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 
Crown: This is what I read next:
“‘For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,’ declares the LORD
‘As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.
As the rain and the snow
come down from heaven,
and do not return to it
without watering the earth
and making it bud and flourish,
so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater,
so is my word that goes out from my mouth:
it will not return to me empty,
but will accomplish what I desire
and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.'”
LikeLike
Hi Crown, and finally:
“This is what the Lord says:
‘cursed are those who trust in mortals,
who depend on flesh for their strength
and whose hearts turn away from the LORD.
They will be like a bush in the wastelands;
they will not see prosperity when it comes,
They will dwell in the parched places of the desert,
in a salt land where no one lives.
But blessed are those who trust in the LORD,
whose confidence is in him.
They will be like trees planted by the water
that sends out its roots by the stream,
It does not fear when the heat comes;
its leaves are always green,
It has no worries in the year of drought
and never fails to bear fruit.
The heart is deceitful above all things
and beyond cure
Who can understand it?
I the LORD search the heart
and examine the mind,
to reward everyone according to their conduct,
according to what their deeds deserve.” (Jeremiah 17:5-10)
I should have said the second reading was from Isaiah 55:8-11. These were the set readings in my morning Bible Study.
LikeLike
Sigh,
It seems that discussion is being derailed to abortion of fetuses vs embryos vs zygote vs whatever stage of human reproduction.
Even if doctors define human LIFE starts at fetus, pro-lifers will still say a fertilized egg is equivalent to full human.
Usual response is that around 30-50% of fetus don’t make it pass first trimester, hence God is the biggest baby killer.
But in this case, since Crown already acknowledged he’s ok with God killing babies, so it’s still moral to kill billions of babies that never saw light even if he equate embryos to human.
Of course there are other implications such as “why would God kill so many babies when their only sin to that point is only ancestral related”, but I’m sure you guys already know what are the common defenses to this.
Can’t see anything productive coming from this discussion.
LikeLike
I really appreciate the concise and low key response Brandon. I really have been racking my brain all day trying to figure out your position, but I think I’m still not totally sure. I think a lot about what morality would be like if it were objective, and I agree with you that “having good moral character” is the same as calling someone good. You say we likely agree on the meaning of good and evil, but I’m not totally sure. I think if good/evil were objective then it would very likely not go against the moral sense that is shared almost universally among humans, which I would guess you may agree to (not sure). I would also think that you would agree that someone who commits genocide could not be called “all good”. So I think maybe the only difference between us is that you feel that the fact that a deity is “supreme” or “creator of all” makes it have a different set of criteria to determine whether or not the label of “all good” applies. Is that close to your view?
LikeLike
I personally believe that a “child” is a young human who has a beating heart, is sufficiently developed with an intact nervous system so that he or she can feel pain and can respond physically to pain, and is dependent on his mother for survival.
I personally could not condone the targeted killing of any human who meets the above definition. I personally would consider it immoral. That doesn’t mean that I would vote to imprison a woman who disagrees with me and has an abortion at a fetal age of 20 weeks.
Bottom line: My morality regarding the targeted killing of children is consistent. I highly doubt that Crown can make the same claim. He condones his god killing children, but is outraged when an abortion doctor does the very same thing.
LikeLike
Sounds good, Peter.
LikeLike
Gary, you wrote: “Bottom line: My morality regarding the targeted killing of children is consistent. I highly doubt that Crown can make the same claim. He condones his god killing children, but is outraged when an abortion doctor does the very same thing.”
Your ethics regarding the killing of children is perfectly consistent with your own opinion, Gary. For in the throne room of your mind, you are indeed God, decider of all.
In mine, there is a neat bifurcation. There’s God, who is Nature, including Nature’s mind, and then there are men, mere derivatives of Nature. God creates everything, including us, and kills us, and I don’t bother to complain about it, or worry about it, because I’m as powerless to do anything about that as I am to change the position of the stars. I am grateful that when the curtain of death comes down, there is more life on the other side of it. So, although God kills all, it’s not so bad, because death is just a doorway to other things. I know that, to the extent that men have been given to know it.
