My friend UnkleE and I have been having a wide-ranging discussion on several topics related to Christianity that ultimately come down to epistemology, or how Christians know God’s will. The discussion began in my last post, which critiqued a doctrine common to more moderate circles within Christianity. UnkleE had more to say on the subject than could reasonably fit within a comment, so he decided to do his own post in response, which is worth reading. We conversed a bit within that comment thread, where I said:
The President of the US and his spokespeople now regularly say things that are factually untrue. Yet plenty of his supporters are content to ignore reputable sources and only listen to the sources that they want to agree with. Where do you go from there?
It seems to me that the view you have of Christianity is similar. Why does the New Testament speak so much about false teachers, if it’s perfectly fine to get your beliefs from private revelation? If Paul and Hymenaeus have a disagreement, perhaps Paul is the one who’s wrong? Or maybe both of them are right, simultaneously? How can one use scripture to “teach, reprove, and correct” in such a system?
In the end, isn’t such a religion just anarchy? How can there be such a thing as “truth” when each person’s version is just as good as someone else’s? At least as an atheist, I can point to my understanding of reality and the physical world to try to reach a consensus with others. And if they can provide data that invalidates some position I hold, then I can change. But if I took my own random thoughts and feelings as revelation from the supreme creator of the universe, how could I ever be convinced of anything else?
Once again, this opened a big topic that was better suited to a full post, rather than a comment, so UnkleE offered his response here. And as my reply to that post grew and grew, I realized that I needed to offer it as a post as well. What follows will reference and borrow quotes from UnkleE’s latest post.
What Is the Gospel?
Under a section called “Another Gospel?” UnkleE gave this introduction:
Nate references Galations 1:6-9, which warns of accepting another gospel. But what does Paul mean by “gospel” (or “good news”)?
He then listed out 5 main points that he views as central to what the gospel is:
- Jesus, the “son of God”, lived and taught about the kingdom of God.
- He died to deal with human sin (how that happens is very much up for debate!).
- Jesus was resurrected and so conquered death.
- We need to change our thinking, turn away from behaviours that displease God, and seek forgiveness.
- Our new way of life should include loving God, loving neighbour, and even loving our enemies.
But it seems to me that the New Testament spends time referring to false doctrines that are ancillary to those 5 points. The entire book of Galatians has Paul accusing the Galatians of turning their backs on the gospel and trying to follow the Law of Moses, when it really just sounds like they were trying to follow both:
Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.
— Gal 5:2-6
To me, that sounds like something that we’d view as a matter of personal preference, today, certainly not something that would qualify as a “different gospel.” And look at 2 Cor 13:5-10:
Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you fail to meet the test! I hope you will find out that we have not failed the test. But we pray to God that you may not do wrong—not that we may appear to have met the test, but that you may do what is right, though we may seem to have failed. For we cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth. For we are glad when we are weak and you are strong. Your restoration is what we pray for. For this reason I write these things while I am away from you, that when I come I may not have to be severe in my use of the authority that the Lord has given me for building up and not for tearing down.
We don’t know the specifics of what Paul is criticizing here, but if these individuals were still present in the congregation to see Paul’s letter, then it’s likely they still held to the basic principles that UnkleE outlined above. What else could they be lacking that would make them “fail the test”?
In 2 John 7, it was considered heresy to question whether or not Christ had actually come in the flesh (like docetism, I guess):
For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.
To me, this seems kind of minor in many ways, though it was a huge deal back then. If someone still believed that Christ was the son of God and brought salvation in some way, should it have mattered if they didn’t fully understand how that happened? But 2 John shows that some early Christians had a huge problem with the doctrine.
2 Tim 2:16-19 talks about another form of false teaching:
But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness, and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have swerved from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already happened. They are upsetting the faith of some. But God’s firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: “The Lord knows those who are his,” and, “Let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity.”
To me, this also seems like a minor quibble that runs outside the principles UnkleE laid out as the core of Christianity. Again, exactly what people believe about how/when the resurrection works, or even exactly what the writer means by “resurrection” here seems minor if an individual still believes Christ is the avenue for salvation, etc. Incidentally, there’s an interesting discussion of this passage here.
And if God is unchanging, it’s hard to overlook some of the judgments he supposedly handed out in the Old Testament, like killing Nadab and Abihu for not getting their sacrificial fire in the right way. Killing Achan and his entire family when he didn’t follow the command about not looting Jericho. Honestly, there are tons of OT examples, and I won’t take up any more space with going through them. But they each show how particular God was in seemingly minor things. Now, I agree that most of the New Testament argues that such legalism is no longer necessary. But I think the passages I listed above show that it still isn’t just free rein, especially if God’s character is unchanging (Psalm 102:25-27; Malachi 3:6; James 1:17).
