Print
Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?
by Richard Dawkins, The Independent
Reposted from:
http://comment.independent.co.uk/letters/article2970799.ece
[Below is the full, un-edited letter originally sent to The Independent]
Sir: Peter Stanford ("Doubts about Dawkins",14 September) writes that the recent books by Christopher Hitchens and me "deserve a decent response. But how to fashion it?" A decent start would be to read them. Page 1 of The God Delusion would suffice to demonstrate that I don't "caricature all church-goers as simple-minded fundamentalists" (Google: "Affection that I still retain for the Church"). Of course the church-goers that Stanford or I meet socially are not simple-minded fundamentalists. Unfortunately they are heavily outnumbered, especially in the most powerful country on Earth where nearly half the population believes the universe began after the domestication of the dog, and a slightly smaller proportion yearns for a Middle East Armageddon when they'll be raptured out of their clothes and "up" to Heaven. These people have the vote and we all live with the consequences, which are made all the more dangerous by the equally simple-minded fundamentalists of the Islamic world.
The "response" that Stanford recommends, by John Cornwell, does not display a very Christian standard of decency, as Stanford will discover if he Googles "Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity". He may have better luck with some of the other thirteen "replies" that have been published, under titles that monotonously permute "Dawkins", "God" and "Delusion", many in jackets that are equally derivative (Google: "The Fleas are Multiplying").
Cornwell's slighting of my reading list is singled out for special praise by Stanford. This is a stock criticism. It assumes that there is a serious subject called Theology, which one must study in depth before one can disbelieve in God. My own stock reply (Would you need to read learned volumes on Leprechology before disbelieving in leprechauns?) is now superseded by P Z Myers' brilliant satire on the Emperor's New Clothes (Google "Courtier's Reply").
Stanford's trump card is his observation that "religion is not primarily about belief, as we understand the word today, but faith." Religion, as he sums it up, "simply isn't about facts." Exactly. I couldn't have put it better myself.
Richard Dawkins
Oxford
[Also see this forum post by Richard, which is a follow-up letter to The Independent highlighting some errors.]
http://comment.independent.co.uk/letters/article2970799.ece
[Below is the full, un-edited letter originally sent to The Independent]
Sir: Peter Stanford ("Doubts about Dawkins",14 September) writes that the recent books by Christopher Hitchens and me "deserve a decent response. But how to fashion it?" A decent start would be to read them. Page 1 of The God Delusion would suffice to demonstrate that I don't "caricature all church-goers as simple-minded fundamentalists" (Google: "Affection that I still retain for the Church"). Of course the church-goers that Stanford or I meet socially are not simple-minded fundamentalists. Unfortunately they are heavily outnumbered, especially in the most powerful country on Earth where nearly half the population believes the universe began after the domestication of the dog, and a slightly smaller proportion yearns for a Middle East Armageddon when they'll be raptured out of their clothes and "up" to Heaven. These people have the vote and we all live with the consequences, which are made all the more dangerous by the equally simple-minded fundamentalists of the Islamic world.
The "response" that Stanford recommends, by John Cornwell, does not display a very Christian standard of decency, as Stanford will discover if he Googles "Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity". He may have better luck with some of the other thirteen "replies" that have been published, under titles that monotonously permute "Dawkins", "God" and "Delusion", many in jackets that are equally derivative (Google: "The Fleas are Multiplying").
Cornwell's slighting of my reading list is singled out for special praise by Stanford. This is a stock criticism. It assumes that there is a serious subject called Theology, which one must study in depth before one can disbelieve in God. My own stock reply (Would you need to read learned volumes on Leprechology before disbelieving in leprechauns?) is now superseded by P Z Myers' brilliant satire on the Emperor's New Clothes (Google "Courtier's Reply").
Stanford's trump card is his observation that "religion is not primarily about belief, as we understand the word today, but faith." Religion, as he sums it up, "simply isn't about facts." Exactly. I couldn't have put it better myself.
Richard Dawkins
Oxford
[Also see this forum post by Richard, which is a follow-up letter to The Independent highlighting some errors.]
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Monday, September 17, 2007 | PermalinkComments 551 - 600 of 1336 | | View Alternate Comment Thread
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers552. Comment #72493 by NormanDoering on September 21, 2007 at 9:25 am
Dr Benway wrote:Swimming fish turning into flying birds. I'd like to see that. Wonder why I never have.
Obviously that's because you never googled flying fish and found a page like this:
http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/fish/flying-fish.html
or this:
http://wings.avkids.com/Book/Animals/Images/flying_fish.gif
Other Comments by NormanDoering
553. Comment #72497 by Robert Maynard on September 21, 2007 at 9:59 am
revcort, #72484,I understand you don't see man as self-determining. This is why it is impossible to describe God's judgment of humans as fair in this analysis, given that they lack the executive power to follow his orders. If our actions are entirely a product of his will, exactly what part of us is he judging?
Perhaps an example will help illustrate what I mean. Suppose you bought two rats from a pet shop, and upon bringing them home, dunked one in blue paint. Setting them both down on a table, you begin to pronounce "ONLY BLUE RATS SHALL LIVE, BECOME BLUE OR SUFFER MY WRATH!" After the passing of some minutes, you lose patience with the unpainted rat, who appears to be defying your decree. Outraged, you set him on fire, and he squeaks in agony for the remaining moments of his life. Would you be responsible for that rats suffering? Yes. Would you also be a horrible person? Yes! Now imagine this same deal, of an administrating power knowingly setting a standard for beings under its control, aware they can never achieve these requirements alone, who then arbitrarily allocates the property of salvation to only a subset of them, and then proceeds to brutally torture those he didn't pick. But unlike for the comparitively fortunate rat, this torture is apparently eternal. A being who, furthermore, made these decisions in order to feel good about himself. Are we describing a being of monstrously unethical cruelty? ..I should think so! Are we also describing the God of the Bible? By your own descriptions, yes.
Furthermore, your opinion that man is not self-determining, and not able to choose good, also has no consistent scriptural basis.
This is a passage which suggests that humans, universally, are presented with the choice to repent.
"Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent." - Acts 17:30It is from the Bible. Is it true?
And this is a passage in which people are instructed that they have a choice between following God's law and not, and are encouraged to choose the former.
"I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life." - Deuteronomy 30:19It is also from the Bible. Is it true?
If you answer yes to either of these, does this not constitute a contradiction between previously discussed sections of the Bible (and your opinion, which is based on them), and these sections? If so, is the Bible untrue in at least one of these instances?
As for your inquiry about my personal background with Bible quotes, I have a close friend who is a Pentecostal Christian, and our conversations in high school were invaluable to my character as an atheist.
--
Norman Doering, #72493
Is a flying fish a bird, Norman?
Other Comments by Robert Maynard
554. Comment #72502 by Bonzai on September 21, 2007 at 10:08 am
Revcort wrote:Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner! J has indeed nailed this. I talk to my Catholic friends about these things with regularity, but they can't see it because they view most ANYspoken word by any Pope as just as valid as Scripture
But isn't it the way most Christian sects treat the words of Paul? Actually, they don't just treat his words like the Scripture, his words are the Scriptures. I asked you the question earlier but you never answered, who was Paul anyway? Why were his writings included in the Bible and Chrsitians quote them almost as if they are the words of God? Paul never even met Jesus.
We can be sure that the editorial decision of what was to be included in the Bible was made by men. To claim that the Bible is infallible implies that the editorial committee(s) was(were) infallible, for it was it(they) which chose and picked among contradicting accounts what to include or exclude. So I don't think the behaviour of the Catholics is any more absurd than other Christian sects, they are just more explicit about it.
For you this should be even more problematic because you claimed that most Christians actually got it wrong. Now I don't hear any argument from you why Christians at our time are more likely to get things wrong than Christians in say, the third century since all sincere Christians are supposedly helped by the Holy Spirit. So that means the Christians who edited the Bible were in all likelihood just as misguided as the contemporary Christians. That being the case how can you take their decision as infalliable?
