words of that fairy-tale,not someone else."
This is why I think that you are being either willfully obtuse or else there is some cognitive disorder going on. Which is why I asked the previous question that you consider impolite because, in all honesty, your inability to understand the written word is jaw dropping. Maybe you're not a native English speaker?
Look, if I am telling a story and in the story I speak out the various characters lines who is it that is speaking when I speak their part? Yes, it is true that I physically say the lines but I am acting, I am speaking *as if* I were one of the characters in the story. So, if one of those characters says "Raul is a big fat doody head." even though I actually vocalized those words, nevertheless *I* did not say them. The character in the story did.
Thus endeth today's storytime. Later on if you're good maybe we'll have ice cream.
"Look, if I am telling a story and in the story I speak out the various characters lines who is it that is speaking when I speak their part?"
I've already answered this question. Quote:
...if I'm telling a fairy-tale I still am the person,who's saying the words of that fairy-tale,not someone else. Not Peter Pan,not Mother Goose or any other fairy-tale hero. Though I might not share their views.
End of quote.
Though I am really not a native English speaker I believe,that this answer actually was quite clear and understandble. But I'll let the audience judge me on that one.
"Yes, it is true that I physically say the lines"
"nevertheless *I* did not say them."
Don't you see a logical contradiction here?
I think the right way to say that would be "I say it,but I don't really mean it" , not "I say it,but *I* don't say it".
Thomas,
The "something from nothing" argument has always been a very curious one for me as it presumes that having nothing is a more natural state than having something. How do you know this?
Then you start talking about purpose, which seems to be irrelevant. What exactly does that mean? As far as we can tell, the universe has certain laws that matter and energy follow, but I have a hard time assigning a "purpose" to those laws, other than that they seem to be real and that we can observe matter and energy following those rules. I'm not denying the possibility of purpose only stating that if there is purpose, it is by no means clear what that purpose might be. Just because there are physical laws, logic, and intelligent life in our universe, I see no automatic need for a purposeful explanation. You're statement of the question implies that the odds of the universe being the way it is are beyond what chance can allow, but this is a dubious argument because nobody really knows what the odds are...
In short, I have no expectations about what a supposed "purposeless" universe might or might not look like. Your attempt to turn the question around doesn't really work because if there is no purpose, what prohibition is there against things being the way they are? We may not be able to come to good conclusions about that question, but that doesn't mean that we should assume a purpose on the grounds that we don't have an answer.
"...if I'm telling a fairy-tale I still am the person,who's saying the words of that fairy-tale,not someone else. Not Peter Pan,not Mother Goose or any other fairy-tale hero. Though I might not share their views."
As I have already explained you are speaking *as if* so it is acceptable to say that Mother Goose said it and not you even though you physically vocalized the words.
What is the matter with you?
""Yes, it is true that I physically say the lines"
"nevertheless *I* did not say them."
Don't you see a logical contradiction here? "
No I don't. When Anthony Hopkins was speaking as if he were Hannibal and said "I ate his liver with fava beans and a nice chianti" it was *not* Hopkins who was speaking, it was Hannibal Lecter.
This is eighth grade English.
"I think the right way to say that would be "I say it,but I don't really mean it" , not "I say it,but *I* don't say it"."
No, that's clearly wrong because Jesus certainly *did* mean to recite the story. Anthony Hopkins *did* mean to say he ate someone's liver. Though it's debatable what Jesus meant and no one (except for you?) thinks that Anthony Hopkins is actually a cannibal. Does the Zen koan really mean that when you meet the Buddha on the road you really truly should kill him? Do you take the sayings of Buddhist of Confucian teachers literally? My guess is you don't. That is why you are intellectually dishonest. You have different standards for Jesus than for other religious figures.
You really should just give up now.
Ok,I give up. That feels too much like talking to a brick wall.
Brenda said:
"When Anthony Hopkins was speaking . . . it was *not* Hopkins who was speaking,"
'Nuff said.
Brenda,
It is pretty obvious by John's test that you are either intentionally or unitentionally misrepresenting yourself. Your application of the VoL seems to indicate that your an apologist for Evangelical Christianity and not an agnostic. You might want to reassess your worldview and adjust your self-definition.
Chuck,
I drew the same conclusion about Brenda myself. If it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck: It’s a DUCK!
Harry
Yeah Harry. She's also not a "philosophical materialist" whatever the Hell that means. So she argues for the reality of the supernatural? Sorry Brenda but the veiled apologist strategy is tired.
Brenda is making more sense than the secular bigots and obscurantists here. You can be an agnostic and explore a philosophical position. Sheesh, what's with you guys?
For people who think Christianity is a little sick, your boorishness and style don't reveal a superior ethics at all.
Daniel
I don't trust people with hidden profiles who make claims to the historicity of Christian scripture. Her arguments use philosophy to provide a retrenchment to the classic Evangelical apologetic of scrptural inerrancy and Divine Hiddenness. I suppose an agnostic would argue that but, it is more likely a bible believing follower of Jesus would.
