Interfaith marriage statistics are funny things

RCOFIELD: "Heads up guys. We need to clean up the language a bit here. There is a lady among us now. :-)"

Who's the lady?

Hi CalicoJ (and Walter),

You may like Walter's response, but personally I find it rather weak. Have you read the news today, O boy? Please forgive my cynicism to your world-view.

CJ: "I love that point you made earlier about there being no moral/behavioral component to Atheism or Darwinism. I've been telling people that for years, no one's believed me yet.

WALTER: "pam, peter and i have spent many many a post talking about morals w/o god. the simple answer is that they're not atheistic, but a product of evolution. early homonids who didn't "play nice" were less likely to survive (i.e., reproduce), so now most of us have a deep-down innate survival mechanism that makes murder, stealing, cheating (but not "one god" - that's got to be taught...hhmmm...) etc... feel wrong. in order to explain why i, an atheist, generally behave pretty well towards my fellow man, peter supposes "god has written 'don't murder' etc... on my heart" or something like that. anyway, it's my view that morals are much more an evolutionary thing than an atheist thing. and, i just don't like looking at my self in the mirror after i've "wronged" someone."

"Feel wrong." Nothing more than feelings! As you would say Walter, puleease!

To refute such an argument all you have to do is take a long look down the canyons of human history. Where do you find the standard? Quite ofter the ruthless are the ones who enslave their flavor of the month on those they vanquish. It is their personal preference that wins out, and as such you still have to answer the question of why their standard can be thought of as good.

Personal preference never can set up a 'best' standard (unless it copies from an objective one) because 'best' requires and objective reference as comparison to draw from. Without 'best' where is the ideal? How can it be 'best' without such a reference point?

An atheist, ultimately, doesn't have any in their system of thought. At least that is what Walter has told me above, (no moral component) and you, CJ, agree with his statement. One view is just as indefensible as another. It is all a matter of living like animals in herds in which the ones with the loudest voices get heard, or at least those who are the mightiest have their way. And it is called 'civilized.' Hey, look over there- that is a civilized herd! Hitler was civilized, his people educated.

Your system is bankrupt. You have to borrow from the Christian view in order for there to be ultimate meaning, a Source and final reference point for meaning. 'Meaning' suggests there is a 'best' to measure by. Justice requires the same bed-fellow - a ultimate meaningful standard, otherwise it is all preference.

PART 2

And atheism and macro-evolutions are of the same kin. They're both a product of impersonal chance. Your thoughts are nothing more than matter in motion. So from an impersonal chance beginning how does one come up with meaning? Why do the chemicals in my brain produce the same sense of 'wrongness' or 'oughtfulness' out of random chance collocations of atoms, that occur in your brain? This is a problem that you need to address before we can make any sense out of this. Yes, I forgot, science is working on it.

What is there to govern such intent, such purpose? Ah yes, NATURAL SELECTION, ISOLATION, MUTATION, COMMON ANCESTRY from amoeba; the great impersonal, random, process!!!

You need an ultimate, personal source of truth for anything to be true. If truth is subjective (i.e. no ultimate objective source) then whose subjective opinion do we believe?

Are we not all like sheep who have gone astray, off to the slaughter, willing to follow any master regardless of where he is taking us? Are you not riding with the four modern horsemen of the Apocalypse? We need a Good Shepherd, not one who has no ultimate standard but acts as his own god, creating his own rules and values, in his own power-play, to win the hearts and minds of his future converts - the ultimate postmodern hero.

An attempt to point attention away from myself:

Biblical Comment and Reply

---- Comment Begins Here ----

Does anybody actually READ Leviticus? It orders stonings, burnings and animal sacrifices.

I don't advocate such things but it does. If the Supreme Court were to legislate strictly according to Leviticus, adulterers and gays would be put to death --something I expect the great majority would disagree with vehemently.

It seems to me that some closer examination needs to be made of the bible. Would people in fact choose to use the bible as a legal guide if they took it literally? Would we want to live in a society that did?

Forget adulterers and gays for a moment --When's the last time anyone sacrificed a lamb for their sins (Chapter 5)? --When's the last time you wanted to?

And why does a poor dumb animal have to die for your mistakes?

Posted by: MaxSewell | August 12, 2010 11:33 AM

---- Comment Ends Here ----

---- Reply Begins Here ----

From a Christian perspective, Leviticus was written at a time and for a people that pre-dated Jesus. That was the only way they could reconcile themselves to God. When Jesus died on the cross for the sins of humanity, he voided, for all intents and purposes, the rules found in Leviticus.

Posted by: globalone | August 12, 2010 12:00 PM

---- Reply Ends Here ----

Discuss.

@PSOLUS AND TWMATTHEWS,

Heads up guys. We need to clean up the language a bit here. There is a lady among us now. :-)

Entirity...yeah, this is what I get for typing while sleepy...entirety, I mean.

@ Rcofield and Peterhuff

Wow, I get lost in the threads for a day or three and epistemology sure got kicked to the curb. Oh, well, such is the nature of the Internet.

Now, Rcofield, about that Bible accuracy issue...you're all arguing about the accuracy of these writings as they were written at the time, assuming I'm up to speed properly. My issue is not whether they were accurate at the time, but in how faithfully they've survived the intervening two thousand years--an issue I would raise with the Bible in its entirity, actually. Between successive translations through dead languages and alterations from people with agendas, just how sure are you of what you've read?

@ Psolus

Well, dip me in batter and call me a hush puppy, I'm religious after all! I thought the Flying Spaghetti Monster was my true path in life, but I've seen the light--Psolusism forever! Is there an official chant? And since Christianity absorbed a number of customs from pagan sources, can we go ahead and keep the Beer Volcano of Pastafarianism?

@ Walter-in-fallschurch

Thanks for your answer in that last thread, it timed out before I could thank you there.

I love that point you made earlier about there being no moral/behavioral component to Atheism or Darwinism. I've been telling people that for years, no one's believed me yet.

hey, guys...love all the comments. can't reply right now, but you can be sure i will soon.

To Psolus and RCOfield,

As a card-carrying Psolusite, what do I get? Eternal life...no, that's already taken.

How about something in keeping with the sexual theme -- any ideas?

RCofield,

"And hold the bus, ladies and gentlemen, it appears we have the first 4 Articles of Faith for Psolusism."

And, to further stir the pot:

1. Pro-masturbation
2. Pro-biological sex-education
3. Pro-contraception
4. Pro-choice
5. Pro-self-termination

Well. Speak of the devil and he immediately makes an appearance. :-)

"Well, this Psolusite is, in roughly the following order:

1. Pro-masturbation
2. Pro-biological sex-education
3. Pro-contraception
4. Pro-choice

With proper application of the first three, the fourth would less likely be necessary."

RCO: You can't be a Psolusite. You have to be the big Kahuna and leave the heavy lifting for your disciples.

And hold the bus, ladies and gentlemen, it appears we have the first 4 Articles of Faith for Psolusism. With the requisite pithy commentary.

ooooouuuuuuummmmmmm.

TWMATTHEWS,

TWM: "A card-carrying Psolusite. It actually sounds biblical to me, probably old testament. You remember the battle of the Psolusites don't you? I think there was much nashing of teeth :-)"

RCO: And who says we can't have fun even while totally disagreeing with one another.

Speaking of our fearless leader Psolus, where is that impish devil? I've missed his zingers today.

Well, this Psolusite is, in roughly the following order:

1. Pro-masturbation
2. Pro-biological sex-education
3. Pro-contraception
4. Pro-choice

With proper application of the first three, the fourth would less likely be necessary.

WALTER,

Part 1 of 2

Copy on the next thread when this one times out.

Responding now to your post of August 11, 2010 10:15 AM

WALT: "wiki bloggers weren't there to see it"? really? that's your response to modern scholarship's dating of herod to 4bc, and quirinius to 6ad? oh brother.”

RCO: Your post seems to indicate you missed my point altogether. Did you not recognize that I was simply holding you to the same standard that you tried to hold PETERHUFF to in your post to him on August 9, 2010 4:20 PM? In that post you castigate Peter's offering of Josephus and Tacitus as follows:

WALT: (to Peter) “neither josephus nor tacitus were alive when jesus is portrayed as being alive. their references (if authentic - a whole other discussion) to jesus come 60 and 80 years after his crucifixion and can only represent what they'd heard or read about jesus...”

RCO: I used your exact standard, verbatim, as stated above to question your “wiki” source (their references to the events in question come 2000 YEARS after) and even called your attention to this by asking you if that sounded familiar. How do you manage to miss that? You are calling for one standard for “evidence” of Christ, and yet an entirely different standard when you are questioning the veracity of scripture, even throwing in a little incredulity for good measure (oh brother). This is strikingly similar to the double standard you have already demonstrated with the atheism/evolution worldview. You then carry this double standard even further:

WALT: “those (wiki) dates are based on correlating statements from many ancient historians, from coins, roman records etc... not wikipedia authors.”

