A Curious Fact About the Relics of the Machabees
Relics of Machabees Venerated at Church of St Peter’s Chains For 1500 Years Were Dog Bones
While reading about the Machabees, I ran across the following in the Answers.com encyclopedia entry.
"The history of the supposed relics of the Machabees is obscure: it is not known either when or by whom they were brought to Rome, where they were housed in the church of St. Peter's Chains. Modin and Antioch, according to Jerome, also claimed their relics. In the 1930s it was discovered that the 7 bones at Rome believed to be theirs were in reality canine remains; so they were immediately withdrawn from the veneration of the faithful."
Link to cite on Answers.com
It seems to be the case that knowledge amongst devout Catholics includes assertions about Jerome's report of the transfer of the bones from Antioch to Rome.
"Before the reform of the General Roman Missal today was the feast of St. Peter's Chains. It celebrated the dedication of the basilica of St. Peter ad Vincula in Rome which was built in about 432 on the Esquiline Hill in Rome and consecrated on August 1. It was also the commemoration of the Holy Maccabees. The seven Machabees were brothers martyred with their mother under Antiochus Epiphanes in about the year 150 before Christ. There is an account of their wonderful death in the Old Testament. Their relics venerated at Antioch in the time of St. Jerome, were translated to Rome in the sixth century, to the church of St. Peter's Chains."
Link to Cite on catholicculture.org
If Jerome (347-420) can be trusted, then the dog bones were venerated by the faithful for approximately 1500 years before someone noticed they were dog bones. :)
If the Christian God does exist, then why did not the so called Holy Spirit see fit to inform some high ranking cleric that his flock was venerating dog bones instead of pre-Christian martyr bones? If there is an actual spiritual reality to Christianity, wouldn't the Christian God be keen on preventing snafus such as the Machabeeian-dog-bone mix up? Although this incident was corrected in the 1930's, still for 1500 years, many millions of deeply faith believing religious people were venerating dog bones. If a Holy Spirit exists and if it infuses and indwells the central emotional-intellectual core of the Christian Believer, then it would assuredly have acted in accordance with its alleged guiding purpose to have all humans come to Christian belief. To that end, it would, if it were to be a rational and reasoning being, act accordingly in harmony to that end by ensuring Christians hold a proper, correct, and uniform set of doctrines. By proper and correct, I mean doctrines that do not include absurdities like worshiping or venerating dog bones.
According to adherents.com reporting that the “World Christian Encyclopedia”, by David B. Barrett published by Oxford University Press informs the reader that: The 2001 edition, successor to his 1983 first edition, which took a decade to compile, identifies 10,000 distinct religions, of which 150 have 1 million or more followers. Within Christianity, he counts 33,830 denominations.
With so many Christian denominations and sects it seems unlikely that an actual set of doctrines can be identified as being the norm. Despite this and even if we were to presume that 99% of all these groups were self-deluded, there would remain in excess of 330 sects. Of those, the divergence of opinion is very likely profound. It seems intuitively obvious that it would be difficult to find a majority that share common kerygma, soteriology, Christology, and eschatology. This is not at all what is expected if there were to be an actual existing lattice structuring Christian Theology. The evident schizophrenic diversity of doctrinaire opinion within “Christianity”, nevertheless, constitutes just what is expected under naturalism and atheism. This is strong evidence that Christianity is false.
While reading about the Machabees, I ran across the following in the Answers.com encyclopedia entry.
"The history of the supposed relics of the Machabees is obscure: it is not known either when or by whom they were brought to Rome, where they were housed in the church of St. Peter's Chains. Modin and Antioch, according to Jerome, also claimed their relics. In the 1930s it was discovered that the 7 bones at Rome believed to be theirs were in reality canine remains; so they were immediately withdrawn from the veneration of the faithful."
Link to cite on Answers.com
It seems to be the case that knowledge amongst devout Catholics includes assertions about Jerome's report of the transfer of the bones from Antioch to Rome.
"Before the reform of the General Roman Missal today was the feast of St. Peter's Chains. It celebrated the dedication of the basilica of St. Peter ad Vincula in Rome which was built in about 432 on the Esquiline Hill in Rome and consecrated on August 1. It was also the commemoration of the Holy Maccabees. The seven Machabees were brothers martyred with their mother under Antiochus Epiphanes in about the year 150 before Christ. There is an account of their wonderful death in the Old Testament. Their relics venerated at Antioch in the time of St. Jerome, were translated to Rome in the sixth century, to the church of St. Peter's Chains."
Link to Cite on catholicculture.org
If Jerome (347-420) can be trusted, then the dog bones were venerated by the faithful for approximately 1500 years before someone noticed they were dog bones. :)
If the Christian God does exist, then why did not the so called Holy Spirit see fit to inform some high ranking cleric that his flock was venerating dog bones instead of pre-Christian martyr bones? If there is an actual spiritual reality to Christianity, wouldn't the Christian God be keen on preventing snafus such as the Machabeeian-dog-bone mix up? Although this incident was corrected in the 1930's, still for 1500 years, many millions of deeply faith believing religious people were venerating dog bones. If a Holy Spirit exists and if it infuses and indwells the central emotional-intellectual core of the Christian Believer, then it would assuredly have acted in accordance with its alleged guiding purpose to have all humans come to Christian belief. To that end, it would, if it were to be a rational and reasoning being, act accordingly in harmony to that end by ensuring Christians hold a proper, correct, and uniform set of doctrines. By proper and correct, I mean doctrines that do not include absurdities like worshiping or venerating dog bones.
According to adherents.com reporting that the “World Christian Encyclopedia”, by David B. Barrett published by Oxford University Press informs the reader that: The 2001 edition, successor to his 1983 first edition, which took a decade to compile, identifies 10,000 distinct religions, of which 150 have 1 million or more followers. Within Christianity, he counts 33,830 denominations.
With so many Christian denominations and sects it seems unlikely that an actual set of doctrines can be identified as being the norm. Despite this and even if we were to presume that 99% of all these groups were self-deluded, there would remain in excess of 330 sects. Of those, the divergence of opinion is very likely profound. It seems intuitively obvious that it would be difficult to find a majority that share common kerygma, soteriology, Christology, and eschatology. This is not at all what is expected if there were to be an actual existing lattice structuring Christian Theology. The evident schizophrenic diversity of doctrinaire opinion within “Christianity”, nevertheless, constitutes just what is expected under naturalism and atheism. This is strong evidence that Christianity is false.
Jeremiah's New Covenant vs. Christianity
Chris Sandoval wrote a fine essay that is featured on the front page of infidels.org. Included here is the opening paragraph and a link to the page. One of the main proofs proffered by Christianity is its allegations that Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled Old Testament prophecies such that he is the Messiah. Sandoval points out that the writer of Hebrews took Jeremiah 31 out of context and twisted the text to make it imply a prophecy of a new covenant. Sandoval then explains how and why the Hebraic author got it wrong.
"The New Testament authors frequently manufactured prophecies about Jesus by twisting Old Testament passages out of context to make them say things the original authors never intended. The Old Testament prophets had nothing to say about Jesus, who lived many centuries after their time; they only spoke about the concerns of their own times, as we read in treatises by Jim Lippard on the Secular Web[1], and American patriot and deist Thomas Paine[2]. Here we examine one spectacular but commonly overlooked example of misquoted prophecy--Jeremiah's prophecy of the New Covenant.[3]"
Jeremiah's New Covenant vs. Christianity
"The New Testament authors frequently manufactured prophecies about Jesus by twisting Old Testament passages out of context to make them say things the original authors never intended. The Old Testament prophets had nothing to say about Jesus, who lived many centuries after their time; they only spoke about the concerns of their own times, as we read in treatises by Jim Lippard on the Secular Web[1], and American patriot and deist Thomas Paine[2]. Here we examine one spectacular but commonly overlooked example of misquoted prophecy--Jeremiah's prophecy of the New Covenant.[3]"
Jeremiah's New Covenant vs. Christianity
A Brief Essay on the God of the Gaps Fallacy
Why do so many Christians use God of the Gaps arguments even though they intuitively understand that sort of argument is fallacious? In this short essay, I take a shot at answering my question.
God of the gaps arguments are often used by religious believers to assert their god exists. Such arguments, in my experience, have often had the following form.
1. Human knowledge does not include X.
2. It is impossible for X to be caused or explained under naturalism.
3. Therefore, God did it.
The believer's burden of proof for premise 1 is to show that the relevant scientific literature does not include X. The believer must show an exhaustive survey of the relevant scientific literature to support their first premise. Any failure to show a dearth of knowledge dooms the argument.
In order to validly make premise 2, the believer must have omniscient knowledge of all natural phenomena to rule out any possibility of natural causation. This neither the believer nor any other person can do, for human beings are not omniscient. Conceptually, the Uniformity of Nature is secure. No instance of a supernatural explanation supplanting a natural cause has ever been observed. The converse, however, has been witnessed many times. The history of science is the history of sweeping away superstitions, of showing alleged supernatural explanations to be not even wrong. The context of supernaturalism is not the context of reality. Fantasies of gods, demons, angels, spirits, magic, fairies, incorporeal beings and such can neither be right nor wrong, for they are not part of or even related to reality. (Additionally, it is amusing to note that by making premise 2, believers blaspheme their idea of God by predicating they are omniscient. Comparing their minds to God or asserting they are God constitutes blasphemy.)
Even if the first two premises were sound, the conclusion would not follow. Under a supernatural worldview, there are an infinite number of invisible magic beings or other causes that could be responsible for a given phenomenon. Most religionists actively seek to gloss over this uncomfortable fact of their worldview. Their feeble protestations notwithstanding, the preeminent standing granted to the primacy of consciousness and mere alleged possibility renders any "god of the gaps" conclusion Non Sequitur.
Despite the obvious irrationality of this type of argument, religious believers continue to predicate their assertions at least in part thereupon. Why? If what they believe is so believable, then why do they believe by faith what is propped up by obvious and ostensively fallacious arguments? Blank out. Could it be that what the religious believer claims is not actually believable?
What does it mean for something to be believable? The primary definition of believable is "to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so".
What does it mean to say that something is the truth? The first three definitions of truth are:
1. the true or actual state of a matter:
2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: .
3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like:
For something to be believable human beings must be able to have confidence or reliability that the given proposition is the actual state of the matter that is in conformity with the fact of reality in the sense of a verified and indisputable objective event. What must the religious believer do in order to be confident that what she believes is actually believable – actually in conformity with the fact of reality? The believer, if she is to be honest with herself, must accurately compare her faith propositions with actual reality and accept only those propositions comparing favorably. But if the believer does not need absolute proof of being right in so doing, then she need not be concerned that any proposition she believes "true" be only probably in conformity with the fact of reality. By accepting as absolutely true propositions that only probably compare favorably with the fact of reality, is the believer not disrobing the primacy of existence of meaning? In so doing the believer is finding a back door to a primacy of consciousness fantasy and thereby reversing the proper epistemological subject-object order of her own consciousness.
With a subject of thought-object of thought reversal in hand, it then becomes child's play to hold god of the gaps arguments as valid and sound reasons to believe. By ascribing a probability of truth to god of the gaps arguments, the believer inculcates a sense of correctness for her propositions and justifies ignoring any lack in comparing correctly with reality. This vivifies her subject of thought-object of thought epistemic reversal. Self-purposed feedback loops tend to reinforce themselves on each run. A hysteresis effect ameliorates such feedback, yet as the loop progresses, the facts of reality dim. For that reason, it is vitally important for human beings to ground their cognition to the metaphysically actual and accept only that which is demonstratively in conformity with fact or reality. Thus lack of knowledge should lead us to be skeptical of the claims of god believers.
God of the gaps arguments are often used by religious believers to assert their god exists. Such arguments, in my experience, have often had the following form.
1. Human knowledge does not include X.
2. It is impossible for X to be caused or explained under naturalism.
3. Therefore, God did it.
The believer's burden of proof for premise 1 is to show that the relevant scientific literature does not include X. The believer must show an exhaustive survey of the relevant scientific literature to support their first premise. Any failure to show a dearth of knowledge dooms the argument.
In order to validly make premise 2, the believer must have omniscient knowledge of all natural phenomena to rule out any possibility of natural causation. This neither the believer nor any other person can do, for human beings are not omniscient. Conceptually, the Uniformity of Nature is secure. No instance of a supernatural explanation supplanting a natural cause has ever been observed. The converse, however, has been witnessed many times. The history of science is the history of sweeping away superstitions, of showing alleged supernatural explanations to be not even wrong. The context of supernaturalism is not the context of reality. Fantasies of gods, demons, angels, spirits, magic, fairies, incorporeal beings and such can neither be right nor wrong, for they are not part of or even related to reality. (Additionally, it is amusing to note that by making premise 2, believers blaspheme their idea of God by predicating they are omniscient. Comparing their minds to God or asserting they are God constitutes blasphemy.)
Even if the first two premises were sound, the conclusion would not follow. Under a supernatural worldview, there are an infinite number of invisible magic beings or other causes that could be responsible for a given phenomenon. Most religionists actively seek to gloss over this uncomfortable fact of their worldview. Their feeble protestations notwithstanding, the preeminent standing granted to the primacy of consciousness and mere alleged possibility renders any "god of the gaps" conclusion Non Sequitur.
Despite the obvious irrationality of this type of argument, religious believers continue to predicate their assertions at least in part thereupon. Why? If what they believe is so believable, then why do they believe by faith what is propped up by obvious and ostensively fallacious arguments? Blank out. Could it be that what the religious believer claims is not actually believable?
What does it mean for something to be believable? The primary definition of believable is "to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so".
What does it mean to say that something is the truth? The first three definitions of truth are:
1. the true or actual state of a matter:
2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: .
3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like:
For something to be believable human beings must be able to have confidence or reliability that the given proposition is the actual state of the matter that is in conformity with the fact of reality in the sense of a verified and indisputable objective event. What must the religious believer do in order to be confident that what she believes is actually believable – actually in conformity with the fact of reality? The believer, if she is to be honest with herself, must accurately compare her faith propositions with actual reality and accept only those propositions comparing favorably. But if the believer does not need absolute proof of being right in so doing, then she need not be concerned that any proposition she believes "true" be only probably in conformity with the fact of reality. By accepting as absolutely true propositions that only probably compare favorably with the fact of reality, is the believer not disrobing the primacy of existence of meaning? In so doing the believer is finding a back door to a primacy of consciousness fantasy and thereby reversing the proper epistemological subject-object order of her own consciousness.
With a subject of thought-object of thought reversal in hand, it then becomes child's play to hold god of the gaps arguments as valid and sound reasons to believe. By ascribing a probability of truth to god of the gaps arguments, the believer inculcates a sense of correctness for her propositions and justifies ignoring any lack in comparing correctly with reality. This vivifies her subject of thought-object of thought epistemic reversal. Self-purposed feedback loops tend to reinforce themselves on each run. A hysteresis effect ameliorates such feedback, yet as the loop progresses, the facts of reality dim. For that reason, it is vitally important for human beings to ground their cognition to the metaphysically actual and accept only that which is demonstratively in conformity with fact or reality. Thus lack of knowledge should lead us to be skeptical of the claims of god believers.
Dinesh D'Souza On Genesis Chapter One
Dinesh D'Souza in his bestselling book, What's So Great About Christianity? offers a simplistic answer to the problem of Genesis chapter one. This is what he wrote:
The Big Bang resolves one of the apparent contradictions in the book of Genesis. For more than two centuries, critics of the Bible have pointed out that in the beginning--on the first day--God created light. Then on the fourth day God separated the night from the day. The problem is pointed out by philosopher Leo Strauss: "Light is presented as preceding the sun." Christians have long struggled to explain this anomaly but without much success. The writer of Genesis seemed to have made an obvious mistake.Dinesh offers the solution Christians everywhere have been waiting for:
But it turns out there is no mistake. The universe was created in a burst of light fifteen years ago. Our sun and our planet came into existence billions of years later. So light did indeed precede the sun. The first reference to light in Genesis 1:3 can be seen to refer to the Big Bang itself. The separation of the day and the night described in Genesis 1:4 clearly refers to the formation of the sun and the earth...The Genesis enigma is solved..." (p. 123)But Dinesh is badly mistaken for many reasons. Let me merely mention just one of them. On Day One God created light, which, Dinesh says represents the Big Bang. Then on Day Two God is doing something on earth, he creates the firmament and separates the waters on earth from those in the heavens. On Day Three God again is doing something on earth. He makes dry land appear. When we finally get to Day Four God already has an earth, a firmament, and dry land. But on Day Four we see God creating the universe of sun, moon and stars. This "solution" of his is no solution at all, for if Dinesh wants to harmonize the Big Bang with Genesis then he must try to harmonize all of it. And according to modern astronomy there were already stars and galaxies before there was an earth, or at least, they were all formed at the same time. If the earth existed before the universe of stars and galaxies, which were supposedly created on the fourth day, this contradicts what we know from the evidence of the Big Bang itself.
