Can I get a different attorney?

19 comments

I always liked the concept of Jesus acting as an advocate on my behalf in front of God. We all think the YHWH of the Tanakh is a bit scary—a judgmental entity that demands swift, immediate and harsh punishment on any transgression and the Jehovah of the New Testament as more loving, compassionate and sympathetic with the human cause. (Heb. 4:15)

It made sense to harmonize the two different compilations of Holy Scriptures by painting God the Father as the invoker of Justice, and Jesus the son as the intermediary pleader for mercy. We have all heard the parable of the Judge that ruled his daughter had to pay a traffic fine, and then took off his black robe, came down in front of the bench and paid it.

It is comforting to believe that somewhere between that awful God sending people to be tortured forever, is another God contending on our behalf.

However, as Christians we often gave conflicting pictures of God. While the advocate concept is comforting, how exactly does that work?

How do two separate manifestations of God, which both have the ability to foreknow, argue with each other? They each know what the other is about to say or do for the next million years or so!


First, we should note that both the Holy Spirit AND Jesus are interceding on our behalf. Well, not exactly, our behalf, in that they only are pleading on behalf of the “true Christians.” Not the unsaved. Every verse discussing this intercession refers to these parts of God arguing on behalf of “the saints,” (Rom. 8:27) “us” (Rom. 8:26, 34) and “those who come to God” (Heb. 7:25)

What, perchance, do the saved need interceding for? They have heaven. Locked in the bag, if “true Christianity” is Calvinism. Is Jesus asking that God NOT judge them? I thought they were free from judgment. (John 5:24) Is it to not be persecuted? I thought persecution was to be expected for all who live Godly lives. (2 Tim. 3:12). Is it to not have their faith tested? I thought they should count it all joy, because it brings patience. (James 1:2-3)

We could speculate, but in doing so must be wary of the trap involved. Anything proposed that Jesus (or the Holy Spirit) is attempting to advocate FOR, means that God is AGAINST. The very reason for an advocate is to persuade another to do some action which the other person is not inclined. If the person is going to do it anyway, an intermediary is unnecessary.

It is meaningless to point out Jesus (or the Holy Spirit) has any benefit interceding for us to ask God the Father to do what God the Father was going to do anyway. The impression is further given that this is not an easy task. The Spirit ist “groaning” and Jesus is perpetually contending. In fact, it requires both of them to persuade God! He must really be a handful.

Whatever the Christian proposes Jesus is fighting for, they must acknowledge it is something the Father is fighting against. Which leaves us with the question: “If God wants something, can God convince God to do something God doesn’t want to do?”

Can Jesus “Rabbit Season. Duck Season” the Father?

God: I want Bob to get well.
God: Nope. I want Bob to stay sick.
God: Please make him well.
God: No I want him sick.
God: Well.
God: Sick
God: Well
God: Sick.
God: Sick.
God: Well.
God: Sick.
God: Well. I said “well” and I meant it! *Poof.*
God: He. He. He.

Now, one might argue that the “us” Paul uses is universal for humanity, and part of what Jesus (and the Holy Spirit) is arguing for is to have persons saved. Was this an argument that took place long, long ago, before election? And can Jesus convince God to save someone He doesn’t want to?

Interestingly, Romans 8, which refers to both the Holy Spirit and Jesus interceding, has a section in-between that mentions God’s ability to foreknow. Now tell me how this works—how do two entities that have foreknowledge dispute with each other? They already know not only what each other’s arguments are, but what the end result will be!

God: Well, I think we should do this because of these reasons.
God: Ha! I knew you were going to use those reasons, so I already prepared counter-reasons.
God: Aha! But I knew you knew, so I prepared responses.
God: Oh, but did you know that I knew you knew I knew? So here is my reply.
God: Mmm, but I knew that you knew that I knew that….

The only possible method, in which any reasonable discussion could occur, is for them to turn off their foreknowledge.

God: O.K. On the count of three. 1….2….3. STOP foreknowing.
God: You didn’t stop.
God: How do you know?
God: I saw that you were going to foreknow a few minutes from now.
God: But that means YOU didn’t stop!

Worse, how does Jesus (and the Holy Spirit) know what God is about to do, and know to intercede. Does he tell them? God has to tell God what he is about to do? What parts are delegated to the Holy Spirit to “know” and what parts to Jesus? Or does God (regardless of which manifestation) already know what He is going to do?

If Jesus and the Holy Spirit are God, what limits are placed upon them by God the Father? Does the Father have veto power? Why should they intercede? They can make the decision and act upon it themselves—they are God, after all!

What would end up is similar to the fairies making Cinderella’s dress in the Disney cartoon version:

God: Pink! *poof*
God: Blue! *poof*
God: Pink! *poof*
God: Blue! *poof*

Which is humorous to a degree, but in Christianity there are much more dire consequences. What if Jesus would like to save me? He would like me to become a believer. No one comes to the Father, but through Jesus. (John 14:6) But God the Father refuses to draw me to Jesus. (John 6:44) No longer is it the color of a dress, but where I will be spending eternity.

God: Hell.
God: Heaven.
God: Hell.
God: Heaven.

I would be bouncing back and forth. How is this feasible? How can God the Father want/not want someone in Heaven, and Jesus be able to convince him otherwise? Aren’t they both God? Or does it take a 2/3 vote?

We were informed that this blog brings up the some objections to Christianity that have been responded to for centuries. True, but I am looking for a better response than “We don’t know.” It is hardly persuasive there is such a thing as a triune entity that pleads with itself to persuade itself to do that which it does (or does not) want to do, and to explain such a thing say, “We don’t know.”

The Bible claims that two of the three manifestations of God advocate on behalf of humans to the third manifestation. That makes no pragmatic sense.

OR, is it more likely that Jesus (and the Holy Spirit) actually being part of God, and not separate entities was a later development? That when Paul wrote Romans, and when Hebrews was written, the concept of a trinity and equal parts of one God was not conceived?

If Jesus and the Holy Spirit were considered separate persons (albeit supernatural) by the authors of Romans and Hebrews, the claim of intermediary makes cohesive sense. To claim they are all equally God results in (yet another) explanation of “We don’t know.”

Oh, and on a final note, since I am not considered a “true Christian” by any of those that consider themselves “true Christians” I might add that if Jesus IS advocating on my behalf, I would like a different lawyer.

At the moment, according to those “true Christians” I am doomed for hell. If Jesus can’t persuade God to save me, who could do any worse?

The Best of Debunking Christianity..so Far

3 comments
Since the case against Christianity "doesn't get much better than this" here at DC according to one Blog, I thought I'd put out what I consider to be a few of our best posts here at DC. There are many more. But here are just a few. Enjoy.

God: Innocent until Proven Guilty

Things have gotten pretty heated against us ex-christian bloggers lately. I guess here's some more fresh meat for you all to chew on...

In 1998, back when I was a Christian in Michigan, I witnessed a fatal accident involving multiple cars. I watched as a small car's left tires merged ever so slightly into that "slush" that builds up on the side of the highway in winter (those of you from the north know what I mean). It looked to me as if that was the cause of that small car suddenly spinning out of control on the cold and wet road.

The car in front of me was the first to slow down enough to avoid the collision, and I was the second. The 3 cars in front of us were not so fortunate. I later learned one of the passengers in a car died that night (or a few days later or something).

When my car came to a stop I remembered thinking that if I had left my church only seconds before or after I did, that I might have been one of the victims too. I then thought about all the little things that caused me to leave when I did -- I remember having to park a little further back in the lot that Sunday; I remember the guy stopping me to shake my hand as I walked out; and the list goes on.

At the time of the accident I closed my eyes and thanked God for saving me. I think most of us have been in similar situations. After resiging from my church and becoming an atheist, I'm finding myself re-thinking all those supposed "answers" to prayer and intercessions from God in my life.

So, I have an honest question: To the Christian, how can I know if it was your God working over my life all those years? What reason do I have to believe it was the Christian God rather than simply believing those things just happened to me? Is there a test to know the difference? Is there a way to show God is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for saving my life?

I think that if God exists and is involved in our world, there would be a way to distinguish between something God did and something that just happened because of the very fact of nature (like Hurricane Katrina or a Tsunami).

I know some Christians might say nothing that happens in the world is a coincidence; it's all directed or allowed to happen by God's hand. But I'm asking as someone who doesn't already believe in God. I'm just a member of the jury - what is the reason I should believe it was God who did it?

God, in this case, is innocent until proven guilty. If there is no evidence, no test, no way to show beyond a reasonable doubt that it was God who committed these "gracious" acts in my life, then we should declare him to be innocent in this case.

(insert gavel sound here).

"The Case Against Christianity Doesn’t Get Much Better Than This."

34 comments
Apart from the derogatory remarks made by Steve Hays in this post at Triablogue, he has offered us quite the backhanded compliment while explaining to his audience why he's chosen to target us at DC. He said "the case against Christianity doesn’t get much better than this." Here's also what he said:

The Secular Web is the world’s leading website in the cause of militant atheism.

As such, it has quite a constituency.

A while back, it started a weblog (The Secular Outpost), which is a spin-off of The Secular Web.

This was an attempt to extend its reach. Extend its sphere of influence.

I assume The Secular Outpost draws from the preexisting constituency of The Secular Web.

The Secular Outpost also has a number of links to other secular sites.

