tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post6552078998801571571..comments2024-03-25T17:35:02.238-04:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Believing in the “Impossible”: A Critical Review of JP Holding’s book, “The Impossible Faith.”Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-74541905414384405052007-10-02T10:50:00.000-04:002007-10-02T10:50:00.000-04:00unless you think (for example) that Marie Antoinet...<I>unless you think (for example) that Marie Antoinette was a "social inferior"?</I><BR/><BR/>Marie Antoinette was a first-century Roman citizen?<BR/><BR/><I>Quel surprise!</I><BR/><BR/><I>Reviewers who are actually sociologists reviewed the book much more favorably than the English instructor whose blog you link. </I><BR/><BR/>And yet you conveneintly do not link any of those. And the writer of that article isn't just a random English professor; he has a track record of scholarship in the area, and an obvious grasp of social science methodology.<BR/><BR/><I>That English instructor claims, for example, that "anyone who knows religions knows that false claims about the reality are stock in trade for preachers of all types, which their parishioners soak up regardless of actual experience." He cites no evidence for this charge.</I><BR/><BR/>He relies upon the personal experience of the reader. Do you deny that preachers of all types make false claims about reality? It's clear that MOST do, as most say things about reality that contradict what other preachers are saying.<BR/><BR/><I> The preachers I know aren't liars, even if one could reasonably claim that they are misguided or in error.</I><BR/><BR/>He said they made false claims, not that they lied. Read. More. Slowly.<BR/><BR/><I>This is an amazing claim. Are the Shakers "successful"? The Amish? The Guru Maharaji? The Manichaeans? The Zoroastrians (more recently missionary in outlook)? </I><BR/><BR/>Depends on your definition of successful. They have managed to hold their own social niche over long periods of time, and some are growing. But as was previously mentioned, they are often being outcompeted by religions that do the same thing, only better.Shygetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12587529149916263563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-26911513729645912182007-09-28T17:50:00.000-04:002007-09-28T17:50:00.000-04:00"This is an amazing claim. Are the Shakers 'succes..."This is an amazing claim. Are the Shakers 'successful'? The Amish? The Guru Maharaji? The Manichaeans? The Zoroastrians (more recently missionary in outlook)? The list is virtually endless of failed religions which, by his analysis, ought to be thriving."<BR/><BR/>There were simply overtaken by missionary religions that were more appealing in the end. The article in question sites the case of Christianity entering Asia and not gaining a foothold there because they were competing against other, more established missionary religions and also because Christianity did not find sympathy with Asian governments.<BR/><BR/>I don't think your representing this critique fairly.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07058424176773515878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-28986789579658141992007-09-28T17:24:00.000-04:002007-09-28T17:24:00.000-04:00sinbad, that book states that a majority of early ...<I>sinbad, that book states that a majority of early Christian converts were women, who were considered social inferiors.</I><BR/><BR/>As compared to males, yes. But Stark's focus, as I recall, is on social class, and women, even when/if oppressed by males, could still possess high social standing -- unless you think (for example) that Marie Antoinette was a "social inferior"?<BR/><BR/><I>Additionally, there are some purported methodology and bias issues with the book.</I><BR/><BR/>Reviewers who are actually <I>sociologists</I> reviewed the book much more favorably than the English instructor whose blog you link. That English instructor claims, for example, that "anyone who knows religions knows that false claims about the reality are stock in trade for preachers of all types, which their parishioners soak up regardless of actual experience." He cites no evidence for this charge. Moreover, my personal experience is markedly different. The preachers I know aren't liars, even if one could reasonably claim that they are misguided or in error.<BR/><BR/>He further claims: "The stark fact is that any religion will be successful, so long as it is missionary, manages to maintain a coherent message, and manages to maintain control over the minds and bodies of its converts."