“You must not hold back offerings from your harvest or your vats. Give me the firstborn of your sons. Do the same with your cattle and your flock. Let them stay with their mothers for seven days, but on the eighth day you are to give them to me.” (CSB – Read the chapter)
There’s an awful scene from the beginning of the movie Braveheart where William Wallace has just gotten married and some English soldiers arrive in town and learn about the wedding. The soldiers demand their rights of jus primae noctis (“the right of the first night”) as extended to them by King Edward “Longshanks” the ruler of the land. This meant they were entitled to sleep with a woman on her wedding night before she and her new husband have the opportunity to come together. The actual history of the practice is a bit murky, but it was basically part of a ruler’s demand of the first and best of his people. Reading this next law, I’m reminded of that scene. God here demands the first and best from His people. How is this any different from what the English soldiers in Braveheart did? Let’s explore that together.
The theme of powerful people taking what they want from those who live under their authority is a very old one indeed. The practice has been going on for a very long time. It was mentioned as far back as the Epic of Gilgamesh. As humans have invented various gods and deities, a similar kind of idea has often been incorporated into their larger worship rituals. This has often taken the form of various sacrifices which, of course, had to be from among the best of what the people had to offer. A god wasn’t going to be satisfied with less. In fact, all ancient gods required sacrifices from their people. Modern gods do too. Hindus today still set out offerings before their house altars. People who engage in ancestor worship do the same. Christians give time and money. People who worship the environment limit their lifestyles in ways that go well beyond what most others do. When someone worships work, she will sacrifice time and even relationships on the altar of her career. The question here is really not whether a god expects a sacrifice – they all do – but what kind of a sacrifice he wants and what the purpose of that sacrifice is.
When trying to make sense of what we see here, we find ourselves at another one of those places in the Scriptures, and especially in the Old Testament, where if we just engage with these two verses as they exist on the page without placing them properly in the larger worldview context of the Scriptures, we’re not going to be able to make any positive sense out of them at all.
As a starting point for this context-setting is the understanding that because God created the world and everything in it, all of it really belongs to Him. Without that belief in place as a foundational pillar, none of this is going to make any sense. God’s telling His people to offer up sacrifices to Him will sound little different from these English soldiers’ in Braveheart demanding Wallace’s bride as their prize on her wedding night. The claim of any human ruler like that is dependent on his ability to convince enough people of its veracity to be able to enforce his will. In other words, it’s all a mirage forced upon people at the point of a sword. It was why concepts like a ruler governing at the consent of the governed began to develop in modern political theory. If God doesn’t exist and didn’t create the world and everything in it, then verses like this are no different from that and should be rejected in total.
If, on the other hand, God does exist and did create the world, then He actually does own all of it. Everything in it belongs to Him because He made it. Instead of seeing things through the lens of being offended that He is asking for a portion of our stuff, we should have an attitude marked by a profound sense of gratitude that He has allowed us to claim ownership of any of it. And, as we saw from our conversation about the ninth command on the Big Ten list (don’t steal), He does indeed allow us to claim ownership of some of it in spite of His being the first and actual owner. That He asks us to give only a portion of His stuff back to Him as an offering of thanksgiving for His giving it to us in the first place is an act of profound generosity on His part.
When thinking through the larger context in which these two verses are properly placed, it includes all of God’s actions toward the people thus far in their journey. It includes His rescuing them from slavery in Egypt. It includes His providing for them along the way of their journey to this point. It includes His protecting them from various threats. The context includes His instructions later on to have the entire tribe of Levi set apart specifically to serve Him as priests as a substitution for the firstborn sons of the nation. It includes His much later explanation that He doesn’t want the sacrifices of the people at all so much as He wants their trust and devotion. The sacrifices were only the means of their demonstrating that trust and willingness to follow Him. They were physical, symbolic acts designed to help the people convey in action their commitment to Him. He promised a day when He would help them make that commitment a fully internal thing when the kind of sacrifices they had been offering for years would no longer be necessary. And it ultimately includes the sacrifice of Christ to serve as a substitution for all of us. God laid down His life in Christ so that we can have ours in Him.
God’s instructing the people to offer sacrifices like this was all about trust. That’s what sacrifices of all kinds ultimately are. They are exercises of trust. The object of that trust varies, but that’s what lies at the heart of any kind of sacrifice. We are demonstrating trust that even though we need whatever it is we are giving up in order to thrive in our own lives, the need we are now creating in our own lives by this giving will be met by other means. In a totally secular context, those means could be simply our own hard work. In a religious context, the provision will be by whatever god whose approval we are seeking. When a follower of Jesus today engages in the spiritual discipline of sacrificial generosity, he is communicating his trust in God to provide for his needs in spite of the loss of what he is giving away.
Indeed, if we didn’t need the thing we are giving away in order to get along well in our own life, then it wasn’t a sacrifice. Giving away something we don’t need and whose loss won’t affect us in a meaningful way isn’t an act of trust at all. It’s hardly an act of charity. It’s merely an offloading of extra stuff onto someone else. Such gifts can be used to accomplish kingdom good, but they shouldn’t be mistaken for sacrifices.