DC is one of these. I assume that it gets a lot of crossover traffic from The Secular Outpost.

Of the various links, DC is the only site that regularly assails the Christian faith.

I assume that DC attracts a certain audience because its contributors are ex-Christian and ex-ministers. They have the inside dish, right?

Loftus bills himself as a student of Craig. This has PR appeal.

Well, if someone who trained under a Christian apologist to be a Christian apologist defects from the faith, then what does that tell you about the Christian faith. The more you know, the less you believe, right?

So DC presents a nice, compact target….when you get right down to it, the case against Christianity doesn’t get much better than this.


It is for that reason that Steve and his fellow colleagues have decided to dog us "every step of the way."

The Gloves Are Off!

36 comments
So far, I have been working on a post-series about the visionary origins of Christianity. I hope to have the last of the posts on the subject up by this weekend. One of the posts I am hoping to write is a detailed rebuttal to Christian apologist Jason Engwer. He has written a post attempting to critique what I have written. However, since I first encountered his post this past weekend, I have had a change in perspective. It was triggered by Jason's post. Part of it was the title. The title sounded very confrontational in tone. I thought that perhaps the title was more confrontational than Engwer had intended but as I skimmed through his post ( I won't attempt to really stomach it until I rebut it in a point-by-point fashion), I noticed that the confrontational tone of his title was no accident. I get the impression that he fully meant it to be as every bit confrontational as the main body of his critique is.

That's when it hit me- Christianity is a confrontational faith/religion. If people find it offensive, that's the way it's suppose to be. This is the reason why many Christian apologists, be it Jonathan Sarfati from Answers in Genesis, James P Holding/Robert Turkel of Tekton Apologetics, Jason Engwer of "Steve'N'Pals"...erm..."Triablouge" are confrontational in their tone. To be polite, friendly, and kind to the opposition is weak and looked down on as "whimpy". This is because Christianity is offensive. It's designed to be this way. Christianity is supposed to be offensive and confrontational to the world and is supposed to offend the world and its "sin". Christian apologists like Sarfati, Holding, and Engwer are confrontational and offensive for a good reason- their faith requires them to be. They won't be nice about it. Contrarily- their approach is a in-your-face, offensive approach that demands an answer from you and condemns you when you fail to give the answer that apologists want-which is conversion. Jason doens't care if I don't like Christianity- he's only interested in seeing me convert-which I cheerfully promise him will never happen. If he doesn't like it, I am not sure of how to tell him politely that I don't give a damn and that he can go to hell for all I care.

Christianity is offensive and confrontational and its intentionally suppose to be this way. If I recall correctly, I believe that my dad once delivered a sermon which he said something to the effect of "If the gospel doesn't make you feel uncomfortable, then you don't really belong in Church". He's right! That's because the gospel is confrontational and should make people feel uncomfortable. One's "comfort zone" is born out of compromise with the world. In my dad's opinion, if you are not running into the devil, it's because you're running in the same direction as him! It's the take-no-hostages, in-your-face, confrontational style of Christians like Engwer that is truly Christian.

Coming to this realization has made me aware of some really disturbing truths. First of all, I cannot be diplomatic with Christianity. How can you be diplomatic with something that's designed to offend and confront you, and, if you allow it to, bully you into confessing it's true and converting you? I learned this the hard way. There's no diplomacy. It's destroy or be destroyed. Secondly, this realization has made me painfully aware of an inconsistency that I have been evading for some time now that I can evade no longer because I am tired of being a whimp about it. Christians live by a double-standard. Christians think it's wonderful for a Christian to convert an atheist to being a Christian but think it's horrible for an atheist to convert a Christian to being an atheist. If Christians are allowed to convert non-Christians, then shouldn't non-Christians be allowed to convert Christians?

Third, many many Christians seem to think that they can be as rude, self-righteous, as spiteful as they want to disbelievers such as atheists, yet atheists have to go out of their way to be as polite, friendly, and kind to Christians, to the point of almost tip-toeing around egg-shells or else Christians scream "Persecution!" Atheists have to be as sweet as pie to Christians but many Christians think they can treat atheists as dirt poor as they like. Fourth, many Christians have no qualms whatsoever about imposing their beliefs on others through personal evangelism, filling the airwaves and television channels with their creeds, yet seem utterly indignant when atheists might do the same. Many Christians have no care in the world that what they say may offend or insult others.

Why is this the case? I fear that it all boils down to what I call an "argument over veracity". If you ask a Christian why Christians can evangelize but atheists shouldn't, many Christians will respond, "That's because our beliefs are true!" If you ask them why they can be as mean to atheists as they like, many will respond "Well atheists are God-haters and so they're going to Hell anyways, so what does it matter? I am still right and they're still wrong so it doesn't matter how I treat them. At least I am right and that's all that matters!" The reason for this, many Christians argue, is because what they believe is true and us damn atheists are just going to have to learn to accept it and get saved!

I say "No!" I refuse to treat Christians with respect while they walk all over me! I refuse to stand by and watch them try and convert while I am suppose to shut up and do nothing. I refuse to let them offend me and just take whatever abuse they dish out while I am nothing but kind to them! I believe that I was a big fool in trying a peaceful and diplomatic approach! If Christians like Engwer can be confrontational, then so can I! If truth and facts are to prevail, then I need to be confrontational! If Jason is looking for a fight, I am pleased to give him one! If he wants to be confrontational...perfect! I plan to give the poor sod a run for his money! If he wants to fight bare-handed, my gloves are coming off then, too!

It's my belief that Christianity is best debunked in a confrontational style! We cannot be nice guys to such a nasty and offensive belief-system. No. To fight it, we have to be informed, and we have to be confident! We have to go on the offense! To this end, I have decided to go evangelical with my atheism and I have decided to actively convert people to skeptical freethought! The buck doesn't stop here though. I plan to actively fight folks like Sarfati, Holding, and Engwer to the very end. I just thank Jason Engwer for opening my eyes up and seeing him for what he really is! I thank Jason; I hope he's itching for a war because he has one if he wants one! I have decided to become a militant skeptic and an evangelical atheist- and I credit this decision to Jason Engwer!

The gloves are off! The war has began!

Matthew

"Harmonizing" Stories Of The Resurrection (On the Bishop of Durham’s Attempts To Do So, i.e., N.T. Wright’s Attempts)

2 comments

Since Matthew brought up the question of "harmonizations" of the resurrection stories in the New Testament in his two recent (excellent) posts In Defense of Visions and Defending Visions I thought I'd add to what he wrote by assembling statements made by conservative, moderate, and liberal theologians admitting the difficulties, and unconvincing nature of such “harmonizations.”


DR. GARY ANDERSON, WRITING IN THE CONSERVATIVE TO MODERATE CHRISTIAN JOURNAL, FIRST THINGS
The move to read the Bible historically took root in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries primarily among devout Christian thinkers. Rather than attempting to harmonize the differences between conflicting biblical accounts, these interpreters tried to let each voice speak reverently on its own. <...> In Wright's view the only path forward is the establishment of a sequence of events in the life of Jesus that stand up to the scrutiny of historians. This historically reconstructed sequence of events will not conform fully to the telling of the story that the Gospel writers themselves have offered the Church. The Gospel writers wrote in the context of the evolving Church and sometimes skewed their portraits to match ecclesial interest rather than historical reality. In this particular volume these worries are not so weighty, since all Wright sets out to determine is whether the resurrection as an event is true or not.

But when the same set of methods is turned on the full Gospel narrative, the reader has to accept a whole set of historical judgments that Wright makes in order to proceed to the plane of theological reflection and affirmation. Having read a good deal of Wright, I, for one, am not prepared to follow all of his historical reconstructions. No doubt they are learned; but as examples of historical imagination they remain speculative and somewhat idiosyncratic.
~~~~~~~

DR. HURTADO, WRITING IN THE CONSERVATIVE TO MODERATE EXPOSITORY TIMES
Chaps. 13-17 of Wright's book on the Resurrection are a detailed analysis of the canonical Gospels' accounts of Jesus' resurrection... One question that readers may judge less than adequately handled is whether the variations among the Gospel narratives relfect 'only minor development' (p. 611) in traditions about Jesus' resurrection in the first century.

