Remember, Gary, Nate’s blog tends to draw more atheists and/or skeptics than it does Christians. Perhaps you might consider posting some of this stuff on blogs where Christians are open to discussion from non-believers. I’m sure you would get a LOT of feedback. Anyway, just a thought …
Do you know of any Christian websites where they actually like debating these discrepancies with non-believers? My experience has been that Christian blog owners don’t like having their inerrant beliefs questioned.
I don’t mind them not liking it, but they tend to be control freaks. If you don’t follow their rules they will cut you off from commenting. I had one Christian refuse to post my comments unless I would admit that my agnostic worldview was irrational and impossible. He wanted me to accept as fact the existence of a Creator before he would allow the discussion to proceed. I never do that to them on my blog. I guess they have learned that unless they control the conversation they are going to get caught with their backs against the wall, and they avoid allowing that happen.
( This bloke is studying quantum gravity and black hole thermodynamics. He is still heavy religious though. Likes to write tomes.
He’ll run you ragged.! lol …
Gary, try Russel and Pascal’s blog. Pascal is a Christian, Russell an atheist. To my knowledge, I’ve never seen Pascal get defensive and he’s always been respectful. Same with Russell.
My point was that our assessment of miracle claims will depend on many factors. Obviously the evidence, also our metaphysics
By metaphysics are you referring to our worldview as it pertains to naturalism vs. supernaturalism? I get what you’re saying about needing to look at the whole package. We need to consider all of the claims involved. We need to consider the evidence and the type of evidence available to us. And if we are going to try to be objective we should discount any “feelings” and indoctrination we may have on the subject.
Right now I don’t see how I could accept the miracle and resurrection claims about Jesus without presupposing that a deity (God) exists and is one that would want to inhabit a human body and then die and bring itself back to life. How can one calculate the odds of this type of deity existing? As for the purpose, I am familiar with the Christian theology surrounding this act and there are several parts that don’t make sense in my opinion. For one thing, the idea of a deity having to become a trinity appears like an after the fact cover-up for a theology that was put together in haste. Secondly, the idea of a deity having to sacrifice itself to itself in order to satisfy it’s own rules of atonement appears illogical. And thirdly, if the ultimate penalty for sin was eternal hell or annihilation then Jesus did not pay this penalty in full because it only lasted for two nights. These problems and others make it difficult for me to presuppose this kind of worldview.
also our assessment of the person(s) reporting the miracle and the person doing the healing.
We really don’t know much about the people who have passed on the stories and wrote them down. That makes it difficult to “assess the person(s) reporting the miracle”. They don’t give their names, sources, age, gender or nationality. Also, we need to consider the motives of these authors who were probably trying to proselytize and may have also been in competition with other ideologies. This would give them a reason to exaggerate the stories and possibly add some of their own ideas to Jesus’ sayings.
I’ve read your page, “Jesus – son of God?”. I think we need to consider the fact that the teachings of Paul would have influenced the gospels and also that the gospels show signs of an evolving doctrine concerning Jesus’ divine status. Mark starts with Jesus receiving a divine blessing at his baptism. Luke and Matthew go the route of a virgin birth with divine conception. Then John (which has a lot of similarities to Gnostic texts) makes Jesus fully divine and eternal. With this in mind I think it is difficult to say with confidence that Jesus himself actually claimed to be divine.
This of course is where we differ. I think the whole package of Jesus’ life and teachings make the resurrection more believable than hallucination, but you don’t. I’m not sure I have anything more to say.
Just to make a small clarification, I did not limit the possibilities to just hallucination. Do you think all of the fans that claimed to see Elvis after he died were hallucinating?
Ark, can you give me the link to the post on Bishop’s blog where he banned you? I am curious to see what kind of comments puts him on “tilt”.
It was his post about an ”atheist” professor who turned ”rogue” 😉 and became Christian.
I swore at someone who refused to tell me the name of the god they worshiped after they demanded I explain logic and morality and honesty without ”God”.
So, if you dont tell anyone to ”eff off” you should be okay.
in one of your replies you mentioned control freaks. I know what you mean.
