He Is Risen!
[UPDATE in the middle of the post…]
Today is Easter, the greatest holiday (holy day) in the Christian year. When I was a little kid, I used to think that was nuts–everybody knows Christmas is the best holiday! And then even when I got older, I didn’t understand why they called it “Good Friday,” since it seemed pretty awful.
Of course, the reason this day is so special, is that it marks Jesus’ triumph over death. It is the fulfillment of various prophecies, including Jesus’ own predictions about His fate. I love the story (and I use that term in a neutral sense–non-believers can at least appreciate it on its literary and symbolic merits) for many reasons, but one of them is that it shows the impotence of physical might. Here’s a Man walking around preaching the truth, and the authorities are threatened by Him. So they ultimately torture and murder Him. But so what? That doesn’t stop Him or His message. The truth is stronger than their clubs and nails.
In this post I want to make two claims:
CLAIM #1: Jesus’ resurrection is the most plausible explanation of the evidence we have.
In previous posts I have argued that it just doesn’t make sense to me that the followers of Jesus would know full well that He didn’t come back from the grave, and yet would tell people that He did, even though this lying would result in their own deaths (for some of them).
Scoffers thought this was a silly argument. After all, don’t we have countless examples of people being willing to die for causes in which we don’t believe? For example, what about the infamous Kool-Aid drinkers?
Yes, we do have such examples, but my argument wasn’t: “People were willing to die for Christianity, therefore it must be right.”
Rather, I was saying that I didn’t find it plausible that people would be willing to die for something that they knew was false. So if Jesus said He was going to be killed but then come back from the dead, and it turned out that His followers just stole and hid the body, then those followers would know he wasn’t God after all.
So I grant that people are willing to die for things I don’t believe in, and I grant that people are willing to defend things that deep down they know aren’t true (especially when doing so is advantageous to them), but I don’t think people are so eager to die for things that they don’t believe in.
As a final point on this, surely we can all agree that H.L. Mencken was no sucker when it came to organized religion. When I was an atheist, I eagerly read Mencken’s Treatise on the Gods, and I have to say I was underwhelmed. For one thing, Mencken conceded that the various books attempting to “blow up” (his phrase) Christianity had failed. (I resolved that I would do a better job in my own such book.) But what surprised me even more, was that Mencken himself thought the best explanation for the spread of Christianity was that this guy Jesus just so happened to have predicted his own resurrection…and holy cow it came true! This was consistent with Mencken’s explanation for medicine men and other shamans in earlier times. Mencken conjectured, for example, that if the floodwaters were rising, and some guy did a dance and the floodwaters receded, that people would think he did it, and then ascribe all sorts of authority to him.
Thus, by the same token, Mencken conjectured that this guy Jesus predicted his own death and resurrection, and by some fluke it actually happened. [UPDATE: See the comments below. Actually it’s more accurate to say that Mencken thinks Jesus was nailed to a cross, everybody thought he was dead, he was put in a sepulchre, and then he woke up and believed he had just fulfilled the prophecies. Because of that amazing occurrence,] that’s why we know about him today.
(NOTE: I read Mencken’s book many years ago, and it’s possible I am mischaracterizing his views. I’ve skimmed his discussion of the New Testament but can’t find the spot I have in mind, where I believe he says that he thinks Jesus really did come back from the dead.)
CLAIM #2: If you don’t think you need a divine savior, then something is wrong with you.
In the comments of previous posts, we got into the familiar argument over how a loving God could demand loyalty from all of us, at the threat of eternal hellfire. My response was that I think really what is going on, is that God says to us, “It’s totally up to you. I give you the choice to be with me forever in paradise, or you can reject My offer. Your actions towards others are important, but they don’t trump this crucial decision.”
So heaven is spending eternity in the direct presence of God Himself, whereas hell is spending eternity in the absence of God, knowing that you “chose poorly.”
The follow-up to my answer was a different argument, now saying, “That’s not fair. So a murderer gets to go to heaven, while a really nice agnostic goes to hell?”
So I have two things to say to this. First, note that it is indeed a different argument. At first, people were mad that God was too judgmental, but now they’re mad that He’s not judgmental enough. Supposing for the sake of argument that God exists, what is He supposed to do? If He creates us so that we exist as well, then that leaves the options of (a) Him being with us or (b) Him being separate from us, or (c) Him ending our existence. In my understanding, God is basically telling us that we don’t get to choose (c), but we do get to choose (a) or (b). That strikes me as both kind and very fair–true, we don’t get to choose not existing, but other than that, it’s up to us.
The second thing I want to say is that I disagree strongly that an agnostic who helps little old ladies across the street and doesn’t use the f-word is “a good person.” Yes, he might be good compared to most other humans, but he’s far from perfect. And until you contemplate the life of Jesus, and the standard He set for us (both in His commands and His actions), you don’t even realize how badly you are playing the game of life.
So this is why the most important “act” or “work” you can do in this life, isn’t to refrain from homicide (as I think many agnostics believe). Rather, the most important thing is for you to humble yourself and admit you have a problem. Then you can start improving, and ironically you will end up living a much better life (even according to conventional standards) once you do that.
I think in God’s value system, somebody who did something really bad, but has sincerely repented and understands just how bad it was, is a “better person” at this moment than the person who did a litany of lesser offenses, but now offers no apology for them and in fact is outraged at the very idea that a God might hold him in judgment. And I have to say that this seems eminently fair to me.
“I believe he says that he thinks Jesus really did come back from the dead.”
You misremember; Mencken does not go that far.
“But what actually happened—on the cross and in the sepulchre? The question has been threshed out between the faithful and the skeptical for many a year, without bringing any answer satisfactory to all parties, or any hope of one hereafter. Fortunately enough, we need not wrestle with it here. The important thing, and the undisputed thing, is that when Jesus was taken from the cross and put into the sepulchre the crowd that looked on, including both His own followers and the Roman soldiers, believed He was truly dead, and that He Himself, when He came to His senses in the sepulchre, believed He was coming back from death. Upon that theory, though it wars upon every rationality that enlightened men cherish, the most civilized section of the human race has erected a structure of ideas and practices so vast in scope and so powerful in effect that the whole range of history showeth nothing the like.” (pp. 223–24)
Thanks I changed the post.
Bob,
Can I ask what was it that made you turn from atheism to Christianity?
I think I’m going to write a pamphlet / book on it at some point. It’s the kind of thing where I don’t want to give snippets without the full context.
You should just respond “orange juice” until your definitive biography is written… it’ll keep people intrigued 🙂
You are promoting OJ over milk??
Your conversion story would be an interesting one.
re: “So heaven is spending eternity in the direct presence of God Himself, whereas hell is spending eternity in the absence of God, knowing that you “chose poorly.”
You hear this a lot lately, and perhaps you can excavate this view from the Old Testament, but this is not biblical Bob. Hell isn’t just how you feel when you are absent from God. Hell is where you are actively tortured. God does not provide a choice in the New Testament formulation. If he provided a choice you’d have the option of wandering the Earth, of simply ceasing to exist, etc. There are lots of “in the absence of God” options. The men who wrote scripture were quite clear – there is no choice, it’s not just “not being in God’s presence” – God will torture you forever. You don’t have the option of simply not existing anymore. You don’t even have the option of existing in a room temperature hereafter. It’s amazing to me that a libertarian can be so non-chalant about this.
I accept the point that none of us are perfect and we ought to recognize that. I would say most people are well aware of their imperfections, although I could be wrong. All of this seems beside the point. Assume we are not criminal but “good” by social standards, and we don’t repent of the imperfections that we do have. Why is it just to pay back 90 to 100 years tops of unrependent imperfection with an eternity of torture and immolation. How can you possibly call that, not just “fair” but “eminently fair”? One would think, shortly after death, God could prevent himself more directly and the “good” people who didn’t accept him could see the error of their ways, repent, embrace him, and even perhaps suffer a little for not having figured it out sooner. But an eternity of torture for a few decades of ignorance of God and pedestrian imperfection? You can’t just point out that we have a choice and honestly think that’s sufficient for explaining why it’s “eminently fair”. And you also can’t use the “absence of God” euphemism to make it more palatable, when the biblical record and church doctrine is that you will be tortured.
This, I think, is the only appropriate Christian response to hell: http://www.amazon.com/Dare-Hope-Saved-Short-Discourse/dp/0898702070
Although even von Balthasar could question more the nature of a god that would conceive of such a place.
DK, I think you are misunderstanding me. I am saying we can’t even conceive of how awful it would be, to spend eternity in the absence of God knowing that we made a terrible mistake in rejecting Him. I am not denying that hell is awful; it is far worse than what we can imagine. It is literally the worst thing possible.
But my point is, given the reality of existence–given that there is a God, and that our perception of time is just a feature of this world–we can either be with Him or not. He is giving us that choice. (My apologies to Calvinists–I actually think I agree with 99% of your views, it’s just that I think it allows for free will too.)
So it all boils down to two things: God created us “without asking us,” but that is kind of a weird thing; our will wouldn’t exist to reject His creation of us, without Him first imaging and creating us. But then once we exist as souls, He leaves it up to us, He gives us free will: choose to be with Him or not.
I think the reason Jesus described it as eternal damnation is that He wanted to make sure we understood the gravity of the choice.
I’ve always puzzled over Hell.
If a category of God is total omniscience (perfect wisdom, knowledge, and foresight), wouldn’t it be eminently clear to God that his Creation would engender whole populations of people truly doomed to Hell? If He has the kind of perfect foresight theologians give to him, the Hell-bounders are predetermined to go to Hell and the Heaven-bounders are predetermined to go to Heaven, no?
This is more of what Mises says about omniscience – it leads to determinism. “Omniscience presupposes that all future happenings are already unalterably determined.” If that’s the case, God already knows which of us are going to Hell and which aren’t – and there isn’t a damn thing any of us can do about it. How does that square with Free Will, and moreover, how can it be “eminently fair” that a just and loving God already has perfect knowledge of who goes to Hell – and assuming omnipotence – and allows it?
There’s a lot of commentary going around on something Ross Douthat wrote about hell… I haven’t read any of it yet, but you might be interested.
re: “think you are misunderstanding me. I am saying we can’t even conceive of how awful it would be, to spend eternity in the absence of God knowing that we made a terrible mistake in rejecting Him”
I know the way you hear it framed is “the absence of God is as bad as the eternal torture of hell”. I don’t think I misunderstand you on that. That claim may be biblical or it may not be. Being in the absence of God is described as “weeping and gnashing of teeth” back into the old testament and through the gospels – it is the old image of being “cast out of the city”. It isn’t supposed to be a pleasant existence, and perhaps you’re right that that can be framed as “a choice”.
But that is not the picture of hell developed over the course of the new testament and accepted as doctrine by the church. The new testament doctrine of hell is not choosing to not be in God’s presence and instead choosing to be in the darkness outside of the holy city. The new testament doctrine is instead an active punishment and an active judgement in a lake of fire – which strikes me as being very different from simply an absence of God.
Perhaps I should put it to you this way: If the biblical account of hell was merely a choice that we have between life in the presence of God or life in the absence of God, why was it presented as an active judgement for human imperfections that we were all born with? Why are we presented with “Judgement Day” rather than “Time to decide if you want to be roommates with God for eternity or not Day”. I don’t think this is as easy to get around as you suppose it is. The biblical account is that we all have imperfections that we are born into and have no control over and that these imperfections are punished with an eternity of torture which is meant as active judgement rather than incidental pain. The biblical account is not that hell is the non-God option – it is that hell is a place for a judgement that we all deserve.
What is just about that judgement?
What is just about torturing someone for being imperfect?
Do you mind telling me if you are getting the idea that the NT clarifies it as *active torture*?
I just want to add some things since some of this stuff was directed at some of the stuff I said in the comments to earlier blog posts.
Lets say some really cool kid, who is otherwise really nice and does all these great things decides to have a party. Rumors start circulating that its gonna be the best party ever. When you get to the kid’s house with some of your friends the kid says “I have just created the best party ever known to this world, now before you come in you have to declare me as the best person ever, your owner, your ord-sovereign and king for all eternity, now say I am your god”. Well you’d think this guy has problems, because thats a pretty petty way to get people to say nice things about you.
Well I think the same about your god, Jesus. If he were really a merciful god, he would leave the doors to heaven open for anyone to come in as they like. When they are in there they would have to do by his rules of course but there is no (good) reason to restrict access to people who don’t announce you as their ruler, thats just petty.
Moreover you didn’t answer some of the points I raised in part two of your “why I am a christian” series. Since the guy who needs you to say he is the best dude ever before letting you into his house is obviously a jerk if not a downright psychopath for that perverse need, who knows what he will do to you in there. Now with Jesus we are talking about a man’s immortal soul, surely this could all be a ruse or trap, and why wouldn’t a true merciful god be understanding of people’s caution?
I think Jesus is not all that merciful. I think he is just a guy who enjoys people caling him god, otherwise he would never say something like “only if you call me god will I give you eternal paradise, the rest of you can wallow in your idiocy of not recognizing my superior being”.
Avram, what if Jesus just so happens to be God, though? Doesn’t your argument fall apart?
The kid in the story could very well be god too, but you wouldn’t describe him as “good” or “merciful”. Rather “petty” and “self serving”.
Unless you are saying that the very idea of *a* god with character flaws is folly: i.e that if a god exists no matter what he does or gets others to do he is the embodiement of all good so if, say, you thing murder is bad and this god goes around killing people, well then you are just plain wrong.
But if you don’t think this, because it does not seem like a very rational thing to think, you must admit that there are some actions a god can take that can be bad. All I am saying is the actions Jesus takes in regards to entry into heaven are not what I consider “merciful” or “good”.
So yes Jesus could be god, but if he is then god is neither “merciful” or “good”, and I don’t think this argument falls apart if he is indeed god.
But you know what Bob,
All this stuff I am saying, I don’t really know why I am saying it. Your beliefs are very strong, and they provide meaning, guidance and happiness in your life and I am being disrespectful, I think, towards them. I don’t mean to be. I am just talking about what I think, to you, about what you think.
I think so many good things have been done in the name of Christianity, bad things too, but so many good things. The greatest civilization of all, that of the liberal western world, undoubtedly owes part of itself to the spirit of Christianity.
But these things are earthly, and I know they are only secondary in your regard. To this end, I think if there is a Heaven I hope that the good souls of Christians do go there, and enjoy their afterlife. I don’t even mind if you guys choose not to let me in there cause I have my stubborn beliefs. Thats ok.
Seriously, I mean all this. I feel like quite a jerk for trying to convince you that Jesus is some kind of monster, because he obviously isn’t. He has done so much for you and for so many others. I hope, genuinely I do, that you find happiness in your communion with him, once you leave here, if such a communion exists.
I am now respectfully withdrawing from further religious talk. Thank you for considering my words and your courtousey, I realize how annoying reading what I say must be.
Thanks for the kind words Avram. (I’m just seeing this Wednesday night; not sure how long ago you posted it.)
I don’t mind your sharp questions though. I do NOT want to believe in Christianity because “it has done a lot of good in the world.” No, I only want to believe it if it is actually true.
How is is it just or merciful to force someone that does not want to be with you to be with you?
“How is is it just or merciful to force someone that does not want to be with you to be with you?”
Doesn’t sound particularly merciful. And if it’s NOT merciful to force someone to be with you when they don’t want to, would you claim that it IS merciful to prevent someone from being with you when they do want to?
Bob, Daniel,
This is my first post on this blog. I would like to briefly say I appreciate reading the posts and discussions that have been taking place here over the past few months.
The idea that hell is a place of eternal, conscious torment is not undisputed among Christians. I had been taught my entire life that eternal, conscious torment was the only viable view among those who consider the bible as the final authority on Christian doctrine (i.e. the only orthodox view). I recently came to discover otherwise. The other competing views are annihilationism and universalism.
Annihilationism is the view that Bob’s option (c) is a choice. God will punish unrepentant men commensurate with the magnitude of their wrongdoing. After this they cease to exist. A key supporting argument is that non-believers and former-believers are never promised eternal life in the bible – that promise is reserved for believers alone.
Christian Universalism is the view that men would suffer in a hell in a remedial sense, and in proportion to the magnitude of their guilt. Eventually all men will repent and find peace and happiness in the presence of their creator.
Indeed, the eternal, conscious torment view has been dominate in church history. It was not so, however, in the early church. Among the several early Christian schools there were four which taught universalism, one annihilationism, and one eternal conscious torment. The last was in Rome, which as you well know, was the one which eventually rose in power above all others.
