Peter Kirby
May 8, 2007, 07:25 PM
Gladys presented him/herself as a teenage girl, although a later 1998 study (http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/d91582b049645edd) "found" that he was in fact a middle aged man and the victim of childhood abuse. I don't know if that is true. I do know that I as a 15 year old boy took Gladys at face value. In fact, I had a submissive fantasy about this poster in which I got off on the idea of her dominating and humiliating me. (I remember masturbating while the popular song "Love Me" by The Cardigans played on the radio at the time.) The reality was that this poster did humiliate me, in the electronic medium.
Much is revealed by the evolution of my signature. In November of 1996, I was still a simple hyphen, "-Peter Kirby." Soon I would become "God bless" after an absence of a couple weaks talking with Richard Harlos, and after that "blessings" occasionally switched with "thanks" when I realized that the "God bless" closing was seen as offensive.
Just as Richard Harlos drew me closer to the nexus of God-talk, the great mass of alt.atheism would tear me away from it. But to return to "the Gladys affair."
This was my first reply to Gladys:
gladys wrote:
> The existence of the creator is an either/or proposition.
> The universe is either created, or, it is not created.
> If we are created, our creator has no way to prove this to us.
> It is likewise impossible to prove that we are not created.
> The philosopher is thus left with a choice. She may, for a time,
> believe we are created, she may, for a time, believe we are not created,
> or, she may, for a time, take no position. The length of time she takes
> in the assumption of either axiom is entirely up to the philosopher.
> Either choice in the matter is as rational as the other.
> Love,
> Gladys
Roughly, this is how scientific conjectures are tested:
Think up hypothesis A. Think of the objective consequences of
hypothesis A (if none, it isn't a scientific conjecture). Show how
those consequences differ from simpler theories (if no difference, the
hypothesis dies to Occam's razor). Go out and measure your predicted
differences. If the results agree with hypothesis A, repeat the
experiment a few times and publish the results if it all works out. If
they disagree, revise or throw out hypothesis A.
The hypothesis is the creation of the universe by a god. What are the
objective consequences? I think that the hypothesis is too vague to
come up with any objective consequences (created how? when? by what kind
of god?) except the existence of the universe. Simpler theories (eg
"the universe just exists" instead of "a god who created the universe
just exists") account for this. Therefore not believing in a creator is
more scientifically rational than the belief in the creator (until you
elaborate your creation hypothesis so there are objective differences).
Your specific hypothesis is the creation of the universe by the godess
Talula in an Eden-like way. What are the objective consequences? Of
course, the existence of men and women is one. Simpler theories
(evolution is scientifically simpler as it is accountable just by
theories of physics) account for this. Furthermore, all evidence agrees
with evolutionary theory, making it one of the most scientifically
accepted theories. You will need to come up with further consequences
for Talula, and you need to explain where science has gone wrong. You
are free to believe, but you aren't convincing.
Don't think I seek proof; I don't need proof for what I believe, only
evidence. A creator of the universe certainly could give me evidence
for her existence. If I could witness a miracle with other people, if I
could talk with your wise godess who could answer all my questions, then
I would believe. If it could be objectively shown that a creator is
most probable, then I would believe. Until then the only rational
stance is not to believe. (Furthermore, if there is evidence to the
contrary, as in your Eden-making Talula, the rational stance is to
believe there is no such thing.) If I just believed every J. Prophet to
come along I would be an incoherent mess, but I demand reason.
-Peter Kirby
By the way, I suggest you just calm down a little:
"Remember, what you publish here shall live forever, for all of these
words are being archived for eternity, and seekers shall come exactly to
this thread."
"Has your mind has been twisted by the indoctrination of the religion
thrust upon you at your birth, pray tell us, what was that religion?
Was it christianity, like Stix? Catholicism?"
"I used to crush people with words, I have been blessed with a
gift for words, and I sorrowed that I had made a weapon of my gift, so I
do not rise so often in my sopwith camel to engage in the
snoopy/redbaron flame wars. I simply disarm the potentional predator,
and he/she is left to swarm with the other powerless trollers and
flamers in the sky, cursing and ranting to no avail. It is a spectacle
to behold. In this manner, they suffer no crushing blow to their sense
of equanaminity, and afterwards, they can calm down, consider the words,
and amend their philosophies. Do not waste any more time fueling up the
Tornado against me, all of your weapons lie at the bottom of the sea."
"Yes! Our creator is a loving nurturing female! Once you decide to take
the existence side of the fundamental alternative, to simply believe in
her existence, the evidence is overwhelming, it flows like a river."
"Are there perhaps any women out there who can accept a female as an
instructor in philosophy? Even a young female? A prodigy perhaps?
want me to just sit down and play the piano instead, so I shall be in my
proper place?
should I just get up and go die? Isn't that the better thing to do?
Makes it easy on everybody. then, in 50 years or so, they can read my
words, and safely say, "maybe little gladys had something there." I
swear if I shall ever meet Dr. Kervorkian, I shall kiss him with my
tounge. But enough of that, come child, let us continue our sweet
discussion..."
"I love you two boys in your silliness. You have created a thread of
eternal beauty. Come to momma now, it is time to be fed, yes, I shall
feed the both of you, a breast for each, and I shall burp you and you
shall leave little puddles of white vomit on the soft skin where my
neck rises from my shoulder, and I shall bathe you and put to a safe
sleep.
Oh silly boys, now at night, in your wishing prayers, for I know in your
heart you are honest boys, you reach out a prayer once in a while before
falling to sleep, and tonight, Talula, your loving creator, shall come
smiling into your arms, to rest her happy cheek on your shoulder, to
sleep with you, you have brought her so much joy in your proud
obstinance! She shall embrace you! Someday, you shall know how deeply
you are cherished!"
Was I fascinated by some of the imagery, perhaps, that I reproduced it? I don't know, but the end result was that I was somewhat fascinated by the idea of Gladys. I parried and she thrusted, and I liked it.
This was my second reply to Gladys:
gladys wrote:
> Some well thought out ideas, thank you Mr. Kirby.
> Peter Kirby wrote:
> > gladys wrote:
> > > The existence of the creator is an either/or proposition.
> > > The universe is either created, or, it is not created.
> > > If we are created, our creator has no way to prove this to us.
> > > It is likewise impossible to prove that we are not created.
> > > The philosopher is thus left with a choice. She may, for a time,
> > > believe we are created, she may, for a time, believe we are not created,
> > > or, she may, for a time, take no position. The length of time she takes
> > > in the assumption of either axiom is entirely up to the philosopher.
> > > Either choice in the matter is as rational as the other.
> > > Love,
> > > Gladys
> > Roughly, this is how scientific conjectures are tested:
> > Think up hypothesis A. Think of the objective consequences of
> > hypothesis A (if none, it isn't a scientific conjecture). Show how
> > those consequences differ from simpler theories (if no difference, the
> > hypothesis dies to Occam's razor). Go out and measure your predicted
> > differences. If the results agree with hypothesis A, repeat the
> > experiment a few times and publish the results if it all works out. If
> > they disagree, revise or throw out hypothesis A.
> Very well presented.
> > The hypothesis is the creation of the universe by a god.
> No, let us agree on our terms in order to proceed. The axioms are more
> simply stated:
> A. The universe is created.
> B. The universe is not created.
> We should consider each one of them in their turn, however, you chose to
> focus solely on the axiom of creationism, thereby implying (as the FAQ
> does also) that the axiom of atheism might be viewed as a given, and it
> is important to strike this erroneous notion straight from the earth.
> This is also given as "the default view" in various postings, implying
> it is the more rational of the axioms. The rational skeptic will view
> either axiom with an equal amount of skepticism.
I'm afraid that this is the whole concern of the discussion and
restating it won't make it true. An atheist does not believe in a god.
This is only a lack of belief. Strong atheists believe the gods thought
of so far don't exist, and weak atheists have no beliefs in this
regard. I didn't know that atheists held "axioms" that are unassailable
by science.
The word hypothesis is more appropriate than axiom in reference to the
existence of a god. Axiom means "a statement universally accepted as
true" or "self-evident proposition." However, the answer is far from
self-evident for the purposes of this discussion. The hypothesis is
that to be demonstrated.
> At any rate, you proceed with your reasonable discussion in regard to
> axiom A, creationism
> > What are the
> > objective consequences? I think that the hypothesis is too vague to
> > come up with any objective consequences (created how? when? by what kind
> > of god?) except the existence of the universe.
> The objective consequences for the philosopher are, among others, the
> following:
> 1. The creator exists as a single entity. She cannot be a comittee.
> 2. The reason for the creation is learnable, the Creator is exposed by
> her handiwork.
> 3. Questions as to how or when the universe was created can no longer
> be of importance to the philosopher. 4. A rational moral code can be
> developed based upon the reason for the creation.
This doesn't follow. All that was assumed was that there was a creator
of the universe, whom we will call "god." Nothing says that there
aren't many persons in the creator. Nothing says that the universe
isn't an accidental creation, without purpose. Nothing says the creator
isn't a moral monster, and nothing says that morality isn't just the
concern of mankind. Nothing says that the creator exists now. All that
we said was about the creator is that the being was the cause of the
universe. And none of those "consequences" are objective in that any
person can decisively test them (unless you can tell me the procedure).
Can you see the fruitlessness in assuming the existence of a generic
creator? It offers absolutely no insight to other questions, and it
cannot be falsified (unless you tell me how). We might as well also
assume the existence invisible pink unicorns or some such. A more
specific creator might make interesting discussion.
> > Simpler theories (eg "the universe just exists" instead of "a god who created the
> > universe just exists") account for this.
> The philosopher can, upon embracing the atheism axiom, take further the
> "just exists" hypothesis, or the "began approximately on this date.."
> hypothesis, among others. Those who embrace the creationism axiom,
> find no importance in questions of whether god "just exists". It is
> already assumed. therefore, the axiom of creatinism is easily seen as
> the simpler axiom, but that is not to imply that it is thus the more
> rational axiom, for simpleness is not a proof of rationality.
Questions about the real world are not answered by making assumptions (a
priori, excuse my Latin) but by looking at the evidence (a posteriori).
