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
March 28, 2008
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.
When Leaving Jesus Means Losing Your Family
Valerie Tarico wrote on this topic for The Huffington Post.
March 19, 2008
An Awareness Test Reveals Our Differences.
Don't read what I write below until you've viewed the video above. Even though reading what I wrote probably won't affect the viewing of the video, do what it says first. After you do scroll down for my comments...
We see things we're looking for and we neglect to see that which we aren't looking for. WE ALL DO THIS! ALL OF US! That's why magicians fool us. Unless we know better we are all easily fooled by the sleight of hand. That's also why I have stressed over and over again that we must justify the way we see things. I have done so here.
It won't do for Christians to merely claim that I am in the same boat, for I have justified why I see things differently. Christians need to show me why I am wrong and then provide a better explanation for why they see things differently.
Q.E.D.
March 18, 2008
Historical Reliability
We hear constantly from apologists that multiple attestation of miraculous events makes those events more likely than not. We hear constantly from apologists that if several sources report the same miracle story, than that makes the miracle all the more likely. Yet few, if any apologists worship Serapis, and almost none view the Emperor Vespasian with anything like the reverence due to him if their theory of history is right.
A recent article in New Testament Studies (54 (1). 2008. 1-17) by Eric Eve discusses the story of the Emperor Vespasian healing a blind man with his spittle and contrasts it to the similar healing of the man from Bethsaida in the gospel of Mark.
Here is Tacitus on this healing:
One of the common people of Alexandria, well-known for his blindness, threw himself at the Emperor's knees, and implored him with groans to heal his infirmity. This he did by the advice of the God Serapis, whom this nation, devoted as it is to many superstitions, worships more than any other divinity. He begged Vespasian that he would deign to moisten his cheeks and eye-balls with his spittle. Another with a diseased hand, at the counsel of the same God, prayed that the limb might feel the print of a Cæsar's foot. At first Vespasian ridiculed and repulsed them. They persisted; and he, though on the one hand he feared the scandal of a fruitless attempt, yet, on the other, was induced by the entreaties of the men and by the language of his flatterers to hope for success. At last he ordered that the opinion of physicians should be taken, as to whether such blindness and infirmity were within the reach of human skill. They discussed the matter from different points of view. "In the one case," they said, "the faculty of sight was not wholly destroyed, and might return, if the obstacles were removed; in the other case, the limb, which had fallen into a diseased condition might be restored, if a healing influence were applied; such, perhaps, might be the pleasure of the Gods, and the Emperor might be chosen to be the minister of the divine will; at any rate, all the glory of a successful remedy would be Cæsar's, while the ridicule of failure would fall on the sufferers." And so Vespasian, supposing that all things were possible to his good fortune, and that nothing was any longer past belief, with a joyful countenance, amid the intense expectation of the multitude of bystanders, accomplished what was required. The hand was instantly restored to its use, and the light of day again shone upon the blind. Persons actually present attest both facts, even now when nothing is to be gained by falsehood.
Now this is clearly eyewitness testimony of the sort that we must regard as reliable if we are to use the historical method of the apologists. In addition, the story is multiply attested albeit with slight and theologically insignificant changes in detail as we see in this passage from Suetonius:
Vespasian as yet lacked prestige and a certain divinity, so to speak, since he was an unexpected and still new-made emperor; but these also were given him. A man of the people who was blind, and another who was lame, came to him together as he sat on the tribunal, begging for the help for their disorders which Serapis had promised in a dream; for the god declared that Vespasian would restore the eyes, if he would spit upon them, and give strength to the leg, if he would deign to touch it with his heel. Though he had hardly any faith that this could possibly succeed, and therefore shrank even from making the attempt, he was at last prevailed upon by his friends and tried both things in public before a large crowd; and with success. At this same time, by the direction of certain soothsayers, some vases of antique workmanship were dug up in a consecrated spot at Tegea in Arcadia and on them was an image very like Vespasian.