Wheeling and Dealing J-E-S-U-S! The 21 Century Religion Business
There are millions to be made in the Family Owned and Family Operated Religion Business. Pictured above is evangelist Joyce Myers' private family owned compound while billionaire preacher Kenneth Copeland owns his own private ministry jet port complete with three jets (the latest of which he paid over twenty million for).
With their tax free status along with protected speech (preaching) by the first amendment, these Family Religion Businesses with their CEO evangelists are alive and well especially in the United States where giving to the Lord is the evangelist himself since, once a evangelist becomes larger than life, he becomes a savior to the faithful who support the ministry. These religious cult figures are blessed by God with his or her own financial empire).
The foundation for the above had its start when Yahweh (now called “God“) chose to open and run his own family run religion business with a designated successor: His son, Jesus. However, due to conflicts beyond Jesus' control, his ministry (within 1 to 3 years) literally went belly up and ended. But the family business was "saved" by being re-invented by Paul and given a systematic theology which used the successful title of Christ as a franchised trade mark. With a little luck (and some help from the latter Roman Empire) Paul’s franchisees called Christians were able to drive out of business older religious traditions by stealing their concepts and then re-labeling them as "exclusive truths from God".
The following are just a few of today's top evangelist CEO's who have made it into the millionaire status with a few even now making it to the billionaire club:
Oral Roberts (Oral Roberts University) His family religion business successor: Son, Richard Roberts
Pat Robertson (700 Club) His family religion business successor: Son, Gordon Robertson
Billy Graham (The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association) His family religion business successor: Son, Franklin Graham and his family religion business successor: Son, William Franklin Graham IV
Jim Bakker (former PTL leader and now with his own evangelistic ministry) His family religion business successor: Son, Jamie Bakker
Jimmy Swaggart His family religion business successor: Son, Donnie Swaggart
Paul Crouch (Trinity Broadcasting Network founder and chairman) His family religion business successor: Son, Paul Crouch, Jr.
Kenneth Copeland (Kenneth Copeland Ministries) His family religion business successors: Wife, Gloria and Daughters
Bob Jones Sr., (Bob Jones University) His family religion business successor: Son, Bob Jones Jr., followed by his family religion business successor: Son, Bob Jones III, followed his by family religion business successor: Son, Stephen Jones.
Bob Schuller (Crystal Cathedral) His family religion business successor: Son, Robert Schuller, Jr.
The late Jerry Farwell (Thomas Roads Baptist Church / The Old Time Gospel Hour) His family religion business successor: Son, Jonathan Farwell
Charles Stanley (In Touch Ministries) His family religion business successor: Son, Andy Stanley
John Hagee (John Hagee Ministries) His family religion business successor: Son, Christopher Hagee
Benny Hinn (Faith healing Televangelist) His family religion business successor: Brother, Henry Hinn
If Christians want to argue that Christianity is true, they would do well to start their defense here based on the promise of "Storehouse Tithing" given to these rich evangelist as they are blessed by God (Malachi 3: 10).
With their tax free status along with protected speech (preaching) by the first amendment, these Family Religion Businesses with their CEO evangelists are alive and well especially in the United States where giving to the Lord is the evangelist himself since, once a evangelist becomes larger than life, he becomes a savior to the faithful who support the ministry. These religious cult figures are blessed by God with his or her own financial empire).
The foundation for the above had its start when Yahweh (now called “God“) chose to open and run his own family run religion business with a designated successor: His son, Jesus. However, due to conflicts beyond Jesus' control, his ministry (within 1 to 3 years) literally went belly up and ended. But the family business was "saved" by being re-invented by Paul and given a systematic theology which used the successful title of Christ as a franchised trade mark. With a little luck (and some help from the latter Roman Empire) Paul’s franchisees called Christians were able to drive out of business older religious traditions by stealing their concepts and then re-labeling them as "exclusive truths from God".
The following are just a few of today's top evangelist CEO's who have made it into the millionaire status with a few even now making it to the billionaire club:
Oral Roberts (Oral Roberts University) His family religion business successor: Son, Richard Roberts
Pat Robertson (700 Club) His family religion business successor: Son, Gordon Robertson
Billy Graham (The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association) His family religion business successor: Son, Franklin Graham and his family religion business successor: Son, William Franklin Graham IV
Jim Bakker (former PTL leader and now with his own evangelistic ministry) His family religion business successor: Son, Jamie Bakker
Jimmy Swaggart His family religion business successor: Son, Donnie Swaggart
Paul Crouch (Trinity Broadcasting Network founder and chairman) His family religion business successor: Son, Paul Crouch, Jr.
Kenneth Copeland (Kenneth Copeland Ministries) His family religion business successors: Wife, Gloria and Daughters
Bob Jones Sr., (Bob Jones University) His family religion business successor: Son, Bob Jones Jr., followed by his family religion business successor: Son, Bob Jones III, followed his by family religion business successor: Son, Stephen Jones.
Bob Schuller (Crystal Cathedral) His family religion business successor: Son, Robert Schuller, Jr.
The late Jerry Farwell (Thomas Roads Baptist Church / The Old Time Gospel Hour) His family religion business successor: Son, Jonathan Farwell
Charles Stanley (In Touch Ministries) His family religion business successor: Son, Andy Stanley
John Hagee (John Hagee Ministries) His family religion business successor: Son, Christopher Hagee
Benny Hinn (Faith healing Televangelist) His family religion business successor: Brother, Henry Hinn
If Christians want to argue that Christianity is true, they would do well to start their defense here based on the promise of "Storehouse Tithing" given to these rich evangelist as they are blessed by God (Malachi 3: 10).
Stop Me If You've Heard This One
A joke from commenter drow ranger:
A guy's sitting on his roof, waiting for rescue from an overflowing river. A boat comes by, and the guy refuses to get in the boat, saying "God will save me". Another boat comes along and he says the same thing, choosing to stay on the roof. Finally a helicopter comes, and guy still says, "God will save me." Copter goes away, guy drowns. Guy's in heaven, saying to God "Why didn't you save me?" God says, "What are you talking about? I sent you two boats and a helicopter!"
I've heard this joke many times when theists want to make a point about how God moves through the mundane. But let's poke at this joke a little bit from the perspective of someone who is not omnipotent and who does not get to hear God give the punchline at the end--you know, regular people. What role does faith in God play in this anecdote? The only thing faith in God does is keep that man on the house to drown--an atheist would have been saved. This is the point we have been making all along; all faith is going to do is keep you on that house to drown. Until God is willing to have a clear dialogue to let you know EXACTLY what He means (not a monologue like all theists experience now), then you shouldn't trust what you THINK His promises are going to be; trust your fellow man who's trying to get you off of that house before you drown.
A guy's sitting on his roof, waiting for rescue from an overflowing river. A boat comes by, and the guy refuses to get in the boat, saying "God will save me". Another boat comes along and he says the same thing, choosing to stay on the roof. Finally a helicopter comes, and guy still says, "God will save me." Copter goes away, guy drowns. Guy's in heaven, saying to God "Why didn't you save me?" God says, "What are you talking about? I sent you two boats and a helicopter!"
I've heard this joke many times when theists want to make a point about how God moves through the mundane. But let's poke at this joke a little bit from the perspective of someone who is not omnipotent and who does not get to hear God give the punchline at the end--you know, regular people. What role does faith in God play in this anecdote? The only thing faith in God does is keep that man on the house to drown--an atheist would have been saved. This is the point we have been making all along; all faith is going to do is keep you on that house to drown. Until God is willing to have a clear dialogue to let you know EXACTLY what He means (not a monologue like all theists experience now), then you shouldn't trust what you THINK His promises are going to be; trust your fellow man who's trying to get you off of that house before you drown.
Barack Obama slams the Bible
"Even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools?" Obama said. "Would we go with James Dobson's or Al Sharpton's?" referring to the civil rights leader.
Dobson took aim at examples Obama cited in asking which Biblical passages should guide public policy — chapters like Leviticus, which Obama said suggests slavery is OK and eating shellfish is an abomination, or Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, "a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application."
"Folks haven't been reading their Bibles," Obama said.
I have always had my suspicions that he is an atheist. His mother, father, and stepfather were all indifferent or hostile toward religion.
READ THE ARTICLE
Dobson took aim at examples Obama cited in asking which Biblical passages should guide public policy — chapters like Leviticus, which Obama said suggests slavery is OK and eating shellfish is an abomination, or Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, "a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application."
"Folks haven't been reading their Bibles," Obama said.
I have always had my suspicions that he is an atheist. His mother, father, and stepfather were all indifferent or hostile toward religion.
READ THE ARTICLE
Three More Leave the Fold!
1. Oystein Elgaroy, a professor of astrophysics who formerly defended the Christian faith has become an Atheist. 2. William Lobdell was an Evangelical Christian journalist covering the religion beat for years before he left the fold. 3) Daniel Florien, of the new blog UnreasonableFaith.com (reminicent of William Lane Craig's book title) attended Bible college to be a pastor. Here is one of his posts denying the virgin birth of Jesus.
Billy Graham Now Believes People of All Religions (Or None) May Wind Up in Heaven, Admits He Can't Judge.
Transcript of Rev. Billy Graham's conversation with Rev. Schuller on "The Hour of Power" TV program:
Schuller: "Tell me, what is the future of Christianity?"
Billy Graham: "Well, Christianity and being a true believer, you know, I think there's the body of Christ which comes from all the Christian groups around the world, or outside the Christian groups. I think that everybody that loves Christ or knows Christ, whether they're conscious of it or not, they're members of the body of Christ. And I don't think that we're going to see a great sweeping revival that will turn the whole world to Christ at any time. What God is doing today is calling people out of the world for His name. Whether they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist world, or the Christian world, or the non-believing world, they are members of the body of Christ because they've been called by God. They may not even know the name of Jesus, but they know in their hearts they need something that they don't have and they turn to the only light they have and I think they're saved and they're going to be with us in heaven." [So Graham has apparently adopted the "anonymous Christian" view defended by liberal Catholic theologians like Hans Kung. I also suspect that Graham's view may have been influenced by seeing good friends die without becoming born again Evangelical Christians, including lifelong friend and fellow-evangelist-turned-agnostic, Charles Templeton, succumb to Alzheimer's.--E.T.B.]
Schuller: "What I hear you saying is that it's possible for Jesus Christ to come into a human heart and soul and life even if they've been born in darkness and have never had exposure to the Bible. Is that a correct interpretation of what you're saying?"
Graham: "Yes it is because I believe that. I've met people in various parts of the world in tribal situations that they have never seen a Bible or heard about a Bible, have never heard of Jesus but they've believed in their hearts that there is a God and they tried to live a life that was quite apart from the surrounding community in which they lived."
Schuller: "This is fantastic. I'm so thrilled to hear you say that. There's a wideness in God's mercy.
Graham: There is. There definitely is."
[SOURCE: The Hour of Power television program #1426, "Say 'Yes' To Possibility Thinking," aired May 32, 1997]
"When asked whether he believes heaven will be closed to good Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus or secular people... Graham says:
'Those are decisions only the Lord will make. It would be foolish for me to speculate on who will be there and who won't... I don't want to speculate about all that. I believe the love of God is absolute. He said he gave his son for the whole world, and I think he loves everybody regardless of what label they have.'"
[SOURCE: Jon Meacham, Pilgrim’s Progress: In the Twilight, Billy Graham Shares What He’s Learned in Reflecting on Politics and Scripture, Old Age and Death, Mysteries and Moderation, Newsweek, Oct. 15, 2007]
Check out these videos concerning Billy Graham on YouTube:
This one provides the above "Hour of Power" video.
On Larry King Live
John MacArthur talking about Billy Graham's stance.
OTHER WAYS IN WHICH GRAHAM'S VIEWS HAVE MELLOWED OVER THE YEARS
Rev. Graham was caught on the “Nixon tapes” complaining to the president about “the Jews” and their “stranglehold” on the media, and blaming them for “all the pornography.” Even after the president replied that he agreed but “you can’t say that” in public, Graham pressed the point: Yes, right, but if you get elected to a second term, then we could do something about the problem. Graham added that while many Jews were friendly to him, “they don’t know how I really feel about what they are doing to this country.” [After the Nixon tapes came to light Graham said he had no memory of ever having said such a thing, but none the less he apologized profusely multiple times after hearing them for himself.]
[SOURCE: David Vest, The Rebel Angel, ‘They Don’t Know How I Really Feel’ Billy Graham, Tangled Up in Tape, March 5, 2002, Counterpunch]
In 1965, Billy Graham dismissed demonstrations for peace in Vietnam, saying, “It seems the only way to gain attention today is to organize a march and protest something.”
[SOURCE: Jon Meacham, Pilgrim’s Progress: In the Twilight, Billy Graham Shares What He’s Learned in Reflecting on Politics and Scripture, Old Age and Death, Mysteries and Moderation, Newsweek]
Rev. Graham was caught on the Nixon tapes giving a wholehearted thumbs up to the controversial plan by some of president Nixon’s military advisors to “bomb the damns” in North Vietnam which would have drowned many and starved a million or more North Vietnamese by draining the water used for their rice paddies. (The plan was never carried out.)
[SOURCE: Alexander Cockburn, The Lord’s Avenger: When Billy Graham Wanted to Kill One Million People, March 12, 2002, Counterpunch]
Questionnaire and Survey Results: Liberalism is the Way to Go!
A major survey by the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life finds that most Americans have a non-dogmatic approach to faith. A majority of those who are affiliated with a religion, for instance, do not believe their religion is the only way to salvation.And almost the same number believes that there is more than one true way to interpret the teachings of their religion. This openness to a range of religious viewpoints is in line with the great diversity of religious affiliation, belief and practice that exists in the United States, as documented in a survey of more than 35,000 Americans that comprehensively examines the country’s religious landscape.
This is not to suggest that Americans do not take religion seriously. The U.S. Religious Landscape Survey also shows that more than half of Americans say religion is very important in their lives, attend religious services regularly and pray daily. Furthermore, a plurality of adults who are affiliated with a religion want their religion to preserve its traditional beliefs and practices rather than either adjust to new circumstances or adopt modern beliefs and practices. Moreover, significant minorities across nearly all religious traditions see a conflict between being a devout person and living in a modern society.
The Landscape Survey confirms the close link between Americans' religious affiliation, beliefs and practices, on the one hand, and their social and political attitudes, on the other. Indeed, the survey demonstrates that the social and political fault lines in American society run through, as well as alongside, religious traditions. The relationship between religion and politics is particularly strong with respect to political ideology and views on social issues such as abortion and homosexuality, with the more religiously committed adherents across several religious traditions expressing more conservative political views. On other issues included in the survey, such as environmental protection, foreign affairs, and the proper size and role of government, differences based on religion tend to be smaller.
Religion in America: Non-Dogmatic, Diverse and Politically Relevant
Most Americans agree with the statement that many religions – not just their own – can lead to eternal life. Among those who are affiliated with a religious tradition, seven-in-ten say many religions can lead to eternal life. This view is shared by a majority of adherents in nearly all religious traditions, including more than half of members of evangelical Protestant churches (57%). Only among Mormons (57%) and Jehovah’s Witnesses (80%) do majorities say that their own religion is the one true faith leading to eternal life.
Most Americans also have a non-dogmatic approach when it comes to interpreting the tenets of their own religion. For instance, more than two-thirds of adults affiliated with a religious tradition agree that there is more than one true way to interpret the teachings of their faith, a pattern that occurs in nearly all traditions. The exceptions are Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses, 54% and 77% of whom, respectively, say there is only one true way to interpret the teachings of their religion.
The lack of dogmatism in American religion may well reflect the great diversity of religious affiliation, beliefs and practices in the U.S. For example, while more than nine-in-ten Americans (92%) believe in the existence of God or a universal spirit, there is considerable variation in the nature and certainty of this belief. Six-in-ten adults believe that God is a person with whom people can have a relationship; but one-in-four – including about half of Jews and Hindus – see God as an impersonal force. And while roughly seven-in-ten Americans say they are absolutely certain of God’s existence, more than one-in-five (22%) are less certain in their belief.
