skip to main |
skip to sidebar
I believe that Mr. Loftus was right to reject his beliefs. The former pastor did well to turn away from his god — because his god was not the real one. His view of God, as even my cursory reading made clear, was inconsistent with, and contradictory to, the view of God presented by Jesus in the Bible.
The god John Loftus renounced merited rejection. The God made known by Jesus merits devotion. The degree to which a person’s view of God conforms to reality will determine the degree of loyalty that person has to the faith. It is hard to remain true to an illusion. Link
Hey Shayne,
you just made my case for me!
29 comments:
"Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me..." that God sentenced all of humanity to hell for the sin of two people; that God killed innocent women and children in the flood; that God commanded the Israelites to kill innocent women and children (except for the virgins that could be kept as war-trophies); that God sent to she-bears to kill children to made fun of a prophet's bald head; that Jesus will cast ANYONE who doesn't believe in him into everlasting torture; and that babies are born sinners who go to hell by default if they don't get saved.
I have to wonder which Bible Shayne is reading.
Well, I guess William Lane Craig isn't a true Christian either, since John studied under him.
It's good to know that the world's greatest Christian apologist isn't a true believer. It makes it that much easier to ignore him.
Thanks Shayne Looper!
I had never seen Norman Geisler's response to your book before that Shane links to in his article. What an epic failure, especially his answer to the outsider test for faith. He claims it is self-defeating because agnostics/skeptics would have to be skeptical of their own skepticism. I think someone needs to buy Mr. Geisler a dictionary...
Looper says: The degree to which a person’s view of God conforms to reality will determine the degree of loyalty that person has to the faith. It is hard to remain true to an illusion.
That is just patently false. I doubt Mr. Looper believes that the Mormon concept of God is the right one, yet very, very, few Mormons ever defect. Very few Muslims defect. As a matter of fact, few people defect from any religion that they have held for some time.
Its not surprising that Looper says John was not a real Christian. I think Geisler implies this too. Its inconceivable for these folks to admit that someone may have once believed as they do and then came to realize that it was false based squarely on intellectual reasons.
Hilarious! I love how these guys prove your point for you every single time. "My version of Christianity is the right one - everyone else is wrong." It's actually the history of Christianity writ small - everyone is their own orthodoxy standing alone against everyone else's heresy.
In the end, they're all Fred Phelps. They all know that they've got the right understanding of the Bible and everyone else is doing Satan's work for him. I guess they'd have to - if they had even a shred of skepticism that their understanding was wrong, they'd probably end up losing their faiths altogether.
All I will add is a big fat "FACEPALM"!!!!
Oh and RedPillBill, I'm sure Shayne will say the god of the OT isn't the true god either. Just the one that resides in Shayne's little ole brain. lol!
John,
I think the point of Glenn and others is that we don't look on other denominations as "heretical" or "hell-bound", including the Churches of Christ. The fact that you paint Christianity as so combative doesn't represent the Christianity most of us know. Ergo, strawman.
I know a lot of CofC'ers and I haven't met one who thinks they are the "only true Church", though they might think that they have the closest model to the NT. That's why when you attack fundamentalism we cry foul, because it really doesn't represent the heart of Christianity.
Brad, I'd like to exegete those passages (and I don't have a Bible near me at the moment) that espouse the following:
Whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Or where Jesus says that he is at door, waiting.
Or if we seek, we shall find, if we ask it will be given.
Or that the Lord desires that all should be saved.
...For years, I sought with everything I had, and I asked, over and over and over again, and I thought I found God countless times, but, in the end, I just found my delusions.
In mathematics, whenever a ubiquitous statement like those above is made, no matter how many times you can make it work, it just requires one case where it doesn't work to falsify it completely; and we have thousands.
Tell me why I shouldn't be 100% convinced that this entire religion isn't one big man made delusion.
Anthony,
I think you shouldn't be 100% convinced because of:
1. With the death of modernism we shouldn't try to claim 100% knowledge of anything.
2. It seems possible, in theory at least, that you did find God at one time and you have just re-interpreted it internally as a delusion. If you were deluded once, you can be again.
I'm not saying that is for sure, but those reasons alone would pull me back from 100% certainty.