Remember that Tacitus and Suetonius are considered the verifiers of the existence of the historical Jesus by most apologists. They are used repeatedly as texts to show the veracity of the gospel accounts. I am curious what stance apologists such as Dr. William Lane Craig would make of this multiply attested account of a miracle based on eyewitness testimony. If this is not considered to be a miracle, on what basis do we make that judgment? And if it is considered a miracle, why is there no St. Vespasian?
A recent article in New Testament Studies (54 (1). 2008. 1-17) by Eric Eve discusses the story of the Emperor Vespasian healing a blind man with his spittle and contrasts it to the similar healing of the man from Bethsaida in the gospel of Mark.
Here is Tacitus on this healing:
One of the common people of Alexandria, well-known for his blindness, threw himself at the Emperor's knees, and implored him with groans to heal his infirmity. This he did by the advice of the God Serapis, whom this nation, devoted as it is to many superstitions, worships more than any other divinity. He begged Vespasian that he would deign to moisten his cheeks and eye-balls with his spittle. Another with a diseased hand, at the counsel of the same God, prayed that the limb might feel the print of a Cæsar's foot. At first Vespasian ridiculed and repulsed them. They persisted; and he, though on the one hand he feared the scandal of a fruitless attempt, yet, on the other, was induced by the entreaties of the men and by the language of his flatterers to hope for success. At last he ordered that the opinion of physicians should be taken, as to whether such blindness and infirmity were within the reach of human skill. They discussed the matter from different points of view. "In the one case," they said, "the faculty of sight was not wholly destroyed, and might return, if the obstacles were removed; in the other case, the limb, which had fallen into a diseased condition might be restored, if a healing influence were applied; such, perhaps, might be the pleasure of the Gods, and the Emperor might be chosen to be the minister of the divine will; at any rate, all the glory of a successful remedy would be Cæsar's, while the ridicule of failure would fall on the sufferers." And so Vespasian, supposing that all things were possible to his good fortune, and that nothing was any longer past belief, with a joyful countenance, amid the intense expectation of the multitude of bystanders, accomplished what was required. The hand was instantly restored to its use, and the light of day again shone upon the blind. Persons actually present attest both facts, even now when nothing is to be gained by falsehood.
Now this is clearly eyewitness testimony of the sort that we must regard as reliable if we are to use the historical method of the apologists. In addition, the story is multiply attested albeit with slight and theologically insignificant changes in detail as we see in this passage from Suetonius:
Vespasian as yet lacked prestige and a certain divinity, so to speak, since he was an unexpected and still new-made emperor; but these also were given him. A man of the people who was blind, and another who was lame, came to him together as he sat on the tribunal, begging for the help for their disorders which Serapis had promised in a dream; for the god declared that Vespasian would restore the eyes, if he would spit upon them, and give strength to the leg, if he would deign to touch it with his heel. Though he had hardly any faith that this could possibly succeed, and therefore shrank even from making the attempt, he was at last prevailed upon by his friends and tried both things in public before a large crowd; and with success. At this same time, by the direction of certain soothsayers, some vases of antique workmanship were dug up in a consecrated spot at Tegea in Arcadia and on them was an image very like Vespasian.
Remember that Tacitus and Suetonius are considered the verifiers of the existence of the historical Jesus by most apologists. They are used repeatedly as texts to show the veracity of the gospel accounts. I am curious what stance apologists such as Dr. William Lane Craig would make of this multiply attested account of a miracle based on eyewitness testimony. If this is not considered to be a miracle, on what basis do we make that judgment? And if it is considered a miracle, why is there no St. Vespasian?
March 17, 2008
Publishers Weekly Ad March 2008
It's nice to know Prometheus Books advertised my book with their only NY Times bestseller to date...
No, I don't know when it'll come out, but I can't wait.
No, I don't know when it'll come out, but I can't wait.
Invitation for Comment: Where did they go?
Mankind has gotten better and better at astronomy over the past three centuries. We now have stunning images of vast spaces of the visible universe. Yet we probably see less than 5% of the matter that exists. One thing nobody has ever seen with a telescope is anything that looks like heaven.