~~~~~~~
ARCHBISHOP PETER CARNLEY IN HIS BOOK, THE STRUCTURE OF RESURRECTION BELIEF [HE ADMITS HE BELIEVES IN AN EMPTY TOMB BUT ADDS]
"One of the most conclusive results of contemporary redactional studies of the New Testament traditions of the appearances, no less than of the empty tomb, is that an original nucleus of tradition has been developed during the course of its transmissions and that the resulting diversity can be explained by reference to apologetic motives and concerns along the way; the modification of the tradition is an inevitable by-product of the attempt to communicate and defend resurrection belief in different contexts to different people with different preconceptions and concerns. All this conditions what is said. The diversity of the resulting traditions cannot just be added together to form one synthetic account of what is supposed to have happened at the first Easter" <...> [Modern theology today] "offers a spectrum of views... ranging from belief in the resurrection of Christ as a historical event of the past, to talk of it as little more than a religiously useful story or myth... not to mention a very significant number of theologians who are content to treat the resurrection with a degree of ambivalence or lack of candour."
~~~~~~~~~

"What Happened That First Easter? Can There Be A Literal Truth to Resurrection?" by A. E. Harvey (former canon and subdeacon of Westminster, who has authored several books on Jesus and the New Testament) <...> A number of significant and early New Testament texts summarize the story of Jesus without any reference to the resurrection: he was "exalted to the right hand of God" -- this statement about one who had been condemned as a dangerous sectarian by his compatriots and executed as a criminal by the Romans was evidently felt by some to be a sufficient expression of a momentous claim: again all apearances, Jesus had been vindicated and glorified by God. Wright would reply that it was nevertheless the resurrection that was the primary article of faith and proclamation: if it is not explicitly stated, it is simply taken for granted, and explanations (ingenious if not always entirely persuasive) can be proposed for its omission. BUT THIS HARDLY SETTLES THE QUESTION. [emphasis added by E.T.B.] If some early credal formulations (as many believe these passages to be) fail to mention it at all, can we say that the resurrection -- in the sense of the empty tomb and the appearances of the risen Jesus on earth -- was always and from the very beginning the essential focus of Christian belief to quite the extent that is claimed throughout this study?

But if not, what are the consequences? Might not the ascension and exaltation of Jesus be an alternative way of describing the mysterious truth of Jesus' continuing existence? Here, once again, we are up against the constraints of logical analysis. In logic, the statement that one thing is the case excludes the opposite. But is this true of the language of the afterlife? Wright begins with a clean logical distinction. The pagans, he says, denied resurrection; the Jews believed in it [though that was not true of all Jews--E.T.B.] It follows that those who proclaimed Jesus' resurrection were speaking within a Jewish context of belief. But here logic is surely misapplied. The Greeks had a word for a person coming back to life: anastasis, resurrection. Of course they "denied" it--in principle. Everyone agreed that the dead are dead and do not come back to life. Yet strange things seemed to happen. In a culture where burial or cremation were carried out within a day or two after death, there were instances of wrong diagnosis--people thought to be dead revived just in time to escape their own funerals. Stories circulated of revival after a longer period, and some people evidently believed them. Similarly among the Jews: it was not thought possible that Lazarus could be brought back to life when his body had been in the tomb long enough to be noisomely decomposing. Yet stories of such "resurrection" could still be told with some possibility (however small) of being believed. [Actually lots of stories of various miracles, even Matthew's "raising of the many" from "many opened tombs" passed muster as believable back then.--E.T.B.] THE STUDY OF VOCABULARY IN DIFFERENT ANCIENT CULTURES IS NOT ENOUGH TO DEFINE THE BOUNDARIES OF CREDIBILITY. [Emphasis added.--E.T.B.] And it was not long before people of Greek and Roman background found themselves prepared to believe in Jesus' resurrection [another miracle in a world of them--E.T.B.] without a preliminary course in Jewish beliefs about resurrection and the "afterlife."

But logic also stumbles in the face of "resurrection" itself. The word, as Wright readily admits, was capable of metaphorical use. In Jewish literature it was a metaphor for national revival, the return from exile and the renewal of a covenant relationship with God. In Christianity it became a metaphor for a "radical change of behavior." But to speak in this way is to assume that there was a determinate meaning of the word that was not metaphorical. This "literal use and concrete referent" Wright finds, not in the rare and barely credible cases of people apparently coming back to life, but in the resurrection of Jesus. It was this factual event which allowed the word to have a metaphorical career in Christianity comparable with, but different from, that which it had in Judaism. What can be said about this factual reality? Wright extrapolates from the resurrection stories in the gospels. These are full of details, he suggests, that are both surprising and unlikely to have been invented for dogmatic or apologetic purposes.

[Details of dreams, and hearsay, also feature "surprising" and "unlikely" details. Certainly early Christians, eager for more information than the limited number of sayings and doings preserved in the earliest Gospel and Q, went on to create not only the infancy narratives, but the resurrection narratives as well (neither of which are found in Mark, the earliest Gospel). People were dying to know more, and every little tale or idle experience that someone related to someone would be magnified by that desire. Take the example of the three added endings to Mark, or the many Gospels and Acts that followed.--E.T.B.]

In brief: Jesus was both like and unlike his former self; he was recognizable but not recognized; he was physical enough to cook food and eat it, but had no difficulty passing through locked doors; he spoke with magisterial authority and yet "some doubted." [The mention of "doubt" normally accompanied stories of miracles. It was part and parcel of telling a miracle story.--E.T.B.] What sort of existence is this? Wright struggles to find appropriate words and suggests "metaphysical," "transphysicality," then, was the "literal use and concrete referent" of the word "resurrection." This is what happened to Jesus, and this is what will happen to us. But can he really mean this? IS IT THE CHRISTIAN HOPE THAT WE SHALL OURSELVES COOK AND EAT AND PASS THROUGH DOORS AND BE SOMETIMES RECOGNIZED, SOMETIMES NOT, BY OUR FRIENDS? [Emphasis added.--E.T.B.]

Is this a "literal" description of the resurrection that is promised to all? Surely we must allow here for some epistemic distance between an utterly mysterious happening and the ability of human being to put it into words? [And surely those who are not Christians must be allowed doubts concerning such tales and their "details," especially in lieu of the fact that the later the Gospel the greater number of post-resurrection tales it contained, the greater number of post-resurrection words spoken by Jesus, and the more numerous the "details."--E.T.B.]

Surely we must be ready to admit an element of "as if" [an element not of reality but of metaphor--E.T.B.] in the accounts of the empty tomb and of supernatural appearances? The suggestion that the gospel stories of the resurrection of Christ provide a kind of template for imagining the resurrection of each one of ourselves surely crosses the bounds of credibility. Are we not mistaking imaginative narrative and metaphorical language for literal description? Similarly, when Wright castigates those Christians (the majority!) who confuse resurrection with going to heaven, may this not be a matter of preferring one metaphor to another when describing the same mysterious reality?

But it may be that the issue is a more fundamental one. This book is the third (and is promised not to be the last) in the impressive series of his scholarly studies to which Wright has given the title, "Christian Origins and the Question of God." If the real question is indeed "the question of God," then the kind of language one believes it is appropriate to use about the mysteries of life beyond the grave may also be the kind of language one will use about God himself. Here Wright appears to endorse a certain EVANGELICAL LITERALNESS. [Emphasis Added.--E.T.B.]

Wright's God is intensely personal, imagined as adopting the strategies of a human being. He is a God who can be described as having "dealt with the problem" of evil, or of sin, or as one whose promise has "got stuck at the point of Israel's rebellion." Accordingly (in relation to the present subject) we read that God "accomplished" the resurrection. ACCORDING TO WRIGHT WE ARE TO BELIEVE, THAT IS TO SAY, NOT JUST THAT SOMETHING WAS EXPERIENCED ON THE FIRST EASTER DAY, WHICH ENABLED THE DISCIPLES TO BELIEVE THAT JESUS WAS IN SOME SENSE ALIVE--SOMETHING THAT BY ITS VERY NATURE MUST ELUDE DEFINITION OR PRECISE DESCRIPTION--BUT THAT GOD LITERALLY "ACCOMPLISHED" A UNIQUE AND DECISIVE INTERVENTION IN HUMAN HISTORY, INVOLVING THE REMOVAL AND SUBSEQUENT TRANSFORMATION OF A HUMAN BODY. [Emphasis added. That statement neatly defines a division between Christian theologians.--E.T.B.]
~~~~~~~~
DR. DUNN'S MODERATE TO LIBERAL THEOLOGICAL DOUBTS OF SUCCESSFUL HARMONIZATIONS
Dr. James D. G. Dunn, a moderate Evangelical scholar from Britain with credentials and publications at least as long if not longer than N. T. Wright, and who undoubtedly knows N.T. Wright personaly, seems almost as pessimistic as the famous Dr. Albert Schweitzer concering how poorly the "historical Jesus" matches up with "orthodox Christian dogmas about Jesus."

James D.G. Dunn in his latest monumental work (both he and Wright like writing thick books), Jesus Remembered, argues that The Gospel of John's narrative is not reliable, nor the claims it makes for Jesus' quasi-divine status. (In his earlier work, Evidence for Jesus, Dunn didn't imagine that Jesus spoke even one word reported in John.) Dunn admits there is little to support the infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke, and little evidence that Jesus supported a mission to the gentiles, and no evidence that Jesus saw himself as any kind of messiah. (The term does not even appear in Q.) Nor is there much left of the "Son of Man," except for a few uncertain eschatological allusions. Dunn argues that Jesus did not claim any title for himself. Jesus may have believed that he was going to die, but he did not believe he was dying to redeem the sins of the world. "If Jesus hoped for resurrection it was presumably to share in the general and final resurrection of the dead." There is astonishingly little support for what Jesus' last words were. Dunn admits that Jesus believed in an imminent eschatological climax that, of course, did not happen. "Putting it bluntly, Jesus was proved wrong by the course of events." Dunn's account of the resurrection notes all of the weaknesses of the tradition: The link of Jesus' resurrection to a falsely imminent general resurrection, confusion as to what sort of Jesus the witnesses were seeing, a persistent theme of failure of the witnesses to recognize Jesus (in Matthew 28:17 the disciples are seeing him in Galilee yet "some doubted," not just Thomas), confusion as to where they were seeing Jesus (in Jerusalem and Galilee? On earth or in heaven?).
~~~~~~~~~~
ONE THIRD OF ANGLICAN CLERGY (Wright is an Anglican bishop) DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE RESURRECTION Daily Telegraph (England), July 31, 2002 By Jonathan Petre, A third of Church of England clergy doubt or disbelieve in the physical Resurrection and only half are convinced of the truth of the Virgin birth, according to a new survey. The poll of nearly 2,000 of the Church's 10,000 clergy also found that only half believe that faith in Christ is the only route to salvation. While it has long been known that numerous clerics are dubious about the historic creeds of the Church, the survey is the first to disclose how widespread is the scepticism.
~~~~~~~~~~