On the other hand, there are men. Mere men. Mortal men, doomed to die. We don’t know much. We create nothing. We can only sub-create, within the metes and bounds set by the Creator. That Creator forbade men to kill men, forbade men to shed blood, except in justice against killers and just self-defense.
God made special rules of ancient Israel, where he was much more present and direct, but ancient Israel has been gone for 1930 years, so those rules are irrelevant. Where will live now is a world in which God has forbidden us to kill other men, and where God has made it clear that men’s lives begin at they’re begetting by their fathers, which is conception.
So God can kill everybody, and does. But men cannot rightly kill anybody. It’s a neat, clear and unsubtle difference.
LikeLike
Howie, thanks I’ve been working on concision lately believe it or not. 🙂 For one, I would not deny for a minute that the annihilationist commands go against our universal moral sense. Ancient commentators felt the same way – Philo of Alexandria being a famous example among Hellenistic Jews.
The short answer is, yes, I think God has different criteria because he sees into the heart and the core of our desires. Let me back up for one second. Suppose I was a Calvinist (I am not). I would believe in the doctrine of Total Depravity which states that humans a devoid of good thus worthy of judgment. If judgment is prolonged then God is merciful. This means God has the right to choose between judgment and mercy for anyone. However, I would modify this doctrine by stating that we are not devoid of good by nature, rather humans are essentially free and that we all debase ourselves from a very early age. But, this may be difficult to see for humans because we are only able to see outward behavior and compare it with extreme examples like murder, so we cannot be effective judges of the heart. Also, we do not have the rights of God to enact either justice or mercy. It is a matter of both criteria and rights.
Also, this may be technical, but I don’t think the annihilationist passages are genocidal by the academic definition. The Israelites were supposed to drive out the Canaanites and annihilate anyone who remained. The Canaanites were not internal peoples (as in Armenians in Turkey or Jews in Germany or Tutsis in Rwanda), but rather external nation-states, and it was not based on their ethnicity or religion per se, rather based on divine judgment of wicked cultures and for the Promised Land to be purged of evil cultures.
LikeLike
“So God can kill everybody, and does. But men cannot rightly kill anybody. “
Crown, are you saying that Moses didn’t hear God command him to gather an army to slaughter men women and children, take the virgins as sex slaves and split the plunder?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Powell,
We are certainly getting closer! So, to you an arbitrary law would be like me telling someone they cannot, say, eat Macadamia nut cookies. I’m eating one right now, and it is delicious. That would be totally arbitrary of me to command. Now, what if I knew they were deathly allergic to Macadamia nuts? Then, my law would find a rational basis and not be arbitrary.
I think the same goes for Adam and Eve. God tells them not to eat the fruit, because the day they eat of it or they will die (Gen 3:3). God knows the natural law which clearly states whoever eats of the fruit will die. It’s analogous to telling a child with peanut allergy to not eat peanuts. I need to emphasize that I’m not advocating literal historical Adam and Eve here. Rather, I am arguing the test of arbitrariness versus reasonableness stands when considering Adam and Eve.
Where else would you want to apply the test of arbitrariness versus reasonableness? OT laws? Puirty laws? Annihilationist commands? Laws against gay sex?
LikeLike
I honestly hadn’t thought of that Brandon, but it still seems to run into some problems. In the Amalekite case the command was clear to kill everything that breathed no matter what age. I think there is support both in moral reasoning across different worldviews as well as the bible (Isaiah 7:15-16) of innocence below a certain age. And as you mentioned before, the process of warriors coming through with swords would have been a very painful process. I still have a hard time seeing how this would fit with general human understanding of goodness. Is some of that thinking wrong in your view?