The Bible, on the other hand, clearly shows us a heaven that is close to us, reachable by proximity to the clouds. God brings people up to him through the clouds, acts from within clouds, and is afraid of people who get too close to the clouds.
The first proximity event I'd like to bring up is the story of the tower of Babel. This is a tower being built by Nimrod, who the Bible doesn't accuse of wickedness or evil. Since it usually has no problem doing that, we can presume that Nimrod wasn't wicked or evil. Nimrod gets his people together and decides to build a tower (I imagine a ziggurat) out of bricks. Here I'll quote:
And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.
And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.
This story suggests that Yahweh was concerned that people would invade heaven if they built a tall enough building, so he made it harder for them to communicate. His concern is obviously that the tower, if large enough could reach the divine realm that sits just above the clouds, and the tower would be a bridge to this, and much more permanent than just a ladder.
The next story I'll mention is of Elijah being taken to heaven. Elijah dries up a river, crosses on dry land across it with Elisha, "And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, which parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.
It's a good thing everything was made of fire. The temperature at 12,000 feet is usually below freezing. At 30000 feet it's below -35 C usually. But of course the deeper question is where Elijah went after he left the stratosphere. There's no oxygen to breathe at that point, and Elijah seemed to be a normal man getting into a normal chariot of fire, with normal horses made of fire. If Elijah never changed -- where is he now?
Apologists may say that God miracled Elijah to heaven. I can't disprove it. He obviously miracled him the the flaming horses. But why send the horses and chariot in the first place except to show off if you are gonna have to miracle him off well before 15000 feet. It seems illogical.
Finally we get to Jesus. Now again, it's quite clear that at his ascension he had a human body. That's why someone could bloody up their fingers by sticking them in his wounds. Yet again, he goes up into the sky. Where'd he go? Is heaven a place? If it is -- what direction is it? If it's not a place, why go up into the sky to get there?
As many of us know from personal experience and all of know from multiple measurements at multiple times, the sky is a pretty forbidding place. It's really really cold and it's hard to breathe. It's really the last place I'd want to ascend to unprotected.
The simplest explanation for all these is the obvious one. These are legends, not to be taken any more seriously than Odysseus and the Sirens, or Orpheus and Eurydice. It solves all the textual difficulties, and removes the burden of explanation of the mind of God. Atheists have been sternly warned by Dr. William Lane Craig not to do this, as it is the height of arrogance.
I invite comment from apologists who think they can explain this without guessing at the mind of God. If this task can't be done -- it does seem that John was well within the rights apologists hold for themselves when doing exegesis when he made his argument from the scope of the universe.
The Bible, on the other hand, clearly shows us a heaven that is close to us, reachable by proximity to the clouds. God brings people up to him through the clouds, acts from within clouds, and is afraid of people who get too close to the clouds.
The first proximity event I'd like to bring up is the story of the tower of Babel. This is a tower being built by Nimrod, who the Bible doesn't accuse of wickedness or evil. Since it usually has no problem doing that, we can presume that Nimrod wasn't wicked or evil. Nimrod gets his people together and decides to build a tower (I imagine a ziggurat) out of bricks. Here I'll quote:
And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.
And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.
This story suggests that Yahweh was concerned that people would invade heaven if they built a tall enough building, so he made it harder for them to communicate. His concern is obviously that the tower, if large enough could reach the divine realm that sits just above the clouds, and the tower would be a bridge to this, and much more permanent than just a ladder.
The next story I'll mention is of Elijah being taken to heaven. Elijah dries up a river, crosses on dry land across it with Elisha, "And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, which parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.
It's a good thing everything was made of fire. The temperature at 12,000 feet is usually below freezing. At 30000 feet it's below -35 C usually. But of course the deeper question is where Elijah went after he left the stratosphere. There's no oxygen to breathe at that point, and Elijah seemed to be a normal man getting into a normal chariot of fire, with normal horses made of fire. If Elijah never changed -- where is he now?
Apologists may say that God miracled Elijah to heaven. I can't disprove it. He obviously miracled him the the flaming horses. But why send the horses and chariot in the first place except to show off if you are gonna have to miracle him off well before 15000 feet. It seems illogical.
