Is there such a thing as an honest doubter?

[Doubting John]

What do you think? Is there such a thing as an honest doubter? That is, is it possible that someone has seriously examined the evidence and decided that the evidence does not support Christianity? My username suggests that I believe there is such a thing. It is I. My book is called, From Minister to Honest Doubter: Why I Changed My Mind and can be viewed at http://www.trafford.com/4dcgi/view-item?item=7698 or can be purchased at http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/ts/exchange-glance/Y04Y5878706Y8796621

[EvoUK]

Well, every non-christian in this forum considers themselves honest doubters. Many christians don't believe them, some due to theological reasons, others because they can't imagine someone not believing as they do.

Welcome to the forums, I do hope not all your posts amount to an advertisment for your book :wink:

[Rusty T]

I honestly doubt it.

[jpholding]

I see ya took up my invitation. Welcome aboard.

By the way, do you have enough copies yourself so that people don't have to wait weeks to get one?

[EvoUK]

I'm sorry- it seems there's some history here- care to fill the rest of us in?

[jpholding]

I'm sorry- it seems there's some history here- care to fill the rest of us in?

Eh. why not.

DJ wrote me an email, what, about a week ago with the same basic info as his OP, also asking if I wanted to debate him. I said, "Until I know if we have something to debate about, I can't say, but I'm here on TWeb. How about a copy of your book?" He sez, "Buy it thus way" and I did.

It's second on my "read list" at the moment, right after one I've been dying to read on interpreting the NT in terms of client-patronage models.

[technomage]

Sounds neat.

Welcome, Doubting John. Any friend of JP's is welcome ... and usually quite suspect as well. :lol:

Justin

...who also considers himself a friend of JP's, and therefore also quite suspect....

[Doubting John]

J.P. Holding, what a pleasure to see you here. I'm new to this so it's difficult at first to get going. But don't you see that Christians will doubt an honest doubter, even though he says to the contrary? I might as well say there are no true believers, contrary to what they claim, right? What's sauce for the goose....
This is no different than people who will deny that a gay person can ever leave that sexual preference, or that someone can walk away from his or her salvation. They either never were that way to begin with, or they didn't really walk away from it at all.
Likewise with honest doubters, they either never seriously considered the evidence, or deep down inside they really do believe.
As a former minister, Christian professor and student of Dr. William Lane Craig, I did believe at one time. Now I am an honest doubter. What do you make of this?
But for there to exist even one honest doubter would be problematic for the Christian faith I think, although, correct me if I'm wrong. If there is even one honest doubter, then there will be an honest doubter in hell, right? So if this is possible, then God will cast people who were honest in their doubts to hell, and that would make God unfair, right? Well, which is it here with me now?

[jpholding]

J.H. Holding, what a pleasure to see you here. I'm new to this so it's difficult at first to get going. But don't you see that Christians will doubt an honest doubter, even though he says to the contrary?

I'll be honest myself, DJ, and say I don't give a kazoo what Christians (or Skeptics, or anyone) will do in terms of questioning motives of others, because all I care about is what's presented. You say you're honest? Cool. But all I care about is whether you're informed....I don't care if you're Abe Lincoln or Richard Nixon. It doesn't break my leg or lighten my lunch either way....

As for others, I'll let them speak for themselves, wot? :smile:

[Doubting John]

J.P., I edited an earlier post of mine, which presents a dilemna for you. You may want to consider that dilemna. In the meantime, you asked whether or not someone is informed, not whether or not their motives are good. So, was I informed? Does three master's degrees and a year and a half in a PH.D. degree mean that I was informed enough? Informed? I think I was, and I am now, although I'm no scholar, and will probably never be one. How does one know whether or not he is informed enough? Do you know things that I don't know? Why of course you do. Do I? Yes. Who is better informed? Is that the issue? Well then, you are better informed than I, I'll even admit so. I have no problems with that. But I'll bet you there are people better informed than either of us on the Jewish Hollocaust who deny that it ever happened. So it really isn't about being informed then, either, is it. It's about being right, isn't it. A 60 year old man who has a 4th grade Bible education may be right, but just not that knowledgable about Christianity. But he's really uninformed, isn't he? So then, how does one know whether he or she is informed? How? I say I am. You say you are.

[Soundsurfr]

But for there to exist even one honest doubter would be problematic for the Christian faith I think, although, correct me if I'm wrong. If there is even one honest doubter, then there will be an honest doubter in hell, right? So if this is possible, then God will cast people who were honest in their doubts to hell, and that would make God unfair, right? Well, which is it here with me now?

It's not problematic if you hold to the idea that God decides what is and what is not fair, not us. Clearly it was "fair" for God to kill the firstborn son of every Egyptian family based on the stubborness of Pharoah, or to wipe out the entire human race, including children, babies, plants and animals at the time of Noah.

I would say that having honest doubters may be no greater a problem for the Christian faith than a host of other dichotomies that need to be considered.

(By the way, I'm not sure if I'm allowed to post in this forum, as I am an atheist. If I've broken the rules, I apologize - the moderater can remove my post from the forum.)

[Soundsurfr]

J.P., I edited an earlier post of mine, which presents a dilemna for you. You may want to consider that dilemna. In the meantime, you asked whether or not someone is informed, not whether or not their motives are good. So, was I informed? Does three master's degrees and a year and a half in a PH.D. degree mean that I was informed enough? Informed? I think I was, and I am now, although I'm no scholar, and will probably never be one. How does one know whether or not he is informed enough? Do you know things that I don't know? Why of course you do. Do I? Yes. Who is better informed? Is that the issue? Well then, you are better informed than I, I'll even admit so. I have no problems with that. But I'll bet you there are people better informed than either of us on the Jewish Hollocaust who deny that it ever happened. So it really isn't about being informed then, either, is it. It's about being right, isn't it. A 60 year old man who has a 4th grade Bible education may be right, but just not that knowledgable about Christianity. But he's really uninformed, isn't he? So then, how does one know whether he or she is informed? How? I say I am. You say you are.

A fine response!

[Doubting John]

You let atheists in this web site? How appalling!! He or she disagrees with me and then agrees? Cool! This is fun. But is it a waste of time?

[jpholding]

J.P., I edited an earlier post of mine, which presents a dilemna for you.

OK, I assume this is it?

This is no different than people who will deny that a gay person can ever leave that sexual preference, or that someone can walk away from his or her salvation.

Actually I don't buy the P in TULIP. I'm a 1.5 point Calvinist... :rofl:

, I did believe at one time. Now I am an honest doubter. What do you make of this?

Nothing, until I read your book. I told you by email that I had reservations about your use of Spong as a source. Worst I could say of that particular is you're not well informed, but if you want a snap final judgment NOW, you ain't gettin' it. :teeth:


But for there to exist even one honest doubter would be problematic for the Christian faith I think, although, correct me if I'm wrong.

Not sure how this is so.

If there is even one honest doubter, then there will be an honest doubter in hell, right?

Yeah, but since I say hell is correspondent to your level of your level of deserved shame, an honest doubter such as you describe would for me not be that bad off. I'd compare your worst possible fate to that of the android on the Star Trek episode What Are Little Girls Made Of? when he was left to fend for himself for gazillions of years.

You do realize that I rate hell in terms of an agonistic environment, right? Or have you not read any of my stuff yet?

So, was I informed?

I'll find out when I read your book, bud. Three masters' degree and a Ph D don't mean much if they're not in topics you're making judgments about and if you haven't looked in the right areas. Heck, you of all people ought to know how specialized Biblical studies is. Ph D's correct each other in the lit all the time. I have a Masters in library science but that doesn't guarantee me expertise in physics...but what are your degrees in, exactly? I haven't read it yet in your book of course...

How does one know whether or not he is informed enough?

As an information specialist this isn't a hard question for me, because I know how to gather and assemble data and when I've done enough work with the necessary sources per each issue. But I don't think its hard anyway, and even if it were, it sure isn't hard to tell when you are more informed that person X is.

So it really isn't about being informed then, either, is it. It's about being right, isn't it.

You don't get to be right without being informed...your hypothetical 60 year old man may be "right" about X....but if you started asking him to defend his position, you'd find out that being right won't help much, practically speaking, if you can't show that you are, against a wrong position...for your own sake and for that of others.

So then, how does one know whether he or she is informed?

We debate and find out. :teeth: Sorry, but I don't find your epistemic nightmares particularly frightening....

Catch ya tomorrow. I need to go pick the Mrs. up.

[Doubting John]

I graduated from Great Lakes Bible College in 1977 with a B.R.E. degree ("Bachelor of Religious Studies"). Then I attended Lincoln Christian Seminary, Lincoln, IL, and graduated in 1982 with M.A. and M.Div. degrees, under the mentoring of Dr. James D. Strauss, with "Theology and Philosophy" majors. Then I attended Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and graduated in 1985 with a Th.M degree, under Dr. William Lane Craig, with a "Philosophy of Religion" major. At Trinity I also studied with Dr. Stuart Hackett, Dr. Kenneth Kantzer and Dr. Paul Feinberg. I also took classes at Marquette University in a Ph.D. program with a double major in "Philosophy and Ethics," but didn’t finish. At Marquette I studied with Dr. Ron Feenstra, Dr. Marc Greisbach, and Dr. Daniel MaGuire. I have taught extension classes for Lincoln Christian College, Lincoln, IL, and I taught for Great Lakes Christian College, Lansing, Michigan.

Anyway, I too must go for now. This was fun.

[Doubting John]

One more thing JP, You wrote: "You don't get to be right without being informed...your hypothetical 60 year old man may be "right" about X....but if you started asking him to defend his position, you'd find out that being right won't help much, practically speaking, if you can't show that you are, against a wrong position...for your own sake and for that of others."

I quote Spong not because he's an authoritative source, but because he communicates well. But as I consider what you just wrote above it puzzles me, for either you don't communicate very well, or you've just said something I have never heard an informed Christian say before. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, I reply. People are right about a lot of things which they don't or cannot defend too well. "practically speaking"? What is more practical than in being right and getting into heaven, even if one is not well informed? Even a child's faith is not an informed one.

[jpholding]

I graduated from Great Lakes Bible College in 1977 with a B.R.E. degree ("Bachelor of Religious Studies").

OK, so not so much the historical and literary stuff then. What you specialized in is stuff I keep hands off of.

BTW did you answer my question about whether you have enough books to buy from you direct?

I quote Spong not because he's an authoritative source, but because he communicates well.

So you said, but if that's your purpose, you'll lose people like me and other intelligent Christians who know Spong is a scholarly non-entity who mostly acts out the role of spermologos with equitably fringe POVs by the likes of Goulder and Schaberg. And you can bet we'll let the less-informed folks in on that problem. In fact, I already have two articles on Spong showing the problems with his ideas.

But as I consider what you just wrote above it puzzles me, for either you don't communicate very well, or you've just said something I have never heard an informed Christian say before.

Probably the latter, as you'll learn is typical when you read more of my stuff. :teeth:

Even a broken clock is right twice a day, I reply. People are right about a lot of things which they don't or cannot defend too well. "practically speaking"? What is more practical than in being right and getting into heaven, even if one is not well informed? Even a child's faith is not an informed one.

Well, DJ, that depends on what kind of member of the Body you want to be. Some folks want to be the rear end in the Body of Christ, and stay children; thus they may indeed be right, but as disciples, they'll end up with only 1-2 cities (I'm sure you catach the allusion to the parable of Jesus there) because all they did was work hard enough to get a little more with the money given them, or at worst, they buried it. American Christianity is full of rear-enders who sit around sucking up junk like Purpose-Driven Life and Left Behind novels and I don't have a very positive idea of what's going to happen to some of these people when they are called to account. There's a joke about the rich man who went to heaven and saw guys who were janitors and poor missionaries on earth getting mansions in heaven, so he figured he'd get a lot more. He ended up with a shack instead, and as the angel with him said, "We did what we could with what you sent us."

To put it another way, for the leader of a nation in a position to change things, being "right" about a dictator who commits genocide being evil is fine, but the leader just twiddling his/her thumbs about it isn't.

I may not be back until as late as Tuesday. Got some medical stuff to attend to today, and the weekend is always touch and go for me; plus we have that darned holiday. Catch ya later.

[Taran Wanderer]

Hi Doubting John,

I am very tempted to believe that there are such things as honest skeptics, probably because of my own doubts, but I have trouble getting around places like Romans 1:18-20 and 3:19 that indicate that no one will be able to use ignorance as an excuse at the final judgment.

If we concede that point (for the sake of discussion), the next question is why there appear to be honest doubters if there are none. The closest thing I have to an explanation is that doubt could be like a defense mechanism against things the doubter knows but rejects as distasteful. This defense mechanism could operate at a deep enough level that the doubter is unaware of their true beliefs. I haven't done any research on it, but my impression is that this kind of psychological process goes on in other areas, like addiction (the old "I can quit anytime" line).

Then I attended Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and graduated in 1985 with a Th.M degree, under Dr. William Lane Craig, with a "Philosophy of Religion" major.
Did you study any of his historical Jesus work, or did you limit yourself to philosophy? ISTM that confirming or disconfirming something as complex as a worldview requires an interdisciplinary approach. When it comes to a religion that relies on history as much as Christianity does, philosophy alone isn't enough to make a final decision. But I haven't read your book, so I don't know what you have or haven't investigated or to what degree. I also don't know the level of your doubts. Do you consider yourself a full-fledged skeptic or just someone who has doubts (sort of a tentative skepticism)?

[Soundsurfr]

You let atheists in this web site? How appalling!! He or she disagrees with me and then agrees? Cool! This is fun. But is it a waste of time?

Of course. What else would we be doing here?

[Doubting John]

I studied with Bill Craig in the areas of the philosophy of religion, but I read his other works too, and have in my library 20-30 books defending Christianity and its historical evidences, and I just do not believe it anymore.

By the way, the first review of my book: "From Minster To Honest Doubter: Why I Changed My Mind", just came in from the webmaster, Dave Van Allen, at exchristian.net. Here's what he wrote: "Let me start off by stating categorically that this book is an absolute “must have” for anyone who has left the Christian faith or is having serious intellectual doubts about the Christian religion.

While the book starts out explaining some of his experiential reasons for leaving Christianity, the 216-page volume goes far beyond a mere personal testimony and dives deeply into the elemental contradictions and concerns that weaken the underpinning of “the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” (Jude 1:3)

Most readers will not find Loftus’ book one that can be adequately absorbed in an evening. Written in the style of a collegiate thesis, the plethora of scholarly works referenced in this publication places it amongst the better resources for the honest student. To do the volume justice one must be willing to follow the research that has been carefully documented by Loftus. For those without the time or interest to explore the mountain of references, this book will, none-the-less, provide a significant store for future study when time or necessity dictates.

Loftus does not come away from Christianity with the deep bitterness that affects many in de-conversion, but rather retains admiration for the good influence Christianity had on his own youth. Loftus deals evenly with the issues, carefully explaining the strengths and weaknesses of each argument.

Loftus’ coverage of the problems inherent in the claims of Christianity is comprehensive. If you are an honest seeker, or an honest doubter; if you truly believe, or truly doubt; I highly recommend you add this book to your collection. Regardless of your agreement or disagreement with the content, you will certainly be given some meaty food for thought.

[Doubting John]

JP: I hope you have a great memorial Day weekend. With life as difficult as it is, we need time off to play and relax.

You asked:
BTW did you answer my question about whether you have enough books to buy from you direct?

Yes I do. At the risk of an advertisement you can go to amazon, type in the title of my book: "From Minister To Honest Doubter" and click on the "New & Used" button. Those ship in 1-2 days directly from me. I'll even included another essay I have just recently written titled: "The Historical Evidence for Christianity: Is It Enough?"

[jpholding]

JP: I hope you have a great memorial Day weekend. With life as difficult as it is, we need time off to play and relax.

We do, but I spent part of the time moving furniture in preparation for putting tile in, and part of the time prepping and teaching Sunday School. :teeth: Also managed to finish that book on patronage and yours as well. So I'll start talking about it some here and when we get to parts where we might debate, I'll note it and see if we can make it more formal (per certain modes here, we have special areas for one on one debate).

P. 4 -- I have a lot of respect your admission here that you know some scholars could "piecemeal" your arguments and that you "lack the scholarship to deal adequately with all of the issues involved." This is a huge admission that 95% of the people I have run across in your relative theological position refuse to make.

P. 5 -- Amen on the comments that the average American can't grasp a mildly complex argument. I've never seen Judge Judy or Judge Joe Brown but it was the same when Judge Wapner was doing People's Court years ago.

BTW I got 90s, as I recall, on all sections of the GRE except math. I hate that stuff.

p. 12 -- Dr. Boatman said you were arrogant? Have you ever taken the Myers-Briggs personality profile? I bet I know why he thought so....

p. 15 -- For newcomers here can you briefly explain your position as a deistic existentialist, and what you said here about prayer and God?

p. 19 -- Have you still not asked Jerry why he didn't call you on this? I had a friend not call me when someone wrote him about me with some accusations, but it was because he found them so spurious that he saw no need to contact me about it. Could that have been why Jerry didn't call you?

(For my part, I wasn't in need of any encouragement, as you say you were, but that's just the way I am....)

Also, funny how you had a thing with the Church of Christ on baptism. Your position on it was sound and in line with Jewish ideas respecting the totality of the mind and body as a unified whole.

That's enough for now.

[Doubting John]

J.P.

Ed Babinski told me to watch out for you, after telling me to contact you. Then he shared some websites and after viewing them I was fearful you'd trash me. But so far you seem pleasant. I want a pleasant conversation or none at all, and so far you've treated me with respect. Thanks! I'm pretty sure that if you read my book I have honest doubts, and you can see why I do. The "What if I'm Wrong" section is a personal plea, and honest plea.


P. 4 -- I have a lot of respect your admission here that you know some scholars could "piecemeal" your arguments and that you "lack the scholarship to deal adequately with all of the issues involved." This is a huge admission that 95% of the people I have run across in your relative theological position refuse to make.

Does this sound like I'm arrogant? I did take the Myers-Briggs personality profile, but I don't remember much about what it said. Why do you think Boatman thought I was arrogant? You'd just be guessing wouldn't you?


BTW I got 90s, as I recall, on all sections of the GRE except math. I hate that stuff.

Really? Good job! I lack in the verbal, I suppose, or maybe it's just knowing what each part of a verb is called, and how to use them complete--sentence; markings( that need to * be in //the text or: it could be "I\m someone who is ? markings challenged or some--thing# like that>


p. 19 -- Have you still not asked Jerry why he didn't call you on this? I had a friend not call me when someone wrote him about me with some accusations, but it was because he found them so spurious that he saw no need to contact me about it. Could that have been why Jerry didn't call you?[/COLOR

I doubt this, that's all. But I've never asked him. After a few months to a year I just didn't care anymore to ask him.

[COLOR=DarkOrange]
Also, funny how you had a thing with the Church of Christ on baptism. Your position on it was sound and in line with Jewish ideas respecting the totality of the mind and body as a unified whole.

I think you are understanding me, and that's all I guess that I can expect for now.

[Doubting John]

J.P.

So, tell me in general terms what you think of my book. We can talk about specifics as you feel you may want to. But I'd first like to know before we get into any specifics what your general impression of my book is. That's a fair question, isn't it? What do you think of it?

[Cynic Sage]

J.P.

Ed Babinski told me to watch out for you, after telling me to contact you. Then he shared some websites and after viewing them I was fearful you'd trash me. But so far you seem pleasant. I want a pleasant conversation or none at all, and so far you've treated me with respect. Thanks! I'm pretty sure that if you read my book I have honest doubts, and you can see why I do. The "What if I'm Wrong" section is a personal plea, and honest plea.


From what I know of JP, He might be intentionally being nice to you for the purpose of sadistically irritating Ed and the guys that run those "Holding-Haytah" sites.:lol:

[jpholding]

Ed Babinski told me to watch out for you, after telling me to contact you. Then he shared some websites and after viewing them I was fearful you'd trash me. But so far you seem pleasant.

Heh heh. Here's a "secret", DJ... :teeth:

I DO trash people who are a) dishonest or b) refuse to admit that they are in over their head.

Babinski falls in the latter category as what I call a "fundamentalist atheist/Skeptic" -- that is, someone who as a former fundy Christian, maintains their errant "fundamentalist" attitude and exegesis of the Bible. So do many others. I got tired of him sending me vacuous emails that were using scholarship from 50 years ago. I put up with him for years because he seemed earnest, but finally realized he was uneducably fundamentalized, and that I'd never get a better answer from him on any argument than, "Well, so and so is a good Christian and he doesn't agree with you."

To give you an idea where I stand, his book, Leaving the Fold, is to me a complete waste of time because the whole idea of "personal testimony" as a form of evangelism is rooted in modern individualism and would never have been used in the first century, because the ancients viewed personality as static. That's why Paul had such a hard time being accepted by the Apostles. But the bottom line is, Babinski is a waste of my time and is too miseducated for me to bother with beyond public correction as needed.

Others, however, do not fall in that category of "fundy atheist". You're one of them, from the looks of everything so far. :smile:

OK, enough from my podium.

I'm pretty sure that if you read my book I have honest doubts, and you can see why I do.

If I were where you were, I'd have honest doubts too; but I did pass that point some years back.


Does this sound like I'm arrogant? I did take the Myers-Briggs personality profile, but I don't remember much about what it said. Why do you think Boatman thought I was arrogant? You'd just be guessing wouldn't you?

No, I'd be running from experience. :smile: You see, I have the same "problem" -- and there's a specific personality type in the MB format, of which I am one, that this sort of mistake by others is associated with. I'm betting you may have been of the same category as I am: INTJ. You may be more of an INFJ now, though; personal crisis somethings causes that shift, as I know from someone that happened to.

To me you don't sound arrogant, no. But that's because I don't view honest self-appraisals as arrogant.

So, tell me in general terms what you think of my book. We can talk about specifics as you feel you may want to. But I'd first like to know before we get into any specifics what your general impression of my book is. That's a fair question, isn't it? What do you think of it

I think it's a story of an honest doubter, just like the title says....though the level of scholarship isn't up to standard (as you allow for) it serves well as an account of your journey. If I were writing a review for Library Journal, that's what I'd say....

OK, I'll pop in a couple more comments. BTW how about some comments on your current views as I was suggesting, so that readers here can contextualize a bit?

p. 21 -- You say you had doubts people could understand the Bible in our day and age so far removed from the source. It's a good doubt to have, and why I find so many people (on all sides -- Christian and Skeptic and whoever) to be making mistakes. It does take a good deal of serious, cross-fertilized study to get a good grasp on the text and plausible options for interpreting it at times; but it's not out of reach.

Also, you refer to the idea that Christians ought to act better because they have "the power, wisdom and guidance of God right there". Granting that it is accessible, what makes it any more likely (if anything) that they'd take advantage of it?

p. 25 -- Funk is spot on about the "mythical Jesus conjured up by modern evangelists"....but his Jesus isn't much better in terms of authenticity that I can see. How do you feel about the Jesus Seminar and their view of Jesus as a "talking head"?

p. 27ff -- I'd have liked to have seen Warren's letters in response to you as well. Did he not grant permission to use them, or....? It's just a little awkward trying to follow a one-side conversation....

Back next time.

JP

[Doubting John]

Quote:

"I DO trash people who are a) dishonest or b) refuse to admit that they are in over their head.
Others, however, do not fall in that category of "fundy atheist". You're one of them, from the looks of everything so far."

Good!

Quote:

If I were where you were, I'd have honest doubts too.

Very Interesting! So then, if I were raised as a Buddhist in India, then after understanding my story you might likewise say the same thing, eh? By the way, I really object to my going to any hell, however described by you, that condemns me for my honest doubts, or for the meager number of sins that I have committed in my life--although, as you know from the book, I've done some bad things, nothing of which deserves any kind of hereafter punishment in any shape or form that lasts for eternity.

Quote:

You see, I have the same "problem." To me you don't sound arrogant, no. But that's because I don't view honest self-appraisals as arrogant.


Sweet!


Quote:
So, tell me in general terms what you think of my book. We can talk about specifics as you feel you may want to. But I'd first like to know before we get into any specifics what your general impression of my book is. That's a fair question, isn't it? What do you think of it?

Quote:
I think it's a story of an honest doubter, just like the title says....though the level of scholarship isn't up to standard (as you allow for) it serves well as an account of your journey. If I were writing a review for Library Journal, that's what I'd say....

That's it? Short review, isn't it, although that's the bare bones summation. Usually appraisals of works include a variety of words and phrases like: "interesting," "makes a fair case," "makes some very good points," "challenging," "very weak," or mildly strong," or even "crazy" depending on your evaluation. Don't be afraid of offending me. I'm really interested. And likewise, don't be afraid to compliment my book more than merely saying it "serves well as an account of your journey." You merely think it's better than other books that don't serve well as an account of the journey.


OK, I'll pop in a couple more comments. BTW how about some comments on your current views as I was suggesting, so that readers here can contextualize a bit?


Maybe later. But to be fully informed they should get the book. We''l deal with specific issues as we go, and I'll share then, I guess.

p. 21 -- You say you had doubts people could understand the Bible in our day but it's not out of reach.


I suppose, you have a good enough reach, right?

Also, you refer to the idea that Christians ought to act better because they have "the power, wisdom and guidance of God right there". Granting that it is accessible, what makes it any more likely (if anything) that they'd take advantage of it?

So, the difference between a Christian and a non-Christian is nothing? That is, the Christian can still be like the non-Christian and the excuse for that is that they don't take advantage of the Spirit. Such an admission seems to me to be an unfalsifiable proposition.

p. 25 -- Funk is spot on about the "mythical Jesus conjured up by modern evangelists"....but his Jesus isn't much better in terms of authenticity that I can see. How do you feel about the Jesus Seminar and their view of Jesus as a "talking head"?

B]A lot of guess work, I guess, based upon assumptions you don't grant.[/B]

p. 27ff -- I'd have liked to have seen Warren's letters in response to you as well. Did he not grant permission to use them, or....? It's just a little awkward trying to follow a one-side conversation....


I have them and may share them with you if you want. All I have now are hard copies, so I didn't want to type them in either. You seem to be smart enough to know from what I wrote some of what he had written in response

Back next time.

[jpholding]

Heya DJ,

One last thing before I do lunch. :teeth:


Very Interesting! So then, if I were raised as a Buddhist in India, then after understanding my story you might likewise say the same thing, eh?

If the full story was 100% the same in concept (which would be kind of odd), sure.

By the way, I really object to my going to any hell, however described by you, that condemns me for my honest doubts,

Well, it isn't doubts that are condemned; it is sin. And if your sins are meagre, so would be the shame accorded for them. I think you'll agree that there are scales of wrongdoing; so Hitler would have more to be "ashamed of" than a robber baron, and you have far less to be ashamed of than either, especially in light of honest doubts. The "punishment" fits the crime....though I will say, I don't prefer to use the word "punishment" these days for what actually happens. The modern connotations of the word just don't fit.

But hey, I'm not here to be judge and jury either. :teeth: I will say this: You have honest doubts? The only guilt that can come of that is if you 1) refuse to investigate in a way as to try to resolve them; 2) refuse sound answers to them....and you're obviously out here, so you must be avoiding the error of 1) to some extent. Staying in your "honest doubting" state without investigation in itself would be a problematic decision, would it not?


That's it? Short review, isn't it, although that's the bare bones summation.

Some reviews in professional librarian's journals are no longer than that either. But you ought to know that I will probably post a review on the site and mainly link to this thread. Many of my book reviews consist of me doing what you see me doing here....going down page by page making comments.

Usually appraisals of works include a variety of words and phrases like: "interesting," "makes a fair case," "makes some very good points," "challenging," "very weak," or mildly strong," or even "crazy" depending on your evaluation.

Ouch. I try to avoid sounding like a machine someone just puts random phrases into, thanks! :teeth:



I suppose, you have a good enough reach, right?

I'd say so, yes, and certain well-informed peers of mine agree....


So, the difference between a Christian and a non-Christian is nothing?

If you put it that way, the difference between two starving people, one who has access to food and one who does not, is nothing. I do not see that free choices are erased by the indwelling Holy Spirit; I do see that the Spirit ought to effect a difference in terms of how one views or approaches sin (as opposed to how one would be without it) and how one reacts after it. Of course as Lewis once said, you may think a spiteful old Christian lacks the Spirit; but you may not know what they were like before that....


That is, the Christian can still be like the non-Christian and the excuse for that is that they don't take advantage of the Spirit.

If it is used as an "excuse" I'd lose respect for whoever used it. I relate it merely as a point within the paradigm, based on your own question in the book; I'm not trying to give you an epistemic argument for the Spirit's indwelling, which is not what you were asking about. I wouldn't make any sort of epistemic argument for the existence of an indwelling Holy Spirit based on Christian behavior. That would be silly.


I have them and may share them with you if you want. All I have now are hard copies, so I didn't want to type them in either. You seem to be smart enough to know from what I wrote some of what he had written in response


It's not hard to figure some of what he said, true, but like the fictional Q document, it's not like what we "know" is included tells us the whole theology of the fictional Q community. :teeth: If you have the leisure I would not mind photocopies. You have my address.

Couple more...

p. 28 -- re your points on monotheism, maybe we have something worth a debate here --

1) Have you noted that current Jewish and evangelical scholarship (Hurtado, Winston, etc.) does regard Jewish belief as monolatrous as opposed to monotheistic? Jews did believe that other elohim existed, but were ineffectual compared to YHWH, so there's no point asking why they didn't deny other gods.
2) You say that "the word for God, elohim, is plural, gods." But what about that the verbs it is paired with, when referencing God, are in the singular?
3) Hauser is only part right that the trinity would not have been in mind. Actually Jewish readers would have been intimately familiar with the concept of plurality within a deity, in the form of hypostases (Prov. 8 is a good example); but there would be nothing to suggest a "party of three" specifically.

I wrote more on this at http://www.tektonics.org/lp/monoelohim.html so if you see anything you want to debate formally, let me know.

p. 29 -- On Ex. 21:21 -- the use of the word "property" in translation is somewhat misleading. It's not my essay, but you may find of interest http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html Here are some quotes from it:


OT: In keeping with the 'variableness' of notions of property in the ANE (as noted by historians and anthropologists), Israel's notion of 'property' was a severely restricted one, and one that did NOT preclude the humanity of the servant nor absolve the master from legal accountability.

§ Although Hebrew servants are mis-called 'property' in one verse (Ex 21.21), Israel's notion of 'property' in the law was severely restricted to economic output only--NOT 'ownership of a disposable good'.

§ Both the land and Hebrew servants belonged to God--always!

"`The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants. (Lev 25.23)

"`If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave. 40 He is to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident among you; he is to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 Then he and his children are to be released, and he will go back to his own clan and to the property of his forefathers. 42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. (Lev 25.39)

§ Accordingly, tenants and masters were held accountable to God for treatment of the Land and the people. In the case of the Land, there were numerous prescriptions by God for them; in the case of servants, there were likewise guidelines and limitations upon practice.

§ 'Property' is therefore seen not as 'owned disposable goods' but as economic output (including labor):

"`If you sell land to one of your countrymen or buy any from him, do not take advantage of each other. 15 You are to buy from your countryman on the basis of the number of years since the Jubilee. And he is to sell to you on the basis of the number of years left for harvesting crops. 16 When the years are many, you are to increase the price, and when the years are few, you are to decrease the price, because what he is really selling you is the number of crops. (Lev 25.14)

"If men quarrel and one hits the other with a stone or with his fist and he does not die but is confined to bed, 19 the one who struck the blow will not be held responsible if the other gets up and walks around outside with his staff; however, he must pay the injured man for the loss of his time and see that he is completely healed. (Ex 21.18)

49 An uncle or a cousin or any blood relative in his clan may redeem him. Or if he prospers, he may redeem himself. 50 He and his buyer are to count the time from the year he sold himself up to the Year of Jubilee. The price for his release is to be based on the rate paid to a hired man for that number of years. 51 If many years remain, he must pay for his redemption a larger share of the price paid for him. 52 If only a few years remain until the Year of Jubilee, he is to compute that and pay for his redemption accordingly. 53 He is to be treated as a man hired from year to year; (Lev 25.49ff)

§ As a 'managed, but not owned' human resource, servants were NOT thereby rendered 'disposable, non-human goods'. They were still legal agents in the culture and their masters were legally accountable for how they were treated.

p. 31 -- you say "an inerrant Bible simply is not enough." You may find quite agreeable my essay on what I call "Sola Scriptura In Extremis". It's short, so I'll put it here in close for today.

*******

This commentary comes as a result of many years of experience and a sort of gathering frustration. It does not have to do with the historic roots of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) but with several obvious and pertinent misunderstandings of the doctrine. Allow me to explain by general example, and then elucidate with a specific case study.

In our article on the Wisdom template and how it relates to Trinitarian doctrine we made note of how pre-NT documents provided what Hurtado called a "crucial conceptual category" into which the NT church placed Jesus as the Wisdom of God. Apparently the vast majority of readers of this article (and the slightly different version in Chapter 2 of The Mormon Defenders) have found this information enlightening. A few, however -- mostly Unitarians, but some otherwise orthodox believers as well -- have responded along these lines:

* "You're using material from outside the Bible to interpret the Bible."
* "If it isn't in the Bible, it's not appropriate to use it to formulate doctrine."

A most recent example of this sort of thinking we found with an anti-preterist writer styled DOV:

The worst thing to do is to study a doctrine by using the writings of fallible men. A true Bible student studies every passage in Thee Infallible, Holy Word of YAHWEH Elohim dealing with a specific doctrine (Acts 17.11) and relying on the HOLY SPIRIT to teach him (I Yochanan 2.20,27). After he has put all the passages together in a harmonious consensus he can then consult commentaries, books and bishops to see if he has been given the proper understanding. The worst thing a Bible student can do is study commentaries, books, tapes, etc. to come to an understanding of a doctrine.

Even upon initial impression this is manifestly a "head in the sand approach" to exegesis. Taken to an extreme it would have us hold that we cannot use Greek dictionaries to understand what the text of the Bible is saying; in this regard the inevitable result is a refuge in something like King James Onlyism. My opponents who takes this Sola Scriptura Extremis (SSE) approach have never apparently worked out the implications of their insistence that we cannot use extra-scriptural material to help us understand what the Scriptures are saying -- or else don't care and have no problem being inconsistent.

That, however, is a recipe for disaster, and it is also a case of modern readers imperialistically imposing their understandings and expectations on the texts. Here again we find application for the comments of Malina and Rohrbaugh in their Social-Science Commentary on John [16ff]. The Bible was written in what anthropologists call a "high-context" society. In such societies people "presume a broadly shared, well-understood, or 'high' knowledge of the context of anything referred to in conversation or in writing." Readers were required and expected to "fill in the gap" because their background knowledge was a given. Extended explanations were unnecessary. In contrast, we in modern America are a "low-context" society. We assume little or no knowledge of he context of a communication.

Malina and Rohrbaugh spell out a problem for extremists as follows: "The obvious problem this creates for reading the biblical writings today is that low-context readers in the United States frequently mistake the biblical writings for low-context documents. They erroneously assume that the author has provided all of the contextual information needed to understand it." And that is the very trap that Sola Scriptura Extremis leads us into. It leads us to ignore things like the pre-NT documents which established the Wisdom template and engage in excessive gyrations, as my Unitarian opponents did, either denying the obvious parallels or trying to foist unto the language some other meaning amenable to our ideas. Or, at best, it results in an arbitrary and angry dismissal of the material simply because it is "not in the Bible."

The end result of such obscuratanism may vary. Some such persons may be best left alone -- their faith is in no danger. Others will find themselves experiencing greater cognitive dissonance and eventually will become the "fundamentalist atheists" who become our most strident and yet most impenetrable opposition. It is a great mistake to take the doctrine of Sola Scriptura as though it were intended to seal the Bible in a vacuum allowing no ideas in or out. The language of the Bible, the social background of the Bible, the literary background of the Bible, are all components which affect its meaning. Short of resorting to KJV Onlyism or the reckless "personal inspiration" view which comes of the likes of a DOV or a Wayne Harrington who gets his interpretations from purple clouds and prefers them over those of scholars, there is no consistent way to reject the use of background material to aid in its interpretation.

[Doubting John]

Quote:

You may find quite agreeable my essay on what I call "Sola Scriptura In Extremis". It's short, so I'll put it here in close for today.


Yes, very much.

The way you are going through my book is page by page, and you can do that. What I wanted the reader to get was a cumulative case, even though no one alive today can have a handle on all of the issues. I did the best I could do at the time with the mental equipment I have. I can do no other than that. The piecemeal approach attacks a specific idea or claim and argues with it from a whole set of world-view beliefs which calls that idea or claim into question. From that world-view perspective any single claim or idea can be dealt with in good enough fashion. I said that you could do that, but I think such an approach misses the main point of my cumulative case approach. The case, in my opinion, in overwhelming and fairly solid.
I'm not sure I have the time to wade through each idea you may want to critique when you use the Christian world-view to critique it. What I call into question is that world-view, and no picemeal approach that appeals to that world-view for support can support that world-view. Do you see the problem here?
At some point in my study the cumulative case overwhelmed me to the point where I saw all of the individual specific Christian claims from a different perspective, and I still do. How, I ask you, can you now chip away at my new world-view perspective by taking the piecemeal approach? I dare say you cannot, because at issue is the world-view itself. W.O.Quine described our beliefs as a "web of beliefs." Those beliefs that are closer to the center of the web are more important ones, so tearing away the outer perimeter strands (certain peripheral ideas) doesn't affect the core at all! It's the center core of the web that holds the web in place.
Let's put it this way: You have knowledge that I don't, and vice versa. You also have a different core beliefs than I do. In an interchange we may affect each others outer web strands with certain facts and arguments, causing each of us to wonder about the consistency of us holding to them with such a core set of beliefs, and learning from each other. But neither one of us will be able to touch each others' core web beliefs by debating the minutia. It's the core beliefs which are central to our web of beliefs. And it's also the cumulative case that provides us both with the justification for our core beliefs. And neither one of us can have a grasp on all of the issues involved. Not me. Not you. Not in our lifetimes. It's too daunting, even though at one time I had studied up on these things to the best of my ability, with all of the passion in me, for approximately 13 years of college/ seminary/university classes, and 25 years of my Christian life. I figured that was enough time to figure it out, and I chose to reject it in the end because it didn't stand up to the sum total of my acquired knowledge plus the experiences that I had in those self-same years.
I think I had invited you to debate. I suppose what I really wanted was some kind of assessment of what I had done in my book by you. But my doubt is so deep today that if you want me to rehash all of the minutia you find in my book, then quite plainly, I never asked for that. I've done the study already. And I'm moved on with my life, too. I'm not really into rehashing the conclusions of what I had come to about six or seven years ago with updated research and arguments that I haven't taken the time to read. If the case for Christianity didn't hold water for me six years ago, and I spent as many years as I did learning how to defend it, and now I reject it, then six oe seven additional years of research won't do it for me now, either. Because in those six years I know the detractors have also argued back. And so, with my changed set of core beliefs I would still think as I do, even if I wasted my time again to research up on all of the minutia.
I think I gained from you what I had wanted. You said in effect that you too might be an honest doubter if such things had happened to you. The title of this thread asks the question I wanted to debate, and you answered it for me. If you want me to participate in any further exchanges, then deal with the larger issues, the core beliefs. That is, deal with the main argument of a section of mine. I'm just not interested in the minutia, and now I think you know why. Please understand.

[jpholding]

Oyez!


The piecemeal approach attacks a specific idea or claim and argues with it from a whole set of world-view beliefs which calls that idea or claim into question. From that world-view perspective any single claim or idea can be dealt with in good enough fashion. I said that you could do that, but I think such an approach misses the main point of my cumulative case approach. The case, in my opinion, in overwhelming and fairly solid.

Well....the thing is, 300 times zero is still zero. The point being, if you make 300 claims and all 300 are answered piecemeal, the cumulative case dies with them. If even 200 are answered the cumulative case is seriously damaged at the least.

