| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| Open Forums for ExChristian.Net > Old Board > I believe in the "bull", but I don't "buy" it |
| Posted by: sexkitten Oct 13 2004, 02:31 PM |
| Printable Version of Topic Click here to view this topic in its original format ExChristian.Net Open Forums > Debating with Christians > I Believe In The 'bull', But I Don't 'buy' It. Posted by: UV2003 Feb 1 2004, 04:51 PM Hey all, thanks for the help these past couple of weeks sorting through my doubts. I just wrote a short essay about my growing doubts that I will put on my web site and wanted to get opinions before doing so: Thanks! My experience with Fundamentalist Christianity Question: Do you believe in The Bible? Answer: I believe in the ‘bull’, but I don’t ‘buy’ it.* I began attending a church in Alpharetta, GA in December of 2002 with a good friend of mine. We began going after briefly attending a Methodist church near his apartment. The new church we went to was a “community” church and as part of their profession of faith they state that they believe the Bible is without error. I didn’t really worry about this very much for a while. I simply enjoyed fellowship and community with people and greatly benefited from the life lessons learned from many of the stories about Jesus Christ. I could say in these respects “Jesus saved me.” But, a few weeks ago the sermon series began to be about the validity of this faith from an historical perspective. The pastor would say things about how Christianity was different from all other religions because it was based upon what was seen and heard by men. I will not address whether I find tenable the proposition that Jesus Christ actually did rise from the dead in this essay. Rather, I will discuss what leads me to unbelief in the inerrancy of the Bible. First, some definitions are in order. Biblical inerrancy is the belief that the Bible is the inspired word of God. This means that espousers of Biblical inerrancy believe that the Bible and all of its words in its original languages were inspired directly by the will of God, the creator of the universe and sustainer of all life. They hold that this God worked through the hands and minds of human beings to produce a document that in its final 66- book canon is without a single error. Everything it teaches is correct and the final authority on all matters. From this belief, inerrancy believers derive their entire worldview of life. This includes finances, relationships, scientific paradigms, etc. Included in this belief is that the four canonical gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are historical eye-witness accounts that portray the miraculous birth, earthly mission, crucifixion and atoning death, resurrection, and heavenly ascension of Jesus of Nazareth. One cannot escape the pervasive influence of this belief upon the entire western world in particular, and by extension to the rest of the earth. This inerrant belief in the gospel accounts means that while each gospel tells different details about Jesus, that all of these details can be harmonized into a cohesive and logically flawless document. Again, I will not attempt to argue whether or not Jesus of Nazareth actually came back from the dead, but I will call into serious question the proposition that these four documents are as claimed inerrant historical witness. With that in mind, consider the rest of this essay in that light: Does the evidence presented lend itself to belief that these accounts are an absolutely infallible recollection of history, or could they be something else? What that something else is I will not attempt to definitively conclude. It could be that they are the best recollection of rumored or seen events; it could be fiction; it could be based on history, but embellished for political and theological purposes. My first serious doubt about the Bible’s inerrancy comes from the accounts of the crucifixion contained in the books of Matthew and Mark. I present below the narratives as translated in the NIV: Book of Matthew, Chapter 27 verses 45 through 54: The Death of Jesus 45From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land. 46About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi,[3] lama sabachthani?"--which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"[4] 47When some of those standing there heard this, they said, "He's calling Elijah." 48Immediately one of them ran and got a sponge. He filled it with wine vinegar, put it on a stick, and offered it to Jesus to drink. 49The rest said, "Now leave him alone. Let's see if Elijah comes to save him." 50And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. 51At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. 52The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people. 54When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, "Surely he was the Son[5] of God!" I Book of Mark Chapter 15 verses 33 through 39: The Death of Jesus 33At the sixth hour darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour. 34And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"--which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"[3] 35When some of those standing near heard this, they said, "Listen, he's calling Elijah." 36One man ran, filled a sponge with wine vinegar, put it on a stick, and offered it to Jesus to drink. "Now leave him alone. Let's see if Elijah comes to take him down," he said. 37With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last. 38The curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. 39And when the centurion, who stood there in front of Jesus, heard his cry and[4] saw how he died, he said, "Surely this man was the Son[5] of God!" According to Biblical scholars, the book of Mark was written first 1. Notice how similar the account is in both books. Notice that in Matthew, there is a line about tombs opening and many saints coming out of these tombs after Christ’s resurrection and then being seen by many in Jerusalem. After seeing these miracles, the centurion cries out that this was the Son of God. However, look at Mark’s earlier account. It says that when the centurion saw his cry and saw how he died he said he was the Son of God. There is no mention of him being terrified. The words are changed a little bit as well. Now, first of all, we are told that these accounts are without error and are completely in harmony with one another. But, the words are not the same. We can reasonably believe that different authors might word things slightly different as to the narrative, but when recounting the actual words of people in the events, should we not hold them to a higher standard? Apologists will say that the Holy Spirit worked within the personalities and styles of different writers to construct these accounts, but I for one cannot accept that a personal style can allow for the changing of a man’s spoken words. Notice that the words of Jesus are identical. Why should these words be identical and others not? Besides, the rest of the narrative is virtually identical except for this account of an earthquake and of dead saints rising and being seen by many.2 Notice also that the dead saints are said to come out of their graves after the resurrection prior to the account of the resurrection. The writer of Matthew knows he needs to lend more to this account to make it spectacular. He inserts details about an earthquake and dead saints resurrecting to bolster the account and then provides the centurion’s response, not to the sight of Christ’s death, but of the events surrounding it. Do we read about these saints in Paul’s writings? No. Why not? Is not the resurrection of many saints seen by many much more incredible