Tags
Atheism, bible, Catholic, Christianity, inerrancy, philosophy
There are many reasons that people believe and trust in God, and I don’t mean to try to address all of them. But I have come to see some general distinctions in why Christians have faith. One general way is what I consider a top down Christian who believes for reasons along the lines of: “The bible (or the Church) is inerrant and it says this, so I believe it.”
I have no quarrel with such a view. However I don’t think those with this view will be particularly helpful in explaining to non-believers why they might also believe. Non-believers generally don’t start out with the premise that the bible or the Church is inerrant.
Then there are what I would call bottom up Christians. Descartes I believe is a very good example. It is the process he goes through to believe in God that I am referring to. That is, he asked himself fundamental yet difficult questions about his world and his existence and how he could make sense of it. This led him to believe in God.
Now this distinction is not a very neat one. Because even if you are bottom up you usually come to give authority to the Church and/or the Bible. After all are you really a Christian if you don’t give any weight to what we know of Christ and his Church? Also the top downers usually will have some reasons to believe other than the inerrancy of the bible and/or the church. So there definitely is overlap in everyone.
I consider myself more of a bottom up Christian. My reasons for belief in Christ have much more to do with my desire to fundamentally pursue the ethically correct course. It was through the consideration of what that would mean (meta-ethics) and how I can accomplish that end that supports my belief that Christianity is the way.
Now some might say – that it’s more likely that I am Catholic because I was raised Catholic. And although I think my philosophical views support Catholicism this is just in my head. They would say that if I didn’t have this philosophical belief to support my faith then I would just rationalize my faith some other way. I honestly can’t answer that. It is hard to answer such counter-factuals.
However I can say that because of my “bottom up” justification I am not so concerned with several of the issues of Christian doctrine that have no bearing on why I am Christian. These same issues seem to deeply trouble many other Christians. If there were to be a divide between bottom up and top down Christians, I would say it centers on inerrancy.
By “inerrancy” I think I can refer to both the inerrancy (usually called infallibility) of the Church and the inerrancy of scripture. For Catholics the inerrancy issue centers on the church and scripture. For Protestants it centers on scripture. How important that is to you is a big indicator to me of whether you are a “top down” or “bottom up” Christian.
Let’s consider scripture first. For Catholics the second Vatican Council said in the Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum)
“The Books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation.”
Now for the most part bottom up Christians are fine with understanding “…for the sake of our salvation” to mean if it has nothing to do with our salvation it might contain an error. So for example if the bible says rabbits chew the cud, or quotes Jesus saying the mustard seed is the smallest seed, this is not going to be something we feel we need to investigate and defend. It’s hard to see how the veracity of these issues has anything to do with our salvation.
No doubt many top down Christians will be startled by my saying “might contain an error”. I have read/heard many times arguments along these lines:
- If the bible is wrong in one place how can we trust it in other places?
As to this argument, I can only shrug. I suppose the bible could be wrong in other places. But I believe that scripture teaches “firmly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation.” And that is really the point right? God seems not to have much of an interest on whether I get every minute and trivial detail of history or science exactly right. Otherwise he would have spent more time teaching history and science instead of ethics when he was here on earth.
Moreover, I read other books and learn allot from them even if they get some things wrong. Why should I refuse to read or learn from the books of the bible if they get some things wrong? This is the same attitude I take with the Fathers of the Church and Saints. Reading them can enrich my life and faith even if they do get some things wrong. Do I put more trust in the books of the bible and the teaching of the magisterium? Sure. But it can still be a spectrum.
The other argument that usually gets trotted out goes something like this:
- God knows what is true and false and the bible is inspired, so why would God lie?
Here I just have a different notion of “inspired.” Some Christians treat inspired as if there effectively was no human part to the writing. We can imagine the authors of the various books being unable to control their hand as it writes the books of the bible. Their intellect (or lack thereof) would play no part. That’s not how I see “inspiration” at all. I see inspiration more along a spectrum of the common understanding. Such as this story was inspired by my grandfather. Etc. OK, I think there was more to inspiration (“God breathed”) than that, when it comes to scripture but it needs to move further in that direction than some sort of uncontrolled hand. Would God have allowed the human author to make a mistake about something irrelevant to our salvation? I see no reason to think he would guard against it.
As a Catholic I also believe the Holy Spirit guides the Church. Might the church make some mistakes? Sure. That doesn’t mean that following the Church is not the best way to living a good life and salvation.
At this point some will say I am a cafeteria Catholic when it comes to the Church and a cafeteria Christian when it comes to the bible. They will say I just take what I like and listen when I want. I disagree.
It is not like I reject any particular teaching. I have a hunch that some things the Catholic Church teaches about mortal sin are wrong. But it is not like I have some big issue with any of the politically hot button issues. I also don’t have a particular part of scripture that I think must be wrong although I suspect there are some errors. But these errors are by and large in minor details.
So it’s not the case that I am only Catholic when it suits me. I really have no problem saying I should try to live by Church teachings and never completely discount any scripture as to how I should act as merely mistaken. Although I do interpret Old Testament scripture in light of Christ’s Teachings and admit there is certainly friction.
Just because I hold open the possibility that the Church or Scripture might get some things wrong from time to time that does not mean that I don’t hold them up as the most important authorities for how I should live. It does mean that I will spend less time worrying about whether rabbits chew the cud, or what some convoluted Old Testament passage is supposed to mean. Plenty of Saints have made it through life without ever a care about these issues that seem to keep so many people from embracing the faith. Letting go of the minutia will leave more time to focus on what the Scriptures and the Church have rather clearly asked me to focus on. Trying to strengthen my faith in Christ so I can follow him and be more loving, honest, hopeful, and charitable.
True and Reasonable 
My belief in God is definitely “Bottom Up” but less anchored than yours. It isn’t that I have abandoned true faith. In fact, my ability to let go, allow for the innerancy, the fallibility of people, both within and outside of the formal church structure, has provided me with the freedom to walk with God more deeply than earlier in my life. It has also brought me to a place where trusting God is more about the personal relationship aspect than following the “letter of the law.”
Thanks for sharing. I think lots of people are religiously better off taking a more relaxed approach to religion.
I like the quote I found on your site:
“This is my simple religion. No need for temples. No need for complicated philosophy. Your own mind, your own heart is the temple. Your philosophy is simple kindness.”
― Dalai Lama
I enjoy the philosophy but I realize its completely unnecessary.
I’m curious, what about Christianity and Catholicism, makes you think you have the only ethically correct path? It also seems that your argument that only the parts you find important, e.g. “necessary for salvation” is simply the usual method of Christians to claim that the parts that they like are what their god “really” meant, and those parts that they don’t like aren’t what this god “really” meant and thus are not “necessary for salvation”. For example, most Christians in my experience are quite sure that the first ten commandments are important for salvation, but the rest, which are no less important in this god’s eyes per this god’s words, are ignored when convenient.
Christians do not agree about what ethics their god supposed wants. This is why many atheist, including this one, have no reason to accept one Christian’s claim that their bible and god are ethical over another Christian’s claim or another theist’s claim. None of you have any evidence for your beliefs. “letting go of the minutia” is just one more way Christians create their religion in their own image, insisting that the parts that they don’t like or that don’t make any sense aren’t important.
Thanks for your comments. I think you ask some good and sensible follow up questions.
“I’m curious, what about Christianity and Catholicism, makes you think you have the only ethically correct path?”
I think others can, and do go down ethically correct paths. Not just Christians. I think God gave us all a sense of right and wrong.
“It also seems that your argument that only the parts you find important, e.g. “necessary for salvation” is simply the usual method of Christians to claim that the parts that they like are what their god “really” meant, and those parts that they don’t like aren’t what this god “really” meant and thus are not “necessary for salvation”. For example, most Christians in my experience are quite sure that the first ten commandments are important for salvation, but the rest, which are no less important in this god’s eyes per this god’s words, are ignored when convenient.”
The bible consists of 73 books. That is allot of writing. I am not sure God thinks it is all equally important. That does not mean I ignore whatever seems convenient. There are different ways I can draw the conclusion some passages are more important than others.
For example, Jesus himself in the New Testament Scripture gave us guidance in how to follow/interpret certain of the OT scripture. Consider John 8 the story of the adulteress. I am sure you are familiar with the rules from Deuteronomy (It seems no atheist blog can exist long before writing about them) that they were testing Jesus on. And Jesus gave his answer let him who is without sin throw the first stone. In other words – nope don’t follow the letter of those laws. On the other hand he referred to the 10 commandments in a positive light and even boiled them down for us. Jesus also gave other clear instructions on how to act. So Jesus himself is a guide to what is important. And for any Christian it would seem his views should take precedence.
Second we have other writers of scripture. Paul generally says we no longer need to follow the law. Now it’s true there is some debate about how this should be interpreted. But regardless of the debate about the particulars he is giving us guidance.
Third we have the Church. As a Catholic I believe Christ founded a church. He did not write a bible. Of course the church did write the bible with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. But one must believe the church has at least some sort of guidance at least in choosing what books are in the bible. After all the bible doesn’t say what books are in the bible. The church chooses three passages usually from the old testament, epistles and from the gospel for each liturgy passages to read in each of the liturgies for each Mass, daily and on Sundays. The priest will give a homily (same as a sermon) usually on the gospel. The church does acknowledge that all of the books of the bible are inspired but clearly there is a certain emphasis on the gospels. That said the Church largely leaves allot of the interpretation open.
I do think Just Jude is on to something when he quotes the Dali Lama on simple religion. Many Christians were illiterate. They did not need to read the whole bible to be good Christians.
“Christians do not agree about what ethics their god supposed wants. This is why many atheist, including this one, have no reason to accept one Christian’s claim that their bible and god are ethical over another Christian’s claim or another theist’s claim.”
Christians don’t agree on everything but they do agree on many things. I guess you can say the glass is half empty or half full.
As far as different bibles, you have the protestant bible with 66 books. The Catholic and Orthodox accept all those books as canonical. Catholics have an additional 7 more books that were included in the Septuagint. Orthodox accept all those books as part of their bible plus a few more. All the issues involve the Old Testament the new testaments are the same. The differences in the bible really do not lead to Christians their God is more ethical than another Christians God. In fact I don’t really think Christians argue as if we are referring to different Gods at all.
If you do not bother to read the bible passages and understand the traditions then there would be no reason for you to accept one Christians view over another.
“None of you have any evidence for your beliefs.”
Ah I thought we got past this in the “no evidence” blog post. I thought you started to agree that at least by a normal legal definition of relevant evidence we do at least have some evidence.
““letting go of the minutia” is just one more way Christians create their religion in their own image, insisting that the parts that they don’t like or that don’t make any sense aren’t important.”
I think some of what is said in the 73 books is clearly more important than other things. I gave 3 general guides to understanding this above. But it seems Fundamentalists and Atheists often seem to take the approach you do, suggesting that every word of scripture must have the same significance of every other word.
Hi Joe,
Glad you found my questions interesting. If God gave everyone a sense of right and wrong, why the need for the laws this god supposedly dictated to Moses? If everyone knows right and wrong, why do Christians say that other religions are wrong? What evidence do you have other than those religions are different? If I know that it’s right to follow another religion or none, there is no reason to be a Christian at all. Would you contest that I don’t really know right and wrong in that instance? For example, at one point the Catholic Church claimed that anyone who disagreed with them should be killed because they didn’t know right and wrong and had chosen evil. They backed off on this and now say that some people may have part of the right answer. That’s quite a change. Why did your god allow your church to do such heinous things in its name if that first attitude was wrong? Why did those humans think it was right?
The bible does include 73 books that Christians claim were arrived at by this god’s direct inspiration. Why don’t you think that this god finds it all equally important? What evidence do you have of this other than your opinion of what you think god approves of and disapproves of, an opinion which other Christians disagree with? Why should I accept your version and not others, since you all have only “interpretation” as your basis for your “truth”? JC did give guidance on what was important, when he said that not one part of his father’s law was to be ignored, not until the earth ends. It hasn’t, so why do Christians ignore all of those supposedly god-given laws in the bible, both OT and NT? Those laws in Deut are just as important as the laws in Exodus, all straight from God, if one believes the bible. Jesus never said that only the first ten of the commandments were the only ones to follow. Matthew 19 has that the commandments should be follows, no exceptions. Matthew 22 says that *all* of the law hangs on two, love and obey god, and love your neighbor. It doesn’t say that only a few of the laws are from these two. Jesus mentions the first ones as anyone in literature does when mentioning a list, one doesn’t speak the entire list. The story of the adulteress is considered a late addition to the bible. Can you show that it isn’t and is what this god “really” meant? In the NT, JC says that the laws should be kept, and it is only the Pharisees that declare that they and only they know how to interpret them, to their benefit. This is very much what every Christian does now, sure that their version is the only right one, and having no evidence better than the next. This can apply to the adultress story too, follow the law, just not as the Pharisees interpret it.
Christians don’t agree on what JC “really” meant, so to claim that Jesus himself is a guide is misleading. IF this were the case, you’d all agree. You don’t. You don’t agree at all that Jesus left clear instruction or what those instructions are. If you did, there wouldn’t be thousands of sects of Christianity.
I know that Paul says that the law can be scrapped in general. Who do you believe, JC or Paul? Jesus never said that the law could be scrapped. JC said that those who follow his father’s law would be lauded in heaven. “19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.” There is indeed a lot of debate on how this should be interpreted, and again, that shows that your claims that there is agreement among Christians is not true at all. To watch you say that Jesus is giving guidance and then admit that there is no agreement seems a bit like an oxymoron.
Most Christians, if not all, believe that Christ created a church and each sect is sure that they are the only “true” church. There is no evidence that the bible was written from divine inspiration. We do have evidence that there was a great deal of disagreement in the early church, and it took violence and politics to create what we know as Christianity now. There is no reason at all to believe that the Catholic church is any better than any other. The fact that it got its way for a long time is no evidence of truth, but of simple worldly power. Of course there is a “certain emphasis” on what the Church teaches, just as there is a “certain emphasis” on what any Christian group preaches to its followers. There are parts of the bible that no modern Christian touches. When I was a Christian (Presbyterian), I remember sermons quite well. I was very surprised when I read the bible to see that much of it is ignored and I could see why parts of it aren’t mentioned to Christians. It’s a bit of a surprise to see Jesus demand that people who believe in him should bring non-believers before him and kill them (Luke 19).
