“We know that all things work together for the good of those who love God, who are called according to his purposes.” (CSB – Read the chapter)
A common cliche we like to use when something happens unexpectedly or unfolds in a way we didn’t plan is that God works in mysterious ways. The idea is that God can accomplish things in ways and by means that go well beyond our ability to explain them. Followers of Jesus call this miraculous. Secular folks just call it chance or good luck. Either way, our powers of prediction are generally pretty bad. A recent series on AppleTV got me thinking about all of this as I watched the story take twists and turns the characters could not have imagined at the outset. God actually played a role in the story, but it was an interesting one. Let’s talk for a bit today about Lessons in Chemistry and how things all work out according to plan.
i am a podcast guy. I don’t think I’m quite like the podcast guy in that one commercial, but they are about all I listen to (except for a series called The Story of Classical Music in the Apple Music Classical app which I may write about someday and has been absolutely terrific). One of my go-to daily podcasts is The World and Everything in It from World News Group. It offers a fantastic take on the news of each day. It presents a balance of good summaries as well as more in-depth pieces, all presented from a consistent Christian worldview. On Fridays they typically have their film reviewer present a segment sharing his thoughts on a recent movie or series. This segment a few weeks ago is how I first heard about the series, Lessons in Chemistry.
The series is set in Los Angeles in the 1950s and 60s and is about a female chemist named Elizabeth Zott (played by Brie Larson). The story follows her journey from a wildly overqualified lab technician in a prestigious laboratory to the incredibly popular host of a cooking show and the various relationships she has along the way.
Elizabeth starts as a chemical lab assistant working for a prestigious lab in a cultural context that is intensely male-dominated. Almost no one recognizes her obvious intelligence or skills. She’s treated as little more than an intern even though she can run circles around most of the other Ph.D. scientists there. This changes when she meets Calvin Evans, a fellow chemist who is as socially awkward as Elizabeth is, but who falls instantly in love with this woman he quickly recognizes as his intellectual equal. Their relationship is cut short when Calvin gets hit by a bus (and boy did that make for a dramatic end to that episode!), leaving Elizabeth to discover she is pregnant with their child all on her own.
Life from that point forward for her is anything but easy. The largely African American community where Calvin lived and where Elizabeth now lives in his house takes in her and her daughter Mad (so named because the delivery nurse told her to name her baby after what she was feeling in that moment when she was alone and scared and hurting) as part of their community. These relational connections provide the context for a subplot through the series. The predominantly black community, led by Harriet Sloane (who quickly becomes Elizabeth’s closest friend), is fighting an effort by the city to build a new interstate highway right through their neighborhood. The city leaders’ racist attitudes toward the community result in the project being approved to the devastating disappointment of the neighborhood (and the viewers) by the end of the series.
From here, the plot jumps forward seven years when Mad is a precocious and extremely bright first-grader. A minor confrontation with the father of one of Mad’s friends who happens to be a low-level television producer at the local station results in an invitation to Elizabeth to host a cooking show. Another theme of the series is that Elizabeth is a tremendous cook because of her background in chemistry. Cooking has long been a way for her to escape from the pressures of the world and do something that is precise and perfect. While the deeply sexist studio executive doesn’t buy into the concept of her show, much less Elizabeth herself, the show quickly becomes enormously popular with women across the country because Elizabeth refuses to speak down to them, but rather calls out the best in them regardless of what the world around them happens to think. The series comes to an end when Elizabeth retires from hosting the show to focus on her friends and her family and to finally pursue her own dreams of becoming a chemist.
There are several more subplots and twists in the series, but that captures most of the heart of the show. From a review standpoint, the show was really good. The acting was all pretty spot on throughout. In particular, the little girl who plays Mad, Alice Halsey, was tremendous. Even the infamously stoic Brie Larson managed to bring a great deal of warmth to Elizabeth Zott as she gradually grew throughout the series to recognize her need for and appreciate the value of relationships. In many ways, her character here is the opposite of her more famous MCU character, Captain Marvel. Of course, she’s awesome from the start and fully equipped with everything she needs for success, but her character in Lessons in Chemistry exhibits real growth from start to finish. And, because the series is from AppleTV, the production values are outstanding. AppleTV hasn’t made too many series that I’ve really wanted to watch (Ted Lasso being an obvious exception), when they make something, they make it really well. This one is no exception, and I give it pretty high marks.
From a theological and cultural standpoint, I’m more conflicted. One of the major themes throughout the series is the vileness of sexism and racism. With this I agree in full, of course. Those sins have no place in a healthy and vibrant society. Such attitudes find no traction in the Scriptures. Anyone who argues or acts otherwise is bringing their personal cultural rot to the Scriptures and seeking justification for their sinfulness rather than allowing themselves to be transformed by God’s Spirit and the Gospel. The great irony of my taking this position on the matter in light of the position the series takes, though, is that Lessons in Chemistry can’t offer any meaningful reasons those things are the evils we recognize them to be.
Elizabeth – and Calvin as well – are committed atheists. They make mention of that several times throughout the series. They justify their atheism entirely on scientific grounds, but as the story unfolds it becomes clear that they were driven to their position by life experiences, not science. In science they found a convenient cover for their hatred of God stemming from awful childhood experiences. In this, they fall right in line with so many folks who claim the mantle of atheism on scientific grounds today. There are very, very few people who are genuinely convinced God doesn’t exist because of some science-based argument against Him. There are many, many people, on the other hand, who have a moral or relational reason for not wanting Him to exist and who find justification for this position in science. The trouble is, they are interpreting the science through their relational or cultural or moral lens and seeing what they want to see rather than honestly following the evidence wherever it leads.
Now, they aren’t angry atheists. In fact, in one really touching scene, Calvin exchanges a series of letters with a pastor who later helps his daughter learn more about her father in which the two devoted pen pals dialogue back and forth on arguments for or against the existence of God. The conversation is genuine and genial and humble. Both are willing to listen to the other even as they remain committed to their original positions. It is a wonderful picture of how to engage with someone who is an ideological opposite without sacrificing the relationship. If we had more dialogue and healthy debate like that today instead of what we often find, we would be a much better place and people.
Still, there is a kind of arrogance as they both, but especially Elizabeth, assume a greater intelligence than the people around them because of their science-justified atheism. In one conversation she reminds Mad that they don’t believe in God because that is a silly notion, but that they are still kind to people with whom they disagree. Minus the atheism, that’s another life lesson we could stand to put into practice today.
On atheism, though, there are no rational grounds to oppose the racism and sexism that so dominate the plot of the series. We can see they are wrong, and the series does a tremendous job portraying some of the effects of institutionalized racism and sexism that people who are part of the institutions perpetuating those evils can overlook because of their blind spots, but atheism can’t make any arguments they are wrong beyond merely making the claim. If we live in a Darwinian world in which the strongest survive, then whatever tools we can use to get ourselves ahead, including racism and sexism, are justified by the ends they allow us to achieve. The whole concept of human rights in general which so many atheists claim to hold so dear is wholly borrowed from the Christian worldview that this series consistently portrays as mostly benign, but unnecessary and almost assuredly wrong. As Christians we can make arguments against all sorts of human rights abuses based on those things being out of sync with the revealed character of God. Atheists can merely say they don’t like them and the things they cause. In other words, atheism can only offer relativistic arguments against them which ultimately fail when the rubber of theory hits the road of reality.
A few other gripes: Brie Larson really seems to hate men. This is yet another project of hers in which men are generally treated as either sexist and racist pigs or else bumbling and unnecessary accessories to the wildly successful women dominating the plot. This narrative is one of the more dominant ones in our culture right now, and as a father of three boys, I hate it. A lot. Our culture regularly preaches to our young men that they are wrong and evil because they are men. If they want to find salvation from this sinful state, they need to reject any tendency that might be defined as masculine in favor of more feminine qualities. Is it any wonder that nationwide our men are failing at everything at an alarming rate? They are less educated, less interested in pursuing higher education, less celebrated, more likely to be addicted to drugs and convicted of crimes, more like to commit suicide or otherwise die by drug overdose, and on and on it goes. Should we be surprised when men react to this abuse by turning to mostly online communities that celebrate and encourage the worst tendencies of a genuinely toxic masculinity in response to the cultural rejection they are facing rather than healthier and more godly alternatives? One of the conversations I have had with my boys has been to prepare them for the fact that the culture is going to hate them, but that I am in their corner, and that being godly men is a good thing regardless of what the world tells them.
The broadly materialistic worldview of the series also resulted in leaving what were perhaps the two greatest injustices portrayed entirely unresolved. One was the decision to build the freeway through the mostly black neighborhood where all of the main characters live. The other was the abuse and manipulation Calvin received from the priest who ran the Catholic boys’ home where he was raised. Later, in their attempt to learn more about his background, Elizabeth and Mad find themselves face-to-face with the same priest who lies about having any knowledge of Calvin in spite of the fact that he benefitted directly from Calvin’s scientific brilliance by making sure he didn’t get adopted in order to keep him at the home and managing his lucrative bootleg liquor operation. From a storytelling standpoint I can understand why the writers made the decision to leave that one undone, but from a viewing standpoint it was deeply dissatisfying. It also served as another knock against religion and its purveyors from the obviously biased creators.
Still, for all the twists and turns and challenges and setbacks Elizabeth Zott faces in her story, things wind up in a good place. On the one hand, of course they do because we like stories with happy endings. On the other hand, the goodness she experiences before the end of the series potent illustration of the theological truth Paul lays out here…to a point. That point is that the goodness of God to work in our circumstances to accomplish His good will is something we experience when we are willing to follow Him in spite of our challenging circumstances. Elizabeth never does that – in fact she rather explicitly does the opposite – but experiences it anyway. Yet while the show’s creators clearly want us to see how her hard work and a bit of good luck are what brought about her happy ending, it’s hard not to see what would easily be recognized as God’s fingerprints all over everything about her life were this story rooted at all in reality.
God is able to work good things in even our hardest situations. This doesn’t mean the situations are going to cease to be hard. It means that God is big enough and powerful enough and good enough to bring about His good plans even when our circumstances seem utterly hopeless. There are not circumstances we will ever face that are not able to be redeemed by Him if we will submit ourselves to Him and pursue the life of His kingdom by keeping His command to love one another after the pattern of Jesus’ love for us. The world will absolutely try to keep us down. It certainly did that with Elizabeth. But Jesus overcame the world. He’s already won. When we stick with Him, we will experience His victory alongside Him when the time for its final deliverance arrives. While it surely didn’t mean to be, Lessons in Chemistry was a powerful reminder of this vital truth. Watch it and see for yourself.
The Nexus 
It’s so tedious when Christians try to lie about atheists. It’s even more fun when they claim to have some objective morality when they do not.
Christian morality is demonstrably subjective, with each inventing a list of morals they claim their god wants, and yet you all can’t show that your god merely exists, much less agrees with you. They also have the problem that they must insist that their god doesn’t have to follow these supposedly “objective” morals since they have to invent excuses why it is okay for this god to commit genocide, to kill people for the actions of others, etc. This makes their morality subjective to who someone is. it also shows their morality is little more than might equals right.
Happily, humans make morals and they are subjective. This means we can throw out the ignorance of the bible, and other religions, and get better morals. We don’t have to keep the ignorance that women are less than men, that some religion is superior, etc. We also dont’ have to acccept that it is okay for some god to commit genocide, to kill people for things they didn’t do, and to support slavery. Human morality isn’t perfect but it is better than what religions offer.
It’s also a typical Christian lie to try to steal the hard work of humans for their god. No evidence this god does anything at all, considering how it lets Christians be massacred, lets children starve, and all Christians can do is claim that it helped them find their car keys. Not a single self-professed Christian can do what Jesus promises to his true believers. It seems you are all frauds.
and it’s typical to see you try to blame the actions of men on anyone but those men. ”Should we be surprised when men react to this abuse by turning to mostly online communities that celebrate and encourage the worst tendencies of a genuinely toxic masculinity in response to the cultural rejection they are facing rather than healthier and more godly alternatives?”
curious how there is nothing great about your bible and it’s attitude toward women. IT has them as property at worst and second class citizens at best. These men, if they turn toward ignorant bigots, that’s their own choice, no one else’s.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wow, that’s a lot. I’m grateful for your engagement, though, it will perhaps not surprise you that I don’t find much to agree with in your assessment. I’m sorry that your encounters with followers of Jesus and perhaps with Christianity itself seem to have been pretty negative. I don’t suspect I can too much to change your mind on any of the arguments you make here. I’d be glad to engage on the evidence if you are interested. I would also encourage you to check out the work of scholars like Tom Holland (not the Spider-Man actor) who are not Christians at all and yet are willing to acknowledge the good things the Christian worldview alone has brought to the world. Thanks again for sharing your thoughts. I hope you are able to have some more positive encounters with Christians in the future.
LikeLike
J, it’s also rather tedious when christains try to pretend that the only reason I’m an atheist is that I supposedly had some bad experience. I didn’t. There is no evidence for your religion’s many claims.
The christian worldview has done vast amounts of harm in the world and any good it may have done could have been gotten from other sources without needing a genocidal god thatkills people for things others did, and that supports slavery.
Your claims that some imaginary being hates the same things you do causes harm, and your need to fantasize that people deserve eternal torture is nothing but sadism. Happily, those things will never come true.
Some people who happen to have been christians have done good, by ignoring their bible in many cases. Most haven’t.
What is positive about your need for eternal torture?
LikeLike
If I’m mistaken in that assumption, then I apologize for it. I certainly don’t want to put words in your mouth or experiences in your past. I would hope, however, that you would extend to me the same respect by not making up straw men of either my beliefs or of the Christian worldview generally in order to give them a thorough thrashing.
For example, you can rest assured that I don’t have some kind of a need for eternal torture. And, historically speaking, it has been Christians, driven by their understanding of what the Scriptures teach about human dignity who have been at the forefront of every major antislavery movement in history. I would recommend a little further engagement with the relevant historical information there before you make too many more similar charges.
Given the charges you make, though, you seem to you have a rather profound lack of understanding of what the Christian Scriptures actually teach, much less of the actual history of Christianity over the past 2000 years. Christians have by no means gotten everything right, and there have been some times we have gotten things profoundly wrong, but on the balance, the evidence available weighs pretty heavily in a more positive direction than you assign. If Christianity really was as you describe it, I would absolutely join you in a thoroughly rejection of it.
In addition to some of the recent work of British Historian, Tom Holland, I would encourage you to check out the work of Rodney Stark, the former Baylor sociologist who, though, he became a Christian later in life, spent the first part of his career examining the Christian worldview and its impact on human history from the standpoint of someone who didn’t buy it.
LikeLike
J, can you show where I’m wrong about christian behavior and the lack of coherences in the religion and its beliefs? I’ll be back to address your post later.
LikeLike
You’ve made some really broad charges. What are some specific things you have in mind regarding your impressions about Christian behavior? And when you talk about a lack of coherence, what exactly do you mean? I’d like to better understand where you’re coming from and what shaped your perspective. I’ll look forward to engaging more soon.
LikeLike
Yep, they are broad charges. Can you show they are wrong?
LikeLike
Point by point, yes, I remain fully convinced that none of the broad charges you’ve made are even remotely sticky. That being said, you’ve actually got things backwards. You’ve made the charges. You need to make the case that they are right. The burden of proof in this case is on you. If you would like to offer some positive evidence for your claims, I’ll be glad to engage on that.
LikeLike
No one cares about you being convinced or not, J. It depends on if you can show me wrong or not. Can you?
You say I’m wrong. Then show it. I’ve repeatedly show how christianity fails. I can simply point out the dozens of versions of christanity, J. I can show how christians invent many versions of hell, from Lewis’ one where christians happily forget all they loved in favor of this god, to the eternal fire and pain of other christians.
Shall I point out how catholics hate protestants? how both hate mormons and JWs? How anabaptists were persecuted? how christians have exterminated other sects like the Cathars, etc? How they can’t agree on:
free will vs. predetermination
how to interpret the bible
how one is saved
who is saved
what morals this god wants
what baptism does and how to do it
Is this enough evidence to show how your religion fails?
LikeLike
Not particularly. That’s a scattershot of largely non-essential matters where the Christian faith is concerned. Theological debate and division in any religion isn’t proof of the religion’s failing. It’s proof that lots of people take it seriously enough to want to get it right. That they often handle their disagreements poorly doesn’t offer evidence of failure either. It just means they’re broken by sin and leaning into that instead of the character of Christ.
You also fail to draw a proper line of distinction between states that claim Christianity as a national religion operating as states so often do and using verses here and there clipped out of context to justify what a fuller and more contextually appropriate engagement with the Scriptures would reveal to be an obvious list of atrocities with what the Scriptures actually teach when properly understood and what historically orthodox Christians have tended to believe.
The lightning round of topics there at the end are all massive issues about which there have been written thousands and thousands of pages. I fail, though, to see how any of them speak somehow to a failure of Christianity as a religion.
As I said before, if you would like to make a specific charge, I’ll be glad to engage on it. But in the end, these things are all side issues to the question of Jesus your response to His life, ministry, death, and resurrection. Until that is sorted out, none of the rest of this really matters. I’m certainly not likely to convince you with any of the manifold of counterarguments that are available until it is.
I’m curious, what is your background with Christianity and why do you have so much passion about it?
LikeLike
ah, the usual false claim of those being “non essential matters” when you christrians murdered each other over them.
Unfortunately for your invention, “Theological debate and division in any religion isn’t proof of the religion’s failing.” disagreement and claims of the only ones who have the “truth”, show your religoin to be irreperably splintered.
and again, you try to claim that only those you approve of are the TrueChristians(tm), which fails since you and them cannot do what jesus promised. Christians love to claim “context” and when asked for this supposed context, are unable to present it.
All christians claim to be historically orthodox.
I’ve made a specific charge, but I’ll rephrase it and make it again: how am I to know which of your Truths are the right ones if any?
no evidence to support that jesus existed, had a life, had a ministry or was the son of god, so until you can support that, the rest is indeed secondary.
I was a christian. I got to see just how much different sects hate each other. Then I started realizing that the myths of christnaity were no different than the myths of any other religion. I prayed for help in not losing my faith. Unsurprisingly, this god never showed up.
and yes, I know all of the excuses you will offer for why your imaginary friend failed.
LikeLike
For the ease of typing, I’ll consolidate both responses to just this one spot. Several things here…
Your logic is still a bit all over the place on the question of how my belief in Hell equates with a need on my part for eternal torture. I’m still not sure how you are making that particular connection. There are unquestionably passages that talk about Hell in fiery, tortuous terms. There are also passages that refer to it as merely a place of total darkness without any mention of fire or torture. While one could certainly argue this is just a contradiction, I’m more inclined toward the understanding that Jesus in particular was using figurative language to make a serious point: Hell is going to be unimaginably bad. Exactly what it will be like, though, we don’t know.
You seem to be insisting on a standard for engaging with the Scriptures that most biblical scholars don’t use, namely, a fairly wooden literalism that allows for no amount of figurative language on the part of the authors. If you take that particular approach, you will indeed come up with all kinds of interpretations and understandings of the text that seem awful. That approach, however, is fairly roundly rejected by scholars of all stripes, including many skeptical scholars, as a literarily incorrect way of handling pretty much any text, let alone the Scriptures.
Your charge that it took Christians ignoring the Bible in order to become abolitionists simply doesn’t have any historical substance to it. William Wilberforce, for example, led the charge to end the slave trade across the British Empire not in spite of his robust faith in Jesus and the seriousness with which he took the Scriptures, but precisely because of it. Yes, there are several places in the Scriptures that mention slavery, and, no, you won’t find a single verse that says “slavery is wrong.” But the moral trajectory of the Scriptures on the matter of slavery is very clearly against it when you take seriously what you find there (that is, when you read it in its proper historical context and in the context of the larger moral trajectory of the Scriptures as a whole). It has always been Christians who sought to take seriously the teachings of guys like Paul on the absolute nature of human dignity and equality who began advocating for abolitionism. Some of the earliest abolitionist writings we have historically speaking are from Christians. No one thought there was any moral problem with slavery at all until the Christian worldview began to spread.
The other charges you make simply lack historical substance as well. I am still waiting for you to offer evidence for your claims beyond making broad assertions.
You have asked me for evidence several different times which makes me curious for a couple of things. For starters, what kind of evidence would you accept as valid? If the answer is none, then why continue asking for it? If you have decided a priori that no evidence could possibly sway your thinking, then asking for it doesn’t make any sense. There are vast troves of positive evidence in favor of the truthfulness of the Christian worldview, and I would be delighted to point you to a whole variety of resources where you can find it. But if you have decided out of the gate that it’s all garbage, then we are unfortunately at an impasse. That leads me to my second point of curiosity: Are you so insistent on my providing evidence because you want me to convince you? Unfortunately, if your mind is already made up on the matter, there’s not much I can do personally to change that. I’ll be glad to continue dialoging as I really do enjoy these kinds of conversations, but I’m afraid we won’t make much in the way of progress.
Now for this post…
I think perhaps I’m not clear on what I mean by “non-essential matters.” These are issues that do not contribute directly to salvation. That is, whatever your opinion on them happens to be, it doesn’t affect whether or not you are in a relationship with Jesus. Just because certain issues are non-essential in that sense doesn’t mean people have gotten terribly (and wrongly, I would argue) hung up on them to the point of violence in the past (and present). People are broken by sin and sometimes they use religion as a cover for sinning. That’s wrong every single time. I hope we can agree on that much.
In spite of much and often vigorous (and occasionally even violent) debate over a manifold of issues, there are some points on which there are pretty broad agreement across all the various Christian faith traditions. Calling Christianity “irreparably splintered” requires some additional clarity. If you are talking about the variety of non-essential issues (per the definition I just gave), then, yes, that’s probably true. If you are talking about matters of core doctrine, there’s a whole lot more agreement than perhaps you perceive.
