Answering Objections to Visions: Part Three

Answering Objections-Part Three

In my previous essays, I did my best to answer the objections raised to the hypothesis of visions that I advocate for Christian origins. My previous essays, however, do not exhausively answer all the objections that are usually raised and so more essays are needed. In this essay, I will address an objection raised by William Lane Craig, in his book Assessing the New Testament Evidence for Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus.

This objection is that the New Testament differentiates between visions on one hand and appearances on the other hand. Any hypothesis or theory of visions (which I argue for) or hallucinations (which I do not argue for), or what-have-you, doesn't explicate this difference and so any visionary hypothesis cannot in principle account for appearances because they do not fit the nature of a vision. In fact, Bill Craig, goes as far as to say that he believes that this is a fatal flaw to the vision hypothesis, like the one that I advocate. More than this, he explicitly challenges skeptics to explain the difference. While I willingly accept such a challenge, I hope that such a challenge is not stated with the intention of forcing a conversion among skeptics. I regret that Bill Craig is wasting his breath if he thinks a skeptic like me would gladly and cheerfully convert if I could not meet such a challenge. I have already spoken elsewhere what the personal consequences for me would be if I came to conclude the Christian gospel was valid: I would take my own life; I would see no reason to delay the inevitability of Hell. Never-the-less I enjoy a challenge and the more confrontational it is, the more I love to rise to the challenge, especially if answering it means putting confrontational Christian apologists in their places and just shutting them up! Craig puts forth this distinction in his book Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus, as follows:

"On the difference between visions and appearances of Christ, see the discussion by Grass, Ostergeschehen, pp. 189-207. Although Grass discounts most of the visions recorded in Acts as legendary, he nevertheless concludes, primarily on the basis of Paul's testimony, that the Easter appearances took place within a community that enjoyed visions, revelations, and estatic experiences (I Cor. 12-14; II Cor. 12: 1-5; Gal. 2:1; Acts 16:9). The community recognized, however, that the appearances of Christ were restricted to a small circle designated as witnesses and that even to them Jesus did not continually re-appear, but appeared only at the beginning of their new life.

"One cannot follow Grass, however, when he attempts to draw the essential distrinction between an appearance of Christ and a vision as being solely in content, viz.., in an appearance Christ was seen as exalted (Ibid., pp. 229-32) This is undoubtedly true, but surely a vision could be of the exalted Christ, too; indeed how could a Christian believer have a vision of the unexalted Christ? Both the vision of Stephen and the book of Revelation show that the visions of the exalted Lord which were not appearances were possible for the early Church. It is of no matter whether Stephen's vision be an unhistorical embellishment as Grass thinks; the point is that the church of Luke's day was prepared to accept that Stephen saw a vision of Christ. Grass' argument that Revelation is not a vision but a picture story because of the many portraits of Christ seems to presuppose that visions must be monotone. At any rate, the point is Revelation presents itself as a vision, thus showing again that the church did not object out of hand visions of the exalted Christ.

"Nor can it be said that the distinguishing element in an appearance as opposed to a vision was the comissioning, for appearances were known which lacked this element (the 500 brethren). What then distinguished an appearance from a vision? It seems to me that the most natural answer to this question is that an appearance involved extra-mental phenomena, something's actually appearing, whereas a visions, even if caused by God, was purely in the mind. Certainly this seems to be the way in which the New Testament concieves of the distinction. Visions, even veridical visions sent by God, are exclusively mental phenomena, whereas Jesus's appearances always involve an extra-mental appearing in the real, external world. The resistance to this conclusion among contemporary critics seem largely due to a philosophico-theological rejection of the physicalism of the gospels. On this basis, Grass superimposes the form of heavenly visions onto the resurrection appearances, and contemporary scholarship has followed him in this. (See Alsup, Stories, pp. 32, 54.) But if this is done, then-apart from it's being exegetically unjustified- it seems to me impossible to differentiate a vision and appearance, which the early church clearly did. It might be said that a vision, in modern parlance, a subjective vision, that is, a self-induced visionary seeing, but that an appearance is an objective vision, that is, a visionary seeing induced by God.

"This distinction, however, will not help to solve the problem, for so-called objective visions were experienced in the church and these were not ranked as appearances. For example, Peter's vision in Acts 10: 9-17 was certainly "objective" , for it was caused by God (10: 28), but it was not in the same class of phenomena as the appearances of Jesus. More the point, Stephen's vision of Jesus was probably "objective"- Luke does not want us to take it as a self-induced hallucination-, but this was not an appearance of Jesus. But what is the difference between what Stephen saw and what Paul experienced, such that the latter could be called an appearance of Jesus ( Acts 9: 17; contrast the vision to Ananias himself in 9:10 which was not an appearance)? What is the difference between Paul's opportunity on the Damascus road "to see the Just One to hear a voice from his mouth" (22: 14) and his subsequent appearance in the temple when he fell into a trance and saw Jesus speaking to him (22:17)? It is of no help to speak of subjective vs. objective visions, for the mind of the Jewish/Christian believer, all genuine visions were "objective"-anything else would be just an illusion. It seems to me, therefore, despite the modern antipathy to "physicalism," that the difference between a visions and an appearance of Jesus was that only in the latter did he actually appear in the external world. The support for this view is two-fold: 1.) exegetically this is consistently the difference between the two; 2.) if one rejects this view, then the distinction between an appearance and a vision which was made in the early church threatens to dissolve." ( William Lane Craig, Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus footnote pgs. 68-69)"

First of all, I am not all that convinced that such a distinction really exists or that it is as strong as some Christians make it out to be. Furthermore, if I was to accept that such a distinction did exist, I would have to conclude that such a distinction is no accident nor did it arise because of divine revelation. I would conclude that such a distinction evolved in the Christian community for apologetical purposes. The scope of this essay, therefore, is to illustrate why I am not convinced that the distinction is that strong and subsequently to show precisely how such a distinction originated as a matter of apologetics in early Christianity. I believe that if such a distinction exists, then its origins as an apologetic is precisely what critics like myself would come to expect on the basis that the visionary hypothesis of Christian origins is valid. In other words, I believe that the visionary hypothesis that I am advocating actually can be made to predict that such a distinction may evolve in the early Christian communities as an apologetic, especially against heretics and critics. So let me first deal with the two answers I have proposed, that 1.) such a distinction might not exist or be as strong as Christians claim it to be and 2.) that granting such a distinction exists, it originated as apologetics against heretics and critics.

First of all, I want to make a qualifying remark about this essay. I want to state my main counter-theses in order to answer Craig's thesis and then defend my theses with arguments against his objections to them. This essay is not meant to be an extensive defense of my arguments nor an extenisve survey of historical and textual evidence for my counter-theses. I simply wish to state Craig's thesis and my arguments in terms of a counter-thesis, thereby answering Craig's objections to my counter-theses. An extensive review of historical and textual evidence will be forthcoming in a later essay or essay series and will commence as soon as I feel I have completed my analysis of arguments for and against my theses in greater detail which will take some time.

Why is it that I think that such a distinction might not really exist or be as strong as some apologists make it out to be? It seems to me that if such a distinction exists, it seems to originate with the canonical gospels themselves. Going earlier into the New Testament corpus, especially the written works of apostles such as St. Paul, such a distinction doesn't seem to exist. In 1st Corinthians 15: 3-7, it has been argued that Paul is passing on a creed to the Corinthians, one that he recieved. The creed has a list of appearances of the risen Jesus to various people. Jesus died according to the Scriptures, was buried, rose from the dead according to the Scriptures, appeared to Peter, then to the Twelve, to more than 500 people, to James, to the disciples, and finally to Paul who came into the fold rather late. The Greek word for "appear" in this creed is ophthe. Is this significant? I believe that is is. In another letter, generally regarded as authentically Pauline by many New Testament critical scholars, is the letter to the Galatian Christian Church. In it, Paul recounts how he was converted by God. Paul uses a word for God revealing Christ to Paul, and the Greek word is not ophthe but a word meaning "revelation" Is this significant? I believe that it is. From what I understand, this Greek word in Galatians is used normally to denote visions. It is the same word used in the canonical New Testament book of "Revelation". The significance of these Greek words can now be understood. I take it that Paul had a visionary experience on the road to Damascus as the word suggests in Galatians. If one accepts both 1st Corinthians 15 and the creed as authentically Pauline, and furthermore, as perfectly compatible and harmonizable with what is written in Galatians, then one has to conclude that the Greek word meaning "revelation" in Galatians is describing the same exact experience as the Greek word ophthe in 1st Corinthians 15.

Futhermore, Paul uses the same Greek word ophthe to describe the appearance of Jesus to others in the 1st Corinthians 15 creed. To me, this means one of two things: that since both Greek words ophthe and the one meaning "revelation" are both used to describe Paul's Damascus experience, that it was necessarily a vision. I take this to mean that Paul had a visionary experience on the road to Damascus and that the Greek word for ophthe in this context necessarily means a visionary experience. I also conclude that it's prima facie likely that since the same Greek word ophthe is used to describe the appearance of the risen Jesus to others, then others had visionary experiences involving altered-states-of-conciousness as well. Thus I conclude that such a distinction is either weak or nonexistent. True, I am willing to grant that the Greek word ophthe can be more than a visionary experience of some sort, but I believe that additional textual indicators must exist to modify it in such a way to make it mean that more than a mere visionary experience happened. There would have to be textual indicators/modifiers to show something physically and tangeably happened that could not be otherwise if it was an actual phyiscal and tangeable encounter with the risen Jesus who ate fish and drank in front of the disciples, something no visionary experience, whether to a singular person or collectively to a group of people at a time, could cause. I don't believe that any such textual indicators or modifiers exist in the 1st Corinthians 15 creed or in the letter to the Galatians. I, therefore conclude that it's prima facie likely that all of the postmortem appearances of Jesus were, in fact, originally visionary experiences involving altered-states-of-conciousness and nothing more.

Let me grant for the sake of discussion that there really was a distinction in the early Christian Churches between visions and appearances. Does such a distinction destroy the visionary hypothesis that I advocate? Not at all. In fact, I believe that my visionary hypothesis can be made to predict that such an distinction would arise as an apologetic against heresy and criticism, especially those of Gnostics and other heretics who share a heresy in early Christian times, the heresy known as "Docetism". This was a heresy that Jesus didn't have an actual body of flesh and blood, only that he appeared to have one. For this essay, I had originally planned to use Charles Talbert's work Luke and the Gnostics but I have since learned from very recent e-mail correspondence with Dr. Talbert, that he considers this work (an expansion of his doctoral dissertation) to be "woefully outdated" and has recommended to me a very recently updated book of his Reading Luke which was published by him in 2002 and contains his updated views on the subject. I have yet to purchase this book and fully read it and so I cannot at this time incorporate his recent work into my essay. However, I do believe that however outdated Talbert's original work on the subject was, Craig's critique of Talbert's argument, that Luke's narrative served as an anti-Docetic apologetic, fails. Let me quote Craig at length and provide my own critique of his rebuttal at various points.

"Actually, there are postive reasons to think that the physicalism of the gospels is not an anti-Docetic apologetic: (1) As we have seen, for a Jew the very terms 'resurrection' entailed a physical resurrection of the dead man in the tomb. The notion of a 'spiritual resurrection' was not merely unknown; it was a contradiction in terms. Therefore, in saying that Jesus was raised and appeared, the early believers must have understood this in physical terms."

How was a "spiritual resurrection" a contradiction in terms? While I don't necessarily adhere to the theory that the earliest Christians believed that Jesus had a spiritually resurrected body, I don't see anything as particular refuting it. The best case for the spiritual resurrection, in my judgement, has been provided by historian Richard Carrier in his essay "The Spiritual Body of Christ and the Legend of the Empty Tomb". I think that Carrier has a very interesting case but I lack the scholarly knowledge to know for absolutely sure (such as a good knowlege of Greek). I am aware of some criticisms of Carrier's arguments and I believe that any produced by such folks like Michael Licona deserve serious consideration ( I find it hard to take seriously the apologetics of Robert Turkel; am I to suppose that Turkel, who thought that the Greek word for "rise", anestemi, was used "twice for emphasis" in the gospels knows more about Greek than Richard Carrier? Am I to believe that Turkel is a better intellect than Carrier? Yeah, right! If I am to accept that, why not little green men on Mars?)

