I keep a rule around here that when a skeptic claims there are contradictions in the Bible, I allow 5 chances to prove it. I figure that if s/he can't get it done with his/her favorite 5, there's no reason to look any further with that person - s/he has nothing to offer.
So, with that in mind, I asked one @BeMoreCynical for evidence of his assertion that the Bible has flaws. You'll note that I tried to cut him off at the pass by asking for actual flaws. "The Bible commands something that I find morally reprehensible" is not a flaw unless you can prove that your moral standard is correct, something which no atheist can possibly do. Much less is "The Bible records an event I find morally reprehensible" a flaw, though many, many careless skeptics make exactly that contention, and all the time.
Anyway, then @piisalie responded: 1Chron 1.36 The Chronicler mistakes Timna for a son instead of a concubine. (Gen 36:12)?
The conversation has now lasted quite some time, mostly because piisalie and BeMoreCynical have demonstrated their inability to understand what a contradiction is.
Genesis 36: 9These then are the records of the generations of Esau the father of the Edomites in the hill country of Seir. 10These are the names of Esau’s sons: Eliphaz the son of Esau’s wife Adah, Reuel the son of Esau’s wife Basemath. 11The sons of Eliphaz were Teman, Omar, Zepho and Gatam and Kenaz. 12Timna was a concubine of Esau’s son Eliphaz and she bore Amalek to Eliphaz. These are the sons of Esau’s wife Adah. 13These are the sons of Reuel: Nahath and Zerah, Shammah and Mizzah. These were the sons of Esau’s wife Basemath.
1 Chronicles 1:34Abraham became the father of Isaac. The sons of Isaac were Esau and Israel. 35The sons of Esau were Eliphaz, Reuel, Jeush, Jalam and Korah. 36The sons of Eliphaz were Teman, Omar, Zephi, Gatam, Kenaz, Timna and Amalek.
I responded to piisalie and BMC, and a selection from our conversation follows here:
Me: There were 2 ppl named Timna.
piisalie: But you made it up. (Edit: BMC actually said that.)
Me: U have no idea whether I made it up. Did you have anything better, or was that your best shot?
piisalie: so you assert he had both a concubine and a son named Timna?
Me: You assert that Timna was 1 person, no proof. I assert they were 2 w/ same name. Neither have proof. No contradiction.
Me: Yes, kinda like how a guy could have a wife and a male friend named Pat, or Tracy.
piisalie: both verses cite the line of Eliphaz, one has Timna as a son, one has Timna as a concubine, neither has both...
Me: I sometimes refer to my wife and in other contexts to my friend, sometimes not both.
piisalie: you know, that argument could make sense, if we weren't talking about sacred recorded geneologies...
Me: I don't take those genealogies as necessarily exhaustive.
piisalie: so a perfect God, wrote a perfect book, with incomplete blood lines, containing names/persons to be easily confused?
Me: Sry, didn't realise " @piisalie is confused" = "untrue or contradictory". Where is that definition written?
Me: I blv the guy who was there, not the guy 6K yrs later claiming better knowledge
piisalie: Which guy was there? The author of Genesis, or Chronicles?
Me: Both are closer to it by far than u r. Do u *know* the auth of Chron didn't have other supplement info? No, u don't.
It's mind-boggling to me that this has taken so much interest in these two tweeters' minds. By necessity, for communication to be possible with anyone, we must begin with the presumption of harmonisation for texts and speech. Otherwise, we end up deconstructing everything, and in total absurdity, for any communication or text that advocates for rampant deconstruction assumes that it itself is exempt from the deconstruction it advocates, and we know nothing, ever.
How much more must this be the case for ancient documents, when we, the modern readers/critics, are so far removed from the events that took place! We have virtually no information about the minutiæ, the specific contexts, surrounding events, and surrounding people of these textual references. If you don't want to take the authors' word for it outside of some high standard of corroboration, then to be consistent, you must deny that you know much of anything about history, even modern history.
Besides all that, for the Christian who recognises that God is really, really smart, and @piisalie and @BeMoreCynical are of evidently average intelligence, we have to weigh the priorities. Whom to believe? The God Who cannot lie and Who has proven His reliability over and over again and indeed predicted Jesus' resurrection from the dead and then carried it out? Or some guys on Twitter who don't realise that sometimes people have the same name?
To prove a contradiction, there must be no possible harmonisation for the texts cited. I obviously don't know with certainty whether there were two people named Timna, since I wasn't there, but it is a perfectly reasonable solution to the proposed problem. Where a perfectly reasonable option exists, no contradiction does, and that's just the way it is. I'm sure this disappoints my skeptical friends, but my suggestion is to find a better example of "contradiction".
Finally, @piisalie said something I find to be contemptible and worthy of a serious amount of discredit:
he'll just misquote me, and mock me on his blog like the last time :P
Anyone is welcome to look over the last time @piisalie and I had a blog discussion, and I challenge anyone to find where I misquoted him. Whether I've engaged in mockery of him personally is open to discussion, but misquotation is a serious charge. But the thing is, when @piisalie is happy to falsely accuse me of misquotation, some third-rate blogger, what level of credibility should we lend to his accusations of contradiction?
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Monday, May 16, 2011
This comment was too much for The Abortion Gang
Those familiar with the abolitionist movement and other things related to the practice of human abortion may recall the controversial billboards put up for a short time in Chicago (and other places by extension).
Images like these:
Unsurprisingly, these billboards caused no small stir among those who make it their business to take issue with facts that are inconvenient or damaging to the pro-abortion position. One Dennis Byrne from the Chicago Tribune figured this out and wrote about it, which prompted a response from a blog known as The Abortion Gang, in which "Kaitlyn" plays the race card early and often.
I left a comment which they published, Kaitlyn responded, and I replied, but strangely enough, they chose not to publish my 2nd comment. One can only guess as to their motivation, why they refuse to publish intelligent and rational critiques of their position.
Here is the comment I left, which was not published:
Hello Kaitlyn,
Thank you very much for the interaction. I appreciate your time.
Also, I'd like to clarify something from my previous comment - I wasn't necessarily referring to you personally as "O Powerful Helpful White Master"; it was illustrative to achieve my point that this view implicitly treats black people like children to be taken care of their entire lives. Obviously I have no idea of your ethnicity, just as you don't know anything about me. So I hope you'll understand it for what it was.
I also hope that, in the future, if you want to accuse someone of being racist as you accused me, you'll offer some evidence thereof. It's a serious charge, so one would hope that you have some reason to say it other than some sort of knee-jerk reaction to disagreement. It's as if you're intolerant of dissenting points of view. Are you?
Images like these:Unsurprisingly, these billboards caused no small stir among those who make it their business to take issue with facts that are inconvenient or damaging to the pro-abortion position. One Dennis Byrne from the Chicago Tribune figured this out and wrote about it, which prompted a response from a blog known as The Abortion Gang, in which "Kaitlyn" plays the race card early and often.
I left a comment which they published, Kaitlyn responded, and I replied, but strangely enough, they chose not to publish my 2nd comment. One can only guess as to their motivation, why they refuse to publish intelligent and rational critiques of their position.
Here is the comment I left, which was not published:
Hello Kaitlyn,
Thank you very much for the interaction. I appreciate your time.
Also, I'd like to clarify something from my previous comment - I wasn't necessarily referring to you personally as "O Powerful Helpful White Master"; it was illustrative to achieve my point that this view implicitly treats black people like children to be taken care of their entire lives. Obviously I have no idea of your ethnicity, just as you don't know anything about me. So I hope you'll understand it for what it was.
I also hope that, in the future, if you want to accuse someone of being racist as you accused me, you'll offer some evidence thereof. It's a serious charge, so one would hope that you have some reason to say it other than some sort of knee-jerk reaction to disagreement. It's as if you're intolerant of dissenting points of view. Are you?
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Le Congrès, c'est moi
Anonymous said:
You have absolutely no right to force your sense of morality on another person, nor do you have any right to force what your religious beliefs are on anyone else. If you think you do, you are no better then opressive states and regimes that force their citizens to believe a certain religion/certain world view. we live in a free and open society, let's keep it that way, lets we want to turn into the next libya, egypt, china, north korea, etc etc etc.
I replied:
1) How do you know?
2) If the 19C slaveowner said, "you have absolutely no right to force your sense of morality on another person, nor do you have any right to force what your religious beliefs are on anyone else," would you be on their side too, or on the slaves' side?
3) If my belief that kidnapping healthy 30 year old women for ransom money is morally reprehensible is religiously-motivated, will you allow me to make my argument, or will you use this same kind of biased language to shut me up?
And those are societies largely characterised by a LACK of respect for human life and rights. That's so funny.
Anonymous replied:
I know because it's in the first amendment to the constitution, bucko. Perhaps hou (sic) ought to read it.
By the way, since you want to basically pretend to take the moral high ground by likening yourself to a slavery abolitionist, I'll play that game.
By forcing me to be an incubator, at detriment to my physical, emotional, and mental health, and to suffer painful labor and childbirth, YOU are enslaving MY body. It cuts both ways.
I replied:
Yes, and when it's over, it's over. The unwanted use of your body is over.
You're just giving us arbitrary reasons why you don't want to. You'd rather kill the baby than inconvenience yourself, but that's not permissible.
The 1st Amendment reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
May I ask what in that text is relevant to the question I asked you?
You have absolutely no right to force your sense of morality on another person, nor do you have any right to force what your religious beliefs are on anyone else. If you think you do, you are no better then opressive states and regimes that force their citizens to believe a certain religion/certain world view. we live in a free and open society, let's keep it that way, lets we want to turn into the next libya, egypt, china, north korea, etc etc etc.
I replied:
1) How do you know?
2) If the 19C slaveowner said, "you have absolutely no right to force your sense of morality on another person, nor do you have any right to force what your religious beliefs are on anyone else," would you be on their side too, or on the slaves' side?
3) If my belief that kidnapping healthy 30 year old women for ransom money is morally reprehensible is religiously-motivated, will you allow me to make my argument, or will you use this same kind of biased language to shut me up?
And those are societies largely characterised by a LACK of respect for human life and rights. That's so funny.
Anonymous replied:
I know because it's in the first amendment to the constitution, bucko. Perhaps hou (sic) ought to read it.
By the way, since you want to basically pretend to take the moral high ground by likening yourself to a slavery abolitionist, I'll play that game.
By forcing me to be an incubator, at detriment to my physical, emotional, and mental health, and to suffer painful labor and childbirth, YOU are enslaving MY body. It cuts both ways.
I replied:
Yes, and when it's over, it's over. The unwanted use of your body is over.
You're just giving us arbitrary reasons why you don't want to. You'd rather kill the baby than inconvenience yourself, but that's not permissible.
The 1st Amendment reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
May I ask what in that text is relevant to the question I asked you?