The New Testament gives parameters about divorce and remarriage that are pretty strict. In Matthew 19:9, Jesus is speaking, and he says:
And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.
That’s a rigorous standard that most Christians don’t really apply today, in that a large number of Christian marriages are actually adulterous, according to Jesus. Marriage and remarriage does not fall within the 5 precepts of the gospel that UnkleE laid out, but it still seems like it would be a big deal. After all, we’re told in 1 Cor 6:9-10 that adulterers can’t “inherit the kingdom of God.” What does that mean, exactly? I think it’s referring to salvation itself, and I think 1 Cor 5 bears that out. In that passage, Paul is telling the Corinthians to cast out the member among them who is sleeping with his father’s wife “so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.”
Apparently, this Christian was in danger of losing his salvation if he didn’t repent of his wrongdoing. And to go back to 1 Cor 6 for a minute, we see that far more than just adulterers would be in danger of the same fate:
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
That’s quite a laundry list. Those sins might fall within the 4th and 5th points from UnkleE’s list, so does this include married couples who didn’t divorce their previous spouses for infidelity? For consistency’s sake, I would think that they would have to be included, yet very few churches make an issue of it.
In the end, I think when Paul uses terms like “the gospel,” he’s not always strictly speaking about the 5 basic points that UnkleE outlined. I think he’s also talking about any specific instructions that he (or other apostles) laid out in their epistles. Yes, passages like Romans 14 and 1 Cor 8-10 talk about issues that individual Christians may have differences of opinion over, but that’s because those were issues that no specific instruction had been given about. But today, there are so many issues, like divorce and remarriage, homosexuality, and women’s roles in the church that are considered minor by moderates today. And this is where the idea of authority comes into play. How do they justify their positions on these things?
Principles Not Rules
UnkleE goes on to argue that the New Testament focuses more on principles of how to live versus hard and fast rules. I do agree that it focuses more on principles than the Old Testament did, but I think the passages we’ve already looked at show that hard and fast rules still played a part.
UnkleE offers the following supporting points:
We serve God not according to a written set of rules, but guided by the Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:6, Romans 7:6). Note that he uses as his example in the latter case nothing less than one of the Ten Commandments!
But I don’t think these 2 passages really illustrate UnkleE’s point. He makes it sound as though Paul is saying that written sets of rules no longer apply, but that’s not at all what he’s saying. He’s specifically talking about the Old Law (the Mosaic Law) in those passages, and UnkleE and I already agree that Paul argues the Old Law (including the 10 Commandments) has served its purpose and is no longer binding to Christians. That doesn’t mean there’s no longer any kind of written law — what about all the teachings in the New Testament, including the gospel?!
We can legitimately hold different views on moral issues. Paul gives several examples, some of them significant issues in his day – the eating of meat that had been offered to pagan idols (1 Corinthians 10:23-30), and the keeping of rules about Sabbath days and “unclean” foods (Romans 14:1-23). But he says quite definitely (Romans 14:13): “Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another.”
But as we saw above, these passages are dealing with issues about which there was no direction given in the New Testament. They were true matters of personal conscience. Paul does not give permission to make these same kinds of judgments on things like divorce and remarriage. And while Paul says that they shouldn’t judge one another about these kinds of things, 1 Cor 5 talks about how they’re supposed to judge the actions of fellow Christians.
UnkleE’s third supporting point is:
Therefore, Paul’s conclusion on even important matters of behaviour is that we are free to decide (1 Corinthians 10:23), we should leave the judgment to God (Romans 14:4) and it is not rules but faith that will decide, for whatever is not done in faith is wrong (Romans 14:23) and all should be done to God’s glory (1 Corinthians 10:31).
But again, all of the passages here come exclusively from 1 Cor 10 and Romans 14, which discuss issues that are merely matters of personal preference.
The Holy Spirit
This is really where my biggest concerns lie. UnkleE has this to say about it:
A key fact, which many christians as well as critics can forget, is that christians believe we have been “given” the Spirit of God. Again, I don’t pretend to fully understand how this works, but it is clearly taught in scripture. Each believer has the help of the Holy Spirit in following Jesus in our lives and – crucially for this discussion – in guiding us to truth.
The Spirit is God, which means he is above the Bible, not lesser!
This is exactly what I was trying to get at in my initial questions to UnkleE. If the guidance of the Holy Spirit can trump scripture, how can any position ever be tested? If a man is married, but strongly believes that God wants him to be with his next door neighbor, who’s to say he’s wrong? Sure, the Bible contradicts his feelings, but the Holy Spirit has authority over the Bible. Yes, common sense contradicts his desire, but “God’s ways are higher than man’s.”