<BR/><BR/>This is an amazing claim. Are the Shakers "successful"? The Amish? The Guru Maharaji? The Manichaeans? The Zoroastrians (more recently missionary in outlook)? The list is virtually endless of failed religions which, by his analysis, ought to be thriving.Sinbadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01116688014786297876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-86223899785436605412007-09-28T15:15:00.000-04:002007-09-28T15:15:00.000-04:00Thanks for sharing that link. Excellent article.Thanks for sharing that link. Excellent article.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07058424176773515878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-64109872370883307262007-09-28T13:03:00.000-04:002007-09-28T13:03:00.000-04:00sinbad, that book states that a majority of early ...sinbad, that book states that a majority of early Christian converts were women, who were considered social inferiors. Additionally, <A HREF="http://michaelturton2.blogspot.com/2005/02/book-review-rodney-stark-rise-of.html" REL="nofollow">there are some purported methodology and bias issues with the book.</A>Shygetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12587529149916263563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-64535456358805857752007-09-28T00:17:00.000-04:002007-09-28T00:17:00.000-04:00Fascinating. To be clear, I am not necessarily ves...Fascinating. To be clear, I am not necessarily vested in any position (yet).Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07058424176773515878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-75414237642943723752007-09-27T17:34:00.000-04:002007-09-27T17:34:00.000-04:00Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Christian movemen...<I>Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Christian movement actually began with Jesus and his disciples, who were themselves of humble circumstances and attracted other such disciples. Certainly what this author says is true later in the Christian movement.</I><BR/><BR/>I was reacting to the assumption that Christianity was a movement of the lower classes. Stark refutes that assumption beginning with the "first generation" of Christians, irrespective of the apparent economic and social status of the disciples.Sinbadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01116688014786297876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-85319439578034984942007-09-27T16:56:00.000-04:002007-09-27T16:56:00.000-04:00Nevermind, I should have followed the link. Here'...Nevermind, I should have followed the link. Here's a quote from the synopsis there:<BR/><BR/>"The author plots the most plausible curve of Christian growth from the year 40 to 300. By the time of Constantine, Christianity had become a considerable force, with growth patterns very similar to those of modern-day successful religious movements. An unusual number of Christian converts, for example, came from the educated, cosmopolitan classes. Because it offered a new perspective on familiar concepts and was not linked to ethnicity, Christianity had a large following among persons seeking to assimilate into the dominant culture, mainly Hellenized Jews. The oversupply of women in Christian communities--due partly to the respect and protection they received--led to intermarriages with pagans, hence more conversions, and to a high fertility rate."<BR/><BR/>Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Christian movement actually began with Jesus and his disciples, who were themselves of humble circumstances and attracted other such disciples. Certainly what this author says is true later in the Christian movement.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07058424176773515878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-17462272941518882292007-09-27T15:22:00.000-04:002007-09-27T15:22:00.000-04:00Sinbad, since most of us probably aren't going to ...Sinbad, since most of us probably aren't going to rush out and buy the book, could you give us a short synopsis of his thesis, or at least the part of the book that pertains to the demographic composition of the early church? Thanks in advance.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07058424176773515878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-29291574231374932642007-09-26T16:03:00.000-04:002007-09-26T16:03:00.000-04:00As for Christianity being a "lower-class mass move...<I>As for Christianity being a "lower-class mass movement" that is simply too obvious of a statement.</I><BR/><BR/>That's far from a unanimous opinion. You might begin by looking at Rodney Stark's <I>The Rise of Christianity</I>, for example.