Ivan’s comments mysteriously disappeared from a Jesus Creed post about Richard Dawkins. Ivan, if you’re still out there, what happened to you?
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Ktismatics 
My little atheitistic self is alive and well. Unfortunately the blog isn’t accepting my posts. Doublebad .
LikeLike
My post was going to be:
I think Hitler was a Catholic.
Never said Atheists were angels.
I said it was “my” preference.
Simply, Atheists have not run up the “highest” body counts. The high body counts are always, always connect with a religious idea,zeal or blessing.
I have not have a “double standard” ,
Genocidal maniacs? always human nature and sometimes some godly influence.
Oh my friend, don’t think if Atheism can offer even something as remote as that its worth a shot? Might work a trifle than praying don’t you think?
You put your trust into sky fairies.. its your business of course. I’ll put my trust in the substantive.
LikeLike
Thanks Ivan. I’ll go back to Jesus Creed and tell them what’s become of you. I won’t put your comment up over there, but I’ll let people know that your comment can be found here.
LikeLike
Thanks Ktismatics. I am happy to make postings on my personal views if anyone is interested in hearing them. If not, its no biggie. I have plenty to do here. I suspect few people here would be happy to speak to an atheist . I may or may not have been “blocked” kind of Gallelio style. : ) If I can post tomorrow I might do, but if the general populace would prefer I didn’t its really fine. Thanks though for asking!
Ivan
and a merry Christmas to you all!
LikeLike
Looks like this got resolved. Here’s the email I got from Scot McKnight: “Well, I’m the only one who can ‘purge’ anyone and I haven’t done a thing.” So presumably his spam filter algorithm is retroactive to all comments identified as having come from a “spammer.”
LikeLike
Appears to still not be accepting my posts. will try again a little later.
This was my answer to the last very long post. (Just in case it doesn’t make it through the electronic mazFor the life of me, I can’t remember the source regarding Hitler’s beliefs. But I do remember the belief was that he was Catholic.I am sure I can find the reference if its important? Let me know.
Point 2: I agree. Human history is bloody.
Point 3. I think, or “understand, the religious body count is pretty high. Compared with those of atheist beliefs.
as with point 2 lets just say its bloody?
Point 4: double standard? Don’t have a clue what your on about, sorry.
Point 5: Godly influence. I love semantic arguments. I don’t know what your on about again.
Point 6: Atheism worth a shot? you say nay I say yes. We might never really know.
Point 7: Reality vs. Substance or God verses substance, A subject I am bent on examining. Your answer is one of an academic. Your an academic aren’t you ? I appreciate you have faith in God and Jesus. I am sure your a very bright man who wants only good for the world. You probably have deep and good family values and wants what’s best for your children. Pretty much like me, Only I don’t think a sky fairy is going to save us at the end of the day. I think people will, and I have “faith” that science combined with good people will give us our best long term chance at survival. Yes, science gave us the atom bomb but also life’s best chance at continuation with quality. I wish you all the best in the continuation of your faith in a God.e!
LikeLike
Thanks Ktismatics for picking up on Ivan’s sudden tho temporary disappearance. Ivan, if you are still there, (or here) I’ve replied (convoluted and knotty unstring theory required!) at jesuscreed and am very happy to see the conversation has proceeded! it’s great to get a different perspective! Please do keep expressing yr views…
LikeLike
Merry Christmas!!!!
LikeLike
Hi Sam,
I think I am an atheist beyond a shadow of doubt. I described myself as agnostic right up until about 11 years of age. The big thing I learnt this year, and I am not very educated, was how big the ultimate questions are. I didn’t really conceptualise the limits that science has to operate in. I don’t been testable methods etc, but the limits placed on observable horizons etc. Religious people will insert a God into this unknown abyss but for me, and its purely an uneducated mans “Gut” feeling, I don’t think we could and will find the ultimate answers, I just don’t think if we could it will be a thing such as the Christian God. In fact I would bet my eternal life, it won’t be any kind of “thing” such as could be imagined by religion.
Hi Marc, I would certainly not call you a liar sir. But would you be ok explaining to me what happened? If this is not to personal a subject?
Hi Van Skaamper, I hope you don’t mind if I do a separate reply to you? I just got in and you typed what looks like a lot to my very tired old eyes. If I get knocked back as spam I might have to reply a bit later.
Best regards
Ivan.
I am very sorry to post here again. On the original web site, for whatever reason, the dang message refuses to post. I am sorry. If this is annoying in any way don’t hesitate to let me know.
Ivan
LikeLike
Dear Van Skaamper,
Your first paragraph I don’t see eye to eye with you. I realise there were various regimes that were atheist and were totalitarian but this doesn’t mean that a world that evolves to atheistic thinking would by necessity be “evil”. We would need to give it a go now wouldn’t we? You would have heard before the old saying “For Good people to commit evil you need religion”. This I believe is fundamentally true. I don’t know why it happens but its been my lifetime experience that it does. I don’t agree at all that Nietzsche is my “prophet”. I rather fancy Debotten myself.
I think our sense of “good” is irrespective of a belief in sky fairies. I don’t know enough about human psychology to explain myself well, I am a rather uneducated little human, but I believe its like that certain types of behaviour have a positive outcome for the group at large. I don’t see it as ‘subjective to modern civilized people. I don’t see your “creator” as imbuing any kind of subjective values. In fact the biblical “creator” is very evil don’t you think? You have read the first testament?
Science may not be able to provide “peace” though I think I could argue it does, (all the same) it gives us quality of life. It gives us food to eat, clean water to drink and medicines that will double your possible lifespan say compared to middle ages times. People have generally been at there most miserable physically, in times when religions dominate and at there best at times science dominates. Van Skaamper, do you really,truly, want to go back to pre-scientific times? It gives us technology of a very great value my friend. Yes, but having wise decisions probably has not got any worse either. And when is the last time you saw an atheist fly a plane into a building? If you get my point? I think I can discern the world through your eyes, may Christians have this Jesus the apocalyptic prophet kind of view of the world. I tend to see it getting better myself. (for the most part)
I wish you well sir in your beliefs in the occult. I hope your invisible friend helps you through life and that he makes your path through the world a little easier to tread. I’ll just go with science and my faith in humanity.
Have a wonderful Christmas.
LikeLike
Greetings, Ivan,
You seem to still be in denial. ;^) Any criticisms you level at believers in God can also be aimed at atheistis, as the last century amply demonstrates.
My contention is that it doesn’t matter whether the world is dominated by people who believe in God, or people who don’t…because it’s human nature that’s the problem, not a belief system…and I think that any honest assessment of human history affirms this.
Second, your claim that just because atheists have gone off the rails and run murderous genocidal regimes doesn’t NECESSARILY mean that an atheistic world would be evil could be just as easily turned around and said of a world run by theists (who, as we both agree, have their own genocidal baggage). You can’t can’t hold one group (or, set of groups, rather) accountable for its history and not another…unless you have a double standard. ;^)
““For Good people to commit evil you need religion”. This I believe is fundamentally true.”
I think this is fundamentally bigotted, and again it displays your double-standard.
Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot all committed evil (I would hope we agree on that). Since they were atheists, religion (by your definition) wasn’t to blame. Should we conclude then that atheists are inherently evil? They don’t need belief in God to be evil, so what then was the cause?
The most plausible explanation for history is that all human beings have the capacity for evil, irrepsective of whether they deify a supernatural being, nature, a state, a political system, or Britney Spears (God help us all if the latter group takes over).
“I think our sense of “good” is irrespective of a belief in sky fairies.”
I happen agree with you. But that wasn’t my point. I agree that everyone has an innate sense of right and wrong, and, for the record, I think that’s a reason to believe in a Creator (as per C.S. Lewis).
My point, however, was that without that Creator as the locus of an objective morality, your sense of good is only your own…mine is mine, and Stalin’s is Stalin’s…and they’re all equally valid. If Stalin thinks it’s better for his group to kill your group, you really have no means to argue with him about it. Your sense of good, the value that you ascribe to “a positive outcome for the group at large” is subjective, not objective. Stalin’s value of himself and his power at the expense of you and your group is equally subjective, and equally valid. Bang, you’re dead, and there’s no objective right or wrong about it.
My point, Ivan, is that while I agree with and affirm your desire for world peace, global harmony, etc., atheism provides no means to objectively affirm and advocate such a morality. The reason why Neitzche is your prophet is that he saw this clearly, and the will to power (i.e., might makes right) is what will determine what’s valuable in a world without God, nothing else, no matter how we try to package or rationalize it.
This, I believe, is what history tells us about atheistic regimes.
Also, I think that if you re-read my statements about science, you’ll see I’m not saying it’s bad or that I would like to live without it…you must have misunderstood me.
I was saying that science is a methodology, not morality. Science does not ascribe value, it measures and explains data. Science can be used by free moral agents for good or for evil (again, as history shows us). Science doesn’t bring peace or technology. Science is a means for human beings to deliver those things. Science is also means for human beings to deliver pain, suffering, torture, death, and despair.
“And when is the last time you saw an atheist fly a plane into a building? If you get my point?”
No, I don’t get your point. My point, Ivan, is that history is full of mass murderers, murderers, liars, embezzelers, tyrants, despots, and bad pop singers, both atheist and non, and the use of an aircraft isn’t a relevant distinction (again your double-standard).
I don’t see any evidence for your faith in science as a deliverer (science needs corruptable humans to make it deliver anything), or in humanity (because all of human history denies it). I would say that it is you who is believing in imaginary and invisible things.
My Sky Fairy gives objective status to our desire for ‘good’, for group survival, for the desire to aleviate suffering through technology and compassion. Your atheism cannot do this. My Sky Fairy was visible on earth, and continues to be visible to those who seek Him.
Whether or not a global apocalypse awaits us, only time will tell. I think that as long as human beings are running the place, the odds are good, your misplace optimism notwithstanding.
Best of luck to you, Ivan, treading your path. I’ll tread mine, and hopefully we’ll meet someday and share a drink or two, and more conversation.
Merry Christmas!
LikeLike
Dear VanSkaamper,
I am most certainly not in “denial”. I just have my own views based upon my own reasoning and life experiences. Of course non theist or theist based cultures can all either work out better or worse, my inkling is that the Atheist version would give humanity its best hope. Now we are going to see this eventually, as you would be aware of the falling away of Church attendances and the results of various world census. Christianity will die out. This is just the way the world of moving.
No double standard really, Van, just we have some good history of religious people going nuts. We know that happens. But lets not get bogged down by evil vrs evil. We can’t change history can we?
Atheists inherently evil? Now your just lost for an argument aren’t you sir? Nearly every Nobel prize winner is an Atheist. They don’t give Nobel’s for Evil? If they did Dr.No would have had one. Atheists on the whole, and these days many are in the science field, work hard to the betterment of the human condition. Yes you get your Mao’s but these in numbers make up what half of thousand percent??
If the latter group takes over, you won’t need the help of an invisible friend. : ) Britney Spears? (I might even start attending church).
Van, Thank you for such a detailed, well reasoned and clearly very educated reply. I disagree with you on almost every single point. I don’t for a second believe that human minds follow such clearly defined paths regardless of sky fairies or just a belief in humanity. What is the most fascinating for me, is how such an obviously smart person as yourself, and clearly your highly intelligent, can believe so strongly, so starkly, so completely in such an unsubstantiated thing as a Sky ghost or invisible friend.
Van, we have wars now about whose invisible friend is the biggest? The insanity of religion drives decent men to achieve great evil. History is replete with the murderous terrorism of the Inquisitions, The slaughter of the Mayans, The industrial slaughter of Jews. etc etc. All in the name of one God or another. I see that science has provided the world with a new enlightment a new quality a new hope that only comes from abundant food and energy. We argue on here because you have a protein full stomach, a warm room and a computer to type. All the benefits of living in a scientific age. I don’t want to go all star trekky on you, but eventually, if world religions were to be phased out, my suspicion is humanity may have a fighting chance of losing barbarism to its history. We might even live for the day, we might even smile more and live that little bit better knowing that the eternal rewards are right here not some enthral notion of afterlife. We just disagree.
Doublestandard
Ivan.
Its Christmas day here and I have to see some family.
a Merry Christmas to yours!
LikeLike
Marc,
Its not about “changing each others minds” at least not for me. I can’t make somebody disbelieve a strongly and emotionally held belief anymore than Dawkins can. But I like seeing into other minds, and how they come to grips with things of an enthral nature. I don’t know if you have ever read Shermers work on why people believe weird things? My beliefs and assumptions of life the universe and personal hygiene probably appear nutty at best. Your beliefs appear, to me to be ‘interesting” I’d would like to hear more about how you rationalise it all, and especially, your personal interactions with your God. only IF its not to personal? It would be my hope, that we would all get to understand one another better. Maybe make a small on line friendship? who knows!
Best regards
Ivan.
Just tell me to get lost if you find my questions annoying in the slightest.
LikeLike
Ivan,
I’m not annoyed in the least, just been busy with Christmas stuff.
I’d link you the long story of my encounter with God, but Livejournal seems to be on the fritz right now. Therefore, let me give you the Reader’s Digest. (grin)
I’m in church on a Wednesday night. I’m struggling with some issues, primarily trying to figure out what God’s doing and why He’s not coming through in regards to some financial issues. Meanwhile, I’ve got a throbbing pain going from my armpit down to the small of my back…and it’s annoying.
The music is wrapping up and I basically challenge God silently: If He’s really interested in what’s going on, I want him to have the Pastor call me up (with no doubt that it’s ME) and for me to be healed.
Now, let me set some context…
1. This is the part of the service between the music and the official welcome. It’s not often that the sequence is interrupted.
2. There are close to 500 people in the church this night. I’m in the back left area of the church. I am NOT rubbing my back or moaning about it and I have not shared with ANYONE else that I’m in pain. And as I said, I was silent while talking to God.
3. The pastor has, in the past, recieved words of knowledge about specific needs. And he’ll often call up people by very specific symptoms…not “your head is hurting” or “you’re feeling ill” or things that apply to most rooms full of people.
Less then one minute after I issue my challenge, the pastor grabs the mike and says that he needs to be obedient to God’s leaning. He says “there is someone here tonight, with a pain running from his right armpit down to the small of his back. God wants to heal you.”
I had no choice but to go forward…and was the only one.
He prayed for me and as his hand touched my side, there was a blazing warmth and the pain just vanished.
Now…I’m NOT someone who does that kind of thing. I’ve not been healed by prayer before. It was pretty much one of the wildest things that has ever happened to me.
So…if you believe my account, you have to ask:
How did the pastor know about my situation? Like I said, I hadn’t talked to anyone. I’ve not been going there for long and he doesn’t know me.
One could argue that I somehow willed the pain gone myself…but that still doesn’t explain the immediate answer to my divine challenge.
That’s my most recent encounter with God. And again, I’ve been an atheist myself and I’ve had doubts since my walk began. But I can’t deny what I’ve seen in my life and the lives of others.
Believe me, there are times it would be much easier to junk it all…but I can’t do that and stay intellectually honest with myself.
LikeLike
Ivan,
Merry Christmas! I hope my “ontology” quip in Scot’s blog was seen as jest (which was the intention) and not a jibe.
I have a question for you though: You have several times referred to the concept of “evil” and good vs bad. My question is: how do you determine what evil is? Or what good or bad is? Before you answer quickly, let me just say that Van Skaamper is also trying to get you to see this. Let’s say, for arguments sake, that you get your wish and not only does the world become completely atheistic, but (miracle of miracles) it turns out that everyone stops murdering each other and the world is a better place. Why is this a good thing? Don’t get me wrong, I also think it would be a good thing if all hate and murder ceased to exist. But how do you know that such a thing is a “good” thing to happen, and not a bad thing? Since there is no objective, transcendant standard to judge this new world by, perhaps such a thing might be seen as “evil” by some, and they would argue such. Who would be right and how would you tell? And how would this be anything better than just “Ivan’s opinion”?
LikeLike
Hello Ivan,
“I am most certainly not in “denial.”
Are you sure? ;^)
You seem unable to accept the fact that atheists are capable of great evil, just like anyone else, and are, therefore, just as hopeless.
You blamed religion for turning good people into murderers, but won’t explain what happened to Mao (read a bit about his personal life, BTW…he was an extremely twisted fellow), Stalin (ditto) and Pol Pot. They were all mass murderers, all of them, I believe, responsible for the deaths of 10’s of millions. (I heard Mao alone scored at 70 to 80 million).
“my inkling is that the Atheist version would give humanity its best hope.”
IMHO, you have yet to argue effectively to support this inkling. Atheism seems to produce very bad people, just like every other view. Why is that?
“Now we are going to see this eventually, as you would be aware of the falling away of Church attendances and the results of various world census. Christianity will die out. This is just the way the world of moving.”
We agree on this…except Christianity won’t die out. If the demographic trends hold, however, Christians won’t be your big problem, it will be Muslims. And, if Sharia is imposed wherever you live, my guess is you’ll probably miss the Christians.
Western culture is based on the moral foundations of Christianity, flawed as its followers have been. Pluralism, and the value of the individual, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are codified in the US as being granted by God, not by men. In an atheistic world, one’s rights, and the value of ones very life depends entirely on other men, nothing more.
You are right about the West abandoning this heritage. You see it as a positive, I see it as a negative…and so do many of my atheist friends who, though they don’t believe in God, understand that they’ve reaped the benefits of Christian culture (again, flawed though it may be…it’s still better than the other alternatives we’ve seen).
My prediction is that the further away the West drifts from its Christian roots, the more decadent the culture will become, the more self-destructive we will be. I hope I’m wrong, but I don’t think so. Islam is hoping to fill that vacuum, and atheists will be in the same boat as Christians and Jews if Islam succeeds in imposing its will on us.
“We can’t change history can we?”
No, Ivan, we can’t…but we can look at it objectively, which I don’t think you are doing. You seem unable to accept the implications of the fact that Mao and Stalin killed untold millions as doctrinaire atheists. And you can’t change that. You also don’t seem willing to come to grips with how that could have happened.
The answer, as I’ve suggested, is that human beings are corrupt, whether they are persons of faith, or persons without it.
What’s your explanation?
“Atheists inherently evil? Now your just lost for an argument aren’t you sir?”
No, I’m afraid you missed my sarcasm, Ivan. I was trying to solicit an answer from you. It was your glib and bigoted claim that it takes religion to make good people do evil things. You said you believed that to be true. Fair enough…it seems reasonable then to ask you to grapple with the fact (the ones we can’t change), that great evil has been perpetrated by men not under the influence of religion. It seems perfectly reasonable to me to ask you how this could be. Given the equation GOOD + RELIGION = EVIL, I’m asking you to also solve GOOD + NO RELIGION = EVIL.
It seems to me it ought to trouble you just a bit that perfectly good atheists can kill tens of millions of their own people…if, in fact, they’re really ‘good.’
The reality is that when you kill God, something else gets deified in His place. People, ideas, whatever.
“Nearly every Nobel prize winner is an Atheist.”
I believe many have been atheists, but I think you’re overreaching here, Ivan.
“They don’t give Nobel’s for Evil?”
Actually, they do. Yassir Arafat won a Peace Prize, and I haven’t taken the Nobel prizes seriously since that time.
“Atheists on the whole, and these days many are in the science field, work hard to the betterment of the human condition.”
The latest tally is that the ‘hard’ scientific community is pretty evenly split between theists, atheists, and agnostics. And there’s no doubt that most of them (of all three types, incidentally) work to improve the human condition. So do many other Christians, as a matter of fact. They’ve been the world leaders in charitable work in third world countries. In fact the Christian cultures are still the most charitable on earth. So both sides have some good things to which they can point, yes?
“Yes you get your Mao’s but these in numbers make up what half of thousand percent??”
I’m not sure what percentage of atheists yearn to be genocidal dictators. I’m also not sure about how many theists do either.
One thing I can tell you, however, is that the capacity for evil exits in every human being, irrespective of their metaphysical views. I think that theists can rationalize evil by telling themselves that it’s what God wants (our friends in the jet planes, for example). I think that atheists can rationalize evil, because, in that view, good and evil are subjective. I don’t need God’s approval, I can make my own rules…because I have power.
“If the latter group takes over, you won’t need the help of an invisible friend.”
It’s a lovely dream, Ivan. I hope that waking up won’t be too unpleasant.
“Van, Thank you for such a detailed, well reasoned and clearly very educated reply. I disagree with you on almost every single point.”
Thanks…you’re welcome…and though you say you disagree, I’m still waiting for a substantive reply. I’m interested to you not only explain how evil comes to be perpetrated by atheists, and I’m also interested in hearing how you, as an atheist, define evil.
You affirm a lot of good things that you have in mind for humanity (things on which we’d see eye to eye), but I don’t think that you have any way to justify those values that isn’t purely subjective and relative. A tyrant able to define good and evil on the basis of political expediency, who can be capricious because he alone is the final authority in a Godless universe–that person scares me as much as Ahmadinejad. One believes himself to taking orders from God, the other is simply acting like God himself. And when the bombs go off, the rifles are fired, and the heads lopped off, the end results are the same.
“What is the most fascinating for me, is how such an obviously smart person as yourself, and clearly your highly intelligent, can believe so strongly, so starkly, so completely in such an unsubstantiated thing as a Sky ghost or invisible friend.”
Thanks for the compliment…I guess…
Perhaps you need to learn a little more about what I believe and why…if for no other reason than to understand why smart people believe such foolish things.
I believe that God is a necessary being, that He’s the necessary ground for all thought and being, as well as morality; I believe that there’s ample historical evidence that He dropped in on earth, was killed and rose from the dead. Intelligent people both agree and disagree with me on this. More importantly, I’ve also experienced Him. It’s personal, it’s subjective, but it is real. I don’t expect you to believe me, but I thought I’d mention it anyway. ;^)
The more you live life, the more you’ll see that intelligence doesn’t lead to uniformity of opinion…neither does it necessarily lead to a moral life, or anything else you and I would agree is ‘good.’ For example, did you know that the people who worked for Hitler in the concentration camps were more intelligent and educated than the average German? Strange, don’t you think? Why would you think that was? As for me, I think it’s for the same reason that Mao was Mao, Stalin was Stalin, and every other criminal has ever come into being.
“Van, we have wars now about whose invisible friend is the biggest? The insanity of religion drives decent men to achieve great evil.”
Almost…but again you ignore the wars and genocides perpetrated by atheists…again you leave that evil unexplained and unaccounted for (again the double standard. ;)
How would you label the genocide of 90% of the Christians in the Soviet Union? In this case the issue wasn’t whose invisible friend is bigger, but only the very fact that you claimed to have an invisible friend. In this case it was atheists killing religious people. And it’s been repeated over and over in atheistic regimes. I appreciate that you seem to take comfort in idea of the *natural death* of Christianity, but can’t you see the hypocrisy in condemning the killing of theists by theists, but not that of atheists killing believers?
It’s the insanity of human nature, not religion, that does this, Ivan. It explains why religion is perverted into a rationale for genocide, but it also explains why atheists do exactly the same thing.
“I see that science has provided the world with a new enlightment a new quality a new hope that only comes from abundant food and energy.”
You also seem to ignore the role that theists have played in the development of science, the establishment of democracies, the enablement of economic freedom, etc.
You also continue personifying or anthropomorphizing science. Science is not a sentient being. Science can and has been used for good and evil in the hands of human beings. In fact the same guy who invented napalm also made ground breaking, life saving medical discoveries. Science is no panacea. It’s a force for good or evil depending on who is using it. Science cannot save us.
“We just disagree.”
Yes we do. But, good disagreements can be stimulating. Thanks for the discussion.
Rest easy, Ivan.
LikeLike
Looks like this rather idiosyncratic discussion may have run its course. It has resulted in the most pageviews to my blog ever. I hope you all have a happy Christmas, and perhaps we’ll cross paths again.
LikeLike
Ivan, I’m going to stop posting replies to you at the other site. Hop you do stick around here so we cam keep conversing. Today’s a bit on the busy side so if you’ll excuse me I’ll give you a reply tomorrow.
enjoy your Christmans.
L’Chaim!
LikeLike
Oh thanks Sam, I just couldn’t seem to get the post to stick on the other site and Ktismatics, thank you for allowing me to post on your site. Your tomorrow will be your Christmas day, so don’t go turning your pc on. I am off for a week or two so should have some time to post.
Merry Christmas to you all again!
LikeLike
Dear Van Skaamper,
I don’t believe I am in “denial” at least my perception is that I am not. I am pretty sure ! : ) And I didn’t really mean to say Atheists can’t commit great evil. Trying to express my idea a bit better for you.. You know the incidents where you mentioned Atheist societies or countries that were murderous? The way I seem to see it, there were other factors also in play, for instance most were very uneducated closed of societies. If you could imagine a modern Atheistic Western style society that still is “open” and democratic, I don’t think the atheistic quality of that society would push it “off some moral ledge” I think and I emphasise I “think” it might have a better chance at peaceful outcomes than a similarly religious based one. We have lots of modern and ancient examples of God centred civilizations and to me, they all seem to lead to a violent path. Take the US and a very Christian Bush with Iraq as an example? (maybe a really bad one)
VanSkaamper, I will take your advice and read up on Mao and the others (and I will do this) I can’t give you good replies on these people until I self educate myself a bit more. The quote I mentioned, was “for good people to do evil” it wasn’t meaning murder, but rather things of an evil nature. You and I both know this is unfortunately true. History is full of incidences.
No VanSkaamper, “Atheism does not produce bad people” Humanity produces “bad People” of which a small proportion will end up atheists. Some of the greatest practical good the world see’s is a product of good atheist people, some not so good stuff also. Atheists from my experience, and I can only tell you from my personal experience, are on the whole rational and dedicated to finding ways of making humanity better. For me personally, I do a lot of charity stuff, others belong to organizations that do good works, and you got the “higher end” that also get the Nobel’s (mostly nearly always Atheists) who help mankind on a humungous scale. They do this not for the “eternal reward” of the Christian, but because they just simply want to do what is “good” in there subjective world.
Yes I would miss the Christians, I don’t hate them or even dislike them Van, And I certainly would not want Sharia law. And I do agree with your point of this being a worry. But I don’t think Christians are going away any time soon. I have my own personal beliefs as to why and what might mark its decline.
You don’t live really in a pluralistic society Van. (Do you mind me referring to you as Van? I was trying to find a way of being a bit more personal, but tell me if it offends? ) And Happiness is not a guarantee, I think though, the “pursuit” is if I understand your constitution? (and I might not.) God can’t guarantee this in any way,shape or form only people can. You mislead yourself sir.
You could be right on Islam Van, but again, its only a gut feeling, I don’t think this will happen. Though I acknowledge it could, its possible. I have found through life, when one is open to believing the improbable, there usually isn’t a limit on what people are prepared to invest faith in. (Just a personal observation)
Mao and Stalin did kill millions I agree with you Van. But religious based or influenced wars total 848 million people. Millions verses 848 million? Which group do you want your family to be in?
Good + Religion “can” = Evil. Doesn’t “have to” it just “can” sometimes. Good + atheism = good outcomes for the “most” part Van, for the “most part” as does the former, I do totally acknowledge both can and do lead to evil on all kinds of scales.
No Van, Scientists are split between Atheist and agnostics for the almost majority. There are Christian scientists I concur, but mostly, no.
Christian cultures have to be the most Charitable on earth Van, they have a moral imperative when the very religious institutions don’t pay Tax. People like me on the other hand, pay Tax, a great deal, which a portion goes to “good works” and a big portion of my take home gets spent again on “good works”. In effect the atheist pays twice! I think Churches lose bragging rights in comparison. Just my view though sir.
Van Skaamper, you are indeed a highly intelligent and well seasoned thinker on matters of God. I mean this in absolute sincerity. I have been not able to get computer time to do more than share thoughts and I would need a lot more time to give you replies worthy of the depth of your thinking. I hope I can, I will reply to the second half of your “reply” , sir, can you type!!
I just have to think about it some more. Thank you for your replies I really do appreciate what your saying to me for a very uneducated man such as myself, your providing me with much in the way as food for thought. Its probably your Christmas day, I hope its an enjoyable one spent with family.
cheers
Ivan
LikeLike
Dear Van Skaamper,
I think the Biblical version of the Jesus story to be extremely improbable. I do believe Jesus may have existed, but I am of the belief that most of the legend of his life, is just that legend. I see Jesus as closer to a Ghandi type figure. Incidentally and off the point, I have to superhero models on my desk, Jesus is one and Einstein the other. I think highly of both. I just don’t confuse either one as “supernatural” ; ) I think there no and I mean zilch, “historical” evidence Jesus dropped in on earth.
Van, what was your personal experience with Jesus? You mentioned but didn’t elaborate? Would you be willing to share or is this to personal a subject? I am very interested in the personal experience.
I didn’t know that about Germans. The being more intelligent? Where did you hear this Van? I agree with you 100% when you say the insanity of human nature. (I’m trying to read up on this at the moment its of great interest to me) I agree also with most you have to say last paragraph and yes, I am a great Anthromorphic man.. I get carried away.
Best regards Van
Ivan
LikeLike
You said: Perhaps you need to learn a little more about what I believe and why…if for no other reason than to understand why smart people believe such foolish things.
I say: I am really interested in understanding you Van. I also don’t characterise your beliefs as “foolish” I just find the Christian religion odd to my way of seeing the world. I certainly do not think your a fool.
The book I referred to was why people believe strange things, and it wasn’t honing in on religion. It covered my thinking as in as much as others. My “beliefs” in the world are as weird as anything probably to your goodself. I just wanted to make that point.
Ivan.
LikeLike
Defining Evil: evil is best represented in the human situation in the form of unprovoked hatred against and coupled with an aggressive impulse to cause harm to another person or group. Such hatred can be aroused from within the individual or group through jealousy, wrong teachings or due to unexplained extra-personal forces.
Van this would probably be how I would describe Evil. Or words to this effect.
Why Atheists commit Evil: There is probably such a myriad of reasons from mental illness to who knows what ! I don’t think I can give you an absolute reply of quality.
As for you asking for a “substantial” reply, stay with me, My kids computer is down and we are sharing rather unfairly at the moment : ) I will try and provide you with better in the next week.
Ivan.
LikeLike
I think I am an atheist beyond a shadow of doubt. … The big thing I learnt this year, … was how big the ultimate questions are. … Religious people will insert a God into this unknown abyss but for me, … I don’t think we could and will find the ultimate answers, … if we could it will be a thing such as the Christian God. … it won’t be any kind of “thing” such as could be imagined by religion.
The ultimate questions are big – very big! But my belief is not that God fits somewhere in the parts that we have yet to figure out but that everything is the way it is because God made it so. it is because you doubt that we will ever know that I felt that you may be more of an agnostic than an atheist.
The fact that the universe appears to be rational to our tiny little brains itself is quite amazing to me. Although there is no telling, scientifically, whether it will continue to seem rational and if so or for how long! Science is just a tool, one of many, that help us to keep tabs on our environment and hopefully ameliorate some of the worse things that nature throws at us.
As someone who uses a bit of science, to me it is the very structure, symmetry and asymmetry, the wonder of each little or big thing that always amazes. Whether I am looking at something alive like tiny diatoms to a bit bigger like a tardigrade, to small plants, a moss,or a fern, the wonder is intense! From tiny life to huge life the wonder is the same! Inanimately, when I go the other way, starting from the microscopic structure of rocks and heading out into what we can see of the universe, I am even more confounded. There was a recent false color composite at JPL from Orion that really looked like the work of a surrealist painter. I think all scientists, from the lowliest 2nd year student to the grizzled veteran of multiple publications, feel and wonder.
Before experiencing God’s call, this was just one of those things that i tried to take for granted. Science may be a helpful tool that works out at a micro level but becomes increasinly erratic thereafter. But after realising that God is real, I know that science is not just one of those temporary tools. I have confidence that as we keep exploring we will find out how everything hangs together precisely because I believe that God has created it and continues to sustain it.
For me it is very much of a backward integration.
Incidentally, your understanding of evil (in the last response to Van Skaamper), “Defining Evil: evil is best represented in the human situation in the form of unprovoked hatred against and coupled with an aggressive impulse to cause harm to another person or group is a bit inadequate. You mention elsewhere that your heroes are Jesus and Einstein. I personally found that i did not know how much evil I had in me until I was forced to see myself in the light of Jesus. By embodying goodness and justice, Jesus made me realise that the evil that I recognised as such was only the final outworking of stuff that lurks within me.
Since you are interested in personal stories, briefly, mine was that I was brought up in a Christian home but had no belief at all. In fact what stood out for me was the huge gap between theory and practice.
Then one day i was quite casually reading the gospel of John and really getting into the story told there of the man born blind that is followed by Jesus talking about how he is the light of the world. I realised that here was a man for whom there was no contradiction between what he said about being love and what he did. There has been no looking back. That realisation made me immerse myself in this man.
What would God look like? I don’t know. But Jesus is His Son.
This has nothing to do with religion per se. Religion asks questions about ultimate things and asks us to search our experience for answers. Science is a very poor tool to use for this though eventually there has to be convergence, for if God exists then everything has indeed been made by God and science will also eventually have to so conclude if it is honest.
Truth is something that is scoffed at in postmodern thinking, but if there is truth then science too must be a part of that.
I entirely agree with your final point. God can not be imagined by us in any way. In fact that is why I can be so confident that He is not a figment of my imagination. If God exists, the only way to know is if God Himself communicates with us. That is precisely what i believe has happened in Jesus.
LikeLike
I just read this string of comments: very interesting, well-reasoned, to the point, responsive, and civil. Perhaps this was as good a place as any to scroll out such an intense engagement. Carry on as long as you like.
LikeLike
Sam,
Thank you for a wonderful answer. I did visit your web site earlier and I think I can imagine where you come from. Your story of faith reminds me much of an old friend of mine Peter, Thank you for sharing it with me.
Ivan
LikeLike
Ktismatics,
Thank you for allowing me to express a point of view on your web site,
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan –
My pleasure. My point of view isn’t that far from yours anyhow, except I’m more pessimistic. This was probably a pretty good place to have this kind of intense discussion with 2 or 3 other people. Jesus Creed is geared for quick comments made by a lot of people with only loose associations among the comments. Sometimes it’s a good idea to “take it outside.”
John Doyle (author of comment #8 on the Jesus Creed post)
LikeLike
Sam and Ktismatics and Van,
I certainly know my limitations. I might have said before, I am not “highly educated” and certainly have little in the way of tertiary education. Its a long story but my parents died at one of those “pivotal” ages. None the less, I have these views and am very aware of people far smarter than myself with views 180 degrees different. I have for a long time been trying to reconcile what “you” see to what “I” see. Its absorbing to say the least. I am particularly interested in the personal aspect of peoples religious experience.
Ivan
LikeLike
I thought everyone did a fine job of clarifying and defending his own position while trying to understand the others’ — if that hadn’t been true the discussion would have petered out long ago.
LikeLike
Sam,
Its funny, Religion and myself got off to a bad start. My introduction to the Christian faith was through a rather well meaning Anglican minister back when I was in kindergarten. It was the way this guy began, which was explaining the concept of heaven to us that somehow sounded deceptive. I have no idea what it was now exactly that set my alarm bells ringing, but ring they did. Lots of kids played ball, raced, but a small group of us discussed the big things in our childlike way. I think the beginnings of my skeptiscm were born. A long time later, after several friends became “born again” and tried to influence me, I felt a further turn to atheists. I can definitely describe the final nail in my religious coffin, and that was late high school. This time another really enthusiastic “born again in a big way” Christian worked on me for over a year with “advertising material” comic book style I presume from his local church. He was telling me, Look even if you don’t believe “pretend” you do and it will happen. I couldn’t take the dishonesty any more. The problem I face in my middle ages.. really late middle ages, is now the intellectual challenge believing in documents such as the bible takes. This is why I liked to hear from people that don’t see this as a gulf and are able to find reason within. I’d really like to be able to understand it all at your level. Does that make sense at all?
Ivan
LikeLike
Marc,
That’s a quite intriguing encounter at Church. Marc what denomination was this? Does your Pastor often hear directly from God? By this, actual verbal type instructions? There are very few people that seem to make a claim of this, and if your Pastor does then this is very interesting indeed. Did the pain stay way? How is your back now? Has God ever directly spoken to you or issued you instructions?
Ivan
LikeLike
Phil,
I am still trying to answer your question on the judging of what is “good” verses “Evil” in the atheist dominated world. So far, each time ends up with me getting a brain ache. Can I take the question on advisement? And get back to you? Its just making me think is all.
Ivan
LikeLike
I agree with all of you, this is indeed a better forum – a big thanks to Ktismatics for hosting us here.
Ivan, I’ve also heard a lot about heaven and perhaps even more about hell, none of which is in the least bit convincing. You may be surprised to find that there’s relatively very little about either in the bible and what there is is so variously interpreted that it’s obvious that we don’t really have much of a clue.
Rather similar in many ways is the bible’s account of creation in the bible. Again, imo I have yet to see much interpretation that is convincing. Imagine squeezing billions of years of stuff into less than 800 words. Languge at its limits to say the least!
Sometimes those of us who have ‘found religion’ can be the most irritating characters. Some people do indeed have earthshaking experiences of salvation.
This was not my experience nor that of many others who have shared with me. Before I came to any sort of personal belief, I had visited many a revival meet and many a time raised my hand and even once ‘gone forward’ to make a personal commitment only to realise within a few days that nothing had changed!
God seems to work differently with each individual person and I am personally convinced (controversially)that there are many true believers who respond to God’s voice, and therefore have a real relationship with God, but who don’t even realise that it is so.
LikeLike
Ivan,
The church is a non-denominational mostly Charismatic church…that is, they believe that all the Gifts of the Holy Spirit as described by Acts and the writings of Paul are still active today and that God works in supernatural methods today. I’ve been going there since the summer (we moved into the area from out of state)
My back has been great since that night, the pain has yet to return.
The pastor has talked about his experiences hearing from God. He used to be much more cautious about acting on them, but he has found that what he hears tends to be scary acccurate, so as part of his faith, he tries to obey when he hears.
I have not personally heard the audible voice of God. I’ve recieved strong impressions at times, but those are tough to prove and could be explained away as my subconscious mind cranking along. I therefore tend not to use that as evidence for other people.
I personally believe that a major part of the Christian walk is learning how to hear from God and following His lead. It’s something that I need to exercise more.
My church’s website can be found here, if you want to peruse it:
http://www.houseontherockfamilychurch.org/
Happy New Year if we don’t catch up again shortly. (grin)
LikeLike
Hi Marc,
Forgive my ignorance, but is that similar to Pentecostal? I find your story really interesting. You know how I mentioned earlier, I can be a bit of a sceptic? This goes hand in hand in a way with both my atheism and how my particular mind tends to work. For all I know, you were touched by the one true God. I am certainly not some kind of amateur expert, it was your experience after all. But, can I tell you how my mind clicks in? I’m wondering.. if Marc was looking for a sign of God, Why wouldn’t God “speak” and I mean this most literally, to you directly? You may have noticed the many times it happens this way in the Bible. So why not now, and why not to you? Why does God go through a human authority figure such as the Pastor? Why not show you he exists by, as you were thinking it, healing your back right there in the pew and then fill you with a rapture of God or something? Why “that” particular way? In my mind, If I imagine even the Biblical God, which I think under sells the concept in a major way, I can’t understand him working on a personal level in that sort of “showmanship” way. Does that make any sense to you?
Best regards
Ivan
LikeLike
Hi Sam,
You could very well be right. You seem to me to be a very different kind of person in regards to your Christian thinking. Have you found yourself in disagreement sometimes with your Christian peers? I couldn’t agree more with you on Genesis which has always bothered me. Arguing about God is one thing, but ignoring really established Science in place what was a 2000 year old “vision” of the Universe is folly at best. This was another thing that over the years bothered me and was characterised in a book entitled “telling Lies for God” which is pretty much what they were doing. I couldn’t imagine a God requiring this of people to drum up support. I don’t think its needed.
regards
Ivan
LikeLike
Marc,
I looked at your Church link. It looks really similar to me to one of the big mega Churches that have opened up here in recent times. They seem to offer a mix of worship and entertainment.
Ktismatics (is it John?) thank you for allowing us to use this page. Its enormously kind of you and boy ! it sure is an education. You write about some really interesting stuff.
LikeLike
Ivan,
You ask some wonderful questions, I’ll give you that.
I believe that God DOES want to work with us personally, but He also has His agenda, if you will…and that includes spreading his message of love and faith and the like.
By healing me “silently” and without involving other people, that’s nice for me.
By giving words of knowledge, which require obedience and faith to utter (because, quite frankly, who wants to be wrong?) and by having me prayed for publicly and healed, it demonstrates God’s power publicly to several folk:
1. Myself, as the object of healing. Actually, the part that freaks me out more than that is the answer to my challenge via being called out.
2. Pastor Jim, who is acting as the conduit. As he sees the fruits of his faith and obedience, he becomes a stronger messenger for God.
3. The other people in church. Some might be believers who need to witness power to restore their faith. Others may be visitors who will be intrigued by what they see.
4. It’s led to a pretty interesting conversation on the Internet, hasn’t it? (grin) Again…you have to decide if you believe that I’m telling you what happened accurately and if I’m right, what actually did happen…and how that might impact your own world view.
When you look at the Gospels, Jesus did miracles for a few reasons…and one of the most important was to demonstrate God’s power so that people might believe. That’s why I think God healed me the way He did.
Regards,
Marc
LikeLike
Oh…I realized I forgot to answer a few other questions. (grin)
1. Pentecostalism is an official denomination, while Charismatic usually is a label applied to a non-denominational church or a different denomination that has decided that spiritual gifts are active today. (such as Charismatic Catholics…they retain their primary Catholic practices but add the “sign gifts” as they are sometimes called…tongues, prophecy, healing, etc.)
2. My church might be considered a “mega-church”, although they aren’t really that big. They do have modern music as opposed to an old lady on an organ and they do have many programs, especially for kids. But they do take their teaching seriously and I wouldn’t say that they forsake truth for entertainment.
LikeLike
Hi there Marc,
When I was referring to our Mega churches, your one is very much in the spirit of one, but it probably has more a kind of “village scale” to it. Mega churches might possibly be a local experience but they provide spirituality with an almost Theatre style delivery. I know they turn over millions of dollars here. Marc, did you ever see a movie called “Contact”? It starred Jodie Forster and came from a novel written by an Atheist scientist called Carl Sagen. It had a very thought provoking ending, where the Scientist has an experience that can only be related in an almost “religious experience” way. Its hard to relate your personal experience properly to someone who wasn’t at that moment in your particular body. But, I might say some things about in light of your earlier comments. Specifically, I don’t get the jist of how a Christian God works. Being human, I am probably not actually supposed to but I can at least point out where it doesn’t gel with me. I might go by your points if that’s ok? sort of stops my replying going for miles.
1. You say God does want to work with us personally, yet rarely it seems that God does. Had you noticed in the Holy Bible how many times God doesn’t split hairs, and talks directly with various persons? Why not now? Why always to an “authority figure” often wearing ceremonial clothing and headwear, think Bishops, Cardinals etc, but almost never directly to the punters. I often wonder why this is?
2. I think God healing you was wonderful, I just don’t understand why it had to be staged. Why wouldn’t God have healed you in the pew? Why “through someone” why not just speak to you directly? (I don’t have the answer here by the way, I’m just asking) if you get my point.
3. I am sure many people were appreciative of the public nature of the healing. But I just don’t understand why it has to be done in front of an audience? Did Jesus always have an audience do you know?
Your 1 to 4 points.
1. I don’t know the possible explanation to this. I can guess mind you, Back pain is common so are headaches and achy joints, Its possible, the Pastor was overcome with a kind of wishful wanting (for lack of better description) Marc, had you ever heard of a case of say, Paraplegia or total blindness being overcome? Its not a trick question, I had been on the lookout for an unqualified miracle, Have you ever heard of something like this happening in yours or another Church?
2. Pastor Jim seems like a very uplifting Pastor. I am wondering why God needs him as a conduit? For example, why couldn’t God put the congregation on a Godly “speakerphone” ? Why just Pastor Jim ?
3. Your absolutely right. This could always be the case and Gods goal. But you would think there would be more efficient ways of doing this wouldn’t you?
4. Marc, I sincerely thank you for telling of your experiences. It did sound like it deeply affected you and for the positive and that’s always a good thing!
Ivan.
LikeLike
Heya Ivan,
Haven’t seen “Contact”. I’ve heard good things about it and probably should add it to my short list.
I’m not going to go through each numbered point, as I’m supposed to be working now, but I want to reply to a few things, as they came to me while reading. So please don’t take offense. (grin)
1. Jim himself claims to have seen reconstructive healings…for instance, fingers growing back. I hesitate to bring things like that up, because I can’t produce proof myself and fantastic claims seem like they would need fantastic proof. I have heard testimony from people in both this church and other churches I’ve been in regarding tumors and other conditions (requiring surgery) that were healed instantly and attributed by medical folk to “spontaneous healing”. Again, this stuff is often not trumpeted because the doctors seem to not want to look foolish…will they be accused of malpractice and the like?
If you look, you can find people who will testify:
http://members.tripod.com/americanairmen/Lycos/sightrestored.htm
How legit is this guy’s story? I don’t know, but it’s the character of God.
Speaking of the character of God, He doesn’t work through just authority figures…priests and such. All believers are given all the authority of Jesus Christ, it’s just that we often don’t exercise it. But the Bible doesn’t talk about a priestly class, except in regards to the Jewish priests who ran the temple and the sacrifices that were ordained prior to the atonement bought by Jesus.
Anyway, I need to scamper back to making Linux servers obey me. I’m glad we’ve had a chance to chat and I hope we’re both getting something out of this.
Regards,
Marc
LikeLike
Hey Marc,
Thank you for that link, I will have a look through and a read. I was sure it must have happened somewhere. I just had not before read anything about it.
Ivan
LikeLike
Marc,
I had a look at that site you suggested. Its enormously hard to form an opinion on miracles without being a Doctor or having intimate details on the case at hand. So you really have to go with your feelings. While this could be one definitely, it also could be a number of other fairly ordinary type outcome. Marc, what I am on the lookout for, and you could maybe help me with this if you see anything that could be the case, is instances where someone has total blindness, for a number of years and has a totally spontaneous healing. Another, could be a spinal cord injury such as Paraplegia, being healed by miracle, basically the spinal column regenerating, Myelin sheathing restored etc. Cancer patients IE: those with lumps purporting to be cancer spontaneously healing are harder to qualify. You kind of need radiography or MRI and this isn’t going to be found online I don’t think.
Marc, you know the last paragraph you wrote? What I meant was, You know how the bible tells the story of God? And you know how the Bible sets all the precedents for God? We know God speaks to people and does so many times in the Bible. Clear,enunciated language. We know also he send intermediaries, think angels. We also know he uses symbology burning bushes etc. He communicates directly, with language in the Bible. Why not now? This is what I try to understand, If God spoke clearly and gave instructions,offered challenges etc, tests of faith, why nothing now? Why does God work through something as subjective as “speaking to a heart” or in blessings, usually wealth or relationships with family.. people for instance often meet there future wives through Church and will call that a message from God which well it might, but what happened to the straight talking, communicating directly God? Why did he stop doing it this way do you think?
Do I make any sense?
Ivan
LikeLike
Heya Ivan.
You ask some great questions and I don’t have easy answers.
I promise you, I will try and find some evidence of healing events that are as objective as possible. Give me some time to verify, ok?
Here’s the thing about God’s communication. Even to those who saw him directly, He often required faith. Abraham waited decades to see his child born, long after Sarah was able to become pregnant. In fact, his lack of faith (a temporary fall) led to the birth of Ishmael through his wife’s handmaiden Hagar…many people point to this as the root cause of the friction between the Arab world and the Jews. The escaped Hebrew slaves saw the pillar of fire and pillar of smoke (which was God leading them) and they still griped and became disobedient. Jesus did miracles in the sight of thousands and then challenged people with difficult sayings and the same people fell away. In fact, the crowd that cheered Him entering Jerusalem as the Messiah demanded His crucifixion just a few days later.
We’re a fickle people.
For whatever reason, God likes us to have faith. And faith is often defined as the belief in what you have not yet seen. One argument I hear from some atheists (not saying you are saying this) is “Why the heck is God not writing His message in burning letters in the sky?” The responses to that are:
1. Actual physical proof of God’s existence removes the need for faith. Although, as seen, that absolute knowledge of His reality doesn’t promise that people will obey Him. Or even take His good advice. (LOL)
2. Many people would refuse to believe the proof, demanding something even grander…because, in their hearts, it’s not really about evidence. It’s about the knowledge that if God is real, they need to act on that information or be intellectually dishonest with themselves for the rest of their life. And some people who would be convinced think that Christianity calls you to a life that sucks…which, quite frankly, just isn’t true. Most of us are people who love life and love other people and enjoy having fun. Heck, I’ve got the instruction manual for my homebrew kit open in a PDF in another window. Did you know that Jesus, as His first public miracle, made a party better by turning water into wine? He also partied with some shady characters, because He loved them and He knew they needed to see God’s love in action. Sour hateful people have issues and are not the representatives that God needs in this world.
3. Many would argue that the evidence is there if you look for it. Quite frankly, that’s up to each individual…some people need a very little bit to make the leap of faith, others need almost hard mathematical proof. The funny thing is, God will meet people after they make that leap of faith and He’ll start working in their lives in a very real way. I know, I know…that sounds like I’m saying “you have to jump in first, then God will reveal Himself”. And it’s partly true. But God’s will is also that all men come to him and I believe that He will shine enough light so that in the end, no one will have an excuse. And He’ll be merciful to those who had little to work with…the Bible says as much.
Anyway, just because God doesn’t boom out with a big voice in the middle of every church service doesn’t mean that He’s not talking with many many people. In the Old Testament, we’re told to “Be still and know that I am God” and that God’s voice is the small, still voice in the middle of the raging storm. One could argue that the reason we don’t hear God is because, quite frankly, we never take the time to stop and listen. (big grin)
Ok…let me work on finding you some EVIDENCE. That’s juicy stuff that I like myself, so it’ll be a nice challenge for me!
Be well, Ivan.
Regards,
Marc
LikeLike
Marc,
A very, very fine reply. I would like to consider it for a bit before responding. Don’t go spending hours trawling the web for a Miracle. We will come across them I am sure if they exist. I just wanted you to keep an eye out for such things if you do accidentally find one. I would love to have a good look at the details if they are available. But I am not in a hurry and you probably are spending a lot of time reading stuff on all these sites as it is.
Ivan
LikeLike
Hi Ivan,
I agree with all that Marc says above, a fine reply indeed. if I could add just one small point, Paul himself tells us that the logic of what Jesus did will look dumb to anyone. I don’t think that proofs such as miracles are going to swing sceptical people to faith. Whatever brings about a real encounter with Jesus and then how we will reapond to that is what counts.If I could weigh in on the question of miracles with my 0.02… I once did a series of 4 media coverage jobs for a friend who was a bit out of his depth, working with an American preacher that came annually to preach in India.
A very professional group they were, doing live feeds of the meets and with a highly effective advertising campaign that worked well and there were anywhere from 80,000 to 400,000 attending each night! Most people came with an expectation that they would see some strange happenings and this was a specific part of the thrust of the advertising campaign.
I had a very upclose look at how things functioned. Many of the ‘miracles’ that took place were well set-up fakes, but there were a couple of genuine ones in the mix.
The preacher consistently worked on raising the emotional pitch. An atmosphere of urgency, and tremendous expectation and sustained emotion seem to me to play a very large part. A friend of mine who was a reporter sought out the ones who claimed healing and went to visit them in their homes a week later. He found that from that one night, of the 17 that he visited only two seemed to have had some sort of permanent change, still that’s two!
On the other hand, having been in the medical field, I have seen three serious tumors that disappeared, two after prayer and one without any. I also have one close friend who had polio and a shortened right leg that he says God told him would be healed and when he went back to the doctor the leg length discrepancy of 1 1/4 inches was gone. he got rid of his raised shoes and now walks with a normal gait, even though the muscle mass is yet to fully equalise.
I also know a number of people who have prayed for and been prayed over for healing who are yet to get what they are asking for. One or two have died along the way including one close friend was so stubborn that God would heal his kidney failure that he just did not cooperate with the doctors at all!
LikeLike
btw jesuscreed (http://www.jesuscreed.org/?p=1825)finally awoke from its slumber and reposted a number of Ivan’s missing posts!
LikeLike
Hey Sam,
Its good my posts are on there I guess, durn pity I can’t reply to the repliers! Your comment on whether miracles would convince Atheists is a valid one, I tend to agree with you. I should mention that I’m not looking “at” Miracles for Godly proof myself, I’m just interested in the concept. The stories from India remind me of the big Evangelical performances you do see sometimes. I went to Billy Grahams in my teens and I remember it a lot like you describe the India events. (Perhaps without the healing?) I can’t recall.
Your miracle stories were very impressive also. Much closer to what I was looking for. One thing though I would disagree with Marc on, he mentioned that (without looking back) that proof wouldn’t convince Atheists? I am not sure that this is correct. While you could imagine large swaths of Atheists in denial, most, and I would include myself in here, would be swayed by a Godly speakerphone style announcement. How could you not be? The thing I find very interesting on my personal level, is the many interpretations Christians have about God “touching” or entering or making himself known to them, means exactly. Many times not specifically here mind you, I hear stories of blessings and good fortune that to my eyes seem like the likely outcome of a life lived amongst Christians in white collar jobs in a first world country with no impending health crisis. It doesn’t look the quite the same through my eyes. Not to say though, it still isn’t some God given special intervention.
Ivan
LikeLike
Sam,
One more thing, Its really, really, really difficult to “test” in a scientific fashion for the effectiveness of Prayer. I only know of one double blind trial and it showed the incidence of Prayer actually caused harm. (The mortality rate went up a bit) but you can’t really gauge if somebody was praying or not.. well I don’t have to spell out to you the difficulties you could see this yourself being in the field. But you can’t really underestimate the danger people face relying solely on Godly intervention or alternate health remedies.
LikeLike
Hey fellas, I see Scot McKnight has posted the latest installment on the Dawkins book. Zero comments so far — very early am in the American Midwest.
LikeLike
Ivan,
I’ve read about a few prayer studies myself. One issue is that you have no control whatsoever about people praying for sick folk regardless of whether or not they were in the “control group” or not.
As far as people relying just on prayer…it reminds me of the following tale:
There was a guy who lived in a cabin in the woods near a river. One day, while he was listening to his radio, there was an announcement that a big storm was coming and that people near the river should evacuate in case of flooding. He dropped to his knees and prayed, “God, please protect me from the flood!”
Well, the storm hit and the river began to rise. The man’s neighbor drove by in his Jeep and yelled “Come on, you need to go!” But the man said “God will protect me!”
The river rose and the man was forced to climb up on his roof. A helicopter sent by the rangers hovered near the man and a rope ladder was dropped to him. He refused to climb it, yelling “God will protect me!”
The flood covered his house and he drowned. Next thing he knew, he was standing before the throne of God in heaven. Peeved he asked, “God, why didn’t you protect me?”
God sighed and said, “Look…before you even prayed, I sent you the radio announcement. I then sent your neighbor and then a helicopter. That’s 3 answers and you ignored them all.”
—————-
God gives us a brain, natural resources and relationships for a reason. People who ignore these things often reap pain and failure…but God’s intent is for us to be stewards of this world and to help each other get through it. He’ll help out as well, but he’s not some genie to be summoned whenever one has a hangnail.
LikeLike
Re: Dawkins, this is precisely the problem with this book. Dawkins, when he starts into morality, ethics, culture and specific issues like altruism or equality, is quite a bit out of his depth. The simple explanation is that the theory of evolution (which is what he knows) was never intended to be extrapolated indefinitely. The universe as a whole is not ‘evolving’ in any recognisable sense. In fact the possibility of stasis is inimical to the evolutionary paradigm!
LikeLike
Aristotle made a case for natural morality; he also believed that women should be subject to men and that non-Greeks were meant to be slaves.
There are motivations other than morality for extending the boundaries of the in-group, most notably broader access to new markets and to new knowledge/skills. I haven’t read this particular book of Dawkins, but I’d be surprised if he said that the rapidly-changing moral zeitgeist is a “positive evolution,” since Darwinian evolution is directionless. I suspect he says either that the globalization memes are increasingly recognized as more culturally adaptive, or he uses non-scientific criteria to evaluate the relative goodness of moral systems — perhaps both.
Studying genetic influences on human behavior seems like a perfectly respectable way to make a living. Unfortunately it’s not the science but the attitude that moves the books off the shelf. The marketplace encourages conflict; the bookstores don’t care who’s right or who wins as long as everybody’s sufficiently riled up to buy the book. It’s why the best-sellers aren’t necessarily the best books — just as the best moral code isn’t necessarily the most popular one.
LikeLike
Marc
I had heard that story before. I forgot how good it was. Thank you for reminding me of it!
Ktsmatics.. I would just Lurve to comment. But the dang site won’t accpet my postings unfortunately.
Ivan
LikeLike
Dear Sam,
Look, I don’t know that your right here. I thinks one of Dawkins’s points is along the lines that he (Dawkins) is imminently qualified to talk about Morality, Ethic and even culture, as much as anyone else on the planet. I don’t see how anyone as insightful and intelligent as his goodself also can’t discuss issues surrounding altruism and even equality.
He is a biologist (A rather imminent one) and about the closest thing to an expert on the theory of evolution that we have on this planet. Interestingly, its not considered a theory these days either, its considered factual. Further, the Universe isn’t so much “evolving” as winding down. Which is a kind of evolution when you think about it?
Regards
Ivan
LikeLike
Ktismatics,
I think I agree with your last paragraph. I tend to think there is “good” in any books that make one think. Be it the Bible or God delusion. The world could do with a whole lot more in the way of critical thinking.
Just my 2 cents worth
Ivan
LikeLike
For you.
Dr. Wu of Chicago University argues that the evolution of the brains has slowed down lately. He says t´is understandable from a systemic point of vue.
http://www-news.uchicago.edu/citations/06/061226.wu-keralanext.html
Now, if it has slowed down maybe it did not evolute in the first place at all.
Odile
LikeLike
Odile,
Thanks for that link. It was quite interesting.
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan, I agree that Dawkins is a very eminent evolutionist and I like the guy – his writings (and talks) are always interesting. The problem that I have is when a theory (it’s a paradigm but not anything other than the current working hypothesis) that seems to work well in one sphere is ad hoc applied to other areas where it has no support at all and for which it was not designed in the first place. I think that that is an example of poor science.
His work on memes falls into this same sort of grey zone. it can’t be scientifically tested and so is not a hypothesis at all but it is an interesting idea!
Your comment on the evolution of the universe is similar. evolution is not just another way of saying “things change” it is about adaptation to change and how that has happened.
LikeLike
Saml,
I thought that evolution is considered now to be factual ? There is enough supporting evidence to push it up the ladder. I think this may have come from the microbiology world and I understand this can be more than “adequately” tested. I don’t have an opinion much on his concept of memes. My comment on the Universe was a kind of joke. I wasn’t confusing physics with evolution.
Ivan
PS a happy New year to you all! for 2007
LikeLike
So I took a look over at Jesus Creed, read Sam’s last comment, then the one that followed it. “This guy reminds me of Ivan,” I thought to myself… and then I got to the punch line. Very good: you’ve outwitted the robotic censor.
LikeLike
Hi Ivan, I suspect that you already are familiar with the methodology of science. Popularly, scientists may treat the theory of evolution as a ‘fact’ but in fact it can’t be that. The problems are many, most basically theories never do become facts even when they have been testably demonstrated over decades. Theories are always just theories. Kuhn analysed science from a bit of a sociological angle quite some ways back and his work has not been bettered yet. The ruling theory is what he called ‘the paradigm’, which right now is some sort of neodarwinism, and as long as it is the reigning theory it will be treated (in practice) as though it were fact. That’s just how modern science works. When a new paradigm comes along (and it will) there will be a period of contest and perhaps that will be followed by a revolution…
One very good reason not to let ‘science’ (ever) fiddle with stuff like ethics, morality or society itself!
LikeLike
But Sam,
Science doesn’t intrude on ethics or morality does it? I was trying to think of the last time it didn’t and came up blank? and Dang! I just accidently found some latest examples of evolution at work.
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan, Science should not intrude on anything other than science. It is not science that is at fault here, rather some scientists would like to derive ethics, morality and even philosophy ‘scientifically’ and therein lies the rub…
LikeLike
But scientists can hold opinions can’t they Saml?
Ivan
LikeLike
Of course scientists will have opinions! As scientists we can give a lot of weight to their opinions but what i don’t like to see is a scientist claiming to ‘apply’ science where it’s methodology is useless. A bit like thinking that a good astronomer must also be a competent astrologer!
LikeLike
Here’s a scientific study cited by Paul Bloom in Descartes’ Baby: “The psychologist Margaret Evans tested the children of Christian fundamentalists and the children of non-fundamentalist parents who endorsed evolutionary theory. She asked them to judge the likelihood of different accounts of where things come from — from human intervention, from God, or from evolution. Her central finding was that children were consistently more creationist than their parents; they were drawn to the God explanation even if the adults who raised them were not.”
Is this legitimate science? What conclusions should be drawn from such a study? Here’s what Bloom says of the kids’ creationism: “This should not be taken as a sign of immaturity. It is not children who are unusual, after all. Throughout just about all of human history, some version of creationism has been the commonsense view. Given the argument from design, it is intellectually respectable… Dawkins has written that it almost appears as if ‘the human brain is specifically designed to misunderstand Darwinism, and to find it hard to believe.'”
LikeLike
Yes, in many periods of History, Creationism has been the commonsense view. And many other things have been commonsense views. The sun revolving around the Earth The Earth being the centre of the universe and even tooth worms. All commonsense and commonly thought. But plain old wrong.
Christian fundamentalists who “endorsed” evolutionary fact? Where do you find them exactly?
LikeLike
I just found and was reading the study. One thing I noticed, is the power of religious “indoctrination” of children to confuse them with known scientific fact. I personally think this is a handing a great injustice to the worlds children. Dawkins makes mention of it several times in his book. If you take Christianity out for a second.. and think of the indoctrination of say, Scientology or Hindu or Aboriginal religions you can see the down side. I think the world would be a way better place if religion wasn’t formally taught until
ages 12 or 13. Then taught in a manner that would cover most of the common religions not just Christian one. I also noted in Blooms papers not a mention of Martin or Barresi’s work.
Also… that comment I made on the evolution of the Universe? I notice a big scientific disagreement this week between Lee Smolin and Vilenkin. Smolin says yes, Blackholes prove a kind of cosmic version of evolution and Negative Vacuum Vilenkin says nay.. apparently.
LikeLike
Just back from holiday where there was no kind of internet connection (the best kind of holiday when you have a family!).
Ivan, sure get back to me after you have taken advisement. Just be sure to take any advice you get with a critical mind.
Phil.
LikeLike
Always with a critical (and fair) mind.
Ivan
LikeLike
Sorry, I too was out of town. Aruna (my wife) and I decided not to ‘indoctrinate’ our two. It is not easy! for one thing we are Christians, study the bible, go to church and have a lot of Christian friends… This environment itself does a fair share of ‘indoctrinating’. However, by going out of our way a bit to accomodate other viewpoints and by being properly critical of our own selves we hope that we have done something towards letting the kids decide what they would like to believe. probably won’t know the result for a few more years.
I do think that it is very important to distinguish between religion and belief. Ultimately we do not believe in a religion, we do believe in God. the religion is a cultural-social manifestation and in and of itself is not anything to get excited about.
LikeLike
Dear Saml,
That must have been mighty hard for you guys. As you remarked, The USA pretty much is permeated with Christian beliefs. When I was in school down under, we had bible classes called “scriptures classes” These were always in whatever the family faith was and the children never asked. The really serious ones were the Catholic classes, I was in Anglican. But even as a kid, it occurred to me how much more useful it would have all been if you got the opportunity to learn a little about a variety of faiths and even a bit of philosophy (which I would have loved!!) I wonder, if we embarked on this course whether society might be more tolerant? I have always wondered.
Ivan.
LikeLike
Ivan, a broad education is important but for me what was more important were my ‘heroes’. From my earliest days in school right through college there were certain teachers whom I greatly admired. Their example, the way they interacted, their sincerity and love of knowledge, perhaps most important – the pleasure that they took in leading us to discovery – these are the ones who shaped me and helped me to become what I am.
All were honest and loving people who went the extra mile just because that was what gave them purpose and pleasure. Some were committed Christians but many were not!
LikeLike
Saml,
You were extremely lucky to have had such inspirational teachers. I wish that had of been my experience!
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan, sorry for the delay. I guess i was lucky with teachers and mentors but that does not mean that you can’t be! i recall somewhere that you mentioned Einstein. I do think that we can take inspiration from even ‘literary’ persons as long as they have expressed themselves enough.
One of my present day heroes is the author and preacher John Stott. i ‘knew’ him from his books long before I met him and found (a bit to my surprise) that he was an even better person (in person) than I had imagined! Another ‘hero’ whom I wish I had had a chance to meet is C.S. Lewis. In both cases, i am a bit in awe of these men but that doesn’t stop me from disagreeing with them either…
LikeLike
Saml,
On my desk right now, I have two “action figures” as ornaments. Figure 1 is Einstein and Figure two is Jesus. (for times you need a real super hero) ! My most “mentor like” teacher was my first high school science teacher. He kind of inspired me to take up a love of science reading. I had not heard of Stott before, why does he impress you sir?
LikeLike
Hey Ivan, it’ll be interesting to see if your alterego “Ross” gets booted from Jesus Creed. Surely you’ve discovered that long and frequent comments get flagged by the spamcatcher, and it seems that once you’re out, you’re out. Perhaps you can do this indefinitely: create a virtual identity, use it to express your opinion and to argue, get spam-caught, then activate a new identity. I wonder if Scot has figured out who Ross really is?
LikeLike
Ivan, a funny thing about the gospel that Jesus preached and lived is how simple it is and yet how absurdly it is interpreted.
What impressed me about John Stott is that he really takes living the gospel seriously. I first was attracted by the clarity of his writing but it was the man himself that i found to be very impressive. A bit like Albert Schweitzer in a way, but much more quiet as a person, Stott has earned many millions and is a very popular author and teacher (amongst christian circles) yet lives a simple life in solidarity with the poor. A consistency between theory and praxis being lived out like this is quite rare!
LikeLike
Hey Ktismatics,
Yeah I was wondering how long I could stay under the radar. Where is a cloak of invisibility when you need one?
Ivan
Ross
Ross Ivan
Ivan Ross
I.Ross
Ross. I.
Mr.Ross
Etc etc
LikeLike
Saml,
That sounds a lot like he “lives” the life of Jesus. A very rare thing in the Christian world I think.
A question for you Saml,
Why do you think there are so many brands of Christian thinking? Why wouldn’t the bible spawn simply one church? Why wouldn’t there be widespread agreement on the word of God and not disagreement? Why Jehovah witnesses and Mormons and uniting and Catholics etc..You would think the one document of God could only be read one way wouldn’t you?
LikeLike
Ivan, that’s the question I have been asking fellow christians ever since…
In one sense it’s inevitable because each one of us is an individual and each has only a personal faith. But we would like to do things in community. We should indeed, but it is also inevitable that our attempts to be in community in turn spawns organisations. The problem, to my mind, is mankind’s need to organise.
In a very real way, the organisation of religion (any religion) is the biggest stumbling block to real faith. Organisations love to exist, they want to get bigger, control more resources etc. The organisation’s needs soon supercedes its raison d’etre.
Beyond the general matters, they have to be unique in order to justify an exclusive membership – hence denominations and ‘theologies’ none of which have anything at all to do with any one person’d response to God.
As a hindu friend recently commented, we go to religion to lead us to God. The religion instead grabs us and enslaves us to itself, effectively blocking our path!
LikeLike
This post is going to scroll off the bottom of the page soon. You’ll still be able to get to it in the “Reflections” category of posts, which you can access at the right side of the screen.
LikeLike
So we all would be better off individually finding God and not bothering with churches then?
LikeLike
Ivan, my opinion is not a standard christian one but for what it’s worth, I think that God confronts each and every individual and the response is first and foremost an individual one.
I certainly do think that we have to individually find God, or be found by Him…
if one chooses to believe and follow God then one can worry about whether religion is or is not helpful. Most seem to feel that it is – at least for the shared experience and the presence of those who are further along the road from whom one can get some much needed help.
LikeLike
Ivan, have you read anything by Tillich? Again not a ‘standard christian’ at all but someone who has dug quite deep in his search for answers.
LikeLike
I have not heard of him Saml. What has he written that you would reccomend?
LikeLike
I would recommend “Ultimat Concern” as a good starting point for Paul Tillich. It’s a transcript of an interaction with students at UC. Amazon has used copies available fairly cheap. Wikipedia gives some good biographical info but the discussion of his thought is weak.
I thought you might find it interesting as he is an existential thinker and has a very good critique of religion. I don’t entirely agree with his philosophy or his view of Jesus but he is very stimulating to read.
LikeLike
If you like a good tale and have not yet read it, C.S. Lewis’s Narnia Chronicles are a great read. intended for kids but I still love reading them! These should be available in just about every library, especially after the first one (there are 7) was made into a movie recently.
Lewis really disliked Tillich!
LikeLike
Saml,
I will most definetely get this to read.
thank you
Ivan
LikeLike
Hi Ktismatics,
this has almost become a 1-1 so thanks for having graciously hosted our extended ramble…
LikeLike
My pleasure. Sam and Ivan: if you like I can send you each other’s email addresses and you can continue the conversation directly. If you both post a comment saying okay to this plan I’ll make it so. If you want, on the other hand, to keep the discussion potentially open to other participants, you’re welcome to stay here as long as you like.
LikeLike
Thank you also for allowing us to post on here also. I have really enjoyed it and I love the high calibre of discussion that your blog attracts. I have no problem with you passing on my email. Thank you.
Ivan
LikeLike
I would not mind sharing my email address with Ivan at all. Still this is a comfy place to share ideas and it also helps to be able to point friends at something (while a string of mails is sooo boring) so if you don’t mind we’ll keep this conversation going here for as long as Ivan and you can stand it!
LikeLike
Okay by me. Please feel free to carry on — this way I can keep up with the conversation and jump in if I’ve got anything useful to say. I’ll also email you both tomorrow.
LikeLike
Saml and John,
One of the things that has bothered me about Religions generally is the kind of slippery slope that appears. Of the few Christian blogs I have visited and particularly the Jesus Creed, Ktismatics and several of the other connected ones appear to attract a really deep thinking, educated kind of Christian. But I think the more average type at least in my country, probably has a more loose collection of beliefs and would maybe not think much about a God more than once every 2 or 3 years, barring of course a major calamity. These types of people, and I have come to know a great deal, have this more elastic,expansive belief system. I know several who believe in re-incarnation, (This blended with a way strange Christian thinking) I know many who believe in angels, even “car park space angels” (I’m not kidding you) Some believe in witches and witch craft. I know more that think they can communicate with the dead psychic style. What I always fear, is, when you open the door to a kind of unsubstantiated belief such as a “God” (By Science I mean) you seem to open the floodgates for all kinds of irrational stuff. Mostly its harmless, but I see it turning nasty quite often, it could be argued that Nations afflicted with it, can go to war. What part of the Iraqi invasion could be put down to your presidents religious beliefs? It feels to me that we are never, ever far from the stage where we could burn witches. As you know by my postings, I’m kind of a public atheist, you would be amazed at how much spite and vindictiveness is aimed at me for my non beliefs. I’m getting now around 4 viruses sent to me a day with Anti-Atheist messages attached. Is it possible that religion can pull us towards an uncivilizing of society as we have gone down before in recent human history? I can’t tell you how much it unsettles me. I think this is the running theme behind Dawkins book. I might be wrong.
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan,
As far as the Iraq war goes, neocon thinking is a sort of religious thing and did have a lot to do with how that war started though I don’t think that christianity played much part one way or the other.
Still, you are right in that a lot of nasty stuff gets disguised as religion and sometimes religion itself can incite and inflame the wrong sorts of passions. I’m not sure how much of that is cause and how much effect. Seems to me that nutty people will be attracted to nutty things. The nutty things are not to blame!
If you have a bible handy, just take a look at what Jesus has to say in a short parable in the book of Matthew (1st book of the new testament) chapter 25. I think that just about says it all. Religions are mostly man made, they are societal and cultural phenomena and most of them would cease to exist if there was no funding!
Belief in God has to result in Godly behaviour, of the type that we see in Jesus, sacrificial love, a love of real justice…how many of us really have that? Only those that do should claim to believe, really believe, in God.
This sort of love does not require sophistication, or deep study. My feeling is that God is quite able to bring about this sort of salvation sans religion or biblical knowledge or education altogether. i think that He is constantly at this with each of us…
It would be great if Dawkins would just think this through a bit more deeply. The issue is not science versus religion. The issue is what is truth?
LikeLike
I think America would have gone to war in Iraq even if the evangelical Christians had remained neutral. There were enough other interests converging on the invasion: generalized rage at the Arab world after 9/11, specific rage at Saddam after he survived the first Gulf War, oil, perhaps even some legitimate concern over the Iraqi people’s subjection to a ruthless dictator. But America was first colonized by religious zealots, and a sense of divine mission has always been a force driving American foreign policy.
Though I’m agnostic, I do believe that Christianity probably has had a net positive effect on Western culture. I also believe that modern science was a direct offshoot of the Reformation. Science is all about finding truths by getting beyond prejudices and authoritarian dictates and going straight to the evidence — just like Luther and Calvin.
I would like to see atheists, believers, and anybody in between join forces in pursuit of truth and justice, love and peace. Whether God is or is not the end of all such pursuits, at least we can aim in the same direction.
LikeLike
Ktismatics,
I couldn’t agree with you more. Your absolutely correct with Sciences beginnings and wouldn’t it be great if we could all walk along the same path just for the benefit of humanity. I was not trying to “attack” religion to make it the root of all evil, but I’m aware of how for whatever reason, it becomes the rationality for an act that could be described as evil. You often here the Qumran described as a book of peace and I can assure you like the bible it really isn’t. Both books appear to have justifications for taking up the sword. And this in the main is what humans do. I agree with you that Christianity in the main is a force for good, I still personally have this view of Christians in general, But its slippery,slippery path. Look at the middle centuries.. in recent times look at Irelands Catholics and Protestants. They even both worshipped the exact same God but look at the resulting blood bath. I find myself being hyper aware is all.
Saml,
Good day Sir!
You may be right on the Iraq war. My reading of religious involvement came from several things written in the press over here. Its probably really hard to say for certain without getting into your Presidents head. I suspect though, it had something to do with it myself. I read the Parable of Matthew. Saml, you make an excellent point. You mention God can bring this about sans religion.
Why doesn’t he? This is off the track a bit, God is capable of making us any which way right? God also wants us to keep to a standard hence the concept of sin right? God can make a sinless individual if he wants.. think Adam and Eve.. Jesus.. most angels.. possibly even a saint or two.. So why make us faulty to begin with, why not turn us all out like Jesus? What’s in it for God to make us almost pre-programmed to sin ? And Saml, I would mention that I think many people throughout history had a deep and unabiding understanding of what God required, but still all the same did some pretty evil stuff. As above, I’m just hyper aware of what could happen.
Ivan
LikeLike
Are you chaps experiencing the wild and cold weather I hear reported in the Northern Hemisphere?
LikeLike
I see nothing in the New Testament to justifywar. But now I’m thinking a little about the relationship of Christianity to Judaism. The Old Testament seems like a pretty provincial religion, concerned with tribal laws and fierce rivalries with neighboring tribes. Christianity added onto its Jewish roots a universal message and an evangelistic component that let it spread like wildfire. Kind of like the human offshoot from the primates, a set of species that’s very localized to certain parts of Africa. Some serendipitous set of mutations showed up on the ape DNA string that enabled our kind to extend our ecological niche worldwide. Likewise with Judaism and Christianity. Maybe there’s still a deeply-rooted war ethos that Christianity inherited from its Old Testament forebears, even as humans are still primates underneath all the cultural trappings.
The weather here is great. I live on the Mediterranean coast of France, where it hasn’t rained since before New Year’s and where the temperature hasn’t even approached freezing all winter. I can’t speak for Sam, who’s on a different continent altogether. And I guess it’s midsummer down under.
LikeLike
John,
I didn’t realise you were in France. I thought you were in the US. My wife is French, I am travelling there this year for the first time!
Her Parents are in Hossgor. I don’t know if the NT is really very “warlike” I kind of meant that people find what they need to find to justify all kinds of odd things. I am told its exactly the same with Muslims also.
LikeLike
Ivan,
I really don’t know why God just didn’t make each of us unfailingly good. A common explanation is that He wanted us to be free to choose but I am not sure at all if that is it, or all of it.
When i look at the old testament (OT), the part of the bible that we share with Judaism I am stuck by some interesting things. It seems to me that God picked Abraham and his offspring (the Jews) because these were potentially the worst of all the people. I don’t mean this in an antisemitic sense, it just seems to be true. He bound this people to a very strict legal and moral code – probably unmatched in its scope and content. He balanced the power structure between the priests and the royalty and reserved a corrective in the role of prophet and then proceeded to struggle with this exceptionally brilliant but also stubborn and wayward peoples for close to 2000 years. That sort of sums up the OT for me. But why He did this is a bit of a mystery. Perhaps if he had not, and Abe and Co had been free to develop as they wished, the consequences would have been disastrous for all the other peoples on earth?
Just look at what that one tiny nation is doing to its neighbors now! Also witness the effortless worldwide influence that it has…
LikeLike
Ivan,
We’re American but we’ve lived in France 4 of the past 5 years. I think Sam too is an expatriated American. I looked up Hossegor: looks like a nice place, on the ocean just above Biarritz. How the heck did your French wife end up in Australia? I too am suspicious when the Bible says that God led the Israelis into battle and helped them slaughter the infidels.
Sam,
Interesting ideas. You certainly don’t get a picture of God picking the Jews for their intrinsic merit. Maybe you’re right: the OT obsession with the Law is an attempt to put some restraints on a creative but unruly people. It does seem that the OT — and the NT for that matter — spend an inordinate amount of time on morality. Maybe the Jews’ creativity is spontaneous, in the image and likeness of the creator, needing no exhortation to bring it forth. But maybe without some kind of discipline the creative urge turns to destruction.
Freud’s version of the human psyche fits this interpretation of Jewish theology. The id is the spontaneous expression of urges and instincts; the superego is the voice of the Father who imposes external order (rules, guilt and shame, punishment, etc.) on the id’s undisciplined expression. The ego balances the two forces, internalizing the voice of the Father, sublimating the id’s drives into creative self-expression. Freud elaborated on ideas already expressed by Nietzsche, who was the son of a Lutheran minister.
LikeLike
You know everyone keeps telling me my prophet is Nietzsche. John, what is your background? You seem to know a lot about a lot.. I met my wife on the internet. She was single and living in Paris. I think marrying an Aussie may have shocked the family. Do you live far from Hossgor?
Saml,
I had oftened wondered the same thing.. why “those” particular people?
Ivan
LikeLike
Saml and Ktismatics,
There is a guy over here that is a radio broadcaster by the name of Terry Lane. He is an oldish man (much like myself) and kind of considered as part of the Sydney Intelligentsia. I like his style, He always had unusual ways of looking at things that sounded so sage and profound. One day browsing a book store I found he had written a book and I just had to purchase it. The title was “God the interview” he imagined himself interviewing God, it probably was just himself processing his thoughts he was at one stage a Priest and now an Atheist. I wanted to quote a small part from this book and ask you your thoughts from Christian or agnostic Background.. I invite anyone else reading this to comment also.
The quote: When I was a young man – a mere boy and a theological student at Churches of Christ College I had a disturbing experience. As part of my Pastoral studies our class visited The Kew hospital it was home to all sorts of people with mental disabilities. In some parts of the establishment there were people with severe Psychoses who were deluded and violent. In other parts there were children with downs syndrome who overwhelmed people both with their need for affection but willingness to give of themselves instantly. What I was not prepared for was a visit to a ward filled with hydro-encephalitic Children with heads so enormous that they were in fact larger than there bodies. These poor creatures seemed to have absolutely no awareness that there was anything going on around them although the nurses assured us they do respond.
These utterly deformed children with their grotesque heads were to huge for there tiny muscles to move them, The nurses had to do everything for them. I learned 2 things that day.
1. There were wonderful human beings who every day have to perform tasks that are heroic in nature. I tend to call it “love” These are unsung heroes of society.
2. The second thing was never be to glib about affirmations of belief. After spending the morning in this disturbing environment we had a session with the resident doctors. “Gentlemen, do you still believe in God”? Could God have done this? Could God have permitted it? Was God not looking when it happened? Did someone sin? Was some punishment delivered onto the children?
This was the day the seed of agnosticism was first planted in my brain.
Saml what would you say to this experience? How is it rationalised in a Christian mind?
LikeLike
Ivan – The people who tell you that Nietzsche is your prophet probably don’t think very highly of Nietzsche. He’s sort of the poster child for evil atheism. I personally find his writings very stimulating, even though the man himself may have been rather unpleasant. It’s always hard to tell exactly what it is he believes. But I think that’s part of his point: you can see the same issues in any number of ways and each one seems right at the time. If there’s no God to tell you which one is right, then you have to decide, even if your decision seems arbitrary and unstable.
Recently I told a friend that I can talk for 5 minutes on any topic. After 5 minutes all bets are off. I’ve got a smattering of background in various things — psychology, theology, healthcare, business — and I’m interested in lots more.
I think your wife’s town is on the Atlantic coast near the Spanish border. I’m near Nice, which is near Italy — your wife probably knows where that is. So not too close.
