Look what I found on my twitter feed today! There is importance to an outsider's view! Where have you heard THAT before? We all realize how important this is in every other area. But when I say it regarding religious faith it's denied by Christian apologists. Why the double standard? No really, why the double standard? Please share.
Steve Stewart was a music pastor in a large Evangelical church who's now a freethinker. This is Part 3 in a series of posts from a paper he wrote [See tag below for others].
---------------
THE BIBLE AND TRUE THEOLOGY
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. -2 Timothy 3:16
Evangelical Christians believe that every word of the Bible as originally written was inspired by God. Why hasn’t God acted throughout history to make sure the text passed down from one person/generation to another remained pure and unadulterated in the thousands of times it has been translated and/or copied? Why are there thousands of textual variants in the very ancient copies? Why didn’t he preserve the original “autographs” so that many textual disputes could be avoided?
"Billionaires already own much of our economy. That's not enough. Now, they want to own the United States government as well." --Bernie Sanders. Please share.
I'm linking to a four part series produced by the History Channel called The Men Who Built America. The series focuses on John D. Rockefeller, Cornelius Vanderbilt, Andrew Carnegie, Henry Ford and J.P. Morgan, and how their business empires revolutionized modern society and also made them powerfully rich.
If you want to know the problems Theodore Roosevelt faced as the President in those days this is a much needed set of programs. Episode 4 is an absolute must! In episode 4 we see how "Rockefeller, Carnegie and Morgan team up to help elect William McKinley to the U.S. presidency by paying for his 1896 campaign, to avoid a possible attack on monopolies. However, fate intervenes when McKinley is suddenly assassinated, and vice president Theodore Roosevelt assumes the presidency and promptly begins dissolving monopolies and trusts in America." This series can also be found on Netflix and perhaps other such sites.
Believers all around the world claim that their particular god answers petitionary prayers. An answered prayer is a request that is granted while an unanswered one is not, okay? From my experience all that's going on is something called selective observation, where a believer counts the hits and discounts the misses. Scientific studies have shown that these prayers don't get answered any better than luck. So if believers really want to know if God answers prayer then here's what to do:
Steve Stewart was a music pastor in a large Evangelical church who's now a freethinker.
---------------------
FAITH
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. -Hebrews 11:6
Why is “faith” so important? How can people in the 21st Century be expected to believe as absolute truth statements written down thousands of years ago purportedly from God and about God, but without current substantiation to affirm the trustworthiness of the statements? The fact is, In order to trust God, we must trust/believe
The Bible
The versions of the Bible we read, and all the people involved in the translation processes from the original languages.
The fallible 4th Century men who finally decided which books should be part of the Bible, since God did not “dictate” what the list should include and exclude.
The people who actually penned the original manuscripts thousands of years ago that became the Bible
The absolute purity of memories of several generations of people who passed the stories and ideas on to others who passed them on to others, etc., down through the years before they were written down
The people who hand-wrote copies of the copies of the copies of the original manuscripts, none of which have survived.
The absolute integrity of every person involved in producing the Bible, from the first person who gave an account or a testimony of an event or teaching, to the translator of the ancient languages.
That nobody who wrote down any part of the Bible, nor anybody who passed on oral tradition before it was written down, had any hidden or private agendas, or had any private point of view which influenced how he/she worded any phrase or sentence. Further, that no one involved exaggerated, lied, minced words, or altered or added words to the original.
All who were part of the process behind the Bible - the hundreds of men and women who lived thousands of years ago, most of whose identities, motives, ethics, life-issues, religious and cultural “baggage,” and intellect or emotional health we know nothing about.
I have been slammed for responding to Amazon reviews so I'm questioning my own judgment on whether to respond to a recent one. I put a placeholder there just in case I decide to do so. What I don't get is that the first two paragraphs said some really nice things about my work, but that three later paragraphs stressed two things that are almost irrelevant if what was said earlier really mattered. It can be read here. Below is my potential response. Should I post it?
Thanks for your review and for your kind words in the first two paragraphs. I appreciate this very much!
As to the typos I think we have them all fixed for the next printing.