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Picking and choosing from history
A comment I left on John Bugay's post about the similarities between Orwellian visions of rewriting the past and the way Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy rewrite church history:
And that is precisely what the practice of bestowing the title "Church Father" and "Doctor of the Church" does as well - it artificially inflates the early author of Christendom to a more exalted status, such that now Rome (or Eastern Orthodoxy, which does this just as flagrantly) can appeal back to that man as support for its Sacred Apostolic Tradition.
In reality, if you want to know what early Christians believed, it's pretty hard since we have an infinitesimally small % of people writing compared to the total population of Christians at the time, and out of those writers an underwhelming % of their writings are extant. As Steve Hays likes to say: Show me the survey data.
All this illustrates the impossibility of any rational appeal to "tradition" to found a prescription for doctrine. We must stick with God's revealed Word, not what a modern organisation picks and chooses out of history.
And that is precisely what the practice of bestowing the title "Church Father" and "Doctor of the Church" does as well - it artificially inflates the early author of Christendom to a more exalted status, such that now Rome (or Eastern Orthodoxy, which does this just as flagrantly) can appeal back to that man as support for its Sacred Apostolic Tradition.
In reality, if you want to know what early Christians believed, it's pretty hard since we have an infinitesimally small % of people writing compared to the total population of Christians at the time, and out of those writers an underwhelming % of their writings are extant. As Steve Hays likes to say: Show me the survey data.
All this illustrates the impossibility of any rational appeal to "tradition" to found a prescription for doctrine. We must stick with God's revealed Word, not what a modern organisation picks and chooses out of history.
Monday, May 09, 2011
Conversation with madmanfred -2
My response to madmanfred continues from the Abolitionist Society blog, after my original reply to him.
First of all, though, let me note that the numerous central challenges I made to his moral authority in the last post, namely:
madmanfred did not answer. You'll see below that I ask the same questions again a few times, and that's because mmf is trying to deal in oughts and shoulds, but he professes to be an atheist, and atheists need to present some reason to think that moral authority actually exists before any reasonable person should consider their moral positions and statements to have any worth or meaning. So hopefully mmf will give us something solid to chew on in his next reply.
how is it that the sperm and egg don't have one, but after "fusion" the zygote has one?
B/c God creates humans, and when He creates them, He creates them physically and spiritually simultaneously.
It's a divine act of creation. It wasn't there all along.
"The idea of ensoulment is nowhere to be found in the Bible. The concept of ensoulment is linked with other ideas such as 'quickening' which also are not found in the Bible."
Zygotes are not in the Bible either.
There are contra-biblical ideas and there are extra-biblical ideas. Zygote is the latter; ensoulment is the former.
"Possess(ing) the Image of God" does not appear in the Bible, anywhere.
It's in Genesis 1 and 9.
In Genesis, God creates man in his image, but I've always taken that to mean human beings look like God.
OK, but your poor interpretation of the Bible is hardly the standard of truth.
That doesn't explain how God can look like a zygote
Which is a great reason to reject your simplistic "humans look like God" 'interpretation' of the text.
"your demonstrated knowledge of Christian doctrine was lacking. To fail to let you know about it would do you and others a disservice."
Umm, no, unless 14 years of Christian eduction went down the drain.
It wouldn't be the 1st time.
Education and credentials don't impress me. Showing some substantive familiarity with the Bible does.
And the whole "I've always taken that to mean human beings look like God" inspires even less confidence in your knowledge. It's clear this is a sore spot for you, but clearly your inflated false confidence needs to be busted down quite a bit to arrive at reality.
And your position isn't worthwhile for critique. I honestly can't take you and your delusion of special knowledge seriously. You're a fantasy fan.
Anyone can read the arguments for themselves. You're like a child standing on your daddy's lap to yell at him and slap his face and tell him he has no power over you.
I'd like you to prove that the following things to which you yourself hold aren't delusions:
-evidence exists
-your cognitive faculties reliably produce true beliefs
-other minds exist
-the external world exists
Go for it. Otherwise I'll just throw the same stuff at you and trumpet my victory like a 7 year old.
The only thing complex about Christianity its history.
And systematic theology. Again, you show no familiarity with it.
The slaves in the South couldn't have been as badly treated as you say, because the Spanish instituted slavery in South/Central America in the 16th century, and the Spanish were very Christian.
This is not even an argument. I have no idea what you're trying to say.
And the Spanish weren't Christian - they were medieval Roman Catholics.
God is so opposed to slavery that you have to find passages between the ones that approve of it that mumble his opposition where you don't downright twist the meaning.
Where did I claim that God is "opposed to slavery"? The truth is far more nuanced than you've allowed with this statement. Prove you know something about the Bible by correctly characterising the Bible's position on slavery. Thanks.
"'Nor do we have any idea what percentage of slaves were treated that well for how much time. The doctor and teachers you site might have lived hundreds of years apart.'"
"Or they might not have."
Oh, you've checked already? You know for a fact this evidence doesn't exist? I bet it does.
OK.
Your faith is remarkable, but naked assertions are countered by naked assertions. You bet it does, eh?
evidence exists from that very time in the surrounding Christian world that the slavery in the antebellum South was hardly the worst in the world.
Tu quoques get you nowhere.
Ah,so the price of freedom for a slave is his eye or a tooth, according to Exodus. In other words, you only have reason to free slaves if the master mutilates them
This is a tendentious mischaracterisation of the situation brought on by your neglect of the context.
Exo. 21:21 affirms that the master has the right to beat the slave to an inch of his life, as long as the slave remains alive for two days. and affirms that the master owns the slave "by right of purchase."
Exodus 21:20“If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. 21“If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.
I'd like to ask mmf:
1) You do realise that if a man does that and costs himself the slave's labor for the time of his recovery, he's hurting himself too, right? And the slave can go free at Sabbath year.
2) And yet the slave was indeed sold into slavery to the master. This law balances the master's responsibility to his slave and the slave's to his master.
3) What moral problem do you have with this? How do you know your moral position is true? I don't accept your position as Pope of Morality without some ID.
there are three Gods you worship, but you have to pretend you worship one because that one is the jealous God."
That was my description of the Trinity, Reducio ad Absurdum.
Reductia ad absurdum are supposed to arrive at the LOGICAL consequence of the position critiqued. You've set up a strawman and thus failed badly.
The Trinity: It wasn't adopted as dogma until 325 ad.
Yes, but it's taught clearly in the Bible, which is really all that matters.
This "fact" was actually discovered by an Alexandrian Bishop's secretary, Athanasius.
No, it was revealed in the BIble and believed by Christians way before.
Read up on historical heresies - doctrine doesn't get systematised usually until the main consensus is challenged, at which point it becomes necessary to get specific and define stuff in detail.
But worshiping all three while claiming that they are one substance is meaningless
Naked assertion. Give me a reason to think so.
every Christian sect has stuck with the Trinity, including such wild offshoots as the Mormons.
????? The Mormons are possibly the most polytheistic religion in the world. Once again you reveal ignorance.
First of all, though, let me note that the numerous central challenges I made to his moral authority in the last post, namely:
-- May I ask what it is, and how you know that your moral position is better than someone else's, such that you feel freedom to tell us what to believe? That you get to correct others on issues of morality? Where's your badge?
--On what basis, then, do you disapprove? What is your moral standard by which you think you can judge others?
--You're setting yourself up as an authority, judging those who commit murder.
I lack faith in your moral authority. Please give evidence that you indeed have it, and that it is correct.
madmanfred did not answer. You'll see below that I ask the same questions again a few times, and that's because mmf is trying to deal in oughts and shoulds, but he professes to be an atheist, and atheists need to present some reason to think that moral authority actually exists before any reasonable person should consider their moral positions and statements to have any worth or meaning. So hopefully mmf will give us something solid to chew on in his next reply.
how is it that the sperm and egg don't have one, but after "fusion" the zygote has one?
B/c God creates humans, and when He creates them, He creates them physically and spiritually simultaneously.
It's a divine act of creation. It wasn't there all along.
"The idea of ensoulment is nowhere to be found in the Bible. The concept of ensoulment is linked with other ideas such as 'quickening' which also are not found in the Bible."
Zygotes are not in the Bible either.
There are contra-biblical ideas and there are extra-biblical ideas. Zygote is the latter; ensoulment is the former.
"Possess(ing) the Image of God" does not appear in the Bible, anywhere.
It's in Genesis 1 and 9.
In Genesis, God creates man in his image, but I've always taken that to mean human beings look like God.
OK, but your poor interpretation of the Bible is hardly the standard of truth.
That doesn't explain how God can look like a zygote
Which is a great reason to reject your simplistic "humans look like God" 'interpretation' of the text.
"your demonstrated knowledge of Christian doctrine was lacking. To fail to let you know about it would do you and others a disservice."
Umm, no, unless 14 years of Christian eduction went down the drain.
It wouldn't be the 1st time.
Education and credentials don't impress me. Showing some substantive familiarity with the Bible does.
And the whole "I've always taken that to mean human beings look like God" inspires even less confidence in your knowledge. It's clear this is a sore spot for you, but clearly your inflated false confidence needs to be busted down quite a bit to arrive at reality.
And your position isn't worthwhile for critique. I honestly can't take you and your delusion of special knowledge seriously. You're a fantasy fan.
Anyone can read the arguments for themselves. You're like a child standing on your daddy's lap to yell at him and slap his face and tell him he has no power over you.
I'd like you to prove that the following things to which you yourself hold aren't delusions:
-evidence exists
-your cognitive faculties reliably produce true beliefs
-other minds exist
-the external world exists
Go for it. Otherwise I'll just throw the same stuff at you and trumpet my victory like a 7 year old.
The only thing complex about Christianity its history.
And systematic theology. Again, you show no familiarity with it.
The slaves in the South couldn't have been as badly treated as you say, because the Spanish instituted slavery in South/Central America in the 16th century, and the Spanish were very Christian.
This is not even an argument. I have no idea what you're trying to say.
And the Spanish weren't Christian - they were medieval Roman Catholics.
God is so opposed to slavery that you have to find passages between the ones that approve of it that mumble his opposition where you don't downright twist the meaning.
Where did I claim that God is "opposed to slavery"? The truth is far more nuanced than you've allowed with this statement. Prove you know something about the Bible by correctly characterising the Bible's position on slavery. Thanks.
"'Nor do we have any idea what percentage of slaves were treated that well for how much time. The doctor and teachers you site might have lived hundreds of years apart.'"
"Or they might not have."
Oh, you've checked already? You know for a fact this evidence doesn't exist? I bet it does.
OK.
Your faith is remarkable, but naked assertions are countered by naked assertions. You bet it does, eh?
evidence exists from that very time in the surrounding Christian world that the slavery in the antebellum South was hardly the worst in the world.
Tu quoques get you nowhere.
