I have said that if you want to debate me then get my book and review it, and I will engage you. A young man named Nick decided to do that. So he's been reviewing it chapter by chapter and I've been making some comments about it from time to time. But today he decided to review my chapter on the atonement and I am speechless. I don't know where to begin with such ignorance. See what you think:
Why I Rejected Christianity Review: Why Did Jesus Suffer?
Our review of Loftus’s book continues with a look at the atonement. Why did it happen? The theory he chooses to address and I will defend as it’s the one I hold is the penal substitution view. It is the view that Christ took our place on the cross and he received our punishment and we in turn receive his righteousness. There is a brief history of various atonement theories before this (With some left out), but that is not relevant to the point at hand.
He starts out with asking about why this is? If the claim of Christianity is true, then Loftus does admit that he goes to Hell because of his sins. However, what has anyone ever done to deserve that? He states “All through my entire life I have never met, nor even heard of one person, who deserved such a punishment. Never.
I guess that settles it. Judge Loftus has spoken.
I beg to differ of course. First off, let me state my view of Hell. My view is not a fiery torture chamber. It is a place of darkness and isolation. In effect, it is eternal quarantine. God lets people go there and he leaves them alone. The worst suffering will be internal. People in Hell will know for all eternity that they have blown it.
Now who deserves eternal separation from God? I see someone every morning when I get up and look in the mirror who does. And I think this is shocking to some because we’ve lost what sin is.
To begin with, it’s not breaking an abstract rule. It’s violating the person of God. Consider God as the most awesome, holy, good, loving, powerful, intelligent being that there is. As Anselm would say, you can’t conceive of anyone greater than he is.
Sin is telling that one that he is not what he says he is. In fact, every sin is ultimately the sin of Satan. Every sin is choosing your own good over the good of God. In effect, it is you telling yourself that you will be God instead of him. It is divine treason and it cuts one off from the source of goodness and life. God simply cannot allow that sin in his presence.
Now Loftus says that in our modern society we are humane in our punishments. Perhaps we are, and perhaps that is the problem. C.S. Lewis wrote on how we seek to cure criminals rather than punish them long ago.http://www.angelfire.com/pro/lewiscs/humanitarian.html
The question is, is it just?
Loftus mentions the death penalty. I support it. I know I probably lost some readers for that, but I do. I believe man is in the image of God and to murder a man is an attack on that image of God. I believe the murderer is to pay the price by having his own life be forfeit. Of course, this is when it’s shown beyond the shadow of a doubt that the accused did commit the crime. I have this strange belief that crime should be punished.
Loftus goes on to ask if it’s fair that he suffer eternally for one little white lie.
I’d like to meet the person whose only sin is one little white lie.
Loftus’s sins are at the beginning of his book. I have no need to go into them. My stance has been that they really don’t matter as long as one doesn’t live in them. I think they need to be confessed and repented of and the blame squarely accepted, but after that, I do believe in divine forgiveness. I know my sins and they’re not just little white lies either. We have all lived in constant rebellion against the Almighty and what we get is what we deserve.
Loftus says that we see in Scripture that God is willing to forgive if people will confess.
Yes. Absolutely. Getting out of Hell is quite simple. Just trust Christ. God does desire mercy and not sacrifice, but God is also just. He gives mercy to those who want it.
Loftus also wants to know since he became like us, why he can’t see sin from our perspective.
Let’s not consider that we shouldn’t want God to see it from our perspective. I don’t want him to. I want him to see it from his perspective. Why? It’s the true one. How do I want to view something like myself even? Do I want to see me as I see me or do I want to see me as God sees me? It would obviously be the latter because that would be the true view.
Now we may intend God no wrong in sinning, but it does not matter. We have sinned and it cannot be ignored. Even Levitical Law had a sacrifice for unintentional sins. Death was still the price. (And frankly, I know I’ve committed sins in the past knowing they were sins and I seriously doubt anyone reading my blog is in a different position.)
For the third one, did Jesus pay an infinite price? First off, Jesus did pay the price. Hebrews tells us that. The Son went and offered up his blood in the holiest sanctuary of all and God was pleased. What was the one who offered the sacrifice allowed to do with what was offered to him? Whatever he wanted. God restored the sacrifice he was given of the Son and glorified him.
How does this work? I can only imagine that on some level, there is an eternal reality in God of what happened on the cross. The Son is spoken of as the lamb that was slain before the foundation of the world. Do I understand this entirely? Of course not. I doubt anyone does. It doesn’t mean though that I throw out the whole thing as nonsensical. (Makes you wonder if since there’s no understood theory of naturalistic evolution out there why that isn’t thrown out as well.)
The next point is that supposedly, forgiveness doesn’t require punishment.
On a human court, that’s true, however, there are still consequences. If someone hits my car for instance, I can forgive them and tell them not to worry, but that car will still be damaged and someone will still have to fix it. On a divine level, we are violating justice itself and the price for being cut off from life is death. Someone has to die. God can’t put his holiness on a secondary level. He must treat himself as the greatest good of all.
So what happens at the cross? His justice is satisfied and his mercy is offered to all.
The fifth objection is really along the same lines.
He then asks if we die outside of the faith, what reason does God have to punish us?
Ooooooh. Let me guess. We’re sinners? Sounds like a good reason to me.
And yes, God does understand us perfectly and he does know about the moral law on our hearts. If there were any circumstances that put the sin in a lesser degree, God would know them better than we would. In the end, there is no one biblically who will be able to say “It was not fair.” Creation shows us that God exists plainly and the moral law on our hearts tells us that some things are right and some are wrong.
Loftus also asks where sin abides in us. This is one of those things that just makes me wonder what kind of theology was being taught. Sin is an action. Actions do not abide in us. They affect our character though and our souls. The same happens with good actions. It is those of us that do not choose to live to be what we were meant to be who get eternity apart from God.
Another theory is commented on later, but it is not the atonement theory I hold, thus I will stick to what has been said thus far. I do not find anything here that really gives me pause. I look and see “Did Jesus die on the cross? Did he rise from the dead?” Then even if I don’t understand it all, I understand that it does work, for God has told us so himself.
Justin Brierly will interview me on Premier Christian Radio at 2.30 PM Saturday, London time. His co-host is Dr. Peter May, whose writings can be found here. From what I can tell this is an influential British Christian talk show, billed as an "award-winning programme," and Justin is a decent bloke. If you can't hear it when it airs it'll be archived here.
Funny how those who boast the loudest, “I’m a patriot. I fight for freedom, God, and country” tend to support ideals that only lead to widespread oppression and fascism.
Funny how those God-believers who boast the loudest of their morality, saying “I have a foundation for my morality” are just as prone as anyone else towards immorality or moral lapses.
Funny how those who boast confidently about how Christianity has the greatest “evidences” in support of it seem to walk on egg shells, fearing day-to-day how some new scientific find may come along and crack the foundation of their faith.
Funny how those who boast greatly about “God’s great healing power” will just as surely depend upon Advil or some other pain reliever to rid themselves of the pain of an ailment.
Funny how those who boast so loudly about the “fine-tuning” of the universe have so little to say about all the ways our planet can kill us and how so much of our universe is lifeless and hostile to even the possibility of life.
Funny how those who testify most fervently about the sublime happiness that service to God brings depend on the usual 30 milligrams of Prozac a day and the latest best-selling Christian book to ease their minds of life’s many sorrows.
Funny how those who most loudly proclaim peace and religious liberty will be the most zealous to take life in the already heavily blood-soaked name of the cross.
Funny how those who publicly proclaim the truth of Christianity and tell us that we should “give to the Lord” and “sacrifice” for the kingdom’s sake are among the richest men alive.
Funny how those who tell us we should focus living lives “more abundantly” on earth are themselves focused on leaving this world for one to come.
Funny how those who tell us that the body is “the temple of the Lord” and how “God don’t make no junk!” are constantly seeking better, heavenly bodies in the resurrection.
Funny how those who talk the most about selflessness and “doing good for God” are always interested in their own destinies and putting another star in their heavenly crowns.
