CelticBear’s Musings
Posts Feed
Apologetic Revisionism
Posted by CelticBear on July 31st, 2006
I attended a wedding this weekend, a couple that my wife knows through her work. It was nice and all. But the pastor annoyed me. Oh, he spoke well and convincingly and right purtily. *grin* But he delved quite a bit into what I call apologetic revisionism. Twisting and contorting Old Testament scripture and Jewish tradition to rationalize and prove Jesus’ divinity.
For example, at one point he made reference to the Last Supper being a Passover meal, and Passover being a celebration of the coming Messiah. Yes, you heard me right, and yes, I heard him right. I did a mental “Wha-wha-whaat?!” Excuse me, but according to the Rugrats Passover special (*grin*), the Jewish holiday of Passover was a celebration of God’s supposed slaughter of Egyptian children and passing over the Hebrew households and the supposed eventual exodus of the Hebrews out of Egypt. It has nothing to do with any messiah. (With a slight exception which I’ll get to….)
The pastor then mentioned that during the dinner, Jesus specifically picked up the “Messiah Cup” that is part of the Passover meal and did his “take, drink,” thing with it. OK, two things: First of all, I’d never heard of Jesus doing this Messiah Cup thing and I’d read the Gospels countless times. So I reread the Gospels, and yep, no mention of a Messiah Cup at all. From where did this pastor pull this bit of fiction out of?
Then, never having heard of a “Messiah Cup” before I did a Google for it, and nothing. Not a single hit. But, being a very curious and usually thurough person, I looked harder into the Passover Sedar, and did find this: There are four cups involved in the Passover dinner and each one supposedly has a meaning. However, there’s very little consensus as to what the cups mean. Some Jewish scholars relate them to Hebrew kings, some to matriarchs, and one 18th century rabbi named Vilna Gaon relates them to four aspects, or promises, of God. One of them related to the promise of “I will redeem.” This is a VERY loose connection to the Christian concept of the Messiah.
Forgetting for a moment that this one concept of one of the Passover cups was started in the 18th century, and there’s NO mention on the Gospels of Jesus taking one particular cup during the Last Supper, the whole concept of “messiah” has been twisted by Christianity. The word “messiah” in Judaism means a prophet annointed by God, and it’s a title that has been applied to many people in Jewish tradition. The concept of messiah meaning “savior” didn’t come about until the 1st century (the era of Jesus) when Jewish persecution was quite high and many Jewish cults were looking for and creating leaders that would save them from the persecution.
In other words, whatever twisting around in the meaning of “Messiah” during and since the 1st century comes after the Last Supper (if it actually happened) where there was absolutely no connection to a Messiah at that time.
So this pastor continues a practice of revisionism using at best rationalizations and lies at worst to justify the religion. It begins with such inane rationalizations as saying the OT Isaiah prophesy of “his name shall be Immanuel” when his name was, if I recall, let me see… “Jesus”. (Or actually, Joshua if you really want to get specific considering his name in scripture is Iesous (Greek) which was a translation from the Hebrew Jehoshua.)
The Jesus is retrofitted as the prophesised “Christos, Messias” by saying “well, Emmanuel means ‘God with us,’ so that must mean Jesus is God with us, so Jesus is God or the Savior.” Forgetting of course that all Hebrew names have meaning, and nearly all of them relate to God in some way. So that if Isaiah had said “his name shall be David,” they’d say that applied to Jesus because David means “God’s strength” and what is Jesus but the incarnation of God’s strength, etc etc.
Anyway, I don’t know who I’m more upset with. It’s the job of the religious leader to sell their religion, to justify and rationalize and convince people to believe using whatever means necessary. So can I blame him? What I’m upset mostly with, I guess, are people in general. Because I know that 90% of the people listening to him will walk away unquestioning. Will believe whatever he says because he said it. And surely a pastor, a Man o’ God, wouldn’t be in error, or even lie or deceive. So they believe and never question.
And that’s why our country is in the state it’s in.
August 2nd, 2006 at 5:13 pm
Liam,
Thank you for your post. I hope you don’t mind me stopping by and dropping a note but there are a few statements in your blog post that need to be clarified. To defend the Pastor right out the bat, this was not his idea… let me quote 1 Corinthians 5:6-8:
“Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough? Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth.â€
Every year when Passover arrives, Orthodox Jews all over the world sit down at the Seder table. When the Haggadah (story of the Exodus) is recited, they celebrate the faithfulness of the God because He liberated their fathers from slavery in Egypt and brought them to freedom after 430 years. That was a powerful day in the history of the people of Israel, which is recounted by the Haggadah and passed on from generation to generation. Children sit and sing songs in anticipation of the Messiah, hoping that they may see Elijah the Prophet. Who, when he appears, will proclaim the era of peace and the rule of the Messiah. That is how Orthodox Jews celebrate Passover today, and pretty much how they did in the first century.
As a Christian, I too have participated in Passover meals on many occasions! And, what a blessing! This, for me is recognition of the history recorded in Exodus…about 3500 years ago, God brought the ten plagues upon Egypt because of Pharoah’s stubborn refusal to release the children of Israel from bondage. The last plague effected freedom for the children of Israel because it was the plague that brought death to the firstborn. God killed every firstborn in the land of Egypt, both of man and beast. “…. and all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die” (Exodus 11:5). When the judgment fell on Egypt, God made a provision of escape through the blood of the lamb that appeared on the door posts of the houses.
The night that the firstborn died was a night of terror and horror to all those who ignored the instructions of God. For He commanded them to sprinkle the blood of the lamb upon the door posts of their house. Yet to all those who trusted in God and did as He commanded them was this night one of hope for deliverance from slavery to freedom. The Isrealites heard the bitter cries of depression by the Egyptians. For they had anticipated the time when the Angel of Death passed through the houses of Egypt in accordance with God’s judgment. The people of Israel knew that outside their doors which had the sign of the blood of lamb, was only death. But they didn’t fear, because their houses were shielded by the blood on the doors. Right in the face of death they went out from slavery that night, because the blood of the “Passover†lamb was in exchange for the death that was closing in on the people of God, the people of Israel.
Christianity does not attempt to revise Jewish history, but rather we celebrate it! Christ is the fulfillment of the Old Covenant! And, what better setting than the Passover meal to install the New Covenant! Note these words written in Matthew 26 where he says Jesus and his disciples were celebrating the Passover:
“While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, ‘Take and eat; this is my body.’
Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, ‘Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom.’â€
Now, during the Passover meal there are specific cups as you noted, each having a ceremonial significance. Christians have always assumed Jesus was using the third cup, which is often called the “Cup of Redemption†because it would have been appropriate for his announcing the NEW Covenant. I admit I’ve not heard the “Messiah cup†term before…but the meaning would be compatible.
Jesus the Messiah is the Lamb of Passover. The blood of the Messiah has been offered for the forgiveness of sins and for life with God.
Regarding the name Immanuel, you’ll have to fault the Apostle Matthew for attributing that name to Christ (see Matthew 1) and not the revisionist Pastor.
In conclusion, Liam, I know you reject Christianity and this wedding was another opportunity to slam it, but I remain convinced that it is because you do not know all the details. You either don’t know them or won’t know them.
I would love for you to at least see it for all it is worth…not simply peeking through a crack in the door.
I’ll close with these words of Peter 1:10-21:
Concerning this salvation [through Christ], the [Old Testament] prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to look into these things.
Therefore, prepare your minds for action; be self-controlled; set your hope fully on the grace to be given you when Jesus Christ is revealed. As obedient children, do not conform to the evil desires you had when you lived in ignorance. But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for it is written: “Be holy, because I am holy.”
Since you call on a Father who judges each man’s work impartially, live your lives as strangers here in reverent fear. For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake. Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God.
August 3rd, 2006 at 9:28 am
Mark, of course I don’t mind your replying.
I hope I can keep this brief and keep it general (yeah, right.)
First, I have to express offense at your mischaracterization of me with your comment that I took the wedding as another opportunity to dump on Christianity. But then, I guess all you ever hear from me is the dumping. But in this case, the pastor spoke around the songs and candle lighting and all, for about 15 to 20 minutes total. And if it weren’t for the comments he made about Christ specifically taking the “Messiah Cup” and saying Passover, 2000 years ago, was a celebration of the coming messiah, I would have walked out at the end saying “That was a nice ceremony.”
Believe it or not, I attend church now and then and often appreciate some of what is said. I sing along with old hymns and new contemporary Christian songs. I can turn off the cynic part of my mind (yes, I said “cynic†not skeptic) in order to enjoy fellowship and appreciate words of wisdom (if they’re not soaking with dogma.)
In fact, I refer you to one of your own posts: http://newsojourn.blogspot.com/2006/06/life-is-journey.html in which I gave you support in your endeavor to spread religionless faith.
But the skeptic in me doesn’t shut down, so when I hear someone in a position of authority try to manipulate in order to convince, I bristle. (Ironic in the case of religion considering I believe Christian religion to all be myth, so someone revising religious history to a new untruth shouldn’t matter to me.)
The problem, here specifically, is that regardless of what we (Christians, rather) believe about Passover now, 2000 years ago Passover was NOT a celebration of the coming messiah, and that’s what this pastor described it as in THAT context. That it was being celebrated at the Last Supper as that being the purpose. And it wasn’t. Maybe by the time Paul (or someone else writing under the name of Paul) wrote to Corinth it was, but not during the Last Supper.
And there is nothing scriptural about which cup Jesus took, IF he took ANY of the four ceremonial cups. Saying he took one in particular is imposing your own particular assumption upon something not specified. Doing that for yourself, I don’t mind. Doing that and passing it off as “turth” or fact, I have a problem with.
And that speaks to the whole problem I have with people treating the Bible, scripture, as the infallible and literal word of God, but then needing other humans to make sense of it or listening to and believing other humans’ interpretations and assumptions and impositions of their own “truth†upon it.
In my opinion, if the Bible is God’s word, is infallible and perfect, we wouldn’t need ANYONE much less an entire industry of writers and theologians to explain the meanings to us. Ironically, it was because of my ultimate and utter faith in God that I lost complete faith in the Bible. (As do most Deists and freethinkers.) Remember, I was raised Christian. I was an acolyte as a kid quite often, was extremely active in my youth group, used my acting skills to perform passages of the Bible at services, was in the choir, won awards for verse memorization at Church Camp, and have stayed up all night at times trying to bring people to Christ. I had complete faith in God. I read the Bible (like most Christians, in pieces and parts and not its entirety,) and did not read the books of other humans to gain my understanding of God. (Except Joe White, and I REALLY disagreed with him quite a bit.)
I believed that the Bible must be perfect because it was God’s word. Until I finally read ALL of the Bible. And then I understood why there were countless books out there trying to explain the Bible. Why there were countless denominations and factions and cults. The Bible is far less than perfect. It is confusing, it is self-contradictory, it contradicts reality and facts we know about the world and history, it is filled, FILLED with immorality and conflicting moralities. And I’m sure you, like most conservative Christians, would say none of that is true, but you have to use interpretation, assumptions, inferences, rationalizations, and logical retrofitting to make all that not so.
Should that be necessary for God’s manual to life? If a human like John Grisam or Tom Clancey or Stephen King can write books that make sense, are clear, internally consistent, logical, even factual, then by God, shouldn’t at least the same if not better be expected from the supreme and all-powerful deity of the universe?! And yet, we have to have literally encyclopedias of apologetics to explain away the contradictions, fallacies, issues and problems with this “perfect book,†and that should not be necessary if the book is Truth. If the Bible was God’s perfect word, ultimate Truth, it should be clear and plain to everyone who takes the effort to read it. 2000 years ago, the Vulgate version, King Jame’s highly mistranslated version, any of the scores of versions existing today, TRUTH should be clear and consistent and and not subject to personal interpretation, assumptions, impositions of one’s own ideas.
And so because I relied completely on “God’s Word†for understanding of God’s Word, I realized it wasn’t. It’s Man’s Word. Many mens’ words. And because of that, the Bible is perfect for one thing, manipulation of people. Anyone can take what they want from it and convince people to believe whatever they want them to believe. Should God’s Truth be capable of such use?! Because it’s in the form of a book, it’s easy to use the works of other mens’ books to impose assumptions and interpretations upon “God’s Word†to make it mean what you want, and convince people of it.
And that’s what upsets me. That people with authority can make up what they want, find some way to tie it in with religious doctrine using rationalizations and assumptions and reverse reasoning, and lead unquestioning people by the nose. Yeah, people are sheep, and they’ll go wherever someone holding a stick takes them. Whether it’s to green pastures, or the slaughterhouse.
August 3rd, 2006 at 3:09 pm
Liam,
Thanks for your follow up. I certainly don’t intend to offend…but your conclusion was correct…that is all I ever get to see. Sorry!
