If there is one thing about me you should know it's this: my aim is to be fair and balanced with my intellectual opponents. Now I know such an aim is probably impossible, but I aim at this anyway. If someone can show where I mischaracterized his or her arguments I'm the first person who wants to know.
What grates on me to no end is people who don't give a damn to do likewise with my arguments. These people, on both sides of the fence, get little more than my distain. I have been known to berate them, ridicule and taunt them. I probably shouldn't do this, but sometimes I cannot resist. That's just who I am. That's what I sometimes do with people who are intellectually dishonest with what I say.
I am first and foremost a freethinker. That's who I am. I left the cookie-cutter mentality of defending the party line when I left the church. Whether you are a skeptic or a Christian if your arguments are lame I will probably point them out. Why? Because I am interested in the truth. If you don't like this then I cannot help you. If I am wrong show me. Unlike many people who debate these issues I am willing to listen. I really am. But you must be respectful; you must not purposely (or ignorantly) mischaracterize my arguments; you must try to be objective with the evidence; and you must show yourself to be willing to think through the issues rather than quoting from proof-texts.
Recently I have been defending the belief that there was an apocalyptic doomsday prophet in the first century named Jesus who was the basis for the Christian cult itself. I could be wrong. If I'm wrong show me. I'm interested in every issue but I can only focus on the important ones. Some of the vitriol coming from the skeptical crowd reminds me of how Christians have divided into separate denominations over and over about mere trifles. I guess we're all just humans after all. We want everyone to agree with us. If someone is out of line we want him to get in line. If that person doesn't do this we tend to write him off as being ignorant, because we tend to think it's because of ignorance he disagrees. This saddens me to no end. I have no solutions to this type of fundamentalist thinking, but it is fundamentalist thinking! It's probably just part of the human condition. We want people to think exactly like us, even on unimportant trifles. And if they don't we write them off, even if we agree with them 90% of the time. Is that stupid or what? There I go myself. *slap* Why can't we at least be smart enough to choose our battles wisely and focus on the majors rather than on the minors? Knowing the difference between them is a mark of an educated person, although not even that seems to be enough.
I'll confess I haven't read Lewis's book, The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, but in the cartoon version as well as in the blockbuster movie they agree with each other. Upon researching further I found that the theory expressed is the Ransom Theory of Atonement which has been recently defended by Charles Taliaferro. It's known as the "classical view" in that it was the one adopted by theologians up until St. Anselm. To see it explained and criticized read through this (just skip the ad).
Criticisms of this theory:
The Ransom theory, as well as other violence-based atonement explanations, suffer from an inconsistency in Christian teaching: The church has traditionally taught that a person is responsible for their own sin, and that a person cannot morally be punished for the sins of others. Of course, they deviated from this teaching, as when they taught as late as the mid-20th century that modern-day Jews were responsible for the execution of Yeshua (a.k.a. Jesus Christ). But in general, people were not held responsible for the sins of others.
The church has also historically taught that the default destination for all humans currently living, after death, will be Hell because of the Adam and Eve's transgression in the Garden of Eden when they ate the forbidden fruit. All will be tortured in Hell, unless they are saved through sacraments and/or good works and/or faith. The sin of Eve and Adam were imputed to the entire human race. More liberal Christian faith groups have deviated from this belief and teach universalism -- that nobody will spend eternity in Hell.
Most liberal and many mainline Christians believe that Adam and Eve were mythical humans. That is, they didn't exist as actual people. Without that belief, this atonement theory collapses.
Some Christians note that Eve and Adam were created as proto-humans without a sense of sin. After all, they ate the forbidden fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in order to develop a knowledge of good and evil. Being without a moral sense, they cannot be responsible for eating the fruit any more than an animal might. Again, if the first parents are not responsible for eating the fruit, the atonement theory collapses.
Phil Johnson, Executive Director of Grace to You states that there is no support in the Bible for the concept that Satan has a legitimate claim on sinners. He suggests that the "Biblical word ransom simply means 'redemption-price;' it does not necessarily imply a price paid to Satan."
Several passages in the Bible imply that Christ's death was a ritual sacrifice to God, and thereby not to Satan: Isaiah 53:10: "Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand."