If you are someone who regularly gives some of your money to a church on a regular basis, it is worth reflecting some on why you do that and what it is actually accomplishing. Non-sacrificial giving isn’t doing anything for you. It may be helping to fund whatever ministries your church is involved in doing, but it’s not moving you closer to God. It’s not strengthening your faith in Him. It’s not growing your relationship with Him. It’s just giving money away and nothing else. Again, your church can and will use that to accomplish some kingdom good, so it’s not nothing, but it’s not doing for you what God wants generosity to accomplish in you when we get it right. You need to think carefully and prayerfully on whether your gift is a sacrifice or just a gift. If you want it to be a spiritual exercise that actually has the power to move you forward in your relationship with God in Christ, it’s got to be a meaningful sacrifice. Anything less won’t cut it.
Ultimately here, then, the question is whether or not we trust God to provide for our needs and how we are willing to demonstrate that trust. In practical terms, that demonstration comes from only one place: Jesus’ command to love one another after the pattern of His own love for us. If we really trust God, we are going to love the people around us like Jesus did and does. There is no evidence that counts more than that.
The Nexus 
Of course, the Exodus tale as described in the Bible is simply rank fiction, and the archeological and scientific evidence has shown this to be true.
One then has to wonder why anyone would believe otherwise, unless they were simply using the tale as a kind of metaphor for something?
If this were not the case then wilfull ignorance seems like the only reasonable alternative.
This casts the motivation behind the ‘musing’ in a whole different light, don’t you think so?
LikeLike
I’ll ignore the silly pot shots.
On the Exodus, you keep talking like the case is irredeemably closed. And yet, there are credentialed scholars who look at the available evidence and argue that it points in the direction of historical reliability (like this group which offers a pretty honest assessment: https://armstronginstitute.org/238-evidence-of-the-exodus#:~:text=“The%20Exodus%20is%20so%20fundamental,Egyptian%20records%20to%20support%20it.).
Now, perhaps you’ll write them off because many of them are Christians and thus are hopelessly biased, but that’s a logically flawed argument that says nothing about the available evidence. If you choose to reject these arguments and the evidence on which they are based, that’s obviously up to you. I think you’re mistaken in doing so and using a biased lens of your own. That’s where we are divided. You only use a secular lens and engage with the work of an overwhelmingly secular group of scholars, so I wouldn’t expect you to conclude otherwise. It all comes back to worldview.
LikeLike
You think I haven’t researched this particular topic extensively?
You may recall I mentioned the novel I wrote that includes a character who is a spoof of Moses, and that when I considered it prudent to do some background checks on Moses how surprised I was to find nothing.
So offering up this type of evangelical approach ( for want of a better term) is like asking John Williams if he has ever listened to Segovia.
So, yes I saw Bible archaeology and I immediately thought… Here we go again.
I was not dissapointed.
As you probably haven’t read anything by Israel Finkelstein etc there seems little point in engaging on the topic.
Nonetheless if we’re to afford Christian scholarship/ archaeology any credence on this matter we would be obliged to accept the nonsense of the tale that included crossing the Red Sea, the destruction of the unnamed Pharoah and his army, manna from heaven, the wanton slaughter of various locals, chatting with Yahweh, Moses mountain climbing exploits to fetch the Ten Commandments and the supposed stay at Kadesh and the insurmountable problems this would have presented.
(This was a real clincher for me)
Then there is the debunked Conquest Narrative, Kenyon’s unchallenged dating of Jericho and a myriad other details that make acceptance of the Christian narrative suitable only for those believers whose blinkered worldview hinges on the innerrency of the Bible tale and are unfamiliar with the archaeology of ‘the other side.’
There is a certain amount of delicious irony however in the way Christians naively try so hard to justify their supernatural Bible nonsense by using empirical/ scientific examples.
It always makes me chuckle and most of the Christians seem blissfully unaware.
Of, course there are those Christians who are somewhat more devious in their approach to such things.
You remember I mentioned Jerry Vardeman?
LikeLike
The entirety of your response here starts from the premise that God doesn’t exist. If that premise is wrong, much of your assessment of the Exodus narrative is immediately resolved. In other words, you’re putting the cart before the horse. Again. So, once again, the worldview framework from which you are interpreting the relevant data results in your seeing what you see. Yes, imminent (unbelieving) scholars like Finkelstein look at the available data and conclude one thing. That’s certainly worth giving a lot of weight. But equally imminent (believing) scholars can look at the same data and see something else. It’s almost like they both are allowing their respective worldview frameworks to influence what they see. Which, again, falls right in line with something Paul said about that…three times (I remembered a third one after I noted he said it twice last time). You’re just not making any arguments here that come across as convincing at all. And if you need to continue to conclude that the only reason they’re not convincing is because of just how indoctrinated I am, I guess you’ll have to do that.
LikeLike
Again with the, My premise Yahweh dies not exist.
For f**k’s sake Jonathan you are like a long paying record that only play s on extended song…
There is no evidence 2 million Israelites fled from Egypt and spent 40 years wandering the Sinai.
And you failed to address a single point I raised.
Parting of the Red Sea? Really?
Tell me, did you ever climb up on the roof of your house at Xmas as a kid and look for reindeer tracks?
And it’s pretty obvious your have not studied Finkelstein or are aware of the evidence he has produced.
Do you have any idea the size of such a multitude and the evidence that would have been left at Kadesh for example?
There was a point that I thought you were at least fairly reasonable in your approach but the more dialogue we have the more convinced you are a die hard fundamentalist and, I am sad to say, aftef your childish retort over Yahweh and the great big gang plank there is more than a bit of emphasis on the mental part of fundy…
Here’s something we’ll worth reading.
