Defending Visions: Answering Objections, Part Two

In a previous essay on this subject here,I answered a common objection to a hypothesis of visionary origins of Christianity such as mine in which the Christian faith began as a series of visionary experiences involving altered-states-of-conciousness. It is alleged that hypotheses or theories of visions to not explain the empty tomb. I did my best to answer that objection in my previous essay but that is not the only objection leveled at the hypothesis I advanced. Another objection is that any hypothesis of visionary origins of Christianity doesn't explain the diversity of New Testament appearances. As was the case before, I will do my best to answer this objection but I ultimately leave it to readers to judge whether I have met my burden. First a few observations about the nature of this objection are in order.

First, I began with the observation that in the study of history, documents from any time period in history are to be given the benefit of the doubt and it is the critic of any document or set of documents that must bear the burden of disputing the historical reliability of authenticity of the documents in question, especially if such documents purport to narrate an event alleged to have occured in history. Only if there are prima facie grounds for questioning the relability or authenticity of a document or set of documents arises, does the burden shift from the critic to the documents and any such defenders of the documents to defend the reliability or authenticity of the documents in question despite the charges made by critics to the documents. The New Testament is a set of documents and in particular, the canonical gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John claim to narrate the death, burial, and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Secondly, the documents in question might be harmonizable but harmonization must be defended. If a set of documents claiming to narrate an alleged event in history appear to be discrepant, harmonization should be attempted if there are excellent critical-historical arguments for supposing a core historical fact underlying the event narrated and secondary details should be harmonized as much as possible as long as there are good grounds for believing the secondary details of the narration to be historically reliable and not just the core historical fact alleged to be narrated. Just because a core historical fact underlies documents narrating an event, it doesn't meant that the secondary details that make up the narrative accounts of those documents are, in fact, reliable themselves. Suppose two documents narrate a given event and there are good critical-historical reasons for believing that there is a solid core historical fact underlying the accounts in these documents.

Suppose, further, that these two accounts contradict each other. It can be that one document is inaccuarate in a detail or more or that the other document is inaccurate in some of the details or perhaps even both documents can be inaccurate in terms of the details.
Third, we should give, as a matter of rule, the greatest benefit of any doubt to documents written by authors who have a clear authoral intent or stated purpose in which to accurately narrate history. A critical mindset is very desirable and the more critical a given document or set of them is, when it comes to narrating events, the more the benefit of the doubt should be assigned to that document or set of documents. Conversely, the more a document or set of them lacks authoral intent in terms of accuracy or any kind of stated historical interest in being historically, chronologically, or geographically accurate or an expressed, deliberate stated desire or intent to be critical and careful in the evaluation of information, tradition, sources, or reports, the more we can expect to doubt that that document or set of documents narrates. With these considerations in mind, I now turn to the objection raised and what I consider to be the best answer to the objection.

First of all, I believe that the New Testament accounts of the resurrection are highly discrepant and are impossibly inconsistent, especially in terms of secondary details despite whatever core historical facts underly the accounts. Thus I am willing to grant for the sake of discussion that the empty tomb and postmortem appearances of Jesus are core historical facts underlying the New Testament resurrection narratives and I have absolutely no problem accepting the empty tomb and postmortem appearances philosophically, as core historical facts, if historical evidence should point in that direction. I am aware of attempts made by Christians to harmonize the accounts and I believe that this should be seen rightfully for what it is-an attempt at harmonization. The attempts at harmonization in my opinion are highly contrieved and quite fantastic in the sense that it's obvious that apologists who are constructing them seem bothered by the presence of discrepancies and are willing to go to lengths to harmonize them and the harmonization process in itself seems rather tortured in some ways. Even if the attempts are reconciling the accounts are plausible and can be achieved- that in my opinion would greatly lessen the historical value of the accounts. As Robert M Price notes, the very admission of a need to harmonize the accounts is an admission that the accounts cannot be taken at face value and that the burden of proof is on the resurrection narratives themselves, not on the critics who would call these narratives into question.

What harmonizing shows is that despite appearances to the contrary, the accounts still might be true, not that they should be taken at face value. The need for harmonization shifts the burden to the defender of the accounts, not the critics who would question the reliability of the accounts. The accounts cannot be taken at face value and it is the defender, the apologist who must defend the reliability of the accounts and show how they are still reliable despite appearances to the contrary, rather than the accounts being reliable as they stand, placing the burden on the critic who would challenge the reliablity of the accounts. This is made all the more problematic, in my opinion, with the lack of clear authoral intent in some of the narratives. The closest thing we have to an authoral intent to narrative events accurately is the Lukan prologue. Such a statement of authoral intent is clearly lacking in Matthew, Mark, and John. We don't have any stated intent in the other synoptics or John that the accounts are attempts to record and narrate history accurately. There is no critical mindset that I am personally aware of!

I see this as particularly problematic because the "diversity of appearances" in the New Testament resurrection accounts presupposes that the accounts are perfectly harmonizable historically and are as a whole inerrant. Thus, Christian apologists will point to appearances in both Jerusalem and Galilee, as recorded in Matthew, Luke, and John, as evidence of diversity. But this supposes beforehand that Matthew, Luke, and John are harmonizable and, ergo, historically inerrant in the sense that if you put their accounts side by side along with, say, the 1st Corinthians 15 creed, they will naturally merge smoothly and cleanly into a coherent and logically consistent whole. But what if the accounts conflict with each other as I hold that they do? Matthew records an appearance of Jesus to his followers in Galilee while Luke places the first appearance of the risen Jesus to his followers in Jerusalem on the night he rose from the dead. Christian defenders of biblical inerrancy and the resurrection will argue that the two accounts are complementary. What if they really do contradict each other? Then there really isn't any diversity so to speak. The problem, then, is that Christian apologists like Bill Craig and Gary Habermas may be milking the New Testament for data that simply may not exist, trying to squeeze as much juice out when the accounts may be completely dry. The "diversity" they have in mind, I would contend, is simply imaginary.

This is not to say that there wasn't a diversity of appearances, only, that it seems to me that Bill Craig and Gary Habermas and their apologist cohorts are basing their argument for a diversity of appearances on illegitimate grounds. They are treating the New Testament accounts as if they are reliable narratives, to be completely accepted at face value. I see no reason to accept the accounts at face value and furthermore, I contend that they are trying to milk a "diversity of appearances" out of their harmonization efforts. The bottom line seems to me to be that any such "diversity" presupposes harmonization and inerrancy and that has to be argued for despite appearances to the contrary, not simply assumed at face value. Christian apologists and other defenders cannot have it both ways in my opinion. They cannot argue for a prima facie "diversity" of appearances and at the same time argue that the resurrection accounts are in need of harmonization. Any such diversity must be argued for and defended, not taken at face value and simply assumed if Christian defenders of the New Testament accounts admit the need for harmonization. There might be strong grounds for a diversity of appearances if the accounts were true as they stand and were not in need of harmonization because it would then fall on the critic to explain away the diversity of appearances. But if the accounts are in need of harmonization, such a diversity of appearances can only be legitimately inferred if and once a successful harmonization scheme is proposed and defended and shown to be the right way to approach the accounts.

I would ask Craig, Habermas, Licona, Holding, and others- what diversity? Most importantly, I would simply ask them for their choice: harmonization or diversity? I don't believe Christians can have it both ways. They will have to pick one or the other. If harmonization is necessary, any such diversity cannot be argued for at face value. If a diversity is inferred at face value, then harmonization is not important and I would have to ask Christians to justify taking the accounts at face value without any harmonization . Until I see a successful harmonization scheme defended and the historical inerrancy of the texts defended, I don't believe any such diversity exists outside the imagination of most Christian apologists. I see no reason to infer a diversity of appearances and no need to "explain" them. Only once an inference of such diversity is successfully defended, then would I consider adjusting the explanatory scope of any hypothesis of visions to account for the diversity. Thus, I believe that this objection fails.

Matthew

In Defense of Visions: Objection One

Evangelical Christians will object to any naturalistic theory of Christian origins, especially those theories involving visions. Among the most well-known Christian critics of visionary hypotheses are William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, Michael Licona, and James. P. Holding. One of the biggest objections that they bring against a theory of visionary origins of Christianity such as mine is that theories of visions do not explain the empty tomb. The purpose of this essay is to answer this objection. I leave it to readers to decide whether I have succeeded in this goal.

I must make some preliminary comments before proceeding to the answer. First of all, I believe that it's wise to differentiate between core historical facts and secondary details underlying any narrative from antiquity purporting to describe an event. I have no problem accepting an empty tomb and postmortem appearances of Jesus as core historical facts underlying the resurrection narratives in the gospels. I do not, however, accept the historical inerrancy of the resurrection narratives. I believe that the secondary details are discrepant and impossibly inconsistent at several points. I do not wish to discuss these discrepancies here; rather, I wish to elaborate on core historical facts and the explanatory power of visionary theories in comparison with the explanatory power of the resurrection theory of Christianity.