Finally we get to Jesus. Now again, it's quite clear that at his ascension he had a human body. That's why someone could bloody up their fingers by sticking them in his wounds. Yet again, he goes up into the sky. Where'd he go? Is heaven a place? If it is -- what direction is it? If it's not a place, why go up into the sky to get there?
As many of us know from personal experience and all of know from multiple measurements at multiple times, the sky is a pretty forbidding place. It's really really cold and it's hard to breathe. It's really the last place I'd want to ascend to unprotected.
The simplest explanation for all these is the obvious one. These are legends, not to be taken any more seriously than Odysseus and the Sirens, or Orpheus and Eurydice. It solves all the textual difficulties, and removes the burden of explanation of the mind of God. Atheists have been sternly warned by Dr. William Lane Craig not to do this, as it is the height of arrogance.
I invite comment from apologists who think they can explain this without guessing at the mind of God. If this task can't be done -- it does seem that John was well within the rights apologists hold for themselves when doing exegesis when he made his argument from the scope of the universe.
March 16, 2008
Stroke Induced Spirituality
Neuroscientist Jill Bolte Taylor had a stroke which allowed her to study the brain from the inside out. In this 20 min talk she describes how she was able to call for help and the feelings of spirituality that came over her as the left side of her brain was malfunctioning.
More links of interest:
from epilepsy.com
Famous religious figures with symptoms of epilepsy.
They include St. Paul, Joan of Arc and Soren Kierkegaard
From ScienceDaily
Out of body experience induced in the lab
From Debunking Christianity
Reasonable Doubt About The Soul
More links of interest:
from epilepsy.com
Famous religious figures with symptoms of epilepsy.
They include St. Paul, Joan of Arc and Soren Kierkegaard
From ScienceDaily
Out of body experience induced in the lab
From Debunking Christianity
Reasonable Doubt About The Soul
March 15, 2008
March 14, 2008
A Historical Kodak Moment!
Based on the Gospel of Mark 16:18: "They shall pick up serpents, and drink any deadly poison, it shall not hurt them."
Pictured here is the exact second a Bible Believer finds out that the Bible is not true.
However, due to the size of the Timber Rattle Snake striking so close to his brain, he probably did not live to tell about it!
Historical Contingency and Belief
It seems to me that the most critical historical moment for the religion we know as Christianity was an episode in Rome in 4th century CE. After the breakup of the dominate model of the empire created by Diocletian, the tetrarchy, there was a war among the generals in charge of the various Roman armies. The critical event was the invasion of Italy and attack on Rome by the emperor Constantine.
It is important to understand that Maxentius, the opponent of Constantine for the sole leadership of the empire, had already withstood two sieges inside Rome by other rivals for the control of the empire. He had a numerical advantage in troops and most observers believed Maxentius would stay within the walls of Rome and wait out his third siege. The decision to fight a pitched battle outside the walls of Rome decisively changed the equation and was riskier for Maxentius than choosing to withstand a siege.
What led him to mount an attack rather than wait is entirely speculative, but something did. The battle of the Milvian Bridge was decided decisively when a bridge created by Maxentius' engineers failed while his army was making a tactical retreat. Maxentius was on the bridge and was drowned.
With his drowning, Constantine won the control of the western empire. Constantine then issued the Edict of Milan along with the eastern leader, Licinius, ending all persecution of Christians. He then fought several wars with Licinius, until Licinus finally surrendered and was then executed.
If you believe Christianity is a divine religion, rather than focusing on the death of a poor man on a cross in Palestine in the first century -- you should be focusing instead on this sequence of events. For if God intervened to resurrect Jesus, it would have all been wasted if Maxentius hadn't drowned, or if Licinius had defeated Constantine. Thus, the Christian must believe that God is intimately involved in each action that takes place on earth. God must have planned for Constantine and his family to take over the Roman Empire. He must have chosen to have Maxentius' army lose and Constantine's to be victorious.
