The applied politics of the tribal genocidal "god".
Plus Craig tells us in no uncertain terms that he is a very sick puppy, and what his politics are really all about. And those of his right-thinking religionists at the "Discovery" Institute etc etc etc.
jesusneverexisted.com immediately sends up red flags. Regarding the first paragraph on that site: I'm not persuaded by the arguments that Nazareth didn't exist in the 1st century, and I have no idea whether or not the 12 disciples existed. Certainly, it these things have not "been known" by scholars for over 200 years - in fact, nearly all scholars would reject those two claims!
Much of what the website claims is true, but much of it is suspect. Since it's difficult to separate truth from fiction on the site, I'd rather avoid that source altogether. There's lots of shoddy mythicism work out there. If you want to study mythicism, I'd stick to more reliable work: Richard Carrier, Robert Price, G.A. Wells, etc.
Alden
· 9 months ago
I find it interesting that many atheists spend so much time discussing the morality of a being they claim doesn't exist. The reality is, of course, that whether God is good, evil, or otherwise doesn't matter, unless He does exist. Even then, the issue of God's morality is fairly academic, as he came first, and yes, can do whatever he wants. The only practical question at that point is "how am I going to deal with this God?"
If someone is completely satisfied that God doesn't exist, then talking about his non-existent morality is a little like a guy who spends all his time talking about the girl who just dumped him; it sounds a bit obsessive. Or, it's possible that some may be looking for moral reasons to reject a belief in God, in which case it would seem that morality is more of an issue than they admit.
I am talking generally; I honestly haven't figured out where or if you would fit in the above analysis. But again, I do find it interesting that the morality of alleged non-existent beings appears to be such a big issue.
Tory Phoenix
· 9 months ago
It isn't that fact that we don't believe. Its the fact that so many people do believe. They take the sick tales of a man being asked to kill his own son as a sacrifice to 'GOD' and they portray it as the ideal way to be. That's insane and sick. Any person in today's society that would do such a thing and claim that 'GOD' told him to do it would be locked up fast enough to spin his head off. Even they bible bruising Christian's would be behind him being locked up because they recognize that he's mentally ill. Yet they can't seem to reconcile that with the fact that their own belief's say they should be defending and praising him for his faith.
It's these people that seem so detached from reality and the implications of their beliefs that also find it necessary to force their belief's on other. These same people are those that refuse to believe in evolution, who pray over their children rather then getting them medical treatment, who accuse me and anyone that doesn't agree with them of "persecuting" them. Not because we are, but because we won't simply bow to their demands of special treatment. Because we demand that we teach our children only facts in school, and that the church keep is "GOD Damned" hands out of government.
anselm
· 9 months ago
I'm sorry, but atheists have no standing to lecture regarding the violent and oppressive implications of Christian belief when the experience of atheist government features Stalin, Mao, Kim Jong-Ill, etc. Atheists who have most prominently achieved political power have not been known for "tolerance" and refraining from "imposing their views on others."
Codswallop
· 9 months ago
"No standing?" So the notion that atheists can't comment on violence and oppression stems from the idea that they're just as bad as believers? By your own standard, you have no standing either.
Your real issue seems to be not with atheism, but with maniacal power, totalitarian control and cults of personality, examples of which litter the Bible and subsequent history like used Dixie cups at a Protestant Eucharist. Stalin, Mao et al certainly qualify, but so do the god of Israel and his proxies, including Moses, Joshua and the many warlike kings of the Bible. The despotisms that characterized Christian Europe from the time of Constantine until very recently do not speak well for believers over non-believers. Do the perpetrators of Christian atrocities have "standing?"
Alden
· 9 months ago
Tory, it IS actually the fact that you don't believe. If you really want to take issue with what Christians believe, then start there, not with what some atheist claims that Christians believe. I've seen very few - if indeed, any - atheists who accurately represent orthodox Christian doctrine, including those who have been raised in the church. Granted, there are some very questionable, legalistic churches who according to Paul in Galatians, are teaching no gospel at all.
As to the revelation of God in the Old Testament, the New Testament writings indicate that God was imperfectly revealed in the Old Testament, and that we are to start with the person of Jesus as the truest representation of God that we have.
Teleprompter
· 9 months ago
Orthodox Christian doctrine? Please explain.
Doesn't Christianity misrepresent itself enough on its own? So many denominations and traditions, competing for influence, it can be astounding to observe them all try to represent the "true" Christianity.
Unfortunately, almost any time that someone presents a major argument against some idea in Christianity, there will still be a large percentage of believers who also disagree with the stated idea.
I think it is more productive to examine Christianities than it is to examine Christianity as if it is one, singular, unfragmented tradition.
Alden
· 9 months ago
Tele, to start with the basics, all Christians adhere to the Apostle's Creed. Most, if not all, adhere to the Nicene Creed (with some disagreement between east and west on a fairly insignificant phrase that was added by the West). There are disagreements on many things, but not the essential elements of Christianity.