Although I have no philosophical objections to accepting an empty tomb as a core historical fact, I do have serious reservations about accepting it as solidly factual. I do not find the arguments of William Lane Craig or Gary Habermas to be persuasive. However, rather than critique their attemtps to defend the empty tomb here, I wish to focus on a chief reason for my hesitation in accepting the empty tomb as historically factual. It's possible that the empty tomb originated as a symbolic creation. Historian and fellow atheist Richard Carrier has proposed the possibility that the empty tomb is a symbolic creation; pious historical fiction created to teach a metaphorical truth. In his essay "The Spiritual Body of Christ and the Legend of the Empty Tomb", Carrier proposes this possibility and argues that it's plausible that Mark used the Psalms of the Hebrew Bible, Orphic mythology, as well as a "reversal-of-expectation" motif in constructing his story of the empty tomb. Carrier argues that Mark falls into the genre of didadic hagiography and that the empty tomb is an example of a didadic creation of Mark to teach a spiritual truth. He argues that it was later taken as a core historical fact and was subsequently embellished as a legend in later gospels.

I have to say that while I agree that it's definitely possible and to a certain degree, it sounds fairly plausible, I lack the scholarly expertise to evaluate it on historical grounds. I find it possible, quite plausible, but I don't know what historical probability value I would assign to it. Even if Carrier is wrong about some of the details of his plausibility argument such as Mark using the Psalms to construct his empty tomb story, I see no reason to throw out the core of his theory, that is, the empty tomb story is a symbolic fiction. Even if Mark didn't use the Psalms, Orphic mythology, or any motifs involving expectations and their reversals, I see no reason that the core of this theory cannot be salvaged, say, with different plausibility arguments. I will leave it to those more informed and more expert than I am to evaluate Carrier's plausiblity arguments surrounding the core of his theory. I simply cannot rule out the possibility that Mark may have invented it as spiritual, didadic fiction, regardless of what sources Mark may or may not have used. I simply see no reason to toss out a perfectly viable baby with any bad bathwater. It's precisely because I cannot rule out the possibility that Carrier is right about the empty tomb being didadic fiction, I cannot agree with Christian apologists that the empty tomb is an incontrovertible historical fact.

If Carrier is right about the empty tomb being didadic fiction of sorts, then the objection that any theory of visions doens't explain the empty tomb is completely moot. If the empty tomb is not a core historical fact and Jesus was buried by other means, there is no reason to modify or adjust the explanatory power of any visionary hypothesis to accomodate something that never happened, historically speaking. However, I want to grant for the sake of discussion here that the empty tomb is indeed historical and is a core fact underlying the canonical gospels. So let's grant this as a core historical fact: Jesus was buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimithea and the tomb was found empty. Are Christian apologists right then, that any hypothesis of visions does not explain the empty tomb? I don't think so. Traditionally, visionary theories or those involving hallucination (both individualist and group hallucinations that is) usually have limited explanatory power. I believe that the reason for this is because some liberal theologians and skeptical scholars think it's enough to simply describe what they believe the postmortem appearances were and don't bother to adjust the explanatory scope of any vision or hallucination theories to account for any empty tomb. Many of them simply regard the empty tomb as being some sort of legend or a mythical motif incorporated from Mystery Religions or some pagan cult theology.

I believe it's important to distinguish between the nature of a historical event and the cause of that event. It does no good to simply describe or explain what the event in question was in terms of its nature. If I accept the postmortem appearances of Jesus as as core historical fact, it simply does no good to describe the nature of such an event as a visionary experience involving altered-states-of-consciousness. I must specify what I believe the cause of these visionary experiences were if my hypothesis is to past muster and be taken seriously. Suppose, however, I was to propose that the empty tomb and ASC-visions were causually related. That is, whatever I believe to have caused the tomb to be emptied, I also believe to have caused the subsequent visions. Then, I will have grounds to adjust the explanatory scope of my visionary hypothesis of Christian origins to explain the empty tomb. Suppose I believed that Jesus was temporarily interred in the tomb by Joseph of Arimithea and was subsequently reburied elsewhere and that the reburial not only left the tomb empty but triggered visions among Jesus' followers. If I constructed such a theory, this theory would have sufficient enough explanatory scope to explain how the tomb got empty as well as what caused the followers of Jesus to have visionary experiences. In fact, I believe that a theory of reburial would probably be the best explanation if I accepted the empty tomb as a core historical fact.

This may not be sufficient in itself to fully answer the objection, but I do believe that it is a step in the right direction. Suppose reburial is historical implausible. I could simply opt for agnosticism regarding the the cause of the empty tomb. The point behind the hypothetical example of reburial triggering visions is that if the empty tomb is casually related to the postmortem appearances as both the resurrection theory of the Christian faith and my visionary hypothesis maintain, then any naturalistic theory of causation regarding the empty tomb must also, by causal necessity, explain the origin of postmortem appearances. To illustrate this, suppose that it was granted that the postmortem appearances were not naturalistically caused. Suppose Bill Craig or Gary Habermas was to establish with historical certainty that the empty tomb and postmortem appearances were supernaturally caused, regardless of what that supernatural cause was. Would that entail that the resurrection hypothesis of Christianity is true? No, it wouldn't. If the postmortem appearances and the empty tomb were both supernaturally caused, Christianity would not have naturalism to contend with but rival supernaturalist theologies to counter.

Suppose that Bill Craig or Gary Habermas was to demonstrate beyond all reasonble doubt to believers of rival religions or faiths such as Zoroastrians or Muslims that the empty tomb and postmortem appearances are not only historical facts but that they were supernaturally caused. That wouldn't compel Zoroastrians or Muslims to accept that Jesus rose from the dead. A Zoroastrian could argue that Ahura-Mazda had sent a angel or ghost, disguised as Jesus, to trick his followers into thinking that he rose from the dead. A Muslim could argue that Allah allowed an evil spirit, a demon if you will, to appear as Jesus in order to decieve Jesus' followers, because Allah wanted a rival religion to flourish so by the time that Islam originated, Allah could test the faith of Muslims with a heresy like the Christian gospel. In each of these rival supernaturalist hypotheses, it may be noted, that divine or demonic trickery has sufficient explanatory scope. The explanatory scope of these rival supernatural theories is able to explain both the empty tomb and the postmortem appearances of Jesus. These rival theories accept that the empty tomb and postmortem appearances of Jesus are causally related and erect a theory of causation that explains both how the tomb got empty and why Jesus' followers believed that saw him alive after his death and burial.

Likewise, naturalistic theories of causation must have sufficient explanatory scope to explain both the cause of the empty tomb and the postmortem appearances. Thus, I can construct a theory of reburial, theft, or what-have-you which can both explain the cause of the emtpy tomb and the postmortem appearances. I can even opt for agnosticism and leave it an open question as to how the tomb got empty, but as long as I believe that whatever caused the tomb to be emptied also triggered subsequent visions in the followers of Jesus, I believe that the objection fails.

Suppose that Craig or Habermas accept that a naturalistic theory such as reburial or theft can explain the cause of the empty tomb as well as the origin of the postmortem appearances of Jesus. They might argue that, yes, the naturalistic theory has explanatory scope to accomodate these core historical facts, but these naturalistic theories seem rather ad hoc and are more complex than the resurrection and one is justified in accepting the resurrection because it is a simpler explanation. But is it always rational to accept a simpler theory? It is true that simpler theories always have greater explanatory scope. But there is a point where a theory can have too much explanatory power in which it explains everything, and actually doesn't really explain anything because there is no observation or fact which it cannot explain. Such a theory, having too much explanatory power ceases to be a simple theory and becomes simplistic. At this point I have two questions: is the resurrection theory really a simpler theory or is it a simplistic theory? If it is a simpler theory, are we rationally justified in accepting it?

This may seem like a silly question. Aren't we always justified in accepting a simpler theory; that is, a theory with greater explanatory scope? Usually, yes, but not always. There are some hypotheses which have greater explanatory scope than others but no human adult would be rationally justified in accepting it. Take for instance, the American holiday Christmas. Many kids will be taken to a local shopping mall where they believe that they will see Santa Claus and they will get to sit on his lap and tell him what they want for Christmas. Many of these same kids will wake up on Christmas morning and see Christmas gifts under the tree, all seemingly from jolly old St. Nick, just begging to be opened. I was one of these kids! I recall being taken to Southland Mall in Hayward, California one year when I was a little boy with my younger bother Daniel, and we both had our picture taken, sitting on the lap of the man we took to be Santa. That year, we found many wrapped gifts under the tree, all for us kids! If asked, I would have replied that Santa Claus was both at the mall and that he had visited my house that night before Christmas. Later I learned the ugly truth that the incident at the mall was staged and it wasn't Santa. I later discovered that my parents were in on it too, being that they were the ones who put the gifts under the tree and had forged the tags to make it seem like they really were from Santa Claus.

As to why some kids believe that they both 1.) see a man looking like Santa Claus at a local mall and 2.) they will open gifts placed under the tree with, we can put forth two hypotheses. The first is the "Santa Claus" hypothesis. This hypothesis states that there really is a jolly old man from the North Pole who does visit shopping malls before Christmas and really does visit houses, placing wrapped gifts under the tree for kids to discover and open the next morning. The second hypothesis is called the "Cultural Trickery" hypothesis. This hypothesis states that it is parents and other grown adults working in collusion with each other to fool kids into thinking that Santa Claus is real. According to this hypothesis, the man whom children see at the local shopping mall isn't Santa but is a man paid to dress up as Santa and hold the kids on his lap so the mall staff can take a picture. This hypothesis states that parents decieve their kids and put gifts under the tree, lying to them about a visit from Santa Claus, who bears gifts for kids as a reward for their behavior. Notice that the "Santa Claus" hypothesis is a much simpler explanation for the two observations 1 and 2 and that the "Cultural Trickery" hypothesis is a more complex theory of causation regarding observations 1 and 2. Should we not, then, accept the "Santa Claus" hypothesis as the more rational hypothesis because of its simplicity and greater explanatory scope? Not at all. I believe that it's more rational to accept the "Cultural Trickery" hypothesis despite the fact that it has a more limited explanatory scope.