But really, you're describing a way of thinking that makes no sense to me. I view parts and the whole as a unit. I can't see dividing it the way that your comment suggests. That's no doubt an "artifact" of my specialized way of building knowledges bases (that old INTJ thing again) but I still don't see how it can be escaped that damage to the bulk of the parts also weakens the whole. Indeed you'll say as much further on (below).


I'm not sure I have the time to wade through each idea you may want to critique when you use the Christian world-view to critique it.

OK, well -- when you wrote me asking if I wanted to debate, what did you have in mind?

What I call into question is that world-view, and no picemeal approach that appeals to that world-view for support can support that world-view.

For stuff like the elohim issue, I don't see that I am appealing to "that world-view." Things like that and the dates of the Gospels, etc. -- things in my area of specialty, that I'd be able to debate on -- require no particular world-view to defend (beyond against other positions likewise settled in a world-view; ie, "the gospels must have been written after 70 because they offer accurate 'prophecy' " -- which I have no problem acknowledging as settled in world-view).

So no...I don't see the problem in myself, as least, though I know it happens.

At some point in my study the cumulative case overwhelmed me to the point where I saw all of the individual specific Christian claims from a different perspective, and I still do. How, I ask you, can you now chip away at my new world-view perspective by taking the piecemeal approach?

As I say, I just don't see how this is problematic. The world-view is derived from the pieces of data that you collected. It didn't melt into some monolithic whole. Quine speaks of a web? Well, a web has strands. Pluck enough strands and the whole web collapses; especially if you pluck the right strands. I'm not equipped to cut strands devoted to some issues; but others -- so I am under no illusions about making the whole web collapse on my own. But I can sure attend to the parts in my neck of the woods....

I dare say you cannot, because at issue is the world-view itself.

I dare say that what you say I "cannot" do is something that is not an objective task to begin with.... :smile: It is like saying I can't smell the color nine, to use the popular tune. But if you mean there are some topics I have no ability or knowledge to address, then I make no secret of that and I think even told you as much.

Those beliefs that are closer to the center of the web are more important ones, so tearing away the outer perimeter strands (certain peripheral ideas) doesn't affect the core at all! It's the center core of the web that holds the web in place.

So you more or less agree with me. Well, like I say: Why challenge me to debate, then, as you did in the first email you sent? If you want someone to debate on the "core" (which is what?) are you sure you picked the right person? Aside from what Babinski may have told you, what do you really know about me? You go on to say:


I think I had invited you to debate.

Yes. I don't keep emails older than a month, but your words were more or less, "Do you want to debate me?" Pretty simple.

But my doubt is so deep today that if you want me to rehash all of the minutia you find in my book, then quite plainly, I never asked for that. I've done the study already. And I'm moved on with my life, too. I'm not really into rehashing the conclusions of what I had come to about six or seven years ago with updated research and arguments that I haven't taken the time to read.

Hmmm. Errors #1 and 2, on the surface....and if you say this, how can you maintain the claim of being an "honest doubter" with these minutia as a supporting reason, and continue to include the minutia in your book? Will you omit these issues in future editions, then, and devote more space to what the "core" is? Is it fair to include as reason for "doubt" things which you admit you have not taken time to look into (and it's not just "updated" stuff; there's material much older that is just as relevant in nearly all cases I noted).

If you want me to participate in any further exchanges, then deal with the larger issues, the core beliefs.

Well, depending on what they are (I don't see anyplace in your book where you define the "core" but feel free to correct me) they may be outside my expertise, and like I say, you may want to ring someone else up. We have places here on TWeb for one on one debate; you can issue open challenges to anyone (or to specific individuals) in the area called the Coach's Quarters. But anyway, I will continue my own posting of comments, for the sake of the review process; feel free to ignore what you wish. (No more today, though, with the weekend on tap.) I somewhat understand where you're coming from, but it seems to me that your initial challenge to "debate" wasn't quite what it appeared to be and could have used more elaboration, no?

Have a fantabulous weekend. It'll be great here -- lots of rain. I love it. :teeth:

JP

[Doubting John]

Quote:

"I don't see anyplace in your book where you define the "core" [beliefs] but feel free to correct me."

I suppose I never said "core beliefs." That's why I like conversations about what I write, and I thank you for that, because in talking about what I write I can see weaknesses in how I described things.


But on page 110, I said:


"So here’s the catch-22. For someone to believe the evidence for the foundational Christian miracle claims, as I’ll call them, then as Evans admits, he must first believe in the Christian God. He cannot bring himself to believe those miracles if he begins by first believing in Allah, as we’ve seen, because then he will apply Hume’s standards to those miracle claims. But in order to believe in the Christian God, as opposed to Allah, he must first have some pretty strong historical, physical, testimonial and circumstantial evidence to believe in the foundational Christian miracle claims. Think about this. We either start with the Christian God, or the evidence must be very strong. From where comes this starting point? People born into different religions have a different starting point. So we’re left with just the evidence, but as I’ll argue next, evidence alone cannot convince someone otherwise!

And on page 153 I wrote:

How we usually test Christian doctrine and its foundational miraculous claims is by examining each and every single one separately, in order to determine how it alone stands the test of truth. But we need to review the cumulative case for the whole of traditional Christianity. I have done so in this book. I have argued that the number of problems it has in dealing with the total available evidence and reasonable objections to it cause me to say traditional Christianity fails the test.

Then I use the phrase "foundational miracle claims" twice on page 155.

Now you cannot really tell me that you do not know what I mean by "core beliefs" even without my spelling them out here. Any proper exegesis of my book will tell you what they are, and they are the section/chapter headings themselves--the ones in "The Cumulative Case" part of the book.

I like a friendly conversation with someone who disagrees, but when that person cannot know the major issues of which I write about, or disengenuously denies he knows what they are, I begin to wonder if he is just playing with me.

I have found some of your comments off base as to what I had written earlier--that is, commenting on a point I did not make. I won't bother to spell them out. But this last post of yours leads me to think that this is what you do.

And I did spell out what I wanted to debate in my previous posting and you ignored what I said in your last posting. I will either engage in a high level debate/discussion, attributing the best possible interpretation of one another's postings (using the "principle of charity), or I won't discuss such issues with you at all. If you cannot, or won't do that, then that will be your choice, not mine.

If you want to continue making points on the minutia, go ahead. Maybe you can enlighten me on such things, if you wish. But don't expect a debate from me on the minutia.

Let me just ask you a question at this point, based upon a few prior comments. Everyone I know who ever became a Christian did not do it because they were as knowledgeable as the believing scholars in each respective area of the core Christian beliefs. No one alive today can have the scholarship to know all that is to be known about the arguments and counter-arguments to those beliefs, and then to conclude that Christianity is true in all of its details and particulars. What ususually happens is that some evidence is presented and the story of the gospel is told by another Christian, or in reading the Bible, and they come to believe. But initially these new converts couldn't defend their faith against the likes of me, simply because they are not yet as informed as I am on the issues. And, of course, there are still others more informed than I am who both believe and disbelieve. But with that initial comitment, not unlike praying the Mormon prayer, their worldview has been initially been formed. They will begin to fit any information they encounter into that world-view with the help of other Christians and books. But such a process will take a lifetime, if they want to study such things out.

So this is the question: At what point can someone say they really know for sure that Christianity is true? There are informed people on both sides, eh? I am one on the opposite side. And I readily acknowledge that I do not, nor will I ever have a scholar's grasp on the issues. But I don't believe. I thought my world-view was correct, but later on after studying it out, I now believe I was wrong. My point is that you can never know the Christianity is true. And yet you are supposed to make a life comitment to that faith. And if you get it wrong you will be condemned forever, however conceived. You say that our sins condemn us, and yet in order to be saved we have to have the correct view of biblical history. But it's in having the correct view of biblical history in the first place that causes us to know of our sins.

enough for now.

[jpholding]

Now you cannot really tell me that you do not know what I mean by "core beliefs" even without my spelling them out here.

Actually, DJ, I needed the reminder, which is why I asked for correction as needed. Yours is far from the only book I have read this week (and it isn't the most technical one...no offense). My short-term memory is one of my weakest assets and I make no bones about it; so no disingenuousness here, just a brain at work, and I'm sorry if that offended you.

I have found some of your comments off base as to what I had written earlier--that is, commenting on a point I did not make. I won't bother to spell them out.

Why not?

And I did spell out what I wanted to debate in my previous posting and you ignored what I said in your last posting.

You didn't spell in out in your EMAIL, DJ. That's what I was referring to.

If you want to continue making points on the minutia, go ahead. Maybe you can enlighten me on such things, if you wish. But don't expect a debate from me on the minutia.

OK. So I can assume that what's on pages 153 and following are not "minutia"? If so, then I do see some points of debate we can pursue more formally:

153 -- You remark on the incoherence of the Trinity and the Incarnation. I would reply generally that the Trinity is perfectly coherent within the understanding of Jewish hypostatic Wisdom theology, and that the Chalcedonian definition is also comprehensible in terms of ancient concepts of identity.

I wrote an article on the former aspect at http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/trinitydefense.html and feel I can defend the latter based on what is in this.

Do you want to debate this?

153-4 -- You address the problem of evil. That's outside my scope so I won't offer on that.

154 - you say that the atonement can't be defended. I say it is perfectly defensible within the agonistic tenor that governed the ancient world (and still governs 70% of the world today) and their acceptance of noble sacrifice for the whole. Spong's assessment of the doctrine is grossly misinformed.

I wrote an article on this at http://www.tektonics.org/af/atonedefense.html

Do you want to debate this?

154 -- You dispute the idea of salvation only through Christ. I do happen to think that there is a broader avenue for acceptance rooted in faith in particular principles, so I don't hold the belief you are criticizing.

154 -- re "faith seeks understanding" -- I do agree with the burden that Christianity needs to be proven more reasonable, so I'd say we have nothing to debate.

154-5 Reasons to defend the faith --

One) I do not believe in.
Two) I do. Do you want to debate on the resurrection?

155 -- your problems for resurrection --

One) All of these sorts of questions were addressed by rabbis and Christian writers centuries ago. Do you want to debate this?

Two) I agree we need our bodies. The Bible says as much when it depicts the intermediate state as one in which we are performing at a lower level of function. So maybe there's nothing to dispute here; maybe there is.

Three) If the issue of animals is of importance to you, it can be discussed, but I don't see it as important.



So this is the question: At what point can someone say they really know for sure that Christianity is true?

When the evidence points to it being true beyond a reasonable doubt, DJ. I mean, not when some weirdo tries to argue that Jesus may have had an evil twin brother who stole his body from the tomb and faked the rez appearances; and if you don't think that's a viable way to decide, then you can speak to our legal system about their deficiencies. But I don't think you will, because your book's premise is that you think there are reasonable doubts. So you clearly don't dispute the epistemic system.

My point is that you can never know the Christianity is true.

Sorry, DJ, but as I think I said, that epistemic panic-button bit doesn't follow through with me. You wrote a book because you thought you could say with enough certainty that Christianity was NOT true, so that you could abandon it, so unless you're going to apply the same epistemic test universally, I don't buy the Pascal's-Wager-in-Reverse routine. :smile: Pascal's argument is bad forward and it is bad backwards too, unless it is just used as food for thought. And if you do apply it universally, I have all sorts of questions for you that will "prove" that you don't exist and that your book really once may have been full of recipes for Mexican food.

You say that our sins condemn us, and yet in order to be saved we have to have the correct view of biblical history.

What do you mean, "biblical history"? If you're saying, you have to believe that Solomon really did have 4000 baths in his temple tub, then no, you don't. Salvation is contingent on acceptance of a bare list of principles that can be boiled down to one thing: Loyalty to YHWH. Is there anything hard about that?

Cya....

JP

[Doubting John]

Quote:

154-5 Reasons to defend the faith --

One) I do not believe in.
Two) I do. Do you want to debate on the resurrection?

Really?

Okay, but we first need to take a good hard look at what evidence can actually lead us to believe. So, you are an evidentialist? What do you make of my brief comments and quotes on pages 110-111? Here are some further thoughts:

German critic Gotthold Lessing (1729-1781) argued something with regard to historical knowledge, personal experience, and the necessary truths (or conclusions) of reason when it comes to the Christian faith.

“Miracles, which I see with my own eyes, and which I have opportunity to verify for myself, are one thing; miracles, of which I know only from history that others say they have seen them and verified them, are another.” “But…I live in the 18th century, in which miracles no longer happen. The problem is that reports of miracles are not miracles….[they] have to work through a medium which takes away all their force.” “Or is it invariably the case, that what I read in reputable historians is just as certain for me as what I myself experience?”

Lessing, just like G.W. Leibniz before him, distinguished between the contingent truths of history and the necessary truths of reason and wrote: Since “no historical truth can be demonstrated, then nothing can be demonstrated by means of historical truths.” That is, “the accidental truths of history can never become the proof of necessary truths of reason.”
He continued: “We all believe that an Alexander lived who in a short time conquered almost all Asia. But who, on the basis of this belief, would risk anything of great permanent worth, the loss of which would be irreparable? Who, in consequence of this belief, would forswear forever all knowledge that conflicted with this belief? Certainly not I. But it might still be possible that the story was founded on a mere poem of Choerilus just as the ten year siege of Troy depends on no better authority than Homer’s poetry.”

Someone might object that miracles like the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, are “more than historically certain,” because these things are told to us by “inspired historians who cannot make a mistake.” But Lessing counters that whether or not we have inspired historians is itself a historical claim, and only as certain as history allows. This, then, “is the ugly broad ditch which I cannot get across, however often and however earnestly I have tried to make the leap.” “Since the truth of these miracles has completely ceased to be demonstrable by miracles still happening now, since they are no more than reports of miracles, I deny that they should bind me in the least to a faith in the other teachings of Christ.” (“On the Proof of the Spirit and of Power,” Lessing’s Theological Writings, (Stanford University Press, 1956, pp. 51-55).

Christianity is a historical religion, unlike most eastern religions. It asks the faithful to believe certain historical events took place, like the prophesied virgin birth of Jesus, his reputed miracles, his teachings as told to us by “inspired historians,” his death on the cross, his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven. From these historical claims we are further asked to believe he was God incarnate, that he died on the cross “for our sins,” that he will physically return to earth, and that he will reward the faithful and punish the unfaithful eternally. With this belief we are asked to surrender everything we have in service to the demands of such a faith, and to “forswear forever all knowledge that conflicted with this belief.”

Gotthold Lessing asks us to consider whether a historical religion like Christianity should be believed based upon history alone, over against his own personal experiences. That is, can this history be demonstrated in the same way that his own experiences can be demonstrated? And his answer is an emphatic “No!” Why? Because just like it might be false that Alexander conquered almost all of Asia, then it might also be false that the aforementioned historical events in the life of Jesus didn’t happen either. And if these supposed events in the life of Jesus cannot be historically demonstrated, then even more so it cannot be demonstrated he is God incarnate who died for our sins and will reward or punish us in the hereafter, either. This then, he says, is the “ugly broad ditch which I cannot get across, however often and however earnestly I have tried to make the leap.”


Lessing did, however, claim to believe in the faith of Jesus based upon other grounds. He believed, he said, because of the teachings of Jesus themselves. But of course, today there are many historical questions about what Jesus actually taught. So Lessing’s faith is actually undercut by his own skepticism over historical knowledge. Since history teaches us about what Jesus taught, then Lessing too had no basis to believe--but he probably saw that. (See Henry Chadwick’s “Introductory Essay” to Lessing’s Theological Writings). According to Henry Chadwick: “In one sense, it could be said that Lessing spent his life hoping that Christianity was true and arguing that it was not.” (The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, editor in chief, Paul Edwards (MacMillian, 1967) “G.E. Lessing.”

Lessing’s argument influenced existentialist Soren Kierkegaard, who regarded historical knowledge as completely insufficient grounds for the Christian faith. In C. Stephen Evan’s words, Kierkegaard believed that “there is an incommensurability between the evidence supplied by historical research and the decision to become a Christian. The historical evidence attains at most a certain level of probability. The decision which I must make on the other hand carries with it an infinite risk—eternal happiness or eternal damnation may be the result. No amount of probability could be sufficient to base such a decision upon.” [Subjectivity and Religious Belief (Eerdmans, 1978), p. 83.]

I may not get back to you for a while. My other book is demanding some promotion. It's on how to haw a winning pool team. I have 500 copies and I need to move them.

regards....

[jpholding]

Okay, but we first need to take a good hard look at what evidence can actually lead us to believe. So, you are an evidentialist?

I try not to label myself, but I think most readers would say I am squarely in that camp, yes.

What do you make of my brief comments and quotes on pages 110-111?

1) Hume has been pretty soundly taken to task in a work by Earman (who is not a theist, that I can see) called Hume's Abject Failure. If you want my take on Hume: http://www.tektonics.org/gk/hume01.html and there is also a debate here on TWeb I had with a guy named "skepticbud" about the article.

2) I don't believe that miracles ARE a violation of natural law, any more than you or me picking up a box is a "violation" of the law of gravity. The dichotomy between natural and supernatural is a post-Enlightenment and arbitrary distinction. "Miracles" are just God acting in nature as we would when we pick up a box.

3) So for me, the claim that one must take for granted the belief in the Christian God to believe in miracles doesn't hold water, at least not in the way you are arguing against. The only issue is the personal identity of the performer (could it have been Allah, not YHWH, who raised Jesus?), not the functional identity (it must be a "supernatural" being).

4) I do think that the evidence is strong enough to accept the bodily resurrection of Jesus is the best available explanation for the evidence, but the way I explain things does not require any worldview of the sort Davis describes, due to 1-3 above.

5) I don't agree with Geisler that the resurrection of necessity establishes God's existence, though it would lend support to the idea in light of the claims surrounding it in terms of who was responsible for the resurrection.

On your further thoughts:

6) Lessing's critique seems to rely on the same false dichotomy that Hume offered. For me you could replaces the word "miracles" with the word "battles" in Lessing's comment, and it's just as "logical". By which I mean, it isn't. (And allowing for that Lessing did not actually live in a time when battles were no longer fought; but it would apply to me here in America today.)

7) Leibniz's dismissal of history is merely arbitrary and is merely a reflection on Leibniz's priorities. It's kind of funny, because one of my articles was the inspiration for an independent film called "Washington's Cross" in which there was this 1984ish society in which it was illegal and immoral to believe that Washington crossed the Delaware, and if you did believe it, you were subjected to torture, psychiatric treatment, etc. He's not proving anything but that he doesn't consider his life expendable over such an issue, which has no bearing on the objective reality of an Alexander or a Washington.

I don't use the "inspired historians" argument; it makes no difference to me whether the authors were inspired or not.

Because just like it might be false that Alexander conquered almost all of Asia, then it might also be false that the aforementioned historical events in the life of Jesus didn’t happen either.

Anyone who takes such an idea seriously, I wonder why they don't spend their life hiding under a bed. Lessing's Ditch tells me that he was a bit of a wimp. So are modern historians just wasting their time?


But of course, today there are many historical questions about what Jesus actually taught.

Not very good ones. Obviously I'll be glad to debate any particulars, but you are right to say that he undercut himself with his own ideas. That he didn't notice this just tells me how foolish he was.

I may not get back to you for a while. My other book is demanding some promotion. It's on how to haw a winning pool team.

Take your time. Which one is selling better? :wink:

JP

[markporter]

I think from my Point of View I would add that contemporary experience is a vital part of my faith. If I didn't believe that God was still miraculously at work today I'd find it a little harder to believe everything that occurred 2000 years ago. This is probably a point at which I diverge from JP.

[Soundsurfr]

2) I don't believe that miracles ARE a violation of natural law, any more than you or me picking up a box is a "violation" of the law of gravity. The dichotomy between natural and supernatural is a post-Enlightenment and arbitrary distinction. "Miracles" are just God acting in nature as we would when we pick up a box.

So, in other words, you believe there is no actual distinction between a "miracle" and a natural occurance?

3) So for me, the claim that one must take for granted the belief in the Christian God to believe in miracles doesn't hold water, at least not in the way you are arguing against. The only issue is the personal identity of the performer (could it have been Allah, not YHWH, who raised Jesus?), not the functional identity (it must be a "supernatural" being).

I guess I'm a little confused. There has to be a belief in a "performer", doesn't there?

6) Lessing's critique seems to rely on the same false dichotomy that Hume offered. For me you could replaces the word "miracles" with the word "battles" in Lessing's comment, and it's just as "logical". By which I mean, it isn't.

Doesn't it boil down to what is demonstrable and what is not?

(And allowing for that Lessing did not actually live in a time when battles were no longer fought; but it would apply to me here in America today.)

No it wouldn't. Your limitation of "battles" to "battles that occur in America" is arbitrary and illogical.

7) Leibniz's dismissal of history is merely arbitrary and is merely a reflection on Leibniz's priorities.

He's not dismissing history. He's pointing out the relative reliability of a historical account compared to an actual experience. I think if you want to dispute Leibniz, you need to dispute that. We could also discuss, if you're interested, what I mean by "reliability".

It's kind of funny, because one of my articles was the inspiration for an independent film called "Washington's Cross" in which there was this 1984ish society in which it was illegal and immoral to believe that Washington crossed the Delaware, and if you did believe it, you were subjected to torture, psychiatric treatment, etc. He's not proving anything but that he doesn't consider his life expendable over such an issue, which has no bearing on the objective reality of an Alexander or a Washington.

He's not trying to prove anything, except that historical accounts prove nothing.

Anyone who takes such an idea seriously, I wonder why they don't spend their life hiding under a bed. Lessing's Ditch tells me that he was a bit of a wimp. So are modern historians just wasting their time?

Of course not. But the extent to which our understanding of history bears on the reality or the actuality of those occurances needs to be understood. If you think it is possible to have a 100% understanding of what "actually" happened with regard to events that took place 2000 years ago or even 200 years ago, or at a certain level, even one year ago, then I would wonder how you could seriously think so.

[Darth Executor]

So, in other words, you believe there is no actual distinction between a "miracle" and a natural occurance?



That is the only position that makes sense. I have been unable to find anybody who can give me a definition of miracle that is not either a veiled form of natural occurance or a paradox.

[jpholding]

So, in other words, you believe there is no actual distinction between a "miracle" and a natural occurance?

In terms of being "natural," no.


I guess I'm a little confused. There has to be a belief in a "performer", doesn't there?

Sure, but I don't see that as requiring a dichotomy either.


Doesn't it boil down to what is demonstrable and what is not?

I can't demonstrate a backflip for you. Does that mean no one can do them?



No it wouldn't. Your limitation of "battles" to "battles that occur in America" is arbitrary and illogical.

So is the limit to whatever we happen to witness in our time and place. I agree, and that's the point -- Hume's and Lessing's position is indeed illogical.


He's not dismissing history. He's pointing out the relative reliability of a historical account compared to an actual experience.

Relative? His words seem quite clear-cut: Yes to experience, no without it. No relativity in that.


He's not trying to prove anything, except that historical accounts prove nothing.

And if he proves that, all of our historians are just idiots wasting their time. I'd like to have heard him say that to Ronald Syme.

If you think it is possible to have a 100% understanding of what "actually" happened with regard to events that took place 2000 years ago or even 200 years ago, or at a certain level, even one year ago, then I would wonder how you could seriously think so.

I don't need 100%, though how much of a percent you get or want depends on how much of the view you're looking to capture. On the other hand it is absurd to say what we have is worth 0% which is what Lessing's Ditch amounts to. I don't think he really carefully considered how what he said would ruin the historical study process. If he had, he would not have openly contradicted himself as DJ noted that he did.

[Doubting John]

Our master's pool team took second place this weekend int eh Regional event--the winner advanced to Vegas with round trip air and hotel accomodations to compete nationally. I was the captain of the team. It just wasn't enough.

Anyway, I just had to come back and check and see. Let me focus on the modern historian, evidence for Christianity and history.


According to I. Howard Marshall in I Believe in the Historical Jesus (Eerdmans, 1977) “many historians—the great majority in fact—would say that miracles fall outside their orbit as historians. For to accept the miraculous as a possibility in history is to admit an irrational element which cannot be included under the ordinary laws of history. The result is that the historian believes himself justified in writing a ‘history’ of Jesus in which the miraculous and supernatural do not appear in historical statements. The ‘historical’ Jesus is an ordinary man. To some historians he is that and no more. To others, however, the possibility is open that he was more than an ordinary man—but this possibility lies beyond the reach of historical study as such.” (p. 59). (Marshall defends Christianity, but he has an excellent summary of the problems of the modern historian for his faith, from which I use in what follows).


Three lines of evidence incline “the great majority” of historians to take this stance. One) Our knowledge of Jesus comes almost exclusively from those who believed Jesus was the one and only savior of the world, and they were convinced he was God’s Messiah. They sought to convert others to this same belief. They were committed men. But the historian asks how reliable their record can be when they wrote the books of the New Testament? They were simply not impartial with regard to what they wrote. And if these authors were dependent upon other committed believers for their information, doesn’t this call into question their reliability? It does in every other area of historical research. Marshall again, “How can we be sure that the whole story has not been colored by the pious imagination of the earliest Christians who saw the story of Jesus in the light of the religious position which they ascribed to him after his death? If the Evangelists had been scientific historians, disinterested recorders of what happened, then there is some chance that they might have avoided displaying such bias. But this is not what they were. They were writers of Gospels, works intended to convert the outsider and strengthen the believer. They were not writing history but religious propaganda.” (p. 54) Did they check their sources? Did they cross-examine their witnesses? Or did they have a predisposition to believe what was told to them?

Two) It can be pointed out that many similar stories of the miraculous were told by all kinds of respected people in ancient times. According to R. Bultmann, an impressive list of miraculous stories can be found from the same age and environment of Jesus and first century Christians. [See The History of the Synoptic Tradition (London, 1968, pp. 218-244)]. The Jews had similar stories about some of their rabbis that claimed they had the power to heal. It was also claimed that the Roman Emperor Vespasian had the ability to heal. Richard Carrier has also documented these stories in “Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire: A Look Into the World of the Gospels” which can be found at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/kooks.html].

Here is what he concluded: “From all of this one thing should be apparent: the age of Jesus was not an age of critical reflection and remarkable religious acumen. It was an era filled with con artists, gullible believers, martyrs without a cause, and reputed miracles of every variety. In light of this picture, the tales of the Gospels do not seem very remarkable. Even if they were false in every detail, there is no evidence that they would have been disbelieved or rejected as absurd by many people, who at the time had little in the way of education or critical thinking skills. They had no newspapers, telephones, photographs, or public documents to consult to check a story. If they were not a witness, all they had was a man's word. And even if they were a witness, the tales above tell us that even then their skills of critical reflection were lacking. Certainly, this age did not lack keen and educated skeptics--it is not that there were no skilled and skeptical observers. There were. Rather, the shouts of the credulous rabble overpowered their voice and seized the world from them…” [For a response to Carrier that proves my over-all point about how history is subject to different interpretations see Christopher Price, “The Miracles of Jesus: A Historical Inquiry,” at www.christianorigins.com]

So the modern historian can ask two questions about these similar kinds of stories. 1) To today’s Christians who believe in miracles, he will ask whether the other miraculous stories about other great men in the first century occurred? Why should we believe one set of miraculous stories and not another set? The evidence for both kinds of stories seems to be the same, so why do Christians just accept one set of stories and reject the other set? 2) If miraculous stories were being told about other great men during their day, then wouldn’t early Christians be tempted to tell similar kinds of stories—and even greater stories—about Jesus, to prove he was greater than the others? In an environment where a great man in known by his great and even miraculous deeds, then early Christians would be faced with the choice of telling even bigger deeds for their Jesus, or not gaining the attention of those who believed Jesus wasn’t that great of a man.


Three) The modern historian lives in the modern world, a world where miracles and supernatural events simply don’t take place. At least, that is his experience, as well as my own experience. I have never personally seen a miracle even in my days as a former Christian and minister in the Christian faith. But if this is true for us, then it must be true among ancient people as well. As historians it’s extremely difficult, if not impossible, to step outside what one has learned and experienced in his own day and time, and not see the past from that same perspective. There should be no reason to suppose that ancient historical people experienced anything different than what we experience today. They were perhaps just superstitious, that’s all, and they lived in a world where there was nothing known about nature’s fixed laws—just their belief in a God who expresses his will in all events. So when confronted with a miraculous story the modern historian assumes a natural explanation, or that the story became exaggerated in the telling, or the cure was a psychological one, or it may simply be a legend to enhance the reputation of the miracle worker.

Do you yet see the problem here?

[Doubting John]

Oh, since I rasied the points of I. Howard Marshall (who defends the historical Jesus, let me share with you how he deals with this problem.


I have a book in my library called History Through The Eyes of Faith, by Ronald A. Wells, who teaches at Calvin College. Starting with Jesus and Christianity down past the Middle Ages, the Reformation, the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, and through to the 20th century he provides the meaning of history through the eyes of Christian faith. It’s history as interpreted by means of the Christian framework. In the first chapter he admits that, “the facts of history simply do not speak for themselves; historians speak for them from an interpretive framework of the ideas they already hold.” (p. 8). He merely suggests that over-against the secular view of history as a two dimensional world (space & time) Christians “insist that there is a third dimension—spirit—and that a whole view of the world must be three dimensional.” (p. 11). This, he claims, is the proper way to view history.


However, in order to read history in light of Christianity, one must have sufficient reasons for this Christian framework; otherwise doing so is circular. The Christian looks at history using the Christian framework (or world-view) to do so. The question is whether or not that framework is the proper way to view all of history, especially Bible “history.” Think about the circular nature of this for a while. Using the Christian framework the Christian views all of history, especially Biblical history, from that perspective. So when the Christian examines Biblical history he or she will more than likely accept its miraculous events as true historical events, because that’s what the Christian framework dictates in the first place. And yet, Christians claim that this same Biblical history provides them with the framework to view that history as credible in the first place. What? How? How is it possible to gain the Christian framework for viewing Biblical history from that same history, unless there are reasons for viewing it as such? Conversely, how is it possible to view Biblical history as accurate history unless one already approaches it with the Christian framework for viewing it as accurate history?


It's this conundrum that forces me to ask God for more evidence to believe today, like Lessing. I need evidence to believe for today. Yesterday's evidence no longer can hold water for me, for in order to see it as evidence I must already believe in the framework that allows me to see it as evidence. In other words, in order to see yesterday's evidence as evidence for me, I must already believe the Christian framework that allows me to see yesterday's evidence as evidence. This, J.P. is your specific problem, being an evidentialist.


I. Howard Marshall’s answer to this vexing problem is to argue that our particular framework (worldview, or set of presuppositions) and the historical evidence “stand in a dialectical relationship to one another.” “We interpret evidence in light of our presuppositions, and we also form our presuppositions in the light of the evidence. It is only through a ‘dialogue’ between presuppositions and evidence that we gain both sound presuppositions and a correct interpretation of the evidence. The process is circular and unending. It demands openness on the part of the investigator. He must be prepared to revise his ideas in the light of the evidence, for ultimately it is the evidence which is decisive.”

Now I don’t deny that he’s right about this. This is the best that a human being can do. But even Marshall admits that while the Christian should be prepared to let his worldview be altered by the evidence, “his world view is part of the evidence, and cannot be simply laid aside.” And while he argues that a modern day personal experience of “the risen Lord” is a “relevant factor” in assessing the historical facts regarding the resurrection of Jesus, “if a person fails to have a personal experience of the risen Lord, this may prove to him that the biblical evidence does not support belief in the resurrection of Jesus.” [I Believe in the Historical Jesus (Eerdmans, 1977), pp. 98-101.)]

So tell me, J.P., has Marshall solved anything?

[Doubting John]

Oh, J.P. one more thing, since I just happen to be in the mood. How exactly is it that a Spiritual God can pick up a material box? Humans are material beings, so we have no trouble picking up a box, because our bodily matter makes contact with the matter inherent in the box, and up it goes.

Does God have a material side to him such that he can make contact with the box to pick it up? If he is Spirit, then how does something that is Spirit make contact with something that is matter, unless there is some point of contact between them that they both share.

Take for example the idea of ghosts that can walk through walls, etc. How does a being like that actually move matter, unless there is some point of contact between such a ghost and what they move on earth? Likewise, how can God speak audibly and be heard by sound waves to our ears, unless he can move sound waves--that is, unless there is once again a point of contact between a Spirit being and the material waves in the air?

For you to say that God, a Spirit, just does, and that's it, is no answer at all. But once you start specifying the point of contact between spirit beings and material objects then there must be a little matter in the being of God, or there is no matter at all, or there is a little Spirit in matter. At that point, what then becomes of your creator/creation disctinction? And what becomes of your eternal omnipresent Spirit God, if there is in fact some point of contact between him and physical objects? Logically, a being who is spiritual should simply pass by objects that are material without ever making contact.

Once more. Imagine an invisible chair. Not sit in it. What happened? Sorry, you didn't actually do that did you? God, being incorporeal is like that invisible chair. There can be no physical interaction with an invisible chair, and there can be no action in the world of physical objects by invisible entities, whether they be chairs, ghosts or God--unless, you specify for me right here and right now, what that point of contact might actually be. But of course, if you try, then we'll have to look at the kind of God you now have been forced into believing in. GO AHEAD. TRY!

[markporter]

OK, I think I'll have a go at this one...

Oh, J.P. one more thing, since I just happen to be in the mood. How exactly is it that a Spiritual God can pick up a material box? Humans are material beings, so we have no trouble picking up a box, because our bodily matter makes contact with the matter inherent in the box, and up it goes.

Does God have a material side to him such that he can make contact with the box to pick it up? If he is Spirit, then how does something that is Spirit make contact with something that is matter, unless there is some point of contact between them that they both share.

Right, I think that last point is the key. IMO you've created something of a false dichotomy between Spirit and Material - as I see it they're just two different manifestations of 'things'. You seem to have a picture of 'Spirit' which is somewhat akin to wind or air or nothing - that's not what it's like, just because you can't see it and touch it from where you are right now.


Take for example the idea of ghosts that can walk through walls, etc. How does a being like that actually move matter, unless there is some point of contact between such a ghost and what they move on earth? Likewise, how can God speak audibly and be heard by sound waves to our ears, unless he can move sound waves--that is, unless there is once again a point of contact between a Spirit being and the material waves in the air?

I wouldn't say there has to be a physical space-time point of contact, the contact is made by God's commanding something to be. There isn't some more basic kind of mechanism that can be reduced to.


For you to say that God, a Spirit, just does, and that's it, is no answer at all. But once you start specifying the point of contact between spirit beings and material objects then there must be a little matter in the being of God, or there is no matter at all, or there is a little Spirit in matter. At that point, what then becomes of your creator/creation disctinction? And what becomes of your eternal omnipresent Spirit God, if there is in fact some point of contact between him and physical objects? Logically, a being who is spiritual should simply pass by objects that are material without ever making contact.

Why is it no answer at all? I think in the end if you try analysing the physical world and the basic components of which it is made in this kind of way you end up with the same kind of problem - basic units just can't be broken down any further.


Once more. Imagine an invisible chair. Not sit in it. What happened? Sorry, you didn't actually do that did you? God, being incorporeal is like that invisible chair. There can be no physical interaction with an invisible chair, and there can be no action in the world of physical objects by invisible entities, whether they be chairs, ghosts or God--unless, you specify for me right here and right now, what that point of contact might actually be. But of course, if you try, then we'll have to look at the kind of God you now have been forced into believing in. GO AHEAD. TRY!

Incorporeal - hmm, I think that's a bad word, it implies a lack of reality, God as Spirit in the Christian might be better viewed as the ultimate embodiment - his being just isn't related to things in quite the same way as physical objects are.

[Doubting John]

Mark, this issue is really an "aside." I want to get back to the historical evidence question as soon as possible.

Quote:
you've created something of a false dichotomy between Spirit and Material - as I see it they're just two different manifestations of 'things'. You seem to have a picture of 'Spirit' which is somewhat akin to wind or air or nothing - that's not what it's like, just because you can't see it and touch it from where you are right now.

Emphasis, you said: "just two different manifestations of 'things'."

Really?

Just two different manifestations of the same kind of thing?

Naw, not that....

Or,

Just two different manifestations of the same kind of reality?

Naw, that won't do either....

Can you precisely describe for me how spirit and matter are the same so they can interact, and yet how they are also different? Analogies are weak, like ghosts and invisible chairs, I suppose. But the question remains, "how can the two interact?" How??? Logically they cannot interact, unless they both share a quality or something that they both have. Are spirit and matter two poles of the same reality?: welcome to panentheism, or process theology. Are they one and the same: welcome to pantheism (all is "spirit"), or atheism (all is matter). Idealism proclaims there is no material universe. You could go that way, I suppose, like George Berkeley. But then what exactly did God create? Ideas? We don't exist with bodies? Then exactly where do we exist? Do we exist at all? Maybe we are only "dreams" that God is having?

You cannot tell me the answer to this question, and yet you still believe God as omnipresent Spirit can work his miracles in the material universe. If your belief is a reasonable one, then give me some reasons to believe your God can act in this world by showing how it is possible for two different types of, for lack of a better word, "substances" can interact. Energy, is after all, matter. Gasses like air, are all matter too!

The best analogy is an existing chair located in the same room you are in now, that is invisible to your eyes because it's in another dimension, or parallel universe. It really exists there, but you cannot see it or touch it because it is not a material chair in your universe. Now sit on it. Try to kick it around. Pick it up and throw it as far as you can. Go ahead, experiment all you like. Then report back your findings on how it's possible to touch that chair, which really exists, but isn't a made up of any matter. Conversely, can that chair act in your world? Let's say it has a brain, for a minute. And it wants to pick you up and kick you around a while. Can it? How? You couldn't, so how can it?

For a great discussion of this issue, see Arthur Peacocke's Theology For a Scientific Age, "God's Interaction with the world" pp. 135-189.

This will be my last word on this issue, but go ahead and sound off if you want to. Logically you cannot solve this single problem except resorting to blind belief.

[markporter]

Mark, this issue is really an "aside." I want to get back to the historical evidence question as soon as possible.

Sure, but I'm not the one to be answering for that - JP is.



Emphasis, you said: "just two different manifestations of 'things'."

Really?

Just two different manifestations of the same kind of thing?

Naw, not that....

Or,

Just two different manifestations of the same kind of reality?

Naw, that won't do either....

Why not? I think that ultimately both of those descriptions could work well. There's some kind of higher category than we can't really see well from our position that both fit into. What's the basic stuff of reality? I'm not sure you can really tell me - as far as I can see it's things and relations between things.

[Soundsurfr]

Sure, but I don't see that as requiring a dichotomy either.

OK, so we establish that in order to believe in "miracles", one must believe in a willfull, although not necessarily "supernatural" agent.

I can't demonstrate a backflip for you. Does that mean no one can do them?

No, as the definition of "demonstrable" is not "demonstrable by me." Straw man.

Your limitation of "battles" to "battles that occur in America" is arbitrary and illogical.
So is the limit to whatever we happen to witness in our time and place. I agree, and that's the point -- Hume's and Lessing's position is indeed illogical.

I believe you are mis-stating Hume's and Lessing's position. I don't believe it is predicated on "whatever we happen to witness..."

Relative? His words seem quite clear-cut: Yes to experience, no without it. No relativity in that.

I see it as relative. Nothing is 100% proven, so everything is relative. As rational people we should be able to agree that this is implied.

And if he proves that, all of our historians are just idiots wasting their time.

No, that does not follow from the argument.

I don't need 100%, though how much of a percent you get or want depends on how much of the view you're looking to capture.

Or how much chaff you're willing to eat with your wheat.

On the other hand it is absurd to say what we have is worth 0% which is what Lessing's Ditch amounts to.

Again, that does not follow from Lessing's Ditch. He clearly indicates that there are limits to the risk he will accept when deciding whether to act upon information that resides across the ditch, so to speak. This does not equate to a 0% information factor.

[jpholding]

According to I. Howard Marshall in I Believe in the Historical Jesus (Eerdmans, 1977) “many historians—the great majority in fact—would say that miracles fall outside their orbit as historians.

Interesting stuff, but I don't buy into Marshall's Plan. :teeth: Not for Europe or for anywhere.