This kills me, every time. The seeker -- the BELIEVER --- is wrong in his or her love or belief, and yet the christian god can't intercede to meet the believer half way to correct or accomodate the love the believer has.
So it's only the doctrinely CORRECT love and the doctrinely CORRECT belief that saves. God can't recognize the well-intentioned love of the doctrinely incorrect believer. Sincere love for god gets you as much points as atheism.
What a guy.
Brad,
I think your "strawman" accusation is out of place here.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the "strawman fallacy" is attacking a position that the opponent doesn't support.
Here, though, the illustration that there are so many Christians that each believe deeply, in their heart, that they have the correct interpretation, exegesis, whatever, doesn't serve to attack your position, but to make it's own point:
Because it is illogical that all these Christians can be correct at the same time, the combativeness of any significant portion of Christians indicates beyond a shadow of a doubt that good people can have deeply held beliefs that are ABSOLUTELY WRONG! Some of them MUST be wrong! They can't all be right! Nothing more, nothing less. The differences in opinion means that faith doesn't make something correct no matter how deeply you believe it.
I think you know this--you must have been thinking about something else when you brought up the strawman.
Or I misinterpreted your post.
Take it easy . . .
With the death of modernism we shouldn't try to claim 100% knowledge of anything.
So, you're agnostic then? I thought you were a Christian?
@Ken Pulliam, PhD
Your point (that "its inconceivable for these folks to admit that someone may have once believed as they do and then came to realize that it was false...")is well taken. And in many religions, they believe that the punishment is severe for those who commit the "unpardonable sin" of turning away from a faith once held. Those who defect pose a very great challenge to those who remain so they are deemed the worst of the worst!
Ken you make a great point: Thanks.
Just how many people have for years bought only Toyotas and swore that the Toyota Camry would be the only car they would EVER own the rest of their lives.
Now that eight of the Toyota models have been exposed to have a manufacturing defect in the accelerator system that has killed 18 people and maimed many more, theses same die hard Toyota believers are now gong public denouncing the company as a fraud which was only interested in becoming the biggest car company in the world by selling the most cars and not caring for their faithful and loyal customers.
In light of the analogy of the above to what Shayne Looper said about John, it appears these loyal Toyota faithful NEVER really owned the TRUE Toyota Camry either!
Shame on you Toyota atheist!
Hey but wait just a minute. I never owned a Toyota! ;-)
"It seems possible, in theory at least, that you did find God at one time and you have just re-interpreted it internally as a delusion. If you were deluded once, you can be again."
So, wait, you're saying it's possible to find God, and then lose him that quickly?
So, is God up in Heaven just hoping people figure it out and don't "lose" it before they die?
How many times can you find it, and then lose it, then find it, then lose it, before your overrun your quota?
The fact is, those statements in the Bible aren't about you "figuring it out"; they are about God revealing the truth if you just sincerely ask for Him to. And not just revealed, but you will be saved, as per Romans 10:13. I asked for years and, ultimately, got bupkis. This is a falsifiable statement. It doesn't matter if 30 billion people claim to have found this truth. If just one person honestly seeks for God, and receives no answer, the statement is false.
It's like the statement: 2^x (where x is an integer greater than 0) is always divisible by 4. There are an infinite amount of integers where this is true. But there is one integer (1), where it is false. Therefore, the statement is false.
In this sense, the testimony of the ex-christian is infinitely more powerful than that of the Christian.
Shayne might have a point when he wrote:
"The god John Loftus renounced merited rejection."
Certainly John would agree. But then Shayne wrote:
"The God made known by Jesus merits devotion."
Herein lies the rub. Perhaps John did reject god X and Shayne believes in god Y. The question is whether Shayne can produce sufficient reason for John or any rational person to believe in god Y.
Anthony,
I'm pretty sure Hebrews shows that someone can actually lose their faith, especially per chapter 6. The entire gospel of Matthew hinges around different people's reactions to Jesus' teaching, eg. religious leaders vs. disciples vs. the crowds. Revelation is an entire treatise against apostasy, and Paul talks a lot about standing firm or running the race. This is why I think proof-texting is unhelpful, because those verses you quoted are not representative in and of themselves of the entire NT teaching.
