December 23, 2008
December 22, 2008
I Challenge Conservative Christians
You realize, don't you, that there are many more choices than just between Christianity (i.e. Evangelical Christianity) and Atheism (as I define it, the denial of all gods)?
We are poles apart, that's true, which makes it hard to discuss these issues with Christians. It's hard to make them see what we do, or to think like we think. People who are poles apart sometimes don't even use the same language. We dispute each other's facts. We have different control beliefs. We live in different intellectual universes.
The differences might be like a mountain climber who expects some person off the street to join him in climbing up Mt. Everest, or a skydiver who does tricks who expects a novice to do the same. Such things are far beyond someone not already used to doing likewise. It takes training and work and time, plenty off it. No one can expect someone to think of doing likewise, much less do it. That person might even be scared of heights! It takes baby steps. One must crawl before he can walk. And one must walk before he can run. And one must run before he can climb, and so on.
Evangelical Christians recoil from our arguments. They don't trust us. For most of them we represent the devil. A friend of mine read my book but before each time she said a prayer that God would not let her be deceived by what was in it, and you know what, she walked away still believing. Surprise! Maybe some Christian visitors do the same whenever coming here to DC, who knows. Some come to do battle against the forces of evil. They're not open to what we have to say at all. Why? Because of the distance between us and the trust factor. They "know" we're wrong from the get go.
There's nothing that can be done about this. It's just the way it is.
I just want to remind everyone that there is some sort of continuum of beliefs and the choices are not limited to just evangelical Christianity and Atheism (as defined). There are a whole range of intermediate religious views between us. This is nothing new, of course, but a reminder of this is good. Why? Because the range of Christianity begins way over to the right, with snake handlers and the KKK (yes, they claim to be Christians), to the Fred Phelps hate group, to King James version only Christians, to Bob Jones University, to non-instrumental Churches of Christ, to Pentecostals like Pat Robertson, to Evangelical minded (who often distance themselves from others to their right), to open theists, to liberal Christians of various sorts who can be described as existentialists, mainline Christians, Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong types, feminists, panentheists like Marcus Borg, Liberation Theology, and Universalists. There are Arminian, Calvinist and Catholic versions of these types of Christianities, I presume. Then there are Deists, agnostics, and Atheists. This is quite a long, varied continuum of beliefs. One could probably start out a snake handler and with more and more reading go through several of the stages of thinking over the years and became an atheist. Hardly ever does the trend reverse itself, although there are probably a few rare cases, I presume.
What happens when one thinks through a theology and moves to the left isn't usually because he read a book out of bounds of what's considered possible. I remember reading John Gibson's commentary on Genesis 1-11 and rejecting it outright because it was too far from what I would consider possible. I have now come to embrace his conclusions. The stories of Genesis 1-11 are parabolic stories, myths. As I moved from being a Pentecostal to an evangelical to a liberal to a panentheist to a deist then an agnostic and finally an atheist I would only consider those books that challenged me and they were just a bit to the left of where I was. Anything farther away than that would throw up all kinds of red flags in my head.
So, if Christians here don't want to take the Debunking Christianity Challenge because it's too far removed from what you consider a possibility due to the fact that you don't trust atheist authors, then do what I did. Read books that challenge your thinking by Christian authors outside your safe zone. Read open theist literature. Read liberal Christian books. If you're in college, study with professors who will challenge your faith.
I remember when considering which seminary to attend many people thought I should go to Cincinnati Bible Seminary rather than Lincoln Christian Seminary because the liberals were there. But I went anyway and didn't find any liberals there at all! Then I went to Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and was told that such a college was outside the bounds of my own denomination, so to be careful, that some liberals were there who didn't think the way Church of Christ people did. But they were conservatives after all. Then I finally attended Marquette University and I finally met the liberals. But more and more I found the arguments to the left of where I was at much better.
So here's a challenge to conservative Christians. How do you know you're right about that which you were raised to believe? Challenge yourself to read outside your safe zone. See why these authors think the way that they do. You'll find they have some good arguments. See if your beliefs can withstand their arguments. There are a host of Zondervan and Inter-Varsity Press books that have four or five views of certain issues from the millennium to women to apologetics to hell to creation to atonement theories to sanctification to salvation to the Bible, and so on. Read them all, one at a time for starters. In my case my beliefs changed in the face of these other books and articles and professors. It was slow, and I faced a crisis. But the conservative Christian arguments are less than persuasive in the Christian literature.
My challenge is for Christians to begin reading the list of books Anthony provides in this post.
The reason I wrote my book is because I could not answer the arguments of the people to my left. I am an atheist because atheists have the best arguments down the line. Atheism is the position of last resort. Once all other views are eliminated it’s the one to fall back on. I would never have considered it unless I went through several theology changes by reading authors I could trust. Try it. Challenge your beliefs, not by our writings, if that’s too much to ask. Read authors outside your safe zone. If you’re a conservative then read the books of moderates. If you’re a moderate then read the books of the liberals. If you’re a liberal, then read atheist literature. See what happens. Keep stretching your mind. Do not simply read literature that you’re comfortable with. That’s not a challenge at all. Challenge yourself. See if your present views as a conservative can withstand this challenge. They didn’t with me. I suspect you’ll find it won’t with you. Test your beliefs. How do you know your theology is correct? The only way is to test it with other authors just a bit farther to your left. This is my challenge to you. It may be the best challenge I can lay down.
We are poles apart, that's true, which makes it hard to discuss these issues with Christians. It's hard to make them see what we do, or to think like we think. People who are poles apart sometimes don't even use the same language. We dispute each other's facts. We have different control beliefs. We live in different intellectual universes.
The differences might be like a mountain climber who expects some person off the street to join him in climbing up Mt. Everest, or a skydiver who does tricks who expects a novice to do the same. Such things are far beyond someone not already used to doing likewise. It takes training and work and time, plenty off it. No one can expect someone to think of doing likewise, much less do it. That person might even be scared of heights! It takes baby steps. One must crawl before he can walk. And one must walk before he can run. And one must run before he can climb, and so on.
Evangelical Christians recoil from our arguments. They don't trust us. For most of them we represent the devil. A friend of mine read my book but before each time she said a prayer that God would not let her be deceived by what was in it, and you know what, she walked away still believing. Surprise! Maybe some Christian visitors do the same whenever coming here to DC, who knows. Some come to do battle against the forces of evil. They're not open to what we have to say at all. Why? Because of the distance between us and the trust factor. They "know" we're wrong from the get go.
There's nothing that can be done about this. It's just the way it is.
I just want to remind everyone that there is some sort of continuum of beliefs and the choices are not limited to just evangelical Christianity and Atheism (as defined). There are a whole range of intermediate religious views between us. This is nothing new, of course, but a reminder of this is good. Why? Because the range of Christianity begins way over to the right, with snake handlers and the KKK (yes, they claim to be Christians), to the Fred Phelps hate group, to King James version only Christians, to Bob Jones University, to non-instrumental Churches of Christ, to Pentecostals like Pat Robertson, to Evangelical minded (who often distance themselves from others to their right), to open theists, to liberal Christians of various sorts who can be described as existentialists, mainline Christians, Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong types, feminists, panentheists like Marcus Borg, Liberation Theology, and Universalists. There are Arminian, Calvinist and Catholic versions of these types of Christianities, I presume. Then there are Deists, agnostics, and Atheists. This is quite a long, varied continuum of beliefs. One could probably start out a snake handler and with more and more reading go through several of the stages of thinking over the years and became an atheist. Hardly ever does the trend reverse itself, although there are probably a few rare cases, I presume.
What happens when one thinks through a theology and moves to the left isn't usually because he read a book out of bounds of what's considered possible. I remember reading John Gibson's commentary on Genesis 1-11 and rejecting it outright because it was too far from what I would consider possible. I have now come to embrace his conclusions. The stories of Genesis 1-11 are parabolic stories, myths. As I moved from being a Pentecostal to an evangelical to a liberal to a panentheist to a deist then an agnostic and finally an atheist I would only consider those books that challenged me and they were just a bit to the left of where I was. Anything farther away than that would throw up all kinds of red flags in my head.
So, if Christians here don't want to take the Debunking Christianity Challenge because it's too far removed from what you consider a possibility due to the fact that you don't trust atheist authors, then do what I did. Read books that challenge your thinking by Christian authors outside your safe zone. Read open theist literature. Read liberal Christian books. If you're in college, study with professors who will challenge your faith.
I remember when considering which seminary to attend many people thought I should go to Cincinnati Bible Seminary rather than Lincoln Christian Seminary because the liberals were there. But I went anyway and didn't find any liberals there at all! Then I went to Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and was told that such a college was outside the bounds of my own denomination, so to be careful, that some liberals were there who didn't think the way Church of Christ people did. But they were conservatives after all. Then I finally attended Marquette University and I finally met the liberals. But more and more I found the arguments to the left of where I was at much better.
So here's a challenge to conservative Christians. How do you know you're right about that which you were raised to believe? Challenge yourself to read outside your safe zone. See why these authors think the way that they do. You'll find they have some good arguments. See if your beliefs can withstand their arguments. There are a host of Zondervan and Inter-Varsity Press books that have four or five views of certain issues from the millennium to women to apologetics to hell to creation to atonement theories to sanctification to salvation to the Bible, and so on. Read them all, one at a time for starters. In my case my beliefs changed in the face of these other books and articles and professors. It was slow, and I faced a crisis. But the conservative Christian arguments are less than persuasive in the Christian literature.
My challenge is for Christians to begin reading the list of books Anthony provides in this post.
The reason I wrote my book is because I could not answer the arguments of the people to my left. I am an atheist because atheists have the best arguments down the line. Atheism is the position of last resort. Once all other views are eliminated it’s the one to fall back on. I would never have considered it unless I went through several theology changes by reading authors I could trust. Try it. Challenge your beliefs, not by our writings, if that’s too much to ask. Read authors outside your safe zone. If you’re a conservative then read the books of moderates. If you’re a moderate then read the books of the liberals. If you’re a liberal, then read atheist literature. See what happens. Keep stretching your mind. Do not simply read literature that you’re comfortable with. That’s not a challenge at all. Challenge yourself. See if your present views as a conservative can withstand this challenge. They didn’t with me. I suspect you’ll find it won’t with you. Test your beliefs. How do you know your theology is correct? The only way is to test it with other authors just a bit farther to your left. This is my challenge to you. It may be the best challenge I can lay down.
