Yesterday, I was discussing with a Christian the lineage of Christ as outlined in Scripture. The lineages appear in Matthew 1:1–17 and Luke 3:23–28. If one were to compare Jesus’ bloodline side-by-side, one would see it is completely and utterly inconsistent. However, Christians do not read the Bible in this manner.
Christians normally read the Bible in a devotional manner rather than comparatively and intellectually. They select a passage, read it, and use a dogmatic view instilled by their pastor or other Christian leaders to interpret—essentially justifying anything that might stand out as a contradiction or error.
When I pointed out to this individual that the lineages were inconsistent, he said, “I will go and find a book written by a Christian that discusses this.” I implored him, “No, go to the Bible and look for yourself.” He refused. He plans to read a Christian justification of this contradiction before viewing it for himself.
This is pure anti-intellectualism of the highest degree and demonstrates the depth of indoctrination.
Dear Hammerman, Is this blog what you have chosen to be your new legacy? By legacy I mean that which you wish to be remembered by and invest your time and life in? Where do you find the energy and personal resources to continue? You point out you can't find worthwhile debating partners and the anti-intellectualism and lack of equality and quality in sparring partners drives you nuts. How much of YOU will you devote to putting those beneath you in their place? On another note, can you please do something about these Google ads which are links to Christian apologetics sites which argue against you... the inconsistency of presentation is upsetting your disciples.
ReplyDeleteYet again, you have nothing of substance to offer. Don't worry about how I spend my time. I get asked by Christians all the time why I am so concerned. I reverse the question to you. Why are YOU so concerned about what I have to say about your beliefs? Go pray about it.
ReplyDeleteDaniel,
ReplyDeleteOK, I will take you up on your offer/challenge in your open letter to preachers and SS teachers. I will try not to be anti-intellectual. I will try not to react out of indoctrination. I will try not to claim that there is "proof" for those things that require faith. I will try not to do the other things that the Christians you indict do that seem to iritate you. I will do my best.
I will start our conversation with a two-part question: In your years in the church, did you ever (a) experience a personal relationship with a/the/any supernatural being or (b) understand what is meant by a "personal experience with God"?
I thought I experienced a "relationship", but, once out from under the weekly indoctrination sessions, I realized it was simply a figment of my imagination.
ReplyDeleteYes, I understand what a personal relationship is. However, it has been demonstrated over and over that it is entirely possible for a human to have imaginary friends.
Yes, of course it is possible to have an "imaginary" relationship with God, but I presume you don't claim that because your relationship was imaginary that it therefore follows that all claimed relationships with Christ are imaginary, do you?
ReplyDeleteQuestion - do you claim that all Christians labor under false illusions like the people who approached you in California, or just some of them? In other words, is it possible that some of us have real relationships with Christ, or all we all some combinations of liars and nuts?
Dear Lyn, if only DH would answer a question such as yours with more thought and less one-line generalization. You answered at 752pm last night and I know what DH's response is going to be so I'm jumping the gun and will predict his answer will be, yes he does claim all relationships with Christ are imaginary and it is not possible to have real relationships with Christ and we are one or the other nuts or liars. It's this broadstroke approach he's taken that damages his credibility in argument. I would like to think there's actually a credible atheist argument in his blog, but I haven't seen him step up yet. I have more hours under my belt as an atheist than he does. DH has a lot to learn about convincing people. His one-liners are securing a place for this blog on the fringe. I hope he surprises and writes something that actually demonstrates him to be an atheist with a thoughtful viewpoint instead of just an angry man out to minimalize people with a shock jock approach with no solution to offer. I hope he answers your question instead of dismissing you with his stereotypical backhands.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of generalizations--Squeaker, you obviously can't do any better. You are even so bold as to predict my answer. This is the case with all Christians. They claim to have it all figured out. Atheists claim nothing without evidence. That's the beauty of my position.
ReplyDeleteBack to your previous statement, I'm not asking anyone to put faith in my belief. My statements do not require faith because they are not beliefs. It's lack of belief in your particular god.
I once was under the indoctrination of the church. I am no longer. Are you critical and presumptuous with those who were under the indoctrination of the Soviet Union for years and who now see the folly of the State? I assume not.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete...and, yes, Christians labor under illusion and delusion.
ReplyDeleteChristians feel a need to proselytize so as to enlist people to share in their folly. I'm sure it has subconscious guidance.
I think it's humorous that this discussion is happening on a blog about ERRORS in the Bible.
ReplyDeleteThe standard Christian response is to divert by attacking the author RATHER THAN DISCUSSING THE ACTUAL ISSUE!!!!
THE BIBLE IS THE ISSUE. NOT ME! Once you understand that, you'll live a better life. Now, do you have ANY RESPONSE to the blog?!
Daniel,
ReplyDeletePlease don't let Squeaker distract you. I am trying to take you up on your challenge and have a real conversation with you.
You did not answer my question. You said "Christians labor under illusion and delusion." Do you mean that ALL Christians are under such an illusion? And thus, does that make me nuts?
I wouldn't say "all" are "nuts". All are under a misapprehension. Most Christians are obviously able to function normally in society, as are muslims and other religious folk. In most cases, their rational side is strong enough to guide them through daily life, but isn't strong enough to combat the indoctrination of the church.
ReplyDeleteChristianity is a myth and those who subscribe to it are simply misled.
Well, Daniel, this makes it interesting. You issued a challenge to Christian teachers to engage you in a conversation, but then, without knowing me and having seen only two emails from me, you have determined that I am "under a misapprehension", that I am "misled", and that my "raitional side ... ins't strong enough to combat the indoctination of the church." What was the point of your challenge - just to make fun of whoever responded?
