Sigh…
So here’s what’s been going on lately. Most of you who read this blog already know that when my wife and I left Christianity, it wrecked most of our family relationships. My wife’s parents and siblings, as well as my own, felt that they could no longer interact with us socially after our deconversion. We were no longer invited to any family functions, and our communication with them all but disappeared. We would speak if it was about religious issues, or if there were logistic issues that needed to be worked out in letting them see our kids, etc.
Over the years, things have gotten a little better, especially with my wife’s parents. Things are by no means back to normal, but at least our infrequent interactions have become more civil and more comfortable. A few weeks ago, I even had a phone conversation with my father that lasted about half an hour and had no references to religion whatsoever. It was nice.
Nevertheless, the awkwardness is still there, just under the surface. And we’re still blacklisted from all the family functions.
Throughout this time, I’ve occasionally reached out to my side of the family with phone calls, letters, facebook messages, etc, in an effort to discuss the issues that divide us. I don’t get much response. I’ve always been puzzled by that, since I know they think I’m completely wrong. If their position is right, why aren’t they willing to discuss it?
In the last five years, I’ve also been sent books and articles and even been asked to speak to certain individuals, and I’ve complied with every request. Why not? How could more information hurt? But when I’ve suggested certain books to them, or written letters, they aren’t read. When I finally realized that my problems with Christianity weren’t going to be resolved, I wrote a 57-page paper to my family and close friends, explaining why I could no longer call myself a Christian. As far as I know, none of them ever read the whole thing. And sure, 57 pages is quite a commitment. But they say this is the most important subject in their lives…
This past week, the topic has started to come back around. A local church kicked off a new series on Monday entitled “Can We Believe the Bible?” It’s being led by an evangelist/professor/apologist that was kind enough to take time to correspond with me for several weeks in the summer of 2010. I’ve never met him in person, but a mutual friend connected us, since he was someone who was knowledgeable about the kinds of questions I was asking. Obviously, we didn’t wind up on the same page.
My wife’s parents invited us to attend the series, but it happens to be at a time that I’m coaching my oldest daughter’s soccer team. So unless we get rained out at some point, there’s no way we can attend. However, we did tell them that if practice is ever cancelled, we’ll go. I also contacted the church and asked if the sermons (if that’s the right word?) will be recorded, and they said that they should be.
Monday night, the weather was fine, so we weren’t able to attend. And so far, the recording isn’t available on their website. However, they do have a recording of Sunday night’s service available, which is entitled “Question & Answer Night.” I just finished listening to it, and that’s where the bulk of my frustration comes from.
It’s essentially a prep for the series that kicked off Monday night. They’re discussing why such a study is important, as well as the kinds of things they plan to cover. What’s so frustrating to me is that I don’t understand the mindset of evangelists like this. I mean, they’ve studied enough to know what the major objections to fundamentalist Christianity are, yet they continue on as if there’s no problem. And when they do talk about atheists and skeptics, they misrepresent our position. I can’t tell if they honestly believe the version they’re peddling, or if they’re purposefully creating straw men.
A couple of times, they mentioned that one of the main reasons people reject the Bible comes down to a preconception that miracles are impossible. “And if you start from that position, then you’ll naturally reject the Bible.” But that’s a load of crap. Most atheists were once theists, so their starting position was one that believed in miracles.
They also mentioned that so many of these secular articles and documentaries “only show one side.” I thought my head was going to explode.
And they referred to the common complaints against the Bible as “the same tired old arguments that have been answered long ago.” It’s just so infuriating. If the congregants had any knowledge of the details of these “tired old arguments,” I doubt they’d unanimously find the “answers” satisfactory. But the danger with a series like this is that it almost works like a vaccination. The members of the congregation are sitting in a safe environment, listening to trusted “experts,” and they’re injected with a watered down strain of an argument. And it’s that watered down version that’s eradicated by the preacher’s message. So whenever the individual encounters the real thing, they think it’s already been dealt with, and the main point of the argument is completely lost on them.