We see, then, that greater explanatory scope doesn't always entail that the hypothesis or theory possessing it, is true or even rational to accept. The "Santa Claus" hypothesis is a simpler theory with greater explanatory scope than the "Cultural Trickery" hypothesis, yet the latter is clearly more rational to accept. The discredited ether theory is a simpler theory with greater explanatory scope according to maverick astronomers like Tom Van Flandern, yet most mainstream physicists believe that it's more rational to accept Einstein's theories of relativity. Hypotheses of alien encounters sharing superhuman technologies to explain the origin of the great pyramids of Egypt are much simpler and seem to possess greater explanatory scope than theories of purely human origin, yet it is these latter theories that are widely regarded by experts in ancient history and archeology to be far more rational than their rivals. The reason for this is that a given hypothesis or theory must have more to it than greater explanatory scope to be considered a best-explanatory inference.

And so I believe that a naturalistic theory can be constructed with sufficient enough explanatory scope to accomodate both the cause of the empty tomb and postmortem appearances of Jesus. But suppose that particular naturalistic hypotheses such as reburial or theft were shown to be implausible. I would then vouch for agnosticism as far as the cause of the empty tomb and the postmortem appearances. Would the resurrection win as the inference-to-the-best-explanation then? I don't believe so. Let me recall an example I mentioned above, the theory that alien visitors with superhuman technology, are responsible for the origin of the pyramids of Egypt. Suppose that actual archeological or written evidence of the actual origins of the pyramids was nonexistent, forever lost to history. Would that make the alternative alien theories somehow more credible, more likely? Not really. In the lack of historical evidence for the actual origins of the Egyptian pyramids, I would simply choose to be agnostic. If the evidence for nonalien origins is nonexistent, lost perhaps forever to history, although it once defintely existed, I believe that agnosticism would be more rational.

Agnosticism would be prima facie more likely, more rational than any alternative theory of alien origins of the Egyptian pyramids, for a reason as simple as that alien theories are extraordinary theories requiring extraordinary evidence. Reasoning by means of analogy, then, even if I had no clue whatsoever as to what caused the empty tomb, I believe that because extraordinary or even supernatural evidence for the resurrection is lacking and the New Testament is historically errant, I would simply declare agnosticism as to the cause of the empty tomb. How the tomb got empty may be a mystery for all eternity, the evidence for how it got empty forever lost to all of history, yet I could still believe, quite rationally so, that the empty tomb did, indeed, trigger the visionary experiences of the followers of Jesus. Agnosticism, I would conclude, would be prima facie more likely than the resurrection theory or even what I regard as rival supernaturalist theories of the empty tomb and postmortem appearances of Jesus. Thus, I believe that the objection of Evangelicals like Bill Craig, Gary Habermas, Mike Licona, J.P. Holding (and not to mention the folks at Triablouge, such as my critic Jason) fail to fatally wound the visionary hypothesis that I am advocating.

Matthew

A Christian Ph.D. Comments On Our Commentators

This e-mail I received from Mike Russell of eternal perspectives (with permission):

I do apologize for some of the pathetic and vitriolic responses made by Christians: freedom of speech is a dangerous thing on the wrong lips. I noticed that you seem to attract more than a few Christians who tend not to be - what shall we say? - deep thinkers or widely/deeply read. Their hearts are good but they haven't been sufficiently confused enough to wrestle with some of the hard, unyielding questions. I suppose they have certain assumptions about God, Christianity, and the Bible that they defend tenaciously, but don't stop to actually question their assumptions (e.g., "Christians should be able to explain everything because God has provided all the answers in the Bible," or "God owes me an answer," i.e., the Job syndrome). They're good-hearted people, for the most part, but just young and/or ignorant (think Will Rogers here).

As far as CenturiOn goes, I wouldn't recommend DagoodS' participation in any so-called debate. The "Pyromaniacs," as they like to call themselves, aren't the most reasonable or loving people claiming the name of Christ. Neither am I at all times, of course, but I seem to have developed the ability to say such difficult things as, "I'm sorry," "I was wrong," or "You're right." I'm not "Truly Reformed" and so I'm a bastard child in their eyes. Call me Jephthah. Fine with me.

Genesis and The Magic Carpet

Comedian Kevin James, in his hit stand-up performance, "Sweat the Small Stuff", tells of an encounter with his girlfriend. They are in different places across the world, passing the night away on the phone. She says to him, "Gee, I wish I could be over there right now with you, but it's so far to travel. It would take too long, but if I had a magic carpet, I'd be there in only 3 hours!" To which Kevin James responded, "Uh, dear, where'd you get 3 hours? If we're agreed that it's a 'magic carpet', how did you get 3 hours? Was there a layover in Dallas or something?"

One thing's for sure, if I had a magic carpet, I'd call up my long distance friends and tell them to walk over to the nearest window and look out for me! Then I'd speed off to impress everyone else I knew! How cool that would be!?

The same humorous thought comes to mind when I think of the biblical account of creation. "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day." (Exodus 20:11)

Uh, mr. creator, where'd you get six days? If we're agreed that you are God and you possess all the power there is to possess, why take six days to create anything? Even six seconds would be uncessesary. And if what the progressive creationists say is true, and God created the universe billions of years ago, let it evolve (and appear as though it happened by chance alone!), and then created man in the garden, you have an equally ridiculous scenario. It appears God preferred the company of trilobites for a much longer period of time than he has human beings. I wonder if we'll have as long as the dinosaurs had before he gets tired of us and seeks a new favorite species of amusement? But I guess that's another matter.

But why in the world would an omnipotent being wait for anything? Why do I have to wait on others? Why do others have to wait on me? I'll tell you why -- because I'm far removed from omnipotent many times over. If you ask me to edit a book, or bake you a cake, or make you a clay sculpture, it's going to take a while. But if I was omnipotent, I would do it for you instantly. I don't know about you, but I want less work, as little as possible. And if I can think myself and everyone else into the perfect existence, then I'll have no work at all. Work, effort, time, resources -- what meaning do these terms have except in a material world where impotency abounds? To apply them to an all-powerful deity is altogether inapplicable, and in this case, laughable.

Literally or figuratively viewed, God's ways of creating and sustaining the universe are as funny as they are cruel.

(JH)

I Feel Jeebus

For the life of me, I have to wonder if we detested atheists could ever get an apology from the apologists at Triablogue. Here's a chance to find out.

Over on the Triablogue site, for whatever reason, they rose to the defense of defamation-suit-potential-extraordinaire Frank Walton. I won't link to his site, and I recommend that everyone else refrains from doing so as well, but suffice it to say that those familiar with his antics probably spend an equal amount of time wondering what drugs his parents used during his gestation, wondering what the label "Christian" means to Frank, and regurgitating their lunch in response to his posts.

Let me also say that I have never in my entire life threatened anyone with a lawsuit before Frank Walton. And, I don't intend to keep up the habit. He's "special" and as such, deserves "special" treatment. Reginald Finley is seriously considering trying a libel case against him, and for the use of his entire radio show by Gene Cook without permission, but we'll see if it works out. I am hoping so. Someone needs to place a face with the stink. Walton has been allowed to ferment in the dark for too long, and sunlight is a good disinfectant.

After my initial response to this satirical article written by Steve about how really I'm just an ass, and Frank isn't so bad, I thought I could handle silently watching as the comments section filled with pejoratives and all the Christ's-blood-drenched love they could muster. Indeed, I even thought I could hold my tongue after Steve pretended I hadn't linked to authorities:

[regarding copyright protection] Hard to tell, but it must be in there somewhere since Danny says it’s so

Well, the fact that I linked to two copyright experts, Ivan Hoffman, and the law firm Oppedahl & Larson, who also "say so", eluded Steve. Steve stumbled on:

And I’m sure I don’t have to remind you all that when you’re quoting the average atheist, nothing could be more defamatory to his personal character than to accurately reproduce his very own words.

Well, you'll note that Steve didn't bother to follow his own assertion, nor to link to my article on the subject. After my leaving my first response, including much of what I'm writing here, Steve didn't have much to say.

...That is, until someone left this hilarious comment:

Did you know that the photo in your profile is of a gay guy?

Steve immediately found the courage to tackle this assertion [that Cary Grant was gay] by quoting at length from carygrant.net, which bases its defense of Cary's heterosexuality on, among other things, the logic that, had Grant indeed been gay, he wouldn't have had so many wives...

Yeah, pretty solid reasoning, I know. Unfortunately for Steve, it appears that Randolph Scott, one of Cary's alleged lovers, confided in George Cukor that he did, indeed, have a romantic relationship with Grant, the first person to ever use the phrase "gay" on film, ad-libbing it in (Bringing Up Baby, 1938). But hey, we're godless, immoral heathens, so it's okay to be gay, it's okay to like Cary Grant, it's even okay to be like Cary Grant [however that was], to be who you are. Hey, we came out of the closet of disbelief, so we can sympathize with anyone who may be torn over such issues...not that I'm saying Steve is, I'm saying anyone.