As far as the disdain goes, according to Google (which never lies) it's "the feeling that someone or something is unworthy of one's consideration or respect; contempt." I do have disdain for Christian apologetics, and yet paradoxically I'm giving it consideration in this book. So which is it? Are apologetics unworthy of consideration or not? Try writing a book on something you consider unworthy of consideration. That's the Catch-22. I tried not to let it show too much. I did want it to show a bit though. I don't think doing so was obtrusive. And even if it was, doesn't it show would-be apologists how little I think of the present state of Christian apologetics? And isn't that important for them to know?
But I'm not just writing to Christians. I'm also writing to atheists, especially those who wish to argue with Christians. Christians are not likely to read my book no matter what. So what makes you so sure I wrote it exclusively for them? I didn't. I see you rated Greta Christina's, "Why Are You Atheists So Angry? 99 Things That Piss Off the Godless" with 4 Stars, having deducted one star merely because some of the material was taken from her blog. She clearly shows disdain for Christians and Christianity. So you're holding me to a different standard. I wonder if I were more famous whether more atheists would rate my books higher simply because I was more famous. She is. I'm not. Thinking more highly of a famous person because she is famous is a known cognitive bias associated with the Bandwagon Effect.
If being an apologist requires "deceptive or dishonest argumentation: ignoring evidence, setting up double standards, perhaps even lie to defend [their] faith" as you wrote, then disdain is the inevitable outcome of being an expert in apologetics like I am. It's going to show through sometime.
But I get it. You want me to hide it better. You think that if I did a better job of hiding my disdain for the apologetic enterprise and for the people who specialize in bamboozling the uninformed, that my book might reach more would-be apologists. You actually seem to have hoped it would reach more apologists. You write as if this saddens you too. Yet here you are paradoxically revealing my disdain for apologetics in this review. That sounds counter-productive to our shared goals. Why not let would-be apologists find this out for themselves, rather than warn them of it, if you really want the book to reach them?
Steve Stewart was a music pastor in a large Evangelical church who's now a freethinker.
---------------
INTRODUCTION
For almost all my life I have been taught, have believed, and have taught others that the Bible from cover to cover is absolutely and infallibly true and inerrant, having been inspired by the Holy Spirit. This has been the position which I learned from my parents, our Baptist Church, my Mom’s Good News Club, my Presbyterian Church, the conservative Christian College I attended, the Evangelical Seminary where I earned my Masters of Divinity, and which I have held and taught through my many years of pastoral ministry. It’s why I received Christ as my Savior at a very early age, was baptized, and later ordained to the Ministry.
At various times during my life, I’ve had questions about things I have read in the Bible: things that just didn’t make sense or seemed pretty strange; or statements made in the Bible that didn’t jive with life as I know it. Being very strong on sound, orthodox theology, and always a defender of “true truth,” I just wrote off my misgivings and questions to simply not being able to understand the mind or ways of God. But someday – in heaven – everything would make sense and “we will understand it better by and by.”
I was known for championing “the truth” and disallowing worship songs whose lyrics were not consistent with Biblical concepts.
And then in 2012 something very disturbing and disconcerting happened in the life of our church. I just couldn’t make sense of what occurred. For the first time I was really disillusioned about the efficacy of prayer, for one thing. I began to wonder if God was really listening to His people bringing their deepest requests before His throne day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year. And if God WERE listening, why He didn’t respond with an answer that would bring glory to Himself, His Name (reputation) and the Bride of Christ? So my first question about my faith became a momentous catalyst which brought many others to the surface – some of which I had buried for years, and others which came to my mind, one after another. I started to step back from long-held assumptions and presumptions and decided to be open and honest with myself regarding questions that “bubbled to the surface” in my mind.
Jack Cottrell is a Christian professor and author of many books and articles. I know him personally as a professor within the Christian Church and Churches of Christ (non)-denomination of which I was a part of before my deconversion. I've run into a lot of defenders of Christianity like Paul Moser, David Marshall, Victor Reppert, Randal Rauser and others who have said what Cottrell disputes. They have said they worship the same god as Muslims do, by a different name. The aforementioned defenders do so to de-fang the bite of religious diversity. This is typical of what they say.
