The Other Side of 10:52
I have been meaning to publish a revised version of Vagabonds; and this I will, under its original April date. It is a long process and I have had little time to finish it, of late. This is not something I wrote intending to post on this blog- this is part of a very minimally-revised "journal entry." But upon having finished, I felt somewhat accomplished, and thought it would be worth it to update the theology I have so constantly shared in this forum. I have neglected to discuss it for some time because I have been in the midst of a very uncertain transformation process. The views expressed herein mark a rather pivotal worldview shift for me. I am not at all, and have never been, ashamed or afraid to share the conclusions I have come to, although I imagine many would vehemently reject all I'm about to say. Please read openly; please comment freely. I hope you enjoy the ride.
Sometime within the last two weeks, my parents and brother and I landed in a discussion about Biblical inspiration at the dinner table. I was surprised to see it surface, because my friend Nick and I were in the middle of the very conversation ourselves. It was hypothetical to start out with, but it quickly turned into a serious discussion about why Christianity might be entirely false. We talked through the whole of the problem: I am increasingly impressed at the extent to which family ties impact effective communication. We discussed the idea that fallacies and fear of the unknown are used in order to defend Christianity at its very roots constantly. For example, this circular argument: the Bible is true because the Bible says it is; and the reason we believe what the Bible says is because it is true. Or, to touch on "fear of the unknown", take something like this: if you throw away the doctrine of Biblical inspiration, the Bible could well be false about Jesus, and it can't possibly be false about Jesus, or else our faith is devastated; therefore the Bible must be inspired and Jesus was who the Bible says he is. We eventually arrived at the idea that reason and science and faith must be used to come to truth as objectively and independently of religion for religion's sake as possible. A belief in the Bible based on faith, we determined, must be taken blindly or else cannot be soundly possible, because there are many faiths that say one should believe them blindly. We must select a faith. What Christians say makes Christianity stand out from simple blind faith is its (admittedly limited) appeal to science and rationality: fulfilled prophesies, archeological/literary proof of historical accuracy, attempts to use science against itself (as in disproving evolution, *cough*), stories demonstrating Biblical principles with beneficial impacts when applied in daily life, etc. But when the going gets tough, most aren't willing to uphold this paradigm. They can't: see "fear of the unknown," up top. How was the Bible made? Well... a few old guys sat down about a hundred years after Jesus lived and sorted through all the documents and letters that had served in establishing the doctrine of the church thus far. They prayed over them a lot and compiled them. Then more old guys did the same thing, making sure they agreed with the first guys, and adding books as they went. Eventually, enough books were added that people got used to them that way and the cannon was sealed. (Okay, maybe that's a bit over-simplified, but that's the general idea. You're welcome to read more.) Am I willing to trust human judgment? No. Am I willing to trust God's? Absolutely. Do I have any way of knowing that the Bible is God's judgement? No, because the people that told me it is are merely human. Do I have any reason to believe the Bible blindly, then? No!
This leaves a bunch of huge calamities for Miss Christian Girl here. I've been poring through interlinear Bibles and spending hours and hours of my time writing and reading and talking about this faith over the past five years. If you think about it for a moment, it is an absolutely astronomical choice for me to dismiss Christianity, and I'm not entirely sure I want to take that step in its entirety. I am certainly still open-minded; I do not mind objectively considering arguments for Biblical literalism/conservatism, etc. And I will always be very sympathetic to the Church, whether or not I am a part of it, whether or not I agree with it, because I know what struggles it goes through, and I know very intimately what lessons being a part of it teaches. It's like being part of a family. I do not hate the Church. I am certainly not bitter. In fact, I love the Church, though I believe it, like all things, has gone astray. But though I love the Church and deeply wish to be part of it on some level, I feel that God has gifted us with certain tools with which to see the world: as I have mentioned, they are science, reason, and spirituality (in which I include valid emotion). Traditional Christianity does not satisfy my scientific, rational, or spiritual eye: I have identified its flaws and amended my views in accordance with what God seems to have shown me is necessary. I do not consider myself a drastically changed person, having taken this step. I do not consider my faith journey lost. Surprisingly little of my conception of God has changed, because I still believe that much of what Paul was talking about holds true. I really like his letters. One great dilemma, however, is what to do with my understanding of Jesus.
My hero. My God. My hope. My reason for life and for living and for livelihood. My rock and my salvation. All these things I have embraced wholeheartedly for five years. And here I stand at the great divide: the other side of 10:52. The moment where I float, suspended by divine grace only, untouched by gravity, in a moment of rare clarity and connection. What is this decision I am making? What does this mean for my future? What does this mean about my past? What does this mean for my relationships? What are all the issues I might have?
If I am to read the Bible historically, scientifically, rationally, and spiritually, I cannot know what happened when Jesus "performed miracles" and "rose from the dead." I cannot assume he did what humans have accredited him with, but I hardly feel that I can assume thoughtlessly that he didn't. Science and reason both tell me that I must instinctually disregard all theories that so blatantly contradict sound intellect; but spirituality tells me that if there were any reason to look further, this would be it. Spirituality tells me that perhaps there is something more complicated going on. Spirituality continually asks me, screams at me, winds me up in a never-ending interrogation: IF THIS TRULY DID HAPPEN, WHAT HISTORICAL PROOF WOULD YOU REQUIRE IN ORDER TO BELIEVE? Say some freak “accident” of nature happened for the man Jesus, and all the forces of Science forsook him along with his friends and followers. Say it was some strange process that Science has never seen and likely never will, but hypothetically could have measured and explained, if given the chance. Say it was the greatest biological phenomenon of all time. Say that instead of disappearing into the clouds, he was swept up by a hurricane or disappeared into a cloud of mist; say he drowned himself or starved himself or sold himself to slavery after leaving the disciples, and that he is now truly fully reunited with God, his body returned to the dust into which God has breathed Creation. Say people simply could not understand what state he was in after he was "resurrected," say they simply misinterpreted signs. IMAGINE FOR A MOMENT THAT THERE WAS A MAN WHO DIED TO FREE ME FROM SIN. What would it take for me to believe? What's the best-case-scenario, what can I realistically expect from the minds of that time? What kind of accuracy must I require they include? How does their inability to use science affect my view of their text? How can I best see Jesus through their eyes?
What I'm left with is a fundamentally agnostic view about Jesus. No, I don't know exactly in what way he was God. No, I don't know if or how he rose from the dead. I don't know if or how he and his disciples performed miracles. I simply cannot discern. What I do know is that there are many more possible interpretations and applications of Biblical information on Jesus than “Lunatic, Liar, Lord.” How about “Fan Mob Writes Biased and Slightly Exaggerated Biography”? How about “Jesus is the Son of God and we are all children of God, therefore we are all basically like Jesus”? How about “We are to be reunited with God by being united with his Spirit just as Jesus now is, just as all the Hindu deities are One with Brahman/Vishnu/Shiva”? How about “Jesus was actually just trying to get people's attention or challenge common socio-religious assumptions, and the people listening misunderstood and misquoted him”? Though I cannot assume any of these theories are true, they all seem perfectly plausible to me. Even Jesus' followers, even the writers of the Gospels themselves, admit to having been extremely puzzled by everything Jesus said until he was gone. And no wonder. So how can we trust that they correctly remembered and interpreted every cryptic little word he said?
This is where I stand about Jesus: he existed, and he was freaking awesome. I admire him greatly: he was a catalyst for social change and a promoter of realism and objective justice. I admire him for breaking conventional boundaries and for challenging those that had never been challenged, I admire him for crushing religious authorities with their own weapons. I admire him for being so clever, so keen, so witty, so nimble in his language and reasoning that he was able to evade earning any legitimate cause for accusation from religious and political authorities, as hard as they tried to make him slip up. And I admire him most for loving everyone, unconditionally: for giving second chances, for looking upon the outcasts with kindness and sympathy, for caring for them and helping them see the light. He is the foundation of nearly all the social miracles I have seen in my lifetime: he is my hero even from a purely sociological standpoint.
Even if Jesus is not God incarnate, even if he never defied nature, even if he had no power to come back to life or take away my sins, he might as well have been all those things. He acted from deep conviction, he broke evolution, he (along with all the things he stands for) inspires me to rid myself of the sin he supposedly saved me from anyways. To be quite honest, I have never been able to care for long whether I go to heaven or hell: I believe that God is just and will give me everything I need and deserve. If he sees fit to send me to hell at the end of all this, so be it; if I get the honor of being with him as I have always yearned to, so be it. I do not feel that bribes and incentives are the right reasons to choose a certain lifestyle. I live the way I live, I walk the way I walk, I think the way I think, I believe what and how I believe because I believe it is in accordance with the way God Himself has led me to do it all. For as long as I can remember I have been a lover of straight, plain, unblemished TRUTH, and I do not plan on changing this for any reason. 'Cause I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate me from the love I've seen in Jesus, whether he be a man or my Lord.