LikeLike
John, your one extremely bright cookie. Whilst I could never claim to come close to you in depth and insight I do have one thing in common, I read widely (and above my station)
The funny thing with Christians and atheists I did notice, many unpleasant things are blamed on peoples atheitism rather than there humanity or lack there off.
Where its possible to see religion underpinning the odd evil act, its not quite the same in reverse. If that makes sense?
LikeLike
I agree with you. Atheists blame religion, believers blame atheism, but I think there’s just something about our species that keeps us from making the same mistakes over and over. I remember your list of terrible moments in history instigated by religion. Then comes the 20th century with Hitler and Stalin and Mao. I think behind all these catastrophes is a willingness of people with power to shape the world to their liking regardless of the consequences.
LikeLike
Ivan,
evil is very terribly real. we see it almost daily in the lives around us. heart attacks, cancer, accidents, all sorts of catastrophic wrongs. The poor are worse affected but suffering is a general experience that wealth cannot aleviate.
the major religions put the blame on man (Xtianity, Judaism)or on ‘being’ more generally (Hinduism, Buddhism) . the more powerful one’s religion makes god, the greater this problem.
i don’t have a prescription for this ill. there are many things that i don’t know and cannot fathom and the existence of evil is certainly one of them. i know that God is both loving and just. Someday, perhaps, He will enlighten me about the what and the why.
One thing that helps me through is that Jesus lived, experienced and felt the horrors. i know from His response that He did not enjoy it one bit. So there is a sense of sharing for this grief. If i am grieved, God is much more grieved.
The question is what to do about it and the answer that I see in Jesus is “everything you can”. We have a problem, we have to be as much a part of the solution as we can.
atheism or even hard agnosticism seem to me to be a bit of a cop out. that’s just the way it is, that’s how it has always been and that’s how it will always be. there is no hope here merely avaoidance. if this world is just like this as a part of a mechanistic universe, then why the angst? babies with swollen heads – so what, nature at work as usual!
LikeLike
So are you saying God can’t influence Nature? And what do you mean Atheists are a “cop out” ? Copping out of what exactly?
LikeLike
Saml,
I am having a slow brain day. Could you re-explain your post? I don’t understand it (and yes its just me)
Ivan
LikeLike
1. God is both loving and just.
2. So there probably is a reasonable explanation for evil but I am not privy to what that is.
3. God feels our pain along with us. That’s both in the nature of God and especially as God has chosen to suffer along with us – in Jesus.
4. We have to recognise that evil exists and fight it to the best of our ability.
Atheism seems to say that both altruism and evil are equally valid parts of ‘how things are’. The desire to avoid evil or even to identify certain things as ‘wrong’ is just as accidental, the species survives better that way and thats all there is to it. i.e. intrinsically nothing is either evil or good, it just is the way it is and if we are smart atheiists we won’t make such a big deal of it…
I think that this is a very basic denial of man’s essential being. We don’t value ‘good’ and hate ‘evil’ (or even identify them as such) for purely accidental reasons but rather because there really is a good that is grounded in who God is and in what God has made us.
LikeLike
Saml,
I’m not sure I agree with that. But going back to the children born with hydro-encephalitic, Your saying this was an act of evil? Whose act? Its Gods evil isn’t it?
LikeLike
Ivan,
the idea that evil and good are all a part of God is found in some religions (like Hinduism and for example). As a follower of Jesus I don’t subscribe to that thought. From what I can see of Jesus He hated to see mankind and perhaps the world in this state. There are good things that we can appreciate but they seem to be outweighed by the nastiness.
Disease of any sort falls into this category. So does man’s inhumanity to man! The bible seems to say that man chose this lot by rebelling against God.
What Jesus specifically enjoins for His followers is to try to turn this evil on its head in our personal lives and actions. Of course this will not result in the cessation of disease, here the best that we can do is to try to advance our science to cure or perhaps prevent the worst of the ills. There is some sense that we can alleviate the suffering (to some extent) by being willing to share in others griefs.
There is little, outside of Jesus, that we can do about the nasiness that resides within ourselves though!
LikeLike
Saml,
So there are some pretty serious limmits on what God can actually do then?
Ivan
LikeLike
Saml,
Focusing for a moment on grotesquely deformed children and putting human nastiness aside for a second.
What do you suppose went on in that Kew hospital? Was it the work of God? If not, was it the work of some other evil force like Satan? Does it fit in the crap happens box ? Is God in any way involved? Does outcomes such as this impact intelligent design thinking? Is God powerless over certain things such as this? Does Gods holy powers have limits? Bear in mind, this problem the Children had wasn’t any “disease” as such.
Ivan
LikeLike
If God didn’t actually create the material universe then he’s off the hook: it’s just raw nature blundering along as usual. Maybe God can fix things like hydrocephaly but it takes a long time and a lot of work by fellow sentient beings.
Some evangelicals believe that all disease and death resulted from Adam and Eve’s sin in the Garden. This would pretty much eliminate the idea of man evolving through survival of the fittest, I suppose.
LikeLike
And some punishment for there sin ay.. Ktismatics?
I thought Saml was of the opinion God did create and acts in the natural universe. I was just curious how people integrate that bad stuff in the God argument.
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan and John,
sorry for the delay in getting back to you, it’s been an unusually busy couple of days.
Yes, I do believe that God created and that God acts. I’m not certain that I have any kind of answer though for the things that are so obviously wrong with our world. Why entropy at all?
However painful to God (must be much more painful than it is to us as we can so easily forget and it takes something like a “Kew Hospital experience” to remind us) God does seem to limit His intervention to a specific path that he has chosen though I am very vague as to the reasons for this.
The redemption of this world (even universe?) seems to be being done in stages that for some reason most specifically call for mankind to find its way back to God.
To my small mind it looks like a hard route indeed, but that is the way it is.
That may not exactly be what you are asking. I guess your question is more along the lines of “is God responsible?” and “why doesn;t He do something about it?”…
LikeLike
And why laws on thermodynamics at all. I just wanted to focus in on Kew Hospital. I get tired of the “mysterious” ways of looking at things and wanted a specific and theoretical kind of answer. What’s in it for God to deform kids? Were they not deformed were they going to cause the end of the world or something? Why just not have them born in the first place. I can’t imagine a scenario that would be worthy of such cruelty. I just wondered what you thought Saml? As an atheist, I see it in random,mutation type event. I don’t imagine a God in this in the first place, but you do, and I was keen on hearing your rationality.
And Saml, I wouldn’t say either that you have a “small mind” when you think about it, Gods plan of sacreficing his son, the only sinless guy wasn’t really in anyway a “fantastic plan” I’m not sure God does all that much better than us myself.
Ivan
LikeLike
Well Ivan,
I am reduced finally to analogy to clarify the limits of my thinking!
Two people stand by the side of a road, preparing to cross. Vehicles are plying that road. One person (A)sees a gap and starts over, the other one (B);
I. decides that it’s too dangerous and remains, but does nothing to interfere with A’s action…
II. decides that it’s too dangerous, stays on the sidewalk and tries to tell A that it’s too risky.
III. knows that it’s going to be fatal but steps across with A.
The fourth scenario is that there is no B. A is strictly on his own.
V. …B grabs A by the hand and steps out while modulating the traffic to prevent an accident.
I. seems to me to be what philosophical Hinduism advocates (non-involvement).
II. Is what many morality code religions profess.
III. Is the JesusCreed.
IV. Is where atheism and perhaps Buddhism take their stand.
V. Pretty much includes all fundamentalism, Christian, Muslim or whatever.
The question of whence the road, wither the vehicles etc. are largely the territory of philosophy/religion and now, it seems, science too.
LikeLike
So God is responsible for what happened to those children?
LikeLike
Ivan,
Don’t know the answer to that one yet but i suspect not. I suspect that I am responsible for what happened to those kids. In spite of which, right now, in my field of vision, I’m at number III.
But that’s geting into doctrine/theology/philosophy and i know that it’s pretty much futile to expect to be able to work it all out. I’d rather be practical, accept the forgiveness that I have in Jesus and start walking the hard road behind Him to try and do whatever little i can.
I’d be interested in your thoughts, the few atheists I’ve talked to in some detail can’t reconcile their concern about the evil around them with their philosophical belief that it’s a necessary part of a mechanistic and somewhat random universe… perhaps very necessary for such random ‘mistakes’ are what drive evolution in the first place… tough luck kids.
LikeLike
Saml,
I don’t know enough about it medically. But I suspect some kind of genetic susceptibility. But honestly I don’t know. What I am still curious about though is, I visit a lot of Christian sites from time to time, and I can’t tell you how many times people have professed the all powerful and miraculous nature of their God. Sometimes they even go all intelligent design on me. But always when you place a little piece of concrete reality in front, God is all of a sudden off the hook and its all the fault of sinful old man again. It makes not an iota of sense to me. And it hasn’t made sense for centuries and why we have “mysterious ways” etc. The more powerful your God is, the harder deformed kids are to explain. Yet it happens, and worse. I find it a joy to read Christian rationalisations on this topic. Deformed stuff.. snakes with dual heads, ducks without feathers happens randomly throughout the natural world and of course its going to happen to humans. But if you believe in this all powerful cosmic God who knows you down to the hairs on a sparrows head, you would think, Hey…why does he do this to innocent children? I await a Christian answer sir.
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan,
I surely don’t have any ready made answer. One thing I decided long back was that when i do get a chance i surely will ask God whether he couldn’t have come up with anything less traumatic!
But then, paradoxically this is one of those very things that is convincing (to me) that God does exist and that he is a loving God.
It is surely strange that we feel the pain as much as enjoy the pleasures of this life as acutely as we do. Things seem so delicately balanced, placing each of us on the knife edge of decision, faith or rejection?
Free will is sustained. there is no overwhelming force driving us to God, it is strictly up to us to decide, without the evidence pushing us wholesale either into or out of God’s kingdom…
LikeLike
Sam, I liked the crossing the street metaphor. Mythic. I suppose if this were a play by Samuel Beckett both A and B would be waiting to cross without ever actually making their move.
LikeLike
Ivan, that’s scenario VI, agnosticism!
LikeLike
Saml,
Can you explain the “loving God” thing to me again in relation to these children? How is it an example paradoxially?
I presume it helps if your not one of the said children..I guess.
Ivan
LikeLike
“If God lived on earth, people would break his windows.” (Old Yiddish saying)
LikeLike
I heard another saying: If God didn’t exist we would have to invent her. On the other hand,if God did exist we would have to kill her.
and
History records very little in the way of mental activity on the part of the mass of mankind except a series of stampedes from affirmative errors into negative ones and back again.
Ktismatics and Saml,
I am sorry for boring you both banging on about the children in Kew hospital. Christianity doesn’t make sense to me as you both know, sometimes I get mentally stuck on one of the speedbumps of life, in this case deformed children, and need to have this rationalised against all the “sayings” that we attribute to God the good and Good the love. In my head it simply doesn’t make sense, and Saml answers don’t help me much. Its the little things that keep me in the ocean of Atheitism.
Ivan
LikeLike
Guys, apologies for the silence, you will have to put up with me for a couple days till i get back into town…
sam
LikeLike
No rush Sam I thought you were busy.
Ivan
LikeLike
Hi,
sorry, just got back from a rather hectic trip and one without time for thought or good net access.
Ivan, that God is good and loving I conclude only on the basis of Jesus. Whatever ‘explanations’ i may come up with for how the world is as it is etc. are strictly my own speculations. As you are inviting me to speculate let me give it a shot, tho the result will probably disappoint you as much as any of my previous sallies!
As i know the world, it’s a strange mixture of good and bad. perhaps the balance is tilted a bit towards the bad side but then that is my opinion. Bad includes the deformed babies, death, loveless, purposeless life, as well as actively doing nasty things to one another. The good things are altruism, beauty, love, and life itself.
From what I can garner from Jesus teaching He asks me to be thankful for the good things and to bear with the bad things while trying my best to make things as good and as less bad as I can. the question of why couldn’t the bad have been done away with seems to have something to do with mankind as a species continuing to be in rebellion against God. That is God has left mankind with a choice and each and every day we are exercising that choice.
The story right through the bible can be summarised as: After many attempts to bring us back by talking to us have failed, finally God comes to us as one of us to show us that there is a better way, that He still cares and wants us back. i.e. It is still up to each of us to see that truth and to respond to it however irrational it may seem.
as someone who appreciates a postmodern perspective, i am not that enamoured of rationality as the ultimate guide to truth. if i were not a follower of Jesus, with many other PoMo friends i might well doubt that there is such a thing as truth to be sought…
LikeLike
Saml,
I fully understand the need for Christians to be apologists for God, I don’t understand why you let him off the hook for every single incidence of evil in the world. What choices of man could possibly explain a hydroencephaletic child? I find your rationalisations irrational to my mind. It just doesn’t make any sense. I question big time, your assumption that mankind is “rebelling” against God I say we are doing the exact opposite, obeying God yet it doesn’t make a skerrick of difference with how the world unfolds.. its still random. Its still chaotic. Evil still unfolds, pointless evil, and great catastrophes still unfold that can only be the work of a loving God. I still for the life of me cannot see an aspect of “love” to do with a deity and human beings. It doesn’t exist .
Ivan
Saml, did you have a good trip? was it business or pleasure?
LikeLike
Wow, this has been a long an interesting thread…
Ivan, if you don’t mind my 2 cents… Why does the exisence of an hydroencephaletic child (or evil for that matter) detract from the notion of God, who is Holy and all Loving?
LikeLike
Ivan,
seems like you are demanding that God follow your reductionist pattern for what is right and wrong! I’m not sure how causation can be attributed to someone who may not even be bound by time so the logic that you made it happen so you are responsible may not be relevant especially when the results that are being played out seem to be interactive – man acting ‘independently’ has and is shaping how things are worked out.
that may seem like a cop out but that’s not what it’s meant to be, it’s an honest doubt. i have questions but i don’t know whether they are meaningful. still i do have the confidence that answers do exist – seek and you shall find, ask … someday!
LikeLike
Hi There Inetebiz,
I didn’t want to stay down this track, But I was determined to try and understand a small piece of Christian thinking. OmnipitentGod verses bad things happening has been a discussion for centuries. When I read pieces of how Christians describe what they believe God to be, you can only come to the opinion he intentionally causes some things to happen. The Children in the Kew hospital was to me an interesting example. It wasn’t my original example but one of another chaps called Terry Lane. When rationalising this, people frequently mention the “loving God” and to be honest I don’t quite understand many of his “loving” acts. Particularly loving acts of nature. I was trying to find some answers so I could better understand.
Ivan
LikeLike
Saml,
Well you may be right. But I would say to you, that this isn’t how Christians portray God in there advertising at all (being outside of time) they regularly and with great repetitively thank God for all the good things, rain after drought, or tornados missing houses as if God acts here and now physically in the same moment as us.He also clearly does Biblically too. So is God responsible for the Kew Children? If your going to say no he isn’t.. and God is divorced from causality, Then of what good is God to us? Of what possible benefit can prayer provide? Gods either of value to us or not your saying then he can’t interfere with stuff down here at ground zero?
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan,
can’t is a word that i am unqualified to use about God (or anything else for that matter). i’m trying to be a bit more modest in my own thinking, starting with what little i think i know and am really not too keen on extrapolating grand schemes of everything from that!
God’s love (sorry to be stuck on this but it is mey starting point) is Jesus. Based on what Jesus said and did I assume that God can intervene if He wants to but that He does not generally do so as the main point of the story so far is that He wants us to decide, based on a fairly evenly balanced set of data, whether we choose to follow Him or not.
I believe that He does care, even about the smallest of our misfortunes but, like any good teacher, does not always fall over Himself to give us the easy answer. But here i’m idly speculating…
the challenge to me is in Jesus, am I going to follow Him or not? following does not, to my thinking, mean that i should expect Him to create a good parking spot … it probably does mean that if I take Him seriously and live a life oriented to justice, truth and love that i will end up where He did, in principle if not in actual practice, because i do believe that man (myself included) by and large much prefers darkness to light and we become very incomfortable when light is shone on our darkness.
that, for me, is where the rubber hits the road, daily!
LikeLike
Hi Ivan,
You said that you don’t understand God’s loving acts, particularly God’s loving acts of nature. Hopefully I can unpack this for you. But realize, there are a couple of things working here. When we look at the essence of God we know that God loves, however, God’s love is not based on what he does, God is not loving because he loves. But rather God is loving because he is love.. it is about what he is, its about his nature. Jesus said (I don’t hesitate to quote Jesus to you because you keep a statue of him on your desk) that you can tell a tree by its fruit. That a good tree produces good fruit and a bad tree produces bad fruit, and a good tree cannot produce bad fruit and a bad tree cannot produce good fruit. That you don’t get both bad fruit and good fruit from the same tree… And it’s the same with God. God loves because he is love. And that whatever God does flows from his nature. So it about the nature of God, and remember that God has other qualities, for instance God is Holy and Righteous and we cannot ignore or over emphasize one of God’s attributes at the expense of the other. That all of God’s attributes work together, they are his essence and there is no contradiction or confusion in them.
Now in the context of this discussion, when we look at the creation, the world we live in, its nature; what we experience here and now is not the same as it was when God created it. It is not the same because all of creation has been subjected to frustration and is groaning. So when we see disease and illness, we see things that are the outworking of the frustration that all of creation has been subjected. So now at this point you probably thinking all of creation was frustrated? All of creation was frustrated in the fall; and the fall is connected God’s holiness and justice. And again, let’s not ignore or over emphasize one of God’s attributes at the expense of another that is justice or righteousness at the expense of holiness, and holiness at the expense of love.
I stop here in the spirit of keeping the discussion focused…
LikeLike
Saml,
Can you explain the light darkness thing for me? I have heard some kind of similar thing said before by a Christian group and I am not sure I fully understand..can you give me an example?
Ivan
LikeLike
Hi there Inetebitz,
Are you saying God is an emotional reponse? I am not sure I understand. I also am having difficulty with the concept of letting God off the hook because the world now is somehow different to the world at first point of human habitation.. Its just not clear to me. I also would ask if you could rationalise the God that “is” love with the lovely unfolding of the Kew hospital infants? What would you then give to me as an example of say.. something evil? I can’t grasp your image of God with what I see as common reality.
If that makes sense?
Ivan
LikeLike
Inetebiz,
I am very interested in the post you made to me about frustration and groaning and the resulting disease. I have never had anybody explain it to me this way. some questions:
1. How did you come about this explanation? What made you start to think down this particular path?
2. Saml, what do you think of Inetebiz’s comments?
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan,
Justice, truth and love just about sums up Jesus teaching, that and the concept of sacrificial, self givingness. These are the characteristics that John opens his ‘story of Jesus’ with and he calls this “light”
The opposite is what is called darkness; injustice, selfishness, and untruth.
The Genesis story (1st book of the bible) is about man’s creation as God’s gardener and man’s subsequent disobedience resulting in “the fall” of man. Later in the bible it is stated that not only did man fall but he dragged the creation also into a state of falleness and the entire creation now ‘groans’ awaiting God’s redemption of the world.
It’s a pretty good explanation for what we are and the state that this world finds itself in!
LikeLike
Saml,
But wasn’t this just “2” people? And I think it was Eve that made the mistake wasn’t it? How does this translate to all of mankind being driven towards evil? This isn’t what I see at all.
I don’t agree at all that we are waiting on some kind of God driven redemptive action, there are thousands of cases of Humans acting for the common good of us all irrespective of any religious influence.
Saml, wasn’t Jesus’s actions one of inclusion and equality for the poor wretches of the day excluded from Jewish temples? The sacrefice was of Jesus getting murdered which really wasn’t him killing himself if you get my point? Saml where does Jesus say to “forgive yourself” in the bible?
I think you lay a ton of blame on “man” but continue to let your God off the hook. Do you think God is in anyway guilty of committing design flaws in that we have this capacity of sinning?
Ivan
Whose computer committed Hari Kari last week.
LikeLike
Ivan,
i can appreciate that you have a problem thinking that there may be something like free will but the bible story simply does not make any sense in a deterministic environment as far as man’s role is concerned. Man is set off in Genesis as special and as free to choose. One does not give someone freedom of choice and then nullify that choice. The action had and has consequences.
In some sense germinally or otherwise we were all participants in Eve and Adam’s disobedience and we do so continue to be.
Next, as far as the universe groaning and waiting for God’s redemption (inetebiz), this is specifically about the rest of creation – the part that has no choice. We humans are in the position of having seen Jesus and now are left with a choice, to follow or not…
God will redeem the world and restore it (that’s predicted in the bible) but Jesus demand to His followers is to follow His lifestyle here and now, i.e. His actions, and as you so rightly point out that is indeed revolutionarily and iconoclastically proactive. there is no question of ‘waiting around’ for God to do His bit, in fact Jesus predicts that many people will precisely be too laid back and they will be the first to face God’s rejection!
btw, In what way would it help if I were to blame God for everything?
LikeLike
Hi Saml,
Good explanation, thank you sir!
I didn’t want you to blame God for “everything” as such.. I merely thought as God gets thanked for all and sundry if the outcome is a positive one, I had noticed that he never gets any kind of blame for the bad stuff. He is always cosmically off the hook. I had thought this was because people were frightened in some way. Interestingly, the only time I ever hear of people of faith getting angry and blaming the diety is the unfortunate occurrence of the death of a child.
regards
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan,
Sorry to hear that you computer went Hari Kari on you last week. I’ll try to respond to your questions as best as I can.
First off, God is not an emotional response… we can be emotional with our response to God. If anything we understand God through logic, which is consistent with the Apostle John’s introduction of Christ in the Gospel, where he says that “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.” (John 1:1-2) and “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.” (John 1:14)
John talks about the essential Word of God, Jesus Christ, the personal wisdom and power in union with God. In the original Greek the word used for “Word” is Logos, which is also used with respect to the MIND alone – reason, the mental faculty of thinking, meditating, reasoning, and calculating. In fact we arrive at the English word logic from the Greek word logos.
As for letting God off the hook… again, let’s be careful not to play God’s love against God’s justice. It sounds like you are saying that a loving God has a responsibility in His love over things that happen in this fallen world like the Kew hospital infants. Why? What is it that you are expecting from God?
Also, you said that you are interested in the explanation that I offered and wanted to know why I went down that path. The explanation I offered is fundamental to Christian thinking. The apostle Paul offers a discussion on these things in his letter to the Romans. Particularly, Paul discusses the fall, Eve was deceived, but it is Adam who credited with sin and Paul goes on to say that it is by Adam’s offence and disobedience that death and sin are introduced into the world; and Adam’s nature is passed down to all mankind because through the one, many were made sinners and judgment came upon all men. Paul also talks about the reign of death as it relates to the law of God, the transgression of which is death and that God’s law is not to be presumed to be the law of Moses because Death reigned from Adam to Moses and sin is not imputed where there is no law. Paul then continues in his discourse on the awesomeness of Christ’s works and how His righteousness and life is made available to all believers. In a like manner, through the righteousness and obedience of one, that is Christ as the second Adam, many are made righteous and this is the free gift that has come upon all. Paul then expounds on the greatest truth in the Gospel that grace and love is available through Christ, and is all sufficient and all effective to overcome the guilt of sin and death that Adam first introduced.
Again, I’ll stop here towards the ends of being focused..
Respectfully submitted
LikeLike
Hi there Inetebiz,
I guess what I expect from a God, is that he lives up to the publicity. I don’t think he does at all. I understand your writings from John, But as I understand it, its thought that John hadn’t actually met Jesus. His writings are more geared towards how he “wants” God and Jesus to be rather than how they might have actually been. This has been my understanding anyway.
In regards to Adam, don’t you think a lifetime of death for all humanity down through the ages for one sin a bit harsh? Seriously.. does this not sound more like a dictator than a God?
Hey and don’t worry about taking the discussion of course, your a very interesting explainer!
kind regards
Ivan
LikeLike
Hi Ivan,
I just want to make of quick mention on your comment about John. John is one of the 12 apostles. John was known as the disciple whom Jesus loved and was one of three that was part of Jesus’ inner circle, who witnessed more than the others (of Jesus miracles, his transfiguration, his agony etc.) John writings are first hand accounts and are a testimony of the ministry of Jesus Christ on this earth. And please do not discount the importance of an eye witness first hand testimony, in our justice system the eye witness account and testimony of a murder is enough to gain a conviction.
Onto the other matters, the term dictator has a negative connation of being a tyrant or a despot. God is not a dictator. God is an absolute ruler and does have absolute power but nevertheless you find that offensive. In previous parts of this discussion/thread you make a claim to atheism and at the same time you seem troubled by the presence of evil in this world, and argue that since evil exists that this is incompatible with the Christian God, thus there is no God or it at least this shows that what Christianity affirms about God is false.. (e.g. what has been publicized and that God is merely a dictator). I want to unpack this some more, but just beware, that my discussion is going to be very comprehensive because of all the issues that are at work here. So in that spirit my response will be in several posts… hopefully it will have some continuity and push the discussion along.
See what happens when you tell me not to worry!
LikeLike
Ivan, the discussion at hand:
Christians affirm that God is omnipotent (all-powerful) and all-loving. Therefore, reason says that since God is all-powerful, the he possesses the ability to terminate evil, and if he is all-loving, then he wishes to terminate evil; however, since evil exists, this means that God does not exist, or at least it means that the things Christians publicize or affirm about God are false. That is, even if God exists, since evil also exists, he cannot be both all-powerful and all-loving; therefore, Christianity must be false. So at best Christians, have a problem with evil.
LikeLike
The problem with the free-will explanation…
Now, many will offer a “free will” explanation when answering the problem of evil, that in the context of biblical narratives, this approach states that when God created man, he wanted to grant him free will – a power to make independent decisions, even to rebel against his maker. Of course, God was aware that man would sin, but this is the price of granting man free will. By creating man with free will, God also created the potential for evil, but as the free will argument goes, since man is truly free, the actualization of this potential for evil can be blamed only on man himself. Those who use the free will argument add that the potential or even the actualization of evil is not too high a price for granting man genuine free will.
To many, the free will argument sounds plausible and reasonable, it is an irrational and unbiblical theodicy – it fails to answer the problem of evil, and it contradicts Scripture. First, the free will argument doesn’t address the problem, but rather shifts the discussion from why evil exists in God’s universe to why God created a universe with the potential for such great evil. Second, many affirm that God is omniscient (all-knowing), so that he did not create the universe and humankind realizing only that they had the potential to become evil; rather, he knew for certain that there would be evil. Thus either directly or indirectly, God created evil.
Now, we can distinguish between natural evil and moral evil – natural evil includes things like the Kew Hospital kids, earthquakes and floods, whereas moral evil refers to the wicked actions that humans commit. Even if the free will argument provides a satisfactory explanation for moral evil, it fails to adequately address natural evil. Some may claim that it is moral evil that leads to natural evil; however, only God has the power to create a relationship between the two, so that earthquakes and floods do not have any necessary connections with murder and theft unless God makes it so – that is, unless God decides to cause earthquakes and floods because of murder and theft committed by his creatures. Thus God again appears to be the ultimate cause of evil, whether natural or moral.
Even if Adam’s sin had brought death and decay, not only to mankind but also to the animals, Scripture insists that not one sparrow can die apart from God’s will (Matthew 10:29). That is, if there is any connection between moral evil and natural evil, the connection is not inherent (as if anything is inherent apart from God’s will), but rather sovereignly imposed by God. Even the seemingly insignificant cannot occur without, not merely the permission, but the active will and decree of God. Christians are not deists – we do not believe that this universe operates by a set of natural laws that are independent from God. The Bible shows us that God is now actively running the universe, so that nothing can happen or continue apart from God’s active power and decree (Colossians 1:17; Hebrews 1:3). If we should use the term at all, what we call “natural laws” are only descriptions about how God regularly acts, although he is by no means bound to act in those ways.
God controls everything that is and everything that happens. There is not one thing that happens that he has not actively decreed – not even a single thought in the mind of man including the birth of the Kew Hospital kids. Since this is true, it follows that God has decreed the existence of evil, he has not merely permitted it, as if anything can originate and happen apart from his will and power. There is no creature that can make completely independent decisions, therefore, evil could never have started without God’s active decree, and it cannot continue for one moment longer apart from God’s will. God decreed evil ultimately for his own glory, although it is not necessary to know or to state this reason to defend Christianity from the problem evil.
Those who see that it is impossible to altogether disassociate God from the origination and continuation of evil nevertheless try to distance God from evil by saying that God merely “permits” evil, and that he does not cause any of it. However, since Scripture itself states that God actively decrees everything, and that nothing can happen apart from his will and power, it makes no sense to say that he merely permits something – nothing happens by God’s mere permission. Since “in him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28), on a metaphysical level, it is impossible to do anything at all in independence from God. Without him, a person cannot even think or move. How, then, can evil be devised and committed in total independence from him? How can one even think evil apart from God’s will and purpose? I do not need to “protect” God from something that he does not need protection from, and I happily acknowledge with the Bible that God has actively decreed evil
LikeLike
Hey that’s not fair…
Now, you may be thinking or even want to challenge God’s right and justice in decreeing the existence of evil for his own glory and purpose. But, God as the creator has the right to do whatever he wants with his creatures. And not one of his creatures has any right to take an objection in the first place. The apostle Paul deals with this when he says: “One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” 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?” Romans 9:19-21).
In fact, a person having difficulty accepting that God would decree the existence of evil implies that he finds something “wrong” with God making such a decree. However, what is the standard of right and wrong by which this person judges God’s actions? If there is a moral standard superior to God, to which God himself is accountable and by which God himself is judged, then this “God” is not God at all; rather, this higher standard would be God. However, the Christian concept of God refers to the highest being and standard, so there is by definition nothing higher. In other words, if there is something higher than the “God” that a person is arguing against, then this person is not really referring to the Christian God. Since this is the case, there is no standard higher than God to which God himself is accountable and by which God himself is judged. Therefore, it is logically impossible to accuse God of doing anything morally wrong.
Jesus says that only God is good (Luke 18:19), so that all “goodness” in other things can only be derivative. God’s nature defines goodness itself, and since he “does not change like shifting shadows” (James 1:17), he is the sole and constant standard of goodness. No matter how moral I am, one cannot consider me the objective standard of goodness, since even the word “moral” is meaningless unless it is used relative to God’s character. That is, how “moral” a person is refers to the degree of conformity of his character to God’s character. To the degree that a person thinks and acts in accordance with God’s nature and commands, he is moral. Otherwise, there is no moral difference between altruism and selfishness; virtue and vice are meaningless concepts; rape and murder are not crimes, but amoral events.
Now, since God calls himself good, and since God has defined goodness for us by revealing his nature and commands, evil is thus defined as anything that is contrary to his nature and commands. Since God is good, and since he is the only definition of goodness, it is also good that he decreed the existence of evil. There is no standard of good and evil by which we can denounce his decree as wrong or evil. I am not affirming that evil is good – that would be a contradiction – but I am saying that God’s decree for the existence of evil is good. For instance, in Hebrews 6:13 we see “When God made his promise to Abraham, since there was no one greater for him to swear by, he swore by himself.” In other words, there is no one to hold God accountable, and there is no court to which one may drag him in order to press charges against him. No one judges God; rather, every person is judged by him. (Other related Scriptures Job 9:3-12; Job 40:2-8; Isaiah 45:9-11 and Romans 11:33-36).
LikeLike
Back to the main point:
So then it stands that the argument that (1) if the Christian God is all-powerful and all-loving, (2) if he is all-powerful, then he is able to end all evil, (3) if he is all-loving then he wants to end all evil, (4) but evil still exists, (5) then the Christian God does not exist. The argument is flawed in that premise (3), namely, in that the definition of love, wanting to end all evil. That is, by what definition of love do we know that an all-loving God would want to destroy evil? Or, by what definition of love do we know that an all-loving God would have already destroyed evil?
If this definition of love comes from outside of the Christianity, then why must the Christian worldview answer to it? To form an argument using a non Christian definition of love would make the argument irrelevant as a challenge to Christianity. On the other hand, if we take the definition of love from the Bible, then the one who uses this argument must show that the Bible itself defines love in a way that requires an all-loving God to destroy evil, or to have already destroyed evil. Unless you can successfully defend premise (3), the argument from the problem of evil fails before we even finish reading it.
Now, if you use a non-biblical definition of love in premise (1), then the argument is a straw man fallacy from the start. But if the you use the biblical definition of love in premise (1), and then substitutes a non-biblical definition of love in premise (3), then you commits the fallacy of equivocation. If so, then the most that his argument accomplishes is to point out that he has a non-biblical definition of love, but it would be completely irrelevant as a challenge to Christianity.
On the other hand, if you try to use the biblical definition of love, then for your argument to be relevant, Scripture itself would have to define love in a way that requires God to destroy evil, or to have already destroyed evil. However, although Scripture teaches that God is loving, it also teaches that there is evil in this world, and that this evil is ultimately under God’s complete and sovereign control. Therefore, Scripture itself denies that there is any contradiction between the love of God and the existence of evil.
For the argument from the problem of evil to stand, you must establish the premise, “The love of God contradicts the existence of evil,” or something to that effect. But Scripture itself does not affirm this premise, and if you try to argue for this premise with definitions of love and evil found in your own non-biblical worldview, then all you have done is to successfully show that the biblical worldview is different from the non-biblical worldview. Obviously, we already know this, but what has become of the problem of evil? Ivan are you pointing to the scriptural teaching about God’s love, then using a non-biblical definition of love that requires God to destroy evil, to form “contradiction” that proves God to be false or something other that the Christian God?.
If a you want to challenge the Bible or hold the Bible accountable for what it says, then you must first let it define its own terms; otherwise, you are only challenging what the Bible does not say, which makes the objection irrelevant. The non-Christian must demonstrate why God’s love necessarily implies that he must or that he desire to destroy evil, or that it necessarily implies that he must have or that he desires to have already destroyed evil.
To say something like, “Because a loving God would want to relieve suffering of the Kew Hospital kids,” does not help at all, since it only restates the premise in different words, so that the same question remains. Why must a loving God desire to relieve suffering? How does one define suffering in the first place? If you cannot define either love or suffering, or if you cannot logically impose your definitions on the Christian, then your premise amounts to saying that a God with an undefined attribute L must desire to destroy or to have destroyed an undefined E. But if he can define neither L nor E, then what intelligible premise do you have from which to construct an intelligible argument against Christianity.
Also, be careful not to think “well God would want to triumph over evil.” Again, what is the definition of “triumph”? If God himself is the ultimate cause of evil, and if God exercises total and constant control over it, then in what sense is he ever “losing” to evil? So whatever you say, you are faced with the same problem, and it is impossible for you to establish that the love of God contradicts the existence of evil.
LikeLike
What does the Bible say?
The Bible teaches about both the love of God and the reality of suffering, and thus it is legitimate to conclude that, from the biblical perspective, the love of God does not necessarily imply that he must destroy evil, or that he must have already destroyed it. Of course this may not be so from the non-biblical perspective, but again, this only shows that the biblical worldview disagrees with non-biblical worldviews, which we already know, and which is the reason for this discussion in the first place. But you still have not given me a real and intelligible objection.
As long as you fail to establish premise (3), that the love of God contradicts the existence of evil, the Christian is under no obligation to take seriously the problem of evil as an argument against Christianity. In fact, since you have not defined some of the key terms, logically who can even understand the argument – there is no argument, and there is no real objection to answer.
LikeLike
One Step further…
Now, with that said, I am even willing to take the argument a step further… let say that we buy into the premise for now; that is, for the sake of discussion, I will assume that the love of God somehow contradicts the existence of evil, while keeping in mind that this is something that Scripture never teaches, and you have not established.
Now, one might argue that given the existence of evil, the Christian God cannot logically exist. In response, we have already shown that you cannot establish the premise that an all-loving God must necessarily destroy evil or desire to destroy evil. Having said that, notice that the premises of the argument do not necessarily lead to your conclusion in the first place; rather, very different conclusions are possible:
1. The Christian God is all-powerful and all-loving.
2. If he is all-powerful, then he is able to end all evil.
3. If he is all-loving, then he wants to end all evil.
4. But evil still exists.
5. Therefore, God has a good purpose for evil.
1. The Christian God is all-powerful and all-loving.
2. If he is all-powerful, then he is able to end all evil.
3. If he is all-loving, then he wants to end all evil.
4. But evil still exists.
5. Therefore, God will eventually destroy evil.
Without immediately stating whether or not we think the above two arguments are valid or invalid, the point is that in a valid argument, the premises must necessarily and inevitably lead to the conclusion. However, in the argument from the problem of evil, the premises by no means necessarily and inevitably lead to the conclusion. Therefore, the argument from the problem of evil is invalid.
Instead of using the reality of evil to deny the existence of God, the two revised versions above come to two different conclusions. Again, I have not said whether these two revised versions are good arguments, and I have not said that the premises necessarily and inevitably lead to these two conclusions; rather, all I am trying to show is that the premises do not necessarily and inevitably lead to the non-Christian’s conclusion, and this is enough to show that your argument is invalid.
LikeLike
Yea, so what’s the purpose in that?
Now you may say that if Christians claims that God has a good purpose for evil, then Christians must also state and defend this purpose. However, I have yet to see someone who has been able to show me why the Christians must state and defend this purpose. The discussion is about whether the given premises necessarily and inevitably lead to your conclusion. Whether or not there is a good purpose for evil, and whether or not Christians can state and defend this purpose, is completely irrelevant. As it is, the Bible indeed explains at part of God’s purpose for evil, but again, it is not logically necessarily or relevant to the discussion.
LikeLike
And now for something completely contrary…
Furthermore, we can say that the existence of the Christian God is in fact the logical prerequisite for the existence of evil. That is, evil is meaningless and undefined without an objective and absolute standard of right and wrong, good and evil, and this standard can only be the Christian God.
When the non-Christian states that evil exists, what does he mean by “evil”? He may be referring to greed, hate, murder, rape, earthquakes, floods, kids like the one in the Kew Hospital and the like. However, on what basis and by what standard does one call these things evil? Do you call these things evil just because you disapprove of them? Any definition or standard of evil that we give without appealing to the Christian God and the Christian Scripture is meaningless.
For example, if you claim that murder is wrong because it violates the right to life of the victim, we only need to ask why the victim has any right to life? Who gives him this so-called right? Non-Christians? Who says that there is anything as a right in the first place? Non-Christians have tried many arguments, but all of them have been exposed as foolish and unjustified.
On the other hand, the Christian affirms that murder is wrong, immoral, and evil because God forbids murder: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man” (Genesis 9:6); God explicitly disallows it when he says, “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13). It is consistent with the Christian worldview to say that murder is evil and that the murderer must be held accountable, but the non-Christian can never justify the same claim. He cannot even authoritatively define murder.6
Your claims that evil exists, and from that basis evaluates what Christianity says about God. You use something that you claim to be obvious (evil) to refute something that he claims to be unobvious. However, the existence of evil is not obvious at all unless there is an absolute, objective, and universal moral standard, and that we somehow know this standard, so that we make evaluations with it. Since you fail to establish such a standard, and since you fail to establish how you know such a standard, all your references to evil are meaningless and unintelligible, and your argument from the problem of evil has no effect against Christianity. In fact, on the basis of your worldview, you do not even know what your own argument means.
When a person denies the existence of God, he has no rational basis to affirm the existence of evil; by logical necessity, our recognition of God precedes our recognition of evil. Unless the Christian God is presupposed, evil remains undefined. When you argue against Christianity by using the problem of evil, the argument is not fair, because you borrow the moral absolute of Christianity in the process of arguing against Christianity. Yet, you cannot refer to any natural or moral evil without implicitly acknowledging a standard by which to judge something as evil. If you acknowledge the existence of evil, then you must first acknowledge the existence of God, but if you already acknowledge the existence of God, then the argument from the problem of evil is pointless.
I know that you are objective, and hopefully are truly grasping the discussion. At this point, you are probably trying to offer some workable definition of evil to rescue your argument. But remember I am looking to you for a justification for your claims and definitions.
Well, I’ve exhausted the argument and hopefully have not abused the privilege of discussing this on Ktismatics blog…
Respectfully submitted…
LikeLike
I just thought I’d toss in a comment to break this incredible run by inetebiz. How is that pronounced: eye-net-e-biz? eye-neet-biz? What does it connote, this mysterious monicker?
LikeLike
Inetebiz, Its going to take me days to read your comments!! Stay tuned would you? It will take me a little time to read and get back. My computer died a few days ago, just a motherboard problem, and I had a crazy acccident cycling yesterday and dislocated one arm!! I’m ok, but I am typing one handed and can only borrow a computer intermittently whilst mine is being repaired. But stay with me I will get back
Ivan
LikeLike
Inetebiz,
I have two problems with God. One is the fact I have been an atheist for something like 40 years. I’m 49 years old and have been an atheist that long! The God question fascinates me, and I read a fair bit about it and some biblical stuff also, but I have not read it all I have to admit. Dawkins recently put out a book called The God delusion, commenting on this book is what got me here on Ktismatics in the first place, a big thank you to John again for allowing that.
Dawkins described Christians and Atheists on a numbered scale and on this scale I am the equal with a Christian fundamentalist but in the opposite direction.
I didn’t realise that about me until reading that. The trouble is I don’t have the intellectual background to fully support my own position I guess I am not the smartest tool in the shed here. But I would like to learn.
The comments I may make about Biblical authenticity is from stuff I read that usually quotes “most Biblical Scholars believe” or “Its popularly thought” etc etc. It’s not ever me making up the quote it’s usually something I have read in something reputable.
The other thing is of course what I call “Christian advertising” often in slogan form nearly always unchallenged. I take note of this stuff and apply it to the world I inhabit and very often it refuses to make sense. God is love is one such line.. another.. He gave his only begotten son.. etc.. They are lines of advertising that don’t make a whole bunch of sense to me.
Let me read and understand all you have kindly typed out for me and I am immensely grateful to you for doing this. And maybe I might be in a position to properly reply to you tonight.
Kind regards
Ivan
LikeLike
Dear inetebiz,
I just had a low fat hamburger (McDonalds) and might make a few quick comments on your quite magnificent reply!
I don’t know that John’s writings are “first hand” accounts. I know Christians need for them to be, but as I understand it, it’s more likely they are not at all. In fact, it’s likely they were written by some one who has not personally met Jesus. Similarly to the famous Sermon on the Mount being no sermon at all just a popular list of Jesus wisdom. I’m not the expert, but I have read people who are and this is the “scholarly” view as I understand it.
You mention that eye witness accounts are good testimony? I say, they are not. Many people claim to witness entirely different things witnessing the one account. There are numerous studies, I can get you them if you want?
God is not a dictator? Maybe not exactly, but pretty much almost wouldn’t you have to say?
I read and re-read your passages on argument and logic, and pretty much all of them make no sense to me. I might have to go into it later in detail; I might not have the time this exact moment.
Eg; Evil exists so God can’t exist? He can’t be all powerful and all loving so Christianity makes no sense? The supposition is the thing that makes no sense. You’re kind of in a logic trap.
You say, God was aware man would sin? Well apparently not sir. If he was going to be “aware” he wouldn’t have been so eternally peed off with Adam now would he sir?
The actualization of sin can only be blamed on man? Get out of here!! How did that work? Are you not letting your God off the hook with this argument?
I agree, directly or indirectly God did create evil.
You say you happily acknowledge that God actively decreed evil. This is my point. By definition it’s not much of an example of love is it?
You say in the next paragraph God has the perfect “right” to create evil. So this is the God you want to worship right? The one creating a whole big lorry load of evil… we going to “whorship” him are we?
Suddenly.. Satan isn’t looking all that bad.
You ask by what standard do I hold God to? Inferring that mine might be substandard. We have laws now that would imprison God if he were a person because of the danger he would pose to humanity. My standards are non Biblical. I have sense of justice and sense of right, I hold him to a simple basic human standard of common decency. I say, your God does not meet this elementary standard of good.
You equate later moral goodness as meaningless unless measured against your God, I fully refrute that sir. Morals have little if anything to do with either your bible or your God.
You mention Abraham, and swearing to himself God can only be accountable to himself? Your right, or otherwise God would be guilty of child abuse and aggravated cruelty. In regards to the story of Abraham.
Most of comment 5 your back in the logic trap. I need to explain this a bit but can’t right now. (lack of time) can I get back to you a little later?
In the question about my description of God and love,towards the end of 5, I mean love in the conventional sense. No “wordplay” I mean love as every Church and preacher and Christian keeps referring to God and love. The basic definition of the word. This isn’t a trick question.
You can’t keep using the argument that the bible must “define” its own terms.
Inetebiz, no one.. Literally no one knows what the bible “means” They never did.. its why a Jesus who lived without money now has a word that is interpreted as God wants you to be a millionaire. Its why he can say Thou shall not kill and we kill 4000 Iraqi’s. It’s why we have literally hundreds of different religions just based on the Christian one alone! It makes no consistent sense even to people expert in the field.
LikeLike
Further,
You say: because the God of love wouldn’t want to relieve the suffering of the Kew children? No, Inetebiz, I say, a loving God would not have created this monstrosity in the first place.
Last paragraph of 6.
What the? Oh yes my friend there is a case to answer. You’re playing semantics with the key terms. You know the popular or common definitions used to describe moral states good evil and love. The terms are clearly defined sir.
Paragraph 7.
5. Therefore has a good purpose for evil? What? You mean, provide employment for Psychiatric nursing? What possible case in the cosmos could exist for God allowing unadulterated cruelty of the Kew children? Your answer Gob smacks me!
Therefore God will eventually destroy evil? How about not creating it in the first blinkin place!
Paragraph 8 Christians MUST state and defend that purpose because you’re the guys selling a religion! You can’t make crazy God is love statements without backing the statement up. Its not God making these claims, its Christians interpreting a very old book that may or may not having anything to with a God.
Question 9 middle paragraph.. What basis do I call this evil? Little teeny tiny babies with heads bigger than a huge watermelon? I’d say we were off to a good start in describing evil. Of course I disapprove. What other possible view could a humanist with a conscience have?
What in the dickens do you mean evil has no definition against scripture? Scripture has nothing whatsoever to do with good and evil.
Can I move to the last comment.. Rescuing an argument? Justifying my claims? You haven’t answered my central point. Your Christian advertising does not correlate with the real world experiences. God is either incompetent or not omnipotent. I say to you, why do we find the God who must have created or designed your God and find something up the chain that has a conscience. Your God clearly doesn’t.
Do I make any sense or am I ranting again?
Forgive me if I ranted. Its the lack of time I have and computer hours whilst my one gets fixed its very frustrating!
Kind regards
Ivan
LikeLike
Hi all,
Sorry for my absence and silence. Just got back late last night after a very exciting animal census where the most frightening part (for me) was being totally responsible for fifteen 18-year-olds!
It’s going to take me a while to catch up on this fascinating discussion, and I hope inetibiz will not mind if i keep offering the ‘free will’ option…
more later,
LikeLike
Hey welcome back Samlcarr!
Hey did you need a whip and a chair? bit like lion taming?
Ivan
LikeLike
I just wanted to explain something.
You would have heard that nursery story about the Emperor who went around unclothed? This story reminds me a lot about myself and Christianity. When I have visited about at various times different Christian websites I keep noticing something. You know that saying “God works in mysterious ways”? I tend to see a lot of really educated people doing a version of the Emperors story. And I just want to scream out sometimes.. “He is not wearing any clothes”! or “There isn’t really a God there, your listening to yourselves think”.
Christians particularly work to understand and rationalise a God who doesn’t appear to be their. And if he was there, they try and rationalise why they have millions of dollars and polar opposites to Jesus yet still want to get into heaven.
It’s just so odd.
The Bible is replete with stories of God pulling up his shirt sleeves and parting oceans to save people, yet in modern times.. not a peep is heard. Christians are Christians because there families are Christian and there country is also. Muslims are Muslims for identical reasons yet clearly you both cannot be right. But you both indeed may be wrong.
I have heard story after story of God “entering a life” or “blessing a life” etc which always boils down to the blessee being fortunate enough to live in a first world country with first world medical care, finding a church social group and a “mate” in that group and then having a kid. Which is great, but it’s nothing close to “evidence” of some kind of supreme intelligence. Does that make sense? God talks to peoples hearts in the same way as our little inside voice talks to us all, even us atheists. I am on a quest to find evidence.. Any evidence no matter how thin, Is there any real world, real life evidence of a God, other than “feelings” or feelings of the heart?
LikeLike
Ktismatics,
Inetebiz is a way I registered in this site in order to tap into the spam api at wordpress.
I stumbled into this thread and your blog recognized my user… for the record my name is Vince, I didn’t sign that to avoid confusion and didn’t want to create another user… sorry if this has caused some confusion.
Also, if my contributions are problematic or become so, just let me know..
Thanks again,
Vince
LikeLike
Ivan,
I hear you about the computer problem… sometimes we don’t miss the water until the well runs dry..
Vince
LikeLike
Vince/inetebiz –
You’re welcome to hang around as long as you like, or as long as other people on the thread have no objections. As you can see, it’s been a long conversation that started as a spamcatcher workaround.
John/ktismatics
LikeLike
Ivan,
I hear what you are saying… especially in the brand of Christianity we see in our world at times. Unfortunately, too often we see proclaiming Christians that perpetrate the exact things you describe, however what they have is a form of Godliness with out the power of it. But I am encouraged that you are wrestling these things and that you are on a quest to find evidence of a God, that is more substantive than feelings or feelings of the heart. Please, do not stop demanding for substance and logic in your pursuit of the truth. Christianity does not demand or require that we check our brains at the door… (so to speak). In fact, God says “Come now let us reason together.”
You claim that you have been an atheist for 40 years now… I am not sure what Dawkin’s scale is all about, but it sounds like you are dogmatic about it. You know from a logical perspective have you really examine what atheism is. Atheism is the doctrine or the belief that there is no God, or a disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. So in your belief have you really examined the evidence that is before us? In order for you to say that there is no God, you would need to have complete knowledge of all things, that is complete knowledge of the earth and everything in it, complete knowledge of the universe and everything in it and complete knowledge of what is beyond the universe and its contents. For instance, if I were to say that there is no tea in China, I would need to know everything about China in order to conclude that there is no tea in China. I would need to know, what was planted in every field, what was in every cupboard, every draw, every warehouse etc. I would need complete knowledge of everything about China to know for certain that there was no tea there. Now in the same vane, if you arrived at the conclusion that you believe that God does not exist; that you are in essence claiming complete knowledge of all things. I don’t believe that you possess complete knowledge of the earth, and everything in it, complete knowledge of the universe and everything in it and complete knowledge of what is beyond the universe and its content; therefore you could not possibly know with any degree of certainly that God does not exist. In the least, you must recognize you limited knowledge and if you are honest with the facts you need to relegate your atheistic position to that of an agnostic.
At the same time, if we lack total and complete knowledge of all things – how then can we say there is a God? We do not need to have total and complete knowledge of all things in order to conclude that there is a God; we merely require a little knowledge or evidence of the larger truth in order to reach such a conclusion. In keeping with our example, in order for me to conclude that there is tea in China, all I would have to do is obtain a little knowledge or evidence that there is but a single tea leaf in China. In the same way I challenge you to look for that piece of knowledge and find compelling evidence for God’s existence; and Ivan, if are is truly open minded and would proceed without bias, you too will be in a place where you cannot help but conclude that a belief in God is the only rational alternative to your current beliefs.
So what knowledge or evidence do we have that God exists? God has revealed Himself through His creation, through the conscience of men and through the person and the work of Jesus Christ. Jesus claimed to be God in human flesh (John 8:58) which is evidenced by his personal character, fulfillment of prophecy, his influence on history and his resurrection from the dead.
And also Ivan, you made some general comments about not knowing about John’s writings and not being an expert as such, but that you have read people who are, and this is the “scholarly” view as you understand it. But the question I have for you is – have you, Ivan, gone directly to the source? Have you gone to the Bible and given these things fair treatment? I am not asking you to take my word for it, I am not asking you to take words of the experts, but rather I am asking you if you have examined the evidence? Have you taken the Bible on its value and perused these things that it talks about? Honestly, Ivan, you claim to have a statue of Jesus Christ, why? Who is Jesus to you? Who is the Jesus of the Gospels? Have you really examined the evidence of who he is? Here’s my challenge to you, if you are after the truth, then read the Bible for all it’s worth and deal with it and its content intellectually. I am not asking you to believe in fairy tales and the like and I am not asking you to check you brain at the door and I am not asking you to go after God with a blind faith.
If you are so inclined to take up the challenge, then I would direct you to the Gospel of John… as a good place to start…
I want to respond to some other things, but I’ll do so later…
V
LikeLike
Thanks John
LikeLike
Ivan,
Onto the other matters, I am very frustrated by some of your responses… I want you to know that I recognize the reality and serious nature of evil. The subject of evil is not simply an intellectual parlor game, a cavalier matter, a whimsical or relativistic choice of looking a things a certain way. Evil is real. Evil is ugly.
But logically speaking, how can you make sense of taking evil seriously — not simply as something inconvenient, or unpleasant, or contrary to your desires. What philosophy of value or morality can you offer which will render it meaningful to condemn some atrocity as objectively evil? The moral indignation which you express over wicked things which transpire in this world, like the kids at the Kew Hospital, does not comport with the theories of ethics which you espouse, theories which, at best prove to be arbitrary, subjective, utilitarian and relativistic in character. Based on your worldview, there is no good reason for saying that anything is evil in nature, but only by personal choice or feeling can you arrive at this reason.
Anytime you base things on human reasoning or choices – you being relative to yourself or your culture. And my question is – Is there any logical coherence within the set of beliefs that you hold to? On one hand, you believe and speak about the kids at the Kew Hospital as wrong in and of itself, but on the other hand you believe and speak as though the existence of these diseased kids are wrong because you (and the culture) find something meaningless in their suffering. Are you saying that people determine ethical values for themselves, and implicitly say that evil is something based on the values which individuals (or cultures) have chosen for themselves?
Please help me here…
V
LikeLike
Introductions first,
Vince its a pleasure to meet the name behind the name ! I have to fly out the door, when I am back this evening I will give you a reply. Thanks for your well thought out comments and questions.
Kind regards
Ivan
LikeLike
Hi there Vince,
Thank you for your opening words. It is a bit of a quest for me, and a question of some life time interest. I appreciate your efforts in my education.
I am not sure dogmatic is the exact word. Only that it’s a topic that’s occupied my thinking for a lot of years. I don’t have complete knowledge (obviously) of the entire world just really enough to underpin the foundations of my current thinking. Basically, I am looking for evidence of a God or something a little close to it.
You speak of certainty? If I ask you if your certain a God exists, you might reply that for a very long time you have been “certain” I kind of the reverse of that coin, for no better reasons really other than lack of evidence I am certain as I can be that a God does not exist.
I relegate my position to that of Atheist over the second option of agnostic.
I don’t agree with your point of logic that knowing a “little” points or leads to a God. I say to you Vince there is no evidence at all that a God exists I want also to affirm to you my mind is open to reasonable evidence. It just needs to be reasonable not extraordinary as some Atheists require.
Vince your quote about evidence and John 8:58 doesn’t really come close to evidence as I see it. Is it possible to look at a different example? Would you have another one?
Who is Jesus to me? Good question. Vince I have read part of the Bible but find it of less use than you might think. I find more useful, educated people (way above my station) who understand it all better and study it for a living. I find that more of use to me. Having said that, I am still reading it. I have a Jesus action figure and also one of Einstein They both compete for space on my desk.
I understand Jesus only as a man. A good man, who preached among other things a kind of equality. I don’t see him as a God figure.
I can’t go after God or Jesus with “blind faith”. Its dishonest, and the core reason why Christianity so far has not appealed to me. I cannot “lie” to myself, I’m sorry Vince. I can’t do it.
Regards
Ivan
LikeLike
Vince,
I don’t think you have some lax opinion of evil I am pretty sure you and I see it in a similar way.
This sounds a bit stilted, trying to answer your questions in the same order you gave them to me if that’s alright?
I think evil is evil in the sense of its effect on humanity. The Kew children are not intrinsically “evil” but if a God has some choice in having children being born deformed one would have to apportion a degree of evil to this God. Does that make sense to you at all? I don’t think we have to run this up against a Godly standard in order to deduce evil. Like pornography, we know it when we see it.
Yes I think people and cultures can define evil. I don’t think its rocket science. (myself)
Kind regards
Ivan
LikeLike
Vince have you ever considered yourself, a world where there wasn’t a God?
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan,
Have I ever considered a world where there wasn’t a God? … Absolutely. I was guilty of the type of religion that I’ve heard you speak of, the type of being born and raised into it. In my youth my grandmother would come to spend the weekends with us. My Grandmother was a good Catholic and she went to church every Sunday. She would go regardless of anyone else going, and often times she went alone. So as a young boy I had compassion for my Grandmother and I would join her because I didn’t want her to go alone. The church was but a few blocks away and I would go with her, the walk was nice and if anything, she taught me to be consistent in things. Now, being raised as a catholic, I was required to go to catechism and go through the various sacraments. Baptism, Communion, confirmation and so on, however, my family was typical in the sense that church had its place and time, like Christmas, Easter, Baptisms, Wedding, Deaths, etc., so it wasn’t required for us to go to church every week. During the charismatic time of the 70’s I was in my caught up in the religiosity of things and started to become more and more involved in my religion of works. I got involved as an altar boy and by the time I was 14 I was serving mass on Saturdays and Sundays and was so committed that even would come out for the 6:00am daily novenas.
As I become more and more devoted to my faith I started to get more and more involved with the things of religion. There was a neighbor, who started to have a big impact on my life, who was mentor of sorts. He was acting as the father figure in my life because at this time my father was out the door and heading for a divorce from my mother. This mentor figure had been raised up to the status of a deacon in the Catholic Church (a big thing at the time). He would be holy and righteous in and around church, church settings and the things of church. My relationship with him flourished and soon he started taking me to Wednesday night charismatic prayer meetings and he would educate me in the ways of life. I was so devoted, that people thought I was heading for priesthood.
Eventually as I got older, my eyes began to open. First I noticed some hypocrisies portrayed by weekly church goers. Specifically, I would see people in mass once a week doing the God thing, and then they would walk out like nothing was ever said or happened. These people were unchanged and lived as a contradiction to the things that were being taught in the church. This blew me away. My eyes were opened a bit more when I began to see the abusive and oppressive things that my mentor friend was doing to his family; specifically, he would beat the crap out of his son and mete out some harsh punishments and what seemed like seemingly insane things. Then there was this priest who came to serve in our parish, and had molested a 13 yr old neighbor girl that I was friendly with. The girl came from a broken household and was a very promiscuous but nevertheless I was friendly with her and her report of what this priest had done was very disturbing to say the least. In addition to these things, I encountered lots of peer pressures, this combined with puberty really made me examine my faith. Then a friend of mine got into my ear about these things and reasoned me away from faith.
With that I became very cynical and jaded about matters of religion. I looked at the whole package and decided that church was an organization that was looking for ways to control the minds of men, and the Bible and God and Jesus was just means towards those ends. So Ivan, not only had I considered a world where there wasn’t a God, I lived that way for over 25 years. I bought into the ideas of the excellence of man, secularism and such. I went to college, graduated, landed into my career and that eventually would lead me to starting my own business. I had become somewhat successful. A self made man, so to speak. I was basically a good guy, didn’t steal, cheat or rob, for the most part. I was self-righteous. I had more integrity than most of those about me. I was smarter than the average bear and could discuss religious matters and debunk most arguments that less then adequately equipped Christians could present to me. And when family members and friends became born again, I saw more of the same stuff that I’d seen from my religious days. I’d see these people, clinging to faith in Jesus Christ as born again believers, and yet they would live their lives licentiously and in a mockery to the cross. It all seemed like a major dupe, one that I was too smart for. And like you to some degree, with all the evil in this world and began to reason that if there is God, then he didn’t care, and if he did care then he was impotent and incapable of setting things right.
So yes, I’ve been there… I’ve done it… So now you are probably thinking, so what changed… more to come on this…
Vince
LikeLike
Ivan,
We can explore more evidence, but I need to understand more about what you said about Jesus. You said that he is a good man. So how do you know that? What are you basing that on?
Vince
LikeLike
Vince,
Thank you for telling me of your background. That was enormously interesting and revealing. Vince, in what branch of Christian religion do you class yourself as now? Are you still a Catholic?
Ivan
LikeLike
Hi Vince,
Some time ago now, one of our more serious broadcasts, ran a program about Jesus. Some of my religious friends didn’t like it particularly, but it resonated with me as closer to the truth that perhaps the Bible portrays. In this program it treated Jesus as a “man” and ran through the central points of his life without the super natural. I think, and it’s only me thinking, they might have stumbled close to what the genuine article really was. Just a really decent man, upset that Jewish temples shut out many of the common people particularly people with illnesses.
It’s my theory, there are two Jesus’. Jesus one, is the documentary one who was in all likelihood the real deal. Jesus two is the mythological one that the Bible gives all kinds of Godly powers to. This Jesus is taken “literally” by Christians and much of the western world. I think this Jesus is the one that could also be called “commercial Jesus” and has all the legacy of Christian commerce attached to, which interestingly today runs to some 60 billion dollars American.
I expect in all likelihood Jesus one did exist (though the evidence is a bit flimsy) but almost certainly Jesus two is a man made creation.
That’s kind of where I have been standing.
Best regards
Ivan
LikeLike
Vince,
If you were from Iran, And your Iranian Grandfather was going to the mosque alone.. and looked a bit lonely, If you accompanied him and grew up one of the lucky ones with a PC would we be having this discussion about the truth of being muslim? I was just wondering.
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan,
No, that is absolutely impossible; especially in light of the way I became Christian — which is probably a good lead in to more of my testimony. You know, some people will tell you that something happened to them, a car accident, an illness, the loss of a loved one, the fear of getting old and dying, some financial hardship or something that God used to bring them to him. I don’t have that kind of story. My story has a history of events and things that I cannot refute or deny. These things were in the realm of weird. There was something working at in the deepest most inner core, something beyond me, beyond that small still voice in my head, beyond my conscience, that defied all logic and my existentialist experience of the world in the hear and now.
One that comes to mind is when I was just took my business from part time consultancy to a full time one. At that time it had only been a couple of months into my business endeavors and I was already at the point where I had begun to exhaust various contracts that I had developed while I was gainfully employed. So faced with limited cash flow and a small runway of time, I set myself to the challenge of drumming up new business. This was definitely an acid test of sorts and something that I needed to do in order to have any success at my new business venture. So I started the sales cycle and developed several business prospects. The first one I developed was a small printing company a couple of hours away in Baltimore. So after the initial phone contact, I set out to Baltimore to meet with the powers that be, and spent the better part of the morning selling my wares. Afterwards, they took me to lunch (go figure) and then I was off on my way home. Now I didn’t know per se as to whether or not I had turned the prospect into a client, but I was nevertheless elated. I was elated because knew that I was definitely doing what I was made to do, I was in the zone, I was on standing on the pinnacle of success and I could taste it. And in that moment, something said to me, literally something said “Yes, you will be successful at this for a time, but this is not what you were called to do, this will last only for a while, after that you’ll do things you’ve been called to in the second half of your life.” Here I was driving north on interstate 95, the Baltimore City skyline is just over my left shoulder, I had this jazz station on the radio, and here I am celebrating, I was literally shouting “YES” when I got hit with this at my core. Something spoke to me very clearly, in a very plain way, and it struck me down to my core. Something external to me was communicating to me that I was in a place, at the start of the next chapter in my life if you will, that I was merely in the last scene in the first half of my life and that I was being prepared through these things, so that I may be able to fulfill the real purpose of my life, in the second half. I tried to get more information, and surmise what that next thing would be, what write a book, go into politics, what, but I was not given anything other than “just continue on and prepare.”
Sounds kind of weird doesn’t it. So I persisted and surely success followed me. I can go on about more, but I’ll just share this one other “in the category of funny things” that I can no way explain but is essential to my testimony. Sure enough my business endeavors prospered and success followed me; I was able to buy into the American dream. I bought a nice executive home in a very attractive rural community, was able to add all the amenities that I desired I bought lots of toys and had lots of fun, I gave to the poor. I worked hard, and I was in a very good place. Now, again something spoke to my core, and said that I would be at the crossroads when I turned 40. It shook me at my core and I was left with the impression that my life no longer involved money or success and that I would be a teacher. Kind of weird huh.. Ivan, this was so real to me, I thought hmmm, teaching, well teachers don’t make that much money so I’d better be prepared and started paying down on my huge mortgage and aggressively reduce my debt load. It really shook me.
I need to stop for now, my wife just got in and I need to sit with her. Hopefully, I’ll be able to get back to this later tonight. But one quick question Ivan… How do you deal with the evidence of things that you cannot explain empirically? Because I know that whatever this was, this external something, it was something that I could not explain empirically. Did I think it was God? Yes and no. It certainly didn’t match to any worldviews that I possessed at the time or in the past, that’s for sure…
Talk to you soon, friend…
V
LikeLike
Hi there Vince,
This is an interesting story. I don’t have explanations for everything being a reasonably normal kind of person with very average intelligence. But I find sometimes inserting God into things that are not easily explainable is a bit akin to the people that see a strange light in the night sky and have an automatic assumption of aliens. I think God is a terribly big leap to make with some very ordinary events.
I would like to hear all your story but what you have told me of your background so far doesn’t seem a long stretch to your current beliefs in Christianity.
Its not common, but not unusual at all. What is unusual is when you find rare cases of individuals that have your “Christian” experience but with an altogether different religion to the one that they culturally sit. For example, a neighbour that becomes a born again Hindu or Sikh or similar
Becoming a strong Christian in a country like the USA is pretty common.
I won’t comment anymore though as I am keen to hear the rest of your story if that’s ok? I can’t explain every non- empirical occurrence, but I can sometimes offer other more mundane explanations sometimes.
Kind regards
Ivan
Say hello to the wife for me!!
LikeLike
Vince,
Just at the end you asked yourself if you thought it was God? and you replied yes and no.
What would have made it God and what would not have made it God?
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan,
I answered yes and no because I had my presuppositions. See, when I examined the evidence I choose to go into the direction that seemed most probable according to the basic commitments of my heart; my presuppositions that shaped my world view. Remember, I threw away the baby with the bath water. God, Jesus Christ was at best the invention of men used to control the minds of men. So that position inclined me against a theistic worldview, especially the Christian worldview, because we’ve been there, done it, in the Catholic Church. In essence I was in a position, not much unlike you, where I demanded evidential justification for the existence of God but I did not give them fair treatment. Basically, my arguments were constructed without proper consciousness of the system of interpretation being applied to the evidence. As I examined arguments for the existence/non-existence of God as a way of explaining theses weird encounters, I purported a neutral objectivity. Objectivity in the sense that I believed I was evaluating the evidence in some neutral laboratory before arriving at the likely rational conclusion. But in reality I was really committed to control my interpretations of the evidences, and at best faith was something that pays homage to the facts.
For instance, when examining the problem of evil, I found that as a skeptic, I had a larger problem with evil than those that believed in God. Namely, I could not logically justify the basis for the moral judgment of what is good and evil. You see, in my view humanity was nothing more than the lucky creature that evolved to the highest link in the food chain; that as men we lived in a relativistic and chaotic world of naturalism. And in that I had no foundation on which to build morality. My Grandmother (I’ll use her again) always said “It’s not supposed to be that way” and I would laugh at that because my relativistic world view made that statement seem funny to me. I knew what she was saying was real for her, but it was not real for me, simply because it didn’t matter to me. But when I thought more about it, it became apparent to me that as soon as I/we begin to say “it’s not supposed to be that way” what is it that we are really saying? We are saying that something is wrong, that somebody or someone has a moral obligation to me. In a relativistic world each view, when examined by itself it is fine and makes good sense. However, when I start looking at multiple views against each other in the same reality this is not always the case, especially in the event when the views are opposite to each other. Both views cannot make sense and be correct in the same reality. That’s dilemma. How does one make any sense? Which view is right? Who’s right? You see, no matter how real my moral structure is it was merely based on what I felt or desired, based on what seemed right, it was all arbitrary. Then I thought well, how does one make it matter and in the intelligence of modern natural science, I found that scientific data fell way far short of being able to provide the answers. And in the scheme of my naturalistic world view I concluded that it was impossible to make it matter. It was all chaos and arbitrary. But it wasn’t, it mattered and it was real. So what did I do, I controlled my interpretations based on what I was committed to even to the extreme of becoming an intellectual terrorist. I rationalized arguments based on some absolutes, then would mingle in my relativistic interpretations to reach my desired conclusions. One has to work pretty hard to deceive themselves.
You said that becoming a Christian in a country like USA is pretty common but I am not sure that I agree with you. People in this country claim to be Christians, however, a majority are not. The USA is post Christian culture, a culture of death, materialism, greed, with super human secularist do as you will ethics. The USA is not accountable to an infinite, Holy and Righteous God in the person of Jesus Christ, even though many purport to be Christian. And to the extent that you are talking about ethnocentricities, I agree but it is something other than Christianity. I never heard the term born again used outside Christianity. How are you defining born again?
V
I’ll tell Sher you said hi!
LikeLike
Ivan,
by demythologising Jesus do you think that you are closer to the truth?
One of the most authenticating things about the gospels for me is that they often agree on the big events but have myriad differences in detail. If you put the parallel passages side by side you will see clearly what I am talking about. Two broad approaches to the so called ‘synoptic problem’ have been the standard approaches of the last century and largely continue today.
1. Harmonise whatever can be harmonised and ignore the rest (this is the approach of most fundamentalist / inerrantist readers).
2. The scholars mostly go for various ingenious critical approaches to find which (if any) of the reports is more probably close to the original or oldest tradition.
My own feeling, after almost a lifetime of trying firt 1 and then 2, is that we actually do have a number of independent witnesses who heard and saw things a bit differently and are firmly sticking to what they personally know. There is excellent textual evidence that the final authors of our present 4 gospels were very well aware of the other versions of the stories but insisted on reporting the ones that they personally could vouch for.
Your earlier comment on John’s gospel falls into my second category and is a scholar’s supposedly critical and more historically sound approach to our texts but i really doubt that it will finally prove to be so.
LikeLike
Saml,
I thought so Saml. I really have a strong feeling Jesus was 100% human. I kind of see him in a Ghandi type of way, still powerful and humanitys greatest influence, But not a God as such.
Vince and Saml,
I have to leave to visit someone today and will be gone forthe day. Will comment on Vince’s writings when I get back. Gives me a chance to really digest it properly also.
Kind regards
Ivan
LikeLike
Vince,
What your saying is, you went with the feelings of the heart and not actual real evidence as such. Which is Ok, particularly when your going to run with faith but its not quite the same thing I am looking for if you understand? Vince you most certainly live in an overwhelmingly Christian culture. It may not all be the same quality as you might perhaps prefer, but your slap dang in the middle of one of the biggest Christian cultures on planet Earth.
Vince I am not sure I fully understand your struggle with understanding the basic values that underpin a moral view. I don’t know how this lights up as “Christian” in your head. You know I’m not an expert !! But all I have read is that most people irrespective of any religion, including Athiests, all make the same roughly similar moral judgements when put to the test. We basically make almost identical choices.
But I know I am not understanding fully what your saying, will print and re-read a few times.
Ivan
LikeLike
Saml,
Its kind of like this, I think that Jesus was important for mankind irrespective of the magic component. I also think that the Bible can only be one small fraction of the real story and I have some running theories on that.
I expect, but don’t know for sure, that some of the Bible and maybe most of the bible is more about peoples “desires” for Jesus rather than straight out factual accounts. I think “John” for example, is probably all Johns “needs and wants” of Jesus and I think it’s apparent in the language John uses. I think, suspect actually, that the Sermon on the Mount is probably a collection of Jesusisms rather than an actual sermon.
We all know the story of Jesus being born; we celebrate it in a literal sense each Christmas. I often think and wonder about what happened to him between the ages of say..6 or 7 and age 30? Did he know he was the son of God? What conduit of information started arriving in his brain say in his 20’s? Why would we have lost the biggest part of the mans life only to pick it up in his mid 30’s?
I suspect Jesus was a very simple carpenter who after encountering John the Baptist, decided on a life on the stage so to speak, and he was very good at it. Good enough to get him killed in a rather embarrassing way at the height of his popularity. I suspect, but don’t know, that Jesus had a lot more to do with early Christian commerce than being a son of a God. But it’s just my thoughts.
Saml, I get what your saying about the Gospels being authentic from several sources but had you ever considered the commercial side of the Lord and his work? Jesus and his disciples clearly did not work and we would have to sum mise that this large troupe of people were living off of donations and alms etc. If this could be the case, can you see how there would have been good motive to keep the show going? I was thinking, if I was a part of it back then and my “product” (Jesus) has gone belly up, first thing I would do is steal the body back. Could the Jesus story have another less glamorous but none the less interesting explanation?
Had you ever considered alternatives? I mean just as a thinking exercise?
Ivan
LikeLike
PS
What got me thinking along this track was an article I read in one of them freethinking magazines. (Dang radicals) ! It mentioned that if we combine all the current Christian Churches we get a wealth count of some 80 plus Billion dollars.. I need to use caps.. BILLION dollars US. If we add in your smaller operators we could easily ad another 3 or 4.
When did the Lord our Saviour become billions of greenbacks? How did this happen exactly? I kind of started working back and back and thinking how all those people lined up in all those towns to touch the Lords gown. I began to wonder, at want point were the shekals being offered up? At what point did it become a fledgling kind of underground business? When did it become a “going concern”? When did other people, the deciples and teachers and help etc become a working part of it? When did mammon become as important as the message?
I was just asking myself these questions, do you guys think this is a bit crazy? How could we (you,Vince and myself) actually find out?
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan,
Ivan,
Did you know that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is the most well documented event in history? Evidence is out there. However, you seem to pick and choose those things that keep you content and in your current thoughts. Therefore, it seems futile for me to even I recommended to you some thing to read for that type of research.
I want to challenge you into some thought… I know that you do not believe in God, but at the same time you seem to have a notion or some idea of God and what He should be like… as evidenced by some of the expectations you have when you say that the Christian God is not it (in these lengthy discussion here). Paint a picture for me… If there was a God he’d be like…
I would be interested in these types of specifics… Is that God all powerful? Is that God all-knowing? Is that God all-loving? Is that God righteous? Is the God perfect? Is that God responsible for creation (in whatever context)? How would our world be different today if that God was? What other things would he be capable of?
Also, if you would…
Jesus taught in parables as a way communicating his messages and not everyone who heard these parables got their message and Jesus only allowed their meanings to be revealed to a certain few (if you are curious, read Matthew 13). Tell me, in the context of what you believe, why that would be so?
I look forward to hearing from you soon..
Vince
LikeLike
Radicals are good but their judgement is not necessarily right just coz it’s radical!
From what little I know of the disciples of Jesus, they were basically rich folks who had to give up a lot to follow Jesus. So, that logic does not work for these guys.
Secondly, the idea that especially the miraculous is later legend that has been spliced in to the original “good ordinary guy” Jesus is another red herring. If you analyse the texts carefully and critically you will clearly see the different strands that build into each of the first three gospel stories and these are original traditions from which one cannot excise what one does not like without losing the basic structure of the narrative. As I mentioned earlier, a whole century (an more) of christian scholarship has followed this path to no avail!
John’s Gospel is particularly impossible to pick apart because his narrative is so continuous and flowing! Scholars have always found John to be the most difficult to critically analyse, it’s a take it or leave it sort of work where you either accept the whole or reject the whole.
Having said all of that, I think Jesus’ gospel (His kingdom)is certainly antithetical to what we now call Christianity and particularly in its manifestation as church! Read through the sermon on the mount in Mathew 5-7 or the somewhat parallel sections in Luke 6 and 12 and the sense of what sort of a kingdom and ethic that Jesus was teaching will come through. Furthermore, in his controversies with the local religious leaders, which are a theme scattered thru all 4 gospels, you will see that He is clearly an anti-establishment sort of person.
Organisations, religious or otherwise, have their own internal built-in logic of survival that supercedes all other considerations including what we think of why they should exist or the ‘original purposes’ for which they are formed.
LikeLike
Hi there Vince,
I probably should give you a good morning first. It’s my early evening here. Firstly, I don’t think the recording of the death of Jesus or much of the Bible has any great degree of evidence going for it. By this, I mean good documented historical evidence. My computer is still being fixed so I can’t give you the definite list right now unfortunately. There is evidence but not much of it.
I don’t really “pick and choose” as such; I look for good verifiable evidence that people in the proper scientific fields dig up. I am honestly not as picky as you might think there just isn’t a lot of good supportive Biblical evidence out there.
If there was a God what would he be like? This is hard, for I am as certain as I can be that this isn’t likely to be the case. If a “being” existed that created the universe, I would expect that being to be as unrelated as a prion is to say a human being. This being would have live outside of the concept of space, time and dimension. It would be impossible to communicate with and would be unrecognisable to us.
Is that God all powerful? Impossible to say. Its power relation to us would certainly make it appear as such.
Is that God all knowing? Very hard to say, but I would suspect a definite no. What we know at present of the laws of physics’ particularly information, its probably going to be no.
Is the God perfect? I would need more information to decide this. The information that I have would conclude me to think No, this God would not be perfect.
Is that God responsible for creation? I have to answer no as I don’t think there is a God in order for it to create the Universe. If your asking could a God create the universe ? My thoughts are no, a God couldn’t. But I would need a lot more information to really answer that obviously.
I didn’t fully understand the last question, if he created the universe what other things could it do? I’m not sure, create more than one universe? Don’t know how to answer that one Vince.
You asked me specifically about the parables in Mathew? I am not sure why this is so. I don’t know for sure if this is the words of Jesus and not someone else. I’m not sure if this is what Jesus said or someone wanted us to think Jesus said. Vince I will re-read Mathew again to refresh my tired old mind. Will read this tonight.
Ivan
LikeLike
Hi Saml,
About the disciples being wealthy, this in itself doesn’t nullify my theory, but all the same, where is it documented Saml? Is it specifically mentioned Biblically or is the idea derived from something?
Saml, you’re probably right on the different strands of the Biblical narrative. I am so uneducated in this area. I do try and read a lot, and I have heard various dissenting views questioning who the exact authors were. It’s something I am still looking at myself.
Regarding John, I have just read a few conflicting views about his part of the Bible. I understood it’s widely questioned and from the little I do know of it I can see why.
Saml, If Jesus landed again on planet earth what do you think his impressions would be of the various Modern Churches, groups such as Amish or Brethren and the whole structure of our Priests and Cardinals etc. The wealth of the average modern Christian, the new wars fought in his father’s name.
Would he be happy?
Ivan
LikeLike
Vince,
One other thing, If it were possible I think that a world with a “God” would be more interesting than a world without one. If I found out today one really did exist I would be quite happy about this information. I would not change a single thing about my life nor would I have regrets about anything in my life gone by. I am quite happy about my worldly behavour. It would be cool to know the big questions might actually have a chance at being answered! I have no real vested interest in ignoring new information or living in a kind of religous denial. I don’t fear at all the notion of a God. Even a Christian one.
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan,
As far as getting to the truth about who Jesus really is, my advice to you is to personally interact with Him in the gospels as He is portrayed there by the gospel writers (who except for Luke really are anonymous!).
I too wonder what Jesus would do if He were to come back a second time just as quietly as He did the first time round. I suspect that He would be just as harsh towards the christian religion as He was towards the Judaism of His time. The result ultimately may be one more crucificion or whatever the modern equivalent of that is (terrorist sitting without trial in Guantanamo perhaps?).
LikeLike
Hi Ivan,
Good morning/evening… where are you from? How about you Saml?
You said: “I don’t really “pick and choose” as such; I look for good verifiable evidence that people in the proper scientific fields dig up. I am honestly not as picky as you might think there just isn’t a lot of good supportive Biblical evidence out there.”
Okay, so then who are they, what are they?
What “proper scientific guy” did you find when dealing with the person and the work of Jesus Christ? How did he/they treat the eyewitness evidence? What did they have to say about the veracity of the Gospel accounts and the New Testament? What did they have to say about writings outside of the New Testament? How did archaeologists confirm or contradict that evidence? Did you investigate the claims of both camps?
Beyond that you have these notions about Christianity as it is manifested in the life and ministry of Jesus Christ and the motive and purpose of the Bible as propagating them over the past 2000 years. Have you scrutinized your theories in the light of what Scripture says? You know as Saml talked about analyzing the texts carefully and critically… Have you done so in light of your own personal theories as to the motive and origin of these texts? In what ways do they purport your theories? In what way don’t they? What kind of treatment did you (or your proper scientific guys) give the God claim? What about the psychology of the God claim? Who’s crazy here? What evidence do they give that support the God claim? What about the God claim in view of the Old Testament? What about the claim of the resurrection? Was it real or not? Does the medical evidence support it? What about the purported evidences around the 40 days the Gospel claims that Jesus walked on the earth after the resurrection? And of course you investigated both camps?
You know what’s interesting to me Ivan is your notion of God. Again, I see a lot of myself in your thoughts. Prior to the revelation I received about the infinite God of the Bible, I thought the same. That reminds me of an old Tom Wait song, and in it he had a line that went something like this… There aint no devil that’s just God when he’s drunk. I thought that statement about God was probably truer than the other views I’v heard. In addition to that, my notion of God’s intelligence was very nice either, I thought that he would never understand the knowledge that we have, specifically like computer technology and the sort.
But there’s forgiveness for that! Thank you Jesus!
Talk to you soon Ivan,
Vince
LikeLike
Hi Vince,
I’m a resident of India but have lived in a variety of places including about 8 years in Cincinnati. You can find out abit more bout me in my blog that’s linked on my name in these comments.
I’m now a bit PoMo in my walk with the Lord but started out very standard, reformed, and evangelical (Presby no less!).