Edit>
BTW, Catholics don't regard ANY word of the Pope as infallible, only his formal declarations on doctrinal matters and if I am not mistaken those have to be worked through by committees before the Pope makes the final proclamation.
Other Comments by Bonzai
555. Comment #72507 by NormanDoering on September 21, 2007 at 10:35 am
Is a flying fish a bird, Norman?
No, not technically. But why would it need to be if it can fly without becoming a bird? revcort said they had to become birds -- obviously, they don't.
Other Comments by NormanDoering
556. Comment #72510 by Robert Maynard on September 21, 2007 at 10:51 am
Norman:revcort said they had to become birdsWho is they? Fish? revcort said humans are like fish (which are described as moving in a medium of 'sin') who have to become birds (which move in a medium of 'virtue').
At this point in an analogy so bizarre I think it's clear we are not talking about the actual animal kingdom. :P
Other Comments by Robert Maynard
557. Comment #72511 by CHeard on September 21, 2007 at 10:56 am
dr in the house (527)"None of the authors/editors of any biblical book claim that their book, in toto and as it stands, is the word of God." [quoting me]_J_ (534) is right on this one, dr. That's not a biblical statement; it's a liturgical formula, one that I happen to dislike precisely for the reason that it "Qur'an-izes the Bible" (tries to turn every word into something dictated from God) and doesn't necessarily represent what the biblical writers themselves thought they were doing. I leads to the absurd situation where the lector (reader) can stand at the lectern and say, "'Now concerning virgins, I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy.' This is the word of the Lord." The formula is "hallowed" by time and repetition, but actually distorts the biblical writers' own testimony about their writing activity. (Well, now you've learned that the use of the phrase "Word of God" to describe the Bible is one of my pet peeves that fellow Christians are setting off all the time.)
Bollocks again. For a 'bible scholar' you are sooo wrong. Go to any catholic mass and listen to the priest incant "THIS IS THE WORD OF GOD" after each and every gospel reading.
And the sheep (sorry, flock) bleat back: "THANKS BE TO GOD".
Forgive me, but is this meant to be allogorical too?
_J_ (525)
I think you might be the first Christian of your type that I've encountered here, or anywhere. By 'your type', I mean that you're fully engaged in the sort of reasoning that led me out of religion (and not just hiding from good arguments behind transparently rubbish ones) but you're managing to stay Christian, too. I'm interested...Thanks, that's a nice compliment. I wish I had a nice, concise explanation, but I don't. My continuing commitment to Christianity is based more on devotion to what I see as some of the best ideals of the Judeo-Christian tradition, embodied most of all in the best of Jesus's teachings (though there are some dark spots there too, no denying that—some have been quoted on this thread already) than on metaphysical beliefs. I do admit to a deep, abiding, inescapable, but basically irrational belief that there is a God and that there is something uniquely special about Jesus; I don't pretend that at this point in time I can articulate those beliefs in a way that would prove rationally convincing to someone who didn't already share them. I don't think it would be unfair if someone wanted to accuse me of being a Christian chiefly out of "brand name loyalty." But I really do think that a good-as-gold heart beats at the core of the Judeo-Christian tradition, even if it's been overlayed (from the very beginning) with a lot, lot, lot of nasty baggage. One could justly argue that if you take away the metaphysics, then what remains of the good parts of Christianity ("love your neighbor," the nascent egalitarian impulse in early Christianity [which unfortunately got derailed], etc.) could be just as well reached by other routes (sort of like RD's "why not just cut out the middleman?" argument somewhere in the second half of TGD). But the brute fact of the matter is that's not the route by which I came to embrace those frankly humanistic ideals, and I admit to a certain purely emotional "dance with the one that brought you" mentality. That paragraph is longer than I intended. If it's not verboten, I'll invite you over to my own blog, http://higgaion.heardworld.com, where I often post on biblical studies and religious matters (and mount my own little oppositions against creationism and the ID movement, for whatever that's worth).
Flagellant (537)
I notice though, that you virtually concede the point, made as long ago as (78), that US Christians find more in common with the Robertson-Haggard-Falwell-Hovind-Ham axis than with the atheists, even if you are an exception.Oh, I won't just virtually concede the point, I'll affirm it with a hearty "Amen." I just wish it weren't so. If nothing else, the Schadenfreude (e.g., after Kitzmiller) that folk like Robertson exhibit drives me absolutely nuts. If that's Christianity … yikes.
(P.S. I caught the "flagellant" reference from your avatar. Just trying to be funny with the bacterium comment.)
Other Comments by CHeard
558. Comment #72512 by NormanDoering on September 21, 2007 at 11:03 am
Robert Maynard wrote:Who is they? Fish? revcort said humans are like fish (which are described as moving in a medium of 'sin') who have to become birds (which move in a medium of 'virtue').
At this point in an analogy so bizarre I think it's clear we are not talking about the actual animal kingdom. :P
Dude, take a chill pill. It was just a silly visual joke.
Dr Benway wrote: "Swimming fish turning into flying birds. I'd like to see that." Well, I can't really show that -- but I can show you something that looks like that.
Of course, revcort is not talking about the actual animal kingdom. He's just making arrogant claims to having more 'virtue' than normal, un-Christian people. Everything we do is sin, everything he does is virtue -- even if we're doing exactly the same thing as him.
I'm not crediting his analogy with anything more than that.
Other Comments by NormanDoering
559. Comment #72513 by Bonzai on September 21, 2007 at 11:14 am
CHeard wroteIt's also downright incorrect. None of the authors/editors of any biblical book claim that their book, in toto and as it stands, is the word of God. A few books claim to record statements that are labeled "the word of God," e.g., some of the sermons of the prophets, but even these rarely claim that they are direct dictation from God as distinct from a message "inspired" by God but scripted by the preachers/prophets themselves. But the majority is clearly human speech about God (whether there's really a God to talk about or not) rather than divine speech. In some cases the writers even explicitly say they don't have any divine revelation to report (e.g., 1 Corinthians 7:12, 25). The fundamentalist's "inerrant, infallible, inspired word of God" is not something the biblical writers claim for their own literary production—nor could they ever have done so, since none of them knew of the Bible as a completed anthology, but only bits and pieces of it. There is no passage of the Bible that speaks of the Bible as a whole, nor, historically speaking, could there be.
I understand. Perhaps I should have been more clear in qualifying that only according to Christians with a literalist inclination (such as Revcort, to whom my post was directed) that the Bible is the word of God. I did make the distinction in a later post where I said the non literalists saw the Bible as inspired by God, but written by men.
However, not meaning to be a way to attack you, let me repeat a question that was asked by others. How do Christians like yourself decide which parts of the bible are to be taken literally, which parts are just allegorical? What is the basis you use in picking and choosing? Since you acknowledge that the Bible is just an artifact with a wide latitude for human interpretations and misinterpretations you have to base your understanding on something else other than Biblical verses and accounts.
If that is the case, in what sense do you call yourself a Christian and how do you filter out those elements in Christianity that you think are true?
Finally, what is the point of "revelation" since the message is so unclear that you have to study years in order to make sense out of it? An evangelical bible thumper once said to me, he couldn't imagine God sending revelations only to scholars while hanging the majority of humanity out to dry,--then followed by the usual anti-intellectual diatribes that the clever are foolish in the eyes of God and the foolish are actually wise etc. His point is that God's message is meant for everyone, not just a handful of elite scholars and hence his message shouldn't require a lot of erudition to dicipher. I think he actually has a point provided that there is a God and he is interested in letting us know about him and carrying out his wishes.
Other Comments by Bonzai
560. Comment #72519 by GoneGolfing on September 21, 2007 at 12:12 pm
CHeard #558Man ! I appreciate your honesty...seriously :-) It's a refreshing change from the Revster :-(
One word comes to mind though when reading that post.......Cherrypicking.
Your guilty of the same crime as almost 100% of religites, and that is picking the "best" parts of the teachings that will suit your emotional needs. I believe Bertrand Russell was right in saying that adherance to religion boils down to two things; Fear and emotions.