Ah,so the price of freedom for a slave is his eye or a tooth, according to Exodus. In other words, you only have reason to free slaves if the master mutilates them
This is a tendentious mischaracterisation of the situation brought on by your neglect of the context.
Exo. 21:21 affirms that the master has the right to beat the slave to an inch of his life, as long as the slave remains alive for two days. and affirms that the master owns the slave "by right of purchase."
Exodus 21:20“If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. 21“If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.
I'd like to ask mmf:
1) You do realise that if a man does that and costs himself the slave's labor for the time of his recovery, he's hurting himself too, right? And the slave can go free at Sabbath year.
2) And yet the slave was indeed sold into slavery to the master. This law balances the master's responsibility to his slave and the slave's to his master.
3) What moral problem do you have with this? How do you know your moral position is true? I don't accept your position as Pope of Morality without some ID.
there are three Gods you worship, but you have to pretend you worship one because that one is the jealous God."
That was my description of the Trinity, Reducio ad Absurdum.
Reductia ad absurdum are supposed to arrive at the LOGICAL consequence of the position critiqued. You've set up a strawman and thus failed badly.
The Trinity: It wasn't adopted as dogma until 325 ad.
Yes, but it's taught clearly in the Bible, which is really all that matters.
This "fact" was actually discovered by an Alexandrian Bishop's secretary, Athanasius.
No, it was revealed in the BIble and believed by Christians way before.
Read up on historical heresies - doctrine doesn't get systematised usually until the main consensus is challenged, at which point it becomes necessary to get specific and define stuff in detail.
But worshiping all three while claiming that they are one substance is meaningless
Naked assertion. Give me a reason to think so.
every Christian sect has stuck with the Trinity, including such wild offshoots as the Mormons.
????? The Mormons are possibly the most polytheistic religion in the world. Once again you reveal ignorance.
Wednesday, May 04, 2011
@DearThey criticises me
I got some feedback about my last post. Not from the addressee, but maybe EricKincade will write back later; not everyone has tons of free time to converse on the blogosphere.
I'd like to deal with the replies from @DearThey, found here (to which tweet I asked for specifics) and then here.
@DearThey may indeed be willing to engage on a longer form than TwitLonger, so I welcome substantive interaction, as always. I would also like to offer my condolences to @DearThey on the poor health of his obviously beloved grandfather. Let me switch to addressing @DearThey (aka Julian Finn) directly.
Julian, death is an enemy, a horrible adversary that is coming for us all. For some, it comes at the end of a long and rich life like your grandfather and my step-grandfather who died 3 weeks ago. For others, it comes suddenly, without warning, after a long life, or a medium life, or a short life. And if atheism is true, it doesn't matter. Death is the way the natural order works, for life forms. Nobody will remember anything you've written in 1000 years. Will they remember you in 100 years? Perhaps. Will they who remember you in 100 years remember much of anything about you, and will they think of you except in passing once or twice a year, as memory fades, crowded out by other sad and happy memories and pressing concerns of life? Where will your accomplishments be then? Crumbled into dust.
This is the thing about the debate between atheism and Christianity - just b/c atheism reduces to utter, total, empty meaninglessness does not mean Christianity is true. It simply means that, if atheism is true, it does not matter whether atheism is true. It may matter to you but so what? Personal fantasies don't exist in the real world, and that includes fairy tale ideas such as "meaning", "value", and "this matters". No, it doesn't matter, and I challenge you to show me evidence it does.
Now, you seem not to understand what I mean by "atheism"; perhaps you missed my comment in my last post, so I repeat it here: atheism (by which I mean any system, such as naturalism or materialism, that is atheistic)...
You need to defend your own atheistIC worldview from my critiques and show how they don't apply.
You said:
But since atheism is merely a refusal to believe in extraordinary claims that carry no evidence, it's "truth" is not in question
That's a strange thing to say. Of course we can question whether the negation of a claim is true! We do so by examining whether the claim is true.
Surely you would not claim that we can't examine whether Holocaust deniers are correct in their denial? After all, they could simply respond as you did: But since Holocaust Denial is merely a refusal to believe in extraordinary claims that carry no evidence, its "truth" is not in question.
You said:
Any argument stemming from the logical fallacy that atheism is some sort theory that can be proven or disproven
A little logic is a dangerous thing; you need more. Specifically, here I'd like to know which law of logic was violated in considering atheism a sort of theory.
You said:
you seize upon his question regarding the existence of sin and, instead of answering it directly, you first take shots at the tired old chestnut of atheism lacking an objective morality
Tired old chestnuts can be tired and old b/c they've been beaten up so many times, b/c they keep picking fights with stronger, better opponents, and that's the case here. Please present your case for objective morality, on your atheistic worldview.
Warning - in the interest of saving everyone a lot of time, let me tell you in advance what I'll do once you do. I'll ask "Why should I or anyone else believe that?" In other words, I'll ask for evidence, and I'll ask for authority on your part to foist that on anyone and everyone else. Where are your morality badge, your Pope of Morality papal mitre and sceptre? Who says? You? Who are you to tell anyone else what to do and what to believe?
Now, imagine that once you answer those questions, I ask them again. Do that about 5 times in your reply, and then let's see where we are.
You said:
then answer with a verbose equivalent of "we see as through a clear glass darkly,"
I honestly don't know what this means, so I'll have to ask you for a direct quote where you think I did so.
You said:
which is hilarious since the provable existence of sin must be of utmost import to all Christians
You may have forgotten that EricKincade granted from the beginning the Christian set of presuppositions. We don't claim sin is "provable" in the way you probably mean it, ie, scientifically and empirically. No big deal - plenty of things are unprovable by and inaccessible to empirical science, including the very existence of evidence and the very scientific method itself.
Rather, we believe in sin b/c we believe Jesus, and Jesus' central mission was to seek and save sinners. Our information is divine revelation, in the Bible and in the person of Jesus.
You said:
Arguing against the specifics of your opponents framed issues is the worst form of intellectual laze
That's precisely what EricKincade tried to do, so I appreciate that we can at least agree on his intellectual laziness.
But since a major part of philosophical discourse on the academic level is performed on precisely that level - arguing against the specifics of opponents' framed issues - I think I'm not very inclined to accept the word of some unpublished blogger on that kind of thing. At least, not w/o an argument, rather than the naked assertion you offered here.
I'd like to deal with the replies from @DearThey, found here (to which tweet I asked for specifics) and then here.
@DearThey may indeed be willing to engage on a longer form than TwitLonger, so I welcome substantive interaction, as always. I would also like to offer my condolences to @DearThey on the poor health of his obviously beloved grandfather. Let me switch to addressing @DearThey (aka Julian Finn) directly.
Julian, death is an enemy, a horrible adversary that is coming for us all. For some, it comes at the end of a long and rich life like your grandfather and my step-grandfather who died 3 weeks ago. For others, it comes suddenly, without warning, after a long life, or a medium life, or a short life. And if atheism is true, it doesn't matter. Death is the way the natural order works, for life forms. Nobody will remember anything you've written in 1000 years. Will they remember you in 100 years? Perhaps. Will they who remember you in 100 years remember much of anything about you, and will they think of you except in passing once or twice a year, as memory fades, crowded out by other sad and happy memories and pressing concerns of life? Where will your accomplishments be then? Crumbled into dust.
This is the thing about the debate between atheism and Christianity - just b/c atheism reduces to utter, total, empty meaninglessness does not mean Christianity is true. It simply means that, if atheism is true, it does not matter whether atheism is true. It may matter to you but so what? Personal fantasies don't exist in the real world, and that includes fairy tale ideas such as "meaning", "value", and "this matters". No, it doesn't matter, and I challenge you to show me evidence it does.
Now, you seem not to understand what I mean by "atheism"; perhaps you missed my comment in my last post, so I repeat it here: atheism (by which I mean any system, such as naturalism or materialism, that is atheistic)...
You need to defend your own atheistIC worldview from my critiques and show how they don't apply.
You said:
But since atheism is merely a refusal to believe in extraordinary claims that carry no evidence, it's "truth" is not in question
That's a strange thing to say. Of course we can question whether the negation of a claim is true! We do so by examining whether the claim is true.
Surely you would not claim that we can't examine whether Holocaust deniers are correct in their denial? After all, they could simply respond as you did: But since Holocaust Denial is merely a refusal to believe in extraordinary claims that carry no evidence, its "truth" is not in question.
You said:
Any argument stemming from the logical fallacy that atheism is some sort theory that can be proven or disproven
A little logic is a dangerous thing; you need more. Specifically, here I'd like to know which law of logic was violated in considering atheism a sort of theory.
You said:
you seize upon his question regarding the existence of sin and, instead of answering it directly, you first take shots at the tired old chestnut of atheism lacking an objective morality
Tired old chestnuts can be tired and old b/c they've been beaten up so many times, b/c they keep picking fights with stronger, better opponents, and that's the case here. Please present your case for objective morality, on your atheistic worldview.
Warning - in the interest of saving everyone a lot of time, let me tell you in advance what I'll do once you do. I'll ask "Why should I or anyone else believe that?" In other words, I'll ask for evidence, and I'll ask for authority on your part to foist that on anyone and everyone else. Where are your morality badge, your Pope of Morality papal mitre and sceptre? Who says? You? Who are you to tell anyone else what to do and what to believe?
Now, imagine that once you answer those questions, I ask them again. Do that about 5 times in your reply, and then let's see where we are.
You said:
then answer with a verbose equivalent of "we see as through a clear glass darkly,"
I honestly don't know what this means, so I'll have to ask you for a direct quote where you think I did so.
You said:
which is hilarious since the provable existence of sin must be of utmost import to all Christians
You may have forgotten that EricKincade granted from the beginning the Christian set of presuppositions. We don't claim sin is "provable" in the way you probably mean it, ie, scientifically and empirically. No big deal - plenty of things are unprovable by and inaccessible to empirical science, including the very existence of evidence and the very scientific method itself.
Rather, we believe in sin b/c we believe Jesus, and Jesus' central mission was to seek and save sinners. Our information is divine revelation, in the Bible and in the person of Jesus.
You said:
Arguing against the specifics of your opponents framed issues is the worst form of intellectual laze
That's precisely what EricKincade tried to do, so I appreciate that we can at least agree on his intellectual laziness.
But since a major part of philosophical discourse on the academic level is performed on precisely that level - arguing against the specifics of opponents' framed issues - I think I'm not very inclined to accept the word of some unpublished blogger on that kind of thing. At least, not w/o an argument, rather than the naked assertion you offered here.
Tuesday, May 03, 2011
EricKincade of noneexist.com and his utter failure
One of my abolitionist friends wrote a reply to a letter to the local student paper, and it was published here.
One EricKincade of http://www.noneexist.com showed up to post quite a long series of replies in the combox, and so I'd like to engage with his points here, since getting comments published in their comboxes is sketchy and inconsistent, often with long delays from submission to publication.
For me, it's easy to see that all religions are man-made.
