Well, this Nan is a sweet lady (much like yourself), but she’s been so heavily indoctrinated she just can’t see anything else.
When I sent her the email (this happened three or four years ago), she praised me for the quality of analysis I had done on her video, and asked if I thought I could do a critique on the Bible. By this time, I had already completed analyzing 50 chapters of Genesis (about which, she knew nothing), so I said I thought I just might be able to do that.
I emailed her a chapter at a time, making it look like a simple analysis, rather than something I had already prepared for a website. At the end of each email, I posed certain questions, which I noticed, in return emails, she never answered.
After a time, I began to realize why – she wasn’t reading to the end of any of my entries! She said she wanted it, but when she got it, she couldn’t even bother to read it.
I spent 4 emails telling her I felt we shouldn’t email anymore, but each one was answered with a chatty, how’s-the-weather kind of response – once again, she didn’t know I had suggested ending the emails, because she didn’t read my damned emails!
Finally, SHE suggested we stop emailing, so I let her feel good about herself, believing that she was the one who initiated the idea. I still see her every year, at piano recitals – we smile and exchange pleasantries, but any discussion of religion is off the table.
hi Nan, way back in march, you posted a comment about beeny hinn having a heart attack and I believe you said something like HOW IS HE GOING TO EXPLAIN THAT HIS PRAYERS DIDNT’ WORK?
Hi guys. If anyone is sitting around bored with nothing to do today, come over to Theology Web and check out a discussion I am having with the conservative Christians there regarding Jesus’ alleged miracle of raising Lazarus from the dead; a miracle only mentioned in the last gospel written—John—and a miracle never mentioned by Paul or any other writer of the NT epistles. Here is an excerpt:
One Bad Pig (Christian):
Gary, your ENTIRE CASE is built on the assumption that everybody made stuff up, with a side of “ancient peoples were gullible fools with bad memories”. And you’re still ignoring this, doubtless because it doesn’t fit your fantasy. Eyewitnesses, y’know, witnessed. They told people all over the place, who independently told others. At some point, everybody got a copy of the gospel; if it hadn’t generally checked out, it would have been rejected, like most other gospels were.
Gary:
Assumption, after assumption, after assumption, my friend.
Once again, I have NEVER said or assumed that Christians in the first century were all lying or intentionally concocted false stories. It is my guess that most people involved in new religious movements, especially new religious movements that are severely persecuted, are very SINCERE about their beliefs. However, sincere belief doesn’t not equate with TRUE AND HISTORICALLY ACCURATE beliefs.
My assertion is this. Which is more likely:
1. The story of Lazarus was a theological story, never meant by the original author to be read literally as a true historical event.
2. The tale of Lazarus originated with the poor beggar Lazarus from the Synoptics. By the time it reached (the non-eyewitness) author of the Gospel of John in circa 100 AD, the story had become incredibly embellished after being handed down from person to person over many decades, passing between countries and cultures, told in one language, and translated into many others. No one lied. No one intentionally made anything up. The story changed because that is what happens to oral stories retold over a long period of time.
3. The author of John made up the story from whole cloth with the intention of deceiving his readers into believing that this event was a true, historical event. He lied.
4. A dead, stinking corpse really did rise from the dead after being in a sealed mausoleum for FOUR days.
The statistical odds of option number four being the correct answer is INFINTISIMALLY small when we look at cumulative human history and the number of stinking corpses that have come back to life after being sealed in a tomb for four days.
My position is NOT based on assumptions, but on statistical probabilities! And that is how you and every other educated person in western civilization evaluates wild, unheard of claims today. I am only asking you to use the same reasoning when evaluating wild, unheard of claims made TWENTY centuries ago!
If, like one bad pig suggests, that essentially no big falsehood would last this long, then that would mean that all existing religions, not only his goofy one, but all other existing goofy religions are also just as true by such asinine standards.