A similar pattern is evident in views of the Bible. Nearly two-thirds of the public (63%) takes the view that their faith’s sacred texts are the word of God. But those who believe Scripture represents the word of God are roughly evenly divided between those who say it should be interpreted literally, word for word (33%), and those who say it should not be taken literally (27%). And more than a quarter of adults – including two-thirds of Buddhists (67%) and about half of Jews (53%) – say their faith’s sacred texts are written by men and are not the word of God.
The diversity in religious beliefs and practices in the U.S. in part reflects the great variety of religious groups that populate the American religious landscape. The survey finds, for example, that some religious groups – including Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses and members of historically black and evangelical Protestant churches – tend to be more likely to report high levels of religious engagement on questions such as the importance of religion in their lives, certainty of belief in God and frequency of attendance at religious services. Other Christian groups – notably members of mainline Protestant churches and Catholics – are less likely to report such attitudes, beliefs and practices. And still other faiths – including Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims – exhibit their own special mix of religious beliefs and practices.
The Landscape Survey also reveals that people who are not affiliated with a particular religious tradition do not necessarily lack religious beliefs or practices. In fact, a large portion (41%) of the unaffiliated population says religion is at least somewhat important in their lives, seven-in-ten say they believe in God, and more than a quarter (27%) say they attend religious services at least a few times a year.
The findings of the Landscape Survey underscore the importance of affiliation with a particular tradition for understanding not only people’s religious beliefs and practices but also their basic social and political views. For instance, Mormons and members of evangelical churches tend to be more conservative in their political ideology, while Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and atheists tend to be more politically liberal than the population overall. But the survey shows that there are important differences within religious traditions as well, based on a number of factors, including the importance of religion in people’s lives, the nature and certainty of their belief in God, and their frequency of prayer and attendance at worship services.
One of the realities of politics in the U.S. today is that people who regularly attend worship services and hold traditional religious views are much more likely to hold conservative political views while those who are less connected to religious institutions and more secular in their outlook are more likely to hold liberal political views.
The connection between religious intensity and political attitudes appears to be especially strong when it comes to issues such as abortion and homosexuality. About six-in-ten Americans who attend religious services at least once a week say abortion should be illegal in most or all cases, while only about three-in-ten who attend less often share this view. This pattern holds across a variety of religious traditions. For instance, nearly three-in-four (73%) members of evangelical churches who attend church at least once a week say abortion should be illegal in most or all cases, compared with only 45% of members of evangelical churches who attend church less frequently.
These are among the key findings of a major survey on religion and American life conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life between May 8 and Aug. 13, 2007, among a representative sample of more than 35,000 Americans. The first report based on the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey was issued in February 2008 and focused on the religious affiliation of the American people, including the impact of immigration and changes in affiliation. This report provides information on the core religious beliefs and practices as well as the basic social and political views of the various religious traditions in the U.S. as well as people who are not affiliated with a particular religion.
The report includes information on members of many religious groups – such as Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, atheists and agnostics – that are too small to be analyzed in most public opinion surveys. More detailed tables, provided in an appendix to this report, also summarize the basic beliefs, practices, and social and political attitudes of a dozen Protestant denominational families and 25 of the largest Protestant denominations in the U.S. These detailed tables also include information on what the survey classifies as “other Christians,” which includes such smaller groups as Spiritualists and other Metaphysical Christians, as well as on members of a variety of other faiths, including Unitarians and New Age groups.
This is not to suggest that Americans do not take religion seriously. The U.S. Religious Landscape Survey also shows that more than half of Americans say religion is very important in their lives, attend religious services regularly and pray daily. Furthermore, a plurality of adults who are affiliated with a religion want their religion to preserve its traditional beliefs and practices rather than either adjust to new circumstances or adopt modern beliefs and practices. Moreover, significant minorities across nearly all religious traditions see a conflict between being a devout person and living in a modern society.
The Landscape Survey confirms the close link between Americans' religious affiliation, beliefs and practices, on the one hand, and their social and political attitudes, on the other. Indeed, the survey demonstrates that the social and political fault lines in American society run through, as well as alongside, religious traditions. The relationship between religion and politics is particularly strong with respect to political ideology and views on social issues such as abortion and homosexuality, with the more religiously committed adherents across several religious traditions expressing more conservative political views. On other issues included in the survey, such as environmental protection, foreign affairs, and the proper size and role of government, differences based on religion tend to be smaller.
Religion in America: Non-Dogmatic, Diverse and Politically Relevant
Most Americans agree with the statement that many religions – not just their own – can lead to eternal life. Among those who are affiliated with a religious tradition, seven-in-ten say many religions can lead to eternal life. This view is shared by a majority of adherents in nearly all religious traditions, including more than half of members of evangelical Protestant churches (57%). Only among Mormons (57%) and Jehovah’s Witnesses (80%) do majorities say that their own religion is the one true faith leading to eternal life.
Most Americans also have a non-dogmatic approach when it comes to interpreting the tenets of their own religion. For instance, more than two-thirds of adults affiliated with a religious tradition agree that there is more than one true way to interpret the teachings of their faith, a pattern that occurs in nearly all traditions. The exceptions are Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses, 54% and 77% of whom, respectively, say there is only one true way to interpret the teachings of their religion.
The lack of dogmatism in American religion may well reflect the great diversity of religious affiliation, beliefs and practices in the U.S. For example, while more than nine-in-ten Americans (92%) believe in the existence of God or a universal spirit, there is considerable variation in the nature and certainty of this belief. Six-in-ten adults believe that God is a person with whom people can have a relationship; but one-in-four – including about half of Jews and Hindus – see God as an impersonal force. And while roughly seven-in-ten Americans say they are absolutely certain of God’s existence, more than one-in-five (22%) are less certain in their belief.
A similar pattern is evident in views of the Bible. Nearly two-thirds of the public (63%) takes the view that their faith’s sacred texts are the word of God. But those who believe Scripture represents the word of God are roughly evenly divided between those who say it should be interpreted literally, word for word (33%), and those who say it should not be taken literally (27%). And more than a quarter of adults – including two-thirds of Buddhists (67%) and about half of Jews (53%) – say their faith’s sacred texts are written by men and are not the word of God.
The diversity in religious beliefs and practices in the U.S. in part reflects the great variety of religious groups that populate the American religious landscape. The survey finds, for example, that some religious groups – including Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses and members of historically black and evangelical Protestant churches – tend to be more likely to report high levels of religious engagement on questions such as the importance of religion in their lives, certainty of belief in God and frequency of attendance at religious services. Other Christian groups – notably members of mainline Protestant churches and Catholics – are less likely to report such attitudes, beliefs and practices. And still other faiths – including Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims – exhibit their own special mix of religious beliefs and practices.
The Landscape Survey also reveals that people who are not affiliated with a particular religious tradition do not necessarily lack religious beliefs or practices. In fact, a large portion (41%) of the unaffiliated population says religion is at least somewhat important in their lives, seven-in-ten say they believe in God, and more than a quarter (27%) say they attend religious services at least a few times a year.
The findings of the Landscape Survey underscore the importance of affiliation with a particular tradition for understanding not only people’s religious beliefs and practices but also their basic social and political views. For instance, Mormons and members of evangelical churches tend to be more conservative in their political ideology, while Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and atheists tend to be more politically liberal than the population overall. But the survey shows that there are important differences within religious traditions as well, based on a number of factors, including the importance of religion in people’s lives, the nature and certainty of their belief in God, and their frequency of prayer and attendance at worship services.
One of the realities of politics in the U.S. today is that people who regularly attend worship services and hold traditional religious views are much more likely to hold conservative political views while those who are less connected to religious institutions and more secular in their outlook are more likely to hold liberal political views.
The connection between religious intensity and political attitudes appears to be especially strong when it comes to issues such as abortion and homosexuality. About six-in-ten Americans who attend religious services at least once a week say abortion should be illegal in most or all cases, while only about three-in-ten who attend less often share this view. This pattern holds across a variety of religious traditions. For instance, nearly three-in-four (73%) members of evangelical churches who attend church at least once a week say abortion should be illegal in most or all cases, compared with only 45% of members of evangelical churches who attend church less frequently.
These are among the key findings of a major survey on religion and American life conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life between May 8 and Aug. 13, 2007, among a representative sample of more than 35,000 Americans. The first report based on the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey was issued in February 2008 and focused on the religious affiliation of the American people, including the impact of immigration and changes in affiliation. This report provides information on the core religious beliefs and practices as well as the basic social and political views of the various religious traditions in the U.S. as well as people who are not affiliated with a particular religion.
The report includes information on members of many religious groups – such as Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, atheists and agnostics – that are too small to be analyzed in most public opinion surveys. More detailed tables, provided in an appendix to this report, also summarize the basic beliefs, practices, and social and political attitudes of a dozen Protestant denominational families and 25 of the largest Protestant denominations in the U.S. These detailed tables also include information on what the survey classifies as “other Christians,” which includes such smaller groups as Spiritualists and other Metaphysical Christians, as well as on members of a variety of other faiths, including Unitarians and New Age groups.
A Great Man has Died!
Just a few hours ago, I got some very, very bad news. I felt like I’d been kicked in the stomach when I read it. My eyes saw it, but seemed slow to want to comprehend it. “How could it be?” I said to myself. “He had such high energy, such vibrancy, such a house-rocking stage presence!” No, I didn’t know him personally, but I sure knew of his work. I’m a huge fan!
Then, as I sat there and soaked the news in, I realized it had to be true. He was 71 and had a history of heart trouble. But he lived a rich, full life, and as with all things, there is an end to come. That’s really all there is to it. But…that’s not all there is to it! No sir! No maam! There’s so much to this man that no one article could possibly express it.
He was the paladin of profanity, the oratory athlete of atheism, the crowned prince of common sense, and a whispering wind of wisdom to all who gave ear. I’m talking about none other than comedian George Carlin who died at Saint John’s Medical Center in Santa Monica, California just yesterday. Only a week ago, he was on stage, doing what he did best. A week later, he’s complaining of chest pains and being admitted to the hospital, and finally, being deserted by that defective blood pump in his chest.
Hate him if you want to, tell him he’s going to hell if you so choose, but don’t say you weren’t moved to chuckle a time or two at his ostentatious observations. The man made a difference like few have or could have; he pushed until it gave; he stretched the limits and then some; he was court marshaled a number of times, fired, and was constantly being called out and faulted for being who he was. On one occasion, he was arrested for disturbing the peace after performing on stage. But he won four Grammys, was nominated for five Emmys, wrote three renowned books, produced twenty-three comedy albums, made fourteen HBO specials, put a few TV shows under his belt, and even appeared in prominent parts in a number of big movies. And let’s not forget that it was George Carlin who hosted the very first episode of Saturday Night Live!
Carlin taught us all a lot—comedians will do that! But what Carlin assured me of most of all is two things; first, that truly great men tend to be movers and shakers and will kick against the pricks of normalcy until it hurts; but second, Carlin taught me who the real BEST debaters are on the planet. As a former seminary student – young, wet-behind-the-ears, and always obsessed down to the bone with debate and intellectually outclassing my opponents – I wondered for so long what group could consistently outclass their adversaries and make them look like blithering, blockheaded fools on the podium.
Well, it certainly wasn’t the debate students or teachers in the colleges. And it certainly wasn’t the elitist theologians, and it’s not even the atheists. Nope, if you really want to get your ass handed to you in a debate, challenge a comedian! Go on! See what happens! Carlin defined an entire genre of teachers, educators who employ the use of those teaspoons of sugar called humor and irony to help the “medicine” of knowledge go down. It’s the honesty of comedians that really sets them apart from the rest of us, with our cold formalities and superficial codes of conduct that tend to hide the answers to so many of life’s hard truths.
It was the George Carlins of this world who taught a fearful, sex-abhorring, body-hating, Bible-loving public that certain body parts are not evil and should be able to be exposed just like all the other parts. It was the George Carlins of this world who let us know how dippy and stupid our society is to isolate a certain set of “seven words” to keep them from being said in public. From Carlin we learned that being offended by anything as small as profanity is totally senseless and dumb, and that only people with oatmeal for brains will be. It was comedians like Carlin who softened us up to accepting that religion is completely man-made and man-driven—from start to finish. The gods are fair game; it’s okay to doubt them, to joke about them, and to use their holy books as a means to even-out wobbly tables or for toilet paper!
It was from comedians like Carlin that we learned that the world will not end if we are made uncomfortable by what someone else says, that it’s okay to say out-loud those obtuse thoughts in our own heads that we are embarrassed to verbalize. It’s okay to express yourself just as surely as it is to reason freely about every facet of reality. If the gods were real, they’d bless George Carlin and those like him for their honesty, for being courageous, for making sport of sacred silliness, for being lighthearted about our dark natures, for casting aspersions at monotonous norms, and for frustrating the goddamn hell out of those on the far right. Such triumphant souls pave the way for the rest of us to open up and to laugh at life, to be ourselves and to be better communicators. If I can accomplish 1/8th of what George has done, I’ll call myself a witty man.
Rest in Peace, George.
(JH)
Then, as I sat there and soaked the news in, I realized it had to be true. He was 71 and had a history of heart trouble. But he lived a rich, full life, and as with all things, there is an end to come. That’s really all there is to it. But…that’s not all there is to it! No sir! No maam! There’s so much to this man that no one article could possibly express it.
He was the paladin of profanity, the oratory athlete of atheism, the crowned prince of common sense, and a whispering wind of wisdom to all who gave ear. I’m talking about none other than comedian George Carlin who died at Saint John’s Medical Center in Santa Monica, California just yesterday. Only a week ago, he was on stage, doing what he did best. A week later, he’s complaining of chest pains and being admitted to the hospital, and finally, being deserted by that defective blood pump in his chest.
Hate him if you want to, tell him he’s going to hell if you so choose, but don’t say you weren’t moved to chuckle a time or two at his ostentatious observations. The man made a difference like few have or could have; he pushed until it gave; he stretched the limits and then some; he was court marshaled a number of times, fired, and was constantly being called out and faulted for being who he was. On one occasion, he was arrested for disturbing the peace after performing on stage. But he won four Grammys, was nominated for five Emmys, wrote three renowned books, produced twenty-three comedy albums, made fourteen HBO specials, put a few TV shows under his belt, and even appeared in prominent parts in a number of big movies. And let’s not forget that it was George Carlin who hosted the very first episode of Saturday Night Live!
Carlin taught us all a lot—comedians will do that! But what Carlin assured me of most of all is two things; first, that truly great men tend to be movers and shakers and will kick against the pricks of normalcy until it hurts; but second, Carlin taught me who the real BEST debaters are on the planet. As a former seminary student – young, wet-behind-the-ears, and always obsessed down to the bone with debate and intellectually outclassing my opponents – I wondered for so long what group could consistently outclass their adversaries and make them look like blithering, blockheaded fools on the podium.
Well, it certainly wasn’t the debate students or teachers in the colleges. And it certainly wasn’t the elitist theologians, and it’s not even the atheists. Nope, if you really want to get your ass handed to you in a debate, challenge a comedian! Go on! See what happens! Carlin defined an entire genre of teachers, educators who employ the use of those teaspoons of sugar called humor and irony to help the “medicine” of knowledge go down. It’s the honesty of comedians that really sets them apart from the rest of us, with our cold formalities and superficial codes of conduct that tend to hide the answers to so many of life’s hard truths.
It was the George Carlins of this world who taught a fearful, sex-abhorring, body-hating, Bible-loving public that certain body parts are not evil and should be able to be exposed just like all the other parts. It was the George Carlins of this world who let us know how dippy and stupid our society is to isolate a certain set of “seven words” to keep them from being said in public. From Carlin we learned that being offended by anything as small as profanity is totally senseless and dumb, and that only people with oatmeal for brains will be. It was comedians like Carlin who softened us up to accepting that religion is completely man-made and man-driven—from start to finish. The gods are fair game; it’s okay to doubt them, to joke about them, and to use their holy books as a means to even-out wobbly tables or for toilet paper!