It truly is curious to hear one admit that their belief is irrational but then they somehow rationalize the need to continue in it. I agree that there is a "good-as-gold" heart beating at the core of the JC tradition and its' called "morality". Lets not forget that morality came before religion and, as you stated, was overlayed or injected with some nasty baggage.
So as all others who cherrypick, I believe that you cling to your beliefs because the morality in them satisfies your emotional needs, and perhaps out of fear you hold to the metaphysical aspect of belief..."Now I wouldn't want God mad at me!"
Perhaps I'll take a look at your site sometime, I like your style.....Do you share any ideas on Gods pre-creation cerebrations? (like: why the frig would I go ahead with that mess!!?) :-)
Regards,
GG :-)
Other Comments by GoneGolfing
561. Comment #72520 by walk on September 21, 2007 at 12:25 pm
CHeard,You christians are a curious lot. You don't agree with catholics, and you don't agree with each other. Revort says many christians don't agree with him, YOU distance yourself from the majority of christians, and you guys totally disagree with each other! Assuming it's even the same god you're all worshipping (you all describe him differently) he's not doing a very good job getting his message across. AND each of you are SURE you're right! In your case, CHeard, I believe I detected a willingness to consider reason and logic.
If you wouldn't mind, could you clarify your beliefs a bit? It sounds as though you see Jesus more as a teacher than a god. Do you believe in the resurrection, afterlife, hell, miracles, etc.
Thanks.
Other Comments by walk
562. Comment #72522 by revcort on September 21, 2007 at 12:35 pm
revcort, #72484,
I understand you don't see man as self-determining. This is why it is impossible to describe God's judgment of humans as fair in this analysis, given that they lack the executive power to follow his orders. If our actions are entirely a product of his will, exactly what part of us is he judging?
Perhaps an example will help illustrate what I mean. Suppose you bought two rats from a pet shop, and upon bringing them home, dunked one in blue paint. Setting them both down on a table, you begin to pronounce "ONLY BLUE RATS SHALL LIVE, BECOME BLUE OR SUFFER MY WRATH!" After the passing of some minutes, you lose patience with the unpainted rat, who appears to be defying your decree. Outraged, you set him on fire, and he squeaks in agony for the remaining moments of his life. Would you be responsible for that rats suffering? Yes. Would you also be a horrible person? Yes! Now imagine this same deal, of an administrating power knowingly setting a standard for beings under its control, aware they can never achieve these requirements alone, who then arbitrarily allocates the property of salvation to only a subset of them, and then proceeds to brutally torture those he didn't pick. But unlike for the comparitively fortunate rat, this torture is apparently eternal. A being who, furthermore, made these decisions in order to feel good about himself. Are we describing a being of monstrously unethical cruelty? ..I should think so! Are we also describing the God of the Bible? By your own descriptions, yes.
Furthermore, your opinion that man is not self-determining, and not able to choose good, also has no consistent scriptural basis.
This is a passage which suggests that humans, universally, are presented with the choice to repent.
"Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent." - Acts 17:30
It is from the Bible. Is it true?
And this is a passage in which people are instructed that they have a choice between following God's law and not, and are encouraged to choose the former.
"I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life." - Deuteronomy 30:19
It is also from the Bible. Is it true?
If you answer yes to either of these, does this not constitute a contradiction between previously discussed sections of the Bible (and your opinion, which is based on them), and these sections? If so, is the Bible untrue in at least one of these instances?
As for your inquiry about my personal background with Bible quotes, I have a close friend who is a Pentecostal Christian, and our conversations in high school were invaluable to my character as an atheist.
It is indeed a struggle to reconcile these Robert. I will not deny it. All I can say is that man is responsible for his actions. God is sovereign but man is responsible. It's a paradox of sorts.
One of the ways that I have thought about this in recent times is to think of our lives having 2 components- a practical component and an eternal component. The eternal component of this is fore-ordained and unchangeable. That is what I'm talking about when I say that only God can free us from our slavery to sin to enable us to choose life. If He does not intervene, we are lost.
At the same time, there is a very practical component to faith which is lived out every day. And it is in this sense that all men have a chance for salvation. God's common grace is given to all men. They have a conscience. They have creation, which should remind them of God. They have gifts, they have good things, they have understood about mercy, love, good will, life, etc. Yet, they still reject God and even hate Him. It is not as if God has never shown Himself in ANY way to them.
And I can't help but come back to the same thought once more- we are the creation of God and He can do as He wills with us. Now, He doesn't take pleasure in the death of anyone. Ezekiel 18:23 "Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked," declares the Lord God, "rather than that he should turn from his ways and live?
So, God is sovereign but man is responsible for his own rejection or acceptance of the Gospel.
Oh, and yes, God is loving. He has shown His grace to all, to a certain degree. However, love is not God's most defining quality. His most defining quality is holiness- transcendence. His holiness makes Him unlike any other and His purposes and ways are impossible to map out completely. Now certainly, we can know and understand enough of Him to He calls out to all men to repent and be saved, but there is a limit to our knowledge. This is where faith comes in, and where you jump ship. Sorry.
Let me also add this, I am certainly not the foremost authority on this, and I have done a very poor job of explaining it. So, I would beg your grace on this, and God's as well. (and that applies to everything I have written here)
Other Comments by revcort
563. Comment #72525 by revcort on September 21, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Just for the record, I agree with MUCH of what CHeard has written. However, not believing in the inspiration of Scripture will only lead down a slippery slope that will undermine and totally destroy the Christian faith.So, I would ask one question of CHeard, if Scripture is not given to us by God, what good is it? And further, if it is simply the thoughts of a bunch of men, how do you decide what to believe?
If the Scripture has no inspiration and has no authority, then I'd likely be an atheist myself, or, at the very least, an agnostic.
Other Comments by revcort
564. Comment #72526 by shaunfletcher on September 21, 2007 at 12:52 pm
On Paul, I would like to bring up from my own background the fact that the inclusion (not to say massive reliance on) his writings in christian thinking was one of the big things that started to make me think very seriously about the whole thing as a youngling. I could not for the life of me understand why it seemed like more of the scriptural quotes I was presented with seemed to come from this fellow than from the 'main man' as it were. I wanted to know who he was, and was shocked when I found out how little underpinning there was to any claims of him being more than an opportunistic charlatan.I went on to read, I believe, every word purported to be written by him. I found it seemingly to be a combination of a random quote generator, an elderly newpaper letter writer (I used to refer to him as 'disgusted of Rome'), and a snake oil salesman.
Even now it seems like when asked to back anything up most christians reach for Paul. A reliable source of just about any opinion you might want.
Shaun
Other Comments by shaunfletcher
565. Comment #72527 by walk on September 21, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Rev,You said, "God is loving. He has shown His grace to all, to a certain degree. However, love is not God's most defining quality. His most defining quality is holiness- transcendence."
My hat is off to you, you seem to know the unknowable. You know the mind of god and understand exactly what he is like with absolute certainty. Kind of like a divine mind-reader. It's quite a gift. Are you also able to read the minds of those in your flock, or those of us on this site?
P.S. Is CHeard, your "brother in Christ" going to burn in hell?
Other Comments by walk
566. Comment #72528 by Paul Creber on September 21, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Revcort (542)...there IS Scriptural backing for the Bible CLAIMING to be the word of God- at least 2 come to mind immediately.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
2 Peter 1:20-21 20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
Forgive me Rev, I may be going bananas here, but when Paul allegedly wrote those words to Timothy and Peter allegedly wrote those words to the faithful, they were both surely referring to the Old Testament.
I don't see how they could have been talking about the New Testament canon, when it hadn't then even been assembled.
On a wider point, suppose I write: "Mark my words. These are holy words." (holy shit, I just did!). Does this then mean that my words are self-referentially holy? If so, aren't we in danger of disappearing up our own biblical passage?
