Saturday night (May 30) I headed to Lowes at 8:45 pm to pick up some electrical parts to complete a wiring job I had started on my motorcycle.
On the way back at 9:30 pm, I passed two SUV’s stopped in the right hand side of a 4 lane highway directly across from a large Southern Baptist Church which had apparently just let out as there was about 20 cars in the parking lot with about 30 or more people milling around and talking with about half staring at the stopped cars.
As I passed the SUV’s, I noticed an animal of some kind in front of the first SUV which then drove off. As I turned my motorcycle around, the second SUV also drove off over the animal (in between its tires).
I pulled up below the animal, I noticed it was a large house cat which was still breathing, but had blood coming out of its nose and right ear. Its right eye was crushed in as if the cat had been centered under the first SUV and its head had hit some part of the car’s frame.
I put my bikes emergency flashers on and carefully moved the cat to the sidewalk. There I left my motorcycle head lights on and I noticed the cat trying to get up and falling back down.
Being on a motorcycle, I had few options to help this gravely injured cat. I called my wife and told her to bring the Jeep and a blanket so we could carry it to the 24 hour Emergency Animal Hospital.
Although the church and its parking lot were filled with a good size crowd, other than staring and talking to each other, NO ONE offered to help, much less walk over to offer advice.
As I waited on my wife to arrive, about 5 cars left the church’s parking lot and drove passed me, the injured car and my motorcycle with only one even slowing down to “Rubber neck” the scene.
The cat finally got up and staggered into the woods ten feet and fell over.
An ambulance going the other way pulled up with strobe lights on and asked; “What was going on?”. I told them about the cat, and they offered to try an load it into my Jeep which had just pulled up followed by a county sheriff officer who also turned on his blue lights.
As they were catching the cat, two old women (in their early to mid 70’s) from the neighboring apartment complex came out. One identified the cat as “Mr. Smokes” and began crying in a panic. The second lady told her to stay back and told us the owner of the cat had had several heart attacks. Her friend said that if she saw Mr. Smokes in this condition, she might have another or even die.
So, now we have an EMS ambulance and county sheriff patrol car with red, white and blue strobes filling the night sky; and old lady yelling and crying about her pet cat of 12 years and a church parking lot full of Christians.
After the medics got the cat load into my Jeep, the two elderly women begged me to take Mr. Smokes to be euthanized as they had no car.
At the Emergency Animal Clinic, I told the nurses about the tow elderly women and that, if the cat could be treated, I would pay up to $500.00 to help the woman who love the cat.
However, once the doctor examined Mr. Smokes, he said it had severe head injures and its brain was starting to swell. With the owners permission, I signed the papers to have the cat euthanized.
So, just what did these Jesus loving and lost soul caring Southern Baptist church members do….NOTHING! (It was kind of like the time when Jesus was on the Cross; they watch form afar!)
The next day, I told my brother about the situation and the useless church members standing there 500 feet away who never once offered to help.
He said that’s pare for the course. That they were typical church members patting themselves on the back and congratulating one another for being saved.
Anyway for them: It was just a damn cat and the two old ladies (Hell, they probably weren’t even saved!). So why should Jesus care (WWJD)!!
Anyway, as an atheist, I DID AND STILL DO!
June 02, 2009
June 01, 2009
The Anchor Bible Dictionary on the Authorship and Date of 2nd Thessalonians
As I've said before, Christian scholarship debunks itself fine without atheists having to do it. Bible thumpers need to look at the case they make. Here is one example from Christian scholarship on the authorship and dating of II Thessalonians:
3. Theories Assuming Pseudonymous Authorship. Scholars in growing numbers argue against Pauline authorship in favor of authorship by an unknown Paulinist who used 1 Thessalonians as a model to meet a new situation in Macedonia.
a. History of Scholarship. J. E. C. Schmidt first proposed pseudonymous authorship in 1798 (Trilling 1972: 13, with reprint of the key pages of Schmidt’s work, 1972: 159–61). He challenged the authenticity of 2 Thess 2:1–12 on the basis of its eschatology. In 1892 Holtzmann (pp. 213–16) summed up the arguments against authenticity after 90 years of scholarship: no anti-Jewish polemic as in the authentic Pauline letters; non-Pauline form of the language; basically an expansive repetition of parallels from the first letter; no OT citations. Wrede (1903) introduced a new stage into the research by providing evidence for the literary dependence of 2 Thessalonians on 1 Thessalonians in language, order of motifs, and structure. He formulated the questions that dominated scholarship down to 1972 (see Jewett 1986: 35ff.; Collins 1988: 212–13), even though the majority of scholars still held to Pauline authorship. Trilling’s Untersuchungen (1972) ushered in the third stage of discussion, in which more and more scholars incline to pseudonymous authorship, e.g., Bailey (1978), Krodel (1978), Lindemann (1977), Collins (1988), Holland (1988), and Hughes (1989). Trilling supported his historical reconstruction in his 1980 commentary. Krodel and Collins provide convenient summaries of the cumulated argumentation.
b. Linguistic-Literary Evidence.
(1) Vocabulary. Vocabulary statistics are deceptive. Of the ten hapax legomena in 2 Thessalonians five occur in the LXX; the other five are not unusual (Milligan 1908: liii). Bornemann (1894: 471) suggests that the vocabulary of 2 Thessalonians is close to that of Luke–Acts, a suggestion supported by an examination of the eleven words that are Pauline hapax legomena in 2 Thessalonians but occur elsewhere in the NT, and the five that occur only in the Deutero-Pauline Ephesians and Pastoral Epistles. There are also a series of Pauline terms that are completely absent from 2 Thessalonians: agapētos, aiōn, hamartia, an, anēr, apothnēskō, apostolos, ginōskō, gnō rizō, egeirō, egō, ethnos, zēteō, kalos, keryssō, laleō, mallon, men, nekros, polys, syn, sōma, teknon, tis. The particles and prepositions are especially important. Thessalonikeus (1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:1) and euthynō (1 Thess 3:11; 2 Thess 3:5) are the only terms that occur in both Thessalonian letters, but nowhere else in Paul. The former is striking, because it is the only time Paul uses the term for the inhabitants of a city rather than the city name. Such word statistics allow no firm conclusions.
2 Thessalonians uses a number of terms in a sense unusual for Paul. Gk thlipsis (“suffering”) is viewed as the basis for the retribution of the persecutors in 2 Thess 1:4–6, but as confirmation of the Thessalonians’ election in 1 Thess 1:6–10. Paul regards the basileia tou theou as present in Rom 17:17, 1 Cor 4:20 and 1 Thess 2:12, but future in 2 Thess 1:5. (Paul does regard it as future in the phrase “inherit the kingdom,” 1 Cor 6:9, 10; 15:50; Gal 5:21.) 2 Thess 1:7 uses apokalypsis of Jesus’ Parousia (cf. 1 Cor 1:7), while elsewhere Paul uses it of the wrath of God (Rom 2:5), of some specific item of information (1 Cor 14:6, 20; Gal 1:12; 2:2), or of mystical experience (2 Cor 12:1, 7). Gk klēsis has a future orientation in 2 Thess 1:11 (without any tie to baptism), while 1 Thess 4:7 uses it of Christian life in the world. Paul usually relates “calling” to baptism (Gal 1:6, 15; 5:13; 1 Cor 1:26; 7:20).
Unusual turns of phrase are more significant. Frame (1912: 32–34) presents an extensive list of such phrases and turns of thought in 2 Thessalonians, which Trilling (1972: 49–50; cf. Rigaux 1956: 85–87) presents in a convenient format. While Frame claims that the apocalyptic subject matter accounts for many of them, Trilling more persuasively claims that recurring features of style in 2 Thessalonians better account for them: figures of speech, recurrent parallelism (see Trilling 1972: 52–53), and frequent plerophory.
(2) Literary Style. 2 Thessalonians has a distinctive style for such a short letter. On the one hand, it betrays few of the characteristic stylistic features of the authentic Pauline letters described by Weiss (1897: 5): individual, short sentences, rarely formed into periods, even when clauses are introduced by hoti, hina, hopōs, hōste, etc.; asyndetic clauses or clauses joined by the copula or antithetical or comparative particles; frequent appositions; infrequent genitive absolutes. In short, this is the style of the Cynic-Stoic diatribe. Such style uses much figurative language drawn from daily life, with frequent address to the readers.
2 Thessalonians is different. Some things characteristic of Paul’s style are missing. There are no parenthetic expressions, no play on prepositions (cf. Gal 1:11, 12; Rom 11:36), and no initial or end rhyme (except for the one possibility in 2 Thess 2:17). Rigaux (1956: 90) gives an extensive list of pictorial language drawn from daily life in 1 Thessalonians, but finds only two examples of pictorial language in 2 Thessalonians: “rest” in 1:6 and the Word of the Lord “running” in 3:2, a sure indication of nonauthenticity for Trilling (1972: 56). The sentence structure is different. 2 Thessalonians has long sentences (1:3–12; 2:5–12; 3:7–9), formed of elements joined like links in a chain (“kettenartige Verknüpfung,” von Dobschütz 1909: 42). 2 Thessalonians frequently repeats terms or expressions in identical form or a slight variant, a mark of the letter’s “poverty of expression.” Trilling (1972: 62–63) gives a long list that demonstrates this as a distinctive mark of style of 2 Thessalonians. This pleonastic style also led to the frequent use of parallelism, in 2 Thessalonians most frequently synonymous, more rarely synthetic, almost never antithetical. Trilling (1972: 52–53) gives a long list of such passages. Krodel (1978: 82–83) translates part of the list into English and comments that these parallelisms are “all the more important when we recognize their sparsity in 1 Thessalonians.” Weiss (1897: 12–13) points out that Paul himself most frequently used antithetical parallelism, a basic element of his theological thought.
Rigaux (1956: 89) called attention to Paul’s development of thought by triadic groupings in 1 Thessalonians. He identified sixteen such triads. But 2 Thessalonians has only one such triad (2 Thess 2:9). This is striking in view of 2 Thessalonians’ tendency to pleonasm, fullness of expression, seen in compound verbs when the simplex would do (2 Thess 1:3, 4, 5, 10), in the frequent use of pas, pantes, en panti tropō, the use of substantive chains, and the use of hendiadys (2 Thess 2:4, 17; 3:8, 12; Trilling 1972: 58–60). A comparison of the paraenetic sections of the Thessalonians letters makes this clear. 1 Thess 4:4–10; 5:1–11 are formed of short sentences, while 5:14–22 is a series of short, asyndetic imperatives. 2 Thessalonians is different: there are only two short sentences in its paraenesis (2 Thess 3:2b, 17) and four paraenetic imperatives (2 Thess 2:15; 3:13, 14).
(3) Verbal Similarity. Bornemann (1894: 473) already pointed out that the similarity of 1 and 2 Thessalonians went far beyond structure to include “sequence of thought, clauses, turns of phrase and expressions.” Wrede (1903: 3–36) provided massive documentation by presenting the parallels in tabular form, by showing that every paragraph in 2 Thessalonians has a conceptually related section in 2 Thessalonians. He demonstrates that these significant parallels occur in the same order in both letters. (Many of the linguistic similarities are listed in the paragraphs above.) They are not dependent on a specific historical situation in the congregation addressed. Wrede finally concludes in an impassioned paragraph (pp. 29–30) that the coincidence of memory or historical situation is not adequate to explain the similarity.
(4) Lack of Personal Warmth. Commentators point to the striking difference in tone between 1 and 2 Thessalonians. 1 Thessalonians is written with warmth. Paul’s affection for his readers is clear. He recalls their reception of the gospel in a time of great pressure (1 Thess 1:6) and their open announcement of the gospel to others (1 Thess 1:8) so that their faith was known throughout Achaia as well as Macedonia. When separated from them, he felt the loss, repeatedly striving (in vain) to visit them (1 Thess 2:17–18). His affection for them led him to send Timothy N from Athens so that he was bereft of companionship there (1 Thess 3:1–2). And when Timothy returned with the good news of their fidelity in faith and their enduring affection for him, Paul becomes lyrical in his joy (1 Thess 3:7–10). The tone of 2 Thessalonians is quite different. Bornemann (1894: 468; cf. Trilling 1972: 63) spoke of the letter’s consistent impersonal, official tone, closer to prophetic speech than to a true letter. For example, in both thanksgivings 2 Thessalonians uses opheilomen with eucharistein (“we ought to give thanks,” 2 Thess 1:3; 2:13). The opening thanksgiving is impersonal in tone. While adelphoi (“brothers”) is found eighteen times in 1 Thessalonians, it occurs in 2 Thessalonians “only when it is part of a structural formula or when it is taken over from 1 Thessalonians” (2 Thess 1:3; 2:1, 13, 15; 3:1, 6, 13; Collins 1988: 222). 2 Thess 3:6 introduces the paraenesis with the verb “we order” (paraggelomen, cf. 3:4, 10, 12), not “we beseech” (parakaloumen), as in 1 Thess 4:1 (cf. 4:10; 5:11, 14). The relationship between writer and readers differs from that in 1 Thessalonians.
In short, while the structure and language of 2 Thessalonians are in many respects close to 1 Thessalonians, there are significant differences in vocabulary, rhetoric, and tone. Such differences call for explanation.
c. Theological Arguments. 2 Thessalonians introduces no new themes into the Thessalonian correspondence. But there are many differences in theological emphasis or nuance that suggest the writer differs from Paul in theological outlook and probably comes from a later age.
(1) Eschatology. 2 Thessalonians is the only Pauline letter in which eschatology is the major topic. Its eschatology, strongly apocalyptic in language and outlook (Giblin 1967), is a response to the persecution undergone by the readers (2 Thess 1:4). 2 Thessalonians exhorts the readers to fidelity and endurance by pointing out that God’s justice (2 Thess 1:5) leads inevitably to the condemnation of the oppressors and the vindication of the faithful at the revelation of the Lord Jesus. Jesus will “execute vengeance on those who do not know God” (2 Thess 1:8–9), a point reinforced in 2 Thess 2:11–12. 2 Thess 2:1–12 reinforces the need to remain faithful by pointing out that a series of events must take place before the Parousia of Jesus can happen. The persecution will grow worse as the opposition develops in intensity. The “Man of Lawlessness, the son of destruction” (2 Thess 2:3) must appear first. He will be a parody of the Lord, whose Parousia, accompanied by false signs and acts of power and miracle, will deceive and lead to destruction all those who “do not receive the love of the truth in order that they might be saved” (2 Thess 2:9–10).
Paul elsewhere makes use of apocalyptic motifs and language, but without such a consistent apocalyptic schema of events. He speaks of the present age and the coming age (Gal 1:4) and sets out in 1 Cor 15:21–28 a periodization of events that lead to the resurrection of believers. In 1 Thessalonians he speaks of the Parousia of Jesus (1 Thess 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23) in a context strongly influenced by the ruler cult (apantēsis, kyrios), not apocalyptic. The “day of the Lord” in 1 Thess 5:2 is borrowed from prophetic, not apocalyptic, imagery. Krodel (1978: 84) points out that nowhere does Paul “use the idea of divine retribution to comfort believers in distress.”