On your specific charge: which truth claims do you have in mind, and, again, what would you consider to be positive evidence in their favor?
On the question of the historical existence of Jesus, I would encourage you to do some more research into the matter. There are not any serious skeptical scholars who consider the claim that Jesus didn’t exist historical to be intellectually credible. Don’t take my word on that. Take Bart Ehrman’s. I assume you know some of his story. He was raised in a Christian home and later rejected it as you have. Now he is one of the world’s foremost skeptics of Christianity. On the question of the historical existence of Jesus, though, he is abundantly clear: There’s no case to be made against it. I’m glad at least that we agree on the primary nature of that question. I’ll be glad to continue dialoging on that one. All the rest don’t matter until that one is settled.
Very often, a passionate animus against Christianity like you have demonstrated over and over again comes out of a place of pain. Generally, when anyone is so passionately opposed to anything as you seem to be to Christianity, there is pain in there somewhere motivating it. I’m sorry for the pain you’ve experienced and that the church or people claiming the name of Jesus (perhaps family members?) played a role in it. You shouldn’t have had to go through that. I suspect that if I had been through whatever you have been through, I’d feel much the same way as you. I hope you’ll one day reach a place of engaging with the questions here with a bit more openness than you seem to have right now. As for God’s seeming to leave you hanging, I won’t even try to offer an explanation. I don’t know what it is you were seeking, where you were seeking it, and what exactly it was you were seeking. That’s between you and God.
Thank you again for giving me the gift of your thoughts even where we disagree.
LikeLike
Unsurprisngly, my logic isn’t “all over the place”. If you didn’t need to believe in hell, you would not since it is a singularly vicious idea. And when your bible can’t agree on what hell is, why should one belive it exists at all? You have to fantasize that this hell is “unimaginably bad” in your need to punish people for not agreeing with you.
Unsurprisingly, “biblical scholars” can’t agree on how to interpret the bible with each sect having different ideas on how that is to be done. Your claim that I am too literal is always bemusing since a Christian must be literal, at least for the parts of the bible they need and/or like. So, no, it isn’t rejected by “scholars of all stripes”. Christians cannot agree on what parts should be literal, metaphor, etc. You must insist that the baselss nonsense of the resurrection must be literal, but you have to claim that silly things like hell being full of fire and pain isn’t since you don’t like that version of god.
There is plenty of historical and biblical evidence to show that Christians must ignore the bible to be abolitionists. The bible repeatedly says that slavery is fine (Leviticus 25), and that slaves should never seek their freedom (1 Peter 2). If this is the case, then abolitionists are going against this god’s will.
There is no “moral trajectory” in your scriptures with both new and old testaments having no problem with slavery at all. I do read the bible in its historical context. Your attempt to claim only you have the “proper” way fails. Paul never speaks out against slavery. And all of your historical claims fail since chritsians only spoke out against slavery if it was Christians being enslaved. Again, do look up the “doctrine of discovery”.
You are also ignorant of history since the Stoics found that there was a moral problem with slavery.
“They declare that he alone is free and bad men are slaves, freedom being power of independent action, whereas slavery is privation of the same; though indeed there is also a second form of slavery consisting in subordination [subjugation], and a third which implies possession of the slave as well as his subordination; the correlative of such servitude being lordship [slave-ownership]; and this too is evil.” Zeno
You again seem to try to lie and claim I wouldn’t accept any evidence as valid as an excuse for why you can’t provide any. I would accept a chatty burning bush. I would accept a self-professed Christian able to do what jesus promises to true believers in him per the bible. I would accept the evidence of 600,000+ people wandering around in an area half the size of Pennsylvania for 40 years.
Unsurprisngly, you claim “vast troves” and yet can’t offer one instance. I’ve read many apologets and they fail too. However, we can solve this quickly: give me the best evidence you have for your particular religion to be true. And we can discuss that. I am intent on you giving evidence since that is how someone learns what is true and what is not. If you can’t supply this evidence you claim to have and defend it, then there is nothing to your claims. I ask just in case there is actualy some evidence I’ve missed.
I think you are quite clear on your attempt to claim that the contradictions and splintering in Christianity are “non-essential matter” since you don’t want to admit how damaged your religion is. These issues do contribute to salvation, including where christians can’t agree on how one is saved or who is saved. Some claim “grace”, some claim works and belief, etc. It does indeed affect any relationship with this jesus since it informs you on what to do to be saved. That you would try to argue otherwise is amusing.
People aren’t broken by “sin”, since sin is just an inventin by theists. You try to excuse your god’s failure by blaming humans.
Oh dear, “vigorous”. That’s quite a term for when Christians murder each other. There are no points that are agreed on, except for, perhaps, the resurrection. That’s it. There is no “core doctrine”. All I get from Christians is that “my version is the core doctrine, and everyone else is wrong”. Amazing how that works out.
I asked “how am I to know which of your Truths are the right ones if any?” So, how? Per your own bible, the true Christians should be able to do what jesus promises, doing miracles like he did, healing people of injury and illness, etc. That would be the evidence needed.
I’ve done plenty of research into the claims of historical jesus. There are indeed serious sktepical scholars who do not believe that your magic jesus or a historical delusional jewish man jesus existed. Richard Carrier is quite able in his defense of a mythical jesus. Erhman postulates the historical jesus I described, but has no evidence that he existed. He has only a perhaps higher chance that the legend was based around a human being. Nothing shows that human being existed.
And you don’t worshp a delusional jew, so your appeal to it fails quite badly.
Again, no pain, but christains do love to repeat that lie sine you don’t like to accept that there is no evidence for your claims. You christains also lveo to blame other Christians insisting they aren’t really Christians, with no evidence for that claim either.
I am open. You have yet to show me anything that supports your claims. I know you can’t answer my question of why your god didn’t show up when I did everything I should have as a christian, since you have nothing and have to blame me for your god’s failure. That’s typical, J.
LikeLike
I didn’t blame you at all for what you perceive as God’s failure to help you maintain your faith. In fact, I was rather explicit in saying that I don’t know why your experience with Him was the way it was. It would appear that we are at loggerheads. I don’t suspect I’m ever going to be able to convince you to move an inch from your position, and I don’t find any of the arguments or charges you offer compelling in even the remotest sense. It would perhaps be the best use of both of our time to simply agree to disagree. I’m genuinely sorry we couldn’t find much in the way of common ground. Thank you again for being willing to engage some. Most don’t, and I appreciate your willingness.
LikeLike
I see I was mistaken, my apologies regarding saying you blamed me. Most christians do. If you dont’ know, then who does? Per your bible, this god answers prayers quickly and withwhat is asked for. Saying ‘I don’t know” seems to be an excuse considering the promises made.
I know you don’t find facts compelling, J. That’s what comes of being a cultist that must believe in the imaginary no matter what. You must ignore what Zeno said. You must ignore what your bible literally says. you cannot explain why your bible says that no slave should seek their freedom, and why abolitionists would ignore that. This god approved of slaves being beaten and simply taking it. Why would an abolitionist deny their god’s will?
“18 Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. 19 For it is to your credit if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly. 20 If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, where is the credit in that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God’s approval.”
LikeLike
Thanks for that, V. I really do appreciate it. While I admittedly think the arguments you are making are really weak, that doesn’t speak to your character at all in my book. I want to make sure whether I’m engaging in spirited debates with someone of your particular worldview perspective or sharing a philosophically friendlier conversation with someone whose position is entirely more like my own, that I show respect for everyone. If I put words in your mouth or create a straw man of your position or malign your character in any way, I hope you’ll forgive me. Everybody deserves respect no matter their position.
That being said, I do happen to find facts very compelling. I simply don’t agree with things you are presenting as fact. I was admittedly not aware of Zeno’s quote about slavery. Given that quote, he was wildly enlightened for his time and rather decidedly in the minority. Slavery was ubiquitous across the Roman Empire in the first century AD. The entire Roman economy was built on it. It didn’t look the same as America’s ugly brush with it, but it was everywhere. Slavery still exists across the world today. In fact, there are more people enslaved today than at any previous point in human history. That’s a travesty. Yet where slavery is being opposed across the world it is overwhelming Christians who are on the front lines of doing so. You continue to argue that this is all in direct contradiction to their faith, but given that there are comparatively so few similar efforts by so many non-Christian groups, religious or otherwise (that is not at all to say there aren’t any because that would be factually incorrect, but that avowedly Christian groups make up the majority of such efforts), and given that as I have argued over and over, Christians have been the leading abolitionist voices over the last 2,000 years of history (and with a bare handful of exceptions that include Zeno and the Stoics didn’t happen at all before the advent of Christianity) would you be willing to consider that perhaps not only do these folks see themselves as pursuing their task because of their faith in Christ and not in spite of it, but that your understanding of the Scriptures you cite to the contrary may not be the correct understanding?
Our conversation has been somewhat ironic to me the further into it we have gone. One of your regular charges is that Christians are all narrow-minded dogmatists for believing in God, that we are “cultist[s] that must believe in the imaginary no matter what.” But when you talk about the Scriptures, you insist that there is only one way to understand them (your way) and that all other ways must necessarily be wrong. The irony here is that when it comes to the Scriptures, your position is the more narrow-minded one. I don’t mean that to say that you are narrow-minded generally and please don’t hear that. Rather, in your insistence that only your position can possibly be the right one, you are rejecting the possibility that any others could be correct including some understandings that help make more positive sense out of the passages that are troubling you.
My question to you is this: Are you going to be willing to accept an explanation for those passages that doesn’t fit with your predetermined understanding of what they must mean. You insist that these passages absolutely mean the Scriptures must be actively supportive of slavery as an institution. I say they don’t. If I take the time to lay out why I think that, is there a meaningful chance that you are going to be willing to really listen and give it consideration, or are you going to fall back on your accusation that I am merely “a cultist that must believe in the imaginary no matter what”? If the latter, it isn’t worth my time to offer up the explanation and I hope you can see why. If the former, I’ll gladly do my best. I may not be convincing to you in the end, and you will remain convinced that your understanding of those passages must be the correct one, but at least you will have given a hearing.
The same thing goes with your question about God’s answering prayers. I can offer up several thoughts on why you might have experienced what you did, but I didn’t have your experience. And, if you already know all the excuses I might offer for why my imaginary friend failed, then what could I possibly offer up that would be helpful? That being said, I would love to understand more about what you were praying for then and why. Why was your faith growing weak when it was? What were some of the experiences you had of people claiming the name of Christ but from different faith traditions hating each other? What kind of situation did you find yourself in then? I may still not be able to offer you anything other than an apology for what you had to go through, but at least I would understand you more, and that’s worth quite a lot.
LikeLike
For all you claim my arguments are week, J, you seem unable to show that they are.
As for claiming facts are compelling, you have a problem since there are no facts that support your particular versions of Christianity. Unsurprisngly, you can’t show that what I have given you aren’t facts. Zeno wasn’t “wildly enlightened” at all, and people that followed him were not either. Slavery was indeed common, and your god supported it per the bible. Your god was no more “enlightened” than any other god, being just an invention of humans who had no problems with slavery as long as it wasn’t them.
Roman slavery was chattel slavery just like confederate slavery was here in the US. That Christians always try to claim that US slaveyr was different, or that slavery in the bible was different is always bemusing since that claim is demonstrably false per the bible itself. Yep, more slaves now since more people now, and your god does nothing at all, just like all gods. Youalso make false claims when saying its “overwhelmingly” Christians who stand against slavery now. That simply isn’t true and unfortunately reeks of the common selfishness and arrogance of Christians.
As I have repeatedly demonstrated, Christians being against slavery it is entirely against what this god supposedly wants regarding slavery. Some Christians have been the leading voices of abolition. Most weren’t. That wont’ change no matter how many times you claim otherwise. Sorry, but I don’t fall for the party line.
I have considered your assertions, and found them false. Christains may think they are following what their god wants, but it is not what this god wants per the bible. Christians convince themselves they are doing many things because of their faith. The Westboro Baptist Christians are quite sure they are hating anyone not like them because of their faith. I have yet to see any Christian have the one “correct understanding” since you all disagree on what your “truth” is.
Yep, all Christians are narrow minded dogmatics, even those who claim to be “liberal”. They still end up with needing anyone who disagrees with them to be punished. You all believe in what you cannot show as real. I read the scriptures with no presuppositions. Every Christian must read them with presuppositions, that their god exists, and agrees with them. Unsurprisingly, my reading is no “narrow minded” at all since I go with what this god supposedly allowed on the page. Christians? No so much.
Show me that your interpretation is the only right one, J. How do you propose to do that? If there is aproblem with finding a “positive” interpretation of supporting slavery, supporting the killing of people for things they didn’t do, and supporting genocide, don’t you think that the problem is with your god and no one else?
Yep, if you can show me your interpretation is the one and only right one amongst all Christian claims, sure I’ll accept it. But it seems you are unable to do that, J. Other Christians had no problem accepting slavery as god approved. Why should I believe your version rather than theirs? This is the crux of the matter. You seem to be trying to find a reason to not have to explain why you are right and I’m wrong, which is curious, wanting my agreement before I even see what you have to say. Your need to assume that I will automatically dismiss what you say is simply wrong.
You don’t need to have my experience to know what I’ve told you, J. You know that I was a Christian, that your bible promises prayers will be answered for Christians, and you know that I was losing my faith. What else do you need to know? This excuse makes your attempts to avoid offering an answer to my question about this god’s answering prayers notable. For all Christians claim to know what their god wants, when it comes to answering the hard questions, you all seem to take refuge in the “mysterious ways” excuse. Again, you may have a new answer, J, that’s why I ask.
Why would the reasons my faith was weak matter, J? I read the bible and found that its claims had no evidence. Per your bible, this god has offered personal appearances and direct evidence. Why would my experiences with other Christians make a difference since I was praying directly to this god? All you have is a typical Christian excuse “but but those Christians weren’t real Christians”. By your bible’s claims, neither are you. My experiences with Christians are that they are just like everyone else, some good, some bad. The *fact* that Christians hate each other, and all of you are quite sure each other are wrong and are going to be punished, isn’t a problem with me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The challenge that we are facing as we go back and forth seems to be that I’m not willing to agree with your position (because I think it is profoundly in error), and I am also not willing to invest time in offering explanations you have yet to demonstrate you will be willing to accept (because you think my position to be profoundly in error). Like you, but in the opposite direction, I have considered many of the arguments for atheism and against Christian theism and found them all to be lacking. If there’s no chance of your accepting them at the outset, why would I give them? If you have decided that the Bible simply supports slavery and there’s no way to understand any of it in a way that goes against your understanding, why would I try to convince you otherwise? I don’t get the sense you are really all that interested in being convinced otherwise. If you want to take that as a lack of positive arguments for the other side of the debate, that’s okay. Whether or not the Scriptures really do support slavery (I don’t think they do), that doesn’t change the fact that Jesus died and rose from the dead, and that’s the only question that matters in the end.
As for as demonstrating that the position I take is right, let me put the question back on you: How could I convince you of that? If the answer is that there is no way, we’re once again back to square one. So, why would we continue to go back and forth when we’re just running around in circles getting nowhere?
On the last part, without a full and complete understanding of what you went through I couldn’t possibly offer an explanation for it. Even then, I may not be able to offer one that satisfies you. But all of those things matter in terms of understanding why you went through what you did. Have you ever really processed through them in detail with someone? But again, if, as you asserted, you’ve heard all the excuses and found them lacking, what more could I offer? Your mind is made up.
We can keep going back and forth, but I’m not sure what we are really accomplishing anymore.
LikeLike
J, you have yet to show I’m wrong, and if you don’t want to continue, that’s just fine with me.
You again have asked questions that I have answered, and still make more excuses on why you can’t give me the supposed answers you claim to have. How convenient for you. You keep running back to the directly lie that I won’t consider what you have to offer.
The bible supports slavery and again, you have yet to show it does not. All you have shown is that *some* Christians were abolitionists. It’s great how Christians suddenly get the ablity to mind read when they have nothing. No fact that jesus died or rose from the dead, J. Again, I know the claims of Christians and you have no evidence. What is offered is mentions about Christians by historical authors, which do not show that what they believed as true. If you want to claim that as evidence, then every god that has had or has worshipers is as “true” as yours.
Again, still unable to show that your version of chistianity is right. You could be able to do what jesus promises to his true believers in the bible, J, as I’ve said. J, I keep answering your questions and you keep ignoring my responses. Why?
You again offer more excuses. You already have a complete and full understanding. I gave it to you. All you seem to have is more excuses. You keep lying that “your mind is made up” when it comes to me.
now, here are the questions of mine you haven’t answered:
“And when your bible can’t agree on what hell is, why should one belive it exists at all? “
“Why would an abolitionist deny their god’s will?”
“What else do you need to know?”
“Why would the reasons my faith was weak matter, J? “
“Why would my experiences with other Christians make a difference since I was praying directly to this god?”
and my responses to your questions:
“Again, do look up the “doctrine of discovery”.” Hmm, have you?
“I would accept a chatty burning bush. I would accept a self-professed Christian able to do what jesus promises to true believers in him per the bible. I would accept the evidence of 600,000+ people wandering around in an area half the size of Pennsylvania for 40 years.”
“Per your own bible, the true Christians should be able to do what jesus promises, doing miracles like he did, healing people of injury and illness, etc. That would be the evidence needed.”
“There are indeed serious sktepical scholars who do not believe that your magic jesus or a historical delusional jewish man jesus existed. Richard Carrier is quite able in his defense of a mythical jesus. Erhman postulates the historical jesus I described, but has no evidence that he existed. He has only a perhaps higher chance that the legend was based around a human being. Nothing shows that human being existed.
And you don’t worshp a delusional jew, so your appeal to it fails quite badly.”
“Yep, if you can show me your interpretation is the one and only right one amongst all Christian claims, sure I’ll accept it.”
LikeLike
How could I demonstrate that to you? And would you really?
LikeLike
I’ve told you repeatedly and have said yes. It’s a shame you keep trying to intimate that I’m lying, J. Why are you doing that?
oh and I see the comments now. Just an oddity with my computer.
LikeLike
You’ve set as the necessary burden of proof for convincing you at things like a chatty burning bush or more than half a million people wandering around an area the size of Pennsylvania for 40 years. How exactly could I meet that?
LikeLike
Pray, J, pray. Your bible claims this god wants everyone to come to it. You, and supposedly it, knows what i need. where is it?
LikeLike
I don’t know what you need. I can’t know that. That’s not my job to know. I can speak to what I think all humanity needs because of what I see in the Scriptures, but you aren’t likely to agree with that assessment. God doesn’t tend to repeat dramatic, miraculous events. Asking for Him to do so doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.
LikeLike
i’ve repeatedly told you what I would accept as evidence. Your claims that you don’t know what I need are false.
You claim all of humanity needs your version of christianity, and have no evidence for that. All cultists are quite sure that everyone needs their claims, and like you, they cannot demonstate this.
I’m sure it doesnt’ make sense to do any miracles since you evidently know it will not. You have decided that you know this god doesn’t do something and have no way to support that baseless excuse. Your problem is thatyou can’t show your god ever doing anything at all, including those miracles for even a *first* time.
Again, J, you make claims of direct knowledge about your god when convenient, and then turn around and claim you just dont’ know what this god is doing when that is convenient too.
LikeLike
I’ve understood your conditions for what evidence will count with you. That doesn’t mean I know what your needs are. You’ve told me what you want and expect regarding evidence. What you need is a separate issue to which I don’t have access. I didn’t say anything false there at all.
The case for the need for salvation in the Scriptures is pretty abundantly clear. If you reject those claims, though, there’s not much I can do about that. I didn’t say I know God won’t do this or that, but that from the pattern I see in the Scriptures, I don’t see evidence of His repeating big, miraculous events. If that’s not sufficient support for you, so be it.
As for direct knowledge about God, we have that through the Scriptures and it is accessible to anyone. God is sovereign, though. He is not in some way subordinate to us. I know what He has revealed in the Scriptures, and I understand that to the best of my ability and with the Holy Spirit’s help, which I am quite certain comes across as nonsense to you, but that’s okay. I don’t acknowledge ignorance about God’s plans or intentions out of convenience, though, but merely honesty. He’s God and I’m not. I don’t know everything. That’s part of being a creature and not the creator.
LikeLike
Oy, and more false claims. I’ve repeatedly told you what I would consider evidence. You can’t provide it, despite the promises in the bible, your god can’t provide it either.
Yep, your bible says salvation is needed. I don’t’ believe the baseless claims in your book. Telling me that I should care is like a muslim telling you that you need allah. Would you be impressed?
And you have repeatedly made excuses for your god and yourself. You keep running away from your claims. Now it’s you only see a “pattern”, a pattern which isn’t there either.
It’s nothing new that now you have to equivocate on your claims about knowing what this god wants and then claiming you don’t. Christians don’t’ agree on what this god wants even using the scriptures, so appealing to them fails. You each claim that the “holy spirit” tells you things, but unsurprisingly it must tell you all different things. Again, how convenient.
LikeLike
Also, tell me more about what you understand Jesus promises to his true believers.
LikeLike
This is what jesus promises, and others in the bible have promised. I’m curious did you not know of these promises?
