Inside Catholic is carrying a repeat of a review of God is not great. Reviewer Benjamin D Wicker suggests it belongs in the 18th Century, when it was still possible to claim that religion poisons everything.
That was before the French Revolution, before Stalin, before Hitler, before Mao, before Pol Pot; in short, before any actual attempt to politically eliminate either Christianity in particular or all religion in general, and set up a regime based entirely on secular foundations. Before it was ever tried in earnest, the intellectual atheist could wade through many a hypothetical reverie of the innocent and Edenic future of practical atheism.
The article explores Christopher Hitchin’s brief response to the appalling record of atheistic regimes, and concludes:
If Hitchens really wants to be an atheist, he should have girded his loins before taking up his pen, and taken a good, long, hard, sobering, honest look at the blood and darkness of the 20th century, almost all of it done in the name of unbelief.
If he had, he would have to conclude that it is not religion that poisons everything, but human beings that poison everything, including religion and atheism. They also poison garden clubs, baseball teams, industrial corporations, moose lodges, academic departments, and charitable trusts. In short, wherever one finds humanity, one also finds inhumanity. But that is a point for Christianity — indeed, a point of doctrine. The doctrine of original sin, noted Chesterton, “is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved.”For both believers and unbelievers, it is a sobering thought that the same kind of hypocrisy, cruelty, sloth, cowardice, pride, short-sightedness, shallowness, injustice, and greed is found among believers and unbelievers. The error of Hitchens is to assume that because he finds all these vices among believers, it is belief that causes vice — even among unbelievers.
JP, I’m a believer, but I gain great pleasure from reading Hitchens, he is an absolute gem of a polemicist. His book is unconvincing, but is a joy to read, unlike the leaden and dreary “God Delusion”.
“If Hitchens really wants to be an atheist, he should have girded his loins before taking up his pen, and taken a good, long, hard, sobering, honest look at the blood and darkness of the 20th century, almost all of it done in the name of unbelief”
The reviewer hasn’t read enough Hitchens. Hitchens is acutely aware of this objection, and has often kicked it over with some panache. I do not agree with his atheism, but I do agree with him that the twentieth century is a poisoned chalice for Theist apologetics.
The Nazi movement and the Soviets both made use of what they had inherited. In Germany Hitler was able to tap into a deep vein of anti Jewish hatred. That hatred wasn’t simply the fault of “the Church” but it was inseperable from the folk religious culture of Germany. The soviets inherited a pliant and submissive population, a population which had been thoroughly trodden down by a combination of Tsarist authority working in tandem with the all pervasive Russian Orthodox Church.
I don’t think the twentieth century argues for or against Theism. But although I am a theist, I simply don’t accept the increasing tendency for theists to blame its horrors on atheism.
The “t” on my key-board keeps sticking, sorry about the incomplete words 🙂
Mr Badger, the reviewer’s point, and mine in posting the quotes, is not that atheism is to blame for the excesses of the 20th century, but rather that neither theism nor atheism have anything to boast about – and the problem is not faith or lack of faith, but pride, hypocrisy, greed, envy, lust, and so on.
I’d be happy to leave it at that, if people didn’t keep throwing up this idea that the world would be better off without religion. It is fair in this context to look at societies that have attempted to destroy religion and see if they have been gentler, kinder, more tolerant places to live.
(I wouldn’t, personally, include Nazi Germany; it definitely wanted to destroy the Church, but it is pretty clear that it was pagan rather than atheist.)
Oh yes, definitely not atheistic.
“My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)
Yes, but religion is such a convenient and easy to use rallying cry. And the people fall for it time and time and time again!
Hitler’s Chrsitianity was rather bogus seeker, but he was after all a politician.
Scholars do differ on how deep Hitler’s beliefs went. Though there is no doubt he used it for political ends that doesn’t necessarily mean that there was nothing there and it was just a costume he donned when convenient.
And no matter what Hitler thought, there were plenty of devout Christians who believed and followed him and these are the people who made up Nazi Germany – not one short man with funny lip fuzz.
“For both believers and unbelievers, it is a sobering thought that the same kind of hypocrisy, cruelty, sloth, cowardice, pride, short-sightedness, shallowness, injustice, and greed is found among believers and unbelievers. The error of Hitchens is to assume that because he finds all these vices among believers, it is belief that causes vice — even among unbelievers.”
## Isn’t that a reason for ditching religion ? If bad non-belief produces axe-murderers & serial rapists, and bad religion produces holy wars, surely it would be better to have decent honest rapists and murderers who don’t claim that “God/the Church/religion told them” to slaughter people.
Ted Bundy was a murderer, but at least he had the grace not to claim a religious or Divine sanction for his crimes. Unlike parts of the Old Testament, which attribute truly Hitlerian crimes to certain “Bible heroes” such as Joshua & Samuel. The book of Esther ends in a pogrom – intended for Jews, but in the event committed by them.
There are some truly vile things in the OT – but who wages war for the greater glory of Darwinism ? If Joshua is excusable, then so is Hitler. Imagine what would happen, if rather than reading of the exterminations carried out by the Hitler of the Old Testament – see the Book of Joshua for the details – Christtians were treated to the glorious deeds of the Joshua of Germany. I hope there would be extremely strong objections: but what is the difference between the total extermination of the people of Jericho & other towns, and the extermination of the people of Lidice in WW2 ?
Hitlerism, far from being atheistic, is more like a heresy: it’s a form of the Reich Gottes, the Kingdom of God, with a different Messiah, but with many of the ideas of the “political theology” of the religion of Israel. It’s quite possible that Hitler truly believed he had been raised up by God to save Germany from the horrors of Judaism & Communism.
Christianity is capable of truly appalling evil; that all men do evil is not a defence, if Christianity gives a more bitter taste to man’s propensity for fiendishness. If that must be crime & evil, why must the worst kind – Christian evil – be tolerable, given its uniquely destructive power ?
*Corruptio optimi pessima corruptio*
It’s true that the best Saints have a certain something that the best pagans don’t; but is the happiness of the world worth the likelihood that rather than bringing forth holiness, religion will bring forth crime ? Saints are rare, but evil-doing is not.
“If bad non-belief produces axe-murderers & serial rapists, and bad religion produces holy wars…”
A false dichotomy, Kerberos. Bad ideas lead to mass deaths – whether the ideas concern belief in the State, the Volke, the Cross, the Cresent, Quetzalcoatl, or the Free Market. People have died – and in huge numbers, for each of these – and more. (The Free Market? To take just one example, the millions of deaths resulting from laissez-faire policies under British administration in India in the late Victorian age, when people died of famine while other people exported food to the West.)
We’ve discussed the Old Testament massacres before on this blog – and I’m not going at this point to say more. But there are hundreds of millions of deaths in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries that cannot be ascribed to theistic beliefs. It is an error to think that only theistic beliefs cause such deaths. It is also an error to believe that we can do away with ‘isms’ of all kinds, though if anyone can be said to have done that, it is the saints.
“A false dichotomy, Kerberos.”
I don’t think you addressed my point – which is, not that both have domne bad things, but, that since religion gives a sanction to evil behaviour, even though atheists also often claim some kind of sanction for theirs, it seems rather pointless to have two forms of nasty behaviour rather than one.
Does the evil done by capitalism require that religion – which has a rather dubious record in any case – should also have the opportunity to do evil ? Why should religion be permitted to add to the misery in the world, given that man has no need of it to do evil; and given also, that it made evil even worse (e.g. pagan Judaism was sharpened, not lessened, by Christian hatred of the “Deicides”) ? At least the adoration of the Almighty Dollar is often held in tension with some form of Christianity – so the adoration of money often has a curb of some kind. Christianity gone bad, OTO, often has no such curb.
That, I think, is a different point again. And I agree that much religion is one of the things that has been used to sanction evil. But the idea that getting rid of religion will get rid of evil is just silly in my view.
It would be nice to get rid of Christianity gone bad (and every other ‘ism’ gone bad for that matter). Not likely to happen this side of the Kingdom, though
I fixed the ‘t’.
JP, thanks for the edit 🙂 I’ll try and type my the reply properly…
Firstly, the horrors of the 20th century can’t be used to cogently indict atheism, and when Hitchens gave an ati-theist take on that period it was only in response to the charge that atheism was to blame. Therefore I conclude that the 20th century is no help to anyone one in the theist / atheist debate, and that this claim by the reviewer “If Hitchens really wants to be an atheist, he should have girded his loins before taking up his pen, and taken a good, long, hard, sobering, honest look at the blood and darkness of the 20th century” was very misguided. And there is reason to believe that Hitchens has, with his own eyes, seen a great deal of the blood and darkness of the modern world.
I don’t agree with the conclusion Hitchens reaches. But his claim that “religion poisons everything” derives from a particular premise, and it is a premise that is untouched by the popular “what about the Nazis” response. (not criticising this reviewer now). The premise is that when human beings form beliefs about morality etc that are simultaniously unfalsifiable, unverifiable, and non-negotiable because they claim supernatural warrant, endless strife follows. That’s his claim, the lunatic beliefs of the Nazis and fit this in that they claimed a quasi-mystical pagan basis. Like you, I think that his claim can be refuted, but I also think that those who then bring up “the atheist regimes”miss the point.
Nice post Badger! Its well thought out and I agree with a good 9/10s of that!
Seeker, with respect to Hitler’s views I would utterly reject the assertion that his programme was a Christian one. I’d say that whether his version of Christianity was purely political, or in some sense believed. He also held views about ancient Germanic culture, which appear to have been sincere. J.R.R. Tolkein, who actually knew something about ancient Germanic culture, lamented Hitler’s disgusting parody of it. In the same way, even if he did regard himself as a Christian, he was woefully misinformed about Christianity to say the very very least.
Hitler seems to have believed that Jesus was an Aryan, and that the Christian religion as given by Christ was corrupted into proto-Bolchevism by St Paul and the early Church.
Even in the 1922 quote Seeker gives above, he paints a portrait of Jesus (as a man who summoned others to fight against the Jews) that is not a recognisably Christian view.
“Yes, but religion is such a convenient and easy to use rallying cry. And the people fall for it time and time and time again!”
True, Seeker – whether the religion in question is Christianity, Islam, Mayan, the Nazi State, Communism, the Free Market, Black Power…
People fall for rallying cries time and again.
We have a strong drive to circle the wagons, with “us” on the inside taking potshots at “them” on the outside – and any and all “isms” can be used to convince us that we’re under attack, and that our only defence is to attack back harder.
“We have a strong drive to circle the wagons, with “us” on the inside taking potshots at “them” on the outside – and any and all “isms” can be used to convince us that we’re under attack, and that our only defence is to attack back harder.”
## That sounds like a version of what C. S. Lewis calls “The Inner Ring”, of being “in the know”. Christianity is AFAICS a form of “Inner Ringism”; in practice, even though it shouldn’t be. Unfortunately, it’s unrealistic because distracting to think of how things should be, rather than of how they are 😦
What you say is very relevant to the martyr-complex so many Christians seem to have.
Sad 😦
“The premise is that when human beings form beliefs about morality etc that are simultaniously unfalsifiable, unverifiable, and non-negotiable because they claim supernatural warrant, endless strife follows. ”
The counter premise then would surely be that when human beings form beliefs about morality etc that are scientifically-based, peace follows.
And it self-evidently doesn’t.
Which is the entire point of the review.
No, no, no, that wouldn’t be the counter premise. The counter premise is that morality shouldn’t be based on the will of a supernatural being. As to whether peace is possible he doesn’t claim to know. As to the best basis for morality, that is a new question. He is talking about removing what he believes to be one source of strife. I hope what you said isn’t the entire point of the review. If it is, the review is pointless.
.
“…The counter premise then would surely be that when human beings form beliefs about morality that are scientifically based, peace follows.”
Says Joyful.
The counter premise would surely not be.
The strife among conflicting belief systems is caused by what Montaign calls ‘differences of opinion’ not by a lack of scientific basis.
Toad would also greatly appreciate an example of a ‘belief about morality’ that is scientifically based.
Toad,
I don’t think JP is suggesting morality actually can be scientifically based, merely that in modern times power plays need to claim a pseudo-scientific basis. But they are chalk and cheese.
I must say, one of the strangest aspects of the Pope’s visit last year was seeing Dawkins at a protest rally reading out chunks of Hitler’s religious musings, and I just thought, “No, Hilter was a lousy theologian too”. I doubt is was his theology that persuaded too many people, rather his various appeals to fear and loathing.
Badger, if you could recommend where Hitchins deals with the 20th Century atheism issue I would be interested to read it. But in the argument you have presented, there is a missing step. Perhaps German and Russian religious traditions may have generated dangerous social conditions. But it was the post-Christian ideologies, admitting no concept of mercy, that actually did the deeds.
“Perhaps German and Russian religious traditions may have generated dangerous social conditions. But it was the post-Christian ideologies, admitting no concept of mercy, that actually did the deeds.”
Perhaps, indeed.
Toad was taught open anti-semitism in a North London Catholic school in the mid-fifties.
The Catholic Church can do, and can never have done, anything wrong. It seems.
Meteorites, forsooth!
.
.
This blog seems recently to have grown very silly. Shame.
Sun spots, possibly.
No one is asserting that Hitler was a good theologian or even a good Christian – simply that it is over simplistic and even facile to claim he or his regimen was atheist.
I think the point is one I made earlier and that everyone can agree on – religion is a very useful rallying tool for inciting violence, prejudice and discrimination and has been used as such countless times through the ages. This is NOT to say that religion is evil in itself but it certainly does have quite a severe Achilles Heel that perhaps atheism doesn’t have to the same extent. Religions create a strong sense of community and a defined and specific sense of ‘us’ as opposed to ‘them’. This makes them weaker to perceived threats – as joyful said its the impulse to ‘circling the wagons’. Atheism, for better or worse, just doesn’t have the same sense of common identity or community as the various religions do so it is nigh impossible to rally the troops in any coherent or durable way.
And the shame is that religion doesn’t seem to be equally effective a rallying call for peace as it is for violence. The most religious nations in the world (such as the Muslim countries of Pakistan, Afghanistan etc plus America ‘In God we trust’) are not the most peaceful of nations nor known more as a cradle for peace than a stage for war.
Yes, I agree with both those points, Seeker. Though people seem to be able to turn anything into a rally point. All that is needed is a set of shared myths – we rally around stories. (I use ‘myth’ in the sense of a story that expresses a world view, whether or not it has an historical basis.)
With this in mind, should we perhaps be concerned about some of the shared myths (such as the Galileo was persecuted for the sake of science story) that atheists have inherited from Protestantism?
I think rallying calls are only needed for violence. You can’t use rallying calls to promote peace. It was tried in the last century, and led to broken heads and worse. Peace arises from an interior change that leads an individual to see all other individuals as part of ‘us’ rather than part of ‘them’. That interior change can be ‘caught’ from another individual, but it can’t be shared with the masses via demagoguery.
“should we perhaps be concerned about some of the shared myths (such as the Galileo was persecuted for the sake of science story) that atheists have inherited from Protestantism?”
On the proviso that no Church official ever suggested to him that his safety could be endangered by the free pursuit of his astronomical research and the free interpretation and dissemination of that research, I agree he wasn’t persecuted.
I didn’t say he wasn’t persecuted. I said he wasn’t persecuted for the sake of science. Rather, he was imprisoned (albeit in a luxurious apartment and later in his own house) and put on trial because he embarrassed and insulted the Pope in the course of publishing ideas that were unprovable by the technology of the time and considered ridiculous by the majority of his contemporary scientific establishment.
To the extent that the Church claimed any right to rule on Astronomical theory, or its dissemination, or its interpretation, his persecution was, —to that not inconsiderable extent—, for the sake of science.
I’d buy that he was persecuted for the right to speak freely.
But I’m against chronological snobbery, as you know. The temporal government of the Church in the early modern era was wrong to think it had a mandate to pronounce on science where it thought science and heresy were interelated. But it was a temporal government of the early modern era – and needs to be judged by the standards of its contemporaries rather than by the standards of the 21st century.
From: Assessment made at the Holy Office, Rome, Wednesday, 24 February 1616
“…..The Most Illustrious Lord Cardinal Millini notified the Reverend Fathers Lord Assessor and Lord Commissary of the Holy Office that, after the reporting of the judgment by the Farher Theologians against the propositions of the mathematician Galileo (to the effect that the sun stand still at the center of the world and the earth moves even with the diurnal motion), His Holiness ordered the most Illustrious Lord Cardinal Bellarmine to call Galileo before himself and warn him to abandon these opinions; and if he should refuse to obey, the Father Commissary, in the presence of a notary and witnesses, is to issue him an injunction to abstain completely from teaching or defending this doctrine and opinion or from discussing it; and further, if he should not acquiesce, he is to be imprisoned….”
Cardinal Bellarmine was persecuting Galileo for the sake of science simply by stating that (very scary, everyone knew that the Church could do worse if it so chose )threat.
It’s a lot more nuanced than that, Mr Badger, and can’t be summed up in one paragraph. The Wikipedia article gives a reasonably fair summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
Actually Gallileo did provide proof. His astronomical observations of the movements of Jupiter’s moons and the phases of Venus were irrefutable proof that the cosmos was not fixed – that moons revolve around planets. His observations on the movement of the tides is likewise evidence for heliocentrism – though he failed to account for the influence of the moon. Many scientists corroborated his findings at that time. Sadly the empirical and easily observable findings of science were considered inferior to the god given word of the Bible.
I also find your assertion that his findings were “considered ridiculous by the majority of his contemporary scientific establishment” curious in light of this excerpt from the wiki article on his life:
I note below that you did actually consult the wiki so I guess you may have skimmed over that paragraph. 🙂
“I note below that you did actually consult the wiki so I guess you may have skimmed over that paragraph.”
Is your day job as a urologist, Seeker?
“When he announced the discovery of four additional “moving bodies” in the sky, besides the mountains of the moon, and the stars of the Milky Way, the scholarly world launched an unprecedented fierce attack against him. Scientists denied that these discoveries had any value, seeing that they had been made “only by means of the telescope, an instrument notoriously unworthy of confidence.” Vasco Ronchi comments, “It must also be pointed out that a very long time elapsed before the old skepticism yielded to Galilean faith in lenses; it took several generations to achieve this transition” (p. 414, Vol. III, Dictionary of the History of Ideas).”
Goodness me! Even the scientists were brainwashed by the evil church into trusting the bible over science! 😛
Nope. Its merely a little hobby of mine. 😛 And in the interests of getting the facts right (as opposed to making a point that sounds good but doesn’t stand up to scrutiny) its actually the nurses or med lab staff who take the piss, not the urologists themselves.
As Chris would say, Peace! 😀
Whoops! Forgive my testiness. I hate shonky and out of context quoting of snippets of quotes but I am quite willing to concede that the fault is with the author of the article you are quoting from. Speaking personally, I always try to return to the original source to read it in full before quoting something so as to avoid any possibility of getting egg on my face.
Ps. The full letter can be found here: http://www.historyguide.org/earlymod/foscarini.html
Gah! These replies are confusing me. The above was meant to be down in the next set of replies. I’ll repost it there.
PS. I prefer my 1611 date for Gallileo’s acclaim (“His observations were confirmed by the observatory of Christopher Clavius, and he received a hero’s welcome when he visited Rome in 1611.”) to your quote from a modern physicist that it was a very long time. (“Vasco Ronchi comments, “It must also be pointed out that a very long time elapsed before the old skepticism yielded to Galilean faith in lenses; it took several generations to achieve this transition”)
Anyway, the paragraph you quoted doesn’t actually negate mine. It is very simple to see that there was initially a furore, the discovery was later confirmed by independent scientists who lauded Gallileo but that it still took several generations for there to be an institutional faith in evidence gathered from telescopes.