For example, most Christians would be bothered to find out that the texts of the Bible are not as reliable as were always led to believe. Even a beloved story like the woman caught in adultery, where Jesus writes on the ground, we’ve discovered that it was not originally part of the gospel of John. It’s a later addition from some unknown author. To a Christian who’s never heard that before, it’s unthinkable! But if they’ve gone through classes where they’ve been told that skeptics exaggerate the textual issues in the Bible, and that the few changes or uncertainties deal with only very minor things, and that none of the changes affect any doctrinal points about the gospel, then it’s suddenly easier for them to swallow “minor” issues like the insertion of an entire story into the gospel narrative.
Sigh…
I’m going to either attend these sessions, or I’ll watch/listen to them once they’re available online. I may need to keep some blood pressure medication handy, though.
Finding Truth 
“The Jewish Encyclopedia is talking about the belief systems under the Roman Empire and later. This is not taught in the Bible.”
Hi Nate and others,
I am not Catholic, and I don’t fully agree with Crown’s interpretation of Gehenna as purgatorial. The information I have found suggests the first century Jews had several different views, including Gehenna as punishment, as purgatorial and as annihilation.
But I believe you and others have misunderstood first century Judaism (or “Second Temple Judaism” as it is often called) when you argue from what the OT says. First century Jews had many interpretive texts which took stories from the Tanakh and amplified them, developed them, drew conclusions from them, etc – as you know from Peter Enns’ Inspiration and Incarnation
Enns and others have clarified how Jesus and the NT authors lived in this cultural milieu and adopted some of its approaches and quoted or alluded to some of these writings. Many of Jesus’ sayings and arguments contain shadows of all this, and to properly understand him requires that we take all this into account.
I have said to you many times, you have left behind your fundamentalist Protestant belief in God, but I don’t think you have yet left behind your fundamentalist Protestant view of the Bible. There is change & development within the OT, change & development between the OT and the NT, and even change & development within the NT. Fundamentalists don’t recognise this, but it is quite clear. Far from being a problem, that is the point. As one scholar I read recently said, to the Jews their scriptures were not a prescription but a dialogue between different ways of seeing things.
LikeLike
unkleE,
Yes, Judaism has been “modified” in many ways over the years. But these modifications are based on, as you wrote, interpretive texts. Key word: interpretative. This is no different than what the churches of today are doing when they split into thousands of different denominations because they “interpret” the scriptures differently from one another.
It all boils down to what you think the text means as opposed to what I think it means as opposed to what the rabbis think it means as opposed to what the scholars think it means as opposed to what Crown or anyone else thinks it means.
IOW, when you get right down to it, the bible (both OT & NT) is a very poor standard to follow if one truly wants to live according to what “God” wants.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nate, thanks too for the links on the Turin Shroud. I’m setting up a bookmarks folder for everything I find so I can spend some time on it when I get time.
I think it is worth saying something about evidence based belief. Most of us here would say that we should base our beliefs on evidence, and non-believers are strong on saying we shouldn’t hold beliefs on “faith” alone.
So Crown comes here and tables a bunch of evidence before the court. He claims this evidence points to a particular conclusion – that the 4 gospels record a historical fact when they record the resurrection. He is not using the gospels as an authority, as some here have wrongly understood, but he is attempting to use the scientific evidence he tabled to demonstrate, on this one point at least, that the gospels have recorded a historical fact.
He hasn’t given references to his evidence, he has just tabled it. It is now up to the court, especially Gary as his opponent, to examine and question whatever parts of that evidence we all wish to test.
Now it is interesting to observe the response. Nate, you and I are initially a little sceptical, but intend to research further, and you have begun to do so. But others here have not given any indication of that (though perhaps some will).
No-one except Brandon has asked Crown to elaborate on his tabled evidence and supply some references. So no-one yet has given any indication that they have looked at his evidence at all, only reacted to his outline of it.
The main critical responses I have observed have been these:
1.Light-hearted mockery which doesn’t engage with the evidence Crown presented in any way.
2. To simply dismiss his evidence with multiple uses of the word “poof” (perhaps an unfortunate choice if you have the same slang in the US as we have in Australia!). That of course isn’t an argument, certainly not evidence. It is just an admittance of not using evidence, but prior opinion. So in a court case examining the possibility of miracles, this reply to an alleged scientific case simply prejudges the question and refuses to consider miracles even when there is allegedly good evidence?