1) For me too, save one.
2) And of course, that one most certainly includes human interaction.
3) It's easy for me to see that atheism (by which I mean any system, such as naturalism or materialism, that is atheistic) is man-made.
Sin is a man-made concept as well.
Notice the naked assertions. Hopefully this will not be the pattern.
people do good and bad things but where is the proof that sin actually exists?
He has written out the Christian definition from the beginning.
I simply ask: on atheism, people do things but where is the proof that good and bad actually exist?
Presuppositions are fundamental and essential in these kinds of questions. If Christianity is true, sin is lawlessness, breaking the law of the Creator. If atheism is true, there is no good or bad at all. Actions simply are.
There's no neutral ground on this kind of question. It's not as if "sin" or "good and bad" can be empirically tested by some scientific means. Asking for evidence for such comes dangerously close to a serious category error, and that is easily seen when one asks for the evidence that good and bad exist. What does bad taste like? What is its molarity and atomic weight? Where is it found and what studies have been performed on it?
If God made man, then I have specific difficult questions that should be actually very easy to answer.
Alright, I'll be happy to engage them.
Remember - he's granting from the outset that God made man. So from here on out, as long as he's asking these questions, I'm standing on the Christian platform, with Christian presuppositions, to answer. No fair importing (or smuggling in) atheistic presuppositions.
If you are a Christian and you are afraid to read this, I submit that your religion is in the business of mind control.
Well, sort of. Jesus is Lord, and His lordship includes everything, including human thought. And well it should, for Jesus created humans, the capacity for thought, souls, and brains. Before I knew Jesus, my mind led me to death and destruction, exactly like Romans 8 says:
5For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, 7because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
But now that God has given me a new heart, one that is pleased to know and love Jesus such that I have real life on Earth and eternal life forever after, why would I run after vain things such as self-fulfillment and the lusts (for money, pride, power, fame, money, sex, and other gratification) that previously controlled me?
See, it's not as if man is free and then submits himself to slavery to Jesus. No, man is a slave to something at all times - either to sin, death, and the devil, or to Jesus. One or the other. Eric won't recognise that, but remember that he granted Christian presuppositions in these questions already. He is a slave to sin, death, and the devil, but he won't admit it, and I don't expect him to outside of Jesus' influence in his life.
Your religion does not want you to think for yourself or question the truth claims your religion makes.
Sort of true that "my religion does not want me to think for myself" - my utmost desire is to be "destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ" (2 Corinthians 10:5).
Mostly false that "my religion" doesn't want me to question. Question away! That's what this whole blog is about, but there's a difference between questioning and stubborn doubt, when one has received the correct answer but doesn't like it at some level and so refuses it for selfish reasons.
Religious leaders and their followers typically claim that criticizing their beliefs are a social taboo.
1) I believe that is a foolish modus operandi, so I stand with Eric in critiquing this poorly-conceived practice.
2) The actions of some -ists hardly constitute conclusive proof that the -ism is false anymore than Stalin's murder of tens of millions of his own citizens prove atheism is false.
“Don't argue about religion, lest you offend someone.”
An argument much more prominently found in the mouths of the ACLU and the Southern Poverty Law Center anymore, used to suppress the free speech of Christians. The irony is rich.
if I say that Zeus is my God, Christians laugh at this. However, when we change the word "Zeus" to "God", then all bets are off, now it's true. God is a real god.
1) Yes, quite. God is the real god: "For all the gods of the peoples are idols, But the LORD made the heavens" (1 Chronicles 16:26).
Jonah 2:8 Those who regard vain idols forsake their hope of steadfast love.
2) Does Eric believe that counterfeit bills mean that real dollars don't exist?
The Christian proof that their belief is true is based on their faith.
Hardly. See my sidebar: "SOME GOOD ARGUMENTS FOR THEISM"
So far, we see that Eric has engaged some pretty poor representations of Christianity. It's too bad; I know they're out there, but at the same time it would be great if Eric could engage some knowledgeable Christians and respond to them.
If all believers of all faiths are proving what they are saying is the absolute truth because of their faith, then isn't it obvious that all religions are false?
If all believers of all scientific theories are proving what they are saying is the absolute truth because of their faith, then isn't it obvious that all scientific theories are false?
Rather, it could be that one of them is true and the rest are false.
believers are simply saying that because I believe in something, this means it's true.
I haven't heard anyone say that in quite some time.
When adults have an invisible friend, we call this religion. Who is crazy? The adult with the invisible friend or the adult without an invisible friend?
1) Yet the Bible does not present God as an "invisible friend". Not even close. He is the Creator, the Uncaused Cause, the necessary being.
2) Crazy is a statistical anomaly. Atheists are far and away the minority throughout world history.
3) Crazy is thinking that nothing acted on nothing for no reason at no time and everything sprung out of nothing.
4) God is not only invisible. He has made Himself known visibly, in the person of Jesus Christ. Just b/c Eric hasn't seen Jesus doesn't mean anything.
They can't come back from the dead tell us we were wrong. In religion, it's always later.
Christ came back from the dead to tell us we were wrong. In Christianity, it's already done.
Religion at its core divides people.
1) Yet atheism is responsible for more deaths in a much shorter time period than "religion".
2) Disagreement about all sorts of things divide people.
3) Is Eric sure that division is bad? How does he know?
4) This fulfills Jesus' prophecies quite well:
Matthew 10:34“Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35“For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW; 36and A MAN’S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD.
John 15:18“If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. 19“If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you. 20“Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A slave is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also. 21“But all these things they will do to you for My name’s sake, because they do not know the One who sent Me.
You have to believe to join.
1) Why would Eric want to join a church? Is he complaining about that?
2) Does Eric oppose the academic elitist expulsion of, among others, intelligent design theorists from universities? After all, you have to believe to join - that's what the Darwinian caste says.
why would anyone believe that an all wise god would create such an organization?
For the same reason He does anything - ultimately for His glory. To save a people for His own possession, to show His love and mercy to sinners.
Eric seems to be trying to correct God, but did he offer an argument, or just his own unsupported opinion?
why didn't their god have the foresight to inspire the writer's of the Bible so it would be filled with timeless morals and ethics which would apply to any culture in any time period of human history and written in such a way, that nobody could ever misinterpret the Bible?
He did, but without a specific argument from Eric as well as an alternative moral standard, I'm afraid this is merely vacuous chest-thumping.
why didn't their god simply write and publish the Bible himself?
Shrug. It pleased Him to incorporate human cooperation in the carrying-out of most everything.
And why don't religious texts have the wow factor one would expect from a god?
Only the biased God-hater can look at Jesus' life, death, and resurrection and come away saying "Meh. Show me something under a microscope; now THAT'S cool!"
Again, no argument. Eric is just expressing his bias.
Where are equal rights and human rights in the Bible?
1) Eric doesn't prove that equal rights or human rights are morally good. He just posits it, w/o argument.
2) Galatians 3:26For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.
Why aren't slavery, racism, genocide, rape, war, religious terrorism, terrorism, the mutilation of children, child abuse, child labor and the repression of women's rights denounced as immoral in the Bible?
1) He hasn't read all the way to the end. ALL sin and evil is denounced, and will be destroyed finally, when God decides.
That's the point of the Cross - if He gave us all justice, we'd all be in Hell. Rather, He is working through this historical narrative so as to save some.
2) Notice how he assumes these things are bad, as if on atheism anything is objectively bad. He needs to make some argument, at some point, but hasn't so far.
first off, this is compulsory love. Is this such a wise thing to insist upon? What if you don't like your neighbor?
Luke 6:31“Treat others the same way you want them to treat you. 32“If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. 33“If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. 34“If you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners in order to receive back the same amount. 35“But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men. 36“Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.
How do you love all your neighbors?
1) On atheism, love does not exist. I defy anyone to show me how it does and how it is meaningful in any way.
2) Not I, but Jesus in me. I can love b/c Jesus first loved me (1 John 4).
many people can't even love themselves or their loved ones. Divorce is 50%
Notice the incoherency to which he's descending at this point. It's just a mishmash. Eric is a poor man's Eddie Tabash - ask tons of simpleminded questions in the apparent hope that the Christian can't possibly get to ALL of them.
I'm certain you don't agree with the Bible regarding many of its teachings about sex. And you shouldn't.
1) Again, no argument.
2) And yes, I do agree with all of it.
3) He goes on to mistake description/historical narrative with prescription/commendation. His neglect of the context is rivaled only by his ignorance.
The verses people misquote to condemn gay sex have nothing to do with homosexuality and here's why. Consider this single Biblical text that was used for centuries to condemn masturbation:
???? What remote relevance does this have? Onan was having sex with a WOMAN, and pointedly refused to give his brother's family offspring, though that was his responsibility. Where is Eric going?
For Jewish text writers, a man sleeping with another man was an abomination.
What a foolish and ignorant thing to say. The Genesis 38 text even says why the Lord killed Onan! It's totally different than Eric's throwaway comment.
I always ask my Christian who I meet in this question: What year did science discover that it took a sperm and an egg for conception to occur?
I always reply to such bizarre questions with: What possible relevance does this have to whether Christianity is true? Eric doesn't tell us.
Which is why everyone (who read the Bible or heard about this from the Bible) before 1843 thought that "spilling the seed" was killing someone.
I'd like Eric to name just one person who thought that.
Never mind "everyone". Just one name. One.
What makes something moral?
Great question, on atheism. I'd love Eric to answer.
Here's Christianity's answer.
Something is typically moral when it increases the human well-being of others.
1) Typically? HOw does Eric know?
2) What is well-being but a circular self-reference?
On Heaven and hell - Once they die, they can't sin anymore
That is a speculation that is extrabiblical, and I'm free to reject it. Where is Eric's argument?
The Bible proposes that finite sin equals infinite punishment. Where's the justice?
1) On atheism, justice does not exist.
2) Finite sin against an infinitely holy God is an infinite injustice.
3) The Bible doesn't tell us that the lost in Hell stop sinning. My guess is they keep sinning unto eternity, cursing God all the more now that God has removed His common grace that they had in life (and yet they even cursed God in this life).
4) God has poured out justice on Jesus on the Cross so that the repentant may escape justice and gain eternal life and grace. Eric doesn't seem to care about that, and that's as sad as it gets.
why does anyone have to go to hell?
B/c God is the Lord, He has a law, and He does not tolerate rebellion and lawlessness forever.
Why not come up with an entirely new religion that has no resemblance to any previous religion?
Why start over when the Old Testament religion was always intended to be fulfilled by Jesus? Eric needs to read the Epistle to the Hebrews.
. Why would anyone want to believe in a religion or belief system which devalues our humanity?
1) I didn't want to believe in Jesus. I was given a new heart to believe. I hated the evidence and Jesus Himself, and now the evidence is far too substantial to dismiss.