RCO: Good grief, man. Did it ever occur to you that Josephus and Tacitus, both widely recognized as world-class historians, may have based their statements about Christ on “correlating statements” and “records” from their own era? And it is not outside the realm of possibility, given the time frame, that they may have known of eyewitnesses of the events to which they spoke. Further, given their proximity to the events in question, to anyone who was unbiased in the matter of the historicity of Christ their statements would carry more weight than “modern scholarship” 2000 years after the fact. Your double standard here is crystal clear.

TBC

WALTER,

Part 2 of 2

WALT: “re your cartoonish standard for evidence:
"Maybe the record of a dozen or so eyewitness who wrote it all down and had their record stamped by a Judean notary public sometime in the summer of 6 a.d.?"
if this is the standard then you surely can't trust anything written in the bible. as far as i know no book in the bible says anything like "as i, matthew the tax collector, write this in the 10th (or whatever) year of so-and-so's reign etc... we are left to guess when and by whom the books of the bible are written - hardly anything like your "notary public" standards described above.”

RCO: To quote a new acquaintance of mine.....”huh?!” MY cartoonish standard for evidence? In the statement quoted above I was caricaturing YOUR “cartoonish standard for evidence”--you know—the one you used in your post to Peter. I set the whole thing up by taking your “bait” on the Herod/Quirinius/Census issue simply to demonstrate the absurdity of your standard for evidence. That I would get a “wiki” link in response was utterly predictable.

It is you, my cyber-friend, who sets the “evidence standard” ridiculously high when it comes to the historicity of Christ. But then you wax incredulous if you are held to your own inane standards in your “historical inaccuracy” offerings on the bible. Double standard.

Peace

RCOfield,

A card-carrying Psolusite. It actually sounds biblical to me, probably old testament. You remember the battle of the Psolusites don't you? I think there was much nashing of teeth :-)

RCO,

How are you? It seems you and Walter have a very lively discussion going.

I'm pro-choice meaning I believe a woman has the right to choose what goes or grows in her body.

I'm betting you believe that removing a zygote or a blastocyst is taking a human life.

TWMATTHEWS,

TW: "PSolus, I was looking for the sign up sheet to become a disciple -- where is it?"

RCO: Thinking of becoming a card-carrying Psolusite? Let me know if you find the sign-up sheet. I might join with you. He's funny. "Damned" funny.

Ok, ok. I can't take credit for the last zinger there. That is a Psolus original. But as far a I know "Psolusite" originated with me. Thinking of having it copyrighted and splitting the profits with him.

So, what think ye on the abortion issue?

WALTER,

"oops... that second bold part should read:
"...no cosmic rewards for GOOD behavior."

hhmmm... a freudian slip of the finger? (no, just a typo.)"

RAOTFLTIH! "Freudian slip" indeed. Ah, well. I'll give you that one. I'm sure I'll need the favor returned sooner or later.

Was the best laugh I've had in several days though. :-)

WALTER,

Quick question. Are you pro-abortion or anti-abortion? TWMATTHEWS, how about you?

Walter,

I'm with you 100%. Your posts describe what I have been trying to say much more elegantly than I've been able to do.

Nice job.

PSolus,

I was looking for the sign up sheet to become a disciple -- where is it?

oops... that second bold part should read:
"...no cosmic rewards for GOOD behavior."

hhmmm... a freudian slip of the finger? (no, just a typo.)

you said,
"The “Golden Rule” a humanist idea hijacked by religion? Are you kidding me? The golden rule concept predates humanism by millennia."

yup. and it certainly predates jesus. here's something i once wrote about that:

"Humanism" has been given a name and ascribed to 14th century theologian/philosophers like Erasmus and Thomas More. It supposes moral behavior to be between Men. All fellow humans are inherently worthy of dignity and respect. We need not consult revealed scripture to determine that murder, or even meanness, is wrong. We can use our own (God-given if you must – call it the Moral Law) faculties of reason and empathy to recognize immorality. Fully-formed, this is the Natural Rights ideal of Hobbes, Locke, and Jefferson, but its roots go way back. The earliest known writings of man record humanist thoughts. The Hindu Vedas, the Mesopotamian Codes of Ur-Nammu, Hammurabi and Moses, the Beatitudes, the Koran and Aquinas’ writing have glimpses of equity, reciprocity and respect. But they ascribe religious weight to humanist behaviors. Confucius, Anaxagoras and Democritus suggested that we do it for each other. It is an entirely Earthly affair. There are no cosmic rewards for god behavior. The oneness of Man compels us to feed the hungry. The Humanist sees the priest and leper as fellow humans rather than object lessons in faith, suffering or miraculous healing. Christians learn of Humanism in the story of the Good Samaritan. They access this sentiment when doing unto others. Jesus taught it when he said, “What you do to the least of these, you do to Me.” Like humanists, He considered every one of God’s children worthy.

whew... i've got to get some work done...

juxtaposing two of my statements, you said,
"“No atheism book of rules” but you somehow know that it “DOES NOT mean ‘anything goes.’”

you also said,
"Just can’t figure out where they are purchasing the sky-hook they hang them [morals] on.

again, you are thinking of atheism as a moral construct. it's just a scientific theory - one much less well-supported than evolution, but nonetheless it's a theory based on the fact that we have no scientific evidence for god.

pam, peter and i have spent many many a post talking about morals w/o god. the simple answer is that they're not atheistic, but a product of evolution. early homonids who didn't "play nice" were less likely to survive (i.e., reproduce), so now most of us have a deep-down innate survival mechanism that makes murder, stealing, cheating (but not "one god" - that's got to be taught...hhmmm...) etc... feel wrong. in order to explain why i, an atheist, generally behave pretty well towards my fellow man, peter supposes "god has written 'don't murder' etc... on my heart" or something like that. anyway, it's my view that morals are much more an evolutionary thing than an atheist thing. and, i just don't like looking at my self in the mirror after i've "wronged" someone.

as far as "wired" and "the church of the non-believers", i daresay 99% of atheists have never heard of either. those things are probably mostly a joke - and there is no punishment for breaking whatever "church of the non-believer" "rules" they may have made up, except as prohibited by the secular laws of whatever country in whose jusrisdiction one lives...

as for hitler the atheist...oh brother...that old saw... here's an analysis by a christian illustrating that hitler was a theist of some sort:
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_hitler.html

besides, it is totally illogical for an atheist to have anything against jews.

mocking my sentence structure, you said,
"There are NO immoral/fanatical tenets in “Christianity.” And there is no immoral/fanatical component in the bible. And the bible IS Christianity. Those who practice immorality and fanaticism in direct disobedience to the teachings of Christ are not Christians. This should be self-evident."

especially: "And there is no immoral/fanatical component in the bible. " hahahaha!

whew...good one... (wipes tears of laughter from eyes...) the first one that comes to mind is joshua's jihad - and joshua was just enforcing "one god", "no idols" etc... in an immoral/fanatical way. how 'bout god killing every single person (and other living things! what did the animals he killed do wrong?) on earth 'cept noah et. al.? sounds immoral to me.... i know, i know, god thought they deserved it - but the babies?! puleeze. unless that's just a parable it's immoral. of course, by definition nothing god does is immoral if you define moral by what (your particular version of) god does, but sheesh...

the stuff in the bible about women being second class citizens is immoral in my estimation - and i'm not even a woman. we need only go to the 10th commandment where "wife" is ranked below "house" but above "slave" and "ox" and "donkey" among a man's possessions, but there are "women are second class citizens" verses all over the bible. these verses are not just about the different roles god apparently has in mind for women. you know, women are roughly half the people on earth....

now, those are arguably "old testament morals". i would make the case that god's morals, as reflected in the bible anyway, apparently improved for the new testament (and regressed horribly for the koran...), but i understand you can't think god's morals improved - because they're eternal or whatever... nonetheless, according to paul, god still clearly places women below men (and not just in bed...hehe heh heh...). anyway, the new testament really brings home the idea of eternal damnation. but rather than telling christians to kill infidels on the spot a la joshua, jesus assures us he'll take care of sinners once they die.

i would also argue that the idea of "original sin" is immoral. blaming/cursing all of humanity for adam's and/or eve's sin. any first grader can tell you that's not fair. now, if original sin is just a symbolic, allegorical, metaphorical way of saying we all do bad things sometimes, that's one thing, but if it actually means god visits the iniquities of adam/eve on me (and then hardens my heart to boot so i can't "get" the "message of salvation"...) that's immoral.

if this times out, let's go here:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/ronald_rychlak/2010/08/finding_the_right_path.html

RCofield,
"wiki bloggers weren't there to see it"? really? that's your response to modern scholarship's dating of herod to 4bc, and quirinius to 6ad? oh brother.

those dates are based on correlating statements from many ancient historians, from coins, roman records etc... not wikipedia authors.

as far as the "census of quirinius" in 4 bc occuring while herod was alive, that come from ONE source, 60 - 80 years after the fact: the gospel of "luke".

re your cartoonish standard for evidence:
"Maybe the record of a dozen or so eyewitness who wrote it all down and had their record stamped by a Judean notary public sometime in the summer of 6 a.d.?"

if this is the standard then you surely can't trust anything written in the bible. as far as i know no book in the bible says anything like "as i, matthew the tax collector, write this in the 10th (or whatever) year of so-and-so's reign etc... we are left to guess when and by whom the books of the bible are written - hardly anything like your "notary public" standards described above.