3. A few quotes from one or two sceptical websites, which as Crown said, don’t constitute scientific evidence. I haven’t read them in detail yet, but perhaps they contain references to good scientific data, but none of that has been brought forward so far.
This is not an evidence-based response!
An evidence-based response would look at both sides of the question, especially the evidence that Crown has already provided. It would see what scientific studies both the Catholics and the sceptics claim support their cases, and how they answer each other. That is what I intend to do, and Nate what I understand you will be doing as well.
There is no shame in not following through with such an assessment – we all have busy lives and can’t follow every topic through to a conclusion. But if we can’t follow through, we shouldn’t be claiming to be evidence-based on this matter – we are just being as much faith heads as some accuse christians of being.
I thought long and hard about writing this comment because I feel sure some of you won’t like it. I’m sorry if it is too strong, but I have avoided mentioning names or being personal. But I know there are people who read this blog while rarely commenting, and who are interested in evidence, and I write to point this out to them as well.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hi Nan, thanks for your comment. We could discuss how christians today can know about God, and I would be happy to do so if you wish. But the topic here was understanding what Jesus meant when he talked about Gehenna, and Crown and I are saying that you and Nate are mistaken if you think the only background to understanding his thinking is the Tanakh, when it has been demonstrated that he and the NT writers were also influenced by and reacting to contemporary thinking and interpretive texts.
LikeLike
Hi unkleE,
I think you’re right about the changes that are in place, but I do still think this is problematic. I know you and many others view it differently — I just can’t join you in that view. To me, it looks too much like what we’d expect to find from texts that had no divine aspect to them at all. So when the Bible’s texts don’t stand out from the pack in that way, I just have an extremely hard time accepting them as anything other than human writings about belief. I see them as religious commentary, in other words.
LikeLike
unkleE,
Just to clarify my position, based on your last comment — I don’t deny that Jesus’s thinking was influenced by contemporary thinking and interpretive texts. I just think those facts point against the idea of inspiration, similar to what I said above.
LikeLike
Hi Nate, of course I would like you to see the scriptures as inspired, but that isn’t what I’m talking about here. All I’m saying is that whether they are true or not, inspired or not, they show change and development throughout, they contain some disparate viewpoints, and their methods of interpretation are not as literal and fixed as you sometimes assume. These seem to me to be facts, and any conclusions we draw should start from there. I don’t see these facts as barriers to belief in inspiration, while you do. But in interpreting Jesus, we should take these facts into account, and I felt you didn’t. I’ve said it before, even though we disagree about many things, I appreciate that we can discuss this way. Thanks.
LikeLike
I am going to copy and paste below the conclusions of the carbon dating study of the Shroud conducted by three different highly respected laboratories in the late 1980’s, working independently, and under the supervision of the British Museum.
I will predict in advance that believers in the authenticity of the Shroud will not be swayed by this evidence. Believers will claim the results are bogus and flawed. Science says otherwise. The sample taken for this analysis was not just a tiny clipping of the edge of a patch on the Shroud. It was a long strip that did not involve any patched or damaged areas. The Bishop of Turin was present when the sample was taken.
The conclusion of each of the three labs, working without any knowledge of the findings of the other two, was that the Shroud was created in the fourteenth century. The Vatican has never claimed the Shroud is authentic and to my knowledge has never condemned the findings of the carbon dating as in error.
People who want to believe in a shroud, in a face covering, or in a resurrection will NEVER be convinced otherwise, regardless of the evidence. But for those of us who are willing to look at the evidence and let the chips fall where they may, this study should be considered conclusive scientific evidence that the Shroud of Turin was just one of many forged “relics” circulating in the Middle Ages.
From the website (I will post the link below):
Conclusions
The results of radiocarbon measurements at Arizona, Oxford and Zurich yield a calibrated calendar age range with at least 95% confidence for the linen of the Shroud of Turin of AD 1260 – 1390 (rounded down/up to nearest 10 yr). These results therefore provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval.