Science doesn't "embrace axioms;" all must be falsifiable. As long as
we remain in the domain of science, simplicity a la Occam's razor makes
a more acceptable hypothesis. Everyone knows that the universe exists.
The hypothesis that "my god exists" and "my god created the universe" is
unnecessarily complicated unless it explains something theories have
failed to. As it does not, it is not scientifically rational to believe
the hypothesis as it is not to believe. An anology might help. I
propose that "Yafup exists" and "Yafup is the cause of gravity." It is
asked "What reason is there for belief?" I answer "Well, it's an
either/or proposition. Either Yafup exists or it doesn't. It can't be
proven either way; it's not testable, of course. But the 'philosopher'
should be equally skeptical of both, and take up both sides of the
proposition during their growth." This is absurd; it isn't an either/or
proposition. It is up to the person who proposes the existence of
something to provide evidence for it. Until the evidence is brought
forward it is most scientifically rational to dismiss the idea.
> Therefore not believing in a creator is
> > more scientifically rational than the belief in the creator (until you
> > elaborate your creation hypothesis so there are objective differences).
> I think we have seen now perhaps a very reversal of this statement, but
> I continue to hold the belief that either axiom is as rational as the
> other, in that, it is impossible to know for a certainty if either one
> of them is correct or incorrect.
But that is the very reason that it isn't scientifically rational. If
there is no way to test a hypothesis, if we cannot know with certainty
that it is not correct, it isn't scientifically rational, as I hope to
have explained above. It's as rational as believing in the Big
Invisible Blob, the Super Small Mice, and the Invisible Pink Unicorn
because "It's an either/or proposition." Unless there's evidence, it's
most scientifically rational not to believe.
> > Your specific hypothesis is the creation of the universe by the godess
> > Talula in an Eden-like way. What are the objective consequences? Of
> > course, the existence of men and women is one.
> Let us not brush by this simple consequence, for we are a long way from
> arriving at a train of thought which will lead us to the assumption that
> the Universe had to consist of male and female creatures. Talula could
> have created you a solitary sexless creature. She could have created us
> many creatures of the same sex (in effect, no sex).
> The implications of why were instead created as sexual creatures are
> profound. It is incumbant upon the philosopher to consider this
> carefully and to try to arrive at Talula's train of thought. As I have
> said, She is exposed, She is knowable. We can learn the reason. It is
> unthinkable for the seeker not to spend a considerable amount of time in
> first assuming the creation axiom, and then determining why we are
> created male and female.
You may spend all day wondering why Talula decided this or that. I've
already explained my doubts about her very existence.
> Simpler theories
> > (evolution is scientifically simpler as it is accountable just by
> > theories of physics) account for this.
> On the contrary, one can imagine matter emerging from a void in a big
> bang, and out of the morass the emergence of cells,
OK.
> but one cannot get
> to the point where all of the cells agreed it was more fun to separate
> themselves into male and female cells,
Do you know anything about evolution? Sexual reproduction increases
genetic variability, thus giving the sexually reproducing population an
evolutionary advantage, and by natural selection that population will
become more numerous than simply asexual organisms. The fun part came
later.
> and emerging from their cells,
> the males were mad because the females dressed better, so they began
> dressing as the female cells, and most of them sit and wonder why they
> ever bothered with the whole thing, since it is more fun to masturbate.
> I leave it to the scientists to work their way backwards to that point.
> But it is clear that creationism is the much simpler axiom. we are
> created male and female bacuse that is the way Talula did it, and all we
> have to do is discover why she did so. It is not so important how she
> did so.
> > Furthermore, all evidence agrees
> > with evolutionary theory, making it one of the most scientifically
> > accepted theories. You will need to come up with further consequences
> > for Talula, and you need to explain where science has gone wrong. You
> > are free to believe, but you aren't convincing.
> I have no problem whatsoever with evolution, and you are making the
> common mistake of equation evolution with atheism. If Talula chose
> evolution as her method of creation, how can it possibly be of any
> importance to me?
I don't equate evolutionary theory with atheism. Creationism usually
means that all species were put on the earth already made directly by
god. If the god chose evolution, I wouldn't call it creationism. Here
I'll take your definition of creationism meaning the belief in a god
creating the universe.
> Therefore, it might surprise you to know, that a creationist can very
> well be an evolutionist, for the evolutionist proceeds upon his theory
> full speed ahead in both directions, he predicts evolutionary events,
> and he exposes historical evolutionary events, but he never can get to
> the first evolutionary event, or the last one, soon as he finds either,
> he wonders what lies ahead or occured before.
I'm not quite sure what you mean. The first "evolutionary event"
happened shortly after life arose on earth (be it by abiogenesis or the
hand of god). The last "evolutionary event" will happen shortly before
the end of life on earth (be it by the flaring of the sun or the hand of
god).
> I have no problem with
> scientists who are evolutionists, or with the pope, for that matter. I
> am a creationist, and I will most happily be also an evolutionist if I
> ever find it important enough to think about. Don't misunderstand, if I
> were a scientist, I would most certainly find the study of evolution
> important. But I cannot be all things, I have chosen the domain of
> philosophy, I am concerned with how I am to conduct my life, I am
> concerned with learning a rational morality.
> For the Creationist, how we got here is not important. What is
> important is what we are to do with ourselves.
What? Creationism is a doctrine about how we got here no matter how you
slice it. It is everybody's business what we do with ourselves now, and
you have yet to show me that the creation of the universe has any
bearing on morality and what we should do with ourselves.
> > Don't think I seek proof; I don't need proof for what I believe, only
> > evidence. A creator of the universe certainly could give me evidence
> > for her existence. If I could witness a miracle with other people, if I
> > could talk with your wise godess who could answer all my questions, then
> > I would believe.
> Let us compare the the example given in the bible, which although I am
> sure is not an accurate rendition of what occured, nevertheless,
> proposes just such a scenario, as a matter of fact, the very exact
> conditions of your evidence. I know you have heard this a zillion
> times, and I am by no means a christian, they hate me more than the
> atheists do, but, for the sake of the argument, let us take the words
> there (rather, let us select enough words there which make a coherent
> story and which contain no obvious contradictions) and let us consider
> the sum of the words, the essential meaning of the story, as a literal
> truth, for only a few moments. You atheists need not worry at the
> prospect of temporarily believeing the words of the bible, you will not
> grow any discernable haloes, and you can always deny it later.
> If the words are true, if Jesus was the creator, and he performed all
> the written miracles, and answered all of the quesitons of his apostles,
> well, you see what little effect that has on the modern philosopher, he
> is very much a skeptic. And rightfully so!. the christians will never
> ever be able to prove these things happened. Not only that, but even
> the people who were alive at the time rejected Jesus. they conducted
> their own specific polling of the population, not unlike the polls you
> see from time to time in the newsgorups, where the people rise up as one
> and cry "Barrabas, give us Barrabas!"
> Therefore, if Talula did as you wished, it would have no effect on the
> other creatures of the world, we would all remain skeptics, and unless
> you bathed in the glow of her actual presence every minute of your life,
> you would also from time to time doubt whether she was indeed the
> creator, or she was simply a creature of the true creator. You will
> certainly not be able to prove it one way or another. In the final
> analysis, you will have to take her at her word, you will have to make
> the decision to believe.
> If Talula would staisfy your conditions, and I note your "among others"
> condition, so I will allow you twelve apostles, rest assured, the entire
> rest of the world would scoff at your claims and crucify you for your
> troubles, and then later create a whole new false religion in your
> memory. We already have St. Peters basillica, os I dont think they will
> hang you upside down unless you change your name. you see? you could
> have very well been one of the twelve, and it would ahve done no good at
> all as far as proof of who jesus was, for even Peter had his doubts, and
> though the story may be true of his death, if he died for his cause, it
> was because he had made his final decision to believe. He excercised
> his choice in the matter.
Don't tell me what I would do. I told you that I would believe in that
situation. I would be confident that I had found the truth, so I
wouldn't care about skeptics. The Bible being true, Simon Peter had a
bit more to go on than I do.
> If Talula were to satisfy your conditions, and you told her you
> believed, what would be your response if she asked you: "how do you
> know I am telling the truth?"
It's all very simple. Talula comes down and assumes a tangible form in
front of a large audience. She does some unbelievable magic tricks. I
walk up and ask "What number am I thinking of?" She says "49,232." She
proceeds to explain the mysteries of the universe, anything from physics
to Goldbach's Conjecture to aliens to who shot Kennedy (or just brings
along a nice pile of books), and things all seem to fit together. Bam,
I'm a believer.
> You might ask "Why would you lie?"
> she might respond "Why not?"
> And you would have no answer, and no proof.
> And you can observe the truth of this when you take the creationism
> axiom for a moment and abserve your nature, and your nature is that of a
> skeptic, if you are created, this is exactly how you were created, and
> your creator wants it this way, and therefore, it is good to remain a
> skeptic.
> According to your rationale, if we are created, it is incumbent upon the
> creator to continue to appear daily, and perform miracles, and answer
> all kinds of questions, to every human creature everywhere into
> perpetuity, otherwise, she is not proving herself to the created ones.
> And if you consider such a scenario, Talula, sitting like a volcano,
> hour by hour shooting out newly created munchkins like old faithful, you
> clearly see the absudrdity of such a creation, after a while, old mount
> talula will be viewed as another of the universal constants, and we
> should wonder why whoever created her bothered with the whole thing.
No, not at all. It certainly isn't impossible for a deity to
demonstrate its existence. A showing would be nice. As it is she's
hiding.
> No, if we are created, the universe was clearly intended as a somewhat
> mysterious place, and there is nothing in all of the creation more
> deliciously mysterious than the opposite sex!
> If it could be objectively shown that a creator is
> > most probable, then I would believe.
> well, you have quickly softened up your conditions, you requested
> upstairs first a few miracles and af ew witnesses, , now you consider
> that simply the showing of a 51% chance would be sufficient. But enough
> of that, the key is the ending of yoru sentence "then i would believe."
> You assume that Talula cares whether or not you believe. You assume
> that I do, you must be assuming that somebody does, but I cannot find a
> single reference where somebody asked you to believe.