“22 Jesus answered them, ‘Have[b] faith in God. 23 Truly I tell you, if you say to this mountain, “Be taken up and thrown into the sea”, and if you do not doubt in your heart, but believe that what you say will come to pass, it will be done for you. 24 So I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received[c] it, and it will be yours.” – Mark 11
“Go into all the world and proclaim the good news[d] to the whole creation. 16 The one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: by using my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes in their hands,[e] and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.’” Mark 16
“7 ‘Ask, and it will be given to you; search, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened for you. 8 For everyone who asks receives, and everyone who searches finds, and for everyone who knocks, the door will be opened. 9 Is there anyone among you who, if your child asks for bread, will give a stone? 10 Or if the child asks for a fish, will give a snake? 11 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask him!” Matthew 7
“1 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; but if you do not, then believe me because of the works themselves. 12 Very truly, I tell you, the one who believes in me will also do the works that I do and, in fact, will do greater works than these, because I am going to the Father. 13 I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If in my name you ask me[e] for anything, I will do it.” John 14
“ 7 If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask for whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. “ John 15
“13 Are any among you suffering? They should pray. Are any cheerful? They should sing songs of praise. 14 Are any among you sick? They should call for the elders of the church and have them pray over them, anointing them with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 The prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise them up; and anyone who has committed sins will be forgiven. 16 Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed. The prayer of the righteous is powerful and effective. 17 Elijah was a human being like us, and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth. 18 Then he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain and the earth yielded its harvest.” James 5
and if you want to claim that some context changes their meaning, do provide that context. I’ve had many christains make that claim and when I ask for the context, they vanish.
LikeLike
No, I’m pretty aware of the things Jesus said. I asked what you understood them to be. Do YOU really think any of those things are true and possible? If not, then would my or anyone else’s demonstrating them really matter?
I’m actually working on a sermon on Mark 11 for next Sunday. The context of that particular passage is the second half of an enacted parable for the disciples about God’s coming judgment on Jerusalem which Jesus talked about a lot more in Mark 13 and which many scholars believe was fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem by Rome in 70 AD. The mountain Jesus was referring to is probably the temple mount and not a hypothetical literal mountain. The prayer He’s talking about there is a prayer for God’s justice.
I don’t think Mark 16 was written by Mark. It was added in later by a copyist and shouldn’t be considered Scripture. If I were to preach through Mark’s Gospel, I wouldn’t include it for those grounds. I don’t take any theology from those verses at all.
The rest of the passages you cite are about people being able to ask Jesus for things and receive them. How could I or anyone else demonstrate an ability to do that for you? Most Christians have for centuries understood all the various verses about the power of prayer through the lens of God’s sovereignty. That is, God is going to do something He doesn’t want to do or which He understands in His wisdom isn’t good for us. Does this mean we’ll always agree with Him on the matter? Hardly. But if our characterization of Him as all-wise and all-knowing. then we have to trust that He does. If, on the other hand, someone doesn’t have such a belief (which is itself rooted in the Scriptures), then they naturally wouldn’t accept that as an explanation because it wouldn’t make any sense.
LikeLike
I understand those verses to be promises from the Christian god/jesus as claimed in the bible. It doesn’t matter if I think those things could be true or possible. If your bible is true, then yep, of course they could. If your bible isn’t true, then nope they can’t. Christians claim they are true. You try to make something my problem when it is yours. Can you show these things happen for true believers, J? Can you do them? It would matter since it would be evidence your bible is true.
That sermon should be interesting since you’ll have to make excuses why that promise fails, J. Unsurprisngly, there isnothing that shows any parable is related to the promise jesus made “20 In the morning as they passed by, they saw the fig tree withered away to its roots. 21 Then Peter remembered and said to him, ‘Rabbi, look! The fig tree that you cursed has withered.’ 22 Jesus answered them, ‘Have[b] faith in God. 23 Truly I tell you, if you say to this mountain, “Be taken up and thrown into the sea”, and if you do not doubt in your heart, but believe that what you say will come to pass, it will be done for you. 24 So I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received[c] it, and it will be yours.
25 ‘Whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone; so that your Father in heaven may also forgive you your trespasses.’”
Which parable are you referring to? I’m guessing you are trying to claim the nonsense with the fig tree is a parable. There is nothing to show that is the case. That rather peculiar episode has jesus being ignorant and upset with a tree that can’t produce figs sine it isn’t the time for it. If it is a parable, then your jesus is upset with people it intentionally made unready. Is this just or fair?
The prayer has no mention about god’s justice at all. You have invented that, to try to ignore that jesus literally says “whatever you ask for in prayer”. And as always a Christian finds themselves saying “probably” when they simply are making things up. All I see is jesus promising prayers will be answered and answered quickly and no one should doubt this will happen.
Every Christian invents what was “really” written and what was not, when convenient, J. Why did your god allow false information in your bible, when we have it claiming that anyone who adds to scripture will suffer? We know that things were added other places, like the adulterous woman, so is that scripture or not? And we know that quite a few of the supposed Pauline epistles are simply fakes. Are they to be ignored?
Yep, those passages are about true believers able to ask *any* prayer and having them fulfilled. You could ask for all burn victims and amputees to be healed of their injuries, J. It isn’t that hard to think of things, and you seem simply desperate with your objections. You try to use the common christain claim that every prayer has to be already will by this god, but jesus never says this, and even the appeal doesn’t work to the lords prayer since that isn’t in those gospels that jesus is making these promises. The whole ‘will” thing seems to come about when later Christians had to make up excuses why their prayers weren’t answered as promised.
You claim this god is all-wise and all-knowing but yet we see that it isn’t in the bible, so your appeal to “god’s mysterious ways” fails again.
LikeLike
I have yet to appeal to “God’s mysterious ways.” I don’t plan on doing so either.
The ongoing trouble here is that you and I have two diametrically opposed approaches to understanding the Scriptures. We can keep talking past each other, but it’s just not going to do either of us any good. What you continue to see as my refusing to engage, I see as an unwillingness to expend energy and time that isn’t going to profit either of us anything.
We can keep going, but I’m fairly confident that I won’t manage to convince you of anything except that I’m just another one of those Christians who have drank the Kool-Aid (and if I’m wrong in that, I’ll gladly except correction), meanwhile, your various arguments aren’t convincing me of anything except that you don’t actually understand anything about Christian theology or the Scriptures. It may be best for us to agree to disagree.
LikeLike
That’s quite a false statement, J. Here you appeal to god’s mysterious ways “The same thing goes with your question about God’s answering prayers. I can offer up several thoughts on why you might have experienced what you did, but I didn’t have your experience. And, if you already know all the excuses I might offer for why my imaginary friend failed, then what could I possibly offer up that would be helpful?”
again, J, it’s common for christains to claim that they know what this god wants, what it thinks, etc, except when it obviously fails to fulfill its promises. Then you claim that you can only “offer thoughts” but not have an answer. This is nothing new.
What we have is that you invent claims about what the scriptures “really mean” and cannot support them and I have what they actually say, in context, which you cannot show that I am wrong in how I read them. I keep waiting for you to support your claims, J, claims that even other Christians don’t agree with you on. That’s why I question you, since even within the religion there is no agreement.
I see you unable to engage and that you make things up. When I show how your invented claims are false, then you get upset that I dare not take them without consideration.
For instance you asked me what evidence I would accept. I told you and then you proceeded to make excuses that *you* couldn’t give that evidence. That is moving the goalposts, J. The original question from you was just about evidence I would accept. If your god can’t give it, you have a problem.
I always assume I may be wrong and a Christian may have evidence or an argument that works. I have been disappointed so far. You have yet to show why my arguments aren’t “convincing” and I suspect you haven’t even considered them, just as you have not looked up the doctrine of discovery.
You make even more false claims that I “don’t actually understand anything about Christian theology or the scriptures”. Curious how I do understand them quite well. I just dare not to agree with your version. I know Christian theology quite well to know that even Christians don’t agree on major doctrinal issues.
Again, J, I’ve said that you can quit anytime you’d like, ignore my questions, etc. It’s not like that hasn’t happened before. You, like all Christians, are a Christian who assumes his version is right and must remain willfully ignorant to keep that assumption.
I am sorry but I never agree to disagree, that is a poor attempt by someone who doesn’t have evidence for their claims to try to pretend that their claims are equal to reality.
LikeLike
I wasn’t appealing to God’s mysterious ways there at all. Not even a little bit. I referred to your mysterious experience, to borrow your phrasing, that you have decided to keep mostly to yourself for reasons I can understand, and my lack of knowledge of that. But I didn’t once there mention or even hint at something mysterious God did or didn’t do.
I’ll take us again back to the fundamental point of departure here: We believe radically different things about God and the world and the Christian worldview (and probably a whole bunch of other things as well). You are fully convinced in the rightness of your position which is just fine. So am I. Ultimately, neither of us has to justify our beliefs to the other. If that leaves you concluding that I’m just an ignorant cultist, I’m okay with that. That won’t have any impact on what I believe with a confidence that you aren’t capable of shaking to be true. The few times I’ve offered up an explanation for one thing or another, you’ve quickly and roundly rejected it. Given the very narrow set of conditions you’ve created for how you might possibly be convinced, I don’t suspect that pattern is going to change. This is not because there are not answers to the various charges and arguments you’ve made (and in anticipation of your response, I haven’t yet been willing to repeat those because in spite of your assurances to the contrary, I remain unconvinced you’ll accept them…I don’t think you’re lying in your assertions to the contrary, I simply don’t see evidence for a willingness in how you’ve yet responded to the few arguments I have made). From what I’ve seen on your own blog, you’ve already rejected most if not all of them. Given that, I remain steadfast in my insistence that it’s not worth either of our time to keep trying to convince the other.
In spite of your insistence otherwise, and in spite of a fair amount of variety on a number of points, there is a generally agreed upon vein of Biblical interpretation stretching back to some of the earliest days of the church. The positions I hold fall fairly well in line with that vein. The positions you have so far espoused don’t. But again, that’s okay. You’re free to believe what you want on these matters. I simply think you’re deeply mistaken.
As I have argued before, though, the only issue that ultimately matters is whether or not Jesus died and rose from the dead. Everything else is secondary to that. (For what it’s worth, here’s Bart Ehrman’s response to Richard Carrier’s arguments against his belief in a historical Jesus: https://ehrmanblog.org/fuller-reply-to-richard-carrier/ ) Until we come to a place of agreement there, none of the other debates we might have are going to accomplish anything.
What I also know, though, is that a passion fueled by animus like you have consistently demonstrated in your beliefs about Christians and Christianity nearly always comes out of a place of pain. Perhaps yours doesn’t, and I’m glad for you if not, although if that’s the case I remain puzzled as to why you have such vigorous contempt for Christians and Christianity. If yours does, I hope you are able to deal with that pain and find real healing from it.
I’m not going to simply ignore you because that would be disrespectful and you deserve to be respected in spite of our disagreement. But I remain unconvinced that our respective efforts are achieving very much.
LikeLike
I have kept nothing mysterious, it’s a shame you must make false claims.
Yep, we do indeed believe in radically different things. You have no evidence for yours. I do for mine. Christians do have to justify their beliefs if they want to force others to do what they believe is right. That is certainly lacking in the christian need o control women, LGBT+ people etc.
It’s nothing new than all theists are quitei sure their claims are true. That doesn’t make them true. I’ve rejected your claims for the reasons I have given, and you have yet to be able to show your beliefs to be true. And now, you come up with more lies about my remarks about what I would consider evidence. Really, J? You now have to claim they are “narrow”? I’ve given you and your god a number of ways to show that your beliefs are true. That you can’t follow through with them isn’t my problem.It’s is very much yours.
you claim there are answers but yet again, can’t provide them. You keep lying about me to avoid that. Why is my possible reaction stopping you, J? If you have evidence, then you have it. IF not, well, that seems to be the actual case. You seem to be cornered.
Yep, I’ve rejected many claims from Christians and have given reasons. Do show those reasons wrong. Come on my blog and show how I fail. I look forward to it.
Again, you make more claims with no evidence, J. There isn’t a “generally agreed upon vein of biblical interpretation stretching back to some of the earliest days of the church”. I’m well versed in Christian history and that simply isn’t true. But do support your claim if you can. I know how christains have disagreed many times violently over what they claim as the truth. As usual, you can’t support your claims and must take refuge behind the rather lame “you are free to believe what you want”. You can’t show that what I accept as fact is wrong. Your feelings don’t’ hold up against facts.
And again, I know quite well that the only issue that matters in Christianity isn’t just the resurrection. That is patently false for the reasons I have given. If this were the case you Christians wouldn’t have murdered each other constantly. One would have thought your god would be coherent enough to stop that pointlessness since it supposedly has interfered many other times.
Yep, Ehrman believes in a historical jesus. You don’t’ worship a historical jesus.
You then continue to lie about me claiming “animus” when I have supported all of my points about the christian church, of which there are many. You lie about me being in pain, yet again. It really is amusing when Christians keep returning to falsehoods when they are told they are wrong, and when their god hates lies and liars. I have a contempt for a religion and people that choose to spread harm. Happily, I’ve not been on the receiving end of that myself. Yep, keep repeating “pain”, J, it’s still a lie on your part. I have to wonder, with this constant bearing false witness against me, do you keep repeating a prayer that you are sorry for doing that to your god?
LikeLike
I didn’t make a false claim at all. There are parts of your story that I made clear I am interested in to help me better understand how and why you came to hold the position that you do. You have so far declined to go into any more detail on those. That’s entirely your prerogative, and I have declined to pry any further into it because that’s your story to tell when you are ready. But, until then, those parts of your story are a mystery to me.
On your repeated insistence that I provide evidence, you have given me what I still see as a very narrow set of terms as far as what you will accept as evidence that simply aren’t producible. From that, you conclude that I have no evidence and thus my position is false. I disagree. The range of things I accept as evidence is much broader than what you have so far indicated you are willing to accept as evidence. Because of what I see as the narrow set of conditions for acceptable evidence you have insisted upon, I haven’t been willing to present to you any of the range of things I count as positive evidence.
And, contrary to your insistence, that isn’t my problem at all. I don’t say that to indicate it is thus somehow your problem, but it’s certainly not mine. As I have said before, none of your arguments so far have made me feel any less confident in the position I hold. But, you didn’t have any meaningful chance of shaking my confidence in the first place. There was nothing I needed to prove to you and there’s still not. You have decided that what you count as evidence doesn’t support my position. That’s okay. I disagree. You are welcome to characterize my disagreement and the choices I make because of it however you would like. I’m okay with that. You did not, of course, need my permission or agreement, but it’s there all the same.
As for lying on my part, I’m not sure that we agree on the definition of that word. A lie is a willful distortion of the truth. I have yet to say anything I believe to be untrue. We disagree on many things, but I have yet to see any evidence of a willful distortion of the truth. I have made observations with which you don’t agree, but I have yet to make a statement that is untruthful to the best of my knowledge. This goes for the other response you posted as well.
For example, you indicate my attribution of an animus to your position is a lie. Yet to have an animus against something is to feel ill will or hostility toward it. From what I have observed so far in our conversation, you have a clear hostility toward the Christian faith. If I am wrong in that assessment, I’ll gladly accept correction and adjust my understanding. You also said I lied about your being in pain. But I didn’t say that. I said that a position such as you seem to have often comes from a place of pain. At the same time, I allowed that yours may not. Here, you indicate that you believe yours doesn’t. I’m glad for that for you.
One last thought on the enduring centrality of the resurrection. With respect, yes, that is the only issue that ultimately matters. That doesn’t mean Christians haven’t fought about a whole range of other issues, and those fights have often been ugly in ways that did not even begin to reflect the character of Christ. This has been to our shame as a people. I openly acknowledge that. Yet all of these other fights happen under the umbrella of the absolute centrality of the resurrection. Christians have fought about these other things because they agree on that one point. When groups claiming the mantle of Christian have rejected the resurrection as an historical event, the rest of the body pauses their squabbles about all sorts of other things to make clear they’ve left the bounds of what counts as Christian in the first place, and those groups aren’t included in any of the other debates. If the resurrection of Jesus didn’t happen (and I find Gary Habermas’ case pretty airtight on that particular matter), then nothing else about the Christian faith is true. And don’t take my word for it on that, take the word of the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15. So, and to repeat the point, yes, the only issue that ultimately matters is the resurrection. Because we disagree on that, we’re not likely to agree on much else. We can keep going back and forth, which I’m content to do because I really do enjoy this kind of interaction, but we aren’t going to get anywhere. How far we travel down this road is up to you.
I’ve got a busy weekend ahead. If I’m delayed more than usual on responding, that’ll be why. I hope you have a great weekend.
LikeLike
J it does get very tiring when you keep making false claims. I have given you all the detail that I have. Why do you demand more when there is none? You now lie when you claim I have “declined” to provide something. I have not declined anything. Will you admit you are making false claims? You have not declined to pry further since you keep claiming there is something I am not telling you and repeat your false claims. It’s hilarious that now you claim that I’ll magically have more information when I’m “ready”. That’s also false. This is quite similar to your continued attempts to claim I was “hurt” when again, I’ve told you this is not the case. You seem intent in inventing a strawman to address rather than me.
Again, you make up false claims about “very narrow set of terms”. It wasn’t and all you are doing is trying to make excuses for your and your god’s failure. So let’s look at this from another angle: what can you show me that is evidence for your god that you can produce, J? You claim what I request isn’t producible. Really? Not for an omnipotent god that supposedly wants me to believe in it? Quite a convenient claim, J.
Thisisn’t about what you accept as evidence, J. You asked what I would. That you must keep moving the goalposts is notable. I do love this “Because of what I see as the narrow set of conditions for acceptable evidence you have insisted upon, I haven’t been willing to present to you any of the range of things I count as positive evidence.” So, since I haven’t agreed with you on what evidence I will accept, you won’t show me the evidence you supposed have. That’s quite amazing.
Unfortuantely, for you, it is your problem, despite your false claims. You need me to agree with you about your claims being evidence, before you can show me your evidence.
I know I have little chance in shaking your beliefs, J. You are a Christian who ascribes to the inerrancy of what they’ve made up. I have no problem changing my mind if presented with evidence. You cannot.
Really, nothing you needed to prove to me? Funny how that’s what you’ve been desperately trying to do here, J. I don’t need to be “welcome” to show you as a Christian who has nothing, just like all theists. That’s a fact.
A lie is an intentional false claim that is made to benefit the liar, an attempt to remove the ability to make an informed decision by an observer. So yep, you’ve demonstrably lied about me, and about quite a few other things. Claiming “But but I didn’t think they weren’t true’ fails sine I have repeatedly corrected your claims with the truth. You’ve chosen to ignore that. Your attempt to excuse your actions with “but I have yet to make a statement that is untruthful to the best of my knowledge” fails miserably considering my responses in this recording medium.
Unsurprisngly, in your attempts to excuse your actions, you conveniently skip over the parts that were lies on your part, J. Again, this is a recording medium and it is easily to point out your intentional actions. You claim “hostility”, when there is none. I am pointing out how your claims fail. No hostility is needed. I’ve repeatedly corrected you on this and yet you persist. So much for your false claim that you will “gladly accept correction and adjust” your understanding. Your attempts to equivocate your attempts to make false diagnoses also fail. Let’s see what you have said about my supposed “pain”.
“Very often, a passionate animus against Christianity like you have demonstrated over and over again comes out of a place of pain. Generally, when anyone is so passionately opposed to anything as you seem to be to Christianity, there is pain in there somewhere motivating it. I’m sorry for the pain you’ve experienced and that the church or people claiming the name of Jesus (perhaps family members?) played a role in it. You shouldn’t have had to go through that. I suspect that if I had been through whatever you have been through, I’d feel much the same way as you. I hope you’ll one day reach a place of engaging with the questions here with a bit more openness than you seem to have right now. As for God’s seeming to leave you hanging, I won’t even try to offer an explanation. I don’t know what it is you were seeking, where you were seeking it, and what exactly it was you were seeking. That’s between you and God.”
You directly claim I have experienced pain, so you have lied again, J. “I’m sorry for the pain you’ve experienced and that the church or people claiming the name of Jesus (perhaps family members?) played a role in it. You shouldn’t have had to go through that.”
then you repeat the same nonsense, after I have said that there is no pain: “Perhaps yours doesn’t, and I’m glad for you if not, although if that’s the case I remain puzzled as to why you have such vigorous contempt for Christians and Christianity. If yours does, I hope you are able to deal with that pain and find real healing from it.”
You seem unable to keep your claims straight, J.
Unsurprisngly, you again make false claims about how the resurrection is the only thing that matters. I’ve shown how that is not the case. If your claim was true, there wouldn’t been dozens of Christian sects which all claim the others are wrong, to the point of wishing them eternal torture.
Christians haven’t just fought about their contradictory claims, they’ve killed each other over them. If there weren’t secular laws, you’d still be doing that. All of these fights have been under no umbrella since there is no agreement on ever other doctrine claimed as “truth”. Your attempt to claim that Christians have fought over other thigns since they agree on one point is just bizarre, and has no evidence to support it. You show how Christians do feel when you claim that other groups only “claim” the mantle of christnaity, again trying to indicate that only your version is true. And that Christians “pause their squabbles” to present a united front against those who may consider the resurrection just a story? Yep, they do that, with catholics and protestants pausing to attack Mormons, JWs etc. And then they get back to claiming each other are heretics, satanists, etc. That doesn’t mean those visceral disagreements don’t’ exist, it just shows just how hypocritical Christians are.
Oh dear, Gary Habermas, a noted fraud and failure. I’ve exchanged emails with him, asking for this list he claims of all of the scholars that agree with him and surprise, he refuses to give it. How convenient for him. Unsurprisngly, Habermas’ argument fails quite quickly since there is no evidence for his claims.
He claims “mimimal facts” accepted by these mysterious scholars are:
1) that Jesus died by crucifixion.
No evidence of this. At best some scholars think that there was a human core to the myth. No evidence for that either, though there may be a higher probability than it just being a pure legend. Christians do not worship a delusional human.
2) that very soon afterwards, his followers had real experiences that they thought were actual appearances of the risen Jesus
People have claimed to have seen elvis, events that they swear were real. That doesn’t make them real.
3) that their lives were transformed as a result, even to the point of being willing to die specifically for their faith in the resurrection message
Many cults claims this, and no evidence the apostles were martyrs. Lots of stories, no evidence.
4) that these things were taught very early, soon after the crucifixion
No cruxifiction evidence and dates aren’t even agreed on by Christians.