It was from comedians like Carlin that we learned that the world will not end if we are made uncomfortable by what someone else says, that it’s okay to say out-loud those obtuse thoughts in our own heads that we are embarrassed to verbalize. It’s okay to express yourself just as surely as it is to reason freely about every facet of reality. If the gods were real, they’d bless George Carlin and those like him for their honesty, for being courageous, for making sport of sacred silliness, for being lighthearted about our dark natures, for casting aspersions at monotonous norms, and for frustrating the goddamn hell out of those on the far right. Such triumphant souls pave the way for the rest of us to open up and to laugh at life, to be ourselves and to be better communicators. If I can accomplish 1/8th of what George has done, I’ll call myself a witty man.
Rest in Peace, George.
(JH)
William Lane Craig Debates Bill Cooke on the Existence of God
The other 11 episodes can be found right there.
The Fall of the Evangelical Nation: The Surprising Crisis Inside the Church by Christine Wicker
Christine Wicker has a blog one may subscribe to via RSS or Google Reader that keeps abreast of the book's latest reviews and reader's comments. Meanwhile, Steve Locks, at Leaving Christianity has done us the favor of reading her book and summing up its contents...The author is a Christian of sorts, an ex-Southern Baptist and ex-evangelical, but still a mild believer (she has a mini-testimony at the end of the book) saying that she accepts Jesus as her saviour and would count her self as born again on certain days when she is in the mood for it! She also prays when she wants to but has many doubts and disagreements with the church.
Her data comes from interviews with leading Christians, polls and published studies. If you want her references for any of these below, let me know.
Here are a few notes of interest that I found within it:
* Church attendance figures are inflated as many Christians attend more than one church and are multiply counted.
* Roughly 1,000 evangelicals leave Christianity altogether every day and don’t come back. As a whole American Christians lose 6,000 members a day (i.e. the other 5,000 going onto their own private views of religion – leaving organized religion, whilst maintaining some unorthodox religious belief like Christine Wicker, the author).
* Conservative religious causes and spokesmen are over-represented on TV as they are featured 3 times more often in TV and print reports than moderate and progressive Christians.
* The proportion of Christians who subscribe to all core evangelical beliefs is about 25%.
* The fastest growing “religious group” in America is non-believers.
* There are twice as many people claiming no religion as there are participating evangelicals that have made the religious right powerful.
* Southern Baptist growth isn’t keeping up with population growth and it hasn’t for years.
* 86% of baptisms are of people who are already Christians. (i.e. Christians “changing brands” rather than conversions of unbelievers).
* In the remaining 14% baptisms are going down in every group except children under five.
* Southern Baptist baptisms were 100,000 in 1980 but 60,000 in 2005.
* Evangelicals are slightly more likely to believe that astrology impacts one’s life (13.6%) than Americans as a whole (12.3%).
* Mega-churches are often heavily dept-laden and suffer particularly when an influential pastor retires or dies, or the local population demographics change.
* 11% of Americans identify with the religious right.
* 20% of evangelicals identify with the religious right.
* Some evangelicals blame the Internet for allowing people to think differently about Christianity. (note: exactly as Farrell Till predicted in The Skeptical Review many years ago!)
Steve Locks, Leaving Christianity
cock crowing contradiction
Perhaps more than any contradiction in the Bible, the cock crowing contradiction has attracted its share of how-it-could-have-been-scenarios. This is my response to one apology. Comments are welcome.
Shortly before the crucifixion, Jesus tells Peter that he will choose to disavow any knowledge of Jesus on three occasions. After these events manifest, a cock will crow to remind him of Jesus’ words. In the books of Matthew, Luke, and John, Jesus warns Peter that all three of his denials will take place before the cock crows. In these three accounts, the situation unfolds exactly how Jesus predicted. The cock crows after, and only after, Peter’s third denial is made in accordance with what Jesus states, “the cock will not crow until you have denied me three times.” However, the details are different in Mark. Here, we see Jesus warning Peter that he will deny their friendship three times before the cock crows twice. Of course, this is exactly how the events play out in Mark. The cock crows after the first denial and again after the third denial. This is an undeniable contradiction without a rational explanation. If Mark is correct, the cock must have crowed after the first denial – even though Jesus said, in the other three Gospels, that it would not crow until after the third denial. If these three Gospels are accurate, Mark is wrong because the cock could not have crowed until after all three of Peter’s denials. How does the apologist handle this one?
What it runs down to, in terms of weight of evidence, is that 14:30 and 14:72 are likely to have been part of Mark originally, whereas the key verse in 14:68 (“and the cock crew”) is not, and was likely added to make the fulfillment of Jesus’ prediction more exact.
In other words, someone added a crowing at a later date. Mark 14:68, which takes place after the first denial but before the next two denials, reads, “But he denied, saying, I know not, neither understand I what thou sayest. And he went out into the porch; and the cock crew.” The apologist asserts that the last part of the verse, “and the cock crew,” was “added to make the fulfillment of Jesus’ prediction more exact.” When all else fails, he claims that the Bible says something God did not want it to say. If a phrase gives him trouble, the apologist throws it out and internally justifies his best reason for doing so.[see note at bottom] This is confirmation bias in its finest hour. The apologist does not thoroughly scrutinize the Bible before drawing a conclusion on its infallibility; he begins with the premise of its infallibility and subsequently makes excuses for its errors in order to remain consistent with his premise. What book could we not hold as infallible by employing such disingenuous methods? Practices like these render the idea of an inerrant text meaningless.
That said, what of the fact that the other gospels do not say “twice”? Strictly speaking, there is no contradiction in action, since of course if Peter denied before the cock crowed once, he also did it before the cock crowed twice!
And the same would be true if the cock had crowed three, four, five, or seventy-two times, but does it make any sense for the author to say that the cock would crow twice (or three, or four, or five, or seventy-two times) if the three denials all took place before the first crow? Of what relevance is the second crowing, and why is it worth mentioning? The passage in Mark says it would crow twice for an obvious textual reason, but this is the rationalization that we receive after the apologist has removed the part from the other verse that is not convenient to his cause. Now that the apologist has made the first crowing disappear from existence and offered a weak explanation for the mention of two crowings instead of one, we must consider whether Jesus actually said that the cock would crow once or twice in the other three Gospels. We will let the apologist tie his own rope…
In that light, I would suggest that Mark offers the original verbiage of the prediction (as might be expected, if Mark is recording from Peter), while the other gospels contain a modified and simplified oral tradition that follows the usual oral-tradition pattern.
Does the apologist not see that he just admitted that the divinely inspired text, in addition to being contradictory at face value, is not fully consistent with what happened? How convenient is it that not one of the four Gospels registers the accurate account of the alleged two consecutive crowings after the third denial, even though one Gospel specifically registers two crowings in the prediction? Apparently, the author of Mark made it only half way. He did not fall victim to simplified oral tradition when he remembered to include the second crowing in Jesus’ prediction but did fall victim to simplified oral tradition when recording the actual crowing. Since the apologist removed the second crowing in Mark because it was “added” in the wrong place, the author apparently had the cognizance to include specifically two crowings in the prediction but only one crowing in the occurrence. So why did the author mention two crowings in the prediction when the detail was not important enough to include in the occurrence – and not important enough for the other three authors to include in the prediction or the occurrence? Why did the declaration of two crowings survive the telephone game when the resolution, just a few verses later, fell victim? It appears that the apologist did not bother thinking ahead.
If we are to simply brush the textual connotations off as a disparity due to the simplified oral tradition found in seven out of the eight Gospel occurrences, why not just say that the story details themselves are different due to the same shortcomings of oral tradition? Mark is internally consistent. Matthew, Luke, and John are internally consistent and consistent among each other. The only problem is that Mark is not consistent with the other three. The simplest answer is that Mark made a simple error. The apologist, on the other hand, would have his audience believe that three of the Gospels are modified and simplified oral traditions that are not fully consistent with the actual events – and that the fourth account is partly affected by oral tradition and partly tampered with after God inspired a perfect record of what actually happened. He readily admits that oral tradition is fallible, played a role in the formation of the current text, and was responsible for crucial details being left out, yet the apologist will not allow the skeptic to use the same reason, the fallibility of oral tradition, to explain the error already in the text – simply because the apologist predetermined that the earliest manuscripts, which he has never seen, were free from error.
Within this context, this is not considered a “contradiction” or “error” – no ancient reader would have thought this!
A different apologist once offered me this explanation for why Gospel writers attributed Old Testament sayings to the wrong prophets. Since other readers of the day thought the misattributions were factually correct, and since no ancient reader would have called the authors on their mistakes, no errors were apparently committed. I hope even the most novice of readers can appreciate the absurdity of such an argument. It does not matter what ancient readers reach as a consensus. What matters is whether the recorded facts are consistent with reality. If they are not, they are in error.
I do not care whether ancient readers would have considered the cock crowing stories contradictory; I care whether we can regard all four as consistent with reality. The apologist has to omit part from one version without any justification whatsoever, declare that the other three versions are missing a key detail because they were products of a “modified and simplified oral tradition,” and still has to explain why Mark considered the second crowing important enough to mention in the prediction but not in the occurrence. I ask again, what book could we not hold as infallible by employing such disingenuous methods? Inerrancy would lose all meaning.
A cock’s crowing lasted as long as five minutes and occurred at all hours; as Cicero wrote: “Is there any time, night or day, that cocks do not crow?” The “second” cockcrowing was usually associated with the dawn.
And this is relevant, how? Jesus specifically stated that the cock would not crow until the third denial. Regardless of whether the cock had been crowing all day and night, it is only reasonable to assume that it would not be crowing once the denials started, hence the statement that it would not crow. Otherwise, Jesus was wrong by suggesting that it would not. So why would the apologist even mention this bit about a cock typically crowing all day? Was it with the hope that it would further complicate the issue and prevent the audience from thinking critically about the issue? I can only suppose that the desperation of his predicament drove him to offer such worthless evidence for his position. But I suppose that once you naively accept the existence of a genocidal god who can read your mind and punish you for not believing in him, the rest just makes sense.
[note]Since the apologist argues by assertion instead of argumentation, I will have to speculate on his reasoning. The duplicate crowing in Mark 14:68 (along with segments of dozens of other verses) do not appear in one of the two oldest (currently) discovered manuscripts from the fourth century. This manuscript, Codex Vaticanus, stands in contrast to other early extant manuscripts that contain the duplicate crowings as well as all major English translations that chose to include them. As it stands, God apparently lets the majority of the world think for centuries that Mark had two crowings. We will discover an enormous problem for Christians, much later in this book, if they wish to appeal to the inerrancy of the Codex Vaticanus manuscript. In short, the apologist is not arguing for weight of evidence, but obviously for the sake of maintaining inerrancy. The apologist would probably like to appeal to the other oldest (currently) discovered manuscript, Codex Sinaiticus, since it omits all three duplicate crowings in Mark 14, but he likely knows that it is greatly corrupted. Furthermore, we begin to see the stupidity in arguing for biblical inerrancy when the closest documents we have to the originals are heavily edited copies made centuries after the events they report.
Shortly before the crucifixion, Jesus tells Peter that he will choose to disavow any knowledge of Jesus on three occasions. After these events manifest, a cock will crow to remind him of Jesus’ words. In the books of Matthew, Luke, and John, Jesus warns Peter that all three of his denials will take place before the cock crows. In these three accounts, the situation unfolds exactly how Jesus predicted. The cock crows after, and only after, Peter’s third denial is made in accordance with what Jesus states, “the cock will not crow until you have denied me three times.” However, the details are different in Mark. Here, we see Jesus warning Peter that he will deny their friendship three times before the cock crows twice. Of course, this is exactly how the events play out in Mark. The cock crows after the first denial and again after the third denial. This is an undeniable contradiction without a rational explanation. If Mark is correct, the cock must have crowed after the first denial – even though Jesus said, in the other three Gospels, that it would not crow until after the third denial. If these three Gospels are accurate, Mark is wrong because the cock could not have crowed until after all three of Peter’s denials. How does the apologist handle this one?
What it runs down to, in terms of weight of evidence, is that 14:30 and 14:72 are likely to have been part of Mark originally, whereas the key verse in 14:68 (“and the cock crew”) is not, and was likely added to make the fulfillment of Jesus’ prediction more exact.
In other words, someone added a crowing at a later date. Mark 14:68, which takes place after the first denial but before the next two denials, reads, “But he denied, saying, I know not, neither understand I what thou sayest. And he went out into the porch; and the cock crew.” The apologist asserts that the last part of the verse, “and the cock crew,” was “added to make the fulfillment of Jesus’ prediction more exact.” When all else fails, he claims that the Bible says something God did not want it to say. If a phrase gives him trouble, the apologist throws it out and internally justifies his best reason for doing so.[see note at bottom] This is confirmation bias in its finest hour. The apologist does not thoroughly scrutinize the Bible before drawing a conclusion on its infallibility; he begins with the premise of its infallibility and subsequently makes excuses for its errors in order to remain consistent with his premise. What book could we not hold as infallible by employing such disingenuous methods? Practices like these render the idea of an inerrant text meaningless.
That said, what of the fact that the other gospels do not say “twice”? Strictly speaking, there is no contradiction in action, since of course if Peter denied before the cock crowed once, he also did it before the cock crowed twice!
And the same would be true if the cock had crowed three, four, five, or seventy-two times, but does it make any sense for the author to say that the cock would crow twice (or three, or four, or five, or seventy-two times) if the three denials all took place before the first crow? Of what relevance is the second crowing, and why is it worth mentioning? The passage in Mark says it would crow twice for an obvious textual reason, but this is the rationalization that we receive after the apologist has removed the part from the other verse that is not convenient to his cause. Now that the apologist has made the first crowing disappear from existence and offered a weak explanation for the mention of two crowings instead of one, we must consider whether Jesus actually said that the cock would crow once or twice in the other three Gospels. We will let the apologist tie his own rope…
In that light, I would suggest that Mark offers the original verbiage of the prediction (as might be expected, if Mark is recording from Peter), while the other gospels contain a modified and simplified oral tradition that follows the usual oral-tradition pattern.
Does the apologist not see that he just admitted that the divinely inspired text, in addition to being contradictory at face value, is not fully consistent with what happened? How convenient is it that not one of the four Gospels registers the accurate account of the alleged two consecutive crowings after the third denial, even though one Gospel specifically registers two crowings in the prediction? Apparently, the author of Mark made it only half way. He did not fall victim to simplified oral tradition when he remembered to include the second crowing in Jesus’ prediction but did fall victim to simplified oral tradition when recording the actual crowing. Since the apologist removed the second crowing in Mark because it was “added” in the wrong place, the author apparently had the cognizance to include specifically two crowings in the prediction but only one crowing in the occurrence. So why did the author mention two crowings in the prediction when the detail was not important enough to include in the occurrence – and not important enough for the other three authors to include in the prediction or the occurrence? Why did the declaration of two crowings survive the telephone game when the resolution, just a few verses later, fell victim? It appears that the apologist did not bother thinking ahead.
If we are to simply brush the textual connotations off as a disparity due to the simplified oral tradition found in seven out of the eight Gospel occurrences, why not just say that the story details themselves are different due to the same shortcomings of oral tradition? Mark is internally consistent. Matthew, Luke, and John are internally consistent and consistent among each other. The only problem is that Mark is not consistent with the other three. The simplest answer is that Mark made a simple error. The apologist, on the other hand, would have his audience believe that three of the Gospels are modified and simplified oral traditions that are not fully consistent with the actual events – and that the fourth account is partly affected by oral tradition and partly tampered with after God inspired a perfect record of what actually happened. He readily admits that oral tradition is fallible, played a role in the formation of the current text, and was responsible for crucial details being left out, yet the apologist will not allow the skeptic to use the same reason, the fallibility of oral tradition, to explain the error already in the text – simply because the apologist predetermined that the earliest manuscripts, which he has never seen, were free from error.
Within this context, this is not considered a “contradiction” or “error” – no ancient reader would have thought this!
A different apologist once offered me this explanation for why Gospel writers attributed Old Testament sayings to the wrong prophets. Since other readers of the day thought the misattributions were factually correct, and since no ancient reader would have called the authors on their mistakes, no errors were apparently committed. I hope even the most novice of readers can appreciate the absurdity of such an argument. It does not matter what ancient readers reach as a consensus. What matters is whether the recorded facts are consistent with reality. If they are not, they are in error.
I do not care whether ancient readers would have considered the cock crowing stories contradictory; I care whether we can regard all four as consistent with reality. The apologist has to omit part from one version without any justification whatsoever, declare that the other three versions are missing a key detail because they were products of a “modified and simplified oral tradition,” and still has to explain why Mark considered the second crowing important enough to mention in the prediction but not in the occurrence. I ask again, what book could we not hold as infallible by employing such disingenuous methods? Inerrancy would lose all meaning.