LikeLike
The parting of the Red Sea would have been a miraculous event. If your starting premise is that God doesn’t exist, then of course that’s nonsense. Much of the Scriptures sound like nonsense if you start there, which is something I’ve explained over and over again as we’ve gone forward. If a supernatural God exists who is as powerful as the Scriptures proclaim Him to be, then something like that wouldn’t even be hard.
And, no, I haven’t studied Finkelstein at all. Frankly, I don’t have the time for it. Let me stake out the position I hold, though, one more time. The field of biblical archaeology continues to turn up discoveries that prove the existence or historical accuracy of an ever-increasing number of people and places and even events cited in the Scriptures. Many of these have come after secular scholars insisted one thing or another couldn’t possibly be historical (the discovery of proof of the historical existence of King David, for instance). There are undoubtedly places, especially in the most ancient stories, where archaeological evidence hasn’t been found yet. I’m willing to extend the benefit of the doubt to those places on the basis of the evidence and the direction it keeps on pointing that already exists. You don’t believe, and so you see and interpret all of these matters through that lens. The unbelief comes first. It always does. The rest just seems to give it justification.
If that all means you need to declare me a hopeless fundamentalist, so be it. That being said, your derision over my response about the gang plank just proves my point. There was nothing childish about my response. I merely pointed out that, once again, you have a frame of reference from which something like that is going to seem silly. I don’t. So, things like that don’t even register as issues for me the way they do for you.
LikeLike
There are hundreds of physical landmarks mentioned in Ian Fleming novels. This does not mean James Bond is a genuine historical figure
And if, after repeatedly correcting you, you continue to write that my starting premise is that your god, Yahweh doesn’t exist then from now on every subsequent time you assert it I will tell you to go and have sex with yourself.
As the scientific evidence refutes the Noachian flood narrative then your response is childish.
LikeLike
Again with the historical fiction silliness? I won’t even try to respond to that this time.
When you consistently demonstrate that your starting premise is anything else, I’ll concede that point. You haven’t done that yet. Your words say one thing, but the evidence of your comments say another. Why, it’s almost like you said something that I’m now telling you what you meant by it in spite of your telling me that you didn’t mean that. Notice, though, that I said, “if.” If indeed that is yours or anyone else’s starting premise, then what you consistently demonstrate as far as your perspective on the matter is exactly the perspective I would expect anyone to have on it. Of course you think these things. I wouldn’t expect you to think anything else. You’ve demonstrated exactly zero willingness to consider them in any other light. Unless or until you do, you’ll continue thinking like you. I’m not sure what that’s at all a threatening or generally risible point for you.
And, no, there was nothing childish about my response at all. We’re looking at the matter through two different lenses. If there is a supernatural God (the lens I’m using and will continue to use in spite of how much that seems to befuddle you), then, yes, the Flood could have happened, and yes, He could have closed up the door to the ark. If there’s not, then it’s silly.
LikeLike
I fully acknowledge archaeologists are digging up stuff from this period all the time.
As I mentioned before, the discovery of Kadesh, for example, had archaeologists in a tail spin once they had access to it.
And what was discovered put to bed any notion 2 million fleeing slaves parked off there.
Now, why is it you want me to consider Noah and his big wooden boat yet refuse to accept the scientific data of Kadesh and the global flood tale?
Whether there is a supernatural deity does not detract from the scientific fact the Noachian Flood could not possibly have happened.
Therefore your continual insistance that your god, Yahweh could easily have closed the great big gang plank and sealed the ark is even more hilarious.
You might as well be insisting that, “If Harry Potter were real then flying around on a broomstick would be easy for a wizard.”
And of course from this perspective you would be perfectly at liberty to assert such a thing.
However, consider the response you would receive from a scientific audience if you tried to pass off such a ludicrous proposal.
LikeLike
A lack of evidence for something’s happening and the categorical proof that it didn’t are two different things. I’m simply operating from a different standpoint than you are. It’s one that allows me to be very comfortable accepting that even though a particular historical event may not have easily demonstrable proof for it – and may even have evidence that apparently points against it – I can still extend the benefit of the doubt and not have to worry much else about it. I know that position seems unfathomable for you, but I’m okay with that.
LikeLike
Proof is for mathematics and baking bread.
Evidence that refutes the Bible tales uses the same or similar methodology
that are used in pretty much every archaeological dig, which will include carbon dating.
The problem Christians face is when the evidence is irrefutable, as with Kadesh, they are left grasping at straws trying to marry the myth with reality.
As far as the Exodus narrative is concerned, most Jews simply accept the science, shrug and move on, as you would have seen from the post I linked and the subsequent articles Zande produced.
It really doesn’t affect them to a great degree, a point David Wolpe made and encouraged his fellow Jews to embrace.
Zande was in communication with several archaeologists from Tel Aviv university for months.
The pieces he produced are well researched and comprehensive.
No, I understand your position perfectly.
There is a term for it, I think it is called compartmentalism.
It allows the religious individual to carry on their daily routines without having to deal with the fact their religious beliefs contradict much of the things they accept from a scientific point of view.
It is what you as a fundamentalist Christian, would have to give up should you embrace the evidence that Wolpe accepts,
There is another term for this but you continually reject any allusion to religious indoctrination.
LikeLike
You understand my position through your worldview lens which has always and only been the case. I’ve set to see evidence from your comments that you are capable of anything else.