LikeLike
Hey Sam,
Just looked at your blog… I’ll spend more time there… PoMo (Post Modern?) I must confess, I am a bit behind on these things… As you probably guessed from my posts.. evangelical, reform..
Vince
LikeLike
Vince,
I live in the Western Suburbs of Sydney, Australia.
Ivan
LikeLike
Vince,
I will have to answer some of what you ask when I get back I have a rather important Board Meeting to attend. A lot of the stuff I have regarding proof of the Bible is unfortunately on the dang computer being repaired! won’t have that until maybe Thursday.
I am still looking at the Bible as best I can its a work in progress. As stated earlier, The Bible only takes you “so far” specifically, when so much of it has likely less to do with God or Jesus than you might think. Its about finding the authentic bits.
You asked: What about the claim of the resurrection? Was it real or not? Does the medical evidence support it? As far as I understand, the medical evidence almost certainly cannot support it.
I suggest its a fiction, with a motive yet to be adequately explained, but as written earlier, I have my suspicians.
You asked: What about the purported evidences around the 40 days the Gospel claims that Jesus walked on the earth after the resurrection? There really is no evidence Vince. There are a lot of unverifiable claims with people that would have agendas. Its similar to the claims made by people for UFO’s. There really isn’t actual evidence as such.
You asked:
What kind of treatment did you (or your proper scientific guys) give the God claim? What about the psychology of the God claim? Who’s crazy here?
I don’t know if anyones actually “crazy” here. All I am saying is I can’t lend beleif to “sky fairies” unless I have evidence of them. Regardless of the consquences to me with regard to Hell or a suffering afterlife.
I don’t know that God has psychology,but if the bible were a literal look at God, them some treatment could be in order.
As for the “proper” scientific “guys” some really smart people have looked at this subject in the light of modern day science and this is stuff I have read. So far there is no evidence to underpin a working theory or beleif in a God. I am sure my books are not going to be the last word on it,but so far this is what I am getting.
You asked: And of course you investigated both camps?
Vince, there really only is 2 ways of looking at it.
One way: a very ancient book written by primitive people we don’t really know making a really big unsubstantiated supernatural and unlikely claim.
or 2nd way: Law of Thermodynamics, All laws of physics as we understand them 2000 years later, no evidence of it ever happening again. Sober assessment of the worlds scientists.
How else can we assess it?
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan,
Down Under, everybody that I’ve known that has gone to Australia has never returned… Are you homegrown or imported…
Don’t be short sided my friend there are many ways to look at it. For instance historically, structurally, based on its content, based on it’s special characteristics, based on the impossibility in its account… just to mention a few. And of course let’s not forget the supernatural, speaking of which, I hope to get back into my testimony (if you’re still interested).
Another question, did you ever contemplate the possibility of the Bible and its story as being absolutely true and in that event how you are going to deal with your guilt?
I need to head out to a board meeting was well.
Talk to you soon,
Vince
LikeLike
Hey Vince
Apparently I look imported but I was born here in 1957.
I always had suspicians the Bible might be either untrue, or bits of it untrue and very incomplete, that aspect hasn’t changed for me. I mentioned about my “position” to make it clear that I feel not an ounce of guilt or fear. This would be my position with or without a God. I don’t have regrets about my lifes conduct at all. I have my views of course on what constitutes evidence and at this point God so far has let me down. This is my view.
Having said that, I a extremely interested in anything you can add to my perspective and any information you or saml can give me I hadn’t considered would be extremely welcome!
I will even consider the supernatual.
Kind regards
Ivan
LikeLike
Saml,
With your comments earlier about the church, what do you personally do in regards to worship? Do you attend a church and why?
Would the Christian faith be more authentic if we gave churches away altogether?
How do you personally reconcile personal wealth and your faith? I ask this as we have now a new philosophy that says Jesus loves millionaires particularly.
I have an odd issue at work with a Christian guy. (Christian with a greed ethic)
Ivan
LikeLike
Vince,
Why would I or should I feel guilt?
Ivan the curious.
LikeLike
Ivan,
You look imported, too funny, so what look are you sporting? The US is such a melting pot; we all have an imported look to some extent. I am third generation Italian.
So based on the evidence, God has let you down. It sounds a bit less than atheistic… In your consideration you willingness to examine the supernatural, does that elude to you having or expecting an encounter with the supernatural? If so, read on.
I have first hand testimony of the living Christ, and I know that the Christ who was slain on the cross has to power to save life today. I’ve experienced it, and I live in the presence of His Spirit. It’s like a hot stove, where you cannot know or appreciate its power until you’ve experienced it, actually felt it, put your hand on it and felt the awesome power of its heat. I could tell you about the power of a stove until I was blue in the face, but unless you’ve experienced it, you’ll never know with any certainty. It is the same as with a child, you may told that child until your blue in the face, not to touch the stove, because its hot and if they touch it they’re going to burn themselves. However, it’s not until they’ve actually touched it and have ran away crying with blistered hands do they really begin to know and understand the power of it heat (what was being described to them).
It’s the same with Christ, unless you’ve experienced the power of Him, you’ll never get to fully know and understand. So Ivan, do you truly desire to know God? Do you desire to know the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the one who created all things according to His good pleasure, the one who condescended Himself, God of very God, who became flesh so that we may be reconciled to Him. Ivan if you truly want to know, then here’s my suggestion. Cry out to Him; ask Him to reveal himself to you. Here’s the way that you can do that, pick up the Gospel of John and read it over the next 30 days. Spend at least 10-15 minutes a day reading through it, if you want to read more then great, go as far as you need to. If you finish John before 30 days, then start over from the beginning, just commit to spending 30 days in the Gospel and in the effort. And in and around that reading, ask for an encounter with the living Christ, the Christ as presented in the Gospel of John. Ivan, if you truly seek him, and you seek him diligently and with all earnest and sincerity, then you too will encounter the living Christ! One of word of caution, what I am prescribing is not hocus pocus; it is not like some ritual or some deep dark incantation or anything like that. It’s about revelation. If you seek the LORD your God with all your heart and all you soul then you WILL FIND HIM there where you are.
If you are not willing, then you blood be on your own head. If you are willing, then I would be happy to accommodate you in any way, and of course, I will intercede with prayer on your behalf.
With God all things are possible.
Vince
LikeLike
Hi Vince,
Apparently I look “English” (and sound so to) I got no idea how that happened, maybe same mother but different postman. I am athiest in total. When I say God let me down evidence wise, I meant had there been a God. Don’t mistake my position as being on the fence.
Ivan
LikeLike
Blood be on my head? Sheesh, this sounds heavy duty! Vince I can’t do that exactly. I can’t “cry out” to him this would imply he is real, when at this stage to me, its like crying out to an imaginary sky fairy. I just can’t do that. I need evidence he exists and even then if I found it, I woyldn’t be supplicating myself prostrate before him. I’m just not that scared.
I have lived a reasonably good life I shouldn’t have to be “frightened” of his wrath.
I can though, read the Bible as suggested and I have read those passages before. I don’t know if this is anything even close to the word of God or even “close” to confirmation that, a God exists.
Your faith inside you decides all that for you in the absence of evidence, my brain appears to work differently with supernatural concepts.
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan, as you read through the gospels (any of them) just notice how Jesus deals with ‘ordinary folks’ and how He relates to ‘the leaders’. This I have found practical and am greatly thankful for being one of the duped masses rather than one who is doing the duping!
Besides I have plenty of problems of my own, my own sinfulness (imperfection both in action and inaction) for me to work on without having to bother too much about what other folks do and don’t. So, yes I do go to church, and there I try to use what gifts God has given me to help others, then I stay out of politics as much as I can.
I do have hope that things will change. I can see God working on me to make me a better person and I am sure that He is doing the same across the board.
Authentic christianity just means following Jesus and that can be done easily in poverty or with some difficulty if one is rich! Folks who believe that God is blessing the rich simply have not read, or choose to ignore, what the entire NT has to say. I’ve never had the ‘problem’ of being rich (financially) but on the other hand have not suffered great privation either.
LikeLike
Hi Saml,
Rich may be a problem for me, I got offered 20 million for my company yesterday. Bugger. Saml a lot of very dedicated Christians in Australia, coupled with a wave comming out of the US are making a stong argument that being a Christian doesn’t mean being poor. For what I understand about Jesus, it made a very great deal of difference. I just can’t for the life of me imagine a Jesus living a wealthy middle class life.
Saml, Why do you still have to battle sin? Why can’t that be a battle you can win?
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan,
Congrats, that’s really great news! Why would you want to sell your company in the first place – looks like you are doing quite well!
i think in one sense tha gospel is money neutral, i.e. rich or poor should not really make any difference as long as one is doing what God is asking one to do. The key here is stewardship – whatever we have been given is God’s and we are just the temporary trustees, required to do what is best with what we have been given charge of.
Practically though the rubber hits the road when we are unable to give it up when asked to. That’s a sign that the money/power/influence/status or whatever is more important to us than anything else.
Some of the brothers and sisters I have respected the most have been rich. You may recall that I mentioned John Stott, another was Mr. John Pierce, who owned a software firm in Cincinnati way back in the 70s & 80s. the way these folks live is what is remarkable – the left hand does not know what the right hand is giving away!
LikeLike
FYI: Ivan seeks further Christian commentary on a discussion about justification for war at the Triple Digits post.
LikeLike
Ivan,
That’s a fair amount of pocket change… don’t spend it all in one place. I agree with Saml, money is not the root of all evil, the love of money is the root of all evil.
You position is somewhat fair weathered. When I look at the thrust of this conversation, you present yourself as one that is open minded and willing to examine the evidence. But every time I ask you to examine the truth claim that Jesus Christ is the Son of God you shrug it off and at best prove to be stubborn and unyielding in your views. This combined with your somewhat questionable and circular reasoning shows you are less then open minded and less than willing to examine the evidence. In fact, I am not sure what kind it is that you require. I would think that if there’s even the slightest chance that Jesus Christ is truly is the Son of God; you’d be willing to find out. After all it’s your soul that is on the line. You see Ivan, the Bible says that the wages of sin is death, and that the soul that sins shall die. And that because of your sin, the sin of you nature and the sin of your practice, you have become like one who is like a leper, and your best deeds of rightness and justice are like filthy rags in God’s sight; and you fade like a leaf, and your iniquities, like the wind, has taken you away far from God’s favor, hurrying you toward destruction. And that you do not call on God’s name and awaken and bestir yourself to take and keep hold of HIM; for He has hidden His face from you and has delivered you into the consuming power of your iniquities. That’s why you can’t believe.
You see, God has presented His Law and his standard, by which he will judge men. That standard is his 10 commandments. The Bible says that if you are guilty of breaking one of God’s commands, then you are just as guilty as breaking all of them. So Ivan you think that you are a good person? How do you measure up to God’s standard? And when you stand before God, how will you deal with the guilt of being less than perfect in God’s Law? You might be thinking “well there aren’t any of us who are perfect in God’s Law.” And that’s right, for no person will be justified in His sight by works of the Law, because the real function of God’s Law is to make men recognize and be conscious of sin. The Bible says that the Law is our schoolmaster that leads us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. And thus, the righteousness of God has been revealed, the righteousness of God which comes by believing in personal trust and confident reliance on Jesus Christ, (for all who believe). Since we all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus.
You are surely without excuse… Here is what LORD God almighty says:
“…hear the word I speak and give them warning from me. When I say to a wicked man, ‘You will surely die,’ and you do not warn him or speak out to dissuade him from his evil ways in order to save his life, that wicked man will die for his sin, and I will hold you accountable for his blood. But if you do warn the wicked man and he does not turn from his wickedness or from his evil ways, he will die for his sin; but you will have saved yourself.
“Again, when a righteous man turns from his righteousness and does evil, and I put a stumbling block before him, he will die. Since you did not warn him, he will die for his sin. The righteous things he did will not be remembered, and I will hold you accountable for his blood. But if you do warn the righteous man not to sin and he does not sin, he will surely live because he took warning, and you will have saved yourself.”
So that is what I meant when I said that your blood is on your own head…and yes it is heavy duty and YES it is a matter of life and death. And surely, I don’t want to see that happen to you because there is no pleasure in the punishment of the wicked.
Let the truth be told,
Vince
LikeLike
I wasn’t about to Saml. We just had a series of offers this last couple of years and this was a particularly good one.
Vince, that line “the love of money” is the one wealthy Christians put great emphasis on nowadays. Whilst it’s the literal wording is it the same as its spiritual meaning?
Vince, I am genuinely interested in finding out about God. I am just not entirely sure about Jesus; I don’t for sure very much about him. You’re saying “find out” and I am trying by reading the only book on the subject, the Bible. It’s agonizingly slow for me to read. It also so far doesn’t seem to reveal the “truth” to me like it does for you guys. I can’t really help that. All I can do is simply read it.
So Vince,
God has basically turned his back on me then? This is why I can’t “find” him? What is the point of God doing that? Further, why the dickens doesn’t this fill me to the brim with fear? Oddly it doesn’t.
You say I have broken one of his commands and so have broken them all? What kind of half assed justice is that from the God of love? Vince I have never committed the biggies.. Never murdered someone as have how many Christians through the ages?
I don’t believe because I can’t see the aledged Gods evidence? Eternal damnation for that? Bit tough isn’t it?
You asked how I would again deal with my “guilt” before God. By basically telling him your dang design was faulty! If you wanted me to be perfect, make me into a dang Jesus. Don’t make inbuilt faults then blame the product, he was the designer and should accept culpability.
Vince, I don’t live a sinful and wicked life. I’m the Christian you get without Christ. I don’t sacrifice chickens and live in a sea of goat’s blood. I don’t worship at the alter of Satan or hurt people. I don’t like an LA movie star or take drugs. I live by most of Gods laws in a life that is decent and harmless. I do charitable works and I have mentored people. I live a life that “does no harm”
Where you and I separate is in lending belief. I don’t lend belief in the supernatural unless there is some kind of basic evidence. I don’t find *as yet* that the bible meets my needs. You’re advocating I take a PASCAL’s wager approach and I can’t because it’s dishonest of me. You wouldn’t want me lying now would you?
I can’t help it that the “punishments” you discribe are not “stick” enough to beat me along. Death doesn’t scare me not even eternal death I’m sorry about that.
Ivan
LikeLike
Vince,
I guess what you have just said is a kind of religious legal disclaimer, and I appreciate that you need to say it in order to for fill your obligations as you see them with your God. I want to reply rather publicly that I hear and understand your warnings as to the fate of my soul.
With that out of the way, do you really think that your God would hide himself from me? A guy previously had said this and I think he was a Calvinist. What would or could be in it for a loving God to do this to me do you think?
Vince, in all honesty, how is my quest to understand the nature of life the universe and everything be categorized as “wicked”? What am I doing that deserves that kind of description? I mean, I may be very thick and more than a little mentally dense but how could the quest for evidence that makes sense to my God constructed brain be wicked?
The modern church and the Christian faith are built upon pedestals of guilt and fear. It has been this way for centuries it’s always a “carrot and stick” approach. One of my many problems is that I am not very enamored with the idea of “Everlasting life” in any form whatsoever and I have difficulty in thinking that eternal damnation awaits anyone who has lived an ordinary but good life free of the really heavy duty sins. I didn’t kill innocent civilians in Iraq for instance as did some very good Christian soldiers.
I just don’t feel the guilt nor do I feel any sense of Godly awe or wonderment.
But I am going to continue on with my Bible reading specifically the stuff you and Saml recommend to me.
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan.
i’ve been called heretical enough times that it has ceased to bother me. i really believe that Jesus is completely serious when He says what he does in Matthew chapter 25. So I just keep trying to be good and follow in Jesus’s footsteps and I’ll let god worry about the rest.
My problem is that really there are definite limits to my being good and that really bothers me!
LikeLike
Ivan,
I’ll try to address all your questions… Once again, here comes a mega post… I’ll start with your question on the love of money…
There are many folks to who try to justify themselves with Scriptures like “the love of money” but when we examine them at the core of their actions, we see things that are very contrary. As far as the spiritual meaning is concerned, that one’s love of money (or whatever for that matter) fuels their ambitions, drive their motives etc. Therefore, as Jesus said “No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.” (Matt 6:24)
More to follow…
V
LikeLike
Again, Ivan, I am encouraged when you say “I am genuinely interested in finding out about God. I am just not entirely sure about Jesus; I don’t for sure (know) very much about him.” I guess the question is how determined are you really? Because, while you have a genuine interest in finding out about God, but you are nonetheless willing and refuse to believe by crying out to God, and if you did, you just might understand. Paul says: “What we speak of is not in words taught us by human wisdom but we speak in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.” Therefore, Ivan your reading of the Bible is agonizingly slow and does not reveal the “truth” because God’s Spirit is not leading you. Only God’s Spirit knows the mind of God and only God’s Spirit can work that truth into out hearts.
As far as God turning his back on you, read what Scripture says (Isaiah 64:6-7), which is essentially what I paraphrased to you.
You said: “This is why I can’t “find” him? What is the point of God doing that? Further, why the dickens doesn’t this fill me to the brim with fear?”
It doesn’t fill you with fear because you have exchanged the truth for a lie. In the book of Romans Paul talks about justification by faith alone and “levels the playing field” (so to speak) by showing that the wrath of God is revealed (v1:18), not only in the written word but also in the providences of God; by showing, that all men are judged of God in the same way; by showing what sins we each are guilty of and that God’s judgment is executed upon sinners.
That is, we see God’s wrath is revealed to us through discoveries, “that which may be known of God is manifest among them.” First, that the “sense of Deity” is imprinted upon men’s hearts and second, there is knowledge of God by what is confirmed in the light of God’s creation. Paul goes on to say that we are without excuse because, even though we know God, we do not worship Him, and instead, we have turned to idolatry— and in doing so, we neither glorify Him nor are we thankful. In our idolatry we worshipped the creature instead of the creator and the outworking of our idolatry is that the truth is forsaken and our errors are multiplied into many vain imaginations. Essentially our hearts are darkened and thus the world by wisdom does not know God (1Cor 1:21).
Paul then talks about the spiritual judgments of God upon us for this idolatry – where God gives us up (v1:24, 28, 26) in the way of righteous judgment to the most wicked and unnatural lusts in the form of uncleanness and vile affections (v1:24, 26, 27), 2) to a reprobate mind (v1:28). In this sense, Paul says that we are blinded in that we did not retain God in our knowledge and in gainsaying the truth we are given up to a mind void of all sense and judgment. In verses 1:29-31 Paul lists several sorts of sins and various types of sinners are specified, haters of God and every other sin that perverts all that is right and in violation of all of God’s Ten Commandments. In short, Paul says we could never be justified before God by any of our works because they are bad and as black as the early Jews have portrayed them to be.
I’ break here…
V
LikeLike
Ivan,
“You say I have broken one of his commands and so have broken them all?” Basically, I am quoting scripture which emphasizes that the law requires perfection and one transgression of the law is enough for judgment. “What kind of half assed justice is that from the God of love? Again Ivan, let’s not confuse God’s righteousness or justice with his other attributes.
The justice of God – that God is just, means that God acts always according to His righteousness. In Biblical categories, when justice is spoken of it is never spoken of as an abstract concept or aspect rule or some law that exists above and beyond God to which God himself is bound to conform. But rather the concept of justice is linked constantly with the idea of righteousness and justice is based on the internal character of God. In theology we make a distinction between the internal righteousness of God and the external righteousness of God ,which is sometimes called the internal justice of God which is distinguished from the external justice of God, and what that distinction is about is this, that when God acts outwardly what he does is always right. He always does the right thing and in that regard he always does that which is in conformity to justness. This gets a little bit complicated because in the Bible the concept of justice is often distinguished from mercy or grace. Never pray for God’s justice, because if you do you just might get it, and if we are to be treated by God according to His justice we would all perish. That is why when we stand before God we plead that he would treat us according to His mercy or according to His grace, which is distinguished from His justice. And justice again defines his righteousness, whereby God never punishes people more severely than the crimes that they committed nor does God ever fail to reward those who are due a particular reward, but rather God always operates justly. That is God never does anything that is unjust.
Everything outside the circle of justice is called non-justice. And there are different kinds of non-justice. If we speak of the mercy of God, the mercy of God is outside the circle of justice and it is a kind of non-justice. Injustice is evil, and an act of injustice violates the canons and principles of righteousness. If God for example, were to do something that was not fair then he would be acting unjustly and Abraham knew the impossibility of that when he mentioned to God “will not the Judge of all of the earth do what is right.” Because God is a just judge, all of his judgments are according to righteousness so that he never acts in an unjust way or he never commits an injustice.
Now where people get confused is with the respect to the quality of mercy or of grace because grace is not justice, and we see that grace and mercy are outside the category of justice, but they are not inside the category of injustice. There is nothing wrong with God’s being merciful, there is nothing evil with His being gracious, in fact in one sense we would have to extend this, even though justice and mercy are not the same thing, justice is linked to righteousness. The reason why we need to distinguish them is that because justice is something that is obligatory to righteousness, but mercy and grace are always actions that God takes freely. God is never required to be merciful, He is never required to be gracious and the minute we think God owes us grace, or that God owes us mercy, we are not longer thinking about grace or mercy, our minds have tripped over that concept and we have confused mercy and grace with justice. Justice may be owed but mercy and grace are always voluntary with God.
Now we keep the distinction between mercy and injustice in mind especially when we come to the doctrine of election, where God gives mercy not to everybody or he gives his grace selectively. Not everybody receives the fullness of God’s saving grace but when we hear that we think “well that’s not fair because some people receive grace and others don’t.” We say that there’s something wrong with that, well no, because some people receive justice at the hands of God and other people receive grace at His hands. We need to understand that justice of God is related to His internal righteousness. Again, that God always does what is right, his actions, his external behavior always corresponds to his internal character. Jesus put it simply, that a good tree produces good fruit and a bad tree produces bad fruit and that a good tree does not produce bad fruit and a bad tree does not produce good fruit. There is not corruption in the internal being of God, God always acts according to his character and his character is righteous altogether therefore everything that he does is righteous. That’s why we make that distinction between the internal righteousness and the external righteousness between his character, who he is and what he does and it is the same for us. We are not sinners because we sin, we sin because we are sinners, there is something flawed about our inner character.
… I keep plodding..
V
LikeLike
Vince,
Not a mega post, more a Giga post!
I need to read it several times.
Vince what would be an example of getting Gods grace?
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan,
You said “I have never committed the biggies. Never murdered someone as have how many Christians through the ages?” Well Jesus said other wise when he said “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.” Matt 5:21-22. And be careful, you’ve said that you never committed the biggies, let’s not forget the first tablet of the Ten Commandments, the ones directed toward God, clearly, you have broken the biggies…
You said “I don’t believe because I can’t see the aledged Gods evidence? Eternal damnation for that? Bit tough isn’t it?” see the notes above on Romans…
Also you said “You asked how I would again deal with my “guilt” before God. By basically telling him your dang design was faulty! If you wanted me to be perfect, make me into a dang Jesus. Don’t make inbuilt faults then blame the product, he was the designer and should accept culpability.”
We went over this before; Adam acted as a representative of the entire human race. With the test that God set before Adam and Eve, he was testing the whole of mankind. Adam’s name means “man” or “mankind.” Adam was the first human being created. He stands at the head of the human race. He was placed in the garden to act not only for himself but for all of his future descendents. God foreordained our relationship to Adam long before Adam fell. Because Adam fell, we became sinful in our nature. When President Bush declared war on terrorism, our whole nation was plunged into war, he acted on my behalf. Original sin is both the consequence of Adam’s sin and the punishment for Adam’s sin. We are born sinners because in Adam all fell. Even the word fall is a bit of a euphemism because it suggests an accident of sorts. Adam’s sin was not an accident. Adam didn’t simply slip into sin; he jumped into it with both feet and we share that same nature. Yet somehow you make the same assumption that many of us make when we struggle with the Fall, and that is, had we been there, we would have made a different choice. Why? Our nature would have been federally the same as Adams, we would have made the same decision as Adam. It is our sin, not Gods, therefore God is not culpable.
Vince
LikeLike
Saml,
What would be an example of a recent transgression? What was the limit?
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan,
Look at this, online both at the same time… this is a first.
An example of God’s grace… Salvation… we have been saved by grace, through faith in Christ Jesus…
I still have more to work on the giga post..
V
LikeLike
Ivan,
I continue…
You said “Vince, I don’t live a sinful and wicked life. I’m the Christian you get without Christ. I don’t sacrifice chickens and live in a sea of goat’s blood. I don’t worship at the alter of Satan or hurt people. I don’t like an LA movie star or take drugs. I live by most of Gods laws in a life that is decent and harmless. I do charitable works and I have mentored people. I live a life that ‘does no harm.’”
Ivan, don’t de deceived, because as Christians we know that our righteousness comes from Christ, as does our ability to overcome sin and death. It doesn’t come from ourselves, but is the outworking of Christ in us. If you lack perfection under the law then you shall be judged by the law. It simple, the wages of sin is death. The soul the sins shall die.
You said, “Where you and I separate is in lending belief. I don’t lend belief in the supernatural unless there is some kind of basic evidence. I don’t find *as yet* that the bible meets my needs.”
We talked about this above; but again, the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing.
You said: “You’re advocating I take a PASCAL’s wager approach and I can’t because it’s dishonest of me. You wouldn’t want me lying now would you?”
No, I am not asking you to be dishonest, or lie or even peruse Pascal’s wager. When you examine Pascal wager, it is really existential in its offer. Given the obvious if you win the wager that God exists, then, you’ll get external happiness, and if you lose, then there’s really nothing to loose, from an eternal perspective and existentially you’ve countered nothingness, by embracing the Christian existence.”
You said: “I can’t help it that the “punishments” you describe are not “stick” enough to beat me along. Death doesn’t scare me not even eternal death I’m sorry about that.”
Ivan, Embracing Christianity for fear of punishment and eternal death is not enough to save one’s soul. There is no profit in it. It’s not about fire insurance. God is not a spiritual coke machine that when we drop our quarters in out comes blessings… No, the apostle Paul summed up the Gospel message best when he said, that it is repentance towards God and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ. If we repent from our sins because of eternal damnation, then we’ve merely pursued repentance out of selfish motives, mainly to save our hides. Our repentance must be towards God. Repentance toward God is repentance of sin as sin. It is not repentance of this sin or of that sin, but of the all sins. We repent of the sin of our nature as well as of the sin of our practice. We abhor sin within and without. We repent of sin itself as being an insult to God. Anything short of repentance toward God is a superficial repentance and in that we must look to Jesus Christ. We must look to Jesus, to the substitute, to the sacrifice, to the mediator, to the Son of God. “No man comes to the Father,” says the Lord Jesus, “but by me.” There is no faith in God except the faith in God that comes through our Lord Jesus Christ. There can be no reconciliation made between you and God unless you believe in Jesus Christ. Attempt to come to God in any other way is again an insult to him—you cannot refuse his method of reconciliation and still be reconciled to God. Religion is Man’s way of reaching God, and Jesus Christ is God’s way of reaching man!
Well, I think I got through one of your posts… but now as I scroll back and look at your other there seems to be a lot of the same stuff going on.. I’m sure you’ll come back with more questions…
Talk to you soon,
Vince
LikeLike
Vince,
Your Giga post is full of excellent and intelligent comment. I wonder if I could make a small request? Because the information you give is substantial and because I tend to need to read things a few times to understand and because I need to also read some of the Bible as promised to join this bit with that, I might not immediately comment.
I have NOT lost interest in the discussion in fact exactly the opposite and yes I have tons of questions.
To do you justice particulary to all the trouble and time you have gone to I need some time to reflect and consider. So if you don’t see a comment straight away I am still here just reading is all.
Kindest regards
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan,
sin is one of those commonly used but hard to define words that we christians toss around as though the meaning were common and plain!
for me it is a spiral sort of thing or so I hope. what were once very troubling matters now seem less so but they have been replaced by others that i used never to worry about but now realise are stuff that has to be dealt with.
Conviction of sin comes from getting to know Jesus better but as this is something like an infinite series, in an important sense I am now no less of a sinner and certainly no less in need of my Lord’s grace than when I started my walk with Him 31 years ago!
As always, though I continue to be unfaithful and disobedient still He is forgiving and always faithful.
To get more specific, right now, a bone of contention is my lack of forethought especially as far as my family is concerned. Too often I just forget to think of their needs and float along in happy selfishness.
LikeLike
Saml,
Honestly, you really don’t seem like that kind of guy. Saml how old are you?
Ivan
LikeLike
Hi there Vince,
Once more, many thanks for your detailed reply.
1. Love of money: I think that I agree with your definition with the little I understand of the bible. But there are many Christians who have an alternate view as you would know.
2. Determination to know Jesus: I’m quite interested in knowing about the man known as Jesus. I do however wish to look beyond just the bible, knowing the bible is the primary document. I think to “know” Jesus one would have to intelligently speculate beyond this one document.
3. Spirit of God: Vince I am not drawn in “spiritually” to anything. On this level God is meaningless to me. I don’t right this aspect of people’s beliefs as being foolishness as per the Biblical quote. I don’t see it this way at all. But the thing is I can’t conjure up this aspect if it’s not in me and I can honestly say it never has been. I will need to know God on a different level unfortunately for me.
4. Exchanging truth for lie: I have not bartered anything Vince despite how it may seem to your good self. I am looking for evidence and it’s a very black and white issue for me, it’s either there or it isn’t. Its there for you definitely! But I have an alternate view of the world that makes sense to me. I don’t agree that sense of Deity is on each and every heart. Man has sense of wonder and awe about the world, but some of us don’t associate this mental reaction with an imprint of God. As I understand it, Chimpanzees are understood to experience a very similar if not identical experience when looking at awe like scenes. It’s been documented that they appear to experience this at locations such as immense falls of water. I am confident it’s not God inspired. I suspect its part and parcel of the evolved primate brain.
I don’t know if I fully understand Paul’s point exactly.
I’m not sure many people “hate” God. I would suspect you could say atheists such as me have no particular feeling one way or another about a God.
That must be a sin I know.
5. Gods righteousness: What is that exactly Vince? How are the Kew children a product of eternal righteousness? God always wanted grossly deformed children? How can God’s justice be any worse than this? Why the dickens would you pray to such a deity? We would all perish? The “loving” God would kill us all? You don’t see the barbarism of your faith system do you Vince? Is it because you’re scared of God Vince?
Vince how can our “inner character” be flawed if we are a construct of God and as you say God is always right? Basically we can never really be right can we? Again we are really up the creek because of our eternal internal programming? Does this sound crazy to you? (It does to me)
6. Ivan commits the biggies: It kind of doesn’t bother me strangely. I find it difficult to understand a supreme master of the universe worried about my alleged sins.
I saw the notes on Romans; it’s precisely this that that makes me feel you’re on the wrong track with regard to a supreme intelligence. I find the scriptures tend to work in an anti-religious way in my head is plainly does not sound right.
7. Adam as a representative of the whole human race? You’re kidding me right? Adam whose partner made the one simple mistake and punishes mankind for an eternity? We know nothing in any detail whatsoever about Adams “sin” or the real circemstances. Vince you’re determined not to see fault with God. I have no evidence that God is beyond blame at this stage I can see a thousand things that look like Godly mistakes to me. I would start with the Kew children.
If you weren’t so mired in fear you might be seeing things a lot differently Vince.
Regards
Ivan
LikeLike
Dear Vince,
I understand what your saying in the “embrace” of Christianity to save one’s soul won’t work, but all the same, this is in essence what formal religion requires of the individual.
I understand the point you make of Jesus being Gods attempt to reach mankind, but you would think that maybe its long time for a second go. I think God could have done a whole lot better than use Jesus as the conduit. It’s been dang poor, half assed and short sighted attempt by the supreme ruler and intelligence of the universe.
There must be dozens of alternate ways that would have born the required fruit than this attempt. Jesus was the best that could be come up with?
Vince I don’t think circumventing Jesus as a way of knowing the Supreme Being would insult him in the slightest. Would you be insulted if someone came directly to you? I think you sell your God short.
Ivan
LikeLike
Saml,
Sin is a hard term to define? Not so sure about that, the word sin is basically a Hewbrew word and it literally means to miss the mark. The concpet being a sin is when we fall short of God’s requirement for us.
Vince
LikeLike
Ivan,
You know Ivan, I wonder if your quest to know God is really just a way to justify your position. Have you really examined your motives? Because essentially, you are unmovable in your position. Also, I asked this question before to no avail, but here goes again. What evidence would work for you?
The quote: “The fool has said in his heart, there is no God.” Well think about it, if God be true, then what are you? Biblically speaking, a fool who is one that is spiritually void.
I didn’t say barter, I said exchanged… By refusing to believe the truth, you choose to believe a non truth…or a lie. In the same way, you say that there is this wonder that humans share with chimps, are you saying that this the “sense of Deity” that humans respond to? Is that a function of intelligence? Gee, I wonder why we don’t see chimps or any other animals for that matter, erecting altars and worshiping God or participating in any other form of worship.
Also since you brought up this theory of evolution, tell me what was it exactly about the theory of evolution that convinced you that it was the truth. Was there one point, were there ten? Tell me about the evidence that you have personally seen that has built up your convictions about the theory of evolution? Would that type evidence be the same type of evidence that you require in order to believe in God? Remember exchanging the truth for a lie? Then, tell me in the evolutionary context about the Kew Hospital Kids? How does this fit into your world view? Are you angry at Mother Nature for their suffering? How does that work?
As for as hating God, Jesus said, that he who is not for me is against me; in the belief business there is no neutrality. The Bible says that the carnal mind is enmity against God. This is the source of that hatred that Paul is talking about. Also, when you view God against the reality of the Kew Hospital kids (or other things that lead you to anger or argue against God), tell me if that’s hatred you are feeling towards God? If it is not then what is it that you are feeling in that?
Again, Ivan, my faith is not built on fear, it is built on love, on the love that God has. One cannot understand the love of God without first knowing the wrath of God. Ivan what is more offensive to you, me calling you a criminal or a sinner? I am going to venture and guess a criminal. Because, when I accuse you of being a criminal, I can make that claim before the authorities, and if I can convince the authorities that you are guilty of breaking their law, then the authority has the power and the means to punish you for that crime, even unto death. The term criminal has real meaning to you doesn’t it? You understand the authority and its sovereignty and its ability to carry out justice or righteousness. Conversely, to call you a sinner is meaningless to you because you do not know or understand the sovereignty of the supreme authority, God. That He is the ultimate sovereign, and when his Laws are violated, He will through His means and His power carry out justice or righteousness. You know transgressing God’s Law, sinning, for which the wages is death. It is only when we recognize this reality do we begin to appreciate the gravity of the matter. Now, this is probably the fear that you are referring to, that you rationalize my faith in God. Obviously, I don’t want to perish (I don’t want you to perish either).
Now, imagine that you are standing before a magistrate, who has found you guilty of breaking the law and is about to pass a judgment against you. And in fear of the sentence, you appeal to the judge based on his goodness and his love, something like this “Your Honor, I know that you are a good judge and a loving judge, please do not sentence me in that way, I can’t bear that punishment, I’ll never do that again, I promise, just please, give me a second chance.” Do you know what that Judge is going to say to you? He going to say “You are right I am good and I am loving, and because of that I am going to see to it that what you did never happens again…”. You see a good judge requires justice, if he didn’t then I would question his goodness. Imagine murders and rapist and the like, having there sentences removed based on similar appeals. Or better yet, what if judges acted according to their own capriciousness? Would that judge be good? Would that judge be carrying out justice?
But, now image, that same judge who is obligated to justice, passing judgment for the full penalty, and then out of his love, gets up out of his seat, takes off his robes, and goes and stands in your stead to bear the penalty for your crime and you are in turn given the second chance. That’s what Jesus Christ is about, that God, in his infinite love, had compassion, and showed mercy and made a way for mankind. Jesus Christ came to this earth, God of very God, and was without blame, and he paid the price for my sins, for the sins of all who would believe. The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ. I had a debt that I owed that I could not pay, and Jesus Christ paid that debt, and thus has saved me from God’s wrath, from God’s judgment, from eternal death. It is appointed that all men shall die and then the judgment. God so loved the world, that he sent his one and only Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. That is the love that I am talking about that builds my faith. Paul said in Romans, that “”Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard?” and “…faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ”
Christianity is not about formal religion. Religion is man made. Christianity is about the person and the work of Jesus Christ. It about being reconciliation with God, and God in His love has made a way through Jesus Christ. There is only one mediator between God and men that is Jesus Christ.
Vince
LikeLike
Good Morning Vince,
You asked if I wanted to know God or was fortifying my position? That is a good question and I can only answer it by the heart. I want to know the answers to the big questions like the rest of humanity and maybe even a little more so. I have not restricted my reading list to just the Bible which I plod through, but many other types of books also; I am interested in coming at the question from a few different ways. For me, The Bible seems the least efficient way but I am reading it just the same.
Of course I have a “position” right now; I’m an atheist because for me it’s a more honest stance than being agnostic. But it’s also a position I am prepared to alter if suitable evidence comes my way.
You asked again what would be suitable evidence: Like UFO’s a close encounter of the third kind might be ideal. If God could talk to me directly as he has talked to tons of people in the Bibles past, would work a treat for me! Many people hear from God, Just apparently not me. Another thing could be an encounter of the second kind, say a code left in our DNA/RNA or… an obelisk buried on the Moons surface 2001 a space odyssey style! An orbiting Tablet with the 10 commandments… Something clearly unusual, something likely to make sense for humans 2000 years after the Bible. Just God speaking to us from the heavens would be perfect. I’m not picky Vince.
Well I might be a “fool” Vince; I often remark that I’m none to bright! But in my opinion it’s not really by defining “foolish” to withhold belief in the supernatural for lack of evidence, some would say it’s an entirely reasonable position.
Vince, since the dawn of man, we have had thousands upon thousands of Gods. We still do have at least a 100, you’re an “Atheist” to these thousand other Gods because you won’t lend belief to them, you have evidence enough for your one true God. Your atheist position on those others is reasonable; because there is no evidence we have elephant Gods and Gods of thunder etc. I’m just applying this rule one God further because I can’t see the evidence, does this make sense?
The Chimp question, I suspect we don’t see them building churches because they are to busy feeding themselves. I suspect we didn’t have time either until agriculture took a hold and we had enough time over from foraging to even consider praying etc.
Vince, I’m not a biologist, but I understand that Humans have a part of the brain that responds to awe of God. I believe that it’s quite possible that other primates share this centre in one way or another. Give chimps enough years and you might find them taking up Krishna.
Evolution is a big subject Vince; I will try and answer this point by point if that’s ok?
You asked what it was about evolution that convinced me it was true? I have been reading about this for a long time many different books. I am convinced it’s the truth because all current evidence, across many areas of science reveals it to be the truth. It’s called a theory I know but has not been one in any classical sense for half a century.
We have physical evidence, we transitional fossils, we now have DNA evidence and we have micro biological evidence all of it collaborates and fits the theory. I am prepared to drop it in a heart beat if science uncovers something that works better but so far evolution seems to fit like a glove.
Now how this works with the Kew Children, I am not sure, I’m not the scientist. I expect some kind of transcription error or gene abnormality causes this even but I am not the expert to answer that Vince.
Am angry at Mother Nature? Not really. Just hope one day science can find a way to predict this kind of event before it happens.
More offensive? Probably a criminal.
Vince why would God have his sinless son take our punishment but only to happy to punish us generation ally in Adams case?
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan,
Thanks for the reply.. more on the evolution thing.. So you have a firm grasp on evolution, please explain it to me, because I just don’t get it. There where what primates and then how did we get to humans? Or whatever, something in the sea that came out and what?
Less than convinced about evolution,
Vince
LikeLike
Hey Vince,
I might not be the best person to explain it to you, I have a “firm” grasp in so much as an amateur can in the world of science. The best things written about it have been by British scientist and teacher Richard Dawkins, I have pretty much all his stuff and a number of others.
Evolution is in its basic form is a kind of descent with modification. This modification contains a genetic inheritance. Its incremental and happens usually over largish time scales.
All life on earth does indeed share a common ancestor. It helps to look at it like branches on a tree rather than steps on a ladder which is really an incorrect image of the idea.
Humans didn’t come from Apes as popularised in many Sermons in many churches through the ages, our current Primates and ourselves diverged from a common ancestor millions of years ago. There is thought to have been 3 or 4 different sub human lines that branched and didn’t survive the journey. I don’t think its understood entirely why we made it, but our ability to occupy a broad ecological niche would have been a major point.
Its easier nowadays to see our evolutionary path through the science of genetics. Our entire gene history is still there today and can be readily observed.
Vince, evolution is a complicated and dynamic subject, I can suggest reading material if you wish? It won’t contradict the case for a supreme being if you still want to keep reassured by your faith. It happens to be the strongest idea of how life developed on planet Earth and is accepted amongst scientists with strongly held religious beliefs as with much of the Christian world as the best explanation we have at this time.
Told you I would explain it badly!!
Kind regards
Ivan
PS
My regards to Sher.
LikeLike
Vince,
i agree, sin is missing the mark. There are indeed a number of words for sin and the literal meaning of these words is quite plain. I meant that 1) i’m learning and it is a continuous and steep learning curve, what righteousness really means. Even with all that I still don’t have the cleares picture of ‘the mark’ and my idea of what sin i am to be working on will keep changing.
In fact, the more I know, the more I know how short i still fall, how far i have deviated and how many times i step over the line and even that is only a partial idea!
One thing I do know is that the more time I spend in obedient action, the less time i will have to be disobedient…
LikeLike
Is it possible to not sin?
LikeLike
i doubt it
LikeLike
Saml,
Is it at least possible, for a Human being not to sin?
If you were to take a case of someone, born profoundly mentally unwell, maybe similar to the Kew hospital children or someone with a profound Downs syndrome, is it possible that their reduced mental capacity make them sinless?
If not, what kind of sins would or could be attributable to someone in this condition?
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan,
I wasn’t thinking about kids born mentally retarded or those who die young but the same answer goes for all – God is just! If I can see the injustice of punishing someone or even of branding someone for something that they did not do, I’m sure God will be that much more sure to do the right thing. That’s what is meant by “God is just” and this is only one of His ‘personality traits’. The way I get to decide that is based on Jesus and what I know of Him both in the bible and through personal relationship. It’s a bit crcular, but then that’s what i’ve got – lots of tautology!
LikeLike
Thanks Saml. I think I have it now.
Ivan
LikeLike
Saml,
Just wanted to say thank you for all the very many questions I seem to have. You give me good answers that make a great deal of sense.
Kind regards
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan,
I am thankful to have an interesting and thought provoking conversation with you! And, i am quite sure that there are many, many, Qs for which i don’t have answers and for which my answers will be inadequate/wrong. Someone called this process ‘iron sharpening iron’ – can be painful but it will be valuable too, for both of us I hope!
LikeLike
At a glance it appears that you seem to have a good perspective on evolution. As for the notion of evolution interfering with my belief in God, I know that if evolution be true, then it is of God and not independent of Him. So in that vane, I know that understanding the world as we know helps to reveal more about the creator. As evidenced in that fact that we do see a micro evolution if you will, specifically with the finches on the Galapagos. In that we see changes within finches that are part and parcel to the genetic programming available to finches. However, the stretch for me is when we talk about evolution at a grand scale, when we say we see an alteration in genetics to form the next branch on the tree, as you speak of. We do not see that in the example of the finches, because we start out with finches and end up with finches. We do not see any changes within finches that are not a part of the genetic programming already available to finches.
On the surface evolution on a grand scale sounds plausible, that is to have some mutation in the genetic coding that could produce these branches you speak of, but when you try to map it or trace it out, there seems to be real problems. For instance, you have a water dweller, that produces an offspring that has something new in its genetic coding, and this new coding improves this creature’s ability to dwell on land. So this creature leaves the water, and does in order to survive. Sound good so far doesn’t it… but the problem is this, what is sex? Male? Female? Is it asexual? How does it reproduce? We know that it cannot reproduce with its ancestors, so how does reproduce itself? It creates a real dilemma. Not only that, all the literature that I’ve read to date falls short of dealing with this issue at any level, not to mention the scientific data or fossil record or otherwise, all the evidences fall shorts and is quite lacking.
Now that is certainly a simplistic view, however, there are some more real complexities especially when we see the common ancestor theory that humans and apes share. Specifically, in the area of right-handed and left handed proteins. There is a real dilemma, because there’s no way to biologically bridge the two while maintaining life. So there are some real problems there…
Any thoughts…
Vince
LikeLike
Hi Vince,
Vince, while I know what the things are in the last paragraph, I’m not sure I understand your actual question?
Evolution moves at a very slow Pace Vince, Humans have only been here quite recently measured in time. It’s unlikely we will see new species type event over this short of period. When the changes do happen, they are incremental and slow, they happen to the group at large not just an individual. There is plenty of fossil evidence just not an example of every single thing. This may happen in time, but we don’t have examples of everything.
Vince, I might not be the best person to learn about this stuff from. Whilst I read a lot, I explain badly.
I am willing to have a go mind you, but your best directed to books as it’s a difficult subject when you delve into it. People that are Christians love to give me stuff about Evolution to stump me! The truth is, I’m not an expert and I have to look up answers many times myself.
Kind regards
Ivan
LikeLike
Vince,
Are you referring to the old argument often voiced on “creation science” Websites? About why we have left handed proteins? Most of this stuff you can find the answers to on Science sites aimed at helping high schoolers with the School certificate exams. They discribe it in laymans terms which always suits me let me tell you! Let me know if you would like a site reccomendation.
Regards
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan,
I agree with Vince as far as how science and faith can comfortably go hand in hand: “I know that if evolution be true, then it is of God and not independent of Him”. That’s about where I stand too but it seems to me that your atheistic scientists often have greater faith than do religious people.
I say this coz many scientists act as tho if evolution were disproved (or sub, laws of thermodynamics, quantum mech …) that they would turn into shattered people! In fact I’ve seen this happen – a scientist will espouse a particular paradigm and passionately fight to see his position proved. when the ‘scientific community turns their back on that pet theory, the scientist is destroyed, excellent and dedicated researcher tho he/she may be!
Yet, the fact is that science is in the business of building disprovable theories which should then be tested for consistency, efficacy, predictive value etc, in a competitive environment where other hypotheses are also similarly bing knocked around.
So, why such angst? Looks to me like here we have just substituted science in that heart-space that humans usually reserve for belief/faith/religion…
LikeLike
Ivan,
Actually, there was a lecture on UCTV (University of California) that focused on the differences between primates and humans and their diseases and cancers. I was surprised to see that there are diseases that are inherent to humans and not apes because of biological difference in proteins. There was a very complex discussion on the right handed and left handed proteins as they related to each ones anatomy. The researcher was in the evolution camp, and he let his predilections taint his work. However, he said that it was a mystery as to how these proteins diverged from the common ancestor and there remains no plausible explanation.
So in the scheme of things evolution is plagued with many of these mysteries and remains a theory at best. Even Dawkins admits that evolution has not been proven, although he adds a caveat “yet”, and goes further when he offers the idea that evolution is the most probable explanation. I think Dawkins is a strange bird, in that he seems to be talking more about philosophy then biology. Also, Dawkins departs from the evolution community on the group evolution of things.
You know Ivan, you say that evolution moves at a very slow pace and that humans have been here quite recently (as) measured in time. Then why do you suppose we have such difficulty in tracing back. If humans have been here a relatively short time, for which we have a recorded history, one that show humans with a high level of intelligence, what happened to the set of human one increment before, that were not as intelligent, but almost as intelligent… It seems that we would be able to trace that history back a bit further.
Also, I agree with Saml… that people have replace religion with science and it involves lots of faith, perhaps more blind faith then most are willing to admit.
Vince
LikeLike
Saml,
I really can’t speak for them or recall an incident as you discribe. But I suspect, if the theory being demolished is ones life work well its got to hurt.
I have had people before equate it with faith, But I don’t think its quite the same thing.
Ivan
LikeLike
Hi Vince,
I follow you now! sorry. I don’t know of the problem and certainly don’t have the answer. I will try and look into though; Can I get back to you on that question?
Yes Dawkins is an odd fellow.
Vince, a lot of our pre-humans as it were, have been found in preserved bone but not a lot. One of the reasons is that the Earths crust is very dynamic and moves a lot. It’s no easy thing to find specimens. Having said that, enough evidence exists to pin this part of our past down. Its not theory in any classical sense.
I am not sure at all people embrace Science in place of faith; I see them as two different things. People often hold faith in science to eventually provide some outcome, which sometimes happens sometimes doesn’t. What Some of science has done is “displaced” God in some parts of nature. This is a good thing, I would have thought for Christians and atheists alike.
LikeLike
Saml and Vince,
Would you comment on something for me? I don’t direct this at you both specifically.
Christians believe in the Supernatural. To me it never looks all that different to witchcraft, recently on our news I heard of 2 men being murdered over allegations of witchcraft. Collectively these beliefs for me are quite extraordinary and yet Christians believe them with their hearts and refer to them lovingly as “gifts”.
Yet, when you look at theories relating to science, you dismiss them as acts of faith and some Christians, Not you two gentlemen, look at it quite sneeringly. Why is one kind of faith “good” and “prized” yet the other, quite the opposite? Scientific faith usually has something concrete to go on, and frequently wins; Look at my favorite Antibiotics or X-Rays etc.
Why is this so?
LikeLike
Vince,
Evolution isn’t “plagued” with mysteries. Not all the data is in, but enough is on the table now to understand the broad detail.
Ivan
LikeLike
Vince just to answer in slightly more detail.
You asked: What happened to the earlier “humans” one or two steps back?
Vince, a lot of fossil material has been found already but no where near the full picture. I understand some of the difficulties link to both movement of the Earths crust combined with bone remains needing to be untouched by predators and lain down in the right soil types. It seems to happen enough that Scientists keep unearthing new finds and some time new proto human lines. But there is still a lot of links in the chain yet to be discovered.
You said: Evolution is plagued by mysteries and will always be a theory. Not really Vince. Whilst links in the chain still need to be uncovered, enough has been to make evolution as close a thing to a fact as we can get. Given the enormous time frames often involved, it’s unlikely we will be here as a species long enough to really know the full picture. But enough is “viewable” to feel confident.
You said: Dawkins departs from the group on some evolution matters? I think he does on some things yes. But this doesn’t dampen the wider theory.
You said: People replace religion with science? I don’t see it exactly as that, I wouldn’t phrase it that way myself. Science certainly illuminates the world, and in some minor matters displaced God, but I doubt he replaces yours and Samls highly defined faith at all. I see you both as strong thinking Christians.
You asked: Left and right handed Proteins and Apes, No plausible argument? Actually there is. I just have to find it, I am sure it was linked in to something about the Earths early atmosphere. It’s in one of my books I will look the answer up and get back to you Vince.
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan,
that’s just the problem with how science is publicly perceived. whatever be the evidence, however strong and however well supported by experimental evidence, a theory will always be a theory. if you think back to Newton, his ‘laws’ are intuitive and can still be ‘proved’ experimentally, only the difficulty is that we had Einstein come along and then Planck and then … P’raps even more to the point is the great battle that took place between Einstein and the QM crowd.
However strong a paradigm, it only ‘exists’, in the sense of dominates, till the next hypothesis comes along or till the right experiment is performed to show its limitations. that’s just as true of the theory of evolution and I am rather dismayed that Dawkins is unscientific enough to give the public a different impression altogether. People like Dawkins are the ones with the strongest ‘religion type faith’ in what should just be viewed as today’s dominant theory.
There are huge problems with the theory of evolution as it stands, many areas of untestability (so far) and there are fundamental questions which cosmology and the theory of the development of the earth itself have left unsolved. that’s great from a scientific standpoint – lots to explore, mysteries to be sorted out etc. but the truth is that 10 or 20 years down the line, I would hope that a much stronger paradigm comes along that better explains the observable reality, with fewer variables and better predictability. That is what is the essential excitement of science – figuring out how God actually did do things!
LikeLike
Saml,
I hear you but don’t agree with you specifically, in regard to Evolution itself. However, I do agree there are many things to learn about the beginnings of life and the universe, However I doubt personally, that this will lead to a God or Gods. Just my 2 cents worth.
LikeLike
Ivan. for a change it looks like the shoe is on the other foot! Everyone was so dead sure that Ptolemy was right because for hundreds of years his system had proved perfectly workable so when Copernicus came along that had to be heresy! The whole idea that one paradigm ‘has to be right’ is essentially unscientific. The whole fun is in finding out how best to shoot it down and put in something better!
LikeLike
Saml,
I’m not saying one paradigm has to be right, I’m saying, the science of evolution looks to be the best answer for the story of life unfolding as this time. I’d bet, in 200 years it will still be the only game in town. I know Vince would like to play Thomas and put forward various minor objections, and I know some of the finer detail still is being debated, but the wider idea is still quite valid.
I only find this subject debate worthy in that so many Christians appear utterly crushed somehow that there is a perfectly natural and unGod like rule of the story of life unfolding. I suspect, that eventually we will have a good working idea as solid as evolution to explain life starting on planet Earth. When this happens I can only imagine the feaces hitting the fan.
But Saml I am all for fun! ; )
Kind regards
Ivan
LikeLike
Saml,
A question: If for certain, God did not exist, How would you imagine your life being different?
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan,
It would make a huge difference! For one thing I was heading straight for being a very bad egg! A decent IQ and no morals or ethics is a bad combo and that’s exactly what I was when Jesus grabbed hold of me. He still has a tough job to do and a i’ve got a long way to go but He is definitely making some progress!
LikeLike
Ok Saml.
LikeLike
. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.
Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty–above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.” No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution–or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter–they are not expressing reservations about its truth.
In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as “an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as ‘true.'” The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.
All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists’ conclusions less certain.
Saml, borrowed wording from another site. This is what I was trying to say about “just a theory” VS closest thing to a fact.
LikeLike
Hey Vince,
I don’t know if you’re still out there, but I wanted to let you know I have so far been unsuccessful at answering the question of right and left handed proteins in Apes. I trawled the books I had and for the life of me couldn’t find the bit I remembered reading. I looked also online with even less luck but I have asked at a science site and may get an answer. I found a small piece in James Watson’s book “DNA” which made the case again that both Apes and Chimpanzees and humans had a common evolutionary ancestor. Apparently it’s been confirmed that the split happened sometime in the last 5 million years. He also makes mention that Chimpanzees genetically have more in common with us than they do with Apes. About 1% of there gene line separates us from them. I was going to try and type the whole shebang out for you but its going to take some time, might be better if I lent you the book.
Ivan
LikeLike
Hi Ivan,
I’m still here. I’ve been busy with the DST changes coming this weekend. (DV) I’ll touch base early next week.
Have a great weekend, you too Saml..
Vince
LikeLike
Ivan, the theory of evolution is the dominant theory at present in that branch of science. As such we treat it as ‘fact’ till proven otherwise. This means that there should be two approaches amongst scientists 1) tweaking the theory through experiment to fine tune and elaborate its workings, 2) taking an overall view of the experimental evidence to see if any rival theory can be formulated/tested that does a better job or potentially might challenge parts or the whole of the current dominant theory.
Unfortunately, the so-called Christian proposals (creationism and intelligent design) have not been formulated effectively as scientific theories – mostly trying to find some space for God to fit into whatever gaps are perceived in the theory of evolution.
I find the approach of many of these Xtian scientists to be passionate but bad science and based on a wrong reading of the bible.
On the other hand, the theory of evolution does have major problems. i expect that these problems either will be addressed, or in attempting to sort them out the theory will fail at some point and need to be replaced. It worries me that in science today, the very important job of finding alternatives (2) is being largely ignored!
I see the bible and science as two somewhat overlapping areas of knowledge. As our understanding of both areas improves we will see how they do mesh with each other in the areas of overlap (assuming that both are discovering truth) but practically the areas of overlap are few and on the edges. One happens to be the story of creation that some people reading the bible are insisting on reading in a very unbiblical way. i’m sure that the concern for truth, that is a paramount concern for any follower of Jesus, will eventually win out!
LikeLike
I am sure your right Saml.
Ivan
LikeLike
Though, Not about Evolution having “major” problems.
Saml,
Do you suspect the Bible is 100% true and correct? Is it the complete word of God? Do you think any bits of it might not really be the word of God ?
LikeLike
Ivan, as far as evolution goes just as with any working hypothesis, we’ll have to wait and see how it pans out. Thousands of scientists doing work and analysing that work will have to decide evantually. The theory may slowly keep morphing, as it has been doing or perhaps something entirely new will burst forth, so we keep learning… On these grounds alone, constantly accomodating the bible to science or the latest scientific guesswork to the bible is a bit foolish, both types of study are in progress and have yet to reach an end point.
The bible is a complex book covering thousands of years of happenings. I believe that the bible gives me truth on various levels and in various ways. 1) It is a story of how God is going about saving the world so it’s true as salvation history. 2) The individual authors record what they believe sincerely to be truth. 3) In my mind, as I read and study the bible, I believe that God communicates His truth to me. Most importantly, the story of Jesus life, work, death and resurrection is the key to biblical meaning and truth and with four gospels to work with, I’m pretty confident that Jesus communicates His self and His truth very effectively indeed and He is THE good news! Because of the self revelation (self disclosure) of who God is in Jesus, the bible also tells me what God requires of me and as I concentrate on Jesus, I think His teaching is both authoritative and clear enough.
This does not make the bible exhaustive nor encyclopedic. It does mean that as a literary work, I have to get into the language and cultural context as much as I can in order to clearly see what the bible does and does not say.
The more I study, the more I realise how much I have yet to learn, and as my understanding is limited, so too will be the extent to which I can absolutely say ‘this is truth’. Still, I think the major themes of who God is and what He has done are pretty clear, even to someone who reads for the first time and without a whole lot of background, and this is because, with the authors and their original audiences, we do share a common humanity and in translation a pretty fair linguistic understanding.
LikeLike
Saml,
When you say “both sides” are being studied, How does this relate to religion? We are not about to discover another bible and its never going to happen that the existing one will be modified will it?
I appreciate that you find truth in the Bible, its a pity it can’t be tested and verified though. But I do understand it makes you feel good and probably safe also, and it seems to provide you with ample motivation to stay upon a good path. I guess I just find it odd you can’t just do it on your own without it.
Best regards
Ivan
LikeLike
Great questions! The bible does exactly the opposite to ‘making me feel good…safe’. The most discomfitting part is when I read about Jesus! What He demands sounds so simple (it is in fact) yet so hard for me to reach. That’s why I can’t do it on my own, I need to have God pointing out to me from His perspective where I have to improve/change. The bible is very inspiring and does give confidence on a different level – that I am not in this alone and that He is bent on helping me to be a truer disciple, but that feeling only helps a little.
As far as testability is concerned, the test or experiment was Jesus Himself. He preached His message of God’s kingdom come, and lived it out, and we know where that ended up. Each disciple of His will follow that same path and will come to that same denouement with the world. It really is not a comforting thing to contemplate.
How do you go about testing ethics and morals anyway? I might believe that its wrong to kill people but I hope you don’t expect me to test that out first!
The message of the bible (going backwards thru yr Qs) is something that is not at all static. People tried to live out Jesus teachings in the first century and we have som of their experiences on record. They applied Jesus teachings and way of living to their world. We have to study afresh how to do that here and now.
And then there is what we like to call theology, and that has been and is changing constantly too! the last word on this little bible certainly has not been written yet and I can’t see it happening any time soon!
LikeLike
Just ran into an interesting study of Jesus’s teaching by an atheist!
I don’t agree 100% with his conclusions especially on John’s gospel but that’s a pretty objective and accurate summary of Jesus’s ethical teachings!
LikeLike
Hey Saml,
I am just about to go and look at that link. Saml, What do you expect the “afterlife” to be like? After Jesus was murdered, he came back with wounds that he showed Thomas, do you think a one legged man has one leg in heaven ?
LikeLike
Saml,
That link wouldn’t open.
LikeLike
Ivan, sorry, it srrms to be working here. Here’s the full ref: http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/JesusEthics.htm
LikeLike
Dang that was a good to read! Thanks Saml!
LikeLike
How would Heaven work out for still born children? What about traumatic death incidents? Mentally ill on Earth?
If we see the soul as our re incarnated bodies how are we supposed to be physically in heaven? Could you recognize a loved one for instance?
My most interesting one is this, During the 70,s I think, a new medical procedure was developed for people with chronic seizures, they use to slice their brains in half, and this worked so well with treating seizures that quite a few people had this done. A puzzling effect ensured in the years after, people developed two separate sets of consciousness in the one head. People literally would fight themselves; one arm would be reading a book and the other constantly pushing the book aside to watch TV. Did these people have twin souls? How would this play out in heaven?
LikeLike
Hey Saml,
Would you be able to discribe yourself? Age, where you live etc? I know so little about the guy educating me ?
LikeLike
Ivan
Your comment about the surgically split brain — believe it or not, my post today is directly related to this phenomenon. Tomorrow’s too, if my attention doesn’t wander off down some other alleyway.
LikeLike
Ktismatics, I actually wondered whether Ivan had read your post before writing his response! Your development of this theme also reminded me of a Fitzgerald book – can’t recall the title yet tho.
Ivan, heaven is one of those things that I am going to wait and see on. I think that just as language gets stressed when talking of things like creation, so too with topics like the ‘end of the world’, resurrection and heaven…
our personalities are very interesting to think on, complex and difficult coz we’re a bit too close to the subject or object to get objectivity! the older division was spirit, soul, body, then we have mind, heart, feelings, thought, unconscious, subconscious with memory and perception all mixing in together at the same time!
I would hope that all the confusion will one day end, we’ll be integrated and whole, in oneness with one another and at peace, I guess that’s what I wish that heaven could be!
Self description: very average person but been to lots of different parts of the world and done lots of different things in my soon-to-be half century of life. Indian by nationality and now also resident in South India. Been a Christian in the sense of follower of Jesus for close to 30 yrs now but in that journey started out very conservative, right wing, and now am somewhere closer to a muddled middle roader.
LikeLike
Thanks Saml,
Its good to know you!. I had not read Johns peice on split brain patients, will do so now, That was a strange and almighty coincidence!
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan, one of the areas of the present theoretical framework for the origin of life that most bothers me is the earth’s atmosphere. I have a strong feeling looking at the available evidence, that the atmosphere has always been oxidising in nature. This makes the formation of life, according to current theoretical knowledge, pretty much an impossibility.
LikeLike
Ivan, I do hope that your ‘little atheistic self’ is doing fine!
LikeLike
More than fine Saml! In the city of Koln and typing this in site of a cathedral worthy of a God. Just near the Dom Cathedral really beautiful and gothic. Saml, I am not sure what evidence your privy to, but I read all the current stuff and I can assure you there is no *controversy* other than the deliberately misleading one. Trouble is, I dont know why they need to do this but some people need an opening for God and get desperate to find one, even an invented one. I think arguments about oxididation run along the same ones about how its possible to prove a plane cannot fly. Somehow it did.. Cant type for peanuts on a european key board!
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan, really glad to hear that you are having fun. I haven’t been to Germany but the few medieval cathedrals that I have seen indeed are beautiful and worthy structures.
I certainly am not looking for a place to plug God into the scientific theory! The theory only exists because we are trying to figure out what God did and is doing.
I’m just coming back to areas in the current theory of evolution that trouble me from a scientific standpoint. if you will forgive my saying so, as far as the early atmosphere’s composition goes, ALL the physical evidence points to it being strongly oxidising. The idea that it was reducing runs something like an anthropic principle argument, to get from there to here, this must have been how it happened, and that is not good science!
I personally think that some of the findings on the Archaea may slowly cause major modifications to the theories on how earliest life forms happened, but that’s just a thought.
LikeLike
Hey Saml,
As far as I understand the science, and I think I do, there is no problem with oxidisation. I am not sure what journals your reading that I have not. Further, You may be trying to figure things out in a Godly framework, I on the other hand am still trying to find evidence of a God or Gods existing in the first place. So far I have seen nothing pointing to a deity. I am currently typing this from Paris, and I thought German keyboards were hard!
cheers
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan, in my opinion the ruling paradigm is causing something like colour blindness. If you look at the theory of atmosphere evolution, the consensus is that the earliest ‘atmospher was H2 and He which were quickly lost for want of gravity, then outgassing from the interior produced an atmosphere. Just take a look at what various volcanoes are spewing out now and you will find a beautifully oxidising mixture coming out. so the supposition that things like methane (CH4) was in the early atmosphere is pretty much ruled out. Also, just look at our two neighbors, Venus and Mars, both have oxidising atmospheres and there is no question that photosynthesis had anything to do with that!
There are claims that unoxidised iron sediments exist in very ancient rocks but the earliest dating on this is 2,5 billion years ago when it’s doubtfull that the earth had cooled down enough to allow outgassing to play much of a role and the evidence for these rare unoxidised sediments is far outweighed by masses of oxidised stuff in these and earlier rocks!
LikeLike
Hey Saml,
Saml I have some really interesting information on early Earth chemical evolution. Unfortunately its about 8000 Klm away at home. I will get into a more detailed discussion with you on my return. I am borrowing a computer here in France and dont wish to monopolise the use of the ordinator. Give me about 10 days?
Ivan
LikeLike
Hey, ake your time, I eagerly await…
LikeLike
I eagerly await also. My host loves his computer time so its difficult and a little impolite to use it for long. Interestingly, the keyboard is a little different and cannot beleive the difference it makes in typing speed. Incidently, I think your a little incorrect in your claim of the earliest datings of rock material.
The French family I am staying with mentioned to me that they are atheists also. Mon dieu! So very many of us.
LikeLike
It’s the AZERTY keyboard instead of the QWERTY. My wife figured out that there’s 19% different between the two — about proportional to the cultural difference between America and France. I think you could use it as a clue to a crime novel: typing errors in the ransom note would indicate an Anglophone criminal using a French keyboard.
LikeLike
John,
I dont know if this is true, But I heard that all the letters that spell the word typewriter, are found on the first line of a qwerty keyboard. I was told that when typewriters were first invented they used this word as a demo. Everyone could find the keys easily and it stuck.
John, France is quite beautiful. I love it here.
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan –
It works! Watch this: t-y-p-e-w… Never mind. I’m glad you like France. Maybe someday I’ll get to Australia.
John
LikeLike
Should you ever make it John, email me first, I would be pleased to give you a tour if required;
Ivan
LikeLike
http://www.sirinet.net/~jgjohnso/apbio19.html
Saml, does this site offer you the information in regards to your earlier question regarding oxidation? I am still not home yet and dont have access to my books. But was looking around the net a bit;
actually reading it again it really doesnt will have another go.. bare with me.
http://www.geocities.com/we_evolve/Origins/origins_Early_Earth.html
I think this one anwsers the question Saml;
I can get into specifics a bit more on my return, I have a science library on just about everything; and its catalouged mostly, its just a bugger on my travels its not very portable. I read a quote some years back that there can be two types of knowledge, knowing something or being able to find the information on it. I tend to be in the latter group, but with the information in hard copy rather than a favourites list. Its inconvenient but the stuff seems in more detail.
Hope this helps you in understanding evolution of our planet.
Ivan
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan, the second link is much better than the first but I am afraid that my questions remain. You will notice that the second article concentrates in its 2nd half exclusively on the question of how organics could have formed. Easier in highly reducing, bit tough in slightly reducing atmospheres. This is again the same thing, organics were formed so the atmosphere ‘must have been’ reducing. I am asking, apart from special pleading, where is there any evidence, geological or cosmological regarding this reducing atmosphere that then suddenly disappears?
LikeLike
PS, i can wait till you get back to your data, no hurry at all!
LikeLike
Saml,
I thought it explained the answer ok. I have to fly out right now for an evening meeting, so dont have the time to really re read it right this moment. If I get the chance will look at it on my return or if I have too much emailing to do, when I get back.
I will see how I go.
I should maybe point out that I dont know if my information is actual evidence as such, meaning, know one was alive back then obviously and dynamics of the earths crust make sampeling difficult. at best its like to be a theory or an idea. The answer though, Its not likely to be related to cosmic sky fairys though I might have to warn you. Unfortunately we still dont have an opening for a God right at this moment.
Ivan.
LikeLike
Ivan, I am not at all interested in finding some small niche into which I can squeeze in God’s necessity. That’s a game that ID is into. I think it is quite disrespectful of God to think like that.
I am interested in being as critical as possible with scientific theories because if science is to do its job at all it will be only based on how honest, truthful and self-critical it is willing to be.
Yes indeed the explanation in the article “sounds ok” but the problem is that it does not match the available evidence. When you get back and have some leisure, we can get into this a bit coz it points to biologists plotting a very strange course with the geological evidence and this is skewing the entire theory of the evolution of the earth itself in a wrong direction… But, let’s see what you think as we get into it later.
LikeLike
Ivan, I just ran into an interesting article on Einstein’s views on God and religion. If you haven’t seen it yet here is the link in Time magazine
LikeLike
Hi Saml!
Yes, I had read that article on Einstein as well as a number of others, he kind of pops up regulary in discussions on God. If you get a chance also, there is a really interesting debate between Christians and Atheists in the April 9th newsweek. If you can get your hands on a copy its quite a good quality debate from both camps.
I love good debates.
Saml, I dont think science has any kind of problem with not being self critical, I means its this way to distraction! I hard part in our internet age is picking through junk arguments and intentional misinformation. Its also tricky on the newer areas simply because of the greater amount of compexity.
As I understand it so far, the science does follow the evidence in regard to early earth geological Chemistry.
I dont have the time here to trawt through for the right information when its on my book shelf at home.
Its just going to have to wait till I return, takes me to long here to read the required information and keep in touch with my kid;
I look forward to following this through with you!
Saml, whilst your obviously like looking at evidence and studying things scientific, had you ever thought about applying the same level of critical thinking to your religious beliefs? Why does it appear that you dont?
Ivan
LikeLike
Sam – Interesting piece on Einstein. The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who–in their grudge against traditional religion as the ‘opium of the masses’– cannot hear the music of the spheres.
Ivan – How much longer are you in France? Are you staying in the northern part of the country, or will you pay a visit to the sunny Mediterranean?
LikeLike
Ivan, I don’t agree with you on biological science’s ability to introspect especially on the ruling paradigm. Where are scientific alternatives to the theory of evolution? If you take geology or astronomy, there are any number of potential theories being knocked around but I guess biology is somehow emotive and we get shortsighted and fanatical about it in an unhealthy way. Have you read Kuhn? I think I mentioned him somewhere back there…
As far as being critical with my religion, that’s a different ball game. It’s not like science where one is dealing with a measure of objectivity coz I am trying to study myself and subject-object are mixed up already as John has been pointing out in his various recent posts.
On a broader level, if you mean religion in a cultural sense, then you can count me in. I do not like “religion” at all!
What is available for critical analysis is stuff like the bible and this is something that I find being critical with is actually a lot of fun.
I had a major crisis of faith when I first started to swing PoMo and away from my evangelical roots. Surprisingly I found that I could appreciate Jesus better as a ‘liberal’ thinker than I had as a conservative one. Jesus remains, so I guess I too have to keep following Him.
LikeLike
Sorry, I forgot that i was logged in to wordpress so my name has changed but its the same old blogger samlcarr speaking!
LikeLike
Hey John,
We are in Paris another 4 days and have travelled down south also. Been meeting my wifes parents for the very first time and now many of her old Parisian friends.
LikeLike
Saml,
There have been alternatives to evolutionary science over the years, but I think pretty much everything else has crashed and burnt.
Saml, has your Jesus got a beard?
Ivan.
LikeLike
Ivan, Enjoy Paris and your in-laws and new friends. We have time…
LikeLike
What was your crisis of faith Saml?
Not all that really familiar with Kuhn, but just read a few things about him just now.
Ivan
LikeLike
Saml,
Just going back a step or two, I don’t see the Science of Biology as being especially emotive a subject. It has been over the last century to some Christians that some how see conflict with humanities beginnings and the Biblical discrepancies. There are scientific “alternatives” of a sort, if we give science a slightly more liberal meaning, you find this stuff all the time on creationist web sites as they try and find gaps to squeeze their God into. But the science can be really haphazard with all kinds of fictitious stumbling blocks, you would have come across this stuff from time to time? Darwinism, is still the best explanation for what we see going on at this point in time. I suspect it will be the ruling paradigm in another 500 years. I “suspect” anyways.
I went to the Louves in France recently and was taken by all the Religious art depicting Jesus. A comment someone made recently was that we didn’t even know if he had a beard, his height,weight anything. Its interesting how these old masters saw him, and I wonder if everyone things of him in this way, hence my beard question. Has he got one Saml?
LikeLike
Saml,
I wanted to get back to you on that question posed about atmospheric oxidization. First off, I consulted my books for information, and also did a little on line searching. There is information out there, I think reputable, explaining the beginnings and development of the early earth atmosphere. Trouble for me is, I don’t have the qualifications to really analyse it. Try as I might. I did also find various information and theories from people that posed your original question, they are a dime a dozen on various “anti Darwin” websites specifically with strong Christian affiliations. I found one that put the question in some detail and also was heavily referenced. This particular piece, didn’t come out with a conclusion that Darwinism is some kinda scientific fraud, it merely said that more study was needed in the field of atmospheric science. I am going to try through the week to speak to some people a little more expert and in the field so to speak, and see if I get a better answer. It didn’t seem at as clear that either Venus or Mars, supported the case either way. At least that’s how it seemed. While I was away, about 30 books arrived on all kinds of stuff. I have to get back with my reading program! Both my wife and I caught a terrible respiratory bug from France, we are sick as dogs. Long as its not that Antibiotic resistant TB. I hate to have Darwinism made that clear to me. ; )
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan, glad you are both back and had a good trip despite the infection. It may be viral in which case you will feel real bad but be ok without much treatment in a few days.
Regarding physical appearances in the bible. It is a very key question (though you may not have thought so) as it goes to the heart of the ban on idolatry that is an essential part of Judaism. The fact is that we have almost no physical information on almost any biblical figure and that is deliberate. I do believe that beards were quite common in those times/areas but more for the difficulty of shaving, so ‘clean shaven’ would have been rare and only the rich could afford a close shave.
As to length of hair and stuff like that there are a number of different opinions but mostly based on surrounding cultures as there is a dearth of physical representation of any kind from the Jews of Palestine. The short answer is that no one has a clue about Jesus’ appearance and what you see in art is pure imagination.
Interestingly, a couple of Old Testament referrences that are considered to be prophecies of the messiah indicate; frailty, ugliness and very black skin, like this quote from Isaiah: “Who has believed what he has heard from us? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? For he grew up before him like a young plant,
and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.”
LikeLike
Saml,
How would a simple word description become idolatry? Why couldn’t Jesus have just been outlined? Physically I mean? I have more than a Virus here dude, We are both on heavy duty antibiotics. We are as sick as!
I suspect pretty much everyone then would be bearded (males I mean) but its funny that we don’t really know in this mans case. I see people commit emotionally to Jesus over here at least by people that see Jesus as the main character that played him in a stage show called Jesus Christ superstar. I have wondered if they saw him as the locally despised Middle Easterners whether it would change their view or not?
LikeLike
Ivan, that’s the essence of idolatry right there. We remake God into something, anything, other than what God really is…
LikeLike
Saml,
Except we are not talking about a God, we are talking about a man named Jesus.
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan, I was speaking generally. Whenever we do stuff like “see Jesus as the main character that played him in a stage show called Jesus Christ superstar“, i.e. Jesus is a tall, dark and handsome person full of charisma and with a wonderful voice to boot, that is idolatry because it is a false representation. In fact what it boils down to is that any ‘representation’, even a mental image, is idolatry precisely because it does not correspond, in fact cannot correspond, to ‘the truth’. If we were consistent we would not have pictures depicting Jesus isn our homes.
LikeLike
Sam, your position regarding visual images of Jesus, the saints, etc. was part of the original Protestant Reformation. In their battles against the Catholics they went around destroying religious statues, chipping their faces off, etc. Medieval artists made a living on religious art commissioned by the Church. If you wanted to be an artist in Protestant countries you had to get a commercial patron or else sell your stuff in the marketplace. Rembrandt was a key transitional figure in Protestant Holland. His portraits of Biblical figures were kind of homely, wrinkled, careworn — ordinary people who happened to find themselves in extraordinary circumstances. I don’t know if Rembrandt ever painted Jesus, but I bet not.
LikeLike
Ivan, while the issue is one that is ‘typically’ about religion, I think the reality that it highlights has important consequences for relationships generally. Whenever I associate a mental image with a person, the person becomes frozen, trapped within my picture. A photo is a frozen moment in time. It was a true representation of something at some particular time but humans move in time, the picture refuses to age. It’s very timelessnes or more accurately, being frozen in a moment of time is what attracts us to it, but as we are no longer there the feeling of a connection is a false one.
Text is somehow more neutral. Of course, the author’s character can perhaps be delineated a bit, but the text is what it is apart from that. We have been chatting for some time but i have no idea at all of what you look like. What we are sharing is the conversation and that is not trapped in mental images of one another.
These mental images, if they exist, are a distraction from who we are as we converse. At the very least i don’t get the idea that I have you pegged. You are not entirely known and I have thankfully failed to categorise and characterise ‘you’. To that extent the truth wins.
LikeLike
Cripes John, is there anything in the universe you don’t know? Saml, some of us don’t have pictures of Jesus on the walls but we do have a little desk statue. It sits between Einstein and Astroboy. Saml, You could look at text similar way to the pictures couldn’t you? Cultural views move along at much the same pace I would have thought. Saml, your in India is this right? Have you found difficulty in being a Christian in such a country?
Ivan
LikeLike
Crap, I just knew I’d get pegged as a show-off when I started talking about Rembrandt. Rembrandt did self-portraits, so I guess he wasn’t too worried about idolizing himself.
LikeLike
Art is a fascinating study in how we deal with imagery. Like speech and text, art too is an expression that is not then dependent on it’s author and so creates its own horizon of meaning for the viewer to explore.
When atttempting to capture the essence of a person in a portrait, a good artist has to look beyond the momentary and express in that one image a many dimensional whole, but as it is incomplete, it has to be in some form also a caricature.
But this is going in a different direction to where I started and that was that treating a physical representation as real is always dangerous because images are static wheras persons are not. The static is then enlivened in our imagination with a horizon and a dynamic that is a creation of our own minds, i.e. not corresponding to the realith of whoever or whatever was actually represented. So, idolatry.
Sorry, that sounds really constipated, but…
LikeLike
Not constipated in the slightest. A really nice point actually Saml! John your not a show off at all.. How are you on salivary enzymes..? No googelling, promise?
Ivan
LikeLike
Saml, looking on the bright side, at least your not a Christian in Turkey. That was a another grim bit of news.
LikeLike
Ivan –
Salivary enzymes and no googling? How about gargling? How’s your case of “Napoleon’s Revenge” progressing? Fever down?
Sam –
From what I’ve seen I’d say you’re a strong advocate of incarnational theology. Not what the historical Jesus looked like, but more along the lines of Jesus’s saying: “where two or more are gathered in my name, there I am in the midst.” Can we see Jesus in one another, or — even harder — in ourselves? Still, as you’ve pointed out elsewhere, sometimes physical presence gets in the way.
LikeLike
I guess so, John. One thing is that after starting to think more PoMoish, I have got leary of all those easy categorisations. Immanuel is a very important truth but that doesn’t mean that i have a good handle on what all that may imply.
I’m not that against physical presence, just that sometimes the images and perceptions can be misleading and can make us stay on the surface rather than being willing to get to the person and what’s actually happening personally, if that makes any sense at all. Sometimes too much perception can be a distraction, but that may just be my shallowness talking, i.e. I know I get to assuming that I do know when I don’t and should actually be digging in to find out.
LikeLike
Sometimes too much perception can be a distraction Yes, I agree. That was part of the discussion on Another Post, and it’s also built into the conversations through mirrors and speakers and telephones in Paris Texas.
LikeLike
As to ‘seeing’ Jesus in others, that’s to me the easy part. I can’t see God sacrificing His Son for a measly few that are marginally better at being sycophants than the rest!
LikeLike
Saml,
Who is Jesus to you?
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan, hope you have both fully recovered from whatever going away present Europe gave you!
I’m not sure if this addresses your question. If it’s too vague, keep firing and I will try to clarify.
Jesus! On one level Jesus is a great example but to me He is more than that. The message that He preached is such a strange thing. It is antithetical to anything any sane man would agree to, yet it is so obviously right. To have been able to live it out is even more amazing. I am not at all surprised that the Jews found Jesus to be against everything they thought of as messianic or even good.
I met Jesus in the gospels. I know that here is someone who is speaking truth. The truth is mostly of an unpalatable king but it is nonetheless truth. Somewhere in the process of recognising the Jesus speaks truth I heard a personal challenge, “follow me”. I don’t think that for me this happened at any one particular moment in time, or at least I can’t pinpoint it. But somewhere along the way I met Jesus and responded with a yes.
The Jesus that I met has not changed.
I’ve done a fair amount of study. I became very sceptical as a reader. I lost all faith in ‘the church’. I don’t agree with most ‘theologians’. I’ve studied and admire so many men like Gandhi and Buddha. I can see something very special in these men. They too challenge me but are not in the same sense ‘good’. I don’t regard the bible as a sacred book.
Yet, Jesus is the same person that I met so many years ago. He challenges me to follow and His message is also consistently the same. I can see Jesus in the people around me. He suffers with the suffering and He provokes the complacent and I think He does this ‘from within’. It is that very connectedness, that desire to be ‘at one with’ that is at the very heart of what He taught and ultimately also did.
LikeLike
Thanks Saml. Would you believe we are both still ill?
LikeLike
Ivan, I was reading recently that some rather unsavoury viruses, which used to be common only in the tropics, are now found in France. They have followed their vectors, mostly mosquitoes and are notoriously difficult to treat.