The results of radiocarbon measurements from the three laboratories on four textile samples, a total of twelve data sets, show that none of the measurements differs from its appropriate mean value by more than two standard deviations. The results for the three control samples agree well with previous radiocarbon measurements and/or historical dates.
We thank Cardinal Anastasio Ballestrero for allowing us access to the shroud, Professor L. Gonella for his help and support throughout the project and Professor A. Bray for commenting on our statistical assessment of the data. We also thank Miss E. Crowfoot, T. G. H. James, Dr J. Evin, M. Prevost-Macillacy, G. Vial, the Mayor of Saint-Maximin and the Egypt Exploration Society for assistance in obtaining the three known-age control samples. Oxford thank P. H. South (Precision Process (Textiles) Ltd, Derby) for examining and identifying the cotton found on the shroud sample; R. L. Otlet (Isotopes Measurement Laboratory, AERE, Harwell) for stable isotope ratio measurements on two samples; J. Henderson and the Department of Geology, Oxford Polytechnic for undertaking scanning electron microscopy, and SERC for the Special Research Grant which provided the primary support for the Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit. Zurich thank the Paul Scherrer Institut (PSI, CH-5234 Villigen) for technical and financial support. The AMS Programme at Arizona is partially supported by a grant from the NSF.
1. La S. Sindone-Ricerche e studi della Commissione di Esperti nominata dall’ Arcivescovo di Torino, Cardinal Michele Pellegrino, nel 1969 Supplemento Rivista Diocesana Torinese (1976).
2. Jumper, E.J. et al. in Archaeological Chemistry-III (ed. Lambert, J. B.) 447-476 (Am. chem. Soc., Washington, 1984).
3. Burleigh, R., Leese, M. N. & Tite, M.S. Radiocarbon 28, 571-577 (1986).
4. Tite, M.S. Nature 332, 482 (1988)
5. Stuiver, M. & Pearson, G.W. Radiocarbon 28, 805-838 (1986).
6. Slota, P.J., Jull, A. J. T., Linick, T. W. & Toolin, L. J. Radiocarbon 29, 303-306 (1987).
7. Vogel, J. S., Nelson, D.E. & Southon, J.R. Radiocarbon 29, 323-333 (1987).
8. Vogel, J. S., Southon, J.R. & Nelson, D.E. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. B29, 50-56 (1987).
9. Linick, T. W., Jull, A. J. T., Toolin, L. J. & Donahue, D. J. Radiocarbon 28, 522-533 (1986).
10. Gillespie, R., Gowlett, J. A. J., Hall, E. T. & Hedges, R. E. M. Archaeometry 26, 15-20 (1984).
11. Suter, M. et. al. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. 233[B5], 117-122 (1984).
12. Stuiver, M. & Polach, H. A. Radiocarbon 19, 355-363 (1977).
13. Ward, G. K. & Wilson, S. R. Archaeometry 20, 19-31 (1978).
14. Caulcott, R. & Boddy, R. Statistics for Analytical Chemists (Chapman and Hall, London, 1983).
15. Stuiver, M. & Reimer, P. J. Radiocarbon 28, 1022-1030 (1986
LikeLike
http://www.shroud.com/nature.htm
LikeLike
If you would like to read an interesting article regarding the history and reliability of carbon dating, written in terms for laypersons, click on this link:
http://www.c14dating.com/k12.html
LikeLike
If you have ever had a discussion with a fundamentalist Christian regarding Creation, you know that they despise and distrust carbon dating. Unfortunately for them and for believers in the Shroud, carbon dating is very accurate.
Here is an excerpt from the above article:
How do you know that radiocarbon really works?
It is possible to test radiocarbon dates in different ways. One way is to date things that you already know the age of. Libby did this when he first developed the method, by dating artefacts of Egyptian sites, which were already dated historically. Another way is to use tree rings. Every year a tree leaves a ring, the rings increase in number over time until a pattern of rings is formed. Sometimes the tree has many hundreds of rings. Scientists can date the age of the tree by counting and measuring the rings. Radiocarbon daters can then date the tree rings and compare the dates with the real age of the tree. This is a very good way of testing radiocarbon, and we now know that there are some differences in radiocarbon dates and real time. Most of the time radiocarbon dating is accurate, but sometimes it is different from the real age by a small amount. Using a calibration curve, which is based on radiocarbon dates of tree rings over the last 10000 years, radiocarbon daters can correct for this problem.