I still think your conclusion that for Jews Messiah is (was) not connected with Passover is utterly false and not based upon facts. Check out this link: http://www.jewfaq.org/holidaya.htm
I see that for you, though, this is the crux of the matter: “And that’s what upsets me. That people with authority can make up what they want, find some way to tie it in with religious doctrine using rationalizations and assumptions and reverse reasoning, and lead unquestioning people by the nose.”
You and I are in complete agreement in this statement. Organized religion is a great source of evil on this earth. Probably one of the most hideous, twisted sources of evil on this earth…and has been for thousands and thousands of years.
Where you and I disagree is that you make sweeping generalizations (“…[the Bible] is filled, FILLED with immorality and conflicting moralities”) and conclusions about Christianity because you see people fail in this way, and I study the history and evidence behind the people.
Does this mean I’m right and you’re wrong? No, it means that you are not logically consistent within your own proclaimed world view, while I, however wrong I may be, am consistent within mine.
It is not my intent to offend, but to challenge. Offense is intended to tear down, my statements are intended to cause growth in the way weight does to muscle…and that intent is for both of us.
August 3rd, 2006 at 9:36 pm
I’m glad we’re in agreement about religion. =)
But I ask where am I not logically consistant in my worldview?
My worldview: Religion = mythology; there may or may not be universal truths and if there are, they are natural truths and not handed down by a deity; skepticism and reason and inquiry will lead to understanding while faith will generally lead to ignorance (in their pure forms); integrity, love, honesty in character, and moderation are cornerstones of “good living;” do unto others as you would want done unto you.
That’s my worldview in a nutshell, more or less.
Besides, even if I weren’t consistant, that might not be a “bad” thing anyway. Depending on your definition. Consistancy can be rigid and intolarant. Moral consistancy based on dogma is illogical because the dogma (a) requires unquestioning absolutism (eg: “Thou shalt not murder,) yet (b) is contradictorily (it’s a word, trust me, don’t look it up) relative (eg: the genocide God commands the Hebrews to commit including innocent women and children (except when he commands that the priests gets to keep the virgin women).)
The morality, the worldview that comes from a schizophrenic book that on the one hand allows stoning people for incorrect farming and the keeping of slaves and selling of daughters yet also advocates mercy and turning your cheek and loving your enemy, is illogical. It’s illogical to say this book is supposed to be the perfect manual for morality, yet one has to infer and reason and rationalize and interpret ways for it to make sense, but then turn around and say it’s literal and perfect truth.
My worldview involves improving yourself, improving your fellow man, improving the world, based on what each of those three needs at the time. And for the future. Not trying to please a god, save my soul from torment, or gain paradise. I find my worldview, pardon the arrogance, supremely more beneficial, logical, and…moral, than that based on a 2000-6000 year old patriarchal nomadic Middle Eastern culture whose understanding of the world involved genocide and that every species on the planet could fit and survive inside a boat.
THAT’S illogical.
August 4th, 2006 at 11:13 am
Funny. Speaking of logic and worldview, I just came upon this:
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/08/logic-and-quest-for-metaphysical.html
Here’s a quote from it:
(In regards to how a theist approaches the “logic” of his worldview…) “In essence what he’s saying is that if his God exists, then this is how a theist should view logic.”
The article also discusses something that I discussed some time ago in “Faith or Delusion,” where one’s worldview begins by accident of birth. You develop your theism based on when and where you’re born, not from any kind of universal truth.
August 4th, 2006 at 12:18 pm
Liam,
You say that “integrity, love, honesty in character…” are good. Why?
In order to answer this question you have two choices. Appeal to the objecive or appeal to the subjective. You pick.
If you appeal to the objective, your worldview, as you have revealed it to me so far has no way of explaining how objective truths (aside from things like physics and mathematics) can exist.
If you appeal to the subjective, then your worldview holds no water. How can you define “integrity” without having an objective standard?
August 4th, 2006 at 2:52 pm
Oh not this again! =P
They’re “good” because I say they’re good. Nyah! =/
If they’re objectively “good” then it’s because they’re natural truths, perhaps. (I’m not about to pretend DEFINITELY I have THE answer. I’m only human.)
All creatures have the biological impulse to perpetuate the species. It stands to reason that a more advanced and sentient species, humans, understand through either biological or social evolution that we as a species (in addition to as individuals) thrive when we express a general self-sacrifice, cooperation, generosity etc. etc.
That might make it an “objective” morality.
Or, maybe not. Maybe it is purely subjective. Maybe there is no biological imperative to exhibit we most humans define as “good” behavior, and we simply come to believe through experience, as individuals, that you get more flies with honey than with vinegar. That doing things society deems bad (generally because it involves removing property or life from another without permission,) removes us from society and removes our liberty and we individually believe that’s a bad thing for ourselves.
If it is purely subjective, my worldview holds water just fine for me. By what standard would it or would it NOT hold water?
Oh! I like this: IF worldviews ARE subjective and there is nor moral/ethical/worldview objectivity, than any judgement about a worldview holding water or not is ALSO subjective!
Living with integrity, love, and honesty (you forgot moderation in your quote,) works for me. That alone is enough to hold water. I find I feel better about myself when I behave that way. I find that others view me better when I behave that way. I find that life is easier when I behave that way. I find that I like other people better when they behave that way. People who don’t behave that tend to result in negative consequences I don’t like. So I promote those “good” behaviors in others.
I’m looking at the above with a more selfish slant, but, perhaps that too is a standard of measurement. Long term positive personal gain through behavior that society deems “good.” It’s a more cynical view than what I hold, but a potentially valid one. One that can potentially hold water.
I refer back to previous blog conversations:
Time for a Fish Fry! Attacks on Naturalism Don’t Hold Water
and
Absolutely Relative (the theme continues)
But, perhaps more interesting, are some other blog entries that deal with this very topic that I discovered just today:
The Christian Illusion of Rational superiority.
The Christian Illusion of Moral Superiority.
What Motivates an Atheist to be Good?
(These are found: http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/02/johns-posts.html.)
Some very interesting reading.
August 7th, 2006 at 9:52 am
It’s my blog and I’m feeling persnickity, so I’ll add to the dead thread just ’cause I can.
The idea of evaluating a worldview that works for someone as “not holding water” is frankly absurd. It’s like saying “It is impossible for the bumblebee to fly!” while staring right at a flying bumblebee.
How can you say my worldview is illogical, when, it exists whether it holds up to your scrutiny or not?