Well forget them all, Cottrell argues differently right here, and strange as it sounds I agree with him. Now enters Wheaton College, the college that is home to the Billy Graham Center for Evangelism. They agree with Cottrell since they're planning on firing professor Larycia Hawkins for saying Muslims and Christians worship the same God, what Paul Moser, David Marshall, Victor Reppert, and Randal Rauser have all said! Strange isn't it?
Perhaps Cottrell and Wheaton College are forgetting the problem of religious diversity which I stress, which these Christian defenders are responding to when making that claim? Religious diversity is real and deep and world-wide. To say they worship the same God helps minimize the problem of religious diversity but it's disingenuous coming from people who are not honest in defending their faith. To honestly admit they don't worship the same God raises the bar of religious diversity where it rightfully belongs. I see this as a stubborn dilemma Christians must face. Are they worshiping the same God, or not? If so, see what professor Cottrell says. If not, then admit the problem of religious diversity is real and deep and worldwide, and that it's a powerful defeater to the epistemology of a sect-specific Christian faith. Here is Paul K. Moser's response to this news:
I'm linking to an updated post that now includes a video discussion. In the video the claim is made that the millennials are under-represented by the polls when showing Hillary Clinton's poll numbers to be higher than Bernie Sanders's poll numbers. The fascinating thing is that land lines are used for these polls and pollsters call "likely voters." Those two factors alone disqualify them from being good measurements for which candidate is ahead in the polls, since millennials don't use landlines and historically they haven't voted very much, and yet they overwhelmingly support Sanders. Am I right or am I right? LINK.
Somebody Please Stop ME!! David Marshall has dogged my steps on at least a weekly basis for several years now. I don't do that with him. I have hardly ever commented on his blog and have not reviewed any of his books [Edit: Correction, I reviewed one of them, see comments below for explanation]. If it wasn't for the fact that Marshall dogs my steps (which means he thinks what I do is important), and that Christians believe whatever a person with a doctorate says about my books without reading them to know for themselves, and that Marshall somehow has earned a doctorate and asserts without being fully informed that they are bad, I could have saved 100's of hours by not responding to him. He's relentless and indefatigable. Surely he'll consider that a compliment. He's also stubborn, which can be a compliment. But he's also ignorant, deluded and even a liar for Jesus. He's like the proverbial sophomore in college, who has gained just enough knowledge to be overly confident in his intellectual acumen, but still ignorant and not know it. Or, someone who knows just enough to be dangerous. I dislike having to deal with the likes of him. But I must do so.
This is to preface what David Marshall is doing once again, reviewing my recently released book, How to Defend the Christian Faith: Advice from an Atheist.He's doing it on his blog and getting almost everything wrong. He did get it right that I wrote the book though. *Whew*
David Marshall is not your average bear. I have heard a few people I respect say there is something mentally wrong with Marshall. Not the usual delusionary stuff found among all believers to different degrees, which evangelicals have to the highest degree. Nope, something else is going on. What it is, hasn't been clear to me until now. I've wondered if it's because Marshall has lived in the Orient so long he thinks like an oriental person rather than an occidental one like ourselves [Readers can disambiguate these differences in the comments if they so desire]. He doesn't think like the rest of us, that's for sure. At the very least Marshall is another liar for Jesus, a person who is unjustifiably certain his faith is true and has mentally absorbed a whole host of lies as truths because of a false assumption he was raised to believe despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. With him the force is additionally strong, since there's no doubt he also suffers from the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Maybe though, he's just a boldfaced unashamed liar?
Philosophy revels in argument substitution, according to which, whenever there isn't sufficient evidence then philosophers can substitute an argument instead. This must stop. If there isn't enough evidence to say one way or another, then an argument on behalf of one way or another is a waste of time. Making an argument without the requisite evidence is unnecessary and earns philosophy its recognized irrelevance and subsequently its derisiveness. Where there isn't sufficient evidence for an idea then a truly wise lover of truth would simply say "I don't know" and not write an article on it. It's this lack of authenticity among philosophers that galls so many non-philosophers, especially when believing philosophers muck up the discipline by writing in defense of their sect specific religious beliefs that by their very virtue have little or no evidence for them.