For the interested reader, I’ll leave the links to the lectures where I was first exposed to these ideas: Look down the page for “three views of hell part 1 and part 2”. (FWIW this bible teacher is as much of a non-statist as any I have known):
http://www.digitalministries.us/steve_gregg/mp3/topical
I will also mention that the primary word used in the New Testament for hell is gehenna, which means the valley of Hinnom. Many people make the unwarranted assumption that the valley was used as a symbol of a future and greater torment elsewhere. However, it is very sensible to take Jesus words quite literally here – consider the possibility that Jesus warnings to his listeners were fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD.
Happy Vernal Equinox, I mean Easter, to all!
Easter is celebrated on the day of the first full moon after the vernal equinox. The vernal equinox is the day that the Earth’s axis is tiling neither away from nor towards the Sun, which means the day is the longest of the year.
Why would that be important? Well, because in ancient times, especially in Paganism, which predates Christianity, the day and night cycle were personified as a never-ending battle between light and dark forces, i.e. good and evil. The day, representing the light, the good, and the night, representing the dark, the evil, were noticed to fluctuate in duration. Sometimes, the days were longer than the nights. Other days, the nights were longer.
Ancient peoples of course celebrated the day that the light force, the good, was the longest, because it represented a time in the heavens when the forces of good had the most power over the forces of evil, and thus when human life had the best chance of survival and prosperity. Spring is a time of rebirth in the world. It follows the “dead” season of winter, at least in the northern hemisphere, which is almost certainly why Christianity, Paganism, and all other like religions started and spread from northern hemisphere regions. Life of spring after dead of winter. Life after death. Hey, that’s a great story! Christianity just adopted this already worldwide tradition, and superimposed it onto Jesus’ story. The Sun in the sky being the longest in duration was personified into Jesus, the Sun, the Son, rising up after being weakened by the forces of dark and evil (hell).
The first known celebration of the spring equinox was in the kingdom of Babylon, in the ancient city of Ur, circa 2400 BCE. Centuries later, around the 6th century BCE, Zoroastrians started celebrating the vernal equinox.
Judaism adopted the equinox celebrations, calling them the Feast of Weeks and Passover, in part from the Babylonian holiday during the period when so many Jews were held captive by the Babylonian empire.
With that introduction…
Today is Easter, the greatest holiday (holy day) in the Christian year. When I was a little kid, I used to think that was nuts–everybody knows Christmas is the best holiday! And then even when I got older, I didn’t understand why they called it “Good Friday,” since it seemed pretty awful.
Of course, the reason this day is so special, is that it marks Jesus’ triumph over death. It is the fulfillment of various prophecies, including Jesus’ own predictions about His fate. I love the story (and I use that term in a neutral sense–non-believers can at least appreciate it on its literary and symbolic merits) for many reasons, but one of them is that it shows the impotence of physical might. Here’s a Man walking around preaching the truth, and the authorities are threatened by Him. So they ultimately torture and murder Him. But so what? That doesn’t stop Him or His message. The truth is stronger than their clubs and nails.
In this post I want to make two claims:
CLAIM #1: Jesus’ resurrection is the most plausible explanation of the evidence we have.
In previous posts I have argued that it just doesn’t make sense to me that the followers of Jesus would know full well that He didn’t come back from the grave, and yet would tell people that He did, even though this lying would result in their own deaths (for some of them).
Scoffers thought this was a silly argument. After all, don’t we have countless examples of people being willing to die for causes in which we don’t believe? For example, what about the infamous Kool-Aid drinkers?
Yes, we do have such examples, but my argument wasn’t: “People were willing to die for Christianity, therefore it must be right.”
Rather, I was saying that I didn’t find it plausible that people would be willing to die for something that they knew was false. So if Jesus said He was going to be killed but then come back from the dead, and it turned out that His followers just stole and hid the body, then those followers would know he wasn’t God after all.
So I grant that people are willing to die for things I don’t believe in, and I grant that people are willing to defend things that deep down they know aren’t true (especially when doing so is advantageous to them), but I don’t think people are so eager to die for things that they don’t believe in.
That response is not a response to the criticism of referring to Kool-Aid drinkers. You are arguing against something else.
The issue of the Kool-Aid drinkers is that it shows that people can be crazy enough to be capable of believing in something that they believe is true, but nevertheless leads them to commit crazy acts like mass suicide in a jungle. This serves to undercut your initial claim that it is allegedly implausible and unlikely that people would be willing to die for their religious beliefs.
For those who are willing to die for their religious beliefs, whether or not they consider their religious beliefs to be true is completely irrelevant to the factual accuracy of their religious beliefs.
Even if the Apostles, or those who wrote what are now named the Apostles’ books in the new testament, believed that what they said is true, and were willing to die from it, does not prove anything as to the truthfulness of their religious beliefs. You have to consider the scenario that they were simply mistaken, much like you and I and most rational people would consider the Kool-Aid drinkers as being simply mistaken. They thought their beliefs were true, and they were willing to die for it. The same conclusion has to be considered for the Apostles, or whoever wrote them, as well.
As a final point on this, surely we can all agree that H.L. Mencken was no sucker when it came to organized religion. When I was an atheist, I eagerly read Mencken’s Treatise on the Gods, and I have to say I was underwhelmed. For one thing, Mencken conceded that the various books attempting to “blow up” (his phrase) Christianity had failed. (I resolved that I would do a better job in my own such book.) But what surprised me even more, was that Mencken himself thought the best explanation for the spread of Christianity was that this guy Jesus just so happened to have predicted his own resurrection…and holy cow it came true! This was consistent with Mencken’s explanation for medicine men and other shamans in earlier times. Mencken conjectured, for example, that if the floodwaters were rising, and some guy did a dance and the floodwaters receded, that people would think he did it, and then ascribe all sorts of authority to him.
Wait what? Holy cow it came true? We’re the proof of that?
Thus, by the same token, Mencken conjectured that this guy Jesus predicted his own death and resurrection, and by some fluke it actually happened. That’s why we know about him today.
It’s also why we know of many other religious figures throughout history who share the same “prophesied to be resurrected from the dead” storyline. The myth of Osiris, The story of Achilles, the Zen teaching of Rinzai, etc. Christianity just added some more flavor to the story, in order to make it distinct enough to attract followers, or else it wouldn’t be able to be separate from previous religions that have the same story.
CLAIM #2: If you don’t think you need a divine savior, then something is wrong with you.
Hahahahaha, what hubris. What the individual needs is up to them as an individual. You don’t decide what other people “need.” People decide that for themselves.
By your ex cathedra logic, one can say “If you don’t think you need a state, then something is wrong with you.”
If you think you need a divine savior, then I can say quite assuredly that something is definitely wrong with you. For you would actually be believing in magical fairytales, of stories of supernatural Gods that you have absolutely zero evidence for.
One believing in the existence of that which there is no evidence for, either logically or empirically, is a strong sign that something is wrong with one’s mind.
In the comments of previous posts, we got into the familiar argument over how a loving God could demand loyalty from all of us, at the threat of eternal hellfire. My response was that I think really what is going on, is that God says to us, “It’s totally up to you. I give you the choice to be with me forever in paradise, or you can reject My offer. Your actions towards others are important, but they don’t trump this crucial decision.”
Ah, much like the state’s “offer” of their taxation for protection racket. “It’s totally up to you. I give you the choice to be with me in paradise until you die, or you can reject my offer. If you choose “poorly” then you will get kidnapped by armed thugs, and then thrown into a cage. But it’s your “choice.”
So heaven is spending eternity in the direct presence of God Himself, whereas hell is spending eternity in the absence of God, knowing that you “chose poorly.”
Considering how short a human life is relative to infinity years, an infinite punishment for such a finite sized crime is the most unjust punishment that the human mind could ever devise. This of course makes sense, because a religion that did not have such an unjust punishment for non-commitment would not attract many followers. The reason we’re all here talking about the unjust punishment inherent in the (Christian) religious myth, is precisely because its extreme, fear mongering paranoia, and infinite injustice.
How else to get people to believe in things they will never observe? Religions have to be infinite happiness if you commit, and infinite terror if you don’t, or else people will do the natural thing and ignore it. But with enough emotional fear and agitation, reason can unfortunately be overruled, and the human mind is unable to withstand such irrational onslaught. Pretty much how Keynesian economics spreads.
Imagine a religion that said God will give you infinite happiness and prosperity no matter what you did. What incentive is there for you to donate your time and energy (and your money to the religious demagogues preaching their stories) if you were guaranteed infinite happiness and prosperity? You’d have exactly no incentive. Since even ancient people understood incentives, the demagogues had to keep raising their rhetoric’s extremism, and arousing as much fear and joy as possible to get people to commit to it.
“Pay me your money and obey me, and you will get infinite happiness and prosperity. Do not, and you will get infinite happiness and prosperity.”
OK, I won’t pay you and I won’t obey you.
“Pay me your money and worship my God (and hence obey me) and you will get infinite happiness and prosperity. Do not, and you will get infinite pain and terror.”
Aggghhhhh!! Help me! Save me! Don’t let me get infinite pain and terror! I’ll do whatever you say!
The follow-up to my answer was a different argument, now saying, “That’s not fair. So a murderer gets to go to heaven, while a really nice agnostic goes to hell?”
So I have two things to say to this. First, note that it is indeed a different argument. At first, people were mad that God was too judgmental, but now they’re mad that He’s not judgmental enough.
You’re not answering the question. They are taking your argument at face value and asking you to answer to the obvious logical implication inherent in your argument, which is that a Christian murderer goes to heaven while a nice atheist or agnostic goes to hell. They are not saying your God is not judgmental enough, they are asking you to consider the logical implication of “believe in God or go to hell for eternity.” That quote is your argument.
According to the logic inherent in your argument, a libertarian agnostic or atheist will go to hell, while a murdering rapist who asks for forgiveness from God, and believes in God, goes to heaven.
So what is your answer to that? It’s no answer to evade and say “that’s a different argument.” It’s NOT a different argument. It is an argument that logically follows from your argument.
Supposing for the sake of argument that God exists, what is He supposed to do? If He creates us so that we exist as well, then that leaves the options of (a) Him being with us or (b) Him being separate from us, or (c) Him ending our existence. In my understanding, God is basically telling us that we don’t get to choose (c), but we do get to choose (a) or (b). That strikes me as both kind and very fair–true, we don’t get to choose not existing, but other than that, it’s up to us.
So a murderous Christian goes to heaven while a peaceful agnostic goes to hell? It’s a simple yes or no answer.
The second thing I want to say is that I disagree strongly that an agnostic who helps little old ladies across the street and doesn’t use the f-word is “a good person.” Yes, he might be good compared to most other humans, but he’s far from perfect. And until you contemplate the life of Jesus, and the standard He set for us (both in His commands and His actions), you don’t even realize how badly you are playing the game of life.
So nobody can be good even if they tried. Well, since nobody is able to be good, even if they tried, according to your standard, then your standard is inherently irrational, because you would be using non-existence to judge existence.
The standard of Jesus is very low. We can do much better. There are many quotes from Jesus that show him to be a petty and immoral person. I’ve cited many quotes from Jesus and the new testament that convey a standard I know I will never want to look up to, in your previous “Why I am a Christian” post. There’s many more.
“The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me.” – Matthew 26:11
Someone who believes there will ALWAYS be poor people is not someone I want to look up to.
“…blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.” – John 20:24-29
The claim that goodness in people is manifested when they believe in things they do not observe, is among the lowest of low standards. This kind of nonsense is what Stalin employed when people “dared” question his claims about the prosperity of the soviet public. “Do not observe for your own eyes. Believe in what you cannot observe and you will be the most moral human being.” This mentality is literally the source for all that is evil in this world. There is probably no worse standard for humanity. But the new testament bible does not disappoint. There’s this monstrous morality:
“If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.” – Matthew 5:29-30
This is a morality of self-sacrifice. Self-sacrifice is the absolute worst standard any human could ever follow. It is literally the opposite of a standard for human life.
Jesus advocates for murder, child abuse, and a host of other inhumane and immoral atrocities:
“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.” – Matthew 10:34
“For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.” Matthew 10:36
“Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.” – Matthew 10:21
The above quotes show a man that I want absolutely nothing to do with. He’s a murder advocating psychopath.
And this next one may interest you, since Jesus advocates the cruelties of the old testament, and you reject it:
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” – Matthew 5:17
Jesus condemned entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell, all for the incredible evil act of, get this, wanting to not have anything to do with his preaching:
“Then Jesus began to denounce the towns in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades.[a] For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you.” – Matthew 11:20-24
Hey, aren’t you a pro-secessionist? Would you have advocated for the Union army to annihilate secessionist states of the south in a bloody massacre for the “evil” act of merely not wanting to “repent” to the Union’s demands? Paging Tom DiLorenzo!
“But the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who had performed the signs on its behalf. With these signs he had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshiped its image. The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur. The rest were killed with the sword coming out of the mouth of the rider on the horse, and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh.” – Revelation 19:20-21
Here Jesus advocates for the horrible painful deaths of those who have done nothing except believe in other Gods. The story of Jesus is that he is one sick bastard.
And then there’s this deceitful and vicious quote, which shows Jesus purposefully confuses people, thus sending them to hell:
“The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?” He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.” – Matthew 13:10-11
Jesus also advocates for killing children who curse at their parents:
“Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!” Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’” – Matthew 15:1-4
He also says the richer will get richer, and the poorer will get poorer in heaven:
“Whoever has will be given more; whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him.” – Mark 4:25
And finally, thankfully, Jesus condones punishing disobedient slaves:
“That servant who knows his master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows.” Luke 12:47-48
So, when you say “And until you contemplate the life of Jesus, and the standard He set for us (both in His commands and His actions), you don’t even realize how badly you are playing the game of life.”
If refusing to follow THAT absurdity is what you call “playing life badly,” then consider me to be an epic failure of life. I wouldn’t hold Jesus as a valid standard any more than I would hold Hitler as a valid standard. Jesus is an incredibly unjust, violent, immoral, disgusting character that I would not dare expose any children to lest I be engaging in child abuse myself. The story of Jesus, like all ancient stories of the supernatural, ought to be rejected for the insanity it is.
So this is why the most important “act” or “work” you can do in this life, isn’t to refrain from homicide (as I think many agnostics believe). Rather, the most important thing is for you to humble yourself and admit you have a problem. Then you can start improving, and ironically you will end up living a much better life (even according to conventional standards) once you do that.
Nonsense. I refuse to accept that I have a problem from those who believe in original sin. You say to be humble. How on Earth can you claim to know the minds of Jesus and God, of existence after death, and to judge other human beings according to that non-existent world, and yet you tell others to be humble?
It takes the humble mind to accept that we cannot ever know that which exists outside of the natural world, to be willing to subject one’s claims to scientific rigor. It takes a mind suffering from hubris and misguided confidence to believe in the existence of that which cannot be observed or even logically comprehended.
I will not be “humble” in the way you want, which is to reject my reason when the context is religion. I will not accept that there is anything wrong with me for refusing to believe in an invisible man in the sky. I will not accept that an impossible standard is a rational standard. I will not accept that the character of Jesus serves as a moral role model or source of emulation.
I will accept that he who does not murder and who does not violate other people’s individual rights is a far better person than he who murders but considers himself forgiven because he spoke to an invisible man in the sky. I will accept that if you or anyone else claims that a man who lives a moral life, is peaceful, acts according to libertarian principle of non-aggression, is nevertheless destined for eternal pain, torture, and terror, all because he didn’t believe in the same make-believe fantasyland magical invisible man in the sky nonsense as you, well, then you people would be crazy and you would need to have your heads examined.
I think in God’s value system, somebody who did something really bad, but has sincerely repented and understands just how bad it was, is a “better person” at this moment than the person who did a litany of lesser offenses, but now offers no apology for them and in fact is outraged at the very idea that a God might hold him in judgment. And I have to say that this seems eminently fair to me.
Simply astounding. Well, no wonder statism and socialist evil persist. Ivan the Terrible and Hitler are better people than my friends and I who are atheists and have committed a “litany of lesser evils” like shoplifting candybars when we were young and stupid, and started fist fights against those who verbally dishonored our girlfriends and wives, because they repented to an invisible man in the sky.