No I don't. I'm just saying that I'll believe it if it's likely. It
not being likely, the one who believes isn't basing their beliefs on
scientific rationality.
> Sure, I asked that you embrace the creation side of the axiom from time
> to time, but I very clearly stated that no proof can ever be given. You
> were created a skeptic, and a skeptic you should remain. why would you
> want to be anything else but a skeptic? Your professed willingness to
> believe is a danger sing, you might fall into the trap of christianity
> with that kind of unhealthy stance.
Surprise, surprise! Too late. I'm very happy with Christianity,
thanks. I won't pretend it's for scientific reasons. (Actually, at
least it has a somewhat historical event. What's Talula got? For
someone who makes up their own deities to bag on Christianity is just
prejudice.) You might say I'm an open-minded Christian because I can
also put on another cap and try to sniff out what is scientifically
rational. I have come to know God because the Word of God has shown
true in my life, but I don't know how to express this in an objective,
scientific way, and I won't post all over Usenet that I can. I think
it's irresponsible to seek God on a scientific basis. Anyway, enough
about what I believe; that's another topic of discussion.
> Until then the only rational
> > stance is not to believe.
> the two axioms are absolutley equal in their rationality, there is
> insufficient evidence for either of them.
The axioms that "The Invisible Pink Unicorn exists" and "The Invisible
Pink Unicorn doesn't exist" both lack evidence and are absolutely equal
in their rationality. Right.
> > (Furthermore, if there is evidence to the
> > contrary, as in your Eden-making Talula, the rational stance is to
> > believe there is no such thing.) If I just believed every J. Prophet to
> > come along I would be an incoherent mess, but I demand reason.
> Do not believe a single one of them, do not believe a singel word I say
> in regard to my own personal beliefs, simply take one side or the other
> of the axiom, and whn you do take the moments in the creatiionism side,
> try to find the logical train of thought which will lead you to the
> conclusion as to why human creatures are male and female.
Sure, well, I think we all know about the birds and the bees.
Cheers,
Peter
PS- I meant my closing suggestion just as something for you to think
about. I'm sure whatever I just cut and paste doesn't change anyone's
opinion of you. I apologize if I have offended you.
At this time, as you can detect, I was still an unconfirmed atheist, proto-atheist, unawakened atheist or whatever term you may use for someone who thinks like an atheist but doesn't have a self-image as one.
That was all about to change.
Peter Kirby
May 9, 2007, 02:30 AM
It's been difficult to trace down the causes of my first moves in the direction of theism in December of 1996. At the time I was happy, good in school (4.05 gpa), and without any major issues. I can try to identify some factors:
First, I had never developed an atheist identity. This didn't cause my slide into theism, but it meant that no real brakes were in place for the process.
Second, it was what was expected, to a degree. After all, I was in confirmation classes at the time, and I went to a Catholic high school.
Third, I do distinctly remember an incident where I prayed for help in getting the will to do some minor task, dishes, and feeling good afterwards. I didn't get real emotional highs in other ways, so far as I remember.
Fourth, I was talking to Richard Harlos. His arguments may have been slim to none, but I liked his style and there was an emulation factor. (Later, much later, Harlos also became an atheist.)
Fifth, it's only a guess but part of me always has rooted for the underdog in these kinds of things, and to take on the challenge of beating atheists at their own game would be kind of exciting. That partly explains why I stuck in alt.atheism so long.
While both the facts noted and the general psychological processes are real here, whether any one of the facts mentioned was a major cause is at this point open to serious debate and discussion.
Unfortunately, I don't have the correspondence with Harlos that was done by email anymore, but I do have what sparse hints can be found in the December and January posts to alt.atheism.
This post (http://groups.google.com/group/talk.atheism/msg/a6a63803901d5f7f) is the first one I found in December.
The answer is simple. The ancients weren't writing from the standpoint
of modern biology. A whale could rightly be called a "big fish."
...
The ancient Hebrews knew about all kinds of miracles. What they were
looking for was a unique miracle that could give them reason for
believing that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God, something to set
him a neck above the average prophet. When Jesus died, the apostles
were without faith. But the one grand miracle, after which they were
filled with the Holy Spirit, was the Resurrection. That was what
inspired them to preach, serve, and eventually die grisly deaths for
their faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God. The majesty of that one
event has been lost in the centuries of quibbling over it. The one who
was put to death is alive anew, greater than ever before! We are
invited to share in this new life!
I'm sorry if you've had a bad experience with other Christians. If you
have other questions about the Christian faith, I'm willing to try to
discuss them. (Of course, I'm not promising any easy answers! =)
God bless,
Peter
Quite a difference from the Peter Kirby who was posting in November, wouldn't ya think?
The second post from December (http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian/msg/3c5db52a2e7ed6c8) consists of an uninterpreted Bible quotation.
Michael Huemer wrote:
> Well, your friend was right. He didn't give a date, but Jesus did say
> that his second coming would occur during the lifetimes of some of the
> people who were then present.
Jn 21:20-23. {21} Peter turned around at that, and noticed that the
disciple whom Jesus loved was following (the one who had leaned against
Jesus' chest during the supper and said, "Lord, which one will hand you
over?"). Seeing him, Peter was prompted to ask Jesus, "But Lord, what
about him?" {22} "Suppose I want him to stay until I come," Jesus
replied, "how does that concern yyou? Your business is to follow me."
{23} This is how the report spread among the brothers that this disciple
was not going to die. Jesus never told him, as a matter of fact, that
the disciple was not going to die; all he said was, "Suppose I want him
to stay until I come [how does that concern you]?"
God bless,
Peter
On December 23, I share my theory (http://groups.google.com/group/alt.christnet.evangelical/msg/7ffc7d38f655e6c9) of theistic evolution.
Bill Carver wrote:
> Let me first take a moment to apologize to the athiests here that this
> message is cross posted, but I also welcome you're input in the matter.
> Hopefully, a rational conversation may actually sprout from this
> message. Perhaps not.
> We seem to be standing firmly on either side. People somehow seem that
> creation and evolution are opposite philosophies. I can think of two
> truths that we all can agree on.
> 1.) No firm proof of creation.
> 2.) No firm proof of evolution.
> 3.) both points of view are taken of faith based on circumstancial
> evidence of either side.
Creation means that every species was directly created by a god (eg,
Genesis 1), and evolution means that all species have evolved from
common ancestry, right? These are mutually exclusive beliefs.
If so, creationism is generally only accepted by fundamentalists based
on literal reading of Genesis. This is done so in spite of firm
evidence to the contrary, e.g. radiometric dating, cosmology,
archaeology, etc. Although there can be no "proof" of a scientific
theory, the theory of evolution has stood the test decades of critical
scientific review, making it generally accepted. I certainly don't take
the theory of evolution on faith, but rather have judged the matter for
myself. If you are interested in evolution and the evidence for it, you
might try visiting http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/origins/faqs-qa.html
> I'm of a different college. Evolution and creation are not opposite
> theories. In fact, they compliment each other. Christian and Hebrew
> techings are both based on parodies in order to explain their teachings
> on layman's terms. We do this all the time. You ever argue about the
> national debt using the actual numbers or do you use numbers people can
> understand?
I think I can see the analogy. When I am reading my bio textbook, I'll
take up evolutionary language. When I'm reading my Bible, I'll take up
creationist language. The creationist language ("God formed Adam from
the earth") is more useful then evolutionary language ("God in His
infinite wisdom planned that by natural selection a population of
primates shall diverge from the chimpanzee line to become the first
human beings") because science focuses on how God did it, and the Bible
focuses on why God did it and His interaction with us throughout
history. I see evolution as just one of the ways God gets His work
done, and it isn't that important for us to know how God did it. He
gave us heads so that we could figure it out after a while. The
emphasis in the Bible, something much more important for us to know, is
that we are special to God and that we can enter into a relationship of
life and love with Him and each other.
> My question to you is that whether you belive in evolution, creation or
> both, would that make a difference in your faith and belief that God
> exists, or doesn't exist. And why? And as a favor to me, a guy you
> don't know (well, some do) let's not get into mudthrowing here. Let's
> just state your opinion and maybe we can all learn something about each
> other.
Well, creation demands the belief in God. Evolution neither assumes nor
denies the role of a divine plan or divine intervention along the way,
and really isn't related to God's existence at all. Roughly here is my
timeline of the universe:
15bya- Then God said "Let there be light" and there was light.
5bya- The Earth was formed.
3bya- The first life appeared.
10mya- Animal became rational.
2000ya- We were invited to eternal life.
Merry Christmas,
Peter
I also shared my view of worship.
Scott Carpenter wrote:
> You know, there's one thing no religious (not to be confused with
> spiritual) person has ever been able to explain to me, maybe you'd
> like to give it a shot?
> Assuming the existance of God, and assuming he actually did everything
> he's credited with - you know, creating the universe and all that -
> he's a pretty powerful guy. I mean, we can't even create a bad copy
> of one of us, let alone planets and stars and solar systems and
> galaxies. So, there's this guy, God, sitting there with everything he
> created, and on one of the planets he put a bunch of people - us.
> He's further above us than you are above your goldfish. And he's
> supposed to be wise and perfect and all-knowing. So why does he need
> us to worship him?
God doesn't need us to worship him.
So why worship (love&adore)?
1 John 4:19. "We love because He first loved us."
Worship of God is just one of many good things to do, but it isn't a
requirement for salvation.
God bless,
Peter
On Dec 30, I post this (http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/5ea8c3dfc8b0b611).
OK, I know this wasn't directed at me, but, yes, I've considered the
possibility that God does not exist.
I'm not saying that I can prove that the Resurrection happened, but in
regards to your statement "there's little beyond blind faith that would
support the assertion that it (the Ressurection) ever happened," just
some food for thought.
The paper below assumes, as is almost universally accepted among
scholars, that the NT was at least somewhat based on a historical Jesus
of Nazareth.
"no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of
Jesus"
(Otto Betz, What do We Know about Jesus?, SCM Press, 1968, page 9)
For a brief discussion of how reliable the NT is, try visiting
http://www.webcom.com/ctt/nuhbias.html
Perhaps my most indepth theological argument came from an email to one "Skeptic" who proceeded to reply publically.