One) Our knowledge of Jesus comes almost exclusively from those who believed Jesus was the one and only savior of the world, and they were convinced he was God’s Messiah.

What, this old canard about "bias"? I don't suppose it occurs to anyone that the reason they were committed and convinced was because what they reported was actually true. Been here, done this, DJ -- as a friend of mine wrote:

It should be pointed out that 'bias' actually has NO CORRELATION to 'truth or falsity'. One's pre-disposition to believe X has no logical bearing on the truth-status of X. (In history, this is known as the 'genetic fallacy'; in philosophy it is called the 'argumentum ad hominum'.)

For example, if there are two propositions X and ~X, one of which is true (and the other false); and if there are two proponents A and B, with A having a 'bias' toward X and B having a 'bias' toward ~X, then ONE OF THEM IS STILL CORRECT--in spite of 'bias'.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/nuhbias.html -- the whole thing is too large to post here, but it disposes of this canard handily.

So no, if "these authors were dependent upon other committed believers for their information," it does not "call into question their reliability" unless you are yourself expressing a bias, which makes your objection self-refuting. I've seen this issue with respect to Tacitus, who is regarded as a very biased historian -- but also as exceptionally reliable in what he reports. So don't assume that throwing me a bunch of questions without specific substance will make me press that epistemic panic-button. :wink:

Two) It can be pointed out that many similar stories of the miraculous were told by all kinds of respected people in ancient times.

Well, isn't that nice. And so we just assume that ALL of them are untrue, right? I don't. And as for Carrier, he's had his wings clipped as well. Summation:

1. Modern historical scholarship disagrees with (or at least heavily qualifies) Richard's thesis of "ubiquitous credulity". It is commonly understood that the period before the production of the NT was a very 'subdued' generation, relative to the later generations of Richard's data.
2. Miracles had a pronounced impact and effect because they were NOT 'dime a dozen'. Audiences showed no evidence of 'anesthesia from familiarity'.
3. Christians of the NT and immediate post-NT period seem to be on the side of the 'critics'--not on the side of the 'credulous'.
4. This last point means that the intended readership of the gospels would share their anti-credulity 'bias'.
5. Many of the readers and writers of the NT would have been practiced in the debunking of the miraculous, by the educational process required for semi-literary reading/writing skills.
6. Anecdotal evidence cannot be used to construct 'virtually everyone' conclusions.
7. Most of the data about miracles is post-NT.
8. What quantitative (statistical) data we DO have suggests the 'non-suggestibility' or limited credulity of the larger populace.
9. Evidence of 'attempting to obtain miraculous effects' (e.g., going to a shrine to get healed) may not be related to 'faith' at all, but rather to 'desperation' or 'hopefulness'.
10. Some evidence indicates that 'magical events' were actually rarely experience (i.e., even low-grade 'wonders' produced amazement').
11. Actual miracle claims in the period are very, very rare--NOT 'dime a dozen'.
12. Because of the conscious distance between Christian authors and the 'credulity of pagans', we cannot extrapolate from "evidence of pagan credulity" to "evidence of NT authors' credulity" .
...
15. There are significant methodological challenges to identifying correctly cases of 'belief' (and 'credulity'). Too many other explanations for the phenomena exist (e.g., desperation, 'default behavior'), and some of these explanations are more likely to be better explanations than 'credulity' or 'belief'.
16. Deliberate credulity (often thought to be the basis for common 'magical' praxis of the period) is not very close to 'real' credulity (indicative of 'gross credulity').
....
19. The category of the extraordinary implies a 'canon of the possible and impossible', and the ancients certainly held one.
...
21. Some accusations of wholesale credulity are contraindicated by actual historical evidence, and some are counterbalanced by statements of 'ubiquitous naturalism'.
22. Some of the accusations of magic against ethnic groups implies (a) that personally-experienced magical events were rare; and that (b) most of the geography of the world was not 'teeming with magicians'.
23. Oblique, incidental data in the New Testament supports a view of 'limited credulity' of the people of pre-NT, Syria-Palestine.
24. There are real-world limits as to how much credulity could be 'afforded' (economically). Magic and healings (attempted) cost money, and this places a definite limit on the number of 'experienced miracles' even theoretically possible in the period.
25. There is no necessary connection between the belief in the supernatural and the belief in individual/specific claims, and the Azande evidence would actually suggest an inverse relationships (i.e., the wider the belief in the paranormal world, the more skeptical people are of claimants to paranormal power).
26. The merchant class--the primary group among which Jesus worked and taught--were likely the most pragmatic (and least 'gullible') of the social groups of the day.
27. The NT authors (and very early Fathers) share the 'disdain' for common-credulity, and hence are not implicated in it.
28. The NT miracles of Jesus are sufficiently different and 'larger' than the common-claims of the day (e.g., low-level magic), making comparison questionable.
29. The initial readership of the gospels--as sharing the epistemic conventions and educational background of the NT authors--would have been predisposed to reject the miracles, and only some type of 'good' evidence would have been effective at such an 'epistemic conversion'.
30. The pervasive emphasis in the NT on critical thinking and avoiding deception and the like, again differentiates its originating group from the allegedly 'credulous masses'.
31. The small-town setting for the ministry of Jesus (with many members of the disciples having long histories with one another) proves more 'control' over charlatan-claims than would a larger urban setting (Galen).
32. There just is no direct or logical connection between the false testimony of others and the testimony of a trusted source.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/mqfx.html


So the modern historian can ask two questions about these similar kinds of stories. 1) To today’s Christians who believe in miracles, he will ask whether the other miraculous stories about other great men in the first century occurred? Why should we believe one set of miraculous stories and not another set?

I happen to have no problem accepting the idea that Vespasian may have done a miracle, or the ones Josephus reported in Jerusalem at the time of the war with the Romans, or the ones Suetonious reports, etc. I'm afraid your questions are barking up the wrong tree, DJ.

Three) The modern historian lives in the modern world, a world where miracles and supernatural events simply don’t take place. At least, that is his experience, as well as my own experience.

Hume's abject failure, in other words. The "ice analogy" was an embarrasment to his thesis and it remains one to this day, as Earman showed.

So when confronted with a miraculous story the modern historian assumes a natural explanation, or that the story became exaggerated in the telling, or the cure was a psychological one, or it may simply be a legend to enhance the reputation of the miracle worker.

Do you yet see the problem here?

Yes. The problem is that modern people are often bigots who think that calling ancient people stupid is some sort of valid methodology. It's true that sometimes some of this may be true, but it's hardly to be gratuitously assumed because of the materialist biases of the modern evaluator. To do that is no better than accepting a stereotype that all Jews are cheap or that all persons of African descent like watermelon.

Oh, J.P. one more thing, since I just happen to be in the mood. How exactly is it that a Spiritual God can pick up a material box?

What is it that makes you think that spirit is not able to interact with the material? By the reckoning of non-materialists, a spiritual being is interacting with the material right now in every one of us.

I agree with mark -- all you're doing is defining the properties of "spirit" arbitrarily, or based on popular ideas about ghosts.

You'll next ask "how" and I'll just say, "I don't know, no one does." And sorry again, but that won't cause me to press the epistemic panic button and wave the white flag. :smile: Any more than you would if I asked you to explain how a nuclear reactor worked, or how many ions were in the moons of Saturn.

But I will drop on one point:

But once you start specifying the point of contact between spirit beings and material objects then there must be a little matter in the being of God, or there is no matter at all, or there is a little Spirit in matter. At that point, what then becomes of your creator/creation disctinction?

When you went to seminary, DJ, did they ever use a term, hypostasis?

If they didn't, I can see why you don't have an answer to this one. :smile:

[jpholding]

Oh, you again? Howdy.


I can't demonstrate a backflip for you. Does that mean no one can do them?

No, as the definition of "demonstrable" is not "demonstrable by me." Straw man.

I agree. The Humean supposition here is indeed a strawman.



I believe you are mis-stating Hume's and Lessing's position. I don't believe it is predicated on "whatever we happen to witness..."

I read Hume. I read Earman's thorough critique of Hume. I'm not mis-stating his position.

I read what DJ offered about Lessing. If he has more to say, what is it?

I see it as relative. Nothing is 100% proven, so everything is relative. As rational people we should be able to agree that this is implied.

As a reader of Hume I won't agree to it at all. You're being generous in interpreting him.


And if he proves that, all of our historians are just idiots wasting their time.

No, that does not follow from the argument.

Did you have plans to explain why not? :whistle: No rush....

Or how much chaff you're willing to eat with your wheat.

I do eat steel cut oats for breakfast, as my current avatar indicates. :teeth:


Again, that does not follow from Lessing's Ditch. He clearly indicates that there are limits to the risk he will accept when deciding whether to act upon information that resides across the ditch, so to speak.

So where did he define those limits in a way that means he ought not be hiding under his bed?

[Soundsurfr]

Oh, you again? Howdy.

Howdy.


Holding: I can't demonstrate a backflip for you. Does that mean no one can do them?

Soundsurfr: No, as the definition of "demonstrable" is not "demonstrable by me." Straw man.

Holding: I agree. The Humean supposition here is indeed a strawman.

Wow, you're a slippery one. The Humean supposition was not "I can't demonstrate a back flip for you, therefore I must assume no one can do them." That was the Holdingean supposition. Nice try.

I read Hume. I read Earman's thorough critique of Hume. I'm not mis-stating his position.

Then we'll agree to disagree on that point.

Soundsurfr: I see it as relative. Nothing is 100% proven, so everything is relative. As rational people we should be able to agree that this is implied.

Holding: As a reader of Hume I won't agree to it at all. You're being generous in interpreting him.

How about as a correspondent of Soundsurfr? I don't pretend to speak for Hume. There is a relative veracity to any truth statement. The relative veracity of a truth statement is established by means of available evidence in context with the existing body of knowledge. Can we agree that there are varying levels of evidence that give rise to varying levels of veracity? I believe this was Lessing's point with regard to the "ditch too wide".

Soundsurfr: He's not trying to prove anything, except that historical accounts prove nothing.
Holding: And if he proves that, all of our historians are just idiots wasting their time.
Soundsurfr: No, that does not follow from the argument.
Holding: Did you have plans to explain why not? :whistle: No rush....

Sure, if your argument is this: Any historical exercise that does not result in solid proof of an occurance is a waste of time. Is that your argument? If it is, we may need another thread. If it's not, then I guess I'm done.

So where did he define those limits in a way that means he ought not be hiding under his bed?

He may not have. But your interpretation that he needs to be hiding under his bed requires some liberties to be taken, IMO.

[jpholding]

Wow, you're a slippery one. The Humean supposition was not "I can't demonstrate a back flip for you, therefore I must assume no one can do them."

I'm afraid that's what Hume's position boiled down to. As I said, I read Hume; also Earman's critique of Hume. You only said we'd have to disagree but did not quote anything from Hume that showed otherwise. The "ice analogy" shows that Hume was clearly understood that way. Hume did not reply to it by claiming he had been misunderstood but by noting that ice was not outside the experiences of northern peoples, or that tropical people might deduce the existence of ice by analogy. But in saying that he just undercut his own arguments about miracles.


How about as a correspondent of Soundsurfr? I don't pretend to speak for Hume.

Then you can't speak for what I say of him, can you? :smile:

Can we agree that there are varying levels of evidence that give rise to varying levels of veracity?

No. I can only agree that there are varying levels of informedness that do this. The evidence itself does not vary.

Sure, if your argument is this: Any historical exercise that does not result in solid proof of an occurance is a waste of time. Is that your argument?

No. I guess you're done. :teeth:

[Soundsurfr]

What, this old canard about "bias"? I don't suppose it occurs to anyone that the reason they were committed and convinced was because what they reported was actually true.

That occured to me. For a second. :wink:

Been here, done this, DJ -- as a friend of mine wrote:

It should be pointed out that 'bias' actually has NO CORRELATION to 'truth or falsity'.

No one believes that it does. Bias goes to the credibility of the witness. Or does it not?

I've seen this issue with respect to Tacitus, who is regarded as a very biased historian -- but also as exceptionally reliable in what he reports.

So explain to us how we know that Tacitus is "exceptionally reliable in what he reports."

Well, isn't that nice. And so we just assume that ALL of them are untrue, right? I don't.

I do. The operative measure is to what extent you are willing to act on your assumption. Let's take some non-biblicle miracle account that you assume could be true. Pick one. If you have to choose to assert in a life or death situation that the account is true or untrue - which way will you choose? Why?


7. Most of the data about miracles is post-NT.

Data?

8. What quantitative (statistical) data we DO have suggests the 'non-suggestibility' or limited credulity of the larger populace.

Interesting. What do you suppose similar data would show about the credulity of the larger populace of the USA today?

I happen to have no problem accepting the idea that Vespasian may have done a miracle, or the ones Josephus reported in Jerusalem at the time of the war with the Romans, or the ones Suetonious reports, etc.

I'm not at all surprised.



Yes. The problem is that modern people are often bigots who think that calling ancient people stupid is some sort of valid methodology.

Stupid no. Less sophisticated in terms of scientific understanding, yes. More prone to belief in the pervasion of the supernatural in ordinary life, or to assign supernatural explanation to unexplained phenomena, yes. Is it your argument that these factors are not relevant when trying to evaluate the validity of a miraculous claim made in a historical account? Do you not take into account the body of available knowledge, underlying beliefs and superstitions of a culture when investigating the historical accounts of that culture?

What is it that makes you think that spirit is not able to interact with the material?

Just a hunch. But then again, I don't think spirit exists at all, except in our imaginations.

By the reckoning of non-materialists, a spiritual being is interacting with the material right now in every one of us.

True, but the difference is that the non-materialist has put forth the proposition of a "spirit" in the first place. In which case it is not invalid to ask for the basis of such a proposition, or a definition of the term.

I agree with mark -- all you're doing is defining the properties of "spirit" arbitrarily, or based on popular ideas about ghosts.

And on a general understanding of the meaning of the word. Otherwise, it's sort of a meaningless concept, isn't it?

You'll next ask "how" and I'll just say, "I don't know, no one does." And sorry again, but that won't cause me to press the epistemic panic button and wave the white flag. :smile: Any more than you would if I asked you to explain how a nuclear reactor worked, or how many ions were in the moons of Saturn.

The difference being that if he wanted to find out and explain how a nuclear reactor worked, he could.

When you went to seminary, DJ, did they ever use a term, hypostasis?

If they didn't, I can see why you don't have an answer to this one. :smile:

Except that hypostasis is not an answer, it's just a label for the question.

[jpholding]

No one believes that it does. Bias goes to the credibility of the witness. Or does it not?

Not in some rhetorical circles, no.

So explain to us how we know that Tacitus is "exceptionally reliable in what he reports."

To sum it up, what he says corresponds with what we know from other sources; he shows a critical nature. If you want to know more than that, or disagree, you'll have to do what I did -- read the Tacitean scholars' works.

Let's take some non-biblicle miracle account that you assume could be true. Pick one.

Josephus' accounts of miracles around the time of the Jewish War with Rome.

If you have to choose to assert in a life or death situation that the account is true or untrue - which way will you choose? Why?

It's hard to imagine anyone wanting to kill me for thinking any of these were true, but I'd stick to my principles and choose death. If people like that are around this world is too crazy to live in any more.

Data?

Read the whole article linked to and find the answers to your question.

Interesting. What do you suppose similar data would show about the credulity of the larger populace of the USA today?

Don't know. Also depends on the subject matter. Make it ads for beer or gossip about Michael Jackson and the numbers may go through the roof.


I'm not at all surprised.

That I am consistent?

Stupid no. Less sophisticated in terms of scientific understanding, yes.

Sanitizing the insult doesn't really change things. It does not take a lot of sophistication to know that dead people don't normally pop back alive, or that healings are usually not instantaneous, or that a cow does not normally give birth to a lamb. The only places this really applies is when the truth is inaccessible, as in believing that the sun was a chariot drawn by Apollo or the moon is made of green cheese.

Is it your argument that these factors are not relevant when trying to evaluate the validity of a miraculous claim made in a historical account?

More like that they are not merely to be thrown out as an all-purpose convenience for dismissing what is reported.


True, but the difference is that the non-materialist has put forth the proposition of a "spirit" in the first place.

DJ reports that he is a deist so he's not really approaching it from your perspective, I think.


The difference being that if he wanted to find out and explain how a nuclear reactor worked, he could.

So could I -- by being dead.

Except that hypostasis is not an answer, it's just a label for the question.

All you're really telling me is that you don't know what a hypostasis is, either....and/or that you answer starting with materialism. Either way, since I was directing to DJ and not you, it's not quite as though I'm writing for you. If you're in for that, that's for another thread....

[Babaloo]

From what I know of JP, He might be intentionally being nice to you for the purpose of sadistically irritating Ed and the guys that run those "Holding-Haytah" sites.:lol:

ED: Funny, EC!

But then again, I'm not THAT "easily irritated." So perhaps Holding and Walton's "sadism" is wasted on the likes of folks such as myself? One of my favorite quotations is in fact, "Always forgive your enemies, nothing annoys them more."

[Babaloo]

Heh heh. Here's a "secret", DJ... :teeth:
I finally realized that I'd never get a better answer from him [Babinski] on any argument than, "Well, so and so is a good Christian and he doesn't agree with you."
JP

Dear JP,

It's not a matter of the "goodness" of Christians or other scholars who disagree with your particular interpretations of various Scriptural passages, it's a matter of genuine differences of scholarly opinion. You may have a librarian science degree but I work at a university library, and have done so for 15 years. I read Biblical and theological journals every week, including perusing abstracts of the latest articles and theses in both Old and New Testament research. Not a few biblically related questions from longer than 50 years ago remain either unanswered, only partially answered, unclear, indeterminate, controversial, inconclusive, or opinions remain divided.

In fact I have one book in particular I would like you to read and review, Walton's NIV APPLICATION COMMENTARY on GENESIS, available at major Christian bookstores, including Baptist and Evangelical ones. I'd like you to read what Walton, a prof. of O.T. at Billy Graham's alma mater, the Harvard of Evangelicalism, Wheaton College, has to say about such topics like how the ancient Hebrews who wrote Genesis understood the shape of the cosmos, what the "serpent" in Genesis represented, what the word "satan" represented to the early Hebrews and how it was used in the O.T., and how the ancients understood the stories in Genesis of "the sons of god," The Flood, and Tower of Babel. Those are the primeval history portions of Genesis, and only a portion of Walton's book. But I would like to read your review of them sometime.

Thanks,
Ed

[Taran Wanderer]

I'm sure this belongs in a new thread, but ...

In fact I have one book in particular I would like you to read and review, Walton's NIV APPLICATION COMMENTARY on GENESIS
JP, yes, please do! Dr. Walton was one of my professors, and I would love to hear what you have to say about his stuff! He also cowrote the IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament.

[jpholding]

But then again, I'm not THAT "easily irritated."

You're not bright enough to be irritated, Edski. You're like the child who roams through the meadow picking flowers and prancing, oblivious to when you step in the buffalo patties. Wayne Dyer deludes himself just as capably.


It's not a matter of the "goodness" of Christians or other scholars who disagree with your particular interpretations of various Scriptural passages, it's a matter of genuine differences of scholarly opinion.

Please. Spare me these PC epiphanies you experience. It runs down to that you haven't the horsepower to actually engage an argument and make a critical comparison. That's why your favorite "anti-apologetic" is collecting (gag) "anti-testimonies".

You may have a librarian science degree but I work at a university library, and have done so for 15 years.

I know what kind of job you have, Edski -- the kind that people get who can't go any further. At Orlando Public, the job you do is held by little old ladies who maybe finished high school. Based on how you handled our correspondence, I doubt if you understand 80% of what you read.

In fact I have one book in particular I would like you to read and review, Walton's NIV APPLICATION COMMENTARY on GENESIS,

I'll see if its at the local seminary library.

[Doubting John]

The way that Christians actually gain the Christian framework for viewing history is itself fraught with problems. Today’s Christians seem to think of first century believers as if they were much like modern people, that they were not superstitious people, that they thought of nature as operating by the fixed laws of nature, and that these first century believers had the same amount of skepticism we do about the miraculous today. Yet these early Christians believed anyway.

Today’s Christians furthermore seem to think early Christians required exact quotes from the people they quoted from. That they covered events just like Time magazine correspondents do who seek to get the source's words verbatim. Today’s Christians assume that the early Christians were historians like modern historians in that they wanted to know exactly what happened, who said what, and where they were when it was said. In this way believers today can claim that the biblical writers wrote their stories the way they happened. None of this is true at all. They were people of their times just like anyone is a product of their times too, and being a child of our own time is simply unavoidable.


Why is it that many of today’s Christians will so quickly argue with modern day "cultists" who claim to have a vision or a story or a miracle, and yet they don’t see the first century Jesus movement as a cult? If we had lived in the first century we would have seen them as a cult. And cults make strange claims too. And they exaggerate. And they continue making claim upon claim that believers are to follow. They may not even remember what the original claims were, or care.


So on the one hand, Christians think that first century believers were initially like modern people, in order to bolster their belief in the miracle claims of the Bible, since these people came to believe. On the other hand, Christians think modern day cultists are superstitious gullible people, unlike the first century believers. Why the disparity here? If Christians today respect the beliefs of ancient first century people, then why do most of them reject the beliefs of modern day cultists? The only reason they do this is because they are already convinced of the first century stories. But if modern day cults can offer up strange and unbelievable stories, then how much more so is it probable that first century Christians did.

[Soundsurfr]

Not in some rhetorical circles, no.

Thanks for the non-answer. I'll take that as a yes, unless you care to explain which rhetorical circles and why.

To sum it up, what he says corresponds with what we know from other sources; he shows a critical nature.

Which brings us to the real point I was seeking, namely that corroboration from other sources, especially unrelated sources, is far stronger an indicator of accuracy and reliability than any social analysis of the author or the author's demographics. Outside of the writings of early Christians, who are admitedly biased in favor of a given theology, what corroborative writings do we have for a resurrection or a virgin birth of Jesus?

Josephus' accounts of miracles around the time of the Jewish War with Rome. It's hard to imagine anyone wanting to kill me for thinking any of these were true, but I'd stick to my principles and choose death. If people like that are around this world is too crazy to live in any more.

It's a hypothetical, JP. Let's say God is the one putting you to the test. If you're telling me that you would stake your soul on it and declare that in your heart of hearts you believe there is enough evidence in favor of Josephus' accounts of miracles in the time of the Jewish War with Rome to err on the side that they did in fact occur, that tells me what I needed to know. I would love to pursue that further with you, but it may be off topic.

Read the whole article linked to and find the answers to your question. Fair enough. If I have the time, I will.


That I am consistent?

Yes, and that you view epistemology in a very different way than I do. Back to the OP, does that make me a "dishonest doubter"?

Sanitizing the insult doesn't really change things.

It's not an insult. The kind of things you write in response to Babaloo, for example, are insults. I imagine there's some history there.

It does not take a lot of sophistication to know that dead people don't normally pop back alive, or that healings are usually not instantaneous, or that a cow does not normally give birth to a lamb.

Couldn't have said THAT better myself. :lol: Except I might have added that donkeys and snakes don't usually talk, seas don't often part for escaping slaves, bushes rarely burn without damage, folks don't easily walk on water, change water into wine, or multiply loaves and fishes, people hardly ever spontaneously turn into pillars of salt, and I'd be hard pressed to cite a single instance of fortress walls being taken down by marching trumpeters.

More like that they are not merely to be thrown out as an all-purpose convenience for dismissing what is reported.

I see that as a misrepresentation. You've validated the argument structure by attempting to present the sensibilities of that society in general terms and then on that basis extrapolate the validity of their written accounts. This is no different, it's just a different conclusion based on a different set of premises.

So could I -- by being dead.

I'm not impressed.

All you're really telling me is that you don't know what a hypostasis is, either....and/or that you answer starting with materialism.

I think you're mistaken. As you are someone who DOES know what a hypostasis is, please tell me what it is. I will ask that in this case you do so in your own words from your own perspective, and not by providing a reference or a link. Humor me.

Either way, since I was directing to DJ and not you, it's not quite as though I'm writing for you. If you're in for that, that's for another thread....

I'm game, but I thought we were pretty much on topic. DJ's response above is very much in line with my arguments - perhaps a bit more eloquent.

[jpholding]

Thanks for the non-answer. I'll take that as a yes, unless you care to explain which rhetorical circles and why.

The names of the persons in question would probably mean nothing to you. The likes of Acharya S, for example.

Which brings us to the real point I was seeking, namely that corroboration from other sources, especially unrelated sources, is far stronger an indicator of accuracy and reliability than any social analysis of the author or the author's demographics. Outside of the writings of early Christians, who are admitedly biased in favor of a given theology, what corroborative writings do we have for a resurrection or a virgin birth of Jesus?

Why exclude early Christians? You're now running the same circle as before., using bias as an automatic guide. You have also added in "unrelated sources" as a guide arbitrarily. It's also very fuzzy. One may say that Tacitus is "related to" Suetonius because both were members of the Roman government.



Yes, and that you view epistemology in a very different way than I do. Back to the OP, does that make me a "dishonest doubter"?

I can't say. I haven't read your book. :teeth:

It's not an insult. The kind of things you write in response to Babaloo, for example, are insults. I imagine there's some history there.

Years, including far too many vacuous emails from his quarter. Nevertheless I remain by the view that your descriptions of the ancients are merely presumptuous stereotypes.

spontaneously turn into pillars of salt, and I'd be hard pressed to cite a single instance of fortress walls being taken down by marching trumpeters.

Precisely. Thus your assumption of credulity is defeated.

I see that as a misrepresentation.

You don't see the people arguing it that I do....


So could I -- by being dead.

I'm not impressed.

But you are refuted in the point you attempted.


I think you're mistaken. As you are someone who DOES know what a hypostasis is, please tell me what it is.

The person or personification of an attribute of deity that operates as a functional extension of the deity. As for no links, since this one is in my own words, you'll just have to have it:

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/trinitydefense.html

DJ's response above is very much in line with my arguments - perhaps a bit more eloquent.

As a deist he does at least allow for the conceptual possibility of miracles....

[jpholding]

Today’s Christians seem to think of first century believers as if they were much like modern people,

Agreed. For example, we are a guilt culture; we are a shame culture. They were collectivist; we are individualist. I even see that mistake in your own book here and there, DJ. :teeth: With your treatment of Mark 10:18, for example.

that they were not superstitious people,

? -- I thought you were making a point about how they were different than us? What about horoscopes, rabbit's feet, step on a crack break your mother's back, lucky socks? And if you include religion in that, you're really in a bind for comparison.

that they thought of nature as operating by the fixed laws of nature,

? again. I thought you were going to highlight DIFFERENCES. They saw the laws as fixed; they just thought that gods would step in and mess with things like a human would. That's not a breaking of the laws.

and that these first century believers had the same amount of skepticism we do about the miraculous today.

OK, I give up, DJ. So where are the differences you were going to cite? I gave you that item link on skepticism in that particular period.


Today’s Christians furthermore seem to think early Christians required exact quotes from the people they quoted from.

I guess you missed the discussions in the literature about oral tradition, vox vs verba, etc? Though if you mean the average Joe in the pew, you are very much right....

Today’s Christians assume that the early Christians were historians like modern historians in that they wanted to know exactly what happened, who said what, and where they were when it was said.

? -- But DJ, we have popular biographies and such that are filled with narrative license today. Nothing at all has changed. Compare Lincoln's bio by Oates to that of Donald, for example. But both are respected Lincoln biographers.

Why is it that many of today’s Christians will so quickly argue with modern day "cultists" who claim to have a vision or a story or a miracle, and yet they don’t see the first century Jesus movement as a cult?

Dunno. They should do like I did -- thoroughly investigate the truth claims before saying yea or nay. That's how I dispensed with Mormonism.

Why the disparity here?

Well, DJ, I guess they're just too much like the culture they live in, eh? :wink:

[Soundsurfr]

The names of the persons in question would probably mean nothing to you. The likes of Acharya S, for example.

I know who she is. That obfuscation behind us, do we agree or disagree that bias speaks to the credibility of the witness in assessing a historical account?

Why exclude early Christians? You're now running the same circle as before., using bias as an automatic guide. You have also added in "unrelated sources" as a guide arbitrarily. It's also very fuzzy. One may say that Tacitus is "related to" Suetonius because both were members of the Roman government.

Would you say that we have corroborative sources for a resurrection event? How about a virgin birth?

I can't say. I haven't read your book. :teeth:

My book is not on that topic. But point taken. Someday, if you're interested, I'll try to articulate my view of epistemology.

Nevertheless I remain by the view that your descriptions of the ancients are merely presumptuous stereotypes.

As you wish. But the people in question already believed in miracles (and a God who would perform them) regardless of the reported Jesus incidents, did they not? And their basis for believing in these miracles was nothing more than oral and scriptural tradition, yes? Your argument that they were an incredulous lot strikes me as untenable.

Precisely. Thus your assumption of credulity is defeated.

? Is this the Viet Nam approach? (Declare victory and crawl back home.) The point is, as I stated above, they believed all that stuff, regardless of whether or not they had good reason to. They believed what they were told.

But you are refuted in the point you attempted.

Because you claim to be able to know something about spirits by being dead? I must have missed something.

The person or personification of an attribute of deity that operates as a functional extension of the deity.

Thank you. And that is, for all to see, a label, not an answer or an explanation. In other words, it brings us no closer to an understanding of DJ's question of how spirit interacts with matter than before. It's analagous to:

I don't understand how a car moves.
Have you never heard of an engine?
No. What does that do?
It moves the car.

As for no links, since this one is in my own words, you'll just have to have it:

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/trinitydefense.html



No, I specifically did NOT want to entertain a long drawn out formal diatribe replete with references to Hu, Sia, Ma'at, Mesaru and Kettu and peppered with phrases like "ultimately it was a kind of periphrasis used to circumvent the implication of direct contact between the transcendent God and the creation" :duh:

Such works may have merit in other circles, JP. But if you'll allow me a small criticism, I perceive them to be the safety blankets you hide behind in this forum when the discussion becomes a little dicey for you. I don't believe such works can be effectively argued/critiqued in a forum like this, and it sure as heck isn't on my agenda to do so even if they could.

As for me, I'm a simple guy. I like to keep it basic, foundational and informal. Maybe that's my safety blanket.

[Doubting John]

With regard to Lessing's "ugly ditch" let me ask a question:

How can our eternal destiny be at stake if it is based upon historical knowledge? Let’s say, for instance, that in order to gain an eternal reward in heaven you must know what the primary cause was for the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century, or whether or not II Peter was actually written by the apostle Peter, or why America lost the “war” in Vietnam, or whether or not Michael Jackson is a pedophile. These are all historical questions.

I suppose, if our eternal destinies were at stake then we’d certainly study such things out, as much as possible, because our lives would be at stake. But you know what? Even if this were the eternal threat, there would still be people who disagreed with each other on these issues. The main reason isn’t because we wouldn’t want to know the truth for fear of a lifestyle change, because we would be desperate to know the truth. It would be because we have different ways of looking at the facts. We have different presuppositions about what is even considered a fact. That’s the nature of human understanding, and that is the nature of historical investigation.
But if we ended up being wrong, God would be heard to say, “I’m sorry, you got it wrong. Off you go into eternal damnation.”

That wouldn’t be fair would it? That is, unless there was an overwhelming case on behalf of any of these issues, and even that wouldn’t be fair, because an overwhelming case is still not a case that is certain, is it? A sufficient, but not certain case, is insufficient, when our eternal destiny is at stake, wouldn’t you think? But that’s exactly the situation we face when it comes to believing the truth about Christian history, isn’t it? People who get it wrong will be punished forever, according to the Christian faith.

Now I know that Christians will respond that getting Biblical history wrong isn’t what condemns people to hell—their sins send them to hell. But the way to be saved from eternal condemnation, according to them, is to get biblical history right—that is, they must believe certain Biblical historical claims.
When it comes to history, especially the miraculous “history” represented in the Bible, there can never be a sufficient case for accepting it—much less a certain one—because it depends on the particular framework we use to view history in the first place. This is, in my opinion, is circular reasoning. There is simply no way to tell for sure that a historical religion like Christianity is true based upon history, and there is likewise no way that God can judge us for all of eternity if we get it wrong. Lessing is surely right. What we need today is some incontrovertible evidence for Christianity, like modern miracles.

[Doubting John]

Let me briefly argue with a couple of anticipated objections to what I’ve written about history and evidence and our final destinations.

ONE—While there is no historical proof of Christianity there is sufficient historical evidence for Christianity. People who reject it do so because they are either “ignorant,” “stupid” or “dishonest with the facts.” That is, a “fully rational rejection of Christianity is impossible.”

A freiend and former student with me at LCS, Dr. James Sennett, calls this objection the Christian “Illusion of Rational Superiority" in his forthcoming book: This Much I Know: A Postmodern Apologetic. It's an illusion, he claims. [Although, as a Christian philosopher he argues it is an unnecessary illusion due to the fact that even though he has a reasonable faith, it is “not rationally compelling to all.”]


Sennett argues that the Christian cannot overlook “one simple but powerful fact: most of the truly brilliant, deepest thinking, most profoundly influential movers and shaker of the last two hundred years have not been Christians. Neither Albert Einstein nor Bertrand Russell nor Sigmund Freud nor Stephen Hawking nor Karl Marx professed Jesus as lord. And the list goes on. To suggest that these people failed to believe because of ignorance or some rational defect is ludicrous.” [Of course, the illusion runs both ways, Sennett claims. There is no rational superiority for unbelief, either. Atheist Thomas Nagel is quoted as saying he was made uneasy “by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers.”]


Sennett informs us that “if there is one lesson that modern epistemology has taught us, it is that almost nothing is as rationally certain as “the illusion” claims Christianity to be. In other words, almost nothing is so obvious that one could never rationally reject it.” Furthermore, it seems possible that “one could rationally deny almost any claim, even if that claim is true.” There are plenty of philosophical reasons for Sennett’s argument, and many historical examples. The fact is, many scholars have indeed examined the historical evidence for Christianity and they regard that evidence as flawed. [See www.infidels.com for some examples]. Some historians like G.A. Wells have examined the evidence and concluded that Jesus never even existed! See his books: Did Jesus Exist? (1986), and The Historical Evidence for Jesus (1982). Whether Wells is right or not is beside the point here.


TWO—The origin and the historical continuity of the church from the earliest days up until now, even if somewhat fragmented, provides sufficient evidence for the claims made about Jesus. That is, the history of the church provides sufficient evidence to believe in the New Testament documents of the church.

But think about this. The history of the church provides sufficient evidence for the history about Jesus. History provides evidence for history? Lessing would say, whether or not we have an accurate history of the earliest days of the church is itself a historical claim, and only as certain as history allows. How one sees the origin of the church is a historical question fraught with all of the same problems mentioned earlier in this essay. Quite simply there are various accounts of the origins of the church. [For one account of the earliest days of the church see John Dominic Crossan’s The Birth of Christianity: Discovering What Happened In The Years Immediately After The Execution Of Jesus (HarperSanFransico, 1998), aside from the fact of whether you agree with him or not].

It’s just false to say that history provides justification for viewing history. Islam, is another historical religion. Does that history justify their faith? Well, it depends upon whether you approach Muslim history from a Muslim framework, doesn’t it? The Mormons have a history to their faith too, howbeit not as lengthy as Christianity or Islam. Does that history justify their faith? Again, it depends on whether you approach the Mormon history from a Mormon framework.

In addition, when an outsider looks at Christian history he will find so many disagreements down through the years between different denominations and inside of each one of them, that it becomes quite a tangled mess to figure out which branch of Christianity adheres faithfully to the spirit and/or beliefs of the first Christians. Even the earliest Christians, including the apostles themselves, had internal debates about what beliefs and practices were truly Christian ones, along with who their true leaders were. [See Paul’s debates over accepting Gentiles into the faith, Acts 15, and Galatians; and see Paul’s answers to Chloe’s household in I Corinthians. There were people in the early church that wanted to discredit Paul, II Corinthians, and so on].

According to James D.G. Dunn, “earliest Christianity was quite a diverse phenomenon. The Christianity established by the first apostles was little different from Christianity since then—the same sorts of tensions and differences, even divisions, such as we know all too well today!” [Evidence for Jesus, Westminister Press, 1985, p. 99]. There were three branches of early Christianity which vied for dominance: “Catholic,” “Jewish,” and “Gnostic.” Concerning Gnostic Christianity Dunn acknowledges that “much of the 20th century scholarly debate about Christian beginnings has focused on the question of whether Gnosticism was already in full flower before Christianity and whether Christianity borrowed its ideas about Christ as heavenly redeemer from Gnosticism, rather than the other way around.” (p. 97). One thing seems likely, according to Dunn, most of the evidence and documents from Gnostic churches were suppressed and/or destroyed as Catholic Christianity gained in popularity.

So again, you simply cannot dismiss what I've said. My argument has considerable force, and you must admit this if you're to be honest with me, even if in the end you disagree.

[jpholding]

I know who she is. That obfuscation behind us,

What obfuscation? I said that there were some who abuse the argument, and she is a perfect example.

do we agree or disagree that bias speaks to the credibility of the witness in assessing a historical account?

Make it "can but does not automatically speak" and we do.

Would you say that we have corroborative sources for a resurrection event? How about a virgin birth?

Yes, because I regard Matthew and Luke as independent or virtually witnesses.

But the people in question already believed in miracles (and a God who would perform them) regardless of the reported Jesus incidents, did they not?

Obviously. Yet our belief in the moon landing doesn't mean you can't believe it if we someday say we have gone to Mars.

And their basis for believing in these miracles was nothing more than oral and scriptural tradition, yes?

As with most past events from the mundane to the spectacular, of course.

Your argument that they were an incredulous lot strikes me as untenable.

How so? You seem to imply 1) that prior belief in miraculous possibility is some sort of problem, which is the very point at issue, and thus is a circular appeal; 2) you seem to imply some deficiency in "tradition" in a blanket form -- what is your problem with this?

? Is this the Viet Nam approach? (Declare victory and crawl back home.)

This is the Hulk Hogan approach. Body slam. :teeth:

The point is, as I stated above, they believed all that stuff, regardless of whether or not they had good reason to.

And who 1) gave you insight into whether or not they had "good reason" 2) made you arbiter of what constituted "good reason"?


Because you claim to be able to know something about spirits by being dead? I must have missed something.

You indicated that things could be found out. Thus you refuted your own point, since knowing about spirits can be found out, even if it is rather inconvenient.


Thank you. And that is, for all to see, a label, not an answer or an explanation.

Your application of "label" is merely a label itself and not anything that shows that it is not an answer or an explanation. It is more like, "It's an answer, and I don't like it" that you are saying.

It's analagous to:

I don't understand how a car moves.
Have you never heard of an engine?
No. What does that do?
It moves the car.

I agree. The person saying the first thing and third would be quite silly. :smile: I can just see him next denying that engines exist.


Such works may have merit in other circles, JP. But if you'll allow me a small criticism, I perceive them to be the safety blankets you hide behind in this forum when the discussion becomes a little dicey for you.

To put it simply, you're not capable of criticizing it. I suspect you'd have just as much luck with Plato's Logos or with the rabbis and the Memra.

[jpholding]

How's the book on pool, DJ?



How can our eternal destiny be at stake if it is based upon historical knowledge?

You ask this as though it were some kind of problem....! :smile: Why is it a problem? You say:

Even if this were the eternal threat, there would still be people who disagreed with each other on these issues.

And...what? This is a problem? How does this change that some of these people will be right and others will be wrong?

It would be because we have different ways of looking at the facts. We have different presuppositions about what is even considered a fact.

And, um, this validates our being wrong, in what way, precisely?

Southern slaveholders had a "different way" of looking at African persons. So are you giving then their slaves back now, since you can't fault them for having "presuppositions" and it's "the nature of human understanding"?

That wouldn’t be fair would it? That is, unless there was an overwhelming case on behalf of any of these issues, and even that wouldn’t be fair, because an overwhelming case is still not a case that is certain, is it?

Well, DJ, that's why you need to make a case showing it wasn't fair, don't you? The PC appeal may tug some heartstrings but it won't change the means one iota. We're not here talking about the Aztec chief who never heard the Gospel, of course -- that's another set of issues. But you of all people are certainly in the least of positions to plead ignorance, no?