I just can’t go back over there and look at that train wreck any longer. It’s madness, and they’re not interested in reasonable discourse, but merely in a collective circle jerk where they congratulate each other for having strong faith despite the evidence, while they spout out mind-numbing crap like the above…
In John’s Gospel the interchange between Jesus and Nicodemus has some very clever wordplay as recorded in the original Greek. It is hard to translate this wordplay effectively into English, but also, tellingly, the wordplay would not have worked in Aramaic, the language in which Jesus and Nicodemus would have conversed.
John’s Gospel has all the hallmarks of a theological treatise weaved around a historic narrative. The history is secondary to the theology, the author is quite prepared to change events, like the timing of the cleansing of the temple, to serve the broader theological agenda.
The raising of Lazarus from the grave appears to be an entirely made up story that was needed to serve the broader theological agenda. As the cleansing of the temple had been moved to the start of the story, the author needed another reason for why the Jewish leaders wanted to kill Jesus, this story serves that purpose. It also is part of the ‘signs’ in the Gospel that are the backbone of the story. Each of the miracle in John’s gospel is a sort of parable.
These stories only really start to make sense when we are prepared to accept the possibility they may not be recording actual history. But the apologist is not prepared to grant this premise so the discussion will be most likely fruitless and frustrating.
If we are prepared to accept that John’s gospel is not actual history then we can appreciate it for the skilled creation that it is.
This thread has gotten pretty slow, so I hope Nate doesn’t mind me doing the following. I posted the following comment on TW. I’d be curious of what my fellow skeptics here on Nate’s blog think of it:
The four gospels and the writings of Paul are good evidence for the existence of a real, historical Jesus but they are NOT good evidence for flying supernatural beings in radiant white garments opening sealed tombs and dead men walking out of their tombs and flying off into outer space. Extraordinary/supernatural claims need better evidence to be believable. Every Christian on this thread would agree to that EXCEPT when it comes to the extraordinary/supernatural claims in YOUR ancient holy book.
If five men write in five books that that they saw me driving my car on March 9, 1983, that would be good evidence. But if five men write in five books that they saw me flying a Martian mothership, which suddenly shot up into the sky and landed on the moon, on some unspecified date forty years ago, no one but the most gullible and superstitious is going to believe their supernatural claim!
That is your problem, folks. It is not that you have zero evidence, it is that your evidence is extremely weak; not sufficiently strong to support such a fantastical supernatural claim.
The four gospels and the writings of Paul are good evidence for the existence of a real, historical Jesus
Besides the crackpots, there are some scholars nowadays who assert otherwise (e.g. Richard Carrier, David Fitzgerald). I haven’t looked into it in detail, and I’m not convinced one way or the other, but IMO, the presence of legitimate historical doubt over the very existence of the character serves as evidence against his alleged magic powers godhood.
I think your argument is good, Gary, but I also don’t think it’s going to go anywhere. Like me, I know you were a Christian for many years — do you think your argument would have been persuasive to you if you’d heard it back then? And that’s not a rhetorical question; I’m genuinely curious.
For me, I don’t think it would have been enough. I would have been able to see the logic in what you were saying, but I believed that the Bible was inspired and infallible, so your argument would have just sounded like conjecture to me. I don’t think I could have left my faith over conjecture. I first needed to be shown that the Bible was not inerrant. Once that was done, I was open to all other arguments — but that had to come first.
Of course, that’s just me. I know plenty of other Christians who don’t believe the Bible has to be inerrant, and I’m not really sure what kinds of arguments might work with them.
I don’t think I could have left my faith over conjecture.
You know this is the question I asked, but the other way round –
I don’t think I can believe over conjecture. When all religions around the world are making different conjectures.
Hence I think it simply takes an open mind, for someone to ask “can I be wrong”, then he/she will be on the path to deconversion.
I think the prime issue is that most people just like to be right. This applies to religious and non-religious folks. You think about it critically, how many people are actual fervent christians to begin with? 10%? 20%?
How many christians even read the bible? The whole idea that this is the word of the ultimate all-powerful creator wanting to talk to you, and you don’t even read it? Something tells me you don’t really believe at the core of your being. So why are you even holding onto your faith? I think it’s pride.