Funny how those who boast that “God is love” and that God “brings peace that passes all understanding” and tell us that “there is no fear in love, but perfect love casteth out fear” are always seeking to scare the populace into obedience by the merciless threat of unquenchable hellfire.
The poll was generated from this discussion. The question was this one: Is Radical Islam More Dangerous Than Radical Christianity? The results are below. What do you make of them, if anything?
Lindani Mangena, a twenty-four year old smooth talking believer, took about three million pounds from people after he told them he was a modern-day Moses. He promised them cash returns of %3000. To people who believe the earth is six-thousand years old and that a snake and a donkey can talk, this makes lots of sense.
When I was growing up my father once attacked a real estate investor named Donald Davenport in print for his post office scam, warning potential investors that it was likely to be fraudulent. He was sued for defamation and libel and the case was dropped a few weeks before Dr. Davenport declared bankruptcy.
But gullible in one thing, gullible in all. The lessons learned by those involved with Dr. Davenport obviously didn't fully attach themselves to the memory cells system of the SDA immune system. Once again we see gullible people who accept things on faith, coming to grips with the fact that faith doesn't work.
So while the believers were singing "Onward Christian Soldiers", Mr. Mangena was living like a rock star.
Money flooded in so swiftly that Mangena installed a cash-counting machine at the offices, while one witness saw "piles" of notes in his luxury apartment. Stephen Winberg, prosecuting, said £1m disappeared "supporting a wildly extravagant lifestyle ... to which the defendants had not, to put it mildly, been accustomed".
Just because someone tells you they are from God, does not mean they are from God. In most cases, it means they are trying to rip you off.
Some investors, believing God had blessed him, remortgaged, only to lose their homes and life savings. Others struggled to stave off repossession. Many had to forgo holidays, and large numbers were plunged into depression. One victim even gave up his job to join the company.
So to tally up the things faith can accomplish: It can bankrupt you. It can lead you to let your children die from treatable illness. On the plus side, you have something to do once or twice a week.
Sorry the linked video below is no longer available and I can't find it anywhere.
Wow! This is completely ignorant! It's but one more example of indoctrination masquerading as an education. Can you imagine claiming that ancient superstitious people knew more than modern scientists do in any other area?
By now the story is familiar to everyone. A couple with deep Christian belief prayed over their daughter rather than seeking medical care for a condition that would be cured with simple techniques known for decades to modern medicine. Their daughter died.
This is NOT an April Fool's post. Although I wish it were.
In this case the girl was 15 months old. Little Ava had bronchial pneumonia and sepsis. Her parents prayed over her, wickedly, rather than seeking care. The state of Oregon is taking the proper action, charging them with manslaughter. The state had to pass a law regarding this group back in the 90s.
The couple's son died in August 2001. A police investigation into the death was closed after family members said the child had been stillborn and was three months premature.
Yes. You read that right. They have let two children die in their home. And their church let them pray over a deathly ill little girl, after this had happened within the decade. This one little faith group has its own cemetery. There are nine (9) graves in it full of children who died of unspecified causes since the 90s.
Please, someone, tell me how prayer for the sick is good and righteous. Please, I can't understand how that can be when I keep seeing all these dead kids.
See this Link. Notice how thoughtful Christians must continually retreat in the face of the evidence? His conclusions may be tomorrow's orthodoxy. But as Christians retreat to a distant God, remember that a distant God is no different than none at all!
Here is a picture of the 11-year old girl in Wisconsin who died from type I diabetes. She was evidently being prayed for under an internet-based ministry called "Unleavened Bread."
The main proprietor of Unleavened Bread is a man named David Eells. David Eells has posted his explanation of the events. I strongly encourage everyone to actually read the whole post at the link and you will see exactly what I am talking about in my post about prayer for the sick.
However several things stated need to be reposted here just in case they are later taken down. One is simply stunning in its hubris:
"The next thing I heard from them was that they were being investigated, which is sad since authorities don’t investigate the people who put their trust in doctors whose family members die by the hundreds of thousands from medical mistakes every year, according the AMA's own admission. We know that the doctors do the best they can with what they have and we do not condemn them. We would like the same consideration."
Just to be clear, Mr. Eells is claiming that because some people who go to doctors die, and some people who pray to God die, that they are equivalent. I hope he doesn't open a faith-based auto repair shop. I imagine he might say that while he admired auto mechanics who used oil changes, new tires, brake pads and other mechanical items to insure auto saftey, people still die in auto wrecks every year. He would think it was sad that people didn't accept as valid his prayer for auto safety in lieu of "standard mechanical theory."
Directly after claiming the equivalence with doctors, Mr. Eells goes on to dig himself just a bit deeper:
"When Christians begin to put their trust in The Lord they are as babes learning to walk in a new Kingdom. Sometimes we stumble because of lack of faith or repentance in an area but hopefully we correct this and get back up. "The righteous shall live by faith." Those who do not know Jesus through being born of His Word think it is a terrible thing to die, and it is for them. Jesus called dying "entering into life" for those who know Him."
This is precisely why believing in Jesus and his resurrection is flatly dangerous. The belief that the Bible is literally true leads to a culture of death-acceptance that is shocking to anyone who does not share this belief system. There's no long leap between this belief and the belief of Islamic jihadists.
Is this what the objective moral truths of the Bible reveal?
For people wondering why I haven't participated much in some of the discussions here at DC, or that when I do, I seem out of it, or a bit cranky, I'd like to explain what I've been doing lately.
Lately I've been working on the copy edits of my book, Why I Became an Atheist. I know I'm the author and so you’ll want to take my recommendation with a grain of salt, but I dare say with Eddie Tabash that this book is the "finest refutation of Christianity," evangelical Christianity, in print. It helped to change Andrew Atkinson's mind, who was well-read and planning on entering Norman Geisler's Seminary. It is also being recommended by Norman Geisler, who said my book "is a thoughtful and intellectually challenging work, presenting arguments that every honest theist and Christian should face." It’s being recommended by James F. Sennett, who said it is "a wake up call to the church." And it is being recommended by many skeptics, like Daniel C. Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, Paul Kurtz, Robert M. Price, Richard Carrier, Dan Barker and David Mills. In addition to these recommendations of my self-published book, Hector Avalos, Michael Shermer, John Beversluis, Andrea Weisberger, and Charles Echelbarger will be taking a look at the Prometheus Books galleys for a blurb to be placed with the others on the back cover, and inside pages of the book. The Prometheus Books edition is a major revision of my former book. I'm completely satisfied with it. It's sure to make an impact.
So I'm putting my all into what I'm doing. I want to make it the best damn counter-apologetics book, bar none. Even if I don't achieve that goal, it's still a worthy goal.
Then I'm also in the beginning stages of putting together a "Contra-Christian Reader" for Prometheus Books, to come out on the heels of my first book. A rough draft of the first chapter can be found here.
I’m also planning on turning my self-published book into a companion volume with the best from Debunking Christianity, decisions and permissions will be forthcoming.
In the midst of this I'm in a financial crisis and looking for ways to earn some more money. This economy is bad, very bad, for my business where I live, and rather than spend extra time drumming up more business I've spent too much time Blogging and writing. I think I may be in for another career change. In the meantime I'd appreciate any donations you might be able to give me during this time. I have a hard time asking for help, so when I do, it’s dire.
While I'm pre-occupied with these things rest assured that everything at DC is under control. Your administrators are Lee Randolph, Joe Holman, Harry McCall, Evan, and Ed Babinski. They help me with moderating comments to keep the discussions going fluently. I appreciate all of them and their keen insights as they have the chance. They make DC the best place to discuss the issues that divide us, in my opinion. To read about our contributors here at DC, see this link.
I’ll begin my premise of this thesis by posing the question:
Is it a positive act (both ethically and morally) for modern science to totally wiped off an entire part of God’s creation from the face of the earth and for sinful humans to feel great about what they have done? (Or, to put it in Christological terms, that the creature in the post-modern world is almost all the time smarter and kinder than the Creator.)
From time to time, in the comment section to a post by the contributors here at DC, we’ll find a “Drive by Comment” when an upset set Christian trying to make a point will remark: Look at all the abortions / murders of babies done under secular governments! Or Look how many millions of people have been murdered either for ethic or political reasons under Godless / atheistic governments!
