I started to leave this post as a comment on ratamacue0‘s recent post, What Started My Questioning? but decided to post it instead. Fellow blogger (and friend) unkleE left this comment as part of a conversation that he and ratamacue0 were having:
…most non-believers seem not to recognise that there isn’t one consistent portrait of God in the Bible – it changes through both Testaments – and then to choose the worst picture (which is often the earliest one) to critique. But if the claimed revelation of God is progressive, it would surely be fairer to choose a later picture.
I think most non-believers do recognize the difference; it’s just hard to forget that first impression given in the OT.
And really, how progressive is the picture the Bible paints? The NT points out that God doesn’t change, so those harsh characteristics he possessed in the OT are still being claimed by NT writers. The NT also repeats some things like “vengenance is mine, I will repay.” And it tells us not to fear those who can destroy the body, but he who can destroy both body and soul. The NT also gives us the doctrine of Hell, regardless of what that might mean.
I think some of the NT writers, like Paul and the author of Hebrews, are arguing that the method of salvation and the specific requirements God has for people are changing, and in that way the message becomes more progressive. More emphasis is placed on the mind and not just physical acts, for instance. But as to who God is, I don’t think that image really progresses from OT to NT. The same God that killed Uzzah for trying to steady the ark, condemns anyone who doesn’t believe in Jesus, even though it’s hard to blame many of the Jews for saying Jesus was a blasphemer, considering the teachings in the Old Law.
Such a God is irrational. Many Christians seem to agree, which is why they don’t believe in parts of the OT. But since the NT still claims the same irrational God, I see no reason to believe in him at all. And to me, that seems much more consistent than trying to hold onto parts of the mythology, while rejecting the unsavory parts. If that god were real, and he wanted people to know about him, I think he’d keep the one source of information about him pure. Since that obviously didn’t happen with the Bible, why continue to hold to it at all? Why not put faith in a god who isn’t concerned with petty dogmas, one who simply set things in motion for us? One that may inspire people from time to time, but is largely content to let us live our lives without interference? To me, that seems to fit the evidence far better… and while I don’t have any actual belief in such a deity, I can see why some would. Why mesh it with Christianity, when it seems so superfluous?
Finding Truth 
So are you trying to tell me that under your own interpretation – we can know nothing unless it is spelt out explicitly?
Be consistent in your interpretation and application of text. I’m sure that in other areas of scripture you do not need explicit description to draw conclusion.
LikeLike
Hi Powell, I’m sorry you resort to insult rather than just discuss. My main point was to establish that the text doesn’t say exactly what caused this bizarre event, so saying God did it is no more than a personal conclusion. It is important that be established, otherwise the discussion goes off on a wrong assumption.
And it isn’t obtuse to say honestly that I don’t know, When I point the difficulty of explaining the start of the universe as a reason to believe in God, Nate says he is happy to say he doesn’t know. I disagree with him, but I don’t call him obtuse. It would be much more pleasant if you would do the same please.
My view is this. As I said, this is a bizarre event that is difficult to explain on any view. I think there are several possibilities:
1. The story has been misreported. Always possible, but Luke is generally very good historically so I’m reluctant to conclude that.
2. God killed them both. But while that is characteristic of the view of God in the early OT, when there is good reason to believe the stories are at least partially legendary, it is highly unusual in the NT. And since the OT writers tend to ascribe events to God that we wouldn’t today (e.g. the Psalms – admittedly poetry rather than factual – ascribe snow storms to God), it would be unusual if God did it that Luke wouldn’t have said so. So I don’t think that is a reasonable explanation.
3. Coincidence. This would be an amazing coincidence, highly improbable, though the improbable sometimes happens, and perhaps this was recorded because it was so unusual.
4. Fear and suggestion. Perhaps Peter’s authority was so great and A & S so fearful that they died by suggestion like witch doctors might sometimes make happen. This seems too bizarre for me, but I suppose it is possible.
Four explanations, all improbable. So I am unable to decide which might be true, and don’t feel under any compulsion to decide as it isn’t very important to me.
“I’m sure that in other areas of scripture you do not need explicit description to draw conclusion.”
You don’t know me, so I can excuse your assumption. There are in fact may parts of the Bible where I don’t draw conclusions.
So, I just wanted to make sure the facts were pointed out before anyone got carried away on opinions, I have good reason not to understand or pretend to know the answer to this bizarre event, and I don’t think I was being obtuse at all.