I wonder why it took several generations? Perhaps it was because those shonky lying telescopes were contradicting the infallible word of God? The cads! I’d trust the good Mother church over a bit of glass any day of the week! :p
The problem wasn’t so much the Bible, as that the institutional Church and the scientific establishment had put their faith in Aristotlean and Ptolemaic cosmology.
As to your 1611 date, it was the Jesuit university in Rome that confirmed his findings, and cardinals and bishops of the church in Rome (including Pope Paul V) that gave him a hero’s welcome and full day of celebrations.
‘Cardinal Francesco Mari del Monte, one of Galileo’s patrons, stated in a letter: “If we were still living under the ancient Republic of Rome, I verily believe that there would be a column on the Capital erected in Galileo’s honor.” Galileo described his reception in a letter to his friend Salviati: “I have been received and feted by many illustrious cardinals, prelates, and princes of this city, who wanted to see the things I have observed and were much pleased.” ‘
Please forgive another fairly lengthy quote:
“Although the Jupiter moons proved Ptolemy wrong, they did not prove Copernicus right. There existed alternative explanations of planetary movements. The great Danish astronomer, Tycho de Brahe, introduced an intermediate theory which, from a mathematical standpoint, was just as satisfactory as the Copernican system. De Brahe proposed a model in which the planets revolved around the sun and, together with the sun, revolved around a stationary earth. The general tendency among astronomers from about 1630 to 1687 was to prefer this model of explanation. In 1672 a scientist has as many as seven models to choose from.”
“Nor was Galileo willing to consider the possibility that planets moved in patterns other than circles, although this notion had been brought to his attention. In his Nuncius he rejects even an oval motion that is nearly straight since it “seems unthinkable and quite inconsistent with the appearances.” Galileo’s theory demanded circles as a physical reality.”
“The Copernican paradigm presented a major problem to scientists in the 17th century. If the earth did travel around the sun, as Copernicus claimed, the fixed stars ought to reveal an annual parallax (stellar displacement) due to the 186,000,000 mile difference in the position of the earth every six months. This question was not settled until Bessel’s discovery of such a parallax in 1838. In Galileo’s time, the absence of any visible stellar parallax implied that the stars were at a distance from the earth so immense as to be dismissed by all but a few as too astonishing to believe.”
References? Not that I doubt you, I just like to be able to see these things in context for myself. Especially when I have already read something that states something different.
And I am assuming that you are likewise of the mind that the point isn’t so much whether Galileo was right or wrong or whether or not therewere competing viewpoints, its more that NONE of the explanations based on scientific evidence and deduction had a hope of shifting the biblical viewpoint at that time and that this is why Galileo’s persistent promotion of his heretical heliocentric views earned the disapproval of the church of the day.
My immediate source was: http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0043.html
One of their sources was a letter from Galileo to Filippo Salviati, quoted in de Santillana, 1955, p. 23.
I think the Church was wrong. But I think your view about ‘shifting the biblical viewpoint at that time’ is also wrong. From the same article comes this quote from Cardinal Bellarmine:
“I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the center of the universe and the earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not go around the earth but the earth went around the sun, then it would be necessary to use careful consideration in explaining the Scriptures that seemed contrary, and we should rather have to say that we do not understand them than to say that something is false which had been proven.” Here’s a translation of the whole the letter: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/letterbellarmine.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Clavius
Christopher Clavius, by the way, was a Jesuit.
Another source on Clavius – the idea that he held to the geocentric model to the end of his life seems less significant in view of the fact that he died in 1612 aged 73. Not much time for changing of mind! 🙂
Oh pease! At least quote Bellarmine in context! It gives a somewhat different picture when you look at preceding paragraphs and the sentences that follow.
Whoops! Forgive my testiness. I hate shonky and out of context quoting of snippets of quotes but I am quite willing to concede that the fault is with the author of the article you are quoting from. Speaking personally, I always try to return to the original source to read it in full before quoting something so as to avoid any possibility of getting egg on my face.
Ps. The full letter can be found here: http://www.historyguide.org/earlymod/foscarini.html
Bah! What a load of camel dung!
The excerpt quoted of Bellarmaine’s letter might reflect an informed and open mind but the full letter makes it very clear its not!
In summary:
Point 1 – promoting the heliocentric view is going to get you in a whole world of hot water with the Church! Be warned!
Point 2 – we have agreed at Trent how to interpret scripture and this ain’t it! You better have a good hard think about how the church can possibly go back on what it has said. You have been warned!
Point 3 – If what you say actually has proof (which it hasn’t coz I ain’t seen it) then we have a problem. Since the Church, from the beginning, has taken a very literalist approach to the Bible we have to tread carefully if something is proved to directly contradict it. We’re going to have to think on our feet and maybe throw out some terms like ‘meta narrative’ etc etc. Anyway, as I said, there’s no proof and we’ve got to stick to the literalistic interpretation. Don’t forget, you’ve been warned!
I’ve got my laptop cooking neural nets all night, so I’ve come to see what’s cooking here. It’s the middle of the night, so maybe my brain is half asleep, but I do find some rather odd equivalances being suggested.
Toad, you may indeed have been taught anti-semitism in the 50s, and that it shameful. However, were you taught that your enemies must be slaughtered without mercy?
Of course religion acts as a rallying point for the wagons, but in the case of Catholicism (and I claim no further) it acts as an absolute break on the methods that can be used. Setting aside any supernatural claims, it has learned over the centuries that slaughter really doesn’t work. This is something that the brave new regimes just never seem to learn.
Seeker, atheists and others appear perfectly capable of rallying together to oppose the influence of religion. Where do you stand on abortion, as it is actually practiced throughout the developed world? Do you think it will stand up in the judgement of future generations? Or do you think the Church’s unfashionable stand against this form of violence will turn out to be prophetic?
I think that the ‘rallying’ together you claim to see atheists doing to oppose religion is a very pale imitation of what is easily and frequently carried out in the name of religion. If Christians are sheep then atheists are goats – more inclined to go their own way and do their own thing without reference to the group.
As for abortion, I was very very opposed to it as a Christian and as a new atheist I have not really changed my opinions much. It is very much an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff and I think that it is a failure on the part of society to properly educate our people in reproductive issues. I recently read an extremely interesting article about a study showing that a major group of the ‘users’ of abortion are young Asian women for whom contraception is very much frowned upon and taboo. Many of these women go on to have repeat abortions. A society that snorts it’s young has got some serious problems to address.
Having said that, I don’t think the church has much to crow about considering that it’s ban on contraception is very much contributing to the problem.
Obviously that should have been ‘aborts’ not ‘snorts’ though I am willing to concede that a society that snorts it’s young also has problems. 😛
.
“Another interesting example is the study on meteorites. In the 18th century, science dismissed stories of fiery bodies dropping to the sky as myths. How silly of the peasants to believe their own lying eyes, eh?”
Manus
Toad has got his little green teeth into this one and is not about to let go lightly. Viz his reply on an earlier ‘post.’ Let’s hear it for ‘stones from the sky!’
Re: This post, which Toad goes a fair way in agreeing with, aks if Toad was tought that “his enemies should be slaughtered without mercy..?”
Well, in a way he was, but not at school. During, and after the War, virtually everyone, including Catholics as far as I could see, was agreed that the Germans and Japanese should suffer just that fate. And it is exactly what Franco did to his ‘enemies’ for being anti Franco, including ironically, some priests. 30,000 people are still buried in unmarked ‘graves.’ here.
And, no, Joyful and Manus that doesn’t excuse the French Revolution or Stalin’s purges or the Holocaust or the Saint Bartoleme massacres.
(Or the dreaded Spanish Inquisition, which was, according to CP&S, no more than a cheerful bit of high spirits, enjoyed by all.)
“(Or the dreaded Spanish Inquisition, which was, according to CP&S, no more than a cheerful bit of high spirits, enjoyed by all.)”
I would say Toad that you are being unfair. But no, we really did learn on CP&S that the reason it lasted so long was that the Spanish people loved it.
Yes, the American historian Thomas Madden, whose article was published on CP&S did say “the Spanish people loved their inquisition” – which I think is going a bit far. Loved? I’d hate to think so. But preferred to what they saw as the alternative? I think that’s reasonable.
What Madden said was:
“The Spanish people loved their Inquisition. That’s why it lasted so long. It stood guard against error and heresy, protecting the faith of Spain and ensuring the favor of God.”
Definitely a provocative statement, I’ll give it that!
.
As to the poor old primitive Portugese peasants who couldn’t believe their ‘lying’ eyes, Toad has to say his poor old minces are pretty dodgy these days.
And he often finds out later that he was wrong to believe what he thought he saw.
But his eyes, though beady, are not ‘liars,’ just mistaken.
Toad,
Let’s separate out the strands.
Regarding the wholesale slaughter of enemies, my point is that although Catholics are instinctively drawn to slaughter as much as anyone, the teaching of the Church insists on mercy and moderation offered to everyone. This may fail in specific circumstances, of course; you will doubtless claim that the Church failed to do enough to stop the Fascist side in Spain, for example. But no one can claim to speak for the Church and to suggest that wholesale merciless slaughter is good and appropriate. Those untainted by claims of divine revelation have no such restrictions placed upon them. I was of the impression that this made a difference in the history of the 20th Century, which is why I am interested in Badger’s references to Hitchens on the topic.
If you want chapter and verse on meteorites I can give you that.
.
As Toad asked elswhere, just how it could be possible that Halley and Newton believed meteorites to be myth, will do for starters.
But chapter and verse would be extra nice. If not too long.
Agreed, slaughter is bad.
“Those untainted by claims of divine revelation have no such restrictions placed upon them.”
That would be Toad, and Hitchens and Dawkins, for three.
That’s why our collective hobby is slaughtering people, preferably Cathoilcs, by the thousands, (when we are not busy telling lies about Fatima, that is.)
Toad would also greatly appreciate an example of a ‘belief about morality’ that is scientifically based.
How about this :
The ancients believed that male semen was literally seed which grew in the “earth” of the womb. Therefore, they held that the male seed was a human person in potential (similar to how we hold that a fertilised ovum is a human person in potential). It followed the spilling semen on the ground (Onan) was a horrific crime.
Now that science tells us that semen is not a seed and that conception also requires the female egg, we don’t view the morality of spilling semen in the same way.
God Bless
It is interesting that U.S. Pew Polls show that practicing Christians are MORE LIKELY to support violence and war than atheists.
On that matter, atheists do appear to have a higher moral standard, and one closer to Christ, than Christians do (statistically speaking).
Perhaps there’s at least something to this free thinking and going your own way, resisting the predominate ideology ?
God Bless
Well, you know what they say, Chris: “Going to church doesn’t make you a Christian any more than going to a garage makes you a mechanic.”
Mind you; it depends on the question. For example, a person could be anti-war but pro-abortion. So are they against violence or in favour of it?
That said, I’m all in favour of resisting ideologies (we could debate which ideologies are predominant). In my experience though, most people aren’t very good at it; they tend to just swap ideologies.
This doesn’t any make sense. Most people go to the garage to get their car fixed because they know that they aren’t mechanics and have no hope of being one. If they had some delusion that they were mechanics they wouldn’t take it to a garage they would try to fix it at home themselves.
In contrast, most people go to church because at some level they already consider themselves to be Christians. They don’t go simply to fix a problem, pay their dues and not return again till they have another problem they can’t fix and need someone else to deal with.
“They don’t go simply to fix a problem, pay their dues and not return again till they have another problem they can’t fix and need someone else to deal with.”
Actually, that’s an excellent description of the mind-set of many people who are Christians out of social habit rather than personal conviction.
Many, which is why I highlighted the word ‘most’ instead of asserting that all people who go to church consider themselves Christian.
I am well aware of the phenomenon of submarine Catholics who only surface for the main events and when there is a problem. But I would be staggered if you suggested to me that they form a significant part of the Christian population. I would also assert that those who attend church out of a social habit eventually end up not attending at all. It generally takes personal conviction to keep up with the inconvenience of Sunday morning services.
Toad, I think I’ve made my point. You have the greater freedom. Speaking personally I’d trust you with my life.
Right, meteors.
Two brief snippets. One as an independent witness from a paper by Ursula B. Marvin in Meteoritics and Planetary Science, 31, 545-588 (1996) – I have downloaded the full paper. Thus, the abstract begins:
“In 1794, Ernst F.F. Chladni published a 63 page booklet (German title given) in which he proposed that meteor stones and iron masses enter the atmosphere from cosmic space and form fireballs as they plunge to Earth. These ideas violated two strongly held contemporary beliefs: (1) fragments of rock and metal do not fall from the sky, and (2) no small bodies exist in space beyond the Moon. From the beginning, Chladni was severely criticised for basing his hypotheses on historical eyewitness reports of falls which others regarded as folk tales and for taking gross liberties with the laws of physics.”
And so then to our dear friend Stanley K Jaki and his book on (ahem) Fatima, p41:
“Scientists who frown on reports by non-scientists should pause. Once the Academie des Sciences in Paris decided that eyewitness accounts about fiery streaks dashing towards the earth could not be trusted, meteorites were discarded from the collection of other scientific academies as well (ref). No less a scientist than Lavoisier changed the written statement of an eyewitness because it countered his disbelief in meteors. Laplace shouted, “We have had enough of such myths,” when his fellow academician Marc-August Pictet urged, in the full hearing of the Academie des Sciences, that attention be given to the report of a huge meteor shower that fell at L’Aigle, near Paris, on April 26, 1803. Quite a contrast with the attitude of the bishop of Zagreb who, following a meteor shower on May 26, 1751, at nearby Hraschina, ordered his Consistory to secure sworn testimonies from eyewitnesses. The action of the Consistory was “the only feasible and rational procedure under the circumstances, and deserves to be emulated,” wrote eventually Ernest F. F. Chladni (1756-1827), the founder of the science of meteoritics … ”
Of course, your eyes, or my eyes, could be mistaken, but if several independent eye witnesses see something, it is not always wise to allow the current scientific orthodoxy to apply whitewash to uncomfortable evidence.
And so to bed.
JP,
I think that organised Christian religion got into this mess because too many of its leaders supported war.
For example, many German Bishops during WWII maintained that Hitler’s wars were Just Wars and encouraged Catholics to sign up and fight for Hitler. The young Josef Ratzinger was one of them. Blessed Franz Josef Jaegerstadter, on the other hand, had to resist the advice of his Bishop in his heroic refusal to fight for Hitler.
The net result of all that was that Catholics too often support war and violence because our Bishops once did.
So, in this case at least, I think there IS a case that it is religion and not just people.
Hitchens makes a valid point that religion gone wrong can be very damaging, and it’s a point also made by B16, that faith without reason tends to fundamentalist extremism.
God Bless
The Church tax instituted by Hitler and still in force in Germany won a lot of ecclesiastical support for Hitler.
Yes; bribery is still bribery even if you don’t personally get to keep the money.
“I think that organised Christian religion got into this mess because too many of its leaders supported war. ”
Really? That’s it? Not because too many of its leaders (and their followers were hypocrites, prideful, ambitious, venial, arrogant, lustful etc etc etc… Not because they were self-centred rather than Christ-centred? Just because they supported war?
In the words of the technical adviser on the manual on incident investigation I’ve just completed: “You may have found the cause, but you can’t fix it till you find the reason.”
“Hitchens makes a valid point that religion gone wrong can be very damaging”
A clutch in a car “gone wrong” can be very damaging.
The point you attribute to Hitchens is one he would reject, and did not make. He believes religion “PER SE” is very damaging. Therefore you can’t co-opt him as an ally in this.
Though he did once wryly comment that Quakers may be harmless but should be “watched very very closely”
Ban all cars?
Exactly!! 🙂
It isn’t religion that is the problem, it’s people, even though some of those people are religious leaders.
“But I’m against chronological snobbery, as you know. The temporal government of the Church in the early modern era was wrong to think it had a mandate to pronounce on science where it thought science and heresy were interelated. But it was a temporal government of the early modern era – and needs to be judged by the standards of its contemporaries rather than by the standards of the 21st century.”
Yes the Church was (in part) a temporal government. As I’m against –moral relativism– I judge it and other governments of the time by the –timeless principle– that it is wrong to persecute free inquiry. For which Galileo was persecuted (cantankerous fellow that he admittedly was).
The fact that Galileo was, in the midst of a complex dispute, persecuted for the sake of science is a simple documented truth. Not an atheist or protestant distortion of history.
JP,
I think it more charitable to the German Bishops to say that they were simply mistaken on Just War.
To say that they and their followers were “hypocrites, prideful, ambitious, venial, arrogant, lustful etc etc etc” as you have said above would appear to be JUDGING them, something we’re not supposed to do.
God Bless
Assumedly when you judge their actions you judge that they were mistaken. Largely I agree with your judgement
I’m being Tongue in cheek btw Chris 🙂
Mr Badger,
I don’t read Hitchens as opposing religion per se but as opposing many of the bad things done in the name of religion. But perhaps I haven’t read as much of him as you have.
God Bless
Yes, I agree that it was wrong. And I see your point entirely. I guess by saying that he was not persecuted for the ‘sake of science’ I’m trying to conflate a whole lot of ideas – and succeeding only in not communicating very clearly.
The distortion of history comes in with the idea (summarised – and not just by me – as ‘Galileo was persecuted for the sake of science’) that the Church was and is anti-science, that Protestantism saved us from all of that, and that atheism is free from any tendency to persecution.
As I say, the Galileo situation was considerably more nuanced than the modern myth implies.
JP, ok if you unpack the baggage that people hear when they hear the Galileo story, then I’m much more inclined to agree with that. Eg as you say the fiction that the Chrurch was ant-science etc. But I wasn’t thinking of the Galileo affair as shorthand for all of that, I was thinking of it in and of itself. — But yes, in terms of the fashionable interpretation of what the affair meant, I largely agree with you.
Chris,
I think it is fair to say Hitchens is against religion per se, he gives examples of what he regards as results of religion, but they are secondary to his root and branch rejection of religion itself. I believe he would agree with that assessment.
For example Hitchens prefers the term “anti-theist” to “a-theist”. The idea is that he is not just not a theist, he is an atheist who is positively against theism. He also rejects non theistic religion such as Bhuddism etc.
I’m guessing that those summarising this idea are in most part Christian. Nothing like a having a good strawman to cut down! LOL!
Mr Badger,
Properly speaking, one doesn’t judge actions, one just assesses what the facts adduce about them.
Judging refers to the attempt to asses the internal motivation which gave rise to the actions.
That’s something humans cannot do, only God can.
Hence judging is the prerogative of God alone, not man.
God Bless
Í really was kidding around 🙂
Lol @ Chris’ asses! I wonder if he means the actual kind that Jesus apparently rode on or the metaphorical kind that he kicked in the Temple? 😛
Galileo was certainly persecuted by the Church (however you read it, house arrest and threats of torture still amount to persecution) and JPII apologized for the way the Church had mistreated him.
God Bless
Don’t take my word for it:
.
“Hence judging is the prerogative of God alone, not man.”
Come off it Chris.
What do you think we’re all doing on here?
.
Manus, as far as Toad is concerned, Newton is 18th Science. And Halley and his comet have their part.