These creeds were established early on in the Church; there may be some who call themselves "Christian", but if they deny the core elements of the faith, they define themselves as outside of orthodoxy (small "o" - distinguishes it from Eastern Orthodox), or in other words, heretics. Ignore the heretics, focus on the orthodox.
nal
· 9 months ago
Alden: I find it interesting that many atheists spend so much time discussing the morality of a being they claim doesn't exist.
Atheists discuss the morality of a being that theists claim exists. It is theistic claims that are discussed.
Alden
· 9 months ago
nal, my point exactly. However, logically the morality of a being says nothing about the existence of the being.
Teleprompter
· 9 months ago
Really? So if a religion posits the existence of a certain type of god (which has a certain type of morality), and it can be shown that characteristics associated with the concept are not in line with the claims which have been made, wouldn't that undermine the claims of existence (as in, X exists and X is like such and such, but if X can be shown to not be such and such or if no X can be such and such, then it would be irrational to believe the claims that X exists in such and such form as originally suggested)?
Alden
· 9 months ago
Not at all. Judaism and Christianity, for example, only claim to have partial revelations of who God is. It's actually written in both Testaments. It is illogical to try to show that God doesn't exist because our understanding of him is incorrect. It's like saying Lincoln didn't exist because the various biographies of him are inconsistent and perhaps incorrect.
anselm
· 9 months ago
I believe a Jewish reader would be somewhat whipsawed by your sympathy regarding the holocaust after you condemn their religion (which has defined and preserved them as a people for 3,000 years through unspeakable persecution) as one invented by Jews so they could indulge "their thirst for power and bloodshed", but put that aside.
You say:
"True. Biblical atrocities don’t disprove an all-good God (though, the abundance of suffering in the world just might). Biblical atrocities could just as well show that the Bible is incorrect - but this only makes Judaism and Christianity look all the more like foolish human inventions."
Elsewhere on the blog, you say:
"And the case for the Resurrection is a historical one that can be made without appeals to Christian doctrine."
If a skeptic accepted that God raised Jesus from the dead based on the historical case, why would the issue of Old Testament violence be crucial at that point? If you accept the resurrection, and therefore that God has vindicated Jesus as his Son, wouldn't that determine the truth of Christianity for you? Then the proper exegesis of the Old Testament becomes an "in-house" issue among Christians, where theologians differ in their interpretations. As Greg Boyd points out here http://tinyurl.com/c9f2rl , Christian faith is simply not what is at stake in resolving the issue of violence in the Old Testament.
lukeprog
· 9 months ago
As most Christian apologists - including Craig and Lewis - understand, the probability of the resurrection depends heavily on the probability of the existence and activity of Yahweh. Not just any powerful magical being, but Yahweh. Since the identity of Yahweh is traditionally very wrapped up in the claims made about him in the Bible, the Bible's account weighs heavily on the probability of traditional views of Yahweh. If you are a liberal Christian who denies the truth of most of the Bible (unlike Craig and Lewis), and only accepts the existence of some kind of abstract powerful being who resurrected Jesus, then that's a different matter and we must (just as before) attend to the specific arguments given in support of such a god and the resurrection of Jesus.
But even the resurrection of Jesus would only be a small step toward vindicating Christian doctrine. Christianity is not merely the claim that some kind of transcendent being exists, and used his magical powers to raise Jesus from the dead. Christianity also (typically) claims that (1) that god is the creator of the universe, (2) that same god is highly interested in human affairs, (3) that same god is the source of all moral values, (4) a special invisible realm called "heaven" exists, (4) a special invisible realm called "hell" exists, (5) Jesus still lives in some kind of magical super-body in the "heaven" realm, (5) humans have eternal souls that survive physical death, (6) Jesus can and will send these souls to heaven or hell upon the physical death of their carriers, based on certain criteria, (7) the identity of Jesus and this god are somehow very closely linked.
And that is an extremely minimal Christianity that says nothing about prayer, worship, commandments, the authority of scripture, divine action, specific moral commands, the Holy Spirit, or many other things. You can't smuggle all these extra propositions along with the bare arguments for the existence of some kind of transcendent being and his decision to raise a man from the dead.
anselm
· 9 months ago
The problem with your argument is that the resurrection (if it is accepted as historical) vindicates Jesus and his radical claims and throws a cloak of authority over the Bible and all the "extra propositions" you discuss. (This is why the "minimal facts" argument for the resurrection is so powerful: once the resurrection is established using evidence even skeptical scholars accept--including what they accept regarding the religio-historical context of the resurrection--the implications for biblical authority are clear). As Boyd puts it:
"Now, since I have historical and existential reasons for concluding that Jesus is the Son of God, it seems reasonable to me to conclude that God had something to do with providing the oral and written meta-narrative – the biblical narrative — that anticipates (in the Old Testament), looks back to (in the New Testament) and interprets Jesus’ coming. I thus have reasons for accepting that the Bible is inspired. What is more, reading the Gospels as generally reliable historical documents (see the above mentioned works ["Lord or Legend?" and "The Jesus Legend" by Boyd and Eddy] for arguments supporting this assessment), it appears that Jesus himself viewed the Old Testament as God’s Word and that he saw himself and the community of his followers as carrying on this same Spirit-inspired authority. Since I believe Jesus is the Son of God and have made him Lord of my life, I’m inclined to think he was correct in his basic theological views, and thus correct in his assessment of the biblical tradition. (I have other reasons for believing the Bible is God’s infallible Word, but these are my main two)."