I really don't buy into most of the critiques I have seen of the "spiritual resurrection". I believe that it's a mistake made by both advocates and critics of this theory of Christian origins, to see it as a matter of "physical vs. spiritual". I believe that New Testament scholars like Robert Gundry have amply shown that the Greek word for body, soma was always and necessarily a physical substance (see his work Soma in Biblical Theology). I believe that it's better to view the argument over the "spiritual resurrection" in terms of "flesh vs. a lack of flesh". If the earliest Christians really did believe that Jesus was spiritually resurrected, I don't believe the earliest Christians would've seen Jesus' body as being nonphysical. This, I consider to be an erroneous view. Rather, I believe that if the earliest Christians would've seen Jesus as being spiritually resurrected, I believe that they would've seen the body as a physical body, just one lacking flesh (because it was made of the same heavenly substance as the sun, moon, and stars were; these were also soma lacking in flesh!). If the concept of a "spiritual resurrection" really is the best way to see Paul's discussion of the resurrection in 1st Corinthians 15: 37-50, the distinction between "natural bodies" on one hand and "spiritual bodies" on the other hand, would best be understood as a distinction between bodies (soma) containing flesh (the natural, earthly bodies) and bodies (soma) lacking flesh. All are physical but not all contain flesh. I have to repeat again; I don't necessarily advocate the theory of Christian origins that Carrier proposes. I think it's an interesting theory and I don't ultimately know how to evaluate it simply for the reason that I am not, yet, a New Testament scholar myself.

I leave the argument about a "spiritual resurrection" as an open question that I would like to investigate in graduate school when I have more scholarly resources and knowledge to do so. For the time being, I would also like to say that I have no problem accepting that the earliest Christians believed Jesus to be raised with a body of flesh and I am willing to accept this as a core historical fact and that the "spiritual resurrection" was not something believed by anyone. Even accepting this, I don't exactly think that Craig has succeeded in rebutting the contention that the resurrection narratives of Luke and John were anti-Docetic narratives. He can try and try as he may wish but I hope to show that he hasn't proven his case.

"It was Docetism which was the response to this physicalism, not the other way around. The physical resurrection is thus primitve and prior, Docetism being the later reaction of theological and philosophical reflection."

This is fine; I have no qualms with this. I can accept that the earliest Christians, such as Jesus' immediate disciples believed Jesus to have been resurrected in a body of flesh. I can accept as a core historical fact that many of Jesus' disciples believed that Jesus appeared to them in a risen body of flesh and that the visionary experiences involving altered-states-of-consciousness that they had were visions of a risen Jesus with a fleshly body. I can see Docetism as emerging as a response to this and thus the resurrection narratives serving as rebuttal to this heresy and reinforcing the earlier, yet mistaken view of the earliest disciples. It doesn't mean I accept for a moment that Jesus really did appear to his disciples and ate fish in front of them on the eve of Easter in Jerusalem as Luke's gospel says. I have no problem with a belief in a risen Jesus of bodily flesh being primitive and prior to Docetism.

I believe that the point to remember is that the Greek word for "appear" in the 1st Corinthians 15 creed only means that the groups who believed that they saw Jesus, believed that Jesus simply appeared to them. Docetism would argue, later, that Jesus only appeared to have a body of flesh. The disciples mistook the apparent body of flesh for the real thing and were thus fooled into thinking Jesus had a risen body of flesh. The key point of the Docetists was that Jesus didn't have a body of flesh but only appeared to have a body of flesh. In other words, the Docetists argued, true, that Jesus didn't have a body of flesh, but argued more importantly, that Jesus only appeared to have one. No doubt that the disciples of Jesus mistook an apparent body of flesh for the real thing, but the argument of Docetists here was simple: appearances are decieving and the disciples were victims of this misunderstanding.

"(2) Moreover, had purely 'spiritual appearances' been original, then it is difficult to see how the physical appearances could have developed. For (a) the offense of Docetism would then be removed, since the Christians, too, believed in purely spiritual appearances, and (b) the doctrine of physical appearances would have been counter-productive as an apologetic, both to Jews and to pagans; to Jews because they did not accept an individual resurrection within history and to pagans because their belief in the immortality of the soul could not accomodate the crudity of physical resurrection. The church therefore have retained its purely spiritual appearances."

Once again, I believe that it's best to see any doctrine of a "spiritual resurrection" as involving a physical body yet lacking flesh. I don't believe that there would've been any denial of physicality. The point would've been that the earliest Christians, if the theory of a "spiritual resurrection" is valid, would've believed that Jesus' risen body lacked flesh. But if Jesus was believed to have had a spiritual body, then the threat of Docetism would've been removed and the necessity of anti-Docetic apologetics would've been superflous, right? Does Craig have a good point here? I am not sure that he does. I tend to agree that the earliest Christians, if they believed in a "spiritual resurrection", might have agreed with Docetists about the risen Jesus, but Docetists went further and denied that Jesus had really suffered death on the cross (something no early Christian would've been able to accept) and that Jesus never had been born or incarnated in a body of flesh (something Christians would've found insulting and offensive).

We have to keep in mind, then, that the offense of Docetism wouldn't necessarily have been removed, because Docetists weren't just denying that Jesus had a risen body of flesh- they were denying Jesus ever had any body of flesh during his whole existence on earth. Naturally, Christians would see the need to combat it. Some Christians might've been content with rebutting Docetism up to the point of Jesus' physical death as it was seen as necessary for atonement purposes, while others would probably have gone all the way to the point of completely wiping Docetism out altogether, for they would've believed Jesus to have been vindicated by God and therefore, raised from the dead in a body of flesh.

Does Craig's second objection fly here too? Would the anti-Docetic apologetic be offensive to both Jews and pagans? That depends on whom the audience of the gospels were. Craig tends to think here (lest I am mistaken) that the gospels were written as tools to help win over skeptics. I believe that the gospels were written by Christians and for Christians and no one else. If I am right, what would it matter what Jews or pagans thought? The gospels were written by Christians and for Christians and so any anti-Docetic apologetics would be to reinforce the faith of Christian believers, not to silence skeptics be they Jews or pagans or to convince them of the errors of their ways (I'm sure Craig would love it if it were; I am sure that Craig would love nothing more than to have some undeniable proof that Jesus rose from the dead to give to modern 21st century skeptics like me, so he could drag us kicking and screaming into the faith).

Moreover, I think that Craig is grossly mistaken here. The Jews would not have accepted an individual resurrection? How does Craig know this? I don't doubt that a number of Jews wouldn't have accepted any individual resurrections before the general resurrection, but Craig is really stretching if he seriously believes that this would apply universally without any possible exception whatsoever across the board when it comes to all first century Jews.

"(3) Besides, Docetism was mainly aimed at denying the reality of the incarnation of Christ (1 Jn. 4: 2-3; II Jn. 7), not the physical resurrection. Docetists were not so interested in denying the physical resurrection as in denying that the divine Son perished on the cross; hence, some held that the Spirit deserted the human Jesus at the crucifixion, leaving the human Jesus to die and be physically raised (Irenaeus Against Heresies 1.26. 1). An anti-Docetic aimed at proving a physical resurrection therefore misses the point entirely."

I disagree. I believe that the incarnation, crucifxion, and resurrection were points of denial for Docetists. Suppose that Craig is right and the Docetists were mainly denying the incarnation and not so much the resurrection and it the narratives could hardly serve as an anti-Docetic apologetic. Even if the Docetists didn't so much deny that Jesus had a risen body of flesh, there were other Gnostic groups that did. I would at least accept that the narratives were written as some kind of apologetic against those who denied that Jesus had a risen body of flesh, even if it wasn't really the Docetists. There were four general groups, such as the Docetists, Adoptionists, Separationists, and Patripassiantists, but these categories were not so clean-cut and rigid; there was variation and spectrum within the groups.

"(4) The demonstrations of corporeality and continuity in the gospels, as well as the other physical appearances, do not seem to have been redactional additions of Luke or John ( it is thus incorrect to speak, for example, of "Luke's apologetic against Gnosticism"), but were part of the traditions recieved by the evangelists. Docetisim, however, was a later theological development, attested to in John's letters. Therefore, the gospel accounts of the physical resurrection tend to ante-date the rise and threat of Docetisim."

And how did Craig determine this? I want to know how this is any more than Craig's pontifical "say-so". Why does Craig think that the demonstrations of corporeality and continuity in the gospels are not "redactional additions"? I know for a fact that Craig accepts the Markan priority of the gospels and seems to accept that Matthew and Luke used Mark in their composition. If Luke can redact Mark's gospel and change a prediction (coming from Mark's "young man") of Jesus appearing in Galilee to a prediction of Jesus back when he was in Galilee (as Luke makes the women seem to remember Jesus' words) why can't Luke go beyond the traditions that he had in Mark (and Q?) and go onto write an apologetic against docetism, incorporating corporeality and making such narratives continuous with the rest of the narratives he composed in his gospel? How does Craig know that Jesus eating fish in front of his disciples and inviting them to touch him and showing himself to doubting Thomas were part of the traditions recieved by the evangelists? How does Craig know this?

One last point: Craig repeats himself by saying that Docetism was a later theological development, this time adding the qualifying phrase "attested to in John's letters". I don't necessarily think that Docetism originated at the time of its first mention in John's letters. I believe that Docetism was alive and well before John wrote his letters. I want to be careful here and say that I am not going to attach a precise date as to the origin of Docetism. I really don't know when it originated but I don't think it originated after Luke wrote his gospel and necessarily before John wrote his. I suspect Craig wants more than anything for this to be the case so he can make his work of trying to get modern skeptics to accept the resurrection and get them saved a lot easier. I think that perhaps Docetism originated sometime shortly after 70 C.E. and the gospels have an increasing tendency towards a more corporeal and fleshly Jesus, starting without any resurrection appearances in Mark, one which the disciples see Jesus but don't touch him in Matthew, to Jesus eating fish and inviting contact in Luke and finally a full-blown anti-Docetic apologetic in John's gospel. This may reflect various stages at which Docetism grew in strength and became a threat. Perhaps when Mark wrote his gospel, it wasn't percieved to be that much of a threat (if any) and perhaps was in its nascental stages and evolving more and more during the writing of Matthew and Luke to the point where John's opening prologue was specifically shooting down Docetism as were the letters attributed to John.

"Moreover, not even all later Gnostics denied the physical resurrection ( cf. Gospel of Philip, Letters of James, and Epistle of Rheginus). It is interesting that even in the ending of Mark there is actually a switch away from material proofs of the resurrection to a verbal rebuke by Jesus for the disciples' unbelief."

I am pleased to hear Craig say this! Not all later Gnostics denied the physical resurrection! I also believe that not all early Gnostics denied it either nor had all of them accepted it. I believe that there was a bit of variety among different sects of Gnosticism and perhaps stretching over time. Now it's question time again, boys and girls: how does Craig know that Mark's ending is meant to be a switch away from material proofs of the resurrection?

"(5) The demonstrations themselves do not evince the rigorousness of an apologetic against Docetism. In both Luke and John it is not said that either the disciples or Thomas actually accepted Jesus' invitation to touch him and prove that he was not a Spirit. Contrast the statements of Ignatius that the disciples did physically touch Jesus (Ignatius Ad Smyrnaeans 3.2; cf. Epistula Apostolorum 11-12). As Schnackenburg has said, if an anti-Docetic apology were involved in the gospel accounts, more would have to have been done than Jesus' merely showing the wounds."

I beg Craig's pardon? Eating fish in front of the disciples "does not evince the rigorousness of an apologetic against Docetism"? Was it not Craig who made this stink about the distinction between visions and appearances in the first place? How rigorous does "rigorous" have to be? Does Jesus have to take a stainless steel stake and pound it through his right hand, have his disciples verify that it penetrated by getting blood from Jesus' hand onto their hands, only to have Jesus take the stake out and have his disciples watch his hand heal itself in front of them as though Jesus is a mutant with superhuman powers like the comic book character "Wolverine" in Marvel's The Uncanny X-Men May I suggest something for readers here? May I suggest that not all anti-Docetic apologetics need be the same in terms of rigor and intensity? Docetism, I believe, just like every other heresy, started out small and grew with time. Not every apologetic designed to answer heresies like Docetism need be as rigorous as the next. Luke's apologetic is not as rigorous as would, say, John's because Docetism needn't have been considered as dangerous a heresy in Luke's time as it would've been in John's time. In fact, it may well have been in its nascental and infant stages at the time of Mark's writing which might be why Mark doesn't have any resurrection narratives designed to illustrate that Jesus really did have a body of flesh. From Mark to Matthew, Docetism might have grown somewhat and may have started to become a threat in Luke's time with it evolving to the point of a dangerous heresy in John's time. Ignatius, writing later, wants to assert that the disciples did phyiscally touch Jesus because such a level of rigorousness and seriousness would be needed to combat Docetism in his time, whereas in earlier times it probably wasn't that strong and, hence, not that big a threat and not commanding that much in terms of resources to combat it.

"(6) The incidental, off-hand character of the physicality of Jesus' resurrection appearances in most of the accounts shows that the physicalism was a natural assumption or presupposition of the accounts, not an apologetic point consciously being made. For example, the women's grasping Jesus' feet is not a polemical point, but just their response of worship. Similarly, Jesus says, 'Do not hold me,' though Mary is not explictly said to have done so; this is no conscious effort to prove a physical resurrection. The appearances on the mountain and by the Sea of Tiberias just naturally presuppose a phyiscal Jesus; no points are trying to be scored against Docetism."

Fleshly physicalism may have been a natural assumption to begin with for the earliest Christians but that needn't mean that it wasn't in need of defending by the time that the gospels were pinned. Indeed, not every minor little detail need be polemically against Docetism. These may have just been the kind of details that many Christians believe Jesus would've done had he a risen body of flesh, regardless of how much of a threat Docetism was in their minds. But the eating of fish, the showing of wounds, and Jesus preparing breakfast for his disciples are the exact sort of feats that would be expected to count aginst Docetism. Depending on the composition and the various stages in the evolution of heresies like Docetism, we can expect there to be varying accounts of anti-Docetic apologetics, with varying degrees of physical interaction and corporeality, depending on how widespread and serious the threat of Docetism or any other antiflesh heresy that existed in New Testament times was. Some accounts will not have much physical action performed by Jesus while others will have Jesus doing a lot of physical feats that a mere vision could not do. Now we come to the finale of Craig's rebuttal here...

"Together these considerations strongly suggest that the physical appearance were not as apologetic to Docetism, but always part of the church's tradition; there seems to be no good historical reason to doubt that Jesus did, in fact, show his disciples that he had been physically raised from the dead." ( Craig, William Lane, Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus pgs. 330-338)"

Craig would seriously love to think this, wouldn't he? Anything to convince a modern skeptic to become a Christian. Unfortunately, it is Craig who is mistaken here, not Talbert or anyone else. These considerations, I hope to have shown, are flawed and do not make Craig's case as strong as he would like to think that they do. Craig hasn't shown how they were always part of the Church's tradition and hasn't answered Talbert's original arguments. In conclusion, though, I want to say that the fleshly corporeality of the resurrection narratives introduce a Jesus who physically interacts with the world and is no mere vision and that there is a extra-mental phenomenon at work behind the scenes. But the gospels were not written to convince post-Enlightenment skeptics like me but I believe were designed to answer those who would deny that Jesus had risen in the flesh.

The most important part is not so much that heretics at all did deny that Jesus had a body of flesh at any point of time in his earthly existence, but that he appeared to have one but really didn't. The emphasis was on appearances and this was the big point behind Gnosticism. Those blessed with the spiritual knowledge of the Gnostics knew better. The disciples believed Jesus appeared to them and Jesus did but Jesus fooled them into thinking he had a body of flesh. Jesus only appeared to have had one and the Gnostics had this sacred knowledge that Jesus didn't inhibit a body of flesh. Even if it wasn't the Docetics per se who posed a heretical threat to the earliest Christians, there were some antiflesh heretics who would need to be seriously dealt and rebutted.

This, I believe, might adequately account for the distinction between visions on one hand, and appearances on the other. Supposing that Craig is right about the distinction, I am convinced that any such distinction was apologetic in origin. This was the best way I believe that the Christians of Luke and John's community combated heretics. What's more, it also kept the lid on heretics and not only rebutted their antiflesh heresy but also prevented them from claiming any pedigree in the Church as the true disciples of Jesus and their discipleship going back to inner circle of Jesus himself. Any true Christian, any true disciples of Jesus, would have had to talk with him, to walk with him, to touch him, to have eaten with him and to have drink with him. Thus Jesus had a body of flesh after his death and rose to the heavens in it. Only the original apostolic circle was really in a position to claim any kind of pedigree and legitimacy as to being heirs of Jesus and being his disciples, because only they walked, talked, and ate with Jesus, saw him crucified, and saw him risen from the dead, and ascend into the heavens. This, I believe, explains the witness motif of Luke's gospel: to be an apostle, you have to had been appointed by those who were witnesses to Jesus' fleshly corporeality.

Thus, I believe that Craig's third objection may be answered.

Matthew

The 45th Carnival of the Godless is Up

The 45th Carnival of the Godless is posted here. I submitted something from Dagoods. Enjoy.

Do they sound solid when you thump ‘em?

We can picture the common media depiction of the person shopping for fruit at the market, and attempting to determine which one to buy. Either by rapping it, or shaking, or squeezing. As if there some way, other than looks, by which a person can tell if fruit is more ripe.

When a person becomes a Christian they do not receive a special tattoo, or secret decoder ring, or any other observable effect by which we can observe and exclaim, “That person must be a Christian, because they can perform the secret hand-shake.” Human believers look exactly like human non-believers. Christians, of course, would explain that the difference is in a person’s soul—something that cannot be perceived by our five senses.

But does the Bible teach that the change in the spiritual entity has a necessary effect on the physical person in that we can obtain the ability, just by observation, to determine which persons are Christians?

I was informed elsewhere, as I was commenting on Christians, that I was “looking at the wrong Christians.” My first thought was, “What Christians am I supposed to be looking at? How do I know which group is the incorrect one to watch, and which one is the appropriate one?”

Without going through an in-depth study of the salvation process, the base requirement is to believe that Christ was raised from the dead and confess that Jesus is Lord. (Rom. 10:8-11) Belief generates results. It manifests itself in action.

If I shout, “FIRE!” in a movie theater, those that believe my simple statement react. While the belief may be unfounded (there may not be a fire) there is no difference in the depth of the belief, nor the person’s reaction. Fire or not, if a patron is convinced there is one, they will necessarily respond to it.

However, if I shout “Fire!” and people lazily turn their heads, shrug and go back to munching popcorn, a strong case could be made, that they do not believe me, just by their reaction. Would anyone seriously claim, “Oh, they truly believed you in their heart a fire was happening in that theater, but because they are human, reacted like most humans do in movie theaters and kept watching the movie”?

James is transparent that Christian belief will necessarily result in a demonstration of activity. The famous “Faith without works is dead.” James 2:14-18

Paul is clear that prior to becoming a Christian, a person would act in one fashion, and afterwards, as a manifestation of that belief, a person would act otherwise. As a child, in Sunday School we were taught the fruits of the spirit:

“The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.” Gal. 5:22-23

Paul goes on to indicate that those who are identified with Christ (i.e. Christians) have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. Immediately prior to providing us with the fruit of the Spirit, in verses 19-21, Paul has contrasted with the works of the flesh, being adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like.

It is obvious. “Here are the works of the Flesh. Here are the works of the Spirit. You are now in the Spirit. You have killed the desires of the Flesh.” Gal. 6:7-8. In case the point is not patently clear, Paul reiterates that those who practice the works of the flesh will not inherit the kingdom of God.

While the Bible is indistinct as to the exact meaning of the Kingdom of God, I doubt anyone will claim that a Christian is a Christian and NOT inheriting the Kingdom of God.

Paul develops a penchant for lists.

In Romans 1 he indicates that certain persons know there is a God, but worship the creature rather than the creator. That God will give them over to a debased mind, to do those things that are not fitting. Again, he trots out the traditional laundry list of items: sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness, whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, and unmerciful. (Rom. 1:28-31)

I am not the only person to notice Paul making these distinctions. The author of Colossians, in replicating Paul’s style also trots out a list of their own. Again, we read what a person did before Christianity is different than what a person does after. Col. 3:8-10 The author provides the now-familiar list: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, covetousness, anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy language and lying. (Col. 3:5-9) And reproduces the good list: tender mercies, kindness, humility, meekness, patience, bearing with one another, and forgiving one another. (Col. 3:12-13)

Following the traditional formula, the author of Ephesians, likewise, indicates recognizable change upon this change in the soul (Eph. 4:22) and likewise replicates the customary list. Bad: Lying, unresolved anger, stealing, corrupt language, bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, evil speaking, malice, filthiness, foolish talking, coarse jesting, fornicating, uncleanliness and covetousness. (Eph. 4:25-5:5) Good: kind, tender-hearted, forgiving, loving, goodness, righteousness and truth. (Eph. 4:32-5:9)

Even the author of 1 Timothy has to get into the act, and points out how Paul was only a blasphemer, persecutor and insolent before he believed. (I Tim. 1:13) And, of course, out comes our faithful list, although he does seem to kick it up a notch: murderers of fathers, murderers of mothers, manslayers, fornicators, sodomites, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine. (I Timothy 1:9-10)

All right. I get it. I get it, I get it, I get it. (They seem to like to repeat, so perhaps I must as well.) Before: you do bad things. After: you do good things. This should be an evident change. Something that I see a person acting a certain way, I can confidently place them in either the “Before” picture or the “After” picture.

But is that what we see?

“Lying” seems to consistently appear. Rev. 21:8 states that anyone who lies will not enter Heaven. It is on every list except Galatians. Plain as the nose on your face—lying is in the “Before” picture.

Houston—we have a problem. Christians lie. Lotsa Christians lie. If I am looking at the wrong Christians, can someone point me out to a Christian that does not lie? Ever? Is there a person, believer or not, that will dare comment that they have not lied in the year 2006? One?

Yet I thought “lying” was on the “Before” list? What went wrong? How can an “After” do a “Before”? Now, I can already envision fingers poised over keyboards, itching to type that these lists do not say a person in an “After” will never commit a “Before.” I am sure pages are being turned to 1 John 1:8 which states that even believers will continue to sin, and (in supreme irony) if they claim they do not sin, they are liars. Which is a sin. Worse, a sin of the “Before” kind.

O.K. Let’s assume I am being too literalistic and legalistic by demanding a bright-line division in the “Befores” and the “Afters.” That there is some wiggle room that allows an “After” to commit a “Before.”

Then explain the purposes of the list. Why do the authors continue to state that prior, these things are done, and those that practice them are not in the kingdom of heaven? After they are not. “Ah,” you may say, “The key word is ‘practice.’ It is not a sin of one occasion, but a perpetual lifestyle.”

Sorry, lived too long. Have you lied in 2006? 2005? 2004? Do I need to go back? Have you been lewd (whatever that means) in 2006? 2005? 2004? What about strife, dissension, selfish ambition. Not a selfish act in 2006? 2005? 2004? No pride?

What I see, in humanity as a whole, are occasions of lying, strife, pride, and selfish ambition. According to the list, all you “Afters” aren’t allowed any of that. I see it on repeated occasions. If that ain’t “practice” I do not know what is.

And if these become guidelines; suggestions, then we have taken all the teeth out of their purpose in the first place. Who couldn’t figure out that murdering and lying is bad, and treating others with respect is good? Knock me over with a feather that someone comes up with that! Thank goodness the authors of the New Testament came along, because without them, no society had EVER been able to quite manufacture the concept that stealing might be a bad thing to do, and charity might be a good thing to do.

Imagine if you and your friends were creating a list of morals. Is it any surprise that much of those list(s) would conform on items such as murder, stealing and lying, with an occasional offshoot of perjury or clamor? And if the same group put together a good list, that it would include love and mercy?

What makes the Bible even remotely unique in that the authors of the various books could do so likewise? If we are to hold the Bible as the only communication from God, should we treat it differently, or the same? Should these lists, unlike any other set of lists ever created, actually have some teeth in them? That when it says, only “Befores” do these items, it means only “Befores.” Or are Christians going to tell me that these lists, like every other moral list ever given, are guidelines, suggestions, in that humans should do more “Afters” and less “Befores”?

I am genuinely curious—what makes these lists unique to Christianity? If they are not, then why should I consider the God of Christianity unique?

Further, these verses claim that because they are Christians their actions have changed. In every person that claims being a Christian, at the least we should see a vast difference (if not a complete elimination) between the occurrences of “Before” and “After.”

It may be pointed out that there certainly are a number of Christians that committed heinous “Befores” and upon converting, stopped. Became “Afters.” It may be pointed out that THESE are the Christians I should be looking at.

However, in any division of society, we find people a certain percentage of people who commit more “Befores” a certain percentage who commit more “Afters” and a great many who commit a spattering of each. We can divide it up by religion, race, culture, country or even hair-color. I could say that some red-heads commit more “Afters” and therefore red-headism is a life-changing event, as long as we look at only those certain red-heads.

I am told that the God of Christianity is the only correct one. Hence unique. I am informed that belief in that God will result in life-changing events. But what I see is humans. Humans that, regardless of belief or non-belief in any particular god, acting in a similar fashion. Nothing unique about it at all.

Even Christ indicated there should be difference in belief. He noted that non-believers can love those that love them. Luke 6:32 What is the credit or surprise in that? You want to see something different? What to see something “Christian”? Love your enemies. Now THAT is something that would make Christianity stand out, right? Luke 6:35.

Unfortunately, just like any other religion, race or creed, we find some humans that are able to love their enemies, and some that are not. Some claim to be Christians, some are red-heads. There is no divine spark, no noticeable difference in Christians that makes other religions stand aside and say, “Nope. We don’t love our enemies. Only Christians do that. Nope. We lie. Only Christians don’t lie.”

What I seem to be told is that I have shouted “FIRE” and all the Christians really, truly believe me, but just like the rest of the humans in the theater, some leave, and some stay. In trying to look at the “right” Christians, I catch quite a few non-Christians in my gaze.

On a personal note, if these lists are to be indicators of a soul-change, they have no depth with me. I recognize within myself the same actions, the same temptations, the same internal strife dealing with these items as before. I have never murdered. Not “Before” not “After” and not “After-After.” I have pride. “Before” “After” and “After-After.” Now I may be informed that means I was never a Christian in the first place. Equally, it could mean I am still a Christian.

Or most likely, it means I am human. A list which is neither surprising nor unique, does not demonstrate belief.

And, for those concerned, this is an academic discussion, so any responses that disagree with my position, I will not consider “dissension, strife, or contention.” Just in case you fear the temptation of committing a “Before.” *smile*

Some Tough Questions

Here are some tough questions for the Christian, depending on his or her particular theology:

Can God be surprised? Surprise is the basis of laughter. Can God laugh?

Can God think? Thinking means weighing alternatives. But if God knows everything then can God think?

Is God metaphysically free? Did God ever choose his character and his moral standards? Does God ever know what it is to make a choice?

Is God Good?

If God didn’t need anything, then why did he create us? To say God’s nature is love and he wanted to share his love with us doesn’t help for two reasons, 1) Most of us will end up in hell, which means he knowingly created heaven for the minority on the screams of billions of people who end up in hell; 2) If life was already perfect for God, then God did not need to share any more love with anyone else. Why break this purported perfect harmony for the pain of dealing with us and the pain of those who end up in hell?

Once God decided to create us, if he planned everything in advance as the Calvinist believes, or if he foreknew everything would happen with certainty, then why bother creating us? What’s the point?

What is the basis of God’s foreknowledge?

If God gave us free will and he knew we would abuse it so badly, then why give it to us? Isn’t it incumbent for the giver of a gift to be responsible for whom he gives that gift? And isn’t the giver of a gift blameworthy if he gives gifts to those whom he knows will abuse those gifts? Should we make drugs available to 8 year olds and alcohol available to 6 year olds? Would you give a razor blade to a two year old?

Can God create free creatures who always obey? For the Calvinist this would’ve been no problem, so why does it bring God more glory to decree what we see here on earth and later in hell, than one where we always obey? For the non-Calvinist Christian, what is different for those in heaven such that they will have free will and never disobey? Will there be sin and another rebellion in heaven? Why not? And if God can make people obey in heaven then why didn’t he first create us such that we always obeyed here on earth too?

Did God foreknow that Adam and Eve would sin? If so, then he would also know in advance the reasons why they chose to sin. And if he knew in advance what those reasons were, then he could’ve corrected them and/or provided them more evidence to believe him. If, for instance, Adam and Eve needed more evidence that God meant what he said if they eat of the fruit, then couldn’t God have given them more evidence, like he purportedly did to Moses and Gideon who both doubted? To withhold this needed evidence is to be at fault for doing nothing to help Adam and Eve in their temptation.

Why didn’t God create us with a propensity to dislike sin? We have an aversion to drinking motor oil. But we could still drink it if we wanted to. Why couldn’t God have created in us an aversion to sin like we have an aversion to drinking motor oil?

Why did God create the universe with a big bang and the slow long evolutionary development of galaxy, star and planet formation, and then all of a sudden “switch gears” and instantaneously create Adam & Eve in an instant? Was it harder to create the universe than the peak of his creation such that it took him billions of years to create the stuff of the universe but a snap of his fingers to create the apex and crowning jewels of his universe?

Why is a supposedly omniscient and completely understanding God so barbaric, even allowing slavery, knowing full well the suffering people would experience because it wasn't one of his ten commandments: "Thou shalt not own slaves nor buy and sell them for profit."

Why is a supposedly omnipotent God not able to stop the 2005 Indonesian tsunami that killed a quarter million people before it happened? If he had stopped that underwater earthquake from happening none of us would have known that he did and hence he wouldn’t have revealed himself in any ways he might not have wanted to. Since all it would have taken is a “snap” of his fingers to avert that tragedy then isn’t he morally responsible for it? If we were God we would be morally obligated to do so. Why isn’t God? And if he is morally responsible for it, then he wanted it to happen for some greater good. That’s right, he wanted it to happen. What is the greater good here?

----------------------------------------
Here's another good one by Dagoods. How is it that one member of the trinitarian Godhead can intercede on our behalf with another member of the Godhead? Does one member of the trinity, Jesus, know or want something that God the father doesn't? see here.

Inerrancy and the Resurrection

The issue that had the greatest impact on my thinking about the resurrection was the argument for inerrancy. The inerrancy of the Bible is affirmed by the major defenders of the Christianity including William Lane Craig, J.P. Moreland, and Norman Geisler. Members of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) must annually affirm their belief in inerrancy to maintain their membership (see here). If one is a Christian, it makes a great deal of sense to affirm this.

Let’s take the perspective of someone persuaded by several aspects of Dr. Craig’s version of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. That is, they think that God is both very powerful and very smart (due to the fine tuning argument). God is even smarter the ancient author Euclid.

Now Euclid wrote a collection of 13 books known as the Elements. As far as I know every Theorem posited by Euclid is still believed to be true today. Even his placement of the “Parallel Postulate” into the category of postulates is accurate. Many believed that perhaps the Parallel postulate could be derived from his first four postulates, but it has been shown that his placement is correct. The only criticism I have heard is that there are some unstated postulates and undefined terms that he would need to explicate in order to be more rigorous. That said Euclid’s writing is a remarkable achievement for any non-divine human. I suppose I would say that Euclid’s thirteen books of the Elements are quite possibly inerrant.

Now God is even smarter than Euclid, so if He were to inspire a collection (or cannon) of books, it seems reasonable to expect that God could do an even better job than Euclid. If a collection of books were "God-breathed" I would expect them to reflect some aspects of his nature. Inerrancy seems to be one aspect of God-breathed books that a rational person may expect.

There is a great deal of support for this idea in the New Testament. Greg Koukl defends that premise very well here. Greg states that Jesus quoted the Old Testament as if it were from God himself. If Jesus is God, he would certainly be in a position to know. Jesus certainly seems to imply that God’s word is true in John 17:17.

Suppose that the truth seeker believes that a real resurrection from the dead is indicative of God’s work and endorsement. I think it is rational for such a person to believe the following premise is true: P1: If Jesus was raised from the dead, the Bible is inerrant.

Given a hypothetical premise "If A then B" two valid syllogisms can be formed.
Modus Pones:
P1:If A then B-If Jesus was raised from the dead, the Bible is inerrant
P2-a:      A    -Jesus was raised from the dead
C1:        B    -The Bible is inerrant

Modus Tollens:
P1:If A then B-If Jesus was raised from the dead, the Bible is inerrant
P2-b:    Not B    -The Bible contains errors
C2:      Not A    -Jesus was not raised from the dead

Thus one should not simultaneously believe that Jesus was raised from the dead, and that the Bible has an error in the originals manuscripts. Apparently, members of the ETS think the evidence for the Resurrection is strong enough, so they would affirm the conclusion C1.

However, the case for resurrection is complex at best. The argument for the resurrection is a historical one, and does not lead to a certain conclusion. There are scholars who take both positions, so the arguments may be hard for laymen to understand.

However, I think it is quite reasonable for someone to believe that the Bible contains at least one error. Consider 1 Chronicles 22:14 and 1 Kings 6:2: "With great pains I have provided for the house of the LORD, a hundred thousand talents of gold, a million talents of silver, and bronze and iron without weighing, for there is so much of it; timber and stone, too, I have provided" 1 Chronicles 22:14.

A talent is equal to about 75.5 lbs, cubit is equal to about 17.5 in, the density of silver is 0.379 lb/cu in, the density of gold is 0.692 lb/cu-in. The Bible report 100,000 talents (=7,550,000 lbs) of gold and 1,000,000 talents (=75,000,000 lbs) of silver.

It is estimated that by 1860 the world had produced only 40,000 lbs (regular not troy pounds) of gold (see here). This is far less than what the Bible reports for the temple. It is also estimated that by 600 BC the world’s total production of silver was 112,000,000 lbs (see here). It is implausible to think Israel would have the majority of the world’s silver. Even if the gold and silver were melted down, it would not fit into the temple. (To say nothing of the bronze, iron, timber, and stone).

It sure seems reasonable to think that the Biblical author was exaggerating the wealth of Solomon here. I suppose it is possible that a scribe made a copying error here, but is there any reason to think the scribe erred here? Normally when there are significant textual variants, bible translators indicate that. Further, if God wanted this book included in the cannon, wouldn’t He have helped to make sure that it was able to reliably reconstruct the markers of his message?

Anyway, the question of inerrancy appears relevant to the question of the fact of the resurrection. It seems reasonable to believe 1) the resurrection implies inerrancy and 2) the Bible contains errors. If both of these beliefs are reasonable, then the denial of the resurrection seems reasonable as well. In principle it is possible that the historical evidence is strong enough to overcome the belief in Biblical errors, but the evidence would have to be very strong. There are many “apparent” errors in the Bible. In subsequent posts, I will try to explain how I think one should go about weighing the evidence both for and against the resurrection, and the consequences of denying that inerrancy follows from the resurrection.
_____________
Editted 7/20: Changed 1 Chronicles 24:14 to 1 Chronicles 22:14

NOT "answering a fool according to his folly"

Over at the Triablogue, I made a comment which seems to have triggered an irrational response from Steve Hays. Read it for yourself, and tell me if you disagree. My original comment, summarized?

It's just funny that as a bunch of "godless heathens" up here in Buffalo, we aren't talking about "answering the fools according to their folly" with respect to theists.

The crux of Steve's response?

The question at issue is not what kind of people my readers are, but what kind of people you and Danny are.
I realize that you don't like it when people like me hold people like you to your own words.
Danny made a self-serving claim and drew an invidious contrast that is belied by the facts--from his own chosen frame of reference

My original comment was in response to his contention that Christians were justified in "answering a fool according to his folly", and esp. that this justified them using sarcasm, deprecation, and insults to respond to those unbelievers and skeptics of us who (had the apparent audacity to) ask questions and challenge his beliefs.

Now, in response to his justification of this behavior, I pointed to the great irony of my situation that very day. I had been discussing the topic of civility and respect for our "cultural competitors" (those who promote values in opposition to secular humanist values) at a conference with other skeptics and freethinkers. As it just so happened, we had all pointed to the desperate need for dialogue in an increasingly polarized and hardened culture. We all agreed that insults were not only meritless, considering the great intellect and valid arguments of theists such as Plantinga, Craig, and Swinburne, but that they immediately shut down dialogue as it requires mutual respect.

Steve went digging through the public forums of the CFI, where anyone (not just a CFI member, and not just a humanist, and not just an atheist) can start a thread on anything, and found some threads which had insults to Christians. The CFI did not write these threads, anonymous persons did. The CFI does not value censorship. There is nothing on the CFI website, or anywhere in the CFI literature, which in any way deprecates or insults theists, or anyone of any sort. They sponsor a public forum where free speech is exercised by anyone who cares to participate...and this means...what, again?

Besides all of these facts, it really didn't address the fact that I had indeed just that day been in unanimous agreement with the 70 other students and the conference organizers that we needly to strongly encourage mutual respect and enjoy the dialogue with theists such as Steve.

The irony is obvious: whilst the moral "high ground" is often claimed by our cultural competitors, and while they are often dubbed "value voters", (as if we atheists, skeptics, and humanists do not have values, and/or do not vote in support of them) we often hold to standards of conduct which apparently are not agreed with by our theist friends. Not only do they disagree with the "tit for tat" strategy of mutual respect and fairness, they deliver to us these insults wrapped in phrases such as, "The question at issue is ... what kind of people you and Danny are."

Interestingly, Steve does not go on to clarify exactly "what kind" this is, or why John and I are lumped together. After all, the only shared component of our worldviews, so far as I know, is that of our lack of faith in a god. I am not sure of John's daily ethical principles or practices, and I'm quite sure that Steve isn't aware of them either, or how they compare to mine.

Steve goes on to declaim, "Danny made a self-serving claim and drew an invidious contrast that is belied by the facts--from his own chosen frame of reference."

Of course, the problem with this is that Steve made a "self-serving claim" in trying to present information which would somehow "falsify" that I was, indeed, that very day, discussing with other atheists and skeptics and humanists the need for respect and civility in our dealings and debates and dialogues with theists. How was that fact belied by your "fact" that someone, somewhere, for whatever reason, in opposition to the values that I hold, joined a public forum and insulted Christians?

What kind of person am I, Steve? I'd love to know. What kind of person is John? Or, do you care to lump all atheists into one definition of baramin?

"Maybe he didn't know any better at the time he said it, but now he does," Steve concludes.

Indeed, I know better than to attempt to continue engaging in dialogue with you, because it appears that you do not value mutual respect and civility in your dealings with those who disagree with you.

The Antithesis of Our Values

A few days ago, while still at the CFI Student Leadership Conference in Buffalo, NY (which the CFI graciously provided the travel funding for), I read a thread by a theist I often dialogue with about how to respond to atheists. The title alone, "Answer a Fool According to His Folly", should be enough to stop me there from responding, due to its clear disrespect. However, idealist that I am, I left a comment on the post. Of course, the response of Steve to that comment is the subject of the next post, but I wanted to replicate the comment I left below the fold for consideration:

Can't we all just get along...

Oh, wait, if we believe in a "god-ordained" antithesis, then I guess not.

I'm up here in Buffalo NY at the CFI Student Leadership Conference on secular humanism. It's kind of funny in how I felt in reading over this thread, and the comments, and having gone to meetings today where we discussed the need to be polite and respectful and even try to connect with those who disagree with us (esp Campus Crusade), to get the issues out before people.

We want more people to hear dissenting and alternative explanations to the worldview of traditional Western theism. Calling them names, and belittling their intellect, is not the best way to get them to seriously dialogue. It's just funny that as a bunch of "godless heathens" up here in Buffalo, we aren't talking about "answering the fools according to their folly" with respect to theists.

I actually don't want to "make" you atheists, or necessarily even convince you that your worldview's presuppositions, esp of taking the dusty old parchments as a sacred oracle, are in error. What I want is to keep the voice of dissent loud, clear, and coherent. You can have your faith, I can't take it from you if I wanted to.

I value science, reason, and humanistically-based ethics.

Your values include faith, divine commands, etc., (not to say you don't value what I do as well). So long as you put faith and what you believe God has told you to do before the practical and scientific realities that we all face together, as humans, it doesn't appear that we will ever make headway with one another. Your values and our values are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but prioritized in an inverse fashion to one another's. And perhaps we both realize this.

And perhaps that's why we both get frustrated at times.

So long as you value the possibility that a man raised from the dead 2000 years ago, and that your book is accurate historically, and that your doctrine of ensoulment is correct, more than you value the possibility that using a glob of amino acids and sugars, which could become a [Christian] person one day, will lead to the alleviation of clear and present pain, suffering, and evils...

We will never move in the same direction. My values point me towards what I can know and experience and those I care about. Your values are quite different. I don't value faith. I value science, evidence, and reason. I tentatively hold to "big" concepts, and prefer to live in the practical and real world according to the best of my abilities, intellectually and ethically.

So far, as an atheist, I am far better as a person, as a whole, than I ever was as a Christian.

I wouldn't say that this is ALWAYS the case, or even that Christianity doesn't help some people to be better, ie drug addicts. Religions may indeed stabilize societies within certain contexts, and give people hope and optimism and comfort. What they also do is lead people to what is happening in Lebanon and Israel right now...

...by faith. People who won't sit down and dialogue, as we try to do, but instead choose to kill one another for their opposing values.

And that is a tragedy. A travesty.

And you believe that your God leaves all of us down here like this, aloof and cold, to care more about It and what It thinks than to prevent things like this. To spend our time arguing over what It supposedly wants us to know from dusty old parchments of completely ambiguous origins which have undergone unknown revisions to give us the extant oldest copies we have. To spend eternity in hell or heaven. What in the hell was life for? Why not just be expedient and cut to the chase and assign us all there now? What is Jesus waiting for?

Values. Priorities. Perhaps we'll always frustrate one another.

Following the Evidence

by Bill Curry

I would like to thank John Loftus for giving me the opportunity to post here. I am currently working as an electrical engineer. I was brought up as a Christian. However, I had the tendency to keep my faith separate from my normal working life. I always felt as if I should try to evangelize fellow students and later colleagues where I work, but I almost never did.

At work, I met some very smart Christians. They were able to convincingly argue that the Christian worldview made the most sense of morality, human nature, etc. They loaned me tapes of debates between Dr. William Lane Craig and various atheists and it was apparent that Dr. Craig always won convincingly.

Observing Craig debate non-Christians was a turning point in my life. I began voraciously reading works by Christian apologists. Dr. J.P. Moreland convincingly argued in his book “Love Your God with All Your Mind” that Christians had a duty to engage the life of the mind. That is, one should work very had to integrate all aspects of their life with the gospel. I really enjoyed the processes of testing my beliefs with those who had disagreed. I had found that most people had not given much thought to questions of philosophy and morality. Arguing with them about those topics really increased my faith.

February 2003 was another critical point in my life. My Army Reserve unit was given notice that we were to be activated for service in Iraq. I decided that this was a perfect opportunity for me to grow closer to God. I read “The Divine Conspiracy” by Dallas Willard and had listened to lectures by J.P. Moreland that convinced me that God really did want to have a personal relationship with us today. They encouraged their audience to keep a prayer journal as see if God really did answer prayer.

About 9 months into my deployment to Iraq, I did review my prayer journal. Any time I prayed for something that was improbable, that prayer was not answered affirmatively. I honestly felt like I was praying to a wall. At that point I concluded my theology must be wrong. I thought Craig had proved the resurrection, so I remained a Christian. I guess that I felt that C.S Lewis has captured my sentiment in the last chapter of his book “A Grief Observed.” I was going through a period of anger with God, but I new that he was still really taking care of me. There are good reasons for God to hide from me and He knew best. However, I stopped praying. I concluded that my theology must be incorrect. It was very hard to pray when I knew that my prayer had been so ineffective.

When I returned mid 2004, I really had little passion for Christianity. I would attend church, but I was not enthusiastic. Several of my brothers wanted me to start a "read through the Bible in a year" program during 2005 and I flatly told them I was not interested. Little did I know that one of my brothers (the one most into apologetics) was having a crisis of faith himself. Reading through the Bible was convincing him that the doctrine of inerrancy was not defensible.

He started questioning the fact of the resurrection. My first reaction was to try to defend Christianity. However, I found that now I was willing to look at both sides of the issue. The case for Christianity was much weaker than I had thought. Upon further reflection I was able to formulate my own reason why I didn't believe.

During the past year, I have presented my argument that a reasonable person shouldn’t believe the resurrection happened. I have gotten very little reaction to my argument (other than to question my motives). I am looking forward to putting my arguments out to a hostile review. I am going to do my best to be loyal to the truth. If my assessment of the evidence is easily shown to be faulty by those who are well acquainted with the facts, I will discard my views. But if my ideas aren't easily upended then I can be comfortable with my new position. My next post will be the argument that first made me re-evaluate the truth of the resurrection.

Paul Manata Believes Snakes Can Talk Because.....

Paul Manata calls me Barker's Bulldog as I attempted to defend Dan Barker in his debate with Manata in the comments section here. I very much appreciate the toned down Manata, whose perjoratives against me, for the time being, seem to be gone. This is the intelligent way to have debates and I thank him for that.

Here's what Paul said:

Now, assume that the Bible is true for arguments sake. Assume that there is no higher weight that can be given to any evidence than God's own word on the matter. Indeed, since He cannot lie, knows everything, etc., then is there any higher authority that I could go to on this matter? If the above is true then why can't I invoke His word? And if I can invoke his word, well that's pretty good evidence for the talking snake. To say therefore that I must give some evidence *other than* God's own say-so is to assume that His word is not the ultimate authority. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God. To say that God's word must be "grounded" in evidence assumes that His word is not ultimate, the point in dispute.

This is a nice and convenient assumption from your standpoint, Paul. But what do you say to someone who asks why they should accept that assumption? If I deny that snakes and donkey's talked, or that an axehead could float, based upon all known experience, you disagree merely because you believe God says they can. But what if I said a cat spoke Spanish to someone yesterday? Well, you wouldn't believe it would you, unless there was enough evidence to overcome your skepticism from all known previous experience. But if such a story were told by someone in an ancient time among superstitious people who wrote it down and included it in the Bible, then, that would be all the evidence you need. And what is the evidence for such a thing happening? That someone told a story among ancient superstitious people that was believed and included in a book that was later accepted and placed in the canon. But if I ask, how can we trust the people who told such a story and who believed it and included it in the Bible, you'd say that they were inspired by God to do so. And if I asked how you know that God inspired all of this, then what? There are other religious stories and books out there that make similar claims. If I asked why you believe the Bible's claims over that of any other story or book, what do you say? That's where evidence is needed. Evidence that can separate between religious truth claims. You cannot just say that you believe the Bible because you believe the Bible, and yet, that's what you do. You cannot even claim that your faith is more reasonable than what I believe based upon your own Calvinistic assumptions.

And what exactly am I to assume here? I am to assume that the whole canonical Bible, as we now have it, is the word of God, that what it says about history and science and miraculous tales are all true, AND that we have the means to interpret it correctly. In the Bible we find a world where a snake and a donkey talked, where people could live 800-900+ years old, where a woman was turned into a pillar of salt, where a pillar of fire could lead people by night, where the sun stopped moving across the sky or could even back up, where an ax-head could float on water, a star can point down to a specific home, where people could instantly speak in unlearned foreign languages, where it was believed that someone’s shadow or handkerchief could heal people, and where stirred up waters in the Pool of Siloam could heal people. It is a world where a flood can cover the whole earth, a man can walk on water, calm a stormy sea, change water into wine, or be swallowed by a “great fish” and live to tell about it. It is a world populated by demons that can wreak havoc on earth, and also make people very sick. It is a world of idol worship, where it was believed that human and animal sacrifices pleased God. In this world we find visions, inspired dreams, prophetic utterances, miracle workers, magicians, diviners and sorcerers abounding everywhere and the superstitious people of that day still didn't know whom to believe even at that (see Jeremiah). It is a world where God lived in the sky (heaven), and people who died went to live in the dark recesses of the earth (Sheol).