A cock’s crowing lasted as long as five minutes and occurred at all hours; as Cicero wrote: “Is there any time, night or day, that cocks do not crow?” The “second” cockcrowing was usually associated with the dawn.
And this is relevant, how? Jesus specifically stated that the cock would not crow until the third denial. Regardless of whether the cock had been crowing all day and night, it is only reasonable to assume that it would not be crowing once the denials started, hence the statement that it would not crow. Otherwise, Jesus was wrong by suggesting that it would not. So why would the apologist even mention this bit about a cock typically crowing all day? Was it with the hope that it would further complicate the issue and prevent the audience from thinking critically about the issue? I can only suppose that the desperation of his predicament drove him to offer such worthless evidence for his position. But I suppose that once you naively accept the existence of a genocidal god who can read your mind and punish you for not believing in him, the rest just makes sense.
[note]Since the apologist argues by assertion instead of argumentation, I will have to speculate on his reasoning. The duplicate crowing in Mark 14:68 (along with segments of dozens of other verses) do not appear in one of the two oldest (currently) discovered manuscripts from the fourth century. This manuscript, Codex Vaticanus, stands in contrast to other early extant manuscripts that contain the duplicate crowings as well as all major English translations that chose to include them. As it stands, God apparently lets the majority of the world think for centuries that Mark had two crowings. We will discover an enormous problem for Christians, much later in this book, if they wish to appeal to the inerrancy of the Codex Vaticanus manuscript. In short, the apologist is not arguing for weight of evidence, but obviously for the sake of maintaining inerrancy. The apologist would probably like to appeal to the other oldest (currently) discovered manuscript, Codex Sinaiticus, since it omits all three duplicate crowings in Mark 14, but he likely knows that it is greatly corrupted. Furthermore, we begin to see the stupidity in arguing for biblical inerrancy when the closest documents we have to the originals are heavily edited copies made centuries after the events they report.
Avalos Contra Weikart: Part II: Weikart's Seven Darwinian Aspects of Nazism
Dr. Hector Avalos again responds to Dr. Weikart, below:
In Part I of the commentary on my debate with Dr. Weikart, I emphasized the general flaws that I see in his methodology. Here, I will concentrate on Dr. Weikart’s seven reasons for arguing that Darwinism was more important than Christian anti-Judaism in explaining Nazi ideology.
In Part I of the commentary on my debate with Dr. Weikart, I emphasized the general flaws that I see in his methodology. Here, I will concentrate on Dr. Weikart’s seven reasons for arguing that Darwinism was more important than Christian anti-Judaism in explaining Nazi ideology.
Faith vs Reason & the Role of Imagination in God Belief
Believers argue faith is a means of acquiring knowledge. Non-believers maintain that the source of knowledge springs from evidence. Which position makes sense? I attempt to answer in the following brief essay.
Faith and reason are incompatible. There is no room in reason for faith, and there is no room in faith for reason. (1) They are diametrically opposed. Reason is the faculty by which man identifies and integrates the material provided by or ultimately provided by his senses. Its method is called logic, which is the art of non-contradictory identification. "Reason integrates man's perceptions by means of forming abstractions or conceptions," wrote Ayn Rand in "Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World"; she continued: "thus raising man's knowledge from the perceptual level, which he shares with animals, to the conceptual level, which he alone can reach. The method which reason employs in this process is logic—and logic is the art of non-contradictory identification." She defined: "Reason is the perception of reality, and rests on a single axiom: the Law of Identity. - "Philosophy: Who Needs It" p.62. Reasoning is validated by observing that knowledge is derived from conceptions and that conceptions, in turn, are derived from perception. Actual measurable concrete observed existents related by valid logic lead to objective recognition of the facts of reality .
Mysticism, however, is the acceptance of allegations without evidence, against one's own reasoning, often despite the presence of evidence to the contrary. Its method is called faith, which is a short-circuit and abrogation of the mind. It is the numbing of one's own perception of existence and ultimately the rejection of one's own right to live. "Mysticism is the claim to some non-sensory, non-rational, non-definable, non-identifiable means of knowledge, such as "instinct," "intuition," "revelation," or any form of "just knowing." Mysticism is the claim to the perception of some other reality—other than the one in which we live—whose definition is only that it is not natural, it is supernatural, and is to be perceived by some form of unnatural or supernatural means." - Rand, (ibid p.62)
If evidence is available to support a claim, then a validating appeal to reason alleviates need for faith, then there is no need to dispense with the requirement of evidence in order to accept the claim as true. Exclusively, if there is no evidence in support of a claim and acceptance of the claim as justified knowledge is desired, then only by dismissing the requirement for evidential support, and accepting the claim in spite of the lack of evidence by "faith" can the claim be accorded truth status. Essentially, the process of believing by "faith" is a method of self-deceit. The Christian depends on a mystical epistemology of "faith". However, the Christian would, if there were evidence to support her claim that 'god exists', have no need to appeal to faith. She could appeal to reason, and since reason is a method based on perceptually ascertaining reality, her knowledge would be validated. Faith would then necessarily be a fallacy.
In Hebrews 11:1 faith is described: "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." What is meant by "substance of things hoped for"? What is meant by "evidence of things not seen"?
Can such a thing as 'substance' originating from hopes actually exist? Only if consciousness can create, modify, or manipulate reality. But that is impossible, for consciousness is merely an awareness of existence. "If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something." - Ayn Rand via Galt's speech in "For The New Intellectual" p.124
Rand's great insight that frees the minds of Humanity from the tyranny of Christianity, and indeed all religion, is that "Existence exists". Instantiated existing things cannot be 'created', for nothing comes from nothing; something cannot come from nothing. Conservation of Mass-Energy is fixed reality. Matter and energy may change form, but new matter does not suddenly appear from nothing as is predicated by Christianity. Living beings are manufactured by nature, using components, in the form of molecules, which already exist; our bodies put us together. That is why we eat regularly. Our bodies use nutrients consumed to foster the development of our tissues. Our bodies are not created. A pregnant woman is referred to as "eating for two" when she takes her meals. The nutrients she consumes are used both for her body, and for the body growing and being manufactured within her. No organism that ever lived, is living, or ever will live was, is, or will be created. Judging by that, the notion of 'hope' springing forth into 'substance' makes no sense.
Regarding ' faith as evidence of things not seen'? If something cannot be detected by sensory perception or instrumentation, then in what sense is evidence present? Information provided by our senses or instrumentation is necessary to claim that we have evidence. It may be objected that various phenomena that cannot be detected by the senses may still be admitted as evidence. In such cases, it is argued that the phenomena at question is inferred by other means and that employing logic and the Law of Causality empowers the reasoning mind to inductively infer modally following conclusions. I contest the contrary, that immaterial entities that cannot be detected by the senses or instruments exist, by noting that reasoning is based in the perception of reality. Mental constructs, objects of thought, with no corresponding reference to reality cannot be conceptualized. The nature of conceptual knowledge requires the knowing mind, the subject of thought, to generalize from shared attributes and traits an encompassing definition to supply meaning that can be used as the concept. Inductively inferring from pure rationalism or imagination circumvents the process of concept formation. The inability to conceptualize undetectable phenomena is fatal to the notion that inductive inference can justify acceptance of what can only be described as "the imaginary" as evidence. Those who disregard the necessity of using concepts in knowledge do so by committing an epistemological reversal. They give priority to their own consciousness as the subjects of thought while disregarding reality that entails the priority of objective existence. Information about existence is perceptually acquired. Assigning the subject of thought priority over objective sensory perceptions of actual existence is called subjectivism. Doing so in regards to metaphysical ontology, is referred to as metaphysical subjectivism and is the basis of all religion and superstition.
Is this what Hebrews 11:1 meant by 'evidence of things not seen'? Did the writer of Hebrews mean things that can be evidenced by appeals to our other senses or instrumentation? Or, did he mean imaginative thinking? I speculate to the later. But no amount of wishing will accomplish anything for anybody. In order to reach any kind of goal in reality, human beings must use their innate reasoning ability and do work in actual existence.
To assert the contrary, that faith is superior to reason, is to presuppose, by faith, a vast array of propositions. Circular special pleading and gross question begging may operate to sooth the emotional needs of the religious acolyte, but in so doing they commit the fallacy of the stolen concept. "First identified by Ayn Rand, it is the fallacy of using a concept while denying the validity of its genetic roots, i.e., of an earlier concept(s) on which it logically depends." - Leonard Peikoff "editor's footnote to Ayn Rand's "Philosophical Detection," - "Philosophy : Who Needs It". p.22 The advocate of faith over reason steals the conceptions of reality and causality while denying the genetic roots of existence. This they do to assert the primacy of their fantasy of a ruling consciousness. Thus faith is a method whereby Christian believers are able to deceive themselves.
What is the nature of god-belief. Is it distinguishable from imagination? Can the god believer describe a method whereby another person may reliably distinguish any difference between what they believe god to be and what they imagine as god? (2) Indeed, what is the difference between belief and imagination? Belief is defined as "any cognitive content held as true - a vague idea in which some confidence is placed - confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof ." Imagining is defined as "to form a mental image of something not actually present to the senses". From these, it is readily apparent that imagination plays the dominant role in god belief.
Invisible magic beings existing in other realms and communicating with people is surely just as vague an idea as it is an idea not susceptible to rigorous proof. God is defined, as an infinite, personal being that interacts with humans and nature, that is transcendent, omnipresent, supernatural, and immaterial. To be a personal being is to be finite, yet God is defined as infinite. To be transcendent is to be non-spatial, lacking dimensions or location and non-temporal, lacking duration. To be omnipresent is to be everywhere, but to be transcendent is to be nowhere. Supernatural means the negation of all that is natural and thus to not be part of nature and to lack any ability to interact with nature; it is to be other than matter, energy or fields. But God is defined as a being interactive with nature and thus must be matter, energy or fields. Special Relativity informs humanity that E=MC^2 and thus matter and energy are equated in proportion to C^2. Immaterial means to be other than material, other than matter or energy. By virtue of self-contradiction, God is certainly vague. God then is defined as a vague contradiction that has no location, no dimensions, no duration, no ability to interact with nature, no mass, and no energy. This is the ontological equivalent of nothingness.
Placing confidence in and assigning truth status to the ontological equivalent of nothingness as a personal being of infinite scope is the ultimate act of accepting something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof. Entirely such an action must take place by forming a mental image of something not actually present to the senses since there is nothing in nature that indicates that such beings as gods might exist or from which a concept of "god" may be formed. From these considerations, it is readily apparent that god belief stems from the subjective imagination.
(1) Anton Thron, Tindrbox Files: 22. Reason vs. Faith? Rights vs. Religion?
(2) Dawson Bethrick, Incinerating Presuppositionalism blog, My Chat with a Presuppositionalist
Postscript: The writings of Anton Thorn at "Objectivist Atheology" (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Sparta/1019/Thorn2.html) and Dawson Bethrick at ""Incinerating Presuppositionalism" blog" (http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com) have been of great assistence to me in understanding the value and advantage of Objectivism. For whatever it may be worth, I strongly recommend their blogs and essays. The material in this essay is largely drawn on my understanding of their work. I thank them for their efforts, and acknowledge that by standing on their foundations, I am able to present a better quality of writing and ideas than I would be able to by my own reasoning.
Faith and reason are incompatible. There is no room in reason for faith, and there is no room in faith for reason. (1) They are diametrically opposed. Reason is the faculty by which man identifies and integrates the material provided by or ultimately provided by his senses. Its method is called logic, which is the art of non-contradictory identification. "Reason integrates man's perceptions by means of forming abstractions or conceptions," wrote Ayn Rand in "Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World"; she continued: "thus raising man's knowledge from the perceptual level, which he shares with animals, to the conceptual level, which he alone can reach. The method which reason employs in this process is logic—and logic is the art of non-contradictory identification." She defined: "Reason is the perception of reality, and rests on a single axiom: the Law of Identity. - "Philosophy: Who Needs It" p.62. Reasoning is validated by observing that knowledge is derived from conceptions and that conceptions, in turn, are derived from perception. Actual measurable concrete observed existents related by valid logic lead to objective recognition of the facts of reality .
Mysticism, however, is the acceptance of allegations without evidence, against one's own reasoning, often despite the presence of evidence to the contrary. Its method is called faith, which is a short-circuit and abrogation of the mind. It is the numbing of one's own perception of existence and ultimately the rejection of one's own right to live. "Mysticism is the claim to some non-sensory, non-rational, non-definable, non-identifiable means of knowledge, such as "instinct," "intuition," "revelation," or any form of "just knowing." Mysticism is the claim to the perception of some other reality—other than the one in which we live—whose definition is only that it is not natural, it is supernatural, and is to be perceived by some form of unnatural or supernatural means." - Rand, (ibid p.62)
If evidence is available to support a claim, then a validating appeal to reason alleviates need for faith, then there is no need to dispense with the requirement of evidence in order to accept the claim as true. Exclusively, if there is no evidence in support of a claim and acceptance of the claim as justified knowledge is desired, then only by dismissing the requirement for evidential support, and accepting the claim in spite of the lack of evidence by "faith" can the claim be accorded truth status. Essentially, the process of believing by "faith" is a method of self-deceit. The Christian depends on a mystical epistemology of "faith". However, the Christian would, if there were evidence to support her claim that 'god exists', have no need to appeal to faith. She could appeal to reason, and since reason is a method based on perceptually ascertaining reality, her knowledge would be validated. Faith would then necessarily be a fallacy.
In Hebrews 11:1 faith is described: "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." What is meant by "substance of things hoped for"? What is meant by "evidence of things not seen"?
Can such a thing as 'substance' originating from hopes actually exist? Only if consciousness can create, modify, or manipulate reality. But that is impossible, for consciousness is merely an awareness of existence. "If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something." - Ayn Rand via Galt's speech in "For The New Intellectual" p.124
Rand's great insight that frees the minds of Humanity from the tyranny of Christianity, and indeed all religion, is that "Existence exists". Instantiated existing things cannot be 'created', for nothing comes from nothing; something cannot come from nothing. Conservation of Mass-Energy is fixed reality. Matter and energy may change form, but new matter does not suddenly appear from nothing as is predicated by Christianity. Living beings are manufactured by nature, using components, in the form of molecules, which already exist; our bodies put us together. That is why we eat regularly. Our bodies use nutrients consumed to foster the development of our tissues. Our bodies are not created. A pregnant woman is referred to as "eating for two" when she takes her meals. The nutrients she consumes are used both for her body, and for the body growing and being manufactured within her. No organism that ever lived, is living, or ever will live was, is, or will be created. Judging by that, the notion of 'hope' springing forth into 'substance' makes no sense.
Regarding ' faith as evidence of things not seen'? If something cannot be detected by sensory perception or instrumentation, then in what sense is evidence present? Information provided by our senses or instrumentation is necessary to claim that we have evidence. It may be objected that various phenomena that cannot be detected by the senses may still be admitted as evidence. In such cases, it is argued that the phenomena at question is inferred by other means and that employing logic and the Law of Causality empowers the reasoning mind to inductively infer modally following conclusions. I contest the contrary, that immaterial entities that cannot be detected by the senses or instruments exist, by noting that reasoning is based in the perception of reality. Mental constructs, objects of thought, with no corresponding reference to reality cannot be conceptualized. The nature of conceptual knowledge requires the knowing mind, the subject of thought, to generalize from shared attributes and traits an encompassing definition to supply meaning that can be used as the concept. Inductively inferring from pure rationalism or imagination circumvents the process of concept formation. The inability to conceptualize undetectable phenomena is fatal to the notion that inductive inference can justify acceptance of what can only be described as "the imaginary" as evidence. Those who disregard the necessity of using concepts in knowledge do so by committing an epistemological reversal. They give priority to their own consciousness as the subjects of thought while disregarding reality that entails the priority of objective existence. Information about existence is perceptually acquired. Assigning the subject of thought priority over objective sensory perceptions of actual existence is called subjectivism. Doing so in regards to metaphysical ontology, is referred to as metaphysical subjectivism and is the basis of all religion and superstition.
Is this what Hebrews 11:1 meant by 'evidence of things not seen'? Did the writer of Hebrews mean things that can be evidenced by appeals to our other senses or instrumentation? Or, did he mean imaginative thinking? I speculate to the later. But no amount of wishing will accomplish anything for anybody. In order to reach any kind of goal in reality, human beings must use their innate reasoning ability and do work in actual existence.