Ephesians 5:2: "And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savour." The reference to a sweet smelling savor is seen throughout the Hebrew Scriptures in reference to animal sacrifices in the Temple being cooked at the altar, with the fragrance wafting upwards towards Heaven where God was seated on his throne. The ancient Hebrews believed that Heaven was only a few hundred feet above the earth.
Origen's version requires that God acts in a deceitful manner. That is does not match the traditional Christian belief about the justice, honesty, and truthfulness of God.
Many versions of the ransom theory assume that Satan is unaware of the magical powers of Yeshua. The later version assumes that Satan is deluded into thinking that he is more powerful than Yeshua. Yet Satan is portrayed in the Bible as a dedicated, intelligent, and evil angel, not a quasi-deity who is so disconnected from reality that he is unaware of Yeshua's capabilities. Satan is not described in the Bible as suffering from delusions of grandeur.
The entire concept of Satan as a living entity is rejected by many Christians today; they view Satan as a symbol of evil, not as an actual person. If Satan is not an all-evil quasi-deity, Origen's theory collapses.
The Bible identifies Satan as a created being; a fallen angel who disobeyed God. Similarly, humans are commonly portrayed as created beings who have disobeyed God and fallen. There is no obvious rationale for assuming that Satan had control over all of humanity any more than the reverse might have been true.
Since God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibeneficient, just, and ethical, it is illogical to assume that he would be willing to allow his son to be tortured to death if there were another way to achieve atonement. God might have, for example, simply forgiven Adam and Eve for their sin. According to the gospels, Yeshua repeatedly taught that extending forgiveness is to take the moral high road.
Professor of Philosophy Michael Martin writes:
"Since, on the ransom theory, after Jesus' death and resurrection, human beings were out of the devil's clutches, it would seem that the way to salvation would simply be to follow a life free from sin so as not to fall under the devil's control. What has faith in Jesus got to do with this? The ransom theory supplies no answer."
There are three additional criticisms of the Ransom Theory which also apply to other atonement theories. They attribute to God the same sort of cruel, hate-filled, punishing behavior seen in the lives of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, etc:
There is no obvious mechanism whereby a person can achieve salvation and atonement with God by simply expressing faith and/or trust in Yeshua.
If trusting Yeshua were the only path to atonement and salvation, then those who have followed a non-Christian religion would not achieve salvation and atonement. They would be sent to Hell after death for what is basically the commission of a thought crime -- believing in the wrong God or in no God. Current moral belief systems -- both religious and secular -- consider punishment for thought crimes to be immoral and unjust.
The ransom theory would also route many non-Christians to Hell after death for the simple reason that they have not had the opportunity to learn of Yeshua, Christianity, or the gospel message. Being ignorant of Yeshua, they could not trust him as Lord and Savior and be saved. The Ransom Theory punishes non-Christians for not having made a decision in favor of someone of whom they are unaware. This appears to many people to be irrational, unjust, and immoral.
This review is late, way late! The release of Religulous was on October 1, 2008 and only now am I getting to review it. Why is that? Because down in the south where I live, even we movie critics couldn’t get it because we’re in the Bible Belt and most theatres wouldn’t carry it. We have the always tolerant, loving, and nonjudgmental Jesus-courters to thank for that. What I had to do to finally get a demo copy of the film was quite disgusting. It involved me in the back seat of a 1996 Buick Skylark getting down and dirty for 35 minutes with a tranny hooker named Philecia.
Okay, now that I made you chuckle, I’m about to turn the floor over to a real comedian, Bill Maher, creator of the hilariously offensive documentary. Being an avid and outspoken atheist myself, it would be biased of me to put a grade on Religulous unlike the rest of my reviews at holmansmoviereview.com. To say that I agree with Maher’s conclusions should be obvious. So, I’m sitting this one out and letting Bill Maher do the promoting of godless activism for right now.
Maher’s travels for the project took him to Israel in Megiddo, the Mt. of Olives, to Italy to the Vatican where he was thrown out, to the Netherlands to visit a weeded-out “God” junkie, and to some other places in the United States (including the Mormon Temple in Utah where he was bounced from the property) to get feedback on those coats of many colors called God and religion.