2 Thess 2:1–2 suggests that some of the readers expected the Parousia very soon. But Christians must be clear about the Lord’s Parousia and their future gathering before him (2 Thess 2:1–2). Paul stressed the nearness of the Lord’s Parousia in 1 Thess 4:15, 17; 5:1–5, while his later letters continued to say “The Lord is at hand” (1 Cor 7:29, 31; Rom 13:11–12; Phil 4:5). 2 Thessalonians stresses the opposite to reinforce the urgency of the need to stand fast and remain faithful (2 Thess 2:15) to the God who called the readers through the gospel (2 Thess 2:14; cf. Krodel 1978: 74–77). And both letters appeal to earlier teaching (1 Thess 5:1–2, explicitly rejecting time speculation; 2 Thess 2:5 affirms a sequence of events).
(2) Christology. 2 Thessalonians never mentions the death or resurrection of Jesus. Jesus is primarily the Lord (kyrios) in 2 Thessalonians (cf. 1:1, 7, 8, 12; 2:1, 8 [13?], 14, 16; 3:3, [5?], 6, 12, 16, 18), but the letter nowhere tells how he became the Lord. It does not cite earlier creedal formulas (1 Thess 1:9–10; 4:14; 5:10 does), does not talk of Jesus’ death as sacrifice (as 1 Thess 5:10 does), or relate his lordship over the Thessalonians to baptism. There is nothing like “the word of the cross” (cf. 1 Cor 1:18) in this letter. In 2 Thessalonians Jesus, the Lord, does not have a past, but only a future, significance. At the Parousia he will punish the oppressors (2 Thess 1:8; cf. “righteous judgment,” 1:5), while the faithful will be gathered before him (2 Thess 2:1). His Parousia will also be his revelation as Lord, i.e., as benefactor and vindicator. His major characteristic is power exercised in the destruction of the “Man of Lawlessness” (2 Thess 2:8). This contrasts strongly with other letters in the Pauline corpus, where the confession “Jesus is Lord” is tied to his resurrection and to baptism (1 Cor 12:3; Rom 10:9; Phil 2:11).
2 Thessalonians also diverges from Paul by using language about Jesus that Paul reserves for God. The term “Lord,” referring to Jesus, occurs where Paul speaks of God. Thus 2 Thess 2:13 speaks of the “beloved of the Lord,” while 1 Thess 1:4 speaks of the “beloved of God.” 2 Thess 2:14 speaks of the “glory of our Lord Jesus Christ” (cf. 2 Thess 1:10, 12). Paul ascribes glory only to God (Rom 1:23; 3:7, 23; 4:20; 5:2; 6:4; 1 Cor 10:31, etc.); Jesus only reflects God’s glory (2 Cor 3:18; 4:4, 6). Where 1 Thess 5:23 invokes the “God of peace,” 2 Thess 3:12 calls on the “Lord of peace.” The language of 1 Thessalonians is the normal Pauline expression (Rom 15:33, 16:20; 1 Cor 14:33; 2 Cor 13:11; Phil 4:9). 2 Thessalonians reveals a christological development that gives greater prominence to Jesus.
(3) Theology. God’s acts in the past are the basis of the Christians’ hope. He chose the Thessalonians as the “firstfruits” toward salvation (2 Thess 2:13), an election that is the basis for their conviction that they are “beloved by the Lord” and destined “for the sure possession of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Because God called them, they are his assembly (ekklēsia, 1:4) that suffers for the royal rule of God (basileia tou theou). Suffering leads to the demonstration of the “just judgment of God” (2 Thess 1:5) because it leads to the public demonstration that God is just. Twice God is addressed as “our Father” (1:1; 2:16), but never as “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (cf. 2 Cor 1:3) or as the one who “raised Jesus from the dead” (Rom 4:24; 8:11; 10:9, etc.).
God’s election and justice determine the content of the gospel in 2 Thessalonians. God will carry out his apocalyptic plans for them. “The gospel of our Lord Jesus” (2 Thess 1:8) describes how Jesus’ Parousia executes judgment and gathers the faithful. God is responsible for all that happens: their election (2 Thess 2:13), their growing faith and love (2 Thess 1:3), his past love for them (2 Thess 2:16), the sanctification of the spirit (2 Thess 2:13), their past comfort and hope (2 Thess 2:16). It is not surprising that grace (charis) plays so small a role in this book. It occurs twice in stock formulas (2 Thess 1:2; 3:18). 2 Thess 1:12 relates grace to the Parousia of the Lord, while 2:16 ties it to God’s love and the gift of comfort and hope in the past to pray that God exhort and establish them in the present. The familiar Pauline contour is absent.
(4) Tradition and Life. 1 Thess 3:8 urges the Thessalonians to “stand fast in the Lord.” 2 Thessalonians urges its readers to “stand fast and hold on to the traditions” (paradoseis, 2 Thess 2:15; the singular is used in 3:6). By tradition 2 Thessalonians means the content of the letter itself, that is, the apocalyptic teaching that God will vindicate those faithful under persecution. Tradition is thus a criterion for action. Paul’s work in order not to accept any money from the Thessalonians (2 Thess 3:8–9) is described in language reminiscent of 1 Thess 2:9. The imitation of Paul is a part of the tradition they must (dei, 2 Thess 3:7) keep.
Prayers in 1 Thessalonians pray for the survival of the readers in the Parousia (1 Thess 5:23), since the coming of Christ is the basis for comfort and encouragement (1 Thess 4:18; 5:11). 2 Thessalonians prays for a right action in word and deed (2:16–17), for “love of God and the endurance of Christ” (3:5), for a life lived in peace (3:16). The eschatology determines the content of the prayer. Thus it is not surprising that 2 Thessalonians urges the readers to proper action against those “who live [walk] without order” (2 Thess 3:6, 11), because of the imminent Parousia of the Lord Jesus (2 Thess 2:8). The Thessalonians themselves should not grow tired of doing what is good (2 Thess 3:13).
4. Reconstruction of Historical Origin. Apocalyptic eschatology flowered at the end of the 1st century, as Revelation and Matthew suggest. The last two decades (80–100 c.e.) was a time of persecution for the Church. The stress on authoritative tradition also suggests a later age in which Paul has become a revered figure. This dating also provides a good historical context for interpreting the reference to spurious Pauline revelation, theological argument (logos), or correspondence mentioned in 2 Thess 2:2. People were invoking Paul’s name as authority for their teaching—and 2 Thessalonians does the same. The reference to Paul’s handwriting in 2 Thess 3:17 is based on the earlier references in 1 Cor 16:21, Gal 6:11, and Philemon 19. Nowhere does Paul suggest it as a mark of authenticity; in Galatians it is a mark of his personal feelings for the addressees. 2 Thess 3:17 is the only place the handwriting is used as a mark of authenticity. (The word semeion elsewhere in Paul always refers to miraculous events or to evidence of the Spirit’s activity.) Bailey (1978: 138) comments that 3:17 “makes more sense as the product of the pseudonymous author who wished by it to allay any suspicions of inauthenticity which his letter might arouse.” Krodel’s proposal (1978: 85), supporting the suggestion of Lindemann (1977: 35–47) that 2 Thess 2:2 might refer to 1 Thessalonians, now misinterpreted at this later date, is attractive, but not compelling. In short, 2 Thessalonians is the work of a late Paulinist who rethinks Paul in terms of apocalyptic eschatology and the Pauline tradition to reinforce the fidelity of persecuted Christians.
By Edgar M. Krentz, Professor of NT, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago, Chicago, IL.
Freedman, D. N. (1996, c1992). The Anchor Bible Dictionary (6:519). New York: Doubleday.
3. Theories Assuming Pseudonymous Authorship. Scholars in growing numbers argue against Pauline authorship in favor of authorship by an unknown Paulinist who used 1 Thessalonians as a model to meet a new situation in Macedonia.
a. History of Scholarship. J. E. C. Schmidt first proposed pseudonymous authorship in 1798 (Trilling 1972: 13, with reprint of the key pages of Schmidt’s work, 1972: 159–61). He challenged the authenticity of 2 Thess 2:1–12 on the basis of its eschatology. In 1892 Holtzmann (pp. 213–16) summed up the arguments against authenticity after 90 years of scholarship: no anti-Jewish polemic as in the authentic Pauline letters; non-Pauline form of the language; basically an expansive repetition of parallels from the first letter; no OT citations. Wrede (1903) introduced a new stage into the research by providing evidence for the literary dependence of 2 Thessalonians on 1 Thessalonians in language, order of motifs, and structure. He formulated the questions that dominated scholarship down to 1972 (see Jewett 1986: 35ff.; Collins 1988: 212–13), even though the majority of scholars still held to Pauline authorship. Trilling’s Untersuchungen (1972) ushered in the third stage of discussion, in which more and more scholars incline to pseudonymous authorship, e.g., Bailey (1978), Krodel (1978), Lindemann (1977), Collins (1988), Holland (1988), and Hughes (1989). Trilling supported his historical reconstruction in his 1980 commentary. Krodel and Collins provide convenient summaries of the cumulated argumentation.
b. Linguistic-Literary Evidence.
(1) Vocabulary. Vocabulary statistics are deceptive. Of the ten hapax legomena in 2 Thessalonians five occur in the LXX; the other five are not unusual (Milligan 1908: liii). Bornemann (1894: 471) suggests that the vocabulary of 2 Thessalonians is close to that of Luke–Acts, a suggestion supported by an examination of the eleven words that are Pauline hapax legomena in 2 Thessalonians but occur elsewhere in the NT, and the five that occur only in the Deutero-Pauline Ephesians and Pastoral Epistles. There are also a series of Pauline terms that are completely absent from 2 Thessalonians: agapētos, aiōn, hamartia, an, anēr, apothnēskō, apostolos, ginōskō, gnō rizō, egeirō, egō, ethnos, zēteō, kalos, keryssō, laleō, mallon, men, nekros, polys, syn, sōma, teknon, tis. The particles and prepositions are especially important. Thessalonikeus (1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:1) and euthynō (1 Thess 3:11; 2 Thess 3:5) are the only terms that occur in both Thessalonian letters, but nowhere else in Paul. The former is striking, because it is the only time Paul uses the term for the inhabitants of a city rather than the city name. Such word statistics allow no firm conclusions.
2 Thessalonians uses a number of terms in a sense unusual for Paul. Gk thlipsis (“suffering”) is viewed as the basis for the retribution of the persecutors in 2 Thess 1:4–6, but as confirmation of the Thessalonians’ election in 1 Thess 1:6–10. Paul regards the basileia tou theou as present in Rom 17:17, 1 Cor 4:20 and 1 Thess 2:12, but future in 2 Thess 1:5. (Paul does regard it as future in the phrase “inherit the kingdom,” 1 Cor 6:9, 10; 15:50; Gal 5:21.) 2 Thess 1:7 uses apokalypsis of Jesus’ Parousia (cf. 1 Cor 1:7), while elsewhere Paul uses it of the wrath of God (Rom 2:5), of some specific item of information (1 Cor 14:6, 20; Gal 1:12; 2:2), or of mystical experience (2 Cor 12:1, 7). Gk klēsis has a future orientation in 2 Thess 1:11 (without any tie to baptism), while 1 Thess 4:7 uses it of Christian life in the world. Paul usually relates “calling” to baptism (Gal 1:6, 15; 5:13; 1 Cor 1:26; 7:20).
Unusual turns of phrase are more significant. Frame (1912: 32–34) presents an extensive list of such phrases and turns of thought in 2 Thessalonians, which Trilling (1972: 49–50; cf. Rigaux 1956: 85–87) presents in a convenient format. While Frame claims that the apocalyptic subject matter accounts for many of them, Trilling more persuasively claims that recurring features of style in 2 Thessalonians better account for them: figures of speech, recurrent parallelism (see Trilling 1972: 52–53), and frequent plerophory.
(2) Literary Style. 2 Thessalonians has a distinctive style for such a short letter. On the one hand, it betrays few of the characteristic stylistic features of the authentic Pauline letters described by Weiss (1897: 5): individual, short sentences, rarely formed into periods, even when clauses are introduced by hoti, hina, hopōs, hōste, etc.; asyndetic clauses or clauses joined by the copula or antithetical or comparative particles; frequent appositions; infrequent genitive absolutes. In short, this is the style of the Cynic-Stoic diatribe. Such style uses much figurative language drawn from daily life, with frequent address to the readers.
2 Thessalonians is different. Some things characteristic of Paul’s style are missing. There are no parenthetic expressions, no play on prepositions (cf. Gal 1:11, 12; Rom 11:36), and no initial or end rhyme (except for the one possibility in 2 Thess 2:17). Rigaux (1956: 90) gives an extensive list of pictorial language drawn from daily life in 1 Thessalonians, but finds only two examples of pictorial language in 2 Thessalonians: “rest” in 1:6 and the Word of the Lord “running” in 3:2, a sure indication of nonauthenticity for Trilling (1972: 56). The sentence structure is different. 2 Thessalonians has long sentences (1:3–12; 2:5–12; 3:7–9), formed of elements joined like links in a chain (“kettenartige Verknüpfung,” von Dobschütz 1909: 42). 2 Thessalonians frequently repeats terms or expressions in identical form or a slight variant, a mark of the letter’s “poverty of expression.” Trilling (1972: 62–63) gives a long list that demonstrates this as a distinctive mark of style of 2 Thessalonians. This pleonastic style also led to the frequent use of parallelism, in 2 Thessalonians most frequently synonymous, more rarely synthetic, almost never antithetical. Trilling (1972: 52–53) gives a long list of such passages. Krodel (1978: 82–83) translates part of the list into English and comments that these parallelisms are “all the more important when we recognize their sparsity in 1 Thessalonians.” Weiss (1897: 12–13) points out that Paul himself most frequently used antithetical parallelism, a basic element of his theological thought.
Rigaux (1956: 89) called attention to Paul’s development of thought by triadic groupings in 1 Thessalonians. He identified sixteen such triads. But 2 Thessalonians has only one such triad (2 Thess 2:9). This is striking in view of 2 Thessalonians’ tendency to pleonasm, fullness of expression, seen in compound verbs when the simplex would do (2 Thess 1:3, 4, 5, 10), in the frequent use of pas, pantes, en panti tropō, the use of substantive chains, and the use of hendiadys (2 Thess 2:4, 17; 3:8, 12; Trilling 1972: 58–60). A comparison of the paraenetic sections of the Thessalonians letters makes this clear. 1 Thess 4:4–10; 5:1–11 are formed of short sentences, while 5:14–22 is a series of short, asyndetic imperatives. 2 Thessalonians is different: there are only two short sentences in its paraenesis (2 Thess 3:2b, 17) and four paraenetic imperatives (2 Thess 2:15; 3:13, 14).
(3) Verbal Similarity. Bornemann (1894: 473) already pointed out that the similarity of 1 and 2 Thessalonians went far beyond structure to include “sequence of thought, clauses, turns of phrase and expressions.” Wrede (1903: 3–36) provided massive documentation by presenting the parallels in tabular form, by showing that every paragraph in 2 Thessalonians has a conceptually related section in 2 Thessalonians. He demonstrates that these significant parallels occur in the same order in both letters. (Many of the linguistic similarities are listed in the paragraphs above.) They are not dependent on a specific historical situation in the congregation addressed. Wrede finally concludes in an impassioned paragraph (pp. 29–30) that the coincidence of memory or historical situation is not adequate to explain the similarity.