That aside, the challenge with archaeological finds that seem on their face to discredit historical claims in the Scriptures is that archaeologists keep on digging, and sometimes they find more things later that show that the once seemingly irrefutable evidence either isn’t quite so irrefutable as it seemed or that they were digging in the wrong place to get the full picture in the first place. I think here about the fairly recent discovery of Sodom and Gomorrah. A very well respected archaeologist (Albright) had spent some time in the past doing some pretty thorough explorations for these places, and drew some negative conclusions about the historicity of the Genesis account based on his work. Then another archaeologist team, digging in a different location that was chosen because of their careful reading of the Genesis account and a basic acceptance of its historical reliability discovered a massive city that at some point and somehow was destroyed by an intense fire from above and the land around it lay fallow for another 3 to 6 hundred years. Even giving up trying to argue for a fiery judgment from God for the cities, the discovery fits a whole lot more closely with the Genesis account than the previous discovery. Collins has been raked over the coals for the discovery, but most of the criticism has a whole lot less to do with the archaeological work itself than it does with the worldview perspective he brings to it. This is just another example of an occasion when the secular scholarly world said one thing based on the available evidence, and then subsequent digging proved another.
This doesn’t mean their work doesn’t matter or that it should be rejected. It should all be considered carefully – even the critical evidence – and taken as part of a larger framework of a discussion of the historical nature of the Scriptures.
If you reject the proposition that God exists for whatever reasons you have for doing so, then the Scriptures cannot be anything but historical fictions (to use the phrase you keep coming back to). And when discoveries like Kadesh come to light, you get to breathe a sigh of relief that you were right all along. If you do accept that proposition, though, you are able to look at things in an entirely different light. It’s a sometimes challenging light, to be sure, but one that just keeps getting fed in ways both small and large.
In the end, though, whether any of these ancient stories are true (and I think there’s good reason to operate on that assumption), they don’t have any bearing on the question of whether Jesus rose from the dead and thus have very little meaningful to say negatively about the Christian worldview. That is, you can fully accept Finkelstein’s work and still follow Jesus.
LikeLike
Remember why I said if you continue to assert that I do not believe your god exist?
Go for it….
They have every bearing on whether the character Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead.
When archaeogists find this supposed tomb then you may have a basis for an argument.
Those crucified by the Romans were left on the cross to rot.
So if your man rose from the dead it was from a common grave or trench.
LikeLike
It’s humorous to me that you are on the same side as the fundamentalists in debating whether or not the historicity of Exodus or anything in Genesis has any bearing on whether or not Jesus rose from the dead.
LikeLike
It’s telling your lack of understanding in this matter.
LikeLike
I agree completely. How funny that we keep coming to places of agreement, but from opposite sides of the issue. We’re like brothers, but from opposite sides of a mirror.
LikeLike
And yet your lack of understanding does not stop you from making unsubstantiated assertions including dismissing or denigrating evidence provided by bona fide scientists abd archaeologists.
Do you think that this is because not a scrap of evidence has ever been produced to unequivocally support your faith?
LikeLike
No, you reject the source of substantiation. That’s different. Furthermore, I have not dismissed or denigrated anything. I’ve disagreed that a number of things you’ve waved around in front of me tell the final story on this or that. That’s also different.
Go back in time 100 years. The Christians who were looked at as quaint idiots by the broader scholarly world for believing the world actually began to exist at some point in the finite past when God created it were probably told they were dismissing and denigrating “evidence provided by bona fide scientists” too. Then Hubble discovered the red shift and Fred Hoyle had to come up with the name “the big bang” to make fun of such a ludicrous idea (because of its obvious theistic implications which, as an atheist, he couldn’t support). Go back in time just 30 years. The Christians who argued that embryonic stem cell research was immoral and should not be pursued at all, let alone funded by the government were absolutely told they were dismissing and denigrating evidence provided by bona fide scientists.” And then scientists finally realized that, no, actually embryonic stem cell research was a bust, but that adult stem cell research which didn’t carry any moral baggage was producing incredible medical breakthroughs.
Both times the positions taken by Christians and which were vigorously denigrated by the secular scientists (not to mention media) who knew more proved to be the correct one. When you stack this on top of the number of other times (King David, for instance) the secular scholarly world have declared something about Christian to be totally unsubstantiated only to have to later admit it was right all along, your continuing to take up a similar kind of position in our conversations just doesn’t do much for me.
And, if what you’re looking for is unequivocal support, then you will indeed never come around to recognizing the reasonable of the Christain worldview. There’s a reason, at the end of the day, that it is called faith. It is an entirely reasonable faith for a host of different…well…reasons….but it is faith. We don’t have all the answers, and that’s okay. That doesn’t make it untrue. The Christian faith provides the lens that makes the best sense out of all the various evidences about the world and how it works at every single level. Ultimately, a person doesn’t adopt a faith in Jesus because everything else in the world unequivocally makes sense out of it, but because it is the means by which everything else makes sense.
LikeLike
You have rejected the assertion the Noachian global flood is a myth.
You reject the assertion the Exodus tale is a myth.
You do not fully accept the HGP.
By taking this unsubstantiated stance you are by default denigrating the work of thousands of highly qualified individuals across multiple disciplines on the basis that your faith will eventually win through and the Bible be proved correct.