UnkleE also says this:
This merits a longer discussion than I can give now (but will post on soon), but we are told that the Holy Spirit will guide us into truth (John 16:13), so we can even know God’s will for us (Romans 12:2). We see examples of the Spirit guiding the believers in Acts (e.g. Acts 11:1-18, 13:1-3, 16:6-10). But we do, I believe, need to ask (James 1:5, Matthew 7:7-8).
So far from being “random thoughts”, if we pray, and take the precautions that the Bible gives us, we can have faith that God guides us (not just me, but his whole church) through his Spirit into true understandings – not infallibly, but steadily over time.
But to me, such a system looks exactly like “random thoughts.” How could anyone tell the difference between his own thoughts and the Holy Spirit? How could Paul rail against false teachers and false gospels if guidance from the Holy Spirit carries more weight than scripture? If 1000 different Christians all believe God has given them personal revelations that happen to conflict, there’s no way to sort among them to separate the true revelation from all the false ones.
In effect, it seems to me that such a religion can end up saying everything, which basically means it says nothing.
One More Thing
I know this post is painfully long, but I wanted to add one more thing. In his closing, UnkleE makes this point:
I suggest we should always start with what the scriptures say and expert knowledge about what it means – what would this or that passage have said to the people of the day, what do the words actually mean and how do experts understand them? We must read more than one viewpoint.
Then we must pray, consider, wait if necessary, and see if we receive guidance, and see how the Spirit is working and leading the body of believers as a whole. Our own experience and thoughts (if we are allowing God to transform our thinking) will help us.
Isn’t this exactly what we, as atheists, do as well? I’m quite familiar with the Bible (more so than many believers that I know), and I try to pay attention to what Biblical scholars have to say. I consider more than one point of view. I don’t pray, but I used to. And I believe that I’m open to being wrong — I’m even open to guidance. And I would love for God to give me some kind of message, personally. Used to plead for it, in fact. What else is there for me to do?
Closing
Let me stress that I really appreciate UnkleE’s willingness to discuss these things with me. As he knows, I was raised within a very fundamentalist version of Christianity that believed in biblical inerrancy. UnkleE has a very different perspective, and it’s difficult for me to fully understand it. My arguments here are how I try to come to terms with his beliefs. If I’ve missed some obvious answer to some of my questions, it’s solely due to ignorance, not obstinacy.
Finding Truth 
Hi-oooooooo… (/me waves) 😉
LikeLiked by 2 people
Unklee
You are right, “the Unitarian tent” was a poor description. After all, Unitarians are most well known for being pretty tolerant of a wide range of views. I think it would be more accurate to say that your own interpretation of Christianity is minimal enough that it could fit within a wide range of sects and denominations. That is good, insofar as it avoids taking doctrinal stands on things you could only guess at.
I think “verify” is the wrong word there. Historians believe, based on the available evidence, and that Jesus was a real person, a teacher/preacher who was said to be a miracle worker (though, at what point that was said about him is less clear). I’m not sure what percentage of (relevant) scholars believe Jesus claimed to be the messiah, but I understand the argument that he must have claimed to be the Messiah because his execution would not have inspired his followers to come up with the idea. I think that’s a very reasonable, perhaps persuasive argument, though I also think there’s nothing about a rural Galilean preacher that would inspire people to think he was about to overthrown Rome.
I agree that Paul was a convert and that the movement eventually grew very large, albeit largely outside of Jerusalem. In fact, I think it is quite interesting that Christianity was mostly rejected in Jerusalem and Galilee where people were (allegedly) firsthand witnesses to God himself performing miracles, fulfilling prophecies and generally showing the power of God. Christianity succeeded, not among witnesses, but in distant places where converts responded to stories rather than evidence. By the 4th century, Christians amounted to about 10% of the population of the Roman Empire (so, around 5 million Christians). That is substantial, certainly, but it was the conversion of Constantine and the support of later emperors that really kicked Christianity from one of the “religions of the realm” to the dominant position it eventually attained. So I think the conquest of Christianity owes an uncomfortably large amount to powerful cultural and political forces.
I would question the empty tomb conclusion, which I believe we’ve discussed here previously. When questioned about it, Craig only cited some minor and dubious reference in a very old paper that claimed overwhelming support for the idea but didn’t actually provide evidence of such. Unfortunately, that is a weakness of the field of biblical studies. It is difficult to know where scholars come down on many of these issues in any collective sense.
By “purely theological”, I am referring to “God as ultimate creator, Jesus as son of God, saviour … his virgin birth … his future return, the necessity of forgiveness (in relation to God and in relation to others), the atonement, the kingdom of God, the Holy Spirit, the commands to love God and love neighbour…” Those are not evidential or rational, but must necessarily be faith beliefs. As WLC says of the resurrection, it is incredibly improbable as a natural occurrence, but it is not improbable if there is a God and God willed it to happen. That is obviously true, of course, but it is a theological belief. It requires a faith belief, not only in God, but also in knowing the mind and will of God. Those things are necessarily the realm of theology.