WALTER,

You write: “re historical accuracy is a dangerous game:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quirinius
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius

the only people who dispute these dates are biblical literalists. the only evidence they have is the bible.... the "census of quirinius" page explores the standard efforts to "save" luke/matthew from historical inaccuracy.”

I say:

Um...none of the contributors of these wikipedia articles were alive when these events supposedly happened. Their references (if authentic—a whole other discussion) to these events come....let me punch this into my calculator....ah yes....roughly 2000 years after the census, and can only represent what they heard or read about the Jesus/Herod/Quirinius/Census events.

Given that the writers of these wikipedia articles have made inaccurate statements in the past, playing the “historically accurate” game is dangerous for the wikipedia apologist.

Sound familiar?

Got any other evidence? Maybe the record of a dozen or so eyewitness who wrote it all down and had their record stamped by a Judean notary public sometime in the summer of 6 a.d.?

PSOLUS,

"Actually, I don't really deserve disciples as I can't even spell disciples correctly."

Don't be so hard on yourself. I am sure the Psolusites will forgive you as they had some christian influence before they became Psolusites. :-)

You gotta admit the "Psolusites" thing was pretty funny. No?

WALTER,

Part 1 of 2

I said:

"Now you can tell my why these practitioners of atheism/Darwinism weren't really following the tenets of atheism/Darwin.....

And, by gum, just as I predicted, you proceed to do just that—tell me why their atrocities couldn’t possibly have anything to do with atheism/Darwinism. I’ve seen atheists claim this “special” exclusion (“because it’s not the same at all”) for their worldview more times than I care to recall, but the inanity of it still surprises me every time.

Well….I told you that the arguments you are using can be used with equal effectiveness against you. So here goes.

You said:

“there are NO moral/behavioral tenets in "darwinism"**. and there is no moral/behavioral component to atheism. and "darwinism" IS NOT atheism.”

I say:

There are NO immoral/fanatical tenets in “Christianity.” And there is no immoral/fanatical component in the bible. And the bible IS Christianity. Those who practice immorality and fanaticism in direct disobedience to the teachings of Christ are not Christians. This should be self-evident.

You said:

“it's probably hard for you (and peter) to separate the two, but that's just a product of your preferred variety of theism...”

I say:

It is obviously hard for you to make the distinction between biblical Christianity and immoral fanaticism, but that is just a product of your atheism…

You said:

“evolution is just a scientific theory that explains the diversity/interconnectedness of life and the origin of new species. it has nothing to do with god or souls or salvation or heaven or hell or government or politics or economics or morality.”

I say:

The purported driving mechanism of evolution, survival of the fittest/preservation of the favored races is also an ideology that lends itself to the innate depravity of fallen man. The combination of depravity and Darwinism (sorry; couldn’t resist the “D” word here) is a deadly cocktail that has produced genocides, mass sterilizations, abortions, euthanasia, eugenics, etc.

WALTER,

Part 2 of 2

You said:

“atheism is just the belief that there is no god. that's all. atheism DOES NOT mean "anything goes" etc... there's no atheism book of rules, or weekly meetings or anything like that. atheists (but not atheism) have all manner of moral ideas.”

I say:

“No atheism book of rules” but you somehow know that it “DOES NOT mean ‘anything goes.’” Someone from your camp NEEDS to print a manual. There are more than a few in your ranks that didn’t get the “DOES NOT mean ‘anything goes’” memo. And you are wrong about the “weekly” meetings. (See Gary Wolf’s article in Wired Magazine, Nov. 2006 titled “The Church of the Non-Believers”). I am aware that atheists have all manner of moral ideas. Just can’t figure out where they are purchasing the sky-hook they hang them on.

You said:

“if one takes evolutionary theory outside the realm of biology, it becomes just an analogy - just an analogy.”

I say:

Yes. But when that analogy mixes with the natural wickedness of the human heart and results in the extermination of 6 million Jews and 50 million unborn children it does seem to take on a rather vicious life of its own, doesn’t it?

You said:

“on the other hand religions DO seem to offer "suggestions" about behavior: try to convert people, do unto others, give money to the poor etc.... those are specific instructions in certain religious books.”

I say:

Lol. Have you listened to Richard Dawkins or visited his website recently. He, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens are evangelistic apostles for the New Atheism, preaching their “gospel” of evolution-based atheism with all the fervor of tent revivalists. Dawkins even has a website replete with “Non-Believers Giving Aid” t-shirts and a “Convert’s Corner” where he encourages his “converts” to write their testimonials! Brother, if you think atheism isn’t a religion nowadays you ain’t payin’ attention.

You said:

“note that that doesn't mean they are religious ideas. for instance "do unto others" is a humanist idea incorporated into a many religious books: buddhist, taoist, christian, and probably many many more.”

I say:

The “Golden Rule” a humanist idea hijacked by religion? Are you kidding me? The golden rule concept predates humanism by millennia.

Peace

Actually, I don't really deserve disciples as I can't even spell disciples correctly.

RCofield,
re historical accuracy is a dangerous game:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quirinius
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius

the only people who dispute these dates are biblical literalists. the only evidence they have is the bible.... the "census of quirinius" page explores the standard efforts to "save" luke/matthew from historical inaccuracy.

having said all that i should note that the new testament is MUCH better than the old testament about mundane historical details like people/places/rulers etc...

RCofield, yopu said,
"Now you can tell my why these practitioners of atheism/Darwinism weren't really following the tenets of atheism/Darwin.....

well, no - because it's not the same at all.

there are NO moral/behavioral tenets in "darwinism"**. and there is no moral/behavioral component to atheism. and "darwinism" IS NOT atheism.

it's probably hard for you (and peter) to separate the two, but that's just a product of your preferred variety of theism... and, though most atheists are "darwinists", there are plenty of "darwinists" who are theists - even "darwinists" who are christian theists: francis collins (protestant) & ken miller (catholic) for instance.

evolution is just a scientific theory that explains the diversity/interconnectedness of life and the origin of new species. it has nothing to do with god or souls or salvation or heaven or hell or government or politics or economics or morality.

atheism is just the belief that there is no god. that's all. atheism DOES NOT mean "anything goes" etc... there's no atheism book of rules, or weekly meetings or anything like that. atheists (but not atheism) have all manner of moral ideas.

if one takes evolutionary theory outside the realm of biology, it becomes just an analogy - just an analogy.

on the other hand religions DO seem to offer "suggestions" about behavior: try to convert people, do unto others, give money to the poor etc.... those are specific instructions in certain religious books.

note that that doesn't mean they are religious ideas. for instance "do unto others" is a humanist idea incorporated into a many religious books: buddhist, taoist, christian, and probably many many more.

**btw, nowadays, hardly anyone says "darwinism" except people who don't believe in "darwinism".... it's not like anyone would call belief in gravity "newtonism" (or einsteinism)... we just call it "evolution". it's not like scientists idolize darwin. he has been proven wrong on a few points, and scientists don't cling to his every word as if it's gospel. elements have been added to the theory that darwin knew nothing about.

PSOLUS,

"Might I have desciples that I do not know about?"

You are unaware of the growing number of Psolusites in the blogosphere?

peterhuff,

"Many of the disciples of Darwin, starting with Thomas Huxley, Ernst Haeckel and Francis Galton promoted ideas that have lead to social Darwinism and the ideas of inferior races."

How, exactly, does one become a disciple or Darwin?

Might I have desciples that I do not know about?

Did no one ever have ideas of inferior races before On the Origin of Species was published?

Hi Walter,

Ah, A little time free from watching six grandkids!

I'd like to chime in on what RCofield said,

RCO: "The same arguments you use against christianity can be argued equally well against atheism/Darwinism....Whether you think they were good atheists or not, THEY did...."

RCO: "There is also the famous racism of Margaret Sanger whose work has resulted in the murder of millions of unborn children--she was only interested in the “preservation of the favored races”...."

Many of the disciples of Darwin, starting with Thomas Huxley, Ernst Haeckel and Francis Galton promoted ideas that have lead to social Darwinism and the ideas of inferior races. Their ideas have fuel the fires that have intern fueled the nations in such areas as abortion, eugenics and euthanasia, as well as promoting the sexual revolution. Men and women such as Alfred Kinsley, Peter Singer, Ayn Rand, Margret Sanger, Lewis Terman are some of those who come to mind.

Hitler's ideas of racial purity in turn were influenced and fueled by men such as Ernest Haeckel and members of the Pan-German League. This led to the extermination of over six million Jews, as well as others who were considered deformed or of a lesser breed.

Sorry, the gang has returned. Hope to return regularly to the mix on Friday.

WALTER,

Wow. That was a genuinely poignant series of posts on the other thread about your family. As a husband and father myself I can't imagine the difficulty of your situation. It is, no doubt, difficult for your wife and daughter as well...

Addressing your most recent posts here, I want to share with you a perspective on your arguments from the “other side of the table.”