The general result for these viremias is that one does recover on one’s own. Try the usual stuff like some vitamin C supplements (and some herbal teas are also supposed to be helpful), but as they say, seven days with medication and one week without…
LikeLike
Thanks Saml. I have an aweful feeling my wife has got whooping cough, which can go on for a while. Whatever I had was milder, but on my second course of Erythromycin I can still feel the symptoms. Thanks though for your concern and wise advice.
Ivan
LikeLike
Saml,
you said you don’t regard the bible as a sacred book, how do you personally regard it? What is it exactly to you? You may turn out to be the most honest spiritual person (other than you John) that I have spoken to before. Its very refreshing.
Ivan
LikeLike
I don’t think that we can or should generalise about “the bible”. it’s too vast in scope and composition and with so many authors covering a span of thousands of years.
I think though, that having read all of it, I do have a general sense of honesty. Each author tries to tell the truth as he/she knows it.
This I find especially true of the gospels and also of Paul’s writing in the New Testament. In fact it’s my belief that the variations that we see between the gospel accounts of Jesus are the result of stubborn authors who had each received a tradition of Jesus and refused to modify it in any way even when obvious contradictions exist with other traditions. The result is that I too am fairly confident that I am reading an honest account of Jesus’ words and actions.
Still these are words on paper, so the text has to be read just like any other book and the more critically we read it the better!
But if one goes to certain Old Testament books one can see how the original stories have been modified and sometimes with political intent. It is particularly obvious in the traditions about David and also Solomon. These are both very ruthless kings, yet we see them rather with their angst on their sleeves…
LikeLike
Ivan, I hope you don’t mind but I mentioned you and this discussion in a post at my blog.
The refs can be removed if you would prefer, I really should have asked you before putting it in, sorry.
I have a question for you that bears on evolution: What do you think is a good definition of “life”?
LikeLike
Hi Saml,
Look, Not at all Saml. Your fine. I don’t know what the official definition is exactly, but I tend to look at it being a genetic based organism, that is capable of reproduction, growth and ultimately decay. Does that work?
LikeLike
Saml,
I don’t understand how you find the bible an honest account of anything really, but especially Jesus. How can you decipher the metaphor from the mistake? not to mention the embellishments and the longing desire for the information to be seen as a work of some God? The Bible has just been through to many hands with imperfect replication combined with no original source material to validate any real part of it. Its next to useless now to “know” Jesus or understand a supreme being.
An example is the well known story of Jesus and the woman brought before him for adultery. John 7:53-8:12 This is a brilliant story of Jesus, its just a dang pity its been made up. This was not originally in the Gospel of John in fact it isn’t part of any of the gospels. Its one of the many pieces of invented Jesus folklore from the ages. Its thought to be a margin story added by some anonymous scribe. Saml, just what part of the bible could we count on as authentic? How can you know someone from these stories?
LikeLike
Ivan, certainly there are problems with manuscripts. We have our earliest fragments datable to something like 130-140 and that’s a good 60 years after the oral tradition was commited to writing.
Modern biblical scholarship has exhaustively followed a text critical approach. Bultmann is the most famous of these scholars and he came up with a technique called ‘form criticism’ that is still used today. You also have in gospel studies things like redaction criticism that attempt to get to the oral traditions that underlie the texts as well as try to identify the modifying forces on the ‘original’ oral tradition.
I find these approaches inadequate to explain the gospels as we now have them. Literary criticism is much more likely to get at the truth than reductionist reconstructions. By that I mean that if someone hands me a book, my first action will be to try to read the whole thing. Then I can sit back and start asking questions. We can usually tell if there is one author, things like consistent style, vocabulary and the narrative construction will all hang together.
The story of the prostitute is generally considered to be authentic but for all the wrong reasons. One of the legacies of form criticism is that we ask whether the content could have been difficult for the people of that day to digest, was it culturally acceptable? The prostitute stories along with tax collectors and other unsavories are thought to be authentic because they have been retained in spite of being embarassing!
I find it likely to be authentic, though not likely a part of John’s writing (i think Luke is better but most probably this is a fragment of teaching not a part of any of the 4 gospels) simply because it otherwise fits with Jesus unique approach both to the law and to forgiveness. Yes it is circular, I admit, for Jesus is here consistent with the Jesus of these very same gospels.
There have been many books written about ‘great’ persons. Buddha is a good example. In all cases, we look to the disciples to tell us something about the person. The differences between the gospels that have occasioned so much scholarly debate seem to me to be excellent evidence for 4 pretty independent authors recording the oral tradition from various of Jesus disciples to the best of their ability. it is also strong exidence against harmonisisng forces for the differences persist even when we can see literary (probably) dependence.
It can be painful, but if you can, do get yourself a harmony. i like one by Reuben Swanson (The Horizontal Line Synopsis of the Gospels) and this one book is good enough to throw cold water on most of today’s gospel scholarships.
Getting back to ‘the tradition’ and how it has survived, back then all teaching was oral teaching. All good teachers taught in small and memorable soundbites, (what we call pericopes) or risked their teachings being soon lost.
Good teachers made their students memorise and memorise and memorise. Jesus is an exceptional oral teacher, and one cannot simply sit and invent a good teacher, either s/he exists or doesn’t. The same is true too of Buddha! I can’t imagine being stupid enough to think that some group of average Joes’ could invent the Buddha. For one thing the sheer iconoclasm would be suicidal! For another, one needs an exceptional thinker and an exceptional person to create and sustain such teachings.
The sense that I get from the gospels is that each writier has done her/his best to put together whatever they felt were the authentic words and actions of Jesus. The various oral traditions were gathered and alternative readings should have become harmonised if these authors and their communities felt that they could modify the tradition in the ways that scholars today assume that they did. rather what we see is massive variation in detail for almost any saying or pericope of teaching.
In one sense I like the embarassment argument and it is to me very strong evidence the Jesus teaching has been preserved quite well, it is also the reason why the church pays so little attention to Jesus teaching in the gospels, because the church could never have become what it is now if it had attempted to take Jesus teachings seriously.
LikeLike
OOPs, sorry, that was toooo long
LikeLike
But Saml,
Nothing at all is preserved well. Nothing even starts getting documented for over a 100 years and nothing of that documentation survives. Nothing. The rest is riddled with inconsistencies, mistakes and alterations. Its impossible to know now what could have been something Jesus has said and what wasn’t. Its not clear at all what was said by the man. The story of the woman adulterer is strongly felt amongst scholars to be fictional, what else is? The scribes who copied the very early manuscripts were nearly always illiterate and paid to replicate. They replicated very badly as evidenced by the really early fragments. lines of information got repeated or omitted, and this was in the “early” period of 200 years already long past any living memory. So who the dickens knows exactly how much is correct? We do know however that mistakes total almost double the amount of actual words in the bible.
Many changes were accidental due to periblepsis, but many more were intentional changes for political reasons. I guess some others were just “good yarns” such as the adulteress story. The only lesson to can get from the gospels is that largely, they appeared to be collected stories that don’t really back each other up all that well, and that scribes have tried altering over the ages to make them seem a little more consistent. Its impossible to know “Jesus” through these documents. They are a dogs breakfast now. Hey.. you didn’t write to much either!
regards
Ivan
LikeLike
Saml,
Many people have tried to critically examine the text. my point is that what these very many people have studied, is thousands of differing accounts of the texts and none of the “fragments” even close to being original. No one can possibly know which piece of text is the literal correct one. So we have this thing now accepted as a “word of God” which can’t really be.
Saml maybe you can tell me which is correct?
Mark says Jesus died the day after the Passover meal, John says it was before? Mark 14:12 John 19:14
Luke indicates in his account of Jesus birth that Joseph and Mary returned the Nazareth just over a month after they had come to Bethlehem Luke 2:19 but you also have Matthew saying they fled to Egypt Matt 2:19 Or Saml, you could look at Paul in Gal 1:16 where he says he converted on the way to Damascus and not got to Jerusalem to see the apostles before him where in acts 9:26 says that’s the first dang thing he did. There are just so many discrepancies Saml. What is correct and what isn’t?
LikeLike
Saml,
Are oral traditions worth the papyrus there printed on?
just wondering
Ivan
LikeLike
Saml,
You said: “The sense that I get from the gospels is that each writer has done her/his best to put together whatever they felt were the authentic words and actions of Jesus.”
We don’t know any of this. We don’t know who these people really were, We don’t know that what they said is what they indeed did say. We don’t know what was changed over the centuries of what they said. We don’t know what honest mistakes were made by scribes. We don’t know what deliberate mistakes were made. We don’t know what translation errors were made. (and boy was it retranslated!)
We know the stories don’t mesh we know there are a lot of differences. How can we know which is the authentic word of Jesus or word of God at this late stage?
you said: “Jesus is an exceptional oral teacher, and one cannot simply sit and invent a good teacher” Well apparently you can if your a first century scribe. A whole lot of stuff appears “invented” in the Bible particularly most of John. At this late stage we have literally no idea how good or even what Jesus actually said to make a statement like this Saml. We don’t know how much was invented.
You said: “In one sense I like the embarrassment argument and it is to me very strong evidence the Jesus teaching has been preserved quite well”
How could we possibly know this Saml with well over 300,000 different versions of written biblical literature which clearly can not all be right specifically if much is contradictory.
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan, I don’t see the manuscript as the real problem. In fact a multiplicity of sources can be very helpful and I tend to think that the textual critics have done a pretty good job. If you pick up a good greek NT like UBS’s version you will find an apparatus on each page that gives you the major variant readings and compares for you the manuscript attestations for each. It is usually quite obvious why one reading is preferred. For comparison, take the manuscript evidence for Shakespeare’s corpus, you may be surprised at what you discover!
The variations between the gospels again, to me, point to authenticity rather than falsehood. I would have been much more sceptical of conflations and harmonisations that try to do away with problems. There are anumber of later manuscripts that try to do precisely this and these are rightly discounted.
Where problems exist they are real problems! Certainly in a host of details we can see that ‘an event’ has been reported differently, and the question of which is true will arise. Either one of the writers could be right or both wrong.
One policy that I follow is that each author should be given respect and his/her work taken as a whole before one starts picking it to pieces. Each outhor is obviously someone who has personally felt the impact of Jesus. As such these books are works of faith. Again, given the cultural environment this is encouraging for the standard for disciples is to accurately report the words of the teacher, this is a Rabbinic standard, rabi meaning teacher (of the law).
You may look at Gerhardsson’s “Memory and Manuscript” a work that has been ignored for decades precisely because it scientifically attacked Bultmann’s form critical approach. A more recent and voluminous study by Richard Bauckham looks in some detail at ‘eyewitnesses’ and norms for transmiting oral tradition in NT times. You do have to remember that books were a tremendous luxury and so oral tradition and transmission were the only practical means of spreading any teaching.
The NT should be read critically, the real problems faced, and finally acknowledgement made that the bulk of the tradition had to go back to a remarkable and original teacher who lived consistently with his words and who died for challenging the darker tendencies of the men in power.
Whether the church that is supposed to follow in his footsteps has done him justice and whether the theology of the religion of christianity is an honest reflection of the historical Jesus are I think, the real questions.
In the final analysis, you and I have to face this historical figure, and we can meet the real man Jesus in any of the gospels (yes even John), and decide what he means to you and to me.
LikeLike
Saml,
While not entirely related to your question on atmospheric oxygen, New Scientist has nice little article called “Breath of Life” worth a read if your inclined.
Ivan
LikeLike
Gee Saml,
There is so much that I disagree with you on. Variations point to authenticity? Of what ? fraud? Christians can’t look at this book as the word of anything if there exists 400,000 plus versions of it, all different. I mean in many cases really contradictory different. I have no idea what much of it is meant to say. I love textual critics, but what the dickens are they being critical of? There is no where to go with this, older doesn’t mean more truthful, in fact all fragments seem to be equally full of faults. If only Gutenberg could have been just that bit quicker of the mark.
I don’t know if I would offer my respect for each individual author simply because they had a faith they were trying to sell. Its clear that much of the gospels were committed to print some 4 or 5 lifetimes after the demise of Jesus. I am very sceptical about what truth they contain. I think the gospel of John is really the first one we can completely discard.
Saml, you like the way Jesus dealt with the adulteress?
Ivan
LikeLike
You said:
The NT should be read critically, the real problems faced, and finally acknowledgement made that the bulk of the tradition had to go back to a remarkable and original teacher who lived consistently with his words and who died for challenging the darker tendencies of the men in power.
There are a few differences related in the manuscripts about this. How Jesus was in his “consistency” while in power. Will try and get you some examples.
Ivan
LikeLike
Saml,
You said: The NT should be read critically, the real problems faced, and finally acknowledgement made that the bulk of the tradition had to go back to a remarkable and original teacher who lived consistently with his words and who died for challenging the darker tendencies of the men in power.
Saml, How do we really know this? I mean really,really know it. You and I, I think a realists. I bet you don’t fully believe the various miracle stories and you probably have a sense of when things were being hyped a little at least. Where maybe I differ, I think a whole lot of the Bible is in fact closer to very dramatic fiction, written this way with the best of intentions. Saml, scholars have understood for a long time now that Mark was the first Gospel written and both Matthew and Luke used basically the first account to kind of get their stories straight. I suspect Mark may have the most literally honest version of Jesus, there are a few instances of Jesus not being seen in the best light. These are “corrected” in the other accounts to give us “wise Jesus” “saintly Jesus” “sagely Jesus” etc. All modifications of thousands of scribes over the centuries. So how can we possibly know who what this individual was exactly? I would also, draw your attention to Christian scholars before the advent of the formal bible, They couldn’t even agree on how many separate Gods existed let alone if Jesus was a divine figure. How can you or I know really someone from such a profoundly unstable platform as the Holy scriptures? Are we not better off following a person such as Ghandi that has some kind of historical integrity?
LikeLike
Ivan, in india we call Gandhi the ‘mahatma’ meaning ‘great soul’. I think that indeed he was a great soul but I have not met Gandhi, except in books or old newsreels. I can’t have a friendship with Gandhi.
The only reason for looking more closely at the gospels than i would otherwise have done is to find out what I can find out about Jesus and the reason I do this is because Jesus is my friend.
Knowing Jesus makes me want to know more about Jesus and this in turn encourages me to critically read the NT.
Getting to your specific questions first on textual variants. The manuscripts can be fairly easily classified (based on similarities and differences) into broad families. Our good old King James version of the 1600s is a translation based on one family of texts (textus receptus or Stephanus), while from the late 1800s onwards a very different family of texts has been considered better (Westcott and Hort). The point for me is that I still love the King James version. The language is just superb and stylistically it wins hands down over any of the more recent transalations (i’m one of those kooks that loves 16C literature) and if one is really honest, the change of manuscript family has almost no impact on the meaning of the text. So, by and large, the existence of a great many variant manuscripts is not a negative factor. Things are a little busy today so I’ll start work on some of your other points tomorrow…
LikeLike
So Basically, your saying to me Saml, you can have a friendship with a literary Character that we have very little if any factual evidence about and almost nothing historically, but you couldn’t with a proven historical figure of some genuineness? Any ideas on how many different and contradictory documents your textus receptus was based on? Its a very mixed up little document Saml. Are you sure you know who Jesus allegedly was?
LikeLike
Ivan,
I didn’t start into this to find out more about just a ‘literary character’ and the point is that I need to be as soundly critical and scientific as possible in my apprach to the NT precisely because i am not interested in myth or legend but in the truth of Jesus.
i am not arguing that the TR is a good or even reliable text. My point is that whatever textual critics think of it there is little practical effect in the meaning of the text for all those little or big variations. The insight and clarity of thought as well as command of language of those translators more than makes up for any weakness in textual science. In fact the changes in the English Language over the last 400 years are of much greater significance to understanding the KJV today than is the poor quality of it’s manuscript family.
Your qustions on variations between gospel accounts require some proper thinking, so let me get back to you on how i do approach that and why it is in fact an exciting enterprise.
LikeLike
Thats ok Saml. We just have a different kind of attitude about how we approach stuff like truth.
Regards
Ivan
LikeLike
Hey Saml,
I don’t think I am all that dogmatic with my dogma, but I would expect a few things sorted out before we made the book. I would think the issue about how many Gods there were or whether Jesus was the son of either of them, or part God / man or some incarnation, sorted well out before we made the book. But in fact it wasn’t, they didn’t even have full agreement on everything from Jesus’ mood swings to his parentage. I’m saying to you, that before I could worship or emulate or follow, I’d need the undisputed facts on something this big. In fact, my default position is pretty much like Bertrand Russell’s, “not enough evidence”. This is what I plan on telling a / either God if there turns out to be one or both. I am curious though as to how you come to your point of view? What do you know I don’t? Whats attractive about Jesus?
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan, take the blogosphere as an example. what do you know of your fellow travellers? identities can be created ex nihilo and ad nauseam. But if you sustain a conversation with one person for some time you will start to get a sense of who that person is.
I don’t think we usually start out asking for proofs, identities will resolve as relationships develop and those who have created a ‘self’ to project will show their true colors as time and conversation keep going.
here, e.g. there is no fixed point in time that i can pinpoint by saying “i believe in Ivan”, i don’t even really know whether you are pulling my leg or not…
but when we have a corpus of stuff to work with, there would be quite a few things now that you would ‘confidently’ know about me and vice versa.
By mentioning you to my friends, I take the risk that I may get laughed at if you turn out to be the pastor of a church in Western Nigeria… or whatever, but I’ll take that risk!
LikeLike
But you don’t really know anything factual. You have at best a “feel”. What if the words from the blog, were hand transcribed by a thousand scribes for hundreds of years, what if for social and cultural reasons they were motivated to make the accounts seem different. What if the Saml 2000 years later only had fragments of the copies from hundreds of years after and no originals, what if all the copies were different sometimes in a major sense sometimes minor, would Saml really know why Ivan was? You probably wouldn’t Saml. I think you wouldn’t have a clue. Is this not our reality?
Ivan
LikeLike
should be “who” Ivan was.. sorry.
Ivan
sort of like an ancient scribe typo.
LikeLike
Let’s say this convo takes on iconic proportions and thousands of bloggers start cutting, pasting, quoting out of context, modifying without acknowledgement, rearranging the responses to make them fit a logical sequence…
I would be much happier as a textual critic to have more and more material and all corrupted differently than just one surviving copy that i have to unquestioningly accept!
LikeLike
I guess in at least one of the above scenarios, we know one is definitely incorrect. And, this is kind of what we have with our current piece of resource material the Bible. I don’t think you can “know” Jesus this way or anyone else. Hey, how are you up for starting something about Ghandi? You and I could be the first Ghandians. You like him don’t you? We don’t have to unquestingly accept anything. That would be to much like faith for me.
LikeLike
Yes, I like Gandhi, I like MLK too and the Buddha, definitely all iconoclasts and very brave persons who lived their principles out at great personal cost and for the benefit of the downtrodden.
I enjoy reading about them and am inspired by their examples. Not one of them seem very keen on getting to know me though.
LikeLike
Saml,
That is an interesting statement. Sir, how do you perceive Jesus as being keen on getting to know you? I thought he was dead?
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan,
yes, I agree, terribly irrational and most ‘unscientific’ of me. The thing is, there have been relatively few times when i have really felt a character ‘come alive’. Two of those instances would be Aragorn in the Lord of the Rings and Sydney Carton in Dickens “A Tale of Two Cities”. Still, in both of those instances what I am left with is a sort of renewable memory of a person, renewed when I reread the book, but with Jesus there is a qualitative difference where even without touching an NT or being reminded of a gospel pericope, the sense that this person, Jesus, is with me continues…
I can’t explain it but that’s as close as I can get.
LikeLike
Thanks Saml.
LikeLike
ivan, getting back to your questions on reading the gospels critically, let me take a stab at it by telling you what i do.
In the first place, i have read quite a bit of the scholarship to at least have an idea of the different schools of thought, methodologies and so on. To be frank, I am not impressed. I come from a literature background and imo most of our NT scholars will simply not pass muster. The basic problem is that they have confused the quest for history with the quest to understand a work of literature and they have usually allowed their sense of what is/is not historical to destroy the very works that they claim to want to understand.
Now, having said that, there isn’t anything much in the gospels that we could call ‘great’ by literary standards. All 4 gospels are pretty workmanlike in style, presentation and content. Perhaps literarily GJohn is the best followed by GLuke but really there is not that much to choose between them.
Luke, in a direct way, acknowledges that he himself is not an eyewitness but that he has done his best to sort out the various traditions to put a reliable account together. John also says the same thing but more implicitly and in a much more nuanced fashion.
Surprisingly, you will find that historians and archaeologists are very respectful of these two writers (authors of GJohn and GLuke) as historical sources.
What I can see when working with a harmony or parallel texts of the gospel passages indicates that there are numerous sources for the traditions that have been woven together. The case for literary dependence I find very equivocal and based on negatve reasoning. In other words, the idea that Mathew and Luke used Mark with Q and some other stuff looks to me to be weak. The existence of ‘Q’ itself is a bit better though still not conclusive. So, just as with any decent ‘book’ I let the text stand as it is and study each part first in it’s context before looking at comparisons. The comparison of parallel texts is very helpful but mostly not in the ways that scholars have sought to derive historical information from it.
Overall, my impression is that of a very powerful and original teacher. One who’s ideas were only slightly understood in his time but whose teaching caused consternation and radical changes in his followers. That somewhat garbled memory of Jesus is what I see pretty well preserved in these 4 amateur gospels.
LikeLike
Saml,
I have a busy 2 days or so in front of me, But I want to pick your brain on this later.
Saml, what books did you specifically read yourself, in your quest to understand the text more completely?
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan, you’re asking for a summary of 30 years of ‘questing’! I’ll have to sit and narrow it down to the most significant few.
Incidentally, i saw a podcast on CBC’s the Hour at http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/video.php?id=1563
where Dawkins was talking mostly about his book. One thing struck me and that is that he has a rather pathetic faith in ‘reason’ as long as it’s based on evidence. This was in the context of some of his comments on politics…
LikeLike
Saml,
Don’t go to trouble. I was wondering simply about the ones you found more significant. If you can’t remember that’s fine. I know your the type of guy to have looked into the subject well. I like Dawkins.. actually I love Dawkins. I don’t see his beliefs and structure pathetic at all. Hey, I recently discovered and use you tube a bit, I noticed that a few of Dawkins University lectures are on it. They are good to sit in on if your interested Saml?
If I am slower than usual getting back to you Saml, its just a slightly busier time for me this month and next. I will reply, You might see a day where I don’t get back so quickly. Its only a short term thing. I really want to discuss this with you at length if you will let me.
LikeLike
No, probs on the busy and it’s a bit like that here too. I actually like Dawkins, he’s provocative but generally good. The Selfish Gene is one of my favourites.
What is ‘pathetic’ is not Dawkins the scientist nor even Dawkins the atheist.
It’s when Dawkins starts thinking that rational thought, evidentially based, will free humankind. People will agree on what is sensible and get on with doing it rather than being distracted by stuff like faith, God and religion.
He sees faith as a blockage that once removed will result in a better world where humanity will scientifically cooperate without distractions. This is what Dawkins calls seeking the “Truth”… and that’s noble but simplistic, unrealistic and ultimately pathetic.
I do hope no one convices him that he would make a good politician!
LikeLike
Saml,
You may be right, but geeze I would love to see Atheitism given a go. Has there ever been a time humnaity has suffered for want of being to reasonable.. to sane.. to rational?
LikeLike
By the way Ivan, I made a few comments about Status Anxiety under the Last Night in Nice Post. I enjoyed the book — thanks for the recommendation.
LikeLike
I liked it also John. Hey did you read the Davies book yet?
LikeLike
John,
I have just finished a book called “Misquoting Jesus” which was facinating. Reading something now called Atheist universe. Its not bad. Also read Annie Proulxs book “The shipping news” which I just loved.
LikeLike
The Davies book is part of a parcel delivered to my in-laws’ house in the States. Instead of having them send it here, they’ll hold onto it until we move back to America. So it’ll be a couple of months more, I fear.
I haven’t read “Misquoting Jesus,” but I read “Lost Christianities” also by Bart Ehrman. He talks about the various sects in the early church that got squeezed out by what would gradually take shape as Christian orthodoxy. Very interesting. The Atheist Universe I don’t know. I too liked “The Shipping News.”
LikeLike
Barts second book is quite a read. Its so very hard to look at the Bible in quite the same light after reading it.
LikeLike
Ehrman was another guy who said he didn’t have time to read my Genesis 1 book.
LikeLike
I’m not a textual scholar, for one thing my Greek is barely passable, but I would not put too much weightage on Barts’ crisis of faith. I have not read his books but I have waded through some of his articles in serious journals.
Generally, from what I can see, the quality of textual scholarship is much higher than the quality of literary critics of the bible. For every doubt that Barts has brought up, the refutations have been quite convincing (in the few studies where I have looked at both sides) and in any case there really is not anything of an earthshaking quality to what Barts has brought out. In some cases he makes very good points and these should be taken into consideration.
LikeLike
Saml,
Its not really cricket, describing this guys book as a “crisis in faith”. Seriously, what do we both know about his faith? He makes some very good points all the same and I think they are hard to dispute.
The bible, like it or not, is laden with mistakes both small and profound. We have no clear idea of who authored most of it. We have no original manuscripts to know what originally was said. Of the manuscripts we do have, there are something like 200,000 differing versions.
Some imply Jesus was a bloke, just like you and I, others a God. Some refer to Jesus being the normal birth product of the union of man and woman, others say his is born of a virgin.
Some Parables that define who Jesus was, are non existent in all earlier Gospels, Some depictions of his anger excised as Winston Smith excised historical records in Orwell’s book 1984.
How can anyone really “know” the truth of the history of Jesus with that much tampering going on? Its so very fragmented and so very influenced from so many different directions, that its impossible to know Saml, just impossible.
I don’t know the implications to the authors faith, it doesn’t really say, But if your getting your Faith from the modern day Bible, you really have to ask yourself the question, whose thoughts really am I reading? I would bet my nose Saml that it isn’t anything of Jesus or of a God.
LikeLike
Saml,
Let’s talk “earth shaking” quality for a moment.
If, in the Christian world our main piece of evidence is The Holy Bible and this is seen as “God’s word”, Gods *literal* word in most instances then even small changes should be Earth Shaking.
The Parable, of Jesus dealing with the adulteress, is an example, it doesn’t appear in any of the early versions of the Gospels. The author, responds that it was a marginal story added by a scribe somewhere along the way. I call this Earth Shaking. How many times is that parable used to explain sage Jesus and its likely a fiction.
What about some other big stuff?
Mark 15:34 Eloi,Eloi,lema sabachthani”? “My God,my God why have you forsaken me? Doesn’t this quote from Jesus on the cross really say, I’m not really the embodiment of God on earth, but just a guy that is about to be killed. This quote changes according to the scribes that dominated the orthodoxy . You find the line changed in one Greek manuscript and several Latin ones.
My point I guess,. If the Gospels are “sold” to us as ultimate truth by front line witnesses and are in fact enormously different accounts in the first place, but proof is out there that many of these were subsequently changed then changed again. And that many original translation errors and transcription errors keep repeating and compounding the errors, what are we left with 2000 years later?
I think we have a first century Jacky Collins novel myself Saml. This is earth shattering isn’t it?
LikeLike
Saml,
From another book I am reading, they offer this little story:
Suppose that: You are visiting the grave of US President John Kennedy at Arlington cemetery. The ground suddenly opens up and a man who looks just like Kennedy sits up and then walks away. Is it probable that,
1. I am misperceiving that this is occurring.
2. Someone is playing a rather ingenious trick.
3. I am witnessing the filming of a movie.
4. I am dreaming.
5.Someone has slipped me an hallucinogenic drug
6.The man wasn’t actually Kennedy himself
7. I have fallen victim to a psychosis
8. I am completely fabricating the story.
Are any of these explanations more plausible than:
9. There has been a complete reversal of the laws of nature and John F Kennedy has just been reanimated?
What if statement 9 were not testimony from eye witnesses but written by first century people rooted in superstition and magic and passed down in fragmented writings. Isn’t this what we are looking at with the crux of the Christian religion? Isn’t 1-8 infinitely more likely to be the explanation.. maybe not 3.
LikeLike
Saml,
Your not a textual scholar as you rightly point out. What about these people that are and who can read these ancient languages. They are saying this stuff is fabricated in parts, misread in others, copied badly and changed culturally. These people are themselves Christians in the first place wanting to understand the real word of God.
They are saying it isn’t.
On what grounds should I not believe them?
LikeLike
Ivan, good points indeed! In the first place, the amount of ‘textual evidence’ is massive. Most of it comprises late copied stuff that has a plethora of mistakes. But, a bit of it is considered to be properly ancient and a worthwhile source of data. This certainly is far from providing certainty about the reconstructed text as it stands today but most of the places where important variants would change the sense are noted in the footnotes of good translations. Old versions like the KJV did not have the benefit of all this research and are better used as literature than as good translations but even there one finds that where an English word is used that is not equivalently found in the Greek, the KJV italicises the word.
There certainly is no attempt to make out a greater degree of certainty than actually exists. Though, I do admit that very few practicisng Christians understand anything much about the formation of our text.
If you were to compare our evidence for Jesus with the evidence for almost any historical figure I think you will find that we do have much more than a bare minimum. Couple that with the real evidence of generations over millenia that believe in him and you do have to wonder. From this even if one dicscounts the part that ‘religion’ has played, the evidence is still impressive.
But, I’m a very poor apologist mainly because I don’t myself believe in Jesus because of ‘the evidence’. I believe because of a relationship. Now, that could be a figment of my imagination, but if it were it would make conversation with others a sort of shared delusion and that looks unlikely.
The person that I know is consistent with a lot of what I read in the gospels and that’s why i try to study the gospels.
if I could give you incontrovertible evidence, would that make a believer out of you?
LikeLike
Hey Saml,
It would just have to be evidence for me to change my opinion from no God to one at least God.
What evidence do you have?
Saml, when we discuss this topic of Christianity, I don’t specifically target your good self. I understand your very well educated and have looked into the subject quite deeply, and I know your talking about a relationship, separate I think to the system I am talking about. In other words, I don’t think for a second your a crazy person. (your the a lot saner than myself)
But if your sharing this belief with others, it could at least be *seen* as a kind of shared delusion. That is, with all parties agreeing to share the same imaginary concept. (Imaginary in my world I mean.)
I think I am making poor sense this evening.
You said: “But, a bit of it is considered to be properly ancient and a worthwhile source of data.”
Trouble is I am not so sure now Saml. My understanding is this: Something may or may not have happened with a man named “Jesus”. We have no directly written records, No original eye witness testimony, Nothing even written about him until several hundred years after his death. Nothing written from any living at the time account.
The information that was written, isn’t written by people who even lived in the time of Jesus. We have no evidence for any of the supernatural stuff from any secular record keeper alive at the time of Jesus. This point is worth re-reading. The written “evidence” for want of a better word is fragmented and conflicting, in some ways minor, in many ways quite major.
This “collection” of information is copied and modified, changed whenever the doctrine or school of thought changes, sometimes just a word and the context completely alters,various Christian factions all vying for having the most truthful information. this keeps happening until block type is invented, then one version tended to largely get mechanically produced.
So here we are, I have no idea what that document tells us now Saml. I really don’t.
you said:
“There certainly is no attempt to make out a greater degree of certainty than actually exists.”
Saml I agree. If the very first “Christians” were unsure of how many different Gods existed, how the dickens do the latter ones know? If the very early “Christians” couldn’t agree on what Jesus actually was, how do the latter ones know?
If the very early Christians couldn’t agree on the whole virgin birth how do the latter ones know? Do you see my point? What is it exactly we do know? Do you know?
You said: “If you were to compare our evidence for Jesus with the evidence for almost any historical figure I think you will find that we do have much more than a bare minimum. Couple that with the real evidence of generations over millennia that believe in him and you do have to wonder. From this even if one discounts the part that ‘religion’ has played, the evidence is still impressive.”
What evidence Saml? I don’t know of anyone alive at the time who recorded any evidence. If I could indulge for a moment?
In the gospel of Matthew, it makes the assertion (Matthew I’m guessing) that when Jesus was nailed to the cross the saints did rise from the grave and entered into the streets of Jerusalem. Is this literal? Did grave actually open and several people who were dead climbed out and resumed their lives to the horror of their families one would suspect.
Wouldn’t this incredible and extraordinary even be listed down some where by the Romans? If its true, and being in the Bible it must be, it surely would be one of the greatest events of all mankind, someone would have made a note? But no one did Saml. Could it be just another piece of first century man dealing with magic and superstition? Could we not apply the same scepticism to the entire book?
LikeLike
Saml,
The Holy Bible: Do you cast any of it out?
LikeLike
The person that I know is consistent with a lot of what I read in the gospels and that’s why i try to study the gospels.
Saml,
What if what your actually studying is not the word of God or even the acurate life of Jesus Christ.
Is it still worth anything to you if its a fictional account of someones life?
I understand your point of seeing it as a “relationship” but what if its completely a fiction?
Would it matter?
LikeLike
Ivan, if it (the new testament) turned out to be largely fiction it would make little difference to my faith.
In fact in some sense it has to be ‘fiction’ (unconsciously) even if based on facts. The act of writing a short history of anything is a sort of fiction even tho we rarely acknowledge that as being so. It is one writer’s research, perspective, writing ability, limitations … all of which impinge in various ways on the ‘factuality’ of what’s being told.
The idea that there is outright fiction is i think a fairly modern development. The best ‘pure’ fiction ‘lives’ on only if it is in some sense realistic enough to mimic truth!
But beyond that, do i think there are factual errors? Yes i do, though not being in the best position 2k years on to really figure it all out. Certainly if we look at the gospels from the standpoint of modern historiography there will be a sense of frustration. Part of this though is I think part and parcel of studying ancient history at all.
Another aspect is that if you were to compare the NT writings with anything contemporary you will find that it is pretty high quality stuff. There is not the obviously mythic writing of Greek tradition and we are much closer in genre to Roman history writing though nothing there comes in with this level of detail or ‘reality’. Even the accounts of miracles are pretty matter-of-fact in their reporting.
A lot of archaological work that has been done in and around Israel is very supportive of what we have on record. All these are just indicators that the original authors did not intend to deceive. Unintentional mistakes and a lack of criticality are a cultural reflection if nothing else.
LikeLike
Ivan, the fact is that if i were to talk to you about black holes this would be just as much a ‘sharing of delusions’ as if i were to talk to you about Jesus. I think that i know some things but that is in fact a delusion. what’s ‘real’ is that i do think and i do think that i know.
my point about evidence was that i am irrational. i don’t believe in Jesus because of the sort of evidence that science would look for. In fact i don’t know enough physics to believe in black holes either! that’s as far as the evidence can take me, the rest is a leap of faith, in scientists or in ancient writers.
You have read someone who (Bart Ehrman) has experienced a ‘loss of faith’ (he now says he is an agnostic) because of his studies in textual criticism. That is by his own admission. The fault here is not with Bart, but with the way in which he was taught to believe. it indicates to me that he believed what he was told rather than thinking his faith through on his own.
I so wish that each person would refuse to turn off that critical part of his/her brain when dealing with matters of faith.
The standards of evidence that we apply to ancient texts are different. We have to start with what the author thought ‘truth’ meant. Certainly the authors of the NT are all believers first and historians second. Still, their view of truth precludes the sort of fictionalisation or creation of stories that many scholars would like to be able to make out.
From a literary analysis of the gospels my view is that there are a number of witnesses each reporting what they know, what they have memorised, and each gospel writer is drawing from the witnesses that he knows. I think the evidence is that each writer insists on using his own sources even when they know that someone else has a different version. Now which (if any) of the parallel versions is closest to ‘the truth’ will depend on how one reads and indeed each scholar reconstructs this a bit differently.
My personal conclusion is that while we are dealing with what each author believes to be authentic material, a modern version of a ‘historical Jesus’ is hard to construct even though the story is there, sometimes in too much detail! In fact that is part of what makes the study of the gospels as fascinating as it is for me…
LikeLike
Incidentally Richard Bauckham’s new book is out and you may find it interesting “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses”. The scholar community is just starting to struggle with what he has to say and the results of the debate are eagerly awaited.
LikeLike
I think you hit the nail on the head with : They are believers first, Historians second.. for me that is in fact “the” problem.
LikeLike
Gee. Saml,
For two people we sure look at the same thing differently don’t we?
If you get a chance, have a read of Victor Stengers book God The failed hypothesis.
Ivan
LikeLike
Saml,
I don’t know the faith outcome of Bart Erhman, But I would like to ask you a question about the comment :
(You have read someone who (Bart Ehrman) has experienced a ‘loss of faith’ (he now says he is an agnostic) because of his studies in textual criticism. That is by his own admission. The fault here is not with Bart, but with the way in which he was taught to believe. )
Mr Erhman looked fairly serious to me. He appears to have been a dedicated Christian to study the Bible in a tertiary capacity. His interest appears to have led him to study the Biblical manuscripts in their original form, and he learned ancient Greek etc. He went about his faith how I would have liked to (if I was a Christian in the first place.) He took his education seriously to bring it out of the realms of Sunday school.
This education, made him see the Holy Bible in a whole different light. What is wrong with his faith exactly? Isn’t this what human intelligence and understanding is suppose to do? He reviewed his opinion in light of new information, what is wrong with that? If we stick fast to unbending faith, ignoring our human sense of reason, are we doing a similar thing to the Church with people like Galileo? Isn’t human reasoning the path that got us out of the cave and desert, into the light with hairdryer,warm blankets and industrial manufactured food? Is “faith” not the biggest set of shackles you can give to the feet of humanity?
Why do I feel your on the worst of paths Saml?
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan, one problem with people like Bart Ehrman and hosts of others is that ‘faith’ is tied to false impressions about the bible. One could generalise this to many religions the most extreme being Islam. In Islam, it is not only the Koran that is believed but the Koran as modified by the sharia.
In Christianity similarly we have extra stuff like the creeds and doctrines like trinity which purport to clarify or summarise our understanding of the bible but which actually function much like the sharia does to define what orthodox or ‘proper’ faith is.
It is doctrine that is then taught as Christianity. The individual Christian who fails to see that there is a distinction between these two things will throw the baby out with the bathwater when their faith in doctrine gets shaken or shattered by their deeper study.
I much prefer an honestly atheistic or agnostic Bart to one who is living in denial/contradiction but i don’t agree that that is the only way to go!
In any case, I am solidly with Pascal on this one, if god exists, what s/he thinks of me much more important than what I think of God.
I also think you’re being a bit unreasonable with the NT authors. People only write about things that they are passionately involved with. The fact that I believe strongly in stuff that i blog about shouldn’t make it seem false to a reader. You take what is written and think about it. You may disagree or agree or like just a bit of it. That is not dependent upon how strongly I, the author, believed in what I said. Should i discount your atheism just because you seem overly biased in support of it?
The bias of the writer and the bias of the reader both are important factors to keep in mind when critically reading any writing.
LikeLike
Saml,
I’m not a “biased Atheist”. I am atheist simply because there *is no evidence* support a contrary opinion. Show me the evidence and I will show you a backflipping former atheist. I am not biased against evidence, I just don’t see any.
You speak of the passion as a positive thing where I see it different. Its the passion of wanting and needing to believe in a God that makes these first century believers in superstition such poor sceptical thinkers. This is why we have such incredible accounts of patently impossible things written up as factual,literal accounts. Its just crazy.
I understand your view on Pascal, I just prefer to wait for the evidence myself.
Saml, Its the doctrine taught as Christianity that is the problem. It shouldn’t be doctrine if there is 300,000 differing versions of it. It shouldn’t be doctrine unless it separately collaborates the story, It doesn’t. It shouldn’t be doctrine if its written by men like you and I and altered through 20 centuries. Its the very doctrine that’s the problem. When we end up with a document that makes no sense to our culture if practised literally, If its replete with mistakes, if it has no secondary back up historical source and it doesn’t, shouldn’t we treat it as bath water?
Ivan
LikeLike
Saml,
When you talk about your relationship with Jesus Christ, is your view of him the classical one? You see him as part God, and his resurrection was literal event ? You see him as physically alive today? When you die you expect he will answer the door chimes of the heavenly gate? Do you have any divergence to the classically Christian image of Jesus?
LikeLike
Yes, these are some ‘typical’ Christian myths. I actually have no idea at all about these things. As far as Jesus goes at the very least he is someone special. The life he lived in conflict with his culture and with the authorities of his day is in fact prety well attested and certainly to have the impact that he has had leaves him in a bit of a unique position.
I personally have experienced the living Jesus. As far as how exactly he ended up being still alive despite dying is I think a mystery in the bible too, all doctrines notwithstanding. So, he is still alive and able to communicate but exactly how I don’t know. I also don’t know about stuff like ‘the trinity’, not that I was not at one time a puzzled signatory to that doctrine too!
On the nature of God, naturally or supernaturally, again I have no information other than that I believe that God does exist.
There has been a lot of speculation on these points and that may be natural but the fact that some of it is brilliantly argued now doesn’t do much for me personally.
I generally think that as far as the earliest witnesses go, I tend to give them more weightage as they were close to the events and these events had a remarkable effect on these very ordinary men and women.
Paul is in my opinion a brilliant thinker and has also studied the sources rather more critically and in more depth than many of his contemporaries. Again of the writers of the NT the author of John’s gospel stands a cut above the rest. As a careful investigator I think Luke too has done an excellent job.
What we have in the N.T. as content is also very interesting for the gospels concentrate on something like just three years of Jesus travels, teachings and doings. Within this itself the material has been very carefully selected to give us the gist of who Jesus was and what he taught. Importantly, a lot of attention is paid to his death and then to the empty tomb and his subsequent meeting of various persons.
There is no very clear biographical stuff, it’s almost all action packed and mostly written in a rather dry style yet in spite of that the man springs to life and it’s such an unusual life that the idea that he has been created or even doctored up defies the obvious reality.
People who think that these authors were creative geniuses really have not paid attention to the actual writings as these are of relatively poor stylistic quality and so obviously ‘cut and paste’ together from various diverse sources. The conspiracy theory is probably more improbable than most of the miracles that cause so much offense to modern readers.
One has to account for this evidence and though I’ve done a fair bit of reading i am yet to see anything that beats Jesus being mostly who and what the documents say he was.
Ockham’s razor at work again…
LikeLike
Saml,
I don’t know what you mean by obvious reality, when it is anything but obvious and clearly cannot be reality.
There is a real reason why people who study this stuff come out at best agnostics.
One has to account for the evidence? What evidence are you talking about Saml? There is no evidence. The Bible itself is evidence of a basic human need nothing more, it doesn’t even match up historically.
We have no evidence of a God. We have no real evidence that Jesus did exist. This is the wash up of Ockhams Razor.
Ivan
LikeLike
Saml,
Do you know the whole Trinity story is thought to be based on yet another typographical error?
LikeLike
Saml,
We both seem to live in a Universe, that doesn’t indicate much in the way of a God. As I understand it, the universe is steadily winding itself down. Sometime in the next 15 billion years its expected to be a dark and cold place. Our sun, is expected to wink out sometime in the next five billion years, firstly expanding to encompass much of the present solar system, this will cook the Earth and then it will freeze. Its going to do this because this is what happens when a star exhausts its nuclear fuel. Its going to happen regardless of a God.
Life on our planet has unfolded according to laws of nature. It seems to be doing this unhindered or helped by any type of God. It seems to science that life developed along rather arbitrary lines it certainly does not look anything like a “design” as such.
Disasters happen, as does evil and any number of random events that unfold as if there wasn’t a God involved. Certainly it takes some doing, to even imagine involvement of a God of the Christian bible.
I am still looking for evidence Saml, but my best guess is I will die without sighting it. I mean by this, even the smallest bit.
Ivan
LikeLike
Saml,
“If” {Paul is in my opinion a brilliant thinker and has also studied the sources rather more critically and in more depth than many of his contemporaries. Again of the writers of the NT the author of John’s gospel stands a cut above the rest. As a careful investigator I think Luke too has done an excellent job.}
Wouldn’t the stories have been the same?
Mark 14:12 says Jesus was crucified the day after the Passover meal yet John says before?
Or
When Luke says Joseph and Mary returned to Nazareth just over a month after they had come to Bethlehem Luke 2:39
yet in Matthews they fled to Egypt Matt:2:19
Or Paul saying he did not go to Jerusalem yet in Acts he did??
There are thousands and thousands of different discrepancies. Which are right which are wrong? How can Paul John and Luke be careful investigators and critical thinkers when they can’t even agree on a simple diary of travel?
I don’t understand Saml, truly I don’t.
LikeLike
Ivan, let me get to your specific discrepancies next. I still owe you a booklist too!
Ivan, the ‘natural laws’ of the universe, the universe itself (matter and energy), and the wonder of life are all themselves evidence. The way I see it what you are looking for is not there. There is indeed enough evidence but it doesn’t seem like evidence to you.
It’s a similar case with the new testament. What i see as evidence doesn’t seem so to you. Still, i can only try to tell you what i see.
What i know of human genius, take Shakespeare as an example, can create lifelike and authentic seemiing characters. But, a less brilliant writer will struggle to convince. Yet, a bunch of quite mediocre writers according to you, have created a most startlingly alive person that has stayed alive for over 2,000 years now, don’t you think that that is really weird? It’s either exceedingly strange or this person really exists.
Just a while back you gave some possibilities, 9 of them
1. I am misperceiving that this is occurring.
2. Someone is playing a rather ingenious trick.
3. I am witnessing the filming of a movie.
4. I am dreaming.
5.Someone has slipped me an hallucinogenic drug
6.The man wasn’t actually Kennedy himself
7. I have fallen victim to a psychosis
8. I am completely fabricating the story.
Are any of these explanations more plausible than:
9. There has been a complete reversal of the laws of nature and John F Kennedy has just been reanimated? and these are all common sense options.
You eliminated #3 yourself for 2k years ago. Now what would happen if two or three people witnessed the same event? 1,4,5, and 7 get eliminated.
#2. Someone is playing a rather ingenious trick, #6.The man wasn’t actually Kennedy himself, and #8. I am completely fabricating the story – or #9, are left.
It seems to me that being common sense options these questions would have been asked and answered 2k years ago, especially if so much depends upon not being duped. What was at stake was at least rejection by the religious authorities, rejection by one’s family, outcaste from society, perhaps jail and torture and being considered mad…
I have little to gain or lose either way as my faith is not dependent particularly on the answer!
But I come back to a bunch of mediocre guys who may have got carried away, but by whatever stretch of the imagination were absolutely incapable of creating or even polishing up Jesus to turn him into a living human being.
LikeLike
Ivan, a book that i liked from one of the greatest textual scholars is “The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration” (4th Edition) Bruce M. Metzger
Other books that i would recommend include Richard Bauckham’s (cited somewhere above)Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, any of C.S. Lewis (especially The Four Loves, God in the Dock, Studies in Words, Mere Christianity, The Narnia Chronicles (7 of them) and Christian Reflections. John R.W. Stott’s Christ the Controversialist, and Basic Christianity. The Two Horizons by Anthony Thiselton. Leon Morris’ Commentary on John in the New International Commentary of the New Testament series. Stephen Neill’s Jesus Through Many Eyes, and The Interpretation of the New Testament 1862-1961. Reuben J. Swanson’s The Horizontal Line Synopsis of the Gospels. C.F.D Moule The Origin of Christology. D.M. Baillie’s God was in Christ. I.H. Marshall’s I Believe in the Historical Jesus, and New Testament Theology: Many Witnesses, One Gospel. Then any of the works of Miroslav Volf and Noam Chomsky.
I could go on for a bit more but if you’re looking to putting up a library, this would be a good place to start…
LikeLike
But Saml,
Why is it, that scholars all agree that none of the inner circle were actual direct witnesses to the event?
How then do we accept the accounts when not only were they not witnessing it, the account itself appears re-written?
Further, Which account do you accept when all of them are different?
LikeLike
Saml,
Thanks for that booklist. Though, they may help me to find God, it may be through the unexpected quarter of my death through the act of my wife killing me. This would be because I have ordered another load of books so soon from the last lot.
Give me a weeek or two and I will order some. Saml, which would you start with?
LikeLike
Ivan, I think that a few of these authors should be available in a good library or perhaps from church libraries, so that’s the best place to start. I’d hate to be responsible for any marital discord!
Certainly C.S. Lewis, John Stott, Noam Chosky and Miroslav Volf may be available to read and then if you really like them you can think of buying.
As far as eyewitnesses go, Bauckham’s book breaks new ground but it’s really pricey and being newly out used copies are not much available yet.
Give me a day or so for me to brush up and i can try to get to your specific questions. This is just the tip of the iceberg as far as dealing with contradictory reports in the NT so it should be fun!
LikeLike
Saml,
I have to disagree with you again. The “Natural” laws of the Universe are not evidence of a God of any kind. I mean, I wish it were that simple! We have no evidence of a God in anything nature offers.
Saml, there is No, as in none, zilch,zero evidence of the supernatural and your talking with someone who likes to look for this. If you have anything concrete to give me I would be delighted to take a look at it. There is a possible Nobel prize in it for your goodself and I always wanted to find out what the dinner is like.
As to the NT, I realise that you see this document as evidence, I am not sure as to what your standard is on this kind of thing. I don’t have an emotional attachment to this document and I like to think I look at it rationally. I don’t see it as evidence.
Saml, There is a lot of people out in the world that knowing tell lies for God. There is a geologist called Ian Plimer who wrote a book titled “telling lies for God” . Plimer was just sick of Christian folk misrepresenting geology to various flocks and decided to do something about it. I have been in literally hundreds of conversations with Christians of various groups, standing up for what is the position of science. I have been astounded at the lengths people will go to in denying the biological facts of Darwinism, to peddle and sell all kinds of shonky science. They do this with the best of intentions but at the end of the day its deception for God.
I background this, to relate how I see the resurrection story of the Bible. As you know, there are several stories of the dead being re-animated in the Holy Bible. Also, several stories of people living to around 1000 years of age. I expect, as a Christian, these are meaningful “truths” to your goodself, But I read these stories with the background of over 2000 years of science.
Its incredibly unlikely, early man lived past about 70 years on average. Its incredibly unlikely that Human bodies can be revived some days after their death. Its also, Incredible, that events of this magnitude, and dead people walking is one of life’s biggies, would have come across the radar of some secular scribe in these ancient cities.
The thing is, Saml, they didn’t. Not one official record keeper ever even noted the name of Jesus. Not one. No one living in that time ever reported a single dead guy walking. None of the supposed “multitudes” ever recorded anything like a coberating record. Nothing exists. Absolutely nothing.
This sends off my warning bells Saml, I see good people telling fantastical tales to sell an unbelieving world on how the apocalyptic prophet managed to get himself killed. It was one very big advertising blunder to get over. A risen Christ sounds just the perfect answer! What are the chances that everything we know about the human cell is wrong? What is the chance a man lied? What is there of any evidence to make a decision? Is it any wonder faith is sold as a premium product? At the end of the day what else crosses the gulf of understanding? I remain an atheist.
LikeLike
I am going to get those books Saml. Just don’t breath a word to the wife. I was almost killed this week for buying:
1. A radio operated model helicopter. I think the wife got annoyed by my flying it indoors and buzzing her head in the office.
2. Then I bought a little model of a ballistic missile. It plugs into my computer and I can “launch” one at the wife.
She couldn’t see the funny side. (I shouldn’t have written her name on the side of the missile.)
LikeLike
(It seems to me that being common sense options these questions would have been asked and answered 2k years ago, especially if so much depends upon not being duped. What was at stake was at least rejection by the religious authorities, rejection by one’s family, outcaste from society, perhaps jail and torture and being considered mad…)
Saml, I don’t think this was the case. MANY people practised Christianity at the time, they were just looked at by the orthodoxy as Christians look at myself now. (not good)
Its really hard to say Saml, but I could speculate? Nothing much in written form exists for some 4 generations of people after Jesus was on the cross. Documents start appearing, and we see the earliest documents pertaining to the Gospels.
The issues as I see them:
1. The gap is huge. And none agrees much as to who or what Jesus is/was.
2. The documents appear to not match each individual account.
3. No one know who wrote them to this day.
4. Its agreed that none of the authors witnessed anything.
LikeLike
sorry 3 was, No one knows to this day who originally wrote the original documents.. really.
LikeLike
I am not so sure Saml. It depends on what you mean as “living” They have gone to enormous lengths to portray Jesus in a certain light, this is evidenced in multiple scribal changes. Jesus is portrayed in the first Gospel as a very angry and irritated person. This has been scribally changed to a very kind person. I would call this “polish” for want of a better term.
If you mean living as in “speaks to your soul” this is I guess a different thing. But I would suggest very subjective.
Its quite within the bounds of reason, to suggest his image has been massaged some by well meaning followers, and a great many legends and exaggerations included. This is entirely reasonable, as opposed to the dead rising.
LikeLike
Ivan, by ‘living’ I meant someone who is a ‘real person’ lives, moves, talks, does things that make sense, a recognisably unique individual. Sorry for the confusion!
Would you believe that there are quite a number of scholars of 16C, 17C English literature who don’t believe that Shakespeare is a real person but may have been a pseudonym for one of the other good writers of that time? But, regardless, even if ‘Shakespeare never existed it doesn’t make Hamlet any less of a great play does it?
I agree that we don’t know much about the original authors. John’s gospel is deliberately anonymous. There is some evidence that Mark may have written Mark and Luke may have written Luke-Acts but in a sense it doesn’t really matter.
What does matter is whether the writers fabricated stuff or if they inherited traditions that had been fabricated. For this, I think that the internal evidence goes strongly against it. In the first place, literary dependence has been hard to prove. In the second place when reading the parallels together one can see that each writer works with fairly independent recollections of the same events.
I see a lot of evidence that Jesus made his disciples memorise all the important stuff. The differences in reportage strongly resemble this e.g. key words will remain the same but the other stuff that ‘holds it together’ comes out variously.
On the whole, though, if you take each gospel as a unit and read it, you pretty much find the same Jesus stepping out of the pages at you, or at least this has been my experience.
These are four books that in language, style, theological opinion, writing ability, length, even content, are all different – obviously 4 writers who did not at all collaborate on the story, yet Jesus is Jesus and this goes back to what sort of a person Jesus must have been, for it certainly can’t be attributed to the nonexistent ‘genius’ of these writers.
LikeLike
The wordpress spamcatcher is refusing to allow me to post this comment. I’m going to try numbering the paragraphs and putting it here. As you read, do try to read it in the numbered order!
2)Would you believe that there are quite a number of scholars of 16C, 17C English literature who don’t believe that Shakespeare is a real person but may have been a pseudonym for one of the other good writers of that time? But, regardless, even if ‘Shakespeare never existed it doesn’t make Hamlet any less of a great play does it?
1)Ivan, by ‘living’ I meant someone who is a ‘real person’ lives, moves, talks, does things that make sense, a recognisably unique individual. Sorry for the confusion!
3)I agree that we don’t know much about the original authors. John’s gospel is deliberately anonymous. There is some evidence that Mark may have written Mark and Luke may have written Luke-Acts but in a sense it doesn’t really matter.
6)On the whole, though, if you take each gospel as a unit and read it, you pretty much find the same Jesus stepping out of the pages at you, or at least this has been my experience.
5)I see a lot of evidence that Jesus made his disciples memorise all the important stuff. The differences in reportage strongly resemble this e.g. key words will remain the same but the other stuff that ‘holds it together’ comes out variously.
7)These are four books that in language, style, theological opinion, writing ability, length, even content, are all different – obviously 4 writers who did not at all collaborate on the story, yet Jesus is Jesus and this goes back to what sort of a person Jesus must have been, for it certainly can’t be attributed to the nonexistent ‘genius’ of these writers.
4)What does matter is whether the writers fabricated stuff or if they inherited traditions that had been fabricated. For this, I think that the internal evidence goes strongly against it. In the first place, literary dependence has been hard to prove. In the second place when reading the parallels together one can see that each writer works with fairly independent recollections of the same events.
LikeLike
Sam –
I retrieved your original comment from the spamcatcher. WordPress acknowledges the problem. Apparently there’s been a vast increase in spam and they’ve retuned the catcher to be pickier. But apparently it’s trainable: by overruling its decision on your comment hopefully I’m “teaching” it to regard samlcarr as a valid commenter. I too have become suspect apparently, so I’m going through the same teaching process with my own comments.
LikeLike
Saml,
I read your piece and in the numerical order you suggest.
I think to me, it makes a difference that the subject matter is written coherently. I understand your point with Shakespeare, and you can say that the Bible has qualities about its writings, many atheists agree with you here. The difference I see, is that we are looking for a much higher meaning and truth from it and it can’t clearly be this under the circumstances that you describe here.
Ivan
LikeLike
Saml,
Yesterday, My Wednesday, I had to visit some clients up in an area we call “The Blue Mountains.” Whilst up there, I visited my second wife’s Grave site. I noticed that about 3 rows down, another Grave had been opened. I don’t know the reason why. If you were with me and had noticed it also, would your first reaction have been that the deceased person had risen alive from that grave? What would you have thought?
LikeLike
Ivan, evidence and the epistemology especially of testimonial evidence is an area that I am only now slowly starting to dig into and it’s fascinating.
It seems that Bayesian analysis is good for this but being only a rudimentary statistician I’ll give you what I understand thus far.
Courtroom testimony is good enough for jurisprudence and deals with pretty much everyday complexes of events and can be corroborated with or disproved by the relevant physical evidence.
Ordinarily, if I’m in a new town and lost and ask someone where the station is, I would trust their directions unless i followed through and the station was not there. Here I am assuming that the person is one who is probably a local as there is a thousands to one chance that she is, i’m assumiing that strangers to the town are the exception. I’m also assuming that almost any locqal will know where the station is relative to where we are and will give reasonably clear directions. The result is a generally high probability of ‘truth’.
When dealing with odd, strange, or unusual events, there are two main categories. Something that happens rarely but is plausible with a large population of events (struck by lightning) and the sttrange stuff that ‘doesn’t compute’ (UFO sighted).
With either of these we look for corroboration, even when it seems mundane (friend claims to win a big lottery) and sometimes we get it and sometimes we don’t. But if there are multiple witnesses and there is no reason to suspect that they are collaborating on a hoax, our tendency is to say well, maybe, but that’s so odd that i’ll just file that one away for the time being.
This, evidentially, is pretty much where the gospels leave us. There were multiple witnesses and it’s unlikely that there was some huge conspiracy going on, but that’s about it and the rest depends on how you or I choose to deal with the unusual…
LikeLike
Saml,
This isn’t quite so, let me explain.
Jesus was alive, nailed to a cross, died, put into a cave then was “resurrected”.
Lets look at what we have:
4 Gospel accounts, by people who are thought by experts in this area, to have not been witnesses.
We have mention of other people witnessing it, but not a single piece of evidence to back this up.
We only have whoever wrote the gospels, “word” that the most spectacular piece of reversal of Earths physical laws had happened.
Pretty much that’s it isn’t it?
We have no back up literature of any kind from people that were alive during this era that supports the unwitnessed Gospel. This is a bit strange isn’t it?
How can we have cohobating evidence for Ramses 11 or King Philip 11 of Macedon or Philip 111 Arrihidaues, or 100 other people born way earlier than Jesus yet nothing of this guy that wakes up from the dead. Why Saml?
Primitive first century man, thought God resided above the cloud tops. We know this is not true 2000 years later. But a primitive, superstitious man would imagine a God figure rising up in the air and through the clouds. Isn’t this what we are really reading about, an unsupported mythological story based on early Jewish prophecies?
This didn’t really happen did it Saml? We can use Baysarien methods of analysis, but at the end of the day, the probability that this is a factual event, its trillions to one isn’t it Saml?
LikeLike
“The difference I see, is that we are looking for a much higher meaning and truth from it and it can’t clearly be this under the circumstances that you describe here”
Why so? I don’t look at the bible that way and I don’t see any necessity to do so. This is a collection of writings from the ancient Near East. As historical data it is one of the primary sources for what it claims to report. The accuracy of each writer will have to be individually judged and the accuracy of reporting on each event recorded will also have to be judged. In some cases we do have corroborating evidence at least for the peripheral stuff, like geographical locations and this has not been found inconsistent in most cases.
The sources, on the whole, look pretty good and most historians accept that there is a basis of truth being reported ‘as far as we can now make out’.
I think that we just have to treat these narratives as just that – literature/historiographical sources. Why try to put them in some sort of a ‘special’ category?
LikeLike
“How can we have cohobating evidence for Ramses 11 or King Philip 11 of Macedon or Philip 111 Arrihidaues, or 100 other people born way earlier than Jesus yet nothing of this guy that wakes up from the dead. Why Saml?”
This is an odd statement indeed. You have four stories written by 4 different authors regarding this person’s existence but you choose to ignore this and want to have more evidence? have you looked at your sources for the persons that you mentioned (or for anyother ancient characters!) and compared that with the N.T.?
The evidence of the gospels and the rest of the NT (some of Pauls writings are known to well predate the gospels) you may well question, but do you really think that these sources should be ignored?
LikeLike
Hi Saml,
Hey , what time is in your country right now?
Saml,
I have to try and obtain some copies of the books you suggested earlier. Right now, my information is just limited to what I have read to date.
The point I was making, when you get real genuine people, you tend to get good historical information in a number of areas. You also get them in secular areas.
On top of this, we frequently get archaeological evidence on top.
With Jesus, we don’t. We have the gospels certainly, but amongst scholars, these documents certainly don’t appear solid. It would be almost certain that we would have some evidence, somewhere of Jesus specifically if the gospels were a true account.
LikeLike
(In some cases we do have corroborating evidence at least for the peripheral stuff, like geographical locations and this has not been found inconsistent in most cases.
The sources, on the whole, look pretty good and most historians accept that there is a basis of truth being reported ‘as far as we can now make out’.)
Saml,
This just isn’t the case and it is also another alarm bell as to authenticity. There is no archaeological evidence at all and there really should be.
Most historians, report nothing of the kind Saml. In fact most see the picture as seriously wanting.
LikeLike
The evidence of the gospels and the rest of the NT (some of Pauls writings are known to well predate the gospels) you may well question, but do you really think that these sources should be ignored?
I wouldn’t say ignored exactly.
I don’t think we should see it as evidence of a God.
I don’t think we should look at Jesus as anything but a simple man
I don’t think we should view the Bible as a plan for living life.
I think we should stop referring to it as “Gods word” until we establish whether there is a God, Whether that God is Christian, and until we decide which bit is actually the bit that was supposed to be that Gods word.
LikeLike
Ivan, you are tangled up too much in Christian theologising! Let’s, for the sake of our discussion, just dump all that stuff – it doesn’t make any more sense to me than it does to you!
I’m willing to start with the bible as a collection of writings by various authors each of which will have to stand or fall on its own merits.
LikeLike
That’s fine Saml. I only explain it, to explain evidence short falls. There is quite a bit when you look into it.
Saml, There are a number of Prophecies written in the bible, none of which have come true. I am thinking specifically of the second coming that was promised to happen during the first disciples lifetimes. As it hasn’t, and as each new generation think its going to happen at the end of their life time because of the worlds wickedness etc.. do you have a view? When can we expect the rapture?
LikeLike
Saml,
If it doesn’t make sense to you, are you saying them we discard the Bible?
Do I make any sense to you in my point of view?
Do you see that there is a lack of evidence regarding the existing of a God, specifically, the normal Christian version of God?
Ktismatics, made mention of a God that lives apart from the physical universe and has no interaction with it. I don’t know that its possible to know of or find evidence for that kind of God. It certainly would not be worth worshipping.
Saml,
How do you reconcile the random indifference of the Universe and its effects on life and the thinking of people who believe in a Christian God?
LikeLike
Ivan
not a lot of stuff really ‘makes sense’ to me including both xtian theologising and the current state of science. I see far too much pride and unwarranted confidence on both sides and that really worries me.
I don’t in fact see any ‘lack of evidence’ for the existence of God (quite the contrary) but here i do think that this is an all-or-nothing sort of thing that each individual will have to contend with.
Do you see any evidence for the existence of Life?
LikeLike
Of course Saml. Specifically you and I are evidence for this.
Explain what you mean re- unwarranted confidence?
You mentioned a contrary opinion regarding evidence for God. Could you share that with me? What is the evidence on your table?
Ivan
LikeLike
Saml
Your convinced on the existance of a God. What makes you so convinced?
LikeLike
Can you explain that “all or Nothing” view you have?
LikeLike
I’m willing to start with the bible as a collection of writings by various authors each of which will have to stand or fall on its own merits.
Saml,
Jesus predicts all kinds of things in the scriptures. Particularly the end of days. Now this was supposed to have happened 2000 years ago and gets updated by the century, mainly by Christians always convinced it will happen in there own life time.
As its not happened, is this another bit we could add to the bathwater?
LikeLike
Sam,
One of the hallmarks that rings out loudly for me in debates about the existence of God, is getting around the randomness of life. For me this specifically, comes to the fore when the discussion revolves around the Christian version of God and the qualities often assigned to him. There isn’t a day goes past that I don’t see a reference to “the God of Love” or a mention of Jesus dying on the cross for “my sins”. I don’t understand either of these statements in any meaningful way.
I’m turning 50 this year, and I feel like I have seen a lot of life and the randomness that strikes at the heart of life. The best I have heard Christians come up with is either God working in mysterious ways or that God has a grander plan or some kind of equality happens in heaven.
I think its mysterious, because it is unexplainably random. I can’t see a grand plan that would explain a fraction of the things I have seen in life. I cannot imagine a heaven that would have levels of pleasure or quality that rewards the pious or the suffering. I just don’t see it.
I have known some truly wonderful people, people of abundant love and faith in God. Oddly, everyone of these people suffered horrible and debilitating deaths. All with protracted levels of suffering, I feel haunted by them to this day. Yet, I see people like “chopper” a recently released prison inmate, imprisoned for multiple murders some of which there wasn’t the evidence to hold him, I see his blessings of good health, I see his new book has made him a millionaire. I read about a serial rapist in the UK that one that countries biggest lottery.
I see some of the most “devout” nations wiped out by a Tsunami, I see little Sophie that was burned in a fire and disfigured beyond recognition at age 6, one year later crossing the road is hit by a car and is now paralysed on top of her other horrific injuries.
What God organises outcomes like this? Why bother to pray when you or I could be that next person?
The universe appears to me as indifferently random. Its random on the big scale and its random on the micro scale. Nothing about it makes sense in the context of a God, Nothing in even a microscopic sense makes sense in the system of a Christian God.
I need it to make sense.
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan,
Sorry, but this has been one of those weeks! I have been sort of checking out Ktismatics daily but not really having the time to do much with it though the stuff being discussed is really fascinating, the same with jon erdman’s theos project…
I do agree with you. The standard formulations of God, especially in Christian theology just do not help very much. They make ‘sense’ to folks who do not try to think things through very much but for those who refuse to stop being critical the contradictions become glaring and can result in the loss of faith.
What we fail to realise is that this theologising is all human thought and it’s quite unfair to blame God for this. The bible does make gramnd statements but the bible is quite clear that these are the opinions of individuals. The number of times we see God speaking in the bible are clearly marked off and always show that God is the unusual, the unexpected, the unpredictable…
Secondly, all human systems of thought (including Dawkin’s atheism) want to be able to explain ‘everything’ and this is both prideful and silly. Agnosticism is a cop out but in a sense a healthy dose of recognising that we know too little to pontificate would be a good thing!
Contrast this with what critically ‘the bible’ proposes. Many of the uncertainties are left as such, but Jesus life itself shows us what authentic living becomes when we realise and respond to God.
For me one important realisation was that I could not ‘think my way’ to God. Because God is ‘other’ I will always have to wait for God to make the connections.
It’s foolish really to try to argue our way to a conclusion, but with Paul I am interested in dismantling our philosophical constructions to see what lies underneath,
and I am really enjoying this discussion with you.
LikeLike
Ivan, you said “I have known some truly wonderful people, people of abundant love and faith in God. Oddly, everyone of these people suffered horrible and debilitating deaths. All with protracted levels of suffering,…”
It’s strange but rarely acknowledged that this is precisely what Jesus says will happen. He promises his followers authentic lives but lives filled with troubles, rejection and probably ‘unhappy’ endings.
LikeLike
And its strange Sam, that if no God existed, this would also be the same set of random outcomes one would expect really. Again, one wonders the point of worship.
LikeLike
Ivan, if God does not exist, then randomess is what we are about. Because we are ‘alive’ we may try to affirm ‘life’ as good and anything that is antilife as evil, or perhaps as we are the products of randomness, we may choose to value the random itself. George Bush Jr. could be a hero!
Seems to me that we would not really have any cause to call one set of events good, or better than another set of events.
Nothing inside of me finds this acceptable. In fact the very fact that you find that there is no ‘fairness’ about good folks ending their lives in ignominy and suffering is what I am now talking about – why does this bother you?
Jesus on the other hand says that because God exists and because God is good we can live authentic lives dedicated to goodness, nothing random about it at all. It is what one does with one’s life, not how one suffers, that is what authentic (‘abundant’ to use John’s word) living is all about.
The people that you mention would be proud that you remember them as being good people, faithful people, loving people – children of their Father.
LikeLike
Saml,
It bothers me in so much as some were people I loved and others it just seemed an unfair end. “Abundant living” though, Saml, is not the Biblical way. In that particular cult, you deny yourself now for heavenly rewards. I don’t think its a better life.
Jesus says God exists but offers no evidence, no beneficial outcomes, no nothing really when you think about it. Its like the garden tended by the invisible gardener, maybe its just grown that way. Maybe there never existed or was a God.
Every observation I have made in my fifty year life, screams to me that we are alone and on our own. I find this rather empowering myself though it will upset many a Christian. They like their security.
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan, “abundant” is referrenced with regard to Jesus’ own life – executed at about 33, but what a life!
LikeLike
Sam –
Jesus on the other hand says that because God exists and because God is good we can live authentic lives dedicated to goodness, nothing random about it at all. It is what one does with one’s life, not how one suffers, that is what authentic (’abundant’ to use John’s word) living is all about. The people that you mention would be proud that you remember them as being good people, faithful people, loving people – children of their Father.
I thought that was poignant.
LikeLike
So did I.
LikeLike
Sorry, folks, i really took a break there!
So, getting back to the questions that got a little left behind… and i will pick up on these in the next post.
Mark 14:12 says Jesus was crucified the day after the Passover meal yet John says before?
Or
When Luke says Joseph and Mary returned to Nazareth just over a month after they had come to Bethlehem Luke 2:39
yet in Matthews they fled to Egypt Matt:2:19
Or Paul saying he did not go to Jerusalem yet in Acts he did??
LikeLike
There’s tremendous confusion when trying to get the 4 gospel accounts of the happenings around Jesus crucifiction to agree. What I see happening is that up to this point the teacher has had his disciples with him, teaching and training them in the ways of his kingdom. Now, all of a sudden, they are very much on their own and scared to boot, keeping their heads down and just trying to get by.
It’s therefore obvious that confusion reigns and this is incidentally an authentic confusion that comes through in the gospels very, very, clearly – another sign that the accounts have not been forced to fit some preconceived mold.
I see one aspect of John’s gospel as a sort of ‘filling in the gaps’. Most agree that this is the last gospel to come to written form and there is evidence that he is familiar with some form of Mark and shares strands of tradition with Luke too though there is no literary linkage.
What we have then in John is a lot of concentration on Jesus preaching and teaching around Jerusalem (while the other three concentrate more on Galilee), with an emphasis on his teaching to the ‘inner circle’ of his disciples and some specific controversies that Jesus was involved in with the other religious leaders. There is also some ‘insider’ information in John as far as the opposition to Jesus is concerned – a mole’s voice can be heard here and there.
In other words John is definitely and consciously interested in fleshing-out the picture of Jesus that he feels is somewhat incomplete in the synoptic type of tradition. One of the things that one notices immediately is that there are aspects to chronology in John that are from a very different perspective to that of the synoptics. The ‘cleansing of the temple’ is placed late in Jesus ministry by the other three but somewhat at the beginning in John. I think this is deliberate.
John is therefore not providing a chronological account, rather he is showing up the key ingredients to the clash between Jesus and the other religious leaders that culminates in the crucifiction. Interestingly, though, there are aspects of chronology that come only from John’s gospel including the important information that Jesus ministry lasted three or more years.
Another factor with John is that his account is solidly based in Palestinian realities wheras the other three gospels seem to be aimed much more at diaspora and gentile readers.
The account of the ‘last supper’ in John is obviously recounting a different meal than the one where on the eve of passover(in the synoptics), Jesus announces his ‘new covenant’.
Except for a hint in Luke (of the 4 cups) the other gospels do not take into account that ‘the passover’ is a complex 7-8 day festival. The indications are that John’s referrence to passover eve point towards Jesus crucifiction taking place as the passover lambs are sacrificed in the temple. The referrence in Mark is so nonspecific that I am hard pressed to see a real contradiction here, though I would not be at all surprised to find one!
LikeLike
Sam,
I seem to need a different type of truth than you need to be understanding of Christianity. I think I understand your thinking in a different light these days.
I keep thinking my disagreement is more linked to the way Christians in a general sense portray the Holy Bible to the facts of the document I hold in my hand from time to time.
I specifically see “John” as a whole different kettle of fish as you do, I also have enormous difficulties circumnavigating the various difference (and there are many) with it being a book of some kind of literal truth.
It just doesn’t resonate as anything of a roadmap, instruction book, code for living as so many people see it.
I think you have to have a very forgiving eye to its many inaccuracies and I am a less patient man than your good self.
LikeLike
Ivan, it is an ancient source material. A respect for the author and what the author was setting out to do are very important to me in getting the most out of a piece of writing. it’s no different if one is reading Homer e.g. One does not assume that everything is fact and one doesn’t assume that everything is fiction. The first thing is to let the text speak for itself. Then you can be critical with it but always remember that the author did not set out to satisfy 21C critics. They have a story to tell and are telling it, as best they know how.
Actually I absolutely agree with you that John’s gospel is a “a whole different kettle of fish” to most other writing in that time. Philo sometimes comes close as does Origen but there is still a world of difference.
My question to you would be, what would it have taken to inspire the writing of these four gospels?
LikeLike
Saml,
Now this isn’t really true. Firstly, we don’t know who the original authors were, or when exactly they lived, and what they actually saw. Even a cursory inspection of the Bible this just hits you right up front.
We are “expected” to see this document as 100% factual. We are expected to take its information quite literally. Is there a church in the world that doesn’t?
They have a story to tell Saml, its a story of several accounts of “something” that nobody appears to have actually lived through and witnessed. The Gospel of John, is simply a sales manual. Really nothing of substance.
Saml, How about if they are telling a story and telling it honestly, there could be a little honesty about who these people were and what legend they are really trying to write about? What’s wrong with a little honesty?
What would it take? I would suggest a collection of primitive superstitious illiterate people. I would say they invested much in the way of understanding the traditional Jewish teachings. I would imagine they were very “suggestible” seeing great magic and such in animal sacrifices and goat entrails. I would suggest they were hanging out for a good prophet that they could invest in. I imagine also, they were not short on embellishing the story. Put all this together and you get the four gospels.
LikeLike
Saml,
I guess it gets down to what we accept of the information. I know you often talk about Jesus in a more philosophical way, but the Christian description that has been sold for the last 2000 years really is one of literal truth. The Bible is talked about as if written by God and if you take issue with facts it can then *morph* into the divine inspiration of God or similar.
I have a lot of respect for Science and mans ingenuity with respect to science and technology. Its interesting to me how these accomplishments are belittled when measured against Godly versions. I guess I don’t like seeing this. I think its kind of cool that a God can invent a disease and man can then invent a remedy. For me Saml, I have to measure a story about deceased people rising out of their graves against what we understand about the laws of thermodynamics. I try and weigh up popular Biblical stories with what we know as the fact of evolution. I measure historical and palaeontology discoveries with Biblical history and note a difference . I find the Bible short on facts and much of it improbable to an enormous degree at least to my mind and understanding. Its always possible that everything we know of human anatomy and the laws of physics could be wrong, but I wonder if it is Saml? Is it not entirely greater the possibility that these early, primitive men misunderstood?
LikeLike
Ivan, to some extent you are mixing apples and oranges and coming up with peaches. That sounds trite but it isn’t. People aren’t any dumber or smarter today than they were 10k years ago. That is a myth that has been propagated throughout history. If you look at any of the great old civilisations you may even conclude that they were far ahead of us in many respects…
And, this is not about technology. 50 years ago we communicated by letter, through a postal system, it took weeks, today its nearly instant; the internet, sms, email, and sat phones. This doesn’t make letter writers less intelligent than internet users.
The miraculous has always been odd, no less so 2000 years ago than now. This seems to be your main sticking point, that there are stories of miracles in the bible. So there are, but that doesn’t mean that the folks who wrote down these things were stupid because they believed them.
It looks to me that you are in fact demanding something like a heavenly voice that you can hear plainly saying “I’m God, I exist, Jesus is my son etc.” for your expectation that a 2,000 year old collection of stories about a hebrew prophet should be pristine, error free, lacking contradictions and so on is exactly the equivalent of hearing a voice from on high.
Your idea of honesty is also something that i find impractical. Take a modern day phenomenon like the sighting of UFOs. Say there are a number of simultaneous reports coming from one area and one timeframe, you would assume that these folks have seen ‘something’ wouldn’t you? That doesn’t mean that an alien invasion took place or anything else, but a number of folks saw something strange and reported it.
There is therefore a difference between what is reported and how that is interpreted. 5,000 people were fed, somewhat mysteriously. what the disciples saw is that there wasn’t any food readily available and Jesus starts it off by blessing a tiny portion and sharing it out. These are the ‘facts’. How they are interpreted by the writers of the stories is also there. One can reject the explanation without having to reject ‘the facts’.
Similarly, all four gospels record ‘the fact’ that the day after the crucifiction, the tomb was empty. This is the fact. There is no one who says that they saw Jesus walking out of the tomb. There are then reports that he is seen, recognisable and apparently alive, by various people and over a brief period of time. This I think, you can accept if you believe in the person now, you would reject otherwise as preposterous or perhaps give a psychological explanation of mass halucination or some such. Either way there is no real reason to doubt that the body was missing, is there?
To be frank, if I heard such a heavenly voice, as you pointed out earlier, my first thought would be that I was hallucinating, so even God’s direct speech would prove futile…
But what we in fact do have is an authentic ancient record, perhaps riddled with mistakes, human error showing up on every page, but inspired by a great person, a great human being, for without that you would not have this sort of a record.
if you look at what you say, that looks a heck of a lot more improbable to me that such a collection of weird and hard to believe stories would have lasted out the parchment on which they were written let alone get copied thousands of times as they have been.
These are ordinary people, that’s obvious if one studies their writing style. They are no scholars nor do they show any exceptional brilliance, yet, the person that they speak about is believable, he is remarkable, he is very human and he is also very extraordinary and these conclusions can be reached by anyone who critically but honestly allows him/herself to really listen to the story.
For a moment, if you can kick off the fact that ‘most christians’ argue for inerrancy, and instead of dwelling on the obviously miraculous, and instead concentrate on this character, whose teachings are so startlingly different, yet can strike such a deep chord in the hearer. Teaching that demands that we first be human with each other, teaching that demands that we think more highly of those that we are least alike to, than of ourselves – I could go on, but this is certainly not the chance creation of a few mediocre writers of tall tales…
LikeLike
If you look at any of the great old civilisations you may even conclude that they were far ahead of us in many respects…
I don’t think so Saml. Do you think we should ad courses to the current required for a medical degree on how to cast out demons? Maybe we should ad stuff onto agricultural science courses covering why crops fail due to instances or moral decay?
No the internet doesn’t make betters writers, though it does make writing accurately reproducible. In fact, word for word. They didn’t have it even close to this Saml.
This seems to be your main sticking point, that there are stories of miracles in the bible. So there are, but that doesn’t mean that the folks who wrote down these things were stupid because they believed in them
Well it might do Saml. I mean multiple instances of the dead rising.. walking on water… people turning to salt.. Is this not primitive superstitious belief? And its not my only sticking point I might add. Its just one of them.
your expectation that a 2,000 year old collection of stories about a Hebrew prophet should be pristine, error free, lacking contradictions and so on is exactly the equivalent of hearing a voice from on high.
Only in so much as that God’s “chosen people” really demanded this of him and he delivered apparently. What is wrong with me requesting similar? What is wrong with me expecting accuracy with the inspired word of God? What is wrong with me requesting it be the same collection of stories with agreed dates and facts?
UFo’s ? Yes. But this doesn’t mean what they saw was the same basic interpretation. But we are talking dead people climbing out of graves. A lot of them actually. Right down here on the ground and there should be some kind of historical account other than the Bible. Certainly on something so huge.
The loaves and the fishes? We have absolutely no information about what might have happened, other than the biblical account that “chose” to look at it as a miracle. Where are the testimonies of all the people partaking of that meal? There would be some kind of secular record somewhere of this amazing event? Could there be a second explanation a more plausible one? Extremely likely Saml.
there is no real reason to doubt that the body was missing, is there?
I expect it was missing Saml. I expect the body was stolen. I expect many people “thought” they saw him. I expect emotions were running hot that day.
I would expect a single secular account from the “multitudes” had it really came close to happening. I would also expect the disciples to have had there stories “right” each is different as if each were not really there but maintaining a “story” or advertising pitch.
Which heavenly voice Saml?
I understand how you see it as “inspired” reading Saml. Many,many people do. I am trying to separate the inspiration from the probable facts of what happened on the day.
which they were written let alone get copied thousands of times as they have been.