workmanship of God than the resurrection of one man? Remember, when giving evidence to bolster an account, you use the evidence that will most likely persuade your listeners. If Paul knew about these many saints, why did he not use them to bolster his account? If he did not know about them, then how did later writers learn of them? Furthermore, why did Mark not know about them and Matthew did? If Mark was written between 65 and 70 AD, how could word of many risen saints seen by many people and of an earthquake not reach him at this time? Furthermore, if Mark was inspired by the Holy Spirit, why would the Holy Spirit choose not to reveal this to him? If God truly wants all to believe in his Son Jesus Christ, why did he not reveal al the details until later? These are all questions for inerrancy believers to answer, but I’ve not seen any reasonable response. I’ve tried. I’ll be open to hearing reasoning from others, but only if they are open to hearing what I have to say and what I have read. I often hear from Bible believing Christians that I have to have an open mind and an open heart to believe in Jesus. What I want to now ask in return is can you have an open mind for just 2 or 3 weeks to examine in the same detail that I have the counter-claims to your beliefs? Just take a few minutes a day to step away from Ravi Zacharias and William Lane Craig and the likes of other apologists. Do as I did and take Ravi Zacharias seriously. Zacharias says reality is grounded in either/or logic.3 Well, either the bible is without error or it is not. It’s that simple. It is not both without error and with error. Take the challenge and do this. Read the articles on www.infidels.org and engage in debate with non-Christians and ex-Christians, but take them seriously just as I have taken you all very seriously for over a year. Read the works of Richard Carrier, Jeffrey J. Lowder, Ed Babinski, and Robert Price. Also go to places like http://www.leaderu.com to read William Lane Craig and other bible-defenders. Make it even. Take these people as seriously as you take yourselves when you look at Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Taoism, and any other ism. Use the exact same standard of evidence that you use in evaluating claims in your everyday experience. Do you believe that God is unchanging and infallible? If so, why does he not perform miracles as he did many thousands of years ago? Why do you doubt groups like the Heaven’s Gate Cult and the Raelians who claim to have been inspired by God? What is your rationale for believing the claims of one group of superstitious people who lived in a superstitious culture with competing Gods and pantheons of deities 2,000 years ago and not believing in the claims of few today who make similar claims? Today, we scoff at what we call “outlandish” claims of the lunatic fringe, but when Christianity is the mainstream after once being itself a lunatic fringe, why do we scoff at those who scoff at us? Something is just not right there. I assert that it is the very traditions of men that Jesus himself criticized in the gospel accounts. As a people, we are unwilling to critically examine our own belief structures to the point that our examination might ultimately lay waste to such structures. The same people who will look at Muslim writings and claim that development of miraculous accounts did not appear until later therefore we cannot trust them will write that miraculous accounts in Christian gospel stories that didn’t appear until later are still true. I spoke to a pastor at an event last week who when I asked him questions about Matthew’s account simply told me that if miracles are possible God can do anything, including shaking tombs and reanimating bones into physical beings that can sit in their tombs for 3 days then bust out like slinkies and stroll around Jerusalem. I told him if I believe in miracles, then what rationale do I have to disbelieve in Hindu miracles? He said the false religions have demonic activity. There is angelic activity and demonic activity all around. Someone told me I should ask him, “Well do demons heal people?” I know some reading this want to close their eyes and close their minds and it may cost me friends or at the minimum acquaintances. I wanted very much to do the same thing and did for many months while reading these criticisms. But, believing falsehood never makes it true. I can believe all I want that I can jump off a building and fly away safely, but it simply will not happen. I can believe all I want that I can walk across water, and likewise it will not happen. Welcome to the desert of the real. But, even in a desert you may come across a very real oasis and from it you may drink. This is the question I leave you with: why does Matthew modify the crucifixion scene as he does and what do the biblical apologists say about this and what do biblical critics say about this? If you persist to believe without examining, then you have violated Paul’s admonition to give a reason for the hope that is within in. Take this as seriously as your church is telling you to take it. Do not take the words of men at face value. This includes my words, so investigate them yourselves. Attending church I have been told that it is rational to believe in Christianity’s literal, historical portrayal of a miracle-working Jesus, his atoning death, resurrection, spectacular ascension, and coming judgment of all. The story of Jesus may indeed be the greatest story ever told, because Jesus represents the embodiment of truth. If the story is not completely historical as fundamentalist doctrine demands, then we must consider the crucifixion account in a new light: Pilate hands Jesus over to be crucified by the mob. On the cross, Jesus, symbolizing the truth, is left there hung out to dry. One criminal with him mocks him and his claim that he is the messiah. The other recognizes him as being innocent. Now, 2,000 years later, when for centuries the historicity of this event has been argued, if indeed it is false, then it would be the religious defenders and mob of unquestioning followers who represent the man on the right, mocking the truth. And, it would be the doubters, the seekers of ultimate truth, those who cling not to the traditions of men and not to the mob who hold up the truth and are mocked, spit on, and scorned. These would be the ones upon whom a real Jesus would look and say, “Well done.” Again, I reiterate: what is it that the apologists say and the critics say about in particular the miraculous portents at the time of the crucifixion in the Matthew 27 and their conspicuous absence in Mark? Which explanation meets your standard of evidence that you apply to the religious claims of all other faiths and to everyday events in your life of today? Question: Do you believe in the Bible? Answer: I believe in the ‘bull’, but I don’t ‘buy’ it. 1. http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Homiletic/May97/gospels.html 2. http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1992/1/1saint92.html 3. http://www.urbana.org/_articles.cfm?RecordId=594 This is only the beginning. Posted by: PseudoGod Feb 1 2004, 05:23 PM Hey UV2003, I don't think I have debated with you before, but I am glad to see people questioning their beliefs, I went through the same thing and I think it is healthy. Good document though, I can't say I disagree. You said: "I often hear from Bible believing Christians that I have to have an open mind and an open heart to believe in Jesus. What I want to now ask in return is can you have an open mind for just 2 or 3 weeks to examine in the same detail that I have the counter-claims to your beliefs? I have to admit, I