I hope the next year is better than the last year. I especially hope for the continuing secularization of the world. Place links and comment below on the the best of 2015, and with it the hopes you have for the future. Have at it. Hope is good.
Kenneth Winsmann responded to a really bad post objecting to the arguments in my book. With people like him I don't have to respond myself, which is a relief since more and more Christians are doing so.
This rebuttal is awful. Appealing to the historical setting and culture is meaningless. These laws were inspired by God. They should embody perfect justice. Killing a rape victim for not crying out? Forcing her to marry her attacker? A woman loses her hubby in war, but don’t worry! The God of the universe is with the conquerors and he has incredible moral guidelines. As a favor to the widow, she will be forced to marry whoever chooses her! How polite! What if no one chooses her? Oh. Too bad. God won’t get around to making women equal for another few thousand years. Can’t you see why these responses are so weak? God’s inspired word should transcend culture, place, and time. Gods laws should be the standard for all civilization. There should be absolutely no way to improve upon them. Epic fail. LINK.
I was asked this question by Stephen J. Bedard: "Hello John. I am writing a column on Jesus mythicism. I was wondering if you could share your thoughts on why atheists seem to be more and more attracted to this theory? My interest is on what drives skepticism about God to skepticism about Jesus. Even a couple of sentences would be great."
Well, I'm always honored when someone wants my opinion, so I obliged him. I wrote:
Atheists all agree that the miraculous Jesus we read in the gospels never existed. His virgin birth was not unlike Hercules and Plato, and his life had a very striking resemblance to Apollonius of Tyana. In addition there is no corroboration of Jesus found in contemporaneous writers, nor of events at his birth like the Star of Bethlehem, or events at the end of his story like eclipses and earthquakes and saints being resurrected with him.
So it stands to reason atheists would doubt his existence.
My guess is that eventually agnosticism about Jesus will become the dominant atheist view. This is what Ralphael Lataster and Hector Avalos think, that we can’t know whether the man behind the myths existed or not, even though I’m still of the opinion he did.
He probably won't use everything I wrote but here it is. Could you do better? Can you document what I wrote?
The Guardian tells us about it. Keith Preston on Facebook told me about it. He said Lemmy "was an outspoken atheist, and this is one of his songs with the lyrics. I consider this to be a true atheist anthem." Indeed!
It took me until the middle of the song to like it, then I listened a few more times. It's now my new favorite song! Here's a link to their top ten songs. It's not my style of music but I do admire his outspokenness as an atheist.
In what follows is a smack-down of the entire edifice of David Marshall's apologetics (not that he will be convinced of course). Christian apologist David Marshall has repeatedly argued that "All scientific knowledge depends upon human testimony." He does so to put the vinyl siding of scientific respectability over the rotting wood of his faith. He rhetorically asks, "How many eyewitness testimonies were confirmed by DNA evidence?" His point is that DNA evidence doesn't confirm eyewitness testimonies, but rather that the human testimonies of scientists confirm the DNA evidence. That's because they saw it and they interpret it for the rest of us. This is crucial for Marshall's defense of Christianity, the resurrection of Jesus, and the claims of miracles in today's world. Human testimony is what both science and his faith depend on for truth. If we can know from the human testimonies of scientists the truth about the world, then we can also know from human testimonies the truth about the Easter Event and miracles in the modern world.
What's there not to understand atheists? Checkmate!!
Religion is associated more closely with societal dysfunction than societal health. Although religionists imagine themselves and their spawn as being more moral, tolerant, and generous-- when you actually measure such things, you find that the opposite is true. Again and again, the more secular the society, the healthier... the religious are only moral in their minds.
If you want to know what is actually true, you might try getting your information from scientists and other peer reviewed sources-- not people who imagine themselves saved for what they believe: Contrary to the views of many conservative pundits and the Christian Right, the least religious countries in the world today are not full of chaos and immorality, but are actually among the safest, healthiest, most well-educated, prosperous, ethical, and successful societies on earth.
