Stupid is As Stupid Does: Defending the Faith Makes a Person Stupid
When it comes to defending the faith even PhD's show they are ignorant. I'm not joking either and it should be obvious to see. I previously endorsed Richard Dawkins' column on Pat Robertson's comments about the Haitian disaster. Then comes Glenn Peoples who said of me:
Glenn said: “The idea that whenever something bad happens to a person or to a group it is the result of a wicked thing previously done by that person or group is not one that you can find in the work of any major Christian theologian in history, as far as I am aware.”
John Calvin? Reformed theologians? Come on now. Become informed.
Glenn said: “For that matter, it is not taught in the Bible either.”
Luke chapter 13 verses 1-5 merely has Jesus saying that everyone deserves what happens to them, it’s just some people don’t get what they deserve.
Glenn, exegete Isaiah 45:7 for us (NIV):
I find defenders of the faith to be dishonest with the facts or ignorant, or both.
At best a fair exposition of the history of Christian theology and the Bible would produce a mixed bag because theology and the Bible are a mixed bag of ideas.
Besides, all Glenn has to do is answer one question: "According to Christian theology and the Bible did the Haitians deserve what has happened to them?" Yes or no? Gerrymander around this question all you want to Glenn, but until you address it forthrightly and honestly I cannot consider you to be honest with the facts of theology. Ignorant or dishonest? You choose.
Christians like Peoples want it both ways. On the one hand when disaster strikes God is not in control, chance is. But then they turn right around and claim God is sovereign over the events in their lives. Which is it? Well, it depends on what is most convenient, doesn't it? Why the double standard? Because they have a faith to defend, that's why! And this makes them stupid.
Oh, and by the way, do not dare to call me stupid again.
What’s amazing is that even some people who actually know better because they have a theological education behind them – are willing to give Dawkins’ claims here the thumbs up. It’s not coincidence, I’m sure, that the person who does this (John Loftus) also holds Dawkins’ prejudices against Christianity. The message that Dawkins (and Loftus) is sending is very simple: If Christianity is the target, then it doesn’t matter how stupid my arguments are, because the cause is a just one. Link.Glenn is purposely being ignorant here. My claim is that defending the Christian faith makes a person stupid much like what Cole said earlier: "I'm tired of looking stupid by trying to defend the Bible.".
Glenn said: “The idea that whenever something bad happens to a person or to a group it is the result of a wicked thing previously done by that person or group is not one that you can find in the work of any major Christian theologian in history, as far as I am aware.”
John Calvin? Reformed theologians? Come on now. Become informed.
Glenn said: “For that matter, it is not taught in the Bible either.”
Luke chapter 13 verses 1-5 merely has Jesus saying that everyone deserves what happens to them, it’s just some people don’t get what they deserve.
Glenn, exegete Isaiah 45:7 for us (NIV):
I form the light and create darkness,Does your God do this or is (2nd) Isaiah mistaken?
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the LORD, do all these things.
I find defenders of the faith to be dishonest with the facts or ignorant, or both.
At best a fair exposition of the history of Christian theology and the Bible would produce a mixed bag because theology and the Bible are a mixed bag of ideas.
Besides, all Glenn has to do is answer one question: "According to Christian theology and the Bible did the Haitians deserve what has happened to them?" Yes or no? Gerrymander around this question all you want to Glenn, but until you address it forthrightly and honestly I cannot consider you to be honest with the facts of theology. Ignorant or dishonest? You choose.
Christians like Peoples want it both ways. On the one hand when disaster strikes God is not in control, chance is. But then they turn right around and claim God is sovereign over the events in their lives. Which is it? Well, it depends on what is most convenient, doesn't it? Why the double standard? Because they have a faith to defend, that's why! And this makes them stupid.
Oh, and by the way, do not dare to call me stupid again.
29 comments:
From the New Topical Textbook:
Punishment of the Wicked, The.