What’s the problem with the world? The problem is religion and timing: “Before man figured out how to be rational and peaceful, he figured out nuclear weapons and how to pollute on a catastrophic scale,” says Maher. It is the intolerance generated by religious convictions that gives man the false assurance that he is right and cannot be wrong.
Maher makes a lot of people uncomfortable, and sometimes you even want to sympathize with them. Take, for instance, a chapel for truckers in North Carolina where Maher stops in to ask some questions. Within minutes of filming, one of them says: “You start disputin’ my god, then you got a problem.” But the problem with people like that is not disputing God. There’s no critical thinking going on. “I’m promoting doubt.” Maher says. “The other guys are selling certainty, not me.” How should we think? We should learn from our mistakes and realize that nobody has all the answers: “History is just a litany of getting shit wrong.” And “Religion is dangerous because it allows people who don’t have all the answers to think that they do.”
Dr. Francis Collins, one of the world’s leading DNA experts, is questioned on his adhering to Christian convictions while 93% of all scientists in the National Academy of Sciences are either atheist or agnostic. I would like to have seen more of the interview with Dr. Collins, which I felt was a bit too heavily edited.
Other interviews were gut-busting-ly funny, sometimes to the point of being awkward, like Maher’s interview with “ex-gay” pastor John Wescott. Just watch, and if you don’t cringe, I’ll give you a dollar! Democratic senator Mark Pryor is on tape admitting that the earth might be 5,000 years old. The creationist movement’s Ken Ham is interviewed just after a shot of a triceratops with a saddle on it.
After getting booted from the Vatican, Maher’s interview with a crotchety old priest is a gem. Being questioned about the church’s condemnation of sinners to Hell, the priest says: “That’s all nonsense. That’s the old Catholic church.” Well, that’s good to hear!
Brilliantly incorporated archived footage of political coverage, televangelists, and world events gives the presentation an extra-outrageous appeal. One of those is of Kirk Cameron and his usual spewing forth of ignorance, this time on making converts. The believer must “learn to circumvent or go around the person’s intellect.” Yep, that’s what the religious must do to convert anyone. If you think about it, it all falls apart. Don’t think! Just believe!
Religious idiocy is cleverly exploited as Rabbi Schmuel Strauss is interviewed. The man works for The Institute of Science and Halacha, inventing products that allow for modern conveniences without breaking the Sabbath. A phone is showcased that can dial itself. If you put a stylus in a number of the number you want to dial, the phone will stop inhibiting dialing at the number, which it tries to do automatically every second, so as to not violate one of the 39 prohibitions set by modern Jewish leadership against pushing buttons, and therefore, allowing the use of a phone on the Sabbath. Things get more comical with a wheelchair propelled by air thrust to avoid anyone having to push it on the Sabbath.
Maher interviews Jose Luis De Jesus Miranda, a man with 100,000 followers worldwide who believes himself to be the second incarnation of Christ. A radical Muslim Aki Nawaz is interviewed, a man who raps about and openly believes in suicide bombings, and upholds the death threats made against Salmon Rushdie.
On faith, Maher says “Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking.” And “Those who preach faith and enable it and elevate it are intellectual slaveholders.” It is religion that destroys mankind. “Religion must die for mankind to live.”
The conclusion is that religion is crazy – crazy funny – but mostly just crazy. Religious people are crazy. Their religion makes them that way. Religulous is about getting the world humble enough to admit that anyone can be wrong—adored religious saints and their holy books alike. If the things religious people believe were found in any other book, they’d be denied and called fairy tales. But since those things are in the Bible, they’re given a pass on conforming to rationality. None of their proponents know what they are talking about and have no more certainty in answering life’s big questions as their fellow religious loudmouths or your local “I’ll believe it when I see it” village atheist.
Religulous is 100 minutes and 56 seconds of realism with comic relief where Christians, Jews, Muslims, and others all get roasted. Spliced in with the interviews are charts, facts, and movie clips that will probably have you rolling laughing. The open-minded and non-fundamentalist religionists are encouraged to see the film as it will provide great entertainment. If you are a closed-minded, straight-laced fundamentalist, run. But if you do decide to see it, be prepared to throw a shoe at the screen.