So what are we supposed to be applauding the Christians for again? Is there any measurable evidence whatsoever that they are better, righter, or that their beliefs are more true or useful to society than conflicting religions/myths/superstitions? Because all I find in peer reviewed sources is tons of evidence showing the that religion is associated with dysfunction while secularism is associated with more tolerance and more prosocial behavior.
Miles Mogulescu of the Huffington Post Calls for Debbie Wasserman Schultz's ouster!
It's increasingly clear that Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Chair of the Democratic National Committee, isn't acting as a neutral party Chair, trying to insure a fair and democratic primary and building the Democratic Party in the states.
Rather, she's acting as a shill for Hillary Clinton, doing everything in her power to ensure that no one will effectively challenge Hillary's coronation as the nominee.
Wasserman Schultz is committing political malpractice and should be removed. LINK
This so-called war is not what you think, according to Jay Michaelson writing for The Daily Beast. It's more likely the declining numbers of self-identifying Christians who aren't necessarily at war with Christianity. They just don't believe for a variety of factors. The demographics look bad for Christianity in the United States:
According to a Pew Research Report released earlier this year, the percentage of the U.S. population that identifies as Christian has dropped from 78.4 percent in 2007 to 70.6 percent in 2014. Evangelical, Catholic, and mainline Protestant affiliations have all declined. Meanwhile, 30 percent of Americans ages 18-29 list “none” as their religious affiliation (the figure for all ages is about 23 percent).
This represents almost 1/4 of people in the United States which would be the second largest denomination by the numbers only. Whose fault is this state of affairs? According to the very first Christian it is his follower's fault. They are not very effective in their job of recruitment. Do Christians still want to complain about any so-called war when they are to blame? Most of these "nones" just don't give a hoot about the Christian faith. They are about as concerned with Christianity as Buddhists in Thailand or Hindus in India would be. So this attitude of theirs shows up in our culture too, in a variety of ways, especially when it comes to Christian holidays like Christmas and Easter.
These changes are taking place for a constellation of reasons: greater secular education (college degrees), multiculturalism, shifting social mores, the secular space of consumer capitalism and celebrity culture, the sexual revolution (including feminism and LGBT equality), legal and constitutional changes (like the banning of prayer in public school, and the finding of a constitutional right to same-sex marriage), the breakdown of the nuclear family, the decline of certain forms of family and group identification, and the association of religion in general with nonsensical and outdated dogmas. LINK.
My word of advice to Christians is to learn to live in an increasingly non-Christian culture. Your faith is not to be inexplicably tied up with your culture anyway. In fact, living in a non-Christian culture may be a reason to rejoice--using some twisted kind of logic--for there would be no reason for people to play the hypocrite to gain social rewards from the pretense. As a result, only true believers will remain in the fold. Like the Amish today! Living in their own sect-specific communities! Voluntarily! ;-)
I'm very thankful at this season for the support I've received over the years from my readers in terms of comments from which I've learned from you, and the moral and financial support given. I'm just a starving artist without a job right now, who is trying to change the world and who thinks my efforts are worth the sacrifices I've made, even if few others agree or support my causes. I've sacrificed most everything for what I do and live alone on a pauper's income because of it. If you desire to do so, and can afford it, please consider making a donation to what I do. A few people have done so and it helps.
On Christmas day in 1837, the Africans and Native Americans who formed Florida’s Seminole Nation defeated a vastly superior U.S. invading army bent on cracking this early rainbow coalition and returning the Africans to slavery. Some textbooks such as Holt McDougal’s U.S. History (2012) reference the Seminole Wars. However they classify them not as anticolonial, liberation struggles, but as minor impediments in Manifest Destiny’s "triumphant march." -- from an essay by William Loren Katz.on the history left out of the textbooks.
