The poll was generated from this discussion. The question was this one: Is Radical Islam More Dangerous Than Radical Christianity? The results are below. What do you make of them, if anything?
Yes! 163 (45%)
No! 24 (6%)
Equally Dangerous! 174 (48%)
April 03, 2008
You Can Be a Millionaire Defrauding Believers
Lindani Mangena, a twenty-four year old smooth talking believer, took about three million pounds from people after he told them he was a modern-day Moses. He promised them cash returns of %3000. To people who believe the earth is six-thousand years old and that a snake and a donkey can talk, this makes lots of sense.
When I was growing up my father once attacked a real estate investor named Donald Davenport in print for his post office scam, warning potential investors that it was likely to be fraudulent. He was sued for defamation and libel and the case was dropped a few weeks before Dr. Davenport declared bankruptcy.
But gullible in one thing, gullible in all. The lessons learned by those involved with Dr. Davenport obviously didn't fully attach themselves to the memory cells system of the SDA immune system. Once again we see gullible people who accept things on faith, coming to grips with the fact that faith doesn't work.
So while the believers were singing "Onward Christian Soldiers", Mr. Mangena was living like a rock star.
Money flooded in so swiftly that Mangena installed a cash-counting machine at the offices, while one witness saw "piles" of notes in his luxury apartment. Stephen Winberg, prosecuting, said £1m disappeared "supporting a wildly extravagant lifestyle ... to which the defendants had not, to put it mildly, been accustomed".
Just because someone tells you they are from God, does not mean they are from God. In most cases, it means they are trying to rip you off.
Some investors, believing God had blessed him, remortgaged, only to lose their homes and life savings. Others struggled to stave off repossession. Many had to forgo holidays, and large numbers were plunged into depression. One victim even gave up his job to join the company.
So to tally up the things faith can accomplish: It can bankrupt you. It can lead you to let your children die from treatable illness. On the plus side, you have something to do once or twice a week.
When I was growing up my father once attacked a real estate investor named Donald Davenport in print for his post office scam, warning potential investors that it was likely to be fraudulent. He was sued for defamation and libel and the case was dropped a few weeks before Dr. Davenport declared bankruptcy.
But gullible in one thing, gullible in all. The lessons learned by those involved with Dr. Davenport obviously didn't fully attach themselves to the memory cells system of the SDA immune system. Once again we see gullible people who accept things on faith, coming to grips with the fact that faith doesn't work.
So while the believers were singing "Onward Christian Soldiers", Mr. Mangena was living like a rock star.
Money flooded in so swiftly that Mangena installed a cash-counting machine at the offices, while one witness saw "piles" of notes in his luxury apartment. Stephen Winberg, prosecuting, said £1m disappeared "supporting a wildly extravagant lifestyle ... to which the defendants had not, to put it mildly, been accustomed".
Just because someone tells you they are from God, does not mean they are from God. In most cases, it means they are trying to rip you off.
Some investors, believing God had blessed him, remortgaged, only to lose their homes and life savings. Others struggled to stave off repossession. Many had to forgo holidays, and large numbers were plunged into depression. One victim even gave up his job to join the company.
So to tally up the things faith can accomplish: It can bankrupt you. It can lead you to let your children die from treatable illness. On the plus side, you have something to do once or twice a week.
April 02, 2008
Biblically Ignorant Tour Guides For Jesus
Sorry the linked video below is no longer available and I can't find it anywhere.
Wow! This is completely ignorant! It's but one more example of indoctrination masquerading as an education. Can you imagine claiming that ancient superstitious people knew more than modern scientists do in any other area?
Wow! This is completely ignorant! It's but one more example of indoctrination masquerading as an education. Can you imagine claiming that ancient superstitious people knew more than modern scientists do in any other area?
George Carlin: Religion is Bullshit
I've hesitated using this because I know it's offensive to Christians, but hey, this is what I think.
April 01, 2008
Followers of Christ
By now the story is familiar to everyone. A couple with deep Christian belief prayed over their daughter rather than seeking medical care for a condition that would be cured with simple techniques known for decades to modern medicine. Their daughter died.
Except that this is yet another case.
This is NOT an April Fool's post. Although I wish it were.
In this case the girl was 15 months old. Little Ava had bronchial pneumonia and sepsis. Her parents prayed over her, wickedly, rather than seeking care. The state of Oregon is taking the proper action, charging them with manslaughter. The state had to pass a law regarding this group back in the 90s.
The couple's son died in August 2001. A police investigation into the death was closed after family members said the child had been stillborn and was three months premature.
Yes. You read that right. They have let two children die in their home. And their church let them pray over a deathly ill little girl, after this had happened within the decade. This one little faith group has its own cemetery. There are nine (9) graves in it full of children who died of unspecified causes since the 90s.
Please, someone, tell me how prayer for the sick is good and righteous. Please, I can't understand how that can be when I keep seeing all these dead kids.
Except that this is yet another case.
This is NOT an April Fool's post. Although I wish it were.
In this case the girl was 15 months old. Little Ava had bronchial pneumonia and sepsis. Her parents prayed over her, wickedly, rather than seeking care. The state of Oregon is taking the proper action, charging them with manslaughter. The state had to pass a law regarding this group back in the 90s.
The couple's son died in August 2001. A police investigation into the death was closed after family members said the child had been stillborn and was three months premature.
Yes. You read that right. They have let two children die in their home. And their church let them pray over a deathly ill little girl, after this had happened within the decade. This one little faith group has its own cemetery. There are nine (9) graves in it full of children who died of unspecified causes since the 90s.
Please, someone, tell me how prayer for the sick is good and righteous. Please, I can't understand how that can be when I keep seeing all these dead kids.
March 31, 2008
Rev. Tom Honey: How Could God Have Allowed the Tsunami?
See this Link. Notice how thoughtful Christians must continually retreat in the face of the evidence? His conclusions may be tomorrow's orthodoxy. But as Christians retreat to a distant God, remember that a distant God is no different than none at all!
Thanks to Scott for this link.
Thanks to Scott for this link.
Unleavened Bread
Here is a picture of the 11-year old girl in Wisconsin who died from type I diabetes. She was evidently being prayed for under an internet-based ministry called "Unleavened Bread."
The main proprietor of Unleavened Bread is a man named David Eells. David Eells has posted his explanation of the events. I strongly encourage everyone to actually read the whole post at the link and you will see exactly what I am talking about in my post about prayer for the sick.
However several things stated need to be reposted here just in case they are later taken down. One is simply stunning in its hubris:
"The next thing I heard from them was that they were being investigated, which is sad since authorities don’t investigate the people who put their trust in doctors whose family members die by the hundreds of thousands from medical mistakes every year, according the AMA's own admission. We know that the doctors do the best they can with what they have and we do not condemn them. We would like the same consideration."
Just to be clear, Mr. Eells is claiming that because some people who go to doctors die, and some people who pray to God die, that they are equivalent. I hope he doesn't open a faith-based auto repair shop. I imagine he might say that while he admired auto mechanics who used oil changes, new tires, brake pads and other mechanical items to insure auto saftey, people still die in auto wrecks every year. He would think it was sad that people didn't accept as valid his prayer for auto safety in lieu of "standard mechanical theory."
Directly after claiming the equivalence with doctors, Mr. Eells goes on to dig himself just a bit deeper:
"When Christians begin to put their trust in The Lord they are as babes learning to walk in a new Kingdom. Sometimes we stumble because of lack of faith or repentance in an area but hopefully we correct this and get back up. "The righteous shall live by faith." Those who do not know Jesus through being born of His Word think it is a terrible thing to die, and it is for them. Jesus called dying "entering into life" for those who know Him."
This is precisely why believing in Jesus and his resurrection is flatly dangerous. The belief that the Bible is literally true leads to a culture of death-acceptance that is shocking to anyone who does not share this belief system. There's no long leap between this belief and the belief of Islamic jihadists.
Is this what the objective moral truths of the Bible reveal?
The main proprietor of Unleavened Bread is a man named David Eells. David Eells has posted his explanation of the events. I strongly encourage everyone to actually read the whole post at the link and you will see exactly what I am talking about in my post about prayer for the sick.