That is NOT a fair morality. That is incredibly unfair. You keep attempting to defend murderous psychos who commit unimaginable horrors who “repent,” by evading the issue and playing ad hominem of “you’re no angel!”
You’re right, I’m no angel. But I know for an absolute fact that I am a better person than a murderous psycho who prays to an invisible man in the sky.
I’ll continue to go about my life knowing for a fact that myself and many other atheists and agnostics are far superior to murderous dictators who repent. You’re judgment of what makes a person good and bad is anti-libertarian.
Typo.
“If you think you need a divine savior, then I can say quite assuredly that something is definitely wrong with you. For you would actually be believing in magical fairytales, of stories of supernatural Gods that you have absolutely zero evidence for.”
Should read
“If you think I need a divine savior, then I can say quite assuredly that something is definitely wrong with you. For you would actually be believing in magical fairytales, of stories of supernatural Gods that you have absolutely zero evidence for.”
Capital Freedom, I think you miss Bob’s point entirely about the Apostles and their willingness to die for Christ. The point isn’t that the Apostles died for something they believed to be truth, though that is true; and the point isn’t that if someone dies for something they believe in then what they believe in must be true. Bob’s point is this: “Rather, I was saying that I didn’t find it plausible that people would be willing to die for something that they knew was false.”
We aren’t talking about believing something to be true and dying for it. We are talking about knowing something to be false and dying for it anyways.
You are, in fact, Captain Freedom. My apologies. You know you’ve been into Austrian economics for too long when you think someone might actually use “Capital Freedom” as a screen name. w00t.
I think the underlying assumption that they would die for something when “they knew it was false” takes it for granted that they actually knew the truth of the matter being asserted. I find it it very easy to believe that Peter, just citing one example, would find it convenient to tell the others what he “saw” and that Jesus instructed him to do X and that the disciples believed Peter to be telling the truth – ultimately to some of their detriments.
Bob assumes that the Gospel accounts are true and that the Disciples were never confronted with the falsity of the claims because the claims were true, QED. I, on the other hand, find it very easy to believe that someone, or small group, mislead others for personal gain.
As Millhouse said to Bart (while being punished for inserting In A Gadda Da Vida into the organist sheet music) – “all religions speak of a soul – why would they lie?” The punishment being meted out was running coins from the collection through the coin counter and Rev. Lovejoy shouts in the background “I don’t hear the coins being counted.” Pecuniary gain and/or power is a great motivator for lies.
As i have stated on this site many times – the reasoning employed to justify the Christian faith should not satisfy a third grader – the “faith” blinds us to what, under other circumstances, would be seen as ridiculous, e.g., Scientology, Mormonism, Heaven’s Gate, etc., etc., ad nauseum.
I find it it very easy to believe that Peter, just citing one example, would find it convenient to tell the others what he “saw” and that Jesus instructed him to do X and that the disciples believed Peter to be telling the truth
Well, first, that still wouldn’t explain why Peter was willing to die for something *he* knew to be false.
Second, it doesn’t really seem plausible to me that the rest of the disciples would believe that Jesus had risen from the dead just because Peter said so. It’s possible, I suppose, but the reaction of Thomas seems more likely.
Third, when Paul addresses the issue in one of his letters, he says that Christ had appeared after his death to hundreds of people, many of whom were still alive (at the time he was writing), and that anyone who wanted could go ask them what they saw. Which is hard to square with the theory that Peter made the whole thing up, etc.
Well, first, that still wouldn’t explain why Peter was willing to die for something *he* knew to be false.
Nobody is proposing that such a thing such that it requires explanation. The point is not whether Peter was willing to die for something he knows is false. The point is whether or not what he believed is in fact true or false.
Second, it doesn’t really seem plausible to me that the rest of the disciples would believe that Jesus had risen from the dead just because Peter said so. It’s possible, I suppose, but the reaction of Thomas seems more likely.
You are presuming that the new testament writings in their current state were actually written by the Apostles themselves. That too requires justification.
Third, when Paul addresses the issue in one of his letters, he says that Christ had appeared after his death to hundreds of people, many of whom were still alive (at the time he was writing), and that anyone who wanted could go ask them what they saw. Which is hard to square with the theory that Peter made the whole thing up, etc.
Tens of thousands of people in Portugal claimed to have seen the Sun do a zigzag in the sky, and their clothes and muddy ground instantly drying, on October 13th, 1917.
Yes, it is possible for mass delusions.
Nobody is proposing that such a thing such that it requires explanation.
Knoxharrington proposed precisely that, and in the very comment I was responding to!
No, knox referred to “what they knew to be false” in order to say the same thing I said, which is that “what they knew to be false” is completely irrelevant to the important question of whether or not what they believed is actually true.
Knox is merely pointing out that the issue of “what they knew to be false” already presupposes an acceptance that what they said is factually true, when that is the very important question that must be answered!
Thanks Cap. – that is exactly what I meant. I thought I was being clear.
Blackadder, it’s worth nothing that Thomas, who placed his finger inside of Jesus’s wound, was martyred. This, of course, is not a deductive proof for anything concerning religion or God. But it is interesting nonetheless. Also, WOOF WOOF!
All of the apostles were martyred except John.
…and John died in exile.
“Well, first, that still wouldn’t explain why Peter was willing to die for something *he* knew to be false.”
Not to be pedantic but that’s why I offered up the explanation that maybe he was seeking money or power. Why do people lie? For a myriad of reasons – a couple of which are money and power.
“Second, it doesn’t really seem plausible to me that the rest of the disciples would believe that Jesus had risen from the dead just because Peter said so. It’s possible, I suppose, but the reaction of Thomas seems more likely.”
Again, Peter’s proclamation is just one potential hypothesis (which I just made up) of how the story came about. The Gospels are wholly unreliable on these points – because they differ so massively. Read them side by side and they tell distinct versions of the same story with large “factual” discrepancies. You may attempt to “harmonize” them – but that is a theological project and not an historical one.
“Third, when Paul addresses the issue in one of his letters, he says that Christ had appeared after his death to hundreds of people, many of whom were still alive (at the time he was writing), and that anyone who wanted could go ask them what they saw. Which is hard to square with the theory that Peter made the whole thing up, etc.”
I saw this same thing argued last night on the John Ankerberg show (by Lee Strobel) and it struck me as sophistry then too. Paul, and James and Peter, for example, are arguing for two different types of Christianity – look at Acts versus the Gospels, Hebrews and the Petrine letters. But, to be a smartass, where are corroborative, contemporaneous accounts of the resurrection from these “hundreds”? Just because Paul makes a claim does not make it real. I could just as easily say “hundreds” saw Michael Jordan play in the NHL – that doesn’t make it any more of a fact just because I claim as authority that hundreds saw it. Paul’s invitation is rhetorical and not actual – but for the fundamentalist (which you may be) rhetoric and irony are often non-starters.
People follow people to their deaths every day and for a variety of reasons. I don’t know what was in the heart of those creating Christianity – all we can go by is the record we have before us and it is woefully inadequate considering the claims being made. I understand you don’t want it to be – I get it – but that desire does not overcome the weaknesses in the record.
Not to be pedantic but that’s why I offered up the explanation that maybe he was seeking money or power.
After Jesus’ death Peter ends up being harassed, imprisoned, tortured and executed, all of which were predictable consequences of running around ancient Judea claiming that Jesus had come back from the dead. If Peter was interested in money or power (or even mere survival) he would have continued to do what he is depicted as doing in the Passion accounts: deny that he had ever met this Jesus character.
This is precisely Bob’s point. However else you might try to explain the Apostles actions, claiming that they knew the whole thing was bunk but were just in it for the money doesn’t hold water.
Again, Peter’s proclamation is just one potential hypothesis (which I just made up) of how the story came about. The Gospels are wholly unreliable on these points – because they differ so massively. Read them side by side and they tell distinct versions of the same story with large “factual” discrepancies.
The discrepancies between the different Gospel accounts really aren’t any greater than what you would get between accounts of different eye witnesses of the same accident. In any event, nothing I’ve said presumes the reliability of the Gospel accounts (if you do assume this, then pretty clearly you Peter lied, Apostles died hypothesis is wrong, since the Gospels say Jesus appeared to the other Apostles as well).
Just because Paul makes a claim does not make it real.
Right. On the other hand, it does mean that the specific hypothesis you proposed (Peter made up a story about Jesus appearing to him) isn’t very plausible. Accepting this point doesn’t require you to believe that what Paul said was true, or that he even believed it was.
Paul’s invitation is rhetorical and not actual – but for the fundamentalist (which you may be) rhetoric and irony are often non-starters.
I’m not a fundamentalist. Indeed, based on what I’ve said here so far, I *could* be a committed atheist.
People follow people to their deaths every day and for a variety of reasons.
True. What people don’t do is go to their deaths for something they know to be a lie. *That’s* Bob’s point.
“What people don’t do is go to their deaths for something they know to be a lie.”
Bingo.
“After Jesus’ death Peter ends up being harassed, imprisoned, tortured and executed, all of which were predictable consequences of running around ancient Judea claiming that Jesus had come back from the dead. If Peter was interested in money or power (or even mere survival) he would have continued to do what he is depicted as doing in the Passion accounts: deny that he had ever met this Jesus character.
This is precisely Bob’s point. However else you might try to explain the Apostles actions, claiming that they knew the whole thing was bunk but were just in it for the money doesn’t hold water.”
Let me be clear – I don’t know the motivations for the Disciples behavior – but, then again, neither do you. I know you claim the New Testament to be an authoritative response as to the motivations of the Disciples. Given that the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament were written DECADES after the events and were handed down from unreliable oral tradition my offering of a hypothesis as to the motivations is as valid as yours.
“The discrepancies between the different Gospel accounts really aren’t any greater than what you would get between accounts of different eye witnesses of the same accident.”
Actually, it’s much worse than that. What we have is accounts written down decades after the fact that are many times removed from those who were “actual” witnesses to the events. This is not even a point of contention – it is widely accepted as being the case by liberal and conservative theologians and historians alike.
“In any event, nothing I’ve said presumes the reliability of the Gospel accounts (if you do assume this, then pretty clearly you Peter lied, Apostles died hypothesis is wrong, since the Gospels say Jesus appeared to the other Apostles as well).”
Again, you miss the rhetorical question I was asking in making up the Peter example – which makes me think you are a fundamentalist. The question was – what could motivate the Disciples? I offered a plausible explanation which you cannot refute – the same way you cannot prove the authenticity of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection.
“What people don’t do is go to their deaths for something they know to be a lie.”
Iraq, Afghanistan – two examples of people going to their deaths for what they know is a lie. To be clear, I am not saying they all know it’s a lie – but many of them do and yet they go anyway. No atheists in foxholes, right?
I don’t know why Peter, et al. went to their deaths – assuming those accounts to be true. But you don’t either. The Bible was written by interested parties to the controversy – as was the church history of these events – no wonder it is “consistent” and jibes with you believe. It was designed by human minds to be so.
I do not believe the Bible is reliable for in most instances – the willingness of the faithful to believe notwithstanding.
Is there anyway to get a bigger dialogue box? It is well nigh impossible to avoid typographical errors when the box is three words across.
🙂
I know you claim the New Testament to be an authoritative response as to the motivations of the Disciples.
No, I didn’t make that claim. In fact, I specifically said I wasn’t making that claim. To wit: “nothing I’ve said presumes the reliability of the Gospel accounts”
Actually, it’s much worse than that. What we have is accounts written down decades after the fact
Stop. You said that the Gospels differed “massively” from one another. I said that this isn’t so, that the differences were no greater than those between eye witness accounts of the same event. Pointing out that the Gospels are not eye witness accounts, even if true, *is not* a counter to this.
I get the feeling that you are not really paying attention to what I’m saying, since you already ‘know’ what I, as a ‘fundamentalist’ believe.
Again, you miss the rhetorical question I was asking in making up the Peter example – which makes me think you are a fundamentalist. The question was – what could motivate the Disciples? I offered a plausible explanation which you cannot refute.
Except that what you said was not plausible, for the reasons I gave above.
Iraq, Afghanistan – two examples of people going to their deaths for what they know is a lie.
When people say that we were lied into war, they typically do not mean that the solders actually doing the fighting and dying are the ones who are telling the lies. It’s the political leadership that knows the war is based on lies, whereas the solders do not.
“To wit: “nothing I’ve said presumes the reliability of the Gospel accounts”
“Stop. You said that the Gospels differed “massively” from one another. I said that this isn’t so, that the differences were no greater than those between eye witness accounts of the same event. Pointing out that the Gospels are not eye witness accounts, even if true, *is not* a counter to this.”
Make up your mind. Are they reliable or not? You cannot claim that you do not presume the reliability of the Gospels and then turn around and argue for their reliability.
How is pointing out that the Gospels are not accurate eye witness accounts (are not EVEN eye witness accounts) not a counter to your claim that they are not less reliable than concurrent eye witness accounts of the same accident which differ only slightly in the details?
The Gospels have major differences including the day on which Christ was crucified. That is not a subtle difference. That would be like, in your example, saying one eye witness saw the accident on Tuesday and the other on Wednesday – which is correct – they both cannot be.
The “implausible” answer – which I posited as a hypothetical – is just as plausible as your answer – which you seem to be arguing is real. I don’t have to prove my hypothetical answer while you – if the Gospels are reliable – have to prove their reliability – which you cannot.
I wasn’t talking about the people being lied into war – I was clearly talking about soldiers going into battle in two specific wars when the know they know the war to be based on lies. That is completely analogous with the apostles being killed in the service of a lie. You do understand analogy, metaphor, rhetoric, irony, sarcasm – right?
The reality is that the basis for the Christian faith is unreliable on historical and textual grounds. Theological bases for faith are just that – theology. No one takes the Bible into the laboratory because it is unreliable as a scientific text. Likewise, no historian uses the Bible as an historical text – it is wholly unreliable for that purpose.
If you are not a fundamentalist why do you argue that the Bible is a reliable source for information? Only a fundamentalist sticks to the inerrancy of the Bible – which has been shown to be full of errors. Clinging to a belief in the face of factual inconsistency is the heart of fundamentalism.
Knoxharrington wrote (to Blackadder):
You cannot claim that you do not presume the reliability of the Gospels and then turn around and argue for their reliability.
I realize we are all shooting from the hip in the comment section of a blog, and I further realize that Blackadder and I are probably making similar slips o’ the keyboard when we fire off our responses. But really, just re-read what you wrote there. You just neutered the entire enterprise of reasoning.
Bob,
Look at what Blackadder wrote and you will see that my comment is fair. He argues that the Gospels are as accurate as eye witness accounts of the same accident and then says, in essence, I make no claims as to their reliability. If he said that eye witness accounts were generally unreliable – then fine – but that is not how uses the Gospels. He relies on them as accurate portrayals of events. He can’t have his cake and eat it too. To rely on something that is unreliable is a non sequitur.
Knoxharrington, I have been reading your guys’ exchange very closely. You are not understanding what BA is arguing. I grant that I am biased since I like what he is saying, and so maybe we are being similarly unfair to you guys. But I know exactly what he meant when he said he could have been an atheist and made some of his points (early on) in the exchange, and yet you jumped right to the conclusion that he is a fundamentalist.
Is there anyway to get a bigger dialogue box?
I will respond below.
I’m not sure what you guys are talking about. In firefox for me at least, the dialog box is pretty big.
Bob,
You may be right about that. When someone argues that the scriptures are accurate, eye witness accounts my toes curl. I believe that to be a position that fundamentalists take because it is so ahistorical that only a fundamentalist would believe it.
The pro-Christian side in these exchanges needs to grant to the agnostic side that the Gospels are not accurate given their derivation and the discrepancies. That doesn’t mean you can’t believe it but too argue, effectively, that oral tradition handing down eye witness accounts is accurate 40 years later is absurd facially. In any other context a claim of that sort would be laughed at.
Assuming the disciples were martyrs does not make the case for the accuracy of their beliefs. There are many reasons people lie or are mistaken – sometimes they are mislead – but pointing to gospel accounts as reliable indicators of historical events is very high order special pleading and begs many questions that many Christians are unwilling to confront.
On Explorer with each response the dialogue box gets smaller so that (right now) there are about 20 characters per line. It makes editing very difficulty.
I’m not entirely clear on what you’re talking about here.