Sometime within the last two weeks, my parents and brother and I landed in a discussion about Biblical inspiration at the dinner table. I was surprised to see it surface, because my friend Nick and I were in the middle of the very conversation ourselves. It was hypothetical to start out with, but it quickly turned into a serious discussion about why Christianity might be entirely false. We talked through the whole of the problem: I am increasingly impressed at the extent to which family ties impact effective communication. We discussed the idea that fallacies and fear of the unknown are used in order to defend Christianity at its very roots constantly. For example, this circular argument: the Bible is true because the Bible says it is; and the reason we believe what the Bible says is because it is true. Or, to touch on "fear of the unknown", take something like this: if you throw away the doctrine of Biblical inspiration, the Bible could well be false about Jesus, and it can't possibly be false about Jesus, or else our faith is devastated; therefore the Bible must be inspired and Jesus was who the Bible says he is. We eventually arrived at the idea that reason and science and faith must be used to come to truth as objectively and independently of religion for religion's sake as possible. A belief in the Bible based on faith, we determined, must be taken blindly or else cannot be soundly possible, because there are many faiths that say one should believe them blindly. We must select a faith. What Christians say makes Christianity stand out from simple blind faith is its (admittedly limited) appeal to science and rationality: fulfilled prophesies, archeological/literary proof of historical accuracy, attempts to use science against itself (as in disproving evolution, *cough*), stories demonstrating Biblical principles with beneficial impacts when applied in daily life, etc. But when the going gets tough, most aren't willing to uphold this paradigm. They can't: see "fear of the unknown," up top. How was the Bible made? Well... a few old guys sat down about a hundred years after Jesus lived and sorted through all the documents and letters that had served in establishing the doctrine of the church thus far. They prayed over them a lot and compiled them. Then more old guys did the same thing, making sure they agreed with the first guys, and adding books as they went. Eventually, enough books were added that people got used to them that way and the cannon was sealed. (Okay, maybe that's a bit over-simplified, but that's the general idea. You're welcome to read more.) Am I willing to trust human judgment? No. Am I willing to trust God's? Absolutely. Do I have any way of knowing that the Bible is God's judgement? No, because the people that told me it is are merely human. Do I have any reason to believe the Bible blindly, then? No!
This leaves a bunch of huge calamities for Miss Christian Girl here. I've been poring through interlinear Bibles and spending hours and hours of my time writing and reading and talking about this faith over the past five years. If you think about it for a moment, it is an absolutely astronomical choice for me to dismiss Christianity, and I'm not entirely sure I want to take that step in its entirety. I am certainly still open-minded; I do not mind objectively considering arguments for Biblical literalism/conservatism, etc. And I will always be very sympathetic to the Church, whether or not I am a part of it, whether or not I agree with it, because I know what struggles it goes through, and I know very intimately what lessons being a part of it teaches. It's like being part of a family. I do not hate the Church. I am certainly not bitter. In fact, I love the Church, though I believe it, like all things, has gone astray. But though I love the Church and deeply wish to be part of it on some level, I feel that God has gifted us with certain tools with which to see the world: as I have mentioned, they are science, reason, and spirituality (in which I include valid emotion). Traditional Christianity does not satisfy my scientific, rational, or spiritual eye: I have identified its flaws and amended my views in accordance with what God seems to have shown me is necessary. I do not consider myself a drastically changed person, having taken this step. I do not consider my faith journey lost. Surprisingly little of my conception of God has changed, because I still believe that much of what Paul was talking about holds true. I really like his letters. One great dilemma, however, is what to do with my understanding of Jesus.
My hero. My God. My hope. My reason for life and for living and for livelihood. My rock and my salvation. All these things I have embraced wholeheartedly for five years. And here I stand at the great divide: the other side of 10:52. The moment where I float, suspended by divine grace only, untouched by gravity, in a moment of rare clarity and connection. What is this decision I am making? What does this mean for my future? What does this mean about my past? What does this mean for my relationships? What are all the issues I might have?
If I am to read the Bible historically, scientifically, rationally, and spiritually, I cannot know what happened when Jesus "performed miracles" and "rose from the dead." I cannot assume he did what humans have accredited him with, but I hardly feel that I can assume thoughtlessly that he didn't. Science and reason both tell me that I must instinctually disregard all theories that so blatantly contradict sound intellect; but spirituality tells me that if there were any reason to look further, this would be it. Spirituality tells me that perhaps there is something more complicated going on. Spirituality continually asks me, screams at me, winds me up in a never-ending interrogation: IF THIS TRULY DID HAPPEN, WHAT HISTORICAL PROOF WOULD YOU REQUIRE IN ORDER TO BELIEVE? Say some freak “accident” of nature happened for the man Jesus, and all the forces of Science forsook him along with his friends and followers. Say it was some strange process that Science has never seen and likely never will, but hypothetically could have measured and explained, if given the chance. Say it was the greatest biological phenomenon of all time. Say that instead of disappearing into the clouds, he was swept up by a hurricane or disappeared into a cloud of mist; say he drowned himself or starved himself or sold himself to slavery after leaving the disciples, and that he is now truly fully reunited with God, his body returned to the dust into which God has breathed Creation. Say people simply could not understand what state he was in after he was "resurrected," say they simply misinterpreted signs. IMAGINE FOR A MOMENT THAT THERE WAS A MAN WHO DIED TO FREE ME FROM SIN. What would it take for me to believe? What's the best-case-scenario, what can I realistically expect from the minds of that time? What kind of accuracy must I require they include? How does their inability to use science affect my view of their text? How can I best see Jesus through their eyes?
What I'm left with is a fundamentally agnostic view about Jesus. No, I don't know exactly in what way he was God. No, I don't know if or how he rose from the dead. I don't know if or how he and his disciples performed miracles. I simply cannot discern. What I do know is that there are many more possible interpretations and applications of Biblical information on Jesus than “Lunatic, Liar, Lord.” How about “Fan Mob Writes Biased and Slightly Exaggerated Biography”? How about “Jesus is the Son of God and we are all children of God, therefore we are all basically like Jesus”? How about “We are to be reunited with God by being united with his Spirit just as Jesus now is, just as all the Hindu deities are One with Brahman/Vishnu/Shiva”? How about “Jesus was actually just trying to get people's attention or challenge common socio-religious assumptions, and the people listening misunderstood and misquoted him”? Though I cannot assume any of these theories are true, they all seem perfectly plausible to me. Even Jesus' followers, even the writers of the Gospels themselves, admit to having been extremely puzzled by everything Jesus said until he was gone. And no wonder. So how can we trust that they correctly remembered and interpreted every cryptic little word he said?
This is where I stand about Jesus: he existed, and he was freaking awesome. I admire him greatly: he was a catalyst for social change and a promoter of realism and objective justice. I admire him for breaking conventional boundaries and for challenging those that had never been challenged, I admire him for crushing religious authorities with their own weapons. I admire him for being so clever, so keen, so witty, so nimble in his language and reasoning that he was able to evade earning any legitimate cause for accusation from religious and political authorities, as hard as they tried to make him slip up. And I admire him most for loving everyone, unconditionally: for giving second chances, for looking upon the outcasts with kindness and sympathy, for caring for them and helping them see the light. He is the foundation of nearly all the social miracles I have seen in my lifetime: he is my hero even from a purely sociological standpoint.
Even if Jesus is not God incarnate, even if he never defied nature, even if he had no power to come back to life or take away my sins, he might as well have been all those things. He acted from deep conviction, he broke evolution, he (along with all the things he stands for) inspires me to rid myself of the sin he supposedly saved me from anyways. To be quite honest, I have never been able to care for long whether I go to heaven or hell: I believe that God is just and will give me everything I need and deserve. If he sees fit to send me to hell at the end of all this, so be it; if I get the honor of being with him as I have always yearned to, so be it. I do not feel that bribes and incentives are the right reasons to choose a certain lifestyle. I live the way I live, I walk the way I walk, I think the way I think, I believe what and how I believe because I believe it is in accordance with the way God Himself has led me to do it all. For as long as I can remember I have been a lover of straight, plain, unblemished TRUTH, and I do not plan on changing this for any reason. 'Cause I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate me from the love I've seen in Jesus, whether he be a man or my Lord.