Yes, I probably could have explained that a bit better. I intended it as an analogy. The foundational beliefs do have a lot of implications that you can’t just handwave away. The Kalam cosmological argument doesn’t just require you to believe the three premises. The premises imply a lot of other fact-claims that must necessarily be true for the KCA to be true. Similarly, Christianity — whatever your interpretation of it — involves a lot of other fact-claims and implications, some of which you share, some of which you don’t and some of which you are agnostic about. Those are what Nate is exploring.
The psychiatric field specifically exempts religious beliefs from the “delusion” label! I’m just using delusion in the dictionary sense, “a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact”, and not as a medical diagnosis. I do not intend it as an atheist slur against religious beliefs. Atheists are certainly delusional about many matters — here, I would cite mythicism and a lot of the atheist tropes about history and Christianity that Tim O’Neill takes on at History for Atheists (http://historyforatheists.blogspot.com). Humans are susceptible to delusion because humans are susceptible to the various fallacies (e.g., confirmation bias). Monotheists would have to agree that other religions are false. Therefore, the fixed false belief in false religions is delusional, even if it is very understandable and common.
“Mistaken” would also be correct. Perhaps we’re getting too deep into minor semantics, though.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi rata, I don’t think I saw those questions.
“most well-studied moderate Christians who engage in apologetics…seem to believe that God wrote the Bible as a riddle, and only those who are intelligent enough to decipher the riddle, can understand what God REALLY meant to say.”
“Riddle” is an interesting word, I think it expresses something true, but I think a concept like “litmus paper” expresses it better. I think it is a compliment to suggest that those who believe the Bible are intelligent, but I think everybody can receive what they need.
“would you agree that we skeptic atheists who discuss these matters relatively civilly with you “provide cover” for the more polemical ones, like Ark?”
I think this is a good example. In this context, what does “cover” mean? One person’s politeness doesn’t obscure another person’s lack of it – a very casual observer who read only a few comments would be less likely to see it I guess, but anyone who follows the blog can see the difference. And the same would be true if a polite person visited an angry blog, but I doubt we’d say the angry people provide cover for the polite one.
“Do you relate similarly to evangelical / fundamentalist-type Christian bloggers and commenters as I do here with Ark?”
I guess. Sometimes I imagine we all decide whether and how to respond instinctively, but where I think about it much, I try to consider why I would respond to someone. If I can see no real reason to, I don’t, regardless of their viewpoint. There are many conservative christians who are willing to discuss thoughtfully, many who don’t, so that is one “filter” for me. Also, I am more interested in some issues than others, so that is another filter – my interests are apologetics, philosophy, cosmology, neuroscience, history, rather than theology, especially straw-splitting theology.
So I’m interested. (1) Where are you heading with these questions. (2)What is your interest and purpose in discussing here and elsewhere?
LikeLike
Hi Sirius, I think (hope!) I’ve got it.
“All I’m really asking here is how you personally separate divine guidance (in whatever form it might take) from ideas that might not be divine in origin.”
I think my previous answer applies, but it can just be generalised a little.
1. I’ve never experienced anything other than thoughts in my brain that I think were from God, so I can’t say how I’d react if I had a vision or something. But everything needs to be interpreted by our brain, so I imagine I would react similar to Richard Dawkins, who said he wouldn’t trust even the strongest visionary experience, but would think it was a hallucination – i.e. he would use his brain to make a judgment. I reckon I’d do the same, just like you said you would once have done – use my brain and judge things according to scripture, logic, experience, evidence, etc.
2. The same applies to what I do believe I have experienced – thoughts that appear just like other thoughts nd have no obvious supernatural origin like a vision might have. I judge them according to evidence, scripture, experience, common sense, logic, all the rest of my knowledge and beliefs, my present situation, etc. Most thoughts and ideas just form part of my thinking and I never even consider that they might be from God, but very occasionally I do decide that, for reasons that I’ve previously given. I reckon it’s much more likely that I would miss a genuine communication (false negative) than claim a communication that didn’t happen (false positive).
3. I really think that you and others are probably making more of all this than I would. I believe communication occurs, but either (1) it is subtle and can only be seen cumulatively (e.g. I look back over my life and feel I have been clearly guided in many good ways) or (2) it is rare (for me).
Does that answer what you were asking?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Jon,
”I think it would be more accurate to say that your own interpretation of Christianity is minimal enough that it could fit within a wide range of sects and denominations.”
I think that’s a fairer description, though I would say that my belief is orthodox enough to fit many denominations. For example, I went thru the Apostles Creed, and there’s only two bits (if I’ve remembered it right) that I’d baulk at – “descended into hell” and “Holy Catholic Church”, and I wouldn’t totally oppose either of them.