1. Is from God. Le 26:18; Isa 13:11.
2. On account of their
a. Sin. La 3:39.
b. Iniquity. Jer 36:31; Eze 3:17-18; 18:4,13,20; Am 3:2.
c. Idolatry. Le 26:30; Isa 10:10,11.
d. Rejection of the law of God. 1Sa 15:23; Ho 4:6-9.
e. Ignorance of God. 2Th 1:8.
f. Evil ways and doings. Jer 21:14; Ho 4:9; 12:2.
g. Pride. Isa 10:12; 24:21; Lu 14:11.
h. Unbelief. Mr 16:16; Ro 11:20; Heb 3:18,19; 4:2.
i. Covetousness. Isa 57:17; Jer 51:13.
j. Oppressing. Isa 49:26; Jer 30:16,20.
k. Persecuting. Jer 11:21,22; Mt 23:34-36.
l. Disobeying God. Ne 9:26,27; Eph 5:6.
m. Disobeying the gospel. 2Th 1:8.
3. Is the fruit of their sin. Job 4:8; Pr 22:8; Ro 6:21; Ga 6:8.
4. Is the reward of their sins. Ps 91:8; Isa 3:11; Jer 16:18; Ro 6:23; Heb 2:2.
5. Often brought about by their evil designs. Es 7:10; Ps 37:15; 57:6.
6. Often commences in this life. Pr 11:31.
7. In this life by
a. Sickness. Le 26:16; Ps 78:50.
b. Famine. Le 26:19,20,26,29; Ps 107:34.
c. Noisome beasts. Le 26:22.
d. War. Le 26:25,32,33; Jer 6:4.
e. Deliverance to enemies. Ne 9:27.
f. Fear. Le 26:36,37; Job 18:11.
g. Reprobate mind. Ro 1:28.
h. Put in slippery places. Ps 73:3-19.
i. Trouble and distress. Isa 8:22; Zep 1:15.
j. Cutting off. Ps 94:23.
k. Bringing down their pride. Isa 13:11.
8. Future, shall be awarded by Christ. Mt 16:27; 25:31,41.
9. Future described as
a. Hell. Ps 9:17; Mt 5:29; Lu 12:5; 16:23.
b. Darkness. Mt 8:12; 2Pe 2:17.
c. Death. Ro 5:12-17; 6:23.
d. Resurrection of damnation. Joh 5:29.
e. Rising to shame and everlasting contempt. Da 12:2.
f. Everlasting destruction. Ps 52:5; 92:7; 2Th 1:9.
g. Everlasting fire. Mt 25:41; Jude 1:7.
h. Second death. Re 2:11; 21:8.
i. Damnation of hell. Mt 23:33.
j. Eternal damnation. Mr 3:29.
k. Blackness of darkness. 2Pe 2:17; Jude 1:13.
l. Everlasting burnings. Isa 33:14.
m. The wrath of God. Joh 3:36.
n. Wine of the wrath of God. Re 14:10.
o. Torment with fire. Re 14:10.
p. Torment for ever and ever. Re 14:11.
q. The righteousness of God requires. 2Th 1:6.
r. Often sudden and unexpected. Ps 35:8; 64:7; Pr 29:1; Lu 12:20; 1Th 5:3.
10. Shall be
a. According to their deeds. Mt 16:27; Ro 2:6,9; 2Co 5:10.
b. According to the knowledge possessed by them. Lu 12:47,48.
c. Increased by neglect of privileges. Mt 11:21-24; Lu 10:13-15.
d. Without mitigation. Lu 16:23-26.
e. Accompanied by remorse. Isa 66:24; Mr 9:44.
11. No combination avails against. Pr 11:21.
12. Deferred, emboldens them in sin. Ec 8:11.
13. Should be a warning to others. Nu 26:10; 1Co 10:6-11; Jude 1:7.
14. Consummated at the day of judgment. Mt 25:31,46; Ro 2:5,16; 2Pe 2:9.
No, God doesn't punish people for their sins with natural disasters. No, we're all ignorant about this:
Exodus 32:35 (New International Version)
35 And the LORD struck the people with a plague because of what they did with the calf Aaron had made.
Numbers 11:33 (New International Version)
33 But while the meat was still between their teeth and before it could be consumed, the anger of the LORD burned against the people, and he struck them with a severe plague.
2 Samuel 24:15-16 (New International Version)
15 So the LORD sent a plague on Israel from that morning until the end of the time designated, and seventy thousand of the people from Dan to Beersheba died. 16 When the angel stretched out his hand to destroy Jerusalem, the LORD was grieved because of the calamity and said to the angel who was afflicting the people, "Enough! Withdraw your hand." The angel of the LORD was then at the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite.