I would counter these Drive by Comments with the fact that both the total of all the acts done by either legalized abortions or murderous acts done by humans (ether in the name of religion or acts of “godless” governments); that the sum total of all killings done by the creature / man on this earth though out the entire history of the world will not equal the known and intended malicious acts of the Judao-Christian God! (A God who has now been sanitized via theology as a “All-loving” (except for human sin.)).
Lets remove all the acts of humans from the equation and simply focus on the prim-mover / Creator called and described in the Bible as “God”. Now lets consider the account given in the Book of Genesis as a fact for the origins of the world given by Creationist. My questions for this post are as follows:
A. When were all the harmful viruses, germs, bacteria and parasites created? (As oppose to some normal events of weather and flooding which have been already discussed here at DC. My post is dealing with purposeful acts of creationbyGod.)
B. Who, other than God / Yahweh himself, could create? If Satan is not a god (as he is not), than he could not be blamed for any part of these malicious acts of creation which has killed and iskilling billions and billions of humans (If animals and plants are included, that the number is uncountable!)
C. If this was the intended effects on humans after the Fall with their forced removal from the Garden of Eden, than why did God even go though the motion of tempting Eve and Adam in the first place since this harmful creation was already created and simply waiting on them outside the Garden?
D. If man (as a sinful creature) alone is the target of these harmful and deadly acts of creation (as one Christian doctor tried to tell me), than exactly why are both plants and animalsalso affected by harmful viruses, germs, bacteria and parasites or specifically put; why do dogs get Heart Worms, cattle get Hoof and Mouth Disease and plants get Root Rot and trees in the Appalachian mountains are attack and killed by the hundreds of millions by the Southern Pine Beetle to name but a few? Did plants and animals sin too? What does this tell us about the reality of the theological God of love?
In conclusion, as the Bible (though theology) tries to place the blame for all problems of creation on “sinful” humans; the real culprit in both the Bible and theology for these malicious acts of creation is none other than God himself!
It is no secret that for the first 100 years of Christian history there was no New Testament, nor were particular writings of Christian luminaries treated as scripture. On the contrary, only the Old Testament was accorded the status of scripture among the groups which would become the proto-orthodox. Christians interpreted the OT scriptures in many varied and sometimes contradictory ways under the claimed inspiration of the spirit of Christ, but their writings did not carry the weight of scripture. The writings of those believers allegorized the OT and saw Christianity as a continuation and fulfillment of the OT. It was a Judeo-Christian religion, and from the writings of the early non canonical Christian authors, it was more Judeo than Christian.
Meanwhile,another form of Christianity was developing in Asia Minor(the place of Paul's evangelization). It burst onto the pages of history in the first half of the second century. A wealthy man named Marcion from the city of Sinope in the province of Pontus-Bithynia which is adjacent to Galatia emerged as one of the most influential people in Christian history. Marcion, a shipping magnate, spread his version of Christianity into the Mediterranean and along the caravan routes to the east towards Syria and Persia. The dates for Marcion's life are a bit uncertain with estimates ranging from the 70's CE to about 160 CE.
It is unknown whether Marcion innovated his own Christian viewpoints or if he was carrying on a tradition inherited from earlier teachers. His father was himself a bishop. In any event, the emergence of Marcion into the historical record is our first glimpse of Pauline Christianity, the Pauline epistles, and the Gospel of Luke. He considered Paul to be the only authorative teacher of the gospel. He, along with Paul, cursed alternate or competing gospels.
Marcion presented the Christian world with its first New Testament, or canon, ca 140 CE. His New Testament contained ten epistles of Paul and one Gospel which seems to be a short version of the Gospel of Luke which he called simply "Euangelion," or "Gospel" not attributed to an author. The Pauline epistles he brought forth are Romans, Galatians, 1 Cor, 2 Cor, Laodiceans (Ephesiahs), Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thess, 2 Thess, and Philemon. He considered the epistle to the Galatians to be the most important.
Marcion's theology was quite different from that which became orthodox Christianity. He believed that the Old Testament God was not the father of Jesus. Rather, he considered the God of the Jews to be a primitive lower being who created the material world and who had very objectionable characteristics. He was jealous, envious, vindictive, retributative, angry, cruel, intrusive, and judgmental. He was a demiurge who trapped the souls of men in the misery of material bodies. In contrast, Christ made known a previously unknown God of love and benevolence. Marcion didn't deny the reality of the Jewish God, he simply dismissed him as the God of a different religion, and he rejected the Old Testament. He wished the Jews well, but proclaimed that Christianity had no part of the Jewish religion.
The Marcionite name for the heavenly savior was ISU CHRESTOS. Whether the ISU was a form of sacral abbreviation for IESUS or if it was the actual name or title cannot be known. Likewise, the spelling of CHRESTOS may have been original Pauline for the "Good helper" rather than the meaning of anointed as indicated by the familiar Christos spelling which may have been later scribal license. For him, Christ was the sudden savior, a phantom (not an actual man) who descended from God in the form of a fully mature human, snatched believers out of the control of the evil God of the Old Testament, freed them from the bondage of the Torah, and then he ascended back to the Father. He was not the Messiah of Jewish expectations. Marcion and his followers upheld an extremely high moral standard, even believing that sex within marriage was wrong, but they did not subject themselves to the Torah or any of the Jewish practices. His New Testament did not in any way tie the prophecies of the OT to Christ or to the church and its teachings.
Marcion went to Rome ca 140 CE to present his ideas to the church leaders there. They utterly rejected him. He went on to lead his followers into all the known world. Marcionism became the main competitor to emerging orthodoxy. Marcionite churches (called synagogues) could be found throughout the empire. The Marcionites called themselves "Christians" and seemed to hold the trademark for that term. The proto-orthodox groups coalesced around the name "Catholic." The oldest Christian church found by archaeologists was Marcionite, located in Syria and dating from 318 CE. The inscription on this synagogue is dedicated to "The Lord and Savior ISU CHRESTOS." The pervasiveness of Marcionite Christianity was so complete,that if not for the prohibition of sex which precluded organic growth, it could have been the winner rather than catholic orthodoxy. Marcionism persevered alongside catholic Christianity well into the 300's CE.
Marcion's importance for the history and development of Christianity are these:
1. Marcion gives us the first attestation to the Pauline epistles. Without him, Paul's letters may never have been known. The epistles he presented were not identical to those in the orthodox canon. Missing are references to OT prophecies, messiah talk, and even the vague verses which can be construed to be indicate humanness for Jesus.
2. Marcion was the first to suggest that the new covenant represented a separate and new religion. He is in this sense the father of New Testament Christianity. His complete break with the Jewish epic and refusal to see Christianity as the inheritor and fulfillment of that continuing epic was a direct challenge to emerging catholic orthodoxy. Many protestants, especially Baptists, would find this familiar.
3. He is the first Christian to put forward a canon, an authoritative collection of writings intended to be the final arbiter in faith and practice. This "sola scriptura" stance makes him in a sense the first protestant.
4. He broke with the legalism which characterize proto-orthodox Christianity proclaiming that salvation comes through faith only. "Sola Fide" also sounds quite protestant.
5. His Gospel lacked any geneology, birth stories, childhood exploits, and association with John. The ISU of the Gospel was docetic, a heavenly being who burst on the scene only seeming to be a man. The Gospel is a form of Luke, but it is about 1/3 shorter than canonical Luke. His detractors said he shortened the original Luke, however it is just as possible that his version was the original and that orthodox scribes added the material which is now there in canonical Luke. Since Marcion was the first to present Luke's gospel, as far as history knows, it simply cannot be known whether his version was the original and later added to or if he excised objectionable material from the original. This is an interesting conundrum for fundamentalist inerrancy.
6.The reaction against him by the proto-orthodox church in Rome had incalculable implications for the history and development of Christianity, virtually all forms of which derive from that stream.
A. Marcion was roundly denounced by the Roman church. Polycarp called him "the firstborn of Satan." In that Marcionite congregations were called synagogues, and were referred to as Satanic, it is interesting that John the revelator calls a group of churches in Asia Minor (Marcionite territory) "synagogues of Satan."