Other Comments by Paul Creber
567. Comment #72530 by revcort on September 21, 2007 at 1:07 pm
An interesting response. But you cannot arbitrarily decide that other religions are false, and that they worship demons etc. Those believers are at least as committed to their beliefs, or more so, than you are. That doesn't prove they are right or wrong. But this continuing theological debate and interpretation does at least call into question all such definitive beliefs.
Here's a thought that should help prove to you the primary difference between Christianity and other world religions. Here are the premises that you must agree with in order to believe me...
Assumption #1: there is ONE God who created the world. (please go with me here- I know you don't believe me, but I'm trying to prove the God of the Bible to be superior to others, not His existence)
Assumption #2: whatever religion might develop from the true God would be God-centered, not man-centered.
Supposition: All world religions are man-centered with the exception of "authentic" Christianity.
Evidence #1: All world religions are focused solely on what man must do in order to get to God. They are all focused on man's effort, godliness, and ability to keep to a certain religious code. Because of this, the result is continual guilt over an inability to measure up. Yet, when a person does well in these religions, that person is lauded as great
Evidence #2: Authentic Christianity is focused on God reaching down to man. It is the only world religion which is said to be achieved based on no self-effort and totally by God's grace. Because of this, the result is a freedom and a genuine peace and joy due to the fact that God has met the standard for us. When someone does well in Christianity, God is given the glory for all that He has done in this person's life.
So, can you see the big difference here or am I all wet? :D
Other Comments by revcort
568. Comment #72533 by revcort on September 21, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Revcort (542)...there IS Scriptural backing for the Bible CLAIMING to be the word of God- at least 2 come to mind immediately.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
2 Peter 1:20-21 20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
Forgive me Rev, I may be going bananas here, but when Paul allegedly wrote those words to Timothy and Peter allegedly wrote those words to the faithful, they were both surely referring to the Old Testament.
I don't see how they could have been talking about the New Testament canon, when it hadn't then even been assembled.
On a wider point, suppose I write: "Mark my words. These are holy words." (holy shit, I just did!). Does that then mean that my words are self-referentially holy? If so, aren't we in danger of disappearing up our own biblical passage?
Hey Paul, I was attempting to prove inspiration. The argument that had been made was that no Bible writers CLAIMED to be writing inspired words.
So, to YOUR point, I realize that I can't prove the inspiration of the Bible based on what it says about itself- I'm no idiot. (well, that's debatable :D ) No, I would say that the only way to prove the Bible's reliability would to study whether or not its claims are actually true, historically and whether or not predictions made in it or based on it do indeed come true.
Other Comments by revcort
569. Comment #72534 by mintcheerios on September 21, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Revcort: ...not believing in the inspiration of Scripture will only lead down a slippery slope that will undermine and totally destroy the Christian faith.Exactly, reason will ultimately be the demise of religion. The biggest thing that is threatening faith is reason so you must fight against it. Maybe one day you will prevail and destroy reason once and for all. Then people can accept Christ without having to overcome pesky burdens such as critical-thinking.
Or maybe reason will prevail and people will stop taking you seriously when you tell them that the book you're holding is magical.
Other Comments by mintcheerios
570. Comment #72536 by walk on September 21, 2007 at 1:30 pm
Rev,You said, "the only way to prove the Bible's reliability would [be] to study whether or not its claims are actually true".
Are you talking about the flat earth, the sun revolving around the earth, that kind of thing?
Also, why is it that YOU get to define what "authentic christianity" is? A little un-humility here?
Other Comments by walk
571. Comment #72537 by Paul Creber on September 21, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Revcort 569: Hey Paul, I was attempting to prove inspiration. The argument that had been made was that no Bible writers CLAIMED to be writing inspired words.
But that's exactly my point. The two writers you quote could not possibly have been claiming inspiration for themselves, or for any of the other New Testament writers.
So, to YOUR point, I realize that I can't prove the inspiration of the Bible based on what it says about itself- I'm no idiot. (well, that's debatable :D ) No, I would say that the only way to prove the Bible's reliability would to study whether or not its claims are actually true, historically and whether or not predictions made in it or based on it do indeed come true.
And this you have done? Speaking as a fellow non-idiot, I have come to the exact opposite conclusion. I see no evidence, for instance, that around 3,000 years ago the sun stopped in the sky, or that somewhat earlier almost the entire population of the planet was erased by a vengeful god. Neither do I see evidence that the universe is a mere few thousand years old. Do you?
Other Comments by Paul Creber
572. Comment #72540 by irate_atheist on September 21, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Back to the more important subject of fish, may I quote an authoritative source on the subject of our aquatic brethren and their relationship to man:'If you give a person a fish, they'll fish for a day. But if you train a person to fish, they'll fish for a lifetime.' - Dan Quayle, 13th Oct '92
(Well, it makes as much sense as anything we're likely to get from revcort on the subject of fish, or anything else for that matter)
Other Comments by irate_atheist
573. Comment #72541 by phasmagigas on September 21, 2007 at 2:08 pm
revcort.the more i read your posts (and this isnt me having a dig at you its merely something that I notice and want to comment on) about gods glory and all that, the more i think the term 'delusion' is appropriate.
Honestly, if i was thinking right now what you are writing, i'd think i was mentally ill. It would like being in a twilight zone segment for me. Something like 'this is true because it says it is on the inside' and never being able to get away from it, the thought horrifies me. It reminds me of being in infant school, you know when one kid says somethng like 'i know something you dont know, and we just know and you dont, heheheh'.
When i see images of people dancing in church (and I personally find it difficult to watch and its VERY far removed from some genuine 'trance like' state you might see in some other cultures, for one the music is invariably awful in the church. anyway i digress....) I see a kind of large scale kindergarten class having a disco dance, its like a part of the mind truly remains in an infant like state. maybe this is related to the physical neoteny that we humans possibly show????
Other Comments by phasmagigas
574. Comment #72543 by Mr DArcy on September 21, 2007 at 2:33 pm
His most defining quality is holiness- transcendence. His holiness makes Him unlike any other and His purposes and ways are impossible to map out completely.
Our dear reverend will not go down willingly, especially when the fire of hell awaits him and the rest of us. revcort resorts to the "God is unknowable" and "mysterious are the ways of God" argument to cut out any rational discussion of his faith.
To be polite rev, you have used up your "get out of jail" cards too many times. Your whole belief system is based on a very shaky house of cards. Forget God, forget Satan, forget heaven and hell and face reality.
Other Comments by Mr DArcy
575. Comment #72547 by NormanDoering on September 21, 2007 at 2:55 pm
walk wrote:revcort said: "the only way to prove the Bible's reliability would [be] to study whether or not its claims are actually true".
Are you talking about the flat earth, the sun revolving around the earth, that kind of thing?
Flat Earth, mustard seed faith moving mountains, handling snakes and drinking poison, and so much more:
Joshua said that God would drive out the Jebusites and Canaanites, among others (Josh. 3:9-10). But those tribes were not driven out (Josh. 15:63, 17:12-13).
Ezekiel said Egypt would be made an uninhabited wasteland for forty years (29:10-14), and Nebuchadrezzar would plunder it (29:19-20). Neither happened.
Ezekiel chapter 26 predicts that during the reign of King Nebuchadnezzar (Ez 26:7) that the city of Tyre will be UTTERLY DESTROYED, become a BARE ROCK (Ez 26:4; 26:14) and NEVER BE REBUILT (Ez 26:14; 26:21). The city was defeated in battle in 587 BC, during King Nebuchadnezzar's reign, but was NOT "utterly" destroyed and it was rebuilt. Today it has more than 20,000 inhabitants at the core of a metropolitan area of more than 100,000 people.
The original ruins were not even scraped clean and ancient ruins from all eras are preserved on both island and mainland portions and are popular tourist destinations. So the prophecy fails.
Even within Bible times, long after the battle described by Ezekiel, Tyre had already been rebuilt and, in New Testament times it is still portrayed as a CITY (Mark 3:8) and as a harbor where ships could unload (Acts 21:3,7).