think this is going to be wishful thinking on your part. When I was a Christian if someone asked me to examine anything that questioned Christianity with an open mind and open heart I probably would have dismissed them as being possessed by satan, because I felt what I believed was the truth. One who has the truth need not look elsewhere for the truth, know what I mean? The funny thing is, I finally started questioning things on my own, and after about a year of very emotionally painful searching, look at me today..... an ex-Christian! Are you still going to chruch, or just doing research right now? John Posted by: TexasFreethinker Feb 1 2004, 05:24 PM Good stuff. Hopefully it will get someone to start thinking and stop following blindly. Posted by: Reach Feb 1 2004, 05:27 PM A brief correction... From this paragraph: This is the question I leave you with: why does Matthew modify the crucifixion scene as he does and what do the biblical apologists say about this and what do biblical critics say about this? If you persist to believe without examining, then you have violated Paul’s admonition to give a reason for the hope that is within in. Delete in. Also, I would say... If you persist in believing... A very well ordered essay. I agree we need to examine everything we can, and be willing to accept what we find. All the best, UV. Posted by: UV2003 Feb 1 2004, 05:53 PM QUOTE (PseudoGod @ Feb 1 2004, 05:23 PM) Hey UV2003, I don't think I have debated with you before, but I am glad to see people questioning their beliefs, I went through the same thing and I think it is healthy. Good document though, I can't say I disagree. You said: "I often hear from Bible believing Christians that I have to have an open mind and an open heart to believe in Jesus. What I want to now ask in return is can you have an open mind for just 2 or 3 weeks to examine in the same detail that I have the counter-claims to your beliefs? I have to admit, I think this is going to be wishful thinking on your part. When I was a Christian if someone asked me to examine anything that questioned Christianity with an open mind and open heart I probably would have dismissed them as being possessed by satan, because I felt what I believed was the truth. One who has the truth need not look elsewhere for the truth, know what I mean? The funny thing is, I finally started questioning things on my own, and after about a year of very emotionally painful searching, look at me today..... an ex-Christian! Are you still going to chruch, or just doing research right now? John Hey John, I know what you mean. I have some good friends that go to the church and whenever I bring up doubts they just don't want to hear it. They probably do think I'm possessed by Satan! Ironically, I think if I stop playing mental gymnastics to get myself to believe in this stuff, I may be able to start believing a little more in them and paying more attention to them and really getting to know them! How 'bout that? The question is will they accept me and want to bother being friends with me any longer if I would possibly corrupt them and have them question the fold? All I can do is "put it out there," the same way Christians on the radio or in the pulput tell me I can "put it out there" when inviting the unsaved to church. At least now I can hopefully start developing who I really am with others of like interests, just a simple guy who likes to play some tennis, ride my bike, enjoy the outdoors and my friends and family. If some of them want to take Jesus, Mohammed, or Buddha along for the show, I guess that's fine too. I didn't go to church today. The pastor said he believes Jesus is the only way and if people have a problem with that, then maybe we should not be there. I took his advice. I haven't really researched the claims of the resurrection being a real event yet. Even if the gospels were fictional, they could be based on a real event and sighting of a raised dead man I guess. Then again, I could just need more faith. -UV Posted by: PseudoGod Feb 1 2004, 06:47 PM QUOTE (UV2003 @ Feb 1 2004, 05:53 PM) The question is will they accept me and want to bother being friends with me any longer if I would possibly corrupt them and have them question the fold? UV, This is a tough one as far as will they want anything to do with you. I suppose it is really dependant on what your common interests are outside of Christianity. I think it also depends if they perceive you as a "backslider" or "blasphemer". Backsliders are often given the benefit of the doubt and are considered salvagable, whereas blasphemers are sometimes given up for dead. In your case, logic and reason are true enemies of faith, and are considered by some to be prized tools of the devil. You may be viewed as a threat with your secularist pseudo-intellectual reason and logic, clearly tricked and deceived by Satan and his demons. They may even schedule an appointment with a local exorcist, thinking that if they open your mouth and scream "Out Satan!" "Out!" enough times the devil will finally be defeated! (Laughing my ass off) Ok, I guess I am going a little overboard, but this is what some of these kooks believe! Anyway, I can't believe your church would tell you to leave if you had an issue with Jesus.... if nothing else that could seriously hurt tithing revenues. Priests and pastors have monthly payments to make to BMW and Lexus just like the any other rich person out there Seriously though all joking aside, I definitely think you are doing the right thing. Anyone who is truely your friend will not abandon you, especially if they are Christians who practice what they preach. However the sad reality is that many Christians don't practice what they preach. And I think many people on this site can attest to that. Anyway I think you said you would be writing and posting some more, I will look forward to your other postings. John Posted by: Loren Feb 1 2004, 07:01 PM QUOTE (UV2003 @ Feb 1 2004, 04:51 PM) As a people, we are unwilling to critically examine our own belief structures to the point that our examination might ultimately lay waste to such structures. The above phrase jumped out at me like a gem. And you're right, this is only the beginning. Just wait 'til some of your readers start to understand just how much of this kind of thing there is in the Bible. Got dem ol' cosmic blues again, Mama! Good stuff! I thought you did a good job in laying out one simple problem for them to answer, and the framework in which they had to stay. Also, I noted that you took care to make it clear that the reason such framework allows so little wiggle room is because of the way the Christians have layed out the rules. You told them that you have every reason to believe that if the parameters the Christians gave you are valid, and if the information they gave you is true, then they should be fully able to reconcile just this one problem. You've left them little way out and made it clear that the only reason they are in that position is due to the faulty system they must use. What I really like about this is that you have said, in effect, that if everything they told you is really true, then you should be able to expect them to stand and deliver. There is a soft spot in my heart for anyone who is willing to look religionists in the eye and say, "Stand and deliver!" And I hope things work out well with your friends. Posted by: UV2003 Feb 1 2004, 07:36 PM QUOTE (PseudoGod @ Feb 1 2004, 06:47 PM) QUOTE (UV2003 @ Feb 1 2004, 05:53 PM) The question is will they accept me and want to bother being friends with me any longer if I would possibly corrupt them and have them question the fold? UV, This is a tough one as far as will they want