A Wiccan's View of "The Impossible Faith."

[technomage]

I've been asked repeatedly about this, and while I will admit to having little personal interest in the subject, it does seem to be important to many.

Factor #1 -- Who Would Buy One Crucified?

By the same token, who would by a hallucinating merchant; a disgruntled, retiring archivist; a failed civil servant; a prince with severe depression; or a former communist turned evangelical preacher?

Factor #2 -- Neither Here Nor There: Or, A Man from Galilee??

Prejudice is indeed widespread in Greco-Roman culture--and considering the failures of political correctness, it is also widespread in modern Western culture. But it must always be remembered that one person's superstition is another person's dearly cherished belief.

In this, Holding plays on the public stigma of superstitio and its supposed negative effects on the public image of Christians. Boiled down to its basics, his arguments amount to "Oh, Christians would be laughed at and no one would take them seriously!" Yet in this, he only examines one specific factor (shame) while ignoring an over-riding factor mentioned by Paul: Christians gloried in the shame of the Gospel. The fundamental contradiction to the mainstream culture was not just a distinction of Christianity, it was a major "selling point." It should not be considered that this was Christianity's only selling point, but it certainly was important (more on the "attractiveness of shame" later).

Factor #3 -- Getting Physical! The Wrong "Resurrection"

On this, Holding makes much of the perceived "impossibility" of a physical resurrection, and that the preaching of such a thing would have only made the disciple's job harder. By inferrence, we are to assume that no one would preach something that was widely rejected by the common populace, and so therefore he argues that the willingness to preach a physical resurrection is somehow "proof" of the resurrection's historicity.

Yet he ignores the willingness--evidenced repeatedly within human history--of the willingness to preach the impossible, to suffer for one's beliefs, and even to die for one believes. And he ignores that such willingness--even eagerness--has occurred in multiple cultures, multiple religions, to countless people, many of whom have never even heard the name Jesus.

One modern, mostly non-religious example is the Flat Earth Society: they not only believe the most ridiculous assertion (that the earth is flat), they do so in the face of ridicule, scorn, and public derision. Now, they don't have the possibility of death, torture, or persecution to worry about that non-Christians did (again, more on that later), yet they can provide one example (among many) of the ease with which human beings will accept any number of impossible beliefs, even in the face of public rejection.

There are more points--seventeen, to be exact--and I could go through a point-by-point rebuttal of each one, but I would rapidly run out of room to handle this topic in a single post. To summarize, there are three major flaws with the argument Holding makes--any one of these three flaws would be sufficient to dismiss the argument made, but the three combined cast a fatal pall on his article.

The Limits of Belief

The first flaw of Holding's argument is an arbitrary restriction on the credulousness of human beings. People believe things ranging from the blindingly obvious to the outrageously foolish--indeed, Holding makes a great deal of parading beliefs that he considers foolish to the inspection of all and sundry. It seems to me to be nothing short of a double standard to condemn "foolish" beliefs in other people while proclaiming Christianity to be based, in turn, on a "foolish" belief.

The Limits of Action

From Islam to Jim Jones, we see people willing to overcome their desire to continue living to act for something they believe in. That Christians would also be capable of giving up their life for something that they believe in says no more about the truth of Christianity than it does about the truth of Islam. Historical actions such as the hiding of the Jews during the Shoah show us that people are willing to go against their own safety to act upon their beliefs--even when those actions could result in death or horrific torture.

Yet Holding feels that people are only going to risk social rejection, torture, and death if they are doing so for something that is true. The Shoah, that horrible time in European history, demonstrates that Holding's position is impossible to reconcile with the facts: Jews were saved from the Nazis by Christians, Shinto, Communists, Catholics, and by people who probably never darkened the doors of a church or temple. All of these people risked life and limb to protect the Jews ... yet they did so for a variety of faiths, or for no faith at all.

The Limits of Logic

Holding uses double standards (mentioned above), logical fallacies (such as "Argument by incredulity"), and outright error (such as his assertion that Christianity, as a "new faith," would be rejected, while failing to consider that Rome was not only awash with cults both old and new, but also invented cults on a regular basis) to bolster his argument, but in the end, it is to no avail. Fundamentally speaking, Holding's argument is not about the truth or falsehood of Christian doctrines: instead, it is a rhetorical exercise, meant to persuade not by logic or fact, but by appealing to the emotions.