We can also test radiocarbon by comparing the results with the dates produced by other dating methods, and there are many of those. These methods are completely different to radiocarbon dating and use different methods to provide dates. Some of the dating methods include Uranium/Thorium dating (dating coral etc), Thermoluminescence (pottery, sediments), Obsidian Hydration (obsidian), Electron Spin Resonance (teeth), Amino Acid Racemisation dating (eggshell, bones), and many others.
LikeLike
I have to say, when Crown first showed up dropping all the ‘evidence’ of the shroud’s authenticity I was really blown away. I haven’t completed a full study of it yet, but so far what I’ve found lead me to feel compelled to comment. The shroud is far from the slam dunk he contends it to be. So far I’m finding mostly non conclusive findings, or findings that date it to the middle ages.
LikeLike
I thought you left in a ff, Crown – I see you’re back in a huff. At least you’re consistent.
LikeLike
1. The god of the OT routinely killed thousands of people, including infants and children, by drowning them, burning them alive, or killing them in their sleep.
2. Most Christians believe in the Trinity. Therefore, the god of the OT is the same god as the god of the NT.
3. If Jesus is God, then he is a member of the Trinity, and therefore complicit in the killings of infants and children.
4. The Bible says that God never changes.
5. If the Bible is true, the god that you tell your children to pray to every night is a baby killer?
Why do you believe this barbaric nonsense? Stop and think!
LikeLike
Why, indeed, Gary??
My opinion?? He WANTS to; simple as that.
LikeLike
Actually Josh, I was just thinking about stuff like that yesterday, while driving. If, as many Christians say, the Bible’s god, even before the creation of the universe, had a third of himself, Jesus, waiting in the wings to be crucified, as he is so omniscient that he knows all that’s going to happen, then he already knew who was going to accept him and who would reject him. So why bother going through all of this if he already knows what’s going to happen.
I enjoy Shakespeare, and I’ve attended the performances of a number of his plays, not to mention having read all of them. And yes, there are some, such as Hamlet, Othello, and Julius Caesar, that I would see more than once, even though I know how the play will turn out and could in many instances, mouth the words along with the actors, simply because a different director will stage the play differently, or different actors will bring their own interpretations to the roles, but I would likely never see the same play, starring the same actors, twice – it would be boring. But if the Bible’s god is omniscient, he’s already seen it all and knows everything that will happen – why bother with it, when he knows that nothing will ever change – no new director, no new actors – how could it even be entertaining for him? Sure, one can say he gave us free will (and others who can argue with that), but regardless, if he’s truly omniscient, he has already seen what choices we will make with that free will. So why not just shut the whole thing down and say, “Well, that was fun – what’ll we do next?”
I know you don’t have the answer to that, and I’m not just picking on you, but the question is out there for anyone, you just happened to be closest. Yeah, yeah, “mysterious ways,” which always translates to “I don’t know.”
LikeLike
“Arch-
Did you call me fat WHILE complimenting me?” – Say what?
LikeLike
“It’s that the image itself is a true miracle: nature can’t make it, and man can’t make it either, not in the First Century, not in the 14th, and not in the 21st.” – I call BS – if we don’t have an explanation, it just means we haven’t found it yet.
LikeLike
Gary, you’re spot on. But just like you, me and others experienced — death anxiety is very real. There comes a time when one has to make a choice. Do I want to serve and worship a character like Yahweh, Jesus daddy, for eternity? Like you pointed out — this god says he doesn’t change. I deconverted for the reasons you mentioned. When I did, what I saw in scripture became even more magnified — horrifying. It confirmed the neurologicalresearch I read about neural circuitry associated with critical assessment being deactivated with those who have deep attachments with others, loved ones.
LikeLike
Arch-
Not to presume to speak for God, but I can tell you there are dozens of movies, and multiple Broadway musicals which I have seen multiple times with the same actors. I saw The Phantom of the Opera 5 years in a row in San Francisco with virtually the same company each time. If I lived there I would have seen it much more. I’ve also seen Les Miz and Miss Saigon multiple times in Green Bay with the same company.