”I’m not sure what percentage of (relevant) scholars believe Jesus claimed to be the messiah”
No I agree, that would be a contentious statement. But I said he ”gave people reason to think he was (in their terms) Messiah”, which I think is historically true.
”I think it is quite interesting that Christianity was mostly rejected in Jerusalem and Galilee where people were (allegedly) firsthand witnesses to God himself performing miracles, fulfilling prophecies and generally showing the power of God. Christianity succeeded, not among witnesses, but in distant places where converts responded to stories rather than evidence.”
I don’t think this is true. All the writers of the NT were Jews apart from Luke, all the leaders of the early church were Jews, Paul generally visited synagogues first, and many Pharisees and priests converted in the first few decades. Further, I read a scholar say that many christians saw the warning signs with the Jewish rebellion in 67 CE and left Jerusalem and Judea to avoid the conflict, based on some of Jesus’ prophecies. So I think the church was Jewish up until after the rebellion, and it was only later that Gentiles began to predominate.
”Those are not evidential or rational, but must necessarily be faith beliefs.”
Yes, I agree, my beliefs are a mixture of historical/evidential/experiential/philosophical, which are subject to verification and falsification, and theological which are not. My points is that they are not all theological, and the core can be discussed in evidential terms.
”Craig only cited some minor and dubious reference in a very old paper that claimed overwhelming support for the idea but didn’t actually provide evidence of such. “
Were you the one who wrote to Habermas? In which case you know about his paper. That is the basis for some “facts”, and the only criticism of it is that he hasn’t published his list of 1400 papers. But my own reading suggests he is right – I think it fair to say that most scholars I have read, both christian and other believe either or both the empty tomb or the appearances are historical.
”Christianity — whatever your interpretation of it — involves a lot of other fact-claims and implications, some of which you share, some of which you don’t and some of which you are agnostic about. “
I’m sure that’s true, about my beliefs and yours, and everyone else’s. We assume a real world, we assume our rationality and memories and our senses, etc. Were they what you were referring to, or something else?
”“Mistaken” would also be correct. Perhaps we’re getting too deep into minor semantics, though.”
Yeah, I’m happy with that. (And I too read Tim’s blog, and sometimes discuss with him on a forum we are both on.) Thanks.
LikeLike
@Unklee.
So in actual fact, the times where you have felt divinely guided/inspired (a tight beam communication directed at you specifically from Yahweh/Jesus) there is absolutely no way of discerning the veracity of your claim/s or that it is not simply a minor delusional episode likely influenced by you religious beliefs.
And as you consider there is only one genuine god – your god – It would be fair to say that, you would more than likely attribute some form of delusional episode to a Muslim who claimed Allah spoke to him/her.
Also, you would probably feel similarly about claims made by Jews, Hindus and any other religion, am I correct?
Therefore, can you at least understand that from the position of the non-Christian, and especially from those who were once in the same religious boat you are still in, and who quite likely made similar claims. that you are sounding like someone either suffering from exactly the same mental condition you would likely attribute to someone who is not of your faith?
As Jon has pointed out: ”The psychiatric field specifically exempts religious beliefs from the “delusion” label!”
And yet, the symptoms seem no different from one who is classified as delusional but makes no overt religious claims.Though I would venture that, if someone were to claim they were the reincarnation of the biblical character Jesus of Nazareth they might well be taken in for some serious observation. In fact I would be interested to know how would you react to such a claimant?
During the dialogue you had with Victoria over on ratamacue0’s blog:
https://aspiretofindtruth.wordpress.com/2015/02/08/what-started-my-questioning/
you dismissed the professional medical criteria used to discern that the biblical characters Paul, Jesus and other assorted biblical prophets display all the signs of delusional behaviour one would normally attribute to real people, and you were adamant one could not rule out the possibility that these characters were spoken to/had genuine visions etc by/from Yahweh.
On the face of it you seem to have established this simply from reading and adding your personal interpretation to bible text. A text that is , largely anonymous, known to be corrupt and suffer from, not least, interpolation, historical error, physical (geographical) error, other assorted erroneous claims and fraud.
Simply on this basis alone do you, as one who tends to eschew theology in favour of Christian Apologetics and neuroscience think there is a high degree of probability that because of your penchant for soundly based evidence think it is a lot more likely you simply imagined you were being addressed by your god, Yahweh/Jesus?
It is also worth mentioning that, if you still hold to divine communication I would ask this: Why do you believe you were singled out over and above someone like Nate, for example? As Nate was a devout believer as were so many on this blog alone, and thousands of others, many of whom were committed Pastors who had dedicated their lives to saving as many non-believers as possible and bringing them to your god, surely it would not be beyond him to have communicated with these people prior to deconversion that he really appreciated what they were doing and that he loved them and that, while he understood their doubt they should hold fast and remain Christians?