DR. PRICE'S DOUBTS OF N.T. WRIGHT'S CLAIMS OF HARMONIZATION
...Outrageous is Wright's contrived and harmonistic treatment of the statements about a spiritual resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15, where we read that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" (v. 50) and that the resurrected Jesus, the precedent for believers, accordingly possessed a "spiritual body" (v. 44). Wright labors mightily and futilely to persuade us that all Paul meant by "flesh and blood" was "mortal and corruptible," not "made of flesh and blood." Who but a fellow apologist (like William Lane Craig who sells the same merchandise) will agree to this? What does Wright suppose led the writer to use a phrase like "flesh and blood" for mortal corruptibility in the first place if it is not physical fleshiness that issues inevitably in mortal corruption? How can the Corinthians writer have used such a phrase if he meanwhile believed the risen Jesus still had flesh and blood? It is no use to protest that none of the "second temple Jewish" writers we know of had such a notion of resurrection. This supposed fact (and Ladd knew better: he cited apocalypses that have the dead rise in angelic form, or in the flesh which is then transformed into angelic stuff) cannot prevent us from noticing that 1 Corinthians 15:45 has the risen Christ "become a life-giving spirit."

Likewise, when he gets to Luke, Wright laughs off the screaming contradiction between Luke 24:40 ("Touch me and see: no spirit has flesh as you can see I have.") and 1 Corinthians 15:50 and 45 ("Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." "The last Adam became a life-giving spirit."). The contexts of both passages make it quite clear that the terms are being used in the same senses, only that one makes the risen Jesus fleshly, while the other says the opposite. Wright's laughable hair-splitting is a prime example of the lengths he will go to get out of a tight spot. Similarly, when he gets to 1 Peter 3:18 (Jesus was "put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and made proclamation to the spirits in prison, etc."), Wright rewrites the text to make it say what he wants: "he was put to death by the flesh, and brought to life by the Spirit." This is just ridiculous. It is the exegesis of that faith that calls things that are not as though they were. Wright's second mortal sin is his desire to have his Eucharistic wafer and eat it too. He takes refuge in either side of an ambiguity when it suits him, hopping back and forth from one foot to the other, and hoping the reader will not notice. For instance, Wright is desperate to break down the "flesh/spirit" dichotomy in Paul and Luke (not to mention that between Paul and Luke!), but he builds the same wall higher outside the texts. <...> Part of Wright's agenda of harmonizing and de-fusing the evidence is to smother individual New Testament texts beneath a mass of theological synthesis derived from the Old Testament and from the outlines of Pauline theology in general. He is a victim of what James Barr long ago called the "Kittel mentality," referring to the approach of Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, in which articles on individual New Testament terms and words synthesized from all uses of the term an artificial and systematic semantic structure, leading the reader to suppose that every individual usage of the word was an iceberg tip carrying with it implied reference to all other references. In other words, each article in the TDNT composed a "New Testament theology," topic by topic. In just this manner, Wright first composes a streamlined Old Testament theology of historical and eschatological redemption (akin to that of Von Rad, without the latter's understanding that much of it was based on fictive saga rather than history); then Wright synthesizes a Pauline Theology, then a New Testament theology, then an early Christian theology; and finally he insists that the synthetic resurrection concept he has distilled must control our reading of all individual gospel and Pauline texts dealing with the resurrection. In short, it is an elaborate exercise in harmonizing disparate data. The implications of 1 Corinthians 15, for example, with its talk of spiritual resurrection, are silenced as the text is muzzled, forbidden to say anything outside the party line Wright has constructed as "the biblical" teaching on the subject.

~~~~~~~~
Many professional scholars whose entire scholarly careers have consisted of studying and researching the Bible and whose careers began with a devout love of Scripture in a conservative Christian sense (including Dr. Price above) later abandoned their formerly conservative views after gaining knowledge of the full range of questions involved, and hence they changed from being religious conservatives to either more moderate or liberal or even agnostic standpoints. In fact entire seminaries founded originally as seminaries for conservative Christian denominations have changed over time into liberal arts colleges, and now entertain moderate to liberal to agnostic professors and views. (For instance the seminary founded by John Calvin later became filled with Deists. While in America, Yale was founded due to the "liberal theological excesses" of Harvard.) Even in our day look what happened to Fuller Seminary, or look at some of the professors and graduates of Wheaton College, Billy Graham's young-earth creationist and inerrantist alma mater. They seem to be stretching all sorts of boundaries these days, headed away from such conservatism and toward moderation, but not taking radical or huge steps all at once which would lose too many conservative donors. (Dr. Bart Ehrman, the agnostic Biblical scholar and bestselling theological author, graduated from Wheaton with extremely high honors.) Others who left the conservative fold of their youth after majoring in Biblical studies include well known and prolific biblical writers: Crossan, Goulder, Lüdemann, Borg, Cupitt, Bullock, Larson, Cunningham, Salisbury, Dever, Armstrong, and others listed at Steve Locks's "Leaving Christianity" website. Neither their stories, nor the stories of the host of seminaries founded as bastions of conservatism that grew more moderate and liberal, will be found in books sold at Evangelical Protestant or Catholic bookstores, nor highlighted on TV networks owned by those churches. *smile*

Have My Arguments Really Been Refuted?

10 comments
Repeatedly I am told by some Christians in Blogsphere that I’m stupid, that my research is old, and that my arguments have been refuted a long time ago. They respect Dr. Paul Copan, and fail to realize that we both studied under Dr. Craig, that we both graduated from TEDS, and that we both attended Marquette University. We probably never met because he entered TEDS the Fall after I had just graduated. Paul will be giving the James D. Strauss lectureship at LCCS in October, which is a lectureship that as a student at LCCS with Dr. James F. Sennett we helped to set up in the first place! The only reason these Christians berate me and approvingly quote from Copan and Sennett is because they agree with them and they disagree with me. Sennett himself thinks it's an illusion that Christians have a rationally superior faith.

But such an attitude comes from Dr. William Lane Craig himself, so why would I expect anything different from his followers. I remember sitting down and talking with Bill Craig, at an apologetics conference. While we were talking he said to me “Hume has been refuted years ago.” To which I replied, “I didn’t know Hume could be refuted because he merely said that the wise man proportions his belief based upon what is most likely to be the case.” To which Bill admitted, on second thought, that I was right, “You’re right, Hume cannot be refuted.”

You see? Hume cannot be refuted. I repeat. David Hume cannot be refuted. There is no such thing as a refutation of Hume because his is an inductive argument with a more or less plausibility factor to it. And yet, here's Dr. Craig saying that. No wonder Christians will say that some of my arguments stemming from Hume have been refuted. Craig said it to me, and I suspect he still says it to others. I only called him on it. But Craig acts as if this is the case in his debates. I saw this when Dr. Craig recently claimed Dr. Ehrman’s argument was “mathematically fallacious.” This is a ridiculous charge. It is no such thing. This is rhetoric coming from Craig. Mere rhetoric. It catches the stupid off guard into thinking Craig won the debate.

But Craig repeatedly does this. Let me share what Mackie said about miracles, and then share what Craig said in response. The late J.L. Mackie in his book, The Miracle of Theism (Clarendon Press, 1982) argued against the belief in miracles, along with Hume. Let me quote from him: “The defender of a miracle…must in effect concede to Hume that the antecedent improbability of this event is as high as it could be, hence that, apart from the testimony, we have the strongest possible grounds for believing that the alleged event did not occur. This event must, by the miracle advocate’s own admission, be contrary to a genuine, not merely supposed, law of nature, and therefore maximally improbable. It is this maximal improbability that the weight of the testimony would have to overcome.” “Where there is some plausible testimony about the occurrence of what would appear to be a miracle, those who accept this as a miracle have the double burden of showing both that the event took place and that it violated the laws of nature. But it will be very hard to sustain this double burden. For whatever tends to show that it would have been a violation of a natural law tends for that very reason to make it most unlikely that is actually happened.”

Mackie then distinguishes between two different contexts in which an alleged miracle might be considered as a real one. First, there is the context of two parties in which “already both have accepted some general theistic doctrines and the point at issue is, whether a miracle has occurred which would enhance the authority of a specific sect or teacher. In this context supernatural intervention, though prima facie (“on the surface”) unlikely on any particular occasion is, generally speaking, on the cards: it is not altogether outside the range of reasonable expectation for these parties.” The second context is a very different matter when “the context is that of fundamental debate about the truth of theism itself. Here one party to the debate is initially at least agnostic, and does not yet concede that there is a supernatural power at all. From this point of view the intrinsic improbability of a genuine miracle…is very great, and that one or other of the alternative explanations…will always be much more likely—that is, either that the alleged event is not miraculous, or that it did not occur, or that the testimony is faulty in some way.” Mackie concludes by saying: “This entails that it is pretty well impossible that reported miracles should provide a worthwhile argument for theism addressed to those who are initially inclined to atheism or even to agnosticism.” (From chapter one).

Do you know what Craig said about Mackie's argument? Dr. William Lane Craig wrote in the introduction to the Truth Journal that "Mackie's critique of miracles is “particularly shockingly superficial.” Yes, you read that correctly, coming from the same man who claims Hume has been refuted and any such attempt to refute Hume is "mathematically fallacious." The fact is that Mackie’s argument is not superficial at all. It is very persuasive to me.