Did they believe meteorites to be a myth? And, if they did, so what?
Scientists are allowed to be wrong,and to change their minds, and often do so.
Catholics, apparently, never can be and never do.
Gallileo. Toad is beginning to think this is where he came in.
And if you persuade them that the Church once did something wrong, they all scream,
“Alright! Alright! But the atheists did much worse things!”
This is all childish and silly and Toad is beginning to get a bit ashamed of himself for playing the game.
But he’ll get over it.
Dr Seeker prescribes a 50g dose of chocolate every two hours. You will find that helps you get over it quite nicely!
PS.I’m getting frustrated with not being able to go back into my posts to correct my shonky typing and spelling. 😦
Toad keeps on mentioning meteorites. The web of comments is now so intricate that I can’t quite see why???
They don’t exist so don’t worry about it. 😛
They do. As the sun circles around the earth its beams occasionally directly hit high flying birds, pertifying them, these then fall to earth where they are found by villagers, ground up, and used to cure Mormonism
Bahahahahaha! That make perfect sense so it just MUST be true!
Let’s not be too hasty at being reasonable here Mr Badger! There is still plenty of scope for arguing who was MORE right/wrong!
Let’s not be too hasty at being reasonable here Mr Badger! There is still plenty of scope for arguing who was MORE right/wrong!
(PS excuse the double comment – I’m getting confused with all the replies and lines and stuff like that.)
*turns the air blue with the vocal expression of my frustration*
I want a Delete key!
Basic summary is that there was a discussion on how eyewitness reports of meteorites were believed to be myths or fabrications and eye witnesses uneducated and unreliable. I think Manus likes this as corroborating the credibility of Fatima.
Thanks 🙂
I can’t be bothered tracing the conversation back, though I’m sure that you have over simplified whatever point Manus was making.
The sun of course orbits round the centre of gravity of the solar system, slightly off set from its exact centre. Not to mention its orbit around the centre of the Galaxy. Nice to know all involved in the dispute were wrong. Often the case 🙂
Let’s not be too hasty at being reasonable here Mr Badger! There is still plenty of scope for arguing who was MORE right/wrong!
(PS excuse the TRIPLE comment – I’m getting confused with all the replies and lines and stuff like that.)
You replied twice in a row in the wrong place! Oh dear! 🙂
It needs to be said that when you look at major Christian groups, the Catholic Church has thoroughly learned from its previous over-reaching in the realm of science. On the major issues of evolutionary theory, cosmology, the obvious possibility of intelligent life on other planets etc, the Church does not insist on a retreat from science. Creationism, ID theory, etc are absent from offical Catholic positions. Unlike many religious groups, a Catholic in good standing is not asked to put their head in the sand on any generally accepted scientific theory I am aware of.
This is partly a result of having over-reached and then learned from that mistake. Just what we claim to do.
You say that with such optimism and conviction!
I dare say that you are quite comfortable with your Pope’s recent foray into teaching evolutionary biology?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/europe/news/article.cfm?l_id=7&objectid=10721311
He shows a remarkable and embarrassingly poor grasp of the actual scientific theory of evolution. Indeed, humanity is an unintentional but non-random product of evolution, like all species. Do not confuse intention with non-randomness.
As Dawkins himself says:
Creationism requires simple “making people”. ID theory has evolution but requires specific interventions to get people.
Catholicism has a God as the source of the world, a world which in its development according to regular laws has produced a being with a limited capacity for God. No assigning purpose to evolution per se whatsoever. my point stands.
” the next time anybody dares to tell you sophisticated theologians have no problem with evolution, thrust Benedict XVI in their face.”
Richard Dawkins doesn’t read any significant works of theology as a point of pride. Which is fine, but it makes him look a bit half baked. Which is a shame as he isn’t.
As Woody Allen has put it (in Love and Death): “If it turns out there is a God, I don’t think He is evil. I think that the worst thing that you can say about Him is that He is an underachiever.”
Interesting Seeker, Reminds me of the character Death in ” Hogfather” (roughly) “this wonderful world and yet somehow you humans managed to invent boredom”
Rather over-egging the pudding, aren’t we? Sure, mutation is random and selection isn’t. All that’s being played on here is how broadly the context of “random” is applied. If the physical constants of the universe are themselves “random” rather than “designed” then fundamentally everything that happens is ultimately random, even biological selection. And clearly the contrast here is between fundamental purpose or its absence. Which is fair enough in a religious context.
Note also the language from Dawkins – “dare” indeed! What a waste to use such talent merely to incite contempt.
I’d far rather trust Benedict to make a sensible statement about biology (suported as he is by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences) then expect a sensible statement from Dawkins on theology.
This is an interesting blog article and the first few comments (which is as far as I read) make good points about how inherently contradictory the Catholic position is on evolution.
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/05/09/philadelphia-inquirer-is-the-catholic-church-down-with-evolution
I think it shows the same basic flaw as most such arguments, in that it assumes a God that exists within the constraints of space/time. If you first accept that God is outside of time (which I think has to be a given, or He can’t be the cause of time), then whether determinism or random change control evolution becomes moot. All times are present at once to God, and have been (from our perspective, since we can’t logically use time-based referrents for an eternal God) since the Word first called the entire space/time continuum into being.
We can only clearly see the bit of the tapestry we occupy, and glimpse parts of the rest. If we could see it as it really is, in four dimensions (at least 4), what we would see would include the wool growing on the sheep’s back, the misweavings and broken threads, and the internal digestive processes of the moths that ate it.
God sees like that, or He isn’t God.
Obviously I vote for your second option. Be that as it may, Benedict doesn’t show an adequate grasp of the theory of evolution and I do wonder whether this is something that in furture years will resemble the academic arguments and misinformation about the nature of the cosmos found in Galileo’s time.
The flaw in your claim is that Pope Benedict did not make a comment about evolution being random. What he said is that we were not the random product of evolution. There is a difference between claiming that evolution is random and claiming that a species is the random product of evolution. The first is making a statement about the processes of evolution. The second is making a comment about the results.
This is a matter of basic grammatical construction.
Synonyms for random: chance, accidental, haphazard, arbitrary, casual, unsystematic, hit and miss, indiscriminate, unplanned, unintentional. Antonym: deliberate.
If you say that evolution does not produce random (that is unplanned and unintentional) results, then you are rather agreeing with the Pope, methinks.
Following your excellent advice, Seeker, I checked the original (English translation) text of the Easter vigil speech, and found that the Pope did mention chance – in relation to the origin of the cosmos, not in relation to evolution. I also checked Richard Dawkins site, and found that his commenters don’t understand basic grammatical construction either. Sigh.
Incidentally, I neither know nor care whether the Pope understands evolution. That’s not his job. My only point is that the quote recognisably and demonstrably doesn’t mean what you and Dawkins have taken it to mean.
“.. I checked the original (English translation) text of the Easter vigil speech, and found that the Pope did mention chance – in relation to the origin of the cosmos, not in relation to evolution…”
Exactly JP, it was rather clear in the text!! I’ve seen no evidence whatsoever that the Pope doesn’t understand evolution.
All that really remains on this score is to understand the psychology behind people being unable to calmly read what the Pope actually said. They are, I presume, constantly looking for a “gotcha moment” where they can catch him out. Bit sad really
Hi All. Such fun. While I sympathise with Seeker about correcting one’s mistakes, they do provide plenty of scope for merriment. And I’m sure we can argue about who makes more mistakes and worse.
The meteor context is as follows. Scientists themselves over-reach when they claim that only science can deliver truth. Scientific methods are usually based on repeated observations. What cannot be repeatedly observed might be difficult to analyse in science, but that doesn’t mean that the phenomenon does not exist or is not part of “reality”, or is not “true”. The meteor example demonstrates something that we through science now accept as real, but in the past scientists actively dismissed because they had a higher regard for their theories than for observed facts (dodgy as observers often are).
Suppose meteors were extremely rare – as rare as Shaw’s invisible teapot floating between the orbits of the planets. If there were only one observed meteor shower, despite lots of witnesses, science might still take the view that they were all mistaken. That might well be the proper scientific position to adopt. That doesn’t mean that the meteors weren’t real, or that the observers were mistaken.
This is hardly controversial. We rely on witnesses all the time – in court, for example. If convictions were only ever made on the basis of scientific evidence, they would be pretty rare. This is why the position stated by Lewontin is in my view unbalanced. I’m a measurement guy – a facts guy – and expect theories to change to match the facts. Not the other way around.
Gotcha, tend to agree
Toad,
I have no idea what Newton or Halley thought about meteors. I’m glad you said “so what”, however, as it would be pretty tedious to chase it up. I hope you would accept the non-controversial statements made in the peer review journal cited above as to the state of the science at the beginning of the 19th century.
As for the rest, well, see my previous post. I’m sure we largely agree.
Toad has been a bit crabby recently, and he is sorry. So, here is a lovely pome wot he wrote for youse all.
(With (scant) apologies to Lewis (Carroll,
that is, not C.S.)
He thought he saw the midday sun cartwheeling in full vision
He looked again and saw it was
The Spanish Inquisition
“It’s very plain to see,” he said,
“There’ll be no clear decision.”
http://es.celldorado.com/ES/ADS/118980551?trackid=1553263627&publisherid=53785.
Magnifico!
Or “Phew, what a Scorcher!” as the Sun might report it.
.
It was Russell’s teapot, Manus
Shaw’s was up the spout.
I stand happily corrected, Sir Toad.
.
“Scientists themselves over-reach when they claim that only science can deliver truth.”
Manus has, thinks Toad, has put his finger smack on the nub here.
However, Toad must agree with the scientists – inasmuch as we should only concern ourselves with matters of overwhelming and convincing evidence.
Otherwise, we will waste our few pawkish years in this Vale of Tears wondering whether or not Catholicism, Marxism or Islamism, Calvinism, Quivering Brethrenism, (or any other sodding ‘ism’ including Toad’s Agnosticism) is the TRUTH.
And there is no truly convincing evidence for any of them.
(Only for some bits of ‘science’, such as water boiling at 100% centigrade at sea level, and some stuff about triangles. Nothing to speak of regarding meteorites.)
So, as the Great Hume suggests, “Best consign them all to the flames!”
(Best imagined spoken in an Edinburgh accent!)
And can we even be sure that we have evidence for water boiling at 100% centigrade at sea level, Toad?
I certainly remember being told that it is so, and I remember science class experiments that demonstrated it is so, and I remember that other people believe it is so – but I have also been told that my senses and my memory are unreliable…
Perhaps you are all illusions that I have invented to give me company in my isolation. Perhaps I am an illusion – a thought in the mind of the Omega Point, who is reinventing history as we speak in order to bring about its own existence. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_J._Tipler#The_Omega_Point_cosmology)
.
“And can we even be sure that we have evidence for water boiling at 100% centigrade at sea level, Toad?”
Asks Joyful, fearfully.
Fear not Joyful – the evidence is simply that it actually does so! Time after time!
Not a proof to be sure, but we didn’t say that did we?
Toad was anticipating – rather than this odd, un-Catholic, piece of scepticism from Joyful – a comment from her to the effect that the fact water boils at EXACTLY 100 degrees centigrade, rather than, say, 89.5 – was a sure proof that God exists. Oh, well.
Though what this has to do with perverted priests, Fatimania, and meteorites, God alone knows.
It’s all Gallileo’s fault, anyway. All of it. Him and his telescope.
I
It’s just that my skepticism is more absolute than yours, Toad. So I conclude that – since I can be sure of nothing – I can choose what to be sure of. Hence, my faith is based on a profound skepticism.
Go figure.
Toad, I don’t believe you for a minute – whoops, I’m being sceptical! What, the only things we should care about are those that can be assigned to a lab technician to discover and then confirm on a daily basis? Hogwash!
It is quite clear from where and how you choose to live that you care very much for the intangibles, however fraught you may get from time to time, and God help any poor so-and-so who actually thinks dull demonstrable facts are the only truths that matter. I’ve never met one, of course. Have you?
Seeker,
B16 has written in more detail on evolution in other places (see his book), so it ain’t such a great idea to caricature his position based on a few sentences in a homily.
Catholicism accepts evolution as a means used by God but not as a mechanism replacing God. Hence, the Holy Father said :-
It not an either/or here. It’s a both/and. Both God+Evolution.
God Bless
I find it all rather odd that you have to resort to such convoluted arguments to try and prove the existence of your god. Surely if he was as powerful and loving as you say he is, he would do everything in this power to make himself known to us. And don’t come back with the ‘Free Will’ argument because that just doesn’t cut it I’m afraid!
KA
KA, were you referring to a particular comment?
As for myself, I haven’t and won’t try to prove the existence of God. I will continue to try to explain what and why I believe – but proof? That’s between Him and you, and none of my business.
.
“It’s just that my skepticism is more absolute than yours, Toad.”
Says Joyful.
Oh, yea? Well Toad thinks his skepticism is ten times more skeptical than Joyful’s skepticism, and can bash her’s up any old day! So, ya boo, sucks!
(Yes, this blog is getting very silly. And it’s all Gallileo’s fault. And Torquemada’s. And the Diet of Worms.)
🙂
Doh! Now it’s all in bold, which makes it even sillier.
Must stop being skeptical and start being stoical.
I’ve wiped up your spill, got you a clean glass, and poured you another finger of Port.
Metaphorically speaking.
.
“What, the only things we should care about are those that can be assigned to a lab technician to discover and then confirm on a daily basis?”
No Manus, you know that, you naughty old thing.
What Toad is suggesting, (no more than that,) is that one shouldn’t waste time brooding fruitlessly over imponderables, like religion and Fatima and mythical meteorites.
Just enjoy life as best we can, from day to day, is the tentative answer.
Maybe. I dunno.
“Cultivate your own garden” as the great Voltaire recommends.
(Although, as is obvious on here, Toad doen’t always take his own advice.)
In my new and exciting role as a naughty old thing (NOT), let me make this further wicked suggestion:
The only thing more futile than fretting about imponderables, is fretting about other peoples’ fretting, on a website for fretters.
I’ve noticed you’ve really picked up on this meteor business – why do you find it so fascinating?
I mean, goodness, gracious, great balls of fire!
But JP, you make extraordinary claims about the power of your god. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, otherwise we think you’re just deluded
KA
KA, first, as I said above, I don’t owe you a proof. If God wants to prove Himself to you, and if you want to acknowledge your experience of God as real, that’s up to you and Him.
Second, I don’t accept your aphorism. You keep repeating this aphorism as if it is a universal rule. In its place, it’s okay. We should examine the evidence, and we should be skeptical. But you use it – like many other atheists – to reinforce your own presuppositions.
So tell me: what would qualify as extraordinary proof in your eyes? And how unbiased a view of the evidence do you think can take?
I expect to see proof that the claims you make about your god are true. Let him resurrect someone who’s been dead for 3 days in plain view of the world’s press. Let him move a mountain a couple of hundred miles from it’s current position. Let him create a new planet in our solar system. He’s done all these things or has been said to be able to do these things before, so let him put his money where his mouth is.
If he can’t do something as simple (for him) as this then I’m afraid I have no other choice than to believe you’re just all delusional – loveable, but delusional!
KA
What, hypothetically, would you do if those conditions were met?
First, KA, I don’t believe you. If these things or similar things happened in front of your own eyes, then you might personally believe. But anyone of your frame of mind who wasn’t there would readjust their view of reality to fit their preconceptions.
Second, two of your “tests” need qualification. He created the planets using the laws of physics (or so I believe). And the talk of moving mountains was a hyperbole to point out to the apostles how little faith they had. Neither of these are things that He ‘has been said to’ have done before in a way that could be watched by the press (unless they are very, very patient!)
Third, there are still stories about the dead being raised today. The press can check it out if they want to. They don’t want to. It doesn’t happen very often. But it happens. http://www.siena.org/Blog/April-2011/If-God-Does-Not-Show-Up-We-re-Dead
There’s a fairy tale theme in there – the princess who sets three impossible tasks as a price for her hand in marriage. But misses that the purpose of marriage is a relationship.
Of course, in the fairy tale she finds out that relationships are about love, not about party tricks.
Hi – I’d tried the link, but it’s dead. Any chance of a resurrection? Obviously I’d be very seriously interested.
Siena blog seems to be down, Manus. I can’t get any of their posts at the moment.
Ha JP!! every time there is a resurrection there’s an excuse 😉
Grammar meltdown.
I think if KA got his proof, with all its wizz bang drama, he would find himself submitting to a tyrant. I prefer the God that is real, the God of the Gospels who founded the Church and gave it its commission
The god of the gospels is not the god of the old testament – or if he is you’ve already got your tyrant!
KA
.
Toad keeps seeing demands for proofs on here. Don’t look for proofs! There are hardly any, and most of those are tautological.
Look, instead, for evidence.
Keep asking, “How do you know that? Where did you learn that?”
(What an old pedantic bore Toad is.)
“Of course, in the fairy tale she finds out that relationships are about love, not about party tricks.”
Sez joyful.
The ‘party tricks’ in question being what we now call ‘miracles.’ (As anyone who has ever been married can confirm.?
Toad, on another topic, can I point you to this article – and its comment string – on the Spanish Civil War?
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/05/a-spanish-lesson
KA,
I don’t require convoluted arguments to prove the existence of God. I think they have their place but they weren’t what convinced me.
What convinced me was my own experience of God whom I have heard, seen, touched, smelt, tasted. And I see, hear and experience his presence constantly.
And, yes, I’ve seen God move mountains (well, a small hill) in response to prayer, I’ve seen the dead alive, and I’ve seen illnesses healed.
And, no, it isn’t just me. Lots of people I know and trust have these experiences (probably most of humanity in some form at least once in their lives).
As for your claim that “The god of the gospels is not the god of the old testament”, I don’t think you’re reading the Old Testament correctly. Marcion once had the same idea but it never really caught on and was rejected by the Church a long time ago.
God Bless
Yes, Chris, absolutely agree.
I mentioned to KA some time ago my experience of reading the Old Testament front to back (skipping some of the begats, I must admit) – my overwhelming impression was of the mercy, love, and constancy of God.
Again and again, He demonstrated His love. Again and again, the people turned their back and dedicated themselves to breaching all of the commandments. Again and again He patiently started over.
The Old Testament God of popular myth has been created from a habit of proof-texting. The God of the Gospels is, indeed, the God of the Old Testament – a God of tender mercy, and powerful love; a God who does not turn back from His commitments.
Yes, well, riddle me this while we’re on the subject of proof-texting. I recently saw a Bible passage from Exodus used to illustrate the nature of God in a Christian initiation resource, here it is:
“The LORD, the LORD, a merciful and gracious God, slow to anger and rich in kindness and fidelity,
continuing his kindness for a thousand generations, and forgiving wickedness and crime and sin; yet not declaring the guilty guiltless..”
Yet it was cut off mid sentence, leaving out:
“.. but punishing children and grandchildren to the third and fourth generation for their fathers’ wickedness!”
So we have a rather different deity presented by Exodus than the preacher in question advocates do we not?
No, the author of the Christian initiation resource probably just knew that the omitted phrase would be misunderstood and therefore omitted it, following Jewish ancient rabbinic precedents.
The omitted “punishment” phrase refers to the natural consequences of sin which can often be passed down a few generations (eg child abuse).
To the ancient Semitic mind, the consequences of sin were not merely individual, but also communal.
God Bless
No punishing is pro-active. The consequence of sin are communal of course. But guilt is not hereditary, which is the moral problem with the passage, a passage which says punishment, not consequence.