5) that James, Jesus’ unbelieving brother, became a Christian due to his own experience that he thought was the resurrected Christ
Again only stories.
6) that the Christian persecutor Paul (formerly Saul of Tarsus) also became a believer after a similar experience.
Again only stories and Paul can’t keep his own origin story straight, in addition to contradicting jesus multiple times.
Yep, if your resurrection fails, your religion fails. And it has. We see that with the changes in Christianity over the years, the move to a much more vague god, etc.
LikeLike
Well, as you insist, and I have observed, if we don’t agree on that last part, we really don’t have much else to continue talking about.
LikeLike
And still no evidence for your god or your false claims about me. It’s a shame you can’t admit you were completely wrong in your false claims about my supposed “pain”.
LikeLike
Apologies for the longer than usual delay in responding. I was able to go back and read through our lengthy conversation. I see that I owe you a more direct apology. I did indeed make a direct assumption of pain on your part early on. I did that in response to your description of what I would call a bad church experience which I saw and see still as a kind of pain. The statement I was defending in that last post was only my subsequent and more recent assumption of pain that included a caveat for your situation. I apologize for not being clearer in my reference there and leaving you with the understandable conclusion that I was speaking (or, writing, I suppose) more broadly than I was in fact. That being said, it is still hard to see how further back and forth will be fruitful for either of us. Have a great end to your weekend and start to your week.
LikeLike
I should add the observation that your last example isn’t actually something Jesus said. It was something His brother, James wrote. Your point is unchanged, of course, but I wanted to make sure that was clear.
LikeLike
Yep, that’s right. Are you saying that there are things in the bible that jesus didn’t approve of?
LikeLike
Nope, but I also don’t think He understood all of them (at least the things in the Old Testament) the way you insist they must be understood.
LikeLike
and yet you have not one shred of evidence for your claim.
LikeLike
Are you hiding my comments and your replies now? I appears so. Why?
LikeLike
I most certainly have not. That wouldn’t be fair to you. If they aren’t showing, that may be a WordPress issue.
LikeLike
J, do you believe in hell? If you do, then you do have a need for eternal torture. I know that chrsitains can’t agree on their doctrine of hell, or heaven, for that matter. This again shows that Christians can’t agree on some very basic ideas in their religion.
Christians often try to claim how great they are for being anti-slavery. *Some* Christians were, despite their bible and prior history of their religion. The vast majority of Christian history is having on problem with slavery as long as it wasn’t christains being enslaved. You may want to look at the doctrine of discovery, etc for historical references to what Christians had no problem with.
Unsurprisingly, I have a good understanding of what Christian scriptures teach and the history of Christianity. Christians have gotten very little right, with them murdering each other for hundreds of years. The balance shows your religion is nothing special or beneficial. Christianity is really as I describe with each Christian making up their own version.
Christianity did have an impact on history. That doesn’t mean it is true or that the impact was beneficial.
LikeLike
Your premise doesn’t follow logically from your question. Yes, I believe in the future existence of a place (physical or spiritual isn’t clear in the Scriptures) where those who finally refuse God’s offer of salvation and eternal life will be allowed to continue existing apart from Him as was their committed preference in this life. I believe that it will not be a place of comfort or pleasures of any sort. It will be a place devoid of life because of the fact that it will exist entirely separated from the God who is the source of all life. Hell is the word that is commonly used to describe this place, and so, yes, I believe in Hell. I’m curious how that Scripture-informed belief speak to some kind of a “need for eternal torture” on my part. Could you help me understand why you are connecting one with the other?
On your charge regarding Christianity and slavery, I did not argue that all Christians have always been consistent or even right on the issue of slavery. There have been those (and not a few of them) who have claimed the mantle of Christ and were devastatingly wrong on the matter. I openly acknowledge that. There’s no reason not to. The historical record backs it up. My argument was simple: Christianity is the only religion that has historically opposed slavery on theological grounds. Where there have been successful anti-slavery efforts anywhere in the world, Christians have been at the heart of those efforts.
As far as Christianity’s impact on history goes, we’ll have to agree to disagree. Unless I’m mistaken, I don’t suspect there’s much I can do to convince you that just the opposite of your claim is true. I can only point you to the guys like Rodney Stark or Tom Holland who make a strong case to the contrary and hope you’ll take the time to engage with them.
LikeLike
My premise does follow very logically from my question. You do believe in a “hell”, which your bible describes as a very literal place. Christians who try to claim it as something else, like “separation from god” take refuge in ignoring their bible since they don’t want such a primitive ignorant god.
Per your bible, I have no choice in the matter of accepting or rejecting your god, Matthew 13 and Romans 9. Per your bible, this hell is eternal torture:
“And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” Matthew 25
“And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.”” Revelation 14
“And throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Matthew 13
“‘where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.’” Mark 9
“22 The poor man died and was carried away by the angels to be with Abraham.[a] The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was being tormented, he looked up and saw Abraham far away with Lazarus by his side” Luke 16
That Christians try to make their god “kinder and gentler” doesn’t erase what is in their bible, and their god, aka their, need for eternal torture. You need to hope people suffer for daring not to agree with you.
You also make baseless claims like your god is the source of all life.
You tried to claim that Christianity was the sources of antislavery sentiment, and you were wrong. Unsurprisngly, your bible doesn’t say slavery is wrong, so those christains you claim were “devastatingly wrong” weren’t, per the bible. The historical record backs up that Christianity has no problem with slavery unless it is christains being enslaved, and it took christains ignoring the bible to become abolitionists. Christanity has no problem with slavery *on* theological grounds. Some christains were at the heart of those efforts, not all of them and not Christianity.
If you have evidence, you can show me that my claim isnt’ true. That you find you must invent excuses for your lack of evidence by falsely claiming I won’t change my mind is typically Christian. You point me to those who have no evidence for their claims either. Holland makes silly claims like “Familiarity with the biblical narrative of the crucifixion has dulled our sense of just how completely novel a deity Christ was … [Christianity] is the principal reason why, by and large, most of us who live in post-Christian societies still take for granted that it is nobler to suffer than to inflict suffering. It is why we generally assume that every human life is of equal value. In my morals and ethics, I have learned to accept that I am not Greek or Roman at all, but thoroughly and proudly Christian” which isn’t true. The idea of self-sacrifice was around long before your religion. And Stark, he’s claimed that christnaity spread since it treated women better than other religions. Curious how that isn’t true either.
LikeLike
For what it’s worth, I don’t plan on taking any of our conversation down. Also, your cats are adorable, but wow is that a lot of felines! I had a cat twice growing up, but I’m allergic now. We now have a very social box turtle that is at least twenty years old named Herbert.
LikeLike
Fascinating discussion and I am in awe of the stamina you both possess.
😊
I prefer keeping things more simple and straightforward.
As the foundation of Christianity is built upon the resurrection, what evidence do you consider exists to demonstrate the veracity of the Bible claim the character Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead?
Thanks for an interesting read.
LikeLike
Thanks for that. I do enjoy interactions like these even when we are coming from such different places.
That’s a great question! Simplicity is always good. If you’ll be willing to bear with me for a day or so, I’m away at a conference. When I am able, I’ll sit down and give you a more thought out answer.
Thanks again!
LikeLike
Excellent!
I await your reply with interest.
Enjoy your conference.
Regards
Ark
LikeLike
I haven’t yet forgotten about you, Ark! I should finally have some time on Thursday or Friday of this week to give you a proper response. It’ll take me most of Wednesday to get caught back up from being gone for two days. It has been a good conference, but I feel like I’ve been drinking from a fire hose all day. In preparation for continuing our conversation later in the week, I would be curious for your response to a question whose answer will play a pretty big role in determining just how far our conversation can go: Setting aside all of the miracle reports for now, how willing are you to accept the Gospels and Acts as reasonably accurate and reliable historical documents?
LikeLike
Why should their historical reliability be predicated on my willingness or lack thereof to accept such an assertion?
Surely they are either accurate or they are not? What I think has no bearing on the evidence.
There are a great many people who refuse to believe in evolution.
This doesn’t mean that evolution isn’t fact.
LikeLike
Sounds good to me. I’ll proceed under the assumption they are because I’m convinced from my examination of the evidence. That can be a conversation for another time. More to come soon…
In other news, what do you have in mind when you say “evolution”? That word covers a lot of ground, some of which is supported by loads of scientific evidence, some of which is not and in spite of loads of searching for it.
LikeLike
I don’t have anything “in mind” regarding evolution.
It is fact plain and simple.
LikeLike
I’m curious: How much of a difference do you see between small changes over time and big ones? For instance, how much of a difference is there between humans growing taller on average over the last few hundred years and one animal developing a sufficiently different body plan such that it can be categorized as a whole different species?
LikeLike
I get the impression you are trying to lead me to something. If you have point to make could you just jump to it, please?
LikeLike
I’m not trying to lead so much as find out what you think here, and to clarify if and how you and I might think about evolution differently. For instance, I understand there to be two different basic kinds of evolution: microevolution and macroevolution. On the first, there is abundant and obvious evidence for this being an accurate description of how the world works. On the second, while Darwin most famously offered it up as an explanation for how things are the way they are, we haven’t ever actually found evidence of this (Darwin acknowledged that he didn’t have any, but assumed it would eventually be found in the fossil record), and the more we learn about life and how it works, the less likely it appears to be a viable explanation for how living things are the way they are today.
LikeLike
There is evolution.
Period. If you don’t accept this fact then you don’t really understand evolution.
Rather than this becoming a long drawn out thread may I suggest you read Jerry Coyne’s book as a, starter or go over to his website, Why Evolution is True, and spend some time perusing the content.
LikeLike
This might help clarify certain misunderstandings you may have.
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolution-at-different-scales-micro-to-macro/
LikeLike
Thanks for this. I’m actuator pretty well versed on all of that. I’m also familiar with Coyne and his work. Are you at all familiar with the work of Stephen Meyer on the information problem of evolution or the Cambrian explosion, or the work of Douglas Axe on the formation of proteins? Both of them help explain why there are growing problems with the monolithic understanding of evolution that encompasses both micro- and macroevolution. It is why a growing number of credentialed and respected scientific voices are seeking alternative explanations and otherwise abandoning the Darwinian consensus in favor of other options. Many of these are not propelled by any kind of a theistic belief, but merely a deeper understanding of the best available scientific evidence.
LikeLike
Stephen Meyer is a proponent of Intelligent Design.
I have no time for such people.
LikeLike
I prefer not to put such artificial limitations that are often (though perhaps not in your case) driven by worldview more than actual data on my pursuit of the evidence wherever it happens to lead. As with my conversation with V, as we are coming at things from such radically different worldviews, finding common ground for further conversation will likely prove difficult. I’ll be glad to keep a dialogue going as long as you are interested.
LikeLike
What artificial limitations are you referring to?
What worldview are you referring to?
Meyer has shown himself to be disingenious and holds no credibility outside Creationist circles.
The Wedge Document was quite explicit in it’s intent and those who are ID proponents.
LikeLike
I am going to make two assumptions here (which is always dangerous, I am aware). If I am mistaken in either of these, please correct me. The first assumption is that you know what I mean when I talk about having a worldview such that I don’t need to try to explain that any further. Second, from the statements you have made in our conversation so far, you seem to be operating from a worldview called methodological naturalism. That worldview (like all worldviews) is first and foremost a statement of philosophy. It is a statement of philosophy that a priori only accepts natural or empirical explanations for how and why things are the way they appear to be. I’ll confess that “artificial” may be too pejorative an adjective to attach to “limitations,” but it is nonetheless true that methodological naturalism as a worldview places limits on what you will be willing to accept as explanations for where the available scientific evidence is pointing.
As for Meyer and ID, I’ve interacted with Meyer’s work many, many times and have met him personally. He is many things, but I’ve yet to see evidence for disingenuous being one of them. And it seems that you have developed your understanding of ID based on the criticisms of its critics and not by listening to what actual ID theorists argue. Most notably, calling ID “creationism” is simply inaccurate. That would be particularly offensive, I suspect, to its non-theist supporters who have absolutely no use for the Judeo-Christian creation story.
LikeLike
I have never actually considered I had a worldview, other than my view regarding killing and eating other animals, and while I generally subscribe to a naturalist point of view I not closed to other pov. However, that said I have never seen/ been shown evidence to suggest there is anything other than the natural world.
As for Meyer…
ID is simply Creationism in a party dress and is considered as such by the general scientific community. One reason why it is not allowed to be taught in schools.
Yes, I stand by my assertion he is disingenious.
As an advocate of ID he, like his Creationist chums, steadfastly avoided using the term God when presenting their ( fallacious) arguments for ID. See the Wedge Document
However, Meyer eventually came clean when he published his book The return of the God hypothesis, and acknowledged his belief in the Christian god ( Yahweh) being the intelligent designer( sic) he peddles.
LikeLike
Everybody has a worldview. It forms the philosophical basis for what we think about how and why the world works. The Elephant in the Room by James Sire offers a good explanation of several different basic worldview positions. Sire is a Christian, but his presentation is pretty fairhanded in terms of simply presenting the particulars of each different worldview. I would encourage you to do some more looking into just what your worldview is and whether or not that worldview is the most reflective of reality. If you really want to dive in deep on this and have a better understanding of the Christian worldview, The Philosophical Foundations of the Christian Worldview by William Lane Craig and JP Moreland is about as good as it gets. It’s quite a tome, but it is thorough.
On Meyer again…
Your response proves my point. Have you spent any time looking into what actual ID theorists claim about their intentions and efforts, or has your view been shaped entirely by critics many of whom aren’t particularly well-informed and are occasionally disingenuous themselves? ID and Creationism are simply not the same thing. They don’t make the same claims. As I have already acknowledged, there are many ID theorists who are also Christian theists, but not nearly all of them. Several are non-theists who are nonetheless convinced that the current neo-Darwinian consensus isn’t the best explanation of the available evidence. Meyer himself has never hidden his Christian faith. It was simply not relevant to his first two books, Signature in the Cell and Darwin’s Doubt (both of which are excellent reads if you haven’t). Even in those books, though, he acknowledged his worldview commitments. His third book wasn’t an exercise in finally coming clean, it was an effort to examine the evidence he had already presented and make some suggestions as to the direction it points.
LikeLike
I mentioned that my worldview, if we wish to hang a label on it, would be naturalist but I would be open to other points of view if evidence were presented. To date I am unaware of any such evidence.
Re :Meyer.. I mentioned the Wedge Document. The intent was clear enough.
This was after all the premise of his book was it not?
LikeLike
For what it’s worth, here is the Discovery Institute’s response to the controversy surrounding the Wedge Document. https://www.discovery.org/m/2019/04/Wedge-Document-So-What.pdf
LikeLike
The goals and objectives reveal the true nature of the DI.
Here’s what Jerry Coyne’s had to say.
LikeLike
You’ll perhaps not be surprised to learn that I disagree with Coyne’s stance somewhat vigorously. His worldview commitments result in a position that is rooted more in philosophical presuppositions than the actual scientific evidence. His constant mischaracterization of ID as creationism suggests that he isn’t really engaging with the scientific claims current ID theorists make. I’ve listened to more than one debate he has done with Stephen Meyer. He spends more time attacking straw men than the actual merits of ID arguments in those. For more information on the current scientific critiques of the neo-Darwinian position held by guys like Coyne, I would encourage you to check out some of the work of Dr. James Tour. He’s got a ton of YouTube videos unpacking his questions about the neo-Darwinian account of the origin of life. Here’s his page: https://www.youtube.com/@DrJamesTour .
LikeLike
No doubt you do disagree
However, the goals of the DI are specific and comprehensive and every goal / objective is underpinned by the belief that your god/ Yahweh is at the root, the foundation of everything, a claim for which there is no evidence whatsoever.
Thus, solely based on the specified goals and objectives laid out by the Discovery Institute themselves, which are Creationist.
LikeLike
If by “Creationist” you mean that many within the DI hold the belief that the God of the Bible is the most likely identification for the intelligent mind behind the creation of the world as we know it, then, yes, I suppose they are Creationist. However, when that word is not being used by ID critics who are using a bit of rhetorical slight of hand by trying to lump ID proponents into the same theological (at least for the ID proponents who are theists…it’s doubly offense, no doubt, for non-theist or at least non-Christian theist ID proponents) group as Young-Earth Creationists in order to cast scorn and public shame (not to mention policy-prohibition), it refers more specifically to Young-Earth Creationists. I know this is perhaps quibbling over terms, but if we don’t call things by the correct names, it’s hard to have a reasonable debate about them. Disagreeing over what the correct names are will make things equally challenging.
As for the charge of a lack of evidence, we’ll have to disagree once again. There is evidence for the claims of the existence of a God who created the world and everything in it, but you have a priori and because of the particular worldview from which you are coming at the question determined that much of that evidence doesn’t count as evidence in the first place. That is not a position of science, but of philosophy. If we want to get into that particular conversation, I’m game.
LikeLike
I am only addressing the goals and objectives of the DI manifesto itself.
Their claim that your god, Yahweh is the creator has no evidence to support such a claim.
LikeLike
And they’re typically clear on that point. Meyer certainly is. I’ve heard him explicitly make the point several times. The available scientific evidence is best understood as pointing rather insistently to the fact that a designing intelligence is the best explanation for how the universe and life came into existence. That’s as far as science will take anyone. Period, end of story. At that point, the task shifts from scientists to philosophers and theologians to sort out the identity of this designing intelligence. The DI is honest about both its scientific aims, but also its philosophical and cultural and political aims. Those aims are all connected, but don’t come all at the same time. The scientific aims precede the philosophical and cultural and political aims. But they are all coming from the same basic starting point.
Essentially, their worldview is shaping their goals and objectives. Well, the worldview of the other side is shaping their goals and objectives too. We can debate those worldviews and evaluate whether or not they are right, but from an objective standpoint, saying it’s okay for the worldview of one side to shape their goals and objectives, but it’s not okay for the worldview of the other side to do the same thing doesn’t seem like a very fair standard, don’t you think?
LikeLike
The DI ‘s claims are not supported by evidence.
The assertions made by the ‘other side’ are based solely on evidence. This is the prime reason ID is not taught in science classes.
LikeLike
Which claims specifically do you have in mind that are unsupported by evidence?
LikeLike
The primary claim that your god, Yahweh is the creator.
LikeLike
That claim is one that science as I think I am understanding how you are thinking about it can furnish. Any truly honest theologian will quickly concede that point. Science helps build a case pointing toward the existence of a designing intelligence behind the creation of the world and everything in it, but the identity of that designing intelligence is a question for philosophers and theologians. The way “evidence” is offered there is different than the way evidence is offered in the realm of science. It is still evidence, but it is of a different kind.
LikeLike
The supposed evidence ID proponents offer is based on the presupposition Yahweh is behind everything and every argument is geared toward this end.
So in truth it isn’t evidence but somewhat of a sleight of hand. Or lots of clever arguments meant to blindside the non-scientifically savvy, the credulous or unwary.
I think the term for this would be gaslighting and eventually a Gotcha!
LikeLike
When you listen carefully to what ID proponents say, they’ll be clear that science only goes so far. I’ve listened to many and they are indeed consistently clear. Science answers questions of how. Philosophy and theology answer questions of who and why. While many ID proponents are theists, not all are, and all of the major current ones are clear on this point. There’s no gaslighting on this point that I’ve ever heard.
LikeLike
This is the point, is it not? Science can only go so far, but science does not have the hubris to insert Yahweh( or any deity) when they get stuck for an answer.
ID proponents not only begin their arguments from a presuppositional religiously based perspective, their entire raison d’etre is geared toward ending the argument with Yahweh.
LikeLike
Science (to speak of it in monolithic terms that are probably not very accurate) doesn’t insert God, it inserts Darwin. The faith, if you will, of modern scientists is that there will be an entirely natural explanation eventually delivered for anything we don’t yet understand. Yet what is the reason for such an assumption? It is not because of “science,” but because of the worldview driving these many scientists.
Historically speaking, this is a fairly new invention. The founders of what we tend to refer to as “modern science” were almost uniformly Christian and were at least overwhelmingly theists. What’s more, they all understood their theological presuppositions as the very thing driving their understanding of science.
LikeLike
Correct, science does NOT insert god (Yahweh). However, proponents of ID Do insert god ( Yahweh) and it is for this reason ID is not regarded as science.
LikeLike
ID proponents don’t insert God. Rather, based on the scientific evidence available, their conclusion as to the correct understanding of where the evidence leads is that there is a designing intelligence behind the universe. Period. That is a scientific conclusion based on the evidence.
Many, but not all, ID proponents go on from there to suggest because of reasons of philosophy and theology that the identification of this designing intelligence is God, but that’s not science, and they’ll concur with that assessment.
So, there are two different things happening here. One is science. One is not.
LikeLike
The designing intelligence argument put forward by ID proponents is somewhat disingenious as when pressed this supposed intelligence is invariably revealed to be the Christian god, Yahweh.
This is not based on scientific evidence but a presuppositional faith based belief.
Unless another deity I am unaware of is involved?
LikeLike
There’s nothing disingenuous here. Again, you are combining two things into one. One task is science, one task is philosophy and theology. ID proponents will gladly acknowledge this. Leave aside the second part entirely for now. From the available scientific evidence, ID asserts (and, I agree) that the best explanation for how things came to be as they are is that a designing intelligence is involved. That is a scientifically-derived conclusion.
LikeLike
An interesting read that echoes some of thoughts I have expressed about ID.
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-flaws-in-intelligent-design/
LikeLike
That does indeed echo the thoughts you have expressed, and he makes some interesting points. I think he handwaves away, however, some of the genuine scientific critiques of neo-Darwinism the ID community has raised and which have not all been answered (his great oversimplification of the irreducible complexity argument stood out to me in this regard, Michael Behe’s book, Darwin’s Black Box, is a good read on this argument). And he doesn’t even make mention of the information argument ID proponents have been raising regarding the enormous volume of specified complex information we find in DNA and the source of such information. Ultimately, at its core, a strictly materialistic understanding of the creation of the world and everything in it must rely on a combination of chance and necessity. When you survey the incredible complexity of the world as we see, those factors simply cannot account for the way things are.