Do you think we can be friends now? 🙂
LikeLike
@unklee
Apologies if you think that it is an insult. Certainly in our previous exchanges I’m certain we were not riled up and definitely it’s not my intention to do so either. So yes friends then and still friends now. 🙂
That being said, I take back the word obtuse as it is certainly not conducive to this discussion.
Nonetheless, the principle of the matter still stand – it is very difficult to not draw natural conclusion when you do exegesis of the text, which Rata has shown many other christians doing so.
I still maintain that by purposely pointing to the fact that the passage didn’t say “God did it”, you are avoiding drawing a natural conclusion and pushing for a caltrop argument based on the technicality.
I think this argument is disingenuous (can I use this word? Please take my gentleman honor that it’s really just a description rather than a personal attack). Using your same logic – one could argue that everything is possible – because the text didn’t say so. And I could say Jesus could have done this and that because the Bible didn’t say He couldn’t/didn’t, and using your argument you will not be able to disprove me of my interpretation. This is not how normal people read books. Which is why I said I have serious doubt about your hermeneutics if you are consistent in your life. That’ll be a very strange way to read newspapers to say the very least.
Regarding this:
You don’t know me, so I can excuse your assumption. There are in fact may parts of the Bible where I don’t draw conclusions.
My point still stand. You can have many parts of the bible where you don’t draw conclusion. But as long as you draw a conclusion – however obvious conclusion it may be – when the bible doesn’t explicitly says so, you are being inconsistent. Certainly I can only take your word for it that you say you don’t. I do find it unlikely though – we are all biased in our own ways and have blind spots that we don’t see.
LikeLike
@Unklee
And it isn’t obtuse to say honestly that I don’t know, When I point the difficulty of explaining the start of the universe as a reason to believe in God, Nate says he is happy to say he doesn’t know. I disagree with him, but I don’t call him obtuse. It would be much more pleasant if you would do the same please.
I disagree with your statement even though I do take back the word obtuse.
There are different degrees to which one can claim I don’t know.
You see your wife naked in the house and sees a naked guy jumping out of the window the moment you enter? Well…. I don’t know I believe my wife is still faithful because I didn’t see the act. And she told me she didn’t cheat. She told me the man entered the wrong house and it’s a genuine mistake. She is naked waiting for me and the man appeared at the wrong place wrong time.
Few possibilities – My wife lied or it’s really a genuine mistake.
or
I can say I don’t know.
If I do say I don’t know, what do you think the common response would be? He’s just trying to lie to himself? He doesn’t want to think about it? Purposely ignoring it?
This is very different from saying I do not know who shot JFK.
If you don’t acknowledge the difference between the 2 then perhaps I think we’ll just have to end with yet another tipping of the hat and agree to disagree.
LikeLike
“Luke is generally very good historically – I’m surprised you would say that Unk, in light of the latest evidence regarding Luke:
http://www.westarinstitute.org/projects/the-jesus-seminar/seminar-on-the-acts-of-the-apostles/
LikeLike
The difference between an nonbeliever (such as Nate, I’d imagine) saying he doesn’t know the origin of the universe, and a Christian saying he does know, is – not only is the Christian the one making the claim – he is also the one claiming to have divine revelation giving him those claims. If we don’t actually have such revelation, then we wouldn’t actually expect to have such answers. If we do have such revelation, and if the purported god cares about us knowing and believing it, I’d expect him to provide evidence to support the claims, so as to differentiate his claims from other false claims and religions.
IMO, from such a vantage point, the discrepancies and lack of demonstration in the alleged revelation count as evidence against the propositions.
LikeLike
Hi powell,
Glad you liked my comments. 🙂
I hope you don’t mind calling me ratamacue. (Not a big fan of the shortened forms I’ve seen.)
I’m not familiar with the word caltrop. Is this what you mean?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caltrop
What then is a caltrop argument?
LikeLike
Hi Powell, thank you very much for that response, I appreciate it.
Look, I don’t see much reason to argue with anything you are saying now. The text doesn’t say God did it so we each have to make a judgment (assuming we care enough to bother). Judgment is a very personal thing. You as a non-believer and I as a believers will have different assumptions and different prior probabilities, etc.