Like many Christians, it wasn’t just one piece of evidence that convinced me of the truth of the Jesus story. For instance, if someone told me that the evidence for the Resurrection was too sci-fi to be believable, I would then point out all the prophecies from the OT that Jesus fulfilled; or the “would not die for a lie” argument; or the “miracle” of the spread of Christianity under horrific persecution; or personal testimony of “miracles”…and on and on…
But now I see it all this way: a house of cards held up by the glue of assumption after assumption after assumption.
I know you’d really, really like that to be true (that I am involved in one of the greatest movements in the history of humanity: the debunking of supernaturalism and the liberation of the human mind from the fear and control of religious superstitions), but if you were interested in actually “debunking supernaturalism” you’d unhesitatingly read and refute the sources we bring up. You’re only interested in sowing doubt.
Gary: I and other skeptics have learned from our own personal experience that “deconversion” from a supernatural-based religious belief system does not happen overnight. It is a slow process, that begins by one day, whether surfing on the internet (as in my case), debating skeptics online, reading a provocative article, or watching a TV program, you suddenly see something wrong with one aspect of your belief system. It doesn’t immediately destroy your “faith” but you begin to question your previously unquestioned beliefs. You begin to dig, and as you dig, deeper and deeper into the rational for your beliefs, the more things seem to be not quite right…and before you know it you are questioning your entire belief system. And then…it is as if you wake up out of a trance and see just how preposterous your supernatural beliefs really were and you ask yourself, “How could I have ever believed something so silly?”
I’m not making that up. I’m not saying it to be insulting. That is how many of us who have left religion/faith describe our deconversion experience.
Why are we skeptics resistant to reading the long list of Christian books that every Christian apologist wants us to read?
Answer: You have to understand our perspective when you ask us to read your Christian scholars’ books regarding the alleged validity and historicity of your supernatural belief system: You might as well ask us to read scholarly books on the existence of Martians and their space travels. To us it is just as ridiculous and just as much a waste of our time.
We do not challenge the intelligence and integrity of your Bible scholars. We do not question their expertise in the beliefs and practices of early Christians. What we question is their agenda: Most of them are not investigating early Christianity for the sole purpose of evidence collection and general knowledge. Most Christian Bible scholars have an agenda to confirm to the world (non-believers) that their supernatural-based religious beliefs are legitimate and respectable. We, on the other hand, view Christian supernatural claims to be in the same category with Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, and Leprechauns. We don’t believe that your position on the supernatural is worth taking seriously. But we feel the same way about the supernatural claims of the Muslims, Mormons, Jews, and Hindus, so don’t take it personally.
How many christians even read the bible? The whole idea that this is the word of the ultimate all-powerful creator wanting to talk to you, and you don’t even read it? Something tells me you don’t really believe at the core of your being. So why are you even holding onto your faith? I think it’s pride.
Couldn’t agree more!
But now I see it all this way: a house of cards held up by the glue of assumption after assumption after assumption.
Yeah, I totally agree. I sometimes wonder why I stayed in it so long, but when you’re inside it, surrounded by others who believe just as strongly, you miss all the flaws.
You know, it’s not just that we don’t take their claims seriously. We have read the kinds of books they suggest (sometimes the very ones). The problem most of those books have is that they don’t relay the counterarguments against their position. Meanwhile, very few Christians read any of the stuff that we suggest, which means they only ever hear one side of the argument.
What many Christians fail to think about is that when you’re dealing with truth claims, it doesn’t matter how many details you get right — any details that are wrong potentially jeopardize the whole position. If you were trying to convince someone that Santa Claus is real, you could get pretty far by showing them all the presents that show up Christmas morning, by reading all the books that have been written about him, by watching all the movies that portray him to be real. You can even watch the news on Christmas Eve, where they track Santa on NORAD. You can make a decent case. But all it takes to debunk the whole thing is hearing from parents who acknowledge that they buy all the gifts and put them out Christmas Eve. Or sit up and wait for Santa to show. Or learn that science makes it impossible for Santa to actually visit every house in one night. Or notice that the number and quality of gifts that kids receive seem to be in direct proportion to their families’ income.
