Evangelical Christian beliefs seem so wildly improbable to me that the best description of them is that they are bizzaro. Christians must defend too many beliefs, any one of which, if incorrect, would be fatal to their whole worldview. These beliefs are based upon the conclusions of historical evidence which is extremely problematic given the nature of that evidence. Then they have the additional problem of showing why these historical conclusions are supported by science (as in creation research) and can be made sense of by philosophy. But the historical evidence alone defeats their set of beliefs! I claim Christians do not believe the Bible! They gerrymander and cherry-pick from it over and over.
Christians will respond, like one scholarly friend of mine did, that it’s “far from obvious” he should look at his beliefs as an outsider. But then what does he tell Mormon scholars who might say the same thing as Alvin Plantinga does, that they don’t have to investigate their faith or Scriptures with methodological naturalism (it is, after all, only a method unlike ontological naturalism)? What if they maintained they are within their epistemic rights to base their science (and archaeology) on their own worldview? Why the double standard here? And why is it that methodological naturalism has made this modern world possible, achieving astounding results from the computer chip to the internet to modern medicine to forensics to meteorology to plate tectonics to nuclear technology, and so on and so forth, but that when it comes to investigating an ancient collection of superstitious writings with obvious pseudonymous interpolations that we shouldn’t apply that extremely fruitful method to those writings?
My friend asked if God is to be blamed for creating this world and for wanting people who freely love him. Yes, most definitely yes, until or unless he can tell me why a supposedly reasonable triune completely self-fulfilled God wanted this in the first place (“grace” is not an answer at all); why libertarian free-will is such an important value to God when compared to the sufferings that have resulted from this so-called gift; whether human beings actually have free-will if God created us with our specific DNA and placed us within a specific environment (an environment that actually obstructs many people from receiving the gospel because of the “accidents of birth”); why God suspends some people’s free choices (i.e. Pharaoh) but not others; why God even cares to have free-willed people who love him, knowing full well the consequences for the billions of people who wind up in hell (the collateral damage), and why God will allow sinners in hell to retain their freedom but take it away from the saints in heaven (and who subsequently completes the sanctification process for these saints without their own free choices doing it).
When it comes to Jesus, my friend directed me to Boyd/Eddy’s excellent book, The Jesus Legend. That first chapter makes some unique arguments. The authors argue when it comes to the historical past that to be truly critical we should be open to everything—that "everything is fair game"--since anything might be possible. In making this argument they claim we should be open to the possibility of the miracles in the Bible. But I find that position to be impossible and extremely gullible. No, of course not, everything cannot be fair game, otherwise historians would fall prey to every claim of a statue of the Virgin Mary that wept, and every medieval claim that witches flew through the night to have orgies with Satan (should we really be open to these claims?). No, historians must look at the past from the perspective of the present--the one they know. In fact, they cannot do otherwise, Boyd and Eddy included. Boyd and Eddy read the Bible through modern eyes too. That’s why I claim Christians in today's world don’t believe the Bible. They don’t, not by a long shot. They have merely reinterpreted it over and over again in light of the advancement of scientific, philosophical, economical, political, and social understandings.
When will Christians see this for what it is? When will they actually think about what they're saying? When will they actually answer my arguments? Nothing, and I mean nothing, has come close to truly engaging them. They have faith, therefore I must be wrong. Really? *shrugs his shoulders*
In the religious academic world, college and university degrees (especially on the advance master and doctoral levels) are usually given to show that the candidate has achieved some level of scholarship and objectivity. One such individual is Stephen E. Robinson, a Mormon scholar and apologist and head of the department of Ancient Scripture at Brigham Young University.
Robinson earned his PhD under James H. Charlesworth at Duke University (now of Princeton), and worked with Charlesworth on the Syriac text and translation of the Odes of Solomon. Thus, Professor Robinson was the scholar I thought could answer a textual question on the Book of Mormon (see below).
Some Back Ground Information:
For twenty years (1981 - 2001) I attended the Greenville First Ward LDS Church as a non-member while I studied the social and religious organizational structure of the Mormons and what happened to newly proselytized converts as they were taught this new “religious truth” .
Towards the end of my two decades with the First Ward, I had a acquired a leather bound “Scripture” (a term LDS members collectively call the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price and the Doctrine and Covenants) heavily highlighted and notarized. Plus, I have lost tract of the number of times I had met with Mormon Elders / Missionaries in discussions and in friendly debates.
What most non-Mormons fail to understand when discussing theology with LDS members is that their doctrinal authority is built on an ascending level of authority. Here is the level they accept from the lest authoritative to the most:
The Old Testament is on the bottom and is subject to the New Testament which is subject to the Book of Mormon which is subject to the Pearl of Great Price which is subject to the Doctrines and Covenants which is subject to the General Authorities of the Church who themselves are subject to the living Prophet / President of the Church. This is one reason why a Protestant or non-believer who tries to debate Mormon elders using the Bible only method will find themselves up against a wall. In other words, what we have here is a process of religious dogmatic evolution from the lowest doctrinal forms (the Old Testament) to the highest level; the living Prophet of the LDS Church.
Secondly, I learned from a former professor of religion at Brigham Young University that Mormons are simply not interested in the historical Joseph Smith, but only the Joseph Smith as understood and presented by the writings of their Church. In other words, the LSD Church controls the image of a mythical Joseph Smith over a historical Joseph Smith to support their faith. This is one reason why LDS Mormons are warned about reading historical books on the Prophet Joseph Smith or as one LDS Apostle once stated about non-Mormons: “They lie in wait to deceive!” To counter this attack, Mormons are read only publications printed LDS approved publishers.
Moreover, since Jesus Christ has now restored the true Church under Joseph Smith, all other churches are viewed as false and even considered under the direct leadership of Satan himself.
Fact is, since there are still five remaining Book of Mormon churches left (out of the 15 sects that were struggling for the right to be the true and original restored “Church” at the death of Joseph Smith), the LDS Mormons (the name of the largest 15 million plus group Utah sect) tried unsuccessfully to get exclusive use of the term “Mormon” as a registered Trade Mark in the U.S. Patten office to keep its use away from other Book of Mormon sects . So, even if one believes that Joseph Smith is a true prophet who restored "The True Church", and one believes the Book of Mormon was translated from the Golden Plates, these individual Book of Mormon sects will attack and evangelized one another as fast as they will proselytize people who do not believe in the Book of Mormon.
In the Mormon Church, all men and most women (usually between high school and college age) are expected to complete a two year mission in either a distant state or country of which fifty percent is financed by the family of the mission elder and the other half is paid for by the LDS Church. For those youths who have never gone on a mission (especially the men), they are continually made to feel like a Protestant Christian who believes in Christ, but like a believer who had never been baptized.
Since I had done two lectures and slide presentations on the early life and times of Joseph Smith (Translating and Revealing the Word of God: Joseph Smith and the Formation of the Mormon Church and a detailed lecture on the five belief systems of the remaining “Book of Mormon Churches”) I could spent a dozen posts and still not relate all the details even most LDS Mormons themselves don’t know.
Mormons strongly believe that not only did Joseph Smith restored the "True Church of Jesus Christ", but since the Bible was not “translated correctly” it was corrupted by the false Christian churches. In this light, the Book of Mormon is the considered the most accurate translation of any book.
Thus, the topic of my post:
Fact: In the Book of Mormon, Jesus Christ comes to America to teach the Lost Tribes of Israel (3 Nephi). In 3 Nephi 13: 9 -13 Jesus is in America and teaching the Nephites the same Lord’s Prayer. One reading this account will notice that this version of the Lord’s Prayer is the same prayer as in Matthew 6: 9-13 of the King James Bible.
Problem: If, as Joseph Smith claimed, the Book of Mormon is the uncorrupted and pure text / translation “translated” from the Golden Plates, then we should have a textual witness independent of the textual problems and corruptions of the standard Greek texts that make up the TextusReceptus (the bases for the 1611 King James Bible / New Testament) a received Greek text which has as been labeled by Bruce Metzger has one with “blatant errors” (A Textual Commentary; p.10).