(4) Lack of Personal Warmth. Commentators point to the striking difference in tone between 1 and 2 Thessalonians. 1 Thessalonians is written with warmth. Paul’s affection for his readers is clear. He recalls their reception of the gospel in a time of great pressure (1 Thess 1:6) and their open announcement of the gospel to others (1 Thess 1:8) so that their faith was known throughout Achaia as well as Macedonia. When separated from them, he felt the loss, repeatedly striving (in vain) to visit them (1 Thess 2:17–18). His affection for them led him to send Timothy N from Athens so that he was bereft of companionship there (1 Thess 3:1–2). And when Timothy returned with the good news of their fidelity in faith and their enduring affection for him, Paul becomes lyrical in his joy (1 Thess 3:7–10). The tone of 2 Thessalonians is quite different. Bornemann (1894: 468; cf. Trilling 1972: 63) spoke of the letter’s consistent impersonal, official tone, closer to prophetic speech than to a true letter. For example, in both thanksgivings 2 Thessalonians uses opheilomen with eucharistein (“we ought to give thanks,” 2 Thess 1:3; 2:13). The opening thanksgiving is impersonal in tone. While adelphoi (“brothers”) is found eighteen times in 1 Thessalonians, it occurs in 2 Thessalonians “only when it is part of a structural formula or when it is taken over from 1 Thessalonians” (2 Thess 1:3; 2:1, 13, 15; 3:1, 6, 13; Collins 1988: 222). 2 Thess 3:6 introduces the paraenesis with the verb “we order” (paraggelomen, cf. 3:4, 10, 12), not “we beseech” (parakaloumen), as in 1 Thess 4:1 (cf. 4:10; 5:11, 14). The relationship between writer and readers differs from that in 1 Thessalonians.
In short, while the structure and language of 2 Thessalonians are in many respects close to 1 Thessalonians, there are significant differences in vocabulary, rhetoric, and tone. Such differences call for explanation.
c. Theological Arguments. 2 Thessalonians introduces no new themes into the Thessalonian correspondence. But there are many differences in theological emphasis or nuance that suggest the writer differs from Paul in theological outlook and probably comes from a later age.
(1) Eschatology. 2 Thessalonians is the only Pauline letter in which eschatology is the major topic. Its eschatology, strongly apocalyptic in language and outlook (Giblin 1967), is a response to the persecution undergone by the readers (2 Thess 1:4). 2 Thessalonians exhorts the readers to fidelity and endurance by pointing out that God’s justice (2 Thess 1:5) leads inevitably to the condemnation of the oppressors and the vindication of the faithful at the revelation of the Lord Jesus. Jesus will “execute vengeance on those who do not know God” (2 Thess 1:8–9), a point reinforced in 2 Thess 2:11–12. 2 Thess 2:1–12 reinforces the need to remain faithful by pointing out that a series of events must take place before the Parousia of Jesus can happen. The persecution will grow worse as the opposition develops in intensity. The “Man of Lawlessness, the son of destruction” (2 Thess 2:3) must appear first. He will be a parody of the Lord, whose Parousia, accompanied by false signs and acts of power and miracle, will deceive and lead to destruction all those who “do not receive the love of the truth in order that they might be saved” (2 Thess 2:9–10).
Paul elsewhere makes use of apocalyptic motifs and language, but without such a consistent apocalyptic schema of events. He speaks of the present age and the coming age (Gal 1:4) and sets out in 1 Cor 15:21–28 a periodization of events that lead to the resurrection of believers. In 1 Thessalonians he speaks of the Parousia of Jesus (1 Thess 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23) in a context strongly influenced by the ruler cult (apantēsis, kyrios), not apocalyptic. The “day of the Lord” in 1 Thess 5:2 is borrowed from prophetic, not apocalyptic, imagery. Krodel (1978: 84) points out that nowhere does Paul “use the idea of divine retribution to comfort believers in distress.”
2 Thess 2:1–2 suggests that some of the readers expected the Parousia very soon. But Christians must be clear about the Lord’s Parousia and their future gathering before him (2 Thess 2:1–2). Paul stressed the nearness of the Lord’s Parousia in 1 Thess 4:15, 17; 5:1–5, while his later letters continued to say “The Lord is at hand” (1 Cor 7:29, 31; Rom 13:11–12; Phil 4:5). 2 Thessalonians stresses the opposite to reinforce the urgency of the need to stand fast and remain faithful (2 Thess 2:15) to the God who called the readers through the gospel (2 Thess 2:14; cf. Krodel 1978: 74–77). And both letters appeal to earlier teaching (1 Thess 5:1–2, explicitly rejecting time speculation; 2 Thess 2:5 affirms a sequence of events).
(2) Christology. 2 Thessalonians never mentions the death or resurrection of Jesus. Jesus is primarily the Lord (kyrios) in 2 Thessalonians (cf. 1:1, 7, 8, 12; 2:1, 8 [13?], 14, 16; 3:3, [5?], 6, 12, 16, 18), but the letter nowhere tells how he became the Lord. It does not cite earlier creedal formulas (1 Thess 1:9–10; 4:14; 5:10 does), does not talk of Jesus’ death as sacrifice (as 1 Thess 5:10 does), or relate his lordship over the Thessalonians to baptism. There is nothing like “the word of the cross” (cf. 1 Cor 1:18) in this letter. In 2 Thessalonians Jesus, the Lord, does not have a past, but only a future, significance. At the Parousia he will punish the oppressors (2 Thess 1:8; cf. “righteous judgment,” 1:5), while the faithful will be gathered before him (2 Thess 2:1). His Parousia will also be his revelation as Lord, i.e., as benefactor and vindicator. His major characteristic is power exercised in the destruction of the “Man of Lawlessness” (2 Thess 2:8). This contrasts strongly with other letters in the Pauline corpus, where the confession “Jesus is Lord” is tied to his resurrection and to baptism (1 Cor 12:3; Rom 10:9; Phil 2:11).
2 Thessalonians also diverges from Paul by using language about Jesus that Paul reserves for God. The term “Lord,” referring to Jesus, occurs where Paul speaks of God. Thus 2 Thess 2:13 speaks of the “beloved of the Lord,” while 1 Thess 1:4 speaks of the “beloved of God.” 2 Thess 2:14 speaks of the “glory of our Lord Jesus Christ” (cf. 2 Thess 1:10, 12). Paul ascribes glory only to God (Rom 1:23; 3:7, 23; 4:20; 5:2; 6:4; 1 Cor 10:31, etc.); Jesus only reflects God’s glory (2 Cor 3:18; 4:4, 6). Where 1 Thess 5:23 invokes the “God of peace,” 2 Thess 3:12 calls on the “Lord of peace.” The language of 1 Thessalonians is the normal Pauline expression (Rom 15:33, 16:20; 1 Cor 14:33; 2 Cor 13:11; Phil 4:9). 2 Thessalonians reveals a christological development that gives greater prominence to Jesus.
(3) Theology. God’s acts in the past are the basis of the Christians’ hope. He chose the Thessalonians as the “firstfruits” toward salvation (2 Thess 2:13), an election that is the basis for their conviction that they are “beloved by the Lord” and destined “for the sure possession of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Because God called them, they are his assembly (ekklēsia, 1:4) that suffers for the royal rule of God (basileia tou theou). Suffering leads to the demonstration of the “just judgment of God” (2 Thess 1:5) because it leads to the public demonstration that God is just. Twice God is addressed as “our Father” (1:1; 2:16), but never as “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (cf. 2 Cor 1:3) or as the one who “raised Jesus from the dead” (Rom 4:24; 8:11; 10:9, etc.).
God’s election and justice determine the content of the gospel in 2 Thessalonians. God will carry out his apocalyptic plans for them. “The gospel of our Lord Jesus” (2 Thess 1:8) describes how Jesus’ Parousia executes judgment and gathers the faithful. God is responsible for all that happens: their election (2 Thess 2:13), their growing faith and love (2 Thess 1:3), his past love for them (2 Thess 2:16), the sanctification of the spirit (2 Thess 2:13), their past comfort and hope (2 Thess 2:16). It is not surprising that grace (charis) plays so small a role in this book. It occurs twice in stock formulas (2 Thess 1:2; 3:18). 2 Thess 1:12 relates grace to the Parousia of the Lord, while 2:16 ties it to God’s love and the gift of comfort and hope in the past to pray that God exhort and establish them in the present. The familiar Pauline contour is absent.
(4) Tradition and Life. 1 Thess 3:8 urges the Thessalonians to “stand fast in the Lord.” 2 Thessalonians urges its readers to “stand fast and hold on to the traditions” (paradoseis, 2 Thess 2:15; the singular is used in 3:6). By tradition 2 Thessalonians means the content of the letter itself, that is, the apocalyptic teaching that God will vindicate those faithful under persecution. Tradition is thus a criterion for action. Paul’s work in order not to accept any money from the Thessalonians (2 Thess 3:8–9) is described in language reminiscent of 1 Thess 2:9. The imitation of Paul is a part of the tradition they must (dei, 2 Thess 3:7) keep.
Prayers in 1 Thessalonians pray for the survival of the readers in the Parousia (1 Thess 5:23), since the coming of Christ is the basis for comfort and encouragement (1 Thess 4:18; 5:11). 2 Thessalonians prays for a right action in word and deed (2:16–17), for “love of God and the endurance of Christ” (3:5), for a life lived in peace (3:16). The eschatology determines the content of the prayer. Thus it is not surprising that 2 Thessalonians urges the readers to proper action against those “who live [walk] without order” (2 Thess 3:6, 11), because of the imminent Parousia of the Lord Jesus (2 Thess 2:8). The Thessalonians themselves should not grow tired of doing what is good (2 Thess 3:13).
4. Reconstruction of Historical Origin. Apocalyptic eschatology flowered at the end of the 1st century, as Revelation and Matthew suggest. The last two decades (80–100 c.e.) was a time of persecution for the Church. The stress on authoritative tradition also suggests a later age in which Paul has become a revered figure. This dating also provides a good historical context for interpreting the reference to spurious Pauline revelation, theological argument (logos), or correspondence mentioned in 2 Thess 2:2. People were invoking Paul’s name as authority for their teaching—and 2 Thessalonians does the same. The reference to Paul’s handwriting in 2 Thess 3:17 is based on the earlier references in 1 Cor 16:21, Gal 6:11, and Philemon 19. Nowhere does Paul suggest it as a mark of authenticity; in Galatians it is a mark of his personal feelings for the addressees. 2 Thess 3:17 is the only place the handwriting is used as a mark of authenticity. (The word semeion elsewhere in Paul always refers to miraculous events or to evidence of the Spirit’s activity.) Bailey (1978: 138) comments that 3:17 “makes more sense as the product of the pseudonymous author who wished by it to allay any suspicions of inauthenticity which his letter might arouse.” Krodel’s proposal (1978: 85), supporting the suggestion of Lindemann (1977: 35–47) that 2 Thess 2:2 might refer to 1 Thessalonians, now misinterpreted at this later date, is attractive, but not compelling. In short, 2 Thessalonians is the work of a late Paulinist who rethinks Paul in terms of apocalyptic eschatology and the Pauline tradition to reinforce the fidelity of persecuted Christians.
By Edgar M. Krentz, Professor of NT, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago, Chicago, IL.
Freedman, D. N. (1996, c1992). The Anchor Bible Dictionary (6:519). New York: Doubleday.
What is the Evidential Value of Personal Testimonies?
Many Christian people think that by sharing their personal religious experiences with us that this is some kind of evidence to those of us who don't believe. They claim to know God in a personal way. They claim to feel him, experience him, and so forth and so on. But of what import is that to people who don't believe? Nothing I can see at all.
I would like for these Christians to learn something from Professor Dan Lambert, who is using my book in his class at John Brown University. In his class he makes his students think through my arguments. You see, if I have not had these personal experiences then what value does telling me about them do for me? All I can say is that if I had these experiences then I would believe too. The problem is why God doesn't give me those kinds of experiences. God surely knows what it would take to convince me, okay? If he wanted to convince me he could easily do this and doing so would not depend upon me at all. That I have a stubborn or hard heart does not matter, for if God appeared to me like the Bible says he did to Moses, Gideon, or Paul, then I would believe even if I was not receptive to him.
So when dealing with our arguments do what Prof. Dan Lambert said:
Cheers.
I would like for these Christians to learn something from Professor Dan Lambert, who is using my book in his class at John Brown University. In his class he makes his students think through my arguments. You see, if I have not had these personal experiences then what value does telling me about them do for me? All I can say is that if I had these experiences then I would believe too. The problem is why God doesn't give me those kinds of experiences. God surely knows what it would take to convince me, okay? If he wanted to convince me he could easily do this and doing so would not depend upon me at all. That I have a stubborn or hard heart does not matter, for if God appeared to me like the Bible says he did to Moses, Gideon, or Paul, then I would believe even if I was not receptive to him.
So when dealing with our arguments do what Prof. Dan Lambert said:
"You cannot use the Bible to try to refute his points or to support your own. You must use logic and critical thinking primarily."I'm sure Dan would also say you cannot refute our arguments by referring to personal experiences which we have not had.
Cheers.
Answering Albert Camus: "Why Not Just Commit Suicide?"
Jeff said it this way:
I've heard a quote at various times that goes something like this: "Do you dance while the music is playing, or sit down and cry because you know it will end?" I think the analogy is apt. So what if the song will end? Why not enjoy it while it lasts? In fact, because our life ends, it gives us all the more reason to squeeze every ounce out of it that we can. It doesn't matter to the universe whether we do, but it matters to us.
May 31, 2009
For Those Who Might Think I Banned DenCol Inadvisedly...
...read what this pious humble believer in Jesus just emailed me:
Hi John,
The fact that you banned me and will not answer my e-mails, proves to me
that you are nothing but a coward....You do not know jack
shit about God, as you freely admit. You are an atheist because of your
ignorance, not because of your knowledge. Your arguments against God are
laughable nonsense. When I come on your site with intimate proof of God,
you can't handle that! You can only handle "intellectual" arguments. My
"testimonies" scared the living shit out of you and you ran for the
hills! You are truly a major league coward. I will talk to you man to
man, face to face, anywhere and any time! Bart Ehrman is not afraid of a
REAL debate, and I respect him for it. You are the other hand, have no
balls whatsoever. Grow up and be a man. I do not mind your being an
atheist, I mind that you are such a pussy about it.
William James's Argument Has No Force to it.
James argued that we either have to act as if God existed or act as if he did not. If God exists we just might have to "meet that hypothesis halfway" with faith. This argument was pretty powerful to me until I realized that it could be used to convince someone into being a Muslim, or a Mormon, and it probably has. A live option is one that the perceiver thinks is a live one, so it depends on which culture we were raised in which option is a live one for us. When I realized this, his argument lost all of its force. At that point the issue before me was more like who the best athlete was of all time. On that I must suspend judgment. At that point I became an agnostic. Today I'm an agnostic atheist.