To claim that the Catholic church leaves a lot of the interpretation open is a curious claim since there are entire books devoted on how these stories should be interpreted, hence the Catholic Church not being sola scriptura.
I think you may be missing the point when you say that Christians don’t need to read the whole bible to be good Christians. No one needs the bible to be good at all, nor does one need a god. I can understand why you may think that Christians don’t need to read the bible, that was the Catholic Church’s position for many many years, to keep the bible in Latin so the common man could not read it and get his own ideas and question what the Church claimed as truth. For as much as a bastard as Henry VIII was, he did do a good thing when he had the bible put into the vernacular.
If we are to believe that the bible is divinely inspired, and this omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god wants to find the lost sheep, the fact that Christians do not agree on basic concepts of what is moral and what is not is rather troubling. If all of the claims of Christians that they have some truth are to be believed, then the glass should be full. It is not.
Yep, the bibles of the different sects have different books that they claim are from their god. One more example that Christians do not agree. That’s why Catholics are sure that no one but them have the whole truth, why Orthodox and Catholics can’t come to terms in a reunification, and why Protestants are often calling Catholics polytheists, sun worshippers and Satanic. I grew up in a very rural area of Pennsylvania and I got to see a lot of anti-Catholic attitudes from the majority Protestants. My aunt is old and never married because her father would not allow her to marry a Catholic man. Your claims fall flat in front of my experiences.
I have indeed “bothered” to read the bible passages and I know that traditions around them very well, Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, Mormon, Jehovah’s Witness, Methodists, the numerous independent evangelical churches here in the US, etc. Since I do know that one tradition is no more true than another, this is indeed why there is no reason to believe any of you. When I was losing my faith, I did a lot of research, sure that one of the sects had to be true. What I found was that none of them were anything different from the next.
Again, no theist has evidence that their beliefs are true. Theists have mountains of evidence that they believe in the claims of your religion, but they have nothing to support that their gods exists, that any of the essential events in your holy books exist, etc. For example, we certainly do know that Christians, Jews, Asatru, Wiccans, etc, exist. There’s plenty of evidence, ten pages full of addresses for churches and other religious buildings, the hundreds of TV and radio stations, the screaming preachers on street corners, etc. But evidence that your religions are true, accurate portrayals of reality? No, we have no evidence for that at all. It’s like when a Christian claims that the historical references to Christians is evidence for the existence of their god. However, they forget that this means that the existence of believers of other gods would then be evidence for the existence of their gods. This would mean that Isis, Krishna, the Wiccan Goddess, Thor, etc are just as real as your god. Would you accept that the other gods are just as real and exactly like those worshippers claimed their gods to be? Evidence can be considered facts that support a claim. What facts do you have to support the existence of your god and that your version of your religion is an accurate portrayal of reality? If you don’t agree with my definition of evidence, why not?
I know that you are sure that you can determine what parts of the books of the bible are more important than others. Other Christians, and other theists, make the exact same claim and they are sure that their opinions are “clear” too. They claim that they have guides and rules on how to determine this too and they cite the same ones you do. How is it then, if you all disagree on the answers you arrive at?
I, as an atheist, do not suggest that the words of the bible have the same significance. I know that some may reflect some actual events. There were likely battles, people running around claiming that they were the messiah, etc. I know that there were likely priests who made up laws that they attributed entirely to their god and presented them as equal in consequence, for that is what we read today. However, the essential parts of the bible, the claims of a god, of a god/man, of world-wide mountain covering floods, of mankind arising from a man and a woman created from dirt and/or a rib, of “original sin”, those are the parts that I find to be just as mythological as the claim that a magical cow licked a giant free of primordial ice.
Hi Vel
“Glad you found my questions interesting. If God gave everyone a sense of right and wrong, why the need for the laws this god supposedly dictated to Moses? If everyone knows right and wrong, why do Christians say that other religions are wrong?”
Yes you asked some good questions and you are asking more good questions. Ok so I think God said he would put his law in our minds and hearts from Jeremiah 31:33. Here is a link. Notice there are some related new testament passages.
http://biblehub.com/jeremiah/31-33.htm
Now to some extent since God is saying he will do this in the future it may mean he did not do that in the past. I don’t know if he did this with people in the time of Moses. I really don’t know what sort of moral sense they had at the time.
People now can find the truth of what is right and wrong to do. But it is interesting that people can also lose their moral compass through sin. We see this in certain testimonies from Nazis who said they were troubled by what they did at first but then seemed to get over it. It seems we can blot out God’s law. I would also point out that it seems some people have morals written more clearly than others. But I do think lots of people can come to know the truth. That is why we see things like the golden rule in so many different societies.
“What evidence do you have other than those religions are different? If I know that it’s right to follow another religion or none, there is no reason to be a Christian at all.”
I think Christianity offers the best evidence of being from God. The problem with not believing in anything other than natural events and evolution is that there would be no reason to think our moral beliefs actually track real moral values.
“Would you contest that I don’t really know right and wrong in that instance?”
I would say if there is no God then no one knows what is really right or wrong. Evolution made us to hold beliefs that are fitness enhancing not beliefs that mirror moral truth.
“For example, at one point the Catholic Church claimed that anyone who disagreed with them should be killed because they didn’t know right and wrong and had chosen evil. They backed off on this and now say that some people may have part of the right answer. That’s quite a change. Why did your god allow your church to do such heinous things in its name if that first attitude was wrong? Why did those humans think it was right?”
The church is made of people and God gives us free will. He rarely steps in and prevents people from doing evil. People often lose track of the command to love each other. This leads them to do more and more evil. It’s not the case that just because God gave us guidance that we will always follow that guidance.
“The bible does include 73 books that Christians claim were arrived at by this god’s direct inspiration. Why don’t you think that this god finds it all equally important? What evidence do you have of this other than your opinion of what you think god approves of and disapproves of, an opinion which other Christians disagree with?”
I read what Jesus did and said. As a Christian I tend to let agree with him despite what some fundamentalists or atheists say. Jesus was the one who we have evidence was from God.
“Why should I accept your version and not others, since you all have only “interpretation” as your basis for your “truth”? JC did give guidance on what was important, when he said that not one part of his father’s law was to be ignored, not until the earth ends. It hasn’t, so why do Christians ignore all of those supposedly god-given laws in the bible, both OT and NT? Those laws in Deut are just as important as the laws in Exodus, all straight from God, if one believes the bible. Jesus never said that only the first ten of the commandments were the only ones to follow. Matthew 19 has that the commandments should be follows, no exceptions. Matthew 22 says that *all* of the law hangs on two, love and obey god, and love your neighbor. It doesn’t say that only a few of the laws are from these two. Jesus mentions the first ones as anyone in literature does when mentioning a list, one doesn’t speak the entire list. The story of the adulteress is considered a late addition to the bible. Can you show that it isn’t and is what this god “really” meant? In the NT, JC says that the laws should be kept, and it is only the Pharisees that declare that they and only they know how to interpret them, to their benefit. This is very much what every Christian does now, sure that their version is the only right one, and having no evidence better than the next. This can apply to the adultress story too, follow the law, just not as the Pharisees interpret it.”
I think you will need to give exact quotes from scripture if you want me to comment on it.
Mathew 22: 37-40
“Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[c] This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[d] All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
I interpret that fairly straightforward. This is the idea behind all the laws. If you are interpreting them in a way that is inimical to these policies then you are not interpreting them correctly.
“Christians don’t agree on what JC “really” meant, so to claim that Jesus himself is a guide is misleading. IF this were the case, you’d all agree. You don’t. You don’t agree at all that Jesus left clear instruction or what those instructions are. If you did, there wouldn’t be thousands of sects of Christianity.”
There are of course differences. But that does not mean Christ is not a guide. I think Christ left pretty clear instructions and Christians do have allot they agree on.
“I know that Paul says that the law can be scrapped in general. Who do you believe, JC or Paul?”
I do not think Paul taught that we could murder or commit adultery or not love God or violate the 10 commandments. The context Paul was writing in often had to do with the issue of whether Christians had to follow many of the ceremonial laws that Jews followed. He said they did not. I do not think Paul was inconsistent with JC.
“Most Christians, if not all, believe that Christ created a church and each sect is sure that they are the only “true” church. There is no evidence that the bible was written from divine inspiration. We do have evidence that there was a great deal of disagreement in the early church, and it took violence and politics to create what we know as Christianity now. There is no reason at all to believe that the Catholic church is any better than any other.”
Unlike protestant churches the Catholic Church stretches to the time of Christ. Jesus said he built his Church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it. It would be historically difficult to say this is true but the church did not exist until one thousand five hundred years later. The Orthodox Church and a few other churches have the same histories as the Catholic Church but it narrows things down quite a bit. That said I do think other Churches do a good job as well. I just think all things considered the Catholic Church makes the best claim to be Christ’s church, but recognize reasonable people can disagree.
Again I recognize our lives involve uncertainty. I have learned to deal with it.
“Of course there is a “certain emphasis” on what the Church teaches, just as there is a “certain emphasis” on what any Christian group preaches to its followers. There are parts of the bible that no modern Christian touches. When I was a Christian (Presbyterian), I remember sermons quite well. I was very surprised when I read the bible to see that much of it is ignored and I could see why parts of it aren’t mentioned to Christians. It’s a bit of a surprise to see Jesus demand that people who believe in him should bring non-believers before him and kill them (Luke 19).”
It sounds like you are doing some interpretation of your own. The church does not ignore the parable of the minas. It is included in our liturgical cycle.
“To claim that the Catholic church leaves a lot of the interpretation open is a curious claim since there are entire books devoted on how these stories should be interpreted, hence the Catholic Church not being sola scriptura.”
I am not sure how the fact that there are many books with interpretations of scripture proves that the church limits the interpretation. It’s the opposite.
The Catholic Church rejects sola scriptura and for good reason.
You seem to think that we would all robotically follow the same path if Jesus gave us guidance. But that is a bit much of a request. Yes different religious sects have acted poorly to each other. But that does not mean they all must be wrong. Do you see how you are sort of making an ad hominin fallacy in your thoughts?
I have to go. I will post more in a few days. Thanks for your comments and questions. I do like discussing these issues with you.
Hi Joe. I’ll respond in the next day or two. Have a hurt hand and that’s restricting me a bit. I do have a question I’d like to ask. If your country (I’m assuming the US) was taken over by Christians as a theocracy, but it wasn’t your sect and they only allowed their version. Would you obey?
It depends what law it was I was supposed to obey. In general I like to think I would follow the path of Thomas More.
These sorts of disputes are part of the reason why in the US we have the first amendment guaranteeing freedom to practice our religion and are not required to take any religious oaths.
Do you mean Thomas More who was executed by Henry VIII?
I do hope you’ll also answer my question about Thomas Moore, since it is a very curious statement to say that Christians are much the same and then saying that you’d rather die than follow another Christian sect.
You are quite correct, this is why the people who crafted the US Constitution did not say “see bible” when it came to laws and why they gave us freedom to not obey someone else’s religion. Alas, the Catholic Church has spent millions of dollars in order to force others to obey its opinions and religious beliefs. Do you find that hypocritical?
Since I had a long post, the response to this one is down here: https://trueandreasonable.co/2015/04/14/top-down-and-bottom-up-christianity/comment-page-1/#comment-28473
Hi Vel, I am just responding when I get a chance. Here is some more:
“Would you accept that the other gods are just as real and exactly like those worshippers claimed their gods to be? Evidence can be considered facts that support a claim. What facts do you have to support the existence of your god and that your version of your religion is an accurate portrayal of reality? If you don’t agree with my definition of evidence, why not?”
We have 4 reports in the 4 gospels we also have corroborating reports from Paul and other scripture writers. This is further corroborated by early church fathers. We in fact have thousands of copies of these reports that span the centuries and are highly consistent with each other from within decades after the events they portray. The existence of these reports are a fact are they not?
How soon after Thor’s supposed appearance were the reports of his actions written? You do have to think a bit, but when you do you will see that very few religions even come close to the evidence that Christianity offers.
“Since I do know that one tradition is no more true than another, this is indeed why there is no reason to believe any of you. When I was losing my faith, I did a lot of research, sure that one of the sects had to be true. What I found was that none of them were anything different from the next.”
The different sects are clearly different. You might believe they are all wrong and that would make sense since you are an atheist. But it seems that if you don’t believe in God you would not research different religious sects. You would just reject them all. Did you first looked at different sects and eventually just gave up on religion altogether?
Hi again,
We do have 4 reports in the gospels, plus a part of one in Acts. 4 reports that do not agree what happened in many respects. We have no corroborating reports from Paul. He was not there and he mentions very little about Jesus. Paul even gives different versions of his own story of supposed visions.
The story of Christ is not corroborated by the early church fathers. Cooroboration requires some ability to know what really happened and the early church fathers were not there. We may have thousands of copies of reports repeating one or the other of the bible’s claims, but that is meaningless. If many copies of something would make it true, the Scientologists would be quite the truthmongers. Consistency does not make something true. Again, if it did, other religions are as true as yours. And, as I said, and as anyone who has read the bible knows, the stories are not consistent at all. For example, what did those who were supposedly cruxified with Jesus Christ say/do? What was the sequence of events at the tomb? Where were the apostles? Did Mary and Joseph go to Egypt? Did wise men appear? Why did no one notice the gathering of a Roman legion’s worth of of men, plus women and children, right outside of a Roman-occupied city *twice*? How big was the population of Jerusalem at that time?