Alden
· 9 months ago
Anselm, I believe you are correct. While God must be presupposed to believe "God raised Jesus from the dead," the historicity of the resurrection is believable on its own merits, which then supports Jesus' claims of divinity.
lukeprog
· 9 months ago
"The problem with your argument is that the resurrection (if it is accepted as historical) vindicates Jesus and his radical claims and throws a cloak of authority over the Bible and all the "extra propositions" you discuss."
If we have evidence for Jesus’ resurrection, [Habermas and Licona say], that confirms the truth of Christianity’s claims (p 28). Here begins the apologist’s habit of jumping way beyond what the evidence says. If we have evidence that Jesus rose from the dead, what does that show? That Jesus rose from the dead. And that’s it.
Evidence for the Resurrection would not tell us if Jesus was God or man. It wouldn’t tell us whether he wanted to preach the end of the world or start a non-violent movement or save our souls. Did Jesus offer salvation to Gentiles, or just Jews, or nobody? Was his God the violent Jewish god Yahweh, or another god? Did he consider the Jewish Bible scripture or not? Did he send the Holy Spirit at Pentecost? Would he agree with Matthew’s version of the gospel, or John’s, or Paul’s, or nobody’s? Was Jesus even trying to start a religion? These and other questions would remain unanswered by the evidence, even if the resurrection could be proven.
And of course, early Christians who believed in the Resurrection had different answers to all these questions.1 The Ebionites thought Jewish law and ritual must be observed. The Marcionites thought that the god who sent Jesus had to be different than the vicious, genocidal god of the Jews. Gnostic Christians thought salvation came by learning secret truths. Basilidean Christians believed in 365 heavens, each with its own god.
The New Testament records such disagreements, too. Did Jesus say the Law would never perish (Matt. 5:17-19) or that it perished with John (Luke 16:16)? Is salvation only for the Jews (Matt. 15:24; Matt. 10:5-6; John 4:22) or also for the Gentiles (Acts 13:47-48)? Will salvation come to all who call on the Lord (Rom. 10:13; Acts 2:21.), or only to those predestined to be saved (Acts 13:48; Eph. 1:4-5; 2 Thes. 2:13; Acts 2:47)? Is anger itself a sin (Matt. 5:22) or not (Eph. 4:26)? Many times, the New Testament mentions other Christian groups that teach a “different gospel” (1 Tim. 1:3-7, 2 Tim. 2:17-18, 1 Cor. 15:12, 1 John 4:1-3, 2 John 1:7), for example that Jesus never had a physical body. Paul thought Christians should abstain from sex altogether,2 but luckily for Christians, other leaders of the church disagreed - otherwise Christianity may not have survived more than a few generations.
The simple fact is that basic Christianity - what C.S. Lewis called Mere Christianity - depends on an astounding number of outlandish, often magical claims for which we do not - in some cases, cannot - have good evidence. This was not a problem when the religion began, when people had no need for evidence. But the modern Christian apologist - having grown up with a respect for evidence and reason but also a committed faith in the unprovable claims of Christianity - finds himself in quite a bind. He must always hope that a tiny shred of ancient, fragmentary evidence can verify just one claim of Christianity, and thereby verify all the others.
But it doesn’t work that way. Evidence that Joseph Smith really received the golden plates from the angel Moroni would not show that God exists, that he is good, that we will be punished for our “sins,” that dunking your head underwater cleanses you of sin, that we can speak in a holy language, or that the New Jerusalem will be built in America. Each needs its own proof. And even if Jesus rose from the dead, that does not give us any indication that Yahweh is God, that he is good, that he will torture disbelievers in hell and send believers to heaven, that salvation comes from belief in Jesus, that there are no other gods, or that Jesus listens to millions of prayers simultaneously. Even if the Resurrection is proved, we still have no evidence to support the other claims of basic Christianity. They are as unproven as the claims of Mormonism or Islam or Jainism or Norse mythology.
Each proposition needs its own evidential support unless it follows logically from a premise already proven. None of the Christian doctrines logically follow from "Yahweh raised Jesus from the dead."
anselm
· 9 months ago
That's quite a remarkable position you take there, one that I doubt many atheists would be enthusiastic about. If the proposition "Yahweh raised Jesus from the dead" is conceded, it is Game Over for the atheist. Yes, there is systematic theology and exegesis to still be done (and it is an interesting field to study, even as an amateur like myself--you, like former atheist Greg Boyd, might make a good theologian! Come on in, the water's fine).