Hey! Who said you should post this on the ng? You've obligated me to
post my response on the ng as well. (Note to the reader: I'm a
Christian who entered into this e-mail dialogue with Skeptic after
seeing his web page. You need not read this.)
skep...@adnc.com wrote:
> At 03:44 PM 12/30/96 -0800, you wrote:
> >Hi! Just thought you might appreciate a little criticism from a
> >Christian's viewpoint on the topics you touch on. I take this from your
> >skeptical page "Premises of Christianity" at
> >http://pegasus.adnc.com/~websites/skeptic/index.html
> >1. There exists a Supreme Being/Creator of the
> >universe, called "God", with the following
> >qualities:
> >A. Male.
> > "One God and Father of all, who is above all, and
> > through all, and in you all." (Ephesians 4:6) Exactly
> > what part of God's anatomy makes "Him" male? Does
> > God have a male...(ahem)...sex organ? If God does
> > not have such an organ, what makes Him a Father? If
> > God has no distinguishing male characteristics, then
> > why can't we call Her "God the Mother"? If God is
> > gender neutral, why bother calling God "Father" or
> > "Mother"? Why not just say "God the Creator"? Is it
> > because we don't like calling God "It"? Is it because
> > we would rather personalize God and make God more
> > human like? Could the designation "God the Father"
> > have something to do with the historical human
> > tradition of male dominated cultures?
> >======> Interesting questions, although a little silly. God is a
> >spiritual being, without a physical body. Although this may not be PC,
> >the main reason is that God is referred to as Father is that He is a
> >dominant, not submissive and nurturing, figure. God has made humanity
> >in His image, primarily in that we also have some ability to reason and
> >control over the elements, and so it is fine to anthropomorphize God by
> >calling him Father. Strictly speaking, though, God is neither male nor
> >female because God is not human.
> Aparently, a vast majority of christians are not very "strict" in their
> speaking, for the majority refer to God as "Him", therefore, male. Do you
> really think most christians would agree with you that God is really neither
> male nor female? If you are correct, then isn't it better to speak more
> strickly and stop referring to God as Him or Father. Dominance CAN be
> gender neutral. I suspect that few christians would go along with you. The
> unconscious image of God as male is simply too compelling for the most
> believers.
Well, I didn't do a poll of Christians, this is just how I see it.
"Him" is a capitalized name, not a pronoun, and is used when one needs
to refer to God in the objective case. (eg, "I prayed to Him.") IMO
"Him" makes more sense than "It."
> Also, you assume that God made humanity in His image. However,
> it seems there is more evidence that the reverse is true. To use you own
> words, if you have some evidence to the contrary, I'll hear it.
> Don't you think that the God-made-humanity-in-his-image theory is (in your
> own words) only speculation, non-testable and unsupported.
If God exists, then we have been made in His image. Also, if the Bible
is inspired, then we have been made in His image. I gave some links
touching on reasons for God's existance at the end of my letter.
However, like I said, this letter is long anyway, so let's focus on an
explanation of Christianity, not the evidence for it.
> >B. All Powerful.
> > "Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh: is there
> > any thing too hard for me?" (Jeremiah 32:27)
> > Can He create a rock too heavy for Him to lift?
> >=====> Yawn. There are three lines of attack on this question:
> >* God can circumvent logic.
> How VERY convenient!!! Talk about a fail-safe belief system! God can
> circumvent logic?
Logical beast that I am, I didn't say I liked that one, but I thought
you might want to know how some people respond.
> >* Define omnipotence as "whatever God wills happens" or "God can do
> >anything logically possible."
> >* (I prefer this one.) The sentence "God can make a rock too heavy for
> >Him to lift" has the improper referent "a rock too heavy for Him to
> >lift" and thus as a sentence actually has no meaning, neither true nor
> >false.
> There is nothing wrong with this sentence! Humans can make rocks too heavy
> for them to lift by hand. They can make them with cement, steal, etc. But,
> since you believe in an omipotent God, you assume that there is NOTHING God
> cannot do. Therefore, the sentence loses meaning only in the context of
> your belief system, not in its gramatical or logical structure. Your God
> cannot limit the extent of His power in any way, right? That's a limitation
> right there!
Omnipotence is part of God's definition. So "a rock too heavy for Him
to lift" does not refer to a logical construct any more than "square
circle" or "colorless green idea" do. "God can make a square circle"
and "God can make a rock to heavy for Him to lift" are both meaningless
statements.
If you don't agree with the above, I'll revert to the defintion of
omnipotence being that "God can do anything logicaly possible." You
see, you aren't testing God's omnipotence but rather your ability to
string together clever words. The real question is "Can anyone make a
rock too heavy for God to lift?"
As for God self-limiting His power, in some ways He has (eg, He does not
lie).
> > "The LORD taketh pleasure in them that fear him..."
> > (Psalms 147:11)
> > It seems God is quite a Bully!
> >=====> This comment touches on the relationship of God to man. It is
> >good to fear God as opposed to being reckless and rebellious against
> >Him. However, God-fearing is not the perfect relationship. In Christ
> >man may enter into the relationship of love with God. 1 John 4:15-19.
> >"{15} Whoever acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God remains in
> >him and he in God. {16} We have come to know and to believe in the love
> >God has for us. God is love, and whoever remains in love remains in God
> >and God in him. {17} In this is love brought to perfection among us,
> >that we have confidence on the day yof judgment because as He is, so we
> >are in this world. {18} There is no fear in love, but perfect love
> >drives out fear because fear has to do with punishment, and so one who
> >fears is not yet perfect in love. {19} We love because He first loved
> >us."
> Sounds like a contradiction here someplace! The statement "There is no fear
> in love, but perfect love drives out fear because fear has to do with
> punishment, and so one who fears is not yet perfect in love." seems to
> contradict the above statement from Psalms re: God taking pleasure in those
> who fear Him. Are you saying that God DOES NOT take such pleasure in the
> fear of others? If one has "perfect love", this "drives our fear", which
> means that one has denied God the opportunity to take pleasure in the fear.
It is good to fear God, but it is best to perfectly love Him. No
contradiction.
> I still feel that anyone (even some God) who takes pleasure in those that
> fear them, under any circumstances, deserves the title "BULLY"!
You are entitled to your opinion. Maybe there is a misunderstanding on
what it is to "fear God." Let's try the parent/child analogy. It is
good for Johnny not to eat the cookies out of fear of dad and his belt.
Johnny is "father-fearing." And father is pleased with Johnny. But the
perfect relationship is for Johnny not to eat the cookies out of love
for father. Would you call this father a "BULLY"?
> (Did you read the link in my web page dealing with "Absolute Morality"?)
Sure, I'll respond soon. I agree with most of what you say there. Our
difference is probably just whether it is reasonable to believe "God
exists." I think that atheism and Christianity are both intellectually
tenable belief systems; most people have more personal reasons that sway
them one way or the other.
> >C. All Knowing.
> > Does God know the future? If so, he knew before
> > hand that Adam & Eve were going to eat that apple.
> > "For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof,
> > then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as
> > gods, knowing good and evil." (Genesis 3:5) If God
> > knew they were going to eat the fruit ahead of time,
> > why did He bother telling them not to eat it in the first
> > place? If somehow He did not know they were going
> > to eat it, then this would make God NOT ALL
> > KNOWING! At least, not all knowing of the future.
> > "Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
> > Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and
> > before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified
> > thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations."
> > (Jeremiah 1:4-5) "Great is our Lord, and of great
> > power: his understanding is infinite." (Psalms 147:5)
> > That settles it! "Infinite" covers ALL of the bases!
> > God MUST know every possible detail of the future.
> > Therefore, since He knows everything that's going to
> > happen in advance, He knew in advance who he was
> > going to help and who He was going to destroy!
> > What's the point?
> >=====> Are you trying to say that omniscience negates free will? Well,
> >let it suffice to say that God's foreknowledge of the choice has no
> >causal relation to the choice that you make.
> Yes, there is no free will, even in some sick twisted cosmic game, where God
> knows every sin you are going to commit in advance, and therefore has
> essentially preordained every sin you are going to commit. For if He knows
> that you are going to commit a paricular sin, and you suprised Him by NOT
> committing the sin, then God was wrong about you committing that sin, making
> Him NOT omniscient. If you have the power (free will) to do or not do
> something of which God is NOT aware, then you negate God's ability to know
> the future. And if God DOES know the future, then the future is
> preordained, for how could God know what's going to happen if there is a
> possibility it won't happen the way He thought it would?
Try looking at it this way. God flips a coin. It has a 50/50 chance of
heads or tails. It is impossible to *predict* the outcome. But there
will be only one outcome. Because God sits in view of all spacetime,
God sees the outcome in an "after the fact" way. If you flip a coin and
then get heads, does that mean it was impossible to get tails? No, you
just observed it after the fact. Observation does not change the
outcome of the toss.
There is a difference between "foreknowledge" and "predestination." I'm
in the foreknowledge camp.
> > "He telleth the number of the stars; he calleth them all
> > by their names." (Psalms 147:4) I didn't know that all
> > of the of billions of stars in all of the billions of
> > galaxies had names!
> >=====> I see no reason why God couldn't name them all. A puny 10^26
> >stars is child's play to an infinite God.
> Your God could name them, but what's the point? Would God bother? It gets
> pretty rediculous to think of God naming all of those stars. But isn't it
> convenient that the Bible states that "he calleth them all by their names",
> without any supporting evidence that God would waist time doing such a
> thing. The writers of the Bible liked giving God all kinds of abilities to
> show how all knowing and powerful He is, even to the point of absurdity. Of
> course, the writer in Psalms knew nothing about modern astronomy. It makes
> me wonder why so many people have faith in a book (one of several historical
> versions) essentially written by a bunch of ignorant (by today's standards)
> individuals, who made outrageous claims of miracles, etc.
> Human nature, I guess.
Well, of course. The psalm writer has poetic license to express God's
omnipotence. You seemed to be claiming that He couldn't, not whether He
would.