You said:
“if we want to discuss christians murdering people (i don't) then we have to start with the crusades and inquisition. these DO NOT seem "out of bounds" - i mean those are the classic, archtypical examples of god-fueled murder - whether you think they were good christians or not, THEY did...”

I say:
The same arguments you use against christianity can be argued equally well against atheism/Darwinism. It goes something like this: If we want to discuss atheists/Darwinists murdering people (I don't) then we have to start with, say, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot. These DO NOT seem “out of bounds”--I mean those are classic, archtypical examples of atheism/Darwinism-fueled murder. Whether you think they were good atheists or not, THEY did....

There is also the famous racism of Margaret Sanger whose work has resulted in the murder of millions of unborn children--she was only interested in the “preservation of the favored races”....

You said:
"social darwinism" has nothing to do with "atheism" or darwin, though free-market capitalism is a lot like economic darwinism....

I say:
I can just as effectively argue: The crusades and inquisition had nothing to do with theism or the bible, though Marxism is a lot like Social Darwinism....

Now you can tell my why these practitioners of atheism/Darwinism weren't really following the tenets of atheism/Darwin....and I will show you (from the bible) where your examples weren't following the clear teachings of Christ.

Or....we could both agree that merely citing the common denominators of the perpetrators of atrocities does not establish the cause of their actions (on either side of the argument). And we could sensibly agree to not use these examples as part of our debate.

Whaddayathink?

RCofield,
re the "historically accurate game", you said,
"I'll play. If you will, identify the specific texts to which you are referring, cite the sources that you understand to contradict scripture, and posit an explanation as to why you believe the biblical text to be in error."

well, i mentioned the case of matthew/luke/herod/quirinius below. let's start with that. i really don't think those "secular" dates i mentioned (4 bc and 6 ad) are controversial. i've gotta go right now, but i'll find "secular" sources for those dates if you like.

RCofield, you said,
"After reading your most recent response to [peter] I would like to ask a question.

"Of the many biographies of say, George Washington, which one (or two or three) of them would you say stand head and shoulders above the rest?"

i really have not studies the various biographies of george washington. as far as what would make one more or less credible than the others, of course if one mentioned george washington's troops retaking fed-ex field from the british, i wouldn't believe it. if one mentioned george floating up to heaven, i wouldn't believe it either.

RCofield,
i said,
"..i'm sure a little "googling" would turn up a christian who has killed 1000s in the name of his god..."

to which you said,
"So google it..."

if we want to discuss christians murdering people (i don't) then we have to start with the crusades and inquisition. these DO NOT seem "out of bounds" - i mean those are the classic, archtypical examples of god-fueled murder - whether you think they were good christians or not, THEY did...

there's also the famous witch trials:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch_trials_in_Early_Modern_Europe_and_North_America

you said,
"And I have done a little research on Atheism and Social Darwinism on this issue of "killing 1000's." Those who live in glass houses should refrain from throwing rocks."

"social darwinism" has nothing to do with "atheism" or darwin, though free-market capitalism is a lot like economic darwinism....

i said,
"well, i imagine most muslims (hopefully) would say atta was a "disobedient madman". but that doesn't change the sincerity with which he held his beliefs, or the fact that he was willing to die (and kill!) for them."

to which you said,
"The difference is that the Koran explicitly instructs its adherrants to kill "infidels" in the interest of advancing the cause of Islam. The teachings of Christ explicitly forbid violence in the advancement of His kingdom. Your continued effort to equate Islam & Christianity on this point is without basis."

well, i wasn't comparing doctrine/scripture/behavior of christianity and islam. i could have used any religion. don't even get me started on the awfulness of islam. i see it a giant step backward for the judeochrislamic religion. i was just using it to make my point about belief not equaling truth.

WALTER,

"playing the "historically accurate" game is dangerous for the biblical apologist.
e.g., matthew claims herod (died 4 b.c.) was alive when jesus was born, and luke claims quirinius was governor (appointed 6 a.d.)...hhhmmm....what gives?"

I'll play. If you will, identify the specific texts to which you are referring, cite the sources that you understand to contradict scripture, and posit an explanation as to why you believe the biblical text to be in error.

WALTER,

WALT: "well, now...forgive me for taking this to mean that you think paul's suffering/martyrdom is evidence that what he wrote is not imaginary... or not made up...
i mean really...aren't you saying no one would martyr themselves for a made-up, imaginary (i.e., not true) story?"

RCO: No, that is not what I am saying, though it was obviously quite conducive to the construction of your straw-man rebuttal.

I was actually responding to the following postulation from TWMATTHEWS:

"If Paul never met Jesus then aren't his descriptions of Christ made of an imagined character and not necessarily of the same figure referred to in the gospels?"

I gave a rather lengthy explanation from the book of Acts as to why TW's assumption that Paul's descriptions of Christ were "made of an imagined character" who was “not the same figure referred to in the gospels" was not accurate. You isolated a single paragraph concerning Paul's suffering/martyrdom and reduced the whole of my argument to the rather simplistic retort "well, just 'cause he believed it and was willing to die for it don't make it true." I think most everyone on this thread recognizes that mere belief doesn’t make something true.

But that was not my argument. My argument was that given the Acts record of Paul spending time with those who were eyewitnesses, his extensive training in Judaism and requisite understanding of the OT Messianic prophecies, extensive missionary journeys, the extraordinarily accurate preservation and proliferation of his writings for 2000 years, AND his suffering/martyrdom for the cause of Christ...all taken together...make it highly improbable that he was writing about a fictitious character. And no one who has read the NT would attempt to make the case (as did TWM) that Paul was writing of some character other than the Christ of the gospels.

That is distinctively different than arguing "well it must be true because he was willing to die for what he believed.”

Shall I presume that this was the only portion of my response to you that you deemed worthy of your address?

RCofield, you said,
"You might want to re-read my posts. I have nowhere posited that Paul's qualifications, sufferings, martyrdom, etc. makes his writings "true." "

huh? you said to me:
"Yes, but when his sufferings and martyrdom are taken with the fact that his writings have survived intact for 2000 years and are hands down the most read and discussed literature in history we have a pretty strong testimony that he was not writing about an "imaginary" or "made-up" figure."

and earlier to twmatthews:
"For preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ he was beaten to near death on 5 occasions, stoned and left for dead once, shipwrecked twice, and imprisoned on false accusations. This one man is credited with almost singlehandedly carrying the message of Jesus Christ across two continents and changing the entire course of history. It is commonly believed that he was eventually be-headed by the Roman Emperor Nero for his efforts.

…..all for an “imagined character,” in your estimation…….

well, now...forgive me for taking this to mean that you think paul's suffering/martyrdom is evidence that what he wrote is not imaginary... or not made up...

i mean really...aren't you saying no one would martyr themselves for a made-up, imaginary (i.e., not true) story?

As much as I would like to comment at this time we have a house full of guests and my computer room is tied up with a babies crib.

WALTER,

My 5:17 pm post should read "After reading your most recent response to PETER....

Sorry.

RCofield,

"Of the many biographies of say, George Washington, which one (or two or three) of them would you say stand head and shoulders above the rest?"

Probably the one that relied most on documented facts, and relied least on myth ("I cannot tell a lie - I chopped down the cherry tree", throwing a silver dollar (?) across the Potomac, courageously standing in the front of a rowboat, chin and chest jutting defiantly against gale force winds, etc.), except, possibly, to attempt to explain how the myths developed.

WALTER,

After reading your most recent response to Walter I would like to ask a question.

Of the many biographies of say, George Washington, which one (or two or three) of them would you say stand head and shoulders above the rest?

WALTER,

"..i'm sure a little "googling" would turn up a christian who has killed 1000s in the name of his god..."

So google it...

Your willingness to cast dispersion without confirming your assumption exposes your bias.

And I have done a little research on Atheism and Social Darwinism on this issue of "killing 1000's." Those who live in glass houses should refrain from throwing rocks.

"well, i imagine most muslims (hopefully) would say atta was a "disobedient madman". but that doesn't change the sincerity with which he held his beliefs, or the fact that he was willing to die (and kill!) for them."

The difference is that the Koran explicitly instructs its adherrants to kill "infidels" in the interest of advancing the cause of Islam. The teachings of Christ explicitly forbid violence in the advancement of His kingdom. Your continued effort to equate Islam & Christianity on this point is without basis.

It may serve you well to do a little research into the atrocities committed as a result of Atheistic and Darwin-inspired philosophy and social policy before we to too far down this road.

"anyway, i'm just disputing your assertion that paul's willingness to die for his beliefs makes them true. people die for false beliefs all the time."

You might want to re-read my posts. I have nowhere posited that Paul's qualifications, sufferings, martyrdom, etc. makes his writings "true." Start with my opening response to TWMATTHEWS questions concerning Paul. You have created a straw-man here.

peter, you said,
"As an example of historical sources take Pontius Pilate and the death of Jesus. John 18:28-19:16; Matthew 27:11-24 or Acts 3:13 give details on him as being both governor and responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus. Coins minted to Pontius Pilate dated to AD 30-31 have been found as well as historical reference to Jesus and Pilate by Tacitus and Josephus (two other source references besides the Bible and not counting the church father's either) and an inscription containing the name of Pontius Pilate discovered at Caesarea."

so what? i could write a story today about how i played for the redskins when george allen was the coach, include a reference to nixon being president at the time, and bell bottoms being popular. all this historical accuracy wouldn't make my story true.