Secular Alliance of IU Made A Video Of Their Visit to the Creation Museum
Bloomington, IN, December 12, 2008 - Indiana University students made video account of a field trip to the creation museum located in Petersburg, Kentucky, near the Greater Cincinnati International Airport. I spoke for this group in September. Enjoy.
SAIU trip to the Creation Museum from Secular Alliance on Vimeo.
SAIU trip to the Creation Museum from Secular Alliance on Vimeo.
December 21, 2008
The Religious Condition
My new book, entitled The Religious Condition: Answering And Explaining Christian Reasoning, is available for purchase from Amazon by clicking here. Excerpts, notes, and other information can be viewed here. So what’s the book about, and should you purchase it?
The first half of the book is on how persuasive psychology has demonstrated that certain factors have a much greater impact on the formation and maintenance of beliefs than they should, especially when those beliefs are unfalsifiable religious ones. Topics in this section include dissonance, confirmation bias, indoctrination, emotion, rationalization, and freethought. Key texts cited include Robert Cialdini’s Influence, Richard Petty and John Cacioppo’s Attitudes and Persuasion, and Michael Shermer’s Why People Believe Weird Things. The second half of the book is my answer to negative responses on my previous work, focusing primarily on arguments related to evolution, creationism, proofs, argumentation, and morality.
If you’re interested in how psychological studies demonstrate that the majority of human beings are way too gullible and unreasonable to form objective conclusions on important matters (such as religion), and you’ve never read about the formation and maintenance of beliefs in depth, I think you would gain a lot from it. On the other hand, there would be nothing new to a freethinking persuasive psychologist here (“freethinking” would be a bit redundant, since I’ve never found a religious one). The balance of the book probably doesn’t provide too much new material for those who have read Sagan, Mills, Dawkins, Harris, etc., but it could serve as an inclusive summary refutation for those who haven’t. This portion is more of a fun project in the tradition of Sam Harris’ Letter to a Christian Nation.
So purchase it if you want, but I would also highly recommend reading all of the books I mentioned here in their entirety sooner or later. If you’re looking for an in depth scholarly discussion of apologetic views, by all means, read John’s book, not mine. His terrific work points out specifically why apologists are incorrect; mine points out why they’re unreliable to begin with. I’m also sending a copy to John as thanks for inviting me to contribute on his blog. If he reads it, I’m sure he’ll let you know what he thinks. So get it, read it, praise it, or trash it if you want; I don’t care. I can at least be proud that I made a serious effort to leave humanity better than I found it.
The first half of the book is on how persuasive psychology has demonstrated that certain factors have a much greater impact on the formation and maintenance of beliefs than they should, especially when those beliefs are unfalsifiable religious ones. Topics in this section include dissonance, confirmation bias, indoctrination, emotion, rationalization, and freethought. Key texts cited include Robert Cialdini’s Influence, Richard Petty and John Cacioppo’s Attitudes and Persuasion, and Michael Shermer’s Why People Believe Weird Things. The second half of the book is my answer to negative responses on my previous work, focusing primarily on arguments related to evolution, creationism, proofs, argumentation, and morality.
If you’re interested in how psychological studies demonstrate that the majority of human beings are way too gullible and unreasonable to form objective conclusions on important matters (such as religion), and you’ve never read about the formation and maintenance of beliefs in depth, I think you would gain a lot from it. On the other hand, there would be nothing new to a freethinking persuasive psychologist here (“freethinking” would be a bit redundant, since I’ve never found a religious one). The balance of the book probably doesn’t provide too much new material for those who have read Sagan, Mills, Dawkins, Harris, etc., but it could serve as an inclusive summary refutation for those who haven’t. This portion is more of a fun project in the tradition of Sam Harris’ Letter to a Christian Nation.
So purchase it if you want, but I would also highly recommend reading all of the books I mentioned here in their entirety sooner or later. If you’re looking for an in depth scholarly discussion of apologetic views, by all means, read John’s book, not mine. His terrific work points out specifically why apologists are incorrect; mine points out why they’re unreliable to begin with. I’m also sending a copy to John as thanks for inviting me to contribute on his blog. If he reads it, I’m sure he’ll let you know what he thinks. So get it, read it, praise it, or trash it if you want; I don’t care. I can at least be proud that I made a serious effort to leave humanity better than I found it.
Catholic Reviewer of My Book on Amazon: "Poor Research"
That's what one reviewer claims, despite what others say about it.
The first line states...
The hidden premise here is that if I did more research I would believe, and behind that premise lurks what I've argued is the Christian Illusion of Rational Superiority, which, Christian philosopher James F. Sennett agrees with me about; that it is an illusion.
Besides, this "out of date" charge is unjustifiably leveled at non-believers far too often. There are many more Christian apologists, theologians, and philosophers, many of whom are paid to do little more than research, so of course they are spitting out new books every single day, each one of which might be considered the latest research. Atheists are in a minority. Many who teach in the universities who are not tenured are scared of losing their jobs if they write against the Christian faith, and most all of us do not get paid to do research into these topics much less produce as many books in response to this latest research. Just look at the number of “fleas” Richard Dawkins has in response to his book! Neither he nor any other atheist writer can hope to answer the volumes of books written in response any one of our books. There will always be updated knowledge, anyway, and with the numbers of Christians writing, atheists cannot hope to compete in terms of books and articles. Maybe in the future atheists will outnumber Christian writers and then we can level that charge against them!
When it comes to the latest research here is a dilemma for Christians who make this charge: if the latest research is needed to defend the Christian faith, then either the reasons to believe prior to it were less than sufficient, or if the latest research is not needed then why should believers care about it now?
Having said this I don’t doubt that I’m wrong about some things. I’ve admitted this, and I’m willing to learn where I am wrong. But I do not think my errors undercut my overall case at all, until or unless my substantive arguments are undercut rather than nitpicking out a minor error or more, here and there. My argument is that how we see things is based upon control beliefs. They control how we view the evidence. And that case of mine was never undercut by this reviewer.
From looking at the other reviews this person wrote on Amazon he or she is a Catholic. Why is it that Catholics seem to be the most outraged at my book? Is it because I dismiss their faith and instead take aim at evangelicalism? I used to be a Catholic in my upbringing. But I reject their faith with the same confidence they reject Islam. I claim that since the Catholic church was seriously wrong with regard to the Inquisition, Slavery, Crusades, Witch Hunts, and protecting child molesting priests in today's world, I have no reason to trust her. I defended this view from another Catholic reviewer right here.
Furthermore, while I might be wrong about some things in my book, since I am just one person and I cover so many different topics in it, I think the reviewer grossly mischaracterizes my book. To say I've "never heard" or that I "ignore" or that I have "no response" to something is such an unfair characterization that I suspect the reviewer feels the need to lie in order to defend his or her faith. Here's just one example: it says that when writing about the problem of evil I "ignore the concept of heaven." Not so. See pages 251-52, and 256-57, and 261. Did he or she skip those pages? And on it goes. From this review one could think there is no value at all to my book or that it doesn't contain any good arguments, even though several scholars on both sides of the fence say otherwise.
This is not a review that anyone can trust overall. It has an axe to grind. With the reading skills displayed no wonder he or she believes. It is not fair or objective in any sense at all. I'm still waiting to learn from an educated Christian reviewer who has no axe to grind who will be fair and balanced with my book. Are there no such reviewers? The level of objectivity revealed by this reviewer and others shows they do not have a semblance of objectivity, and if that's the case, how can they claim to have any objectivity at all with regard to their faith? So far, I haven't seen it.
The first line states...
If Loftus became an atheist based on the information in this book, then he badly needs to do more research because his facts are wrong or out of date.The reviewer levels this charge against me several times.
The hidden premise here is that if I did more research I would believe, and behind that premise lurks what I've argued is the Christian Illusion of Rational Superiority, which, Christian philosopher James F. Sennett agrees with me about; that it is an illusion.
Besides, this "out of date" charge is unjustifiably leveled at non-believers far too often. There are many more Christian apologists, theologians, and philosophers, many of whom are paid to do little more than research, so of course they are spitting out new books every single day, each one of which might be considered the latest research. Atheists are in a minority. Many who teach in the universities who are not tenured are scared of losing their jobs if they write against the Christian faith, and most all of us do not get paid to do research into these topics much less produce as many books in response to this latest research. Just look at the number of “fleas” Richard Dawkins has in response to his book! Neither he nor any other atheist writer can hope to answer the volumes of books written in response any one of our books. There will always be updated knowledge, anyway, and with the numbers of Christians writing, atheists cannot hope to compete in terms of books and articles. Maybe in the future atheists will outnumber Christian writers and then we can level that charge against them!
When it comes to the latest research here is a dilemma for Christians who make this charge: if the latest research is needed to defend the Christian faith, then either the reasons to believe prior to it were less than sufficient, or if the latest research is not needed then why should believers care about it now?
Having said this I don’t doubt that I’m wrong about some things. I’ve admitted this, and I’m willing to learn where I am wrong. But I do not think my errors undercut my overall case at all, until or unless my substantive arguments are undercut rather than nitpicking out a minor error or more, here and there. My argument is that how we see things is based upon control beliefs. They control how we view the evidence. And that case of mine was never undercut by this reviewer.
From looking at the other reviews this person wrote on Amazon he or she is a Catholic. Why is it that Catholics seem to be the most outraged at my book? Is it because I dismiss their faith and instead take aim at evangelicalism? I used to be a Catholic in my upbringing. But I reject their faith with the same confidence they reject Islam. I claim that since the Catholic church was seriously wrong with regard to the Inquisition, Slavery, Crusades, Witch Hunts, and protecting child molesting priests in today's world, I have no reason to trust her. I defended this view from another Catholic reviewer right here.
Furthermore, while I might be wrong about some things in my book, since I am just one person and I cover so many different topics in it, I think the reviewer grossly mischaracterizes my book. To say I've "never heard" or that I "ignore" or that I have "no response" to something is such an unfair characterization that I suspect the reviewer feels the need to lie in order to defend his or her faith. Here's just one example: it says that when writing about the problem of evil I "ignore the concept of heaven." Not so. See pages 251-52, and 256-57, and 261. Did he or she skip those pages? And on it goes. From this review one could think there is no value at all to my book or that it doesn't contain any good arguments, even though several scholars on both sides of the fence say otherwise.