2) B/c Jesus' salvation of sinners is that much better when they're wretched. May Jesus be glorified!
John 3:26And they came to John (the Baptist) and said to him, “Rabbi, He who was with you beyond the Jordan, to whom you have testified, behold, He is baptizing and all are coming to Him.” 27John answered and said, “A man can receive nothing unless it has been given him from heaven. 28“You yourselves are my witnesses that I said, ‘I am not the Christ,’ but, ‘I have been sent ahead of Him.’ 29“He who has the bride is the bridegroom; but the friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly because of the bridegroom’s voice. So this joy of mine has been made full. 30“He must increase, but I must decrease."
Nonreligious message - We get our morals from ourselves.
There are so many reasons why this is false and imaginary.
Science says, if we don't know, let's find out. Science says, if we don't know, we are okay with this. Religions says, we know. See the difference?
1) Science never says "we know"?
2) Where is Eric's argument that his way is better? He never gave one.
Well, all of that and EricKincade has left us no better off. Just a massive bloviation of ignorance and poor reasoning.
One EricKincade of http://www.noneexist.com showed up to post quite a long series of replies in the combox, and so I'd like to engage with his points here, since getting comments published in their comboxes is sketchy and inconsistent, often with long delays from submission to publication.
For me, it's easy to see that all religions are man-made.
1) For me too, save one.
2) And of course, that one most certainly includes human interaction.
3) It's easy for me to see that atheism (by which I mean any system, such as naturalism or materialism, that is atheistic) is man-made.
Sin is a man-made concept as well.
Notice the naked assertions. Hopefully this will not be the pattern.
people do good and bad things but where is the proof that sin actually exists?
He has written out the Christian definition from the beginning.
I simply ask: on atheism, people do things but where is the proof that good and bad actually exist?
Presuppositions are fundamental and essential in these kinds of questions. If Christianity is true, sin is lawlessness, breaking the law of the Creator. If atheism is true, there is no good or bad at all. Actions simply are.
There's no neutral ground on this kind of question. It's not as if "sin" or "good and bad" can be empirically tested by some scientific means. Asking for evidence for such comes dangerously close to a serious category error, and that is easily seen when one asks for the evidence that good and bad exist. What does bad taste like? What is its molarity and atomic weight? Where is it found and what studies have been performed on it?
If God made man, then I have specific difficult questions that should be actually very easy to answer.
Alright, I'll be happy to engage them.
Remember - he's granting from the outset that God made man. So from here on out, as long as he's asking these questions, I'm standing on the Christian platform, with Christian presuppositions, to answer. No fair importing (or smuggling in) atheistic presuppositions.
If you are a Christian and you are afraid to read this, I submit that your religion is in the business of mind control.
Well, sort of. Jesus is Lord, and His lordship includes everything, including human thought. And well it should, for Jesus created humans, the capacity for thought, souls, and brains. Before I knew Jesus, my mind led me to death and destruction, exactly like Romans 8 says:
5For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, 7because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
But now that God has given me a new heart, one that is pleased to know and love Jesus such that I have real life on Earth and eternal life forever after, why would I run after vain things such as self-fulfillment and the lusts (for money, pride, power, fame, money, sex, and other gratification) that previously controlled me?
See, it's not as if man is free and then submits himself to slavery to Jesus. No, man is a slave to something at all times - either to sin, death, and the devil, or to Jesus. One or the other. Eric won't recognise that, but remember that he granted Christian presuppositions in these questions already. He is a slave to sin, death, and the devil, but he won't admit it, and I don't expect him to outside of Jesus' influence in his life.
Your religion does not want you to think for yourself or question the truth claims your religion makes.
Sort of true that "my religion does not want me to think for myself" - my utmost desire is to be "destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ" (2 Corinthians 10:5).
Mostly false that "my religion" doesn't want me to question. Question away! That's what this whole blog is about, but there's a difference between questioning and stubborn doubt, when one has received the correct answer but doesn't like it at some level and so refuses it for selfish reasons.
Religious leaders and their followers typically claim that criticizing their beliefs are a social taboo.
1) I believe that is a foolish modus operandi, so I stand with Eric in critiquing this poorly-conceived practice.
2) The actions of some -ists hardly constitute conclusive proof that the -ism is false anymore than Stalin's murder of tens of millions of his own citizens prove atheism is false.
“Don't argue about religion, lest you offend someone.”
An argument much more prominently found in the mouths of the ACLU and the Southern Poverty Law Center anymore, used to suppress the free speech of Christians. The irony is rich.
if I say that Zeus is my God, Christians laugh at this. However, when we change the word "Zeus" to "God", then all bets are off, now it's true. God is a real god.
1) Yes, quite. God is the real god: "For all the gods of the peoples are idols, But the LORD made the heavens" (1 Chronicles 16:26).
Jonah 2:8 Those who regard vain idols forsake their hope of steadfast love.
2) Does Eric believe that counterfeit bills mean that real dollars don't exist?
The Christian proof that their belief is true is based on their faith.
Hardly. See my sidebar: "SOME GOOD ARGUMENTS FOR THEISM"
So far, we see that Eric has engaged some pretty poor representations of Christianity. It's too bad; I know they're out there, but at the same time it would be great if Eric could engage some knowledgeable Christians and respond to them.
If all believers of all faiths are proving what they are saying is the absolute truth because of their faith, then isn't it obvious that all religions are false?
If all believers of all scientific theories are proving what they are saying is the absolute truth because of their faith, then isn't it obvious that all scientific theories are false?
Rather, it could be that one of them is true and the rest are false.
believers are simply saying that because I believe in something, this means it's true.
I haven't heard anyone say that in quite some time.
When adults have an invisible friend, we call this religion. Who is crazy? The adult with the invisible friend or the adult without an invisible friend?
1) Yet the Bible does not present God as an "invisible friend". Not even close. He is the Creator, the Uncaused Cause, the necessary being.
2) Crazy is a statistical anomaly. Atheists are far and away the minority throughout world history.
3) Crazy is thinking that nothing acted on nothing for no reason at no time and everything sprung out of nothing.
4) God is not only invisible. He has made Himself known visibly, in the person of Jesus Christ. Just b/c Eric hasn't seen Jesus doesn't mean anything.
They can't come back from the dead tell us we were wrong. In religion, it's always later.
Christ came back from the dead to tell us we were wrong. In Christianity, it's already done.
Religion at its core divides people.
1) Yet atheism is responsible for more deaths in a much shorter time period than "religion".
2) Disagreement about all sorts of things divide people.
3) Is Eric sure that division is bad? How does he know?
4) This fulfills Jesus' prophecies quite well:
Matthew 10:34“Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35“For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW; 36and A MAN’S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD.
John 15:18“If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. 19“If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you. 20“Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A slave is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also. 21“But all these things they will do to you for My name’s sake, because they do not know the One who sent Me.
You have to believe to join.
1) Why would Eric want to join a church? Is he complaining about that?
2) Does Eric oppose the academic elitist expulsion of, among others, intelligent design theorists from universities? After all, you have to believe to join - that's what the Darwinian caste says.
why would anyone believe that an all wise god would create such an organization?
For the same reason He does anything - ultimately for His glory. To save a people for His own possession, to show His love and mercy to sinners.
Eric seems to be trying to correct God, but did he offer an argument, or just his own unsupported opinion?
why didn't their god have the foresight to inspire the writer's of the Bible so it would be filled with timeless morals and ethics which would apply to any culture in any time period of human history and written in such a way, that nobody could ever misinterpret the Bible?
He did, but without a specific argument from Eric as well as an alternative moral standard, I'm afraid this is merely vacuous chest-thumping.
why didn't their god simply write and publish the Bible himself?
Shrug. It pleased Him to incorporate human cooperation in the carrying-out of most everything.
And why don't religious texts have the wow factor one would expect from a god?
Only the biased God-hater can look at Jesus' life, death, and resurrection and come away saying "Meh. Show me something under a microscope; now THAT'S cool!"
Again, no argument. Eric is just expressing his bias.
Where are equal rights and human rights in the Bible?
1) Eric doesn't prove that equal rights or human rights are morally good. He just posits it, w/o argument.
2) Galatians 3:26For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.
Why aren't slavery, racism, genocide, rape, war, religious terrorism, terrorism, the mutilation of children, child abuse, child labor and the repression of women's rights denounced as immoral in the Bible?
1) He hasn't read all the way to the end. ALL sin and evil is denounced, and will be destroyed finally, when God decides.
That's the point of the Cross - if He gave us all justice, we'd all be in Hell. Rather, He is working through this historical narrative so as to save some.
2) Notice how he assumes these things are bad, as if on atheism anything is objectively bad. He needs to make some argument, at some point, but hasn't so far.
first off, this is compulsory love. Is this such a wise thing to insist upon? What if you don't like your neighbor?
Luke 6:31“Treat others the same way you want them to treat you. 32“If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. 33“If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. 34“If you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners in order to receive back the same amount. 35“But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men. 36“Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.
How do you love all your neighbors?
1) On atheism, love does not exist. I defy anyone to show me how it does and how it is meaningful in any way.
2) Not I, but Jesus in me. I can love b/c Jesus first loved me (1 John 4).
many people can't even love themselves or their loved ones. Divorce is 50%
Notice the incoherency to which he's descending at this point. It's just a mishmash. Eric is a poor man's Eddie Tabash - ask tons of simpleminded questions in the apparent hope that the Christian can't possibly get to ALL of them.
I'm certain you don't agree with the Bible regarding many of its teachings about sex. And you shouldn't.
1) Again, no argument.
2) And yes, I do agree with all of it.
3) He goes on to mistake description/historical narrative with prescription/commendation. His neglect of the context is rivaled only by his ignorance.
The verses people misquote to condemn gay sex have nothing to do with homosexuality and here's why. Consider this single Biblical text that was used for centuries to condemn masturbation:
???? What remote relevance does this have? Onan was having sex with a WOMAN, and pointedly refused to give his brother's family offspring, though that was his responsibility. Where is Eric going?
For Jewish text writers, a man sleeping with another man was an abomination.
What a foolish and ignorant thing to say. The Genesis 38 text even says why the Lord killed Onan! It's totally different than Eric's throwaway comment.
I always ask my Christian who I meet in this question: What year did science discover that it took a sperm and an egg for conception to occur?
I always reply to such bizarre questions with: What possible relevance does this have to whether Christianity is true? Eric doesn't tell us.
Which is why everyone (who read the Bible or heard about this from the Bible) before 1843 thought that "spilling the seed" was killing someone.
I'd like Eric to name just one person who thought that.
Never mind "everyone". Just one name. One.
What makes something moral?
Great question, on atheism. I'd love Eric to answer.
Here's Christianity's answer.
Something is typically moral when it increases the human well-being of others.
1) Typically? HOw does Eric know?
2) What is well-being but a circular self-reference?