BUT if i wrote about my redskin career/george allen/bell bottoms and said obama was president that would be pretty darn good reason to think my story was NOT true. playing the "historically accurate" game is dangerous for the biblical apologist.

e.g., matthew claims herod (died 4 b.c.) was alive when jesus was born, and luke claims quirinius was governor (appointed 6 a.d.)...hhhmmm....what gives?

now we can start rationalizing to try to "save" the biblical account: maybe there were two governors named quirinius, or maybe he was governor twice or maybe "governor" is translated wrong and on and on and on - like we might try to save my redskin story by suggesting obama was president of his high school class at the time or similar....

neither josephus nor tacitus were alive when jesus is portrayed as being alive. their references (if authentic - a whole other discussion) to jesus come 60 and 80 years after his crucifixion and can only represent what they'd heard or read about jesus...

you said,
"There have also been a number of crucified bodies found confirming and corroborating both the manner and account of the death of Jesus as being accurate in their detail. The skeleton of a man named Yohanan Ben Ha'galgol dating to first century Palestine was found in 1968 which confirmed the similarities of the biblical crucifixion."

yes, well, there are a number of people who played for the redskins when george allen was coach, nixon was president and bell-bottoms were popular - that doesn't mean i was one of them...

RCofield, you said,
"Yes, but when his sufferings and martyrdom are taken with the fact that his writings have survived intact for 2000 years and are hands down the most read and discussed literature in history we have a pretty strong testimony that he was not writing about an "imaginary" or "made-up" figure."

uh...well..no! again, the fact that he was willing to die for his cause just means that HE BELIEVED in it. it has nothing to do with its actual truth. and the fact that "his writings have survived intact for 2000 years and are hands down the most read and discussed literature in history" doesn't make them true either. it just means they've been important to people and popular - that's all.

you said,
"And surely you are not trying to make a one-to-one equivocation between Muhammad Atta killing thousands by flying a plane into the WTC and the Apostle Paul's non-violent suffering and ultimate be-heading for the cause of Christ? THAT would truly be "sickening."

"equation"? or "equivalence", you mean? well, no, but i'm sure a little "googling" would turn up a christian who has killed 1000s in the name of his god... my point was that the sincerity of paul's beliefs have nothing to do with their accuracy.

you said,
"In point of fact, I am unaware of a single recognized christian martyr who was violent in their propagation of of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, keeping in mind that the perpetrators of the Inquisitions and Crusades are clearly identified by both the bible and the christian community as wicked, disobedient madmen."

well, i imagine most muslims (hopefully) would say atta was a "disobedient madman". but that doesn't change the sincerity with which he held his beliefs, or the fact that he was willing to die (and kill!) for them.

anyway, i'm just disputing your assertion that paul's willingness to die for his beliefs makes them true. people die for false beliefs all the time.

Hi Walter,

Been following some of the old posts between you, Pam, and Peter. Feel as if I already know you. :-)

You state: "there are examples of people dying for false causes all throughout history. it happens so often it's almost cliche. in fact in every religious war AT LEAST one side is fighting for a false cause, right?"

Agreed. This however does not change the fact that Paul was well qualified to write concerning the person and work of Jesus Christ. And I doubt if someone you loved had been martyred for their non-violent faith in Jesus Christ (as untold thousand's have been and still are being) that you would view such martyrdom as "cliche."

You state: "paul's martyrdom may be evidence that he truly believed what he said about jesus, but it's NOT evidence that he was RIGHT about that. to take a recent sickening example of this, muhammad atta, when he crashed a plane into the WTC, gave up his life for god... he and his fellow murderers must have truly believed in what they were doing, but that doesn't make them right."

Yes, but when his sufferings and martyrdom are taken with the fact that his writings have survived intact for 2000 years and are hands down the most read and discussed literature in history we have a pretty strong testimony that he was not writing about an "imaginary" or "made-up" figure.

And surely you are not trying to make a one-to-one equivocation between Muhammad Atta killing thousands by flying a plane into the WTC and the Apostle Paul's non-violent suffering and ultimate be-heading for the cause of Christ? THAT would truly be "sickening."

In point of fact, I am unaware of a single recognized christian martyr who was violent in their propagation of of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, keeping in mind that the perpetrators of the Inquisitions and Crusades are clearly identified by both the bible and the christian community as wicked, disobedient madmen.

peter, on August 6, 2010 at 3:29 AM (on susan's thread) you said,
"Walter just can't get over the hump of the Flood. He sees no evidence that it ever happened."

well, it's hardly like the flood is the only "hump" - it's just the most preposterous, cartoonish story in the bible. it's also the magical biblical event for which it should be the easiest to find evidence. yet, we don't see evidence for it. in fact all of "flood geology" is an attempt to explain why we don't see the plain simple evidence we "should" were there ever a global flood.

http://evolution.mbdojo.com/flood.html

hello RCofield, and welcome.

in support of the veracity of paul's writing you said,

"For preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ he was beaten to near death on 5 occasions, stoned and left for dead once, shipwrecked twice, and imprisoned on false accusations...It is commonly believed that he was eventually be-headed by the Roman Emperor Nero for his efforts...all for an “imagined character,” in your estimation..."

there are examples of people dying for false causes all throughout history. it happens so often it's almost cliche. in fact in every religious war AT LEAST one side is fighting for a false cause, right?

paul's martyrdom may be evidence that he truly believed what he said about jesus, but it's NOT evidence that he was RIGHT about that. to take a recent sickening example of this, muhammad atta, when he crashed a plane into the WTC, gave up his life for god... he and his fellow murderers must have truly believed in what they were doing, but that doesn't make them right.

btw, our old thread:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/leo_brunnick/2010/07/are_religions_different_or_same_yes.html

hi guys! just found you here. i tried to post a "go here when this thread runs out" on our last thread, but...well...was too late... anyway, glad i found you here. i'll read up to catch up to where you guys are.

PSOLUS

RCO: "It seems that you are citing fairly liberal biblical scholarship,..."

PSO: Biblical scholarship! What a concept.

RCO: "What am I missing?"

PSO: I don't even know where to begin...

RCO: Pick a point and jump in.

PSOLUS,

PSO: "Aha...Just as I suspected...Trouble in paradise.

Again, though it will disappoint you, that is not the case. TW quotes Peterhuff out of context and is misrepresenting what Peter said. That should be addressed to Peterhuff, who appears quite capable of defending his position.

Shall I start quoting, say, DANIELINTHELIONSDEN, misrepresent what he is saying, and then attribute his misrepresented position to you?

RCofield,

"If you want to debate Peterhuff, address Peterhuff. If you want to debate me, I must insist that you address what I have written."

Aha...

Just as I suspected...

Trouble in paradise.

TWMATTHEWS,

Part 1 of 2

TWM: "A more arrogant answer could not have been given. Let me see if I've got this right. Go study for an hour and then get back to me. Is that your point?"

RCO: You consistently make broad, sweeping, dismissive statements about the bible, its contents, and authorship. Quite often they reflect a lack of familiarity with the contents of the very scripture you are criticizing. On the occasion where I have attempted to familiarize you with the whole of a particular biblical account you simply dismiss it and revert back to arguing from your assumption that the bible is utterly flawed in it’s every dimension. And you do this without ever acknowledging that your original argument was not fully informed.

If you want to debate the veracity of the bible, integrity requires that you be more than passingly familiar with its contents.

You dismiss Paul as writing of an "imaginary" "made up" Christ who was "not necessarily of the same figure referred to in the gospels" because he did not personally witness Christ's earthly ministry. That is a fairly arrogant dismissal given the account of the book of Acts, with which you are obviously not familiar.

Had you bothered to read that text, you would have found that Paul spent time with multiple individuals who were eye-witnesses of Christ's ministry. Additionally, you would have discovered that Paul was educated at the feet of Gamaliel, one of the most renowned scholars in all of Judaism. Hence Paul would have had a scholarly understanding of the OT and all the prophecies concerning Christ. After his conversion from Judaism to Christianity (which he had persecuted mercilessly), Paul met with the Apostles in Jerusalem, then retreated into the Arabian Desert for a period of approximately 15 years. Here he carefully compared his conversion experience and the accounts of the Apostles with the writings of the OT.

Convinced that Jesus was the Christ promised in the OT, he emerged from the desert after a decade and a half and began a series of missionary journeys to spread the Gospel.

TBC

TWMATTEWS,

Part 2 of 2

During the course of his journeys he wrote extensively of Christ, drawing from his conversion experience, his time with the Apostles in Jerusalem, and his scholarly understanding of the OT.