B. Marcion got the ball rolling on the concept of a canon of authoritative writings by Christian authors. In the next few decades, the proto-canon began to greatly expand. Three more Pauline epistles were written 1 Tim, 2 Tim, and Titus. These epistles which clearly reflect a period when church structure and authority were coming into play make a case for a hierarchical structure and a requirement to be obedient to those in "offices" above. They also imply a much more human Jesus than the Marcionite Paulines. Interpolations into the texts of the ten Marcionite Paulines occurred. 1 Pet, and 2 Pet were written to bolster the case of catholic Christianity. The book of Acts was produced to make a case for apostolic authority, apostolic succession, and to domesticate Paul, that is, to turn him into an apostle in line with the others and even submitting to their authority. Acts created an entirely fictional historiography of the supposed origins and spread of the church previously unmentioned in any of the writings of other Christians. Luke may have been expanded to include a miraculous and human birth account to "prove" the humanity of Jesus to counter Marcion's ghost Jesus.
C. The concept of apostolic succession made possible the authority and preroggatives of the orthodox leadership to issue directives and assign the label "authentic" or "spurious" to Christian writings vying for canonical status. Many gospels, forgeries, and interpolated copies began to appear. Church leaders arbitrarily set up standards for accepting a writing as authentic and authoritative. The critera included a claim to have been written by an apostle, a claim to have been written by someone who knew an apostle, and a writing had to reflect the beliefs of a broad part of the proto-orthodox movement. Another word for this is tradition. Since many of the newly authored writings had no basis for apostolic authorship claims, the church looked for and/or created stories on the thinnest of rationale to claim apostolicity for the various expanded canon. This is a place where protestant adherants to the sola scriptura principle need to take a breath and realize that many of the NT books which were finally declared canonical are there only on account of church tradition. As Bonhoffer put it, "Protestants, in denying the authority of tradition, have cut off the branch on which they sit."
D. The Pauline epistles which make up the bulk of the NT have no historical attestation prior to Marcion. His version of the Paulines may in fact be the original. That is an open question which cannot be answered by detractors or apologists. That the Paulines were interpolated in places is quite evident. Were they even written by Paul? That also cannot be known.Marcion himself could have written them. We just don't know. But we do know that prior to Marcion's emergence in Rome with his Pauline corpus, no Christian group or writer had been referring to Paul as an authority nor to his writings as authoritative. If Marcion's Pauline Christianity was not the original version, or at least an evolved version, then where was it? The proto-orthodox leadership did with Paul what it did with various societal/cultural beliefs and practices; it absorbed rather than rejected. Marcionism/Paulinism became so pervasive that it was easier to absorb Paul, interpolate, redefine, and write in his name than to reject him outright. The result is the Judeo/Christian religion which became Christianity as we know it. Prior to Marcion, most of the other forms of Christianity had been largely Jewish with Platonic influences. Marcion's Paulinism mixed with Jewish Christianity formed a syncretic amalgam, a synthesis of the absorption of two differing streams.
E. The Creeds of the church were not just statements of faith. They became necessary in reaction to alternate and competing beliefs. The first creed "The Roman Symbol" which later evolved into the apostles creed was a reaction to Marcion. Among other things, it points out that God the father is the creator, Jesus was truly man born in the normal manner (albeit with a miraculous conception), and that there will be a final judgment with punishments, all very un-Marcionite concepts. This original creed is thought to originate from the late second century.
It is interesting to note that when Constantine called the first catholic council to accomplish doctrinal unity, the locale chosen was Nicea in the heart of Marcionite country. Since Marcionism was still competing with catholicism, Constantine's choice of Nicea must have been political, as was his legalization of catholic Christianity. The Nicene Creed, while primarily aimed at Arianism, also targets Marcionism.
Today's protestant fundamentalists have Marcion to thank for their doctrine of scripture alone. Prior to him, there was no apparent interest in according authority to any Christian writings, let alone calling them scripture. Marcion's New Testament Christianity with its own scriptures was the work of "the firstborn of Satan," as he was called by the Catholic fathers whose use of the magesterium of tradition gave us so many of the New Testament books which fundamentalists so glibly assume to be simply "the Word of God." The knowledge that the primary theological corpus of the NT, the Pauline epistles, were mediated through a heretic, interpolated by catholic copyists, and added to by creative pseudo-Pauls, should be eye-opening. Irenaeus of Lyon, writing against Marcion ca 190 CE was part of the scramble to create an authoritative canon to counter him and to define the faith. His dubious criteria for choosing just four gospels out of the dozens floating around at his time gave us the "historical Jesus" as we know him. As he said, there can only be four gospels because there are four winds (directions of the compass), seems a bit tenuous as a means of weeding out other gospels. Why just four? "Just because..." None of the four chosen can make a strong case for apostolicity. All except for expanded Luke are anonymous, and Marcion's version of Luke was also anonymous. All four gospels began to get traction in orthodox thought in the decades after Marcion, because they taught a human Jesus, the Messiah of the Jews, and the lynchpin which made Christianity the successor of Judaism. But the acceptance of apostolicity for all of them, as well as the epistles, is a matter of faith! Faith in what? Church tradition.
I've highlighted some of the sins of the church in the past, like the witch hunts, and the inquisition, but some evangelical Christians want to claim that was the Catholic church and not the true church. Well then, how about Manifest Destiny and Native American slaughter, along with southern slavery? What Christian people have done in the name of faith and religion is atrocious. See the video below:
I have a hard time understanding the lyrics of this, but the images and story of Native Americans is absolutely horrible. Ever hear of the trail of tears?
Whitney Cerak survived. Laura Van Ryn died. But Whitney had a traumatic brain injury and didn't know who she was. And so Laura's family was told that Whitney was Laura, and Laura was buried as Whitney. This is human failing at its worst.
Whitney, however, has had her faith strengthened as her memories have come back. Five people died. Whitney's head suffered a major concussion with post-traumatic brain injury and she had multiple fractured bones. She's lost five weeks of her life and five of her friends. But this was all for the good. It was God's only way of giving her life a purpose.
For those of you who have not had a traumatic brain injury during the death of five friends: How do you make do without a purpose in your life.
So here is my point in bringing this up. Is there really any fact of life at all that can shake the belief of someone? Is there anything God can do that doesn't redound to his glory? Is there a difference between God's plan and the plan of a stone idol?
I submit that this is where most freethinkers get off the bus. If an omnipotent God can't find a better way to infuse the life of a teenager with meaning than to destroy four families and traumatize a fifth, than he's indistinguishable from an imaginary God.
The harms of faith exhibited before our eyes. It can kill you! Here's the Link. Below is the text:
Associated Press — 3/26/2008 9:35 am
WESTON -- An 11-year-old girl died after her parents prayed for healing rather than seek medical help for a treatable form of diabetes, police said Tuesday.
Everest Metro Police Chief Dan Vergin said Madeline Neumann died Sunday.
"She got sicker and sicker until she was dead," he said.
Vergin said an autopsy determined the girl died from diabetic ketoacidosis, an ailment that left her with too little insulin in her body, and she had probably been ill for about 30 days, suffering symptoms like nausea, vomiting, excessive thirst, loss of appetite and weakness.
The girl's parents, Dale and Leilani Neumann, attributed the death to "apparently they didn't have enough faith," the police chief said.
They believed the key to healing "was it was better to keep praying. Call more people to help pray," he said.
The mother believes the girl could still be resurrected, the police chief said.
Telephone messages left at the Neumann home by The Associated Press were not immediately returned.
The family does not attend an organized church or participate in an organized religion, Vergin said. "They have a little Bible study of a few people."
The parents told investigators their daughter last saw a doctor when she was 3 to get some shots, Vergin said. The girl had attended public school during the first semester but didn't return for the second semester.
Officers went to the home after one of the girl's relatives in California called police to check on her, Vergin said. She was taken to a hospital where she was pronounced dead.
The relative was fearful the girl was "extremely ill, dire," Vergin said.
The girl has three siblings, ranging in age from 13 to 16, the police chief said.