ReplyDeleteInsults aside, I am a little confused about how serious you were in issuing your challenge to a group of "misled" and insufficiently "rational" (to meet your standards people. It does not take a Ph.D. in rhetoric to understand that you are choosing not to debate the issues and simply are painting anyone who disagrees with you as a fool. There are terms for that. I won't bore you with them right now, as clearly you are so well read that you will be familiar with them already.
I will soldier on anyway. You do not accept my word that I have a relationship with God, since you say that I am misled, not rational enough to understand that I am not really having a relationship but have simply been indoctrinated, and under a misapprehension. How can you tell all of that from my two emails? Have you met every Christian in the world? Obviously not, so have you met a sufficient sample to conclude about all of us from that sample? I certainly reject many of the models of so-called "Christians" whom you attack in your blog. (They call that "straw man argumentation", but you knew that already.) I am not like the narrow-minded and overly fundamentalist folks you lampoon. Why do you assume I am?
Let me try a different tack:
Do you believe in sin? Is there such thing as right and wrong? If there is, are you a sinner? If so, what is the consequence of your sin?
Sorry for the typos in the previous email. My irrationality obviously affects my typing. LOL.
ReplyDeleteI'm certainly not trying to insult you. I'm willing to engage anyone who wants to discuss the topic and I will be respectful. However, I will adhere to my previous comments. Yes, those who put faith in Jesus and Christianity are under a misapprehension. Religion as a whole is irrational. None have grounding in reality.
ReplyDeleteIt is anti-intellectual to subscribe to any religion or claim to communicate with a supernatural being. As I mentioned in my previous response, I'm certain Christians have a rational side, they just choose to suspend it when it comes to the religion.
I disagree with the religious concept of sin. It is based on a man-made code. The Code of Hammurabi, Zoroastrianism, and other Bronze Age near-eastern religions predated the Mosaic Law and introduced dualism and religious morality.
ReplyDeleteThere is a distinct difference between religious morality and innate human morality. Science has demonstrated that through natural selection humans possess a balance of healthy selfishness and altruism. I can provide example after example of animals demonstrating caring and loving character if necessary. Religious moral code is based on nothing more than local culture and customs and lust for power and control by clergy, priests, and other religious leaders.
The consequences of immorality are played out through disease, untimely death, loss of income, loss of family and support, and numerous other negative outcomes. These occur with or without religion.
Name one unselfish or altruistic act committed by a Christian that could not have been committed by a non-Christian. Likewise, name one evil act committed by a non-Christian that could not have been committed by a Christian.
BTW, I do not think you're dumb or crazy. Those were not my words. I believe that if one believes in the supernatural in general and Christianity specifically, he is under a misapprehension.
ReplyDeleteIf we are going to have this conversation, we have to establish some common ground. I am not defending "religion," so your continued attacks on religious ideals and your ad hominem attacks on "religious" people are wasting our time. While I too admire science, your slavish bowing at the feet of science is childish - if you really believe that science has answered all questions relevant to life, you are not the thinker I have taken you to be.
ReplyDeleteNo, the concept of sin is not based on a manmade code. I am not talking about stealing or adultery, although those are certainly examples of sin. I am taking about failing to live up to what is required of you. Leaving aside, for now, the question of "who" or "what" requires it of you, and to humor you I will also leave aside the idea of "sin," let me try for the third time to get you to answer the question you are so obviously sidestepping: Is there such a thing as right and wrong? If so, do you do wrong? If so, what is the consequence of your wrongness?
I didn't side-step. I fully answered your question. There IS an innate moral code.
ReplyDeleteYes, I am a slave to science, reason, intellect, facts, and therefore truth. There is no supernatural and therefore I see no need to follow a Bronze Age myth.
You're getting very defensive. Not once have I attacked you directly. Yes, Christians as a whole follow a myth. This is not ad hominem.
In my last response, SHOW ME WHERE I leveled an ad hominem attack, because I did not.
If you want to argue fallacies, the Bible is the largest fallacy of all. It is the epitome of circular reasoning--"It is true because it says it's true."
Now, to answer your question AGAIN, yes, there are right and wrong according to an innate moral code. In asking the question, you want me to give an answer that leaves room for a god. There is no need for a god to answer the question. Science demonstrates that morality is evident in the animal kingdom.
I don't mean to be defensive, but I can see how that could creep in to this discussion, given your tone. I will try to avoid that.
ReplyDeleteOK, so there is an "innate moral code." Do you violate it? What is the consequence of your violation?
As I mentioned above, "The consequences of immorality are played out through disease, untimely death, loss of income, loss of family and support, and numerous other negative outcomes. These occur with or without religion."
ReplyDeleteYes, my tone is "religion is ridiculous." That could cause some to be defensive. However, as I stated previously, I am not attacking individuals. Everyone has a different level of rational thought. Many Christians live their entire lives immersed in a non-existent supernatural world. Others only occasionally stick their heads in the clouds. I tried to remain grounded as firmly as possible in reality.
ReplyDeleteDo you have any comments related to the above blog? I'm curious to hear a Christian explanation for the inconsistency.
ReplyDeleteActually, the two blood lines are a part of Hebrew Tradition. You see, in Jewish culture, you can trace your blood through the mother OR the father. Jesus' genealogy is from Mary AND from Joseph. They actually prove his Deity because of this whole Davidic Covenant that God made to King David about his line never having the Messiah...it's complicated. But Amazing, when you study it in greek. Pick and choose passages doesn't work. You need context. The bible is a book and you don't just skip from random page to random page, do you?
ReplyDelete"Context" is the argument I hear on a regular basis from Christians. How are these taken out of context? Please provide a thorough explanation as to why these verses are "out of context".
ReplyDeleteAgain, in my blog, I'm referring to the inconsistency. Honestly, I could care less whose bloodline makes him Jewish--it's a ridiculous concept anyway. The point is the TWO GENEALOGIES ARE DIFFERENT. Someone explain why.
