James White, Do You Understand What You Believe?
James White discussed a YouTube Video I made. This is my video. This is his discussion of it. Let me ask White if he knows his own theology.
Granted, I'm not so good when it comes to making videos. And granted, the picture I used is to make fun of the faith rather than be technically precise. But let me explain what I said. Let's see if I'm as ignorant as he claims that I am. I think he is the one exhibiting some ignorance about Christian theology.
Richard Swinburne argues for the Nicene subordination doctrine of the Trinity. [Richard Swinburne, “Could There Be More Than One God? Faith and Philosophy 5, no. 3 (July 1988): 225–41. Reformed thinkers like John Calvin and Benjamin Warfield argued for Trinitarian autotheos, in that the Son and the Spirit do not derive their being from the Father but are God in and of themselves. See Paul Helm, John Calvin’s Ideas (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), pp. 35–57.]
Swinburne claims that a first God could eternally “create” a second and even a third God, who “proceeds” from the first God, but that there was no reason to eternally create any other Gods since love would be complete in three Gods and no more. He concludes that “if there is at least one God, then there are three and only three Gods” since “there is something profoundly imperfect and therefore inadequately divine in a solitary God.” Swinburne’s view is but one form of the “social Trinitarian model” of the Trinity. I don’t think any account of the Trinity is plausible for the Christian, and that includes Swinburne’s understanding. I find Swinburne’s scenario wildly implausible and guided more by what he thinks the Bible says than by any philosophical reasoning. The bottom line is that no matter how an orthodox triune God is conceived, this is not a simple being.
Social trinitarianism stresses the diversity of persons within the Trinity, while anti–social trinitarianism stresses the unity of the God. According to William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, “Social trinitarianism threatens to veer into tritheism (three gods); anti–social trinitarianism is in danger of lapsing into unitarianism (one God with no distinct persons in the Godhead).” Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press), p. 583. Craig and Moreland criticize Swinburne’s view by arguing that “the Father’s begetting the Son amounts to creation ex nihilo (creation out of nothing), which . . . makes the Son a creature.” However, without this causal dependence of the Father to the Son and Holy Spirit, “then we are stuck with the surprising and inexplicable fact that there just happen to exist three divine beings all sharing the same nature, which seems incredible.”(p. 588).
A second form of social trinitarianism is known as the “group mind” theory, in which the Trinity is “a mind that is composed of the minds of the three persons in the Godhead.” Craig and Moreland tell us the specific problem they attempt to deal with: “if such a model is to be theologically acceptable, the mind of the Trinity cannot be a self-conscious self in addition to the three self-conscious selves who are the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit, for otherwise we have not a Trinity but a Quaternity, so to speak” (p. 588).
The third form of social trinitarianism is called “Trinity monotheism,” Moreland and Craig inform us, which “holds that while the persons of the Trinity are divine, it is the Trinity as a whole that is properly God.” The problem with this view they attempt to deal with is that if it is to be considered as “orthodox,” “it must hold that the Trinity alone is God and that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, while divine, are not Gods” (p. 589).
For an excellent critique of social trinitarianism, which has become the dominant evangelical model for the trinity, see Brian Leftow’s “Anti-social Trinitarianism,” in The Trinity, ed. Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendal, and Gerold O’Collins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999). Leftow’s main point is that social trinitarianism “cannot be both orthodox and a version of monotheism” (p. 203). Moreland and Craig argue that anti–social trinitarianism reduces to unitarianism. I agree with both of these criticisms, leaving us with no plausible understanding of the Trinity.
When it comes to the Incarnation, I've discussed it here.
As far as the term "Logos" meaning the 2nd person of the trinity goes, Moreland and Craig used it this way in their book Philosophical Foundations.
When it comes to the statement "Jesus is God" goes, most theologians typically describe Jesus as participating in the divine nature, but to say "Jesus is God" is not something they want to say since the term "God" describes something larger than Jesus himself.
--------------------------------
Dr. White claims: "I haven't ever publicly commented on John Loftus before..." But that is simply not true. Other posts relating to James White can be found here, and here.
Granted, I'm not so good when it comes to making videos. And granted, the picture I used is to make fun of the faith rather than be technically precise. But let me explain what I said. Let's see if I'm as ignorant as he claims that I am. I think he is the one exhibiting some ignorance about Christian theology.
Richard Swinburne argues for the Nicene subordination doctrine of the Trinity. [Richard Swinburne, “Could There Be More Than One God? Faith and Philosophy 5, no. 3 (July 1988): 225–41. Reformed thinkers like John Calvin and Benjamin Warfield argued for Trinitarian autotheos, in that the Son and the Spirit do not derive their being from the Father but are God in and of themselves. See Paul Helm, John Calvin’s Ideas (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), pp. 35–57.]
Swinburne claims that a first God could eternally “create” a second and even a third God, who “proceeds” from the first God, but that there was no reason to eternally create any other Gods since love would be complete in three Gods and no more. He concludes that “if there is at least one God, then there are three and only three Gods” since “there is something profoundly imperfect and therefore inadequately divine in a solitary God.” Swinburne’s view is but one form of the “social Trinitarian model” of the Trinity. I don’t think any account of the Trinity is plausible for the Christian, and that includes Swinburne’s understanding. I find Swinburne’s scenario wildly implausible and guided more by what he thinks the Bible says than by any philosophical reasoning. The bottom line is that no matter how an orthodox triune God is conceived, this is not a simple being.
Social trinitarianism stresses the diversity of persons within the Trinity, while anti–social trinitarianism stresses the unity of the God. According to William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, “Social trinitarianism threatens to veer into tritheism (three gods); anti–social trinitarianism is in danger of lapsing into unitarianism (one God with no distinct persons in the Godhead).” Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press), p. 583. Craig and Moreland criticize Swinburne’s view by arguing that “the Father’s begetting the Son amounts to creation ex nihilo (creation out of nothing), which . . . makes the Son a creature.” However, without this causal dependence of the Father to the Son and Holy Spirit, “then we are stuck with the surprising and inexplicable fact that there just happen to exist three divine beings all sharing the same nature, which seems incredible.”(p. 588).
A second form of social trinitarianism is known as the “group mind” theory, in which the Trinity is “a mind that is composed of the minds of the three persons in the Godhead.” Craig and Moreland tell us the specific problem they attempt to deal with: “if such a model is to be theologically acceptable, the mind of the Trinity cannot be a self-conscious self in addition to the three self-conscious selves who are the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit, for otherwise we have not a Trinity but a Quaternity, so to speak” (p. 588).
The third form of social trinitarianism is called “Trinity monotheism,” Moreland and Craig inform us, which “holds that while the persons of the Trinity are divine, it is the Trinity as a whole that is properly God.” The problem with this view they attempt to deal with is that if it is to be considered as “orthodox,” “it must hold that the Trinity alone is God and that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, while divine, are not Gods” (p. 589).