The love of Jesus led one young man, Bernabe Belvadere, to conclude:

Morgan is a joke. What a little pansy.

Now, Berny's profile tells us:

I'm a key figure in a shadow government conclave that seeks to conceal the truth about the existence of extraterrestrials. Just kidding. I'm a 22-year-old student who is in love with Jesus Christ.

Berny, just gotta say, I'm up in Gainesville, only about five hours away from you down in Miami. If you ever drive up I-75, stop by the Chemistry Lab Building at UF, go up to the fourth floor, room 409, and we can chat about how "in love" you are with Jeebus, how much of a joke I am, and how much of a pansy. Don't worry, I won't hold my breath waiting. And no, this isn't threatening, I am not implying bodily harm, I am implying that you likely aren't as courageous, and I'm likely not as pansified, in person.

Good ol' American machismo? Perhaps, but at least I'm letting anyone and everyone know where they can find this ol' joke of a pansy, to see if, in person, they feel the same way after making my acquaintance -- that I'm but a joke and a pansy, and, more importantly, if they feel emboldened enough to tell me. Hell, there's nothing like a pixelated screen to give us fightin' words, now is there? Speaking of which, Frank Walton is rather terrified at the prospect of someone finding out where he can be located...all the while calling me "coward". Does that break your irony meter, too?

Well, next Grandpa Charmley comes along and concludes:

Daniel Morgan reminds me of the ghastly teenagers I used to teach. Old man, if you can't express yourself without swearing, say nothinbg at all. You ought to have your mouth washed out with soapy water!

That's right, pap! And those damned whipper-snappers better not get on your lawn again, or you'll call the paddy-wagon on the laddies, eh?

Grandpa's legal advice?

Oh, and Mr. Morgan, you lose your control over letters when you send them to someone else.

Interesting. So, when you send a letter out in your mailbox, do I get to go intercept it? Hell, you sent it out. When I received a copy of Dennett's Breaking the Spell, I then had the full authority to reproduce it, since it had been "sent" to me? Obviously, I do indeed have the "control", in the physical sense, of what I choose to do with this physical copy, just as others do with any work protected by copyright. But, what the law permits me us to do is pretty clear.

Next? The brilliance of CalvinDude fills the room like incense:

Man, how did those Enron execs miss the "E-mails are copyrighted and cannot be divulged to third parties" legal tactic?

Well, I suppose, CalvinDude, that you fail to see the technical difference between reproducing a copyrighted work and the right to privacy in a criminal case. By the way, do you think, CD, that the government may, just maybe, have had to get a warrant to get those emails? Perhaps you should contact the two law offices I cited above to correct them, since you now, in addition to your abundant knowledge of the most recondite theological topics, have apparently garnered a J.D. CD goes on:

But in any case, if we want to talk about "libel" that's not by implication, I think Morgan already engaged in that when he said (see above): "...but I suppose critiquing a lawyer is a little more difficult, since none of you know copyright law from your anal sphincter, eh?" Thus Morgan is not implying but explicitly stating that "none of you" (being the people at Triablogue, since Morgan started with the kind address of "Trilly-boogers:") are intelligent enough to tell the difference between copyright law and their anal sphincter.

But don't worry, Morgan. I doubt that any of the Triabloguers consider that libel any more than anyone on Earth (besides you) considers what Walton said to be libel.

Hmmm...think that way, and you'd never graduate from law school, my friend. Any statement preceded by "but I suppose..." and ends in a "?" is clearly both a question and a statement of opinion, which is always defended from libel by free speech in America. Frank's statement contained no such clause. Statements of fact are the only possible contenders for libelous standing. It's okay, you probably specialize in divine law, right?

Well, I read all this, and still did okay holding my tongue, until Gene Bridges wrote:

No blogger is required to open his blog to comments. FYI, Detective, Mr. Morgan does not allow Christians to leave comments on his blog, so what you want Mr. Walton to do, your own Mr. Morgan refuses. He allows those who agree with him to post comments, but not those who disagree. He considers this evangelism.

Well, hot damn, that's news to me! Finally, the pressure had begun to mount, and my ears were whistling...I broke, and responded:

That's a lie. And a rather easily demonstrated one. Just go to my blog and read any of the 48 Haloscan comments on the post about Frank.

You must consider lying evangelism?

It's "faze", Frank.

Poor Frank, ever clueless of his hole deepening beneath his feet, sets to work a-digging yet again:

Daniel "the coward" Morgan: That's a lie. And a rather easily demonstrated one.

Frank Walton: LOL, Now that's a lie. And even more demonstrably illustrated. Mr. Bridges is not talking about your personal blog, Danny. He's talking about the "outofchristianity" blog. You know the blog where you didn't allow me to make my comment? You yourself told me: [he cherrypicks quotes from these emails]

Get it, now? Now why don't you make the phase to these new blogs I have on you.

Well, thanks, but no thanks. Your desperation to pull people to your blog doesn't faze me though. So, since I was on a roll, I wrote up the following:

All,

Perhaps Gene's use of "on his blog" makes me out to be the liar, and not Gene?

If Gene meant "on the outofchristianity blog", which is not mine, but Aaron Rossetti's, then he should clarify his point.

And perhaps he'll want to retract and replace the name "Aaron" for "Mr. Morgan", since I don't set the moderation policy at Aaron's site.

While I am sure Gene needs defending, I would think he doesn't need it from the likes of Frank W. No, I won't be "phasing" over to his blog, and as Frank may or may not have noted, I haven't visited it today, and don't intend to ever deign myself to do so again...it's like a mental quicksand pit which sucks the IQ from your head.

Perhaps Frank's reading comprehension, and Gene's presumption on the matter, proved as shallow as could be predicted, in that their equivocation of the outofchristianity blog as my blog, when it was clearly and explicitly stated to the contrary, was not understood?

Aaron's policy on commenting is his own, as I clearly stated in the emails to Frank and in the page near the top.

Aaron made it clear that he does not want any attempts at evangelism within his forum. It is more "support group" than "invite to apologists"... as if you and yours don't have enough places to graze for that...Aaron does not consider himself a "debater" nor his blog a "debate forum" and thus your puerile attempts at getting him into a debate with Gene Cook are silly. Aren't there enough unbelievers out there for you to waste your miserable life arguing with?

Was this so hard for you to understand, Frank? Gene? It's Aaron's site, his policy, his decision.

My own comment policy is simple: wide open. Gratuitous insults and threats will of course run out my patience eventually, but so long as the person has something of substance to say, I will leave it alone.

Therefore, yes, Gene told an untruth. Perhaps he was mistaken, but he still told a lie. That is not my policy, and that is not my site. He said both were. If he just apologizes and retracts, then he can save face. Obviously, Frank not only lost his long ago, he keeps it private while calling others cowards. It breaks even my high-tech irony meter.

Yes, I helped Aaron set up the HTML for his site, and submitted my own testimonial/deconversion account. I did not set his policy on moderation. I am one of three moderators. I follow Aaron's policy, I am not the author of it.

The same logic in holding me accountable for his policy is a demonstration of the mental prowess that keeps you all within the Christian belief system.

Thus, Frank Walton is still the same imbecile, and Gene's presumption was still wrong, should he even have made it "in good faith".

It's still a lie, even if one based on a mistaken presumption rather than of knowing malice. Gene should not have referred to "Mr. Morgan...on his blog...Mr. Morgan refuses" when he should have referred to "Aaron...on outofchristianity.blogspot.com...Aaron refuses policy".

Ergo, the mistakes are his, yet, for whatever reason, here I am defending myself from a lie and an imbecile who tries to make it right. I can forgive Gene's mistaken presumption, but the malicious sort of ignorance Frank displays is intolerable--he was already told this...and yet he defends a lie. And, he won't show his face on his site, nor divulge his location, while I have done both, and he calls me a coward. Oh, the irony...

Poor b-----d.

Now, let's see if I [mean old atheist, immoral, litigious!] will get an apology from Gene [humble, apologist, Christian]. Let's also see if the Trilly-boogers continue to make associations and rush to the aid of the likes of Frank Walton. This is getting funnier by the moment.

Which Part fits in Which Slot, Again?

In discussing miraculous occurrences as recounted in the Bible, we often see apologists swing back and forth as to what part of the miracle was actually supernatural, and what part of it was natural. Obviously, God could use both to his advantage, having the foresight to utilize an opportune moment and make it look like a miracle, yet there would be no way for us to tell.

How does a Christian come up with a system, by which we determine God just had good timing, as compared to God actually intervening? There is no way.

I was reading elsewhere as to a re-definition of the First Plague, that of turning the water into Blood. The author was indicating that “Blood” may actually have been a color, and that the First Plague may have been some sort of pestilence, red in color, that killed all the fish, and made the water undrinkable.

If I read this correctly, the author was arguing that instead of the water being Blood, which would be red, it was a pestilence that was red. Instead of the blood killing the fish, it was the pestilence killing the fish. Instead of the blood rendering the water undrinkable, it was the pestilence. I was trying to figure out, for the life of me, why it made a difference? About the only difference I could tell, that was not even addressed in the Biblical account, was that blood would coagulate, and the “pestilence” would not.