"They are still in the home," he said. "There is no reason to remove them. There is no abuse or signs of abuse that we can see."
The girl's death remains under investigation and the findings will be forwarded to the district attorney to review for possible charges, the chief said.
The family operates a coffee shop in Weston, which is a suburb of Wausau, Vergin said.
Having recently finished Professor Ehrman's "God's Problem," I was struck by his decision to never say grace over food. His logic was that if there were people in the world dying every five seconds from starvation, it was tantamount to thanking God for giving this food to him, at their expense. He felt he couldn't be thankful that he had been singled out for reasons that had only to do with his birthplace, which made quite a bit of sense to me.
Thus I began to consider analogous behaviors and the first one that I thought of was praying for the sick to recover. If Ehrman's original proposition, that praying to thank the Lord for food that you have, while others are starving is valid, is it not equally valid when it comes to praying for the sick to recover?
There are 8.2 deaths per 1000 people per year in the US. Some countries are better, some are much worse. That means that with 300 million residents, there are roughly 2.5 million deaths in the US per year, or roughly 6700 people per day dying. This is in the US alone. If you assume the death rate globally is higher, say 8.6 per 1000, and you assume 6 billion people, you can see the actual number of dying people God can potentially save per day is around 140,000 (I leave others to detect the irony of this number).
Yet the person praying for the sick to recover believes that her action can affect the transcendent creator of the universe to intervene for the person they know. Imagine if it were so.
Imagine that the only thing that were keeping the death rate up was the lack of prayers for the sick and dying. Think of a statistical analysis that showed rigorously that prayer worked, but only the prayers of members of the (imaginary) Dutch Reformed Church, and only those prayers addressed to "Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, in whom is manifest the will of the Father" that took place in a Dutch Reformed Church. And imagine that such a prayer was shown to extend the life of the dying person by 6 hours per hour of prayer spent.
Would people convert en masse to the (imaginary) Dutch Reformed Church? Would they be willing to travel to the (imaginary) Dutch Reformed Church to pray for the sick personally for one hour to extend their lives another 6 hours? For how long would this continue? Would people quit their jobs and become professional "prayers"?
I am sure some would.
But I doubt the numbers would be very large. And I doubt the number of conversions to Dutch Reformed would be very great. And I also doubt that members of other congregations would consider the analysis valid.
So is it not more reasonable, more humane, and more just to believe that the sick die from their diseases and NOT due to a lack of prayer? Many of my family have prayed for the sick, and on their recovery been thankful to the (imaginary) Lord for speeding the recovery of the patient. Are they then not condemning the person who did not recover for not having had adequate prayer support? Do they believe the (imaginary) deity is keeping a tally sheet and only responding when a given prayer threshold has been met?
I recall well when a very close childhood friend of mine was dying from a progressive neurological disorder. I was at the hospital with him waiting for his brain biopsy. He was still lucid, but aphasic. A very well-meaning woman asked what was going on, and I explained it to her. She assured me she would pray for him and he would get better. I was sure he would not, but didn't disagree openly with her.
Should I hold it against her that he died? Is it her fault that the (imaginary) deity chose not to make an exception for my friend when he contracted this universally fatal neurological disease?
I think not. It is wicked to suggest that all people who die weren't prayed for adequately, and therefore, by the same principle, it is wicked to pray for anyone who is ill, because you suggest that your prayer had efficacy in saving them, and thus condemn as inadequate the futile prayers said for those who died.
In advance I can anticipate the apologetic responses:
1. God is inscrutable.
2. All things work together for good, and God wished these peoples' deaths as part of a divine plan.
3. The suffering and death of these people leads to increased strength of character in the face of adversity of those who survive them.
To number 1, I say if God is so inscrutable, why did he write a book about him coming to earth and healing only some people? Why doesn't he just miraculously cure all suffering people and be done with it?
To number 2, I say if there is a divine plan, why does it involve such incredible suffering, and why should we make that suffering worse by making people feel responsible for it?
To number 3, I say if I could poke a hole through your arm with a sharp stick because it would make you a stronger person to deal with it, should I?
Finally, I would ask what goes through the mind of an ill person in their final minutes when they are sure they are going to die yet they know people have prayed for them? Are they grateful the prayers were sent, even though they are going to die anyway? Or do they worry that the prayers weren't effective due to some character flaw or past "sin" which is their responsibility?
Is not the second possibility unbelievably wicked? Yet it is a certainty that a percentage of believers thus prayed for will think it. And they will think this as they leave the earth for good.
Prayer for the sick should cease. It causes pain and misery in the dying and keeps the living from accepting the nature of life and reality. Is it so hard to simply wish speedy recovery for the sick from a human perspective? Is it so hard to say that you are pulling for someone to recover and leave the cosmic workings of the universe out of it? Need we have each person who has done a bad thing in her life suffering as she expires because she thinks she is being punished?
The Jarvik 7 Artificial Heart (Could Jesus Live Here?)
Several years ago I debated a Christian apologist over the fact that the Biblical writers had no idea of what the human brain was.
My point was that, if the Bible was correct, than the first artificial heart recipients Barney Clark and Robert Schrader (who died on these machines) would have been "unable to have asked Jesus into their hearts" since they had no hearts “for him to live in” and thus ended up in Hell. This Christian apologist said this was "ridiculous" and was very adamant that the term "heart" in the Bible was used as a purely symbolic term and "they knew fully well that it was not the place of emotions and thought". Of course, I strongly disagreed and reaffirmed that what the Bible said about the heart / Kardia is exactly what it meant! Thus, such a statement by Jesus is typical of the entire New Testament: “For out of the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, sexual sins, thefts, false testimony, and blasphemies.” (Matt. 15:19)
Moreover, if this very important word is merely a symbolic term in the New Testament, then how are we to know whether other important terms such a Resurrection, Heaven, Hell, Virgin Birth and the many more important doctrinal terms themselves are not also simply symbolic terms when use in theology?
Put in a historical perspective, this concept of the heart would be expected of any ancient Near Eastern culture whose understanding of human anatomy was hardly a scientific fact. Most ancient cultures felt the heart was the seat of emotions because it reacted via its heart rate depending on the emotional state of the person...thus a person was claimed to think and feel emotions with his or her heart ( Compare Hebrew “LBB“ with Akkadian “libbu” / “seru“) .
The Biblical tradition is filled with claims of organs used as the seat of emotions drawn from her neighbors. The Hebrew Bible understands the liver, bowels and heart as emotional seats for mental states which was latter defined in the New Testament (under Hellenistic / Greek influence) as the heart being the emotional center. This concept was symbolized over a thousand years earlier by the ancient Egyptians who, in the process of mummification of their pharaoh god for eternal life, the priests would save all the major internal organs in urns (including the heart) and removed the brain through the nasal cavity and threw it away as totally useless.
For two thousand years the Church has continue this erroneous concept about the heart. Gospel tracts tell the "sinner" that his heart is corrupt and that "only Jesus can heal a sinful heart" and all people "must give their hearts to Jesus". In the last days all humanity will stand before God and be judged on the thought and intents of the heart.
Catholic icons of both the Virgin Mary and Jesus often show each with a sacred (often wounded) heart shaped much like the symbol we would see on Valentine cards or love letters. While watching new's reports from the Vatican on the death watch of Pope John Paul II, a major news reporter stated that: "This heart that loved his Church and the world so much is now starting to fail." After his death, a cardinal stated that John Paul II's body would be interned in the grotto under St. Peter's Basilica, but this Polish pope's heart would be removed (cut out) from his body and sent back to his native Poland for burial to show his love for his native country.
With respect to the above (and as my summation), as long as Christianity pushes theology (which is of itself a very flawed reasoning system drawn from a pre-scientific ancient world view) as the dogmatic bases for the truth, then any modern society is doomed to have its scientific advances hobbled to an anachronistic mythical religious past.
Skepticism of the Resurrection
There are two chief reasons I do not believe that the resurrection happened in history. First of all, because I believe that supernatural/miraculous claims require supernatural/miraculous forms of evidence to support them. The second reason is because the only supposed evidence that we do have, the canonical New Testament resurrection narratives are errant. Let me explain my two reasons here in greater detail. But, before doing so, I must explain what I mean by natural and the "supernatural" as well as the logical axiom that I operate under, that "supernatural" claims require "supernatural" forms of evidence.
