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 
Also, Powell, Neuro has information – if she can be persuaded to present it – of the percentages of patients who got better when they were being prayed for, vs those who were never prayed for. Spoiler alert – more of those who were not prayed for got better, compared to those who were.
LikeLike
Note to Jesus – your kisses HURT! Quit kissing people!
LikeLike
@arch
Yeah I have read the book on this before during my days in bible college
LikeLike
Lotta research, great work! I have no problem giving you a “Like”!
LikeLike
“about 6 months ago” – Four.
LikeLike
“Well, you are an old fossil, arch” – So Ark keeps saying.
LikeLike
@Powell – Well Neuro, as always, has exact figures and links, or at least references.
LikeLike
I liked the part best where the dove flew into his head – I’ve lost a lot of doves that way.
LikeLike
“What are you talking about, sir? This is the second time you have said that the “rude” people who responded to Crown never responded with evidence.”
Hi Gary, I chose my words quite carefully. I did not say no-one had offered any evidence, I said “no-one yet has seriously attempted to grapple with your [i.e. Crown’s] evidence”
Let’s see what I mean. Here in summary are the various ways you responded:
1. You said “For every expert you have that endorses the belief that the pieces of cloth in Turin and Oviedo are “miracles” and that they date from first century Palestine, you have two or more experts who say they are not.” That may be true but (1) Crown says it is otherwise and says he can show that most of the peer-reviewed scientific evidence is against you, and (2) you have offered no evidence that it is so. So you haven’t grappled with his evidence there.
2. You said “I will find some quotes from skeptical scholars and post them.” That is indeed what you have done, but that doesn’t grapple with his evidence either. Rather, it suggests you know the answer you want and will quote scholars to illustrate your belief. Note that Crown at least offered in evidence several witnesses that were opposed to his view, something you haven’t done.
3. You offered this statement again and again in different forms: “if they [conservative christians] get caught in a corner on the evidence, they always have the fail proof escape: God “poofed” it, and it was so. Nonsense. “Poofing” in not evidence. It is faith.” I think even you will agree that this doesn’t grapple with the evidence, or offer any evidence or any argument. All it shows is your unwillingness to even consider the possibility of a miracle, which is the very question under discussion.
4. Then you offered a long quote from the SillyBeliefs website. You are apparently unaware that this website commits a few historical howlers, is highly biased, and some of it is based on the writings of non-scholars and conspiracy theorists who don’t accept the historical consensus about Jesus. It is not a site to inspire confidence or to quote in this sort of argument, and more or less demonstrates again that you knew the answer you wanted and went looking for anything that looked like a reference. And again, you haven’t grappled with Court’s evidence.
5. Finally you referenced some respectable studies on the radiocarbon dating. They may indeed be determinative (I’ve always thought so myself), but Court has already admitted them into evidence and conceded their results are against his thesis. So they offer nothing new. But Court claims to be able to show that the dating is wrong, using other later peer-reviewed scientific studies. He may be right, he may be wrong, but again you haven’t grappled with his evidence, or even shown any indication you’ve even looked at it.
So I conclude that you have gone hunting for information that supports your views, which is not an evidence-based approach. And you haven’t looked at his evidence, which is what I said. You honestly don’t seem to get it that if christians quote mainly christian apologists and atheists quote mainly atheist apologists, no discussion can take place because there is no basis. You can do that if you want, but I and others won’t bother to respond to such a biased approach. That is why I try to look at both sides and quote good experts who are not apologists for either side.
That is why I stopped discussing with you on my website, and why I haven’t responded to anything you have said here. I am not being unfriendly, just saving my time and energy for someone who is willing to approach things more fair-mindedly than you are at the moment. You have written emotionally about your recent “deconversion”, and I can sympathise with your feelings of being duped and your enthusiasm for your new-found worldview, but these seem to have made it impossible to have a sensible discussion with you. Maybe in time ….
Best wishes.
LikeLike
“I don’t think we are not grappling with his evidence. This is not the first time we’ve heard of shroud of turin and all the lourves miracles. I’ve personally watched hours of documentaries on it (back when I’m a christian and after I’ve deconverted), so it’s not frivolous when we dismiss the “evidence”.
Honestly what Crown has presented is nothing new that hasn’t been said before.”