When it comes to history, especially the miraculous “history” represented in the Bible, there can never be a sufficient case for accepting it—much less a certain one—because it depends on the particular framework we use to view history in the first place. This is, in my opinion, is circular reasoning.

As stated, it surely is: You've already declared without proving it that there can never be a sufficient case, because you have not proven that the framework is a problem in the first place.

ONE—While there is no historical proof of Christianity there is sufficient historical evidence for Christianity. People who reject it do so because they are either “ignorant,” “stupid” or “dishonest with the facts.” That is, a “fully rational rejection of Christianity is impossible.”

If you ever doubt this is possible, I'll introduce you to some people: Acharya S, the Roman Piso theorist, and Jason Long....

Sennett argues that the Christian cannot overlook “one simple but powerful fact: most of the truly brilliant, deepest thinking, most profoundly influential movers and shaker of the last two hundred years have not been Christians.

What, is he serious? Now that's just plain dumb. I read Freud's Moses and Monotheism and the man's ignorance on that subject was astounding. Just because Hawking knows physics doesn't mean he knows how to argue for Marcan priority. Marx just ran with the hatred he felt for his past and made a conscious decision to wave off Judaism and Christianity. Come on, DJ, you're not serious, are you?

l examples. The fact is, many scholars have indeed examined the historical evidence for Christianity and they regard that evidence as flawed. [See www.infidels.com for some examples]

Infidels.org, actually. Infidels.com isn't being used right now.

Some historians like G.A. Wells have examined the evidence and concluded that Jesus never even existed! See his books: Did Jesus Exist?

WHAT! DJ, you can't be serious here. Wells is a professor of GERMAN, not a historian! NO historian holds to the Jesus myth. Real historians (Michael Grant, Ian Wilson) look at Wells like you or I would look at a cockroach. His case has been mauled to the point of death. If you doubt it, take me on!

Whether Wells is right or not is beside the point here.

It's spot on the point, DJ, and a perfect illustration of why Sennett is out on the edge of the loony bin. He's confusing wisdom with knowledge, and knowledge of X with knowledge of Y.


TWO—The origin and the historical continuity of the church from the earliest days up until now, even if somewhat fragmented, provides sufficient evidence for the claims made about Jesus. That is, the history of the church provides sufficient evidence to believe in the New Testament documents of the church.

This canard too, huh?

But think about this. The history of the church provides sufficient evidence for the history about Jesus. History provides evidence for history?

Um, yeah.... that's how historians normally do their business, DJ....Tacitus provides evidence for what he reports, and so on....


Lessing would say, whether or not we have an accurate history of the earliest days of the church is itself a historical claim, and only as certain as history allows.

Which is exactly why I ask why Lessing didn't just go hide under his bed, if that's how he saw things.

For one account of the earliest days of the church see John Dominic Crossan’s The Birth of Christianity: Discovering What Happened In The Years Immediately After The Execution Of Jesus (HarperSanFransico, 1998), aside from the fact of whether you agree with him or not

Is that a way of saying, "I won't debate whether he is right or not?"

Islam, is another historical religion. Does that history justify their faith? Well, it depends upon whether you approach Muslim history from a Muslim framework, doesn’t it?

No, you don't need a "Muslim framework" for their religion, because their critical historical truth claims are, as a whole, inaccessible to scrutiny.

The Mormons have a history to their faith too, howbeit not as lengthy as Christianity or Islam. Does that history justify their faith? Again, it depends on whether you approach the Mormon history from a Mormon framework.

No, it depends on whether you are willing to face up to the serious problems Mormonism has both with Joseph Smith's absuive exegesis of the Bible, New World archaeology, etc. Come on, DJ, don't try to argue that these are all on equal terms. That's PC absurdity.

In addition, when an outsider looks at Christian history he will find so many disagreements down through the years between different denominations and inside of each one of them, that it becomes quite a tangled mess to figure out which branch of Christianity adheres faithfully to the spirit and/or beliefs of the first Christians.

Not really, if you're willing to try. You'll note that Acts 15 revealed a clear winner; the losers, if they survived at all, went on to become the Ebionites and then died away by the third century. And the case they made would not be hard to defeat.

Mere appeal to diversity of opinion proves nothing whatsoever about epistemic truth, DJ.

According to James D.G. Dunn, “earliest Christianity was quite a diverse phenomenon. The Christianity established by the first apostles was little different from Christianity since then—the same sorts of tensions and differences, even divisions, such as we know all too well today!”

True. But Dunn also stumps for certain views as right or wrong in his books. For example, you won't find him anywhere, in spite of this, arguing that the Gnostic vision of Jesus reflected accurately what was said and done by a Jewish prophet of first century Palestine. Don't take Dunn for more than he says.

So again, you simply cannot dismiss what I've said.

I don't. I analyze first, then accept or dismiss as required. But I'm afraid the force is not with you in this arena. :smile:

[Soundsurfr]

Make it "can but does not automatically speak" and we do.

Good. We have established that bias can, but does not automatically speak to the credibility of the witness. Seems to me this was the point originally made that started this whole exchange on bias.

Yes, because I regard Matthew and Luke as independent or virtually witnesses.

Well, as for the virgin birth, Luke has nothing to say on the matter. So I take it you would agree there is no corroborative text for that belief. Nor could there have been any "witnesses", in the operative sense of the word. So as a Christian, you just have to take the virgin birth on blind faith, don't you?

As for Luke and Matthew being "virtually witnesses" to the resurrection, I do not know what you mean by that term. One is either a witness or not a witness. My understanding of the present scholarship is that most likely neither was a witness.

How so? You seem to imply 1) that prior belief in miraculous possibility is some sort of problem, which is the very point at issue, and thus is a circular appeal;

No. What I am implying is that belief in the miraculous without evidence is indicative of a mindset. Precisely the type of mindset you have been arguing they did NOT espouse. What evidence do you suppose they had to go on with regard to the parting of the Red Sea, the tower of Babel, or other such historical miracle accounts?

2) you seem to imply some deficiency in "tradition" in a blanket form -- what is your problem with this?

With regard to truth value, tradition is not an indicator. It may be a compass pointer, but there has to be more evidence than just tradition before any credence can be given to a story, especially a miraculous story. Otherwise, we'd be hard pressed not to believe any traditional account of the miraculous. That's my problem with it.

And who 1) gave you insight into whether or not they had "good reason" 2) made you arbiter of what constituted "good reason"?

Well it's my opinion, JP. I'm entitled to mine and you're entitled to yours. If you're interested in the basis for my opinion, I'll provide it when you ask for it.

You indicated that things could be found out. Thus you refuted your own point, since knowing about spirits can be found out, even if it is rather inconvenient.

Nonsense. You have given me no reason to believe that anything with regard to knowledge of spirits can be found out except to assert that you'd find out if you were dead. C'mon.

Your application of "label" is merely a label itself and not anything that shows that it is not an answer or an explanation. It is more like, "It's an answer, and I don't like it" that you are saying.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying it's not an explanation. You can read it again if you're not sure. With regard to this, you provide a non-explanation and then insist that I somehow prove it's not an explanation. Now there's an interesting twist on the concept of impetus. Perhaps Doubting John would like to weigh in on the effectiveness of JP's "explanation".

To put it simply, you're not capable of criticizing it. I suspect you'd have just as much luck with Plato's Logos or with the rabbis and the Memra.

Ah, let the condescension begin. I'm not interested in reading your scholarly works and criticizing them in this forum, JP. I'm interested in debating this topic within the context of these message boards. Perhaps you're not capable of doing that.

[Doubting John]

J.P. I find it amazing that you don't see the force of anything I've said regarding historical knowledge and the belief in miracles. As my Christian scholar friend, James Sennet, once said about the problem of evil: "if this problem doesn't keep you from sleeping at night, then you don't understand it." Sennet wrote the only book I know of about Alvin Plantinga's philosophy--it's one in which Plantinga himself wrote the foreward to it, and recommended it.

And while my historical evidences problem isn't like the problem of evil, I know it has a great deal of force that you simply refuse to acknowledge. G. K. Chesterson said, "it isn't that they can't see the solution. It is that they can't see the problem." You, J.P. cannot see the problem.

The problem is that history is subject to all kinds of interpretations and biases which are a necessary part of doing history--one simply cannot step outside this. And while I believe some histories are better than others and more accurate than others, this is no way diminishes the problem of historical knowledge, and you should at least be bright enough and honest enough to admit this. If you either cannot acknowledge this problem because you refuse to, or because you're not bright enough to, then I'm simply done here. If you can research like you say you can, then check of a few studies on the historiography of theories of history.

But the problem is compounded even more when there are claims to the miraclulous in history. You simply cannot look into the past and say to me you believe every report of the miraculous in history. Tell me, how do you determine whether or not the event happened? Go ahead, tell me. Some claims support a particular religion. Do you have the time and the scholarship to study out every miraculous claim in history? No one does! Have you ever taken seriously the claim that Allah miraculously spoke to The Prophet? If you have, then since you approach history from the Christian faith you are already predisposed to reject such a claim, that is, your historical framework will not allow you to accept the Muslim framework for understanding history. So you apply Hume's standards when approaching all other miracles in the past as well as the present, except your own!

But your own faith is a historical one too, subject to various presuppositions. The question is where you get your presuppositions. You say you get them from historical events that supposedly occurred in ancient times. Really? The truth is that you got your presuppositions from your upbringing in the Christian faith, or if you had a later conversion in life you gained them from those people whom you liked and trusted to inform you, and they got them from others. That's what allows you to see the past as evidence for you in the first place, because you come to the past with the presuppositions to see Biblical history as evidence for you, just like Mormons and Muslims do with their history.

And all you can say is that you are right about history and they are wrong. And because they are wrong they will suffer for it for all eternity in some way or another. But they think otherwise, don't they? And I think otherwise than they. Now just because we all disagree doesn't mean we are all wrong, either. Somebody might be right, right? But there is this huge historical problem, and you just don't see it, or refuse to acknowledge it.

[jpholding]

Well, as for the virgin birth, Luke has nothing to say on the matter.

:glare: Excuse me?

Have you read Luke 1:28-38?

Nor could there have been any "witnesses", in the operative sense of the word.

Mary is not a witness to her own experience?

So as a Christian, you just have to take the virgin birth on blind faith, don't you?

No more than you take on "blind faith" what is singularly testified to by any historian....IOW you won't get anywhere trying to male this out as an actual problem. :teeth:


As for Luke and Matthew being "virtually witnesses" to the resurrection, I do not know what you mean by that term.

The quality of their sources was such that it is as good as witness testimony.

My understanding of the present scholarship is that most likely neither was a witness.

Only right where Luke is concerned. "Present scholarship: as you call it has never authorized the texts using criteria of the sort used for other documents; if you think that's debatable, you know what to do...


No. What I am implying is that belief in the miraculous without evidence is indicative of a mindset.

Of course it is. So is belief in anything at all without evidence. But where do you get the idea that they had NO evidence? What you're really questioning is not that they had evidence, but the quality of the evidence they had.

What evidence do you suppose they had to go on with regard to the parting of the Red Sea, the tower of Babel, or other such historical miracle accounts?

Recorded accounts -- just as we have for nearly all ancient history. So what is the problem, then?

With regard to truth value, tradition is not an indicator. It may be a compass pointer, but there has to be more evidence than just tradition before any credence can be given to a story, especially a miraculous story.

Why? You did not explain why tradition is actually not evidence. What is wrong with it?


Well it's my opinion, JP. I'm entitled to mine and you're entitled to yours. If you're interested in the basis for my opinion, I'll provide it when you ask for it.

I'm asking.

Nonsense. You have given me no reason to believe that anything with regard to knowledge of spirits can be found out except to assert that you'd find out if you were dead. C'mon.

Then you complaint is not that it can't be found out at all, but that you can't get a report back.


No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying it's not an explanation. You can read it again if you're not sure. With regard to this, you provide a non-explanation and then insist that I somehow prove it's not an explanation.

:shrug: If you're looking for a philosophical defense of the existence of gods and hypostatic entities, I gave you some reading....

I'm interested in debating this topic within the context of these message boards. Perhaps you're not capable of doing that.

I am indeed not capable of succumbing to gross oversimplications. :teeth:

[jpholding]

J.P. I find it amazing that you don't see the force of anything I've said regarding historical knowledge and the belief in miracles.

Welcome to the real world, DJ. :teeth:

As my Christian scholar friend, James Sennet, once said about the problem of evil: "if this problem doesn't keep you from sleeping at night, then you don't understand it."

Sounds like he needs to educate himself better or else take some NyTol. If you let your heart pound your head into submission, no, you'll never sleep. With a clear mind, certain facts become apparent:

1) The overwhelming majority of evil is caused by men of their own choice or neglect.
2) Sin is man's way of telling God to mind His own d--- business, and anyone who asks why God didn't step in and stop this or that just needs to look in the mirror. They've already told God to bug off thousands of times, so where's the basis for complaint when He does what they ask?

And while my historical evidences problem isn't like the problem of evil, I know it has a great deal of force that you simply refuse to acknowledge.

That's sweet, DJ. :ahem: It's a non-answer that shows you can't answer my points. How's that for a double-reverse?


The problem is that history is subject to all kinds of interpretations and biases which are a necessary part of doing history--one simply cannot step outside this.

Sorry, DJ, but your "argument" here is based on the assumption that YOU have "stepped outside" and clearly seen that interpretation and bias has actually caused a problem. Once again, your constant pressing of epistemic panic buttons won't get the mountain any closer to Muhammed. It's just PC dizzy spells is all it is, with no basis to speak of that does not undermine its own position.

And while I believe some histories are better than others and more accurate than others, this is no way diminishes the problem of historical knowledge, and you should at least be bright enough and honest enough to admit this.

What, this resort? :smile: If I were bright and honest, I'd be more like you?

No, DJ, the "problem" exists, sure, but it isn't without solutions. You should at least be intelligent and honest enough to admit this. How's that for a Statue of Liberty play?


If you either cannot acknowledge this problem because you refuse to, or because you're not bright enough to, then I'm simply done here. If you can research like you say you can, then check of a few studies on the historiography of theories of history.

I have. And only the wacko deconstructional fringe is rubbing their hands with the kind of despair you're positing. If you're done and not able to specifically defend your points, so be it.

But the problem is compounded even more when there are claims to the miraclulous in history. You simply cannot look into the past and say to me you believe every report of the miraculous in history.

No, I just don't arbitrarily dismiss them is all.

Tell me, how do you determine whether or not the event happened? Go ahead, tell me.

Gee, DJ, the usual criteria for determining if an event happened is 1) someone recorded it; 2) they show themselves to be reliable as a source; 3) there is no contrary evidence. That's the criteria for everything from Josephus telling us Nero had beer for breakfast to you telling me you went to have a soda. C'mon, this is basic stuff in epistemology. You believe it too, or else you'd have never trusted people like Spong and Ranke-Heinemann, who try their darndest to warp out 2s and 3s from the evidence (or at least, their own imagination, especially where Spong is concerned).

Some claims support a particular religion. Do you have the time and the scholarship to study out every miraculous claim in history?

No need to study EVERY one of them. For example, the king of Moab made some claims about Chemosh doing stuff. Do I need to look into that? Heck no. Why? Because if Chemosh did do it or not makes no diff, because the rule of the ancients was that people and their gods were interlinked. The Moabites no longer exist. So that means Chemosh 1) never existed or 2) if he did, he got his rear end capsized by a stronger being or 3) left Dodge. No, DJ, the number of candidates we actually need to examine is pretty slim -- and the one suggestion you made:

Have you ever taken seriously the claim that Allah miraculously spoke to The Prophet?

Sorry, no, but that's because the nice experts like the ones at answering-islam.org did the job for me. If you think they didn't, show why. I've had my own turn with an Islamic apologist named Nadir Ahmed and he couldn't exegete his way out of a paper bag. So sorry, it's not "predisposition" that rules out Islam for me -- it's evidence and argument. If not, why not?

So you apply Hume's standards when approaching all other miracles in the past as well as the present, except your own!

Sorry, DJ, not guilty as charged. But surely you know that Islam claims only one actual miracle?

The truth is that you got your presuppositions from your upbringing in the Christian faith,

Not me. I was raised to believe that Christianity was an intolerant, bigoted system of belief and all the Christians I knew backed up that view. So also:

or if you had a later conversion in life you gained them from those people whom you liked and trusted to inform you

-- that does not apply, either.

So whatcha gonna do, DJ? Your favorite rhetorical toys are busted; you can't use crude psychoanalysis on me; you keep pressing the panic buttons and all I do is give you a whimsical look and ask if you need some help. Your own "presuppositions" are dead on arrival. That means all you have left is to debate the facts and the claims.

So do we get to that, or not?

[Doubting John]

JP, it was nice to talk with you. But you seem much more interested in winning something, than in being honest, in my opinion. I'll let anyone who wants to wade through this thread to this point to be the judge of this themselves. I teach logic classes and your answers are filled with red herrings, straw men, oversimplifications, and you simply miss my points far too often.

You are the answer man. Everything is cut and dried for you. Nothing, not even the problem of evil presents a problem for you. I suspect that you are young. Age will have a way of mellowing you. Mark my words. Save everything you write at this point in your life, because you will sometimes be embarrassed by it later on in life.

You are so sure of yourself, aren't you? Remember this, I was too. In some ways I was like you, although, I would always admit when someone had a good point that I would have to take into further consideration, and I always treated people with respect, and still do. And I furthermore treated a person's questions with the same seriousness that they themselves treated them, even if I disagreed.

This is a waste of my time.

Go ahead, declare victory! 'cause that's what you'll do. Put another notch in your belt, too. But I think anyone who will trudge through this thread to this point will see my frustration. I'd like them to comment on it too, so here's a couple of questions:

Here's one question: Did JP treat Doubting John's questions with the fairness and seriousness that DJ's questions deserved? If the answer is "No," then answer the further question: Why is it that DJ considers continuing on with this thread a waste of his time? Is it because he was outgunned by the Big Man on campus? Or was it because JP was not being honest with DJ and that his answers were filled with red herrings, straw men, oversimplifications, and that he missed my points far too often.

[Soundsurfr]

:glare: Excuse me?

Have you read Luke 1:28-38?

Sorry, my mistake. Brain lapse - not unusual.

Mary is not a witness to her own experience?

I haven't read anything written by Mary. But if the sweet little teenage girl next door gets pregnant and claims not to have been intimate with anyone, I guess I should follow your lead and believe her.

No more than you take on "blind faith" what is singularly testified to by any historian....IOW you won't get anywhere trying to male this out as an actual problem.

How do you know whether I take on "blind faith" what is singularly testified by any historian?

The quality of their sources was such that it is as good as witness testimony.

Wow. I must admit I've never heard that one before. Would you be kind enough to give me some info on their sources - specifically the kind of info that would lead to the conclusion stated above? Against my better judgement, I'll even entertain a link.

Only right where Luke is concerned.

Matthew was a witness to the resurrection? We know this?

"Present scholarship: as you call it has never authorized the texts using criteria of the sort used for other documents;

I don't know what you mean by this.

Of course it is. So is belief in anything at all without evidence. But where do you get the idea that they had NO evidence?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but they had only written and oral tradition, stretching back farther than it was possible to trace identities of authorship. That amounts to no evidence, in my humble opinion.

What you're really questioning is not that they had evidence, but the quality of the evidence they had.

OK, if you want to loosen the term "evidence" to include folklore, then I can go along with that assessment. Speak to me of the quality of evidence they had for, say, the serpent in the garden.

Recorded accounts -- just as we have for nearly all ancient history. So what is the problem, then?

Well, for one, we do not base our moral tenets, beliefs and value systems on our recorded accounts of nearly all ancient history. I believe that the rational among us understand we are viewing these accounts through the filters of time, obscurity and human error, trying to get a general understanding of what occured, knowing that in most cases, we have a blurred, semi-accurate and very probably skewed picture of the actual events. This is regardless of whether it took place 5 years ago or 5 thousand.

The other problem is we have plenty of recorded accounts for ancient history that we rightfully dismiss as folklore or mythology for precisely the reasons I'm pointing out here -namely that a) they depict events which are clearly outside of the realm of natural occurances and b) they have no physical evidence or even corroborative testimony to support them (or perhaps other testimony conflicts), c) they are peppered with superstition and legend and/or d) they are clearly borrowed or adapted from similar folklore found in neighboring or conquering cultures. These stories may be fervently believed in, and even defended to the death by the cultures that espouse them, but that is not a measure of evidence.

I have not seen anything presented that would put biblical scripture into a different light.

Why? You did not explain why tradition is actually not evidence. What is wrong with it?

It's traditional for people in my town to consult with our local palm reader on questions like this. She says nothing is wrong with it.

I'm asking.

Very well. I don't believe they had a sufficient amount of evidence to hold to anything other than a metaphorical acceptance of their myths and legends. The only "evidence" they had were written and oral traditions, stretching back farther than it was possible to trace identities of authorship. That amounts to no evidence, in my humble opinion.

Then you complaint is not that it can't be found out at all, but that you can't get a report back.

No, my complaint is that a completely unverifyable statement such as "I can find out about this when I'm dead, so there..." is worthless and does not forward your argument. Anyone can make that statement about anything.

I am indeed not capable of succumbing to gross oversimplications. :teeth:

And I am not going to follow you into a rabbit hole of wordy, overly complicated, barely decipherable diatribes purporting to be evidence of the supernatural. If you can explain your concepts and present your evidence to me in layman's terms, then we can have a discourse. If you can't, it's going to be tough as my present life choices do not include the pursuit of a Christian seminary education.

[jpholding]

JP, it was nice to talk with you. But you seem much more interested in winning something, than in being honest, in my opinion.

Hmm. Is that the self-assurance you have planned ahead of time when you can't rebut an argument, DJ? :wink:

I teach logic classes and your answers are filled with red herrings, straw men, oversimplifications, and you simply miss my points far too often.

Fair enough. I'll let your refusal to name specifics speak for itself.


You are the answer man. Everything is cut and dried for you. Nothing, not even the problem of evil presents a problem for you. I suspect that you are young.

That tends to be what happens when you do your homework, DJ, rather than sit on your rear end wringing your hands. But I'm 37 -- don't know if you consider that "young" but age has only given me more chances to get answers. Maybe you need to think about that instead of saying that you don't want to spend time revisiting questions.

Age will have a way of mellowing you. Mark my words. Save everything you write at this point in your life, because you will sometimes be embarrassed by it later on in life.

Speak for yourself, DJ. Not for others who you assume have made/will make the same mistakes you did.

You are so sure of yourself, aren't you? [B]Remember this, I was too.

I know you were. I remember that much from the book. But you were also rather, well, uneducated and non-knowledgeable compared to me at the time, and given the level of argument you present in your book, you didn't get much farther, at least in the fields I know things about. So I take that "warning" with a grain of salt.

And I furthermore treated a person's questions with the same seriousness that they themselves treated them, even if I disagreed.

Oh really. I wonder if you would have treated with "seriousness" a question as to whether Jesus was raised by aliens. Furthermore, since you refuse to debate "minutia" it's quite clear that "treat it with seriousness" stops whenever you decide you want it to stop.

This is a waste of my time.

Remember who wrote first....

Go ahead, declare victory!

No thanks. It's been declared on my behalf. Now here's my final analysis: You use this "honest doubter" thing as a smokescreen to try to impose guilt on others for questioning your competence and tactics. That's not to say you're not actually honest to some extent, even a great extent, but that you've learned psychological manipulation tactics to enable your own dysfunctions and to sanitize them. You ran behind "I don't want to discuss that" and lack of specifics once too often for you to deserve any credibility as a critic. Astonished posturing is not an answer, DJ, and that's really all you did in answer these last few messages.

It's not a great loss. Your book is only poison to those who don't know the antidote, and as I said, when it comes to your poison, I became a Mithridates of Pontus ages ago.











I haven't read anything written by Mary. But if the sweet little teenage girl next door gets pregnant and claims not to have been intimate with anyone, I guess I should follow your lead and believe her.

I wonder why it needs to be written by Mary to have any worth.

As for the other, I believe not based merely on her word but on the full complex of events -- the resurrection and the miracles of Jesus in context support the notion of her claim, even if no direct examination of the particulars in possible.


How do you know whether I take on "blind faith" what is singularly testified by any historian?

If you do not, you are at least consistent, but also out of line with historians and setting yourself up for epistemic despair if you follow through even further.


Wow. I must admit I've never heard that one before. Would you be kind enough to give me some info on their sources - specifically the kind of info that would lead to the conclusion stated above? Against my better judgement, I'll even entertain a link.

I have tons of books for you to read. You can start with Samuel Byrskog's Story as History to get an general grip on the times; then Colin Hemer's The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History for some specifics. You'll also of course need arguments about who authored the texts; for that http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/gospdefhub.html has plenty for you to do.



Matthew was a witness to the resurrection? We know this?

To the resurrected Jesus, yes. If you want to suggest aliens raised him or that he had an evil twin, as some do, I may entertain it for all of 2 seconds as worthwhile.

I don't know what you mean by this.

It is explained in the link above. Enjoy.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but they had only written and oral tradition, stretching back farther than it was possible to trace identities of authorship. That amounts to no evidence, in my humble opinion.

Your opinion and 10 cents may buy a gumball, of course. On what basis to you do diss oral and written tradition? This will get to the heart of your "serpent in the garden" question.


Well, for one, we do not base our moral tenets, beliefs and value systems on our recorded accounts of nearly all ancient history.

And how does what we use it for change our methods for evaluating it? You speak vaguely of "filters" and such but this is mere confetti, doubt without a stated basis (as well as not having knowledge of how we are equipped to identify and deal with certain types of problems).

The other problem is we have plenty of recorded accounts for ancient history that we rightfully dismiss as folklore or mythology for precisely the reasons I'm pointing out here -namely that a) they depict events which are clearly outside of the realm of natural occurances and b) they have no physical evidence or even corroborative testimony to support them (or perhaps other testimony conflicts), c) they are peppered with superstition and legend and/or d) they are clearly borrowed or adapted from similar

In most cases I have seen, such dismissals merely beg the very same question at hand here and are no more valid, logically, than the other. A and C are particularly the same objection in essence and merely beg a question. B is arbitrary; it destroys all single-testimony events as unhistorical. D means nothing -- adaption of text and style is not the same as adaption of data, and ancient literature normally followed prior styles; this is not in the least evidence of singular dependence.


It's traditional for people in my town to consult with our local palm reader on questions like this. She says nothing is wrong with it.

Not much of an answer. You've merely arbitrarily classed it all in "palm reading" categories.


No, my complaint is that a completely unverifyable statement such as "I can find out about this when I'm dead, so there..." is worthless and does not forward your argument.

Of course it is verifiable. You just have to wait until you are dead as well for verification. Thus it is not different than the analogy of the Oort clouds.


If you can explain your concepts and present your evidence to me in layman's terms, then we can have a discourse. If you can't, it's going to be tough as my present life choices do not include the pursuit of a Christian seminary education.

Jesus did not say, as noted, Blessed are those who sit on their rears....

[Darth Executor]

You use this "honest doubter" thing as a smokescreen to try to impose guilt on others for questioning your competence and tactics. That's not to say you're not actually honest to some extent, even a great extent, but that you've learned psychological manipulation tactics to enable your own dysfunctions and to sanitize them.

I wouldn't call that psychological manipulation because that implies premeditation and if this was premeditated then DJ must have developed his tactics under the influence of something.. Alarms were ringing through my head the first time I saw the OP and for once the voices in my head were right.

[markporter]

As for the other, I believe not based merely on her word but on the full complex of events -- the resurrection and the miracles of Jesus in context support the notion of her claim, even if no direct examination of the particulars in possible.


I think that one can be taken a bit further than that actually. Some random teenage girl? No, not sure I would just go straight ahead and belive her. One that is now my intimate friend 30 years later and still testifies to that fact, someone whom I have reason to trust. I think there's a lot more reason to believe then, especially if as JP mentions there are other events too. Also I think the whole angel visitation thing is a lot more to make up than just denying having ever been with anyone.

[anewlife]

I was hoping the debate would have been more geared towards the book and its contents.

I will wait for JP's evaluation on the Tektonics site.

JP thanks for the newsletter hookup.

Dennis

[David Ragland]

Hello everyone,

I would like to discuss the issues here. However, it’s unlikely that any of us will have much of an audience with the two main combatants in this thread. If I were to formally debate someone, I’d likely focus on my opponent and leave sideline conversation alone.

So, I hereby invite any who wants to discuss this matter with me. Notice I said, "discuss". If anyone here is looking for a fight, do so elsewhere. Half-wits constantly fight, intellectuals are more prone to an exchange of ideas. Am I an intellectual? Sure, I just said I didn’t want to fight, didn’t I? :teeth:
Here are my opening statements:

(A lot of random thoughts and inquiries here. I'm sure things will take shape soon enough)

First, I think there is a larger question that supercedes and thereby nullifies the question being asked here. Ewww, did I say that? :noid:

Consider this question: If an honest doubter did indeed exist, would God ever condemn him or her? First, let’s define honest doubter as Doubting John understands it. What does he mean by the term? If we believe that God is omniscient, and He is, then He alone knows the heart of a doubter better than said doubter does, right?
That is, He knows if the person in question had dishonest motivations as the root cause of their doubt. He knows if they do or do not have a permission slip to doubt. Is would seem to me that doubting is excusable in some instances and inexcusable in others. What does the Word say about doubting God? Rom. 1:19,20 would seem to indicate that our natural instincts tell us the truth, but our corruptible wills deceive us into thinking that we can throw bricks and hide our hands.

As to whether or not an honest doubter can exist, I will begin by pointing out that this question "seems" to lack the necessary information for an informed answer. This is more than likely why Bro. J. P. wishes to read Doubting John’s book before making conslusive declarations. I blame him not. I’d do the same thing.

However, I am at least willing, for now, to question the questions. Then I will assay to answer the answers. This methodology, in my humble opinion, helps everyone to be sure they’re on the same page. All too often, debates are "jumped" into and communication mistakes are caused by not taking the time to get everyone clear on the core issues. I think this could easily happen with this topic.

Here’s why I feel this way:

The question is asked, "Is there any such thing as an honest doubter? Well, let’s reverse the question. Does doubt ever make an honest person dishonest by default? Or, is doubt an act of dishonesty by itself? Not if we define "doubt" as a feeling of uncertainty or, a questioning of the veracity of something.

It doesn’t seem logical to assume that the act of doubting would ever mean that a person is intentionally, intellectually dishonest. In my mind, the only way to ascertain such knowledge would be through a full revelation of two things: 1. What is this person’s motive? 2. What is this person’s experience and level of consideration of the facts.

I posit that God only fully knows these things and that only God is qualified to make the call. If God exists, He will judge us righteously. If He doesn’t exist, then we live in an accidental universe and we have all spent our lives struggling with something that doesn’t matter.

On a side note, how much does the doubter in question doubt that we live in a universe that just "poof" appeared of it’s own volition? What would motivate a person to believe this? Well, read the confession of one, Aldous Huxley.

Aldous Huxley, son of Thomas Huxley, writes:


"I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; and consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics. He is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do. For myself, as no doubt for most of my friends, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom. The supporters of this system claimed that it embodied the meaning - the Christian meaning, they insisted - of the world. There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and justifying ourselves in our erotic revolt: we would deny that the world had any meaning whatever."

Aldous Huxley, "Ends and Means, 1937"

He "consequently assumed"?! What a dubious thing to do in this case! Is not assumption the mother of all calamity? Here, we see that Huxley admits what believers already suspect regarding every skeptic or atheist we know. We feel that, with all the evidence available, a person who is "willing" to believe cannot help but believe. Conversely, it seems reasonable to conclude that a person who is "unwilling" to believe can never be affected, by even a sea of evidence.

Human will and motivation is important and germane to this issue. For now, I would suggest that the existence of an honest doubter (or believer for that matter) is to be determined by whether or not the "doubter" in question is honest about his or her motivations. Other questions should be considered first as well. What is the source of the doubters doubt? How much evidence do they need?

For example, if one doubts the existence of the platypus, what line of reasoning is his or her doubt rooted in? If photo footage is not enough to convince them, do they then need to catch, skin, and eat one to believe they exist? I'm with J. P. Holding in saying, "Doubting John needs to present his points"

Now, a doubter may well reply, "I am motivated by the lack of evidence to be doubtful." To this I would say, "Are you convinced of "anything?" And other questions apply to this point as well. What "do" you believe in? Why do you believe this thing and not another? How much evidence did it take to convince you of that which you believe in?

What qualifies as evidence in your mind? Do you accept or reject the assertion that absolute truth can even be known? And what grounds? Can you name one thing that you once doubted, but now believe in? What was it that changed you mind in this instance?

Hebrews 11:6 applies to this question. Observe: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." If seeing is believing, then how can one accept the veracity of "anything" he or she has never seen. If is faith that compells belief in the unseen. Now, If faith is the opposite of doubt, where is the line crossed? And is faith indeed the opposite of doubt?

Or, do they co-exist to some extent? I ask this because, faith can be weak and it can be strong. So, if one’s faith is weak, how can he or she escape the accusation that a little doubt co-exists with their faith. If faith and doubt co-exist in the minds of humans of on all "unknown" matters, then faith could quite possibly boil down to making a decision from the heart and not the head.
Sure, we want to understand with our brains, that which we believe in our hearts, but is it reasonable to demand to know something like we know our own name to say we have faith in it? And speaking of reasonableness, I have never seen a stub from an ancient Roman soldier’s paycheck, but it seems reasonable to conclude that Rome paid their soldiers a salary.

What I am getting at here is this. Sometimes disbelief and misbelief is simply unreasonable. Motives, good or bad, determine how a person reacts to reasonable arguments and evidence. Right now, there are millions of Americans (Michael Jackson fans) who very much "want" to believe Michael Jackson is innocent. I can posit from my personal experience with unreasonable people that, "some" of these people could have caught Jacko red-handed and would "still" not believe he’s a child molester.

Now, let’s change gears:

If our human response to belief and disbelief is anything like God’s, then we should consider what we may doing to our relationship with Him by being so wretchedly hard to convince.

What if everything you said was doubted by "everyone" you knew? For that matter, what if every single thing you said was doubted by "anyone" you knew? Would you not feel like this person(s) was being just a tad unreasonable? Yes. Especially, if you had never once been proven to be a liar? Also, did Jesus not tell Doubting Thomas, "because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."?

The greater blessing is upon those who believe without an embarrassing amount of "demanding to see", and without having to be placed in a headlock to get their gums rubbed with the truth. I personally feel that many skeptics are basically saying, "I’m not gonna believe unless you hold me down and make me!" Is the burden of proof solely upon the believer? Nonsense! I won’t be languishing in hell because, anyone else refuses to believe. Belief is not a burden, it’s a benefit, it’s a blessing. The burden of disbelief however, is profound because, it carries with it "all" of the punitive consequences. Pascal's wager comes to mind.

amor vincit omnia,

C. David Ragland, Jr.

[jpholding]

I wouldn't call that psychological manipulation because that implies premeditation and if this was premeditated then DJ must have developed his tactics under the influence of something..

When it comes to this sort of thing, it's typical for the "premeditated" aspect to develop earlier and for the manipulation to continue as a process in the future.



anewlife: I'll go ahead and continue posting comments on the book here next week.

[Doubting John]

C. David Ragland, Jr

Thanks for your post! Good questions too, and at the heart of what I had originally wanted to discuss. Let JP go through your post line by line.

Below is a section of my book, which again, is called, From Minister To Honest Doubter: Why I Changed My Mind, and can be found at amazon.com--just click on the "Used & New" Best price button to get it faster. [By The way JP, I expect my book on pool to do much better than my doubter book. I'm having a hard time finding time to promote that one]

------------------------------------

What If I’m Wrong?

What if I’m wrong about traditional Christianity? What then? Well, then I will go to hell, however conceived, when I die. And what did I do to deserve to go to hell? I sinned and I didn’t believe in Jesus’ atonement, however conceived, and in his bodily resurrection from the grave.


Whose fault would this be? Mine? I have honest doubts. Am I to be blamed because I couldn’t understand traditional Christianity? I tried with everything in me. I even spent several years earning three master’s degrees and studies in a Ph.D. program to figure my faith out. If I tried to figure it out and I wasn’t supposed to try then maybe educated people don’t have a chance to be saved? If, however, I’m just not smart enough to figure it out, then only intelligent people who study it out have a chance to be saved. Maybe the only people who have a chance to be saved are those who aren’t educated or who aren’t very intelligent? But who gave us our mental equipment in the first place? Didn’t God create us? Does this mean that when we’re born some of us are condemned from the start because of our mental equipment leading us to believe, or not? And if God gave it to us, and if only unintelligent people can be saved, then it’s set in stone the day we’re born what the possibilities for each one of us are.

What if I’m simply deceiving myself about my doubts? What if they aren’t honest at all, and my claim that they are is disingenuous? Perhaps unconsciously I’m rebelling against God. Well, I’m simply not consciously aware of any attempt to rebel against God, nor am I consciously aware of any attempt to deceive myself at all. I have been a counselor in churches where I served and I know how to dig into my own unconscious mind enough to know that my doubts are honest ones. That’s all I can say.

But what if I’m being deceived by the traditional devil to have these doubts? Maybe he is playing tricks on me, making me think my doubts are honest ones, when they are not? Well, if that’s so then I have no chance to win a debate with him. According to the traditional faith he’s much too intelligent and powerful for me to overcome. If he deceives me, then I am deceived. The question is why an all-powerful God didn’t help me. The devil wouldn’t have a chance against God, but why does God do nothing to help me overcome my doubts? While I was beginning to doubt I would pray regularly to God to help me overcome my doubts. Then as my doubts were gaining a foothold on me I was praying that God would help me know the truth. Now I pray that I’m not being deceived. And I do. I also know others were praying for me all along my journey. And now with this book I know still more people will pray for me. If prayer overcomes, then why not here with me?


Maybe I was being tested with several experiences like Job but I simply failed the test? So my doubts are now my condemnation, and because of them I’m going to hell when I die. If I failed the test, then I failed the test, and that’s all I can say about it. But didn’t God know in advance that if certain things would happen in my life that I would indeed fail the test? Then why test me like that? Why let the devil do what he did, if in fact it was a test? If it was a test then it makes me feel like a pawn in a cosmic game of chess. Is this really what happened? God was playing with my life just to win a challenge with the devil? That’s disgustingly like experimenting on captive prisoners with new drugs and surgical procedures so that the science of medicine can advance.


At the time of this writing there is a hotly disputed political race for the next President of the United States, Bush Vs Kerry. There are debates about most of the issues back and forth. The issue of Iraq and the war on terrorism is one of them. I heard Ted Kennedy give his case against Bush’s policies on Iraq during a CBS Face the Nation program. Then I listened to senator Lindsay Graham give his case on behalf of Bush’s policies. They both made good cases, although I thought Graham won the argument hands down. Whether or not you agree with me on this isn’t the issue here. But I asked myself why I thought Graham had the better arguments, when many others would have thought otherwise? Why is it that something can be so convincing to one person, and yet totally unconvincing to someone else? As I have said, I teach philosophy classes, and have taught Logic as well. Is it because I’m more logical? No! I don’t think so at all. There are probably many philosophy instructors who would disagree with my assessment of that program.

We humans disagree about all things that can be disagreed about. Some things are much more important than other things. National security is an important issue. We have different opinions on how to balance our national security with economical opportunities for people in America. How we decide to balance these two will be a matter of debate. How we raise children is an important issue too, so we disagree on how best to do that, as well as which diet will help us lose the most weight. Political issues, security issues, economical issues, family issues, health issues, moral issues, and religious issues are considered by all of us to have greater or lesser importance for each of us given our own particular situation in life.


No wonder there are so many different religions, and so many splinter groups of each religion, or no religion at all! According to religious people, whether God is pleased with us and where we will spend eternity are the most important issues of all. And it’s no surprise we disagree. But if we cannot agree on lesser important issues, then why is it that we should be any more logical when it comes to religious issues? The more important the issue is to us, the more we cling to it and the more our emotions run wild while we try to defend our viewpoint. It would certainly seem to me that the more important the issue is to us, the less rational we are with regard to it, and the less likely we’re going to give it up.