On Heaven and hell - Once they die, they can't sin anymore
That is a speculation that is extrabiblical, and I'm free to reject it. Where is Eric's argument?
The Bible proposes that finite sin equals infinite punishment. Where's the justice?
1) On atheism, justice does not exist.
2) Finite sin against an infinitely holy God is an infinite injustice.
3) The Bible doesn't tell us that the lost in Hell stop sinning. My guess is they keep sinning unto eternity, cursing God all the more now that God has removed His common grace that they had in life (and yet they even cursed God in this life).
4) God has poured out justice on Jesus on the Cross so that the repentant may escape justice and gain eternal life and grace. Eric doesn't seem to care about that, and that's as sad as it gets.
why does anyone have to go to hell?
B/c God is the Lord, He has a law, and He does not tolerate rebellion and lawlessness forever.
Why not come up with an entirely new religion that has no resemblance to any previous religion?
Why start over when the Old Testament religion was always intended to be fulfilled by Jesus? Eric needs to read the Epistle to the Hebrews.
. Why would anyone want to believe in a religion or belief system which devalues our humanity?
1) I didn't want to believe in Jesus. I was given a new heart to believe. I hated the evidence and Jesus Himself, and now the evidence is far too substantial to dismiss.
2) B/c Jesus' salvation of sinners is that much better when they're wretched. May Jesus be glorified!
John 3:26And they came to John (the Baptist) and said to him, “Rabbi, He who was with you beyond the Jordan, to whom you have testified, behold, He is baptizing and all are coming to Him.” 27John answered and said, “A man can receive nothing unless it has been given him from heaven. 28“You yourselves are my witnesses that I said, ‘I am not the Christ,’ but, ‘I have been sent ahead of Him.’ 29“He who has the bride is the bridegroom; but the friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly because of the bridegroom’s voice. So this joy of mine has been made full. 30“He must increase, but I must decrease."
Nonreligious message - We get our morals from ourselves.
There are so many reasons why this is false and imaginary.
Science says, if we don't know, let's find out. Science says, if we don't know, we are okay with this. Religions says, we know. See the difference?
1) Science never says "we know"?
2) Where is Eric's argument that his way is better? He never gave one.
Well, all of that and EricKincade has left us no better off. Just a massive bloviation of ignorance and poor reasoning.
Monday, May 02, 2011
Conversation with madmanfred
Over at the Abolitionist Society blog.
Hi mmf,
Please allow me to respond to some of the things you've said here.
atheists generally don't have to be told to do more homework about Christianity when talking to Christians.
I'm not sure it's an issue of "missing" something; rather, ASO and John Wesley noticed (as did I) that your demonstrated knowledge of Christian doctrine was lacking. To fail to let you know about it would do you and others a disservice.
it isn't like we're unbelievers because we don't know enough.
Well, in your case, I'm sorry, but we can't know whether that is true. You clearly don't know enough to properly critique our position.
Nor do we have any idea what percentage of slaves were treated that well for how much time. The doctor and teachers you site might have lived hundreds of years apart.
Or they might not have. I think all sides need to recognise where there's ignorance, and to speak nondogmatically in those cases. That includes your own accusations.
OTOH, it's important to remember that you have 1) law, and 2) how people actually behave. OT slavery had a much better situation in the case of 1) than the antebellum South, but we abolitionists know all too well that 2) is going to often turn out badly b/c people are sinners.
Sorry, pre-civil war slavery was exactly like the institution practiced under Christianity for 1800 years.
That's just an assertion w/o an argument, even though evidence has been presented to demonstrate this is untrue. Please interact with the arguments already given.
The quotes you cite are hardly call for a massive uprising to free the slaves.
Did an abolitionist claim that they did call for that?
Ah,so the price of freedom for a slave is his eye or a tooth, according to Exodus. In other words, you only have reason to free slaves if the master mutilates them
This is a tendentious mischaracterisation of the situation brought on by your neglect of the context.
I don't see the general call to equalize the classes based on it
1) Who said anything about "equalising the classes"?
2) You apparently don't see it b/c you haven't yet engaged the biblical evidence we've brought fwd. Until you do, this convo can't move fwd.
NONE of these quotes are antislavery.
Then why were they such a self-consciously integral part of the abolitionists' destruction of slavery?
they weren't fighting atheists, heathens or Jews, they fought other Christians,
1) Simply taking the name "Christian" doesn't make you a Christian any more than saying "Moo, I'm a cow" makes you a cow.
2) Christians can be wrong about stuff.
3) Non-Christians who fake the name of Christ can also be wrong about stuff.
You're criticising the PEOPLE, and nobody here would argue that ppl aren't sinful. What you need to show is that our POSITION is wrong.
God freed his “chosen people” from Egypt and then immediately allowed them to take slaves of their own...he also didn't demand that Pharaoh free all of Egypt's slaves of any nationality.
Yes, that is correct. You seem to evince a moral problem with that. May I ask what it is, and how you know that your moral position is better than someone else's, such that you feel freedom to tell us what to believe? That you get to correct others on issues of morality? Where's your badge?
atheists did well in a survey
I'm afraid I don't see why anyone should care about that. We're not talking to all atheists right now; we're talking to YOU. THe fact that you have demonstrated an insufficient knowledge of CHristianity is undeniable, so appealing to this survey doesn't help that.
No, the Trinity is not complex. It's fiction.
Naked assertion.
I could explain it in one sentence: there are three Gods you worship, but you have to pretend you worship one because that one is the jealous God.
False.
Would you like it if we willfully mischaracterised your position as being alchemy? That you believe that values turn into their opposites, that nonmoral matter produced moral beings, that nothing produced everything when nothing acted upon nothing, that you evolved from a rock?
I don't have to study its apologists anymore. I think I can write their books for them.
You're way down the road on your ego trip at this point, but you're way off. It's sad, really - your hatred of Jesus is showing so remarkably clearly. You can't even bring yourself to engage the proper position. One can only guess as to why, but it's clear you're very emotionally invested.
Please cite examples of this Christian thought and writing anytime by anyone prominent in Christianity.
We already did so from the Bible and you summarily dismissed it without an argument. Why would we think the next example would be met with anything but the same reaction?
. God also commanded his people during war to take female slaves and do exactly what Jefferson did.
If you mean rape them, that is 100% false, and I challenge you to show me where God commanded it, to Abraham or anyone else.
If you mean marry them, that is true. Marriage is an honorable state, no matter whether you as Self-Proclaimed Pope of Morality condemn it.
Whereas I could disapprove of him because I don't subscribe to the Bible as a moral guide.
On what basis, then, do you disapprove? What is your moral standard by which you think you can judge others?
. I agree, too. Murder is immoral.
That's what I mean. You're setting yourself up as an authority, judging those who commit murder.
I lack faith in your moral authority. Please give evidence that you indeed have it, and that it is correct.
Certainly you know the Bible doesn't explain this, doesn't mention fetus' at people
Yes, it does, in Psalm 139 and Luke 1, among other places.
Nice talking to you.
Peace,
Rhology
Hi mmf,
Please allow me to respond to some of the things you've said here.
atheists generally don't have to be told to do more homework about Christianity when talking to Christians.
I'm not sure it's an issue of "missing" something; rather, ASO and John Wesley noticed (as did I) that your demonstrated knowledge of Christian doctrine was lacking. To fail to let you know about it would do you and others a disservice.
it isn't like we're unbelievers because we don't know enough.
Well, in your case, I'm sorry, but we can't know whether that is true. You clearly don't know enough to properly critique our position.
Nor do we have any idea what percentage of slaves were treated that well for how much time. The doctor and teachers you site might have lived hundreds of years apart.
Or they might not have. I think all sides need to recognise where there's ignorance, and to speak nondogmatically in those cases. That includes your own accusations.
OTOH, it's important to remember that you have 1) law, and 2) how people actually behave. OT slavery had a much better situation in the case of 1) than the antebellum South, but we abolitionists know all too well that 2) is going to often turn out badly b/c people are sinners.
Sorry, pre-civil war slavery was exactly like the institution practiced under Christianity for 1800 years.
That's just an assertion w/o an argument, even though evidence has been presented to demonstrate this is untrue. Please interact with the arguments already given.
The quotes you cite are hardly call for a massive uprising to free the slaves.
Did an abolitionist claim that they did call for that?
Ah,so the price of freedom for a slave is his eye or a tooth, according to Exodus. In other words, you only have reason to free slaves if the master mutilates them
This is a tendentious mischaracterisation of the situation brought on by your neglect of the context.
I don't see the general call to equalize the classes based on it
1) Who said anything about "equalising the classes"?
2) You apparently don't see it b/c you haven't yet engaged the biblical evidence we've brought fwd. Until you do, this convo can't move fwd.
NONE of these quotes are antislavery.
Then why were they such a self-consciously integral part of the abolitionists' destruction of slavery?
they weren't fighting atheists, heathens or Jews, they fought other Christians,
1) Simply taking the name "Christian" doesn't make you a Christian any more than saying "Moo, I'm a cow" makes you a cow.
2) Christians can be wrong about stuff.
3) Non-Christians who fake the name of Christ can also be wrong about stuff.
You're criticising the PEOPLE, and nobody here would argue that ppl aren't sinful. What you need to show is that our POSITION is wrong.
God freed his “chosen people” from Egypt and then immediately allowed them to take slaves of their own...he also didn't demand that Pharaoh free all of Egypt's slaves of any nationality.
Yes, that is correct. You seem to evince a moral problem with that. May I ask what it is, and how you know that your moral position is better than someone else's, such that you feel freedom to tell us what to believe? That you get to correct others on issues of morality? Where's your badge?
atheists did well in a survey
I'm afraid I don't see why anyone should care about that. We're not talking to all atheists right now; we're talking to YOU. THe fact that you have demonstrated an insufficient knowledge of CHristianity is undeniable, so appealing to this survey doesn't help that.
No, the Trinity is not complex. It's fiction.
Naked assertion.
I could explain it in one sentence: there are three Gods you worship, but you have to pretend you worship one because that one is the jealous God.
False.
Would you like it if we willfully mischaracterised your position as being alchemy? That you believe that values turn into their opposites, that nonmoral matter produced moral beings, that nothing produced everything when nothing acted upon nothing, that you evolved from a rock?
I don't have to study its apologists anymore. I think I can write their books for them.
You're way down the road on your ego trip at this point, but you're way off. It's sad, really - your hatred of Jesus is showing so remarkably clearly. You can't even bring yourself to engage the proper position. One can only guess as to why, but it's clear you're very emotionally invested.
Please cite examples of this Christian thought and writing anytime by anyone prominent in Christianity.
We already did so from the Bible and you summarily dismissed it without an argument. Why would we think the next example would be met with anything but the same reaction?
. God also commanded his people during war to take female slaves and do exactly what Jefferson did.
If you mean rape them, that is 100% false, and I challenge you to show me where God commanded it, to Abraham or anyone else.