Hi Powell, please see my response to Gary above. I suspect most of the reading anyone has done here is of sceptical sites that are highly biased, and not of good peer reviewed scientific papers. If I’m wrong, then it should be easy for those of you who have done the reading to offer a few references. If I’m right, then Crown’s case still stands unchallenged until Dave, Nate and I do some more study.
LikeLike
In my opinion, the Bible represents a religion designed by committee, whose members are separated by decades and often hundreds of years.
LikeLike
@Unklee,
Well… I watched the documentaries when I was a christian, and researched into them when I was one… So I doubt they were from any skeptics websites, I’m pretty sure you will be able to find opponents from believers (perhaps more protestants and less catholic) about the legitimacy of the shroud as I didn’t venture into any non-christian websites until 2 years ago.
Honestly I can’t be arsed to find out all the old research I’ve done – been more than 5 years back my good man, which also explained why I didn’t bite the first time round the 1st time you mentioned it.
In any case, I’m not challenging Crown, but rather your assumption about the rest of us. And funnily I do think your charge against Gary can be used against Crown as well.
Again, it is fair for you to disagree, and I’m too lazy to come up with a rebuttal nor defend “my case” (as brandon puts it) especially since I have no vested interest in this. Even if miracles are confirmed, it still doesn’t point to your god – I’m sure you are well aware of this line of atheist argument and there’s no need to argue further.
So yes, tipping hat, and back into the shadows I lurk.
LikeLike
Hi unkleE I wonder whether you had a look at the article that Nan referred to from History Today magazine.
I am not aware of how scientifically respectable the article is. But to me as a non expert, it raised issues that I have not seen covered in the discussions two and fro on the issue (though I will admit the sheer length of some of the posts tends to wear me down – so I might have missed something).
The article looks at past references to the shroud from history, especially from around the time it first appeared on the scene. It raises a number of matters that seem, to me at least, to be very germane to this prolonged discussion.
I do agree with the observation made by yourself and Nate that it is better if these discussions can be undertaken in a respectful manner. I have to applaud Nate, in particular, for his efforts to be fair.
Given the nature of this site there tend to be more people on one side of the argument than the other which can make things a bit skewed.
LikeLike
Hi Powell, I respect that you might have researched well in the past, but it remains true that so far I’ve not seen anyone investigate Crown’s evidence honestly. But I think I’ve said enough, and I too will fade back into the shadows. Best wishes to you.
Hi Peter, I have seen that article before. It is probably a good one to use as a basis of research, following through on its references, but on its own it isn’t much help as the author is neither a scientific or historical expert, and also has a bit of form as a historical maverick. Thanks.
LikeLike
Honestly, Howie, I think this problem is more difficult than the problem of natural evil in defending the classical conception of God.
At one point I was convinced by the “hyperbole” argument that this war language is hyperbole. There are some decent arguments for this. But, then we run into Numbers 31 (Midianites) and passages in Joshua that are hard to square with hyperbole. I think there is something to say about the tension between “drive them off the land” and “kill all of them”. Still, the Israelites were not meant to chase the Canaanites to the corner of the earth, rather cleanse the land and enact divine judgment.
The two biggest difficulties have nothing to do with requesting their death. It has to do with the children’s terror and suffering immediately before death and the fact that God directly ordered it, it is not passive as in God simply permitting the forces of evil as in Job or Jesus’ crucifixion. To me if someone suffers in this life the differential diagnosis is 1) unnatural evil forces, 2) punishment from God, 3) human freewill. We cannot use 1) here, the evil forces are not really direct players. We cannot use 3) here because the Israelites are doing what God ordered them. Therefore, 2) seems to be the only option left.
There is a theological debate about whether children are innocent of sin before God, and this does not necessarily revolve around a “sinful nature” rather from a more Catholic conception of human nature. (I’m not Catholic BTW). This is that human nature involves the freedom to choose and desire either good or evil. The difficulty with this is that we think of children as innocent from a legal standpoint, but God may see them differently. They are still making free choices within the framework of their cognitive ability. Of course, their framework differs from an adolescent, an adult, or mentally retarded, or the demented. But, from God’s perspective it is still there.
IMHO this is the best kind of answer if we want to keep the classical conception of God. It’s certainly not the easiest to swallow though. Not even for me. And, it’s not airtight.