Let's look at what is conceded if the truth of the statement "Yahweh raised Jesus from the dead" is granted:
1) Yahweh exists (!) 2) The resurrection happened (!) 3) It did so in a religio-historical context in which Jesus claimed to be the Son of God and the Messiah predicted by the Old Testament, thus vindicating the biblical narrative and his radical claims (!)
The "argument from authority" (which is weak if the authority is a mere human) becomes irresistible once you concede that the authority is Yahweh and that Yahweh exists. Accepting the bible as infallible is a minor step after accepting that paradigm-shattering truth.
As Wolfhart Pannenberg said: "The resurrection of Jesus acquires such decisive meaning, not merely because someone or anyone has been raised from the dead, but because it is Jesus of Nazareth, whose execution was instigated by the Jews because he had blasphemed against God. If this man was raised from the dead, then that plainly means that the God whom he had supposedly blasphemed has committed himself to him...The resurrection can only be understood as the divine vindication of the man whom the Jews had rejected as a blasphemer." (in "Jesu Geschichte und unsere Geschichte").
I seriously doubt many atheists would be as sanguine as you are that Christianity would still not be considered proven if the proposition "Yahweh raised Jesus from the dead" were considered proven.
lukeprog
· 9 months ago
No, (3) does not follow from "Yahweh raised Jesus from the dead.
Obviously, I do not concede the proposition "Yahweh raised Jesus from the dead." In fact, I find it absurd. But that is another debate, one that I shall happily have as I write for this blog. :)
All I'm saying is that the hundreds of propositions that make up Christianity do NOT follow from "Yahweh raised Jesus from the dead." This would certainly defeat naturalism and atheism, but it would not demonstrate Christianity in all its bizarre codes and creeds.
It does not even follow that Yahweh is all-powerful, or all-good, or reveals himself to humanity truthfully. It does not follow that Yahweh revealed himself in Genesis, or in The Wisdom of Solmon, or in Gnostic texts. It does not follow that heaven or hell exist. It does not follow that "failed apocalyptic prophet" is the correct historical view of Jesus, nor that "Jesus the revolutionary" is correct, nor that "Jesus the wisdom sage" is correct, nor that "Jesus the cosmic atoning Savior" is correct. It does not follow that our surviving accounts of his claims to divinity are reliable. None of these follow from "Yahweh raised Jesus from the dead."
This is, however widely accepted, a Christian conceit - an attempt to smuggle in even more un-evidenced "truth". Christians hate to provide proper justification for the propositions they so confidently assert - probably because they don't have proper justification for such ideas as heaven, hell, cosmic atonement, souls, Jesus' magical powers, God's loving nature, or even the existence of God.
anselm
· 9 months ago
Given the religio-historical context in which Yahweh raised Jesus from the dead, I'm afraid it DOES follow that the bible which preserves the evidence of that resurrection is vindicated; the resurrection did not occur in a vacuum, as Pannenburg (and all mainstream scholarship) points out. However, we obviously will have to agree to disagree on that issue :)
However, any individual who accepted the proposition "Yahweh raised Jesus from the dead" yet simultaneously believed that the truth of that proposition had no implications for the veracity of the bible or the Christian faith would have a very, very strange mental process.
lukeprog
· 9 months ago
I'm dumfounded. Sorry, I just don't get it. Can you try once more to explain to me how the truth of the Bible follows from "Yahweh raised Jesus from the dead"? To me, this is like saying that the truth of "War and Peace" follows from the fact that the War of 1812 happened.
No, the resurrection, if it happened, would not have occurred in a vacuum. It happened in a religious context, a social context, a political context, a philosophical context, a geographical context, and much more - just like everything else that has ever happened. How does this support the notion that the truth of the Bible follows from the proposition "Yahweh raised Jesus from the dead"?
anselm
· 9 months ago
I think we have hit a wall because we are almost speaking different languages, particularly regarding the concept of "historical context." It is probably because we have read different material in our intellectual development. It is lengthy, but I would recommend you read N.T. Wright's trilogy on "Christian Origins and the Question of God" (see http://tinyurl.com/dmcppl ). (Of course, I would be glad to read a selection of your choice, too). This common reading would more likely give us more common intellectual ground.
You reaction to these works would make an interesting series of blog posts, as well :)
lukeprog
· 9 months ago
Dang, I was hoping how you would explain that something like "A special realm outside of spacetime where good people go exists" could logically follow from "Yahweh raised Jesus from the dead." I'm still dumfounded by that.
Perhaps we'll have to come back to this after I've read your perspective.
lukeprog
· 9 months ago
Check it out. I was looking at my reply to you, where I wrote "Dang, I was hoping how you would explain..."