The passage was left off because it would be understood, not misunderstood
To the ancient semitic mind, consequence was punishment.
guilt is not hereditary
What, then, of Original Sin ?
To the communal mind, the sin was committed by the community and therefore guilt was hereditary. Jesus seems to refer to this in the punishment of whole cities. In a sense, we do all bear a share of the guilt for sins we commit as a nation eg the role of our troops in Afghanistan. Come judgement day, I expect there’ll be a communal judgement as well as an individual one.
God Bless
I can’t let you have that one, Chris. Original sin is not sin in the sense that the word is commonly used; it is not a personal fault of which we are guilty; rather, it is a tendency built into our nature. If guilt were involved, babies who die would go to Hell, and the Church has never accepted that as a doctrine.
Communal responsibility in the sense of the need for the community to make reparation (a need that puts an obligation on each member of the community), yes. But guilt in the sense that the word is commonly used today – that is, the fact or state of having committed an offence – no.
I agree that the people of the time regarded consequences as punishment. Indeed, in common parlance today we still do. You hear people say to someone who has just dropped something on their foot after they’ve been told to be careful: ‘Well, that’s what you get for not listening to me.’
On reflection, I don’t know much about the “ancient semitic mind”, Semitic languages were spoken over a wide area in many cultures for centuries during antiquity. I suspect it is about as real as the “Celtic spirit” patronising term that it is.
If the consequence of sin is deleterious effects on ones clan, surely God, if he intervenes, would wish to intercede to save the innocent? Why is God presented as underwriting, indeed actively causing, the suffering of the innocent kins-folk of sinners??
Mr Badger,
It’s interesting that Deuteronomy 7:0-10 (probably redacted much later than Exodus) repeats the text, also omitting the inter-generational punishment.
So there appears to be excellent scriptural precedent for the passage used in your Christian initiation resource.
This later view seems to be a movement from communal responsibility towards individual responsibility, a movement also found in the prophets.
God Bless
In this one, I agree with Chris, Mr Badger. The Old Testament audience would have understood that the punishment (or in a more literal translation ‘visiting the iniquity of the fathers’) on the third and fourth generation was because of the likelihood that the sons would continue in the sins of the fathers. Certainly such a reading is consistent with other passages in the Torah.
This passage needs to be read in connection with other passages that make it clear that we bear the consequences of our own sin, not of the sins of others, such as: “Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children for their fathers; but only for his own guilt shall a man be put to death” (2 Chronicles 25:4).
If you look at the Hebrew/English comparison, it also becomes clear that we’re talking here about the transgression of the head of a clan bringing about consequences for the whole clan. http://biblos.com/exodus/34-7.htm
The word used for ‘fathers’ mean ‘chief’, ‘patronal figure’, ‘clan father’. And the mention of the third and fourth generation fits in with the family of the time being a clan under the greatgrandfather of its youngest members. So we’re talking about the collective responsibility of a clan for the decisions made by the head of the clan. For us Western individualists, it doesn’t have the same resonance that it did for communal people.
Chris
Nice. The point is that you altered the thrust of the passage by downplaying God’s agency. Where Exodus has God as an agent in the situation, you simply have natural consequences. That is an entirely different thing.
JP,
If we imagine the consequences of the action of a clan leader being visited upon his clan “collectively” then it is certainly less troublesome than his sin being payed for by each generation in turn “sequentially”.
However the role assigned to God still involves (as is often the case in traditional societies) “justice with collateral damage”.
Woops it’s all one mega-quote
“However the role assigned to God still involves (as is often the case in traditional societies) “justice with collateral damage”.”
Yes, indeed. And we have trouble with that, and should, I think.
Nonetheless, the modern mind has lost something that the ancient mind understood – the idea that the whole community in some sense is responsible when it doesn’t act collectively stop its leader from acting against the law or against justice.
The Chinese had a concept that their Emperor had a mandate from Heaven to rule. As long as he had the mandate from Heaven he could do no wrong. You knew he no longer had the mandate from Heaven when someone was successful in overthrowing him. A nice pragmatic solution to maintaining stability while allowing for change.
“Come judgement day, I expect there’ll be a communal judgement as well as an individual one”
Interesting thought, one could pass the individual judgement, and the national judgement, but then be consigned to the flames with ones entire book group. 🙂
Or garden club.
http://www.cartoonstock.com/directory/g/garden_show.asp
.
Joyful, thank you for the Civil War link.
“For most people, the Spanish Civil War is ancient history and the rare soul who bothers to look into it ..”
Says the writer, and he may be correct regarding the States, or where he’s from.- But it’s not true in Spain, where it seems that practically every book and novel is about it these days, along with many films.First,
However,
“KA, I don’t believe you. If these things or similar things happened in front of your own eyes, then you might personally believe. “
What strikes Toad often, is that – if something clearly supernatural happened before his very eyes – how would he know it was not the work of The Devil?
Indeed, assuming the world is controlled by supernatural forces, how are we to know who, or what’s behind it? The Bogy Man?
.
Inded, it has often struck Toad, that the least unconvincing indication that this world might be the result of intelligent external forces, is that it frequently seems unlikely that things could be so consistently awful purely by accident.
(What a rotten sentence. Oh, well.)
Toad, I thought you’d find it interesting.
Re miracles, yes, indeed. Discernment is required. I seem to remember posting a while ago a list of ways by which you can know whether something is from God or the other place. In brief, from memory, it comes down to whether it makes people behave more like Christ, or not.
I wonder if many people would prefer a nasty God to no God whatsoever? In the sense that one could at least petition and try to understand a nasty God; but if the world as a whole is as indifferent to us as the ocean, there’s no one to kick against.
So, poll:
Prefer no God, or nasty God?
Why does one need some one to kick against?
I’m quite comfortable with the concept of no god and a world that is unaware and indifferent to suffering and joys of those who inhabit it. I don’t require someone to rail against and shake my fist at when things fall apart. I’d much prefer to use my energy picking myself back up onto my feet again. No one and nothing else is going to do it for me.
I don’t say one does need some one to kick against!! I am curious about preferences 🙂 I’ll put you down for option two
.
Put Toad down for no God. No one to blame but himself (or ourselves.)
Bleak but bracing, in a way.
If there is a God, surely all this is his fault?
Senile dementia, earthquakes, (yawn) Typhoid, M*l G*bs*n movies, CD ‘jewel boxes,’ graffitti on 12th Century churches, short-sleeved ‘dress’ shirts, tetse flies, bumper stickes that say,”Guns don’t kill, people kill!*” and The Spanish Inquisition.
He will have a good deal to answer for at the
Last Judgment.
(*Toad thinks they should read, “Guns don’t kill – bullets kill!)
Illustrious Toad, You forgot to mention those nasty carniverous wasps that lay their young in the back of a poor unsuspecting and innocent caterpillar who them gets devoured from the inside.
The worst option, I think, is an indifferent God; one who kickstarted the whole thing then went off to another job. Like the creator of universes in Eric (a creator, not the creator, as he is careful to point out). He is a little absent-minded and once left the fingles out of a creation. The beings in that world didn’t miss them, because they’d never had them, but they were deeply emotionally scarred, for all that.
That’s what we need – fingles!
I’m sure many committed atheists, rejoicing in their own independence and freedom and strength, would rather there wasn’t a God. But what about for the majority – the poor, the oppressed, the long dead and forgotten? The ones who would be first in the Kingdom? Are you going to claim for them that it would be better if there were no God?
Thats a funny kind of argument! Are you saying that we should say that its better that there is a God so that those who have had a lousy life can at least look forward to a glorious afterlife?
Indeed I am.
If the question posed is “would you prefer it if the Christian God existed or not” – well, why wouldn’t the opressed welcome His existence?
But the really interesting question becomes for you, oh honourable atheist: if the existence of God is a better thing for the majority, would you wish him to exist for their sake?
No I wouldn’t Manus.
In Julia Sweeney’s ‘Letting go of God’ she talks about visiting some eastern country (Tibet?) and seeing a woman caring for a very disabled child who had been abandoned by his own parents. She commented to the woman on what a beautiful thing she was doing and was completely dumbfounded when the woman nonchalantly made reference to how very very bad the child must have been in a previous life to be reborn disabled.
We might scoff at that from our enlightened perspective but there is a worrying tendency to take similarly worrying perspectives.
In America there is a great deal of concern among scientists because the government has legislated selling off their helium stores by 2015 irrespective of market price. Helium is a non-renewable gas and the supply is very much finite. It is used extensively in science and medicine but we could run out in 20-30 years. Why is there not greater concern? One theory is that the legislators who made this decision are Bible based Christians who sincerely believe that the world will be ending within generations, or that even if we run out, God will take care of the problem. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/why-the-world-is-running-out-of-helium-2059357.html)
Similarly with the poor and suffering – the flip side of the solace that God will balance out their trials is a passivity about actively dealing with the issues that are causing their pain and suffering. I talk not just in regards to the government or to other Christians doing charitable work but also to the attitudes and outlook of those people themselves. I have known MANY people who have could have been effective in changing their own lives but were waiting either for God to do it or for their reward in heaven.
Now I’m not saying their theology is right but instead that it is prevalent. And I certainly know that for myself I have gained a greater concern and awareness of environmental issues since becoming atheist. And in my personal life I have been dramatically more proactive in dealing with issues rather than entrusting it to prayer.
Now to answer your question more directly – if the existence of god is better for the majority would i wish him to exist – my answer would be an unequivocal yes. It would be much better for the majority if the Christian all loving and all powerful god existed and could relieve their suffering and provide them with their just reward in the afterlife. But I simply don’t believe that he does, and aside from pious stories in the Bible there is really no indication that he takes any particular interest in the poor and suffering, let alone that he desires to alleviate their lot. So I don’t think it is right to say that we should encourage belief as a comfort because it doesn’t actually address the problems. It just makes people more resigned to bearing them.
Ps. Ignore my first sentence in my previous post. I reread the question as I went through, realized it was about actual existence of god and not just belief in him, and then forgot to go back and take that first sentence out – which basically was that no I would not want people to simply believe in god as a comfort irrespective of his actual existence or nonexistence.
I like your argument Manus !
If the oppressed and downtrodden are ever going to achieve liberation, there is going to have to be a God of Love to bring it about.
That’s very much the Torah story.
God Bless
Most of the Torah story is pious fiction but yeah, other than that its just like the Torah story. 😛
I have known MANY people who have could have been effective in changing their own lives but were waiting either for God to do it or for their reward in heaven.
The Exodus account of Moses leading the people out of slavery in Egypt to freedom isn’t an account of people just putting up with their lot in return for eventual freedom in heaven, and neither is it a story of people sitting on their hands waiting on God to do it all for them.
It’s a story of people organizing to take action for their own liberation.
I have gained a greater concern and awareness of environmental issues since becoming atheist
Seeker: I wonder if your new-found atheism may be part of your process of coming out of some bad theology into a closer relationship with God ? I once went down a similar path.
God Bless
The story of Moses leading the people out of slavery in Egpyt is just that – a story. Plus, he didn’t just lead them out. He dithered around waiting for God to do his stuff and persuade the Pharoah to let the people go.
And no, actually my theology was pretty damn good. It was my blind and uncritical acceptance of the foundational truths taught to me that was poor – things like that the Old Testament contains messianic prophecies that foreshadow Christ, and the general historical truth of things like the Exodus, not to mention the belief that the Holy Spirit is guiding the church, the existence of a soul and the reality of original sin. Thankfully I have re-evaluated all these things and more and come to a much better understanding of them and how they fit into our human history and experience.
Seeker,
Moses seemed to making quite a few demands on Pharaoh, as well as various meetings to organise the Hebrews. Not exactly what I’d call dithering around. Sounds more like a Martin Luther King Jr, a Ghandi, or an ArchBishop Romero to me.
I think Exodus has a historical basis but it’s also a literary work based on campfire stories handed down over many centuries.
I think one needs considerable nuance to properly understand the issues you mention.
For example, the Holy Spirit certainly guides the Church but that doesn’t mean everything her leaders ever did was the will of the Holy Spirit !
Old Testament messianic prophecies frequently only became apparent when the disciples reflected back on the scriptures in the light of the Christ event. That doesn’t mean they weren’t there in the OT (the Jewish Rabbis said every OT passage has 70 (infinite) meanings). But it does mean that the interpretation as messianic prophecy was often an interpretation additional to what the original human author probably had in mind. That’s OK because the re-interpretation of scripture is an ancient Jewish tradition and something found in scripture itself.
God Bless
To be fair Chris, according to the story God did tell Moses what to say! 😛 And you go on believing that the exodus has a historical basis. Don’t let those pesky archeologists put facts in the way of your beliefs! And whatever you do, don’t check out the wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus
And that is not the first time I have heard the word nuance substituted for willful self-delusion! 😛
Chris,
There is no evidence to support the fable that is The Exodus. There is a book on my wishlist that examines the archaeological evidence (or lack of it) in support of the biblical account of the Exodus. If the story of the tribe being led out of Egypt is a myth, why should we believe the story of Moses (who also probably didn’t exist) facing up to the Pharaoh?
KA
Who were the Ancient Israelites and where did they come from? William Dever – http://www.amazon.com/Were-Early-Israelites-Where-They/dp/0802844162/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1305171268&sr=8-2
Excellent book! A bit dry in parts but certainly a very thorough review of all the scholarship and archaeology of the last few centuaries. I have my copy on my Kindle – very handy and cheap.
Actually, it’s interesting to note that the story of the Illiad, which deals with mighty deeds of men and gods, actually has a greater basis in reality than the Exodus since Troy was real and was sacked numerous times whereas there was never a large population of captive Hebrew in Egypt and most of the cities they went on to sack in Canaan didn’t exist at the time they were supposed to have done this – only at the time that it was being put into written form. There is, in fact, numerous and convincing archeological evidence of uninterrupted occupation of the hill countries of Canaan by the people who became the Israelites.
“I think Exodus has a historical basis but it’s also a literary work based on campfire stories handed down over many centuries.”
Chris that is a theory about the origin of the book of Exodus. And it is testable. Oral transmission over several centuries leaves its mark on the final text. A case in point is the Iliad, full of formulaic devices and structures which exist to help the teller fill gaps in his memory and remember the basic framework. The limited scholarship I’ve seen has not seen evidence of oral transmission in Exodus, rather evidence of the con-joining of older texts to form a unity.
Very conservative commentators presume (because they have to) an oral tradition, but unlike the Iliad I haven’t seen it proved from the text. Can you support your theory?
Exactly Badger. And The Illiad is an excellent case in point.
It’s also worth reflecting on the fact that so much of the Christian theology is based on a literalistic reading of the Bible. It’s only in recent centuries that scholarship has dug deeper into the text and the culture to unravel the underlying structure and strands. This has raised a host of issues and required that committed believers find new models for receiving and interpreting the scriptures. Then add in the discoveries (and lack of discoveries) by modern archeologists in the Middle East, you have some real problems to resolve of you wish to continue believing the historicity of seminal events in the Old Testament.
For instance, this means that when the concept of Christ as the Lamb without blemish who was slain was developed, the story of Exodus and the Passover was taken literally. Likewise with the Eucharist as the new Passover and all the rich and beautiful theology associated with that. But the Passover as portrayed in the Bible and in Jewish history never actually happened! And if Jesus was divine instead of simply another apocalyptic prophet like John, then he would have known this.
The original Israelites were farmers in the hill countries of Canaan and there are strong indications that the roots of the Passover lie in spring agricultural festivals. They were never in Egypt or wandering around in the desert or even marching round a Jericho which had yet to be built. They lived in small farm holdings in the steep and barren hills, farming very successfully in a quite distinctive terrace style for over a thousand years till they began to become more urbanized – which is around the time their mighty ‘history’ was written down.
Now I don’t know about you, but finding out that there is no basis to these seminal stories made me requestion everything else. After all, without the reality of these events how is the Judeo-Christian mythology any different from the Greek mythology of The Illiad?
Seeker, Robin Lane Fox is also interesting on this issue. It apparently appears that there was no violent incursion into Palestine, Canaan, etc, in the late bronze age. The suggestion is that the national epic was composed to provide a unique and providential reason for the Israelites being in the land. Vis, Aeneas and Rome, Brutus and Britain etc.
Exactly – pious fiction rationalizing their right to the lands as it’s mighty conquerers.
On the positive side, it does tend to let the Old Testament god off the hook for some of his more barbaric actions and instructions as it’s clear they are pure fiction. Though I wouldn’t be at all surprised if he smote a few OT authors for defamation of character!
So I have a question for you Mr Badger: if you accept that there was no Exodus, that puts the whole of the book of Exodus in question; we can say categorically that there was no flood; and that Adam and Eve didn’t exist. We can categorically say that there are numerous historical and scientific ‘facts’ that are simply wrong scattered throughout the entire OT. We can say categorically that a large portion of the New Testament is a forgery, that parts were added to other genuine articles to make a Christological point here and there.
My question to you and all other Christians is this: how can you continue to believe that the bible is the inspired word of your god? What other parts of the book are simply fabrications of an over-active Bronze and mind? And if the bible is clearly not god-inspired, how can you continue with your delusion that a god exists? How much are you prepared to suspend reason and rational thought to fit in with a worldview that any right-thinking and rational person would reject in an instant?
KA
KA,
The flood story is older than the bible, it’s in the Epic of Gilgamesh — except it’s a polythestic version. So assumedly the author of Genesis redid it as a monotheistic story.
Yes, the situation with respect to Exodus as history is pretty dire. Neither the Egyptions nor the people of Canaan noticed anything.
The crux (beg pardon) for me is the New Testament, the NT claims to be a record of events in a much more direct way than the OT. The OT includes honest fiction like Jonah for example.
But I think the NT presents a coherent case
Just to expand: repeating epithets for characters is a big part of oral narrative. They are enjoyed by a listening audience, they give the reciter a moment to think, and they help audiences remember the character they are hearing about.
From my old student copy of Lattimore’s Iliad a partial list is:
Rosie fingered dawn
White armed Hera
swift-footed Achilles
Bronze greaved Achaeans
wide ruling Agamemnon
Flaming haired Menelaus.
These recur over and over, they are a clear mark of oral transmission (or its imitation, eg Virgil).
They are not eliminated when the text is put in written form because they become an integral part of the story.
According to my penguin classics copy of the “Tain Bo Cualgne” (the Cattle raid of Cooley) these devices are found in that Irish – prose – story as well.
Exodus is much easier reading than the Iliad, partly because it flows more naturally as narrative. It has no significant pointers to being the redaction of an oral tradition — which leads to the conclusion that it is a literary composition. Given that mos scholars don’t date it as being prior to the sixth century (BC), it seems very dubious as a source.
Just note, learned Mr Badger, that the New Testament stories lack these oral narrative markers as well. And considering that the events contained in the Gospels were supposedly passed on faithfully by word of mouth for decades, one would expect to find them.
Maybe Seeker, but it’s a radically shorter timescale. Eg If Matt and Luke had Q, and Q was on “paper” within twenty years of the crucifixion, that’s within the realm of oral testimony not just tradition.
But that is just supposition. The earliest date I’ve seen proposed for a written Q is 65CE. And Q was most likely a collection of sayings such as is found in the non-canonical ‘gospels’. As such, it will have lacked a lot of the details of people, places, timings etc. This would have had to have been filled in by the Gospel writers, and we can see that each of them have done so according to their own narrative agendas.