I’m certainly open to debating this with more skeptical thinkers, and continuing to search.
LikeLike
Powell, I think this might be the third time I’ve explicitly rejected the “might makes right” idea. Please don’t make me do this again. Now, I guess you have no case? Then, what is the complaint? I don’t really care to hear your attempt at psychoanalysis or anecdotes.
LikeLike
Gary the statement needs some modification if we are going to talk in terms of theology. It is your burden to demonstrate that God has no right to execute children as part of divine judgment of a culture. Other than God’s right, I agree that for us we have no earthly justification for this behavior. It is sinful and illegal.
LikeLike
I forgot, to summarize this I would say something like: God has the right to request anyone’s life by any means, because we have all chosen sin even if this looks differently in terms of outward behavior (children and mentally retarded versus criminals). That is the kind of statement that seems to defend the classical conception of God and a straightforward approach to the conquest of Canaan without interpretive gymnastics.
LikeLike
Hi Brandon,
Out of curiosity, do you have children? When I was a Christian, I viewed this issue a little differently than you, but not much. I made very similar arguments. However, that started to change for me after I had children, so that makes me curious about whether or not you have any. And if so, would you mind giving their approximate ages?
Thanks
LikeLike
Naive Thinker:
The missing piece of all of this logic is that it is earthbound. We are spirits, we have a body. Soirit is bound to body, for awhile, then it leaves it. Body dissolves, but spirit goes on.
From the perspective of us souls, with spirit bound in flesh, there appears to be no greater disaster than to lose the body, to die. This is not true. It seems to be true, only because we don’t routinely perceive the other side.
There have always been those who are given views of the other side, to encourage the others.
Truth is, we live for a few years – some don’t make it out of the womb; others live a hundred years. But whether our lives in the body are relatively longer or shorter, they’re still not very long in any case. Our lives as spirits are longer, going on and one.
What happens in the flesh is preparatory to what happens next, just as the time spent as a caterpillar is preparatory to the time spent as a butterfly.
Whether we like God’s judgment or hate it, we are nevertheless all herded along by irresistible forces through the chute of life. Some die as veal. Some die as steers. Some are killed in the bullring. All die. And then all wake up and continue.
From the perspective of deepest, blackest sin, those whom God snatches up young, before they have seriously sinned, face a better, longer, fuller afterlfe than those who are allowed to tarry in the flesh and roll in the muck of sin.
God kills everybody’s body – and the process of losing it is painful: cancer, chest-clutcher, bullet or spear – it’s all the same thing: flesh is grass. But what comes next, after the husk is broken – THAT is the really interesting part.
Trying to sit in judgment of God as though God were a limited human is pointless. One may as well sit in judge of the laws of physics, which make it such that we die. A child steps off an apartment roof and fails to fly, plunging to the pavement. Splat. How UNFAIR gravity it is! Did it not SEE that this was a CHILD!
It saw. Gravity is the hand of God. It saw and it knew. Very occasionally God decides that a child will survive such a fall. But usually, that’s it for this physical life – welcome to the world of spirit. It’s still existence. It’s just different.
Those who die youngest have the least sins and the longest experience in the world of spirit. But those who tarry long in this world have the most sins. Everyone leaves them behind and moves on, but they linger in the flesh. And when they finally pass into the spirit world, the babies who died in the womb are the purest and highest of all human spirits. The “winners” of the human economic and power game are the lowest and flithiest and have the most to learn, and problems to shed, in Gehenna.
Human eyes see death the way children see vaccination. It is a change of state, that is all. There are those who OUGHT to fear death.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Brandon, you mentioned Numbers 31 well may we consider that chapter
God instructs Moses to punish the Midianites. So Israel sends in 12,000 men and wipes out all of the Midianite men. Then the commanders are chastised because they let the women and boys live. So they then kill all the boys and the women who were not virgins. After the battle they record the plunder which included 32,000 virgin women which were to be distributed as spoils along with 675,000 sheep, 72,000 cattle and 61,000 donkeys.
So just how many people were killed? It would appear over a hundred thousand people were killed at God’s direct command. All the yet more remarkable is that Israel did not lose a single soldier in the battle.