Craig claimed this about Mackie's argument when he was commenting on Alvin Plantinga’s critique of Mackie’s book, The Miracle of Theism . So I re-read Plantinga's essay, “Is Theism Really a Miracle?,” in Faith and Philosophy, [April 1986]. And as I was doing so, I thought to myself that this was superficial too, from my perspective. I'm serious! It's obvious that Plantinga critiques Mackie from a theistic perspective. He even says so. Plantinga refers repeatedly to the phrase "to me," "my evidence," "my experience," or "our evidence." Take for example this sentence: “as a matter of fact it could be that what is in fact a violation of a law of nature (a miracle) not only wasn’t particularly improbable with respect to our evidence (emphasis mine), but was in fact more probable than not with respect to it.” What kind of evidence is he speaking to that is specifically his? He’s debating Mackie from within a viewpoint Mackie doesn’t accept. That is, he totally ignores Mackie’s distinction between the two contexts in which an alleged miracle might be considered as a real one. Mackie’s debate is inside the second context where it’s a “fundamental debate about the truth of theism itself.”

Plantinga asks the following question: "why should we think it is particularly improbable that a law of nature be interfered with?" "I have no reason to suppose that the world is not regularly interfered with. Why couldn't interferences with nature be the rule rather than the exception?" But to people who disagree with Plantinga, that's not a very bright question at all. How often has anyone ever seen a real miracle? Science has progressed on the assumption that miracles don't occur in the laboratory. Plantinga debates with modern science here. Now to those of us who question the believability of miracles, that just seems superficial to us. It really really is superficial to us.

Why? Because it's all about "seeing." I simply see things differently, and I will argue that I see things better. But I can no more refute Craig and Copan and Sennett, than they can refute me. It's not about refuting. It's not even about scholarship (Oh, I agree with him, so he's a scholar, although Sennett calls me a "scholar"). It's about seeing. I see things differently, that's all. I have also offered reasons why I see things differently when I wrote about the Outsider Test For Faith. Just go here and read the posts about that test. While you're at it read some of the other ones that interest you. I see things differently, that's all, and there is no way anyone can refute what I believe.

Again, it's about "seeing."

I try to help Christians see things from my side of the fence. The more clearly I can help them see this, the more they may consider seeing as I do. They are trying to make me see things from their side of the fence. But I've been there as an apologist, and from their side of the fence it's ugly.

Sometimes Christians are simply motivated by fear of change to allow themselves to see things differently. There are a lot of other fears: fear of dying, fear of hell, fear of God's wrath; fear of being kicked out of the safe Christian community, fear of a loss of income (those in the paid ministry), fear of what it'll do to your family when they learn, fear of rejecting everything you have studied for too long, fear of knowing how to act and behave ethically in a world that has no absolute guidance, fear of being alone in the universe with no guidance from outside, fear of becoming what I am with misguided notions about how we atheists are evil people who cannot be trusted and are perverts (which just isn't true).

Ashamed of Their Ancestry

4 comments
A while back, I was reading the idthefuture site, where I was referred to an article at an apologetics site on materialism. Joe Carter, in the article, "The Mystical Monkey Mind: Four Common Errors of Naturalistic Epistemology," presented a quote from Darwin which I saw pop up again the other day:
With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has always been developed from the mind of lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?
It appears, at first glance, a serious problem: if our minds are "just" monkey brains, why do we trust them? But, as is attributed to Solomon as being said, "The first to present his case seems right, until another comes along to examine him." (Prov 18:17, NIV) Let us examine the argument posed by Joe, Paul Manata, and others.

First, should Darwin's opinion on the matter, without presenting any particular argument for support, hold any weight? Not really. After all, this seems quite self-refuting -- if the man who pieced together the case that we descended from great apes then concluded our minds untrustworthy for that reason, then his "case" is obviously imperiled. In fact, we might make a simple conclusion from this statement: it is self-refuting. Just like making the statement, "I always lie," there is no way to escape the circular destruction of this logic. If your mind's convictions are not trustworthy, how do you even convince yourself of, or trust in, the validity of that conviction?

Also, this argument to reject the soundness of the human mind may be a variant of the genetic fallacy -- based on a categorical rejection of an argument or idea simply based on where it originated, rather than on sound reasoning. What intrinsic feature of monkeys, (apes, actually) or any other higher mammal makes their minds innately untrustworthy? In fact, we can take this a step further, given that Darwin's conclusion about the origins of man are correct, and claim that this actually substantiates the trustworthiness of our minds!

Consider, for a moment, that this argument is rooted in a rejection of the conclusion that men are descendants of apes, but additionally, an inferred premise that men are just that, rather than that and with some sort of God-imbued soul or spirit. The reason we infer this is that those who hold to souls and spirits and such nearly universally consider those intangiable, immaterial aspects of man as somehow giving his mind credibility. Of course, supporting this premise, or opposing it, is not germane at the moment. So, let us cast the question aside of whether or not man has a soul or spirit, and whether those aid in the function and trustworthiness of man's mind, or would detract from it.

What we do know from observing nature is that animals are not "stupid". Animals find clever ways of procuring food and resources. I have seen apes use sticks to poke down into rotten logs and pull out bugs, a simple tool with a necessary function -- eating. The pack behavior displayed by wolves in encircling a weakened or small animal away from the herd requires precise and coordinated movements. Tracking a scent requires a well-developed olfactory function of the brain, as well as a catalogue of "memory scents" which correlate the present smell to one of the categories "food, water, etc." I doubt sincerely that those promoting Darwin's quote above would disagree that animals are quite adept at surviving.

What can we say from that fact alone? Given that animals have an amazing variety of talents at survival, and that the diversity of nature has produced a cooperative evolution (in response to other creatures which evolve), is a kernel of truth present? Yes. We can conclude that animals are capable of learning, and learning requires a degree of understanding that the natural world is, itself, trustworthy. Without the degree of lawlike behavior nature provides, learning some new behavior would be required every second -- no "tools or tricks" would work more than once. But, animals prove to us that nature, though "red in tooth and claw", is not flippant, and the universe is not a giant cartoon with ever-changing properties.

Admittedly, many animals lack the cognitive awareness to recognize the nature of change that they must respond to, and we can call it "just instinct". Great apes are not in this category. The sophistication of the social structure and communication between apes is rather extraordinary. Most people are aware that apes have been taught sign language, even if of limited vocabulary and with toddler-like awkwardness in this form of speech.

Furthermore, when what would become modern man last shared a common ancestor with what is now the chimpanzee, approximately 6 Mya, the one characteristic feature of hominids as they progressed was their tool-making and socialization. Hominids learned not only a few "tricks and tools", they learned many. Their minds were capable of recognizing patterns in nature, and the dependability of natural laws gave them a firm foundation from which their learned and passed-down behaviors and tool-making abilities proved highly successful in the long term. Should they have not had the ability to trust in tried-and-proven methods for procuring food and shelter, we either wouldn't be here to consider it, or at the least, you wouldn't be reading these words on a pixelated screen.

I would argue that there are good reasons to trust ape minds -- they have survived the perils of nature for millions of years, and along the way, learned that they could trust the natural world around them to provide constancy. Those minds that were the brightest, that developed innovative methods for catching fish or making spears, were most likely to exist in a social structure in which this knowledge could be shared and propogate throughout their progeny.

Admittedly, understanding the natural world, as we can conclude that our ancestors (and other animals) did (and still do), is not to be equivocated as all "convictions of the mind." So let's say for a moment that we agree with Darwin that we cannot outright trust our convictions. So what? What we know we can do, because this is how we arrived where we are, is to test our convictions via actions and experiment, keep those things that provide us with a tangiable benefit, and relegate to the bin of skepticism those things that are forever beyond our proving. When the only concern on our hominid ancestors' minds was survival, it is quite unlikely that they had the time to sit around and ask, "what is the nature of consciousness?" or "what is the nature of the cosmos?" Since they were so successful in employing their minds in the pursuit of survival, we can trust our minds in at least that sense -- at providing us with a sound means of furthering our species.

Now that we stand on the shoulders of their accomplishments, the success they proved in surviving has given us a novel ability -- to sit around and use these minds to ask questions which do not, arguably, impinge directly upon our survival. In so doing, we develop certain convictions about the universe, and our place in it. If Darwin's quote can be taken at face value, all it really tells us is that these convictions of the mind are not as dependable as the laws of nature which provided these minds.

Darwin pointed out, and rightly so, that we are but a part of nature. Being a part of some system X, or outside of some black box Y, carries with it limitations in objectively observing X, or being able to get inside of and know Y. Because human beings are part of the natural universe, and are products of that universe, they will always be limited in their perspective on certain features of the universe. That warrants skepticism. It does not, however, warrant throwing out those things we have learned from nature, secrets that we have wrested away from the blind, mute, and uncaring universe. Why should we abandon trust in the regularity and uniformity of nature, when it has brought us this far? Why should we relegate the method of testing and applying knowledge tentatively, until it proves itself (via the scientific method, or in pragmatic real life experience) enough for us to "trust" it, to the trash can? That method is what led to tools, and to skyscrapers. Its success is as apparent as our own existence, and with tangiable results that "trust" alone has never given us.