anything to do with you. I suppose it is really dependant on what your common interests are outside of Christianity. I think it also depends if they perceive you as a "backslider" or "blasphemer". Backsliders are often given the benefit of the doubt and are considered salvagable, whereas blasphemers are sometimes given up for dead. In your case, logic and reason are true enemies of faith, and are considered by some to be prized tools of the devil. You may be viewed as a threat with your secularist pseudo-intellectual reason and logic, clearly tricked and deceived by Satan and his demons. They may even schedule an appointment with a local exorcist, thinking that if they open your mouth and scream "Out Satan!" "Out!" enough times the devil will finally be defeated! (Laughing my ass off) Ok, I guess I am going a little overboard, but this is what some of these kooks believe! Anyway, I can't believe your church would tell you to leave if you had an issue with Jesus.... if nothing else that could seriously hurt tithing revenues. Priests and pastors have monthly payments to make to BMW and Lexus just like the any other rich person out there Seriously though all joking aside, I definitely think you are doing the right thing. Anyone who is truely your friend will not abandon you, especially if they are Christians who practice what they preach. However the sad reality is that many Christians don't practice what they preach. And I think many people on this site can attest to that. Anyway I think you said you would be writing and posting some more, I will look forward to your other postings. John Thanks, I think I need to try to meet more people in more honest environments. Church doesn't seem like an overly honest environment I mean, I'm in what they call a "small group" right now and we are honest there about life struggles and all that, but when it comes to scripture and such, it's like I cannot bring up doubts or I feel like an outsider outcast. Even if I end up totally rejecting a literal Christianity, I'll have the same basic values and goals that most of them have, I guess they will just come from a different place and from a different reason. How did you all go about meeting new and honest people while going through decon? I have to give my church credit though. The pastor has mentioned people who are there that told him they don't believe in Jesus, but they believe in the community and they are even volunteering with parking duty and stuff. I guess they just won't be doing the video-taped baptismal anytime soon to achieve official membership status. One thing I will start this week is to update my web site and put some stuff about my views and interests on there. It seems like a lot of people meet others through online connection nowadays. I've always been pretty much an introvert and don't care for things like superbowls or getting wasted. I'd much rather be outside playing tennis or hiking or something. -UV Posted by: UV2003 Feb 1 2004, 07:55 PM QUOTE (Loren @ Feb 1 2004, 07:01 PM) You told them that you have every reason to believe that if the parameters the Christians gave you are valid, and if the information they gave you is true, then they should be fully able to reconcile just this one problem. You've left them little way out and made it clear that the only reason they are in that position is due to the faulty system they must use. What I really like about this is that you have said, in effect, that if everything they told you is really true, then you should be able to expect them to stand and deliver. There is a soft spot in my heart for anyone who is willing to look religionists in the eye and say, "Stand and deliver!" And I hope things work out well with your friends. I may join another less dogmatic church, who knows. I have a cousin who is a Presbyterian minister and he told me he is not dogmatic, he just likes to help people. I don't know what that really means, I didn't probe much further. At his wedding he said something about how the love of God is an abstract concept that people like to talk about, but is made real when people love one another. I can't argue with that and there was certainly a lot of love at the wedding and reception! Thankfully, I have some friends who are Christian, a few others who are Muslim, some Hindu, some areligious, and some atheists. My family is historically Christian and attend church on Christmas, they're mostly science and computer hacks. One year I told them I just didin't want to go because I thought it was a joke to go on Christmas but not during the rest of the year. This past year I've taken Jesus so seriously that I just may have researched him out of the realm of believing in him -UV Posted by: Lokmer Feb 1 2004, 08:46 PM QUOTE This past year I've taken Jesus so seriously that I just may have researched him out of the realm of believing in him Man, it's good to hear someone else say that. I told sexkitten a little while ago that "I took my Christianity too seriously to continue to believe in it." And it's true. It was the quest for deeper understanding that pulled back the curtain and revealed the absence of substance. And it sucks (though I'm a bit more at peace with it now) to think that those who truly wish to know and serve God are the ones who eventually find out that he's not what they thought he was. -Lokmer Posted by: chefranden Feb 1 2004, 09:37 PM QUOTE (UV) This past year I've taken Jesus so seriously that I just may have researched him out of the realm of believing in him That's pretty much what got me out. Excellent essay! Posted by: UV2003 Feb 1 2004, 10:40 PM QUOTE (Lokmer @ Feb 1 2004, 08:46 PM) QUOTE This past year I've taken Jesus so seriously that I just may have researched him out of the realm of believing in him Man, it's good to hear someone else say that. I told sexkitten a little while ago that "I took my Christianity too seriously to continue to believe in it." And it's true. It was the quest for deeper understanding that pulled back the curtain and revealed the absence of substance. And it sucks (though I'm a bit more at peace with it now) to think that those who truly wish to know and serve God are the ones who eventually find out that he's not what they thought he was. -Lokmer Lokmer, the depth that you have studied things from seeing your other posts is incredible! To be honest, I hope I don't have to study that far to make a decision! I guess I still am having doubts about doubting, however crazy that may sound at this point. I'm still giving SpaceFalcon an ear about Judaism. I need to more closely examine the writings that try to paint Jesus as a synthesis of pagan and Jewish texts. All that I have read have been the Christian rebuttals on www.leaderu.com or like sites. I just put up a quick site and put my essay in it. Maybe I'll give the link to some friends, but I'm not sure right now. http://www.bydesignwebsights.com/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=8374 -UV Posted by: PseudoGod Feb 1 2004, 10:50 PM QUOTE (UV2003 @ Feb 1 2004, 07:36 PM) when it comes to scripture and such, it's like I cannot bring up doubts or I feel like an outsider outcast. I can TOTALLY relate to this! You have no idea how many times I asked reasonable, honest questions which were met with suspicious glances or raised eyebrows. Or if anyone bothered to answer my questions they were usually boilerplate answers like "we can't totally comprehend god", or "maybe you should pray for the answer", etc. Anyway I definitely felt like an outsider most of the time when I went to church. After so long I could tell that rational, objective thought used in an attempt to arrive at logical conclusions about Christianity or the Bible