LikeLike
But they present a better, and much more honest answer than merely inserting your god, Yahweh as the solution, especially as the only ones doing the observing are, ostensibly Christian.
LikeLike
I don’t think they do, though. I find Darwin’s answer to the question of the origin of life uncompelling and not sufficiently supported by the available evidence. The materialist simply does not have an answer to the question of how life began. And, separately from this, but which informs the overall picture we are working to discern, the philosophical implications of a strictly materialistic worldview are troubling to say the least. This critique runs along similar lines to the point you were making yesterday evening (at least in my time zone). If there are persistent worldview problems with a particular approach to understanding the world as we see it, then eventually you have to start asking very hard questions about the legitimacy of the approach.
Worldview has everything to do with this entire conversation. Worldview determines the kind of evidence we are willing to accept as well as how we interpret that evidence. If the worldview is flawed, then the evidence criteria as well as our interpretive framework will likely be flawed as well. That’s not at all to say “science” is wrong, because it often is not. It has occasionally been wrong even when it was sure it was right, and we do well not to fail to account for that, but “science” can’t furnish all the answers to the questions we are seeking. If our worldview limits us to only what science is capable of saying, though, there will be many questions that simply cannot be answered; answers which will necessarily impact our understanding of the things to which “science” can speak. (I keep using quotes around science because talking about it in monolithic terms like this isn’t very helpful, but for the sake of argument I am.)
All of this, though, is taking us away from the original focus of our conversation: the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.
LikeLike
The origin of life is not the sand as evolution.
Evolution is fact.
The origin of life is unknown.
And to answer a point regarding transitional fossils: these have been found.
I know you may balk at Wiki, but it is a good start.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil#:~:text=A%20transitional%20fossil%20is%20any,living%20from%20the%20ancestral%20group
LikeLike
Evolution is fact, yes, but I maintain my insistence that there is a distinction between micro- and macro-evolution. And, macro- is not merely the sum total of micro. As for the transitional fossils, this is where we find some of the perils of Wikipedia. Those examples are all debated fairly hotly and not just among ID proponents or otherwise Christian scholars. Yet the Wiki article presents the information like all is settled and happy. It’s not.
The trouble here is again one of worldview. Those who are predisposed toward a totally natural explanation for the state of life as we know look at certain fossils and express with great authority that they clearly prove the Darwinian narrative. Later examinations, however, have several times revealed things to be not nearly so clear as the original reports made it seem.
There is often a fair bit more skepticism and humility expressed about the explanatory power of Darwin’s theory in the technical literature than there is in the public releases. That is, the folks who are determined that the Darwinian narrative is the only possible understanding of the available evidence work pretty hard to make sure that no other narrative is given the time of day.
As for the unknown nature of the origin of life, the answer to that question is entirely worldview dependent. In that case, though, we are moving into an entirely more philosophical realm.
I am still waiting with patient eagerness for your additional thoughts on the resurrection question and the nature of evidence you will receive.
LikeLike
What is the “other narrative” and what is the evidence for it?
Which paleantoligists consider there are no transitional fossils?
LikeLike
“I am still waiting with patient eagerness for your additional thoughts on the resurrection question and the nature of evidence you will receive.”
There is no “nature of evidence I will receive”.
I will accept evidence but to date no evidence has been presented, only claims.
I don’t really know how else I can phrase this response?
Our only source of this claim is the New Testament.
If you know of any other source ( contemporary) outside of the bible than can corroborate the claim I will at least look at it.
And of course, even in the tale itself none of the characters claim to have witnessed the character Jesus of Nazareth actually resurrecting.
As far as all standards of evidence are concerned this is entirely a faith based belief.
LikeLike
I haven’t forgotten about you. It’s been a crazy weekend with family in town. I’ll be in touch soon.
LikeLike
Okay, this was actually really helpful for me. You gave me the fullest answer you’ve yet given. Or at least I finally understood you better than I have before. For you, evidence for the resurrection would be for it to be mentioned outside of the New Testament. I assume you would not consider the writings of the early church fathers as legitimate in this aim. The truth is that outside the New Testament, there’s not a mention of the resurrection from a contemporary source. There are numerous historical reasons for that, but irrespective of that, it’s not mentioned. If you reject the historicity of the New Testament (we can – and should – treat the Old Testament separately), then there’s nothing more I can present you with regarding the resurrection.
Historically speaking, we know Jesus existed and was crucified. That’s mentioned in the New Testament, of course. It is also mentioned by Tacitus and Josephus. Josephus’ passage was famously (infamously?) edited to include some really specific details he almost certainly did not write himself, but the reference to Jesus and the crucifixion is generally considered pretty reliable. There are also references to the crucifixion by Lucian of Samosata and Mara bar Serapion.
It is also historically certain that Jesus’ followers believed Him to have been raised from the dead and started telling other people this had happened very early on after His death. That was the consistent witness of the church from its inception forward. The writings of the early church fathers attest to this. And lest they get accused of making a later power play, some of the earliest church fathers were writing before Constantine declared the Empire to be Christian when they had little to gain from their testimony and much to lose. From what we know historically about how the Roman Empire persecuted Christians early on in their history, Jesus’ earliest followers didn’t have anything to gain from proclaiming Him as having been raised from the dead either.
So, we have these two historically certain things: Jesus died, and His followers began proclaiming against their interests that He rose from the dead. How one explains this will determine how one feels about the claim of the resurrection in the first place. If, because of worldview commitments, you have determined that none of this counts as positive evidence, then unfortunately, there’s not much else I can do to make the case. Faith definitely plays a role here. There’s simply no question on that. But it is an informed and evidence-based faith, not merely a blind one.
LikeLike
It is a faith based claim but absolute honesty demands that is not based on a single piece of contemporary or verified evidence.
That people believed he raised from the dead and went about proclaiming it simply means they were convinced of the veracity of the claim.
I find it odd, and somewhat amusing that no such fuss is ever made about the raising of Lazarus. After all, he was dead for days and must have been pretty ripe by the time Jesus arrived.
To walk out the tomb as fresh as a daisy go about his business and attract the interest and attention of absolutely nobody at all is remarkable, don’t you agree?
Just as the raising of the Saints who went walkabout in downtown Jerusalem.
I mean, let’s get serious shall we?
So, people believe in the resurrection of the character Jesus of Nazareth. Fair enough. People believe lots of weird and wonderful things, and we know from even recent history they will die for their beliefs.
However, is there any evidence at all for the resurrection?
In all honesty, no, there is not.
And all the arguments in the world made by the likes of Licona, Lennox, Habermas, Strobal, Craig and Uncle Tom Cobbly and all will not change this fact one iota.
LikeLike
Well, this is where we will continue to disagree. There is evidence. Because of the worldview commitments you have made, you categorically reject nearly all of it. So, there is not evidence from the standpoint of someone coming at the issue from your particular worldview position. That doesn’t say a thing about the evidence itself, but about the philosophical commitments you have made, perhaps that you weren’t even aware of having made. The real question, then, is not whether there is evidence, but whether the philosophical commitments you have made are the ones that best explain the world and how it works. That’s a separate debate.
As far as Lazarus goes, we know from John’s Gospel that the story of Jesus’ raising of Lazarus was such a big deal in that day that the same people who wanted Jesus dead sought to kill him as well. So, yes, it had a great deal of fuss made over it. The Gospels, though, are about Jesus. They didn’t talk about that fuss because that wasn’t their purpose. On the mysterious raising of the saints on Jesus’ death, I agree we don’t know anything. That’s one of those mysterious things in the Scriptures I wish we knew a whole lot more about.
And who is Uncle Tom Cobbly?
LikeLike
I really am sorry but you are mistaken, there is no evidence merely an unsubstantiated claim.
I realize your entire worldview hinges on acceptance this event really happened, but to assert we have evidence of it is simply not the case.
You are correct, there was a fuss made of the raising of Lazarus. In the Bible. This is how stories go. However, outside of the pages of the bible it attracted the attention of absolutely no one at all. No mention, no allusion nothing, nada, zip.
I feel confident you do not believe the claim Mohammed flew to heaven on a winged beast but every Muslim does, apparently.
I imagine you express similar skepticism regarding the Muslim claim Mohammed had a visit from Gabriel?
Why are their claims considered false, or at least unsupported by evidence, when you assert your resurrection claim is true and supported by evidence?
If we treat such claims equally then the resurrection claim is no more evidence of the resurrection than the tale of Mohammed flying to heaven, or the tale of Adam and Eve is evidence of a first pair of breeding humans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncle_Tom_Cobley
LikeLike
Good morning from here, and good afternoon there. Ah, British humor. I do appreciate that, I’m just not as familiar with it as I probably should be. I’m a longtime Monty Python fan.
And with appreciation for your apology and concern, we will continue to remain divided on this point. Your position on the evidence is worldview-driven and doesn’t say a thing about the evidence itself. As I have maintained throughout our conversation, there is ample evidence. Your worldview commitments, however, lead you to categorically reject it. This is certainly a position you can take on the matter, but it is a decision of philosophy, not science. Using this same standard, there are many other ancient historical events whose reliability must be brought into question, that I suspect you are just fine accepting as true. There are individuals whose existence must be doubted. You are perfectly free to doubt that the claims are substantiated, but to charge they are wholly unsubstantiated is simply not the case.
I’m curious what impact you think the lack of mention of Lazarus’ being raised has on the resurrection of Jesus. When someone raises another person from the dead, while people are undoubtedly going to talk about the person who was raised (and evidently they did then), a great deal more attention is going to be paid to the one who did the raising. That’s exactly what we see in this case, and, I would argue, rightly so. That being said, whether or not Lazarus’ being raised from the dead gets mentioned outside of the Gospels (it doesn’t) has absolutely no bearing on the question of whether or not Jesus was raised from the dead. The whole issue here strikes me as a red herring.
The difference between the claims of Mohammed and of guys like Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, to provide you with another example, and the claims of Christians about Jesus’ being raised from the dead is that the one was a private experienced claimed by an individual himself while the other was a very public experience claimed on behalf of someone else. In other words, Jesus didn’t claim He was raised from the dead, His followers made that claim on His behalf because they experienced Him alive after having seen Him dead. If no one had seen Jesus actually dead, and if Jesus then appeared and started claiming He was raised from the dead, we would rightly doubt His claim. Where’s the proof? In Jesus’ case, multiple people saw Him die and dead. Then, some of those same people had breakfast with Him on a beach a few days later. Because of that, they started telling everybody about what they saw. That is categorically different from what Mohammed or Joseph Smith claimed for themselves.
LikeLike
In actual fact my position regarding evidence has nothing to do with my worldview.
Neither does your worldview have any bearing on evidence either, anymore than our worldviews have any bearing on gravity.
Anyone who doubts this merely has to step out of a ten storey window. Reality will show you what it thinks of worldviews in short shift leaving the individual as little more than a scribble on the pavement below.
Our impasse is somewhat akin to the saying, One is entitled to one’s own opinion but not one’s own facts.
So let me try to clarify the position once more.
The Bible<em> is </em> evidence of a collection of ancient stories.
It is NOT automatically evidence of the veracity of said stories.
In fact, scientific evidence has shown that stories such as Adam and Eve, Noah’s Flood and the Exodus as described in the Bible to be nothing but myths.
To reject this evidence would suggest you reject the underlying science that governs human DNA mapping, geology and archaeology merely because it conflicts with the faith based beliefs one has been raised on.
Some believers have been able to work around this and still maintain a degree of faith.
Dominic Crossan immediately comes to mind where it relates to Christianity and from what I have garnered over the years the majority of secular Jews have no problem accepting the tales in the Torah are by and large geopolitical foundation myth and /or historical fiction, a label that aptly describes Acts,for example.
On the other hand, Ken Ham and his YEC followers refuse to give an inch.
To consider the gospel tales of the resurrection as anything over and above a faith claim one must substantiate the claim with evidence.
This truly is the bottom line.
LikeLike
Then, unfortunately, divided is where we will have to remain. Setting all the other matters to the side for the moment, my position on the resurrection remains entirely unchanged. The Gospel accounts really do present a record of historical events. I find the case for that utterly compelling because of my interaction with the available evidence. In light of that, the best explanation of those historical events is that Jesus rose from the dead. You are right that our respect worldviews don’t impact the evidence itself, but they do impact the decisions we make on what counts as evidence and what doesn’t. But, we disagree even on that point. We even, as you elude to, disagree on what counts as the facts of the matter. Facts are facts, but worldview really does impact what we will accept as facts and what we won’t. So, divided we remain. I really have greatly appreciated the opportunity to engage with you. Thank you for that.
LikeLike
It has been interesting, but not very surprising. Out of curiosity, have you allowed your children the opportunity to reach their own decisions regarding the religious beliefs you hold or would you say you been directly influential in how they approach religion?
LikeLike
I can’t say that I am terribly surprised that we have eventually wound up here as well. How interesting that two people can look at the same set of facts and come to such different conclusions, each entirely certain that the other is deeply mistaken. How good that we can have such vigorous debates with both conviction and charity and come away on positive terms in spite of profound disagreement.
To your question, I am certainly raising them in a context where they are getting a pretty positive presentation of the things I believe to be right and true regarding the world and how it works. I’m also not shy about expressing to them what I believe and why. For me to be convinced of the truthfulness of these things, and given the nature of the things I believe, it would be deeply unloving of me to do otherwise. I believe that everyone is going to spend eternity somewhere, and that one option is far better than the other. Because of that, I do everything I can to make as compelling a case as I can for the worthwhileness of considering where that will be, why trusting in Jesus is the better option, and giving all the opportunities I can for the people around me to understand the issues and choose freely.
In addition to this, I think Jesus was absolutely clear when He said that my job as one of His followers is to love the people around me after the pattern of His own demonstration of love by sacrificing His life to pay the price for my sins on the cross. If He loved me enough to be willing to die for me, then I can’t do anything less than love the people around me – that is, treat them with respect and kindness and patience and humility. My call is to serve them and work toward outcomes that lead to their flourishing whether they are followers of Jesus or think that whole notion is silly nonsense. Anything less than that fails to honor Him and His example.
One more point here is that the apostle Paul made it abundantly clear that my job is not to judge anyone who doesn’t believe like I do. That’s above my pay grade. The command of Christians is explicitly not to judge non-Christians (granting we have often and regularly failed massively in that regard). Our job is to proclaim the truth and love and that’s it. My hope is to hit that mark.
Getting back to my own kids, the way this translates is that I absolutely want them to come to their own conclusions about matters of faith. If they only have a mimicked version of my faith in order to appease me, it will do them no good at all and will more likely engendered hard feelings toward it and me which I most decidedly don’t want. I had a conversation with my oldest just the other day in which I told him that while I absolutely hope he comes to have a relationship with Jesus that is his own and not his because of mine, that I also wanted him to look and examine things for himself. And if after all of that he comes to a different conclusion than I have reached, I’m not going to love him any less than I do right now. I regularly tell my kids that nothing they do will make me love them any less. Choosing to reject Christianity because they find it intellectually not credible (or for any other reason) is included in that “nothing.” I love them because they’re my kids, not because they follow Jesus or not.
LikeLike
I find it a little disconcerting that you consider the tales in the Bible to be facts, when so much scientific evidence has demonstrated without doubt that these so called facts are nothing more than geopolitical foundation myth and historical fiction.
I must admit that I sincerely hope your children are able to look at the things you present as fact with considerably more objectively and with a greater appreciation of what scientific evidence demonstrates.
While I acknowledge you are entitled to believe whatever you like, when such beliefs are paraded on the open market as fact one needs to be able to produce some damn good evidence to back such claims.
The reason so many believers deconvert is largely because they come to realise the things they have been indoctrinated with at the knee are usually devoid of evidence and almost entirely faith based and not fact at all.
Anyway, I wish you well.
I am sure we will have more interesting discussions along the way.
Ark.
LikeLike
The trust I have in Jesus goes an awfully long way. I know you don’t understand that. I know that seems incredibly weird and perhaps even off-putting. Yet because I am convinced by the available evidence that Jesus really did rise from the dead, I really do believe He is God – a God who loves everybody with a sacrificial and self-giving love. And if that kind of God exists, then the possibilities of what that means become awfully big awfully quickly. I also sincerely hope my kids are able to examine the faith with as much objectivity as they can. When they do, I am confident they will come to see what’s true and what’s not. The path of science you seek to walk has laid people to the faith at least as many times as it has led them away.
I think about the various founders of modern science who were uniformly theists and overwhelmingly Christian. It was precisely their belief in the kind of God I have tried to describe to you that led them to the discoveries that have so changed the world many times over. I think of men like Gunter Beckley, an entomologist and director of a science museum in Germany. He was tasked with setting up a pro-Darwin display for the museum. When he did, the display included a number of books by ID theorists (no creationists, though). Having not read any of these works before, he began to read them. He soon found himself agreeing with their scientific assessment of the limits of Darwinism. He gradually became persuaded by their arguments and later became a believer in Jesus because of it. It was the science that led them eventually to faith.
On your last point, many of those believers who hit college, found science, and quickly rejected their faith have stories of deconversion that are usually a bit more complicated than simply science leading them away from the faith. Many, if not most, were raised in church environments where they were not ever really allowed to question the faith in meaningful ways. Neither were they ever presented with positive arguments for the faith – including those from the various disciplines of science – in order to have a reasonable case made to them. Then, they got to college and found a whole world of moral choices they had been denied outright or felt they couldn’t pursue without incurring guilt. A rejection of the Christian theism of their youth allowed them to engage in various collegiate behaviors without guilt and the various scientific arguments against the faith provided intellectual cover for what was really a moral and worldview-rooted decision. That’s certainly not uniformly the case, but some version of that story is a whole lot more common than it isn’t.
That all being said, I likewise wish you well, and I will indeed look forward to many more interesting discussions in the days ahead of us.
LikeLike
You continue to use the term (available) evidence when referring to the claim of the resurrection of the Bible character Jesus of Nazareth.
It would probably serve us both if we stuck to the dictionary definition of evidence. What do you say?
LikeLike
Agreed. From Dr. Bing: Evidence is the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. And from the available body of facts and information, I am fully convinced that the proposition that Jesus rose from the dead is true.
LikeLike
The information is the account (of the resurrection) as detailed/ described in the gospels.
How did you determine this information was factual?
LikeLike
I have already made the case for the historical reliability of the Gospels. I would be happy, though, to lay out the basic facts again.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Feel free…
LikeLike
Gladly…but it’ll be tomorrow or maybe Friday. Until then…
LikeLike
Just remember, please, I asked how you determined the information about the resurrection was fact.
LikeLike
Now, I know we’ve talked about that before. The answer to that is rooted deeply in the historical reliability of the Gospels. If the Gospels and Acts are historically reliable, then the information they present about the events surrounding the resurrection of Jesus is also historically reliable, that is, it is factual. And if that information is factual, then those facts justify my belief in the proposition that Jesus was raised from the dead. One leads naturally to the other. Are you still interested in my laying out the basic outline the case for the historical reliability of the Gospels again?
LikeLike
Acts is now regarded as historical fiction, by critical schokars and historians. Even Wiki states it is unreliable.
The gospels are not biographies but written to convey a theological message to specific audiences.
So when I ask you about facts regarding the claims of the resurrection they have to be stand alone.
But go ahead and lay out those pieces of information that are facts.
LikeLike
Well, you already know my opinion on Wiki…
The Gospels are theological biographies, written to convey accurate information about the life and ministry of Jesus. Yes, they had specific audiences in mind, but that doesn’t have anything to do with the reliability of the information they present.
The historical claims made by Acts have been proven accurate by archaeological finds over and over again. As I have said before, even points which were once considered obviously in error have been subsequently proven accurate. Luke was a careful historian.
I’ll get to laying out the fuller points probably on Friday. If you have a spare hour in the meantime, Craig’s presentation will do a pretty thorough job of laying out exactly the same information I will provide.
LikeLike
Acts is a good example of historical fiction, and is regarded as such by historians and critical scholarship.
“Luke was a careful historian”
An apologist’s claim I am afraid and not supported by evidence. And certainly no evidence of this assertion has been presented in our discussion.
I have no time for William lane Craig.
I’d rather not sully your blog with the things he should be hung out to dry for.
LikeLike
Not William Lane Craig. Craig Blomberg. Two different people.
I’m curious, do you regard it as historical fiction because you believe the historical claims to be false, or because of the miracle reports? It is indisputable that there have been numerous archaeological finds demonstrating the accuracy of a whole variety of Luke’s historical claims. That goes both for his Gospel and Acts.
LikeLike
Sorry, I misunderstood. Happy mistake. I utterly loath WLC
Archeological finds do not mean the story woven over them is fact.
James Bond was a spy who operated from London and drove an Aston Martin.
This does not mean Fleming’s stories are historically reliable. They are a pretty good example of historical fiction.
LikeLike
I agree that archaeological finds don’t automatically mean the story woven over them is fact. But you claimed earlier that there is no archaeological support for the historical reliability of Acts. That’s factually incorrect. There’s quite a lot. What the archaeological evidence does is to help build a case. It’s like the process that a detective goes through to prove whodunit. There may not be any one, single piece of evidence that makes the whole case. But she can nonetheless prove beyond reasonable doubt what happened by examining a variety of different things none of which by themselves make a complete case, but when combined altogether help the careful observer to come to a rational conclusion about the events under investigation.