As you claim you were the recipient of divine communication why not them? After all, depending on one’s interpretation Nate is bound for Hell for eternity. This doesn’t seem in the least an example of a Just god.
So, why you and not Nate?
Ark
LikeLike
It’s a curious thing, isn’t it Ark? Just think, even Mother Teresa – someone who was canonized – never did hear the ‘voice of (her) god’. Curious, indeed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed. Curiouser and curiouser ….
As I pointed out in my latest comment further down, it does not seem in the least bit just that someone like Nate or even Bruce Gerencser would not have been communicated with, especially considering how devout both were, and how they may now be destined to eternal damnation and torture in Hell.
Would it really have been such a stretch for Yahweh to metaphorically flick Nate on the ear and whisper:
”Oi, listen up you grotty little shit. Of course I am real and I love you to bits, so I’m warning you, don’t you dare deconvert, all right?
What’s so special about Unklee?
He doesn’t even give a stuff about the Old Testament and in the bible, even Jesus and Paul thought it was real.
LikeLike
kcchief1
I think we all comment here because we like debating (or arguing) the ideas. Unklee is no different, except that he gets a little ganged up on because most of the other commenters disagree with him. I disagree with him, as well, but I admire his willingness to engage in the conversation and his consistently pleasant demeanor.
I’ll take a pleasant, kind theist over an unpleasant atheist every day. I think what we believe matters, but how we act is more important.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I am happy to see that UnkleE accepts majority scholarly opinion.
Bart Ehrman has stated that he agrees with Habermas that the majority of scholars probably do believe in the historicity of the Empty Tomb. Most scholars also believe that Jesus’ followers believed that he appeared to them in some fashion shortly after his death. However, it should be noted that there are many natural explanations for empty graves, and, tens of thousands of grieving friends and loved ones have claimed to have seen their dead loved ones appear to them. Therefore, these two “facts” do not in themselves lend any support the claim of the supernatural reanimation of a bloated first century corpse.
I wonder if UnkleE accepts majority scholarly opinion on these issues:
1. The Gospels were NOT written by eyewitnesses nor by the associates of eyewitnesses.
2. The Gospels were NOT written in Palestine, but in distant lands.
3. The Gospels were NOT written by Jews, but by Gentile Christians. The Gospel of John in particular reeks of anti-Semitism. A Jew did not write this book.
If one appeals to majority scholarly opinion on one issue, one should be consistent and accept majority scholarly opinion on all issues.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Gary
And of course, he doesn’t …
By his own admission he will toss out the Old Testament as irrelevant to his belief in the veracity of the New, and the biblical character Jesus of Nazareth. Also he accepts pretty much all the Apostles Creed and also such eye- watering wonders as the Divine Rape and subsequent Virgin Birth. Which, all rational honest people who are aware of the Isaiah passage know is a piece of spurious nonsense hijacked for the benefit of Christians.
There is a term for this type of behaviour/person, and the phrase ” lack of integrity” immediately springs to mind. However, in deference to Jon who prefers nice atheists I won’t use it.
However … feel free to fill in the blank space with a description of your own choosing: Unklee is a ( ……… ).
LikeLike
This is an example of how supposedly moderate religion – in this case moderate Islam -gives cover to the most extreme version, even though they protest they do not.
It all comes from the same book, remember?
Definitely worth a read. Here’s the link.
http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/interview-historian-tom-holland-on-isis-receiving-death-threats-and-why-there-is-a-civil-war-in-the-a3541236.html
Feel free to come back and tell me Christians will never be like this …
Oh, and Jon, I am not comparing unklee with ISIS… just in case you might start frothing! 😉 And for the record, I was not comparing unklee to Torquemada either.
LikeLike
UnkleE is a typical moderate Christian, Ark. I do not believe it has anything to do with a lack of integrity. They ALL do this type of picking and choosing of what to believe literally and what to disregard as non-literal. They MUST do this to maintain the rationality of their cherished belief system. Their belief system is ultimately based on their intense subjective emotions, not on evidence, so the evidence can and must be redefined if the evidence threatens their emotional tranquility.
I have been in a long discussion with a moderate Christian friend regarding the evidence for the Resurrection. I have read many books by Christians scholars to satisfy his insistence that I “know what I’m talking about”. Now that I have read all these books, guess what his statement is?
“I was wrong to insist that the truths of Christianity can be proven by objective evidence. That is a fundamentalist approach. The truths of Christianity are ultimately based on faith, which is a matter of mystery; of enchantment.”
I replied: You mean…magic.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Unklee
Were they all Jews? I mean, Paul was definitely a Jew and it certainly seems likely that many of the other authors were Jewish, but…if so, they were definitely very hellenized Jews.