If this is all the case, then it is simply impossible for God to judge anyone based upon what they believe. God cannot judge anyone for not holding to the correct set of beliefs. Whether one believes the Koran or the Bible, whether they are Mormon or Jew, whether they are Catholic or Protestant, there is simply no way God could condemn someone for not believing the correct things about religious issues. Period. Why? Because I’m pretty sure most all of us are wrong about some crucial religious issues. I’m probably wrong too. So why should God condemn us for being wrong, when the odds are very high that we are wrong?


God cannot even judge us for how we behave, because how we behave flows out of that which we believe, and that which we believe flows from the sum total of experiences and thoughts that we have encountered for as long as we have been alive. I believe all of us—every single one of us—does the best we can given our gray brain matter, along with our life experiences. There can be no harsh judgment from God.

If I am wrong about anything I have written in this book, then I am wrong. And I probably am wrong about some things, and maybe about many things. I know this. But it doesn’t stop me from doing the best that I can with this religiously ambiguous universe. For me it is an intellectual matter. I think I am right about what I believe, and I think I’m right about what I don’t believe. I could be wrong, but I think I’m right. I am an honest doubter, a sincere doubter, and yes, even a believing doubter.

May God be pleased with me for doing the best that I can.

[FormerFundy]

DJ,

You are wasting your time with JPH. Anyone who believes that the problem of evil is explained by:

1) The overwhelming majority of evil is caused by men of their own choice or neglect.
2) Sin is man's way of telling God to mind His own d--- business, and anyone who asks why God didn't step in and stop this or that just needs to look in the mirror. They've already told God to bug off thousands of times, so where's the basis for complaint when He does what they ask?

is so philosophically naive as to not merit your attention.

[jpholding]

Oh dear, there goes Gargamel spouting mindless absurdities and non-answers into his hanky again. :rofl: I'm sure he'll like the toon I'm drawing of him for later this month. But he'll never be able to survive another debate with me, the poor little heretic. :rofl:



Now then, for a few more lines about DJs book...

32 -- DJ's option 2 for how the NT used the OT is correct -- the writers used midrash. However, he presents a false option to say that it is "difficult not to canonize their interpretive methods". Richard Hays has made this point as well, and it is right as far as it goes, but what is missing is the point that an exegete would need inspired authority to use these methods as well. Of course one is free to try....

DJ asks what Matthew's use of Hosea 11:1 was for. The answer has to do with what Malina and Neyrey call "probabilities". These were a form of support for testimony -- verification from general experience. Using words and phrases from the Old Testament accomplished a similar purpose; Jesus' "re-enactment" of Hos. 11:1 was regarded as an example of a probability, which supported the view that he was indeed Messiah. DJ is thus in error (anachronizing) to say that it "teaches us nothing at all" about Jesus. Maybe it teaches HIM nothing, but that is because he is imposing his modern prejudices on the text.

34 -- this by the way is what "fulfill" means when Matthew, etc say Jesus "fulfilled" an OT prophecy -- it means it in the sense of "fulfilling" a contract; he enacted (re-enacted) the terms.

36 -- DJ buys into a view of Joshua 10 that is in error; see http://www.christian-thinktank.com/5felled.html

38 -- this comment by DJ speaks for itself: "Please, don't send any long bibiographies since I won't read the books on huge lists -- never did." How can he say things like this and ask us to say that he has any credibility as a commentator?

This is all DJ offers that is under my area of specialty for a while, so I'll continue next time.

[Doubting John]

JP, you are very irritating, and it's not because you're correct, either.

JP Quote: "This comment by DJ speaks for itself: "Please, don't send any long bibiographies since I won't read the books on huge lists -- never did." How can he say things like this and ask us to say that he has any credibility as a commentator?"

My quote is from personal correspondence to my mentor, James D. Strauss, which is in my book as an example of what I believed at the time I wrote it (Aug '96).

The fact is, you don't know Strauss at all. He would regularly come to class holding two or three new books hot of the press and he would say to us, "These books are indispensible" for understanding something about the Christian world-view. I must have bought 2/3rds of those he recommended, and I must've read over 1/2 of the ones I bought, and certainly large sections of the others. I was a reading machine.

Furthermore, Strauss would hand us syllabi for our classes that would be anywhere from 40-60 single spaced pages containing in them lists of books necessary for that particular class, and I took half of my classes under him at Lincoln Christian Seminary. Then during each class he would bring in other lists of books--pages and pages of them.

While I bought and read as many books as I could, with my reading schedule I couldn't read all of what he recommended--no one could.

So my comment to him in that personal letter is nothing more than saying to him that if he were to ever respond to the letter reprinted in my book "do not send me another list of books," rather, correspond to me by answering my questions.

And you are simply treating me unfairly by insinuating in this latest post that I am not well read, as evidenced by my long lists of quotations from some good books, as well as one book out of the many many others that communicates what true scholars are saying, Spong. Spong, in my opinion, understands things better than you do, and communicates better than you do, although I recognize that both he, and you are not scholars.

[In your next post you'll probably focus on Spong again like you did earlier when you singled out the fact that I quoted from Spong (3-5 times, I'm guessing) . You'll ignore or play down everything else I wrote here--although, now that I just wrote that, you'll probably not do it. But in these posts of yours, that's what I've received before--commenting on a minor point rather than the major points of what I said.].

Anyway, just to prove you are indeed treating me unfairly, let me re-post a part of what the webmaster at www.exchristian.net said about my book:

"Most readers will not find Loftus’ book one that can be adequately absorbed in an evening. Written in the style of a collegiate thesis, the plethora of scholarly works referenced in this publication places it amongst the better resources for the honest student. To do the volume justice one must be willing to follow the research that has been carefully documented by Loftus. For those without the time or interest to explore the mountain of references, this book will, none-the-less, provide a significant store for future study when time or necessity dictates."

So for future readers of this thread, please understand that JP is not being fair with his evaluation of my book. Similar examples of him doing this could be multiplied, but this one galled me. JP is not an honest man. I, however, and an honest man, and an honest doubter. I suppose that just like the Apostle Paul was pleased that the gospel was being preached from mixed motives, that you can too, and he'd be pleased.

I suppose the Christian principle of "charity" doesn't similarly apply to "intellectual charity," or if it does, then it doesn't apply to doubters like me either. But then some of the scribes in Jesus' day didn't think that the term "neighbor" applied to people outside their faith either.

I don't know why I bother here. But go ahead and continue being unfair with me. Some day it may come back to haunt you. I just hope you remember the things you write--please, save them all. You will be embarassed.

[Doubting John]

JP Quote: "Option 2 for how the NT used the OT is correct -- the writers used midrash. However, he presents a false option to say that it is "difficult not to canonize their interpretive methods". Richard Hays has made this point as well, and it is right as far as it goes, but what is missing is the point that an exegete would need inspired authority to use these methods as well. Of course one is free to try...."

Here's what I said in my book:

On the nature of O.T. fulfilled prophecy there are several options available. 1) One might be that the N.T. writers were simply wrong in many of their interpretations. Hence, maybe the Messiah hasn’t yet come, or that no Messiah exists. 2) A second option is that the way they interpreted O.T. prophecy is correct and it serves as a model for interpreting all texts since the authors were inspired interpreters with inspired methodology. Once we claim the N.T. writers were correct in their interpretations then it’s extremely difficult not to canonize their interpretive methods, including some Midrash, pesher, etc. 3) A third option is possible based upon the fact that the methods for interpretation have changed over the centuries, some for better, some for worse. God foreknew what the methods of interpretation would exist at the time of Jesus, so when God prophesied of Jesus he knew in advance which hermeneutical principles would force people of that day to the conclusion that Jesus was the Messiah. A particular difficult N.T. interpretation might be incorrect based upon the grammatical-historical method, and yet still be a confirmation that Jesus was its intended object for N.T. era people.

In the Hosea 11:1 case I’ll admit that Matthew uses “fulfilled” in a wide variety of ways, but contextually his use of Scripture is an apologetic to the Jews. So in some way his contemporaries must have seen such a use of Scripture as evidence of the nature or mission of Jesus. The question we must ask is how his interpretation confirms these facts. What is the point of the quotation? What does it add to Matthew’s narrative? What does it confirm about Jesus? There is simply no way on grammatical-historical lines that Hosea 11:1 could be used as evidence of the nature or mission of Jesus. It just isn’t there. Matthew 2:15 uses the verse so loosely that it would show evidence of nothing at all to us today were we the ones weighing the claims of another Messiah. It teaches us nothing at all about the Messiah that Matthew hasn’t already told us. We today would be extremely puzzled by Matthew’s interpretation of it, were it not for the prior commitment that Matthew’s interpretation must be forever correct.

So what exactly does the word “fulfill” mean in Matthew 1:23; 2:15, & 2:23? It sure seems like Midrash to me. In one sense preachers do this all of the time in retelling some of the events of the Bible. All I am saying is that over time our methods for discerning correctness have changed.....but if we were to judge them by our standards of hermeneutics they wouldn’t measure up—that is, we would be laughed at by our contemporaries if we employed the same methods in scholarly studies—try it and see!

In one sense, JP is to be laughed at by how he exegetes my book--it's just like how Matthew treated the O.T. But that might be justified if he supposes he's inspired, like the N.T. writers. After all, he did indicate that "one is free to try...."

[jpholding]

JP, you are very irritating, and it's not because you're correct, either.

Sure thing, DJ. :thumb: Fries with that bombast?

The fact is, you don't know Strauss at all. He would regularly come to class holding two or three new books hot of the press and he would say to us, "These books are indispensible" for understanding something about the Christian world-view. I must have bought 2/3rds of those he recommended, and I must've read over 1/2 of the ones I bought, and certainly large sections of the others. I was a reading machine.

Um hm, Sure, DJ. :ahem: Your study habits changed from one minute to the next, huh? You who just told me you didn't want to spend 5-6 years reviewing the "minutia"? Reading machine? Sorry, no. Your own words speak against you on that account; your problem here is that you don't like that someone is calling you on the carpet for being such a poor student of the literature.

Maybe "skimming machine" but not "reading machine" and definitely not "comprehension/absoption machine". It's no mystery why you retreated into popularist literature and quote that rather than credentialed scholars. I'm sure that 49 on the verbal part of the GRE has some relevance here....

While I bought and read as many books as I could, with my reading schedule I couldn't read all of what he recommended--no one could.

Speak for yourself. I read all that was on my reading lists in college.

And you are simply treating me unfairly by insinuating in this latest post that I am not well read, as evidenced by my long lists of quotations from some good books,

Pffft. Good books? No, DJ, you have a mix of good books, outdated books, books you barely use, and garbage written by popularists who would never survive peer review. Spong is a perfect example of the latter. I don't care how many times you used him; that you consider him usable at all, for anything but critique, in a serious treatment of any subject, is a remarkable deficiency and speaks fot itself.

But in these posts of yours, that's what I've received before--commenting on a minor point rather than the major points of what I said.

You put 'em in, DJ. So obviously they are not so "minor" that you didn't want to alert your readers to them.

Anyway, just to prove you are indeed treating me unfairly, let me re-post a part of what the webmaster at www.exchristian.net said about my book:

Dave Van Allen isn't very credible as a witness, either. His arguments against Christianity are rather more pedantic than even Spong's.

So for future readers of this thread, please understand that JP is not being fair with his evaluation of my book.

So why can't we say Van Allen is being unfair and prejudiced because your story makes him feel better about being an apostate?

Similar examples of him doing this could be multiplied,

No, they can't be -- that's just bombast, DJ, and not very good bombast at that.

but this one galled me. JP is not an honest man. I, however, and an honest man, and an honest doubter.

You're a manipulator, DJ, who uses this "honest John" routine to enable yourself and your manipulations. :smile:

I suppose the Christian principle of "charity" doesn't similarly apply to "intellectual charity," or if it does, then it doesn't apply to doubters like me either

You've had your chance, DJ. The minute you posted that excuse about not debating "minutia" you showed your hand. There's nothing of honesty in refusing to check yourself or in printing and distributing that which you refuse to defend. I gave you rope, and you hung yourself. Don't go crying now that you're swinging in the air after putting your neck in a noose.

But then some of the scribes in Jesus' day didn't think that the term "neighbor" applied to people outside their faith either.

The same Jesus who called the scribes and Pharisees vipers and whitewashed tombs when they deceived the people, eh?

I don't know why I bother here. But go ahead and continue being unfair with me.

:cry: Yeah, yeah. Keep riding that guilt trip, DJ. :thumb:

Some day it may come back to haunt you. I just hope you remember the things you write--please, save them all. You will be embarassed.

TWeb archives so it's all here for the record. But if there's ever any embarrassment, you sure won't be the instrument with misplaced arguments like these:

J.....but if we were to judge them by our standards of hermeneutics they wouldn’t measure up—that is, we would be laughed at by our contemporaries if we employed the same methods in scholarly studies—try it and see!

DJ, don't be so silly. Modern preachers use this "standard" all the time in their sermons. We call it "homiletics" and the means is little different in principle than midrash or pesher. You can hear preachers using "midrashic" or "pesher" technique in every sermon in some cases. I'm reading a popular book by Randy Alcorn (Heaven) right now and his treatment of some of the OT passages is ourtight midrash. So don't try that game with me.

Besides, serious scholars aren't laughing. If you had read Richard Hays' book on Paul's use of the OT, you would have seen a rather germane discussion of how the use of the same techniques ought to be consistently regarded as authoritative today.

You're also playing games by limiting the use to "scholarly studies". There's quite a difference in genre between a laudatory biography like Matthew and a modern dissertation; and again, the issue is also who has the authority to make midrashic use of Scripture.

In one sense, JP is to be laughed at by how he exegetes my book--it's just like how Matthew treated the O.T.

Oh, do stop the crying, DJ. :ahem: Your games of psychological manipulation and bombast won't make an impact on intelligent people, especially when you refuse to be forthcoming on the bulk of these alleged "offenses" and have to make convoluted, self-contradictory excuses to defend those that you do specify.

[jpholding]

One of my readers and regular contributors, W. R. Miller, has offered the following on this discussion:

http://www.tektonics.org/af/djresp1.htm

Now I'd like to continue with more reviewing.

72f – DJ's view of unanswered prayer is partly based on certain modern ideas about the purpose and nature of prayer:

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/prayfor.html

Viewing prayer in terms of an ancient model of patronage resolves both the modern ideas and the correctives (DJ does correctly see some modern solutions as inadequate).

But not all of DJ’s replies to solutions are adequate.

1) Sin in our lives. That God is under no obligation to answer the specific prayer of one who sins (and it does not require being “tangled” in it as DJ says) matches precisely with a patronage model; as a patron was under no obligation to answer the request of a client who showed disloyalty. DJ’s answer that since “Christians are washed in the blood of Jesus, God supposedly sees no sin in them” he does not support with Scripture. The blood of Jesus spares us the wrath of God; withholding of positive answer to prayer is not the wrath of God. So likewise a client’s acts of disloyalty did not automatically destroy the patronage relationship.

2) Asking with wrong motives. DJ tries to “refute” this one with what he alleges are “strong arguments” that there is “nothing a human can do or say that are completely free of selfish motives.” He gives the example of “psychological egoism.” Well, it’s not hard to find refutations of that concept: http://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/egoism.html for example:

The Refutation of Psychological Egoism: The generalization that everyone acts from the motive of self-interest is false.

A. Psychological egoism as an empirical theory commits the fallacy of hasty generalization or converse accident. The descriptive psychological law that all persons act from the motive of self-interest is false because there are many disconfirming instances

1. Many people have injurious habits such as smoking, worrying, or self-defeating behavior.

2. Many people do their duty when their self-interest lies elsewhere. Many people will help someone in need without thinking of self-gain. Many people will follow religious precepts without personal benefit.

3. Many people will react in such a manner that their action is done for the "heck of it." I.e., their are actions done precisely because they are not in our self-interest. We "cut off our nose to spite our face."

4. Some people will act against their self-interest so that they can follow their conscience. They do what's right even though they won't personally benefit.

5. Almost everyone will act against their short-term self-interest in order to obtain a greater long-term self interest. Students will stay up all night to get a term paper done even though the short-term effects are disadvantageous (loss of sleep, lack of attention in class, altered circadian cycle, and so forth).

B. If psychological egoism is claimed to have no disconfirming instances then the generalization is a tautology or trivially true statement.

1. By the way the terms are defined, there is no possible counter-example. Suppose a soldier falls on a grenade to save his buddies. The action can be said to be in the interest of the soldier because he could not live with himself if he did sacrifice his own life or because he will go out as a hero and so forth. No matter what action is set-forth as an exception to the generalization, we can always rationalize that the action was a self-interested one.

2. Hence, because there is no empirical test to confirm an action not in self-interest, the claim is empty of factual content. The class "self-interested actions" is extensionally isomorphic with the class of actions. In other word, the claim that all actions are self-interested actions (i.e., the claim of psychological egoism) is logically equivalent to the claim that "All actions are actions."

3. Since any possible counter-example is assimilated to "self-interested actions" (even self-defeating behavior) the claim is trivial. For "self-interested actions" to be a meaningful class we would have to know what kind of actions isn't self-interested.

And http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/egoism/

A common objection to psychological egoism, made famously by Joseph Butler, is that I must desire things other than my own welfare in order to get welfare. Say I derive welfare from playing hockey. Unless I desired, for its own sake, to play hockey, I would not derive welfare from playing. Or say I derive welfare from helping others. Unless I desired, for its own sake, that others do well, I would not derive welfare from helping them. Welfare results from my action, but cannot be the only aim of my action.

The psychological egoist can concede that I must have desires for particular things, such as playing hockey. But there is no need to concede that the satisfaction of these desires is not part of my welfare. My welfare might consist simply in the satisfaction of self-regarding desires. In the case of deriving welfare from helping others, the psychological egoist can again concede that I would not derive welfare without desiring some particular thing, but need not agree that what I desire for its own sake is that others do well. That I am the one who helps them may, for example, satisfy my self-regarding desire for power.

A bigger problem for psychological egoism is that some behavior does not seem to be explained by self-regarding desires. Say a soldier throws himself on a grenade to prevent others from being killed. It does not seem that the soldier is pursuing his perceived self-interest. It is plausible that, if asked, the soldier would have said that he threw himself on the grenade because he wanted to save the lives of others or because it was his duty. He would deny as ridiculous the claim that he acted in his self-interest.

The psychological egoist might reply that the soldier is lying or self-deceived. Perhaps he threw himself on the grenade because he could not bear to live with himself afterwards if he did not do so. He has a better life, in terms of welfare, by avoiding years of guilt. The main problem here is that while this is a possible account of some cases, there is no reason to think it covers all cases. Another problem is that guilt may presuppose that the soldier has a non-self-regarding desire for doing what he takes to be right.

The psychological egoist might reply that some such account must be right. After all, the soldier did what he most wanted to do, and so must have been pursuing his perceived self-interest. In one sense, this is true. If self-interest is identified with the satisfaction of all of one's preferences, then all intentional action is self-interested (at least if intentional actions are always explained by citing preferences, as most believe). Psychological egoism turns out to be trivially true. This would not content defenders of psychological egoism, however. They intend an empirical theory that, like other such theories, it is at least possible to refute by observation.

There is another way to show that the trivial version of psychological egoism is unsatisfactory. We ordinarily think there is a significant difference in selfishness between the soldier's action and that of another soldier who, say, pushes someone onto the grenade to avoid being blown up himself. We think the former is acting unselfishly while the latter is acting selfishly. According to the trivial version of psychological egoism, both soldiers are equally selfish, since both are doing what they most desire.

The psychological egoist might handle apparent cases of self-sacrifice, not by adopting the trivial version, but rather by claiming that facts about the self-interest of the agent explain all behavior. Perhaps as infants we have only self-regarding desires; we come to desire other things, such as doing our duty, by learning that these other things satisfy our self-regarding desires; in time, we pursue the other things for their own sakes.

Even if this picture of development is true, however, it does not defend psychological egoism, since it admits that we sometimes ultimately aim at things other than our welfare. An account of the origins of our non-self-regarding desires does not show that they are really self-regarding.

The soldier's desire is to save others, not increase his own welfare, even if he would not have desired to save others unless saving others was, in the past, connected to increasing his welfare.

The psychological egoist must argue that we do not come to pursue things other than our welfare for their own sakes. In principle, it seems possible to show this by showing that non-self-regarding desires do not continue for long once their connection to our welfare is broken. However, evidence for this dependence claim has not been forthcoming.

Faced with these difficulties, the psychological egoist might move to what Gregory Kavka 1986 64-80 calls “predominant egoism:” we act unselfishly only rarely, and then typically where the sacrifice is small and the gain to others is large or where those benefiting are friends, family, or favorite causes. Predominant egoism is not troubled by the soldier counter-example, since it allows exceptions; it is not trivial; and it is empirically plausible.

So Psychological Egoism can’t simply be accepted as DJ would imply with his sparse treatment. But he does retreat then into a suggestion of predominant egotism [74] with which we would have no dispute – and it would also make 2) an adequate solution.

I have no beef with DJ’s reply to the third solution. The fourth, “It must be according to God’s will” DJ tries to get around with an appeal to the standard “problem of evil” canards which we have seen he refuses to debate with me. Much less would we expect him to deal with more depth treatments like http://www.christian-thinktank.com/gutripper.html especially since, as we will see next time, he devotes a mere 4 pages to it.

Solution five, that people pray for contradictory things, DJ says that this “qualification alone may cause hundreds of thousands of prayers to go unanswered.” Well, we agree – but he doesn’t dispute this solution at all, so I guess he accepts it as allowable?

Solution six, that God does not answer prayer in our own lifetime, we think has some value, and DJ does not refute this view, only noting that “we wonder why God doesn’t help and/or rescue us when he hurt so badly” – in essence a personalized version of the PoE.

Solution seven, that certain requests must be denied, DJ mentions but does not express any disagreement with. I’d say it has limited application as 6) does.

Solution eight has to do with prayer changing human free will. I happen to agree that this sort of prayer is misguided; it falls under the principles of 5).

"If the case for Christianity didn't hold water for me six years ago, and I spent as many years as I did learning how to defend it, and now I reject it, then six or seven additional years of research won't do it for me now, either."

"Okay, but we first need to take a good hard look at what evidence can actually lead us to believe."

Que pasa???


.... Honest John's Used Cars doesn't become more honest the more times Honest John uses the word honest. :teeth:

[Tophet]

Hello, John:

I note that in “What if I’m Wrong?” you ask a slew of questions. If you are as informed as you say you are, should you not already know the answers? Why, then, ask the questions?


From http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1044559&postcount=15

I graduated from Great Lakes Bible College in 1977 with a B.R.E. degree ("Bachelor of Religious Studies"). Then I attended Lincoln Christian Seminary, Lincoln, IL, and graduated in 1982 with M.A. and M.Div. degrees, under the mentoring of Dr. James D. Strauss, with "Theology and Philosophy" majors. Then I attended Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and graduated in 1985 with a Th.M degree, under Dr. William Lane Craig, with a "Philosophy of Religion" major. At Trinity I also studied with Dr. Stuart Hackett, Dr. Kenneth Kantzer and Dr. Paul Feinberg. I also took classes at Marquette University in a Ph.D. program with a double major in "Philosophy and Ethics," but didn’t finish. At Marquette I studied with Dr. Ron Feenstra, Dr. Marc Greisbach, and Dr. Daniel MaGuire. I have taught extension classes for Lincoln Christian College, Lincoln, IL, and I taught for Great Lakes Christian College, Lansing, Michigan.
With all these credentials, John, why is it you don’t know the answers to the questions you raise?


From http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1044498&postcount=10

So then, how does one know whether he or she is informed? How? I say I am.
How can you say you are informed when, since you are asking questions, you apparently are not informed?


From http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1069868&postcount=80

I, however, and an honest man, and an honest doubter.
And if you’re not informed, even though you say you are, then how can you claim to be honest?

After saying this ...


From http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1051768&postcount=24

We can talk about specifics as you feel you may want to.
… Why would you raise this objection?


From http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1053644&postcount=29

But my doubt is so deep today that if you want me to rehash all of the minutia you find in my book, then quite plainly, I never asked for that.
Do you believe this as an example of being honest?


From http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1063118&postcount=61

There is simply no way to tell for sure that a historical religion like Christianity is true based upon history, and there is likewise no way that God can judge us for all of eternity if we get it wrong.
Since there is a way to know for sure, you are obviously not informed. The question is, are you willing to find out?

Why doubt when you don't have to?

[Doubting John]

It's interesting to me Tophet, that the way you exegete what I have written is entirely different from the way (I assume) that you exegete the Bible, or any writing from someone whom you like and/or largely agree with. When you approach the Bible you use the "principle of intellectual charity" whereby you try to do your best to harmonize the many statements in the Bible, because you assume that as inspired writings they can be harmonized. You'll bend over backwards to place upon those writings the best possible interpretation, won't you? And you'll do likewise with someone you largely agree with who is debating someone you disagree with. You'll probably step in and defend what your friend said, placing upon your friend the best possible interpretation, too. "He means this"...you'll say, "not that...."

But when you exegete what I have written it's the exact reverse. You approach what I have written without using the principle of charity, because you want to show me wrong, rather than try to understand what I said.

This is just interesting to me. And it treats me unfairly. And I'm not crying over it, either, JP. I'm just pointing out that this is definitely not a high level discussion. Sometimes it is a high school level of interchange.

In my "What If I'm Wrong" section, I fail to see how someone can read it and not know that the questions I asked were "leading questions." I was leading the reader to answer them as I do. And for someone to claim they do not know how I answer those questions, is juvenile.

It would also be juvenile to continue to defend what you wrote about this one thing, Tophet, but you probably will, because here at this website, people just like spouting off, I assume.

One thing though, if JP continues to piecemeal my book apart, and others jump in the fray, and if I continue to read and/or respond to the things written, then what you will be doing is giving me is the opportunity to revise my book within a year, and include within the revision the additional things I write and think about from this website.

And since my doubt is deep, then it will only mean that my revision will be a much better book, leading more people to doubt, and I will have you all to thank for that.

So please continue.....you will be helping me make a stronger case. That I am sure of...

[jpholding]

This is just interesting to me. And it treats me unfairly. And I'm not crying over it, either, JP.

No, but you are presuming a lot on Tophet. I've known him for years and he's giving you the same charity he would the Bible. All you do and have done time and time again is claim "unfairness" without substantiation -- with one exception where the reasoning was clearly contrived and refuted by your own words. It's your familiar enabling mechanism, and it's getting old. :zzz:

I'll let Tophet speak for himself; otherwise:

One thing though, if JP continues to piecemeal my book apart, and others jump in the fray, and if I continue to read and/or respond to the things written, then what you will be doing is giving me is the opportunity to revise my book within a year, and include within the revision the additional things I write and think about from this website.

Oh, that'd be fine with me, if you scrubbed all your mistakes out (and it may save you some money too, depending on how Trafford charges you; per page? or one set fee no matter the length?) -- and even if you made some more mistakes I could latch on to; or even best of all, kept to your frame of expertise and made the book larger in those areas. Either way I'd have my usual pot of joy dealing with it like I do all the others that come out and then fade away.

And since my doubt is deep, then it will only mean that my revision will be a much better book, leading more people to doubt, and I will have you all to thank for that.

Aw, you're makin' me cry. :tongue: But we'll see. You might even do a WORSE job next round because we're tickin' you off so bad, huh? :lmbo:

DJ, these psychological games are funny, but didn't Edski warn you that I played them with the best already -- and won? :thumb:

Your best bet is to make your whole book about stuff I don't specialize in (evolution, etc) so that you can be free of me for good. :lmbo: OTOH that won't stop me from turning it over to other folks who will run ya ragged....

May as well pop a couple more in here.

77ff -- Problem of evil. In your next revision see if you can deal with http://www.christian-thinktank.com/gutripper.html

BTW on page 79, "theodicy" is not a possessive, and it's plain silly to compare adults to two year old children.

80 -- I went through 3 of the 4 FL hurricanes, DJ, and I ain't crying and I ain't "struggling" in faith. I accept it as part of my risk to live in my home state. I have for over 20 years.

No more until next time. I'll pick up on page 177, past that stuff beyond my expertise and miracles (which we've had some talk on already). It'll be fun dealing with Ranke-Heinemann's snotty commentary on the birth narratives again. :lmbo: Yeesh. This woman looks so far down her nose you could build a condo beside her septum.

*SNORT* "I put away those childish things. Where's my Bultmaniann pacifier?" *SNORT*

[Darth Executor]

I remember reading something about a debate. Are you going to debate JP on anything DJ or are you going to run with your tail between your legs?

[David Ragland]

Very good point about Romans 1:18-20. On this scripture alone, I feel, one can base a very good argument. What argument? The argument that there is not such thing as a true skeptic. Doubts come and go, but for doubt to settle in and become rooted one has to become rebellious.

C. David Ragland, Jr.

[David Ragland]

American Christianity is full of rear-enders who sit around sucking up junk like Purpose-Driven Life and Left Behind novels and I don't have a very positive idea of what's going to happen to some of these people when they are called to account.

Ahem! I just want to go on record as saying, "AMEN!" :lol: Glad I'm not the only one who can't stand the "Purposeless Drivel Life" and "Left my Behind" novels. :lol:

Laterness . . .

[David Ragland]

C. David Ragland, Jr

Thanks for your post! Good questions too, and at the heart of what I had originally wanted to discuss. Let JP go through your post line by line. .

You're welcome.

May God be pleased with me for doing the best that I can.

Is this the best you can do, DJ? Aren't you a little premature in writing such a book. I can understand true rebels writing such books, but you claim to be an honest doubter. Are you being honest with yourself and about everyone else about being a doubter? If God does something to settle your doubts, what then? Then you've written a book that is out there causing problems for people, who had not doubt until they encountered it. Seems to be that your state of mental flux would have led you to do anythng BUT write a book casting doubt on theism.

Not sure what you're thinking, DJ :brood:

[SixLiteralDays]

I've been reading through this thread tonight and find it very interesting. Please allow me to jump in here. DJ, in answer to your original question: "Is it possible to be an honest doubter?" I would answer with a qualified yes.
I would also consider myself to be well-informed on Christianity (been a Christian all my life and have also majored in theology at seminary). I think there are degrees of doubt and my answer depends upon which level you are talking about. First, is it possible to honestly doubt a portion of the Bible that is hard for us to comprehend or that we have repeatedly heard has been proven wrong (i.e. a literal six day creation). I think so. I believe a person can have doubts in that area but he/she should not allow them to fester. In other words, he should set out to resolve those doubts quickly. If he allows them to linger, it may possibly lead to other doubts because if this one passage may not be true then this one may not be either. For the record, I do not doubt a literal six day creation - a point which is probably painfully obvious based on my name.
It is hard to understand why someone of your scholastic aptitude would have doubts but I have a hunch that I believe has not been touched on in this thread so far. I have not read your book so I'm not completely familiar with where you are at. Let me state it this way...
I believe one's denominational training (even if one claims to be non-denominational) can lead to certain doubts because specific teachings may be contrary to Scripture or contrary to other denominational teachings. Based on the colleges you studied at (excepting Trinity) I believe we have something in common in terms of denominational upbringing. Lincoln was the natural seminary choice for many of my college buddies even though I chose to attend a Southern Baptist seminary.
I'm not really getting into specifics because I'm not out to attack any particular denominaton. But let me pick a specific doctrine. Some Christians would say that baptism is absolutely essential for salvation (I would not). Now, some are very legalistic about this and others see baptism as their way of demonstrating their faith. Either way, they teach that you are not "saved" until you come out of the water. (I'm not debating whether this is Scriptural or not at this point - I believe that should be left to another thread).
Many of these same people teach that salvation can be lost. My line of reasoning hinges on this point... When does a person lose it? After all, one sin was enough to separate us from God in the first place so is it one sin after baptism, two, three....500, 10,000? Is there one specific sin - "giving back the gift of salvation"? (that's the one I've often heard from my buddies). If this is the case, is this not ranking sins? Revelation 21: 8 seems to indicate that the Lake of Fire has plenty of room for the extremely wicked and the every day liar (although the liar may not suffer as bad as the murderer according to some views).
Moreover, I know a local pastor in this denomination who claims to have lost his salvation several times and gotten it back each time. This is strange since so many in this group point to Hebrews 6: 4 - 6 as evidence that salvation can be lost. Yet that passage makes it clear that IF salvation could be lost, it could never be regained.
Here's the point... If I believed the denominational teaching of my youth on these two doctrines, my head would explode. Hopefully, I've been clear enough to help you understand why. If one must be baptized to be saved and then can lose it and then gain it and then lose it and then gain it.... Does he have to be baptized each time? I know I sin all the time, if I believed these teachings I would probably just ask the minister to drown me during my baptism because otherwise I would never make it.
I know I've rambled on, but if my hunch is right about your denominational upbringing then this may make a lot of sense to you. Even if I'm wrong about your training I think you could understand why one's denominational teaching can lead to doubts. This is probably a major reason why so many people leave the church - they have faith that their denomination is the right one but then they find something in the Bible that doesn't seem to line up. Instead of searching for a church that is in agreement with their beliefs (at least a majority of them) they walk away.
Back to the original question...I do not doubt the Bible is God's Word. I used to say that I believed it is the Word of God. I don't say that anymore. Now, I say "I know the Bible is the Word of God." (All the agnostics just turned their rifle scopes on me because they KNOW that I cannot KNOW this). :) There are times when a doubt will creep in about whether I have interpreted something properly or whether I am doing what God expects me to do but I do not (in theory) doubt God's Word. In practice, I doubt it when I fail to fully trust in Him to carry me through.
I hope this helps.

[FormerFundy]

DJ,

You will not get a fair hearing on TWEB as I think you have now discovered. There are no real scholars here (at least that post in the apologetics section). So there is no one who is at your level to be able to intelligently discuss the questions you raise. You are right when you said that the level of discussion is about on a high school level. For them to admit that ANY of your arguments have any weight is just too much for their insecure faith.

[learning]

'their insecure faith' ? And how do you judge this? Just because 'you' lost faith, doesn't mean that others have to or will. Just because 'you' judge a faith as 'insecure' for 'you' does not mean that others have to.
They can stand on the rock of Jesus Christ, because HE does stand.
He will stand.

'I know my Redeemer lives, and that in the end He will stand upon the earth,
And after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God.
I myself will see Him with my own eyes - I and not another.
How my heart yearns within me!'
Job 19:23-27.

[jpholding]

You will not get a fair hearing on TWEB as I think you have now discovered.


There he goes again. :lmbo:

[learning]

I hope you don't mind this but I thought of this quote when I read the title of this thread, and found it, concerning doubt. By George MacDonald.

"A man may be haunted with doubts, and only grow thereby in faith.
Doubts are the messengers of the Living One to the honest.
They are the first knock at our door of things that are not yet, but have to, be understood...
Doubt must precede every deeper assurance; for uncertainties are what we first see when we look into a region hitherto unknown, unexplored, unannexed.

(here's the link where I found this quote, though I'ld read it before. It has many more wonderful things to say about this subject )
http://koti.mbnet.fi/amoira/doubt1.htm

[jpholding]

...and Gargamel will tell you how to become a REAL scholar....

by getting a REAL degree from a non-accredited school like Bob Jones University. :lmbo:

[Doubting John]

Former Fundy,

You're right. I'm out of here. JP's response to you did it for me. I've got better things to do.

[learning]

Well, I hope you don't leave Doubting John, and Former Fundy, though I don't agree with some of the things you say, I don't mean anything personal by any of my replies. And I hope you realize, all of you, that a person's intelligence is not related to where they went to school. All we need is the Wizard of Oz to let us know what we all know intuitively. That there are some people who have varying degrees of intelligence and wisdom, and we all make up part of an interesting world, and we all need each other.

I have learned a lot about 'self' education from things that I've read on homeschooling, and looking up things for a child of mine who has some learning disabilities. This child just wrote a little speech that was given, that just about broke my heart. This child thought they were 'dumb' because they couldn't read like the rest of the 'regular' class, and yet, 'I' (this child's mother) and her teachers knew this child was intelligent. In fact, in reading aloud, this child often reads these childrens' mysteries, and has the thing figured out way before I do! This 'special education' teacher said this child of mine could probably get by in the regular class room now, but will continue because this teacher makes learning so much fun! And this 'special education' teacher said that my child IS smart. And this child IS!

Scholarship is a matter of digging into details, and with what I've learned about 'homeschool' and the 'unlearners' or 'unschoolers' out there, that when one goes after a subject just out of interest, many are more educated and informed than those that may have degrees. I see this in work too. Many can have the 'school smarts' but not do so well in the 'people' or 'practical' smarts in this world.

Anyways, know that sharing knowledge and honest questioning is welcomed by many here.

edited to add
Let me give you a bit of background. I've been a Christian all my life, since a little girl, when I watched Billy Graham on t.v. in Quebec, at my aunt's, and asked Him into my heart. I felt my sin roll away, literally, I could feel lighter. I was watching Billy Graham preach on the cross of Jesus Christ, and how our sins killed Him, and I wanted to ask Jesus Christ into my heart, and I was crying. My aunt asked if my cousins were bothering me, and I said,' no, I wanted to ask Jesus Christ into my heart'. And she led me in prayer. (visiting for a week or so in the summer)

I grew up in a Ministers home, went to church camps and youth groups etc. Went out to a Bible College in the Canadian west, for two years, where I met my husband. I got a Nurses Practical license after I married, and work part time at that, as we have four kids. I never doubted my faith (though I had been through some emotional tough times, but never doubted the Bible was true.)

I started to look into Christian discussion boards for fellowship, before the year 2000 thing. I mostly just read. I got interested in the evolution/creation debate, and from going to talkorigins, got into discussions with an atheist/militant rationalist from there. His 'writings' at first, I just read and had some good e-mail discussions. But then, I actually lost faith. God, I believed, gave me back my faith that summer at a church camp, but later that fall, I got on other atheistic discussion boards, and again lost faith. This time, not in the Bible so much, but in God Himself, and He didn't seem to be working in my life. But, again, He brought me back to faith. I then read the 'Pilgrim's Progress' and believed I was in the dungeon of doubt, and it was the promises of God that were the key that got me out. Promises like 'I will never leave you nor forsake you.'

No matter where your faith may take you, He remains faithful, even if we lose faith. I am sure of that.

[Tophet]

Hello, John:

Why did you fail to answer the questions from my post:

After saying this ...

From http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/s...68&postcount=24

We can talk about specifics as you feel you may want to.

… Why would you raise this objection?

From http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/s...44&postcount=29

But my doubt is so deep today that if you want me to rehash all of the minutia you find in my book, then quite plainly, I never asked for that.

Do you believe this as an example of being honest?


From http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/s...18&postcount=61

There is simply no way to tell for sure that a historical religion like Christianity is true based upon history, and there is likewise no way that God can judge us for all of eternity if we get it wrong.

Since there is a way to know for sure, you are obviously not informed. The question is, are you willing to find out?

Why doubt when you don't have to?

Why don’t you answer these questions, John? What is there to be afraid of?

I expect you to answer them in your next post. Or are you afraid?


It's interesting to me Tophet, that the way you exegete what I have written is entirely different from the way (I assume) that you exegete the Bible, or any writing from someone whom you like and/or largely agree with.

Your assumption is false. Your allegation is unsupported. Why don’t you state the evidence of your claim?

When you approach the Bible you use the "principle of intellectual charity" whereby you try to do your best to harmonize the many statements in the Bible, because you assume that as inspired writings they can be harmonized.

I don't need to make that assumption, which makes your allegation false.

You'll bend over backwards to place upon those writings the best possible interpretation, won't you? And you'll do likewise with someone you largely agree with who is debating someone you disagree with. You'll probably step in and defend what your friend said, placing upon your friend the best possible interpretation, too. "He means this"...you'll say, "not that...."