<BR/><BR/>http://books.google.com/books?id=HcFSaGvgKKkC&dq=&pg=PP1&ots=dhb17jZaas&sig=9QMwSFIBmHKSiEEhTVKDASQeEWM&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fsource%3Dig%26hl%3Den%26q%3Drodney%2Bstark%2Brise%2Bof%2Bchristianity&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title#PPR7,M1Sinbadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01116688014786297876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-72412335457252141952007-09-25T18:25:00.000-04:002007-09-25T18:25:00.000-04:00Circling back to my earlier comment, I recommend a...Circling back to my earlier comment, I recommend a much better book by a much better author than this Holding character: "Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith" by Jon Krakauer. Jon shows how the Mormon religion was every bit as 'impossible' a faith as the Christian religion. By studying the rise of the LDS church we can learn something about the kinds of social, religious, political, and psychological factors that were likely involved in the rise of Christianity. Turns out maybe it's not that impossible of a faith after all!Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07058424176773515878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-84842021093558302642007-09-25T15:19:00.000-04:002007-09-25T15:19:00.000-04:00Flaws in Holding's stupid arguments that everythin...Flaws in Holding's stupid arguments that everything in the Book of Acts had to be true or Christians would have been killed?<BR/><BR/>Apparently Holding can't even find Christian publishers willing to pay out money to publish that sort of stuff!<BR/><BR/>When you consider the amount of junk that can find a publisher, the fact that Holding cannot find a sucker to publish his book says more than any sceptic could ever say.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-57735381333662140532007-09-25T15:12:00.000-04:002007-09-25T15:12:00.000-04:00Darren, do you think I could convince you otherwis...Darren, do you think I could convince you otherwise if I did? For me it's all about seeing things differently, and that makes all the difference in the world. Besides, I cannot deal with the manner in which Holding argues. He and his peeps are just too damn childish to have a real debate on these issues. I think he does it because he doesn't want an adult-like debate for fear he'd be shown a thing or two. If he ever changes his ways I would be glad to pursue these issues. As it stands I don't deal with childishness very well. I don't have to. At this point just read the links.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-72161437611917587832007-09-25T14:46:00.000-04:002007-09-25T14:46:00.000-04:00John Loftus: Darren, I think what I wrote, along w...John Loftus: <I>Darren, I think what I wrote, along with what I linked to, did an effective collective job against Holding. Sure, he has rebuttals, and we have counter-rebuttals, and so round and round it goes. I've made my argument. I gave his argument a fair hearing. I disagree, and I share why in almost every post I make. Only children would expect proof that he's wrong. We see things differently, okay, and so adults can make an argument for how they see things and leave it at that, simply because adults know that issues like these can probably never be resolved between us.</I><BR/><BR/>That sounds suspiciously like "I give up." That's why I can't take you seriously, John. You enter these debates full of fire and vigor, but then after a few rounds, you either leave in a huff or walk away with quiet resignation. It's happened time and time again at TheologyWeb. Your inability and/or unwillingness to go the distance almost makes it seem like you lack confidence in your own arguments.<BR/><BR/>This latest thread is a good case in point. You mount an ineffective attack on Holding's book, and when someone challenges you to get more specific and point out real problems with Holding's arguments by exposing flaws in his research, you instead whine and complain about being picked on then pull out the "Let's agree to disagree" card in a last ditch effort to salvage your credibility.<BR/><BR/>To be frank, I wish you would put together a more informed and well researched argument, one that shows you are familiar with and understand the relevant scholarship. As much as I enjoy watching Holding beat up on ill prepared opponents, I find it much more compelling when he butts heads with someone who actually knows their stuff, and right now, that's not you.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07875159676599156539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-74990822340923375632007-09-25T09:34:00.000-04:002007-09-25T09:34:00.000-04:00The "honor and shame" concept that JP Holding is p...The "honor and shame" concept that JP Holding is pontificating about is the direct result of recent biblilcal scholarship on the life of the historical Jesus. It is just an example of one more modern methodology being brought to bear on the first-century Mediterranean culture which formed Jesus' social world. Using similar methods of cultural anthropology and other disciplines, historians are getting a clearer idea of what a Jesus firmly fixed into his own social context may have really been up to. These methods are also helping to make better sense of many of the enigmatic and paradoxical actions and admonishons attributed to Jesus.