In the same way, I can read a Josh McDowell book about how amazingly accurate the Bible is, but all of his points are moot if I find out about the archaeological, historical, textual, and scientific problems that he doesn’t tell me about.
Nate I just read John Ankerberg’s and Dillon Burroughs book ‘Taking a Stand for the Bible’. I read this book partly based on your advice to read both sides of the arguments. I was frankly disappointed by the quality of the work that seemed designed to bolster the faith of a believer but did not seriously object any the very real issues which a open skeptic on the subject would raise.
I was interested to note that among the long list of archaeological/historical ‘proofs’ was the census in Luke’s Gospel. This statement was made with no qualification or discussion. This of itself was enough to confirm my view of the book as a whole is either uninformed or dishonest. Hopefully the former.
That anyone could say the census recorded in Luke’s gospel has been confirmed beggared belief. Indeed a reputable scholar like Raymond E Brown lists it as one of the three historical factors in Luke’s gospel/Acts which create the most difficulties for those who seek to argue that Luke is a reliable historian.
I constantly get disappointed by apologists saying there are no errors or contradictions in the Bible without addressing the many contradictions in the plain reading of the text. Dr Steve DiMattei has documented 322 contradictions so far on his site http://contradictionsinthebible.com/ and is only up to the Book of Numbers.
Finding Truth 
HA!
Well I never taught piano but I was the church pianist for several years.
LikeLike
Well, this Nan is a sweet lady (much like yourself), but she’s been so heavily indoctrinated she just can’t see anything else.
When I sent her the email (this happened three or four years ago), she praised me for the quality of analysis I had done on her video, and asked if I thought I could do a critique on the Bible. By this time, I had already completed analyzing 50 chapters of Genesis (about which, she knew nothing), so I said I thought I just might be able to do that.
I emailed her a chapter at a time, making it look like a simple analysis, rather than something I had already prepared for a website. At the end of each email, I posed certain questions, which I noticed, in return emails, she never answered.
After a time, I began to realize why – she wasn’t reading to the end of any of my entries! She said she wanted it, but when she got it, she couldn’t even bother to read it.
I spent 4 emails telling her I felt we shouldn’t email anymore, but each one was answered with a chatty, how’s-the-weather kind of response – once again, she didn’t know I had suggested ending the emails, because she didn’t read my damned emails!
Finally, SHE suggested we stop emailing, so I let her feel good about herself, believing that she was the one who initiated the idea. I still see her every year, at piano recitals – we smile and exchange pleasantries, but any discussion of religion is off the table.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Ken
I am sending you the cleaning bill for the coffee spilled on my trousers and any fees for any damage for what ended up on my keyboard.
LikeLike
LOL Ark ! I’m glad someone saw the humor here. 🙂
And A Very Merry Christmas to you too ! 🙂
LikeLike
You sure that’s coffee on your trousers?
LikeLike
hi Nan, way back in march, you posted a comment about beeny hinn having a heart attack and I believe you said something like HOW IS HE GOING TO EXPLAIN THAT HIS PRAYERS DIDNT’ WORK?
LikeLike
oh crap, how did that happen? I wasn’t finished with my comment and it posted supernaturally. lol
Anyway, as I was saying, I caught benny hinn’s return to tv and here is what he said.
he said, “if god doesn’t answer your prayers for healing, then pray that god finds you the best doctors to heal you.”
OH, LOL.
stupid Christians.
LikeLiked by 3 people
LOL!
seriously this is gold.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hi guys. If anyone is sitting around bored with nothing to do today, come over to Theology Web and check out a discussion I am having with the conservative Christians there regarding Jesus’ alleged miracle of raising Lazarus from the dead; a miracle only mentioned in the last gospel written—John—and a miracle never mentioned by Paul or any other writer of the NT epistles. Here is an excerpt:
One Bad Pig (Christian):
Gary, your ENTIRE CASE is built on the assumption that everybody made stuff up, with a side of “ancient peoples were gullible fools with bad memories”. And you’re still ignoring this, doubtless because it doesn’t fit your fantasy. Eyewitnesses, y’know, witnessed. They told people all over the place, who independently told others. At some point, everybody got a copy of the gospel; if it hadn’t generally checked out, it would have been rejected, like most other gospels were.