In the United Bibles Society’s Greek New Testament (as well as the Nestle Aland Greek New Testament), the earliest witnesses confirm this prayer ends with the phase “but deliver us from evil.” and that the King James inclusion of the longer ending “For Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen” is a redaction composed from I Chronicles 29: 11 - 13 “in order to adapt the Prayer for liturgical use in the early church.” (A Textual Commentary; p. 14). The certain criteria that the original text ended with “evil” was given an “A” rating by the U.B.S.G.N.T. 4ed. Textual Committee.
When I point this out to the mission elders of the LDS Church, neither they nor their state mission president had an answer to the problem. However, they assured me that the Book of Mormon was not wrong, nor was it at this point simply Smith copying the Lord’s Prayer from the King James Bible.
The Elders told me that the scholars at the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies at Brigham Young University were the textual scholars who could answer my question.
Since this was a New Testament Greek textual question / problem, I decided to contact Professor Stephen Edward Robinson, PhD a Mormon scholar and apologist who is head of the department of Ancient Scripture at Brigham Young University. And since both Robinson and I were members of the Society of Biblical Literature, I could use the Society’s Member Handbook to get his office phone number.
I called Robinson’s faculty number at BYU only to get a recording at which time I left my name, pone number and that I had a Book of Mormon question requesting him to kindly return my phone call. After a week and two unanswered requests for Professor Robinson to return my calls, I told the Elders that I was not having any luck with the Dept. of Ancient Scripture a BYU.
One of the Elders told me that he could get the home phone number of Dr. Robinson (an unlisted number), but he wanted me to assure him he would remain anonymous (which I agreed to).
That night about 7:00 pm Utah time, I called Prof. Robinson’s home and got his wife. I told her that I had a textual question on the Book of Mormon in 3 Nephi and would like to ask Dr. Robinson about it. Mrs. Robinson said he was not in at the time, but “may come in latter“. About and hour later I called again and got their five year old daughter (as listed in the faculty description). She told me she was alone and that both mommy and daddy were not there. As she paused for some time to give me more information, I could tell she was being coached as to what to say. I told her I hoped her mom and dad would return soon as she was too young to stay at home alone. In about forty-five minutes I called back and got Mrs. Robinson on the phone again. When I asked her if Prof. Robinson was there, she angrily stated he was not home and that “he is never coming home as for as you are concerned!” and hung up.
While I’m sure most all LDS Mormons strongly believe the Book of Mormon is true and correct just as Joseph Smith claimed it to be (a true and perfect translation of what both the Lost Tribes of Israel and Jesus Christ said and did), the facts speak for themselves when a Temple Mormon family must lie to run from the truth (as the Robinsons did), the world and claims created by the Prophet and Founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Satins can clearly be seen as a concocted “Made in America Religion” invented to give people in the early nineteenth century Burned Over District in up state New York a new direction in the confused world of the Bible and freedom of religion in the United States.
You realize, don't you, that there are many more choices than just between Christianity (i.e. Evangelical Christianity) and Atheism (as I define it, the denial of all gods)?
We are poles apart, that's true, which makes it hard to discuss these issues with Christians. It's hard to make them see what we do, or to think like we think. People who are poles apart sometimes don't even use the same language. We dispute each other's facts. We have different control beliefs. We live in different intellectual universes.
The differences might be like a mountain climber who expects some person off the street to join him in climbing up Mt. Everest, or a skydiver who does tricks who expects a novice to do the same. Such things are far beyond someone not already used to doing likewise. It takes training and work and time, plenty off it. No one can expect someone to think of doing likewise, much less do it. That person might even be scared of heights! It takes baby steps. One must crawl before he can walk. And one must walk before he can run. And one must run before he can climb, and so on.
Evangelical Christians recoil from our arguments. They don't trust us. For most of them we represent the devil. A friend of mine read my book but before each time she said a prayer that God would not let her be deceived by what was in it, and you know what, she walked away still believing. Surprise! Maybe some Christian visitors do the same whenever coming here to DC, who knows. Some come to do battle against the forces of evil. They're not open to what we have to say at all. Why? Because of the distance between us and the trust factor. They "know" we're wrong from the get go.
There's nothing that can be done about this. It's just the way it is.
I just want to remind everyone that there is some sort of continuum of beliefs and the choices are not limited to just evangelical Christianity and Atheism (as defined). There are a whole range of intermediate religious views between us. This is nothing new, of course, but a reminder of this is good. Why? Because the range of Christianity begins way over to the right, with snake handlers and the KKK (yes, they claim to be Christians), to the Fred Phelps hate group, to King James version only Christians, to Bob Jones University, to non-instrumental Churches of Christ, to Pentecostals like Pat Robertson, to Evangelical minded (who often distance themselves from others to their right), to open theists, to liberal Christians of various sorts who can be described as existentialists, mainline Christians, Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong types, feminists, panentheists like Marcus Borg, Liberation Theology, and Universalists. There are Arminian, Calvinist and Catholic versions of these types of Christianities, I presume. Then there are Deists, agnostics, and Atheists. This is quite a long, varied continuum of beliefs. One could probably start out a snake handler and with more and more reading go through several of the stages of thinking over the years and became an atheist. Hardly ever does the trend reverse itself, although there are probably a few rare cases, I presume.
What happens when one thinks through a theology and moves to the left isn't usually because he read a book out of bounds of what's considered possible. I remember reading John Gibson's commentary on Genesis 1-11 and rejecting it outright because it was too far from what I would consider possible. I have now come to embrace his conclusions. The stories of Genesis 1-11 are parabolic stories, myths. As I moved from being a Pentecostal to an evangelical to a liberal to a panentheist to a deist then an agnostic and finally an atheist I would only consider those books that challenged me and they were just a bit to the left of where I was. Anything farther away than that would throw up all kinds of red flags in my head.
So, if Christians here don't want to take the Debunking Christianity Challenge because it's too far removed from what you consider a possibility due to the fact that you don't trust atheist authors, then do what I did. Read books that challenge your thinking by Christian authors outside your safe zone. Read open theist literature. Read liberal Christian books. If you're in college, study with professors who will challenge your faith.
I remember when considering which seminary to attend many people thought I should go to Cincinnati Bible Seminary rather than Lincoln Christian Seminary because the liberals were there. But I went anyway and didn't find any liberals there at all! Then I went to Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and was told that such a college was outside the bounds of my own denomination, so to be careful, that some liberals were there who didn't think the way Church of Christ people did. But they were conservatives after all. Then I finally attended Marquette University and I finally met the liberals. But more and more I found the arguments to the left of where I was at much better.
So here's a challenge to conservative Christians. How do you know you're right about that which you were raised to believe? Challenge yourself to read outside your safe zone. See why these authors think the way that they do. You'll find they have some good arguments. See if your beliefs can withstand their arguments. There are a host of Zondervan and Inter-Varsity Press books that have four or five views of certain issues from the millennium to women to apologetics to hell to creation to atonement theories to sanctification to salvation to the Bible, and so on. Read them all, one at a time for starters. In my case my beliefs changed in the face of these other books and articles and professors. It was slow, and I faced a crisis. But the conservative Christian arguments are less than persuasive in the Christian literature.
My challenge is for Christians to begin reading the list of books Anthony provides in this post.
The reason I wrote my book is because I could not answer the arguments of the people to my left. I am an atheist because atheists have the best arguments down the line. Atheism is the position of last resort. Once all other views are eliminated it’s the one to fall back on. I would never have considered it unless I went through several theology changes by reading authors I could trust. Try it. Challenge your beliefs, not by our writings, if that’s too much to ask. Read authors outside your safe zone. If you’re a conservative then read the books of moderates. If you’re a moderate then read the books of the liberals. If you’re a liberal, then read atheist literature. See what happens. Keep stretching your mind. Do not simply read literature that you’re comfortable with. That’s not a challenge at all. Challenge yourself. See if your present views as a conservative can withstand this challenge. They didn’t with me. I suspect you’ll find it won’t with you. Test your beliefs. How do you know your theology is correct? The only way is to test it with other authors just a bit farther to your left. This is my challenge to you. It may be the best challenge I can lay down.