May 29, 2009
"What Evidence is There Against the Existence of God?"
[This is a redated post which degenerated into 197 comments. To see the original post with its comments click here]. Let's start over.
Dr. William Lane Craig asks this question in his debates. Let me attempt to answer it.
In the first place, what is the evidence against the existence of fairies or unicorns? If by looking and not seeing any isn’t considered evidence against their existence, then I don’t know what is required here. Let Dr. Craig first provide evidence against the existence of fairies or unicorns and I’ll provide evidence against the existence of God. Someone cannot provide evidence against the existence of an non-entity, since if it doesn't exist then it cannot leave any traces of its non-existence for us to examine. Think about this.
Now I do happen to think there is evidence against the existence of the Christian God, since that God depends upon the revelation found within the pages of the canonized writings in the Bible. There is the empirical evidence of intense undeserved suffering in the world which cannot be explained by a perfectly good omnipotent creator; there is archaeological evidence against the Biblical stories of the world-wide flood, the Exodus and the conquest stories in the Bible; there is geological evidence showing the earth has existed for 5 billion years; there is biological evidence showing one species evolved into the next one which disconfirms there was ever a time when there was no death in the Garden of Eden; there is psychological evidence that no wrathful God could exist given the fact that we believe and behave as we do based upon early childhood experiences; there is neurological evidence in that strokes and seizes disconfirm the notion of a soul; there is historical evidence against the believability of the virgin birth story, Satan, hell and the bodily resurrection of Jesus from the dead too. Christians will try to dispute this evidence and/or try to show it doesn't amount to much. I vehemently disagree, but it is evidence, plenty of it. And there is more I haven't mentioned. The evidence is against the God we find in the Bible, period.
Dr. William Lane Craig asks this question in his debates. Let me attempt to answer it.
In the first place, what is the evidence against the existence of fairies or unicorns? If by looking and not seeing any isn’t considered evidence against their existence, then I don’t know what is required here. Let Dr. Craig first provide evidence against the existence of fairies or unicorns and I’ll provide evidence against the existence of God. Someone cannot provide evidence against the existence of an non-entity, since if it doesn't exist then it cannot leave any traces of its non-existence for us to examine. Think about this.
Now I do happen to think there is evidence against the existence of the Christian God, since that God depends upon the revelation found within the pages of the canonized writings in the Bible. There is the empirical evidence of intense undeserved suffering in the world which cannot be explained by a perfectly good omnipotent creator; there is archaeological evidence against the Biblical stories of the world-wide flood, the Exodus and the conquest stories in the Bible; there is geological evidence showing the earth has existed for 5 billion years; there is biological evidence showing one species evolved into the next one which disconfirms there was ever a time when there was no death in the Garden of Eden; there is psychological evidence that no wrathful God could exist given the fact that we believe and behave as we do based upon early childhood experiences; there is neurological evidence in that strokes and seizes disconfirm the notion of a soul; there is historical evidence against the believability of the virgin birth story, Satan, hell and the bodily resurrection of Jesus from the dead too. Christians will try to dispute this evidence and/or try to show it doesn't amount to much. I vehemently disagree, but it is evidence, plenty of it. And there is more I haven't mentioned. The evidence is against the God we find in the Bible, period.
Would You Like to Reach a Potentially Huge Audience?
Blogger tells me that DC is getting over 200,000 pageviews per month. It consistently ranks among the top atheist sites on the web.
To find out how you can reach these people with your product or service, no matter what page in the archives they visit at DC, e-mail me [johnwloftus at comcast dot net]. Serious inquiries only. Send me a description of your product or service, and/or a link to your site or Blog. The cost is reasonable, just ask.
Thanks so much.
To find out how you can reach these people with your product or service, no matter what page in the archives they visit at DC, e-mail me [johnwloftus at comcast dot net]. Serious inquiries only. Send me a description of your product or service, and/or a link to your site or Blog. The cost is reasonable, just ask.
Thanks so much.
May 28, 2009
Christian Belief Through the Lens of Cognitive Science: Part 2 of 6
Why God has a human mind.
Jesus was a human, fathered by a god and born to a virgin. He died for three days and was resurrected. His death was a sacrifice, an offering or propitiation. It brings favor for humans. He lives now in a realm where other supernatural beings interact with each other and sometimes intervene in human affairs.
Gradually the mainstream of the American public is becoming aware that none of these elements is unique to Christianity. Symbologists or scholars who specialize in understanding ancient symbols, tell us that the orthodox Jesus story, as it appears in our gospels, follows a specific sacred or mythic template that existed in the Ancient Near East long before Christianity or even Judaism. In part this is due to the flow of history. Religions emerge out of ancestor religions. Though the characters and details merge and morph, elements get carried through that allow us to track the lineage. The Gilgamesh and Noah flood-hero stories are similar because the Hebrew story descended from the Sumerian story . The same can be said of the Sumerian “Descent of Inana” and the Christian resurrection story. Even religions that exist side by side borrow elements from each other -- a process called syncretism.
But another reason for similarities among religious stories is that all of them are carried by human minds. To quote cognitive scientist, Pascal Boyer, “Evolution by natural selection gave us a particular kind of mind so that only particular kinds of religious notions can be acquired. (p. 4) . . . All human beings can easily acquire a certain range of religious notions and communicate them to others” (Religion Explained, p. 3) Our supernatural notions are shaped by the built-in structures that let us acquire, sort, and access information efficiently, especially information about other people.
You may have heard the old adage: If dogs had a god, God would be a dog; if horses had a god, God would be a horse . . . . Humans are more inventive than dogs and horses, and not all human gods or magical beings have human bodies. They do, however, have human psyches—minds with quirks and limitations that are peculiar to our species. Philosopher John Locke believed that the human mind was a tabula rasa, a blank slate. We now know this not to be the case. (Leda, Principle 4). Because we need to learn so much so fast, certain assumptions are actually built in. This allows us to generalize from a few bits of data to a big fund of knowledge. It lets us know more than we have actually experienced or been told.
Let me give you an example that will illustrate the point. If I tell you that my "guarg," Annie, just made a baby by laying an egg and sitting on it, your brain says: Guargs (not just Valerie’s guarg) are non-human animals that reproduce by laying eggs. You have different categories in your brain for animal reproductive systems, and putting one guarg in the egg laying category puts them all there. To oversimplify, we have a built in filing system. Most of the labels actually start out blank, but some of them don’t. The preprinted labels appear to include: human, non-human animal, plant, man-made object, natural object.
A large percentage of our mental architecture is specialized “domain specific” structures for processing information about other humans. We homo sapiens sapiens are social information specialists; that is our specialized niche in this world. Our survival and wellbeing depend mostly on smarts rather than teeth, claws, stealth or an innate sense of direction, and most of the information we need to survive and flourish comes from other humans. Our greatest threats also come from our own species--people who seek to out-compete, exploit or kill us. For this reason, our brains are optimized to process information from and about other humans.
How does all of this affect religion?
Here is a concrete example. Our brains have a specialized facial recognition module. Studies of infants and brain injuries have taught us much of what is known about the inborn structures of our minds, and we know about the facial recognition module from both. Shortly after birth, babies are uniquely attracted to two round circles with a slash beneath them. Later on, brain injury or developmental anomalies can produce a disorder in which people cannot recognize faces, including their own(!)—even though other kinds of visual processing are perfectly intact. This is called prosopagnosia. Most of the time, though, our facial recognition module overfunctions rather than underfunctioning. In ambiguous situations—looking at clouds, rocks, lumps of clay, or ink blots--we have a tendency to see faces. Our brains automatically activate the facial recognition scanner even though it doesn’t really apply. Through history people have seen gods, demons, ghosts looking at them. Christians, whose interpretation of hazy shapes is further shaped by belief in specific supernatural persons see Jesus, the Virgin Mary, an angel, a demon, or even Satan.
This illustrates a broader point that cannot be overemphasized in understanding the psychology of religion: when faced with unknowns and ambiguities, our brains activate inborn information modules whether or not they fit. We take unfamiliar situations and even random data and perceive patterns that are inherent, not in the external world, but in our own minds. Furthermore, our pattern recognition systems err on the side of being overactive rather than underactive. This is called apophenia. It is alarming to look at a face and not see it immediately as a face; it is quite common to see a face in an array of leaves or shadows.
When we look at the world around us, we instinctively see more than faces. We also “see” kindred conscious beings. Humans (and some intelligent animals) have developed a capacity called “theory of mind.” We not only have minds, we imagine that others have them, and we think about what they might be thinking. To guess what someone else might do (or to influence what they might do) it is tremendously helpful to think about what they want and what they intend. Theory of mind is so important in navigating our way through society that we can think about it several steps removed: I can imagine what Brian is thinking about how Grace intends to respond to Janet’s preferences. Furthermore, because our brains process information about minds differently than information about bodies, we can imagine human minds inside of all kinds of bodies (think stuffed animals, pet rocks or cartoon characters) or without any body at all, (think evil spirits, poltergeists or spirit-gods).
Because our theory of mind is so rich, we tend to over-attribute events to conscious beings. Scientists call this hyperactive agency detection. What does that mean? It means that when good things happen somebody gets credit and when bad things happen we look for someone to blame. We expect important events to be done by, for and to persons, and are averse to the idea that stuff just happens. We also tend to over-assume conscious intent, that if something consequential happened, someone did it on purpose.
This set of default assumptions explains why the ancients thought that volcanoes and plagues must be the actions of gods. Even in modern times, we are not immune from this kind of attribution: Hurricane Katrina happened because God was angry about abortions and gays; the Asian tsunami happened because he was disgusted with nude Australian sunbathers. If gods are tweaking natural events, then we want to curry their favor. Around the world, people make their special requests known to gods or spirits by talking to them and giving them gifts. Athletes huddle in prayer before a game, just in case those random bounces aren’t random. After a good day at the casino, a thank-you tip may go into the offering basket. Or it may be that the offering goes into the basket beforehand.
All of this builds on the idea that gods or other supernatural beings are akin to us psychologically. They have emotions and preferences. They take action in response to things they like and dislike. They experience righteous indignation and crave retribution. They like some people better than others. They respond to our loyalty by being loyal to us. They can be placated or cajoled. They like praise, affirmation, and gratitude. They track favors and good-will in a kind of tit-for-tat reciprocity.
Abstract theologies are a fairly recent invention in the history of human religion, and they tend not to govern religious behavior. Even people who describe their god as omniscient or who insist that everything is predestined actually behave as if they need to communicate their desires and can influence future events by doing so. The god of Christian theology and the god that ordinary Christians worship are two different creatures.
If the structure of our minds predisposes us to certain kinds of religious beliefs, it also precludes others. Nowhere in the world is there a supernatural being who exists only on alternate Tuesdays, or who sees everything but forgets it all in ten minutes, or who rewards us for ignoring and disobeying him. Nowhere is there a god who knows the future, but only the next hour, or a god who starves people to death whenever he is pleased with them, or who is exactly like an ordinary person in every way. Some ideas are simply not interesting to us. They may be counter-intuitive in ways that make them forgettable instead of “sticky.” Maybe they don’t make good stories or maybe we don’t have good places to file them in our index of memories.
According to Pascal Boyer, a good religious concept must strike a balance between being interesting and expected. It must activate an existing ontological category (let’s say “river”), add some counterintuitive tag (when dark and bubbling river turns to blood and heals people), and retain the default assumptions of the category except those that are otherwise specified (river is wet, flows, is longer than it is wide, has a bottom, etc.) We start with a familiar class of being or object then tweak it to pique our interest but leave intact our other basic assumptions about that kind of object or being. If the supernatural thing we are discussing is a conscious being, it also needs to have a basically human mind. Only under these conditions will it stick and get passed from one person to another. (Religion Explained)
Christian beliefs are highly successful at getting retained and transmitted. They fit our information processing structures and yet are counterintuitive in intriguing ways. They capitalize on our tendency to attribute events to human-like causal agents who have minds much like our own. They allow us to take machinery that is designed for processing social information and apply it to the problems of understanding inanimate objects and natural phenomena. They leverage our tendency to see patterns in ambiguous or random events. Consequently they are intuitive and broadly applicable and are easily remembered.
But if our brains allow for a wide range of religious concepts, how come so many people believe exactly the same thing? And what makes them so sure that those ideas are not only interesting—they are true? As we shall see in future articles Christian beliefs don’t just fit our mental categories. They also leverage powerful emotions and social relationships so as to become the core reality for those who believe.
Essentials: Pascal Boyer, Religion Explained .
Andy Thomson, Why We Believe in Gods; American Atheists, 2009.
If you don’t want to miss any of this series, subscribe to Valerie Tarico at this blog or send email to valerietarico at hotmail.com and request to be added to her mailing list for weekly articles.
Jesus was a human, fathered by a god and born to a virgin. He died for three days and was resurrected. His death was a sacrifice, an offering or propitiation. It brings favor for humans. He lives now in a realm where other supernatural beings interact with each other and sometimes intervene in human affairs.
Gradually the mainstream of the American public is becoming aware that none of these elements is unique to Christianity. Symbologists or scholars who specialize in understanding ancient symbols, tell us that the orthodox Jesus story, as it appears in our gospels, follows a specific sacred or mythic template that existed in the Ancient Near East long before Christianity or even Judaism. In part this is due to the flow of history. Religions emerge out of ancestor religions. Though the characters and details merge and morph, elements get carried through that allow us to track the lineage. The Gilgamesh and Noah flood-hero stories are similar because the Hebrew story descended from the Sumerian story . The same can be said of the Sumerian “Descent of Inana” and the Christian resurrection story. Even religions that exist side by side borrow elements from each other -- a process called syncretism.
But another reason for similarities among religious stories is that all of them are carried by human minds. To quote cognitive scientist, Pascal Boyer, “Evolution by natural selection gave us a particular kind of mind so that only particular kinds of religious notions can be acquired. (p. 4) . . . All human beings can easily acquire a certain range of religious notions and communicate them to others” (Religion Explained, p. 3) Our supernatural notions are shaped by the built-in structures that let us acquire, sort, and access information efficiently, especially information about other people.
You may have heard the old adage: If dogs had a god, God would be a dog; if horses had a god, God would be a horse . . . . Humans are more inventive than dogs and horses, and not all human gods or magical beings have human bodies. They do, however, have human psyches—minds with quirks and limitations that are peculiar to our species. Philosopher John Locke believed that the human mind was a tabula rasa, a blank slate. We now know this not to be the case. (Leda, Principle 4). Because we need to learn so much so fast, certain assumptions are actually built in. This allows us to generalize from a few bits of data to a big fund of knowledge. It lets us know more than we have actually experienced or been told.
Let me give you an example that will illustrate the point. If I tell you that my "guarg," Annie, just made a baby by laying an egg and sitting on it, your brain says: Guargs (not just Valerie’s guarg) are non-human animals that reproduce by laying eggs. You have different categories in your brain for animal reproductive systems, and putting one guarg in the egg laying category puts them all there. To oversimplify, we have a built in filing system. Most of the labels actually start out blank, but some of them don’t. The preprinted labels appear to include: human, non-human animal, plant, man-made object, natural object.