Part of Bob’s point, I would think, is that the Apostles saw Jesus crucified and then saw him alive at various times in the 40 days after his resurrection and before his ascension. They weren’t acting on second hand information. They actually saw it – or, put another way – they knew whether or not the resurrection was true. Is it plausible that the Apostles would die for something they knew to be false? I believe the number of Apostles who were martyred is ten. Perhaps it is plausible, and perhaps you believe that the Apostles knew that Jesus was wrong but decided to go with the practical joke all the way to their graves. This is the point, though.
Capital Freedom, I think you miss Bob’s point entirely about the Apostles and their willingness to die for Christ. The point isn’t that the Apostles died for something they believed to be truth, though that is true; and the point isn’t that if someone dies for something they believe in then what they believe in must be true. Bob’s point is this: “Rather, I was saying that I didn’t find it plausible that people would be willing to die for something that they knew was false.”
Brandon, I did not miss that argument of Bob’s. I quite clearly said that that argument is besides the point and unrelated to the criticisms he is responding to.
Of course it makes sense to argue that it is highly unlikely that people would be willing to die for something they knew was false. Nobody is questioning that reasonable assumption. The point is not so much what the Apostles thought was true in their own minds, but rather why their thoughts are even relevant to the question of whether or not their beliefs are in fact true. I don’t doubt that people can believe crazy things and be willing to die for it. That’s why I brought up the Kool-Aid drinkers. What I do doubt is the claim that because someone thought something actually happened, that we are to take their word for it after they wrote it down on paper and called it “The Book of Matthew” or whatever.
Well said.
CLAIM #2: If you don’t think you need a divine savior, then something is wrong with you.
Hahahahaha, what hubris.What the individual needs is up to them as an individual. You don’t decide what other people “need.” People decide that for themselves.
By your ex cathedra logic, one can say “If you don’t think you need a state, then something is wrong with you.”
If you think you need a divine savior, then I can say quite assuredly that something is definitely wrong with you.
Captain Freedom’s first claim here is, of course, utterly ridiculous (you can’t tell someone that they need air to breathe, that’s something they decide for themselves!) But what’s really amusing is that the guy can’t go two paragraphs before doing the very thing he calls hubristic and “ex cathedra logic.”
Captain Freedom’s first claim here is, of course, utterly ridiculous (you can’t tell someone that they need air to breathe, that’s something they decide for themselves!)
You cannot decide that for others. They have to first decide that they want to live. THEN and only then can you then advise them of what they need to accomplish their desire. But for those who don’t want to live, and desire to asphyxiate themselves until dead, then telling them that they need air would be incorrect.
But what’s really amusing is that the guy can’t go two paragraphs before doing the very thing he calls hubristic and “ex cathedra logic.”
Why is that amusing? Should I have waited a few more paragraphs?
CF wrote:
You cannot decide that for others. They have to first decide that they want to live. THEN and only then can you then advise them of what they need to accomplish their desire. But for those who don’t want to live, and desire to asphyxiate themselves until dead, then telling them that they need air would be incorrect.
You should then be very happy with this formulation:
Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. 26 And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?”
Oh, I forgot to mention. While one is logically permitted to advise another about how to go about achieving a desire once they choose it (to live for example) it does not mean that every advisement is valid. That’s where science comes in.
If I did not want to make any crops grow, then it would be illogical to even advise me on how to grow crops. If I did choose to grow crops however, then you would be logical to advise me. But that doesn’t mean a suggestion of doing a rain dance would be a valid way to grow them.
I want to live, but I do not find worshiping an invisible man in the sky is a valid means to achieve my goal.
Why is that amusing? Should I have waited a few more paragraphs?
Clearly.
OK, next time I’ll post the first few verses of Bohemian Rhapsody, then I’ll say ex cathedra when I see them being made.
“Captain Freedom’s first claim here is, of course, utterly ridiculous (you can’t tell someone that they need air to breathe, that’s something they decide for themselves!)”
But Adder, the denial of reality is a central part of the modern notion of “freedom.” Don’t tell the Captain he can’t deny reality!
Where have I “denied reality”?
Is it when I denied the existence of an invisible man in the sky who violated the laws of physics in ancient stories?
No, Captain, it is your denial of the transcendental ground of all being. You are staring at the shadows on the cave wall and asserting again and again, “Sunlight does not exist.”
it is your denial of the transcendental ground of all being.
I do not deny that there is a ground of all being. That ground is objective reality, i.e. existence. Transcendent the way you use it is just a euphemism for non-existence.
You are staring at the shadows on the cave wall and asserting again and again, “Sunlight does not exist.”
No, I am out of the cave saying that sunlight exists, but invisible men in the sky do not exist.
You’re in the cave thinking that non-existence exists, and confusing it for sunlight.
Sunlight exists. Invisible men in the sky do not.
Not accepting the existence of non-existence does not mean I am denying reality. It means I accept reality and only reality.
Captain, which laws of physics in particular are violated in the Biblical stories?
The Bible tells stories of:
Water turning into wine (and no, this cannot be said to mean watering grape plants, which are then pressed, which is then fermented and turned into wine. The bible quite clearly says Jesus went to wedding, said to the servants to fill up the 6 jugs with plain water and take those jugs to the master of the banquet. Once they gave those jugs that were filled up to the master, the water had turned into wine.
Jesus walking on water (and no, one cannot say this does not contradict the laws of physics because he could have been walking on fishes. The story says he walked on WATER, not fishes. Claiming fishes is just an attempt to evade the violation of physics in the walking on water story).
The Nile water becoming blood when taken from the river then poured onto the ground.
Jonah living inside a fish for three days (I mean COME ON!!!).
Noah living to be 950 years old.
Demons being exorcised.
Five loaves of bread and two fishes feeding 5,000 people. This part by itself does not violate the laws of physics, because it is theoretically possible to split five loaves of bread and two fishes into enough tiny pieces to “feed” 5,000 people. But the bible claimed that the people were “satisfied.” This event was held as a miracle, so that of course implies the “satisfaction” was not merely putting a tiny crumb in one’s mouth, it is doing so and experiencing the sensation of fullness. This violates the laws of human biology and thus the laws of physics.
Earth claimed to be 6,000 – 10,000 years old, which is contradicted by radiometric dating which proves the Earth is roughly 4.54 billion years old.
The flood which supposedly covered the entire planet, killing all living things except two of every animal (7 of each “clean” animal), and Noah, his wife, their three sons, and their wives. This means the ark would have had to be big enough to house every single species of every single living thing, including every species of insect, mammal, dinosaur, amphibian, and bird. It is physically impossible for one man to collect two of every animal on the planet, without the use of any cars, airplanes, or electricity, and then transport them all tens of thousands of miles around the world as all animals are collected, then taken to a single boat, without refrigeration or electricity, and with predators and prey living amongst each other, all survive for 370 days, after which time they are released, including Noah’s sons and wives, then each go on to procreate enough to spawn millions, or even billions (in the case of ants) of offspring around the world.
The story of creation contradicts the laws of physics. In the biblical story of creation, the Earth is created before light is created, even though it is physically impossible for matter to precede energy during the creation of the universe. The early universe was so hot that matter could not physically form, and only energy (light) could exist. High enough temperatures turn any matter into plasma energy. Therefore, it contradicts the laws of physics to claim that Earth (matter) came before light (energy). It can’t be until the universe expanded and cooled that matter can form and not violate the laws of physics.
The physical law of evolution by natural selection is contradicted by the bible. And no, evolution is not just a theory that can compete with instantaneous creation of living things. Living things cannot appear out of nothing. They must evolve out of physical matter, starting with basic RNA biochemical strands, evolving into bacteria and other one celled organisms, then evolving into more complex organisms. Highly complex organisms cannot arise instantaneously out of matter because that would violate the laws of physics at the molecular and biochemical level. Evolution by natural selection has been theoretically and empirically proven. The idea of evolution came to Darwin after contemplating what pigeon breeders were doing when breeding pigeons. He learned that pigeon breeders would mate certain birds that had certain traits desirable to the breeder, and over time and breeding generations, the birds themselves changed and became a new species that did not exist before. Mankind created a new animal by interfering in the otherwise natural selection process. Darwin thought that if mankind can create new animals by breeding for desirable traits, then so could the natural environment. This theory was then later proven by empirical evidence. Evolutionary biologists could literally observe traits developing in animals that the changing natural environment around them favors the plants and animals to have. Flowers whose random genetic mutations and appearances were attractive to bees were the flowers that were able to spread their pollen around and breed at a higher rate and scale. This is why flowers tend to be brightly and vividly colored. It’s because of the bees naturally selecting the most colorful (beautiful) flowers. Similarly, the reason why zebras have vertical stripes is because lions and other predators find it more difficult to single out and target a given zebra to attack and eat. Zebras whose genetic line leads them to be better striped, were more likely to survive lion attacks and thus more likely to procreate, which then passes the gene of stripes down to subsequent generations. To drive this point home, zebras that are held in captivity, who are safe from predators, over time have been observed to lose their vivid black and white stripeness, and become more grey and their stripes less pronounced. This is because natural selection for those zebra is no longer favoring those vivid black and white stripes. Humans and the natural world are literally creating new animals all the time. Evolution is undeniable. Those who claim it is just a theory must have never learned about it, and don’t understand it.
Creating a human from no living thing prior, creating a woman from only a man’s rib, creating birds before land animals, creating plants prior to the Sun, all of these alleged events contradict physical laws.
Will that suffice?
No it absolutely will not “suffice” Major Freedom. You are saying it is against the laws of physics for a human being to be 900 years old? You really don’t see what I’m getting at here? There’s nothing at all in the laws of physics talking about human longevity. There are plenty of scientifically trained people talking about people living 1000+ years in the future.
What you really mean is, “That doesn’t seem likely to me, given my knowledge of modern science.”
Evolution is undeniable.
It is literally impossible in your mind that all terrestrial life was designed and seeded by intelligent aliens 2 billion years ago?
This is the kind of stuff I’m talking about. People throw around wildly exaggerated statements about what “science” tells us with certainty, when it doesn’t. If you want to say, “99% of biology and chemistry PhDs think Genesis is hilariously ridiculous,” OK I will believe you. But don’t say “evolution is undeniable” unless the term “evolution” means “those organisms that have more offspring leave more copies of their DNA than those that leave fewer offspring.”
Jonah living inside a fish for three days (I mean COME ON!!!).
Jesus called it a whale. This one actually seems pretty easy to me. In any event, it is quite clearly “physically possible” for someone to live inside a thing that occasionally surfaces and takes in oxygen. We call them submarines. “The laws of physics” have nothing at all to do with whether a whale’s body could conceivably house a man for 3 days without the guy dying.
No it absolutely will not “suffice” Major Freedom. You are saying it is against the laws of physics for a human being to be 900 years old? You really don’t see what I’m getting at here? There’s nothing at all in the laws of physics talking about human longevity. There are plenty of scientifically trained people talking about people living 1000+ years in the future.
You’re missing the point. Of course it if possible that humans could live to be 1000 years IN THE FUTURE. At the time of Noah, which was the distant past, the physical circumstances PRECLUDE a human from living that long.
You cannot argue “Since it is possible that a human could live to be 1000 in the future, it is possible that humans could have lived for 950 years at any time in the past,” anymore than you cannot say that because a black hole exists at some definite point in time, that it is possible that a black hole can exist at ANY point in time in the universe’s past.
Many entities take time to form. Humans are one of them. The industrial revolution prolonged the human life from an average lifespan of about 30-40 years, to over 60. 20 years is what we got with the single greatest period of economic growth in history.
950 years is physically impossible in 1000 BC, or whenever Noah was supposed to have lived.
The laws of physics include not only human biology, but also technology and the given environment.
Unless you want to argue that Noah lived in a super advanced society that is far more advanced than ours, then you have absolutely no leg to stand on.
Jesus called it a whale. This one actually seems pretty easy to me. In any event, it is quite clearly “physically possible” for someone to live inside a thing that occasionally surfaces and takes in oxygen. We call them submarines. “The laws of physics” have nothing at all to do with whether a whale’s body could conceivably house a man for 3 days without the guy dying.
Sorry to say this, but your cognitive dissonance is literally astounding.
Of COURSE the laws of physics have everything to do with whether or not a man can live inside a whale for three days. It is physically impossible for a man to live inside a whale for three days. Getting swallowed by a whale makes a human go into the whales stomach. Whales don’t breathe through their stomachs. Plus, they come up for oxygen every 4 hours or so. A human dies from lack of air after 4 minutes or so. Then there is the issue of food, and the acid in the whale’s stomach.
To rationalize the story of Jonah as being physically possible because humans can go in submarines is completely avoiding the context of being inside a friggin whale!
It would be like me saying no human can survive walking naked on the surface of the Sun where it is 4000 Celsius, then you chime in and say hey wait, humans can be inside a space shuttle and the temperature outside the hull is more than that, so it’s not physically impossible for a human to survive in 4000 Celsius temperature!
This is incredible. It’s like watching Krugman rationalize 14 examples of evidence that austerity works by quibbling and rationalizing away every single example.
There comes a point when you have to admit that you’re just desiring to get to a conclusion and will say or argue anything to get there.
Submarines….that’s rich.
It is literally impossible in your mind that all terrestrial life was designed and seeded by intelligent aliens 2 billion years ago?
You’d just be moving the same problem one step back. You’d then have to explain how the aliens appeared. It is literally impossible for intelligent aliens to appear out of thin air. Sure, WE may have been an experiment of aliens, but then THEY would have to be explained. If you say the aliens were planned by yet another alien race, then the same question will arise once again.
At some point, you’re going to have to accept that intelligent life has to evolve and cannot just appear instantaneously.
This is the kind of stuff I’m talking about. People throw around wildly exaggerated statements about what “science” tells us with certainty, when it doesn’t. If you want to say, “99% of biology and chemistry PhDs think Genesis is hilariously ridiculous,” OK I will believe you. But don’t say “evolution is undeniable” unless the term “evolution” means “those organisms that have more offspring leave more copies of their DNA than those that leave fewer offspring.”
This is the kind of stuff I’M talking about. You throw around stories of aliens designing human life in order to refute the certainty people have that humans evolved from inorganic matter, totally ignoring the fact that you’re just depending on yet another intelligent lifeform that itself requires explanation. Moving a fact out of your consciousness and evading it, thus leaving a seemingly plausible story, is not how to debate how intelligent life arises in general.
Cap’n,
“That response is not a response to the criticism of referring to Kool-Aid drinkers. You are arguing against something else.
The issue of the Kool-Aid drinkers is that it shows that people can be crazy enough to be capable of believing in something that they believe is true, but nevertheless leads them to commit crazy acts like mass suicide in a jungle. This serves to undercut your initial claim that it is allegedly implausible and unlikely that people would be willing to die for their religious beliefs.
For those who are willing to die for their religious beliefs, whether or not they consider their religious beliefs to be true is completely irrelevant to the factual accuracy of their religious beliefs.
Even if the Apostles, or those who wrote what are now named the Apostles’ books in the new testament, believed that what they said is true, and were willing to die from it, does not prove anything as to the truthfulness of their religious beliefs. You have to consider the scenario that they were simply mistaken, much like you and I and most rational people would consider the Kool-Aid drinkers as being simply mistaken. They thought their beliefs were true, and they were willing to die for it. The same conclusion has to be considered for the Apostles, or whoever wrote them, as well.”
Do you think that, if Jim Jones died, that his followers would invent a story that Jones had risen from the dead and then die for that utter lie?
Do you think that, if Jim Jones died, that his followers would invent a story that Jones had risen from the dead and then die for that utter lie?
It’s not necessary that they consciously INVENT a story they know to be false that he rose from the dead. It is possible that they could BELIEVE that he rose from the dead.
Imagine a hundred years from now there is a religious group called the Jonesians, who follow Jim Jones’ message. Imagine that they actually believe that he rose from the dead and are “with them” as they pray. They write stories of his resurrection. They write stories of his social ostracism and persecution. They are such strong believers that they are willing to die for their beliefs. Some of the followers are even martyred.
Then imagine 2000 years later. A group of archeologists unearth the documents written by the Jonesians. Captain Freedom’s descendants say, hopefully, that these documents tell stories that are not true. Would it make any sense for the Jonesians now 2000 years later to argue “Why would Jones’ Apostles invent stories they knew to be false? It is implausible that they would be willing to die for something they knew to be false!”
Let me make sure we all understand where Blackadder, Brandon, and I are coming from here. We are not taking the gospel accounts at 100% face value for the purpose of this argument. We ARE, however, taking it for granted (for this argument) that there really was a guy Jesus, he offered spiritual teachings, he was nailed to a cross by the Romans, and then later his own disciples went around saying he had come back from the dead, knowing full well that a bunch of them would be killed for this declaration.