I wish I could answer why you felt you got no answer, but I can't. I do think, in principle at least, you could be mistaken in your interpretation (just as I could, too).
"You didn't believe in the real god" excuse is a new twist on the "you weren't a real christian" excuse. That is hysterically funny. I'm going to be laughing at that all day today.
It's almost as good as the god of the O.T. is a different god of the N.T.
I understand that their are several different views about the efficacy of the initial salvation, as in, Once Saved Always Saved vs. can one lose one's savlation.
But I attribute this to the NT being a jumbled mess of contradictory writings. Of course, you don't.
Here's my question. Those statements make affirmations. They tell me, If I do X, then Y WILL happen. If later on, a passage states that If I do X, then Y MAY NOT happen, should those passages be interpreted in light of each other, or should we just conclude that they are contradictory to one another? The latter answer relieves us of a lot of ad hoc rationalizations, so would be the preferrable answer.
Another thing: Paul makes repeated warnings about us boasting in our ability to save ourselves, decrying any person's claiming that they had any part in their salvation; that it should be viewed as God's work ONLY, and any claim to have earned salvation or to have "kept" salvation is strictly prohibited.
I do find it interesting that the books you quoted are Hebrews and Revelation, are books whose authorship is most dubious, which would account for such contradictions.
Lastly, does the Bible EVER mean what it says? If a Christian approaches me in the street and quotes John 3:16 at me, do I have to ask him to exegete that passage in light of the entire teaching of the NT, or do I just take it at face value? Are there any statements that can be taken at face value? If yes, then why can't the unambiguous statements such as Romans 10:13 and those where Jesus tells us to knock, and the door will be answered; to seek and it will be found (I believe this is also found in Jeremiah: sorry no Bible in front of me); why can't these be taken at face value?
I appreciate your responses thus far, and look forward to your answers.
Are Reform Judaism and Orthodox Judaism denominations of the same religion or are they separate religions? And, which is the "true" Judaism? I think that Reform Judaism and Orthodox Judaism are, in fact, practically speaking,separate religions. I say this because what Reform Jews believe, how they live is very, very different from what Orthodox Jews believe and how they live. So, given that reality the question of which is the "true" Judaism is somewhat irrelevant.
Now, I think that liberal Christians would do much better to say that their Christianity is, de facto, a different religion from Pat Robertson's. Because it really is a very, very, very different interpretation and really a different religion.
Over the centuries Judaism has been shaped over the centuries just as much, well, actually, much more, by those who interpreted Torah and then interpreted interpretations of Torah (Talmud, Mishnah, Gemara, Midrash,Halakah, Responsa, etc) to the extent that one can't really say that the actual beliefs and practices of many (most) Jews are Torah-based. And, I think that liberal Christianity has developed along those lines also, so that, actual beliefs and practices of many of them come out of the interpretations rather than out of scripture itself.
Anthony,
I think it would be difficult to call the NT a "jumbled mess" obviously, because most of the questions we ask of the text, like the once saved controversy, are modern questions placed back on the text. If we let it speak on its own terms and scope, I think it makes much more sense.
It wouldn't be ad-hoc interpretations if you interpreted the whole, weighing the evidence for each passage and making correlations along the way. Proof-texting is the only way that the question of which texts have primacy makes sense.
Paul does repeatedly condemn an attitude of boasting, but I don't think he has accepting truth or verifying Jesus' story (which he did in Galatians 1-2). His criticisms, such as in Galatians and Philippians 3, are directed toward a pharisaical attitude of racial and ritual superiority.
Now, I wouldn't say that a person needs seminary training to be a Christian, because the story resonates at different levels. But I would say that a Christian needs to continually move deeper in their faith and understanding. Even John 3:16 has a lot of theology behind it, like the trinity, Christ's nature, redemption, nature of belief. Those all demand deep reflection, even though the verse can be understood on it's surface. Not to mention, the meaning of the verse is so much deeper when you connect it to its context and connect it to other biblical authors.