were not appreciated nor welcomed. As for meeting people, to be perfectly honest I never really had alot of Christian friends even when I was a Christian. One quality that is very important to me that I look for in friends is intelligence and the willingness to use it, and many devout/active Christians don't strike me as being too bright, or if they are I wouldn't know it. I would say the large majority of my friends were atheist, agnostic, or "casual Christians".....people who believed in the Christian God but didn't go to church or pray or anything except for maybe during the holidays or at weddings. But really, the topic of religion never really comes up with my friends, it is more of a personal thing, as I think it should be anyway. But anyway if you stick around here for awhile there are plenty of nice people here. In fact if I can be of any help to you feel free to email me offline, my address is in my profile. John Posted by: UV2003 Feb 1 2004, 11:18 PM QUOTE (PseudoGod @ Feb 1 2004, 10:50 PM) QUOTE (UV2003 @ Feb 1 2004, 07:36 PM) when it comes to scripture and such, it's like I cannot bring up doubts or I feel like an outsider outcast. I can TOTALLY relate to this! You have no idea how many times I asked reasonable, honest questions which were met with suspicious glances or raised eyebrows. Or if anyone bothered to answer my questions they were usually boilerplate answers like "we can't totally comprehend god", or "maybe you should pray for the answer", etc. Anyway I definitely felt like an outsider most of the time when I went to church. After so long I could tell that rational, objective thought used in an attempt to arrive at logical conclusions about Christianity or the Bible were not appreciated nor welcomed. As for meeting people, to be perfectly honest I never really had alot of Christian friends even when I was a Christian. One quality that is very important to me that I look for in friends is intelligence and the willingness to use it, and many devout/active Christians don't strike me as being too bright, or if they are I wouldn't know it. I would say the large majority of my friends were atheist, agnostic, or "casual Christians".....people who believed in the Christian God but didn't go to church or pray or anything except for maybe during the holidays or at weddings. But really, the topic of religion never really comes up with my friends, it is more of a personal thing, as I think it should be anyway. But anyway if you stick around here for awhile there are plenty of nice people here. In fact if I can be of any help to you feel free to email me offline, my address is in my profile. John John, I've felt this way all of my life. I have always had incredible wonder at the universe and just the fact that exists at all, but the Christian God and story never seemed totally reasonable to me, but I have given it my best try the past 13 months and have made some friends but all in all, my reading has lead to increased doubts. I thought people like Ravi Zacharias and William Lane Craig were capable defenders, but I'm not so sure anymore. I'm very interested in learning more about the theory that Mark's gospel was inspired not just by Jewish text, but by Homeric texts. Barnes and Noble is just down the road ;-) I need to get myself a laptop. If I'm going to be a student, I might as well find some "classmates." Besides, there are always smart girls studying there. One of the most intelligent people I know is a coworker of mine from Russia, an atheist. He's also very kind and generous. He knows more about the Bible than a lot of Christians I know. I don't know how some of my friends are going to react, but we'll see. Thinking is a good thing! -UV Posted by: Loren Feb 2 2004, 02:02 AM Thinking is a VERY good thing! Posted by: Lokmer Feb 2 2004, 02:20 AM Oh, man, UV I just spent a while reading through that website you linked to and am just...speechless. Off in their own dreamworld they are, not knowing (or chosing not to acknowledge) major swaths of issues they dealt with. I read in-depth the article on "Refuting pro-gay theology", the "10 lies of the feminist movement", and...man it's late and I can't remember the other one right now but it had to do with scriptural authority. From the subtle to the gross, here are some of the indefensible errors: Stating repeatedly and unequivocally that Paul wrote 1 and 2 Timothy. Authorship of 1 Timothy is debated among conservative scholars quite hotly (and dismissed among all those left of the conservative end of the Evangelical Theological Society), 2nd Timothy is almost universally recognized as non-Pauline (most think it was written by one of his disciples in his name). Repeating gob-scheiz arguments about "Biblical womanhood" and "Biblical morality", with the unspoken (but loud as a foghorn) assumption that the Bible lays out an unbending moral code, and that most of the important stuff is in the Levitical law (although they conviniently ignore that which they do not like - since they are by and large not theonomists, they don't advocate execution for homosexuality, for example). Referring to Jerry Falwell as a "great conservative leader." I grew up around conservative theologians (including the President of the Evangelical Theological Society) and don't know a one that doesn't cringe at the mention of his name. Falling back on "Biblical teaching" without realizing or acknowledging that their version of "Biblical teaching" is heavily culturally conditioned. Painting Bonhoeffer as a conservative. And those are just criticisms from a conservative Christian viewpoint. Now, donning my apostate's gloves... Nah, there isn't enough space. I think the thing I find the most distressing about it is that sites like this, staffed with sharp but disingenuous minds (whether consciously or unconsciously), is that invariably their critique articles carry just enough of a grain of truth to be dangerous. The article about defeating pro-gay theology, for instance, justly points out some big holes and deceptions in pro-gay propaganda (the 10% myth, the static orientation construct, the exaggerated rates of gay teen suicide) which gay propogandists would do well to address and correct, since their cause is a just one, rather than using convinient lies. But the leadership-u site author then goes on to talk about his own exaggerated statistics of "untold thousands" of converted ex-gays, and covers his bases by going on about how "even if" homosexuality were proven to be genetic, the Bible still holds universal witness against it, etc. etc. ad nauseum. The article on feminism was similar, but was constructed more out of straw men and was more blatantly disingenuous. UV, if you are serious about really finding the last best hope for the Christian faith, don't read these loonies. Read Barth, Bonhoeffer, Ellul (especially Ellul!), Tillich, and possibly Neighbur. They understand the problems posed by the modern world and the destruction they wreak on Christianity, and they valiantly attempt to find the workable core of God's truth under the wreckage. And for the most part they succeed. The only reason I don't buy them anymore is I know too much about where the Christ story comes from - whether there was an actual guy at the center of it or not - and can't accept the story as historical. If I could, I'd still be a Christian today - or at least a Jesus Radical, as the Christian label lost its appeal for me long ago. Good luck in your journey. If there is a God, you will find out, because the hand of God will guide you to the truth. If there is not, it's better to know. I am still on that journey, which is why I'm an agnostic. I hope there is one. But even if there isn't, the