As if the author was attempting to explain away that it could not be Blood, so as to avoid people asking why the Nile did not turn into one big scab.

Excuse me? I thought the idea of the plagues was that God was doing something miraculous. If God could turn an entire river into Blood, He certainly could have made it blood without the ability to coagulate! Somehow, the author had no problem with God intervening with the entire water system of Egypt at once, but not creating something that is physically impossible to exist. Curious. If God made water into Blood, he was stuck with all the properties of Blood.

I have seen the argument that the crossing of the Reed Sea was done at the time of a tsunami, and the reason why the water had receded. Did God cause the tsunami? Or was it good timing? Or was it a natural event that people attributed to God? (The timing is all off, anyway. It would take more than 30 days for 2 Million to cross a sea, and no tsunami lasts that long.)

Probably one of the biggest contenders of this characteristic is the Flood. Christians talk about the supernatural aspect of enough water being produced to cover the entire earth.

Then they use the fact that all this water is there to give natural explanations for fossils, continents, and mountains forming. Couldn’t the fossils also miraculously appear? Occasionally we mix and match parts of natural/supernatural. Like God supernaturally calling all the animals into the Ark, but naturally fitting them in, and then supernaturally causing them to hibernate, rather than require food.

Even Christians understand the problem of fitting all the provisions and animals on the Ark, so they begin inserting “miracles” as necessary to resolve the problem. Re-define “kinds” so as to require supernatural evolutionary rates. Or have the animals all shrink. Or have “pockets” of fresh water for some fish to survive. As the natural explanation is being given, if there is a speed bump, simply interject a “miracle.” Shoot, the whole thing is a miracle, what is wrong with a few nudges of miracles along the way?

The problem comes in that we no longer can determine how much was a miracle, and how much was not. If it was ALL a miracle, why the silly charade of having a flood, a boat and a dramatic rescue? Easier to kill all but a few humans and animals with God’s laser-beam eyes.

For some reason (that the Christian enthusiastically admits they cannot even hope to explain) the God must be mixing and matching natural and supernatural events. Either there is some limitation in which he is bound by some laws, or the humans are picking and choosing which parts to label “miracle” and which to not by arbitrary means.

I wonder if even the Christian begins to understand how “it’s a miracle” begins to wear thin as an excuse.

“How did God get the animals to the Ark?”
“It’s a miracle.”
”How did God fit them in?”
“It’s a miracle.”

“How did Noah feed them?”
“It’s a miracle.”
“How did Noah exercise them?”
“It’s a miracle.”

“How did the Ark sustain the build-up of gases?”
“It’s a miracle.”
“Where did the water come from?”
“It’s a miracle”
“Where did the water go?”
“It’s a miracle.”

Yet that is not what we see. Instead we see blogs, and articles, and even entire books dedicated to explaining how a world-wide deluge could only supernaturally occur, but preservation of animal-life could naturally occur. Was God reduced to one miracle a year?

Or Joshua’s extra day, which was recently discussed. Again, a miracle. Yet Christians are often caught in attempting to explain how the earth rotated differently, or “time bubbles” were created or how the axis spun differently, or the earth’s crust stopped spinning. We have even seen the urban legend of astronomers attempting to account for the “lost day” as natural proof of a supernatural event! Natural explanations for a supernaturally claimed event.

Why not just shrug, and toss yet one more of millions of other things into the “We don’t know, but by labeling it as ‘God just did it’ makes it a more intellectually satisfying explanation than ‘We don’t know.’”

Another common natural/supernatural event is the Resurrection. We all agree that a person that is dead for 2 days does not come back to life. That is a supernatural event. But then Christians insist on Jesus having a very natural body. One that walks, talks and eats. (Luke 24:42-43) Not so natural to fly, so that one gets chalked down to the miracle bit. (Acts 1:9)

Or, more interestingly, Jesus having the ability to teleport in and out of rooms. (Luke 24:31, 24:36; John 20:19, 20:26) Again, we have arbitrary choices, as mandated by various books, attempting to claim that parts of Jesus were natural, and parts were supernatural.

“Visions” and supernatural ghosts appear in and out, without requiring open doors. “Physical bodies” require opening and shutting doors. Which was Jesus? Well, that depends on the moment.

If Jesus could teleport from room to room (and teleport from city to city) why did the Stone have to be removed from the tomb? Could you see Jesus coming back from the dead? There he was, in a tomb, the linens neatly folded. “Great. Here I am back from the dead. I can vanish, appear and even fly. But I can’t get out until somebody moves this blessed rock.” Talk about frustrating!

Why would the rock need to be moved from the tomb? According to the tales, Jesus convincingly no longer needed doors.

Mark recounts the women visiting the tomb, and the rock is already removed. The tomb is empty. An open door, a missing body—pretty clear how that body was supposed to get out. (Mark 16:4-6) Luke follows Mark’s lead with the same implication. (Luke 24:2-3) John also has a moved rock, and missing body. (John. 20:1)

Only Matthew recounts even how the stone was moved by indicating an angel moved it. An angel so bright that the soldiers fainted. Is that when Jesus escaped? (Matt. 28:2-3) Remember, this was Jesus that could vanish and re-appear at will. He just needed that rock out of the way! The angel even says, “Come see where he lay.” I am often told that just because one account doesn’t say something happened, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Hey, I can play that game too! Just because the angel doesn’t say it, the angel could have muttered under his breath, “Come see where he lay…(until about two seconds ago, when I had to open the stone, because Jesus forgot his key again. Had you come in here a bit quicker, you would have seen him teleport out of here naked!)”

By the time the Gospel of Peter was written, it was made even clearer that Jesus needed that rock moved to get out. The Gospel of Peter has the stone rolling away by itself; two angels come down from heaven, go into the tomb, and bring Jesus out. We know that actually happened, because it was recounted as something the centurion said, and early Christians would have been too fearful to quote testimony from a living Roman Soldier. (I hope you understand the sarcasm of that last sentence after reading such claims from apologists.)

In the very earliest elements of the resurrection story, Jesus can’t get out without that stone being moved. Now…it may be stated that it was not a question of inability, but of demonstration to his followers that the tomb was empty. I would hope one would seriously consider that statement, and recognize how unpersuasive it is.

Apparently having Angels appear at the tomb, and say “He is risen” would not be enough. Seeing Jesus would not be enough. Placing one’s fingers in the wounds would not be enough. Watching Jesus eat, hear him talk, watching him cook and clean fish would not be enough. Watching him fly off into the sky. Nope, all that would never quite convince the disciples that Jesus was resurrected. God needed to have that stone moved, so the Disciples could clearly see it was not a clever imposter. (‘Course a clever imposter could have also moved the body, once the tomb was open, but let’s not think about that.)

Moving the stone for a “look-see” would not make a whit of difference to his followers. There would not have been any need to connect an empty tomb to the miraculous personage appearing before them.

I imagine one of the earliest conversations between a Christian and a non-believer could have looked like this:

“Jesus is risen!”
“How do you know?”
“Oh…er…’cause his disciples said his tomb was empty!”
“How could they see that?”
“They must have looked.”

In order to look, the stone had to be out of the way. From this simple story, Mark incorporated the myth of the moving Rock. Only later, in order to add panache, did stories develop about how Jesus could teleport—never realizing it made the earlier stories of a moving rock unnecessary.

Again and again, we see an interesting mixture of natural and supernatural explanations, without a system for us ever to determine which could be miraculous, and which can be naturally explained away. Odd that Christians, in order to bolster their claims of miracles, often hinge the miracle’s effect and aftermath on natural events.

When my children were much, much younger, I had them largely convinced I could open doors with my mind. As we approached the grocery store I would call out, “Watch this. Watch this.” and would nod my head with emphasis, with my face contorted as if I was thinking very hard. At the correct moment of the nod, I would step into the radar, making the door swing open. “See? I can open doors with my mind.”

A few times of this, and they were almost (but not quite) firmly convinced. When they asked me to repeat this trick at home, they began to suspect it was not totally within my psychic ability.

Miracles are like that. At first, the stories sound fantastic, but upon inspection and contemplation, they begin to fall apart.

No, I do not assume miracles cannot exist. I am having a hard time, though, hearing Christians agree as to what is a supernatural miracle, and what is good timing, and what is natural. If Christians cannot agree what is a miracle, why should I assume that what some particular Christians claim is a miracle—really is?

Jesus needing a rock to move, because naturally he could not leave without it, and later teleporting sounds exactly as to how humans create myths.

The Da Vinci Code, Fiction & The Gospels

Dan Brown's novel proves that FICTION can be highly engrossing, and obtain a wide readership--especially if the fiction begins with a fictional promise of unveiling truth (*smile*), and especially if the market is ripe for it. The same might also be said of the Gospels and why they became "bestsellers."

British actor Ian McKellen who appeared in The Da Vinci Code, put it this way: “I’ve often thought the Bible should have a disclaimer in the front saying this is fiction. I mean, walking on water, it takes an act of faith.”