In Matt 24:34 Jesus reportedly predicts that the end of the world and all the fantastic "signs" he describes will occur within the lifetimes of the "current generation" or those currently living at the time Jesus spoke those words. If there is any doubt, it is clarified with far greater specificity in I Thessalonians 4:15-17, that this refers to those contemporaneously living. Yet that generation died off and the second coming and all the signs and wonders of the end times have not been fulfilled and, like all previous generations, is still being waited for by our current generation.
Note: This isn't my research, it was hobbled to together from some other websites that I can't credit because I don't remember where I got it from. Try talkorigins and infidels for more.
Other Comments by NormanDoering
576. Comment #72548 by BAEOZ on September 21, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Hi CHeard, if I could pick your brain.What do you base your Christianity on? Do you believe Jesus rose from being dead, although he never died if you believe the logically incoherent trinity, along with many others and sundry earthquakes and curtain tearing? This means you put the fallible bible ahead of physics and everything we've observed. And it was never recorded by the Romans, Jews nor anybody else. I mean dead people walking the street, earthquake. The people of that time might have noticed, but they didn't.
Jesus is claimed by many to be an innovator. But his message of loving your enemy, turning the other cheek, etc predate him by many centuries. You can find them in Plato's Phaido, and apparently the OT, etc.
Finally, what words in the NT are Jesus'? Did he say he'd return in the lifetime of his followers? Did he say to abandon your family and possessions and follow him? I ask this because Jesus is suppossed to be pro-family. Anyway, I can list many more Biblical revelations that didn't work out or a demonstrably false.
In short, why do you believe?
Thanks.
Other Comments by BAEOZ
577. Comment #72549 by BAEOZ on September 21, 2007 at 3:06 pm
revcort:His holiness makes Him unlike any other and His purposes and ways are impossible to map out completely.
And yet you know them and know how he wan't you to act. Amazing.
Other Comments by BAEOZ
578. Comment #72551 by Dr Benway on September 21, 2007 at 3:14 pm
revcort:When someone does well in Christianity, God is given the glory for all that He has done in this person's life.People with the good sense not to brag about themselves sometimes will over-indulge in playing the proud father or mother. Ever been subjected to more detail than you wanted about some kid's recital, or classroom antics, or amazing athletic performance?
Ego can be more than the actual, physical self. Ego appears in tokens or icons of the self, such as one's child, one's car, one's home, one's sports team, one's country, one's religion, and yes, even one's God.
"Lord, I am a sinner so unworthy of Your love. And yet You reached down and lifted me up. I was like a chocolate among many chocolates sitting in a sampler box. You might have reached for the mint, or the cherry cordial, or the peanut brittle. You might have even lifted up the marzipan, which only grandma will eat. You had all those choices. And yet you picked me. Praise Your Holy Name!"
Having been around the block more than twice, I'm not terribly impressed by any of this "humbly before the Lord" wank.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
579. Comment #72552 by BAEOZ on September 21, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Dr. Benway:Having been around the block more than twice, I'm not terribly impressed by any of this "humbly before the Lord" wank.
Amen Dr. Revcort is so hubristic, he's saved, he knows everything to know.
Other Comments by BAEOZ
580. Comment #72554 by shaunfletcher on September 21, 2007 at 3:46 pm
irate_atheist , and if you give a man a fire he will be warm for a day, but set him on fire he will be warm for the rest of his life.. Other Comments by shaunfletcher
581. Comment #72555 by revcort on September 21, 2007 at 4:04 pm
I agree with you guys. We've just about hit our limit here. We're beginning to talk in circles and retrace the same steps. I've learned quite a bit from you guys. You've made me think about a good many things. You've made me do some further investigation, which is good. You've challenged my faith, which is very good. So, I've enjoyed it and have absolutely no anger toward any of you. Perhaps I will post elsewhere, if I can.Other Comments by revcort
582. Comment #72556 by walk on September 21, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Take care, revcort, thanks for putting up with us. I wish you all the best. It's been fun.- Steve
Other Comments by walk
583. Comment #72558 by Goldy on September 21, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Rev, listen to your athiest friends more. Your mind is addled with religion. And there are no false gods and true gods, all are false :-)Other Comments by Goldy
584. Comment #72560 by Veronique on September 21, 2007 at 4:38 pm
520. Comment #72422 by dr in the houseHey Doc – a 50% chance of us getting a cancer of some sort? I read somewhere that about 30% of us will die from a cancer. Does that mean that cures and remissions make up the difference? Or am I wrong in what I am sure I read, but can't recall where?
Can you help me here? I know that there are apparent genetic implications as well and this sort of research is bounding along. And there are environmental triggers as well.
On religious debate and the number of posts, have you checked out the McGrath comment thread? Last time I checked, it was well over 2,300. And even Goldy has given up on that lot:-). And he's a much nicer person than I could ever be.
521. Comment #72424 by steve99
Thank you – I think the idea of guilt is what I term as reprehensible abuse of people's minds. I didn't realise that even when you walk away from a faith, that the guilt can remain. You have given me a deeper understanding of what the Jesuits mean when they say that after training a child until he is 7 that he is then so embroiled in this guilt/love, as to be in a mental prison. For some, there is obviously no escape.
To actively seek such a prison (which is what McGrath said he did as an Oxford student) is to deliberately surrender reason for the consolation of an idea that has so much baggage attached to it as to render it evil. It is the same as running joyfully towards the handcuffs of slavery. This is why it is so incomprehensible to me. The number of people like McGrath, who say that they left behind reason to slavishly follow an unevidenced doctrine, boggles my mind.
The literal believers (both the Islamists and fundamental Christians) feel they are engaged in a religious war. Just look at the articles and videos posted on this site. They both want theocracies that constrain our behaviour far more than any secular society has done. In that sense they want to 'force' the rest of us into their restraint jackets and padded cells and call it 'life under god's rules'.
And people wonder why I express fear and loathing? I don't think I am being over the top with my sense of horror at what is happening around the world.
This week's religi-board quote is from Carl Sagan:
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Thanks steve99, you inspired me to dig that one out:-).
558. Comment #72511 by CHeard
I may think you are deluded:-), however if all religites were as mild as you, Richard Harries and my Catholic friend, Jenny I wouldn't be so frightened. I can be perplexed about why you believe what you do but not feel so threatened as I do by the burgeoning wing-nuts that seek control. Please reflect on what RD and Harris say about religious moderates giving legitimacy to the fundamentalists and their stated agenda.
My best. Cheers
V
Other Comments by Veronique
585. Comment #72561 by A.Lex on September 21, 2007 at 5:06 pm
72555 by revcort: ... I will post elsewhere..."Great idea! Good bye. I won't miss you.
Other Comments by A.Lex
586. Comment #72562 by Hobbit on September 21, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Hi all,Check out this link (I'm sorry but I don't know how to hyperlink in html).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qVKMn2nDQM
(if the link doesn't work, type 'YouTube - The Chaser - Should U.S Muslims carry a special ID card' into Google.
Revcort, do you agree with the people on this show?
Other Comments by Hobbit
587. Comment #72564 by Goldy on September 21, 2007 at 5:26 pm
On religious debate and the number of posts, have you checked out the McGrath comment thread? Last time I checked, it was well over 2,300. And even Goldy has given up on that lot:-). And he's a much nicer person than I could ever be.
I am rather nice, eh? :-) Being English, I guess I'm just attracted to lost causes. I'm even wearing my England shirt during the Rugby World Cup - can't lose to Samoa! Have to say the "all other gods are false ones" had coffee shooting out of my nose :-) So, Jews are worshipping a false god, as are Muslims, even though it is the same god. Only a fundy can worship both a true god and false one. Must be that trinity concept gone bad :-D
And yes, Paul E is totally screwed. I mean, such a simple concept. Ah, well. I do wonder if he can walk - wonder if he stops to look at his feet and debate with himself if he should start with his left foot or his right foot.
I sincerely feel sorry for rev. So blind, so closetted, but he's happy. Still, if prisoners offend to get back not jail, I can understand. At least he's safely fucked, mind - heaven forbid he travels too far.