Gary:
Assumption, after assumption, after assumption, my friend.
Once again, I have NEVER said or assumed that Christians in the first century were all lying or intentionally concocted false stories. It is my guess that most people involved in new religious movements, especially new religious movements that are severely persecuted, are very SINCERE about their beliefs. However, sincere belief doesn’t not equate with TRUE AND HISTORICALLY ACCURATE beliefs.
My assertion is this. Which is more likely:
1. The story of Lazarus was a theological story, never meant by the original author to be read literally as a true historical event.
2. The tale of Lazarus originated with the poor beggar Lazarus from the Synoptics. By the time it reached (the non-eyewitness) author of the Gospel of John in circa 100 AD, the story had become incredibly embellished after being handed down from person to person over many decades, passing between countries and cultures, told in one language, and translated into many others. No one lied. No one intentionally made anything up. The story changed because that is what happens to oral stories retold over a long period of time.
3. The author of John made up the story from whole cloth with the intention of deceiving his readers into believing that this event was a true, historical event. He lied.
4. A dead, stinking corpse really did rise from the dead after being in a sealed mausoleum for FOUR days.
The statistical odds of option number four being the correct answer is INFINTISIMALLY small when we look at cumulative human history and the number of stinking corpses that have come back to life after being sealed in a tomb for four days.
My position is NOT based on assumptions, but on statistical probabilities! And that is how you and every other educated person in western civilization evaluates wild, unheard of claims today. I am only asking you to use the same reasoning when evaluating wild, unheard of claims made TWENTY centuries ago!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Link to above discussion:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?9510-Is-the-Story-of-Lazarus-a-later-Embellishment
LikeLike
you can’t reason with unreasonable people.
If, like one bad pig suggests, that essentially no big falsehood would last this long, then that would mean that all existing religions, not only his goofy one, but all other existing goofy religions are also just as true by such asinine standards.
I just can’t go back over there and look at that train wreck any longer. It’s madness, and they’re not interested in reasonable discourse, but merely in a collective circle jerk where they congratulate each other for having strong faith despite the evidence, while they spout out mind-numbing crap like the above…
Help us Jebus
LikeLiked by 2 people
In John’s Gospel the interchange between Jesus and Nicodemus has some very clever wordplay as recorded in the original Greek. It is hard to translate this wordplay effectively into English, but also, tellingly, the wordplay would not have worked in Aramaic, the language in which Jesus and Nicodemus would have conversed.
John’s Gospel has all the hallmarks of a theological treatise weaved around a historic narrative. The history is secondary to the theology, the author is quite prepared to change events, like the timing of the cleansing of the temple, to serve the broader theological agenda.
The raising of Lazarus from the grave appears to be an entirely made up story that was needed to serve the broader theological agenda. As the cleansing of the temple had been moved to the start of the story, the author needed another reason for why the Jewish leaders wanted to kill Jesus, this story serves that purpose. It also is part of the ‘signs’ in the Gospel that are the backbone of the story. Each of the miracle in John’s gospel is a sort of parable.
These stories only really start to make sense when we are prepared to accept the possibility they may not be recording actual history. But the apologist is not prepared to grant this premise so the discussion will be most likely fruitless and frustrating.
If we are prepared to accept that John’s gospel is not actual history then we can appreciate it for the skilled creation that it is.
LikeLiked by 3 people
You are both very right…but I’m sucker for a good debate (or a good brawl down in the mud…depending on your point of view).
🙂
LikeLike
@Gary
I think mud brawlers will be insulted at your insinuation.
What you have there is worse.