Valerie Tarico interviews Dr. Tony Nugent, scholar of world religions. Dr. Nugent is a symbologist, an expert in ancient symbols. He taught at Seattle University for fifteen years in the Department of Theology and Religious Studies and is an ordained Presbyterian minister.
Most Americans know how Christmas came to be celebrated on December 25: The Emperor Constantine chose the date because it was winter solstice in the Julian Calendar, the birthday of dying and rising gods like Mithra and Sol. Some people also know that our delightful melange of Christmas festivities originated in ancient Norse, Sumerian, Roman and Druid traditions - or, in the case of Rudolph, on Madison Avenue. But where does the Christmas story itself come from: Jesus in the manger, the angels and wise men?
The familiar Christmas story, including the virgin conception and birth of Jesus, is found in the gospels of Matthew and Luke. Scholars have pointed out that these stories are somewhat disconnected from other parts of these Gospels and the rest of the New Testament. In fact, by the time he is a young boy in the temple, Jesus's parents seem to have forgotten the virgin birth. They act surprised by his odd behavior. There is never any other mention in the New Testament of these incredible events! These stories seem to be an afterthought, written later than the rest of the gospels that contain them.
To make matters more interesting, the stories themselves have inconsistencies and ambiguities - contradictory genealogies, for example. Our Christmas story (singular) is actually a composite. Or consider the idea that Mary is a virgin. The Greek writer of Matthew quotes Isaiah as saying: "a parthenos shall conceive and bear a child." The Hebrew word in Isaiah is "almah," which means simply "young woman." But the Greek word parthenos can mean either a virgin or a young woman, and it got translated as "virgin." Modern Bible translations have corrected this, but it is a central part of the Christmas story.
That's a lot of added complications. If the rest of the New Testament doesn't refer to these stories or need them, then how did we end up with them? Where do they come from? One part of the answer comes from Hellenistic culture. (It is no accident all New Testament books written in Greek.) In this tradition, when a man did something extraordinary there was the assumption that he did this because he was different, either divine or semi-divine. They would make up a story about how he came to be divine. Almost all Greek heroes were said to be born of a human woman and a god--even Alexander the Great, Augustus and Pythagoras. The father typically was Zeus or Apollo. The god would come and sleep with the woman, pretending to be the husband or as a bolt of lightning, or some such. Greek mythology also shows up in the book of Genesis: the gods lusting after the women and coming down and mating with them.
Why were they added to the Christian story? Jewish Christians - the first Christians didn't believe in the virgin birth. They believed that Joseph was the biological father of Jesus. Part of their Christology was "adoptionism"--they thought Jesus was adopted as the unique son of God at some time later in life. There were disagreements about when - Mark suggests the baptism, Paul suggests the resurrection.
Over time, gentile Christianity replaced Jewish Christianity. There were Jewish-Roman Wars. The Jewish Christians were marginalized and oppressed. The Gentile branch became dominant. Eventually we get the gospel of John which pushes the sonship of Jesus back to the beginning of time. This writer is at the other end of the spectrum from the Jewish Christians. But Matthew and Luke think that the Sonship of Jesus began at birth. And they want to tell a story that reinforces this point. Matthew and Luke are the source of the Christmas story as most of us learned it.
Why didn't the writers do a better job of cleaning the contradictions?
They did, some. This is called the "orthodox corruption of scripture." (Bart Ehrman article , book) . But it appears that these birth stories were added toward the end, so scripture got frozen before they could get integrated.
I was raised that the bible was the literally perfect, "inerrant" word of God, essentially dictated by God to the writers. What you are saying about the Christmas story sure calls into question this point of view. Which Bible?! There are thousands of manuscript variations. Most biblical stories are probably fiction, not non-fiction. They are mythology in the deepest sense of the word. But we need to get beyond issue of whether biblical reports happened in the historical, physical sense to understand what they mean spiritually and mythically.
Ok. Back to Christmas. Of all the images from the Christmas story, the one that people fall in love with most is angels. The Christmas story is full of angels, beings of light. Is this because of the solstice tradition?