Here's the thing:
ReplyDeleteContext is what we mean when we talk about all influences that need to be considered. If you want an accurate understanding of what is going on in the story, there are many questions to ask.
This is a great question. Why are there two different genealogies?
Well, again I state the whole jewish bloodline thing. I know you consider this 'ridiculous', but I consider it even more ridiculous to NOT consider the cultural implications of these passages. If you throw out Jewish belief about a Jewish Messiah, go do something else. You need to have the most information possible for this question to be answered.
Also, Jesus has two genealogies because he has two parents. One is from his mother's side. The other is from his father.
When understanding genealogies, this seems pretty straight-forward.
I can't convince you of anything if you don't want to hear it. I feel like you're really just wanting me to be wrong more than get an actual answer. So go ahead: tell me why I'm a ridiclous christian using an excuse to not answer questions. I'll be open-minded to your response. And I don't think you are ridiclous.
you're asking good questions.
Yet again, another common Christian response. Christians always say that one is for his mom and the other for his dad. Wrong. You obviously haven't read the verses. I URGE YOU to read the verses. They both state they are his father's side. Neither says his mother's side.
ReplyDeleteIt's pretty clear IF YOU ACTUALLY READ THEM.
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteBack to my question - you have stated that the concept of worldwide sin is disease, etc... (Actually a solidly Christian concept drawn from the fall.) But I am talking about you individually - are you saying that when you fail morally you get sick or lose money? Are all sick people suffering a punishment?
I don't have a great explanation for the difference in the genealogies. It could be the mother/father thing - I know they both say Joseph, but Luke could be emphasizing Mary's family side. But I think that is a red herring. I don't read the Bible as a history book any more than it is a science text or a mathematics text book. I don't think the sun stood still and I can't reconcile all of the conflicts in the lists of Hebrew and Judahic kings in Samuel and Kings and Chronicles.
But I don't care. The Bible was written by fallible humans.
The Bible is not intended to be a history or science text, so historical or scientific inconstistencies in it are of no moment.
The Bible is intended to be the biography of God and God's dealings with God's people, both then and now, and as such, it is authoritative and true.
Back to your challenge - does your sin (please don't forget to answer the question I asked in the first paragraph) or whatever you call it have any consequences for you of a non-temporal nature? In other words, other than living in a world where there are diseases and tornadoes and recessions, does your moral failure extract any kind of metaphysical cost?
Yes, the Bible was written by fallible humans. The verses regarding Jesus' lineage are his father. All one has to do is read it and it is clear. It says nothing about being his mother's lineage. If a ghost is Jesus' daddy, then the entire lineage is irrelevant anyway.
ReplyDeleteMany Christians I argue with claim the Bible is very historical. It's refreshing to meet one who thinks otherwise.
Obviously, no, I don't think everyone who is sick is suffering punishment. That's actually ridiculous. I don't believe there is any sort of supernatural punishment for actions whether good or bad. Things just happen.
As for the metaphysical cost for my failure, any negative action or failure I may commit will have some sort of psychological, emotional, or physical effect upon me and the person against whom I have committed the malfeasance. I believe much of the innate morality we possess is a result of our genetic relatedness to others in our species. The closer we are related to a species, the more likely we are empathize and are therefore less likely to commit an offense.
Those who commit heinous crimes such as murder more than likely exhibit some sort of faulty wiring in the brain that disconnects them from seeing the consequences of their actions and empathizing with the victim. This can be demonstrated scientifically.
In other words, our actions whether good or bad will happen without the supernatural.
OK, now we are getting somewhere. You agree that there is "some sort of psychological, emotional, or physical effect" on you from your "negative action." Let's file that away.
ReplyDeleteI am going to ask two questions now. They are not particularly related to each other.
1. What happens when you die? Is it over? Is there anything that lives on? If so, what is it and how/where does it live on?
2. What is love?
1. We cease to exist. The only thing that might live on for a period is the memory of a person. Occasionally, someone commits an act that causes the memory of them to live on a little longer.
ReplyDelete2. My understanding of love has developed over the years. The English language does not do the concept of love justice. We have ONE WORD to describe "love". Contemporary Western culture sees everything in black and white--as love and hate. This can cause great confusion. In actuality, it is much more complicated and grey. The Greeks understood it best. There is agape, philia, thelema, storge, eros, ethos love, pathos love, and so on.
Love of any sort is not magical. It is simply a natural feeling of bonding and connection. At the beginning of "love", it is a longing, anticipation, desire, and/or lust for a person or object. The initial feeling of overwhelming desire (eros) for someone or something can fade, but in the case of human love, it can grow into a deep commitment that creates a sort of emotional and psychological bond (a combination of one or more--philia, thelema, storge, eros). Sometimes these fluctuate and one becomes more prominent over the other.
In short, love is simply a combination of moods, feelings, lusts, commitment, and passion. They are exhibited in the animal kingdom and in humans.
OK. So death to you means that you cease to exist. You do not believe in any sort of soul, spirit, essence, or whatever that survives the expiration of your body.
ReplyDeleteAnd love is a combination of moods, feelings, and passions that can be exhibited in the animal kingdom.
As to the first, I wonder if you have ever been in the room when a person has died. More specifically, have you ever been in the room when a Christian has died? But I digress... your position obviously does not allow for the afterlife.
As to the second, I am really sorry that you have no experience with love. If you believe it is a combination of feelings, lusts, and passions, you have really seen very little of love. Your lip service to the various Greek concepts of love was making me hopeful for a moment, but your attempted definition of love reverts to a surface-level description of the baser parts of what the Greeks would call eros and philia. You give no explanation of storge, and you clearly have no idea what agape is at all.
It is at this point that our long-distance, megabyte-driven cyber-correspondence makes this debate difficult. I can tell you that I have love for you solely because of my relationship with Christ, but as you have never met me and probably never will meet me, you have no reason to assign that statement any credibility. So let me ask my next question this way: Do you know anyone - a family member, someone from your former church life, some Christian whom you actually respect (if that is possible for you) - who loves you in a way that goes beyond what you have described in your attempted definition of "love" in your last post... someone who loves you in a way you cannot understand?