His writings consisted of 13 New Testament epistles, all of which even most of your oft-quoted liberal biblical scholars agree were written by Paul and which evidence having been preserved with an astounding degree of accuracy when submitted to commonly accepted standards of testing for ancient documents. His letter to the Roman church is widely considered one of the most masterfully written documents in all of ancient literature.

For preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ he was beaten to near death on 5 occasions, stoned and left for dead once, shipwrecked twice, and imprisoned on false accusations. This one man is credited with almost singlehandedly carrying the message of Jesus Christ across two continents and changing the entire course of history. It is commonly believed that he was eventually be-headed by the Roman Emperor Nero for his efforts.

…..all for an “imagined character,” in your estimation…….

In the end, I think the informed reader would find your poorly-informed statements concerning the Apostle Paul to be arrogant rather than my suggestion that you read the book of Acts.

You may now revert back to your ill-informed argument that it is all hogwash.

PS:

You state: “Also, please bear in mind that my comments about not meeting an earthly Jesus were made in reference to Peterhuff's contention that most of the biblical authors were transcribing first hand accounts.”

If you want to debate Peterhuff, address Peterhuff. If you want to debate me, I must insist that you address what I have written.

Peace

RCOfield,

TWM: "If Paul never met Jesus then aren't his descriptions of Christ made of an imagined character and not necessarily of the same figure referred to in the gospels?"

RCO: If you want to discuss this point with me take an hour or so and read Acts. It will become self-evident that your assumptions are not credible. They are a dead give-away that you are not familiar with the book.

A more arrogant answer could not have been given. Let me see if I've got this right. Go study for an hour and then get back to me. Is that your point?

Also, please bear in mind that my comments about not meeting an earthly Jesus were made in reference to Peterhuff's contention that most of the biblical authors were transcribing first hand accounts. Apparently, you don't think that's true based on your statements to Pam. I don't see how that's possible given that many of the stories in the bible describe the thoughts of people who are alone.

Paul witnessed no earthly events in which Jesus was present and so, his descriptions cannot be first hand accounts. Maybe they were extraterrestrial. I'd need lots of evidence for that one. Evidence doesn't seem to be your strong point, does it.

Hi Pam,

(Part 1 of 2)

You write: “Remember that the first NT writer, Paul, did not claim miracles for him. Mark, the first gospel writer, claimed some healings, and in Matthew, the miracles really take off - water into wine, loaves and fishes, walking on water, etc. This is just the way that legends grow. Each writer tries to top the last. By the time we get to John, who may not have written until after the turn of the century, Jesus has become God himself.”

Every epistle Paul wrote claimed performance of miracles by Christ, not the least of which was Paul’s assertion that He was raised from the dead. Further, if Paul teaches anything in his writings it is that Jesus was both Lord and God.

Additionally, your contrast of Mark and Matthew’s gospels in relation to the miracles of Christ is again inconsistent with the biblical record. Mark records a number of non-healing miracles, such as the calming of the storm in Mark 4, an apparent raising from the dead of Jairus’s daughter in Mark 5, walking on water in Mark 6 multiplication of loaves and fishes (twice) in Mark 6 & 8, etc. When one actually compares the two gospels the case cannot be legitimately made that Matthew was trying to “top” Mark.

You state: “No one - I repeat - no one knows who the gospel writers actually were, or when, exactly, they were written” and then “His disciples (assuming that he and they existed), were common men, who would have spoken only Aramaic or Hebrew, and probably would not have been literate” and “We do know that they (the gospels) were written in very well-educated Greek, and used idioms and vernacular that a non-native Greek speaker would not have been likely to use.

The first two statements seem logically inconsistent. On the one hand you assert that “no one knows who the gospel writers actually were,” yet you claim with seeming equal certitude that His disciples only spoke Aramaic or Hebrew and were probably illiterate. Logic requires that at least one of these statements is necessarily inaccurate. The historical record indicates that both statements are inaccurate (see below).

TBC

Hi Pam,

(Part 2 of 2)

As to the third statement quoted above, the biblical record tells us that Matthew (probably a Helenistic Jew) was a tax collector for the Roman government, which would have required him to be reasonably fluent in the Greek language. Mark, the writer of the supposed first gospel was not one of the 12 disciples of Jesus, but was apparently a relative of Barnabas (Col. 4:10), was a Helenistic Jew (Acts 12:12, 25) who’s native tongue would have been Greek, and was a near associate of the Apostle Peter (I Peter 3:15). Early fathers Eusebius, Turtullian, and Marcion all contend that Mark’s gospel was written from the firsthand accounts of Peter. The gospel of Luke is said to have been written by Paul’s personal physician and historian Luke, who would have presumably been a very well-educated individual.

It is commonly posited that John’s gospel is written in a more simplistic style and is the only one of the four gospels that does not use classical Greek construction. Given the common Helenistic influences of the time and the fact that John’s family was seemingly possessive of both property and hired servants (Mark 1:20) it is doubtful that John was illiterate.

Your assertion concerning the miracles in Matthew and Mark and your illiteracy contentions concerning the synoptic gospels do not accord either with the biblical or the historical record.

May I ask if your conclusions are based on personal study of the gospels in their original language or if they are derived from other sources?

NOTE: The above references to “Helenistic Jews” refers to Jews of the dispersion who were born and educated in Greek cultures. These would have comprised the majority of the Jewish population during the time of Christ.

@TWMATTHEWS,

RCO: Your statements seem to indicate that you may not be familiar with the book of Acts.

TWM: Then enlighten me. Did Paul ever meet Christ?

RCO: Not during His earthly ministry. But even a cursory reading of the book of Acts would discount your following statements:

"Is it so remarkable that Paul's claims of Christ's godliness were simply made about what Paul thought the Christ would be like?"

and,

"If Paul never met Jesus then aren't his descriptions of Christ made of an imagined character and not necessarily of the same figure referred to in the gospels?"

If you want to discuss this point with me take an hour or so and read Acts. It will become self-evident that your assumptions are not credible. They are a dead give-away that you are not familiar with the book.

Peace

RCO: Your statements seem to indicate that you may not be familiar with the book of Acts.

TWM: Then enlighten me. Did Paul ever meet Christ?

TWMATTHEWS,

TWM: "Is it so remarkable that Paul's claims of Christ's godliness were simply made about what Paul thought the Christ would be like?

If Paul never met Jesus then aren't his descriptions of Christ made of an imagined character and not necessarily of the same figure referred to in the gospels? And if the gospels were written after Paul's letters, how difficult would it be to reconcile differences in describing Jesus after having the benefit of reading Paul's letters?"

RCO: Your statements seem to indicate that you may not be familiar with the book of Acts.

RCOfield stated:
That Paul claimed Jesus was God is indisputable. This seems to be self-contradictory of your original statement that “Jesus never claimed to be God, nor did anyone claim it for him before John.”

Except that to Pam's point, we know that Paul never met the earthly Jesus. Is it so remarkable that Paul's claims of Christ's godliness were simply made about what Paul thought the Christ would be like?

If Paul never met Jesus then aren't his descriptions of Christ made of an imagined character and not necessarily of the same figure referred to in the gospels? And if the gospels were written after Paul's letters, how difficult would it be to reconcile differences in describing Jesus after having the benefit of reading Paul's letters?

Hi Pam,

I'm working the dreaded midnight shift this weekend, so I'll leave you in the capable hands of RCofield. From what I've seen of his posted I think he will give you a much more thorough debate on the issue of Jesus as God as well as lots of other biblically supported evidence for the Bibles authenticity. He is very articulate and of a much gentler nature than I am. I tend to go boldly into the fray. If you don't mind I'll sit back and make the occasional comment for a while and see how this develops. But you are right, it is a treat to have an ally.

One thought for now however, you said, "Paul, did not claim miracles for him."

How did you come up with that?

RCofield,

"It seems that you are citing fairly liberal biblical scholarship,..."

Biblical scholarship!

What a concept.

"What am I missing?"

I don't even know where to begin...

Hi Pam,

Thanks for the welcome. No exception taken on your exclusion of the "christian part." :-)

It seems that you are citing fairly liberal biblical scholarship, but that's another subject for another day.

I couldn't help getting the feeling that you were not actually responding to my post. I don't see how the issues you raised change anything I offered unless you conclude the synoptic gospels post-Johanine. Given you allow for them being written between 60-165 CE (the 165 mark is definitely liberal scholarship), you seem to be conceding that the synoptics could have pre-dated John. Am I missing something?

If not, I clearly demonstrated that the synoptic writers (whether you accept them as eyewitnesses/near witnesses or not) and the statements they attribute to Christ clearly claim Godhood. When the clear use of the OT backdrop is taken into consideration it is without question they are claiming he is God. This contradicts your statement that none prior to John claimed such.

Additionally, you state: “Also, no one wrote a word about him before Paul (who we know never knew the living Jesus), and he didn't write until 20-some-odd years after the purported crucifixion.”

That Paul claimed Jesus was God is indisputable. This seems to be self-contradictory of your original statement that “Jesus never claimed to be God, nor did anyone claim it for him before John.”

What am I missing?

Hi Peter,
I have no idea where Walter is - hope he's OK. I can't imagine that he'd just decide to leave without saying anything.