On the page, the word "AM" appeared right on top of the "was", so that it looked like those famous words of Yahweh "I AM." I was like "Woah, God is talking to me on my own atheist blog!"
And then I realized it was really just that when a threaded conversation gets so squished over to one edge like this, the date gets pushed onto a second line, as in:
Cool! The Tetragrammaton! Socrates (as portrayed by Peter Kreeft) would be impressed! see http://tinyurl.com/ca2eqe
Kevin
· 9 months ago
Well done. This notion that “God gave us life, and he can take it away when he wants” has always struck me as especially absurd, and you knocked it down perfectly. In spite of what Christianity says about the intrinsic value of human life, comments like this make it clear that we are a mere means to whatever capricious ends God may have. We are property.
Alden
· 9 months ago
Kevin, nothing has in fact been knocked down. While the current state of atheism depends heavily on modernism & rationalism, it seems that very, very few atheists understand the philosophical basis for their presuppositions. Most atheistic arguments depend on claims and presumptions which have not been proven in themselves. A common response to this is often, "well, Christianity depends on presuppositions, too." Yes, I believe that is the case; however, for atheists, it is internally inconsistent.
Kevin
· 9 months ago
Nice red herring. Care to address the issue at hand? Even on the Christian view of things, is it not internally inconsistent to claim that action X is immoral, but then say it is acceptable for God to do action X? If you have a defense of this notion that God can do whatever he likes with us, I'd like to hear it. I don't see how any defense of this can end without either denying that God is morally good or denying that such atrocities as genocide, the murder of innocents, and so on are morally good.
Alden
· 9 months ago
What red herring?
In answer to your questions, which I no doubt you'll find completely inadequate, here's Paul's rhetorical argument from Romans 9:
"But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?"
You may not like it, but the logic is irrefutable. That's not to say that God is arbitrary as most man-made gods; but the fact remains that if He is God, our opinion isn't worth a whole heck of a lot.
Kevin
· 9 months ago
The red herring in your original reply consisted of changing the subject to the "claims and presuppositions" of atheism, instead of dealing with the issue of God violating his own rules. I'm accusing God of not being consistent with his own moral rules, not with being inconsistent with secular morality.
As for Romans 9, I don't see any logic here, just assertions and appeals to power and fear. This passage is useful for deflecting uncomfortable questions, but it does nothing to adequately address why we either can't ask such questions or why we can't expect an answer. Other than the fact that God doesn't want to be bothered by the inquisitiveness he supposedly gave me, why can't I ask questions of him? Because He said so, I guess.
This line of defense--that we cannot question the ways of God--has other problems too. If we humans are not in a position to judge God, then not only can we not condemn his actions, we can't praise them either. If we cannot judge God, then we cannot judge that he is good and holy. We just have to take God's word for it that he is, in spite of his actions, or decide to believe that whatever God does is good because, and only because, it is God doing it.
MountainKing
· 9 months ago
"Most atheistic arguments depend on claims and presumptions which have not been proven in themselves"
Could you specify that?
Alden
· 9 months ago
You can start with Godel's Theorem, or the history of epistemology. You can start with Hume's attack on causality, which no one to date has been able to refute. The only way most atheistic arguments can stand is to ignore these issues.
MountainKing
· 9 months ago
I don´t see how that effects atheism specifically or in any way more than faith-based systems, if its based on critical rationalism and the use of temporarily axioms/"dogmas" and if we are aware that our knowledge is always imcomplete. Scepticism is great but if you attack atheism with that concept it falls right back to you because you gain your supposed knowledge of god just the same way, thinking in causalities for instance. Sure, you just invent a supernatural being that fills out the area where we can´t have knowledge about but then the question is, how did YOU get the knowledge about him/her then?
MountainKing
· 9 months ago
My previous reply seems to be lost, so again: I don´t see how what youre citing specifically concerns atheism. So what is your point exactly? I guess you mean something like what you posted in another thread:
"Materialistic, scientific criteria are by definition limited; however, science cannot prove that this is, in fact, proper. When it's all boiled down, science relies on faith in materialistic presuppositions. You have no basis, therefore, to question Christianity at all, except by experience and choice."
The main argument for naturalistic science is: it works. You have to claim there are different ways of gaining knowledge in a non-naturalistic way. You believe in a god who interfered with our naturalistic world and you wouldn´t have any knowledge about him if he didn´t. Every miracle, vision, prophesy, the creation, the resurrection and whatever your faith relies on: it all showed "naturalistic" results. People (supposedly) SAW jesus after he died, they SAW him walking on water and so on, they used their naturals senses. Theres no reason why you couldn´t test naturalistic events with the mnethods of natural sciences even if they had non-natural causes. You could still verify that they exist, just maybe not where they came from.
But according to what we know at the moment and how tests of similar claims worked out it seems highly unlikely that they did really happen. We will never be able to prove they didn´t , thats true but it is NOT true that they are beyond science.