I don’t dispute that the earliest Christians were in and around Jerusalem. What I’m saying is that there is very little evidence that Christianity really thrived in Jerusalem and Galilee. Even the apostles were said to have left Jerusalem to travel throughout the broader world to preach. While there is a real lack of evidence about what was going on in Jerusalem in the 1st century, it seems fairly clear that Christianity began as a sect of Judaism, grew among the diaspora Jews who were spread throughout the Roman empire but then took hold among gentiles. For the most part, Jews rejected Christianity.
I met with Habermas and we discussed his work. For what it’s worth, Habermas only says he has “compiled 23 arguments for the empty tomb and 14 considerations against it” and that “approximately 75% favor one or more of these arguments for the empty tomb…” It is not clear to me that this means these scholars actually support the historicity of the empty tomb. Instead, he seems to be saying only that they favor one of the arguments that Habermas says supports the historicity of the empty tomb. Those are very different things. And the arguments for the tomb include things like “Jerusalem being the least-likely place for a resurrection proclamation” and “the early pre-Pauline creed…” So if a scholar agreed that the Corinthians 15 involved a pre-Pauline creed, or that Jerusalem was an unlikely place for a resurrection proclamation, that puts them into the “supports the historicity of the empty tomb” category? That seems like a dubious inference.
Generally, I think it is problematic to cite Habermas on this when we have nothing but his word to take for it and we don’t even have insight into his methodology. The fact that even his defenders cannot say how he arrived at the figures is obviously problematic.
I think an “empty tomb” of some sort is plausible, but it is far from established and it does not pose any difficulty for my argument. So while it isn’t something I would concede as historically likely, I don’t think it’s particularly significant.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not saying you are worse than ISIS, but….even ISIS doesn’t wear purple pants.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Jon
Correction … flared purple pants. If you are going to malign my sense of dress at least have the decency to get it right. And remember, I did acknowledge that it was an unjustified belief and these days I do not hold with it. Well not much. Certainly a lot less on the flares than the purple. After all, purple was the colour of emperors.
LikeLike
Maybe that should be colour for emperors? Offhand, I cannot recall any purple emperors.
LikeLike
well… I’ve missed a lot…
Diana, I noticed that among other things you said this,
“’That is an important question you must answer, Diane: Is magic of any kind real?’
How did the first cells reproduce? Evolutionist answer: MAGIC!”
I realize there’s been a some unproductive back and forths here, but in all seriousness, evolution doesn’t speak about how the first cells came to be or how they reproduced, at least that I’m aware of. Evolution explains how organisms change overtime, and relies on the fossil record (http://www.transitionalfossils.com/), but also evidence within DNA, etc.
Where did life come from and how did it originate? Scientists have differing theories that they’re looking into, and different religions state different things about it. Gen 1 says that God did it in 6 days. But for me, there’s a few issues…
1) some guy wrote something down and stated, “God said so,” and “God did that…” There are just claims, unsupported claims by some guy… we don’t even know who wrote it…
2) Gen 1 says that God made the birds by bringing them out of the water, but Gen 2 says that God made the birds by bringing them out of the earth.
3) Gen 1 puts the birds in the same sky as the sun, moon and stars, all of which it puts below the water from above… to me it looks like some ancient fellow, who knew nothing of the solar system, was just trying to explain what he saw… the sky is blue and water comes down from it, so there must be water up there… I can see the sun, moon and stars, so they all must be on this side of that water along with the birds…
4) Science is looking for answers that it can support with evidence while the Bible makes a random claim and labels you as rebellious or wicked
5) the evidence dug up from the actual creation speaks of an older earth than the human author of the bible claims…
And if anything, it’s the bible that says life first came about by magic, while science says that there must have been a natural and physical cause, and they search to find it – no magic required….
LikeLiked by 1 person
Diana,
While the walking dead is an entertaining show, I’m not sure that it’s completely fair to compare the Israelite conquest of Canaan to Rick and his bunch taking out a group of cannibals.
But I don’t believe Rick and his group killed babies or kept virgin girls as spoils of war, did they? If they did, would those people you asked about it still think this fictitious battle was just?
Imagine a young girl watching grown men rush into their homes, and then begin to hack their father to death? Then imagine her watch as they turn to her mother, stabbing and slashing her as she screamed for her life, and likely tried shielding her children with her own body, while the young brother screamed in terror….
maybe the young terrified boy, as tears are streaming down his red face in the worst kind of panic, pleads for his life – but not as a man would, but like a little boy would plead to not get a spanking… yet his pleas would fall on deaf ears as these men then turn to him, hacking through his little doughy toddler arms that he raised in defense, the blades of these big men cutting through them and into his soft cheeks, and tummy… they probably trample the little boy’s body as they rush in competition to be the first one to claim the virgin… probably had to very that she was actually a virgin… just so they could be sure that they were doing god’s will, i’m sure…
and this young girl watches all of it, only to be spared… because her vagina is still unspoiled…
I mean, that’s what we’re talking about. I think you have to tell yourselves that the Canaanites were wicked in order to try and make some sense out of this horror. But the book that says these people were wicked, was written by men – not god – but written by the men who committed these detestable acts.
