Two Atheists Debate Whether Jesus Died On the Cross
If you're interested in debates like I am, below you can watch an interesting one by two atheists. Yep, that's right, two atheists. Oh, I know that Mary Jo Sharp is a Christian apologist and that Ehteshaam Gulam is a Muslim apologist. But if you listen closely they are using atheist arguments against each other.
I differ with them both here and there in their criticisms of course. And I especially disagree in what they are both trying to establish (i.e., that Jesus survived the cross, per Gulam, and that Jesus bodily arose from the grave, per Mary Jo). But they are as skeptical of each others views as I am of theirs, and hence atheists with respect to them.
My Outsider Test for Faith challenges believers to apply the same level of skepticism to their own faith as they use to critique the faiths of others. Why can't they see this? Why don't they do this?
I differ with them both here and there in their criticisms of course. And I especially disagree in what they are both trying to establish (i.e., that Jesus survived the cross, per Gulam, and that Jesus bodily arose from the grave, per Mary Jo). But they are as skeptical of each others views as I am of theirs, and hence atheists with respect to them.
My Outsider Test for Faith challenges believers to apply the same level of skepticism to their own faith as they use to critique the faiths of others. Why can't they see this? Why don't they do this?
36 comments:
Hi John,
You wrote this, "My Outsider Test for Faith challenges believers to apply the same level of skepticism to their own faith as they use to critique the faiths of others. Why can't they see this? Why don't they do this?"
I used to think of God as an impotent, elitist sort of smog that could not operate independently of mankind. But I was involved in Christian idolotry and had a narrow concept of Christ.
What I didn't realize is that Jesus challenged religious dogma and practices that enforce our natural inclination towards elitism and marginalization. This is a result of destructive pride and it is a territorial spirit that seeks to marginalize or fight off/ annihilate that which does not meet one's standard for acceptance. A sort of 'survival of the fittest' animalistic infection -- Jesus often referred to ppl as animals in accordance with the actions that demonstrated what they were harboring in their hearts.
We as human beings, can grow in our ability to recognize and challenge pridefulness wherever it occurs, whether it is within secular or religious realms.
BTW, Jesus did not acknowledge territorial pride as reflective of the divine - nor should we. But it does infect us at various levels, both secular and religious. A symptoms of destructive pride can be detected in the way that one defines and approaches enmity. By faith, Jesus gave no justification for the mistreatment of people.
While it is tempting to throw stones at those suffering from prideful hypocrisy (both secular and religious), it is also faithful and humbling to remember that those infected with such are loved by God as well.
Jesus's path is the narrow one because He loves those that we do not. God's love transcends the divides of geographical regions, cultural, social, economic, moral, etc. There are those raised in other countries who already seek and desire the love of Christ, independent of their upbringing - when they see Christ, they will recognize and love Him.
Thanks!
3M
MMM,
Why do you have to write such empty rhetoric? Do you really think that kind of post is going to change anyones mind, ESPECIALLY someone like Loftus who had been a professional Christian? (ie Minister?)
I mean, come on. "God's love transcends the divides of geographical regions, cultural, social, economic, moral, etc. There are those raised in other countries who already seek and desire the love of Christ, independent of their upbringing - when they see Christ, they will recognize and love Him."
That's about as empty as it gets.
"I used to think... What I didn't realize... " Yadda yadda. You're boring. You don't need to give details of your personal confused journey, especially when, like I said, it's filled with empty rhetoric.
Why do you keep posting on this site?
"God's love transcends the divides of geographical regions, cultural, social, economic, moral, etc. "
21 Jesus left that place and went away to the district of Tyre and Sidon. 22 Just then a Canaanite woman from that region came out and started shouting, “Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is tormented by a demon.” 23 But he did not answer her at all. And his disciples came and urged him, saying, “Send her away, for she keeps shouting after us.” 24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” 25 But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” 26 He answered, “It is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.”
To an outsider it sure seems like Jesus had to be persuaded to include even this poor canaanite woman.
"There are those raised in other countries who already seek and desire the love of Christ, independent of their upbringing - when they see Christ, they will recognize and love Him."
Or not. There are those raised in christian countries who already seek and desire to do the will of allah (fill in your chosen deity here)-independent of their upbringing- when they read the Quran, they will recognize and love the one true god. Conversion works both ways. It's not as if every pagan or atheist who encounters the gospel converts. While many christians do convert when they encounter the gita, the koran, the tao te ching or simply modern science and history.