Its a miracle of sorts that so many people abandoned reason, in favour of “faith”. I guess there is no prize greater than religious “comfort”. This does not make the parchments “true” of course. Just mass copied and in over 400,000 cases copied differently with different sentences and meanings. It doesn’t add to the body of opinion of it being an accurate document.
Yes Saml, they were ordinary. They were mostly illiterate. They believed people could be inhabited by devils and that God wanted frequent offerings of burnt Goat flesh. This is precisely why I see the need for a very great deal of scepticism.
The thing is Saml, I am not even sure that the “teaching” is even all that great to begin with. I think I would be arguing with Jesus all the dang time. Men bring before him the adulterous woman.. he deals with it with sage,Jesus wisdom.
“For he who has sinned” I would be asking… errr…guys.. how come you brought me the woman your going to stone but let the man behind? He was alright was he? Oh… a man.. right he couldn’t have been a party to adultery then could he.. Saml, Why does Jesus make gaffs such as this? What happened to his message of equality? There are many more such instances, and I question the value of those “teachings”.
LikeLike
Ivan, I’ll let you deal with the teaching of Jesus as you get into reading a gospel or two. i really hate the prooftext approach which cuts and pastes it’s way to trying to make sense of things.
You can see the teacher most clearly when analysing the structure of the teaching that we have in the three ‘synoptic’ gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke). Look at how it’s organised into small soundbytes. These in turn have turns of phrase, alliterative repetitions and striking metaphors that fix these bits firmly in one’s memory, and then there are the parables!
Look at the teachings, not one is a full ‘sermon’, not even the so called ‘Sermon on the Mount’ of Matthew chapters 5 to 7.
Obviously, these memorable little bits have stuck in the hearers’ minds and then been thematically spliced together by the authors. Now, with John there’s a whole different technique. He does pick up some of the same traditions but by and large his way is to follow a ‘sign’ (usually miraculous) with a ‘discourse’ that utilises a theme from the sign. He has a prologue, then there’s an introductory period of interaction with John the Baptist and picking up his first few disciples and then we have sign-discourse, sign-discourse till the ending where Jesus takes on his challengers in their own backyard, the temple in Jerusalem, and that seals his fate.
This fate, I have to say, is the most interesting thing. I think you will agree that Jesus died, probably violently, and probably at the hands of the Romans. He was charged basically with treason, though Pilate did not believe the charge, buit executed nonetheless, as something worse than the two common criminals who accompanied him.
You say that you don’t find anything very remarkable in his teaching? Well, whatever it was that he did, it was nasty enough, threatening enough, that he had to be silenced.
LikeLike
Sam,
I read in one of the texts that make up the Bible some wording in a phrase, that indicated Pilate didn’t really want him executed. It was the crowd getting rowdy that caused the execution. Pilate washed his hands of it. I thought the passage was their to lay blame at the feet of the Jewish people? I will find the bit if I can again.
I don’t find his teachings and the Bible’s various lessons all that remarkable myself. Its interesting, but I don’t feel it talking to me like it does for yourself.
Saml, given the manner of his demise, and the fact it was a kind of common criminals death, and as you said with a couple of others, Would it not have been embarrassing for the disciples? Could that have been some kind of motive to steal the body later and create the myth of a resurrection? Could they have tried to save the face of the teacher?
Which version of the Bible do you read?
LikeLike
Yes, the texts indicate an anti-Jewish leadership bias as opposed to a ‘racial bias’. I think that you will find that this bias is quite consistent throughout the gospels.
But the historical validity of the picture of Pilate is very consistent with the mandate of a Roman governor. The charges that were brought forward are that Jesus has broken Jewish laws (deserving death) and at the same time that he is a subversive, a terrorist, who is opposed to the Romans. On the first charge, pilate has no interest and on the second he is not convinced…
Of course the cross is a great embarassment, but the basic argument against them stealing his body, and it’s a very strong one, is that these are Jews. Dead bodies are ‘unclean’. This is not just a casual uncleanness but is considered very nasty and then necesitates some really unusual rituals for cleansing.
How serious an offense this is can be guaged by the fact that the purity of the spring water to be used in the cleansing ritual required that children be born and bred specifically to transpot the water from the spring to the temple! Not to mention the “Red Heifer”!
LikeLike
Sorry, missed this Q. For reading I like the language of the King James Version. For study, the NIV is ok as is the New English Bible but most of the time I use some software that allows comparisons of the translations and the original languages. I don’t know Hebrew so stuff like Strongs and Youngs concordances get used a lot…
LikeLike
Hey thats very interesting Sam.
Ivan
LikeLike
Hey, Sam, what software do you use?
LikeLike
Ivan, for software, try out the free http://www.crosswire.org/index.jsp
http://www.bible-explorer.com/
http://bibledatabase.org/free_bible_software.htm
or
http://www.e-sword.net/
LikeLike
Or
When Luke says Joseph and Mary returned to Nazareth just over a month after they had come to Bethlehem Luke 2:39
yet in Matthews they fled to Egypt Matt:2:19
Ivan, these birth narratives are stylistically ‘set off’ in both Matthew and Luke. I agree that there is confusion on more points than just the sequence of events/places but each story is anchored in local history in unique ways. The two accounts are also very very independent of each other (i take that as a strength). Luke concentrates on Mary’s story while Matthew picks up with Joseph.
In Matthew and Luke Jesus is born in Bethlehem (in Judah). In Mathew, they seem to reside in Bethlehem for some time, before moving to Egypt. Herod reckons that the baby should have been born up to a maximum of 2 years before he takes action (probably with a healthy margin for error) and slaughters all the children of that age and below. Sometime later Herod dies and is replaced by Archelaus (in Judah) and at this time Joseph brings the family back but settles in Nazareth of Galilee.
In Luke, Mary is a resident of Nazareth and conceives there, she spends three months of her pregnancy with her relation Elisabeth and next she (still pregnant) with her fiance Joseph are seen travelling to Bethlehem for the census administered by Quirinius on behalf of Augustus Caesar. Then, after at least 40 days, they visit the temple in Jerusalem and from there go to settle in Nazareth.
One striking thing in Luke’s account is the story of Mary going to visit Elisabeth. This is a common practice in the East, when a girl gets pregnant she heads home to her mother. It looks as though Mary didn’t have a mother alive to help her so she goes to a senior cousin sister for those difficult first few months.
Matthew’s picture of Herod is very consistent with what we know of him from Josephus. the star, that leads the wise men is again very interesting for it behaves exactly as we would expect some comets to behave. It moves, and the wise men follow. They are ‘from the East’ so the comet is moving Westward, towards the sun. As they reach Jerusalem it apparently disappears, this happens when the comet actually swings round the sun. Then as thay get directions to Bethlehem, it reappears and leads them towards Bethlehem before disappearing.
LikeLike
Saml,
Its more than simple confusion Saml. These are very different versions of so called factual accounts.
Saml, you believe you have a soul?
Hey thanks for the software tip!
LikeLike
Sorry, Ivan
I’m sort of giving you sets of random thoughts on these contradictions that may not satisfy you at all. In fact I don’t think they really should!
The way I generally approach a book is to try to figure out what the author is about and then look at the stuff in it from that context.
I accept that there are differences between two authors and in fact would expect no less. If all the problems were absent I would really suspect that someone had fiddled with the texts to make them all agree and I am quite happy that they indeed have not.
So, you are quite right, Matthew and Luke don’t agree. One or the other could be right on this or that detail or both could be wrong! This is natural, part and parcel of the human authors who are at work, each giving the information that s/he has available his/her best shot.
Now, on to Paul…
LikeLike
No please Sam, keep going. I find anything and everything you say on this subject extremely interesting. Please go on.. any order you wish.
Ivan
LikeLike
Or Paul saying he did not go to Jerusalem yet in Acts he did?
Epistles are what we have from Paul. Epistle is just another word for letter. Letters were exchanged, it seems quite frequently, and some of thes have survived and we have no the bits and pieces of one side of some ancient conversations.
Paul going to Jerusalem is one of those things that is mentioned by Paul here and there as he argues with this or that church about something of great enough importance to him that he wrote them letters about it.
In the letter to the fellowship at Galatia Paul says in chapter 1 and from the 16th verse that he received his ‘gospel’ from God and did not talk to the other apostles about it till at least 3 years later.
Now, I wonder, whenever i read Galatians, as to what had Paul so riled up? This question, of where he got his gospel is certainly one sticking point, but the main issue is that some ‘others’ have been telling the Galatians a different story. They have been promoting ‘the Law’ (meaning the law of Moses and the and all the Rabbinic interpretations of that law and the covenants as being a prime component of ‘the gospel’.
This in turn has boiled down, in Galatia, to the matter of circumcision! In other words, this ‘new’ gospel is that only circumcision entitles one to be a disciple of Jesus.
To Paul, this is the worst sort of insult to ‘the gospel’. Paul personally established this Galatian fellowship out of believers who responded to Paul’s preaching of Jesus as the messiah. This is Paul’s ‘gospel’ and it runs counter to any claims that ‘the Law’ may have or have had on these believers.
With such a background (that I derive from the one side of the conversation that I am listening to here) the question seems to be whether Paul is dependent on Jerusalem and the apostles there for his ‘version’ of the preaching. The ‘new’ gospel teachers seem to have claimed that their gospel is really from Jerusalem and that Paul has been giving a watered down version (or maybe an outdated version) of the real thing.
In Acts 9 we have Paul going to Jerusalem soon after his conversion. Most scholars try to make this out to be the trip that he made ‘after three years’ that is referred to in Gal 1. I think this is a mistake presisely because in Gal 1, Paul is talking not about never having visited Jerusalem but of not having talked to any of the apostles about his gospel till his visit there ‘after 3 years’. Also notice that Paul’s very first ‘missionary journey’ is to areas that include Galatia.
The circumcision debate, as with questions about other aspects of following the Law of Moses (clean and unclean foods, sacrificing to idols, ritual purity etc.), was a very live one in the early church precisely because most of the first believers are themselves Jews.
Paul, as the preacher to the gentiles ends up on the firing line very often indeed. In Galatians Paul is particularly cutting. He refers to having criticised Peter in public. He has fought with his very close friend Barnabas on this very issue. And he goes on to advise that anyone who advocates circucission, really should not stop just with removing just a foreskin but proceed to cut the ‘whole thing’ off (5:12)!
I have always been fascinated by Paul’s discussion of ‘his gospel’. It looks more and more to me that the gospel that Paul preached was none other than an oral version of the traditions about Jesus that we see collected together in the 4 gospels. Any attempt to adulterate these traditions is absolutely wrong for Paul and he is willing to die to defend this very same gospel.
LikeLike
Also Sam, the trouble with letters was that they had to be copied in order to be distributed. As none of the originals survive, and that we don’t know how well they were copied and that we don’t have anything like all of the letters its really a bit piecemeal.
Received a Gospel from “God” and kept it to himself for over three years.. You think Sam? very odd don’t you think?
(i)*the question seems to be whether Paul is dependent on Jerusalem and the apostles there for his ‘version’ of the preaching. The ‘new’ gospel teachers seem to have claimed that their gospel is really from Jerusalem and that Paul has been giving a watered down version (or maybe an outdated version) of the real thing.*(i)
This could be the case, The gospel is being re-written and adjusted, so it doesn’t conflict with other differing material. This seems to happen a lot from what I read.
Its a dang Pity, that Paul did indeed die, and that the legitimacy of the work was then taken out of his hands for 20 centuries or so. Its why I think very little of it makes sense to modern man now.
LikeLike
The way I generally approach a book is to try to figure out what the author is about and then look at the stuff in it from that context.
Sam, with so many people trying to sell the Christian message after the “authors” had died. what is the chances you still following the original one?
Certainly, many competing groups of Christians have been trying to sell their one true message for 2000 years now. What’s the chance its still the same?
Do you ever look at the holy word, as a holy sales document that has been massaged and massaged to the point it might not mean what it means?
LikeLike
Sam,
The Bible makes a specific reference to the dead rising on the day of Jesus crucifixion. As I understand it, Some number of people, I think they may have been referred to as saints, Clawed there way out of the ground and walked into Jerusalem to resume there lives with there surprised families. In your world, did this happen? If so, what happened to these people? Did they die a second time or could they still be living? The Bible seems rather clear that it did indeed occur. Your views my good man.
LikeLike
Sam,
The Bible tells a story of a man by the name of Lot. In this story, his wife gets turned into a Pillar of Sodium Chloride. Why this, I am not sure.
Did this happen? Did the marital partner of a man named Lot get turned into a block of Sodium Chloride?
LikeLike
Sam,
The Holy Bible, tells an interesting story about a man called Job. Job was by most accounts a rather nice and honourable man. The story Goes that God and Satan get into a contest to test Job’s faith. Job kind of gets systemically tortured.
Did God do this? Why would God do this? Is the story a real instance of a Godly act? How does one reconcile this with our God of love Christian picture? Would this be a God worthy of our worship? What is your view Sam?
LikeLike
Sam,
There is a really interesting parable about a group of irate men that bring forth to Jesus a woman accused of adultery. “he who has sinned cast the first stone etc”
Forgiving for the moment, this story not appearing in early versions of the Gospels, How do you feel about the fact Jesus doesn’t appear concerned over the fact the man was not brought before him? Should this not have been the first question asked? How do you feel about Jesus not asking for the man to also be brought before him? Why do you think Jesus all of a sudden had a brisk departure from Jewish law, he normally upheld? The woman wasn’t a relative of Paris Hilton was she?
How come she got off?
LikeLike
Sam,
A group of local Christians have given me a stern warning. Apparently, according to them, God is going to Purify the planet earth in a cataclysm of fiery death. I am going to be one of the burning dudes. The Christians who warned me, are rising above it all during the rapture. Is this true Sam? How do we reconcile such fact with our God of Love? How would we recognise a God of vengeance or a God of Hate if this is going to be the example of a God of love?
LikeLike
Sam,
God made Jesus as John the Baptist describes as the sacrificial Lamb.
So if I understand this: God makes a son via a virgin birth. God organises that the son be made a blood sacrifice in an unusually brutal way. This sacrifice is made in order to forgive us.
As you know, I am no rocket scientist, But why the need for the brutal sacrifice? Why couldn’t God have just said to himself.. “Oh well… guess I will just forgive them”.
Why the need for Jesus to go through that? What the dickens does it tell us about the supreme being? Why not just forgive? Isn’t the plan just a little.. to quote Dawkins.. “Barking mad”?
What do you think Sam? Why is it not a barking mad plan? Could you think of more simple and kindly or loving ways to forgive mankind? Would you have nailed someone up? What would you have done as a reasonable man Sam?
LikeLike
Sam,
Earlier, you mentioned the chapter in the Holy Bible of Galatians. I understand that Apostle Paul, required that Christian woman have their heads covered whilst in Church. How do you feel about that Sam? Should woman be required to wear a veil as stated in the Bible? I understand the reason for this is to show woman that they are under authority of the man. I am trying to find a way of breaking this to my wife and still have intact genitalia. I understood that Paul rather approved of slavery. How do you feel about owning slaves yourself Sam? I am also interested in your views of Paul’s in regard to woman in general, I quote:
let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man , she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve and Adam was *not* deceived, but the woman was deceived and became the transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing,provide they continue in faith and love and holiness with *modesty*
1TIM 2:11-15
Sam, how did you handle this in your own life? Does your wife accept your authority? Does she learn in silence in full submission? Any ideas on how I can break this to my own wife?
LikeLike
Sam,
Just some other questions relating to Galatians. As I understand it, Galatia wasn’t a single town with a single church it was more a region stretching through Asia Minor in which Paul had established various churches.
When Paul wrote to Galatians is he writing to one church or all of them, do you know?
One would presume, he may mean the one letter to all the various districts, is this logical?
Would this mean Paul would want the one letter going to various churches and towns?
Would Paul have made various copies of the one letter or just the one going to just the one town?
If Paul made multiple copies, How do you expect he made them? I say this, because the evidence appears as if he used a secretarial scribe, (evidence for this is found in the postscripts of his letters.)
If this is so, would Paul have dictated the letter? Would it appear as word for word?
Is it possible that Paul generalises, letting the scribe elaborate more freely? (this was a frequently used method of the day)
If this were so, what guarantee do we have it was filled out correctly? Could the scribe have at anytime written the *wrong* words down? If this were the case, then automatically, all future copies would also be wrong wouldn’t they Sam?
Suppose that the letters were 100% transcribed correctly, How sure would we be that all other copies were also 100% correct? what would be the chances Sam?
If a correct copy made it to the town, and then copied, what then are the chances of it remaining 100% correct?
What do we invest belief in Sam?
LikeLike
Ivan, Ivan, I’m just one little guy that has tried to think through a few of these issues and mostly gets just as confused (IF NOT MORE) as everyone else!
Ancient history is full of legends. In fact today’s history is too, the difference is that we ‘know’ what is and isn’t factual. A hundred years down the road someone looking back at just our texts may think we were a very gullible and unscientific lot, simply because they can no longer clearly distinguish between what we know and stories and stuff that we keep alive just for entertainment or as illustrations of some of life’s truisms or as interesting stories that are fun to tell kids…
Looking back more than a thousand years makes this problem acute for at least two reasons. 1. we are culturally, linguistically, technologically too removed from what we are trying to understand and 2. the source material itself gets scarce, we have just a few bits and pieces to work with.
The result is that we don’t know whether we are reading something that the original hearers believed to be fqactually true, a nice story based pretty much on current events but spiced up to make it more interesting, or an outright fabrication that they stored away as it was good entertainment…
We are, if we are serious about studying these texts, somewhat obligated to decide what the author intended to convey and we are often left with nothing but the text itself as our data and the basis on which we will decide the purpose of the work, what is reliable or not as historical information and then what we can glean as useful stuff from this text.
LikeLike
Sam,
When we look at “Galatians” my understanding is what survives today isn’t even an original copy of the letters, nor even one of the earlier letter copies, or a copy from any town that may have received an earlier letter, actually, not even a copy of a copy of a letter.
I understand that the P46 fragment is really the best we have and this is dated to some 150 years after Paul lived. What would be the chances that this copy would be an accurate representation of anything Paul had originally written? What would the chances be Sam? This is some 15 decades later. How can we possibly depend on this being the word of Paul let alone the word of God as Christians would like to depict?
LikeLike
Looking back more than a thousand years makes this problem acute for at least two reasons. 1. we are culturally, linguistically, technologically too removed from what we are trying to understand and 2. the source material itself gets scarce, we have just a few bits and pieces to work with.
So, your saying its unreliable and couldn’t be really counted on as some kind of cosmic truth?
The result is that we don’t know whether we are reading something that the original hearers believed to be factually true, a nice story based pretty much on current events but spiced up to make it more interesting, or an outright fabrication that they stored away as it was good entertainment…
So its again unreliable, and couldn’t be counted on as some kind of cosmic truth? It all just might be a..story.. or primitive legend? Not really the word of some kind of God figure. Is this what your saying Sam?
LikeLike
{We are, if we are serious about studying these texts, somewhat obligated to decide what the author intended to convey and we are often left with nothing but the text itself as our data and the basis on which we will decide the purpose of the work, what is reliable or not as historical information and then what we can glean as useful stuff from this text.}
Trying to understand you better Sam:
If we are serious about studying the text, We have to take in account that the author may have been conveying imagery or legend or possibly a simple “wish” for the subject matter. It might not be actual fact as such. just a story as such? If it is just a story, is it useful in a word of God context?
Is this the best we can do Sam?
LikeLike
Ivan, Ivan, I’m just one little guy that has tried to think through a few of these issues and mostly gets just as confused (IF NOT MORE) as everyone else!
Hey, no problem Sam. I am just working the problem. You have great value to me as a sounding board!
Ancient history is full of legends. In fact today’s history is too, the difference is that we ‘know’ what is and isn’t factual. A hundred years down the road someone looking back at just our texts may think we were a very gullible and unscientific lot
Your right Sam. The difference is we are not claiming to speak for the creator God of the universe. The Bible is. I would expect some kind of factual basis, isn’t this the least we could expect? Did dead people rise and walk into Jerusalem? How many ways could that be perceived? What literary styles could we analyse that by? Did dead people rise or not rise? Did Jesus rise from the grave or not? Did Noah build an ark or not? Was Lots wife turned into a block of salt or not? How do we work this all out Sam? You have a particular view I expect we could loosely at least call Christian. Do you think this all happened as a factual account or not?
LikeLike
In most of these cases I am simply not sure, ‘agnostic’. I don’t like calling another person a liar unless I have proof.
Again, I am not arguing for any standard biblical theology. Most of my still very conservative fellow-believers think that I am ‘off the wall’ and hesitate to discuss theology with me for fear that what I say may upset one or another carefully stacked applecart.
But, I do have opinions and I’m pleased to share them with your unfortunate self!
With most of the ‘legendary’ stuff in the bible, the historian is left trying to peak behingd the text to see what might have set it off. One thing that generally has held good so far is that whatever has been ascertained seems to indicate that the authors have tried their best to record what they saw as truth.
So, I have no idea what happened to Lot’s wife. She didn’t make it out of Sodom and that at least seems to be a “fact”. Similarly with the Noah story, I would give the text the benefit of the doubt. He could have built a boat and survived a real flood. There is no evidence so far of any global flood (doesn’t mean it didn’t happen) but a local flood, and the story of a survivor.
Job’s case is very different. There are no historical anchors that anyone can find, so I think it was intended to be an extended and very interesting parable about theology, a bit like Plato’s stories of Socrates’ dialogues.
Now the New Testament is a bit better off (historically). For one thing it’s much closer to our times and we understand a bit about that culture. You ask about the text of the epistles, well I think they are pretty good. I also do not think, based on internal evidence, that most of them are ‘made up’ by some scribe. This is largely because of the genius that shines through so clearly and consistently with Paul in particular, but the writers of Hebrews, James, and the little letters written by ‘John’ all show their authorial styles and thinking very clearly.
The hand of the scribe (amanuensis) is quite clearly marked out in the greetings sections. Secondly, the letters, as far as I can deduce, were not copied and then distributed. What I can see evidence of (see Romans) is that a messenger is trained by Paul to read out and explain the letter to the intended fellowship(s) and this person then carries the letter and delivers its message. Sometimes the messenger may also be the scribe…
Coming to that fascinating bit in 1Tim. There are indeed a bunch of cultural issues that need to be considered, like slavery for example. There is a standard cultural practice and into this springs a very radical gospel, one that demands that many of these cultural practices have to be challenged.
Jesus has demonstrated how this is done in a Jewish cultural environs. But the Roman empire is a different and much more culturally diverse world. Now, this is I think, a major reason for the writing of letters in the first place. There is confusion about what needs to be done in this or that situation.
I’ll tell you how I read 1 Tim (and generally Paul and Jesus) on women’s liberation next, after I go through thaose texts one more time.
LikeLike
Ivan, I have, for quite some time now, had a theory of my own about the gospel in the NT. This is not (as far as I know) supported by anything much in scholarship, but it makes sense to me.
I think that the tradition of Jesus teaching and works, that tradition that was known to have come from trustworthy disciples, was preserved in an oral form very carefully and from a fairly early date.
There are hints of this in the book of Acts but more important is the terminology that is used throughout the NT about the preaching and teaching of ‘the gospel’.
We have words like ‘teaching’, ‘the message’, ‘the preaching’, and ‘the gospel’ that keep appearing, with the assumption that the hearers will know what the writer is referring to.
My understanding of this is that (as we saw with Galatians) the apostle’s primary job is to expose the hearers to Jesus himself and they do this by recounting some of these traditions. At the same time, to Jewish audiences, there is an accompanied exposition of messianic prophecies from the OT that seek to show that Jesus is in fact the long expected messiah.
Some people respond positively and these are then taught the entire ‘Jesus tradition’ and in turn are encouraged to memorise it. After all, as Peter says, these are “the words of life”. Furthermore, when establishing a fellowship, the apostle will appoint certain persons, those who have proved the best students, or perhaps someone who already knows the traditions, ‘the gospel’, to exclusively be responsible for keeping this tradition faithful.
In oral communities, the safeguarding of traditions is indeed a big deal, for these traditions hold the identity and therefore the life of the culture…
Of course, I don’t ‘know’ any of this. I am instead just trying to make sense of the internal evidence as best I can.
It (my little theory) also explains something passing strange in the NT and this is that we rarely see Paul quoting Jesus. He doesn’t have to. The Jesus tradition, the gospel, is by heart both for Paul and for his hearers. So, the passing referrence, the hint, is enough to trigger off the tradition itself.
This is also the very fact that has set most of modern NT criticism on the wrong track. If one reads any of these scholars one will get the feeling that there was Jesus, who started things rolling, and then along comes Paul, who is a completely independent thinker, and he takes this fledgling movement in a new direction entirely.
I think they are all wrong! The foundation, this Jesus tradition itself, is so strong that it has become ‘invisible’ unless one specifically looks for it.
For 1 Tim, what this means is that Paul is not here silencing women. he is addressing one particular spouse and telling her to keep out of fiddling with these particular teachings.
Part of the background to this section also involves the fact that Jewish women were not formally educated. The formal education for the men does involve (in the Rabbinic tradition) learning how to acurately memorise portions of scripture.
Paul’s use of the creation account here is I think quite tongue-in-cheek because Paul and Jesus were iconoclasts as far as liberating women was concerned.
You have mentioned the John 8 episode of the woman who was ‘taken in adultery’. There is also the Luke 7 account of a known prostitute who publicly embarassed Jesus in the house of a pharisee, then the story of Martha and Mary – two sisters who were most definitely Jesus’s disciples, then Mary Magdalene (a reformed possessed woman) who also was a disciple and of course, the Samaritan woman who had 5 husbands, who met Jesus at the well. In Paul’s case, there are numerous women whom he mentions as his coworkers and equals, including Priscilla and Phoebe. Coworker means precisely a fellow preacher and church planter, and most importantly, one who has also been entrusted with the faithful handling of the ‘Jesus traditions’.
LikeLike
I don’t like calling another person a liar unless I have proof.
Of course Sam. But as we arn’t going to get proof and there is more explanations that just lying. What would you guess the probability of it being true as?
LikeLike
Thanks Sam, Yes I did actually know about these woman, there is some things written about them in my books. I really doubt though, what they were referring to was “one wife” and not all wives.
(i)I would give the text the benefit of the doubt. He could have built a boat and survived a real flood. There is no evidence so far of any global flood (doesn’t mean it didn’t happen) but a local flood, and the story of a survivor.(i)
I agree Sam, But no evidence really means we have to count it as a myth at the present time don’t we? Also, we know the impossibility of housing 2 specimens of the worlds wildlife together, really couldn’t be done could it?
Job’s case is very different. There are no historical anchors that anyone can find
Could I go further Sam, and say that there is *no* historical evidence for almost everything that is written in the bible. That is the case pretty much isn’t it?
Now the New Testament is a bit better off (historically). For one thing it’s much closer to our times and we understand a bit about that culture.
Well not really Sam. We still have no evidence. And if we take your view that being closer to the event gives us a greater stab at the truth, we would have to agree the adoptionists were the closest. They believed in two separate Gods ruling the universe not the one. So we would have to take that on board as a more substantial truth wouldn’t we?
I also do not think, based on internal evidence, that most of them are ‘made up’ by some scribe.
Sam, what evidence? Have you a copy of an original letter? Really, are the fragments not copies a couple of thousand times removed? How can we possibly be sure my friend?
the letters, as far as I can deduce, were not copied and then distributed. What I can see evidence of (see Romans) is that a messenger is trained by Paul to read out and explain the letter to the intended fellowship(s) and this person then carries the letter and delivers its message. Sometimes the messenger may also be the scribe…
Of course they were copied Sam! thousands of copies. There were copies of other copies. This was a big area these letters were sent out to. Of course none survive today, to really be sure. Its an act of extremely “wishful thinking” to have that the letters were copied accurately and over that many centuries.
There is confusion about what needs to be done in this or that situation.
You aint whistling Dixie here are you Sam?
LikeLike
I think that the tradition of Jesus teaching and works, that tradition that was known to have come from trustworthy disciples, was preserved in an oral form very carefully and from a fairly early date.
If this were true Sam, Why the incredible amount of disagreement in the first 100 years of Christianity? Would they have not known the numerical quantity of God/s ? Wouldn’t they have just one lot of agreed stories not thousands? Why were there wars between differing groups of Christians all believing something different? why thousands of differing Churches today for that matter?
the apostle’s primary job is to expose the hearers to Jesus himself and they do this by recounting some of these traditions.
I disagree Sam. The Apostles primary job is to “sell” Jesus the Product to the public. They take some bits from here and apply other bits over here so it reaches a wide ranging audience. Its not about “truth” Sam, its about exposure and sales.
The trouble with Paul’s account Sam, is it was not only about 20 to 30 years to late, but widely thought to have been not written by the man. This could also explain why there are not to many Jesus quotes, maybe the guy writing it didn’t know anything really about Jesus.
If one reads any of these scholars one will get the feeling that there was Jesus, who started things rolling, and then along comes Paul, who is a completely independent thinker, and he takes this fledgling movement in a new direction entirely.
And that is Paul the one that isn’t the son of God? The one that probably isn’t really inspired by God? So really what your saying is Christianity is going down a path being led by a 1st century man who believes in animal sacrifices and the casting out of demons? Someone who relates the story of the dead rising from graves to go into Jerusalem? That’s what were are following Sam?
LikeLike
Sam,
I love that your so prepared to give various alleged Biblical authors the benefit of the doubt. You are the most optimistic person I think I have spoken to about this. If in doubt, your going to go down the “yes” road.
I like also, that you never actually really commit to an opinion if I ask you about the supernatural. For instance, I keep harping on about the bit of dead people rising. This to me is a good example of the supernatural, even a better one than Jesus himself, Now if we take your optimistic opinion its got to be a “yay” but you never say yay exactly. You would maybe say, “I don’t know” yet you do “know” on every other aspect of the Bibles teachings and I find that Odd.
I also like how you can find the suitable excuses, for want of a better word, to cover incidents of the rough treatment of woman or even slavery.
I like and admire your ability to be selective.
I think your one extremely intelligent and astute man. I read and re-read stuff you and John discuss, and I’m am like the kid in the back of the classroom that day dreamed to much, I sometimes cannot follow so much of what you guys discuss your so way above my head. (Actually I would love for you guys to explain some stuff to the simpleton at the back but I get so embarrassed)
Yet, you, such an intelligent man doesn’t really have trouble with an Ark being built, presumably laden with everything from butterflies to Dinosaurs sailing the oceans of a flooded Earth.
You have no trouble with an Ocean being parted, Laws of Physics being overturned or stoped, people ascending to heaven and people having souls (you didn’t really answer that one but I am guessing its a yes, right?)
There is a gulf of information you bridge intellectually that I cannot. Its probably because I am at the back of the class day dreaming again, but I hope you stick with me Yoda style, (I’m Luke Skywalker only older) and help me make the same leap you did, but without me having to shut off the part of the brain that processes facts and the like. Can you help me Sam?
LikeLike
On the integrity of the texts, it’s not unlike paleontologists looking at bone fragments trying to find the branching points where one species diverges from another. Or genome researchers trying to work back to “Eve.” You have no direct evidence of the first humans’ existence, but you can reverse engineer the mutations to get a pretty good idea as to which groups of people moved out of Africa when, and where they went. Scribal errors are the mutations in texts; all the texts that share a common mutation probably came from the same original scribal error. You keep working backward like that until you run out of fragments. But you can project backward fairly confidently to say that the original probably was written in this interval, with the original text looking something like this. Of course it’s possible that some scribe made massive errors very early and that all subsequent copies included those early errors. But you assume that didn’t happen, just as you assume there weren’t any huge punctuations in the evolutionary trajectory for which you have no evidence.
LikeLike
Ivan, yes I am forgiving of a lot of stuff, but primarily because I think that the text is pointing to something real, a real interaction of individuals with God. The bible is not the only place where I see this happening, but we are largely talking about the bible.
Stories do tend to get a bit mutated over time, but the question for me is always what set it off? Buddha and even the Indian Ram or Krishna were definitely real people, somewhere ‘back there’ in history. Politics and religion have then used the original traditions in ways that have transformed these people into something in addition to what they were. But, there is usually enough info left in the story to figure out something of the priginal personality.
In the NT, what’s a bit odd is that the original stories are very clear. Yes there is some distortion but these are fairly easy to identify and ignore. Incidentally, the type of distortion is also interesting for it tells you something of the mindset of the authors.
You have remarked a few times about numbers of dead ‘rising’ and walking around in Jerusalem around the time of Jesus resurrection. This is from Matthew and Matthew has a tendency to interpret the Jesus story as a powerful fulfilment of OT prophecy. There is no doubt in my mind that something like a minor earthquake took place at about that time. Matthews story is full of portends, physical events that signify the universal magnitiude of the crucifiction of Jesus.
To me this does not detract from his recording the reality of the crucifiction, in fact quite the opposite, though I may choose to wink at some of his interpretations of the prtentous events that are occuring.
To you, this feels like intellectual dishonesty, to me I am just one faulty human being letting another person have the benefit of the doubt. By giving the benefit to the writer, this does not compromise my own beliefs. I still hold my opinions and the doubtful stuff does not really shake my beliefs. it would if I was an inerrantist, which I most certainly am not.
I think God is able to communicate something of His truth to my heart without having to bend the human nature of the writers along the way into some sort of perfect dictaphone.
LikeLike
‘…help me make the same leap you did, but without me having to shut off the part of the brain that processes facts and the like. Can you help me Sam?’
Let me put it this way, the last thing that I would want is for you to turn off any part of your brain! I don’t think that God wants that either, certainly not the God who went to so much trouble to communicate in and through history!
Why God chooses such a difficult path has to do with authenticity (in some way) and it is this same authenticity of life that is the essence of the gospel message – the life lived out on earth by Jesus. Truth is there at the heart of that message and real truth cannot ask you to be turning off your mind!
Besides, whatever christian theology says, the NT, especially Jesus and Paul do talk of sin and death through disbelief but they are both clear that this has absolutely nothing to do with doctrine, it does have to do with lives lived in love and justice.
There is no need to make the bible into something other than a history of human beings with whom God has been trying to interact, sometimes unsuccessfully! In other words, don’t punish this collection of texts just because a particular bunch of people, who had nothing to do with making the writings, choose to make something totally unusual out of it!
LikeLike
Thanks John, you can project backward fairly confidently to say that the original probably was written in this interval, with the original text looking something like this
I think this is what these guys honestly and fairly scientifically try to do. It does not give us an original autograph, but it does give us some fair amount of confidence that we are pretty close to the oldest versions! I sort of left it to Ivan to read Metzger and decide on this for himself, besides myself knowing practically nothing other than how to make out an apparatus…
LikeLike
What’s important also to me is that being confident of the text’s integrity also means that whatever mistakes are there were there in the original and therefore one does not need to go hunting for their creation in the history of textual formation or transmission.
In other words, if there is a mistake, it was committed either deliberately or out of ignorance by whoever the original author was!
LikeLike
Sam,
I just don’t see the integrity perhaps in the same light as yourself. I think the differences are sprinkled right through the text, I am not sure what it was the authors may have meant and I am not the wiser to who they were exactly. I see a flawed document, I have enormous difficulty seeing it as a “word of God”.
(There is no doubt in my mind that something like a minor earthquake took place at about that time. Matthews story is full of portends, physical events that signify the universal magnitude of the crucifixion of Jesus.)
A minor earthquake you say? In which Gospel is this mentioned? But the dead didn’t rise Sam? Jesus did though didn’t he, just not the other guys?
LikeLike
I’m not at all sure what Matthew is referring to. For him it is a prtent filled momentous time that he is describing. He is reporting stuff the people have seen.
Matthew 27:52
This is the biggest festival of the Jewish callender. People from all over the known world are trying to make their trip to Jerusalem to be there at this time. it’s not surprising that folks may have thought that they saw someone that they knew, and thought dead, walking around live in this crowd. Combine this with dead are exposed as graves break open and the confusion is somewhat understandable.
But we are told that ‘they’ enter the city after Jesus resurrection. There is a time gap in the text here that is also puuzling as that’s still 2 days off.
I take this as typical of the sort of confusion that arises when people are in shock and in hiding too, with rumours of all kinds floating around.
Similarly, I could find natural sounding explanations for this or that incident. It doesn’t then make th biblical texts any more believable does it?
What I do want you to see, is not that each and every anomaly can be successfully explained away, but that an honest evaluation of the text itself as something that hangs together, though with a normal complement of human oddities, and tells a story about a person whose remarkable personhood is well worth a bit of struggle (with ancient textual material) to try to get to know a bit better.
LikeLike
Sam,
If stuff like this is a kind of misconception, as you seem to think, then how many others things are also? My point here is these people are irrational believers in superstition from the get go. They read “magic” into everything from animal entrails to burning goat flesh. They relate this story of Jesus, and I ask myself, is this just another story like the dead rising, just one big misconception. Now, I know your relationship with Jesus goes down some other track, But I am still on the formal conventional Christian road. That is, understanding the whole shebang from the eyes of your typical Christian today.
Are we sure that the material we are trying to know better, might be largely false or incorrect or changed?
LikeLike
Sam,
Pretty much we all have some kind of inbuilt Bull-Dust detector. If I apply it to the centre piece of Christian thinking, the resurrection, it goes off like a Geiger counter inside the Chernobyl reactor. When I weigh up the probabilities of The Laws of physics being turned 180 degrees against the men of the day, words.. I come out with a similar thinking pattern to your comment earlier, that maybe they “thought” they saw dead men walking.
You seem to take their word as Gospel? You mention the Jewish rituals for handling dead as a defence of religious thought, I keep thinking that, Given Christianity is this big departure from Jewish customs, what was the chances the first departure started with the stealing of Jesus’ body? Say, against him rising from the dead? Is it not more probable that the former happened?
LikeLike
Ktismatics,
My understanding is that there are all kinds of errors going back to what exists of original documentation. I understand the reason was the almost 100% illiteracy rate and that scribes themselves couldn’t read. If you bear in mind the gap between initial documentation and the dates of the main Biblical stories, its a huge gap. I would also guess that anything with a strong emotive involvement might work against the oral tradition then the written to be anything but accurate.
Sam has told me that in his view it doesn’t really matter, he has a relationship with Jesus as such.
I guess, I am making the case more against the people that see the Holy Bible as a kind of facsimile from God. In this context it doesn’t seem right to me.
I was also interested in the supernatural happenings in the Bible, expecting that people like Sam might be selective in what they “feel” did happen. I was trying to see if something momentous as Many of the dead rising was fact or fiction, and if the latter, then what is it about something like the resurrection, that appears more factual than the former. If this makes sense?
Hey John.. you know my spell checker changes Ktismatics to stigmatics? That isn’t kind.
LikeLike
Ivan,
One of the really great theologians of the 20C was Rudolph Bultmann. He had precisely the problem that you are having with the text. Not so much with doubts about how the copies were made or other textual stuff as much as with the main body of the writing in the gospels.
I disagree with Bultmann and am personally more in the ‘camp’ of people like Bauckham and Gerhardsson. Still, Bultmann was brilliant and he set about the difficult job of demythologising the NT. He also created a type of criticism that tries to get at the facts in the text by studying the forms of the teaching in parallel accounts.
For all his hard work, Bultmann ended up still with a kernel of historical stuff that simply refused to go away and his disciples and students have been slowly expanding that kernel ever since!
You may enjoy reading Bultmann if you get the chance, or at least good summaries of his thinking. He was basically philosophically an existentialist in the line of Kierkegaard and Heidegger. Another great theologian of the 20C worth reading is Karl Barth. Neither of these men believed in inerrancy and were very skeptical in their methodologies. Most American evangelicals think these guys were secretly in satan’s pocket, and that alone makes them worth a good read!
LikeLike
“They read “magic” into everything from animal entrails to burning goat flesh.”
Sure, they might, and what’s very clear is that anyone can see where this begins and ends and probably also why they would have thought that.
Magicians still enthrall us with their tricks today. we go to movies just to watch stuff that we know is completely made up. The better the Fx, the more we love it, and just look at how popular J.K. Rowlings is!
People haven’t changed Ivan, they may be thought gullible, but it’s actually more like people want to be fooled.
the difference is that when we read the newspaper today we know what’s an urban legend and what’s not, or at least I hope so. History is arguably strung together from ‘events’. Those events that we know of have been recorded by someone and the records of their notings have somehow survived. So, you can’t get away, ever, from the event needing to be communicated by someone.
It is precisely the job of the historian to figure out what is the event, and what other stuff, or personal opinions, may have stuck to the transmission of this event.
Not surprisingly, as this calls for both knowledge about that time in the past and value judgements on the part of historical scholars, there is in fact very liitle agreement amongst the scholars about any historical event.
This leaves us in a bit of a quandary. You and I are not scholars, so what I do is to apply my common sense.
All this as far as the events are concerned.
but with biographical info it’s a mixture, we are talking now about persons, with personalities. This is also transmitted to us in the texts, but we go about getting to know personalities in a whole other way altogether. We listen to what they say, how they argue, what’s important to them… We look for how they handle, or react to situations and yes, events.
I would argue with you that your havng difficulty crediting this or that reported event really has nothing whatsoever (or very little) to do with what you think of Paul, or Peter, or Jesus.
LikeLike
Ivan –
I could imagine an illiterate scribe making very accurate copies. When I took typing class in high school I learned to type without paying attention the the meaning of the text. I could type a whole page of text and not have a clue what it was about. If you don’t pay attention to content you’re less likely to infer what isn’t written or to correct what you regard as obvious errors.
“Hey John.. you know my spell checker changes Ktismatics to stigmatics?”
That’s a good one. At least I don’t have the stigmata.
LikeLike
John, you guys are all packed by the sound of things. When exactly do you travel to the U.S.?
LikeLike
John,
Apparently hand writing the stuff is difficult John and specifically in that ancient language. This produced the commonest type of mistake generally at the end of lines. But this was just one type, There were all kinds of other typo’s then later there were the political changes.
Altogether a whole lot of changing.
Sam, Hey thanks for the names of those Authors. I will try and find them.
LikeLike
The movers haul away our stuff tomorrow; we fly out on 21 June. Two days in New York, then on to Colorado.
LikeLike
Sam,
I love particularly the virgin Mary story, I don’t know why but I do. I noticed that this is a common theme, Perseus was born when the God Jupiter visited the virgin Danae as a shower of Gold and got her with a baby, I think that the Aztec God Huitzilopochtli also was a virgin delivery, Attis was another, Krishna was born of the virgin Devaka we have Horus from the virgin Isis and Mercury from of the virgin Maia etc etc etc. What is the deal with virgin births? What about these other Gods? We all are atheists in regard to them right Sam? What is going on, Christianity is getting less “original” to me by the second.
Have a good trip John and a safe flight!
LikeLike
Thanks Ivan. Hopefully Homeland Security will overlook our long sejour in France and not reroute us to Guantanamo.
LikeLike
If you do find yourself in the Guantanamo Hilton, get represented by Major Mori if at all possible. I wanted him named as Australian of the year even though he is a yank. I really liked that guy.
LikeLike
Major Mori sounds like a character in a James Bond film.
LikeLike
Yeah… I actually employ a lady with sirname straight out of Dr No. Mori was the official put in charge of Hicks defence. I think it was a big ask, having him go against the US military. He did his job with much honour. I really ended up liking him as did most Aussies.
LikeLike
John, would you drop a mention when your safely settled back in the US? (don’t want to sound like your mother)
LikeLike
Ivan –
Roger wilco.
LikeLike
Hey, whose idea was it to make Ktismatics a site of ill repute?
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan –
I guess those were the in-flight entertainments.
Arrived in a thunderstorm at JFK in NYC. The customs officers were carrying firearms, but no one was fired upon nor did anyone get hauled into custody.
LikeLike
Folks, sorry for the unexpected absence from the hallowed portals of Ktismatics!
I’ve sent out a mail that sort of explains my enforced absence. I have just this evening managed to wheedle my way back to my comp…
more later after you get the drift of my recent experiences!
LikeLike
Sam,
I got your email, I am delighted you got the care you required I can only imagine how close a thing it could have been. Will email you when your back and up again.Kind regards Ivan.
John,
I travelled over to Europe really for the first time one of the things that caught my eye, were the amount of Airports that had people with machine guns and the like. In OZ, we don’t even have water pistols, there is nothing. Someone runs amok the best they have is one of those drug sniffing corgis. It made me wonder, have they ever had to use these weapons? Does stuff really happen at airports?
LikeLike
Ivan.
i’m back, sort of, having extracted a promise from my loving ‘jailors’ that they will leave me to the comp for an hour or two undisturbed!
Today’s Monday and they know that i won’t be having any transcription stuff to work on so the permission was not so hard to get.
There was something in our discussions that i wanted to come back to and that is the small matter of embarassment and how that relates to what Christianity is supposed to be about.
Taking a sort of birds eye view of the old testament as being the broad historical framework for the stoy of Jesus, retrospectively, it looks as though God has been trying for ages and ages to express how different he is and this basic message just does not get across.
The story of Jesus begins with this often very embarassing diffefence. Matthew and Luke both make no bones about the fact that it all starts with what has to be construed as an illegitimate pregnancy.
Whatever spin one puts on that, it was a known fact that Mary was pregnant before her marriage and indeed the question of Jesus’ origin, his father’s name does come back every now and then when he is in heated disagreement with some of the leaders. That’s embarassment #1.
The second embarassment that stands out very obviously is this habit of Jesus to fight with the religious leaders about various things; how the Law of Moses should be interpreted, marriage-divorce, money, justice, the Sabbath observance, ritual cleanliness, the Samaritans, hanging out with unsavoury characters, and other stuff.
Then, thirdly, his mottley crew of disciples, mostly unlettered, mostly from the despised Galilee, quite a few fisherfolk but also including one terrorist type, a hopefully reformed tax collector and worst of all a gang of women, some married, some not, and even one (at least) ex madwoman and perhaps a few prostitutes for good measure.
There’s much more but the main, the biggest, the worst embarassment of all is most definitely that Jesus was executed as a criminal. This one is fatal to any would be leader, in more ways than one. For it is difficult to claim that he was a martyr for a cause. The cause itself is so difficult to define for one thing.
I find this absolutely fascinating. Here is a story that should have been roundfiled. No one would consider this stuff worth the paper that it was written on.
So, where’s the attraction?
LikeLike
I really don’t know Sam, it is a question I have asked before. Why is it, that it took off? Its worth remembering, that many other quite different religions have also flourished, so my question would be asked in the bigger picture context.
Christianity, really blossomed in the early years amongst the uneducated, this is documented a few times in ancient documents. It still has its strongest push I feel from this area today. I think( and I don’t really know as a fact) that certain other religions may be able to make the same claims also.
I don’t know what makes it exist these days exactly, maybe its always been the same type of thing, being frightened of death and the unknown, deep desire for a system of cosmic justice, need of a strong paternal figure, inability to understand or fully comprehend the natural world.
But its a great question.
Ivan
LikeLike
Believe it or not, for me this acute embarassment, what Jesus and Paul call ‘the stumblingblock’ is exactly in line with a God who is different and shockingly so. S/He does not fit into any stereo type of what a God will provide as an impetus for a culture.
if push comes to shove, this is a large part of what makes me a believer!
Even the economics is all wrong. In Jesus gospel teaching we have to give when asked (never lending), traders are asked to give a fair share and more (pressed down, running over…) and there is no question of owning anything, everything belongs to God … The concentration is ale=ways on doing whatever we can regardless of the cost to ourselves and our families for whoever is in greater need, and I could go on!
Of course, as Religion Xtianity has rubbished and reversed all of these very central features of the teaching of Jesus and even the ‘picture’ of God becomes one who blesses (me) materially and even encourages the accumulation of wealth as a sign of these blessings – and that is about as OPPOSITE to the gospel that Jesus proclaimed as one can get…
LikeLike
Sam,
I wanted to ask you something. You know the other post, the man named Charley mentioned some disagreement he had with his evangelical church. What is the deal with this? Catholics have the Pope as Gods representative on earth. You and I know he was elected by men like you and I but without the hats,sceptres and other wizard paraphernalia. I doubt serious God has anything to do with it or confuses this elderly gentleman as his envoy. But you know men in clubs.. we love rites we love rituals, costumes and stuff.
Charleys church, is no more representative of God as he is and has no “special” contact or conduit with a God than you have really.
Why the dickens do people worry about what churches think?
I lost faith in them after the Galileo thing.
Ivan
LikeLike
God is different, shockingly so?
Perseus was born when the God Jupiter visited the virgin Danae as a shower of Gold and got her with a baby, I think that the Aztec God Huitzilopochtli also was a virgin delivery, Attis was another, Krishna was born of the virgin Devaka we have Horus from the virgin Isis and Mercury from of the virgin Maia etc etc
Are these not basically the exact same legends?
LikeLike
Not at all the same for in all of those cases it is a question of power, of the birth of heroes. God seduces, or god appropriates as his vessel. A powerless god is a very strange thing and if such ‘exists’ will always be way down in the pantheon as a troublemaker or as the court clown.
Christianity the Religion has indeed developed a mythology of “virgin” birth but as you no doubt know, the prophecy did not specify virginity and the word used is better translated as ‘young woman’.
But that was only the first of the long list of embarassments. Certainly the ministry of Jesus and his death are definitely even more so.
LikeLike
Charley didn’t say much but he is obviously disillusioned with the practical aspects of running a religion and that’s some of what one is supposed to learn in an MDiv programme (Master of divinity).
More than things like contradictions between the bible and one’s faith/doctrine i think that when people realise that they are getting involved not with the body of Christ (believers) but with a human self propagating organisation then this can be a shock.
Some of us realise that we are dealing with this a bit earlier but the more idealistic have to get all the way to seminary before this horrifying fact stares them in the face. It can be heartbreaking!
LikeLike
Some real oddities: the leader is the servant. the first shall be last and the last first. blessed are the poor. come to me all who labour and are heavy laden and I will give you rest. count the cost. take up your cross and come and follow me. unless you be as a little child you can not enter the kingom of heaven.
LikeLike
Is that then what accounts for the popularity? appealing to the dispossessed of which there nearly always is a greater number?
LikeLike
Sam,
There are thousands of separate items that speak to me in an entirely different language than you hear through your biblical interpretations. I read lines in Genesis about man given “dominion” over all the beasts,fish and fowl and think why wouldn’t they have mentioned the dinosaurs.? What about Pterodactyls? Surely the Marsupials and monotremes of Australia? Or could it be, that the passage was written by primitive and ignorant men who had no knowledge of these creatures existence?
What about the microbe world? we surely do not have dominion over this part of his creation. Why wouldn’t the microbes and viri, all Gods wonderful creation not get a single mention?
Another part for me is of course Moses and the ten commandments. I love the ten commandments.The sins of the fathers will be visited on the children for 3 or 4 generations? This from a God of love and justice?
Then there is the ban on covetousness, forbidding desire of thy neighbours house,manservant,maidservant,ox,ass,wife.
Is this not another piece of evidence for the “man made” quality of the passages?
It starts out with growling about respect and fear. Then a stern reminder of omnipotence and revenge, then a lesson on a work ethic. Move onto some legalistic business reminders, then a condemnation oddly, of impure thoughts rather than impure actions.
Why do you suppose it throws in the term wife after mentioning all the other chattels such as beasts and slaves? Is it because it was written,conceived,passed on by simple first century farming peasants and not a God?
But Sam, nothing at all about rape? what about slavery? Child slavery or murder? Paedophilia? Genocide? None of these gets a mention and for some good reason if you read through the rest of the old testament. Its oddly contextually enough placed to instruct Moses on the conditions he can buy and sell slaves (apparently he can bore a hole through their ears with an awl)
and you also have odd verses “Thou shall not suffer a witch to live” How many woman died for that little line Sam? How many were burned to death? Is this the work and word of God or the work and word of a primitive first century illiterate farmer?
LikeLike
Sam,
Nearly every religion, Islamic to Buddhist feature an almost identical being. Always born of humble origins, always identifies with the poor and outcast. It comes as no surprise when you think of it, that they would direct themselves at the poor and marginalised the uneducated and illiterate and then be popularised because of the appeal they generate. I wonder if this is why it succeeds despite the embarrassment?
LikeLike
That’s not my point regaring the uniqueness of Jesus gospel message (as opposed to Xtian reconstructions of it). My point is more related to how one can expect to build a movement wihile it rejects the accumulation of wealth or power, in fact it seems to demand that wealth and power should both be done away with?
And a messiah who is executed as a convicted terrorist? Which poor person is going to identify with that? There isn’t anything in Buddhism, Hinduism, or Islam that’s similar, and i would be happier if there was! My point is not to prove that God has spoken only through Jesus but that God has indeed spoken and quite clearly enough that the seeker will find…
LikeLike
Harking back to Ivan’s list of war casualties in the name of Christ, here’s a related piece a friend told me about: a list of deaths caused by God in the Bible. I haven’t checked chapter and verse on all his biblical references, but they’re there if you want to do the math. Also, his body counts are often wild guesses; e.g., 30 million killed in the Flood.
LikeLike
Ivan, my understanding of the Old Testament is that God, who is actually good (even by our commonsense standards), and who has not changed, is in the process of mightily contending to keep under control a people who are exceptionally wilful, very intelligent, very resourceful, and singularly hard to keep on the right track.
The result is a story where God ends up mostly on the receiving end and gets blamed for all sorts of excesses that are done ‘in his name’.
On the whole, the 10 commandments are a very sensible set of rules. When taken in their context, there is no doubt that the position of women, slaves, etc is for a change given both a legal status and some protection, and this is in contrast to the prevailing situation. However this is the first of a long set of small steps that work themselves out in the subsequent millenium and eventually set thae stage for the message of equality and liberation that is preached by Jesus.
It should also help you to get a sense of the basic honesty of the transmission process, though redaction is still a factor. We are talking without doubt about a cultural millieu that is definitely older than 8 – 10C BCE.
LikeLike
Sam,
Isn’t this just more evidence that the entire thing is a construct and invention of man? Surely the whole parochial nature of the beast, ignoring the rest of the world which would have constituted 99% of what your God would have created. The whole reason its stuck to these people in this geographic area is because its their very own invention. Think of everyone from the Incas to the Aborigines Sam, It centres on these people because they simply created the idea.
LikeLike
Created what idea Ivan? Judaism, Christianity? That’s entirely possible but not what I see. I think you are giving far too much importance to nonexistent human genius while ignoring the literary evidence of conflicting ideas that jumps out to me. It is a dialogue and the human part of that dialogue is constantly trying to find a way around what God is urging (and very often succeeds) but God refuses to give up and keeps trying despite multiple rejections. That’s a pretty odd story to create of oneself, don’t you think?
It may be possible to analyse other religious traditions in a similar way tho i have not tried very seriously. I i try it once with a Hindu text called the Bhagava Gita and di come to a tentatively similar conclusion but I couldn’t get any Hindu friends to agree, so that was probably me reading my ideas into the text!
LikeLike
They are a sensible set of rules up to a point Sam.
The first four really are not all that “sensible”.
5,6,7,8 all good.
9.. well alright
10.. you can’t desire stuff?
Equality and freedom as preached by Jesus, Did this include slaves Sam?
Honesty of the transmission process? where Sam?
LikeLike
Created what idea Ivan? Judaism, Christianity? That’s entirely possible but not what I see. I think you are giving far too much importance to nonexistent human genius while ignoring the literary evidence of conflicting ideas that jumps out to me. It is a dialogue and the human part of that dialogue is constantly trying to find a way around what God is urging (and very often succeeds) but God refuses to give up and keeps trying despite multiple rejections. That’s a pretty odd story to create of oneself, don’t you think?
It may be possible to analyse other religious traditions in a similar way tho i have not tried very seriously. I did try it once with a Hindu text called the Bhagava Gita and did come to a tentatively similar conclusion but I couldn’t get any Hindu friends to agree, so that was probably me reading my ideas into the text!
LikeLike
By the way Ivan, I wanted to tell you that I really appreciated your interaction with Karen and the others on Jesuscreed!. That was really very kind and very gentle too!
LikeLike
You noticed. I didn’t mention atheitism once!
LikeLike
Ivan –
Hey, that JesusCreed discussion was very interesting, civilized, and as Sam said, kindhearted on both sides of the aisle. It sounds as though Karen heard and received your point, Ivan.
LikeLike
Sam –
The link from here to your site doesn’t work any more. Have you changed your web address? Maybe you need to update your profile with WordPress.
LikeLike
Testing! My blog Challenge is still in the same place as far as I can tell!
LikeLike
Somehow, my entry field had an extra http in it, I think it’s ok now.
LikeLike
Yes, you’re back.
LikeLike
Ivan,
Religion and god(s) are absolutely fascinating. Looking at the standards that you are setting for discerning God in history or in religious texts, I think you are on the right track but I do think that you do have to make some allowances given the fact that if god exists and has communicated, the result will have to be a mixture of human and god ‘thoughts’, the god ‘thoughts’ being pitched to be understood by the humans. The discernment of god becomes a not so simple or obvious matter.
What do you think the characteristics of god would be? an are you willing to be surprised by what you find?
LikeLike
Hi Sam,
To me it kind of matters as to what God we are talking about. Generally, you I talk about the standard Christian model, and this is the one I am atheist about. John mentioned earlier a God that lived outside of the universe and had no interaction with human kind, this type of God I would be less sure about.
I think I am willing to be surprised,and I don’t think my standards are to high.
When we talk about the standard model, it seemed to have no problem interrelating on a human level with us humans. I just want to see this happen again.
LikeLike
Sam,
To me most religions offer some unobtainable state or standard to live up to. This is nearly always something impossible. Christians like the idea of a sinless Jesus, that is sinless by inaction rather than design, then have a code to live by, such as the 10 commandments with at least one impossible commandment. I guess the tenth one would be that. How is it possible to control ones thoughts to that degree? How “fair” is it when much of the thoughts are responses to genetic hardwiring created by that God.
The system is designed for us to fail. What is the point of that Sam?
LikeLike
Sam,
How would you anwser Epicurus?
Is he willing to prevent evil but not able? Then is he impotent? Is he able but not willing? Then is he malevolent? Is he both able and willing ? Whence then is evil?
LikeLike
Ivan, you are asking big questions again! I realised long ago that I really have no clue as to how to really answer questions like this! I remember my first reads of Bertrand Russel and how totally confused they left me!
I don’t think that these ‘meta’ speculations carry much meaning mainly because we are trying to deal with a lot of stuff that we simply do not unerstand.
If I had to hazard a guess, it’s similar to what i said before, I think it has to do with the fact that we have been created free and God is honouring the limits that that places on interventions, but as I said this is just as much an idle speculation as what the next guy thinks.
Getting back to the embarassment that enshrouds Christian beginnings, here is what N.T. Wright (a scholar that I like) has to say on this.
LikeLike
I also ran into an interesting quote from Chris VanLandingham, who has recently had a book published on some key aspects of Paul’s thinking.
My approach is entirely secular; I write as an historian, not a theologian. Nevertheless, I don’t think my conclusions are anti-Jewish or anti-Christian at all. But, and this is an important point, if my conclusions happened to be anti-Jewish or anti-Christian, I would still be willing to let the chips fall where they may. I do exegesis as if nothing is at stake. If I can’t do this, then I need to find another occupation. I intend to seek the truth despite the consequences of what that truth may hold. Such intent doesn’t mean I will find the truth, but my chances of finding the truth are better than those who think they already know the truth before they seek to find it. By analogy, the archaeologist who a priori is unwilling to admit that the bones he or she may find belong to Jesus is not really an archaeologist, but a blind apologist. I am aware that many who read my book cannot do history or exegesis as if nothing is at stake because they are being paid by a church or religiously-oriented university that mandates certain theological positions. Thus when a professor signs a “statement of faith” as a precondition for employment, one wonders how credible that person’s research is that always supports that signed “statement of faith.” When our livelihoods depend on us not seeing the moons of Jupiter through Galileo’s telescope, how can we expect to have 20/20 vision?
It’s really encouraging to see people from within the church itself start ‘coming out’ like this!
LikeLike
Its encouraging.
LikeLike
Hey Sam,
Hey Sam,
I don’t find Bertrand Russel writings on religion all that interesting. I have a couple of his books and I am halfway through the second one now. So, God would have been honouring free will with a Star Trek like prime directive? its the one that he didn’t really bother about during Biblical times, but does so now?
This would be the reason he didn’t see the need to jump in at Auschwitz? Freewill that important ay?
LikeLike
The NT Wright lecture was interesting. I would have loved him to cover a few of the other possibilities even though they are a bit mundane.
That is, Could the bible has misreported? Could men be just outright lying? Could it be a hoax? etc.
What are the chances that the laws of physics were overturned or someone lied?
LikeLike
Ivan, while many Christians (most) would strongly disagree with me, I don’t think God changed at all (over the last few thousand years at least). What I see is that we started out getting very little of what God was saying, then things became clear about 2,000 y.a. but within about 100 years of that we manage to foul it up to even worse than before and we’re still walking around in that self-made cloud of obfuscation!
Russel I think gave the strongest form to ‘either God is a really nasty, cruel creature or doesn’t exist’.
LikeLike
Ivan, I think if we just traded codewords then we’d always have to deal with the suspicion of autosuggestion or something. I suggest that if John Doyle is willing, we’ll each separately mail him ‘the codeword’ and then at some specified time after ‘the event’ the other writes down or even posts on Ktismatics a ‘best guess’ and then John gets to respond with the actual. But, I’m open to any suggestions you may have…
LikeLike
What is the meaning of this proposal? Will I be sued?
LikeLike
An excellent suggestion my good man. Will you be sued John? Not a chance.. hey.. didn’t take long for you to start thinking like an American!
LikeLike
This is beginning to sound like a truly subversive ‘terrorist’ operation.
I can see the headlines “Psychologist in the Dock – at Guantanamo”
Just part of the risk of living in the town that originated the ‘little eichmans’ an of having friends like us.
LikeLike
Sam, you should put a link to your blog explicating the “little eichmans” reference. And I still don’t understand the code word idea, or what my responsibilities entail. Whatever it is, I’ll do it!
LikeLike
John,
Ivan is suggesting that in case one of us should get around to dying, and if we are around and in some sort of a state to communicate with the one left behind, we could most profitably do it through a secret “code word”.
This would be sent to you as the custodian so that neither of us would have a clue as to what the other’s code word is. In turn, after giving some suitable time for communication to be achieved, the recipient takes a guess as to what the code word is and posting it here on Ktismatics, and then you reveal what the actual one is. Hence perhaps providing a possibility of evidence of an afterlife – if it works!
I’ll certainly find out if there is a law of torts up there or other means to sue breaches of understandings that involve contractual responsibilities and expectations across the dimensions. If there are to be dire consequences facing you on the other side, I’ll be happy to also find you a good advocate in advance.
LikeLike
Okie dokie. One question: what if ktismatics dies before either of you does? You should get some young guy to do this. Tell you what: I’ll put the code word in a sealed envelope and bequeath it to my next of kin, along with your email addresses.
So the presumption is that it’s easier to communicate telepathically from beyond the grave than it is here on earth? What evidence or theory supports this hypothesis?
Anyhow, sure, I’m ready when you are. I’ll dispatch the custodial emails forthwith.
LikeLike
What if you Die before us? Bummer.
Ivan
LikeLike
That’s pretty much how I figured it too.
LikeLike
I guess a three way may not be amiss! John sends his codeword1 to Ivan and I send my codeword2 also to Ivan. If John gets there ahead of us i will have to guess John’s code. If I make it first, Ivan and John both get a shot! And so on to complete the round robbin each of you sends me a codeword…
The chances of this ‘working’ in any permutation are ridiculously low, but its worth a shot!
LikeLike
Ivan, I know you occasionally follow the iscussions at Scot Mcknight’s jesuscreed, and here’s a juicy one that I think you will enjoy that’s on now.
I had mentioned Tom Wright, well here’s a dissenting voice on his scholarship. These guys seem to be having something of a fight, but it’s still very worth reading:
http://earliestchristianhistory.blogspot.com/2007/07/resurrection-and-scholarly-rhetoric.html
LikeLike
Those were very interesting Sam.
Ivan
LikeLike
So, Sam, this codeword thing… each of us has TWO codewords? So the dead guy has to communicate both words, one to each of the two alive guys? If I die I can almost guarantee I’d forget which word to communicate to which of the survivors. I say leave it the way it is: I survive.
LikeLike
Hey John,
There was this interesting story in New Scientist about a year ago, reporting this story of two guys investigating death. The deal was, one was getting executed by guillotine, and upon his head being separated from the body, the intact man was to speak to the head and catalogue any response. Apparently, up to 15 minutes later, the head would respond to its owners name being called out. It made me wonder about priorities.. don’t know if I would have been all that worried about the experiment once it had begun..
LikeLike
Ah, that we all had the curiosity and single-mindeness of Socrates!
On exchanging codewords, my suggestion is not complicated for the one who dies. There is only one codeword that that person has to ‘remember’ and only one person to convince. The other holds the codeword in trust. The first, A,B, or C dies, has to convince B,C or A respectively while C,A or B holds the respective confirmatory codeword. or A-B>C, B-C>A, C-A>B. Each person gives one codeword and receives one codeword. Sorry if my previous remarks (above) were confusing!
LikeLike
Sam,
I was so tempted to use “rosebud” from Citizen Kane but decided against it.
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan, are you giving me hints or trying to convince me?
The odd thing is,Jesus predicts that even when the proof is found in the pudding, the response of the one who doesn’t want to believe will still be negative:
In Luke 16, in a parable Jesus has Abraham conversing with a dead rich man:
And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.’ 27 And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father’s house— 28 for I have five brothers [7]—so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’ 29 But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 And he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31 He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’”
LikeLike
I understand what your saying and I ask myself about this and other things kind of often. I have always felt that all I need is a very simple level of evidence. (Its got to make sense to me I guess) If I were confronted with this evidence, it would be make way for me as I crash tackle into a church pew. I am sure I would be the first one enrolling into Bible school Sam. really I would.
Ivan
LikeLike
One problem, as I see it, is that science really does not know what to do with any “one-of” sorts of events. Any ‘one time only’ event thus falls into a sort of black hole. If one believes it one is accused of ‘being unscientific” or if it’s in the past, of being a poor historian.
But in actual fact history (if not also the present) is made of all ‘one of a kind events’ so the difference is in whether or not we can make up a scientific sounding explanation or not and I think you will agree that it is very problematic for we have in fact not provided anything like a testable hypothesis (without which there can be no science). It only sounds like science and so we think, sounds reasonable wheras it is actually all just a subjective evaluation.
I was recently observing a scholarly debate on ethnicity. Now it turns out that while archaeologists regularly dig up and date stuff like pottery, the idea that e.g. this potsherd is an ‘early iron I Israelite’ potsherd is often averred. In fact the potsherd might be Canaanite or something else and there is nothing at all to say definitively that such and such an ethnic group produced this pot.
The interpretation is based on a supposed date when a supposed peoples came from Egypt and conquered their ‘homeland’ from the native (indigenous) populations. Most of the scholars involved are either Jewish or Christian and often dig with an old testament handy, hence the assignations of ethnicity from a ‘purely’ scientific standpoint are very suspect indeed.
But I see that I am digressing a bit. My main point is that even archaeology, where physical evience is at hand is actually a creative reconstruction based on the beliefs and opinions of the scientists who are interpreting what they find.
LikeLike
Sam,
What other one off’s would you mean?
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan,
you really have me worried:
I am sure I would be the first one enrolling into Bible school Sam. really I would.
Don’t frighten me like this. I’d much rather you be a good Jesus-following-atheist than join the Christian religion’s bandwagon. Though to be sure, as an insider and with your critical mind, you may do Xtianity some good!
LikeLike
I needed a new hobby.
I don’t wish to scare you either, you know what happened last time..
LikeLike
Sam,
What would be other examples of Science not dealing with “one offs” ?
LikeLike
Sam,
Do you ever think much about what is going to happen to you once you die? What do you suppose the afterlife is like? You believe in the traditional heaven/hell?
What would heaven be like if you made it but a family member didn’t?
How entertaining would heaven have to be for an eternity? Would a million years in Gods presence become boring?
What are your thoughts?
LikeLike
“I’d much rather you be a good Jesus-following-atheist than join the Christian religion’s bandwagon.”
Sam, you’d best not admit that on Jesus Creed or they might excommunicate you.
LikeLike
Though, I could start my own church..
LikeLike
Ivan, any ‘social’ science is at best a pseudo science if one looks at the hypotheses that they generate from a standpoint of testability. This problem becomes more acute when dealing with any sort of stuff that took place in the past.
Take this event. i am now writing you a response and that is the response to some past conversation. Now, I am writing after a gap of a couple of days and you may wonder why? Possibilities 1) too busy, 2) computer breakdown, net problem ofr something else technical, 3) I am thinking real hard about what to write but my brain is a slow one and it takes me a while to get some answer together, 4) not well. Other more exotic possibilities can come to mind. So how would one scientifically work out the most probable scenario?
You know that I visit the main page of Ktismatics quite often. By checking there it can be found that i have been commenting on stuff, so no techie problems an i am well enough to comment there. I’m not too busy may be deduced but then one would have to be able to say that this convwesation is as much of a priority as my main page visits, and that again would ask for evidence, so one could make a table comparing my frequency of commenting/visiting the main page vs my visits/comments here.
Some data at least is available and fairly sequenceable as it is all time stamped that will help one to make comparisons. Now suppose tha ata shows that conversing with Ivan is a much bigger priority statistically than Sam’s interest in page 1 conversations, then what theory would one look to to help explain my slow reply?
LikeLike
“any ‘social’ science is at best a pseudo science if one looks at the hypotheses that they generate from a standpoint of testability.”
Your subsequent speculations about alternative hypotheses and ways of testing them reveal that you have the makings of a passable social scientist.
LikeLike
Here’s one of those really odd ones whare archaeology ‘confirms’ an old testament chracter’s existence:
http://www.24hourmuseum.org.uk/nwh_gfx_en/ART48827.html
LikeLike
John, this is what makes ‘social’ science so fascinating. The possibilities are endless and mostly falsifiability is quite limited, with testability sometimes just a dream. In history the construction of the hypothesis and luck both play such critical roles in whether a theory can be thought to be reasonable. Most of the time I wonder whether the historian is really aware of the enormity of the task at hand?
LikeLike
That was an interesting peice of news Sam.
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan,
as with all things historical, I have my doubts. If you recall the Talpiot Tomb mess, it turned out that what looked to be a unique set of names turned out to be too common to take note of. This case looks similarly hazy to me and I await some critical scholarly appraisal…
LikeLike
Sam,
Is this the supposed Jesus tomb?
Ivan
LikeLike
Sam,
A question that crossed my mind today, Mental Hospitals often contain people who are under the illusion they are a reincarnated Jesus or Jesus or some type of God.
How could you seperate the Holy from the just plain old barking mad?
What sort of filter would you use?
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan, interesting question, especially given that both Jesus’ own family an many of his enemies had their honest doubts on this score! I’ll get to this, as it is an important part of what we were earlier discussing regarding embarassment.
I’m curious, did you think about my question regarding making historical hypotheses and then testing them? Perhaps my point was too vague?
LikeLike
Yes, that tomb of Jesus and the revelations are still pouring in!
http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2007/07/new-mary-magdalene-revelation.html
I actually feel very sorry for the scholars who got mud on their faces and much worse lost their credibility with that particular project.
On the ancient mesopotamian tablet, here’s some analysis:
http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=680
http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=681
LikeLike
Sam,
I think I agree with you. I’m sorry that I may have forgot to mention that, There is difficulty with the social sciences.
Ivan
LikeLike
Sam,
What are your views on the questions regarding the afterlife?
Ivan
LikeLike
Hey, I see your Jesus Creed discussion has picked up a few more participants. Pretty cool to end up back there, and on good terms with the lot! I scroll up to the top of this post and see it began 23 December of last year. Dudes, this is a long conversation.
LikeLike
And dangnabit John! I am greatful to have the possibility to air it. Its been very interesting and I tend to learn a lot from Sam particulary.
Regards
Ivan
LikeLike
Hey, we really are very blessed to have had John and Ktismatics to fall back on! I saw a mail notice saying Ivan had commented at jesuscreed and went over to see only to find ‘Comments for this topic are closed’!!!
I really have learned a lot too seeing as I sort of gave up on apologetics as a bit of a lost cause when I strarted to get more PoMo in my outlook. This has been a wonderful reminder that questions need to be asked, especially when we are less than certain about the answers!
I did invite the folks there to come on board here, but that doesn’t seem to have been noticed much. Ivan deserves to have a few fresh voices chiming in and my stores of useful stuff are just about depleted anyway.
btw, I just started into Bart’s book and it looks good so far.
LikeLike
‘Comments for this topic are closed’!!!
It appears that Jesus Creed closes comments after a set amount of time has elapsed. I see that the posts immediately preceding and following also had the “comments closed” message appended to them. So I’d say it’s not censorship, just bureaucracy.
LikeLike
Hey, I really would be interested if you find yourself doubly unterested in the Biblical after Barts book. It very much heightened my own interest in everything Jesus.
Ivan.
LikeLike
I don’t think that there is anything unusual about the comments getting closed. Scot Mcknight has a different agenda and purpose in mind and he does what he does really well. This conversation simply could never have taken place at jesuscreed even tho in some senses it actually started there!
LikeLike
Sam,
Is the purpose a kind of re-inforcement of Christian education? I notice they just detest the unChristian.
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan, it’s quite natural that people with similar inteests an ways of thinking will get together though I do see a lot of openness developing in sites tike Jesuscreed.
There is quite a breadth of opinion being expressed, even in the conversation that we just took part in, all the way from very traditional/conservative to quite openminded. What’s encouraging to me is that there is evidence of a real listening to positions that one does not agree with at all. Mutual respect is a goo place3 to start conversations from and this I think is a major part of what Scot tries to encourage.
His being personally very conservative and theologically well within the definition of ‘evangelical’ encourages the conservatives to participate in conversations with those of different views and this is quite unusual!
LikeLike
You know the sermon Jesus did on the mount? I wanted to ask something about it.
Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
Sam, have you ever known an occasion that being meek set you up inheriting anything? I was thinking today of the millions of times it always ended up with the “meek” either dead or persecuted. What’s the deal?
also Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; 20but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
What are treasures in heaven exactly? better seats? closer to God? better food? quite seriously, what do they mean? I have heard Christian neighbours speak about it as the stadium seating is cushier. I wonder what could constitute a heavenly reward what would the class system be exactly?
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan, let me make a confession starting out. I love the sermon on the mount (SoT) but i really do not understand all of it. Jesus teaching in the synoptics (Matthew, Mark, Luke) on the kingom of God and his musings in the gospel of John both have this effect on me.
Most people that i’ve talked to find Paul confusing and Jesus very clear, wheras for me it has always been the other way round.
Jesus frequently uses human real life situations to try to illustrate what he means, especially when the point is particlarly difficult to grasp. This use of analogies can be helpful, up to an extent. It is when we try to figure out the analogy too strictly that things go wrong, because the whole point is that there isn’t any direct equivalence that can be pointed out that will adequately convey what God’s kingom will be like.
We are left with a feeling of what can only be called a ‘redemptive movement’ towards completion but that this completion is also not something that we can entirely understand.
One recurring theme in Jesus teaching is that ‘the first shall be last and the last shall be first’. The so-called beatitudes ‘blessed are…’ that the SoT begins with are summaries of Jesus’s kingdom thinking. Those who suffer now will be comforted, the poor will be satisfied, the meek will inherit the earth…
Somehow, in God’s kingdom, all injustices will be sorted out and even reversed. The ways of this dog-eat-dog world will be made to stand on their head.
Now, I believe that Jesus wants me to strive for his kingdom to happen here and now. At the heart of his teaching on prayer comes this; “your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as in heaven”.
It’s a foolish dream, as you point out, but some genuinely great men have also believed that we can start to make it happen – including Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi.
LikeLike
Sam,
a common theme I keep hearing is that nearly everyone finds the texts confusing. Some of it plain contradictory but in all cases quite confusing. I wonder why that is? Its been my belief that this is one of the pointers to it not being any kind of word of God, if it were, I imagine it could be brutally blunt and be all the better for it so. I find many sites that delve in and accord all kinds of interesting,complicated and high minded answers to the concepts therein. I expect, the authors meant them simply,and that there are fewer high minded concepts as people think.
Why do you think it came to be as complicated and hidden in meaning as it has? What was the point do you think from the biblical authors to make it this complicated to both understand and follow?
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan, the basic meaning is very plain, just hard to accept an even harder to put into practice.us very simply asks for reversal. if you want to please God and you are rich, then let’s start by giving it all away…and the last thing one should invest in is life insurance.
The way he says things is very straight but often too straight for my crooked brain.
You asked some time back what I think about heaven, well this is the problem, i can’t extrapolate properly on the basis of what my little brain has been programmed to think reasonable in this sometimes nasty world.
A point that I think John could help clarify; in the golden rule – do unto others – folks often remarkon how the negative Law (do not…) has been restated positively, but this also assumes that the desire, the drive to do good, is intrinsic, basic, but hidden, masked or prevented by my worldliness, selfishness etc
LikeLike
Sam.
The trouble is many fine upstanding Christians would disagree with you on the subject of Mammon. The “love” of money etc etc.
I find Christians universally don’t agree on what Jesus was talking about. It has always made me wonder if its not false authority syndrome. That is, Jesus can’t be the “master” if he can’t dispense wisdom hence, there is a reason to appear obtuse and “wise” one can’t do this being plain spoken, at least not well.
I sense he needed to seem as if he was the conduit of God and the font of intergalactic wisdom, because his followers expected this of him.
I am probably wrong, but tell me why?
regards
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan,
Your observation is quite accurate and the reason is possible but I sort of doubt it. The explanations that jump out at me are simpler ones.
If one looks at how these ‘pillars of the early church’ (the disciples) are portrayed in the gospels, one gets the clear picture of human messianic expectations (what we expect a saviour to do for us) always clashing with the reality of who and what Jesus himself is.
The reaction to what Jesus says within the gospels, is typically divided into three camps. 1. Fine sounding, but how utterly impractical. 2. Utter rubbish, you must be mad. 3. I can’t make head or tail of it.
The people who accepted what he said unquestioningly (sort of) were the very poor, the downtrodden, the ones looking for healing – i.e. those who already felt their own neediness very acutely. For these folks, they are beyond questioning the credentials of their helpers. What they want is relief and whoever and whatever doesn’t much matter.
You are right, many if not most of my fellow believers would strongly disagree with me. If you look at it more closely you will find that the church’s policy is to say as little about the earthly Jesus and a lot about heaven, hell, and stuff that folks can’t very easily question. Jesus did talk a lot about hell but usually to the overly proud religious leaders of his day, and also to his stubborn disciples.
It is the ‘little stuff’ like this that gives me confidence in the gospels as narratives!
For one thing, people who get down to studying Jesus himself will quickly turn around and start questioning what the church is doing and especially how the church has sought to propagate itself. Such questioning will then percolate into other uncomfortable areas like ethics and politics…
Jesus is the very antithesis of what we expect. He forces us to either look at God differently or to reject his messianic claims. I can’t have both. If i accept Jesus then all my ideas have to almost literally stand upside down. That’s psychologically and cognitively difficult. My survival instinct kicks in and tries to restore my equilibrium, but then that’s one of the things that Jesus’ teaching does – to disequilibrate my comfortable self.
Both Jesus and Paul talk of embarassment. Jesus is the stumblingblock!
LikeLike
Sam,
Earlier in the week, a plane went down killing over 200 people. They were probably a mixture of ages, some old, some babies, and various others. Were they all killed in Gods grand plan? You say to beleive in Jesus has to have you beleiving all his says. What I continue to still not understand is the way a universe unfolds as if nothing at all like a God exists. In fact the only thing of a semi religious nature is the starting point singularity, and that looks less and less like a God the more one investigates.
I put it to you, that Jesus was mistaken. I further put to you, that he probably in all likelyhood knew this also. how can you discern the mind of a God in what appears an utterly Godless,random and meaningless universe? (Though not for me this week, I am in beautiful Port Douglass staying in this incredibal resort.. where I could be convinced God lives)
Kind regards
Ivan the sun basking.
LikeLike
A large part of Russel’s argument is that if God exists then s/he/it must be either uncaring or perhaps even cruel. This is supposedly arguing back from the way the universe is to what sort of God would have created something like this and assuming that whatever we have must reflect the character of the creator.
Well, I guess in a sense it does! The fact is that you can’t see God intervening to prevent injustices, or ‘senseless’ tragedies, or diseases, chilren being born without brains, arms and legs or other things that strike us as atrocious…
But then one question is, why do we find these things to be atrocious in the first place?
So what if accidents and tragedies happen? Why are these not just ‘chance’ or stupiity but considered ‘tragic’ in some sense or the other? What difference does it make to a materialistic universe whether a person thinks, lives for 70 years, does good to his neighbors OR if the person is born hopelessly crippled and dies in a couple of weeks?
The bioethicist response is something like it’s better to more efficiently ‘propagate’ one’s genes. But then we would think that an unsurvivable bunch of genes such as the second e.g. would, nay should die, and that this is only fitting – so why the angst about tragedies?
200 people took the risk of boarding a plane, so perhaps the wise gene will learn its lesson and stay away from planes!
LikeLike
Sam,
It comes down to what type of God your actually “sold” on. I don’t know personally your brand. But If I take the main branding of God nearly all church going Christians follow, the question still stands doesn’t it? Not much of a God of love is it?
Ivan
LikeLike
I had just finished reading The twilight of atheism,The rise and fall of disbelief in the modern world by Alister McGrath. Also just started John Shelby Spongs Resurrection myth or reality? The atheist manifesto had also arrived here on my return. Not read yet obviously.