You must also believe that God caused the early demise of Julian the apostate, as he had re-instituted the various pagan cults as the favored religions of the empire. You must also believe that God kept the armies of the Moors from defeating the French. You must also believe that God kept the Turks and Mongols from defeating the Holy Roman Empire. You must believe that God has continuously kept Christianity in a special spot, but for 2000 years has yet to get more than a plurality of humans to accept his word.
This sets up a nearly infinite recursion that really seems to me to lead to either panentheism or atheism. I'm curious what both sides have to say about the problem of historical contingency. I believe that it is simply logically impossible to believe in a Christian God and not believe that he causes virtually every act on earth (panentheism), which would leave you with something like Spinoza's God. Yet of course the God of Christianity can't be such a God, since there are so many things on earth that are so awful, that Christians can't imagine a good God to have caused them.
To highlight this, look at the actions of Constantine's family.
Virtually all of them either were killed, or became emperor. To believe Christianity is divine you must believe that all of those executions were being ordained by God, for if they had not happened, Christianity might never have taken hold.
The alternative, I supposed, is to argue that God did NOT act to kill of rivals to the Roman dominate, and that Christianity triumphed because of its success in the marketplace of ideas. I leave that argument to be fleshed out by those who take it seriously. I do not.
It is important to understand that Maxentius, the opponent of Constantine for the sole leadership of the empire, had already withstood two sieges inside Rome by other rivals for the control of the empire. He had a numerical advantage in troops and most observers believed Maxentius would stay within the walls of Rome and wait out his third siege. The decision to fight a pitched battle outside the walls of Rome decisively changed the equation and was riskier for Maxentius than choosing to withstand a siege.
What led him to mount an attack rather than wait is entirely speculative, but something did. The battle of the Milvian Bridge was decided decisively when a bridge created by Maxentius' engineers failed while his army was making a tactical retreat. Maxentius was on the bridge and was drowned.
With his drowning, Constantine won the control of the western empire. Constantine then issued the Edict of Milan along with the eastern leader, Licinius, ending all persecution of Christians. He then fought several wars with Licinius, until Licinus finally surrendered and was then executed.
If you believe Christianity is a divine religion, rather than focusing on the death of a poor man on a cross in Palestine in the first century -- you should be focusing instead on this sequence of events. For if God intervened to resurrect Jesus, it would have all been wasted if Maxentius hadn't drowned, or if Licinius had defeated Constantine. Thus, the Christian must believe that God is intimately involved in each action that takes place on earth. God must have planned for Constantine and his family to take over the Roman Empire. He must have chosen to have Maxentius' army lose and Constantine's to be victorious.
You must also believe that God caused the early demise of Julian the apostate, as he had re-instituted the various pagan cults as the favored religions of the empire. You must also believe that God kept the armies of the Moors from defeating the French. You must also believe that God kept the Turks and Mongols from defeating the Holy Roman Empire. You must believe that God has continuously kept Christianity in a special spot, but for 2000 years has yet to get more than a plurality of humans to accept his word.
This sets up a nearly infinite recursion that really seems to me to lead to either panentheism or atheism. I'm curious what both sides have to say about the problem of historical contingency. I believe that it is simply logically impossible to believe in a Christian God and not believe that he causes virtually every act on earth (panentheism), which would leave you with something like Spinoza's God. Yet of course the God of Christianity can't be such a God, since there are so many things on earth that are so awful, that Christians can't imagine a good God to have caused them.
To highlight this, look at the actions of Constantine's family.
Virtually all of them either were killed, or became emperor. To believe Christianity is divine you must believe that all of those executions were being ordained by God, for if they had not happened, Christianity might never have taken hold.
The alternative, I supposed, is to argue that God did NOT act to kill of rivals to the Roman dominate, and that Christianity triumphed because of its success in the marketplace of ideas. I leave that argument to be fleshed out by those who take it seriously. I do not.
The Origins of Christianity Explained!