Glenn is defending the indefensible here, trying to dress it up with logic. In the Bible sin is the only reason given why people suffer except in two special cases, Job and John 9:1-3. So therefore as Christians who accept the Bible it seems reasonable to suppose that when disasters happen, except in special cases, they are sent by God to punish people. That’s what many believers have accepted down through the centuries. My claim is that Glenn is either ignorant of this history or dishonest about it. Robertson stands squarely in that tradition.
I discussed this in my book right around page 246. Have you read Bart Ehrman’s book, “God’s Problem”?
In the book of Job, God is still in charge of what happened to him so there’s no escaping the fact that God sent those disasters upon him. John 9:1-3 uses the Greek subjunctive mood which means that “the purpose” of the man born blind was that God would be glorified. That’s “purpose.” God did this to him for a purpose.
So in every single case in the Bible the reason why people suffer is because the man in the sky brought those disasters upon them, whether for sin, testing or to glorify himself.
Robertson and other Christians are not in a privileged position to know in advance, given the Haitians so-called pact with the Devil, that this was an exception. He can reasonably conclude God sent the disaster upon them because of their sins, you see. And therefore Dawkins can conclude, given Robertson’s reasoning from theology and the Bible, that given his assumptions he’s a more consistent Christian than Glenn is. And I do agree with Dawkins on this point.
BTW: If anyone wants to get a rise out of me, either call me or my arguments stupid. ;-)
If largish objects struck Earth more often and killed people, christians would add those events to the list of god's punishments, along with earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes and unwanted weather.
Yet when we observe objects striking other planets, no one I know of argues that god used the asteroid or comet to punish those planets' inhabitants. It seems like christians apply a very self-interested confirmation bias to their interpretations of natural disasters.
Christians like Peoples want it both ways. On the one hand when disaster strikes God is not in control, chance is. But then they turn right around and claim God is sovereign over the events in their lives. Which is it?
Our language to describe God is normal language. We could speak of meticulous soverignty as the Calvinists do, but if God is not a micromanager and if things happen that are not God's will, it doesn't mean that God isn't soverign any more than the fact that there are conspirators in a country doesn't mean that the rulers aren't soverign.
In the free will tradition, God doesn't practice meticulous soverignty but rather general soverignty where even though he directs the general direction of the world towards redemption, the world is still broken and still in rebellion against God defying his will.
Hey, just a friendly reminder, but God loves sinners (that would include stupid ppl as well as the academically conceited...:-)
At any rate, Jesus acknowledges the truth of material existence and the behaviors that perpetuate mistreatment. I don't think He is too interested in whitewashing the truth or being polite about it in order to maintain an that appeases cruel and indicting people.
When He progresses forward, I am sure there will be those who insist upon keeping their condemning attitudes well rooted in their eternal lifestyles.
Take care,
3M
Edit of previous comment: "in order to maintain an that appeases cruel and indicting people."
S/B, "in order to maintain an IMAGE that appeases cruel and indicting people."
3M
John,
You asked:"According to Christian theology and the Bible did the Haitians deserve what has happened to them?" Yes or no?"
I've tried to communicate NO to this question. and I agree with you that that God doesn't punish his people or any for that matter with natural disasters. Citicize my arguments for other reasons but to hold a view that God does this is a certain mistake.
John,
I have a few questions for you that require a bit of prefacing.
The video on your thread called "Babies in Hell" highlights how Christian history's most notable theological minds have received radically different messages from their god down the centuries. Today Christian theology is so inconsistent and incoherent that it appears as though there are many Christian gods. Populist Christian theologians, like Robertson, Hinn, Fred Phelps and those actually killing children as witches, add an element of darkly comical farce.
Here at DC commenters constitute a Christian theology spectrum ranging from outlaw, backwater, and back alley, through street vendor, mom and pop, and dime store, onto big box, chain store and mall varieties, over to new age specialty shops, and designer boutiques. These same Christian commenters openly repudiate other's Christian theologies. The theologies of the masses are different from the theologies of the clergy which are different still from the theologies of the theologians. Then, too, no one is constrained by any existing Christian theology from making up whole new ones constructed around highly unusual and non-traditional assumptions about a god and how believers are to relate to it.