However several things stated need to be reposted here just in case they are later taken down. One is simply stunning in its hubris:
"The next thing I heard from them was that they were being investigated, which is sad since authorities don’t investigate the people who put their trust in doctors whose family members die by the hundreds of thousands from medical mistakes every year, according the AMA's own admission. We know that the doctors do the best they can with what they have and we do not condemn them. We would like the same consideration."
Just to be clear, Mr. Eells is claiming that because some people who go to doctors die, and some people who pray to God die, that they are equivalent. I hope he doesn't open a faith-based auto repair shop. I imagine he might say that while he admired auto mechanics who used oil changes, new tires, brake pads and other mechanical items to insure auto saftey, people still die in auto wrecks every year. He would think it was sad that people didn't accept as valid his prayer for auto safety in lieu of "standard mechanical theory."
Directly after claiming the equivalence with doctors, Mr. Eells goes on to dig himself just a bit deeper:
"When Christians begin to put their trust in The Lord they are as babes learning to walk in a new Kingdom. Sometimes we stumble because of lack of faith or repentance in an area but hopefully we correct this and get back up. "The righteous shall live by faith." Those who do not know Jesus through being born of His Word think it is a terrible thing to die, and it is for them. Jesus called dying "entering into life" for those who know Him."
This is precisely why believing in Jesus and his resurrection is flatly dangerous. The belief that the Bible is literally true leads to a culture of death-acceptance that is shocking to anyone who does not share this belief system. There's no long leap between this belief and the belief of Islamic jihadists.
Is this what the objective moral truths of the Bible reveal?
March 30, 2008
An Update On What I've Been Doing Lately
For people wondering why I haven't participated much in some of the discussions here at DC, or that when I do, I seem out of it, or a bit cranky, I'd like to explain what I've been doing lately.
Lately I've been working on the copy edits of my book, Why I Became an Atheist. I know I'm the author and so you’ll want to take my recommendation with a grain of salt, but I dare say with Eddie Tabash that this book is the "finest refutation of Christianity," evangelical Christianity, in print. It helped to change Andrew Atkinson's mind, who was well-read and planning on entering Norman Geisler's Seminary. It is also being recommended by Norman Geisler, who said my book "is a thoughtful and intellectually challenging work, presenting arguments that every honest theist and Christian should face." It’s being recommended by James F. Sennett, who said it is "a wake up call to the church." And it is being recommended by many skeptics, like Daniel C. Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, Paul Kurtz, Robert M. Price, Richard Carrier, Dan Barker and David Mills. In addition to these recommendations of my self-published book, Hector Avalos, Michael Shermer, John Beversluis, Andrea Weisberger, and Charles Echelbarger will be taking a look at the Prometheus Books galleys for a blurb to be placed with the others on the back cover, and inside pages of the book. The Prometheus Books edition is a major revision of my former book. I'm completely satisfied with it. It's sure to make an impact.
So I'm putting my all into what I'm doing. I want to make it the best damn counter-apologetics book, bar none. Even if I don't achieve that goal, it's still a worthy goal.
Then I'm also in the beginning stages of putting together a "Contra-Christian Reader" for Prometheus Books, to come out on the heels of my first book. A rough draft of the first chapter can be found here.
I’m also planning on turning my self-published book into a companion volume with the best from Debunking Christianity, decisions and permissions will be forthcoming.
In the midst of this I'm in a financial crisis and looking for ways to earn some more money. This economy is bad, very bad, for my business where I live, and rather than spend extra time drumming up more business I've spent too much time Blogging and writing. I think I may be in for another career change. In the meantime I'd appreciate any donations you might be able to give me during this time. I have a hard time asking for help, so when I do, it’s dire.
While I'm pre-occupied with these things rest assured that everything at DC is under control. Your administrators are Lee Randolph, Joe Holman, Harry McCall, Evan, and Ed Babinski. They help me with moderating comments to keep the discussions going fluently. I appreciate all of them and their keen insights as they have the chance. They make DC the best place to discuss the issues that divide us, in my opinion. To read about our contributors here at DC, see this link.
Lately I've been working on the copy edits of my book, Why I Became an Atheist. I know I'm the author and so you’ll want to take my recommendation with a grain of salt, but I dare say with Eddie Tabash that this book is the "finest refutation of Christianity," evangelical Christianity, in print. It helped to change Andrew Atkinson's mind, who was well-read and planning on entering Norman Geisler's Seminary. It is also being recommended by Norman Geisler, who said my book "is a thoughtful and intellectually challenging work, presenting arguments that every honest theist and Christian should face." It’s being recommended by James F. Sennett, who said it is "a wake up call to the church." And it is being recommended by many skeptics, like Daniel C. Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, Paul Kurtz, Robert M. Price, Richard Carrier, Dan Barker and David Mills. In addition to these recommendations of my self-published book, Hector Avalos, Michael Shermer, John Beversluis, Andrea Weisberger, and Charles Echelbarger will be taking a look at the Prometheus Books galleys for a blurb to be placed with the others on the back cover, and inside pages of the book. The Prometheus Books edition is a major revision of my former book. I'm completely satisfied with it. It's sure to make an impact.
So I'm putting my all into what I'm doing. I want to make it the best damn counter-apologetics book, bar none. Even if I don't achieve that goal, it's still a worthy goal.
Then I'm also in the beginning stages of putting together a "Contra-Christian Reader" for Prometheus Books, to come out on the heels of my first book. A rough draft of the first chapter can be found here.
I’m also planning on turning my self-published book into a companion volume with the best from Debunking Christianity, decisions and permissions will be forthcoming.
In the midst of this I'm in a financial crisis and looking for ways to earn some more money. This economy is bad, very bad, for my business where I live, and rather than spend extra time drumming up more business I've spent too much time Blogging and writing. I think I may be in for another career change. In the meantime I'd appreciate any donations you might be able to give me during this time. I have a hard time asking for help, so when I do, it’s dire.
While I'm pre-occupied with these things rest assured that everything at DC is under control. Your administrators are Lee Randolph, Joe Holman, Harry McCall, Evan, and Ed Babinski. They help me with moderating comments to keep the discussions going fluently. I appreciate all of them and their keen insights as they have the chance. They make DC the best place to discuss the issues that divide us, in my opinion. To read about our contributors here at DC, see this link.
March 29, 2008
The Worst Homicidal Atheistic Governments (Combined) are Not as Barbarous as God!
I’ll begin my premise of this thesis by posing the question:
Is it a positive act (both ethically and morally) for modern science to totally wiped off an entire part of God’s creation from the face of the earth and for sinful humans to feel great about what they have done? (Or, to put it in Christological terms, that the creature in the post-modern world is almost all the time smarter and kinder than the Creator.)
From time to time, in the comment section to a post by the contributors here at DC, we’ll find a “Drive by Comment” when an upset set Christian trying to make a point will remark: Look at all the abortions / murders of babies done under secular governments! Or Look how many millions of people have been murdered either for ethic or political reasons under Godless / atheistic governments!
I would counter these Drive by Comments with the fact that both the total of all the acts done by either legalized abortions or murderous acts done by humans (ether in the name of religion or acts of “godless” governments); that the sum total of all killings done by the creature / man on this earth though out the entire history of the world will not equal the known and intended malicious acts of the Judao-Christian God! (A God who has now been sanitized via theology as a “All-loving” (except for human sin.)).
Lets remove all the acts of humans from the equation and simply focus on the prim-mover / Creator called and described in the Bible as “God”. Now lets consider the account given in the Book of Genesis as a fact for the origins of the world given by Creationist. My questions for this post are as follows:
A. When were all the harmful viruses, germs, bacteria and parasites created? (As oppose to some normal events of weather and flooding which have been already discussed here at DC. My post is dealing with purposeful acts of creation by God.)
B. Who, other than God / Yahweh himself, could create? If Satan is not a god (as he is not), than he could not be blamed for any part of these malicious acts of creation which has killed and is killing billions and billions of humans (If animals and plants are included, that the number is uncountable!)
C. If this was the intended effects on humans after the Fall with their forced removal from the Garden of Eden, than why did God even go though the motion of tempting Eve and Adam in the first place since this harmful creation was already created and simply waiting on them outside the Garden?