I often hear christians complain that non-believers ask questions, not because they’re sincerely looking for god, but because they only want to destroy the faith of others, and that they have preconceived positions and their minds already made up…
the funny thing to me is, is that it is almost always followed by some remark that resembles, “now, if the non-believer could agree that the bible is the divine authority, then we could have an honest discussion…”
it’s one of those that I find hilarious and infuriating at the same time.
it’s one of those that I find hilarious and infuriating at the same time.
It becomes easier when one understands how the game is played.
First. The non-believer must not ever play by the rule of the believer.
Never overtly use their terminology.
Example: Just because they consider ”god” is a pronoun and should automatically have a capital ”G” does not mean you, the non-believer, must accede to this.
Always use a small g or better still, always use the term Yahweh – if they are Christian or Jewish..
Even better, insist they identify and use the name of the god they worship.
After all, it does have a name, right?
And we know there many thousands of gods and many believers so why should the believer dictate the tone of any conversation?
While they are allowed to enter any discussion with a presuppositional mindset they will always hold the upper hand – the deck is stacked from the word go.
Remember, they are indoctrinated. Ask a deconvertee. Look at unklee. Perfect example.
Stop writing the names of many popular biblical characters as if they were real historical people. They weren’t, and there is no verifiable evidence to suggest otherwise.
Moses said this or wrote that.
”Jesus did this.” or ”We can believe Jesus said that …”
Bullshit! There is no verifiable evidence
We only have the words of someone who interpreted an oral tradition that could be second or third hand ( or more) and is at least minimum 40 years old.We also know that the gospel writers copied from ”Mark” and who the hell knows who he go his material from?
Just because the other person considers these characters were real does not give them the right to conduct a discussion as if they were without producing solid evidence.
Remember the old saying: ”Eat shit, a thousand million flies can’t be wrong”.
Sometimes they can.
Worth bearing these things in mind.
The Christian god is called Yahweh and he was originally Canaanite and had a consort. Christians, for one, need to be reminded of this fact. All the time.
In my statements above which said “how can educated, 21st century Americans…” I wasn’t being ethnocentric. Most Europeans, Japanese, Australians (I’m not sure about South Africans, Ark) DO NOT believe this nonsense.
“Stop writing the names of many popular biblical characters as if they were real historical people.” – I often use the name, followed by the acronym, “I.H.E.E.” (If He Ever Existed).
Further, unless for a specific reason, I never use the name, “Jesus,” as their preachers love to use it from their pulpits as, “Jeeeeeeesus!” – rather I use what would have been his real Jewish name (IHEE), Yeshua, denying them the psychological reinforcement that comes with using their more familiar term.
yes, i find being as accurate as possible, with as must honesty with the information as i can conjure, works best. it’s just that you cant dance a tango when your partner is square dancing – if that makes any sense
Does anyone know of the existence of any FIRST century statement by any Church Father in which he quotes from a passage in one of the four Gospels? He doesn’t have to attribute authorship, just quote from one of them.
One of the main arguments that Christians use for the historicity of the Resurrection of YESHUA is that if the Gospels (which experts agree at least three of them were written in the first century) contained false statements, eyewitnesses in Palestine would have denounced the gospels as spurious. Since there is no evidence that anyone in the first century did denounce the gospels a spurious, they must be accurate.
But, if we have no record of anyone quoting from the gospels in the first century, it is then entirely possible that the Gospels were written in distant lands in the first century, but, no copy of these books ever reached Palestine during the first century, where the eyewitnesses lived, for anyone to question their historicity and accuracy. It would then be possible that copies of the gospels did not arrive in Palestine until the beginning of the second century and by that time, in all probability, any eyewitness would be dead; so, no one would have been alive who could fact check what the anonymous authors of the gospels, three of whom plagiarized the first, said.
ken / kcchief1 “I can say as matter of fact that he questioned just how much of a Christian I was when I told him I had been one for almost 50 years. I could go find his quote but he made it over a year ago . I believe it was here on Nate’s blog.”
unkleE, “Hi Ken, I am indeed sorry if I have offended you and said something about you without justification. I don’t recall that, and it is the opposite of what I usually say, which is that I cannot know that about someone else.
Since I cannot recall it, I would appreciate if you could go to the trouble of finding it please. If it occurred as you say, I will readily apologise that I said something I shouldn’t have, but if you cannot find it, I can only apologise if I did that. Thanks.”