They range from uneducated to having doctoral degrees in theology, yet, regardless of educational level they all seem to think they represent the one true Christianity.
All of this tells us that the word "Christian" supplies no insight at all into what an arbitrary self-identified Christian believes or thinks. It also tells us that having more education in theology does not give one a better understanding of Christianity as a whole.
So, I'd like to ask for your feedback and insight on a few things.
What does it mean to talk about Christian theology?
Why does the advanced study of theology not result in a better understanding of the whole of Christianity?
Can anyone say in any meaningful way that any particular Christian theology is more correct than the others? Is Brad Haggard more correct than Rob R? Is Harvey Burnett more correct than Glenn Peoples?
Do Christian theologies have much influence on Christian praxis beyond the parochial influence exerted by active clergy who have studied theology and affect the behavior of their own congregations from the pulpit?
If the things scholarly theologians write do not make it to the masses what difference does it make? Is it purely academic?
If the things scholarly theologians write do make it to the masses, doesn't that suggest that what their god is saying is unreliable?
I know you're busy, but if you've got a few minutes, it would be interesting to have your take.
You know Russ, that is the reason I don't want to come in between Christians who argue among themselves and call each other stupid. Because I'll always get caught in the middle between two of them who say I don't understand Christianity. Sometimes all we can do is point out their own disagreements, which is something I tried doing here. And that is effective.
The problem is this, how can atheists make our case when the ground keeps shifting beneath our feet? That's not true Christianity, they say. That's not true theology. That's not true Christian behavior. And so on and so on. It's sickening. but they are all right and even supremely confident, aren't they.
But when Glenn Peoples claims atheists like Dawkins and me are ignorant I think a Biblical history lesson is in order. Robertson stands in the Christian tradition and is not stupid after all. I try to press his case knowing other Christians will disagree. What are we to do? Yes, what is Christianity? Who decides?
Christianity doesn't exist. There are only Christianities.
It's maddening but take heart. The more they have to excommunicate and berate each other by calling them stupid the more they realize this, and the more we can laugh about it, and I do.
Education more often than not just reinforces the Christian tradition a person was brought up to believe. That's how the mind works.
Because I'll always get caught in the middle between two of them who say I don't understand Christianity. Sometimes all we can do is point out their own disagreements, which is something I tried doing here. And that is effective.
And this is fallacious reasoning. If it doesn't have a name, it ought to be called the appeal to controversy, that because authorities or people in a group disagree, that none of the positions can be right or more accurate or seriously considered and so on.
Rob, *sigh* if it can be shown there is no such thing as Christianity, only Christianities, then the Christianity you hold to will look more and more like a cultural phenomena and that does have evidential weight.
John, your whole idea that there is no Christianity, only christianities is still an extension of the appeal to controversy.
But ironically, you can't make this appeal if there is no ground of unity amongst the "Christianities". If Peoples Christianity is a completely different thing from Robertson's Christianity, then there is no conflict. There is only the situation of poor linguistics where we ought to have a different name for People's ideology and Robertson's.
But the fact is there is common ground and we can reasonably ask who is more consistent with that common ground.
Rob R --"If it doesn't have a name, it ought to be called the appeal to controversy"
More likely was an appeal to something like real blatant unreliability and the need for less ignorance,i thought
But still,sometimes even with "constroversy" comes the matter of "strife".And Christianity has well and truely!! proved that problem hmmmmm Rob??
Yes, Rob, there is common ground among Christians within the same culture and time period.
The words of any one of a thousand Christian creeds have been reinterpreted by later theologians to mean something different. I remember Father O'Keefe at Marquette University showing how the 2nd Vatican creedal statement allows for fideism. ;-)
You need a history lesson about Christianity, including the kind in Africa right now. And by extension you need to project what the Christianity in the future will look like. Christianity evolves with its culture. You would have been burned at the stake during the4 Inquisition because your type of Christianity was not considered true Christianity.
Sheesh. What's so hard to understand about that?
Yes, Rob, there is common ground among Christians within the same culture and time period.
And clearly going back to Christ as authentic Christianity is Christ centered.