The OT is also fraught with outright nonsense. There is no evidence for a flood, no evidence for two people generating everyone, no evidence for a Babel, no evidence for your god utterly destroying the city of Tyre, no evidence for the wisest man in the world, nor of a fabulous palace or temple. There is no evidence for an “exodus”, and Christians can’t even agree on what date to give any of these events. As I have explained to other Christians, copies of a story doesn’t make the story true. The story is the claim. Evidence is what supports the story. We have lots of copies of the Iliad and the Odyssey. Is this evidence that Poseidon, Athena, Zeus, et all exist just like you claim your god exists? If not, you are doing little more than special pleading. The stories are evidence that people believed in such myths. They are not evidence that the events happened.
To underline this point, I’ll also use other examples. The followers of the Heaven’s Gate religion (there is no material difference in a cult or a religion) were sure that the story that their leader told them was true. Their belief doesn’t mean it was true, but it is a fact that they believed it. There was a comet that was approaching the earth. This is a fact. The belief that they had that there was a spaceship from another planet with intelligent beings on it is a well known fact. There is no evidence for this spaceship being behind the comet so it is only a belief that the spaceship exists not a fact. To make this a fact, we would need evidence to indicate this spaceship exists: the spaceship, an alien, the gravitational effect of the spaceship on the comet, the tail of the comet revealing the spaceship, etc. This would be the same for Santa Claus, the jolly old elf who goes down chimneys and gives presents. A child believes in this character; the existence of this character as anything other than a human invention is not a fact.
You ask how soon after Thor’s appearance were reports of actions written. We have no idea. There may have been oral history about him right after he came around. Does this make the story any less true, the format of the tale? I can say that Thor appeared to me today and I am writing about it right now. Does that mean my testimony is evidence of Thor’s existence? Per your argument, it is. This can also be applied to Carl Sagan’s invisible dragon essay. He says it exists, and writes about it. Therefore, it must exist, per your argument. You ask to see it, he says it is invisible. You ask how you can know it is there, he says you just have to believe. Now, do you believe a dragon is in Mr. Sagan’s garage? Do you believe I have shared mead with Thor here in my garden? Why or why not? What evidence do *you* need to believe in either? This is a question I do want an answer to, because it will tell me just what will make you believe in something. One does not have to think a bit to know that Christianity offers no more evidence than any other religion. It depends on belief in what someone has told you; it has no evidence for its claims other than belief, just like every other religion. Wicca has no evidence that spells are answered. Islam/Christianity/Judaism have no evidence their prayers are answered or that the events in their holy books ever occurred. Hindus have no evidence that their gods warred and flew in magical machines. Buddhists have no evidence that reincarnation happens. Shinto have no evidence that their spirits exist.
You seem to misunderstand me when I say I found nothing different in the various sects of Christianity and religions. I’d like to clarify. What I found that was no different was that all of their claims were baseless. Those who claim that their god hates homosexuals have no more basis for that than those who claim that their god loves everyone equally. I am glad that you do find that there are differences in Christian sects. That is true because the sects do not agree on what this god wants or how one is to determine this. Shall I be baptized in water or not? Immersion or not? Is it grace that saves me? Works? Childbirth per Paul in his letter to Timothy? Belief in Jesus as the son of god?
I will say that it is pretty amusing to see you try to argue that somehow I have to believe in the Christian god since I have researched other religions and other sects of the same religion. Shall I say that you have to believe in religions you don’t agree with if you research them? I certainly hope not. That would mean a lot of priests and pastors are in trouble since they likely have taken a comparative religion course in seminary or have done research on those religions. It seems that you may think I am as close-minded as many Christians are, deciding to remain in ignorance rather than give a claim a chance. I would find a world with gods much more interesting than one without. I play Dungeons and Dragons and I love that those worlds have gods in them. I often play a cleric. That doesn’t mean I think those gods are real.
As I have stated, “. When I was losing my faith, I did a lot of research, sure that one of the sects had to be true. What I found was that none of them were anything different from the next.” Your question “Did you first looked at different sects and eventually just gave up on religion altogether?” seems to indicate that you didn’t even read my response for your question repeats what I have already stated. Yes, Joe, I did research the different sects of Christianity, and other religions, before I gave up on religion altogether. As I have said, all religions have no evidence that the essential claims of their religions are true. There is plenty of evidence that their claims are false and other events happened other than what they claim, precluding those events. No flood, life just went on its merry way. No exodus, Egypt and its enemies contested as always. No Jesus Christ raising from the dead, no earthquake, no sky darkening, or the dead walking.
I replied at the bottom.
Joe, would you say the distinction of top down versus bottom up has something to do with one’s natural drive to be curious or cerebral?
I’m intrigued to see that the Catholic position on inerrancy hinges on matters of salvation. In most Protestant understandings (i.e., the Chicago Statement) it does not hinge on salvation alone, but on what the particular scripture intends to teach. For example, the verse mentioning rabbits chewing cud clearly does not intend to teach a scientific truth about the world. Jesus was not entering mustard seeds into the Guiness Book of World Records under “smallest seed”. The mustard seed might have been the smallest seed in a certain category like out of the seeds that could be bought at the ancient local market. Either way, he was not intending to teach a scientific truth, rather a spiritual truth about faith.
I should also mention there are problems with the Chicago Statement and I would not agree to hold it to its letter, but it’s interesting to note differences between Catholic and Protestant understanding here.
“Joe, would you say the distinction of top down versus bottom up has something to do with one’s natural drive to be curious or cerebral?”
I am not sure of that. I think it is more of a personality thing. So when I was in law school there were some people who seemed somewhat upset when the law did not provide clear rules. From my perspective I understood there would always be gray cases that might fall between the cracks. So for example in a custody dispute the court will award custody based on “the Child’s best interest.” The rule is a good one but it hardly is a clear line. Does that mean if mom does drugs Dad gets custody? Maybe maybe not. I noticed that some people (who were often very smart) really disliked when the law was vague like this. They seemed ill-disposed to deal with uncertainty, and they seemed to crave closure.
I think the same plays out in religion. I can deal with uncertainty, and I tend to cringe every time the church decides to create some new dogma. Others seem to insist the church must decide this or that issue. I remember a priest once said (sarcastically btw) that the Catholic Church is the best church because it has the most rules. I think some people might really think that.
“I’m intrigued to see that the Catholic position on inerrancy hinges on matters of salvation”
Ok I am not really saying what most people would call the Catholic position. My views have been condemned by Pope Leo XIII. That is sort of the thing that I am getting at. Some people including some popes and councils have said that this or that is dogma that all Catholics must believe etc. I agree that the Holy Spirit guides the church but I do not think it guides the church exactly as some people believe. The Spirit guides the church as the Spirit sees fit not how we define it.
Some Catholics are super strict in their rule following ways and would say that I am not really Catholic for some of my beliefs. I am not sure what to say other than that I disagree. I go to mass every Sunday and on other holy days, sometimes even on weekday mornings if I have allot on my mind or a big day. I pray every night, I take the sacraments more regularly than most. I believe in the sacraments, Nicene creed, and believe in the church. I am practicing Catholicism. But just because I tend to doubt some teachings are accurate does that mean I am not Catholic? Some say yep; I disagree. I do recognize that the church has authority and I do sometimes confess that I have these disagreements. But in the end I am not sure what can be done.
Consider this:
1) Everything Bob says is true.
2) Bob says he speaks for the whole church.
3) Bob says anyone who disagrees with him does not belong in Christ’s Church.
Now bob could be the Pope, the magisterium, a council, a church father or whatever. Well if you tend to doubt 1 then 2 and 3 aren’t really going to matter much. That doesn’t mean that I don’t think Bob is a very good and important authority and leader. He might be the most important and best authority and leader we have. It just means that I don’t necessarily agree with everything he says. If Bob says something I will not casually dismiss it. I will continue to pray on it and think on it. But I am not inclined to leave Christ’s Church or think I don’t belong in Christ’s Church because in the end I disagree with Bob. Christ’s Church is where I belong regardless of what Bob may think. It’s not even that I want the church to say something in favor of my own views. I am not here to try to kick the very traditionalists out either. One thing I think I have learned from reading about Christian history is that the whole deal with everyone calling each other heretics got way out of hand. I think it’s well past time we moved past that. Christ was not big on detailed rules. This is clear in the Gospels.
“ In most Protestant understandings (i.e., the Chicago Statement) it does not hinge on salvation alone, but on what the particular scripture intends to teach. For example, the verse mentioning rabbits chewing cud clearly does not intend to teach a scientific truth about the world. Jesus was not entering mustard seeds into the Guiness Book of World Records under “smallest seed”. The mustard seed might have been the smallest seed in a certain category like out of the seeds that could be bought at the ancient local market. Either way, he was not intending to teach a scientific truth, rather a spiritual truth about faith.”
Yes that view is also present in the Catholic Church.
In SciSal you say in group/out grip bias has chemical basis. I am very interested in sources for that stmt .. would like to read ..thx
It is not research I do myself but the neurotransmitter claimed to be involved is oxytocin.
This article is one that gives some links to more more scholarly journals – under the in-group bias:
http://io9.com/5974468/the-most-common-cognitive-biases-that-prevent-you-from-being-rational
Hi Joe,
Answer to this post: https://trueandreasonable.co/2015/04/14/top-down-and-bottom-up-christianity/comment-page-1/#comment-28419
You mention Jeremiah 31:33. In Jeremiah, God is promising to bring the Israelites out of captivity, though archaeology says that the story is largely nonsense, there being no entire enslavement of the Israelites at all, but a limited one. This captivity happened because this god put in place rulers that surprised it by not being what it thought, which is unusual activity for a supposedly omniscient being. Christians pick and choose through Jeremiah a lot, insisting that it is a prophecy about their religion. Unsurprisingly, Christians and Jews interpret the promises of Jeremiah entirely differently and neither have any evidence that their claims are any more true than the others’. I do find Jeremiah 31 interesting that it has your god harming people for the actions of others, a repeated theme of injustice in the bible.
I would agree with you that it does seem that this god made people without any idea of how to think or to obey if one is to believe the genesis story and one takes Jeremiah 31 as that humans still didn’t have this god’s instruction in their hearts. However, this would show that Adam and Eve are innocent of doing anything “wrong”, being that there was no such concept in their minds, and the whole claim of original sin is nonsense. This would also show that the claim of Jesus as a offering for that “wrong” is also nonsense. You say that you don’t know if the people around Moses’ time had moral sense. When was Moses’ time? This is important since if I know when is was then I can compare it to other cultures.
People do not need your god or your religion to know what is right and wrong. They can find a lot of different versions of what is right and wrong, and Christianity doesn’t have the lock on defining what is good and evil, right and wrong. You mention sin, but again, Christians don’t agree on what sin is. They don’t agree what in the bible is really a sin and what they can ignore. Humans lose their moral compass when someone or something tells then that what they are doing is “right”. The Nazis are indeed an excellent example. When humans are told “Nobiscum Deus”, “Gott Mitt Uns”, “God is with us”, they are sure that their god approves and divine approval is what any theist is looking for. The actions of Christians are other excellent examples, killing each other and other theists because that is what they were utterly sure that’s what their god wanted them to do. It’s not some god’s law that is being blotted out, it is our sense of empathy, that others are like us. Religion is a way to say that the “other” is less than human because of invented differences. You claim to know some truth but you cannot show that your truth is any more real than another theist’s. Every religion wants to claim that it originated the “golden rule”. There is nothing to support that and we have archaeology that shows that humans cared for each other back into the Paleolithic, long before any Christianity or Judaism.
You claim that you think that Christianity offers the best evidence from being from God. That is a bit of a circular argument since you assume your god is the correct one or that there is any god at all. There is no evidence of either option. There are indeed real moral values, but those values don’t have to be magical or unchanging. You assume an objective morality, and have yet to show that any such thing exists. Even your religion constantly changes its mind on what is moral and what is not. There is no “moral truth” at all in Christianity or in the Roman Catholic Church. This reality makes your claims that your religion shows some objective morality utter nonsense. I think it is true that no one knows entirely what is right or wrong, but we must make our own choices based on intelligence and empathy. Evolution has not “made” us anything, it is that misunderstanding of evolutionary theory that always trips up creationists. It is not an entity. Nature, red in tooth and claw is also a oversimplification. One can make an equal argument that humans that could work together were able to pass on their genetics and benefited from that. “Fitness enhancing” is not limited to physical superiority.
Free will is an interesting topic. I do not believe we have it, but that we act like we do since we cannot know all of the myriad influences on our minds and bodies. There is no indication that your god gave anyone free will. There is not one mention of it in the bible, and there are many instances where this god entirely abrogates the concept. Every time this god interferes with humans, it destroys free will. In my opinion, free will is one of those concepts like “sterile”, it is or it isn’t. If one accepts the claims of the bible, this god interferes constantly, controls the minds of many and has made humans to be damned through no fault of their own. That’s not free will. If this god “steps in” at all then free will is done.
The bible does have JC saying “love one another”. It also has commands to kill one another. How can one have both commands? Again, your religion says it and only it is entirely right. It says that God agrees with them. You claim your church is made of people, which is quite true. This god interfered with humans repeatedly when they made the “wrong” decisions in the bible myths. Now it is strangely absent when its followers do such things that you would claim offend it. If we are to believe your bible, your god murdered David’s son because David did something that offended it. It murdered Sapphira and Ananias for not giving over enough money. Now, it can’t stop an embezzler or far far worse in your church or any other. I trust I don’t have to go into details.
You do say that you have read what Jesus said. However, it seems that you haven’t since JC did say that none of this father’s laws were to be ignored. Since I have read the bible, I do know what JC is purported to say. There is no place where JC says “some parts of the tanakh are less important than other parts”. That’s not just an atheist saying it, it’s a fact. It’s always interesting to see one Christian claim another is a “fundamentalist”. Again, how will you show that your version is better than that of those “fundamentalists”?
We have no evidence that Jesus Christ the son of your god existed. You may offer what you believe is evidence.