@unkleE, below is the exchange of comments on your blog. Here I am telling you how I was a Christian for 50 years followed by your comment questioning my 50 years , what type of Christianity I was involved in and to what degree I was involved. You were clearly “sizing up” my Christianity. I don’t think you would have asked the questions you did had I not said how much happier I was as a Deist.
ken aka kcchief1
AUG 11, 2013 @ 14:01:28
Another thought: I have been down the road of Christianity for almost 50 years. The past 9 years I have evolved to Deism. I can honestly say I have experienced far more happiness as a Deist over these past 9 years than I ever did as a Christian for 50 years. I no longer feel compelled to challenge or defend my belief system . I just “live it”.
unkleE
AUG 12, 2013 @ 01:17:41
“as a Christian for 50 years”
I’d be interested to know about those 50 years – what sort of christianity were you involved in and how involved were you?
Hi Dave, sorry about the delay, but our internet was out for about 36 hours.
“By metaphysics are you referring to our worldview as it pertains to naturalism vs. supernaturalism?”
Yes.
“And if we are going to try to be objective we should discount any “feelings” and indoctrination we may have on the subject.”
This sounds right, but I’m not sure if I’d say “discount”. Studies have shown some decisions should be made analytically (ones amenable to a strictly logical, deconstructive approach) but others are better made intuitively (ones relating to relationships or complex problems not amenable to deconstruction). At least some parts of our choices about God may therefore require our feelings as well as our logic. Psychologist Jonathan Haidt says neuroscience shows we make all our choices on religious, ethical and political matters intuitively and then seek to rationalise them later. I’m not sure about that, but I can see it might be true – e.g. some scientists say that their best ideas come intuitively and then are established analytically. So I’m inclined to say we need to use both sorts of thinking as appropriate.
“Right now I don’t see how I could accept the miracle and resurrection claims about Jesus without presupposing that a deity (God) exists and is one that would want to inhabit a human body and then die and bring itself back to life. How can one calculate the odds of this type of deity existing?”
I think odds are probably too analytical for this topic, but I presume you were thinking qualitatively rather than quantitatively? I don’t see how you could ever establish theoretically that God would have those motivations. What I suggested was that we see the life of Jesus, we understand the christian view of it doesn’t make much sense if there’s no God, but it might make sense and might be true if God exists. The other information I offered suggests to me that God does indeed exist (partly because non-theistic viewpoints leave too much that is important and basic unexplained) and so the best explanation of Jesus’ life may then be that he told the truth and was indeed God’s special messenger. Only then would I say we can begin to understand and make an assessment of things like the atonement.
I think too that much of what we know about God is analogical (i.e. a “baby” picture we can understand that is analogical to the real truth we couldn’t understand). We need to be careful criticising an analogy because we may have misunderstood it.
“For one thing, the idea of a deity having to become a trinity appears like an after the fact cover-up for a theology that was put together in haste. Secondly, the idea of a deity having to sacrifice itself to itself in order to satisfy it’s own rules of atonement appears illogical. And thirdly, if the ultimate penalty for sin was eternal hell or annihilation then Jesus did not pay this penalty in full because it only lasted for two nights. These problems and others make it difficult for me to presuppose this kind of worldview.”
Like I said, I’m not suggesting you presuppose it, just that it follows once (and if) we conclude that God does exist and Jesus told the truth. But I think you make too much of the unusualness of these teachings. Quantum physics is bizarre and “impossible” in many ways, yet it appears to be true. The multiverse and string theory may even be true, perhaps. Plate tectonics and continental drift are crazy in some ways, yet they too are true.
If God exists and is immeasurably different and “above” us, why should we be surprised at anything? If something was postulated about God that was actually contradictory to real evidence then that would be different, but I can’t see how there could be any evidence against those doctrines, they just seem strange to us. I don’t think that’s much of a criterion when talking about God, and especially the God of the historical character Jesus. If it was Horus, who no-one knows if he was ever a real entity, there’s no evidence for him, etc, then it would be different.
We really don’t know much about the people who have passed on the stories and wrote them down. That makes it difficult to “assess the person(s) reporting the miracle”. They don’t give their names, sources, age, gender or nationality. Also, we need to consider the motives of these authors who were probably trying to proselytize and may have also been in competition with other ideologies. This would give them a reason to exaggerate the stories and possibly add some of their own ideas to Jesus’ sayings.”