D. If man (as a sinful creature) alone is the target of these harmful and deadly acts of creation (as one Christian doctor tried to tell me), than exactly why are both plants and animals also affected by harmful viruses, germs, bacteria and parasites or specifically put; why do dogs get Heart Worms, cattle get Hoof and Mouth Disease and plants get Root Rot and trees in the Appalachian mountains are attack and killed by the hundreds of millions by the Southern Pine Beetle to name but a few? Did plants and animals sin too? What does this tell us about the reality of the theological God of love?
In conclusion, as the Bible (though theology) tries to place the blame for all problems of creation on “sinful” humans; the real culprit in both the Bible and theology for these malicious acts of creation is none other than God himself!
Is it a positive act (both ethically and morally) for modern science to totally wiped off an entire part of God’s creation from the face of the earth and for sinful humans to feel great about what they have done? (Or, to put it in Christological terms, that the creature in the post-modern world is almost all the time smarter and kinder than the Creator.)
From time to time, in the comment section to a post by the contributors here at DC, we’ll find a “Drive by Comment” when an upset set Christian trying to make a point will remark: Look at all the abortions / murders of babies done under secular governments! Or Look how many millions of people have been murdered either for ethic or political reasons under Godless / atheistic governments!
I would counter these Drive by Comments with the fact that both the total of all the acts done by either legalized abortions or murderous acts done by humans (ether in the name of religion or acts of “godless” governments); that the sum total of all killings done by the creature / man on this earth though out the entire history of the world will not equal the known and intended malicious acts of the Judao-Christian God! (A God who has now been sanitized via theology as a “All-loving” (except for human sin.)).
Lets remove all the acts of humans from the equation and simply focus on the prim-mover / Creator called and described in the Bible as “God”. Now lets consider the account given in the Book of Genesis as a fact for the origins of the world given by Creationist. My questions for this post are as follows:
A. When were all the harmful viruses, germs, bacteria and parasites created? (As oppose to some normal events of weather and flooding which have been already discussed here at DC. My post is dealing with purposeful acts of creation by God.)
B. Who, other than God / Yahweh himself, could create? If Satan is not a god (as he is not), than he could not be blamed for any part of these malicious acts of creation which has killed and is killing billions and billions of humans (If animals and plants are included, that the number is uncountable!)
C. If this was the intended effects on humans after the Fall with their forced removal from the Garden of Eden, than why did God even go though the motion of tempting Eve and Adam in the first place since this harmful creation was already created and simply waiting on them outside the Garden?
D. If man (as a sinful creature) alone is the target of these harmful and deadly acts of creation (as one Christian doctor tried to tell me), than exactly why are both plants and animals also affected by harmful viruses, germs, bacteria and parasites or specifically put; why do dogs get Heart Worms, cattle get Hoof and Mouth Disease and plants get Root Rot and trees in the Appalachian mountains are attack and killed by the hundreds of millions by the Southern Pine Beetle to name but a few? Did plants and animals sin too? What does this tell us about the reality of the theological God of love?
In conclusion, as the Bible (though theology) tries to place the blame for all problems of creation on “sinful” humans; the real culprit in both the Bible and theology for these malicious acts of creation is none other than God himself!
March 28, 2008
The Father of the New Testament
It is no secret that for the first 100 years of Christian history there was no New Testament, nor were particular writings of Christian luminaries treated as scripture. On the contrary, only the Old Testament was accorded the status of scripture among the groups which would become the proto-orthodox. Christians interpreted the OT scriptures in many varied and sometimes contradictory ways under the claimed inspiration of the spirit of Christ, but their writings did not carry the weight of scripture. The writings of those believers allegorized the OT and saw Christianity as a continuation and fulfillment of the OT. It was a Judeo-Christian religion, and from the writings of the early non canonical Christian authors, it was more Judeo than Christian.
Meanwhile,another form of Christianity was developing in Asia Minor(the place of Paul's evangelization). It burst onto the pages of history in the first half of the second century. A wealthy man named Marcion from the city of Sinope in the province of Pontus-Bithynia which is adjacent to Galatia emerged as one of the most influential people in Christian history. Marcion, a shipping magnate, spread his version of Christianity into the Mediterranean and along the caravan routes to the east towards Syria and Persia. The dates for Marcion's life are a bit uncertain with estimates ranging from the 70's CE to about 160 CE.
It is unknown whether Marcion innovated his own Christian viewpoints or if he was carrying on a tradition inherited from earlier teachers. His father was himself a bishop. In any event, the emergence of Marcion into the historical record is our first glimpse of Pauline Christianity, the Pauline epistles, and the Gospel of Luke. He considered Paul to be the only authorative teacher of the gospel. He, along with Paul, cursed alternate or competing gospels.
Marcion presented the Christian world with its first New Testament, or canon, ca 140 CE. His New Testament contained ten epistles of Paul and one Gospel which seems to be a short version of the Gospel of Luke which he called simply "Euangelion," or "Gospel" not attributed to an author. The Pauline epistles he brought forth are Romans, Galatians, 1 Cor, 2 Cor, Laodiceans (Ephesiahs), Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thess, 2 Thess, and Philemon. He considered the epistle to the Galatians to be the most important.
Marcion's theology was quite different from that which became orthodox Christianity. He believed that the Old Testament God was not the father of Jesus. Rather, he considered the God of the Jews to be a primitive lower being who created the material world and who had very objectionable characteristics. He was jealous, envious, vindictive, retributative, angry, cruel, intrusive, and judgmental. He was a demiurge who trapped the souls of men in the misery of material bodies. In contrast, Christ made known a previously unknown God of love and benevolence. Marcion didn't deny the reality of the Jewish God, he simply dismissed him as the God of a different religion, and he rejected the Old Testament. He wished the Jews well, but proclaimed that Christianity had no part of the Jewish religion.
The Marcionite name for the heavenly savior was ISU CHRESTOS. Whether the ISU was a form of sacral abbreviation for IESUS or if it was the actual name or title cannot be known. Likewise, the spelling of CHRESTOS may have been original Pauline for the "Good helper" rather than the meaning of anointed as indicated by the familiar Christos spelling which may have been later scribal license. For him, Christ was the sudden savior, a phantom (not an actual man) who descended from God in the form of a fully mature human, snatched believers out of the control of the evil God of the Old Testament, freed them from the bondage of the Torah, and then he ascended back to the Father. He was not the Messiah of Jewish expectations. Marcion and his followers upheld an extremely high moral standard, even believing that sex within marriage was wrong, but they did not subject themselves to the Torah or any of the Jewish practices. His New Testament did not in any way tie the prophecies of the OT to Christ or to the church and its teachings.
Marcion went to Rome ca 140 CE to present his ideas to the church leaders there. They utterly rejected him. He went on to lead his followers into all the known world. Marcionism became the main competitor to emerging orthodoxy. Marcionite churches (called synagogues) could be found throughout the empire. The Marcionites called themselves "Christians" and seemed to hold the trademark for that term. The proto-orthodox groups coalesced around the name "Catholic." The oldest Christian church found by archaeologists was Marcionite, located in Syria and dating from 318 CE. The inscription on this synagogue is dedicated to "The Lord and Savior ISU CHRESTOS." The pervasiveness of Marcionite Christianity was so complete,that if not for the prohibition of sex which precluded organic growth, it could have been the winner rather than catholic orthodoxy. Marcionism persevered alongside catholic Christianity well into the 300's CE.
Marcion's importance for the history and development of Christianity are these:
1. Marcion gives us the first attestation to the Pauline epistles. Without him, Paul's letters may never have been known. The epistles he presented were not identical to those in the orthodox canon. Missing are references to OT prophecies, messiah talk, and even the vague verses which can be construed to be indicate humanness for Jesus.
2. Marcion was the first to suggest that the new covenant represented a separate and new religion. He is in this sense the father of New Testament Christianity. His complete break with the Jewish epic and refusal to see Christianity as the inheritor and fulfillment of that continuing epic was a direct challenge to emerging catholic orthodoxy. Many protestants, especially Baptists, would find this familiar.