When this thread times out, I'll find another one and announce on Susan's latest, and hope that eventually we'll find him again.

Will try to find more time to reply in depth next week, but as for your reply to Walter, merely mentioning cities and people and styles of punishment by death, don't confirm the existence of Jesus, let alone that he was who he has been claimed to be, or that he performed miracles.

Remember that the first NT writer, Paul, did not claim miracles for him. Mark, the first gospel writer, claimed some healings, and in Matthew, the miracles really take off - water into wine, loaves and fishes, walking on water, etc. This is just the way that legends grow. Each writer tries to top the last. By the time we get to John, who may not have written until after the turn of the century, Jesus has become God himself.

Hi RCofield,
I echo Peter's welcome (all except the part about another Christian). :)

You will even up the odds if we ever relocate Walter. If not, then it's 2-to-1 against me, and I take over Peter's previous underdog status. Fair's fair, I suppose.

You are a bit late to the party, though, and you're treading well-trampled ground.

No one - I repeat - no one knows who the gospel writers actually were, or when, exactly, they were written. We do know that they were written in very well-educated Greek, and used idioms and vernacular that a non-native Greek speaker would not have been likely to use.

In about 180 CE, Iraneus, Bishop of Lyons, decided that validity had to be decided by whether or not the work was apostolic. Accordingly, the gospels were attributed to disciples of Jesus, but this was arbitrary. No original gospel exists - just copies of copies of copies...

His disciples (assuming that he and they existed), were common men, who would have spoken only Aramaic or Hebrew, and probably would not have been literate. Also, no one wrote a word about him before Paul (who we know never knew the living Jesus), and he didn't write until 20-some-odd years after the purported crucifixion. The others were all later, and possibly much later. The generally agreed possible range is CE 60-165.

Pam, what happened to your reply and where's Walter? We've lost Walter. We agreed to meet up on the Susan Jacoby forums if anything happened but again, no Walter.

Hi Walter, Pam,

Sorry about the delay in replying. Hope you find it to this thread.

WALTER: "peter,
just quickly reading through your replies to pam. you said,
"There is evidence from other historical sources of that time period that confirms people places and events in history that are spoken of in the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. These other sources confirms that the writers were accurate in this information."

WALTER: "huh?!?!? are you talking about the fact that historians write about "rome" and "jerusalem" and "babylon"?"

More than that, about people and events that are also found in the Bible. The details confirm what the Bible says.

WALTER: "puleeze...by that standard we'd have to think any historical novel is true. dickens wrote about "london" - and sure enough, we have other writer who confirm the existence on london in the 1800s...so i guess that mean david copperfield is a true story?

The Bible does not claim to be an historical novel or a piece of fiction. It claims to be the word of God and relates to a specific people and nation in history and God's dealings with that nation and peoples. More than that, it is a herald of the good news of Jesus Christ to all nations.

As an example of historical sources take Pontius Pilate and the death of Jesus. John 18:28-19:16; Matthew 27:11-24 or Acts 3:13 give details on him as being both governor and responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus. Coins minted to Pontius Pilate dated to AD 30-31 have been found as well as historical reference to Jesus and Pilate by Tacitus and Josephus (two other source references besides the Bible and not counting the church father's either) and an inscription containing the name of Pontius Pilate discovered at Caesarea.

There have also been a number of crucified bodies found confirming and corroborating both the manner and account of the death of Jesus as being accurate in their detail. The skeleton of a man named Yohanan Ben Ha'galgol dating to first century Palestine was found in 1968 which confirmed the similarities of the biblical crucifixion.

So we have time line matches as well as details from time lines as to the type of death.

PART 2

Tacitus, in Annals (AD 115) had this to say,

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for the abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, sufferer the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate...Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of easts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired."

There is a lot of information in this account that confirms what the Bible says. I can break it down for you if you like?

Gary Habermas, in 'The Historical Jesus notes a number of these 'other' source references that confirm both the existence of Jesus and particulars noted in the gospels and New Testament. There are references by Suetonius, Josephus, Pliny the Young, Thallus, The Talmud, Lucian, the Gnostic sources and other lost works mentioned by existing historical documents, such as the 'Acts of Pontius Pilate' noted by Justin Martyr and Tertullian and the wealth of information by the early church fathers. There is also a host of archaeological data that confirm the Book of Acts as being historical reliable as well as other parts of the Bible.

PART 3

WALTER: "sure some of the banal references in the bible have been confirmed (some have NOT been, and in fact have been shown to have NOT existed at the time the bible claims they did -"

Lots of stuff that people doubted about the biblical data's reliability have now been confirmed. But when you are looking for evidence that goes back 2500-5000 years in some cases it is going to be hard to recover. That does not mean it didn't happen, just that the biblical accounts have not yet been confirmed. Just because certain historical people, places or events noted in the Bible have not been confirmed by other source documents and artifacts does not necessarily mean they didn't exist, just that they have not been found, or no other records were taken.

But the Bible itself is an historical document that you discount.

WALTER: "see for instance, joshua's cities which he divides up for the jews in "1400 bc" or so...), but none of the "good stuff" - like the flood, the exodus, joshua's magic day, solomon's empire and jesus' resurrection have not...."

I'll take your word for it, but we have the Bible as an historical reference that is reliable in other portions on what it says. You, Walter, are trying to say that because there is no other source for some of these events or places mentioned in the Bible that they didn't happen or exist. You look at everything in a naturalistic framework so anything supernatural is ruled out as impossible to your experience.

Welcome aboard RCofield! It is nice to have another Christian in the fray.

Hi Pam,

Here we go.

PH: ”As I said before, my pastor and others put a division between Matthew 24:1-35 and 36 onwards because the language suggests a difference. For one thing, Christ describes to the disciples what must shortly take place in verses 1-35 but in verses 36 onwards He doesn't know about the day or the hour of His own coming.”

PAM: "This is amazing to me, Peter. A “plain” reading doesn’t indicate any such thing. Jesus is talking about the coming of the “son of man” on both sides of that break. He tells them what the leading indicators will be, and that it will happen soon – that it’s eminent, but says that no one knows the exact day or hour (it doesn’t mention year or millennium)."

As I said before, I'm still examining the plausibility of the three views. I find difficulty in my pastor's view just like you do. I'm not sure whether the Preterist, partial Preterist or Amillennialist views is the correct one yet. I can explain the reasoning behind two of them to an extent, but not the Amillennial one as of yet.

The fully Preterist believes all that was spoken of in Matthew 24 has been fulfilled. The only thing pending is the final judgment spoken of in Matthew 25:31-46.

Luke 21 makes it clear that this time of judgment and tribulation that Matthew references is judgment on the nation of Israel, the Jews. The signs Luke gives can all be seen as being fulfilled from historical accounts.

I've given you good reason as to why His kingdom was established with the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. The old covenant was abolished with that fall, for the Temple and worship system, the means of atonement was destroyed. The signs and warnings Jesus gives are described in the Book of Acts as having been fulfilled to a large extent, and even during Jesus' earthly ministry He is constantly saying things like the kingdom of heaven is near, the kingdom is in your midst, etc. I can dig up these passages if you like. John 4:24 says that we must worship in spirit and in truth and various other passages talk about a spiritual kingdom before the final judgment.

PAM: "He says that only his “father” knows that (which kind of blows the whole trinity thing out of the water – ..."

It also says that Jesus, 'Who being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made Himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness, and being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to death...' (Philippians 2:5)

To fulfill the covenant that God made with man Jesus took on humanity, and as a human He could say, 'No one knows the day nor hour, not even the Son.' If He used His godly attributes as a man then it would not as a man that He fulfilled all the righteousness that was required of man before God. No, He completed God's will by submitting Himself as a man before God. In this capacity He used only His manly nature. Two natures, one Person.

PART 1b (yeah I screwed up)

PAM: "but then Jesus never claimed to be God, nor did anyone claim it for him before John – the last, and farthest removed gospel writer)."

As for Jesus claiming to be God, He did this many times and the Jews rightly understood what He was claiming for they accused Him of blasphemy and they picked up stones to stone Him with. Things that are associated only with what God does in the OT you find Jesus doing in the NT. Attributes that are exclusively attributed to God in the OT you find Jesus doing in the NT. Descriptions of God in the OT are used of Jesus in the NT.

And what is more some of His disciples/apostles and writers of the gospels gave Him titles that previously had only been used of God.

No, you have a weak argument on this point.

PAM: "Note that Bartleby calls verses 29-35 “The Coming of the Son of Man,” and verses 36-44 “No Man Knoweth the Day and Hour,” but in 37, 42, and 44, he’s still talking about the coming of the son of man. Anyone who sees a break there is wearing some strange glasses indeed.
http://www.bartleby.com/108/40/24.html#35"

Maybe so, but the point is that what was spoken of in Daniel and by all the prophets of the OT concerning the judgment of Israel and the coming Messiah can be seen as fulfilled with the coming of Jesus, the destruction of Temple and city.