You would have been burned at the stake during the4 Inquisition because your type of Christianity was not considered true Christianity.
That's right, because they were mistaken about Christianity. I am not bothered that I don't follow the teachings of the inquisitors. They aren't the Christ that CHRISTianity is about. Why shouldn't I expect that some people
And what is the common ground we have with them? Allegience to Christ, which can either be superficial or deep. And Jesus already told us that not everyone who would claim his name would be one of his.
I remember Father O'Keefe at Marquette University showing how the 2nd Vatican creedal statement allows for fideism. ;-)
It's a good thing we have more to work with than just one creed. The more we have to work with, the more we may have significant agreement to help eliminate ambiguities. But of course ambiguities will persist but not all disagreements are immediately problematic or thorough enough to indicate a problematic disunity. And variety in theology can be a beneficial resource in the advancement of our knowledge since those with different perspectives my come to solutions to various problems. And those solutions may be able to applied even outside that tradition. Take reformed epistemology. I'm not reformed and I find some of what came out of reformed theology horrendous, but I can still appreciate this epistemology that was inspired by Calvin.
will Calvin even be in heaven? Was he an authentic follower of Christ? I'm inclined to think not given his own heretic burnings, but our faith is subtle and complex enough that we can recognize the wisdom from God whether it comes from someone who had some hand in attrocities like Calvin or a pagan idolator like Solomon. Even John Loftus wrote some useful things in his abominable book that is at odds with God's plan of redemption for the world. I think particularly of the demonstration of the problematic way prophecies are understood by evangelicals as criticism here requires us to take a closer look at how the NT authors read and interpreted and understood the Old Testament (and such closer looks have been made. For example, I think Brad Haggard did a fine job in his discussion with you in "Truth claims and poetry differences...")
You say that our faith is not the same as that outside our culture, and yet, we look positively on the attempt to refine and improve our understanding based upon what the original readers and author's intended and thought. An example of this would be the new perspective on Paul and the Romans. Does this thinking invalidate what Luther did? Of course not! Luther's observations about faith vs. works did indeed highlight mistakes the church was making. We aren't justified by the legalisms of the medieval catholic church. The protestant understanding was an improvement even though we had a ways to go. It's not all black and white, that either our understanding is authentically Christian or not but it makes perfect sense to speak in degrees of our understanding of various truths and central truths.
In my opinion, this is just one more case of the Bible presenting contradictory views.
According to the Scriptures, Sodom and Gomorrah were punished because of their specific sins. The Canaanites were to be utterly destroyed because they were incorrigible.
On the other hand, the Scriptures also teach that hardship or suffering is not always related to specific sins committed by the sufferer as you have pointed out.
So, it seems to me that the only way to harmonize these two points is to say that sometimes the suffering is directly related to the specific sins of those suffering and sometimes its not.
So on that basis, Robertson could be right.
That's right, because they were mistaken about Christianity. I am not bothered that I don't follow the teachings of the inquisitors. They aren't the Christ that CHRISTianity is about. Why shouldn't I expect that some people
I didn't finish this thought.
As a Christian, why shouldn't I expect that there would be people who said they were followers of Christ when really they aren't when Jesus explicitely said that there would be such people?
If Mr. God can turn people into pillars of salt for looking behind them and send bears to tear children to bits for making fun of a bald priest, then certainly He is capable of punishing Haitians for a deal with the devil made by their great great great grandparents.
Although why anyone would need such a deal to beat the French is beyond me.
So as a point of clarification, it is ok to call Christians stupid but not ok to say the same thing about you? I'm not calling you stupid, just a little inconsistent:-P
Everyone is "stupid" because we all have partial knowledge compared to God's Omniscience.
Because it is "complicated" - everyone will bicker back and forth
and fail to see the imperfections on both sides and how this should be answered.
Of course God punishes the wicked..even in this temporary creation(which is dealing with the REAL problem of evil and how it is a danger to His adopted chilren).
The reality is that we never know why a disaster comes to a group of people unless there was a prophet who foretold of the event via divine revelation.
All disasters affect people individually. The born-again Christian is "saved" if he/she dies whereas the unbeliever is judged.
Even this is an over-simplification of what is going on... and when we fail to address the multiple angles on how to view God's "together action" (sunergeism) with the temporary creation...we remain in ignorance.