This is not a review that anyone can trust overall. It has an axe to grind. With the reading skills displayed no wonder he or she believes. It is not fair or objective in any sense at all. I'm still waiting to learn from an educated Christian reviewer who has no axe to grind who will be fair and balanced with my book. Are there no such reviewers? The level of objectivity revealed by this reviewer and others shows they do not have a semblance of objectivity, and if that's the case, how can they claim to have any objectivity at all with regard to their faith? So far, I haven't seen it.
December 20, 2008
William Lane Craig v. Paul Draper Debate
Paul Draper and William Lane Craig’ s debate can be heard here. HT AIGBusted.
Other items of note while listening: there is an interesting site called My Thoughts Are Free, and another one called American Institute for Faith and Culture. From the title of this last site it seems authoritative, but who it is I don't know. He intends to deal one by one with the New Atheists and he has a link to DC. Enjoy.
Other items of note while listening: there is an interesting site called My Thoughts Are Free, and another one called American Institute for Faith and Culture. From the title of this last site it seems authoritative, but who it is I don't know. He intends to deal one by one with the New Atheists and he has a link to DC. Enjoy.
December 19, 2008
There is No OT Prophecy Fulfilled in the Life, Death or Resurrection of Jesus
That's my claim, Christian. Do you want to dispute this? Once again, but to be more specific: There is no OT prophecy of Jesus' birth, ministry, death, or resurrection that is to be legitimately considered a prophecy that was fulfilled in any grammatical-historical sense pointing specifically to Jesus.
The View: On Creation and Evolution
After this episode I had my publisher send Joy (in purple) a copy of my book.
December 18, 2008
Are Skeptics Dogmatic Too?
I'm finding that some skeptics are just as dogmatic in claiming Jesus did not exist as Christians are who claim the Gospels are completely reliable. I've spent way too much time on this topic as it is, but see what you think of the discussion right here. [Edit] Before you comment below please read enough of that thread to see what's going on. What do you really think?
December 17, 2008
What Child is This?
We can probably agree we don’t like the commercialism of Christmas, the stress, or the holiday angst. Yet at the center of it all there is a powerful image that speaks to all of us – the Child. It’s fascinating to me that once a year so many people stop everything, or at least pause, to acknowledge a Child.
But who is this Child of Christmas and why does the image have such power? We have religious and secular interpretations, and I would like to suggest a third – a soulful interpretation.
For Christians, this is a specific Child, the baby Jesus, entering the world to be its savior. This is why the angels sing and the wise men visit. God has at last fulfilled his promise, and there is rejoicing.
For other people, not Christian, the Christ Child still represents hope and renewal. As with the solstice and the new year, the Child symbolizes the promise of new life and light. Our world is so weary with struggles, we all need the healing force of hope.
We have these religious and secular interpretations, and I would like to suggest a third – a soulful interpretation.
The Child archetype connects to each of us in a personal way as well. We were all children once and we can perhaps remember the innocence and freedom. It’s good to ask ourselves whether we still know how to laugh and enjoy life. The image of a baby instinctively raises questions, and brings up feelings.
On the deepest level, the Child connects to matters of the soul, which is the essence of how we actually experience being alive.
When new parents talk about holding a newborn, they talk of a “miracle” with overwhelming feelings. Anyone can have these feelings about a baby, and there is a tug on something deep within. What is that? This is our core, our Original Child, our personal manifestation of the archetype, alive deep inside.
This is not the Christ child or just a symbol of hope. This is the Child we all know is still present but may be lost or buried. Our life patterns, our “personalities,” our many roles, our anxieties, our regrets, our plans, our endless thoughts, all conspire to distance us from who we once were – infants with magical capability for presence and joy.
The author of the paper, “The Infant as Reflection of Soul,” William Schafer, says “Babies by their very existence call us back to something we all sense we have lost. They do not enchant us simply because they are ‘cute.’” He says infants frequently hint that they are capable of experiences we no longer commonly enjoy – original experiences of energy, openness, and joy. In early infancy, Schafer says, these are profoundly essential human spiritual experiences. The pure, calm awareness of a baby is free of internal commentary, judgment, comparison, fear, or desire.
Interestingly, in the spiritual Balinese culture, babies are not allowed to touch the ground for the first year of life. They are considered closer to God than adults. In any culture, one only needs to look into an infant’s eyes to see a being that is absolutely in the present, that has no agenda whatsoever, that is open to the simple miracle of being alive. This delight is pure and plain in a smile, a look, a wriggle of total energy. The ego has not emerged; there is just being. Worries about the past and concerns for the future do not exist; the moment is timeless, endless. In Schafer’s terms, infant joy of this kind is the natural, inevitable consequence of presence.
In contrast, adults experience split-second judgments that erode the capacity for joy. If we have a bad experience, we can’t wait for it to end. If we have a good one, we want more of it and we worry that it might stop. Either way, joy—the sense of being open and drawn to our actual experience in wonder and curiosity without fear or repulsion—is veiled. We end up living lives in which most of our time is spent wanting to be in some other moment than the present one.
But if we choose, we can learn from infants. We need to see them with new eyes and let them be our teachers. We can let them remind us of what we have lost. Each of us is still innocent, life-loving, and capable of the soulfulness we see in infants’ eyes. And part of the archetype of the Child is the capability of great transformation.
So this season, let’s consider what it might mean to honor the Child – first of all in ourselves, and then in each other. We can slow down and look around. We can be gentle, making room for magic. Enjoy the pattern of raindrops on the windshield while stuck in traffic or laugh at the funny ringtone on somebody’s cell phone. We can remember that we are all connected. We can allow ourselves to feel joy for no reason. For me, I plan to cherish every chance to look into the eyes of a young Child. I expect I will learn something I can use when I look out of my own Child eyes. I will practice delight.
Reference: Schafer, W. (2004). The infant as reflection of soul: The time before there was a self. Journal of Zero to Three. National Center for Infants, Toddlers, and Families, 24: 3, pp. 5-8.
Marlene Winell, Ph.D., is a psychologist and former fundamentalist who specializes in recovery from harmful religion. She is the author of Leaving the Fold: A Guide for Former Fundamentalists and Others Leaving Their Religion. Her website is www.marlenewinell.net.
But who is this Child of Christmas and why does the image have such power? We have religious and secular interpretations, and I would like to suggest a third – a soulful interpretation.
For Christians, this is a specific Child, the baby Jesus, entering the world to be its savior. This is why the angels sing and the wise men visit. God has at last fulfilled his promise, and there is rejoicing.
For other people, not Christian, the Christ Child still represents hope and renewal. As with the solstice and the new year, the Child symbolizes the promise of new life and light. Our world is so weary with struggles, we all need the healing force of hope.
We have these religious and secular interpretations, and I would like to suggest a third – a soulful interpretation.
The Child archetype connects to each of us in a personal way as well. We were all children once and we can perhaps remember the innocence and freedom. It’s good to ask ourselves whether we still know how to laugh and enjoy life. The image of a baby instinctively raises questions, and brings up feelings.
On the deepest level, the Child connects to matters of the soul, which is the essence of how we actually experience being alive.
When new parents talk about holding a newborn, they talk of a “miracle” with overwhelming feelings. Anyone can have these feelings about a baby, and there is a tug on something deep within. What is that? This is our core, our Original Child, our personal manifestation of the archetype, alive deep inside.
This is not the Christ child or just a symbol of hope. This is the Child we all know is still present but may be lost or buried. Our life patterns, our “personalities,” our many roles, our anxieties, our regrets, our plans, our endless thoughts, all conspire to distance us from who we once were – infants with magical capability for presence and joy.
The author of the paper, “The Infant as Reflection of Soul,” William Schafer, says “Babies by their very existence call us back to something we all sense we have lost. They do not enchant us simply because they are ‘cute.’” He says infants frequently hint that they are capable of experiences we no longer commonly enjoy – original experiences of energy, openness, and joy. In early infancy, Schafer says, these are profoundly essential human spiritual experiences. The pure, calm awareness of a baby is free of internal commentary, judgment, comparison, fear, or desire.
Interestingly, in the spiritual Balinese culture, babies are not allowed to touch the ground for the first year of life. They are considered closer to God than adults. In any culture, one only needs to look into an infant’s eyes to see a being that is absolutely in the present, that has no agenda whatsoever, that is open to the simple miracle of being alive. This delight is pure and plain in a smile, a look, a wriggle of total energy. The ego has not emerged; there is just being. Worries about the past and concerns for the future do not exist; the moment is timeless, endless. In Schafer’s terms, infant joy of this kind is the natural, inevitable consequence of presence.
In contrast, adults experience split-second judgments that erode the capacity for joy. If we have a bad experience, we can’t wait for it to end. If we have a good one, we want more of it and we worry that it might stop. Either way, joy—the sense of being open and drawn to our actual experience in wonder and curiosity without fear or repulsion—is veiled. We end up living lives in which most of our time is spent wanting to be in some other moment than the present one.
But if we choose, we can learn from infants. We need to see them with new eyes and let them be our teachers. We can let them remind us of what we have lost. Each of us is still innocent, life-loving, and capable of the soulfulness we see in infants’ eyes. And part of the archetype of the Child is the capability of great transformation.
So this season, let’s consider what it might mean to honor the Child – first of all in ourselves, and then in each other. We can slow down and look around. We can be gentle, making room for magic. Enjoy the pattern of raindrops on the windshield while stuck in traffic or laugh at the funny ringtone on somebody’s cell phone. We can remember that we are all connected. We can allow ourselves to feel joy for no reason. For me, I plan to cherish every chance to look into the eyes of a young Child. I expect I will learn something I can use when I look out of my own Child eyes. I will practice delight.
Reference: Schafer, W. (2004). The infant as reflection of soul: The time before there was a self. Journal of Zero to Three. National Center for Infants, Toddlers, and Families, 24: 3, pp. 5-8.
Marlene Winell, Ph.D., is a psychologist and former fundamentalist who specializes in recovery from harmful religion. She is the author of Leaving the Fold: A Guide for Former Fundamentalists and Others Leaving Their Religion. Her website is www.marlenewinell.net.