Anyway, you seem to think that *every* statement in the Bible needs to
have supporting evidence. Not so. If one has their reasons for
believing in the Judeo-Christian God, then by implication every verse of
the Bible is supported.
[snip!]
> >F. Exists everywhere.
> > "One God and Father of all, who is above all, and
> > through all, and in you all." (Ephesians 4:6)
> > Spreading Himself a bit thin isn't He? Does this mean
> > God is in everything, including every atom or
> > subatomic particle in the universe? Are there places
> > where God isn't? If so, why is He in some places and
> > not others? If God is literally everywhere, does this
> > mean that he causes everything to happen? Does it
> > mean that nothing happens unless God wants it to
> > happen, including war, pestilence, famine, natural
> > catastrophes, birth defects, etc?
> >=====> Yes, God is omnipresent. This doesn't mean that God causes
> >everything to happen. But, as you can conclude from His omnipotence,
> >nothing happens without God letting it happen. God has given us free
> >will to choose what we want to, so things like war cannot be pinned on
> >Him. God in His patience has given us all time to choose the Way, the
> >Truth, and the Life. But He will not allow rebellion to continue
> >forever, and those who continually reject Him, the source of all life,
> >bring their own downfall. For the record there is also a devil who
> >comes to "steal, kill, and destroy." Once again, God in His patience
> >endures this but will not allow it to go on forever. We have the
> >promise of a day of judgment when evil will be permanently crushed. The
> >question is, which side do you want to be on?
> Wherein lies the "freedom" of this supposed "will"? (See above re:
> preordainment)
> God knew who would rebel ahead of time. He knows every choice you are going
> to make in advance! He knows the future only because he MADE the future,
> including your choices!!! Therefore, the idea of "free will" is nonsensical
> in the context of the Christian religion (or any other religion, for that
> matter). That is, if you accept this nonsense about there existing a God in
> the first place.
Well, no, I'm in good company when I say that free will and omniscience
are not mutually exclusive (above).
> >G. Has always existed.
> > Does this mean, therefore, that not everything
> > (including God) has a beginning? If God has always
> > been around, what was he doing during the billions of
> > centuries before he decided to create the universe?
> > Why did God decide to create the universe when He
> > did?
> >=====> This is a misunderstanding of the nature of time and God. God
> >is not constricted to time but exists in the eternal and unchanging view
> >of all spacetime.
> Do I hear another attempt at making a religious belief FAIL-SAFE?
> He wasn't "just kinda floating through time until He
> >thought it might be a neat idea to make a universe." Time is just a
> >dimension of this universe, and the first moment was at the Big Bang.
> >Then God said, "Let there be light" and there was light. Ask any
> >cosmologist about "what was before the time of the Big Bang" and they
> >will tell you that time as we know it started with the Big Bang, so the
> >question is nonsense.
> Granted, but does it make any MORE rational sense by jumping to the
> conclusion that some miraculous entity called "God" existed who wished light
> into existence? I think it is more rational to leave the unanswerable
> questions unanswerable, rather than going out on a faithful limb and making
> wild religious assumptions. You won't catch good scientists doing that! A
> few bad ones, maybe.
Oh, yes, if we had only cosmology, the "God" idea would only be one of
many. The issue for me is decided because God broke into history and
let us know about Him.
[snip!]
> > Most astronomers claim it is very probable that
> > roughly 12 billion years ago the matter of the universe
> > was extremely packed together. Then all of this
> > matter suddenly began expanding during what has
> > been called the "Big Bang". However, the Big Bang
> > theory allows for the possibility that the matter of the
> > universe existed before the Big Bang, and has always
> > existed, just in different forms! Many astronomers
> > think it is possible that we live in an oscillating
> > (expanding & contracting) universe where there could
> > have been several (infinite?) Big Bangs in the past.
> >=====> The evidence currently falls in favor of the cosmological "open
> >universe." That is, the universe will continue to slowly expand for
> >eternity as it cools off. This is primarily because the amount of
> >visible matter in the universe is only 5% as much would be necessary for
> >the Big Crunch (supposedly when gravitational density overcomes the
> >impetus of the Big Bang and the universe begins to contract). If you
> >have some evidence to the contrary, I'll hear it.
> The jury is still out on the Dark Matter business. Cosmologists DO NOT KNOW
> whether the universe is open or closed. Therefore, rationality dictates
> that we reserve judgement until further evidence is available (which might
> not be in OUR lifetime).
Well, I'm simply saying that things are currently in favor of an open
universe. I may change my mind when further evidence surfaces.
> It is precisely this ability to leave questions open until sufficient
> evidence is available that separates science from religion! Even when
> science poses theories given the available evidence, it always allows for
> the possibility that its theories are mistaken, given potential future
> contrary evidence. Does any religion do that? Do YOU allow for the
> possibility that your "God" theory is wrong? Would you ever allow yourself
> to consider evidence suggesting that your religion is false? Beware of
> certainty. "The wise man changes his mind often, the food never." (Chinese
> proverb)
Call me strange, but, yes, I allow the possibility of God's
non-existance. Of course, I've been on the "God exists" side for a
while and haven't adopted my position idly, so you would have to give me
darned good reasons to change my mind.
> >=====> Of course, I find this all very telling. The ancient Greek
> >philosophers also believed in the eternity of matter, and the fact that
> >the universe had a beginning is a serious blow to the atheistic world
> >view. The best I've gotten out of an atheist over this is something
> >like "uh...well, uh, no one has a clue...uh, I guess it all just kinda
> >happened." Well, that's fine if you find your atheism comforting, but I
> >won't hear all this stuff about "blind faith." Pot. Kettle. Black.
> Scientist do not have a clue as to the true nature of matter at the moment
> prior to or at the moment of the Big Bang. Even if all of the matter in the
> universe where compressed into a space no larger than an atom (which is one
> theory), that does not mean that the matter does not exist! It may simply
> exist in a form our science cannot (or may never) fathom! So time, as we
> currently understand it, may cease to exist prior to the Big Bang. This
> only suggests that our rational understanding of such situations is very
> limited and that we have a LOT of science yet to do. It does NOT mean that
> it is rational to leap to other conclusions for which there is NO evidence
> (i.e. God).
Once again, yes, if we had only cosmology, we couldn't make a judgment.
My reasons, historical and personal, push me in favor of the God
hypothesis.
[snip!]
> >Everything points to a universe that began at the Big Bang about 15
> >billion years ago. This universe is not infinitely old, so (2) goes out
> >the window. (Well, in all fairness you could speculate about a
> >higher-dimensional super-universe that has always existed, but this is
> >only speculation, non-testable and unsupported.)
> I did not know that Christians were sticklers for things that are "only
> speculation, non-testable and unsupported". Most of the Bible is "only
> speculation, non-testable and unsupported".
Well, exactly. You speculate about some quantum flux, and I speculate
about God. Pot. Kettle. Black. I don't know your reasons for being
predisposed to QM, but I have my reasons for God.
> >* God has made it easier on us by breaking into history and telling us
> >about Him. My reasons for believing so are due to apologetics and my
> >experience of God in my life,
> Real rational and scientific! Show me a million life experiences and I'll
> show you a million religious beliefs!
I don't think I would be a Christian if I didn't have both historical
and personal reasons. But, ultimately, the subjective is always more
real than the objective. Which gets a stronger response? Establishing
repeatability in a test of the temperature of the stove? Or putting out
your hand and actually touching it?
[snip!]
> Thanks for your thoughtful review of my web page, Peter. Obviously, we
> disagree on many things. I hope you get a chance to read the link on
> "Absolute Morality", as well as the link at the bottom of my original page -
> the "more in-depth" critique.
I'll get to "Absolute Morality." As for the more in-depth critique,
that is a link to a critical review of McDowell (not a great apologetic
IMO), not Christianity.
I do hope you visit the pages I mentioned, especially the "Christian
ThinkTank."
God bless,
Peter
1 Peter 3:15-16. "Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who
asks you for a reason for your hope, but do so with gentleness and
respect, keeping your conscience clear, so that, when you are maligned,
those that libel you way of life in Christ may themselves be put to
shame."
Notice how I emulated Harlos in quoting 1 Peter 3:15--16, and also notice what I am reading...the "Christian ThinkTank."
I even got a little smarmy on Dec 31, which is when the signature changed.
Anonymous wrote:
> I hereby assert positively and definitively that god does not exist.
> If you do not like this, then go away. Atheism rules.
> (so does beavis and butthead)
Ah, yes, truly the mark of the oh-so-enlightened intellectual
rationalists of this world.
Blessings,
Peter
On Jan 1, I throw in a little Kalaam Cosmological argument. I know that I had already read some Craig by this point.
Well, we can't just say "the universe has always existed." Scientists
have reason to believe that this universe began around 15 billion years
ago in the Big Bang. Make of it what you will.
Blessings,
Peter
On January 1, I also make this post, my first of many battles to come in the realm of the "Historicity of Jesus" wars.
Jim Tims wrote:
> Peter Kirby <k...@earthlink.net> > wrote
> [...
> >The paper below assumes, as is almost universally accepted among
> >scholars, that the NT was at least somewhat based on a historical Jesus
> >of Nazareth.
> Actually, I sort of like that! %^) It summons up _Alice's Adventures in
> Wonderland_, inspired by Lewis Carrol's inordinate fondness for Alice
> Little.
> >"no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of
> >Jesus"
> How would one postulate something without venturing it? Perhaps we could
> even dare to venture a risk at postulating! Or even...but no, we wouldn't
> postulate risking such a daring venture.
> "All in the golden afternoon
> Full leisurely we glide,
> For both our oars with little skill
> By little arms are plied
> While little hands make vain pretense
> Our wanderings to guide."
> But...I give up...you've forced my hand. "Jesus seems to have no existence
> outside of the quoted sources in the NT. The references to Herod are wholly
> bogus, for example. Apparently, the entire NT is a fable, created during
> the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Centuries following his supposed ministry. The story
> grows with retelling, taking the standard path for creating a myth.