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with that, I suppose: let people believe what they will. But while his treatise is an interesting examinations of the height, depth, and breadth of the human ability to believe in just about anyting, it has absolutely nothing to contribute to the question of historicity.

[Krusader]

I've been asked repeatedly about this, and while I will admit to having little personal interest in the subject, it does seem to be important to many.

Factor #1 -- Who Would Buy One Crucified?

By the same token, who would by a hallucinating merchant; a disgruntled, retiring archivist; a failed civil servant; a prince with severe depression; or a former communist turned evangelical preacher?

Factor #2 -- Neither Here Nor There: Or, A Man from Galilee??

Prejudice is indeed widespread in Greco-Roman culture--and considering the failures of political correctness, it is also widespread in modern Western culture. But it must always be remembered that one person's superstition is another person's dearly cherished belief.

In this, Holding plays on the public stigma of superstitio and its supposed negative effects on the public image of Christians. Boiled down to its basics, his arguments amount to "Oh, Christians would be laughed at and no one would take them seriously!" Yet in this, he only examines one specific factor (shame) while ignoring an over-riding factor mentioned by Paul: Christians gloried in the shame of the Gospel. The fundamental contradiction to the mainstream culture was not just a distinction of Christianity, it was a major "selling point." It should not be considered that this was Christianity's only selling point, but it certainly was important (more on the "attractiveness of shame" later).

Factor #3 -- Getting Physical! The Wrong "Resurrection"

On this, Holding makes much of the perceived "impossibility" of a physical resurrection, and that the preaching of such a thing would have only made the disciple's job harder. By inferrence, we are to assume that no one would preach something that was widely rejected by the common populace, and so therefore he argues that the willingness to preach a physical resurrection is somehow "proof" of the resurrection's historicity.

Yet he ignores the willingness--evidenced repeatedly within human history--of the willingness to preach the impossible, to suffer for one's beliefs, and even to die for one believes. And he ignores that such willingness--even eagerness--has occurred in multiple cultures, multiple religions, to countless people, many of whom have never even heard the name Jesus.

One modern, mostly non-religious example is the Flat Earth Society: they not only believe the most ridiculous assertion (that the earth is flat), they do so in the face of ridicule, scorn, and public derision. Now, they don't have the possibility of death, torture, or persecution to worry about that non-Christians did (again, more on that later), yet they can provide one example (among many) of the ease with which human beings will accept any number of impossible beliefs, even in the face of public rejection.

There are more points--seventeen, to be exact--and I could go through a point-by-point rebuttal of each one, but I would rapidly run out of room to handle this topic in a single post. To summarize, there are three major flaws with the argument Holding makes--any one of these three flaws would be sufficient to dismiss the argument made, but the three combined cast a fatal pall on his article.

The Limits of Belief

The first flaw of Holding's argument is an arbitrary restriction on the credulousness of human beings. People believe things ranging from the blindingly obvious to the outrageously foolish--indeed, Holding makes a great deal of parading beliefs that he considers foolish to the inspection of all and sundry. It seems to me to be nothing short of a double standard to condemn "foolish" beliefs in other people while proclaiming Christianity to be based, in turn, on a "foolish" belief.

The Limits of Action

From Islam to Jim Jones, we see people willing to overcome their desire to continue living to act for something they believe in. That Christians would also be capable of giving up their life for something that they believe in says no more about the truth of Christianity than it does about the truth of Islam. Historical actions such as the hiding of the Jews during the Shoah show us that people are willing to go against their own safety to act upon their beliefs--even when those actions could result in death or horrific torture.

Yet Holding feels that people are only going to risk social rejection, torture, and death if they are doing so for something that is true. The Shoah, that horrible time in European history, demonstrates that Holding's position is impossible to reconcile with the facts: Jews were saved from the Nazis by Christians, Shinto, Communists, Catholics, and by people who probably never darkened the doors of a church or temple. All of these people risked life and limb to protect the Jews ... yet they did so for a variety of faiths, or for no faith at all.