I just liked reading bits about Sartre, I think he thought humanists wanted to be God. He reckons we invent the concept to create desire for more in an otherwise meaningless world. I liked that thought!
Then you got your Albert Camus who seems to argue against the double rebellion. A kind of metaphysical revolt against the absurd and historical revolt against injustice.
As for me, I still think of the Kew Children and the very young Sophie Delorenzo. If this is Gods hand at work, I want another choice.
Regards
Ivan, who miraculously God chose not to kill on a flight to a tropical hideaway.
LikeLike
Ivan, I think you are starting at the wrong end. Whatever we humans think of God is going to be messed up by our own tiny minds.
There are obviously a lot of ideas about God that just don’t tally with what we can observe and these ideas are likely to be more wrong than right. Any religion’s construction of God will probably have more to do with propagating that religion than necessarily having anything to do with God. But, to argue from this to “God doesn’t exist” is a bit of reverse silliness!
I don’t (unfortunately) believe in God because of some irresistible logic, rather I believe because God speaks to me. In this situation, while I might be worried about being delusional, the other options tend to fade to grey.
God speaking to me is as real (to me) as what my eyes and ears connect with in my environment. I can choose to ignore my perception at my own peril!
LikeLike
“Ivan, who miraculously God chose not to kill on a flight to a tropical hideaway.”
Sounds like we’re both thankful!
LikeLike
God speaking to me is as real (to me) as what my eyes and ears connect with in my environment. I can choose to ignore my perception at my own peril!
Sam, you actually hear voices?
Ivan
LikeLike
Sam,
My reading list: Its just stuff that appeals to me. Sometimes its kind of balanced other times not. This could be a not situation. It all depends what books I find and if I can get them or not.
God: is a very slippery eel of a subject. No two people have any identical view on the subject. But my comments against such a being is based more on the popular perceived Biblical Christian version, which I so strongly doubted ever existed. I don’t know if your inside or outside this camp.
The God of Alister McGrath almost certainly doesn’t either, and his reasons for thinking it does makes for a poor quality discussion. I liked Davies better, when he describes God, he has at least one hand on some kind of reality.
I don’t believe you, when you say our tiny minds mess up God, I think we have “this” God because these tiny minds felt the need to invent such a being. This is why we have such an evil and vengeful Character in our modern Bible.
I think myself, that it goes to something John said one time.. God is big, works outside of the universe, is disconnected to humans, possibly unaware of there existence, has no involvement in our day to day life’s or our deaths.. (we just basically die as a picked blade of grass does.
This would be how I imagine the existence of a God would be, and it would be thoroughly pointless trying to contact this kind of alien being.
regards Ivan
who still maybe struck down by the eternal wrath of God.
LikeLike
Ivan, you have great faith in humankind’s thinking ability, which is strange indeed as the vast majority of humans are all believers in some sort of tooth fairy.
I think the human mind’s ability to be rational or even reasonable is highly overrated. You are also in the odd place of having to then prove that the likes of Dawkin are ‘more rational’ and ‘more reasonable’ than everybody else! Just look around, read the newspapers, man is mostly neither rational nor reasonable!
As to whether I am within the camp of Christianity or not, it’s fairly simple. If one defines the attempt to follow Jesus as the main crterion then I am hopefully in. If you are talking about the religion, orthodox beliefs and stuff, then I am probably out.
As to hearing voices, well this is a complex one, for the point of language arises when communication must take place. But then we assume that it is within a species, wheras whether I can communicate with my dog, or with God would seem to be a different kind of thing altogether.
Do you like Jazz music, by any chance? If so, you may be familiar with the famous American sax player John Coltrane. He went through a crisis with drug adiction and tried to kick it ‘cold turkey’ by shutting himself into his bedroom.
“Four days later he emerged a changed man… the result being that he began to play his instrument for a different reason.
To truly truly hear Coltrane we must know what happened to him…it was a sound, a droning sound unlike anything he had heard. God met him, revealed Himself to Coltrane through a resonance. “It was so beautiful,” he told his wife as he hopelessly tried to reproduce it on a piano. That is the key to Coltrane.
After this experience he still played solo’s with amazing speed but they were not frenzied rather they were searches for ultimate meaning. When he picked up his sax and played, he was trying to reproduce the sound of God. Sometimes he would solo for thirty minutes!
He was searching for that sound of God that was playing at his lowest and yet most transformational moment of life. That magnificent murmur, that melody that met him when he was at his weakest and yet somehow was becoming his strongest.”
There is one old testament prophet who was surprised by God, because it was such a ‘stll, small, voice’.
I’m sure that if god wants to talk to someone, he can and will, just don’t be too surprised when it happens to you!
LikeLike
Sam,
I am deeply saddened by notions of a tooth fairy. Its the slippery slope and thin edge of the wedge that just gets children all excited and interested in selling body parts for money.
Anyway, to move on..
Man indeed can be highly irrational I just don’t see that quality as the guiding one. There is a beacon of light that comes from the realms of honest scientific enquiry and answer, its humanities best hope for a future of wealth,peace and comfort. I rate it rather highly Sam.
If we contrast almost any religions input at providing the same its a very different story Sam and it always, always ends in tears in some way or another.
Sam,
The bible is really clear about God like communications. He uses words and language, he doesn’t “talk to our hearts” or use music, or other devices. The Biblical God has God talking human to human in one specific way.
Its 2007 and the lines been dead now for about 2000 years. I seriously, doubt Coltrane was having a conversation with a God. He could have been meditating and all sorts of braniac experiences were ahappening, but God? I really doubt it happens this way if it could happen at all which I expect it doesn’t because there really has never been evidence of that God in the first place, anywhere.
Of course its difficult to disprove one way or another, guess for me I don’t expect any time soon we will find some “being” that can cross manufacture universes, deliberately ignores evil, Burns Anne Frank in the ovens of hell, doesn’t respond to prayer, creates bugs that devour caterpillars from the inside out whilst alive and doesn’t pick up the big cosmic telephone..ever.
LikeLike
My daughter wants to know if Santa Claus encourages kids to accept gifts from strangers.
LikeLike
What that boils down to really is that you are disappointed that god hasn’t lived up to your expectations, so you are angry at God and are going to teach him/her a real good lesson by just ignoring him.
I mean how unscientifically soppy can you get? Bugs eating caterpillars is somehow ungodlike? C’mon Ivan!
LikeLike
Santa Claus! what about halloween or even the ever benign thanksgiving – somehow this is all a part of Christian culture.
LikeLike
Sam you miss my point.
The Christian biblical God is a very specific animal. Its this God I have the issues with.
Your God is your God.. I don’t know how close I am at understanding him.
We need to get on the same page regarding which deity we talk about.
John,
What is the deal with halloween? Its like some weird witch ritual for me.
And Sam, didn’t the bible say we were supposed to burn them or something?
Ivan
LikeLike
Seeing as I’m about a third of the way through the last Harry Potter book right now, I’m not currently prepared to diss the witches.
When our daughter was ten her teacher (in France) told her class that Halloween was just an American capitalist scheme. One of the other kids in the class informed her (correctly) that it was an Irish holiday exported to America. Well, replied the teacher, Halloween is a holiday for those who fear death. But we French do not fear death, so we do not need Halloween.
LikeLike
John,
I can just imagine that teacher.. Having a French wife I know exactly how it would have been said!!!
Ivan
Why isn’t there a national dead people day?
LikeLike
Sam,
You know my position that there is no evidence of a God.
But just so as I really know your mind can you answer some questions for me?
1. What is your God? I mean to you? Is it the biblical one? Is it some metaphysical alien like entity?
With literally tens of thousands of differing ideas of what this God is what is your bestest guess? (Being that there is no evidence as such)Hey, don’t get hung up on “evidence” I really need to know about how you define God)
2. How would we disprove the existence of Hindu or Aboriginal Gods etc? by what method would we say they don’t exist?
3. If we can’t.. why would we not appeal to all Gods and worship multiple entities?
4. What did Jesus die on the cross for?
5. why is it seen as a sacrifice by any measure? Jesus did after all “get better” and went to live with his father didn’t he?
6. After Jesus died and was “re-animated” why didn’t he stay on Earth and really begin the work? Maybe starting with the Roman then moving on to Aboriginals etc so that they didn’t worship lizard Gods etc for the next 60,000 years?
7. Why did nothing really ever change after Jesus? Poor still poor, sick still sick, random death events, wars, evil, Mass murder,genocide,rape etc etc. Why had no one heard of him except this tiny sliver of mankind about the most important human on earth?
Why Sam?
LikeLike
A few more:
8. Sam if we don’t have a single document written in the language of Jesus (in his day) we can’t really have his authentic word can we? How can we be sure of its genuineness?
9.How do we really know anything about Jesus without a single genuine eyewitness account?
10. Nearly all details about the life of Jesus are contradictory. The conflicts cover the full spectrum of information when you look at it Sam. Dates, events,places even names all contradictory. How can we possibly regard this document as a “window” into the life of Jesus with so many conflicts,errors and contradictions? How is it possible to know the “teacher” from the very possible fiction?
11. When the disciples got out of Dodge during the arrest and crucifixion of Jesus pretty much forsaking him. If this was the way they saw it, Jesus pretty much powerless, why should we perceive him really any differently than a murdered Prophet whose predictions didn’t really come to pass at all? You know, like the hundreds of other prophets probably murdered before and after him?
12. All the times the inner and outer circle disciples appear to go AWOL, who is it exactly that is supposed to be recording all the word for word factual genuine sound bites of Jesus? Its never even hinted at and I have wondered for years now, who would have been there to do it? As in the many totally “different” accounts of Jesus on the cross all recorded by someone who wasn’t a disciple and apparently witnessed totally differing accounts . Who is it giving us this information and why is such a pretty vital bit of information missing such as the authors?
LikeLike
“Why isn’t there a national dead people day?”
Nederland is a little mountain town near here. Turns out some guy up there was cryogenically preserving his grandpa with dry ice in a backyard shed. As you can imagine this project captured the imaginations of the local populace. The city fathers deported the guy back to Norway, but grandpa stayed on ice in Nederland. Now in March the town holds its annual Frozen Dead Guy Days festival. Here’s the link in case you want to join the festivities in 2008.
LikeLike
What I don’t understand about this is the people who went half way and just had heads frozen. Surely if the theory worked out, someone is going to become a reanimated head in a jar.
The other thing, who would really want an opportunity to die a second time around?
Ivan
LikeLike
13. What did God do you think during that eternity before he created everything? If God was all that existed back then, what disturbed the eternal equilibrium and compelled him to create? Was he bored? Was he lonely? God is supposed to be perfect. If something is perfect, it is complete isn’t it? A God who is perfect does nothing except exist doesn’t it Sam?
14. Humans were the crown of Gods creation so says the Bible, since they were created in God’s image and have the ability to make decisions. However, these humans spoiled the original perfection by choosing to disobey God in many cases.
If something is perfect, nothing imperfect can come from it. Someone once said that bad fruit cannot come from a good tree, and yet this “perfect” God created a “perfect” universe which was rendered imperfect by the “perfect” humans. The ultimate source of imperfection is God. What is perfect cannot become imperfect, so humans must have been created imperfect. What is perfect cannot create anything imperfect, so God must be imperfect to have created these imperfect humans. A perfect God who creates imperfect humans is impossible. What is wrong about this line of thought Sam?
15. Free will : The Christians standard objection to this line of thinking involves “freewill”. Christians usually say that a being must have freewill to be happy. The omnibenevolent God did not wish to create robots, so he gave humans freewill to enable them to experience love and happiness. But the humans used this freewill to choose evil, and introduced imperfection into God’s originally perfect universe. God had no control over this decision, so the blame for our imperfect universe is on the humans, not God right Sam? Firstly Sam, if God is “omnipotent” and your yet to define this to me I know.., then the assumption that freewill is necessary for happiness is false. If God could make it a rule that only beings with freewill may experience happiness, then he could just as easily have made it a rule that only robots may experience happiness. The latter option is clearly superior, since perfect robots will never make decisions which could render them or their creator unhappy, whereas beings with freewill could. A perfect and omnipotent God who creates beings capable of ruining their own happiness is impossible wouldn’t this be so Sam? further, even if we were to allow the necessity of freewill for happiness, God could have created humans with freewill who did not have the ability to choose evil, but to choose between several good options couldn’t he Sam?
Third, God supposedly has freewill, and yet he does not make “imperfect decisions.” If humans are miniature images of God, our decisions should likewise be perfect. Also, the occupants of heaven, who presumably must have freewill to be happy, will never use that freewill to make imperfect decisions. Why would the originally perfect humans do differently? Help a simple man here Sam?
16. Suffering: God is omniscient is he not Sam?. When he created the universe, he saw the sufferings which humans would endure as a result of the sin of those original humans. He heard the screams of the damned. Surely he would have known that it would have been better for those humans to never have been born (in fact, the Bible says this very thing), and surely this “all-compassionate” deity as the holy Bible portrays would have foregone the creation of a universe destined to imperfection in which many of the humans were doomed to eternal suffering. A perfectly compassionate being who creates beings which he knows are doomed to suffer is impossible. right Sam?
LikeLike
17. Gods justice: God is perfectly just as the Bible tells us repeatedly, and yet he sentences the imperfect humans he created to “infinite” suffering in hell for “finite” sins. Clearly, a limited offense does not warrant unlimited punishment, you wouldn’t sentence someone guilty of littering a lifesentence would you Sam?. God’s sentencing of the imperfect humans to an eternity in hell for a mere mortal lifetime of sin is infinitely more unjust than this punishment. The absurd injustice of this infinite punishment is even greater when we consider that the ultimate source of human imperfection is the God who created them.. Is this evidence of a “just God”? is he acting on “just terms”?
18. The emotional God:
A God who knows everything cannot have emotions as I see it Sam. The Bible says that God experiences all of the emotions of humans, including anger, sadness, and happiness. We humans experience emotions as a result of “new knowledge”. A man who had formerly been ignorant of his wife’s infidelity will experience the emotions of anger and sadness only after he has learned what had previously been hidden I have good personal experience here Ivan’s wife number 1. In contrast, the omniscient God is ignorant of nothing. Nothing is hidden from him, nothing new may be revealed to him, so there is no gained knowledge to which he may “emotively react” do you see my point Sam? Also we as humans experience anger and frustration at stuff we can’t fix or change, But a perfect God lacks nothing, can change everything is Omniscient and omnipotent so where does the emotion cut in?
LikeLike
19. I am numbering these so you don’t get overwhelmed Sam. Just one at a time in your own time. OK?
The Character of Jesus the teacher:
Christians often make the claim of Jesus that , “he’s the lamb”, “our saviour”, “the king of peace”, “the embodiment of love”, amongst the many other names they associate with a loving, merciful nature.I have had many of these statements made to me over the years Sam. So, is Jesus a nice guy? Let’s examine the compassion and veracity of this Sam?
In Matthew 10:34 Jesus says that he has come to “destroy families” by making family members “hate” each other. He has “come not to send peace, but a sword.” Okay…
Jesus says, “Don’t imagine that I came to bring peace on earth! No, rather a sword lf you love your father, mother, sister, brother, more than me, you are not worthy of being mine. “The real beauty of this verse is that Jesus demands people truly love him more then they “love” their own family. I ask you Sam how can we love someone that we can not see or interact with? Love is an emotion pertaining to physical existence not to faithful ideologies, yet God threatens you with Death just because your love for your mother maybe stronger than your love for him ? Do you love your parents more than Jesus? What about your wife or children?
“Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.” Matthew 10:21
Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn’t the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. Matthew 5:17 Is this the teacher you follow Sam? How do you feel about Matthew 10:21 ?
In Matthew 15: 4-7 Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not “killing” disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” Is this the practice of discipline in the Carr household Sam?
Abandon your wife and children for Jesus and he’ll give you an eternal reward. Jesus asks that his followers abandon their children to follow him. To leave your child is a form of abuse or even neglect isn’t it Sam? from Matthew 19:29
Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law. Mark 7:9 Bit harsh is isn’t it Sam?
Luke 12:47 Jesus okays beating slaves. I know we talked about this already, but you never said whether you agreed with the teacher? Are we going to beat our slaves Sam? Yes/ No ? Bear in mind I am kind of “indentured” to wife number 3. I have a low pain threshold.
Ivan
LikeLike
John.. think we can make 700?
Ivan
LikeLike
Based on prior history and trends, I project that by the year 2106 this post will have 80,000 comments.
LikeLike
Now that’s a prediction! 2106 no less!
LikeLike
Further to question 19.
We have the exact same ideas. worded exactly as in the Bible.
BUT….
Its in the bible of the Moonies or Orange people or Ralians etc..
What then do we think about that advice and the words?
Ivan
LikeLike
Sam,
As my most learned counsel on things religious, have you heard of the FSM faith? It comes with some heavyweight indorsements as such:
“As a scientist, I’d like to say that the currently accepted scientific theory is evolution. But, some competing ideas have been proposed, such as ID and FSMism, and discussion to include one should include the other, as these ideas are equally valid.“
– Mark Zurbuchen, Ph.D.
“As a medical practitioner and scientist, I wholeheartedly believe that every theory and hypothesis needs full consideration and explanation with formal ratification by peer review. We have a duty to inform our schools and presumably pasta should form a staple part of our educational diet.“
– Dr. A. Macintyre (UK)
“Letting the religious right teach ID in schools is like letting the Marines teach poetry in advanced combat training. As a scientist, I see these the relevancy between the two sets to be equal. If Kansas is going to mess up like this, the least it can do is not be hypocritical and allow equal time for other alternative “theories” like FSMism, which is by far the tastier choice.”
– J. Simon, PhD
What are your thoughts?
LikeLike
Question 21.
Sam, Jesus often talks about prayer in the Holy Bible.
for example: And Jesus answered and said to them, “Truly I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, `Be taken up and cast into the sea,’ it will happen. “And all things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive.” (Matthew 21:21-22 )
and
Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened. (Matthew 7:7-8)
and
Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst. (Matthew 18:19-20)
and
And whatever you ask in my name, I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything of me in my name, I will do it. (John 14:13-14 )
and
It was not you who chose me, but I who chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit that will remain, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name he may give you. (John 15:16)
etc etc etc
But prayerful requests almost always really do not happen. Nearly all of us would have direct personal experience of this and I know of at least a couple of scientific studies that have come out in the negative. Why would Jesus say this if he didn’t mean it? Could Jesus have been mistaken Sam? Could he have been temporarily confused or something? What do you think Sam?
LikeLike
Question 22.
Sam, Jesus was known to say:
“whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire” (Matthew 5:22). Yet, he himself did so repeatedly, as in Matthew 27:19, Luke 11:40 & 12:20 show. Is it then possible he would be in danger of hell too? Jesus also told us to “Love your enemies; bless them that curse you,” but ignored his own advice by repeatedly denouncing his opposition. Matthew 12:34 (“0 generation of vipers”), and Matthew 23 :27 (“… hypocrites… ye are like unto whited sepulchres.“) are excellent examples of hypocrisy. If Jesus himself is a sinner by his own admission then surely he can not be the perfect lamb of god and surely at least a little confused?
regards Ivan
LikeLike
Question 23.
Living the life of Authenticity.
Sam,
Over here in Australia, we are getting a few of what we call “mega churches”. They are an unusual animal with many very dedicated Christian people attending. I know they are almost an industry in the United States now to.
They have a different take on the Gospel as we once discussed before, they believe God and Jesus wanted them to live abundant lives and they take the prosperity seriously. Its become the “love” of money instead of the former just plain money.
We live very good lives now I guess to 2000 years ago, but I can’t get my head around Jesus, a McMansian and a BMW.
I sense you think differently as do many others and in earlier times the adoptionists etc.
Why does a simple message get so easily transformed so many ways and how can you discern a simple right way?
I presume there has to be “one way” or else all bets would be on, so how can it be done and how do we tackle the other 399,000 ?
LikeLike
Question 24.
Some Prophesies of Jesus questions.
As far as I can recall, none of events ever came to pass Sam, any comments or reasons why Sam? I just wondered that much value is placed on the prophesies and yet most if not never come to pass. Why could this be Sam?
The gospels (especially Matthew 21:4 and John 12:14-15) claim that Jesus fulfils the prophecy of Zechariah 9:9. But the next few verses (Zechariah 9:10-13) show that the person referred to in this verse is a military king that would rule “from sea to sea”. Since Jesus had neither an army nor a kingdom, he could not have fulfilled this prophecy.
or
Matthew 2:17-18) quotes Jeremiah 31:15), claiming that it was a prophecy of King Herod’s alleged slaughter of the children in and around Bethlehem after the birth of Jesus. But this passage refers to the Babylonian captivity, as is clear by reading the next two verses (Jeremiah 31:16-17), and, thus, has nothing to do with Herod’s massacre.
or
John 19:33 says that during Jesus’ crucifixion, the soldiers didn’t break his legs because he was already dead. Verse John 19:36 claims that this fulfilled a prophecy: “Not a bone of him shall be broken.” But there is no such prophecy. It is sometimes said that the prophecy appears in Exodus 12:46, Numbers 9:12 & Psalm 34:20. This is not correct. Exodus 12:46 & Numbers 9:12 are not prophecies, they are commandments. The Israelites are told not to break the bones of the Passover lamb, and this is all it is about. And Psalm 34:20 seems to refer to righteous people in general (see verse Psalm 34:19, where a plural is used), not to make a prophecy about a specific person.
or
Matthew 1:23 says that Jesus (the messiah) would be called Immanuel, which means “God with us.” Yet no one, not even his parents, call him Immanuel at any point in the bible.
or The Messiah must be a physical descendant of David (Romans 1:3 & Acts 2:30). Yet, how could Jesus meet this requirement since his genealogies in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 show he descended from David through Joseph, who was not his natural father because of the Virgin Birth. Hence, this prophecy could not have been fulfilled.
or Isaiah 7:16 seems to say that before Jesus had reached the age of maturity, both of the Jewish countries would be destroyed. Yet there is no mention of this prophecy being fulfilled in the New Testament with the coming of Jesus, hence this is another Messiah prophecy not fulfilled.
and finally : In Mark 10:19 Jesus said: “Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, do not steal, do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.” Jesus needs to re-read the Ten Commandments. There is no Old Testament commandment against defrauding. The only relevant statement about defrauding is in Leviticus 19:13 , which says : “Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour.” This is an OT law, but is not listed with the Ten Commandments. Surely, Jesus would know the 10 basic commandments wouldn’t he ?
LikeLike
Question in 25 Does Jesus support peace, or non peace ? Matthew 5:39 “Resist not evil, but whoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” Also note Matthew 6:38-42 & 26:52 where Jesus teaches non-resistance, Non-violence. Now read (Luke 22:36-37) Where Jesus commands people to take arms for a coming conflict. (John 2:15) Jesus uses a whip to physically drive people out of the temple. Sam, why could these two seperate messages mean?
and this Sam:
Matthew 15:24 Jesus said, “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of lsrael,”. This would of course mean that he is here only to save the Jews. The scriptures repeatedly back up this notion that Christ is savior to the Jews and not the gentiles (see Romans 16:17, Revelations 14:3-4 & John 10). The contradiction lies in what Jesus later tells his followers: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations” (Matthew 28:19).
What would be the truth of this Sam in your veiw?
and : Even many of the strongest defenders of Jesus admit that his comment in Matthew 10:34 (“I came not to send peace but a sword”) contradicts verses such as Matthew 26:52 (“Put up again thy sword into his place: for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword”) why the two different views Sam?
and this question Sam: In Mark 8:35 Jesus said: “…but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel’s the same shall save it.” How could Jesus have said this when there was no gospel when he lived? The gospel did not appear until long after his death how could this possibly be his words?
Ivan
LikeLike
Question 26: Sam in Matthew 6:13 Jesus recites a revised prayer and states, “Don’t bring us into temptation.” If God is the cause of everything and he must be if we take the Christian faith on face value, (even Satan when you think about it). God has been leading people into temptation since the Garden of Eden. Otherwise, the trees of life and knowledge would have never been there. How could you reconcile this with the prayer of Jesus?
Ivan
LikeLike
Question 27:
During the crucifixion of Jesus he says:
“My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” from Matthew 27:46, (also note the time before crucification where Jesus prays for the “cup to passeth over me”) versus “Now is my soul troubled. And what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour?’ No, for this purpose I have come to this hour” (John 12:27 ). Jesus can’t seem to decide whether or not he wants to die. One moment he is willing; the next he isn’t. What would account for these two differing accounts and who was it that took the record of it?
LikeLike
Question 28.
Sam, in Thessalonians Paul relates the following:
In 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 Paul stated: “For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: And the dead Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air: And so shall we ever be with the Lord.” Paul shared the apparent misconeception, taught by Jesus, in that he expected to be snatched up bodily into heaven with other saints then living, who would, thus, never taste death. The use of “we” clearly proves as much. It is difficult to deny that Paul was certain that the end of the world was coming in the lifetime of his contemporaries.
This is a very common NT theme.
Why do you suspect it was so, and any ideas why predictions made regulary over the last 2000 years *still* have not come to pass?
Ivan
LikeLike
Question 29.
(Deuteronomy 22:28-29)
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
Sam, what do you think of the wisdom of victims of Rape having to marry their violators? God seems to think its an entirely reasonable proposition, what is your personal stance on the matter? (it sounded harsh to me I have a daughter)
Ivan
LikeLike
Question: 30
This is from 2 Samuel (12:11-14)
Thus says the Lord: ‘I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.’
Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” Nathan answered David: “The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die.”
Sam I understand the child does die around 7 days later.
What is your take on this?
Ivan
LikeLike
Question 31
Sam, Christianity is thought to be a more tolerant religion that most, but what do you make of this passage out of Deuteronomy?
If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12) Is this what we need to justify another comming war with Islam?
LikeLike
Question 32
Sam, just basic Biblical questions I don’t understand.
When was Christ crucified? Mark 15:25 “And it was the third hour and they crucified him.” John 19:14-15 “And it was the preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth hour; and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your king…Shall I crucify your king?” John 19:14-15.
In 1 Corinthians 1:17 (“For Christ sent me [Paul] not to baptize but to preach the gospel”) Paul said Jesus was wrong when he said in Matthew 28:19 “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them…” Clearly one of these people is wrong, either way, it’s a contradiction isn’t it?
Where did Jesus first appear to the eleven disciples? In a room in Jerusalem. Luke 24:32-37 On a mountain in Galilee. Matthew 28:15-17
Can all sins be forgiven? (Acts 13:39) All sins can be forgiven. Great, I’m happy to know God is so merciful, but wait (Mark 3:29) Cursing or blaspheming the Holy Spirit is unforgivable is this right Sam?
LikeLike
Hey!
I had a strange week that started with bad news that a brother-in-law had died afer a botched bypass operation and had to run over there and then got home to find a very close friend in an emotional crisis so it’s been a while since i even checked my mail (or did any real work).
The flood situation is bad. This is part of what happens with these big mega dam projects and little forethought that’s so typical of all of India’s governments to date. Result: Droughts or floods with hopefully neither for some little time in-between.
I guess you have made really good use of my time off to really come up with some good questions to work on! I will get to that as I catch up on the masses of other pending stuff! i also ran into a book that you will enjoy, but more on that later…
LikeLike
I was getting a bit worried about you Sam. My condolences on the loss of your brother in law. Tragic bit of news.
Kind regards
Ivan
LikeLike
Question: 33
Sam,
In Luke, the chapter 19:27 is way less disputed by textual critics than 23:34. The former is thought to be the actual words of Jesus. I will quote them again here.
” But as for these enemies of mine,Who did not want me to reign over them,bring them here and slay them before me”.
Sam, do you recognise this particular Jesus? Was it meant literally?
Further: Much of the wisdom of Jesus in both mark and Luke, clearly were of a man expecting the apocalypse. Jesus said that it was to happen in his lifetime and is one of many of his more incorrect predictions. “Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven, and come and follow me” is pretty much a classic Jesus piece in which he expected his apocalyptic end of mankind to be around his corner.
Of course it didn’t happen, and interestingly, none of the hundreds of later reforecast predictions.
Why was Jesus so wrong?
LikeLike
Question 34.
Sam, I understand Jesus didn’t see himself as any kind of moral innovator. If you look at stuff like Matthew 5.27-28 you find earlier versions in Exodus 20.17 or proverbs 6.25-26 or Berachot 24.1 and on and on and on.
Jesus didn’t seem to see himself as a philosopher either. He is simply portrayed as a worker of miracles and a divine being.
You seem to see him as the former, why?
LikeLike
Question: 35
Its been said that the Jesus approach to Human emotions is “Psychologically naive”. Its further said that when men attempt to practice what Jesus himself preaches it invariably inflicts a great deal of either psychological misery or harm. Is Nathaniel correct in his book The disowned self ? Can Jesus cause us harm Sam ?
LikeLike
Question 36:
Sam, with only a few real “exceptions” The bible never explicitly the advocating of human misery. The language of the Holy Bible tends to word it as “sacrifices”. The Bible loves the idea of lots of sacrifices in this life, that allow us to collect the interest, compound style in the afterlife. You invest and then you collect. What is interesting here is the mentality the Bible starts us thinking along.. Sacrifice is good and equals virtue and pleasure becomes the code for immorality. It doesn’t say go forth and be miserable, but then again it does doesn’t it Sam?
Is pleasure really immoral?
LikeLike
Well, things could be a little less exciting here!
Now I’m a bit distracted as my daughter got bitten by a snake a couple days back and is now thankfully doing well. They think that it may have been a viper of some sort (we have a couple of pretty poisonous ones here).
Will get back with more news as it comes in…
LikeLike
Sam am I upsetting God or something? this isn’t punishment by proxy?
Ivan
LikeLike
Sam, I’m sorry about this series of misfortunes for you and your family. And I’m certainly glad your daughter is recovering well.
LikeLike
Sam how is your daughter going? We have a similar issue here with snakes and some rather nasty spiders in the suburbs.
regards
Ivan
LikeLike
Hi again!
To make a long story short, it looks as though Saranya (our daughter) jumped into a snake rescue quite unprepared as she was walking down from her college with a few classmates. The snake was a saw scaled viper and had been cornered by some villagers. It was just about to bite one of the village youth who didn’t realise the danger and Saranya just grabbed the snake and tossed it into the scrub and then realised that she had been bitten.
Her friends got her to the nearest small hospital where they did some first aid and by then we got there shotrtly thereafter with the antivenin only to find the doctor unwilling to start the treatment as he didn’t have much in the way 0f facilities. We giot her to a bigger hospital where they stuck her in the ICU and started the antivenin. Saranya’s bleeding time was extended and they had difficulty getting her started but her coag profilecame to normal by the following day.
She is finally in an ordinary room today and quite cheerful, which is less than I can say for my wife Aruna’s state of mind!
LikeLike
She sounds like a very brave girl.
LikeLike
John, I agree that she’s brave but grabbing snakes without preparation is not a very smart thing to do, especially when you are yet to get a good enough look to identify it. The group that cornered the snake were sure it was poisonous but she didn’t pause to get an impression of it and her action was a bit too reflexive to be safe.
Aruna believes that it’s extreme foolishness, so that debate will be quite hot for some days to come.
LikeLike
Quite unbeleivable Sam!!
She must be one exceptional young girl.
Ivan
LikeLike
Sam,
thought about buying that kid of yours a supergirl cape?
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan, she’s certainly a very special girl. She’ll be facing the music for real when she gets back to college on Monday morning!
She didn’t want me to blog about her own experience, so i ended up doing a bit of refreshing on treating snakebites instead…
Now to your first 7 questions:
1. What is your God? I mean to you? Is it the biblical one? Is it some metaphysical alien like entity?
With literally tens of thousands of differing ideas of what this God is what is your bestest guess? (Being that there is no evidence as such)Hey, don’t get hung up on “evidence” I really need to know about how you define God)
To me, God is the Other. God is capable of communicating with me and (strangely enough) seems to want to. From what I can understand of what God has told me so far, the main point is that God loves. God wants me to be transformed by that love into becoming a fully risk-taking giver of love, in turn.
I don’t think that God is adequately containable or definable in human words or even thoughts, so necessarily, God is always Other!
2. How would we disprove the existence of Hindu or Aboriginal Gods etc? by what method would we say they don’t exist?
One can’t. In fact that would be a silly way to try to sort things out, for just as Xtian ideas of God are distorted, so too would one expect of any other religion. One can only ask whether these ideas of God seem to jive with what we know of the universe around us.
3. If we can’t.. why would we not appeal to all Gods and worship multiple entities?
Perhaps because the ideas involved would become confusingly contradictory?
4. What did Jesus die on the cross for?
Ivan, John, Sam, Jason, Jonathan, …
5. why is it seen as a sacrifice by any measure? Jesus did after all “get better” and went to live with his father didn’t he?
I don’t think that that death was a particularly fun way to go.
6. After Jesus died and was “re-animated” why didn’t he stay on Earth and really begin the work? Maybe starting with the Roman then moving on to Aboriginals etc so that they didn’t worship lizard Gods etc for the next 60,000 years?
In the most important sense, God has been communicating truth to people throughout time even though THE EVENT was bound into human history.
7. Why did nothing really ever change after Jesus? Poor still poor, sick still sick, random death events, wars, evil, Mass murder,genocide,rape etc etc. Why had no one heard of him except this tiny sliver of mankind about the most important human on earth?
It’s hardly accurate to say that ‘nothing really ever’ changed. A lot has changed and the struggle to recognise God for who He is is an ongoing one but certainly even if after a gap of 1800 years, we did start doing stuff like getting rid of slavery and recognising women’s equality.
Human communication about the Jesus event, is (I think) the least of the limiting factors. The fact is that we are and have been in rebellion against God. We know, have always known, in our hearts that God is love, yet that is exactly the opposite of what we want our religion or philosophy to be based on!
LikeLike
4. What did Jesus die on the cross for?
Ivan, John, Sam, Jason, Jonathan, …
I agree Sam that it certainly wasn’t a fun way to go. I am not really cogniscent of any fun death experience. Though my late wife lost her elderly widowed father whilst he had sexual congress at some old folks home with a resident.. that *could* have been fun?
But God chose the manner of Jesus death not us really when you think about it. What was the benefit to “us” of the death of Jesus in practical terms ? It really was the most unnecessary sacrifice in all of history wasn’t it?
We all still get judged for our sin and we still have sin bound to us by generational. This all the more makes the whole shebang kind of unnecessary doesn’t it Sam?
the main point is that God loves How Sam? Allowing Jesus that death ? Allowing an eternal punishment in eternal torment for a very finite sin? For smallpox and snake bites? For osteoporosis and hydroecephalitic children? what love Sam?
LikeLike
we did start doing stuff like getting rid of slavery and recognising women’s equality.
Sam, you have read the Bible havn’t you? I mean I know you have you even have the concordences.
You know this isn’t the “word” of God or even Jesus my good man.
LikeLike
Why not Ivan? It’s a human set of documents, just like anything else written by human beings. It has transmission mistakes, just like anything transmitted by humans. But, does that make it impossible for God to use it to get the message across? I don’t think so!
LikeLike
Oh I think not Sam. I am quite sure it *is* riddled with errors. But from your perspective, we don’t know which are the errors and which bit is the genuine information. its entirely possible that both Jesus and God loved the idea of slavery, rape,genocide etc. Its not like its even forbidden in the ten commandments is it Sam?
How do we know a “God” would use this transmission route to exchange information of such a vitally important nature? Its a bit haphazard don’t you think Sam? Wouldn’t it be more efficient if it were I don’t know… made into granite tablets or some such?
It may not make it “impossible” but it sure makes it improbable though, doesn’t it Sam?
Ivan
LikeLike
Jesus view on the 10 commandments, and Mosaic Law generally was that these are clear pointers to who God is. Once we recognise who God really is, then conformity or rebellion will be our only two options.
Jesus’s summary of the Law, was the so-called ‘golden rule’ – love God, love neighbours. Now it should be fairly obvious, especially given how Jesus explained the meaning of ‘neighbour’, that all human beings are included because all humans are equally loved by God, and it is the outworking of this very simple philosophy that we see happening so slowly but yet surely in true Christianity.
Equality is not indeed the end goal. What Jesus had in mind was justice and love, and these concepts go far beyond the negativity that was inherent in the Mosaic code, and in most of both ancient and modern cultures.
LikeLike
*Once we recognise who God really is, then conformity or rebellion will be our only two options.*
yeah but Sam, they have more than a few gaps don’t they? The 10 commandments are hardly a rule book on life? What are we make of Gods genocide side? How about his lapses in morals on such subjects as rape or slavery? I wouldn’t like to think that Gods rules are 30% about how he should be worshipped. Doesn’t seem right to me Sam, what about you?
Golden rule ? It went a bit further than that Sam, what about leaving ones family? He preached some pretty “iffy” kinds of morals in lots of cases didn’t he Sam?
Is the golden rule one of the “real” rules or one of the created by men rules? How are we to know genuinely?
Justice and love? Your kidding me Sam? Parable of the woman taken into adultery? where was her justice in regard to her adulterous partner? hang on, I forgot..that was one of the made up by men ones wasn’t it?
its very confusing, working out which part is “real” and should be listened to and which part is in all likelihood invented to give Jesus a sense of lore. I think your attracted to the lore Sam.
Ivan
LikeLike
*Jesus’ summary of the Law, was the so-called ‘golden rule’ – love God, love neighbours.*
or, you could look at Matthew 10:34
“come not to send peace, but a sword.”
or : Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.” Matthew 10:21
So you should love neighbours, just not the family?
“He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” Matthew 15:4-7
Love your neighbours, just not their disobedient children.
and of course there is Luke 12:47
“The servant who knew what his master wanted but didn’t get ready to do it will receive a hard beating.
a bit of teachers love?
Sam,
I still have a hard time understanding this part of your earlier answer:
*I don’t think that death was a particularly fun way to go.*
I didn’t think it sounded fun either, but I have a very great difficulty in seeing this as “any” kind of sacrifice what’s so ever.
Can you explain to me how you see it thus?
From my view point it sounds like this.
A God impregnates a woman for the purpose of bearing a son in the image of the God. A kind of ambassador or representative if you will.
After hearing zilch for 30 years, son becomes active as an apocalyptic prophet incorrectly predicting the end of days etc.
The Romans become concerned and kill him in a brutal fashion. God then intervenes and awakens the corpse, back to life complete with wounds.
Jesus ascends to heaven with Mary etc.
Where the dickens did anything or anyone get sacrificed? Did Jesus not just get relocated essentially back with the father (God) ? what is the deal then in treating it the same as you losing your daughter or me losing my kid? Its clearly not the same thing at all is it Sam?
LikeLike
Ivan, your Bart Ehrman makes a lot of negative noise based on his theory of the woman taken in adultery bit, but it looks like a false trail to me.
Sure, it’s not an ‘original’ part of the Johannine text and has got stuck in there rather mysteriously, but apart from that, there seems little doubt that it has as much to say about Jesus attitude, and that’s probably why it’s still there.
You seem to find it somehow unjust, but why? It’s normal practice in our sorts of cultures (true of India) to pin the blame on the ‘sinful’ women while letting the men go scott free. The accusers had already let the guy go, so then asking for him serves no purpose. But indirectly Jesus does ask – for the apparently missing guilt, and this has the required effect…
On the nature of Jesus death there are a number of ways of looking at it. First off, the leader takes the hit directly witholut sending his juniors in one at a time to soften the blow. We are used to our leaders sacrificing a minion to satisfy the public that thier anger has been heard and action has been taken. It’s one of those usual games that get played and that we all too willingly participate in. We know that the buck started and stopped elsewhere but we are appeased that a sacrifice has been offered.
More importantly, when anyone challenges the existing powers and succeeds in embarassing them, the resulting backlash is to be expected and usually lesser men will run for cover form the aroused sleeping giant that we have dared to disturb. The exceptional few will stand and face the music. People like Jesus and Martin Luther King fall into this category. They are willing to stand and to fall for the principles that they have preached. If they had cut and run the principles would have died a quiet and silent death – just one more bit of forgetable historical data.
Beyond this, the death of Jesus is interpreted in the new testament as having a special global significance. This significance depends on stuff that I find it difficult to speculate on, like what goes on in God’s mind. but that doesn’t mean that it’s not real, just that it’s beyond what my little brain can wrap itself around!
LikeLike
*but apart from that, there seems little doubt that it has as much to say about Jesus attitude, and that’s probably why it’s still there.”*
Do you mean, so much of his “invented” attitude as opposed to real deal attitude?
*for the apparently missing guilt, and this has the required effect…*
Err, not the way I read it Sam. In my eyes its a bit deficient. A bit unjust.
Gee Sam, it doesn’t really answer the question.
Firstly, Jesus took the bullet, lets concede that for the sake of the discussion. What we don’t know at all, is how. Was it willingly? I have no idea and certainly know one in the Bible would either. There isn’t really any first hand witnesses.
But lets assume he did for arguments sake, where is the sacrifice? you know, the one that all Christendom and all the modern churches base themselves on?
For the life of me I can’t see it. I can see a death, probably unwilling but who knows,What I can’t see is why Jesus as son of God being relocated to his father would or should be called a sacrifice? it goes further, God re-animated him on earth as a person.. he was alive again this is totally different to a “human death” of a family member which if put in a similar circumstance would be a sacrifice.
I don’t see how he could possibly die for “our” sins? The two events cannot be related, and if they could be then, surely everyone gets into heaven irrespective of gate width?
How do you see this differently?
Ivan
LikeLike
*Beyond this, the death of Jesus is interpreted in the new testament as having a special global significance. This significance depends on stuff that I find it difficult to speculate on*
Its worth remembering that in the era of Jesus there were no Gospels or Holy Bible. (There was the Torah of course) but no bible.
The works that make up the Bible, are largely from people that never met or knew Jesus. They speculate. The information they have, is the same information both you and I have.
This information, is mistake laden, full of contradictions, and missing many key ideas and lastly, in many cases demonstrably wrong.
So we could in fact speculate:
This is the work of men living in a primitive bronze age culture. They passionately believed in devils,demons and ghosts. They were extremely superstitious because they were lacking a whole body of knowledge of the natural world we call science. They could very likely, lets say extremely likely to have been wrong on their assumptions of the world.
regards
Ivan
LikeLike
This is the work of men living in a primitive bronze age culture. They passionately believed in devils,demons and ghosts
Ivan, this is hardly a scientific or a rigorous argument! There are many things that we believe true now that science will prove to be upside down in the near future. It does not follow that everything that we think is wrong.
In the same way, one can’t put all those in the past away as ‘primitive’ simply because they were prescientific! What would western civilisation have been without Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. These are folks who lived in cultures that were even more superstitious than the Jewish thinkers whom you so easily dismiss.
Besides, common sense should tell us that religious or philosophical belief does not mean that a person is less interested in truth. Those who ignore physical truth do not survive for long. Cultures and individuals who are more responsive to physical realities will be expected to do better with physical survival than those who choose to misinterpret what their senses tell them. In comparison with all the cultures around them, the Jews were in fact the least superstitious of the lot!
LikeLike
Oh my, Sam, you can’t be serious? Its “unscientific”? Your right in that I have not seen double blind trials on human inflicted by demons yet, not the botanical work on cursed fig trees, I am also yet to see the double blind study on putting demons into pigs.
But we could really loosely claim that all this falls under the superstitious category couldn’t we?
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan, just ran into an interesting and fair summary of the redemptive trend that can be clearly seen in the bible with regards to adultery.
http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/adultery.htm
Powerful evidence that even atheists can honestly read and understand the bible!
LikeLike
Thanks Sam, been there,read that.
Hey, have you ever read this article on the ethics of Jesus?
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/JesusEthics.htm
Ivan
LikeLike
*Powerful evidence that even atheists can honestly read and understand the bible!*
Yeah Sam, we are like little non-believing supermen. I have found in lots of cases that if you want an expert view on Biblical matters its often the atheist dude that has studied it properly and from a few different angles. Some of us even have the concordances and other reference material.
Ivan
LikeLike
Sam,
Some time earlier, we talked about the bit in the Bible that related to the resurrection of Jesus. It was the statement about people rising from their graves and walking into the town of Jerusalem.Do you remember this Sam? I understood, that you thought this part of the Holy Bible was probably misreported as did I. There would be obvious problems physically, people buried in states of decay digging there way out etc, and not to mention that this series of resurrections serve even less purpose than the main one of Jesus. I remember you commenting that you thought maybe there was some small seismic event, a small earthquake or the like with its effects exaggerated which is entirely reasonable given the people of the time.
What I don’t understand is why you wouldn’t apply this reasoning more widely to many of the other events of miracles,magic and resurrection? Why does your sense of reason cut in, but cut out at other events? If this has been misreported, couldn’t equally the lesser miracle stories also be? If people accidentally exaggerated or got caught up in the moment without the power of reasoning and understanding we have now of the Earth, why wouldn’t we be extremely dubious about the whole document? I address the question to Christians in general and not just your own good self Sam. What do you think?
I have a major problem here in travelling further, I not only don’t have faith in the general movement of Christianity, I have no faith in its supporting documentation. There hasn’t been a time in my life that I have known so much about Textual critics, the Bible itself, and surrounding historical documentation, history of faiths and the church in general. Its moved me up from just being an atheist to being a quite extreme kind of version. Its made me all the more curious as to how you, yourself have managed to come to terms as you have with your understanding of faith. What you let in and what you don’t.
LikeLike
Dear Sam,
About a year ago ( I think) I was thrown off of a Christian site for asking to many impertinent questions. The one that really got me shown the door was this: I asked the guy running the site, if he heard an internal voice asking him to do to his own son what was asked of Abraham, would he cut his young boys throat? Its a legitimate question to me, to ask a Christian, the Isaac and Abraham story so often described as an example of Gods love.
I have never understood this, if the story is related with another God doing the “invoking” it quickly becomes an issue of either child abuse or attempted murder. I have difficulty in seeing this story differently.
The chap who had the site evaded answering me big time and I kept asking.. His response before hit the eject button was that he would only listen to Godly command if it fitted inside his Christian framework and followed his ideas of God.
This gets me back to you and I. How can we know what is what, if the whole shebang is all the work of common men, believing in either a misconception or a possible event of a deity. People are often subject to mass delusions, I can offer some recent examples, but you also would know of varying ones in religious circles amongst people believing in differing religions to your Sam. We see this almost every day. Almost every page of the Bible appears to me as a work of fiction or exaggeration to a titanic degree.
Jesus appears to me as a self made prophet, who wrongly predicted the end of the world and accidentally got himself murdered. I read glossed over passages of him getting angry, and I imagine him (do you have the expression “spitting the dummy”?) spitting the dummy frequently, at crowds, at unbelievers, at people in his way. I see him as a simple man possibly wise, but again I don’t know what was said is actually Jesus and what’s not, I am also aware of his deliberate intention of being misunderstood possibly to appear wiser than he in fact was. I suspect his stock in trade was “mystery” and being a special “conduit” of God not dissimilar to how modern day Popes or heads of various denominations see themselves now.
I guess I see the man and fill in the blanks in a very different way to you Sam.
Sam if you got the order that Abraham did with your own child, what would you do?
LikeLike
Sam,
Re your answer at 656:
*Ivan, this is hardly a scientific or a rigorous argument! There are many things that we believe true now that science will prove to be upside down in the near future. It does not follow that everything that we think is wrong.*
It wasn’t meant as “scientific” but it is plenty “rigorous” enough Sam. There is simply no comparison to the body of work we call science and their beliefs of the sort that one could cast demons into herds of swine. Yes, science is constantly updated, these Bronze age people clung to a set of unchanged dogma. Its chalk and cheese, you know this Sam.
*In the same way, one can’t put all those in the past away as ‘primitive’ simply because they were prescientific! What would western civilisation have been without Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. These are folks who lived in cultures that were even more superstitious than the Jewish thinkers whom you so easily dismiss.*
Yes I can Sam. I can separate superstition and magic from what we now know of the world through science. Yes, the ancient Greeks began the first real scientific enquiry, but you and I know this isn’t Plato we are discussing. We are seeking some kind of truth from early Bronze age documents that report facts such as cursed fig trees, world wide flood events, 4000 year old Earths, creation myths, demons, Devils and Gods. If your saying there is grains of truth here, I have some land I want to show you.
*Besides, common sense should tell us that religious or philosophical belief does not mean that a person is less interested in truth.*
Didn’t say that Sam. I suspect they were, I also expect they were very capable of creating there very own truth from superstition,magic, demons,angels etc. But I wouldn’t want my life to depend on these “truths” of yours.
*Those who ignore physical truth do not survive for long. Cultures and individuals who are more responsive to physical realities will be expected to do better with physical survival than those who choose to misinterpret what their senses tell them.*
Actually, this isn’t true at all really Sam. There are plenty of exceptions to this rule.
*In comparison with all the cultures around them, the Jews were in fact the least superstitious of the lot!*
I would like to ask you to prove this assertion. But I know your time is very limited. Lets agree that they were plenty superstitious enough and enough to get things very wrong.
kind regards
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan, apologies for a very late reply.
“I can separate superstition and magic from what we now know of the world through science. Yes, the ancient Greeks began the first real scientific enquiry, but you and I know this isn’t Plato we are discussing. We are seeking some kind of truth from early Bronze age documents” (my emphasis)
Well, I guess that’s the whole point of what we are discussing, tho where you and I will draw those lines seems to be the issue! Each document will have to be treated as an ancient source from an ancient civilisation and judged on its own merits.
The idea of ‘biblical studies’ and related stuff like ANE history, for which the biblical documents do form part of the source material, is indeed a fruitful place to exercise one’s critical ability. Some will give more or less weight to this or that and that is the warp and weft of a scientific disussion.
Of course there is bronze age stuff there as well as much of later origin and the NT is all within just the last couple of thousand years, but the fact that it is ancient does not in itself make it any more suspect. If that were so, the amount of superstition (and wrong science) that is present in today’s world should make all of recent ‘history’ equally suspect.
In point of fact, science is an integral part of any ancient civilisation and so too is superstition, figuring out what is what is what it’s all about…
LikeLike
That is what I find most interesting of all Sam, Is where you draw your lines. Its darn interesting how we make our decisions and maintain our little bias.
regards
Ivan,
Sam how is your daughter and sister in law?
LikeLike
Should have been daughter and sister?
Ivan
LikeLike
Hey I know this is a non comment, but given the nature of our discussion I didn’t think it wise to hang on to question at number 666.
Ivan
LikeLike
Question 37.
Sam,
Recent letters written by the late Mother Theresa, make mention that she has not once heard the voice of either God or Jesus. Apparently she had been listening intently but wrote that she in fact never felt or heard from her Diety. I have heard several people mention this recently, and the thought has occurred to them during a Church services. Nobody ever hears from God. Why is that Sam?
Question. 38. Listening to Bishop Shelby Spong speak today, he made the comment that God certainly is NOT a Christian. What is God then exactly if not a Christian?
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan –
Do you think I should put up a “Sam, Are You Okay?” post? Sam has undergone some traumatic events lately. Maybe we should see if he’d like to step aside gracefully from the conversation that’s been going on here for so many months.
LikeLike
John,
I think that he just has a lot going on in his life for the moment. He might be a little to busy to chat on here right now.I am sure he will be back eventually.
Ivan
LikeLike
Sam is indeed not doing so great right now, but does intend to be back at this very interesting discussion as soon as the fog in his head clears a bit. It’s a bit thicker than usual right now!
LikeLike
Heard and understood. completely.
Take care of yourself man.
Kind regards
Ivan
LikeLike
From 654: I don’t see how he could possibly die for “our” sins? The two events cannot be related, and if they could be then, surely everyone gets into heaven irrespective of gate width? How do you see this differently?
Ivan, this appears to be at the very heart of your argument against Xtianity. We Xtians identify ourselves as such because we have experienced for ourselves that our Saviour lives. It’s only after we have this knowledge that the idea that Jesus could be a “saviour” even arises.
How this has happened is beyond me and is also beyond the idea’s greatest proponent, the apostle Paul. Paul just states that it is so and he does so in the context of believing in a God of justice, righteousness and love, so that these three ideas come together in the death of Jesus.
We find that Jesus himself had at the heart of his preaching the idea that any person who realises that they are a child of a loving and just father will emulate the father’s selfless love in their own actions to their neighbors. The act of loving is itself salvific. The greatest extent that one can go to is to sacrifice one’s own life for this truth, that love in action is a complete identification of our own individual self with our father, and that’s as close as I can come to understanding what happened to me after I “met” Jesus and what he means by his gospel.
And it is the best news possible, that i do not need to continue in a life of selfishness, but can be transformed into a much better person by identifying myself with my father!
Now, as to the scope of what Jesus did, there’s no doubt in my mind that the invitation is open to all. Whether we as wilful creatures will choose to accept that invitation is up to us, but indeed, whatever Jesus accomplished can and should save everyone is how I see God’s intention and desire.
In Matthew 28 Jesus makes this invitation, ‘come to me all you who labour and are heavy laden and I will give you rest…’ and I do think he means just that, identify yourself with me, with our loving father!
LikeLike
Sorry, that should read Matthew 11:28!
LikeLike
Sam,
when you say : We Xtians identify ourselves as such because we have experienced for ourselves that our Saviour lives. It’s only after we have this knowledge that the idea that Jesus could be a “saviour” even arises.
How do you see this person who was murdered, then ascended bodily to heaven as “living” ?
I appreciate what you say about Paul, my wondering is just if Paul himself, whoever he actually was, met Jesus in the first place or even transposed the actions or thoughts of Jesus with anything like say a court document.
Ivan
Is it a feeling? a Guess ? just an expression? Or did you have something more tangible as a visitation?
LikeLike
Well, one of the ‘essential’ signs is that one’s thinking and behaviour wants to change into something closer to what the NT describes as Jesus’s ethic – what Xtianity has traditionally dubbed as “repentance” though that seems to me to be a bit of a negative term for what is actually a very positive change. A more complex dimension, more difficult to describe, for me is that i sense a completely different person who is now in conversation with my own self.
I’m not sure that any evidence exists that Jesus had met Paul before the incident on the road. It is vaguely possible given that Paul is a young man who is politically involved and he may have been in the anti-Jesus camp even before Jesus crucifixion, but that’s pure speculation.
LikeLike
if Paul himself, whoever he actually was, met Jesus in the first place or even transposed the actions or thoughts of Jesus with anything like say a court document.
I’m not sure that I get exactly what you are meaning here?
sam
LikeLike
Sam,
I don’t quite understand how wanting to live by a certain moral standard and engaging in an inner conversation with pretty much your good self, amounts to the same thing as a deceased person being alive. I mean he is alive as Shakespeare is alive? Is this the same?
Regarding Paul, I meant that we don’t really know anything concrete and first hand about any of the disciples. We don’t know if any of them really even knew Jesus let alone recorded anything he really said. It would have been easier if Jesus had not been illiterate and actually left his own writings. Would have made things easier hey?
Ivan
LikeLike
But Ivan, all conversations are essentially internal ones. I have to ‘take in’ to myself what ‘you’ say for it to make sense to me and to that I respond. Im just assuming based mostly on the coherence of the persona that I detect in your writings, that you actually are one real person Ivan who is communicating.
Any text also speaks to us, tho most PoMo types don’t seem to think that one can really find the author in the text! So, yes, a bit like Shakespeare except that S was writing fiction, sometimes based on history, and sometimes deliberately mixing the history up, so that reading S one might believe that there was a Richard III who was a king of England, but one would be wise to check it out without taking it as ‘gospel’ truth.
Our scholars are a very confused bunch and most of them seem to have left off their common sense as soon as (or even before) they picked up their PhD s.
It seems obvious to me that Paul was a historical figure and it seems likely that the author of Luke-Acts was his friend the doctor, Luke.
It also seems rather obvious to me that any person who has had his life turned right round by someone who recently died and who doesn’t know all that much about them, would be intensely curious about that person’s life and teachings.
The lack of genuine early traditions about Jesus points unerringly to the fact that as with all genuine Jewish teachers, he shunned these sorts of personal traditions and instead concentrated on orally training his disciples in whatever he as a teacher was an expert in.
Luke gathers these traditions with great care and puts them together into a unified story largely because of the need of these early believers to be given the actual traditions that Jesus had taught.
So, there’s no doubt in my mind that when Paul talks about ‘preaching the gospel’ and of being an apostollos, he is referring to these same traditions that Luke (and others) were so assiduously gathering.
They are oral traditions and there will be variations of reporting, but nothing at all like what our ‘scholars’ mostly see!
You assume that Jesus was illiterate, but there is no evidence for or against that so it’s a moot point.
LikeLike
Sam,
There is no evidence period, when you really look at it. I suspect, and I am not isolated here, that Jesus was almost certainly illiterate and we would have something of his writings today had he not been, Detecting my writings and deducing a life behind it isn’t difficult at all. But detecting a “living” Jesus from what is left of writings, written many years after his death and altered interminably by scribes and the Church is a whole other matter. I don’t quite put your explanation and the concept of a person surviving an afterlife quite together in my head.
We don’t know much about any of the disciples. Yes, Luke and Paul could have been historical figures, but almost no real original evidence exists of what they did save or write or know.
Your taking the whole document at face value like a set of accounting records, but who knows what they really represent.
The ancient churches protection of the image of Jesus over the early centuries has fostered thousands of alterations and changes, the original material was of people that were in many cases not at the original events and may not have even been alive. What we are left with isn’t much of a biography Sam.
Sam, how are you doing my friend?
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan,
I’m slowly getting back into something of a routine and that’s good. The kids are both doing ok though we are now a bit worried about my wife’s health, but the situation being what it is it’s difficult for us to do anything about that right now with her family running interference. Makes me mad but that’s life…
I’m not “taking the whole document at face value”. I’m giving the persons/personas that are being coherently projected the respect that they deserve. Textual and other interesting stuff like sources and redactors will all come later. You are facing a set of documents that purport to broadly all tell different bits of one story. We can see the range of variations in the parallel passages. Don’t take Bart’s word for it, he has in fact coauthored a book with his mentor (Metzger) that shows a much more balanced and nuanced view of the textual issues (i did have that on that old reading list too).
You will find that Paul has a very powerful personality and it is one that comes through in all the various writings that he did and quite strongly too. Luke’s style in Luke-Acts is also quite unique, and building such fictional characters who continue to speak to us after 2k years is no mean feat at all – i definitely doubt if those geniuses existed!
I’m certainly not saying that there are no problems but even an extreme skeptic like Bultmann still ended up with a stubborn kernel of historicity that just refused to go away.
LikeLike
Sam,
I am glad some things are coming together for you.
Isn’t the truth more that they are four different stories by four different people, who look as if they were not actually present at the events they discribe? Wouldn’t they at least be factually coherent if this were the case?
Ivan
LikeLike
Yes, certainly the four gospels are written by four or more different authors. There is some evidence of possible borrowing but i think this is better explained by overlap in the oral traditions. There’s evidence of a lot of different people’s recollections getting put together differently by our main authors and there is strong evidence of the independence of some of the lines of tradition that do seem to overlap.
The whole picture textually and critically can be a nightmare that 2 source and other options are just unable to sufficiently simplify. But, just as with having many copies of manuscripts each hosting different differences, what it points to is that Jesus indeed lived and that the broad outlines of his story as well as a lot of little details have come through pretty unscathed!
The scenario for Paul is even stronger and with fewer doubts over the period of composition and in fact with is little evidence of tampering with his own words particularly for those epistles that we are pretty confident that he wrote – Romans, Galatians, Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Corinthians …
LikeLike
Sam,
The scenario for Paul is even stronger? You have sighted one of his actual original letters?
Regards
Ivan
LikeLike
Question 37. Recent letters written by the late Mother Theresa, make mention that she has not once heard the voice of either God or Jesus. Apparently she had been listening intently but wrote that she in fact never felt or heard from her Diety. I have heard several people mention this recently, and the thought has occurred to them during a Church services. Nobody ever hears from God. Why is that Sam?
I don’t know about Mother Theresa. For me, when I read the NT and particularly the gospels I think that I get something of what God is trying to say to me. But it is not limited to that at all – a walk in the forest, sometimes clouds, mountains, a heck of a lot of stuff and situations in which God speaks to me.
Question. 38. Listening to Bishop Shelby Spong speak today, he made the comment that God certainly is NOT a Christian. What is God then exactly if not a Christian?
I agree with that statement of Spong’s though a lot of his stuff is just silly. God is certainly not a Christian!
LikeLike
Re Paul’s letters: One doesn’t need to have ‘the original’ (though that would be nice!) what one does need to see is that the person, the character is coherent and unique. With that as base, interacting with what the person says and finding meaning in it, disagreeing with it or whatever becomes possible, for you are dealing with, communicating with, an individual
LikeLike
Here’s a conservative evangelical seminary professor who is willing to challenge some pretty powerful fellow Christians of the far right, God predestines bad things too, variety. Just thought you might find Dr. Ben Witherington III’s take a bit interesting:
http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2007/09/religion-in-news-god-gets-sued.html
LikeLike
Sam,
How do we know its coherent and unique if we don’t have the original or even anything close to that? We don’t know if Paul had anything to do with Jesus in the first instance do we? Communicating with an individual? Would be nice to know which individual, copier or scribe?
Thanks Sam for the link, I always read them.
Re:685. I have similar experiences, only I know I am talking with myself. But I find this extremely interesting how you interpret your God Sam.
Kind regards
Ivan
How are you Sam? How is your daughter?
LikeLike
Thanks for that link Sam. It was remarkable.
kind regards
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan, I’ll mail all of you guys shortly with an update. Basically and briefly it’s better news – Aruna’s health problems are not of a life-threatening variety and my daughter, after missing almost three weeks of college, seems to have done her mid-term exams ok.
Well as to characters, my experience is they either work (hold together as believable persons) or don’t. It’s very difficult to fictionally create a ‘realish’ person. The best of our writers struggle. Whereas historical figures even if poorly reported still seem to ‘come to life’ that much more easily.
My policy is first to allow myself to enter the text by first suspending disbelief. Try to work with the text to really get into it, till the spirit of it’s story seems to naturally drag me in. This is what authors like Gadamer and Thiselton are on about – getting those totally separate horizons to fuse.
Then, after giving it my best shot, I can sit back and evaluate. By now it will have become obvious whether the thing can hang together properly or not. If it is fiction, the falseness will show.
It’s a general approach, I’d do the same thing with Shakespeare or with a modern author for that matter!
LikeLike
Re:685. I have similar experiences, only I know I am talking with myself. But I find this extremely interesting how you interpret your God Sam.
This is funny! So, all along here’s God been talking to you and you yet insist that S/He doesn’t exist? You actually prefer to believe that you are schizoid?
LikeLike
Dear Sam,
You actually prefer to believe that you are schizoid?
Lets just say I am not a well puppy.
It’s very difficult to fictionally create a ‘realish’ person.
Hey, what about Sherlock Holmes? Doesn’t he get actual mail? Do the disciples get mail?
Sam,
If it were found out some time that none of the disciples knew or met Jesus or that the writings were from totally different people altogether, would it make a difference to you? That is, if it was largely fiction in the end?
Ivan
LikeLike
This is funny! So, all along here’s God been talking to you and you yet insist that S/He doesn’t exist? You actually prefer to believe that you are schizoid?
Hang on a moment… what if its you that’s schizoid? Your hearing the voices of someone else aren’t you??
Can we get a psychiatric opinion?
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan, yes, there you have the two main possibilities, or we could just both be off our rockers in different ways. I trust you realise that I was lightly pulling your leg!
The psychiatrist/psychologist/analyst would have to be a sane one – I nominate Dr. Doyle. I’m sure to come out looking crazier than you could possibly expect!
The fictional character that gets the most mail is certainly Santa! No, that wasn’t my point. There are in the literature some pretty well made characters but those characters tend to remain where they have been left. Hamlet is a character that we would only expect to meet when the play is performed. He is not a character that stays with one outside of the play! Yet, when we think of relating to god, in any religion, one expects god to keep communicating.
But I’m not talking about that either. I simply point out that if you want to enjoy e.g. Shakespeare, the very first thing you need to do is to enter into the scenes as they play out. Suspension of disbelief, and positively letting your imagination loose to jump the hurdles is imperative, and that’s where you have to begin with anything. You start by letting it in, absorbing what it has to say and then there’s plenty of time to be critical with it later.
LikeLike
Santa Isn’t real ??
all these years..I feel so foolish.
Ivan
LikeLike
**He is not a character that stays with one outside of the play! Yet, when we think of relating to god, in any religion, one expects god to keep communicating.**
But Sam, for many people and most of them Christians, this is precisely what appears to happen. One thing I have noticed in my discussions over the years is that nobody actually hears from God or Jesus in any practical and real sense. The recent letters from Mother Theresa, make mention of her never once hearing from God. I suspect its very common. Its what you would expect of a character that is all human invention. If God did indeed communicate,OT style, we would all be theists.
**You start by letting it in, absorbing what it has to say and then there’s plenty of time to be critical with it later.**
ever been critical with it yourself Sam?
kind regards
Ivan
LikeLike
I’ve been wondering where to start in trying to tackle the excellent series of questions that Ivan had posted starting from comment #606 right up to #635 and then a couple after that too but those I already sorta started on.
Finally thought i’d start with something relatively simple and leave the mind-bending stuff for later…
19. I am numbering these so you don’t get overwhelmed Sam.[sic]Just one at a time in your own time. OK?
The Character of Jesus the teacher:
Now this is going to take a couple of comments or it will just be a bit too unwieldy so as a general intro let me start by saying that we can start by trying to get at the context of individual sayings in order to make better sense out of them rather than tackling the issues that are seemingly raised just as if this was a part of an interview with someone that we saw on the telly last night.
Fortunately, getting things back into context is first of all a matter of looking at what the author(s) have made of it. So the questions to start with are stuff like, is this a part of a block of connected text? If so what are the connections that bind this block together? As a whole, what does this block (pericope) contribute to this story? Who are the protagonists and to whom is this pericope primarily addressed?
In the process we will find that the texts do speak but perhaps with a different message than what Ivan has heard Christians stating as the summaries of what and who Jesus is to them…
“he’s the lamb”, “our saviour”, “the king of peace”, “the embodiment of love”, amongst the many other names they associate with a loving, merciful nature.I have had many of these statements made to me over the years Sam. So, is Jesus a nice guy? Let’s examine the compassion and veracity of this Sam?
LikeLike
The Character of Jesus the teacher:
Christians often make the claim of Jesus that , “he’s the lamb”, “our saviour”, “the king of peace”, “the embodiment of love”, amongst the many other names they associate with a loving, merciful nature.I have had many of these statements made to me over the years Sam. So, is Jesus a nice guy? Let’s examine the compassion and veracity of this Sam?
In Matthew 10:34 Jesus says that he has come to “destroy families” by making family members “hate” each other. He has “come not to send peace, but a sword.” Okay…
Jesus says, “Don’t imagine that I came to bring peace on earth! No, rather a sword lf you love your father, mother, sister, brother, more than me, you are not worthy of being mine. “The real beauty of this verse is that Jesus demands people truly love him more then they “love” their own family. I ask you Sam how can we love someone that we can not see or interact with? Love is an emotion pertaining to physical existence not to faithful ideologies, yet God threatens you with Death just because your love for your mother maybe stronger than your love for him ? Do you love your parents more than Jesus? What about your wife or children? “Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.” Matthew 10:21
This section of teaching by Jesus is set in his instructions to the 12 disciples before they go on a mission to preach the gospel and to heal. 10:21 is a prophecy of how people will generally respond to him and to the message that he is asking them to preach. They will face persecution, just as their master has, and they are not to fear it. It is possible that v34 should be read as connected to vv32-33, but my feeling is that Jesus has moved on to another thought and this is a prophetic picture of the overall effect of releasing his gospel into the world. His is a message of peace but it will result in war as the reaction to it will be violent. Relatedly, the gospel is an ultimate test of one’s allegiance. Commitment should be total even in the face of bitter opposition from within one’s own family.
Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn’t the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. Matthew 5:17 Is this the teacher you follow Sam?
Jesus saw himself as solidly within the tradition of prophets who have been sent by God to call the people back to following the one God. Moses was considered the foremost prophet of the OT and the law was the original ultimate guideline to obedience to God. Within this law, Jesus throughout the Gospels is arguing that the religious leaders have lost sight of the wood for the trees. What Jesus means by fulfilling the law, is to radically interpret it in the direction that he sees that the law points and indeed was always intended to point. The end resuslt is that the law boils down to loving God and loving one’s neighbors. By preaching and teaching that this is the law and by showing people both in his own lifestyle and in his teachings how the law of love is to be lived out Jesus upholds and fulfills the law.
In Matthew 15: 4-7 Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not “killing” disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” Is this the practice of discipline in the Carr household Sam? Abandon your wife and children for Jesus and he’ll give you an eternal reward. Jesus asks that his followers abandon their children to follow him. To leave your child is a form of abuse or even neglect isn’t it Sam? from Matthew 19:29
I’m not entirely sure of what your problem is with this passage. Jesus is contrasting what respect parents should be given according to the very law that the pharisees have been challenging his practices with, with their own contradictory teaching that someone can donate to the temple what they otherwise had intended to give for the upkeep of their parents. If the parents are left in penury and starving, the kids shouldn’t feel too bad about it for they have done a greater service to God by donating to the temple.
Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law. Mark 7:9 Bit harsh is isn’t it Sam?Mark 7:9 is a parallel passage to Matt:15 that we just discussed and amounts to much the same thing. Jesus is not advocating any killing, he is by contrast showing how ridiculously contradictory the pharisees are being.
Luke 12:47 Jesus okays beating slaves. I know we talked about this already, but you never said whether you agreed with the teacher? Are we going to beat our slaves Sam? Yes/ No ? Bear in mind I am kind of “indentured” to wife number 3. I have a low pain threshold.Well, one could give the usual reason that this is a parable and parables shouldn’t be taken too seriously on their details for they are intended to stress only one ‘main point’ but that is an explanation that I find less than satisfactory. I prefer to see this as the sort of realism that drives home the stark realities that Jesus is trying to get into his disciple’s heads. The end will come unexpectedly and you had better be prepared, for to not be prepared will be the ultimate disaster.
I do trust that the good wife will be more lenient when next you incur her wrath and my apologies to her for taking up so much of your time with this discussion!
LikeLike
Hey Sam,
Wife is fine with me discussing stuff with you.
The end resuslt is that the law boils down to loving God and loving one’s neighbors.
Boy Sam, that law sure has always worked a treat hasn’t it?
Ivan
LikeLike
Sam,
I here your various rationalizations but I hear from many other Christians that get a totally different emphasis from sometimes the exact same set of writings. This happens with every single solitary section of biblical understanding. Why is this? Why wouldn’t we just be down to thousands of variations of interpretation instead of close to probably a million that exist today?
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan, I think the fact is that ‘interpretation’ is a very private reality. One individual interacting with one text, and in fact the reality is that each time a particular person opens their mind to a particular text, the ‘interpretation’ that comes out will be slightly or even majorly different.
Thinkers like Gadamer, Wittgenstein and for bible study Thiselton have tried to teach the rest of us a bit about this but have largely failed. Instead, we tend to feel that as we are speaking the same language, that meanings are fixed and can be objectively teased out to everyone’s satisfaction, but it simply is not so.
The problem arises when your reading is exactly the opposite of mine. What we can do is to try to explain as clearly as we can why we think that the text says x rather than y and allow others to judge which is more reasonable, but in the final analysis, what I see Jesus saying is that however we got his point (about love, justice, truth, mercy…) that we get it is much more important than exactly how we got there.
LikeLike
Sam,
How so we know that this is in fact his point? Consider the language translations from Jesus to the Bible you hold in your hand? Consider, that none of the words of that bible we written directly by Jesus. Consider, that we don’t know for sure if the people who first committed them to script even heard these words.Consider the thousands of changes to the words backwards and forwards to meet the growing dogma of the early church.
Was love,justice,truth,mercy the messages? Could be, but there is plenty of opposite opinion. The problem I see presently is how to get on the same page to even begin to get an idea what this 2000 year old desert dwelling apocalyptic prophet with incorrect prophecies actually meant? I visit churches Sam and everyone has a different idea. I see shops set up in one of the big churches, money changer type shops “in” the Church.
What does all this mean? What is/was the message?
Regards
Ivan
LikeLike
Hey Sam,
Did you read the review of John Cornwell’s book “Darwin’s Angel: An Angelic riposte to the God delusion” by Amanda Gefter in this weeks New Scientist Magazine? Its on page 53. Have a read.
Ivan.
LikeLike
Ivan, I come back to the fact that collaborative creative genius on the scale that you suppose to exist is much more improbable than the possibility that these records actually do (imperfectly) reflect a real individual genius. There certainly are distortions but the very multiplicity and also imperfect duplication are actually a great asset!
The way in which people get to the message can be through a literalist route (though i think that’s rarer) or through a critical process where after allowing oneself to critically engage with the texts, one finally concludes that this man is real and his message is unique, and that the challenge that he issued 2k years ago still calls one to repentance and to obedience.
On the other hand, amongst Christians who refuse to allow themselves any critique, it is the religion that then takes over and indoctrinates people to obey its own dictates and these religious priorities rarely find common ground with whatever Jesus was about. As with any religion, the message, safely packaged up not to rock the boat, is delivered and that actually empties words like ‘gospel’ and ‘repentance’ of their true meaning.
That truth though, is a very dangerous truth. It cannot long be contained however carefully the particular branch of religion tries. Sadly, some who start questioning actually think that they are thereby losing their faith, such is the fear that has been built up of asking honest questions.
Someone who allows themselves to actually interact with Jesus as he speaks through the pages of the NT, will find that his message is basically anti-organised religion, it is antinationalistic, it is antitribal, and as John Doyle points out it even subverts the self… If one accepts that there is a God, and that what matters is God’s rule, then no other thing or ism can be allowed to gain ascendancy in our minds!
Paul picks up this theme with his talk of the Lordship of Jesus but that talk is what is then subverted to mean that if Jesus is Lord then we have to do whatever the religion that seems to uphold the Lordship of Jesus says, but that is never what Paul says. It is always the individual who has to meet Jesus and respond personally and 1-1 to this Jesus and his kingdom that is ‘not of this world’!
LikeLike
Ivan, the community of archaeologists is starting to wake up just a little:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/09/30/raiders_of_the_faux_ark/
LikeLike
Ivan, the online feeds that I get from New Scientist didn’t have the review but I read the one by Sally Vickers from the Times Online and it sounded as though Cornwell has done an excellent job of gently putting Dawkins diatribe in perspective.
LikeLike
Ivan, one of our little exchanges speaks to something the Erdman has posted, so I hope you don’t mind that I’m going to quote you over there!
LikeLike
Sam,
I will cut and paste her review. Its not the book, its how she describes the reconciliation of the two views. At heart, its about what you and I discuss daily. I will have to get the book and have a read, I don’t know anything about it to vouch for its quality. The review didn’t review the actual book well, just the argument underpinning it. I wasn’t suggesting anything as a bolstering my case, I like to read good arguments and I don’t care really which side they come from.
regards
Ivan
How are you and the children ?
LikeLike
Scanned and emailed to you the review privately Sam.
Ivan
LikeLike
That was a good article Sam.
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan, I lurk around in some academic (biblical) discussion circles and the general feeling that i get is that while there are some fundamentalist types amongst the scholars (Devers, Kitchen…) most of the scholars are not interested in ‘proving that the bible is right’ but rather are seriously into interpreting and understanding the actual data in as scientific a manner as possible.
Incidentally some biblical stories are supported and many are not but that is as much because of a paucity of physical evidence as anything else.
for example Much has been made by some fundies about a Tsunami after the Santorini eruption perhaps causing the parting of the Red Sea (Moses, Exodus), but this is a misuse of scientific evidence. It also surely misses the point of the story of the Exodus. For that story God needs to be the extraordinarily powerful God who could cowe down a mighty Pharaoh.
The stories in the OT are about how God took a very stubborn and willful people and made them follow one God and that too a very particular God. The battle between God and this people is what the OT describes.
Each story has to be dealt with as an individual block of text and interpreted in the light of the purpose that it serves before we get into how history has been used and even creatively used by the author to make the story work within its intended and historical context.
LikeLike
This also connect with the review that you sent me. I agree that the debate has moved in a different direction. Dawkins was attacking a fundamentalist mentality in religion but the majority of believers have not thought things through and are in a conservative mode of thinking largely because their religions (as organisations) don’t want people to think too much. In this sense, Marx was absolutely right that religion is the opiate of the people.
Just contrast this with the type of teaching that we see Jesus and Paul doing in the NT.
So in a real sense, Dawkins has attacked a straw man. He is a powerful and charismatic speaker but he does need to stop stereotyping his opponents and start discussing things in a more open manner. There are many scientists who do this especially in America where science and religion seem to be on a collision course right through one’s education, still I’ve had many profs who were atheist or agnostic but who helped students to think things through for themselves without criticising and in the end that is a much more effective approach.
LikeLike
Sam,
I don’t see it in exactly the same light. To me, Dawkins was taking aim pretty squarely at the general level of religious thinking in the United States. I am not sure that you have been party to the same level of scientific and (Biblical ignorance at times) that I have witnessed. Its just abysmal Sam. Coming towards the subject as an unbeliever allows me to ask the simple questions. I would suggest that you as a Christian, would more likely make the assumption that you and the others are on the same page its amazing how many times its not the case.
They don’t come close to critical thinking or even a junior high school understanding of the more simple aspects of science either. They live in denial of truth, for the continuation of a living fantasy. I can’t know this for sure but I guess a huge percentage have never really acknowledged what their own idea of God is or heaven,hell,afterlife,angels etc. Its “Magic just happens” in there world. I applaud Dawkins for stimulating debate and having people think for the first time in their lives and really, for some people this will be the first real time.
I see your point with science and archaeological discoveries, I love that kind of thing myself. But I seriously doubt if its ever going to underpin Biblical mystics no matter how hard people would like to see it done. I am still waiting to see some basic evidence myself. Trust me here Sam, I don’t have high standards.
Kind regards
Ivan
LikeLike
I agree,that scientific ‘ignorance’ goes hand in hand with biblical ignorance. The same thing happens in business, for example, where plain biblical teaching on how business should be run is ignored but big books are written about how to biblically be a modern successful businessperson! Some very basic teachings of Jesus are studiously ignored like not lending for interest, always telling the truth, and always giving better than honest, fair value, when transacting (good measure, pressed down, running over).
The way our religion has been configured is that we are trained for things like science, the bible, and ethics, to occupy completely separate compartments in our minds. The one should never interact with the other! The type of questions that are freely asked in one field should not be applied to other areas of study.
Especially where understanding the bible is concerned, only church trained and approved teachers should ‘help’ people to understand what it’s all about!
Cultural Christianity becomes centered around a building ‘the church’ and getting together with the approved teachers there at least once a week to be spoon fed, made to feel guilty, made to feel forgiven and to also become a part of an exclusive circle of same-thinking individuals. The result is not only indoctrination but also an insularity from whatever is happening in the rest of the world and with the rest of humanity.
But I still think that Dawkins approach is counterproductive. We will be stung to improve only when we recognise that what someone says applies just as much to us. And this is where Dawkins fails. He overdramatises and generalises about fringe beliefs and immediately loses touch with the general reader.
LikeLike
Dear Sam,
You could be right, but its not been my experience this end. Since his book came out, Atheist groups and societies have been flooded with new members a lot of them revealing it started when they purchased Dawkins book. I know several that formally would have identified as Christian. Its started a new Political party down here called The Secular party. I don’t think it affects an enormous number of Christians, but somes times it must be possible that books like this construct a more thinking Christian, that has certainly happened also.
I would suggest Dawkins met his goals on it being published. It would depend on who that “general” reader was Sam.. was in Andy at the crossroads of faith who decided to embrace atheitism or was the general reader one of the people more in a Christian camp who was so offended he became “born again-again.” I heard that happen also.
Kind regards
Ivan
(Born right the first time)
LikeLike
Dear Sam,
I felt it made his point. I know of personally of people at the crossroads of life that embraced atheitism out of reading that book. It spawned the forming of the Secular party on Australia. The Atheist society has had a flood of new members. People realising there were like minded souls out there after reading the book.
I have seen the book inspire people to be reborn(again) after being reborn Christians.
I don’t think it loses touch with the general reader, incidently, I asked a few..I must have seen 10 or more copies in peoples hands in waiting rooms and cafes and I walk up and ask them what did you think? They all have replied that the book is an eye opener. I don’t know there religious views. But they all loved the book.
regards
Ivan
LikeLike
Hi Ivan, just saw your mail so this is a TEST of the acceptance potential of Ktismatics, for further comments on this thread…
LikeLike
Ivan got spam-caught twice — maybe JesusCreed finally figured out where he went.
LikeLike
John, I thought it was God.
Can the mail be recovered or its lost?
Ivan
LikeLike
I pulled two of them back from purgatory dated yesterday, which are now comments 715&716. Are there more?
LikeLike
I think that might have been it. Thanks for that John.
Kind regards
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan, there’s no question but that Dawkins is a both a powerful speaker and a writer of bestselling books. I also like his work, it has a bit of originality to it as well as being thought provoking, but “The God Delusion”, while being all of that does not help to stimulate the kind of debate that will eventually be useful. Dawkins wants to paint all of religion with the same brush and that’s insulting quite apart from being a basic untruth.
Most of what should be a levelheaded analysis in fact turns out to be a very biased and narrowly argued diatribe. In the end it sets back the debate, the real debate, that should be happening between all the religious minded and science.
The real problem seems to be a clash of organisations. The organsation calling itself Science vs. the organisation calling itself Religion. People like Stephen Gould tried to walk a middle road that encouraged compartmentalisation but I think that just helps to make religion more insular. There should be a give and take between reasonable voices on both sides and including those who straddle the divide, the scientists who have strong and particular faiths.