Irrelevant. I am quoting you. The quotes are your remarks. Why are you trying to avoid responsibility for your own statements? Do you often blame others for your shortcomings?

But when you exegete what I have written it's the exact reverse.

Your assumption is false. Your allegation is unsupported.

You approach what I have written without using the principle of charity, because you want to show me wrong, rather than try to understand what I said.

All I have done was quote you, then ask you questions based upon your own statements. I am therefore giving you the benefit of the doubt.

This is just interesting to me. And it treats me unfairly.

If you demonstrate yourself to be wrong, is that not your own fault?

Do you not accept responsibility for your own words and deeds?

When you're caught in a lie, you either ignore it, or blame others, or justify your action, rather than repent of that lie. Is that not so?

On the other hand, the Christian paradigm is to tell the truth. Do you believe your paradigm is superior?

In my "What If I'm Wrong" section, I fail to see how someone can read it and not know that the questions I asked were "leading questions." I was leading the reader to answer them as I do.

But when you don’t answer your own questions, it is logical to assume you don’t know the answers, is it not?

And for someone to claim they do not know how I answer those questions, is juvenile.

Especially when such a claim was never made. Therefore, John, how can you claim to be honest?

One thing though, if JP continues to piecemeal my book apart, and others jump in the fray, and if I continue to read and/or respond to the things written, then what you will be doing is giving me is the opportunity to revise my book within a year, and include within the revision the additional things I write and think about from this website.

Ah, then you’re admitting that you’re not informed as you thought you were?


And since my doubt is deep, then it will only mean that my revision will be a much better book, leading more people to doubt, and I will have you all to thank for that.

You are admitting the book you have on the market is inadequate. Why, then, should you market an inferior work to the public? Are you not cheating readers if you sell them an inferior text? Why don’t you remove your work from sale and destroy it?

You are also admitting that you want to doubt, and lead more people to doubt. How, then, can you say

Well, I’m simply not consciously aware of any attempt to rebel against God,

???????????????? Where is your honesty, John?

So please continue.....you will be helping me make a stronger case. That I am sure of...

So, John, if you’re asking us to continue, you have no reason to be angry with us. So let’s see what else you have to say …

Am I to be blamed because I couldn’t understand traditional Christianity? I tried with everything in me. I even spent several years earning three master’s degrees and studies in a Ph.D. program to figure my faith out.

So you are admitting you are not informed, that you are, in fact, ignorant about Christianity. If you couldn’t “figure my faith out,” how are you qualified to talk about that which you are ignorant about? Why claim to be informed when you are not? Is that not dishonest?

According to the traditional faith he’s much too intelligent and powerful for me to overcome.

Really? What difference does that make? Are you not aware of James 4:7? 1 Peter 5:7-11? Ephesians 6:10-18?

According to religious people, whether God is pleased with us and where we will spend eternity are the most important issues of all.

Did you not know that the standard of Christianity is Jesus Christ? How can you claim to have been a minister and not know that?

Because I’m pretty sure most all of us are wrong about some crucial religious issues. I’m probably wrong too.

Jesus is never wrong on “religious issues.” Did you ever think about that?

If I am wrong about anything I have written in this book, then I am wrong. And I probably am wrong about some things, and maybe about many things. I know this.

You admit you are “probably wrong.” You don’t know if you are right. Why, then, should anyone believe what you have to say? If you don’t know what you’re talking about, there is no reason to buy your book, is that not so?

OK, John, now answer my questions. All of them. Please.

[David Ragland]

I honestly doubt it.
:teeth: Love it.

[David Ragland]

JPH: Also, you refer to the idea that Christians ought to act better because they have "the power, wisdom and guidance of God right there". Granting that it is accessible, what makes it any more likely (if anything) that they'd take advantage of it?

DJ: So, the difference between a Christian and a non-Christian is nothing? That is, the Christian can still be like the non-Christian and the excuse for that is that they don't take advantage of the Spirit. Such an admission seems to me to be an unfalsifiable proposition.

Both of these statements fail to mention the simple, obvious truth. Christians, each and every one, are at varying levels of sanctification. When looking at "ONE Christian’s" behavior, one should not stereotype them all. This type of thinking causes people to define Christianity by its abuses. Nuff said.

[David Ragland]

DJ: "The way you are going through my book is page by page, and you can do that. What I wanted the reader to get was a cumulative case, even though no one alive today can have a handle on all of the issues."

Isn't that a scream?! We skeptics are gonna take that thar Bible of yours apart piece meal my piece meal, but we want you to look at our stuff as a unit! Pfffftt!!!

[jpholding]

Both of these statements fail to mention the simple, obvious truth. Christians, each and every one, are at varying levels of sanctification. When looking at "ONE Christian’s" behavior, one should not stereotype them all. This type of thinking causes people to define Christianity by its abuses. Nuff said.

That's sort of the point I was trying to cull out. :teeth:

Since we have no more DJ, I'll continue my review.

117 -- lots of the standard canards about the birth narratives. Nothing not taken care of by:

http://www.tektonics.org/af/birthnarr.html
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fabprof4.html
http://www.tektonics.org/af/censuscheck.html
http://www.tektonics.org/gk/jesgen.html

118 -- Ranke-Heinemann is used for the same canard Strauss offered. Like Strauss, Ranke-Heinemann fails to see that Mary's inquiry is one of the mechanism whereby the conception would occur -- it had not been revealed to her until after this question that the conception wouldn't require any help from a man.

119 -- standard error about almah and betulah in Is. 7:14, answered by http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fabprof2.html Also the usual error about the ancients believing women were only a "receptacle" -- see http://www.tektonics.org/tsr/tsr923.html

120 -- standard misread on Mark 10:18 as Jesus denying being God. My answer:

From this passage the idea is sometimes taken that Jesus is denying his own goodness, and therefore, throwing out any chance of being recognized as part of the Godhead. The standard explanation is that Jesus is essentially saying to the ruler, "Do you know what you are implying? You say I am good; but only God is good; therefore, you realize that you are identifying me with God?" [Brooks, commentary on Mark, 162] In Jewish thought, God was pre-eminently good, so that the ruler was indeed offering Jesus a compliment usually reserved for God. Since it is quite unlikely that the ruler truly believed that Jesus was identifiable as God the Son, this looks more like an effort by Jesus to make the man think about what he is saying before he blurts it out or engages in indiscriminate flattery.

Confirmation and elucidation of this explanation is found in Malina and Rohrbaugh's Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels (123) in which they explain that in an agonistic (honor-shame) culture, a "compliment" like the rich young man's is actually a challenge and an attempt to put Jesus "on the spot" for they are an implicit accusation that one has been trying to rise above others. Jesus' only alternative was indeed to parry the compliment and redirect it to its appropriate subject (unless he wanted to reveal himself directly and fully, in which case, his claim would have been another challenge of honor to others!), thus showing himself honorable by diffusing any accusation that would arouse the envy of an opponent. Thus it is appropriate that Jesus parry the compliment in a way that does not specifically deny his membership in the Godhead (which, as noted, it does not).

In short, there isn't anything here that has Jesus denying goodness, or membership in the Godhead -- just teaching an overenthusiast and.or challenger a lesson.

Also the standard canard about John using the phrase "the Jews" as proof of a late date. It is not. Again, from one of my articles:
*******

[Glenn Miller writes:]

)

1.The data indicates that 'Jews' referred to something broader than the simple 'corrupt temple hierarchy':

•in John 1.19,24 - the Jews 'sent' the religious leaders to discover what was going on

•a comparison of John 18.14 with 11.49 indicates that Jews referred to the Sanhedrin (generally considered to be a group composed of the priestly aristocracy and lay nobility)--see ZPEB, "Sanhedrin".

•Luke 23.13 ("Pilate called together the chief priests, the rulers and the people") and Mt 26.47 ("sent from the chief priests and the elders of the people")show that the 'rulers' involved with distinct from the 'priests'.

•Conclusion: "Jews" in a leadership sense, was broad enough to include the lay aristocracy.

2.Many of the "Jews" became believers--Jn 11:45 and 12.11 3.There are numerous passages that indicate that the "Jews" were DISTINCT FROM the common people (many of whom accepted Christ as their messiah):

•John 7. 13 (But no one would say anything publicly about him for fear of the Jews.)--the common folk were afraid of the "Jews" (=> NOT THE SAME)

•John 9.22 (His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jews, for already the Jews had decided that anyone who acknowledged that Jesus was the Christ would be put out of the synagogue.)

•John 12.12 -- the Triumphal Entry -- the crowd accepted him!

•Mt 23.37 ("O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.) - the difference between the leadership ("you") and the people ("your children").

•John 2.23 - (Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many people saw the miraculous signs he was doing and believed in his name.)

•John 7.25 - (At that point some of the people of Jerusalem began to ask, "Isn't this the man they are trying to kill? 26 Here he is, speaking publicly, and they are not saying a word to him. Have the authorities really concluded that he is the Christ?)--Note the difference between the 'people of Jerusalem' and the 'authorities'.

3.The data is VERY strong that when the term "Jews" is used of the PEOPLE, it is a good (or at least, neutral) term--indicating that it is not a 'racial/ethnic' slur, but a term used for specific identification (in context) of that ruling community that violently rejected their King.

•John 4.22 - Jesus affirms: "You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews."

•John 12.9-11 - ( Meanwhile a large crowd of Jews found out that Jesus was there and came, not only because of him but also to see Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. 10 So the chief priests made plans to kill Lazarus as well, 11 for on account of him many of the Jews were going over to Jesus and putting their faith in him.)

•Mt 27.11 - ( Meanwhile Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor asked him, "Are you the king of the Jews?" "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied.)

•Acts 2.5, 14 - (Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven.) and (Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: "Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem,)

•Acts 14.1 - (At Iconium Paul and Barnabas went as usual into the Jewish synagogue. There they spoke so effectively that a great number of Jews and Gentiles believed. 2 But the Jews who refused to believe stirred up the Gentiles and poisoned their minds against the brothers.) - NOTE: BOTH usages (hostile leadership, believing people) present in the SAME passage.

•Acts 21.20 - (Then they said to Paul: "You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law.) .So, how did the term 'JEWS' get expanded from solely a reference to the people (a la Ezra, Neh) to pick up a SECOND meaning of 'hostile leadership'?

•The NT shows the development of the term to parallel Paul's experiences with hostile Jewish leadership OUTSIDE Jerusalem! (And these experiences were such that the hostile leadership had much more 'control' over the general Jewish populations--due to the smaller numbers). The "Jews" (hostile leadership) swayed the "Jews" (the people at large)--as well as the Gentiles (see Acts 14 above!)-- against Paul's message. But the culpable ones were the former.

•There is absolutely NO evidence within the NT to suggest that the term was IN ANY WAY related to a general anti-Semitism of the Roman empire! (It is serious conjecture to 'read in' some Roman anti-Semitism in NT passages).

•And, even as Paul experienced the hostility of the dispersed leadership, even then many 'Jews' believed (Act 17:12 - Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. 12 Many of the Jews believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men.)

•This general motif of the "Jews" (hostile aristocratic leadership) constraining the "Jews" (the general Jewish populace) from their experience of God's goodness is a surprisingly dominant theme in the teachings of Jesus:

•Mt 23: 37 - ("O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing. 38 Look, your house is left to you desolate.")

•Mt 23: 15 - ("Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.)

•Mt 23: 13 - ("Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.) is worth noting that John's gospel is deliberately evangelistic, and the general trend of scholarship today is to view his intended audience as not just Jews, but SPECIFICALLY the Jews of the Diaspora--the ones Paul used the terms "JEWS" on so strongly!

As Carson notes in his Intro to the New Testament, p 171.:

The constant allusions to the Old Testament show that John's intended readership is biblically literate; his translation of Semitic expressions (e.g., 1:38, 42; 4:25; 19:13, 17) shows he is writing to those whose linguistic competence is in Greek. His strong denunciation of the "the Jews" cannot be taken as a mark against this thesis: John may well have an interest in driving a wedge between ordinary Jews and (at least) some of their leaders. The fourth gospel is not as anti-Jewish as some people thin anyway: salvation is still said to be "from the Jews" (4.22), and often the referent of "the Jews" is "the Jews in Judea" or "the Jewish leaders" or the like. "Anti-Semitic" is simply the wrong category to apply to the fourth gospel: whatever hostilities are present turn on theological issues related to the acceptance or rejection of revelation, not on race. How could it be otherwise, when all of the first Christians were Jews and when, on this reading, both the fourth evangelist and his primary readers were Jews and Jewish proselytes?

Conclusions:

1.When "Jews" is used of the hostile aristocratic leadership, it is appropriate and truthful to ascribe the primary responsibility (see John 19:11 for the relative roles of Pilate and the High Priest - "Jesus answered, "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.") for His execution to them.

2.When "Jews" is used of the general populace, it is used in a VERY POSITIVE sense (and in some passages, in a neutral sense), but is NEVER used in an 'anti-Semitic' slur.

3.THEREFORE--to assert that John (and the wider Christian community) attributed the death of Jesus to the GENERAL POPULACE known as "Jews" is FUNDAMENTALLY MISTAKEN; and that to accuse certain first-century Jews of being 'anti-Semitic' because of some general Roman cultural trend is entirely without foundation.

To this we may add the following observation:

4. This usage is NOT limited to the writers of the NT! Josephus regularly uses the phrase, "the Jews" - and he uses it in much the same way: "absolutely or with modifiers which suggest a general reference in context, where the reference is clearly to specific groups of Jews." [Weath.JwLKA, 110 - see pages following for a catalogue of examples.] In addition, Malcolm Lowe, in his article "Who Were the Juduaio?" (NovT XVIII, 101ff) shows that the term "the Jews" was used primarily to refer to persons who were inhabitants of the region of Judaea, so that "the Jews" is no more of a slur than "the Bostonians" or "the Creatans". The phrase was only used secondarily as a religious reference, but then only in opposition to Gentiles. Lowe finds only a small number of places in the NT where "the Jews" is such a religious reference; one, Luke 7:3, is so because Luke has elsewhere used "elders of Israel" to refer to the Sanhedrin.
****
"The Jews" at most is an ethnic designation John uses over and against Jesus and his disciples as Galileeans. It is not evidence of a late date. DJ's scholarship is absolutely horrible on this point, for he obviously only used non-credible sources like Spong to do his research.

Back with more next time.

[jpholding]

Bit more.

121 -- DJ uses the standard canards about John's Gospel being different than the others. Malina and Rohrbaugh's Social-Science Commentary on John [9ff] shows the why of the differences: John serves a special purpose as a manifesto for the Christian "antisociety" which has been labelled as deviant by others, notably Judeans. Such documents make use of "antilanguage," a sort of jargon used by a group with a different view of the way things are and ought to be. (A modern comparison may be street gangs, prison inmates, or minority groups who consider themselves oppressed, adopting their own slang terms.) Hence we have specialized phrases like "the/this world" emphasized (79 times in John, but 9 in Matthew and 3 each in Mark and Luke).

John's Gospel is therefore found to be a "resocializing" document intended to establish ties between the convert and his new "ingroup." To this end it features primarily conversations and monologue, the "main form of discourse used in socialization and reality maintenence" -- thus explaining as well why John does not follow the Synoptics in featuring public teachings and parables. A Sermon on the Mount would not serve John's purpose. The reader is intended to be a "conversation partner" with Jesus and there is nothing at all strange about John's non-usage of parables, which were clearly meant to be consumed by "outsiders".

DJ also cites the variable use of "Father" -- 173 times in John (though I count only 133 uses of the word "father" in John), 43 times in the other Gospels, total. This is a confused abuse of statistics. If we count the number of pericopes in which Jesus calls God "Father," we get a rather different impression. Of those "173" (133!) times in John, approximately forty-five of those appear in the extended prayer/discourse of Jesus from John 14:1-17:26; at least 14 of those "Father" cites are found in John 5:16-47, and 10 of them in 6:25-71, each of which is an independent unit - so that, by the time you do this kind of compression, you find about 14-15 instances each in John (as a whole) where Jesus used the term. The data, then, only appears as formidable as it does because of the way it was counted. Jesus' use of "Father" is no more unusual in John than in the other Gospels.

DJ further swallows uncritically the claim that John has a higher christology than the other Gospels, which is false. All four view Jesus in terms of divine hypostatic Wisdom. Even Mark's Jesus offers an advanced Christology that includes claiming divine purview to forgive sins (2:5); enacting the role of divine Wisdom by eating with sinners (2:15), claiming to be the Son of Man of Daniel 7 (2:28, 8:31, 9:9, etc.), walking on water, which the OT says that only God can do (4:35ff; cf. Job 9:8, Ps. 77:19); implicitly acknowldging Peter's identification by not rebuking it (8:29ff), saying that one's soul is dependent on one's reaction to him (8:35) and that God is his Father, and that he will come with God's angels (8:38), a self-reference to the Messiah (9:41),saying belief in him is paramount to eternal life (9:42). He also swallows Hick's claim that "Son of Man" was not a divine title, which is false: http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/sonofman.html

122-- to demonstrate the allegedly problematic nature of the incarnation, DJ quotes EP Sanders (a historian, not a philosopher or theologian!). DJ claims "three problems" with an incarnate God:

1) "God is necessarily an uncreated being. Humans are essentially created beings. Therefore Jesus is both created and uncreated."

Yes, and -- what? There is no problem here; the divine person of Jesus is uncreated; the human body inhabited by Jesus is created.

2) "God is necessairily omniscient...Human beings are not omnscient beings. Therefore, Jesus is both an omniscient and not an omniscient being."

DJ apparently never learned about the kenotic emptying while in seminary. In essence, Jesus tied his omniscience behind his back while living. This is standard theology, folks. He missed it. (It also answers his fourth point of three (?) about omnipresence.)

3) DJ notes that God cannot be tempted, while humans can; but we are told Jesus was tempted. I would like to respond with an analogy that solves the alleged problem: I can "tempt" Bill Gates by saying, "I'll give you a dollar to lick the gum off my shoe" but is that a problem for him? Temptation involves TWO parties. That is what DJ misses. "God cannot be tempted" means God cannot accept temptation, not that we can't "tempt" God with an offer of a bargain (that He will not accept).

More next time.

[Babaloo]

Aldous Huxley, son of Thomas Huxley, writes:
"I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; and consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics. He is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do. For myself, as no doubt for most of my friends, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom. The supporters of this system claimed that it embodied the meaning - the Christian meaning, they insisted - of the world. There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and justifying ourselves in our erotic revolt: we would deny that the world had any meaning whatever."
Aldous Huxley, "Ends and Means, 1937"
C. David Ragland, Jr.

Hi David,
An important point about the Aldous Huxley quotation above is that Huxley was NOT advocating a philosophy of meaninglessness, but condemning it and arguing in favor of spiritual meaning in the universe.

And in the same book from which you quoted, Huxley also discussed "philosophies of meaning," to quote Huxley:

"The desire to justify a particular form of political organization and, in some cases, of a personal will to power has played an equally large part in the formulation of philosophies postulating the existence of meaning in the world. Christian philosophers have found no difficulty in justifying imperialism, war, the capitalistic system, the use of torture, the censorship of the press, and ecclesiastical tyrannies of every sort from the tyranny of Rome to the tyrannies of [Calvin's] Geneva and [Puritan] New England. In all cases they have shown that the meaning of the world was such as to be compatible with, or actually most completely expressed by, the iniquities I have mentioned above--iniquities which happened, of course, to serve the personal or sectarian interests of the philosophers concerned. In due course, there arose philosophers who denied not only the right of Christian special pleaders to justify iniquity by an appeal to the meaning of the world, but even their right to find any such meaning whatsoever. In the circumstances, the fact was not surprising. One unscrupulous distortion of the truth tends to beget other and opposite distortions. Passions may be satisfied in the process; but the disinterested love of knowledge suffers eclipse. [Aldous Huxley, Ends and Means: An Inquiry into the Nature of Ideals and into the Methods Employed for Their Realization (Harper & Brothers Publishers, New York and London, 1937, fifth edition, p. 316]

Below is something I wrote at my website about the Huxley quotation you cited, followed by further quotations from Huxley's book:

In 1966 a conservative editor printed a paragraph from Aldous Huxley on "the philosophy of meaninglessness" and "sexual mores," and added a title above the paragraph that read, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist." But what the editor failed to reveal to his readers was that Aldous was not an "atheist" when he wrote that paragraph, but was arguing against "atheism." The paragraph itself was taken from Aldous Huxley's book, Ends and Means, written in 1937 (chapter 14, the chapter on "Beliefs"), and he was speaking about the rise of the "philosophy of meaninglessness" and materialism among the "masses" after the First World War, the generation of the 1920s. That generation had just seen solders from overtly Christian nations of Europe using the latest deadly inventions like the machine gun and poison gas to kill each other's Christian soldiers, then all sides stopped fighting on Christmas Eve, then went back to massacring each other the next day.

Speaking of Aldous's generation, John Derbyshire wrote:

"The 1920's and 1930's were notoriously an age of failed gods and shattered conventions, to which many thoughtful people responded in obvious ways, retreating into nihilism, hedonism, and experimentalism. Literature became subjective, art became abstract, poetry abandoned its traditional forms. In the 'low, dishonest decade' that then followed, much of this negativism curdled into power-worship and escapism of various kinds. Aldous Huxley stood aside from these large general trends. Though no Victorian in habits or beliefs, he never entered whole-heartedly into the spirit of modernism. The evidence is all over the early volumes of these essays. James Joyce's ground breaking novel, Ulysses, he declares in 1925, is 'one of the dullest books ever written, and one of the least significant.' Jazz, he remarks two years later, is 'drearily barbaric.' Writing of Sir Christopher Wren in 1923, he quotes with approval Carlyle's remark that Chelsea Hospital, one of Wren's creations, was 'obviously the work of a gentleman.' Wren, Huxley goes on to say, was indeed a great gentleman, 'one who valued dignity and restraint and who, respecting himself, respected also humanity.' In his thirties, in fact, Huxley comes across as something of a Young Fogey." [John Derbyshire, "What Happened to Aldous Huxley," The New Criterion Vol. 21, No. 6 (February 2003)]

In another chapter of Ends and Means (chapter 15, "Ethics") Aldous, abhorred "sexual addictions," or using sex as a means to achieving base ends. And Aldous' chapters on "Religious Practices," "Beliefs," and "Ethics" argued in favor of a meaningful cosmos and a universal spirituality that Aldous said was reflected in the works of certain Eastern mystics as well in the works of some famous Christian mystics.

ALDOUS HUXLEY ON FAITH AND ETHICS

"There are some... who believe that no desirable 'change of heart' can be brought about without supernatural aid. There must be, they say, a return to religion. (Unhappily, they cannot agree on the religion to which the return should be made.)" [p. 2]

"In practice, Christianity, like Hinduism or Buddhism, is not one religion, but several religions, adapted to the needs of different types of human beings. A Christian church in Southern Spain, or Mexico, or Sicily is singularly like a Hindu temple. The eye is delighted by the same gaudy colors, the same tripe-like decorations, the same gesticulating statues; the nose inhales the same intoxicating smells; the ear and, along with it, the understanding, are lulled by the drone of the same incomprehensible incantations [in the old Catholic Latin mass tradition], roused by the same loud, impressive music.

"At the other end of the scale, consider the chapel of a Cistercian monastery and the meditation hall of a community of Zen Buddhists. They are equally bare; aids to devotion (in other words fetters holding back the soul from enlightenment) are conspicuously absent from either building. Here are two distinct religions for two distinct kinds of human beings." [p. 262-263]

"In Christianity bhakti [or, loving devotion] towards a personal being has always been the most popular form of religious practice. Up to the time of the [Catholic] Counter-Reformation, however, the way of knowledge ("mystical knowledge" as it is called in Chrstian language) was accorded an honorable place beside the way of devotion. From the middle of the sixteenth century onwards the way of knowledge came to be neglected and even condemned. We are told by Dom John Chapman that "Mercurian, who was general of the society (of Jesus) from 1573 to 1580, forbade the use of the works of Tauler, Ruysbroek, Suso, Harphius, St. Gertrude, and St. Mechtilde." Every effort was made by the [Catholic] Counter-Reformers to heighten the worshipper's devotion to a personal divinity. The literary content of Baroque art is hysterical, almost epileptic, in the violence of its emotionality. It even becomes necessary to call in physiology as an aid to feeling. The ecstasies of the saints are represented by seventeenth-century artists as being frankly sexual. Seventeenth-century drapery writhes like so much tripe. In the equivocal personage of Margaret Mary Alacocque, seventeenth-century piety pours over a bleeding and palpitating heart. From this orgy of emotionalism and sensationalism Catholic Christianity seems never completely to have recovered." [p. 281-282]

"First Shakespeare sonnets seem meaningless; first Bach fugues, a bore; first differential equations, sheer torture. But training changes the nature of our spiritual experiences. In due course, contact with an obscurely beautiful poem, an elaborate piece of [musical] counterpoint or of mathematical reasoning, causes us to feel direct intuitions of beauty and significance. It is the same in the moral world. A man who has trained himself in goodness come to have certain direct intuitions about character, about the relations between human beings, about his own position in the world -- intuitions that are quite different from the intuitions of the average sensual man... [p. 333]

"The ideal of non-attachment has been formulated and systematically preached again and again in the course of the last three thousand years. We find it (along with everything else) in Hinduism. It is at the very heart of the teachings of the Buddha. For Chinese readers the doctrine is formulated by Lao Tsu. A little later, in Greece, the ideal of non-attachment is proclaimed, albeit with a certain, pharisaic priggishness, by the Stoics. The Gospel of Jesus is essentially a gospel of non-attachment to "the things of this world," and of attachment to God. Whatever may have been the aberrations of organized Christianity -- and they range from extravagant asceticism to the most brutally cynical forms of realpolitik -- there has been no lack of Christian philosophers to reaffirm the ideal of non-attachment. Here is John Tauler, for example, telling us that 'freedom is complete purity and detachment which seeketh the Eternal...' Here is the author of "The Imitation of Christ," who bids us 'pass through many cares as though without care; not after the manner of a sluggard, but by a certain prerogative of a free mind, which does not cleave with inordinate affection to any creature.'" [p. 5, 6]

"...as knowledge, sensibility and non-attachment increase, the contents of the judgments of value passed even by men belonging to dissimilar cultures, tend to approximate. The ethical doctrines taught in the Tao Te Ching, by Buddha and his followers, in the Sermon on the Mount, and by the best of the Christian saints, are not dissimilar." [p. 327]

--------------------

ALDOUS HUXLEY ON THE INFLUENCE OF THE WORST ASPECTS OF THE BIBLE ON THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY

"Examples of reversion to barbarism through mere ignorance are unhappily abundant in the history of Christianity. The early Christians made the enormous mistake of burdening themselves with the Old Testament, which contains, along with much fine poetry and sound morality the history of the cruelties and treacheries of a Bronze-Age people, fighting for a place in the sun under the protection of its anthropomorphic tribal deity... Those whom it suited to be ignorant and, along with them, the innocent and uneducated could find in this treasure-house of barbarous stupidity justifications for every crime and folly. Texts to justify such abominations as religious wars, the persecution of heretics... could be found in the sacred books and were in fact used again and again throughout the whole history of the Christian Church. [p. 328]

"In this remarkable compendium of Bronze-Age literature, God is personal to the point of being almost sub-human. Too often the believer has felt justified in giving way to his worst passions by the reflection that, in doing so, he is basing his conduct on that of a God who feels jealousy and hatred... and behaves in general like a particularly ferocious oriental tyrant. The frequency with which men have identified the prompting of their own passions with the voice of an all too personal God is really appalling." [p. 276-277]

"According to his very inadequate biographers, Jesus of Nazareth was never preoccupied with philosophy, art, music, or science and ignored almost completely the problems of politics, economics and sexual relations. It is also recorded of him that he blasted a fig tree for not bearing fruit out of season, that he scourged the shopkeepers in the temple precincts and caused a herd of swine to drown. Scrupulous devotion to and imitation of the person of Jesus have resulted only too frequently in a fatal tendency, on the part of earnest Christians, to despise artistic creation and philosophic thought; to disparage the inquiring intellect, to evade all long-range, large-scale problems of politics and economics, and to believe themsevles justified in displaying anger, or as they would doubtless prefer to call it, 'righteous indignation.'" [p. 275-276]

[jpholding]

This is the sort of crapola Edski does instead of answering my arguments. :ahem: It was this way every letter he sent -- pages of irrelevant diatribe on a point no one cares about. That's Edski.

Back to DJ for a bit --

123 -- DJ says we need a post-Freudian, post-feminist, etc reading of the Bible. What for? How about a post-Freudian reading of Tacitus? Confucius? How about we just let these people speak for themselves and stop trying to force them to be what we want them to be?

124 -- DJ's critique of atonement theory doesn't address my own views: http://www.tektonics.org/af/atonedefense.html
http://www.tektonics.org/uz/2muchshame.html

126 -- using Michael Martin's Case Against Christianity as a source is pretty uncritical. Martin was so ignorant he thought that Jesus' command against swearing was a prohibition of profanity! :ahem: At any rate, Martin also fails to read the issue of "sin in God's presence" in terms of honor and shame, and so his comments do not affect my view of the atonement. With an understanding of honor and shame, penal substitution becomes the only viable atonement theory.

[Tophet]

Poor Aldous Huxley. His statements reveal an astonishing degree of ignorance about Christianity. His contentions have already been addressed by J.P. at Tekton, but I’d like to zero in on these statements in particular:


"Examples of reversion to barbarism through mere ignorance are unhappily abundant in the history of Christianity. The early Christians made the enormous mistake of burdening themselves with the Old Testament, which contains, along with much fine poetry and sound morality the history of the cruelties and treacheries of a Bronze-Age people, fighting for a place in the sun under the protection of its anthropomorphic tribal deity... Those whom it suited to be ignorant and, along with them, the innocent and uneducated could find in this treasure-house of barbarous stupidity justifications for every crime and folly. Texts to justify such abominations as religious wars, the persecution of heretics... could be found in the sacred books and were in fact used again and again throughout the whole history of the Christian Church. [p. 328]


Huxley’s contemporary, William Paley, addressed this very subject in Evidence of Christianity, 1851, pp. 218-219:

Secondly, I assert that Christianity is charged with many consequences for which it is not responsible. I believe that religious motives have had no more to do in the formation of nine tenths of the intolerant and persecuting laws which in different countries have been established upon the subject of religion, than they have had to do in England with the making of the game-laws. These measures, although they have the Christian religion for their subject, are resolvable into a principle which Christianity certainly did not plant (and which Christianity could not universally condemn, because it is not universally wrong), which principle is no other than this, that they who are in possession of power do what they can to keep it. Christianity is answerable for no part of the mischief which has been brought upon the world by persecution, except that which has arisen from conscientious persecutors. Now these perhaps have never been either numerous or powerful. Nor is it to Christianity that even their mistake can fairly be imputed. They have been misled by an error not properly Christian or religious, but by an error in their moral philosophy. They pursued the particular, without adverting to the general consequence. Believing certain articles of faith, or a certain mode of worship, to be highly conducive, or perhaps essential, to salvation, they thought themselves bound to bring all they could, by every means, into them, and this they thought, without considering what would be the effect of such a conclusion when adopted amongst mankind as a general rule of conduct. Had there been in the New Testament, what there are in the Koran, precepts authorising coercion in the propagation of the religion, and the use of violence towards unbelievers, the case would have been different. This distinction could not have been taken, nor this defence made.



"According to his very inadequate biographers, Jesus of Nazareth was never preoccupied with philosophy


The gospel of Jesus Christ is philosophy!


art,

Huxley ignores who Jesus is.


music,

Huxley ignores who Jesus is. Jesus observed the Passover seders, which uses music. He also acknowledged the Psalms.


or science

Huxley ignores who Jesus is.


and ignored almost completely the problems of politics


Huxley ignores Matthew 22, Mark 12, Luke 20, Isaiah 9.


, economics

Huxley ignores Matthew 20.


and sexual relations.

Huxley ignores Matthew 19 and Mark 10, and references to Genesis 2.


It is also recorded of him that he blasted a fig tree for not bearing fruit out of season,


To prove a point, which – for all his mental acumen, or lack thereof -- Huxley apparently failed to grasp.


that he scourged the shopkeepers in the temple precincts

Huxley again ignores the reason and the circumstances.


and caused a herd of swine to drown.

Huxley again ignores the reason and the circumstances.


Scrupulous devotion to and imitation of the person of Jesus have resulted only too frequently in a fatal tendency, on the part of earnest Christians, to despise artistic creation and philosophic thought; to disparage the inquiring intellect, to evade all long-range, large-scale problems of politics and economics, and to believe themsevles justified in displaying anger, or as they would doubtless prefer to call it, 'righteous indignation.'" [p. 275-276]

And with these statements, Huxley demonstrates a considerable degree of stupidity. Certainly he doesn’t know Christianity's benefits to history. To wit:

Ian H.Hutchinson, Head of Department of Nuclear Energy. Plasma Science and Fusion Center and Department of Nuclear Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA. ASA Conference, 4 August 2002. “Science: Christian and Natural,” http://hutchinson.belmont.ma.us/asa2002/.

Going further, though, I believe there is a constructive case to be made for the phrase Christian science.

First, as represented by the theme of this conference “Christian Pioneers”, we should recognize that modern science is built upon the foundational work of people who more than anything else were Christians. Christians were the pioneers of the revolution of thought that brought about our modern understanding of the world. MIT, my home institution, the high-temple of science and technology in the United States, has a pseudo-Greek temple architecture about its main buildings. The fluted columns are topped not with baccanalian freizes, but with the names of the historical heroes of science (not to mention William Barton Rogers, the founder). A rough assessment was carried out by a few of us some years ago of the fraction of the people listed there who were Christians. The estimate we arrived at was about 60%.
Any list of the giants of physical science would include Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Boyle, Pascal, Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, all of whom, despite denominational and doctrinal differences among them, and opposition that some experienced from church authorities, were deeply committed to Jesus Christ.

Second, I observed over the years in my interactions with Christians in academia, that far from scientists being weakly represented in the ranks of the faithful, as one would expect if science and faith are incompatible, they are strongly overrepresented. The sociological evidence has been studied systematically for example by Robert Wuthnow [Robert Wuthnow, The Struggle for America’s Soul, Eerdmanns, Grand Rapids, (1989), p146.], who established that while academics undoubtedly tend to be believers in lower proportion than the US population as a whole, among academics, scientists were proportionally more likely to be Christians that those in the non-science disciplines. The common misconception that scientists were or are inevitably sundered from the Christian faith by their science is simply false.

Third, the question arises, why did modern science grow up almost entirely in the West, where Christian thinking held sway? There were civilizations of comparable stability, prosperity, and in many cases technology, in China, Japan, and India. Why did they not develop science? It is acknowledged that arabic countries around the end of the first millenium were more advanced in mathematics, and their libraries kept safe eventually for Christendom much of the Greek wisdom of the ancients. Why did not their learning blossom into the science we now know? More particularly, if Andrew White’s portrait of history, that the church dogmatically opposed all the “dangerous innovations” of science, and thereby stunted scientific development for hundreds of years, why didn’t science rapidly evolve in these other cultures?

A case that has been made cogently by Stanley Jaki [Stanley L. Jaki, The road of science and the ways to God, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, (1978).], amongst others, is that far from being an atmosphere stifling to science, the Christian world view of the West was the fertile cultural and philosophical soil in which science grew and flourished. He argues that it was precisely the theology of Christianity which created that fertile intellectual environment. The teaching that the world is the free but contingent creation of a rational Creator, worthy of study on its own merits because it is “good”, and the belief that because our rationality is in the image of the creator, we are capable of understanding the creation: these are theological encouragements to the work of empirical science. Intermingled with the desire to benefit humankind for Christian charity’s sake, and enabled by the printing press to record and communicate results for posterity, the work of science became a force that gathered momentum despite any of the strictures of a threatened religious hierarchy.

So I suggest that there is a deeper reason why scientists are puzzled about how one might pursue a Christian Science distinguished from what has been the approach developed over the past half millenium. It is that modern science is already in a very serious sense Christian. It germinated in and was nurtured by the Christian philosophy of creation, it was developed and established through the work of largely Christian pioneers, and it continues to draw Christians to its endeavours today.

Dr. Loren Eiseley (1907-1977), a Professor of anthropology, a science history writer and evolutionist, concluded that the birth of modern science was mainly due to the creationist convictions of its founders. “It is the CHRISTIAN world which finally gave birth in a clear articulated fashion to the experimental method of science itself ... It began its discoveries and made use of its method in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a Creator who did not act upon whim nor inference with the forces He had set in operation. The experimental method succeeded beyond man’s wildest dreams but the faith that brought it into being owes something to the Christian conception of the nature of God. It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption.” [Loren Eiseley, Darwin’s Centenary: Evolution and the Men who Discovered it, Doubleday: New York, 1961 p:62]

Kenneth Scott Latourette, Sterling Professor at Yale University, wrote, “Across the centuries Christianity has been the means of reducing more languages to writing than have all other factors combined. It has created more schools, more theories of education, and more systems than has any other one force. More than any other power in history it has impelled men to fight suffering, whether that suffering has come from disease, war or natural disasters. It has built thousands of hospitals, inspired the emergence of the nursing and medical professions, and furthered movement for public health and the relief and prevention of famine. Although explorations and conquests which were in part its outgrowth led to the enslavement of Africans for the plantations of the Americas, men and women whose consciences were awakened by Christianity and whose wills it nerved brought about the abolition of slavery (in England and America). Men and women similarly moved and sustained wrote into the laws of Spain and Portugal provisions to alleviate the ruthless exploitation of the Indians of the New World.

“… By its name and symbol, the most extensive organization ever created for the relief of the suffering caused by war, the Red Cross, bears witness to its Christian origin. The list might go on indefinitely. It includes many another humanitarian projects and movements, ideals in government, the reform of prisons and the emergence of criminology, great art and architecture, and outstanding literature.”
[A History of Christianity, Vol. II, originally published by HarperCollins Publishers 1953, revised 1975, pp.1470,1471].

Huxley’s attitude is moronic, considering his great-grandfather was the celebrated headmaster of Rugby, Thomas Arnold.

"The evidence for our LORD's life and death and resurrection may be, and often has been, shown to be satisfactory; it is good according to the common rules for distinguishing good evidence from bad. Thousands and tens of thousands of persons have gone through it piece by piece, as carefully as every judge summing up on a most important cause. I have myself done it many times over, not to persuade others but to satisfy myself. I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which GOD hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead."
Thomas Arnold, Sermons on the Christian Life - Its hopes, Its Fears, and its Close, (6th ed., London, 1854), p. 324.

[FONT=Arial Black]

[jpholding]

Bit more here.

129 -- DJ tackles the ressurection with the usual outdated canards.

1) Not sure what the issue here is. No one has ever argued that we have an eyewitness to the resurrection itself, but to the resurrected Jesus. DJ's conception of the resurrection body could also use some work; he could stand to check http://www.tektonics.org/lp/physrez.html

2) Gospel consistency [130] -- http://www.tektonics.org/harmonize/lincoln01.html is the cure for what ails him. Got to do better than Spong and Martin here.

3) [131] Gospel trustworthiness -- it's the critic's burden to show untrustworthiness, and the best DJ has to offer is John 21 (which is NOT a "return to the fishing trade"! good grief!) and Kummel's kooky idea that the women would not anoint a corpse three days later (sure, and people don't lay flowers on graves after someone is buried, either). And I don't know where DJ gets the crazy idea that the Jews did not use spices in caring for the dead. That's just plain wrong.

He also finds it improbable that the priests and elders would start a story about the body of Jesus. First DJ needs the counsel at http://www.tektonics.org/tsr/tsr914.html as to what Jesus predicted and how it was understood.

His reasons "why" he thinks the story unlikely are ridiculous.

a) The soldiers would not have reported to the chief priests but to Pilate. That's not true if they were Temple guards, which I think they were; but even if not, that's a silly point because Pilate will execute them at once, whereas they could have held out some forlorn hope from the only people in a position to help them.

b) DJ doesn't know why the priests would pay the soldiers to lie. Hello? This was an honor claim made by a deviant movement that worked against the interests of the Temple apparatus, DJ. Come on. As if people did not tell useless and stupid lies under pressure on a regular basis!