The Limits of Logic

Holding uses double standards (mentioned above), logical fallacies (such as "Argument by incredulity"), and outright error (such as his assertion that Christianity, as a "new faith," would be rejected, while failing to consider that Rome was not only awash with cults both old and new, but also invented cults on a regular basis) to bolster his argument, but in the end, it is to no avail. Fundamentally speaking, Holding's argument is not about the truth or falsehood of Christian doctrines: instead, it is a rhetorical exercise, meant to persuade not by logic or fact, but by appealing to the emotions.

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with that, I suppose: let people believe what they will. But while his treatise is an interesting examinations of the height, depth, and breadth of the human ability to believe in just about anyting, it has absolutely nothing to contribute to the question of historicity.

Heb. 6:4-8 reads:

For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God, and put Him to open shame. For ground that drinks the rain which often falls upon it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God; but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned.

[Seri]

Heb. 6:4-8 reads:

For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God, and put Him to open shame. For ground that drinks the rain which often falls upon it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God; but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned.

It may surprise you, but most Pagans don't really respond to Bible quotations because...well...we don't subscribe to the notion of biblical truth or the divine inspiration of the Bible and, therefore, don't really have a reason to care about what you say when all you do is quote the Bible. Moreover, when you simply quote the Bible and don't discuss the quotation or how it applies to the original post, you look like you're trying to convert people instead of engage in discussion.

The moderators and site owners have been very kind to allow for a few boards specifically to discuss non-Christian views. Please don't make them unwelcome places for others who wish to partake in the discussions.

[Krusader]

It may surprise you, but most Pagans don't really respond to Bible quotations because...well...we don't subscribe to the notion of biblical truth or the divine inspiration of the Bible and, therefore, don't really have a reason to care about what you say when all you do is quote the Bible. Moreover, when you simply quote the Bible and don't discuss the quotation or how it applies to the original post, you look like you're trying to convert people instead of engage in discussion.

The moderators and site owners have been very kind to allow for a few boards specifically to discuss non-Christian views. Please don't make them unwelcome places for others who wish to partake in the discussions.

This is a Christian site. It has various forums for Christians to debate those in false religions and cults. Christians will come here to debate with you and tell you the truth. If you don't want Christian input, then go to the Boogey Man and Witches site on the net.

[Durthorin]

This is a Christian site. It has various forums for Christians to debate those in false religions and cults. Christians will come here to debate with you and tell you the truth. If you don't want Christian input, then go to the Boogey Man and Witches site on the net.

When I see a biblical quote as you tossed up, I don't even bother to read it. Unlike Seri I don't see it as trying to convert me. I see it as intellectual laziness. You say that your here to debate something, then do so.. formulate your idea, present it and defend it.

[Krusader]

When I see a biblical quote as you tossed up, I don't even bother to read it. Unlike Seri I don't see it as trying to convert me. I see it as intellectual laziness. You say that your here to debate something, then do so.. formulate your idea, present it and defend it.

Those who are called by God's grace will take note of His Word, and will respond. Those who have been blinded by the "god of this world," of course, will not.

[Krusader]

When I see a biblical quote as you tossed up, I don't even bother to read it. Unlike Seri I don't see it as trying to convert me. I see it as intellectual laziness. You say that your here to debate something, then do so.. formulate your idea, present it and defend it.

The Word of God will always accomplish much more than my words.

[Alucard]

The Word of God will always accomplish much more than my words.

The pagans here don't necessarily subscribe to the presupposition that the Bible is the Word of God, however. So you're going to have to either demonstrate that it is (which I wouldn't recommend for the scope of this thread), or you're going to have to engage them on equal terms.

[Durthorin]

The pagans here don't necessarily subscribe to the presupposition that the Bible is the Word of God, however. So you're going to have to either demonstrate that it is (which I wouldn't recommend for the scope of this thread), or you're going to have to engage them on equal terms.

Thank you

[Durthorin]

The Word of God will always accomplish much more than my words.

I will fall back into silence as you once more prove something I have learned is the norm for your faith. You do not wish to talk to those of other faces.. but at them. may your god bless you as the Goddess Blesses me and mine.

Durthorin

[Krusader]

I will fall back into silence as you once more prove something I have learned is the norm for your faith. You do not wish to talk to those of other faces.. but at them. may your god bless you as the Goddess Blesses me and mine.