So that’s why, contra Captain Freedom’s repeated assertions otherwise, it really IS relevant that people wouldn’t die for something they know to be false. Because the actual disciples of Jesus would know whether or not they actually saw him come back from (what they thought was) his death.
In contrast, a modern Christian martyr doesn’t have that same first-hand experience. So our argument is not merely, “People are willing to die for Christianity, that is a strike in its favor.” Our argument is a lot stronger than that. It’s not bullet-proof by itself, but it’s stronger than Captain Freedom is acknowledging. I don’t see why this point is so difficult to get. You can concede it without granting the conclusion.
Let me make sure we all understand where Blackadder, Brandon, and I are coming from here. We are not taking the gospel accounts at 100% face value for the purpose of this argument. We ARE, however, taking it for granted (for this argument) that there really was a guy Jesus, he offered spiritual teachings, he was nailed to a cross by the Romans, and then later his own disciples went around saying he had come back from the dead, knowing full well that a bunch of them would be killed for this declaration.
I honestly don’t know what you mean by “for the purposes of this argument.” Why does “the purpose of this argument” exclude, what I would argue, the minimum requirement for building any arguments on top of prior arguments, which is that the initial argument has to itself true or else the entire enterprise collapses?
If we can’t even establish that the initial argument (the Gospels) is true, then how can you say that any subsequent argument that requires it to be true, are somehow true themselves?
Yes, if we take it for granted that there really was a guy named Jesus, that he really did offer spiritual teachings, that he really was nailed on a cross, that he had followers that correctly claimed he rose from the dead, then, THEN, sure, everything you say that is logical follows from it, and those subsequent arguments can all be said to be true. But those argument all completely depend on the validity of that initial foundational argument of the Gospels are true, to itself be true.
If we don’t take that for granted however, which I know means we’re completely leaving the context that you initially set up and wanted to explore, then it becomes clear why myself, knox, and some of the other atheists here are saying hey wait a minute, the problem of whether or not the Apostles were willing to die for something they knew to be false, while in isolation can be said to be implausible (which by the way I totally agree with as noted in my above response to Brandon), is still irrelevant to the question of whether what they believed to be true is in fact true. We’re just doing, I think, exactly what you are doing in your arguments after assuming the initial argument is true, but going a further step back and criticizing the initial argument that you say you take for granted for the purposes of this discussion. I guess that is the natural response for atheists.
So that’s why, contra Captain Freedom’s repeated assertions otherwise, it really IS relevant that people wouldn’t die for something they know to be false. Because the actual disciples of Jesus would know whether or not they actually saw him come back from (what they thought was) his death.
Sure, I can agree with that. It is relevant in the context you laid out. Yet it’s still not relevant to the context us pesky atheists want to lay out.
In contrast, a modern Christian martyr doesn’t have that same first-hand experience. So our argument is not merely, “People are willing to die for Christianity, that is a strike in its favor.” Our argument is a lot stronger than that. It’s not bullet-proof by itself, but it’s stronger than Captain Freedom is acknowledging. I don’t see why this point is so difficult to get. You can concede it without granting the conclusion.
I think it’s difficult to get because it’s difficult for atheists to even assume for the sake of argument that God exists and the story of Jesus is true. I can’t speak for the other atheists here, but even typing “OK, let’s assume for a moment that the story of Jesus is true. Shouldn’t it then be the case that…[and so on]”, is rather, how do I say this, “repulsive,” to my mind. To give a sense on how it is like, imagine typing “OK, let’s assume for a moment that flying pink unicorns exist.” You might have a stronger mind than I in dealing with hypotheticals, but for me when I consider propositions I think are false, it’s difficult for me to even think seriously about it, which is what I need to do in order to think seriously about whatever follows from it. If I can’t get past that initial assumption, then I’ll be fixated too much on it.
That is why I don’t take seriously the argument “the Apostles wouldn’t die for the sake of something they knew to be a lie.” I’m still fixated on the initial argument on whether what they said is even true or not.
I need more evidence and more to go on than just a single text written almost 2000 years ago by essentially anonymous theologians.
If I showed you a single religious text whose history is similar to the bible’s, but it contains other stories, and other moralities, then maybe you will be able to be mentally “all there” in the logical arguments I make that take it for granted that what is written in it is factually true.
I just don’t have that ability with the bible. My mind recoils at the violence and the anti-libertarian advocacies in it. I mean, really, you yourself recoil at the old testament. I recoil in the same way to the new testament, because I see similar horrors and injustice there too.
I put individual liberty over every other ideology, because liberty is a set of principles for Earthly life, which I hold is the only reality there is for us humans.
Religion concerns other worlds.
You might think I am being short sighted. But check this out: Suppose that you’re right, that I and every other peaceful libertarian atheist will be subjected to eternal pain, torture and terror after our bodies die because we didn’t believe in God for the short time we were alive.
So there you are in heaven, and I am in hell. How long will you be able to contemplate my suffering and torment before that tingle of secular morality arises in you that leads you to question the fairness of my punishment, which then leads you to question God’s punishment? Won’t there ever be a time in your heart that you think to yourself that OK, enough is enough, he’s already suffered infinite torment for 1 trillion years (remember, in heaven you’ll have an infinite time to bask in God’s glory, so eventually 1 trillion years will pass), and yet he lived a more peaceful life than some of the people here with me in heaven, like for instance that mass murderer over there who is only here because he prayed to God and had faith in God while he was still mortal, don’t you have any kernel of a feeling that maybe, just maybe, 1 trillion years of immeasurable, limitless, incredible pain, torture and terror is too harsh a punishment to lay on someone who did everything right except believe in God while he was still mortal?
I can tell you that if I believed in God, and I were in heaven, and I contemplated all those souls in hell that belonged to people who were otherwise kind and gentle, but just didn’t believe in heaven or hell, that at some point, even if I were the most stringent and persistent Christian, that I would eventually start to resent their punishment. I would eventually say hey God, you should bring some of those atheists up here with us, for they have suffered enough. Keeping them down there for not just 1 trillion years, but 100^100 years, plus infinity years, as punishment for sinning for only 85 years, is completely evil.
See, I am almost certain that you wouldn’t advocate for subjecting an individual on Earth to torture, rape, then murder, for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his family. I am almost certain that you would advocate for a “punishment that fits the crime” kind of response. This is because subjecting an individual to torture, pain, and then death, in response for stealing a loaf of bread, is not just punishment, but it is committing a NEW initiation of force, a NEW act of evil. Would you agree with that assessment?
Now take that idea and multiply it. Now instead of just subjecting the individual to torture, rape and death, imagine being able to torment his mind with unbelievable images of terror while subjecting him to torture and rape. Now make it even worse. And worse.
Now do that to him for not just a sunny Sunday afternoon, but all day, then all week, then all month, then all year, then for 85 years. Then, imagine doing it to him for 100 years, 1000 years, 10,000 years, 100,000 years, 1 million years, 1 trillion years, then imagine 1000000000 trillion years.
He stole a loaf of bread and this is his punishment. Is this not completely insane?
I HOPE that you say yes, that’s completely evil. Subjecting him to trillions of years of unbelievable torment for stealing a loaf of bread is downright sickening and psychopathic.
THAT is exactly what I think when you espouse and support the Christian doctrine of subjecting an individual to eternal infinite punishment for nothing except not believing in God for 85 years while they were still alive.
We are still nowhere near the punishment that God inflicts on non-believers in the Christian religion. 85 years relative to infinity years is the same proportion as 10000000000 trillion years relative to infinity years. In fact, any fixed number of years is the same proportion.
So assuming that you hold it is committing an act of evil to subject an individual to torture, rape, and death for stealing a loaf of bread, then you must logically hold that the greatest evil that could ever be comprehended is the evil God inflicts on believers. No human could ever inflict on another the pain and terror that God allegedly inflicts.
So, I can say that if we assume Christianity is true, it inevitably leads to the conclusion that God is the greatest evil that could ever exist.
Woops.
“So assuming that you hold it is committing an act of evil to subject an individual to torture, rape, and death for stealing a loaf of bread, then you must logically hold that the greatest evil that could ever be comprehended is the evil God inflicts on believers.”
Should read
“So assuming that you hold it is committing an act of evil to subject an individual to torture, rape, and death for stealing a loaf of bread, then you must logically hold that the greatest evil that could ever be comprehended is the evil God inflicts on non-believers.“
“We ARE, however, taking it for granted (for this argument) that there really was a guy Jesus, he offered spiritual teachings, he was nailed to a cross by the Romans, and then later his own disciples went around saying he had come back from the dead, knowing full well that a bunch of them would be killed for this declaration.”
Putting aside the enormity of all that you have taken for granted, I will claim that the eyewitnesses simply being wrong is overwhelmingly MORE probable than the eyewitnesses being right.
How many millions of times throughout history have eyewitnesses come to false conclusions? And how many times have people come back from the dead?
And how many times has one guy from a tiny barbarian kingdom north of Greece conquered the known world by the age of 33?
“And how many times has one guy from a tiny barbarian kingdom north of Greece conquered the known world by the age of 33?”
Interesting response. My claim was as follows:
Accepting – for the sake of argument – that Jesus existed and that eyewitnesses believed he was resurrected, the probability that they were mistaken is greater than the probability that he was actually resurrected.
Do you agree or disagree?
Cap’n,
1) You do not admit that the Disciples actually claim to have seen Jesus – several times. Either you are saying that the disciples, Roman soldiers, etc. Are totally nutty hallucinators or your argument is poor.
2) Christianity has not just been dug up after 2000 years. It has been around for those 2000 years.
3) How do you italicize stuff here?
You do not admit that the Disciples actually claim to have seen Jesus – several times. Either you are saying that the disciples, Roman soldiers, etc. Are totally nutty hallucinators or your argument is poor
False dichotomy. You’re ignoring the more likely possibilities that the Gospels as they exist today were not actually written by the Apostles, or if they were, then they believed in something that didn’t exist.
Christianity has not just been dug up after 2000 years. It has been around for those 2000 years.
That’s really irrelevant. The bible as it exists today was written centuries ago.
How do you italicize stuff here?
http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_font_style.asp
I think it is hilarious that no scholar thinks that Christianity is another form of sun-worship or paganism and you hold it out as if everyone knew and believed what you stated.. There are some similar days that were adopted to make transitioning from paganism to Christianity easier but no scholar seriously thinks or believes that Christianity has its roots in sun worshipers or paganism.
The “no serious scholar” argument is a logical fallacy.
Many serious scholars argue that Christianity, as all religions, have roots in prior religions. But that is not what makes the argument true.
‘The “no serious scholar” argument is a logical fallacy.’
You have misunderstood the fallacy of argument from authority. Arguing from authority is fine and valid when you are citing someone who really is an authority on the topic. It is only a logical error when you cite someone who is “an authority” for others reasons, e.g., “The sun must orbit the earth: the Prince of Wales said so.”
Nonsense.
“Authorities” on this subject disagree with each other. Since contradictions between “authorities” arguments imply that at least one authority is incorrect, it means you cannot use authority as such as justification for a particular proposition.
The “no serious scholar” argument is in fact fallacious, because it implies that “serious scholars” are infallible and thus immune from criticism.
The truthfulness of a proposition is not founded upon WHO supports it. It is founded upon WHAT supports it.
Of course, it is not necessarily the case that a conclusion made on the basis of fallacy of authority is wrong. It could be right or wrong despite the fallacy being committed, but the truthfulness of the proposition will not depend on the authority espousing it.
Your understanding of the fallacy of authority is wrong. It is certainly not “fine and valid” when the person “really really is an authority on the subject.”
A proposition is true if can be justified on the basis of logical and empirical support, i.e. ideas. A proposition does not become true simply because an authority, even an authority on that same subject, argues it.
Hello Professor Murphy.
One curious question.
Have you ever read or do you intend to read the Bible in the original Koine? Surely it would be a good source for further explaining or validating your two claims about Christian thought, at least in order to be perfectly certain what the original Bible said about ressurection.
Few things have always baffled me. Yeshua of Nasarea would have been a passing common name in Galilea, and talking about such a person is akin to talking about Bob from Wisconsin or Takeda from Tokyo. At any given point of time, there would probably have been several hundred Yeshuas walking around in Nasarea and migrating to Judea. And from what I know of the Talmud, several Yeshuas from Nasarea have been given executions in Judea during Roman rule for religious heterodoxy, so that doesn’t narrow it down either. One such Yeshua was a businessman with connections with the government who was making claims of being a divine entity, and was thus executed for it. And he may easily have lived within a 50 year range of the Yeshua of which the Gospels speak. Talmudic passages seem to reveal a dozen such Yeshuas with very close experiences of the Biblical Yeshua. And yet, the execution of the most famous Yeshua ever known is not found in the chronicles of the Talmud, almost as if it were a non-event for the Mediterranean people then.
That’s the baffling part. How can a man of miracles be walking around, but not be considered a big deal in the time that he lived? Did you not say his purpose was to be a standard for others? How can he do it without being well known?
Prateek, yes I do intend to formally study the history of Christianity. That is a gaping hole in my knowledge right now. I’m like a teenager who thinks free markets are cool but I haven’t read any Mises yet.
Reading Aristotle and studying Greek philosophy really ignited my desire to learn about the history of Christianity, since the Greeks, of course, contributed so much to the religion and the tradition.
I highly recommend (assuming my recommendation counts for anything :D) Diarmaid MacColluch’s “Christianity – The First Three Thousand Years.”
http://www.amazon.com/Christianity-First-Three-Thousand-Years/dp/0670021261
Cool….that one is next on my list and this makes me even more excited to read it. Thanks.
Is it pro-Christian?
I never thought I would see you recommending a book on Christianity! 😀
WordPress is bumping my “:D” smiles all over the place!
Is it pro-Christian?
If a book is to be logical and intellectually rigorous, it cannot be explicitly pro-religion, since all religions are inherently illogical. Yeah I had to throw that in there.
The book is not explicitly pro-Christian. It is not antagonistic either. It is I would say very accommodating and, I think, well-researched.
I never thought I would see you recommending a book on Christianity!
I take (one half) of Rothbard’s advice that one ought to learn and understand the world’s religions and not be so dismissive towards them. I accept the first part, but I find myself unable to accept the second. Rothbard also said:
“The greatest and most creative minds in the history of mankind have been deeply and profoundly religious.”
I respect great minds even if they are deeply religious. I respect Murphy’s mind very much, which is why I read his books and articles. When the topic is economics, he’s as sharp as a tack.
I just find myself being one of those “dismissive to religion libertarians,” which I know manifests itself in me approaching it like a belligerent prick. For the last few years I have been trying to be more accommodative and understanding. Before I wouldn’t even engage debates on religion I was so dismissive and shrill. Now I don’t mind engaging so much, probably because atheism is not as taboo as it used to be. I know I’m still too shrill about religion. Maybe that’s why I find myself typing about it here. It’s helping me understand what I want to understand. I’m actually very happy that I am getting bombarded and criticized here. Personally, I actually prefer it when people are on edge and intellectually competitive. It means people are thinking. For me it gives me that extra competitive oomph myself.
Just like there are a great many minds that are religious, there are also a great many minds that are naturalist.
I just find myself being one of those “dismissive to religion libertarians,” which I know manifests itself in me approaching it like a belligerent prick.
This is very apropos of my post, Captain. (Didn’t I promote you to Major when you gave me all those Krugman quotes about the housing bubble? Are the brass holding it up?) I am OK with your often strident tone because you occasionally acknowledge its stridency and so I think there is hope for you yet (from my perspective).
I’ll always think of him as Capital Freedom. <3
OK, since you insist, I am now Major_Freedom. I humbly thank you for the promotion.
What do you mean by “there is hope” for me? Hope for me to think or do what exactly? Become a Christian?
Well, recognizing that one is fallible does not require nor imply that one has to start believing in fallible Gods. I can know that humans are not infallible and that’s that.
I hope in your next post on Christianity you explain my argument about infinite punishment for finite crime of not believing in God, given that you probably believe that killing or torturing someone for stealing a loaf of bread is unjust, even though such an over-punishment is nowhere near the over-punishment of infinity years of pain and terror for 85 years of what can only be labeled as committing a thought crime.