For an excellent critique of social trinitarianism, which has become the dominant evangelical model for the trinity, see Brian Leftow’s “Anti-social Trinitarianism,” in The Trinity, ed. Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendal, and Gerold O’Collins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999). Leftow’s main point is that social trinitarianism “cannot be both orthodox and a version of monotheism” (p. 203). Moreland and Craig argue that anti–social trinitarianism reduces to unitarianism. I agree with both of these criticisms, leaving us with no plausible understanding of the Trinity.
When it comes to the Incarnation, I've discussed it here.
As far as the term "Logos" meaning the 2nd person of the trinity goes, Moreland and Craig used it this way in their book Philosophical Foundations.
When it comes to the statement "Jesus is God" goes, most theologians typically describe Jesus as participating in the divine nature, but to say "Jesus is God" is not something they want to say since the term "God" describes something larger than Jesus himself.
--------------------------------
Dr. White claims: "I haven't ever publicly commented on John Loftus before..." But that is simply not true. Other posts relating to James White can be found here, and here.
35 comments:
James White has a book on the Trinity. It's mostly a biblical defense of the doctrine. I haven't thought about this a whole lot since leaving Christianity, but I'm wondering if Christians even know what they are saying. Early in the book White defines the Trinity. Something like "One God, Three Persons, eternal, etc". But here's the problem. What do you mean when you say "person"? Do you mean what we normally mean? Because for us a person has a will and emotion. He rationally deliberates. Does God have three will's? I don't think so. So what are you saying?
White says that we can't confuse "person" in the ordinary limited finite human sense with "person" as applied to God. God is entirely unique, so when we apply words to something that we really can't conceive we have to understand the limitations. It's kind of an admission that we really don't know what we're saying when we say God is three persons.
It's kind of like saying "God is very grectful, and you need to believe in God's grectfulness to be saved." So what does grectfullness mean? Dunno. It's just something you have to believe in.
Here's my theory. Just kicking this around, but I'd be interested in any thoughts. The Bible teaches that God is one and further teaches that Jesus and the Father are God as well. Looks like a contradiction. So the Christian affirms that God is one while driving in a meaningless distinction into the godhead so that he can say the Bible isn't contradictory. God is three "persons". What's that mean? Nobody knows. But it just means we can say that God is three in some sense so that the Bible is regarded as truthful.
jon, that's one of the reasons I asked White if he understands what he believes. Using words like "person" or "hypostatic union" without a precise definition of them means nothing.
Neither do I think the NT Testament says Jesus is God, either.
John Loftus
I think the New Testament, does call Jesus God. Of course in John 1:1 also in the declaration by Thomas. I think there is implicit statements. Consider this in:
JOHN 12:40-41
"He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, so that they might not perceive with their eyes, and understand with their mind and turn, and I would heal them."
Actually, this is cross referenced to Isaiah 6:10
make their ears dull
and close their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts,
and turn and be healed."
John:12-41
41These things Isaiah said because he saw His glory, and he spoke of Him.
Isiah 6:3
"Holy, Holy, Holy, is the LORD of hosts,
The whole earth is full of His glory."
It is inescapable, Isiah saw the Glory of God,which to the writer of Johns gospel was Jesus' glory.
dvd, the gospel of John is not a reliable one when it comes to telling us anything that Jesus said. John's Jesus speaks in long discourses but in the earlier synoptic gospels he speaks in proverbs and parables. John's Jesus doesn't say anything about the kingdom of God. John's Jesus includes the great "I AM's" but if Jesus really spoke them it's nearly impossible to explain why we never see these statements in the earlier gospels. In John we find Jesus' disciples "fearing the Jews," but since they were themselves Jews how can Jews fear the Jews?
John Loftus
Thank you for your reply. Regarding the gospel of John, it could be that he made a distinction between religious Jews who were traditionally known as 'Jews' as a opposed to Christian Jews for the audience that John spoke to. But let us put aside John then.
My own personal belief on this, is that we can't divorce the culture of the day from the texts we are reading. Let me illustrate.
In Acts 7:54-60 we see something very interesting. Now before I continue it is important to note that, the Jews were already "furious" with Stephen. See verse 54. But, something made them 'go over the edge and cover their ears'
56 and he said, "Behold, I see the heavens opened up and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God."
57 But they cried out with a loud voice, and covered their ears and rushed at him with one impulse.
...This statement, about being "at the right hand/side of God", caused the Jews to react in such a way that it must have meant something.
Now, consider the response in Mark 14:62
And Jesus said, "I am; and you shall see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING WITH THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN."
notice the Jewish response.
:63 Tearing his clothes, the high priest said, "What further need do we have of witnesses?
:64 "You have heard the blasphemy; how does it seem to you?" And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death.
Also the story of Jesus calming the storm, has a direct parallel to this Psalm
Psalm 107
28 Then they cried to the LORD in their trouble,
And He brought them out of their distresses.
29 caused the storm to be still,
So that the waves of the sea were hushed.
30 Then they were glad because they were quiet,
So He guided them to their desired haven.
31 Let them give thanks to the LORD for His lovingkindness,
And for His (AR)wonders to the sons of men!
Mark 4:35-40
39 He got up, rebuked the wind and said to the waves, "Quiet! Be still!" Then the wind died down and it was completely calm.
40 He said to his disciples, "Why are you so afraid? Do you still have no faith?"
I think it safe to say the writer had in mind the Lord in the story of the Psalms, at least it is reasonable to conclude that.
But there are also weird mysterious passages in the Old Testament.
Consider:
The plains of Mamre and the 3 visitors.
NAS
Genesis 19:24
hen the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven,
New World Translation (Jehovah Witness version)
24 Then Jehovah made it rain sulphur and fire from Jehovah, from the heavens, upon Sod´om and upon Go·mor´rah.
"Jehovah from Jehovah".
Amos 4:11
NAS
"I overthrew you, as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah, And you were like a firebrand snatched from a blaze; Yet you have not returned to Me," declares the LORD.
New World Translation
11 “‘I caused an overthrow among YOU people, like God’s overthrow of Sod´om and Go·mor´rah. And YOU came to be like a log snatched out of [the] burning; but YOU did not come back to me,’ is the utterance of Jehovah.
Zechariah 2:8
NAS
For thus says the LORD of hosts, "After glory He has sent me against the nations which plunder you, for he who touches you, touches the apple of His eye.
New World Translation
Zechariah 2:1-13
8 For this is what Jehovah of armies has said, ‘Following after [the] glory he has sent me to the nations that were despoiling YOU people; for he that is touching YOU is touching my eyeball.
Verse 10-11 are telling (new world)
Whomever is "COMING" has also been "SENT", but is also known as JEHOVAH...
10 “Cry out loudly and rejoice, O daughter of Zion; for here I am coming, and I will reside in the midst of you,” is the utterance of Jehovah. 11 “And many nations will certainly become joined to Jehovah in that day, and they will actually become my people; and I will reside in the midst of you.” And you will have to know that Jehovah of armies himself has sent me to you.