Gary
· 9 months ago
I think your 5000 other gods refernce is low. My dad just got back from a missionary trip to India and reported that they have over 300 million gods in Hinduism alone.
Geoffrey of Ballard
· 9 months ago
One can see why Marcion had such a strong following for hundreds of years. He dropped the Hebrew Bible altogether.
Even now, it's hard to find Christians who fully embrace the Old Testament as a timeless source of morality.
marcion
· 9 months ago
"Third, why couldn’t God just have these other people groups move, for Christ’s sake? There was plenty of empty land available! Heck, even shoving them off to Siberia is better than cutting to pieces all the men, women, children, animals, and fetuses of neighboring tribes. What a maniacal twat!"
Because a god who only appears to you in incense or anointing oil (i.e. canabis) induced religious visions (i.e. hallucinations) can only speak to the people who are using. Plus, a tribal god never talks to the other tribe, so how could he tell them to move?
lukeprog
· 9 months ago
Good points. I am now persuaded. :)
Wait, you're not serious, right?
marcion
· 9 months ago
One of the ingredients in the anointing oil or incense used by the Hebrews is "sweet Cinnamon" (otherwise translated as sweet calamus) according to most translations. The Hebrew phrase, however, is something to the effect of kana bineh, and some people have conjectured that it actually means Cannabis. Isn't it at least possible that the glory of the Lord really did fill the Tabernacle way back in Moses day in the form of smoke from incense and that Jehovah really did appear and talk to them....howbeit in a narcotically induced hallucination? or that the anointing oil poured on the heads of the priests really did set them apart from the regular people by enabling them to have visions that the unanointed could never have since they were not high?
You've got to hand it to him at least. He was certainly imaginative. Sending bears to dismember children? That's the kind of thing only an omniscient mind could come up with. Or maybe nature.
marcion
· 9 months ago
Actually I think Elijah came up with that one and God supposedly said "Ah! Good idea Elijah!"
marcion
· 9 months ago
Or actually, that one was Elisha, because it was after Elijah had been taken up by a whirlwind into heaven. That's why the kids were saying "Go up thou bald head!" In other words, "Why don't you ascend to heaven too, and get out of here?!!"
Scotty B
· 9 months ago
Regarding the Dawkins quote:
“the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully”
All Comments
The applied politics of the tribal genocidal "god".
Plus Craig tells us in no uncertain terms that he is a very sick puppy, and what his politics are really all about. And those of his right-thinking religionists at the "Discovery" Institute etc etc etc.
Are you familiar with http://www.jesusneverexisted.com
jesusneverexisted.com immediately sends up red flags. Regarding the first paragraph on that site: I'm not persuaded by the arguments that Nazareth didn't exist in the 1st century, and I have no idea whether or not the 12 disciples existed. Certainly, it these things have not "been known" by scholars for over 200 years - in fact, nearly all scholars would reject those two claims!
Much of what the website claims is true, but much of it is suspect. Since it's difficult to separate truth from fiction on the site, I'd rather avoid that source altogether. There's lots of shoddy mythicism work out there. If you want to study mythicism, I'd stick to more reliable work: Richard Carrier, Robert Price, G.A. Wells, etc.
If someone is completely satisfied that God doesn't exist, then talking about his non-existent morality is a little like a guy who spends all his time talking about the girl who just dumped him; it sounds a bit obsessive. Or, it's possible that some may be looking for moral reasons to reject a belief in God, in which case it would seem that morality is more of an issue than they admit.
I am talking generally; I honestly haven't figured out where or if you would fit in the above analysis. But again, I do find it interesting that the morality of alleged non-existent beings appears to be such a big issue.
It's these people that seem so detached from reality and the implications of their beliefs that also find it necessary to force their belief's on other. These same people are those that refuse to believe in evolution, who pray over their children rather then getting them medical treatment, who accuse me and anyone that doesn't agree with them of "persecuting" them. Not because we are, but because we won't simply bow to their demands of special treatment. Because we demand that we teach our children only facts in school, and that the church keep is "GOD Damned" hands out of government.
Your real issue seems to be not with atheism, but with maniacal power, totalitarian control and cults of personality, examples of which litter the Bible and subsequent history like used Dixie cups at a Protestant Eucharist. Stalin, Mao et al certainly qualify, but so do the god of Israel and his proxies, including Moses, Joshua and the many warlike kings of the Bible. The despotisms that characterized Christian Europe from the time of Constantine until very recently do not speak well for believers over non-believers. Do the perpetrators of Christian atrocities have "standing?"
As to the revelation of God in the Old Testament, the New Testament writings indicate that God was imperfectly revealed in the Old Testament, and that we are to start with the person of Jesus as the truest representation of God that we have.
Doesn't Christianity misrepresent itself enough on its own? So many denominations and traditions, competing for influence, it can be astounding to observe them all try to represent the "true" Christianity.