Romans 10:13 likewise merits further study than just proof-texting. I haven't done that, so I can't say anything on that right now, but I'm excited to study it further. There is a surface meaning, but you can peel back the onion layers to get to even deeper levels of meaning, which also may correct your first surface impression of the passage.
That's at least where I'm coming from.
---
Hey Brad, thanks for the response.
By your standard, it seems that you'd be able to interpret any meaning into the text that you'd like. I feel that Christians come with a preconceived notion of what the text says, and then can make it dance to their tune with a few exegetic tricks (I used to do this as well; you should have seen how convinced I was, right before my deconversion, that Universalism was the true teachings of the Bible, just because I really wanted it to be; you can literally make the Bible teach anything!)
I see these as unambiguous, direct statements, and should the Bible teach anything to the contrary, that would be a rather obvious contradiction.
"For the Scripture says, 'Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame. For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord WILL BE SAVED!" (ESV)
And again:
"And I tell you, 'ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks, it will be opened. What father among you, if his son asks for a fish will instead of a fish, give him a serpent; or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!" (Luke 11:9-13, ESV)
I called/asked/knocked/sought/pled, (you name it) for years. I thought I had belief, but everytime, the doubts, the depression, the anxiety, and the fear crept back in. I crawled to these verses, and many like them, for comfort. I called on him again and again. And again, quick bursts of false assurance and comfort, followed once more by the above attacks, only with increased magnitude.
Now if these passages do not mean what they so clearly say, how deceptive!!
These verse have been patently false to me and to many, many people, and they are all I need to dismiss the Bible as a book of mythology. I have PLENTY more reasons, but this may undergird all of them. I sought hard for God, and he NEVER responded.
Either he's a liar and sadist, or he doesn't exist. I prefer to go for the latter.
Thanks again for the responses.
"The God made known by Jesus merits devotion." (Shayne Looper)
"I have to wonder which Bible Shayne is reading." (RedPillBill)
The God made known by Jesus being a different God than the god of the Old Testament. Sounds like Marcion's Bible.
"Sounds like Marcion's Bible." (Beowulf2k8)
Isn't it a shame that in order to actually believe in a loving God one has to be considered a heretic by mainstream 'Christianity'? No Christian is a true Christian except the Chrestian, for Marcionism is the truth and all of modern Christianity is the heresy.
From Looper's article "That pastor viewed God as an angry and vengeful judge (a view similar to the one Loftus presents), out to punish people for their sins, and willing to do so through their children. It would be good if that pastor also renounced his beliefs. They merit rejection."
In other words, let's all be Marcionites. The Old Testament god is the 'god of this world' that Paul speaks of as the tyrant blinder in 2nd Corinthians and the 'ruler of this world' that Jesus says is judged in the gospel of John. In shedding Jesus' blood on the cross, the OT god sealed his fate for the Good God, Chrestos (i.e. Jesus) forced him to accept that blood as payment for humanity! Jesus purchased us from the OT god and now we belong to Jesus. As Paul says 'You were bought at a price'!!!
(Looper is going to get a slew of Calvinist loons attacking for this statement. But he's right. Marcionism is the original form of Christianity.)
No, no, no. Marcianism was not the original Christianity. Marcian was a special case who looked at the old testament god and found him different from the new testament god. The old testament god seemed creul to Marcian. The new testament god forgiving and Jesus, though he appeared in human form, was actually in spirit in order to fool the god of the old testament so that he would not send just about everyone to hell. The new testament god made a pact with the old testament god. You see, only another god could pay for the sins against another god. Marcian went so far as to cut and paste parts of one of the gospels to force it to say what he wanted it to say.
Wonder what Shayne would say to the fact that Jesus was an apocalypticist who believed that God's Kingdom was going to come down to earth during the life time of the people living then. In Mark 9:1 he states "Verily I say unto you, there will be some of you still standing when my Father arrives in glory in his Kingdom." I.e., it was supposed to happen then. The lowest of the low, such as slaves and children would be first into this kingdom. The Rich and powerful, who Jesus felt got that way because they were partnered with the devil, would be destroyed. Jesus was fervently preaching that you had to prepare because it was going to happen very soon and not milleniums later. It did not happen, and that leaves me to assume the obvious that Jesus was just another failed prophet.
Post a Comment