3. He is the first Christian to put forward a canon, an authoritative collection of writings intended to be the final arbiter in faith and practice. This "sola scriptura" stance makes him in a sense the first protestant.
4. He broke with the legalism which characterize proto-orthodox Christianity proclaiming that salvation comes through faith only. "Sola Fide" also sounds quite protestant.
5. His Gospel lacked any geneology, birth stories, childhood exploits, and association with John. The ISU of the Gospel was docetic, a heavenly being who burst on the scene only seeming to be a man. The Gospel is a form of Luke, but it is about 1/3 shorter than canonical Luke. His detractors said he shortened the original Luke, however it is just as possible that his version was the original and that orthodox scribes added the material which is now there in canonical Luke. Since Marcion was the first to present Luke's gospel, as far as history knows, it simply cannot be known whether his version was the original and later added to or if he excised objectionable material from the original. This is an interesting conundrum for fundamentalist inerrancy.
6.The reaction against him by the proto-orthodox church in Rome had incalculable implications for the history and development of Christianity, virtually all forms of which derive from that stream.
A. Marcion was roundly denounced by the Roman church. Polycarp called him "the firstborn of Satan." In that Marcionite congregations were called synagogues, and were referred to as Satanic, it is interesting that John the revelator calls a group of churches in Asia Minor (Marcionite territory) "synagogues of Satan."
B. Marcion got the ball rolling on the concept of a canon of authoritative writings by Christian authors. In the next few decades, the proto-canon began to greatly expand. Three more Pauline epistles were written 1 Tim, 2 Tim, and Titus. These epistles which clearly reflect a period when church structure and authority were coming into play make a case for a hierarchical structure and a requirement to be obedient to those in "offices" above. They also imply a much more human Jesus than the Marcionite Paulines. Interpolations into the texts of the ten Marcionite Paulines occurred. 1 Pet, and 2 Pet were written to bolster the case of catholic Christianity. The book of Acts was produced to make a case for apostolic authority, apostolic succession, and to domesticate Paul, that is, to turn him into an apostle in line with the others and even submitting to their authority. Acts created an entirely fictional historiography of the supposed origins and spread of the church previously unmentioned in any of the writings of other Christians. Luke may have been expanded to include a miraculous and human birth account to "prove" the humanity of Jesus to counter Marcion's ghost Jesus.
C. The concept of apostolic succession made possible the authority and preroggatives of the orthodox leadership to issue directives and assign the label "authentic" or "spurious" to Christian writings vying for canonical status. Many gospels, forgeries, and interpolated copies began to appear. Church leaders arbitrarily set up standards for accepting a writing as authentic and authoritative. The critera included a claim to have been written by an apostle, a claim to have been written by someone who knew an apostle, and a writing had to reflect the beliefs of a broad part of the proto-orthodox movement. Another word for this is tradition. Since many of the newly authored writings had no basis for apostolic authorship claims, the church looked for and/or created stories on the thinnest of rationale to claim apostolicity for the various expanded canon. This is a place where protestant adherants to the sola scriptura principle need to take a breath and realize that many of the NT books which were finally declared canonical are there only on account of church tradition. As Bonhoffer put it, "Protestants, in denying the authority of tradition, have cut off the branch on which they sit."
D. The Pauline epistles which make up the bulk of the NT have no historical attestation prior to Marcion. His version of the Paulines may in fact be the original. That is an open question which cannot be answered by detractors or apologists. That the Paulines were interpolated in places is quite evident. Were they even written by Paul? That also cannot be known.Marcion himself could have written them. We just don't know. But we do know that prior to Marcion's emergence in Rome with his Pauline corpus, no Christian group or writer had been referring to Paul as an authority nor to his writings as authoritative. If Marcion's Pauline Christianity was not the original version, or at least an evolved version, then where was it? The proto-orthodox leadership did with Paul what it did with various societal/cultural beliefs and practices; it absorbed rather than rejected. Marcionism/Paulinism became so pervasive that it was easier to absorb Paul, interpolate, redefine, and write in his name than to reject him outright. The result is the Judeo/Christian religion which became Christianity as we know it. Prior to Marcion, most of the other forms of Christianity had been largely Jewish with Platonic influences. Marcion's Paulinism mixed with Jewish Christianity formed a syncretic amalgam, a synthesis of the absorption of two differing streams.
E. The Creeds of the church were not just statements of faith. They became necessary in reaction to alternate and competing beliefs. The first creed "The Roman Symbol" which later evolved into the apostles creed was a reaction to Marcion. Among other things, it points out that God the father is the creator, Jesus was truly man born in the normal manner (albeit with a miraculous conception), and that there will be a final judgment with punishments, all very un-Marcionite concepts. This original creed is thought to originate from the late second century.
It is interesting to note that when Constantine called the first catholic council to accomplish doctrinal unity, the locale chosen was Nicea in the heart of Marcionite country. Since Marcionism was still competing with catholicism, Constantine's choice of Nicea must have been political, as was his legalization of catholic Christianity. The Nicene Creed, while primarily aimed at Arianism, also targets Marcionism.
Today's protestant fundamentalists have Marcion to thank for their doctrine of scripture alone. Prior to him, there was no apparent interest in according authority to any Christian writings, let alone calling them scripture. Marcion's New Testament Christianity with its own scriptures was the work of "the firstborn of Satan," as he was called by the Catholic fathers whose use of the magesterium of tradition gave us so many of the New Testament books which fundamentalists so glibly assume to be simply "the Word of God." The knowledge that the primary theological corpus of the NT, the Pauline epistles, were mediated through a heretic, interpolated by catholic copyists, and added to by creative pseudo-Pauls, should be eye-opening. Irenaeus of Lyon, writing against Marcion ca 190 CE was part of the scramble to create an authoritative canon to counter him and to define the faith. His dubious criteria for choosing just four gospels out of the dozens floating around at his time gave us the "historical Jesus" as we know him. As he said, there can only be four gospels because there are four winds (directions of the compass), seems a bit tenuous as a means of weeding out other gospels. Why just four? "Just because..." None of the four chosen can make a strong case for apostolicity. All except for expanded Luke are anonymous, and Marcion's version of Luke was also anonymous. All four gospels began to get traction in orthodox thought in the decades after Marcion, because they taught a human Jesus, the Messiah of the Jews, and the lynchpin which made Christianity the successor of Judaism. But the acceptance of apostolicity for all of them, as well as the epistles, is a matter of faith! Faith in what? Church tradition.
Thank you for the New Testament Marcion.
Bart Willruth
Meanwhile,another form of Christianity was developing in Asia Minor(the place of Paul's evangelization). It burst onto the pages of history in the first half of the second century. A wealthy man named Marcion from the city of Sinope in the province of Pontus-Bithynia which is adjacent to Galatia emerged as one of the most influential people in Christian history. Marcion, a shipping magnate, spread his version of Christianity into the Mediterranean and along the caravan routes to the east towards Syria and Persia. The dates for Marcion's life are a bit uncertain with estimates ranging from the 70's CE to about 160 CE.
It is unknown whether Marcion innovated his own Christian viewpoints or if he was carrying on a tradition inherited from earlier teachers. His father was himself a bishop. In any event, the emergence of Marcion into the historical record is our first glimpse of Pauline Christianity, the Pauline epistles, and the Gospel of Luke. He considered Paul to be the only authorative teacher of the gospel. He, along with Paul, cursed alternate or competing gospels.
Marcion presented the Christian world with its first New Testament, or canon, ca 140 CE. His New Testament contained ten epistles of Paul and one Gospel which seems to be a short version of the Gospel of Luke which he called simply "Euangelion," or "Gospel" not attributed to an author. The Pauline epistles he brought forth are Romans, Galatians, 1 Cor, 2 Cor, Laodiceans (Ephesiahs), Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thess, 2 Thess, and Philemon. He considered the epistle to the Galatians to be the most important.
Marcion's theology was quite different from that which became orthodox Christianity. He believed that the Old Testament God was not the father of Jesus. Rather, he considered the God of the Jews to be a primitive lower being who created the material world and who had very objectionable characteristics. He was jealous, envious, vindictive, retributative, angry, cruel, intrusive, and judgmental. He was a demiurge who trapped the souls of men in the misery of material bodies. In contrast, Christ made known a previously unknown God of love and benevolence. Marcion didn't deny the reality of the Jewish God, he simply dismissed him as the God of a different religion, and he rejected the Old Testament. He wished the Jews well, but proclaimed that Christianity had no part of the Jewish religion.