Sometimes I update entries in the archives. I did so recently on the offensive riposete used by many Christians in dealing with apostates like us. Link.
I was born in Manila and my mother used to regale me with stories about the local Filipino rituals of self-flagellation and crucifixion. At the time I was convinced it was all part of the Roman church's incorrigible barbarism. Obviously over time my ideas about most things have changed.
Protestantism left me, but my revulsion at self-flagellation and crucifixion in the modern era hasn't altered at all. So when I read stories like this one, it does make me cringe, no less so for the pictures.
I'm sure that there are no evangelicals and extremely few Roman Catholics and Orthodox who would support this practice. Yet it shows what happens when faith goes bad. These are people who I see as extremely misguided, even from a Christian point of view. Yet I imagine many good protestant missionaries (like my parents) have tried to convince people out of this ritual and we see they have not had much success. I also feel the Roman Catholic church should do more than "frown" on the practice. They should denounce it and excommunicate anyone who participates in it, just like they would if they married an atheist.
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.
Don't read what I write below until you've viewed the video above. Even though reading what I wrote probably won't affect the viewing of the video, do what it says first. After you do scroll down for my comments...
We see things we're looking for and we neglect to see that which we aren't looking for. WE ALL DO THIS! ALL OF US! That's why magicians fool us. Unless we know better we are all easily fooled by the sleight of hand. That's also why I have stressed over and over again that we must justify the way we see things. I have done so here.
It won't do for Christians to merely claim that I am in the same boat, for I have justified why I see things differently. Christians need to show me why I am wrong and then provide a better explanation for why they see things differently.
We hear constantly from apologists that multiple attestation of miraculous events makes those events more likely than not. We hear constantly from apologists that if several sources report the same miracle story, than that makes the miracle all the more likely. Yet few, if any apologists worship Serapis, and almost none view the Emperor Vespasian with anything like the reverence due to him if their theory of history is right.
A recent article in New Testament Studies (54 (1). 2008. 1-17) by Eric Eve discusses the story of the Emperor Vespasian healing a blind man with his spittle and contrasts it to the similar healing of the man from Bethsaida in the gospel of Mark.
Here is Tacitus on this healing:
One of the common people of Alexandria, well-known for his blindness, threw himself at the Emperor's knees, and implored him with groans to heal his infirmity. This he did by the advice of the God Serapis, whom this nation, devoted as it is to many superstitions, worships more than any other divinity. He begged Vespasian that he would deign to moisten his cheeks and eye-balls with his spittle. Another with a diseased hand, at the counsel of the same God, prayed that the limb might feel the print of a Cæsar's foot. At first Vespasian ridiculed and repulsed them. They persisted; and he, though on the one hand he feared the scandal of a fruitless attempt, yet, on the other, was induced by the entreaties of the men and by the language of his flatterers to hope for success. At last he ordered that the opinion of physicians should be taken, as to whether such blindness and infirmity were within the reach of human skill. They discussed the matter from different points of view. "In the one case," they said, "the faculty of sight was not wholly destroyed, and might return, if the obstacles were removed; in the other case, the limb, which had fallen into a diseased condition might be restored, if a healing influence were applied; such, perhaps, might be the pleasure of the Gods, and the Emperor might be chosen to be the minister of the divine will; at any rate, all the glory of a successful remedy would be Cæsar's, while the ridicule of failure would fall on the sufferers." And so Vespasian, supposing that all things were possible to his good fortune, and that nothing was any longer past belief, with a joyful countenance, amid the intense expectation of the multitude of bystanders, accomplished what was required. The hand was instantly restored to its use, and the light of day again shone upon the blind. Persons actually present attest both facts, even now when nothing is to be gained by falsehood.
Now this is clearly eyewitness testimony of the sort that we must regard as reliable if we are to use the historical method of the apologists. In addition, the story is multiply attested albeit with slight and theologically insignificant changes in detail as we see in this passage from Suetonius:
Vespasian as yet lacked prestige and a certain divinity, so to speak, since he was an unexpected and still new-made emperor; but these also were given him. A man of the people who was blind, and another who was lame, came to him together as he sat on the tribunal, begging for the help for their disorders which Serapis had promised in a dream; for the god declared that Vespasian would restore the eyes, if he would spit upon them, and give strength to the leg, if he would deign to touch it with his heel. Though he had hardly any faith that this could possibly succeed, and therefore shrank even from making the attempt, he was at last prevailed upon by his friends and tried both things in public before a large crowd; and with success. At this same time, by the direction of certain soothsayers, some vases of antique workmanship were dug up in a consecrated spot at Tegea in Arcadia and on them was an image very like Vespasian.
Remember that Tacitus and Suetonius are considered the verifiers of the existence of the historical Jesus by most apologists. They are used repeatedly as texts to show the veracity of the gospel accounts. I am curious what stance apologists such as Dr. William Lane Craig would make of this multiply attested account of a miracle based on eyewitness testimony. If this is not considered to be a miracle, on what basis do we make that judgment? And if it is considered a miracle, why is there no St. Vespasian?
Mankind has gotten better and better at astronomy over the past three centuries. We now have stunning images of vast spaces of the visible universe. Yet we probably see less than 5% of the matter that exists. One thing nobody has ever seen with a telescope is anything that looks like heaven.
The Bible, on the other hand, clearly shows us a heaven that is close to us, reachable by proximity to the clouds. God brings people up to him through the clouds, acts from within clouds, and is afraid of people who get too close to the clouds.
The first proximity event I'd like to bring up is the story of the tower of Babel. This is a tower being built by Nimrod, who the Bible doesn't accuse of wickedness or evil. Since it usually has no problem doing that, we can presume that Nimrod wasn't wicked or evil. Nimrod gets his people together and decides to build a tower (I imagine a ziggurat) out of bricks. Here I'll quote:
And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.
And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.
This story suggests that Yahweh was concerned that people would invade heaven if they built a tall enough building, so he made it harder for them to communicate. His concern is obviously that the tower, if large enough could reach the divine realm that sits just above the clouds, and the tower would be a bridge to this, and much more permanent than just a ladder.
The next story I'll mention is of Elijah being taken to heaven. Elijah dries up a river, crosses on dry land across it with Elisha, "And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, which parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.
It's a good thing everything was made of fire. The temperature at 12,000 feet is usually below freezing. At 30000 feet it's below -35 C usually. But of course the deeper question is where Elijah went after he left the stratosphere. There's no oxygen to breathe at that point, and Elijah seemed to be a normal man getting into a normal chariot of fire, with normal horses made of fire. If Elijah never changed -- where is he now?
Apologists may say that God miracled Elijah to heaven. I can't disprove it. He obviously miracled him the the flaming horses. But why send the horses and chariot in the first place except to show off if you are gonna have to miracle him off well before 15000 feet. It seems illogical.
Finally we get to Jesus. Now again, it's quite clear that at his ascension he had a human body. That's why someone could bloody up their fingers by sticking them in his wounds. Yet again, he goes up into the sky. Where'd he go? Is heaven a place? If it is -- what direction is it? If it's not a place, why go up into the sky to get there?
As many of us know from personal experience and all of know from multiple measurements at multiple times, the sky is a pretty forbidding place. It's really really cold and it's hard to breathe. It's really the last place I'd want to ascend to unprotected.
The simplest explanation for all these is the obvious one. These are legends, not to be taken any more seriously than Odysseus and the Sirens, or Orpheus and Eurydice. It solves all the textual difficulties, and removes the burden of explanation of the mind of God. Atheists have been sternly warned by Dr. William Lane Craig not to do this, as it is the height of arrogance.
I invite comment from apologists who think they can explain this without guessing at the mind of God. If this task can't be done -- it does seem that John was well within the rights apologists hold for themselves when doing exegesis when he made his argument from the scope of the universe.