I have experienced love to the fullest degree. I have a wonderful wife who loves me unconditionally and a family that shows my love everyday. There is nothing mystical about it. There isn’t some secret form of love that only Christians can experience.
ReplyDeleteI’ve had Christians show me love through the years—yes—but there’s nothing more special about that than love from anyone else. To “feel” that Christian love is more significant than run-of-the-mill love is not evidence of something higher at all.
Love—as well as hate, and any other emotion for that matter--can be experienced by Christians and non-Christians alike.
You do your wife and those who love you a disservice if you think that their love is nothing but a combination of moods, feelings, and passions. You don't understand that love of Christians for you if you belive that "there's nothing more special about that than love from anyone else." That may be the fault of the Christians who love you, but since I know some of them, I don't think so. I think you are intentionally choosing not to recognize that their love for you comes from something other than their feelings. Given your recently discovered atheism and your cynical attack on what they believe, I expect that their "feelings" and "passions" would not lead to love for you.
ReplyDeleteLove is an action, not a feeling, and love for the one who despises what you believe in comes from somewhere other than a good mood.
Next question - what do you do with the resurrection? Was it just made up? Did the Roman soldiers just go to sleep? Did the witnesses who saw the risen Christ all just collectively hallucinate?
I completely agree. Love is an action. It is also a collection of emotions that are stirred in the brain.
ReplyDeleteThere was no resurrection. I don't care what people say. I don't know what happened to the body (if there was one). Point is people can't be resurrected. It's impossible. They were either hallucinating or misled. Happens today. In fact, I would compare them to people who see UFOs or who have been "abducted". We can actually talk to them and I'm sure you and I agree that they are loony.
Well, you can certainly end this conversation if you want to by saying "there was no resurrection" without offering a hint of logic or explanation, but I didn't think that was your style. I thought you were the big logician. Are you really saying that the Roman guard, working for the governor on pain of death, was collectively "hallucinating or misled"? And over 150 witnesses were "hallucinating or misled"? That is awfully convenient for you, isn't it - to take an argument you don't understand and just toss it out as based on faulty witnesses? Isn't that akin to what you criticize people for on the evolution of the eyeball (reductio ad absudum)? Can't you come up with something better than that? I'll help you - say that it's all a lie - there were no Roman soldiers there.... Or... Jesus didn't really die on the cross, he just passed out.... Or how about this - the apostles drugged the soldiers and stole the body. At least those make more sense then "they were hallucinating." And as for the 150 witnesses, just say they were all in a conspiracy to start a new religion - Roman law notwithstanding - and it was cool for them to join in this mass lie. Any of those is better than "they were all hallucinating." Come on, Daniel, I am disappointed in you.
ReplyDeleteIn reading your latest posts, I am beginning to understand what I think is the heart of your problem with Christianity. You say this: "My primary issue with Christianity and for that matter Judaism and Islam is these religions are based on the dreams, visions, interpretations of folklore, and/or outright fabrications and manipulation of historical events." This of course dovetails nicely with your "rebranding" argument, wherein you accuse us of tossing out the parts of the "dreams, visions, folklore, and... historical events" we don't like in favor of a flavor of the month.
That would all make sense if it had an ounce of truth behind it, but your premise is wrong. Christianity is not based on what some goatherders in the Middle East said - it is based on relationship with the living God. You can say that I am hallucinating or misled if you want, but short of that (and unless I am just a brilliant liar with nothing better to do than to throw my life away on this tale), you have to deal with my experience with God. That experience is the basis of my belief and my faith - the Bible then becomes, as I have written to you before, a biography of that God and the story of how God has dealt with people in the past. It is authoritative, not because of Obadiah's innate understanding of quantum physics and Nahum's clear explanations of Chinese history, but rather because God reveals Godself to us bit by bit. Yes, ancients living in an incredibly violent world latched onto what they understood of God - God's authority and power - in making some incredibly violent decisions. But God is fully revealed in Christ.
Are there some things in the Old Testament that no longer apply? Of course. That is why the vast majority of Christians don't follow the Kosher laws. That does not mean there was not a time and place for those laws when God was dealing with infant peoples in a new world, but it is equally true that God's dealings with us have evolved as we as a race have matured.
continued in next post...
(continuation of previous comment...)
ReplyDeleteSurely you have seen multiple examples of progressive revelation in other parts of life. Do you have kids? I doubt you explain why touching a stove is bad in the same way to your six-year-old as you do to your 9-month-old. To the baby, you simply say "no" and forcefully snatch her hand away before she is burned. Have you ever coached a team? Surely you don't explain tactics in the same way to a rookie as you do to an experienced all-star. Have you ever taught a class? Of course you start with basics, even skipping some critical elements at first, until there is some understanding of what has to be learned first. Ever seen somebody take a piano lesson? They are at first told NOT to use a pedal, even though pedaling is integral to good piano playing, because they must first learn how to play one key at a time. That does not mean that pedaling is wrong, but it does mean that it would be wrong to reveal pedaling to someone who has not yet mastered Chopsticks.
I think it is time for you to quit picking on strawmen. Yes, it is easy to make fun of people who call themselved Christian and who make bad arguments in support of Christianity. I could do the same thing with shallow atheists, but what would be the point? Get out of the shooting gallery and start dealing with the real issue - the fact that God wants relationship with you, the fact that God demonstrates that desire to you through His love for you and through His children's love for you, and the fact that Christ gave His life for you even while you were (and are) uninterested in His life. Those are the real issues, not whether somebody's view of Jesus contradicts somebody else's interpretation of Second Chronicles.
You cited Roman guards and 150 who "saw" Jesus. I see on your profile that you're a lawyer. I would think that you of all people would understand the importance of corroborating evidence. One unauthenticated source won't cut it for me.
ReplyDeleteMiracles are never verified. It is always one person's word against reality. If you were in court and the prosecutor said that 150 people saw your man kill his wife, you would say, "Present these people." I am saying, "Present these people OR at least authenticate the story." If the prosecutor could not present at least one person, the story would be bunk. Pretty basic concept.
If I wanted to, I could say 150 people saw me raise a man from the dead. What would be your response to that? Apply it to this situation.
Scientific evidence is thorough and concise. It can be replicated in a lab and is well-documented. Likewise with archaeology and paleontology. I think I'll stick with reality and fact.
The difference between you and me is I am skeptical and believe that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You will take the word of any ole Joe over reality. Do you also believe the word of psychics?
Do you believe in Julius Caesar? How about Philip of Macedon? What is your evidence that Hannibal actually lived? There is more historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus than that any of these men ever existed.
ReplyDeleteAs I have been telling you from the beginning of this discussion, I cannot persuade you with a level of scientific proof. Ultimately, I have my experience. I know someone whom you don't know. He loves you. It is your choice whether or not to write me off as a nut or a liar. I have given my life to this - you are giving your current days to demanding "evidence".
Prove to me that the wind exists, or that pain exists. Show me a sorrow. Demonstrate with evidence that there is such a thing as liberalism, or wonder, or fear.
You cannot prove any of those. You have to experience them or take the word of someone who has. You may say you can measure wind, but I tell you that you are brainwashed by others who say that they have felt wind but were mistaken, for I can see no wind. I have never seen a pain, and any doctor will tell you that there is no measure for pain outside of the history provided by the patient.
My corroborating evidence comes from the variety of authors whose work is collected in scripture, the variety of authors whose works have been collected over the past two centuries who report their own experiences, the experiences of many with whom I have spoken, and of course my own experience.
But ultimately, this is about faith, not about proof. We see through a glass darkly. Several blogs ago, I asked you where your cold reliance on scientific rationality was getting you. You did not answer. I am sure that you have a glib response, but I can tell you that I am unsatisfied with what human science and rationality and thought and persuasion can provide, for they are not enough. Walking by sight leaves you only with what you can see.
The world is so much more complex than that. Only the foolish human who thinks that humanity has a lock on what can be known fails to understand that.
I invite you to faith. I invite you to meet the One whom I know. I invite you to love. I invite you to hope.
I have plenty of hope. Don't worry about that.
ReplyDeleteGive me one source OUTSIDE the Bible that VALIDATES the resurrection or the pedophile ghost that impregnated Mary. Give me evidence for any miracle. Josephus is not a valid source because he simply says "Yeah, there are these people who claim their guy arose." That doesn't work. Show me these other sources you claim!
Lyn, trying to draw a comparison of Jesus to Caesar or Phillip is less than intellectual. We have corroborating evidence that they all lived (well very limited for Jesus' existence). Even if we had writings of 150 people saying Caesar raised someone from the dead, we wouldn't believe it, because it's absurd.
Wake up, my friend. You can do better than this.
You are historically wrong. There is not more historical proof for the life of Caesar than there is for the resurrection. You are incorrect about that.
ReplyDeleteBut I don't care about that. As long as you infect this discussion with your crude pet phrases like "pedophile ghost," it is clear that you are not interested in any kind of serious discussion.
I ultimately have only one thing to offer you - my experience. I know somebody whom you don't know. He wants to know you. He loves you. He offers things you cannot get anywhere else.
It is up to you.
Actually, your understanding of the history of both individuals is very wrong.
ReplyDeleteEvidence for the life of Caesar:
1) Coins bearing his name and image
2) Buildings bearing his name and image
3) Sculptures bearing his likeness
4) Documents written by him
5) Documents written by his opponents in war and his political enemies
I'll provide any of these if you'd like.
Evidence for the resurrection of Jesus:
1) 2 gospels - 99% of Biblical scholars (even conservative ones) will tell you that Mark and John are originals (of the ones includes in the Bible). Luke and Matthew are embellished copies of Mark. This is generally taught in nearly all seminaries--even evangelical ones. I remember learning this while I was a religion student at Union University in Jackson, TN, a VERY conservative Southern Baptists school.
That's it. There are no other documents validating Jesus' existence, much less his resurrection. I don't make statements unless I can back them up.
I'd still like to see these extra-biblical sources you claim.
Experience of the supernatural proves nothing. Any "experiences" anyone might have could easily be attributed to a playful imagination, hallucination, schizophrenia, psychosis, or simple indigestion.
I have messed up here - I have allowed you to get me off the point. I conceded a long time ago that I was not going to convince you with "evidence" or "proof," and yet I have let you get me off on this "how much evidence is there" game. I rely on faith, not sight, so I concede the "scientific evidence" point. I do not admit you are right; I just don't really care about this part of the debate.
ReplyDeleteTwo entries ago you say "I have plenty of hope." Hope in what? Define "hope."
Three weeks ago, I asked a question that neither of us has followed up on. Have you ever been in the room when a Christian died? How did that affect you?
I don't recall you asking me the Christian death question. I've been in the room when a Christian AND a non-Christian have died. They die the same way. Nothing new here.
ReplyDeleteHope? I "hope" I have a pleasant life and continue to be successful in my work, art, and relationships. I know that if something goes wrong--either by my own doing or by someone/thing else--I will be able to deal with it effectively. If I can't, I'll work it out.
None of this requires a supernatural presence.
As for the the evidence question, you have made the common statement I hear from other Christians. Christians have to either redefine "evidence" or simply throw the term out all together. Faith is a ridiculous concept and is merely a desire for something to be true.
By the way, I never got you off point. I am simply answering your questions.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that you believe the Christian and the non-Christian died the same way, or else you were not paying attention. I think you are avoiding that question. They "die the same way" in a physical sense, if that is what you mean, but I know you know the Christian approached death completely differently.
ReplyDeleteYou have no idea what hope is. "Hoping" you have a pleasant life is not "hope;" it is nothing more than a "wish"… a "goal"… a "desire" … akin to “I hope the Braves win the pennant” or “I hope she will go to the prom with me.” Those “hopes” are desires, but you would not bet your life on them.
What I mean when I say “hope” – the Biblical meaning of hope – is far more complex than desire or goal. Hope is the ability to hear the music of the future.
My hope is not some desire or earnest wish. My hope is understanding the ending.
I know you scoff at that. You scoff because your “scientific” paradigm allows you to do nothing else but scoff when you don’t understand something. You have put such faith (although it kills you to admit that you have "faith" in anything) in science and rationality that you cannot admit that you would consider taking seriously anything that you do not understand. Setting aside the incredible arrogance of thinking that you are capable of understanding everything, much less that you actually do understand it all, it is not hard to tell that that paradigm – that world view - defines everything you write.
If I just wished that I were right about this, my rationality would countermand my Christian life, and I would join you as a quitter. If I just had a goal that I would find a God out there somewhere, I would have run out of steam a long time ago.
Can you set aside your kneejerk reaction to what I am saying long enough to consider the fact that there might be something you don't know? Is it conceivable that I have a relationship with someone whom you have never met?
If you can put aside the discussions you have had with shallow fundamentalist Christians who have made bad arguments against your atheism, aren't there Christians you have known that have at least made you wonder what they have that you don't?
Have I shown you anything in the course of this conversation to make you curious about what I have that you don't?
Or, have you convinced yourself that your past life in the church showed you everything there is to know about Christians, and having seen it all, you are not interested in knowing any more? To do so, of course, necessarily involves your conclusion that I am hallucinating or "misled" or stupid or just a nut. And not just me, of course, but lots and lots of other people whom you know and, I wager, actually respect. Pretty big charge for you to level. I hope you are confident in it - you are betting your life on it.
Is that really the "scientific" way: simply to decide you know it all and thus chide and scoff at those who disagree? Is that how you want to approach this?
No, you haven't shown me anything I haven't seen before (or even something I claimed to once have).
ReplyDeleteYou can attack my rational thought as arrogance all you want. You are simply SAYING Christian hope is deeper and that you have something "special" that only a Christian understand, but you demonstrate nothing. As I've said before, simply saying something is profoundly supernatural doesn't make it true.
You can talk until you're blue in the face about some sort of magical connection you have to Jesus, but until I see you walk on water with my own eyes, I'll continue to think your comments are mere words.
You can attack the my perceived "atheist worldview". Shall I attack your atheist worldview with regard to Ra, Zeus, or the Easter Bunny? No. That's absurd.
Atheism is not a worldview. It's not a doctrine. It has no set system of beliefs. It does not indoctrinate. It is simple non-belief. I do not believe Jesus walked on water anymore than I believe the Tooth Fairy puts money under my pillow. It's simply false. Would you say it requires faith to NOT believe in the Tooth Fairy?
If non-belief requires faith, that would mean that Christianity would not require it and would be the default belief system upon birth. I would have to look past clear and convincing evidence to have faith in non-belief. The logic is twisted. It is a blatant fallacy to say non-belief requires faith.
By the way, when you say things like "To be a Christian, you must deny what your eyes see and suspend rational thought", as you have said in another comment string on this blog, you leave no alternative but for people to believe that you are arrogant. How dare you conclude that we deny what our eyes see and suspend all rational thought just because we do not come to the same conclusions you do! How dare you dictate how we are supposed to react to the world you have experienced when you discount with a second thought our experiences!
ReplyDeleteThat we Christians do not live by sight alone does not mean that we are blind. That we do not slavishly conclude that human science has figured out all the answers does not mean that we do not (in your words) "understand science."
Human science does not and will not have all the answers. Scientists do not claim this. I do not claim this. However, there are basic facts about the world in which we live that cannot be mistaken. For instance, people cannot walk on water, people cannot rise from the dead, snakes cannot talk. These truths make the Bible fictitious. I do not need to conduct a critical analysis of Scripture (as I did in college while studying to be a preacher) to demonstrate the mythological aspects of the Bible make it false.
ReplyDeleteYour faith in Jesus is based on 1) your faith that what is written about him is true and 2) those events are possible in the world in which you live. I disagree. No preacher, magician, illusionist, or medicine man can ever convince me of this.
I appreciate your concern for my nonexistent soul. However, I remind you, I was once a devout Christian, youth minister, preacher, and studied the Bible extensively. I believed what you believe. I believed ALL of the supernatural aspects of Christianity. I worked around some of the most well-educated Christians one could meet. I've sat and had discussions with prominent preachers, theologians, and many average preachers and youth ministers. None can convince me there is a supernatural world and somehow they have insight into this world. In fact, I recently spent four hours with my parents pastor discussing Scripture. It doesn't accomplish much because I'm not a weak-minded person who believes snakes can talk.
One day, I woke up and realized that the people telling me about the supernatural knew nothing more about it than I did. You can claim there is a god out there and that you have a magical connection with him, but I will never believe you do. To refer back to my original statement, you are under a misapprehension in this case.
Sorry, "knew", not "new".
ReplyDeletebridging, not briding. Also, a couple of question marks missing. Sorry for the typos.
ReplyDeleteFirst, you begin by saying I don't know you. OK. I don't. I don't claim to. That's a misunderstanding on your part. If you were born in the Amazon rainforest and had no communication with the outside world, you would have not known the story of Jesus. You were taught about Jesus because none are born knowing such things. The info about him comes from the Bible. So, you MUST have faith in what you're being told/sold.
ReplyDeleteThe story of Jesus is contained in a book. You claim to have a supernatural experience. THEN the SAME book validates your experiences? Sounds like circular logic to me.
Then, you launch into calling me a sinner. You claim I am separated from the Hebrew god due to this sin. I redirect the comment--YOU don't know ME. I'm only considered a sinner under the Hebrew law. Claiming I'm a sinner is based on your interpretation of a man-made code laid-down in a Bronze Age manuscript. They're just mere words.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that humans can't walk on water. I don't claim to have "perfection" to know this. It's common knowledge. My rejection of Christianity is purely based on this common knowledge. It doesn't take anything special to see this.
You are repeating and repeating. My faith is NOT based on a book. My faith is based on my relationship with Jesus. The Bible validates what I know from that experience.
ReplyDeleteYou can continue to ignore that, but you can't make it go away.
I don't have to know you to know you are a sinner. You are human - therefore you are a sinner. Do you dare to deny it?
No, I'm not a sinner. That is a religious construct to which I do not subscribe. Christian morality is relative and convoluted. In one part of the Bible murdering entire villages is ok (because the Hebrew god said to) then in the NT Jesus says turn the other cheek. It's ridiculous. Spare me the explanation. I'm fully aware of the foolish argument that God changed his mind.
ReplyDeleteI have done things against other humans that I shouldn't have. Yes, but that is not sin. It's morally and ethically wrong. No one should be put to death for such things like the Hebrew law says.
I'm repeating over and over because it's true. Without the Bible, you would not have been taught the STORY of Jesus. THEN the same book somehow validates your "experiences". It's nonsense.
You are reduced to calling my faith nonsense and putting my experience in quotation marks to make sport of me. What was the point of inviting this conversation if all you intend is to avoid the debate and make fun of an honest response?
ReplyDeleteSince I have not raised the argument of God changing his mind, why are you bringing it up? I have raised the reasonable positions of (1) progressive revelation and (2) primitive understandings of parts of God by primitive people. You have ignored them both.
To play on your field, avoiding the term "sin," what is the moral cost of your morally wrong action?
You don't know how to deal with me because I refuse to play on your field. I believe the Bible is true, but my faith is not based on it - you simply refuse to believe me. I agree that there are inconsistencies in scripture - you simply refuse to deal with that. What kind of logical rationalist are you?
Why would someone with your logical bent disregard the these of a writer - say John - because of what you don't like about another writer who wrote thousands of years before? That doesn't even make sense.
I have never avoided a debate. I have answered every question you've put forth as rationally and as fully as is humanly possible. If I ask about the supernatural or inexplicable events, you cannot provide sufficient answers. I think you avoid substantive debate.
ReplyDeleteI brought up the concept of the Hebrew god changing his mind because it is related to a common discussion I've had with Christians with regard to the supposed "New Testament" revelation. The Hebrew god was ruthless and mean in the OT, THEN changed his mind and decided to be a nice fellow in the form of Jesus. Although, having your son tortured isn't terribly nice in my book.
The moral cost for wrong action goes back to one of our original discussions. I believe I addressed that, but I can't remember. Wrong actions often lead to negative consequences. I don't need fear of a supernatural torturer to scare me into being a good boy.
I don't know how to deal with you? I think I'm dealing just fine. You believe the Bible is true because you have faith in what you've been told by unknown authors and your pastors through the years. OK. Maybe I can't deal with that because it surprises me that an intelligent, well-educated person can believe an unauthenticated document.
How do you want me to deal with it? Accept a Bronze-Age myth as fact? Not going to happen.
Your last paragraph is quite humorous. I never disregard something just because I don't like what it says. That's ridiculous. I disregard it because it's unauthenticated and all Biblical scholars agree that it was written many years after Jesus' death by an unknown Roman--not by the Apostle John. In fact, it was most likely not written by a John at all.
"All Biblical scholars agree that it was written many years after Jesus' death by an unknown Roman -- not by the Apostle John" would be laughable if I didn't think you were so serious. Bart Ehrman is a recognized scholar, but he is far from "all Biblical scholars."
ReplyDeleteYou continue to argue that I "believe the Bible is true because [I] have faith in what [I]'ve been told by unknown authors and [my] pastors through the years." How many times do I have to tell you that is wrong? You are assuming things about me, just as you assumed in July that I belive Bible to be a scientific and historical textbook and as you assumed last week that I was pitching some sort of "God changed His mind" theory. Your overriding assumption is that I have wagered my life on this faith because of what somebody has told me.
Wrong.
My faith exists SOLELY because of a relationship I have. You refuse to deal with that fact. You have called me "an intelligent, well-educated person", and I thank you for that. Since you don't take me for a fool, that only leaves two options - either I am lying to you or I really have a relationship with God.
I wish you would consider the possibility that I am telling you the truth. Even if all of your spoutings about Christian religion and about the Bible are true, they are pretty meaningless in the long run if I really have a relationship with God.
I talk to God and God talks to me. God loves me. God gives me things. God directs my steps. God chastises me. God even affects what I say to you.
Because I am a sinner, my communication lines with God are often skewed. I don't claim to get it all correct.
Let's please cut through all this. You have made so many arguments that I could chase (One of my favorites is "evidence for Caesar is art and coins, but there is no evidence for the resurrection of Christ", but what would be the point of trying to persuade you on such a side issue?), but sophistry ultimately diverts our attention.
I have a relationship with Someone who wants to have a relationship with you. I can tell you how to have that relationship. In fact, given your background, I am fairly confident you already know; but if you are interested, I will show you how again.
The choice is yours.
Side argument--Name one reputable scholar who thinks the disciple John wrote the Book of John.
ReplyDeleteAs for the relationship with a supernatural being, I think you're misguided and imagining something that isn't there. To avoid making an enemy of someone I don't know, I will reserve any further opinions on this topic. Suffice it to say, if you had not been taught about Jesus, you wouldn't know with whom you have this supposed relationship.