I just finished reading Bart Ehrman's book, Jesus: An Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. I don't know why it took me so long to get around to it, but it is awesome! In my opinion this is the best explanation for the origins of Christianity in print. If you also want to understand the rest of Erhman's writings this is the book that puts it all together. I've added this book to the the Debunking Christianity Challenge, which, if you haven't yet taken, I highly recommend that you do.
March 12, 2008
DC Evolution Smackdown
The phenomenon of evolution denialism here at DC seems to serve as an analogy of evolution itself. From time to time, an evolution denialist will arrive on the scene here at DC. Various members here will proceed to apply some very stringent selective pressure against such views. They fall out of favor and disappear from the conversation, and the selective pressure abates, allowing them to eventually spring up again and start the cycle again. Recent comments from two theists here (jamie steele and john murphy) indicate that its time for the periodical Cloroxing of the idea pool.
Evolution is both a collection of facts and one of the most thoroughly supported scientific theories known to man. The world is MUCH more than 6000 years old. There was no global flood 4000 years ago. The universe was not formed as described in the Genesis story (either one of them). Wanna fight about it?
Here are the ground rules:
1.) As we are talking about science, the only valid "way of knowing" is empiricism. Sorry; deal with it.
2.) If you have an argument to make, don't just link to the Answers in Genesis site (or the talkorigins site) you lifted it from; post it here in enough detail to defend.
3.) If you wish to cite facts that are beyond what the average college undergraduate would know, you should cite the peer reviewed publications. As evolution, Big Bang, and archaeological history dating back considerably more than 6000 years IS undergraduate-level knowledge, the initiative of attack is granted to the denialists.
4.) If you wish to claim that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, you must be able to correctly state the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and if you get it wrong I get to hand out a cyber-noogie.
My hope is to relegate all of the typical denialist claims here for debunking so other debates can continue underailed by this stuff. So jamie, john, and other closet creationists lurking here, put up or shut up.
Evolution is both a collection of facts and one of the most thoroughly supported scientific theories known to man. The world is MUCH more than 6000 years old. There was no global flood 4000 years ago. The universe was not formed as described in the Genesis story (either one of them). Wanna fight about it?
Here are the ground rules:
1.) As we are talking about science, the only valid "way of knowing" is empiricism. Sorry; deal with it.
2.) If you have an argument to make, don't just link to the Answers in Genesis site (or the talkorigins site) you lifted it from; post it here in enough detail to defend.
3.) If you wish to cite facts that are beyond what the average college undergraduate would know, you should cite the peer reviewed publications. As evolution, Big Bang, and archaeological history dating back considerably more than 6000 years IS undergraduate-level knowledge, the initiative of attack is granted to the denialists.
4.) If you wish to claim that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, you must be able to correctly state the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and if you get it wrong I get to hand out a cyber-noogie.
My hope is to relegate all of the typical denialist claims here for debunking so other debates can continue underailed by this stuff. So jamie, john, and other closet creationists lurking here, put up or shut up.
Bart D. Ehrman is My Hero!
After reading a few of his books, with more on the backburner, I just want to declare that Dr. Ehrman is my intellectual hero!
No one else has written so prolifically in arguing against Christianity. He publishes scholarly works with Oxford University Press, and popular ones through HarperCollins (bypassing the normal atheist publishers). He understands that which he argues against and does so respectably. Click on his Curriculum Vitae link at his homepage and look at the range of his publications and books in preparation. Maybe you'll agree with me that his assault on Christianity is probably the most sustained attack by any one skeptic in history. It's surely the most significant attack in today's world. While there are others I admire, when it comes to debunking Christianity, Ehrman stands above us all.
No one else has written so prolifically in arguing against Christianity. He publishes scholarly works with Oxford University Press, and popular ones through HarperCollins (bypassing the normal atheist publishers). He understands that which he argues against and does so respectably. Click on his Curriculum Vitae link at his homepage and look at the range of his publications and books in preparation. Maybe you'll agree with me that his assault on Christianity is probably the most sustained attack by any one skeptic in history. It's surely the most significant attack in today's world. While there are others I admire, when it comes to debunking Christianity, Ehrman stands above us all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)