I have given my thoughts on the possibilities and why I find all options unlikely, and therefore why I remain mystified. I have been a christian for more than 50 years, I have read this passage dozens of times, I have thought about it a bit, and I am still mystified. Many christians would say God did it, but I have never been totally happy with that explanation. Like I said, if God had done it, I reckon Luke would have said so.
I wonder what you think? I presume you think it is totally unhistoric?
I am quite happy to speculate and draw conclusions – my work as a hydrologist and an environmental manager required me to make many assumptions and guesses – if we waited for scientific certainty, the rivers would have been dead before we took action to protect them. But I am also happy to remain agnostic if I think there is little reason to draw a conclusion. I am a reasonably practical christian, critical of those who spend all their time in theological discussion and never doing very much. I prefer to put a lot of that aside (although I actually have a theological degree) and get on with supporting justice action at home and abroad, so this is one issue I don’t think is really important.
Thanks.
LikeLike
@Powell:
Unfortunately it is indeed not convincing to an ex-christian who has experienced all you’ve said sans the crash at 70 mph.
That’s okay with me. As I’ve tried to make clear, both to you and other commentators on Nate’s site, I’m not trying to ‘convince’ anybody of anything. I believe what I believe and I respect that you believe what you believe. You merely asked me why I believe and I answered. If that is not ‘convincing’ to you, that’s fine, it was never meant to be. I’m simply relaying my story. I fully understand how someone can draw one conclusion from a set of events and someone else may draw something completely different. I don’t believe either person is “wrong” for either conclusion given whatever life experiences and ‘baggage’ they bring to that particular event.
Truth is not something you believe in.
I would disagree with that statement. Truth must be something you believe in, otherwise what is it? And why believe in anything?
At least for me, you cannot simply “choose to believe” to see God in things. This is important even for Christians.
Again, I would disagree. We all “choose to believe” what we believe. Atheists and agnostics “choose to believe” in more of the realm of what can be proven by science and intellect. I “choose to believe” that some things are dictated by a spiritual realm (whether proven or not). I also “choose to believe” that those to realms are not diametrically opposed.
Once again it boils down to – how do you know what you interpret and what you experienced is indeed from God, or is it Satan trying to distract you?
The honest answer is, I don’t know. But, as a believer, I would have to wonder why Satan would try to distract me with circumstances that have drawn me closer to my God? Of course you could say that I am being “distracted” toward the wrong God, but that is where I would have to rely on faith…yes, just as the Muslim or Mormon or Hindu or Buddhist or ad infinitum ad nauseum.
So once again I must ask you – how do you differentiate? And if you haven’t thought about this question – why haven’t you? What makes you so sure that you are even reading/feeling/thinking right?
First, let me assure you that there is nothing I can say that will sound convincing in this forum, even if it were. (as UnkleE is making clear) My belief hasn’t come because of doctrine, although I know them. It hasn’t been through evidences, although I’m familiar. It’s been through personal experience, gut feeling and context; something by your own admission that is wholly unconvincing to you and without merit. So I must ask, why does it matter to you how I differentiate? Or, whether I’ve thought it through, or sure that I am thinking right? If you are genuinely interested, I’ve already told you all I can. If you are looking to bait me into debate or argument, all I can say is goodnight and thank you for the conversation.
LikeLike
@ ratamacue0
No problem at all. I don’t think I’ve spoken to you directly in the past (omg first post!) but I’ve read in previous comments about your preferences. Apologies if I did use short forms earlier. Didn’t do it purposely as I’m typing this from my office oops so might have slipped my mind.
In any case – http://galileounchained.com/2011/08/26/caltrop-argument/
Not very sure if this is the “official term” though.
Hope this helps!
Oh btw, I went to your blog over the weekend and it linked me to surprisedbydoubt which gave me the Gomes quote. Beautiful!
LikeLike
@Kent
Not trying to bait you into saying anything on my last point. But i would urge you to think seriously on the implications of the way you think your faith works.
Why?
Just from what you’ve told me:
“But, as a believer, I would have to wonder why Satan would try to distract me with circumstances that have drawn me closer to my God? Of course you could say that I am being “distracted” toward the wrong God, but that is where I would have to rely on faith…yes, just as the Muslim or Mormon or Hindu or Buddhist or ad infinitum ad nauseum.”