Ironically, perhaps hypocritically (both to you as being someone judging my “mote” despite your own “beam,” and me because I defend my working worldview when I’m about to dismiss your seemingly working worldview,) the problem is because, if you’ll pardon my directness (if you, or anyone, is still reading this,) your religion-based worldview is founded on illogic.
Perhaps in an effort to backpeddle, your operational worldview works for you, so as I say for my own working worldview, they both “hold water” in that they are both flying bumblebees. But my, and most other humanist and secular worldviews (based upon reason and freethinking,) come from the pure logical direction of observation, experience, then understanding/belief.
Yours however starts with belief in presupposed truth, then rationalization of those truths by manipulating observation and experience disingenuously.
You start with the illogical stance of assuming a book contains literal truth because the luck of your birth putting you in a time and place to be raised to assume the book is true. Then you try to form your reality around a book that is fundamentally flawed. So while your worldview works for you, more or less, it’s based on (self-) deception and fallacy.
If anything doesn’t “hold water,” it’s that. For me, I see the effects of my actions. Actions that harm others feels wrong to me. Actions that make others happy feels good. Both have effects that reach beyond my immediate experience. Ergo, fo both personal reasons and for the benefit of my friends, family, community, and society in general, it makes sense that I perform actions that promote life, liberty, and happiness, and avoid actions that harm those concepts. That is logical, reasonable, makes sense.
The religious worldview starts with a story you are told is true by people in authority (parents, preachers,) commands you to obey then based on pain of punishment and reward of boons despite lack of proof or evidence of either, and then find reasons to filter which of the commands in a book written in a time and culture alien to your own should be followed and which ones ignored. That doesn’t make sense.
August 7th, 2006 at 1:30 pm
Liam,
Sorry I hadn’t had a chance to post up a response…had to go out of town. By the way, are you persnickity often?
Just kidding. I have fun typing that word and loved your use of it!
A couple of thoughts for you: First, It is important to understand the place I am coming from. My worldview is not based upon the writings of a “book.” Rather it is based upon historical research which lead me to conclude the historical event of the Resurrection of Christ is true. Once I arrived at that conclusion I then proceeded to study Him in extreme detail…and that will certainly lead me to the Bible. Now, from a worldview standpoint, the Scriptures figure prominantly in my conclusions (philisophically and even more so theologically) but they are not the starting point, nor are they the finishing point.
Your description of how I view the Scriptures is patently false and based upon a myriad of assumptions. This is lamentable and further evidence that you truly do not understand orthodox Christianity. Instead you seem to pick up on what our culture likes to characterize it as, and thus miss out on the vast majority of its content. Along those lines, I would like to invite you to watch for a new blog series I had already been planning: Christianity 101 (don’t know if that will be the final title, but you get the idea). The purpose of the series is not just a response to your thoughts here (although I’m certain it will be helpful in that way) but rather an in-depth look at what Christianity really is as a opposed to how it is routinely characterized.
Second thought: The reason I challenged your worldview is simple: I think you appeal to the objective to define your values. In doing this, you render your worldview a contradiction.
An example from your original post:
“What I’m upset mostly with, I guess, are people in general. Because I know that 90% of the people listening to him will walk away unquestioning.”
In this statement you are appealing, in a manner that I would completely agree with, to the idea of what is right and what is wrong. Justice.
Push it back as far as you want, and at some point there is an objective standard to which you are comparing this situation.
But my challenge remains simple: What is that objective standard?
The reason I say that subjectivism doesn’t hold water is not to put you or anyone else down, but rather to employ your very own skepticism and logic: If you do not have a standard by which to measure, then from what platform can you be skeptical? How can you possibly apply logic? Each of these concepts is steeped in the objective.
Thus, my challenge remains. In the mean time, I would ask a favor of you, and appeal to your own moniker as a free thinker: Do not make statements like this: “You start with the illogical stance of assuming a book contains literal truth because the luck of your birth putting you in a time and place to be raised to assume the book is true. Then you try to form your reality around a book that is fundamentally flawed.”
There are multiple issues here, but there are two important ones I would like to leave you with.
(1) I would never assume a book contains a literal truth because of my up-bringing. Quite the contrary, my up-bringning led me to doubt and seriously question every part of “the book.” Indeed, I went on to research multiple sources, different point of views, etc. And, I certainly did not do my research at the local Christian book store, I can assure you.
What I found did not support my up-bringing at all. Instead, it shook me to my very foundations. I discovered that if my conclusions about the Resurrection were true (and I make the claim that they are) then the Christianity of the late 20th century had a lot of explaining to do.
But, regardless of the current state of Christianity as it is perceived by our culture, my worldview rises and falls on the Resurrection. Period. I follow the evidence to conclude a man walked out of His tomb, and THAT is something to wrap logic around. He either did (and if so, was the most important event of Human history) or he didn’t.
My world view is very, very simple. If Christ lives, then we have hope and purpose. If he does not, then life is a sick joke. Natural Selection rules the day. Good thing we live in America during this time…then at least we can be fat and happy for maybe 70 or 80 years…as long as we don’t get side-swiped by an SUV on our way home from work.
August 7th, 2006 at 4:33 pm
Yes, actually, I’m persnikity quite often.
(Read the following in a bored voice of Bloo from “Foster’s Home for Imaginary Freinds,”…)
Persnikity… per…snikity. PerSNIKity. Persnikity for parsnips. Parsnips are persnikity. Parsnips ARE persnikity! See my parsnip? It’s persnikity! Persnikity parsnips per chance! I have a persnikity parsnip….
OK but seriously.
Again, your attacks on relativism and subjectivity assume the absurdistly extreme example of the concept. You’re railing against the ultimate definition of the word itself, constructing a false dichotomy based on semantics, and forcing a false logic upon the concept where in reality, one doesn’t exist.
Please please PLEASE please parsniply pleeaassee read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism#Defenses.
That really should be all that needs to be said. But I’ll babble on.
Even if I were to say “Everything is relative” (which I don’t believe) even that statementis NOT a philosophical contradiction despite its appearance because WHAT the phrase is intending to describe does NOT include the semantics of the phrase itself.
It’s simply a badly worded statement.
To say there IS an objective standard does not contradict the idea of relativistic philosophy. Logic is pretty objective (when applied correctly.) If I were to say properly applied logical reasoning is objective, (which it is,) that does not imply that societal morals can not be subjective.