Why trust a monkey mind? If we want to survive, we must trust our minds. If we do not want to be self-refuting, we must trust our minds. That said, need we trust its convictions as if they are representative of the permanance and inviolate laws of nature? Of course not. Don't trust it absolutely. Test its convictions against the sounding board of Nature. Even when it provides tangiable and practical results, there is no need to consider its convictions immutable. That is the heart of skepticism, and it seems we have from the evolution-deniers not an argument to reject the best conclusions based on the evidence we can make, but instead an argument to reject any position except epistemological skepticism. And that's fine with me.

I would flip the table on our special creationist friends and ask, if instead of the uniformity of nature, and the laws of physics, our minds were the products of some divine fiat or "poof" mechanism, why should we trust that? While we can know our universe to at least a limited extent, and recognize that its symmetry, its uniformity, and its material properties give rise to minds which are at least semi-quantifiable and semi-understandable, we know nothing of "spirit" and "soul". We know nothing of what those substances are, how they contribute to mind, and what properties they would confer to mind.

It seems that our anti-evolutionists are ashamed of their ancestry, that our friends feel probably unlike the other animals, and not nearly so mundane, but elevated in stature above nature. That is a conviction I couldn't trust, whether with a "spirit" or "soul" or just my material mind. I know myself too well to deny the claws on the ends of my fingers, the sparse fur that covers my body, the instinctive dilation of my pupils and adrenaline rush at the sign of danger. I know myself too well to deny that I am still an animal. An animal that trusts its mind and instincts, but not absolutely. I am not ashamed of it, and would ask them why they are...

The Hebrew Universe

10 comments
The above diagram of the Hebrew Universe is from James L. Christian, Philosophy: An Introduction to the Art of Wondering, 6th ed.,(Harcourt, 1994), p. 512. It is not to be used without giving him proper credit. This is the first time it's been placed on the web. Click on it to enlarge it. The ancient Hebrews viewed the universe much like their contemporaries. There is some disagreement with the sketchy details we have in the Bible itself. But they had contact with Babylonia (Abraham came from there); Egypt, the Canaanites (whom they fought with), and other nations around them. It’s not likely they would have described the universe totally different from them, except that God created it all. (See Genesis 1:6; 7:11; Job 37:18; Isaiah 40:22; Psalms 19:4-6; 78:23-24; 104:2-4; II Kings 7:2; Amos. 9:6).
According to the Harper's Bible Dictionary, “The ancient Hebrews imagined the world as flat and round, covered by the great solid dome of the firmament which was held up by mountain pillars, (Job 26:11; 37:18). The blue color of the sky was attributed to the chaotic waters that the firmament separated from the earth (Gen. 1:7). The earth was thus surrounded by waters above and below (Gen. 1:6,7; cf. Psalms 24:2; 148:4, Deut. 5:8). The firmament was thought to be substantial; it had pillars (Job 26:11) and foundations (2 Sam. 22:8). When the windows of it were opened, rain fell (Gen. 7:11-12; 8:2). The sun, moon, and stars moved across or were fixed in the firmament (Gen. 1:14-19; Ps. 19:4,6). It was also the abode of the birds (Gen. 1:20; Deut. 4:17). Within the earth lay Sheol, the realm of the dead (Num. 16:30-33; Isa. 14:9,15).” See also Edward T. Babinski: “Evolving Interpretations Of the Bible’s ‘Cosmological Teachings”, and Conrad Hyers Genesis Knows Nothing of Scientific Creationism: Interpreting and Misinterpreting The Biblical Texts, and Frederick E. Greenspahn Biblical Views of Creation. For an Evangelical scholar who agrees that what the ancients believed about the days of creation and the shape of the cosmos was indeed based on pre-scientific modes of thought, see Genesis by Dr. John H. Walton (NIV Application Commentary, 2002). [See also the Anchor Bible Dictionary entry “Cosmogony, Cosmology”].

Former Pastor WCG

3 comments
To begin with, this letter is for me and perhaps part of my own life experience and healing after a 26 year run as a Pastor in the Worldwide Church of God. I came to the Church philosophically at the age of 16, having grown up Presbyterian in a very stable and loving family. The teachings of the WCG appealed to me and made more sense if one was to read and take the Bible as a fundamentally true document in all the areas that it claimed to express its truth.

The world of the 60’s was chaotic. Presidents were assassinated, politicians were gunned down and civil rights protesters and leaders were being beaten, hung, drawn and shot. The Middle East was on fire as were many American cities. The Bible seemed to say that the end of something was near. I was also young and naïve, but with wonderful intentions.

I went to Ambassador College against the wishes of my parents, who simply allowed me to make my own decisions. What a wonderful concept, allowing your kids to make their own religious decisions, even though I recently told my dad, now near 90 and a former elder in WCG, that I wish he had slapped me silly for even thinking of going. Of course, at that time, that would have only proved to me that it was the right thing to do since I was being opposed and at the time, I just knew I had to be there. I had to study and wanted to see the world through the eyes of the Church. It just seemed right to me and any ego loves believing that God himself was doing the calling. I was not drawn by the Armstrong personalities at first. There were many times at college where they annoyed me and I knew that what was spoken so brilliantly and with charisma, was in fact, not actually true, or simply speculation about the times in which were living. The information is what caught my attention. I was a very serious thinker at a very young age. There are reasons for that that I now understand completely, but I spare you.

And so I went to Ambassador. I wanted to be a pastor and even though I heard that God had to call you and, of course, the administration had to choose you, I studied as if it was all up to me. I had a 3.96 grade average. I enjoyed studying the Bible. I simply wanted to know “the truth”. I got corrected for hair too long and not enough attendance at basketball games. I didn’t care about basketball, but to make me show up, they made me be a flag something-or-other in a white coat and I felt like an idiot. I should have said no, but complied. I complied a lot over the next 26 years over more serious topics, though teaching and encouraging the congregation was more important to me than enforcing silly or reckless rules about various topics.

After graduation I went into “the field”. Five states, 14 congregations and 26 years later, in a five minute phone call at 9:30 in the evening, I was terminated. Strangely enough, it was the anniversary of my baptism at 19 years old.

Now is the moment I have to be honest about me if I am to continue. I currently am a skeptic as to the origins and history of the Christian Church. That is my business and the result of my own study and perspectives. The WCG experience caused me to really look deeply into origins and I personally found I was not told near the truth about the matter. They didn’t know near as much as they pretended to know. I was coming to some of these conclusions during the last few years as a pastor. I can hear some of this skepticism in some of my last Festival sermons. I felt that if a whole church administration can publicly flip an entire organization’s belief system and expect compliance, I can certainly entertain the doubts and contradictions I have seen in the Bible quietly by myself. I could have easily walked off with most of the local congregation if I wanted to have years of local politics and doing what Christian Churches do best… argue, judge and fight, but I was done. I will never lose my interest in theology. I still want to know the truth even if it is not the one I set out to understand. I simply will not join another church again. From my perspective the Old and the New WCG was and is ill informed as is all literalist, evangelical and fundamentalist Christianity. That may not be true for you, but it is true for me. My favorite observation is that most Christians are piously convicted but marginally informed. That is true to me.

Most pastoring years were personally rewarding. I did not have to work in large cities playing games with other pastors who had empires to rule and egos to feed. I simply did my job, love those I met, laughed with them, cried with them, married and buried spouses, children and relatives, along with growing churches. I drove approximately one million miles (really) visiting, being a friend and believing I was doing the right thing. There were lots of guys and families like mine. It’s the narcissists that got all the bad press and still do. Towards the end, when every visit turned into a slug fest over what the Tkach’s were doing in the Church, any capacity was a burden and not a joy. It was a miserable experience. Your friend one day became your lost friend the next. On top of that, I was in the American Southeast where being judgmental and critical of others not like you has been raised to an art form. Around here, every third male thinks that if he can read and tell a few stories, he is a Pastor. It’s one of the few professions where one with no education or meaningful credentials can claim ultimate authority from God, and be someone.

By analogy, I came to a hockey game and at half time, someone came out, melted the ice, put up hoops and demanded I not only play, but coach Basketball, which if you remember…I don’t like. Suffering a personal depression and a lot of regret over having given my youth and energy to the ever-changing truth, I made some mistakes that would be considered unacceptable as a pastor. Outside of the ministry and its neurotic demand to “become perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect,” it would just be what it was and a common, oft told tale and theme of what I would help many a member with and through. But as a pastor, I could be criticized and I accept that. No one can live the life, feel the feelings or have the thoughts of another. Not in a real world.

At any rate, I stayed to encourage the local congregation. It did not work. The assault on what we must now think and do was relentless and those who did not participate simply had to go. If you were a minister, you simply lost everything and had to reinvent your life after being “uncalled” if being “recalled” and retrofitted did not make you a good little evangelical, hand waving, “cross” eyed, freak. YOU, not I managed to reduce my local congregation from just under 400 very sincere and faithful people to around 25 now meeting in some hokey storefront giving out Halloween candy with scriptures on the wrappers! Oh barf (it was a printable story on spreading the Gospel in the WN) …winning converts with Scriptural Halloween candy!! It is simply pathetic to see a congregation and a MINISTER reduced to that nonsense. YOU, not I managed to reduce all my previous congregations by 90%+ Nice work.