Neuroscientist Jill Bolte Taylor had a stroke which allowed her to study the brain from the inside out. In this 20 min talk she describes how she was able to call for help and the feelings of spirituality that came over her as the left side of her brain was malfunctioning. More links of interest: from epilepsy.com Famous religious figures with symptoms of epilepsy. They include St. Paul, Joan of Arc and Soren Kierkegaard
It seems to me that the most critical historical moment for the religion we know as Christianity was an episode in Rome in 4th century CE. After the breakup of the dominate model of the empire created by Diocletian, the tetrarchy, there was a war among the generals in charge of the various Roman armies. The critical event was the invasion of Italy and attack on Rome by the emperor Constantine.
It is important to understand that Maxentius, the opponent of Constantine for the sole leadership of the empire, had already withstood two sieges inside Rome by other rivals for the control of the empire. He had a numerical advantage in troops and most observers believed Maxentius would stay within the walls of Rome and wait out his third siege. The decision to fight a pitched battle outside the walls of Rome decisively changed the equation and was riskier for Maxentius than choosing to withstand a siege.
What led him to mount an attack rather than wait is entirely speculative, but something did. The battle of the Milvian Bridge was decided decisively when a bridge created by Maxentius' engineers failed while his army was making a tactical retreat. Maxentius was on the bridge and was drowned.
With his drowning, Constantine won the control of the western empire. Constantine then issued the Edict of Milan along with the eastern leader, Licinius, ending all persecution of Christians. He then fought several wars with Licinius, until Licinus finally surrendered and was then executed.
If you believe Christianity is a divine religion, rather than focusing on the death of a poor man on a cross in Palestine in the first century -- you should be focusing instead on this sequence of events. For if God intervened to resurrect Jesus, it would have all been wasted if Maxentius hadn't drowned, or if Licinius had defeated Constantine. Thus, the Christian must believe that God is intimately involved in each action that takes place on earth. God must have planned for Constantine and his family to take over the Roman Empire. He must have chosen to have Maxentius' army lose and Constantine's to be victorious.
You must also believe that God caused the early demise of Julian the apostate, as he had re-instituted the various pagan cults as the favored religions of the empire. You must also believe that God kept the armies of the Moors from defeating the French. You must also believe that God kept the Turks and Mongols from defeating the Holy Roman Empire. You must believe that God has continuously kept Christianity in a special spot, but for 2000 years has yet to get more than a plurality of humans to accept his word.
This sets up a nearly infinite recursion that really seems to me to lead to either panentheism or atheism. I'm curious what both sides have to say about the problem of historical contingency. I believe that it is simply logically impossible to believe in a Christian God and not believe that he causes virtually every act on earth (panentheism), which would leave you with something like Spinoza's God. Yet of course the God of Christianity can't be such a God, since there are so many things on earth that are so awful, that Christians can't imagine a good God to have caused them.
Virtually all of them either were killed, or became emperor. To believe Christianity is divine you must believe that all of those executions were being ordained by God, for if they had not happened, Christianity might never have taken hold.
The alternative, I supposed, is to argue that God did NOT act to kill of rivals to the Roman dominate, and that Christianity triumphed because of its success in the marketplace of ideas. I leave that argument to be fleshed out by those who take it seriously. I do not.
I just finished reading Bart Ehrman's book, Jesus: An Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. I don't know why it took me so long to get around to it, but it is awesome! In my opinion this is the best explanation for the origins of Christianity in print. If you also want to understand the rest of Erhman's writings this is the book that puts it all together. I've added this book to the the Debunking Christianity Challenge, which, if you haven't yet taken, I highly recommend that you do.
The phenomenon of evolution denialism here at DC seems to serve as an analogy of evolution itself. From time to time, an evolution denialist will arrive on the scene here at DC. Various members here will proceed to apply some very stringent selective pressure against such views. They fall out of favor and disappear from the conversation, and the selective pressure abates, allowing them to eventually spring up again and start the cycle again. Recent comments from two theists here (jamie steele and john murphy) indicate that its time for the periodical Cloroxing of the idea pool.
Evolution is both a collection of facts and one of the most thoroughly supported scientific theories known to man. The world is MUCH more than 6000 years old. There was no global flood 4000 years ago. The universe was not formed as described in the Genesis story (either one of them). Wanna fight about it?
Here are the ground rules:
1.) As we are talking about science, the only valid "way of knowing" is empiricism. Sorry; deal with it. 2.) If you have an argument to make, don't just link to the Answers in Genesis site (or the talkorigins site) you lifted it from; post it here in enough detail to defend. 3.) If you wish to cite facts that are beyond what the average college undergraduate would know, you should cite the peer reviewed publications. As evolution, Big Bang, and archaeological history dating back considerably more than 6000 years IS undergraduate-level knowledge, the initiative of attack is granted to the denialists. 4.) If you wish to claim that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, you must be able to correctly state the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and if you get it wrong I get to hand out a cyber-noogie.
My hope is to relegate all of the typical denialist claims here for debunking so other debates can continue underailed by this stuff. So jamie, john, and other closet creationists lurking here, put up or shut up.
After reading a few of his books, with more on the backburner, I just want to declare that Dr. Ehrman is my intellectual hero!
No one else has written so prolifically in arguing against Christianity. He publishes scholarly works with Oxford University Press, and popular ones through HarperCollins (bypassing the normal atheist publishers). He understands that which he argues against and does so respectably. Click on his Curriculum Vitae link at his homepage and look at the range of his publications and books in preparation. Maybe you'll agree with me that his assault on Christianity is probably the most sustained attack by any one skeptic in history. It's surely the most significant attack in today's world. While there are others I admire, when it comes to debunking Christianity, Ehrman stands above us all.
The first account of Jesus' prediction of his return is stated by Mark in chapter 13. Let's take a cursory glance and open it up for discussion...
1 And as he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher, what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!” 2 And Jesus said to him, “Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone upon another, that will not be thrown down.”
3 And as he sat on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately, 4 “Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign when these things are all to be accomplished?”
According to Edward Adams in The Stars Will Fall From Heaven, these are two separate questions conjoined by the word καὶ, "and" (p. 140). The second question is a clear allusion to Daniel 12:6-7 as translated in the LXX (Mark: ταῦτα συντελεῖσθαι πάντα; cf. Daniel 12:7 συντελεσθήσεται πάντα ταῦτα), where Daniel is talking about the end of all things and the resurrection of the righteous and unrighteous (see 12:1-3).
5 And Jesus began to say to them, “Take heed that no one leads you astray. 6 Many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am he!’ and they will lead many astray. 7 And when you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed; this must take place, but the end is not yet. 8 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; there will be earthquakes in various places, there will be famines; this is but the beginning of the birth-pangs.
9 “But take heed to yourselves; for they will deliver you up to councils; and you will be beaten in synagogues; and you will stand before governors and kings for my sake, to bear testimony before them. 10 And the gospel must first be preached to all nations. 11 And when they bring you to trial and deliver you up, do not be anxious beforehand what you are to say; but say whatever is given you in that hour, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit. 12 And brother will deliver up brother to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death; 13 and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved.
14 “But when you see the desolating sacrilege (RSV; NASB, "abomination of desolation;" NIV, "the abomination that causes desolation") set up where it ought not to be (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains; 15 let him who is on the housetop not go down, nor enter his house, to take anything away; 16 and let him who is in the field not turn back to take his mantle. 17 And alas for those who are with child and for those who give suck in those days! 18 Pray that it may not happen in winter. 19 For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation which God created until now, and never will be. 20 And if the Lord had not shortened the days, no human being would be saved; but for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he shortened the days. 21 And then if any one says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘Look, there he is!’ do not believe it. 22 False Christs and false prophets will arise and show signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect. 23 But take heed; I have told you all things beforehand.
In these verses Edward Adams argues that Jesus has answered the first question about the destruction of the temple and what his followers should do when they see these things.
24 “But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, 25 and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. 26 And then they will see the Son of man coming (ἐρχόμενον) in clouds with great power and glory. 27 And then he will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.