A Secular Humanist Atheist Looks at Christianity
{My language below as expressed in the following email to the First Baptist Church is written with Christological terms to convey meaning to a conservative Baptist church and should not imply any religious views on my part.}
Email to First Baptist Church following an evangelical Christmas musical.
Season Greeting to the Talented Staff at First Baptist Church.
(Parts about the musical were not applicable to this post were deleted)
My second reason for this email is to express the bitter-sweet irony I felt as I enjoyed the Living Tree last night.
I could not help thinking to myself as the second half expressed the true meaning of Christmas as a time for humanity to accept the perfect gift of love and forgiveness that God gave the world in His son Jesus that First Baptist is a member of and supports the Southern Baptist Convention; a Convention which runs counter to most everything I heard in song and word at the presentation last night.
By this irony, I mean that the Southern Baptist Convention has itself limited this perfect gift of God’s love and forgiveness in that this Christian Convention has fired all women form faculty positions form teaching men at all their seminaries regardless of their ability to teach or their academic qualifications.
Moreover, after pulling up departments of religion at Anderson University, Charleston Southern University and North Greenville University (a school where Dr. (Pastor) is on the staff), I find that this sentiment is now extended in all S.C. Southern Baptist Universities as well. This action by the Convention is made even more infamous by the fact that one of my undergraduate schools, Southern Wesleyan University, just placed a woman as dean over their departments of Bible and Christian studies.
It is truly a sad time, especially here at Christmas, as I read in the November 12 edition of the New Letter the prayer request: The Living Christmas Tree Pray for all who will present the true meaning of Christmas and all who will hear the good news of God’s love. That women, simply because of their gender, are eternally viewed as un-forgiven in this respect and are made to pay for this in the Southern Baptist Convention based on the Apostles Paul’s miss-understanding of the Genesis 3 account as he expresses it in I Corinthians.
In closing, I sadly find it very hypocritical and counterproductive for the largest evangelical denomination in the U.S., the Southern Baptist Convention, to proclaim God’s perfect love in His Son Jesus Christ open to all who will accept it only to attack and fire women under the same evangelical banner for no other reason other than their God given gender.
Thanks for your time and may you enjoy find the true love and forgiveness that makes this time of the year so special.
Sincerely,
Harry H. McCall
Pastor’s Reply:
Harry,
Always good to hear from you. Thank you for your kind feedback on the Tree.
You have a keen eye for hypocrisy and a strong desire to name it when you see it. I affirm you in that.
First Baptist Church is not on a crusade against women. We voluntarily cooperate with the Southern Baptist Convention, not because it is perfect or that we agree with every policy or practice, but because we do support the opportunity to cooperate in work that no church can do alone. No family is perfect, but we find ways to love each other and work together.
I teach at North Greenville University and Anderson University from time to time. I know that women serve in very responsible positions at both schools, but I do find it interesting that none teach in the religion department. Since I'm not involved in hiring, I don't know if this is coincidence or merely a result of who has applied. I do know that my wife has been my guest lecturer in the class I teach in pastoral care. She has been well-received by the school and my students. My focus has been to make the most of the opportunities these schools have gracious offered me by teaching with integrity.
I wish that I had seen you face to face at the Tree. Please pass on to your family my wishes for a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
Pastor First Baptist
If one truly needs a Biblical God (or any god for that matter) to be ethical and moral, then how was I (as an atheist) able to address this issue with this conservative Baptist church which believes the Bible, especially the New Testament, to be the Word of God while I don't?
Secondly, as an employee of the state of South Carolina, how does the secular state create its internal employee policies based on an ever changing modern secular society and come up with conduct rules such as their Workplace Violence Policy and their Sexual Harassment Policy without God or the Bible? In fact, both policies are not drawn form the Bible, but often run counter to the Biblical codes of morals and ethics? (An example is Jesus Christ in the Book of Revelation retuning to slaughter the evil forces; a retaliation act which would get one fired with the state!)
If what Dr. Craig Blomberg claims as divine guiding principle for modern humanity’s morals and ethics is true, then just how did our secular society outlaw slavery and the subornation of women which are both God directed Biblical principles and which the Bible believing Southern Baptist Convention still use to fire womenand deny their employment?
Finally, I noticed under WikipediA that Dr. Blomberg “…has often been critical of American evangelical scholarship, and he controversially fostered a dialogue with Mormon professor Stephen E. Robinson of BYU, which resulted in the book How Wide the Divide? An Evangelical and a Mormon in Conversation.”
I personally have had dealings with Professor Stephen Robinson of the Department of Ancient Scripture at Brigham Young University. Although Robinson earned his PhD under James H. Charlesworth at Duke University (now of Princeton), I found that, for a Temple Mormon and Christian educator, Stephen Robinson was a knowingly deceitful liar when I called him to ask for an explanation to a Greek exegetical problem based on the United Bible Society Greek New Testament 4th ed. dealing with the Gospel of Matthew and the Book of Mormon.
If what Dr. Blomberg claims is true about the need for God, then, in my next post on the LDS Mormon Church and Professor Stephen Robinson, I would like to hear how his Christian dialogue with this BYU professor is justified.
Email to First Baptist Church following an evangelical Christmas musical.
Season Greeting to the Talented Staff at First Baptist Church.
(Parts about the musical were not applicable to this post were deleted)
My second reason for this email is to express the bitter-sweet irony I felt as I enjoyed the Living Tree last night.
I could not help thinking to myself as the second half expressed the true meaning of Christmas as a time for humanity to accept the perfect gift of love and forgiveness that God gave the world in His son Jesus that First Baptist is a member of and supports the Southern Baptist Convention; a Convention which runs counter to most everything I heard in song and word at the presentation last night.
By this irony, I mean that the Southern Baptist Convention has itself limited this perfect gift of God’s love and forgiveness in that this Christian Convention has fired all women form faculty positions form teaching men at all their seminaries regardless of their ability to teach or their academic qualifications.
Moreover, after pulling up departments of religion at Anderson University, Charleston Southern University and North Greenville University (a school where Dr. (Pastor) is on the staff), I find that this sentiment is now extended in all S.C. Southern Baptist Universities as well. This action by the Convention is made even more infamous by the fact that one of my undergraduate schools, Southern Wesleyan University, just placed a woman as dean over their departments of Bible and Christian studies.
It is truly a sad time, especially here at Christmas, as I read in the November 12 edition of the New Letter the prayer request: The Living Christmas Tree Pray for all who will present the true meaning of Christmas and all who will hear the good news of God’s love. That women, simply because of their gender, are eternally viewed as un-forgiven in this respect and are made to pay for this in the Southern Baptist Convention based on the Apostles Paul’s miss-understanding of the Genesis 3 account as he expresses it in I Corinthians.
In closing, I sadly find it very hypocritical and counterproductive for the largest evangelical denomination in the U.S., the Southern Baptist Convention, to proclaim God’s perfect love in His Son Jesus Christ open to all who will accept it only to attack and fire women under the same evangelical banner for no other reason other than their God given gender.
Thanks for your time and may you enjoy find the true love and forgiveness that makes this time of the year so special.
Sincerely,
Harry H. McCall
Pastor’s Reply:
Harry,
Always good to hear from you. Thank you for your kind feedback on the Tree.
You have a keen eye for hypocrisy and a strong desire to name it when you see it. I affirm you in that.
First Baptist Church is not on a crusade against women. We voluntarily cooperate with the Southern Baptist Convention, not because it is perfect or that we agree with every policy or practice, but because we do support the opportunity to cooperate in work that no church can do alone. No family is perfect, but we find ways to love each other and work together.
I teach at North Greenville University and Anderson University from time to time. I know that women serve in very responsible positions at both schools, but I do find it interesting that none teach in the religion department. Since I'm not involved in hiring, I don't know if this is coincidence or merely a result of who has applied. I do know that my wife has been my guest lecturer in the class I teach in pastoral care. She has been well-received by the school and my students. My focus has been to make the most of the opportunities these schools have gracious offered me by teaching with integrity.
I wish that I had seen you face to face at the Tree. Please pass on to your family my wishes for a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
Pastor First Baptist
If one truly needs a Biblical God (or any god for that matter) to be ethical and moral, then how was I (as an atheist) able to address this issue with this conservative Baptist church which believes the Bible, especially the New Testament, to be the Word of God while I don't?
Secondly, as an employee of the state of South Carolina, how does the secular state create its internal employee policies based on an ever changing modern secular society and come up with conduct rules such as their Workplace Violence Policy and their Sexual Harassment Policy without God or the Bible? In fact, both policies are not drawn form the Bible, but often run counter to the Biblical codes of morals and ethics? (An example is Jesus Christ in the Book of Revelation retuning to slaughter the evil forces; a retaliation act which would get one fired with the state!)
If what Dr. Craig Blomberg claims as divine guiding principle for modern humanity’s morals and ethics is true, then just how did our secular society outlaw slavery and the subornation of women which are both God directed Biblical principles and which the Bible believing Southern Baptist Convention still use to fire womenand deny their employment?
Finally, I noticed under WikipediA that Dr. Blomberg “…has often been critical of American evangelical scholarship, and he controversially fostered a dialogue with Mormon professor Stephen E. Robinson of BYU, which resulted in the book How Wide the Divide? An Evangelical and a Mormon in Conversation.”
I personally have had dealings with Professor Stephen Robinson of the Department of Ancient Scripture at Brigham Young University. Although Robinson earned his PhD under James H. Charlesworth at Duke University (now of Princeton), I found that, for a Temple Mormon and Christian educator, Stephen Robinson was a knowingly deceitful liar when I called him to ask for an explanation to a Greek exegetical problem based on the United Bible Society Greek New Testament 4th ed. dealing with the Gospel of Matthew and the Book of Mormon.
If what Dr. Blomberg claims is true about the need for God, then, in my next post on the LDS Mormon Church and Professor Stephen Robinson, I would like to hear how his Christian dialogue with this BYU professor is justified.
December 16, 2008
Richard Carrier Highly Recommends My Book.
Carrier's review of both John Paulos and my books can be found on his blog. While he offers some fair criticisms of my book he also said some pretty great things about it like...
-----------
[John's book addresses] almost every conceivable argument for Evangelical Christianity in extraordinary and sobering detail.
-----------
[It contains] a treasure trove of sources...