I have quoted the chapters that talk about such things in order to have context with the verses. It is fascinating that you now require “exact quotes from scripture” to respond. This does present a problem since I *have* given exact quotes from your bible supporting my point that JC said that all of his father’s laws were to be followed. It seems that you are trying to claim that I have not done so and that is false.
I agree, JC is saying that if one interprets any and all of his father’s laws inimical to the love and obey commandments then you are not interpreting them correctly. This again does not show that some of the laws are less important than others as you have claimed and it does not show that any sect’s “interpretation” of these is the correct one.
If Christ is a “guide” then why can’t this omnipotent, omniscient being get his message across if there is only one correct way of understanding it? If I am guiding people on a trail, there is a singular end point we are going toward. You also again falsely state that “Christians do have a allot they agree on”. If this was true, there would not be thousands of sects and these sects wouldn’t have spend the bulk of history trying to eliminate each other, by killing, missionary work, etc. I was always confused when my church would send missionaries to countries I knew were Catholic.
I know you don’t think that Paul disagreed with Jesus. Other Christians do. Just do an internet search about Jesus versus Paul. You said that Paul essentially said we could ignore the laws, did you not? You of course want to claim that Paul was only concerned with the “ceremonial” laws, which again Jesus said that all of his father’s laws should be followed, not “hey guys, if you don’t like these, you can ignore them.” According to the laws of this god, it’s as important to not eat a calf cooked in its mother’s milk as it is to not take any gods before this god.
When you claim that the Catholic Church stretches to the time of Christ, that doesn’t present the whole story, does it? There were different sects from the beginning. Paul speaks of them, cursing them in Galatians 1, so any claim that there was some “one true church” is nonsense. The RCC does try to claim they are straight from Peter, but again, no evidence of this at all. The Orthodox claims to be older and more true than the RCC. There has been hundreds of years of attempting to rejoin the churches and they all fail since each side is sure that they and they alone are right. Protestant churches came from the Catholics; Martin Luther was a Catholic who saw what he considered corruption in the RCC. Add to this that the RCC itself has changed its mind repeatedly on what this god “really” meant and Augustine and Aquinas wouldn’t recognize you much at all now. Theists disagree with other theists, it doesn’t make their beliefs any more “reasonable”. A reasonable argument is that none of you again have any better evidence that your version is better than the next or true at all.
It strikes me as curious that you say “Again I recognize our lives involve uncertainty. I have learned to deal with it.” This seems an odd thing for a Christian to say. When I believed in Jesus Christ, I was certain he existed, just like saying “I believe that the US landed men on the moon.” Indicates I am certain that 12 men walked on the moon. I am not uncertain of this at all.
I am not surprised at all that you are sure that my interpretation of Luke 19 is wrong. Care to show me how you know this to be true? It certainly is clear on what it says. “He replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what they have will be taken away. 27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.’” You do claim that the parable is part of your “liturgical cycle”. Yes, it is. For this year, Luke 19 and the parable of the 10 minas is for Wednesday, November 16. The other reading is 2 Macabees 6:18-31, which is about how Eleazar dies rather than even appear to break this god’s laws (this is a book that Martin Luther called heathen and unnatural). I am curious, why these two sections of scripture? It seems that the only similarities are acceptance of laws/Jesus and death, which would indicate to me that my interpretation isn’t that off. I can agree that in the past, more Catholics may have heard this passage. How many Catholics go to Wednesday mass now?
The Catholics do reject sola scriptura, though with no more reason than the others accept sola scriptura. You claim that you don’t understand how the fact that there are many books by catholics on how to correctly interpret scripture proves the church limits interpretation. Well, consider how the Church reacted and continues to react to people who interpret the bible differently. Excommunication, burning at the stake, all intended to restrict how people interpreted the bible. Do you who Giordano Bruno was? He was murdered because he was considered heretical, interpreting the bible incorrectly. We have the church saying that interpretation other than theirs is wrong. That statement that people are heretics is not allowing people to interpret the bible differently than the church does.
If Jesus Christ gave the same guidance to everyone, yep, I do expect all Christians to agree on everything they claim is the absolute truth from their god. They don’t. You have created a strawman argument when you falsely claim that I expect everyone would “robotically follow the same path”. Nice example of how you construct that fallacy by creating an extreme situation that I did not indicate.
How is getting the same guidance across for a message “a bit much of a request” for an omnipotent being, Joe? It’s quite an understatement to say that religious sects have acted “poorly” toward each other. They did their best to commit genocide in the worst ways possible. It certainly does indicate that there is no reason to think that any of you could be right. You mention an ad hominem fallacy, which is the fallacy where one mentions an unrelated negative attribute to try to influence opinion about an idea. Since the actions of believers and the inaction of this god are directly related to the possibility of truth in the message, there is no ad hominem fallacy here. If you don’t think actions and the truth of the message are related, perhaps you can explain why. Now, if we are pointing out fallacies, what you appear to be using is a false dilemma fallacy where one answer has to be right if others are wrong. The problem is that all of theism’s answers can be wrong. I think you may be confusing an ad hominem fallacy with a fallacy of generalization e.g. if someone is once wrong, they are always wrong. I did not use that one either since I can show how the claims of religions are not born out in reality and did not claim that Christians are wrong about everything they say about other subjects. If you google “nizkor fallacies” you’ll get a great list of fallacies and examples. That website was created to contend with holocaust deniers.
I’ll be back for the second post you made. Thanks for chatting with me.
Hi Vel perhaps I can learn a bit about your own views.
I’m not sure you understand my position. I didn’t say people in Moses time had no moral sense I said “I really don’t know what sort of moral sense they had at the time.”
There is a difference. Even today I am not sure what moral senses others have. It seems that it varies quite a bit from person to person. It also seems clear we can lose our moral sense by sinning or doing evil.
In allot of what you say you seem to assume you would know better than God how to do things. I think you are very much a top down thinker. You would do away with any uncertainty and give everyone clear rules on how to live.
You also tend to treat God or at least the concept of God as if you were referring to any other human being. I notice many other atheists do that. I think that is a category mistake.
Indeed you can find a huge range of views of what is right and wrong when you leave out JCs guidance to love each other. I find it interesting that you seem critical of Christianity because there are some differences of interpretation yet you suggest it’s great to have these numerous versions of right and wrong without Christianity. Why is the diversity of views a big problem for Christianity but the even bigger diversity of views that comes with rejecting Christianity not a problem?
Are you familiar with meta-ethics? Maybe you can explain what philosophical views you are closest to. You are extremely nitpicky about the Christian view of ethics but you are not offering any better alternative. I think once you actually study and think about the issues dealing with ethics and meta-ethics you will realize viewing the important questions is not so easy. You might even be more charitable to religious views.
Since you haven’t actually spelled out your own position on meta-ethics there would be no reason for me to think it would differ. You are now saying that values are “real” but they are not “objective.” So you think values are subjective like tastes? Whether it’s wrong for Stalin to starve the Ukraine is a matter of taste? Or do you mean that whether something is right or wrong depends on the circumstances? (Pretty much everyone agrees with that to some extent) Religious people take such questions seriously. Often atheists just say “well there are lots of options we can take” but they never really try to sort out their own views. And when they do… well we see the weakness of their position.
In many ways you have not even engaged the reasons I and some others are Christian, let alone offered an alternative view.
Hello,
I think I do understand your position. You have said that “I really don’t know what sort of moral sense they had at the time.” This would assume that they either had a moral sense, of some sort, or that they did not. You have claimed that this god’s instructions are in people’s hearts now, which would mean that you don’t think it was in them at some point. If this god did not give people a moral sense, before the events in Jeremiah, then why consider what Adam and Eve supposedly did *wrong*? And if they did have some sort of moral sense without this god’s interference, that shows that one can be moral without this god at all, destroying one of the main claims of lots of Christians, that people would have to be amoral monsters without their god. I have heard Christian after Christian claiming that they were a horrible person before they were “saved”. If one can have morals without needing to be “saved”, then one doesn’t need your religion at all. You claim that you are supposedly not sure what moral sense others have. Really? You are not sure what moral sense I have? If it varies from person to person, then again, no reason to think it has any root in some divine being. You also mention “sinning” and “evil”. Per your bible, there are a lot of claims of sinning and evil, and humans don’t agree on those; Christians don’t even agree on those. If you can’t agree on what evil or sinning consists of, why should I think that any Christian’s opinion on losing one’s moral sense has any meaning? There is no evidence that Christianity has any lock on morality at all.
I also asked when Moses’ time was. This would help to know when the Israelites were supposedly in Egypt. It doesn’t surprise me overly much when you won’t address this question.
Yep, I have no problem in saying that my morals and judgment are better than your god’s, considering the depictment in the bible. I don’t need to approve of slavery, or considering women property, or considering virgin girls something that I want given to me as war treasure. I don’t need to kill people if they don’t give me money. I don’t need to tell people that they must leave their families to worship me. Considering that Christians make up their own versions of what their god “really” means, Christians do exactly what I am doing. If you can’t show that your god exists, there is no reason to entertain the notion as possible.
There is no reason not to treat your god as it is depicted in the bible and that is like a very powerful human, just like any other Bronze age god. Your god is jealous, ignorant of what it can’t perceive, makes claims that aren’t true, likes meat, has feet, can’t handle iron chariots, can’t find people in a garden, is surprised when humans don’t do what it wants, kills in a fit of anger, etc. There are plenty of claims of how magical this being is, but its actions are nothing more than bronze age myths. It isn’t omnipotent, it isn’t omniscient. So, your claim of category error fails. I do understand why you, and so many Christians, wish to redefine your god away from what the bible claims. It is vastly simpler to insist it exists if no one can define it. With the bible, we have far too much definition on what this god says and does. That detail makes it very easy to disbelieve and is why I find reading the bible is a great way to get someone to start questioning their religion. You can of course say that the bible is wrong, but again, then why should we believe any of it since none of its essential events have any evidence for them at all? If parts can be peeled away, we are left with nothing.
I have no idea why you think to accuse me of wanting to do away with uncertainty and give everyone clear rules on how to live. That’s quite interesting since that is *exactly* what the Roman Catholic Church tries to do when it says “do this and not that or you will be damned”. It does not tolerate heresy and we have hundreds of years of evidence of this.
You mention JC’s guidance to love each other. Christians all claim to have this love foremost in their ideals and they believe in all sorts of different versions of right and wrong. You can of course claim that those other Christians aren’t TrueChristians and don’t do it “right”, but again, how am I to know the difference? You all make the same claims and use the same bible to support them.
You again try to minimize the differences between Christian sects. There are differences that some Christians are sure will send those “other Christians” directly to hell. This includes how one is baptized. My mother’s grandmother was so sure of this that she had my mom baptized in secret in the Catholic Church against the will of her parents. You, yourself, have said that you would rather be like Sir Thomas Moore when it comes to obeying a theocracy not of your sect. Choosing death over doing Christianity differently certainly seems like there are more than “some differences”.
Let’s see if I can be more clear. Your religion claims to be the ultimate truth. This is why it is ridiculous to say that it alright for everyone to have a different interpretation of what you claim to be an objective truth created by an omnipotent being. Since I do not believe in an objective magical being, I find that there is nothing wrong, or right, with people to have differing ideas about right and wrong since these people aren’t claiming some magical being has told them what is right and wrong. Theists appeal to a magical authority to support their claims of moral superiority and objective truth and cannot show that their claims are true. Non-theists do not do this. See the difference?
What philosophical views do I hold? I find much of philosophy to be nonsense, attempts to make concrete claims when reality doesn’t work that way. The following are ideas that are important to me: “with great power, comes great responsibility”, “do as thou wilt, in that it harm no other”, “Courage, honor, loyalty and sacrifice”, “No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever. There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom. Against that power tyrants and dictators cannot stand.” “The universe is run by the complex interweaving of three elements: Energy, matter, and enlightened self-interest.” ““We’re human beings with the blood of a million savage years on our hands! But we can stop it. We can admit that we’re killers . . . but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! Knowing that we’re not going to kill — today!” Spider-man, Captain America, G’Kar and Captain Kirk are heroes of mine. Humanism may be the closest “philosophy” I consider acceptable, but it still isn’t exactly what I believe. An intelligent mind can always consider and change.
Again, you try to claim that Christians all agree on ethics and they do not. There is no one “Christian view of ethics”, and that is what I am so “picky” about, the false claims that there are and that Christianity is based on some magical objective truth. I don’t need to offer any better alternatives, because they are already out there. One can just follow the golden rule, something around long before Christianity or Judaism, and be a decent human being. You again try to pretend that I haven’t “actually” studied and thought about the issues dealing with ethics and metaethics, which is one more false claim about me on your part. I have done so for a long time and I know that the important questions aren’t easy and they aren’t answerable by a religion that can’t agree on what is good and evil, like Christianity. I have no reason to be charitable to religious views because they are built on baseless claims, and are arrogant enough to lie when they claim to have some objective truths.
Though I have studied philosophies, ethics and metaethics, I find metaethics to be nothing more than navel-gazing, as I do find most philosophy. Religions claim to be able to answer the questions posed in meta-ethics and they have no evidence their claims are true. You have nothing to show that your god exists, much less that it is “goodness”, other than a lovely circular argument “god is good is god…” which since Christians can’t agree on what is good, makes this god as many different things as there are Christians. Again, good and bad can be subjective and can change. Humans do agree a fair amount on what they consider good and bad, but not always. Values can be real, and not objective very easily. I have certain values and they are mine, so they are very real, but I would not say that my values are from some objective truth, like theists do. No, I do not think values are a matter of “taste”, I think that values have ramifications and responsibilities. I do think that there are situational ethics; I have no problem with the idea that sometimes it is the good thing to kill someone and sometimes it is not. This is different from the claim that some magical book has told you what the objective truth is. If ethics come from this magical objective source, then there should be no acceptable situational ethics for a Christian; it should be it is always right or it is always wrong.