Bloomington, IN, December 12, 2008 - Indiana University students made video account of a field trip to the creation museum located in Petersburg, Kentucky, near the Greater Cincinnati International Airport. I spoke for this group in September. Enjoy.
My new book, entitled The Religious Condition: Answering And Explaining Christian Reasoning, is available for purchase from Amazon by clicking here. Excerpts, notes, and other information can be viewed here. So what’s the book about, and should you purchase it?
The first half of the book is on how persuasive psychology has demonstrated that certain factors have a much greater impact on the formation and maintenance of beliefs than they should, especially when those beliefs are unfalsifiable religious ones. Topics in this section include dissonance, confirmation bias, indoctrination, emotion, rationalization, and freethought. Key texts cited include Robert Cialdini’s Influence, Richard Petty and John Cacioppo’s Attitudes and Persuasion, and Michael Shermer’s Why People Believe Weird Things. The second half of the book is my answer to negative responses on my previous work, focusing primarily on arguments related to evolution, creationism, proofs, argumentation, and morality.
If you’re interested in how psychological studies demonstrate that the majority of human beings are way too gullible and unreasonable to form objective conclusions on important matters (such as religion), and you’ve never read about the formation and maintenance of beliefs in depth, I think you would gain a lot from it. On the other hand, there would be nothing new to a freethinking persuasive psychologist here (“freethinking” would be a bit redundant, since I’ve never found a religious one). The balance of the book probably doesn’t provide too much new material for those who have read Sagan, Mills, Dawkins, Harris, etc., but it could serve as an inclusive summary refutation for those who haven’t. This portion is more of a fun project in the tradition of Sam Harris’ Letter to a Christian Nation.
So purchase it if you want, but I would also highly recommend reading all of the books I mentioned here in their entirety sooner or later. If you’re looking for an in depth scholarly discussion of apologetic views, by all means, read John’s book, not mine. His terrific work points out specifically why apologists are incorrect; mine points out why they’re unreliable to begin with. I’m also sending a copy to John as thanks for inviting me to contribute on his blog. If he reads it, I’m sure he’ll let you know what he thinks. So get it, read it, praise it, or trash it if you want; I don’t care. I can at least be proud that I made a serious effort to leave humanity better than I found it.
If Loftus became an atheist based on the information in this book, then he badly needs to do more research because his facts are wrong or out of date.
The reviewer levels this charge against me several times.
The hidden premise here is that if I did more research I would believe, and behind that premise lurks what I've argued is the Christian Illusion of Rational Superiority, which, Christian philosopher James F. Sennett agrees with me about; that it is an illusion.
Besides, this "out of date" charge is unjustifiably leveled at non-believers far too often. There are many more Christian apologists, theologians, and philosophers, many of whom are paid to do little more than research, so of course they are spitting out new books every single day, each one of which might be considered the latest research. Atheists are in a minority. Many who teach in the universities who are not tenured are scared of losing their jobs if they write against the Christian faith, and most all of us do not get paid to do research into these topics much less produce as many books in response to this latest research. Just look at the number of “fleas” Richard Dawkins has in response to his book! Neither he nor any other atheist writer can hope to answer the volumes of books written in response any one of our books. There will always be updated knowledge, anyway, and with the numbers of Christians writing, atheists cannot hope to compete in terms of books and articles. Maybe in the future atheists will outnumber Christian writers and then we can level that charge against them!
When it comes to the latest research here is a dilemma for Christians who make this charge: if the latest research is needed to defend the Christian faith, then either the reasons to believe prior to it were less than sufficient, or if the latest research is not needed then why should believers care about it now?
Having said this I don’t doubt that I’m wrong about some things. I’ve admitted this, and I’m willing to learn where I am wrong. But I do not think my errors undercut my overall case at all, until or unless my substantive arguments are undercut rather than nitpicking out a minor error or more, here and there. My argument is that how we see things is based upon control beliefs. They control how we view the evidence. And that case of mine was never undercut by this reviewer.
From looking at the other reviews this person wrote on Amazon he or she is a Catholic. Why is it that Catholics seem to be the most outraged at my book? Is it because I dismiss their faith and instead take aim at evangelicalism? I used to be a Catholic in my upbringing. But I reject their faith with the same confidence they reject Islam. I claim that since the Catholic church was seriously wrong with regard to the Inquisition, Slavery, Crusades, Witch Hunts, and protecting child molesting priests in today's world, I have no reason to trust her. I defended this view from another Catholic reviewer right here.
Furthermore, while I might be wrong about some things in my book, since I am just one person and I cover so many different topics in it, I think the reviewer grossly mischaracterizes my book. To say I've "never heard" or that I "ignore" or that I have "no response" to something is such an unfair characterization that I suspect the reviewer feels the need to lie in order to defend his or her faith. Here's just one example: it says that when writing about the problem of evil I "ignore the concept of heaven." Not so. See pages 251-52, and 256-57, and 261. Did he or she skip those pages? And on it goes. From this review one could think there is no value at all to my book or that it doesn't contain any good arguments, even though several scholars on both sides of the fence say otherwise.
This is not a review that anyone can trust overall. It has an axe to grind. With the reading skills displayed no wonder he or she believes. It is not fair or objective in any sense at all. I'm still waiting to learn from an educated Christian reviewer who has no axe to grind who will be fair and balanced with my book. Are there no such reviewers? The level of objectivity revealed by this reviewer and others shows they do not have a semblance of objectivity, and if that's the case, how can they claim to have any objectivity at all with regard to their faith? So far, I haven't seen it.
Paul Draper and William Lane Craig’ s debate can be heard here. HT AIGBusted.
Other items of note while listening: there is an interesting site called My Thoughts Are Free, and another one called American Institute for Faith and Culture. From the title of this last site it seems authoritative, but who it is I don't know. He intends to deal one by one with the New Atheists and he has a link to DC. Enjoy.
That's my claim, Christian. Do you want to dispute this? Once again, but to be more specific: There is no OT prophecy of Jesus' birth, ministry, death, or resurrection that is to be legitimately considered a prophecy that was fulfilled in any grammatical-historical sense pointing specifically to Jesus.
I'm finding that some skeptics are just as dogmatic in claiming Jesus did not exist as Christians are who claim the Gospels are completely reliable. I've spent way too much time on this topic as it is, but see what you think of the discussion right here. [Edit] Before you comment below please read enough of that thread to see what's going on. What do you really think?
We can probably agree we don’t like the commercialism of Christmas, the stress, or the holiday angst. Yet at the center of it all there is a powerful image that speaks to all of us – the Child. It’s fascinating to me that once a year so many people stop everything, or at least pause, to acknowledge a Child.
But who is this Child of Christmas and why does the image have such power? We have religious and secular interpretations, and I would like to suggest a third – a soulful interpretation.
For Christians, this is a specific Child, the baby Jesus, entering the world to be its savior. This is why the angels sing and the wise men visit. God has at last fulfilled his promise, and there is rejoicing.
For other people, not Christian, the Christ Child still represents hope and renewal. As with the solstice and the new year, the Child symbolizes the promise of new life and light. Our world is so weary with struggles, we all need the healing force of hope.
We have these religious and secular interpretations, and I would like to suggest a third – a soulful interpretation.
The Child archetype connects to each of us in a personal way as well. We were all children once and we can perhaps remember the innocence and freedom. It’s good to ask ourselves whether we still know how to laugh and enjoy life. The image of a baby instinctively raises questions, and brings up feelings.
On the deepest level, the Child connects to matters of the soul, which is the essence of how we actually experience being alive.
When new parents talk about holding a newborn, they talk of a “miracle” with overwhelming feelings. Anyone can have these feelings about a baby, and there is a tug on something deep within. What is that? This is our core, our Original Child, our personal manifestation of the archetype, alive deep inside.
This is not the Christ child or just a symbol of hope. This is the Child we all know is still present but may be lost or buried. Our life patterns, our “personalities,” our many roles, our anxieties, our regrets, our plans, our endless thoughts, all conspire to distance us from who we once were – infants with magical capability for presence and joy.