As a recent former Christian, I actually find this discussion absurd at this point. I, too, attended Bible College (theology) and also graduated with a Master's in counseling degree from a seminary . “Elitist Christians" (aka theologians) all know that their doctrinal beliefs are the perfect interpretation and perfect beliefs, and even the slightest derivation from their perfect doctrine proves that the person holding the faulty belief is a blind to the truth and needs to ask God to…. Blah, blah, blah…
I personally think that attacking particular doctrines is a weak method of opening up Christians eyes to the truth. I realize that there is no single smoking gun that will win everyone over, but I think some research needs to be collected on what were the most compelling arguments. Personally, I first started to realize that I was deluding myself about the “efficacy” of prayer. Growing up with the great stories and even adding some deluded nonsense of my own, I really believed that prayer could change outcomes (more than a placebo effect). For whatever reason, I finally decided to be honest with myself about prayer and research it. I soon realized that nothing I prayed for had changed anymore than random chances or statistical variance could already account for.
At any rate, the point I am making is that maybe a small questionnaire could be put together from ex-Christians, now atheists, on what was the most compelling argument that changed their minds.
So for me, the top three things that changed my mind are:
1. The powerlessness of all prayer
2. The absurdity of creationism in light of the evidence for evolution
3. The horribleness of the OT God
So what you mean is you don't think the NT says Jesus is God outside of the unreliable book of John. Saying John is not Mark, Matthew, or Luke is not demonstrating unreliability. Also, you pointed out that John’s audience consisted of mainly Greeks and that his writing style reflects the cultural framework therein. I still see no evidence of John’s gospel being unreliable. (see my upcoming post in response to Harry McCall’s logos assertions for more on this).
What about when Paul painstakingly uses kyrios (translated Lord) to reference Jesus over and over again? In the LXX this word is used 6000 times to refer to God (see Dictionary of NT Theology) Its annoying how careful he is never to say Jesus is the Father (theos, translated God); thus avoiding the error of Sabellianism...but at the same time ascribing every aspect of deity to Jesus. (See Philippians 2:6 for what Paul thought of Jesus).
Its pretty clear Paul is up to something. I guess Paul is unreliable too because he was probably corrupting the gospel with Hellenistic philosophy :)
Regarding the “I AM” argument, I guess since you didn’t mention you were an atheist in this particular blog article…I shouldn’t believe you are an atheist. Even though others refer to you as an atheist on this blog, and other articles supposedly authored by you admit atheism…I’m not convinced.
Regarding the Jews fearing the Jews...Are you talking about John 7?
Is it possible that the word for “Jews” has a wider semantic range than simply the entire ethnic population of Judea? Could it be used to reference a particular group of Jews that the original audience would have easily recognized (Pharisees, Sanhedrin, etc…)? I think this is textually warranted. Otherwise we would have to assume that the whole nation had it out for Jesus.
Ty, for me it was the ethics issue. I grew up hearing people who did good works labeled 'good Christians' - and yet I knew Christians who were living secret sinful lives and non-religoius people who were volunteering and kind and caring and giving and never expected anything in return. It was an ethics issue as I learned about Native American spiritualities and how that caused them the treat the environment more ethically than the 'have dominion' Christian mindset. It was how zealous Christians treat gays. It was the basic weirdness of the 10 Commandments with the treating cursing the same as killing the redundancy of the covetting part. What a looney rulebook that was to me! And it left our all sorts of serious stuff like beating your wife. And while we are going there, Christianity seemed to support a lot of gender bias with men having more rights than women. In short, when ethiics and morality are boiled down, evolution explains it better than Christianity or any other religion.
The prayer studies that showed that the people who knew they were being prayed for did worst also got to me. If prayer was not helping, and knowing you were being prayed for made you apathetic or made you fight for your own health less vigorously, such that knowing you were being prayed for made it WORSE for you, well, how COULD there be a God who would let that happen?
Also, actually reading the Bible, ALL of it, not just the parts they want you to read in bible study, the part they can easily explain, but ALL of it lead me to a lot of serious questions.
"1. The powerlessness of all prayer
2. The absurdity of creationism in light of the evidence for evolution
3. The horribleness of the OT God"
This is right on. All 3 of these were reasons for my deconversion.
My first wife died from a liver ailment which I was sure would never happen given the promises of healing found in the Bible.
My college studies opened up a whole new world of learning about the world that contradicted the Biblical accounts of creation and the flood. Science explained it better and offered proof to it's claims.
But these could be adjusted for by more liberal interpretations of the scripture. The thing that got me was the condemning way that I was treated when I went through marital problems due to my wife's sickness. She didn't want to die without having lived a little so she left me when it was clear God would not heal her. I was shunned.
In the eyes of my church it was probably because God was unhappy with me and he was not blessing me. Such uncaring condemnation did not set well with me and I had to examine from an outsider’s perspective (I had been placed outside the camp by my fellow Christians) what God's love really looked like. Seeing it as it really was made the biggest impression on me and I could at last let it all go.
I have a hunch that some of the most ardent followers of Christ on this blog believe because everything is going well with them. Why doubt? However, when things go south and the crap hits the fan then that's when they will begin to see belief for what it really is. I think this is more powerful than reason. Christianity is mainly an emotional thing. When hard times come, if they do, then that's when God's intervention in your behalf is exposed as a lie and the judgmental nature of the flock just is that extra push that drives people away from their faith. I've heard it often happening this way and it was my experience.
The first time someone told me that Jesus and Yahweh are supposed to be one and the same, I thought: "WTF!? Then who was Jesus talking to on Olive Mountain and on the cross?" I wouldn't be surprised if the understanding of Jesus and Yahweh as separate persons (in the ordinary sense) is quite common for readers of the NT that haven't already been exposed to other interpretations. On fact, I still don't think it makes any sense to view Jesus and Yahweh as one.
"James White has a book on the Trinity. It's mostly a biblical defense of the doctrine. I haven't thought about this a whole lot since leaving Christianity, but I'm wondering if Christians even know what they are saying. Early in the book White defines the Trinity. Something like "One God, Three Persons, eternal, etc". But here's the problem. What do you mean when you say "person"? Do you mean what we normally mean? Because for us a person has a will and emotion. He rationally deliberates. Does God have three will's? I don't think so. So what are you saying?"
At best the concept of the Trinity is unitelligible and at worst contradictory.
Mr. Loftus,
I've replied to your post on my blog.
Why is it that when someone comes up with something complex, mind boggling or incomprehensible in science everyone nods and takes it for granted that there are some things in life beyond our understanding. Obvious examples being things like quantum mechanics. Yet when a theologian comes up with an equivalent, such as the trinity, people treat it differently. If someone believed in a God that you could put nicely into a box and fully understand then I'd question whether they'd invented their God.
Jesus claims divinity outside of John's gospel. Look at Mark (the earliest Gospel) 2:6 "Now some of the teachers of the Law were sitting there thinking to themselves, 'why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?' Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this is what they were thinking in their hearts and said to them, "why are you thinking these things?...you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins." So Jesus forgave sins when he knew that only God can do that. Interestingly, the earliest passages of the Bible are the early church creeds that Paul quotes and these emphasise Jesus' divinity more than anything else. For example Philipians 2:5: "Your attitude should be that of Christ Jesus: Who being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped." Seeing as friends and family of Jesus were in the early church surely they would have corrected Paul if Jesus never made such claims.