You seem to want to pretend that only religious people take questions like what is good and what is evil “seriously”. That is nonsense. This attempt seems like little more than the usual claim by Christians that atheists are amoral monsters who would accept any thing anyone did. Atheists do not “often” say “well there are a lot of options we can take.” You have again made up a strawman in order to make believe that atheists do not think about morality. It is also a false claim when you say “they (atheists) never really try to sort out their own views”. This only shows that you have spoken with very few atheists, if any at all. You might want to visit the forum over at Why Won’t God Heal Amputees to ask the atheists there if they’ve sorted out their own views.
You mention that you somehow see a weakness of position in atheists’ positions when they do show that they have thought about morality and philosophy. Now, what weaknesses do you see, Joe? Atheism is just the conclusion that there are no god/gods. It isn’t a philosophy, and atheists are all over the board on what they believe in that arena. I know atheists who are neo-cons, who are pacifist liberals, who are humanists and who are utter bigots. Are you claiming you see weaknesses in those philosophies or are you saying you see weakness in the conclusion that there are no god/gods? If so, can you show the evidence that contradicts this position?
You claim that I haven’t engaged the reasons that you and other are Christians. What are those reasons? What I see are: you think you know that a god exists. I have not seen any evidence of this and have presented evidence why this is not to be accepted. You think that morality has to come from a objective supernatural source. I have yet to see any evidence of this and have presented evidence why this is not to be accepted. You seem to think that there is more evidence for your religion and again, I have yet to see that this is the case: you won’t even answer when Moses existed. You seem to think that you have the answer to Pascal’s Wager, and again, there is no reason to accept that your version is the right one or that any religion is. If there are other reasons, please name them. I have offered alternatives for why humans are moral and don’t need gods. However, even if I didn’t offer alternatives, that doesn’t mean that any of your religion is true. All you seem to have is an argument that even if your religion is a lie, people should accept it because there’s nothing else. That fails since there are plenty of alternatives, many with better outcomes and evidence than yours.
Hi Vel:
Anytime you have 4 reports they will differ in some respects unless the authors collude with each other. “Differ” of course does not mean they “contradict” each-other. But even with minor contradictions the reports can be credible. We don’t throw out entire reports just because we find some minor contradiction.
Paul spoke with eyewitnesses and confirms that Jesus rose from the dead as well as other teachings and practices such as those concerning marriage and the last supper. It’s true that Paul gives more instruction than description as the people he wrote to were already instructed by him about Jesus. But Paul’s writings were very much centered on Jesus. Those writing are consistent with what we understand from other sources.
The vast majority of the History I know about I learned from reading from people who were not there. What contact the early church fathers had with whom is, I agree, unclear. But we do know that they likely had different sources of the information as they lived in different parts of the world. All of these fathers tend to follow the same view that Jesus taught a message of love worked miracles was crucified by Pontius Pilate, died and rose on the third day etc. etc. If there were no fact to the matter these divergent sources, would likely not have the same view.
Consistency doesn’t make something true but it is a factor that we weigh when we do historical research. How much consistency there should be and how much it is weighed is grounds for reasonable people to disagree. But if every claim from every source was drastically different then
I have not memorized most of these details and as a Christian I have no reason to. But I am somewhat familiar with arguments fundamentalists often have with like-minded atheists. By like-minded atheists I mean they tend to think that if a gospel writer got one iota wrong like something a condemned man said to Jesus then we can’t believe anything in the report. I think such views are naïve and unreasonable.
That said I do think in some of the cases like for the example the wise men you are assuming that just because one Gospel writer left something out there is a contradiction. Which is not the case.
In your first question you are assuming that if someone noticed something at the time 1) it would have been written down and 2) we would have a valid copy of what was written 2000 years later. Both assumptions are very poor ones to make.
In the second question I can’t even answer what the population of the city I live in is. People move in and out all the time.
The historical evidence in the OT is indeed much weaker than the historical evidence in the New Testament. If you don’t think a record of an event is evidence of an event then I am sure you do not believe much of history. “Prehistory” is separated from “history” precisely because prehistory was before we had written records. And in fact we know very very little about what happened in pre-history. I think you have a very unrealistic view of what we can know about prehistory and just how much history you know due to “stories.” I also think we went through this in detail in my blog post talking entitled “No Evidence!”
By the end of those comments you seemed to stop claiming there was no evidence and started saying something more sensible and realistic:
Whether evidence is strong evidence is different than saying there is no evidence. It seems you have slipped back to again saying records of what happened are no evidence that they happened. It was a good discussion we had in response to that blog, but I don’t want to repeat it. Perhaps you will understand my view by reviewing it.
“
In general Jesus said he was the son of God. The evidence he gave for this were the miracles he worked. People said they actually saw Jesus do certain things and these things were recorded. The people were in a position where they could have seen the miracles as the lived in the same area. I am not sure what Heavens Gate people believed so I really can’t comment on which of their beliefs may or may not have been facts.
Claims are not more or “less true” they either are true or they are not. How close in time to the alleged event a history is recorded is an important criteria for weighing its reliability. The fact that you have no idea how much time passed between the alleged Thorian events and its being recorded is an important difference between the New Testament/Christianity and all of Greek Mythology.
Your view that all accounts are either no evidence or all of them must be taken as completely true is way too simplistic.
No I never made any such argument. Again your view that all accounts are either no evidence or all of them must be taken as completely true is way too simplistic. Even you do not do that. We are now getting into the ways we tell stories like spiderman apart from true stories. We addressed that in the no evidence thread.
No because of the context.
Do you believe any historical accounts that are over 120 years old? Are all of your historical accounts written by people who actually witnessed the events? If so how do you know? They are no longer here to tell you they saw it. You would need to take someone elses word that it was written by them and they claimed to write it. Why would you believe such “stories.” You are the one who is special pleading. You accept history except when it is evidence for a God you do not want to believe in.
Your view that all accounts are either no evidence or all of them must be taken as completely true is way too simplistic.
I am not sure what your point is. Yes there are different views of what Christianity means. Do you think this means they must all be false?
Fair point, I agree you don’t.
Ok the reason I asked that is because I (perhaps mistakenly) thought you gave up religion due to some view that science and religion conflicted, not because you couldn’t sort out the different sects. Of course, both may have come into play.
If you don’t count records from the past as evidence then ok. But I think you likely do count some records from the past as evidence, and you are just special pleading against the records that support Christianity.
If you were to agree that records of certain events happening in the New Testament are indeed evidence of them happening – but just say in your opinion they are not strong enough evidence that is a different story. I admit there is some evidence of Islam being true. I just think it’s not as strong as the evidence for Christianity.
Hi Joe,
It’s always interesting to see a Christian claim that any 4 reports will differ as an excuse for the 4 gospels. This would be a good argument *if* Christians didn’t claim that their bible was inspired by their god. Stories can differ and the way to show what is true is with evidence. There is none for the broad story that the gospels try to tell and there is no evidence that one story is more true than the other. Events presented in the different versions of the gospels entirely preclude each other, showing that the gospels are built on false claims since they each claim to be true, inspired by this god, and they can’t be. There can’t be two or more “firsts” to the tomb. The apostles either are terrified for their lives or are celebrating in the very temple that is controlled by the supposed people who just demanded the death of their leader. Either there were magical events or there were not. Having two events that preclude each other is contradiction e.g. one cannot have one’s cake and eat it too. You try to claim that there are only minor contradictions and that is not true. Is Jesus Christ going to see the one thief in heaven that day or not? I do expect an answer, Joe. What is the real story with the thief per your claims?
Paul claims he spoke with eyewitnesses. That is a story with no evidence. Paul does not confirm that JC rose from the dead, he repeats the claims he has been told. Confirming it would be with evidence. What evidence does Paul have? We have a claim that Paul met with some of the apostles, and that he had a vision, presented with different contradictory details. It appears that you didn’t bother to look around at Christian claims that JC and Paul do not teach the same things. Paul claims that he knows when JC will return, Romans 13 which contradicts Luke 21. Paul can’t even get rightsome of JC’s most important words, that there are two commandments that all others come from. Paul only mentions one of them. Paul insists that this god does not give mercy unless it feels like it, and JC says that the merciful will get mercy by their actions. Paul says that it is by JC’s death that one gets forgivness from trespasses, but JC says that one gets forgiveness from forgiving others’ trespasses against oneself. Jesus found that finding honor in the sight of men was worthless but Paul strived for it. This does not appear to be someone who’s writings are “very much centered on Jesus”. You mention “other sources” when claiming that Paul’s writings are consistent with Jesus’. What sources are these for I know no other sources for Paul and Jesus other than the bible itself?
You certainly have read authors about history who weren’t there at the events; so have I. Do you know what these authors do ? They use evidence to support their claims, something that Christians do not have to support theirs. They use first person accounts, they compare them to make sure that the events have some plausibility of happening. They call differing accounts into question and find the evidence that shows them to be true or false. If one person makes a claim that “x” happened, and another makes the claim “y”, the historian will search for evidence to see which version is correct, if any. The claims about Atlantis are a good example on how this works. We have no idea whom the early church leaders talked to, so yes, it is indeed unclear and the repetition of stories is not evidence that the stories are true. There is no reason to make the baseless assumption that the early church fathers had different sources of information, because we know that they were often in communication with each other. Even if their sources of information was different, there is again no reason to assume any of the sources to be accurate.
We also know that there were many different ideas about Jesus, and your claim that “all of these fathers tend to follow the same view” is untrue because we know that, again, Paul decried anyone who disagreed with him and was constantly on the lookout for these different versions, as did all of the church fathers, with their conclaves where they banned anyone who didn’t agree with them. The history of the early Christian church is not what you claim, Joe. Historians know this and that is why historians do not make the same claims as theologians do.
You are quite correct, consistency doesn’t make something true. We do consider consistency when we do historical research. A problem is that you want to claim consistency means one thing in one part of your bible and another in a different part. If consistency is so important, why aren’t the gospels questioned? I find it quite hypocritical that, when convenient, you want to claim that the stories are consistent so that means they are true and when convenient, when they are not consistent, everyone should ignore the problems, that they are “minor”. The claims in the gospels and between Jesus and Paul are indeed “drastically different”, as are the claims in the bible that are drastically different from reality, e.g. creation myth, Noachian flood, etc.
I am always bemused with Christians who insist that they have no reason to know their bible and its details. A rather amazing thing for a person to claim who wants to make believe that the only way we can know the truth is to know this god and its WORD. It seems that you depend on ignorance of the problems with your bible’s stories to keep your faith. That does not surprise me at all since reading the bible is one of the best ways in my experience to make a person an atheist. You again try to mislead readers by intentionally lying when you claim that the gospel writers have only gotten “one iota wrong”. Again, if the thieves both attacked Jesus, this means that JC never had an opportunity to say ““Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.” The thief then never says that Jesus did nothing wrong, something that Christians repeat in their desire to make a sinless lamb of a sacrifice. It is also interesting in Luke that the thief in some manuscripts says “come in your kingly power” reflecting directly Luke 19. It makes a bit of a problem when Catholics and other Christians make promises about heaven and the sacrifice. I know that you would like to claim that anyone who disagrees with you is naïve and unreasonable. It just shows that Christians don’t agree as much as you claim they do. If the gospels can’t agree with how the most important events in Christianity happened, why believe them? Would you believe any other set of stories in this way, ignoring any differences by declaring them “minor”?
I know that leaving something out isn’t a contradiction. Having an entirely different occurrence happen instead of another is a contradiction, which is my point. For instance, if I say I would be in Toledo this Monday at 5:00 PM EDT, then I cannot be in Houston at 5:00 PM EDT this Monday. If you know a way I can be and how claiming one and the other at the same time isn’t a contradiction, please do so. Again, what was the sequence of events in the childhood or death of Jesus, Joe? Was there a massacre? Or did everything proceed like normal? Was there a census forcing people to return to their hometowns in all of Palestine in what amounted to a police state? Or did people wander around as they wanted, clear into Egypt?
I am indeed assuming that someone would notice the presence of thousands of men gathering in a occupied area that was full of unrest, something we do know is a fact. All assumptions are not unfounded. I also assume that they would write this down and/or react to it because that is what soldiers and people in power would do. Why did neither happen? You say that I am assuming that this event would have to have been written down and “we would have a valid copy of what was written 2000 years later”. How do those demands of yours work with your bible? We do have that it was written down, but decades after the supposed events. We have no other evidence to support those stories. We do have a lot of evidence that the copies have been altered. Why do you assume your bible is a valid copy of what happened at that time? If they are such poor assumptions to make in the instance of Roman records, why do you make them for your bible? A population of a city can be estimated at any time by analyzing evidence. Archaeologists do it often. You could look up the population of the city you live in with ease by looking at census information and tax records. The best current estimate is that there were around 80,000 in Jerusalem in the first century. If more than 20% of the population left your city, be it any size, and gathered just outside in one group, do you think anyone would notice?
The historical evidence for the essential events in the OT is little different from the historical evidence for the essential events in the NT. The record of an event is a story until it is supported by evidence. You try to conflate stories of events with evidence supported history which are not the same thing. You also try to create a false dichotomy. The eras before writing appeared require evidence to support claims made about them as do events after the advent of writing. No one blindly accepts that Caesar’s writings about the Gallic Wars or that the claims of the Egyptian Book of the Dead, are true without having evidence to support them. Evidence makes Julius’ reports plausible; the Book of the Dead is not plausible since it has no evidence to back up its claims. Same with Herodotus’ claims or any historian’s, evidence supports some of their claims, so we can accept them as true. The claims that evidence doesn’t support, we discount with reason.
I agree, we don’t know much about prehistory. What we know is because of evidence we have discovered. If evidence is important here, then it is just as important in requiring it in later periods. Christianity has no evidence that the essential events in its bible happened. To insist that evidence is important in one case but not in another is hypocritical. I will point out again that just because we have writings about something, that doesn’t make it true. If you think it does, why do you not believe that the history of the eastern Med contains true accounts of their gods? Yep, I said exactly as you quoted and I have further refined my stance. The stories are claims, they need evidence to support them. The stories are evidence that someone did believe such stories but they are not evidence that the stories happened. You make the claim, you need evidence to support it. I have yet to see any of that evidence for the claims of the bible.