-----------
[John] essentially turns the same leave-no-stone-unturned approach employed by the new apologetics movement (which he was trained in, by Craig no less) against that very movement. He has clearly read extensively and has a firm grasp of contemporary Christian apologetics.
-----------
Every important aspect of intellectual Evangelical Christian belief comes in for critique, and often in more depth than you'll find in any other pro-atheism tome. Indeed, unlike, say, Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins, Loftus is a fully-informed insider who knows what he's talking about. He was fully immersed in making the very case for Christianity that he now tears down. He was trained by the best, is well-read in the field, and gets all the nuances that apologists accuse pop atheists (like Harris and Dawkins) of missing. In this regard, Loftus is even more in-the-know than I am, tackling issues I know very little about (like contemporary Evangelical doctrines of hell or the trinity--topics that simply don't interest me, but that certainly interest believers and whose intellectual coherence is essential if Evangelical faith is to have any chance at credibility).
------------
In a sense, Why I Became an Atheist is something like an ex-Christian version of J.P. Moreland's Scaling the Secular City. Where Moreland's aim was to tear down naturalism, Loftus' aim is to tear down Moreland's worldview. And yet, Loftus' work is denser and more erudite than Moreland's, by far. In fact, that may be its principal failing: it's so intellectual and thoroughgoing, I worry most Christians won't even be able to get through a fraction of it. On the other hand, for the more educated and intellectual, this is exactly what they need to read. Even though any Christian could pick at bits, the overall force of his case is, IMO, invincibly fatal.
------------
[O]ne of the best things that Loftus contributes to the field of atheist philosophy, which I think is required reading for everyone, on both sides of the debate, is his Outsider Test (here in chapter 4). Given that, and his thorough scope and erudition, I doubt any honest, rational, informed Evangelical can remain in the fold after reading this book.
--------------
[It's] a serious scholarly treatment of Christian apologetics.
--------------
Thanks Richard, coming from you whom I hold in high regard means a lot to me!
To read Richard's criticisms go to the link provided.
-----------
[John's book addresses] almost every conceivable argument for Evangelical Christianity in extraordinary and sobering detail.
-----------
[It contains] a treasure trove of sources...
-----------
[John] essentially turns the same leave-no-stone-unturned approach employed by the new apologetics movement (which he was trained in, by Craig no less) against that very movement. He has clearly read extensively and has a firm grasp of contemporary Christian apologetics.
-----------
Every important aspect of intellectual Evangelical Christian belief comes in for critique, and often in more depth than you'll find in any other pro-atheism tome. Indeed, unlike, say, Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins, Loftus is a fully-informed insider who knows what he's talking about. He was fully immersed in making the very case for Christianity that he now tears down. He was trained by the best, is well-read in the field, and gets all the nuances that apologists accuse pop atheists (like Harris and Dawkins) of missing. In this regard, Loftus is even more in-the-know than I am, tackling issues I know very little about (like contemporary Evangelical doctrines of hell or the trinity--topics that simply don't interest me, but that certainly interest believers and whose intellectual coherence is essential if Evangelical faith is to have any chance at credibility).
------------
In a sense, Why I Became an Atheist is something like an ex-Christian version of J.P. Moreland's Scaling the Secular City. Where Moreland's aim was to tear down naturalism, Loftus' aim is to tear down Moreland's worldview. And yet, Loftus' work is denser and more erudite than Moreland's, by far. In fact, that may be its principal failing: it's so intellectual and thoroughgoing, I worry most Christians won't even be able to get through a fraction of it. On the other hand, for the more educated and intellectual, this is exactly what they need to read. Even though any Christian could pick at bits, the overall force of his case is, IMO, invincibly fatal.
------------
[O]ne of the best things that Loftus contributes to the field of atheist philosophy, which I think is required reading for everyone, on both sides of the debate, is his Outsider Test (here in chapter 4). Given that, and his thorough scope and erudition, I doubt any honest, rational, informed Evangelical can remain in the fold after reading this book.
--------------
[It's] a serious scholarly treatment of Christian apologetics.
--------------
Thanks Richard, coming from you whom I hold in high regard means a lot to me!
To read Richard's criticisms go to the link provided.
Frank Zindler, J.P. Holding and I Debate the Existence of Jesus
Enjoy, and chime in. To my own dismay I'm partially agreeing with the extremely obnoxious and childish J.P. Holding that Jesus was a historical person who founded the Jesus cult (my view can be found below his on the left side). But, I'm also agreeing with Dr. Frank Zindler of American Atheists, that the Jesus figure was made up of many mythical elements. My position is a middle one between theirs that fits the data better.
What I find completely unjustifiable is that Holding accepts all of the elements in the Gospels as historically reliable. And what I find somewhat odd is that Zindler thinks I have the burden of proof (since textual evidence is usually considered good evidence until shown otherwise), and he doesn't present a theory of how such a cultic movement began in the first place.
For a link just to my arguments see here, (then click to the right for the next argument, and so forth).
For a link just to Dr. Zindler's arguments see here, and do likewise.
For a link just to Holding's arguments see here, and do likewise. On this site they won't let Holding speak with his usual ad hominems against people who disagree, or so I was told. That eliminates most of his arguments! ;-)
What I find completely unjustifiable is that Holding accepts all of the elements in the Gospels as historically reliable. And what I find somewhat odd is that Zindler thinks I have the burden of proof (since textual evidence is usually considered good evidence until shown otherwise), and he doesn't present a theory of how such a cultic movement began in the first place.
For a link just to my arguments see here, (then click to the right for the next argument, and so forth).
For a link just to Dr. Zindler's arguments see here, and do likewise.
For a link just to Holding's arguments see here, and do likewise. On this site they won't let Holding speak with his usual ad hominems against people who disagree, or so I was told. That eliminates most of his arguments! ;-)
December 15, 2008
Guest Post Written by Dr. Craig Blomberg on "Why I Am Still a Christian."
I invited Dr. Blomberg to write a post to challenge us at DC, and he's graciously responded in the interests of a fair discussion of the ideas that separate us. No disrespectful skeptical response to such a respected scholar will be published.
Response to Dr. Blomberg
Dr. Blomberg’s view of altruism is flawed in light of recent primatological research.
I thank Dr. Blomberg for posting his commentary on Debunking Christianity. Here, I would like to respond to his argument for theism based on altruism. In addition to being a trained biblical scholar, I am also formally trained as an anthropologist (B.A., University of Arizona, 1982 + 1 year of graduate work). I have had a longstanding interest in the evolution of morality.
I thank Dr. Blomberg for posting his commentary on Debunking Christianity. Here, I would like to respond to his argument for theism based on altruism. In addition to being a trained biblical scholar, I am also formally trained as an anthropologist (B.A., University of Arizona, 1982 + 1 year of graduate work). I have had a longstanding interest in the evolution of morality.
The Outsider Test for No Faith and A Response to Dr. Craig Blomberg
This is a response to some of the thoughts Dr. Craig Blomberg kindly offered to John and to DC in general. In this post I also include a brief thought about John's "Outsider Test" applied to the position of atheism (or any brand of nontheism, if you'd like).
Before I begin addressing Dr. Blomberg's post, I would first like to comment on John's outsider test for faith, which expresses to a believer to test his or her worldview from the point of skepticism (not atheism). As such, John has defined clearly that his proposed method should be attempted by the religious, but since the test presumes agnosticism, it would seem logical for the atheist to satisfy that particular worldview from skepticism.
Three good categories of questions for atheists from the skeptical point of view should be:
1) If atheism is true, can the atheist justify this? Can he prove the nonexistence of God? If the atheist claims he is not burdened with such proof, is this properly justified?
2) Since God is not the source of morals, where do morals come from, if they in fact exist with any ties to reality whatsoever?
3) Has the atheist properly analyzed and rejected all definition of God (or gods) offered by the various faiths? What is the atheist's reasons for rejecting these Gods and the faith claims of the major religions? Should the atheist consider the possibility of a God or Gods of a definition that is either not yet known or not yet in wide acceptance?
John and I discussed these questions (and many more) on our trip to the conference of the Evangelical Society last month. Even at the ETS, the two of us spoke and listened to William Lane Craig, Paul Copan, Gary Habermas, and many other well-known Christians, and were challenged by the tough questions they posed. There's no better way to take the "outsider test" for "no faith" than to discuss our position with the greatest scholars outside of our own views and test our positions against theirs. I would invite all skeptics reading this blog to not only continue to challenge the tenants of faith, but also to listen and seriously consider the critiques offered by the best of those outside us who are willing to hold civil discourse.
Who knows? Some of you may join us in the future in jumping into the "lion's den" of the brightest outside your points of view at welcoming conferences such as the ETS! You may even make a friend or ten, as we did, and nothing can be better than to have a friend with whom you can constantly share important challenges but maintain the kindness that comes with an honest analysis of truth beyond the character and particular beliefs of the person with whom you disagree.
One of these important figures outside of our worldview, Dr. Craig Blomberg, offered a testimony in response to John's call for critique. In the spirit of analyzing truth, I will offer my own thoughts to what Dr. Blomberg has written.
I find it interesting that Dr. Blomberg regards theistic evolution and Old-Earth Creationism as valid positions. I would, however, wonder what his view of man is - particularly of Adam and Eve - and whether it is consistent with this position. Did God create humans separately, and if so, why all the extra hullabaloo with the slow, painful evolution of the "lower" animals? And if man is God's pinnacle of this mode of creation, in what way did God breathe life into Adam and Eve, who are described in Genesis as beings who are created and life-breathed from the dust as both male and female, separated by Adam's rib, and from whom all humanity has descended? I have never seen a consistent perspective; since I am not interested in creation vs. evolution, I have not read many perspectives (especially Theistic Evolution), so I would be interested in hearing how his view is consistent with his belief in Scripture.
I find it interesting that, as a Lutheran, Dr. Blomberg quotes C.S. Lewis: 'First, there will be three surprises in heaven: who’s there, who’s not there, and there I’m there! Second, there are only two kinds of people in the world—those who say to God, “Thy will be done,” and those to whom God says, “thy will be done.”' For Dr. Lewis' first point, I've always wondered - even while I read him as a Christian - why there should be any surprise at all that one is in Heaven. As a Lutheran, I'm certain Dr. Blomberg would agree that the grace of God is an undeserved gift sent free from consideration of the depravity of the believer, but Lewis does not look at this from a worldly point of view - he looks at it from the point of view of being in Heaven. If one is to hold to the eternal security of the salvation of believers through the effect of God's sovereign will and grace, one should not at all be surprised in a heavenly position.