John, I just want to say first that this is awesome having an outlet to express some of my hidden thoughts and beliefs since giving up Christianity. I say hidden because knowledge of my de-conversion would actually place a considerable amount of stress on my family. Secondly, I never obeyed the commands of evangelizing as a Christian very well, why would I as an atheist?
To my point, many critics keep coming back to the "perfectness" of their own doctrinal interpretations in order so that they can say basically this: "John is wrong because if he actually understood my...err...God's doctrine, he would see the error in his ways. So much for the idea that God made salvation simple, so simple that a child could believe and be saved. Yet, your bad theology must have prevented you from ever being saved, thus God allowed you to be devoured by your own evil thoughts. I was raised in an evangelical Christian home. I attended church three nights a week. I went to Bible College (theology) and Seminary (not a theology degree). I devoted my life to God's will and his service as best I could. I relied on Grace (Eph 2:8,9) and Salvation (Rom 10:9,10). So, apparently, these were the wrong methods of finding God's favor... ahhh hah. No wonder God rejected me and my eyes remained closed.
I find Christians disingenuous on their interpretation arguments. If God's theology is so complex that only those who have a thorough masterly of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek can truly understand, then why, dear Christian, haven't you thoroughly mastered these languages. If God has rejected John and myself because of our lack of knowledge, then what hope does any Christian hold. I spent the first 25 years of my life wholly devoted to God, yet the more knowledge I obtained, the more I realized that God didn't exist. At age 25, after graduating from Bible College and a Seminary, is when I finally began to realize that my belief system was messed up. At first, I just adopted a liberal Christian mindset that allowed for evidence to be incorporated into my Christian beliefs. For example, I became a theistic evolutionist and I started taking the Bible as God's figurative and metaphorical word, rather than His literal word. But slowly over time, I became more open to the truth, I became willing to thoroughly analyze the "dark side." I started reading works by Dawkins, Hawkings, Sagan, and others. I wish I would have known about this site sooner, as it would have speed up my de-conversion process. I did not become an atheist until I was 31 years-old. Now, at 32, I hope to do something constructive with my life that actually leads people to freedom. Since graduating from Seminary, I have went on to complete a PhD in Psychology. I would like to utilize my skills and knowledge as a psychologist to help others with similar struggles as well. Again, I am not going to evangelize or attempt to convert the happy faithful. I just want to help the millions of unhappy believers who are questioning their faith to find freedom.
James you seem confused by something when you say:
Why is it that when someone comes up with something complex, mind boggling or incomprehensible in science everyone nods and takes it for granted that there are some things in life beyond our understanding.
This is simply not the case. I will point to the theory of common descent by means of natural selection as the single best evidence of this. Not only do huge numbers of people not accept it, it is a very easy concept to understand, and is intuitively graspable by young children. So your premise is flawed and any conclusions drawn from it are also therefore flawed. The ultimate irony of course is that most of the people who don't accept the biological explanations for speciation also accept the trinity. 'Nuff said.
Then you say:
Obvious examples being things like quantum mechanics. Yet when a theologian comes up with an equivalent, such as the trinity, people treat it differently.
Here's why.
Quantum mechanics is described by equations that make predictions. Those predictions are universally accurate to extremely fine measurements.
The doctrine of the trinity makes predictions (prayers will be answered, God will heal the sick with the Holy Spirit, Jesus can show himself to you at any time). All of those predictions are easily proven false by every day life.
Hope that helps.
Finally you say:
If someone believed in a God that you could put nicely into a box and fully understand then I'd question whether they'd invented their God.
The first part of your statement is superfluous. If anyone believes in any God you must admit that the differences among people lead to the inescapable conclusion that there must be small differences in their conception of that God, correct?
Even your friends have a different conception of you in some ways than you do of yourself, as routine social faux pas and the like prove. So it follows that if God does not routinely reify himself in any method other than that of a text, then all people who believe in him are believing in the God of their own imagination, and this is true whether or not you believe there is a God.
So ... I hope a little critical thinking helps clarify the real issues for you.
Good to hear your point of view. I keep hoping for something on this board from a Christian that will make me re-examine my views ... but it just doesn't seem to be out there.
Thank you for your response Evan. Maybe I was making a slightly sweeping statement by using the word 'everyone' however don't atheists ridicule the type of creationist who reject scientific theories because they can't understand them? The important point is whether you, personally, accept things in science which are mind boggling. If it is O.K to reject something simply because you can't understand it then surely you'd give creationism the thumbs up, but I'm willing to bet that you don't
Quantum mechanics is described by equations that make predictions. Those predictions are universally accurate to extremely fine measurements.
But then you need to make your mind up. Do you reject the trinity because you can't understand it or because you believe there is no evidence for it. Otherwise you can say that you don't believe it because it starts with the letter 't' and then when challenged say 'ah, but other stuff I believe in with the letter t has more evidence.' If atheists don't accept the trinity because there is no evidence then why don't they say that? All I'm saying is that the arguments atheists have been making in the posts above are invalid.
The doctrine of the trinity makes predictions (prayers will be answered, God will heal the sick with the Holy Spirit, Jesus can show himself to you at any time). All of those predictions are easily proven false by every day life.
Have they been proven to be false? I think the prayer issue is hard to disprove or prove. When I pray my experience has been that coincidences happen and when I don't pray they don't. Maybe others have had different experiences however this won't get us very far so it might be better to look at other factors.
I think that Christianity does have great explanatory power. Take the question 'why is there cosmos and not chaos?' I think Christianity explains it better than atheism can. I have shown why I think there are historical grounds to assume that Jesus claimed to be more than a man. When we combine that with the evidence for the resurrection, which I'm sure you're familiar with, then I believe that the trinity is the best explanation.
If anyone believes in any God you must admit that the differences among people lead to the inescapable conclusion that there must be small differences in their conception of that God, correct?
I never said that there wasn't, however I'm talking about quite major differences with the trinity. I also think that Christians can be guilty of projecting their own personality onto God (as well as some atheists leading to straw man arguments etc) and so when having discussions like this everyone must be careful to not dismiss God because he isn't a clone of themselves.
Greetings Bible trivia fans:
Regarding the question of the Gospel of John, I find this quote from earlychristianwritings.com and Randal Helms book "Whe Wrote the Gospels" illuninating.
--------------------
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/john.html
Helms adduces evidence that there were divisions over the interpretation of John at an early period, as early as the writing of the epistles 1 John and 2 John. Consider the passages 1 John 2:18-19 and 2 John 7. Helms writes (Who Wrote the Gospels?, p. 163):
Some members of the Johannine community departed, became a rival sect, over the question of the 'flesh' of Jesus Christ, an event that leads the author of I John to the certainty that 'this is the last hour.' We do not know for sure who these secessionists were, but as Raymond Brown notes, they were 'not detectably outsiders to the Johannine community but the offspring of Johannine thought itself, justifying their position by the Johannine Gospel and its implications' (1979, 107). This seems likely, until we reflect on the oddity of people who purportedly deny that 'Jesus Christ came in the flesh' citing a gospel that declares 'the Word became flesh,' and 'whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood possesses eternal life.' Brown's argument founders on his insistence that 'John exactly as we have it' (108, his italics) was the text used by those who left the Johannine community. Brown refuses to 'exclude certain passages from the Fourth Gospel on the grounds that they were probably not in the tradition known to the secessionists but were added by the redactor (either later or as anti-secessionist revision)' (1979, 109). He admits that many accept that John 1:14 - 'The Word became flesh' - was 'added by the redactor as an attack on the opponents of I John' (1979, 109) but continues to write as if there were no revision of the Fourth Gospel.