LikeLike
Wrong. To say it again: I’m simply arguing that the scholars involved in the work you cite may not have yet given us access to the complete story on any of these matters. Any self-respecting scholar who has an ounce of humility to him (or her!) will be willing to acknowledge that his (or her) work isn’t the final word on whatever its focus happens to be. If you have decided that you are offended at my taking that position on their behalf, I can’t do anything about that. I remain convinced that the larger pattern of scholarly engagement with the Scriptures over the course of the last couple of hundreds of years points in the direction of the reasonableness of the position I take.
LikeLike
Wrong! The geologic record shows absolutely no evidence of a global flood let alone as described in the Bible.
Punting even the possibly that such an idea might one day be shown to have occurred is utterly ridiculous and sets you and such beliefs alongside Ken Ham.
Similarly your ‘just maybe’ attitude regarding the HGP is equally as disingenious.
And you have not even engaged the Exodus narrative or even bothered with Kadesh or Kenyon’s dating of Jericho or the evidence Finkelstein has produced after almost a lifetime of work.
If you could show me a single recognised archaeologist /scientist / geologist etc who has ever suggested that the Bible tales are accurate representations then I will gladly acknowledge your position on this matter.
LikeLike
There’s been nothing disingenuous about any position I’ve taken with you yet. I’ve taken every position on purpose.
And what does “recognized” mean to you?
LikeLike
One that follows where the evidence leads rather follows faith.
LikeLike
So then, from what I can make of your standpoint, as long as they’re secular, you’ll listen to them.
LikeLike
So you are acknowledging that those academics scholars etc you would cite/ listen to would be guided primarily by faith?
LikeLike
Of course they’re guided primarily by faith. They’re Christians. That doesn’t have any bearing on the question of whether or not the data they produce is suspect any more than the atheism or agnosticism of secular scholars has any bearing on their data. Any thought to the contrary is a worldview-dependent one.
LikeLike
Of course it has a tremendous bearing.
Consider: There is at least one YEC geologist ( sic) ( whose name escapes me) who obtained formal qualifications from a secular institution but also writes articles for AiG asserting that the Noachian Flood is scientific fact.
His qualifications are cited by AiG to add weight to his claims.
I am sure you can see how this blatent dishonesty is unethical and immoral.
I have mentioned the late Jerry Vardeman, Baptist minister and archaeologist and his fraudulent claim regarding the micro letters and the spurious Caesera Inscription.
There are a number of others.
When faith is the primary concern then the veracity of whether something qualifies as evidence becomes secondary.
LikeLike
So then, as long as they agree with your position directly or have someone else who agrees with your position give them a nod of assent, you’ll give them a hearing.
There have no question been Christians who let belief run out ahead of evidence and wound up with egg on their faces because of it. There have been secular scholars who have done the same thing but from the opposite direction.
Consider embryonic stem cell research again. It was worldview blinders that led to the strong belief among mostly secular scholars that the science was, as they say, “settled” on that question…until it wasn’t. So, you’ll have to forgive me if each time you tell me the science is thus and such, and so therefore obviously the whole of Christianity is a farce, I tune out a bit.
Data can be correct and it can be incorrect. How we interpret it can go both directions too. And, the worldview presuppositions a particular scientist brings to his craft can and will impact the kind of data he’s able to even think to collect in the first place as well as how he understands it. We tend to see what our worldview presuppositions tell us to see both for good and for ill and for both secular and believing scientists. Thinking through good philosophy of science helps to mitigate some of this, but only some of it.
LikeLike
The Christian Worldview interpretation will dominate when evidence is ignored or misrepresented.
The Church is a living record of this.
The YEC position is also an excellent example.
The not so extreme but equally erroneous evangelical position is another.
For either of these worldviews to hold sway then the acceptance of the supernatural/ miracles is mandatory.
The secular scientific position is not influenced by faith or any religious considerations and often makes mistakes. However, as the knowledge base broadens these mistakes are corrected.
But such corrections never ever point or lead toward a supernatural answer.
And the same applies to religion. Every time any religious doctrine or interpretation of new evidence is deemed necessary it is always because of a scientific discovery.
It has never been because of any sort of revelation.
LikeLike
There are two ways God reveals Himself. Guys like Paul talk about both of them. One is what scholars who helped launch the Scientific Revolution, following on Augustine, I believe, called the book of nature. This is where you get Paul’s observation in Romans 1 that the basic facts about God’s existence can be simply observed in creation. The second is the book of Scripture. Both books tell important things about God and who He is. And the two books support each other. Apparent contradictions are consistently, eventually proven only apparent. It’s happened again and again over the centuries. I don’t see good reason to think that won’t happen again with the various examples you so consistently cite.
The secular position is absolutely influenced by worldview considerations. It couldn’t not be. To argue otherwise is to completely misunderstand how worldviews work in the first place. It is influenced by secular considerations and a general antisupernaturalist presupposition. For these folks, corrections never point or lead toward a supernatural answer because those are a priori ruled out. The question is not who’s biased and who’s not, but whose bias is correct. That’s a philosophical question, not a scientific one.
LikeLike
“Antisupernaturalist position”
Oh, my!
“Wa, Wa Wa! The nasty secular atheists don’t believe in all the magical fings my Bible tells me about. Jus’not fair.
They’re just mean. Of course Noah was real an’ there was a global flood an orla the animals went onna big boat, ark thing an’ God lifted the great big gang plank fing an’ sealed it all up.