A large percentage of our mental architecture is specialized “domain specific” structures for processing information about other humans. We homo sapiens sapiens are social information specialists; that is our specialized niche in this world. Our survival and wellbeing depend mostly on smarts rather than teeth, claws, stealth or an innate sense of direction, and most of the information we need to survive and flourish comes from other humans. Our greatest threats also come from our own species--people who seek to out-compete, exploit or kill us. For this reason, our brains are optimized to process information from and about other humans.
How does all of this affect religion?
Here is a concrete example. Our brains have a specialized facial recognition module. Studies of infants and brain injuries have taught us much of what is known about the inborn structures of our minds, and we know about the facial recognition module from both. Shortly after birth, babies are uniquely attracted to two round circles with a slash beneath them. Later on, brain injury or developmental anomalies can produce a disorder in which people cannot recognize faces, including their own(!)—even though other kinds of visual processing are perfectly intact. This is called prosopagnosia. Most of the time, though, our facial recognition module overfunctions rather than underfunctioning. In ambiguous situations—looking at clouds, rocks, lumps of clay, or ink blots--we have a tendency to see faces. Our brains automatically activate the facial recognition scanner even though it doesn’t really apply. Through history people have seen gods, demons, ghosts looking at them. Christians, whose interpretation of hazy shapes is further shaped by belief in specific supernatural persons see Jesus, the Virgin Mary, an angel, a demon, or even Satan.
This illustrates a broader point that cannot be overemphasized in understanding the psychology of religion: when faced with unknowns and ambiguities, our brains activate inborn information modules whether or not they fit. We take unfamiliar situations and even random data and perceive patterns that are inherent, not in the external world, but in our own minds. Furthermore, our pattern recognition systems err on the side of being overactive rather than underactive. This is called apophenia. It is alarming to look at a face and not see it immediately as a face; it is quite common to see a face in an array of leaves or shadows.
When we look at the world around us, we instinctively see more than faces. We also “see” kindred conscious beings. Humans (and some intelligent animals) have developed a capacity called “theory of mind.” We not only have minds, we imagine that others have them, and we think about what they might be thinking. To guess what someone else might do (or to influence what they might do) it is tremendously helpful to think about what they want and what they intend. Theory of mind is so important in navigating our way through society that we can think about it several steps removed: I can imagine what Brian is thinking about how Grace intends to respond to Janet’s preferences. Furthermore, because our brains process information about minds differently than information about bodies, we can imagine human minds inside of all kinds of bodies (think stuffed animals, pet rocks or cartoon characters) or without any body at all, (think evil spirits, poltergeists or spirit-gods).
Because our theory of mind is so rich, we tend to over-attribute events to conscious beings. Scientists call this hyperactive agency detection. What does that mean? It means that when good things happen somebody gets credit and when bad things happen we look for someone to blame. We expect important events to be done by, for and to persons, and are averse to the idea that stuff just happens. We also tend to over-assume conscious intent, that if something consequential happened, someone did it on purpose.
This set of default assumptions explains why the ancients thought that volcanoes and plagues must be the actions of gods. Even in modern times, we are not immune from this kind of attribution: Hurricane Katrina happened because God was angry about abortions and gays; the Asian tsunami happened because he was disgusted with nude Australian sunbathers. If gods are tweaking natural events, then we want to curry their favor. Around the world, people make their special requests known to gods or spirits by talking to them and giving them gifts. Athletes huddle in prayer before a game, just in case those random bounces aren’t random. After a good day at the casino, a thank-you tip may go into the offering basket. Or it may be that the offering goes into the basket beforehand.
All of this builds on the idea that gods or other supernatural beings are akin to us psychologically. They have emotions and preferences. They take action in response to things they like and dislike. They experience righteous indignation and crave retribution. They like some people better than others. They respond to our loyalty by being loyal to us. They can be placated or cajoled. They like praise, affirmation, and gratitude. They track favors and good-will in a kind of tit-for-tat reciprocity.
Abstract theologies are a fairly recent invention in the history of human religion, and they tend not to govern religious behavior. Even people who describe their god as omniscient or who insist that everything is predestined actually behave as if they need to communicate their desires and can influence future events by doing so. The god of Christian theology and the god that ordinary Christians worship are two different creatures.
If the structure of our minds predisposes us to certain kinds of religious beliefs, it also precludes others. Nowhere in the world is there a supernatural being who exists only on alternate Tuesdays, or who sees everything but forgets it all in ten minutes, or who rewards us for ignoring and disobeying him. Nowhere is there a god who knows the future, but only the next hour, or a god who starves people to death whenever he is pleased with them, or who is exactly like an ordinary person in every way. Some ideas are simply not interesting to us. They may be counter-intuitive in ways that make them forgettable instead of “sticky.” Maybe they don’t make good stories or maybe we don’t have good places to file them in our index of memories.
According to Pascal Boyer, a good religious concept must strike a balance between being interesting and expected. It must activate an existing ontological category (let’s say “river”), add some counterintuitive tag (when dark and bubbling river turns to blood and heals people), and retain the default assumptions of the category except those that are otherwise specified (river is wet, flows, is longer than it is wide, has a bottom, etc.) We start with a familiar class of being or object then tweak it to pique our interest but leave intact our other basic assumptions about that kind of object or being. If the supernatural thing we are discussing is a conscious being, it also needs to have a basically human mind. Only under these conditions will it stick and get passed from one person to another. (Religion Explained)
Christian beliefs are highly successful at getting retained and transmitted. They fit our information processing structures and yet are counterintuitive in intriguing ways. They capitalize on our tendency to attribute events to human-like causal agents who have minds much like our own. They allow us to take machinery that is designed for processing social information and apply it to the problems of understanding inanimate objects and natural phenomena. They leverage our tendency to see patterns in ambiguous or random events. Consequently they are intuitive and broadly applicable and are easily remembered.
But if our brains allow for a wide range of religious concepts, how come so many people believe exactly the same thing? And what makes them so sure that those ideas are not only interesting—they are true? As we shall see in future articles Christian beliefs don’t just fit our mental categories. They also leverage powerful emotions and social relationships so as to become the core reality for those who believe.
Essentials: Pascal Boyer, Religion Explained .
Andy Thomson, Why We Believe in Gods; American Atheists, 2009.
If you don’t want to miss any of this series, subscribe to Valerie Tarico at this blog or send email to valerietarico at hotmail.com and request to be added to her mailing list for weekly articles.
Christian Belief Through the Lens of Cognitive Science: Part 1 of 6
Why Cognitive Psychology is Necessary for Understanding Christianity
My father died in a climbing accident when he was 59 and I was in my mid twenties. In one of our last deep conversations before his 300 meter misstep, he expressed his abiding hope that I would “get right with God.” Dad was the son of Italian immigrants, all Catholics, who got converted by door-to-door Pentecostals some years after their arrival in Chicago. His mother lived out her life in the Assemblies of God denomination that had recruited them all, while Dad settled into a closely allied form of Evangelical fundamentalism without the speaking-in-tongues bit. As far as I know, he never questioned his belief that the Bible was the literally perfect word of God and that Jesus died for his sins. And yet of his six children three of us, by Evangelical standards, are now slated for eternal torture. We are on the wrong side of a battle being waged on a spiritual plane, a battle in which those who are not on the side of God are agents of evil. If Dad were alive, our lack of belief would grieve him.
Religious belief is one of the most powerful forces in our world. Believers think that it has the power to save us all. Increasingly, doubters fear that the opposite may be true: a tribal mindset, unaccountable to ordinary standards of reason and evidence but armed with state of the art weapons may hasten our extinction. In the United States, religious affiliation is the best predictor of political party alliance. Almost half of Americans insist that humans were created in their present form sometime within the last 7000 years because the Bible says so. In the Middle East, Sunnis and Shia split over theological differences that seem trivial to the rest of us but that in their minds create tribal boundaries worthy of lethal conflict.
Why is religious belief so wide-spread and powerful? The traditional Christian answer is: because it’s true, and people who haven’t hardened their hearts against God recognize this when God’s plan of salvation is presented to them.
But the recent explosion of knowledge in cognitive science offers a new way to look at this question, not from a moral or theological standpoint but from a practical standpoint. What is the mental machinery that lets us form beliefs? What does evidence and reason have to do with it? How is it that six devoted Christian kids can turn into three devoted Christian adults and three agnostics?
The more we learn about the hardware and operating systems of the human brain--the more we understand about human information processing--the more we glean bits of insight into the religious mind.
This article is the first in a series of six. Each takes a look some part of our mental machinery, how it relates to our tendency toward religious belief. The articles will focus on the following questions:
· How does the structure of human information processing pre-dispose us to religious thinking? Given how our minds work, what kinds of religious beliefs are possible and what kinds are we immune to?
· How do we know what we know? What gives us a feeling of certainty? What is the relation between reason, evidence, and our sense of knowing?
· How do conversion experiences work? What makes religious conversion transformative?
· How does our social group influence or even control our religious beliefs? How do beliefs get transmitted from one person to another?
· Why do missionaries target children? How does religious identity develop in childhood? How is belief in childhood different from belief acquired as an adult?
· What makes beliefs resistant to change? What causes people to lose belief? When are people open to reexamining religious assumptions?
Before looking at these questions, it is helpful to understand why belief is so important in Christianity. For traditional Christians, belief is the heart of the Christian religion. It is the toggle that sends people to heaven or hell. In the final analysis, believing that Jesus Christ died as a “propitiation” for your sins is the thing that matters to God. No matter how kind and loving your life may be, no matter that you strive to love your neighbor as yourself, no matter what great things you may accomplish in the service of humanity or the world at large – if you believe wrong you are doomed.
This focus on belief is not characteristic of all religions. In the Ancient Near East, the birthplace of Christianity, pagan religions placed little emphasis on belief. The existence of a supernatural world was broadly assumed because there seemed to be little other way to explain the good and bad things that happen to people or natural events like storms, earthquakes, illness, birth and death. But the point of religion wasn’t belief; it was to take care of the gods so that they would take care of you and your community. The word “cult” (Latin cultus, literally care) is related to the word “cultivation.” We talk now about cultivating ground so that it will bear fruit. Nonprofits talk about “cultivating donors.” That was what the gods cared about, and so it was the heart of religious practice.
From the beginning, Christianity was different. Jesus worshipers cared tremendously about right belief, also known as orthodoxy. Bart Ehrman’s book, Lost Christianities, offers a fascinating window into the struggles that went on during the first and second centuries as groups with different beliefs about Jesus criticized and competed with each other, and one of them won out. Some of groups (e.g. Ebionites) believed that Jesus was a fully human Jewish messiah and that Jesus worshipers must follow the law. Others (e.g. Marcionites) believed that Jesus was a being from the spirit world who only took on human likeness. Still others (Gnostics) believed that the human Jesus was inhabited by a divine “Eon” during the years of his ministry—revealing to his followers secret knowledge that would let them escape this corrupt mortal plane. Others, now known as proto-orthodox or Roman, had ideas about Jesus that lead to the views of Christians today. (“Roman Catholic” means Roman universal.) What all of these groups agreed on was that it was tremendously important to believe the right thing about who Jesus was and what Christianity should be.
This emphasis on right belief was and is unique to monotheism. It existed in a rudimentary form in Judaism, but even today Judaism is more concerned with living right than believing right. Christianity’s exclusive truth claims and emphasis on right belief helped it to out-compete other religions in the Roman Empire. Polytheists often are quite agreeable to adding another god to their pantheon. Christians could persuade pagans to add the Jesus-god and then could wean them off of the others. Today, in India, for example, Evangelical missionaries are much more likely to target Hindus than Sikhs or Muslims who would have to immediately abandon their primary religion in order to embrace the idea of Jesus as a god.
Eastern religions don’t share Christianity’s concern with belief. The emphasis is more on practice or “praxis” –spiritual living, self-renunciation, insight or enlightenment-- and among ordinary people, a sort of cult or caretaking of the gods like that practiced by ancient pagans. Right belief isn’t what lets you move up through cycles of reincarnation or attain nirvana. Nor is it what gets you the favor of gods.
Just as biological organisms have many different adaptive or reproductive strategies, so religions compete for human mind-share in different ways. An emphasis on propagating belief (ie. evangelism) and purity of belief (ie. orthodoxy) is only one of those.
In the late 19th and early 20th Century, a movement called modernism emerged within Christianity. Modernist theologians began reexamining traditional orthodox beliefs in light of what we now know about linguistics, archaeology, psychiatry, biology, and human history. In this light, traditional Christian certainties looked less certain, and many modernist Christians are more like members of Eastern Religions in that their primary concern is with spiritual practice rather than belief. But a backlash emerged in response to modernism. People who proudly called themselves “fundamentalists” insisted that no-one was a real Christian who didn’t hold the traditional beliefs. Evangelicals inherited the fundamentalist torch, and even some of the more inquiring denominations have reverted back toward emphasis on right belief.
This is the mindset that dominates Christianity in the public square. It is the mindset that sends Christian missionaries out into the world seeking converts in impoverished corners of the planet. It is the mindset that prints Bibles to be distributed in Iraq and has organized to establish control of the American military hierarchy, seeking to create an “army of Christian soldiers.” To understand American Christianity specifically or Western religion more broadly, it is necessary to understand the psychology of belief.
Essential Reading: Bart Ehrman, Lost Christianities.
If you don't want to miss any of this series, subscribe to Valerie Tarico at this blog or send email to valerietarico at hotmail.com and request to be added to the mailing list for weekly articles.
My father died in a climbing accident when he was 59 and I was in my mid twenties. In one of our last deep conversations before his 300 meter misstep, he expressed his abiding hope that I would “get right with God.” Dad was the son of Italian immigrants, all Catholics, who got converted by door-to-door Pentecostals some years after their arrival in Chicago. His mother lived out her life in the Assemblies of God denomination that had recruited them all, while Dad settled into a closely allied form of Evangelical fundamentalism without the speaking-in-tongues bit. As far as I know, he never questioned his belief that the Bible was the literally perfect word of God and that Jesus died for his sins. And yet of his six children three of us, by Evangelical standards, are now slated for eternal torture. We are on the wrong side of a battle being waged on a spiritual plane, a battle in which those who are not on the side of God are agents of evil. If Dad were alive, our lack of belief would grieve him.
Religious belief is one of the most powerful forces in our world. Believers think that it has the power to save us all. Increasingly, doubters fear that the opposite may be true: a tribal mindset, unaccountable to ordinary standards of reason and evidence but armed with state of the art weapons may hasten our extinction. In the United States, religious affiliation is the best predictor of political party alliance. Almost half of Americans insist that humans were created in their present form sometime within the last 7000 years because the Bible says so. In the Middle East, Sunnis and Shia split over theological differences that seem trivial to the rest of us but that in their minds create tribal boundaries worthy of lethal conflict.
Why is religious belief so wide-spread and powerful? The traditional Christian answer is: because it’s true, and people who haven’t hardened their hearts against God recognize this when God’s plan of salvation is presented to them.