“For instance, this means that when the concept of Christ as the Lamb without blemish who was slain was developed, the story of Exodus and the Passover was taken literally.”
Jesus as the lamb without blemish relates to the passover festival irrespective of the origin of that festival surely?
Yes, but the whole meaning placed on it is the sinless victim dying for the sins of many; the deliverance of God’s people through the blood of the innocent etc etc etc. But the Passover didn’t happen which breaks the symbology.
Seeker, I’m sensitive to the charge that the whole thing is unfalsifiable because everything can be re-interpreted etc. So this is where I stand: Jesus lived in the world of 1st century Judaism, he acted and spoke symbolically within that world, and after the cross he was interpreted according to the stories and symbols of 1st century Judaism.
The events of his life and resurrection are of universal relevance but the antecedent origin of ancient Judaism is less so perhaps. (ah so many caveats)
Now, for this reason I am much more interested in the historicity of the NT than the OT. Does that make sense?
It makes sense Badger but I am not so sanguine about dismissing the Old Testament. So much of the Christian theology comes from a literalistic reading of those texts and certainly that is what the early apologists used as their quotations from the holy books to refute ‘heresies’. They didn’t quote from the New Testament but the Old. And it is these same early apologists that shaped the key doctrines that Christians still adhere to.
Furthermore, I can help but be terribly uneasy of a divinely inspired word (ie the NT gospels) that quotes a divine Messiah who doesn’t know the truth of his own people’s history but instead leans heavily on it, especially symbolically. If Christianity was such a radical and new message then why was it so half-assed? Surely the whole thing about drinking his blood is as controversial and upsetting in that time as telling his listeners that the Exodus didn’t happen. Why one and not the other?
That should have been “can’t help…”
Seeker, I’m not claiming to be any kind of expert, but isn’t 65 pretty late for Q? Crossan (good sceptical credentials) puts it in the early fifties. A date as late as 65 would raise the question, why keep preserving a sayings tradition orally for so long without writing it down? — Paul being proof that there were literate Christians well before 65.
Paul wouldn’t have started writing till around 49-50CE and he died in 67CE. In none of his letters does he once quote from anything that could have been remotely considered Q source. In fact, he’s quite quiet about passing on any sayings of Jesus though he does quote from the Old Testament.
Basic fact of the matter is that Q is still a hypothesis and there are arguments both for and against.
Yes to be candid I have issues with the doctrine of original sin.
Then why do you think we need a communal redemption from personal sin? Surely the sacrament of confession would be sufficient if one isn’t also dealing with the taint of original sin?
Depends how you see the incarnation. If you see it more as being about eliminating the distance between man and God, which is also a theme in Paul, then it is less significant.
Why would that necessitate a sacrificial victim in the mold of the Passover?
I would have thought a God who interacted more personally and visibly with his devotees would go a LOT further towards eliminating the distance between man and god! Crucifying your son seems a pn odd way to go about it – especially if you eliminate the new Isaac symbology on the basis that Isaac never existed either.
And just so we are totally clear, Christ isn’t the new Adam either. Like the other two I’ve mentioned poor Adam suffers from an incurable lack of reality.
But Mr Badger, much of the NT is forged. How can you claim that it’s based on history when so much is wrong with the timeline and much of it seems to have been written to fulfil the supposed prophetic passages of the OT. I’ve read somewhere (can’t remember where) that the supposed Messianic prophesies aren’t that at all, but that the passages have been interpreted that way to fit a story.
I also suspect that the arrival in the city of Jesus on a donkey was carefully stage-managed to present a supposed fulfilment of the messianic prophecy. What they failed to understand, it seems, is that the prophecy wasn’t that at all, but something completely different.
I struggle to understand how you can believe when you yourself acknowledge that so much is wrong with the so-called inspired word of your all-knowing, infallible god,
KA
The passage is:
Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your King is coming to you; He is just and having salvation, lowly and riding on a donkey, a colt, the foal of a donkey.
From Zechariah.
The prophet envisaged the arrival of a temporal king, as a piece of symbolism confounding expectations I’d give Jesus a thumbs up there
From an essay I wrote on messianic prophecies:
15. Would enter Jerusalem as a king on a donkey (Zechariah 9:9; Matthew 21:4-9)
Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion! Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you, righteous and having salvation, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey. (Zechariah 9:9)
This took place to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet: “Say to the Daughter of Zion, ‘See, your king comes to you, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.’ ” The disciples went and did as Jesus had instructed them. They brought the donkey and the colt, placed their cloaks on them, and Jesus sat on them. A very large crowd spread their cloaks on the road, while others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road. The crowds that went ahead of him and those that followed shouted, “Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest!” (Matthew 21:4-9)
This one is a bit odd as Matthew has poor Jesus straddling both a donkey AND a colt! This indicates that Matthew’s reference for writing this is more likely the prophecy rather than an eye witness account. He is shaping the account to conform to the Old Testament prophecy without realising that the second animal was a poetic reference to the first.
Another jarring note that has always been a puzzlement to me is that Jesus sent his disciples to get the donkey but it is unclear whether the donkey’s owner gave permission for the donkey to be taken. If he did not, then Jesus violated the eighth commandment against stealing (Exodus 20:15).
“Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me. If anyone says anything to you, tell him that the Lord needs them, and he will send them right away.” (Matthew 21:2-3)
Luke’s version does have the animal’s owner asking, “Why are you untying the colt?” (Luke 19:33) But there is no indication that he then gave permission for the disciples to take it. In Mark’s version, the bystanders ask, “What are you doing, untying the colt?” (Mark 11:5) but we are not told that they are the animal’s owners. In any case, Mark’s statement that “they let them go” does not give enough information to tell whether permission was given or not.
In addition, Matthew has the bystanders crying out ‘Hosanna!’ in praise. But in Hebrew, hosanna actually means ‘save now’. It is only since Mathew’s gospel was written that is has taken on a dual meaning of ‘praise to you’. The phrase is generally considered to be a quote from Psalms 118:25 “O LORD, save us”, and it is speculated that Mathew was more familiar with Aramaic than Hebrew and thus misunderstood the meaning of the word.
In terms of the actual Old Testament passage, Zechariah wrote during the reign of King Darius the Great in a post exilic world after the fall of Jerusalem. He wrote between 520-518BC. Chapters 9-11 of his book give an outline of God’s providential dealings with his people down to the time of the Messiah. His view of the Messiah is very much in line with that of his contemporaries – a military leader who will bring peace and will unite nations in the worship of God during his reign. This is very clear in the verses surrounding Zech 9:9. Verses 1-8 refers to the foes that beset Israel and describes how God will deal with them. Verse 8 says that God will defend his house against the marauding foe and will keep watch. Immediately after this is the passage about the anointed king coming then following that is a description of what he will do when he comes:
I will take away the chariots from Ephraim and the war-horses from Jerusalem, and the battle bow will be broken. He will proclaim peace to the nations. His rule will extend from sea to sea and from the River to the ends of the earth. (Zechariah 9:10)
This makes it very clear that the prophecy relates to a military king and is very consistent with other messianic passages in the Old Testament that speak only of an earthly kingdom. However, one could read that Christianity has spread to extend his rule from sea to sea. However, one could also argue that such a rule is very shaky considering the vast number of different beliefs and philosophies practiced. Nor has there been lasting peace among the nations any time prior or since the time of Jesus.
Rather than read this as a messianic prophecy fulfilled by Jesus, it makes more sense to see this as part of the vast array of writings by Jewish prophets examining a vastly traumatic episode in their history (the fall of the Temple and the exile), trying to understand how that fits into their understanding of God’s special plan for them, and looking forward to a new ‘golden age’ like the ones that were part of their narrative and cultural history. Trying to superimpose this onto a event some 500 years later leads to mistakes such as Jesus having two asses and a plea for help being mistranslated as praise.
Seeker, thanks for posting, I found that interesting.
My two cents would be:
The prophecy certainly didn’t refer to Jesus in its original intent. I think of it as a prophecy co-opted by Jesus to confound the expectations it raised. Based on his parables this would seem in character.
Matthew was clearly constructing his text with the scriptures at hand, and goofed, however the presence of the incident in Mark implies that it wasn’t invented, but was interpreted by Matthew.
— If Jesus chose to act symbolically, and later followers chased up the meaning and reference, isn’t this the sort of muddle we would expect?
Actually, its exactly the sort of muddle we would expect if writers decade later were establishing Jesus’ messianic credentials by inserting passages to ‘prove’ that Jesus fulfilled the old testament prophecies as they understood them.
It is EXACTLY the same as the whole slaughter of the innocents story. This passage was inserted to draw a parallel with Moses. From the same essay I wrote:
So Mr Badger, I refer you to my previous question. How, amid the vast amounts of fraudulent writings in the bible, can you really believe that it is the inspired word of god rather than the ramblings of ancient, uneducated peoples.
How far are you prepared to suspend rational thought to continue believing these fables?
KA
KA, in terms of fraudulent, all I would give you is II Peter. As to the ramblings of the uneducated, that drastically underestimates the quality of many books in the bible.
From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles
Seeker,
I don’t class the psuedo-pauline as forgeries.
Your essay implies that you were disabused of the belief that the OT passages were written with Jesus or “the Christ” in mind, they weren’t, but the Church doesn’t claim that they were.
No. but the Church does claim that it can go back and use them to bolster its claims that Jesus was the Messiah. And just because some rabbis said that each scripture has 70 meanings doesn’t mean that its okay to take a snippet, strip it of context and use it how you wish. We are deeply suspicious when others do this but we accept it without question when it relates to something we already believe. It is only if you try see it as an outsider that you see how outrageous the claims are.
And does it not seem entirely odd that God, wishing all people to believe in his son and be saved, would make it so confoundedly difficult to do so? Surely if he gave us our intelligence then he knows that healthy skepticism is a corollary and he would tailor his message without ambiguity and confusion?
Seeker,
out of curiousity, what is your reconstruction of what happened re Easter? (Not that the burden of proof is on you I know)
Oooh! You have to give me a bit of time to think on that
It depends on how you define forgeries. Obviously you do not wish to attribute malicious or deceitful intent to using Paul’s name but consider these definitions:
The writings were produced in Paul’s name presumably because the author felt they would be accepted far more easily than if they were written in his own name. This was not uncommon and quite a few letters were rejected and people chastised for forging. These ones simply weren’t detected as being non-Pauline at the time.
Interesting article here – Ehrman goes into it with far more detail, citations and references in his book. http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/02/06/968376/bible-writers-intended-to-deceive.html
Scholars have long resisted using the term “forgery” to characterize Biblical writings made under false authorship, on the grounds that such concepts as forgery, plagiarism and intellectual property are modern legal constructs and don’t apply to the ancients. But UNC-Chapel Hill religion professor Bart Ehrman – a nemesis of conservative Evangelical Christianity who repudiated his faith in his 20s – makes the forgery accusation without reservation in a new book of that name.
The forgers who wrote a half-dozen epistles and the Book of Acts, along with scores of other documents that never made it into the New Testament, acted with deliberate forethought, knowing exactly what they were doing, Ehrman contends. That makes the Bible a very dishonest book in Ehrman’s estimation – rife not only with mistakes and untruths, but with deceptions and lies.
“The authors intended to deceive their readers, and their readers were all too easily deceived,” Ehrman writes. “The use of deception to promote the truth may well be considered one of the most unsettling ironies of the early Christian tradition.”
After quoting a number of classical authorities to show the ancients disapproved of forgery – “even forgers condemned forgery” – Ehrman cites examples of the practice as it was used to advance the cause of the Christians and their opponents alike.
In the first several centuries after Jesus’ ministry, the followers of the Nazarene engaged in fierce theological polemics with Jews, Gnostics, pagans and other Christians. They resorted to forgery, fabrication and character assassination to disparage their adversaries and bolster their own ranks, Ehrman writes.
Forgery, or writing under a false name, ultimately helped early Christians consolidate their fractured movement into a coherent theology. These letters, essays and treatises helped gloss over internal conflicts to discredit foes, to justify admitting non-Jews and to expand across the globe.
Most of these forgeries were not included in the New Testament and it’s not hard to see why. Church fathers were wary of accounts steeped in magic and superstition, such as a text now known as Pseudo-Matthew that includes fantastical tales of dragons paying obeisance to a 2-year-old Jesus.
Many scholars accept the prevalence of false authorship as a fact of life in ancient times, but they tend to view the phenomenon on a par with the role of speechwriters or ghostwriters today.
Ehrman’s beef is not so much with ancient forgers but with present-day believers who uncritically accept Biblical writings as genuine and consider it a sacrilege to question the Bible’s authenticity. “Forged” is just the latest bombshell Ehrman has lobbed at his former co-religionists. He writes from the perspective of history’s suppressed and silenced – that is, the heretics – in such titles as “Misquoting Jesus,” “Lost Christianities,” “Lost Scriptures” and “The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture.”
Orthodox Christianity owes an incalculable debt to the prolific work of forgers. Six of Paul’s 13 epistles – Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus – are believed by scholars to have been written by someone other than Paul. In other books of the New Testament – such as Mark, John and 1 Corinthians – scribes added key passages decades or centuries after the fact.
After Christianity sought to ally itself with the Roman Empire, forged gospels and epistles were created to absolve the Romans of murdering Jesus and to place the blame for deicide on the Jews. In the Pilate Gospel and others, for example, the Pilate repents for his role in the crucifixion and converts to Christianity.
Such accounts abounded with chilling anti-Semitic stereotypes of malevolent Jews as Christ-killers. They were in circulation for centuries and thrived much longer as an oral tradition, feeding into the mainstream of European thought well until modern times.
I accept you have a point. I’ve lost the reference but a Christian was expelled from a congreagation in the late second century for writing a letter attributed to Paul (or Peter). But when a document was produced by a close follower, eg probably ephesians, it was “under the authority” of the master, not, in that context a forgery.
That whole rationale of being ‘under the authority of the master’ is a modern concept developed to deal with the cog at ice dissonance that comes with realizing there are forgeries in the bible, and not an ancient one.
*turns off auto spell check*
Cognitive not cog at ice! Sheesh!
Just to be clear, there was no Greek or Roman precedent for ascribing a work by a student to the original master??
There was precedent for a student to write books that encapsulated their understanding of the teachings of his master, such as Plato and Xenophon writing dialogues with Socrates as the main character or writing about his life and thought. Occasionally these were misattributed by later scholars and have since been reattributed to the correct writer.
However, the general consensus in Greek and roman times was against forgeries. Words used to describe them were things like ‘lies’ and ‘bastard child’. Ancient writers who mention the practice of forgery consistently condemn it and indicate that it is deceitful, inappropriate, and wrong.
American scholar David Meade claims that people writing under the name of a great teacher were not doing so fraudulently but merely ‘writing in the tradition of’ however this explanation doesn’t stack up especially considering the documented reactions of ancient authors when they found writings in their name that they hadn’t produced. One even went so far as to write a book on how to spot forgeries of his books!
Our modern contention that there was a precedent for the student to write in the name of the master comes from two 3rd century sources.
1. The Neoplatonic philosopher Porphyry is alleged to have said that in the school of Pythagorus (who lived some 800 years earlier) it was common practice for disciples to write books and sign their masters name to them. This statement is NOT in any of his surviving Greek writings but can only be found in an Arabic translation of one of his works from the 13th century. However, what the passage actually says, in Arabic, is not that the followers of Pythagorus wrote books and signed his name to them but instead he says that Pythagorus himself wrote eighty books, two hundred were written by his followers, and twelve books were ‘forged’ in the name of Pythagorus. These twelve books are condemned for using Pythagorus’ name when he didn’t write them. The forgers are called “shameless people” who “fabricated” “false books”. The two hundred books written by Pythogorus’ followers were not said to have been written by his followers in his name; they were simply stated to be books written by his followers.
Its also interesting to note that in Porphyry’s other writings he takes a keen interest in knowing which books are forged and which are authentic and he condemns forgeries, including the Old Testament book of Daniel which he thinks could not have been written by an Israelite in the sixth century BCE.
2. The other source commonly stated is that of another Neoplatonic philosopher Iamblichus who says the following: “This also is a beautiful circumstance, that they [i.e. Pythagorus’ followers] referred everything to Pythagorus, and called it by his name, and that they did not ascribe to themselves the glory of their own inventions, except very rarely. For there are very few whose works are acknowledged to be their own.”
Now obviously one can’t take this single statement as an indication of what “typically” happened in antiquity as a model for what the Christian authors did when claiming to be Peter, Paul, James, Thomas, Philip and others.
a. for this tradition to have made an impact on such a wide array of early Christian authors it would have had to have been widely known but it wasn’t. The ‘tradition’ isn’t mentioned by a single author from the time of Pythagoras (sixth century BCE) to the time of Iamblichus (third to fourth century CE) so it is obviously NOT widely known. In fact, no one else seems to have known about it for eight hundred years.
b. Iamblichus lived two hundred years AFTER the writings of 1 & 2 Peter and the deutero-Paulines. There is NO reference to this tradition existing in the time of the NT writings so it was scarcely a widely accepted practice at the time.
c. When Iamblichus’ statement is checked it appears to be wrong. The vast majority of writings of the Pythagorean school were not done in the name of Pythagorus – his followers wrote in their own names.
It is clear that the authors of the NT books ascribed to Paul, Peter etc actually did violate ancient ethical standards and are best described as forgers.
Thanks Seeker, once again I’m going to refer back to your reply for further reading.
Of course we are dealing with the close relationships found within a religious sect, perhaps we have an analogue in the disciples of the author of John’s gospel appending their commendation? — eg they as disciples had some ownership of the text?
There is no ancient precedent for that
I just suggested one in the Johannine community, who at the very least, wrote part of John’s gospel. QED
A theory isn’t a precedent though. The gospel of John very specifically states that it was written by ‘the disciple Jesus loved’. Which if it was John (who doesn’t appear till the Last Supper) would be remarkable considering it was written around 90-100 CE.
I think the whole community authorship thing is another attempt to explain why there are discrepancies in the text and it doesn’t get around the fact that by the definition I posted earlier, writers claiming a more famous person as author is actually forgery.
The gospel of John very specifically states that it was written by ‘the disciple Jesus loved’.
No, it doesn’t. It states very specifically that it records the testimony of ‘the disciple Jesus loved’, which could well have been handed down and finally redacted by someone else, as the Pope thinks.
God Bless
Fascinating discussion. Wish I had more time to get into it. Sigh.
And just because some rabbis said that each scripture has 70 meanings doesn’t mean that its okay to take a snippet, strip it of context and use it how you wish.
No, but ancient Jewish midrash was VERY VERY flexible in reinterpreting text. To do that wouldn’t have been at all foreign in 1st Century Judaism and it wasn’t later in the Talmud either.
I don’t buy the some epistles as forgeries argument. The arguments for non-Pauline authorship are frequently (although not all) less than totally convincing. Writing under the name of some well respected figure, as a student of his school, has ample precedent eg Moses as author of the Torah, David as author of all the psalms, Isaiah as author of all of Isaiah.
God Bless
Christ isn’t the new Adam either
Seeker,
If Adam personifies humanity created then Christ personifies humanity redeemed. The idea of an individual personifiying a people is very ancient semitic. So I think that Christ as the new Adam works even if one denies the historicity of Adam. But even evolution seems to posit a “first” human, so Adam as first human does seem historically plausible.
God Bless
I also suspect that the arrival in the city of Jesus on a donkey was carefully stage-managed to present a supposed fulfilment of the messianic prophecy.