But the historians generally say it was a historical fact Jesus was known as a healer and miracle-worker. That means they may have been mistaken about his supernatural power, but the historians are generally convinced the stories weren’t just made up
“I think we need to consider the fact that the teachings of Paul would have influenced the gospels and also that the gospels show signs of an evolving doctrine concerning Jesus’ divine status. …. I think it is difficult to say with confidence that Jesus himself actually claimed to be divine.”
It has been clear to me for decades that there is development of the disciples’ understanding of who Jesus was. After all, they were monotheistic Jews, and to believe he was the unique son of God was an enormous jump. But that is the view they came to, and it didn’t take them all that long. It seems that Jesus was the object of worship within a decade of his death, and passages in Paul’s letters show this – not (probably) in Paul’s words, but in words already written before he wrote (so the historians say, based on the language used in several passages). So he didn’t make that idea up at all, it was already there in the christian community.
“Just to make a small clarification, I did not limit the possibilities to just hallucination. Do you think all of the fans that claimed to see Elvis after he died were hallucinating?”
I have no idea. Were there really a large number of people claiming this? What exactly did they claim? I thought this was just a hypothetical, I had no idea there really were such people.
“I just remember telling you about my Christian background and you saying something to the effect that you didn’t know “how Christian I was” to be able to deconvert.”
Thanks for finding the place you were referring to, it saved me some work. But my comment is not as you described it.
You said in the quote above that I didn’t know how christian you were to be able to deconvert. But when we check what I actually said it was: “I’d be interested to know about those 50 years – what sort of christianity were you involved in and how involved were you?”
There’s no questioning of your belief, no mention of deconversion, just asking about your experience as a christian. I think you may have remembered what you felt rather than what I wrote.
And when you suggested I was questioning those things, I replied:
“I’m sorry you feel this way Ken. I have on occasion observed that other people’s christian experience was very different to mine, and makes me better understand why they left the faith, but that wasn’t in my mind in this case. I was genuinely interested, and I thought hearing a little of your story might help us avoid some of the loggerheads we’ve come to in the past.
Those two posts show that I don’t think what you suggested.
At the time you accepted this explanation, saying: “I don’t mind sharing my experience with you under those conditions. I am sure you have seen Christians do what I was describing. When I have time, I will be happy to share.”
And so ended a conversation that was amicable throughout.
So I’m wondering why you raised this matter now. I didn’t make any such statement as you thought you recalled – it appears you were actually recalling your misunderstanding of the statement I made, and forgetting my correction of that misunderstanding and your acceptance of that.
Just for the record, I try to avoid making any judgment on whether people were once genuine christians or not. I don’t know how to define “genuine christians” nor do I think I have any special insight into other people’s beliefs. Whatever someone self identifies as, I generally accept. I may then question their logic or ask what they actually believe(d), and I do find that many ex-christians had very different beliefs to what I hold. Many assume I have the same beliefs as they did, and it can be helpful to understand where people are coming from.
Finding Truth 
Remember, Gary, Nate’s blog tends to draw more atheists and/or skeptics than it does Christians. Perhaps you might consider posting some of this stuff on blogs where Christians are open to discussion from non-believers. I’m sure you would get a LOT of feedback. Anyway, just a thought …
LikeLike
Hi Nan,
Do you know of any Christian websites where they actually like debating these discrepancies with non-believers? My experience has been that Christian blog owners don’t like having their inerrant beliefs questioned.
LikeLike
I don’t know of any particular ones since I don’t frequent them myself, but I’m sure Arch, Mak, and/or Ark could direct you to some good ones.
Of course they don’t like their beliefs questioned! But isn’t that part of the “game?”
LikeLike
I don’t mind them not liking it, but they tend to be control freaks. If you don’t follow their rules they will cut you off from commenting. I had one Christian refuse to post my comments unless I would admit that my agnostic worldview was irrational and impossible. He wanted me to accept as fact the existence of a Creator before he would allow the discussion to proceed. I never do that to them on my blog. I guess they have learned that unless they control the conversation they are going to get caught with their backs against the wall, and they avoid allowing that happen.