Why do I have to give ’em evidence for?
They know nuffink. It’s God’s word against them rotten atheist secularists. They’re not real scientists. Real scientists have found sea fossils up mountains and dere is human footprints wiv dinosaurs. That’s genuine stuff that is.
Bloody secularists and their evidence! Pah, I hate ’em. God’ ll sort em out and send ’em all to Hell. You mark my words!”
LikeLike
Sigh…sure. Did you have a rough day? You keep sounding crabbier than usual tonight.
LikeLike
As you are sounding more fundamental than usual.
LikeLike
I guess it’ll just have to be one of those nights.
LikeLike
If you were to engage with the evidence honestly our conversations would likely be more productive and less ascerbic?
LikeLike
I agree.
LikeLike
So is that, “Yes, in future I shall engage with the evidence.”?
LikeLike
I will continue to engage with all of the evidence through the worldview lens I remain convinced is true beyond any reasonable doubt because of the much larger case in favor of it. You have my word on that.
LikeLike
Then the honest is. “No, I will not engage with the evidence but cherry pick the bits I feel confident enough aligns with my unsubstantiated supernatural worldview and where possible hand wave and obfuscate those things I feel might may me look a bit silly.”
LikeLike
If that’s how you need to construe that, by all means.
LikeLike
Not how I need. You knew very well your initial answer was intentionally devious.
LikeLike
Nope. I’m being honest with you every step of the way. You just don’t like or agree with my answers because you have a pretty radically different worldview position than I bring to our conversations.
LikeLike
There is only evidence, Jonathan.
You either engage with it or you don’t.
Example: As there is no evidence of a global flood in the entire geological record then hedging your bets is dishonest.
LikeLike
No, it’s seeing things in a different light than you’re willing to see them.
LikeLike
Again no.
If you accept the scientific method you cannot then put it aside if it clashes with your faith.
You will excuse me for a while I have been called for dinner and I have an evening delivery to make.
Give you time to think a bit more carefully.
Later. .
LikeLike
The scientific method was developed by people who were nearly all professing Christians. I’m fine accepting it. I really am sorry you can’t fathom how this all works, and can only see it through a single, deeply biased set of lenses.
LikeLike
You expect me not to know this and be surprised?
LikeLike
Since I mentioned it earlier, an interview with the archaeologist who discovered Sodom just popped up on my podcast feed. Here you go if you are interested: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/socrates-in-the-city/id1457024541?i=1000653961679
LikeLike
https://www.sapiens.org/archaeology/tall-el-hammam/
Another evangelical ‘Digging for god’ (sic).
LikeLike
Yes, I read about the kinds of reactions he’s gotten. They are definitely out there.
LikeLike
It is telling you can’t produce a single archaeologist who will offer up evidence of a global flood as per Noah and his big wooden boat.
Or a single archaeologist who will assert the Exodus as presented in the bible is historical fact and has the evidence to show this.
LikeLike
Do you have any other “squirrel!”-like examples to use? I’m honestly starting to get bored with these two. You know where I stand, I’ve responded to the same criticisms from you over and over and over. Continuing to bring them up isn’t accomplishing anything anymore. Well, it didn’t in the beginning, but it’s just tired now. I’m not convincing you, you’re not convincing me, let’s find a new game to play.
LikeLike
These two examples, along with the Original Sin garbage are crucial to the foundation of your faith and it’s origins.
That you continue to try to justify them is a clear indication you pay only lip service to evidence.
This may be why you also disregard them when the answers become too problematic and once more, utter your somewhat banal refrain about none of this makes any difference to the resurrection yadda yadda.
LikeLike
You and the Fundamentalists standing in lockstep once again. Careful or you might start agreeing with them on more theologically significant matters.
LikeLike
As you are a fundamentalist the very last thing I am is in lockstep with you.
LikeLike
You call me a fundamentalist. Theologically speaking and as far as how Christian scholars categorize various lines of Christain thought and practice, I’m much more of a moderate than that. The kinds of things you are insisting must be true about the Christian worldview because that makes it easier to reject from the standpoint of your worldview position fall much more in line with positions held by actual, theological fundamentalists than my own. Thus my observation.
LikeLike
Anyone who considers Yahweh helped out with the great big gang plank on Noah’s big wooden boat is a fundamentalist. Furthermore, there is a case to me made for very little Fun but a lot of Mental.
LikeLike
And that’s your definition of the word, which is fine.
LikeLike
Well, as the saying goes, there’s no smoke without fire.
If the cap fits and all that.
LikeLike
You can indeed continue holding to that position. It doesn’t mean you’re correct, but arguing the point doesn’t seem worthwhile.
LikeLike
In that case I will hold you to this position as, based on your responses, it seems more likely than not.
LikeLike
You are welcome to operate from out of your base of assumptions about the Christian worldview. They will perhaps continue to be convincing and applauded by fellow atheists, and they will continue reveal that you just don’t have any idea what you’re talking about when you make them with Christians who have actually studied the faith and understand it reasonably well. Okay, that’s it from me for today. Much work to be done. Enjoy the rest of your evening!
LikeLike
A number of deconverts I have become blog pals with would most definitely agree with this position.
Practically all have acknowledged how indoctrination played a major part in their belief ( in case you actually thought it was just me and I simply made that up).
Every one has expressed how they are so glad to be free from the insidious tentacles of religion.