IN REGARDS TO YOUR ATTACKS ON THE C.S. LEWIS TRILEMMA
ReplyDeleteThe Bible will not let you take the middle ground. This was very clearly presented by C.S. Lewis. However, you have either not fully understood the famous "trilemma" C.S. Lewis wrote about in Mere Christianity, or you have omitted by what process you were able to refute his argument. He gives the statement "Lunatic, Liar, or Lord" and explains very clearly why no middle grounds are possible. You have created a strawman by attacking the common man's simplified understanding of that argument. All the hypothetical scenarios you drew up in regards to his identity are not plausible despite what you say.
So I would encourage you to read the whole book (I don't know if you've read it or not, but if you have, then you failed to show proper refutation).
That which makes sense, is only human.
ReplyDeleteHow does one determine the premises by which he draws logical conclusions from?
ReplyDeleteDoes a fallacy invalidate (not in the strict logical sense, of course; I mean make it not true) a conclusion?
"Am I willing to trust human judgment? No. Am I willing to trust God's? Absolutely."
"I have identified its flaws and amended my views in accordance with what God seems to have shown me is necessary. "
I see direct contrast between these two statments that appears throughout this piece. If you are not willing to trust human judgment, especially that of those who knew Jesus personally, why do you have so much confidence in your own?
In regards to the “Jesus is the Son of God and we are all children of God, therefore we are all basically like Jesus?” would you explain this one more? I’m not sure I understand what you mean by it.
“We are to be reunited with God by being united with his Spirit just as Jesus now is, just as all the Hindu deities are One with Brahman/Vishnu/Shiva”? This I’m rather confused about, as I'm not sure how it links to the Bible, and these suggestions were supposed to be interpretations and applications of the Bible? This is monism, which is decidedly unbiblical. Or if you don’t think so, could you better explain the link?
Why do you believe that God is just?
Michael:
ReplyDeleteI haven't created a straw man- I am accusing Lewis of oversimplifying the issue. What I mean to say is that Lewis has assumed that the Bible is completely correct; as I do not affirm this view, there are many other ways to understand Jesus' nature. If you do indeed assume that the Bible is literally, 100% correct, completely divine, without any time lapse, cultural bias, hindering perspectives or human misunderstanding infringing upon the authors' ability to record everything precisely as it happened... then yes, C. S. Lewis got it right. I don't agree that the Bible is without its issues, just like any other human document.
Nick: You are only willing to lean on faith because it makes sense to you that you would need to have faith. Any basic system of belief, any basic worldview, rests on sense, though "sense" may not necessarily mean "rationality." By that reasoning, even the concept of FAITH is "merely human."
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI will explain what I meant by “Jesus is the Son of God and we are all children of God, therefore we are all basically like Jesus” only if it is understood that I don't necessarily believe this: I simply don't know. I might never. But the idea I meant to express was that Jesus might have meant that we are all part of God in the same way that he is; that this could have been one step too far for the people listening, and that they simplified it in such a way that they could understand and recorded it as written.
ReplyDeleteI am no longer speaking in Biblical terms, but I will explain what I meant and why I am able to consider this view. If God if Life, Evolution, Motion, Existence, Power, Energy, Gravity, Law, then Jesus saying he is God means that he was part of Life, Evolution, Motion, etc. etc. And I agree. It's quite something to notice that you're a piece of the very force propelling you through existence- or at least that you contain a piece of that force- though I certainly don't think that's how Jesus meant it. But Jesus might have meant that we are all a piece of God in the same way he is: correct me if I'm wrong, but the only way he ever spoke of himself as one with the father is in saying “I AM.” The rest of the time he always made a distinction between Son and Father: spark and flame. Perhaps he meant that we should all recognize that we are Children of God. Once again, I'm not defending this view because I don't necessarily hold it, but it's something to think about. I am not entirely sure what to believe and what to remain undecided about, yet.
I believe that God is just because there is such an inbuilt desire for justice to be achieved in humanity. Once evolution is disregarded, justice replaces it: all religions, all worldviews, all cultures, all people seem to wrestle with the issue. Self discipline. Familial discipline. Social discipline. Civil discipline. Divine discipline. And each category has a thousand subsets. People understand that to operate in community, to achieve peace, to live in relative harmony, requires both agreements and the adherence to that agreement, whether it be formally announced or not. Social contract, if you will. So, people have a universal desire for justice. But beyond that, there is a justice inherent in ethics, psychology, and sociology. For example, if you choose to murder people, other people will likely hate you and try to kill you. If you abuse your children, they will likely leave you and you will likely tend more and more towards impulsive and rash and angry outbursts. If you spend your whole life trying to please others or yourself, you will likely feel unfulfilled, if you waste all your time lazing around, you will likely feel a great sense of loss... etc. There is a cause and effect, good and bad sensor programmed into life itself. There must be a reason things operate the way they do. The ethical/psychological/sociological application of trial and error is much too complex to be purely natural: these things have nothing to do with survival or the propagation of our species. I would explain their existence by the same way I explain the existence of things like gravity or the forward motion in evolution: the existence of God.
(By "natural," I mean hard, cold, scientific, chemical. Without sprit or purpose or energy. I do not mean "defying nature," because I believe that the Spirit is a part of nature- in fact, the governing principle of nature.)
ReplyDelete"You are only willing to lean on faith because it makes sense to you that you would need to have faith. Any basic system of belief, any basic worldview, rests on sense, though "sense" may not necessarily mean "rationality." By that reasoning, even the concept of FAITH is "merely human.""
ReplyDeleteYes, by that reasoning, it would. But you're making an assumption that your reasoning is valid, whereas your arguments above rely only on the validity of sense perception and conclusions derived from that by only a few degrees of separation. Metaphysics, by dint of being entirely separated, falls outside your categorical reasoning.
Faith is actually one of the few things that isn't "merely human." Faith and miracles and possibly the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence. If you claim that it's only worldview stuff, then that's because you're ignoring the fact that *there's something on the other side.*
The antecedent to "that" (as in "By that reasoning, even the concept of faith is merely human") was your argument, not mine. I was simply pointing out its implications. If you disagree with my reasoning, please point it out.
ReplyDeleteOkay, just because there's SOMETHING "on the other side" doesn't mean it's necessary to believe in things that don't make rational sense. That's logically unsound. And don't start throwing all that "that which makes sense is only human" stuff at me again... You can't further an argument by simply restating your point, and leave it there.
What Marie said: "Once again, I'm not defending this view because I don't necessarily hold it, but it's something to think about. I am not entirely sure what to believe and what to remain undecided about, yet."
ReplyDeleteThe problem with that statement is that Jesus specifically asks us to follow him as the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD. Clearly not as anything else.
Marie, I'll write up an essay for you to read asap on a lot of the things you said. But for now, I leave you with the following Bible verses which show why you are not allowed to either "remain undecided" or decide that "we are all basically like Jesus."
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." (John 3:16) New King James Version
Emphasis on the "only begotten son" part for both the passages above and below.
"He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." (John 3:18) New King James Version
Marie, it's times like this when I say that you have too much faith in your own reasoning. You are a flawed human being who just totally forgot about John 3:16, one of the most significant (and therefore famous) ways in which Jesus referred to himself spefically as the unique begotten Son of God.
ReplyDeleteYou trust yourself despite these kinds of misunderstandings of the Bible.
You are not willing to listen to people who devoted their entire lives to Christ, to know the Bible inside and out, and as a result faced persecution and became martyrs. You are not willing to listen to the apostles who personally knew Jesus, ones personally appointed by Him (the One you so admire) to lead the body of Christ.
Then by what logical leap of faith could you possibly trust yourself at all?
Michael, if you're quoting Bible verses at me and picking through individual word choice, claiming that I have misunderstood it, then you've obviously missed my point. You do understand that I have thrown out the doctrine of Biblical inspiration? As in, the Bible is false in many areas, and that is one of the places I choose to disagree. I am indeed a flawed human being. But I do not believe it a consequence of this flaw that I have rejected the message behind John 3:16.
ReplyDeleteI am not willing to listen to the apostles who personally knew Jesus, because they were merely people, with human perceptions and human misunderstandings, some of which they wouldn't have been able to catch for their lack of scientific understanding. I admire Jesus, but see no reason to view him as God. The Apostles did not know the Bible inside and out, because it had not been created- they created the Bible. In fact, it is their dedication to Jesus that makes me hesitant to believe them: they have a very particular vested interest in Jesus' resurrection and divine, moral qualities and are more likely to portray him in a certain light than a less biased source.