I realize these aren't "true" christians in the believers' book. The same could be said of the pagans that convert to christianity. "Well, she wasn't a REAL hindu, you know."
I'm not skeptical of other faiths for all the same reasons that atheists are skeptical of them. And I am positive about the possible truth of other faiths when they assert something that doesn't contradict my own faith and certainly not when they agree.
I would never ever claim to be skeptical of other faiths merely on so called neutral grounds of skepticism.
John, this whole basis for your OTF pretty much takes the most naive form of exclusivism for granted (the one that is completely ignorant of how much we benefited from pagan Greek philosophy), a view that is not biblical and has never been the consensus of church orthodoxy.
And I am positive about the possible truth of other faiths when they assert something that doesn't contradict my own faith and certainly not when they agree.
For example, has Rob ever engaged in some forms of meditation as outlined by Buddhists? you bet.
MMM, are you saying like that Jesus really was God come down to earth and he taught us to throw off religion (ceremonies and hierarchies not morality) and just live good moral lives and love each other, but then a bunch of guys called 'proto-orthodox' corrupted his message and made it about founding a new religion with new ceremonies and hierarchies? Sounds about right to me!
"To an outsider it sure seems like Jesus had to be persuaded to include even this poor canaanite woman." (zenmite)
Inasmuch as the first form of Christianity was Marcionism which didn't feature Jesus as Jewish Messiah or even as a Jew at all, but only as the Supreme God (higher than the Jewish god) who came down to earth in the form of man (wasn't born as a man, hence no actual nationality) this story about the racist Jewish-supremicist Jesus is clearly just Catholic (or 'proto-orthodox') redaction. In other words, when the Catholic church came about and Judaized Christianity (which was originally a rejection of the Jewish god and the OT by setting a higher God against him, a God of love and compassion to oppose the god of genocide) when the Catholics changed this and created the false positive link between Jesus and the OT through twistings of OT 'prophecy' and adding made up details to the gospel to make Jesus look like an orthodox Jew, they added this made up story about the racist Jesus who hates non-Jews. All the evidence points to Christianity originally having been Marcionite, and therefore there is no way in hell that this story existed anywhere in the minds of the original Christians or in any of their authentic literature. It wasn't until the State Church of the Roman Empire came along that such Judaizing of Christianity was forced on everyone to keep the Jews from rioting in the streets by Rome officially rejecting the Old Testament. Rome had to absorb the OT into the Catholic canon to appease them, just as it had to make Jesus turn water into wine like Bachus to appease the pagans.
Db and Zenmite --- I am so glad you brought these particular issues and scriptures up here!! BTW Db, it is self evident that you are entitled to gravitate towards your own perspective. You mentioned my use of personal experience, but the gospel is about good news for sharing to break through religious and prideful dogma for God to relate to individuals and groups alike.
Now, this, "ESPECIALLY someone like Loftus who had been a professional Christian? (ie Minister?)"
It really saddens my heart to see that the simple act of pure love is construed as a necessity of professionalism -- The need for Godly love is a universal need for all humanity, not an elitist pursuit, reserved only for those who can attain social or scholarly merits. This is a sad testament to Christian idolotry but it is good to withdraw from such, even if the avenue includes atheism.
Then this: "Why do you have to write such empty rhetoric?"
Just another personal note, but if someone's rhetoric is empty I usually ignore it and don't bother to challenge it at all. You might consider that for future, Db.
I'll address Zenmite's comment in a continuation of this comment.
Zenmite broached the subject of the scripture whereby Jesus refers to a Canaanite woman as a dog.
"To an outsider it sure seems like Jesus had to be persuaded to include even this poor canaanite woman."
Yes, agreed! I used to view it the same way - as Jesus being elitist, but in fact, by faith, it is exactly the opposite! This woman was marginalized by the ppl Jesus was trying to reach. Let me ask you this ---which is more compelling --- if someone who has mistreated you comes and apologizes and repents by inviting you to be their friend or if a person outside the cruel situation comes to intervene on your behalf. If intervention causes the victimizer to turn away and help his victim, both parties are edified rather than a victim being rescued from someone unrelated to the cruel treatment. The Israelites were chosen, not to be elite, but to create and invite ppl into the kingdom of heaven on earth - humane communities devoted to expressing love in areas where there is darkness.