To assert the contrary, that faith is superior to reason, is to presuppose, by faith, a vast array of propositions. Circular special pleading and gross question begging may operate to sooth the emotional needs of the religious acolyte, but in so doing they commit the fallacy of the stolen concept. "First identified by Ayn Rand, it is the fallacy of using a concept while denying the validity of its genetic roots, i.e., of an earlier concept(s) on which it logically depends." - Leonard Peikoff "editor's footnote to Ayn Rand's "Philosophical Detection," - "Philosophy : Who Needs It". p.22 The advocate of faith over reason steals the conceptions of reality and causality while denying the genetic roots of existence. This they do to assert the primacy of their fantasy of a ruling consciousness. Thus faith is a method whereby Christian believers are able to deceive themselves.
What is the nature of god-belief. Is it distinguishable from imagination? Can the god believer describe a method whereby another person may reliably distinguish any difference between what they believe god to be and what they imagine as god? (2) Indeed, what is the difference between belief and imagination? Belief is defined as "any cognitive content held as true - a vague idea in which some confidence is placed - confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof ." Imagining is defined as "to form a mental image of something not actually present to the senses". From these, it is readily apparent that imagination plays the dominant role in god belief.
Invisible magic beings existing in other realms and communicating with people is surely just as vague an idea as it is an idea not susceptible to rigorous proof. God is defined, as an infinite, personal being that interacts with humans and nature, that is transcendent, omnipresent, supernatural, and immaterial. To be a personal being is to be finite, yet God is defined as infinite. To be transcendent is to be non-spatial, lacking dimensions or location and non-temporal, lacking duration. To be omnipresent is to be everywhere, but to be transcendent is to be nowhere. Supernatural means the negation of all that is natural and thus to not be part of nature and to lack any ability to interact with nature; it is to be other than matter, energy or fields. But God is defined as a being interactive with nature and thus must be matter, energy or fields. Special Relativity informs humanity that E=MC^2 and thus matter and energy are equated in proportion to C^2. Immaterial means to be other than material, other than matter or energy. By virtue of self-contradiction, God is certainly vague. God then is defined as a vague contradiction that has no location, no dimensions, no duration, no ability to interact with nature, no mass, and no energy. This is the ontological equivalent of nothingness.
Placing confidence in and assigning truth status to the ontological equivalent of nothingness as a personal being of infinite scope is the ultimate act of accepting something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof. Entirely such an action must take place by forming a mental image of something not actually present to the senses since there is nothing in nature that indicates that such beings as gods might exist or from which a concept of "god" may be formed. From these considerations, it is readily apparent that god belief stems from the subjective imagination.
(1) Anton Thron, Tindrbox Files: 22. Reason vs. Faith? Rights vs. Religion?
(2) Dawson Bethrick, Incinerating Presuppositionalism blog, My Chat with a Presuppositionalist
Postscript: The writings of Anton Thorn at "Objectivist Atheology" (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Sparta/1019/Thorn2.html) and Dawson Bethrick at ""Incinerating Presuppositionalism" blog" (http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com) have been of great assistence to me in understanding the value and advantage of Objectivism. For whatever it may be worth, I strongly recommend their blogs and essays. The material in this essay is largely drawn on my understanding of their work. I thank them for their efforts, and acknowledge that by standing on their foundations, I am able to present a better quality of writing and ideas than I would be able to by my own reasoning.
The Rooster, God's Alarm Clock
Sermon Title: “The Rooster, God’s Alarm Clock”
Date Presented: February 4, 2007
Message Delivered By: Farmer Hank
From The Series: “Sermons by Farmer Hank”
Theme: Hymn #201, “Is It For Me, Dear Savior”
Thesis: God guides and directs us and gives evidence of his creative power and direction in nature. Sinners can’t see it. Only the righteous can see it.
Sermon Transcribed By: Judith Miller, church secretary, Oakwood Baptist Church:
As the people of God, we look for spiritual things in nature. Conveniently, God has enabled us to see what no one else can see. Even if it’s not there, we see it. That’s why we’re Christians. We’re special and God loves us more than everyone else in the whole wide world. And there is one thing in nature that is a sure testimony of God. The Lord led me to this conclusion earlier this week when I was hoeing in the garden, plantin’ tomaters. The Lord told me to preach a sermon on the rooster.
Roosters are like fruit trees—when we see that they are beneficial to mankind, we just assume that God made them for us. We assume that the fruit put on that tree was put there solely for our benefit. The evolutionists say that fruit is merely nature’s way of reproducing the plant, which is why there are seeds in the fruit itself. But we know, as educated Christians, that God made that fruit for us. We just know it because the Bible says it. We have no other way of knowing anything. Not even the senses can convince us of something that is not in the Bible, and we hate reason and science, so don’t bother trying to convince us with either of those. They are the enemies of God. [At this point, Farmer Hank hawks a loogy and briefly coughs]
Now think about the rooster for a moment. He crows in the morning, which tells us to get up and get our britches on, and to go out to feed the pigs and the hens. How does the rooster know to crow at the same time every morning? Because God told him to! That right there is proof-positive that Jesus Christ is creator of the entire universe, because he made roosters to tell us when to get up! It’s just right to get up early in the morning, to put your overalls on, and not be lazy and sleep in like some sluggard (Proverbs 6:6-9), and we farmers know that better than anyone else. This is why southern, white, Christian farmers tend to be so close to God.
And that’s another thing; we work hard for our sustenance, which happens to include chickens. We eat chicken abortions for our pleasure, but we preach that human abortions are wrong at all costs, which is why we voted for Bush twice! And even though the evolutionists keep telling us we are an odd species because we are the only species who drinks the milk of another animal as a source of nutrients well into our old age, we still know that God gave us cows to milk and to eat. It’s in the Bible, so it has to be true. [Loud “AMENS” from the crowd]
We have no problem killing a once-living being for food, for clothing, for saddles, or just for our pleasure so that we people with missing teeth can look at each other and senselessly grin. Any reason to kill is ok. Our minds are eased in killing lesser lifeforms because it’s in the Bible that we can do it, and no one ever takes as much delight in killing as when God says the killing is acceptable. And kill we do and will continue to do! We kill for food, for putting big trophies with horns up on our walls (and on the front of our Cadillacs), for rugs, and for oil overseas—and if the law would stay off our backs, we’d kill the gays too. God has been gracious enough to enlighten the eyes of a few of his children, not only to see that without Jesus, we’re all worthless sinners who are going straight to hell, but to see the purposes God has for all of his creations, just like the rooster.
For instance, we see that clouds are inspiring to artists and painters and poets, and that means God made them for that purpose—to stimulate our big brains. We know why pigs were made; they were made to be killed and cooked and cut-up to flavor the beans. And iron was put in the earth to make hoes, rakes, and especially rifles out of. Without rifles, we couldn’t have the National Rifle Association, could we? The NRA is only one tiny step behind the church in holiness and importance, I’ll have you know! [Countless and loud “AMENS” from the whole congregation]
God has given us many other things too, like pretty flowers for sending to sweet sisters in Christ, like Leanne Simmons, who recently lost her husband, and Ima May Anderson, whose husband suffered his third heart attack this week alone. Flowers are God’s way of saying, “I may not be willing to heal you of your painful ailments, my child, but I sure will engage your sense of beauty to help you forget about it for the moment!” That’s our God for you—always willing to help us out on the little things, but never a once in the ways that matter most! He’ll heal a heart murmur or a headache, but never an amputee! But, he’s the only God we got, so we still have to worship him or we’ll get the boot! And God is not the enemy here. It’s the evolutionist who is the enemy. The evolutionist tells us that flowers were originally ugly, and that all the beautiful flowers are man-made.
Evolutionists are just stupid. They actually think that the entire universe came from yarn, which is why we hear so much today about “String Theory.” It’s a bunch of hogwash, that’s what it is! They say that the horse evolved from a small, scrawny, five-toed, fox-like creature that eventually grew larger, but that’s a bunch of hooey. We know that God created everything exactly as it appears today. The horse was created instantaneously and made to be ridden, just like pappy’s Model-T and Dixie Lee’s old International truck that sits up on blocks in her driveway like it has been for the last 8 years. If horses had been created small, how would Abraham and Moses have gotten around? They didn’t have dependable Fords and Chevys like we do today.
What we often forget is, this is our world, and God wants us to get around it and conquer it. God doesn’t care about animals anymore than he cared about injuns when they had this land. That’s why the good Lord ripped it right out of their hands and gave it to us! He cares about us using the animals on this land too. He wants us to ride them, and then when we’re done, to use them again in large, industrial farming efforts so that they are systematically and cruelly served up as food, so that our young Sallies and Daisys and Tommys and Bobbys can grow up big and strong and become red-faced, mashed potato-eating cowgirls and boys, who eat off of the serving spoons at church potluck dinners, and who wear truly massive belt buckles and hats just like we wear. And that’s another thing; if God didn’t want us to eat mashed potatoes and gravy, why would he have invented butter or flour? No evolutionist can answer that. And someone please tell me, if God didn’t want us to wipe our rear-ends with them, why did he make plants like lilies and elephant ears? There’s not an evolutionist alive who can answer that! [More “AMENS” heard from the audience]
Come on! Think about it; if God didn’t want us to swim and fish, why would he have made rivers and ponds? If he didn’t want us to herd sheep, why did he give them wool? If God didn’t want us to be impressed with his extravagant creativity, why did he make such pretty stars and those dead, worthless planets that revolve around them? If God didn’t want us to make and enjoy beer, why did he make porches, lawn chairs, and tailgates for us to sit outside on with our buddies as we admire the confederate flag?
Christians, the point has been made: Jesus loves you and he created this entire universe for you, and not for any other reason. All those distant stars and worlds and galaxies that God created, he really doesn’t care about, just like the salmon as he futilely swims upstream. Why, the entire Whirlpool Galaxy doesn’t even matter as much as the spittoon at your papaw’s favorite liquoring hole. What God really cares about is you, little old you. Isn’t that nice? [“AMENS” from all parts of the crowd]
Now please rise for the invitational hymn.
(JH)
Date Presented: February 4, 2007
Message Delivered By: Farmer Hank
From The Series: “Sermons by Farmer Hank”
Theme: Hymn #201, “Is It For Me, Dear Savior”
Thesis: God guides and directs us and gives evidence of his creative power and direction in nature. Sinners can’t see it. Only the righteous can see it.
Sermon Transcribed By: Judith Miller, church secretary, Oakwood Baptist Church:
As the people of God, we look for spiritual things in nature. Conveniently, God has enabled us to see what no one else can see. Even if it’s not there, we see it. That’s why we’re Christians. We’re special and God loves us more than everyone else in the whole wide world. And there is one thing in nature that is a sure testimony of God. The Lord led me to this conclusion earlier this week when I was hoeing in the garden, plantin’ tomaters. The Lord told me to preach a sermon on the rooster.
Roosters are like fruit trees—when we see that they are beneficial to mankind, we just assume that God made them for us. We assume that the fruit put on that tree was put there solely for our benefit. The evolutionists say that fruit is merely nature’s way of reproducing the plant, which is why there are seeds in the fruit itself. But we know, as educated Christians, that God made that fruit for us. We just know it because the Bible says it. We have no other way of knowing anything. Not even the senses can convince us of something that is not in the Bible, and we hate reason and science, so don’t bother trying to convince us with either of those. They are the enemies of God. [At this point, Farmer Hank hawks a loogy and briefly coughs]
Now think about the rooster for a moment. He crows in the morning, which tells us to get up and get our britches on, and to go out to feed the pigs and the hens. How does the rooster know to crow at the same time every morning? Because God told him to! That right there is proof-positive that Jesus Christ is creator of the entire universe, because he made roosters to tell us when to get up! It’s just right to get up early in the morning, to put your overalls on, and not be lazy and sleep in like some sluggard (Proverbs 6:6-9), and we farmers know that better than anyone else. This is why southern, white, Christian farmers tend to be so close to God.
And that’s another thing; we work hard for our sustenance, which happens to include chickens. We eat chicken abortions for our pleasure, but we preach that human abortions are wrong at all costs, which is why we voted for Bush twice! And even though the evolutionists keep telling us we are an odd species because we are the only species who drinks the milk of another animal as a source of nutrients well into our old age, we still know that God gave us cows to milk and to eat. It’s in the Bible, so it has to be true. [Loud “AMENS” from the crowd]
We have no problem killing a once-living being for food, for clothing, for saddles, or just for our pleasure so that we people with missing teeth can look at each other and senselessly grin. Any reason to kill is ok. Our minds are eased in killing lesser lifeforms because it’s in the Bible that we can do it, and no one ever takes as much delight in killing as when God says the killing is acceptable. And kill we do and will continue to do! We kill for food, for putting big trophies with horns up on our walls (and on the front of our Cadillacs), for rugs, and for oil overseas—and if the law would stay off our backs, we’d kill the gays too. God has been gracious enough to enlighten the eyes of a few of his children, not only to see that without Jesus, we’re all worthless sinners who are going straight to hell, but to see the purposes God has for all of his creations, just like the rooster.
For instance, we see that clouds are inspiring to artists and painters and poets, and that means God made them for that purpose—to stimulate our big brains. We know why pigs were made; they were made to be killed and cooked and cut-up to flavor the beans. And iron was put in the earth to make hoes, rakes, and especially rifles out of. Without rifles, we couldn’t have the National Rifle Association, could we? The NRA is only one tiny step behind the church in holiness and importance, I’ll have you know! [Countless and loud “AMENS” from the whole congregation]
God has given us many other things too, like pretty flowers for sending to sweet sisters in Christ, like Leanne Simmons, who recently lost her husband, and Ima May Anderson, whose husband suffered his third heart attack this week alone. Flowers are God’s way of saying, “I may not be willing to heal you of your painful ailments, my child, but I sure will engage your sense of beauty to help you forget about it for the moment!” That’s our God for you—always willing to help us out on the little things, but never a once in the ways that matter most! He’ll heal a heart murmur or a headache, but never an amputee! But, he’s the only God we got, so we still have to worship him or we’ll get the boot! And God is not the enemy here. It’s the evolutionist who is the enemy. The evolutionist tells us that flowers were originally ugly, and that all the beautiful flowers are man-made.
Evolutionists are just stupid. They actually think that the entire universe came from yarn, which is why we hear so much today about “String Theory.” It’s a bunch of hogwash, that’s what it is! They say that the horse evolved from a small, scrawny, five-toed, fox-like creature that eventually grew larger, but that’s a bunch of hooey. We know that God created everything exactly as it appears today. The horse was created instantaneously and made to be ridden, just like pappy’s Model-T and Dixie Lee’s old International truck that sits up on blocks in her driveway like it has been for the last 8 years. If horses had been created small, how would Abraham and Moses have gotten around? They didn’t have dependable Fords and Chevys like we do today.
What we often forget is, this is our world, and God wants us to get around it and conquer it. God doesn’t care about animals anymore than he cared about injuns when they had this land. That’s why the good Lord ripped it right out of their hands and gave it to us! He cares about us using the animals on this land too. He wants us to ride them, and then when we’re done, to use them again in large, industrial farming efforts so that they are systematically and cruelly served up as food, so that our young Sallies and Daisys and Tommys and Bobbys can grow up big and strong and become red-faced, mashed potato-eating cowgirls and boys, who eat off of the serving spoons at church potluck dinners, and who wear truly massive belt buckles and hats just like we wear. And that’s another thing; if God didn’t want us to eat mashed potatoes and gravy, why would he have invented butter or flour? No evolutionist can answer that. And someone please tell me, if God didn’t want us to wipe our rear-ends with them, why did he make plants like lilies and elephant ears? There’s not an evolutionist alive who can answer that! [More “AMENS” heard from the audience]
Come on! Think about it; if God didn’t want us to swim and fish, why would he have made rivers and ponds? If he didn’t want us to herd sheep, why did he give them wool? If God didn’t want us to be impressed with his extravagant creativity, why did he make such pretty stars and those dead, worthless planets that revolve around them? If God didn’t want us to make and enjoy beer, why did he make porches, lawn chairs, and tailgates for us to sit outside on with our buddies as we admire the confederate flag?
Christians, the point has been made: Jesus loves you and he created this entire universe for you, and not for any other reason. All those distant stars and worlds and galaxies that God created, he really doesn’t care about, just like the salmon as he futilely swims upstream. Why, the entire Whirlpool Galaxy doesn’t even matter as much as the spittoon at your papaw’s favorite liquoring hole. What God really cares about is you, little old you. Isn’t that nice? [“AMENS” from all parts of the crowd]
Now please rise for the invitational hymn.