Cap’n,
Thanks for clearing up my language – I meant to ask if the author is a Christian. I looked on Wikipedia, and it’s not clear.
“Yeah I had to throw that in.”
Well, then I have to throw in that I’m praying for you. 🙂
As for the rest of your post, I have gained respect for you knowing that you aren’t just some atheist shooting your mouth off. Would you mind recommending me a book on atheism that would help me understand where you are coming from?
Again! WordPress, my smile goes to the end…
🙁
Well, then I have to throw in that I’m praying for you.
I know you said this in jest, but supposing you were serious, would that actually be considered an affront in the Christian religion? To tell someone that you are not going out of your way to call for any unsolicited help from the God you worship?
Well, I guess I can see how that would be harsh to a Christian, but for me, I’m really ambivalent. I mean, they’re just your thoughts. They’re your own! Or is refusing to place someone in your prayers really that bad and I am just not getting it?
Yeah, I know, there was no need to draw that out painfully and unnecessarily, yet I’m just trying to understand.
As for the rest of your post, I have gained respect for you knowing that you aren’t just some atheist shooting your mouth off.
Well thanks for that, because in all honesty, shooting my mouth off is actually what I think I am doing most of the time, at least when it comes to talking to religious people or those who advocate for violating individual liberty.
I think I just did it again when I answered Murphy’s criticisms of the list of things I think are physics violations in the bible.
Would you mind recommending me a book on atheism that would help me understand where you are coming from?
Well, first off, and I mean this with all sincerity: the books that actually turned me atheist are religious texts, especially the bible. It just contains so much initiations of violence, horrors, logical inconsistencies, contradictions, unscientific claims, that if *that* is what constitutes religious revelation and evidence of the divine, then there is no way anybody, or anything, could have written it other than ancient primitive peoples who tried to make sense of the violent, irrational, and harsh society in which they lived.
As for atheists books per se, there really isn’t a good treatise on the subject, like there are magnificent treatises on Christianity and other religions. I mean, there’s Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Richard Dawkins, who are collectively, and rather tongue-in-cheek, known as “the four horsemen.” I’ve always found that funny. Their books are generally targeted to a wider audience, although Dawkins is quite the scientific thinker.
Dawkins’ latest book on the evidence of evolution, called “The Greatest Show On Earth,” was really good. His book “The God Delusion” is also quite good, although I imagine the Christian will need thick skin to be able to read it through. Dawkins has got quite the invective attitude. He is a rather bad influence on me in that respect, but his scientific and logical arguments are very clear and convincing.
Daniel Dennet’s book “Breaking the Spell” is really good.
Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” offers a comprehensive morality of life that does not depend on Gods.
I haven’t read it, but I hear that “Why I Became An Atheist” by John W. Loftus, a former Christian preacher, is very good because it doesn’t suffer from the *occasional* misunderstandings of Christianity like the four horsemen do in their books. This book is written by a man “from the inside” so to speak.
This website has some recommendations that might interest you.
If I had to recommend to you an “atheist’s bible,” if that makes any sense, then that is a tough one. Atheism is arrived at by collecting all knowledge from all fields, and then integrating them. It does not come from one “be all and end all” book.
I will say that “Against the Gods?” by Stefan Molyneux is a really good essay that attempts to disprove the existence of Gods.
http://www.freedomainradio.com/FreeBooks/AgainsttheGods.aspx
This argument is one of the most convincing arguments against the existence of Gods:
http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/argument_from_scale/
I’m thinking about buying this one:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1578840023?tag=wwwdebunkingc-20&camp=14573&creative=327641&linkCode=as1&creativeASIN=1578840023&adid=1ZM5J47AX2JRX2D4VWW5&
Anyway, that’s probably more than you wanted, but there you go.
Sorry, this is the site referred to when I said “This website has some recommendations that might interest you” (I forgot to actually post the link):
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=3545
Major,
I’m very sorry if you misunderstood me. I meant to say that I AM praying for you.
Thanks for the recommendations!
“CLAIM #1: Jesus’ resurrection is the most plausible explanation of the evidence we have.”
“In previous posts I have argued that it just doesn’t make sense to me that the followers of Jesus would know full well that He didn’t come back from the grave, and yet would tell people that He did, even though this lying would result in their own deaths…”
Here’s the problem… The most fundamental question that needs to be addressed is:
ARE THE CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES WORKS OF RELIGIOUS FICTION?
If they are, then Jesus did NOT exist and did NOT have followers. By conveniently ASSUMING that Jesus existed, ASSUMING that he had followers, ASSUMING that they held certain beliefs, ASSUMING that they were killed, and ASSUMING that they were killed for their beliefs you have committed the fallacy of petitio principii (begging the question).
You have taken it for granted that the Christian scriptures are historically accurate when their historical accuracy is the very point in dispute!
Until such time as you see fit to replace your assumptions with evidence, your “CLAIM #1” shall remain without a leg to stand on.
-Anon
Anon,
Go skim Mencken’s book (at the link I provided). Mencken is very familiar with the historical evidence for and against the authenticity of the gospels, and he concedes that there was a guy Jesus who was crucified and then walked around days later to talk about it.
“Go skim Mencken’s book (at the link I provided)”
I’d be happy to skim the book, but google books doesn’t appear to offer that feature.
“Mencken is very familiar with the historical evidence for and against the authenticity of the gospels, and he concedes that there was a guy Jesus who was crucified and then walked around days later to talk about it.”
This is the logical error of “argumentum ad verecundiam” (appeal to authority). Unless you can reprise Mencken’s argument or provide me a link to it, you will simply be substituting one fallacy for another.
He just said where you can find the argumentum.
“He just said where you can find the argumentum.”
If you had clicked the link, like I did, you would have seen that it was a link to google books, and – as far as I can tell – there is no option to skim the book. Here’s the link Bob provided:
http://books.google.com/books?id=YMjdLA0eTAAC&pg=PA176&lpg=PA176&dq=mencken+treatise+on+the+gods+christ+resurrection&source=bl&ots=DLF32E5jwG&sig=hLsCjlOdhuB7eXqnsphBsTvoeO4&hl=en&ei=0u-0TdqUNsOWtweX5tDpDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
If you can figure out how to skim the book at that link, please let me know how you did it.
At the top of the page it says “Page 178” and there are left and right arrows.
I see a thumbnail of the cover of the book, but I don’t see “Page 178” or any left and right arrows. I do see a small blue box on the upper-right hand side the reads “No preview available”, though…
Perhaps it’s a problem with my browser, or perhaps the link you’re looking at is different from the one you posted.
I just clicked it here to make sure. Maybe agnostics are barred.
Well can you try googling it yourself directly? It’s HL Mencken “Treatise on the Gods.” I think you will enjoy his discussion of the evolution of the gospels; he clearly has done some research and is quite cynical. But my point is that he didn’t deny that there was a guy Jesus who was nailed to a cross, and then was walking around a few days later.
“his is the logical error of “argumentum ad verecundiam” (appeal to authority).”
No, and no again. You do not understand that fallacy. There is nothing at all wrong with appealing to an authority who really is one on the topic in question. If I want to find out about coinage in Roman Britain, I go to an archaeologist who specializes in that topic.
Here is Wikipedia on the topic:
“There are two basic forms of appeal to authority, based on the authority being trusted. The more relevant the expertise of an authority, the more compelling the argument. Nonetheless, authority is never absolute, so all appeals to authority which assert that the authority is necessarily infallible are fallacious.”
Since Bob never implied that Mencken was infallible, there is no fallacy.
It is not a bad idea to discover what different logical fallacies really mean before accusing others of committing them.
“No, and no again. You do not understand that fallacy. There is nothing at all wrong with appealing to an authority who really is one on the topic in question.”
The argument “Mencken believed Jesus existed. Therefore, Jesus existed.” is fallacious. Perhaps that was not Bob’s argument. My apologies if I misrepresented him. That being said, the question still remains:
ARE THE CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES WORKS OF FICTION?
Hi Bob,
Unfortunately, I can’t get the link to work…
“my point is that he didn’t deny that there was a guy Jesus who was nailed to a cross, and then was walking around a few days later.”
OK, but did he site evidence and/or an argument for Jesus’ existence, or did he just take it for granted?
I tried googling it too.
Christianity was not spread by the apostles. It was spread by other men with the same names.
Please back this up.
It was a joke.
Oh, whew! I didn’t know how I was going to argue that…
I woke up this morning, and everything in my room had been replaced with an exact replica of itself.
If everything was an exact replica of itself, how could you even tell? Deep…
300 years after Jesus walked the earth, Constantine summoned all Christian bishops throughout the roman/byzantine empire to Nicaea on what is now Iznik on Lake Iznik in Turkey. There he mediated the unity of the Christian faith under one approved creed and, as would be expected, an accompanying approved text (although the canon claim is decried by many Christians as false).
Regardless of what exactly transpired at these meetings, it is impossible to deny that it brings fundamental doubt on all stories of Jesus.
It is now impossible to know what text of the new testament was unaltered from its original versions by this initial, and subsequential, unification councils of those that controled Christian dogma and its desemination to the masses.
The notion that the Council tampered with the text of the New Testament books, though a popular shibboleth in some circles, is not supported by any evidence. And—let it be not forgotten—we have extensive manuscript evidence pre-dating the First Council of Nicaea (e.g., Papyrus 75).
I would be certain that at least one of the bishops on the council would have presented the version of the codex found on P75 at the hearings. It may have even been the one that gained the most favor among the attendees and was altered the least to blend with the rest.
But the P75 text was dated to 150-200 years after Jesus walked the earth.
Most here know how the true tale of the war between the states has been significantly warped to favor the government that arose. In fact, more than just a handful of people look on Abe Lincoln as some sort of good samaritan (pardon the pun) instead of the bigoted tyrant he truly was. That story was warped during during a time of cheap and plentiful print in just 100 years.
The authors of the Christian codex prior to the first Nicaean council didn’t have to deal with the level of literary competition that the authors of the civil war did. The passage of 200 years between the Jesus of P75 walking the earth and the writing of the document would have been fertile for wild alterations with few challenges. The Nicaean council was formed to bring all these vast and varied written and spoken accounts of Christian coda together and form one coherent, state sanctioned creed and corresponding codex.
It is impossible to separate the actual story of Jesus from propoganda.
It would have been pretty persuasive to promote a state religion based on the only human being to ever rise from the dead.
“It is impossible to separate the actual story of Jesus from propoganda.”
This is a denial that the discipline of history exists.
Several of the earliest church leaders were already calling what we have today Scripture before the council of Nicea.
That the council of Nicea had more to it than what we know for sure is the stuff of the Da Vinci code and not historically accurate.
What you just wrote is inherently false.
“Rather, the most important thing is for you to humble yourself and admit you have a problem.”
Exactly. The shell of amor sui must be cracked to open the self up to amor Dei.
A man doesn’t need to have to love himself to not love a god.
True; he could, for instance, be in a coma.
But it is the love of self that blinds one to the divine light. Of course, part of amor sui is to do everything possible to hide from that fact.
I don’t understand?
Why can I only be humble by loving a god? Cannot other things humble me, for example being amazed at the sight of a large mountain or a powerful carnivore?
Or is your argument that as soon as man is humbled by something he accepts that something as his god? Which I sort of understand because being humbled by nature like I said means that you have to have some sort reverence for it.
Very good question, Avram. (See how non-snobby I am when someone really engages the issue?) What I would say is that, to the extent that you have felt humble before the wonders of nature, you have to that extent opened yourself to the presence of the divine. Given that you recognize transcendence in this sense, now the question becomes one of theology: is this Spinoza’s God, or the Buddhist great white light, or the God of Israel, or the Christian God? But already we are on the same page: there IS something transcendent we acknowledge, and now we are debating its nature.
The Captain: “Christianity just added some more flavor to the story, in order to make it distinct enough to attract followers, or else it wouldn’t be able to be separate from previous religions that have the same story.”
Don’t you understand, Bob, Peter et al. got themselves martyred as a marketing ploy! Boy, are you dull not to have fallen for that trick!
Oops, meant: “Boy, are you dull to have fallen for that trick!”
yaaaaaaaaawn
Faaaaart.
You’re the most immature and bitter old person I have ever had the misfortune of reading.
So, I am not supposed to respond to your snide dismissiveness (“yaaaaaawn”) with a joke, and when I do so that shows I am “bitter”?
Wow.
There you go playing the victim yet again.
You make a snide and dismissive comment, “Boy, are you dull to have fallen for that trick!”
Then you get your panties in a twist when others say “yaaawn” and claim that is when the snideness began?
And there’s a difference between typing “yaaaaawn” after reading another one of your oh so typical snide comments, and typing yet more immature comments, this time flatulence related, right after someone responded to your initial snide comment with ambivalence.
You need to stop provoking people and then feigning ignorance and playing the victim whenever they have the gall to respond to you with quite justified antagonism and dismissiveness.
Ah. I am “playing” the victim? Did you not actually just type “You’re the most immature and bitter old person I have ever had the misfortune of reading.”
And it’s not like I acted all hurt or anything: I just noted the ridiculousness of what you were saying.
And “bitter”? It was a joke! I was just having a little fun with a “belligerent prick.” (Your self-description. I want to give you enough respect to honor your own understanding of your personality.)
Bob, you wrote “At first, people were mad that God was too judgmental, but now they’re mad that He’s not judgmental enough. ”
I think you know most atheists mean something different, having once been an atheist yourself. The objection is that God judges according to the wrong standard, punishing those who don’t deserve it according to some secular moral theory and failing to punish those who deserve harsh punishment according to some secular moral theory .
Even in my godless period, I gave up on this one quickly because it only makes sense if you presuppose that Christianity is false. It boils down to 1. Some non-Christian view of morality is true. 2. Christianity is incompatible with that view of morality. 3. Therefore Christianity is false. But you need 3 to get to 1.
I wonder how many atheists would have trouble immediately identifying the same fallacy if a Christian were to argue against atheism by pointing out that atheism is incompatible with Christian morality.
James, yes I get what you’re saying, but we have to be careful. A standard Christian argument is to say that the atheist’s very conception of morality comes from God.
A standard atheist argument is to say that because the bible was written by man, the morality in the bible comes from man, not God.
There is copious evidence for this. Most Christians would not kill those who work on the Sabbath (Exodus 31:15). Most Christians do not hold many of the other moralities in the bible.
They pick and choose according to what fits their secularly derived morality.
A standard atheist argument is to say that because the bible was written by man, the morality in the bible comes from man, not God.
I’ve never heard an atheist make that argument (until now, I guess). Presumably the fact that the argument is obviously question begging has something to do with this.
Most Christians would not kill those who work on the Sabbath (Exodus 31:15).
Given that Christians don’t consider themselves to be under the old law, this is hardly surprising. What’s more interesting is that most Jews (even ultra-orthodox Jews) also wouldn’t do this.
You don’t need 3 to get to 1. You need some other argument in favor of the non-Christian view of morality. Most people argue from common sense. Various philosophers have constructed more detailed arguments.
I quite enjoyed your first post, Captain_Freedom. That Bob completely ignored it is telling.
Jan, I didn’t completely ignore it. Blackadder and others have picked apart three of his silliest objections, and I chimed in on those.
The only thing left untouched are his claims that Jesus is the moral equivalent of Hitler. A few of the quotations he provided are complete non sequiturs for that end, and some others are admittedly problematic.
This response is to Knoxharrington:
Make up your mind. Are they reliable or not? You cannot claim that you do not presume the reliability of the Gospels and then turn around and argue for their reliability.
First of all, as Bob pointed out, not only is it possible to argue for something you do not presume, it is essential. If you presume something is true, then there is no need to argue for it, and any argument that presupposed its conclusion would be a bad argument.
Since you asked, I do believe that the Gospels are generally reliable, though I don’t believe they are eye witness accounts.
But in any event, the whole comment is irrelevant, as I have not, in fact, been arguing for the reliability of the Gospels. As I said before, an atheist could make all the claims that I’ve been making.
How is pointing out that the Gospels are not accurate eye witness accounts (are not EVEN eye witness accounts) not a counter to your claim that they are not less reliable than concurrent eye witness accounts of the same accident which differ only slightly in the details?
I didn’t say they were not less reliable. I said that the discrepancies between them were no greater. For all I know there are no discrepancies in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. That hardly means it is a reliable account of history.
The Gospels have major differences including the day on which Christ was crucified. That is not a subtle difference. That would be like, in your example, saying one eye witness saw the accident on Tuesday and the other on Wednesday – which is correct – they both cannot be.