And I think that that’s the part of the point that the reviewer makes.
LikeLike
Ivan, for some reason my blog has taken a sudden disliking to your comments — even your most recent little one I had to retrieve from the spamcatcher. So if any more of your comments don’t show up send me an email: portalic@gmail.com
LikeLike
Sam,
I think I disagree again. I see Dawkins debate on religion as being most useful to both believers and non believers alike. Look at the discussion it evoked on web sites and in the general media. It got people arguing and thinking about their case. I thought this was a good thing Sam, hey and it got us together didn’t it?
Sam, do you see scientists with particular and strong faiths (of which I don’t think there is many) as having any more insights or knowledge of anything religious than say a local Pastor or the Pope? I don’t see their faith as making religion any more fact worthy or insightful
Kind regards
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan, getting to the question of faith for scientists, imo, a scientist who sets out to discover what God has done and how God has done it (this creation) is in a much better position to figure things out than a scientist who doesn’t believe in God. Most of the scientists who started science off were Christians or at least deists/theists, including Galileo, Newton and Einstein.
The scientist who does not believe in God (and who is honest) will run straight into David Hume’s critique, which, as far as i know, has yet to be successfully sidestepped from within a materialistic approach.
btw I also took the liberty of putting one of your questions to the crowd at jesuscreed, lets see what they do with it!
LikeLike
Which question Sam?
LikeLike
Ivan, you just mailed me the bit by Jon Jermey that follows the same simpleminded sort of thinking completely forgetting that Galileo was indeed a strong believer in God! That article also illustrates another facet of scientific method, for the fact of gravity, while easy to demonstrate, neither explains what gravity is, nor does it prevent Newton’s Laws from only being a working subset of Einstein’s Laws which in turn are…
whether the faith is strong may not make much difference. Whether the person has a particular faith may make a big difference! Religious beliefs like medieval versions of Christianity would be particularly bad and so would beliefs that revolve around irrational gods or bunches of gods who keep fighting with each other…
Now, as to whether scientists can save religion, I would hope that the presence of committed scientists within Christianity will start to make a difference and I do think that except for the American varieties of culturally conservative Christianity, the interaction of scientists with theologians is already making a big difference within theological circles. Unfortunately the reality that religion is a human organisation often obstructs progress. The money that runs the Org comes from donations (offerings) from the large numbers of members who have been brainwashed not to think. If they are allowed to think they will soon start questioning the doublespeak, and question the very existence of these same Orgs, so the alternative is to keep them as dumb as possible.
In turn what happens is that Christian academia keeps strictly to their ivory towers (generally in seminaries) and well away from voicing their real opinions to the believing public. Publications of technical papers are done in journals with obscure names that can only be accessed with expensive subscriptions. Even if you take the trouble to subscribe what you will find there is worse than double dutch and this failure to educate the general populace is really where I see stuff like creationism, and it’s PoMo cousin ID, coming from.
I believe that you will find very few seminary professors championing that debate (i could be wrong). The ring leaders will mostly be at best self-taught pseudoscholars, laypersons who have expertise in some other field but who have picked up a bit of the ancient languages and then sit and come up with a theory – a bit like me!
Incidentally, no one at jesuscreed so far is interested in taking up Deuteronomy 22!
LikeLike
Sam,
Where in the mix do you find the Jesus creed people? Would you see them as typical Christians? Do you see them a bit more like yourself?
Regards
Ivan
LikeLike
Bear in mind Jermey is just an opinion peice, they get lots of them on all kinds of subjects and I personally disagree (and agree) at times with many. It wasn’t meant to convey any personal view.
regards
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan, the Emerging Church phenomenon slowly started in the 90s but became something of a mass exodus from the mainline denominations in the last 5 years. This has shaken the established denominations as all of them have lost membership. Partly the movement is against establishment and partly it is to do with a much more pluralistic postmodern philosophy that wants to live and let live. There is also something of antinomianism and a rebellion against man made authority, as well as a feeling that we have got ourselves into a sort of logical straightjacket whereas the truth is more likely to be organic in nature (as opposed to the mechanistic bent of modernism).
In this wild mix, there are many who have started to come out of a very conservative, evangelical background. They want to explore but are still quite frightened of getting onto the ‘slippery slope’ from which they may not be able to save themselves. They find some of the more postmodern writings of leaders like Brian McLaren (which do question many of the basics of the Christian Institution’s long cherished beliefs) to be a bit too scary.
Scot Mcknight is a respected NT scholar and one who is standing in between. He still holds to most of orthodoxy theologically (as far as i can tell) but also appreciates the questions that are being asked and the real pluralism of beliefs ‘on the ground’. There are a few ‘more liberal’ types like myself and John Doyle that enjoy his debates, and I like it because otherwise one never gets to really exchange views with the more conservative brethren.
LikeLike
Sam,
Galileo was indeed a strong Catholic. If we look at modern times and look at people considered the top science people on the planet the majority are atheists or at best agnostics. I do know of some with a spiritual bent, but it relates poorly to Christian thinking. I have no idea if the science part of their education is behind their spiritual reasoning, but I would imagine it might play a part. The very few actively Christian science people that I have heard interviewed here in Oz, all reply that they compartmentalize the science from the religion. I guess they refuse to evaluate the two ideas with the same standards.
I am not sure at all science can save religion, but I am very sure it isn’t going to further it much at all. I love to listen to all kinds of different people on how they view and evaluate there own belief systems, its a very interesting topic. The thing I do note from academic to scientist to man in the street is that there is never any real new information. We evaluate and examine to death the same set of bronze age documentation and as you and I discussed many times, its not a great set of documents in the first place. I wish we had more. Science for all the respect I have for it, does not provide us with anything different in regards to Christianity, its this, that makes me wary of “great thinkers” who suddenly discover a spiritual side its nearly always based on my nothing new view.
But I do appreciate your views on the echelons verses the cheap seats, its the way I heard things were explained also. Sam, with the later paragraph you wrote me, where in the lines does Prosperity Christianity fall these days? I see this as the biggest growing area for Christians in this country.
Regards
Ivan
Email me how your doing ok?
LikeLike
Ivan, I am not sure at all science can save religion, but I am very sure it isn’t going to further it much at all
why so skeptical? of course the two are different kinds of things, modes of enquiry, which is what has made it easy for religion and philosophy to compartmentalise themselves off from what science is doing on the ground, but that doesn’t mean that it is right to insulate oneself like that.
The interaction of science with the creation stories of Genesis is one of the very fascinating things for me personally. It made me question my entire understanding of the text and question all of the stories of what the text was meant to mean that i have been fed from an early age.
btw Here’s another interesting talk by Ben Witherington on the importance of understanding the oral and literary conventions of NT times: http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2007/10/sacred-texts-in-oral-culturehow-did.html
LikeLike
Sam, I read this essay by Witherington and found it very interesting. He makes the case that written texts were meant as supplements to and substitutes for oral messages, which were more “living and active” forms of communication. He says that texts were regarded as the “residue” of speech. Because a text was a substitute for a speech, texts often were more rhetorical than systematic, intended to persuade audiences rather than just educating them. Witherington says this about the NT Epistles, especially Paul’s writings: They were intended as timely remarks, on target to affect belief and behavior of the various audiences. They were not intended merely as theological or ethical treatises. So is his argument going to be that these letters ought not be regarded as foundational to a systematic Christian theology, but rather as persuasive reactions to local and temporary situations? And maybe that some bits of Paul’s writings should be regarded not as eternal truths but as rhetorical flourishes intended to persuade?
LikeLike
Yes indeed, both the gospels and the epistles practically cry out to be understood as narratives and as oral rather than written traditions. This is what ‘the scholars’ have been sitting on and mulling over since the 60s, which is when Gerhardsson put out his study on “Memory and Manuscript” as an option to thinking exclusively through a (Bultmannian) source-form critical prism.
We had to do things the hard way, first recognising that the gospel texts may have been redacted and wondering about the effects of the originating communities before finally slowly discovering that rhetoric is being modified and used in the epistles and then, finally, one more scholar (Bauckham)has the guts to ask the same sorts of ‘orality’ questions of the gospels.
I still see a lot of resistance but at least an alternative is being explored.
Both Jesus and Paul always seek to persuade and that means, to me, that the individual has to be convinced and follow/commit to the path only out of conviction. It was true then and its still true now. Without the dialogue, there is no faith, and this is also what Paul explicitly says.
LikeLike
What is Genesis saying to you Sam?
Ivan
LikeLike
Thanks for links Sam. I have just finished reading them.
Ivan
LikeLike
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2064157,00.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/read-the-introduction-to-_b_63779.html
I apologise that this has nothing to do with the conversation at hand, but have you guys read any of Wolfs opinion peices recently printed?
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan, as far as this conversation goes, and I think John Doyle will agree, that there isn’t such a thing as being off ‘the’ topic.
Those are interesting links and I admire the author for having successfully used almost the same info in two such varying contexts!
America is too close to itself and I think also a little bit overconfident in its belief in itself to really pay much heed to Naomi Wolf nor to all those others who seem to be crying ‘wolf’!
In India we can see the effects of the U.S. having a president who has literally ‘got away with murder’, on our own politicians. All of them seem to be asking “what principles?”. Realpolitik the American way is much more effective. one decides what’s best for me, and just does it, and if we can get richer, faster, in the bargain, it really is a win-win situation.
We used to be proud that we were a nation, perhaps poorer than some, yet led by statesmen…
LikeLike
To get an idea of where I am with Genesis now, you need a whole heck of a lot of patience to first go through a series of comments on a post by John Doyle at OST some time back. It’s still running, and of course your two bits (or more) on this would be most welcome! Though, I do think that requires that you too should become a member (free) and thus also a fellow amateur theologian!
LikeLike
I really wish I could have gotten you Naomi’s article out of the Australian. It was much better and made an excellent point.
Sam, I do have patience and will follow your posts on the subject with John. Just give me a little time to catch up. hey, can’t I just be an amateur atheist and skeptic?
kind regards
Ivan
LikeLike
Sam,
Where can I get information on Bultmannian,Bauckham and Gerhardsson ?
Regards
Ivan
LikeLike
These days Ivan, I don’t think that there is anything that says that a theologian can’t be “an amateur atheist and skeptic”, and I actually suspect that many of them are.
Bauckham just published a book some time back called “Jesus and the Eyewitneses”, being a recent book it’s still costly. but on this page on the first article listed by Bauckaham if you click on the “read Article, (external site)” at the bottom of the blurb, it should download a PDF of a 2003 article of his that will give you a good idea.
Bultmann is not that easy to read in the original (not even in translation – he was German) but there’s a lot of stuff on the web about him, start with Wikipedia then try this religiononline link for one of his important works Kerygma and Myth with 5 critics thrown in!
Birger Gerhardsson got into so much hot water after publishing his “Memory and Manuscript…” that I think he was a bit discouraged, till recently when things seem to have swung round again, but he has published other stuff and a sort of summary of his thinking is available as a PDF file here
Apart from these scholars there is that fascinating study by E.P. Sanders’s, Jesus and Judaism.
Hope that gets you started, though some of it will be powerfully, tiresomely, pedantic stuff to read!
LikeLike
Ivan, it looks like a lot of stuff is changing! Still, I would love to continue this talk with you for as long as John can afford to keep maintaining Ktismatics.
Anyhow, back to business: There’s a lovely review of some centrally important contrasts between the older conservative Christian view of Jesus and what the emerging church, especially here Brian McLaren thinks of Jesus, God, and man…Tell me what you think!
LikeLike
Dear Sam,
Just read the review its quite remarkable. Will try and read the original paper or what I can find of it.
Thanks Ivan
{why so skeptical? of course the two are different kinds of things, modes of enquiry, which is what has made it easy for religion and philosophy to compartmentalise themselves off from what science is doing on the ground, but that doesn’t mean that it is right to insulate oneself like that.}.
I just have an opinion that the two “information systems” are seperating away and will do a major continent drift this next 100 years. I have tried to read books that look at religion through the eyes of science and also some science authors that have a spiritual bent. The conclusion I get is that they are not talking about Chrisitanity. Not a bit. Its my opinion that they will seperate in a very major way in this next generation or two of people.
Ivan
Ivan.
LikeLike
Ivan,
you are probably quite right. Christianity is 2000 years old and most of that time its thinking has been unscientific. What we have as a religion called Christianity today is not particularly close in either form or content to what it started out as.
Still, we have Jesus, and that is the only thing that gives me hope!
A scientific study and understanding of Jesus teachings and of what happened to start off the journey of Christianity will be done and hopefully will start to make some changes to what we are now calling Christianity, Perhaps…
LikeLike
Sam,
I dearly hope we see some kind of progress this way in my lifetime.
Regards
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan, the question on why homosexuality is a hot topic in the church when there are so many bigger issues to deal with was excellent.
I’ve been getting more vocal on this issue and spending more time than I should on it as it seems to me to be a huge blind spot for the majority of Christians. We’ve been programmed to think in certain ways about sexuality and sexual orientation by our cultures and by our religion too. It results in our turning our backs on some basic stuff that Jesus taught.
The level of cruelty involved is terrific even though we are rarely aware of these effects. People suffer in silence. I know one bisexual lady who regularly cuts herself (self mutilation) and she doesn’t really know why she has to punish herself for the way she is.
i really wish that we would just get on with being loving to each other regardless…
LikeLike
Exactly my thoughts Sam. Looking at God in a big cosmic way, I even have trouble imagining he would find it a sin.
cut and paste from out letters to the ed today.
The new Pharisees
At 7 o’clock this morning, I saw that a security guard at a church in the city was telling homeless people taking shelter under its eaves to move on. He told me he had been instructed to do so by the church because “the priest does not like to see them when he arrives”. Is this the brave new Australian version of Christianity?
Cameron Jackson Newtown
LikeLike
Ivan, that’s all over the world. We have a bunch of beggars who regularly line up on Sundays to catch the outgoing crowd from our church. The church recenty had a makeover and then someone in the management committee got irritated at this ragamuffin bunch spoiling the look of the spanking new gates and instructed the guards to chase them off.
Some of our people have been giving to these beggars regularly for years and have become friends, noticed and made a hue and cry and got them back. Seems we’ve forgotten Jesus’s parable about Dives and Lazarus.
LikeLike
Sam regarding your earlier comment, what is it do you think about large sections of Christianity and probably all religions that has such a strong focus on sexual practice? Scot said that all things moral were in the Christian domain which well it might, but such a big focus always on stuff to do with sex. Had you noticed Scot covering such things as Iraqi people murdered by US security employees yet let off free of any charge? Do the big issues get any coverage? Another Christian site I got thrown off of only once went that way and it was on rendition. It was amazing at just how many Christians on that site were in favour of the practise. It eventually was taken off the site because other Christian groups objected to it I think on patriotic grounds. Its a strange world.
Ivan
LikeLike
No, it’s not that strange. Religion has nothing to do with God. Religion is big business, It’s all about survival and growth – of the organisations.
This leads always, generation after generation, to essentially the same dialogue that I see happening throughout the bible and perhaps in other ‘holy books’ too.
God keeps saying “don’t get carried away with how well you are doing things, that’s not what it is about, I am what it is about, so, come back to me.”
But of course, this prophetic voice is always a lone voice “crying in the wilderness’, because the mainstream hates to hear it and extopiates the voice. When things get too uncomfortable, the easiest way is to kill off the troublemaker, after finding some usable excuse…
LikeLike
Sam,
Has the creed ever covered any of these cross over political subjects itself? you know, how John from time to time will talk about the Iraq war?
Also, Why do you go to church yourself? Is it easier to worship there as opposed to home? Whats your motive?
Also Sam, when people on the creed site have there view on homosexuality which has bits regarding same in the Bible, is totally looked at as “word of God”? we often have discussed about who wrote the bible and I think we both agree God may not have been the author. Its certainly “inspired” by but not written as such by God. How would you separate someone’s opposition to something like gay people as opposed to a supernatural deities opinion?
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan, you may have run into some excited claims that the seal of Jezebel has been identified thus ‘proving’ the existence of this biblical Queen. Not that there really is any doubt that such a queen really existed! But, do take a look at this analysis of the evidence: http://www.asor.org/seal.article.html
LikeLike
Man, this claim totally went right over Australia without touching down. I am just going to read the article now.
Had an interesting book arrive today : Unspeak by Steven poole.
Ivan
LikeLike
That was interesting Sam, how did you come upon it?
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan,
I’m not too sure about what jesuscreed covers on wars and stuff. I know that I occasionally see a political comment there from Scot, and recently there was a post on the military crackdown in Burma. I think Scot Mcknight generally likes discussions on the principles of why we would do things rather than the specifics of trying to prescribe what exactly people should do and think.
The feeling that I get is that he hopes that by gently pushing people into a closer consideration of Jesus and the gospel, the other stuff will work itself out naturally.
I do go to church but not for the usual reasons. My own church I see as something of a mission fiefld. A whole bunch of people who have a blinkered mentality about Jesus with whom I enjoy interacting as a friend who has really weird ideas. It gets uncomfortable sometimes but mostly its good interaction.
To be frank, most of the people who take the bible literally end up with a really weird view of god.
It’s up to God what s/he will do with that eventually but I do think that there is a possibility especially now with the internet and seeing things like the emerging church movement happen (that is largely net driven) that something new may be in the air. Certainly as the barriers between scholars and lay people break down, there will have to be a change. I see a lot of people on sites like jesuscreed.org and opensourcetheology.net that are doing the basic study for themselves and coming to different conclusions than what the church has been teaching. ben Witherington is much more direct about his political opinions, and an interesting scholar in his own right. The most vocal Christian sites on politics are themselves sort of commercial like Wallis’s Sojourners, e.g.
The places where religion sinks its claws into us is with stuff like marriage, birth, sickness, and death. By hitting on these areas where mankind is most nervous and therefore most vulnerable, religion takes control and then reaps the benefits both politically and monetarily.
Now, I see God tackling just this sort of hegemony by breaking in to individual hearts and pointing the way beyond what religion considers as sound theology, back to His/Her own unquantifiable nature, that has to be directly revealed in order for us to start realising something of how DIFFERENT God is.
LikeLike
Sam,
If your right, it will be interesting to see what Christianity evolves into. In regards to Scots site, I was more meaning investigation of sin in a bigger kind of national or international way. Looking at how countries act on mass in all kinds of ways might be interesting.
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan, i don’t have any great hopes that any religion will ‘evolve’ into anything particularly useful as far as leading people to God is concerned. Human organisations are and probably always will be basically extremely selfish and self-propagating things.
What religions have done is to preserve the precious traditions of God’s interactions with humanity (very often to try to save mankind from religion!) and then tried to hide the God part as much from plain sight as possible by obfuscation with theologies and orthodoxies and rule books.
Jesus teaching clearly abolished temples, priesthoods and hierarchies, yet look at the Christian church in almost any of its myriad avatarams, and what do we first and foremost see?
LikeLike
Ivan, here’s something that you may have already seen but just to be on the safe side…
LikeLike
Thanks Sam, It was most certainly very interesting.
Ivan
LikeLike
Sam,
Have you read this critic before?
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_bradlaugh/who_was_jesus.html
LikeLike
and this Sam,
http://www.seesharppress.com/20reasons.html#
LikeLike
Ivan, Bradlaugh was hilarious, but not very convincing whereas I agree with a heck of a lot of stuff that See Sharp Press has to say about Christianity.
LikeLike
Ivan, you may enjoy reading thisNot an atheist but not a Christian either, I did!
LikeLike
Sam,
Just reading your link now. What specifically did you find funny about it Sam? I guess he missed a few major points.
Ivan
LikeLike
That link was interesting Sam. What did you think of the decision and basis for it?
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan, I really enjoy Helen’s blog. It’s not just that she tries to be honest but that she is basically a kins and understanding soul. After she ‘came out’ with that article, a whole storm of responses flowed in and i was impressed that she quietly explained, sometimes over and over…
I think her reasons were right for her. I absolutely believe that God is big enough and is probably very happy with Helen’s honesty and love.
The problem that I think Helen is trying to express is not that God is all wrong, but that we have tried to box God up and tried to box up what our response to God SHOULD be. Well, that’s religion for you.
My brother’s theory is that God decided to take a break till we could grow up and get some maturity, a sort of self-limitation…
LikeLike
Ivan, what did you think of Helen’s ideas?
LikeLike
I thought them most interesting. Sam, do you have a link to her blog or web site?
also:
What are the three most important ideas you have learned from Jesus, Sam ? (of personal importance to you the individual)
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan, the link I have is to a shared blog where the conversation is very interesting:
http://conversationattheedge.com/
but I think from there you can get to her personal blog too…
LikeLike
Ivan,
religion gets into some interesting bits of soup. The observer is justified in wondering what, if any, connection there can be between religion and God or, even worse, in wondering if God could stoop to the low levels that the disciples seem to be willing to descend. One thing that is certain is God or no, religions and the states/economies that support them are wedded together in ways that only God will be able to put asunder!
There is a concerted move to see that colleges in the U.S. are to be purged of any teachers that lean leftwards or even worse, have an opinion that Israel’s existence may not be scientifically justifiable.
The latest salvo in this quiet purge is outlined in this JewishWeek News article about whether Abu El-Haj will get tenure at Barnard College.
LikeLike
Sorry, looks like i messed up the link there, so here it is again:
http://www.thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c40_a715/News/Israel.html
LikeLike
Its very interesting Sam. I am in the middle of reading Michael Jordans book “IN the name of God” of which chronicals the various cases of violence and destruction involved with the worlds great religions. It can be very depressing at times to see this cruelty performed in the name of God or his supposedly representative churches. At different times that I have spoken with Christians I have noticed how close they are to swinging into that mindset. I guess Bush has to a large extent with his new crusades into Iraq.
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan, your analysis is really is getting a bit too close for comfort as far as those who want to turn Jesus’s message (or Buddha’s for that matter) into a ground for cooperation between church and state.
Jesus preaching of the Kingdom of God is found in the gospels and it is these gospels that have to be ignored for people to argue for connecting religion to state.
So what do you Ozzies think of Israel?
LikeLike
Ivan, We were talking some time back, about the story of Jesus being brought a woman “taken in adultery” for judgment and your doubts about whether this passage is genuine.
For me, the story from John 8 really illustrates one of the ‘signs of difference’ that resonate with the breaking in of God to my own life.
check out Sherman’s take on a similar thought:
“If you want to know what’s at the heart of seemingly religious Christians, place before them a sinner or an accused, and then watch how they react. Their reactions will reveal the true state of their spirituality from the deepest recesses of their hearts; whether they pick up a stone, or whether they embrace the sinner/accused.”
LikeLike
Ivan,
here’s a very interesting article, actually the appendix of a book, that discusses what biblical criticism is and what it should be. I think the author goes a bit overboard in one direction i.e. that a text = it’s sources so that he ends up missing out on the importance of editing and redaction completely, or seems to, but I think you will like the basic point:
LikeLike
This looks like a very interesting book, Sam. It seems that the Kugel, the author, is Jewish and was professor of Hebrew literature at Harvard for 20 years. He seems to be saying that, if you read it straight, the Old Testament stories show all sorts of things about God that don’t look very good. Instead of purging the texts of the offensive bits, subsequent theologians and teachers imposed an interpretive grid over the top of the text to draw out the more acceptable meanings. So what looks like vindictive and unethical behavior by God or his people turns out, when looked at the “right” way, to reveal a more subtle transcendent ethic.
LikeLike
Yes, and I think he is basically right. The way we do read, automatically making allowances, and constantly rationalising, really is an awful thing to do to any work of literature! We really should be struggling to let the text speak, and we ‘know’ that, but we just don’t feel comfortable doing it. Bad reading habits and too much Sunday School!
LikeLike
Thanks for those links Sam, very interesting.
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan, I guess I’m in a ‘linkin’ mood! Here’s one more and it’s taken me a while to figure it out coz it is in German and my German, after many years of total disuse, proved less than a match, but having worked most of it out, I think you will enjoy it.
This is about a German theology professor called Gerd Lueddeman whose honesty got him into trouble with his theology college…
LikeLike
Thank you Sam, I will give it a read.
regards
Ivan
(never hesitate to send me interesting links!)
LikeLike
Sam,
What would be the 2 or 3 most important things you have learned from your Christianity? How would these things influence your every day life for the better?
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan, the most important couple of things? I guess the first one would be that Jesus taught me the need to think more of others than of myself. The second would be that, for me this is just about impossible – at least so far.
LikeLike
Ivan, turnabout on that question. What are the two or three (or more) most significant things that you have learned as an atheist?
LikeLike
I don’t think being atheist operates like that Sam. Its always a position of waiting for evidence its like an act of patience. Personally, I have found the “waiting” part very interesting. As an example, I don’t feel the “fear” associated with dying that many do, who have made their minds up in the affirmative and I do tend to treat life in a very reverential way now. I guess I might have developed more of a critical faculty on information input. This position certainly gives me respect for all life.
what are the 2 or 3 things you most took out of Christianity Sam?
regards
Ivan
LikeLike
Sam
Apologies, reading backwards, you already answered sorry!
LikeLike
Sam,
So thinking about others needs first is an important concept and your saying that you fail in doing it? Would you always fail Sam or just sometimes? Or are you failing lately because of so many multiple stressors in your life?
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan, I also spend a lot of time in waiting and in trying to learn. I don’t think that is particularly related to atheism as such. It’s your and my type of personality to always be curious and always wait for something better down the line, seeing the trouble spots in he current state of the art.
I’ve always known, since getting to know Jesus, that I’ve got a heck of a long way to go. Yes, the failures are disappointing but they are also opportunities to learn and hopefully improve. Though, to be honest, I’m still far too selfish to be much good as a disciple of Jesus!
LikeLike
Its impossible not to be selfish all the time isn’t it Sam? Its part of what makes us human isn’t it?
Ivan
LikeLike
Very true indeed, Ivan. Doesn’t stop me being disappointed, but this disappointment is not something that holds me back much!
LikeLike
Ivan, I thought I would tackle some of your tough questions when time permitted so let me begin with the beginning:
1. What is your God? I mean to you? Is it the biblical one? Is it some metaphysical alien like entity?
With literally tens of thousands of differing ideas of what this God is what is your bestest guess? (Being that there is no evidence as such)Hey, don’t get hung up on “evidence” I really need to know about how you define God)
On Ktismatics main page, john Doyle has (as usual) been leading his readers in interesting directions. Recently there was an incident when a group[ of fundamentalists attacked one of John’s posts at OST. Eventually, after the usual rounds of rather pointless discussion on the dangers of not believing inerrancy, John finally pointed us back tohis original point which was that by regarding the bible as a series of stories, perhaps a different sort of sense would emerge and there would be space for discussions between people regardless of their first being believers or not.
A fascinating idea and one that John is slowly but surely fleshing out over at OST. I was struck by the thought that God manages to communicate through various very imperfect mediums not the best of which is the human mind. If it is God that is communicating, we would surely expect there to be a certain amount of consistency to who God is in God’s self as we see God being revealed across time and cultures and histories.
I do think that this is true despite the fact that oft times what we think of as religion actually subverts God to its own ends leading to a piquant situation in that God may have spoken and been then quoted to say the exact opposite of what God set out to convey. Yet, I believe that the truth should be discernible.
the surest way to get at the truth that may be embedded (like a hidden treasure) somewhere in this ancient historical text, is to pay careful attention to the religious agenda and to take steps to neutralise all religious inputs. The next step is to look for that which runs counter to more generalised human self interest including making money, fame, and political goals.
As an illustration, let me pick out just 2 incidences.
First, Jesus, when speaking of God’s overall plan and how the leaders have responded, compares His ministry with that of the other great prophet of those times, John the Baptist. Matthew 11:16f
But what comparison may I make of this generation? It is like children seated in the market-places, crying out to one another,
We made music for you and you did not take part in the dance; we gave cries of sorrow and you made no signs of grief. For John came, taking no food or drink, and they say, He has an evil spirit. The Son of man has come feasting, and they say, See, a lover of food and wine, a friend of tax-farmers and sinners! And wisdom is judged to be right by her works.
Two prophets whose work overlaps timewise. Jesus preaches a gospel that starts with repentance just as JtB’s did but goes on from there to express the idea that God is our father and that God wants us to come back into a fellowship of love starting with our neighbours. But the people though they flocked to both prophets in turn did not really absorb either message. The presentation can’t be more different – an ascetic and a happy man, but even that did not help.
Second, in the Mahabharatha, an epic story that is one of Hinduisms holy books, we find the tale of a great war fought between two wings of one family. The character I find most fascinating is Karna. A hero by any standard and great in battle, he is in fact the true heir to the throne but in spite of knowing this counts his loyalty to his friend of greater importance. Karna is also a very generous person and he ends up being cheated out of his protective armor and eventually the protection of his great strength of duty-generosity by none other than the Gods themselves and is finally defeated and killed as a result of this trickery.
It isn’t difficult to peel off the legendary layers in these stories and expose the roots of truth hidden within. The gods are a treacherous lot indeed and will do anything to see that the Pandavas. Or so goes the official version.
2. How would we disprove the existence of Hindu or Aboriginal Gods etc? by what method would we say they don’t exist?
3. If we can’t.. why would we not appeal to all Gods and worship multiple entities? I guess my strange idea may work with any sort of religious story but I won’t know till I try it out on quite a few other traditions… In he final analysis, God is who God is and if I construct an of=dd picture of God that is only my own fault and not God’s!
LikeLike
Sorry, messed up that link:
https://ktismatics.wordpress.com/2007/10/31/biblical-thought-experiments/
LikeLike
Ivan, I just ran into a very interesting talk by Zizek that I think you may enjoy (requires patience 2+ hrs):
Why Only an Atheist Can Believe: Politics on the Edge of Fear and Trembling
http://zizekstudies.org/index.php/ijzs/article/view/7/36
I would be very interested in what you think on this.
LikeLike
Hey Sam,
I have just been away most of the week, might need a day to catch up. I bought a book this week titled The Language of God by Francis Collins. (A scientist presents the evidence for belief) I have only just started it.
regards
Ivan
LikeLike
Hey Sam, the audio thing was just some guy singing a Christian song.
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan, I’m sure Zizek will be amused! A tunefully emergent neomarxist social critic singing “Oh Hegelian night”!
I enjoy Zizek, his critiques especially of socialism itself are usually very sharp and full of insight.
LikeLike
Sam,
Audio is really poor on my computer. I recently changed to this flat panel screen and lost all the good audio I previously had. Its pretty seldom now I listen to things on this unit. I can download to I pod and do that sometimes. But its a bugger when your sitting at this particular computer.
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan, an interesting quote from Brunschvicg :
“The preoccupation with our salvation is a remnant of self-love, a trace of natural egocentrism from which we must be torn by the religious life. As long as you think only salvation, you turn your back on God. God is God, only for the person who overcomes the temptation to degrade Him and use Him for his own ends.”
which I ran into in one of Zizek’s essays.
LikeLike
Its an interesting thought Sam.
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan, I guess congratulations are in order after the Oz elections. So, how do you feel about the Labour win? Though I guess there may not be any very drastic changes in the offing?
LikeLike
Ivan, here’s something from Time that’s should make you feel real good.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1686828,00.html
Anything similar in Australia?
LikeLike
Dear Sam,
Delighted just DELIGHTED!!! finally a change of Government. This one has promised to pull the troops out of Iraq which is fine by me. Sam not as yet, but I do know some people that are looking into introducing it in some schools up north. It makes me feel good to the point that children from these families are no longer excluded from class instruction. I don’t think its a bad idea myself.
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan, I’m really happy for you and will hope and pray that Mr. Rudd does live up to your expectations.
Here’s an interesting thing. A group of diverse Islamic scholars are calling for peace, love, justice, and the finding of common ground with Xtians:
http://www.acommonword.com/index.php?lang=en&page=option1
And a Xtian response that is being very seriously criticised as compromising by the more conservative-fundamentalist Klans:
http://www.yale.edu/faith/abou-commonword.htm
One of the authors of which is Miroslav Volf who is on that old reading list and if and when you find time you may give him a read…
LikeLike
Sam,
This would be pretty unlikely wouldn’t it? Considering both groups Theological cannon.
Regards
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan, did you read through both the docs? Waddya think? It looks as though there is actually a minority of serious believers who prefer to practice what Jesus and Muhammed taught. Of course, the opposing troops also believe…
I feel a bit sorry for you atheists, you have no one to blame but yourselves.
LikeLike
Sam,
I do admire the spirit. I just don’t think its ever going to happen,basically, both of your invisible friends are just too different. You think the Bible has a “few” interpretations? Have a look at the Koran some time!!!
You feel sorry for us atheists? Why Sam? What is irrational about withholding “belief” until there is some kind of actual evidence for one of the many Gods imagined by humanity. I still don’t understand why we equally wouldn’t believe in Poseidon or the like? We have only ourselves to blame? For what? Being rational? Looking for the evidence? waiting for some Godly confirmation other than a less than 2000 year old book whose authorship is totally unknown? Whose facts are in dispute? Whose knowledge is so shadowy and mysterious to render it unintelligible? A book that has no historical confirmation? Flows in absolute contrast to the known body of science?
In the end game Sam, one of us, either you or myself are wrong. I am not usually a betting man but on this one I would wager!
Kind regards
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan,
As Pascal said, “I’ll see that and raise you…”
I stopped worrying about the state of your soul quite a while back! You’re quite right, history does not give us any reason to be optimistic. The common view is that the ‘other side’ is trying to get us to lower our defenses so that they can deal the final KO punch. It;s the ancient fear of Trojan Horses being replayed for the Nth time.
What I meant was that at least I can blame my fellow believers paranoias on their respective religions and their bloodthirsty gods, but you poor atheists have no such comforting recourse.
LikeLike
Hey Sam,
What makes you think us atheists can’t get paranoid ? : )
Regards
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan, now where did I imply that you atheist types are not as paranoid as the rest of us? In fact a more insecure bunch would be hard to find, but you are overall a brave gang, facing the uncertainty of your eventual encounter with God by sticking your heads into the woefully inadequate sands of science. It probably is bravery (let’s be charitable) but it could also be just a stubborn streak of delusional foolishness.
But, that wasn’t what I was primarily feeling sorry for you on account of. I can BLAME my paranoia on something concrete like “fundamentalism”, whereas atheists have no convenient labels to hide their insecurities behind.
With all the reading that you have been doing, have you come to the conclusion that we are all waffling round in the dark together, only some of us don’t realise (or refuse to face) that this is the reality?
LikeLike
“facing the uncertainty of your eventual encounter with God by sticking your heads into the woefully inadequate sands of science.”
Now THAT’S an image.
LikeLike
I don’t see it quite the same. All atheists I know (and they can be different as Christians) are simply waiting to some evidence a God or Gods does exist. You have hinged your star to one particular narrowly defined God that doesn’t really have any evidence to push forth its existence to any of the thousand other Gods that humanity has created in its past. Between now and my day of demise, I will continue looking for evidence that some kind of being really, ANY kind of being exists. The long and the short of it, There is no evidence that a God exists at this point.
Kind regards
Ivan
LikeLike
Sam,
It was a good thing that those “woefully inadequate sands of science” were apparently adequate enough to save your life recently with your heart problem. I guess you could have always tried just “prayer” and see how adequate that little bit of sand is?
Ivan
LikeLike
Ktismatics, I don’t regard that as a fair opposition of two things that are not at all opposites. It is a nice rhetorical tactic (a cheap shot in other words).
I always found it interesting that Carl Sagan was a firm believer in extraterrestrial life – something for which there was no shred of evidence. Yet claimed that the lack of evidence for God convinced him that he should be an atheist. That logic is as silly as Christianity saying that man and man’s earth were created as the center of the universe!
If God were made of the sort of stuff that were amenable to scientific investigation then we wouldn’t be having this discussion in the first place. But, there’s a lot of stuff that science knows nothing about and that comes from the sorts of knowledge or experience that the scientific method is helpless at dealing with.
There’s a delightful character in the Harry Potter books called Luna Lovegood. She keeps referring to stuff that no one else can see or sense and she has her own terminology for describing what she says is actually going on. Harry knows that sometimes she’s right and this makes him a little bit more respectful of her strangeness – though not by any means willing to accept everything she says.
Science also has it’s own fundamental problems with handling why questions. There are so many things in life and in relationships that for ‘science’ is double dutch. If God exists in a way that can be sensed by man it is reasonable to think that this will be relational in some sense or the other, rather than a matter of discovering that the 130th element is what we think of as God!
To go through life looking for the wrong sort of evidence would be as silly as trying to find a scientific predictor for ‘falling in love’ or to do the atheistic thing and say that ‘falling in love’ simply doesn’t exist.
LikeLike
Sorry, crocked up the responses in my notepad. That last should have started with “Ivan…”
Ktismatics, sorry for the sadly mixed up metaphor. This is what comes of hanging around the blogosphere too much. I actually had in mind a graphic that I saw at Parodycenter.
Ivan’s other point about “will continue looking for evidence that some kind of being really, ANY kind of being exists” is also profound. Beginning with Descartes, we have been asking ourselves this question and the Cartesian answer is one of those that science owes a lot to. My conception of God certainly has to be a projection of my own self consciousness and this is what makes me leary of all our understandable, self consistent, and logical doctrine.
God is certainly Other and if we are ikons, we are very broken down ones indeed.
LikeLike
I was prepared to apologize immediately — shows I must have a guilty conscience.
LikeLike
Sam,
I don’t see Sagan’s views quite the same. He was an atheist,because there was a lack of evidence of any type of God existing. I think its a rational position. I thought he was hopeful on finding life elsewhere. Lets face it, he had one model to show it could happen, nothing terribly unique Chemistry wise. Evidence was coming in of other planets surrounding other suns, it was starting to seem if you looked far enough the likelihood was you would find some kind of life. The idea is at least reasonable. The idea of a God is an unreasonable idea. As a cosmic answer its a long ways short also.
I understand what you mean by what you see as scientific inadequacy at studying God. But this is only inadequate with some versions of what people imagine is a God. The Christian God, the one that is discussed endlessly on sites like the creed is quite possible to find through the scientific method. I have many books written about all kinds of studies but I yet to find one that comes up with a positive.
Sam, Its not the scientific realm to answer “why” questions, and I am more convinced these days that the big “why” questions have no answer. Its a bit like the response God just “is” or God is “eternal” its rather meaningless. Our Universe just “is” and its about as eternal as any God concept.
regards
Ivan
LikeLike
Sam,
I didn’t see it as a cheap shot. Prayer can be tested and indeed it has a number of times. (I have most of the references if required) there hasn’t been an experiment that has yet shown its efficacy. If you had been in a position with your heart problem a while back it had a great possibility to end badly. Christians have a tendency (in my opinion only) to minimise the well-being that science has provided the world community. Yes, it makes mistakes, yes it has yet to find many answers. But in its own way it works rather well. It helped treat you Sam. It also got John safely back to the USA with his family.
Its because of science we no longer worship the sun god. Its because of science we understand that stellar events happen with some frequency and don’t by necessity happen to herald the arrival of a human born God every single time. We know Psychiatric conditions aren’t “demons” We know exorcism doesn’t achieve a whole lot. We actually know to separate our faecal matter from our food, something not known in the time of Jesus.
I respect science Sam. I just see it as a more dependable path to truth.
Regards
Ivan
LikeLike
Sam,
When you said: (To go through life looking for the wrong sort of evidence would be as silly as trying to find a scientific predictor for ‘falling in love’ or to do the atheistic thing and say that ‘falling in love’ simply doesn’t exist.)
Scientific predictors for “falling in love” do exist and are explained within the realms of human biology, one of our branches of science. Atheists would generally recognise this phenomena for what it is. I don’t believe its any great mystery.
But what is the “wrong sort of evidence” Sam ? It implies I am looking for really hard and difficult underpinnings. I would settle for any evidence Sam, but it has to be evidence that clearly is supernatural.
Having read a lot of books written by very good people professing to be Christians and men of science I have yet to find someone with actual evidence of the God itself.
I keep finding that either their information on biology is out of date or an extreme minority view and at the end of the day, the views expressed are wishful thinking and hanging on faith or opinion. Its never real ordinary evidence.
The examination of the subject by myself is different than most people I have known. I don’t feel the need for redemption or absolution of guilt. The way I live isn’t all that unchristian like. (I think I have kept most of the commandments.) I don’t “fear” death and I couldn’t care less if there was an afterlife or not. I have no fear of the existence of a God. (In fact it would provide more really interesting questions for me to delve into) My motivation is down the middle hence the evidence simply only needs to be genuine evidence to persuade me differently. I only say this because a great many searches are done because the person doing the searching really needs that God to exist. I don’t have this need on an emotional level.
Billions of people believe in a great number of Gods. A great number of them Christians. The whole world can’t delude themselves can they? So what is the evidence I am not seeing?
Ivan
LikeLike
You will see it when you ask Jesus to open your eyes. Have you tried that?
LikeLike
Ivan
“Scientific predictors for “falling in love” do exist and are explained within the realms of human biology”
If you say so…I’m no more ready to trust science to tell me who to fall in love with (or whom to call my friend either) than i am to trust science to tell me about God.
If there is evidence of God existing and acting, that evidence will come out in relationships and within our experience of different sorts of other. You earlier mentioned (811) the search for evifdence that “ANY kind of being exists”. Well, think about it, science has yet to crack the basic ideas of self and other.
Science can tell you the world’s population and probably predict fairly accurately what the population will be 5 years down the road. But can science tell you anything much about what it means to be human?
In other words, consciousness itself, and if we can’t do that with science then how on earth or in heaven do you expect it to be able to tell you of any Other, that is an other that is also supposedly SUPER natural. It’s a non sequitor, it will not compute, and waiting endlessly for some evidence in this direction is I think silly in that you are asking science to pontificate on territory for which it has no GPS.
If you recall our host’s posts on the main page not so long ago about Davidson’s triangulating approach to epistemology; knowing anything is never as simple as we assume it to be.
I and a number of other people claim to have experienced the Other, but that isn’t evidence either, as we could all be delusional (we probably all are to some extent anyway).
But, for me, where the rubber hits the road is when humans start behaving unselfishly. I’m not here talking about a propensity to save our children even at the risk of our own lives, but the thought that we may do it for a complete stranger?
Altruism is not unknown in nature, but there is a qualitative difference when a person knows that what they are doing is foolish and does it anyway.
I had these three friends in college, two guys and a girl, and they were all in love. A classic triangle. This had been going on for a while when suddenly in our Junior year one friend decided to step back and let the other two proceed. What was weird was that he knew that this couple was not likely to survive and that his best friend’s love for the girl was less than his own, but he did it anyway. When some of us collared him and asked him whether he knew that he was making a mistake, he surprised us by agreeing! His explanation? He was strong enough to take it, his pal wasn’t.
This to me is an indication that there is more to being human than just a bigger and more complex brain and science has its limitations.
LikeLike
Hi Ron,
If I did that what kind of evidence could I expect? I imagine you have done this yourself? What was received as evidence apart from a “feeling”?
Kind regards
Ivan
LikeLike
Sam,
Science won’t computer match you or anything. But love is a product of our mating biology. I am understand its largely subconscious but understood generally in terms of science.
Yes I understand what your saying about “self” Sam and its reference to God. But a lack of full understanding doesn’t automatically make a superbeing a more probable outcome.
Its a little like ID proponents offering up only God or chance. There is always a third way. Can science tell you about being human? I guess partly. But being human doesn’t move us closer to finding evidence of a God. Though, it does make it clearer why we would so easily accept the superstitious.
Sam, Consciousness and God ? It really comes down to what God we are talking about. The one John once postulated living outside the universe and time? The one that cannot interact with our universe. Or the other God of the bible, which is the “general” one you and I discuss. This God can be measured and found. Read some of Victor Stenger’s work. This God can be tested. Sam I am not asking science for anything. I am asking generally, what is the evidence that leads a world population of over 5 billion to believe in various types of Gods. What is the evidence?
Sam I don’t know if your are delusional. I expect your very intelligent and sane. I understand you experience a “relationship” with God. But the problem is the people who have that same relationship with Poseidon or Mohammad. How do we separate what has to be a false God belief to the real God belief if all we have is a “feeling”? I ask this with the utmost respect. How do you tell the two apart? The delusion from the sane belief?
Sam, Selflessness,altruism and morality are functions of an organic brain. We know this now. Its not supernatural though it feels like it sometimes! I experience and practise this daily, and its not for the sake or instruction or belief or reward for a God. Even our primate friends have been shown practising this for group survival. Gosh, even wild cats have proven to do “foolish” things for altruisms sake.
Yes science has its limits! I understand what your saying regards your friend. But stepping away, Is this behaviour evidence of a God? Is just a uniquely human thing? I am not sure. But Sam, what is the evidence for a God existing?
Kind regards
Ivan.
LikeLike
Sam sorry for the way I typed that. Its very incoherent. I have just got in the door after a really long day after one of those sleepless type nights. I kept referring back to each paragraph of your reply then typing a bit. It came out badly.
Hope your well and happy
Regards
Ivan
LikeLike
Me a sea of his finger hadfound it you brian. babe strip Don.
LikeLike
“How do we separate what has to be a false God belief to the real God belief if all we have is a “feeling”? I ask this with the utmost respect. How do you tell the two apart? The delusion from the sane belief?”
Ivan, the fact of the matter is that the bugbear that you are chasing down and seeking scientifically testable evidence for, does not really correspond to anything other than what we could call the current religious myth. Think about our religious process a bit. For Jews, Christians, and Moslems, Abraham was a real person and all three religions identify their present belief with the same god that found Abraham and turned him into a wanderer. But this “backward integration” is hardly likely to correspond in any meaningful way with Abraham’s own experience of God, so our identification itself is a product of mythological thinking.
I have no doubt that God did have something to do with Abraham but whatever it was is most unlikely to correspond to what our present religions make of it.
With an Abraham or with a Mohammed we do have evidence, and strong evidence too that God has intervened relationally in their lives, for we can see the results in their behaviours, but can we quantify or even identify the significant features of God by looking at these good people? I doubt it!
The key lies more in how we deconstruct what we are told and also in comparing that evidence with what we ourselves are experiencing as ordinary humans and we are then in a better position to spot that which will set the incidents apart, a sort of a disturbance or a cross flow that leads to something like “good” but in spite of the failings of the individuals themselves.
Now, as I read the Quran, what leaps out at me as being startlingly “different” is that Muhammed’s thought is permeated with the justice of God. If you take Hinduism, one finds that the ‘usual’ triumphalistic and society ordering mythology is interspersed here and there with characters like Karna and Arjuna, both of whom try to go against their culture in different and life affirming ways. Jesus’ affirmation of making others more important than self is one more such ‘cross grained’ thing.
If one were to look at the standard formulations of almost any religion one finds that these elements of God’s genuine interaction with us, are buried under piles of pure putrefying gunk, precisely because if we were to follow god, religion simply could not continue to exist.
There is no simple answer but I think that what you seek really is there, just not in the scientifically testable realms within which you are currently searching.
LikeLike
Sam, you said you had no doubt about Abraham. Why?
What do you suppose God must have done?
How do you see there behavour as evidence for God? Say as a couple of people deluded by something like a vision or dream?
Ivan
LikeLike
If I did that what kind of evidence could I expect? I imagine you have done this yourself? What was received as evidence apart from a “feeling”?
Ivan, your experience of God cannot be limited to what I have experienced. The Bible records many examples of other people’s experience to refer to through the ages, but these are also not definitive of what you can expect. I would therefore not know what kind of evidence to expect on your behalf. What I do know is that a simple prayer from you to Jesus Christ, said out loud in your own way at your own private moment, asking God to reveal himself to you, will start this exciting journey of knowing Him.
Ultimately your experience becomes special to you because God answers all your questions. If you need God to reveal himself to you with a fireworks display He is fully capable of that, He can part the sea for you, He can heal your disease, He can also reveal himself inside of you as he speaks to you, He can make you feel things, see things, taste things, that will all confirm His reality and living presence.
God revealed himself to me by speaking to me audibly, demonstrating his love and care for me by the affirmation of His word to me as a father speaks to his child. Also through the love of Christians, and through the truth of Jesus Christ’s ministry and the ongoing companionship of His Holy Spirit.
Love
LikeLike
Ron,
I appreciate you sharing that with me. I have had friends that in the past did this and indeed found God. The trouble was it didn’t “take”. In these couple of cases the right hemisphere went to battle with the left and the unanswered questions dominated. Both these gentleman would be best discribed as atheists today. To avoid this, I would rather find the answers first before I “lend” belief if that makes sense? It may sound very illogical to you, but I can only operate as I do. I am very glad that you found your answers to your satisfaction during you life time. Hey, whilst your online to God, you couldn’t ask him for a sea parting for me? As far as evidence goes that would be through the goal pasts enough for me.
Kindest regards
Ivan.
I will be driving past the water at Double Bay tomorrow at 2:30PM.
please ask?
LikeLike
“How do you see there behavour as evidence for God? Say as a couple of people deluded by something like a vision or dream?”
Ivan, I don’t think it can be distinguished from madness that easily.
Abraham wanders half way round the known world with family and belongings painfully in tow and in search of what? The embarrassment factor is something that we did talk about somewhere back there as one of those authenticating factors that’s important to me.
Jesus is variously described as a drunkard or a mad megalomaniac and was also certainly seen as a shameless womaniser. All these very embarrassing characteristics are recorded in the NT along with the evidence and that evidence certainly does nothing to minimise the weight of the accusations.
LikeLike
Sam,
I remember that discussion. Your the only person I had heard refer to this as embarrasing (in that particular language). Is that common Sam? Also, who is it that you have heard discribe Jesus in this manner? That is, as a drunk type of meglamanic? I have never heard Jesus discribed as this before. Is this outside of the church or within?
regards
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan, these responses to Jesus are recorded in the gospels themselves. I quoted one above where Jesus contrasts himself to John the Baptist and himself says “they call me a glutton and a drunkard”. See also John 8:48 and see the passages that follow Matthew 12:24 and Mark 3:20.
I don’t know why we as followers of Jesus do not want to take these passages very clearly. For one thing it makes it very clear to me that Jesus was a great threat to the comfortable religious life of the Judaism of his day. He so threatened these religious leaders that they felt that they had to get rid of him. These controversies are the essential stepping stones where they tried every possible method to publicly embarass him and this also did work to some extent to limit the number of people who followed Jesus.
One clear implication that our religion rejects today is that followers of Jesus should be nonconformists who insist on justice, love, and truth in public as well as private life.
LikeLike
I am sorry Sam, asleep at the wheel again! I thought you were referring to some modern day criticism. Sam, you see a kind of “proof” in regards to Jesus that despite these kinds of attacks Christianity still attracted a certain amount of followers?
Why do you suppose that modern day religion rejects the ideas of justice,love and truth? I have kind of noticed that myself in a few differing ways and it seemed very anti the main themes of the way Jesus conducted his life. I never understood this.
regards
Ivan
Hey Sam, have a look at The Sydney Morning Herald “letters” section on the current online edition. Lead letter from someone a bit cranky at the Popes visit. I liked his point.
Ivan
LikeLike
Save time: that was the letter.
Your article on the laws to protect Joseph Ratzinger (“Clearing the way for the Pope”, December 14), pompously styled by the Catholic Church corporation as Pope, was very disturbing.
We should remember that we live in a supposedly secular and democratic society in which a religious organisation is just another corporation and the Pope just its managing director.
I am compelled to ask why police powers are different from those available at a rock concert, a meeting of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence (who also like wearing frocks) or an Amway get-together? Why the control over airspace and advertising? Is it to avoid the terrorist horrors of a dirigible towing an unwelcome flag – perhaps even an atheist one – or commercial advertising?
In the absence of a state of emergency, how is it possible to delegate powers from the parliament to the government in a secular democracy? How is it possible to conduct vehicle and body searches carte blanche and without probable cause?
Can private security guards, unencumbered by the (weak) laws, checks and balances governing police, be granted those powers? Should military aircraft be deployed if this organisation and its MD are so popular and benign?
Should the church’s advertising arrangements be protected without greater beneficial recompense to the State Government in exchange for unfair advantage over other corporations or mythologies and their self-interested commercial welfare? Should private buses be able to be commandeered?
Should a single government minister have unchallengeable overview over the event without recourse to the courts being available even to question? Will these benefits be available for the Mardi Gras organisers or Amway?
I thought I lived in a secular democracy, not a religious, jackbooted, medieval kleptocracy. Where is the outrage? Which government ministers have had financial or ideological benefit?
When did non-Catholics – whether believers in other religious mythologies or atheists like me – agree to pay for this rally? Individuals should have the liberty to believe in any mythology they fancy, but I fail to see that I have any obligation to pay for their belief in the Easter bunny, the tooth fairy or some god who created a man.
LikeLike
Ivan, I’m not up on the background of what your govt has done wrt the visit of the Pope but the letter writer’s point is well taken.
“despite these kinds of attacks Christianity still attracted a certain amount of followers?” That’s not the essence of any proof. The numbers of followers makes us take notice that something may be there but in and of itself does not mean much. I’m just pointing out that during his lifetime itself, Jesus raised religious hackles.
Religion is generically similar and in all religions, the founder’s views are supposedly given great respect but in actual fact are sidelined and replaced by stuff that is much more effective at being used for brainwashing purposes and which eventually gets labeled as the only orthodox and doctrinally correct standpoint – even when it directly contradicts the founder’s obvious intent.
This is true of so many leaders ,Muhammed, Budha, and many other “founders” of religions, who started out in protest against what religion was doing in their day, stood for justice, and then had their messages and their own sacrificially spent lives coopted into fodder to run the organisations that grew up only to eventually deny the antireligious sentiments that their founders had started with.
Just run through Matthew 23 sometime when you have time and tell me what you think.
LikeLike
Sam,
I didn’t see a growing throng as proof exactly either. But I have had people that offer it up anyway. I was just trying to tie the concept to other things you mentioned in the past.
Sam, when you say: which eventually gets labeled as the only orthodox and doctrinally correct standpoint – even when it directly contradicts the founder’s obvious intent.
What would some of the more obvious examples be that you have spotted? I expect one might be the business end of Christianty?
regards
Ivan
PS I will read Matthew before the nights out.
LikeLike
Sam,
About 8 or so years ago, I visited with a friend who lived in Marine City which is on the “thumb” of the State of Michigan. Showing me around we went to the city of Ann Arbor and visited a fair whilst there. It was a kind of art fair but have gradually changed over time to selling all kinds of things including religion of different sorts.
It took my interest earlier, all the differing types of churches they seem to have many I had not come across in Australia. The religious booths were pretty much of every denomination and religion you could name from Muslims, Hindus, wiccans and scientologists. You name it, it was there.
The people that manned those booths were enthusiastic sales people for there differing religions and every faith had its holy scriptures or legends and what they perceived as evidence. Miracles or life changing interventions etc. As an atheist, this is interesting to look at not having that “allegiance” to any particular brand. Each booth had its own incontrovertible and absolute belief in which ever brand they were trying to move, but to me, the “evidence” as such, was almost identical to say Christian beliefs. No better and no worse. One has Jesus as the prophet another Muhammad. Some pushed Joseph Smith another Sun Myung Moon.
These people will heartily sell you the religion they chose yet will dismember and dismiss the pagans (as they see it) in the next booth.
Sam, assuming that all can’t be right, how does one pick one over the other with all the evidence pretty much being equal? How would you differentiate Christianity to me if you had a booth? What’s the quality difference in evidence and faith ? A few posts back Ron was telling me how his view of God, in this case a particular Christian view talks to him via head and heart. What does an atheist make of the fact that men of Islamic faith or others worshipping differing God concepts and inventions also hear the same God in the same way that they have dreamed up? Could there be more than one God? Is it really a Satan style deception they are hearing? Is what they “think” they hear just a deception whilst what Ron hears is the true situation?
How would you go about sorting this out if you were me?
regards
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan, I think there are two related points. In the first place it’s obvious that we are confused about God. We are confused about a lot of other things too for that matter, but we definitely know that we are confused about God. This does not mean that God does or does not exist nor does it have anything much to say about who or what God in fact is.
This leaves us with 3 general possibilities: God may not exist but may be just a rather universal byproduct of some evolutionary mental process that has not quite resolved itself yet.
God may be like one or more of the religious ideas of God and we may have to figure out which one is closest to the truth.
God may be non-involved, started things off, perhaps with a bang, and then let what happens happen.
There is a fourth possibility, that is the one that I subscribe to at present and that is that God does exist and is involved but equally so with all creatures and with her creation itself. Immanent to the point of not being separately discernible, yet quite able to communicate and actively doing so but in a voice and with a message that is relationally unique in each instance. That is, God is definitely talking to Ivan but that in turn is something that only Ivan can know.
I personally am able to see that such relationships exist and lead to transformed lives by looking at Jesus. So, I have concentrated on learning as much from Jesus as I can. This is a sort of triangulation in that I don’t have that much confidence in my own discernment of what God is saying to me but as I can clearly see something more of who God is from Jesus, this acts as the point of reference that keeps me from going too much off the rails.
One thing for certain in my ‘theory’ is that each individual will have to dig into their own selves, their experiences etc as well as to become keen observers and questioners of culture, religion and history.
My own analysis and experience leads me to suspect that while God’s authentic voice can be seen in many religious founder’s lives, the lives of those that we could easily agree are ‘saintly’ in some outstanding way, the authentic gets quickly buried in reinterpretations of the particulars to make them more amenable to manipulation to support the growth of some religion. Religion in this sense has more to do with sustaining a human organisation than to do with helping individuals to find God.
There remains the strong possibility when we are moving through these experiences so individually that we could be deluding ourselves a little or a lot. So, a healthy dose of self-scepticism is never amiss.
It is surely God’s grace that allows us to ‘find’ God in spite of the distortions of religion.
LikeLike
I’m telling you Sam, God is definetly not on the phone to Ivan.
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan, for an atheist to say that is illogical. The phone’s definitely ringing (say I) but you refuse to acknowledge it. That’s not a good way to find out if there’s someone on at the other end or not.
LikeLike
I know its illogical, I was being funny. Didn’t work did it?
Sam you do have a rather unique view of God as does every single other religious person. What is it that convinces you that Jesus has anything at all to do with your version of a God? I respect your view that you see Jesus as an important kind of teacher, but that aside, where is his connection with God? (in your eyes)
Ivan
LikeLike
Oops! Sorry for having missed the joke.
Ivan, when you decide that you’ve met God, your own experience will also be unique. In fact I’m pretty sure that your atheism is unique too!
We Xtians foolishly speak of being in this or that denomination and we think that that means that we are with like-minded people but in fact I have never found it to be so in practice. That’s another of those nice religious ‘warm and fuzzy feelings’ that proved to be based on the false premise that similar doctrine meant oneness of mind – I assure you it does not!
The sort of crossgrained stuff I have been looking for is this combination of very human but very contentious combo pf Love and Justice without harshness (forgiving) and certainly with a good measure of the antireligious thrown in. Sticking up for the despised and the downtroden and daring to be identified with them.
I didn’t know that this was what I sought until I found it (or God showed it to me) first in the gospel of John and then ‘discovered’ that it permeated all 4 gospels.
I admit that it’s a sort of romantic idea and completely impractical to put into practice but then that’s part of the fascination.
LikeLike
Sam,
When you say “we” Christians, isn’t in the singular? All the different conceptions are almost completely different animals.
Sam when you say Gods authentic voice, your saying that people that conduct their lives in a very particular way behave with a style that is consistant with what Sam imagines God to be? Would that be another way to say it?
Sam, wouldn’t have been easier had the reported words of Jesus been made a little clearer? I am not sure whether he spoke literally in this way or whether over the years its been written up in a mysterious way. To you find the “teachings” easy to understand yourself?
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan, you are being treated to the unique and eccentric views of Sam. I can blame no one else for the stuff that flows from my keyboard.
In essence, Jesus’s teachings are not that difficult. An Oz scholar that I like pointed out that it’s a bit like a pool in which a child can safely play but at the same time an elephant can wade in and have to swim (Leon Morris who has written a really neat though somewhat dated commentary on John’s gospel) and I think he had in mind that scholars should be more careful for they needlessly complicate stuff and then get out of their depths.
There really isn’t anything that difficult to understand when Jesus asks us to love God and to love our neighbours. Putting that into practice is not so easy however.
Of course there is some stuff that is obscure too, but to be honest I have more difficulty with understanding Shakespeare than with Jesus. And there’s always the reality that our religion really does have difficulty reconciling what it has become, with what Jesus said. This makes much of our ‘scholarship’ deliberately obfuscate things that would be plain to a 10 year old.
LikeLike
Sam,
And if Jesus had nothing to do with God directly, would the words be as important to you?
Ivan
LikeLike
What was the point of Jesus being so obscure about certain things Sam?
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan, sorry for the silence. Things are a bit busy for us in the last few days before Xmas as the U.S. hospitals do their last bits before going into the “emergencies only” holiday period mode.
I guess we will find out eventually how much or how little Jesus actually has to do with God. In the meantime it is faith but hopefully based on a decent analysis of the available evidence that we are left with. My best guess was that of the people that I have known/studied, Jesus is my best candidate to be ‘the Son of God’ that I have run into so far, and for the rather vague reasons that i outlined earlier. I’m vague mainly because I am still trying to work out exactly what I do think and why.
I think Jesus was puzzling when he wanted to be, especially when discussing the future. But, I don’t want to assume that we are discussing the same passages, since what might be puzzling to some may not be so in the same way to others. So, would you list out for me some of the things that you find most puzzling about Jesus’s teachings and also indicating what the obscurity is?
LikeLike
So, would you list out for me some of the things that you find most puzzling about Jesus’ teachings and also indicating what the obscurity is?
Lets look at one of the interesting ones: Getting into heaven.
Getting yourself into heaven must rate as one of the biggies as questions go for humanity. Lets face it, no one wants hell. So Jesus appears to tell a number of people all totally different things. He doesn’t appear to tell the same thing twice. So what is the rules then? Do we do just one thing or all things? A few things or just some things? Is there one major thing or do we do several of the smaller things? How about none of the things until our deathbed then just the one last thing.. etc etc..
Of all the teachings wouldn’t this one be told simply and clearly?
Ivan
LikeLike
sorry: meant of all things shouldn’t this one be rather basic,clear and uniform?
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan, “getting yourself into heaven” imo does not constitute a particular emphasis in Jesus teaching. I think he just used the cultural paradigms of his day and age to effectively get accross the idea that it’s what you do and how you live THIS LIFE that determines who your father is. It is in this same cultural context that one can regard Jesus’s discussions on “Gehenna”.
Now, what are all these ‘things’ that you are referring to that folks have to do?
I think that on ethics Jesus indicates that a good heart, will produce good behaviour. You know a good tree by its fruit. He asks people to repent (turn away) from being alienated from God, who is like a father and mother, yearning for the affection and obedience of the child. Jesus promises that anyone who turns towards God or even who earnestly seeks God will find and be found. The result is a life that reflects the character of one’s true parents, lives of love, justice, truth, mercy…
LikeLike
Its a bit more involved than that isn’t it Sam?
LikeLike
Ivan,
you must be having some specific things in mind that are “a bit more involved”. I guess each person that reads a text will have a slightly different interaction with it, and as I am not quite a mind reader (unlike Jesus), I still don’t exactly know what it is that Ivan has in mind, unless you tell me, that is!
LikeLike
Sam,
Jesus was a mind reader? Man, I didn’t know that.
Each person has a different interaction with it? As in, there is much debate about what he means? or as in most people find it confusing or as in many people seem to misunderstand the message? or as in Many people seem to think it says another thing entirely?
Jesus indicates that a good heart, will produce good behaviour. You know a good tree by its fruit. Sam this little bit of wisdom isn’t new is it? Its pretty much common sense isn’t it?
even who earnestly seeks God will find and be found. Sam, how come I havn’t found hide nor hair of God? I have been seeking him, earnestly too.
The result is a life that reflects the character of one’s true parents, lives of love, justice, truth, mercy… Sam, but not obviously those first parents from the OT ? I didn’t see a lot of love,justice or mercy with that part.
Ivan
LikeLike
Sam,
What do you think of Jesus and his attitude toward woman in general? It does surprise me sometimes at how much is not said Jesus in regards to this gender. Some examples could be that he makes no comments that say Eve was wrongly blamed or that Mosaic law is a little demeaning to woman he forgets to say woman need not submit to their husbands or that wives can devorce husbands or that there are no witches and if there was, that they shouldn’t be burnt to death or that the hapless virgin before marriage shouldn’t be stoned or burnt to death with the culprit going free or that 10 virgins shouldn’t belong to one bridegroom. Sam, how is it that in almost every instance the man is never at fault in any sexual situation?
regards
Ivan
LikeLike
Each person has a different interaction with it? As in, there is much debate about what he means? or as in most people find it confusing or as in many people seem to misunderstand the message? or as in Many people seem to think it says another thing entirely?
The experience of any text is definitely a very individual thing. I was just restating this to remind you that I didn’t know which specific bits of the text you had in mind.
Jesus indicates that a good heart, will produce good behaviour. You know a good tree by its fruit. Sam this little bit of wisdom isn’t new is it? Its pretty much common sense isn’t it?
Absolutely, as opposed to stuff like ethnicity (we are sons of Abraham) or we are followers of the (Mosaic) Law or any other ism or membership (including “I am a Christian”). All these are belief systems that have been commonplace yet I think that it’s largely because Jesus condemned such thinking that you and I can now call this “common”sense.
As far as women are concerned, the data that we do have indicates that Jesus respected them as equals. 2 (of many) instances where Jesus goes right against cultural taboos are his conversation with a Samaritan woman (John chapter 4), and his welcome to a prostitute in public (Luke 7).
Jesus never says anything about wives submitting to husbands, he tells us to not strike back when struck but to turn the other cheek, so I think it’s fair to infer that he is not for burning, drowning, torturing, or any such thing be it a witch or a wizard. I don’t know of any teaching on 10 virgins for one bridegroom and what are the incidents where Jesus excuses men from being at fault?
even who earnestly seeks God will find and be found. Sam, how come I havn’t found hide nor hair of God? I have been seeking him, earnestly too.
I’d look at your life for the answer to that one Ivan. You pointed out some time back that Mother Theresa had a very long ‘dark night of the soul’ experience where she felt that she could not sense God. To me, I can see God in what she did. It’s as Jesus says, your actions will speak the truth about who your spiritual parents are – even when you don’t “feel” that any presence in your life.
The result is a life that reflects the character of one’s true parents, lives of love, justice, truth, mercy… Sam, but not obviously those first parents from the OT ? I didn’t see a lot of love,justice or mercy with that part.
I look at the OT as with most religious works, as stuff that while it might have within it ideas from God, mostly it is stuff that has been reworked for nationalistic or for religious purposes. You certainly can see that it is very much the same god the Father that Jesus is talking about even in the OT but you do have to strip away o lot of other junk to find it. I think Jesus had the same thing in mind when he told the religious leaders of his day that a lot of stuff in the Mosaic law had been reworked for the convenience of the religion and culture of that day. They really should know better than to take it literally when the spirit of the law was actually quite plainly against how they were choosing to interpret it.
LikeLike
what are the incidents where Jesus excuses men from being at fault? I was thinking for example the passage where the men bring the woman to Jesus for committing adultary. He who sins cast the first stone?
Buts its a good point though. Jesus never comes out in rejection of things you would imagine he might if his values were to be timeless.
The experience of any text is definitely a very individual thing
But it shouldn’t be Sam, on something this important ?
LikeLike
Sam, if we were to list out say, the ways Jesus instructs people to act in the gospels we roughly get this don’t we?
1. Accumulate no wealth or possessions there isnt a need for them. You can run the risk of being too rich if this happens give it away.
2. Make no plans. buy no food,don’t sew God will feed and clothe you.
3.be a little gloomy and mournful.
4.be self rightous and put upon Parade your perfection.
5. Be smug,know your the salt of the earth and light of the world.
6.Do behave so you can be in a higher class group in heavan.
7. Think yourself as a gross sinner.Nearly every thought and action must be regarded as a sin and require repentance and forgiveness.
8. Take no pleasure in this world. Constantly point to kingdom of God and the coming which is “imminient” (supposedly in Jesus lifetime)
9. Be sure to beleive that someone else bought your way into heaven by being tortured to death,a death in which you had a hand apparently, be comfortable with salvation.
10.Agree with everyone else.
11. Don’t admit to sexual urges. if the sight of something arouses you, be prepared to pluck out your eyes.
12. Be a Eunuch to win Gods special approval.
13. Do not have a deep family love. Abandon them.You will receive an hundred fold and atain everlasting life in heaven.
14.Be retiring. do not lead. do not be proud of accomplishments.
15. Love everybody (Ivan also) have no special feeling for those that endear themselves to you.
16. Should you be robbed of $100 give the robber another $100.
17. Don’t reason or think.remain childlike with no moral sense or have an ability to discriminate or use experience as a guide.
18.Be gullible and credulous. do not question.
19. Don’t resist an attacker, let him do this to you again.
20.if you lose a lawsuit pay double what your assessed.
21. If your kidnapped and taken 5 miles away, offer to go another 5 miles.
22. Love all who mistreat you. This though,may contine since they have discovered how to gain your admiration and affection.
23. Don’t declare your charitable giving for an income tax credit.
24. Avoid dogs and swine of this world save all uplifting thoughts for worthy persons.
25.Don’t worry about your special lot of misfortune be content and passive and confident that your heavenly father who loves you so much that if you don’t grovel he may throw into a furnace or lake of fire forever.
26.Behave as you please most of your life but say sorry at the very end. That way, you will get your reward before many exemplary persons at the seat of judgement.
27. Don’t acheive prominence in this world for you shall be last in the next.
28.For a special approbation, refrain from eating,pour oil on your head,and wash your face then take a gift to church.
Is that about right Sam?
Ivan
LikeLike
Sam,
In Mark 1:23-28 There is an interesting conversation with some demons.
Let us alone;what have we done to thee,thou Jesus of Nazareth?Art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who you art,the holy one of God. And Jesus rebuked him,saying,Hold thy peace and come out of him. And when the unclean spirit had come outof him and cried with a loud voice he came out of him… and immediately his fame spread.
Jesus seems to be able to de-devil people with some ease,but where do they go Sam? would it be other people? nearby livestock? are devils still around inhabiting people? Could I have one?
Jesus does go on to say to Deciples to “raise the dead,cast out devils” Matthew 10:8 How easy would this be to do Sam? Could any deciple do it? Can the Pope do it?
Ivan
LikeLike
Sam,
One of the most violent parables of Jesus is the story of the marriage feast. Here the servants who do not wish to attend are massacred for their reluctance. The guests are forced in from the street to view the rites, one such person not properly dressed is bound and cast into darkness for being inappropriately clothed. Matthew 22:1-14
Why does Jesus use these types of deeds to illustrate principals? What do you imagine it says about his personality?
Why does episodes of bestial behavour and revenge have such a fascination for him? Why does he show no repugnance to this material?
Also Sam in Matthew 15:22-28
Jesus doesn’t want to listen to or help a Gentile woman with a sick child. Jesus eventually responds: I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel Its not meet to take the childrens bread and cast it to the dogs (Gentiles) I think after some further humiliation he finally agrees to heal her.
Sam does that say anything to you about his personality?
Ivan
LikeLike
Sam, in Matthew 24 a discription of the end of days reveals a rather odd and narrow view of the world, it doesn’t seem all that Godlike to me.
The sun and the moon shall be darkened,and the stars shall fall (fall?)
then all shall see (how Sam?) the son of man coming in the clouds.His angels shall come with trumpet sounds and gather up the elect from the four winds.
Isn’t this just a little to ignorant in regards to science? It makes Jesus appear little more than your average bronze age supersticious Jew of that day. Wouldn’t such things as atomic bombs be mentioned? armies still using swords? stars that fall? presumably under the power of special space gravity? The sun loses both its heat and light yet everything on earth is quite normal just in twilight? Sam given he was the “son of God” shouldn’t he have known pretty much all that was to come in the next 2000 years? why did he not know everything? Could he have always just been simple prophet of the day like thousands of others?
Regards
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan, you are getting way ahead of me again! I’m in something of a time crunch this year end but I’m hoping to get a decent break around the 4th or so when I will hopefully be able to give your questions the attention that they deserve.
LikeLike
In your own time Sam and only if you feel up to it. I know your pretty much everywhere online and you have a busy time of year at home.
Best regards
Ivan
LikeLike
Sam,
when you said: Jesus never says anything about wives submitting to husbands
Shouldn’t Jesus have said something?
you said: can see God in what she did. It’s as Jesus says, your actions will speak the truth about who your spiritual parents are – even when you don’t “feel” that any presence in your life.
So what about when something evil is committed? Is that Jesus or Satan or the like? Is it just free will? Whats responsible then for the negatives?
you said: As far as women are concerned, the data that we do have indicates that Jesus respected them as equals. 2 (of many) instances where Jesus goes right against cultural taboos are his conversation with a Samaritan woman (John chapter 4), and his welcome to a prostitute in public (Luke 7).
Is that all Sam? I thought he only picked men as deciples? But he didn’t seem to like gentile woman with sick children begging for healing?
you said:
so I think it’s fair to infer that he is not for burning, drowning, torturing, or any such thing
But Jesus never said anything against these specific things which caused them to be practised now for over 2000 years Sam.
Stonings were oh so common as were crucifixions but nary a word was said wasn’t it Sam?
“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.” – Matthew 10:34
Having told his fans to love their enemies, alarmingly, Jesus also tells them to turn families into enemies!
“For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.” – Matthew 10.35,36
” If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” – Luke 14.26
Sam this doesn’t sound like a meek Jesus imploring us to turn the other cheek?
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan, I thought you might find this article interesting:
http://www.azure.org.il/magazine/magazine.asp?id=352
It’s a bit of a negative review but the author’s bias shows quite clearly so you can discount that, and realise that Finkelstein has really irritated the Jewish archaeological establishment. For the very last thing that they are willing to admit is that Saul was probably a greater king than either Davis or Solomon. David effectively overthrew Israel’s rightful king and forcibly established a rival clan that was also nothing like what the bible purports to so gloriously describe. The work of the “Copenhagen School” is also something that irritates this author but I actually find their work very interesting.
LikeLike
Thanks for that Sam.
Ivan
LikeLike
Sam,
No problem at all to continue our conversation..
Tibet? I don’t know enough about it. I suspect its a bit of a lost cause If I understand anything about China. What about it did you wish to ask?
Kind regards
Ivan
LikeLike
From the atheist’s standpoint perhaps Buddhism closest, amongst the “great” religions, to agreeing with atheism’s main tenet – that there is no God. Yet it is a religion that is ancient and is part of the culture of the Tibetan peoples who are distict both racially and culturally-linguisticall from the other peoples of that area. China, a communist, and supposedly atheistic nation, furthermore a nation that proclaims that it is against empire building, has taken over Tibet and claims that Tibet is just another province of China – a point that they justifiably make about Taiwan, but in the case of Tibet I do think that they have annexed an area that has actually should be an independent nation. So, dig in to it a bit and tell me what you think. Would you support the Dalai Lama in this case? Should Australia still participate in the Olympics?
LikeLike
I am happy to dig into it Sam. But personally, I don’t think Tibetan’s stand a chance against China dispite what some of the rest of the world think. China being a very closed shop, would benifit from seeing lots of Western media attention. I therefore think it would be for the best if we participate in the Olympics. I think it would be the thing doing the most good.
regards
Ivan
LikeLike
Welcome back fellas.
LikeLike
still John, had just been giving Sam his breathing room.
How is the business?
LikeLike
Moving s-l-o-w-l-y, Ivan, thanks for asking.
LikeLike
Thanks for all that (much needed) breathing room, and for the privilege of being forgiven! I wouldn’t say that the crisis is past but things do look a lot better now than a couple of months ago.
LikeLike
Hi John and Sam,
I have a ton of stuff to ask, but I have 3 companies trying to buy out my little one. Its a bit like doing about 9 jobs at once when I use to just do 3. Busy just doesn’t cut it.
I am up all hours now working, but will have some questions posted shortly.
Ivan
LikeLike
What does your company do, Ivan, if you don’t mind my asking?
LikeLike
Again! Ivan, you must be doing a lot of things right to have folks constantly wanting to buy you out, or is it an attempt to clear competitors out of the way in a lucrative market? Either way, it sounds like a good thing.
In any case there’s still a backlog of toughies that I did not get to last time, so don’t worry about needing to put up more questions right now.
LikeLike
Hi John and Sam,
I import medical instruments and anaesthetics and ionomers and other really weird stuff. I pretty much fly under the multinational radar here but all of a sudden boom! I have UK companies,US companies,OZ companies all wanting there piece of Ivan. My share price has gone from $30K to about $200K as of this morning. (I think they want my tax credits) The trouble is I only fairly recently started raking in the cash. Astounding though these offers are I can pretty much make this in the next few years and still have the company. The accountant is working flat out trying to work out a reasonable value. (Having not really sold a company before I didn’t know there was so much to it.
Sam,
Why would God need a Jesus ?
LikeLike
“I thought he only picked men as deciples? But he didn’t seem to like gentile woman with sick children begging for healing?
you said: so I think it’s fair to infer that he is not for burning, drowning, torturing, or any such thing.
But Jesus never said anything against these specific things which caused them to be practised now for over 2000 years Sam. Stonings were oh so common as were crucifixions but nary a word was said wasn’t it Sam?”
In the first instance, regarding male disciples, it looks to me that ‘the twelve’ were only one part of the inner circle of Jesus’ disciples, who also included folks like Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and seems to have been quite a number of other men and women. The gospels writers are products of heavily male dominated cultures. They record these facts but then interpret them in a traditional way; that all these women came along to ‘minister’ to this group of disciples. The same process continues into the early church but a careful reading of the NT shows that there were many women who were leaders and powerful ones in these early days. Subsequently I think the later church just chose (and many still do) to ignore the very solid evidence that Jesus had a number of women disciples and in fact in the crunch when he was arrested the men ran for cover but the women stayed with him throughout.
““Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.” – Matthew 10:34 Having told his fans to love their enemies, alarmingly, Jesus also tells them to turn families into enemies! “For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.” – Matthew 10.35,36 ” If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” – Luke 14.26
Sam this doesn’t sound like a meek Jesus imploring us to turn the other cheek?”
Ivan, I read this differently than you do. If you come to a culture like mine in India where ‘the family’ is god, I think you will get a sense of what Jesus was demending of his disciples. It has been the experience of the 2000+ years since Jesus that people who do try to follow Jesus very simple demand that we love others more than ourselves will be targeted by a world that glorifies selfishness.
In ancient Israel it was genetics, the tribe, and the dominant extended family within tribes that ruled in selfishness. The tribe of Levi through the priesthood were at the apex of the pyramid. Jesus comes strongly against this. The result of that revolutionary teaching has taken a long time to sink in but I think there’s no doubt that Jesus teachings have resulted in today’s consensus that all human beings are equal and that all should have the same basic rights.
LikeLike
I think there’s no doubt that Jesus teachings have resulted in today’s consensus that all human beings are equal and that all should have the same basic rights.
If this were so Sam, wouldn’t Jesus have had things to say on important topics like Slavery and Gender equality?
LikeLike
Ivan, thanks for taking the time out of a very busy schedule to keep interacting.
I guess I wonder at your very high expectations for what the record will contain of Jesus’ many teachings. I don’t want to argue from silence but I think it’s only natural that the folks who passed on these teachings will pick on 1. stuff that interests them and 2. stuff that is so surprising that it is hard to forget or leave out of the story. Indeed it is on these principles (among others) that Bultmann’s Form Criticism of the gospels is based.
There is no doubt at all in my mind that Jesus was against slavery. The hints that we get from the gospel materials is that he was for gender equality, had women as his disciples and valued their minds as well as their own quests for truth equally highly. But, I can point to very little especially on the slavery issue except for the very powerful ‘Jubilee’ teaching that Jesus did at the start of his ministry and that he refers to occasionally afterwards (e.g. when speaking to John the Baptist’s disciples). Jesus quotes a very unambiguous passage from the OT prophet Isaiah that he believes is notw fulfilled in his own decleration of God’s kingdom:
“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed,
to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.” And he closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant, and sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. And he began to say to them, “Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” Luke 4 18-21
LikeLike
Sam,
I guess its hard to really understand. I would have thought some things might be construed as more important than others, and you would think that things like slavery and witch burning might have evoked a more emphatic response. But who can say? This is why I think the traditional understanding of Gods main plan the Resurrection was a bit of a dogs breakfast. It would have made a whole lot more sense to have human Jesus around another 30 years. May have had the chance of being totally clear on everything.
Ivan
LikeLike
Agreed on the whole with that sentiment, but it also puts into sharp focus the strength of the revolutionary demands that Jesus makes. The way I read the scenario, the status quo of Romans-hand-in-glove-with-the-priests was minting money (probably literally) and Jesus’ prophetic call to repentance (which is first and foremost a political call) simply could not be tolerated. J-the-B’s head rolled and so too would Jesus have to be silenced.
If there was one thing that Jesus was good at (still is) it’s forcing folks to “decide”. Live sacrificially, or not at all…
It’s a bit like terrorism. Whenever one sees the establishment get all het up and bent out of shape over something, one could suspect that there is more to it than meets the eye. In our case its oil but in those days the black gold was temple revenue combined with extortion on taxes and the ubiquitous use of short weights and measures. It all ran up the political pyramid and led to very lucrative postings for priests, tetrarchs, and proconsuls too.
LikeLike
“a bit of a dogs breakfast”
Had to look that one up.