"Immediately after the distress of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken" (Matt. 24:29) are spoken of in Acts as being fulfilled in that day (Acts 2:17-20).

This is figurative language - yes?

PH: ”In the reference to 'days of Noah,' it was before God made a covenant with the Jews and made them His people. In verse 37 onwards He speaks of a time like this, not specifically towards the Jews as before.”

PAM: "Again, Peter, a plain reading says that he’s comparing the unexpected disaster of the days of Noah (people going about their business as usual until the waters rise around them) with the unexpected disaster that is coming with his return, when some people (the “elect”) will be taken and others left behind."

Granted, it can.

PAM: "That thing that the Pentecostals call “the Rapture.”

The term 'Rapture' is never used in Scripture to my knowledge.

PART 2

PH: ”Matthew 25:1 Jesus uses "At that time" in His analogy. In 25:32 all the nations are gathered before Him and He separates the sheep from the goats, the goats to 'eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.' (vs. 46). 2 Peter 2:9 talks of the day of judgment of the unrighteous.”

PH: ”So there is a future day of judgment in which the unrighteous will be judged and thrown into the lake of fire, eternal torment.”

PAM: "Amazing, Peter. A plain reading still says that he’s talking about the coming of the son of man throughout chapter 25. It says so!"

That is a reasonable argument.

There are passages in Daniel that Jesus makes reference to concerning the abomination of desolation. They talk about a specific people, Daniel’s people and about a specific land. There is also reference to the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven, and it is a heavenly scenario (Daniel 7:13-14), just like it is in the Book of Revelation 5:6-14 and I contend 1:7. At that time all the nations of the earth are present Pam, and the contention of the full Preterist is that this all took place around the time of the destruction of the Temple. That was the sign that ushered in the new age and signified the end of the old covenant.

Remember, Hebrews 8:13 were the human author even says that the new covenant (that God made with the blood [i.e. life] of His Son) has made the first one obsolete and what is aging will SOON disappear. The Book of Hebrews has much to say in comparing the new with the old. But the point is that all the nations of the earth are present in this heavenly scene of Revelation 5 and they are mourning (vs 5).

Also Daniel 12:4 instructs Daniel to seal up the word of the prophecy until the time of the end. And yet we see Jesus opening the seals in the Book of revelation. Now Keith Gentry has done a good job in showing that the Book of Revelation was written before AD 70 and the destruction of the Temple. He contends that most of Revelation also deals with the same period as spoken of in Matthew 24. You see it all ties in. I have a few charts the show the comparisons of the language used in the different books.

So even if this is the case Pam, which I am not arguing against for I definitely see the merit in this position (I'm just telling you that my pastor does not see it this way), most of these prophecies have had there fulfillment in the first century with the destruction of Jerusalem, with the exception of the final judgment.

At least that is something we can agree on, right?

The thing you disagree with is that history does not show this to be the case. Again, on this point I contend it has. There is good evidence to that effect which when I have more time I’ll dig up for you.

PART 3

PAM: "At no point does it say anything like “I’m talking about my return spiritually to set up a spiritual kingdom among believers and to see that you Jews get your arses kicked out of Jerusalem, and then I’ll make a second return (“The Return of the Son of Man – the Sequel”) to do the same to all the rest of them, and set up a physical kingdom.”

This is logically implied by the passages in Daniel and elsewhere that tie in with Matthew 24. The Daniel passage says that during the time of the fourth kingdom - Rome - God will set up His eternal kingdom, a kingdom that will never perish. That began with the destruction of the Temple and city in AD 70.

PAM: "It is clearly talking about the selfsame thing all the way through. Only the most egregious parsing and twisting can get anything else out of it."

PAM: "Your problem is that it didn’t happen."

We know the Temple and city were destroyed by the Romans in AD 70. I contend that it did happen and history has a record of many of these events.

I definitely believe that the pretribulation dispensational view is wrong. To arrive there you have to do a lot of reading into the Scriptures. If the Lord is willing in time I will have it worked out as to which of the three remaining main views are correct.

Hi Pam, (Part 1 of 2)

I know I’m kinda jumping into the middle of what looks like a long-running discussion here, but you made a comment that caught my attention:

PAM: “He says that only his “father” knows that (which kind of blows the whole trinity thing out of the water – but then Jesus never claimed to be God, nor did anyone claim it for him before John – the last, and farthest removed gospel writer).”

I’m not sure what you mean when you refer to John as the “farthest removed gospel writer” unless you are referring to the dating of his gospel. The dating of this gospel, however, does not diminish its veracity as it was written by the Apostle John, an eyewitness of the earthly ministry of Christ. As each of the 4 gospels were written as a record of the same Christ from differing perspectives, John’s is written from the perspective of demonstrating the Deity of Christ with the OT as the backdrop. So it is to be expected that he emphasizes those details of Christ’s earthly ministry that spoke most clearly to His Deity.

However, to say that “Jesus never claimed to be God nor did anyone claim it for him before John” does not accord with the record of scripture. For instance, in the Messianic prophecies of Isaiah it is foretold of Christ:

Isa 7:14 “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”

The name Immanuel is formed by a Hebrew compound that literally means “the Mighty God—With Us.” A little further on in Isaiah’s prophecy we find this further supported:

Isa 9:6 “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.”

PAM (Part 2 of 2)

Notice the clear equating of this coming Messiah with God. The “mighty God,” the “everlasting Father.” When we come to Matthew’s gospel account he directly quotes Isaiah, stating that the events of Christ’s birth were a fulfillment of these prophecies:

Mt 1:23 “Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.”

So, clearly Matthew is claiming that Christ is God. When one looks at all the OT Messianic prophecies it is unmistakable that those expectations were looking forward to One who would be fully God. As all the gospels were written with these prophecies as their backdrop, every reference to Christ in any of the gospels necessarily was “claiming for him” Godhood.

Additionally, in the record of each of the synoptic gospels, Christ does affirm that He is this Christ/Messiah/God foretold by the OT prophets, of which affirmations the following are but a small sample:

Mt 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. (This “all power in heaven and earth” is the exclusive domain of God.)

Mr 8:29 And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ. (Christ then affirms Peter’s proclamation)

Lu 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. (See context)

Hi Pam,

I'll be with you tomorrow after I get a good nights sleep and clear my head from the residual of recovering from 12 hour midnight shifts.

Peter,

PH: ”As I said before, my pastor and others put a division between Matthew 24:1-35 and 36 onwards because the language suggests a difference. For one thing, Christ describes to the disciples what must shortly take place in verses 1-35 but in verses 36 onwards He doesn't know about the day or the hour of His own coming.”

This is amazing to me, Peter. A “plain” reading doesn’t indicate any such thing. Jesus is talking about the coming of the “son of man” on both sides of that break. He tells them what the leading indicators will be, and that it will happen soon – that it’s eminent, but says that no one knows the exact day or hour (it doesn’t mention year or millennium).

He says that only his “father” knows that (which kind of blows the whole trinity thing out of the water – but then Jesus never claimed to be God, nor did anyone claim it for him before John – the last, and farthest removed gospel writer).

Note that Bartleby calls verses 29-35 “The Coming of the Son of Man,” and verses 36-44 “No Man Knoweth the Day and Hour,” but in 37, 42, and 44, he’s still talking about the coming of the son of man. Anyone who sees a break there is wearing some strange glasses indeed.
http://www.bartleby.com/108/40/24.html#35

PH: ”In the reference to 'days of Noah,' it was before God made a covenant with the Jews and made them His people. In verse 37 onwards He speaks of a time like this, not specifically towards the Jews as before.”

Again, Peter, a plain reading says that he’s comparing the unexpected disaster of the days of Noah (people going about their business as usual until the waters rise around them) with the unexpected disaster that is coming with his return, when some people (the “elect”) will be taken and others left behind. That thing that the Pentecostals call “the Rapture.”

PH: ”Matthew 25:1 Jesus uses "At that time" in His analogy. In 25:32 all the nations are gathered before Him and He separates the sheep from the goats, the goats to 'eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.' (vs. 46). 2 Peter 2:9 talks of the day of judgment of the unrighteous.”

”So there is a future day of judgment in which the unrighteous will be judged and thrown into the lake of fire, eternal torment.”

Amazing, Peter. A plain reading still says that he’s talking about the coming of the son of man throughout chapter 25. It says so!

At no point does it say anything like “I’m talking about my return spiritually to set up a spiritual kingdom among believers and to see that you Jews get your arses kicked out of Jerusalem, and then I’ll make a second return (“The Return of the Son of Man – the Sequel”) to do the same to all the rest of them, and set up a physical kingdom.”

It is clearly talking about the selfsame thing all the way through. Only the most egregious parsing and twisting can get anything else out of it.

Your problem is that it didn’t happen.

" when people are in touch with the values most important to them, live out those values actively in their lives and have a partner with whom they share those values and ways of living them, they are more likely to have happier lives and healthier relationships.

I would hope that all religions (people--my addition [Skowronek]) would help people to accomplish those goals, and were that their animating issue, I suspect that the rate of both in-marriage and durable inter-marriage would rise. "

*clapclapclapclapclapclap*