Helms states, "we need to note that part of the purpose of Irenaeus was to attack the teachings of Cerinthus, a gnostic Christian teacher who lived in Ephesus at the end of the first century" (op. cit., p. 162). Cerinthus was "educated in the wisdom of the Egyptians, taught that the world was not made by a primary God, but by a certain Power far separated from him...Moreover, after [Jesus'] baptism, Christ descended upon him in the form of a dove from the Supreme Ruler, and that then he proclaimed the unknown Father, and performed miracles. But at last Christ departed from Jesus, and that then Jesus suffered and rose again, while Christ remained impassible, inasmuch as he was a spiritual being" (1.26.1). Irenaeus stated that the purpose of John at Ephesus was as follows:
by the proclamation of the Gospel, to remove that error which by Cerinthus had been disseminated among men, and a long time previously by those termed Nicolaitans, who are an offset of that 'knowledge' [gnosis] falsely so called, that he might confound them, and persuade them that there is but one God, who made all things by His Word; and not, as they allege, that the Creator was one, but the Father and the Lord another; and that the Son of the Creator was, forsooth, one, but the Christ from above another (3.11.1)
Helms argues: "So the gospel attributed, late in the second century, to John at Ephesus was viewed as an anti-gnostic, anti-Cerinthean work. But, very strangely, Epiphanius, in his book against the heretics, argues against those who actually believed that it was Cerinthus himself who wrote the Gospel of John! (Adv. Haer. 51.3.6). How could it be that the Fourth Gospel was at one time in its history regarded as the product of an Egyptian-trained gnostic, and at another time in its history regarded as composed for the very purpose of attacking this same gnostic? I think the answer is plausible that in an early, now-lost version, the Fourth Gospel could well have been read in a Cerinthean, gnostic fashion, but that at Ephesus a revision of it was produced (we now call it the Gospel of John) that put this gospel back into the Christian mainstream."
----------------
This is supportive of Earl Doherty's idea that 1 John, describing the schism in and between the early Johannine faith community, was written first. The Gospel was revised then afterward to allow members of the fleshly Jesus cult to win arguments against the Docetic schismatics.
The important point is whether you, personally, accept things in science which are mind boggling.
No, the important thing is you believe things that have no evidence. I believe things that have evidence. See the critical difference?
Do you reject the trinity because you can't understand it or because you believe there is no evidence for it.
I reject God. So of course I reject the trinity. Obviously due to lack of evidence. That is the crux of they issue, my boy. However, when I am reading a fantasy book, even though I know it didn't ever happen, I can still point out incoherent points in the plot.
For instance, in X-men United, at the end when the dam is breaking, the kid who can freeze water immediately does nothing to freeze the lake behind the dam. That's dumb and makes no sense. Its stupidity is not dependent on the event having actually taken place.
So people can critique the doctrine of the trinity as incoherent on its own terms without accepting that there is any evidence for God in the first place, but you miss an ever bigger critique, that of Islam, which is certainly more than capable of understanding the trinity and yet rejects it while believing Jesus was a prophet of Allah.
Then you ask:
Have they been proven to be false?
Yes. People die every day while praying for God to spare them. People suffer humiliation and torture while praying for God to help them. Prayer to God works no better than prayer to Allah, Shiva, Steve the Ghost, Odin, Zeus, or a bottle of curdled coconut juice.
You could immediately create a sensation by going to Las Vegas, standing at a roulette wheel and praying for God to land the ball on your number and succeeding every time. You could even make that sensation with an error rate of 40%. I bet you can't. The reason? Prayer doesn't work.
I think that Christianity does have great explanatory power. Take the question 'why is there cosmos and not chaos?'
Islam explains it just as well, as does modern science and Hinduism. Sorry, you fail this one.
I think Christianity explains it better than atheism can.
But does it explain it better than animism or Jainism or Buddhism? Personally I think you're wrong, but I wonder if you have explored all the possibilities between Christianity and atheism that exist.
I have shown why I think there are historical grounds to assume that Jesus claimed to be more than a man.
You'd have to show historical grounds that there was a man Jesus first ... but that's another story.
When we combine that with the evidence for the resurrection, which I'm sure you're familiar with, then I believe that the trinity is the best explanation.
Yes, combining nothing (the 'evidence' of the resurrection) with nothing (the 'evidence' there was a Jesus of Nazareth who claimed to be God) leads to nothing (there was no Jesus and there is no God), which is the best explanation.
To wit, that there is no explanation. It is a brute fact that the cosmos exists and you can make up all the imaginary stories you want ... they have no argumentative power.
You go on to admit that Christians worship different, imaginary Gods. So I think we're done here.
james asked evan: "Do you reject the trinity because you can't understand it or because you believe there is no evidence for it."
I, being a bag of hot wind, just have to chime in.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Christianity
"To trinitarian Christians, God the Father is not at all a separate god from God the Son and the Holy Spirit, the other divine persons. Trinitarian Christians describe these three persons as a Trinity. This means that they always exist as three distinct "persons" (Greek hypostases), but they are one God, each having full identity as God himself (a single "substance"), a single "divine nature" and power, and a single "divine will"."
This is absurd nonsense; it is a clear violation of the Law of Identity, A=A. One being, God-a single substance, cannot have three separate minds-centers of consciousness, nor can one being have three separate wills-centers of initiation of action. The doctrine of the Trinity is clearly impossible. However, it is very significant.
Human beings hold knowledge in the form of concepts. Concepts are mental integrations of two or more units which are isolated by a process of abstraction and united by a specific definition. They represent classifications of observed existents according to their relationships to other observed existents.
Humans form concepts by mentally isolating a group of concretes (of distinct perceptual units), on the basis of observed similarities which distinguish them from all other known concretes (similarity is “the relationship between two or more existents which possess the same characteristic(s), but in different measure or degree”); then, by a process of omitting the particular measurements of these concretes, one integrates them into a single new mental unit: the concept, which subsumes all concretes of this kind (a potentially unlimited number). The integration is completed and retained by the selection of a perceptual symbol (a word) to designate it. “A concept is a mental integration of two or more units possessing the same distinguishing characteristic(s), with their particular measurements omitted.
To form a concept, distinct perceptual units must be detected by either sensory perception or the extension of sensory perception via instrumentation. Since the thing james imagines as God cannot be detected by any means of perception or instrumentation, there cannot be any instance of distinct perceptual units of God in james or any other God believer. Thus there cannot be any actual concept of God.
How then do the believers believe in Trinity without a concept of Trinity?