Unfortunately, almost any time that someone presents a major argument against some idea in Christianity, there will still be a large percentage of believers who also disagree with the stated idea.
I think it is more productive to examine Christianities than it is to examine Christianity as if it is one, singular, unfragmented tradition.
These creeds were established early on in the Church; there may be some who call themselves "Christian", but if they deny the core elements of the faith, they define themselves as outside of orthodoxy (small "o" - distinguishes it from Eastern Orthodox), or in other words, heretics. Ignore the heretics, focus on the orthodox.
I find it interesting that many atheists spend so much time discussing the morality of a being they claim doesn't exist.
Atheists discuss the morality of a being that theists claim exists. It is theistic claims that are discussed.
You say:
"True. Biblical atrocities don’t disprove an all-good God (though, the abundance of suffering in the world just might). Biblical atrocities could just as well show that the Bible is incorrect - but this only makes Judaism and Christianity look all the more like foolish human inventions."
Elsewhere on the blog, you say:
"And the case for the Resurrection is a historical one that can be made without appeals to Christian doctrine."
If a skeptic accepted that God raised Jesus from the dead based on the historical case, why would the issue of Old Testament violence be crucial at that point? If you accept the resurrection, and therefore that God has vindicated Jesus as his Son, wouldn't that determine the truth of Christianity for you? Then the proper exegesis of the Old Testament becomes an "in-house" issue among Christians, where theologians differ in their interpretations. As Greg Boyd points out here http://tinyurl.com/c9f2rl , Christian faith is simply not what is at stake in resolving the issue of violence in the Old Testament.
But even the resurrection of Jesus would only be a small step toward vindicating Christian doctrine. Christianity is not merely the claim that some kind of transcendent being exists, and used his magical powers to raise Jesus from the dead. Christianity also (typically) claims that (1) that god is the creator of the universe, (2) that same god is highly interested in human affairs, (3) that same god is the source of all moral values, (4) a special invisible realm called "heaven" exists, (4) a special invisible realm called "hell" exists, (5) Jesus still lives in some kind of magical super-body in the "heaven" realm, (5) humans have eternal souls that survive physical death, (6) Jesus can and will send these souls to heaven or hell upon the physical death of their carriers, based on certain criteria, (7) the identity of Jesus and this god are somehow very closely linked.
And that is an extremely minimal Christianity that says nothing about prayer, worship, commandments, the authority of scripture, divine action, specific moral commands, the Holy Spirit, or many other things. You can't smuggle all these extra propositions along with the bare arguments for the existence of some kind of transcendent being and his decision to raise a man from the dead.
"Now, since I have historical and existential reasons for concluding that Jesus is the Son of God, it seems reasonable to me to conclude that God had something to do with providing the oral and written meta-narrative – the biblical narrative — that anticipates (in the Old Testament), looks back to (in the New Testament) and interprets Jesus’ coming. I thus have reasons for accepting that the Bible is inspired. What is more, reading the Gospels as generally reliable historical documents (see the above mentioned works ["Lord or Legend?" and "The Jesus Legend" by Boyd and Eddy] for arguments supporting this assessment), it appears that Jesus himself viewed the Old Testament as God’s Word and that he saw himself and the community of his followers as carrying on this same Spirit-inspired authority. Since I believe Jesus is the Son of God and have made him Lord of my life, I’m inclined to think he was correct in his basic theological views, and thus correct in his assessment of the biblical tradition. (I have other reasons for believing the Bible is God’s infallible Word, but these are my main two)."
Holy crap no.
As I wrote earlier:
Each proposition needs its own evidential support unless it follows logically from a premise already proven. None of the Christian doctrines logically follow from "Yahweh raised Jesus from the dead."
Let's look at what is conceded if the truth of the statement "Yahweh raised Jesus from the dead" is granted:
1) Yahweh exists (!)
2) The resurrection happened (!)
3) It did so in a religio-historical context in which Jesus claimed to be the Son of God and the Messiah predicted by the Old Testament, thus vindicating the biblical narrative and his radical claims (!)
The "argument from authority" (which is weak if the authority is a mere human) becomes irresistible once you concede that the authority is Yahweh and that Yahweh exists. Accepting the bible as infallible is a minor step after accepting that paradigm-shattering truth.
As Wolfhart Pannenberg said: "The resurrection of Jesus acquires such decisive meaning, not merely because someone or anyone has been raised from the dead, but because it is Jesus of Nazareth, whose execution was instigated by the Jews because he had blasphemed against God. If this man was raised from the dead, then that plainly means that the God whom he had supposedly blasphemed has committed himself to him...The resurrection can only be understood as the divine vindication of the man whom the Jews had rejected as a blasphemer." (in "Jesu Geschichte und unsere Geschichte").
I seriously doubt many atheists would be as sanguine as you are that Christianity would still not be considered proven if the proposition "Yahweh raised Jesus from the dead" were considered proven.