Durthorin

talk to others of other "faces?" What does that mean?

[Seri]

When I see a biblical quote as you tossed up, I don't even bother to read it. Unlike Seri I don't see it as trying to convert me. I see it as intellectual laziness. You say that your here to debate something, then do so.. formulate your idea, present it and defend it.

Well stated, though I would caution that I didn't say anything as to the lack of effectiveness to that conversion attempt that I think our poor, unenlightened friend has posted.

Krusader, through all the darkest times of my life, I tried to believe in the Christian God. It is only since I accepted the God and Goddess into my heart that I have known peace, love, and truth. To me, the Bible is just a bunch of words that have inspired endless hate and sorrow with a few exceptional cases of what I have found since my acceptance of the God and Goddess. Your "Word of God" is hollow and meaningless to me.

[technomage]

Your "Word of God" is hollow and meaningless to me.

I cannot say it is "hollow and meaningless," though for me it holds no more meaning than, say, the Qur'an or the Gitas. It is certainly a significant book in Western culture, and there is a degree of wisdom, when the Bible is read wisely.

But I do not see it as the "Word of God." And I do not see Athanasius/Krusader as speaking for God--only for herself.

[Krusader]

Well stated, though I would caution that I didn't say anything as to the lack of effectiveness to that conversion attempt that I think our poor, unenlightened friend has posted.

Krusader, through all the darkest times of my life, I tried to believe in the Christian God. It is only since I accepted the God and Goddess into my heart that I have known peace, love, and truth. To me, the Bible is just a bunch of words that have inspired endless hate and sorrow with a few exceptional cases of what I have found since my acceptance of the God and Goddess. Your "Word of God" is hollow and meaningless to me.

Seri, there is a false peace. Many within cultic systems say that their new belief system brought them "peace." Some here even claim that witchcraft brought them "deliverance." When it suits Satan's plan, he'll give you some peace, some degree of deliverance. In the end, however, you will pay the piper.

Jesus went to the cross for you, that you might be forgiven of every sin. Being a Christian isn't easy. We don't sit around and cast spells and chant to the "Lord and Lady," who are only dumb idols. Listen, you might as well pray to Lord Krishna and his consort as to these mythological wiccan deities. All prayer to false deities is only worship of Satan.

Jesus actually existed, actually went to the cross, and actually rose again. Regardless of how much your leader here, Justin, puts down the Word of God and compares it with the false revelations of the antichrist, Mohammed, remember this. Jesus rose to validate His Words, and He will validate them to you if you only ask.

[Durthorin]

Seri, there is a false peace. Many within cultic systems say that their new belief system brought them "peace." Some here even claim that witchcraft brought them "deliverance." When it suits Satan's plan, he'll give you some peace, some degree of deliverance. In the end, however, you will pay the piper.

Jesus went to the cross for you, that you might be forgiven of every sin. Being a Christian isn't easy. We don't sit around and cast spells and chant to the "Lord and Lady," who are only dumb idols. Listen, you might as well pray to Lord Krishna and his consort as to these mythological wiccan deities. All prayer to false deities is only worship of Satan.

Jesus actually existed, actually went to the cross, and actually rose again. Regardless of how much your leader here, Justin, puts down the Word of God and compares it with the false revelations of the antichrist, Mohammed, remember this. Jesus rose to validate His Words, and He will validate them to you if you only ask.

As one Christian group once said, Pagan's can't be considered a cult because we're not that organized. Your argument above pretty much ends discussion with you. To you, the peace and joy we have found in our faith is not real, to us, it is. We have walked our walk and with the Old Gods found our way here. We have many of us walked through trials and tribulations which would have been far easier had we renounced our faith and joined yours. Its easier to go with the crowd. As for Justin he is an elder within our faith and respected but hardly a leader in the context you use it in. We each follow for the most part different Traditions within Paganism. Which in many ways are like major denominations within Christianity.

I respect your belief in and your Faith in your God, I hope it gives you comfort. But having been a Pagan for over 20+ years and a prior to that Christian and a Sunday School Teacher for 8, I found my path with the Goddess, my peace where I am. So I leave your path to you. and say simply, It is not my path.