The author of the paper, “The Infant as Reflection of Soul,” William Schafer, says “Babies by their very existence call us back to something we all sense we have lost. They do not enchant us simply because they are ‘cute.’” He says infants frequently hint that they are capable of experiences we no longer commonly enjoy – original experiences of energy, openness, and joy. In early infancy, Schafer says, these are profoundly essential human spiritual experiences. The pure, calm awareness of a baby is free of internal commentary, judgment, comparison, fear, or desire.
Interestingly, in the spiritual Balinese culture, babies are not allowed to touch the ground for the first year of life. They are considered closer to God than adults. In any culture, one only needs to look into an infant’s eyes to see a being that is absolutely in the present, that has no agenda whatsoever, that is open to the simple miracle of being alive. This delight is pure and plain in a smile, a look, a wriggle of total energy. The ego has not emerged; there is just being. Worries about the past and concerns for the future do not exist; the moment is timeless, endless. In Schafer’s terms, infant joy of this kind is the natural, inevitable consequence of presence.
In contrast, adults experience split-second judgments that erode the capacity for joy. If we have a bad experience, we can’t wait for it to end. If we have a good one, we want more of it and we worry that it might stop. Either way, joy—the sense of being open and drawn to our actual experience in wonder and curiosity without fear or repulsion—is veiled. We end up living lives in which most of our time is spent wanting to be in some other moment than the present one.
But if we choose, we can learn from infants. We need to see them with new eyes and let them be our teachers. We can let them remind us of what we have lost. Each of us is still innocent, life-loving, and capable of the soulfulness we see in infants’ eyes. And part of the archetype of the Child is the capability of great transformation.
So this season, let’s consider what it might mean to honor the Child – first of all in ourselves, and then in each other. We can slow down and look around. We can be gentle, making room for magic. Enjoy the pattern of raindrops on the windshield while stuck in traffic or laugh at the funny ringtone on somebody’s cell phone. We can remember that we are all connected. We can allow ourselves to feel joy for no reason. For me, I plan to cherish every chance to look into the eyes of a young Child. I expect I will learn something I can use when I look out of my own Child eyes. I will practice delight.
Reference: Schafer, W. (2004). The infant as reflection of soul: The time before there was a self. Journal of Zero to Three. National Center for Infants, Toddlers, and Families, 24: 3, pp. 5-8.
Marlene Winell, Ph.D., is a psychologist and former fundamentalist who specializes in recovery from harmful religion. She is the author of Leaving the Fold: A Guide for Former Fundamentalists and Others Leaving Their Religion. Her website is www.marlenewinell.net.
{My language below as expressed in the following email to the First Baptist Church is written with Christological terms to convey meaning to a conservative Baptist church and should not imply any religious views on my part.}
Email to First Baptist Church following an evangelical Christmas musical. Season Greeting to the Talented Staff at First Baptist Church.
(Parts about the musical were not applicable to this post were deleted)
My second reason for this email is to express the bitter-sweet irony I felt as I enjoyed the Living Tree last night.
I could not help thinking to myself as the second half expressed the true meaning of Christmas as a time for humanity to accept the perfect gift of love and forgiveness that God gave the world in His son Jesus that First Baptist is a member of and supports the Southern Baptist Convention; a Convention which runs counter to most everything I heard in song and word at the presentation last night.
By this irony, I mean that the Southern Baptist Convention has itself limited this perfect gift of God’s love and forgiveness in that this Christian Convention has fired all women form faculty positions form teaching men at all their seminaries regardless of their ability to teach or their academic qualifications.
Moreover, after pulling up departments of religion at Anderson University, Charleston Southern University and North Greenville University (a school where Dr. (Pastor) is on the staff), I find that this sentiment is now extended in all S.C. Southern Baptist Universities as well. This action by the Convention is made even more infamous by the fact that one of my undergraduate schools, Southern Wesleyan University, just placed a woman as dean over their departments of Bible and Christian studies.
It is truly a sad time, especially here at Christmas, as I read in the November 12 edition of the New Letter the prayer request: The Living Christmas Tree Pray for all who will present the true meaning of Christmas and all who will hear the good news of God’s love. That women, simply because of their gender, are eternally viewed as un-forgiven in this respect and are made to pay for this in the Southern Baptist Convention based on the Apostles Paul’s miss-understanding of the Genesis 3 account as he expresses it in I Corinthians.
In closing, I sadly find it very hypocritical and counterproductive for the largest evangelical denomination in the U.S., the Southern Baptist Convention, to proclaim God’s perfect love in His Son Jesus Christ open to all who will accept it only to attack and fire women under the same evangelical banner for no other reason other than their God given gender.
Thanks for your time and may you enjoy find the true love and forgiveness that makes this time of the year so special.
Sincerely, Harry H. McCall
Pastor’s Reply:
Harry,
Always good to hear from you. Thank you for your kind feedback on the Tree.
You have a keen eye for hypocrisy and a strong desire to name it when you see it. I affirm you in that.
First Baptist Church is not on a crusade against women. We voluntarily cooperate with the Southern Baptist Convention, not because it is perfect or that we agree with every policy or practice, but because we do support the opportunity to cooperate in work that no church can do alone. No family is perfect, but we find ways to love each other and work together.
I teach at North Greenville University and Anderson University from time to time. I know that women serve in very responsible positions at both schools, but I do find it interesting that none teach in the religion department. Since I'm not involved in hiring, I don't know if this is coincidence or merely a result of who has applied. I do know that my wife has been my guest lecturer in the class I teach in pastoral care. She has been well-received by the school and my students. My focus has been to make the most of the opportunities these schools have gracious offered me by teaching with integrity.
I wish that I had seen you face to face at the Tree. Please pass on to your family my wishes for a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
Pastor First Baptist
If one truly needs a Biblical God (or any god for that matter) to be ethical and moral, then how was I (as an atheist) able to address this issue with this conservative Baptist church which believes the Bible, especially the New Testament, to be the Word of God while I don't?
Secondly, as an employee of the state of South Carolina, how does the secular state create its internal employee policies based on an ever changing modern secular society and come up with conduct rules such as their Workplace Violence Policy and their Sexual Harassment Policy without God or the Bible? In fact, both policies are not drawn form the Bible, but often run counter to the Biblical codes of morals and ethics? (An example is Jesus Christ in the Book of Revelation retuning to slaughter the evil forces; a retaliation act which would get one fired with the state!)
If what Dr. Craig Blomberg claims as divine guiding principle for modern humanity’s morals and ethics is true, then just how did our secular society outlaw slavery and the subornation of women which are both God directed Biblical principles and which the Bible believing Southern Baptist Convention still use to fire womenand deny their employment?
Finally, I noticed under WikipediA that Dr. Blomberg “…has often been critical of American evangelical scholarship, and he controversially fostered a dialogue with Mormon professor Stephen E. Robinson of BYU, which resulted in the book How Wide the Divide? An Evangelical and a Mormon in Conversation.”
I personally have had dealings with Professor Stephen Robinson of the Department of Ancient Scripture at Brigham Young University. Although Robinson earned his PhD under James H. Charlesworth at Duke University (now of Princeton), I found that, for a Temple Mormon and Christian educator, Stephen Robinson was a knowingly deceitful liar when I called him to ask for an explanation to a Greek exegetical problem based on the United Bible Society Greek New Testament 4th ed. dealing with the Gospel of Matthew and the Book of Mormon.
If what Dr. Blomberg claims is true about the need for God, then, in my next post on the LDS Mormon Church and Professor Stephen Robinson, I would like to hear how his Christian dialogue with this BYU professor is justified.
Carrier's review of both John Paulos and my books can be found on his blog. While he offers some fair criticisms of my book he also said some pretty great things about it like...
-----------
[John's book addresses] almost every conceivable argument for Evangelical Christianity in extraordinary and sobering detail.
-----------
[It contains] a treasure trove of sources...