To whit: (Pardon my crassness and cynicism in the following extreme example,) Humanity as a biological collective of living entities, strives to thrive and survive. IF one subscribes to the idea that the prosperous survival of humanity is a desireable thing, promoting actions that assist the goal of the thriving of humanity is “good” and actions that deter or hinder humanity’s progress is “bad.”
Ergo, the removal of a human life against its will is “bad,” while promoting the creation of life-saving medicine is “good.”
Now, to what degree this is excersised can legitimately vary. The harming of a human by this logic is “bad.” But, what if the harming of one human is certain to improve the life, liberty, and happiness of millions of humans? Well, arguements of morality that can be equally valid can arise from there, and that exhibits a relative nature of morality, while logic and reason remains intact.
OK, I’m officially sick of the whole relative/absolutist arguement. I’m sorry, but it’s as clear as crystal to me and I can’t understand how a person can see otherwise without using disingenuous obfuscation or misunderstanding or misrepresentation.
Once again, pardon my bluntness, but I sincerely doubt the sincerety of your religious investigation for fact and truth. I insist that your cultural, if not familial, upbringing has forced you to scrutinize Christianity in a FAR more forgiving light than you do other religions and philosophies. Have you REALLY completely and objectively and rationally examined Christianity? Because I don’t see how it’s possible to do so and come away a believer of the literal “truth” of the religion and the supernatural claims.
Just starting with the facts that
(a) There are NO non-religious historical documents verifying anything from the gospels or Acts. All non-religious documents that refer to Christ are NOT 1st-hand accounts and were written after the religious documents (the gospels and Paul’s letters) had already been circulated.
(Coralary(sp): This does not prove that the events DIDN’T happen. Just because there is no one who recorded “A fellow named Yeshua came in to see Pilate today. Pilate spoke to him, and then he was brought before the Hebrews for display. The chicken today was very tasty,” does not mean it DIDN’T happen. However, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the very skewed, very biased, somewhat contradictory (without using inference and personal interpretation,) religious stories which sources cannot be verified do not count as extraordinary evidence.)
(b) The Hebrew texts that the Christian religion is based on does not match with known history, geology, science, and in some cases, logic. It has more in common with other “fertile basin” mythologies than it does with reality.
(c) There is nothing emperical, and only anecdotal evidence that the Christian concept of a personal God exists. (Again, this does not DISPROVE the Christian concept of a personal God exists, but does not PROVE he does, and the burden of proof is on the believer.)
Those are just the basics. A TRUELY skeptical (not even cynical, just honestly skeptical,) examination of Christianity using the same criteria as you would to disprove Hinduism, Wiccaism, or any other religion, reveals no literal factuality and historacity to Christianity. The only way a person believes a literal or even generally orthodox version of Christianity is through some collection of Cognitive Biases.
I can’t accept that Christ arose when there are no facts. Because five (seven at best) people 2000 years ago say they saw it happen, doesn’t make it so when it’s doubtful at best any of those seven people who wrote about actually was there and aren’t just reporting 2nd-hand stories and information, we can’t corroborate their stories, and they contradict facts we do know for sure. Extraordinary evidence is needed. Especially when there are more people today who claim to be first-hand witnesses to Elvis’ continued existance than there are people who were recorded first-hand witnesses of Jesus. And this is supposed to be the Son of God for goodness’ sake! The redeamer of the world. And the best we have are some very biased and erroneous stories written by some guys who weren’t even witnesses to the events.
One one side of the scale there is overwhelming evidence that the Jesus story is myth. That the Jewish religion is certainly and absolutely myth (and orthodox Chritianity demands the validity of Judaism,) and on the other scale is flimsy at best evidence for an event that requires pretty stupifying evidence to be reasonably accepted.
Sorry, but the scale is tipped pretty drastically against literal or orthodox Christianity. Wicca has more evidence of its validity (gag!)
Finally, is there is no Christian idea of a personal God and no validity to the Christ religion, by what do you determine “life is a sick joke?” By what definition of “sick” and who made up the joke if there’s no sentient human-like deity in charge?
Life just IS! See my friend, you have come to the very, the absolute, bottom line as to why mythologies exist! Why nearly every culture has some sore of myth, religion, spirituality, even today. We humans are sentient. We are able to recognize our existance and our mortality. We are capable of questioning it. We desire meaning. We place meaning upon things. From the anthropomorphising of stuffed animals to the seeing of faces in toasted cheese sandwitches, we impose meaning. Your very desire to refuse to accept an existance that may be cosmically meaningless belies your very human nature to grasp and latch onto meaning even if it’s wrong. We need something to tells us “It’s OK, there is a reason for everything, you’ll be fine, don’t fear, there is a nicer place than this,” because we fear death. We fear mortality. We don’t understand the mysteries of death and existance and we so desperately need to.
“It is always better to have no ideas than false ones; to believe nothing, than to believe what is wrong.” -Thomas Jefferson, (letter to Rev. James Madison, July 19, 1788)
“For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.” -Carl Sagan
And so humans create bigger than life parental figures in the sky to assure us. To create explanations for things we don’t understand. Weather. Nature. How we got here. Why people get sick. Why people do things that harms and we consider “evil.” We’re expert pattern finders so we create ritual, we assume pattern in nature. We create rules of behavior and believe the father figures in the sky have everything under control.
We are afraid. You say so yourself. You’re afraid of getting side-swiped by an SUV. So am I! My wife is driving to KC right no and I’m horribly afraid for her. Always am. My daughter is at the Y right now, and I am terrified of her drowning. I’m a human. I am mortal. I am afraid. I seek comfort in the idea of everything going to be OK, everything having a reason. Even when the truth is ugly. Children die. No matter what faith they or their parents are, children die universally. Everyone dies no matter how much you pray, you will die. Quick, slow, young, old, death does not care what god you pray to. And that terrifies us to no end as biologically mortal creature who are unlucky enough to realize this truth.
So we create god in our image, who share and understand our fears and ideas of right and wrong to make us feel better about existance and life and death.
But, does the fact we need that reassurance make God real? Just because we WANT so much for him to be real, does that poof him info existance?
So he doesn’t exist. So humans die. It’s sad that you feel the alternative to religion and myth is wanton nihilism and philisophical anarchy.
I speak for myself, but I find meaning like you wouldn’t believe in my family.
If you had incontrovertable and absolute prrof that God didn’t exist, Mark, would you really seriously become an amoral and meaningless person? Think about that very seriously. Why would it follow if God and an afterlife that reassures you didn’t exist, that suddenly you would become a sociopath?