Quite a few people — including many fans of Dan Brown’s book — will probably be displeased with such sentiments, but it’s difficult to argue that significant amounts of the Bible aren’t fiction. Obviously some portions are historical to one degree or another, but any more historical than the true parts of Dan Brown’s novel? [Austin Cline at http://atheism.about.com]

The Gospels were like a first-century "Da Vinci Code" novel, featuring wild pesher and midrashic interpretations of "riddles and clues" that God allegedly added to the ancient Hebrew books of the Bible, written centuries before Jesus was born, yet which "foretold" his arrival and even incidents of his deeds, death and resurrection. The earliest Gospel, "Mark," also speaks mysteriously about Jesus being secretive about his true identity. Sounds similar to the unconvincing arguments found in Dan Brown's mystery novel! Especially since the alleged "prophecies about Jesus" which were lifted (sometimes a mere half verse at a time) from the O.T. were based on the most tenuous of alleged connections, or even possibly based on making some stories of Jesus up just to suit the verses! [Google Jeff Lowder's online article, "The Fabulous Prophecies of the Messiah;" and also google "Fiddler Zvi" and his online "Messiah and Tanakh" page. Also note that the earliest Gospel, of which 90% was reproduced in the two later ones, Matthew and Luke, is also the gospel featuring the idea that Jesus's messiahship was originally kept a secret, which is a bit different from the last written Gospel were Jesus's messiahship is out in the open from the start beginning with Nathaniel in chapter one and with Jesus speaking solely about himself every chance he got in public, "I am" this, "I am that," with not a word spent talking in parables to the public.

Another point raised by the Da Vinci Code is the haughtiness and self-seeking hierarchies of the Catholic church and her theologians, a point that even Christians throughout history have raised in ways that might make Dan Brown smile in recognition:

Take the words of the Catholic satirist, Erasmus, "“As for the theologians, perhaps it would be better to pass them over in silence, not stirring up a hornets’ nest and not laying a finger on the stinkweed, since this race of men is incredibly arrogant and touchy. For they might rise up en masse and march in ranks against me with six hundred conclusions and force me to recant. And if I should refuse, they would immediately shout ‘heretic.’ For this is the thunderbolt they always keep ready at a moments notice to terrify anyone to whom they are not very favorably inclined” (Erasmus 57).

His commentary continues regarding the theologians’ ridiculous penchant for “endless and magisterial definitions, conclusions,” and “corollaries” (Erasmus 58).

"They [theologians] are so blessed by their self love as to be fully persuaded that they themselves dwell in the third heaven, looking down from high above on all other mortals as if they were earth-creeping vermin almost worthy of their pity..."

"Moreover, they explicate sacred mysteries just as arbitrarily as they please, explaining by what method the world was established and arranged, by what channels original sin is transmitted to Adam's posterity, by what means, by what proportion, in how short a period of time Christ was fully formed in the virgin's womb... There are others which they think worthy of great and 'illuminated' [in the faith by the Holy Spirit] theologians, as they say. If they ever encounter these, they really perk up. Whether there is any instant in the generation of the divine persons? Whether there is more than one filial relationship in Christ? Whether the following proposition is possible: God the Father hates the Son. Whether God could have taken on the nature of a woman, of the devil, of an ass, of a cucumber, of a piece of flint? And then how the cucumber would have preached, performed miracles, and been nailed to the cross?..."

Dan Brown, in comparison with Erasmus, simply wondered whether Jesus could have had children and still "saved the world."

Erasmus continued, "And then these most subtle subtleties are rendered even more subtle by the various 'ways' or types of scholastic theology, so that you could work your way out of a labyrinth sooner than out of the intricacies of the Realists, Nominalists, Thomists, Albertists, Occamists, Scotists--and I still haven't mentioned all the sects, but only the main ones."

Erasmus does not spare the “religious” or the “monks” his berating wit either. Erasmus branded those who considered themselves “religious” or “monk” to be anything but that which such monikers signify. He, in fact, couldn’t imagine “how anything could be more wretched than these men,” who were in reality “far removed from religion” and “encountered more frequently everywhere you go” (Erasmus 61).

Popes and priests are offered the same treatment. Popes are painted as the antithesis of the Christ example of poverty, labor, teaching, and sacrifice. It is the popes who have an abundance of luxuries, honor, and pomp. Popes have all of the advantages this life can afford. “How many advantages would these men be deprived of if they were ever assailed by wisdom” (Erasmus 66)? The priests, on the other hand, and when not fighting “for their right to [being given the] tithes [of parishoners], with sword, spears, and stone, with every imaginable sort of armed force,” are busy keeping a “sharp lookout to harvest their profits” (Erasmus 67-68).

SOURCE: Erasmus, Desiderius. In Praise of Folly. A Reformation Reader: Primary Texts with Introductions. Ed. Denis Janz. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1999.

http://www.lofitribe.com/2006/02/

So if Dan Brown satirized excesses within the Catholic Church, perhaps he was too light in doing so, especially when compared with what Erasmus (a reform-minded Catholic humanist) and Martin Luther (a former Catholic who became a Protestant Reformer) both wrote about it!

One Christian's Opinion About DC Comments

I invited a Christian to come visit this Blog. His blogsite is here where after looking around he said....

After being challenged by the creator of the blog to read one of his posts, I spent some time looking around.

One thing that shocked me was the comments section. People, claiming to be Christian, left some of the most childish, mean-spirited, hate-filled comments that I have ever read in a blog.

Nice job showing the love of Christ.

Boy, that sent them clamoring to return to the Church.

I was more put off by the comments of believers than by the comments made by those running the blog. All the commenters did was to help them build their case of Christianity being a false religion.

When John wrote about his deconversion experience, he stated that one of his reasons for leaving the faith was: "...minus a sense of a loving, caring, Christian community". Well, these people are certainly enforcing the notion of a loving community, huh?

A loving and caring community is vital for the church and people of the church to flourish. There must be grace towards people's short comings, mercy towards their failings, encouragement to approach the future with holiness, a celebration of any and all forward motion people make in their lives, and support when there is struggle.

It's been said that the Christian army is the only army that shoots it's own wounded. I don't wonder why some people leave.

--Surly Dave

Writing James P Holding Off!

My friends,

I have recently started a thread on the infamous Christian website "theologyweb" pretty much announcing the end of any friendship with J.P. Holding of Tekton Apologetics. I want to take this time to air out my opinion of Holding (should he read this, good!). I thought that I could be an "esteemed skeptic" in the eyes of many Christians. I thought that I could be the "model atheist" by winning Holding's respect and trying to be as diplomatic as I could. I confess to being wrong about this. I don't know what I was thinking in trying to befriend Holding and trying to get on his good side. Loftus called it right: he predicted I would see through Holding and turn against him. I admit to doubting it but John was right. I now see completely through him and I wish for little more to do with him.

The fact of the matter is that while Holding has, arguably, good qualities, in my judgement his damning qualities seem to outweigh any good qualities that he has. For one thing, I consider Mr. Holding to be arrogant. He has a arrogant opinion of his own intelligence that is just nausiating. Holding writes off anyone who seems to disagree with him as being stupid. Holding is always insulting people who seem to disagree with him. It's bad enough that he insults fellow skeptics like John, Ed Babinski, Steven Carr, and Farrell Till, but he's sunken to an all new low by insulting scholars like Richard Carrier, Robert M Price, and Bart Ehrman and showing nothing but arrogant contempt for them.

I cannot handle this. I consider Carrier, Loftus, and Babinski to be among my good friends. I have no problem with Holding disagreeing with them but I do not like Holding's abrasive demeanor to them, insulting them, belittling them, and acting childish with his antics. I consider Holding at this point to be a sanctimonious jerk with serious ego problems. I am glad that he doesn't have a Ph.D. degree or he'd be just as arrogant as Jonathan Sarfati, whom I deem pathologically arrogant.

I very much credit Loftus with opening my eyes towards Holding. I wanted to see mostly good in Holding but it's not there. Further, I consider Holding to be a spin-doctor and a bully. I am sorry I wanted to become good friends with him and I don't know what I was thinking (well I do actually, I just don't know how I managed to rationalize it as I did!). The funny thing is that Holding constantly berates critics of the Bible for critiquing it or critiquing the Christian faith and for lacking the scholarly credentials to do so. I can agree that in some cases the criticism is deserved but I don't think that calls for insulting and belittling people. And Holding's degree is what? A Master's in Library Science?

I do not like the fact that he insults/demeans actual credentialed scholars like Carrier, Ehrman, and Price. Holding does nothing but scoff at them. Yeah, right, like they're just so stupid compared to a hyper-intellectual like Holding. Sure!

I have made a decision to discontinue the Scholarly Diplomacy Series with Mr. Holding until, frankly, he grows the hell up! Perhaps I will never have contact with him again. It's possible that I won't speak to Mr. Holding and anytime I have anything to say will be in a critique of some nonsensical garbage he has written that's too good not to critique.

My friends, I am sorry I defended Holding. My opinion of him now is that he is an arrogant spin-doctor of questionable honesty who enjoys insulting people and arrogantly scoffing at those who disagrees with him. I cannot believe that I even wrote a response to a blog post on here trying to defend him by asking blog members on here not to take him so seriously. I would like to offer a bit of friendly advice to people here: don't take him seriously at all. He's a sad joke! Yes, he's a better exegete, than, say, Norman Geisler, but this just goes to illustrate what nonsense Christian apologetics is. It also goes to illustrate that Mr. Holding is better at being a spin-doctor than Geisler is.