I am willing to trust myself because faith of any sort requires trust of oneself. You trust yourself every bit as much as I do, whether you like it or not. You "don't trust yourself" because YOU see reason not to and thus "trust something else," which YOU have deemed an appropriate object of your trust. I do not trust solely in myself; I am walking through this every step in the way with God, just as I would have if I still believed 100% of traditional Christianity. I repeat that I am not quite set in any of these beliefs quite yet; I am yet very open to changing my opinion and would honestly like to do so a great deal, because it would be much easier that way. But God rarely asks us to do the easy thing, doesn't he?
Let's throw away the Bible for now. Let's use the Roman records under Pontius Pilate of the death of Jesus Christ, the carpenter of Nazareth. The religious Jewish leaders of the people of Jerusalem, Israel under the rule of Pontius Pilate asked Pontius Pilate to execute the wildly popular religious leader Jesus Christ because he was violating the laws of their religion. Pontius Pilate is the fifth Prefect of the Roman province of Judaea, from 26–36 AD. The Roman records say, that the justification brought on by the religious leaders was that this one named Jesus of Nazareth proclaimed himself to be the only begotten Son of God. That was the reason for his crucifixion. If Jesus had said that he was merely the son of God in the samme way that everyone else was, he would have been saved from crucifixion and the Jewish leaders of Jerusalem would have been totally fine with that. Their desire to kill him was born specifically out of a hatred of his statements where he claimed to be God. If the Jesus of Nazareth had gone around claiming to be a mere son of God as you and I are, then the Jewish leaders would not have wanted to kill him.
ReplyDeleteFor the time being, I'm not asking you to believe in 100% of the Bible. Marie, the fact that you threw away John 3:16 is really bugging me. You're taking a foolish path of invalidating everything in the Bible.As much as you argue that there are subjective and incorrect parts in the Bible, there are parts of the Bible that are undeniably true, such as the fact that Jesus spoke those words from John 3:16. It is a historically accurate statement recorded coming out of Jesus Christ's mouth.
Also Marie, if you were going to invalidate my use of scripture, why did you ask for scripture? You quote scripture and then tell people "correct me if I'm wrong." So under the assumption that you wanted scripture thrown back in response, I give you scripture to correct you. But now that it disagrees with your ideas, you bring on the fact that scriptre is not valid. Careful with the inconsistency, or explain to me why you are not actually being inconsistent.
ReplyDelete"But Jesus might have meant that we are all a piece of God in the same way he is: correct me if I'm wrong, but the only way he ever spoke of himself as one with the father is in saying 'I AM.' The rest of the time he always made a distinction between Son and Father: spark and flame." from Marie Dippenaar (May 5, 2011. 6:56 PM)
Well this blog looks like a fun one to reply to. Y'all are really going at it. There are a few issues that I don't agree with you on, Marie: First, that the Bible is invalidated due to human error; Second that Jesus is not limited to the famous trillema; Third, that modern science eradicated erroneous Biblical beliefs.
ReplyDeleteSo first, the Bible is invalidated due to Human error. I should begin by telling you that I am a Christian. Every morning I wake up, kneel by my bed and say the Lord's prayer-always stopping and reflecting when I come to the part where I say "And forgive me of my debts" because I know that I do so many stupid things. I don't just do mean, selfish, ungrateful things but ignorant things. And that's what you're claiming the writers of the Gospels did-commit an act of deception or rather ignorance by not recording the truth of Jesus' words accurately. But it's curious to note that four different Gospel writers plus the epistles of Paul and Peter all record the same nature of Jesus Christ independently* of each other. When historians find two pieces of ancient works they grow very excited because they now have corroboration that most likely means the event recorded actually occurred. With the Bible, we have six independent resources that all say that Jesus said He was God and that He is the only way to heaven. That's a staggering amount. But more than just this, each of the four Gospels-or rather the ancient biographies of Jesus Christ-have had further external corroboration with non-Christians resources: Jews and Romans. Tacitus, the most important Roman historian of the first century, has written, "Christus, from whom the name [Christian] had it's origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus." This sounds exactly like the Biblical account of what happened. Now the Jews had a historian as well during the first century who modern, secular scholars hold in very high regard. His name was Josephus and he was a pharisee. This means he probably hated Jesus for He was famous for calling the Pharisees a "brrod of vipers" among other insults. Thus we are to have to consider his account of Christ as objective as possible if not more on the side of critical. He wrote, "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders." Again, perfectly correlating to the Gospels. Returning to the Romans, Pliny the Elder, the famous encyclopedist who died in the eruption of Vesuvius in A.D. 79, wrote regarding his interactions with Christians: "I have asked them if they are Christians, and if they admit it, I repeat the question a second and third time, with a warning of the punishment awaiting them. If they persist, I order them to be led away for execution; for, whatever the nature of their admission, I am convinced that their stubbornness and unshakable obstinacy ought not to go unpunished...
They also declared that the sum total of their guilt or error amounted to no more than this: they had met regularly before dawn on a fixed day to chant versus alternately amongst themselves in honor of Christ as if to a god, and also to bind themselves by oath, not for any criminal purpose, but to abstain from theft, robbery, and adultery." Wow. I'm always amazed when I read this account. Ultimately we find that the life of Jesus in the Gospel accounts have an immense amount of corroborative material to back it up.
So even if we didn't have the direct biographies of Jesus and only the secular accounts, we would still know that: first, Jesus was a Jewish teacher; second, many people believed that he performed healings and exorcisms; third, some people believed he was the Messiah; fourth, he was rejected by the Jewish leaders; fifth, he was crucified under Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius; sixth, despite this shameful death, his followers, who believed that he was still alive, spread beyond Palestine so that there were multitudes of them in Rome by A.D. 64; and seventh, all kinds of people from the cities and countryside--men and women, slave and free--worshiped him as God.
ReplyDeleteThat is a staggering list. And it's not even close to all of the corroborative material we have for the Gospel accounts. Which means that we have very little ground to doubt these first century biographies about Jesus. Thus, we have to have more trust in the Bible and what it says because of its historical backing. Besides this, the Jewish culture wasn't one like our own where people just forget facts. None of the apostles woke up one morning and thought, "hmm I'm not sure but I think Jesus claimed to be God." No that's rather silly. That's not a fact that easily enters the mind. Also, they knew that if they were to start preaching the fact that Jesus was God, they would be tortured and persecuted as He was. Which they ultimately were. Thus they must have known and were fully convinced that Jesus claimed and was God or else they were all idiots for sending themselves to their own deaths. This cannot be the case seeing to the fact that the majority of the twelve found ways to die in sheer agony and yet never stopped preaching the word.
So this is section one of part one of my response. So as not to overwhelm the conversation with more evidence quite yet, I will stop, receive rebuttals, and answer accordingly.
This is fun everyone--way to be discussing such deep topics!
Michael, for all intents and purposes, you can speak to me as if I am not a Christian; I certainly no longer classify as one. Don't assume that I care about the legitimacy of Biblical passages. I reserve the right to disagree with them. You're right that I asked for scripture in that one instance: I stand corrected. But most of the time I quoted Scripture, it was merely in order to demonstrate that I still affirm much of what the Bible says, even though I disagree with huge parts of it. And I'm not sure if you picked up on this implication, but if Jesus is no longer a real part of my faith, I don't honestly care if he was just some guy who claimed to be God, claimed to be the Messiah, was planning to overthrow the Romans, etc. etc. I think that his most of his character as portrayed in the Biblical narrative is valuable: I admire the figure of Jesus more than I care about who he actually was.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous: Thank you for replying so thoroughly! You argue well and write rhetorically. May I inquire as to your identity?
I. What you say may very well be valid. Let's assume for the moment that every single word Jesus said was recorded exactly the way he said it, that both Jesus and all his followers believed he was the Messiah, that they all genuinely believed that they saw him resurrected on the third day, that the Lewis trillema stands. Why should I believe them? I still see greater reason to doubt their perception of reality than to doubt the laws of nature. I would more likely call Jesus a "liar"- though perhaps not an intentional, manipulative liar- than assume that Chemistry decided not to function every now and then. The parts I want to draw emphasis to are those where you say "many/some people believed." I'm perfectly willing to agree that TONS of people believed wholeheartedly that Jesus was who he said and did what he did... I'm willing to agree that Jesus believed so, too. But arguing that he actually WAS those things and DID those things is an argumentum ad populum.
:( Typed something up and lost it twice
ReplyDeleteMarie, you are attacking a straw man of the Lewis Trilemma. It was an entire book C.S. Lewis wrote. You can't just pick up pieces of his idea from other people and assume you have fully understood him.