If one guy says that the accident happened on Wednesday and one says it happened on Tuesday then they can’t both be right *about that.* That hardly means there wasn’t an accident. As an attorney, I can tell you that this kind of witness discrepancy happens all the time.
The “implausible” answer – which I posited as a hypothetical – is just as plausible as your answer – which you seem to be arguing is real. I don’t have to prove my hypothetical answer while you – if the Gospels are reliable – have to prove their reliability – which you cannot.
I’ve given reasons for thinking that your hypothetical answer is implausible. Even if we assume that Jesus did not rise from the dead and that the Gospel accounts are not reliable the hypothetical you propose is implausible (a guy once proposed that Jesus Christ was really the name of a hallucinogenic mushroom that the early Christians used to eat; one needn’t be a ‘fundamentalist’ to see that that is an unlikely story).
I wasn’t talking about the people being lied into war – I was clearly talking about soldiers going into battle in two specific wars when the know they know the war to be based on lies. That is completely analogous with the apostles being killed in the service of a lie.
Okay, suppose there is a guy in the army in 2003 who gets sent to Iraq. He knows that the invasion of Iraq is based on lies, but he goes anyway because if he doesn’t he will be sent to prison. Do you not see the difference between that and Peter going out of his own according, proclaiming that Jesus is Lord, getting beat up for his troubles, going out and doing it again, getting imprisoned, and repeating the process until he is eventually tortured to death?
No one takes the Bible into the laboratory because it is unreliable as a scientific text. Likewise, no historian uses the Bible as an historical text – it is wholly unreliable for that purpose.
Historians do actually use the Bible as a historical text, though they do not treat it as Scripture. They don’t treat it as a scientific text, but then that’s true of any historical source.
If you are not a fundamentalist why do you argue that the Bible is a reliable source for information? Only a fundamentalist sticks to the inerrancy of the Bible – which has been shown to be full of errors. Clinging to a belief in the face of factual inconsistency is the heart of fundamentalism.
Well, first off, I wasn’t arguing that the Bible is reliable, but even if I was there is a difference between something’s being reliable and it’s being inerrant.
“First of all, as Bob pointed out, not only is it possible to argue for something you do not presume, it is essential. If you presume something is true, then there is no need to argue for it, and any argument that presupposed its conclusion would be a bad argument.”
Fair enough.
“Since you asked, I do believe that the Gospels are generally reliable, though I don’t believe they are eye witness accounts.”
Then why are they reliable? As an attorney you know that hearsay is not to be admitted as evidence – why would you find hearsay to the 10th power reliable?
“I didn’t say they were not less reliable. I said that the discrepancies between them were no greater. For all I know there are no discrepancies in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. That hardly means it is a reliable account of history.”
We know the Protocols to be false and completely made up so I’m not really sure what that has to do with anything. I’m sure The Cat in the Hat is consistent. Who cares for the purposes of this argument? At what point do the discrepancies, which you acknowledge, give the gospels terminal cancer? As we know, Mark was derived from Q and Matthew and Luke were derived from Mark. Essentially we have one unreliable text providing unreliable progeny.
“I’ve given reasons for thinking that your hypothetical answer is implausible. Even if we assume that Jesus did not rise from the dead and that the Gospel accounts are not reliable the hypothetical you propose is implausible (a guy once proposed that Jesus Christ was really the name of a hallucinogenic mushroom that the early Christians used to eat; one needn’t be a ‘fundamentalist’ to see that that is an unlikely story).”
I’ll say it one more time – my “hypothetical” answer to the why question is just as good an answer as answers “derived” from the Bible. As Sydney Pollock’s character answered, when asked why a guy went off his nut, “People are f***ing inscrutable.” I make no claims as to the motivations of the disciples. I do make the claim that you (and anyone else) cannot reliably make a claim as to their motivation either. As the folks from Answers in Genesis often say “were you there?”
“As an attorney, I can tell you that this kind of witness discrepancy happens all the time.”
I’m an attorney as well and I acknowledge that this discrepancy happens as well. In the case of your “accident” hypothesis we would then turn to police reports, hospital records, traffic cameras, etc. to try and sort out whether it happened on Tuesday or Wednesday. We do not and never will have that information for the Bible account. Enough said on that point. The Bible is unreliable as evidence of anything – given the discrepancies you acknowledge.
The point of the war example is that comrades in arms go to war for their fellow soldiers – even in the context of a lie. If you spent years training with someone you wouldn’t want to let them down. The disciples may have been in the same position. Again, I don’t know and you certainly don’t either.
No historian would ever footnote the Bible as a source to prove a happening in the ancient world. For example, there are no historical records pointing to the Exodus – but the Bible says it happened. Would you publish a scholarly paper with one source – the Bible? You would need to wear a cup when you got the peer reviewed comments back. I’m talking about historical scholarship – not theological scholarship BTW.
It’s seems to be that if you believe the claims of the Bible and are relying on that as the basis for the immortality of your soul then you must believe it is inerrant. I would not trust my immortal soul to something reliable because – in the end – the Book of Mormon is reliable, Dianetics is reliable, right? In order for the supreme truth to be supreme it must be all true.
Are you an agnostic or a Christian? If you are a Christian, why (given the discrepancies)?
The Sydney Pollock thing was from Michael Clayton.
I don’t know why, but for some reason it makes sense to learn that both of you are attorneys. 🙂
Too right, Bob. I hope you, Blackadder, et al. realize that this is all meant in good fun – on my part.:-)
Then why are they reliable? As an attorney you know that hearsay is not to be admitted as evidence – why would you find hearsay to the 10th power reliable?
Most of what you would find in a history book is hearsay, so I don’t think that is a major factor.
We know the Protocols to be false and completely made up so I’m not really sure what that has to do with anything.
It was an analogy. Surely you’ve heard of them (or are you perhaps a fundamentalist?)
🙂
At what point do the discrepancies, which you acknowledge, give the gospels terminal cancer?
There is no simple answer to this, anymore than there is a simple answer of when the discrepancies between two witnesses are so great that you throw out the entire account. If the issue is whether the crucifixion happened on April 3rd or April 4th or whatever, then I don’t think we can know the answer to that. On the other hand, the Gospels do agree on a lot, and the discrepancies between them aren’t such as to call into question the general reliability of the texts.
I’ll say it one more time – my “hypothetical” answer to the why question is just as good an answer as answers “derived” from the Bible.
You can say it as many times as you like. Assertion is not the same thing as proof. I’ve actually given reasons why I think the hypothesis is implausible, and near as I can tell you haven’t even tried to rebut them.
As Sydney Pollock’s character answered, when asked why a guy went off his nut, “People are f***ing inscrutable.”
If, as you say, people are fucking inscrutable, then it would be senseless to ask what motivated the Roman Senators to kill Caesar, or for that matter what motivated George Bush to invade Iraq. Needless to say, I do not share this view.
The point of the war example is that comrades in arms go to war for their fellow soldiers – even in the context of a lie. If you spent years training with someone you wouldn’t want to let them down. The disciples may have been in the same position.
So the view is that, say, John knows that Peter is making the whole thing up about Jesus being resurrected, and yet goes along, saying the same things, knowing full well that this is liable to get them both killed, simply because he doesn’t want to let Peter down? That does not strike me as being true to human nature.
No historian would ever footnote the Bible as a source to prove a happening in the ancient world.
Not true. For example, Sir William Ramsey said of Luke that he was “a historian of the first rank” and that “not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy…[he] should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.”
Would you publish a scholarly paper with one source – the Bible?
Um, no. Then again, I wouldn’t publish a scholarly paper with but one source regardless what it was. On the other hand, historians do use the Bible as a historical source in certain cases.
It’s seems to be that if you believe the claims of the Bible and are relying on that as the basis for the immortality of your soul then you must believe it is inerrant. I would not trust my immortal soul to something reliable because – in the end – the Book of Mormon is reliable, Dianetics is reliable, right?
I’m not sure that Dianetics makes any historical claims, but it certainly is not reliable on any subject. My understanding is that the general consensus among historians is that the Book of Mormon does not describe historical events or people. The same is not true of the Bible.
The view that the Bible must either be inerrant or worthless is one that I would associate with fundamentalism. Needless to say I don’t accept it, nor do I see why I should. As Galileo says, the Bible does not teach us how the heavens go, but how to go to heaven.
Are you an agnostic or a Christian? If you are a Christian, why (given the discrepancies)?
I am a Christian. As for why, I think Plantinga’s Warranted Christian Belief does a pretty good job of explaining it.
“Most” of what is found in history books is hearsay? Really? I would argue that that is more likely to be true as you regress in time but you make a gross overstatement.
I guess the Protocols are accurate in the sense that Jews exist but that doesn’t mean they commit blood libel. I guess maybe the Protocols are as accurate as the Bible after all. You win that one.
Considering the claims being made, and that which is being asked of the believer, the devil really is in the details. If one part contradicts another – which do we believe? You may and apparently have engaged in the theological exercise of harmonization of the Bible. That, as I said before, is fine, we can do the same thing with the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings – but that doesn’t make the Exodus or Mordor real.
If Sir William Ramsey said it then I will bow to his opinion. Just kidding, his opinion is his own and my opinion is that Luke was a historian of great incompetence. I guess we should look to the record – Sir William Ramsey, you lose.
The Bible as single source refers to the fact that there are not corroborative sources by disinterested witnesses, scholars, etc. which back it up. If you want to make claims as to the truth of the Bible you inevitably fall back on the Bible itself – hence the one source citation.
The general consensus among biblical scholars is that the Bible is on par with the Mormons in terms of historical accuracy. I’m not saying the Bible does not refer to places that did exist or the like – after all the Book of Mormon does that – what I am saying is that scholars without an axe to grind or a dog in the hunt recognize the Bible as unreliable. I don’t think the Bible is worthless – I just think its worthless as a basis for a religion.
“Most” of what is found in history books is hearsay? Really? I would argue that that is more likely to be true as you regress in time but you make a gross overstatement.
How much of a typical history book would you say is based on the author’s personal experience?
If Sir William Ramsey said it then I will bow to his opinion. Just kidding, his opinion is his own and my opinion is that Luke was a historian of great incompetence.
I’m not asking you to accept his opinion. You said that historians don’t accept the Bible as a historical source. Ramsay is a counter-example, though I could provide others.
The general consensus among biblical scholars is that the Bible is on par with the Mormons in terms of historical accuracy.
This is incorrect. For example. if you compare the wiki pages on the “Historical Jesus” and the “Historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon” it is clear that most historians accept much more of the Bible as being historically accurate than they do the Book of Mormon (from what I can tell the amount of the Book of Mormon that is considered historically accurate is approximately zero).
“There is no simple answer to this, anymore than there is a simple answer of when the discrepancies between two witnesses are so great that you throw out the entire account.”
In history one never does that. The reports of those present are evidence to an historian, not testimony.
“Likewise, no historian uses the Bible as an historical text – it is wholly unreliable for that purpose.”
The notion that something is useful as an historical text because it is “reliable” is mistaken. Historians make use of any text that might help them answer their question at hand. A complete fabrication can be a tremendously useful historical text, as it raises the question of “Why this fabrication and not some other?” the answer to which is an historical finding.
You raise a good point, Gene. If we charted every statement of “fact” contained in the Bible and checked those facts against science, contemporaneous historical evidence (manuscripts, records, disinterested third-party recollections of the same events, etc.) what percentage of the Bible would be accurate historical data? The question is obviously rhetorical but my guess would be that the Bible is, on that basis, chock full of inaccuracies. In fact, more errors than correct statements.
You raise another great question of “why this fabrication and not others?” Again, my guess is that the fabrication serves a larger purpose – like justifying land grabs from the rightful inhabitants. That may be crass but as we know, again from history (and Blackadder’s own citation of the Protocols) people make s*** up to suit their needs. We don’t like Jews – blood libel. We don’t like like Philistines occupying this land – God gave it to us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UBdXM5_8jE
I just looked this up on William Ramsay. Obviously, a brilliant man in many respects. Historiography was not among his gifts. Within the first minute of the video – probably prepared by an apologist – contains at least four errors. I would refer to the work of Bart Ehrman at UNC-Chapel Hill for starters as a corrective.
Ramsay should have stayed with chemistry – not that he didn’t have the right to opine on these matters – but clearly this is not where his strength lay.
Bart Ehrman gets it wrong on Christianity and fell so far 🙁
The way he writes scholarly is far more inline with ‘mainstream’ than when he writes popularly which grossly distorts what academics know about Christianity.
I just looked this up on William Ramsay. Obviously, a brilliant man in many respects. Historiography was not among his gifts. Within the first minute of the video – probably prepared by an apologist – contains at least four errors.
If a video about Ramsay contains four errors in the first minute, how does that cast doubt on the work of the man himself?
Incidentally, you appear to have William Ramsay the archaeologist confused with William Ramsay the chemist.
If there was archaeological evidence which disproved the Bible (not wholly but important parts) would that raise doubt? You seem to be saying that archaeological evidence backs up the Bible – if the opposite were true would you still find it reliable?
I think we are at loggerheads here. I will continue to believe the Bible is full of some fact but mostly fiction and you will believe the reverse. That’s fine. For me probabilities weigh more heavily that the Bible is fictional. Is it more likely that Jesus rose from the dead or is it more likely that the disciples got it wrong? I’ll take the latter and you can have the former.
If there was archaeological evidence which disproved the Bible (not wholly but important parts) would that raise doubt?
It would depend on the evidence, but sure.
I think we are at loggerheads here. I will continue to believe the Bible is full of some fact but mostly fiction and you will believe the reverse.
Okay, but this wasn’t the original subject of the dispute.
Earlier today I was reading about a guy who was a Romanian med student when the Communists took over. Because he was a professing Christian, he was imprisoned, tortured, etc.
Suppose we were to consider what the man’s motivations might have been in professing Christianity. One possibility, of course, is that the guy was not really sincere in his belief, but was actually motivated by money and power. Now, given the circumstances of the case, is this at all a plausible hypothesis? Should we say that the hypothesis is no more or less plausible than the hypothesis that he really believed Christianity was true, because people are fucking inscrutable? I think not.
The idea that Peter or the Apostles didn’t really believe what they were saying but were just in it for the money is, I think, just as implausible, and for the same reason. If you are interested in money and power, you do things that you think will get you money and power. You don’t do things that are certain to lead to your own imprisonment and torture. To acknowledge this doesn’t require you to accept the Gospels as the word of God, or even as generally reliable.
L. Ron Hubbard founded Scientology because, like Willie Sutton, “that is where the money is.” Jim Jones was a megalomaniac, David Koresh liked hooking up with the women who followed him, Heaven’s Gate followers voluntarily circumcised themselves – the list goes on and on. For the record, once again, I don’t know what motivated the disciples generally and Peter in particular. I do know that people engage in all sorts of behavior motivated by a variety of different things. As Franklin Graham says “I don’t know what is written on their heart.” I do know this – relying on texts written generations removed for the explanation of “why” is not a reliable source for the answer.
Check out The True Believer by Eric Hoffer – there are many reasons people join and perpetuate mass movements. I don’t know why Peter did what he did and, frankly, I don’t really care. His actions are no more a proof of Christianity being true than the Virgin Mary appearing on a piece of toast. People believe all sorts of things – the government is out for their best interests, the Loch Ness monster is real – the basis for those beliefs is an open question. As we wait for the rapture some 2,000 years on does it seem more or less likely that Christianity is horses***?
L. Ron Hubbard founded Scientology because, like Willie Sutton, “that is where the money is.”
Some religions have been started by people who didn’t believe what they were saying but who were interested in attaining money and power. I never denied *that.* (incidentally, I’d note that you appear to have no problem discerning the motivations of Hubbard, etc., despite the notorious inscrutability of human beings).
The question is whether the same is true of the Apostles. I say obviously not. If L. Ron had been around in first century Palestine I’m quite sure he would not have gone around proclaiming Jesus as Lord, for the same reason that if he had been in Romania in the 1950s he wouldn’t have gone around proclaiming Jesus as Lord. So the idea that the Apostles and L Ron shared similar motivations is not a reasonable one.
Honestly, this is not a difficult point. That you seem to have so much trouble accepting it is frustrating.
People aren’t inscrutable when they explicitly state their motivation. Again, the disciples never did that. We have people, like you, explaining the disciples motivations for them. This is not a difficult point either. That you seem to have so much trouble accepting a common-sense truth is equally frustrating.