The Marcionite name for the heavenly savior was ISU CHRESTOS. Whether the ISU was a form of sacral abbreviation for IESUS or if it was the actual name or title cannot be known. Likewise, the spelling of CHRESTOS may have been original Pauline for the "Good helper" rather than the meaning of anointed as indicated by the familiar Christos spelling which may have been later scribal license. For him, Christ was the sudden savior, a phantom (not an actual man) who descended from God in the form of a fully mature human, snatched believers out of the control of the evil God of the Old Testament, freed them from the bondage of the Torah, and then he ascended back to the Father. He was not the Messiah of Jewish expectations. Marcion and his followers upheld an extremely high moral standard, even believing that sex within marriage was wrong, but they did not subject themselves to the Torah or any of the Jewish practices. His New Testament did not in any way tie the prophecies of the OT to Christ or to the church and its teachings.
Marcion went to Rome ca 140 CE to present his ideas to the church leaders there. They utterly rejected him. He went on to lead his followers into all the known world. Marcionism became the main competitor to emerging orthodoxy. Marcionite churches (called synagogues) could be found throughout the empire. The Marcionites called themselves "Christians" and seemed to hold the trademark for that term. The proto-orthodox groups coalesced around the name "Catholic." The oldest Christian church found by archaeologists was Marcionite, located in Syria and dating from 318 CE. The inscription on this synagogue is dedicated to "The Lord and Savior ISU CHRESTOS." The pervasiveness of Marcionite Christianity was so complete,that if not for the prohibition of sex which precluded organic growth, it could have been the winner rather than catholic orthodoxy. Marcionism persevered alongside catholic Christianity well into the 300's CE.
Marcion's importance for the history and development of Christianity are these:
1. Marcion gives us the first attestation to the Pauline epistles. Without him, Paul's letters may never have been known. The epistles he presented were not identical to those in the orthodox canon. Missing are references to OT prophecies, messiah talk, and even the vague verses which can be construed to be indicate humanness for Jesus.
2. Marcion was the first to suggest that the new covenant represented a separate and new religion. He is in this sense the father of New Testament Christianity. His complete break with the Jewish epic and refusal to see Christianity as the inheritor and fulfillment of that continuing epic was a direct challenge to emerging catholic orthodoxy. Many protestants, especially Baptists, would find this familiar.
3. He is the first Christian to put forward a canon, an authoritative collection of writings intended to be the final arbiter in faith and practice. This "sola scriptura" stance makes him in a sense the first protestant.
4. He broke with the legalism which characterize proto-orthodox Christianity proclaiming that salvation comes through faith only. "Sola Fide" also sounds quite protestant.
5. His Gospel lacked any geneology, birth stories, childhood exploits, and association with John. The ISU of the Gospel was docetic, a heavenly being who burst on the scene only seeming to be a man. The Gospel is a form of Luke, but it is about 1/3 shorter than canonical Luke. His detractors said he shortened the original Luke, however it is just as possible that his version was the original and that orthodox scribes added the material which is now there in canonical Luke. Since Marcion was the first to present Luke's gospel, as far as history knows, it simply cannot be known whether his version was the original and later added to or if he excised objectionable material from the original. This is an interesting conundrum for fundamentalist inerrancy.
6.The reaction against him by the proto-orthodox church in Rome had incalculable implications for the history and development of Christianity, virtually all forms of which derive from that stream.
A. Marcion was roundly denounced by the Roman church. Polycarp called him "the firstborn of Satan." In that Marcionite congregations were called synagogues, and were referred to as Satanic, it is interesting that John the revelator calls a group of churches in Asia Minor (Marcionite territory) "synagogues of Satan."
B. Marcion got the ball rolling on the concept of a canon of authoritative writings by Christian authors. In the next few decades, the proto-canon began to greatly expand. Three more Pauline epistles were written 1 Tim, 2 Tim, and Titus. These epistles which clearly reflect a period when church structure and authority were coming into play make a case for a hierarchical structure and a requirement to be obedient to those in "offices" above. They also imply a much more human Jesus than the Marcionite Paulines. Interpolations into the texts of the ten Marcionite Paulines occurred. 1 Pet, and 2 Pet were written to bolster the case of catholic Christianity. The book of Acts was produced to make a case for apostolic authority, apostolic succession, and to domesticate Paul, that is, to turn him into an apostle in line with the others and even submitting to their authority. Acts created an entirely fictional historiography of the supposed origins and spread of the church previously unmentioned in any of the writings of other Christians. Luke may have been expanded to include a miraculous and human birth account to "prove" the humanity of Jesus to counter Marcion's ghost Jesus.
C. The concept of apostolic succession made possible the authority and preroggatives of the orthodox leadership to issue directives and assign the label "authentic" or "spurious" to Christian writings vying for canonical status. Many gospels, forgeries, and interpolated copies began to appear. Church leaders arbitrarily set up standards for accepting a writing as authentic and authoritative. The critera included a claim to have been written by an apostle, a claim to have been written by someone who knew an apostle, and a writing had to reflect the beliefs of a broad part of the proto-orthodox movement. Another word for this is tradition. Since many of the newly authored writings had no basis for apostolic authorship claims, the church looked for and/or created stories on the thinnest of rationale to claim apostolicity for the various expanded canon. This is a place where protestant adherants to the sola scriptura principle need to take a breath and realize that many of the NT books which were finally declared canonical are there only on account of church tradition. As Bonhoffer put it, "Protestants, in denying the authority of tradition, have cut off the branch on which they sit."
D. The Pauline epistles which make up the bulk of the NT have no historical attestation prior to Marcion. His version of the Paulines may in fact be the original. That is an open question which cannot be answered by detractors or apologists. That the Paulines were interpolated in places is quite evident. Were they even written by Paul? That also cannot be known.Marcion himself could have written them. We just don't know. But we do know that prior to Marcion's emergence in Rome with his Pauline corpus, no Christian group or writer had been referring to Paul as an authority nor to his writings as authoritative. If Marcion's Pauline Christianity was not the original version, or at least an evolved version, then where was it? The proto-orthodox leadership did with Paul what it did with various societal/cultural beliefs and practices; it absorbed rather than rejected. Marcionism/Paulinism became so pervasive that it was easier to absorb Paul, interpolate, redefine, and write in his name than to reject him outright. The result is the Judeo/Christian religion which became Christianity as we know it. Prior to Marcion, most of the other forms of Christianity had been largely Jewish with Platonic influences. Marcion's Paulinism mixed with Jewish Christianity formed a syncretic amalgam, a synthesis of the absorption of two differing streams.
E. The Creeds of the church were not just statements of faith. They became necessary in reaction to alternate and competing beliefs. The first creed "The Roman Symbol" which later evolved into the apostles creed was a reaction to Marcion. Among other things, it points out that God the father is the creator, Jesus was truly man born in the normal manner (albeit with a miraculous conception), and that there will be a final judgment with punishments, all very un-Marcionite concepts. This original creed is thought to originate from the late second century.
It is interesting to note that when Constantine called the first catholic council to accomplish doctrinal unity, the locale chosen was Nicea in the heart of Marcionite country. Since Marcionism was still competing with catholicism, Constantine's choice of Nicea must have been political, as was his legalization of catholic Christianity. The Nicene Creed, while primarily aimed at Arianism, also targets Marcionism.