I find meaning in my daughter. I have goals and hopes and dreams. My love for her is real. My desire to see her succeed and have a happy life while she’s on this planet is so very real. And my not believing in a personal God does not change that. I have hope for humanity. I expect that one day humans will populate the stars. I may not be alive to see it, but that has meaning for me. My love for my wife is deep and real, my devotion to her absolute, and I don’t need a deity to tell me that is “good.” I have meaning in the dream of living the rest of my painfully short number of days on this planet with her. Because I don’t believe in a absurdly human-like deity telling me this and that is wrong or right, doesn’t mean I have any desire to harm myself or those around me with harmful actions or behavior. And because there’s no book or scroll or tablet to tell me how to judge others, I don’t. All humans are valueable and created by nature as equal. We’re all on this planet for a short time, why not improve the conditions here for ourselves, for our children?
It really, really deeply saddens me that people have to cling to myths to find meaning, instead of being able to find meaning in reality. When the world can realize that there are no Yahwehs and Allahs and Vishnus ready to give us wings or 40 virgins or a new life a sa sacred cow or whatever, we will be less inclined to kill other humans based on these beliefs or ignore or harm the Earth or umanity in general, and will work together, all of us, to make the world a better place for everyone now and in the future.
People bandy the word “humanist” and “secularist” around like they’re synonymous with criminal. But that’s what secular humanism is. It’s hope and desire to see a better world for all! For the future. Not for our individual “salvations.”
August 8th, 2006 at 7:45 am
Liam,
Thank you for a lively discussion. After reading your post I want to be cautious as to not allow our thoughts to spin into arguments. Therefore, I will leave you with these thoughts:
I understand that you reject the Resurrection of Christ. I respect you as a person even if I don’t hold to the same conclusion.
I concluded that the Resurrection of Christ did happen and I have since entered into a full relationship with Him. My relationship with Him is quite real. It is not a fairy tale or some psycological opiate.
It has a dramatic effect upon the decisions I make and my focus becomes one of being on others instead of being on myself. I still have a lot to learn and I appreciate the fact that you have been one of the people who helps me do just that.
In the mean time, I applaud your sense of purpose, your committment to goodness, and your incredible and wonderful focus on being a father and a husband. These things are what makes life so much better…do not lose them. You are quite correct that you do not “need” a deity to have these values and I apologize if I ever came across to you as someone on a higher plane than yourself…because that is NOT how I feel.
Instead, I see us as equals, two people who look at the universe we live it and recognize the imbalance that exists within it. We see that imbalance and then seek to find balance. We study, we yearn and we learn. In some places we find balance and in other places we don’t. In some places we agree on balance, and in other places we don’t.
No matter what happens, don’t ever stop seeking the balance…but I would urge you to not always denounce others who are on the same quest…even when they think they’ve found it. This lesson speaks to me even louder and I will strive to do better!
Thanks,
Mark
August 8th, 2006 at 8:52 am
I don’t want to sound insulting, especially since you took great pains to be as civil as possible.
I want to express that I in no way think you are in any way mentally or emotionally unbalanced. You and 2 billion other people believe in the resurrection of Jesus. A percentage of those 2 billion are like you, 100% absolutely certain of a personal relationship with Jesus. I used to be one of them.
But, nearly a billion and a half people are absolutely 100% certain in the teachings and prophesies of Mohammad. And have a relationship with Allah. Are they liars? Insane?
Nearly a billion people believe in Shiva and Krishna and are certain they lived past lives. Are they all liars? Or insane?
Do you have any clue how many people believe in astrology? That are 100% absolutely certain that the stars predict their lives and can give you enough examples of it happening in their life to make your ears bleed. Are they lying? Or insane?
Do you have any idea how many millions of people are 100% absolutely certain they have seen ghosts? Talked to the dead? Been abducted by aliens? Believe in chi? Have been healed by magnets? Have seen Elvis? Have evidence we never went to the moon? Have seen the Virgin Mary? Talk to saints? Certain their animal sacrifices changed the weather? Have dowsed for water? Have been cured by a faith healer? Have astrally projected?
I have no doubt the number of people in the world from the smallest villiage to the most urban center, is probably more than 80% of the world, can regale you for hours with all the evidence they have as to why their personal relationship with their deity, their experiences with the supernatural, their experiences with aliens, their experiences with pseudoscience, their experiences with the occult, is what makes them 100% certain of their beliefs.
Are all of them lying? Or insane?
Why are you so arrogant, so filled with hubris, that you can say that your 100% certainty of personal experience is more valid and “real” than the billions of other people who are equally convinced and certain of their various experiences and beliefs?
All I ask is that you think upon that for a while. How can this be so?
August 8th, 2006 at 1:45 pm
Liam,
Filled with hubris? My personal experience more valid someone else’s?
I’m uncertain of your thinking here. The written word may be betraying us. My last comment posting could be summarized as “You and I may not agree, but I think it is cool that we both are interested in discovering truth.â€
All people have faith, even you. You have faith that when you drive down the highway that opposing traffic will not cross the little yellow line we paint on our roads and destroy you. You have faith that the airline pilot actually knows how to do his job.
You have faith that humanity could potentially better itself once all the religious myths are gone. You have faith that “All humans are valuable and created by nature as equal.â€
I do not conclude that you think your beliefs are more correct than other people’s beliefs because of the intensity or certainty in which you hold to them. I would guess that you are convinced of your beliefs because of data you have collected and researched and then studied. I’m guessing you hold to your beliefs because based upon your experiences, education, philosophy and knowledge…they make the most sense.
It is the same for me. I would guess it is the same for just about everyone.
That is why, I thought I had made quite clear, I find it to be very important that I base my beliefs on an event from history. It is a digital reality for me. I’m either right or I’m wrong.
Here is the flow:
Mark was born. He was taught religion. After observing reality he rejected religion. He studied many of the world’s explanations of reality. He discovered the four pillars of knowledge. He found only one worldview which did not violate the four pillars of knowledge. He studied this worldview and found that this worldview could only be valid if it was rooted in history.
Either Christ rose or He did not.
Mark studied the history of this event. Mark concluded that Christ did rise. Mark surrendered to Christ. Mark now experiences a supernatural relationship with Christ.
Now, that is the flow…my faith rises and falls NOT based upon my experiences (even though they are powerful) but rather based upon the historical facts.
If someone produced Jesus’ bones, then I would chuck the whole thing…but since I talked with Him this morning I have a pretty good idea that won’t happen.