I do think there is a level of complexity that you’ve not explored previously. What does “draw you closer to God” even mean? Is it just feelings? What does obeying God’s commands mean? Follow the bible to the dot? When you add in all these, where does Satan comes in the picture? When something fails is it because Satan is sabotaging it or is God purposely closing the door? How do you know it is the holy spirit speaking to you instead of satan tempting you?
etc etc etc
Certainly you are not looking for an argument, and honestly neither am I.
That being said, does seeking clarifications about one’s faith constitute making an argument? Especially when you were sharing your life online as a response to what Nate has written? So I guess we are not allowed to scrutinize it in order to further the discussion?
You are definitely entitled to your opinion on the above matter, but to me that sounds very similar to this: http://jerichobrisance.com/2014/09/09/classic-christian-drive-by/
LikeLike
@Kent
If you are still interested in continuing the discussion/argument (your pick)
Truth is not something you believe in.
I would disagree with that statement. Truth must be something you believe in, otherwise what is it? And why believe in anything?
I think we are on different definition of truth here. I’m using fundamental truth – whether you can fly or you cannot fly – whether you believe you can fly or not has nothing to do with it. E.g. you can believe all you want that Jesus rise from the dead. He might have or he might not have. There is only one correct answer unfortunately. Yes some people will say perhaps the truth is halfway there – e.g. Jesus fainted and woke up. So not exactly dead an risen again but certainly not dead and rotting.
Fair enough, but regardless it is still factual.
That is the truth I’m talking about. I’m assuming that when you say “truth” you are referring more towards the “poetic” definition?
LikeLike
Kent – completely disagree with your beliefs (Surprise!), but completely agree that you have a right to yours, and I have a right to mine as long as neither of us tries to cram ours down the other’s throat. You and I have no problems.
LikeLike
@unklee
Thanks for the kind respond 🙂 (#bffforever)
I’ll only be able to reply perhaps later (still at my day job!)
So hope you don’t mind. (or perhaps there is nothing to reply at all heh)
LikeLike
unkleE,
While I disagree with your interpretation of the text, I do appreciate that you wind up a kinder person for it, at the very least when compared to the judgemental Christian types that many nonbelievers rail against.
LikeLike
@Arch: Always appreciated that, Arch. 🙂 Thanks, and good night.
LikeLike
@Kent
Hey hope no hard feelings between both of us. I do apologize if I come off too strong (I blame it on writing in a hurry and no chance to reread my tone etc).
In any case have a great night and I do hope you stay around. It’s always good to have people with different beliefs coming together if not it’ll just be an echo chamber.
LikeLike
Hi powell,
Thanks.
Is that your blog that you linked to, with the post on caltrop arguments? I’ve become familiar with the concept, i.e. conversation / thought stoppers that Christians tend to use, but I hadn’t heard it called that before.
On a related note:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/leavingfundamentalism/2015/02/04/cool-not-and-five-other-ridiculous-words-my-christian-school-tried-to-ban/
LikeLike
Buenos nachos!
LikeLike
“if not it’ll just be an echo chamber.” – Or a mutual admiration society.
LikeLike
@Arch
Kent – completely disagree with your beliefs (Surprise!), but completely agree that you have a right to yours, and I have a right to mine as long as neither of us tries to cram ours down the other’s throat. You and I have no problems.
Side track
Can’t really say I fully agree with this sentence though, even though I do acknowledge the need for such statements for the good of society.
Taken to the extreme, I can easily say that I have a right to believe that black people are inferior and stupid. Or perhaps say I have a right to believe that all 3rd child should die as humans are getting overpopulated and we should not have too many kids.
There are people who say that sure you can believe but it is the actions that count. But to that I would argue that if your own kid is having bigotry beliefs would you not correct it using education (not asking you to whip him/her into shape)? Aren’t you impeding on his/her rights then? Therefore is it reasonable to say that everybody has a right to think whatever they want? There are those who believe that Obama is a Muslim, do they have a right to believe something that is factually wrong?
I don’t have an answer to that. But I would agree with you – right now cramming into each other’s throat is not the way to move forward. I guess that is the pacifist approach that works for me – to each their own.
LikeLike
@ratamacue0
Haha I don’t have any blogs unfortunately. Not really the type to sit down and crystallize my thoughts in a straight forward coherent manner. Neither do I have the strength and patience to sit down and write. (ironic since I used to write for a living)
I’ve read the article before. Quite funny 🙂
LikeLike
“Taken to the extreme, I can easily say that I have a right to believe that black people are inferior and stupid. Or perhaps say I have a right to believe that all 3rd child should die as humans are getting overpopulated and we should not have too many kids.”