<BR/><BR/>When I see even JP using the term I can be pretty certain that the enlightening tenets of New Testament research are slowly but surely penetrating the thick skull of biblical and religious illiteracy. Of course, I harbor no illusions that Holding will use his new discovery for some new, rational approach in winning souls to the Almighty. But I am glad to see that the new historical approach to Jesus and early Christian origins is becoming more well known.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-72285928914965181342007-09-25T09:22:00.000-04:002007-09-25T09:22:00.000-04:00Darren, I think what I wrote, along with what I li...Darren, I think what I wrote, along with what I linked to, did an effective collective job against Holding. Sure, he has rebuttals, and we have counter-rebuttals, and so round and round it goes. I've made my argument. I gave his argument a fair hearing. I disagree, and I share why in almost every post I make. Only children would expect proof that he's wrong. We see things differently, okay, and so adults can make an argument for how they see things and leave it at that, simply because adults know that issues like these can probably never be resolved between us.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-39259721523353859202007-09-25T09:08:00.000-04:002007-09-25T09:08:00.000-04:00Steve Carr: Here is what Bruce Malina wrote when a...Steve Carr: <I>Here is what Bruce Malina wrote when asked about Holding 'People have been citing the bible for centuries in the name of some 'My Will Be Done' project (or religion). That some are doing this with my writings is no surprise.'</I><BR/><BR/>Yeah, Steve, I think this is the TheologyWeb thread you're talking about:<BR/><BR/>http://tinyurl.com/2nby5k<BR/><BR/>It's hardly the smoking gun you make it out to be. In fact, it's not even close. The biggest problem is that Carrier misrepresented Holding's position--namely, Holding never said individualistic thought was non-existent in ancient collectivist cultures--so if Milana really did denounce Holding in this manner, it was based on false information. Oh, and where did Holding go "mental" in that thread?<BR/><BR/>Steve Carr: <I>Of course, when Holding's scholars are refuted, Holding usually turns around and says that he never agreed with the people he was quoting...</I><BR/><BR/>Not that I've ever seen. Most often people try to refute Holding's research by saying, "Well, your source also says X, Y, and Z which you disagree with," and Holding will say, "So? I only need him to be correct on A, B, and C for my argument to stand. What he says about X, Y, and Z is irrelevant. So can you refute A, B, and C?"<BR/><BR/>Speaking of which, when are you or John "Thin Skinned" Loftus or anybody else who regularly posts here going to make a decent argument against <I>The Impossible Faith</I>? Appeals to ignorance aren't especially impressive, you know?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07875159676599156539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-9846693405938912882007-09-25T07:10:00.000-04:002007-09-25T07:10:00.000-04:00Here is what Bruce Malina wrote when asked about H...Here is what Bruce Malina wrote when asked about Holding 'People have been citing the bible for centuries in the name of some 'My Will Be Done' project (or religion). That some are doing this with my writings is no surprise.'<BR/><BR/><BR/>Of course, when Holding's scholars are refuted, Holding usually turns around and says that he never agreed with the people he was quoting...Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-31744193388382764892007-09-25T06:43:00.000-04:002007-09-25T06:43:00.000-04:00steven carr: Now , where was that thread on TWeb a...steven carr: <I>Now , where was that thread on TWeb again where Holding goes mental because a member of the Context Group had the audacity to claim that Holding was just another of the many people who misrepresent things to support their ideology....</I><BR/><BR/>Got a link?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07875159676599156539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-78051979481177213902007-09-25T01:50:00.000-04:002007-09-25T01:50:00.000-04:00DARRENShow that he's drawing conclusions that can ...DARREN<BR/>Show that he's drawing conclusions that can not be supported by the writings of the Context Group<BR/><BR/>CARR<BR/>Now , where was that thread on TWeb again where Holding goes mental because a member of the Context Group had the audacity to claim that Holding was just another of the many people who misrepresent things to support their ideology....Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-60402280689013377532007-09-25T01:48:00.000-04:002007-09-25T01:48:00.000-04:00Hi Darren,on holdings site is web page that descri...Hi Darren,<BR/>on holdings site is <A HREF="http://www.tektonics.org/guest/fallacies.html" REL="nofollow">web page</A> that describes what fallacies are so apologists can avoid them.<BR/><BR/>You should go there and look up ad hominem, poisoning the well, and red herring.<BR/><BR/>Amen John.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-28781599236528306602007-09-24T22:10:00.000-04:002007-09-24T22:10:00.000-04:00Darren, how old are you?Grow up.No wonder you are ...Darren, how old are you?<BR/><BR/>Grow up.<BR/><BR/>No wonder you are banned elsewhere.<BR/><BR/>If you want to discuss something in the future act like an adult, otherwise you are banned here as well. We don't cater to the childishness of Theology Web like you're used to.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-45544516392176347682007-09-24T21:48:00.000-04:002007-09-24T21:48:00.000-04:00By the way, here's where you can find David Wood's...By the way, here's where you can find David Wood's blog:<BR/><BR/>http://www.problemofevil.org/Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07875159676599156539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-50111392709566112352007-09-24T21:43:00.000-04:002007-09-24T21:43:00.000-04:00John: Darren (I'm not convinced it's not Holding b...John: <I>Darren (I'm not convinced it's not Holding but now I'm thinking it's someone who feels the need to defend the Blog like Dee Dee Warren).</I><BR/><BR/>Nope. Try again. My name actually is Darren, and I do post at TheologyWeb, but the name I use there is frankly none of your business.<BR/><BR/>John: <I>Besides, why in hell do you really care whether I misled my readers one time?</I><BR/><BR/>One time? Is that another lie? You made it quite clear in the thread I referenced earlier that you have absolutely no problem with lying to or about your "ideological enemies", so I doubt that was your first--or last--deception.<BR/><BR/>As for who should care, I daresay that <I>you</I> should care that your little game left your credibility in shambles!<BR/><BR/>John: <I>Still, let's say I am the worse person on earth. What does that have to do with any particular argument I might make? I made an argument with premises and a conclusion about the problem of evil.</I><BR/><BR/>Never said you were the worst person on earth. You're misguided and confused, perhaps, but certainly not the worst. And this isn't about the problem of evil (which David Wood has already taken you to the woodshed for. Do a search, folks. David Wood runs his own blog). As for your arguments concerning the topic at hand, namely JP Holding's excellent defense of Christianity titled <I>The Impossible Faith</I>, what arguments would you like us to consider? All we've gotten from you and your colleagues are appeals to ignorance ("Really? Everybody?") and ad hominems (so what if he self-published?). I told you what you need to do if you want to seriously challenge Holding's arguments and regain some credibility, but you choose instead to play the victim. "Poor wittle me, getting picked on by all dees big, mean Chwistians!" Well boo-hoo, John. You'll need to do a heck of a lot better than "Really? Everybody?" if you want us to start taking you seriously again.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07875159676599156539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-63588070001950787342007-09-24T21:00:00.000-04:002007-09-24T21:00:00.000-04:00Fault away Darren. Throw the first stone. Look at ...Fault away Darren. Throw the first stone. Look at the splinter in other people's eye all you want to. Make mountains out of molehills, and continue repeating them all you want to. It's that kind of behavior that makes me glad I left the Christian faith in the dust. Thanks for yet another reminder.<BR/><BR/>I remember a Barthian Scholar talking about Origen who castrated himself for religious purity who said, "it's not what I do that bothers me so much. It's what I think about. My mind is a cesspool of filth." Apparently you are different, pure, holier than others. Congratulations!<BR/><BR/>Besides, why in hell do you really care whether I misled my readers one time? You think I mislead my readers every single time I argue against Christianity anyway.<BR/><BR/>As a former counselor in the churches I served I know the hidden faults of many Christians, and I suspect you are no different than them. <BR/><BR/>Still, let's say I am the worse person on earth. What does that have to do with any particular argument I might make? I made an argument with premises and a conclusion about the problem of evil. Whether or not I am the sterotypical immoral atheist you might think I must be, it is irrelevant to my argument itself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com