One chap, Ben, often expressed deep regret/remorse for inflicting the same religious crap he had been subject to upon his two elder children.
When he and his wife discovered they were having a third child he was tickled pink at the thought of raising her free of religion.
So you see, it was from such people that my current views about your revolting religion came about.
Another, Nate, deconverted and was immediately ostracized by his family and all but a couple of friends. In a close knit community such a response can be devastating, especially for small children.
So when the term fundamental enters the conversation perhaps you can appreciate why the term mental takes centre stage?
LikeLike
Of course they would. Otherwise, they likely wouldn’t have deconverted.
So, you listened to the stories of people who hate a particular thing (most often reasons connected to a bad experience with it in some form or fashion), and eventually came to share their perspective. How utterly unsurprising. Imagine if you had spent all of your time listening to the many, many, many more people who told stories of how their life was a total wreck until they encountered Jesus and entered into a relationship with Him, and now their life has done a complete 180. They are filled with more hope and joy and peace than they had ever known before. They have purpose and direction that had never existed for them. Their character is different and better too – a claim whose truthfulness is supported by the people around them who have noticed and even experienced personally the difference. I wonder if perhaps then you wouldn’t have a somewhat different perspective on the whole thing. When you only listen to and engage with critics, you tend to become a critic and double down on the criticism you have. If you get a bit more of a balanced perspective in your formative period with a particular thing, you tend to have a bit better a view and fuller (not to mention truer) an understanding of it.
LikeLike
Most people I have encountered who deconverted did so because of the realization that Christianity is simply hokum and they have been indoctrinated and / or hoodwinked.
This would also include the abuse they were subject to, such as Johnny Scaramanga. And there must hundreds of thousands of individuals in similar situations.
Your description of why people CONVERT on the other hand is in fact pretty much spot on.
They were emotional wrecks, often because of drugs, alcohol, pornography, or any number of destabilizing situations or destructive habits.
It is important to point out here that not a single individual I am aware of who would be regarded as normal, reasonably well-balanced and has a stable fulfilling life would ever convert.
Also, of those unfortunate people who do convert it is never because of evidence that demonstrates the veracity of the ridiculous claims made about the religion.
In fact, I’ll wager anyone who is a mentally stable well-balanced person would ever even dream of becoming Christian.
The mere notion is risible.
I have mentioned Francis Collins’ conversion was due in no small part because of a form of death anxiety.
It is a similar story with every convert I have read about.
LikeLike
Well, by the same token, pretty much every deconversion story I’ve heard has been rooted in a bad experience with the church or with Christians or both. They have this horrible experience, come to associate negative things with Christianity (for entirely understandable reasons given their experience) and later go on to find some arguments that justify their rejection of their former faith.
People don’t make a worldview change because everything is going great in their life.
As much as you would like to believe that people only deconvert because they are thinking rationally and only convert because they are thinking irrationally, the truth is more than a bit more complicated than that. You like to paint with a very broad brush. That’s certainly easier to do and gives a great deal more apparent justification for your position.
The trouble is, your sample size is small relative to the whole, biased because of the sources where you are finding it, and generally (from the sound of it) lacking in nuance. You are encountering your stories on what are essentially anti-Christian blogs. How fair and impartial do you really expect the storytelling about Christianity there to be? That doesn’t mean I think any of them are necessarily being dishonest, but given the context, all you are being exposed to are what amount to emotional arguments against Christianity that have sometimes been wrapped in a sheen of intellectualism.
To my knowledge, you’ve never experienced Christianity at its finest and truest and have spent lots of time soaking in the waters of people who do nothing but tell stories about how horrible their experience with it was. You’re biased on the matter no less so than you no doubt suspect I am on the other side. That colors your view in ways I can’t always tell you really understand. A bit fuller a perspective on the matter would likely do you some good. It certainly wouldn’t hurt.
LikeLike
I simply look at the history of your religion.
If the evidence pans out then that and the stories I read from converts and deconverts alike is what I base my perception of your religion.
As I have explained before, while I rarely attended Church as a kid the impression was very much the quaint village church, St Mary’s in Handbridge, avec smiling non threatening vicar. A few Sunday school excursions, band parade with the scouts and getting married in the large Catholic Cathedral in Johannesburg.
By and large all people I came in contact with seemed to be Cultural Christians.
So I had no bad experiences to base my views on until I began to encounter (mostly) US Christians on the internet.
When I first encountered YEC I thought it was a joke. What sort of Nutter believers considered the earth was no more than 10k years old?
Later I discovered there where also fundamentalists who took the Bible more literally than what I understood as a kid and they did not believe evolution was fact.
So tell me, what about my exposure as a kid/youth /young adult would have been a bad experience?
LikeLike
I don’t think you had a bad experience. At least, not that I can tell from anything you’ve shared with me. You’ve never professed any kind of a meaningful commitment to the faith (again, that I can tell from what you’ve shared). Because of that, you didn’t ever leave the faith. You also didn’t have any particular animosity or especially hard feelings toward the Christian faith or even religion in general (once again, that I can tell). Your current view of the church was entirely shaped by the stories of people who did have a bad church experience in some form or fashion.
My argument is that if you had had your view of the Christian faith mostly influenced by people who had a great experience with you, you would likely have a very different perspective. That doesn’t mean you would be a believer if you had encountered more good stories when your views of the church were being formulated and hardened. Rather, it means your views would be a bit more moderated. Instead of seeing the whole thing through such a negative lens, you would have a more balanced lens where you would be able and willing to acknowledge the incredible amount of good the Christian worldview has brought to the world.