The guilt thing is funny sometimes. My supervisor is ex Catholic - Irish ancestry, from Lancashire. We were getting blood samples out of a hospital and there was a time magazine with a big PNG (that's Papua New Guinea) article. She's done a bit on the genetics of the Sepik river valley in PNG along with a few other valleys and the article really interested her. However, we were about to leave, so she very reluctantly put the magazine down. "Take it" I said. "No one's going to miss it, it's from the early 80s" "Oh NO! That's stealing!" Eh? Stealing? Someoe left it there and the next stop for it would be paper recycling. So I took it - we had a use for it and the hospital didn't. A whole week later she was still on about it!
I feel so sorry for religites, fundies et al. Blind and sure of some impending salvation, even though their faith is deemed forever not enough (them mountains sure as hell ain't moving too quick). Still, with their lack of faith being good enough, I guess my total lack of faith is OK too :-) Fundy logic :-D Still breaks my heart, though...
Other Comments by Goldy
588. Comment #72573 by CHeard on September 21, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Hey everyone,I'm going to try to answer some questions that have been posed to me in comments ranging from #560 up to #577 (of course, not all of the posts in that range!). Sometimes more than one person asked a similar question, so I'll try to get as many as I can while being concise. I'll start with a disclaimer: I obviously speak only for myself. I am not representing Christianity as a whole, nor any smaller slice of Christianity, except for myself. Okay, that said …
Bonzai
However, not meaning to be a way to attack you, let me repeat a question that was asked by others. How do Christians like yourself decide which parts of the bible are to be taken literally, which parts are just allegorical? What is the basis you use in picking and choosing? Since you acknowledge that the Bible is just an artifact with a wide latitude for human interpretations and misinterpretations you have to base your understanding on something else other than Biblical verses and accounts.Well, I don't feel "attacked" at all. And I will try to be as forthright and honest as I can, even if it makes me look bad. :-) But I need to start by retooling the "literal vs. allegorical" question just a little bit by pointing out that these are not the only two options. Or, perhaps to put it a little more precisely, interpreting a text "literally" does not mean that you have to adopt its thinking as your own. Take your pick of any of the nasty curse-psalms in the Bible, such as "O daughter Babylon, you devastator! Happy shall they be who pay you back what you have done to us! Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!" (Psalm 137:8–9) I interpret this psalm "literally," meaning that I think the person who wrote it really did want to see Babylonian children suffer and die in war as "payback" for the Babylonians making Judean children suffer and die in war. I do not approve of this prayer, and I do not agree with it, and I never intend to imitate it. But I still interpret it literally.
If that is the case, in what sense do you call yourself a Christian and how do you filter out those elements in Christianity that you think are true?
Another variation is texts that seem to have been intended to be taken "literally" but not "historically." For example, I could give you a short list of literary features that I think are intentional marks of biblical fiction—conventions of ancient Israelite and Judean fiction that are present in certain biblical stories. (Some scholars would disagree with me, and many churchgoers would brand me a heretic for this, but I'm convinced that these are genuine literary phenomena in the corpus.) So take the story of Job, for example. I interpret the story literally, and when I study or talk about the book, I talk about the characters as if they were real people; but then, that's how I study Hamlet, too. There are elements of the book of Job that suggest it to be fictional, almost like a stage play. So I interpret that book literally but not historically. I might add that in this particular instance this is no modern liberal innovation; the Talmud, tractate Baba Bathra, reports a debate among the rabbis as to whether Job was a real person or a character in an extended parable.
Then there are the texts that look like they were intended to be read as historical reports, but also seem to have gotten things wrong. I know, I know, many of my fellow Christians hate it when I say things like that. But there are also many Christians—and the vast majority of biblical scholars—who freely admit that there are some historical problems in the texts that appear to be attempts at writing history. I don't really want to take time to start listing examples here. In any event, there are few if any biblical texts that seem to narrate history just for the sake of narrating history. There's usually some larger motive (for example, the overall point of Joshua through 2 Kings is "disloyalty toward God leads to destruction"). So when studying passages that look like they're meant to be historical narratives, I interpret them "literally" as far as the storyline goes, but I don't assume that the narrative is historically accurate; I also look for the "ulterior motive" or implicit purpose for which the particular episodes were recorded and arranged.
Okay, I could go on and on—my point is that I try to discern the literary genre of what is written and interpret/explain it accordingly. Whether I "trust and obey" what I'm reading is a second-order question with a whole different set of factors to consider.
Which brings up the issue of ...
GoneGolfing
One word comes to mind though when reading that post.......Cherrypicking.
Your guilty of the same crime as almost 100% of religites, and that is picking the "best" parts of the teachings that will suit your emotional needs.
Is cherry-picking really a crime, if you're a legitimate heir to the cherries? ;-)
Seriously, I have thought about this a lot. The issue comes up with some force in Sam Harris's books, and I think there is some mention of this in TGD as well. But I actually think the charge of cherry-picking proceeds from false premises and is—if I can say so without being insulting—historically naïve to some extent. Neither Judaism (including its Israelite and Judean antecedents) nor Christianity was ever monolithic or uniform throughout. Nor has either of these religions' corpus of sacred texts ever really been an "end all and be all" compendium of what it means to be Jewish or Christian. Let's start with the latter point: when the earliest Christians branched off from Judaism, they took with them copies of Jewish scriptures. But they didn't just stop with those; they wrote some more books to go with them, the New Testament. And the Jews didn't stop either; they wrote Mishnah and Talmud and so on. Meanwhile, Christians were also writing commentaries, and setting up church hierarchies. It wasn't until the Reformation that broad swaths of Christians started to say that the Bible alone, independent of church tradition, should hold religious authority. That's fifteen centuries after the life of Jesus.
Now going back to the first point: those who study the Bible carefully know that the various writers do not always agree with one another. For example, the books of Ezra and Nehemiah are very xenophobic (particularly with regard to Moabites and Ammonites), while the book of Ruth tells a charming story about a Moabite woman marrying into an Israelite family, and not incidentally being the great-grandmother of King David. Whether the story is true or not is beside the point; what's important for the point I'm trying to make is that the book of Ruth gives voice to one side of an "intermarriage" debate in ancient Judah, while the books of Ezra and Nehemiah give voice to a different side of that debate. The Bible does not choose sides; it presents both. This is similar to the passage from Proverbs 26:4–5 that someone (epeeist, I think) mentioned earlier. In that passage, the editors preserve, side by side, two different bits of advice on handling fools ("answer them" vs. "don't answer them"). Perhaps just one more example: Deuteronomy 23:1 says "No eunuchs in the temple, ever," but Isaiah 56:4–5 throws the temple doors wide open for eunuchs (specifically, and using some really sharp figures of speech).
Basically, it's pretty much impossible to give the biblical writers input into your own religion or morality without doing some
What I'm trying to say, in somewhat long-winded fashion (and I'm leaving out a lot of detail), is that the Bible simply does not present Jews or Christians with a univocal, straightforward "guide" to—well—just about anything. There are a few matters on which all biblical writers seem to agree. But critical analysis of the tradition and discriminative decision-making are par for the course, necessitated by the nature of the material. And it's not as if the Bible is that way by accident. The people who put the Bible together were sharp folk, by second-half-of-the-first-millennium-BCE standards. They knew what they were doing. They knew that the author of Isaiah 56 baldly sought to overturn or countermand the author of Deuteronomy 23. And note that Deuteronomy 23 is presented as divine speech in the immediate literary context—but that didn't stop the author of Isaiah 56 from trying to counter it with his own version of divine speech! Picking and choosing sides in various internal debates is itself an integral part of the Judeo-Christian tradition, a part of the tradition that the rabbis preserved better than the early Christians, though perhaps some Christians are recovering these insights nowadays.