Today's protestant fundamentalists have Marcion to thank for their doctrine of scripture alone. Prior to him, there was no apparent interest in according authority to any Christian writings, let alone calling them scripture. Marcion's New Testament Christianity with its own scriptures was the work of "the firstborn of Satan," as he was called by the Catholic fathers whose use of the magesterium of tradition gave us so many of the New Testament books which fundamentalists so glibly assume to be simply "the Word of God." The knowledge that the primary theological corpus of the NT, the Pauline epistles, were mediated through a heretic, interpolated by catholic copyists, and added to by creative pseudo-Pauls, should be eye-opening. Irenaeus of Lyon, writing against Marcion ca 190 CE was part of the scramble to create an authoritative canon to counter him and to define the faith. His dubious criteria for choosing just four gospels out of the dozens floating around at his time gave us the "historical Jesus" as we know him. As he said, there can only be four gospels because there are four winds (directions of the compass), seems a bit tenuous as a means of weeding out other gospels. Why just four? "Just because..." None of the four chosen can make a strong case for apostolicity. All except for expanded Luke are anonymous, and Marcion's version of Luke was also anonymous. All four gospels began to get traction in orthodox thought in the decades after Marcion, because they taught a human Jesus, the Messiah of the Jews, and the lynchpin which made Christianity the successor of Judaism. But the acceptance of apostolicity for all of them, as well as the epistles, is a matter of faith! Faith in what? Church tradition.
Thank you for the New Testament Marcion.
Bart Willruth
The Protestant Atrocities: Manifest Destiny and Slavery
I've highlighted some of the sins of the church in the past, like the witch hunts, and the inquisition, but some evangelical Christians want to claim that was the Catholic church and not the true church. Well then, how about Manifest Destiny and Native American slaughter, along with southern slavery? What Christian people have done in the name of faith and religion is atrocious. See the video below:
I have a hard time understanding the lyrics of this, but the images and story of Native Americans is absolutely horrible. Ever hear of the trail of tears?
I have a hard time understanding the lyrics of this, but the images and story of Native Americans is absolutely horrible. Ever hear of the trail of tears?
March 27, 2008
Mistaken Identity
Whitney Cerak survived. Laura Van Ryn died. But Whitney had a traumatic brain injury and didn't know who she was. And so Laura's family was told that Whitney was Laura, and Laura was buried as Whitney. This is human failing at its worst.
Whitney, however, has had her faith strengthened as her memories have come back. Five people died. Whitney's head suffered a major concussion with post-traumatic brain injury and she had multiple fractured bones. She's lost five weeks of her life and five of her friends. But this was all for the good. It was God's only way of giving her life a purpose.
For those of you who have not had a traumatic brain injury during the death of five friends: How do you make do without a purpose in your life.
So here is my point in bringing this up. Is there really any fact of life at all that can shake the belief of someone? Is there anything God can do that doesn't redound to his glory? Is there a difference between God's plan and the plan of a stone idol?
I submit that this is where most freethinkers get off the bus. If an omnipotent God can't find a better way to infuse the life of a teenager with meaning than to destroy four families and traumatize a fifth, than he's indistinguishable from an imaginary God.
Whitney, however, has had her faith strengthened as her memories have come back. Five people died. Whitney's head suffered a major concussion with post-traumatic brain injury and she had multiple fractured bones. She's lost five weeks of her life and five of her friends. But this was all for the good. It was God's only way of giving her life a purpose.
For those of you who have not had a traumatic brain injury during the death of five friends: How do you make do without a purpose in your life.
So here is my point in bringing this up. Is there really any fact of life at all that can shake the belief of someone? Is there anything God can do that doesn't redound to his glory? Is there a difference between God's plan and the plan of a stone idol?
I submit that this is where most freethinkers get off the bus. If an omnipotent God can't find a better way to infuse the life of a teenager with meaning than to destroy four families and traumatize a fifth, than he's indistinguishable from an imaginary God.
March 26, 2008
Police: Family Prayed Instead of Getting Medical Aid for Girl Who Died
The harms of faith exhibited before our eyes. It can kill you! Here's the Link. Below is the text:
Associated Press — 3/26/2008 9:35 am
WESTON -- An 11-year-old girl died after her parents prayed for healing rather than seek medical help for a treatable form of diabetes, police said Tuesday.
Everest Metro Police Chief Dan Vergin said Madeline Neumann died Sunday.
"She got sicker and sicker until she was dead," he said.
Vergin said an autopsy determined the girl died from diabetic ketoacidosis, an ailment that left her with too little insulin in her body, and she had probably been ill for about 30 days, suffering symptoms like nausea, vomiting, excessive thirst, loss of appetite and weakness.
The girl's parents, Dale and Leilani Neumann, attributed the death to "apparently they didn't have enough faith," the police chief said.
They believed the key to healing "was it was better to keep praying. Call more people to help pray," he said.
The mother believes the girl could still be resurrected, the police chief said.
Telephone messages left at the Neumann home by The Associated Press were not immediately returned.
The family does not attend an organized church or participate in an organized religion, Vergin said. "They have a little Bible study of a few people."
The parents told investigators their daughter last saw a doctor when she was 3 to get some shots, Vergin said. The girl had attended public school during the first semester but didn't return for the second semester.
Officers went to the home after one of the girl's relatives in California called police to check on her, Vergin said. She was taken to a hospital where she was pronounced dead.
The relative was fearful the girl was "extremely ill, dire," Vergin said.
The girl has three siblings, ranging in age from 13 to 16, the police chief said.
"They are still in the home," he said. "There is no reason to remove them. There is no abuse or signs of abuse that we can see."
The girl's death remains under investigation and the findings will be forwarded to the district attorney to review for possible charges, the chief said.
The family operates a coffee shop in Weston, which is a suburb of Wausau, Vergin said.
Thanks to Shygetz for this.
Associated Press — 3/26/2008 9:35 am
WESTON -- An 11-year-old girl died after her parents prayed for healing rather than seek medical help for a treatable form of diabetes, police said Tuesday.
Everest Metro Police Chief Dan Vergin said Madeline Neumann died Sunday.
"She got sicker and sicker until she was dead," he said.
Vergin said an autopsy determined the girl died from diabetic ketoacidosis, an ailment that left her with too little insulin in her body, and she had probably been ill for about 30 days, suffering symptoms like nausea, vomiting, excessive thirst, loss of appetite and weakness.
The girl's parents, Dale and Leilani Neumann, attributed the death to "apparently they didn't have enough faith," the police chief said.
They believed the key to healing "was it was better to keep praying. Call more people to help pray," he said.
The mother believes the girl could still be resurrected, the police chief said.
Telephone messages left at the Neumann home by The Associated Press were not immediately returned.
The family does not attend an organized church or participate in an organized religion, Vergin said. "They have a little Bible study of a few people."
The parents told investigators their daughter last saw a doctor when she was 3 to get some shots, Vergin said. The girl had attended public school during the first semester but didn't return for the second semester.
Officers went to the home after one of the girl's relatives in California called police to check on her, Vergin said. She was taken to a hospital where she was pronounced dead.
The relative was fearful the girl was "extremely ill, dire," Vergin said.
The girl has three siblings, ranging in age from 13 to 16, the police chief said.
"They are still in the home," he said. "There is no reason to remove them. There is no abuse or signs of abuse that we can see."
The girl's death remains under investigation and the findings will be forwarded to the district attorney to review for possible charges, the chief said.
The family operates a coffee shop in Weston, which is a suburb of Wausau, Vergin said.
Thanks to Shygetz for this.
March 24, 2008
The Wickedness of Praying for the Sick
Having recently finished Professor Ehrman's "God's Problem," I was struck by his decision to never say grace over food. His logic was that if there were people in the world dying every five seconds from starvation, it was tantamount to thanking God for giving this food to him, at their expense. He felt he couldn't be thankful that he had been singled out for reasons that had only to do with his birthplace, which made quite a bit of sense to me.
Thus I began to consider analogous behaviors and the first one that I thought of was praying for the sick to recover. If Ehrman's original proposition, that praying to thank the Lord for food that you have, while others are starving is valid, is it not equally valid when it comes to praying for the sick to recover?
There are 8.2 deaths per 1000 people per year in the US. Some countries are better, some are much worse. That means that with 300 million residents, there are roughly 2.5 million deaths in the US per year, or roughly 6700 people per day dying. This is in the US alone. If you assume the death rate globally is higher, say 8.6 per 1000, and you assume 6 billion people, you can see the actual number of dying people God can potentially save per day is around 140,000 (I leave others to detect the irony of this number).
Yet the person praying for the sick to recover believes that her action can affect the transcendent creator of the universe to intervene for the person they know. Imagine if it were so.