Obviously, I do not concede the proposition "Yahweh raised Jesus from the dead." In fact, I find it absurd. But that is another debate, one that I shall happily have as I write for this blog. :)
All I'm saying is that the hundreds of propositions that make up Christianity do NOT follow from "Yahweh raised Jesus from the dead." This would certainly defeat naturalism and atheism, but it would not demonstrate Christianity in all its bizarre codes and creeds.
It does not even follow that Yahweh is all-powerful, or all-good, or reveals himself to humanity truthfully. It does not follow that Yahweh revealed himself in Genesis, or in The Wisdom of Solmon, or in Gnostic texts. It does not follow that heaven or hell exist. It does not follow that "failed apocalyptic prophet" is the correct historical view of Jesus, nor that "Jesus the revolutionary" is correct, nor that "Jesus the wisdom sage" is correct, nor that "Jesus the cosmic atoning Savior" is correct. It does not follow that our surviving accounts of his claims to divinity are reliable. None of these follow from "Yahweh raised Jesus from the dead."
This is, however widely accepted, a Christian conceit - an attempt to smuggle in even more un-evidenced "truth". Christians hate to provide proper justification for the propositions they so confidently assert - probably because they don't have proper justification for such ideas as heaven, hell, cosmic atonement, souls, Jesus' magical powers, God's loving nature, or even the existence of God.
However, any individual who accepted the proposition "Yahweh raised Jesus from the dead" yet simultaneously believed that the truth of that proposition had no implications for the veracity of the bible or the Christian faith would have a very, very strange mental process.
No, the resurrection, if it happened, would not have occurred in a vacuum. It happened in a religious context, a social context, a political context, a philosophical context, a geographical context, and much more - just like everything else that has ever happened. How does this support the notion that the truth of the Bible follows from the proposition "Yahweh raised Jesus from the dead"?
You reaction to these works would make an interesting series of blog posts, as well :)
Perhaps we'll have to come back to this after I've read your perspective.
On the page, the word "AM" appeared right on top of the "was", so that it looked like those famous words of Yahweh "I AM." I was like "Woah, God is talking to me on my own atheist blog!"
And then I realized it was really just that when a threaded conversation gets so squished over to one edge like this, the date gets pushed onto a second line, as in:
Yesterday 11:06
AM
instead of
Yesterday 11:06 AM
Here's a screenshot.
Funny!
In answer to your questions, which I no doubt you'll find completely inadequate, here's Paul's rhetorical argument from Romans 9:
"But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?"
You may not like it, but the logic is irrefutable. That's not to say that God is arbitrary as most man-made gods; but the fact remains that if He is God, our opinion isn't worth a whole heck of a lot.
As for Romans 9, I don't see any logic here, just assertions and appeals to power and fear. This passage is useful for deflecting uncomfortable questions, but it does nothing to adequately address why we either can't ask such questions or why we can't expect an answer. Other than the fact that God doesn't want to be bothered by the inquisitiveness he supposedly gave me, why can't I ask questions of him? Because He said so, I guess.
This line of defense--that we cannot question the ways of God--has other problems too. If we humans are not in a position to judge God, then not only can we not condemn his actions, we can't praise them either. If we cannot judge God, then we cannot judge that he is good and holy. We just have to take God's word for it that he is, in spite of his actions, or decide to believe that whatever God does is good because, and only because, it is God doing it.
Could you specify that?
"Materialistic, scientific criteria are by definition limited; however, science cannot prove that this is, in fact, proper. When it's all boiled down, science relies on faith in materialistic presuppositions. You have no basis, therefore, to question Christianity at all, except by experience and choice."
The main argument for naturalistic science is: it works. You have to claim there are different ways of gaining knowledge in a non-naturalistic way. You believe in a god who interfered with our naturalistic world and you wouldn´t have any knowledge about him if he didn´t. Every miracle, vision, prophesy, the creation, the resurrection and whatever your faith relies on: it all showed "naturalistic" results. People (supposedly) SAW jesus after he died, they SAW him walking on water and so on, they used their naturals senses. Theres no reason why you couldn´t test naturalistic events with the mnethods of natural sciences even if they had non-natural causes. You could still verify that they exist, just maybe not where they came from.
But according to what we know at the moment and how tests of similar claims worked out it seems highly unlikely that they did really happen. We will never be able to prove they didn´t , thats true but it is NOT true that they are beyond science.
Even now, it's hard to find Christians who fully embrace the Old Testament as a timeless source of morality.
Because a god who only appears to you in incense or anointing oil (i.e. canabis) induced religious visions (i.e. hallucinations) can only speak to the people who are using. Plus, a tribal god never talks to the other tribe, so how could he tell them to move?
Wait, you're not serious, right?
see here for some sources
http://www.equalrights4all.org/religious/bible.htm
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/calamus.htm
Have you seen the post about it over at Dwindling in Unbelief?:
http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2008/12...
They go through each claim and justify it with verses from the bible.