journey yeilds immense rewards. -Lokmer Posted by: UV2003 Feb 2 2004, 02:42 AM QUOTE (Lokmer @ Feb 2 2004, 02:20 AM) Oh, man, UV I just spent a while reading through that website you linked to and am just...speechless. Off in their own dreamworld they are, not knowing (or chosing not to acknowledge) major swaths of issues they dealt with. I read in-depth the article on "Refuting pro-gay theology", the "10 lies of the feminist movement", and...man it's late and I can't remember the other one right now but it had to do with scriptural authority. From the subtle to the gross, here are some of the indefensible errors: Stating repeatedly and unequivocally that Paul wrote 1 and 2 Timothy. Authorship of 1 Timothy is debated among conservative scholars quite hotly (and dismissed among all those left of the conservative end of the Evangelical Theological Society), 2nd Timothy is almost universally recognized as non-Pauline (most think it was written by one of his disciples in his name). Repeating gob-scheiz arguments about "Biblical womanhood" and "Biblical morality", with the unspoken (but loud as a foghorn) assumption that the Bible lays out an unbending moral code, and that most of the important stuff is in the Levitical law (although they conviniently ignore that which they do not like - since they are by and large not theonomists, they don't advocate execution for homosexuality, for example). Referring to Jerry Falwell as a "great conservative leader." I grew up around conservative theologians (including the President of the Evangelical Theological Society) and don't know a one that doesn't cringe at the mention of his name. Falling back on "Biblical teaching" without realizing or acknowledging that their version of "Biblical teaching" is heavily culturally conditioned. Painting Bonhoeffer as a conservative. And those are just criticisms from a conservative Christian viewpoint. Now, donning my apostate's gloves... Lokmer, thanks for the tips... What do you think of Ravi Zacharias? His web site is www.rzim.org I believe. Ironically, he is the one who spurred me to really question Christianity with his insistence that reality is either/or: Either the book is "without error" or it is not! What are your thoughts on the origin of the Christ story? You said something about the historicity of it. I've exchanged emails with Gary Habermas, an author who says he's written 11 books on the resurrection and that he's asked every possible question. He works at liberty university. Do you know anything about him? What is your overall view of that LeaderU site? I've read a lot of William Lane Craig's stuff, but also a fair bit of criticism of him on Infidels.org and jcnot4me.com. Nice avatar too. -UV Posted by: Lokmer Feb 2 2004, 11:19 AM QUOTE (UV2003 @ Feb 2 2004) Lokmer, thanks for the tips... What do you think of Ravi Zacharias? His web site is www.rzim.org I believe. Ironically, he is the one who spurred me to really question Christianity with his insistence that reality is either/or: Either the book is "without error" or it is not! I've not been generally unimpressed with Ravi. As far as I can tell, the man is sincere, but (at least in the book of his I read) his reasoning is circular most of the time, doing things like using scripture to prove scripture, etc. I find his reasoning (like most ultra conservatives) to be simplistic and incapable of nuance except when he's trying to weasel his way out of a paradox, which I think is a bit disingenuous. QUOTE What are your thoughts on the origin of the Christ story? You said something about the historicity of it. Let me back up a bit and tell you how my questions were framed first, and then I'll answer yours. I ran into my long night of the soul when I was researching and writing a book called "Hiding the lamp: A call to Christian integrity in art." The book is unfinished, but I intend to finish it as soon as I find a way to do it without having to pretend I still believe. Part of the history and nature of art is myth. Now, I've studied myth and comp. rel. for many years now, as both tell about culture, humanity, etc. and never had a problem. But when you get into mythic studies with an eye toward treating your own mythology with integrity, you are forced to make connections between the diciplines that can otherwise be comfortably compartmentalized in one's mind. I started coming across problems. The first was hell - I'd never seriously believed in hell because no one really agreed on what it was or why it was there, and it was hardly mentioned aside from Revelation (which I long suspected made it into the canon by accident, and whose authenticity has been disputed ever since it was cannonized). But it IS part of the Christian theology of salvation, so I did study the Hebrew concept of hell, only to find that it didn't exist. The Jews did not (and still do not) believe in any sort of hell. But the pagan nations around them did. The Egyptians did. The Babylonians did. The Romans did. And all the Jewish literature about apocalypse and torment (Daniel, Enoch, etc.) was written after the Babylonian captivity. So there goes hell. At this point I sat down and tried to figure out why I believed in Christianity, and what it would take for it to be true. I spent a long time whittling away at the layers of doctrine and superstition, discarding everything I knew to be Pagan in origin - angels, demons, the flood story, apocalyptic, etc., and came up with this: Christianity claims to be the ultimate and cumulative revelation of God to humanity. It is a story that rests on a unique historical event that happened once and for all to redeem the world from sin. Nothing else besides that matters. Only these things: The fall had to have happened somehow, Christ had to have lived, died, and rose. And it had to have been a surprise, happening only once, for it to truly carry the meaning that it claimed to. So, I can comfortably categorize Paul with all other theologians - an interesting read, occasionally wise, but prone to error and stupidity as well as the next guy. I read Ellul's "Subversion of Christianity" where he goes through the same process of peeling to get to the kernel of the divine at the core of the faith. And I kept on working on my book. But a funny thing happened on my way to the publishing house. I discovered the god-men. Every culture that does not live in canopy jungle has one, and very few cultures that live in canopy jungle have one. The god-man is born of a virgin who is impregnated by the most high God in a usually non-sexual manner that is usually named Mary or an etymological antecedant on or around the winter solstice, his birth takes place in a cave, his birth is attended by shephers or cattlemen, he is sought by astrologers, he is given the name Christ or Immanuel (or some liguistic equivalent), he has a precocious youth, he is tempted by the devil 3 times after a 40 day fast, he teaches about forgiveness and love (in many of the same phrases the world over), he prophecies about judgement, he eats a sacred meal of bread or meat and wine which represent his flesh and blood, he is betrayed, killed (usually by being hung on a tree, crucified, or beaten to death on a hill), buried for three to nine days, is raised to life and discovered by a woman, and ascends into heaven where he is seated at the right hand of the Most High God to judge the sins of the world. That^^^ is the creed and mythos of the mystery cult, that goes by many names: Attis, Mitra, Apollo, Buddha, Krishna, Osiris, and many, many others. The mystery cults were very popular in the 1st thru 4th centuries in the Roman world. The question is, who got what from whom? Did the mysteries steal all