-----------
[John] essentially turns the same leave-no-stone-unturned approach employed by the new apologetics movement (which he was trained in, by Craig no less) against that very movement. He has clearly read extensively and has a firm grasp of contemporary Christian apologetics.
-----------
Every important aspect of intellectual Evangelical Christian belief comes in for critique, and often in more depth than you'll find in any other pro-atheism tome. Indeed, unlike, say, Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins, Loftus is a fully-informed insider who knows what he's talking about. He was fully immersed in making the very case for Christianity that he now tears down. He was trained by the best, is well-read in the field, and gets all the nuances that apologists accuse pop atheists (like Harris and Dawkins) of missing. In this regard, Loftus is even more in-the-know than I am, tackling issues I know very little about (like contemporary Evangelical doctrines of hell or the trinity--topics that simply don't interest me, but that certainly interest believers and whose intellectual coherence is essential if Evangelical faith is to have any chance at credibility).
------------
In a sense, Why I Became an Atheist is something like an ex-Christian version of J.P. Moreland's Scaling the Secular City. Where Moreland's aim was to tear down naturalism, Loftus' aim is to tear down Moreland's worldview. And yet, Loftus' work is denser and more erudite than Moreland's, by far. In fact, that may be its principal failing: it's so intellectual and thoroughgoing, I worry most Christians won't even be able to get through a fraction of it. On the other hand, for the more educated and intellectual, this is exactly what they need to read. Even though any Christian could pick at bits, the overall force of his case is, IMO, invincibly fatal.
------------
[O]ne of the best things that Loftus contributes to the field of atheist philosophy, which I think is required reading for everyone, on both sides of the debate, is his Outsider Test (here in chapter 4). Given that, and his thorough scope and erudition, I doubt any honest, rational, informed Evangelical can remain in the fold after reading this book.
--------------
[It's] a serious scholarly treatment of Christian apologetics.
--------------
Thanks Richard, coming from you whom I hold in high regard means a lot to me!
To read Richard's criticisms go to the link provided.
Enjoy, and chime in. To my own dismay I'm partially agreeing with the extremely obnoxious and childish J.P. Holding that Jesus was a historical person who founded the Jesus cult (my view can be found below his on the left side). But, I'm also agreeing with Dr. Frank Zindler of American Atheists, that the Jesus figure was made up of many mythical elements. My position is a middle one between theirs that fits the data better.
What I find completely unjustifiable is that Holding accepts all of the elements in the Gospels as historically reliable. And what I find somewhat odd is that Zindler thinks I have the burden of proof (since textual evidence is usually considered good evidence until shown otherwise), and he doesn't present a theory of how such a cultic movement began in the first place.
For a link just to my arguments see here, (then click to the right for the next argument, and so forth).
For a link just to Dr. Zindler's arguments see here, and do likewise.
For a link just to Holding's arguments see here, and do likewise. On this site they won't let Holding speak with his usual ad hominems against people who disagree, or so I was told. That eliminates most of his arguments! ;-)
I invited Dr. Blomberg to write a post to challenge us at DC, and he's graciously responded in the interests of a fair discussion of the ideas that separate us. No disrespectful skeptical response to such a respected scholar will be published.
Dr. Blomberg’s view of altruism is flawed in light of recent primatological research.
I thank Dr. Blomberg for posting his commentary on Debunking Christianity. Here, I would like to respond to his argument for theism based on altruism. In addition to being a trained biblical scholar, I am also formally trained as an anthropologist (B.A., University of Arizona, 1982 + 1 year of graduate work). I have had a longstanding interest in the evolution of morality.
This is a response to some of the thoughts Dr. Craig Blomberg kindly offered to John and to DC in general. In this post I also include a brief thought about John's "Outsider Test" applied to the position of atheism (or any brand of nontheism, if you'd like).
Before I begin addressing Dr. Blomberg's post, I would first like to comment on John's outsider test for faith, which expresses to a believer to test his or her worldview from the point of skepticism (not atheism). As such, John has defined clearly that his proposed method should be attempted by the religious, but since the test presumes agnosticism, it would seem logical for the atheist to satisfy that particular worldview from skepticism.
Three good categories of questions for atheists from the skeptical point of view should be:
1) If atheism is true, can the atheist justify this? Can he prove the nonexistence of God? If the atheist claims he is not burdened with such proof, is this properly justified?
2) Since God is not the source of morals, where do morals come from, if they in fact exist with any ties to reality whatsoever?
3) Has the atheist properly analyzed and rejected all definition of God (or gods) offered by the various faiths? What is the atheist's reasons for rejecting these Gods and the faith claims of the major religions? Should the atheist consider the possibility of a God or Gods of a definition that is either not yet known or not yet in wide acceptance?
John and I discussed these questions (and many more) on our trip to the conference of the Evangelical Society last month. Even at the ETS, the two of us spoke and listened to William Lane Craig, Paul Copan, Gary Habermas, and many other well-known Christians, and were challenged by the tough questions they posed. There's no better way to take the "outsider test" for "no faith" than to discuss our position with the greatest scholars outside of our own views and test our positions against theirs. I would invite all skeptics reading this blog to not only continue to challenge the tenants of faith, but also to listen and seriously consider the critiques offered by the best of those outside us who are willing to hold civil discourse.
Who knows? Some of you may join us in the future in jumping into the "lion's den" of the brightest outside your points of view at welcoming conferences such as the ETS! You may even make a friend or ten, as we did, and nothing can be better than to have a friend with whom you can constantly share important challenges but maintain the kindness that comes with an honest analysis of truth beyond the character and particular beliefs of the person with whom you disagree.
One of these important figures outside of our worldview, Dr. Craig Blomberg, offered a testimony in response to John's call for critique. In the spirit of analyzing truth, I will offer my own thoughts to what Dr. Blomberg has written.
I find it interesting that Dr. Blomberg regards theistic evolution and Old-Earth Creationism as valid positions. I would, however, wonder what his view of man is - particularly of Adam and Eve - and whether it is consistent with this position. Did God create humans separately, and if so, why all the extra hullabaloo with the slow, painful evolution of the "lower" animals? And if man is God's pinnacle of this mode of creation, in what way did God breathe life into Adam and Eve, who are described in Genesis as beings who are created and life-breathed from the dust as both male and female, separated by Adam's rib, and from whom all humanity has descended? I have never seen a consistent perspective; since I am not interested in creation vs. evolution, I have not read many perspectives (especially Theistic Evolution), so I would be interested in hearing how his view is consistent with his belief in Scripture.
I find it interesting that, as a Lutheran, Dr. Blomberg quotes C.S. Lewis: 'First, there will be three surprises in heaven: who’s there, who’s not there, and there I’m there! Second, there are only two kinds of people in the world—those who say to God, “Thy will be done,” and those to whom God says, “thy will be done.”' For Dr. Lewis' first point, I've always wondered - even while I read him as a Christian - why there should be any surprise at all that one is in Heaven. As a Lutheran, I'm certain Dr. Blomberg would agree that the grace of God is an undeserved gift sent free from consideration of the depravity of the believer, but Lewis does not look at this from a worldly point of view - he looks at it from the point of view of being in Heaven. If one is to hold to the eternal security of the salvation of believers through the effect of God's sovereign will and grace, one should not at all be surprised in a heavenly position.
Furthermore, Lewis' second point holds some troubling theological concepts. Ultimately, I do realize that it is the Reformed position (such as Luther's) to maintain that the bondage of the will to sin is what damns the sinner, but ultimately, the sovereign choice of God, according to e.g. Romans 9, is what decides the fate of the damned. Ultimately, the pots made for common use destined for wrath that Romans 9 describes do not make themselves; God is the potter, man is the clay, and Paul is explicit and clear about this when he illustrates with the example of Pharaoh: "for this reason I have raised you up." So, ultimately, Christ would say to those on both his left and right hand side: "My will be done."