And that Luke was a careful historian is not at all merely an apologist’s claim. While there are indeed a few things he has said whose historical veracity hasn’t been confirmed, a great, great many have including, as I have said before, several which used to be considered incorrect. None of these makes the whole case by themselves, but when you start to compile a pattern, it starts to become clear that accepting the historical reliability of the text is a reasonable conclusion.
LikeLike
Reading your assertion that I had said Acts contained no archeological evidence had me frowning but re reading my comment up thread and there it was!
Conclusive evidence that pronged discussions, late nights, lack of sleep and importantly, a lack of proof reading will result in people – me in this case – sometimes writing really dumb things!
I retract that for obvious reasons!
However, I think I’ll stick by my guns regarding Acts being historical fiction.
And so as to try avoid such hiccups on my part I’ll maintain just a single thread and combine the topics from the other comment regarding worldview etc.
So again, how about we go back to evidence solely for the resurrection of the Bible character Jesus of Nazareth?
Evidence should be straightforward, not influenced by worldview ( meaning I will accept miracle claims providing evidence can be produced to demonstrate the veracity of said claim, even such things as Jesus walking on water) and as per the dictionary definition, regarded as fact.
Example: It is a regarded as fact wholly supported by evidence that the tale of Noah’s global flood as described in the Bible is mythical.
Here I reckon we can both agree the stance over this as taken by Ken Ham and his followers has no credibility.
So, if we apply similar criteria to the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth what evidence is there to demonstrate the gospel claim is fact?
LikeLike
Let me just add if you bullet point them it will be easier to address in my next reply.
The floor is yours, as they say… 😊
LikeLike
That’s a big floor to fill :~)
LikeLike
By the way, if you want a more complete case, check out that book I mentioned before, The Historical Reliability of the New Testament by my New Testament professor and friend, Craig Blomberg. If you type is name into YouTube, it’ll give you “Craig Blomberg the historical reliability of the Gospels” as a search prompt. There look to be several videos of his making the case. That might be easier than my retyping it all here. Here’s one of them for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhPlg_p9TDY
LikeLike
Christian scholars will approach the Bible from the perspective their beliefs are underpinned by faith.
A secular scholar is not shackled by faith. Therefore, if you want to understand why Acts is historical fiction and the gospels are not historically reliable you could do far worse that read Ehrman or even Carrier.
When assessing the historical claims made in the Bible they have to be treated as any historical claim.
No special dispensation.
For example, to refer to Jesus walking on water and assert this is a fact is completely erroneous as no evidence can be provided to demonstrate the veracity of this claim.
Likewise to assert Jesus was buried in a tomb is an historical fact would also be erroneous as no archeological evidence can be provided, and what evidence we have of Crucifixion victims suggests they were left on the cross/ stake to rot.
So I would please ask you not to cite popular beliefs or even what Christians might consider are widely held beliefs but simply bullet point the things that are universally regarded as the facts surrounding the resurrection.
Thanks.
LikeLike
What you are arguing here is that as long as I am willing to adopt your worldview convictions, then I am free to make whatever case I can for the position I am defending. Your reference to Jesus’ walking on water is a perfect example. That was a miraculous event. You are operating on the basis of a worldview that definitionally doesn’t allow for the miraculous. So, you find fault with that particular historical claim (for that’s what it is) on the basis of a worldview that categorically denies that an event like that could happen in the first place. That is not a reflection of the event itself, but of the worldview lens through which you are viewing it.
I am operating on the basis of a worldview that allows for the supernatural to exist. Telling me that I must justify the claims I’m making on the basis of the philosophical positions of your worldview isn’t particularly fair, any more than my telling you to evaluate the claims I’m making on the basis of my worldview would be. If you would like to shift gears to talking about our differing worldview claims and which are the most fully reflective of reality, I am happy to do that, but that’s a different conversation.
I don’t say any of this as complaint, but merely observation on our differing positions, and hopefully to help you see more clearly what some of the differences are. That’s the reason I’ve mostly left all the miracle accounts in the Gospels and Acts off the table and focused entirely on the resurrection.
Of course Christian scholars will approach the Bible from the standpoint of faith. That doesn’t have anything to do with their examination of the evidence and acceptance or rejection of it. Faith is not a shackle in this sense. With respect, I reject that assertion altogether. And, of course a skeptical scholar like Ehrman and Carrier is going to consider the Gospels and Acts to be historical fiction. Their worldview commitments won’t allow them to do otherwise. But again, that doesn’t say anything in and of itself about the evidence for the historical reliability of the Gospels.
If you reject the case for the historical reliability of the Gospels and Acts, that’s fine, but to insist that they can only be properly understood on the basis of the philosophical commitments you have made is a different matter. What is becoming clearer I hope is that we are operating on the basis of two different worldviews. We would probably find more fruitful dialogue if we shifted gears some to examining our respective worldview beliefs and evaluating those through the lens of their implications and coherence with reality.
LikeLike
Typo: Sheesh, I need more sleep.
Not the same as evolution.
LikeLike
Given how many of your responses are coming in what must be the middle of the night for you, I can imagine! ;~)
LikeLike
Well, it’s 20:00 here. Just finished dinner.
LikeLike
Then have a good rest of your evening!
LikeLike
Typo: Doing the inserting.
LikeLike
I’ve got some time this morning, so here goes. Jesus died by crucifixion. From an historical standpoint, that’s a pretty uncontroversial observation. After Jesus’ death, His followers had experiences they were all convinced were encounters with the risen Jesus. Paul lists out several groups and individuals who claimed to have this experience including a group of more than 500 at one time which all but eliminates the idea that these were nothing more than hallucinations.
These followers not only had these experiences, they started proclaiming them publicly very soon after they believed the event of the resurrection to have taken place. As for the disciples themselves, their lives were utterly transformed by this belief that Jesus rose from the dead. Even if you don’t believe that Jesus actually rose from the dead, it is nonetheless true that the religious movement bearing His title did, and that religious movement got its start when His followers began proclaiming their belief that He rose from the dead. Their coming up with this story out of thin air simply doesn’t explain their dedication to it – a dedication that ultimately cost all of them their lives.
Two last points I’ll combine into one. Two of the greatest skeptics and opponents of the idea that Jesus could be the Messiah of prophecy became fully dedicated followers. A majority of scholars accept that Jesus’ half-brother, James, did not even begin to accept that His brother was the Messiah (and indeed, what would your brother have to do in order to convince you He was the Messiah?) during His life. After His followers started proclaiming the resurrection, that changed. He became the highly respected leader of the church in Jerusalem. The other skeptic was Saul of Tarsus. He was a committed enemy of the church, seeking to stamp it out of existence. Then he had what he believed to be an encounter with the risen Jesus and began the most committed proclaimer of the resurrection and that Jesus was the Messiah in the world. He is pretty singularly responsible with taking the message of the risen Jesus into Europe and getting the church started there.
Those five points don’t prove entirely beyond doubt that Jesus rose from the dead. At the same time, a sizable number of scholars accept all of those as historical facts. And if they are all historical facts, Jesus’ resurrection from the dead is the best way to account for them.
LikeLike
Practically everything you have listed here are simply unsubstantiated claims.
Even the crucifixion claim is not universally accepted as historical fact and nothing in your post is regarded as evidence of the so called resurrection of the Bible character Jesus of Nazareth.
LikeLike
This is why I started with the question I did. If you reject the Gospels as reliable historical documents, then, yes, it all appears unsubstantiated. If you accept them, it isn’t. Making the larger case for historical reliability is a much bigger task. The case (at the very least as far as I’m concerned) is quite strong, but that’s another task.
LikeLike
I reject them as historicaly reliable simply because they aren’t reliable and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise.
LikeLike
There’s actually quite a lot of evidence to suggest otherwise.The question is whether or not you are willing to accept it. You may not be, and that’s perfectly okay. To argue there’s no evidence at all, however, is inconsistent with the facts.
LikeLike
In actual fact there is no evidence to support the gospel tales or Acts, ( now regarded as historical fiction) archeological or historical. Other than the mention of the crucifixion of <em>Chrestus</em> there is nothing outside of the Bible.
And it might be worth mentioning, the scholarly consensus is the gospels are anonymous and contain interpolation and forgery.
But as you say yourself this is another discussion.
Furthermore, as my initial question was regarding evidence for the claim of the resurrection of the Bible character Jesus of Nazareth it could be considered telling that you have not offered a single piece of evidence to support the Bible claim.
But I reiterate, if you have evidence then I am more than willing to examine it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We’ll have to perhaps agree to disagree on what the scholarly consensus regarding the Gospels is. You and I appear to be drawing from a different set of scholars in making that determination. On the matter of evidence, I’ll present you with the same question I asked V: What kind of evidence would you consider as acceptable and worth examining?
LikeLiked by 1 person
There is only evidence which demonstrates the veracity of a claim. If you cannot do this then it remains a claim.
From a religious point of view this is where faith comes in.
Unfortunately, this is often accompanied by a degree of (unintentional) dishonesty, or perhas self – delusion, (often the result of religious indoctrination) where the standards you would normally apply are suspended.
For example, we al know that the tale of Noah’s ark and the global flood is a story/myth, an adaptation of earlier myths.
Furthermore we have scientific evidence to demonstrate it did not happen. And yet there is an entire branch of Christianity, Young Earth Creationist, that preaches it was a literal event. I am sure I don’t have to tell you about Ken Ham!
Even the average Christian cringes with embarrassment over his idiotic and damaging garbage.
It is a similar story with the Exodus. Evidence has refuted any notion of Captivity Exodus and Conquest and we now know the Israelites emerged from within the general Canaanite population.
This is nothing to worry about. Such discoveries need to be embraced so we eventually break the cycle of clinging to ancient mores.
So, back to the claims of the resurrection of the Bible character Jesus of Nazareth.
Most people familiar with Christianity are aware of the gospel story.
So it is not about what evidence I would accept, as I will most assuredly accept evidence.
The key point here is: do you have any evidence to demonstrate the veracity of the gospel story/ claim that the character Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead?
Well, do you?
LikeLike
You still haven’t answered my question. What would you consider as convincing evidence that Jesus rose from the dead? That question absolutely matters. If I build a case on the basis of evidence you declare to be unacceptable because of the worldview commitments you have made, the case won’t be the first bit convincing to you. Why would I bother to make such a case?
The type of reasoning that comes into play here is the same type of reasoning Darwin used in formulating his theories on human origins. It’s called inference to the best explanation. When dealing with ancient events for which there are no eyewitnesses or photographic evidence, we simply cannot prove beyond all doubt that anything happened. What we can do is build a case designed to address reasonable doubt. Now, we can debate another time what counts as reasonable doubt, but let’s use the dinosaurs as an example. Did dinosaurs exist? No one ever saw them. We can build a positive case for their existence, though, beyond reasonable doubt, through the scientific discipline of paleontology.
The same type of reasoning is in play when talking about the resurrection. The five points I laid out earlier in our conversation are all historical realities. They don’t prove beyond any doubt that Jesus rose from the dead, but the best explanation for their existence as historical facts is that Jesus rose from the dead. Now, if you have precluded anything in the Scriptures as convincing evidence from the start, then of course that case won’t be convincing to you.
My question to you is this: On the basis of what evidence do you reject the historicity of the Gospel accounts (leaving aside the miracle reports for the moment)? You’ve made the assertion that there simply is no evidence, but that’s not the same thing as making a positive case for your position. As I’ve already said, there’s lots of evidence pointing in the direction of their historicity. Your decision to categorically reject (or deny as in the case of your assertion that there is no archaeological evidence for the historical reliability of the Gospel accounts) that evidence is a reflection of the worldview commitments by which you are operating. Those are decisions not of science or positive evidence, though, but of philosophy. My encouragement is for you to not confuse philosophically-rooted conclusions with evidentiary ones.
LikeLike
I apologize as I seem to not be making myself clear. I will accept evidence that demonstrates the veracity of the claim the character Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead.
However, to date, no evidence has ever been produced.
If you believe you have evidence, then please, present it.
I consider it best for now we focus on this subject alone rather go veering off into the weeds.
However, I will respond to your point about dinosaurs.
https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/what-can-scientists-learn-about-dinosaurs-and-how.html#:~:text=In%20the%20case%20of%20dinosaurs,living%20animals%20are%20also%20key
If you truly believe this is not evidence that dinosaurs existed then I feel any further dialogue might be a waste of time?
LikeLike
I think perhaps it is me who is not making myself clear, and I’ll offer my own apologies for that. What kind of evidence would you be willing to accept that Jesus rose from the dead? To put that another way, what kind of evidence for that would be convincing to you?
And on dinosaurs…I absolutely believe they existed. No question here at all. My point was not to suggest I question that conclusion in anyway, but rather to demonstrate the kind of historical reasoning we use to come to that conclusion. The whole discipline of paleontology is rooted in that kind of scientific historical reasoning. That alone was my point. You and I share the same confidence in the past existence of dinosaurs. And on the age of the universe, for that matter. And on a number of other points. We differ in our understanding of the mechanisms by which some of those things came into being.
LikeLike
You seem intent on dragging from me some sort of explanation about what we must regard as evidence.
I can only reiterate.
As the only account of the claimed resurrection of the Bible character Jesus of Nazareth is in the gospels this does not count as evidence of the veracity of the claim.
So let me ask you, what evidence over and above the unsubstantiated claims in the Bible convinced you?
Maybe the evidence will convince me?
LikeLike
Well, part of the challenge for us here is that I reject the view that the historical claims found in the Gospels and Acts are unreliable. Because I accept them as historically reliable, those five historical facts demand an explanation. I am convinced the best explanation for them is that Jesus really did rise from the dead. It is undeniable that there aren’t other historical documents where we can find stated, “Jesus rose from the dead.” If the accounts of the Gospels and Acts are historically reliable, though, then the case from those known historical facts is enough to convince me using inference to the best explanation as my mode of reasoning.
LikeLike
Unfortunately for those who consider the gospels to be reliable historical documents, belief, no matter how strong, does not necessarily equate to, evidence, facts or reality.
If you wish to adhere to these beliefs then the onus is on you to provide the evidence that demonstrates the veracity of the bible/gospel claims.
For the record, and contrary to what you likely believe, I am open to be shown that your beliefs can withstand scrutiny and are not simply based on faith.
The caveat being you are able to present evidence to demonstrate the veracity of such claims.
So, if you still feel you have a case, present your evidence.
LikeLike
For you to ponder…
Like the rest of the New Testament, the four gospels were written in Greek.[32] The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70,[5] Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90,[6] and John AD 90–110.[7] Despite the traditional ascriptions, all four are anonymous and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses.[8] A few conservative scholars defend the traditional ascriptions or attributions, but for a variety of reasons the majority of scholars have abandoned this view or hold it only tenuously.[33]
Re: interpolation/forgery
The consensus today is that the Long Ending of Mark (or LE) is an interpolation (Hitler Homer, pp. 233-44). But consensus can be challenged. So on what evidence is this consensus based? Internal stylistic evidence and external manuscript and reportorial evidence.
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/14921
There is now a broad academic consensus that the passage is a later interpolation added after the earliest known manuscripts of the Gospel of John.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery
LikeLike
If guys like Richard Carrier and Wikipedia are your primary sources, I’m afraid you need some better resources. Carrier’s position that Jesus of Nazareth wasn’t an historical figure at all simply isn’t intellectually credible for a scholar of his credentials to hold. He is in a very small minority of people who hold such a position. As I told V, don’t take my word for that, take Bart Ehrman’s. Scroll down and find the link I posted to Ehrman’s response to Carrier’s criticism of a book in which he defended the existence of Jesus’ existing as an historical figure.
Since you mention it, though, while I would dispute those dates a bit, they’re not far off from what I believe are the correct range of dates. Given that, all four of those works were written remarkably close to the events they describe. In terms of the dates of composition of ancient documents relative to the events they describe, those dates are a strong piece of evidence pointing in the direction of their historical reliability.
On the longer ending of Mark and the story of the woman caught in the act of adultery, I agree those almost certainly weren’t written by Mark or John and were added in later by copyists. I’m curious how you think that affects the historicity of the rest of the documents?
LikeLike
Carrier’s views on the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth do not come into play regarding the topic of gospel reliability vis a vis interpolation and forgery. To be honest, I think you are throwing out a red herring. Examine the evidence rather than trash his character.
And he reiterates the scholarly consensus.
Wiki is always a good first go to.
All references are linked and it takes a moment to follow such links.
As I mentioned in our other thread let’s focus on the resurrection and we can go full throttle on other stuff afterwards, if you’re okay with that?
LikeLike
I think that’s just fine. Good plan.
Using Carrier’s point, then, those dates are a significant piece of evidence in favor of the historical reliability of the Gospels.
LikeLike
At this point I am not disputing the general scholarly consensus regarding the dating of the gospels. Although I fail to see how the time of their writing equates to historical reliability?
No matter…
So, let’s focus on the claim of the resurrection, shall we?
Evidence if you please, sir!
LikeLike
Let’s start with the historical reliability of the Gospels themselves, and that composition date does matter. I’ll start that on the other feed. Maybe we can condense things down to one. That might make things simpler for both of us. I’ll continue over there, but probably tomorrow. I’ve got to prep salad and tea for 100 before dinner tonight! Have a great afternoon (I say that not having any idea about your time zone!).
LikeLike
I am in Johannesburg. It is 20:00 down here.
Enjoy your dinner.
Chat soon.
LikeLike
So you are just seven hours ahead of me. I would have thought that from the US East Coast to Johannesburg would’ve been further. And, yes, we will continue this later. I look forward to it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Okay, so making the case for the historical reliability of the Gospels and Acts (and, really, the entire New Testament, but we’ll focus on just that part of it for now), takes the same basic approach that you would take in evaluating the historical claims of any ancient document. We start by looking at things like the dating of the original manuscripts. As I said before, I find Carrier’s dates to be a little late, but they are easily inside the first century. That means the Gospel authors were all writing about events within as early as 30 years of their taking place.
A quick aside on Gospel authorship: Although modern secular scholars and some more liberal Christian scholars insist are likely not the actual authors, the traditional authorship was overwhelmingly accepted by the early church. And, while one could argue that this isn’t really a mark in favor of the claims of original authorship, it seems reasonable to imagine that people living within a few hundred years of their authorship had a better sense of who wrote them than modern scholars. Furthermore, other than worldview-rooted skepticism, what is the evidence that Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John were not the original authors of these works?
The significance of the date of authorship so close to the actual events is that the likelihood that legends would start to creep in is pretty low. There were people alive at the time the Gospels were written who were eyewitnesses to the events they described. This applies both to supporters and to critics alike. If there were critics who had a case to make against the claims of the Gospel, where are their writings? Given the sheer volume of preserved works we have from that time in history, it seems unlikely that nothing written by critics who could dispute the Gospel claims has been preserved.
For comparison, modern scholars are fairly certain about the details of the life of Alexander the Great. Yet the earliest surviving biography we have of him, from which we learn all of those trusted historical details, was written several hundreds of years after his death. If we trust the details of Alexander’s biography to be historical, on what grounds should we dispute the historical details found in the Gospels?
Another line of evidence in supporting the historical claims of the Gospels is archaeology. The field of biblical archaeology (which is not populated only by Christian scholars) often flies under the radar, but has made a staggering number of finds demonstrating the historical credibility of Gospels claims both of people and events. Luke’s Gospel and Acts (also written by Luke) in particular have been challenged numerous times on historical grounds because the historical claims Luke makes throughout both documents are so specific, and yet time and time again, he has been proven correct, contrary to the claims of his critics. And while it is indisputably true that we haven’t found evidence for every single one of his historical claims, the weight of the evidence leans pretty heavily in the direction of his historical accuracy.
Jumping back to authorship, another point in favor of their credibility is the claim of Mark’s authorship. Mark was a relatively obscure character in the early church who was most widely known for abandoning Paul and Barnabas on one of their missionary journeys. Naming a Gospel after him would not have been a way to give it credibility if that was the goal of some other anonymous author.
Another line of evidence is to simply examine the texts themselves with the question in mind: did these authors imagine themselves to be reporting actual events, or merely making up stories to push a particular narrative? The historical reporting of the Gospels and Acts is remarkably sober. Yes, there are miracles reports, but even those don’t tend to be sensationalized in their presentation. The clear sense of the tone of the works is that the authors understood themselves to be presenting history as they experienced it or as the eyewitnesses they interviewed experienced it. Speaking of interviews, Luke, who was not a disciple of Jesus, but a traveling companion of Paul, starts his Gospel and Acts out with statements reflecting the careful and methodical approach he took to composing those documents. Check those out in Luke 1:1-4 (https://www.bible.com/bible/1713/LUK.1.CSB) and Acts 1:1-3 (https://www.bible.com/bible/1713/ACT.1.CSB).
One more point here and I’ll stop for now. A possibly critique of the Gospels is that the authors couldn’t possibly have actually remembered all the things they wrote down, especially the long teaching passages or sermons we find in them from Jesus, Peter, and Paul. They had to have made those up to fit their narrative. Yet detailed studies of the culture of the day reveal that people then were able and often did memorize incredibly long passages. Such a thing was common in oral cultures like theirs was. Rabbis in that day were well known to have memorized the entire Old Testament. This wasn’t just a religious thing either. Greek schoolboys would memorize the entirety of Homer’s The Iliad and The Odessey. Today that same thing still exists. I was talking with a friend the other day about a trip he took to your neck of the woods (not South Africa, but I can’t remember now which country it was). The members of the church he visited only had one Bible for the whole church to share. A family would take it home for a month and then pass it along to the next family. Members of these different families had incredible amounts of Scripture memorized because of the effort they put in to learning it knowing they might only have access to a Bible for maybe a month out of the whole year if that, and they still wanted to be able to reflect on what it had to say even when they didn’t have it with them. The thought that the authors of the Gospels and Acts had memorized Jesus’ sermons and could still faithfully reproduce them thirty years later is not nearly so far-fetched of a claim as it seems.