ReplyDeleteIt's frustrating me, because Lewis already has responded to the questions you brought up against me and against the anonymous person. I do think that you are wrong about the Lewis Trilemma, but for me to be able to fairly say that, you have to have actually read and understood it.
So I will type up a little snippet of what he wrote, but I ask that for the time being, we drop this argument, since you don’t know it fully.
“One part of the claim [Jesus' claim to be God] tends to slip past us unnoticed because we have heard it so often that we no longer see what it amounts to. I mean the claim to forgive sins: any sins. Now unless the speaker is God, this is really so preposterous as to be comic. We can all understand how a man forgives offences against himself. You tread on my toes and I forgive you, you steal my money and I forgive you. But what should we make of a man, himself unrobbed and untrodded on, who announced that he forgave you for treading on other men’s toes and stealing other men’s money? Asinine fatuity is the kindest description we should give of his conduct. Yet this is what Jesus did. He told people that their sins were forgiven, and never waited to consult all the other people whom their sins had undoubtedly injured. He unhesitatingly behaved as if He was the party chiefly concerned, the only person chiefly offended in all offences. This makes sense only if He really was the God whose laws are broken and whose love is wounded in every sin. In the mouth of any speaker who is not God, these words would imply what I can only regard as a silliness and conceit unrivalled by any other character in history.
Yet (and this is the strange, significant thing) even His enemies, when they read the Gospels, do not usually get the impression of silliness and conceit. Still less do unprejudiced readers. Christ says that He is ‘humble and meek’ and we believe Him; not noticing that, if He were merely a man, humility and meekness are the very last characteristics we could attribute to some of His sayings” (Lewis 51-52).
Lewis, Clive. Mere Christianity. Haper One, New York: 2001.
By the way, when C.S. Lewis said lunatic, he meaning is similar to the the thing you were talking about: "'liar'- though perhaps not an intentional." Lewis just assumes a Lunatic must accidently mistake himself for a God.
Alright, I’m not going to write any more… Not very fun just typing out of a book when Marie should just go read it anyways. :)
In regards to your attack on the anonymous person
ReplyDeleteAgain, this involves a discussion of the the Lewis Trilemma, since I have to tell you what Lewis said. Let's pretend for a moment that Jesus really believed that he was the Son of God and that a bunch of other people thought that too. That fits right into the Lewis Trilemma under the "lunatic" category.
Anyways, don't respond to this (unless you really want to, I suppose) until you've read Mere Christianity, because what we are doing is a waste of time otherwise.
As to quickly affirm what Mr. Chang wrote regarding your, Marie, attack on my input, I'd like to add two clarifying comments. First upon what an unintentional liar is and second why my reference to Pliny's comments about the early church is not an ad populum fallacy.
ReplyDeleteFirst, what is an unintentional liar? Well, Mr. Chang stated it perfectly: a lunatic. A lunatic is a person with a highly distorted view of reality. Yet even you, Marie, have not said that Jesus was so blind to the world. I mean this in the sense that his teachings were brilliant, deep, reflective, and radically altering in terms of cultural norms. Compare this to the three Christs of Ypsilanti-three people who actually were insane and claiming to be God in the flesh. They demonstrated no wisdom, no love, no creativity. Christ did. These three men merely uttered cliches, Jesus' whole life destroyed normalcy.
Now, I do believe that there are religious liars out there, too. But Jesus wasn't one of them. Let's take Mohammad for example. Many people ask why his religion can't be true since it's basically the same thing as Christianity. But it actually is far from similar. Christianity is about love, mercy, a relationship with God. Islam is about laws, war, and submission to Allah. In Surah 9, Mohammad says: "Fight those who do not believe in Allah... May Allah destroy them!" Mohammad would constantly raid caravans taking the plunders for himself. He sought riches and fame.
This sounds more like a man seeking power instead of preaching a sequel to the most loving, most passionate act ever presented on earth.
Jesus did not exhibit signs of a crazy man nor deceitful, self-seeking individual. He was poor all his life, often living homeless while he fed, cleansed, and healed the weak and hungry.
Second, did I commit an ad populum fallacy? No. You missed my point which may very well be my fault for not making it explicit. If Jesus died and did not fulfill his prophecy of resurrecting on the third day, then his claim of being God was proven false. If, however, the Father raised him from the dead, then his claim to divinity was vindicated. Thus if a great multitude believed him risen, then that is substantial evidence to point to his vindication. For it is hard to convince people that a dead man came to life. There is much more on this topic by a philosopher by the name of William Lane Craig. Perhaps you've heard him before if you are in college-he lectures at different campuses. If you want to know more about this argument I would go to YouTube and it will be a quick listen. Much faster than reading a book like Mr. Chang wants you to do.
I must agree with Mr. Anonymous in pointing out the nature of people who claimed that he had come back alive. This reminds me of Apostle Thomas who denied the other apostles when told of the resurrected.
ReplyDeleteAnyways, the ad populum can't work, because even his own apostles (The most biased of all according to Marie's argument) were convinced that resurrections were impossible. Until of course they saw him resurrected and could not deny his wounds from upon the cross.
Firstly, I have to delete one of my previous comments because I used a name where I shouldn't have... I'm reposting it and with the original date on it, though, 'cause I hate losing track of the flow of arguments.
ReplyDelete"Pseudonymous:
Certain observations can be made about the world and about ourselves. I am sure you would agree that at least to a certain extent, Math works, Physics works, Chemistry and Biology and Astronomy work. Humanity is able to make observations about the way God's creation and act upon them, testing hypotheses to make sure they work. Certainly you can't pretend to believe that the Bible is your basis for all perception: you can't read the words telling you God exists if you don't assume that you can trust your senses to some degree. You can't understand the words "God exists" if you don't trust your intellect to some degree. All human faith an knowledge eventually comes down to perception and application: “I see a document telling me that a man that was God incarnate died to save me from my sins. I believe him because his message has a profound impact on my life. Therefore, I am a Christian.” This process is only slightly different from the one I have gone through: I see a world brimming with life and with spirit and with inexplicable beauty, complexity, and drive. I see a universe that requires a foundation on which to grow, a humanity that requires a source from which to develop. I see evidence of God in everything around me; therefore, I believe.
As to your second question: it may, it may not. It depends what the conclusion is.
Once again, you decide as much as I do who to believe, who to trust, and who not to. There were people *right there* during Mohammed's time, and they recorded everything, and they said you must follow their doctrines. Why don't you believe them? Eventually, everyone presented with two or more conflicting ideas has to pick who they're going to accept as credible and who they won't, who they believe in and who they don't. I do not believe the disciples because I have not been given ample reason to; neither do I flatly reject all that they say, because I have not been given ample reason to. To be quite honest, this is not a process of self-discovery, it is a journey along a small and bumpy road with my Creator. This process has reintroduced me to the gift of prayer: I stand firmly convicted that I do not go this alone."
May 5, 2011 6:55 PM
I once read a bunch of random chapters in that book, and the first about quarter of it at once, and even then, it didn't sit well with me, though I don't remember why. I'll read it again sometime, but I am absolutely comfortable accusing Jesus of lunacy, although that's a bit extreme, or of "asinine fatuity," although that's more malicious than I would characterize him. I do really think that Jesus probably believed he was the Messiah, that he was doing what was best, what God wanted him to do. I disagree with him, because there is no reason for me to agree.
ReplyDeleteYou think it's impossible for someone to be deep and brilliant and yet horribly mistaken all at the same time? What do you think of people like Steven Hawking?
Islam definitely has a different theological perspective on the nature of God, but it's not all too different concerning those things. You could pick identical passages about nationalism/destruction in the Christian Bible: I just went on biblegateway.com and found the first one that looked related to destruction... there are lots, though. Numbers 21:2 says "Then the people of Israel made this vow to the Lord: 'If you will hand these people over to us, we will completely destroy all their towns.' The Lord heard the Israelites’ request and gave them victory over the Canaanites. The Israelites completely destroyed them and their towns, and the place has been called Hormah ever since." Now, Christians don't particularly love to talk about this kind of thing, and admit it as a preface to nearly all sermons about OT battles etc, but they affirm that God told the Israelites to do this and that God hasn't changed... Not that modern-day Christians would actually act that way, because things have changed, but condoning/commanding such actions is not incongruous with God's characterization in the Christian Bible. There are plenty of peace-loving Muslims, too. You can pick pieces out of just about every religious text that has ever existed and make its followers look like horrible people.
