The next stop on our journey through the Early Church Fathers is another anonymous document called The Didache: The Teaching of the Lord According to the 12 Apostles. Like the Letter to Diognetus, The Didache is dated to the early 2nd century. What is even more amazing is that it had been lost for centuries (about a millennium!) and was only recently found in 1873 in a monastery library.
When it gets right down to it, The Didache comes in two parts. Part 1: The Two Ways reflects the basic worldview outlook of the early Church in the early 2nd century. And, by extension, we can reasonably conclude that this worldview outlook was pretty much the Christian outlook from the beginning of the Church a century earlier. Part 2: A Church Manuel, as the subtitle suggests, documents some of the basic Church practices of the early 2nd century. If you’ve grown up in church, perhaps you’ve heard it sometimes said, “We just need to get back to the early Church.” Well, if you’re serious about that, then you might want to read The Didache.
Part 1: The Two Ways
Robert Plant of Led Zeppelin sang in Stairway to Heaven, “There are two paths you can go by, but in the long run, there’s still time to change the road you’re on.” In a way, those “two paths” are what The Didache spells out in the first part of the document. (Of course, at some point, time runs out to change paths!). Now, the baseline for what The Didache calls, “The Way of Life” is rooted in what Jesus himself said when the scribe asked him what the greatest commandment was. He replied, “Love God, and love your neighbor as yourself.” This is what the Way of Life is based on. If I can say it this way, the entire Christian worldview boils down to those two things.
So, what does the Way of Life look like in practical terms? The writer spells out a whole bunch of things. I’ll just highlight the major ones. It means blessing those who curse you; it means praying for your enemies; it means being ready to be generous to those in need; and it means keeping a check on the “carnal appetites of the body.” This doesn’t just refer to “lusting.” It basically means being in control of everything you do and not letting your passions or emotions get out of control.
In even more practical terms, The Didache spells out a host of things that Christians are against: murder, adultery, fornication, theft, occultic sorcery, abortion, and infanticide. Now obviously, something like being against murder isn’t unique only to Christians, and though you may think the same thing about adultery and fornication, we should remember that in the Roman world, men weren’t expected to be “faithful” to their wives. They were expected to be promiscuous. You can therefore guess just how patriarchal that society was. These days, many people tend to criticize Evangelicalism’s “purity culture,” and although there are many instances where that “purity culture” has gone way too far, particularly in shaming girls for being girls, we should never forget that right from the beginning, Christianity has had a very clear sexual ethic.
And what about things like abortion and infanticide? I think most people still find infanticide abhorrent, but let’s face it, abortion is a very controversial topic these days, even among Christians. There are obviously a host of medical and scientific discoveries that we know today that they didn’t know back then, and there obviously specifics points that need to be teased out, but I think there are three things we need to realize about how the early Church viewed abortion. First, it was wrong, period. There is no other way to say it. At the same time, though, although Christians obviously tried to convince the pagan world it was wrong, they weren’t trying to “get legislation passed.” Finally (and we see this in other documents), although they taught it was clearly wrong, many early Church Fathers advised against having the woman charged with homicide.
The next thing The Didache talks about is how the “little things” in life often lead to “bigger things.” Basically, no one goes out and just decides to commit murder, or adultery, or theft out of the blue. Those “bigger actions” are often the end result of a whole bunch of thoughts and attitudes that the person has been slowly dwelling on and allowing to grow. For that reason, The Didache says that a big part of the Christian Way of Life entails keeping a rein on those smaller attitudes that can easily lead to bigger, more destructive actions. Doing the little things every day and practicing self-discipline every day will keep one on the Way of Life. Finally, The Didache mentions things like honoring those teachers who teach the Gospel, working toward seeing there are no divisions among Christians, and giving generously to those in need. In addition, since they were living in ancient Rome, when slavery was institutionalized, The Didache, in a very subtle way, proves itself to be counter cultural by telling Christian masters to be kind to their servants as fellow brothers in Christ, and telling servants to respect their masters as representatives of God. When Christians treat each other in that way, any cultural institution that seeks to dehumanize others has its knees cut out from under it.