The Romanian believer is not on point in this discussion. The fact that he imbibed 2,000 years of received tradition – as part of his cultural and sociological backstory and was a “believer” – has nothing at all to do with the motivations of the disciples – which again – you can only guess at (the same as I).
In the event of rapture, I guess your keyboard will be unmanned.
People aren’t inscrutable when they explicitly state their motivation.
As someone who is (a) an attorney, and (b) hangs out on a site devoted to Austrian economics, I find it amazing that you would make such a statement. If you want to know a person’s motivations, looking at their actions will often tell you much more than looking at their words. Jim Jones, for example, didn’t claim to be a megalomaniac. Your (accurate) conclusion that he was one is based on his actions, not his explicit claims about his motivations. Similarly, if you look at the actions of the Apostles, it is clear that they were not motivated by money or power but really believed that Christianity was true (maybe this was a false belief, but it was sincere).
The Romanian believer is not on point in this discussion.
The case of the Romanian believer is on point because it illustrates the fact that (1) you can discern peoples motivations via their actions, and (2) people who are motivated by money and power don’t act in ways that are sure to bring them nothing but trouble.
In the event of rapture, I guess your keyboard will be unmanned.
I don’t believe in the rapture, as it happens. You seem really eager to try to fit me into some kind of box for some reason (or is it just that you think mockery is a substitute for argument?)
Your getting the cart before the horse here. When you buy beer it is clear you value the beer more than the money used to purchase it. That tells me nothing about how you intend to use it (i.e., why you bought it/acted). Did you buy it for your teenage brother? to cook with? to drink? I don’t know. I do know you bought it. When you tell me “I bought the beer to drink” I know your motivation – assuming your not lying and don’t intend to give it to your brother.
Review Man, Economy and State on utility, please.
“Similarly, if you look at the actions of the Apostles, it is clear that they were not motivated by money or power but really believed that Christianity was true (maybe this was a false belief, but it was sincere).”
It’s clear based on what exactly? Your interpretation of “why” they purportedly acted the way they did? The writings of people generations after the fact? Your faith? Your psychic ability to determine motivations for action?
“The case of the Romanian believer is on point because it illustrates the fact that (1) you can discern peoples motivations via their actions.”
I’m more willing to believe that you are right in this case than the case of the disciples/apostles – and for this reason – we are closer in time to the events and have contemporaneous accounts, government records, etc. – this, of course, assumes that the story is true – there are a lot of faux martyr stories out there but I’ll assume your characterization is correct. That is not the case with the disciples/apostles because, for reasons stated before, we have interested parties writing the accounts generations after the fact.
“(2) people who are motivated by money and power don’t act in ways that are sure to bring them nothing but trouble.”
I think that statement is so ignorant of history and common-sense as to be self-refuting.
“I don’t believe in the rapture, as it happens. You seem really eager to try to fit me into some kind of box for some reason (or is it just that you think mockery is a substitute for argument?”
I’m sorry if I mischaracterized your views. I assumed that since you told us you were a Christian you believed in the tenets of Christianity – man, I was way off base to think that. I didn’t realize that Christianity was a Chinese menu where you get to select your beliefs from column A and B as you like. Given your continued championing of the reliability of the Bible I, wrongly it seems, assumed you believed in Revelation.
It’s clear based on what exactly? Your interpretation of “why” they purportedly acted the way they did?
It’s clear because that is not how a person who is not sincere in his beliefs would have acted in such circumstances.
You have demonstrated that you are quite capable of making these sorts of judgments in other cases. I’m not sure why you are so reluctant to do so in this particular case.
I’m more willing to believe that you are right in this case than the case of the disciples/apostles – and for this reason – we are closer in time to the events…. That is not the case with the disciples/apostles because, for reasons stated before, we have interested parties writing the accounts generations after the fact.
The Apostles generally aren’t portrayed in a favorable light in the Gospels. They are characterized as obtuse, prideful, cowardly, etc. (this is, I think, one argument in favor of the reliability of the Gospel accounts). However, even if we ignored the Gospel accounts, we know that Christians were persecuted during the first century of its existence and, given the nature of Roman and Jewish society at the time, it was utterly obvious that persecution would be the fate that awaited anyone who made those sorts of claims. So whatever we not know of the first Christians, saying that they were pretending or were motivated by money or power doesn’t hold water.
I think that statement is so ignorant of history and common-sense as to be self-refuting.
Really? You think that if someone is motivated by the desire for X, it goes against common-sense to say that he won’t do what is sure to deny him X? ‘Why did that man sew his mouth shut?’ ‘Perhaps because he was thirsty, and wanted water.’
I’m sorry if I mischaracterized your views. I assumed that since you told us you were a Christian you believed in the tenets of Christianity – man, I was way off base to think that.
Only a small percentage of Christians or Christian sects believe in the rapture. Most (e.g. Lutherans, Anglicans, Catholics, Orthodox, etc.) do not. It’s not a tenet of Christianity.
Do you understand that “sincerity” does not equal truth? Listen to Coast to Coast AM sometime – you’ll find lots of “sincerely” held beliefs on display – nearly 100% of which are false.
If I make a judgment as to someone’s motivation for action it is because there is a record of some sort backing up that claim. For example, Richard Nixon made public statements concerning Watergate which were false. Nixon also made recordings the Oval Office where the truth was on display. We can see the motivation for the Plumbers, the raising of bribe money, etc., for examples, based on that. That is the “why” of the action. We, once again, have no such record for the disciples/apostles. We have your contention that the Gospels are reliable – in the face of the historical record – and, I guess, your sincerely held beliefs – but that doesn’t make the Bible true.
History is replete with people who held false beliefs and were persecuted. In our own country we have the Mormons who were driven out of New York, Ohio, Illinois, Missouri and whose leader was killed by a mob. Now, either Mormonism is true, based on your criteria, or people went to their deaths for sincerely held false beliefs. Willingness to be persecuted does not mean the the beliefs of the persecuted are “true.” I don’t know how else to make this point so that you’ll get it.
“people who are motivated by money and power don’t act in ways that are sure to bring them nothing but trouble.”
Bank robbers and suicide bombers – to name just two examples – engage in behavior which, in both instances, almost always brings them nothing but trouble.
“Only a small percentage of Christians or Christian sects believe in the rapture. Most (e.g. Lutherans, Anglicans, Catholics, Orthodox, etc.) do not. It’s not a tenet of Christianity.”
More correctly stated it’s not a tenet of those sects of Christianity. Is Revelation included in the Bible used by Catholics and Lutherans? If it is, then what you really mean to say is that they don’t interpret that book the same way Evangelicals do. That’s fine and yields yet another problem with the Bible – the contradictions and various interpretations of the Scripture are so wildly at odds with one another that the Bible is not a reliable guide to the salvation of the soul.
History is replete with people who held false beliefs and were persecuted.
I never claimed otherwise. My claim (the one you have been strenuously denying) is not the willingness to undergo persecution is indicative of truth but that it is indicative of sincerity.
Bank robbers and suicide bombers – to name just two examples – engage in behavior which, in both instances, almost always brings them nothing but trouble.
Bank robbers pretty clearly are motivated by the desire for money, but it’s not true that robbing banks is certain to bring you nothing but trouble. If you get caught then you get nothing but trouble. If you don’t get caught then you get the money.
A suicide bomber might be motivated by money (e.g. by the promise of payments to family members). In general, though, they seem to be primarily motivated by their religious beliefs and/or the desire to kill a bunch of their enemies in the process. If you tried to tell me that suicide bombers were secretly all atheists, I would find that hard to believe.
More correctly stated it’s not a tenet of those sects of Christianity.
If something is not a tenet of most sects of Christianity, then it can’t really be a tenet of Christianity simpliciter. Otherwise you might as well say that papal infallibility is a tenet of Christianity.
Is Revelation included in the Bible used by Catholics and Lutherans?
Yes.
If it is, then what you really mean to say is that they don’t interpret that book the same way Evangelicals do. That’s fine and yields yet another problem with the Bible – the contradictions and various interpretations of the Scripture are so wildly at odds with one another that the Bible is not a reliable guide to the salvation of the soul.
From the fact that people have interpreted a given text in lots of different ways, it doesn’t follow that the text is not a reliable guide on a given subject. People have interpreted the Constitution is lots of different ways, but that hardly makes it a meaningless document.
“I never claimed otherwise. My claim (the one you have been strenuously denying) is not the willingness to undergo persecution is indicative of truth but that it is indicative of sincerity.”
So it’s possible that Peter et al. sincerely believed an untruth and went to their death (assuming those accounts to be accurate)? You seemed to indicate that no one would willingly go to their death for something they knew to be untrue and that the evidence of the truth they were martyred for is the sincerity of their belief. If that is not the case we really have no argument – people believe all sorts of stuff which is sincere but untrue. The sincerity of the disciples beliefs then don’t count for the truth of them.
I, obviously, don’t deny people sincerely believe untruths. My argument is that sincerity is a non-starter as to the actual truth of the claims being asserted. It seems you want to argue the disciples would willingly go to their death because of the sincerity of their beliefs – that was never in doubt. The truth of their beliefs is the open question and I, again, say that the Bible is an unreliable source as a basis for the beliefs they purportedly held and that you have said you hold.
The chances of a bank robber sustaining his career over time and not going to prison is remote. The point was they engage in behavior for money that brings nothing but trouble – you seemed to deny that was a possibility for human behavior.
Likewise, suicide bombers often leave tapes extolling the virtues of their actions and the motivations behind them. The suicide bomber knows that he is going to die – and that suicide bombing has not yet brought the result intended – and yet they persist in a course of action which ends their life and doesn’t accomplish their goal – i.e., brings them nothing but trouble.
The question about Revelation was rhetorical.
The Bible is completely unreliable as a guide. Calvinism or free will? Faith or works? The list goes on and on. It reminds me of the Rev. Lovejoy quote, “Have you read this thing 9the Bible)? Technically, we’re not allowed to go the bathroom.” Because the Bible was written by so many different authors, with theological axes to grind, it is no wonder that some sects emphasize Revelation and other Jesus’ love for us, that some say no dancing is allowed and others serve beer at picnics. Their is a lot of wisdom in the Bible, but, then again, there is a lot of wisdom in the Odyssey. I don’t believe in Poseidon nor the Christian god – that doesn’t mean there is nothing of value to be gleaned from the Bible or Odyssey.
So it’s possible that Peter et al. sincerely believed an untruth and went to their death (assuming those accounts to be accurate)?
Anything’s possible, but in this case it’s hard to see how the Apostles could have been sincerely mistaken about Jesus having risen from the death. This is because the Apostles claim to have seen Jesus after he died, to have talked with him, ate with him, etc. (these claims are corroborated by documents other than the Gospels, btw). It’s hard to see how the Apostles could have been sincerely mistaken about such things.
The question about Revelation was rhetorical.
Given that you thought all Christians believed in the Rapture I can hardly presume you knew the answer (there are differences in what’s included in Protestant Bibles vs. what’s included in Catholic ones).
This is because the Apostles claim to have seen Jesus after he died, to have talked with him, ate with him, etc. (these claims are corroborated by documents other than the Gospels, btw). It’s hard to see how the Apostles could have been sincerely mistaken about such things.”
Actually, that is not correct. The Apostles claim no such thing. The Disciples/Apostles were largely illiterate fisherman who spoke Aramaic. The Gospels were written in Greek. Assuming that the Disciples were 20 years old when they joined Jesus’ ministry they would have been near 60-70 years old when the Gospels were written (about 20-30 years beyond the average life span). It is clear, and not disputed by conservative and liberal scholars alike, that the Gospels were written generations after the fact by those handing down an oral tradition that was augmented by the authors. How do we know this? Because we can compare the Gospels themselves. It is widely understood that Mark was written first and that Matthew and Luke came some 15-20 years later with John some 15-20 years after them. When you look at the mistakes – beyond scrivener’s errors – you see all kinds on inconsistencies in the accounts. As I stated repeatedly above we have no real way of knowing what the Disciples saw, what they thought, etc. We have authors generations removed recording an oral tradition and making additions to suit the audiences that were targeted by the books. None of the above is in any way controversial – it is widely accepted as being true in the scholarly community. Now, what you want to do with that is open to debate. If you want to say that they are reliable sources – that’s fine – but I will stick by my contention that the same data, transmitted the same way, in any other context would be laughed off as ridiculous. The passage of time has given a patina to the Bible that it does not warrant. I understand those who don’t want it to be so – I was one of them – but it just doesn’t hold up under critical scrutiny. Theologians engage in all kinds of obfuscatory arguments related to these facts but that is special pleading and an attempt to keep their jobs.
With regard to the Revelation jibe you are being willfully ignorant. The point of the Revelation comment was not to point to the differences between, for example, the NIV protestant Bible and the Catholic Bible, but rather to point out the fact that Revelation appears in both. It’s apparently the step-child of the Catholic Bible and the cornerstone of the Evangelical Bible. All that goes to show that, once again, we have roughly the same book, and the different glosses on the book giving us the Chinese menu which you seem to draw from. I think ignoring whole sections of the book because they are problematic indicates a greater awareness of the unreality of the whole project rather than pointing to its reliability.
Knoxharrington,
First, if you’re still out there, my apologies for not responding to this sooner.
Second, as I noted before, our knowledge of what the Apostles claimed is not derived solely through the Gospels. Even if we didn’t have access to the Gospels at all, we would still have evidence of the Apostles’ claims.
Incidentally, you seem to have made a common error about life expectancy in your last comment. If the life expectancy in a given society is 40 years, people often assume that means the typical person dies when they are around 40. But that’s not right. Life expectancy is an average, and it’s driven to a large degree by the infant mortality rate. If a society has a high rate of infant mortality, then life expectancy will be low, even though people who survive into adulthood may often live well into old age.
Bob,
There are some really amazing books about the resurrection by authors such as William Craig, Michael Licona, and Gary Habermas. If it is worth anything I think that Reasonable Faith 3rd ed by William Craig is amazing.
Nothing gets the blood flowing like a post on Christianity. (Religion, sex, and politics are the third rails of polite company. We might as well throw economics in there as well.)
I just want to add one thing to the discussion. I notice that C. Freedom and K. Harrington and maybe a few others argue violently against Jesus and the resurrection. (I do not find their arguments in the least persuasive, but that will have to be another post for another day.)
In the first century, I dare say that the spiritually, politically, and financially established leaders of Judaism had every reason to disprove Christianity. Their arguments against Jesus and anything Jesus did would have been more passionate and persuasive than anything we have seen in this comment section. Please; it would not even be close.
Since Peter and the other apostles were going around saying that this guy Jesus had physically risen from the dead, why didn’t the Jews just go get the body? If the flesh had disintegrated, why not produce the bones? The production of either of these two sources of evidence would have ended the religion that we know as Christianity.
There are a surfeit of responses to that. If Jesus was executed by the Romans, he could very well have been buried in a mass grave. Or, if the body had already deteriorated by the time it became an issue, how would displaying some bones prove or disprove anything? The most likely explanation is that Christianity did not seem important enough early on for the authorities to put much effort into disproving it, and no one kept track of where the body was because they didn’t know it would seem important later (assuming that that there was such a man in the first place).
“The most likely explanation is that Christianity did not seem important enough early on for the authorities to put much effort into disproving it. . .”
I agree with that statement if you are talking about the Roman authorities. I, however, was talking about the Jewish authorities. Therefore, I disagree entirely because they (the Jewish leaders) certainly were concerned and would have put much effort into disproving it.
Furthermore, if no one was concerned about Jesus and his teachings, then Christianity has had a run never seen before or since. You are saying that an insignificant man had a small, unimportant impact while he was alive. Then, after he dies, his followers invent some cockamamie story like a guy rising from the dead, and suddenly people are willing to get tortured and die for this?
Religions are typically based on a person’s teachings. Obviously, this is due, in part, to the fact that the person will one day die. Christianity is based on a person. Why wouldn’t the apostles — or whomever you believe created this fiction — do what every other religion did: base the religion on the teachings, not on some crazy idea about a person rising from the dead?
In general, however, the problem with your response and with my original comment is that we are working from two different foundations. If you assume that the gospel record is entirely fictional, then I suppose you can create any story that you want. So, yes, in that case, I would agree that the reasons that the body was not produced would be infinite.
If, however, you begin with the Gospel records and analyze those records based on what they say, then my question stands.