LikeLike
@Gary
The really good ones we ( me ) are either banned from or the host likes to edit. ( Colorstorm for one.)
Though you might last a while on these blogs …
https://jamesbishopblog.wordpress.com/
( I got banned from this one this morning)
http://www.wall.org/~aron/blog/
( This bloke is studying quantum gravity and black hole thermodynamics. He is still heavy religious though. Likes to write tomes.
He’ll run you ragged.! lol …
http://tiribulus.net/wordpress/
Tiribulis is borderline insane if not actually across the border already. Tread with caution.
https://bornfromabove7.wordpress.com/
A nutter. Plain weird.
If you want some more let me know.
LikeLike
Gary, try Russel and Pascal’s blog. Pascal is a Christian, Russell an atheist. To my knowledge, I’ve never seen Pascal get defensive and he’s always been respectful. Same with Russell.
http://russellandpascal.com/
LikeLike
Thanks for the suggestions, Ark and Victoria, I will check them out. I just left a comment on James Bishop’s blog.
Ark, can you give me the link to the post on Bishop’s blog where he banned you? I am curious to see what kind of comments puts him on “tilt”.
LikeLike
Hi UnkleE,
By metaphysics are you referring to our worldview as it pertains to naturalism vs. supernaturalism? I get what you’re saying about needing to look at the whole package. We need to consider all of the claims involved. We need to consider the evidence and the type of evidence available to us. And if we are going to try to be objective we should discount any “feelings” and indoctrination we may have on the subject.
Right now I don’t see how I could accept the miracle and resurrection claims about Jesus without presupposing that a deity (God) exists and is one that would want to inhabit a human body and then die and bring itself back to life. How can one calculate the odds of this type of deity existing? As for the purpose, I am familiar with the Christian theology surrounding this act and there are several parts that don’t make sense in my opinion. For one thing, the idea of a deity having to become a trinity appears like an after the fact cover-up for a theology that was put together in haste. Secondly, the idea of a deity having to sacrifice itself to itself in order to satisfy it’s own rules of atonement appears illogical. And thirdly, if the ultimate penalty for sin was eternal hell or annihilation then Jesus did not pay this penalty in full because it only lasted for two nights. These problems and others make it difficult for me to presuppose this kind of worldview.
We really don’t know much about the people who have passed on the stories and wrote them down. That makes it difficult to “assess the person(s) reporting the miracle”. They don’t give their names, sources, age, gender or nationality. Also, we need to consider the motives of these authors who were probably trying to proselytize and may have also been in competition with other ideologies. This would give them a reason to exaggerate the stories and possibly add some of their own ideas to Jesus’ sayings.
I’ve read your page, “Jesus – son of God?”. I think we need to consider the fact that the teachings of Paul would have influenced the gospels and also that the gospels show signs of an evolving doctrine concerning Jesus’ divine status. Mark starts with Jesus receiving a divine blessing at his baptism. Luke and Matthew go the route of a virgin birth with divine conception. Then John (which has a lot of similarities to Gnostic texts) makes Jesus fully divine and eternal. With this in mind I think it is difficult to say with confidence that Jesus himself actually claimed to be divine.
Just to make a small clarification, I did not limit the possibilities to just hallucination. Do you think all of the fans that claimed to see Elvis after he died were hallucinating?
LikeLiked by 3 people
According to Trinitarian Christianity:
Jesus is God
According to the Bible:
God impregnated the Virgin Mary
Therefore:
Jesus, who is God, impregnated his mother to give birth to himself.
How is it possible to brainwash educated, 21st century Americans to believe this second century Trinitarian nonsense???
LikeLike
Let’s see, there’s:
1. God the Father
2. God the Son
3. God the Holy Spirit
If my first grade teacher, Mrs. Kirschbaum, taught addition to me correctly, one god, plus a second god, plus a third god, equals…THREE gods!
Three persons in one God?
Sorry. Not buying it. A god with multiple personalities, maybe, but if you have three distinct persons who are God, then you have three gods, not one.
How is it possible to brainwash educated, 21st century Americans to believe this second century Trinitarian nonsense?
LikeLike
It was his post about an ”atheist” professor who turned ”rogue” 😉 and became Christian.