I agree with William, it’s just circle jerking at it’s best. But hey, who doesn’t like circle jerking? Aren’t we also doing that here? Lol
LikeLiked by 2 people
This thread has gotten pretty slow, so I hope Nate doesn’t mind me doing the following. I posted the following comment on TW. I’d be curious of what my fellow skeptics here on Nate’s blog think of it:
The four gospels and the writings of Paul are good evidence for the existence of a real, historical Jesus but they are NOT good evidence for flying supernatural beings in radiant white garments opening sealed tombs and dead men walking out of their tombs and flying off into outer space. Extraordinary/supernatural claims need better evidence to be believable. Every Christian on this thread would agree to that EXCEPT when it comes to the extraordinary/supernatural claims in YOUR ancient holy book.
If five men write in five books that that they saw me driving my car on March 9, 1983, that would be good evidence. But if five men write in five books that they saw me flying a Martian mothership, which suddenly shot up into the sky and landed on the moon, on some unspecified date forty years ago, no one but the most gullible and superstitious is going to believe their supernatural claim!
That is your problem, folks. It is not that you have zero evidence, it is that your evidence is extremely weak; not sufficiently strong to support such a fantastical supernatural claim.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Besides the crackpots, there are some scholars nowadays who assert otherwise (e.g. Richard Carrier, David Fitzgerald). I haven’t looked into it in detail, and I’m not convinced one way or the other, but IMO, the presence of legitimate historical doubt over the very existence of the character serves as evidence against his alleged
magic powersgodhood.LikeLiked by 2 people
I think your argument is good, Gary, but I also don’t think it’s going to go anywhere. Like me, I know you were a Christian for many years — do you think your argument would have been persuasive to you if you’d heard it back then? And that’s not a rhetorical question; I’m genuinely curious.
For me, I don’t think it would have been enough. I would have been able to see the logic in what you were saying, but I believed that the Bible was inspired and infallible, so your argument would have just sounded like conjecture to me. I don’t think I could have left my faith over conjecture. I first needed to be shown that the Bible was not inerrant. Once that was done, I was open to all other arguments — but that had to come first.
Of course, that’s just me. I know plenty of other Christians who don’t believe the Bible has to be inerrant, and I’m not really sure what kinds of arguments might work with them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Nate
I don’t think I could have left my faith over conjecture.
You know this is the question I asked, but the other way round –
I don’t think I can believe over conjecture. When all religions around the world are making different conjectures.
Hence I think it simply takes an open mind, for someone to ask “can I be wrong”, then he/she will be on the path to deconversion.
I think the prime issue is that most people just like to be right. This applies to religious and non-religious folks. You think about it critically, how many people are actual fervent christians to begin with? 10%? 20%?
How many christians even read the bible? The whole idea that this is the word of the ultimate all-powerful creator wanting to talk to you, and you don’t even read it? Something tells me you don’t really believe at the core of your being. So why are you even holding onto your faith? I think it’s pride.
LikeLiked by 2 people
To answer your question, Nate: Probably not.
Like many Christians, it wasn’t just one piece of evidence that convinced me of the truth of the Jesus story. For instance, if someone told me that the evidence for the Resurrection was too sci-fi to be believable, I would then point out all the prophecies from the OT that Jesus fulfilled; or the “would not die for a lie” argument; or the “miracle” of the spread of Christianity under horrific persecution; or personal testimony of “miracles”…and on and on…
But now I see it all this way: a house of cards held up by the glue of assumption after assumption after assumption.
LikeLiked by 2 people
One Bad Pig (Christian) on TW:
I know you’d really, really like that to be true (that I am involved in one of the greatest movements in the history of humanity: the debunking of supernaturalism and the liberation of the human mind from the fear and control of religious superstitions), but if you were interested in actually “debunking supernaturalism” you’d unhesitatingly read and refute the sources we bring up. You’re only interested in sowing doubt.
Gary: I and other skeptics have learned from our own personal experience that “deconversion” from a supernatural-based religious belief system does not happen overnight. It is a slow process, that begins by one day, whether surfing on the internet (as in my case), debating skeptics online, reading a provocative article, or watching a TV program, you suddenly see something wrong with one aspect of your belief system. It doesn’t immediately destroy your “faith” but you begin to question your previously unquestioned beliefs. You begin to dig, and as you dig, deeper and deeper into the rational for your beliefs, the more things seem to be not quite right…and before you know it you are questioning your entire belief system. And then…it is as if you wake up out of a trance and see just how preposterous your supernatural beliefs really were and you ask yourself, “How could I have ever believed something so silly?”