If you mean marry them, that is true. Marriage is an honorable state, no matter whether you as Self-Proclaimed Pope of Morality condemn it.
Whereas I could disapprove of him because I don't subscribe to the Bible as a moral guide.
On what basis, then, do you disapprove? What is your moral standard by which you think you can judge others?
. I agree, too. Murder is immoral.
That's what I mean. You're setting yourself up as an authority, judging those who commit murder.
I lack faith in your moral authority. Please give evidence that you indeed have it, and that it is correct.
Certainly you know the Bible doesn't explain this, doesn't mention fetus' at people
Yes, it does, in Psalm 139 and Luke 1, among other places.
Nice talking to you.
Peace,
Rhology
Monday, April 25, 2011
A few questions for Bart Ehrman
Riffing off of my last post and Bart Ehrman's recent appearance on the Unbelievable? radio show, I'd like to transcribe here something that Ehrman said, at minute 44:12.
Where in your writings, scholarly or popular, or your lectures, have you interacted with harmonisations of these 4 accounts proposed by others who are a bit better educated in Bible exposition and exegesis than undergraduate students at a secular university, and demonstrated that they are insufficient?
Do you commend the practice of having undergraduate students at a university that is not set up to appeal to the best and brightest of a given course of study perform a "careful study" of a topic as a decisive test for truth?
(After all, one would expect to find a much higher percentage of gifted and focused Bible exposition students in the PhD program at Reformed Theological Seminary or Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, not in New Testament 101 at UNC Chapel Hill.)
Since you apparently do, would you accept as a definitive conclusion that "Darwinian evolution as described by modern science did not happen, and the Earth is ~6-8000 years old" if I were to have 19 year old Bible college students perform a "careful study" of it? Would you nod in agreement or shake your head in bemused "What were they thinking?" dissent if I were to take that conclusion to a worldwide podcast, in conversation with a PhD-holding, leading proponent of Darwinian evolution like Richard Dawkins? Should anyone expect that Dawkins would take such an assertion seriously?
This isn't the biggest argument against Jesus having been raised from the dead, but one always has to look at what kind of witnesses you have, and when you look at the Gospels of the New Testament, it's striking just how many differences there are in their accounts of the resurrection. I have my students do an exercise, my undergrads; I have them simply do a careful study of what Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all say about what happened on the morning of the resurrection, the alleged resurrection, and compare their notes, and they're struck at just how different they are. Who actually goes to the tomb that morning? Is it Mary Magdalene by herself or with other women? If with other women, how many other women? What are they named? It depends on which Gospel you read. Was the stone rolled away before they got there or after they got there? It depends on which Gospel you read.So, given that, I have a few questions for Dr Ehrman.
Where in your writings, scholarly or popular, or your lectures, have you interacted with harmonisations of these 4 accounts proposed by others who are a bit better educated in Bible exposition and exegesis than undergraduate students at a secular university, and demonstrated that they are insufficient?
Do you commend the practice of having undergraduate students at a university that is not set up to appeal to the best and brightest of a given course of study perform a "careful study" of a topic as a decisive test for truth?
(After all, one would expect to find a much higher percentage of gifted and focused Bible exposition students in the PhD program at Reformed Theological Seminary or Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, not in New Testament 101 at UNC Chapel Hill.)
Since you apparently do, would you accept as a definitive conclusion that "Darwinian evolution as described by modern science did not happen, and the Earth is ~6-8000 years old" if I were to have 19 year old Bible college students perform a "careful study" of it? Would you nod in agreement or shake your head in bemused "What were they thinking?" dissent if I were to take that conclusion to a worldwide podcast, in conversation with a PhD-holding, leading proponent of Darwinian evolution like Richard Dawkins? Should anyone expect that Dawkins would take such an assertion seriously?
Thursday, April 21, 2011
I harmonised the Gospel accounts of the Resurrection
Some time ago, I shared two harmonisations of the four Gospels' resurrection accounts that I'd found elsewhere, but for one thing I find them a little bit hard to follow, especially the one from Answering Islam.
So as a bit of a personal devotional exercise, I decided to see if I could figure it out more or less on my own, and here's the result. If nothing else, it helps me make sense of the accounts since it's undeniable that these four different accounts with different foci can be sort of confusing.
Before we launch in, it's instructive to recall that "these four resurrection accounts are mutually contradictory" is still a popular objection to biblical Christianity. In last week's edition of the Unbelievable? radio show, Bart Ehrman mentioned that very thing a few times, specifically at minute 34 and again at minute 44. As I was listening to it yesterday, I found myself shaking my head and smiling - once again, Ehrman demonstrates he is very poorly versed in biblical exegesis, or is simply unwilling to put forth the effort or perhaps to allow for harmonisation at all, which is a sign of severe bias.
For the charge of contradiction to stick, the skeptic would have to demonstrate there is no possible harmonisation of the texts, not merely that it's difficult or that you don't understand it. And as I show here, this charge has no teeth. Glory to Jesus Christ.
1) Angel, earthquake, stone is rolled away, soldiers faint.
Matthew here provides a bit of background information before continuing with his story of the women, begun in verse 1.
Matthew here provides a bit of background information before continuing with his story of the women, begun in verse 1.
Matthew 28:2And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it. 3And his appearance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. 4The guards shook for fear of him and became like dead men.
2) Jesus exits tomb while soldiers are flattened.
Not specifically mentioned, but obvious deduction.
3) Soldiers wake up, find tomb empty, scatter.
Taken from later references, like:
Matthew 28:11Now while they were on their way, some of the guard came into the city and reported to the chief priests all that had happened.
4) Still early in the morning, Mary M, other Mary, Joanna, Salome, and probably other women come to the tomb.
Matthew 28:1Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave.
Matthew 28:1Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave.
Mark 16:1When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices, so that they might come and anoint Him. 2Very early on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen. 3They were saying to one another, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?”
Luke 24:1But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came to the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared.
John 20:1a Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb, while it was still dark...
John 20:1a Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb, while it was still dark...
5) They find the stone rolled away.
Mark 16:4Looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away, although it was extremely large.
Luke 24:2And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb.
John 20:1b ...and saw the stone already taken away from the tomb.
6) Mary M at least runs to tell Peter and John that the stone is rolled away.
John 20:2So she ran and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him.”
John 20:2So she ran and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him.”
7) Peter and John run to the tomb.
John 20:3So Peter and the other disciple went forth, and they were going to the tomb.
8) John gets there 1st and doesn't go in. Peter gets there 2nd and does go in, sees the cloths lying there.
Notice that they only see the stone rolled away and the gravecloths lying in a heap and do not see an angel or Jesus.
Notice that they only see the stone rolled away and the gravecloths lying in a heap and do not see an angel or Jesus.
John 20:4The two were running together; and the other disciple ran ahead faster than Peter and came to the tomb first; 5and stooping and looking in, he saw the linen wrappings lying there; but he did not go in. 6And so Simon Peter also came, following him, and entered the tomb; and he saw the linen wrappings lying there, 7and the face-cloth which had been on His head, not lying with the linen wrappings, but rolled up in a place by itself.
9) John then goes in and believes but neither of them fully understand.
John 20:8So the other disciple who had first come to the tomb then also entered, and he saw and believed. 9For as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead.
10) Peter and John return home.
John 20:10So the disciples went away again to their own homes.
11) Mary M at least is at the tomb weeping, and the other women may or may not be around.
John 20:11But Mary was standing outside the tomb weeping; and so, as she wept, she stooped and looked into the tomb
12) The other women come back at some point it would seem, though, and they all look into the tomb. They see two angels inside and they ask why they're crying and announce the resurrection.
A few notes here:
A few notes here:
--Where there's two angels, there's always one.
--In biblical angelophanies, they virtually always appear as men.
--There is no good reason to think that all of the conversations noted here did not occur.
Matthew 28:5The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid; for I know that you are looking for Jesus who has been crucified. 6“He is not here, for He has risen, just as He said. Come, see the place where He was lying. 7“Go quickly and tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead; and behold, He is going ahead of you into Galilee, there you will see Him; behold, I have told you.”
Mark 16:5Entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting at the right, wearing a white robe; and they were amazed. 6And he said to them, “Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen; He is not here; behold, here is the place where they laid Him. 7“But go, tell His disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.’”
Luke 24:3but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. 4While they were perplexed about this, behold, two men suddenly stood near them in dazzling clothing; 5and as the women were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, “Why do you seek the living One among the dead? 6“He is not here, but He has risen. Remember how He spoke to you while He was still in Galilee, 7saying that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.” 8And they remembered His words.
John 20:12and she saw two angels in white sitting, one at the head and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had been lying. 13And they said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?” She said to them, “Because they have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid Him.”
13) Mary at least turns around, coming out of the tomb, conceivably drying her eyes, and encounters Jesus, Who talks to her.
A few notes:
A few notes:
--She doesn't understand right away that it's Jesus because she's been weeping hard this whole time and is still composing herself, and also she wasn't turned His direction when He first talked to her.
--There's also no indication of how far He was away, whether He was sort of calling to her from across a few dozen feet or behind a tree or bush or something.
--There's no indication of whether the other women are present. I think maybe they were, but John's account merely focuses on Mary M. Maybe He spoke to the other women too and it simply wasn't recorded.
John 20:14When she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, and did not know that it was Jesus. 15Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?” Supposing Him to be the gardener, she said to Him, “Sir, if you have carried Him away, tell me where you have laid Him, and I will take Him away.” 16Jesus said to her, “Mary!” She turned and said to Him in Hebrew, “Rabboni!” (which means, Teacher). 17Jesus said to her, “Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.’”
14) Looks like many or all of the women run off first of all and are so blown away by the experience that they don't say anything for some time.
Matthew 28:8a And they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy...
Mark 16:8They went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.
15) They eventually recover and go to tell the disciples that Mary M at least (and maybe the others were there too, standing around or something) actually met and talked to Jesus.
Matthew 28:8b ...and ran to report it to His disciples.
Luke 24:9and returned from the tomb and reported all these things to the eleven and to all the rest.
John 20:18Mary Magdalene came, announcing to the disciples, “I have seen the Lord,” and that He had said these things to her.
14b) or 15b) Jesus greets them on the way and they worship Him.
It's unclear whether they were on their way to tell the disciples and then Jesus met them and that really overwhelmed them, or whether they were overwhelmed first and went to tell the disciples and then were met (again) by Jesus, or whether they were already overwhelmed and on their way to recover and Jesus met them then.
Matthew 28:9And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him. 10Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid; go and take word to My brethren to leave for Galilee, and there they will see Me.”
16) The disciples don't believe the women's report (presumably, the report of actually seeing and talking to the risen Jesus).
Luke 24:11But these words appeared to them as nonsense, and they would not believe them.
17) Peter runs to the tomb and goes inside, sees the cloths.