I swore at someone who refused to tell me the name of the god they worshiped after they demanded I explain logic and morality and honesty without ”God”.
So, if you dont tell anyone to ”eff off” you should be okay.
LikeLike
Gary,
in one of your replies you mentioned control freaks. I know what you mean.
I often hear christians complain that non-believers ask questions, not because they’re sincerely looking for god, but because they only want to destroy the faith of others, and that they have preconceived positions and their minds already made up…
the funny thing to me is, is that it is almost always followed by some remark that resembles, “now, if the non-believer could agree that the bible is the divine authority, then we could have an honest discussion…”
it’s one of those that I find hilarious and infuriating at the same time.
LikeLike
It becomes easier when one understands how the game is played.
First. The non-believer must not ever play by the rule of the believer.
Never overtly use their terminology.
Example: Just because they consider ”god” is a pronoun and should automatically have a capital ”G” does not mean you, the non-believer, must accede to this.
Always use a small g or better still, always use the term Yahweh – if they are Christian or Jewish..
Even better, insist they identify and use the name of the god they worship.
After all, it does have a name, right?
And we know there many thousands of gods and many believers so why should the believer dictate the tone of any conversation?
While they are allowed to enter any discussion with a presuppositional mindset they will always hold the upper hand – the deck is stacked from the word go.
Remember, they are indoctrinated. Ask a deconvertee. Look at unklee. Perfect example.
Stop writing the names of many popular biblical characters as if they were real historical people. They weren’t, and there is no verifiable evidence to suggest otherwise.
Moses said this or wrote that.
”Jesus did this.” or ”We can believe Jesus said that …”
Bullshit! There is no verifiable evidence
We only have the words of someone who interpreted an oral tradition that could be second or third hand ( or more) and is at least minimum 40 years old.We also know that the gospel writers copied from ”Mark” and who the hell knows who he go his material from?
Just because the other person considers these characters were real does not give them the right to conduct a discussion as if they were without producing solid evidence.
Remember the old saying: ”Eat shit, a thousand million flies can’t be wrong”.
Sometimes they can.
Worth bearing these things in mind.
The Christian god is called Yahweh and he was originally Canaanite and had a consort. Christians, for one, need to be reminded of this fact. All the time.
LikeLike
In my statements above which said “how can educated, 21st century Americans…” I wasn’t being ethnocentric. Most Europeans, Japanese, Australians (I’m not sure about South Africans, Ark) DO NOT believe this nonsense.
LikeLike
“Stop writing the names of many popular biblical characters as if they were real historical people.” – I often use the name, followed by the acronym, “I.H.E.E.” (If He Ever Existed).
Further, unless for a specific reason, I never use the name, “Jesus,” as their preachers love to use it from their pulpits as, “Jeeeeeeesus!” – rather I use what would have been his real Jewish name (IHEE), Yeshua, denying them the psychological reinforcement that comes with using their more familiar term.
LikeLiked by 1 person
yes, i find being as accurate as possible, with as must honesty with the information as i can conjure, works best. it’s just that you cant dance a tango when your partner is square dancing – if that makes any sense
LikeLike
The insist they dance a tango. It is as simple as that.
LikeLike
Question for everyone:
Does anyone know of the existence of any FIRST century statement by any Church Father in which he quotes from a passage in one of the four Gospels? He doesn’t have to attribute authorship, just quote from one of them.
LikeLike
Here is why I am asking the above question:
One of the main arguments that Christians use for the historicity of the Resurrection of YESHUA is that if the Gospels (which experts agree at least three of them were written in the first century) contained false statements, eyewitnesses in Palestine would have denounced the gospels as spurious. Since there is no evidence that anyone in the first century did denounce the gospels a spurious, they must be accurate.
But, if we have no record of anyone quoting from the gospels in the first century, it is then entirely possible that the Gospels were written in distant lands in the first century, but, no copy of these books ever reached Palestine during the first century, where the eyewitnesses lived, for anyone to question their historicity and accuracy. It would then be possible that copies of the gospels did not arrive in Palestine until the beginning of the second century and by that time, in all probability, any eyewitness would be dead; so, no one would have been alive who could fact check what the anonymous authors of the gospels, three of whom plagiarized the first, said.