But the recent explosion of knowledge in cognitive science offers a new way to look at this question, not from a moral or theological standpoint but from a practical standpoint. What is the mental machinery that lets us form beliefs? What does evidence and reason have to do with it? How is it that six devoted Christian kids can turn into three devoted Christian adults and three agnostics?
The more we learn about the hardware and operating systems of the human brain--the more we understand about human information processing--the more we glean bits of insight into the religious mind.
This article is the first in a series of six. Each takes a look some part of our mental machinery, how it relates to our tendency toward religious belief. The articles will focus on the following questions:
· How does the structure of human information processing pre-dispose us to religious thinking? Given how our minds work, what kinds of religious beliefs are possible and what kinds are we immune to?
· How do we know what we know? What gives us a feeling of certainty? What is the relation between reason, evidence, and our sense of knowing?
· How do conversion experiences work? What makes religious conversion transformative?
· How does our social group influence or even control our religious beliefs? How do beliefs get transmitted from one person to another?
· Why do missionaries target children? How does religious identity develop in childhood? How is belief in childhood different from belief acquired as an adult?
· What makes beliefs resistant to change? What causes people to lose belief? When are people open to reexamining religious assumptions?
Before looking at these questions, it is helpful to understand why belief is so important in Christianity. For traditional Christians, belief is the heart of the Christian religion. It is the toggle that sends people to heaven or hell. In the final analysis, believing that Jesus Christ died as a “propitiation” for your sins is the thing that matters to God. No matter how kind and loving your life may be, no matter that you strive to love your neighbor as yourself, no matter what great things you may accomplish in the service of humanity or the world at large – if you believe wrong you are doomed.
This focus on belief is not characteristic of all religions. In the Ancient Near East, the birthplace of Christianity, pagan religions placed little emphasis on belief. The existence of a supernatural world was broadly assumed because there seemed to be little other way to explain the good and bad things that happen to people or natural events like storms, earthquakes, illness, birth and death. But the point of religion wasn’t belief; it was to take care of the gods so that they would take care of you and your community. The word “cult” (Latin cultus, literally care) is related to the word “cultivation.” We talk now about cultivating ground so that it will bear fruit. Nonprofits talk about “cultivating donors.” That was what the gods cared about, and so it was the heart of religious practice.
From the beginning, Christianity was different. Jesus worshipers cared tremendously about right belief, also known as orthodoxy. Bart Ehrman’s book, Lost Christianities, offers a fascinating window into the struggles that went on during the first and second centuries as groups with different beliefs about Jesus criticized and competed with each other, and one of them won out. Some of groups (e.g. Ebionites) believed that Jesus was a fully human Jewish messiah and that Jesus worshipers must follow the law. Others (e.g. Marcionites) believed that Jesus was a being from the spirit world who only took on human likeness. Still others (Gnostics) believed that the human Jesus was inhabited by a divine “Eon” during the years of his ministry—revealing to his followers secret knowledge that would let them escape this corrupt mortal plane. Others, now known as proto-orthodox or Roman, had ideas about Jesus that lead to the views of Christians today. (“Roman Catholic” means Roman universal.) What all of these groups agreed on was that it was tremendously important to believe the right thing about who Jesus was and what Christianity should be.
This emphasis on right belief was and is unique to monotheism. It existed in a rudimentary form in Judaism, but even today Judaism is more concerned with living right than believing right. Christianity’s exclusive truth claims and emphasis on right belief helped it to out-compete other religions in the Roman Empire. Polytheists often are quite agreeable to adding another god to their pantheon. Christians could persuade pagans to add the Jesus-god and then could wean them off of the others. Today, in India, for example, Evangelical missionaries are much more likely to target Hindus than Sikhs or Muslims who would have to immediately abandon their primary religion in order to embrace the idea of Jesus as a god.
Eastern religions don’t share Christianity’s concern with belief. The emphasis is more on practice or “praxis” –spiritual living, self-renunciation, insight or enlightenment-- and among ordinary people, a sort of cult or caretaking of the gods like that practiced by ancient pagans. Right belief isn’t what lets you move up through cycles of reincarnation or attain nirvana. Nor is it what gets you the favor of gods.
Just as biological organisms have many different adaptive or reproductive strategies, so religions compete for human mind-share in different ways. An emphasis on propagating belief (ie. evangelism) and purity of belief (ie. orthodoxy) is only one of those.
In the late 19th and early 20th Century, a movement called modernism emerged within Christianity. Modernist theologians began reexamining traditional orthodox beliefs in light of what we now know about linguistics, archaeology, psychiatry, biology, and human history. In this light, traditional Christian certainties looked less certain, and many modernist Christians are more like members of Eastern Religions in that their primary concern is with spiritual practice rather than belief. But a backlash emerged in response to modernism. People who proudly called themselves “fundamentalists” insisted that no-one was a real Christian who didn’t hold the traditional beliefs. Evangelicals inherited the fundamentalist torch, and even some of the more inquiring denominations have reverted back toward emphasis on right belief.
This is the mindset that dominates Christianity in the public square. It is the mindset that sends Christian missionaries out into the world seeking converts in impoverished corners of the planet. It is the mindset that prints Bibles to be distributed in Iraq and has organized to establish control of the American military hierarchy, seeking to create an “army of Christian soldiers.” To understand American Christianity specifically or Western religion more broadly, it is necessary to understand the psychology of belief.
Essential Reading: Bart Ehrman, Lost Christianities.
If you don't want to miss any of this series, subscribe to Valerie Tarico at this blog or send email to valerietarico at hotmail.com and request to be added to the mailing list for weekly articles.
May 27, 2009
What is the Scope and Definition of Evil?
Over in the "In a world without God...why does evil exist?" article, Brad Haggard said Lee, make that post into an article so we can discuss it without having to scroll down 80 comments", so I did. Enjoy.
What is evil?
What can be evil?
Is something produced as evil?
Does it become evil?
When does something become evil?
What qualifies as evil?
Can time and/or evironment change a thing to or from something other than evil?
Is needless or pointless suffering evil?
What is the Scope and Definition of Evil?
Is that scope and definition objective?
Does the scope and definition depend on a context?
Who decides?
If God, then how does that knowledge get to us if he's going to remain silent?
If a thing has scope and definition then it can probably be measured, quantified and or evaluated, assessed and compared.
Can we do that with evil?
is it evil to stick a needle in a baby?
Is it evil to kill someone?
To kill a spider?
Is it evil to kill for sport?
Why or why not?
Why does something qualify as evil?
Can evil be useful? If its useful and leads to greater good, is it really evil?
Can good come from an evil proposition?
Can any of the components of something good be evil?
Is an act evil if the intent is not evil?
If a bear kills a human, is it evil?
Or is it just Chance?
It seems to me, evil is in the eye of the beholder.
now I'm standing by for the shower of mischaracterizations, strawmen and equivocation.
What is evil?
What can be evil?
Is something produced as evil?
Does it become evil?
When does something become evil?
What qualifies as evil?
Can time and/or evironment change a thing to or from something other than evil?
Is needless or pointless suffering evil?
What is the Scope and Definition of Evil?
Is that scope and definition objective?
Does the scope and definition depend on a context?
Who decides?
If God, then how does that knowledge get to us if he's going to remain silent?
If a thing has scope and definition then it can probably be measured, quantified and or evaluated, assessed and compared.
Can we do that with evil?
is it evil to stick a needle in a baby?
Is it evil to kill someone?
To kill a spider?
Is it evil to kill for sport?
Why or why not?
Why does something qualify as evil?
Can evil be useful? If its useful and leads to greater good, is it really evil?
Can good come from an evil proposition?
Can any of the components of something good be evil?
Is an act evil if the intent is not evil?
If a bear kills a human, is it evil?
Or is it just Chance?
It seems to me, evil is in the eye of the beholder.
now I'm standing by for the shower of mischaracterizations, strawmen and equivocation.
May 26, 2009
"In a world without God...why does evil exist?"
Christian professor Dr. Dan Lambert is using my book for a class introducing the students to atheism at John Brown University, which is an evangelical college. I've mentioned this before. His students wanted to know my answer to the above question.
Dan's full question is this:
However, just because there isn't any ultimate evil doesn't mean there isn't suffering for which we think is unnecessary. On this view evil is suffering, intense suffering, suffering that turns our stomachs. If your students have a hard time contemplating this then don't use the word "evil" at all. Just use the word "suffering." I don't like to suffer. I don't want my loved ones to suffer, nor do I want their friends to suffer. As a human being who is part of the natural world who can reflect on this world I can have a say about the sufferings of myself and others. Since I don't like suffering I want to help alleviate the sufferings of others. I think that by doing so it increases the amount of pleasure for me in this world, since a world that doesn't have as much suffering is a world where I and the ones I love can have more pleasure. And pleasure, holistic Aristotelian pleasure, is it's own reward needing no additional justification.
Dan's full question is this:
Many of them want to know how you answer the problem from an atheist perspective. So, in a world without God, created and sustained by purely natural laws and evolving as scientists explain it, why does evil exist?The short answer is that objective or ultimate evil does not exist. Everything that happens is natural. Nature destroys people on whom the existence of millions of lives depend as well as it destroys people who want relief from their painful existence. Nature is indiscriminate in its dealings with us without any meaning or purpose. This best fits what we experience, I think.
However, just because there isn't any ultimate evil doesn't mean there isn't suffering for which we think is unnecessary. On this view evil is suffering, intense suffering, suffering that turns our stomachs. If your students have a hard time contemplating this then don't use the word "evil" at all. Just use the word "suffering." I don't like to suffer. I don't want my loved ones to suffer, nor do I want their friends to suffer. As a human being who is part of the natural world who can reflect on this world I can have a say about the sufferings of myself and others. Since I don't like suffering I want to help alleviate the sufferings of others. I think that by doing so it increases the amount of pleasure for me in this world, since a world that doesn't have as much suffering is a world where I and the ones I love can have more pleasure. And pleasure, holistic Aristotelian pleasure, is it's own reward needing no additional justification.
293 People Have Signed the Facebook Petition So Far
I want to thank Larry M from VCU for setting this petition up. Petitioners would like to see a debate between my former professor William Lane Craig and me. They include both Christians and nonbelievers. The only question you need to ask yourself is whether this would be entertaining and educational. If so, then sign up. Here is a list of people who have done so, and they include some well known names like Eddie Tabash, Richard Carrier, Victor Reppert, Reginald Finley, Ed Babinski, Jason Long and so on.
May 25, 2009
William Lane Craig Responds to Robert Cavin's Argument Found in The Empty Tomb
Spencer Lo called my attention to Dr. Craig's recent Q & A in answer to Cavin. He also sent me his response to it, since he's been pushing it. See what you think:
You might want to begin by reading Dr. Craig's answer.
Here is Spencer Lo's response:
You might want to begin by reading Dr. Craig's answer.
Here is Spencer Lo's response:
William Lane Craig thinks my argument "needn’t be of concern to most Christians, who don’t base their belief in Jesus’ resurrection on historical evidence." Construed narrowly, this is (somewhat) true: no Christian attempts to establish the resurrection -- "in the full Jewish sense of that term" -- in the same way that historians attempt to establish some widely attested historical event, via documents and testimony. But construed more broadly, the claim is false, as Craig tacitly concedes. What Craig attempts to demonstrate in his debates, on historical grounds, is what he identifies as the Resurrection Hypothesis, the statement that “God raised Jesus from the dead.” Once this more modest claim is established, one then infers that Jesus rose from the dead "in the full, Jewish sense of that term." Hence, Christians who base their belief in Jesus' resurrection -- "in the full Jewish sense of that term" -- on what Craig identifies as the Resurrection Hypothesis, the more modest statement that "God raised Jesus from the dead," DO indirectly base their belief on historical evidence.
Craig is also wrong when he says the Resurrection Hypothesis is all he means by "resurrection" -- apparently he forgot what he has written in one of his books:
"Resurrection is not resuscitation. The mere restoration of life to a corpse is not a resurrection. A person who has resuscitated returns only to this early life and will die again."
In contrast,
"Jesus rose to eternal life in a radically transformed body that can be described as immortal, glorious, powerful, and supernatural. In this new mode of existence he was not bound by the physical limitations of this existence, but possessed superhuman powers." (Knowing the Truth About the Resurrection, p 15)
What Craig identifies as the Resurrection Hypothesis, therefore, is more aptly named the Restoration Hypothesis, and his argument for the resurrection -- "in the full Jewish sense of that term" -- can be construed as the following:
(i). The Restoration Hypothesis is true.
(ii). If the Restoration Hypothesis is true, then the Resurrection Hypothesis can be established.
(iii). Therefore, the Resurrection Hypothesis can be established.
Craig therefore objects to premise (2) of my argument with the above one -- he thinks it CAN be established, albeit indirectly, that Jesus transformed into a supernatural body. Before responding, I should say a little about Craig's second charge that my argument "misconstrue[s] the case for Jesus’ resurrection...as a deductive argument rather than as an inference to the best explanation." This is false. The term "established" in this context does not mean "shown to be true with logical certainty"; it is more charitably understood to mean "inductive establishment." I think Craig realizes that if the Resurrection Hypothesis cannot be properly inferred, via inference to the best explanation, then the resurrection cannot be established. Hence Craig's second complaint is wide off the mark.
Regarding the above argument, I addressed it in the other thread, and is therefore a pity that Don neglected to mention my responses in his question. My contention is with (i), the claim that Jesus rose from the dead supernaturally, or via supernatural intervention. Assuming Jesus really did rise from the dead, there are two distinct reasons why we would be unjustified in concluding that Jesus probably rose from the dead supernaturally, or via supernatural intervention.
First, the inference - which is unsupported by any independent evidence - violates one of the methodological principles of science we all accept. Whenever we encounter a seemingly unexplainable event, or even an event that contradicts our cherished scientific views, it is not proper to automatically conclude that the event is therefore a supernatural one (we do not conclude this even after years and years of being confounded by the mystery). Hence, the more appropriate response is to seriously consider the possibility that our cherished views might be fundamentally wrong. Have we done this in the case of Jesus? No, we have not.
Second, suppose we grant for the sake of argument that, for normal, everyday human beings, rising from the dead naturally is impossible. Does it then follow that beings who don't fit this description probably can't rise from the dead naturally? For instance, does this conclusion apply to non-humans, superhumans, or space-aliens? Of course not. The fact that normal human beings can't rise from the dead naturally does not mean those beings can't either. Jesus does not fit the description of "normal, everyday human being" -- in fact, we do not know if he was even human, and therefore we cannot conclude he rose from the dead supernaturally just because "normal, everyday human beings" (let's suppose) can't rise naturally. To conclude otherwise on the basis of the data we have is to commit the hasty generalization fallacy.
I'll mention one more problem with (i). Why suppose Jesus really died? It is entirely possible -- and prima facie plausible -- that Jesus was close to death but hadn't actually died, and spent those three days in the tomb regenerating. This possibility is perfectly consistent with the *alleged* observed events. One cannot rule it out as probably false for the same two reasons given above: 1. concluding that Jesus must have died violates a very stable methodological principle we all accept, and 2. we need to take into consideration the fact that Jesus was not a "normal, everyday human being", but a supernormal (possibly natural) being who might not have even been human.