I’m not making that up. I’m not saying it to be insulting. That is how many of us who have left religion/faith describe our deconversion experience.
LikeLiked by 1 person
To Christians on TW:
Why are we skeptics resistant to reading the long list of Christian books that every Christian apologist wants us to read?
Answer: You have to understand our perspective when you ask us to read your Christian scholars’ books regarding the alleged validity and historicity of your supernatural belief system: You might as well ask us to read scholarly books on the existence of Martians and their space travels. To us it is just as ridiculous and just as much a waste of our time.
We do not challenge the intelligence and integrity of your Bible scholars. We do not question their expertise in the beliefs and practices of early Christians. What we question is their agenda: Most of them are not investigating early Christianity for the sole purpose of evidence collection and general knowledge. Most Christian Bible scholars have an agenda to confirm to the world (non-believers) that their supernatural-based religious beliefs are legitimate and respectable. We, on the other hand, view Christian supernatural claims to be in the same category with Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, and Leprechauns. We don’t believe that your position on the supernatural is worth taking seriously. But we feel the same way about the supernatural claims of the Muslims, Mormons, Jews, and Hindus, so don’t take it personally.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Couldn’t agree more!
Yeah, I totally agree. I sometimes wonder why I stayed in it so long, but when you’re inside it, surrounded by others who believe just as strongly, you miss all the flaws.
LikeLike
you know, it’s funny, but I wrote my last comment before I even read what you said to him. You’re exactly right!
LikeLike
You know, it’s not just that we don’t take their claims seriously. We have read the kinds of books they suggest (sometimes the very ones). The problem most of those books have is that they don’t relay the counterarguments against their position. Meanwhile, very few Christians read any of the stuff that we suggest, which means they only ever hear one side of the argument.
What many Christians fail to think about is that when you’re dealing with truth claims, it doesn’t matter how many details you get right — any details that are wrong potentially jeopardize the whole position. If you were trying to convince someone that Santa Claus is real, you could get pretty far by showing them all the presents that show up Christmas morning, by reading all the books that have been written about him, by watching all the movies that portray him to be real. You can even watch the news on Christmas Eve, where they track Santa on NORAD. You can make a decent case. But all it takes to debunk the whole thing is hearing from parents who acknowledge that they buy all the gifts and put them out Christmas Eve. Or sit up and wait for Santa to show. Or learn that science makes it impossible for Santa to actually visit every house in one night. Or notice that the number and quality of gifts that kids receive seem to be in direct proportion to their families’ income.
In the same way, I can read a Josh McDowell book about how amazingly accurate the Bible is, but all of his points are moot if I find out about the archaeological, historical, textual, and scientific problems that he doesn’t tell me about.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Nate I just read John Ankerberg’s and Dillon Burroughs book ‘Taking a Stand for the Bible’. I read this book partly based on your advice to read both sides of the arguments. I was frankly disappointed by the quality of the work that seemed designed to bolster the faith of a believer but did not seriously object any the very real issues which a open skeptic on the subject would raise.
I was interested to note that among the long list of archaeological/historical ‘proofs’ was the census in Luke’s Gospel. This statement was made with no qualification or discussion. This of itself was enough to confirm my view of the book as a whole is either uninformed or dishonest. Hopefully the former.
That anyone could say the census recorded in Luke’s gospel has been confirmed beggared belief. Indeed a reputable scholar like Raymond E Brown lists it as one of the three historical factors in Luke’s gospel/Acts which create the most difficulties for those who seek to argue that Luke is a reliable historian.
I constantly get disappointed by apologists saying there are no errors or contradictions in the Bible without addressing the many contradictions in the plain reading of the text. Dr Steve DiMattei has documented 322 contradictions so far on his site http://contradictionsinthebible.com/ and is only up to the Book of Numbers.
LikeLiked by 4 people