That’s a pretty basic case, but it’s a start. If you are really interested in engaging with more of these arguments, I would encourage you to get a copy of The Historical Reliability of the New Testament by my New Testament professor and friend, Craig Blomberg. He’s one of the most respected scholars in the world on that particular topic.
Time now to get to work on a sermon for next Sunday. I’ll look forward to your thoughts. Have a great evening!
LikeLike
Perhaps you forgot that for now we had agreed we would focus on the evidence for the claim of the resurrection of the Bible character Jesus of Nazareth?
While I did read your response you will forgive me if I don’t respond to it as at this juncture I am only interested in the evidence you may have for the resurrection of the character Jesus of Nazareth.
LikeLike
I will gladly and quickly forgive you for that. I did present the relevant evidence, though. The case for the historical reliability of the Gospels is strong. And, if the Gospels and Acts are historically reliable, then the case I have already made much earlier on in our conversation has to be answered with counter-evidence. I’m not dealing with anything miraculous or supernatural at this point, only the facts of history as are clearly able to be seen in the relevant historical documents. There really was a person named Jesus. He really was crucified. His followers really did believe to have had experiences with Him alive and well after His crucifixion. The lives of those followers really were radically transformed by those experiences. James and Paul, two of the major critics to Jesus’ claim to be the Messiah really did do a complete 180 in their positions after they also had experiences they believed were with the risen Jesus. Those facts are all historical. And if they are as I have alleged, then the question becomes: what is the best explanation for them, again, historically speaking?
LikeLike
Again, we can discuss the veracity of all these assertions a bit later. But so as not to be bombarded with scripture,
(and have my head spinning,) an understandable trait of all theists I have encountered who love their scripture 😊, for now all I am interested is the evidence you are sure you possess for the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.
Are we good?
LikeLike
Nah, I’d rather not bombard you with Scripture. I certainly think it is worth examining, but that’s not our goal right here. I’m with you there. Yes, this the basic case for the resurrection. If you are interested in a more robust (and scholarly) case, consider checking out the book The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Mike Licona and Gary Habermas. Those are probably the two most foremost experts on the subject in the world. The Resurrection of the Son of God is another much more extensive treatment than I’ve given you. The bottom line is that there is not a mathematical-style proof for this event. If that’s the only thing you will accept, I will not be able to persuade of its historical veracity. But then, there isn’t mathematical-style proof for most ancient historical events. If we examine the resurrection based on the merits of the available facts we do have, the case becomes pretty strong indeed. To perhaps put that another way, and to borrow the example I used earlier, if you are willing to accept that Alexander the Great was a real person who ruled Greece and greatly expanded the Greek empire, then by the same reasoning, accepting that Jesus was a real person who really did rise from the dead isn’t so hard to do.
LikeLike
Please understand I really am not looking for proof, which you correctly point out is reserved for maths… and bread baking! 😉
I am prepared to accept ( for the sake of argument) that Yeshua was a real person, likely an itinerent preacher who gathered some followers and wandered around Galilee sometime early in the first century and was executed by the Romans for sedition.
However, all I am interested in is the evidence to demonstrate the veracity of the claim the Bible character Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead.
LikeLike
Yummmm! Fresh bread. I once toyed with doing a sermon about Jesus’ claim to be the bread of the works in which I set up a bread machine to start long enough before the service so that the whole place smelled like fresh bread during the sermon…but then no one would have paid any attention because they would have been too hungry…including me!
I’ve given you the primary arguments for that. Whether or not they are convincing to you is unfortunately out of my hands.
LikeLike
Sadly, they are, as you say, arguments but not evidence.
I have found over the years this is the impasse all such discussion eventually reach.
I have come to the conclusion that, because Christians are initially driven / motivated by faith which is so often prompted by culture and or some form of indoctrination, there is a disconnect between accepting what is regarded as evidence and that which is a ( faith based) claim.
I wonder if because of the major advances in achaeology, history and Bible scholarship, and the doubt that many Christians must have experienced when confronted with the updated scientific methods those Christians in authority were forced to respond and the apologetics industry (?) came into being.
Again, I truly am open to evidence.
Not that this would necessarily make me a convert, but it would certainly
make for some very interesting conversations around the dinner table!
LikeLike
I am using the words “arguments” and “evidence” fairly interchangeably, which is probably unhelpful for our purposes. I apologize for that. I guess I’m still not yet clear what exactly you would count as evidence for the resurrection? And it may be that you feel you’ve been clear on this, and I have simply been slow to understand, but nonetheless, I remain unclear. I would value your help in (perhaps again) having greater clarity here. I may still not be able to provide you what you are interested in hearing, but at least I’ll be clearer, and that’s not nothing.
LikeLike
It is probably because you consider the words interchangeable that this is where the confusion lies.
If all one can do is make an argument for the resurrection of the character Jesus of Nazareth based on the claim ( in the gospels) then one is not making a claim based on evidence.
While it is fact the bible ( gospels) is evidence of an ancient text compiled into book form, on its own it is not evidence of the veracity of its contents.
Just as a book of dinosaurs is not of itself evidence of the dinosaurs it describes, neither is the Bible evidence of the claims it makes.
This is perfectly illustrated when we read about Adam and Eve, Noah and the global flood and even the tale of the Exodus, all three tales have been shown to be stories/ myths and have been refuted with scientific and archeological evidence.
No one except literalists, YEC and the more strident evangelicals takes any major umbrage at this.
And I understand there are some Christians who believe the character Jesus survived the crucifixion!
( I was surprised when I discovered this)
So here we are…
If you are adamant that what you have presented is evidence there won’t be anything I can say that will likely alter your view.
LikeLike
The actual claim would not be that He survived the crucifixion, but that He died and rose again. The distinction may seem small, but I assure you it is theologically significant.
There are indeed some of the most ancient stories in the Scriptures like those you cite that do not have positive archeological evidence in their favor. Those honest believers (like I am hopefully presenting myself to be) will acknowledge these must be taken on faith. But it is a faith that is not blind, but informed by the evidence of the many other stories that have been shown by the archaeological evidence to be historically sound. But, the historicity of those stories does not have any bearing on whether or not Jesus rose from the dead, thus I won’t even try to defend those until long after someone has come around to accepting the historicity of the resurrection.
I still don’t feel like I’m certain on what you would count as positive evidence. Humor for a bit longer on that question if you will. If I were to produce X, you would respond by saying, “That is a convincing piece of evidence that Jesus rose from the dead.” You may still not accept it, but you would, as you say, consider it as genuine evidence. What is X?
And on your penultimate comment, all Christians believe Jesus rose from the dead. This is the central claim of Christianity. If it is not true, the whole thing is a sham. Paul said as much to the Corinthian church. He was emphatic on the point in fact. I am inclined to agree with him. Thus I keep coming back to it.
LikeLike
“The actual claim would not be that He survived the crucifixion, but that He died and rose again. The distinction may seem small, but I assure you it is theologically significant.”
Yes, I agree. This is the foundational claim that mainstream Christianity is built upon. But I recently encountered a Christian who asserted the character Jesus survived his crucifixion and succumbed to his injuries about a month later.
I have asked if there is anything about this in writing but to date he has not replied. Nonetheless a fascinating idea.
As a Christian you mention these ( ancient stories) must be taken on faith. Am I to understand that while you acknowledge science has refuted such tales you actually afford stories such as Adam and Eve, Noah’s flood and the Exodus any serious credibility?
We seem to be back to you trying to get a definition of evidence from me regarding the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.
I reiterate, there is only evidence ( that demonstrates the veracity of a claim) Anything that can not be substantiated is simply a claim.
As a Christian you make the assertion Jesus rose from the dead.
As a skeptic I ask you to provide evidence.
Why not simply present the evidence that convinced you? That would seem like a good starting point?
LikeLike
How interesting. That is a view that lies pretty far outside the mainstream of orthodox Christianity. It’s known as the Swoon Theory. It’s one of several views that tried explain the resurrection in natural terms. Most Christian traditions would not recognize him as a fellow Christian. A theist for sure, but Christian would not longer be the right word at least as it has been historically defined.
No, I don’t think science has disproved them. My confidence in the truthfulness of all the Scriptures leads me to the conclusion that all of those stories are indeed true and historically accurate. But again, I’m not asking you to share such a belief. If I were where you are, I wouldn’t think they were true either. Faith absolutely comes into play here, but it is a faith I find imminently reasonable.
And we’re back here again because I’ve presented the evidence that convinced me. At first, because I grew up in the church, I accepted it because I was told to. I later spent quite a bit of time examining it for myself and came to the conclusion the claims are all true. However, you have consistently said that what I have presented isn’t evidence. Even here you stand by your point that “there is only evidence.” I understand that, but what exactly, precisely, would you consider evidence?
There’s no body to produce. The only people who wrote about it were His followers because no one else knew about it until they told them. Skeptics didn’t believe it, as you don’t, so they didn’t give it the time of day. What other evidence could be produced?
Jesus died and was buried and on the third day His body was gone. Those three historical facts have to be explained. Matthews tells us the Jewish religious leaders paid off the Roman soldiers who were assigned to guard the tomb to make sure nobody messed with Jesus’ body to say the disciples stole the body, but they were by no means in a psychological state to do such a thing. None of them believed Jesus was going to rise from the dead until they started claiming to have seen Him alive.
That’s all evidence. But if you insist it is not, I would be genuinely glad to better understand what you would count as evidence.
(And, by the way, I hope my tone doesn’t come across as irritated at all. I’m surely not. Just genuinely curious. I’m very much enjoying talking through all of this with you.)
LikeLike
“No, I don’t think science has disproved them. My confidence in the truthfulness of all the Scriptures leads me to the conclusion that all of those stories are indeed true and historically accurate.”
I am at a loss how to properly respond to this admission. Nevertheless, I will try.
Science has indeed refuted all three of the tales I mentioned.
1.Adam & Eve. The human Genome Project, once headed by Francis Collins ( himself a devout Christian) established as fact that the human species did not originate from a single breeding couple as portrayed in Genesis.
No such bottleneck could possibly have occurred.
Several people ( Christians) have attempted to refute the evidence, including one who is/ was a computer buff, if memory serves? I stand under correction on this point but no one has ever produced evidence that demonstrates the HGP is even flawed let alone wrong.
2. Noah and the global flood.
Your belief in the veracity of this tale surprised me more than the others. It suggests you reject all evidence which shows the tale is derived from earlier food myths but you are also sympathetic to YEC views as held by the likes of Ken Ham. Furthermore this view you seem to align with, no matter how you arrived at it, flat out rejects all the scientific evidence, including plate tectonics, and other aspects of geology that have, time and again made a mockery of any suggestion of a global flood, let alone the nonsense of a floating zoo.
Again, I am at somewhat of a loss how to move this subject forward.
3. The Exodus.
Again there is no evidence to suggest the Captivity Exodus and Conquest story is anything but a geopolitical foundation myth.
The absence of evidence argument no longer applies as the internal settlement pattern has confirmed the Israelites emerged from within the general Canaanite population.
This is the scientific and scholarly consensus and the evidence thoroughly supports this conclusion.
In the face of all this evidence to say you reject it and are guided by your faith to believe the Bible over the facts leaves me in a quandary.
How am I supposed to react to any argument ( and not even evidence) you wish to present about the resurrection when you dismiss the work of thousands of archeologists, genetists, biologists, paleontologists, geologists, and goodness knows how many other scientific disciplines I am proper unaware of?
LikeLike
If you’ll give me the gift of patience until morning, my brain is full this evening. In other news, when do you sleep? It’s awfully late there!
LikeLike
Thought more about it, and tired or not, you deserve an answer this evening (for me). First, your mild exasperation shows genuine care for me. I really appreciate that. Your willingness to love (through kindness) an ideological enemy (by which I mean I fall on the opposite side of the issue from you; I hardly think of us as enemies, and I certainly don’t think you do) reflects the character of Jesus. If it’s not clear, I mean that as high praise.
Second, I’ll admit: I could be wrong in what I think on those issues. You could be right. I’ve seen some evidence I’ve found convincing (I’d have to go look that back up as it’s not on the top of my mind at the moment), but I willing to acknowledge that I may have it wrong.
That being said, I am convinced entirely independently of my position on those matters that Jesus really did rise from the dead based on the case I have already made to you. Because of that, I am convinced He is the Messiah of prophecy. I’m going to go with what I can discern of His thinking on tricky Old Testament questions.
From everything I can see in the text, He took those stories at face value. Now, it could be that He was just wrong, but being God, I doubt it. If He took those stories at face value, I’ll trust His judgment and will take them at face value as well. Now, does this mean I have a precise understanding of these stories such that I am willing to say I know exactly how they played out? Not in the slightest. In fact, if they played out somewhat other than what the text seems to say, that’s okay. There are several stories in the Old Testament that seem way out there at first, but upon closer inspection are better understood in ways that make more sense (and without totally demythologizing them as Bultmann sought to do because of his naturalism).
My take on those stories, which is honestly rooted primarily in Jesus’ apparent willingness to take them at face value, has absolutely no bearing on whether or not He rose from the dead. That’s a separate question. If I’m wrong on those and you are right, Jesus still rose from the dead and we have to deal with that on its implications independently of those other issues.
That may not allay all of your concerns, but that’s a bit fuller a picture of my thinking on these tough issues for Christians to reconcile with what all of these valuable scientific disciplines have so far found about the world and its workings. In short, I’m going with what Jesus seems to think in the Gospels. If He’s wrong, then I suppose I’m okay being wrong with Him. I’ll trust in Him, seek to love people like He did, and let it get all sorted out in the end.
LikeLike
Okay, let’s unpack this.
You accept you may be wrong about the veracity of the stories. Not trying to be pedantic, but to confirm: Adam and Eve, Noah and the global flood, and the entire Exodus narrative.
However, as the character Jesus of Nazareth appears to consider the characters and the stories legit and historical your loyalties will lie with Jesus.
So there are at two things that need to be addressed.
The science that determined the stories to be nothing but myth is the same science that is part of/underpins the entire scientific method. Therefore, if you reject this science you are effectively saying you consider every scientist and their discoveries working in every single related scientific field to be suspect and or completely wrong. This would include genetics, germ theory, vaccines, archaeology, evolution, and even things such as apparently mundane as meteorology.
The second point.
When you consider the composition date of the gospels, their anonymity, and the known interpolations, how do you know the words and sayings placed in the mouth of the character Jesus of Nazareth to be accurate and true?
I’ll address the resurrection claim in my next reply.
LikeLike
Let’s start with point two. I’ve already laid out the basic evidence for accepting the historicity of the Gospels and Acts including the words attributed to Jesus. Because I am convinced of that case, I believe Jesus to be God, and so, yes, my loyalties ultimately lie with Him.
On the second point, I do not intended to cast suspicion on the entire enterprise of modern science, nor do I think my positions commit me to such a condemnation. Over the centuries of Christian history, but especially in the last couple hundred years, there have been numerous historical claims in the Scriptures that were once considered entirely false. Then an archaeological discovery revealed that, to the contrary, they were true. This has happened more times than I can count. A couple of examples are the historical existence of David (once believed to be an entirely mythical figure) and Abraham’s mode of transportation (the Genesis account has him riding on camels long before historians had believed camels had been domesticated). In summary: both of those claims were considered to be false until they were proven to be true. And again, these aren’t one-off occasions (or, I guess, two-off). There is a pattern here.
Because of this pattern, and because of my additional belief in a supernatural God, I am comfortable giving the benefit of the doubt to these other ancient stories. That second part is a function of worldview, and although it is a separate matter from what we have been discussing, it nonetheless plays a role here. There is some archaeological evidence pointing toward a Hebrew presence in Egypt predating the settlement of Canaan. While science knows an awful lot, things about which we were once entirely certain, we have many times subsequently discovered ourselves to have been in error. It may yet be that there will be a discovery that helps us better grasp the proper nature and history of these ancient stories. For now, we take the findings of scientists as they are, trusting that one day we’ll better understand just exactly what we are to do with those stories.
That all being said, struggling with how best to understand those stories has no bearing on whether or not Jesus rose from the dead and is in fact the Messiah of prophecy. Those are entirely separate issues.
LikeLike
I should add that this willingness to trust that future discoveries may yet vindicate a willingness to take Jesus’ apparent willingness to take the Hebrew Scriptures at face value is the same type of thinking that motivated Darwin, but from the opposite direction. He knew that his theory depended heavily on the future discovery of transitional fossils that would demonstrate the kind of step-by-step transformation of one type of organism or body plan into another around which he based his theory. Those forms still have yet to be found. There are two worldviews at play here – one secular and one Christian theist – but the same type of hope and faith motivates each.
LikeLike
I am sorry but you really have not presented any evidence to support the historicity and veracity of the gospels and the scholarly consensus, from historians, Bible scholars and those from various other disciplines remains that they are anonymous and were created as primarily theological texts to present a message of supposed salvation.
While there are a number of aspects, and or characters that can be claimed to be historical, the overall theme of the bible is one of historical fiction, this is no better illustrated than by the three major themes we have already looked at.
There is no evidence to support the claim of domestication of camels as per the Bible, though I would be interested to read your source for this claim.
On its face the stories may not have any bearing regarding the
claim of the resurrection of the character Jesus of Nazareth.
However, it must be seen in context as well as in isolation and whether those who believe are prepared to accept the reality of the situation I am afraid there are only arguments but no evidence to support the resurrection claim, no matter how ardent the belief.
LikeLike
Time is short right now, but here quickly is the case for Abraham and camels: https://biblearchaeology.org/research/chronological-categories/patriarchal-era/5060-did-abraham-have-camels
LikeLike
Always wise to try to get anotber side of the story.
LikeLike
It is that! I’m hoping to get you a longer reply by tomorrow sometime. Don’t give up on me just yet :~)
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m curious: Have you spent much of any time really reading the Scriptures? The answer may well be yes, but I’m curious all the same.
LikeLike
Yes, I have read the Bible and during a period I was writing a fantasy novel about a character loosely based on Moses I researched quite a lot.
My trusty KJV ( an easter prize I won as a child at Sunday school) is littered from cover to cover with tiny red dots from a felt tip pen wherever I came across something that didn’t gel and then I would scour my Britannica and later the internet.
So, while I am no scholar I am familiar with a fair amount of the text, especially the major themes.
LikeLike
Very good, although I would admittedly choose a more readable translation than the KJV.
LikeLike
I have others, but I enjoy all the thees and thous!
Call me old fashioned.
😊
LikeLike
Old fashioned is okay 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
And is the novel out? What was it about? I love a good fantasy novel. Robert Jordan, Brandon Sanderson, and Terry Goodkind are some of my favorites. I hate that the first and the last there are gone.
LikeLike
It was shelved. Unfortunately the husband of my publisher died tragically during a house robbery and she moved with her children to Ireland and mothballed her small publishing company and hasn’t taken on any new projects in several years.
I may resurrect it ( pun intended) at done time in the future.
LikeLike
I’m sorry to hear that. I know that was frustrating after lots of work on your part, but that is still awfully sad about her loss.
And, yes, that made me chuckle.
LikeLike
And another thing, did you ever ask a theologian for his or her take on the points that didn’t gel? Just curious on that one.
LikeLike
Not face to face but I have read plenty and watched countless videos from people like Habermas, Licona, Strobel, Lennox etc..
LikeLike
You’re far more fair-minded than so many I have engaged with. I’m grateful for that. But if those guys haven’t made a convincing case, I doubt very much that I will…. Still, moving from science to worldview might be the next ground to cover.
LikeLike
“And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose”.
This statement by Paul is illogical. If everything that happens to you is the will of your god, nothing can disprove this claim.
A claim that cannot be disproven is called an unfalsifiable claim.
Explanation: “Falsifiable” means that there is a possible observation or experiment that could prove a claim false. If a claim is unfalsifiable, it means there is no way to definitively show it is incorrect, often because it is constructed in a way that avoids any potential contradiction.
Key points about unfalsifiable claims:
Lack of testability:Unfalsifiable claims are often difficult to test or verify because they might rely on concepts that cannot be measured or observed directly.
Logical fallacy:In critical thinking, making unfalsifiable claims is considered a logical fallacy as it can be used to avoid scrutiny and evidence-based discussion.
Example: “There are tiny, invisible aliens living on Mars that cannot be detected by any technology we currently have.”
Example: “The ghost of a first century man/god lives in my heart giving me life direction, occasionally granting my wish requests, and healing my illnesses which 99% of the time resolve on their own. And above all, he protects me from all harm (that is not his will).”
Silly.
Wake up, pastor.
LikeLike
If this was an attempt at a mic drop moment, you may want to go back to the drawing board.
A couple of thoughts.
First, translating Greek to English can be a tricky task. There are scholars who have dedicated their entire professional lives to getting it right. In this particular case, the ESV translation you’ve chosen to quote from is arguably not the best translation. I find the NIV’s translation better captures what Paul was saying. That being said, I make that point merely as an observation and not the invitation to a conversation about the subject. It would not be fruitful or productive for us, so I’ll end it with that.
Second, and more importantly, you don’t appear to understand what Paul is saying here. More even than that, your criticism is prefaced on the idea that God doesn’t exist or that the God who does is existed is more like the caricatured straw man you enjoy beating on than the one actually revealed in the pages of the Scriptures.
Paul is emphatically not saying that everything that happens to you is the will of God. That being the case, the rest of your critique is irrelevant.
Speaking to what Paul is saying—namely, that God is capable of working out His good plans in and through the lives of those who are willing to trust Him and obey His word regardless of the shape those circumstances happen to take—if an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-wise, and all-good God exists, then there’s nothing in the least illogical about what Paul says here. This all-powerful God can absolutely work out His good plans in and through the lives of those who love Him (that is, choose Him over and against any other competing option).
As long as you are willing to indulge straw man caricatures of your ideological opponents, you’ll never make a good or compelling argument. You tend to catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Thank you, though, for taking the time to read an old post. Enjoy the rest of your Sunday evening.