of that from a real historical Jesus? Or did Paul and the Gospel writers steal the elements from the Mysteries in an effort to make Jesus live on or to save Judaism from its coming collapse? In the case of Attis and Apollo, a good case can be made for their having been a late first or early second century emergence, so no real problem for Christianity there. Buddha and Krishna are both hundreds of years older than Christianity, but they were arguably too far away to influence the Jews. That leaves us with Mithra and Osiris. The cult of Mitra comes from Zoroastrianism, the monotheistic Babylonian religion that pre-dates monotheistic Judaism by a couple of centuries (Judaism was polytheistic and then henotheistic before the Babylonian captivity). But there is significant scholarly disagreement over whether or not Mithraism acquired all the mystery elements before the 1st century (I'm convinced that it did, but a good case is argued on the other side). So, we can tentatively discard that as an influence. That brings us to Osiris. The legend of Osiris, which fits the above described in almost exact detail, is inscribed in a room within the Great Pyramid at Giza, which was constructed (depending on who you ask) between 3,000 BCE and 1,500 BCE. It not only pre-dates Christianity, but it pre-dates Judaism and even the Cult of Yahweh as determined by the most conservative scholars. The Egyptians had significant ongoing influence on Hebrew/Jewish culture throughout its history - their trade routes with Greece and Rome ran right through Israel. Alexandria was the center of Essene and Pharisee learning - and the Essene/Therapute had most of the same doctrinal and mythic structure that the Christians do. Even if none of the other God-men could have influenced Christianity, this one undeniably and unquestionably did. So now the problem: Everything about the Christ story of theological import was told as myth 3,000 years before he was supposedly born. The story was no longer unique. Furthermore, there are only two ways out of this conundrum. One way is to say, as Justin Martyr and Tertullian did, that "The devil knew what was coming and got there first." But that does not actually solve the problem, it just brings up larger ones (Is the devil really that powerful? If he is, is God really the ruler of the universe? and so on), as well as being a bald-faced rationalization. The other is to say "The resurrection does not mean what we think it does, but is just God revealing himself to humanity. He does this in all cultures across time, because people forget." The atonement loses its meaning (which isn't an awful thing because Original Sin stands on really shaky historical and doctrinal ground anyway), but God goes on and Jesus goes on. I could deal with that. Until the other shoe drops. For this ^^ new synthesis to work, Jesus still had to be a prophet of God and an incarnation of God. But Jesus lied. He insulted people. He declared false prophecy. Even C.S. Lewis, in Miracles, was forced to admit that "If we are honest, we have to say that Jesus was mistaken" about the coming parousia. And all his apostles were as well. Deuteronomy lays out the criteria for a prophet - if their prophecies come true, they are from Yahweh. If they do not, they are talking to themselves. If the OT is thrown out as Marcion tried to do, there is no basis for Christianity, as it is a distinctively Judaic mystery cult and its moral/ethical/theological system depends on the OT being at least partly true and from God. But judging Christ by the standards Yahweh handed down in the OT, Jesus was a false prophet, and hence not from God. And that's where it finally broke for me. I have found a lot of other things out since then, but for me that's mere confirmation. The above is what broke Christianity for me - it simply isn't true. QUOTE I've exchanged emails with Gary Habermas, an author who says he's written 11 books on the resurrection and that he's asked every possible question. He works at liberty university. Do you know anything about him? Don't know the guy personally, but if he works at Liberty he can't be very good at what he does. (BTW, I'm not being flippant, I'm dead serious here). QUOTE What is your overall view of that LeaderU site? I've read a lot of William Lane Craig's stuff, but also a fair bit of criticism of him on Infidels.org and jcnot4me.com. I was pretty appalled at the LeaderU site. Very dishonest scholarship up there. If you want Good scholarship from a Christian point of view, there are better places you can go. QUOTE Nice avatar too. Thanks! It's one of my favorites of the pictures I've taken, of my favorite model so far -Lokmer Posted by: UV2003 Feb 2 2004, 12:04 PM QUOTE (Lokmer @ Feb 2 2004, 11:19 AM) QUOTE (UV2003 @ Feb 2 2004) Lokmer, thanks for the tips... What do you think of Ravi Zacharias? His web site is www.rzim.org I believe. Ironically, he is the one who spurred me to really question Christianity with his insistence that reality is either/or: Either the book is "without error" or it is not! I've not been generally unimpressed with Ravi. As far as I can tell, the man is sincere, but (at least in the book of his I read) his reasoning is circular most of the time, doing things like using scripture to prove scripture, etc. I find his reasoning (like most ultra conservatives) to be simplistic and incapable of nuance except when he's trying to weasel his way out of a paradox, which I think is a bit disingenuous. I have read some rebuttals of the god-men theories, but they haven't really convinced me. They say God revealed his redemptive plan at the tower of babel and then satan used this knowledge to influence other stories: http://www.xenos.org/teachings/ot/genesis/gary/gen11-1.htm I guess that could be possible. What I don't understand is if Yahweh is not real, then why are there so many stories about his people failing him and his continued promises to them? If it were just a big conspiracy, wouldn't they just want to point out their glories, or is there another reason these details are left in? One thing I try not to do is make the assumption that all these people KNEW there was no Yahweh and were participating in some kind of known conspiracy. Some of them had to genuinely believe in it and what about the prophets? I have to learn more about prophecy. Thanks for the info, UV Posted by: UV2003 Feb 2 2004, 01:18 PM I posted my essay to the Calvin college mailing list, and got this response so far: Josh Gough wrote: First, some definitions are in order. Biblical inerrancy is the belief that the Bible is the inspired word of God. This means that espousers of Biblical inerrancy believe that the Bible and all of its words in its original languages were inspired directly by the will of God, the creator of the universe and sustainer of all life. They hold that this God worked through the hands and minds of human beings to produce a document that in its final 66- book canon is without a single error. ******* A variation is that the original manuscripts were inerrant in the autographs, but it is acceptable to acknowledge that scribal errors and errors in translation have occurred over the course of many years. These errors are well-documented and could be used to refute any claims of inerrancy that try to go beyond that. An inerrant King James Version, for example, which is implied by the word "final" is a mistaken idea that can be easily disproved. ******* Included in this belief is that the four canonical gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are historical eye-witness accounts that portray the miraculous birth, earthly mission, crucifixion and atoning death, resurrection, and heavenly ascension