Once again, even if a thousand hundred people claim to have seen him risen, I am still more likely to question their judgment than the validity of biological processes, which can be proven by a great deal more than a thousand people and methods. There are too many factors that could have played into the situation: perhaps all of those people desperately wanted it to be true, or 950 of those 1000 only saw a figure and took people's word that it was Jesus, perhaps the fifty that did see him saw a look-alike or lied in order to protect their faith/religious identity... Or a look-alike could have died in his place... I have no idea what happened, or why the disciples were able to believe what they did IF they did, but there is no existing proof that could fully convince me that it happened. I reiterate that there is ALSO no proof that could fully convince me that it DIDN'T happen, in some shape or form, by some process I don't know or understand... But believing that he rose from the dead seems overwhelmingly MORE improbable than believing that he DID, so I operate as if I do not believe that it did.
In regards to C.S. Lewis
ReplyDeleteYou say "I disagree with him, because there is no reason for me to agree." This straw man is really frustrating me. I completely understand why you are making that argument. How could it be possible for any human being to have a reason to agree when a reason has not been presented? You don't see any reasons to agree with him because you quite physically have not seen the reasons. Understand the position I'm coming from. I really believe in the Lewis Trilemma and want to tell you that you are wrong, or at least to have a good discussion on the Lewis Trilemma and find out why I am wrong in believing it.
I don't want to sound condemning at the fact that you haven't read the book, but please do not lay down judgement on reasonings and arguments that you have never heard. That little one and a half paragraphs I put up there hardly represents the whole of the Trilemma argument. That little segment has holes in it and falls apart when under criticism, since it is only a small fraction of a book. You're taking off a piece of an argument that wasn't meant to stand on its own and knocking it over. It's a straw man.
I do not see how that could possibly be a straw man- which, by definition, means I have misconstrued his point- because I have not summarized his point at all, I've simply stated that I disagree. I know why you believe what you believe, or at least I think I do, because I used to believe the same thing. I don't mind that you believe that, though I think you're wrong. I think we're all wrong in some way or another, and though I'm willing to challenge you, I don't mind if you keep believing what you do anyways. The reason you are wrong about the trillema is because there is no reason to assume that the Bible is 100% correct. Language is imperfect, the ability to convey language is imperfect, the ability to use language is imperfect, the ability to understand someone else's understanding of something neither can understand completely is imperfect even if language hypothetically weren't involved... The Bible can't possibly be totally inerrant. Proven by the fact that it's written in human language and they understood what they were writing (I doubt anyone would hire a scribe to write something they thought was gibberish) and you think you know what they're saying, whether or not you claim to understand it. If you throw out inspiration, you have no greater reason to believe what these people tell you than what any other people tell you... It's more complicated than just that, but read what I've written. I can only say it so many times, I don't have much else to say.
ReplyDeleteI've read it. A while ago. But I don't care what Lewis said, either, Michael, it has very fundamental flaws. When I have time, I'll read the book and the conversation can resume, if you'd like.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHere's what I think you're saying, Marie. Tell me if I've understood you correctly or not.
ReplyDeleteThe Lewis Trilemma argument stands upon the premise that the Bible is 100% correct.
Arguments that stand upon the premise that the Bible is 100% correct are wrong.
Therefore the Lewis Trilemma argument is wrong.
Not entirely. But almost. You don't have a totally valid syllogism :) Know that this is total semantics, but I've reworded it as such:
ReplyDeleteThe Bible is not completely correct.
Any argument founded upon (and impossible without) the assumption that the Bible IS completely incorrect is not completely correct.
The Lewis Trilemma is such an argument.
Therefore, the Lewis Trilemma cannot be completely correct.
Alright, I want to drop the Trilemma for now and just ask you about one of these premises. You claim a relationship with God. You also say that you hold a lot of the things in the Bible as valuable. Since you're not saying that the Bible is wrong in its entirity, I want to ask you the following: how is it determined whether something in the Bible is true or not?
ReplyDeleteFor example, when you see John 3:16, "for God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life," by what process do you determine whether it is one of the true parts of the Bible or one of the fallacious parts of the Bible?
@Michael re: John 3:16 - "...is it one of the true parts of the Bible or one of the fallacious parts...
ReplyDeleteThe statement contained within John 3:16 is predicated upon a belief system in "god" as it is defined by the Christian Bible. Without the belief in a single Christian god then the entire statement cannot be "real" and therefore is not a true statement.
Further if we skip the first step "...his only begotten son..." implies that he/she came down to earth and impregnated a human and this woman gave birth to what the greeks would call a demi-god. A stretch, to say the least, so let's call this a false statement as well. Proof required
Let's try the next item "...that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life," Hmmm, what can be said about that statement? You won't die if you believe in the first two characters. Ok, so the implied statement is that you will die, but your soul will live on. It's a great thought, but really one that is the carrot to the stick for the "believers" of the Christian religion.
Preachers and snake oil salesmen have always preyed on the less fortunate, the downtrodden and the uneducated. They instill in them a sense of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt in order to sell their message. The first two items in John 3:16 are simply requests by the system set up. "God" as it were, is invoked and then Jesus is mentioned in a way to tie the two together (classic sales association) and then the close: "Believe in these two and you will live forever!!"
If you have "Faith" then proof is irrelevant and John 3:16 is true, but once faith is lost, or never present, then it's just an elevator pitch and another portion of the Bible that is false.
@Marié - well written argument and very good counterpoints to @Michael and @Anonymous. They both base their arguments on the faith in a Christian God and Jesus. To be more effective they will have to extract themselves from their faith and look at the argument more objectively.
TO CLAUS
ReplyDeleteYou argue that John 3:16 relies upon Christian definitions from the Bible. That is a non-sensical statement. When those words were spoken, there was no such thing as Christianity. Arguing that definitions came from a source that was non-existent at the time is completely non-sensical.
For the definition of the word God, we must look towards the Jews of the time period. Jesus Christ himself was a Jew. The word for God (used by Jesus and the Jews), meant a kind of a being who was existent outside of this world. The kind of omnipotent God spoken of in what Christians call the Old Testament. This Jewish word for God did not mean the word god that the Greeks used.
It's improper to insert a Greek concept in order to define a concept of the Jewish culture. This is a particularly fatal error, for the Jewish people have a very unique culture not like any of the cultures around them.
Now, as to your comments about Preachers who are "selling" the messages of the Bible. I can't account for everysingle Christian in the world and cannot deny your claims of having seen such preachers. As all people, I believe that Christians too are capable of making mistakes. Furthermore, people who have become "Christians" for those reasons are not actual Christians. However, the classification of all of Christianity as fearmongers just does not hold up to logical criticism.
Let's look at the roots of Christianity. Mr.Claus, you say that fear tactics were used to make Christians. This just simply cannot be the case, because it contradicts the Christian teaching that life will become more difficult if one becomes a Christian. Jesus Christ asked his followers to make the life threatening decisions to follow Him, since Christians were being persecuted. Jesus was a man wandering around from town to town sleeping in the streets and getting food where he could. The apostles He recruited, the fishermen and taxmen, were asked to leave the comfort and security of their jobs and homes, to leave their families and their villages, to just drop everything and follow Jesus. Keep in mind that most of these people have never even left their villages more than perhaps a couple times in their entire lives.
When Jesus began to gather a following of men, Roman soldiers would persecute and jail anyone who claimed to follow Christ. Christians were being boiled, being tortured, and meeting in secret just to stay alive. Roman soldiers would torture them, telling them to renounce their faith. But many Christian martyrs held their faith until they eventually died. These images of pain and suffering are what came to people's minds when they heard the words "Christ." This is why it's very unreasonable to accept the argument that "fear tactics" were used to make people "Christian," for becoming a Christian was to throw away one's life.
IN REGARDS TO YOU COMMENTS OF FAITH
ReplyDeleteI was born and raised in an atheist family. I grew as an atheist and was taught that stories of the Bible were all lies and irrelevant fairy tales. In my life, faith in God was once never present. Yet I am now a Christian. It was not until I became a Christian that I understood what faith even actually meant.
You must first get something straight. You do not understand what Christians mean by faith. Let me offer the following C.S. Lewis quote to explain what real Christians mean when they ask for "faith" in the Bible, for having the type of blind faith that you spoke of would indeed be foolish of Christians to have.
MERE CHRISTIANITY BY C.S. LEWIS
"In fact, I was assuming that the human mind is completely ruled by reason. But that is not so. For example, my reason is perfectly convinced by good evidence that anaesthetics do not smother me and that properly trained surgeons do not start operating until I am unconscious. But that does not alter the fact that when they have me down on the table and clap their horrible mask over my face, a mere childish panic begins inside me. I start thinking I am going to choke, and I am afraid they will start cutting me up before I am properly under. In other words, I lose my faith in anaesthetics. It is not reason that is taking away my faith: on the contrary, my faith is based on reason. It is my imagination and emotions. The battle is between faith and reason on one side and emotion and imagination on the other” (Lewis 139).