I wish to close this post with a note to Steven Carr if he reads this: Steven, you and I have had our differences. There were times when I regretfully didn't put Holding in his place when he insulted your intelligence. To my deep shame and discredit, I didn't do anything. For this I am very much sorry. I completely retract anything offensive I said about you or Farrell Till. I regret that I will never, again, be friends with Till and I have possibly lost your respect without any redemption. I am sorry this happened. Much of it is to my shame and I accept the shame with my deepest apologies. I am dead serious about this. I would like to start over fresh and offer a hand of friendship to you and Till but I can understand if you wish to decline.

Cheers,

Matthew

Why I'm Debunking Christianity, Part II

Here is more on why I am debunking Christianity. I will append this page to my previous entry here. WarrenL has offered an intelligent and thoughtful response to what I wrote, so I’ll respond here.

WarrenL is in blue. I am in red.

Motivations are indeed multifaceted and I do agree with all those listed. But I have always believed that the heart of Christian apologetics is to provide an answer for the hope we have, as opposed to simply presenting an argument. That implies that a question needs to be posed first.

What's wrong with me providing a response to those Christians who provide an answer for the purported hope they have? If the Christian hope is true, then I should change my thinking and my lifestyle, according to them. So Christians are telling me I should change, and I respond by telling them I don't have to because the arguments are not there. Surely because of the claims of Christianity I should respond. At least I'm not just ignoring them. I'm giving them a response.

What I do notice is that Triablogue address a range of diverse topics; atheism, Islam, Mormonism, Roman Catholic theology etc. You on the other hand only address one, Christianity. Am I to assume that there is nothing else that grips your interest as much as Christianity? If not then for something that you have walked away from it sure dominates your life.

We merely have a specific limited topic here, to debunk Christianity. Triablogue's agenda is necessarily more general, because if they are correct, then every other religion must be wrong. We'll let them argue with every other religion. They can do that for us. All that's left for us to do is debunk Christianity.

Still, atheism by definition is in opposition to every Theistic religion regardless of what Christianity says about them. If your mission is successful and you ever manage to debunk Christianity will you then turn your attention to those other religions? I get the impression that in your mind perhaps the others are not worth debunking because they have no merit.

As a former Christian apologist I debunked all of the other religions that I had studied. I had previously rejected them as a Christian. Having already done that, the only thing left is to debunk Christianity.

There are many ideas out there that even you have to admit are at least as or even more dangerous than Christianity. Why aren’t you as passionate about those?

Militant Islam is presently far worse to me, although militant Christianity has been far worse at some periods of the past. I'm not as knowledgeable about Islam so I let others do it for me see here.

Surely you disagree with more in the world than just Christianity. Why is that your personal bug bear? It still seems that Christianity is the defining centrality to much of your existence.

It is a rejection of a past I spent far too long defending. It's my way of confirming what I believe, and at the same time helping others who suffer under its wings like I did for far too long.

I have tried to put myself in your position and I think that unlike you, if I ever lost my faith, my pursuits would be entirely different. I wouldn't want to waste anymore of my time in dissecting the Christian faith or trying to 'save' those pigheaded Christians. But then you and I are very different.

Yes we are. As a philosophy instructor I enjoy discussing and debating ideas, and I know the most about Christianity. Debating sharpens my mind. And just like the artist who looks as her finished painting and admires it, I like looking at what I’ve created too when I'm finished writing. I like looking at it and thinking to myself from time to time “Now that’s good.”

I will also have to disagree with your distinction between thoughts and actions. It’s true that one can think something and not actually do it. But thoughts do influence attitudes and actions. It’s funny how I always start disliking my house about the same time I stop watching HGTV, even though I have a great house. Think enough about sexy naked women and after a while your wife will pale by comparison.

I never said thoughts do not influence actions. But fantasy is just that, if recognized for what it is as a psychologically healthy adult. Besides, it's psychological harming to deny one his fantasies. Kids grow up pretending all the time. It's who we are as human beings. If you cannot fantasize about being rich you'll never be rich, for instance. And fantasizing about kicking the shit out of someone may be all the release a healthy individual needs, so long as he's a psychologically stable person. As a man, you struggle with lust, don't you? Sure, we must all contain our thought world, but I find no guilt in a lustful thought. And as a man, I do have them, just like every man does. Women may not understand it, and they may condemn it all they want to, but it’s biology baby. And I don’t have to feel guilty for this anymore. I just have to recognize it for what it is, fantasy, and leave it there, which I can easily do. Besides, "Most of our emotions and desires are involuntary and cannot be controlled, so to condemn them as wrong causes unnecessary guilt and psychological harm." --Michael Martin.

You are right though; Christians do struggle with their thoughts. To be honest I certainly don’t beat myself over inappropriate thoughts or actions. I know I am human and I know I’ll battle these for the rest of my life, BUT grace has been extended without me having to earn it. I do the things I do out of joyful obedience not to earn points. Ah, the freedom and joy of being forgiven. (loaded words I know.)

In my opinion Christianity is an extremely guilt producing faith, and I only realized it after I left it. Even though I knew it was by grace that I had been saved, I almost always felt guilty that I wasn’t doing enough in response to God’s love. Whether it was spending time in prayer, evangelizing, reading the Bible, tithing, forgiving someone who had done me wrong, or whether it was struggling with temptations of lust, pride, selfishness and laziness, I almost always felt guilty. It may just be because I was so passionate about Christianity that this was the case, and so it just might be my particular temperament. But I never could understand how Christian people could come to church every Sunday and never get involved much in the Church’s programs, because that’s what believers should want to do. To be quite frank here, if Christians really believed that the non-Christian was going to hell, and that God loved them enough to send his Son to die for them on the cross, then how would they behave? How many true believers are in the churches today? The bottom line is that a vast number of Christians do not experience freedom and a full life, in my opinion. The fear of God and hell can and does dominate their thinking, even if they may not fully realize this until after they leave it.

I don’t really know what Christian circles you moved in but I have never been shunned for expressing doubts and I have had my fair share.

Translated: "I move in better Christian circles than you did (a standard type rebuttal which I have no privy information to assess its merits).

Are there any inherent dangers with atheistic views? May I suggest you ask the 30-50 million victims of Stalin and Pol Pot. Even the grossest estimates of the infamous Spanish Inquisition pale in comparison. See sometimes I also tend to paint in broad brush strokes. Now I know that you are not a that kind of atheist and that's not what atheism is about, so I’ll try refrain from lumping you in with Stalin et al as long as you distinguish between those with true Christian ideals and those who have hijacked a distorted view of Christianity for their own means.

But who speaks for Christianity? Who? There are at present 45,000 different denominations. To whom do I go to for information on what a Christian thinks and behaves and to find which political party and which social issues to support? Hijacking? Which ones? Amish people today would say that you’ve hijacked Christianity. There was a time when Christians argued from the Bible that they could own slaves as pieces of meat, and beat them within an inch of their lives. This would have been the overwhelming majority opinion of their day. If you believe what you do today, you would have been the outsider in their day. They would claim that you had hijacked Christianity.

I believe there are evil people who will use any ideology to their own sadistic ends. They come in all shapes and sizes, all colors, and all religions, or none at all. The question is which ones are used most by these evil people to justify their evil actions? Does atheism fare better or Christianity? I don't know. But my guess is that percentage-wise, atheists are better educated than others, and better educated people are usually better people toward others, even if there are exceptions to this. While I don't have a statistical study on this, this stands to reason. Better educated people know that violence breeds violence and that nothing much is solved by violence. They would also have a much greater tendency to rationally discuss the issues they wish to change, and to properly evaluate the reasons why they might seek to do someone harm. Nevertheless, there are people with Freudian "Death Wishes" everywhere, regardless of what they believe. They are suicidal by degrees. Some Christians feel they have committed the unpardonable sin, or that God cannot forgive them, so they no longer care what they do to others, or themselves.

When I think of one of the greatest secular failures of all time, the USSR, I can so easily apply the terms class struggles, homophobia, racism, mass neurosis, intolerance and environmental disasters. Please don’t tell me you honestly believe that these will be eliminated by getting rid of Christian (religious)influence. So just how does atheism address the natural tendency for self preservation and dominance?

In the first place, secularism didn't fail with the demise of the USSR. Leninism did. Lenin hijacked Marxism for his own powerseeking purposes. Lenin does not speak for the rest of us atheists today. Modern atheism addresses your worries through education and in understanding the different viewpoints of others. Once that is accomplished we can no longer say of someone that they are stupid and hate them merely because we have disagreements. Education fosters tolerance. And while no one can be tolerant of everything, we can be tolerant of different viewpoints, even while disagreeing with them. A heightened tolerance level on BOTH sides of the fence would go a long way to resolving differences around the world, between Jew and Muslim, between warring factions in Africa, and even between Christians and atheists. For instance, Christians think atheists cannot be trusted because they do not have a standard for “objective” morality. But once you live next to an atheist, study at his feet, and/or become her friend, you learn differently. Education means being exposed to different ideas and different experiences. Tolerance is the result. Atheists also promote laws that grant everyone the right to believe whatever they want to, which would exclude any kind of thecratic rule, be it Muslim, Jewish or Christian.