LikeLike
“Paul is emphatically not saying that everything that happens to you is the will of God. “
So God is not in control? Things randomly happen and God has to adjust to those random events? Wow. Which prominent theologians support that idea?
LikeLike
I didn’t say that at all. As long as you are willing to put words in my mouth and react to what you want to hear, having a productive conversation is going to be difficult. Of course, given your rather entrenched atheism, having a productive and nuanced conversation about the nature of the sovereignty of God probably isn’t something we’re likely to be able to have either. Given your atheism, the disengenuousness of your questions here is rather glaring as well.
LikeLike
Maybe we should define our terms. When I speak of “God’s will” I am using this definition:
The concept of “God’s will” suggests that everything that occurs, both at a global and individual level, is ultimately part of a larger divine plan or purpose.
What is your definition of “God’s will”?
LikeLike
I find your definition to be both simplistic and deeply problematic in that it makes God the author of both good and evil. The Scriptures are rather overwhelmingly clear that’s not the case.
God’s will is simply what He wants to happen. The theological challenge comes in figuring out where and how things that obviously violate His character and command fit into the picture. This is a challenge the Scriptures don’t neatly resolve for us. As a result, theologians have wrestled with how exactly to define it for hundreds of years. I’m personally very much drawn to the arguments in favor of Molinism or Middle Knowledge, as those make the most philosophical sense out of things. Theologians also speak of God’s perfect will versus His permissive will, but defining that precisely isn’t something we’re very well equipped to do beyond what we see in the Scriptures.
LikeLike
Interesting.
Do you believe God knew of the horrific consequences of “the Fall” prior to creating human beings?
LikeLike
In His perfect wisdom and knowledge, yes, God knew that. But because He was creating a world in which real love was possible, people had to have the freedom to choose other than Him even if the consequences of their choice were going to be devastating. Which do you think would have been better: for God to create a world without the possibility of sin, or with the possibility of love?
LikeLike
“Which do you think would have been better: for God to create a world without the possibility of sin, or with the possibility of love?”
You are assuming that humans cannot be happy and feel the joy of love without free will. Who says? You are assuming that humans would be miserable and feel deprived due to a lack of free will without any evidence.
Why did God give one creature out of all of his creation free will? For whose benefit was it? Were all the animals unhappy and miserable because they did not have free will? After he was finished, God looked at his creation and said it was “good”. How could it be good if all the animals were miserable without free will??
Doesn’t the above evidence strongly suggest that if this story is true, God gave humans free will for HIS benefit, not theirs.
LikeLike
Are you aware of any philosopher who has ever argued that genuine love is possible without free will? I’m not. And, I did not assume what you suggest at all. You really do need to stop reading your assumptions into my arguments.
God made human beings in His image so that He could share His love with us, and so that we could enjoy a love relationship with Him. Animals weren’t created with an awareness of self like humans were. They can’t experience the kind of misery we do. They obviously feel the agony of pain as all creatures do, but that’s not the same thing as the kind of philosophical misery humans can experience.
And you didn’t offer any evidence of anything, let alone that God gave humans free will merely for His benefit. You simply asked a series of questions that are rooted in a weak grasp of philosophy and the Christian worldview more generally. And, you baked into those questions a number of assumptions that aren’t justified by anything I’ve said. If you are trying to make a case for something, you have so far been unpersuasive.
LikeLike
“Are you aware of any philosopher who has ever argued that genuine love is possible without free will?”
Given a choice, which of these two options would a wise, rational person choose:
LikeLike
Framed like that, free will sounds like a devious plot by a malevolent God, but then that was your goal in framing it as such. Thankfully, that caricatured, deceptive framing ignores the bigger, deeper, richer, and better truth that includes Christ, a cross, an empty tomb, and a restoration of all things. We tend to see what we want. The question is whether or not what we want to see coheres with reality. You’ve rejected the Christian worldview, and so choose to see it in the worst possible light, mangling and otherwise obscuring the full breadth and depth of its truth claims such that your position seems the more reasonable of the two. You do not, however, make a very compelling case. Just a biased one.
LikeLike
Ok. Let’s add information about Jesus. Here is the updated version of my “If Given A Choice, Would You Choose Free Will” Test:
Given a choice, which of these two options would a wise, rational person choose:
Now, I challenge you to take this “test” and give it to ten random people. Don’t attempt to influence them either way. Let’s see what results you obtain.
LikeLike
I hope that you will accept my challenge and ask ten people to take the “Free Will Test”, but I doubt you will. I think you realize that unless the person is a theologian or apologist, he or she is going to pick choice number one. After all, if you can live forever in a lush garden playing with lions, tigers, and bears; God the creator comes down to visit you in the garden on a regular basis; AND, you have a hot, perfect wife as a constant companion, why on earth would you ever need or want anything else???
So why did the Judeo-Christian god create TWO creatures on earth with a free will? Why did he create TWO creatures with free will in a creation chock full of “robotic” creatures? Is it possible that the real reason is this: The Judeo-Christian god desired company! And, he didn’t want the company of robots. He wanted beings with a free will who could love him or not love him; who could obey him or not obey him. He wanted a RELATIONSHIP.
Problem: The Judeo-Christian god had already created beings with free will and long before his creation of earth. Angels! God had previously created thousands of beings with free will with whom he could have relationships and pass the time in pleasant conversation. Was Michael the Archangel a boring guy? What about the angel Gabriel? Not a stimulating interlocuter?? Why did God need more beings with free will???
The Bible tells us that one third of these beings with free will (angels) chose to disobey god. They chose to rebel against him. If there really are “ten thousand angels” as the hymn says, that means that several thousand of these beings with free will threw Heaven into open revolt and had to be cast out for exercising their free will.
So why make TWO more beings with free will when you had already seen the massive negative consequences of bestowing creatures with free will? It doesn’t make any sense, unless…
LikeLike
Where did you get the idea that angels had free will?
LikeLike
Would you please explain how 1/3 of all angels rebelled against God and became Lucifer’s evil minions
LikeLike
No, because the Scriptures don’t give an answer to that question, so we can only speculate on the matter.
LikeLike
There are only two possible rational options for why 1/3 of God’s angels rebelled against him: they had free will or they were preprogrammed robots. Neither option makes your God look good. If the former, God already knew the disastrous consequences of giving a free will to his created creatures. If the latter, God programmed Lucifer’s rebellion, which means God programmed Satan’s act of deception at the Tree of Good and Evil, which means Adam’s fall was a set up (by God)!
LikeLike
But you don’t know. You’re speculating. And all such speculation is inherently colored by our worldview commitments. You’ve rejected belief in and even the existence of God, thus you speculate in a way that makes it as unreasonable as possible. Personally, I am very comfortable accepting that God is a whole lot smarter and a whole lot wiser and a whole lot more just than I am. I’m also very comfortable accepting that I don’t know how any of that happened, that I don’t need to know how that happened to inform my belief, and that how any of that played out doesn’t need to have any impact on what or why I believe or my understanding of God’s character. That you choose otherwise says a great deal about you and not the first thing about God or the reasonableness of belief in Him.
LikeLike
More to the point, though, you still framed the argument as badly as you possibly could. Why would I take that challenge to anybody framed like that? Besides being pathetically uncharitable, it reflects such a poor understanding of the Gospel, it’s hard to believe you once actively wrote a Christian blog years ago.
LikeLike
What specific wording in the Free Will Test do you object to? I am happy to make any changes/alterations to the wording of the text as long as they accurately and unambiguously represent the position of the majority of Trinitarian Christians.
LikeLike
What you wrote doesn’t come close to that. It’s a fairly standard atheistic caricaturization of what I would identify as an orthodox presentation of the test. Did you make this test up by the way?
LikeLike
Yes. I am the inventor/creator of the Free Will Test.
Here is an even simpler test. I call it the “How Much Do You Value Your Free Will Test”:
Dear Christian, if God gave you the opportunity to go back in time to prevent all the horrific suffering (human and animal) that has occurred over the billions (or thousands, depending upon your theology) of years since “the Fall”, and all you had to do to prevent all that suffering, for millions and millions of your fellow humans and other living creatures, would be to give up your own free will and live as a preprogrammed robot, what would you choose?
Gary: If you are a Christian who believes in the reality of Hell, I would think you would choose to give up your free will to save millions from Hell. So, what does that tell us: Free will is not as important to humans as theologians seem believe it is. Saving others from horrific suffering is far more important to most of us.
LikeLike
So then, you’re okay with a loveless, deterministic world?
LikeLike
Am I ok with it? Reality is what it is regardless of what I want.
LikeLike
So, you believe the world is entirely deterministic and that genuine love isn’t possible?
LikeLike
I’ll send something that’s a fairer representation of the actual Gospel, but it’ll be Monday at the earliest.
LikeLike
“But you don’t know. You’re speculating. And all such speculation is inherently colored by our worldview commitments. You’ve rejected belief in and even the existence of God, thus you speculate in a way that makes it as unreasonable as possible. Personally, I am very comfortable accepting that God is a whole lot smarter and a whole lot wiser and a whole lot more just than I am. I’m also very comfortable accepting that I don’t know how any of that happened, that I don’t need to know how that happened to inform my belief, and that how any of that played out doesn’t need to have any impact on what or why I believe or my understanding of God’s character. That you choose otherwise says a great deal about you and not the first thing about God or the reasonableness of belief in Him.”
Earlier in the conversation you complained that I was ignoring the principles of philosophy, but now you want to ignore the principles of logic!
A being either has free will or does not. Period.
To shrug your shoulders and say “my god’s ways are a mystery” is a cop out. I seriously doubt you would accept this diversionary tactic from a Mormon, Muslim, or Hindu apologist who is trying to justify discrepancies in his religion so why are you using it?
LikeLike
“So, you believe the world is entirely deterministic and that genuine love isn’t possible?”
I never said any such thing. Let’s stay on topic. Do you or do you not agree that it is a logical fact that a being either has free free or does not?
LikeLike
You’re speculating about a supernatural world you don’t even believe in and whose operation may very well be inscrutable to us. I don’t know for sure how God created angels in terms of whether or not and how they engage with what we understand to be free will. The Scriptures don’t give us many clues to go on. You are free to make all the atheism-rooted speculations you’d like, but I will put absolutely zero stock in any of them.
What exactly is your goal in all of this? You haven’t made any good arguments yet or even raised interesting points. Are you trying to convince me of something, or just arguing for argument’s sake?
LikeLike
Your worldview has a huge logical hole in it and you are desperately attempting to avoid discussing it.
Jonathan: God is able to work good things in even our hardest situations. This doesn’t mean the situations are going to cease to be hard. It means that God is big enough and powerful enough and good enough to bring about His good plans even when our circumstances seem utterly hopeless. There are not circumstances we will ever face that are not able to be redeemed by Him if we will submit ourselves to Him and pursue the life of His kingdom by keeping His command to love one another after the pattern of Jesus’ love for us.
Gary: In the last paragraph of this post you claim that the God of Creation is big enough and powerful enough and good enough to bring about his “good” plans. Yet you cannot explain why this same god created two beings with free will on earth when he already had thousands of beings with free will in heaven. Thousands of these free will beings rebelled against God. (To argue that there is a third possible explanation for the angels’ rebellion against their Maker is to leave the world of logic and enter the world of fantasy.) Your god saw the consequences of giving his created beings free will on a previous occasion! So why did he repeat the process? What “good” was he expecting to come out of it?
Any open minded person can see that if the Judeo-Christian Creation Story is true, the fall of Adam and Eve was a trap. It was a set up. God wanted them to fail. Is He a sadist? Does he enjoy unleashing his righteous wrath on his impotent little creations?
Bottomline: The Judeo-Christian god is either evil by the standards of every civilized culture on the planet or he is just an ancient myth. Your educated brain should be able to distinguish which option is the truth.
LikeLike
So trying to convince me of something then? I’m a bit curious as to why. You’ve given this effort a few rounds in the past and failed spectacularly each time. I can go ahead and save you time if you’d like and let you know you are failing rather spectacularly this time too. So then, what’s your goal?
As for your argument here, that you profess to have a nuanced and deep understanding of a world you don’t even believe exists is more than a little humorous to me. You are speculating. That’s all you can do here. And your speculations just aren’t convincing or even especially interesting to me.
If you have an interesting argument to make, have at it. Otherwise, I’ll be glad to save you the time of a frivolous debate.
LikeLike
Your supernatural worldview is nonsensical, Jonathan. You appeal to the principles of philosophy (logic) when it helps your argument and reject it when it doesn’t.
A superstition is a superstition. Period. Dressing it up with philosophical arguments does not change that fact. You would chuckle at the native in the Amazon jungle attempting to use philosophy to justify his belief in the Snake God or the Sun God. Yet you use the same silly tactic to defend belief in another bronze age deity. Yahweh does not exist. He only exists in your superstitious brain.
Wake up.
LikeLike
Again, if your goal is to be convincing, you’re failing. A lot. You are letting the animus you have for religion in general and Christianity in particular lead you to make bad arguments that result, in at least the case of your attacks on the Christian faith, from a woefully impoverished understanding of the subject of your criticisms. I’m going to go ahead and count this conversation as spinning in circles and thus not worth continuing further. You are free to draw whatever conclusions from that you need to draw. Have a good rest of your weekend.
LikeLike
One last point: You, like many evangelical theologians and apologists today, seem to believe that knowledge of the principles of philosophy is the best defense against skeptics.
Have you ever googled: What percentage of modern philosophers are atheists?
Your google search will reveal that a significant percentage, probably a majority, of modern philosophers are atheists. Now how can that be if you are so certain, Jonathan, that the principles of philosophy validate your traditional Christian worldview?
You nor anyone else needs philosophy to see what traditional Christianity really is: A comforting ancient superstition. Nothing more.
LikeLike
Good morning, Jonathan. Will you be posting your version of the “Free Will Test” here or on your home page?
LikeLike
Well, as I said before, I’m most certainly not going to post the poorly constructed, overtly biased version you wrote up. With a busy week ahead of me, writing up a version of it I would be content to post won’t happen until the end this week at the earliest.
Putting it here on a post written over a year ago that you are pretty much the only person to have read in a full year doesn’t seem like it’s going to accomplish anything, at least not like you are imagining. If I make it its own post (which I have no plans on doing because, honestly, you don’t get a vote on what I do and don’t post), the vast majority of my readers are Christians who are informed enough that they’re going to see right through the charade of the test. Unless you plan on drumming up a bunch of people who already think like you to read and comment, that’s not going to accomplish anything like what you are clearly hoping would be the outcome either. And then, it won’t be the random sample you spoke of. Then, there’s still the problem (for you) of my wholehearted rejection of your framing of the test in the first place.
As before, if your goal is to convince me of something, you’re just not doing a very good job. From several comments you’ve made since you first started commenting and including your last comment on this thread, you seem very committed to the idea that truth is somehow determined by popular support or expert opinion. I do not even remotely hold to either of those views. Jesus Himself said the road that leads to life is narrow and only a few will follow it. That I hold what is an historically and globally minority position doesn’t burden or concern me in the slightest.
This all leads me back yet again to the conclusion that you are arguing for the sake of being argumentative. That being the case, I’ll bid you good day one last time, and consider this conversation over.
LikeLike
I thought you had said you would post your version of the Free Will Test on Monday. Maybe you meant no sooner than Monday. Sorry if I misunderstood.
Jonathan: You are teaching adults and children to believe that they are guilty and deserving of eternal punishment because of the sins of their ancestors, the first humans. These first humans were given the divine “gift” of free will but then used that “gift” to rebel against God. This act of rebellion resulted in God cursing all of his beautiful creation, causing unspeakable suffering, pain, and death for innumerable living creatures, for millions of years.
Yet, if the Bible is true, God had seen this all before, with the angels. Why repeat the process?
Is free will really a gift, Jonathan? Or, was it a set up for failure?
Jesus of Nazareth was a kind, good man. Jesus would never, ever treat people like that. This fact alone proves he was not the creator, which proves that Christianity is false.
LikeLike
@jonathan.
Fascinating topic, and one I had not previously considered.
So, do you believe the angels that were slung out of heaven for having rebelled against Yahweh exercised free will?
LikeLike
Like I told Gary, I don’t know and the Scriptures don’t give us any clue. Any speculation here is going to be worldview dependent, thus trying to use the question as some sort of an argument against Christianity was silly from the start.
LikeLike
If they didn’ t have free will what could have been the reason to cause them to rebel? You can speculate, surely?
LikeLike
That’s just it: we don’t know. Of course I can speculate. Preachers have done that for centuries. So can you. Given our history, though, the likelihood that our speculation is going to line up is vanishingly small. Why bother wasting either of our time?
LikeLike
Well, I understand Jews don’t consider angels have free will, so it is even more interesting that Christians do.
I presume you do believe they did / do have free will?
LikeLike
I don’t, and I believe most evangelical theologians don’t. At least, I would argue they don’t the way we would typically understand the concept. But again, there’s very little in the Scriptures to give us any guidance here, and it doesn’t impact the core fundamentals of the Christian faith at all, so I don’t give it much thought.
LikeLike
This is according AI.
Free Will:
“The Christian perspective is that angels, like humans, were created with free will, meaning they had the capacity to choose between obedience and disobedience. ”
Yet you say you belueve they did NOT have free will.
What am I missing here?
LikeLike
The fact that not all Christians think alike, that I said I don’t believe them to have free will the way we typically understand the idea and not categorically, and that, again, there’s almost no Scripture to guide our thinking on this question, so there’s not one single “Christian perspective” on the matter.
LikeLike
The bible asserts they DO have fee will which makes your tacit rejection even more interesting.
Is this a personal view – contrary to your own sect/denomination or is this a wholly doctrinal view of your particular church?
LikeLike
Cite chapter and verse on that one.
LikeLike
According to Got Questions.
“Angels are spiritual beings who have personalities that include emotions (Luke 2:13–14), intelligence (2 Corinthians 11:3, 14), and wills (2 Timothy 2:26). Satan was an angel who was cast out of heaven along with many other angels who decided to follow him and chose to sin (2 Peter 2:4). Satan’s will is mentioned directly in 2 Timothy 2:26. The Bible speaks of demons who, by their own choice, “did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling” (Jude 1:6). Demons demonstrate their free will in several passages of Scripture. Legion chose a herd of pigs as their destination (Luke 8:32). In Micaiah’s vision of God’s throne room, God allows a spirit to choose how to bring ruin upon King Ahab (1 Kings 22:19–22).
Before some of the angels exercised their free will to rebel against God, they could have been in a sort of “probation period,” similar to Adam and Eve’s time in the garden. Those angels who did not choose to sin and follow Satan have become the “elect” angels (1 Timothy 5:21), confirmed in holiness. These angels are also referred to as “holy angels” (Mark 8:38) and “holy ones” (Psalm 89:5). Those angels who did choose to sin in siding with Satan have become the “unclean spirits” (Mark 1:23) or demons.”
There’s more but this cut and paste seems to cover your request.
LikeLike
If I had written up that kind of a response to a question on whether angels have free will in seminary, I almost certainly would have failed the assignment. Literally none of that conclusively establishes that angels have free will the way we normally think about the idea. It doesn’t even make a compelling case for it. My point stands.
But again, you, an atheist who doesn’t believe any of it anyway, are trying to convince me I’m in the wrong on an intramural theological debate based on some stuff you found online. This is a truly pointless conversation that, like with Gary, I’m not going to have any further with you. It’s a waste of both of our time.
LikeLike
So far, everywhere I have looked on the internet the assertion is that Angels do /did have fee will. And while you continue to assert :”… in the way we normally think about the idea” without offering an explanation you are merely coming across as unreasonably defensive as one might expect of someone who is backed into a corner with evidence and tries to dance their way out using patronizing language and the usual dose of sanctimonious hand waving.
So MY question still stands: is this your personal view or a doctrinal view as expressed by your particular church/ sect?
When it comes to theology and supernaturalist beliefs, especially where such beliefs are inculcated and form the basis of a particular worldview the likes of which you have repeatedly been at pains to mention my ignorance on such matters, then NO question is a waste of time. Furthermore, if you were to treat any of your parishoners in the manner in which you treat me then how on earth could you expect them to afford you any respect or credibility?
LikeLike
LikeLike
Pastor Jonathan is a Southern Baptist. I grew up in an offshoot branch of Southern Baptists. We very much believed that angels have free will. The logical alternative is that God preprogrammed the angels to rebel and consequently preprogrammed Lucifer to tempt Adam and Eve to sin, making him evil and a sick sadist. Jonathan doesn’t want to be forced to choose between these two logical alternatives, so he appeals to “God’s mysterious ways” to avoid the obvious: checkmate. Clever but disappointingly dishonest.
LikeLike
Imagine Jonathan or another Trinitarian Christian debating a Mormon bishop on the evidence for their respective faiths. Jonathan confronts the Mormon bishop with the evidence that modern native Americans (Indians) do NOT possess DNA consistent with ancestry from ancient seafaring Jews, as the Book of Mormon claims. However, instead of being honest and admitting that the Book of Mormon is wrong on this point (which the bishop knows would eviscerate the credibility of the Book of Mormon in the eyes of Mormon laity) the Mormon bishop punts: “It is a mystery that only God knows.”
Baloney.
The Mormon bishop has shown his true colors. He isn’t really interested in evidence. What matters is maintaining the credibility and respectability of his supernatural worldview. No amount of evidence will convince him that his cherished LDS faith is false. Ditto for Jonathan and the contradictions in HIS holy book.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is the product of religious indoctrination.
I wonder how someone like you and every other deconvert was able to see behind the curtain yet a person like Jonathan cannot… or will not… even entertain the idea that his faith based belief/religion is entirely without any evidentiary basis while at the same time asserting( tacitly or otherwise) that every other faith based belief /religion is without any evidentiary basis.
LikeLike