Lewis, Clive. Mere Christianity. Haper One, New York: 2001.
Mr.Claus, you attack a kind of Christianity that I cannot deny the existence of. In fact, I too would condemn the kind of “Christians” you spoke of. However, true Christians will invalidate such false images of the Church. I understand where you are coming from if you have seen these false images of Jesus Christ out there in your life, but a true Christian is an entirely different thing. It was due to my reasoning and a careful analysis of history and science that I became a Christian. Perhaps if you know me in person, Mr. Claus, I may be able to share with you about the real church. I believe that you would have a much greater interest in criticizing the actual thing.
To Marie
ReplyDeleteMarie, you hold a claim that you have a relationship with God, that you are still (though not functionally) a Christian. Yet a lot of your views of God comes from the Bible. So then let me just rephrase my previous question: How do you know God? How do you know which parts of the Bible to believe or not believe?
I find it interesting that you get offended at me calling the definition a “Christian God”. There are other gods and I wished to be specific if you aren’t attached to a specific mythology. There are still people out there that believe in the Norse Mythos, The Hindu religion while one supreme one exists, have multiples as well. The former Egyptian religion (in existence for more than 3,000yrs prior to its fall) still has some adherents. Besides, John 3:16 is in the New Testament, a book which is not recognized by Judaism as being part of the holy scriptures and therefore a Christian document.
ReplyDeleteBe that as it may, you miss the point entirely. You are blinded by your faith, not a bad thing if that is your thing. I’m not religion bashing as I believe you should think and believe anything you wish. I merely pointed out that for John 3:16 to be in anyway relevant to truth you have to have faith in the Christian god and believe that he exists. Otherwise the statement is not true. It’s just simple logic and if you step back and look at it from a mathematical point of view you would see that this is indeed the case. It’s either a 1 or a 0. For the statement to be true, all elements within the statement need to be true.
@Michael - Pick from the bible that which is verifiable using other evidence and that which is not, put it aside as lore. That seems simple enough!
ReplyDeleteWhat’s really interesting in this whole story is that in the following years, the Roman Empire fell and, not so coincidentally, the Roman Catholic Church came to be. People that were once Generals in the Roman armies were all of a sudden Bishops in the Roman Catholic church. The structure of the Roman catholic church was set up and resembles, to the very last centurion, the structure of the Roman army. Sure they are called different things but “a rose by any other name is still a rose”.
ReplyDeleteThe power of religion is amazing. Belief is a power in and of itself and the Romans weren’t stupid, they took this power when they saw their own empire collapsing and realized that controlling the mind and faith is far more powerful than controlling the body. Everlasting life or everlasting doom. Karl Marx stated once that “Religion is the opiate of the people”. The Romans realized that centuries before Marx.
The Pope controlled vast armies and invaded countries. There was torture, death, fear, mayhem and all the things you describe above. He controlled not only the hearts and minds but as the power spread, he crowned kings an controlled countries by religious proxy. The Cardinal of Paris was an enormously powerful position and reported, not to the king of France, but to the Pope. Religion ruled Western Europe and the explorers that went out took that religion with them.
So yes, swinging a sword while saying we come in peace is hardly a peaceful way of spreading things is it?
With regards to “Faith”. You are dead wrong in saying that I don’t know what faith is. I don’t have faith in your god. The things that I have faith in don’t ask for money on Sundays (or any other day for that matter), my god(s) would not need money if I were to believe in an imaginary entity, it would not need me to cower before it in false reverence, it would not need me to be subservient and be afraid of its awesome powers of observation.
ReplyDeleteIt is very convenient to say that I don’t have faith and don’t understand what “Christian” means just because I don’t believe the same as you. My beliefs are my own. Fact is that I love studying history, especially mythology and religion. They both have influenced the history of the world and it would be just ignorant to dismiss their impact on civilization as we know it. Religion, as you know it, is dying as all religions eventually do. Another may take its place just as Christianity, Judaism and Islam took over from the previous religions.
C.S. Lewis was a good author. I have enjoyed The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe books very much. Yes I understand that he was writing them as allegory of religion. He was a man with a deep faith in the Christian religion, no one can deny that. I, and many others, don’t share that type of faith. In the quote that you posted above, it wasn’t his lack of faith in the anaesthetic should be highlighted. A logical belief will more often than not be trumped by an emotion. Emotions are instinctual responses that you cannot assign to faith or logic. I doubt if you were falling off a building the first thing to your head would be “oooh, that’s going to hurt” (the logical response) or “I don’t need to worry as god will save me” (the religious faith response). The first thing that will go through your head will be an emotional response of panic that you are going to die.
It would be too simplistic to state that my faith is logical or scientific. This statement, for example: “I have faith that a spherical mass thrown off the top of a building will accelerate at 9.8m/s/s before it hits terminal velocity”. This is not faith, this is fact. I do however have faith in many other things. I have faith in the good that people can do, I have faith in the power of Love, in the innocence of children, etc… You may not see this as faith as you see faith as a burning desire to follow a religious belief.
I know that you believe in your god with all your heart and soul and I have no intention of knocking that, but my experience and knowledge makes such a blind belief impossible. I’m not criticizing the religion, just stating the fact that it exists and it has fought its way into existence. The Catholic church is one of the largest corporations on the planet. It exists solely on the donations of those that joined it in the past. It now controls vast amounts of real estate, has a library that is like no other, a historical repository of artefacts that is unparalleled by any one of the world’s greatest museums. It didn’t get to that point just because it preached love, peace and harmony over the past 2000 years.
I don’t mean to paint all of Christianity with a single brush and if it came across as such I do apologize. I know many Christians and they are good friends who would never hurt a fly. But, fear tactics is exactly how much of the Christian religion was spread (Judaism doesn’t have the same reach as Christianity despite the fact that the Old Testament is far more violent – and tbh, way more interesting of a read). All religions preach peace, understanding and brotherly love. That is their prime message. The problem lies in man’s interpretation (as Marié pointed out) of the religion and how it defined to the individual. The other issue is that which comes about as a result of very intelligent people realizing the type of power which they can yield by invoking an imaginary entity and the prospect of eternal life or a fiery death in the pits of despair. If you weren’t educated and someone who is wealthy, dressed well and obviously well spoken came to you and asked you to choose, which would you choose?
ReplyDeleteLet’s step back into the time period that you are talking about. The Roman Empire has invaded your land and is a dictatorial state. Many things are happening at the same time and this sort of change is unsettling. People are being forced to comply with rules and regulations with which they neither agree to and nor do they really want to follow. As with any martial society the Romans disagree and are willing to back it up by the use of force. They do, however, see themselves as a benevolent dictatorship and in return for a small amount of taxes, they set up aquifers, sewers, bath houses, teaching institutions, establish a general rule of law that applies to all and not just to the tribal elders and their councils. They allow the people to practice whatever religion they wish and do not force upon them the Roman pantheistic religion.
Jesus comes along and makes some fairly interesting claims and the people listen. The Romans take note. This evangelist is charming, persuasive, one of the people. Pontius Pilate is a vain man and has a personal vested interest in maintaining his seat. Rome didn’t really like him, which is why he was sent to that area to begin with. (Could have been worse, he could have been sent to the northern territories where it’s colder and there are barbarians.) He feels threatened by this charming Jew and takes steps to try and eliminate him. His persecution of Jesus gives more attention to Jesus and his cause – who doesn’t love a good martyr. The people are still not happy with the Romans, despite the fact that their area is flourishing. They feel they can do better and this evangelist is now being threatened by the governor of the region, he must be pretty skookum.
Jesus is now a threat and it was ordered that he be eliminated. The Romans created their own problem.
What’s really interesting in this whole story is that in the following years, the Roman Empire fell and, not so coincidentally, the Roman Catholic Church came to be. People that were once Generals in the Roman armies were all of a sudden Bishops in the Roman Catholic church. The structure of the Roman catholic church was set up and resembles, to the very last centurion, the structure of the Roman army. Sure they are called different things but “a rose by any other name is still a rose”.
ReplyDeleteThe power of religion is amazing. Belief is a power in and of itself and the Romans weren’t stupid, they took this power when they saw their own empire collapsing and realized that controlling the mind and faith is far more powerful than controlling the body. Everlasting life or everlasting doom. Karl Marx stated once that “Religion is the opiate of the people”. The Romans realized that centuries before Marx.