Craig writes: "This conclusion is especially manifest if Jesus predicted his death and resurrection by Israel’s God...Third, this same point applies with respect to justifying Jesus’ claims to divinity...given the religio-historical context of Jesus’ own radical self-understanding and blasphemous personal claims, not to mention his activity as a miracle-worker, exorcist, and herald of the in-breaking of God’s Kingdom, God’s raising Jesus from the dead is most plausibly understood as God’s ratification of those claims."
Craig is referring to the Restoration Hypothesis in the first line, and I would simply ask: how does he know Jesus predicted his restoration "by Israel's God?" To predict his own restoration is one thing, but to predict his restoration via divine intervention is something quite different. To conclude that one naturally follows the other is like saying, "I predict Steve will drive me to Canada. I was driven to Canada. Therefore, my prediction that Steve drove me to Canada came true." Hence, Craig needs to provide evidence that if Jesus predicted his restoration via Israel's God, then his prediction, with respect to how he was restored, was accurate. With respect to Jesus' claims to divinity, Craig faces similar obstacles: how does he know Jesus was a "miracle-worker" (i.e. performing supernatural, as opposed to natural, events)? Does he not argue this on the basis of the Restoration Hypothesis? That is, since he attempts to establish Jesus' other "miracle" activities on the basis of the Restoration Hypothesis, he cannot use those activities as a basis for justifying Jesus' divinity without first showing that they occurred, and he cannot do this without first establishing the Restoration Hypothesis. And, as I said, even if he could show Jesus' other activities (e.g. healing the sick, etc) without showing the Restoration Hypothesis, how does he know they were supernatural (and not natural) events? I doubt he can show this, for the same two reasons I mentioned before.
May 24, 2009
Is God Really Good? Is Sinful Man Smarter Than God?
For a general discussion, I would like to pose the following question:
Is it morally and ethically right for sinful man to wipe an entire portion of God’s creation off the face of the earth and feel great about it?
Let’s see how you Christians answer this one! (Watch yourself! You just might back into a bee's nest here.)
Is it morally and ethically right for sinful man to wipe an entire portion of God’s creation off the face of the earth and feel great about it?
Let’s see how you Christians answer this one! (Watch yourself! You just might back into a bee's nest here.)
A Good List of Blogs I Frequent
Reasonably Aaron and I frequent the same sites. He listed his favorites and stated how frequently they're updated. While there are others I could put on it I like his list.
May 23, 2009
One Final Thought on Whether Jesus Did or Did Not Lie
And now up dated with a third lie of Jesus!
Forget the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection for now!
Lets go straight to the facts as stated by Jesus himself!
To set the record straight as to whether or not Jesus (or the Gospels writers) used lies to get people to join Christianity: Are or are not the following two statements made by Jesus true and correct promises and claims (as simply stated with no apologetic excuses please)?
1. John 14: 13 -14:
“Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.”
2. Matt. 16: 28:
“Most certainly I tell you, there are some standing here who will in no way taste of death, until they see the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom."
3. Mark 13:2:
"Jesus said to him, "Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone on another, which will not be thrown down." (Just what is the Wailing Wall then?! Duh!)
Finally, based on what Jesus promised people if they converted and what he claimed about the Devil (aka: Satan); who would you trust more: A used car salesman or Jesus?
In the end, my challenge (per John 8:44) remains: Based on the Hebrew text and it alone:
1. No one has yet proven to me Satan is a liar! (See my notes on Genesis!)
2. No one has yet proven to me Satan is murder! (See my notes on Job!)
Forget the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection for now!
Lets go straight to the facts as stated by Jesus himself!
To set the record straight as to whether or not Jesus (or the Gospels writers) used lies to get people to join Christianity: Are or are not the following two statements made by Jesus true and correct promises and claims (as simply stated with no apologetic excuses please)?
1. John 14: 13 -14:
“Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.”
2. Matt. 16: 28:
“Most certainly I tell you, there are some standing here who will in no way taste of death, until they see the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom."
3. Mark 13:2:
"Jesus said to him, "Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone on another, which will not be thrown down." (Just what is the Wailing Wall then?! Duh!)
Finally, based on what Jesus promised people if they converted and what he claimed about the Devil (aka: Satan); who would you trust more: A used car salesman or Jesus?
In the end, my challenge (per John 8:44) remains: Based on the Hebrew text and it alone:
1. No one has yet proven to me Satan is a liar! (See my notes on Genesis!)
2. No one has yet proven to me Satan is murder! (See my notes on Job!)
May 22, 2009
The "free gift" of salvation not so free
I've thought that there is a fundamental contradiction in the evangelical message of salvation because, according to them, it is NOT Christ's atoning death that saves you, it is YOUR BELIEF in it. (otherwise everyone would be saved). Therefore, this is not a salvation by grace, it is another salvation by works, albeit cognitive work. You must DO several things - find out about and understand the atonement, accept that Jesus dies for your sins, feel guilt and express your sorrow for being responsible, ask forgiveness, and invite Jesus "into your heart" to rule for the rest of your life.
IF you are sincere enough and it works, you get your life insurance (or fire insurance). Many people do this many times because they aren't sure. What do these things mean? What does it mean to "believe," "confess sin," or "accept Jesus"? These are mental events with no objective evidence. And how does one force oneself to believe if the story makes no rational sense? Can you believe in Santa Claus again just because you need to save your life? With the threat of hell-fire condemnation, this is terrifying, crazy-making stuff. It's no wonder that "believers" exhibit so much mental illness, including psychosis. Taught to children, I consider it child abuse of the worst kind.
I've wandered a bit from my initial point, which was that this doctrine is a salvation by works, ie, it is the accomplishment of the believer. Maybe that is why fundamentalists are so smug.
Aside from the obvious problem of people being unsaved because they are too rational, smart, enlightened or integrous, what about those who, because of the requirements of this deal, are too dumb to understand it, don't know about it, only believe a little bit, etc. etc.? Even in our human justice system, people are not condemned for what they are thinking.
Here's an analogy. Say you are in danger of a calamitous death and someone comes along and puts a present near you which will save your life - a FREE GIFT our of pure benevolence!! But you can't have it until you notice it, find horrible fault in yourself, feel sorry and grateful, manage to get to it and pick it up, and then promise to devote your life to the gift-giver. If you are blind or lame or just don't want a gift, good luck to you. How can they ever say this kind of gift is unearned??? And isn't it pretty weird that the gift-giver is one and the same as the creator of the torment you get if you don't accept the gift? Talk about strings attached. Imagine if we gave each other gifts like that.
I just had a birthday recently, and I'm glad ordinary humans have a better idea of giving.
Marlene Winell, www.marlenewinell.net
IF you are sincere enough and it works, you get your life insurance (or fire insurance). Many people do this many times because they aren't sure. What do these things mean? What does it mean to "believe," "confess sin," or "accept Jesus"? These are mental events with no objective evidence. And how does one force oneself to believe if the story makes no rational sense? Can you believe in Santa Claus again just because you need to save your life? With the threat of hell-fire condemnation, this is terrifying, crazy-making stuff. It's no wonder that "believers" exhibit so much mental illness, including psychosis. Taught to children, I consider it child abuse of the worst kind.
I've wandered a bit from my initial point, which was that this doctrine is a salvation by works, ie, it is the accomplishment of the believer. Maybe that is why fundamentalists are so smug.
Aside from the obvious problem of people being unsaved because they are too rational, smart, enlightened or integrous, what about those who, because of the requirements of this deal, are too dumb to understand it, don't know about it, only believe a little bit, etc. etc.? Even in our human justice system, people are not condemned for what they are thinking.
Here's an analogy. Say you are in danger of a calamitous death and someone comes along and puts a present near you which will save your life - a FREE GIFT our of pure benevolence!! But you can't have it until you notice it, find horrible fault in yourself, feel sorry and grateful, manage to get to it and pick it up, and then promise to devote your life to the gift-giver. If you are blind or lame or just don't want a gift, good luck to you. How can they ever say this kind of gift is unearned??? And isn't it pretty weird that the gift-giver is one and the same as the creator of the torment you get if you don't accept the gift? Talk about strings attached. Imagine if we gave each other gifts like that.
I just had a birthday recently, and I'm glad ordinary humans have a better idea of giving.
Marlene Winell, www.marlenewinell.net
May 21, 2009
Facebook Petition: The William Lane Craig/ John Loftus Debate Wish Group
Yep, I just got notice today that there is a petition on Facebook for both Christians and nonbelievers to sign who want to see me debate my former professor. Click here to join.
May 20, 2009
Jesus: A Superstitious Man Living in an Eschatological Hotbed
Despite my last post challenging Christians to prove to me that Jesus did not lie in John 8:44, no one has been able to debunk my post or, as I see it, truth can not be debunked!
So, just how mortal was Jesus once the Christology has been striped away? Just where did he get his un-Biblical information from? In fact, as noted at the end of this post, Jesus was not an all knowing Christ who fabricated stories about Satan, but a superstitious Jew who believed in the oral and written lore of his people.
Thus, based on a careful reading of the Gospel texts, we find a fallible Jewish man making mistakes about the end times and a man who was highly influenced by the myths and Jewish folklore of the day (see below).
As an example of oral lore here, the creator Gospel of Matthew, without a personal Hebrew Bible to check himself against, misquotes a proof text in trying to prove the credence of his work. An example (as noted by the late Bruce Metzger) is found in Matthew 27: 9 where the creator of Matthew’s Gospel wrongly attributes a verse found in Zechariah 11: 12 -13 to Jeremiah.
Based on the challenge of my post about John 8: 44, we know that what Jesus believed and taught was not some divine revelation passed down directly from God, but Jesus simply used popular stories circulating in the general population to impress, entertain and teach from just as many wondering ancient bards would use Hesiod's Theogony and his Works and Day or just like the cuneiform text of the Atrahasis story and the Epic of Gilgamesh was used by folk moralist to reveal why thing are in the world the way they are and what the gods really wanted from humans.
At the time of Jesus, the Palestinian Jewish world was awash in rapidly developing Jewish folk- lore. Apart fro the Essenes at Qumran rewriting and re-editing the Hebrew Bible into Hebrew Peshim (commentaries: pesher פשר = "Commentary" or theological works including over 900 other documents) to prove that God had now chosen them alone.
Well know Jews such as Philo, Josephus, and latter Pseudo-Philo were also re-editing Jewish folklore to make what they considered orthodox theology and truthful histories like the ancient Israelite schools had done who fused the Hebrew Bible from fragments making a whole running narrative form what we now know from different views of who and what the gods (E =Elohim) or god (J=Yahweh) wanted and thought.
In the time of Jesus, eschatological dogmas were revealed in apocalyptic literature in which long dead ancient Jewish figures such as Enoch, Elijah, Adam and Eve, Moses and the Jewish Patriarchs seemed to have arisen out of their long lost graves to pin divine revelations from God about the mysteries of Heaven and Hell. Just like the rest of first century Jewish Palestine, Jesus swam in this world filled with competing Jewish religious legends where both God and Satan wrestled for control of human minds and the world.
Not only were forged texts written in long dead (and mythological) names, but the Jews themselves were entering into a time of collecting and editing their oral legends into what was to latter be called the Talmud.
If one knows Jewish theology, then one is aware that Jews believed Moses received both the Written and the Oral Torah on Mount Sinai. In other words, just as tradition plays a major factor in the formulation religious truth in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, so too does tradition play a major factor in teaching the truth of God to the Jews as recorded in the Talmud.
It is at just such a time in first century Palestine that a thirty year old man named Jesus (much like William Miller in 1843 & 1844, Joseph Smith or David Koresh) thought the world as he knew it, was going to end in his life time and the judgment of God would be pored out on sinful humanity.
So, while no one can give any Biblical to my post as to why Jesus can claimed Satan was a lair and a murder, the answer is to be found in how popular Jewish folklore of the day influenced him and shaped the beliefs of Jesus. Although most of this folklore has long been lost, the Jewish Talmud gives us a good idea how Jesus came to understand God, theology and himself as an End Time prophet.
So just where did Jesus get his theology about God, the world and himself? As I stated above; from oral living religious legends such as the lore that made up both the Palestinian and Babylonia Talmuds. Although they were formed in the fifth century, both contain oral and written sources that go back much earlier, to and even beyond the time of Jesus.
The Talmud on Satan:
Although satan does not appear in Gensis 3, later rabbinic sources identified satan with the serpent in Eden (Sofa. 9b; Sanh. 29a). He is identified in a more impersonal way with the evil inclination which infects humanity (B. Bat. 16a). In a more personal way, he is the source behind God’s testing of Abraham (Sanh. 89b). Additionally, satan is responsible for many of the sins mentioned in the OT. For example, it is satan who was responsible for the Israelites worshiping the golden calf because of his lie that Moses would not return from mount Sinai (Sabb. 89a). He is the driving force behind David’s sin with Bathsheba (Sanh. 107a), and it is he who provokes the gentiles to ridicule Jewish laws, thus weakening the religious loyalties of the Jews (Yoma 67b). (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol.5, Satan p. 988.)
In the final analysis, it is only when Jesus is placed in the context of the average religious Jew swimming in an eschatological world where the apocalyptic mind ran wild with stories and fears of Satan, devils, demons and judgments from God that Jesus is not really a pathological liar, but a man simply caught up in the lore of popular Jewish superstitions.
So, just how mortal was Jesus once the Christology has been striped away? Just where did he get his un-Biblical information from? In fact, as noted at the end of this post, Jesus was not an all knowing Christ who fabricated stories about Satan, but a superstitious Jew who believed in the oral and written lore of his people.
Thus, based on a careful reading of the Gospel texts, we find a fallible Jewish man making mistakes about the end times and a man who was highly influenced by the myths and Jewish folklore of the day (see below).
As an example of oral lore here, the creator Gospel of Matthew, without a personal Hebrew Bible to check himself against, misquotes a proof text in trying to prove the credence of his work. An example (as noted by the late Bruce Metzger) is found in Matthew 27: 9 where the creator of Matthew’s Gospel wrongly attributes a verse found in Zechariah 11: 12 -13 to Jeremiah.
Based on the challenge of my post about John 8: 44, we know that what Jesus believed and taught was not some divine revelation passed down directly from God, but Jesus simply used popular stories circulating in the general population to impress, entertain and teach from just as many wondering ancient bards would use Hesiod's Theogony and his Works and Day or just like the cuneiform text of the Atrahasis story and the Epic of Gilgamesh was used by folk moralist to reveal why thing are in the world the way they are and what the gods really wanted from humans.
At the time of Jesus, the Palestinian Jewish world was awash in rapidly developing Jewish folk- lore. Apart fro the Essenes at Qumran rewriting and re-editing the Hebrew Bible into Hebrew Peshim (commentaries: pesher פשר = "Commentary" or theological works including over 900 other documents) to prove that God had now chosen them alone.
Well know Jews such as Philo, Josephus, and latter Pseudo-Philo were also re-editing Jewish folklore to make what they considered orthodox theology and truthful histories like the ancient Israelite schools had done who fused the Hebrew Bible from fragments making a whole running narrative form what we now know from different views of who and what the gods (E =Elohim) or god (J=Yahweh) wanted and thought.