(JH)
Rejoicing at the Sight of People Suffering in Hell (Have J.P. Holding, Dave Armstrong, James White, Steve Hays, studied this topic as deeply as TCJ?)
For centuries, Christians believed that the heavenly few would see and even rejoice at the sufferings of hell’s multitude. As Paul Johnson [himself a defender of Christianity] admitted in A History of Christianity, “This displeasing notion was advanced and defended with great tenacity over several centuries, and was one of the points Catholics and orthodox Calvinists had in common.”
The idea is still being defended today in Trevor C. Johnson's thesis composed for his master's degree in Biblical Studies at Reformed Theological Seminary in 2004. (Johnson is also a loving and faithful Christian missionary, husband, and parent serving the Lord in a potentially dangerous mission field.) I would like some Evangelical Christian apologists on the web to read Johnson's master's thesis which is now online (and also offered at amazon.com -- note the three positive reviews from fellow Christians), and explain either why you agree with it, or disagree with it, and if you disagree, how such a notion came to be derived from various Biblical stories and verses, and also came to be defended from the philosophical necessity of heaven's occupants remaining joyful (no tears in heaven) and knowledgable concerning God's decisions, and view such decisions as praiseworthy such that there are not the least bit of doubt nor lack of joy at viewing such decisions in action.
Read SEEING HELL: DO THE SAINTS IN HEAVEN BEHOLD THE SUFFERINGS OF THE DAMNED (AND HOW DO THEY RESPOND)
Another Child Dies from Faith Healing
Anyone here remember this case? A 15-month old girl died from an infection that could have been easily treated with antibiotics because her family refused to get her medical treatment, instead relying upon the promises of healing made in the Bible with the blessings of their Followers of Christ church. Well, her 16-year old cousin and fellow member of the Followers of Christ congregation just died from a condition that could have been treated with a simple catheter. Another tragic example of what happens when you trust in the supernatural to deal with mundane issues, and a ready rebuttal to the people who drop by and ask "If religion is false, why do you get so worked up about it?" I know I often challenge people to put their money where their mouth is when it comes to their faith and to rely on God for their mundane needs, but please, don't ever take me up on that challenge.
The Famous "Burgh - Spinoza" Exchange (Almost As If Spinoza Was Speaking to Lee Strobel, J.P. Holding, Steve Hays, James White, Dave Armstrong, et al)
Below are a pair of letters exchanged between the philosopher Baruch Spinoza and a young friend who had converted to an evangelical form of Catholicism (so evangelical that the young man almost sounds like a modern day Evangelical Christian, especially at the end of one paragraph in which he tells Spinoza, "Give in, turn away from your errors and your sins; put on humility and be born again," or in another place when he compares the evidence for the truth of his beliefs with the evidence that "Julius Caesar lived," or when he writes of the "wretched and restless life of Atheists").
Their exchange -- on the topic of Christianity versus Spinoza's philosophy -- parallels today's feisty (at times firey) debates on the internet (and in places makes one chuckle at the young man's endorsement of a few supernatural tales no longer heard these days, such as "the restoration of plants and flowers in a glass phial after they have been burnt; Sirens; pygmies very frequently showing themselves, according to report, in mines." (I mean who can explain that last one? Perhaps the translator messed up and should have used the word "dwarf" -- as in the dwarfs who lived in mountains per "Lord of the Rings" -- instead of "pygmies?") Goethe, the famed German poet and natural philosopher, declared that Spinoza's correspondence with his friends and disciples was "the most interesting book one could read in the world of uprightness and humanity." But first... a little background before presenting Burgh's letter and Spinoza's reply.
Born in 1632, Spinoza lived most of his life at The Hague, earning a bare subsistence as a lens grinder, yet his works influenced Descartes, Leibnitz, Hobbes and many among others (even Einstein compared his "God" to Spinoza's ideas of God). Spinoza helped give birth to modern biblical criticism and to the idea of separation of church and state. He was also focused on philosophy so much that neither wealth, fame, nor even marriage, could tear him away, much like some ancient Greek philosophers.
When a prince, the Elector of Palatine, offered Spinoza a professorship in philosophy at the University of Heidelberg and thus promised him freedom from financial cares, Spinoza, unwilling to make any promise to refrain from "disturbing the publicly established religin," graciously but firmly refused. When Louis XIV of France offered him a pension, in return for the dedication of his next book, he again refused. Obstinately, but quietly, serenely, even graciously and elegantly, Spinoza rejected the advice of "worldlings and careerists" and spurned "the spurious immortality of popular acclamation." The easy security of a comfortable post offered by His Electoral Highness or His Imperial Majesty could not lure him. The truth Spinoza sought woudl be found only in solitude -- and besides he needed every year, every day, every precious hour to finish his Ethics, undistracted by fame, free from royal favor.
Spinoza's integrity met the supreme test when he was cast out from the Jewish religion and reviled by the synagogue of his forefathers for heresies springing from his thirst for truth. His denial of immortality won him the hatred alike of Jews and Christians.
The only books published by Spinoza in his lifetime were The Pinciples of Cartesian Philosophy (1663) and Tractatus Theologico-Politicus: A Critical Inquiry Into the History, Purpose, and Authenticity of the Hebrew Scriptures, which appeared anonymously in 1670. This was promptly honored with a place in the Index Expurgatorius -- a list of books banned by the Catholic Church; it dates back to 1559 and was prompted not so much by the occult but by the rise of Protestantism.
Spinoza had many friends among the influential governing classes at The Hague. Among them was Conrad Burgh, one of the wealthiest citizens of Amsterdam, who in 1666 (the "666" being merely a coincidence) held office as Treasurer General of the United Netherlands. His son, Albert Burgh, was a pupil of Spinoza. Young Burgh continued his study of philosophy in Italy, and finally turned to the Catholic faith with fanatical zeal. Burgh's family was disturbed by this and persuaded Spinoza to write to Albert.
When Spinoza's books were banned by the civic authorities, many of his friends and disciples carried on the resulting theological controversy both in person and by correspondence. Spinoza received many letters "intended to reform him." Typical of them was the one he rec'd from young Albert Burgh, his old friend and former pupil -- a letter tyhan some students of church history believe was officially prompted or at least encouraged by the ecclesiastical authorities of the time.
YOUNG ALBERT BURGH TO SPINOZA:
"...YOU WRETCHED LITTLE MAN, VILE WORM OF THE EARTH, AY, ASHES, FOOD FOR WORMS..."
To The Very Learned and Acute Baruch Spinoza:
Many Greetings.
When Leaving my country, I promised to write to you if anything noteworthy occurred during my journey. Since, now, an occasion has presented itself, an one, indeed, of the greatest importance, I discharge my debt, and write to inform you that, through the infinite Mercy of God, I have been restored to the Catholic Church, and have been made a member thereof [later Burgh even entered the Franciscan Order--E.T.B.]. You may learn the particulars of the step from a letter which I have sent to the distinguished and accomplished Professor Craanen of Leyden. I will therefore, now only add a few remarks for your special benefit.
The more I formerly admired you for your penetration and acuteness of mind, the more do I now weep for you and deplore you; for although you are a very talented man, and have received a mind adorned by God with brilliant gifts, and are a lover of truth, indeed eager for it, yet you suffer yourself to be led astray and deceived by the wretched and most haughty Prince of evil Spirits. For, all your philosophy, what is it but a mere illusion and a Chimera? Yet you stake on it not only your peace of mind in this life, but also the eternal salvation of your soul. See on what a miserable foundation all your interests rest.
You assume that you have discovered the true philosophy. How do you know that your philosophy is the best of all that ever have been taught in the world, are now being taught, or ever shall be taught? Passing over what may be devised in the future, have you examined all the philosophies, ancient as well as modern, that are taught here, and in India, and everywhere throughout the whole world?
Even if you have duly examined them, how do you know that you have chosen the best? You will say: "My philosophy is in harmony with right reason; other philosophies are not." But all other philosophers except your own followers disagree with you, and with equal right say of their philosophy what you say of yours, accusing you, as you do them, of falsity and error. It is clear therefore, that before the truth of your philosophy can be made manifest you must put forth arguments not common to other philosophies, but which can be applied to yours alone. Otherwise you must admit that your philosophy is as uncertain and as worthless as the rest.
However, restricting myself to that book of yours with an impious title (Tractatus Theologico-Politicus) and taking your philosophy together with your theology, for you yourself blend them altogether with diabolic cunning, you pretend to show that each is separate from the other, and that they have different principles, I proceed thus--
Perhaps you will say: "Others have not read Holy Scripture so often as I have; and it is from Holy Scripture, the acknowledgment of which distinguishes Christians from the rest of the world, that I prove my doctrines." But how? "By comparing the clear passages with the more obscure I explain Holy Scripture, and out of my interpretations frame dogmas, or else confirm those that are already produced in my brain."
But I adjure you seriously to consider what you say. How do you know that you have correctly applied your method, or again, that your method is sufficient for the interpretation of Holy Scripture, and that you are thus interpreting Holy Scripture on a sound basis? Especially since Catholics say, and it is very true, that the whole Word of God is not given in writing, so that Holy Scripture cannot be explained through Holy Scripture alone, I will not say, by one man, but not even by the Church itself, which is sole authorized interpreter. For the Apostolic traditions must likewise be consulted. This is proved from Holy Scripture itself, and by the testimony of the Holy Fathers, and it is in accord not only with right reason but also with experience. Thus, as your first principles are most false and lead to perdition, what will become of all your doctrine, built up and supported on so rotten a foundation?
So then, if you believe in Christ crucified, acknowledge your most evil heresy, recover from the perversion of your nature, and be reconciled with the Church.
For do you prove your views in a way that is diferent from that in which all the Heretics who have left God's Church in the past, or are leaving it now, or will leave it in the future, have done, do, or will do? For they all employ the same principle as you do, that is they make use of Holy Scripture alone for the formation and confirmation of their dogmas.
Do not flatter yourself because, perhaps, the Calvinists, or the so-called Reformers, or the Lutherans, or the Mennonites, or the Socinians, etc., cannot refute your doctrine: for all these, as has already been said, are as wretched as you are, and, like you, are seated in the shadow of death.
If you do not believe in Christ you are more wretched than I can say. But the remedy is easy. Turn away from your sins and consider the deadly arrogance of your wretched and insane reasoning. You do not believe in Christ. Why? You will say: "Because the teaching and the life of Christ, and also the Christian teaching concerning Christ are not at all in harmony with my principles, nor is the doctrine of Christians about Christ consistent with my doctrine." But I repeat, do you then dare to think yourself greater than all those who have ever arisen in the State or Church of God, than the Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, Doctors, Confessors, and Holy Virgins innumerable, and in your blasphemy, even than Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself? Do you alone surpass all these in doctrine, in manner of life, in every respect? Will you, wretched little man, vile worm of the earth, ay, ashes, food of worms, dare, in your unspeakable blasphemy, to put yourself above the Incarnate, Infinite Wisdom of the Eternal Father? Will you alone, consider yourself wiser and greater than all those who from the beginning of the world have belonged to the Church of God and have believed, or still believe, that Christ would come or has already come? On what do you base this bold, made, pitiable and inexcusable arrogance?
You deny that Christ is the son of the living God, the Word of the eternal wisdom of the Father, made manifest in the flesh, who suffered and was crucified for the human race. Why? Because all this does not correspond to your principles. But, besides the fact that it has now been proved that you have not the true principles but false, rash and absurd ones, I will now say more, namely that even if you had relied on true principles and based all of your views on them, you would not be more able to explain, by means of them, all things that exist, or have happened, or happen in the world, nor ought you to assert boldly that something is really impossible, or fales, when it seems to be opposed to these principles.
For there are many, indeed innumerable things that you will not be able to explain, even if there is some sure knowledge of natural things; you will not even be able to remove the manifest contradictions between such phenomena and your explanations of the rest, that are regarded by you as quite certain.
From your principles you will not explain thoroughly even one of those things that are achieved in witchcraft and in enchantments by the mere pronunication of certain words, or simply by carrying about the words or characters, traced on some material, nor will you be able to explain any of the stupendous phenomena among those who are possessed by demons, of all of which I have myself seen in various instances, and I have heard most certain evidence of innumerable happenings of the kind from very many most trustworthy persons, who spoke with one voice.
How will you be able to judge of the essences of all things, even if it be granted that certain ideas that you have in your mind, adequately conform to the essences of those things of which they are the ideas? For you can never be sure whether the ideas of all created things exist naturally in the human mind, or whether many, if not all, can be produced in it, and actually are produced in it, by external objects, and even through the suggestion of good or evil spirits, and through a clear divine revelation.
How, then, without considering the testimony of other men, and experience of things, to say nothing now of submitting your judgment to the Divine omnipotence, will you be able, from your principles, to define precisely and to establish for certain the actual existence, or nonexistence, the possibility, or the impossibility, of the existence of, for instance, the following things (that is, whether they actually exist, or do not exist, or cannot exist, in Nature), such as divining rods for detecting metal and underground waters; the stone that the Alchemists seek, the power of words and character; the apparitions of various spirits both good and evil, and their power, knowledge, and occupation; the restoration of plants and flowers in a glass phial after they have been burnt; Sirens; pygmies very frequently showing themselves, according to report, in mines; the Antipathies and Sympathies of very many things; the impenetrability of the human body, etc.?
Even if you were possessed of a mind a thousand times more subtle and more acute than you do possess, you would not be able, my Philosopher, to determine even one of the said things. If in judging these and similar matters you put your trust in your understanding alone, you no doubt already think in this way about things of which you have no knowledge and no experience, and which you, therefore, consider impossible, but which in reality should seem only uncertain until you have been convinced by the testimony of very many trustworthy witnesses. Thus, I imagine, would Julius Caesar have thought, if someone had told him that a certain powder could be made up, and would become common in subsequent ages, the strength of which would be so effective that it would blow up into the air castles, whole cities, even the very mountains, and such too that wherever it is confined, which ignited, it would expand so suddenly to a surprising extent, and shatter everything that impeded its action. Julius Caesar would in no wise have believed this; but he would have derided this man with loud jeers as one who wanted to persuade him of something contrary to his own judgment and experience and the highest military knowledge.
But let us return to the point. If you do not know the aforementioned things (divining rods, alchemy, etc.), and are unable to pronounce on them, why will you, unhappy man swollen with diabolical pride, rashly judge of the awful mysteries of the life and passion of Christ that Catholic teachers themselves pronounce incomprehensible? Why, moreover, will you rave, chattering foolishly and idly about the innumerable miracles, and signs, which, after Christ, his Apostles and Disciples and later many thousands of Saints performed in evidence and confirmation of the truth of the Catholic Faith, through the omnipotent power of God, and innumerable instances of which, through the same omnipotent Mercy and loving kindness of God, are happening even now in our days, throughout the whole world? If you cannot contradict these, as you surely cannot, why do you object any longer? Give in, turn away from your errors and your sins; put on humility and be born again.
But let us also descend to truth of fact, as it really is the foundation of the Christian religion. How, if you give the matter due consideration, will you dare to deny the efficacy of the consensus of so many myriads of men, of whom some thousands have been, and are, many miles ahead of you in doctrine, in learning, in true and rare importance, and in perfection of life? All these unanimously and with one voice declare that Christ, that incarnate son of the living God, suffered, and was crucified, and died for the sins of the human race, and rose again, was transfigured, and reigns in heaven as God, together with the eternal Father in the Unity of the Holy Spirit, and the remaining doctrines which belong here; and also that through the Divine power and omnipotence there were performed in the Church of God by this same Lord Jesus, and afterwards, in his name, by the Apostles and the other Saints, innumerable miracles, that not only exceeded human comprehension but were even opposed to common sense (and of these there remain even to this day countless material indications, and visible signs scattered far and wide throughout the world) and that such miracles still happen.