The answer can be found in an interview The Washington Post did with physicist Aaron Adair, who is skeptical of the supposed star of Bethlehem. LINK. Dr. Adair wrote the book, The Star of Bethlehem: A Skeptical View, and a chapter for my upcoming anthology, Christianity in the Light of Science: Critically Examining the World's Largest Religion. I am doubly thankful for Adair's work. He not only used his expertise in science to debunk the faith-based claim of The Star of Bethlehem miracle, he also took the time to understand both the theology behind the supposed Bethlehem star and the apologetical gerrymandering surrounding that claim. His work is highly recommended.
Believers give lip service to science. Science has been very powerful as an knowledge provider such that they have to dress their faith up in it to give it some semblance of credibility. Wow! Only people of faith who are gullible will like this book. LINK.
Looks like the Kindle edition of my book How To Defend the Christian Faith made it to the front page of Christian Apologetics bestselling books by authors like Timothy Keller, Norman Geisler, Lee Stobel, Gregory Boyd and others. This happened in no small part because of Dawkins linking to it.
The Official Facebook Page for The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science just recommended my book. LINK. For those of you not on Facebook *gasp* I put a screenshot of it below. No doubt there are naysayers (both Christian and atheist) who'll claim Dawkins doesn't know enough about sophisticated theology to recommend my work. Maybe not. But he doesn't need to since he knows Christianity is a delusion from his own field of expertise. And he can read the blurbs from people who do. So about the naysayers I say this: If they had written a book--which they almost never do--wouldn't they be pleased with the exposure this gives their work? It's quite an honor! There is a lot of discussion taking place on his Facebook page too.
I know readers hear me say with each new anthology the latest one is the best one. But that's what I think. Here it is ready to be unleashed on the English speaking world, titled "Christianity in Light of Science: Critically Examining the World's Largest Religion." It's in honor of Victor Stenger. Pre-order it on Amazon by clicking here. I see Prometheus Books put up some blurbs of my other works there. Enjoy.
I've seen the newly released movie "Krampus." It's good up until the last quarter of it when it gets too crazy for me. Then it ends well, something I should have guessed. But think about how cruel parents were in earlier days not too distant in the past. Not only did children have the threat of Santa reading their minds and not giving them any gifts, or worse, a black coal in their stockings, each culture had a different gruesome threat beyond that, powerful evil creatures who would punish and torture children if they were naughty. The most feared and widely believed evil creature was Krampus, the Christmas devil. He's caught on camera here. ;-) But seriously. Wasn't the threat of a devil and an eternal conscious torment in hell enough? Makes me wonder how these beliefs didn't make thoroughly dysfunctional adults when they grew up.
This debate is being put on by Mythicist Milwaukee. Since there is a supply and demand feature to anything with a price tag on it, given the ticket costs they expect a high demand (from General Admission of $30.00 to VIP $160.00). Bart will donate his proceeds to charity while it'll be a needed financial relief for Bob. I know a few of us who barely make enough to survive. So that's good for him. The debate will take place as part of a Mythinformation Conference III in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on Friday, October 21, 2016 - 6-9 PM. Earth shattering stuff here folks, sure to convince a Christian one way or another. Or, is this just another example of atheists talking to each other? LINK.
I'm on record as saying debates don't really solve that much. But they are both educational and entertaining. So no one should have any fear if one side or the other loses the debate (although I doubt that will happen). I am curious though, why scientists don't solve their disputes this way. I can imagine it now. One scientist thinks the notion of a holographic universe is nonsense while another thinks otherwise. So they get sponsors and debate the issue. Tickets are costly because there is a high demand for the debate. Afterward both sides declare victory. One college graduate in computer science, who rejects the holographic theory, is unhappy with the debate performance of his guy so he writes a blog post saying his guy does not represent everyone who rejects the holographic theory! [But doesn't every thinking person already know that, which indicates the ignorance of that blog writer? The only reason he would say such a thing is for self-promotion because that's his modus operandi (Just think Jeff Lowder)].