This is the Bible's solution to the problem of evil that troubles Dr. Blomberg, and I would wonder how he would respond to this Reformed interpretation that Luther shared. Ultimately, evil action was decreed by God for the purposes of demonstrating His wrath and justice, as the potter/clay analogy demonstrates. Although the Reformers make clear that man is the autonomous source of this evil (so as to save God from directly working it), it is ultimately God's decree of man's bondage to sin through the fall of Adam that causes evil, and man by no power of his own choice - due to his totally depraved nature, of which Dr. Blomberg agrees - can free himself from this predicament. This even blocks the free choice of Christ, made clear by Luther in "Bondage of the Will," and in John 6, in which the throng of 5000 witnessing the miracles of Christ are whittled to twelve somewhat befuddled disciples through Christ's declaration that none may come to Him unless it is first granted by the Father.
Evil itself is even created by God, as Isaiah 45:7 declares (and before anyone harps on the "calamity" translation, the Hebrew in question is used elsewhere to describe every sin in the Ten Commandments, and fits the contrast between "peace"- which translates "peace with God" and is contrasted with the sense of "evil" implied, since calamity does not contrast properly in the context of the verse). I would be interested in seeing how this is reconciled with a good God and a God of love as described elsewhere Biblically; even resorting to the necessity of God's desire to demonstrate His justice, as Paul does in Romans, can't work, because it seems quite inconsistent logically with another part of God's identity as described in the Bible.
On his question of atheistic evolution and morality, doesn't the point Dr. Blomberg raises commit the (logical) genetic fallacy? Why can't evolution produce moral beings from nonmoral beings, just as it produced beings that lived (even partially) on land versus beings that lived in water?
I am interested in the Christian response to what I have written - and even the Skeptic response, since I know that John challenges (even as a fellow nonbeliever) my Reformed view of the Bible versus an Arminian view. I appreciate the civility shown in my earlier posts, and am looking forward to a like lively and respectful discussion following this post.
The picture is of a cemetery headstone I photographed in the grave yard of a Baptist church.
According to the epitaph, William Orr died at age 73 and either Lethe has the Methuselah gene as Mrs. Orr is now 154 years old or she has been raptured out of this world to be with Jesus.
The bottom of the tombstone states clearly: Gone but not forgotten. And a closer inspection proved that only Mr. Orr’s grave had been used.
Now I ask; is it just possible that Mr. Orr was unsaved and his body is still in the grave while his soul is in Hell awaiting the final judgment while Mrs. Orr was raptured out?
Or do you think that Lethe is still alive and kicking at 154 years old because she has the Methuselah gene ?
Anyway, this is some theological food for thought and a point for discussion on the lighter side here at DC.
Neal Pumphrey is that Pastor who also teaches Philosophy, Apologetics, and Logic at Central Arkansas Baptist Bible Institute. He wrote:
In Chapter 4 of Why I Became an Atheist, John W. Loftus, proposes the outsider test for faith. He defines the outsider test for religious faith as simply "a challenge to test one's own religious faith with the presumption of skepticism, as an outsider (Why I Became an Atheist, p. 66)." This chapter is being heralded by his peers and has gained Loftus a place of honor among the new Atheists. I would have to concur that the entire work, and this chapter in particular, is top-notch work among all his contemporaries. Until this point, I considered Hitchens to be the best read among the atheists because of his humor and style, but Loftus seems to put forth better arguments that stay on task and address relevant points. I assume this is due to his experience and knowledge gained from once being on the inside.
I've defended the Outsider Test for Faith here at DC and in my book, but when compared to that test the Insider Test for Faith is a much stronger one, and Christianity also fails THAT test! You must read this well-written story of a Christian who lost his faith even as an insider. My question is why God would allow so many insiders like us to lose our faith? Why, for instance, if the evidence favors Christian theism, do so many of us leave it even when approaching it from an insider's perspective (or presumption) that it's true? We can just forget about the outsider test. Christianity doesn't even pass the insider test! In any case, this is a heart wrenching story (notice him struggle!). Here are some interesting quotes from it:
There’s just something about explaining theological concepts to a hostile audience that reveals just how convoluted the arguments are. By the end of the summer, when I thought about religion, neither of us had to open our mouths for my faith to get stomped – the internal skeptic in me was stronger than the Christian in me.
I began taking an online theology class that switched me from presuppositional apologetics to evidential apologetics. You mean I don’t have to assume the Bible is true a priori, but there’s actual evidence for it? Hallelujah!
While I had suspected I was losing my faith off and on for over three years, I didn’t think there was a chance I actually would, even up until the moment it happened. I sincerely believed it was true, and thus I believed that sincerely seeking the truth would lead me to God in some way.
On April 19, 2008, I went to see the movie “Expelled.” I was unsurprised to see ID propaganda, but what surprised me was how many arguments for atheism were presented and how good they looked when paired with Christianity’s most foolish tenants. As far as I was concerned, the movie ended when Dawkins was asked what he would say to God were he to meet him after death. Dawkins replied, “Why did you take such pains to conceal yourself?” This retort was crushing as I thought about my lack of a relationship with God.
When I finally de-converted, I could best describe it as the final scene in a mystery movie, where the detective has been following the bad guy for a while, and finds the smallest clue out of place. A montage follows as he remembers the dozens of times something was amiss, and one-by-one, puts the clues in the proper position and sees he has enough evidence to convict the real villain several times over. After I de-converted, my first thought was “Wow … What took me so long?”
But my second thought was that I had just lost something very dear to me. My identity and purpose for living have been ripped violently away. I have to completely reforge what I think about everything. “Why don’t I just kill myself” was a thought that went through my mind – not that I was actually suicidal, but why not? Instead of protecting myself socially from ungodly influences, I have to find a way to re-enter the world without God.
But the more I know about a secular view of the world, the better it gets. I no longer need a belief in a second life to make this first one precious. Far from being nihilistic, I care about humanity with a passion that I seldom had as a Christian. God isn’t helping us – the only peace and justice to be found in this world are the peace and justice we fight for. I’m finding in free thought more morality and purpose than I ever found in Christianity.
Below are a few great online resources to study the Biblical concept and history of the flat earth, the firmament, and the three storied Hebrew Universe.
The first four are written by Biblical scholar Dr. Paul Seely:
Dearly beloved, it is with the Sacrament of Reconciliation that I bring you greeting in the Holy name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Beloved, the Lord hath burden my heart with a new homiletic epiphany on marriage as first based in the Old Covenant:
The following two verses are from this Old Covenant when our Heavenly Father wanted men and women to be joined in the flesh for creation of the human race: “God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it;…” (Genesis 1:28).
Again, we are told by the inspirited writer of Genesis (Moses) that “ For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24).
However, Beloved, this is the Old Covenant of Moses where we were yoked up under the Law and marriage. Now, let us turn our attention and notice what the New Covenant tells us as revealed by our Lord Himself relating to women and marriage as He Himself set our example:
“But He said to them, "Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it." (Matthew 19: 11-12).
And the most Holy Apostle Paul: “Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman….But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.” (I Corinth. 7: 1, 8, & 9).
And finally our Lord again emphasizes his divine requirements for us to be holy even has He is holy and unmarried in the Apocalypse: “ Then I looked, and behold, the Lamb was standing on Mount Zion, and with Him one hundred and forty-four thousand, having His name and the name of His Father written on their foreheads. And I heard a voice from heaven, like the sound of many waters and like the sound of loud thunder, and the voice which I heard was like the sound of harpists playing on their harps. And they sang a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders; and no one could learn the song except the one hundred and forty-four thousand who had been purchased from the earth. These are the ones who have not been defiled with women, for they have kept themselves chaste. These are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever He goes. These have been purchased from among men as first fruits to God and to the Lamb. And no lie was found in their mouth; they are blameless.” (Revelation 14: 1-5).
Beloved, I ask you to examine your sinful life while you are here in your temporary earthen vessel of clay in light our beloved Savior Jesus Christ, the Holy Apostle Paul and the 144,000 virgin men who followed the Lamb in Revelation and to renounced any sexual sin as a venal sin by which you can make it into Heaven but, as St. Paul says “each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work. If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.” (I Corinth. 3: 13 - 15).
Now, may the Virgin of Our Lady of Guadalupe be an example before Christ for us. Amen
To All Christian Apologists: I have issued a challenge to debate all of you, one at a time. You can read my challenge directly below this post. I have recently decided to go on the offensive.