Furthermore, Lewis' second point holds some troubling theological concepts. Ultimately, I do realize that it is the Reformed position (such as Luther's) to maintain that the bondage of the will to sin is what damns the sinner, but ultimately, the sovereign choice of God, according to e.g. Romans 9, is what decides the fate of the damned. Ultimately, the pots made for common use destined for wrath that Romans 9 describes do not make themselves; God is the potter, man is the clay, and Paul is explicit and clear about this when he illustrates with the example of Pharaoh: "for this reason I have raised you up." So, ultimately, Christ would say to those on both his left and right hand side: "My will be done."
This is the Bible's solution to the problem of evil that troubles Dr. Blomberg, and I would wonder how he would respond to this Reformed interpretation that Luther shared. Ultimately, evil action was decreed by God for the purposes of demonstrating His wrath and justice, as the potter/clay analogy demonstrates. Although the Reformers make clear that man is the autonomous source of this evil (so as to save God from directly working it), it is ultimately God's decree of man's bondage to sin through the fall of Adam that causes evil, and man by no power of his own choice - due to his totally depraved nature, of which Dr. Blomberg agrees - can free himself from this predicament. This even blocks the free choice of Christ, made clear by Luther in "Bondage of the Will," and in John 6, in which the throng of 5000 witnessing the miracles of Christ are whittled to twelve somewhat befuddled disciples through Christ's declaration that none may come to Him unless it is first granted by the Father.
Evil itself is even created by God, as Isaiah 45:7 declares (and before anyone harps on the "calamity" translation, the Hebrew in question is used elsewhere to describe every sin in the Ten Commandments, and fits the contrast between "peace"- which translates "peace with God" and is contrasted with the sense of "evil" implied, since calamity does not contrast properly in the context of the verse). I would be interested in seeing how this is reconciled with a good God and a God of love as described elsewhere Biblically; even resorting to the necessity of God's desire to demonstrate His justice, as Paul does in Romans, can't work, because it seems quite inconsistent logically with another part of God's identity as described in the Bible.
On his question of atheistic evolution and morality, doesn't the point Dr. Blomberg raises commit the (logical) genetic fallacy? Why can't evolution produce moral beings from nonmoral beings, just as it produced beings that lived (even partially) on land versus beings that lived in water?
I am interested in the Christian response to what I have written - and even the Skeptic response, since I know that John challenges (even as a fellow nonbeliever) my Reformed view of the Bible versus an Arminian view. I appreciate the civility shown in my earlier posts, and am looking forward to a like lively and respectful discussion following this post.
Before I begin addressing Dr. Blomberg's post, I would first like to comment on John's outsider test for faith, which expresses to a believer to test his or her worldview from the point of skepticism (not atheism). As such, John has defined clearly that his proposed method should be attempted by the religious, but since the test presumes agnosticism, it would seem logical for the atheist to satisfy that particular worldview from skepticism.
Three good categories of questions for atheists from the skeptical point of view should be:
1) If atheism is true, can the atheist justify this? Can he prove the nonexistence of God? If the atheist claims he is not burdened with such proof, is this properly justified?
2) Since God is not the source of morals, where do morals come from, if they in fact exist with any ties to reality whatsoever?
3) Has the atheist properly analyzed and rejected all definition of God (or gods) offered by the various faiths? What is the atheist's reasons for rejecting these Gods and the faith claims of the major religions? Should the atheist consider the possibility of a God or Gods of a definition that is either not yet known or not yet in wide acceptance?
John and I discussed these questions (and many more) on our trip to the conference of the Evangelical Society last month. Even at the ETS, the two of us spoke and listened to William Lane Craig, Paul Copan, Gary Habermas, and many other well-known Christians, and were challenged by the tough questions they posed. There's no better way to take the "outsider test" for "no faith" than to discuss our position with the greatest scholars outside of our own views and test our positions against theirs. I would invite all skeptics reading this blog to not only continue to challenge the tenants of faith, but also to listen and seriously consider the critiques offered by the best of those outside us who are willing to hold civil discourse.
Who knows? Some of you may join us in the future in jumping into the "lion's den" of the brightest outside your points of view at welcoming conferences such as the ETS! You may even make a friend or ten, as we did, and nothing can be better than to have a friend with whom you can constantly share important challenges but maintain the kindness that comes with an honest analysis of truth beyond the character and particular beliefs of the person with whom you disagree.
One of these important figures outside of our worldview, Dr. Craig Blomberg, offered a testimony in response to John's call for critique. In the spirit of analyzing truth, I will offer my own thoughts to what Dr. Blomberg has written.
I find it interesting that Dr. Blomberg regards theistic evolution and Old-Earth Creationism as valid positions. I would, however, wonder what his view of man is - particularly of Adam and Eve - and whether it is consistent with this position. Did God create humans separately, and if so, why all the extra hullabaloo with the slow, painful evolution of the "lower" animals? And if man is God's pinnacle of this mode of creation, in what way did God breathe life into Adam and Eve, who are described in Genesis as beings who are created and life-breathed from the dust as both male and female, separated by Adam's rib, and from whom all humanity has descended? I have never seen a consistent perspective; since I am not interested in creation vs. evolution, I have not read many perspectives (especially Theistic Evolution), so I would be interested in hearing how his view is consistent with his belief in Scripture.
I find it interesting that, as a Lutheran, Dr. Blomberg quotes C.S. Lewis: 'First, there will be three surprises in heaven: who’s there, who’s not there, and there I’m there! Second, there are only two kinds of people in the world—those who say to God, “Thy will be done,” and those to whom God says, “thy will be done.”' For Dr. Lewis' first point, I've always wondered - even while I read him as a Christian - why there should be any surprise at all that one is in Heaven. As a Lutheran, I'm certain Dr. Blomberg would agree that the grace of God is an undeserved gift sent free from consideration of the depravity of the believer, but Lewis does not look at this from a worldly point of view - he looks at it from the point of view of being in Heaven. If one is to hold to the eternal security of the salvation of believers through the effect of God's sovereign will and grace, one should not at all be surprised in a heavenly position.
Furthermore, Lewis' second point holds some troubling theological concepts. Ultimately, I do realize that it is the Reformed position (such as Luther's) to maintain that the bondage of the will to sin is what damns the sinner, but ultimately, the sovereign choice of God, according to e.g. Romans 9, is what decides the fate of the damned. Ultimately, the pots made for common use destined for wrath that Romans 9 describes do not make themselves; God is the potter, man is the clay, and Paul is explicit and clear about this when he illustrates with the example of Pharaoh: "for this reason I have raised you up." So, ultimately, Christ would say to those on both his left and right hand side: "My will be done."
This is the Bible's solution to the problem of evil that troubles Dr. Blomberg, and I would wonder how he would respond to this Reformed interpretation that Luther shared. Ultimately, evil action was decreed by God for the purposes of demonstrating His wrath and justice, as the potter/clay analogy demonstrates. Although the Reformers make clear that man is the autonomous source of this evil (so as to save God from directly working it), it is ultimately God's decree of man's bondage to sin through the fall of Adam that causes evil, and man by no power of his own choice - due to his totally depraved nature, of which Dr. Blomberg agrees - can free himself from this predicament. This even blocks the free choice of Christ, made clear by Luther in "Bondage of the Will," and in John 6, in which the throng of 5000 witnessing the miracles of Christ are whittled to twelve somewhat befuddled disciples through Christ's declaration that none may come to Him unless it is first granted by the Father.
Evil itself is even created by God, as Isaiah 45:7 declares (and before anyone harps on the "calamity" translation, the Hebrew in question is used elsewhere to describe every sin in the Ten Commandments, and fits the contrast between "peace"- which translates "peace with God" and is contrasted with the sense of "evil" implied, since calamity does not contrast properly in the context of the verse). I would be interested in seeing how this is reconciled with a good God and a God of love as described elsewhere Biblically; even resorting to the necessity of God's desire to demonstrate His justice, as Paul does in Romans, can't work, because it seems quite inconsistent logically with another part of God's identity as described in the Bible.
On his question of atheistic evolution and morality, doesn't the point Dr. Blomberg raises commit the (logical) genetic fallacy? Why can't evolution produce moral beings from nonmoral beings, just as it produced beings that lived (even partially) on land versus beings that lived in water?
I am interested in the Christian response to what I have written - and even the Skeptic response, since I know that John challenges (even as a fellow nonbeliever) my Reformed view of the Bible versus an Arminian view. I appreciate the civility shown in my earlier posts, and am looking forward to a like lively and respectful discussion following this post.
December 13, 2008
Could the Rapture Have Already Occurred?
The picture is of a cemetery headstone I photographed in the grave yard of a Baptist church.
According to the epitaph, William Orr died at age 73 and either Lethe has the Methuselah gene as Mrs. Orr is now 154 years old or she has been raptured out of this world to be with Jesus.
The bottom of the tombstone states clearly: Gone but not forgotten. And a closer inspection proved that only Mr. Orr’s grave had been used.
Now I ask; is it just possible that Mr. Orr was unsaved and his body is still in the grave while his soul is in Hell awaiting the final judgment while Mrs. Orr was raptured out?
Or do you think that Lethe is still alive and kicking at 154 years old because she has the Methuselah gene ?
Anyway, this is some theological food for thought and a point for discussion on the lighter side here at DC.
According to the epitaph, William Orr died at age 73 and either Lethe has the Methuselah gene as Mrs. Orr is now 154 years old or she has been raptured out of this world to be with Jesus.
The bottom of the tombstone states clearly: Gone but not forgotten. And a closer inspection proved that only Mr. Orr’s grave had been used.
Now I ask; is it just possible that Mr. Orr was unsaved and his body is still in the grave while his soul is in Hell awaiting the final judgment while Mrs. Orr was raptured out?
Or do you think that Lethe is still alive and kicking at 154 years old because she has the Methuselah gene ?
Anyway, this is some theological food for thought and a point for discussion on the lighter side here at DC.
A Pastor and Apologetics Instructor Says My Book is "Top Notch."