There’s another issue here which I unfortunately won’t be able to get you to see at all: I also have a hard time seeing that every single person in these ancient cultures was deserving of dying by the sword when people in other cultures weren’t, especially when it seems in the context that the reason was that the Israelites felt they had a divine justification for taking over the land. I think this looks pretty clear as to what was going on, but since you trust in the bible being fully correct I can’t see how I can convince you of that part.
LikeLike
Howie, I wonder if morality was totally objective would we end up being like Mr Spock on Star Trek?
LikeLike
Peter, I think that’s definitely something to think about. I’ve given that some thought but not a lot. I think some “desires to be good” fall outside of Spock’s “reason only” decision making because they involve values as well, although it depends on the reasons for the desire/value I guess. Not sure, I’m just rambling.
In the context of my discussion with Brandon though, it’s my understanding that traditional monotheistic religions claim morality is objective, and they even tout it against other worldviews, especially atheism. So I’m trying to understand if there is a way to piece that belief in objective morality together with beliefs similar to Brandon’s.
LikeLike
@Brandon
Fully agree with you on the point about macadamia nuts.
I guess for me, I assumed that God creates natural law. So hence when you say the eating fruit = death is due to natural law, I am equating it to God making it arbitrary. Hope that explains a little bit on how I think. Feel free to correct my assumption as perhaps I’m totally off base here.
If you think God is bounded by natural laws, then I still don’t see any parallel in our current set of natural laws where this could even be applicable. Perhaps using the fruit example is unfair, so how about other heavier sins such as killing babies (since others are talking about it).
So perhaps killing babies is a bad thing, but even under the natural laws I still don’t see why this sin is equivalent to death. I will want to kill the SOB if my baby is killed, but I’m sure there’ll be others that say “forgive him, jail him, torture him” or whatever. So, again, how is God saying that certain punishment = death not arbitrary? I guess the same could be said about homosexual behaviors.
LikeLike
Most reputable biblical scholars, Crown, agree that the entire 400-year sojourn in Egypt, the exodus, and 40-year camping trip in the Sinai, never happened.
William G. Dever writes of the archaeological investigation of Moses and the Exodus as having been “discarded as a fruitless pursuit.”
About the historical Moses he writes:
LikeLiked by 1 person
“I write repetitiously at times. Sue me if you dislike my style.” – Actually, I flip through most of the verbiage you write, so suing you really isn’t necessary. However your repetition in the post I quoted, mentioning it, made me wonder if you don’t have a set of stock responses on some text app, from which you copy and paste.
Your educational credits don’t impress me – your belief in the biblical flood cancels any redemptive qualities they might bring to the table.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Crown, lawyer:
William G. Dever, biblical archaeologist in the Levant for 35 years:
LikeLiked by 1 person
crown, then what you are saying is that all of the 10 commandments are moot to catholicks?
thou shalt not lie, steal, commit adultery does not apply because you’re not a Hebrew that was promised a farm?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Neurotones (sp.?), you wrote: Crown, are you saying that Moses didn’t hear God command him to gather an army to slaughter men women and children, take the virgins as sex slaves and split the plunder?
No. God didn’t command Moses to gather an army. God gathered the army himself, taking them out of Egypt as slaves. But of those who came out of Egypt, only two ultimately crossed over into Canaan. God sent the ex-slave Hebrews children in the desert. It was those children who were the army that crossed into Egypt. Moses did not gather any army. Moses led slaves out, God gave the slaves children, and those children followed Moses to the border of Canaan. Then God killed Moses. Joshua led the army into Canaan, to drive out the Canaanites, and kill any men, women or children who remained.
Sex slaves? No. There is no sexual slavery whatever in God’s commands. You added that. God commanded that the Canaanites be driven out or killed, never enslaved. He warned that if any were left in the land, that the Israelites would be seduced by them into following their gods. And that’s precisely what happened: all of the Canaanites were not driven out, and the ones who remained did eventually seduce the Israelites into following their Gods, burning children to Molech, etc.