Imagine that the only thing that were keeping the death rate up was the lack of prayers for the sick and dying. Think of a statistical analysis that showed rigorously that prayer worked, but only the prayers of members of the (imaginary) Dutch Reformed Church, and only those prayers addressed to "Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, in whom is manifest the will of the Father" that took place in a Dutch Reformed Church. And imagine that such a prayer was shown to extend the life of the dying person by 6 hours per hour of prayer spent.
Would people convert en masse to the (imaginary) Dutch Reformed Church? Would they be willing to travel to the (imaginary) Dutch Reformed Church to pray for the sick personally for one hour to extend their lives another 6 hours? For how long would this continue? Would people quit their jobs and become professional "prayers"?
I am sure some would.
But I doubt the numbers would be very large. And I doubt the number of conversions to Dutch Reformed would be very great. And I also doubt that members of other congregations would consider the analysis valid.
So is it not more reasonable, more humane, and more just to believe that the sick die from their diseases and NOT due to a lack of prayer? Many of my family have prayed for the sick, and on their recovery been thankful to the (imaginary) Lord for speeding the recovery of the patient. Are they then not condemning the person who did not recover for not having had adequate prayer support? Do they believe the (imaginary) deity is keeping a tally sheet and only responding when a given prayer threshold has been met?
I recall well when a very close childhood friend of mine was dying from a progressive neurological disorder. I was at the hospital with him waiting for his brain biopsy. He was still lucid, but aphasic. A very well-meaning woman asked what was going on, and I explained it to her. She assured me she would pray for him and he would get better. I was sure he would not, but didn't disagree openly with her.
Should I hold it against her that he died? Is it her fault that the (imaginary) deity chose not to make an exception for my friend when he contracted this universally fatal neurological disease?
I think not. It is wicked to suggest that all people who die weren't prayed for adequately, and therefore, by the same principle, it is wicked to pray for anyone who is ill, because you suggest that your prayer had efficacy in saving them, and thus condemn as inadequate the futile prayers said for those who died.
In advance I can anticipate the apologetic responses:
1. God is inscrutable.
2. All things work together for good, and God wished these peoples' deaths as part of a divine plan.
3. The suffering and death of these people leads to increased strength of character in the face of adversity of those who survive them.
To number 1, I say if God is so inscrutable, why did he write a book about him coming to earth and healing only some people? Why doesn't he just miraculously cure all suffering people and be done with it?
To number 2, I say if there is a divine plan, why does it involve such incredible suffering, and why should we make that suffering worse by making people feel responsible for it?
To number 3, I say if I could poke a hole through your arm with a sharp stick because it would make you a stronger person to deal with it, should I?
Finally, I would ask what goes through the mind of an ill person in their final minutes when they are sure they are going to die yet they know people have prayed for them? Are they grateful the prayers were sent, even though they are going to die anyway? Or do they worry that the prayers weren't effective due to some character flaw or past "sin" which is their responsibility?
Is not the second possibility unbelievably wicked? Yet it is a certainty that a percentage of believers thus prayed for will think it. And they will think this as they leave the earth for good.
Prayer for the sick should cease. It causes pain and misery in the dying and keeps the living from accepting the nature of life and reality. Is it so hard to simply wish speedy recovery for the sick from a human perspective? Is it so hard to say that you are pulling for someone to recover and leave the cosmic workings of the universe out of it? Need we have each person who has done a bad thing in her life suffering as she expires because she thinks she is being punished?
Thus I began to consider analogous behaviors and the first one that I thought of was praying for the sick to recover. If Ehrman's original proposition, that praying to thank the Lord for food that you have, while others are starving is valid, is it not equally valid when it comes to praying for the sick to recover?
There are 8.2 deaths per 1000 people per year in the US. Some countries are better, some are much worse. That means that with 300 million residents, there are roughly 2.5 million deaths in the US per year, or roughly 6700 people per day dying. This is in the US alone. If you assume the death rate globally is higher, say 8.6 per 1000, and you assume 6 billion people, you can see the actual number of dying people God can potentially save per day is around 140,000 (I leave others to detect the irony of this number).
Yet the person praying for the sick to recover believes that her action can affect the transcendent creator of the universe to intervene for the person they know. Imagine if it were so.
Imagine that the only thing that were keeping the death rate up was the lack of prayers for the sick and dying. Think of a statistical analysis that showed rigorously that prayer worked, but only the prayers of members of the (imaginary) Dutch Reformed Church, and only those prayers addressed to "Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, in whom is manifest the will of the Father" that took place in a Dutch Reformed Church. And imagine that such a prayer was shown to extend the life of the dying person by 6 hours per hour of prayer spent.
Would people convert en masse to the (imaginary) Dutch Reformed Church? Would they be willing to travel to the (imaginary) Dutch Reformed Church to pray for the sick personally for one hour to extend their lives another 6 hours? For how long would this continue? Would people quit their jobs and become professional "prayers"?
I am sure some would.
But I doubt the numbers would be very large. And I doubt the number of conversions to Dutch Reformed would be very great. And I also doubt that members of other congregations would consider the analysis valid.
So is it not more reasonable, more humane, and more just to believe that the sick die from their diseases and NOT due to a lack of prayer? Many of my family have prayed for the sick, and on their recovery been thankful to the (imaginary) Lord for speeding the recovery of the patient. Are they then not condemning the person who did not recover for not having had adequate prayer support? Do they believe the (imaginary) deity is keeping a tally sheet and only responding when a given prayer threshold has been met?
I recall well when a very close childhood friend of mine was dying from a progressive neurological disorder. I was at the hospital with him waiting for his brain biopsy. He was still lucid, but aphasic. A very well-meaning woman asked what was going on, and I explained it to her. She assured me she would pray for him and he would get better. I was sure he would not, but didn't disagree openly with her.
Should I hold it against her that he died? Is it her fault that the (imaginary) deity chose not to make an exception for my friend when he contracted this universally fatal neurological disease?
I think not. It is wicked to suggest that all people who die weren't prayed for adequately, and therefore, by the same principle, it is wicked to pray for anyone who is ill, because you suggest that your prayer had efficacy in saving them, and thus condemn as inadequate the futile prayers said for those who died.
In advance I can anticipate the apologetic responses:
1. God is inscrutable.
2. All things work together for good, and God wished these peoples' deaths as part of a divine plan.
3. The suffering and death of these people leads to increased strength of character in the face of adversity of those who survive them.
To number 1, I say if God is so inscrutable, why did he write a book about him coming to earth and healing only some people? Why doesn't he just miraculously cure all suffering people and be done with it?
To number 2, I say if there is a divine plan, why does it involve such incredible suffering, and why should we make that suffering worse by making people feel responsible for it?
To number 3, I say if I could poke a hole through your arm with a sharp stick because it would make you a stronger person to deal with it, should I?
Finally, I would ask what goes through the mind of an ill person in their final minutes when they are sure they are going to die yet they know people have prayed for them? Are they grateful the prayers were sent, even though they are going to die anyway? Or do they worry that the prayers weren't effective due to some character flaw or past "sin" which is their responsibility?
Is not the second possibility unbelievably wicked? Yet it is a certainty that a percentage of believers thus prayed for will think it. And they will think this as they leave the earth for good.
Prayer for the sick should cease. It causes pain and misery in the dying and keeps the living from accepting the nature of life and reality. Is it so hard to simply wish speedy recovery for the sick from a human perspective? Is it so hard to say that you are pulling for someone to recover and leave the cosmic workings of the universe out of it? Need we have each person who has done a bad thing in her life suffering as she expires because she thinks she is being punished?
March 23, 2008
The Human Heart as Brain in Christian Thinking
The Jarvik 7 Artificial Heart
(Could Jesus Live Here?)
Several years ago I debated a Christian apologist over the fact that the Biblical writers had no idea of what the human brain was.