Have you looked into any depth about the superstitious nature of the ancient people who believed so much that we wouldn't in today's modern scientific world? Have you looked into the formation of the canon with any depth at all? Have you looked into the transmission of the Biblical texts that we have with any depth at all? Have you looked at the interpretational disputes between Christians themselves with any depth at all? That's a whole lot to assume, isn't it? And most Christians reject Van Tillian presupposiotional apologetics, don't they? You have to assume that you're right about all of this, and that's way too big of an assumption, don't you think? Plus you have to assume that God exists in the first place.

This is where it gets absolutely ridiculous from my perspective, when you say:

God's word as God's word is "grounded" in no other evidence than God's own say-so.

What would YOU say to a Muslim or a Jew (who only believed the OT) or Jim Jones, or any number of cultists who advocate something different than you do, if they made a similar claim as you did here? [Keep in mind that even though a Jehovah's Witness would agree that the Bible is God's Word, they don't mean the exact same thing as you do, becasue they come away with different understandings of what it means ]. You would just laugh, wouldn't you? And you may even deride them and their claims, if I know you well enough.

You claim that I beg the question just like you do, in the same sense. You claim I beg the question when it comes to some kind of objective standard for induction and reason and moral truth, and that only the Christian understanding provides a solid bedrock for such things. In the first place, if you'll look in the comments section here, I already replied to this. Solve the Euthyphro Dilemma before you can speak to me about any objective standards for these things. Give it a try, and I'll piece it apart.

The basis for your beliefs are the word of God, because God said so, because without the Christian God no basis of reasoning is possible, even though the Euthyphro Dilemma stares you in the face. Solve that dilemma. Your whole faith is based upon solving that dilemma. Now, let's say you give it a go and you're convinced that you've solved it. How likely is it that you have solved it? Even though you may be psychologically convinced that you have, given the whole nature of your Calvinistic theology in which God may secretly be causing you to believe something that no reasonable person should believe (as the link earlier suggests), you can't be sure. Even beyond that insoluable problem, which you haven't disputed yet, how can you be sure of the deductions of your mind even granting that a creator God is the basis for logic and deductions? According to your own theology you are totally depraved. Moreover, do you think you're right about everything you conclude? Everything? No? Then even though you're psychologically sure about something you can still be wrong, can't you? That too is a slender reed to base your whole set of presuppositons on. And the best that your presuppositionalism gets you is to a Deist god, and that is far and away from the full blown Christian theology you espouse.

Secondly, you continually talk about an "internal critique" to debunk other metaphysical beliefs, don't you, which leaves your Christian faith the only one left standing after having done that. Are your sure you can actually do this? I have tried offering an "internal critique" of your Calvinism many times, as you have tried to do so with my atheistic beliefs. But we both claim the other didn't offer a true "internal critique," that each of us failed to understand the other's position. Internal to every world-view there are Kuhnsian anomalies. These are problems from within the worldview itself, and every worldview has them--every one of them. By merely pointing out an anomaly within my worldview does nothing to refute my worldview. I already know about my anomalies, as do you in your worldview. How we judge the case for what we believe is personal and cumulative. There is no deductive syllogism that can lead a person to accept your faith, otherwise why doesn't everyone believe, and where is this so-called knock down argument? Until there is a worldview that has no anomalies to it there will never be an internal critique that will satisfy someone who believes the opposite of what you do. All you're doing when you offer an internal critique is satisfying some psychological need to feel confident in your beliefs...it says nothing much about that other world view.

In the third place, I have fewer presuppositions than you do, and since Ockham's razor suggests fewer and simpler is better, mine are better. You must presuppose so much about history, science and theology that it cannot all be correct, and yet you must be correct about it all if you're right.

Since this is an ongoing discussion, that's all for now.

Christians who remain in the fold (but are "born again and again and again")?

Christians at ExploreFaith.org were asked, "What proof is there that Christianity is not a myth created to assuage our fears about death?" I don't want to spoil the surprise of their first reply (especially if you're only used to dealing with Christians who believe they hold all the proofs of God in their back pockets), so please click here to read it.

The existence of Christians like those at ExploreFaith.org is evidence that for some religious believers there can never be reason enough to leave the fold, no matter how many "questions of faith and doubt" one has. The website features a cadre of famous editors and/or contributors including Marcus Borg, Bart D. Ehrman, Barbara Brown Taylor, and Phyllis Tickle in addition to ministers of different denominations (Anglican, Catholic and Protestant) and at least one rabbi and Buddhist spokesperson as well.

Jon Sweeney is one of the editors of the site, and the author of Born Again And Again: Surprising Gifts Of A Fundamentalist Childhood (pub. Aug. 2005). Although Sweeney moved away from his fundamentalist upbringing, he refuses to give up the idea that we are all born again... and again. (One reviewer pointed out that "Sweeney's practice of openness and hospitality make this autobiographical journey something special. His respect for his fellow Christians, even those with different beliefs, is something we should all emulate in our own spiritual journeys"--published in The Lutheran: The Magazine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, November 2005)

Seeing how open, honest, compassionate (and in control of their tongues) as are the Christians at ExploreFaith.org makes me wonder why inerrantists can't be more like them?

Barbara Brown Taylor is on the editorial board of explorefaith.org, and even her short Vita is long! [Ten years ago Baylor University published a list of the world's "most effective" English-speaking preachers and only one of the top twelve was a woman: Barbara Brown Taylor. After having had volumes of her sermons published, and spoken round the country and overseas, she surprised her growing number of admirers by resigning from her church and accepted a teaching "chair of religion" at a local liberal arts college. Taylor isn't the first to leave parish work in search of a second career as a professor. Religion departments are full of clerics and/or former clerics. But very few so honestly and so masterfully compose the memoirs walking the reader through the conscious and subconscious hopes and fears of all the years of "church life." Not that Taylor betrays parishioner confidences. Her writing, rather, covers interior ground.--Evelyn Bence]

Taylor's new revealing book is titled, Leaving Church: A Memoir of Faith (Harper, May 2006).

Here's an excerpt:

"By now I expected to be a seasoned parish minister, wearing black clergy shirts grown gray from frequent washing. I expected to love the children who hung on my legs after Sunday morning services until they grew up and had children of their own. I even expected to be buried wearing the same red vestments in which I was ordained.

"Today those vestments are hanging in the sacristy of an Anglican church in Kenya, my church pension is frozen, and I am as likely to spend Sunday mornings with friendly Quakers, Presbyterians, or Congregationalists as I am with the Episcopalians who remain my closest kin. Sometimes I even keep the Sabbath with a cup of steaming Assam tea on my front porch, watching towhees vie for the highest perch in the poplar tree while God watches me. These days I earn my living teaching school, not leading worship, and while I still dream of opening a small restaurant in Clarkesville or volunteering at an eye clinic in Nepal, there is no guarantee that I will not run off with the circus before I am through. This is not the life I planned, or the life I recommend to others. But it is the life that has turned out to be mine, and the central revelation in it for me--that the call to serve God is first and last the call to be fully human--seems important enough to witness to on paper. This book is my attempt to do that."

Taylor's website also features an address she gave at the Washington National Cathedral in June, 2006, a few paragraphs of which appear below:

"If my other books have been whole milk books, this is my single malt scotch book, which is the main thing I want to speak with you about tonight. After twenty years of telling the public truth-—the truth I believed was both true for all and good for all, or at least all within the sound of my voice-—my first attempt at telling the private truth—-the truth that may only be true or good for me—-well, that was quite a stretch. Clergy spend a lot of time talking about what is right, in case you hadn’t noticed. For once, I thought I would concentrate on what was true--just for me, from my limited point of view on planet Earth-—in hopes that might be helpful to someone else trying to do the same thing.

"Making the move from sermon to memoir has been one of the more strenuous passages in my life, and it also makes the reviews a whole lot scarier to read. A couple of weeks ago I received one via e-mail with “Review of You” in the subject line. Just for the record, my mother confirms that everything in the book is true...

"A preacher who wants to keep his or her job would do well to avoid trying to say anything true about sex, money, politics, war, or existential despair in church. It is also not a good idea to question established readings of scripture or tradition...

"While I knew plenty of clergy willing to complain about the high expectations and long hours, few of us spoke openly about the toxic effects of being identified as the holiest person in a congregation. Whether this honor was conferred by those who recognized our gifts for ministry or was simply extended by them as a professional courtesy, it was equally hard on the honorees. Those of us who believed our own press developed larger-than-life swaggers and embarrassing patterns of speech, while those who did not suffered lower back pain and frequent bouts of sleeplessness. Either way, we were deformed.

"We were not God, but we spent so much tending the God-place in people’s lives that it was easy to understand why someone might get us confused...

"In 1997, after fifteen years of full time parish ministry, I left my little church in the north Georgia foothills of the Appalachians to become a college teacher. My soul was sunburned, for one thing. I thought there was a chance I had lost my vocation, for another, although I continued to preach and to teach preaching in between my undergraduate classes on everything from the religions of the world to the life and letters of Paul.

"The teaching was and is wonderful. I get to work with nineteen and twenty year olds—an age group I saw very little of in church. I get to ask the questions instead of providing the answers, which is a great freedom and relief. I also get to give grades, which clergy only do in their secret fantasies. (I am sorry, Mr. Smith, but your efforts have been so minimal that I am afraid you have flunked Lent.) I am still a Master of Divinity—isn’t that an interesting name for a theological degree?—but more importantly to me now, I am a member of the Department of Humanities, whose truth-telling has taken a decidedly private turn.

"My last book came out six years ago—a long time, for a wordy person. When people asked me what the hold up was, I told them I had lost my long time editor at Cowley Publications, which was true, but I had also lost my voice—or my voice was changing, anyway, and I did not yet trust it enough to put anything in print. I was no longer a parish priest. Many of my old certainties about life and faith had slipped from my hands."

Add to the above a few more brief quotations from Taylor's book:

"I learned to prize holy ignorance more highly than religious certainty."

"I empty the bag of my old convictions on the kitchen table to decide what I will keep." [Ultimately what she keeps will not satisfy orthodox Christians, as it has more to do with faith (as a verb) than with beliefs.--Evelyn Bence]

There ought to be a law

In another blog entry, as can happen, we diverged off on a Rabbit Trail about the “forcing” of one’s beliefs on another. I complained, as can happen, that many Christians are attempting to force their beliefs through the medium of the American legislative and Judicial branches, rather than persuading society as a whole as to the viability of the Christian morality system.

Actions speak louder than words. Christians don’t show the viability of their belief by practicing them, they attempt to show them by passing laws about plaques and prayers. Look, if you don’t believe them in practice, why should I?

Practically, the primary method of evangelism as exhibited by the American Christian is the attempt to pass a law to make the citizens “look” like they are Christians.

Do you really think God is pleased with a law that prohibits homosexuals from marrying, because it forces America to “look” like it is a Christian? Like making a child squirm and yell, and draw and wiggle through a Church service, but it still counts, because he is there.

I blogged this before, elsewhere, but it seems to still be applicable.

We aren’t the ones mandating that Christians must do such-and-such, and act in a certain way. Your Bible is. We are the ones reading it, and seeing that you have no interest in following its mandates either. If you aren’t interested, why should we be? More importantly, why should we have to follow some of your rules, if you aren’t?

You want to show the world the viability of Christianity? Start acting like Christians! It is hard for us to buy that you believe this stuff, when we see you living in million dollar houses, generating college funds for your children and driving new SUV’s. Oh, we do too, but we aren’t claiming the Bible as the absolute moral authority. You are.

While the esoteric debate of absolute vs. relative morality can be interesting, at some point we need to look at the pragmatic side of the matter—how does it work? When we see how terribly skewed Christianity apply their claimed independent basis for morality, we see a system that is just as relative, and often worse, than any secular humanist could devise.