133 -- could stand http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html to cure that inept comparison to Muslims and kamikaze pilots.

More next time.

[HyperHobbes]

"Is there such a thing as an honest doubter?"No.

[jpholding]

No.

I think DJ was hoping you'd be a lot more troubled than that. Shame on you. :wink: (hee hee)

[HyperHobbes]

"I think DJ was hoping you'd be a lot more troubled than that."Over time, Rebellion is the only reason we do not recognize the truth. I'm being forgiving to include time in the mix.

HHobbes

[Tophet]

Hello, everyone:

What I post here continues a discussion begun in DJ's other thread, "Where is God in Infinite Space?" at http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1092753&postcount=59
The matter of using the legal apologetic to dispel doubts is more appropriate here, since it also addresses DJ's query of evaluating history.

Hello, Shinydragon:

Interesting statements you’ve made.

The case for resurrection is insufficient to convince skeptics or secular historians that it is a historical fact.

The link I provided here:
(See also http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articl...RJ1203-EV-1.htm), which you reposted, demonstrates the falsehood of your claim.

For your benefit, I will present an extract from the article here:

The Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ
Part I—Can It Persuade Skeptics?

Among the religions of the world, Christianity is unique in many ways. One area of uniqueness concerns the evidence supporting its basic claims. As lawyer, theologian, and philosopher Dr. John Warwick Montgomery points out, "The historic Christian claim differs qualitatively from the claims of all other world religions at the epistemological point: on the issue of testability."1 In other words, only Christianity stakes its claim to truthfulness on historical events open to critical investigation. And only this explains the number of conversions by skeptics throughout history.

Indeed, other religions in the world are believed in despite the lack of genuine evidence for their truth claims; only Christianity can claim credibility because of such evidence. Regrettably, what is often overlooked in the field of comparative religion today is that no genuinely historical/objective evidence exists for the foundational religious claims of Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, or any religion other than Christianity.2 As scientist, Christian apologist and biblical commentator Dr. Henry Morris observes, "As a matter of fact, the entire subject of evidences is almost exclusively the domain of Christian evidences. Other religions depend on subjective experience and blind faith, tradition and opinion. Christianity stands or falls upon the objective reality of gigantic supernatural events in history and the evidences therefore. This fact in itself is an evidence of its truth."

3

Evidence is defined in the Oxford American Dictionary as, "1) anything that establishes a fact or gives reason for believing something, 2) statements made or objects produced in a law court as proof or to support a case." One of the most interesting evidences for the truth of Christianity and, in particular, the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, is the testimony of former skeptics, many of whom attempted to disprove Christian faith. In this article we will supply several examples. We hope this will not only be an encouragement for Christians to take their faith seriously, but that it will also spur non-Christians to earnestly examine the claims of Christ on their own lives.

In the mid-eighteenth century, Lord George Lyttelton (a member of Parliament and Commissioner of the Treasury) and Gilbert West, Esq., went to Oxford. There, they were determined to attack the very basis of Christianity. Lyttelton set out to prove that Saul of Tarsus was never really converted to Christianity, and West intended to demonstrate that Jesus never really rose from the dead. Each had planned to do a painstaking job, taking a year to establish his case. But as they proceeded, they eventually concluded that Christianity was true. Both became Christians.

West eventually wrote Observations on the History and Evidences of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (1747). George Lyttelton wrote a lengthy text titled The Conversion of St. Paul (rpt. 1929). Their correspondence back and forth, showing their surprise at the quality of the evidence, can be found in any university microfilm library. West became totally convinced of the truth of the Resurrection, and Lyttelton of the genuine conversion of Saint Paul on the basis of it. For example, Lyttelton wrote to West in 1761, "Sir, in a late conversation we had together upon the subject of the Christian religion, I told you that besides all the proofs of it which may be drawn from the prophecies of the Old Testament, from the necessary connection it has with the whole system of the Jewish religion, from the miracles of Christ, and from the evidence given of his reflection by all the other apostles, I thought the conversion and apostleship of Saint Paul alone, duly considered, was of itself a demonstration sufficient to prove Christianity a divine revelation."4

In the 1930s a rationalistic English journalist named Frank Morison attempted to discover the "real" Jesus Christ. He was convinced that Christ’s "history rested upon very insecure foundations"—largely because of the influence of the rationalistic higher criticism so prevalent in his day.5 Further, he was dogmatically opposed to the miraculous elements in the Gospels. But he was nevertheless fascinated by the person of Jesus, who was to him "an almost legendary figure of purity and noble manhood."6

Morison decided to take the crucial "last phase" in the life of Christ and "to strip it of its overgrowth of primitive beliefs and dogmatic suppositions, and to see this supremely great Person as he really was.… It seemed to me that if I could come at the truth why this man died a cruel death at the hands of the Roman Power, how he himself regarded the matter, and especially how he behaved under the test, I should be very near to the true solution of the problem."7

But the book that Morison ended up writing was not the one he intended. He proceeded to write one of the most able defenses of the Resurrection of Christ in our time, Who Moved the Stone?

Giovanni Papini was one of the foremost Italian intellects of his period, an atheist and vocal enemy of the Church and self-appointed debunker of religion. But he became converted to faith in Christ and in 1921 penned his Life of Christ, stunning most of his friends and admirers.8

The Cambridge scholar C. S. Lewis, a former atheist, was converted to Christianity on the basis of the evidence, according to his text Surprised by Joy. He recalls, "I thought I had the Christians ‘placed’ and disposed of forever." But, "A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. There are traps everywhere—‘Bibles laid open, millions of surprises,’ as Herbert says, ‘Fine nets and stratagems.’ God is, if I may say it, very unscrupulous."9

But C. S. Lewis became a Christian because the evidence was compelling and he could not escape it. Even against his will he was "brought in kicking, struggling, resentful, and darting [my] eyes in every direction for a chance of escape." The God "whom I so earnestly desired not to meet" became His Lord and Savior.10 His book on Christian evidences, Mere Christianity, is considered a classic and has been responsible for converting thousands to the faith, among them the keen legal mind of former skeptic and Watergate figure Charles Colson, author of Born Again.

As a pre-law student, Josh McDowell was also a skeptic of Christianity and believed that every Christian had two minds: one was lost while the other was out looking for it. Eventually challenged to intellectually investigate the Christian truth claims, and thinking this a farce, he accepted the challenge and "as a result, I found historical facts and evidence about Jesus Christ that I never knew existed."11 He eventually wrote a number of important texts in defense of Christianity, among them Evidence That Demands a Verdict, More Evidence That Demands a Verdict, More Than a Carpenter and Daniel in the Lion’s Den.

Dr. Gary Habermas was raised a Christian. But he soon questioned his faith. He concluded that while the Resurrection might be believed, he personally doubted it and was skeptical that any evidence for it was really convincing. But after critical examination, it was the evidence that brought him around and he concluded the Resurrection was an established fact of history.12 He proceeded to write four important books in defense of the Resurrection: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus; The Resurrection of Jesus: A Rational Inquiry; The Resurrection of Jesus: An Apologetic; and Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? The Resurrection Debate.

As a brilliant philosophy student at Cornell University, John Warwick Montgomery was a convinced skeptic when it came to Christianity. But he, too, was challenged to investigate the evidence for Christianity. As a result, he became converted. He recalls, "I went to the university as a ‘garden-variety’ 20th century pagan. And as a result of being forced, for intellectual integrity’s sake, to check out this evidence, I finally came around."13 He confessed that had it not been for a committed undergraduate student who continued to challenge him to really examine the evidence, he would never have believed: "I thank God that he cared enough to do the reading to become a good apologist because if I hadn’t had someone like that I don’t know if I would have become a Christian."14

Montgomery went on to graduate from Cornell University with distinction in philosophy, Phi Beta Kappa. Then he went on to earn the Ph.D. from the University of Chicago, a second doctorate in theology from the University of Strasbourg, France, plus seven additional graduate degrees in theology, law, library science and other fields. He has written over 125 scholarly journal articles, plus 40 books, many of them defending Christian faith against skeptical views. He has held numerous prestigious appointments, is a founding member of the World Association of Law Professors, a member of the American Society of International Law and is honored in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in American Law, The Directory of American Scholars, International Scholars’ Directory, Who’s Who in France, Who’s Who in Europe, and Who’s Who in the World. There are many individuals with the kind of background and philosophical premises as Dr. Montgomery. They simply do not believe in Christianity apart from sufficient evidence.

Among great literary writers, few can match the brilliance of famous author Malcolm Muggeridge. He, too, was once a skeptic of Christianity. But near the end of his life he became fully convinced of the truth of the Resurrection of Christ, writing a book acclaimed by critics, Jesus: The Man Who Lives (1975). He wrote, "The coming of Jesus into the world is the most stupendous event in human history…." and "What is unique about Jesus is that, on the testimony and in the experience of innumerable people, of all sorts and conditions, of all races and nationalities from the simplest and most primitive to the most sophisticated and cultivated, he remains alive." Muggeridge concludes, "That the Resurrection happened… seems to be indubitably true" and "Either Jesus never was or he still is…. with the utmost certainty, I assert he still is." 15

The famous scholar and archaeologist, Sir William Ramsay, was educated at Oxford and a Professor at both Oxford and Cambridge. He received gold medals from Pope Leo XII, the University of Pennsylvania, the Royal Geographical Society, the Royal Scottish Geographical Society, and was knighted in 1906. He was once a skeptic of Christianity, convinced that the Bible was fraudulent.

He had spent years deliberately preparing himself for the announced task of heading an exploration expedition into Asia Minor and Palestine, the home of the Bible, where he would "dig up the evidence" that the Book was the product of ambitious monks, and not the Book from heaven it claimed to be. He regarded the weakest spot in the whole New Testament to be the story of Paul’s travels. These had never been thoroughly investigated by one on the spot. Equipped as no other man had been, he went to the home of the Bible. Here he spent fifteen years literally "digging for the evidence." Then in 1896 he published a large volume, Saint Paul the Traveler and the Roman Citizen.

The book caused a furor of dismay among the skeptics of the world. Its attitude was utterly unexpected because it was contrary to the announced intention of the author years before…. for twenty years more, book after book from the same author came from the press, each filled with additional evidence of the exact, minute truthfulness of the whole New Testament as tested by the spade on the spot. The evidence was so overwhelming that many infidels announced their repudiation of their former unbelief and accepted Christianity. And these books have stood the test of time, not one having been refuted, nor have I found even any attempt to refute them.16
Ramsay’s own archaeological findings convinced him of the reliability of the Bible and the truth of what it taught. In his The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament and other books, he shows why he came to conclude that, e.g., "Luke’s history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness" and that "Luke is a historian of the first rank…. In short, this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians."17

One of the greatest classical scholars of our century, the outstanding authority on Homer, Dr. John A. Scott, Professor of Greek at Northwestern University for some 40 years, at one time president of the American Philosophical Association as well as president of the Classical Association of the Midwest and South, wrote a book at the age of seventy, concluding a lifetime of ripened convictions, We Would See Jesus. He, too, was convinced that Luke was an accurate historian: "Luke was not only a doctor and historian, but he was one of the world’s greatest men of letters. He wrote the clearest and the best Greek written in that century."18

Here we have two of the greatest intellects of recent time (Ramsay and Scott), among many that could be cited, vouching for the historical accuracy and integrity of the Apostle Luke, who wrote not only the Gospel of Luke, but the Book of Acts as well. In the latter book he claimed that the Resurrection of Christ had been established "by many convincing proofs" (Acts 1:3). It is only by means of such convincing proofs that skeptics such as the above individuals could have ever been converted in the first place. Indeed, the entire history of Christianity involves the conversion of skeptics to Christian faith.

***

Your profile states that you are a teacher. As a teacher, are you not obligated to tell the truth?


Basically world wide in secular academic history the resurrection is not considered a historical fact, but a claim by those who believe in Christianity.

World opinion is not a standard for ascertaining fact and truth. The standard we use is the rules of legal evidence as applied in courts of justice. Do you believe subjective opinion should prevail over objective fact?

This is true of all miraculous and supernatural accounts in ancient historical works, and some ancient writings are better documented than those in the Bible.

Really? Cite your credentials. What proof do you offer? Why should we believe you?

Historians will accept the historical accounts of the life of Confucius, because of the overwhelming evidence that exists to support the basic facts of his life and writings, but will still not accept the miraculous events recorded in biography as historical fact.

And how do they match the caliber of the miracles of Jesus Christ? Did Confucius rise from the dead? Did Confucius fulfill prophecy? Did Confucius claim to forgive sins?

Can you cite a secular historian text from a major secular university that considers the resurrection as a proven historical fact and not a religious belief of Christianity?

I already did. His name is Simon Greenleaf. Why did you ignore his credentials? I shall recite them for your benefit:

Dr. Simon Greenleaf was one of the greatest legal minds we have had in this country. He was the famous Royall Professor of Law at Harvard University, and succeeded Justice Joseph Story as the Dane Professor of Law in the same university. H. W. H. Knotts in the Dictionary of American Biography says of him: "To the efforts of Story and Greenleaf is ascribed the rise of the Harvard Law School to its eminent position among the legal schools of the United States."… Greenleaf concluded that the Resurrection of Christ was one of the best supported events in history, according to the laws of legal evidence administered in courts of justice.

These would be the skeptics you would need to convince to get it in print.

That’s assuming that skeptics are willing to examine the evidence themselves to be convinced, and apply the same standards they would any historical document.

Greenleaf:
All Christianity asks of men on this subject, is that they would be consistent with themselves; that they would treat the evidence of other things; and that they would try and judge its actors and witnesses, as they deal with their fellow men, when testifying to human affairs and actions, in human tribunals. Let the witnesses be compared with themselves, with each other, and with surrounding facts and circumstances; and let their testimony be sifted, as if were given in a court of justice, on the side of the adverse party, the witness being subjected to a rigorous cross-examination. The result, it is confidently believed, will be an undoubting conviction of their integrity, ability, and truth. In the course of such an examination, the undesigned coincidences will multiply upon us at every step in the witnesses and of the reality of the occurrences which they relate will increase, until it acquires, for all practical purposes, the value and force of demonstration.

Claims by Christians that it would past the test of cross-examination in a modern court of law does not work.

According to the laws of evidence as administered in courts of justice, it does. What are your legal credentials? Do you believe yourself to be greater than the law?

It does not matter which great universities they graduated from, if they who are devote Christians, they would not be qualified to determine if the resurrection of Jesus Christ could stand up to Cross examination in a modern court of law because they would be prejudiced in evaluating the evidence in the case.

Dr. Greenleaf states, “In examining the evidence of the Christian religion, it is essential to the discovery of truth that we bring to the investigation a mind freed, as far as possible, from existing prejudice, and open to conviction. There should be a readiness, on our part, to investigate with candor to follow the truth wherever it may lead us, and to submit, without reserve or objection, to all the teachings of this religion, if it be found to be of divine origin.”

The case for resurrection cannot be claimed to pass the test of Cross-examination in a modern secular court of law until it actually does.

It can be claimed because the testimony of the Evangelists meets the criterion of legal evidence, as Simon Greenleaf demonstrates in Testimony of the Evangelists. The legal jurists cited at http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/ATRJ/truth/ATRJ1203-EV-3.htm concur.

Do you want to investigate this? Go to http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=moa;idno=AGA1251.0001.001 Start with the 25th “Page NA” down.

It would be interesting if the case ever was presented in a court of law to test this. Could you site any secular non-prejudicial support for this claim?

Yes. The law itself.

This is why:

“But it matters little to the peace of society, how wise or upright the judge or the jury may be, if their means of ascertaining truth are feeble and inefficient; since judgements and decisions will be respected only in proportion to their supposed agreement with the actual merits of the case, in fact, as well as in law. The great instrument of eliciting truth is the hold obtained upon the conscience through the medium of an oath. The force of this hold will depend on the sense of moral obligation and accountability, in the person taking it; and to strengthen, rather than to impair this, seems peculiarly to be demanded of us, who have such frequent occasion to resort to its agency. The utility of judicial tribunals is thus referred at last to the sanctions afforded by religion. In this country, religion in all its forms is freely tolerated; but its existence in any form, is left to depend on the support of public opinion. And the founder of our nation has remarked, that “in proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it should be enlightened.’ Christianity founds its claim to our belief upon the weight of the evidence by which it is supported. This evidence is not peculiar to the department of theology; its rules are precisely those by which the law scans the conduct and language of men on all other subjects, even in their daily transactions. This branch of the law is one of our particular study. It is our constant employment to explore the mazes of falsehood, to detect its doublings, to pierce its thickest veils; to follow and expose its sophistries; to compare, with scrupulous exactness, the testimony of different witnesses to examine their motives and their interests; to discover truth and separate it from error. Our fellow-men know this to be our province; and perhaps this knowledge may have its influence to a greater extent than we or even they imagine. We are therefore required by the strongest motives, by personal interest, by the ties of kindred and friendship, by the claims of patriotism and philanthropy, to examine, and that not lightly, the evidences on which Christianity challenges our belief; and the degree of credit to which they are entitled. The Christian religion is part of our common law, with the very texture of which it is interwoven. Its authority is frequently admitted in our statute-books; and its holy things are there expressly guarded from blasphemy and desecration. If it be found, as indeed it is, a message of peace on earth and good will to men; exhibiting the most perfect code of morals for our government, the purest patterns of exalted virtue for our imitation, and
the brightest hopes, which can cheer the heart of man; let it receive the just tribute of our admiring approval, our reverential obedience, and our cordial support.”

From A Discourse pronounced at the Inauguration of the author as Royall Professor of Law in Harvard University, August 29, 1834. By Simon Greenleaf.

Emotional appeals such as this are nice and filled with warm fuzzy puppies and kittens, but it does not resolve the problems of the 'morality of God' or the 'Isreal and Egypt' problems in the Bible.

Except these have already been addressed by J. P. Holding and Glenn Miller. Therefore, no problem.

I have been to the services of many different faiths and felt the emotional tug and the tears, which one do people usually chose? The one closest to what they grew up with and comfortable with among their family and or piers.

Is that so? Do you believe your opinion supersedes that of Encyclopedia Britannica? It cites the following number of Christians world-wide in mid-2004:

Africa 401,717,000
Asia 341,337,000
Europe 553,689,000
Latin America 510,131,000
Northern America 273,941,000
Oceana 26,147,000
World 2,106,962,000

You see, Shinyadragon? Christianity thrives throughout the world!


Please do not post more than two paragraphs of copyrighted material, unless you have permission from the author. Thanks!

[Tux314]

You might actually say that I'm an honest "doubter", even though I am a Christian and not an atheist. It's partially because of my INTP personality type, I think. See http://www.typelogic.com/intp.html:

A major concern for INTPs is the haunting sense of impending failure. They spend considerable time second-guessing themselves. The open-endedness (from Perceiving) conjoined with the need for competence (NT) is expressed in a sense that one's conclusion may well be met by an equally plausible alternative solution, and that, after all, one may very well have overlooked some critical bit of data. An INTP arguing a point may very well be trying to convince himself as much as his opposition. In this way INTPs are markedly different from INTJs, who are much more confident in their competence and willing to act on their convictions.

You see, I will find myself doubting most anything I believe. This isn't just limited to Christianity. Perhaps that's part of why we tend to gravitate to systems like mathematics and computer science - in those systems, many propositions can be irrefutably proven!

That last sentence compares my personality type to J.P.'s, so hopefully he will be able to understand.

Blaise Pascal was an INTP. Perhaps that's why he invented Pascal's Wager. Even though many have discredited the Wager for being a false dilemma, it still makes practical sense to me when examining the claims of atheists.

[Taran Wanderer]

You might actually say that I'm an honest "doubter", even though I am a Christian and not an atheist. It's partially because of my INTP personality type, I think. See http://www.typelogic.com/intp.html:

You see, I will find myself doubting most anything I believe. This isn't just limited to Christianity. Perhaps that's part of why we tend to gravitate to systems like mathematics and computer science - in those systems, many propositions can be irrefutably proven!

That last sentence compares my personality type to J.P.'s, so hopefully he will be able to understand.

Blaise Pascal was an INTP. Perhaps that's why he invented Pascal's Wager. Even though many have discredited the Wager for being a false dilemma, it still makes practical sense to me when examining the claims of atheists.
That's the way I am too. Technically I'm an INFJ, but I strongly identify with many INTP traits.

[shunyadragon]

Hello, everyone:

What I post here continues a discussion begun in DJ's other thread, "Where is God in Infinite Space?" at http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1092753&postcount=59
The matter of using the legal apologetic to dispel doubts is more appropriate here, since it also addresses DJ's query of evaluating history.



Except these have already been addressed by J. P. Holding and Glenn Miller. Therefore, no problem.



Is that so? Do you believe your opinion supersedes that of Encyclopedia Britannica? It cites the following number of Christians world-wide in mid-2004:

Africa 401,717,000
Asia 341,337,000
Europe 553,689,000
Latin America 510,131,000
Northern America 273,941,000
Oceana 26,147,000
World 2,106,962,000

You see, Shinyadragon? Christianity thrives throughout the world!

Citing a few famous people who claimed to be skeptics and encyclopedia figures are not very convincing for your argument. My challenge still basically stands. Your well known skeptics I can count easily on my fingers and toes. There are tens of thousands of skeptics who have not changed their minds and Chirstians who changed and now reject the resurrection as historical fact.

This type of logical conclusion is false. I may say, All people believe in evolution, because 99%+ of all scientist in related fields do believe in it and support it, but the reality is more than half of the people of the USA do not accept evolution. Citing a select group to prove a greater conclusion is false, regardless of the credentials of the small group.

The greatest skeptics you have to convince are the vaste number of historians and archeologists, and the secular university departments of the world that write and publish the history texts of the world. None of the major history texts from these consider the resurrection of Christ a proven historical fact. It is the devote Christians, including the converted skeptics you cite, who do so.

I will review some references and post them to illustrate how the secular academic community views the resurrection. You may also post secular sources to argue your view.

Quoting numbers of Christians in the world does not work, because the majority of the population of the world does not accept the resurrection of Christ as a proven historical fact.

My challenge as to whether the resurrection of Christ would pass cross-examination still stands as I posted. Quoting devote Christians, regardless of their education credentials fails to demonstrate that the claim would be successful in a secular court. The court system of the USA will not even consider the proof or historical validity of any religious supernatural claim.

[Tophet]

Well, well, Shunyadragon:

You failed to answer the questions from my previous post. I expect you to answer them. Why are you afraid to answer them?

From my previous post:

Your profile states that you are a teacher. As a teacher, are you not obligated to tell the truth?

This is true of all miraculous and supernatural accounts in ancient historical works, and some ancient writings are better documented than those in the Bible.

Really? Cite your credentials. What proof do you offer? Why should we believe you?


Historians will accept the historical accounts of the life of Confucius, because of the overwhelming evidence that exists to support the basic facts of his life and writings, but will still not accept the miraculous events recorded in biography as historical fact.

And how do they match the caliber of the miracles of Jesus Christ? Did Confucius rise from the dead? Did Confucius fulfill prophecy? Did Confucius claim to forgive sins?

World opinion is not a standard for ascertaining fact and truth. The standard we use is the rules of legal evidence as applied in courts of justice. Do you believe subjective opinion should prevail over objective fact?

What are your legal credentials? Do you believe yourself to be greater than the law?

Citing a few famous people who claimed to be skeptics and encyclopedia figures are not very convincing for your argument. My challenge still basically stands.

Except that they refute your earlier statements, which were

The case for resurrection is insufficient to convince skeptics or secular historians that it is a historical fact.

and

I have been to the services of many different faiths and felt the emotional tug and the tears, which one do people usually chose? The one closest to what they grew up with and comfortable with among their family and or piers.

In other words, the case for resurrection is sufficent to convince skeptics or secular historians that it is a historical fact.

Your well known skeptics I can count easily on my fingers and toes. There are tens of thousands of skeptics who have not changed their minds

Why? Because they have a double standard when it comes to evaluating history. Those who accept the history of Christianity and Judaism do so on the basis of legal and historical evidence.

and Chirstians who changed and now reject the resurrection as historical fact. This type of logical conclusion is false.

Unless you consider the basis upon which that decision is made. You have failed to do so.

I may say, All people believe in evolution, because 99%+ of all scientist in related fields do believe in it and support it, but the reality is more than half of the people of the USA do not accept evolution. Citing a select group to prove a greater conclusion is false, regardless of the credentials of the small group.

You're not paying attention. Read my previous post again.

The greatest skeptics you have to convince are the vaste number of historians and archeologists, and the secular university departments of the world that write and publish the history texts of the world.

You gave the same argument in your previous post but you ignored my answer. Ignoring my answer is not a refutation. My answer was:

World opinion is not a standard for ascertaining fact and truth. The standard we use is the rules of legal evidence as applied in courts of justice. Do you believe subjective opinion should prevail over objective fact?

None of the major history texts from these consider the resurrection of Christ a proven historical fact.

Really? Why should we believe you? You have cited no evidence to your claim. You have given us no credentials of your own.

It is the devote Christians, including the converted skeptics you cite, who do so.

Because they accept historical fact.

I will review some references and post them to illustrate how the secular academic community views the resurrection.

First, you have to demonstrate they understand and know the meaning of "Christian" and "Christianity."

Second, you have to demonstrate that they applied the same rules of evidence as one would any documented event.

Can you do that?

You may also post secular sources to argue your view.

I already did. Why did you fail to read it? I'll post it again:

Go to http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/t/text...GA1251.0001.001 Start with the 25th “Page NA” down.

Quoting numbers of Christians in the world does not work, because the majority of the population of the world does not accept the resurrection of Christ as a proven historical fact.

Because they ignore the evidence of the Resurrection. But ignoring the evidence doesn't make the evidence go away, now, does it?

Remember, "other religions in the world are believed in despite the lack of genuine evidence for their truth claims; only Christianity can claim credibility because of such evidence. Regrettably, what is often overlooked in the field of comparative religion today is that no genuinely historical/objective evidence exists for the foundational religious claims of Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, or any religion other than Christianity. As scientist, Christian apologist and biblical commentator Dr. Henry Morris observes, "As a matter of fact, the entire subject of evidences is almost exclusively the domain of Christian evidences. Other religions depend on subjective experience and blind faith, tradition and opinion. Christianity stands or falls upon the objective reality of gigantic supernatural events in history and the evidences therefore. This fact in itself is an evidence of its truth."

My challenge as to whether the resurrection of Christ would pass cross-examination still stands as I posted.

No, you're simply ignoring the laws of evidence as administered in courts of justice. You still haven't answered my questions: What are your legal credentials? Do you believe yourself to be greater than the law?

Quoting devote Christians, regardless of their education credentials fails to demonstrate that the claim would be successful in a secular court.

Except I have done more than that; I have revealed the basis upon which they make that claim. It is the rules of evidence that are applied in courts of justice.

The court system of the USA will not even consider the proof or historical validity of any religious supernatural claim.

You are obviously ignorant of our legal system.

THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
HOLY TRINITY CHURCH v. U.S.
February 29, 1892

"But, beyond all these matters, no purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation. The commission to Christopher Columbus, prior to his sail westward, is from "Ferdinand and Isabella, by the grace of God, king and queen of Castile," etc., and recites that "it is hoped that by God's assistance some of the continents and islands in the [496] ocean will be discovered," etc. The first colonial grant, that made to Sir Walter Raleigh in 1584, was from "Elizabeth, by the grace of God, of England, France, and Ireland, queene, defender of the faith," etc.; and the grant authorizing him to enact statutes of the government of the proposed colony provided that "they be not against the true Christian faith nowe professed in the Church of England." The first charter of Virginia, granted by King James I. in 1606, after reciting the application of certain parties for a charter, commenced the grant in these words: "We, greatly commending, and graciously accepting of, their Desires for the Furtherance of so noble a Work, which may, by the Providence of Almighty God, hereafter tend to the Glory of His Divine Majesty, in propagating of Christian Religion to such People, as yet live in Darkness and miserable Ignorance of the true Knowledge and Worship of God, and may in time bring the Infidels and Savages, living in those parts, to human Civility, and to a settled and quiet Government; DO, by these our Letters-Patents, graciously accept of, and agree to, their humble and well-intentioned Desires."

Language of similar import may be found in the subsequent charters of that colony from the same king, in 1609 and 1611; and the same is true of the various charters granted to the other colonies. In language more or less emphatic is the establishment of the Christian religion declared to be one of the purposes of the grant. The celebrated compact made by the pilgrims in the Mayflower, 1620, recites: "Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the first Colony in the northern Parts of Virginia; Do by these Presents, solemnly and mutually, in the Presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid."

The fundamental orders of Connecticut, under which a provisional government was instituted in 1638-39, commence with this declaration: "Forasmuch as it hath pleased the Allmighty God by the wise disposition of his diuyne pruidence [143 U.S. 457, 467] so to order and dispose of things that we the Inhabitants and Residents of Windsor, Hartford, and Wethersfield are now cohabiting and dwelling in and vppon the River of Conectecotte and the Lands thereunto adioyneing; And well knowing where a people are gathered togather the word of {515} God requires that to mayntayne the peace and union of such a people there should be an orderly and decent Gouerment established according to God, to order and dispose of the affayres of the people at all seasons as occation shall require; doe therefore assotiate and conioyne our selues to be as one Publike State or Commonwelth; and doe, for our selues and our Successors and such as shall be adioyned to vs att any tyme hereafter, enter into Combination and Confederation togather, to mayntayne and presearue the liberty and purity of the gospell of our Lord Jesus wch we now prfesse, as also the disciplyne of the Churches, wch according to the truth of the said gospell is now practised amongst vs."

In the charter of privileges granted by William Penn to the province of Pennsylvania, in 1701, it is recited: "Because no People can be truly happy, though under the greatest Enjoyment of Civil Liberties, if abridged of the Freedom of their Consciences, as to their Religious Profession and Worship; And Almighty God being the only Lord of Conscience, Father of Lights and Spirits; and the Author as well as Object of all divine Knowledge, Faith, and Worship, who only doth enlighten the Minds, and persuade and convince the Understandings of People, I do hereby grant and declare," etc.

Coming nearer to the present time, the declaration of independence recognizes the presence of the Divine in human affairs in these words: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." "We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare," etc.; "And for the [143 U.S. 457, 468] support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."

If we examine the constitutions of the various states, we find in them a constant recognition of religious obligations. Every constitution of every one of the 44 states contains language which, either directly or by clear implication, recognizes a profound reverence for religion, and an assumption that its influence in all human affairs is essential to the well-being of the community. This recognition may be in the preamble, such as is found in the constitution of Illinois, 1870: "We, the people of the state of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political, and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and transmit the same unimpaired to succeeding generations," etc.

It may be only in the familiar requisition that all officers shall take an oath closing with the declaration, "so help me God." It may be in clauses like that of the constitution of Indiana, 1816, art. 11, §4: "The manner of administering an oath or affirmation shall be such as is most consistent with the conscience of the deponent, and shall be esteemed the most solemn appeal to God." Or in provisions such as are found in articles 36 and 37 of the declaration of the rights of the constitution of Maryland, (1867): "That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty: wherefore, no person ought, by any law, to be molested in his person or estate on account of his religious persuasion or profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace, or safety of the state, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil, or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent or maintain or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain any place of worship or any ministry; nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness or juror on account of his religious belief: provided, he [143 U.S. 457, 469] believes in the existence of God, and that, under his dispensation, such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefor, either in this world or the world to come. That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office or profit or trust in this state, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this constitution." Or like that in articles 2 and 3 of part 1 of the constitution of Massachusetts, (1780:) "It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society publicly, and at stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being, the Great Creator and Preserver of the universe. * * * As the happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion, and morality, and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community but by the institution of the public worship of God and of public instructions in piety, religion, and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness, and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic or religious societies to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provisions shall not be made voluntarily." Or, as in sections 5 and 14 of article 7 of the constitution of Mississippi, (1832:) "No person who denies the being of a God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state. * * * Religion {516} morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government, the preservation of liberty, and the happiness of mankind, schools, and the means of education, shall forever be encouraged in this state." Or by article 22 of the constitution of Delaware, (1776,) which required all officers, besides an oath of allegiance, to make and subscribe the following declaration: "I, A.B., do profess [143 U.S. 457, 470] faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."

Even the constitution of the United States, which is supposed to have little touch upon the private life of the individual, contains in the first amendment a declaration common to the constitutions of all the states, as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," etc., - and also provides in article 1, § 7, (a provision common to many constitutions,) that the executive shall have 10 days (Sundays excepted) within which to determine whether he will approve or veto a bill.

There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning. They affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons. They are organic utterances. They speak the voice of the entire people. While because of a general recognition of this truth the question has seldom been presented to the courts, yet we find that in Updegraph v. Comm., 11 Serg. & R. 394, 400, it was decided that, "Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law of Pennsylvania; * * * not Christianity with an established church and tithes and spiritual courts, but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men." And in People v. Ruggles, 8 Johns. 290, 294, 295, Chancellor KENT, the great commentator on American law, speaking as chief justice of the supreme court of New York, said: "The people of this state, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity as the rule of their faith and practice; and to scandalize the author of those doctrines in not only, in a religious point of view, extremely impious, but, even in respect to the obligations due to society, is a gross violation of decency and good order. * * * The free, equal, and undisturbed enjoyment of religious opinion, whatever it may be, and free and decent discussions on any religious [143 U.S. 457, 471] subject, is granted and secured; but to revile, with malicious and blasphemous contempt, the religion professed by almost the whole community is an abuse of that right. Nor are we bound by any expressions in the constitution, as some have strangely supposed, either not to punish at all, or to punish indiscriminately the like attacks upon the religion of Mahomet or of the Grand Lama; and for this plain reason that the case assumes that we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply ingrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors." And in the famous case of Vidal v. Girard's Ex'rs, 2 How. 127, 198, this court, while sustaining the will of Mr. Girard, with its provisions for the creation of a college into which no minister should be permitted to enter, observed: "it is also said, and truly, that the Christian religion is a part of the common law of Pennsylvania."

If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American life, as expressed by its laws, its business, its customs, and its society, we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth. Among other matters note the following: The form of oath universally prevailing, concluding with an appeal to the Almighty; the custom of opening sessions of all deliberative bodies and most conventions with prayer; the prefatory words of all wills, "In the name of God, amen;" the laws respecting the observance of the Sabbath, with the general cessation of all secular business, and the closing of courts, legislatures, and other similar public assemblies on that day; the churches and church organizations which abound in every city, town, and hamlet; the multitude of charitable organizations existing everywhere under Christian auspices; the gigantic missionary associations, with general support, and aiming to establish Christian missions in every quarter of the globe. These and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation. In the face of all these, shall it be believed that a congress of the United States intended to make it a misdemeanor for a church of this country to contract for the services of a Christian minister residing in another nation? "

You also ignored what Simon Greenleaf said:

"The Christian religion is part of our common law, with the very texture of which it is interwoven. Its authority is frequently admitted in our statute-books; and its holy things are there expressly guarded from blasphemy and desecration. If it be found, as indeed it is, a message of peace on earth and good will to men; exhibiting the most perfect code of morals for our government, the purest patterns of exalted virtue for our imitation, and
the brightest hopes, which can cheer the heart of man; let it receive the just tribute of our admiring approval, our reverential obedience, and our cordial support.”

I have addressed your challenges. Now in your response, I expect you to answer all my questions, and to read Greenleaf's treatise that I have provided in this post. Or do you want us to think of you as a coward?

[Tux314]

shunyadragon, I see several flaws in your reasoning. For one, it is fallacious to claim that the percentage of the population in general who believes in a proposition necessarily reflects the truth of the proposition. It doesn't matter whether the sampled group is "scientists", or "the general population", or whatever, no group's beliefs can prove reality. Nonetheless, a group that should have the proper knowledge to make a relevant conclusion does have a high probability of being correct.

For another, it is unreasonable to require the "secular" world to accept the Resurrection. If a given person is convinced that the Resurrection is a historical fact, then that person is darn likely to become a Christian. It would be rather surprising to find someone who is convinced of the Resurrection but who does not believe in Christianity. Such a person would have to explain the Resurrection outside the framework of Christianity, something I have yet to see anyone do.

[Doubting John]

Tophet, I'm back. See "Where is God in Infinite SPACE," page 5 for why.

shunyadragon:

See the thread: "Can a Historical Religion Be Believed." You might also want to check out the thread: "Can We Today Believe in Miracles?"

There are many "straw men" and "red herrings" and "oversimplifications" and "appeals to authority" and "horse laugher" "false dilemmas" and informal "fallacies of the beard" in Tophet's postings. She probably doesn't even know what these things are, and will consequently ask me to point them out. But they are legion. Let her first take my logic class, or read a book on logic. Then she will know and be surprised.

Even if I point them out she will not see them--that's when I stopped bothering to point them out, and it galls her greatly. She just lacks understanding--period. She's a wanna be. I just figure she just likes to vent a lot. Well let her vent on, because until she comes up to our level she's not worth dealing with at any great length at all. Let her first get a high school education--at least a High School Equivalency degree would be a start.

P.S. That woman hates to be ignored! Watch and see.

[shunyadragon]

shunyadragon, I see several flaws in your reasoning. For one, it is fallacious to claim that the percentage of the population in general who believes in a proposition necessarily reflects the truth of the proposition. It doesn't matter whether the sampled group is "scientists", or "the general population", or whatever, no group's beliefs can prove reality. Nonetheless, a group that should have the proper knowledge to make a relevant conclusion does have a high probability of being correct.

For another, it is unreasonable to require the "secular" world to accept the Resurrection. If a given person is convinced that the Resurrection is a historical fact, then that person is darn likely to become a Christian. It would be rather surprising to find someone who is convinced of the Resurrection but who does not believe in Christianity. Such a person would have to explain the Resurrection outside the framework of Christianity, something I have yet to see anyone do.

It is interesting that we very much agree. You apparently missed the points of my post, because I am very much in agreement with 'it is unreasonable to require the "secular" world to accept the Resurrection. If a given person is convinced that the Resurrection is a historical fact, then that person is darn likely to become a Christian. It would be rather surprising to find someone who is convinced of the Resurrection but who does not believe in Christianity. Such a person would have to explain the Resurrection outside the framework of Christianity, something I have yet to see anyone do.'

It is our friend Tophet who claims that the evidence is sufficient to pass cross-examination in a secular court and enough to convince skeptics. The rantings in her last post went beyond reason. Citing old Elizabetian and Victorian documents does little to demonstrate the requirements for proof and verifiability in a modern court of law.

[jpholding]

P.S. That woman hates to be ignored! Watch and see.

Where do you people get the idea that Tophet is a woman? :huh:

[Tophet]

Tophet, I'm back. See "Where is God in Infinite SPACE," page 5 for why.

John, I'm back. Why? Because we like you!

Shunyadragon:
See the thread: "Can a Historical Religion Be Believed."

Then come back to this thread, where J.P. refuted his statements.

You might also want to check out the thread: "Can We Today Believe in Miracles?"

Why bother? The answer is "yes."

There are many "straw men" and "red herrings" and "oversimplifications" and "appeals to authority" and "horse laugher" "false dilemmas" and informal "fallacies of the beard" in Tophet's postings.

Why John, you don't know that according to law, one is innocent until proven guilty?

She probably doesn't even know what these things are, and will consequently ask me to point them out. But they are legion. Let her first take my logic class, or read a book on logic. Then she will know and be surprised.

Yes, yes, another ad hominem.

Now let's see if you can do the same for shunyadragon. Go through his posts to me. Find his fallacies in logic and list them in your next post. Do this to demonstrate you don't follow a double standard. If you do not do this, you concede that you are not competent in the application of logic and that you don't know what you're talking about. Further, you concede that you engage in a double standard.

Even if I point them out she will not see them--that's when I stopped bothering to point them out,

And you started pointing them out where, John?

and it galls her greatly.

Nope. You've engaged another ad hominem. In other words, you're lying again.

She just lacks understanding--period. She's a wanna be. I just figure she just likes to vent a lot.