Sam Harris (to pick one example) has a lot of interesting things to say, but I find it curiously ironic that (in The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation), Harris's approach to topics like this one is almost, well, fundamentalist. I'm not pulling out the "fundamentalist atheist" canard. What I mean is that to some extent Sam sounds like a Christian fundamentalist when he more or less says that Christian "moderates" have basically abandoned their faith but just don't want to admit it. But this criticism assumes—as many Christian fundamentalists do—that any change over time (evolution?) in religion is bad. That's just historically naïve (and, for anyone who cares, not "biblical" either); change in response to changing circumstances has always been part of the Judeo-Christian trajectory.
To put that a slightly different way: the charge of "cherry-picking," whether it comes from a fundamentalist or an atheist, presupposes that the Bible is sort of a "once for all" deposit of wisdom, and that the Christian understanding of both the world and of Christianity had reached its end/goal once the Bible was finalized. But no; the Bible stands not at the end of the development of Christianity, but very much at its beginning. In my judgment, a historically responsible approach to Christianity sees the Bible as the launching pad, not the destination.
Probably more could be said there, but my time is growing short and I would like to say a word or two about metaphysics.
GoneGolfing
Do you share any ideas on Gods pre-creation cerebrations?No. ;-) But I will admit that I am still thinking hard about "first cause" type arguments, and I don't think they're wholly without merit. At a gut, instinctual level, I want to argue that a supernatural agent is a more satisfying answer to the question "Why is there anything (natural) at all?" than having to simply take the existence of our universe as a brute fact. I don't think the "Who created the creator?" objection has quite as much strength as it is often assumed to have by many who post here on Richard's site, because the supernatural, um, "instigator" would be outside the system. But these are just ill-formed musings; I need to learn a lot more about the current understandings of the universe at or about, say, t = 10-43 seconds before I try to put forward any such arguments with confidence. (Don't worry, physicists: I know that the language I'm using here is sloppy.) At the moment, I am very sympathetic with Howard Van Till's "fully gifted universe" perspective, which is neither front-loading nor Intelligent Design, but the idea that God "gifted" the cosmos with all the "potentialities" it needed to be essentially self-sustaining and self-creating. Please don't take this as a manifesto; I am just trying to answer questions honestly.
walk
In your case, CHeard, I believe I detected a willingness to consider reason and logic. If you wouldn't mind, could you clarify your beliefs a bit? It sounds as though you see Jesus more as a teacher than a god. Do you believe in the resurrection, afterlife, hell, miracles, etc.Well, these are good, direct questions, and a bit uncomfortable for me, since I know the "orthodox" answers but can't necessarily give them in good conscience. If I may be brief (so that I can post this comment and go home to my wife and kids), I will say that I would, yes, emphasize Jesus's teaching, preaching, and example over metaphysical claims about Jesus; I would also like to say that God's best vision for humanity somehow came to unique expression in Jesus, but I can offer no evidence for that other than the testimony of the Christian tradition. Sorry; that's all I've got, and I think that's all anyone will ever have on that score. I am perplexed by and dubious of the classical doctrine of the Trinity, and I must confess tendencies toward Arianism and adoptionism (you can read about these theological positions in Wikipedia; the articles aren't superb, but they aren't trash, either). Please understand that I am an Old Testament scholar, not a New Testament scholar or a theologian, and I haven't investigated all these matters as thoroughly as I would like. So again, please: this isn't a manifesto, but me thinking out loud in response to questions that have been asked.
On the other, metaphysical stuff: to be honest, I want to believe it all, out of sheer loyalty. Intellectually, I have a hard time with some of it. And, to be honest, I have avoided considering much of it too closely; I've turned my attention to other things. Long story short: miracles - won't rule them out, but generally skeptical; resurrection - hard to swallow, rationally, but for the moment I still do
Y'know, it's a bit hard to "stand" here and nakedly say, "I irrationally hold beliefs X, Y, and Z." I sound really stupid to myself, but I am also trying to be true to where I really am at this moment. I have actually tried, as a kind of "thought experiment," disbelieving in God's existence—it's never worked for me. So be gentle. ;-)
I'm at work right now and need to go home. God willing (yeah, I said that on purpose, just to be cute), I will log back on later and answer some questions raised by revcort and, if I can come up with a coherent answer, BAEOZ.
Other Comments by CHeard
589. Comment #72574 by Robert Maynard on September 21, 2007 at 6:06 pm
revcort, #72522, #72555It looks as though I slept through the end of this, and your departure, which is a shame. Perhaps I'll switch to CHeard, though he is already heavily engaged, and moderates are even more slippery on these matters..
First of all, you ignored my requests for clarification on those Bible verses. I'll go for the jugular this time: According to scriptural authority, who was [father of Jesus] Joseph's father? (you may pick between the answer in Matthew 1:16 or Luke 3:23 - at least one is incorrect)
Onto your last reply:
The eternal component of [our lives] is fore-ordained and unchangeable.These statements are incompatible.
At the same time, there is a very practical component to faith which is lived out every day. And it is in this sense that all men have a chance for salvation.
When the result is already in, the chance component has ended. What you're suggesting is like saying God rolls a die for every future individual at the beginning of time, and everyone who gets a 6 lives forever, but then claim that everyone has a chance to change their result to a six. Only it's worse, because there weren't even dice involved, just his fickle fancy.
It's a paradox of sorts.It's a false statement.
Now, He doesn't take pleasure in the death of anyone. Ezekiel 18:23 "Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked," declares the Lord God, "rather than that he should turn from his ways and live?"This is scripturally inconsistent with Isaiah 46:10, where God boasts "Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure".
Everything ultimately turns out the way he wants - "to his pleasure". The individual outcomes of all men and women are his explicit will, and likely pleasure. At the very least, it is impossible that God might "regret" the outcome, because that would imply that his will, how he'd like things to turn out, has not been accomplished in the fullness of time, which is impossible (Job 42:2). Furthermore, your quoting of Ezekiel 10 is also incompatible with your claim that man is not self-determinate, and also depicts God as not having his will fulfilled.
Oh, and yes, God is loving. He has shown His grace to all, to a certain degree.By these descriptions, God is certainly self-loving - but there is no consistent scriptural evidence for a universal love for humankind.
Other Comments by Robert Maynard
590. Comment #72575 by Hobbit on September 21, 2007 at 6:09 pm
Revcort wrote:Well, I understand those passages from Genesis a bit differently.
And this is the crux of the problem. YOU believe that YOUR interpretation of the ancient texts is absolutely right and EVERYONE that disagrees with you is WORSHIPING DEMONS!
Can you see the problem here?
The Pope says that Catholicism is the only true religion. Baptists say their interpretation is the only true form of Christianity. Imams say that Islam is the only true religion. Rabbis say the Judaism is the only true religion. Hindu priests say that their gods are the only true ones.
You all have extremely closed minds.
This is one of the reasons why atheists think religion is a load of bollocks!
Other Comments by Hobbit
591. Comment #72576 by Dr Benway on September 21, 2007 at 6:14 pm
CHeard:Is cherry-picking really a crime, if you're a legitimate heir to the cherries? ;-)Cherry picking vests greater authority in the picker than the thing picked. It's not a crime in itself. But doing it while pretending that scripture is some sort of special, divine revelation is trying to have things both ways. People who try to have things both ways are universally recognized as vile beings. You wouldn't want to share a flat with any of them. Believe me.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
592. Comment #72581 by BAEOZ on September 21, 2007 at 7:16 pm
CHeard. Thank you for that last post. It seemed quite honest and that's a refreshing change. Especially the not feeling good about holding irrational beliefs. You're not a trinitarian and favor arianism. Poor old Arius got the wrong end of Constantine's choice of church.They knew that the author of Isaiah 56 baldly sought to overturn or countermand the author of Deuteronomy 23. And note that Deuteronomy 23 is presented as divine speech in the immediate literary context—but that didn't stop the author of Isaiah 56 from trying to counter it with his own version of divine speech!
I have to say this just seems a post-hoc justification for cherry picking. Is there a OT assemblers meeting minute that ackowledges that they knew this? Just kidding. But then I'm not a biblical scholar.