Now, when you read that last sentence, you probably rolled your eyes and thought you might actually throw your keyboard this time. I submit to you that you need to relax and accept what I was trying to say in my last post:
You and I arrive at different conclusions, but I think we begin at similar places: we see our world and we try to make sense of it. That quest leads us to study and learn. When you and I talk with someone who thinks they have the answer, we should accept that they are on the same quest…even if they don’t agree with us. We should celebrate the quest itself!
So, once again, I sincerely applaud you, your values and your passion and celebrate the fact that you will not go along with the crowd “just because.” Neither will I.
August 8th, 2006 at 2:50 pm
This follow-up post is more for someone else reading this, if there is anyone, and not for you. Because I know I will not change your mind, no matter what.
The problem is (a) The four pillars are not necessarily a perfect or error-free or comprehensive judge of…anything. So anything judged “valid” against the Four Pillars does not necessarily mean it is THE ultimate truth. It can still be flawed, incomplete.
For example, The Basic Valibility of Sense Perception is fundamentally flawed and can not be trusted. Back in ancient Greece the senses were the best you had, but not any more. Not only because there’s a lot going on in reality that the senses can’t detect, but there’s a LOT that your senses fool you about.
Not only are your senses fooled by natural phenomina (optical illusion, unusual properties of sound transmission, the various levels of sense ability from person to person,) but also are HIGHLY affected by the bias of our minds:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
Our entire perception of the world comes from our five senses, and our minds affect those senses and how we interpret what we sense. Our eyes aren’t cameras. What we see is our brain’s interpretation filtered through our preconceptions of the light that reaches our eyes. We can not use our senses as an error-free pillar of reality.
Also, the Analogical Use of Language is by no means a measure of reality, but simply a modality of how we define reality. And it fully depends on humans agreeing on the definition, which is simply our imposition of meaning upon something. The word “faith” has various valid meanings. An object can be both a planet and an asteroid. Relativism can be argued using its absurd extreme or its real-world application.
There is no way “truth” can be measured against these “Four Pillars” and be found objectively valid.
(b) Even against the For Pillars, if they WERE a good method of evaluating anything, the Christian religion doesn’t measure up. The Law of Causality applies to the time/space we live in, and I don’t think even Aristotle believed something outside the reality we live in could be forces into the concept of causality as we know it. It’s entirely possible that nothing “creature-like” like a deity created the universe and that Pillar does not mean that’s the case.
Even so, even IF some human-like deity outside our reality created the universe, there’s nothing that says it HAS to have been Yahweh. Or Elohim or whatever name you want to use at the moment. Why couldn’t it have been the Muslem version of Allah? Does the Pillar preclude that? Or that Tiamat or Shiva is the one who created the universe? Or something completely beyond our human ability to imagine?
On a dogmatic level, Christianity fails the Law of Non-Contradiction because Jesus is quoted as saying he was not God, and nothing is as great as God, yet at other times saying he is the Son of God and, well the entire reason the Trinity was created to explain the contradictions. Jesus being God, yet Jesus praying TO God, etc. How’s that stack against that Pillar?
Again, how does say Buddhism fail this Pillar? I see nothing contradictory about Buddhism, but I see it all over Christianity. God so loves the world, we are his children, yet he’s willing to send any and everyone to hell for not following his rules, giving us “the greatest gift” of self-determination, but only so long as we chose his will, etc etc.
Back to senses, how does Christianity hold up against this Pillar? Meanwhile, back to Buddhism, one of its tenants is to not trust what can’t be proven. But Christianity relies on believing on faith. Orthodox Christianity requires belief without proof.
The Pillars don’t stand up as any reasonable gauge for the truth of anything, Christianity doesn’t hold up very well to the Pillars anyway, and other philosophies do at least as well as Christianity does.
Issue of faith. Yes, I do have faith in some things, and must in order to be able to live. I have faith the sun will rise each day. Why? Because it has for every day of my life so far, and I have reasonable expectation to believe when people say it has since the dawn of man. So my faith that it will tomorrow is pretty well founded.
But believing someone rose from the dead 2000 years ago despite the fact there’s nothing in verifiable history or biology to support such a claim, is MUCH harder to have faith in. That’s a claim that requires extraordinary proof to believe in while belief in the sun coming up does not.
Indeed, either Christ arose or didn’t. Under that realm of “did not” also includes the concept that he didn’t even exist, which in all realms of realistic possibilities, that one is a possibility as well.
Even so, just because there are no bones doesn’t prove he arose.
Mark, I have an invisible dragon in my garage who can fly and can become incorpreal at will. You don’t believe me? Why not? Don’t you trust me? I wrote a story about him. I’ll show you the story. I have a good friend that can support my claim.
You still don’t believe me?! OK, prove he doesn’t exist. Go on, do it. There’s no bones, er, body because like I said, he’s invisible and incorpreal. So, guess you have to just have faith in what I say.
Because there’s no bones means nothing. If I recall, didn’t Mohammad ascend into Heaven directly? There’s no body of Mohammad, so he must be God’s prophet and the Koran is fact. I mean, it’s the same logic. Either Mohammad ascended or he didn’t right? We have no body of Mohammad, ergo Mohammed ascended and Islam is the true religion.
There are no bones because (a) Jesus didn’t actually exist, (b) No one has been able to find them because of incorrect information of where he was put or, (c) Someone stole the bones either intentionally or even unintentionally (not knowing it was Jesus,) and disposed of them, (d) he arose.
Now, using Occam’s Razor, which one of those is most reasonable? Which one is least reasonable?
The least reasonable one needs to have a LOT of evidence behind it. And that evidence is wanting. Basically 4 (or seven) gospels, a story of acts, and some letters all written by followers of this religious leader. That’s pretty much it.
Now, let’s say Waco, Texas didn’t happen the way it did, and Koresh and his followers stood trial. (OK, or any cult leader.) Koresh claims he healed someone as proof of his prophet status. Are we to just trust him on faith? OK, one of his followers says he saw it. Can we trust him? Seven of his followers say they saw him heal someone. Is that enough to believe the claims?
Oh, they wrote it down on paper. Does that add more validity to their claims? We can’t find the person he supposedly healed, but that’s OK, we don’t need any proof except the word of his followers, right? That’s enough for me.