Actually it comes from the Hebrew Bible, the Jewish scriptures that were eventually adopted into the Christian Bible as the Old Testament. It also comes from the Jewish literature written between the Old and New Testaments that didn't get into the biblical canon. Some of these are even quoted in the New Testament, for example Enoch, from the 2nd Century BC. It's all about angels.
What are angels in these stories? Who are they? The Bible calls them the sons of God, the Divine Council. The word used for God in parts of the Hebrew Bible, Elohim, is plural implying a family of deities. Angels are the lesser gods of the deposed pantheon of ancient Israel. They are under the rulership of Yahweh. Together with Yahweh they are part of Elohim, a plural word that we translate "God" in the book of Genesis. Elohim/God says "Let us make humans in our image." Christians understand this to refer to the trinity, but that is a later interpretation. These angels came from the ancient pantheons of Mesopotamia and Egypt. Many of these gods come from stars. There is a strong astral dimension. "Heavenly Hosts" are stars.
The Luke story focuses on one angel specifically: Gabriel. Is he the archangel? Gabriel is the Angel of the Lord. He is one of two angels who are named in the Jewish canon and the Christian canon outside of the apocrypha: Gabriel and Michael. They are the angels of mercy and judgment. Gabriel means "Strong One of El." He is first named in Daniel.
If you go into an Eastern Orthodox church you have two icons on the north and south. Michael is on the North to fight with Satan who lives there. Gabriel is on the south. He is more like what the angels originally were, which is messengers of the gods. That is what angel means. The idea that God has a special messenger is exactly what we read about in the Middle Eastern mythologies. Each of the earlier gods has his own special messenger. Enki, who becomes Yaweh, has Isimud. The goddess Inana has Ninshubur. Each high god will have an envoy or assistant, who is a lesser god. The angel of the lord is the same thing. The distinction between angels and gods came later.
Is he a star person? Or one of those semi-divine descendents of gods and women?
He is one of the gods who would come down to earth.
Why do you say that? The offspring of the gods mating with women are called Gaborim--from the same root as Gabriel. In the second century, Gabriel appears in the Epistula Apostolorum. It talks about Jesus and these secret teachings that he gave to his apostles after the resurrection. One of the secrets is that he is actually Gabriel. After Gabriel took on flesh and united with Mary, then he becomes Jesus. The idea that Christ was an angel was extremely popular in the early church. Later we find this really strict separation between humans and angels; between gods and angels. (more)
We have time for just one more favorite Christmas story: The Star of Bethlehem and the Magi. The Magi are astrologers. They are Zoroastrian priests. Just to the east of the Roman Empire was the Persian Empire, which was Zoroastrian. They see this star at its rising (the better translations don't say in the East). The astrologers paid a lot of attention to this. It is likely that what this refers to was a heliacal rising, which is the first time that a star appears over the horizon during the course of a year. They thought this was a sign of the Jewish messiah. Scholars speculate that they would have been living in Babylon, where there were lots of Jewish merchants. The Jews had been there from the time of the Jewish exile from Babylonia. We have cuneiform records from them.
Are you assuming that this story is historical? Think of it as a frog and pond. The pond is real, the frog is not. They are fictional stories in a real setting. They don't always get the details of the setting right, but they are fictional characters in real places. The Magi follow their star from Jerusalem to Bethlehem. The author has in mind a real star that would be in front of you in this situation. There are two candidates, Canopus or Alpha Centauri. Those two stars are visible for approx 6 mo of year, Canopus from about the fall equinox to spring equinox and Alpha Centauri from about November to May.
Remember what I said about the Heavenly Host being stars? The star in Matthew and the angel in Luke are two variants of the same mythology.
My former fundamentalist head is spinning. Is there anything else you'd like to say in closing? We need to be able to appreciate these stories as myths, rather than literal histories. When you understand where they come from, then you can understand their spiritual significance for the writers and for us.
That sounds like another interview. Thank you.
Valerie Tarico is the author of The Dark Side: How Evangelial Teachings Corrupt Love and Truth (available in the Debunking Christianity bookstore) and the founder of www.WisdomCommons.org.
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:
