Discussion - J.P. Holding (Bob Turkel)
A number of Christians have challenged me to get into a debate or
discussion with J.P. Holding. So when the opportunity naturally arose
when I was added to a little discussion list he was on I thought I'd
see what happens. So here it is, unfolding in real time from now on -
future emails will be added as they are sent and received. The subject
is almost entirely the resurrection and the tone is increasingly
cordial!
I'll make this page prettier with more links and further
explanations ASAP, although there is currently the occasional email from
another person included below. The current state of this page is for those who
were interested in my end of this interaction with JPH. I'll update it as new
emails are sent and received.
These emails were sent to a list including James Patrick Holding, Ed
Babinski, G. Zeinelde
Jordan and others. I have not included the list in the "To" field in the
emails reported as a quick fix in order to keep email addresses hidden from
spammers. (Easier for me just to delete the list of names rather than edit out
all the addresses for now!)
Otherwise these emails are all unedited.
For those confused by the dates of the first few emails, I have
inserted Bob's replies after the relevent emails from myself even
though I sent the first few all at once.
From: "James Patrick Holding"
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 12:49 PM
Subject: Re: Why did Christianity succeed in a world of polytheism
(and Judaism?)
For destruction of alleged rebuttal see
http://www.tektonics.org/nowayjose_CC1.html |
From: "Steve Locks"
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2004 12:27 AM
Subject: Re: I am asking the most obvious question(s), Bob
>>Tell me than: What is Christianity? Belief in
Jesus? Come on, if this
will be your reply, than I hope you can
do allot better!
BOB:
I already have to the tune of 1300+
articles.
STEVE:
Bob, do you have a reply to http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=242
on
your
site?
Steve
======================================
Leaving
Christianity
|
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve
Locks
Sent:
Saturday, January 17, 2004 12:28 AM
Subject: Re: I am asking the most obvious question(s),
Bob
> ED: The most obvious question is why anyone would
believe and seek to
> defend every miracle, every science-related
point, the veracity of every
> point related to history, and
otherworldly doctrines no one can directly
> verify like "a
Trinity,"
BOB:
Because it is true? Isn't that the obvious
answer?
STEVE
Because it is true?? If something's in the
Bible then will you automatically
defend it? How else do you explain
this:
From http://members.aol.com/bbu85/hold.htm
This is actually an essay from The TEKTONICS.ORG EXPOSED
site. The essay details a very revealing mistake Turkel made when, in
a discussion with Farrell Till, he tried to explain a repeated word in
the book of John. Turkel claimed that the author of the book repeated
the word twice for emphasis:
"First let's understand exactly what is in John here.
The words are 'rise again from the dead' -- 'rise again' is the
Greek anistemi used twice for emphasis. In fact this we will see is
the key to the whole issue; the word is commonly used for anyone
just getting up from their place."
Unfortunately for Turkel, the word was not actually repeated twice.
Software that Turkel was using repeated the word and he didn't catch
the error. Turkel's explanation of why the author repeated the word is
simply bogus-something he made up off the top of his head. This
reference has now disappeared from Turkel's
site.
See here for article
http://web.archive.org/web/20021205031149/http://exposed.faithweb.com/blunder.html
Steve
======================================
Leaving
Christianity
|
From:James
Patrick Holding
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 12:48 PM
Subject: Re: I am asking the most obvious question(s),
Bob
Old news, Steve --
|
|
From: "Steve Locks"
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2004 1:23 AM
Subject: Re: A note to Bob and Harry
BOB:
Tell me what happened to the body of
Jesus.
STEVE
http://members.tripod.com/enoch2112/ByronBurial.htm
concludes with:
"The evidence has shown that even though Roman
authorities like Pilate might
sometimes have left crucifixion victims
hanging, they often allowed bodies
to be buried. Such allowances, in
fact, were all the more likely during a
religious holiday, or when
the crucifixion was not part of a mass operation
to suppress an open
and armed revolt, or when the request for the body came
from a person
who was cooperative with Rome. The evidence has further shown
that
the Jewish leaders who participated in the proceedings against
Jesus
had strong religious and cultural motives for seeking to bury
him in shame.
Such motives came not from any secret allegiance to
Jesus, but from
observance of traditional law and custom. Finally,
the
evidence has also shown that the early followers of Jesus
described his
burial in terms which were dishonorable. They dignified
it as much as
possible but did not deny its shame.
On the basis of
the evidence, then, the following scenario emerges as a
likely course
of events for the deposition of Jesus' body: late on the day
of his
death, one or more of the Jewish leaders in
Jerusalem--later
personified by Christian tradition as Joseph of
Arimathea--requested custody
of the body for purposes of dishonorable
burial. These leaders, having
collaborated with the Romans in the
condemnation of Jesus, had both the
means and the motive to bury him
in shame: means, in their access to Pilate,
and motive, in Jewish law
and custom. Pilate did not hesitate to grant
dishonorable burial to
one of their condemned criminals. Only the most
rudimentary burial
preparations were administered--the body was wrapped and
taken
directly to the tomb, without a funeral procession, eulogies, or
the
deposition of any personal effects. By sunset on the day of his
death, the
body of Jesus lay within a burial cave reserved for
criminals condemned by
Jewish courts. No one mourned.
The shame of
Jesus' burial is not only consistent with the best evidence,
but can
also help to account for an historical fact which has long
been
puzzling to historians of early Christianity: why did the
primitive church
not venerate the tomb of Jesus? Joachim Jeremias,
for one, thought it
inconceivable (undenkbar) that the primitive
community would have let the
grave of Jesus sink into oblivion. [36]
Yet the earliest hints of Christian
veneration of Jesus' tomb do not
surface until the early fourth century CE.
[37] It is a striking
fact--and not at all unthinkable--that the tomb of
Jesus was not
venerated until it was no longer remembered as a place of
shame.
[38]"
In What Really Happened to Jesus Lüdemann says "given
the significance of
tombs of saints in the time of Jesus, it can be
presupposed that had Jesus'
tomb been known, early Christians would
have venerated it, and traditions
about it would have been
preserved." He quotes Joachim Jeremias: "The world
of sacred tombs
was a real element of the environment in which the earliest
community
lived. It is inconceivable that, living in this world, it could
have
allowed the tomb of Jesus to be forgotten." If a tomb location
is
unknown then it could not have been seen empty. Don Cupitt said
poignantly,
"the Easter faith preceded the Easter
events."
Rabbinic law specifies that criminals may not be
buried in tombs; rather, it
instructs Jews to bury criminals in a
common grave. Tosefta Sanhedrin 9:8;
Mishnah Sanhedrin 6:5-7.
m. Sanh. 6:6 says that criminals condemned by a
Jewish court were not
interred "in the burial place of their fathers," but
in a separate
places kept by the court specifically for that purpose.
(http://members.tripod.com/enoch2112/ByronBurial.htm
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/thomas_sheehan/firstcoming/two.html#10)
However,
Ludemann's "What really Happened to Jesus" claims that Jesus was
not
likely to have been buried in a criminals' grave (a Jewish
practise)
because he was not executed by the Jewish authorities
(Ludemann also doubts
the historicity of the Jewish condemnation of
Jesus - due to his other
criticisms of anti-semitism in the NT).
However, others point out that an
ignoble burial in accordance with
the Mishnah Sanhedrin would have been
necessary, if the passion story
is to be believed, because Jesus was
condemned by the Jewish
authorities in the NT as discussed at
http://members.tripod.com/enoch2112/ByronBurial.htm.
(Also see
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/asym/jreply2.html#maet).
St.
Paul explicitly says Jesus was condemned by the Law, (which would
invoke
the ignoble burial code), quoting the Torah law: "Christ
redeemed us from
the curse of the law, having become a curse for
us--for it is written,
cursed is everyone who hangs on a post"
(Galatians 3:13). And in accord
with the Torah law condemning
blasphemers to death (Leviticus 24:16), three
of the four Evangelists
state unequivocally that Jesus was condemned to
death for blasphemy
by the Jewish high council (Mark 14:64, Matthew
26:65-66, John
19:7). Mark (10:33) and Matthew (20:18) even have Jesus
predict
he will be condemned to death by the Jewish council.
Therefore if
Joseph of Arimathea (or another Jew/Jews) really buried Jesus,
then
he/they would have had to follow the code in the Mishnah
Sanhedrin
above. Since at least a few of the Jewish leaders had been
involved in the
condemnation of Jesus, they had an obligation to bury
him in
shame.
Steve
======================================
Leaving
Christianity
|
From: "James Patrick Holding"
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 1:09 PM
Subject: Re: A note to Bob and Harry
I'm asking what happened AFTER burial,
Steve.
|
From: "Steve Locks"
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2004 1:30 AM
Subject: Re: Not "begging the question" just asking
them
BOB
My argument has been that the language of the text
is equivocal on such
matters -- open so that no one can find a
specific view clearly stated
there.
STEVE
Bob, are the
following from the bible equivocations or
literal?
Creationism
Adam and Eve
Noah's Ark
Did Paul
think these things actually happened? Did Jesus?
Bob, at http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_03_03_01.html
you attempt to make it
look like ancient people did not have ancient
notions of cosmology and
astronomy, so we can take it that incorrect
scientific ideas in the bible
are not ideas you would be happy to see
there. Unfortunately by your stand
on creationism, etc. you have
undermined your whole thesis.
But even if we admit that
Christianity does not fall due to the insistence
of the inclusion of
beliefs such as those at
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
(there
are other Christian interpretations on the market) it surely
even
worse than this. Christianity is predicated on the idea that
mankind is
fallen and in need of atonement with God. For most
of Christian history
this was based on a literal belief in the Adam
and Eve story. Despite all
the mythical and liberal interpretations
of the Adam and Eve story in
recent times, the originators of
Christianity (Christianities) thought
Genesis was literally
true.
As Mark McFall (http://www.frontline-apologetics.com/)
said to me:
"So you see, if you cast aspersions on the historical
record surrounding
Adam and Eve, you must also question the
inspiration and authority of the
Bible, the genealogical and
archaeological accuracy of Scripture, the
problem of sin, Christ's
vicarious atonement, salvation by the grace of God
alone, and much
more. I've been laugh (sic) at before for holding this view.
But you
know what, that's what the Bible
teaches."
Steve
======================================
Leaving
Christianity
|
From: "James Patrick Holding"
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 1:08 PM
Subject: Re: Not "begging the question" just asking them
Yo Steve,
I see no reason to think they were not
understood literally. Josephus sure
thought so.
I have taken
no "stand" on creationism beyond a bare minimal,
fideistic
endorsement. What in the world are you talking
about?
|
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 10:50 PM
Subject: Re: Not "begging the question" just asking
them
Thanks Bob,
I am sorry if I have misrepresented
your position. I know your policy is not
to take much of a stand on
or defend creationism etc. which I wasn't meaning
to get into the
technicalities of, rather I wish to make a point about
the
implications of a theology built on a false view of the world.
Given your
linking to AiG and pages such as http://www.tektonics.org/evologic.html
I
think I am correct not to characterise you as a fence sitter,
despite your
policy of not wishing to be drawn on areas you outside
your speciality.
Since you mention that your stance is a "fideistic
endorsement" then I take
it that you see such views as important to
have as part of Christian faith
and therefore could cause problems
for faith if not accepted. Therefore
if Creationism, Adam and Eve and
Noah's Ark did not really happen
then this should not be a neutral
issue for you or for the veracity of
Christianity both in your
opinion and more generally.
On a previous version of your site at
least, I remember seeing you linking
favourably to a Noah's ark
apologetic site. (Rummage...) here - found it at
http://web.archive.org/web/20000929025428/www.tektonics.org/lynks.html
where
you linked to a number of creationist sites including the
Noah's ark
apologetic I was thinking of
http://web.archive.org/web/20001017071102/www.users.bigpond.com/webfx/cyber/crsbk21.htm
That
said, your own particular stance on this, whilst relevant to
the
grounding of your apologetics, is not the most important thing.
(Surely
a Christian apologist could make mistakes and yet
Christianity remain true).
Rather it is what the writers of the
biblical texts took as literal that is
so damaging to
Christianity.
Assume, for the sake of argument at least, that
Adam and Eve story,
Noah's ark, creationism etc. are not true and yet
St. Paul, Jesus etc.
thought they were absolutely so and built their
whole system of sin
and redemption on such tales.
This would
mean that their theology was based on a literal reading of
things
that didn't happen. Mark McFall represents the view (and goes to
some
pains to biblically prove it) that the whole thing would then
collapse as
built on sand, "therefore" we must take Genesis literally
(see
http://sites.google.com/site/leavingxtianity/feedback/mark-mcfall/mark-mcfall-part-2#mr).
Whilst
I have (or at least had) some sympathy for the more
psychologically
based liberal readings of Genesis, this is (as you
agree) not what the
originators of Christianity (Christianities) had
in mind. Rather they would
have been pretty cross (to the point of
heretic burning) had anyone dared
suggest that there wasn't really a
talking snake. So Christianity is all
predicated on a gross
falsehood.
So, in response to your question: << What in
the world are you talking
about? >>
What I am talking about
is:
Would you agree that beliefs predicated on a gross falsehood are
likely to
be erroneous?
As an addendum, since you agree
that "I see no reason to think they were not
understood literally"
why do you see the need to imply at
http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_03_03_01.html
that the writers did not have
a false
cosmology/astronomy?
Steve
======================================
Leaving
Christianity
|
From: "Steve Locks"
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 11:10 PM
Subject: Re: Ground control to Jesus Christ: "We Have Lift
Off"
Did you know that Jesus recently miraculously appeared
before 6,000 in
Nairobi? There are even photos of him and testimonies
to his miraculous
appearance and disappearance. http://www.mcn.org/1/miracles/Nairobi2.html
This
time he went off in a car though, but then vanished without
ascending.
Steve
======================================
Leaving
Christianity
|
From: "Steve Locks"
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 11:17 PM
Subject: Re: A note to Bob and Harry
If Jesus was buried in shame as discussed at the URL I
gave, then there
would not have been a visit to an empty tomb with
the attendant appearances
as per the Gospels.
As I said
previously:
"If a tomb location is unknown then it could not have
been seen empty."
You asked "What happened to the body?"
The
body rotted. It must have because it was buried in a shameful way in
a
shameful place, not the known tomb portrayed in the
Gospels.
Do you have a rebuttal of
http://members.tripod.com/enoch2112/ByronBurial.htm
?
Steve
======================================
Leaving
Christianity
|
From: "James Patrick Holding"
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 2:05 PM
Subject: Re: Not "begging the question" just asking
them
Steve,
> it that you see such views as
important to have as part of Christian faith
> and therefore could
cause problems for faith if not accepted. Therefore
> if
Creationism, Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark did not really happen
>
then this should not be a neutral issue for you or for the veracity
of
> Christianity both in your opinion and more
generally.
I don't deny that it would for some people. It would
not for me.
> This would mean that their theology was based on
a literal reading of
> things that didn't happen.
If so
then we just end up with a Bible like any other historical or
other
text that makes claims that must be independently evaluated on
their own
merits. The "slippery slope" of "if we can't trust it here,
then we can't
trust it anywhere" is logically fallacious and would
not enter my mind.
> understood literally" why do you see the
need to imply at
> http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_03_03_01.html
that the writers did not
have
> a false
cosmology/astronomy?
Because the data offered does not indicate
it.
>>>If Jesus was buried in shame as discussed at the
URL I gave, then there
would not have been a visit to an empty tomb
with the attendant appearances
as per the Gospels.
Why not?
Those who saw him and went to the tomb are those who would wish
out
of love to make any effort to restore his honor.
As for
Kenya, get back with me in 5 years and let me know how the
movement
that surrounds this event is
doing.
|
From: "Steve Locks"
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 11:30 PM
Subject: Can't "Adam and Eve" it. (That's Cockney rhyming
slang).
Thanks for your reply Bob,
STEVE
WROTE
(regarding your (Bob's) statement that you take a bare minimal,
fideistic
endorsement of creationism):-
> Since you mention
that your stance is a "fideistic endorsement" then I
> take it
that you see such views as important to have as part of
Christian
> faith and therefore could cause problems for faith if
not accepted.
> Therefore if Creationism, Adam and Eve and Noah's
Ark did not really
> happen then this should not be a neutral
issue for you or for the veracity
> of Christianity both in your
opinion and more generally.
BOB
I don't deny that it would for
some people. It would not for me.
STEVE
Okay, I don't want to
dwell on your personal beliefs overmuch, but the fact
that you think
creationism is worth believing (is it a fact you think so?)
must mean
that you see some value in it surely - why else do you endorse it?
If
not and you really are not on the creationism side of the fence then
I
think your website is a bit misleading and you should make your
position
clearer if you wish to reduce misunderstanding of your
position. I take it
you disagree with Mark McFall's analysis at
http://sites.google.com/site/leavingxtianity/feedback/mark-mcfall/mark-mcfall-part-2#mr ?
Since you said:
<< I don't deny that it would for
some people. It would not for me. >>
How would you see the fall
and atonement if Genesis is mythical rather than
literal?
Also
what would you think of the biblical writers for taking the stories
in
Genesis literally? (You did say << I see no reason to think
they were not
understood literally.
>>)
STEVE
> This would mean that their theology
was based on a literal reading of
> things that didn't
happen.
BOB
If so then we just end up with a Bible like any
other historical or other
text that makes claims that must be
independently evaluated on their own
merits. The "slippery slope" of
"if we can't trust it here, then we can't
trust it anywhere" is
logically fallacious and would not enter my mind.
STEVE
Not
just their own merits - as I think you really agree, as you have
to
understand how a text was written, the times it was written in
etc. etc.
etc. just as you do yourself at length. The bible is not
the only book you
have read to understand the bible better. Also, it
really is relevant to
check the claims of Genesis against modern
science, even if you want
to argue about it. Who was it of one book
who said "if it's in the Koran
we know it already, if it's not then
we don't need it!"
Now, if the atonement is predicated on
something that didn't happen then
the atonement is not required. This
is not a "slippery slope" argument. If
someone hasn't eaten poison
then they don't need an antidote.
BOB
"if we can't trust it
here, then we can't trust it anywhere" is logically
fallacious and
would not enter my mind.
STEVE
I did not say that we can't
trust the Bible anywhere. In a large
diverse book it is unlikely that
the whole thing is without any human
insight. Indeed, contrary
to what we're led to believe as Christians,
for most ex-Christians
deconversion comes as a feeling of awakening
and spiritual
enrichment, rather than the feeling of empty nihilism that
we are led
to expect. No baby out with bath water, although the
transition can
be painful initially for some.
See http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/posts.html#trauma
BOB
"if
we can't trust it here, ...."
STEVE
Unfortunately if the bible
claims things which didn't happen did, and those
things are the very
heart of the matter (for supernatural believing
Christians e.g. St.
Paul), then the central message of Christianity (that
Jesus died for
to rectify the fall) is false. The reason this is so
problematic for
Christianity is because St. Paul was not a liberal but
rather
intended his theology as a consequence of a literal reading
of
Genesis. Hence if there was no talking snake then St. Paul
was
mistaken in his interpretation of what Jesus was about. That is
not
the "whole thing." It is the difference between
evangelical/fundamentalist
Christianity and liberal Christianity or
beyond.
So Adam and Eve doesn't destroy a less supernatural
Christianity
as plenty of liberals and leftish mainstream Christians
get on fine without
a literal belief in Genesis or even a physical
Resurrection, as you know
(so why were you worried that this might be
a "slippery slope" argument?).
They would argue that there is still
plenty of room for manoeuvre.
So back to my question (about
literal Genesis and its supernatural
solution). Yes or no, would you
agree that beliefs predicated on a
gross falsehood are likely to be
erroneous?
Another point about my question:
(Reworded for
clarity) "If creationism is false, would that cause a problem
for
Christian belief?"
You replied:
<< It would not for
me.>>
So to what are you referring when you
wrote:
<< claims ... must be independently evaluated on their
own merits.>>
If it doesn't matter about creationism for
Christian beliefs (for you), why
do you present creationism
favourably on your apologetics website?
Do you think it would
have upset St. Paul if he was shown that the Adam and
Eve story did
not happen? Didn't he therefore not have a real problem (the
fall)
requiring a solution (the atonement) but rather a pseudo-problem
for
which a solution is therefore not
required?
STEVE
> understood literally" why do you see
the need to imply at
> http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_03_03_01.html
that the writers did not
> have a false
cosmology/astronomy?
BOB
Because the data offered does not
indicate it.
STEVE
Would it cause any embarrassment to
Christianity if the biblical authors
*did* literally have false
astronomical and cosmological
notions?
Steve
======================================
Leaving
Christianity
|
From: Steve Locks
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 11:49 PM
Subject: Tomb and body
STEVE
>>>If Jesus was buried in shame as discussed at
the URL I gave, then there
would not have been a visit to an empty
tomb with the attendant appearances
as per the
Gospels.
BOB
Why not?
STEVE
Because there would not
have been a known tomb for them to go to.
|
From: Steve Locks
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 11:52 PM
Subject: Christ seen by 6,000 in Kenya
BOB
As for Kenya, get back with me in 5 years and let me know
how the movement
that surrounds this event is
doing.
STEVE
That was 1988 and they're still talking about it.
The movement is
Christianity BTW. At least it was 6,000 Christians
who were calling him
"Jesus." Although others later claimed him to be Maitreya, the
crowds were
calling "Jesus! Jesus! Jesus of Nazareth!". As it says on the
website 6,000
believed they saw Jesus Christ, in broad daylight. They are
not the only
Christians who have claimed to see Christian figures to the
embarrassment
of other Christians as I know you are well aware. http://www.mcn.org/1/miracles/Nairobi2.html
was for light relief mostly, but with one serious point which I
wondered if anyone would pick up on. That is the gullibility of
crowds. 6,000 puts 500 to shame - and see how easily they believed
this was Jesus. First hand witnesses even testified with
multiple attestations and photographs which is far more impressive than
what 1
Cor. 15:6 gives us.
This is of course quite apart from a point Ed makes in his
book: Viz.: "...when Paul states that Jesus "appeared" to "over
500 brethren at once" (1 Cor. 15:6), that would have been to a far
greater number of "brethren" than were said to have existed before
Jesus' physical body supposedly rose into the clouds. (Only 120
"brethren" existed at the time - Acts 1:9, 14-15, 22). So by the
Bible's own admission, whoever or whatever may have "appeared" to
"over 500 brethren" could not have been a physically resurrected
Jesus, since his body left the Earth before that many "brethren"
existed." More on this at http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/asym/jreply3/emails1.htmlI
know you have lots of URLs for rebuttal, but it would be more
interesting to see your specific answers, although give URLs as well
of
course! Steve ====================================== Leaving
Christianity |
From: James
Patrick Holding
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 9:00 PM
Subject: Re: Tomb and body
Um,
>>>Because there would not have been a known tomb for them
to go to.
Beg pardon, but McCane's thesis is exactly the
OPPOSITE, that there would be a known tomb.
>>>That was 1988 and they're still talking about it. The
movement is
Christianity BTW
"Still talking about it" means very little
sociologically. And it does not appear to be any sort of new movement
from what you describe, just a slathering onto an old one.
>>>"...when Paul states that Jesus "appeared" to "over
500 brethren at once" (1
Cor. 15:6), that would have been to a far
greater number of "brethren"
than were said to have existed before
Jesus' physical body supposedly
rose into the clouds. (Only 120
"brethren" existed at the time - Acts 1:9,
14-15, 22).
That's a very poor reading. It only says that 120
brethren were assembled at the place, not that this was the whole of the
ekklesia. The vast majority would be Galileeans who would need to stay
home and farm.
>>>>Okay, I don't want to dwell on your personal
beliefs overmuch, but the fact
that you think creationism is worth
believing (is it a fact you think so?)
must mean that you see some
value in it surely - why else do you endorse it?
It is closer to the truth than materialistic versions
of origins. I would also endorse ID and refer people to articles on that
subject.
>>>f not and you really are not on the
creationism side of the fence then I
think your website is a bit
misleading
How so? What specific statement is
misleading?
>>>Now, if the atonement is predicated on something
that didn't happen then
the atonement is not required. This is not a
"slippery slope" argument.
It certainly is. There is no problem with the idea
that Genesis 1-3 represents an ideological fact about human
nature.
>>>\Jesus died for to rectify the
fall) is false. The reason this is so
problematic for Christianity is
because St. Paul was not a liberal but
rather intended his theology
as a consequence of a literal reading of
Genesis
Then we are still left with something that must be
evaluated on individual merits.
>>>(so why were you worried that this might be a "slippery
slope" argument?).
I am not worried that it is, as I think I made clear.
:-)
>>>solution). Yes or no, would you agree that beliefs
predicated on a
gross falsehood are likely to be erroneous?
No. That's far too simplistic a
statement.
>>>Would it cause any embarrassment to Christianity if the
biblical authors
*did* literally have false astronomical and
cosmological notions?
Not really. We are again left with a need to evaluate
individual claims. Only fundamentalists (and ex-fundies) have such a
fallacious black and white mentality.
JPH
|
From: "Steve Locks"
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 10:14 PM
Subject: Anyone has access
BOB
Because the matters central to salvation do not
rely on such a high level of
expertise. Anyone has
access.
STEVE
I occasionally get Muslims writing to me who
tell me the same thing about
Islam. All I need to do is study it a
bit, open my heart and all will be
clear!
"[ I ] knew why
Muslims are the hardest people in the world to convert
to
Christianity. Why? Because there is nothing to offer them!!
(In
Islam) There is a relationship with Allah, forgiveness of
sins,
salvation and promise of Eternal Life." ... "I also like very
much the
rule of forgiveness in Islam and the direct relationship
between God and
His servants."
["Former Christian Priests and
Missionaries who have Embraced Islam"
http://www.thetruereligion.org/priests.htm]
Steve
======================================
Leaving
Christianity
|
From: Steve Locks
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 10:54 PM
Subject: Fundies
STEVE
>>>if not and you really are not on the
creationism side of the fence then I
think your website is a bit
misleading
BOB
How so? What specific statement is misleading?
STEVE
I guess it is not misleading since you've admitted being on the ID
side of the fence. It just appeared that you were ambivalent from
earlier emails, but it seems that is not the case after all. I would
like to be clear though - is it irrelevant (as far as you
are concerned), for the truth of Christianity whether or not we evolved
as mainstream science teaches, and if Adam and Eve and the Flood
literally happened or not?
STEVE
>>>Now, if the atonement is predicated on
something that didn't happen then
the atonement is not required. This
is not a "slippery slope" argument.
BOB
It certainly is. There is no problem with the idea that
Genesis 1-3 represents an ideological fact about human nature.
STEVE
I have already agreed that liberals have room for manoeuvre. It is
fatal for fundamentalists if Genesis is not literally true
though. It is no good asserting this is a slippery slope. If Adam and
Eve are mythical then there was no literal talking snake QED
and Paul was mistaken to believe that there was. However if you want to
reinterpret Genesis 1-3 as an ideological "fact" about human nature then
you're more of a liberal than I had you down for - my apologies (no
sarcasm meant!)
It is also a problem for non-fundamentalists who seek to see Paul
as inspired, or indeed knowing enough to be our guide in
theology. Since you do not think that beliefs predicated on a gross
error are likely to be erroneous, how about: "The chance
of being right when your system is predicated on a gross falsehood
is less secure than the chances of being right when predicated on an
accurate picture of the world." Will you at least consent to that?
STEVE
>>>\Jesus died for to rectify the fall) is false. The
reason this is so
problematic for Christianity is because St. Paul
was not a liberal but
rather intended his theology as a consequence
of a literal reading of
Genesis.
BOB
Then we are still left with something that must be evaluated
on individual merits.
STEVE
We are left with the fact that Paul believed something false. There
is a difference between St. Paul's belief that Adam and Eve were
real people and those who do not. This is the difference between
fundamentalism (Paul would have been a fundamentalist)
and the non-fundamentalist view. If you take Genesis 1-3
as representing an ideological rather than a literal view then would you
be happy to disagree so fundamentally with St. Paul? i.e. does it not
disturb you that the most important thing in the universe to you has a
literal falsehood at its very core?
STEVE
Yes or no, would you agree that beliefs predicated on a
gross falsehood are likely to be erroneous?
BOB
No. That's far too simplistic a statement.
STEVE
If we evolved from animals with a gradually changing consciousness
over the aeons, our complex psychology is hardly something we need to be
condemned for. So no it's not too simplistic to say that if it is a
gross falsehood that we have (paraphrasing common Christian claims)
"deliberately chosen to go our own way rather than (the Christian)
God's" (whether believed to be through our psychology or the false tale
of Adam and Eve) then the remedy of Christianity is an unnecessary and
erroneous cure looking for a pseudo-disease. There is no need for the
Christian God to be so condemnatory of us in the first place - He really
should be more understanding and less touchy about being defiled by our
presence! (Generously) "if" creationism, Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark etc.
are false then aren't we justified in saying "Get a grip on reality you
deities!" Okay - I know you'll disagree... maybe instead you could
give your interpretation of the fall?
STEVE
>>>Would it cause any embarrassment to
Christianity if the biblical authors
*did* literally have false
astronomical and cosmological notions?
BOB
Not really. We are again left with a need to evaluate
individual claims. Only fundamentalists (and ex-fundies) have such a
fallacious black and white mentality.
STEVE
The modern Christians in Kenya would know that above the clouds lie
miles of atmosphere and billions of light years of space. Therefore
they saw Jesus just disappear, whereas the ancients saw him rise up
in the air - but to where? False astronomical and cosmological notions
are clearly belying made up stories, so they should be an
embarrassment to Christians who believe in a supernatural God.
BOB
Only fundamentalists (and ex-fundies) have such a fallacious black
and white mentality.
STEVE
But weren't the biblical authors fundamentalists - with a literal
belief in Genesis? Did they therefore likely have a fallacious
black and white mentality?
Regards,
Steve
======================================
Leaving
Christianity
P.S. I'm not personally an ex-"fundie", but I know lot's of nice
ones! |
From: Steve Locks
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 10:57 PM
Subject: 6,000 see Jesus
Regarding the 6,000 Christians who took photos of the
person they believed was Jesus miraculously appearing, walking
amongst them, talking then disappearing, you wrote:
BOB
"Still talking about it" means very little sociologically. And it
does not appear to be any sort of new movement from what you describe,
just a slathering onto an old one.
STEVE
It was yourself (not me) who initially referred to this as a
"movement" and I who pointed out it was not a new movement, but
Christianity, so there is no need to pick me up on that. Anyway,
the point is that large Christian crowds can be easily credulous and can
believe they see Jesus (complete with materialisation miracles) when it
is not really him. Do you agree?
STEVE
>>>"...when Paul states that Jesus "appeared" to
"over 500 brethren at once" (1
Cor. 15:6), that would have been to a
far greater number of "brethren"
than were said to have existed
before Jesus' physical body supposedly
rose into the clouds. (Only
120 "brethren" existed at the time - Acts 1:9,
14-15, 22).
BOB
That's a very poor reading. It only says that 120 brethren
were assembled at the place, not that this was the whole of the
ekklesia. The vast majority would be Galileeans who would need to stay
home and farm.
STEVE
Good point that 120 might not the whole lot. I should have spotted
that and I accept it for now. Also I usually check your "Apologetics
Encyclopedia" before asking a question of you but I forgot
to here - apologies! To firm this up, is there any way we can be
sure that's what the passage means or if it's reliable and how large the
whole of the ekklesia was before the ascension? Do you have a
reference?
Why though (assuming the Gospels are reliable and your point about
Galilean farmer brethren is correct) would the majority of the
Galilean brethren who had recently known Jesus to have been crucified
and entombed, and then upon surely hearing some of their fellow
brethren talking about him appearing to them all over the holy land for
the last few weeks, want to stay on the farm? Wouldn't they feel like
giving the farming a miss for a while? Wouldn't they more likely go to
stay as nearby the others as possible (begging off the streets if
necessary if you claim food is the issue) in the hope of seeing Jesus
alive again? "Shall I go see the risen Christ or muck out the pigs?..."
I guess you'll claim the disciples kept it quiet until Pentecost,
but they were clearly telling each other (they told Thomas) the Women
told the men (according to some versions). The brethren were the "in
crowd" already - not the target of the "Great Commission." So it just
doesn't seem plausible that they would prefer pigs, or even making food,
to the chance of seeing Jesus risen.
500 also doesn't sit well with Acts 10:40-41
"But God raised him from the dead three days later
and caused
him to appear, not to everyone, but only
to the witnesses that God
had already chosen, that
is, to us who ate and drank with him after
he rose from death."
I've checked all the versions I can find on this at http://www.ntgateway.com/ and
it does look like this is an exclusive eating group - indeed of just the
apostles. This seems to imply that unless there was a mass
banquet, there was no 500 appearance. Or in other words, the writer of Luke-Acts knew
nothing of the 500 as purportedly written by Paul.
Steve
======================================
Leaving
Christianity
|
From: Steve
Locks
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 11:01 PM
Subject: Re: Tomb and body
STEVE
>>>Because there would not have been a known tomb
for them to go to.
BOB
Beg pardon, but McCane's thesis is
exactly the OPPOSITE, that there would be a known
tomb.
STEVE
Quoting from McCane's thesis (my
italics):
"Accordingly, this chapter will draw upon evidence from
archeology and literature, along with theory from anthropology and
sociology, to argue that Jesus was indeed buried in disgrace in a
criminals' tomb....
...The Jewish leaders in first-century Jerusalem would have thought
of it as only natural and right to take Jesus' body down from the cross
at sunset. They would not have thought it natural and right, however, to
bury Jesus like most other Jews. For there was also a long-standing that
some bodies ought to be buried differently from others....
...m. Sanh. 6:6 says that criminals condemned by a Jewish court
were not interred "in the burial place of their fathers," but in a
separate places kept by the court specifically for that
purpose....
...Jewish religious cultural norms would have prompted them to see
that Jesus was buried in shame at sunset on the day of his
death....
...ancient texts often depict extravagant preparations for the
burials of important people. In both of these cases, John has added
details which advance a theological purpose, and that in a nutshell is
the basic historical problem with the burial narratives....
...the well-known fact that the Gospels embellish and glamorize the
burial of Jesus. Many scholars have already commented on this tendency
in the Gospels....
...Virtually all studies agree that as the tradition develops,
every detail in the story is enhanced and improved upon....
Indeed, the evidence from Roman, Jewish, and Christian sources all
coheres around a single conclusion: Jesus was buried in shame. Someone
from the Council approached Pilate about the body and put it in an
underground tomb reserved for Jewish criminals....
...On the basis of the evidence, then, the following scenario
emerges as a likely course of events for the deposition of Jesus' body:
late on the day of his death, one or more of the Jewish leaders in
Jerusalem--later personified by Christian tradition as Joseph of
Arimathea--requested custody of the body for purposes of dishonorable
burial. These leaders, having collaborated with the Romans in the
condemnation of Jesus, had both the means and the motive to bury him in
shame: means, in their access to Pilate, and motive, in Jewish law and
custom. Pilate did not hesitate to grant dishonorable burial to one of
their condemned criminals. Only the most rudimentary burial preparations
were administered--the body was wrapped and taken directly to the tomb,
without a funeral procession, eulogies, or the deposition of any
personal effects. By sunset on the day of his death, the body of
Jesus lay within a burial cave reserved for criminals condemned by
Jewish courts. No one mourned.
The shame of Jesus' burial is
not only consistent with the best evidence, but can also help to account
for an historical fact which has long been puzzling to historians of
early Christianity: why did the primitive church not venerate the tomb
of Jesus? Joachim Jeremias, for one, thought it inconceivable
(undenkbar) that the primitive community would have let the grave of
Jesus sink into oblivion. [36] Yet the earliest hints of Christian
veneration of Jesus' tomb do not surface until the early fourth century
CE. [37] It is a striking fact--and not at all unthinkable--that the
tomb of Jesus was not venerated until it was no longer remembered as a
place of shame. [38]"
So how have you come to the conclusion
that:
<< McCane's thesis is exactly the OPPOSITE, that there would
be a known tomb. >> ?
Do you agree that McCane's thesis is that Jesus was buried in a
criminals' tomb? He does explicitly say so. Do you mean that it was the
criminals' tomb that was known? Is this the grave
depicted in the Gospels?
Even worse, this whole argument also fits in neatly with Richard
Carrier's suggestion at
McCane suggests that the tomb was not venerated because it was a
shameful place. Only when this was forgotten did Christians start
venerating it (in two different places eventually). But even this is not
enough if this is what you mean by "opposite" of unknown, as McCane
also mentions how "Joachim Jeremias, for one, thought it
inconceivable that the primitive community would have let the grave
of Jesus sink into oblivion." Easy though if they didn't know where he
was which would be the case if he was in the criminals tomb (presumably
not the only body there and so how to find him?) or he was moved from a
less ignoble place as he would have to have been before the tomb visits
(Mishnah law) and the subsequent triggers to the assumption of
resurrection as per
Anyway, all this puts too much emphasis on the historical validity
of the Gospels and my money's on Cuppit's understanding of what
happened.
Too much to read though on both sides, I know....
Steve
======================================
Leaving
Christianity
|
From: Steve Locks
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2004 9:45 PM
Subject: Re: Bob-non-answers, and Holy
Exaggerations
> ED: Non-answer. Anyone has access to Mormonism
too. The book of Mormon
BOB
There you go again with
misdirections. That's not an answer to the point
that research on
matters of centrality is a piece of cake. Pointing to
another
instance of "accessibility" isn't relevant.
STEVE
This is not a misdirection (on Ed's part). Ed has correctly pointed
out a case of special pleading.
Remember that Ed's comment about Mormon accessibility was in
response to the following:
*********************
ED
And how can people be blamed eternally simply for relying on
experts to
fill in the gaps concerning things in which none of us has
thorough expertise?
BOB
Because the matters central to salvation do not rely on such a high
level of
expertise. Anyone has access.
*********************
STEVE
i.e. Bob said the reason people can be blamed eternally is
because they could easily have found out about matters central to
(Christian) salvation (despite unmentioned difficulties regarding such
"ease" such as
Christianity (Christianities) is (are) not the only religion (s) that
damn outsiders (and other Christians) for not believing "easily found
out" things. (Just how do people believe things they do not believe
anyway?)
It is easy to find out that you must not believe in the
trinity:
Pagans indeed are those who say that GOD is the Messiah, son of
Mary. The Messiah himself said, "O Children of Israel, you shall worship
GOD; my Lord* and your Lord." Anyone who sets up any idol beside GOD,
GOD has forbidden Paradise for him, and his destiny is Hell. The wicked
have no helpers. Pagans indeed are those who say that GOD is a third of
a trinity. There is no god except the one god. Unless they refrain from
saying this, those who disbelieve among them will incur a painful
retribution. [Koran 005:072-73]
It is easy to find out that you must believe in Allah and His
Apostle:
"And whoever does not believe in Allah and His Apostle, then
surely We have prepared burning fire for the unbelievers." - The
Koran
It is easy to find out that you must love and have your rest in
Krishna who is the way and the seed of eternal life, known only by love
but hated my malignant men destined for hell:
"He who in this oneness of love, loves me in whatever he sees,
wherever this man may live, in truth this man lives in me...I am from
everlasting the seed of eternal life...in its delusion the world knows
me not...all beings have their rest in me...I am the way...he who loves
me shall not perish...only by love can men see me, and know me, and come
unto me...malignant men hate me...they come not to me, but they go down
the path of hell".
Krishna - the Bhagavad Gita (c. 500 B.C.)
From "Straight and Crooked Thinking" by Robert H. Thouless:-
"There is a common fault in argument arising from the influence of
prejudice which may be employed deliberately as a dishonest trick but
which is more commonly used unwittingly by a speaker who is mislead by
his prejudices. This is the use in one context of an argument which
would not be admitted in another context where it would lead to the
opposite conclusion. This is special pleading." Many Christian
claims are special pleading and therefore at fault. To claim something
for Christianity (e.g. the reason you're damned is because you could
easily have found out what was important to Christian salvation) that
you would not accept for another religion (e.g. the reason you're damned
is because you could easily have found out what was important
to Muslim/Hindu etc. salvation) is special pleading.
Steve
======================================
Leaving
Christianity
|
|
From: James Patrick Holding
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 2:52 AM
Subject: Re: 6,000 see Jesus
Steve,
Can I ask you to please compress all replies into one
letter?
>>>It was yourself (not me) who initially referred to
this as a "movement" and I who pointed out it was not a new movement,
but Christianity, so there is no need to pick me up on that.
Then what was the point of bringing it up at all? If
that is so then it is no parallel.
>>Anyway, the point is that large Christian crowds can be
easily credulous and can believe they see Jesus (complete with
materialisation miracles) when it is not really him. Do you
agree?
No, because all this proves is that one large crowd in
one part of the world at one particular time was credulous.
Anachronistically arguing as though the social and practical situation
were the same is nothing but an assumption.
>>> To firm this up, is there any
way we can be sure that's what the passage means or if it's reliable and
how large the whole of the ekklesia was before the ascension? Do
you have a reference?
The surety only lies in that 1) it does not name this
as the whole party; 2) practically, most of the brethren could not be
there, having other commitments (like farms). To argue otherwise is to
argue from silence. The 500 reference is the only one that hints at the
size of the ekklesia at that time.
>>>and entombed, and then upon surely hearing some of
their fellow brethren talking about him appearing to them all over the
holy land for the last few weeks, want to stay on the farm?
Because presumably, they still had to eat.
:-)
>>> Wouldn't they feel like
giving the farming a miss for a while? Wouldn't they more likely go to
stay as nearby the others as possible (begging off the streets if
necessary if you claim food is the issue)
As shameful as begging was to do, that is unlikely to
have happened.
>>>in the hope of seeing Jesus alive again?
AFTER he ascended?
>>>500 also doesn't sit well with Acts 10:40-41 "But God
raised him from the dead three days later
and caused him to appear,
not to everyone, but only
to the witnesses that God had already
chosen, that
is, to us who ate and drank with him after he rose from
death."
That sits fine with 500. The ekklesia would have been
a table fellowship group, and it is not at all unlikely that the
appearance to them involved table fellowship, per Jesus' normal mode of
operation on earth. So yes, a mass banquet is not out of the question.
Such banquets were typical for fellowship groups.
>>>concerned), for the truth of Christianity
whether or not we evolved as mainstream science teaches, and if Adam and
Eve and the Flood literally happened or not?
I can live with a situation in which that would be the
case.
>>> It is fatal for fundamentalists if Genesis is
not literally true though
Well, thankfully, I am not one.
>>>However if you want to reinterpret Genesis 1-3 as an
ideological "fact" about human nature
I do not, but I am saying it would not bother me to have to resort
to such a view.
>>> theology. Since you do not think that
beliefs predicated on a gross error are likely to be erroneous, how
about: "The chance of being right when your system is predicated on
a gross falsehood is less secure than the chances of being right when
predicated on an accurate picture of the world." Will you at least
consent to that?
Perhaps not in context. we can hardly expect Paul to know if Gen.
1-3 was fiction. He could still be right about the need, while being
wrong about the nature of the reason for it.
>>>If we evolved from animals with a gradually changing
consciousness over the aeons, our complex psychology is hardly something
we need to be condemned for.
The rub of this is that I do not accept that as a possibility
either. Let me be clear: If Gen. 1-3 is not literally true, I do not
consider that "evolved from animals" is the only option open otherwise.
What I would next consider -- unattested, obviously -- is some other
special creation model not in line with a literal view of Gen. 1-3. The
fall would then be represented by a general rebellion of all
humanity.
>>>But weren't the biblical authors fundamentalists - with
a literal belief in Genesis? Did they therefore likely have a
fallacious black and white mentality?
If they did, there was not much they could do about it, not having
disproving arguments at hand.
>>Quoting from McCane's thesis (my italics):
Yes, I have read it. McCane agrees that Jesus was buried in
Joseph's tomb, even though he does not agree on the particulars of the
extravagance. He does not say the tomb was unknown.
>>Even worse, this whole argument also fits in neatly with
Richard Carrier's suggestion at
Well, I think you have seen Miller's detailed answer to that...I
know Carrier has issued a summary retort, but so far most of Miller's
reply remains untouched, last I checked...
>>> occasionally get Muslims writing to me who tell
me the same thing about
Islam. All I need to do is study it a bit,
open my heart and all will be
clear!
That's not quite what I am talking about. My point is that these
are not difficult issues to get answers to, whether you become a
believer in them or not. For Ed to answer my point he needs to show
that, in the example given, it is hard to figure out the plan of
Christian salvation. Your cites from the Quran only illustrate my point:
How hard are those passages to grasp?
Bob
|
From: Steve Locks
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 11:39 AM
Subject: Re: 6,000 see Jesus
Hi Bob,
Thanks for your friendly reply. I read your
discussion with Kyle Gerkin a few months ago and know that friendly,
diplomatic exchanges are possible.
BOB
Can I ask you to please compress all replies into one
letter?
STEVE
If it helps, although I prefer topics were
separated to stay focused. Unwieldy emails tend to get points lost
in my experience, but I guess you're suffering from too many emails - so
okay then as much as possible!
STEVE
>>>It was
yourself (not me) who initially referred to this as a "movement" and I
who pointed out it was not a new movement, but Christianity, so there is
no need to pick me up on that.
BOB
Then what was the point of
bringing it up at all? If that is so then it is no parallel.
STEVE
The point is as I say next (i.e. it's
Christians)
STEVE
>>Anyway, the point is that large
Christian crowds can be easily credulous and can believe they see Jesus
(complete with materialisation miracles) when it is not really him. Do
you agree?
BOB
No, because all this proves is that one large
crowd in one part of the world at one particular time was credulous.
Anachronistically arguing as though the social and practical situation
were the same is nothing but an assumption.
STEVE
Social and
practical situations are second order effects. The most relevant is
human psychology which is not so changeable over cultures and time
periods. I had already pointed out in an earlier email that Christian
groups had throughout history claimed to have visions. Richard Carrier
points out there were also reports of multiple and widespread
reappearances of Jesus at later times that were clearly hallucinations
which were an embarrassment to the Church and had to be suppressed.
As you know other groups through history have seen things as well, from
the talking statue of Tyche, through those who saw Sabbetai Sevi
describing visions in which they had seen him seated upon a throne.
In Daniel Defoe's description of the great plague of London he draws on
his own experience to tell how all it took was for one person to say
they saw a vision of an angel clothed in white in the clouds
brandishing a fiery sword for whole crowds to gather round and
testify to "seeing" the same thing. Throughout Christian history there
has been a litany of visionaries and mystics. Even during the funeral of
Princess Diana people in the crowd reported visions of her looking down
from heaven. On the TV coverage I saw one bystander say "this
reminds me of when Jesus died" (I'm not making this up!) Similar
descriptions of crowd behaviour in NT times (even assuming that the 500
is historical) is hardly an anachronism since such behaviour is seen
across cultures and time periods. The early Christians were humans and
humans have "seen" things that were not there across cultures and time
periods - even in groups. So no anachronism there. If you still don't
believe me that Christians "see things" then remember St. Paul and St.
Stephen's visions. Also Christians clearly made stories up about what
was "seen" and we know Christians made stories up about Jesus to suit
their theology, so why could the "500" not be one of them? We have the
false ending of Mark and the gospels considered apocryphal (although
some are not apocryphal to Catholics and Eastern Orthodox) some with
quite fantastic stories about Jesus that you wouldn't entertain as true
for a minute. But the point is that Christians clearly were making up
false stories about Jesus!
Regarding whether 120 was not the whole ekklesia I
asked:
STEVE
>>> To firm this up, is there any way we can
be sure that's what the passage means or if it's reliable and how large
the whole of the ekklesia was before the ascension? Do you have a
reference?
BOB
The surety only lies in that 1) it does not
name this as the whole party;
STEVE
That's a possibility, not
a surety. Indeed it is an assumption and above you implied that you were
against assumptions.
(Quote: "Anachronistically arguing as though the social and
practical situation were the same is nothing but an
assumption").
BOB
2) practically, most of the brethren could not be there,
having other commitments (like farms).
STEVE
I've already
argued against this. Who out of the Christian brethren would prefer
farming to the chance of seeing the risen Christ?
BOB
To argue
otherwise is to argue from silence.
STEVE
I've argued not
from silence but from criticising the scenario as
implausible.
BOB
The 500 reference is the only one that hints
at the size of the ekklesia at that time.
STEVE
Then you have
a circular argument - using the bible to prove the bible which is a
fallacy. Even worse you are using the only text on this to "hint
at" *itself*! Would you let anybody outside of the bible get away with
an argument like that?
STEVE
>>>and entombed, and
then upon surely hearing some of their fellow brethren talking about him
appearing to them all over the holy land for the last few weeks, want to
stay on the farm?
BOB
Because presumably, they still had to
eat. :-)
STEVE
I anticipated that response in the
email you're responding to - i.e. where I
wrote:
STEVE
>>> Wouldn't they feel like giving the
farming a miss for a while? Wouldn't they more likely go to stay as
nearby the others as possible (begging off the streets if necessary if
you claim food is the issue)
BOB
As shameful as begging was
to do, that is unlikely to have happened.
STEVE
Why? Would you
give up the chance of seeing the risen Christ even if it meant begging
or even fasting for a few weeks? Jesus managed 40 days without food
and David Blaine managed 44. The world record is a Hindu called
"Heras" who managed 80 days in 1953.
STEVE
>>>in the
hope of seeing Jesus alive again?
BOB
AFTER he
ascended?
STEVE
Remember that they wouldn't have known that
the ascension was going to happen when they were already gathered and my
point is that surely they would have gathered rather than gone farming.
The speech to the 120 happens immediately after the ascension and so the
ekklesia wouldn't have know that the ascension would have happened by
then. The whole Ekklesia should have still been there. According to
Acts1:12-15 they all went to the same place afterwards - there is
nothing there about 380 going back to the fields. If you are going to
argue that Acts 1:15 ("in those days...") implies a break in time then
remember they had been told (commanded) by Jesus (Acts 1:4) to
not depart but wait for the Holy Spirit to come upon
them, so why would 380 of them go off to muck out the pigs? (Always
assuming the NT is reliable!)
I was perplexed the first time I saw a Christian claim that 500
people saw the ascension, as I was always under the impression that only
the apostles were meant to have been there (reading from the implication
in Acts 1:2). However if a Christian is to accept the 500 vision as
historical then I see how they would be forced to argue that 500 must
have seen him ascend. Unfortunately this then makes the whole thing even
more implausible as I've been attempting to explain. If 500 saw him
ascend them since they were commanded to stay in Jerusalem by Jesus, why
did 380 not do so?
If you are going to say that 500 did not see him ascend, then why
would they have not been there at the ascension given that news of Jesus
resurrection appearances should have been going around? You yourself
said they would have been having table fellowship at the time and that
is how the 500 saw Jesus - i.e. before the ascension. Why then
would they have returned to their farms and miss out on the chance of
another visit? Hence they must have been there at the ascension and
commanded by Jesus not to leave Jerusalem. So why did only 120
stay?
Hence your options are
or
- 380 brethren disobeyed Jesus command.
Which is more likely?
STEVE
>>>500 also doesn't sit well with Acts
10:40-41 "But God raised him from the dead three days later
and
caused him to appear, not to everyone, but only
to the witnesses that
God had already chosen, that
is, to us who ate and drank with him
after he rose from death."
BOB That sits fine with 500. The ekklesia would have been a
table fellowship group, and it is not at all unlikely that the
appearance to them involved table fellowship, per Jesus' normal mode of
operation on earth. So yes, a mass banquet is not out of the question.
Such banquets were typical for fellowship groups. STEVE Why do
you think the Gospel authors failed to mention a banquet of 500 brethren
with the risen Jesus? It is no use just replying that's an argument from
silence if there is no plausible alternative. Do you have a reference
that the ekklesia would have been a table fellowship group? At http://www.ntgateway.com/ it
does look like this is an exclusive eating group - indeed of just the
apostles according to the commentaries on Acts 10:40-41 which refer me
back to Acts 1:8 which refers to the "witnesses" who are identified at
Acts 1:2 as the Apostles (e.g. http://www.bible.org/cgi-bin/netbible.pl#note_26).
Indeed at http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/GillsExpositionoftheBible/gil.cgi?book=ac&chapter=10&verse=41 it
even explicitly states that this was just the apostles. even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he
rose from the dead;
namely, to the apostles, with
whom he familiarly conversed by times, for the space of forty days after
his resurrection
Not now to all the people - As before
his death; to us who did eat and drink with him - That is, conversed
familiarly and continually with him, in the time of his
ministry.
Who was conversing familiarly and continually with Jesus
in the time of his ministry - the apostles of course.
So once again, no 500 vision.
BOB
...not out of the question...that is unlikely to have
happened....and it is not at all unlikely that...
STEVE
I've noticed a number of times in your replies and at your
website that possible scenario (however slim) is piled upon possible
scenario. Whilst some of these could be accepted for the sake of
argument the overall scenario is a multiplication of hopeful, but less
than unity, possibilities. These are "AND statements" all required for
your apologetic to work. Multiply a lot of numbers smaller than one
together and you soon get close to zero.
STEVE
>>> Since you do not think that beliefs
predicated on a gross error are likely to be erroneous, how about: "The
chance of being right when your system is predicated on a gross
falsehood is less secure than the chances of being right when predicated
on an accurate picture of the world." Will you at least consent to that?
BOB
Perhaps not in context. we can hardly expect Paul to know
if Gen. 1-3 was fiction. He could still be right about the need, while
being wrong about the nature of the reason for it.
STEVE
Yes,
that's the interpretation I had as a Christian too. Unfortunately Paul
reasoned from the false premise therefore his argument is invalid and we
cannot rely on him.
STEVE
>>>If we evolved from animals with a gradually
changing consciousness over the aeons, our complex psychology is hardly
something we need to be condemned for.
BOB
The rub of this is that I do not accept that as a
possibility either. Let me be clear: If Gen. 1-3 is not literally true,
I do not consider that "evolved from animals" is the only option open
otherwise. What I would next consider -- unattested, obviously -- is
some other special creation model not in line with a literal view of
Gen. 1-3. The fall would then be represented by a general rebellion of
all humanity.
STEVE
I'm glad you want to be clear so I hope you'll bare with me as I'm
afraid that's not clear to me at all. What could the "general rebellion
of all humanity" actually be and how does it hold up if mainstream
science is correct? And what is the "special creation model?" Is the
"special creation model" a necessary part of your beliefs to make the
fall and atonement work? Is any of this predicated on
evolution as understood by mainstream science being false?
STEVE
>>>But weren't the biblical authors
fundamentalists - with a literal belief in Genesis? Did they therefore
likely have a fallacious black and white mentality?
BOB
If they did, there was not much they could do about it, not
having disproving arguments at hand.
STEVE
The points remains that as guiltless as they were for their
fundamentalist condition they nevertheless had a fallacious black and
white mentality by your own description of fundamentalists. (Quote:
"Only fundamentalists (and ex-fundies) have such a fallacious black
and white mentality.") We should therefore not trust their
judgements. You did say their (i.e. fundamentalists' - hence all bible
authors') mentality was fallacious!
STEVE
>>Quoting from McCane's thesis (my
italics):
BOB
Yes, I have read it. McCane agrees that Jesus
was buried in Joseph's tomb, even though he does not agree on the
particulars of the extravagance. He does not say the tomb was
unknown.
STEVE
He argues that the tomb was a criminals'
common grave and gives good reason for that from Jewish law. Do you
agree with that? If not why not? Now if the tomb was a criminals' common
grave then there are associative problems of how to locate it. If its
location wasn't known to the disciples then they would not have been
able to go to it to see it empty.
STEVE
>>> occasionally get Muslims writing to me
who tell me the same thing about
Islam. All I need to do is study it
a bit, open my heart and all will be
clear!
BOB
That's not
quite what I am talking about. My point is that these are not difficult
issues to get answers to, whether you become a believer in them or not.
For Ed to answer my point he needs to show that, in the example given,
it is hard to figure out the plan of Christian salvation. Your cites
from the Quran only illustrate my point: How hard are those passages to
grasp?
STEVE
Exactly - they are easy to grasp. The point is
that your reply to Ed (see my other email "Re: Bob-non-answers, and Holy
Exaggerations" 24 January 2004 21:45) was not initially about "is the
Christian salvation plan easy to understand" but about the reason
people can be blamed eternally. i.e. the whole point of mentioning
that it is (allegedly) easy to understand the Christian salvation plan
is that such ease justifies our damnation for not accepting it. Since
the reason is the same for a number of religions then your answer is a
case of special pleading and hence a fallacy. If your point is merely to
say the plan of Christian salvation is easy to figure out, then the
obvious reply is - so what? So is the plan for other religions. i.e. it
is irrelevant that (or if the) plan for Christian salvation is easy to
figure out.
Anyway given the kind of arguments such as http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=192,
the 60,000 current Christian denominations and the litany of schisms,
mutual ex-communications and heretic burnings throughout church history,
I'd say that the plan for Christian salvation is anything but easy to
figure out - or at least there are many different "clear and easily
fathomed views" of what that plan is!
Now if the plan of Christian salvation is easy to figure out, why
do you think people leave Christianity? From my website:
Nobody really "chooses" to disbelieve in Christianity whilst a
Christian - as if they were looking for a reason to reject it - quite
the opposite is the case! How we can testify to pouring over books of
apologetics and asking in prayer for guidance as our faith was
crumbling! It is a gut-wrenching discovery that Christianity is
untenable. Plenty of current Christians appear to have enormous
difficulty understanding this. Most people become ex-Christians because
their closer examination of Christian claims convince them
that supernatural Christianity is unwarranted. We neither
choose to disbelieve in Christianity nor are we responsible for the
beliefs that happen to us.
What's more this also frequently happens within a
Christian environment when one is looking deeper into Christian issues
in an attempt to deepen ones faith, that the problems become convincing,
rather than debates with critics. People being debated out of
Christianity (although it happens) is actually a much rarer exit
scenario than personal exploration from my collecting of deconversion
stories. Since we leave Christianity despite our attempts to deepen our
faith then Jesus' purported exhortation "Seek and ye shall find" is
false. http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/seek.html
Christians often exhort people to believe. Do you know how someone
can choose to believe things they don't believe? Since not believing
easily understood plans will lead to our damnation then there ought to
be an answer to that one!
Regards,
Steve ====================================== Leaving
Christianity
|
From: James Patrick Holding
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 6:13 PM
Subject: Re: 6,000 see Jesus
Howdy,
>>>If it helps, although I prefer
topics were separated to stay focused. Unwieldy emails tend to get
points lost in my experience, but I guess you're suffering from too many
emails
About 100 a week, yes, not counting all the virus
emails that I delete from the server before using Outlook. Had 90 of
those yesterday. The compression is appreciated.
>>>Social and practical situations are second order
effects. The most relevant is human psychology which is not so
changeable over cultures and time periods
I have to say that such a claim is, at the very least,
uninformed. Human psychology is vastly different in modern, Western
society from what it was in the ancient world, and in roughly 70% of the
world today. The interaction of collectivist thinking, and honor and
shame, are the two most prominent differences. Of the things you named I
only know much about Sevi, and because of his apostasy, there can really
not be a comparison to Christianity because his movement never entered
into a serious "trial" phase. I ask you: What social pressures were
on those who would have seen Defoe's angel or Diana? Would they have
been threatened with social ostracization? Was it shameful and
dishonorable to believe in seeing such a thing? (I know it was not:
Those two examples are Western ones, where honor and shame play
virtually no role!)
>>> We have the false ending of Mark and the gospels
considered apocryphal (although some are not apocryphal to Catholics and
Eastern Orthodox) some with quite fantastic stories about Jesus that you
wouldn't entertain as true for a minute.
Yes, but for reasons of the late date of the material,
not because of any philosophical presupposition.
>>But the point is that Christians
clearly were making up false stories about Jesus!
"Christians"? By what route are Gnostics, for example,
so declared?
>>>That's a possibility, not a surety.
Indeed it is an assumption and above you implied that you were against
assumptions.
I feel that my assumption accords with available
evidence.
>>>(Then you have a circular argument
- using the bible to prove the bible which is a fallacy.
I don't see how this is any different than making an
appeal to any other claim in a secular document.
>>> Would you let anybody outside of the bible get
away with an argument like that?
Yes. Why? Though of course I also rely on external
vectors of reliability.
>>Why? Would you give
up the chance of seeing the risen Christ even if it meant begging or
even fasting for a few weeks?
In an honor and shame society, no. Besides, it would
not just be for a "few weeks" -- agriculture at that time was fairly
primitive; you didn't have sprinkler systems or fertilizers, and if you
missed the growing season, you'd be likely to be starving for a year or
more, to say nothing of your family doing it with you.
>>>Jesus managed 40 days without food
and David Blaine managed 44. The world record is a Hindu called
"Heras" who managed 80 days in 1953.
The latter, I note, a professional faster; the first,
by my paradigm, divinity incarnate; the middle one, a professional
illusionist. Certainly representative experience of typical Galileean
peasants of the first century who were already on the edge of survival
as is. :-)
>>>Remember that they wouldn't
have known that the ascension was going to happen
Um, John 20:17? Besides, you are assuming here a
modern obsession with sentimental personal interaction. These people's
lives were governed by more practical concerns; they had a "present
orientation" and far less concern for the future, and truly
"knowing"someone as an individual was practically unknown. If anything a
table fellowship meeting would have been a far more substantive
experience for them, given that this was the premier means of personal
interaction for the period.
>>>Why do you think the Gospel authors failed to mention a
banquet of 500 brethren with the risen Jesus?
Because the Gospels are biographies of Jesus written
for people who are already believers, not kerygmatic documents trying to
provide as much verification as possible to those who do not
believe.
>>> Do you have a reference that the ekklesia would
have been a table fellowship group?
Any social group, whether a Jewish synagogue or
a Mithraic assembly or a funereal club, practiced table
fellowship in the ancient world. Acts 10:41 only indicates that
the apostles were part of that group, not that they were the sole
members.
>>>I've noticed a number of times in your replies and at
your website that possible scenario (however slim) is piled upon
possible scenario.
Such is the necessity of the practice of historical
reconstruction: Inferences drawn from background data. What you need to
do is show that they are not "less than unity" which I do not see
happening. :-)
>>>Yes, that's the interpretation I had as a Christian
too. Unfortunately Paul reasoned from the false premise therefore his
argument is invalid and we cannot rely on him.
You merely say so but do not explain why a second
reason unknown to Paul cannot be supplied.
>>>I'm glad you want to be clear so I
hope you'll bare with me as I'm afraid that's not clear to me at all.
What could the "general rebellion of all humanity" actually be and how
does it hold up if mainstream science is correct?
If you mean about evolution, I think I have made clear
that it would not. The general rebellion I speak of would be
historically unrecorded.
>>>And what is the "special creation model?" Is the
"special creation model" a necessary part of your beliefs to make the
fall and atonement work?
No, but the issue does not even get that far since I
can in no way conceive of "mainstream science" being correct about
materialistic evolution.
>>>The points remains that as guiltless as they were for
their fundamentalist condition they nevertheless had a fallacious black
and white mentality by your own description of fundamentalists
I find quite a difference between being "black and
white" because one chooses to ignore colors, and black and white because
one is color blind. Lack of trust is earned only by those who fit the
former condition, and for the others, does not invalidate the whole of
their arguments.
>>>He argues that the tomb was a criminals'
common grave and gives good reason for that from Jewish law. Do you
agree with that? If not why not?
I can agree that Joseph's tomb was used under such
constrains. Indeed I'd consider it likely that he took advantage of the
procedure to give Jesus a better burial than he otherwise may have
gotten.
>>> If your point is merely to say the plan of Christian
salvation is easy to figure out, then the obvious reply is - so what?
That is indeed my point, and thus as well that Ed's
original remark, to which I replied, deserves a "so what" as
well.
>>>Now if the plan of Christian salvation is easy to
figure out, why do you think people leave Christianity?
I don't make broad judgments about people as a whole.
On particulars I have found ignorance of their own alleged belief system
to be a prime cause, with bad behavior by the likes of televangelists a
second.
Bob |
From: Steve
Locks
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 8:54 PM
Subject: Re: 6,000 see Jesus
Hi Bob,
I sympathise with the email load!
I just wanted to check something with you. How many people do you
believe were at the ascension?
I'll get back to your replies and other points I feel need
attention later.
Regards,
|
From: James Patrick Holding
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 6:29 PM
Subject: Re: 6,000 see Jesus
Howdy,
>>>I just wanted to check something with you. How many
people do you believe were at the ascension?
I see no reason to think more than the 11
were.
You have the TheologyWeb address right. It is
co-founded by one of Tekton's most ardent readers, though Tekton is not
officially associated with it.
Bob
|
From: Steve Locks
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2004 9:19 PM
Subject: Re: 6,000 see Jesus
Thanks Bob,
Yes, 11 disciples (well, 10 I guess - no Judas) is what I've always
taken the text to mean, as I said earlier, although I still think there
are some internal difficulties as I've also discussed (more
later).
Jordan - you mentioned a number of times on your website that there
were 500 at the ascension. In your "Birth and Death of an Atheist" http://www.theism.net/authors/zjordan/docs_files/birth_files/02birth.htm you
wrote " I also reject that the apostles and the 500 witnesses to His
ascension into Heaven experienced joint hallucinations." I was
wondering how you personally got the figure of 500?
If I understand you correctly I appreciate that you no longer hold
as much sway with the 500 as you initially appeared to, (you wrote
later: "Understand that I neither accept nor reject the 500
passage") but what I want to know is how did you arrive at
your original "500 witnesses to His ascension" figure?
Thanks to all,
Steve
======================================
Leaving
Christianity
|
From: Steve
Locks
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2004 11:53 PM
Subject: Re: 6,000 see Jesus
Oops 12-1=11.
my mistake!
|
|
From: Steve
Locks
Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2004 9:58 PM
Subject: Psychology
Due to many points not being addressed adequately (and many not at
all) I'm reverting to shorter individual emails, rather than
trying to cover everything at once and have points dropped. However I
will endeavour to keep emails well spaced apart, so this should reduce
the overall work burden whilst hopefully keeping "no stone
unturned!"
***********Begin Recap************
STEVE (regarding http://www.mcn.org/1/miracles/Nairobi2.html) >>Anyway,
the point is that large Christian crowds can be easily credulous and can
believe they see Jesus (complete with materialisation miracles) when it
is not really him. Do you agree? BOB No, because all this
proves is that one large crowd in one part of the world at one
particular time was credulous. Anachronistically arguing as though the
social and practical situation were the same is nothing but an
assumption. STEVE Social and practical situations are second
order effects. The most relevant is human psychology which is not so
changeable over cultures and time periods. I had already pointed out in
an earlier email that Christian groups had throughout history claimed to
have visions. Richard Carrier points out there were also reports of
multiple and widespread reappearances of Jesus at later times that were
clearly hallucinations which were an embarrassment to the Church
and had to be suppressed. As you know other groups through history have
seen things as well, from the talking statue of Tyche, through those who
saw Sabbetai Sevi describing visions in which they had seen him
seated upon a throne. In Daniel Defoe's description of the great plague
of London he draws on his own experience to tell how all it took was for
one person to say they saw a vision of an angel clothed in
white in the clouds brandishing a fiery sword for whole crowds
to gather round and testify to "seeing" the same thing. Throughout
Christian history there has been a litany of visionaries and mystics.
Even during the funeral of Princess Diana people in the crowd reported
visions of her looking down from heaven. On the TV coverage I saw
one bystander say "this reminds me of when Jesus died" (I'm not making
this up!) Similar descriptions of crowd behaviour in NT times (even
assuming that the 500 is historical) is hardly an anachronism since such
behaviour is seen across cultures and time periods. The early Christians
were humans and humans have "seen" things that were not there across
cultures and time periods - even in groups. So no anachronism there. If
you still don't believe me that Christians "see things" then remember
St. Paul and St. Stephen's visions....
***********End Recap************
BOB (quoting STEVE's line "Social and practical situations are
second order effects. The most relevant is human psychology which is not
so changeable over cultures and time periods")
I have to say that such a claim is, at the very least,
uninformed. Human psychology is vastly different in modern, Western
society from what it was in the ancient world, and in roughly 70% of the
world today. The interaction of collectivist thinking, and honor and
shame, are the two most prominent differences. Of the things you named I
only know much about Sevi, and because of his apostasy, there can really
not be a comparison to Christianity because his movement never entered
into a serious "trial" phase. I ask you: What social pressures were
on those who would have seen Defoe's angel or Diana? Would they have
been threatened with social ostracization? Was it shameful and
dishonorable to believe in seeing such a thing? (I know it was not:
Those two examples are Western ones, where honor and shame play
virtually no role!)
STEVE
Where is your source of information that human *psychology* (not
culture) is " vastly different in modern, Western
society from what it was in the ancient world, and in roughly 70% of the
world today"? Grief, love, hope, fear,
aggression, competition etc.? I have never encountered such a claim in
any psychology book, including psychology of religion texts. Indeed
quite the reverse, including those which seek to explain many of the
peculiarities of our behaviour in the modern world by human psychology
that was evolved over the vast time periods humans evolved in the
African Savannah. What social pressures indeed did the NT peoples
have against believing John the Baptist to have been resurrected?
They seemed to cope. Why would groups of Brethren/disciples gathered
together have any pressure *not* to see Jesus? Other people without
social pressures include the desert fathers who were renowned for their
fasting and subsequent graphic visions. You yourself said that the
peoples of that time were often hungry. They would also have been
in a state of grief. Grief studies demonstrate that visual and
auditory apparitions of deceased loved ones (especially after traumatic
separation) are extremely common and vivid, even to the point of having
conversations and feeling physical contact. If anyone is dubious of this
claim then go to The National Library of Medicine http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed/ using
search strings such as +grief +hallucination. Grieving and hallucination
are far from anachronisms or a recent or culturally dependent phenomena.
As my examples showed, all it takes is for one person in a crowd to have
such an experience for the rest to claim the same thing.
Even if "threats of social ostracization" was a factor (the
belief in JtB bought back to life belies the relevance of it), what lack
of religious believers are there, in any religion, due to worrying about
that or even worse? All over the world and through history families and
social groups have been broken up through religious differences. Even
today in conservative Muslim cultures "crimes" ""worthy"" of "honour
killings" are still perpetrated within strict "honour and shame"
societies and fathers and brothers kill their daughters and sisters out
of "honour." And yet this still doesn't stop more women subsequently
going against their society's code.
As for "threats of social ostracization"
consider ex-Christians! I could tell you a story or two about those
who lost their beliefs in the middle of the Bible belt, religious
marriage, seminary, mission field...
So do you still contend that "threats of social ostracization"
count as a evidence for the truth of the belief that engenders such
threats?
Regards,
Steve
======================================
Leaving
Christianity
|
From: James Patrick Holding
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 8:45 PM
Subject: Re: Psychology
Okey dokey,
>>>Where is your source of information that human
*psychology* (not culture) is "vastly different in
modern, Western society from what it was in the ancient world, and in
roughly 70% of the world today"? Grief, love,
hope, fear, aggression, competition etc.?
I have several books you can check: the best intros
are Handbook of Biblical Social Values by Pilch and Malina, and
Portraits of Paul: An Archaeology of Ancient Personality by
Malina and Neyrey. You have perhaps not seen such things in psychology
texts because most or all such texts are written by Western
psychologists for Western people.
>>> What social pressures indeed did the
NT peoples have against believing John the Baptist to have been
resurrected? They seemed to cope.
Merely being resurrected? None. However, you have
selected an apple to an orange. That was hardly all that the
disciples of Jesus proclaimed; they claimed it not of one who had died a
shameful death, and they didn't try to claim it to Gentiles who thought
resurrection was ridiculous as a concept in the first
place.
>>> Why would groups
of Brethren/disciples gathered together have any pressure *not* to see
Jesus?
The question here and what you say beyond is not
related to what I am talking about. I am referring to public
proclamation of a message and the reaction to it.
>>> Grief studies demonstrate that
visual and auditory apparitions of deceased loved ones (especially after
traumatic separation) are extremely common and vivid
So how do "grief studies" provide a falsifiable
option, which would show that what was seen was indeed real and not a
grief-induced hallucination? Moreover, even if applicable to ancient
psychology, a vision of Jesus would NOT have been understood as him
resurrected, but as his guardian angel (who were thought to take the
appearance of those they watched over; cf. Acts 12:15).
>>>dependent phenomena. As my examples
showed, all it takes is for one person in a crowd to have such an
experience for the rest to claim the same thing.
Quite convenient, and again I ask, in
what way falsifiable?
>>>daughters and sisters out of "honour." And yet this
still doesn't stop more women subsequently going against their society's
code.
I'm afraid all these articles illustrate is how the
"old way" of honor vs shame is interacting with nations appropriating
Western values. This is hardly applicable to the situation of the
ancient world in which there was no such dichotomy to begin with.
>>>As for "threats of social ostracization"
consider ex-Christians!
Who suffer, what? The need to get a new job? Can marry
into a new family (a la Dan Barker) of supportive people? Who have
support groups, and live in a world of individual rights?
>>>So do you still contend that "threats of social
ostracization" count as a evidence for the truth of the belief that
engenders such threats?
Yes, and your counters are far too simplistic. With
due respect, I'm afraid you need to delve much more deeply into the
social world of the ancients; as of now, it is clear that you are not
prepared to address the matter in detail.
Cordially,
Bob |
From: Steve Locks
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 10:30 PM
Subject: Re: Psychology
Thanks Bob for the friendly and stimulating reply,
STEVE
>>>Where is your source of
information that human *psychology* (not culture) is "vastly different in modern, Western society from what it was
in the ancient world, and in roughly 70% of the world
today"? Grief, love, hope, fear, aggression,
competition etc.?
BOB
I have several books you can check: the best intros
are Handbook of Biblical Social Values by Pilch and Malina, and
Portraits of Paul: An Archaeology of Ancient Personality by
Malina and Neyrey. You have perhaps not seen such things in psychology
texts because most or all such texts are written by Western
psychologists for Western people.
STEVE
I read what was available at amazon.com (and the previews) of your
recommendations. The general thesis that we understand what people mean
better by understanding their culture is obvious, so no problems there.
Unfortunately it makes the "eternal word of God" (were the bible such a
thing) look very parochial and unavailable, far from the simple
message you have claimed it is before. I would like to read further and
I dream of the leisure that would allow me to read all the books I am
recommended, but we have to be realistic as to what is humanly possible
in an already busy timetable with a full time job, young family and many
other pursuits and duties. I used to be a voracious reader and although
I pack in as much as I can the backlog of recommendations continues to
accelerate! I estimate that I have time left in my life to read another
550 books given realistic estimate of demands on my time. When I am
recommended books or websites I read and follow up what I can but I also
think it is a realistic use of my time resources to ask of the person
who recommended the works, "okay so you've read it - what did
you find - what is the answer to my question from the source you
recommend?"
Back to my question. I find it hard to believe that *psychology*
(not culture) is accurately treated as different (if indeed they really
mean *psychology* not culture) by Christian writers (as are the ones you
recommended) and yet erroneously portrayed by mainstream science, who
BTW have no trouble understanding that different cultures can produce
very different behaviours (anthropological and cultural
studies). If Pilch, Malina and Neyrey really do have
different views from mainstream science then that is a terrible
indictment of either Christian writers or mainstream science, or your
portrayal of the difference is not accurate. Not to drift too far from
the point, what this is about is whether ancient people could grieve so
badly that they hallucinated and (being less critical of the
supernatural than some (!) modern westerners) genuinely believed they
saw things that nevertheless were not there. So do you agree that
grieving and hallucination are far from anachronisms or a recent or
culturally dependent phenomena just as you can see in the journals
abstracted and referenced at The National Library of Medicine http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed/ using
search strings such as +grief +hallucination?
BTW what books on psychology (including psychology of religion)
have you read from mainstream science?
STEVE
>>> What social pressures indeed did the NT peoples
have against believing John the Baptist to have been resurrected?
They seemed to cope.
BOB
Merely being resurrected? None. However, you have
selected an apple to an orange. That was hardly all that the
disciples of Jesus proclaimed; they claimed it not of one who had died a
shameful death, and they didn't try to claim it to Gentiles who thought
resurrection was ridiculous as a concept in the first
place.
STEVE
There are a number of aspects to this.
First is the question of what the early disciples actually really were
proclaiming. Many scholars, including Dr.
Mark Goodacre, whom you previously used as an authority, argues that the
original Christian message has been largely lost (synopsis at http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/asym/therealjesus.html)
and the early church was not claiming a divinity anyway, it was
Paul we have to thank for leading Christianity in that direction. Well,
I know you'll disagree, and this is a debate you've already having
elsewhere, so maybe we can await your reply to Brian Holtz on that one.
Still I don't want the point to be lost that there is more to this
question than "would the disciples have dared preached the
risen Christ" as the whole question of exactly what was
preached is in doubt from many quarters anyway as you know. The other
aspect I want to address is the fact that how we behave is based on
what we perceive to be true, which is not necessarily based on
a correct perception of how the world is. More below in answer
to next point...
STEVE
>>> Why would groups
of Brethren/disciples gathered together have any pressure *not* to see
Jesus?
BOB
The question here and what you say beyond is not
related to what I am talking about. I am referring to public
proclamation of a message and the reaction to it.
STEVE
Quite so - I'm taking this slowly so bare with me. I appreciate
that you are talking about the shame and "ludicrousness" of proclaiming
the resurrection, unless there was a real one to force such a
proclamation. My point is that all that is required is not a real
resurrection but the belief in a real resurrection. The
behaviour based on a belief is the same whether that belief is based on
truth or a genuine mistaken apprehension. I remember being pulled in
front of the head teacher for refusing to pay back some money to a
fellow pupil only to be humbly apologised to later when my accuser
embarrassingly came to realise he had vividly dreamt the whole episode
the previous night!
Now if you thought Jesus was divine, but he wasn't and unbeknownst
to you he was a man who died and stayed dead, *but* you had a grief
induced hallucination where you saw him alive again and you did not have
the resources of The National Library of Medicine to realise the
psychological nature of your encounter, then you too would have
erroneously preached the risen divine Christ no matter what the
consequences! You don't have to be right to act in a certain way, you
just have to believe you are right.
STEVE
>>> Grief studies demonstrate that
visual and auditory apparitions of deceased loved ones (especially after
traumatic separation) are extremely common and vivid
BOB
So how do "grief studies" provide a falsifiable
option, which would show that what was seen was indeed real and not a
grief-induced hallucination? Moreover, even if applicable to ancient
psychology, a vision of Jesus would NOT have been understood as him
resurrected, but as his guardian angel (who were thought to take the
appearance of those they watched over; cf. Acts 12:15).
STEVE
I don't claim to have a falsification, and if you don't either for
your views then why bring "falsification" up? Nevertheless I am
impressed with the search for falsifiable hypotheses from all quarters.
It would be falsifiable if a purported vision could be tested for a
measurable physical effect. Unfortunately the bible stories are too old
for us to make physical tests. However none of the hallucinations
reported in the medical literature have had physical effects to my
knowledge. So certainly grief hallucinations themselves are falsifiable,
but have so far survived their falsification tests. It would certainly
be a very exciting day if they were falsified.
What instead I think grief studies show is that the idea that a
vision of Jesus is likely to have been the real Jesus is not required by
a long chalk. There is already a perfectly normal and very common
phenomena that explains any visionary experiences that some of the early
Christians might have had. To claim that this was not a hallucination
given the common nature of auditory, visual and even tactile
hallucinations of the recently deceased is going out on somewhat of a
limb, surely? It is very hard for me to believe in a supernatural
resurrection when hallucinations of the recently dead by the grief
stricken are already known to be common.
As for a vision of Jesus being thought to be his guardian angel I
am again perplexed why you think so. Acts 12:15 is pretty slim evidence
(have you any more, and would angels be perceived as deceptive?) I know
of no such experiences of a dead loved one where the person seen is not
thought to be the recently deceased.
STEVE
>>>dependent phenomena. As my examples
showed, all it takes is for one person in a crowd to have such an
experience for the rest to claim the same thing.
BOB
Quite convenient, and again I ask, in
what way falsifiable?
STEVE
Again, I am not claiming falsifiability, unless the purported
vision was shown to have physical effects in which case it must have
been more than a vision and hence falsified as "just a vision." What is
important about crowd behaviour for this discussion is that crowd and
group behaviour is such that it would easily explain the grouping
together in belief of other emotionally attached people around the
visions of the original one or two who may have had such an experience
that they genuinely believed were of their risen hero. A supernatural
explanation is not required or even parsimonious.
STEVE
>>>daughters and sisters out of "honour." And yet this
still doesn't stop more women subsequently going against their society's
code.
BOB
I'm afraid all these articles illustrate is how the
"old way" of honor vs shame is interacting with nations appropriating
Western values. This is hardly applicable to the situation of the
ancient world in which there was no such dichotomy to begin with.
STEVE
The point is that people are willing to risk death for what they
consider right, even though it goes against the mores of their society.
Even for those "contaminated" with western values death and dishonour
amongst their family is still the result. It is not just Christians who
will risk all for their beliefs. Not such an impossible faith then, but
typical of human behaviour.
STEVE
>>>As for "threats of social ostracization"
consider ex-Christians!
BOB
Who suffer, what? The need to get a new job? Can marry
into a new family (a la Dan Barker) of supportive people? Who have
support groups, and live in a world of individual rights?
STEVE
Usually emancipation and spiritual enrichment, but the "bad trips"
include - being ostracised from your family at a young age, parents
never talking to you again. Divorce, loss of your children, loss of
friends and peers. None of this is trivial or as easily mended as you
maybe suggest. I have had some very upsetting emails from ex-Christians
who have lost all ties, family and financial security purely because
they are no longer able to believe what those around them still do. Not
so long ago death by slow torture was the reward for minor heresy, let
alone apostasy.
"7. Certain crimes are committed more immediately
against God himself; others, against the state; and a third kind against
certain persons. The chief crime in the first class, cognizable by
temporal courts, is blasphemy, under which may be included atheism. This
crime consists in denying or vilifying the Deity, by speech or writing.
All who curse God or any of the persons of the blessed Trinity, are to
suffer death, even for a single act; and those who deny him (sic), if
they persist in their denial. The denial of a providence, or of the
authority of the holy Scriptures, is punishable capitally for the third
offence." [1771 edition of Encyclopaedia Brittanica, under Law:
Tit. 33 "Of crimes"]
It's no longer legal in your country or mine to kill us for not
finding religion believable, but serious social consequences can remain
if one deconverts amongst a very religious family/peer group. The point
remains that even when the consequence was death, even then people
became heretics and apostates, so there is nothing so unusual about
preaching something (even if it was preached as you portray) that went
against local cultural ideas.
As for finding support groups, the Internet is for some the *only
place* where they can find non-Christians. Obviously I know of those -
but how does it go for those without Internet access I wonder? You can
trivialise this if you want to but it is real and painful to those who
go through it, many of whom agonise over how or whether to keep their
loss of Christian belief a secret. BTW support groups such as they are
are a very recent phenomena for ex-Christians, unlike deconversion
itself. Pure support groups without infiltrating Christians seeking to
re-convert, admonish and mock are even rarer!
STEVE
>>>So do you still contend that "threats of social
ostracization" count as a evidence for the truth of the belief that
engenders such threats?
BOB
Yes, and your counters are far too simplistic.
STEVE
Then the fact that people leave Christianity amongst Christian
friends, family and peers who would condemn them for loosing faith must
count as evidence against Christianity by your own admission.
BOB
Yes, and your counters are far too simplistic.
STEVE
How are they simplistic? You've told me a number of times that I
have been simplistic. I'll always ask why, so in future could you tell
me why you think so rather than just make an assertion?
BOB
With due respect, I'm afraid you need to delve much
more deeply into the social world of the ancients; as of now, it is
clear that you are not prepared to address the matter in
detail.
STEVE
I'd love nothing more than to delve into everything in detail and
it is absolutely not true that I am not *prepared* to do so. All I don't
have is time, that is why I am asking people like yourself and other
Christians rather than reading the huge number of books that I have been
recommended that I will not be able to get through. Since you have read
these books I would really appreciate a summary of the ideas that
you believe should be persuasive.
A number of Christians have challenged me to have a discussion with
yourself in the past when they have been unable to tell me the things
they purport to have learnt from others. If even you too can only send
me elsewhere then how am I ever going to have my questions answered
given the restricted time I do?
BOB
Cordially,
STEVE
I appreciate that. I feel I get accused too easily of all sorts of
terrible motives from many Christians that I genuinely can't see
how I deserve. All I ask is for a discussion where the issues can be
taken seriously and not lost in a rapidly going out of focus or
unintelligent conversation. Maybe like Kyle Gerkin I'm having an okay
conversation with you? Even if you don't think I'm up to much I hope
you'll agree it's worth my while for my sake at least?! :-)
I hope you don't mind me forwarding all these to Ed's mini-list.
Nobody is giving me any advice on this so it's not a one vs. many
contest (all errors are my own!) - it is just between you and me which
is how I personally want it, however I know there are others who are
interested in watching our interaction.
Regards,
Steve
======================================
Leaving
Christianity
|
From: James Patrick Holding
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 8:48 PM
Subject: Re: Psychology
Howdy,
>>> Unfortunately it makes the "eternal word of God"
(were the bible such a thing) look very parochial and unavailable,
far from the simple message you have claimed it is before.
That would perhaps be so but for two
matters:
1) As I believe I noted, we in West are the oddballs;
in fact 70% of the world still is more like the people of the Bible in
this sense than they are like us, and I daresay 99.9% of all who have
ever lived have had the same general orientation. If anyone is being
parochial, it is we in the West. It has remained accessible to the vast
majority of people.
2) As for availability, how can that be claimed when
there are ample works for study on the subject, such as those I have
given you titles for? :-) You say:
>>>I would like to read further and I
dream of the leisure that would allow me to read all the books I am
recommended, but we have to be realistic as to what is humanly possible
in an already busy timetable with a full time job, young family and many
other pursuits and duties.
You do not watch any televsion, I take it? In any
event, if you have room for 550 books then I am sure you'll agree you
can prioritize. You do agree that the question is important.
But:
>>>works, "okay so you've read it - what did you
find - what is the answer to my question from the source you
recommend?"
I believe I have done that. Did you not ask me though
for recommendations? Bear in mind that if you are new to a subject, an
answered question inevitably brings up more questions from an interested
and intelligent party. Your request for answers that do not take up much
time is not realistic, if your interest is indeed comprehensive, and
your intent is to ask more questions. I say this even as an information
studies person: There are no simple answers for the uninitiated, from
whom questions will inevitably breed like rabbits.
>>>Back to my question. I find it hard to believe that
*psychology* (not culture) is accurately treated as different (if indeed
they really mean *psychology* not culture) by Christian writers (as are
the ones you recommended)
I find this mildly insulting to the writers. For one
thing, you have implied that their "Christian" status makes them
suspect. Not only is this equivocal (it so happens they are of what
would be called a "liberal" to "moderate" bent), it is also presumptive
(since you have never seen their work, nor as far as I know do you have
any experience in cultural anthropology) and disrespectful (they have
published numerous peer-reviewed articles and books, and have also
interacted heavily with the secular literature on this subject -- their
views on this matter are NOT different from the mainstream, but in line
with it). And as noted, I think, I do not agree with any strong
dichotomy between psychology and culture.
>>> So do you agree that grieving and hallucination are
far from anachronisms or a recent or culturally dependent phenomena
I don't think I ever did. I made rather the point that
if such happened, the results would be different, and as well (if recall
right) that it cannot merely be assumed that they are not anachronisms.
A study of hallucinations and grief in an honor-shame, collectivist
study would go far in helping me on this point.
>>>BTW what books on psychology (including psychology of
religion) have you read from mainstream science?
None whose titles I can recall after 10 or so
years.
>>>>There are a number of aspects to this.
First is the question of what the early disciples actually really were
proclaiming. Many scholars, including Dr. Mark
Goodacre, whom you previously used as an authority, argues that the
original Christian message has been largely lost
I do not recall using Goodacre as an authority and his
name is not on my site that I can find. I believe I have already replied
to everything Holtz has thrown in the air.
>>> proclamation. My point is that all that is
required is not a real resurrection but the belief in a real
resurrection
That is fine. And I have already made one note on
this, that there is simply no opening for such a belief to be present in
the minds of a Jew of this day. A Jesus seen in a hallucination would
have not been understood to be a resurrected Jesus but as his guardian angel (who were thought to take the
appearance of those they watched over; cf. Acts 12:15). To this you
said:
>> don't claim to have a falsification,
and if you don't either for your views then why bring "falsification"
up?
I do have a falsification: A dead body, or at the very
least a historical claim to have one. I don't think age is a problem
here.
>>>As for a vision of Jesus being thought to be his
guardian angel I am again perplexed why you think so. Acts 12:15 is
pretty slim evidence (have you any more, and would angels be perceived
as deceptive?)
Yes, it is a documented belief of the rabbis as well,
as noted in Witherington's commentary on Acts. The Jews would not have
believed it was the deceased because the dead could only be called up
via necromancy, which was forbidden, and otherwise could not go back to
earth (per the rich man and Lazarus). Your option is simply not socially
viable and a hallucination of Jesus would have never been understood as
Jesus himself, much less as one resurrected.
>>>original one or two who may have had such an experience
that they genuinely believed were of their risen hero. A supernatural
explanation is not required or even parsimonious.
I think you know from my discussions with Holtz what I
think of "parsimony" as an argument. :-) In any event, given all these
social factors, even then such ideas as "hallucination" become so
un-parsimonious that a supernatural explanation (in a theistic world)
becomes if anything much simpler.
>>>The point is that people are
willing to risk death for what they consider right, even though it goes
against the mores of their society.
But as noted, this point cannot stand under the
conditions I stated. You really did not address this at
all.
>>>Usually emancipation and spiritual enrichment, but the
"bad trips" include - being ostracised from your family at a young age,
parents never talking to you again. Divorce, loss of your children, loss
of friends and peers. None of this is trivial or as easily mended as you
maybe suggest.
Comparatively speaking, for a society as
kinship-oriented as the ancient world, there is truly little in the way
of comparison. New friends and peers are easy to get for us. So is a new
family. Indeed we often solve the matter by taking pride in our
difference from others. As for this:
>>>>consequences can remain if one deconverts amongst a
very religious family/peer group. The point remains that even when the
consequence was death, even then people became heretics and apostates,
How many of these became such because of some
untestable ideological orientation (i.e., Arianism?) versus some
historical matter (who would die for a claim that the Statue of Liberty
had spoken aloud on a certain date)? This distinction is important.
Dying for a testable claim is not the same as dying for an untestable
ideological claim.
>>>As for finding support groups, the Internet is for some
the *only place* where they can find non-Christians. Obviously I know of
those - but how does it go for those without Internet access I
wonder?
Not bad. The public library had such resources as the
Encyclopedia of Associations. Anyone who wants to find help can do so
easily enough, if they are willing to take steps. (It is of course a
symptom of our society that some prefer to wallow in grief and agony and
not seek help purposely, having some sort of martyr complex or what have
you. But I'll make no individual judgments here.)
>>>Then the fact that people leave Christianity amongst
Christian friends, family and peers who would condemn them for loosing
faith must count as evidence against Christianity by your own
admission.
In our modern world of individualism? That can never
be agreed to. The price, even if high, is always able to be
recouped.
>>>How are they simplistic? You've
told me a number of times that I have been simplistic. I'll always ask
why, so in future could you tell me why you think so rather than just
make an assertion?
I thought I had explained clearly. Your comparisons
continually isolate single aspects, without looking at the larger
picture of the social world, of what is believed in, of particular
results. All of this must be considered as a whole.
>>>be able to get through. Since you have read these books
I would really appreciate a summary of the ideas that you believe
should be persuasive.
A summary of such things would be a true injustice to
the richness of the works and the societies examined. I am doing what I
can here, however, as your arguments develop; otherwise I will take up
as much of your time (and more of mine, retyping from scratch) as you
would if you simply read the same material I have.
>>>and not lost in a rapidly going out
of focus or unintelligent conversation. Maybe like Kyle Gerkin I'm
having an okay conversation with you? Even if you don't think I'm up to
much I hope you'll agree it's worth my while for my sake at least?!
:-)
You did the key thing that Kyle does and others,
mainly, do not: You preferred to ask questions and admitted that there
are things you don't know. Forward it all to Ed's list of you wish, but
I have cut off both him and Harry and blocked their mail. They refuse to
admit ignorance on any subject and so I consider them of the same order
as they might consider Jerry Falwell. :-)
Cordially,
JP/Bob |
From: Steve Locks
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 11:33 PM
Subject: Re: Psychology
Hi Bob,
Thanks for your helpful reply. I plan to return to shorter emails
next time, but for now I want to catch up on what we have discussed to
date so that nothing gets missed. So please excuse a slightly long email
- there is no time limit for a hoped for reply :-).
STEVE (in previous email referring to the cultural differences
between NT and modern times making the bible difficult to understand for
moderns):
>>> Unfortunately it makes the "eternal word of God"
(were the bible such a thing) look very parochial and unavailable,
far from the simple message you have claimed it is before.
BOB
That would perhaps be so but for two matters:
1) As I believe I noted, we in West are the oddballs; in fact 70%
of the world still is more like the people of the Bible in this sense
than they are like us, and I daresay 99.9% of all who have ever lived
have had the same general orientation. If anyone is being parochial, it
is we in the West. It has remained accessible to the vast majority of
people.
STEVE
Do you think the 70% are close enough to the people of the bible
(all of the bible?) to be able to understand it without commentaries?
Where do you get the 70% figure from? Of course I agree that cultures
can differ greatly but I would surmise further and suggest
that any one culture is an oddball amongst fellow oddballs! Modern
culture is maybe larger and more homogenous around the globe than most
ancient ones though. Nevertheless I think my point remains, if not
reinforced, by your reiteration of how different we are in the modern
West to the ancients. If your argument is valid then surely since
we are so different the "simple message" is actually very opaque to us
(more than to the ancients) and many commentaries are required as Ed
pointed out and you've agreed upon through comments on your
extensive reading and the poverty of critics are who haven't read as
much as yourself. So if you're right then the message is not so
simple for us due to an accident of birth that we were born into the
"wrong culture." We didn't ask to be born here and now.
But surely the problem gets even worse? What is the point in all
that study when still so many experts still leave Christianity (indeed
because of study!)? If the answers are in books then how am I ever going
to get up to the level of people like Gerd Ludemann, Geza Vermes, Don
Cupitt, Michael Goulder etc. and what is the pro-belief point when such
people and so many others find study leads them not into but out of
Christianity as it even did in my case? I find it hard to accept that
even if I am not up to the mark (and I've tried more than the vast
majority of people!) they had really missed the right book
recommendations.
As I ask on my site, over the years I have come to know and know of
many ex-Christians most of whom were well-churched, their numbers
including former ministers, apologists, missionaries, theologians etc.
Why should such people leave Christianity? These people are the best
versed in Christianity and yet they leave despite so much personal and
professional investment in their religion, enjoyment of their time as
believing Christians and social pressures to stay. How can this happen
if the evidence for Christianity is so good? If supernatural
Christianity is true, shouldn't they have known better? What's more
nobody really "chooses" to
disbelieve in Christianity whilst a Christian - as if they were looking
for a reason to reject it - quite the opposite is the case! How we can
testify to pouring over books of apologetics and asking in prayer for
guidance as our faith was crumbling! It is a gut-wrenching discovery
that Christianity is untenable. The painful fact for many
Christians is that through research and thinking the conclusion to which
they often come is that the history and philosophical and moral
implications of the various branches of Christianity are very different
from that which is traditionally taught. Why else should all these
people leave, contrary to their world-view, culture, professions, and
heavy investment in Christianity? Why would God go to the trouble of
incarnation and crucifixion only to allow genuine seekers to find
Christianity untenable, or give "spurious" experiences and "incorrect"
interpretation to those who spend so many years trying to be Christians?
What's more, if evidence was important for convincing doubting
Christians, ex and non-Christians then a God could obviously convince
them very easily. However, in response to confirmation candidates asking
"why faith not evidence?" the theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer said "to
ask for faith in the way that many people do is to ask for a prouder God
than He who became our brother in the cradle and on the cross." As such
I think pounding ancient history, desperately trying to find flaws in
evolution and all the other behaviour of apologetic evangelists are way
off even the religious mark. I fail to see how Christians can be doing
"God's work" by taking up the task of trying to convince us when the
Christian God himself (or Allah, Krishna etc.) does not seem too
concerned about doing this. And so are lots of books really the answer,
especially when it was lots of books (Christian books at that) that led
so many of us out of Christianity?
BOB
2) As for availability, how can that be claimed when there are
ample works for study on the subject, such as those I have given you
titles for? :-) You say:
>>>I would like to read further and I dream of the leisure
that would allow me to read all the books I am recommended, but we have
to be realistic as to what is humanly possible in an already busy
timetable with a full time job, young family and many other pursuits and
duties.
You do not watch any televsion, I take it? In any event, if you
have room for 550 books then I am sure you'll agree you can prioritize.
You do agree that the question is important. But:
STEVE
You're right - I hardly do watch any television! Occasionally the
news and sometimes I tape a documentary that looks interesting and
watch it when I can fit it in. About once a fortnight my wife and I hire
a film and that's about it! I'll admit to watching children's programs
with my kids, but when they are awake my time is all theirs! So I've no
real time to shave off there, or really anywhere. As for prioritisation,
if I did that then I think I would never read another pro-Christian
book. I very much feel like I've done my stint there and have been
disappointed with "the latest book that is going to convert me" so many
times that I have little inclination to believe that there is really
another one around the corner, plus what I said above about more
in-depth readers on these matters than myself who subsequently left
Christianity. That's one of the reasons I'm engaging in dialogue
directly instead. I already have over 550 books (actually about 1000)
out of my personal library clamouring for my attention. In addition to
that I have an accelerating backlog of other book recommendations I
would have to get from the library and web articles I have been
recommended. So I work through what I can when I can. What I need
is some serious convincing to enable me to prioritise any particular
book as the one that should shuffle others down from the top 550. For
instance whilst writing this I received an exhortation to:
Buy the
The
Spiritual Man from
Christian Fellowship
Publishers, and read the first 77 pages. If you do
this, with a heart desiring for the truth, I am confident
you will BELIEVE in Jesus Christ, and you will be
SAVED, and you will
know it. Read carefully. There is a lot of that sort of
thing around! Meanwhile 550 assumes that I will be able to revert to the
avid reading I managed before children took up most of my time which is
some good years to come and the proverbial bus might hit me tomorrow! I
can't imagine the plausibility of being sent away from the pearly gates
due to mis-prioritising the correct book recommendation!
There is also the catch-22 that until I re-believe Christianity is
even remotely likely to be true I am little inclined to put its
importance above science, cosmology, history, literature, philosophy,
music, psychology (including psychology of religion), cognitive
science and all the other subjects that interest me even more and
seem to me to have real connections with how the world actually is.
Largely I read pro-Christian works to be fair because I publicly
criticise Christian ideas. Unfortunately Christian books and articles
rather than convince appear riddled with desperate flaws far too often
which just increases my scepticism about Christianity as I explained to
Mark McFall here in
my comments on Glenn Miller's list on common errors made by apologists
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/errblvs.html.
It is also not just Christians who tell me I should read more of
their book recommendations. I regularly get emails from Muslims (and
others) for their religions. I had a Buddhist giving me his
recommendations yesterday.
I know I did ask for recommendations and URL's but I also need some
sort of summary, however poorly a summary represents the views of a
book. Indeed surely all discussions are like this as various aspects of
everything we have thought and learned are brought into conversation.
All of these can lead to further questions for more elucidation or
criticism of points made. Book summaries are no different and we can't
all insist that others must know everything we do before making comment
- indeed you don't!
The other part to all this is the common finding that Christians
refer me elsewhere when I pose certain questions. As I said to Dr.
Garrett who told me that those with questions should take them to their
elders. If these elders refuse to or cannot answer difficult questions
then this could be another reason why Christianity may continue to look
like it cannot survive scrutiny. A number of times I have been told that
those with questions should take them to the "elders" and I complained
that these "elders" do not tackle our questions seriously. At http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01.html you
state << we perform no service any time that we so much as
imply that their views should be taken seriously. Their views are the
result of a fallen and sinful human nature, of rampant egotism and
arrogance, and nothing more. >> Yet it has often been the
case that unwillingness to tackle questions at church (even sometimes a
hostile attitude to questions) has lead people to deconvert from
Christianity.
STEVE (in previous email)
>>>works, "okay so you've read it - what did you
find - what is the answer to my question from the source you
recommend?"
BOB
I believe I have done that. Did you not ask me though for
recommendations?
STEVE
To some extent, yes. There was a nice and intriguing summary you
gave to Ed at one point, but not much for me. I did ask for
recommendations and URL's to follow up what I can, but as I said you are
the person many Christians have challenged me to strike up a
conversation with. They said you would be able to tell me why I'm wrong.
So still be sent elsewhere is not what I was promised. As I said to
many of my critics, belief that there exists an apologist or book out
there that will answer my questions is a faith statement, not knowledge.
As I said to James Juris (who you know): Speaking as one frequently
on the receiving end, I think all apologists really need is sound
arguments. It is difficult to avoid a conclusion that is
well-researched, is focused, answers important questions and avoids
logical errors. Those of us who previously were committed Christians
didn't become ex-Christians without a fight. We've been convinced once
before against our existing worldview, much to our surprise and indeed
sometimes shock, so I think it could potentially happen again if
apologists can come up with the goods. But they don't. The goods
are around the next corner.
I often ask Christians for actual answers only to discover that
their belief in the security of Christianity is not based on knowledge
of Christian research refuting criticism but is actually just a faith
statement (or even just repeating a claim heard elsewhere that they have
not examined themselves - this sort of thing seems to become a sort of
chain letter of assertions). Now I know you do tackle many issues, as
does Glenn Miller, but it still raises the idea that
Christianity cannot survive scrutiny when our specific questions are
continuously passed on to others or just answered with annoyance. I'm
not saying you've done this to me personally that much, rather that this
is a general finding and another reason why I think a summary of
ideas when asked for really would help dispel the idea that Christian
claims are not well founded.
BOB
Bear in mind that if you are new to a subject, an answered question
inevitably brings up more questions from an interested and intelligent
party. Your request for answers that do not take up much time is not
realistic, if your interest is indeed comprehensive, and your intent is
to ask more questions. I say this even as an information studies person:
There are no simple answers for the uninitiated, from whom questions
will inevitably breed like rabbits.
STEVE
I agree. I too quake under the dictum of Bertrand Russell that
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be
accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into
something he can understand." I'm not calling you stupid (one thing
I admire is your intelligence!) rather what I mean by quoting Russell is
to illustrate that I appreciate I may not understand a carefully worded
detailed thesis from anybody's summary. Sure you could give me as much
detail as you could bare and I could subsequently bombard you with more
questions and you'd end out basically re-writing the whole book for me.
Quicker for both of us if I just read the book to start with - I agree
with you as regards information studies! Unfortunately this still leaves
me with an even deeper appreciation of how unattainable Christianity is
even if it were true. Have I really *got* to read lots of hard books to
assuage my feeling that Christianity is untenable?
Again surely your argument goes for any idea - I could probe any
statement until you've rewritten your whole life's learning for me - it
doesn't have to be just a book description that leads to a lengthy
exposition. Does this mean that conversation about ideas cannot happen
between living people, and we all just have to read each others books?
What would be the place for conversation? Maybe it would lead for a more
peaceful world if the whole place was turned into a library though - Ho,
ho is that your secret librarianship plan! ;-)
STEVE (in previous email referring to Bob's claim referencing
writers such as Pilch, Malina, Neyrey and Rohrbaugh that NT peoples had
a different psychology to moderns and the impact this may have
on claims of any resurrection appearances actually
being post bereavement hallucinations):
>>>Back to my question. I find it hard to believe that
*psychology* (not culture) is accurately treated as different (if indeed
they really mean *psychology* not culture) by Christian writers (as are
the ones you recommended)
BOB
I find this mildly insulting to the writers. For one thing, you
have implied that their "Christian" status makes them suspect. Not only
is this equivocal (it so happens they are of what would be called a
"liberal" to "moderate" bent), it is also presumptive (since you have
never seen their work, nor as far as I know do you have any experience
in cultural anthropology) and disrespectful (they have published
numerous peer-reviewed articles and books, and have also interacted
heavily with the secular literature on this subject -- their views on
this matter are NOT different from the mainstream, but in line with it).
And as noted, I think, I do not agree with any strong dichotomy
between psychology and culture.
STEVE
I'm glad you think this implies an insult, as this was my point,
except that the implication if insult is not from myself.
Personally I think that you cannot have correctly identified the
difference between psychology and cultural
differences. The indictment of either your authors or mainstream science
must follow though if you are correct that there is a fundamental
difference between these groups. And groups they are as Malina is I see
a member of the "Context Group" (Project on the Bible in its
Cultural Environment). I am sorry though if you think I was having an
insulting dig at Christians per se (some of my best friends are
Christians etc.) which wasn't my intention, but rather to show the
implication of your statement that human psychology has changed down the
millennia, which as far as I am aware is at variance with modern
psychological thinking and the findings of cognitive science. Maybe
there has been some confusion or crossed wires about the meaning of the
word "psychology" - perhaps you are taking it in more of a local
behavioural manner than I am getting at? So to clarify, my point is that
there is not likely to be a difference between human psychology
(human traits) as it was across the globe over thousands of years
and human psychology now. You may be aware of recent instances
of contact with the few remaining untouched jungle tribes. They too
laughed, smiled when happy and showed a whole range of common human
traits, without any Westerner teaching them such things. Cognitive
science lists a huge number of traits as human universals.
See Donald E. Brown's List of Human Universals at http://www.xasa.com/grupos/en/talk/article/171908/talk.philosophy.misc
Amongst this huge list of universal traits are belief in
supernatural/ religion, false beliefs, beliefs about death,
conflict (means of dealing with), emotions, explanation, fears (ability
to overcome some), magic to sustain life, mourning, private inner life,
psychological defence mechanisms, redress of wrongs, attachment, fear of
death, hope, imagery, interpolation, shame...
So when you ask me:-
STEVE (in previous email)
>>> So do you agree that grieving and hallucination are
far from anachronisms or a recent or culturally dependent phenomena
BOB
I don't think I ever did. I made rather the point that if such
happened, the results would be different, and as well (if recall right)
that it cannot merely be assumed that they are not anachronisms. A study
of hallucinations and grief in an honor-shame, collectivist study
would go far in helping me on this point.
STEVE
The study has already been done. Moderns and ancients across the
globe share all the required characteristics. belief in
supernatural/ religion, false beliefs, beliefs about death, conflict
(means of dealing with), emotions, explanation, fears (ability to
overcome some), magic to sustain life, mourning, private inner life,
psychological defence mechanisms, redress of wrongs, attachment, fear of
death, hope, imagery, interpolation, shame... As I said before
hallucinations of the recently deceased are common as are group
identifications with such visions. There is already a very normal
explanation for the resurrection sightings, even giving the NT writings
a lot of the benefit of the doubt as regards a basic historicity.
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/visionorigin.html
STEVE (in previous email)
>>>BTW what books on psychology (including psychology of
religion) have you read from mainstream science?
BOB
None whose titles I can recall after 10 or so years.
STEVE
I've been a keen reader of psychology texts and in particular the
psychology of religion. In contrast to your lack of reading on this
recently I think it is quite fair for me to surmise that you have
misunderstood the constancy of human psychological traits and the
relevance of modern cross-cultural hallucinations of the recently
deceased to those of NT times. Remember that you said 70% of the modern
world are like those of the NT world. Since grief hallucinations are
cross-cultural you have made my point that they are to be expected under
the conditions of the death of Jesus too. In addition this is a
"first-order" effect whereas local cultural norms (such as any
"honor-shame/angel assumption" local cultural differences) are
"second-order" effects. The disciples could easily have seen things that
were not there, and like Paul did with his vision - which was after the
ascension, so definitely visionary - assumed they really were Jesus
rather than an angel. More on this later...
STEVE (in previous email)
>>>>There are a number of aspects to this. First is the
question of what the early disciples actually really were proclaiming.
Many scholars, including Dr. Mark Goodacre, whom you previously used as
an authority, argues that the original Christian message has been
largely lost
BOB
I do not recall using Goodacre as an authority and his name is not
on my site that I can find. I believe I have already replied to
everything Holtz has thrown in the air.
STEVE
You used him with regard to Q in an email to Ed. Mark Goodacre is
one of the foremost exponents of the "No Q" theory. You wrote the
following:
********Begin Quote**********
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Patrick Holding"
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 9:16 PM
Subject: Re: Dear Jason and Bob, please meet James D. G.
Dunn
<snip>
What a laugh and a half. This is stuff that would be at the core;
and of
course he begs the Q question, which has been slowly dying as
a theory for
the past dozen years. Or are you not up on that yet? You
like book reviews?
Here's on to stick in your quiver:
The Case
Against Q
By Mark Goodacre
2002. Trinity Press International 227
pages.
<snip>
********End Quote**********
STEVE
So if you respect him as a scholarly researcher, then you should
sit up and take note when he disagrees with you.
STEVE (in previous email)
>>> proclamation. My point is that all that is
required is not a real resurrection but the belief in a real
resurrection
BOB
That is fine. And I have already made one note on this, that there
is simply no opening for such a belief to be present in the minds of a
Jew of this day. A Jesus seen in a hallucination would have not been
understood to be a resurrected Jesus but as his guardian angel (who were
thought to take the appearance of those they watched over; cf. Acts
12:15). To this you said:
>> don't claim to have a falsification, and if you don't
either for your views then why bring "falsification" up?
I do have a falsification: A dead body, or at the very least a
historical claim to have one. I don't think age is a problem here.
STEVE
That is hardly a falsification as you well know that whether Jesus
rotted or was raised, there is not going to be a body
available. However there is very good evidence that Jesus was
buried in a pit, and hence would not have had a known grave to be
visited and seen empty. That is the essay by Byron R. McCane at http://members.tripod.com/enoch2112/ByronBurial.htm.
Now I know that you have said that this essay is consistent with burial
in an initial tomb, but it is not consistent with a body still being
there when it was visited 3 days later. So isn't your theory falsified
after all by Byron R. McCane's arguments?
STEVE (in previous email)
>>>As for a vision of Jesus being thought to be his
guardian angel I am again perplexed why you think so. Acts 12:15 is
pretty slim evidence (have you any more, and would angels be perceived
as deceptive?)
BOB
Yes, it is a documented belief of the rabbis as well, as noted in
Witherington's commentary on Acts. The Jews would not have believed it
was the deceased because the dead could only be called up via
necromancy, which was forbidden, and otherwise could not go back to
earth (per the rich man and Lazarus). Your option is simply not socially
viable and a hallucination of Jesus would have never been understood as
Jesus himself, much less as one resurrected.
STEVE
Why then would Jesus have raised Lazarus (the one of the miracle in
John, not the parable in Luke) if that would lead Jesus to have been
thought a forbidden necromancer? Why did Saul (a pre-Christian Jew)
think his vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus really was Jesus,
rather than an angel? Your explanation can't be correct given these.
<< a hallucination of Jesus would have never been understood as
Jesus himself >> Clearly the Jew Saul (pre Paul) did not
think he saw and angel. Therefore neither need any of the others (it
might only have been Peter and maybe one of the women anyway, the others
latching on to this as discussed before).
Also remember that grief hallucinations are very vivid and
hallucinations seem real to those having them. Grief
hallucinations even include not only visual but can also include
auditory and even tactile experiences.
"...Of the 293 people interviewed 137 (46.7%) had
post-bereavement hallucinations. These hallucinations lasted many years,
and at the time of interview 106 (36.1%) people still had
hallucinations. The proportions of hallucinated men and women were
similar, with 33 (50%) men and 104 (45.8%) women having had
hallucinations. The most common type of hallucination is the illusion of
feeling the presence of the dead spouse (39.2%)... Auditory
hallucinations (13.3%) are slightly less common than visual
hallucinations (14.0%), and more than one person in ten has spoken to
the dead spouse. The least common hallucination is the feeling of having
been touched by the dead spouse (2.7%)."
- Dr. W.D. Rees "The
Hallucinations of Widowhood" British Medical Journal, October 1971,
Why would an ancient person who already believes in an afterlife
and without modern psychological resources such as the National Library
of Medicine have known that they were having a hallucination or vision
to which they should ascribe an angel, rather than a real encounter? As
I said, Paul was a Jew and thought he saw Jesus, not an angel.
Indeed if the Jews would not have believed in a resurrected Jesus
but only visions of angels, why do you claim they believed they saw
Jesus? Surely you shoot yourself in the foot? How could they tell the
difference between hallucination and reality particularly given the
impressive nature of grief hallucinations?
STEVE (in previous email)
>>>original one or two who may have had such an experience
that they genuinely believed were of their risen hero. A supernatural
explanation is not required or even parsimonious.
BOB
I think you know from my discussions with Holtz what I think of
"parsimony" as an argument. :-)
STEVE
It was only because of Jordan that I used that word - since you
have commented on our discussions before. Indeed I would much prefer
something like the phrase finding Christianity "untenable"
given the far richer understanding that I find psychology and cognitive
science gives us of human nature. Do you think Jordan was incorrect then
for becoming a Christian because he came to believe that the Christian
interpretation of the resurrection narratives are the most
"parsimonious" of the theories on offer? He states at http://www.theism.net/authors/zjordan/debates_files/locks.htm
<< The scientific principle of parsimony (Occam’s razor)
asserts that the best explanation for a set of facts is the simplest
one. I would have to apply the notion that "highly improbable"
translates into "impossible" equally to the swoon, twin,
dog-and-bird-eating, legend-developing, joint-hallucinations,
martyrdom-of- hoaxers, etc., explanations of the Resurrection account.
All of those explanations are "an extremely outstanding or unusual
event, thing, or accomplishment" in themselves. To combine any or all of
them is yet another miracle....Christians, I thought, who truly
value truth and science would do the same. Who, I wondered, is on
steadier ground: the Christian with the parsimonious
explanation, or the skeptic with the convoluted explanation?
>>
BOB
In any event, given all these social factors, even then such ideas
as "hallucination" become so un-parsimonious that a supernatural
explanation (in a theistic world) becomes if anything much
simpler.
STEVE
First the social factors are irrelevant as the human cognitive
factors remain and dominate as cognitive science tells us, and Saul
clearly thought his vision was of Jesus, not an angel. An infinitely big
explanation ("God") is the most "un-parsimoneous" of any explanation
(since it is infinite!), and if it is to be held at all it must be for
other reasons than "parsimony" as I explained to Jordan, and was the
(slightly sneaky) reason I used the word with yourself in my previous
email.
STEVE (in previous email, discussing how it is common for people to
proclaim beliefs that they know would put themselves in trouble):
>>>The point is that people are willing to risk death for
what they consider right, even though it goes against the mores of their
society.
BOB
But as noted, this point cannot stand under the conditions I
stated. You really did not address this at all.
STEVE
I don't understand why you think I have not addressed this. I
specifically stated that some of these were from strict "honour and
shame" societies.
STEVE (in previous email, discussing what some problems are like
for ex-Christians):
>>>Usually emancipation and spiritual enrichment, but the
"bad trips" include - being ostracised from your family at a young age,
parents never talking to you again. Divorce, loss of your children, loss
of friends and peers. None of this is trivial or as easily mended as you
maybe suggest.
BOB
Comparatively speaking, for a society as kinship-oriented as the
ancient world, there is truly little in the way of comparison. New
friends and peers are easy to get for us. So is a new
family. Indeed we often solve the matter by taking pride in our
difference from others.
STEVE
It is not possible to replace your children. But even if
deconversion was always a jolly thing with well wishes from Christians,
why would anyone deconvert unless they really lost their beliefs? That
is the point - that it is impossible to believe things one does not
believe, or to not believe things one does, no matter what the people
around one is like. One might hide one's beliefs, but if they are really
thought to be more important than the condemnation of those around and
the subsequent social fall-out then the attitude will be (literally for
Christians) "damn the opposition - I believe what's right and the
consequences will be a martyr's blessing!" What's more, as you have
agreed, all it takes is a belief, a true belief is a further step not
required for this action.
STEVE (in previous email)
>>>>consequences can remain if one deconverts amongst a
very religious family/peer group. The point remains that even when the
consequence was death, even then people became heretics and apostates,
BOB
How many of these became such because of some untestable
ideological orientation (i.e., Arianism?) versus some historical matter
(who would die for a claim that the Statue of Liberty had spoken aloud
on a certain date)? This distinction is important. Dying for a testable
claim is not the same as dying for an untestable ideological
claim.
STEVE
I take it you are referring to the idea that the authorities would
have produced the body to thwart the pesky Christians. We both know the
arguments against this. What evidence is there that the authorities
would have cared to thwart what would have been to them a little
known and minor cult? Indeed you once wrote to me in connection with
something else that << it is far from clear that Josephus would
have thought of this as a "new religion" -- the Romans did not, not for
quite some time -- as opposed to a branch of Judaism. >>
STEVE (in previous email regarding ex-Christians)
>>>As for finding support groups, the Internet is for some
the *only place* where they can find non-Christians. Obviously I know of
those - but how does it go for those without Internet access I
wonder?
BOB
Not bad. The public library had such resources as the Encyclopedia
of Associations. Anyone who wants to find help can do so easily enough,
if they are willing to take steps. (It is of course a symptom of our
society that some prefer to wallow in grief and agony and not seek help
purposely, having some sort of martyr complex or what have you. But I'll
make no individual judgments here.)
STEVE
Looks like you might have made a judgement though... Anyway,
excellent! I have never heard of the Encyclopaedia of Associations but
unfortunately when I searched for it I found the website to be
written in gobbledegook (to a non-librarian that is!). Could you point
me to an organisation for ex-Christians that could be found through it?
I know there are lots of freethought organisations, if that is what you
mean, but like I said, there are parts of the world where you will not
meet a non-Christian outside of your computer. These people said they
did not know of any non-Christians that they had met. Do you really
expect them to have known that the public library would have the
"Encyclopedia of Associations," know what that is, how to use it and
whether it is likely to have local support groups for ex-Christians
right there in the heart of the bible belt? Anyway, that is slightly off
topic, but if you know what the ex-Christian support groups are in the
bible belt through the Encyclopedia of Associations them please tell me.
STEVE (in previous email)
>>>Then the fact that people leave Christianity amongst
Christian friends, family and peers who would condemn them for loosing
faith must count as evidence against Christianity by your own
admission.
BOB
In our modern world of individualism? That can never be agreed to.
The price, even if high, is always able to be recouped.
STEVE
Remember that you claimed << threats of social ostracization
count as a evidence for the truth of the belief that engenders such
threats >> which is exactly what happens to Christians who
deconvert in a highly religious peer-group/family. Note that those
ex-Christians who do suffer social ostracization are brought up in a
culture that teaches they will be miserable, nihilistic and empty if
they ever left the church. They are not led to expect healthy happy
lives or new relationships after deconversion. That there may be a
pleasant surprise at the end of the tunnel is not something a
deconverting Christian has in mind, so your point about "recouping" is
hardly relevant. If someone is taken out for a mock execution they still
soil their pants even though the bullet never comes.
STEVE (in previous email)
>>>How are they simplistic? You've told me a number of
times that I have been simplistic. I'll always ask why, so in future
could you tell me why you think so rather than just make an
assertion?
BOB
I thought I had explained clearly. Your comparisons continually
isolate single aspects, without looking at the larger picture of the
social world, of what is believed in, of particular results. All of this
must be considered as a whole.
STEVE
I'm afraid this is too vague to be of use in helping me to
understand where I have been simplistic.
STEVE (in previous email)
>>>be able to get through. Since you have read these books
I would really appreciate a summary of the ideas that you believe
should be persuasive.
BOB
A summary of such things would be a true injustice to the richness
of the works and the societies examined. I am doing what I can here,
however, as your arguments develop; otherwise I will take up as much of
your time (and more of mine, retyping from scratch) as you would if you
simply read the same material I have.
STEVE
As discussed above, could you summarise the most persuasive
information you have. Sure I will probably question further, but there
is no time limit on a reply, so the work burden is only as much as you
choose to make it. I only reply when I have time too. I much prefer long
term discussions to a sprint of emails without time for reflection or
the rest of life!
STEVE (in previous email)
>>>and not lost in a rapidly going out of focus or
unintelligent conversation. Maybe like Kyle Gerkin I'm having an okay
conversation with you? Even if you don't think I'm up to much I hope
you'll agree it's worth my while for my sake at least?! :-)
BOB
You did the key thing that Kyle does and others, mainly, do not:
You preferred to ask questions and admitted that there are things you
don't know. Forward it all to Ed's list of you wish, but I have cut off
both him and Harry and blocked their mail. They refuse to admit
ignorance on any subject and so I consider them of the same order as
they might consider Jerry Falwell. :-)
STEVE
What I have done (only twice) in email conversation when I was not
getting on with the person I was corresponding with is to state what I
saw the problem was, then if the behaviour did not change warn about -
and then if it persisted carry out - a "cooling off" period. i.e. I put
them in my "kill files" not indefinitely, but for a fixed period, never
more than a year. This really does work and has turned conversations
around from automatic gainsaying to thoughtful discussions on regaining
of contact.
STEVE (old email)
>>> We have the false ending of Mark and the gospels
considered apocryphal (although some are not apocryphal to Catholics and
Eastern Orthodox) some with quite fantastic stories about Jesus that you
wouldn't entertain as true for a minute.
BOB
Yes, but for reasons of the late date of the material, not because
of any philosophical presupposition.
STEVE
>>But the point is that Christians clearly were making up
false stories about Jesus!
BOB
"Christians"? By what route are Gnostics, for example, so
declared?
STEVE
STEVE (referring to Bob's admission that the only reference to the
"500" is within the bible)
>>>(Then you have a circular argument - using the bible to
prove the bible which is a fallacy.
BOB
I don't see how this is any different than making an appeal to any
other claim in a secular document.
STEVE
Agreed - it is the same. i.e. likewise it would be fallacious
to condemn anyone for not believing a fantastic claim only ever
mentioned internally in a secular document. For instance Herodotus
reports that in the Indian desert "are ants, not as big as dogs but
bigger than foxes; the Persian king has some of these, which have been
caught there." It would be fallacious to believe this on the basis of
its internal report against the evidence of everything else known about
the world, just as it would be fallacious to believe in the 500 vision,
Matthew's risen saints etc. against the lack of reportage from other
interested writers (such as Josephus) of such astonishing events were
they true, and what else we know about the world. (The chances of
interpolation and human misunderstanding in religious documents, grief
induced hallucinations, crowd behaviour).
This is not to say that the authors of these tales are simply
lying. Even if he wrote the passage, Paul could have misinterpreted what
"500" saw (like http://www.mcn.org/1/miracles/Nairobi2.html)
just as Herodotus may have been confused with the ancient Persian word
for marmot, which means mountain ant, marmots having the behaviour
Herodotus ascribed to the "ants" in the passage in which he refers to
them.
STEVE (regarding multiplying less than unity possibilities quickly
leads to an unlikely conclusion)
>>>I've noticed a number of times in your replies and at
your website that possible scenario (however slim) is piled upon
possible scenario.
BOB
Such is the necessity of the practice of historical reconstruction:
Inferences drawn from background data. What you need to do is show that
they are not "less than unity" which I do not see happening.
:-)
STEVE
I think you've misunderstood me. My point is that they *are* less
than unity. Since you agree that they are, my point stands. As I said
"I've noticed a number of times in your replies and at your website
that possible scenario (however slim) is piled upon possible scenario.
Whilst some of these could be accepted for the sake of argument the
overall scenario is a multiplication of hopeful, but less than unity,
possibilities. These are "AND statements" all required for your
apologetic to work. Multiply a lot of numbers smaller than one together
and you soon get close to zero."
STEVE (regarding the question why would the 500 who saw Jesus
have not been present at the ascension - thinking that they would have
wanted to stay with the others to see the risen Jesus above any other
concern):
>>>Remember that they wouldn't have known that the
ascension was going to happen
BOB
Um, John 20:17?
STEVE
Even better! They knew their chances of seeing Jesus "in the flesh"
were limited (if the Gospels are to be believed). So why farms over
Jesus? Jesus exhorted people to put following him above all worldly
concerns - even including family. I know Christians falter in their
discipleship, but would not those who saw him so recently risen from the
dead take this very seriously? If not then isn't that another of your
slim possibilities to multiply with all the others?
STEVE (regarding Bob's claims that fundamentalists have a
"fallacious black and white mentality" and Steve's point that the
biblical authors were fundamentalists):
>>>The points remains that as guiltless as they were for
their fundamentalist condition they nevertheless had a fallacious black
and white mentality by your own description of fundamentalists
BOB
I find quite a difference between being "black and white" because
one chooses to ignore colors, and black and white because one is color
blind.
STEVE
Wouldn't you agree though that they both are unable to see colours
and have a fallacious mentality?
STEVE
A couple of other unanswered questions:
What could the "general rebellion of all humanity" actually
be?
What is the "special creation model?"
That's it for now. Again I'm sorry it is long this time and I don't
expect a reply quickly if you're busy/have other priorities, but at the
same time don't mind a speedy one if you're not busy, feel like
it and already have answers at your fingertips!
Regards,
Steve
======================================
Leaving
Christianity
|
From: James Patrick Holding
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 2:58 PM
Subject: Re: Psychology
Howdy,
>>>there is no time limit for a hoped for reply
:-).
That'll work nicely. :-)
>>>Do you think the 70% are close
enough to the people of the bible (all of the bible?) to be able to
understand it without commentaries?
They are close enough in terms of the characteristics
I have noted (collectivism, honor and shame) to understand it far
better, yes.
>>> Where do you get the 70% figure from?
Malina and Neyrey give the figure in Portraits of Paul
and cite a secular anthropological source. I can't recall what it was
just now but can check if you really need it.
>>>> So if you're right then the message is not so
simple for us due to an accident of birth that we were born into the
"wrong culture." We didn't ask to be born here and now.
The rub on that is that the "simpleness" is caused in
good measure by our own arrogance and ignorance. It affects us in
politics as well.
>>>ut surely the problem gets even worse? What is the
point in all that study when still so many experts still leave
Christianity (indeed because of study!)?
You'd have to be more specific. I have seen experts
leave for quite absurd reasons, or for reasons that had little to do
with study.
>>>accept that even if I am not up to the mark (and I've
tried more than the vast majority of people!) they had really
missed the right book recommendations.
It's not that hard to fathom. Robert Price's entire
case for 1 Cor. 15:3ff being an interpolation falls on a simple point of
Greco-Roman rhetoric, which was a subject he obviously missed at
seminary.
>>>s I ask on my site, over the years I have come to know
and know of many ex-Christians most of whom were well-churched, their
numbers including former ministers, apologists, missionaries,
theologians etc. Why should such people leave Christianity? These people
are the best versed in Christianity
I would find it interesting to quiz each of them and
see if that is so. Perhaps that would make for an interesting project if
you can get some who are cooperative and more of the Kyle Gerkin
mentality where I am concerned.
>>>What's more, if evidence was important for convincing
doubting Christians, ex and non-Christians then a God could obviously
convince them very easily. However, in response to confirmation
candidates asking "why faith not evidence?" the theologian Dietrich
Bonhoeffer said "to ask for faith in the way that many people do is to
ask for a prouder God than He who became our brother in the cradle and
on the cross."
>>>Krishna etc.) does not seem too concerned about doing
this. And so are lots of books really the answer, especially when it was
lots of books (Christian books at that) that led so many of us out of
Christianity?
Obviously I think it is AN answer. :-)
>>>all theirs! So I've no real time to shave off there, or
really anywhere. As for prioritisation, if I did that then I think I
would never read another pro-Christian book. I very much feel like I've
done my stint there and have been disappointed with "the latest book
that is going to convert me" so many times that I have little
inclination to believe that there is really another one around the
corner
Well, but instead it may be "the latest email
(that takes an hour to type) to convert you"? :-) The funny thing is, I
had always heard from Skeptics that human knowledge is expanding so
fast, that such an "inclination to believe" seems counter to
that.
>>>convincing to enable me to prioritise any particular
book as the one that should shuffle others down from the top 550. For
instance whilst writing this I received an exhortation to:
Um. A librarian's recommend:
1) 77 pages? How could that provide any sort of
worthwhile case?
2) "Christian Fellowship Publishers"? Not exactly
peer-reviewed scholarship, is it?
I'd also look for a summary. A little discernment like
this saves a lot of time (when it comes to any book at all). You could
probably cut your 550 total by 90% that way.
>>>There is also the catch-22 that until I re-believe
Christianity is even remotely likely to be true I am little inclined to
put its importance above science,
Catch-22? It leaves you with that little free
choice?
>>>human nature, of rampant egotism and arrogance, and
nothing more. >> Yet it has often been the case that
unwillingness to tackle questions at church (even sometimes a hostile
attitude to questions) has lead people to deconvert from
Christianity.
I'm painfully well aware of that. Correcting such
things is and has been part of my mission.
>>>personally that much, rather that this is a general
finding and another reason why I think a summary of ideas when
asked for really would help dispel the idea that Christian claims are
not well founded.
As noted, there simply are things that cannot be
fairly summarized -- and then there is the "questions breed like
rabbits" matter I raised, to which you appealed again to the time
factor:
>>> Have I really *got* to read
lots of hard books to assuage my feeling that Christianity is untenable?
Well -- yes. Once you choose a life of the mind, you
trap yourself in that very way, as I tell many beginning readers
of scholarly material. Once it is started, it becomes
addictive, like eating potato chips.
>>>>. Does this mean that
conversation about ideas cannot happen between living people, and we all
just have to read each others books?
No, but it does mean that such conversations will
inevitably become unwieldy and unmanageable, if fully pursued. By the
time it gets to that, with the time used you may as well have read one
or more of the books. :-)
>>> What would be the place for conversation? Maybe
it would lead for a more peaceful world if the whole place was turned
into a library though - Ho, ho is that your secret librarianship plan!
;-)
It wouldn't be a bad idea. Unfortunately the mass
majority would ask where the videotapes and DVDs were. :-/
:-)
>>>meaning of the word "psychology" -
perhaps you are taking it in more of a local behavioural manner than I
am getting at?
Yes. Brown's list makes it clear that you may be
missing my point. To use an example germane here: One of his universals
is "group living" and group membership. This is a general; what I speak
of is differences in application, how important group membership is. Our
society is individualist; groups are not considered as important, by
far, as they are in collectivist cultures. And this ranking of
importance affects behavior and psychology inevitably. Both experience
"group living" but they do not rate it with the same level of
importance. Say from 1 to 10, we give it a 2, they give it a 9 or a
10.
Thius by the same token, I have argued that the
general appeal to "belief in supernatural/ religion" for
example, grounds for your argument on the specific expectations of the
culture in question. A "grief hallucination" would not be interpreted as
a resurrected Jesus. More on this, yes, later --
>>>You used him with regard to Q in an
email to Ed. Mark Goodacre is one of the foremost exponents of the "No
Q" theory.
I see. Well, surprise of surprises, I use many sources
with whom I have substantial disagreements; I even disagree with some of
what my favorite writer Ben Witherington says. I seldom agree with any
writer en bloc but critically analyze and compare all they say. If
Goodacre believes the message has been lost, I would have reason to
question and disagree (I've been down that road) -- and I can still
agree with his points about Q (which are not inextricably linked to his
other ideas).
>>>That is hardly a falsification as you well know that
whether Jesus rotted or was raised, there is not going to be a body
available.
No skeleton? The Jews of this period kept the bones
because of their belief in resurrection. Remains of some sort certainly
would have been available.
>>> However there is very good evidence that Jesus
was buried in a pit, and hence would not have had a known grave to be
visited and seen empty. That is the essay by Byron R. McCane at http://members.tripod.com/enoch2112/ByronBurial.htm.
Now I know that you have said that this essay is consistent with burial
in an initial tomb, but it is not consistent with a body still being
there when it was visited 3 days later.
I don't see why it isn't. I think you are confusing
McCane's arguments with Carrier's (mis)use of McCane's arguments. I
looked at his summary and found nothing about the body being moved to a
pit. If anything it looks like he agrees that the bones would still be
around to be regathered.
>>>Why then would Jesus have raised Lazarus (the one of
the miracle in John, not the parable in Luke) if that would lead Jesus
to have been thought a forbidden necromancer?
I'm not sure what the point is here. I must be missing
something of your position. Jesus did not "call up" the spirit of the
dead; he RAISED the dead. Can you elucidate?
>>>Why did Saul (a pre-Christian Jew)
think his vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus really was Jesus,
rather than an angel?
Actually he did have to ASK who it was, you'll recall.
:-) He thought so because he was plainly told.
>>>Also remember that grief
hallucinations are very vivid and hallucinations seem real to
those having them.
I have little doubt of that. But the bottom line
remains that any hallucination seen would have been interpreted as the
double agent angel on patrol. Assuming it happened at all -- I'd say
that the Jewish belief that the dead did not come back as
spirits (despite the afterlife) means that there would be no
grounds for such a hallucination to occur to begin with. And if it did,
least of all would it be understood as a "resurrected" body -- the
resurrection of the dead in glorified bodies was not to occur until the
end of eschatologucal history, and then ALL were to be raised, not one
man. The "hallucination" explanation simply requires ignoring too many
set beliefs of the Jews of the period.
>>>Indeed if the Jews would not have
believed in a resurrected Jesus but only visions of angels, why do you
claim they believed they saw Jesus?
It's simple: They were given substantial and
undeniable proof by the Risen Jesus.
No, because I think he is correct, which was my point
with Holtz. His explanations require too many props and "exceptions" to
cultural rules to be the most parsimonious explanations.
>>>First the social factors are
irrelevant as the human cognitive factors remain and dominate as
cognitive science tells us, and Saul clearly thought his vision was of
Jesus, not an angel.
As noted, however, he had to be told who it
was.
>>>> An infinitely big explanation ("God") is the
most "un-parsimoneous" of any explanation (since it is infinite!), and
if it is to be held at all it must be for other reasons than "parsimony"
as I explained to Jordan, and was the (slightly sneaky) reason I used
the word with yourself in my previous email.
I fail to see any logical or factual reason for this
to be so. God is considered a simple being, not an "infinitely big"
being. It sounds like this assumes the priority of naturalism and
interprets "God" in those terms rather than letting the evidence speak
for itself. Besides, the identity question of "who did the rez" is in
effect quite secondary.
>>>I don't understand why you think I have not addressed
this. I specifically stated that some of these were from strict "honour
and shame" societies.
And I believe I noted that they showed clear signs of
cross-cultural fertilization.
>>>It is not possible to replace your
children.
The ancients would not agree. Remember that children
were mainly a means to an end, of producing progeny to inherit your
property. The emphasis on sentimentality is misplaced, if that is what
is in view.
>>>>But even if deconversion was always a jolly thing
with well wishes from Christians, why would anyone deconvert unless they
really lost their beliefs?
No other reason; but for what reason, and whether it
is rational and informed, is my main concern. I have read of one person
who deconverted solely because of 9-11; another, because they took but
TWO college courses. Do you think such people made careful, considered
surveys of such things as whether Jesus was really raised from the
dead?
I don't support decisions made on emotional bases, in
any setting.
>>>I take it you are referring to the idea that the
authorities would have produced the body to thwart the pesky
Christians.
Somewhat; their mere statement as authorities alone
would have been enough to at least require refutation.
>>> What evidence is there that the authorities would
have cared to thwart what would have been to them a little known
and minor cult?
Offhand --
1) It was a matter of honor. The claim of Jesus'
resurrection was a claim that the authorities were in error and that God
had vindicated Jesus and shamed them.
2) As the NT shows, this cult threatened the view of
Jewish unity in Roman eyes, which could lead to loss of their special
status. It did not have to be a new religion.
3) The general tenor of the ancient world, for
everyone to mind everyone else's business, provided enough incentive
alone.
>>>Looks like you might have made a judgement though...
Anyway, excellent! I have never heard of the Encyclopaedia of
Associations but unfortunately when I searched for it I found the
website to be written in gobbledegook (to a non-librarian that is!).
I actually meant a book set, a rather large one. I
don't possess my own copy but it has a keyword index, in which I would
look for words like ex-Christian (or even Christian); if that failed, I
would next refer to atheist organizations that would be able to provide
further direction. Looking for answers is somewhat like travelling on a
spider's web -- you have to be able to think of many divergent paths
down which an answer may be found.
>>>will not meet a non-Christian outside of your computer.
These people said they did not know of any non-Christians that they had
met.
Do you mean "ex-" rather than non-??? :-/
>>>Do you really expect them to have
known that the public library would have the "Encyclopedia of
Associations," know what that is, how to use it and whether it is likely
to have local support groups for ex-Christians right there in the heart
of the bible belt?
Yes. We are all (here at least) taught to use a
library in elementary school.
>>>Remember that you claimed << threats of social
ostracization count as a evidence for the truth of the belief that
engenders such threats >> which is exactly what happens to
Christians who deconvert in a highly religious peer-group/family. Note
that those ex-Christians who do suffer social ostracization are brought
up in a culture that teaches they will be miserable, nihilistic and
empty if they ever left the church.
They are also in a culture in which those so
"oppressed" are encouraged to assert themselves, seek a new identity,
and proclaim it from the housetops, and in which being controversial
guarantees attention. It is also a society that makes too much of things
-- there are complaints of "oppressive" poverty from persons who own TV
sets! That they do not pursue the options is another matter -- and has
little if anything to do with whether they made an informed decision, of
course.
>>>As discussed above, could you summarise the most
persuasive information you have.
I would have to say that The Impossible Faith is my
best effort at doing so. (Yes, as it happens, someone just told me of
Holtz' latest "response"....I'll withhold comment in context. Let's just
say he still hasn't learned his lesson.)
I would want to discuss specific documents to say
anything further. As Jenkins has noted in Hidden Gospels, these are
"losers" for quite sound historical reasons.
>>>>claim only ever mentioned internally in a secular
document. For instance Herodotus reports that in the Indian desert "are
ants, not as big as dogs but bigger than foxes; the Persian king has
some of these, which have been caught there." It would be
fallacious to believe this on the basis of its internal report against
the evidence of everything else known about the world,
Yet your "marmots" example (never heard that one,
thanks!) solves the matter nicely, does it not? A very simple matter of
textual criticism. Then:
>>>just as it would be fallacious to
believe in the 500 vision, Matthew's risen saints etc. against the lack
of reportage from other interested writers (such as Josephus) of such
astonishing events were they true,
The silence of Josephus, etc. means little in this
regard. At best you may assume that they did not consider the reports
historical. At least you must consider that silence about an opponent
was a shaming tactic. Silence is not a form of positive evidence when it
comes ot ancient writers.
>>>This is not to say that the authors of these tales are
simply lying. Even if he wrote the passage, Paul could have
misinterpreted what "500" saw
Then one must explain what they did see, and explain
why it is more likely in context, and how the misunderstanding occurred
and was perpetuated. The Jewish understanding of resurrection, and what
I have noted above, works hard against you here.
>>>I think you've misunderstood me. My point is that they
*are* less than unity.
I seem to have lost track of the point
here.
>>>>Even better! They knew their chances of seeing
Jesus "in the flesh" were limited (if the Gospels are to be believed).
So why farms over Jesus? Jesus exhorted people to put following him
above all worldly concerns - even including family.
Then you just refute yourself -- which is more
important? Seeing Jesus one last time for sentimental purposes, or
spreading the Gospel?
Nevertheless there's a point missed here. The "body of
Chirst" metaphor suggests many functions. Going on a mission is not the
sole way to put Jesus over all other concerns. There would be persons
needed to provide patronage and support. Not all can be Tekton ministers
-- I'd be nowhere unless people had regular jobs to support
it!
>>>Wouldn't you agree though that they both are unable to
see colours and have a fallacious mentality?
"Fallacy" implies error in thought process to me
rather than something that can't be helped. I would probably choose
another word.
>>>What could the "general rebellion
of all humanity" actually be?
If I had to say something short, "the tendency to
break God's commandments (or morals)".
>>>What is the "special creation
model?"
Any model that sees God as the worker of the process,
in a way that is not gradual (theistic evolution). To use an example,
what of an idea that the "days" in Genesis as ages, but that at the
beginning of each age God created new sets of animals ex
nihilo?
>>>That's it for now. Again I'm sorry
it is long this time and I don't expect a reply quickly if you're
busy/have other priorities, but at the same time don't mind a speedy one
if you're not busy, feel like it and already have answers at your
fingertips!
As noted, I'll take you up on that to some extent as
needed. This has been an interesting week between the attempt to
sabotage the site I had to deal with (see link to TheologyWeb
discussion on my What's New page if interested) and the extra hours
I have put in with my part time government job (despite what Farrell
Till thinks, I am not getting rich and old ladies are not sending me
their support checks). ;-)
Take care,
Bob |
The discussion continues here.
|