The Pope controlled vast armies and invaded countries. There was torture, death, fear, mayhem and all the things you describe above. He controlled not only the hearts and minds but as the power spread, he crowned kings and controlled countries by religious proxy. The Cardinal of Paris was an enormously powerful position and reported, not to the king of France, but to the Pope. Religion ruled Western Europe and the explorers that went out took that religion with them.
So yes, swinging a sword while saying we come in peace is hardly a peaceful way of spreading things is it?
I totally agree with Claus, Michael Chang has a good point, but it is completely invalid. For example, Michael says "how is it determined whether something in the Bible is true or not?". But I would ask Michael this: how do you know that God actually spoke through the writers of the Bible? How can You know for sure?
ReplyDelete@Claus. Excuse me for a moment while i ponder the ridiculousness of your claims. Lets number them shall we?
ReplyDelete1. 'Christians spread Christianity through fear mongering.' Do you know what being a Chistian was when it first emerged? A target. Chritians were frequently persecuted and killed. It meant giving up your entire life for a purpose which could very well end it. Those who did join were fearless and held to thier beleifs to the end. Their deaths involved beheading to upside down persecution. Also more Chritians have been killed in the last century than all the other combined in purges in North Korea and the Middle East. Being a Christian is in many cases more fearful than being an atheist.
2. 'Christianity caused the downfall of the Roman Empire.' Really? It was just like that? It could not have possibly been the rampant government corruption, or the succesion of weak emperors,or the battles of competing generals, and inflation. Instead according to Claus the Romans Generals all became Bishops and formed the church? Rome was not built in a day and did not fall in one either.
3. As for your contention that the Pope ruled through fear and controlled all of Western Europe, you have twisted reality. (As you seem to be so fond of) He ruled the minds of the people not the lands. He ruled as much as the Queen of England rules now, through influence. And need I remind you that the crimes of the Papacy are infintesimal conpared to the atrocities commited by the various crowns of the region and time. So next time you post Claus get your facts straight and your reaiity less twisted.
@John L. - While I may agree with you that historically (even at the present time) there is persecution of christianity in the world, the church has done a great deal of fear-mongering and intimidation through the years. They continue to do so though in more subtle ways (the promise of eterneal damnation is still there). There is no fear in America or Europe of christian pesecution. You are a bit out on a limb there. Fear mongering is still alive and well in churches today.
ReplyDeleteWhile governments have become institutions of corruption on their own, the churches (pick your faith) have had their fair share of controversy and corruption. While I agree with you that the church is not the cause, it certainly did not do anything to reduce the corruption, a fact which holds true to this day today. The government promises to do what is right for the people (not exclusive of corruption) so it is not a problem for them. The churches preach truth, godliness, honesty, integrity, blah blah blah, and they fail miserably in their own way. I would say the churches are more contemptuous since they do not even practice what they preach.
Finally, regardless of the crimes of the crowns or of those purportedly setting up representative governments (I am thinking France in particular), it does not justify or make the crimes of the church less a reality. The crowns are there for themselves and they have never made any bones about it, but tyhe churches have claimed that they are there as emisarries of god to serve the people, yet they have stolen more from the people than many governments (or crowns) have. Infinitessimal or not, a crime is a crime, a lie is a lie, and corruption is corruption (I disagree with the infinitessimal scale here but lets put that aside for now).
"BEWARE of false teachers (prophets), who come to you in sheep's clothing, (they may seem "caring," attractive, friendly and many will have impressive religious titles) but inwardly they are ravenous wolves." ("Wolves" destroy and devour the "sheep")(Matthew 7:15).
Clearly, the churches have not heeded this biblical warning.
Claus' facts were straight though possibly a bit overstated, and his reality may be a little twisted, but not far off the mark. You, sir, seem to be parking your head in the sand a bit if you truly believe what you have written.
Cheers,
The claims Claus made may have been overstated but they are far from ridiculous. They are grounded in fact that exists not just then, but still to this date.
I would ask this of you sir: Christians have been persecuted, but have Christians ever persecuted others? And no, the holocaust does not count.
ReplyDeleteI believe we can start with the crusades, and what some churches are doing to others today as it pertains to homosexuality is indeed persecution in its finest form. Having lived in the South, I can tell you tales of persecution when a white male dated a black female. Both were persecuted (hunted down and beat up pretty bad) and cast out from their respective churches for their tresspass. I have friends whose mothers have cast them from the house, and had them banished from the church because they married "a protestant"! They ended up moving out of the state due to the problems. Persecution is alive and well.
ReplyDelete@Anonymous
ReplyDeleteCongratulations Sir Anonymous,
You have correctly identified a bordering on troll comment. I was wondering on if anyone would really pick up on my rather severe and inappropriately exaggerated response to Claus, and you have. I align more with you in actual belief but wanted to stir the pot of this blog to see the temperament of the people on it. I hope in the future your responses will be named so I may pick you put of the crowd of Anonymous that you currently reside in. Thank You.
As for your 10:08 post I would contend that people are the persecutors not Christians. All people persecute one another Christian or not. Talking about one specific religions historical crimes is merely a moot point.
@John L - I agree that people are the persecutors, but when they do it in the name of Christianity, and from the pulpit nonetheless...
ReplyDeleteI have often thought of the issue being the religions and their sects (I know it is not popular to call them scts but I find no better word to lump in Baptist, Catholic, Shiite, Coptic, Suni, etc. so ...).
Man has corrupted God with religion.
@ John, Your points, by the number:
ReplyDelete1) Yes, When the Spanish armada entered into the Americas, it wasn’t with flowers and boxes of chocolate. They forced the local indigenous populations to conform to their religion or die. Another one, The purge of non-believers by the Catholic church during the Spanish Inquisition. The subjugation of the Knights of Malta by the Templar knights at the direct orders from the Pope. History is pretty clear. People rule the religion and it is the people that are at fault, not the religion. I’m not blaming Christianity. As far as I can see and read, it is meant to be a peaceful religion.
2) You misread what I wrote, but that’s ok. What I said was the Christianity “followed” the downfall of the Roman Empire. Reading comprehension is not your strong suit?
3) Many points on this last one, so try and keep up. Firstly, Look up the Medici family and how many Popes they had planted in the Roman Catholic church and then come back to me w/ your assertions. I don’t deny that Christians have been killed, but so have so many others in the name of the Christian religion. As for the Pope ruling the “Minds”… ROFL. Judaism didn’t have the same type of organization despite having, fundamentally, the same religious beliefs. They didn’t have the soldiers, armies, regents, etc… to force others into submission. They were persecuted by the Christians and, often, killed or tortured for their beliefs by those that were of the Christian mindset. And yes, that was intentional.
It is not the religion that is bad, it’s the people and their intentional application of their beliefs to their interpretation of the religion that is bad. The Catholic church is, in this case, vilified by many as their actions over the centuries have been less than pure, but I don’t believe they would have been successful had they been less aggressive in their pursuits. Despite being celibate, there have been sons of popes that have become popes. Don’t you see that there is something awry here?
Svenbjom J. said...
ReplyDelete"I would ask this of you sir: Christians have been persecuted, but have Christians ever persecuted others? And no, the holocaust does not count."
Yes, look at medieval Europe. The jews were persecuted by the Christians and forced to live in substandard conditions as they were not of the same faith.
And yes, the holocaust does count. You can't discount the killings of thousands of people, ever.
Marie,
ReplyDeleteThis is a great post. Honestly. As a, for a lack of a better term, Christian skeptic, this hits home. I find it interesting to know why Michael thinks the way he does.
Michael, explain why Christianity is right in the first place. what are you basing this on besides, well, the Bible? (you must see the error in all this...)
I believe that's what the I, the first anonymous person hit home with. And once you take into account all that he said, then Michael's comments have an increase in strength.
ReplyDeleteThere is a crucial difference that we must make between the Bible being valid and the Bible being true. The Bible can certainly record history truthfully but that doesn't make all the claims of Jesus Christ true objectively. What the first anonymous began to do is demonstrate how the Bible is valid. Michael's responses logically examines the proven valid claims of Jesus and demonstrate how they are objectively true..
Does that make sense 9:12AM Anonymous?
Proving the Bible is true is a major two step process of historically verifying the claims through corroboration and philosophically analyzing if they can be the truth that governs the entire world.
And seeing the great wave of atheists that have converted to Christianity the past few years after studying the historicity of the Bible (ie. Lee Stroble, David Wood) clearly hints at where the answers lie.