And I would agree with you completely. What you believe is not my concern – what you DO about what you believe, is.
LikeLike
““Luke is generally very good historically – I’m surprised you would say that Unk, in light of the latest evidence regarding Luke:”
Hi Arch. It is with some hesitation I respond to your comment, for past discussions between you and I haven’t always ended well. Can we both agree to avoid those endings this time do you think?
My answer won’t surprise you, because it is the same as I have given you before. You have chosen scholars at the extreme of the range of views and suggested I should find them authoritative. The Jesus Seminar is not a fair summary of the scholarly state of play. For example, the late Maurice Casey, admittedly an irascible old historian at times, but an atheist/agnostic and claiming to be in the middle of the range between extreme christian apologists and extreme sceptics, said this of the Seminar:
“The methods adopted by the Seminar were …. sufficient to prevent [its] aims being achieved ….. some of the best scholars in the USA …. were not members of it ….. [it included] people who were not in any reasonable sense authorities at all …. Their voting was so bizarre” and he describes their outcomes as “disastrous. (Jesus of Nazareth, p 20-21).
So I have good reason not to even bother to read the Seminar’s works (though I have in fact read one book on the gospels).
But here are a few quotes by classical historians:
A.N. Sherwin-White in ‘Roman Law and Roman Society in the New Testament’, pages 189-190:
“For Acts the confirmation of history is overwhelming …. any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.”
Expert reviews of Sherwin-White’s book agree:
John Crook reviewed it in Classical Review 14 (1964) p198-200, and agreed that Acts is “an historical source talking about exactly the same world as Tacitus and Suetonius.” He thought that Sherwin-White’s work “support the authenticity in detail of Acts.”
J. J. Nicholls, agreed with Sherwin-White that the Gospels and Acts “are to be treated as equally serious and valuable evidence” as other ancient historians, such as Herodotus, Thucydides, and Tacitus. Journal of Religious History (1964): 92-95. According to Nobbs, other leading classicists–publishing in the Journal of Roman Studies and Classical Weekly–found Sherwin-White’s book a welcome and sober historical inquiry that was a corrective of the work of more skeptical theologians. Ibid., pages 286-97.
Those are old references now, so a little more recent is Robin L. Fox, ‘The Unauthorized Version’, page 210:
“I regard it as certain, therefore, that he [Luke] knew Paul and followed parts of his journey. He stayed with him in Jerusalem; he spent time in Caesarea, where he lodged with an early member of the Seven, Philip, who had four prophetic daughters, all virgins (Acts 21:8-9). It must have been quite an evening. He had no written sources, but in Acts he himself was a primary source for a part of the story. He wrote the rest of Acts from what individuals told him and he himself had witnessed, as did Herodotus and Thucydides; in my view, he wrote finally in Rome, where he could still talk to other companions of Paul, people like Aristarchus (a source for Acts 19:23 ff.; cf Acts 27:2, 17:1-15) or perhaps Aquila and Priscilla (whence 18). From Philip he could already have heard about the Ethiopian eunuch (Philip met him), or Stephen and the Seven (Philip was probably one), or the conversion of the Gentile Cornelius in Caesarea (Philip’s residence); from the prophet Agabus, whom he met at 21:10, could come knowledge of Agabus’ earlier prophecy in 11.28.”
The most authoritative work on the topic may be Colin Hemer’s ‘Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History’, which found that Luke was a reliable historian whose background details can generally be verified as accurate (p 412), and who appears to have obtained much of his information by being present or by interviewing eyewitnesses.
Now note that these are all classical (generally Roman) historians, not NT historians, one of whom is a christian (I think), one is an atheist, and I don’t know about the others. Classical historians have far less of an axe to grind in NT matters.
So that is the basis for my claim that Luke is generally reliable.
LikeLike
“While I disagree with your interpretation of the text, I do appreciate that you wind up a kinder person for it, at the very least when compared to the judgemental Christian types that many nonbelievers rail against.”
Thanks. I do try, though it isn’t always easy when strong opinions are at stake. I appreciate your friendliness even though we disagree.
LikeLiked by 1 person