But I must say that if these peoples were actual devils themselves, I still cannot see how such an atrocity is justifiable…
I think you just haven’t thought it through…
LikeLiked by 3 people
@ William.
Exactly! How are the actions of the Invading Israelites any different at all to what ISIS is currently doing? Apart from the fact the Canaan invasion is completely fiction, of course?
But this is a major foundation block of the bible and the eventual emergence of Christianity.
Abrahamic religion, no matter how watered-down, is based on violence and bloodshed, and people such as unklee need to be made aware in no uncertain terms that through their championing of this disgusting, superstitious nonsense they are tacitly giving the nod to people such as Diane and Tom to forge ahead with their own even more unsavory versions.
If supposed Moderate Christians do not openly, and publicly condemn the actions reflected in the Old Testament and acknowledge they are nothing but historical fiction they cannot complain if they get tarred with the same brush.
As with all forms of Islam, the beliefs of biblical innerantist and moderates alike all come from the same book.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ark,
I agree, although I’m not as bothered that people believe in God or the bible as you are. What get’s me is the great effort one will take to ignore all the evidence around or all the problems, and then act as if Christianity makes perfect sense and everyone who doesnt agree is crazy – it’s madness.
And with the above, with the discussion on the Israelite conquest of Canaan and all the horror that goes along with it – a believer will also have to conclude that murder, genocide, killing babies and stealing young virgin girls as spoils of conquest is not evil, because then God would be commanding evil – and they cant have that. SO in order to maintain their position, in light of these things, the only conclusion seems to be that murder, genocide, killing babies and stealing young virgin girls as spoils of conquest are not evil in and of themselves, but only if God did not sanction them. It’s whether God approves of act that makes it evil or good.
So maybe ISIS is doing good too, as long as God approves of it. Since the bible doesnt mention one way or the the other about the actions of ISIS, and since he’s not whispering in anyone’s ears, then purhaps they’re also doing god’s will…
… that, or the whole idea is completely crazy… maybe groups of people acted that way, whether they were Israelite or Philistine… Maybe ancient people did crazy and barbaric things that helped their group, even if it was at the expense of another group, and they routinely put it in the perspective of their god(s). God(s) are testing us, punishing us, blessing us… god(s) gave us this other people’s lands, etc….
They wrote a book saying that God said they should do it, so it must be true. Dont believe it, well the book says that the book is true, so there you go… I mean, what more could one need? They killed babies and stole virgin girls because god wanted them to, and we know this because those people said that god told them to…
maybe it’s just that it only sounds crazy…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Diane,
proving the bible with passages of the bible that say it’s true, is pretty poor evidence… in fact, it’s no more convincing for the bible than it would be for the koran, or the book of mormon, or for the crazy homeless guy down the street…
I mean really, your bible cant even pass its own test…. “Obey God, rather than man…:” well, interestingly, you HAVE to obey and first believe the men who wrote the bible, and trust and hope that they actually speak for god like they claim – because god has said nothing for himself – you must, and are forced, to first trust and believe and have faith in those men before you could possibly have faith in the god they make claims about…
LikeLike
Gary,
Your comment demonstrating how one group of christians believes god speaks to them through their hearts, while others through the bible, while others believe god speaks through individuals like the pope was very, very good.
I’ll often hear believers talk about how we need the bible and/or God to know what’s right and to know what to do – but you’re exactly right, no one christian sees it the same. Even among the people in an individual congregation, two devout and well meaning people will reach different conclusions and have different interpretations on various topics… so if we really do need a god to keep us all on the same page, or to tell us what we’re suppose to do and believe, then the bible sure ain’t it…
LikeLiked by 3 people
@William,
I’m sure if you ask nicely, Unklee will explain it to you in a way that will make perfect sense. In fact, you might even reconsider re-converting again.
LikeLike
Hey UnkleE,
It’s an answer I can work with.
The reason this is important is because I want to get a fair and accurate depiction of your reasoning behind what you believe. Without it, no one can evaluate your position with any fairness.
With regards to how you determine matters regarding the divine, it strikes me as a very personal framework. If this is how a deity might conduct a relationship across the spectrum, then I think it would create as many different frameworks of that relationship as there are people. Unfortunately because they’re unique, there’s no way to independently compare notes as to any objective facts about this deity.
LikeLiked by 1 person