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 world itself will eventually show you the truth”
I disagree. The world will only show you “the truth” if YOUR worldview is correct and we unbelievers wake up in Hell to see, to our horror, that we were wrong. If we are correct, you (and we) will die and that is the end. No one will ever know that we were correct and you were wrong.
It is this dilemma that has perpetuated your supernatural-based belief system and the thousands of others like it.
People fear that the predominant religion in their corner of the world might be right and hedge their bets. This is known as Pascal’s Wager. The problem with edging your bet that “God” exists, is that there are many exclusivist gods. Which one do you choose? Hedge your bet and believe/worship/obey the Christian god, and if Islam is the true religion, you will burn in the Muslim Hell right along the atheist.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“We are in agreement, UnkleE!
As long as you are not claiming that the supernatural claims of the Bible are historical fact, or that the empty tomb is established historical fact, I have no real problem with your list of “facts” that we can know about Jesus. I am not a mythicist. I do believe that Jesus existed. I just do not believe that the Gospels can be used as verifiable eyewitness testimony or as support for supernatural claims, especially the Resurrection.”
Hi Gary, it is good if we are in agreement. But let’s just check. You suggested there was no evidence for the historicity of the gospels. I have said that there is indeed evidence. There is a solid core that the secular historians conclude is strong historical fact. There is a lot more that some historians believe is historical, some don’t know. There isn’t all that much that the consensus is that it is NOT true. I leave interpretation out of this (e.g. was Jesus really divine?)
So there is strong evidence for the core, and a lot more is uncertain but not unreasonable to believe. Each of us has to decide for ourselves whether we believe the miracles, the resurrection, his divinity. That is all I have even claimed.
So if we truly agree about all that (do we?) then you have the answer (and the rebuttal) of some of your previous claims about evidence. I am happy to let it rest there.
For me, this evidence is compelling. When combined with the evidence of science and philosophy (e,g, the cosmological and fine-tuning arguments), and of people’s experiences of miracles, it makes much more sense to me that Jesus told the truth, he performed miracles and was resurrected because the God who made and fine-tuned the universe, the God who heals literally millions of people and speaks to millions of others, was present in Jesus in a unique way. If you judge all that evidence to not point to God, then of course you will choose not to believe as I do. But I hope you don’t keep saying there’s no evidence or that christians are silly to believe it.
Best wishes.
LikeLike
You should also read Bart Ehrman’s response to Carrier’s brand of mythicism in the book, Did Jesus Exist. They also duked it out on the blogosphere and Carrier seemed to handle this very poorly and unprofessionally.
LikeLike
“So if we truly agree about all that (do we?) then you have the answer (and the rebuttal) of some of your previous claims about evidence.”
The big question is: Evidence for WHAT?
Evidence that Jesus existed and was an apocalyptic Jewish prophet who believed he was the messiah? Absolutely! Evidence that Jesus was God the Creator, Lord of Heaven and Earth, Master of my eternal destiny?? No way! In order to prove that claim, you must have evidence for the resurrection, and the only “evidence” for that claim that I have seen is speculation and hearsay.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And, even though I personally am willing to accept as history that Jesus existed, was a prophet, and was executed by the Romans, I challenge you to find a secular history book that states these details as historical fact and not speculation or at best a probability.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[50][52][53][nb 9][70] There is no evidence today that the existence of Jesus was ever denied in antiquity by those who opposed Christianity.[71][72] Geoffrey Blainey notes that “a few scholars argue that Jesus… did not even exist,” and that they “rightly point out that contemporary references to him were extremely rare.”[73] There is however widespread disagreement among scholars on the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and on the meaning of his teachings,[2] and the only two events subject to “almost universal assent” are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[54][14][55][2]
According to New Testament scholar James Dunn, nearly all modern scholars consider the baptism of Jesus and his crucifixion to be historically certain.[54] He states that these “two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent” and “rank so high on the ‘almost impossible to doubt or deny’ scale of historical ‘facts’ they are obvious starting points for an attempt to clarify the what and why of Jesus’ mission.”[54] John P. Meier views the crucifixion of Jesus as historical fact and states that based on the criterion of embarrassment Christians would not have invented the painful death of their leader.[74] The criterion of embarrassment is also used to argue in favor of the historicity of the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist as it is a story which the early Christian Church would have never wanted to invent. [75][76][77] Based on this criterion, given that John baptised for the remission of sins, and Jesus was viewed as without sin, the invention of this story would have served no purpose, and would have been an embarrassment given that it positioned John above Jesus.[75][77][78]
Amy-Jill Levine has summarized the situation by stating that “there is a consensus of sorts on the basic outline of Jesus’ life” in that most scholars agree that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, and over a period of one to three years debated Jewish authorities on the subject of God, gathered followers, and was crucified by Roman prefect Pontius Pilate who officiated 26–36 AD.[79] There is much in dispute as to his previous life, childhood, family and place of residence, of which the canonical gospels are almost completely silent. [80][81][82]
Scholars attribute varying levels of certainty to other episodes. Some assume that there are eight elements about Jesus and his followers that can be viewed as historical facts, namely:[14][83]
Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist.