So, there’s at least one minute instance where you look at God and ask how He could possibly do that to while I completely get it 🙂
LikeLike
The Shroud of Turin is more interesting than I thought.
Apparently, the STURP team’s primary objective was to determine how the image formed. They ruled out scorch and paint. The image is some sort of oxidation and only involves one side of the cloth and in places only a few fibers thick and shows signs of both bone and soft tissue. The researchers think it is consistent with radiation emission of some sort. But, how do we explain someone’s body emitting radiation in such a way?
And the botanical evidence is more impressive than I imagined including the imprints of plants and recovery of pollen specific to the Levant. Beyond any reasonable doubt we can say this represents a man who was crucified in the Levant in the season of spring and who was flogged and stabbed in the left flank. It fits very well with accounts of Jesus from the gospels.
Also, it’s relation to Christian icons is interesting as well.
The inconsistent carbon dating may be due to bacterial film growing on the surface. Some carbon dating specialists think there may be a way to get around this with developments in the future.
LikeLike
Gary, the conquest of Canaan involved the divine judgment of wicked cultures. I know what you are thinking. Well, how can children be wicked? Are they culpable for their culture’s sin? Are they culpable for their parent’s sin? No and no. So, does God have the right to request their lives before their natural death? That’s my question for you.
Consider that this extends to childhood diseases and deaths. Does God have the right to request anyone’s life before their natural death?
What is your case?
LikeLike
“if he’s truly omniscient, he has already seen what choices we will make with that free will. So why not just shut the whole thing down and say, “Well, that was fun – what’ll we do next?” ”
This is an excellent point. Do Christians stop to think that their never changing, all-knowing, perfect Christian god DID just that? The Christian god created the universe…and then decided to shut the whole thing down.
If you read the story of Noah and the Flood, the Bible says that God “regretted” having made man. Now how can someone who is omniscient “regret” something? How can someone who knows what is going to happen; someone who only allows his will to happen, turn around and regret what he had just willed to happen??
Dear Christians: A God who is really and truly omniscient and perfect does not “regret”. Regret is a human emotion. When we humans say we regret doing something it means that we made a mistake. Your god says in the Book of Genesis that he made a mistake and he regretted having done something. That is not perfection. That is human fallibility.
Your god says he is perfect, but then turns around and admits he makes mistakes. Your god is either not perfect, a liar, or non-existent. Which is it?
LikeLike
And think about this:
Why did a perfect god need to create a universe and human beings to begin with? If the Bible is true, the Christian god has existed forever. He never had a beginning. So before the first day of Creation, God had existed for trillions upon trillions upon trillions of years…and then one day…he decides he wants to create some stars and planets, and on one tiny planet, in one solar system, in one galaxy…he decides to create flowers, and grass, and trees, and dogs, and cats, and lions, and tigers, and bears…and lastly, some “mini-hims”.
Why???
Was he bored? Was he lonely? Was the worship, praise, and lauditory singing from the angels not enough? Did God need some additional new fans to worship and praise him?
But for whatever reason, (knowing EXACTLY what would happen in the future) God went ahead and made his little play toys: he hung the sun, the stars, the moon, the planets, created animals and plants, and then made man. Then, he decided to make one more tree…a MAGIC tree, and he stuck it right in the middle of the mini-him’s playpen. He told his two new little play things not to eat the fruit on the magic tree. Then he allowed a walking/talking snake to trick them into eating the fruit. And for punishment of eating his forbidden fruit, God gave them a death sentence, cursed the ground and all the animals, triggering horrific suffering for thousands of years of man and animal, and plagued man with hard work, labor pains, rape, child abuse, and murder, war, etc..
On top of this, after his little play things die off, usually enduring horrific suffering as they die, he then sends most of them to his eternal torture pit…just to make sure they know just how righteous and holy he is.
Now…why again did a perfect, all-knowing god need to create a universe??
LikeLike
It’s a fable, folks. Just a silly ancient fable by goat-herding, middle-eastern nomads.
LikeLike