In answer to the question, they simply imagine their God. Belief is defined as: "any cognitive content held as true-a vague idea in which some confidence is placed-confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof". Imagining is defined as "to form a mental image of something not actually present to the senses". From these, it is readily apparent that imagination is the source of god belief.
Invisible magic beings existing in other realms and communicating with people is surely just as vague an idea as it is an idea not susceptible to rigorous proof. God is defined, as an infinite personal being that is transcendent and omnipresent, supernatural, and immaterial. To be a personal being is to be finite, yet God is defined as infinite. To be transcendent is to be non-spatial, lacking dimensions or location and non-temporal, lacking duration. To be omnipresent is to be everywhere. Supernatural means the negation of all that is natural and thus to not be part of nature and to lack any ability to interact with nature. Special Relativity informs us that E=MC^2 and thus matter and energy are equated in proportion to C^2. Immaterial means to be other than material, other than matter or energy. By virtue of self-contradiction, God is certainly vague. But to be infinite is to be everything. God then is defined as a vague contradiction that has no location, no dimensions, no duration, no ability to interact with nature, no mass, and no energy. This is the ontological equivalent of nothingness.
Placing confidence in and assigning truth status to the ontological equivalent of nothingness as a personal being of infinite scope is the ultimate act of accepting something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof. Entirely such an action must take place by forming a mental image of something not actually present to the senses since there is nothing in nature that indicates that such beings as gods might exist or from which a concept of "god" may be formed. From these considerations, it is readily apparent that god belief stems from the subjective imagination.
There is a further consideration. A delusion is defined as: "a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact" and "A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence". To believe in an imaginary being and to absolutely resist reason, evidence, and facts that falsify the belief is to be delusional.
Responding to Evan:
No, the important thing is you believe things that have no evidence.
I agree and have always done so, nor have I ever said that blind faith is a good thing. Maybe there is no evidence for Christianity and you are right (we obviously disagree over this), however pretending that I agree with you is known as creating a straw man argument. I know atheists like to make their job easier by living in an imaginary world where Christian apologetics don't exist and we all agree with the atheists really but you must honestly know that this isn't reality. I'm willing to discuss the evidence for Christianity with people (although doing so would take this discussion off topic) but I'm not going to let you play this game.
However, when I am reading a fantasy book, even though I know it didn't ever happen, I can still point out incoherent points in the plot.
In my original post I pointed out that we accept things like quantum mechanics which are no more incoherent than the doctrine of the trinity. You never addressed that point but changed topic to whether there is evidence for it. I can't help but notice how atheists tend to play the 'give me evidence for Christianity' card when their original topic has been refuted and they need to change topic pronto. We have two issues:
1)If something is incoherent then should we reject it (in which case we'd reject quantum mechanics)
2)Is there evidence for God?
We'll go around in circles if whenever I address issue 1 you change subject to issue 2 and when I address issue 2 you change back to issue 1.
Yes. People die every day while praying for God to spare them
Prayer is not like a slot machine where you put your money in and out come the goodies. The one certainty in life is that we all die and of course that is very compatible with Christianity.
Prayer to God works no better than prayer to Allah, Shiva, Steve the Ghost, Odin, Zeus, or a bottle of curdled coconut juice.
That's just an assertion backed up by no evidence based on a simplistic understanding of how prayer works.
You could immediately create a sensation by going to Las Vegas, standing at a roulette wheel and praying for God to land the ball on your number and succeeding every time
Why would God want to encourage gambling and let you win at roulette?
Islam explains it just as well, as does modern science and Hinduism. Sorry, you fail this one.
I take it that you hold the view modern science answers the question, but does it? Explosions normally leave chaos and debris, not fully functioning universes. Can you give me a scientific explanation of why the big bang was different?
You'd have to show historical grounds that there was a man Jesus first ... but that's another story
Name me one contemporary historian who thinks that Jesus never existed. The fact that Tacitus and Josephus etc mention Jesus is enough alone to establish he existed before we bring in the abundance of Christian texts. If you are to go down that road then we might as well dismiss most of the people in our ancient history books.
Yes, combining nothing (the 'evidence' of the resurrection) with nothing (the 'evidence' there was a Jesus of Nazareth who claimed to be God) leads to nothing (there was no Jesus and there is no God), which is the best explanation.
Well obviously I believe that there is evidence for those things. As you have carefully ignored the evidence I presented in my original post regarding whether Jesus claimed to be God incarnate you seem to be playing the tactic of wilful ignorance.
I've noticed that rather than addressing my augment you've used the favourite atheist technique of bringing up several unrelated points (does prayer work, evidence for Christianity etc that have nothing to do with the trinity) then when I don't spend hours writing a several thousand word response claim victory.
Responding to Robert_B:
First of all, thank you for staying on topic and talking about the trinity.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/
Why don't you try getting your information from somewhere slightly more credible than Wikipedia?
This is absurd nonsense; it is a clear violation of the Law of Identity, A=A. One being, God-a single substance, cannot have three separate minds-centers of consciousness
You would need to show that each centre of conciousness is mutually exclusive to the others, otherwise why can't something have three centres of conciousness?
Humans form concepts by mentally isolating a group of concretes
But not everything we form concepts about are concretes. For example, we have concepts of love even though it isn't concrete.
Since the thing james imagines as God cannot be detected by any means of perception or instrumentation
There are things that we can perceive but a dog can't and things that a dog can perceive but an ant can't. Maybe there exists somethings we can't fully comprehend or perceive but still exist. We can perceive God enough to have a loving relationship with him just as we can perceive the universe enough to live in it.
How then do the believers believe in Trinity without a concept of Trinity?
By having a partial concept. How can scientists study the universe if they don't have a full concept of it?
God then is defined as a vague contradiction that has no location, no dimensions, no duration, no ability to interact with nature, no mass, and no energy.
Think of it like this. If time and space were created in the Big Bang then whatever caused the big bang (in my case God) must exist outside of time (no duration) and space (thus no dimensions, mass or energy). As it caused the big bang then logically it must be able to interact with nature as creating nature is an interaction. Now tell me, what caused the big bang and why doesn't it have these properties?
"A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence"
Maybe atheism is a delusion then :p
Robert_B:
"This is absurd nonsense; it is a clear violation of the Law of Identity, A=A."
I am not a philosophy geek, but I think I can clarify the doctrine a bit:
1. Christianity asserts the existence of a Triune God
2. The Father is (Triune) God
3. The Son is (Triune) God
4. The Son is not the Father
The above would be incorrect if "the Father is God" were an identity statement, which it is not. God is a Trinity, therefore one person (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) cannot be said to be God in the sense of identify, A=A.
This is where language is tricky. What is really being said is more analagous to "Caesar is king". In other words, the Son posesses exhaustively the properties of divinity or "God-ness".
I hope that helps clarify. Perhaps this picture may
illustrate I'm chuckling because John and Harry are probably rolling their eyes and having seminary flashbacks, sorry! :)
"One being, God-a single substance, cannot have three separate minds-centers of consciousness, nor can one being have three separate wills-centers of initiation of action."