Anyway…It simply came down to that five minute call one evening out of the blue informing me that I was done in the ministry and that I could call personnel for the details of the severance package. It was six months pay to get a new life and signing off on any future retirement, unless WCG, which means Bernie Schnippert, deems you loyal enough to support. Of course, I was not so that’s quite a savings right there…. Perhaps one can imagine the position that puts one in when in my youth, the church had all ministers sign off on Social Security with the promise that “we will take care of you”. Well actually you have taken care of me... but good. My dad worked for Eastman Kodak, has been retired for years and you know, he once bought Fuji film, and Kodak still gives him retirement. Retirement is not based on loyalty. It is based on years of service.

You can’t ask people to be loyal to something that was pushed upon them and with which they had little agreement. Most of the people in WCG came FROM where you wanted to go. You can’t ask people to change their minds, hopes and faith just because YOU think they should agree with you. Life, much less the human mind does not work that way. Frankly, those of you who “administer” the church, should have left long ago and asked Benny Hinn, TBN , and the Harvest Crock Church to take you in as spiritual refugees. I realize you could not continue to grant yourselves lifetime income and security by doing this, but it is what YOU should have done and left the Church, whose perspective you scorned, alone. If it was wrong for YOU, then leave it, don’t destroy it and drive most to despair, skepticism and in some few cases literal suicide. Instead, you made everyone else leave. Now that’s power…stupid, self-serving and egocentric power. Benny Hinn has a rule that he does not want people looking him in the eyes. He makes it a rule wherever he goes. He does it as part of his holy farce, fake and failed prophecies ministry because he believes he is more special than others. Perhaps a similar rule would save you all from seeing the pain, hurt and spiritual confusion in the eyes of countless good people, including former ministers who gave just as much and more in some areas a congregant could not appreciate.

You need to remember that the monies you realized in the sale of the campus which you will now “invest” into an almost non existent “worldwide church” and give yourselves and as few others as possible a lifetime income, is labor from the 1950’s, 60’s 70’s 80’s and 90’s. I’d say you should calculate how much real giving YOU inspired. Real giving, from the heart during your Sheepling of the Sheep and not the efforts of others, whether you agreed with them or not. And you can’t count the guilt or habitual giving types. You can only count the purely evangelical fundamentalist “New and Improved Church of God” giving. That’s your money to work with. That’s the fruit of your labor in “Him” as some say. I’d also like to ask that when you go to eat out, or take a cruise in the fall to not keep an archaic, and Jesus embarrassing non-festival. Or when you pay a mortgage or get a new car or have your health needs taken care of, and do whatever your good Christian Evangelical heart wants, you might remember what others might be struggling with just to keep up. I know my own father was able to survive because Kodak had a plan,

I am not so sure about myself at this moment in my life. By others, I include former members also, but mean former pastors with whom I also have had great experience. Please remember when you are tempted to judge or put people in categories of worthy or not worthy, that you’re coming to “know” Jesus and reinventing the wheel of truth, and discovering the “old old story”, which is older than you can possibly imagine, has cost others a lot. It cost some who were unable to distinguish between the emotional death of their hope and faith and literal death, their lives. That is not a judgment. That is just the way it has been for some.

Being a hard wired sensitive human being (ENFP-let him who reads understand); I understand that feeling and shock. The depression I have wrestled with is really internalized anger, and the sarcasm I am capable of is simply that anger turned sideways. Neither you nor the previous administration were particularly easy people to reason with or explain things to. You are always right it seems, and to date, a rather emotionally cold and calculated group outside your circle and towards those that have reacted to your administration. I have always said when the common folk simply have had enough and say “NO” to childish posturing and the phony authority ministerial administrative types put on, all of a sudden, God inspires a new and better understanding. But in fact, it is simply realizing one can’t dismiss the common sense perspectives of educated people and survive.

We get depressed because people don’t listen and we lose our bearings with little or no genuine support. You all need to understand that. Personally, I am still amazed that since that one fateful personal call that my career was over, no one ever contacted me again…ever. This is what I mean by cold. I encouraged the local church in my last sermon to continue to support you. I have since regretted the content and misplaced loyalty of my last sermon. I believe that was back when I had just been assured that "we will not be changing" this or that, and it all changed that month.

The emotions that people direct towards the collective “you” for reckless change and indifference to the spiritual and physical sacrifices made by thousands and which now result in your having more money than you need to “do the work”, is quite normal. I suspect, as do others, you knew what your losses would be, but did not care, and still don’t. Maybe even you don’t know why you do and did what you did. Perhaps that would take a professional to sort out.

I don’t know the games you played with your Evangelical supporters behind the scenes but I do know that “the Bible Answer Man” and others you have embraced also show a pattern of financial gain through religious manipulation and theological ignorance. Hank Hanegraaf’s perspective on evolution and literal human origins is simply ignorant. He is not qualified to write on such topics as if he knew. His mistake as well as that of the Fundamentalist and Evangelical mind-set is to take the text as literally and historically true from the start without question, but that is another whole topic. I can’t tell you how many Evangelical type ministers I have met in my other life now that have said, “I know you are right, but I can’t teach that, I’d lose my job.” Grab a copy of Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, by John Spong and then try to say the Bible is all harmonious and literally true. It’s a very simple read and with your backgrounds, you should be very capable of grasping it’s message. The same is to be said of many of the theological articles you now write. Pious conviction with marginal information.

Finally, and I know I will always be able to think of more to say, I wanted to comment on your “Ministry of Reconciliation.” While I am all for Black/White reconciliation, it is majoring in the minors at this point. I know how difficult it is to communicate with those you have offended. Or maybe I am only seeing this topic through my own eyes and for you it is not difficult at all. I don’t know. I do know that reconciling with races is not your main problem. It is the inability to reconcile with people that has been your undoing.

It may take a few more years, but this lack will leave WCG dead and buried in just about any form. Only a small group of people will have a lot of money. I imagine you can afford to dabble in just about any Evangelical fantasy you choose. You can associate with whoever is the most emotionally satisfying regardless of how anyone left in WCG feels about it and whether it represents their hopes and dreams. I also feel that the new owners of the property are another religious scandal waiting to happen. Men with that much emotion, power, influence and ridiculous religious showmanship wear many masks and cannot maintain all of them all the time. Truly spiritual people don’t need others to define them, but Sheeple remember, need Shepherds. I will say that if I hear or see any of you standing with Benny Hinn in the Rededication of the Ambassador Auditorium, to a new and improved God from the last time it was dedicated, I will vomit. It will however prove that the unchangeable God changes often depending on who gets to write the script. It would be a great symbol of everything that is wrong with all those various denominations that know the one true mind of God. God is so often in the image of the men who speak for Him. At any rate, put some thought into who you really might need to reconcile with and see what you come up with. I won’t hold my breath.

I thank any and all for listening to me open up and express these things. I realize I can be sarcastic. I realize that I still have anger I don’t wish to have and regrets about not speaking up in times past I can only remedy by speaking up now. I also realize I have nothing to loose, which even Janis Joplin defined as true freedom.

I wanted to be a pastor from a very young age. The reasons were probably rather hokey, but they were sincere. The WCG seemed right at the time. I had to be there. I accept responsibility for being there and also for being here now. I simply ask you to reconsider your perspectives and responsibilities. You might be able to dismiss it because “ we weren’t responsible for the past.” I will simply say. I am not talking about the past. That is over and done with. If you can’t take some responsibility for the past, then you can’t control the money you have now gotten from the sale of the past. It’s that simple. I don’t expect you take responsibility for the past adminstration's way of being and doing. But your way of being and doing in the recent past is more than enough for you to take responsibility for and do whatever you really think your new Jesus would do.

Warm regards and thanks for listening,
Dennis C. Diehl

If anyone would like to contact me just to chat, please feel free. You would be one of the few :-) I welcome kind, open and sane correspondence. I’m really a very nice guy. You can reach me at SCMassageTherapy@aol.com. Also see "Worldwide Church of God...Since You Didn't Listen"

Calvinism Explains Everything...and Nothing.

12 comments
I liked what Matthew said so much that I want to use it as a basis for making an argument against Calvinism, if I can.

Here Matthew wrote: "But is it always rational to accept a simpler theory? It is true that simpler theories always have greater explanatory scope. But there is a point where a theory can have too much explanatory power in which it explains everything, and actually doesn't really explain anything because there is no observation or fact which it cannot explain. Such a theory, having too much explanatory power ceases to be a simple theory and becomes simplistic."

Too much explanatory power? No observation or fact which it cannot explain? What does this mean when applied to Calvinism? Let’s explore this.

Take for instance their whole notion of a completely sovereign God. God does everything…everything. There is no room for human causation…none. It’s all been planned in advance, and God executes everything according to his eternal plan, which he has always had. Nothing can happen outside of God’s plan…nothing. He’s in complete control of everything that happens. If it happens in our world or in heaven, then God planned it, and he did it…everything.

Calvinists will argue that human beings desire to do the things that they do, and so God is not to be blamed when they do evil deeds, even if God decreed that they should do them. However, when pushed on this Calvinists will also recognize that God decrees that human beings also DESIRE to do everything that they do.