I pass on the side argument. Not worth the trouble.
ReplyDelete"Suffice it to say" that you don't know what you are talking about. You have repeated, numerous times, some version of "if you had not been taught about Jesus you wouldn't know...". That is your presumption. I grant you that, not having a relationship with someone, you can choose to believe that nobody has a relationship with that person. Seems narrow to me, but I at least see the string of thought.
What I don't see is the close-mindedness that prevents you from considering that there are facts, relationships, and ideas that you don't know. How you can know at your age and stage that you have seen and experienced it all is beyond me.
One day, you will know that there is more out there, and you will remember this dialog. I hope I am here - or someone is nearby - to help you see what we have that you do not. You are going to need it.
Daniel, have you abandoned our discussion. I am sorry that I at times have gotten snippy with you. This is a hard discussion to have in cyberspace, and the temptation to sarcasm is hard to resist.
ReplyDeleteI have two book suggestions for you. One is Dallas Willard's "Knowing Christ Today: Why We Can Trust Spiritual Knowledge." It is high level reading by a philosophy prof, but it is on a level that you can deal with, and I commend it to you. The other is "Blue Like Jazz" by Donald Miller, which is completely different - I don't like all of it, but it is someone like you who has come to find some truth in the gospel.
Take a chance on these.
The discussion is futile if you continue to adhere to a perspective that is rooted in a myth. It's easy for a person to say they have a relationship with a supernatural being that cannot be investigated. I can easily say I have a special relationship with Ba'al and you can neither deny nor confirm.
ReplyDeleteI've read "Blue Like Jazz". I was completely unimpressed.
Spiritual knowledge is made-up. There is no evidence of a supernatural world. To try and rationalize it is a desperate attempt at justification. I have more respect for Christians who admit that what they believe is completely irrational and that they believe it because they have no desire to think critically.
You need to understand that I fully understand where you're coming from. When I was a Christian (for most of my life), I "felt" I had a deep relationship with Christ. Once I stepped outside the church and its indoctrination, I realized that the pastors, little old Christian ladies, Sunday School teachers, my devout grandparents, NO ONE knew anymore about the supernatural than me. The entire concept is based on a feeling, emotionalism, and "knowing" without evidence.
ReplyDeleteI've read all of the great books of Christianity through my search for understanding. Nothing is there. In fact, I have a profound understanding of Scripture--its history and its substance. I could walk into a pulpit today and preach an entire sermon with passion and depth. It is this depth of understand has led me to this place.
Wow. I don't know anybody who has read all of the great books of Christianity. You are a miraculous person.
ReplyDeleteNot sure what else to say. You have ended this debate where you started - that is, I am irrational, I have no desire to think critically, and I am basing my life on emotionalism.
I love you. God loves you. When you get past being quite so impressed with yourself so that you get to a point of understanding that you are unable to save yourself, I hope you remember this conversation and remember all of those many books you read - actually, just remember one of them. Just go back to that Gospel of John that you satirize. Read it again.
Somehow, I don't think God will let you go.
It's a figure of speech. I don't even need to read the extra-biblical books, only the bible itself and see it's made-up.
ReplyDeleteIt never ceases to amaze me when I hear a Christian say, "God loves you", "God this", and "God that". How do you know the mind of a deity? Oh that's right, an ancient book whose authors cannot be authenticated tells you what is on the mind of the Hebrew god.
Gotcha.
I don't THINK it's irrational--it IS irrational to believe in a deity whom you've never seen nor heard. You may think you "know" him, but "knowing" is not "feeling" something in your blood-pumping muscle. Knowing is based on seeing, hearing, and learning facts.
Yes, and I have seen, heard, learned, and experienced. You do not believe that I have done those things because (1) you never did them and (2) you cannot rationalize how I possibly could have done them. You have never been to India either (I assume); does that mean you don't believe people who have been there? You cannot explain how the wind blows or how electricity works; does that mean you don't believe they exist?
ReplyDeleteInstead, you go back to your same tired argument of throwing rocks at what you assume I have done - that is, based my life on a feeling and an old book.
It is easy for you to win this argument when you ignore my most basic positions. I am NOT talking about a religion, a book, ancient goat-hearding prophets, or what somebody taught me. I am relying on my experience.
Yes, having had that experience, I can now find value in my religion, in the Bible, in the prophets, and in what I have been taught; absent my experience, however, the rest would not be enough for me.
You choose to ignore that, however, calling "gotcha" for some unknown reason, deciding that I am irrational.
I know some things - not everything - about God because I have experienced God. You can have that experience too.
If someone says they've been to India, they can provide evidence--passport, visa, photos, items brought back, etc. Poor argument, my friend. The only evidence a Christian has for their experiences is the same as those supposedly abducted by aliens.
ReplyDeleteMy argument is solid. There is only one book that can claim to be the foundation of the Christian faith--the Bible. Without it, there would be no Christian religion. You read about it and were taught about it as was I. Had we been born in Iraq, we would have believed the same about the Koran and Islam. The difference is I realized there isn't enough evidence to justify any of the wild claims in the book. Therefore, the religion is invalid.
Yes, your argument is solid from your point of view. You deny the value of my "evidence" - the collection of 66 books known as The Bible (only one book, biased, no supporting evidence), my own experience (just like those supposedly abducted by aliens), the presence of love in the world (easily explained away), etc... - and then claim victory. Understood. When you get to make the rules, you can define the winner.
ReplyDeleteAt some point, though, you will figure out that you don't make the rules. You will quit looking solely for "evidence" equivalent to how to prove the area of a triangle. You will admit that there are things that your paradigm cannot explain.
Then, I hope you will find me or somebody like me to help you remember that what you were taught was the right direction. I don't know precisely what you were taught - it may have been an awful bastardization of the Truth - but at least you know where to look.