Sounds very probable to me, KA. Jesus as non-violent activist was pretty into that sort of thing. But I think the rejection of Kings on War Horses IS very scriptural.
God Bless
I agree entirely, if Jesus did have the prophecy in mind when he entered Jerusalem, it would make perfect sense in terms of his “style”and mission
but I am not so sanguine about dismissing the Old Testament.
Neither am I. To do that rejects the underpinnings of the Christian faith. Naturally, that’s the atheist project here !
OTOH, I do think some elements of the NT narratives may well be less that totally historical eg the infancy narratives (ill be interesting to see how B16 addresses this in his next book), the 5000 pigs stampeding into a lake, possibly some of the miracle story elements (or so JP Meier thinks and the Pope speaks highly of his work on Jesus as Marginal Jew), the Acts account of the man and his wife falling dead at Peters feet (which Fr Joseph Fitzmyer thinks “legend”).
On the historicity of Joshua, the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s document on the Jewish Scriptures speaks of the Joshua war stories as later constructs which are not necessarily historical.
God Bless
The Pope speaks very highly of J.P Meier, but doesn’t exactly emphasise Meier’s conclusion regarding the “bind and loose passage” does he?
To do that rejects the underpinnings of the Christian faith. Naturally, that’s the atheist project here!
Not much of a project really. The bible’s authors have done most of the work for us already!
What DID Meier say about “bind and loose” ? Can you give a reference so I can look it up ?
God Bless
I’m not trying to be a jerk — but no I can’t!! Sorry I know it is pretty slack to mention and not reference something. — But I am thinking of volume 3 Companions and competitors, I don’t have a copy at home. However he judges the “commission” passages (keys etc) to be later creations, not Jesus. — Sorry, hardly impressive debating on my part!
I think Exodus has a historical basis, although it is not history. I am familar with many of the arguments against historicity which are well laid out byeg the very sceptical William Prop in the AB Exodus (although even Propp lists some 20 pieces of historical evidence which DO seem to collaborate elements in Exodus), Fr John MacKenzie (who discounts oral tradition in Exodus), the Jewish Study Bible, and the eminent Jewish scholar Nahum Sarna (less sceptical).
The modern trend seems to be somewhat more sceptical of the archaeologcal doubts than was current in the period before Dever wrote his book.
It seems to me that there IS a good argument that Exodus was based on a real event of slaves escaping Egypt.
The current account seems to show evidence of considerable embelishment of the actual events, which is what one would expect from generations of oral tradition.
The son of Miriam does seem to be very ancient given its words and literary style. It may be an ancient poem handed down orally.
God Bless
But Judges contains the song of Deborah, maybe the oldest piece of writing in the bible, but that doesn’t date the book itself
Agreed. But if it was ancient then how did it get passed down into the later Judges ? Surely that’s evidence for oral or written transmission of an ancient poem ?
God Bless
Yes exactly, poetry is a great medium for oral tradition, especially brief (possibly even liturgical) poetry, that is there is such an issue with much of the Torah, it lacks indications of an oral background— except for fragments such as the “giants on earth in those days” passage from Genesis, which may be very ancient indeed.
I don’t think that all the Torah is oral tradition but that there are oral traditions in it. There does to be good evidence for oral traditions about Abraham and his descendents.
God Bless
As for reinterpreting scriptures, that’s very much in the Jewish tradition and we’ve been doing it for 3000 years. Nothing sinister in the NT writers doing just that.
Scripture is the word of God and therefore speaks to us right here and right now saying something relevant to us now. It ain’t JUST some ancient writing.
Some of the best Passover Haggadah’s I’ve seen relate the Passover narrative to liberation struggles today eg that of the Palestinian people for human rights and self determination. When we tell the passover story, we make present those ancient events and thru them God’s is with us today in current struggles for liberation and we know that our God is a God of love, justice, freedom, human rights, and liberation.
God Bless
It doesn’t matter whether reinterpreting was in the Jewish tradition or not. It still doesn’t make it convincing or valid. I’m not basing my belief system on something that ultimately comes down to “but ancient authors reinterpreted scriptures so its okay for the NT ones to do so and we should trust and believe the interpretation that they put on it.”
And as you describe the Passover Haggadah’s they are indistinguishable from myths and morality tales – certainly not something to be building your entire belief system on!
“It doesn’t matter whether reinterpreting was in the Jewish tradition or not. It still doesn’t make it convincing or valid.”
I must say I’m glad you pointed that out seeker. Give me yesterdays Dominion Post and I’ll make it an allegory for the Crimean war.
It doesn’t matter whether reinterpreting was in the Jewish tradition or not.
Of course it does.
The founder of the Church were all Jews.
If they did with the scriptures what Jewish tradition had then been doing for 1,000 years, then that would be entirely normal, acceptable and traditional without smacking in the slightest of these absurd claims of “forgeries”.
God Bless
Chris, calling , say Titus, a forgery, may not be strictly accurate, but it’s hardly absurd
Chris, I really can’t believe you’re deluding yourself like this. You need to examine the evidence of forgeries in the bible, especially the Pauline epistles before making such a frankly outrageous statement as you did above. I really, really can’t believe it.
KA
KA,
What evidence of forgeries?
We’ve been discussing these claims on and off for some time now and I’ve yet to read anything from you or seeker or anyone else on these threads that presented even a prima facie case for forgery.
And, yes, I am familiar with the claims of non Pauline, non Petrine authorship and I accept that at least some of them appear to be well founded.
The early Church accepted the letters on the basis of content. It doesn’t really matter too much to us who finally redacted them as far as the epistles being authentic sacred scripture.
God Bless
Chris, you just don’t get it do you? The bible is supposed to be the inerrant word of your god, but it’s proven to be full of forgeries, pathetic attempts at science, and so much nonsense you have to be deluded just to even think it’s inspired by anything other than ancient ignorance.
I’m disappointed in you Chris, I took you for a more intelligent man
KA
“The early Church accepted the letters on the basis of content. It doesn’t really matter too much to us who finally redacted them as far as the epistles being authentic sacred scripture.”
Yes, but.. near universal consensus, Catholic, protestant, liberal conservative, etc is that II Peter is written by God knows who, and dates from as late as the early second century. — you will still see quotes from it ascribed to “St Peter” though
It’s not just II Peter Mr Badger, there are so many cases of forgery in the NT it’s really not funny. I’m at a loss as to how anyone can be so deluded as to continue to believe that it’s the inspired word of a god. At least tell me that you don’t believe that – please show me that there’s a least one sensible theist on this blog!
KA
I imagine your definition of a sensible theist is an atheist? 😉
*snickers quietly*
What changed your mind seeker? After all you obviously went into it quite deeply?
Changed my mind about what? Theism?
It wasn’t one single thing. It was an accumulation of numerous things – scripture, archeology, history, neuroscience and more. It started with scripture though. And from there I read and read and read. And believe me, I read both sides and was very reluctant to put one toe out of the barque of Peter. But at the end of the day, there was too much there for me to not change my mind.
KA,
Your browbeating does your argument no favours. One only needs to look at Seeker’s own story to see how much research an intelligent person may need to do in order to decide to change sides. And I must say I find Seeker’s measured and reasoned arguments more interesting and challenging.
I’ve tended to look into the science arguments as that’s my own field – I find no compelling case against theism there, indeed rather the opposite. I haven’t delved into the scriptural issues yet, despite having bought a few tomes (hat tip Badger). Obviously it’s going to be exciting!
Another earthquake – in Spain, when they were flapping about Rome. I do hope Toad is sufficiently unscathed that he can give us all an earful on the subject.
The bible is supposed to be the inerrant word of your god, but it’s proven to be full of forgeries, pathetic attempts at science
The Church’s position on inerrancy is MUCH more nuanced than your claim, KA, and it’s a matter which the current Pope has called for more work on, and the Pontifical Biblical Commission are currently meeting to do just that.
We’re still waiting for some proof of your forgery claims. And, no, the thesis (and it IS only a thesis, albeit a thesis with considerable support) that IIPeter wasn’t written by Peter the first Pope, certainly does NOT amount to forgery. It merely amounts to pseudepigraphia:
Ancient attempts at science are simply what one would expect the people of the time to be capable of. Snearing at them as “pathetic” doesn’t get us anywhere. No doubt in 1,000 years time people will look back on our science and marvel about how inadequate it all was.
Smearing your adversary’s intelligence may be a popular debating tool but I think we’d do better to leave aside the ad hominum’s and discuss the actual matters at hand.
Maybe you’d care to prove your claims of forgeries ?
God Bless
Chris, read my posts above to show that your arguments for pseudepigraphy are not valid and are contradicted by the ancients themselves.
Seeker,
I did read your posts but didn’t find anything convincing. You seemed to focus on gentile Roman/Greek literary conventions, and you did not seem to prove that they all rejected pseudepigraphia as equivalent to forgery.
Pseudepigraphia was well known in the OT, and in 1st Century Jewish literature. Given that the early Church was initially all Jewish, they came out of a tradition that accepted pseudepigraphia and did not see it as forgery.
Some scripture scholars have advanced the thesis that some of the epistles may be compositions of more than one letter (perhaps 3 or 5 letters in some cases). There could have been an original letter by Peter or Paul that was collected together with much later letters from the same source Church (the Pauline/Petrine school) and composited together on a single piece of papyrus for further distribution. Over time, and especially under persecution and war, one can see how the original distinct letters could have been forgotten about.
I am very much of the view that the theories of later dating are just that – theories. They are far from conclusive, and certainly not conclusive enough to start throwing around wild claims of forgery.
God Bless
Please provide contemporary references for your claim that pseudepigraphia was well known in the OT and 1st century Jewish literature.
I focussed on Roman/Gentile literary conventions because, for the most part, the church at the time these letters were written was gentile NOT Jewish. You might get away with your claim that the chuch was initially all Jewish if you restrict it to the first few decades – when nothing was being written down! However the church post Paul’s conversion became increasingly dominated by Gentiles steeped in Greco-Roman culture, traditions and practices. And it was predominantly these people who produced the majority of the documents that some 300 years later became the Canon.
You also have failed to provide any evidence that pseudepigrahia was an accepted tradition in Judaism however I have given reference to Pophyrus who doubted the provenance of Isaiah. If pseudepigrahia was a well known and accepted tradition then surely this would be a complete non-issue? The fact is that Jews at the time had no reason at all to doubt that David wrote the Psalms and Isaiah wrote all the writings attributed to him.
Hey ho, there’s none so blind as those who refuse to see…
What a fascinating discussion! I copied it all into a Word document this morning so I could read it on the train.
Thanks, guys.
I don’t have time this morning to pick up on any specific points – watch this space. 🙂
Just a couple of points: on narrative theory, and somewhat, but not completely, tangential to the way the thread has trended.
We become who we are because of the stories we accept as containing truths we can live by. I lived for three months with people who accepted the truth of Shortland Street, and lived their lives accordingly. Scary but true. I also worked in a comms department full of Sex in the City enthusiasts. Fascinating, in a rather sad way.
We all interpret narratives differently, and take different things out of them, but we form communities with those who have a shared view of our shared narratives.
The OT narratives created a people who were collectively strong enough to survive 2000 years of diasapora. That’s pretty impressive – I venture to say unique.
The early church repositioned the OT narratives in the light of the life and teachings of Christ, as interpreted through the NT narratives.
A focus on provable historical facts is, to my mind, entirely irrelevant.
An exclusive focus on provable historical facts would be wrong, but the historical basis of the scriptures is entirely relevant.
The Holy Father is correct that the historical-critical method, which does focus on historical questions, is essential for correct understanding of the scriptures.
Without some historical knowledge of ancient literary forms, we can’t have a hope of getting at the literal meaning of the text (what the sacred author intended by what he wrote). And neither can we get a realistic handle on pseudepigraphia .
There is a historical content to the Old Testament. Sure, it is not all history, but the Torah, the prophets, and the historical writings, not to mention the gospels, do have a basis in real historical events.
God Bless
Yes, a fair edit, Chris. I should have said: an exclusive focus on provable historical facts entirely misses the point.
Why? Many ancient societies have had stories that they have lived by for thousands of years. That doesn’t make me any more inclined to concede that Zeus or Anubis or any other god must be real.
If you are going to live your life by something it behooves an intelligent person to discover whether the initial premises are valid!
No time today. My reasons for choosing these stories rather than others will have to wait.
You have it around the wrong way, seeker.
We don’t believe in God because the Bible says so. We believe in God because we have experienced him ourselves and we believe in the Church he gave us because we’ve experienced his presence in and though her, and hence we believe in the bible the Church gave us.
God Bless
Hence your faith is completely subjective and there is little point even discussing it with you.
Still waiting for you to provide proof for your pseudepigraphia claims. For someone who thinks that such details as the provenance of the letters are irrelevant, you certainly seem to be quite interested in proving that there are no problems there! Is it not enough to simply accept that the Church gave them to you? 😛
Speaking for myself, I don’t accept your point of view that it’s all about belief in God. We know God at least in part through the writings in the Bible. (the other part is ‘personal experience’, tradition and a good dose of imaginative theologizing) The stories in the Bible, interpreted literally, historically provide the framework for the theology of the Church especially in terms of sin, redemption and God’s relationship with his people. If these stories have no basis in historical events then they can’t tell us anything about God’s actions on behalf of his people.
Seeker,
The creation of the world, of plants, animals, and man, (even if evolved) some kind of flood event (even if localised to Mesopotamia), Abraham and his family, Moses, Exodus, all seem to have a historical basis, although I agree with you that they are not historical accounts.
God Bless
Seriously Chris? Really? You are seriously giving as proof of historical basis in the Bible the fact that the world exists, along with plants, animals and people? Oh dear! I am laughing so much I can hardly breathe!!!
I think I can say with some certainty that if the world didn’t exist then neither would your Bible but the existence of the world is not proof of the historicity of the Bible!
Besides which, the world was NOT created in 7 days nor in the order given in Genesis (which mirrors the much earlier Babylonian concept of the cosmos); life forms evolved in a very much haphazard way in response to environmental stimuli – they were not ‘created’; floods happen all over the world – the fact that the Bible reproduces the Gilgamesh flood story (and mistakenly thinks it was worldwide) is proof more of cultural influences than historicity; and there is no historical evidence for the existence of Abraham, his family, Moses or the Exodus. In fact there is a heap of textual indications – from YOUR Bible – that makes it very unlikely that these really were based on historical figures. And the archeological record is very clear for an uninterrrupted Israelite occupation in the hill countries of Canaan right through the time this is supposed to have been happening.
You really need to read some information that doesn’t already agree with your mindset and worldview!
Chris, The ‘historical’ events in the Torah (first five books of the Bible’ are almost exclusively non-historical and do not even have a basis in historical events. This is particularly true for all the main events.
Seeker’s last post 🙂
KA
Oops, the arrows didn’t show up. That was meant to say *likes* Seeker’s last post.
*pines for an edit function*
KA
Seeker,
Perhaps this will wet your appetite for proof of a 1st Century Jewish tradition of pseudepigraphia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse_of_Moses#Apocalypse_of_Moses
And this is just one of a whole genre of 1st Century Jewish pseudepigraphic works.
Pius XII was actually onto something when he taught about the importance of determining the genre of parts of scripture. The idea of writing in someone else’s name as a literary technique was well known in 1st Century Judaism and the early Church, even the gentile writers, would have at least some exposure to that.
God Bless
Wikipedia gives a list of Jewish religious Pseudepigrapha written from about 200 BC to 200 AD:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudepigraphy#Biblical_Pseudepigrapha
It’s a well established Jewish genre of the time.
God Bless
I think you are getting confused between pseudepigrahia (canonical books that were not written by the author that those same writings claim wrote them) and deutero-canonical books.
Anyway, you clearly didn’t read the link you gave me. Not only does it NOT prove that such a practice was accepted and that those reading it knew that the texts were not written by the attributed author, but it also gives a quote showing that such a practice was very much frowned upon in the Christian church – who you claim were comfortable with such a practice:
Let me spell it out for you, in order for your claims to have any merit you need to show that ancient people knew that the works were pseudepigrahical and that they were fine with that.
So far all the evidence points to them being duped by many of the works and believing that they were in fact written by the people that are claimed to have written them, AND that when they discovered something was ‘pseudephigraphical (ie a forgery) it was condemned and the perpetrators were rebuked if caught.
I think all we need to say about this is that most of the gospels and letters that DIDN’T make it into the Bible failed to do so because those setting the canon didn’t think that they were written by the people that they were claimed to have been written by.
Seeker,
It would be interesting to see the actual context in which Serapion was writing. It may well have been to reject the 100 odd apocryphal “gospels”.
I expect that later gentile writers like Serapion and Eusebius lost the sense of what was appreciated by 1st Century Jewish authors. Because they were no longer 1st Century Jews.
I think there was an interest in establishing that a work reflected the genuine apostolic tradition but one didn’t need apostolic authorship to establish that.
Of much more interest to the early Church was whether the content of the work reflected the actual faith handed down to them. It is on the basis of content, not authorship, that one can readily reject the 100 odd apocryphal “gospels” which contain so many bizzare features and odd teachings which are impossible to reconcile with Christ.
For example, in John’s Community, when his Gospel was rolled out, it would have been quite apparent to everyone that it wasn’t redacted by an apostle named John who was then long dead. Ditto for the apocalypse.
God Bless
References for your claims?
And by that I mean something from 1st century Jewish authors proving that they knew and accepted the the so called practice of forging something in someone else’s name. Pease don’t give me another quote from a church document as that is not proof of anything except your inability to back up your claims with primary sources.
And if there was a sense that the focus was on whether a work reflected ‘genuine’ apostolic tradition and that apostolic authorship was not necessary, en why have this so-called practice at all?
You have it completely backwards, the forged works were rejected because they contained content that was not in line with genuine apostolic tradition thus proving that they could not have been written by the apostle that they were attributed to.
It’s interesting that the same Wikipedia article gives further evidence of gentile Greek pseudepigrapha :
God Bless
Freaking heck Chris! Read what you are typing!
NOW! It says NOW. As in NOT at the time it was written. Its seen as pseudo- NOW!!!
*bangs head fruitlessly against the wall*
With one or two exceptions, this whole thread is written by people who don’t write under their real names. Much internet dialog is conducted under pseudonyms.
Do we think that posts by people who don’t use their real names are all forgeries ?
Of course not.
And neither did the ancients.
God Bless
Chris, the difference is that we all KNOW that these are not our real names. That was NOT the case in ancient times. You are grasping at some very flimsy straws.
Prove it with a primary source.
why have this so-called practice at all?
Because pseudepigrahia was a well accepted literary technique of establishing that the work was written from within a particular school/tradition/local Church.
the forged works were rejected because they contained content that was not in line with genuine apostolic tradition thus proving that they could not have been written by the apostle that they were attributed to.
Which is exactly my point.
Primary for the early Church, and her starting point in considering works, was authenticity of content, not authorship.
Do I care that there actually is a person called “Seeker” and what his credentials might happen to be?
Not particularly.
Am I interested in the content of what he writes ?
Sure I am.
God Bless
Actually Chris, it was to reject the Gospel of Peter:
Note that he originally approved the reading of the Gospel of Peter assuming it to be orthodox because it was inscribed with the name of Peter. However complaints reached his ears and he read it and found it contained elements are Docetism which was a condemned heresy. From this, he concluded that the text must be falsely inscribed with Peter’s name and so he rejected it.
Now with our modern textual tools we can see that quite a number of other books and letters that made it into the canon were likewise what the primary sources themselves denounced as forgeries. Considering their attitude, I think there is a good chance that those books would not have made it into the Bible despite not being heretical. Authorship was very important as a sign of credibility!
Again, you have failed to back up this statement with any primary sources. Is this too much to ask considering that your argument hinges on it?
Now in modern times I would say that there is indeed an accepted practice of writing anonymously or under a false name. This has become almost common place since the advent of the internet. However it is spurious and incredibly poor scholarship to infer that just because we do it now, they did it then.
*sigh* He just refuses to see. He’s either being deliberately obtuse, or he really is blinded to real truth after too long in the realm of the supernatural. I would suggest, Mr Seeker, that one stops banging one’s head against the brick wall of Chris’s cognitive dissonance
KA
I’m figuring deliberately obtuse. I find it hard to believe that anyone could genuinely be so blind unless they really really wanted to be.
Seeker,
Do you really think that when works like the Assumption of Moses first came out (ca 1st Century AD or 1st Century BC), that the first people who got to read them actually thought they were written by Moses or Joshua ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_Moses
http://www.piney.com/Testament-Moses.html
The initial readers would have known they weren’t written by the person listed in the work itself. They were fine with that and distributed the work on to others.
Ditto for all the other pseudepigrahiac works.
You don’t seem to have grasped that attributing authorship to some other authority was a literary form rather common in antiquity. That would have been known to the educated class of people who write such works and were familiar with Jewish religious literature (and there references to such works shows they were familiar). It may not have been known to everyone who read them later.
God Bless
Chris, you don’t seem to grasp that it wasn’t nor accept the primary sources that I have provided showing that it was not accepted.
Moreover, you have failed to provide me with ANY evidence that it was an accepted common practice – ‘would have know’ is not the same as providing actual primary sources. If it was so widely accepted and a well established literary form then why can’t you give any actual evidence of it?
Because there is very little documented evidence that supports his view and that which does exists is not thought to be mainstream thought of the time. Chris really does need to start reading something other than Wikipedia in this respect.
I’ll happily lend you my copy of ‘Forged’ Chris if you’re prepared to read it with an open mind. I’m up in Auckland in June so could drop it off to you then.
KA
he’s not even reading wikipedia – at least I see no sign of it in the links he’s provided so far.
Of course, Chris may be wise in refusing to delve into his own claims any deeper. The truths he finds may end up not being the ones he seeks.
I have a study of ancient literary practice, it’s by Ghengis Khan, I’m happy to loan it.
Have you read those links? No where does it say that ancient people would have known that it wasn’t Moses who wrote it as indicated in the text:
Plus, within the text it also states that Moses wrote deuteronomy. Guess no one told the author that it was pseudepigraphical!
The ancient Jewish rabbis (Talmud) managed to figure out that at least some of Deuteronomy wasn’t written by Moses (the parts after he died). They still didn’t have a problem attributing the text to Moses.
Again, further evidence that attributing a work to a famous person was accepted in the ancient Jewish tradition.
God Bless
Provide PRIMARY sources for your claims.
PS a primary source is something written by someone in the time period you are discussing and referring to that time period.
Seeker,
Read the Talmud. Sorry but I lack the time to look it up for you. And, yes, I do know that the Talmud was written rather later (perhaps as late as 400-500AD but with parts much earlier).
God Bless
FAIL!
KA,
Thanks for the book offer but Amazon’s review (one trying to get people to actually fork out good money buy the book) hardly inspires confidence in Ehrman :
http://www.amazon.com/Forged-Writing-God–Why-Bibles-Authors/dp/0062012614/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1305246101&sr=8-1
The review is quite candid that Ehrman is very much OUTSIDE the mainstream view of serious scripture scholars (those who write serious scholarly works, not books just aimed at money making in the popular sceptics market) that pseudepigrahia “was common practice and perfectly okay in ancient times”.
The review goes on to “wish for more evidence of [Ehrman’s] charge”. Hardly inspires confidence in his wild claims, does it ?
The review continues:
Wow! Who knew ?
That’s EXACTY what the Church claims. Nothing to get terribly excited about there. It does nothing to damage the authority of scripture.
Thanks, but I think I’ll pass on Ehrman’s book.
God Bless
Chris, that review was written by Publishers Weekly, an independent news agency that is NOT affiliated with Amazon and has absolutely no stake in the success of the book. It represents one person’s viewpoint. You would accept that uncritically instead of assessing it for yourself?
And given that KA is kindly offering to loan you his copy, your refusal to consider it smacks of close-mindedness.
Found the Talmud reference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosaic_authorship#Text_of_the_Torah_in_Talmud_and_rabbinic_tradition
God Bless
Chris, I do appreciate that you are trying. But we have gone from you saying there was an established pseudepigraphical tradition in the first century to stating that the fact ancient rabbis figured out parts of the Torah weren’t written by Moses is proof.
But even though Moses has traditionally been credited with writing the Torah, there are no actual claims in the text itself that this is so and the most ancient traditions never expressly claimed that Moses wrote the entire Torah. On the rare occasions that the phrase “Moses wrote…” occurs in the text, it refers only to particular passages. (Read the intro to the Pentateuch in the New Jerusalem Bible for more info.)
This is very different from the New Testament forged writings which expressly state that they are written by “Simeon Peter, servant and apostle of Jesus Christ” or “Paul, Silvanus and Timothy, to the church of Thessalonica”.
Seeker,
Amazon contains quite a few other rather critical reviews of Ehrman’s book.
The best is perhaps this, which is well worth reading for it’s discussion of the whole pseudepigrahia issue:
http://www.amazon.com/review/R1WNW976O7MUSZ/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R1WNW976O7MUSZ
I find Ehrman’s claims that Peter must have been illiterate to be unfounded (ditto for Crossan’s claims that Jesus was illiterate). The ancient Jewish tradition is of schools to teach the reading of scripture. We do not know for certain if Peter or Jesus learnt in them, but it does seem at least possible. The Jewish people have always had a great love of scripture and historically have made considerable sacrifices to learn and study it, including learning to tead and write.
If I had all the time in the world, I’d read Ehrman’s book. But I’m sorry, I don’t. I have a pile of books waiting to be read and, to be frank, I can’t really justify putting down one of them to read Ehrman.
On the other hand, if KA wants to drop off the book I promise I will make a serious attempt to read the book, time permitting.
God Bless
Chris,
To rely on a single review from someone who probably has little or no knowledge of the subject is hardly fair and does you no credit. If you go on to read the equally valid reviews that follow, you will see that the book has been well received except by those who, like you, refuse to believe that the bible could say anything wrong.
You really should start reading outside your closed circle of self-authenticating supernatural apologetics and broaden your mind. You seem capable of doing so within the realm of the supernatural (as the appalling assaults against you on BF testify), so why not just try reading something outside of the mainstream religious apologetics?
KA
Seeker,
The Talmud sages claimed that Moses wrote the Torah while admitting that at least parts were written by someone else.
That’s precisely the pseudepigraphea idea – claiming authorship by someone you know didn’t write all of it.
God Bless
No hang on Chris, you are twisting it hugely. Tradition states that God revealed the Torah to Moses, all except the last passage which was written by Joshua after Moses’ death (simply because it describes Moses’ death and they were pretty confident that Moses couldn’t have written that). But no where in the text does it actually make this claim.
You are missing the point by an entire continent!
My point is that the Talmud sages were happy to attribute the book to Moses when they also knew that it wasn’t all written by him.
That’s a point about the acceptability of pseudepigraphia amongst the Jewish sages of at least the Talmudic era (the Talmud may possibly record a much old view here).
If they considered pseudepigraphia acceptable then this is further evidence of mainstream Jewish acceptance of the idea of attributing works to other authors.
And, no, accepting other authors didn’t make them jump to the wild idea that the Torah was all forgery.
God Bless
Chris, they believed it was written by Moses except the short bit about his death which they believed was appended by Joshua, his ‘disciple’ and successor. They name who they think the authors were – Moses and Joshua – and they get it wrong but at no point can you substantiate that the Torah states within it’s text that it was written exclusively by Moses and yet parts were written by Joshua in Moses’ name and that later (second century BCE and later) scholars knew this and accepted it.
You miss the point again. Let me restate it for you – Pseudepigrapha are falsely attributed works, texts whose claimed authorship is unfounded.
Letters like 2 Thess, 2 Peter and so on claim to have been written by the authors Paul and Peter respectively. These claims are false. The Torah makes no claims to be written by Moses. This is a later historical tradition.
1Enoch is another ancient Jewish pseudepigraphia. It appears to have had some influence on the New Testament.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/boe/
The author of 1Enoch obviously considered it acceptable to attribute the work to Enoch himself.
God Bless
Yes, and the author of the Gospel of Peter considered it acceptable acceptable to attribute the work to St Peter himself. But church authorities didn’t consider it acceptable.
And just because the writers of NT might have been familiar with 1 Enoch doesn’t mean they knew it wasn’t written by Enoch and that was okay. The snippet quoted makes it clear they thought it was written by “Enoch the seventh from Adam”
Your examples aren’t helping your case at all. As I have stated earlier, show me a quote from a 1st century writer (preferably a church leader or apologist such as a bishop) that states there is a tradition of attributing works to more famous authors and that authorship is not important.
Yes, and the author of the Gospel of Peter considered it acceptable acceptable to attribute the work to St Peter himself
Ahh … at last we are making some progress and coming to at least some common ground.
So we agree that the sacred authors of the NT letters didn’t have any problem in attributing their work to some earlier authority.
Well, if the sacred authors didn’t have any problem with that, and neither did MANY other ancient Jewish authors and sages, then why should any other disciple of Christ have a problem with it ?
But church authorities didn’t consider it acceptable.
That’s a rather BIG claim. Can you actually substantiate it by quoting from original 1st Century sources ?
God Bless
With pleasure:
“we ask you, brothers and sisters, not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come. Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way”
2 Thess 2:1-3 <– Ironically this is a letter allegedly from Paul but most likely not.
If establishing authorship really was so important to the early Church, then why canonise Hebrews which so obviously lacks an attribution of authorship in it’s text ?
God Bless
Seeker, remind me who is was who was punished for forging a letter in the name of Paul. Was it the Bishop of Asia-Minor or was it the bishop who did the punishing?
KA
It was a presbyter. When I have a chance later I’ll get the details.
KA,
How could anyone tell whether a proposed work really was or wasn’t written by its attributed author ? That would be pretty hard given 1st Century science and literary analysis techniques.
The way it seems to have been done, as Seeker describes above, is that people first consider the content. If content squares with what they know of Jesus from the tradition handed down to them, it gets accepted. If it doesn’t square with what they knew of Jesus (and most didn’t) then it gets rejected.
Determining canonicity is fundamentally a matter of determining authenticity of content, not of authorship.
God Bless
I will say one thing on this issue that I’ve noticed.
Pseudepigrahia etc as an accepted practice in the ancient world is repeated over and again in biblical commentaries, apologetics, and biblical studies text books. — But outside the world of NT scholarship, in general Classics and Ancient history, there seems to be much less consensus. — Just what I’ve found in general reading, I really don’t know much about it.
But given that some works in the NT can no longer be ascribed to their putative author, and the vast majority in the small world of NT studies are devout, there must have been strong inhibitions about calling things “forgeries”
Well spotted! And here it was that I thought badgers had notoriously poor eyesight! Just goes to show that you can’t always believe what is touted around as common knowledge!
“Determining canonicity is fundamentally a matter of determining authenticity of content, not of authorship.”
But determining the “content” of a psuedo-Pauline is “authentic”, involves seeing if it squares with Pauls theology, Pauls theology is determined by reading his letters!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Can you see the insane circle just formed??????
I mean authentic in terms of consistency with the local tradition’s memory of the Christ event.
I don’t think the early Church would have cared too greatly if the theology didn’t exactly match that of some other Pauline letter.
God Bless
Mr Badger,
If the content is actually authentic, then it is not a forgery, is it ? To call something a forgery is a very loaded term, and that’s why the atheists are using it.
What do you think of the idea that some letters in the form we now have them may be composites of multiple letters collected over a period of time and gathered together on the same sheet of papryus for further distribution.
The first one may have been written By Paul/Peter but the later ones may have come from the school/local Church of Paul/Peter and reflect later conditions in the Church.
Over time, especially under conditions of war and persecution, this composition may have been forgotten.
God Bless
I am aware of it, and it is rather troubling. The truth is there is an absolute welter of early Christian and near Christian writing from the time of the early Church. The canon we have is a snap frozen selection of writings. Many of them written we know not when, where, or who by. We are told not to be troubled by this as the holy spirit guided the Church in selecting the scriptures. —- A belief backed up by scriptural references.
Not just a snap frozen selection, but one that has been hand picked by those who won the struggle to determine what was orthodox and what was heretical. Just google the early church heresies and you will see that there were a lot of differing ideas about who Jesus was – fully divine in the semblance of a man? Both God and man? Just a man?
Oh well, that’s reassuring then!
Not very, for obvious reasons!
I don’t know what you are talking about! I’d be reassured by that!
Oh hang, no I wasn’t! 😛
I’d be reassured by the judgement of the early Church on cannonicity.
The big issue facing us today is not cannonicity – it’s hermeneutics. How do we interpret and apply the scriptures in the signs of the times ?
God Bless
Felix Just gives a secular example of Pseudepigraphy:
He also lists some very helpful reasons why the ancients found Pseudepigraphy a good thing and we moderns don’t :
http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Paul-Disputed.htm
God Bless
Chris, the author you quote gives no references at all to support his/her theories. And I am unfamiliar with these “Letters of Socrates” that he cites (but provides no references for). I suspect he may be getting confused with the writings of Socrates students Plato and Xenophon who both wrote Socratic dialogues with Socrates as the main protagonist. However these were written under their own names.
Rev. Felix Just, S.J., Director of Biblical Education at the Loyola Institute for Spirituality has no bias don’t worry
Well with credentials like that, who would imagine he had? 😛
“The “New Testament Apocrypha” similarly includes dozens of writings attributed to the apostles of Jesus, but written several decades or centuries later.”
The thing is these documents are standing as witnesses to events, unlike the Socratic letters a much clearer standard is needed as to their provenance.
Eg is the only source for the transfiguration the gospels? Or does Peter allude to it. — That depends on who wrote the Petrine letters, and whether they used the gospels as a source.
Here’s a Cynic example of pseudepigraphy :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynic_epistles
The more one looks the more one does seem to find this ancient literary technique.
God Bless
Yea Chris, we have already clearly established that forgery was common in ancient times. What you have continually failed to demonstrate is that:
A) those for who they were written knew they were forgeries/not written by the purported author
B) this was an acceptable practice
Your latest link merely once again cites texts that are now seen as forgeries. You haven’t proved the two points I keep bringing up.
bold
FAIL
how do you do italics and bold???
text here
Well that didn’t work either
Ha!!! I see how that happened, duh. 🙂
It hates me.
.
“If the oppressed and downtrodden are ever going to achieve liberation, there is going to have to be a God of Love to bring it about.”
Says Chris, miles back in there somewhere.
‘If,’ being the operative word.
Reminds Toad of this:
“Submit without further delay, for if I bring my army into your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people, and raze your city.”
Said the Greek king.
The Spartans sent back a one word reply: “If.”
Toad has a genius for rebuttal. Very nice
Toad,
Glad to see you are snorting your rebuttals (or whatever) unscathed by earthquake, flood or dancing sunstroke.
Let us return to the original context of the remarks. If, as non-believers frequently claim, religious belief is an desire for human existence to be a better than it actually is, then it necessarily follows that the long term prospects would be better for many people (especially the poor) if the Christian God existed.
I think we must expect non-believers to be as bound to logic as anyone else.
The twist was to ask whether an honourable atheist, though deploring the prospect of a God from his own perspective, might yet wish for a better world for the majority.
I don’t think that religious belief is a desire for life to be better than it is. I think, along with many others, that religious belief is mankind’s striving to understanding a bewildering and often brutal world. It’s an attempt to explain things that are (or were) inexplicable by the knowledge available; especially injustice (bad things happening to good people etc).
I have a question regarding the forgery or not debate.
I grant to Chris that there was a practice of ascribing texts to a relevant prior authority.
Forgery of course involves attempts to deceive the reader.
The epistle to Titus is overwhelmingly regarded as not being written by Paul, but years after his death, though it purports to be from him.
If we grant that, what do we make of the closing passage, which must of necessity be a fictive device, is this there to make the believer feel it really is an epistle from Paul not an anonymous treatise? I think so…
”
There was a practice of ascribing texts to a relevant prior authority – but even in ancient times it was seen as deceptive and condemned. This is very much evident in the lengths that those writers would go to in order to appear to be the person they were impersonating:
– name dropping of people and places
– warnings to not be taken in by false prophets and writers (of whom they were a prime example)
– reminicising
Etc etc
Seeker, I’ve done a bit of digging.
The deposed presbyter composed “The Acts of Paul and Thecla” in about 160 A.D. The acts includes a fake third Corinthians, and a fake reply. We know of it through Tertullian. Here is his comment:
“…But if the writings which wrongly go under Paul’s name, claim Thecla’s example as a licence for women’s teaching and baptizing, let them know that, in Asia, the presbyter who composed that writing, as if he were augmenting Paul’s fame from his own store, after being convicted, and confessing that he had done it from love of Paul, was removed [decisse = resigned, stepped down] from his office….”
but note, Tertullian is more concerned about content than authorship.
I think in this particular case, it is because the content endorsed the teaching authority and priestly ministry of women – in particular he was scandalised at the administration of baptism by a woman. [Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, 6th edition] v.2 p.214-215.
Exactly, it seems to leave open the question of whether or not pseudepigraphy was accepted or not. For instance, would such umbrage had been taken if the work was utterly uncontroversial?
The sheer mass of such material implies these works had an audience.
The challenge for those who defend the current canon must be to lay out the procedure by which the works included were chosen. Authorship has been admitted as no good, orthodoxy is hard to sustain, as orthodoxy was built from the works themselves.
that’s what bugs me, no one can defend the canon without citing it. It always comes down to the holy spirit, the references to whom are drawn from the canon.
My take on it, learned badger, is that numerous works were produced to support various philosophical positions – the Docetism, Gnosticism, Nicolaitans, Monarchism, Unitarians, Montanism, Sabellianism, Arianism and so on through the centuries.
These works were given the names of prominent people to lend credibility to them – to borrow their authority for their own words. After all, you might not read something by Josephus Bloggs down the street but if Peter the great apostle wrote it you would be more inclined to read it and maybe take its message on board. And if someone said, ‘Hey! That’s not what we believe!” you could say, “And why not? I have this letter written by Paul of Tarsus himself who said….”
So in that sense they were produced fraudulently.
My understanding of how the frauds were detected is because they contained teachings that were being rejected by the bishops making the decisions – therefore they couldn’t be by the claimed author. In this sense, yes the content is more important – but only in so far as proving that St Whoever couldn’t possibly have written it.
And I sympathise with your problem over the canon. That was a huge sticking point for me too.
For the joy of all who wondered what John son of Zebedee did on the way to Ephesus, here is an extract from the Acts of John (written circa 150 AD). N.B this work is the source of the Ephesus tradition. This really is quite fun I promise…
Now on the first day we arrived at a deserted inn, and when we were at a loss for a bed for John, we saw a droll matter. There was one bedstead lying somewhere there without coverings, whereon we spread the cloaks which we were wearing, and we prayed him to lie down upon it and rest, while the rest of us all slept upon the floor. But he when he lay down was troubled by the bugs, and as they continued to become yet more troublesome to him, when it was now about the middle of the night, in the hearing of us all he said to them: I say unto you, O bugs, behave yourselves, one and all, and leave your abode for this night and remain quiet in one place, and keep your distance from the servants of God. And as we laughed, and went on talking for some time, John addressed himself to sleep; and we, talking low, gave him no disturbance (or, thanks to him we were not disturbed).