I think God's will would include both the Canaanite woman and the Pharisees and I think it would be more compelling if the Pharisees humbled themselves and went to the Canaanite woman to retrieve her themselves, but that didn't happen.
I want to write a little more about this particular scripture...
Jesus referred to some ppl according to animal traits. In this scripture, Jesus refers to this Canaanite woman as a 'dog'. Now, I would have been offended in the past, but this woman had witnessed the respect the Israelites gave even to their pets. I know where this lady came from - I know her personality profile -- she has been living amidst cruel circumstances, where the most vulnerable are objects of scorn and contempt -- that is the way of wild dogs --to elect a vulnerable dog to vent their hostility in order to maintain pack integrity.
This woman is desperate, but intuitive. She longs to be a part of a community that thus far, has kept her marginalized and starved for love, but now she sees how Jesus is travelling amidst people. Rather than take offense, she intuitively sensed that this was a good man, availing Himself to and serving ppl.
Jesus's purpose was to reach and challenge he religious elite so and begin to care about ppl like this Canaanite woman -- her faith touched His heart - she could sense that He was going to teach the religious elite to take care of their surrounding communities of humanity but He was willing to honor her faith (funny you didn't include that part of the scripture).
It is the same way with the lame man by the side of the pool. Many misinterpret that scripture to mean that Jesus was implying that the man was lazy but that isn't the 'good news'.
That's all for now,
3M
Zenmite and Db, I apologize - my writing isn't as it should be. I want to rewrite a couple of things,
first this,
"It really saddens my heart to see that the simple act of pure love is construed as a necessity of professionalism"
What I intend to say is that the human need for pure love is universal and basic - it ought not be viewed as an elitist need or act or withheld due to disqualifying markers that we manufacture to perpetuate territorialism.
Then this about the Canaanite woman, "This woman was marginalized by the ppl Jesus was trying to reach."
Actually, this woman was from a community that justified abusing the vulnerable. But she was marginalized and mistreated by both the Canaanites and the religious elite because of her vulnerability. Jesus was focussed on unsettling the source of prideful marginalization - His mission was to approach and intervene upon the religious hypocrites (who were starved for love themselves!!).
At any rate, the Canaanite woman longed to be treated as well as the dogs from the religious community. Her use of the term "pet" rather than "dog" showed that she had spiritual sight. Although she was not a Jew, she had the heart to value what God desired for ppl.
Which goes back to what I originally wrote here, "God's love transcends the divides of geographical regions, cultural, social, economic, moral, etc. There are those raised in other countries who already seek and desire the love of Christ, independent of their upbringing - when they see Christ, they will recognize and love Him." So much for the Outsider test....no sinner's prayer, no Bible Study, no scriptural indoctrination --- none of these --- but her faith was demonstrated in her ability to desire, thirst, hunger and envision and acknowledge and recognize Christ as the source of love.
Okay, that should be it for awhile,
thx,
3M
MMM:
Your mock-cheerful tone really gets on my nerves. Could you please refrain from using idiotic exclamation marks? They just serve to highlight the vacuity of your comments.
mmm
"Canaanite woman -- her faith touched His heart"
A metaphorical lie!!!
Her faith did not touch anyone's heart!
Will you please quit quoting and using metaphorical lies that you happen to believer are true?
The Bible was written based upon metaphorical lies, allegory, euphuisms, ad hoc, exaggerations, and plain out falsehoods.
Cupid shot a love arrow into her heart...do you believe this?
mmm, please take your collection of lies somewhere else!
We do not believe you and your bible's lies!!!!
Pierre and Steven, thanks for the feedback --- I had no idea the impact my writing was making. You hold some interesting perspectives that is for certain.
Thx,
3M
When I was a believer I used to be very impressed with people like this Mary Jo Sharp lady, they seem to be smart, rational, know what they're talking about and give the religion an impression that it's rational, now I understand that they're just drawing on the sustenance xtianity gave them, and compartmentalize it so they don't have to deal with the absurdities, they also have deep-seated fear in them that if they let these absurdities surface and deal with them head on, they'll have to let go of their belief and their whole world will fall apart.