If atheists cannot agree on the evidence then how does anyone expect to convince Christians Jesus never existed? I think we must first approach Christians as Bart Ehrman does before they can be open enough to entertain the idea that Jesus never existed. Yes, a tiny number of Christians have gone from believer to mythicist in one fell swoop, but what kind of believers they were beforehand is another question. This debate is yet another example of people who will eventually find something to disagree with if given enough time. I have witnessed this phenomena myself. People meet. They talk a bit. They agree quite a lot. But eventually they find a disagreement. They almost always do. That disagreement bothers them. They each want agreement so they argue over the disagreement. It eventually leads to anger. They part ways. In my view this is yet another divisive issue among atheists. Granted, I think it's a worthy issue, one that merits careful consideration. But as for me, I'll keep majoring on the majors, the issues that can and do actually help change the minds of believers. Do as you wish though. To each his or her own. Cheers.
Barbara Walters 10 Most Fascinating People of 2015 airs tonight on ABC (check times in your area). One of them is Bernie Sanders! Here's a clip LINK. Don't forget to watch the Democratic Presidential Debate tomorrow.
Seasons Greetings one and all. I'm going to share a few of my favorite songs for the season. Michael Bolton's rendition of "Silent Night" tops my chart. This CD came out in 1996 and every year since I listen to it. It brings tears to my eyes just as it did the first year, and every year since that time. It recalls the memories and regrets of years gone by. I was in a deep crisis of faith when it came out. I listened to it hoping it could give me hope through my crisis. I liked how he sang it with such conviction, the kind I wanted to have again, but couldn't muster no matter how many times I listened to it, and I listened to it over and over and over again. I really wanted Christianity to be true. I knew nothing else. But it isn't true. I had to admit I was deluded. Everything I had hoped for was dashed. Regardless of my back-story, Bolton's rendition of "Silent Night" is the best one ever made.
[Redated post from March 2014 in light of the recent flurry of comments about the mythicist position].
Last night Richard gave a talk at Purdue in West Lafayette, Indiana, based on his book On the Historicity of Jesus. It's to be published by Sheffield-Phoenix Press in a few months. Professor James McGrath has described Richard Carrier as "the last, best hope for mythicism." He goes on to say that "Having an academic book of this sort published does not prove that one is right. It means that one is approaching a question in a rigorous scholarly manner. And to have a mythicist do that is indeed a big deal. Those of us interested in this question will undoubtedly be delighted to finally have a serious academic work to serve as a conversation partner on the topic." Link. Yes, this is a big deal!
Below you can watch his lecture and see a few pictures of us together. If you haven't encountered the evidence that the Book of Acts is historical fiction you need to see this. [Edit: If you can see the case for Acts as fiction why can't you see the evidence that the Jesus story itself could be fiction?] Here, ladies and gentlemen, Carrier presents some good strong evidence that the author of the canonical book of Acts is another liar for Jesus. Enjoy.
Historically scientists didn’t set out to test religious beliefs. They just wanted to understand the world they live in. As they did they discovered evidence that questioned religious beliefs.
Not long ago Harry McCall wrote a post titled, Why Atheists Must Assert Jesus Never Existed, and proceeded to tell us. Being someone who refuses to march to the beat of any drum unless persuaded to do so, I was disappointed since I was unpersuaded, and still am. Liberal Christian Dr. James McGrath saw Harry's post as yet another example of atheist dogmatism so he highlighted two of Harry's posts on this issue as examples. In the comments I told McGrath I was disappointed. The reason is because the credibility of DC is something I take seriously. Today Dr. Valerie Tarico weighed in on the historical vs mythical Jesus debate in a post reasonably titled, Here are 5 reasons to suspect Jesus never existed. I don't think she was aware of the McCall/McGrath exchange. Her post is a much more reasonable one that I can recommend. Readers might disagree with her and still see a big difference in how a scholar like Tarico deals with this issue.
Look what I found on my twitter feed today! There is importance to an outsider's view! Where have you heard THAT before? We all realize how important this is in every other area. But when I say it regarding religious faith it's denied by Christian apologists. Why the double standard? No really, why the double standard? Please share.
He's doing it on his blog and getting almost everything wrong. He did get it right that I wrote the book though. *Whew*
I see Prometheus Books put up some blurbs of my other works there. Enjoy.