Looks like this is his 2nd time to run to the tomb, probably b/c the 1st time he went, recorded in John, he'd only heard that the stone was rolled away and gone and seen only that and the cloths, but not Jesus Himself. Maybe he wanted to see if Jesus was still hanging around there, and though He wasn't, Peter still took another look into the tomb.
Looks like this is his 2nd time to run to the tomb, probably b/c the 1st time he went, recorded in John, he'd only heard that the stone was rolled away and gone and seen only that and the cloths, but not Jesus Himself. Maybe he wanted to see if Jesus was still hanging around there, and though He wasn't, Peter still took another look into the tomb.
Luke 24:12But Peter got up and ran to the tomb; stooping and looking in, he saw the linen wrappings only; and he went away to his home, marveling at what had happened.
Thursday, April 07, 2011
At least SOMEone will talk about CAIR
At the end of January, I heard that Senator Tom Coburn was going to meet with some CAIR representatives, which concerned me for reasons that should be obvious.
I wrote him and included a link to my semi-open letter to CAIR, written (fortuitously) not long before. CAIR never got back to me on that letter, even though I emailed it to them and tweeted them about it at least twice. Not that their silence surprises me - they're liars and propaganda artists.
Anyway, in my email I asked Senator Coburn to reconsider meeting with CAIR.
I got his response today:
My thanks to Senator Coburn (or, more probably, the member of his staff who wrote me) for collecting together that information in one place. My friend natxlaw likes to say that CAIR should be known and identified as a terrorist organisation and those who affiliate with them be treated and considered accordingly.
I wrote him and included a link to my semi-open letter to CAIR, written (fortuitously) not long before. CAIR never got back to me on that letter, even though I emailed it to them and tweeted them about it at least twice. Not that their silence surprises me - they're liars and propaganda artists.
Anyway, in my email I asked Senator Coburn to reconsider meeting with CAIR.
I got his response today:
April 7, 2011
Dear Rhology,
Thank you for your message regarding the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). I appreciate the opportunity to address your concerns and thank you for sharing with me your blog article.
I have met with CAIR representatives from Oklahoma in the past; however I fully understand your desire for me to avoid contact with any group linked with terrorism. Do know, I am certainly aware of their associations and situations.
CAIR was founded in 1994 by leaders of the Islamic Association of Palestine, an organization affiliated with the terrorist group, Hamas. In 2007, federal prosecutors from the U.S. Department of Justice identified CAIR and its founder, Omar Ahmad, as "individuals/entities who are and/or were members of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood's Palestinian Committee" and unindicted coconspirators in a terror fundraising case. The Department of Justice successfully prosecuted the case, and the defendants were found guilty of 108 counts.
CAIR has a history of advocating positions that many find troubling. For example, following the 9/11 attacks, while CAIR condemned the attacks, it was unwilling to reject Osama bin Laden. CAIR has also been known to accuse Israel of committing genocide against Palestinians, claim Jews have a destructive influence in the U.S., and praise the "epic heroism of the resistance fighters" of Hezbollah, a terrorist organization.
In response to CAIR's involvement with terror fundraisers, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) decided to severe all official ties between CAIR and the FBI. In fact, Senator Kyl, Senator Schumer and I have sent a joint letter to Robert Mueller, Director of the FBI, stating we are in full support of this decision. It is not appropriate for U.S. agencies to conduct U.S. policy with any organization associated with terror fundraising, anti-Semitism, or the glorification of terrorists or acts of terror. You can be sure I will continue to hold this position.
Again, thank you for writing. God bless you.
Sincerely,
Tom A. Coburn, M.D.
United States Senator
My thanks to Senator Coburn (or, more probably, the member of his staff who wrote me) for collecting together that information in one place. My friend natxlaw likes to say that CAIR should be known and identified as a terrorist organisation and those who affiliate with them be treated and considered accordingly.
Tuesday, April 05, 2011
No comment necessary
Let me help you get unstuck. I help my friend Billy Pilgrim get unstuck and look how he turned out.
The 'absolutely true that absolute truth doesn't exist' is a cheap gimmick to force people into a desired answer. And using a question like 'Is it OK to molest children for fun' is picking an extreme example that no rational person would argue with.
Why didn't they ask "If you saw a madman about to blow up a bus full of children, and you could stop him by shooting and killing him, would that be OK?"
Or, "Is it OK to steal food to keep your family alive?"
And the step 8 answer is just a lazy example of circular logic.
Truth is a relative thing and it evolves over time.
The world is not black and white. Good or Evil. It's mostly grey.
I would argue that God's own rules have changed over time. Would Jesus order the slaughter of every man, woman and child in a city? Would society today condone such an action? No. but, it's the preferred modus operandi in the OT.
And I'll ask again Why is it OK for God to kill or order the killing of innocents just because it fits into his plan? Why is he exempt from his own rules?
The original sin answer/excuse you provided is pretty weak. Condemning millions for the innocent act of a two.
BTW, please try to keep your response a little more civil if possible. I tend to quickly dismiss people who resort to insults and name calling as they show they would rather think with their emotions rather then their brains.
The 'absolutely true that absolute truth doesn't exist' is a cheap gimmick to force people into a desired answer. And using a question like 'Is it OK to molest children for fun' is picking an extreme example that no rational person would argue with.
Why didn't they ask "If you saw a madman about to blow up a bus full of children, and you could stop him by shooting and killing him, would that be OK?"
Or, "Is it OK to steal food to keep your family alive?"
And the step 8 answer is just a lazy example of circular logic.
Truth is a relative thing and it evolves over time.
The world is not black and white. Good or Evil. It's mostly grey.
I would argue that God's own rules have changed over time. Would Jesus order the slaughter of every man, woman and child in a city? Would society today condone such an action? No. but, it's the preferred modus operandi in the OT.
And I'll ask again Why is it OK for God to kill or order the killing of innocents just because it fits into his plan? Why is he exempt from his own rules?
The original sin answer/excuse you provided is pretty weak. Condemning millions for the innocent act of a two.
BTW, please try to keep your response a little more civil if possible. I tend to quickly dismiss people who resort to insults and name calling as they show they would rather think with their emotions rather then their brains.
Hi Bruce,
is a cheap gimmick to force people into a desired answer
Is that true?
'Is it OK to molest children for fun' is picking an extreme example that no rational person would argue with.
What's wrong with that?
And is it OK to molest children for fun?
I guess I don't understand your reluctance to answer the question. I have zero doubt that you don't molest children, nor would you ever entertain such a notion, so I figure your reluctance stems from the notion that you know you're caught but don't want to admit it. If not, please explain why it's a bad question.
Truth is a relative thing and it evolves over time.
Is the truth of the statement "Truth is a relative thing and it evolves over time" a relative thing? Relative to what?
Does the truth of the statement "Truth is a relative thing and it evolves over time" evolve over time? From what into what, and how do you know? And however you know, does THAT evolve over time and is it relative? If so, relative to what?
I would argue that God's own rules have changed over time.
And that is because you are ignorant of the Bible or are unwilling to treat it fairly according to its own terms.
Would Jesus order the slaughter of every man, woman and child in a city?
1) Yes, b/c Jesus is the God of the Old Testament.
2) Wait a sec, though. I thought you just told me that truth evolves over time, and is relative. Please explain how you can say that and then say this. What happened to the relativistic ethic you were espousing?
If you use an argument from modernity, how do you know that modern is better? Is the truth that
Why is it OK for God to kill or order the killing of innocents just because it fits into his plan? Why is he exempt from his own rules?
B/c the rule is "don't kill ppl w/o justification". That's the definition of murder. Anytime God puts someone to death, it's justifiable.
The original sin answer/excuse you provided is pretty weak.
Is the truth of the statement "The original sin answer/excuse you provided is pretty weak" a relative thing? Relative to what?
Does the truth of the statement "The original sin answer/excuse you provided is pretty weak" evolve over time? From what into what, and how do you know? And however you know, does THAT evolve over time and is it relative? If so, relative to what?
they would rather think with their emotions rather then their brains.
I'm sorry to say that, coming from someone who refuses to think absolute truth exists, it's hard to take this kind of statement seriously.
Peace,
Rhology
is a cheap gimmick to force people into a desired answer
Is that true?
'Is it OK to molest children for fun' is picking an extreme example that no rational person would argue with.
What's wrong with that?
And is it OK to molest children for fun?
I guess I don't understand your reluctance to answer the question. I have zero doubt that you don't molest children, nor would you ever entertain such a notion, so I figure your reluctance stems from the notion that you know you're caught but don't want to admit it. If not, please explain why it's a bad question.
Truth is a relative thing and it evolves over time.
Is the truth of the statement "Truth is a relative thing and it evolves over time" a relative thing? Relative to what?
Does the truth of the statement "Truth is a relative thing and it evolves over time" evolve over time? From what into what, and how do you know? And however you know, does THAT evolve over time and is it relative? If so, relative to what?
I would argue that God's own rules have changed over time.
And that is because you are ignorant of the Bible or are unwilling to treat it fairly according to its own terms.
Would Jesus order the slaughter of every man, woman and child in a city?
1) Yes, b/c Jesus is the God of the Old Testament.
2) Wait a sec, though. I thought you just told me that truth evolves over time, and is relative. Please explain how you can say that and then say this. What happened to the relativistic ethic you were espousing?
If you use an argument from modernity, how do you know that modern is better? Is the truth that
Why is it OK for God to kill or order the killing of innocents just because it fits into his plan? Why is he exempt from his own rules?
B/c the rule is "don't kill ppl w/o justification". That's the definition of murder. Anytime God puts someone to death, it's justifiable.
The original sin answer/excuse you provided is pretty weak.
Is the truth of the statement "The original sin answer/excuse you provided is pretty weak" a relative thing? Relative to what?
Does the truth of the statement "The original sin answer/excuse you provided is pretty weak" evolve over time? From what into what, and how do you know? And however you know, does THAT evolve over time and is it relative? If so, relative to what?
they would rather think with their emotions rather then their brains.
I'm sorry to say that, coming from someone who refuses to think absolute truth exists, it's hard to take this kind of statement seriously.
Peace,
Rhology
@Rhology,
Are you just pulling my leg? April Fools joke?
Are you just pulling my leg? April Fools joke?
Bruce,
Nope! Today's the 4th anyway. :-)
I'll look fwd to your reply.
Nope! Today's the 4th anyway. :-)
I'll look fwd to your reply.
OK, Last post on this for the day. The real world is calling.
@Rhology,
I apologize for being rude but I won't comment on your last posts right now other then to say that your logic and reasoning are extremely poor. I'll point it out later if I have the time and energy. Others may feel free to do so.
@Rhology,
I apologize for being rude but I won't comment on your last posts right now other then to say that your logic and reasoning are extremely poor. I'll point it out later if I have the time and energy. Others may feel free to do so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)