Her blog is called "Confident Christianity", hope she knows better. :P
"Will you please quit quoting and using metaphorical lies" (Steven Bentley)
Like "you're in the ballpark" when there is no ballpark anywhere around?
MMM, you are one prolific commenter! ;)
Man, Ehteshaam Gulam is RUDE. He isn't even listening to the person he is supposed to be debating. Organize your paperwork before the debate begins, not while the other person speaks.
Im only 10 mins in at this point, but im wanting to wack him over the head with a yard stick.
I'm also quite surprised that she references atheist authors so much.
MMM,
I've been doing some research and it seems that Christ wasn't the only one to teach "love the enemy"
The Master has no mind of her own
She works with the mind of the people
She is good to people who are good
She is also good to people who aren't good
This is true goodness
She trusts people who are trustworthy
She also trusts people who aren't trustworthy
This is true trust
The Master's mind is like space
People don't understand her
They look to her and wait
She treats them like her own children
Tao Te Ching p. 49 A New English Version
By Stephen Mitchell
Pocket Edition
Hi Cole, you wrote, "I've been doing some research and it seems that Christ wasn't the only one to teach "love the enemy"
You are welcome to embrace whatever community appeals to you, however I have some experience in other practices and while there are teachings that maintain a status quo of enabling communities to practice human rights abuses with tolerance for enmity, Jesus did not approach His enemies for the purpose of maintaining a facade of 'getting along'. He came to uproot and intervene upon empowered cruelty. Not a peaceful venture.
Jesus did say that there would be ppl who entered the sheep pen through another way other than Himself. But when these left, they were like thieves --- they mislead ppl to themselves for eogtistical purposes rather than a connection with God.
3M
Hi MMM,
I don't want to mislead people for egotistical purposes. I just wan't something where there is love for all. I also found this to be quite interesting in the Tao Te Ching:
Thus the Master is available to all people
and doesn't reject anyone
He is ready to use all situations
and doesn't waste anything.
This is called embodying the light.
Doesn't this sound like loving the enemy? It says that it is available to all people. What do you think?
Hi MMM,
I just found this in the Tao Te Ching. It seems to go against ego.
The Master can keep giving
because there is no end to her wealth.
She acts without expectation,
succeeds without taking credit,
and doesn't think she is better than anyone else.
Hey MMM,
Here's another that teaches compasion and love towards enemies:
Some say that my teaching is nonsense.
Others call it lofty but impractical.
But to those who have looked inside themselves, this nonsense makes perfect sense.
And those who put it into practice,
this loftiness has roots that go deep.
I have just three things to teach:
simplicity, patience, compassion.
These three are your greatest treasures.
Simple in actions and in thoughts,
you return to the source of being.
Patient with both friends and enemies,
you accord with the way things are.
Compassionate toward yourself,
you reconcile all beings in the world.
Tao Te Ching, 67
Cole, I don't see anything that says "love your enemy" here unless enabling ppl to stay rooted in destructive pride is love -- but I think of loving the enemy differently.
At any rate, this is what you quoted from the Tao Te Ching (think China here...)
"She is good to people who are good
She is also good to people who aren't good
This is true goodness
She trusts people who are trustworthy
She also trusts people who aren't trustworthy
This is true trust"
Okay, I know God loves ppl who practice Buddhism but He seeks to relate to ppl according to where they are --- these verses are of one whose response is not relational to the ppl addressed. In other words, if someone is involved in destructive pride, Jesus seeks to upset the status quo in order to rescue them -- He doesn't try to maintain a polite image or passively enable people to succeed at corrupting their humanity but there are those who proactively reject Him (pretty self evident here..)
Anyway, Jesus' breaks the status quo of destructive ego - that is loving the enemy.
I'm done now ---
3M
Hi MMM,
I think that passage does teach love the enemy. I have a commentary on the passage and it compares the passage to what Jesus said:
Verse 111: "Those who are good I treat as good. Those who are not good I also treat as good. In so doing I gain in goodness..."
Compare to Jesus at Matthew 5:44-45:
"But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rains on the just and on the unjust."
As for ego consider this:
Thus, one of natural whole virtue respects his own life, but is not egotistical.
He loves his life, but does not exalt himself.
Tao Teh Ching
Hi Cole,
Okay, I'm back.
As I recall there are similar passages in the OT as well --- but again, there is divine love that intervenes sacrificially upon destructive behavior in order to save the enemy - and I'm not talking about setting onesself on fire or self destructive forms of religious protest, but actually confronting and offending the ego of the abusive.