Neal Pumphrey is that Pastor who also teaches Philosophy, Apologetics, and Logic at Central Arkansas Baptist Bible Institute. He wrote:
In Chapter 4 of Why I Became an Atheist, John W. Loftus, proposes the outsider test for faith. He defines the outsider test for religious faith as simply "a challenge to test one's own religious faith with the presumption of skepticism, as an outsider (Why I Became an Atheist, p. 66)." This chapter is being heralded by his peers and has gained Loftus a place of honor among the new Atheists. I would have to concur that the entire work, and this chapter in particular, is top-notch work among all his contemporaries. Until this point, I considered Hitchens to be the best read among the atheists because of his humor and style, but Loftus seems to put forth better arguments that stay on task and address relevant points. I assume this is due to his experience and knowledge gained from once being on the inside.To read more here is the Link.
Christianity Fails the Insider Test for Faith Too!
I've defended the Outsider Test for Faith here at DC and in my book, but when compared to that test the Insider Test for Faith is a much stronger one, and Christianity also fails THAT test! You must read this well-written story of a Christian who lost his faith even as an insider. My question is why God would allow so many insiders like us to lose our faith? Why, for instance, if the evidence favors Christian theism, do so many of us leave it even when approaching it from an insider's perspective (or presumption) that it's true? We can just forget about the outsider test. Christianity doesn't even pass the insider test! In any case, this is a heart wrenching story (notice him struggle!). Here are some interesting quotes from it:
There’s just something about explaining theological concepts to a hostile audience that reveals just how convoluted the arguments are. By the end of the summer, when I thought about religion, neither of us had to open our mouths for my faith to get stomped – the internal skeptic in me was stronger than the Christian in me.
I began taking an online theology class that switched me from presuppositional apologetics to evidential apologetics. You mean I don’t have to assume the Bible is true a priori, but there’s actual evidence for it? Hallelujah!
While I had suspected I was losing my faith off and on for over three years, I didn’t think there was a chance I actually would, even up until the moment it happened. I sincerely believed it was true, and thus I believed that sincerely seeking the truth would lead me to God in some way.
On April 19, 2008, I went to see the movie “Expelled.” I was unsurprised to see ID propaganda, but what surprised me was how many arguments for atheism were presented and how good they looked when paired with Christianity’s most foolish tenants. As far as I was concerned, the movie ended when Dawkins was asked what he would say to God were he to meet him after death. Dawkins replied, “Why did you take such pains to conceal yourself?” This retort was crushing as I thought about my lack of a relationship with God.
When I finally de-converted, I could best describe it as the final scene in a mystery movie, where the detective has been following the bad guy for a while, and finds the smallest clue out of place. A montage follows as he remembers the dozens of times something was amiss, and one-by-one, puts the clues in the proper position and sees he has enough evidence to convict the real villain several times over. After I de-converted, my first thought was “Wow … What took me so long?”
But my second thought was that I had just lost something very dear to me. My identity and purpose for living have been ripped violently away. I have to completely reforge what I think about everything. “Why don’t I just kill myself” was a thought that went through my mind – not that I was actually suicidal, but why not? Instead of protecting myself socially from ungodly influences, I have to find a way to re-enter the world without God.
But the more I know about a secular view of the world, the better it gets. I no longer need a belief in a second life to make this first one precious. Far from being nihilistic, I care about humanity with a passion that I seldom had as a Christian. God isn’t helping us – the only peace and justice to be found in this world are the peace and justice we fight for. I’m finding in free thought more morality and purpose than I ever found in Christianity.
The Flat Earth, the Firmament, and the Three Storied Hebrew Universe
Below are a few great online resources to study the Biblical concept and history of the flat earth, the firmament, and the three storied Hebrew Universe.
The first four are written by Biblical scholar Dr. Paul Seely:
The Three-Storied Universe.
The Firmament and the Water Above Part 1.
The Firmament and the Water Above Part 2
The Geographical Meaning of "Earth" and "Seas" in Genesis 1:10.
On the the history of the concept of a flat earth see these two books:
Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians by Jeffrey Burton Russell.
Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea by Christine Garwood
[Thanks to Anthony for these great resources].
Ed Babinski has also done some nice work in this same area:
Flat Earth Assumptions of the Biblical Authors
Flat Earth and Flood Geology
You can see a diagram of how the Hebrews thought of their universe here:
A Diagram of the Hebrew Universe
The first four are written by Biblical scholar Dr. Paul Seely:
The Three-Storied Universe.
The Firmament and the Water Above Part 1.
The Firmament and the Water Above Part 2
The Geographical Meaning of "Earth" and "Seas" in Genesis 1:10.
On the the history of the concept of a flat earth see these two books:
Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians by Jeffrey Burton Russell.
Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea by Christine Garwood
[Thanks to Anthony for these great resources].
Ed Babinski has also done some nice work in this same area:
Flat Earth Assumptions of the Biblical Authors
Flat Earth and Flood Geology
You can see a diagram of how the Hebrews thought of their universe here:
A Diagram of the Hebrew Universe
Care to Comment on Our Recent Polls?
Here they are for comment.
How Do You Rate Our Blog Based on Our Goals?
A + One of The Best on the Web 59 (22%)
A It Does A Superior Job 55 (20%)
B+ Much Better Than Most Sites 41 (15%)
B It's a Really Good Site 36 (13%)
C + A Bit Better Than Average 9 (3%)
C It's A Good Site. 10 (3%)
D Not Good At All: I'm A Christian 6 (2%)
F Terrible: I'm A Christian 48 (18%)
Why Do You Visit Our Site?
I'm Testing My Beliefs 31 (11%)
To Show You're Wrong at DC 11 (4%)
I'm Here to Help Our Common Cause 59 (22%)
I'm Doing Some Research 54 (20%)
I Like Interacting With the Authors 14 (5%)
DC Treats My Views With Respect 12 (4%)
I'm A Glutton for Punishment 5 (1%)
I Like the Challenge of Arguing My Case 19 (7%)
It's Informative; I Learn From it 182 (69%)
How Do You Rate Our Blog Based on Our Goals?
A + One of The Best on the Web 59 (22%)
A It Does A Superior Job 55 (20%)
B+ Much Better Than Most Sites 41 (15%)
B It's a Really Good Site 36 (13%)
C + A Bit Better Than Average 9 (3%)
C It's A Good Site. 10 (3%)
D Not Good At All: I'm A Christian 6 (2%)
F Terrible: I'm A Christian 48 (18%)
Why Do You Visit Our Site?
I'm Testing My Beliefs 31 (11%)
To Show You're Wrong at DC 11 (4%)
I'm Here to Help Our Common Cause 59 (22%)
I'm Doing Some Research 54 (20%)
I Like Interacting With the Authors 14 (5%)
DC Treats My Views With Respect 12 (4%)
I'm A Glutton for Punishment 5 (1%)
I Like the Challenge of Arguing My Case 19 (7%)
It's Informative; I Learn From it 182 (69%)
A Homily on Marriage on the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe
Dearly beloved, it is with the Sacrament of Reconciliation that I bring you greeting in the Holy name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Beloved, the Lord hath burden my heart with a new homiletic epiphany on marriage as first based in the Old Covenant:
The following two verses are from this Old Covenant when our Heavenly Father wanted men and women to be joined in the flesh for creation of the human race: “God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it;…” (Genesis 1:28).
Again, we are told by the inspirited writer of Genesis (Moses) that “ For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24).
However, Beloved, this is the Old Covenant of Moses where we were yoked up under the Law and marriage. Now, let us turn our attention and notice what the New Covenant tells us as revealed by our Lord Himself relating to women and marriage as He Himself set our example:
“But He said to them, "Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it." (Matthew 19: 11-12).
And the most Holy Apostle Paul: “Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman….But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.” (I Corinth. 7: 1, 8, & 9).
And finally our Lord again emphasizes his divine requirements for us to be holy even has He is holy and unmarried in the Apocalypse: “ Then I looked, and behold, the Lamb was standing on Mount Zion, and with Him one hundred and forty-four thousand, having His name and the name of His Father written on their foreheads. And I heard a voice from heaven, like the sound of many waters and like the sound of loud thunder, and the voice which I heard was like the sound of harpists playing on their harps. And they sang a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders; and no one could learn the song except the one hundred and forty-four thousand who had been purchased from the earth. These are the ones who have not been defiled with women, for they have kept themselves chaste. These are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever He goes. These have been purchased from among men as first fruits to God and to the Lamb. And no lie was found in their mouth; they are blameless.” (Revelation 14: 1-5).
Beloved, I ask you to examine your sinful life while you are here in your temporary earthen vessel of clay in light our beloved Savior Jesus Christ, the Holy Apostle Paul and the 144,000 virgin men who followed the Lamb in Revelation and to renounced any sexual sin as a venal sin by which you can make it into Heaven but, as St. Paul says “each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work. If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.” (I Corinth. 3: 13 - 15).
Now, may the Virgin of Our Lady of Guadalupe be an example before Christ for us. Amen
Beloved, the Lord hath burden my heart with a new homiletic epiphany on marriage as first based in the Old Covenant:
The following two verses are from this Old Covenant when our Heavenly Father wanted men and women to be joined in the flesh for creation of the human race: “God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it;…” (Genesis 1:28).
Again, we are told by the inspirited writer of Genesis (Moses) that “ For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24).
However, Beloved, this is the Old Covenant of Moses where we were yoked up under the Law and marriage. Now, let us turn our attention and notice what the New Covenant tells us as revealed by our Lord Himself relating to women and marriage as He Himself set our example:
“But He said to them, "Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it." (Matthew 19: 11-12).
And the most Holy Apostle Paul: “Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman….But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.” (I Corinth. 7: 1, 8, & 9).
And finally our Lord again emphasizes his divine requirements for us to be holy even has He is holy and unmarried in the Apocalypse: “ Then I looked, and behold, the Lamb was standing on Mount Zion, and with Him one hundred and forty-four thousand, having His name and the name of His Father written on their foreheads. And I heard a voice from heaven, like the sound of many waters and like the sound of loud thunder, and the voice which I heard was like the sound of harpists playing on their harps. And they sang a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders; and no one could learn the song except the one hundred and forty-four thousand who had been purchased from the earth. These are the ones who have not been defiled with women, for they have kept themselves chaste. These are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever He goes. These have been purchased from among men as first fruits to God and to the Lamb. And no lie was found in their mouth; they are blameless.” (Revelation 14: 1-5).