The Calvinist will also have to admit that whether or not a human being thinks Calvinism is true is also decreed by their sovereign God. So, for everything we as human beings do, and everything that we believe, God makes us do things and think things the way we do. This is the bottom line for Calvinists, regardless of the logical gerrymandering they do when using linguistics to defend this theology, which of course, once again, God decreed that they should do in order to defend their theology.

Okay so far? That’s why Calvin describes it as a “horrible decree.”

Now what reason does God have for punishing human beings on earth in hurricanes, and fires, and diseases like the Spanish Influenza which killed millions of people, and then later sending us to hell when we die? Well, the offered reason is because we have sinned. Since we sin, God has a right to do with us as he pleases and there can be no critique of God’s dealings with us. We deserve everything that happens to us. But the only thing we can be guilty of is that we desired to sin, and the reason why we desired to sin in the first place is because God sovereignly decreed from all of eternity that we should desire to do every sin throughout our entire lives.

And what reason does God have for sending innocent babies to hell if they die? The offered reason is because of Adam and Eve’s sin in the Garden. But here again, why did Adam and Eve sin in the first place? They sinned because God decreed from all of eternity that they should sin. He produced in them the desire to sin, and made Eve grab the fruit, eat it, and made her desire to give it to Adam, who also was made to eat it. Their only crime was in being created. To blame them because of God-implanted desires cannot be their fault anymore than a puppet on strings can be blamed for any of its actions. But because they sinned in the Garden, God is now free to do with human beings as he pleases, and he is not to be blamed for anything he does to us if we suffer.

This Calvinistic God also has two wills, one revealed in the Bible and a secretive one…the real one…that decrees the things we actually do. But both wills cannot be true at the same time. If the Bible says, “thou shalt not kill,” and then God secretively decrees both the desire to kill and he actually takes a man’s hand and causes the arm to swing an ax to split another man’s head open, there is a contradiction in what God actually wants us to do. Does God want this man to kill or not? The contradiction is resolved for the Calvinist because she will say that God’s secretive will is his true will. But this means that, on Calvinistic grounds, the Bible is full of lies and cannot be trusted when it tells us what God wants us to do. Calvinists will respond that the Bible is used as a means to get people to do his secretive will one way or another, good deeds or evil deeds. If, for instance, God says “Thou shalt not kill,” it might actually lead someone to kill out of rebellion, which is what God secretively decreed all along. And in this way, God needs the Bible to accomplish his secretive will.

The Calvinist will fall back on the idea that God is an artist and he’s creating a massive mural painting on a wall. In any painting there will be bright colors and dark ones. There will be highlights and shadows. There will be points of focus, and points that accentuate the points of focus. God’s painting is beautiful, we’re told, and he needs all the colors to create it. So some humans will be points of focus while others will be in the recesses, dark and foreboding. We who want to judge the painting simply don’t understand what God is doing. We have no right to complain if we are used to accentuate the beautiful colors in the mural and are condemned to hell, because after all, we all deserve hell. The end result will be a beautiful painting that brings him glory. Every color is needed, and likewise, every evil deed and every condemned soul is needed, to make this a beautiful painting and to bring him ultimate glory.

If we say that such a God does not care for us and is only interested in himself, the Calvinist will respond that he has a moral right to be concerned with his own glory over anyone else's, since he alone deserves all the glory. We deserve none of it. The Calvinist will claim that we deserve nothing…nothing. And why is that? Because we are “worms,” miserable sinners deserving of nothing. Any mercy God may want to offer us by decreeing such things that bring us happiness, including salvation, are undeserved. They will claim we all deserve to be in hell, so anything good we receive is because of God’s love and mercy extended toward us. And why do we deserve to be in hell? The bottom line is because it brings God the most glory. If God can cause us to desire to do evil deeds, then he can also cause us to desire to do only good deeds. But doing so would not bring him as much glory, and as his creatures we have no right to complain. This end result is what will bring God the most glory in the painting he’s creating on the wall. We should probably even be happy to be in hell, for if we do, we’ll bring God the glory that he deserves for both decreeing that we desired to reject the gospel, and also decreeing that we did. “Praise God for what he has done!”—sorry.

Now, how did Calvin (and Augustine before him) come to the conclusion of what’s known as Calvinism? They argued for it from the Bible and outside sources, including Plato. They reasoned that this describes their God. Man is totally depraved, God’s election is unconditional, Jesus only died for the elect, God’s grace is irresistible, and once saved no man can reject his salvation. All of these doctrines are disputable on exegetical grounds, and I’ll let non-Calvinists do that. But they are based upon the exegesis of a historically conditioned document purportedly being from God, even though a proper understanding of history (and the documents that report that history) is itself fraught with so many problems that most historians now claim we cannot know exactly what happened in the past nor even what people believed in the past. But the bottom line is that these theological conclusions based upon Calvinistic grounds, were the conclusions that God had decreed both Augustine and Calvin should arrive at from all of eternity.

If so, how is it possible to trust any of these Calvinistic conclusions if we don’t have access to God’s secretive will? As far as the Calvinist knows, God’s secretive will may be that they should be deceived about Calvinism. Based on their own theology they have no reason to trust God…none. God may be leading them astray, based upon his secretive will, only to cast them in hell for his own glory. For all they know God may turn around and reward those of us who are atheists, simply because he secretively decreed us into unbelief. For the Calvinist to proclaim that she can trust God just because he says he “doesn’t lie” doesn’t solve anything, for the Bible is merely his revealed will, which leads people into believing or not believing what God’s secretive will has decreed from all of eternity for them.

All that the Calvinist can say is that “this is what God has led me to believe, and that’s why I believe it.” There is absolutely no guarantee that what they believe is true, based upon their own theology. And I can say the exact same thing as an atheist from their perspective: “this is what your God has led me to believe, and that’s why I believe it.”

So here’s where Calvinism has too much explanatory power. It explains everything…and nothing. It has an answer for everything…and nothing.

Take for instance the whole problem of human suffering. The amount of human suffering is intense around the globe. There is an unbearable amount of it for many people. Indonesia suffered through a tsunami that killed a quarter of a million people due to an underwater earthquake that God could've averted before it happened (and none of us would've known God averted it, either). A year later the survivors have suffered through a horrible earthquake which killed even more of them that God could've secretly averted too.

The Calvinist answer is that none of us deserve anything from God. We deserve hell, so what’s a little tsunami and/or earthquake on top of it? So there’s the answer. It’s simple. It explains everything. And there are no silly questions left over. The Calvinist answer is that everything God does is good, even if we cannot understand it. So every instance of human suffering that any human being has ever experienced is good. Everything that happens brings God glory. We are not to complain. He's creating a beautiful painting. God knows what he’s doing. We should trust him.

But think of that last statement! “We should trust him.” Why does a Calvinist think anyone...anyone...should trust their God? Why? What reasons are there for trusting such a God? There are none…none!…not on Calvinistic grounds, for reasons I just specified. Who knows what God’s secretive will really is? They don’t. On their own grounds they can’t trust him to even be truthful with them.

Since this is the case, I can look at the amount of suffering in this world and reasonably conclude there is no good God. If he exists, he’s a monster. That’s the reasonable conclusion to arrive at when looking at the observable facts. Why shouldn't I trust my own conclusions when I am not even given one reason why I should trust or believe in Calvin’s God? I already know I cannot trust such a Calvinistic God on it’s own grounds, so when I see the amount of suffering in this world that I do, I am better off trusting what I conclude, than in believing what Calvinists do. They have no basis for trusting their own God! They have no basis for calling their God good! They have no basis for believing he never lies! They have no basis for believing that our sins are such terrible deeds that deserve hell! They don't even have a basis for believing God is good, since we have no reason for trusting God when he says that he is good, especially when all the observable evidence of suffering in this world overwhelmingly denies this! But the Calvinist has an answer for this too. God is decreeing that I reject him for his glory. That's a simple answer. It solves everything.....and nothing. But it absolutely fails to take into account the observable suffering that human beings have observed since the dawn of time.

That’s why Calvinism explains everything…and nothing. It has moved from being a simple theory to a simplistic theory. It explains nothing…nothing. There is no reason why I should become a Calvinist. None. There is no reason why I should trust that God. None. Since I cannot trust such a being, and since I can see no reasonable solution to the problem of observable suffering coming from such a God, I reject him. The observable facts of human suffering around the world, which could take up an entire encyclopedia, say otherwise.

Sam Harris on the Myth of Secular Moral Chaos.

1 comments
Sam Harris chimes in on The Myth of Secular Moral Chaos.

Are Atheists "Fools?"

6 comments
In answer to the charge that atheists are the least trusted group in America by one study, you will like this video. I know the Christian response is that Psalms 14:1 is speaking of the unbeliever's morality, and not his or her intellectual or educational qualities. Still this video is impressive, and it does address that issue.

Hear Me on Hellbound Allee's Vox Populi Show

16 comments
This takes you right to Episode 15. My voice is the second one to answer questions 1 and 3. It was my first time recording so I'm learning. John W. Loftus.

God Doesn't Work

29 comments
If a baby dies he goes to Heaven.
But if he grows up his chances are reduced considerably.
Since Hell is such a very long time, why take any chances?
He might just grow up and learn to think.
[From a new Blog by Mark Cote].
Along the same lines, see this.