One reason is because I'm tired of some of the skeptical arguments I've seen. Another reason is because I'm getting more and more feedback almost every single day from Christian people who have read my book and say they cannot adequately deal with it. One seminary trained pastor said my book only leaves open the possibilty of some sort of religious mysticism. And today I learned that yet another well-read Christian has lost his faith from reading just one book, mine. He had read Michael Martin's book, The Case Against Christianity, and David Ramsay Steele's book, Atheism Explained (both great books), but his faith was not affected at all until he read mine. [Edit: This morning my book was ranked #1 on the blog titled Failing the Insider Test (check it out! This Blog seems to be a spin-off from my Outsider Test for Faith). He says my book is "Head and shoulders" above the rest.].
Still another reason is that many Christians hate me anyway. If you do, it's not my problem. I'm not here to win friends. I'm here to help you take back your brainwashed selves. I have Christian Blog terrorists at my feet sooner or later whenever I leave the door open for a free and respectful discussion of the ideas that separate us. And I've decided that I really don't care if other skeptics agree with how I argue. I am not writing for them! They are not my target audience. You are! Mine is an arrogance about the arguments. I have them. You don't. [Plenty of other skeptics have great arguments too, so don't get me wrong about this].
Just to be sure, there is no personal animosity toward Christians as the good people I think most of you are. I like most Christians. That's not the issue. My claim is that not a single one of you can effectively and honestly deal with every argument in my book, any one of which is fatal to your faith (and I mean conservative Christians). Call me arrogant if you will. I don't care. Bring it on. Every day you wait, another soul might be lost from reading my book.
I don't revel in knowing some Christian people will probably suffer pain as the result of agonizing over their faith along with the social repercussions from leaving it. I'm only interested in educating people about Christianity. It's a delusion. You are deluded. And I am here to help you get over it.
A group that supports separation of church and state wants a federal judge to stop South Carolina from issuing Christian-themed license plates. Washington-based Americans United for Separation of Church and State will ask a judge during a hearing Thursday for a preliminary injunction to keep the state Department of Motor Vehicles from issuing plates that depict a stained-glass window with a cross and carrying the words I Believe. Americans United has sued state officials, saying the plates amount to state sponsorship of a particular faith. Legislators passed a law authorizing the tag this year. The DMV said last month it has enough paid orders to begin making the plates. COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) Published: December 11, 2008
The punishments for rape are perhaps the most disturbing regulations in the Bible.
While God ensures that the authors list it as a crime under most circumstances, we must realize that there are two contrasting conditions to consider in the event that a Hebrew woman is sexually violated: whether the victim is married (or engaged) or a virgin. The fine for committing one of the most heinous acts imaginable against a virgin woman without God’s permission is a pound of silver paid to her father and a forced marriage to the victim. (Deut 22:28-29) Yes, God’s idea of justice for the raped woman is to be horrendously punished again by forcing her to marry the man who savagely attacked her. This disgusting rule is nowhere near what most people would consider an ethical resolution, and it’s certainly not a decision rendered by any court I would like to be facing. On the other hand, a man who rapes an engaged virgin or a married woman will be stoned to death, not because he committed a brutal atrocity against the woman, but because he “violated another man’s wife.” (Deut 22:24-25)
Note the shamefully sharp contrast in disciplinary action between raping a woman with a husband and raping a woman without a husband: death versus a pound of silver. Since being raped is certainly all the same to the woman, it now becomes clear that God feels the husband is the one who is the victim of the attack. Raping a woman of your choice who does not have a husband allows you to marry the woman of your choice, but raping a woman who already belongs to another man warrants the death sentence. I could talk for days without overstating the evil absurdity of these rules. I simply cannot have any respect for any Christian who reads these regulations, acknowledges them, and makes excuses for them because they are part of the Old Testament. At no time should this philosophy have been law.
It has been asserted by Christian apologists that Deut 22:28-29 speaks of consensual sex, and not rape. There are several reasons why I believe this is unfeasible. The argument that "to take (taphas) and lay with (shakab)" do not refer to rape is invalidated by Genesis 34:2, in which "to take (laqach) and lay with (shakab)" is long understood to be a case of rape. Strong's confirms that Taphas and Laqach (and Chazaq in Deut 22:25 for that matter) are closely related synonyms. The idea that this isn't rape because the author didn't reuse Chazaq (from 22:25) in Deut 22:29 also does not hold up because one could make the same argument that Chazaq doesn't imply rape because Laqach (from Gen 34) wsn't reused in Deut 22:25 and again in Deut 22:29. The clear meaning of taphas, laqach, and chazaq when used in conjunction with shakab is to take/handle/hold by force (granted that chazaq appears to be stronger than either taphas or laqach, but laqach (Gen 34) is no stronger than taphas (Deut 22). Cases of pure adultery in Deut 22 do not mention any sort of "taking" or "forcing," only "laying with." The only argument left for the apologist is to suggest that Dinah was not raped in Genesis 34:2, but the context from later in Genesis 34 casts doubt on this hypothesis. And we know women were possessions in the OT, so let's not pretend otherwise.
Comments appreciated but my time will be limited this week.
Amherst, New York (December 08, 2008)—Scholars gathered this past weekend, December 5-7, in Amherst, New York, for the inaugural meeting of The Jesus Project in a renewed quest for the historical Jesus. The project, sponsored by the secular think tank Center for Inquiry and its Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion (CSER), is an effort by historians, biblical scholars, and theologians to determine what can be reliably recovered about the historical figure of Jesus, his life, his teachings, and his activities, utilizing the highest standards of scientific and scholarly objectivity.
An earlier inquiry, "The Jesus Seminar," founded by Professor Robert Funk in 1985, concerned itself primarily with the sayings attributed to Jesus in the Gospels and related sources. Dr. R. Joseph Hoffmann, chair of the Project and CSER, said that the "The Jesus Seminar had difficulty separating itself from the faith commitments of its members. Its agenda was not exclusively, but in large measure theologically driven. Its conclusions and methods raised more questions than they answered."
The project has drawn together a diverse and rich group of scholars, including, among others Gerd Lüdemann, Paul Kurtz, Robert Price, James Tabor, Robert Eisenman, David Trobisch, Bruce Chilton, Dennis MacDonald, and R. Joseph Hoffmann.
At the session this past weekend, participants agreed that a rigorous scientific inquiry was needed, and that the Project would be committed to a position of neutrality towards the sources used as "evidence" for the Jesus tradition. Participants represent a wide variety of perspectives, ranging from Tabor's argument that there is substantial evidence that the tomb of the family of Jesus has been located, to the view that the evidence for the existence of Jesus as an historical figure is not persuasive. "Jesus remains after 2,000 years the most fascinating figure of Western civilization," said James Tabor, author of The Jesus Dynasty: A New Historical Investigation of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity. "Scholars now at the beginning of the twenty-first century are able to take advantage of a plethora of new texts, sources, and methods, including the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, various lost Gospels that are not in our New Testament, and a rich archaeological record." Tabor says that scholars today find themselves uniquely positioned to examine the issue of who Jesus was in new and challenging ways. During the closing conference round-table, Tabor was quick to emphasize that "the Jesus Project repudiates any theological agendas, special pleading, or dogmatic presuppositions." All members of the project share a common commitment to the importance of applying scientific methodologies to the sources used to construct the Jesus tradition.
The Project has outlined a set of priorities for its next meetings, including a "consistent" translation of the Gospels, an inquiry into the causes of the canonization of the existing New Testament documents, parallels between Islam and early Christianity in delineating its sacred books, and the need to carve a middle path between what Hoffmann describes as "Da Vinci Code sensationalism and the truly fascinating story that underlies the history of Christianity."
Papers delivered at the conference will be published under the title "Sources of the Jesus Tradition: An Inquiry," by Prometheus Books in 2009. The Project's next conference is scheduled tentatively for May 2009 in Chicago.