Clearly, I am not going to be able to explain the complexity of this (and what is taking place on both side) in these comments.
There ARE answers to why both sides are missing each other in the imperfection of applying logic through imperfect mediums which need to be thoroughly explained.
The anthropomorphic nature of almost all of scripture is the first imperfection that needs to be identified.
The perfect logic behind the anthropomorphism points to the fact that born-again Christianity is the only belief structure which can explain the alleged contradictions.
It is because of these imperfections that forgiveness is logical...just ask the person who knows we are all stupid in comparison to the Holy Creator.
you have been more than adequately answered in the blog that you link to. There is no point in reproducing that thread here, so I will not.
It is truly desparate bottom-feeding to latch onto a ludicrous outburst like this from Dawkins. What's really ironic here is that Dawkins is more or less Atheism's equivalent of Pat Robertson, and you mock one while embracing the other.
Atheist police thyself!
ouch...and they accuse me of being inflammatory...
"often atheists are more united than theists" - MB
Atheist police thyself!
Ha! Zing!
Atheists don't need to agree. It is you Christian who claims to have a personal relationship with God. How personal can that be if the hegemony you claim is contradicted by your individual faiths. Rob, once again you argue for a subtle understanding of your black and white theology and expose yourself as a hypocrite.
The reason most Christians were riled up about Robertson's statement is NOT so much that they don't agree with it, but that they know full well that their Bible supports such statements by people such as him, and they know full well that he could find chapter and verse a few dozen times to support his claim if he was pressed. They are uncomfortable with the FACT that their good book does indeed support such nasy ideas. Having those nasty parts of their good book be spoken about out in the open raises questions about their myth and their value system and must raise mor than a litle personal doubt in the thinking Christian. They claim that God does not cause natural disasters to punish people and they claim that those who say that do not represent 'their' Christianity, but FACT is, TRUTH is, their Bible DOES support over and over the idea that God could, does, and will cause natural disaster to punish, and Christians who make such claims are justified by their Bible in making them.
It makes Christianity look bad, not because Robertson misrepresents Chrstianity, but because Robertson REPRESENTS Christianity so very very well.
That's right, because they were mistaken about Christianity.
This is awesome covered in awesomesauce right here. They were mistaken but you're absolutely sure that you are right. And 100 years from now Christianity will look different from how it looks now and people will call things that you believe "obviously mistaken" and they will be sure that they're right too. I'm sure that those Inquisitors who were out doing what they were told were damn well as convinced of their righteousness as you are of yours.
It's awesome that you are so convinced of your own ability to grasp the divine. Truly astounding that you have such a powerful understanding of something that human beings have throughout history been unable to grasp. Perhaps you should consider working up a book or a lecture series to explain it to everyone. Real True Christianity for the masses. Actually, if you truly have access to the Mind of God and can explain what True Christianity is to all the rest of us, it's actually your duty to give up whatever you're doing and spread the word.
Or you could just be an egomaniac who is full of his own self-righteousness. I think I'll go with that. A few centuries ago you would have been one of the ones turning the screw on the rack, secure in your knowledge that you were following the true faith and the heretic on the rack was getting exactly what he deserved.
"The reason most Christians were riled up about Robertson's statement is NOT so much that they don't agree with it, but that they know full well that their Bible supports such statements by people such as him,"
He is NOT a prophet...so no.
The reason Christians are upset is that you would have to be omniscient to claim that the Haiti disaster was specifically a judgement for some packed with the devil..that doesn't even look like a one...especially not for the whole country.
The reality is - this is complicated because ALL death is either judgement or salvation...so it doesn't matter whether it is a Tsunami or an earthquake or something falling out of the sky.
There are logical causes for each of these and you would have to be sent as a prophet of God to specifically make such an assertion.
Most Christians are upset because they feel that these comments shame the gospel with respect to ignoring God's grace in the life of believers like Pat Robinson.
We can go all through the Torah or even the whole Tanakh and explain how God is working and what specifically is going on with respect to God requiring purity and holiness from His people in their obedience.
But that is a different subject..but I would be more than willing to explain such contradictions.
There is no such thing as "fairness" however.
Post a Comment