In the time of Jesus, eschatological dogmas were revealed in apocalyptic literature in which long dead ancient Jewish figures such as Enoch, Elijah, Adam and Eve, Moses and the Jewish Patriarchs seemed to have arisen out of their long lost graves to pin divine revelations from God about the mysteries of Heaven and Hell. Just like the rest of first century Jewish Palestine, Jesus swam in this world filled with competing Jewish religious legends where both God and Satan wrestled for control of human minds and the world.
Not only were forged texts written in long dead (and mythological) names, but the Jews themselves were entering into a time of collecting and editing their oral legends into what was to latter be called the Talmud.
If one knows Jewish theology, then one is aware that Jews believed Moses received both the Written and the Oral Torah on Mount Sinai. In other words, just as tradition plays a major factor in the formulation religious truth in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, so too does tradition play a major factor in teaching the truth of God to the Jews as recorded in the Talmud.
It is at just such a time in first century Palestine that a thirty year old man named Jesus (much like William Miller in 1843 & 1844, Joseph Smith or David Koresh) thought the world as he knew it, was going to end in his life time and the judgment of God would be pored out on sinful humanity.
So, while no one can give any Biblical to my post as to why Jesus can claimed Satan was a lair and a murder, the answer is to be found in how popular Jewish folklore of the day influenced him and shaped the beliefs of Jesus. Although most of this folklore has long been lost, the Jewish Talmud gives us a good idea how Jesus came to understand God, theology and himself as an End Time prophet.
So just where did Jesus get his theology about God, the world and himself? As I stated above; from oral living religious legends such as the lore that made up both the Palestinian and Babylonia Talmuds. Although they were formed in the fifth century, both contain oral and written sources that go back much earlier, to and even beyond the time of Jesus.
The Talmud on Satan:
Although satan does not appear in Gensis 3, later rabbinic sources identified satan with the serpent in Eden (Sofa. 9b; Sanh. 29a). He is identified in a more impersonal way with the evil inclination which infects humanity (B. Bat. 16a). In a more personal way, he is the source behind God’s testing of Abraham (Sanh. 89b). Additionally, satan is responsible for many of the sins mentioned in the OT. For example, it is satan who was responsible for the Israelites worshiping the golden calf because of his lie that Moses would not return from mount Sinai (Sabb. 89a). He is the driving force behind David’s sin with Bathsheba (Sanh. 107a), and it is he who provokes the gentiles to ridicule Jewish laws, thus weakening the religious loyalties of the Jews (Yoma 67b). (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol.5, Satan p. 988.)
In the final analysis, it is only when Jesus is placed in the context of the average religious Jew swimming in an eschatological world where the apocalyptic mind ran wild with stories and fears of Satan, devils, demons and judgments from God that Jesus is not really a pathological liar, but a man simply caught up in the lore of popular Jewish superstitions.
Another Review of My Book: "I'm really not the target audience for this"
Here's an excerpt below:
[T]his book attacked what is in my mind a straw-man of Christianity. But what I've fast come to realize over the last 5 years or so, what I perceive as a straw-man is the intellectual and moral foundations for hundreds of millions of people. So to read a book criticizing fundamentalism is not even attacking the Christianity I know, to me it's attacking the extreme right who have no basis in reality to begin with.
I have been an avid reader of Loftus' blog, Debunking Christianity, for some time now and find him to be a reasonable and level-headed man. Which is why the first thing that shocked me about the book was the way he would talk about what he used to believe...as I went on through the book, what stood out was how poor the intellectual reconciliation between the modern understanding of the world and the bible actually is. The reconciliations take an absurdity and make it sound even more absurd. To preserve the notion that the bible is the word (in some sense) of an omniscient deity, the most asinine explanations are presented. The book didn't even need Loftus' debunking those claims - they could not stand up on their own.
This is not to say I hated the book, Loftus is an excellent writer and wrote a mostly engaging argument. There were some parts that made the book worth getting - the outsider test for faith is possibly the best argument against religion, and that goes for all religion. The philosophy and explanation of the control beliefs was also really thorough and well presented. And finally at the end, the way he tackled the idea of ultimate meaning was done very well.
To read the whole review click here.
Used Goods
It's been two months since I herniated disks L4 and L5 in my lower back. I’ve always had a great back until that one unfortunate day—3/18/09. I was cleaning out a shed when I went to hoist a heavy box of books. They were books I had in storage from my preaching days, incidentally. I knew right when I did it that things were not going to be good. I drove home barely mobile, and four hours later, if the house had been on fire, I wouldn’t have been able to leave. Family had to tend to me some of the time. I’m doing much better today, having been nursed back to health on plenty of strong painkillers, muscle relaxants, and prolonged bed rest after a brief hospital stay. Word to the wise—don’t lift wrong!
Having briefly mentioned the experience in my discussion forums, our token Christian debater Noel Cookman made the remark that God wasn’t responsible for making bad human bodies because he only “made” Adam and Eve in a perfect state. I love it when Christians make this statement. It’s the ultimate pass-off for the poor design of our bodies. Adam and Eve were perfect. The rest of us just weren’t fortunate enough to be Adam or Eve.
The remains of Adam and Eve we don't have, and if we had them preserved, we'd know it (they'd have no navels, for starters). We would also find genetic perfection (no arthritis, no hemorrhoids, no cancer, nothing that comes from time and the breakdown of genetic coding).
Strangely enough, not one fossilized human being has ever been unearthed that a creationist will point to in support of the “Adam and Eve were perfect” position. They have no problem showing off Darwinism’s many “shortcomings,” but they can’t make a case of their own. This is because every human specimen we have ever found doesn't fit what they would want to hold up and say: “This is an antediluvian body. Look how well-designed it is, atheists!” Every human specimen we ever found had to get put into that ever thickening Post-diluvian file to explain poor health and rickets, shortness and mass deformities due to lack of salt, and the affects of having no medicine and general malnutrition.
Adam supposedly lived 930 years—and no, you can't divide those years down into lesser “years” to make them closer to our “normal” age range. You can try, but you come up with all sorts of absurdities. For instance, if 1 year in the first few chapters of Genesis represents 6 months of our standard year, then the problem doesn't go away because you have 900+ year-old people (half of that is 450—still way out of the ballpark for a human being). Or, if 1 year in the Bible is the equivalent of 3 months of our time, then Kenan who lived 70 years and then had his first child (Genesis 5:12-14) really had his first child at age 23, but didn't die until he was covered in cobwebs at the ripe old age of 298. Even sea turtles don’t live that long! But let's say that a single Genesis year equals only 1 of our months. That means Kenan was not even 6 years old when he had his first son Mahalalel. Still won’t work. We seem to be fighting the tides here.
Our problem is that the smelly genocidal scribblers who wrote Genesis believed that the patriarchs lived lives of great length compared to our own. This is seen to be false when we consider that life spans are longer now than they have ever been, and as stated, we have not one fossilized example to counter this claim. What significance does this have? It means Genesis is wrong and that there were no long-lived patriarchs. But if you believe the Bible, you have to believe that eating forbidden fruit was what destroyed our immortality and later our health.
Because of “the fall of man” we all suffer from weak, piss-poor genetics. These Jehovah-made genetics break down, allowing us to get things like cancer and Brittle Bone Disease. And many Christian crazies buy into the idea that our minds are “fallen” along with our crappy bodies. This is why, we are told, that we don't all see the “truth” that Jesus Christ is the light of God unto salvation. It's because our minds have been ruined by the fall. If it weren't for that, we would have a world full of Christian apologists! Perish the goddamn thought!!!
But maybe the Christians are wrong in their thinking that we are just suffering from “bad” genetics. Maybe God purposely allowed bad backs that lack structural support to remind us when we lift wrong that we are a sinful race, spiritually depraved and worthy of hell. Some still believe that. Our grandparents and great grandparents certainly believed that and would say that.
Maybe God actually created/allowed physical defects to be, as well as mental defects, like retardation and schizophrenia and borderline personality disorders, as some theologians tell us. Maybe Jeebuz had other reasons for these quirky creations. Maybe God created retards because he knew that most of us would be overqualified to work as store greeters or mascots or those people who ring bells and stand in Santa suits, staring off into space, or who stand in traffic in the heat selling newspapers and flowers. You could say that God had to create mental hard drives with lesser capacity so that those lowly occupations could be filled. Doesn't God give us all talents of different kinds?
But in all seriousness, we can't say that. No one with an IQ above 67 can say that bad backs happened because our ancestors sinned or that the mentally defective are merely people of “different talents.” No one can say these things with a straight face, not today.
What does make sense is to say that God is like my old boss Stan. Now Stan owned an advertising company in South Texas for a while and he bought a company car for us new from a Dodge dealership at a very discounted rate. The car was great for the first 50,000 hard-driven miles, but soon the warranty was up, and it began to have problems. In just a few short years, Stan was getting back-talked by every employee around the water cooler because he was just too damn cheap to flip the bill for a new one that could stay out of the shop for longer than 3 days.
That's how God is—too cheap to manage the successful up-keep of our bodies and keep us free from death, debilitating diseases, and crippling conditions. God once did the equivalent of buying new cars, but he's been a cheapskate ever since. Things have only been downhill from there. He supposedly did a good job with Adam and Eve, and the patriarchs got to feel some of that. But we aren't so lucky.
With the possible exception of Jack LaLane, God hasn't sprung for a single solitary machine of quality since ancient times. That means we're all used goods. God's a cheapskate, and nobody really likes a cheapskate except other cheapskates—in this case, theologians and apologists who are responsible for justifying Jeebuz’s thriftiness.
So instead of healing our diseases and giving us good bodies, what does God give us? He gives us the Bible to tell us just how much he loves us and how he used to be willing to make bodies that put ours to a crying shame and would make Lou Ferrigno want to hide in the bushes. And better than that, he gives us theologians and apologists to come up with reasons why God made window-smooching retards and bad backs. Lame!
Time for more Vicodin. Thanks for reading.
(JH)
Having briefly mentioned the experience in my discussion forums, our token Christian debater Noel Cookman made the remark that God wasn’t responsible for making bad human bodies because he only “made” Adam and Eve in a perfect state. I love it when Christians make this statement. It’s the ultimate pass-off for the poor design of our bodies. Adam and Eve were perfect. The rest of us just weren’t fortunate enough to be Adam or Eve.
The remains of Adam and Eve we don't have, and if we had them preserved, we'd know it (they'd have no navels, for starters). We would also find genetic perfection (no arthritis, no hemorrhoids, no cancer, nothing that comes from time and the breakdown of genetic coding).
Strangely enough, not one fossilized human being has ever been unearthed that a creationist will point to in support of the “Adam and Eve were perfect” position. They have no problem showing off Darwinism’s many “shortcomings,” but they can’t make a case of their own. This is because every human specimen we have ever found doesn't fit what they would want to hold up and say: “This is an antediluvian body. Look how well-designed it is, atheists!” Every human specimen we ever found had to get put into that ever thickening Post-diluvian file to explain poor health and rickets, shortness and mass deformities due to lack of salt, and the affects of having no medicine and general malnutrition.
Adam supposedly lived 930 years—and no, you can't divide those years down into lesser “years” to make them closer to our “normal” age range. You can try, but you come up with all sorts of absurdities. For instance, if 1 year in the first few chapters of Genesis represents 6 months of our standard year, then the problem doesn't go away because you have 900+ year-old people (half of that is 450—still way out of the ballpark for a human being). Or, if 1 year in the Bible is the equivalent of 3 months of our time, then Kenan who lived 70 years and then had his first child (Genesis 5:12-14) really had his first child at age 23, but didn't die until he was covered in cobwebs at the ripe old age of 298. Even sea turtles don’t live that long! But let's say that a single Genesis year equals only 1 of our months. That means Kenan was not even 6 years old when he had his first son Mahalalel. Still won’t work. We seem to be fighting the tides here.
Our problem is that the smelly genocidal scribblers who wrote Genesis believed that the patriarchs lived lives of great length compared to our own. This is seen to be false when we consider that life spans are longer now than they have ever been, and as stated, we have not one fossilized example to counter this claim. What significance does this have? It means Genesis is wrong and that there were no long-lived patriarchs. But if you believe the Bible, you have to believe that eating forbidden fruit was what destroyed our immortality and later our health.
Because of “the fall of man” we all suffer from weak, piss-poor genetics. These Jehovah-made genetics break down, allowing us to get things like cancer and Brittle Bone Disease. And many Christian crazies buy into the idea that our minds are “fallen” along with our crappy bodies. This is why, we are told, that we don't all see the “truth” that Jesus Christ is the light of God unto salvation. It's because our minds have been ruined by the fall. If it weren't for that, we would have a world full of Christian apologists! Perish the goddamn thought!!!
But maybe the Christians are wrong in their thinking that we are just suffering from “bad” genetics. Maybe God purposely allowed bad backs that lack structural support to remind us when we lift wrong that we are a sinful race, spiritually depraved and worthy of hell. Some still believe that. Our grandparents and great grandparents certainly believed that and would say that.
Maybe God actually created/allowed physical defects to be, as well as mental defects, like retardation and schizophrenia and borderline personality disorders, as some theologians tell us. Maybe Jeebuz had other reasons for these quirky creations. Maybe God created retards because he knew that most of us would be overqualified to work as store greeters or mascots or those people who ring bells and stand in Santa suits, staring off into space, or who stand in traffic in the heat selling newspapers and flowers. You could say that God had to create mental hard drives with lesser capacity so that those lowly occupations could be filled. Doesn't God give us all talents of different kinds?
But in all seriousness, we can't say that. No one with an IQ above 67 can say that bad backs happened because our ancestors sinned or that the mentally defective are merely people of “different talents.” No one can say these things with a straight face, not today.
What does make sense is to say that God is like my old boss Stan. Now Stan owned an advertising company in South Texas for a while and he bought a company car for us new from a Dodge dealership at a very discounted rate. The car was great for the first 50,000 hard-driven miles, but soon the warranty was up, and it began to have problems. In just a few short years, Stan was getting back-talked by every employee around the water cooler because he was just too damn cheap to flip the bill for a new one that could stay out of the shop for longer than 3 days.
That's how God is—too cheap to manage the successful up-keep of our bodies and keep us free from death, debilitating diseases, and crippling conditions. God once did the equivalent of buying new cars, but he's been a cheapskate ever since. Things have only been downhill from there. He supposedly did a good job with Adam and Eve, and the patriarchs got to feel some of that. But we aren't so lucky.
With the possible exception of Jack LaLane, God hasn't sprung for a single solitary machine of quality since ancient times. That means we're all used goods. God's a cheapskate, and nobody really likes a cheapskate except other cheapskates—in this case, theologians and apologists who are responsible for justifying Jeebuz’s thriftiness.
So instead of healing our diseases and giving us good bodies, what does God give us? He gives us the Bible to tell us just how much he loves us and how he used to be willing to make bodies that put ours to a crying shame and would make Lou Ferrigno want to hide in the bushes. And better than that, he gives us theologians and apologists to come up with reasons why God made window-smooching retards and bad backs. Lame!
Time for more Vicodin. Thanks for reading.
(JH)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)