I would suggest that Numbers 31 is one of the most challenging chapters in the Bible both for credibility and morality.
Actually the whole Book of Numbers is challenging. God does not spare the Israelites either, killing thousands of them through plague, snakes, fire from the Lord. God seems to actively punish when they grumble and complain.
Just one example:
‘Now when the people complained in the hearing of the Lord about their misfortunes, the Lord heard it and his anger was kindled. Then the fire of the Lord burned against them, and consumed some outlying parts of the camp.’ (Number 11:1)
Also the test for an unfaithful wife: Numbers 5:11-31 is something to behold.
LikeLike
When the Israelites were forced to wander the wilderness for 40 years before entering Canaan, it was to let the people over 20 die off. They were the ones held accountable for not entering Canaan the first time — the younger Israelites weren’t. And in the gospels, Jesus says that one must become as a child to enter the kingdom. If children were also sinful, why make that analogy?
Paul said that without the law, he wouldn’t have known sin. And this is why I asked if you have children. To me, it seems obvious that children are not capable of understanding something like sin. Pretty early on, they learn the difference between something you want them to do and something you don’t. And they have their own wants and desires that cause them to push against those boundaries. But that’s a natural part of development (I’m sure Victoria could provide us with tons of research on that), and the child is certainly not “choosing to sin,” as if they could understand such a concept.
My dog loves to escape from our house and backyard. She knows I don’t like it, but she sometimes slips past my kids when they have the door open, and she won’t come back until she’s ready. She’s not out to cause trouble — she’s just being a dog. She loves running around sniffing everything and checking out a nearby field. Still, I live in a neighborhood with leash laws. And I don’t want to freak out any people who happen to see her loose, since they won’t know if she’s aggressive or not. But my dog’s not “sinning” when she does this. She doesn’t understand all the reasons behind why she shouldn’t run loose through the neighborhood. And I’m not good at training dogs, nor did I pay to have someone else train her. So I’m just as culpable as she is (probably more so).
I think the connection I’m trying to draw is obvious, so I’ll leave it at that and move on to my final point.
In most Western countries, cruel and unusual punishment is illegal. We’ve decided that it’s morally reprehensible. However, long ago, it was the norm. And the Bible bears that out in these stories about God-sanctioned slaughter (not to mention the commands to stone people to death). If you do have children, just imagine two scenarios: The first, you’re an Israelite who’s been tasked to help annihilate the Amalekites. So you tell your wife and children goodbye, then head off to hack other small children to pieces. In the second scenario, imagine that you and your family are Amalekites.
It’s true that everyone dies, but the manner in which is happens is still pretty important. If it weren’t, Christians wouldn’t make such a big deal about Jesus’ suffering. If God really did command the atrocities in the Old Testament, it’s hard to see him as anything but monstrous, and it unquestionably runs counter to the claims about his love and mercy. But if you’re somehow able to accept those things and still call him good, how do you feel about society’s stance against cruel and unusual punishment? Should it be considered appropriate?
LikeLike
Hi Crown,
How do you know this? And what about babies who weren’t baptized? Where do you stand on that?
Thanks
LikeLike
@Brandon
You have denied the phrase “might is right” 3 times. So? In essence what you’re saying is that.
You clarified by saying this:
“God has the right to request anyone’s life by any means, because we have all chosen sin even if this looks differently in terms of outward behavior (children and mentally retarded versus criminals).”
1 – Sin is an arbitrary standard – e.g. disobedience towards God = Sin – Why is God able to adjudicate on this? Because of external moral standard or because he is a dictator? – I still see it as Might makes right.
2 – Why is Sin = right to request anyone’s life by any means? Again is this a natural law? Or is it because this is what God deem fit. Once again, is there external standard that we can measure to determine this is a fair right or not? If there isn’t, how is the charge “might makes right” a wrong description to what you’re believing? At the core of it, your belief is anchored in the fact that God is almighty and hence whatever he says/wants = admissible.
In any case, I don’t care for your assholemanship just as you don’t care about my weak attempt in channeling Sigmand Freud.
Cheers mate.
LikeLike
Yeah, I think Powell makes a good point about “might makes right,” Brandon. While you don’t like the phrase, it does seem to fit your beliefs about God, unless I’m missing something…
LikeLike