“In general Jesus said he was the son of God.” In general? What an odd way to put that. We have stories that Jesus Christ existed, we have claims that he was the son of God and we have claims that miracles were done. We have claims that people saw Jesus do miracles; we do not have any eyewitness claims. What we have are books that were written much later, and again disagree on what happened. We have no external reports of these miracles in any other sources. We have claims that JC did so many miracles that not all of the books in the world could contain them, but strangely enough, no one noticed these. You can know what the Heaven’s Gate people believed by doing a little research. You can find out the beliefs of the Heaven’s Gate people by doing a little research. You can then comment on it. It seems that you don’t want to do the research. Why is this?
Ah, so if claims are true or not, and can’t be “more or less true”, how do we determine this, Joe? We need evidence. You are correct, I have no idea how long it was between the “alleged Thorian events” to its being recorded. It could have been a day and we don’t have the originals or the events never happened at all and they are all made up. This also applies to your religion’s myths. We have no idea how much time passed between the alleged events of the bible and when they were recorded nor do we have any evidence these events happened at all. I do note that you only mention the NT because the entire OT, which your NT depends, is fraught with the same problems you point out about the Norse and Greek myths. The NT also has these problems. We have stories told about a magical being named Jesus Christ written down, and the earliest copies of this are decades after this entity supposedly existed. Christians can’t agree on when this character actually lived or died. Since we have no evidence to support these stories, there is no more reason to accept your myths than the ones about Thor or Athena or Poseidon. My view isn’t that “all accounts are either no evidence or all of them must be taken as completely true”, that’s a strawman created by you. My view is that all accounts must be supported by evidence and that is what makes them true or not. That isn’t simplistic, but I do know it is inconvenient for a theist.
You have indeed made the argument that since people have written about things, those written things are evidence that the events really happened. “People said they actually saw Jesus do certain things and these things were recorded.” You have presented this as evidence the events occurred.
I believe historical accounts, e.g. stories, that are over 120 years old if they are supported by evidence. I would need to have a reason to “take someone’s word”. Historians don’t just “take someone’s word”, they do far more research than that. This is why there are archaeologists who spend their entire careers trying to find evidence that the bible events happened, they know that the evidence is important to prove the bible claims. The fact that they have not been able to find evidence to support the essential events of the bible is very telling.
You cite “context” when I asked if you believe that there is a dragon in the garage and you say that you would not believe. What is this context, Joe? I would like some details since I have repeatedly encountered Christians who claim “context” but when asked what they mean, it becomes evident that the claim was nothing more than a hope that their opponent would fill in the blank for them. Why don’t you believe that there is a dragon in Mr. Sagan’s garage?
You seem to be unaware of what special pleading is as a fallacy when you accuse me of it. Special pleading is where you wish certain rules to apply to everything but what you believe in. Again, I do not accept history, or theist claims, blindly without evidence, as theists accept the existence of their gods. I have asked you what would make you believe in other religion’s gods.
You also make a false claim about me that I somehow simply don’t want to believe in your god. I would believe in it if there was evidence. This is not to mean that I would worship such a being, especially if it is the character presented in the bible. Another theist could make the same claim about you, Joe, that you accept history except when it is evidence for a god that you do not want to believe in. I hold all of theist claims, and history, to the same standard when it comes to my accepting their assertions.
It’s no surprise that you apparently are refusing to answer my question ““Do you believe I have shared mead with Thor here in my garden? Why or why not? What evidence do *you* need to believe in either?” and take refuge in your strawman “Your view that all accounts are either no evidence or all of them must be taken as completely true is way too simplistic.” There is a reason I asked my question, Joe, and your refusing to answer it is just as revealing as giving examples of what evidence you would accept to believe that Thor hangs out with me in my garden. Repeating your strawman makes no sense as an answer to my question, since again, I do not hold this strawman to be true, and in this question, you are simply asked if you believe my story or not. As you said before, “Claims are not more or “less true” they either are true or they are not.” If you don’t think my account true, why? Do you need evidence?
I do think that all versions of Christianity are false, since none can show that they are true. If you can show that any version is the true one, please do so. What you have offered so far is the same as what is offered by every other sect: claims of age, claims of correct interpretation, etc. Per the bible, the True Christians should be able to do certain things: miracles like JC, healings of physical ailments by “elders” of the church, etc. Can you do these things? Can any Christian? I also find that no religions are true since they cannot make good on their claims, just like Christianity.
I gave up religion for more than one reason and you were mistaken in your assumption. I researched various Christian sects and other religions. I also saw that the claims of the religions had nothing to do with what the evidence actually showed. Science and religion do conflict because religion makes claims that magic happens. It doesn’t. Theists have been trying for thousands of years to show that it does and they have yet to do it. Does this mean that they won’t in the future? No, but the odds aren’t good. Just because you can imagine something doesn’t mean it is real.
I do not count stories from the past as evidence that gods exist. If I did, then every religion would be as true as yours, as I have already pointed out. If the story of the dead rising in the bible is true, then the story of Athena helping in the battle of Troy is true, if we are only to go on story and nothing else as evidence. I do accept some records/stories from the past as true since we have evidence to back the records/stories up. You are again intentionally misrepresenting me when you claim that I have used special pleading. I have not since I require evidence for all instances of historical claims.
Again, there is no reason to agree that stories of certain events happening in the NT are evidence of them happening, just like there is no reason to agree that stories of certain events happening in the greek myths are evidence that they happened. The stories are the claims, they are not the evidence. I can claim that Thor was sharing a pint of mead with me in my backyard. That is the record, a claim that something happened. I have asked you what you would need to believe me this happned; that is the evidence. What would you need to believe my record, Joe? What evidence do you think indicates that Islam is true? Let’s compare that evidence to what you have for Christianity.
Hi Vel:
I am not sure if you are even reading what I write. I specifically address this in my original post. Yet you raise this issue without any indication you even read what I wrote.
When you say things like this I get the sense that you are not reading and trying to understand what I am writing. Vel you are making some quite standard arguments here. I am writing responses as I have time. But I am getting very little to suggest that what I write is actually sinking in. And by that I do not mean you need to agree with what I write but rather that you are actually reading and understanding my point. It seems you have some emotional block against Christianity and think nothing good can come from it. Instead of trying to understand any thing I say you seem immediately to just try to take a general topic and then give a lengthy anti-christian rant.
Anyway, its true all people ahve biases so perhaps my perception is the result of my own bias. But I do wish you would actually quote some of what I say or the bible says instead of paraphrasing it. It would mean you acknowledge what I already said on the topic and ensure you are not arguing against straw-men.
I have read what you write. Since I quote your words often, to claim that I haven’t is rather odd and against the evidence. Yep, I am making standard rebuttals of the standard excuses made by you. This does not make them inaccurate. I am waiting for you to answer questions asked. You seem reluctant to do so.
I do understand your writing and your points. You seem to think that I must agree with your claims if I understand them. That is not the case. I know that you say that is not what you are looking for, but it certainly seems as if it is.
Let’s see what you addressed in your original post about how the Gospels differ. You insist that one shouldn’t take the bible as inerrant. The problem with this is that you pick and choose what parts you want to claim are inerrant. For instance, one should take the claims of the resurrection of JC as completely true and inerrant, but one shouldn’t take the parts where the Christian god approves of slavery as inerrant. Some Christians wish to claim that Mary is a virgin mother, but it’s just silly to have a donkey talk. You claim that it is wrong to view, as some Chrsitians do, the bible as inerrant, that this is top-down. You wish to claim that “bottom up” is better, asking questions and then coming to belief in your god. However, you assume that everyone will end up with the same answers you do and you forget that the belief in your god started as this “top-down” that the bible has some truths in it. It is not surprising that Decartes became a Christian in Christian Europe. Your sentence here is very revealing: “It was through the consideration of what that would mean (meta-ethics) and how I can accomplish that end that supports my belief that Christianity is the way.” You were looking to support your religious belief. You did not start from a blank slate with “what is good and where does it come from”, you apparently started with “This is what my religion says is good, how can I support that claim?”
This is what I see when I see you say that it’s okay that the Gospels differ. You aren’t starting from “are they true?” you are starting from “they are true, so the many differences don’t matter.”
You are again trying to misrepresent me by claiming I have some “emotional block”. There is no need for an emotional block to show that the claims of Christianity and Christians are baseless myths. Religion does not bring any good that other sources cannot supply; but it can bring a whole special set of hatreds to the human race. It isn’t an “anti-Christian rant” to point out that your claims are not true. If you can support them with evidence, then I will have reason to believe you. Can you? If you can’t, then what I am saying is the facts, nothing more and nothing less.
Christians have done plenty of good, but it is not because of their religion because Christians have done plenty of harm too, invoking the same words and claims.
I have quoted exactly from the bible and I have quoted you too. If you find my paraphrasing wrong, then say so, don’t make some vague accusation and expect me to know what you found wrong. Point out examples. If you don’t, all of this sounds very much like you are looking for an excuse for not continuing this discussion. Also, Joe, if you want to accuse me of using strawmen, show it. Don’t make more vague claims which only seem to be attempts to claim that I am no better than you.
I have read what you write. Since I quote your words often, to claim that I haven’t is rather odd and against the evidence. Yep, I am making standard rebuttals of the standard excuses made by you. This does not make them inaccurate.
I do understand your writing and your points. You seem to think that I must agree with your claims if I understand them. That is not the case. I know that you say that is not what you are looking for, but it certainly seems as if it is.
Let’s see what you addressed in your original post about how the Gospels differ. You insist that one shouldn’t take the bible as inerrant. The problem with this is that you pick and choose what parts you want to claim are inerrant. For instance, one should take the claims of the resurrection of JC as completely true and inerrant, but one shouldn’t take the parts where the Christian god approves of slavery as inerrant. Some Christians wish to claim that Mary is a virgin mother, but it’s just silly to have a donkey talk. You claim that it is wrong to view, as some Chrsitians do, the bible as inerrant, that this is top-down. You wish to claim that “bottom up” is better, asking questions and then coming to belief in your god. However, you assume that everyone will end up with the same answers you do and you forget that the belief in your god started as this “top-down” that the bible has some truths in it. It is not surprising that Decartes became a Christian in Christian Europe. Your sentence here is very revealing: “It was through the consideration of what that would mean (meta-ethics) and how I can accomplish that end that supports my belief that Christianity is the way.” You were looking to support your religious belief. You did not start from a blank slate with “what is good and where does it come from”, you apparently started with “This is what my religion says is good, how can I support that claim?”
This is what I see when I see you say that it’s okay that the Gospels differ. You aren’t starting from “are they true?” you are starting from “they are true, so the many differences don’t matter.”
You are again trying to misrepresent me by claiming I have some “emotional block”. There is no need for an emotional block to show that the claims of Christianity and Christians are baseless myths. Religion does not bring any good that other sources cannot supply; but it can bring a whole special set of hatreds to the human race. It isn’t an “anti-Christian rant” to point out that your claims are not true. If you can support them with evidence, then I will have reason to believe you. Can you? If you can’t, then what I am saying is the facts, nothing more and nothing less. Christians have done plenty of good, but it is not because of their religion because Christians have done plenty of harm too, invoking the same words and claims.
I have quoted exactly from the bible and I have quoted you too. If you find my paraphrasing wrong, then say so, don’t make some vague accusation and expect me to know what you found wrong. Point out examples. If you don’t, all of this sounds very much like you are looking for an excuse for not continuing this discussion. Also, Joe, if you want to accuse me of using strawmen, show it. Don’t make more vague claims which only seem to be attempts to claim that I am no better than you.
There’s a nice video on YouTube that has Sagan’s Dragon story being read: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJRy3Kl_z5E
“I have quoted the chapters that talk about such things in order to have context with the verses. It is fascinating that you now require “exact quotes from scripture” to respond. This does present a problem since I *have* given exact quotes from your bible supporting my point that JC said that all of his father’s laws were to be followed.”
No you haven’t. Instead you have given vague references to entire chapters out of books in the bible. I suppose you think I will try to go and reread these numerous chapters so as to try to figure out what you are getting at. And indeed I did that in one case and provided the quote from scripture for you. But you need to understand I don’t have the time or the inclination to do that for you.
If you have read this blog you will see that finding some detail in scripture that is at variance with some other trivial detail is not some big earth shattering event for me. If you want to quote the passages you (as a top down personality type) find so difficult I might even agree they contradict. But don’t expect me to go reading the bible trying to track down exactly what tiny bit might be read to contradict some other minutia. It’s not important to me.
The fact that you think this is so important demonstrates that you think very different than I do – that was sort of the point of this blog. You think very much like a fundamentalist. Bart Ehrman is in the same camp as you as he had the same sorts of views and lost his faith because he found out the mustard seed was not the smallest seed. You might want to look at the reasons I gave in the original blog post and address them if you actually want to have a conversation. Otherwise you can go argue with like-minded fundamentalists about minutia.
I am sorry if you find reading a chapter unacceptable. I do this because I know that Christians will claim that I’ve taken the verse out of context.
I have not required of you any time frame of answering. I know that you do not have the inclination of actually addressing my points, which includes actually reading what I have taken the time to provide.
You again attempt to claim that the contradictions in your bible are not important. This of course is not true. Again, may I point out that you said you were willing to die if you were required to worship in another way than what you belief is correct, even if it were another Christian sect? My question “do have a question I’d like to ask. If your country (I’m assuming the US) was taken over by Christians as a theocracy, but it wasn’t your sect and they only allowed their version. Would you obey?”
“It depends what law it was I was supposed to obey. In general I like to think I would follow the path of Thomas More. These sorts of disputes are part of the reason why in the US we have the first amendment guaranteeing freedom to practice our religion and are not required to take any religious oaths.
I know that you do not find actually knowing what I am talking about is not important to you. Willful ignorance is a very good tactic to make sure you don’t get cognitive dissonance and retain the belief that your religion is true. I do find that attitude hard to fathom, especially from someone who wants to be ethically correct. I am very happy I think differently than you do. I ask a question and then follow the evidence, to wherever it does, I do not have a presupposition that I must ignore reality to keep.