It is like the child, who upon being formed by their mother to “Go ahead, take the medicine, it tastes good” asks their mother, “If it tastes so good—YOU try it.” The resulting grimace and hesitation is enough information. In spite of the argumentation, practice demonstrates that Mom can’t swallow her own medicine.

Christians have manufactured a list of morals. By alleging it came from a God, they attempt to elevate this list to supercede any list created by mere humans, and trumpet it as, therefore, superior. By defining the God as absolute (albeit unable to verify this claim in any way) this list becomes an “absolute” standard.

I understand that a Christian cannot know everything on the list. I understand that the Christian cannot comprehend some of the things on the list. For the moment, it is enough to know that we have such a list, providing us insight on do’s and don’ts.

But Christians themselves do not follow this list. In fact, they are astoundingly horrible at doing so.

They take their list and start circling certain items as being moral/immoral. Items that any human could come up with. Items that do not cost the Christian anything:

“Do not murder. Do not steal. Do not lie.” What is so remarkable about those circled items? Societies that never even heard of the Christian God developed these concepts. Any human, anywhere, can develop a set of morals such as these. Attributing them to a God is not remarkable. Billions of non-Christians subscribe to these tenets.

After having this list waved about as an extraordinary system of morals, it is high time I reviewed that list, and see just how “absolute” the Christian is being. I can read the Bible too. Remember, this is a list from a God. The human is in no position to pick-and-choose which morals they like, and which ones they don’t. It is an all-or-nothing prospect. If the Christian cannot explain how God-caused atrocities such as Joshua’s genocide are on the list, they certainly have no authority to question the more minor restrictions.

Paul says that entire Law can be summed up as “Love your neighbor.” (Rm. 13:9) Jesus confirms that. (Mark 12:31, Matt. 22:36, Lk. 10:28) If this is number one (or two) on the list, and is emphasized into a place of importance, we must look at it more closely. What does it mean to “Love your neighbor”? Jesus broadly encompasses “Neighbor” to include enemies. (Matt. 5:34).

What moral, what law do we find on this list now? “If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back.” Luke 6:29-30. Wow! When is the last time we saw a Christian argue that should be the number one concern of Christians today? Remember, this is YOUR list, in which YOUR God put it at the very top.

You hold abortion as a sin. It is on the list. Circled. Because of the inability to convince society as a whole, you attempt to pass laws and mandate through the Judicial system by fiat what you cannot do by persuasion. Why are you skipping past the more important laws, as pointed out by your God? You want me to be convinced of your “absolute morality”? Start applying it uniformly. Start petitioning just as hard for laws that cost you, not laws you can live with.

Where is the outcry for the reform of all theft laws to carve out an exception when a Christian is stolen from? It is right there on the list. It even precedes “Do not murder.” If your God thinks it is of the most important, why don’t you? You march against abortion clinics. Where are the Christian clinics where anyone who asks for assistance is given freely? Please READ Luke 6:27-36. These “Christian clinics” should so clog our cities and towns that people cannot get to the Abortion clinic without passing 5 or 6 of them. Dare I say, if you converted your Churches into places where people would freely receive food, clothing, shelter, medicine, and jobs without questions, without admonition, without sanctimonious disapproval you would be stunned at how we would start to look at your “absolute morality.”

Want to take a stab at the very heart of atheism? Stop behaving like one. If you believed that these morals came from a God, you would act on it.

I am unimpressed with philosophical argument, when I see this. Want to make an impact in the world? Want to prevail on this argument easily? Stop picking and choosing your “absolute morals” and start living them. Within your letter to you Congressperson about eliminating abortion, include a mandated Christian-help center.

A rich Christian should be a witticism like “plastic glass” or “jumbo shrimp.” Jesus says, if you want to be perfect, sell your possessions and give to the poor. (Matt. 19:21, Mark 10:21) Stop worrying about material possessions. (Matt. 6:25-34) Give everything you own. (Luke 21:2) I’ll help you out—Christian women can sell or give all their gold jewelry and pearls for the benefit of the poor. 1 Tim. 2:9.

You consider homosexuality a sin. I understand. You desire to pass laws to prohibit homosexual marriage. (Why you want to pass a law prohibiting “sinners” from marrying, since your own system would mandate the elimination of marriage, is beyond me, but so be it.) Fair enough. In looking at your list, I am looking forward to all the proposals on the ballot reducing the amount of Bank Savings, and stock portfolios, and real estate that professing Christians may own.

I am eagerly anticipating the reforms that all of Christendom will be propelling forward with exuberance to eliminate government-assisted aid to the elderly and those needing assistance, as it is clearly the responsibility of the Christians. (James. 1:27) With the elimination of their wealth, it would be easily done.

Come ON! Can anyone point me to a rally, to a petition, to a conference, a proposal, anything in which we see Christians claiming other Christians are not doing their part, and it is time to pass some laws enforcing it! Give me a break.

Our health system is long overdue for some much-needed assistance. Christians, in following their own “absolute” morals will no longer require medicine, hospitals or Doctors for diseases. James 5:13-16. By even using such facilities, they are demonstrating a lack of faith, (Matt 17:20, Matt. 21:21) which I am sure will equally be a crime, once Christians have their way.

More importantly Christians should replace hospitals for sicknesses. (The Bible is never quite clear on injury-related problems.) As any believer is able to heal the sick. (Mark 16:15-19). Jesus even indicates that believers can do MORE than he ever did in the miracle department. (John 14:12)

Want a law that says doctors should be convicted of murder for performing an abortion? Great. I assume that the law will also indicate that any person that goes to a Christian for healing and dies will equally be a victim of Murder. If you can’t heal by your faith, as required by your “absolute moral” then you can’t call yourself a Christian. The number of people claiming to be “Christian” would drop into the single digits. At least that would get you out of giving up your Mutual Funds, wouldn’t it?

And what exactly ARE you doing, complaining about the laws in the country in which you live? If you are facing persecution, isn’t that to be considered a joy? Are you allowed to complain about it? Nope. (James 1:2, 1 Peter 2:13-25, Philippians 2:14). Funny, when I look at your list, I don’t see that one circled, do I?

As I start to inspect this list, and its circled items, a pattern emerges—the Christian only circled the items that do have a cost to the Christian. “Do not steal.” Most people do that anyway, that is an easy one to circle. “Give everything you have to the poor.” Now the Christian starts waving the list real fast, and spouting philosophical meta-arguments of the values of absolute morality, hoping no one ever really looks at what the Christian is actually proposing.

Look, it is very simple. You want to impress the world with absolute morality? Start with laws imposing Christian morals on Christians. Any group that is willing to do that type of self-sacrifice is worthy of notice.

In the meantime, I am less than impressed with your “absolute morality.” If you don’t buy it, why should I?

About the Barker/Manata Debate

Exbeliever comments on the Dan Barker vs Paul Manata debate here. It's a good read...check it out!

A Comedian on Genesis

Ed Babinski sent me this link to a comedian on Genesis. Check it out. It'll provide some respite from our usual debates.

The Calvinist Dilemma...The Atheist Dilemma

[Written by John Loftus]
This is a continuation of a discussion that was started here where I said, "According to Calvinists I don’t believe because God has determined from the beginning of time that I should not believe."

To which amateur wannabe Calvinistic apologist Paul Manata replied:

John, you confuse causes and reasons for unbelief. At least get our position correct. The cause of your unbelief is God's determining that you'd be blinded. The *reasons* for your unbelief are, well, nill.

To which I wrote:

Paul, according to you then, the cause of your belief is God's determining that you'd believe. And according to me, the *reasons* for your belief are, well, nill. If God causes us to believe something, then God is also causing us to accept the reasons for that belief. If God causes us to accept our respective reasons for a belief, then what else can we do but believe? And if God can make us think our respective beliefs are reasonable, then why should we trust our reasoning abilities in the first place? As far as you can tell, God secretly is causing you to believe even though the reasons are on my side.

To which Dawson Bethrick said:

Touché, John! If "God controls whatsoever comes to pass," as Calvinists maintain, then even the believer's own "beliefs" are out of his own control. On the basis of their "worldview presuppositions," there would be no "reasons" underlying their own beliefs, because their beliefs were determined by an invisible magic being, not by logic and reason. They are not held on the basis of a supporting, rational context, for there is no autonomy in the cartoon universe of theism. Their own teaching denies them the rational basis of their beliefs that they so often claim to have. So they may "believe," but they do not know.

Paul Manata replied:

The point was to correct your ignorance of basic doctrines. We've already went over trusting our cognitive faculties within a theistic framework, now haven't we. You can pretend we've not addressed this as that delusion allows you to make your comments. You need to present the entire story correctly. It's not as if we didn't have revelation telling us that God desires we know truth, the world, Him, our relationship to him, the cultural mandate, etc. But, as loong as we're in table turning mode: If the *cause* of your beliefs are the laws of physics, then the laws *cause* you to think your resons are good. But, why trust the operation of the laws of physics to guide you to truth? So, I avoided my dilemma, now it's your turn. ;-)

My response.

I am not ignorant of what Calvinists believe. Why is it you assume that just because I disagree with you I'm ignorant? One of my professors was the dean of Evangelicalism for many years before he passed away, Dr. Kenneth Kantzer, who was an influential Calvinistic evangelical thinker at the time. He studied under the premier Calvinist of the last century, Karl Barth. I took a class with him on Calvinism, and I did my Master’s thesis on Karl Barth. We read through Calvin’s Institutes and discussed them in depth. I had an enviable education studying under leading thinkers among evangelicals (both Arminian and Calvinist, including Dr. Ronald Feenstra) Catholics (including a former President of the American Catholic Philosophical Association) and liberals (like Dr. Daniel Maguire), too. But according to you I’m ignorant on so many things. Hmmm. I just think you’re blinded by your theology.

I am stating my conclusions from it all. And my conclusions will stand the test of your objections. I have not detailed every logical step along the way for you to know I understand Calvinism, in particular. You still seem to think that if someone fully understands Calvinism or Van Tillian presuppositionalism then they could have no objections against either of them, and that quite plainly is ignorant. You even said Dr. William Lane Craig is ignorant about Calvinism, and the only basis for such a statement is that you naively think that if only people understood it, they'd believe it, and that attitude of yours is ignorant and uneducated. [What higher degrees do you have, Paul?] Besides, if God is keeping me from understanding Calvinism, then you have no right to complain if I disagree with it. You should just praise God that I reject Calvinism and evangelical Christianity with it. Why? Because my unbelief is bringing God glory. Praise God! [I know, I know, you have a mandate to offer reasons why I should believe and maybe those reasons might change my beliefs which may be what God really wants, since none of us know what his secret will is, okay?].

Now, about your Van Tillian presuppositionalism argument. You have no reason to trust it…none. Why? Because, from your own theology God is causing you to believe that argument, just like he’s causing me to reject it along with your whole theology. As far as your theology is concerned God may have made the reasons for unbelief much stronger than the reasons for belief and he’s causing you to believe what no reasonable person should believe as part of his secret will. Now how exactly did you avoid your own dilemna here? How? It applies to everything you might reply to me…everything. I must’ve missed it somewhere, maybe because I don’t understand what you wrote, eh? And to think you want to debate me. Get a real education first.

You said, “It's not as if we didn't have revelation telling us that God desires we know truth, the world, Him, our relationship to him, the cultural mandate, etc.” How exactly does this speak anything whatsoever against what I just argued? How? Apply some logic here if you can. The very reason you believe these things in the first place, according to your own theology, is because your God is causing you to believe them. And as I said, you have no reason to suppose that the evidence is much stronger against your beliefs…all of them. Your God can make you believe AGAINST THE EVIDENCE. Admit this, because I think the evidence is against what you believe.

Now, let’s say your theology is correct and that my conjecture is also correct. Then we each believe what your God causes us to believe. Reasons fly out the window. They no longer matter. God causes you to believe and God causes me not to believe, and that’s it. Puhleeeze don’t talk to me about this supposed and ridiculous distinction between God causing us to believe, and the reasons for what we each believe. Such a distinction is logically indefensible; what I have previously called logical gerrymandering. You do know what gerrymandering is, don’t you? Apply some logic here, if you can.