Well damn! That’s what we need instead of buckets of toxic chemicals all over hotel mattresses!
Love it!
Pseudoepigraphy
The authors for most of the Old Testament, and most of the New Testament (by volume) did not claim the text – and anonymous is by definition not pseudoepigraphic. The names of authors were ascribed later by popular piety. In the NT, these books are all the gospels, Acts, the letters of John, and Hebrews.
Several of the books that do claim to have been written by a particular person don’t identify the person by more than name. The identification of this person with a particular apostle is a later development. These are James, Jude, and Revelations. We know there were a number of James, Judes and Johns kicking around in the Christian community. Indeed, early tradition mentions John the Apostle and John the elder as if they were two different people, both of whom left written work.
Of the letters of Paul, seven are widely accepted as having been written by Paul or under his authority, three are argued about with the fors and againsts about evenly divided, and three (the Pastorals) are widely considered bogus on the basis of document analysis.
Now I’m not an expert on New Testament documents, but I can claim some expertise in document analysis (in English). I’ve read the deconstructions on the three pastoral letters, and I’m not convinced by the arguments. The letters are too small for the word usage counts to be significant, and the content and stylistic changes are quite consistent with the difference between audiences (group vs individual) and not sufficiently different to compellingly argue for a different writer.
So I remain to be convinced.
1 Peter is generally accepted to be genuine.
Indeed, part of the reason modern scholars think 2 Peter is not genuine is that the tone and style are so different. It was also one of the most argued about books to eventually make its way into the canon.
Here are some arguments for and against:
I’d also add that letters written by the same person some years apart might be quite different – especially if the person’s educational status changes in that time.
So the issue is not as cut and dried as the discussion above implies.
For all that, even if one or more of the letters turned out to be pseudoepigraphical, I’d want to know why the author made the false claim before I started throwing around claims of forgery. And I say this as a person who has made a very nice living for many years as a ghost writer for people whose writing skills weren’t up to their urge to communicate.
Thank you for your summary of the issues as you see them. However, without wishing to disrespect your obviously hard earned credentials, I would suggest that expertise and experience in writing and editing contemporary English requires a very different type of document analysis to that undertaken by biblical scholars, usually in the original language of the documents.
From my extensive reading, and I profess to be no expert, I would say that the issues are substantially more complex, subtle and nuanced than your above post reflects.
Certainly from their description of the issues, Seeker, it seems to be a very similar type of document analysis – but I haven’t done both, so I don’t insist on the point.
And yes, the issues are more complex, subtle, and nuanced than a comment on a blog thread can reflect.
JP, a couple of other points on II Peter.
1.) It is generally agreed to dependent on the Epistle of Jude, passages of which it expands and modifys.
A possible but surprising fact for a letter by Peter.
2.) It has less and later attestation than almost any other work in the canon. There is no reference to it from the second century, all attempts find one have been highly contentious. It is first mentioned by Origen in the thrd century, though he has doubts about who wrote it. Eusebius in the fourth century says the majority of Church leaders now support it but it is contested.
This is an incredible state of affairs for a letter written by St Peter, who was a revered authority figure amongst many groups arguing about doctrine in the second century — yet of this epistle they show no knowledge.
II Peter is a tricky one of course, the author insists on his identity emphatically, what makes people uncomfortable is that if it was written long after Peter died, (and it’s as near to a consensus as the NT scholars get), then it is very hard to sustain the argument that there was no intention to engender false beliefs in the readers.
All good fun though I suppose.
It seems that regarding any faith issue it is always CRUCIAL that something IS SO, up until it is shown to be NOT SO, at which point it was NEVER IMPORTANT whether it WAS OR WASN’T SO at all……
And so the mind of the Church develops ever deeper understanding — which— “if only you understood it right!!” differs not a whit from what she has always taught.
In the trinity of Church, canon and spirit, the Church leans on the spirit to get the canon, from which it infers the action of the spirit.
It all might be a lot less troubling if we new a LOT less about the piece-meal, inconsistent, and pragmatic manner in which the canon was (finally) settled.
But if we let in the great mass of other material from the early Church, Christianity would start to look like an anarchic mess of goups, one of which after centuries took the field and retrospectively declared its version “the one true apostolic faith” — and they had the texts to prove it. Just like everybody else.
Ah well, I have a headache.
This is an interesting point about Christianity and one that sets it apart from the more mainstream Greco-Roman religions (and perhaps contemporary Judaism as well though I am not so familiar with it). The state religions were much more concerned with PRACTICE than with BELIEF. The daily offering to the domestic gods, the big sacrifices at the key festivals and so on. There wasn’t so much of a focus on right belief as much as right practice!
Yet right from the beginning, the focus in Christianity has been on right belief – hence the concern with ‘heresies’ and with authoritative teaching. Interestingly, this is a feature shared with the mystery religions of the time and later which were focussed on ‘gnosis’ or knowledge.
JP,
So I guess what you’re saying is this (if I might paraphrase):
The early church took a bunch of documents, the authorship of which they weren’t overly concerned about, and chose those documents that most closely matched their preconceived ideas of what their religion was all about. Then they called that the inspired word of god.
And you lot scoff at the Mormons?
KA
.
“And you lot scoff at the Mormons?”
Well, Toad certainly does.
.
And I say this as a person who has made a very nice living for many years as a ghost writer for people whose writing skills weren’t up to their urge to communicate.
I’m shocked, JP, absolutely SHOCKED, that you’ve also gone in for falsifying documents 🙂
It appears that this pseudographia business is MUCH more widespread than first thought !
God Bless
Point. Missed.
And for those who would discount the Old Testament (legitimately considering it’s dubious historical claims) that leaves the New Testament, which we have already seen has some textual ‘difficulties’ (in the nicest possible way of course!).
But issues of forgery/pseudepigrahia aside, if we focus just on the content, Harris brings up the excellent point that “Christianity is completely founded on the claim that the gospel account of the miracles of Jesus is true. There are certain Christians who may want to hedge their bet here, but most Christians, most of the time, take some compliment of these miracles as true. The most important of these seems to be the resurrection. The problem with this is the only thing that testifies to these miracles ever having occurred is the gospel.
There are no extra-biblical descriptions of these events. Everyone agrees that the gospels were written decades after the events they report – those are the earliest gospels. The problem is that even if the evidence were much better than that, even if we had hundreds of eyewitness accounts of these miracles that would still not be good enough evidence to cash out the claims of Christianity.
Why not?
Well, the problem is that in the 21st century, reports of miracles are still quite common. There have been literally hundreds of western-educated men and women who think that their favourite Hindu or Buddhist guru has divine powers. The reports of miracles are quite current, there are Hindu yogis and mystics who reportedly walked on water, and raise the dead and fly without any aid, and read minds and divine the future.
Take someone like Sathya Sai Baba– the south Indian guru. All of these miracles are attributed to him. He even claims to be born of a virgin, which incidentally is not such a rare claim in the history of religion or in history generally. Genghis Kahn was supposedly born of a virgin, Alexander the Great was born of a virgin. Parthenogenesis does not guarantee that you’re going to turn the other cheek, apparently.
Consider this, Sathya Sai Baba has these miracles attributed to him by literally thousands upon thousands of living eye witnesses – he is not the David Koresh of Hinduism. His devotees threw a birthday party for him a few years ago and a million people showed up. There are millions of people who believe he is a living god. Consider for the first time the foundational claims of Christianity – the claim is that miracle stories of a sort surround a person like Sathya Sai Baba today, which are compelling to no one other than his followers – suddenly become especially credible if you place them in the pre-scientific context of the first century roman empire, decades after their supposed occurrence. Sathya Sai Baba’s miracles don’t even merit an hour on the discovery channel. And yet, place these miracles in an ancient text, and half the people on this earth think it a legitimate project to organise their lives around them.
Does anyone else see a problem with that?”
Where does the quote begin??, you and Harris blur in that post 🙂
Galway through the second line of the second paragraph. I could have paraphrased it but he said it so well and it was so easy to cut and paste. I couldn’t however (and especially in the context of this discussion) fail to provide quotation marks and give credit where credit was due. 😛
Halfway, not Galway. My autocorrect hates me.
Speaking from experience Seeker, if I hear someone say “Sai Baba walked on the Ganges” – I think “no he darn well didn’t”.
However it is very very difficult to coolly assess a story that you’ve known all your life. When I read the passage about Jesus walking on water, all at once at least these things come into my head:
A stained glass window of the incident at the Church we attended when I was 6 or 7, and how beautiful the sea looked in it.
The vivid account by Daniel Rops in his classic “the Life of our Lord” which I read when I was young with its description of the wind and waves and the serenity of Jesus.
Talking about it in first communion class when I seven in a parish hall with great fir trees outside.
So you see the story, for someone who’s known it all their life, produces quite a different effect. —- I’m not defending it rationally, but I doubt I’m alone in this.
I understand. The whole Easter liturgy and the passages on the suffering servant still resonate at an emotional level. I remember a very poignant and moving liturgy of the word around a bonfire at Holy Cross seminary one Easter. It’s hard to disassociate the emotional response form the rational one. And whilst I am no fan of completely divorcing the two, I do think it’s necessary to recognize that it is possible to still respond positively to something we have determined is not for us – hence my yearnings towards gluttony when chocolate is in the same room!
That’s an interesting point. I’ve come to think that when all is said and done, that the narrative we all know which runs from, say, the annunciation to the execution of Peter and Paul in Rome, simply can’t stand up to the full weight of scrutiny of the NT texts themselves, the other early Christian writings, and the context in which Christianity was born. But its sheer vividness makes it hard to process how different the reality has slowly turned out to be. — That said, the birth of Christianity has to be one of the most fascinating things in history. But I think maybe that despite its beauty and potency I need to let it go as well. There’s always a patch to every objection, but then again you can always add an epicycle to a geocentric solar system. But I understand it far far more deeply than I did a few years ago when I began the process of returning to it. So that’s a good thing.
It is never a bad thing to understand something more fully. The question then becomes what do you do with that knowledge?
For myself, my deeper delvings into the history, archaology, textual criticism, anthropology etc of the Bible and the early Christian church left me very much reminded of the parable of the wineskins. In my case, I felt that the poor wineskin had been patched so many times that there was little of the original material left!
I asked myself, how can I justify a loving, omniscient god who wishes all to know him through his son, with this haphazard, confusing clutter of self-verifying texts? How inefficient and ineffective is that?
Looked at in this way, with all the information I had learned, Christianity seemed terribly implausible to me. Implausible if I assumed it was true. Yet on the other hand it was frighteningly plausible as a jewish sub-cult that was based around an apocalyptic prophet, that gained traction as a mystery cult among the Gentiles, and that eventually gained position and power through Constantine and after that went from strength to strength.
However, it is a deeply personal journey that each person needs to make, fully armed with as many facts as they can gather. I don’t regret my choices and I don’t judge anyone elses.
From the original posting:
PS. If that is seriously the only part of Christian theology that can be really ‘proved’ then you guys have got some real problems!
It doesn’t matter how uplifting and beautiful the theology of the Church and of Christianity is, no matter how glorious an ediface is formed from the deposit of faith, if the rock solid facts that make up the foundation are missing then you have nothing.
Whoops! Sorry about my confusion with the quotation codes. I got this all mucked up again. 😦
Mr Badger, I think your posts above speak volumes. How can one argue with Dawkins when he calls the religious indoctrination of children child abuse when even now, some 20+ years later you can still remember these things and they can still evoke such emotional responses in you?
KA
I read a fascinating article a month or so back, which sadly I can’t find anymore, exploring the moral implications of a imaginary memory machine. It posited that you could replace, wipe or insert memories – either partial or complete – and in doing so completely change a person’s priorities, philosophy, outlook on life etc etc.
In a sense, this is what happens with a infant brought up in a home – the parents and their beliefs are generally taught uncritically to the child. That is why generally Christian parents have Christian children, muslim parents have muslim children, Buddhist parents have Buddhist children and so on. And in doing so you are going to shape how their lives turn out, the choices they make and so on. In an extreme case, a child raised as a Jehovah’s witness may as an adult die young because they refuse a blood transfusion. A child raised as a Muslim may as an adult get involved with Al Qaeda. in a more recent example, a talented young rugby player may turn down lucrative contracts and opportunities to practice his sport in an international setting to spend two years as a Mormon missionary. Even in the more benign Catholic church, the children raised in this faith may very well make decisions purely on the basis of their faith that they would very much regret if at a later date they became atheist. I certainly know that I have and part of my conversion to atheism involved working through anger at my parents who, with the best of intentions, chose to saddle me with a set of beliefs that corralled me into making choices that I now really really regret. Not to mention the fact that as a child I worried dreadfully about the possibility of going to hell. I was acutely conscious of God watching my every word, action and thought. And I spent a good part of my late teens and early twenties agonising over what God’s will was for me in my life. Its hard enough to make a decision on education, career and spouse without the added pressure of what if I get it wrong and God wanted me to do something else, or marry someone else? And how do I really know what is God’s will for me?
People may bridle to call religious indoctrination of children ‘child abuse’ as they do calling pseudepigrahia ‘forgeries’ but I think there is definitely a case for it, even if the ‘abuse’ is with the best of intentions and more emotion and mental than a physical thing.
First communion was about 32 years ago KA :-). Actually we’re talking about very pleasant memories
One last comment before I seek my bed:
And don’t forget that within the canon itself there is one and only one unpardonable sin:
The Holy Spirit is the lynch pin that holds everything together and that is why this emphasis has been placed on never doubting or questioning the Holy Spirit. They weren’t chumps! They knew they better close that one off good and proper otherwise everything would fall apart.
Ps. That was Mark 3:29
To be fair that admonition has been interpreted in many ways. The later concept and role of the holy spirit probably hadn’t been developed when Mark’s gospel was composed, so I think you read to much into it.
On the other hand you are right that the holy spirit provides an unfalsifiable support. As Karl Popper would point out that means no support whatsoever.
Well since every scripture has 70+ meanings I feel fully justified in reading whatever I want into it! 😛
So the obvious supplementary question goes to you Mr B.
With all we’ve said and all the serious problems that you’ve rightly highlighted regarding the validity of the Christian religion, how can you go on believing? Surely rational common sense must be screaming in your ears by now?
All I can think of is that you’re suspending your normal values of proof (the ones that allow you to fly in an aeroplane without being overly concerned, or to have a vaccination without having to take it on ‘faith’ in a supernatural being that the vaccine works), in order to believe in something that you have plainly disproved here in your previous posts.
KA
KA, my post from 7:32 pm last night, read carefully
*waits for JP to rush in with bandaids and patches*
😉
JP explains her own position and debates constructively with people who disagree, she has the integrity to not “rush in with bandaids”, trust me. — Not her style.
I will defer to your superior knowledge. I’d be interested to know what she thinks of these discussions.
Sorry Mr B, I didn’t read anything into that other than you don’t think it’s true, but that you’re going to believe it anyway. I guess my question still stands.
KA
I don’t know how to believe something that isn’t true!! — what I meant by “going to have to let it go” was just that.
I have come to the conclusion that the Christian faith, although large and venerable, is a very ricketty structure intellectually. Critical inquiry and free thinking has eroded the main supports, and the repairs are too makeshift to be sustainable.
Honored Badger, you have my admiration and respect.
No need seeker for admiration etc, my wife is a Christmas and Easter Catholic and the majority of my friends and colleagues are agnostic. So it takes no particular gumption to say what I’ve come to think is true.
The simple situation is that although I can “patch up” or gloss over every crack in the edifice, I’d rather put my effort into believing things about the world that have the greatest likelihood of being true.
And I have no regrets whatsoever about having returned to the Church as an adult, and come to this realisation, I’ve learned a great deal.
Well said! And you still have my respect and admiration! 😛
Are you in NZ? Perhaps there should be a blog for the lapsed?
I am in NZ but blogs transcend purely geographical boundaries anyway. 😀
To be honest, I think the best debates come when you have people with very different viewpoints respectfully examining the issues and giving their perspectives with appropriates supporting references. This is a great strength of this blog and all credit to JP for making those with differing opinions welcome.
And of course it led to finding this gem of a blog with its lively debates!! 🙂
Mr Badger,
Pseudographia is someone writing a text, but ascribing the text to someone else.
So is ghost writing.
This is actually very common. You don’t think all those politicians, Popes etc actually write all their own speeches ?
God Bless
And Chris fails to get the point AGAIN!
Ghost writing??? Is that the Holy Ghost. *sniggers*
Chris re I am not unaware, I am pointing out that you are blending two very different things.
I think Chris needs to do so. Maybe, like you and I, he is unable to believe something that is not true so he must evade that knowledge for fear everything that he believes and everything that is important to him will become unravelled.
It’s not all ghost writing Chris. Sometimes it is something quite different. In answer to your rather absurd question, no, I don’t think all politicians write their own speeches. I’m happy to debate the formation of the canon, I don’t need you to define basic terms for me.
Regards
Mr B, It refreshing to find a theist who is prepared to examine the evidence and come to an honest conclusion. You have my utmost respect.
I like your idea of a blog for lapsed Catholics. Perhaps Dulce Domum could be revived, only with a different title – Reperio Veritas perhaps?
KA
.
A blog for lapsed caths?
What on earth would we argue about?
Toad will pass on this one.
You may not have a choice, Mr Toad! If Camping and his band of merry men are right then JP, Manus and possibly also Chris won’t be with us past Saturday night!
http://friendlyatheist.com/2011/05/15/west-coast-rapture-party/
I’m thinking of having a post-rapture party if anyone’s interested.
I was rather hoping that the roads would be less crowded come Monday morning, although to be honest, I’m not sure we’ll notice the difference.
If there really is a God and Jesus really is coming, I’m pretty sure that he’ll be so hacked off at the so-called Christians that he’ll leave 99% of them behind – including ALL the Catholics who waste so much money on their bangles and beads and other shiny objects and venerate all those people who, frankly, don’t deserve to be venerated.
KA
You’re such a Calvinist, KA! And I say this with all affection. (Bangles and beads forsooth!)
So much to comment on and so little time!
I’ve not forgotten you, and I’m composing a post that is a general response to many of the points here – what it is I believe. My post on why I believe is turning into a series on four on why I believe (Basic axioms, why I am a theist, why I am a Christian, and why I am a Catholic). I want to run them back to back, so I won’t post the first till I’ve finished the fourth.
I’ll put up a post in a moment for discussion – related to, but not exactly on, the topic. Later today I hope to finish the general response I mention above, all going according to plan.
Cheers.
“You’re such a Calvinist, KA! And I say this with all affection. (Bangles and beads forsooth!)”
KA is welcome to come along to the next Calvinist discussion group, should he be so destined. — Bring a stool, no cushion. Next weeks topic:
“Is my smug sense of Calvinist superiority distracting me too much from hating myself as a miserable sinner”
Our guest speaker will then prove that neither Mary nor Peter are actually mentioned in the New Testament.
By the way this whole discussion makes me very angry.
I take it beads and bangles are not permitted. What about necklaces and earrings?
Why would any man wear such things????