John, after reading this blog post, I have a serious question:
Have you ever read a single book or even an article by John Rawls? You clearly have absolutely no idea what the veil of ignorance actually is. According to Rawl's conception of the original position, which is where the veil of ignorance is mentioned, atheism is to be rejected with equal force to theism.
You just used the phrase because you thought it sounded cool, right?
Glenn, you are a case in point when I say there is no way I can say all I want to say in a single post. I taught many an ethics class for several colleges. I know it's strengths and weaknesses. I'm trying to tailor it for a different scenario, that's all., Hanging out with the juvenile nincompoops at TWeb are we?
Gotta love Glenn,
The hipster Ph.D who thinks his curly locks and soul patch will camouflage his fetish for divine command and egotistical appeals to authority.
Really Glenn, if you are going to embrace skin-head beliefs at least look like one.
Your folk-singer image is false advertising.
Well John, if you really do understand what the veil of ignorance is, then you'll know it's out of place to say "behind the veil of ignorance tell me what you would expect..." That's just not the way it works.
It's more like, "from behind the veil of ignorance, how should we approach Christianity in such a way that we won't be adversely affected if we turn out to be Christian?" Now, you mightn't like approaching it that way (truth be told, I don't either), but don't co-opt a Rawlsian phrase and apply it to a context in which it makes no sense.
Chuck, given this comment of yours and your last comments about my appearance, I'm startng to think you're gay for me.
Glenn,
I'm a married man expecting his first child but, your homophobic reaction is consistent with your white supremacist leanings.
It's a truly funny world we live in where the suggestiont hats omeone might be gay is proof that one has a disease associated witht he fear of people who are gay.
Hilarious stuff. And as for white supremacy, all I can say is - John, where do you find these people? The crack house?
Glenn,
"You're gay for me," is a pejorative I have only heard used by play-ground bullies and homophobes.
Your Christianity amounts to a sectarian view on human worth very closely associatied in principle to authoritarian organizations like the KKK. Thus, the white supremacist comment.
I see you as you see the Pentacostal from Florida you dismiss as false in the YouTube clip you posted at your site. You follow?
Chuck, what can I say - you seem overly interested in my appearance. Make up stories about mental illnesses if you must (it's a popular enough game!)
It's also pretty funny to see you now referring to schoolyard bullies, given that it was you who were personally attacking me as your first comment toward me in this thread. Hyprocrisy much?
As for your infantile KKK references, is this the point where someone drags the Nazis into the mix? Please...
Glenn
You got the Holy Ghost power on your side. A) You should be better than me B) Why don't you call up you god and get him to rain fire down on me.
Ad homs are the sign of a failed intellect.
Brend
Can you email me off blog? I am not trolling, looking for arguments. Honest. Just curious about they way you are thinking and want to explore it outside a debate.
danbatt@hotmail.com
Brenda
Look "Hun" Glenn's beliefs drive him to define a person's worth based on unfounded superstitions. Which is no different than any other bigot.
Your respone to John's challenge paints you as a Christian Apologist.
Where is my Ad Hominem.
Whining is a retreat for cowards.
Chuck, any time you want to contribute to an intelligent discussion, you go right ahead.
So far you've commented on my hair, my appearance, and you've conjured up the claim that I'm a bigot.
Like I said, anytime you wish to rise to the level of intellegently commenting on an issue, go ahead. Take the blog post on which you commented for example. Do you have a cogent through on Rawls' though experiement of the veil of ignorance?
Glenn,
Your mischaracterization of Dr. Tiller and the work he did at your site indicates your mindset and political proclivities. Yes, bigoted and neo-nazi would be accurate.
Your contributions to this thread started with condescending to the blog author and I called you out for your pretentiousness.
You are a silly little man who I find offensive.
So, still nothing of interest to say, eh Chuck?
btw, misrepresentation of Dr Tiller and what he did? Firstly, what a load of bollocks,a nd secondly, that makes one a Neo Nazi? Good grief... You really are desparate to make it sound like your vacuuous personal attacks have merit, aren't you?
Listen - have you a single intelligent thought to offer ont he veil of ignorance? Even one?
Glenn
I will repeat your question back at you. Do you have an answer to the thread's challenge? Your take on Dr. Tiller's murder indicates that you are an accomandationist for murderous ideologues. I should expect as much from a theologian who uses a quote from the movie scarface as his blog epigram.
Chuck - My take on Dr Tiller's murder? And what take would that be? Spit it out. I know you're bluffing.
As for trunign the question back at me - why? Have you no answer at all? I've already offered some thoughts ont he veil of ignorance, by xplaining how it is more porperly used. Don't you have one single thought on the subject at all? Nothing?
Don't get me wrong - you're not obliged to comment on this blog I suppose. But I'm just pointing out that you've done nothing but seek to engage in baseless personal attacks that are absolutely off topic.
You accused Dr. Tiller of murdering babies without reporting the medical context of the abortions he performed. Why do you quote a mass murdering cocaine addict as an epigram on your Christian theological web site. Glenn I am pointing out facts people can observe at your site and choosing to do so to undermine any potential status you would like to project. Your site indicates the ravings of a meglomaniacal wierdo.
Post a Comment