of Jesus of Nazareth. One cannot escape the pervasive influence of this belief upon the entire western world in particular, and by extension to the rest of the earth. This inerrant belief in the gospel accounts means that while each gospel tells different details about Jesus, that all of these details can be harmonized into a cohesive and logically flawless document. Again, I will not attempt to argue whether or not Jesus of Nazareth actually came back from the dead, but I will call into serious question the proposition that these four documents are as claimed inerrant historical witness. ******* Luke was a physician who traveled with Paul. Read the 2nd verse of Luke, and you will see that he did not claim eyewitness status. (Snip) ******* According to Biblical scholars, the book of Mark was written first 1. Notice how similar the account is in both books. Notice that in Matthew, there is a line about tombs opening and many saints coming out of these tombs after Christ’s resurrection and then being seen by many in Jerusalem. After seeing these miracles, the centurion cries out that this was the Son of God. However, look at Mark’s earlier account. It says that when the centurion saw his cry and saw how he died he said he was the Son of God. There is no mention of him being terrified. The words are changed a little bit as well. ******* Knitpicking. ******* Now, first of all, we are told that these accounts are without error and are completely in harmony with one another. But, the words are not the same. ******* And no two manuscripts in existence today, all copies and copies of copies, are the same. ******* We can reasonably believe that different authors might word things slightly different as to the narrative, but when recounting the actual words of people in the events, should we not hold them to a higher standard? Apologists will say that the Holy Spirit worked within the personalities and styles of different writers to construct these accounts, but I for one cannot accept that a personal style can allow for the changing of a man’s spoken words. Notice that the words of Jesus are identical. Why should these words be identical and others not? Besides, the rest of the narrative is virtually identical except for this account of an earthquake and of dead saints rising and being seen by many.2 Notice also that the dead saints are said to come out of their graves after the resurrection prior to the account of the resurrection. The writer of Matthew knows he needs to lend more to this account to make it spectacular. ******* Now who is embellishing? Matthew or the writer of this email? ******* /* That is my favorite of his comments. That I am the one who is embelising. Wow. A document written years after another that adds accounts of earthquakes and many dead people coming back to life and being seen by many people is less likely to be an embelisment than my assertion that it is an embelishment. Wow. I am speechless. */ He inserts details about an earthquake and dead saints resurrecting to bolster the account and then provides the centurion’s response, not to the sight of Christ’s death, but of the events surrounding it. Do we read about these saints in Paul’s writings? No. Why not? ******* Paul? He wasn't there. ******* /* Neither was Paul at the empty tomb, but we accept his testimony about Jesus? */ Is not the resurrection of many saints seen by many much more incredible workmanship of God than the resurrection of one man? Remember, when giving evidence to bolster an account, you use the evidence that will most likely persuade your listeners. If Paul knew about these many saints, why did he not use them to bolster his account? If he did not know about them, then how did later writers learn of them? Furthermore, why did Mark not know about them and Matthew did? If Mark was written between 65 and 70 AD, how could word of many risen saints seen by many people and of an earthquake not reach him at this time? Furthermore, if Mark was inspired by the Holy Spirit, why would the Holy Spirit choose not to reveal this to him? If God truly wants all to believe in his Son Jesus Christ, why did he not reveal al the details until later? These are all questions for inerrancy believers to answer, but I’ve not seen any reasonable response. ******* Not many inerrantists on this list. You need to go to a church and speak with a youth pastor who is better equipped to handle these questions. He gets them all the time. ******* /* Maybe the youth pastor will have the evidence for many dead saints rising from the dead that the rest of the internet does not have. */ Do as I did and take Ravi Zacharias seriously. Zacharias says reality is grounded in either/or logic.3 Well, either the bible is without error or it is not. It’s that simple. It is not both without error and with error. Take the challenge and do this. Read the articles on www.infidels.org and engage in debate with non-Christians and ex-Christians, but take them seriously just as I have taken you all very seriously for over a year. Read the works of Richard Carrier, Jeffrey J. Lowder, Ed Babinski, and Robert Price. Also go to places like http://www.leaderu.com to read William Lane Craig and other bible-defenders. Make it even. ******* Rather than making inerrancy the issue, decide for yourself whether or not the total evidence is so incredible that you are willing to pass on a free gift of salvation just because a possibility exists that some error may have crept in someplace. Lets's get that problem solved first. Do you want to risk eternal life on this issue? I will be happy to email you a chapter from my book, The Origins Solution, titled "Inerrancy: to Err is Human." Hopefully, it will help you get over these difficulties. Dick Fischer - Genesis Proclaimed Association Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History www.genesisproclaimed.org ******* This was my response to him: Hey Dick, Thank you for the response. Your points about Luke and other things have been noted. Thank you. Still, however: Matthew was written after Mark and Mark does not mention many saints rising from the dead and being seen by many. He also does not mention an earthquake at the tomb. Also, Paul was not at the empty tomb, but he still talks about Jesus, so your argument fails there. Why does he not talk about many other people who came back from the dead after the resurrection to bolster his account? If his goal is to persuade others to believe as he does, then certainly he would use such evidence, or the Holy Spirit would reveal it to him, would it not? Applying the same standard of evidence to these accounts, one would logically conclude that the stories were embellished without any other presuppositions (such as the Bible being a reliable witness to the divinity of Christ) As an example, suppose in 30 years someone writes an account of the WTC atrocity and they say jets full of terrorists flew into them and took them down. A few days later, it is claimed that a prominent CEO who was seen dead has come back from the dead to rally his comrades. Now, suppose some years go by, and another account (almost word for word) is written about the towers crumbling, but this one says that at the moment the towers crumbled, many CEOs rose out of the rubble and then after the prominent CEO rose, they walked around Manhattan and were seen by many people. 50 days after the prominent CEO ascends to heaven, one of his comrades gives a speech to give hope and bring people together under this CEO’s name, but he does not mention many CEOs being raised from the dead and being seen by many people in Manhattan. By applying a standard of evidence that we would all apply in any field of rea |