When Israel made war with neighboring nations (not Canaanites), captured men could be enslaved (not for sex), and captured women could be MARRIED by Israelites, after a fixed period of mourning. As a wife, she had all of the rights of any other wife in Israel: support, consortium, and her children were heirs. She could not be sold. God prohibited any sort of sexual slavery or harlotry in Israel.
God set aside certain cities to be wholly destroyed, all of the plunder burnt up. All the rest was to be taken and divided among the Israelites: the farms, the orchards and vineyards, the goods of the Canaanites: some was for God, and the rest was for plunder. That’s true.
The Canaanites lands were given to the Israelites. They could preserve their lives and whatever they could carry by fleeing. If they stayed and fought, their lives were forfeit, and their property was plunder. That is absolutely true.
That was God’s judgment on the Canaanites. The Israelites were the means of executing that judgment. Later, the Assyrians and Babylonians were the means by which God executed chastisement of the Israelites and Jews. God’s final judgment and end of Biblical Israel was executed by the Romans.
Moral: if you kill people, God is going to kill you. So don’t kill people.
LikeLike
according to you, Crown, god is going to kill you anyway, whether you kill anyone or not.
so…….
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Crown, I don’t think the matching of the face is a very strong point because it could have just as easily been the reverse situation where the shroud was made to look like the already established iconography. In fact, if I was creating a fraud I would go out of my way to match what everyone already thought Jesus looked like.
For the historical arc – are you referring to this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_of_Edessa
As Brandon mentioned, I think your best point is the unexplained formation of the image which I am still researching. If you have any references for this portion of your argument, please share them.
LikeLike
Hi UnkleE, no problem. For whatever reason I find the shroud fascinating. If it is a hoax it was done very well. If it is not a hoax then I am going to have to re-evaluate all of my positions / worldview. I know I’ll most likely never return to fundamentalist Christianity, but there may be a deistic / liberal agnostic universalist Christian position that I could see myself adopting if the evidence pushed me in that direction.
The carbon dating is a bit of a showstopper. I feel fairly certain that the “medieval patch” theory is not tenable. That leaves the bacterial film theory which I still need to look into.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Archaeopteryx, you wrote: “Most reputable biblical scholars, Crown, agree that the entire 400-year sojourn in Egypt, the exodus, and 40-year camping trip in the Sinai, never happened.”
I’m not interested in books ABOUT the Bible. I am interested only in what the Bible itself actually SAYS, precisely, in Hebrew and Greek.
So, showing me different canons, and different manuscript variations: that is interesting to me.
But people writing ABOUT the origins of the text isn’t.
My arc of logic is this:
(1) I know God directly, through revelation and miracle.
(2) The content of some of the revelation was Christian.
(3) All of the third-party miracles I can study are Christian.
(4) Therefore, God is Christian.
(5) All of the third-party miracles are Catholic.
(6) Therefore, Catholicism is the divinely-sanctioned expression of Christianity.
(7) The Catholic Church has laid out rules, which I have read.
(8) The rules are footnoted back to the Bible, and the Catholic Church upholds the Bible as the oldest written tradition of the Church. Therefore I read the Bible.
(9) I read the Bible precisely, like a lawyer, for what it SAYS.
And that is sufficient.
There is a world of scholars out there wandering through the desert of doubt, making careers out of writing ABOUT the Bible. But I’m only interested in the CONTENTS of the Bible, not speculations about its origins.
LikeLike
Clearly, Dave, the face of the image has distinctly European features, one need only examine examples of Renaissance art to see that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“But I’m only interested in the CONTENTS of the Bible, not speculations about its origins. – Written by largely anonymous, superstitious, scientifically-ignorant Bronze and Iron Age men, making careers out of writing the Bible. Got it. Good luck with your delusions, and watch out for flying doves – they can fly into your head.
LikeLiked by 1 person