Oh! Buth Koresh, er, Jesus speaks to us. Well, dang! You have to trust your own inner voice that, that must be Jesus, right? Because that same inner voice that someone thinks is the Virgin Mary, someone thinks is Vishna, someone thinks is Saint Christopher, someone else thinks it’s their dead father, someone else thinks is the spirit of an ancient Atlantian. Put bluntly, the reason you converse with Jesus, and I used to, is no different than why sane and honest people believe in alien visitation, in ghosts, in ESP, in magnet therapy, in chi, in fung shui, in astrology, in Quija boards, in water dowsing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
We believe what we want. Our minds are not computers. Our conciousness is not binary. We see what we want, ignore what doesn’t fit, filter reality through our desires and fears. We make our own realities based on our preconceptions and wants and needs and experience.
For example, I know for a fact you will not read any of the above with an open mind. You will filter everything through the same cognitive biases that you accept the problems with the Bible. And to your mind, that is reality. And yet you are perfectly sane and honest. Likewise, I live my life as no less or more of a human than you, ocassionally ignoring and focusing on things that match my preconceptions and filtered perception. But I strive, as do the other 12-15% of the world that claimes no religious belief, to try to keep my filtering of perception based on reason and skepticism and inquiry and investigation, knowing that Aristotle’s Pillars are flawed and inconclusive and absolutely subject to cognitive biases.
We can learn from experience, all we have to experience with is our senses, and we have to use some shared concepts of language in order to express our experiences, but we must, MUST realize that we are ALL subject or logical falicies and biases! We MUST accept that in ourselves and strive as hard as human possible to overcome them, if we’re not to fall prey to them and live in a skewed and erroneous, if reassuring, reality.
August 8th, 2006 at 4:54 pm
“We make our own realities based on our preconceptions and wants and needs and experience. For example, I know for a fact you will not read any of the above with an open mind. You will filter everything through the same cognitive biases that you accept the problems with the Bible. And to your mind, that is reality.”
Liam, when you make statements like this, where you unilaterally declare me to be close-minded and worse, you cease to be a free thinker and a skeptic. You have become dogmatic. You are no longer presenting arguments, you are making proclamations. You are no longer proposing ideas, you are imposing them.
And that, sir, is sad. This is precisely what I was hoping to avoid.
“Likewise, I live my life as no less or more of a human than you, ocassionally ignoring and focusing on things that match my preconceptions and filtered perception. But I strive, as do the other 12-15% of the world that claimes no religious belief, to try to keep my filtering of perception based on reason and skepticism and inquiry and investigation, knowing that Aristotle’s Pillars are flawed and inconclusive and absolutely subject to cognitive biases.”
I may be biased when I say this, but your statement appears slightly biased and it makes me skeptical of your skepticism.
We’re out of control here Liam so I’m out. See ya…thanks for the intense discussion.
August 9th, 2006 at 9:35 am
Well, I didn’t expect you to reply anyway. I knew I was being rather… confrontational and personal. But I’m sorry you feel I’m out of control. I’ve simply moved the rhetoric from the global to issues that ARE a bit more personal because it touches on some scary issues of personal reality. Things that make people defensive, and a little frightened. Forcing you to doubt, to consider that what you believe, is wrong.
You quote me saying:
“We make our own realities based on our preconceptions and wants and needs and experience. For example, I know for a fact you will not read any of the above with an open mind. You will filter everything through the same cognitive biases that you accept the problems with the Bible. And to your mind, that is reality.â€
Mark, that’s not dogmatic. That’s simply reality. Revealing this is not anti-skeptical, it’s a cornerstone of skepticism! The realization that EVERYTHING you know about yourself, the world, your beliefs, is based on your (anyone’s) personal biases.
Unless you want to convince me you’re a robot, it is simple biology/psychology to state that you (anyone) perceive through a filtering process. Countless tests and studies and research has shown that the brain is not a storage device without flaw. We do not store our experiences like a video recorder. Memory is not exact. Memory deteriorates and changes. The created memory is altered from the beginning by bias and perception.
When I say that you will not read the above with a truly open mind, and in essence calling you closed minded, it’s a statement of fact. For anyone! For myself. For Carl Sagan. For Aristotle. For C.S. Lewis. For James Randi. Everything everyone sees, reads, hears, does, feels, is filtered through preconceptions and biases. Sometimes you can minimize it, but no one is capable of complete unbias. No one. It’s simply a biochemical fact.
That taken into consideration mixed with your appearant strong bias toward a theological belief system that appears to have prevented you from truely looking at it objectively (as much as any human is capable of,) leads me to claim you’re “closed minded.”
Am I being biased? Yes, probably. I’m fully aware of the plank in my own eye. And that’s part of what a skeptic should do, is acknowledge our frailty as humans to be wrong about what we think we know!
You say I’m “out of control,” but in fact, I’m quite in control. My last reply have have included some sarcasm and attitude, but that’s actually normal for me. Trying to be polite and respectful, I generally try to be over-respectful and general. But my latest challenges have obviously struck some nerves with you, and I feel you’re projecting your own emotional reaction upon me.
I think it’s telling that your response to my pointed and reasoned challenges based quite solidly in scrutiny and reason and skepticism and freethinking, that your reaction is quite emotional. When logic and quasi-philosophy you have tried to rationalize your religion upon fails, your mental self-defense triggers and you become emotional. It’s expected and anticipated, and I knew your reaction would be that way. Because I’ve been there. When you’ve wrapped your entire life around a theology that when you really really closely scrutinize it and challenge it, it doesn’t hold up, your psyche rejects it out of hand out of self-defense. I just call it like I see it.
So I feel for you. It took me 13 years, from age 19 when I finally read the Bible in its entirety, until only a couple of years ago, to finally let go of theology. 13 years. And I didn’t have my entire life so wrapped up into the theology like you have. So your reaction to honest scrutiny and reasoned challenging is going to be emotionally violent. You’re appeals to pseudo-reason no longer works, you have nothing left but emotion. I’m sorry. I hope you can work it out.
August 9th, 2006 at 9:50 am
[...] Apologetic Revisionism [...]
August 10th, 2006 at 10:05 am
[...] Apologetic Revisionism [...]
August 12th, 2006 at 8:46 pm
Regardless of the questionable theology involved, I fail to see why on earth any pastor would bring this issue up in a wedding ceremony at all.
August 15th, 2006 at 1:25 pm
Because he’s taking the oppotunity to prosteletize(sp) as he described that “third person” that is involved in all marriages. Because, of course, God created marriage and when Jesus is the third member of a marriage, it will never fail.
Ironic considering this was the 2nd marriage for both the bride and the groom.
August 21st, 2006 at 10:06 am
[...] Apologetic Revisionism [...]