I don’t deny that people claiming the name of Christ have done a lot of terrible things over the last 2,000 years. That’s simply history. But some of the most popular stories that are used to paint the church as an obvious villain across its history are often more complicated than the pop versions of the stories would have you believe (i.e., the Crusades, the Inquisition, the various religious wars in Europe, and Galileo all come to mind). And, the amount of good things people claiming belief in Jesus as their driving force far outstrips the bad. It’s not close when you start compiling a full list.
LikeLike
Now explain the reason why you consider I should convert.
LikeLike
So impatient. I have that one open and I’m just starting to write as I pause to type this. I need to keep scrolling until I find the question about Adam and Eve. That may have to wait until next week.
LikeLike
Sorry, I have been laid up in bed with a base case of flu these past 2 days. I am not the best company.
LikeLike
I’m so sorry to hear that. Flu is no fun (granting that I’ve somehow never had it). My bride has had it twice in the last couple of years. It’s nasty stuff. I hope your recovery process is swift and smooth! I’ll be praying for just that as I pray for you more generally (something I’ve made a fairly regular habit, by the way). I’m about to hit send on reasons to convert.
LikeLike
Just wanted to check in and see if you are feeling any better. Hope you whip this stuff soon.
LikeLike
I am sitting up in bed as I type.
I have been extremely poorly. Goodness knows what this ‘bug’ is but when two of our clients came to collect an order and my wife mentioned “…. hubby is sick” describing the symptoms the couple nodded sagely and told her they had recently come out of something that sounded the same. I am assured it isn’t Covid, but how this conclusion was arrived at I don’t know – don’t argue with the wife, right?
Worse, we are supposed to be flying to Mud Island (UK) on Thursday evening for my father’s 90th. I hope to the gods I am at least well enough to travel.
If I am still incapacitated I dare not risk taking whatever it is over to my parents.
I did peruse your two brief and to the point ( not 😊) answers but I will have to be in a much sharper frame of mind to do them justice.
The gods willing I may draft a reply on the plane?
Ark
LikeLike
Do I ever write anything that is simple and to the point? You’d likely think I was sick if I did. It is amusing that an atheist keeps invoking “the gods” for help. I only pray to one of them, but I will be praying to that one not simply for a swift recovery, but for a smooth trip. Getting to see and celebrate your dad sounds like a most exciting affair. I’ll look forward to hearing why I’m all mixed up when you’re feeling better. Focus on that for now. Important stuff first.
LikeLike
And, yes, not arguing with the wife is generally a pretty good rule for living. The few times I’ve been foolish enough to stake out a different position than the one she held my folly was revealed to me (and rightly so) soon enough. If you have even half the sense that I do, you married up too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just wanted you to know I am actively praying you are not merely feeling better, but that you are feeling good enough to travel safely and in good conscience, and that everything goes smoothly as you crisscross the globe tomorrow evening. Have a great rest of your Wednesday.
LikeLike
Okay, I’ve been waiting on pins and needles far too long now. Are you feeling better, were you able to make the trip, and how was the party? Hope you and the family are doing well.
LikeLike
Sorry. Missed this. Been out of the loop.
Yes, I was cleared for travel by my GP and am currently in France with my sister
LikeLike
Fantastic. Hope it has been a good trip. Travel safely and enjoy seeing all that family. I suspect that is a rare treat. I’m glad you’re getting to enjoy it.
LikeLike
Turns out I picked up a dose of Covid!
Otherwise it has been a blast.
LikeLike
Which of course came after you left meaning your wife was right the whole time before you left ;~)
I’m glad it has been.
LikeLiked by 1 person
To add, by your response, or lack, I take it you didn’t even bother with the link I provided.
And you assert I am close-minded.
Good grief!
🤦
LikeLike
I actually did read the article. All of it. I typically read at least most of all the links you’ve sent me. It’s really interesting. I suppose I shouldn’t quibble with the fact that it comes from an atheist website as casting a pall over the research it cites or arguments it makes? The challenge of understanding the numbers in the Old Testament generally, but especially in the context of the larger exodus narrative is a debate that keeps Christian scholarly journals busy with their peer review process. The writers there assume on one understanding of the numbers (a fairly literal one), and make most their argument based on that idea. There are other scholars who will argue that the numbers should be understood differently for various reasons (and not for reasons of unbelief). In other words, the article takes a particular position on the matter and torches that one. There are other positions arguing for smaller numbers. I haven’t paid those too much attention over the years. The fact is, these are really old stories and demonstrating historical reliability is tough. But when you put the one story in the context of the larger whole of the Christian worldview, that particular challenge gets diminished in size a bit.
LikeLike
If you have never read anything by Finkelstein et al how in Hades could you dimiss the evidence, and especially when it us so graphically illustrated?
LikeLike
I didn’t intended to dismiss it. I said I’m willing to extend the benefit of the doubt that it isn’t all the evidence that will ever be found.
LikeLike
So hiw do you account for the archaeological evidence of Kadesh?
LikeLike
I haven’t studied the matter enough to be able to. I don’t have time for that in my current season of life either.
LikeLike
And once again, you call me close – minded!
LikeLike
Not having sufficient time to be able to do the research to refute every point you raise and being close minded are two different things.
LikeLike