I would particularly like to see the ‘strong case’ that Christianity contains considerably more violence and destruction than that of the other major religions. Where’s the proof? I can similarly say that the history of a secular worldview contains more violence and destruction than most of the other major worldviews. Particularly if I lump in fascism, national socialism, communism and the like.

If you as a Christian have to even make the case that Christianity fares better than atheism, then you've already lost the debate, because it's not obvious. Here's why: The Christian is the only one who claims that God the Holy Spirit resides in him. And according to the Bible the Holy Spirit helps the Christian to understand the things of God, and also helps him to behave. But Christians do not act noticeably better than non-Christians, and it's partly because the Christian doesn't seem to understand what God purportedly wants him to do. Where was the Holy Spirit's guidance in the lives of the Christians during WWII, or during American Black Slavery, or the Crusades, or the Inquisitions and witch hunts and heresy killings? Hitler's Germany was a part of the Protestant Reformation. Germany was a Christian nation! And yet we know what happened during WWII. A Christian nation acted worse than non-Christian nations? You've already lost the debate, because as a Christian you must claim that you alone have a truly powerful God helping you to behave and think right. If Christianity makes people better why isn’t it obvious?

The Christian God was definitely not created in our image. What would motivate anyone to create a God other than one who caters to all our desires, wants and excesses? Why create a God that we have no hope of pleasing in the first place. Trust me if I was part of that committee we wouldn’t have ended up with the Christian God. Point in case - you spend most of your time trying to prove how repugnant he is. And we created him, all by ourselves? How? Why? To control; that can be done without religion. To highlight how weak and incapable we are. Right.

The ancients were fearful of death and they pondered the mysteries of their dreams. Life was dreadful and very demanding of them. People died young. There were battles to be fought with the beasts and with other nations. So they envisioned a God who was demanding. It's not that they wanted to create an ice cream and cake giving God; it was that life was scary, hard and demanding. There must be a dreadful, demanding, and hard God too. And in the hands of the producers of religion who offered acceptable answers to life (priests and prophets), it gave these producers power over the masses, for if the people disobeyed God's messenger or priest, they would face God's supposed wrath. It was all so quite convenient for the producers of religion who offered explanations of dreams and the mysteries of a lifeless body. They gained power, fame, and money over the consumers of religion (the masses). But if they created a religion that was merely ice cream and cake, the people would no longer fear the producers of religion, and the producers would not receive power, fame and money. Besides, ancient people would not have believed in an ice cream and cake giving God, anyway, since life was very hard, demanding, and scary. To read more on this whole topic, please take the time to read this

Actually I like being deluded (though obviously I don't think I am). Within my worldview I can explain most of what goes on in my world. So please don't try 'save' me and I'll try not to 'save' you. I'll try simply provide an answer for the hope that I have. Albeit rather poorly.

But then what do you have to say about the Bill Craig's in the world who argue that Christianity is correct, and I'll rot in hell if I don't believe? They're trying to "save" me, even if you're not. So long as people like that are out there I can argue against them all I want to. If that means you get caught up in the middle between us, preferring to be left alone and also preferring to leave people like me alone, I cannot control that. You don't have to listen in. You don't have to assume that what I write is about you, either. It's only directed at apologists like Bill Craig who think I'll rot in hell if I don't agree, and that's a charge that I must respond to, if for no other reason because my own life is at stake if he’s correct. He's claiming that if I disagree that's what will happen to me, and I object very strongly to such a challenge on behalf of everyone who reads that challenge, since it is so extremely guilt producing, and since many people don't know how to adequately respond to challenges like that. But I think I do, and so I speak out.

Frank Walton Recognized He Was Wrong!

Frank Walton removes material out of a "concern for losing his blogsite". See what Austin Cline said about Walton, who has asked people to send Ed Babinski spam emails. What do you Christians think of Walton's tactics here? Is it acceptable in Christian circles?

Is poisoning the well acceptable if a Christian does it to God's glory?.

Double Standards

It hasn't been long since I resigned from my church and rejected belief in God.

However, it's been plenty long enough to be told by most of my Christian friends and pastors that I'm making too quick and drastic of a decision. One pastor told me, "you've only been really struggling with this for a year. Everyone goes through this. How can you all of a sudden believe it's all just not true?"

Another pastor is fond of telling me I'll look back on this in 10 years and laugh at my drastic way of thinking.

I don't know about the rest of you who have been to church before, but it seems like every time I went I was pressured (I mean "encouraged") that I needed to make a decision to become a Christian that day. "Today is the day of salvation!" "Tomorrow may be too late!" I was told.

And here are the same people who said, "we can say the prayer right now if you'd like?" telling me I'm making a rash and quick decision after at least a year of questioning?

There is a serious double standard looming among such Christians. They believe people should come in mass to the front of stages to buy completely into Jesus after a 30 minute sermon. Then, at the same time, they think a person who has taken at least a year to decide Christianity is wrong is making a quick and drastic decision.

Seems I'm not the one who is being quick and drastic about believing things. I just don't get it.

Is God a Sadistic Monster?

I posted the following on an atheist vs. Christian debate website. I have not become an atheist, just a disillusioned, disenchanted, disheartened former Christian who is convinced that God falls into one of three categories: one, he's an apathetic, ambivalent, indifferent absentee landlord, two, a sadist, or three, suffers with multiple-personality disorder. I CHALLENGE YOU TO PROVE TO ME THAT MY ANALOGY IS FLAWED.

The post was titled "Is God a Sadistic Monster?" A judge brings a frightened 18 year old girl before his court. The girl has committed no "crimes" per se, but has committed many of the same "sins" that an average young woman of her age might have committed in the course of her short life, i.e. white lies, masturbation, "mouthing off" to parents and authority figures, cheating in school, and a host of other petty misdeeds. The judge tells the girl that she will be allowed no legal representation. No one will be permitted to speak on her behalf but she herself. The judge tells this girl that although her "crimes" are minor, she will be taken out, doused in gasoline, set ablaze, and then thrown into a vat of sulfuric acid while she is still burning.. Then he, the judge, will stand over this vat and listen to her beg and scream for mercy until she finally expires in excruciating inconceivable agony.NOW, this is going to require an inordinate amount of objectivity on the part of any fundamentalist or evangelical reading this, which, having been one, I know is probably beyond your capacity. However, in all honesty, what would society call this judge? Righteous? Pure? Merciful? PLEASE!! Don't delude yourself! It is a safe bet that society would probably call him a sadistic beast not worthy to live on the same planet with decent human beings!Now, this same girl appears before "The Sinner's Judgment" withthe Honorable Judge Jesus Christ presiding! He also tells her that she will not be allowed legal representation. For no other reason than because she failed to "mouth out" the "sinners prayer", this merciless brute of a God (I use God and Jesus interchangeably because Christians consider them the same) will throw this terrified young, barely beyond adolescence (but beyond the scripturally ambiguous "age of accountability"), girl into the "Lake of Fire", a fate approximately one million times more agonizing than what the Earthly judge subjected her to.Now, what makes God, Jesus, whomever, any different than this Earthly judge? How is God different morally? Ultimately, there is no difference, and I have, in fact, "called the Emperor naked". For Godto throw ANY person into eternal fire where they will never die and never know respite, and scream and wail while God and Jesus treat it as "music to their ears" is such a morally unconscionable act it beggars description!! The fact is, God is a two-faced hypocrite who employs a "double standard". He claims not to tolerate cruelty and inhumanity, and he will become the most inhumane, vicious, merciless, animalistic brutal sadistic monster ever in history when, on Judgment Day, he throws the billions of "lost souls" into this eternal barbecue pit. Now, I would like to confront the most common(and inherently inane and ludicrous) arguments that Christians use to get God "off the hook" to keep him from appearing as I have described.
ARGUMENT 1)"God doesn't send anyone to Hell, they put themseles there!": Okay, so you're saying that if a person who dies "in their sins" stands before God and takes a good hard look at Hell, that he has the option to "decline"? Please! Get real! The Bible clearly states that the lost will be "cast"(the operative word here is "cast", not briskly walked, not gingerly ran, not eagerly waltzed) into the Lake of Fire! Now, lest you accuse me of being obtuse, I do understand what you're endeavoring to say, that being, that if a person "rejects Christ as their Lord and savior, doesn't repent of their sins, yadda, yadda, yadda," they have, by default, chosen of their own free will to go to Hell. The flaw in this "defense" is that it is a twist on the warnings that Draconian tyrants, emperors, and dictators have given their subjects since time immemorial. That as long as you play the game by their rules, they won't subject you to unspeakable torture! However, it doesn't make Hell one degree cooler whether or not God decides or the "sinners" decide where they spend eternity. It is still a morally unconscionable Draconian punishment. It's analogous to saying that if a father decides to allow his child to voluntarily dive into a shark-infested pool as a self-inflicted punishment for "wrong-doing", that gets dear old Dad "off the hook".
ARGUMENT 2) "The Lake of Fire was designed and prepared for the Devil and his angels, not people." Okay, but regardless, God intends to throw the lost into it. It may not "originally" have been meant for people, but God, in his infinite wisdom and mercy, has decided to take "the more, the merrier" approach, and use it as the primary method of eternal punishment for sinners. He has therefore, by default, designed it for both Devils and people.