LikeLiked by 1 person
May 12, 2015 at 10:20 pm
ken / kcchief1 “I can say as matter of fact that he questioned just how much of a Christian I was when I told him I had been one for almost 50 years. I could go find his quote but he made it over a year ago . I believe it was here on Nate’s blog.”
unkleE, “Hi Ken, I am indeed sorry if I have offended you and said something about you without justification. I don’t recall that, and it is the opposite of what I usually say, which is that I cannot know that about someone else.
Since I cannot recall it, I would appreciate if you could go to the trouble of finding it please. If it occurred as you say, I will readily apologise that I said something I shouldn’t have, but if you cannot find it, I can only apologise if I did that. Thanks.”
@unkleE, below is the exchange of comments on your blog. Here I am telling you how I was a Christian for 50 years followed by your comment questioning my 50 years , what type of Christianity I was involved in and to what degree I was involved. You were clearly “sizing up” my Christianity. I don’t think you would have asked the questions you did had I not said how much happier I was as a Deist.
ken aka kcchief1
AUG 11, 2013 @ 14:01:28
Another thought: I have been down the road of Christianity for almost 50 years. The past 9 years I have evolved to Deism. I can honestly say I have experienced far more happiness as a Deist over these past 9 years than I ever did as a Christian for 50 years. I no longer feel compelled to challenge or defend my belief system . I just “live it”.
unkleE
AUG 12, 2013 @ 01:17:41
“as a Christian for 50 years”
I’d be interested to know about those 50 years – what sort of christianity were you involved in and how involved were you?
LikeLike
@unkleE, it was from your post, “AUG 6, 2013
The mystery of consciousness”
LikeLike
Is Unk an OSAS-er?
LikeLike
Not sure Gary. Might be a good question for you to ask him. I’m not sure he has ever said.
LikeLike
Hi Dave, sorry about the delay, but our internet was out for about 36 hours.
“By metaphysics are you referring to our worldview as it pertains to naturalism vs. supernaturalism?”
Yes.
“And if we are going to try to be objective we should discount any “feelings” and indoctrination we may have on the subject.”
This sounds right, but I’m not sure if I’d say “discount”. Studies have shown some decisions should be made analytically (ones amenable to a strictly logical, deconstructive approach) but others are better made intuitively (ones relating to relationships or complex problems not amenable to deconstruction). At least some parts of our choices about God may therefore require our feelings as well as our logic. Psychologist Jonathan Haidt says neuroscience shows we make all our choices on religious, ethical and political matters intuitively and then seek to rationalise them later. I’m not sure about that, but I can see it might be true – e.g. some scientists say that their best ideas come intuitively and then are established analytically. So I’m inclined to say we need to use both sorts of thinking as appropriate.
“Right now I don’t see how I could accept the miracle and resurrection claims about Jesus without presupposing that a deity (God) exists and is one that would want to inhabit a human body and then die and bring itself back to life. How can one calculate the odds of this type of deity existing?”
I think odds are probably too analytical for this topic, but I presume you were thinking qualitatively rather than quantitatively? I don’t see how you could ever establish theoretically that God would have those motivations. What I suggested was that we see the life of Jesus, we understand the christian view of it doesn’t make much sense if there’s no God, but it might make sense and might be true if God exists. The other information I offered suggests to me that God does indeed exist (partly because non-theistic viewpoints leave too much that is important and basic unexplained) and so the best explanation of Jesus’ life may then be that he told the truth and was indeed God’s special messenger. Only then would I say we can begin to understand and make an assessment of things like the atonement.
I think too that much of what we know about God is analogical (i.e. a “baby” picture we can understand that is analogical to the real truth we couldn’t understand). We need to be careful criticising an analogy because we may have misunderstood it.
“For one thing, the idea of a deity having to become a trinity appears like an after the fact cover-up for a theology that was put together in haste. Secondly, the idea of a deity having to sacrifice itself to itself in order to satisfy it’s own rules of atonement appears illogical. And thirdly, if the ultimate penalty for sin was eternal hell or annihilation then Jesus did not pay this penalty in full because it only lasted for two nights. These problems and others make it difficult for me to presuppose this kind of worldview.”