> Eventually, his mother, Mary, turns into a virgin, but by then it's totally
> preposterous in any event. Jesus seems to have no more solid referent than
> Sherlock Holmes. Even Socrates has more substance than Jesus, with only
> three references (Xenophon and Plato, if memory serves, and a soldier's
> roster of the time with his name on it)." There you have it then!
> Consider it ventured! Consider it postulated!
> >(Otto Betz, What do We Know about Jesus?, SCM Press, 1968, page 9)
> "What is the use of this book," thought Alice, "without pictures or
> conversations?"
Sir, I'd like to know your sources. We can say with certainty that
Jesus did exist. The debates among scholars are over his character, the
reliability of the gospels, whether he performed miracles, was the
Messiah, etc. - NOT his existance! Here are just a few extrabiblical
references.
Cornelius Tacitus
-----------------
Modern historians have become used to piecing together the stories of
ancient times and places despite that ancient writers oftentimes used
poor sources, didn't carefully interpret their material, or distorted
the facts due to bias. OTOH, Tacitus stands out as "universally
considered the most reliable of historians, a man in whom sensibility
and imagination, though lively, could never spoil a critical sense rare
in his time and a great honest in the examination of documents."
(Francois Amiot, The Sources for the Life of Christ, New York, 1962,
page 16)
Writing in his Annals circa A.D. 116, Tacitus describes the response of
Emperor Nero to the great fire that swept Rome in A.D. 64:
"So far, the precautions taken were suggested by human prudence: now
means were sought for appeasing deity, and application was made to the
Sibyllinge books; at the injunction of which public prayers were offered
to Vulcan, Ceres, Proserpine, while Juno was propitiated by the matrons,
first in the Capitol, then at the nearest point of the sea shore, where
water was drawn for sprinkling the temple and image of the goddess.
Ritual banquets and all night vigils were celevrated by women in the
married state. But neither human help, nor imperial munificence, nor
all the modes of placating Heaven, could stifle the scandal or dispel
the belief that the fire had taken place by order. Therefore, to scotch
the rumour, Nero substituted as culprits, and punished with the utmost
refinements of cruelty, a class of men, loathed for their vices, whom
the crowd styled Christians. Christus, the founder of the name, had
undergone the death penaly in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the
procurator Pontius Pilate, and the pernicious superstition was checked
for a moment, only to break out once more, not merely in Judaea, the
home of the disease, but in the capital itself, where all things
horrible or shameful in the world collect and find a vogue. First,
then, the confessed members of the sect were arrested; next, on their
disclosures, vast numbers were convicted, not so much on the count of
arson as for hatred for the human race. And derision accompanied their
end: they were covered with wild beast skins and torn to death by dogs;
or they were fasted on crosses, and, when daylight failed were burned to
serve as lamps by night. Nero had offered his Gardens for the
spectacle, and gave an exhibition in his Circus, mixing with the crowd
in the habit of a charioteer, or mounted on his care. Hence, in spite
of a guild which had earned the most exemplary punishment, there arose a
sentiment of pity, due to the impression that they were being sacrificed
not for the welfare of the state but to the ferocity of a single man."
Almost all scholars admit that the style is clearly "Tacitan Latin."
Further, as the passage does not speak kindly of Christians, there is no
possible motive for anyone other than Tacitus to have written it.
There are several reasons to believe that Tacitus was not simply
reporting information he had received from Christians. Being a Roman
senator, Tacitus certainly must have had the best records available in
the Roman Empire at the time. He makes his statement about the death of
Christ as historical fact, not something that someone else said was
true. In Annals 4.10, where Tacitus refutes a particular rumor, he says
that he has reported from "the most numerous trustworthy authorities."
In 4.57 he says, "I have followed the majority of historians." Tacitus
is careful to record conflicts in his sources. In 15.38, he speaks of
conflicting versions as to the source of the great fire of Rome.
Tacitus does not quote his sources uncritically. In Annals 4.57, he
questions the majority report of the historians. In 15.53 he considers
Pliny's statement absurd, and in 13.20 he notes Fabius Rusticus' bias.
B. Walker comments that Tacitus "was a persistent skeptic towards
popular rumor, even when a rumor coincided with his own prejudices" (The
Annals of Tacitus, page 142) and cites Annals 2.68 as an example.
Tacitus hedges his opinion when others do not. Tacitus distinguishes
between rumor and fact by using expressions such as, "Some have put it
on record" or "As the general account goes." He also uses terms such as
"It is said" and "They say" when he does not want to vouch for a
statement's reliability. Maurice Goguel notes the absence of words such
as "it is said" in Annals 15.44 should cause us to believe that Tacitus'
source was a document. He states: "One fact is certain, and that is,
Tacitus knew of a document, which was neither Jewish nor Christian,
which connected Christianity with the Christ crucified by Pontius
Pilate." (Jesus the Nazarene: Myth or History?, page 40).
By the way, even if Tacitus made no statement of the person of Christ,
he still records the fact that men and women living thirty years after
Jesus were willing to die in his name. Some of them, for example Peter,
had heard, seen, talked, and walked with him. As J.N.D. Anderson
remarked: "It is scarcely fanciful to suggest that when he adds that 'a
most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke
out,' he is bearing inderect and unconscious testimony to the conviction
of the early church that Christ who had been crucified had risen from
the grave." (Christianity: The Witness of History, page 19).
Josephus
--------
There are two passages of interest in Josephus' _The Antiquities of the
Jews_, A.D. 93. There is an undisputed reference in chapter 20 that
refers to Jesus in the discussion about Ananias "...convened the judges
of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother
of Jesus who was called the Christ, and certain others." (20:197-203)
Just a few reasons this is considered genuine:
* The phrase "James the brother of Jesus who is called the Christ" is
too noncommittal to have been the interpolation of a later Christian who
would want to assert the messiahship of Jesus more definitely as well as
to deny the charges against James. The mere historicity of Jesus was
not an issue.
* Origen refers to this passage in his _Commentary_on_Matthew 10.17,
indicating that it was in Josephus prior to his time (about A.D. 200).
* The word Christ began to be used as a proper name very early among
Gentile Christians, but the phrase "called the Christ" betrays the use
of Christ as his proper name, and so reflects Jewish rather than
Christian usage.
* Josephus is generally careful to supply details to locate his
characters in history. As James is a common name, if Josephus simply
referred to "James and certain others," one would be compelled to ask
"which James?" If Josephus simply said "James, the brother of Jesus,"
one would ask, "Which Jesus? You have already mentioned at least
thirteen others named Jesus." Josephus used more precise language in
saying "James, the brother of Jesus who is called the Christ," and there
is no reason to doubt the authenticity of this statement. Now, this
would seem to imply that the reader would be familiar with a certain
"Jesus who is called Christ" and that there would have been an earlier
reference to him. This draws our attention to chapter 13 and the
Testimonium Flavianum.
"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to
call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a
teacher of such people as accept truth gladly. He won over many Jews
and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing
him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him
to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did
not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to
them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and
countless other marvelous things about him. And the tribe of
Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."
Most scholars accept this passage as a reference to Jesus by Josephus
that was later embellished by a Christian copyist. Some reasons for
considering it at least originally authentic:
* The passage is in all extant manuscripts of Antiquities. Eusubius
quotes it in his _History of the Church_, written A.D. 325, and again in
his _Demonstration of the Gospel_, written somewhat earlier.
* Much of the vocabulary and style matches that of Josephus. The
description of Jesus as "a wise man" is not typically Christian, but it
is used by Josephus of, for example, Solomon and Daniel. Similarly,
Christians did not refer to Jesus' miracles as "astonishing deeds"
(paradoxa erga), but exactly the same expression is used by Josephus of
the miracles of Elisha. And the description of Christians as a "tribe"
(phylon) occurs nowhere in early Christian literature, while Josephus
uses the word both for the Jewish "race" and for other national or
communal groups.
* The passage lays the primary blame for the crucifixion of Jesus on
Pilate rather than on the Jewish authorities. This is quite different
from second and third century Christian thought which was much more
condemning of the Jews as instigators of the crucifixion.
Of course, the reasons for not accepting the passage as entirely
genuine:
It is highly unlikely that Josephus would have written, "This was the
Messiah." This would make him suspect of treason, but nowhere else is
there an indication that he was a Christian. Further, Origen, writing
about a century before Eusebius, says twice that Josephus "did not
believe in Jesus as the Christ." Other favorable phrases such as "if
indeed one ought to call him a man," "such people as accept the truth,"
"one who wrought surprising feats," and "on the third day he appeared to
them restored to life" also do not fit well with a Jewish historian
working under Romans. If the passage as we have it today was originally
in Josephus, then Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, or
Origen would almost certainly have quoted it for its tremendous
apologetic value.
Suetonius
---------
In about A.D. 50, the apostle Paul arrived in Corinth. Acts 18:2
records that he found there "a certain Jew named Aquila, a native of
Pontus, having come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius
had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome." By the apparent spiritual
maturity of Aquila and Priscilla seen in Acts 18:26, it seems that they
had been Christians while in Rome prior to A.D. 49. That is the date
when Claudius expelled all Jews from Rome.
Suetonius, Roman historian and annalist of the Imperial House, wrote in
approximately A.D. 120, "As the Jews were making constant disturbances
at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome."
Who is "Chrestus"? There is some debate over this as Chrestus seems to
have been a fairly common name, especially among slaves. But there are
several clues which indicate that Chrestus was probably a misspelling of
"Christus":
"First, Chrestus is a Greek name. Of course, many Jews did have Greek
names, whether from birth or assumed later (e.g., Jesus' Galilean
disciples, Andrew and Philip, and all seven of the "deacons" appointed
in Acts 6:5, only one of whom is said to be a proselyte), but Chrestus
is not otherwise as a Jewish name.
"And secondly Chrestus would sound very like Christus, which, with its
meaning 'annointed,' would be unfamiliar in the Gentile world, so that
the substitution of the familiar Greek name Chrestus would be easily
made. Indeed, Tertullian points out that the opponents of Christianity,
by mispronouncing the name as 'Chrestianus,' in fact testified to its
'sweetness and kindness'!" (R. France, The Evidence for Jesus, page 41).