You might recall that the personality profile of whom Jesus referred to as the 'sons of hell' were church attending, clean cut, mannerly, charitable, prayerful folks. But one thing - they had a huge marginalized population surrounding them. It seems this is one major symptom that one can look at in a geographical region and discern if the local religious population is infected with territorial pride.
Jesus said that there would be those who entered into the sheep pen independent of Him but when they left, they were like thieves. What are they stealing? They draw followers to themselves or to doctrine or conditional membership. Does a religious practice lead one to God or does it lead one to more of the world?
I've passed through religious and secular dogma - my faith in Christ is not fragile. I am glad if someone can use atheism to be set free from abusive religious dogma. I feel atheism is one way to separate from that and it helped pave the way to connect with God.
3M
Hi MMM,
I'm not an atheist. I'm considering just sticking with A.A. for now. But my point is that Jesus wasn't unique in His teaching of loving the enemy. Would you agree?
I just can't accept some of what the Bible teaches. I do love some of what Jesus taught. The Golden Rule for example. But I just read another book on world religions that says all religions have a form of the Golden Rule. I think the main point is to become humble and not driven by Ego. The Tao Te Ching seems to teach this. It also teaches compassion.
Your friend.
MMM,
It just bothers me when I read passages like Psalms 137 that say happy is the one who dashes your infants against the rocks. I can't get arround that crazy little thing.
Cole asked, "But my point is that Jesus wasn't unique in His teaching of loving the enemy. Would you agree?"
I would not agree at all. Jesus was not a hypocrite nor an enabler in His approach towards those infected with pride. He does not try and appease or pacify those who are empowered abusively. It is self evident that some reject Him.
You also said, "But I just read another book on world religions that says all religions have a form of the Golden Rule."
I agree with this, but no other god addresses enmity with the Christ and the demonstration and promise of resurrection. I think it was Paul that said without the resurrrection, we are to be pitied more than anyone. I agree - I tried 'loving the enemy' without God and I ended up having my life value coopted into victimhood.
I no longer romanticize living a life without Christ. I do admit that Jesus acknowledges ppl by their heart desires rather than outward religious affiliations.
3M
MMM,
I just showed you where the Tao Te Ching teaches the same thing that Jesus taught in doing good to all. The Tao doesn't enable people with pride either. There's also many other religions that teach a resurrection. I don't see anything unique about the Bible except that it says in Psalms 137: Happy is the one who dashes your infants against the rocks. I love babies. I could understand if God had a justifiable reason for putting them to death. But why bless the person who dashes them against the rocks? would you agree that that is just horrifying and immoral? Clearly that's not justice.
Hey MMM,
What do you think of Godesses? I tend to be more enthralled by women than I am with men. I would rather spend eternity with a beautiful woman than a man. I mean, it's going to be hard for me to be enthralled and worship Goddess if she's a man. I'm just not that enthused by men. I like women.
Cole, "I just showed you where the Tao Te Ching teaches the same thing that Jesus taught in doing good to all" The difference lies in how one defines 'goodness'. Jesus did not use pacifying language or approaches to get the attention of hard hearted, murderous ppl. But His goal is to save, not punish or condemn - other ppl use harsh words to hurt the ones that hurt them or express the hurtfulness within them.
About dashing babies upon rocks - do you believe Jesus demonstrated and advocated that?? Do you think that is the 'good news' of the divine realm? If so, then I think it's a good thing you are leaving the religion you have been practicing.
Good luck,
3M
MMM,
I haven't been practicing a religion. I'm going by Psalms 137. How do you interpret that passage? It says that "Happy is the one who dashes your infants against the rocks"
No thanks -- I think you are already aware of how I believe OT scripture should be translated. Not going there anymore - I'm getting ready for the retirement mode, so I'll just leave these scriptural issues for others to mete out.
:-) Happiness awaits,
Ciao!
3M
I'm sorry. I forgot what you believed about the Old Testament. That's cool if you don't want to answer. I wish you the best in your retirement. Don't be a stranger. Visit my blog sometime if you like. Also, you can E-mail me if you like. I would like to stay in touch with you. I understand if you don't want to though. Anyway, good talking to you.
mchoux@sbcglobal.net
Post a Comment