Like I said, I’m not suggesting you presuppose it, just that it follows once (and if) we conclude that God does exist and Jesus told the truth. But I think you make too much of the unusualness of these teachings. Quantum physics is bizarre and “impossible” in many ways, yet it appears to be true. The multiverse and string theory may even be true, perhaps. Plate tectonics and continental drift are crazy in some ways, yet they too are true.
If God exists and is immeasurably different and “above” us, why should we be surprised at anything? If something was postulated about God that was actually contradictory to real evidence then that would be different, but I can’t see how there could be any evidence against those doctrines, they just seem strange to us. I don’t think that’s much of a criterion when talking about God, and especially the God of the historical character Jesus. If it was Horus, who no-one knows if he was ever a real entity, there’s no evidence for him, etc, then it would be different.
We really don’t know much about the people who have passed on the stories and wrote them down. That makes it difficult to “assess the person(s) reporting the miracle”. They don’t give their names, sources, age, gender or nationality. Also, we need to consider the motives of these authors who were probably trying to proselytize and may have also been in competition with other ideologies. This would give them a reason to exaggerate the stories and possibly add some of their own ideas to Jesus’ sayings.”
But the historians generally say it was a historical fact Jesus was known as a healer and miracle-worker. That means they may have been mistaken about his supernatural power, but the historians are generally convinced the stories weren’t just made up
“I think we need to consider the fact that the teachings of Paul would have influenced the gospels and also that the gospels show signs of an evolving doctrine concerning Jesus’ divine status. …. I think it is difficult to say with confidence that Jesus himself actually claimed to be divine.”
It has been clear to me for decades that there is development of the disciples’ understanding of who Jesus was. After all, they were monotheistic Jews, and to believe he was the unique son of God was an enormous jump. But that is the view they came to, and it didn’t take them all that long. It seems that Jesus was the object of worship within a decade of his death, and passages in Paul’s letters show this – not (probably) in Paul’s words, but in words already written before he wrote (so the historians say, based on the language used in several passages). So he didn’t make that idea up at all, it was already there in the christian community.
“Just to make a small clarification, I did not limit the possibilities to just hallucination. Do you think all of the fans that claimed to see Elvis after he died were hallucinating?”
I have no idea. Were there really a large number of people claiming this? What exactly did they claim? I thought this was just a hypothetical, I had no idea there really were such people.
LikeLike
Hi Ken
“I just remember telling you about my Christian background and you saying something to the effect that you didn’t know “how Christian I was” to be able to deconvert.”
Thanks for finding the place you were referring to, it saved me some work. But my comment is not as you described it.
You said in the quote above that I didn’t know how christian you were to be able to deconvert. But when we check what I actually said it was: “I’d be interested to know about those 50 years – what sort of christianity were you involved in and how involved were you?”
There’s no questioning of your belief, no mention of deconversion, just asking about your experience as a christian. I think you may have remembered what you felt rather than what I wrote.
And when you suggested I was questioning those things, I replied:
“I’m sorry you feel this way Ken. I have on occasion observed that other people’s christian experience was very different to mine, and makes me better understand why they left the faith, but that wasn’t in my mind in this case. I was genuinely interested, and I thought hearing a little of your story might help us avoid some of the loggerheads we’ve come to in the past.
To demonstrate that I’m not just making this up, you might like to read two posts from my other blog: Atheists who once were christians and The way we treat deserters.”
Those two posts show that I don’t think what you suggested.
At the time you accepted this explanation, saying: “I don’t mind sharing my experience with you under those conditions. I am sure you have seen Christians do what I was describing. When I have time, I will be happy to share.”
And so ended a conversation that was amicable throughout.
So I’m wondering why you raised this matter now. I didn’t make any such statement as you thought you recalled – it appears you were actually recalling your misunderstanding of the statement I made, and forgetting my correction of that misunderstanding and your acceptance of that.
Just for the record, I try to avoid making any judgment on whether people were once genuine christians or not. I don’t know how to define “genuine christians” nor do I think I have any special insight into other people’s beliefs. Whatever someone self identifies as, I generally accept. I may then question their logic or ask what they actually believe(d), and I do find that many ex-christians had very different beliefs to what I hold. Many assume I have the same beliefs as they did, and it can be helpful to understand where people are coming from.
Hopefully now we can leave it behind.
LikeLike