Beloved, I ask you to examine your sinful life while you are here in your temporary earthen vessel of clay in light our beloved Savior Jesus Christ, the Holy Apostle Paul and the 144,000 virgin men who followed the Lamb in Revelation and to renounced any sexual sin as a venal sin by which you can make it into Heaven but, as St. Paul says “each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work. If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.” (I Corinth. 3: 13 - 15).
Now, may the Virgin of Our Lady of Guadalupe be an example before Christ for us. Amen
December 11, 2008
Another One Gives Up His Christian Faith From Reading My Book!
To All Christian Apologists: I have issued a challenge to debate all of you, one at a time. You can read my challenge directly below this post. I have recently decided to go on the offensive.
One reason is because I'm tired of some of the skeptical arguments I've seen. Another reason is because I'm getting more and more feedback almost every single day from Christian people who have read my book and say they cannot adequately deal with it. One seminary trained pastor said my book only leaves open the possibilty of some sort of religious mysticism. And today I learned that yet another well-read Christian has lost his faith from reading just one book, mine. He had read Michael Martin's book, The Case Against Christianity, and David Ramsay Steele's book, Atheism Explained (both great books), but his faith was not affected at all until he read mine. [Edit: This morning my book was ranked #1 on the blog titled Failing the Insider Test (check it out! This Blog seems to be a spin-off from my Outsider Test for Faith). He says my book is "Head and shoulders" above the rest.].
Still another reason is that many Christians hate me anyway. If you do, it's not my problem. I'm not here to win friends. I'm here to help you take back your brainwashed selves. I have Christian Blog terrorists at my feet sooner or later whenever I leave the door open for a free and respectful discussion of the ideas that separate us. And I've decided that I really don't care if other skeptics agree with how I argue. I am not writing for them! They are not my target audience. You are! Mine is an arrogance about the arguments. I have them. You don't. [Plenty of other skeptics have great arguments too, so don't get me wrong about this].
Just to be sure, there is no personal animosity toward Christians as the good people I think most of you are. I like most Christians. That's not the issue. My claim is that not a single one of you can effectively and honestly deal with every argument in my book, any one of which is fatal to your faith (and I mean conservative Christians). Call me arrogant if you will. I don't care. Bring it on. Every day you wait, another soul might be lost from reading my book.
I don't revel in knowing some Christian people will probably suffer pain as the result of agonizing over their faith along with the social repercussions from leaving it. I'm only interested in educating people about Christianity. It's a delusion. You are deluded. And I am here to help you get over it.
One reason is because I'm tired of some of the skeptical arguments I've seen. Another reason is because I'm getting more and more feedback almost every single day from Christian people who have read my book and say they cannot adequately deal with it. One seminary trained pastor said my book only leaves open the possibilty of some sort of religious mysticism. And today I learned that yet another well-read Christian has lost his faith from reading just one book, mine. He had read Michael Martin's book, The Case Against Christianity, and David Ramsay Steele's book, Atheism Explained (both great books), but his faith was not affected at all until he read mine. [Edit: This morning my book was ranked #1 on the blog titled Failing the Insider Test (check it out! This Blog seems to be a spin-off from my Outsider Test for Faith). He says my book is "Head and shoulders" above the rest.].
Still another reason is that many Christians hate me anyway. If you do, it's not my problem. I'm not here to win friends. I'm here to help you take back your brainwashed selves. I have Christian Blog terrorists at my feet sooner or later whenever I leave the door open for a free and respectful discussion of the ideas that separate us. And I've decided that I really don't care if other skeptics agree with how I argue. I am not writing for them! They are not my target audience. You are! Mine is an arrogance about the arguments. I have them. You don't. [Plenty of other skeptics have great arguments too, so don't get me wrong about this].
Just to be sure, there is no personal animosity toward Christians as the good people I think most of you are. I like most Christians. That's not the issue. My claim is that not a single one of you can effectively and honestly deal with every argument in my book, any one of which is fatal to your faith (and I mean conservative Christians). Call me arrogant if you will. I don't care. Bring it on. Every day you wait, another soul might be lost from reading my book.
I don't revel in knowing some Christian people will probably suffer pain as the result of agonizing over their faith along with the social repercussions from leaving it. I'm only interested in educating people about Christianity. It's a delusion. You are deluded. And I am here to help you get over it.
South Carolina Approves Christian License Tag
A group that supports separation of church and state wants a federal judge to stop South Carolina from issuing Christian-themed license plates.
Washington-based Americans United for Separation of Church and State will ask a judge during a hearing Thursday for a preliminary injunction to keep the state Department of Motor Vehicles from issuing plates that depict a stained-glass window with a cross and carrying the words I Believe.
Americans United has sued state officials, saying the plates amount to state sponsorship of a particular faith. Legislators passed a law authorizing the tag this year. The DMV said last month it has enough paid orders to begin making the plates.
COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP)
Published: December 11, 2008
December 10, 2008
a pound of silver
The punishments for rape are perhaps the most disturbing regulations in the Bible.
While God ensures that the authors list it as a crime under most circumstances, we must realize that there are two contrasting conditions to consider in the event that a Hebrew woman is sexually violated: whether the victim is married (or engaged) or a virgin. The fine for committing one of the most heinous acts imaginable against a virgin woman without God’s permission is a pound of silver paid to her father and a forced marriage to the victim. (Deut 22:28-29) Yes, God’s idea of justice for the raped woman is to be horrendously punished again by forcing her to marry the man who savagely attacked her. This disgusting rule is nowhere near what most people would consider an ethical resolution, and it’s certainly not a decision rendered by any court I would like to be facing. On the other hand, a man who rapes an engaged virgin or a married woman will be stoned to death, not because he committed a brutal atrocity against the woman, but because he “violated another man’s wife.” (Deut 22:24-25)
Note the shamefully sharp contrast in disciplinary action between raping a woman with a husband and raping a woman without a husband: death versus a pound of silver. Since being raped is certainly all the same to the woman, it now becomes clear that God feels the husband is the one who is the victim of the attack. Raping a woman of your choice who does not have a husband allows you to marry the woman of your choice, but raping a woman who already belongs to another man warrants the death sentence. I could talk for days without overstating the evil absurdity of these rules. I simply cannot have any respect for any Christian who reads these regulations, acknowledges them, and makes excuses for them because they are part of the Old Testament. At no time should this philosophy have been law.
It has been asserted by Christian apologists that Deut 22:28-29 speaks of consensual sex, and not rape. There are several reasons why I believe this is unfeasible. The argument that "to take (taphas) and lay with (shakab)" do not refer to rape is invalidated by Genesis 34:2, in which "to take (laqach) and lay with (shakab)" is long understood to be a case of rape. Strong's confirms that Taphas and Laqach (and Chazaq in Deut 22:25 for that matter) are closely related synonyms. The idea that this isn't rape because the author didn't reuse Chazaq (from 22:25) in Deut 22:29 also does not hold up because one could make the same argument that Chazaq doesn't imply rape because Laqach (from Gen 34) wsn't reused in Deut 22:25 and again in Deut 22:29. The clear meaning of taphas, laqach, and chazaq when used in conjunction with shakab is to take/handle/hold by force (granted that chazaq appears to be stronger than either taphas or laqach, but laqach (Gen 34) is no stronger than taphas (Deut 22). Cases of pure adultery in Deut 22 do not mention any sort of "taking" or "forcing," only "laying with." The only argument left for the apologist is to suggest that Dinah was not raped in Genesis 34:2, but the context from later in Genesis 34 casts doubt on this hypothesis. And we know women were possessions in the OT, so let's not pretend otherwise.
Comments appreciated but my time will be limited this week.
While God ensures that the authors list it as a crime under most circumstances, we must realize that there are two contrasting conditions to consider in the event that a Hebrew woman is sexually violated: whether the victim is married (or engaged) or a virgin. The fine for committing one of the most heinous acts imaginable against a virgin woman without God’s permission is a pound of silver paid to her father and a forced marriage to the victim. (Deut 22:28-29) Yes, God’s idea of justice for the raped woman is to be horrendously punished again by forcing her to marry the man who savagely attacked her. This disgusting rule is nowhere near what most people would consider an ethical resolution, and it’s certainly not a decision rendered by any court I would like to be facing. On the other hand, a man who rapes an engaged virgin or a married woman will be stoned to death, not because he committed a brutal atrocity against the woman, but because he “violated another man’s wife.” (Deut 22:24-25)
Note the shamefully sharp contrast in disciplinary action between raping a woman with a husband and raping a woman without a husband: death versus a pound of silver. Since being raped is certainly all the same to the woman, it now becomes clear that God feels the husband is the one who is the victim of the attack. Raping a woman of your choice who does not have a husband allows you to marry the woman of your choice, but raping a woman who already belongs to another man warrants the death sentence. I could talk for days without overstating the evil absurdity of these rules. I simply cannot have any respect for any Christian who reads these regulations, acknowledges them, and makes excuses for them because they are part of the Old Testament. At no time should this philosophy have been law.
It has been asserted by Christian apologists that Deut 22:28-29 speaks of consensual sex, and not rape. There are several reasons why I believe this is unfeasible. The argument that "to take (taphas) and lay with (shakab)" do not refer to rape is invalidated by Genesis 34:2, in which "to take (laqach) and lay with (shakab)" is long understood to be a case of rape. Strong's confirms that Taphas and Laqach (and Chazaq in Deut 22:25 for that matter) are closely related synonyms. The idea that this isn't rape because the author didn't reuse Chazaq (from 22:25) in Deut 22:29 also does not hold up because one could make the same argument that Chazaq doesn't imply rape because Laqach (from Gen 34) wsn't reused in Deut 22:25 and again in Deut 22:29. The clear meaning of taphas, laqach, and chazaq when used in conjunction with shakab is to take/handle/hold by force (granted that chazaq appears to be stronger than either taphas or laqach, but laqach (Gen 34) is no stronger than taphas (Deut 22). Cases of pure adultery in Deut 22 do not mention any sort of "taking" or "forcing," only "laying with." The only argument left for the apologist is to suggest that Dinah was not raped in Genesis 34:2, but the context from later in Genesis 34 casts doubt on this hypothesis. And we know women were possessions in the OT, so let's not pretend otherwise.
Comments appreciated but my time will be limited this week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)