Might I not in like manner deny that the ancient Romans ever existed in the world, or that the Emperor Julius Caesar, having suppressed the Liberty of the Republic, changed their form of government to a monarchy, if I disregarded the many monuments evident to all, that time has left us of the power of the Romans; if I disregarded the testimony of the most weighty authors who have ever written the histories of the Roman Republic and Monarchy, wherein they particularly treat of Julius Caesar; and if I disregarded the judgment of so many thousands of men who have either themselves seen the said monuments, or have put, and still put, their trust in them (seeing that their existence is confirmed by countless witnesses) as well as in the said histories, on the ground that I dreamed last night that the monuments, that have come down from the Romans, are not real things, but mere illusions; and similarly, that those stories that are told of the Romans are just like the stories that the books called Romances relate, puerile stories about Amadis of Gaul and similar Heroes; also that Julius Caesar either never existed in the world, or if he existed was a melancholic man, who did not really crush the Liberty of the Romans, and raise himself to the Throne of the Imperial Power, but was induced to believe that he had performed these achievements, either by his own foolish imagination or by the persuasion of friends who flattered him...
Lastly, reflect on the very wretched and restless life of Atheists, although they sometimes make a display of great cheerfulness of mind, and wish to seem to spend their life joyfully, and with the greatest internal peace of mind. More especially consider their most unhappy and horrible death, of which I have myself seen some instances and know with equal certainty of many more, or rather of countless cases, from the report of others, and from History. Learn from their examples to be wise in time.
Thus you see, or at least I hope you see, how rashly you entrust yourself to the opinions of your brain (for if Christ is the true God, and at the same time man, as is most certain, see to what you are reduced; for by persevering in your abominable errors, and most grave sins, what else can you expect but eternal damnation? How horrible this is, you may ponder for yourself) how little reason you have for laughing at the whole world with the exception of your wretched adorers; how foolishly proud and puffed up you become with the knowledge of the excellence of your talents, and with admiration for your very vain, indeed quite false, and impious doctrine; how shamefully you make yourself more wretched than the very beasts, but depriving yourself of the freedom of the will; nevertheless, even if you do not actually experience and recognize this, how can you deceive yourself by thinking that your works are worthy of the highest praise, and even of the closest imitation?
If you do not wish (which I will not think) that God or your neighbor should have pity on you, do you yourself at least take pity on your own misery, whereby you endeavor to make yourself more unhappy than you are now, or less unhappy than you will be, if you continue in this manner.
Come to your senses, you Philosopher, and realize the folly of your wisdom, the madness of your wisdom; put aside your pride and become humble, and you will be healed. Pray to Christ in the Most Holy Trinity, that he may deign to commiserate your misery, and receive you. Read the Holy Fathers, and the Doctors of the Church, and let them instruct you in what you must do that you may not perish, but have eternal life. Consult Catholics profoundly learned in their faith and living a good life, and they will tell you many things that you have never known and whereat you will be amazed.
I, for my part, have written this letter to you with truly Christian intention, first that you may know the great love I bear you [Did Burgh forget that earlier in the same letter he illustrated his "great love toward Spinoza" with the words, "...YOU WRETCHED LITTLE MAN, VILE WORM OF THE EARTH, AY, ASHES, FOOD FOR WORMS"--E.T.B.] although a Gentile [since I guess in Burgh's day "Gentiles" did not normally bear "great love" toward Jews like Spinoza]; and secondly to beg you not to continue to pervert others also.
I will therefore conclude thus: God is willing to snatch your soul from eternal damnation if only you are willing. Do not hesitate to obey the Lord, who has so often called you through others, and now calls you again, and perhaps for the last time, through me [how humble of Burgh to think so--E.T.B.], who, having obtained this grace [again how humble of Burgh to think he's obtained God's special approved grace through the Catholic Church and believing what it tells him, while everyone else is going to catch hell come judgment day--E.T.B.] through the ineffable Mercy of God Himself, pray for the same for you with my whole heart ["...YOU WRETCHED LITTLE MAN, VILE WORM OF THE EARTH, AY, ASHES, FOOD FOR WORMS"]. Do not refuse, for if you will not hear God now when He calls you, the anger of the Lord Himself will be kindled against you, and there is the danger that you may be abandoned by His Infinite Mercy, and become the unhappy victim of the divine Justice that consumes all things in its anger. May the omnipotent God avert this fate to the greater glory of His name, and to the salvation of your soul, and also as a salutary and imitable example for your most unfortunate Idolaters, through our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, who with the Eternal Father lives and reigns in the Unity of the Holy Spirit as God for all eternity. Amen. [Why did Burgh stop repeating the liturgy formula there? Why didn't Burgh just end his letter by writing down the WHOLE liturgy of the Catholic Mass? Kind of like an exorcism Mass in letter form to try and "save" Spinoza's soul from "the Evil One" whom Burgh mentioned earlier had power over Spinoza?--E.T.B.]
Florence, (Sept. 3, 1675.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SPINOZA'S REPLY
"...HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT YOU HAVE CHOSEN THE BEST?"
Baruch Spinoza Send Greetings
To the Very Noble Young Man Albert Burgh:
What I could scarcely believe when it was related to me by others, I at least understand from your letter; that is, that not only have you become a member of the Roman Church, as you say, but that you are a very keen champion of it and have already learned to curse and rage petulantly against your opponents. I had not intended to reply to your letter, being sure that what you need is time rather than an argument, to be restored to yourself, and to your family, to say nothing of other grounds that you once approved when we spoke of Stenonius (in whose footsteps you are now following). But certain friends who with me had formed great hopes for you from your excellent natural talent, earnestly prayed me not to fail in the duty of a friend, and to think of what you recently were rather than of what you now are, and similar things. I have been induced by these arguments to write to you these few words, earnestly begging you to be kind enough to read them with a calm mind.
I will not recount the vices of Priests and Popes in order to turn you away from them, as the opponents of the Roman Church are wont to do. For they are wont to published these things from ill-feeling, and to adduce them in order to annoy rather than to instruct. Indeed, I will admit that there are found more men of great learning, and of an upright life, in the Roman than in any other Christian Church; for since there are more men who are members of this Church, there will also be found within it more men of every condition. You will, however, be unable to deny, unless perhaps you have lost your memory together with your reason, that in every Church there are many very honest men who worship God with justice and charity; for we have known many men of this kind among Lutherans, the Reformers, the Mennonites, and the Enthusiasts, and to say nothing of others, and know of your own ancestors who in the time of the Duke of Alva suffered for the sake of their Religion every kind of torture with both firmness and freedom of mind. Therefore you must allow that holiness of life is not peculiar to the Roman Church, but is common to all.
And since we know through this (to speak with the Apostle John, the First Epistle, Chapter 4, verse 13) that we dwell in God and God dwells in us, it follows that whatever it is that distinguishes the Roman Church from others, it is something superfluous, and therefore based merely on superstition.
For, as I said with John, justice and charity are the only and the surest sign of the true Catholic faith, and the true fruits of the Holy Spirit, and wherever these are found, there Christ really is, and whence they are lacking, there Christ also is not. For by the Spirit of Christ alone can we be led to the love of justice and of charity. If you had been willing duly to ponder these facts within yourself, you would not have been lost, nor would you have caused bitter sorrow to your parents who sorrowfully lament your lot.
But I return to your letter in which you first bewail the fact that I suffer myself to be deceived by the Prince of evil Spirits. But I beg you to be of good cheer, if I am not mistaken, you used to worship an infinite God, by whose power all things absolutely come into being, and are preserved, but now you dream of a Prince, an enemy of God, who, against the will of God, misleads and deceives most men (for good men are rare), whom God consequently delivers up to this master of vices to be tortured for all eternity. Thus divine justice permits the Devil to deceive men with impunity, but does not permit the men who have been miserably deceived and misled by this same Devil to go unpunished.
These absurdities might still be tolerated if you worshipped a God infinite and eternal, and not one whom Chastillon in the town of Tienen gave with impunity to the horses to eat. [Spinoza is speaking about a consecrated host from a Catholic Mass being fed to horses -- by a Protestant I presume. Catholics believe during Mass the host becomes consecrated, turning into the literal (but invisible) body and blood of Jesus. I might add for my Protestant friends that even the apostle Paul writing to the earliest Christian churches took the idea of the Lord's Supper so seriously as to believe God was punishing "many" Corinthian Christians with "illnesses" and even striking some "dead" for not celebrating the Lord's supper the right way. See 1 Cor. 11:27-30: "Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly. For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep. But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged." I also assume from Spinoza's story about the horse being fed the host that both rider and horse survived. Otherwise I'm sure that Catholics living back then, including Burgh, might have cited the illness or deaths of horse or rider as yet another reason to become a Catholic.--E.T.B.]
And do you, unhappy one, weep for me? And do you call my Philosophy, which you have never seen, a Chimera? O brainless youth, who has bewitched you, so that you believe that you swallow the highest and the eternal, and that you hold it in your intestines? [Spinoza is again speaking about a consecrated Catholic host.--E.T.B.]
Yet you seem to want to use your reason, and you ask me, how I know that my philosophy is the best among all those that have ever been taught in the world, or are taught now, or will be taught in the future? I could ask you the same question with far better right. For I do not presume that I have found the best Philosophy, but I know that I think I have found one that pursues truth. If you ask me how I know this, I shall answer, in the same way that you know that the three angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles. That this is enough no one will deny whose brain is sound, and who does not dream of unclean spirits who inspire us with false ideas that are like true ones, for the truth reveals itself and the false.
But you who presume that you have at last found the best religion, or rather the best men, to whom you have given over your credulity, how do you know that they are the best among all those who have taught other Religions, or are teaching them now, or will teach them in the future? Have you examined all those religions, both ancient and modern, that are taught here and in India and everywhere throughout the world? And even if you have duly examined them, how do you know that you have chosen the best? For you can give no reason for your faith. But you will say that you assent to the inward testimony of the Spirit of God, while the others are cheasted and misled by the Prince of evil Spirits. But all those outside the Roman Church make the same claims with the same right for their Churches as you do for yours.
As to what you add about the common consent of myriads of men, and of the uninterrupted succession of the Church, etc., this is the same old song of the rabbis/Jewish teachers/Pharisees. For there also, with no less confidence than the adherents of the Roman Church, produce their myriads of witnesses, who relate what they have heard about, with as much pertinacity as do the witnesses of the Romans, just as if they themselves had experienced it.
They trace back their lineage to Adam. They boast with equal arrogance that their Church maintains its growth, stability, and solidity to this very day, in spite of the hostility of the Heathen and the Christians. Most of all do they take their stand on their antiquity. They declare with one voice that they have received their traditions from God Himself, and that they alone preserve the written and unwritten word of God.
No one can deny that all heresies have left them [the Jews were fairly well united in doctrine, moreso than the Christians, generally speaking--E.T.B.], but that they have remained constant for some thousands of years without any imperial support or compulsion [such as Christianity received after Constantine's conversion to Christian and also received from the Christian Emperors that followed in his wake--E.T.B.], but rather through the mere power of superstition. The miracles they [the Jews] relate are enough to weary a thousand gossips. But what they chiefly pride themselves on is that they number far more martyrs than any other nation and daily increase the number of those who with extraordinary constancy of mind have suffered for the faith that they profess. And this is not untrue. I myself know [have heard], among others, of a certain Judah, whom they call the Faithful, who in the midst of the flames, when he was believed to be dead already, began to sing the hymn that begins, "To Thee, O God, I commit my soul," and died in the middle of the hymn. [The person to whom Spinoza is referring was a Spanish nobleman who was converted to Judaism via the study of Hebrew and who had adopted the named "Judah" as his Hebrew name. His given name was Don Lope de Vera y Alarcon de San Clemente, and he was burnt at Valladolid, July 25, 1644 according to Gratz' book Gesch. der Juden x. 101. This reminds me also of the famous story of a rabbi facing the Inquisition who was asked to deny his faith. He requested time to think it over. The next morning he said, "I will not become a Catholic, but I have a last request -- before I'm burnt at the stake my tongue should be cut out for not replying at once. To such a question 'No!' was the only answer."--E.T.B.]
The order of the Roman Church, which you so greatly praise, I confess, is politic and lucrative to many. I should think that there was none more suited to deceive the people and to constrain the minds of men, were there not the order of the Islamic Church, which far surpasses it. For from the time that this superstition began there have arisen no schisms in their Church. [Spinoza means I suppose that in the history of Christianity there have been many major ruptures -- from early church theological differences resulting in violence like the Arian vs. the Athansians, or the Catholics vs. the Donatists -- to such major schisms as the Catholic-Orthodox split that arose after the whole eastern half of the Christian Roman Empire excommunicated the entire western half, and vice versa -- to the Great Schism within Catholicism itself whereby two and then three popes existed simultaneously -- to the Reformation -- and a host of other "heresies" arising during each age. While Islam like Judaism has never complicated its central formula though even in Islam a big schism (the Sunni-Shia schism) occurred when the Islamic prophet Muhammad died in the year 632, leading to a dispute over succession to Muhammad as a caliph of the Islamic community. Over the years Sunni-Shia relations have been marked by both cooperation and conflict. Today there are differences in religious practice, traditions, and customs as well as religious belief. Though the Shia now only constitute about 15% of all Muslims. --E.T.B.]
If therefore, you calculate correctly, you will see that only what you note in the third place is in favor of the Christians, namely, that unlearned and common men were able to convert almost the whole world to the faith of Christ. But this argument militates not only for the Roman Church, but for all who acknowledge the name of Christ.
But suppose that all the arguments that you adduce are in favor of the Roman Church alone. Do you think that you can thereby mathematically prove the authority of the Church? Since this is far from being the case, why then do you want me to believe that my proofs are inspired by the Prince of evil Spirits, but yours of God? Especially so, as I see and your letter clearly shows that you have become a slave of this Church, under the influence not so much of the love of God as of the fear of hell, which is the sole cause of superstition. Is this your humility, to put no faith in yourself, but only in others, who are condemned by very many? Do you regard it as acquiesce in that true Word of God that is in the mind and can never be depraved or corrupted? Away with this deadly superstition, acknowledge the reason God has given you, and cultivate it, if you would not be numbered among the brutes. Cease, I say, to call absurd errors mysteries, and do not shamefully confuse those things that are unknown to us, or as yet undiscovered, with those that are shown to be absrud, as are the horrible secrets of this Church, which, the more they oppose right reason, the more you believe they transcend the understanding.
For the rest, the basis of the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, namely, that Scripture must only be explained through Scripture, which you so boldly and without any reason proclaim to be false, is not merely assumed, but apodictically proved to be true or well established, chiefly in Chapter 7 [On the Interpretation of Scripture], where the opinions of opponents are also refuted. Add to this what is proved at the end of Chapter 15 [Theology Does Not Assist Reason, Nor Does Reason Aid Theology. Of the Grounds Of Our Belief in the Authority of the Sacred Scriptures].
If you will consider these carefully, and also examine the Histories of the Church (of which I see you are most ignorant), in order to see how false are many of the Pontifical traditions, and by what fate and with what arts the Roman Pontiff, six hundred years after the birth of Christ, obtained sovereignty over the Church, I doubt not that you will at least come to your senses. That this may be so, I wish you from my heart. Farewll, etc.
B. d. Spinoza [the Hague, Dec. 1675]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WHAT BECAME OF SPINOZA AND BURGH?
Spinoza died two years later, in 1677, at the age of forty-five. Albert Burgh died in a monastery in Rome [I wonder, was he ever reunited with his family?]. A little over two hundred years later, in 1882, a statue was unveiled of Spinoza at The Hague, and Renan (the French theologian and author) gave an address at its unveiling, calling Spinoza, "The greatest Jew of modern times," adding, "Ages hence, the cultivated traveler, passing by this spot, will say in his heart, 'The truest vision ever had of God came, perhaps, here.'"
While Einstein wrote: "I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings." [Albert Einstein, following his wife's advice in responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the International Synagogue in New York, who had sent Einstein a cablegram bluntly demanding “Do you believe in God?”]
Einstein even wrote a brief poem about Spinoza
How much do I love that noble man
More than I could tell with words
I fear though he'll remain alone
With a holy halo of his own.
Spinoza's portrait was featured prominently on the Dutch 1000-guilder banknote, legal tender until the euro was introduced in 2002. And the most generious and prestigious scientific award of the Netherlands is named the Spinoza prijs (Spinoza prize).
TO FIND OUT MORE, SEE THIS GREAT LITTLE COMMENTARY ON TNE BURGH-SPINOZA EXCHANGE
SEE ALSO SPINOZA'S WIKIPEDIA PAGE, AND ALSO THIS ONLINE BOOK REVIEW: Michael Dirda, Expelled from the Jewish community of his day, Spinoza went on to construct a lasting philosophy. A review of Rebecca Goldstein's 2006 work, Betraying Spinoza: The Renegade Jew Who Gave Us Modernity
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)