In response to your first cause argument, the question should be why was there nothing for a moment? Nothing is unstable. And there are things in this universe that happen without a cause, like an excited atom releasing a photon. (Nod to Victor Stenger.) But anyway.
From a quick reading of your post, you almost seem to be agnostic or a believer in benefits of belief, not a card carrying cross worshiper.
I have more to say, but I await your response to my post. Te do gratias.
Other Comments by BAEOZ
593. Comment #72593 by Logicel on September 21, 2007 at 8:04 pm
When I chance upon the comments of Christians here at this site, and they go on and on to the best of their ability waxing lyrically about their beliefs, all I do is translate their hard work into the following concise and hilarious summaries of their belief systems:1) From an unknown source: 1)... therefore, a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father wants you to telepathically acknowledge him as your master so that he can remove an evil force from your soul that was put there when a talking snake convinced a rib-woman to eat the fruit of a magical tree.
2) PZ Myers: There is this old myth about a god who has sex with his human mother to give birth to himself, who grows up to be killed (but not really), and this depreciated sacrifice somehow means everyone else gets to go to heaven when they die. If they believe it, that is; otherwise they go to hell and suffer for eternity.
Forgive us, if we can't take your heart-felt discussions seriously. Because the above 2 descriptions encapsulate the meaning of your beliefs!
Other Comments by Logicel
594. Comment #72670 by phasmagigas on September 22, 2007 at 7:23 am
revcort, take care.oh and by the way, look up 'ring species' involving herring gulls and black backed gulls. I think you will find it quite illuminating. Instead of species gradually changing forward (or back) in time, heres an example of the same but occupying the same time but a different space!! This should destroy any notions that species are fixed. enjoy.
Other Comments by phasmagigas
595. Comment #72708 by walk on September 22, 2007 at 11:53 am
CHeard,Thanks much for such an honest, open answer (589.) You have one of the most realistic interpretations I've read from a christian, in light of modern science and logic. If I were still a believer, my thinking would be similar. It's a bit of fresh air around here.
It also may be a first when you said, "I have actually tried, as a kind of "thought experiment," disbelieving in God's existence—it's never worked for me." At least you were open enough to try! I admire your frankness and especially your humility. Most believers speak with a kind of self-righteous, arrogant certainity (especially in light of the lack of evidence.) You're on a good path (IMHO).
I'm sure my fellow posters will have more questions for you. I guess my only remaining curiosity (don't reply if too personal) is: what do you teach your children in regards to religious belief?
Other Comments by walk
596. Comment #72718 by CHeard on September 22, 2007 at 12:34 pm
BAEOZ (593)I have to say this just seems a post-hoc justification for cherry picking. Is there a OT assemblers meeting minute that ackowledges that they knew this? Just kidding. But then I'm not a biblical scholar.Yes, those meeting minutes used to exist. Unfortunately, they erased them when they ran out of paper on which to write the Dead Sea Scrolls. ;-)
Sorry, weak jokes are all I have time for right at the moment. Back for more conversation later.
Other Comments by CHeard
597. Comment #72736 by BAEOZ on September 22, 2007 at 2:54 pm
While we're on the subject of weak jokes. Do angels get beaten up by demons for being effeminate wusses? I'd prefer to be a demon; they always seem to look like some corrupted version of the Pan, the god of masculinity. Probably an early Christian thing to discredit Pagan gods. Other Comments by BAEOZ
598. Comment #72750 by ergaster on September 22, 2007 at 4:37 pm
REVCORT:So, I would ask one question of CHeard, if Scripture is not given to us by God, what good is it? And further, if it is simply the thoughts of a bunch of men, how do you decide what to believe?
If the Scripture has no inspiration and has no authority, then I'd likely be an atheist myself, or, at the very least, an agnostic./REVCORT
Revcort is on the verge of being freed from his belief, if only he could be persuaded that Scripture isn't God's words. The obvious and short answer is, no it's not inspired by a god, it was written by men. Surely there are people here who can see his invitation and "deprogramme" him? It would be a shame if he left the forum without the logic that is so prevalent here, especially because it wouldn't take that much of a nudge to let go of that "inspired" stuff.
Other Comments by ergaster
599. Comment #72780 by NormanDoering on September 23, 2007 at 12:02 am
ergaster wrote:...it wouldn't take that much of a nudge to let go of that "inspired" stuff.
Oh, yes it would. Revcort has to look death and hell in the eye and overcome his fear before he can even begin to think clearly about his religion.
As long as he fears hell, he's trapped within the prison of his own imagined fears.
Other Comments by NormanDoering
600. Comment #72788 by CHeard on September 23, 2007 at 1:27 am
Hey everyone, I'm back with an attempt to continue this interesting conversation.In response to revcort (564):
Just for the record, I agree with MUCH of what CHeard has written. However, not believing in the inspiration of Scripture will only lead down a slippery slope that will undermine and totally destroy the Christian faith.In order to evaluate this claim above, we would have to define more carefully what "believing in the inspiration of Scripture" means. You, revcort, seem to use the word "inspiration" in a way that strikes me as terribly reductive; you seem to deploy the concept of "inspiration" in a way that suggests that, basically, "God wrote the Bible." But consider the following biblical quotations (following the New Revised Standard Version):
The LORD said to Moses: Write these words; in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel. … And [Moses] wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the ten commandments. (Exodus 34:27–28; n.b. that these are not Judge Moore's ten commandments, but the "second" ten commandments, what scholars call the "ritual decalogue" to distinguish it from the more familiar set of ten)If a Christian "doctrine of the inspiration of scripture" is to have any meaningful connection to the real claims made in the Bible about the way the texts themselves originated, then the term "inspiration" has to be stretched to include not just the "dictation" experience claimed for Moses, but all the other processes mentioned above, too: quoting traditional poetry, reporting
From there they set out, and camped on the other side of the Arnon, in the wilderness that extends from the boundary of the Amorites; for the Arnon is the boundary of Moab, between Moab and the Amorites. Wherefore it is said in the Book of the Wars of the LORD, "Waheb in Suphah and the wadis. The Arnon and the slopes of the wadis that extend to the seat of Ar, and lie along the border of Moab." (Numbers 21:13–15; by the way, this is what I like to quote when well-meaning evangelicals ask me to identify my "favorite Bible verse," though my true favorite is Proverbs 31:8)
Israel took all these towns, and Israel settled in all the towns of the Amorites, who had fought against the former king of Moab and captured all his land as far as the Arnon. Therefore the ballad singers say, "Come to Heshbon, let it be built; let the city of Sihon be established. …" (Numbers 21:25–27; the quotation from the "ballad singers" goes on a bit from there)
He brought me, in visions of God, to the land of Israel, and set me down upon a very high mountain, on which was a structure like a city to the south. When he brought me there, a man was there … [who] said to me, "Mortal, look closely and listen attentively, and set your mind upon all that I shall show you, for you were brought here in order that I might show it to you; declare all that you see to the house of Israel." (Ezekiel 40:2–4)
I, the Teacher, when king over Israel in Jerusalem, applied my mind to seek out and to search by wisdom all that is done under heaven; it is an unhappy business that God has given to human beings to be busy with. (Ecclesiastes 1:12–13)
Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed. (Luke 1:1–4)
To the married I give this command—not I but the Lord … To the rest I say—I and not the Lord … Now concerning virgins, I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. (1 Corinthians 7:10–25, passim)
551. Comment #72492 by SRWB on September 21, 2007 at 9:23 am
Post 540 -Is he really in charge of your life? I'm not trying to be facetious, but does he feed you, clothe you, pay your bills, decide everything you do? Or do you do these things and make decisions yourself? Is this "exactly what (you) want" because He has transformed your thinking, or is it what you want because you have transformed your thinking to fall in line with an approach that makes you comfortable and happy?
Post 545 -
An interesting response. But you cannot arbitrarily decide that other religions are false, and that they worship demons etc. Those believers are at least as committed to their beliefs, or more so, than you are. That doesn't prove they are right or wrong. But this continuing theological debate and interpretation does at least call into question all such definitive beliefs.
Other Comments by SRWB