LikeLike
BTW on “witch burning” this seems to have been a favorite pastime of John Calvin, the Reformer, and some others from the medieval period onwards, but not much in evidence in Jesus’ time. Back then they seem to have preferred stoning to death, and if you accept John 8 as somewhat authentic, Jesus comes out rather clearly against this particularly popular ‘solution’…
LikeLike
Sam,
When did Christianity start minting money?
Sam what did you mean when you said the family is God?
LikeLike
Here’s something interesting about the potentially harmful impact of our bugbear inspirator http://arts.guardian.co.uk/art/visualart/story/0,,2273469,00.html
Religion + ruling elite = money, lots of it! That always has been, and always (probably) will be true…
More soon on family and selfish genes.
LikeLike
And another interesting titbit on some old discussions with Hitchens and Dawkins that seem to have slipped under the wire…with some reflective comments both on religion and atheism and the whole tone of the discussions that do take place.
http://shmuley.com/articles.php?id=627
LikeLike
Ivan, I finally finished Cosmic Jackpot by Paul Davies. Fascinating, all these bizarre developments in subatomic physics and astrophysics. It’s odd how he ends up believing in a quasi-mystical “life principle” which permeates the universe. I didn’t really understand his justification for this belief, nor did it seem intrinsically as plausible as some of the other options he dismisses. As he admits, it’s more a gut feel for Davies than a well-reasoned, empirically falsifiable bit of scientific insight.
LikeLike
Good for you John! Iagree with you also and there are a lot of people who disagree with Davies out there. I have every one of his books and I find him very interesting to read or to listen to. He had a small TV series which were interviews between himself and Phillip Adams (a kind of atheist poster boy everyone hates but me) down here which was very good.
Ivan
LikeLike
Sam.
I think I disagree with the main thrust of Boteachs point. I think Atheists are simply finding there collective voice for once. I certainly do see anything wrong with the tone for the most part. (there are exceptions) I don’t think its “irrational hatred” at all. Personally, I beleive that the ultimate survival of humanity will rest on it losing its reliance on ancient religions of any type. This is the importance I place on the atheist movement. Mind you, a world of Sam Carrs would equally do me as a replacement for atheitsm!
Kind regards
Ivan
LikeLike
I’ve read some of Davies but not ‘Cosmic Jackpot’. He created a bit of a storm by stating that much of science is just as faith based as religion, in the NYT some time back. His own position in this spectrum is vague even in this article itself “laws should have an explanation from within the universe” being a prime example of a faith based statement.
It’s common on both sides of the debate to see one side misrepresenting the actual position of their opponents. I think the creationist camp are the worst offenders but frequently atheistic debators have a sort of denigrating attitude to faith based arguments even when these positions are quite rigorously argued by believing scientists and this makes them see ‘leaps of faith’ all over the place while they quietly ignore their own beliefs and I think that that is much of what Boteach was pointing to.
My feeling on the issue of family influence in Jesus’ times comes from seeing a lot of similarities between that culture and my own Indian one. It makes Jesus’ statements on (against) family resonate for me in a very different way.
It is the norm in such societies for there to be no individual decision making. You will follow in your family’s footsteps as far as profession is concerned and the same goes for marriage and one’s social status, education, etc. We commonly judge someone here by their family “he comes from a good family” means you can trust this individual. It is very pervasive and we don’t see the bad side of it clearly enough for it does contribute to very stable and trouble free communities. Every one knows his or her ‘place’ and can be expected to fulfil some standard role as is needed by this stable community and as determined by the will of the family elders. One’s ‘self’ is largely defined by one’s family.
Jesus tosses out the whole thing beginning with his own family ties. Furthermore, he demands that his disciples also do the same. It is one of the clearest signs of the deterioration of the NT church when they elevate James (Jesus’ own brother) to a leadership role. So, once Jesus was not there to control the family influence it looks as though it quickly reasserted itself. Paul’s own struggles to convince his Jewish friends that gentiles were just as welcome in God’s Kingdom, is just an extrapolation of this same thinking and indeed, the fact that Jesus was so ‘crossgrained’ as far as his own society goes is surley one of the biggest reasons for his early death.
LikeLike
Ha! Ha! “a world of…” my wife of twenty years just rolled off her chair guffawing at that thought.
LikeLike
Here’s how Davies ends the NYTimes article: “It seems to me there is no hope of ever explaining why the physical universe is as it is so long as we are fixated on immutable laws or meta-laws that exist reasonlessly or are imposed by divine providence. The alternative is to regard the laws of physics and the universe they govern as part and parcel of a unitary system, and to be incorporated together within a common explanatory scheme. In other words, the laws should have an explanation from within the universe and not involve appealing to an external agency.”
This is more or less how he ends Cosmic Jackpot too. I have a couple quibbles with his position. First, his lament at not being able to know “why the physical universe is as it is” seems like an artifact of a faith-based outlook. That other scientists seem content not even to concern themselves about this question seems hard for Davies to accept — this is a matter of psychology rather than physics, I think. Second, he subscribes to an idealistic view of the laws of science, such that the equations and the numbers are inherent in the structure of the universe itself. A pragmatic view contends that the laws and the mathematics are useful human tools for making sense of phenomena in ways that human minds can understand, but these laws aren’t part of the phenomena themselves. It’s not unlike saying “the grass is green” — it’s as much a statement about human perception and language as it is about the grass. Third, his notion of a universe explaining itself in its own terms is related to his idea that there’s some sort of a life force that’s intrinsic to the universe. I found this bit hard to understand, inasmuch as it seemed to require events in the present to cause past events, or something along those lines, which he didn’t explain in a way that I could really grasp. I think he has to go to such lengths mostly because of the first two points: his need for understanding why, and his idealism about a set of natural laws that eventually evolved minds which could understand those laws.
LikeLike
Kt, it’s just possible that he’s here trying to explain something like the anthropic principle in a different way. It’s become commonplace now to say “OK here’s where we are at so this must be where it all started and what and all must have happened in between.”
LikeLike
As I understand it, the strong version of the principle states that, in a universe where life exists, some fundamental principle is at work that inevitably results in the emergence of life. This I think assumes a completely deterministic and reductionistic universe, such that whatever comes into being had to happen once the ball got rolling. What Davies has in mind goes further along these lines: a universe that has intelligent beings who come to understand the way the universe works must have always had some fundamental principle of self-awareness built into it. I.e., humans who understand the workings of the universe constitute a manifestation of universal self-awareness, as if the universe itself was a vast being whose self-consciousness resides in humans and similar sentient beings. Since humans are part of the universe they understand, then humans become the means by which the universe comes into self-awareness.
LikeLike
If physical laws come from the essential nature of matter-energy (or whatever other quarky stuff is now in vogue) it would perhaps follow that consciousness too must also be a product of some as yet undiscovered but nonetheless essential cosmic principle. This is not even a hair’s breadth away from turning Davies into a Deist!
LikeLike
You’re right, Sam. He even acknowledges that the idea of a supreme being as Prime Mover and intelligent designer isn’t all that far-fetched, though he thinks it begs the question of who designed the Designer and of why he went to all that trouble in the first place. Plus there’s still the question of how it was done.
LikeLike
Sam,
Davis is very close to being a Deist of sorts but he is an interesting read. If you ever need to build a time machine he is your man!
Ivan
LikeLike
I agree, what I’ve read of him, including the 5th Miracle, has been very interesting. It also goes to show that each one of us is an individual and that sometimes the labels that we use, especially in philosophy, can do as much harm as good. People need to be talking to each other and not at this or that label. Of course, actually treating others as individuals can be a daunting task!
LikeLike
Sam,
Two of the most popular religious phrases here, found on everything from Church notice boards to bumper stickers are:
God is love.
Jesus loves you.
Is this true? If so, what is the evidence?
regards
Ivan
LikeLike
Hi again. I’m temporarily back…
I think it’s true on both counts. The only problem, as generally with such statements, is what it actually means to the person that you’re talking to. I hazard that my understanding of what it means to say “God is love” is a bit off the beaten track.
In fact these two statements are closely linked in my understanding. Also this current state of ‘my understanding’ has already undergone a lot of changes, not least because of the influence of the musings of one Dr. John Doyle.
I don’t think that it means a warm fuzzy feeling. If its a fairy idea it is also a very toothless one. I have a son and a daughter. I have friends, many of whom are of my age or thereabouts. I find that I very badly want my friends to think highly of my kids. I would like the friendships and mutual respect of this generation, to just keep right on going… I guess this is natural but on the other hand it takes no account of whether my kids are enamoured of my friends nor of whether they fancy continuing these relationships rather than breaking out into making their own lives and being free to make their own mistakes.
One aspect then of God’s love is that God gives us the freedom not to like his own son. If we are to like Jesus, it must be because we want to and not because, Dad says to do so.
LikeLike
Sam,
How is the last paragraph translated to “love” exactly, I don’t understand. Also the questions relationship to Jesus?
LikeLike
Sam,
you see Jesus as the direct “son” of God?
LikeLike
Ivan, Jesus certainly saw himself as God’s son but it’s an open question in my mind whether he didn’t think that we are all God’s children. For one thing, he encouraged his disciples to think of god as “abba” and that’s something like poppa, or daddy and to communicate with dad on these terms.
I think Jesus broke a number of moulds and his definition of love is one of those very issues. Paul says that love is never selfish, always thinking more highly of the other than of ones own self (that’s a very loose paraphrase of bits of 1Cor 13)and I think he gets this definition both from Jesus teaching and Jesus’ life. Looking at the gospel record there’s little doubt in my mind as to Jesus ability to love even me. Jesus says that he is only reflecting what and who his father is, and that’s something one can take on faith or not.
The quality of this love is such that it is not selfish or self centred; the love continues even in the face of rejection, and that’s real love.
LikeLike
Sorry, am I being very vague again? I’m under some time pressure with a new project and tending to “shoot from the hip”.
LikeLike
Sam,
The general “thrust” of most of the general types of religious advertising mean “love” in the quite common human type way. As in, God or Jesus “love you” as say a wife or child may?
LikeLike
No, the common human forms of love (parent-child, ‘lovers’, and even friendship) are too mixed up generally with selfishness to really be comparable. As I think Dawkins has argued, somewhat successfully, a mother’s/father’s self sacrificial love for children may have more to do with selfish genes than we really care to admit. Think of someone like Jane Goodall and that to me is a better analogy to how God loves us…
LikeLike
Ivan, here’s something you may enjoy…
LikeLike
Sam,
What would be the evidence for God doing a Jane Goodall?
Sam we have world youth day here shortly with the Pope arriving. I have had this nastly feeling that Jesus may have been believing that he was in fact the Pope. Could this be a Jesus delusion?
LikeLike
That was an interesting article Sam. I had not heard of this man before. New Scientist Magazine had a wonderful wrap up of evolution last week.
LikeLike
I guess I’m left eye dominant while you favour your right! Evidence starts to sound a bit circular but I start with persons like Jesus where I think tha analogy is strong. Here’s a human being who goes against the human grain in the quality of love that he espouses. It is certainly not ‘selfish’ in any sense even willing to accept those that are sworn enemies.
Then there’s this thing that makes Davies think that nature itself must be metaphysical. I prefer to think that the better explanation, indeed the more scientific one, is that God has something to do with creation though again there is no dependence of the creation on the creator – hence seeking evidence from within for something that must be without is a bit counterproductive.
LikeLike
Ivan, if you hadn’t already seen this, there was a debate on Beliefnet not long back between Ehrman and Wright on the problem of evil. I found it fascinating and inconclusive, but full of rich thoughts.
Just to be safe – http://blog.beliefnet.com/blogalogue/
LikeLike
Hey thanks for that link Sam. I am just starting to read it and your right its hugely interesting!
Kind regards
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan, sorry for another longish silence. We’re just getting ready to launch a new course in my medical transcription training center and it’s been a bit hectic.
I recently ran into an article by a George Murphy who seriously tries to accept evolution and reads Genesis in that light. He has a lot of stuff on how man’s falleness can fit into this framework, which I thought was interesting. It’s a bit heavy reading but if you can get through the Christian jargon you may enjoy it…
LikeLike
Ivan, just in case you were not already onto the quest to rethink the theory of evolution (mainly questioning the role of natural selection and genotype-phenotype connections) here’s a link to a rundown on the debate as it stands.
LikeLike
Thank you for that Sam, will give it a read tomorrow.
Knd regards
Ivan
LikeLike
Sam,
A couple of articles I read today that were interesting.
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/dn13983-religion-is-a-product-of-evolution-software-suggests.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=specrt17_head_The%20God%20program
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19826586.200-interview-separating-fact-and-fiction-in-the-bible.html
LikeLike
Ivan, the second article won’t open unless I subscribe to New Scientist Magazine.
LikeLike
That is a subscription article because Finkelstein is an interesting (salable) character whom we have referred to earlier (above#865), who has challenged his more traditional Zionist friends with some uncomfortable theories and whose dating schema also causes difficulties for those who want to argue for the truth of biblical stories about how the Israelites actually ended up occupying Palestine. Politically I think he is more ‘dangerous’ in some ways as his logic for the legitimacy of Israel does not depend on proving that the biblical saga is in any way true.
Needless to say, Israeli-Palestinian archaeology is hopelessly politicized.
The article on evolution tries to tackle one of the stickiest problems for evolution and that is to explain how religiosity could have ‘evolved’. I think it is a silly exercise as religion is nothing other than another science. If you define religion as “passing on unverifiable beliefs” then this is an activity that is fundamental to how society operates and science too is itself a religion.
I have no clue about the maths or physics of subatomic particles, or the theory of relativity, or quantum mechanics, or string theories, and having more than 4 dimensions, big bangs, black holes, and/or… yet I talk about these things as if I did understand them. Science claims to have experimented rigorously and ‘proved’ many of these esoteric and strange ideas to be ‘facts’, but I personally am completely unable to verify any of it. So, when I speak of science I am always passing on unverified information.
LikeLike
John,
Will try and scan and print here on the weekend (sorry)
Sam, another question or two.
Sam do you remember once we talked about the events of Matthew27:50-54 ? The dead rising? You said something along the lines that you didn’t really think it happened but maybe for whatever reason the area had a small earthwake. I was reading the writings of Craig lately and he asked the question as to why the former would so instantly be dismissed by theologians yet some pages later the exact same thing happens via a single man, Jesus but we take that even as historical fact? Whats your thoughts?
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan, for any historical source the issue of authenticity has to be decided on the strength of the evidence. My feeling about Matthew is that while he is a sincere historian, in some cases he has followed his oral sources without crosschecking their stories. Given that Matthew (as we now have it – not proto Matthew etc.) is quite late, perhaps it was just difficult for him/her to do.
The resurrection of Jesus is attested by four independent historical sources, which puts it in a whole different category. Here, for the historian, the question is; if you don’t believe it, why on earth not?
LikeLike
Sam,
Now your finally talking my language!!!! What are the four independent historical sources? In the former paragraph, what would you use to show some evidence?
Kind regards
Ivan
LikeLike
John,
Waaay off my topic, How is your business doing? Are things working out for you guys in the USA ?
Ivan
LikeLike
Let’s start with Julius Caesar, almost contemporary, now what are our sources? Compare the 4 gospels, Acts, various letters by Paul etc. Then Tacitus, Pliny, Josephus…
LikeLike
Ok,
I know I am wrting backwards here:
Pliny the younger did mention a Christian group singing if I remember correctly, but this wasn’t any “eye witness” style evidence. Its some 80 to 100 tears after the big event.
Now Tacitus was even after Pliny, and he had to explain what a Christian was for apparently the general population didn’t know. But he is far removed from being a witness in any traditional sense.
Compare the four gospels? I have done that Sam and I found all four different. I mean this to the point thats authentically written by people who had no experience or eye witnessing of Jesus or the writings have changed beyond its initial discription to a point they don’t confirm anything. Have you see one of Pauls letters? an originial in a display? I understood Nothing of Pauls actually exists. I think Caesar might be ruled out also from an evidence point of view. Not sure there is an external record.
regards
Ivan
LikeLike
tears = years
wrting = writing
sorry man, trying to type while my wife was talking about home improvement stuff
Ivan
LikeLike
That’s just the problem when dealing skeptically with historical sources. We don’t have that mush to go on but comparitively the evidence for Jesus is pretty strong (by historical standards). Now, whether this has anything to do with believing in Jesus as the sone of God, or in God, really is a different question altogether. All that the historical evidence will get you is the probability that Jesus existed and that there was a lot of local confusion about his death with some claiming that he was dead and body stolen, others that he died and rose from the dead, and then some others who thought he was a spirit in human form all along and only apparently died…
LikeLike
My typing is even worse and I can’t blame my wifey as she’s many miles away…
LikeLike
Hi there Sam, Yes, Historically its an absolute dead end. Reading some stuff the other day that said that even Biblical criticsm was just about over. (I think the phrased used was it was on the slab) If there is one thing that has really been a benifit to me talking with you its the education. There is no way I would have ever thought to look this deeply into it Sam. Sam, is your wife ok?
Ivan
LikeLike
“Compare the four gospels? I have done that Sam and I found all four different.”
That was not exactly what I had in mind. What I meant was compare the relative lack of sources for Gaius Julius Caesar (who is one of the best attested of the Caesars) to what we do have for Jesus, including 4 independent roughly contemporary accounts in the 4 gospels &c.
From this standpoint I think you are being uncritical about your own stance. If there is disagreement you would say that this disproves these sources authenticity whereas where there is agreement that is taken as evidence of copying or plagiarism. Given the nature of ancient documentary sources, one does not expect the original bits of vellum or papyri to have survived but textual critics do have a lot of stuff to work with and they are generally pretty happy that they have been able to produce an accurate text.
For you, when a miracle is recorded that becomes more negative evidence because “miracles don’t happen”. In other words, do you feel that you are being objective at all? I think it’s fair to ask yourself what you would like to have as evidence (of an ancient sort) and whether there is a reasonable expectation that such an evidence may actually exist. In other words, what would you actually be willing to accept?
LikeLike
Sam,
I think I am objective but you just know I am not. Darn people eh? I see four sources of hearsay from people we cannot identify that were not present at the alleged events. If you look at so called modern events like at Medjugorje, you can recall oral and written testimony changing completely in less than 5 years. How would it look in 150 years?
We have four main accounts.
We have no historical back up of these accounts
The accounts are all different with the facts.
The people even claim not to be witness themselves.
Its a highly superstitious society.
The accounts are not put into print until 150 years minimum after the event.
The accounts then change with every copying.
Churches are formed with agendas and a product to present and sell.
Further changes made to product for presentations purposes made.
Not a single piece of actual historical evidence remains or even the identities or motives of the writers.
And EVERYONE thinks they have a personality/Psychological profile on Jesus that then informs them of what and who he was.
And what this his come down to in the modern age is paper after paper of scrutiny of his verbs or nouns with not
and ounce of new actual evidence. Its become an industry just writing this stuff.
The miracles Sam are not even that as such. Where is the return to verify that people are still healed? How is this different
from your typical Southern American religious entertainment? What would be evidence to me?
Good question. Some original writing of Jesus that meant something? A secular report from the Romans would be good.
A Roman report of the dead rising..some kind of really undoctored account that matched with the historical facts
of how Romans performed executions.. (just off the top of my head) Re-appearance of Jesus?
A word from God? Believe it or not I am trying to study both sides of the fence its only the other day I
realised they were all saying the same thing. How’s your wife?
LikeLike
Historically speaking I do think that you are being a bit unreasonable. By your standards and it will be pretty tough for any God to indicate to us that he/she/it actually exists.
Archaeologists are busily digging away so maybe some of what you wish for may actually happen, though given that most of the archaeologists are looking to establish the legitimacy of the state of Israel…
The “word from God” is probably highest on the probability scale!
My wife is doing quite OK as are daughter and son. She is having a big struggle with getting enough sleep due to myofascial pain and is now trying homeopathy for that.
LikeLike
I don’t agree Sam. Break it down a bit, How could it be “tough” by any standard, yours mine or the Popes for a God to not send unmistakable evidence for its existence? I am talking here of our traditional Christian type God of the NT. Yes Archaeologists are busy excavating and we all wait with intense interest for them finding something although maybe this shouldn’t be our focal point at all.
Now Sam, this I don’t understand at all, can you explain it? I might be misunderstanding you somehow when you say “word of God” is the highest on the probability scale. Which part would we consider the word of God as opposed to which parts are the word of ordinary man?
A Question: If Sam was in charge of world Bible presentation for the future ages would you be inclined to leave anything out?
I am sorry to hear about your wifes condition. Has it been long standing Sam?
Ivan
LikeLike
John, going back a few comments to #917, someone has taken the trouble to cut and paste that New Scientist Finkelstein interview HERE. Have a read…
LikeLike
Rainer Kessler’s – The Social History of Ancient Israel (Fortress) . You might find it interesting. The pdf of chapter 1 is here:
Click to access 0800662822_chap1.pdf
LikeLike
Ivan, sorry again for the long delay in answering your astute and pointed questions.
I guess what I find tough in your approach is precisely that you expect God to do something unusual to make it absolutely obvious (to us) who and what god is and why we HAVE TO believe in this particular God. Failing this you conclude that God does not exist!
If I had my druthers, I think I would have given up on this bunch (including me) long back. Assuming that God does want us to decide to follow and believe of our own free will, this eliminates any ‘shouting from the sky’ approach. humans have to realise the truth and then start behaving accordingly. The best that one can do then is to interject a human voice every now and then to counteract the silence and produce and environment in which a free choice is actually possible.
The other alternatives are 1. leave, 2. force belief, or 3. wipe it out and start again. Unfortunately most Xtians seem to want God to do 3!
LikeLike
“A Question: If Sam was in charge of world Bible presentation for the future ages would you be inclined to leave anything out?”
I’m actually of the opposite persuasion, Ivan.
I would like to see a lot of ‘apocryphal’ stuff included in the biblical ‘canon’. The reason for this is that primarily I see the whole of biblical history as a witness to God’s dealings with humankind. The more inclusive this history is and the more voices from the past are allowed to have their say, the more likely we are to get a clear picture of who God is and what God has been trying to communicate.
Basically I’m of the view that the ‘majority voice’ is a very political one designed to legitimise first the right to the land and then also the kings and the priesthood. Over against this stands the ‘prophetic voice’ that is itself no less political but does often speak a contrary realty.
The Israelites as a people are great achievers. If we strip of the legitimising voices I think we can see God as a mitigator who actually has acted to limit the damage and to contain this burgeoning empire obsessed people. God was apparently against kingship, knowing where this would lead. If then David is a man after God’s own heart, it is not because he was less ruthless than his rivals, but because in spite of winning the fight for his land, he did not then go on to build an empire. That task was taken up by his son and the end result was that greater forces stepped in to eventually divide ‘the kingdom’ into two.
A number of red herrings are thrown up by the texts as one historian after another struggles with the reality that is variously described there. The more emphatically something is stated, the more closely we have to ask why?
I know that mine is a very revisionist reading but when we have all the sources before us and we look at this ‘history’ in the light of a messiah who refused to be made king, an overall picture sort of clicks into place – for me.
LikeLike
Ivan, I’m finally finding some breathing space to fire missives at you and you are getting busy!
What would be evidence to me? Good question. Some original writing of Jesus that meant something? A secular report from the Romans would be good. A Roman report of the dead rising..some kind of really undoctored account that matched with the historical facts of how Romans performed executions.. (just off the top of my head) Re-appearance of Jesus? A word from God?
I guess this is just another version of God shouting ‘from the sky’ “HERE this really is me…” because from a historical or evidential standpoint it does very poorly indeed. One might even suspect that you have been overly influenced in your thinking by those that we both dismiss as unscientific faith kooks, i.e. the inerrantists. Why I say that is that this sort of thinking is based on a completely unrealistic (and even unreal) idea of who God could be. It is also based on a sadly limited idea of what history really is.
Take a look at these two papers and tell me what you think:
http://tandtclark.typepad.com/Davies_FS_Files/Davies_FS_Thompson.pdf an article by Thomas L. Thompson and http://tandtclark.typepad.com/Davies_FS_Files/Davies_FS_Whitelam.pdf an article by Keith W. Whitelam
LikeLike
Hi Sam,
Just responding to 936.
*I guess what I find tough in your approach is precisely that you expect God to do something unusual to make it absolutely obvious (to us) who and what god is and why we HAVE TO believe in this particular God. Failing this you conclude that God does not exist!*
Sam, I guess I do if we are talking the normal “God” of Christianity. This is the alleged method this being has used before according to its legend. Its not unreasonable for me to ask this kind of question.
Its not exactly true that failing this I conclude non-existence. I conclude this for now, as there appears no other evidence directly exists to support the concept for a God. (Any God really) I just would like to see some kind of evidence is all.
*Assuming that God does want us to decide to follow and believe of our own free will*
The operative word here might be “assume”. Do we have evidence to assume? Do we have evidence for the concept of “free will” ?
If the traditional God did in fact exist, it makes free will a bit redundant doesn’t it? Why all the direct contacts of the bible if God was waiting for us to use our “free will”?
*The other alternatives are 1. leave, 2. force belief, or 3. wipe it out and start again. Unfortunately most Xtians seem to want God to do 3!*
Sam, could a 4th option be: It actually doesn’t exist? By the word of the Bible God did wipe us out once already. Historically, he/it may have tried both celestially and by bacteria/virus more than once.
But the other view is well.. you know..
LikeLike
Sam,
I just shot of that reply without reading your second post. Will read the links and post again later. Sorry if I jumped the gun.
Small question: Why is Jesus called the only son of God but Adam isn’t?
Ivan
LikeLike
Hi Sam,
I stayed up late and read both those links and I found both interesting. Would certainly like to read some of those books cited in the articles. I think this is the kind of approach you have mentioned before when we talk about history and the Bible. I more or less were talking about the subject in relation to the NT and Jesus in particular. Given the size of the issue its here that some kind of reference should have (you would think) be mentioned in some kind of supporting material. There are 4 ? that are trotted out often by Christians but get dismissed by atheists. This happens because of the chronology of the comments and of cause the subject matter, being about the “movement” of Christianity and the actual event as such.
LikeLike
Ivan, reading both of those in one go is quite a task!
Well since your an atheist or as the Erdman would have it we are both a/theists, the fact is that I don’t think that this whole idea has been very well explored in Christianity. Reformed Judaism perhaps has had a go at it but they always get stuck with the progroms, the ostracization of Jews in Western societies and its culmination in WW2 and the holocaust, then the rise of Zionism really screws things up.
LikeLike
Sam have you ever read a book called “The case for Christ”?
LikeLike
Ivan, on Adam and Son I don’t really have an answer. You have Paul going the other way and saying that there was a first Adam and now Jesus is the second Adam (in 1Corinthians 15 and perhaps the same idea in Rom 5). Throughout the NT human beings are considered to be God’s children, though often rebellious, disobedient ones! The idea that Jesus has brought us all into a relationship of sonship with God is explored in many of Paul’s letters but particularly in Romans 8. The letter to the Ephesians (whoever be the author) I take to be an extended discourse on the same idea.
LikeLike
Ivan, on Strobel’s book I think it’s of the general run of apologia used by conservative evangelicals to convince themselves that there is good evidence and that the only problem is that no one is looking closely enough. The scholars that he lines up are all folks that I have read and are certainly sincere in their beliefs but the problem is that there are as many if not many more within biblical scholarship who have seen the same evidence and do not find it compelling.
LikeLike
Sam,
Just on 944. This is one of the little things I find interesting with regards to Biblical information and the modern churches. Its a reasonable question to ask I would have thought and yet our churches have decided it a certain way and the general advertising work confirms that view. The people then believe obviously what the church tells them. Long time in the past I had people screaming at me over that one and takig real offence at what I thought was a reasonable question.
Another one we have talked about is the death of Jesus. Its told in “human terms” as a terrible sacrefice for God. But if I look at it in terms of God it becomes less the sacrefice and more a home relocation project. (not trying to be funny at all here) It looks more to me along the lines of one of your children moving out of home on a temporary basis than what you and I would see as a sacrefice of our daughters or Abraham and his son.
Its just not the equivalent thing is it?
LikeLike
That traditional views and popular understandings of the meaning or content of the bible is often just plain wrong, perhaps that is just obvious.
The fact is that we humans are a naturally cruel and selfish lot. Anyone that points out hard truths and makes us feel uncomfortable eventually becomes fair game. Jesus seems to have known that he was treading on very dangerous ground but nonetheless tells some thinly veiled parables such as:
There was a master of a house who planted a vineyard and put a fence around it and dug a winepress in it and built a tower and leased it to tenants, and went into another country. When the season for fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the tenants to get his fruit. And the tenants took his servants and beat one, killed another, and stoned another. Again he sent other servants, more than the first. And they did the same to them. Finally he sent his son to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ But when the tenants saw the son, they said to themselves, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and have his inheritance.’ And they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. When therefore the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?” They said to him, “He will put those wretches to a miserable death and let out the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the fruits in their seasons.” Matthew 21
I think that another reason for the confusion on Jesus always being considered the Son comes from the gospels themselves since ‘the son of man’ is his own preferred self-designation and this is rarely understood and mostly folks just think of him as the Son for short.
LikeLike
Ivan, I just ran into an interesting two-part interview with Tina Beattie author of “The New Atheists” Here (1st part) and Here (2nd part). Have a read and let me know what you think.
LikeLike
Sam,
Couldn’t get part 2 to open and was not able to find it anywhere. Are you able to send it again?
Ivan
LikeLike
Sorry Ivan, I didn’t check to see if the link was working and I often have this thing when pasting links in. Here’s the link again
http://blog.beliefnet.com/godspolitics/2008/07/tina-beattie-on-the-new-athies-1.html
LikeLike
Thank you for that Sam !
LikeLike
Here’s something interesting from Spinoza (from some 4 centuries ago) that shows that while there has been much criticism of religion (and justly so) yet the belief in God is not dependent on that. Reason, rational thought and justice will all lead on to conclude that while religion can be bogus, this by no means indicates that God is to be tarred with the same brush.
Now, seeing that we have the rare happiness of living in a re public, where everyone’s judgment is free and unshackled, where each may worship G-D as his conscience dictates, and where freedom is esteemed before all things dear and precious, I have believed that I should be undertaking no ungrateful or unprofitable task, in demonstrating that not only can such freedom be granted without prejudice to the public peace, but also, that without such freedom, piety cannot flourish nor the public peace be secure.
Such is the chief conclusion I seek to establish in this treatise; but, in order to reach it, I must first point out the misconceptions which, like scars of our former bondage, still disfigure our notion of religion, and must expose the false views about the civil authority which many have most impudently advocated, endeavouring to turn the mind of the people, still prone to heathen superstition, away from its legitimate rulers, and so bring us again into slavery. (P:22) As to the order of my treatise I will speak presently, but first I will recount the causes which led me to write.
I have often wondered, that persons who make a boast of professing the Christian religion, namely, love, joy, peace, temperance, and charity to all men, should quarrel with such rancorous animosity, and display daily towards one another such bitter hatred, that this, rather than the virtues they claim, is the readiest criterion of their faith. Matters have long since come to such a pass, that one can only pronounce a man Christian, Turk, Jew, or Heathen, by his general appearance and attire, by his frequenting this or that place of worship, or employing the phraseology of a particular sect—as
for manner of life, it is in all cases the same. Inquiry into the cause of this anomaly leads me unhesitatingly to ascribe it to the fact, that the ministries of the Church are regarded by the masses merely as dignities, her offices as posts of emolument—in short, popular religion may be summed up as respect for ecclesiastics. The spread of this misconception inflamed every worthless fellow with an intense desire to enter holy orders, and thus the love of diffusing G-D’s religion degenerated into sordid avarice and ambition. Every church became a theatre, where orators, instead of church teachers, harangued, caring not to instruct the people, but striving to attract admiration, to bring opponents to public scorn, and to preach only novelties and paradoxes, such as would tickle the ears of their congregation. This state of things necessarily stirred up an amount of controversy, envy, and hatred, which no lapse of time could appease; so that we can scarcely wonder that of the old religion nothing survives but its outward forms (even these, in the mouth of the multitude, seem rather adulation than adoration of the Deity), and that faith has become a mere compound of credulity and prejudices—aye, prejudices too, which degrade man from rational being to beast, which completely stifle the power of judgment between true and false, which seem, in fact, carefully fostered for the purpose of extinguishing the last spark of reason! Piety, great G-D! and religion are become a tissue of ridiculous mysteries; men, who flatly despise reason, who reject and turn away from understanding as naturally corrupt, these, I say, these of all men, are thought, O lie most horrible! to possess light from on High. Verily, if they had but one spark of light from on High, they would not insolently rave, but would learn to worship G-D more wisely, and would be as marked among their fellows for mercy as they now are for malice; if they were concerned for their opponents’ souls, instead of for their own reputations, they would no longer fiercely persecute, but rather be filled with pity and compassion.
Furthermore, if any Divine light were in them, it would appear from their doctrine. (P:32) I grant that they are never tired of professing their wonder at the profound mysteries of Holy Writ; still I cannot discover that they teach anything but speculations of Platonists and Aristotelians, to which ( in order to save their credit for Christianity) they have made Holy Writ conform; not content to rave with the Greeks themselves, they want to make the prophets rave also; showing conclusively, that never even in sleep have they caught a glimpse of Scripture’s Divine page 8 Nature. The very vehemence of their admiration for the mysteries plainly attests, that their belief in the Bible is a formal assent rather than a living faith: and the fact is made still more apparent by their laying down beforehand, as a foundation for the study and true interpretation of Scripture, the principle that it is in every passage true and divine. (P:34) Such a doctrine should be reached only after strict scrutiny and thorough comprehension of the Sacred Books ( which would teach it much better, for they stand in need of no human factions), and not be set up on the threshold, as it were, of inquiry.
As I pondered over the facts that the light of reason is not only despised, but by many even execrated as a source of impiety, that human commentaries are accepted as divine records, and that credulity is extolled as faith; as I marked the fierce controversies of philosophers raging in Church and State, the source of bitter hatred and dissension, the ready instruments of sedition and other ills innumerable, I determined to examine the Bible afresh in a careful, impartial, and unfettered spirit, making no assumptions concerning it, and attributing to it no doctrines, which I do not find clearly therein set down.
I’m also trying to track down a similar sort of idea that I ran into from a Hindu thinker from the 700s and will put it up when I do find it.
LikeLike
Here’s something that you just might find interesting. It just goes to show how little science actually has to do with archaeology these days and perhaps more dangerously how easily science can become the handmaiden for all sorts of ideologies too!
LikeLike
Hi there Sam,
Both those postings were extremely interesting to read. I agree with you on your opinion of science can sometimes becoming a vehicle for idealogies. But as far as a tool in the search for truth I find it more of use than I would find religion.
*Here’s something interesting from Spinoza (from some 4 centuries ago) that shows that while there has been much criticism of religion (and justly so) yet the belief in God is not dependent on that. Reason, rational thought and justice will all lead on to conclude that while religion can be bogus, this by no means indicates that God is to be tarred with the same brush*
No it doesn’t mean God needs to be tarred with the same brush. But what is it we are calling “God” now ? What would we offer for its discription? Ether? Lifeforce? The great pumpkin?
Sam we have to reset the definitions again.
Though I tend to think the one thing we can be almost certain of, is that modern religion has almost certainly not got it right.
Ivan
LikeLike
Sam,
Just finished Bart Ehrman’s book “Gods problem”
and Hector Alvalos’s book “The end of Biblical studies”
both rather excellent and interesting reads.
Ivan
LikeLike
Sam,
This letter appeared this morning in our broadsheet. I didn’t get the original article though, will look for it later tonight.
It may remain a mystery to John Lennox why people choose a non-theistic explanation for creation, but for me the reasoning is quite straightforward (“Why not every scientist worships at Darwin’s feet”, August 18).
There is no evidence of a god, so why would Lennox assume that for every unanswered question of science and reason the answer has to be that God did it?
Throughout human history mankind has created gods to fill the gaps in its limited knowledge. In the past that included the weather, the movement of planets and the sun, and all manner of illnesses. Today some people, including some scientists, who should know better, claim that parts of the human body, such as the eye, are too complex to have evolved and thus must have been designed.
Lennox would have us believe that because these individuals cannot see how such a structure could evolve over hundreds of millions of years, there must be a creator. But again and again evolutionary scientists demonstrate how such structures could evolve or indeed have evolved. As each bit of reasoned deduction is added to the mix, Lennox’s god of the gaps gets smaller and smaller.
Most people don’t like to think of themselves as just another animal. So the story that we were specially created and given domain over this planet, and have a special place to go to after our death, plays to our vanity, ego and gives us solace in the face of death.
But we are just another animal. We may have evolved some extraordinary capabilities, but that is no more an argument for a god than the fact that a platypus can feel with its nose.
Let us suppose that Lennox is correct and there is a creator. Then we are faced with the hard decision: which one? And even once we have selected a god from the many on offer, which of the big questions have we solved? Well, none. All we have done is move them up a level. “Where did we come from?” and “What is our purpose?” now becomes “Where did God come from?” and “What is God’s purpose?” Using theistic reason there can only be one solution: another god created god, and so on to infinity.
Rather than being an answer, theism is a cop out. It says: “I don’t know, I don’t want to understand, I just want to be happy in my irrational beliefs.” That may satisfy Lennox, but not me.
Paul Gittings Russell Lea
any comments Sam?
Ivan
LikeLike
Yes, definitely Ivan but please give me a couple of days as things are just a tad busy right now…
LikeLike
Ivan,
sorry for my long (very long) silence. Explanantions for that will be sent by mail to both you and John once i get myself a little bit together.
There’s a basic problem with your thesis. Where does this ‘scienific’ statement come from “mankind has created gods to fill the gaps in its limited knowledge”? Is this a testable hypothesis? God’s of the gaps are not in any sense gods at all. The question that really has to be asked is, if there is a god (or gods) how would we know?
On another tack… check out this bit of all too rare clear thinking from an erstwile biblical scholar and tell me what you think:
Click to access Derico_Upgrade.pdf
LikeLike
Sam,
Maybe it would be better worded as “Mankind has imagined God’s to fill the gaps of it’s limited knowledge” Gods of water,air,thunder etc. (it isn’t my thesis either just an interesting letter)
When you say God’s of the gaps are not really Gods at all it does need qualification as to what we imagine we are talking about.
LikeLike
Sam,
When we examine opposing arguments for a God’s existence I noticed we get a lot of “Is this a testable hypothesis?” etc. But when it comes to matters of faith we just forget all about testable hypothesis don’t we? It just comes down to faith..feelings..narratives..divine truths etc.
Have you noticed this?
Ivan
I liked that link Sam.
LikeLike
Ivan, “matters of faith” include a lot of stuff, some of which is testable, and some of which (as of now) isn’t. On the practical side, I have faith in the existence of John Doyle. Still until I get a report from a detective agency as to the actuality, that very much remains just “a matter of faith”. It would be really wonderful to be able to have a hypothesis and then test this in each and every case, but by and large we don’t bother as the practicalities are just too cumbersome and a “what works” approach, based on what we do suppose to be true, acually is mostly quite a functional. But you must admit that for those who claim to be able to scientifically disprove god’s existence, very often the basis itself is shaky…
LikeLike
Sam,
What is “testable” as to matters of faith in the religious sense?
So you don’t believe John Doyle exists Sam?
Sam, do you know anyone who has ever disproved God scientifically? I have never heard of anyone doing this before shakey or otherwise.
Ivan
LikeLike
Maybe God should start writing a blog. He could even post photos of himself, talk about his daily adventures, recommend movies, etc. I wonder if he’d respond to questions in a less enigmatic way than he usually does.
LikeLike
You know what surprises me John? Is why the dickens can’t we just email God? Even Santa has a postal service set up. The tooth fairy and easter bunny leave some kind of evidence. Not great but its something. Why can’t we simply email the questions straight to the top?
Ivan
John.. you do exist right?
LikeLike
Maybe God just hasn’t told us his email address, Ivan. Maybe Sam has it?
The internet does make it hard to know who is real and who isn’t. For example, is your name really Ivan? But the subterfuge is man-made: real people are able to disguise themselves behind virtual personae. This is kind of how the Greek gods operated: they would take temporary possession of humans while disguising their real identities. Superheroes like Batman and Superman still operate according to the Greek god strategy. And I think Christians might invoke a similar scheme for their God: you can’t see or hear him directly, but if you have eyes to see and ears to hear you can detect his presence in people he possesses (or inspires). This line of thinking inverts the way you and I look at the world. For us the material world is real and the spiritual world is either imaginary or an abstraction created by human thought. For the mystic this order is reversed: the spiritual is real and the material is either an illusion or a projection or creation of the spirit-being, temporary and ephemeral in comparison to the spiritually Real.
Anyhow, even though the evidence you have for my existence is indirect, you could if you wanted to reassure yourself with more direct and tangible evidence. You could, for example, hire a private eye to track me down, take photos, dig up details about my sordid past, etc. I don’t think your private eye could find similarly persuasive evidence if you sent him out to establish God’s existence.
LikeLike
John,
That is not a bad explanation. I am sure that in a Sam Carr email directed to God the address section would be blank. I am sure he would have the faith that God still received it. You have a sordid past John? Private eye? couldn’t I just book me an appointment?
LikeLike
The hypothetical JD speaks to the hypothetical Ivan about the hypothesis of God’s existence. Well, I do like the internet subterfuge analogy, for it does point to a whole other aspect. God could be likened to any one of those myriad internet voices – that most of us will never bother to hear.
Perhaps the spirit of blogging is an even better analogy, some have it (like JD) and some don’t like “Ivan” and then there are some who found it and then lost it – like me!
btw I do email God all the time…
LikeLike
What is “testable” as to matters of faith in the religious sense?
but Ivan, that is part of the point. In science if one wanted to study microwaves, one wouldn’t try to use a light microscope. So, till you find the right tool, I think you are barking up the wrong tree. Using a light micrscope one might well conclude that microwaves do not (can not) exist.
LikeLike
The thing is Sam, if we deduce God does exist because of the Bible, “It” should be reasonably easy to detect if it were actually there. Your God, which seems far from biblical is a whole other story.
Ivan
LikeLike
Sam,
Do you beleive in the resurrection of Jesus as the Bible tells it?
LikeLike
My thinking is a bit the other way around, the bible exists in part because God has tried to interact with humans, and then there’s a whole lot of other stuff there that’s story telling for political purposes or whatever. it would imo be next to impossible to start with the bible and try to derive something about God from that as to my thinking it (the bible) only constitutes something like a secondary source or perhaps even a distorted echo of the reality.
To get really Thomistic about it, it would be hard to imagine anything material that would actually constitute evidence.
The biblical evidence for the resurrection, when taken at face value, is that there was an empty tomb and that subsequently people who knew Jesus well saw him 1) without recognising him and 2) did recognise him. The rest is theology of one sort or another. I don’t have much trouble with the basic story. I have a lot of problems with the theology that grew up around that, including a lot of the theology of the NT itself.
LikeLike
Do you think they saw him Sam? Or was it more a “vision”? Sam is the events of the bible the only interaction with humans? Do you think its tried in our modern times?
LikeLike
Now, this is pure speculation, but I do think that Mary Magdalene saw Jesus. This is just a feeling though on my part and I know what high opinion you have for John as a historical source…
No, as a matter of fact I’m sure that God is always trying to interact with mankind – mostly unsuccessfully. On the one hand there is disbelief, and on the other hand I think that when we think that we are seeking ‘God’ very often we may just be looking in the exact opposite direction – aided in this by the efforts of theologians of all hues and the myriads of gods and religions that are out there to choose from.
LikeLike
Here’s one reason God doesn’t tell us his address.
LikeLike
I guess then that anyone who is homeless can’t expect any help from the judiciary – nor any harm either?
LikeLike
Sam,
It’s not really my opinion on John as being unreliable. Its really the view of every biblical critic I have ever read. I didn’t think anyone took John as being a reliable source of direct information.
Ivan
LikeLike
Sam,
Would you speculate for me?
#I’m sure that God is always trying to interact with mankind – mostly unsuccessfully.#
Why Sam? Why would God be unsuccessful in communicating with us? The Bible has many instances of God openly just “talking” now I know your God can be slightly different to Biblical God, so what do you see as the obstacle for God to speak to us?
When we seek God, Sam why wouldn’t God occasionally seek us out? In what direction does one look Sam? as opposed to the other directions espoused by all other theologians? How would one start? By this I mean before any particular religion is chosen.
LikeLike
Ivan, on John, you’d be surprised to know that while there have been many disparaging remarks made about the historical reliability of John, these same scholars also tacitly accept many matters of ‘fact’ about Jesus that can only be derived from John’s gospel. A simple example of this is that if one were to look at the synoptics alone, the imression would be of a public ministry that lasts less than a year whereas it is only by looking at John’s gospel that we know that Jesus ministry lasted for about three years.
I know that I don’t really know the answer to your question in 977. My assumption here is that there is man, and then there is (an) other. Man reaches out quite naturally and consistently to the other. I don’t think that this can be explained away by limiting it to the fear of the unknown. The tendency in itself is not God. I think there is certainly a sense for me that I am drawn to be better than I am (naturally) by God. So, I make the connection between this sense of an other higher meaning and God. i see this otherness in many places and in many people but perhaps most cogently and clearly in the selflessness that Jesus demanded. I contrast this with my own natural selfishness and the otherness of the ethic becomes crystal clear.
Is this some form of schizoid state or is it God?
Jesus’ own theory of why it took so long is interesting, he claims that God has always been the same and that we humans invariably choose selfishly to misunderstand and to exploit the idea and reality of God to our own ends. I think Marx, Adi Sankara, and Spinoza in particular agree.
LikeLike
All interesting Sam. But it doesn’t explain why a God couldn’t make a direct unambigious approach if that God wanted to. This is if he has even some of the biblical qualities attributed to it. I am not sure Marx, Adi Sankara, and Spinoza and even Jesus had any more idea than you and I Sam. I doubt if there ever has been any human “conduit” of any nature having contact with this being in any reality sense.
But if its there, I wonder what would hinder its ability to comunicate in some fashion with humanity.
LikeLike
Sam: “Jesus’ own theory of why it took so long is interesting, he claims that God has always been the same and that we humans invariably choose selfishly to misunderstand and to exploit the idea and reality of God to our own ends. I think Marx, Adi Sankara, and Spinoza in particular agree.”
Hmmm. I can say with some certainty that Spinoza would have disputed that God/Substance/Nature in any sense “…trying to interact with mankind” (#973). While Spinoza would agree that humanity has much abused and mythologized the idea of God (but as well has used the imagination of God to organize people for to their benefit), God is not oriented towards humanity in any way at all.
“He who loves God cannot strive that God should him in return”(5p19). God does not love humanity at all from Spinoza’s point of view.
http://kvond.wordpress.com/
LikeLike
Kvond, I agree with you on the particular, especilly if we are asking what sort of G-D Spinoza imagined. But that’s not my beef with Ivan where the more basic question that he’s asking is, is god there at all? Pls see my quote of a bit of Spinoza above in #952…
LikeLike
Sam,
I read your post, and I’ll grant that I am not fully aware of just what your disagreement with Ivan is, but I am not sure how you take Spinoza to be in support of what you are asserting. When you say that Ivan is asking “Is there god at all?”(#981), I cannot see how Spinoza answers this question for you. God is nothing other than the complete totality of everything, every atom and thought, for Spinoza. Forgive me for asking, but do you take Ivan to be asking “Is there a totality of everything?” This would be an odd but interesting claim. Many have taken Spinoza to be asserting something indisguishable from Atheism. If God is everything that exists, then whether there is a God or not doesn’t really matter. How exactly do you find Spinoza to be supporting your idea?
http://kvond.wordpress.com/
LikeLike
I guess what I am trying to find out is what makes so many people think a God exists and Ivan doesn’t. It’s kind of like being in a global asylum of sorts, either I am a bit crazy (and well I might be) or the world is under some kind of delusion. Sam believes there is a God but I think what we have semi-nutted out is that Sam’s God isn’t anyone else’s typical God. To simplify it, I break it down to two main types one is your rock solid biblical God the other is something akin to that Jedi life force. I find it extremely hard to accept that anything like a biblical God exists. My reasons, are covered in several thousands of pages of Atheistic reasoning that I can’t find ways to dismiss. I doubt with every fibre of my being that a God,any god exists in that “biblical format.” But maybe there is another God.. maybe its Spinoza’s or maybe it’s Professor Paul Davies or Sam’s The thing is, if it is, what would be the point of making religions, sacred rites,churches,edifices to its eternal glory what is even the point of worshiping or praying or doing anything to this type of God which would clearly not even be an intelligence as we understand it. What would be our point? The world accepts the notion of a God existing based on really two things it’s either people in ermine trimmed robing carrying staffs and sacred ornaments being “conduits of sorts or it’s an “inner feeling”. Mother Theresa recently came clean, she never felt heard or saw a Christian God of any sort. My bet is that neither has the Pope or Islamic religious leaders or nuns or anyone that has ever existed on earth. But there is that “feeling” that ties so tightly to the notion of faith and being able to short circuit your logical process that we seem to use for understanding every other dang thing in the universe. I get these feelings to about things, love, heartbreak grief etc, but I know they are not symbolic of some greater thing its just us being what we are “human.” I often think about it like this: Supposed that I had a particular entity that exists in my lounge room. Ivan is the “conduit” every other person either has a feeling it’s there or they don’t. If it can’t be measured or seen or sensed by any other human on earth at what point does it simply become my fantasy or a group fantasy or delusion ? If this entity has this kind of remoteness to humanity in all ways, what is the difference then between it not existing at all? Go easy on me guys I am an enormously simple mind.
LikeLike
Ivan,
As simply as I can put it is that there are those that believe that God is a “thing” (which either does or does not exist). Others are more sophistocated, and believe (or state they believe) that God is a relation, a way of being (if that doesn’t sound too confusing). This relation is not so much something that exists or doesn’t, but is a way of thinking about and acting in the world. Really, in the history of talking about God, talk passes back and forth between thinking of God as a “thing” and thinking about God as a relation. When talking about beliefs, and what one really, really believes, its a tricky thing.
The best question I think is, what difference does it make?
LikeLike
What difference do you see it making?
Ivan
LikeLike
Ivan,
The difference is up to the person. I find applying the word “believe” to “God” a very problematic over-simplification. It teeters on not understanding the word “believe” nor the word “God”.
Because you seem to have such a resistance to the idea that “God” exists, I would want to ask you, what difference would it make to you if he/it/she did?
http://kvond.wordpress.com/
LikeLike
Kvond,
I wouldn’t call it resistance exactly, in fact I pondered the very question myself at sometime around 2:30PM in the car. If it’s Jedi force God, I suppose it makes no difference. If it’s traditional let’s slay people old Testament God then I am forseeing a “situation” here in regards to my death. Dude I want to have a game plan of sorts.. maybe a speech prepared. Would you want to face him unprepared?
LikeLike
Hey John,
Would this book be any good?
Mindfulness- and Acceptance-Based Behavioral Therapies in Practice (Guides to Individualized Evidence-Based Treatment) (Hardcover)
by Roemer and Orsillo
LikeLike
Ivan: “If it’s traditional let’s slay people old Testament God then I am forseeing a “situation” here in regards to my death. Dude I want to have a game plan of sorts.. maybe a speech prepared. Would you want to face him unprepared?”
kvond: Well, if all it takes is a speech, I would think that such a speech would serve one in life, irregardless of whether there is an Old Testament God or not. What would such a speech entail? A series of excuses and explanations? I think such a speech is worth writing, and saying to oneself in the mirror. I think something of this is what “believers” find of value in their belief of God, the need to make such a speech, regularly.
From your reasoning, perhaps you would find Pascal’s Wager interesting [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascals_wager ].
http://kvond.wordpress.com/
LikeLike
It would be rather a fool that would follow Pascal in front of OT God surely? You don’t think he/it/whatever would see through it? why not do a Denny Crane?
Ivan
LikeLike
Jung had an interesting reply to the OT God. He felt that at the moment of Job, Jewish humanity had ascended to a moral level higher than God, and that historically/psychologically in the West God had to “become man” to learn what moral fact that human beings had come to know. That seems a most interesting view of the OT God. But if what you are really concerned about the OT God, what assurance would you really have? One would just have to throw oneself into it, at the mercy of the court. There really would be no “preparation”.
LikeLike
Yes, I think your right that preping for it might be off the table. You ever wonder if Pascal made it through?
Ivan
LikeLike
I think he plays a harp on a fluffy cloud, surrounded by many pensive thinkers.
LikeLike
Folks, here’s an interesting little bit on the views of Rushdie on religion:
http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1857759,00.html
what do you think?
LikeLike
Sam and John and all,
Did anyone read the article in the latest Scientific American MIND magazine by Jesse Bering? The title is “The End” Why so many of us think our minds continue on after we die. I would paste the article but I don’t have Sam’s Jupiter like brain.
Ivan
LikeLike
Et — voilá — though the name of the article is slightly different, it’s by the same author. Maybe, Ivan, you read the Australian version?
I see this comment thread is getting close to the magic number…
LikeLike
The article is fascinating till one realises that the author has not really said anything, quite tautological… why do we imagine our dead loved ones in some sort of ‘state’?
LikeLike
Sam,
Did you read the actual article in MIND ? or another? I guess I don’t have that strict academic examination you have being trained in this feild. I just found it very interesting and it made me think a little deeper about the subject of death.
Sam the Rushdie article was interesting. Do you ever have the sneaking feeling he is some kind of undercover satan?
LikeLike
I happened to notice that right at the end they say ‘Note: This article was originally printed with the title, “The End?”.’ But I still think that theory is a bit hokey.
I think Rushdie is much more likely to be an angel in disguise, an agent provocateur par excellence, and definitely in one of God’s good books, though his many wives may dispute that.
LikeLike
Sam,
I looked at the link after posting my question and is the same printed article I have. I understand he has a book coming out on the subject also.
Out of interest Sam, what did you find disagreeable in the Bering article? Rushdie may be an agent provocateur but he looks so evil !
I never thought we would get to 1000 did you?
Ivan
LikeLike
I’m reluctant to fill slot #1001, but I actually have something relevant to contribute. In a discussion on another post some time ago I linked to this article by Bloom which covers some of the same ground as Bering’s piece. Humans are natural dualista, says Bloom, because of the overlap of two uniquely human cognitive capacities: the ability to understand how natural processes work, and the ability to attribute intentionality to others. In combination these abilities let humans invent tools, learn skills from one another, learn to use language in describing natural processes, etc. But the brain wiring enabling these abilities overlaps, so that we’re naturally prone to attributing intentionality to natural processes; e.g., the avalanche began because the rocks wanted to fall down or some invisible being pushed them. Part V of Bloom’s article is entitled “We’ve Evolved to Be Creationists.” His book, Descartes’ Baby, covers the subject in the article in greater detail and is pretty good, but for me the article covers much of the best material.
It’s always possible to critique the empirical methodology underlying studies like these, but the critique can be addressed by tightening the data collection protocols. One can also question the theory explaining the findings; e.g., because studies like these can’t be done without kids’ self-report, language has already transmitted accepted cultural interpretations into these kids’ brains. Attributing any sort of distinctly human characteristics to evolutionary forces is always pretty speculative, since we don’t have access to the “missing links” between the ape brain and human brain. But studying development in young children’s cognitions is at least suggestive, since children are sort of apelike (lol). On the other hand, to assert that children naturally believe in disembodied minds because God implanted that belief in the human mind is to move outside the realm of empirical science as the game is currently played. Of course, just because mindless natural evolution produces a tendency to believe in the mind of an invisible God doesn’t mean there is no such God.
LikeLike
Thanks John. I don’t have the needed skills to really evaluate the work but I am interested in the theories put forward by people a lot more educated than myself. I will read the article and probably by the book.
Thanks
Ivan
LikeLike
The first thing I’d say is that we are arguing about an unknown and trying to extrapolate from what is known to what is not. Bering too sails in the same boat.
One can indeed study the physical effects of death and this is a venerable and valuable part of medical science. As far as an afterlife, or the continuation of consciousness I’ve seen nothing but speculation. Of course that no more means that it doesn’t exist any more than it means that it does.
I found many of Berings ‘assertions’ about this to be a bit laughable e.g. “Consider the rather startling fact that you will never know you have died. You may feel yourself slipping away, but it isn’t as though there will be a “you” around who is capable of ascertaining that, once all is said and done, it has actually happened. Just to remind you, you need a working cerebral cortex to harbor propositional knowledge of any sort, including the fact that you’ve died—and once you’ve died your brain is about as phenomenally generative as a head of lettuce.” and “Death isn’t “like” anything we’ve ever experienced, however. Because we have never consciously been without consciousness, even our best simulations of true nothingness just aren’t good enough. On what scientific studies are these gems based?
The mystery is why we start out assuming that there is a continuity to being and consciousness even after physical death. He has run some tests with kids that emphatically show the tendency to believe in an afterlife is something rather inherent in humans. The evolutionistic answers for why it might be so are actually anthropologically rather pathetic. I also thought Bering used some sleight of hand when he finally argues in effect that it is analogous to how we continue to think of persons even when they are not physically present, “person permanence” and then having mentioned this promptly closes his case.
LikeLike
The article is an essay rather than an empirical study; nonetheless, Bering did give us one empirically-based test of competing hypotheses:
The simulation-constraint hypothesis posits that this type of thinking is innate and unlearned. Fortunately, this hypothesis is falsifiable. If afterlife beliefs are a product of cultural indoctrination, with children picking up such ideas through religious teachings, through the media, or informally through family and friends, then one should rationally predict that psychological-continuity reasoning increases with age. Aside from becoming more aware of their own mortality, after all, older kids have had a longer period of exposure to the concept of an afterlife. In fact, recent findings show the opposite developmental trend.
Let’s say kids really do have this sense of disembodied consciousness regardless of their cultures’ beliefs about such things. A theist might contend that God implants the idea in human minds, but absent a verifiable God who can validate this contention it falls outside the domain of empiricism. Evolutionary theorizing isn’t much better; i.e., that it’s somehow adaptive for humans to believe they persist after death. I’d think it might be the opposite: if you believe you live after you die, then your struggle to survive becomes less compelling. In fact this has been an argument against religious belief in an afterlife: it suppresses the desire to improve one’s situation in this life.
Bloom’s position is that belief in the disembodied mind is a vestigial artifact of the evolution of consciousness that has no survival value, that it’s a cross-wiring of understanding natural processes and of inferring intentionality, as I mentioned in my last comment. This may seem like the scientific equivalent of throwing up one’s hands and giving up, but it is possible to tweak the questions the researchers ask young children in informative ways; e.g., is it possible for a rock to die, do living plants think and feel, if you grind up a rock into gravel does its rockness persist in the afterlife, etc.
Children’s belief in disembodied consciousness is a relatively new area of scientific investigation, so the usual caveat applies: further research is needed. I think it’s premature either to say that the answer is in hand or that it must remain forever out of reach. Nor will this line of research throw any light whatever on whether disembodied consciousness really is possible, or whether people really do subjectively experience their own deaths. In the essay Bering is explicitly committed to the materialistic position on these matters, which should have no bearing on the science itself and so should probably have been omitted from the piece.
LikeLike
John and Sam,
At this stage of your lives do you both have a feeling or beleif in an afterlife one way or the other?
LikeLike
I don’t believe it, though sometimes I wish it. On the other hand, even during those times when I wish I were dead I can’t really imagine myself being dead, as Bering too observes. I even have a hard time imagining the cessation of my being alive.
LikeLike
One has to admit that it is at least a first rate mystery. If we can imagine, whether nonexistence or some ethereal or even corporal existence, that is not evidence either way. What will be, will be, but what will it be?
There’s always that mythical river too, the Styx, the Jordan, the Ganga… better all take swimming lessons just to be on the safe side.
LikeLike
John, I have always been a little creeped out about afterlife. I certainly do hope it doesn’t exist. You said you wished it sometimes ? For what reason?
Sam, It certainly is a mystery. But do you believe in it on that very base level ?
LikeLike
When I’m pleased with earthly life I sometimes wish it would go on indefinitely. I don’t usually think about some other kind of life after death; e.g., disembodied, all-knowing. I would like to be able to fly though.
LikeLike
better all take swimming lessons just to be on the safe side.
Just like Pascal eh?
LikeLike
John’s idea is better, let’s all take flying lessons instead.
Seriously though, I’ve often thought of religions with just this in mind. Practically speaking, do the myths support better living, higher ethics etc. in the here and now, or do these heavenly (or hellish) speculations have the opposite effect?
LikeLike
Sam,
I have never liked very much the public face of a couple of the main religions. I see people grasping in the hope of doing good or being better people but so very often it seems to support evil in the long run. I think it was Shermer’s quote that for good people to do evil needs a religion. One of the things that would have been interesting to see is a world that gets by without the concept in order to compare.
It would also be interesting to see a world that strictly followed simply the teachings of Jesus to see what would happen then.
Ivan
LikeLike
Are you expecting afterlife Sam?
LikeLike
Ivan, I’m sure hoping we’ll all get to meet some day, and this seems to be the brightest hope for it yet.
Actually, I think Jesus’ own concentration on the here and now is what it should all be about. If one believes, as I do, that God is good, then that calls for as much goodness as I can muster right here. I’m content to let the rest take its course, but not overly convinced that there is an afterlife of any sort, nor a continuation of consciousness for that matter. Certainly though, the life lived here will have its effect on posterity one way or the other, and like it or not…
LikeLike
Folks, as an interesting followup to our discussion on Bering, here’s a short bit on “Out of the mouths of babes –
Do children believe because they’re told to by adults? The evidence suggests otherwise” by Justin Barrett
LikeLike
The link doesn’t work Sam — something missing in your html?
LikeLike
Sorry, was in a hurry and didn’t check. Here’s the whole thing:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2008/nov/25/religion-children-god-belief
LikeLike
Sam,
I have no background in Psychology as you and John do. But I tend to still think it’s simple indoctrination. In our various cultures children are exposed to it in subtle and unsubtle ways constantly from birth. They also always seem to conceptualise the idea in the context of the culture they are raised in. I don’t think it all unusual that growing children don’t get other modern ideas.
I know of medical people unable to support evolution particularly in the United States still needing to have a belief in a creator.
It’s long astounded me how they passed the more elementary exams.
I have also noticed that almost 8 out of 10 people are unable to fully comprehend the process and notion of natural selection. It’s always the same silly questions over and over and over that hinder there understanding. I guess schools in both our countries the US and Oz need a boot up the clacker for this. It does not surprise me at all that small children are drawn to ideas like a creator portrayed somewhat as a benign grandfather figure.
LikeLike
Sam,
I was watching a program last night which went over the trial in the US against creation science. Something that occurred to me was that the Christians with the strongest feelings and conviction appear always to be the ones issuing death threats or threatening the “atheists” with great suffering. Why is it that the very people most associated with Jesus’s teachings violate them so quickly and readily?
LikeLike
On the first issue, I think we can wait for more studies to come out and for there to be a goodly amount of useful data before needing to conclude anything.
Extremism from any side is wrong even if it is ‘technically’ correct. I also personally think that one of the reasons for getting so personal is perhaps actually a shaky faith. Some people need this extra boost to convince themselves and their peer group that they really are strong believers.
You are offended by the overt animosity, I actually find that the roots of this ‘othering’ sort of activity comes from some seemingly more innocuous stuff like commitment to denominations, and ‘schools of thought’ in theology. I find it sobering to reflect on the universality f the phenomenon – it’s there in religion, in politics, in philosophy and even in science…
Have you seen a flic “The Name of the Rose” or read the novel of the same name (Umberto Eco) by any chance?
LikeLike
Yes I have Sam.
What the? A goodly amount of useful data before we clear evolution? Your not a creationist are you Sam?
Mind you I am still working on the whole gravity thing. Always been suspicious.
LikeLike
“I tend to still think it’s simple indoctrination. In our various cultures children are exposed to it in subtle and unsubtle ways constantly from birth. They also always seem to conceptualise the idea in the context of the culture they are raised in. I don’t think it all unusual that growing children don’t get other modern ideas.” is what I was referring to, i.e. that kids do or don’t have en innate idea of God.
LikeLike
If anyone has the patience they may just find this to be a fascinating intro to the question of God/gods/peace/violence/tolerance… The Subject of Translatability of Deities
in case my html is faulty
http://bibleinterp.com/Mark_Smith.shtml
LikeLike
Sam,
What did you mean in 1022?
LikeLike
My, that’s a long article you’ve linked, Sam. I’ve made it about a quarter of the way through Smith’s “The Translatability of Deities,” and so far I’ve been struck particularly by this observation:
In his notion of “translatability” of divinity, Assmann additionally points to broader cross-cultural recognition of other people’s deities. In many cases, the texts show the recognition that the deities of other cultures function in ways like its own deities. Sometimes these cultures relate the deities of other cultures to their own deities. In this intercultural “god-talk,” people in one culture, most commonly at a highly elite level, explicitly recognize that the deities of other cultures are as real as its own.
That the cultural elite reserve this understanding to themselves suggests to me that they gain some benefit from having the masses regard their own local deities as unique. It’s the international political-economic elite of today regarding nationalism as a quaint custom that keeps the lower classes supporting the status quo. The international cultural elite, like the gods gathered together in the heavens, realize that they are more or less interchangeable. But in order to preserve their positions they need to cultivate within their local cultures the sense that each elite group is unique, and uniquely qualified to rule, to be honored, to receive offerings, etc.
LikeLike
Ivan, 1022 clarifies (or attempts to) your Q of 1021. My point on having data was to the earlier discussion on whether the belief in god is culturally programmed or innate and not on the question of evolution which indeed seems to be the best of a bad lot of theories on how the live world got to where it’s at.
John, I thought you guys would find it interesting. I think the entire intro to some book has been posted online there. We were supposed to have ushered in the brave new world with the League of Nations and somehow the world missed it. The elite in each nation certainly know better so I entirely agree that it is also certainly an exercise in mass programming and in preserving the status quo ad infinitum. In fact through all the changes in my thinking/philosophy(HA!)/religion/?mental development since my high school years this is the one idea that has remained a constant and a constant question – whither one humanity and one world…
LikeLike
I am still to read the article. I opened it,went out to eat and a blackout happened during a small storm. I will read it today.
Do you think a League of nations would work?
LikeLike
Ivan, I hear that this book goes a long way to getting conservative Xtians thinking about evolution, perhaps you could give it a try. I haven’t read it so it’s just a passed-on tip from the good old Jesuscreed gang: Denis Alexander, Creation or Evolution: Do we have to Choose? (Monarch, 2008).
LikeLike
And you are sure to enjoy this little thing and perhaps think of a Colorado/Ozzie campaign to boot:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2008/dec/11/religion-advertising-atheism-bus
LikeLike
It is starting down here also Sam. They were blocked from doing in the State of Tasmania and there is legal action being started by the local atheist group.
LikeLike
I just read the second quarter of Smith’s “Translatability of Deities” article linked by Sam a few comments up the thread. It’s a brief study of how the word for “god” is used in the Old Testament. Smith demonstrates that “god” applies to various things — gods other than Yahweh, idols, dead ancestors, etc. — without the authors’ insisting that they are “false” gods. Smith finds an etymological link between the Semitic cognates for “god” and the word/idea for “power.” He suggests that in the OT there’s a kind of cosmic power infusing the world that manifests itself in a variety of figures. Some are material beings imbued with this power, others are entirely non-material divinities. The suggestion is that specific gods emerge from a diffuse immanent force which drives the universe.
This immanent idea contrasts with the first quarter of the article, where local gods are allied with the rulers of specific tribes and nations. It’s a more top-down, transcendent view he shows us in this first part, with the possibility that all the local god-chiefs actually belong to some sort of global pantheon who together rule all the world’s peoples. So I wonder if Smith is going to establish historical sequence here. I.e., did the immanent force come first, gradually congealing in localized pockets of human and divine powerful figures? I’m guessing that’s going to be his story in the rest of the article.
LikeLike
Here’s a refreshing little tidbit from Madeleine Bunting in the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/29/darwin-anniversary-atheism
LikeLike
More on the Bus Ad WAR
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1877658,00.html
Ivan, sounds like a campaign ran successfully in Oz, were you involved and how did it go?
LikeLike
Hi Sam,
No for some reason APN the advertising people would not run the campaign. Currently they don’t know why but I do no legal action has begun. I have no involvement in this other than general interest. The biggest supporters that wrote in in digust at this imposed censourship were in fact local religious leaders.
I guess the whole campaign in one way or another raises arguments about spirituality that maybe of help to both sides.
I am following it with interest and with my own personal set of stickers on my car.
The news here has lately been focused on an extremely unpleasent war between local Bikie groups.
Hey Sam have you heard of the Jesus project? Getting some air time now amongst atheist groups. I will try and find a link for you.
Also, Had a great program on Compass last night once of our ABC’s programs on Religion that covered athiests last night.
Regards
Ivan
LikeLike
“A science of the Christian faith is just as
little Christian as the science of criminology is criminal. The goal must not be
usefulness to the Church but rather truth alone, in and of itself.… Science with
results predetermined by the Church is scholasticism.”
Read Ludemann’s whole essay:
Click to access lued.pdf
LikeLike
Ivan and John, here’s a provovative quote from an erstwhile atheist:
“God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh.”
Voltaire
What do you think?
LikeLike
Hey Sam, welcome back to the Ivan post. I’ve not seen evidence of Ivan’s presence around these parts lately, but based on prior discussions I’d bet he’s not amused by the travesties promulgated in God’s name. Maybe God is like the Joker in the latest Batman? An advocate not of order but of chaos, with everyone trying to figure out the key to a system that doesn’t exist…
LikeLike
Yes, things got a bit busy and I wonder whether we really have anything much to say any more.
Still, I wonder how much of the ‘average’ atheist’s ‘anger against God’ is actually anger against the vagaries of our most ungodly religions, not to mention all the other deeply embedded cultural mythologies that are part and parcel of our socialized beings.
LikeLike
It looks like others are taking the easier route:
http://in.news.yahoo.com/139/20090726/854/ttc-now-send-e-mail-greetings-to-loved-o.html
Email notifications, or other internet related stuff, will not count for our own in-house afterlife experiment!
LikeLike
I guess it’s always a live possibility…
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/ted-kennedy-speaks-from-the-grave-with-letter-to-obama/101069-2.html
LikeLike
Here’s something you folks might find interesting, if there is still anyone out there…
http://dunedinschool.wordpress.com/2009/09/21/job/
LikeLike
Sam did you follow along with the Jesus Creed series on John Walton’s book about Genesis 1?
LikeLike
John, I saw the first couple of posts and found the discussion rather stilted and lost interest. Some of Walton’s ideas are interesting and more contextually sound than a lot of the popular mythology. Still, it’s a bit too literalistic for me and too pat with where the emerging gang is heading theologically – a softer, mosaic sort of approach that ends up as being too eclectic to mean anything in particular, or perhaps just anything that anyone wants it to be.
LikeLike
This book was published by the house where Erdman worked for awhile. What strikes me most directly is Walton’s contention that Genesis 1 doesn’t refer to the creation of material stuff — which is my contention as well. He ends up contending that the story is about God preparing to occupy the material universe as his heavenly temple, which of course lets Elohim remain the great transcendent God of traditional Judeo-Christianity. Still, it makes my own literal reading seem a bit more mainstream.
LikeLike
Yes, I think there is a definite synergy in the two approaches. But, I don’t think your development of the creation idea needs that. How many folks that participated in that discussion realized how bizarre Walton’s approach is viz orthodoxy? I think there’s precious little in the Genesis texts to support his overarching plan. then there’s that odd juxtaposition of JHWH who comes over as much too close to human while Elohim is very much the distant planner.
The minimalists have a point. What function would this narrative serve in a given society? The obsession with the origin of the universe and seeing Genesis as the answer is certainly a modern phenomenon. The older theology of cosmology allowed the current ‘scientific’ myths to rule and theology simply fortified the dominant myth as being the only orthodoxy, but the whole debate has pulled us very far from understanding the text in whatever context it was created and within which context it would have served a definite function. I think we must first stop thinking scientifically at all, and that’s a tall order. Incidentally, that’s also something that keeps cropping up in your OOO discussion…
LikeLike
“Personally, I would be delighted if there were a life after death, especially if it permitted me to continue to learn about this world and others, if it gave me a chance to discover how history turns out. Carl Sagan
I agree. Is it only wishful thinking?
LikeLike
Ivan, here’s something for you to chew on:
http://standpointmag.co.uk/node/2507/full
Hey, what’s been going on with you? I have been overloaded with work and hence almost completely absent from the net. Still do think of you guys frequently and wonder how things are going…
LikeLike
Hi Sam. I see that we’re approaching the 3-year anniversary for this post. I haven’t been posting much on Christian-related topics for quite some time now — though Erdman occasionally drags me back into it. And I’ve seen neither hide nor hair of Ivan for many months now.
LikeLike
I had a pleasant surprise yesterday while digging through old contact networks looking for help with shaping up our new company website and happened to find an alternate email of Ivan’s. We were soon trading mails so all is not lost yet and we may be back online with our discussion soon.
in any case, I’ve been musing a bit about the ‘gap’ that seems to inevitably appear between the founder of a movement and the subsequent picture that the movement presents of its founder. The evolution of the persona is fascinating. i think it’s as true of politics and history as it is of religion. Any thoughts?
LikeLike
By the way, and completely off topic, any feedback, comments, criticism, or ideas, on that website (unfortunately in its present shape due to my ‘interventions’) would be most welcome:
http://phoenixtech.asia
LikeLike
Give Ivan my regards, Sam. Regarding the gap, there are people on the Hebrew discussion group who sustain a definitive oral tradition that either supplements or supercedes the textual authority of the Bible. The tradition is passed from rabbi to student down through the generations, imparting deeper knowledge and presumably deeper religious experience than can be attained solely through the written record. This tradition isn’t static; rather, each generation’s wise men (and women?) may add to the storehouse. There are Christians too who subscribe to an oral tradition, especially among the Eastern Orthodox branches of the faith. It’s understood that Jesus left no written record, but the gospels are full of stories about Jesus’ teachings. Purportedly these teachings have been preserved and passed down through the oral tradition. These branches of the Judeo-Christian religion fall outside of my experience, but they add a level of intrigue.
LikeLike
It seems to be a generic thing. In the evangelical ‘conservative’ tradition, sola scriptura is supposed to rule, yet in reality beginning with Calvin’s Institutes and all the theological speculation that was set off by the Reformation certainly takes precedence in the understanding of what the NT, Jesus, Christianity, ethics, are all about. The theological speculations form a giant filter that dominates how texts (and everything else) are to be perceived. I think it’s even more obviously so within the RC though more by design and not so obviously self contradictory. So also with the Sharia(s) of Islam. Especially within this Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition of being peoples ‘of the book’ the whole question does does require a bit of sustained thought.
We certainly need help with interpretation but that’s no excuse to turn of our own minds, nor is it an excuse to move in directions that are contradictory to those very traditions that birthed a new way of life. I certainly have more questions than answers…
LikeLike
Hey Ivan, I thought this headline might be some of your handiwork
“God Save The Queen dropped from Anzac Day service”
but it turned out that the irrelevance seems to be the Queen’s rather than the presence or absence of God. Perhaps they should have just changed the words to God save us all…
LikeLike
” I’m not driving recklessly. I’m using Darwinian principles to breed a better pedestrian.”
LikeLike
am still out here!
LikeLike
John, saw something interesting in the NY Rev of Books that I thought I’d put in for you and Ivan to take a look at. How are you doing? It sounds as though your writing endeavors are into high gear. Do let me know as soon as something’s near done so I can pull out my little trumpet (Twitter, Fb etc)
Sam
LikeLike
Ivan! Long time no see! Have you seen the light yet, been touched by an angel, heard the heavenly chorus? Sam still drops in from time to time, though it’s not often that I write religious posts. I just finished watching Walkabout, a 1971 movie set in the outback — very good.
LikeLike
Hey Ivan, here’s one guy (Nagel) arguing basically from the standpoint of another (Plantinga) that all’s not yet lost in the debate. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/nov/08/can-religious-belief-be-tested/ and there’s a response today (from Rey) http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/nov/08/can-religious-belief-be-tested/ and it really looks like two likely contenders have taken up the challenge in a new arena – made me a bit nostalgic!
LikeLike
Says Nagel: “Plantinga’s central claim is that if the belief is true, it cannot be confirmed in a noncircular way—any more than the belief that we perceive an external physical world or the belief that we remember a real past.” Apparently Nagel buys this claim, though in his brief response he doesn’t say why. I’d say that the evidence supporting my contention that it’s presently sunny outside my house is a lot stronger than evidence supporting alternative contentions that it’s presently raining or nighttime outside my house.
I’m currently between having ended one book and making serious headway on the next. I’m doing fine; thanks for asking, Sam. You keep up a bit with A and K via Facebook I suspect. As far as social media are concerned I’m still stuck in the first decade of the 21st century.
LikeLike
Yes, Plantinga wants some sort of privileged belief, a sort of ‘because it’s there’ argument.
Great to hear that the writing’s going so well. Did you get the last one published yet? And, yes I’m a reluctant facebooker, most of my ‘friends’ on fb actually dislike my contributions but hang in there out of some sense of duty! But, it is good to be able to keep up with folks in some way or the other… I wonder what Ivan’s been up to?
LikeLike
Ivan posted a “drive-by” comment, didn’t stick around long enough to have a chat. My 28 Sept post updated my writing/publishing trajectory.
LikeLike
Here’s a review of Nagel’s new book. Skimming the first online page, the reviewers seem to be arguing that Nagel jousts against strawmen. I’ll probably read the rest of the piece later.
LikeLike
From the end of the review:
Nagel… advocates the reintroduction of teleological reasoning into science. (Teleology—the idea that natural phenomena have built-in purposes or ends—was central to Aristotelian science, and it remained very influential until the scientific revolution.) In his discussion of the origin of life, Nagel says that natural teleology would mean that, “in addition to physical law of the familiar kind, there are other laws of nature that are ‘biased toward the marvelous.’” This is an astonishing though certainly evocative phrase (Nagel adapts it from another writer), yet Nagel offers no further explication of it. He does admit that this proposal “flies in the teeth of the authoritative form of explanation that has defined science since the revolution of the seventeenth century.” Unfortunately, he is also extremely unclear about what he means by “natural teleology,” other than assuring the reader that it is neither part of standard physical laws nor the introduction of theology. One might think that “principles of self-organization or of the development of complexity over time,” which Nagel gives as examples of natural teleology, are the sort of things studied by mainstream protein chemists, developmental biologists and condensed-matter physicists. But apparently these sciences, which study how complex order can be built up from simple physical processes, are not on the right track. Nagel never explains why.
Terrence Deacon wrestles with a material form of teleology in his book Incomplete Nature, which I’ve discussed on the blog previously. In short, for life forms of even the most primitive sort the causes of action — e.g., finding food — are teleological. From the review it sounds as though Nagel takes this observation as evidence that cause-effect science is wrongheaded from top to bottom. And yet Nagel justifies his dismissive position based only on pop summaries of science and an apparent fondness for Aristotle. In contrast, the reviewers seem to discount the scientific importance of explaining teleology in the self-organization of life forms. Granted, science can continue to progress without achieving this unifying link between cause and intent, but that doesn’t mean the question is trivial.
LikeLike
The older ‘scientific’ theory of evolution was Lamarck’s and that was completely (almost) routed by Darwin and Wallace. Evolution now means only 1 thing and that’s antiteleologic in the extreme. Yet, I think genetics and now epigenetics do demonstrate that something is teleological and it can’t all be explained by feedback loops. There’s always been this grey area in evolution when one gets down to specific adaptations and why they should have occurred as they ‘must have’. Unlike the evolution debunkers though, I am sure that it is cause and effect, i.e. without any active external influence, but the science may need to tackle a new paradigm before it finds the next round of technically defensible answers.
Where does that leave God? Again I think this logical search for a place to plug God in somewhere in everyday physical processes is misguided and inferring something like the existence of God from the tendencey of humans to believe in God in some form or the other is rather silly.
Instead, take a look at these 5 old arguments with their post new atheism formulations: http://thegospelcoalition.org/pdf-articles/Craig_Atheism.pdf
At least some of the problem is that those who are believers tend to have some very specific idea of what God is/is not. A successful attack on the particulars (the Christian God or Hindu Gods) can turn the person into an unbeliever, but it’s important to note that rarely has this got anything at all to do with what philosophers are talking about when they discuss theism. In fact the god beliefs that atheists most commonly attack are these selfsame ‘personal’ gods, what Ivan like to call tooth fairies…
LikeLike
I’d say that evolution has done a good job of accounting for the mechanisms of species transformation without invoking an end toward which life is striving. There are spontaneous mutations in the genes; there is natural selection in the environment. But this action centers around the organism, which is pursuing self-preservation and reproduction. Why? Even if the ends-oriented behavior is strictly instinctual, the instincts for self-preservation and reproduction don’t sit well in a terminally entropic universe. The task facing natural scientists is to account for how and why teleology functions at the level of organisms. It’s been possible to refine scientific theories of causation without invoking a First Cause as the ultimate explanation that renders all lower-level explanations unimportant. I would think that small-t teleology could be explored the same way. And maybe, as you suggest Sam, the operations of small-t teleology are the movements of God, or god, or the gods.
I’ve not looked at your link; will do so later.
LikeLike
I agree John, one can’t go from a demo of teleology in the natural world to evidence for a belief in god. One would have to first eliminate all ‘natural’ explanations to have to introduce a whole new ‘variable’. Still, it leaves the mechanistic Darwinian evolutionist with a large headache and they don’t seem to have handled that challenge particularly well.
Incidentally, Dawkin’s own fundamentalism has come in for a bit of stick over time and the most recent salvo has been fired by none other than the eminent Higgs, himself an atheist! Here’s the link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/dec/26/peter-higgs-richard-dawkins-fundamentalism
LikeLike