He called disciples.
He had a controversy at the Temple.
Jesus was crucified by the Romans near Jerusalem.[14][83]
Jesus was a Galilean.
His activities were confined to Galilee and Judea.
After his death his disciples continued.
Some of his disciples were persecuted.[14][83]
Scholarly agreement on this extended list is not universal.[14][83][84]
The Mishnah (c. 200) may refer to Jesus and reflect the early Jewish traditions of portraying Jesus as a sorcerer or magician.[85][86][87][88] Other references to Jesus and his execution exist in the Talmud, but they aim to discredit his actions, not deny his existence.[85][89]
Since the 18th century, three separate scholarly quests for the historical Jesus have taken place, each with distinct characteristics and based on different research criteria, which were often developed during that phase.[90][91] The portraits of Jesus that have been constructed in these processes have often differed from each other, and from the dogmatic image portrayed in the gospel accounts.[92][50]
Currently modern scholarly research on the historical Jesus focuses on what is historically probable, or plausible about Jesus.[93][94]
—Wikipedia
LikeLiked by 3 people
By George, I think he’s finally getting it!
LikeLike
Gary, have you considered setting up your own blog?
LikeLike
NATE! Please make a “continued” posting … This one is taking “forever” to load on my cellphone and tablet. Thx!
LikeLike
Hi Nan,
Was that a serious suggestion or a hint that I am leaving too many detailed comments?
(I do have a blog, BTW. It’s called “Escaping Christian Fundamentalism”.
LikeLike
“Spend it on productive activity (moneymaking) or on the pursuit of pleasure.”
And finding, giving and receiving love; having children, doing what we can to help those children live happy, productive lives; passing on our knowledge by teaching other children what we’ve learned; exploring, to learn more than we know about the universe, how it operates, and how it came to be; enjoying the beauty of the natural in life, trees, flowers, birth, sunrises and sunsets – I could go on, but as I look at the gray portrait of life that you paint, I realize that you wouldn’t understand, even if I expanded my list to rival the length of a Crown comment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“…you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.” – You can lead a theist to knowledge, but you can’t make him think.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I was serious — you have a lot to say 🙂 and I felt you would get more exposure if you had your own blog.
Why doesn’t your name link to it?
LikeLike
I’ve really never seen anyone question this, Gary, so let me be the first – you say that of the two things upon which all seem to be in agreement, one is that Yeshua was baptized by John the B – but does anyone have any evidence of the historicity of John the Baptist?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nan,
I probably need to edit my google profile to link to my blog, but thanks for the compliment! 🙂
Arch:
I personally have no position on the historicity of the baptism of Jesus by John B. The article above refers to Josephus statements and to the improbability that Christians would invent the idea that their sinless Savior needed to undergo John B’s “baptism of repentance”.
LikeLike
“…the improbability that Christians would invent the idea that their sinless Savior needed to undergo John B’s ‘baptism of repentance’.” – On the other hand, Gary, why would the son of a god need to be baptized, which was not even a Jewish custom, by his quite human cousin?
LikeLiked by 1 person
If the Gospel of “Mark” contains any core truth about Jesus (which I believe is impossible to know for sure) then I would bet that Jesus did not see himself as a god. He saw himself as a human, born of a human mother and father, who believed he had been chosen by God to fulfill a divine commission: to be His prophet and maybe even the messiah to preach the coming New Kingdom.