Except I haven't vented. You have. Remember?

From http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1097106&postcount=75
For your information, I was venting. Venting, J.P. That’s not an Ad Hominem argument, either. It’s venting.

Well let her vent on, because until she comes up to our level she's not worth dealing with at any great length at all. Let her first get a high school education--at least a High School Equivalency degree would be a start.

Poor, poor, John. If your position had any merit you wouldn't need to resort to ad hominems.

P.S. That woman hates to be ignored!

Not at all. All you're doing is proving your cowardice in running away from my questions.

Watch and see.

Indeed. So I have another challenge to you, John.

You have the means, motive and opportunity to counter my statements. By not doing so, you forfeit. Therefore, if you do not respond to all the questions I have asked of you in this thread and in "Where is God in INFINITE SPACE?" you concede my points.

You concede that you are a liar.
You concede that you are a hypocrite.
You concede that you are a coward.
You concede you are ignorant about Christianity.
You concede that you are mentally deficient.
You concede that you blame other people for your own failures.
You concede that you engage in a double standard in the evaluation of logic.
You concede that you engage in a double standard in the evaluation of history.

I await your response with wry amusement.

[Tophet]

Yo, Shunyadragon:

I'm disappointed that you avoided answering my questions. What was it about my questions that frightened you so?

It is our friend Tophet who claims that the evidence is sufficient to pass cross-examination in a secular court and enough to convince skeptics.

Not just me. As I cited before, there's Lord Darling of England, Lord Lyndhurst, Hugo Grotius, J. N. D. Anderson, Irwin H. Linton, Simon Greenleaf, Lord Caldecote, Irwin Linton.

Hundreds of lawyers are represented by The National Christian Legal Society, The Rutherford Institute, Lawyers Christian Fellowship, and other Christian law organizations, schools and societies. Among their number are some of the most respected lawyers in the country, men who have graduated from our leading law schools and gone on to prominence in the world of law. The law schools of Cornell, Harvard, Yale, Boston, New York University, University of Southern California, Georgetown, University of Michigan, Northwestern, Hastings College of Law at U. C. Berkeley, Loyola, and many others are all represented.

Among the Board of Reference or distinguished lectureships given at Dr. Weldon’s alma mater, Simon Greenleaf University, we could cite Samuel Ericsson, J.D., Harvard Law School, Renatus J. Chytil, formerly a lecturer at Cornell and an expert on Czechoslovakian law, Dr. John W. Brabner-Smith, Dean Emeritus of the International School of Law, Washington, D.C., and Richard Colby, J.D., Yale Law School, with Twentieth Century Fox. All are Christians who accept the Resurrection of Christ as a historical fact.

The rantings in her last post went beyond reason.

Ah, yes, a good example of circular reasoning. "The rantings in her last post went beyond reason." Why? "The rantings in her last post went beyond reason." Nice.

Citing old Elizabetian and Victorian documents does little to demonstrate the requirements for proof and verifiability in a modern court of law.

Except, Shuny, that had you read Greenleaf's treatise, he was quoting the law itself. Those are the rules of evidence as applied in a court of law, established upon legal precedent, and they're still as valid today as they were then. Why did you not know that?

All you're doing Shuny, is proving the words of J.N.D. Anderson when he says, in Christianity: The Witness of History, "it can be asserted with confidence that men and women disbelieve the Easter story not because of the evidence but in spite of it."

P.S. J. N. D. Anderson is one of the world’s leading authorities on Muslim law, Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of London, Chairman of the Department of Oriental Law at the School of Oriental and African Studies, and Director of the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies at the University of London.

P.P.S. Hey, Shuny, I like your avatar.

P.P.P.S. Oh, yes, here's something else for you to consider:

From http://www.tektonics.org/scim/sciencemony.htm:

Dr. Francis S. Collins is Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute at the National Institute of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. He currently leads the Human Genome Project, directed at mapping and sequencing all of human DNA, and determining aspects of its function. His previous research has identified the genes responsible for cystic fibrosis, neurofibromatosis, Huntington's disease and Hutchison-Gilford progeria syndrome. He is a member of the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences. For the rest of his credentials, click on the link here: http://www.genome.gov/10000980. Collins spoke with Bob Abernethy of PBS, posted online at http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/transcripts/collins.html, in which he summaries the compatability of fact and faith thusly:

“I think there’s a common assumption that you cannot both be a rigorous, show-me-the-data scientist and a person who believes in a personal God. I would like to say that from my perspective that assumption is incorrect; that, in fact, these two areas are entirely compatible and not only can exist within the same person, but can exist in a very synthetic way, and not in a compartmentalized way. I have no reason to see a discordance between what I know as a scientist who spends all day studying the genome of humans and what I believe as somebody who pays a lot of attention to what the Bible has taught me about God and about Jesus Christ. Those are entirely compatible views.

“Science is the way -- a powerful way, indeed -- to study the natural world. Science is not particularly effective -- in fact, it’s rather ineffective -- in making commentary about the supernatural world. Both worlds, for me, are quite real and quite important. They are investigated in different ways. They coexist. They illuminate each other. And it is a great joy to be in a position of being able to bring both of those points of view to bear in any given day of the week. The notion that you have to sort of choose one or the other is a terrible myth that has been put forward, and which many people have bought into without really having a chance to examine the evidence. I came to my faith not, actually, in a circumstance where it was drummed into me as a child, which people tend to assume of any scientist who still has a personal faith in God; but actually by a series of compelling, logical arguments, many of them put forward by C. S. Lewis, that got me to the precipice of saying, ‘Faith is actually plausible.’ You still have to make that step. You will still have to decide for yourself whether to believe. But you can get very close to that by intellect alone.”

[shunyadragon]

Yo, Shunyadragon:

I'm disappointed that you avoided answering my questions. What was it about my questions that frightened you so?

No you do not frighten me, your manner and agressiveness disapoints me. Citing Christians and outdated legal references to support the fact that the resurrection would pass cross-examination in a secular court does not pass muster. You simply have failed to put forth secular legal references or a situation in modern court where this could be the case.

The same goes for convincing skeptics. The skeptics that have not been concinced are the historians and archeologists from the major secular universities that publish the major historical texts and encyclopedias. You have failed to show any references to support that these authorities have been convinced. Your citations are devoted Christians and not skeptics. from secular universities that publish the major texts.

As far as numbers of people, you cited numbers first. My argument is truth is not a popularity contest and numbers mean nothing.

My qualifications are not in question. I simply refer to qualified secular sources who are authorities in law, history and archeology to support my argument. I know of none that consider the resurrection a proven historical fact today in the secular courts or the major secular universities.

I have to go on a trip soon and my access will be limited, especially in China, but I will provide some when I return.

[shunyadragon]

You might actually say that I'm an honest "doubter", even though I am a Christian and not an atheist. It's partially because of my INTP personality type, I think. See http://www.typelogic.com/intp.html:



You see, I will find myself doubting most anything I believe. This isn't just limited to Christianity. Perhaps that's part of why we tend to gravitate to systems like mathematics and computer science - in those systems, many propositions can be irrefutably proven!

That last sentence compares my personality type to J.P.'s, so hopefully he will be able to understand.

Blaise Pascal was an INTP. Perhaps that's why he invented Pascal's Wager. Even though many have discredited the Wager for being a false dilemma, it still makes practical sense to me when examining the claims of atheists.

I enjoyed the site on personalities and found it very revealing. It took some time, but found mine to be INTJ for now. I closer more careful look may reveal something different. I share some attributes of INTP like the love of games, but in general I have little concern for failure or even winning, and the INTP focus on the grammarian and detail instead of whether it works or not, would not pass my test.

I see nothing of value in Pascal's Wager, because it does not work, and it's inherent weakness is that it can applied to different religious points of view.

[One Bad Pig]

Where do you people get the idea that Tophet is a woman? :huh:
Just goes to show how observant they are (and showcases their lack of ability to deal with the data presented, if they're desperate enough to think the gender of their opponent has anything to do with the validity of what they say).

[Doubting John]

Bad Piggie

Since I don't know the gender or race or intelligence level or age of anyone here, I decided to guess.

Tophet is a 14 year old girl who is cerebrally challenged, who speaks English but lives in China as a member of an African tribe.

Her gender has nothing to do with my being desperate, nor does it have anything to do with the arguments that women/girls make. It's just that she is who she is.

Have you seen whom I have recently nominated for Screwball for the month of July?

Guess.

Then check out page 8 on that thread.

I figure that if reasons don't get far with some people, then I'll just have some fun with them.

Fun. I like it. Heh, heh.

[One Bad Pig]

Bad Piggie

Since I don't know the gender or race or intelligence level or age of anyone here, I decided to guess.
You see that penguin in my postbit beside the cross? No bowtie => male. Just like Tophet. Now check, say, Dee Dee Warren. Pink bowtie => female.

Her gender has nothing to do with my being desperate, nor does it have anything to do with the arguments that women/girls make. It's just that she is who she is.
He does make you squirm, I'll give him that. It's not pretty (though it is fascinating in a sick sort of way).

Have you seen whom I have recently nominated for Screwball for the month of July?

Guess.

Then check out page 8 on that thread.
Well, that was one of my two guesses.

I figure that if reasons don't get far with some people, then I'll just have some fun with them.

Fun. I like it. Heh, heh.
:yes: Much easier than researching the details that may make or break your doubt.

[Tophet]

Hey, Shunydragon,

This discourse is fun, don’t you think so?

No you do not frighten me

Then why don’t you explain why you’re ignoring my answers to your challenges?

, your manner and agressiveness disapoints me.

Really? Why don’t you explain why you’re ignoring the answers to your challenges? Why do you feel the necessity to tell falsehoods? As a teacher, are you not obligated to tell the truth?

I would be less aggressive if you put forth the effort to be honest and actually investigate the evidence, rather than ignore it.

Citing Christians and outdated legal references to support the fact that the resurrection would pass cross-examination in a secular court does not pass muster.
You simply have failed to put forth secular legal references

Wrong again. I cited the law itself, as presented by Simon Greenleaf in his Treatise, in post #116.

Here’s the link again:

Go to http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/t/text...GA1251.0001.001 Start with the 25th “Page NA” down.

or a situation in modern court where this could be the case.

The situation would be that the documents of the Old and New Testaments are acceptable under the rules of legal evidence. This is something Greenleaf makes very clear. You treat the evidence as you would any legal-historical document. That’s why it’s acceptable as evidence in a modern court of law.

Now, Greenleaf cites the following rule of municipal law:

In the absence of circumstances which generate suspicion, every witness is to be presumed credible, until the contrary is shown; the burden of impeaching his credibility lying on the objector. – Stark on Ev. pp. 16, 480, 521.

Or to put it simply – innocent until proven guilty.

Why don’t you explain why you consider this “outdated”?

The same goes for convincing skeptics. The skeptics that have not been concinced are the historians and archeologists from the major secular universities that publish the major historical texts and encyclopedias.

What’s the matter with you? You gave the same argument in two previous posts but you ignored my answer. Ignoring my answer is not a refutation. My answer was:


World opinion is not a standard for ascertaining fact and truth. The standard we use is the rules of legal evidence as applied in courts of justice. Do you believe subjective opinion should prevail over objective fact?

Why, Shuny, is that so difficult for you to comprehend?

[QUOTE=Shunyadragon] You have failed to show any references to support that these authorities have been convinced.

Why do you continue to ignore my responses? Those references were provided to you in Post #112. I shall list it again (an extract this time) for you – and for the benefit of newcomers to this thread -- here:

http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/ATRJ/truth/ATRJ1203-EV-1.htm

The Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ

Part I—Can It Persuade Skeptics?

In the mid-eighteenth century, Lord George Lyttelton (a member of Parliament and Commissioner of the Treasury) and Gilbert West, Esq., went to Oxford. There, they were determined to attack the very basis of Christianity. Lyttelton set out to prove that Saul of Tarsus was never really converted to Christianity, and West intended to demonstrate that Jesus never really rose from the dead. Each had planned to do a painstaking job, taking a year to establish his case. But as they proceeded, they eventually concluded that Christianity was true. Both became Christians.

West eventually wrote Observations on the History and Evidences of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (1747). George Lyttelton wrote a lengthy text titled The Conversion of St. Paul (rpt. 1929). Their correspondence back and forth, showing their surprise at the quality of the evidence, can be found in any university microfilm library. West became totally convinced of the truth of the Resurrection, and Lyttelton of the genuine conversion of Saint Paul on the basis of it. For example, Lyttelton wrote to West in 1761, "Sir, in a late conversation we had together upon the subject of the Christian religion, I told you that besides all the proofs of it which may be drawn from the prophecies of the Old Testament, from the necessary connection it has with the whole system of the Jewish religion, from the miracles of Christ, and from the evidence given of his reflection by all the other apostles, I thought the conversion and apostleship of Saint Paul alone, duly considered, was of itself a demonstration sufficient to prove Christianity a divine revelation."4


In the 1930s a rationalistic English journalist named Frank Morison attempted to discover the "real" Jesus Christ. He was convinced that Christ’s "history rested upon very insecure foundations"—largely because of the influence of the rationalistic higher criticism so prevalent in his day.5 Further, he was dogmatically opposed to the miraculous elements in the Gospels. But he was nevertheless fascinated by the person of Jesus, who was to him "an almost legendary figure of purity and noble manhood."6

Morison decided to take the crucial "last phase" in the life of Christ and "to strip it of its overgrowth of primitive beliefs and dogmatic suppositions, and to see this supremely great Person as he really was.… It seemed to me that if I could come at the truth why this man died a cruel death at the hands of the Roman Power, how he himself regarded the matter, and especially how he behaved under the test, I should be very near to the true solution of the problem."7

But the book that Morison ended up writing was not the one he intended. He proceeded to write one of the most able defenses of the Resurrection of Christ in our time, Who Moved the Stone?

Giovanni Papini was one of the foremost Italian intellects of his period, an atheist and vocal enemy of the Church and self-appointed debunker of religion. But he became converted to faith in Christ and in 1921 penned his Life of Christ, stunning most of his friends and admirers.8

The Cambridge scholar C. S. Lewis, a former atheist, was converted to Christianity on the basis of the evidence, according to his text Surprised by Joy. He recalls, "I thought I had the Christians ‘placed’ and disposed of forever." But, "A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. There are traps everywhere—‘Bibles laid open, millions of surprises,’ as Herbert says, ‘Fine nets and stratagems.’ God is, if I may say it, very unscrupulous."9

But C. S. Lewis became a Christian because the evidence was compelling and he could not escape it. Even against his will he was "brought in kicking, struggling, resentful, and darting [my] eyes in every direction for a chance of escape." The God "whom I so earnestly desired not to meet" became His Lord and Savior.10 His book on Christian evidences, Mere Christianity, is considered a classic and has been responsible for converting thousands to the faith, among them the keen legal mind of former skeptic and Watergate figure Charles Colson, author of Born Again.

As a pre-law student, Josh McDowell was also a skeptic of Christianity and believed that every Christian had two minds: one was lost while the other was out looking for it. Eventually challenged to intellectually investigate the Christian truth claims, and thinking this a farce, he accepted the challenge and "as a result, I found historical facts and evidence about Jesus Christ that I never knew existed."11 He eventually wrote a number of important texts in defense of Christianity, among them Evidence That Demands a Verdict, More Evidence That Demands a Verdict, More Than a Carpenter and Daniel in the Lion’s Den.

Dr. Gary Habermas was raised a Christian. But he soon questioned his faith. He concluded that while the Resurrection might be believed, he personally doubted it and was skeptical that any evidence for it was really convincing. But after critical examination, it was the evidence that brought him around and he concluded the Resurrection was an established fact of history.12 He proceeded to write four important books in defense of the Resurrection: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus; The Resurrection of Jesus: A Rational Inquiry; The Resurrection of Jesus: An Apologetic; and Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? The Resurrection Debate.

As a brilliant philosophy student at Cornell University, John Warwick Montgomery was a convinced skeptic when it came to Christianity. But he, too, was challenged to investigate the evidence for Christianity. As a result, he became converted. He recalls, "I went to the university as a ‘garden-variety’ 20th century pagan. And as a result of being forced, for intellectual integrity’s sake, to check out this evidence, I finally came around."13 He confessed that had it not been for a committed undergraduate student who continued to challenge him to really examine the evidence, he would never have believed: "I thank God that he cared enough to do the reading to become a good apologist because if I hadn’t had someone like that I don’t know if I would have become a Christian."14

Montgomery went on to graduate from Cornell University with distinction in philosophy, Phi Beta Kappa. Then he went on to earn the Ph.D. from the University of Chicago, a second doctorate in theology from the University of Strasbourg, France, plus seven additional graduate degrees in theology, law, library science and other fields. He has written over 125 scholarly journal articles, plus 40 books, many of them defending Christian faith against skeptical views. He has held numerous prestigious appointments, is a founding member of the World Association of Law Professors, a member of the American Society of International Law and is honored in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in American Law, The Directory of American Scholars, International Scholars’ Directory, Who’s Who in France, Who’s Who in Europe, and Who’s Who in the World. There are many individuals with the kind of background and philosophical premises as Dr. Montgomery. They simply do not believe in Christianity apart from sufficient evidence.

Among great literary writers, few can match the brilliance of famous author Malcolm Muggeridge. He, too, was once a skeptic of Christianity. But near the end of his life he became fully convinced of the truth of the Resurrection of Christ, writing a book acclaimed by critics, Jesus: The Man Who Lives (1975). He wrote, "The coming of Jesus into the world is the most stupendous event in human history…." and "What is unique about Jesus is that, on the testimony and in the experience of innumerable people, of all sorts and conditions, of all races and nationalities from the simplest and most primitive to the most sophisticated and cultivated, he remains alive." Muggeridge concludes, "That the Resurrection happened… seems to be indubitably true" and "Either Jesus never was or he still is…. with the utmost certainty, I assert he still is." 15

The famous scholar and archaeologist, Sir William Ramsay, was educated at Oxford and a Professor at both Oxford and Cambridge. He received gold medals from Pope Leo XII, the University of Pennsylvania, the Royal Geographical Society, the Royal Scottish Geographical Society, and was knighted in 1906. He was once a skeptic of Christianity, convinced that the Bible was fraudulent.

He had spent years deliberately preparing himself for the announced task of heading an exploration expedition into Asia Minor and Palestine, the home of the Bible, where he would "dig up the evidence" that the Book was the product of ambitious monks, and not the Book from heaven it claimed to be. He regarded the weakest spot in the whole New Testament to be the story of Paul’s travels. These had never been thoroughly investigated by one on the spot. Equipped as no other man had been, he went to the home of the Bible. Here he spent fifteen years literally "digging for the evidence." Then in 1896 he published a large volume, Saint Paul the Traveler and the Roman Citizen.

The book caused a furor of dismay among the skeptics of the world. Its attitude was utterly unexpected because it was contrary to the announced intention of the author years before…. for twenty years more, book after book from the same author came from the press, each filled with additional evidence of the exact, minute truthfulness of the whole New Testament as tested by the spade on the spot. The evidence was so overwhelming that many infidels announced their repudiation of their former unbelief and accepted Christianity. And these books have stood the test of time, not one having been refuted, nor have I found even any attempt to refute them.16

Ramsay’s own archaeological findings convinced him of the reliability of the Bible and the truth of what it taught. In his The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament and other books, he shows why he came to conclude that, e.g., "Luke’s history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness" and that "Luke is a historian of the first rank…. In short, this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians."17

One of the greatest classical scholars of our century, the outstanding authority on Homer, Dr. John A. Scott, Professor of Greek at Northwestern University for some 40 years, at one time president of the American Philosophical Association as well as president of the Classical Association of the Midwest and South, wrote a book at the age of seventy, concluding a lifetime of ripened convictions, We Would See Jesus. He, too, was convinced that Luke was an accurate historian: "Luke was not only a doctor and historian, but he was one of the world’s greatest men of letters. He wrote the clearest and the best Greek written in that century."18

Here we have two of the greatest intellects of recent time (Ramsay and Scott), among many that could be cited, vouching for the historical accuracy and integrity of the Apostle Luke, who wrote not only the Gospel of Luke, but the Book of Acts as well. In the latter book he claimed that the Resurrection of Christ had been established "by many convincing proofs" (Acts 1:3). It is only by means of such convincing proofs that skeptics such as the above individuals could have ever been converted in the first place. Indeed, the entire history of Christianity involves the conversion of skeptics to Christian faith.

Your citations are devoted Christians and not skeptics. from secular universities that publish the major texts.

No, my citations included former skeptics who became Christians once they applied the rules of legal evidence in examining valid historical documents. Read the above again.

As far as numbers of people, you cited numbers first, from

Really?

From http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1093375&postcount=63
The case for resurrection is insufficient to convince skeptics or secular historians that it is a historical fact.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1094689&postcount=112
I twice cited skeptics who have converted to Christianity at http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/ATRJ/truth/ATRJ1203-EV-1.htm
Thereby demonstrating the falsehood of your claim.

To which I will add another link: Famous Infidels Who Found Christ at http://www.tektonics.org/classics/wheelerfam.htm

My argument is truth is not a popularity contest and numbers mean nothing.

That’s what I said. Twice! You’re not paying attention!

Post #112:
World opinion is not a standard for ascertaining fact and truth. The standard we use is the rules of legal evidence as applied in courts of justice. Do you believe subjective opinion should prevail over objective fact?

And Post #116:

World opinion is not a standard for ascertaining fact and truth. The standard we use is the rules of legal evidence as applied in courts of justice. Do you believe subjective opinion should prevail over objective fact?

So I tell you what, Shuny. Copy and paste these statements in your next post. That way we’ll know that you’ve at least apprehended them. If you don’t do this, then you concede my point.

And if you’re paying attention, you’ll find that this is a point upon which we agree, that truth is not based on numbers.

My argument is based on the evidence and the rules of evidence. Your argument is based on whether or not the evidence believed. My argument is based on objective fact. Your argument is based on subjective opinion.

My qualifications are not in question.

Actually, they are. When it comes to the law, Simon Greenleaf et al. have credibility. You don’t. The law has authority. You don’t.

I simply refer to qualified secular sources who are authorities in law, history and archeology to support my argument.

But you haven’t. You’ve cited no one. You've given no proof. You have only cited your opinion. You have failed to indicate any qualifications whatsoever. You failed to indicate if they understand what a Christian is. You failed to indicate whether they apply the same legal-historical standards as one would in the examination of any document. If you don’t do this in your next post, then you forfeit this point and you concede that you are wrong.

I know of none

Ah. You are admitting your ignorance. You disqualify yourself from having a valid opinion.

that consider the resurrection a proven historical fact today in the secular courts.

Only because you ignored the ones I listed in my last post. Shall I list them for you again?

Samuel Ericsson, J.D. , Harvard Law School, Renatus J. Chytil, formerly a lecturer at Cornell and an expert on Czechoslovakian law, Dr. John W. Brabner-Smith, Dean Emeritus of the International School of Law, Washington, D.C., and Richard Colby, J.D. [/b], Yale Law School. All are Christians who accept the Resurrection of Christ as a historical fact.

Hundreds of lawyers are represented by The National Christian Legal Society, The Rutherford Institute, Lawyers Christian Fellowship, and other Christian law organizations, schools and societies. Among their number are some of the most respected lawyers in the country, men who have graduated from our leading law schools and gone on to prominence in the world of law. The law schools of Cornell, Harvard, Yale, Boston, New York University, University of Southern California, Georgetown, University of Michigan, Northwestern, Hastings College of Law at U. C. Berkeley, Loyola, and many others are all represented.

Now why didn’t you take note of these gentlemen before, Shuny? Do you want us to think you’re mentally impaired?

or the major secular universities.

You are guilty of a circumstantial ad hominem. Do you know what that is? Dr. Michael C. Labossiere at http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html defines it thusly:

A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances (such as the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.). The fallacy has the following forms:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B asserts that A makes claim X because it is in A's interest to claim X.
3. Therefore claim X is false.
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on A's circumstances.
3. Therefore X is false.

A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy because a person's interests and circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made. While a person's interests will provide them with motives to support certain claims, the claims stand or fall on their own. It is also the case that a person's circumstances (religion, political affiliation, etc.) do not affect the truth or falsity of the claim. This is made quite clear by the following example: "Bill claims that 1+1=2. But he is a [Christian], so his claim is false."

There are times when it is prudent to suspicious of a person's claims, such as when it is evident that the claims are being biased by the person's interests. For example, if a tobacco company representative claims that tobacco does not cause cancer, it would be prudent to not simply accept the claim. This is because the person has a motivation to make the claim, whether it is true or not. However, the mere fact that the person has a motivation to make the claim does not make it false. For example, suppose a parent tells her son that sticking a fork in a light socket would be dangerous. Simply because she has a motivation to say this obviously does not make her claim false.

***

Please consider that.

At any rate, I wish you a safe and pleasant journey.

Please do not post more than two paragraphs from a copyrighted source.

[jpholding]

I figure that if reasons don't get far with some people, then I'll just have some fun with them.

Fun. I like it. Heh, heh.

Oh, good. Then you'll LOVE my upcoming cartoon of you as a used car salesman.

CUSTOMER: "Honest John, your car fell apart!"

JOHN: "Hey, I won't discuss it! That's just our 'Minutia' model." :lmbo:

[Tophet]

You have the means, motive and opportunity to counter my statements. By not doing so, you forfeit. Therefore, if you do not respond to all the questions I have asked of you in this thread and in "Where is God in INFINITE SPACE?" you concede my points.

You concede that you are a liar.
You concede that you are a hypocrite.
You concede that you are a coward.
You concede you are ignorant about Christianity.
You concede that you are mentally deficient.
You concede that you blame other people for your own failures.
You concede that you engage in a double standard in the evaluation of logic.
You concede that you engage in a double standard in the evaluation of history.

I await your response with wry amusement.

Well, John, looks like you failed my challenge. Therefore,

You concede that you are a liar.
You concede that you are a hypocrite.
You concede that you are a coward.
You concede you are ignorant about Christianity.
You concede that you are mentally deficient.
You concede that you blame other people for your own failures.
You concede that you engage in a double standard in the evaluation of logic.
You concede that you engage in a double standard in the evaluation of history.



From http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1102325&postcount=126

I figure that if reasons don't get far with some people, then I'll just have some fun with them.

Fun. I like it. Heh, heh.

Me, too!

[Doubting John]

Tophet,

Here I sit as a lion in the forrest, and you are like a gnat buzzing around me.

Buzz away.

JP:

CUSTOMER: "Honest John, your car fell apart!"

JOHN: "Hey, I won't discuss it! That's just our 'Minutia' model."

I like it. Can't wait to see it.

[Tophet]

Tophet,

Here I sit as a lion

Cowardly lion, that is. You keep avoiding my questions.

in the forrest,


Silly boy. There's no such thing as a "forrest." For a teacher you don't know how to spell very well, do you? Try "forest."

and you are like a gnat buzzing around me.

Buzz away.


Poor John. Poor, poor John.

[jpholding]

This thread will soon be the basis for a new article on Tekton.

[Christy]

"No, I'd be running from experience. You see, I have the same "problem" -- and there's a specific personality type in the MB format, of which I am one, that this sort of mistake by others is associated with. I'm betting you may have been of the same category as I am: INTJ. You may be more of an INFJ now, though; personal crisis somethings causes that shift, as I know from someone that happened to."


After reading most of this thread I was interested in the personality test, and took a Jung Typology test on the internet, and it says I'm an INFJ

[David Ragland]

[QUOTE=Babaloo]Hi David,
An important point about the Aldous Huxley quotation above is that Huxley was NOT advocating a philosophy of meaninglessness, but condemning it and arguing in favor of spiritual meaning in the universe.
[/QUOTE=Babaloo]

Thanks for the response. However, all this doesn't really speak to the point I was trying to make. Huxley admits he had MOTIVATIONS to desire meaninglessness. This desire, this motivation leads many to become skeptics, heretics, anti-theists etc. It is the flesh that draws people into rationalizing away a need for a Creator as they seek to escape His authority.

david the servant

[shunyadragon]

This thread will soon be the basis for a new article on Tekton.

I can imagine an article filled with cartoons, and one line arrogant chaildish insults. It will go over great on the junior high school playground.

[Tophet]

I can imagine an article filled with cartoons, and one line arrogant chaildish insults. It will go over great on the junior high school playground.
Yes, it will. Click this link (http://www.tektonics.org/lp/hallofhld.htm) and note the source of the insults.

Then read the essays found here (http://www.tektonics.org/lp/loftus01.html) for more enlightenment.

[jpholding]

I can imagine an article filled with cartoons, and one line arrogant chaildish insults. It will go over great on the junior high school playground.

Why don't you try imagining some answers to the arguments made? The change will do you good, and you might actually do something other than smolder and sound silly. :rasberry:

[shunyadragon]

Why don't you try imagining some answers to the arguments made? The change will do you good, and you might actually do something other than smolder and sound silly. :rasberry:

I could never even imagine upstaging your act on sillyness as illustrated graphically by Tophets examples.

[Teallaura]

Is there such a thing as an honest doubter?

Evidently not.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=97534

And from page 20 of same:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1975246&postcount=311

[shunyadragon]

Evidently not.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=97534

And from page 20 of same:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1975246&postcount=311

Given human nature, all doubters, are humans and subject to the wiles and foibles of human nature. The question is better worded - Is there honest doubt?

[dizzle]

Teal was focusing on the word "honest" whether involving doubt or who wrote web pages or whether or not one reviewed one's own book. She is not denying the possibility of honest doubt in that comment.

[shunyadragon]

Teal was focusing on the word "honest" whether involving doubt or who wrote web pages or whether or not one reviewed one's own book. She is not denying the possibility of honest doubt in that comment.

Regardless of the focus here, whether on the word 'honest' or 'doubt', her response, 'evidently not' calls to question whether the 'doubt' was honest. The book gives a fairly straight forward chronology of a person who first believed, but than lost it through 'doubt'. Disagreement with the conclusions or the results of doubt does not compute to 'dishonest doubt', or that the conclusions that result from 'doubt' are false or dishonest.

[dizzle]

It was called sarcasm. Nothing more.

[shunyadragon]

It was called sarcasm. Nothing more.

Interesting, for this I would like Teal to respond.

[Teallaura]

It was sarcasm. I'm a former atheist, remember? :ahem:

[cwecksrun]

I think I am an honest doubter, and I frequently find those who don't believe me. I don't know if a Christian could acknowledge all of my facts as true. Here's my anti-testimony, so to speak...

I am faithless. That is, I lack faith. At least in God. People say, "Well you have faith in some things. You have faith that you won't spontaneously explode in 3 seconds, don't you?" And frankly, I don't have faith in that. But I guess I can say I have a reasonable assurance in that fact. I guess I can kind of call it faith when someone brings up an idea like that. It isn't 100% but I don't really expect to blow up. It isn't complete faith, just a reasonable assumption.

But with God, it's just not there; it's not in me. No faith. I really want it to be though. My Illustration:

[...If you looked at your brown walls (let's call them brown), you'd say they were brown, if you were being honest. But let's say I told you that all you need to do to gain an eternity of joy and peace with your loving creator was have faith that the walls are blue, that they are not brown, but blue. I say, "I have faith that they are blue, and because of that, I know I will live forever with God. Now I ask you," I continue, "What color are those walls?" You turn your head and look at the walls again.

The walls are still brown. How unfortunate...]

Believe me when I say, I would prefer that the Christianity I was brought up in was true. I would prefer the notion of living forever, and forever in happiness with a caring Father God. I would prefer that the walls were blue.

I don't know how I can blame myself for what I don't see. All I have is what I see. If I deny that, then I'm really not seeing anything. I'm just choosing a color at random. If I did that, hell - I could choose orange or purple or green or white or black. I could choose Islam or Judaism, or leprechauns or pixie dust for that matter. If I don't choose what I actually see, then I'm eliminating the only truth-finding device I have.

And all I see in those walls is brown.

I wish that I had a relationship with God. I've spent most of my cogent life seeking it, being told about, singing about it, gathering in the name of it. And, for a long while, I had blind faith in it. I did. I closed my eyes and said "I see blue". I was told, "If you ask Jesus to forgive you of your sins, the Holy Spirit will come into your life and fill you with the spirit of God, and you will have a relationship with a perfectly loving God, a perfect Father of tenderness and strength, for all of eternity. And-you-won't-die, but will have everlasting life. I was told it, and I closed my eyes, and said "I believe". I don't remember how I believed. I don't remember if I believed really. I think I did. All I remember is this feeling when I sang or walked or sat: of reaching for Him, longing for him. I cried a lot at nights, I begged him to speak to me, or move me in some way internally, the way the others claimed they'd been touched. And I sang with the congregation, and prayed with them, and spoke of my "faith". And they spoke of their relationship as growing and changing and deepening and widening, informing their lives and their choices.

That part was when I was silent.

I held my heart open, like they say, to be filled with God. I waited, and waited while I sang and stood and sat and greeted the neighboring bodies. I waited during high school and waited during College. I've waited for something that hasn't come.

And all I can see now is brown walls. I don't really even remember seeing blue. I just remember closing my eyes to sing to God because I preferred it. I preferred heaven. I preferred that which didn't fill me, which wasn't true in me. I think I just held my eyes closed for a really long time.

How could I have held out forever? How could I live without God's spirit filling me forever, and yet maintain my faith? I blindly believed, I don't know how, and was never confirmed. My heart was never filled. It remained the same, and for my knowledge of how one could be filled, I realized an emptiness that even the never-was-faithful might not know. For my holding it out to be filled, it sort of became more injured. I still wish it all to be real, but choosing faith has never been the case. I have had it, or I have not.

I don't hate Christianity. I love it more than my reality. But I can't help what color my eyes see, in spite of myself.

It's always been as simple as calling out the color I see on the walls.

[One Bad Pig]

I think I am an honest doubter, and I frequently find those who don't believe me. I don't know if a Christian could acknowledge all of my facts as true. Here's my anti-testimony, so to speak...

I am faithless. That is, I lack faith. At least in God. People say, "Well you have faith in some things. You have faith that you won't spontaneously explode in 3 seconds, don't you?" And frankly, I don't have faith in that. But I guess I can say I have a reasonable assurance in that fact. I guess I can kind of call it faith when someone brings up an idea like that. It isn't 100% but I don't really expect to blow up. It isn't complete faith, just a reasonable assumption.

But with God, it's just not there; it's not in me. No faith. I really want it to be though. My Illustration:

[...If you looked at your brown walls (let's call them brown), you'd say they were brown, if you were being honest. But let's say I told you that all you need to do to gain an eternity of joy and peace with your loving creator was have faith that the walls are blue, that they are not brown, but blue. I say, "I have faith that they are blue, and because of that, I know I will live forever with God. Now I ask you," I continue, "What color are those walls?" You turn your head and look at the walls again.

The walls are still brown. How unfortunate...]

Believe me when I say, I would prefer that the Christianity I was brought up in was true. I would prefer the notion of living forever, and forever in happiness with a caring Father God. I would prefer that the walls were blue.

I don't know how I can blame myself for what I don't see. All I have is what I see. If I deny that, then I'm really not seeing anything. I'm just choosing a color at random. If I did that, hell - I could choose orange or purple or green or white or black. I could choose Islam or Judaism, or leprechauns or pixie dust for that matter. If I don't choose what I actually see, then I'm eliminating the only truth-finding device I have.

And all I see in those walls is brown.
Interesting. Perhaps you could start a new thread where we could discuss what you're seeing.

I wish that I had a relationship with God. I've spent most of my cogent life seeking it, being told about, singing about it, gathering in the name of it. And, for a long while, I had blind faith in it. I did. I closed my eyes and said "I see blue". I was told, "If you ask Jesus to forgive you of your sins, the Holy Spirit will come into your life and fill you with the spirit of God, and you will have a relationship with a perfectly loving God, a perfect Father of tenderness and strength, for all of eternity. And-you-won't-die, but will have everlasting life. I was told it, and I closed my eyes, and said "I believe". I don't remember how I believed. I don't remember if I believed really. I think I did. All I remember is this feeling when I sang or walked or sat: of reaching for Him, longing for him. I cried a lot at nights, I begged him to speak to me, or move me in some way internally, the way the others claimed they'd been touched. And I sang with the congregation, and prayed with them, and spoke of my "faith". And they spoke of their relationship as growing and changing and deepening and widening, informing their lives and their choices.

That part was when I was silent.Did you see them changing at all into better people? Granted, this can be tough to see if they've grown up in the church.

I held my heart open, like they say, to be filled with God. I waited, and waited while I sang and stood and sat and greeted the neighboring bodies. I waited during high school and waited during College. I've waited for something that hasn't come.

And all I can see now is brown walls. I don't really even remember seeing blue. I just remember closing my eyes to sing to God because I preferred it. I preferred heaven. I preferred that which didn't fill me, which wasn't true in me. I think I just held my eyes closed for a really long time.

How could I have held out forever? How could I live without God's spirit filling me forever, and yet maintain my faith? I blindly believed, I don't know how, and was never confirmed. My heart was never filled. It remained the same, and for my knowledge of how one could be filled, I realized an emptiness that even the never-was-faithful might not know. For my holding it out to be filled, it sort of became more injured. I still wish it all to be real, but choosing faith has never been the case. I have had it, or I have not.

I don't hate Christianity. I love it more than my reality. But I can't help what color my eyes see, in spite of myself.

It's always been as simple as calling out the color I see on the walls.
Odd as it may sound, I'm glad you quit faking it. I'll assume you've already encountered the gamut of the Christian ResponseTM to your dilemma, from "you're not predestined, so sucks to be you!" to "you have to confess all your sin and surrender to the cross" to "just keep trying, and you'll eventually believe," so I won't belabor them.

I grew up in church. I don't know if I'd say that I lost my faith after high school, but I quit going to church and mostly ignored God for six years in the navy. I'm not sure I can even say I really believed for myself until I started going back to church as I got out of the service.

[shunyadragon]

It was sarcasm. I'm a former atheist, remember? :ahem:

Your sarcasm flag is acknowledged, but that does not change my point. It is better to consider whether doubt or on the other side of the coin belief is honest and sincere.

Beign a former atheist, agnostic, theist or whatever is probably irrelavent. What are you know and why would be a better starting point. Most have experienced doubt in one form or another, when one finds that doubt fundimental and valid one would usualy change unless on chose to live a lie. In the later case the belief would be dishonest. It is probably better to also consider sincerity in the criteria whether any particular belief or doubt is valid.

[Teallaura]

Your sarcasm flag is acknowledged, but that does not change my point. It is better to consider whether doubt or on the other side of the coin belief is honest and sincere.

Beign a former atheist, agnostic, theist or whatever is probably irrelavent. What are you know and why would be a better starting point. Most have experienced doubt in one form or another, when one finds that doubt fundimental and valid one would usualy change unless on chose to live a lie. In the later case the belief would be dishonest. It is probably better to also consider sincerity in the criteria whether any particular belief or doubt is valid.

You're being a real jerk now. Are you always obnoxious for the fun of it?

[shunyadragon]

You're being a real jerk now. Are you always obnoxious for the fun of it?

Odd trollish response. My post was specific and addressed the issue at hand.

Is this the extent of your intellect?

[M.Talkingsworth]

It's always been as simple as calling out the color I see on the walls.

Hey, look on the bright side, at least you see the walls. Some people are so out of it, they don't even know they are inside!

Ok, that was my late night attempt at humor. In all seriousness, I can identify to some degree with what you are expressing here. To me, there are parts of Chrisianity which seem to make no sense and others that seem unequivocally true. If you want to discuss, start a thread and let me know. If you already have, I will find it.

Cheers,

Matt

[cwecksrun]

Hey, look on the bright side, at least you see the walls. Some people are so out of it, they don't even know they are inside!

Ok, that was my late night attempt at humor. In all seriousness, I can identify to some degree with what you are expressing here. To me, there are parts of Chrisianity which seem to make no sense and others that seem unequivocally true. If you want to discuss, start a thread and let me know. If you already have, I will find it.

Cheers,

Matt

Thank you!

[Lili]

There are honest doubters. I recently was one, because I thought the prophecies in Matthew 24 were broken prophecies.