Suetonius also confirms the report of Tacitus concerning the great fire
of Rome. In _Life of Nero_ 16, Suetonius reports that after the fire,
"Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a body of people addicted
to a novel and mischievous superstition." Once again a secular source
verifies that thirty years after the death of Christ men and women were
being put to death for their conviction in his life, death, and
resurrection.
Lucian of Samosata
------------------
Circa A.D. 170, the Greek satirist Lucian wrote of the early Christians
and "their lawgiver."
"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day - the distinguished
personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that
account...You see, these misguided creatures start with the general
conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the
contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among
them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that
they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny
the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his
laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they
despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common
property." (_The Death of Peregrine, 11-13)
Lucian also mentions the Christians several time in his _Alexander the
False Prophet_, sections 25 and 29.
Thallus
-------
This is taken from at http://www.webcom.com/~ctt/jrthal.html
A third-century Christian historian, Julius Africanus, composed a
History of the World down to around ad. 220 in five volumes. In one of
the surviving fragments, Julius discussed the three-hour darkness which
occurred at the crucifixion of Jesus and makes this comment:
"In the third book of his history, Thallus calls this darkness an
eclipse of the sun--wrongly in my opinion." (5.50)
We have two possible other extra-Africanus references to Thallus. One,
Eusebius tells us that this Thallus wrote in Greek an account of world
history from the fall of Troy down to the mid-first century, c. 52 A.D.
Thallus' work is generally believed to have been written in the period
50-100 A.D.
Two, Josephus POSSIBLY refers to a certain Thallus as a wealthy
Samaritian freedman of Tiberius (37 A.D.) who had lent a million
drachmas to the bankrupt Herod Agrippa. (Antiquities 18.167):
"Now there was one Thallus, a freedman of Caesar's of whom he borrowed a
million of dracmae, and thence repaid Antonia the debt he owed her; and
by spending the overplus in paying his court to Caius, became a person
of great authority with him."
If these two are the same Thallus, then it would explain how he had TIME
to write a history, how he had ACCESS to records (being a close
associate of Tiberias), how he had KNOWLEDGE of events in Palestine
(being a Samaritan), how he had the financial means to do the heavy
travel REQUIRED/EXPECTED to do history in those days.
Julius himself gives us additional information about Thallus--he is
mentioned two other times BEFORE this reference:
"And after 70 years of captivity, Cyrus became king of the Persians at
the time of the 55th Olympiad, as may be ascertained from the
Bibliothecae of Diodorus and the histories of Thallus and Castor, and
also from Polybius and Phlegon, and others besides these, who have made
the Olympiads a subject of study." (13.2)
And
"For these things are also recorded by the Athenian historians
Hellanicus and Philochorus, who record Attic affairs; and by Castor and
Thallus, who record Syrian affairs; and by Diodorus, who writes a
universal history in his Bibliothecae; and by Alexander Polyhistr, and
by some of our own time, yet more carefully..." (13.3)
Whoever this Thallus is, he is in GOOD company as far as historians go!
He is included in lists of historians that are considered innovative
(e.g. Hellanicus--cf. HAMM:10; Castor--cf. HAMM:59) and the most
methodologically scrupulous (e.g. Polybius--cf. BAFCSALS:5-8, most std.
works on ancient historiography--HAMM, EAMH). He is linked twice with
Castor of Rhodes, who set the format for most of subsequent historical
writing--the 'comparative columns' format (adapted by Africanus)--cf.
HAMM:59. He is said to have focused on Syrian history (perhaps evidence
for a Samaritan background?), and to have been the author of a work on
'historia.'
Now, if we look at the quote under discussion in the larger context,
some other items are suggested:
"On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks
were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts
were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his
History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.
For the Hebrews celebrate the passover on the 14th day according to the
moon, and the passion of our Savior falls on the day before the
passover; but an eclipse of the sun takes place only when the moon comes
under the sun. And it cannot happen at any other time but in the
interval between the first day of the new moon and the last of the old,
that is, at their junction: how then should an eclipse be supposed to
happen when the moon is almost diametrically opposite the sun? Let
opinion pass however; let it carry the majority with it; and let this
portent of the world be deemed an eclipse of the sun, like others a
portent only to the eye. Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius
Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth
hour to the ninth--manifestly that one of which we speak. But what has
an eclipse in common with an earthquake, the rending rocks, and the
resurrection of the dead, and so great a perturbation throughout the
universe? Surely no such event as this is recorded for a long period."
(18.1)
There are several things to notice from this passage:
* The phrase 'this darkness' (touto to skotos) makes it clear that
Thallus was attempting to account SPECIFICALLY for the darkness
surrounding the crucifixion.
* The phrase "let it carry the majority" probably indicates that a
'majority' of historians accounted for it thus, IMPLYING that MANY MORE
such explanations were circulating! In other words, the strange
darkness was REAL and a topic of scholarly discussion.
* The phrase "portent only to the eye" indicates that some argued that
it was strictly a mass visual hallucination (but still requiring
scholarly explanation).
* Another historian Phlegon recorded this event as well, specifying the
very HOURS OF THE EVENT! (Phlegon was another freedman of the emperor,
who wrote a 14-book history--cf. CAE:118). The wording of Julius'
remark here suggests that Phlegon was merely reporting the phenomenon,
without referring to Jesus.
* The phrase "let this portent of the world be deemed an eclipse of the
sun..." indicates that what is under discussion is NOT the factuality of
the event, but the EXPLANATION of it. In other words, Thallus is
EXPLAINING the occurrence of the darkness--NOT 'documenting' it as was
Phlegon.
* Harris points out one of the implications of Julius' word choice here:
"It is clear that Thallus was not merely documenting an eclipse of the
sun that took place in the reign of Tiberius, as G.A. Wells alleges...If
Africanus were simply questioning the accuracy of Thallus in claiming
that an eclipse had occurred at a certain time, he would not have
rejected Thallus' view by an expression of opinion--'(wrongly) it seems
to me'. What he was rejecting was a naturalistic explanation of the
darkness not an alleged occurrence of a solar eclipse. He proceeds to
point out that Thallus' explanation was unsatisfactory because an
eclipse of the sun is impossible at the time of the full moon."
* It is also important to note that Julius calls Thallus' work a
historia and not some other general term for literary works. The import
of this for our discussion is that it explains why (1) Julius is taking
Thallus seriously; and (2) why Thallus is dealing with the astronomical
issue of the darkness. Since the earliest days of historiography--even
as far back as Xanthos of Lydia (5th century BC), writers had attempted
to 'anchor' their chronologies and explanations on potentially dateable
events such as earthquakes, floods, etc. (cf. HAMM: 10).
At the time of his writing, anti-Christians had already been explaining
the darkness at the time of the crucifixion as a purely natural
phenomenon--an eclipse. Origen, for example, had already hinted in his
writings that this idea of it being an eclipse was an invention of the
pagans to discredit the Gospels (DM:1040, n.17).
The passage in Africanus occurs in the discussion as to the darkness
that accompanied the Crucifixion of Jesus. The phrase 'this darkness'
indicates that Thallus was referring to (in HIS history) the events
surrounding the death of Jesus. It is clear from this passage that both
Julius AND Thallus took it for granted that Jesus died (and therefore
existed!).
What I find interesting about the existence of this interchange is the
context of Julius' purpose in writing. He is writing a
HISTORY/CHRONOLOGY, not an APOLOGETIC per se. He is trying to anchor
dates and merge biblical chronology with the chronologies of Greece,
Rome, etc. In this effort, he is much more concerned about proving that
the darkness was NOT an eclipse than that it was a supernatural event.
The chronology needs to be consistent with astronomical data (as
required for ALL good 'historia'). His concern is historical TRUTH, not
theology.
* "At Rome he so impressed the Emperor Alexander Severus (222-35) by his
erudition that the emperor entrusted him with the building of his
library at the Pantheon in Rome" (CTEC:103)--NOTICE: this is
pre-Constantine!
* Wrote a miscellany, similar in content to Pliny's Natural History,
dedicated to Severus.
* Did work in textual criticism of Homer's works: "he knew various
manuscripts of Homer which lay in civic libraries from the old site of
Jerusalem to that fine city Nysa in Caria" (PAC:307)
* "Africanus was the first Christian whose writings were not all
concerned with his faith." (CTEC:103)
* "He was not an ecclesiastic, as far as we know, but a philosopher who
pursued his favorite studies after conversion and made them useful to
the church." (Schaff)
* He knew Hebrew, and of course Greek.
* The later Christian historian Socrates classes him for learning with
Clement of Alexandria and Origen!
* His Chronicle is the foundation of medieval historiography of the
world and the church. "He made the first attempt at a systematic
chronicle of sacred and profane history" (Schaff)
* He had literary critical skills and was honest enough to use them (and
confront others on even matters of 'sacred cows'!)--"He once attended a
theological disputation during which Origen appealed to the History of
Susanna, and afterwords wrote to Origen a fatherly rebuke for failing to
notice that the pun, being only possible in Greek, proves the History of
Susanna to be an addition to the original book of Daniel." (CTEC:103).
Robin Lane Fox cites him as an example of the best educated dual-culture
products of his day--one in which the best of culture was expressed
(PAC, op.cit.)
The first one--on data from his background--we have already looked at
above. But let's note the items that are relevant to our current issue:
* He traveled widely (in the model of rigorous historians of the day)
* He built an imperial library in Rome (giving him access to sources and
materials)
* He was a favorite of the Emperor (perhaps giving him access to 'rare
and privileged' info)
* He had a broad, semi-scientific approach (rel. to the day--a la
Natural History)
* He had skills in textual criticism (important for studying ancient
sources)
* He had a knowledge of many libraries (important for finding sources)
* He had literary critical skills (as shown in his skirmish with Origen)
* He had excellent linguistic skills in Greek
* He stood solidly in the middle of the best traditions of ancient
historiography
Again, from above we saw how he was used by ALL succeeding historians
(e.g. Eusebius,
Socrates), by even his contemporaries (e.g. Hippolytus), and that his
work formed the foundation of medieval historiography. Even the comment
adduced by Robin Lane Fox above supports his overall credibility.