I believe that Jesus would be shocked to know that his followers, after his death, came to believe he was God Himself, Creator of Heaven and Earth, eternally God, the Giver of the Law at Sinai, equal in status and power with Yahweh. I also believe he would be shocked to know that a Pharisee had hijacked his teachings, telling Gentiles that they were equal partners in the Covenant with Abraham, without needing to become devout Jews, not needing to undergo circumcision or observe Jewish dietary laws. I bet that Jesus would run the Gentile “dogs” out of his movement…if he were alive today…which, of course, he isn’t.
LikeLike
Go back to the Patriarchs, Gary – both Isaac and Jacob were old men who married young girls. The NT doesn’t give us Joseph’s age, but I strongly suspect that little Mary’s dad was only too glad to marry his pregnant daughter off to whoever would have her – hey, it beats stoning!
I can imagine a little Jesus, brow-beaten by a step-father who repeatedly told him, “You’re not my son!” I can imagine this sad child deciding that quite possibly his god had fathered him.
LikeLike
After all, in what child’s mind is his mother not pure?
LikeLike
“The big question is: Evidence for WHAT?”
Hi Gary, the question wasn’t in doubt when we started this conversation. You asked for evidence of the historicity of the NT. I gave it to you. Now you are asking another question. That is fine, I will try to answer that too. But let’s not pretend that the first question wasn’t answered satisfactorily.
“you must have evidence for the resurrection, and the only “evidence” for that claim that I have seen is speculation and hearsay”
We have half answered this already. There is clear evidence from the majority of secular scholars that:
1. The majority accept that Jesus’ tomb was later found empty and/or his disciples had visionary experiences of him after he had been executed. Many (I would guess the majority) believe both.
2. The belief that Jesus was resurrected goes back to the very earliest days of the christian movement. i.e. it wasn’t a later legend.
3. This belief was one of the main motivating forces in the spread of christianity – despite persecution and death, they continued in this belief.
4. The conversion of Paul is an accepted historical fact requiring explanation. Many scholars (I am unsure how many) believe he too had a visionary experience of the resurrected Jesus.
So that is much more than “speculation and hearsay”.
But that is just from the majority of scholars. NT Wright is one of the most respected NT scholars today. I haven’t quoted him so far because I was avoiding quoting a christian. But his book The resurrection of the son of God is considered a classic on this matter. I’m not suggesting you would be convinced by it, I’m just pointing out that if you want something more than “speculation and hearsay”, this is it – all 740 pages of it! If you are not up to 740 pages (I don’t blame you!), then this summary by Wright may help.
“I challenge you to find a secular history book that states these details as historical fact and not speculation or at best a probability.”
This the easy part, Gary! Most of the books I have been referring to have been “history books”. But if you want to be more specific, try The Unauthorised version by classical historian Robin Lane Fox (formerly of Oxford University) and Jesus: an historian’s review of the gospels by classical historian Michael Grant.
“historical fact and not speculation or at best a probability”
But this is a little silly. I don’t know any ancient historian who will claim anything much as “fact”. What you get in ancient history, as you do in science, is probability.
So there it is. Evidence. Some level of probability, which we each need to judge whether it is low or high. By all means judge it to be low if you wish. But the evidence indicates extreme statements cannot be justified.
Meanwhile, I think the evidence is strong. I can understand why you, as a recent convert to atheism, have a tendency to overstate the case. New converts tend to be like that. And I am genuinely sympathetic to anyone who feels they have been ripped off by the church – I am not an apologist for any church. But it would be a great pity and (I believe) much to your detriment, if you allowed these emotions to continue to get in the way of rational assessment of evidence. By all means disagree, but please do it based on the evidence, not what you imagine it might be. Thanks.
LikeLike
“2. The belief that Jesus was resurrected goes back to the very earliest days of the christian movement. i.e. it wasn’t a later legend.” – Evidence, please, Unk —
LikeLike
“If it is a miracle, any sort of evidence will surfice, if a fact, that requires proof.”
— Mark Twain —
LikeLike
Hi Gary
I had a look at your blog. That is a powerful and moving story you tell. You have my sympathy.
LikeLike
Gary wrote: “The problem with edging your bet that “God” exists, is that there are many exclusivist gods. Which one do you choose?”
You choose the one that left of the miracles you can look at, poke and prod.
LikeLike
” The belief that Jesus was resurrected goes back to the very earliest days of the christian movement. i.e. it wasn’t a later legend.”
Do we have any statement, from any Christian, Jew, Roman or other pagan, written during the time period of 33 AD to 55 AD (Paul’s first epistle) that corroborates your statement?
LikeLike