Haha well if I was a William Lane Craig disciple I would explain how Cerberus is an example of a tri-conscious being...but I am honestly not knowledgeable about all the philosophical argumentation regarding the Trinity.
I learned an interesting fact when researching the history of the Trinity: Apparently the word person, derived from latin persona was actually invented by Tertullian in an attempt to explain the Trinity. Talk about semantic problems when you have words created to conceptualize!
Anyhow, cheers and I still want to know if you're libretarianBob! ;)
I am relishing the fact that to try to show the validity of one mythological concept, the trinity, someone has brought up as an example another myth -- Cerberus.
Is it yours and Dr. Craig's position that Cerberus is real? After all, he is multiply attested by several independent ancient histories ... so he's like Jesus in that respect.
James:
The fact is that your arguments have been devastated and the only one who can't see it is you.
First you say that when something complex happened in science everyone would agree it was true. I disproved that and you acted as if it never happened.
Then you suggested that quantum mechanics was as incoherent as the trinity, I disproved that and you acted as if it never happened.
Then you suggested that God couldn't be imagined ... and I showed you that he can only be imagined and you agreed and are now acting like it never happened.
All the initial arguments in your first post are lying in tatters and you are like the Black Knight running around threatening to bleed all over me.
Have fun with that.
Evan, I think that you have a different view of this discussion. My point was that scientists don't dismiss things when they get complex and yet you clearly don't extend the generosity to theologians. Simply pointing out that some creationists expect all science to be nursery school level as if creationism is the golden standard of critical thinking is hardly shattering.
Next you have not shown that quantum mechanics is less incoherent. The amount of evidence for something is not the same as its coherency. You seem to be confusing the two.
and I showed you that he can only be imagined and you agreed and are now acting like it never happened.
That's because you haven't nor did I ever agree with you. You might as well say 'oh, I view that tree over there slightly differently to you so that tree doesn't exist.' I might agree with the claim that I view the tree differently to you but to then take that and triumphantly go around saying that I agree that the tree doesn't exist would be dishonest.
Finally saying that there is no evidence Jesus claimed to be God incarnate rather than addressing the evidence I gave (which made up over half my original post) is hardly debunking.
All the initial arguments in your first post are lying in tatters and you are like the Black Knight running around threatening to bleed all over me.
I'll let other people reading this thread be the judge of that. All you seem to have done is construct a massive smoke screen. I don't think there is much point in us discussing this further if all you're going to do is invent arguments I never made, ignore most of the ones I have, claim I agree with you when I clearly don't and then sidetrack us.
I love this.
Loftus: Neither do I think the NT teaches the divinity of Christ.
DVD: These parts do.
Loftus: Those aren't REALLY part of the Bible.
DC Lemmings: Yeah, yeah, yeah, John is suspect!!!!!!!
That's brilliant argumentation. Keep laying the smack down on Christianity, John.
1)If something is incoherent then should we reject it (in which case we'd reject quantum mechanics)
Quantum mechanics is NOT incoherent; it is unintuitive. There is no logical contradiction in quantum mechanics. Yes, it is complicated. Yes, it is unintuitive. However, at no point does it violate the precepts of logic, unlike the assertion that 3=1 that is implicit in any monotheistic religion involving three separate gods.
The complaint against most trinitarianistic interpretations is this simple logical conundrum; no matter what special pleading you use, if you insist that God is both one God and three gods, you are being illogical. David escapes this conundrum by abondoning monotheism; nowhere in his defense does he attack the longstanding doctrine that there is one and only one God, instead just saying that both the Son and the Father are God, and they are separate from each other. This would make two Gods by any count. A Cerebus model just plays with the idea of person; God is three consciousnesses linked together in some way (although obviously not physically, as in Cerebus). This does not separate the fact that they are still three distinct beings, again rendering monotheism false. No matter how many twists, turns, fancy words and theological dodges you employ, until you can balance the equation 3=1 you have failed.
Evan said:
Is it yours and Dr. Craig's position that Cerberus is real? After all, he is multiply attested by several independent ancient histories ... so he's like Jesus in that respect.
1. My position is it is a limited analogy to help describe tri-consciousness in a single being.
2. WLC's position is probably easily located in his Intro to Christian Philosophy
3. Please cite independent ancient histories that attest the historical existence of Cereberus.
David you say:
1. My position is it is a limited analogy to help describe tri-consciousness in a single being.
Yep. That's what makes it so funny. To explain a myth, you use another myth. Neither one exists. The trinity is as factual as Cerberus (please not the spelling it's not that hard to get right).
2. WLC's position is probably easily located in his Intro to Christian Philosophy
I'm sure it is. Did you happen to see if he thinks Cerberus is real in there?
3. Please cite independent ancient histories that attest the historical existence of Cereberus.
Going backwards: 1. Dante "The Inferno" 2. Vergil "The Aeneid" 3. Hesiod "The Theogony"
Now you may claim that these are not histories. They are easily as historically accurate as the Bible, if not more so since they contain as much that is verifiable as the Bible does.
If you claim that the Bible is a history however, these are all equally historical and worthy of the same respect by you.
Therefore, under your rules of evidence, Cerberus probably does exist. After all, multiple authors over the course of over a millenium attest to his existence using eyewitness testimony. Can't beat that.
Evan,
I generally enjoy reading your material, and respect your thinking; however the name calling and use of rhetorical devices are indicative of your inability to engage meaningfully with the discussion at hand. There are some of "us Christians" who show respect to you and spend time researching and clarifyin issues. Why not return my level of respect? If someone yells at you, sure yell back...but why degrade the conversation to that level unecessarily? Just a thought.
I don't think one can honestly measure the Bible’s historical veracity to be on par with the works you cited. No historian would accept that criteria as the sole metric for historicity; at least none that I've read.
“Equally historical”…I refuse to take you seriously until you provide more clarification. I certainly dislike how you categorize me with, “under your rules of evidence.” Where is the debate on the resurrection happening? We're not having that discussion at the moment…red herring.
Yes I made a typo; nevermind the two folks on this blog who misspell Kittel consistently…whatever scores you points and makes you feel good about the encounter I guess. Actually I’m on a business trip and this laptop is horrible for typing…which is why I refuse to spend another second engaging you if you are merely going to toss insults and refuse to be intellectually honest.
Shygetz said:
However, at no point does it violate the precepts of logic, unlike the assertion that 3=1 that is implicit in any monotheistic religion involving three separate gods.
Thanks for demonstrating that you don't understand the doctrine of the Trinity. Please see my post on the original "Bizarre Beliefs" page for a description of it, or I can recommend several books on the subject. No one is asserting 3=1.
David escapes this conundrum by abondoning monotheism; nowhere in his defense does he attack the longstanding doctrine that there is one and only one God, instead just saying that both the Son and the Father are God, and they are separate from each other. This would make two Gods by any count.
Wow I really can't stress how much I want you study the doctrine before you critique it. The doctrine of the Trinity is monotheistic....but it is not Unitarian. There is one being called God who is 3 persons. Why would I attack monotheism since I'm a monotheist (Trinitarianism and tritheism are two seperate things)?