I am writing this to discuss whether or not the evidence we have (the Bible and other historical documents) shows Jesus was a real person or a myth. To begin with, I want to note that no one piece of the evidence we have seems to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Jesus existed, but when taken together it looks more likely than not that Jesus existed. In this post, I am going to begin with some arguments which I think support a historical Jesus, then move on to bad or feeble arguments for a historical Jesus (This is intended to a series of posts, each looking at different arguments concerning Jesus’ historicity.
Good Arguments for a historical Jesus:
1. In Mark 15 Jesus’ last words are recorded: “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani”, which is Aramaic for “My God, My God, Why hast thou forsaken me?”
Why is this signifigant? Well, you have to remember that Mark was written in Greek even though first century Judeans spoke Aramaic. It would make sense for Jesus’ followers to want to preserve his exact words, untranslated and as he spoke them. Yet it would not make sense to record this if Jesus had been viewed as a cosmic, supernatural figure who never walked the earth.
2. Paul calls Jesus the “first fruits” of those who have fallen asleep (1 Corinthians 15:20). What Paul seems to be saying (reading the passage in context) is that Jesus was the first of the dead to be resurrected (It was thought that in the end times all the dead would be raised) and that the end times were now. This implies Jesus was a man of flesh and blood and lived recently.
Bad/Feeble Arguments for a Historical Jesus
The argument (or rather, arguments, as this involves many scriptures) we will consider is the argument from the Pauline epistles. This argument contends that
1. The letters of Paul were written in the 50’s (This is not doubted by even non-Christian scholars).
2. Paul Speaks of Jesus as a Historical Person (This is disputable, as we will see, many people misinterpret Paul as speaking literally when, read in context, he speaking figuratively. I know of only two Pauline passages which clearly point to a historical Jesus and I have mentioned them above).
3. No one would invent a figure who lived so recently (less than 20 years prior) in Judea and contended that they knew his siblings and had those who had known him during his life. (I have no truck with this conclusion so long as the premises are sound).
Let’s take a look at the passages John posted in one of his blog posts about the historical Jesus:
Jesus descended from Abraham (Gal. 3:16);
Let’s look at the passage:
“The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ. What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.”
We notice right off the bat that the connection between Jesus and Abraham is probably not a literal, flesh and blood relationship, at least in this context: There was something about Jesus which made him a successor to Abraham, something which was beyond DNA (Since the Jewish people were not also considered to be Abraham’s “seed” in the same sense that Jesus was). We also need to pay attention to the metaphor in use here, which I will discuss shortly: In Galatians 4 Paul also discusses how Sarah and Hagar, the wife and concubine of Abraham, should be thought of figuratively and how the Christians are the sons of Sarah, the free woman.
[Jesus] was born of a woman and lived under Jewish law (Gal. 4:4);
Allow to provide a lengthy excerpt from an essay by Rook Hawkins, who explains this passage much more clearly than I am able:
Those out to verify the historical Jesus are quick to jump on this verse without considering what Paul is actually saying here. This verse is taken for granted, presupposed to be about a person which Paul never knew. For Jesus was not born at all but made (genomenon), specifically, under the law. What is the law? Paul actually tells us what “the law” (tou nomou) means. “It was added because of transgressions, until the seed should come to whom the promise has been made. It was ordained through angels by the hand of a mediator (mesitou).” (Gal. 3:19) Paul clarifies for us, “For we know that the law (ho nomos) is spiritual (pneumatikos), but I am of the flesh (sarkinos), sold under sin.” (Rom. 7:14) To Paul, what comes from the flesh is corruption and sinful. “For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh.” (Rom. 7:18) The law is the spiritual custodian (ephrouroumetha) of the flesh, a teacher by which Paul feels leads one to life. It is through this custodian, the spirit, per Paul, that we are also saved. There is also an underlining allegory to this passage that most scholars seem to ignore.[28] Do those who want to understand Paul so easily forget the allegory of the two women, Sarah and Hagar, for which we are all a part of?[29] This chapter (Galatians 4) is not about Jesus at all. It is entirely about the law and how to be saved under the law.[30]
“Tell me, you that desire to be under the law, don't you listen to the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the handmaid, and one by the free woman. However, the son by the handmaid was made according to the flesh, but the son by the free woman was made through promise. These things contain an allegory, for these are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children to bondage, which is Hagar. For this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answers to the Jerusalem that exists now, for she is in bondage with her children. But the Jerusalem that is above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, "Rejoice, you barren who don't bear. Break forth and shout, you that don't travail. For more are the children of the desolate than of her who has a husband." Now we, brothers, as Isaac was, are children of promise. But as then, he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. However what does the Scripture say? "Throw out the handmaid and her son, for the son of the handmaid will not inherit with the son of the free woman." So then, brothers, we are not children of a handmaid, but of the free woman.” – Paul, Galatians 4:21-31
The context is very important. Jesus is made under the law—the spiritual custodian—by a “woman” or specifically, “the Jerusalem above” (hê de anô Ierousalêm), which also happens to allegorically be the mother to everyone. Not everyone in a worldly sense, Paul makes this clear, “for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” (Rom. 1:16) But Paul was speaking specifically to everyone who is adopted into the death of Jesus Christ, “but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, ‘Abba! Father!’” (Rom. 8:15) And here the understanding of the parable comes back around. We die, the same way Jesus dies. We call out to our father, allegorically, as we become kin with Jesus through the spirit. But through this death we are saved, from the flesh which is corrupt, through a rebirth. This rebirth is of this allegorical woman in the same way that Paul’s Jesus is born through the same allegorical woman. Indirectly we, like Jesus, are born again spiritually by way of the heavens, or directly, by God.
[Jesus] was the son of David (Romans 1:3);
In order to keep this article’s length to a minimum, I ask you to read the essay linked above as it also has the answer to this passage: It is an allegory intending to portray Jesus as one who treated Jews and Gentiles according to their deeds, just as David did.
[Jesus] had a brother named James (Gal. 1:19) and other brothers (I Cor. 9:5).
Both of these passages use the phrase “brother of the Lord” or “brothers of the Lord” which seems to me to indicate a spiritual relationship rather than a genetic one (Why not simply call James, ‘the brother of Jesus’). I also must note the words of early church father Origen:
"Now this James was he whom that genuine disciple of Jesus, Paul, said he had seen as the Lord’s brother; [Gal. i. 19.] which relation implies not so much nearness of blood, or the sameness of education, as it does the agreement of manners and preaching. If therefore he says the desolation of Jerusalem befell the Jews for the sake of James, with how much greater reason might he have said, that it happened for the sake of Jesus."
Of course, I also need to note that I have discussed this with Dr. James McGrath and he told me that by the third century some Christians believed Mary remained a virgin her whole life and thus they sought to explain away the references to Jesus’ siblings as symbolic. But think about this: Would it make more sense for the perpetual virgin dogma to spring up from a sect which believed (originally, at least) in a spiritual Christ, or would it make more sense to think that one day Christians decided Mary had to be a virgin and so they’d just explain away all the references to her other children? Of course, religious dogmas rarely make sense, so perhaps it is the latter.
Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper (I Cor. 11:23-25); was betrayed (I Cor. 11;23);
It does not tell us where or when Jesus was killed, and so this does not affect the Jesus myth theory as I present it: Jesus may have appeared to Paul in a vision with a cup of wine and a loaf of bread and instituted the eucharist for all we know.
[He] was killed by the Jews of Judea (I Thess. 2:14-15),
This is very likely an interpolation (See here). Although the link I give is to one of those “conservative Christian” sites, there is a reasonable discussion of why this is thought to be a later addition to the text. In the end, however, I must disagree with the author’s conclusion that we need a text without the offending passage to make up our minds about its authenticity. The earliest manuscripts of Paul’s letters date to well over 100 years after Paul wrote, and we know that scribes made alterations to Biblical texts they copied (See Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman). So there may be a lot of interpolations which we will never be able to prove (using manuscriptural evidence) are interpolations. We are stuck looking for clues within the text.
[H]e was buried and seen as resurrecting (I Cor. 15:4-8).
Again, where and when? In the New Jerusalem or somewhere on earth 20 years ago?