Dr. Ehrman did not only find that the mustard seed is not the smallest seed and anyone who has read his books knows at least that much. Have you read any of his books, Joe? I have and he has demonstrated that there is little reason to believe in a magical man/god that existed in 1 century Palestine. I would challenge you to read his books. However, since you will not even read your own bible if you think it will put your faith in jeopardy, I doubt you will read anything that could disagree with your viewpoint.
I have addressed points in the OP. I am sorry that you find you must misrepresent me in this too.
Hello
I have listened to many of Dr. Ehrman’s books and at least 2 of his lectures through the teaching company. I enjoyed them but then I found he goes over the same material over and over in every book he puts out. For example has he ever written a book without mentioning the ending of mark or the adulteress passage from John?
You may think Dr. Ehrman has demonstrated that there is little reason to believe in God but naturally I disagree. My reasons are in this blog and mainly have to do with meta-ethics.
In reading my comments I think I may have been a bit harsh, and apologize, but really if you have a quote from the bible then quote it. I will be happy to respond. But scripture is often open to many interpretations and I really don’t have time to try to address every line you may or may not be referring to out of an entire chapter.
So, it seems your complaint is that Ehrman write about something repeatedly. considering that all apologists do this, how is this unacceptable?
I don’t care I you disagree, Joe. what I care about is if you can support your claims.
If the bible aka “scripture” is supposedly the objective truth from a magical god, why is it that it is “open to many interpretations”? Why do Christians disagree about what their god “really meant” to the point of murdering other over it? Why can none of you show that your particular “interpretation” is any better than the next?
Again, sorry if you can’t read an entire chapter of your supposed holy book.
So, which is the true story:
“44 In the same way the rebels who were crucified with him also heaped insults on him.” – Matthew 27
or
“39 One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Messiah? Save yourself and us!”
40 But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? 41 We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.”
42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.[d]”
43 Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.” – Luke 23
what excuse will you invent?
Hi Vel
I will go ahead and answer your questions as best I can.
“So, it seems your complaint is that Ehrman write about something repeatedly. considering that all apologists do this, how is this unacceptable?”
Ok I don’t think something is acceptable just because one apologist (or even “all” apologists do this, as you claim.) I don’t think there is anything wrong with having overlap in your books and lectures to an extent. But I do think that there is a point where if you are selling people what is supposed to be a new books they should not always take up the readers time with what you wrote numerous times before.
I have listened to 4 of his books and 2 of his lecture series. I also donated to his website and read many of his articles there. After a while I found that reading more of his books was not really leading to me learning much new information and instead was just going over the same material with a new book cover. But I might be wrong there might be substantially more information the books/lectures I have not listened to. I don’t mean to bash Ehrman. I wrote one blog about him because he starts getting philosophical and does so badly. On the whole I think he is fairly reasonable.
“If the bible aka “scripture” is supposedly the objective truth from a magical god, why is it that it is “open to many interpretations”? ”
Why wouldn’t it? Is there some rule that says a supernatural being can only be interpreted one way? I think your thought process involves a non-sequitur.
“Why do Christians disagree about what their god “really meant” to the point of murdering other over it?”
There were different reasons for the disagreements throughout the 2000 year history of Christianity. I have not investigated all the reasons for all the disagreements.
“Why can none of you show that your particular “interpretation” is any better than the next?”
Show it to whom?
IMO some interpretations *have* been shown to be better than others. I think you would agree. Let me take your contradiction claim as an example.
You point out that Mathew seems to contradict Luke. (BTW Mark seems to say the same thing as Mathew on this point.)
Now I am not a literalist reader of scripture. I am perfectly fine with the notion that some things in scripture might be wrong. Especially when it comes to small details like the one point to. This approach is the same approach taken by Saint John
“”What then? Was not one evangelist sufficient to tell all?’ One indeed was sufficient; but if there be four that write, not at the same times, nor in the same places, neither after having met together, and conversed one with another, and then they speak all things as it were out of one mouth, this becomes a very great demonstration of the truth.
6. “But the contrary, it may be said, has come to pass, for in many places they are convicted of discordance.” Nay, this very thing is a very great evidence of their truth. For if they had agreed in all things exactly even to time, and place, and to the very words, none of our enemies would have believed but that they had met together, and had written what they wrote by some human compact; because such entire agreement as this comes not of simplicity. But now even that discordance which seems to exist in little matters delivers them from all suspicion, and speaks clearly in behalf of the character of the writers.
But if there be anything touching times or places, which they have related differently, this nothing injures the truth of what they have said. And these things too, so far as God shall enable us, we will endeavor, as we proceed, to point out; requiring you, together with what we have mentioned, to observe, that in the chief heads, those which constitute our life and furnish out our doctrine, nowhere is any of them found to have disagreed, no not ever so little.”
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/200101.htm
Now that said I am sure several literalists would simply say that both Mathew and Luke are accurate because the thieves may have both mocked Jesus (whcih is what Mathew says) But then one changed his view and asked forgiveness (which is what Luke says).
Now you would say Luke says “one” of the criminals hurled insults. But this does not actually contradict Mathew. If am at a ball game I might hear and report that “one guy was yelling at the ref” Now lets assume that another guy at the other end of the field was also yelling at the ref. Now you might say that the fact that some other guy was also yelling makes my statement false. Because you would interpret my “one guy was yelling…” as meaning *only* one guy. But someone else might interpret it as meaning I am pointing out one guy was doing this without actually claiming one guy “and only one guy” heckled the ref. Now you might think that is a bad “interpretation.” But lets say someone claimed “not one person heckled the ref.” Would you say that person was correct because 2 people heckled the ref?
In any event it may be that the best interpretation is to say they are contradicting each other. I just point out this variable interpretation to demonstrate that you yourself think some interpretations are better than others.
I agree that books should have new content. I do find it more than a bit funny that apologists use the same claims (WLC, Lee Strobel, C.S. Lewis, etc) in their books and the bible itself is full of pointless repetition. Again, if it so bad, why are you not complaining about them?
Joe, if something is objective truth, that means that there is one meaning, not many, so it is ridiculous that your bible is claimed to be such a source and Christians do not agree on what it means, its god wants or what they are supposed to do. You also don’t know what a non-sequitur is. Your god as described, and not just some “supernatural being”, is supposedly unchanging and wants only certain things, per Christians. It can’t both want to have homosexuals murdered and not murder them.
Nice excuse of ignorance to avoid my question about why do Christians disagree about what their god really wants to the point that they murder each other over it. Not knowing all of the reasons for the disagreements doesn’t prevent you from answering me. Why did Christians kill each other over being Protestant and Catholic, Joe?
Wow, “show it to whom”? Really? To each other to convert each other as Christians are so wont to do, to convert non-Christians by showing that your version is the one true version. That happens all of the time and again, if someone asks question of “why believe you?” you have nothing. It’s always the most curious when Christians go to majority Christian countries for “missionary” work. If there weren’t serious differences in your versions, you wouldn’t bother, would you?
It’s no surprise at all that of course you are sure that some interpretations are better than others. Just like every other Christians, and of course you don’t agree on what those are. Matthew *does* contradict Luke. And you are a literalist reader of scripture, when it is convenient for you, just like every other Christian. The magic decoder ring comes and again, Christians don’t agree on what the bible means or what parts are literal and what parts are figurative.
You claim that you are “perfectly fine” with the idea that some things in the bible might be wrong. So, if the claims about the cruxifiction contradict each other and can’t be shown to have happened, are you okay with that and it not being a literal event? I suspect not. As for the author of the gospel of John, it’s most curious that he leaves entire scenes out of the story, and again contradicts what the other authors have said. Again, Joe, what did the thieves do? What did the apostles do after these events? What did JC say? Those aren’t small details, I know better than that as an ex-Christian. Christians point to them all of the time when trying to claim that the thief repented and how all humans should.
There is nothing to support your claim that the gospels were written without influence of the others and indeed scholarly work that indicates they were. There is also no evidence that the authors “speak all things as it were out one mouth”. Again, Joe, what did the thieves do? What did the apostles do after the events? What did JC say? So much for “speaking all things out of one mouth”. I do wonder about someone who goes out of his way to make such a story up when anyone can read the bible and know it is not true.
It’s always amusing to see Christians try to claim that “no really, the gospels are saying exactly the same things, and then immediately turn around and say “no they aren’t, and that’s evidence that they are true too.” It’s a desperate attempt to have one’s cake and eat it too. First we have a Christian saying look how wonderful it is that the cruxifiction story is the same one, but when it is pointed out that it isn’t, then the excuse becomes, well, of course it isn’t the same and now it’s claimed that this contradictory position is now wonderful. There is nothing that speaks to the character of the writers in the gospels however it does certainly show that they were not eyewitnesses at all. In any other situation, you would doubt a story that has entirely different and contradictory details claimed. If one story about George Washington said that he crossed the Potomac on a certain date, and another said that he crossed the Nile on that same date, you would not say “how wonderful it is that the stories disagree and how it shows how true they are”.
Yes, Joe, the words on Luke do contradict the claims in Matthew. Your attempt at a situation is fine but does not reflect what was described in the bible at all. For all of the complaining that Christians do about context, you have entirely ignored it for your excuse. If both of these stories were written by eyewitnesses, they would have gotten the same story, Joe, because the bible has these people within close proximity. I agree, with your points about how to interpret things and that again points out that the bible cannot be agreed on by Christians. I am usually also presented with the claim that the authors just didn’t want to bother mentiong the conversion of the thief in the ones that don’t have it, which is most curious since that bit gets all the play at easter and not one pastor reads the part that has all of the criminals mocking JC. Why such selective presentation of the story?
I do not think that any interpretation of the bible is better than another. I find them contradictory, and equally false.
Again, your reasons for your belief are nothing special. All theists have them. I do see the wiggle word “really” in your claim about my addressing of your reasons. I have addressed them but you don’t like what I’ve said so you wish to downplay it. If you’d like further discussion, pick out one of those reasons and I’ll expand on it.
You see, Joe, I don’t think that there is any evidence to support the existence of Amon-Re. And I know that there is no evidence for the existence of your god. That’s why I say that there is no more reason to believe in your god than any other god, including Amon-Re. But if you wish to present what you think is the best evidence for your god, I’d be happy to consider it.
” Again, if it so bad, why are you not complaining about them? ”
I’m not saying it’s “so bad” to repeat. I am just saying that it is a negative and why I stopped reading Ehrman.
As for the rest I have never read any of William Lane Craig’s books although I did buy a copy of one of his books and read parts of it. I agree his debates tend to focus on the same points so I stopped watching them.
“Joe, if something is objective truth, that means that there is one meaning, not many, so it is ridiculous that your bible is claimed to be such a source and Christians do not agree on what it means, its god wants or what they are supposed to do.”
It’s an objective truth that JFK died. But that meant more than one thing. So IMO your objection to Christianity just because they take away different meanings from certain truths is misguided.
“Nice excuse of ignorance to avoid my question about why do Christians disagree about what their god really wants to the point that they murder each other over it. Not knowing all of the reasons for the disagreements doesn’t prevent you from answering me. Why did Christians kill each other over being Protestant and Catholic, Joe?”
You act like this has a simple answer. There have been many killings due to disagreements between Catholics and Protestants over the centuries. For me to act like I can give you the motivations for each and every one of them would be outrageous. You would have to investigate each one to find out the motivations of the murderers. Really I don’t get it. Do you think I know the answer to this and I am pretending to be ignorant?
“Wow, “show it to whom”? Really? To each other to convert each other as Christians are so wont to do, to convert non-Christians by showing that your version is the one true version. That happens all of the time and again, if someone asks question of “why believe you?” you have nothing. It’s always the most curious when Christians go to majority Christian countries for “missionary” work. If there weren’t serious differences in your versions, you wouldn’t bother, would you?”
People do convert to different Christian denominations every day. *They* often find that someone did show them that denominations views are correct. If someone asks why believe me I can give my reasons. I offer this blog with reasons. Just because they don’t convince you does not mean I offer nothing. When I see your blog and you give your reasons for rejecting Christianity, I don’t think they are persuasive but I don’t claim “you have nothing.”
People disagree how serious the differences between Christians denominations are. I am willing to wait and see. I send my girls to a Lutheran School even though I am Catholic. I do think some of the things Lutherans learn are wrong and potentially harmful. But I would not do mission work in a Lutheran community.
“So, if the claims about the cruxifiction contradict each other and can’t be shown to have happened, are you okay with that and it not being a literal event?”
I think there is a contradiction about when the crucifixion happened. But I do think the crucifixion happened. And I believe that to me a more central belief of Christianity as compared to say whether both or only one of the thieves mocked Jesus.
“Again, Joe, what did the thieves do? What did the apostles do after these events? What did JC say? Those aren’t small details, I know better than that as an ex-Christian…”
Are any of those details in the Nicene Creed? Again what one Christian thinks is very important another might not view as a big deal. You think it’s a big deal what the thieves said to Jesus and when. When Ehrman was Christian he thought it was a big deal that there was a seed smaller than a mustard seed. Again that is the point of this blog post. These are typical concerns for top down Christians. But I am a bottom up Christian.
“There is nothing to support your claim that the gospels were written without influence of the others and indeed scholarly work that indicates they were.”
It does appear that Mathew and Luke may have had Mark. It is believed that Luke and Mathew may have shared other sources. But it is interesting that Luke does have this apparent departure from Mathew and Luke. This suggests that he also had other sources. That is the point Saint John Chrysostom is making.
“In any other situation, you would doubt a story that has entirely different and contradictory details claimed.” They aren’t entirely contradictory. If I listened to 4 witnesses say what the gospels writers wrote I would definitely have to conclude that Jesus was crucified. Would I believe both thieves mocked him or only one? I agree I couldn’t draw a conclusion on that.