A Cerebus [sic for Evan's sake] model just plays with the idea of person; God is three consciousnesses linked together in some way (although obviously not physically, as in Cerebus). This does not separate the fact that they are still three distinct beings, again rendering monotheism false.
I'm sure you've done tons of research before making this statement. Perhaps do a word study on "ousia". (hint: maybe defend your assertion that Cereberus [I corrected mine too!] is three beings).
“Equally historical”…I refuse to take you seriously until you provide more clarification.
Dante talks about going to heaven by walking to it from a spot on earth. The Bible does the same in the tower of Babel story, the Jacob's ladder story, and Jesus' ascension.
Vergil talks about going to heaven on wings. The Bible does the same.
Hesiod has his gods take the shape of other beings. The Bible does the same.
All of the books mentioned discuss people rising from the dead.
All of the books mentioned have gods performing miracles.
So if you accept the stories of one of those books as a history, you have no reason not to accept them all.
Me -- I discount stories of miracles because they have never been observed under situations in which it would be impossible to fake them. I discount stories that include talking animals, or gods appearing to human beings, or stories which include people rising from the dead.
I discount them all as myths.
You ... you have to give me a reason why Jesus and his trinity are real and Cerberus and his trinity are not, since the quality of the evidence for both is similar.
Evan:
The word "heaven" has a wide semantic domain...I haven't studied the Babel passages enough to know the particulars but I will look up the word usage when I get more time. In short, its never safe to assume heaven = God's dwelling place.
I disagree that a surface level comparison of improbable events in two pieces of literature can really lead us to any conclusions (that weren't already present beforehand). Lots of writings contain improbable events, and the notion that I should accept all or none of them precludes any meaningful historical analysis and is a false dichotomy.
See Craig Blomberg "The Historical Reliability of the New Testament."
He's not quite a fundy, but he's not a full-blown lefty either..pretty balanced scholar I think. :)
Also just as an aside:
A piece of literature's genre dictates the approach to interpretation. The Bible does not sit in a single genre.
The real issue for me is consistency, and I'm not convinced by anyone's arguments that the Bible contains a contradiction. The lack of interaction with the original languages causes massive fallacious argumentation that results in things like the "Annotated Skeptics Bible", which both liberal and conservative scholars alike have chuckled at in my experience.
You ... you have to give me a reason why Jesus and his trinity are real and Cerberus and his trinity are not, since the quality of the evidence for both is similar.
Again I agree with James that we tend to go in a circle in these discussions. My purpose here is to destroy straw men and make sure if you're going to debunk my faith...you at least do it accurately and consistently.
Whether or not you believe in the existence of god(s), the historical evidence for the resurrection, the veracity of the Bible, the coherence of the Trinity...I don't think I'm going to change any that given your current worldview. By definition you preclude the existence of the supernatural.
A piece of literature's genre dictates the approach to interpretation. The Bible does not sit in a single genre.
Actually it does. That genre is myth.
Are you saying that Jacob saw a ladder leading to heaven with people climbing it and that wasn't where God lived? Up a ladder?
Are you saying Jesus went up into the sky and poofed at 3000M altitude?
Come on.
It's a fairy story. It's like Hansel and Gretel.
Guess how you know that?
There are talking animals in the Bible.
Talking animals like in a children's picture book.
How that defines something as a myth is easy to see, since the only talking animals are birds. Donkeys don't talk. Serpents don't talk.
David, I have a fair amount of knowledge in theology, having grown up in a Christian church and my undergraduate degree is in Theology. While I agree with you that the Skeptics Annotated Bible has much to chuckle at, there are many legitimate criticisms contained as well. Genre or not, Christians claim the Bible to be the perfect word of God without error. Yet, every error is explained away as "you aren't sophisticated enough to understand or interpret correctly." Yet, the Bible is supposed to be God's "simple" message to everyone so that they might believe and have eternal life, thus avoiding hell? You, nor anyone else, has ever witnessed a supernatural event, nor can one be reproduced. If supernatural events could be produced, I would believe in God. I would gladly pay a $1000 to witness a real supernatural event, which is chump change since there is an organization (see last issue of Skeptics magazine) offering $1 million to any individual able to demonstrate a supernatural event. They have been offering the million for nearly 10 years! So, God quit doing supernatural, or he refuses to allow proof of supernatural events to be known, yet he provided the Bible so that he could be known? The Bible: a collection of supernatural stories spanning for more than a 1000 years--the medium God chose to reveal himself? So, God wants you to believe in him, but you aren't allowed to have any proof because that somehow spoils it? Wait, you can't have any other proof, Except for the Bible, but he made it really shitty so that it wouldn't really be proof and spoil it somehow. God is attributed with genocide many times over in the OT(Flood, Sodom & Gomorra, etc). . He is also accused of ordering genocide to be committed in his name. He's constantly killing people in the past, and even wanted to kill Moses for not having his son circumcised, or for Mosses' disobedience in any case. Though shall not kill, unless God tells you to?! He, the creator of all things (both seen and unseen), has created viruses and bacteria. So, even today he continues to kill millions of people, millions who are completely innocent by his standards because they are infants. He creates people who are genetically homosexuals and then sends them to hell for being how he created them. Nearly one in 2000 people have both male and female DNA, or the DNA of the opposite sex that they physically show. I realize 1 in 2000 isn't a lot, but it is still millions of people worldwide. So, if a person with male DNA, but has female anatomy decides to marry a man, then technically, that person and the person they marry are homosexuals and going to hell. I'm just illustrating the absurdity of the Bible and how poor a medium it is for God to communicate with us. God never changes, yet he repents in the Bible and even said, "I did not know how evil man would be." People rationalize all kinds of nonsense away, but in end you are left with this: If you believe there is anything supernatural, then provide proof. The fact is you nor can anyone demonstrate anything supernatural. The burden of proof is not on the atheist, it is on the believer. Fortunately atheists, working with and without believers, have exhaustively tried to reproduce supernatural events. "God answers prayer." I've wasted years of my life on that belief, and I'm not going to let my children waste years of theirs for something that is proven time and again to produce no results or even bad results. Some studies give it a placebo effect, but I can give my children a placebo to achieve that too. So, I think there is a lot of merit to the Skeptics Annotated Bible! It helped set me free from the bondage of Christianity and the lies contained in the Bible.
Let me finish with what God hates. Many of these have caused him to commit mass murder on a regular basis in the OT:
1. God hates what you do, just not you (unless youre on of the people below). He killed his son because of your sin.
2. God hates women who don't submit to men or who hold a man's position in church.
3. God hates people who worship other gods, he's jealous. God commits genocide all throughout the OT for this.
4. God hates people who don't tithe. God says this is breaking one of the Ten Commandments and killed Annanias and Saphira for lying about this.
5. God hates gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. God sends them to hell for this.
6. God hates idolators and graven images. Moses had 3000 people killed for this just after the 1st 10 commandments were given.
7. God even hates people who taken communion wrongly, "That's why many of you are dead (asleep)" How come no one dies now for breaking this one. I will happily risk my life and take communion to test this theory of Paul's out.
Ty
Post a Comment