The events previously described (vss. 5-23) are distinguished from the ones that follow in this chapter. Edward Adams says "there is no indication of a temporal gap between the close of the tribulation and what is about to be described. What takes place 'after that tribulation' can only be the eschatological climax" (Adams, p. 146). The Greek word translated "coming" (ἐρχόμενον) in reference to Jesus can also mean "going." But this is clearly an allusion to Daniel 7:13, and Zechariah 14:5, so it fits better in the context to be translated as "coming." Adams also documents that this apocalyptic language was taken quite literally by the ancient people of that day when predicting the end of all things. They literally believed the sun and moon will be darkened, and that the stars will fall from the sky at the end of times.
28 “From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. 29 So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that he is near, at the very gates. 30 Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place. 31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.
About verse 30, Adams writes, "It is virtually certain that 'this generation' means the generation living at the time of utterance. The time frame in this verse is thus the lifetime of Jesus' own contemporaries." (p. 164). Verse 31 is related to the whole discourse for even though "creation will be dissolved; Jesus word's will endure" (Adams p. 162). D. Sims as quoted by Adams: "A more clear expression of the end of the present cosmic order would be difficult to find" (p. 162).
32 “But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 33 Take heed, watch; for you do not know when the time will come. 34 It is like a man going on a journey, when he leaves home and puts his servants in charge, each with his work, and commands the doorkeeper to be on the watch. 35 Watch therefore—for you do not know when the master of the house will come, in the evening, or at midnight, or at cockcrow, or in the morning— 36 lest he come suddenly and find you asleep. 37 And what I say to you I say to all: Watch.”
While Mark's Jesus says this will happen in his generation, he also says no one knows what specific day or hour.
The point is that Jesus did not return as promised in his generation, period. Forget all the talk about not knowing the day nor the hour. We were told he was to return in his generation, and that generation has come and gone.
Thanks to Dave at ex-christian.net for this. He also said:
The reason I am posting this video here is because I would like to point out that Hitchens does not advocate hating Christians, Muslims, or other religious people. It is religion itself that he says should be hated.
I think that hating individuals because they are infected with religious delusion is just as bigoted as hating people who are infected with a disease, or who are ignorant, or who are mistaken about something. I left Christianity when I figured out I had been duped by an ancient, well supported, propaganda campaign machine. I was angry about it. I felt deceived and cheated. But feeling anger, in my mind, is not hatred. When Christians try to evangelize me, I frequently feel irritated. Irritation, however, is also not hatred.
Although I may hate what religion can do to a thinking mind, it is the parasitic meme that I despise, not the parasite's host.
"The unexamined life is not worth living." Quote attributed to Socrates. Continuing education is very important to understanding who we are, the world around us, avoiding fraud and improving successful outcomes in life. Here are a list of relevant University and Teaching Company Audio courses suitable for your personal MP3 player that I recommend in the categories of Pre-history, History, Psychology, and Philosophy.
This is not an exhaustive list, but its a start in the right direction to examining what and why we believe. The list contains links to commercial sites, Free university lectures from Berkeley, and the rest are to Torrent sites. Downloading from torrent sites involves some risk from malicious programs and legal concerns. Use your best judgement. Purchase what you can.
The gospel writers played fast and loose with the writings of the Old Testament Prophets in order to cobble together a narrative for Jesus the Messiah.
It has long been noted that the authors of the gospels were dependent upon scattered verses in the Old Testament as inspiration for their story. For instance virtually the entire passion narrative of Mark's gospel is cobbled together from OT verses, and virtually nothing appears within it which doesn't have an OT source antecedent. Christians have historically insisted that the close relation between the narrative and the OT texts was due to a direct fulfillment of prophetic expectation which proves that Jesus was the predicted Messiah. The problem comes when one examines the OT verses used and notices that they were wrenched out of their context by the gospel writers.
Sometimes, the use of the OT texts by the gospel writers results in absurdity. One example which clearly shows that the incident related in a gospel was based upon an OT text rather than an actual event is the story of Jesus making his not so triumphal entry into Jerusalem. Let us look at the OT test and see what the gospel writers did with it.
Our text for the day comes from Zechariah 9:9
"Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion. See, your king comes to you righteous, and having salvation, humble and riding on an ass, on a colt, the foal of a ass."
In its context, the whole of Zechariah's message deriving ostensibly from his exile in Persia is that the temple will be rebuilt in Jerusalem by Zerubbabel, God will return his presence, He will protect his people, and He will destroy the enemies who surround them. Zechariah was heavily used by the gospel writers as source inspiration. Coincidentally, the second temple High Priest mentioned in Zechariah is named Joshua (Jesus) Zech 3:1. The figure in the verse above comes in the context of God portrayed as the divine warrior. Whether or not this verse has Messianic import is not the point of this study, but it will be noted that it is an apocalyptic statement which results in the establishment of the second temple and the Judean rule over all the earth. It is most definitely not a prophecy of a simple ride into Jerusalem with the inaguration of a spiritual kingdom.
This verse is written in poetry. The Hebraic form which is common throughout the prophets and the Psalms is known as the doublet. The doublet can be recognized when a statement in the primary portion of the verse is followed by a second line which modifies it. For instance, if we created a modern verse in the Hebraic doublet form, we might say:
"To the East I will travel, and to the sunrise I run."
As a doublet, the meaning is:
"I am going East, That is to say, toward the sunrise.
The Zechariah text is stating in two doublets,
"The king is righteous, That is to say, he has salvation.
He is humbly riding on an ass, That is to say, on a colt, the foal of an ass."
Now let us see what the author of Matthew's gospel does with this. He writes:
"Jesus sent two disciples, sayint unto them, Go into the village that is over against you, and straightway you shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me. And if anyone say anything unto you, you shall say, The Lord has need of them; and immediately he will send them. now this is come to pass, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophet saying,
Tell you daughter of Zion, Behold your king comes unto you, meek and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.
And the disciples went, and did as Jesus told them, and brought the ass and the colt, and put on them their garments, and he sat thereon." Matt: 21:2-7
Matthew, not understanding Hebraic poetry and the use of the modifying doublet turned Zechariah's ass into two animals, an ass and a foal. Then he had the disciples rig up an ersatz saddle and had Jesus ride on both at once.
One can almost imagine the conversation between Jesus and the disciples which Matthew didn't record:
Jesus: Hey, great work guys. Those asses are just what I need to ride into town.
Peter: But master, why do you need two?
Jesus: I'm not sure, but the prophet said I have to ride both of them.
Peter: Maybe it's so you have a spare in case one breaks down.
Jesus: No more backtalk Peter. Just rig up some way for me to ride them.
Peter: But master, we have two asses and you only have one butt. How are we going to pull this off?
Jesus: Maybe we can tie them together real tight and I can get half my butt onto both asses.
Peter: Have you given any thought as to how silly this will look when artists in future centuries try to paint this scene?
Satire aside, it is obvious that Matthew constructed this absurdity first from Mark, who got it right originally and understood that only one animal was intended in Zechariah. But Matthew wanted to be sure the fulfillment matched that which he thought the text intended, so he added an extra ass. Why? Because he didn't understand the form of the text which was his narrative launching pad.
When it comes to Christians who quote the Bible here at DC, to us it's like quoting from Homer!
When it comes to using the reported miracles in the Bible to defend that the Bible is God's word, Christians operate by a double standard. Christians themselves follow the scientific mindset when it comes to pretty much everything else. They rely on science every single day.
Christian, you yourself are skeptical about most miraculous claims, and you use the prevailing modern scientific mindset to reject them. If you had heard of Balaam's tale in the ancient world you would not believe his tale unless you personally heard his ass speak! [Assuming he was a real person with a tale to tell in the first place].
Just think about how that tale got into the Bible in the first place. Someone had to believe him who then included it. But why should he? All he had to go on was what Balaam said. He didn't hear his ass speak!
You'll say the tale is true because God told someone in a vision(?) to include it, but why should anyone but the person who saw such a vision believe that God actually spoke to him? And aren't visions subjective? Don't you know of Pentecostals who claim God spoke to them too? Even other Pentecostals don't believe every claim of this sort from others within their group, and most other Christians probably deny most or all of them. So again, why believe the Bible, and why quote from it to people like us who need these questions answered first? It's just silly to us.