You haven’t addressed any of the reasons for belief that I offered regarding meta-ethics. If you did then please point it out because I missed it.
If you won’t read books with new information just because they have old information, well, Joe, that only sounds like an excuse to me. It’s pretty easy to skip over those sections.
The objective truth is that JFK died. The subjective opinions of what that means are many. Those aren’t truths. This indicates that your religion is not a truth at all, but many subjective opinions of people who claim to know a truth but cannot support the claim or evince the miraculous powers that JC promised any baptized believer. Christians claim that their god and their bible is an objective truth so my objection to their claims isn’t misguided at all. It shows that there is no objective truth to Christianity at all. There is no cruxifiction, no agreement on what this god wants and what will get one “saved”. There has to be one way to be saved, right, Joe? If there isn’t, then the claims of every sect of Christianity is wrong, from Roman Catholic to independent evangelical is wrong. IF there is no definition of “sin” that Christians can agree upon and show is the “truth”, then there is no sin and thus no god.
There should be a simple answer if your god exists. Either something is a sin or not, either this is the way to be saved or not. But Christians don’t agree on what sin is, what their god wants or how one is saved. Is it grace? Choice? Actions? You may be able to convince non-Christians of your claims but it is much harder to convince someone who has read the bible and who was a Christian. You are right, there have been many killings between Protestants and Catholics over the centuries, and most of them have been over how to interpret the bible. Your god never came in and said “you idiots, this is what I meant”. It’s always been between humans. No one needs you to give the motivations for every single instance is not needed at all. We know what those motivations were from what we know from the claims of each side. That’s what history is for, Joe, to research and know what the major reasons were for the killing. Martin Luther said that the pope was not what was claimed. He also claimed that Jews should be killed. We know what they were doing from their own writings. Your personal ignorance doesn’t matter since anyone can see what was actually said without being bothered by going through someone who claims he knows the “truth”. Yes, I am saying you are pretending to be ignorant because it is no great effort to know why Protestants and Catholics, Catholics and Cathars, Christians and Jews killed each other. It’s like someone saying “shucks, I’m not sure at all why the holocaust happened.”.
Yep, people convert to other religions every day. Protestant to Catholic, Catholic to Protestant, Jew to Christian, Christian to Jew, Muslim to Chritian and Christian to Muslim, Wicca to Christian, ad infintitum. Each finds their new religion to be correct. So conversion is no gauge of how true a religion is at all. I have not said you offer “nothing”, you offer nothing more than the next religion. You offer the exact same reasons as those other religions. What I ask you is to show that your religion is supported by evidence and those others are not. Can you? If you cannot, then there is no more reason to believe your claims than those of others, and plenty of reasons to doubt all of you since none of you can provide any more evidence than the next.
Yep, people certainly do disagree on how serious the differences between the Christian denominations are. I think murder is quite serious. It’s most curious that a father would subject his children to something harmful, especially a father who believes in an immortal soul that can be compromised. Why do you choose to do this, Joe? Why would you not try to convert Lutherans if they are a potentially harmful threat? Now this is why I think you ignore a threat. It’s the tendency of theists, especially Christians, to circle the wagons when it comes to admitting that they are afraid of other Christians: if they show that they question the claims of fellow Christians, it shows that their claims are absolutely no better. You don’t dare question the Lutherans directly because your own claims are no better supported and you don’t want those questioned.
If the cruxifiction happened, which version happened,Joe? Is JC the man in the garden weeping or the god who has no problem with dying? Or did any at all happen since we have *no* evidence for this at all? As all Christians, you pick and choose what parts you want to claim happened and which did not. This is why you try to ignore the contradictions. You want the story of the thieves not to count, and try to claim that there is some “central belief of Christianity” when without one part of the story, the whole collapses like a house of cars. If the thieves aren’t important, then there is no reason to think that anyone will go to heaven to be with JC. If we can discount that part, why not the empty tomb? Is it because you need it to make any religion at all?
Nope, those details aren’t in the Nicene Creed. Funny how that is, isn’t it? They left out the parts that were disagreed upon. What a lovely job of editing by people who lived centuries after the supposed events and what a lovely job of editing by priests and pastors who depend on ignorance of the flock when they never mention the disagreements by the authors of the books of the bible. Priests and pastors are quite happy to let popular culture invent entirely new stories about JC, chopping up the gospels to make a coherent story that the gospels themselves fail at. The Christmas story, the Easter story, both of which aren’t at all what are claimed by believers.
Every Christian claims that they are a bottom up Christian, that they have the “root” of Christianity. Why should I believe you over another since you make the same claims but come to contradictory conclusions? Should I believe you? The Westboro Baptists? The Unitarians? The Roman Catholics or the Lutherans who you say are potentially dangerous? Why are they dangerous and how can you show this to be true? You point to the Nicene Creed, so you are no different than billions of other Christians.
So you contradict your own claim that the authors of the gospels weren’t influenced by another. Why does it take me to point out the facts for you to admit to them, Joe? Your claims are proving untrustworthy.
It is true that they likely had many sources. But any evidence that their stories are true? Nothing at all. John Chrysotom lived centuries after the supposed events and he had no evidence his claims were true either. He invented an excuse that is not supported by anything.
Again, if you think I have not addressed any of your reasons, tell me one and I will address it further. You have not but you have tried to put the onus of evidence on me. You have claimed the following: “My reasons for belief in Christ have much more to do with my desire to fundamentally pursue the ethically correct course.”
However, your claim is based on no more than a presupposition that you know what is ethically correct. Where is your evidence that you know what is “ethically correct”? Please define what you mean by “meta-ethics”. You have declared that parts of the bible could be wrong but you insist that you know what is right and have yet to demonstrate that at all. This claim that “But I believe that scripture teaches “firmly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation.” Is exactly what is claimed by all theists and Christians who disagree with you. They just come up with different “truths”. Which shows that there is no reason to believe any of you, much less one of you, without evidence to support your claims.
So, again, I ask you, show me that you are right and everyone else is wrong. What makes your ethics better than mine or others?
“The objective truth is that JFK died. The subjective opinions of what that means are many. Those aren’t truths.”
I said that objective truth had other meanings.
For example
1) It meant LBJ would become the next president of the United States
2) It meant Jackie was a widow
I think these are objectively true meanings from the fact that JFK died. Of course there are other meanings that people might disagree on. Such as some people might have thought the united states would be governed by someone better others thought it meant we would be governed by someone worse.
So objective facts can have all sorts of meanings and people can disagree on them. That doesn’t mean they aren’t objective facts.
Your argument goes something like this:
P1) If Christians disagree then its impossible that there is any truth to Chistianity.
P2) Christians disagree
C1) Therefore there is not truth to Christianity.
I just don’t believe the first premise. As I indicated above. People might disagree about some issues of what JFKs death meant, but that doesn’t mean it is not an objective fact. Nor does it mean that it is stripped of all meaning that is objectively true.
What you are pointing out is that there can be various objective truths aka facts in a situation. Each is a fact and while they do stem from one fact, they are facts unto themselves. What each means e.g. LBJ is a president, is this beneficial or harmful to me/my agenda are subjective opinions.
What does “objectively true meaning” mean, Joe? If you want to claim this, give me some examples.
Unsurprisingly, your syllogism doesn’t reflect what I’ve indicated.
If Christians disagree on what their omnipotent, omniscient god wants, and cannot support their claims with evidence, then there is no reason to believe their claims that they *know* what their god wants.
If the Christian god does nothing to show what it wants, and there is no evidence for its existence at all, there is no reason to believe that anyone has any claim of the “truth” when it comes to what this god wants.
Where is the objective fact of what your god wants, Joe? Show me the evidence that Christians don’t disagree and that there is any truth in Christianity. Where is your evidence for your claims?
Again, Joe, considering that apologists do exactly the same thing, what is wrong with this? Has William Lane Craig written a book claiming that there was a empty tomb when he cannot show that there is a tomb to begin with?
No one cares if you disagree, Joe. Can you show evidence to support your claims? If not, then there is no more reason to believe in your god than there is to believe in Amon-Re.
Still waiting for you to explain the diametrically different claims of your gospels that are supposed truth from an objective source of morality.
“No one cares if you disagree, Joe. Can you show evidence to support your claims? If not, then there is no more reason to believe in your god than there is to believe in Amon-Re.”
I give my reasons for my belief in other blog posts regarding meta-ethics. (This blog post doesn’t really go into my reasons for belief) And you haven’t really addressed those reasons.
As for a comparison between the evidence for the Christian God and Amon-Re I am fine with considering the evidence of Amon-re for comparison. Why don’t you tell me the evidence you think supports Amon-re and we can compare it with the evidence for the Christian God. Since you are familiar with Bart Ehrman perhaps use his historical criteria in analyzing reports of Amon-re.
Pingback: From the Bar and Kitchen – grilled chicken, shrimp, beer, and random kibitzing | Club Schadenfreude
I asked how do you know these texts were inspired by Yahweh, not what you believe.
Lots of reasons. For example Jesus seemed to treat OT scripture as inspired and his miracles suggest he was at least connected with God if not God himself.
Again, this is a belief , In fact , the phrase ”… seemed to …” suggests little more than personal opinion.
As for miracles …. yes, well, really ?
Sure it is a belief. And I gave the basis for my belief.
As for miracles yes really. If I were to say I am from God or speak for God etc., what sort of evidence would you like to see to support my claim? It seems to me a miracle is the best evidence. What do you think would be better evidence of God or that someone is acting on God’s behalf?
But there is no evidence, these are all merely claims in a text that is replete with errors across almost every major discipline.
Nothing of these characters that is claimed to be fact and or historical is supported.
One might as well afford credence to the pages of a Harry Potter novel.
I have no idea what would better evidence. However, I would presume that any god worth his or her salt would know exactly what would be needed to convince any one who had doubts.
Certainly the bible is a lousy example which is evidenced by the myriad of christian sects let alone the myriad of religions.
Yes there are clearly claims in the new testament that they are reporting facts. I don’t think you are familiar with the new testament if you don’t see that.
So you ask people to prove something to you but you have no idea what you would even count as evidence?
Does the term ‘historical fiction’ mean anything to you?
Yes, I am familiar that some of what is recorded may well be facts, certainly some of the people mentioned are recognised as historical individuals who existed, but the exploits of the character Jesus of Nazareth and his disciples are nothing but unsubstantiated claims.
Oh,I know what I would consider evidence but you were specifically referring to evidence of your god, were you not?
Again if you read the new testament you would know in many places they make it clear they are not writing historical fiction.
History considers people claiming something happened as evidence it happened. Take a look at the blog I gave in my last reply.
I am simply asking you what you would even consider evidence of God. If you have made up your mind that nothing could ever count as evidence for God then it is hardly surprising you keep saying there is no evidence.
Again, perhaps certain of the individuals and incidents can be regarded as historical, Pilate is the first that comes to mind, as are certain place names, but the exploits of the character Jesus of Nazareth are unsubstantiated and do not form part of the historical record and until shown to be otherwise are regarded as nothing but myth/historical fiction.
Once more …. I have no idea and would not dare to presume to ”speak” for a claimed omniscient, omnipotent deity who, if it exists, must surely have the ability and knowledge to know exactly what would convince me and every other non believer/doubter.
Ark
It is clear that Luke and John for example want people to read their work as involving things that really happened. Luke refers to his sources which would not be necessary if he was writing myths. John specifically says he records the miracles to give us reason to believe in Jesus – the Christian God. It would make no sense to think we would believe Jesus is God if he wanted us to understand what he wrote as fiction. This is why I say you clearly have not read and understood the authors if you think they intended the reader to understand what they wrote as fiction.
There are certainly many different views about the different events relayed in the Gospels. But clearly they are all evidence for what they claim. Some people will say the evidence of some events is insufficient for philosophical reasons. Some disagree about he historical muster of various events. But if we did not have the New Testament or other writings or traditions referring to Jesus then no one would believe in him. The fact that some people read the accounts and believe does show that they have “a tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without” them.
Now it may not be evidence for you. Because you may completely disregard anything that contradicts your view. But there is no denying that many people tend to view the gospel accounts as making the likelihood of the facts alleged more likely because of them than it would be without them.
Im not sure why you think I am asking you to speak for God. I am asking what *you* would consider evidence for God. Sure God might know what if anything would convince you. But do you know, what you would consider evidence? That is my question.
I didn’t say they didn’t. (Although there is a school of thought that suggests Mark was written as allegory and not intended as anything else)
But this doesn’t mean that what they ( Luke and John) was historical. And clearly the evidence or lack thereof tells us it wasn’t.
No, they are unsubstantiated/ unverified claims. .Much like the claims of a Harry Potter novel. At best we can say historical fiction.
Absolutely no idea. But I am sure your god … if he exists, will know.
Ark you suggested it may be historical fiction. And you still suggest it is historical fiction. It is clear to anyone who reads them it was not that genre.
Joe:
“Im not sure why you think I am asking you to speak for God. I am asking what *you* would consider evidence for God. Sure God might know what if anything would convince you. But do you know, what you would consider evidence? That is my question.”
Ark:
Absolutely no idea. But I am sure your god … if he exists, will know.
Joe:
So you constantly complain that no one has ever offered any evidence of God, but you admit you have no idea what you are even asking for?
The contents of the gospels are historical fiction, in as much as most of the the main players are narrative constructs that do not appear anywhere in the historical record and cannot be independently verified.
Their actions are plot devices, set in a fairly recognizable historical background – namely 1st century Roman occupied Judea.
However, even an acknowledged historical figure such as Pilate is caricatured in pursuit of a theological agenda, and his actions go against what is known of him.
I recommend you read a little more carefully before you respond.
But I am nothing if not patient.
Yes, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for your god. All there is are mentions in the bible of Yahweh/Jesus of Nazareth.
However, if it was real, being omnipotent and omniscient it would know exactly what evidence would convince a skeptic such as me, without having to resort to such nonsense as fallacious, erroneous texts, faith, and the ridiculous claims of apologists.
Pingback: Perspective | True and Reasonable