My point was that, if the Bible was correct, than the first artificial heart recipients Barney Clark and Robert Schrader (who died on these machines) would have been "unable to have asked Jesus into their hearts" since they had no hearts “for him to live in” and thus ended up in Hell. This Christian apologist said this was "ridiculous" and was very adamant that the term "heart" in the Bible was used as a purely symbolic term and "they knew fully well that it was not the place of emotions and thought". Of course, I strongly disagreed and reaffirmed that what the Bible said about the heart / Kardia is exactly what it meant! Thus, such a statement by Jesus is typical of the entire New Testament: “For out of the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, sexual sins, thefts, false testimony, and blasphemies.” (Matt. 15:19)
Moreover, if this very important word is merely a symbolic term in the New Testament, then how are we to know whether other important terms such a Resurrection, Heaven, Hell, Virgin Birth and the many more important doctrinal terms themselves are not also simply symbolic terms when use in theology?
Put in a historical perspective, this concept of the heart would be expected of any ancient Near Eastern culture whose understanding of human anatomy was hardly a scientific fact. Most ancient cultures felt the heart was the seat of emotions because it reacted via its heart rate depending on the emotional state of the person...thus a person was claimed to think and feel emotions with his or her heart ( Compare Hebrew “LBB“ with Akkadian “libbu” / “seru“) .
The Biblical tradition is filled with claims of organs used as the seat of emotions drawn from her neighbors. The Hebrew Bible understands the liver, bowels and heart as emotional seats for mental states which was latter defined in the New Testament (under Hellenistic / Greek influence) as the heart being the emotional center. This concept was symbolized over a thousand years earlier by the ancient Egyptians who, in the process of mummification of their pharaoh god for eternal life, the priests would save all the major internal organs in urns (including the heart) and removed the brain through the nasal cavity and threw it away as totally useless.
For two thousand years the Church has continue this erroneous concept about the heart. Gospel tracts tell the "sinner" that his heart is corrupt and that "only Jesus can heal a sinful heart" and all people "must give their hearts to Jesus". In the last days all humanity will stand before God and be judged on the thought and intents of the heart.
Catholic icons of both the Virgin Mary and Jesus often show each with a sacred (often wounded) heart shaped much like the symbol we would see on Valentine cards or love letters. While watching new's reports from the Vatican on the death watch of Pope John Paul II, a major news reporter stated that: "This heart that loved his Church and the world so much is now starting to fail." After his death, a cardinal stated that John Paul II's body would be interned in the grotto under St. Peter's Basilica, but this Polish pope's heart would be removed (cut out) from his body and sent back to his native Poland for burial to show his love for his native country.
With respect to the above (and as my summation), as long as Christianity pushes theology (which is of itself a very flawed reasoning system drawn from a pre-scientific ancient world view) as the dogmatic bases for the truth, then any modern society is doomed to have its scientific advances hobbled to an anachronistic mythical religious past.
Why I Don't Believe the Resurrection Happened.
Skepticism of the Resurrection
There are two chief reasons I do not believe that the resurrection happened in history. First of all, because I believe that supernatural/miraculous claims require supernatural/miraculous forms of evidence to support them. The second reason is because the only supposed evidence that we do have, the canonical New Testament resurrection narratives are errant. Let me explain my two reasons here in greater detail. But, before doing so, I must explain what I mean by natural and the "supernatural" as well as the logical axiom that I operate under, that "supernatural" claims require "supernatural" forms of evidence.
There are two chief reasons I do not believe that the resurrection happened in history. First of all, because I believe that supernatural/miraculous claims require supernatural/miraculous forms of evidence to support them. The second reason is because the only supposed evidence that we do have, the canonical New Testament resurrection narratives are errant. Let me explain my two reasons here in greater detail. But, before doing so, I must explain what I mean by natural and the "supernatural" as well as the logical axiom that I operate under, that "supernatural" claims require "supernatural" forms of evidence.
March 21, 2008
On Dealing With Apostates Like Us: An Update
Sometimes I update entries in the archives. I did so recently on the offensive riposete used by many Christians in dealing with apostates like us. Link.
March 20, 2008
Faith in Action
I was born in Manila and my mother used to regale me with stories about the local Filipino rituals of self-flagellation and crucifixion. At the time I was convinced it was all part of the Roman church's incorrigible barbarism. Obviously over time my ideas about most things have changed.
Protestantism left me, but my revulsion at self-flagellation and crucifixion in the modern era hasn't altered at all. So when I read stories like this one, it does make me cringe, no less so for the pictures.
I'm sure that there are no evangelicals and extremely few Roman Catholics and Orthodox who would support this practice. Yet it shows what happens when faith goes bad. These are people who I see as extremely misguided, even from a Christian point of view. Yet I imagine many good protestant missionaries (like my parents) have tried to convince people out of this ritual and we see they have not had much success. I also feel the Roman Catholic church should do more than "frown" on the practice. They should denounce it and excommunicate anyone who participates in it, just like they would if they married an atheist.
Protestantism left me, but my revulsion at self-flagellation and crucifixion in the modern era hasn't altered at all. So when I read stories like this one, it does make me cringe, no less so for the pictures.
I'm sure that there are no evangelicals and extremely few Roman Catholics and Orthodox who would support this practice. Yet it shows what happens when faith goes bad. These are people who I see as extremely misguided, even from a Christian point of view. Yet I imagine many good protestant missionaries (like my parents) have tried to convince people out of this ritual and we see they have not had much success. I also feel the Roman Catholic church should do more than "frown" on the practice. They should denounce it and excommunicate anyone who participates in it, just like they would if they married an atheist.
"What Evidence is There Against the Existence of God?"
Dr. William Lane Craig asks this question in his debates. Let me attempt to answer it.
In the first place, what is the evidence against the existence of fairies or unicorns? If by looking and not seeing any isn’t considered evidence against their existence, then I don’t know what is required here. Let Dr. Craig first provide evidence against the existence of fairies or unicorns and I’ll provide evidence against the existence of God. Someone cannot provide evidence against the existence of an non-entity, since if it doesn't exist then it cannot leave any traces of its non-existence for us to examine. Think about this.
Now I do happen to think there is evidence against the existence of the Christian God, since that God depends upon the revelation found within the pages of the canonized writings in the Bible. There is the empirical evidence of intense undeserved suffering in the world which cannot be explained by a perfectly good omnipotent creator; there is archaeological evidence against the Biblical stories of the world-wide flood, the Exodus and the conquest stories in the Bible; there is geological evidence showing the earth has existed for 5 billion years; there is biological evidence showing one species evolved into the next one which disconfirms there was ever a time when there was no death in the Garden of Eden; there is psychological evidence that no wrathful God could exist given the fact that we believe and behave as we do based upon early childhood experiences; there is neurological evidence in that strokes and seizes disconfirm the notion of a soul; there is historical evidence against the believability of the virgin birth story, Satan, hell and the bodily resurrection of Jesus from the dead too. Christians will try to dispute this evidence and/or try to show it doesn't amount to much. I vehemently disagree, but it is evidence, plenty of it. And there is more I haven't mentioned. The evidence is against the God we find in the Bible, period.
In the first place, what is the evidence against the existence of fairies or unicorns? If by looking and not seeing any isn’t considered evidence against their existence, then I don’t know what is required here. Let Dr. Craig first provide evidence against the existence of fairies or unicorns and I’ll provide evidence against the existence of God. Someone cannot provide evidence against the existence of an non-entity, since if it doesn't exist then it cannot leave any traces of its non-existence for us to examine. Think about this.
Now I do happen to think there is evidence against the existence of the Christian God, since that God depends upon the revelation found within the pages of the canonized writings in the Bible. There is the empirical evidence of intense undeserved suffering in the world which cannot be explained by a perfectly good omnipotent creator; there is archaeological evidence against the Biblical stories of the world-wide flood, the Exodus and the conquest stories in the Bible; there is geological evidence showing the earth has existed for 5 billion years; there is biological evidence showing one species evolved into the next one which disconfirms there was ever a time when there was no death in the Garden of Eden; there is psychological evidence that no wrathful God could exist given the fact that we believe and behave as we do based upon early childhood experiences; there is neurological evidence in that strokes and seizes disconfirm the notion of a soul; there is historical evidence against the believability of the virgin birth story, Satan, hell and the bodily resurrection of Jesus from the dead too. Christians will try to dispute this evidence and/or try to show it doesn't amount to much. I vehemently disagree, but it is evidence, plenty of it. And there is more I haven't mentioned. The evidence is against the God we find in the Bible, period.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)