Now to my dilemna. You wrote: “But, as loong as we're in table turning mode: If the *cause* of your beliefs are the laws of physics, then the laws *cause* you to think your resons are good. But, why trust the operation of the laws of physics to guide you to truth?”

I will own up to my difficulty. You refuse to even see you own dificulty, which is a big difference between us. Own up to your difficulty and you will gain a little respect from me. You have no basis for believing that you have a reasonable faith, but won’t admit it. But the honest truth is that I have been led to reject some beliefs of yours. I am firmly committed to the rejection of Christianity and Calvinism in particular. They do not make sense to me. And in the earlier post I reviewed what I think of your case, here. I cannot bring myself to reject the conclusions of my mind, and that’s the bottom line. Can anyone? Can you?

The bottom line is that I think, and because I think I am entitled to my conclusions. That means I can never say that I am certain about my conclusions, or in my reasoning, but what I believe is what I’ve concluded from all of my experiences in life, all of my reading, and all of my thinking. So this is what I conclude, and I am within my epistemic rights to believe what I conclude, simply because I cannot bring myself to believe against my conclusions. That would be ridiculous, now wouldn’t it?

Let’s say this is the case, i.e., that our moral and religious beliefs are completely determined by our genetic makeup, and by when and where we are born. It still doesn’t follow that what I believe is false. I may be lucky and just happened to get it right.

And let's say that my genes and "the accidents of birth" made me the atheist that I am today. So what? If true, this does not undercut what I believe--it supports it in several ways. I’ll admit that our genes and cultural conditions have an extremely strong influence on us to believe certain moral and religious beliefs that cannot be empirically tested, something I’ve argued with regard to The Outsider Test For Faith [go to the link and scroll down for my posts on this test]. If I am an atheist because of my genetic makeup and these cultural conditions, then I'm right that our genes and our cultural conditions lead us to believe these things after all.

The best that could result from this admission is agnosticism. But this doesn’t grant you any ground whatsoever. For to be agnostic about my agnosticism would again be admitting the basis for testing any moral or religious belief system, and that is to be initially agnostic, or skeptical, all over again. So you see, I don't object to my own skepticism. I'm willing to be skeptical of my skepticism. But it's sort of redundant from my perspective, and so it merely reinforces itself. Besides, I would be quite content to be an agnostic, since my atheism isn't something I am that confident about. I'm merely asking on this Blog, given the proliferation of religions around the world and the fact that these kinds of beliefs are largely, if not totally dependent on the accidents of birth, why Christians aren't willing to test their beliefs with a healthy measure of skepticism? A skepticism with which I share.

27 New Species Have Been Found!

I don't usually comment on science or politics, but here's a specific story that speaks to the Biblical story of the Flood; see here. Did Noah take these species on the ark or not? If yes, then how did they get here and only here (some of whom are blind)? If no, then how did they survive the Flood?

Does God Have the Moral Right to Do Whatever He Wants To Us?

Here's a question I received via e-mail: "I was recently having an argument on the morals of God when I came across an interesting theory on ethics which I am having a little trouble refuting. It says that God created us and therefore has the right to do whatever the **** he wants to us. Comparisons to Hitler and Stalin were made, but they said that neither of those two were the Creator of anything, and therefore it was inadequate. I asked if, since the mother makes the child, does she have the right to kill him? The reply was that she did not create the original matter, God did. Am I really stumped here, did I fall prey to a mind game, or have they just created an unfalsifiable argument? I know there was a recent post on NO MAGIC BULLETS!, but I honestly can't find a way around it."

My response:

The short answer is that if God created us then he can do whatever he wants to us. But that doesn't make him a good God. Goodness means at least treating people as you would want to be treated, and such a God would have no respect for us as human beings. We are worse than a proverbial ant farm to him. God would be the ultimate Josef Mengele, experimenting on us and torturing us for his own purposes. That's the kind of God that's being defended here, and it's very repulsive.

As a human in God's ant farm I have every reason to object to his treatment of us. I have every right to rebel and try to thwart him (even if futile) just like a captive person who has been kidnapped has every right to escape and to harm his capturers. And if this is the case I have every reason to deny him, to reject him and to cease believing in him. Let him do to me as he wants. He will anyway. It would be my way of rebelling against the biggest bully in town. He has no moral right to treat us this way, even if he claims that he does. He doesn't have any moral right from my perspective, and that's the only perspective that matters to us as humans if he causes us to suffer.

However, the actual situation is that the presence of the amount of suffering in our world stands as evidence against the existence of any God, from our earthly perspective. If such a God existed he would be incompetent, lame, and ineffective. It's the handiwork of a buffoon, a duffas, a dimwit. Come on, why would he create such a world that has so many faults, like earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, poisonous creatures and plants? Why not create us with better immune systems to diseases which have wiped out whole civilizations in the past? Why did he create the whole predator-prey relationship in the first place? All creatures could've been created as vegetarians and kept that way with reduced mating cycles so there is enough vegetation for all.

Christians who respond by saying that suffering is God's punishment for our sins fail to understand that the so-called punishments do not fit the crimes. Even our own system of punishments is more humane in how we treat criminals.

Does God Look Like This?

In an earlier post I described the Hebrew Universe. The so-called Bible believing Christians have argued that this is merely the language of appearances, that is, it’s merely figurative language, just like heaven is described as a city in Revelation 21-22, but neither of which are to be taken literally by educated Christians today. [Although, many Christians still believe heaven is exactly as described in Revelation, as is hell.] Are they correct?

The question for me is this one: How do Christians know that the Hebrews didn’t take these verses literally? With what we read in the Bible, the burden of proof is squarely on them.

What did early Christians think about heaven (remember, Jesus supposedly bodily ascended to sit at the right hand of God on a throne and to rule in a heavenly city, with mansions [John 14:1-4])? We must step back in time before the rise of modern astronomy to see the universe as they did. That’s all. Modern Christians try to avoid the conclusions of the literal Biblical statements because they read the Bible after the rise of science. It’s that simple, and it’s bad exegesis. Jesus could only have bodily ascended into heaven if heaven is in the sky, as the ancients believed.

In a like manner, a similar question arises when we ask what the ancient Hebrews thought about God.

The Bible states that man and woman are to have been created in the image/likeness of God in three passages in the early chapters of Genesis (Gen 1:26–28; 5:1–3; 9:6), for instance: “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” (Genesis 1:27)

About this listen to the Anchor Bible Dictionary (“Image of God’) which tells us: “It is clear that a certain ambiguity is associated with the meaning of the terms “image and likeness of God” in these passages in Genesis. It is difficult to know whether the author of the material used expressions from the tradition that his audience would immediately understand in their cultural context, but which we in a vastly different cultural setting lack the contextual clues to understand precisely, or whether the author deliberately presented these ideas in a somewhat ambiguous way. Gen 5:1–2 makes it clear that both male and female are included under the designation adam who was made in God’s image. Gen 5:3 reports that Adam fathered a son “in his likeness, according to his image,” and the verse employs the same nouns used in Gen 1:26–27, though the order of the nouns and the prepositions used with each are reversed in comparison to Gen 1:26. This suggests that the way in which a son resembles his father is in some sense analogous to the way in which the human is like God. Since this passage has made the point that it is both male and female who are in the image of God, it seems clear that the similarity, while not excluding the physical in the broadest sense, focuses on capacities such as personality, self-determination, and rational thought. It is probable that it is the whole person who is in the image of God rather than some specific aspect of that person to the exclusion of others, and this focus on the human being as a whole being is consistent with the way humanity is viewed throughout the Hebrew Bible.”

And read this from the Harper’s Bible Dictionary (“Image Of God”), which is more to the point: “To speak of human beings (‘Adam’) as created in the image of God apparently refers primarily to the bodily form (the Hebrew term for ‘image’ usually denotes a concrete likeness) but also to the spiritual attributes the physical body symbolizes.”

If we want to know just what that image is, we should consider some of these passages that describe God with a human form:

Genesis 2:2: "And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made."

But only a physical being needs to rest.

Genesis 3:8: "They heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden at the time of the evening breeze, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden."

Shouldn't this verse settle the whole debate?

God has arms: Ex. 6:6; Ex. 15:16; Deut. 4:34 Deut. 7:19; 9:29; 26:8; Acts 13:17. Deut. 5:15 Psa. 136:12. Deut. 11:2; Deut. 33:27; 1 Kin. 8:42 2 Chr. 6:32. 2 Kin. 17:36; Psa. 77:15; Psa. 89:10, 13, 21; Psa. 98:1; Song 2:6; Isa. 33:2; Isa. 40:10, 11; Isa. 51:5, 9; Isa. 52:10; Isa. 53:1; Isa. 59:16; Isa. 62:8; Isa. 63:5, 12; Jer. 21:5 Ezek. 20:33. Jer. 27:5 Jer. 32:17. Luke 1:51.

God has ears: Psa. 17:6; Psa. 39:12; Psa. 77:1; Psa. 80:1; Psa. 84:8.

God has eyes: Psa. 33:18, 19; Psa. 34:15 Amos 9:8; 1 Pet. 3:12. Psa. 121:3–5; Isa. 1:15; Isa. 3:8; Hab. 1:13; Matt. 6:22; Luke 11:34.

God has hands: Num. 11:23; is mighty, Josh. 4:24; was heavy, 1 Sam. 5:6; against the Philistines, 1 Sam. 7:13; on Elijah, 1 Kin. 18:46; not shortened, Isa. 59:1; was with the early Christians, Acts 11:21.

God has a footstool: The earth is God’s, Isa. 60:13; 66:1; Lam. 2:1; Acts 7:49.

God has a scepter: Gen. 49:10; Num. 24:17; Isa. 9:4.

God sits on a throne: 2 Chr. 18:18; Psa. 9:4, 7; 11:4; 47:8; 89:14; 97:2; 103:19; Isa. 6:1; 66:1; Matt. 5:34; 23:22; Heb. 8:1; 12:2; Rev. 14:3, 5; of Christ, Matt. 19:28; 25:31; Acts 2:30; Rev. 1:4; 3:21; 4:2–10; 7:9–17; 19:4; 21:5; 22:3.

God has a heavenly court: Gen. 1:26; 11;7; Job 1:6.

God even has nostrils: Ex 15:8; Job 4:9; Psalm 18:8, 15; Is. 65:5,

Listen to this passage from 2 Samuel 22:8:

Then the earth reeled and rocked;
the foundations of the heavens trembled
and quaked, because he was angry.
Smoke went up from his nostrils,
and devouring fire from his mouth;
glowing coals flamed forth from him.
He bowed the heavens, and came down;
thick darkness was under his feet.
He rode on a cherub, and flew;
he was seen upon the wings of the wind.
He made darkness around him a canopy,
thick clouds, a gathering of water.
Out of the brightness before him
coals of fire flamed forth.
The Lord thundered from heaven;
the Most High uttered his voice.
He sent out arrows, and scattered them
—lightning, and routed them.
Then the channels of the sea were seen,
the foundations of the world were laid bare
at the rebuke of the Lord,
at the blast of the breath of his nostrils.

Can you picture this? Sounds like Zeus to me, and Zeus was pictured with a physical body.

The gods of surrounding cultures had human and physical characteristics. There is no reason to suppose the Hebrews thought differently about their God from what we read in the OT. The burden of proof is upon the conservative Christian to show why they don’t think of God in a human form. Mormons today take these statements literally and believe God has the shape of a human being, so if modern people like Mormons think this way, then it’s even more likely that ancient Hebrews did.

Michelangelo’s painting of the creation of Adam [above] may actually reflect the ancient Hebrew view of God creating man.

What are some of the implications of these things? 1) The Bible reflects ancient views of God, the universe, and heaven/hell, which slowly evolved into the views Christians have today. 2) The Bible is misinterpreted by conservative Christians today because they do not understand the Bible as it was originally understood. 3) The Bible has nothing to say about how God created the universe (if he exists), and it makes no claim about creation that we should believe today merely because the Bible states it, since it's based upon ancient myths. 4) Christians cannot take every statement in the Bible about God, the universe, heaven/hell as the truth, if properly understood in its context, since those conceptions evolved inside the Bible itself. There are other implications.