A very important piece of data comes from the antagonist side! When one
of the most effective critics of Christianity in the ancient
world--Porphyry--decides to rebut Christianity, he picked Origen and
Julius as his targets! What a compliment to their credibility.
There is much more that demonstrates Julius has the highest standards of
balanced scholarship and integrity among ancient authors.
The reference to the miraculous darkness around the Crucifixion of my
Lord--even documented as to the hours by Phlegon!--is powerful evidence
not only for the 'existence of Jesus', but for the reliability of those
portions of the gospel accounts that describe that phenomena.
Summary
-------
There are more references to Jesus than detailed here. To summarize:
* Thallus (c.50-100) and Phlegon (Chronicles, c.140)
* Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews, c.93)
* Tacitus (Annals, c.115-120)
* Suetonius (Lives of the Caesars, c.120)
* Pliny the Younger (letter to Trajan, c.110)
* Lucian of Samosata (Death of Peregrine, c.170)
* Mara Bar Serapion (c.70)
* Talmudic references
* Martyrs and Church fathers
* Apocrypha
* And, of course, the NT
And, before I close, I would like to ask the reader a question:
What would you trust more? The reports of men who saw, walked, and
spoke with Jesus, whose lives were transformed by him, who dedicated
themselves to service and preaching, and suffered and died as witnesses
to him? Or, the speculations of atheists with an anti-supernatural bias
2000 years after the events?
Blessings,
Peter
On January 1, again I post on theistic evolution:
Ross Sutherland wrote:
[interesting discussion on Greek philosophy, evolution, and God]
> So, answer these questions -
> 1. Why did such great thinkers such as Plato - who lived in a polytheistic
> society - come to the conclusion that there was a single creator God?
Monotheism is philosophically superior to polytheism. It answers more
questions. What caused the universe? What is the ultimate end of the
universe? There can only be one alpha and one omega. Besides that, the
argument goes "Suppose there are multiple supreme beings. There will
inevitably be a power struggle, after which all will be annhilated or
one will survive. Therefore, there is no more than one supreme being."
> 2. Is there order in the universe or not?
This can only get a aesthetic response. It will also ultimately be
bound up with the question "Does God exist?" I answer, "yes."
> 3. Is evolution simply a regurgitated Epicurian theology? If so is it
> simply another excuse to not beleive in God?
Of course not. eg, wasn't Darwin about to join the priesthood before
his voyage on the Beagle? Evolutionary theory stemmed from scientific
analysis in geology, comparitive biology, paleontology, etc. by once
entirely Bible-believing Christians. The theory of evolution is one of
the most verified in science. Fundamentalist Christians are about the
only ones who have any trouble with it, but IMO evolution is unrelated
to God's existance.
Some seem to think that evolutionary theory lessens the force of the
argument from design. Given the following two scenarios:
* The universe seems to have started 6000 years ago with everything much
as it is today.
* The universe seems to have started 15bya and has evolved to its
current form.
The skeptic could respond to either with equal force that "no one has a
clue how the universe came about" or "probabilities prove nothing" or
"there could have been many universes and this one just happened to have
thinkers." (Note: I am not saying that the argument from design is
valid, only that it applies equally to both cases.)
So, no, evolution is neither philosophy nor an excuse for not believing
in God. It's just science. Making it any more than that is, IMO,
foolish.
Blessings,
Peter
In this almost uncharacteristic post, I develop an apologetic for Christian theism, and I declare "heaven and hell" to be a sine qua non of biblical faith.
Marjan Pregelj wrote:
> I read a lot of debates about existence or not of god. Of course that does
> not exist but lets suppose, that somebody convinced me that god exist. With
> some strong arguments, of course. I don't think anybody would jump from
> Empire State Building just because somebody say it is safe and without
> concrete prove that it is possible survive.
> After somebody somehow convinced me about existence of god, I have now
> another much bigger problem than before. I must decide to which one god
> believe. There are so many of them. And after choosing right one, there are
> so many versions, too. As I know, text from Bible is slightly different
> from that from i.e. Koran. Believing in one book and god automatically puts
> in disbelief other part(s).
OK, so hypothetically you already believe in a god, but you aren't sure
what religion (if any) describes god best?
> So I'm wondering:
> 1. With which arguments would believer in Christian god try to convince
> believer in other god(s), that his/her god is the right one (of course, I
> know it is written in Bible, but so is i.e. written in Koran, too).
Very briefly, my arguments would be historical ones concerning Jesus and
the early Church. Jesus' existence, the reliability of the gospels, the
dedication of the apostles, etc. If the person I am addressing is
Jewish or Islamic, I might have good common ground in showing that Jesus
is the fulfillment of Messianic prophecy. A nice apologetic site is the
"Christian ThinkTank" at http://www.webcom.com/ctt/ . Beyond that it us
up to the person to pray, read the Bible, and let the Holy Spirit do its
work.
> 2. Staying in Christian territory: which fraction who believe in same god
> is legitimate (Protestants, Roman Catholic, Anglicans, …). All can not be
> right. If Bible is word of god, how is possible that so many different
> interpretations exists? Who has right to misinterpret his words? I mean,
> word of god can be only one! If this is not true, than ANYBODY can found
> another fraction without any problem and ANY god is right one.
There is a great underlying unity of all Christians; we are bound
together by the Holy Spirit. I wouldn't get too concerned about any
particular man-made denomination. The Bible isn't as open to
interpretation as people sometimes think it to be - it is fairly
apparent when one is telling the Bible what to say instead of letting
the Bible tell them. (If you deny, for example, heaven or hell then you
are pretty much beyond the influence of Scripture.) Don't let a
preacher tell you how it is - let yourself be guided by your own good
sense, prayer, and meditation on Scripture.
God bless,
Peter
On January 4, I pretend to know what Jesus looked like.
Michael Boonstoppel wrote:
> Why is that in every picture of Jesus he appears with blue eyes and light
> brown hair? He was (supposedly) born in the middle east. The overwhelming
> majority of people born there have slightly darker skin, brown eyes and
> dark hair. Surely he would have had the same traits.
Funny, most representations I see do portray Jesus with brown eyes,
darker skin, and brown hair in the style of Jews of the day. Not that
this is important.
> Oh, but he was not conceived naturally. He was made in the image of god. So
> god is a Caucasian then?
Of course not.
> Or perhaps darker skin is not acceptable to most light skinned, brown
> haired christians so he needs to be portrayed the same as them.
I'm a white skinned, brown haired Christian and I don't really care how
pictures portray Jesus. Making the picture any more than a reminder of
Him is idolatrous.
Blessings,
Peter
On Jan 5, I explain my view of theist and atheist ethical motivation.
My view on this as a Christian. I wouldn't hold either of the above
positions.
> ...When an atheist does something good. For example: tell the truth,
> help another, give to charity, not steal when the oportunity arises,
> sacrifice themselves for the good of others. When an atheist does any of
> these things, (s)he does it for no reason other than to be good.
That's noble, although perhaps too much of a generalization. Might
getting along with other people be a reason? And a well-developed
conscience that would bug? The little gain one might make from, from,
for example, telling a lie may well be far outweighed by it haunting
your thoughts.
> ...When an equivalent theist does good, (s)he usually does it for one of
> 3 reasons. 1) their god commands it, 2) they wish to bribe god to get
> into heaven or 3) they wish to avoid their god's hell.
1 John 4:18-20. "{18} There is no fear in love, but perfect love drives
out fear because fear has to do with punishment, and so one who fears is
not yet perfect in love. {19} We love because He first loved us. {20} If
anyone says, "I love God," but hates his brother, he is a liar; for
whoever does not love a brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he
has not seen."
(Note: Fear of God is good, but perfect love is best.)
So the Christian's reason: for the love of God. I don't give a thought
to the afterlife when I do something good, and the Law is secondary.
> ...So we see that the atheist does good without plans of reward, while
> the theist does good for ulteriour motive. Either from fear or for
> wishes of salvation.
An atheist may or may not have an "ulteriour motive." A Christian may
or may not have an "ulteriour motive," but the Christian should do so
simply for the love of God.
> ...So does atheism "help a person become better?" I must answer yes,
> since it frees the atheist's heart to be truely good. Not good in order
> to satisfy a god(s) whim.
In Christ we are called as friends, not servants.
> ...Does atheism help you to "become cleaner or your heart purer?" Again,
> yes. You are no longer driven to do good for selfish reasons. An
> atheist's good is a pure good. And an atheist's heart is clear of self
> loathing.
The Christian should do so for the love of God, not to get to heaven.
One will be clean of mind and pure of heart when they are filled with
the Holy Spirit.
> ...Finally does atheism help a person to "advance morally?" Well, yes.
> An atheist's morals are no longer arbitrarily laid down by the whims of
> a god(s).
As Martin Luther put it, "Love God and live as you please - in that
order!" The Christian is only bound by the law of love. Reason should
shape how you live, and God should shape your reason for living.
> ..."Or did it make you just the opposite?" To this question, we can only
> leave it to each person. While I am sure there are atheists who now use
> their atheism as a nihlist attempt to free themselves from the need to
> be good, there are also theists who use their "guaranteed salvation" as
> a blank check to be immoral.
While there may be people like this, I'm afraid they would be fooling
themselves. "Either declare a tree good and its fruit is good, or
declare the tree rotten and its fruit is rotten, for a tree is known by
its fruit." Not everyone who cries "Lord, Lord" will be saved.
> ...But I suspect that a good person who becomes an atheist would then
> become a better person. Their goodness would then be real, not bribed or
> threatened or ordered out of them.
> ...Perhaps some people do need the threat of god's wrath to help them to
> be good. The next time you do some good deed, think about why you are
> doing it. Then take god out of the answer. If you can still do good, you
> will be a better person.
As above, the threat of God's wrath is not the reason to be good. But
let's see...why did I do good? "Because I love God." Take out God,
"Because I love." But love whom? "Because I love others." Can I still
do good? Yes. Jesus told us, "Whatsoever you do to the least of my
people, that you do unto me." The love of God is reflected in the love
of other people.
God bless,
Peter
Next up, on the supposed eternal soul...
Marjan Pregelj w