In contrast to the Way of Life, there is obviously the Way of Death. The writer spends all of one paragraph on it, because it is quite obvious—it is everything that is opposite the Way of Life. Arrogant, self-centered, hostile behavior that oppresses others will ultimately lead to death. Therefore, the writer says, “Stay away from anyone like that!”
Part 2: Church Manual
The second part of The Didache really is fascinating because we are able to see how the early Christians “did church,” so to speak. Allow me to do a run-down, with a few comments to boot. First, there is the issue of baptism. Perhaps you grew up on a church where there was a controversy regarding immersion or sprinkling. Well, here’s the answer to that controversial question! Ready? If you can immerse in a river, do it; if you can’t get to a river, you can do it in a pool; if you can’t do that, you can sprinkle! It doesn’t matter—as long as you do it in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. There you go! You’re welcome!
Another issue that will strike modern American Christians as odd is the practice of fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays, so as to keep themselves distinct from the “hypocrites” who fast on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Who are the “hypocrites”? Well, Jews. In addition, Christians should pray the Lord’s Prayer three times a day, as opposed to what the Jews pray.
Now, we shouldn’t see this as being anti-Semitic from our modern day lens. We need to realize the historical situation. Before the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in AD 70, Second Temple Judaism consisted of essentially five sects of Judaism: Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, Zealots, and that weird new group—the Jesus Movement known as “the Way” or “the Nazarenes.” Long story short, after the destruction of the Temple, the only two groups that survived were the Pharisees, who reconstituted Judaism into Rabbinic Judaism, from which modern Judaism comes, and the Jesus Movement, which came to be known as Christianity, and an entirely different religion. Here’s the point. Both Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity claimed to be the “true heir” of Judaism, so to speak. For that reason, Christians in the 2nd century had to differentiate themselves from the emerging Rabbinic Judaism of that time.
As for the Eucharist, there is the focus on the chalice of wine and the bread. There are also a few prescribed prayers for the Eucharist as well. In addition, The Didache makes clear that only baptized Christians were allowed to take part in the Eucharist. Today, some churches allow anyone who wants to take part in communion. It is quite clear, though, that in the early Church, only baptized Christians were allowed. They took their Christian vows seriously. They weren’t modern-minded Christians who were afraid their practices might offend outsiders. It was pretty simple: If you’re not a baptized Christian, the Eucharist is not for you.
Next, there is some seemingly-odd (for us today!) instructions on how churches are to deal with travelling prophets and apostles. Perhaps the easiest way to understand this is how to deal with traveling preachers. The advice boils down to this: Welcome them and show them hospitality, but if they show themselves to be immoral and if they clearly just want to stay and mooch off your hospitality, tell them to take a hike—they’re frauds. Simply put, be hospitable, but don’t let yourselves be conned!
The Didache ends by encouraging Christians to assemble together on the Lord’s Day (Sunday) to celebrate the Eucharist—after all, the Eucharist is the living, perpetual crystallization of the entirety of Christian theology. In addition, The Didache encourages Christians choose their Church leaders wisely, to revere them, and to try to keep each other on that “right path,” but to do so in a loving, peaceful manner. Why? Because the writer tells them that they are living in the last days.
Now, that might strike us in modern America as weird, because when we hear “the last days,” we immediately think of Hal Lindsey’s Late, Great Planet Earth, or Tim LaHaye’s Left Behind series. We really need to completely ditch that type of thinking completely. I think the best way for us to understand what the New Testament and early Christians meant by “last days” is this: From the time of Jesus’ ascension to the time of his second coming and the establishment of the New Heavens and Earth—all of that time is the “last days.” So, yes, from a New Testament perspective, we’ve been in the “last days” for the past 1,990 years. Try to wrap your mind around that!
Conclusion
Having given that overview of The Didache, let me finish with just a few thoughts. First, as I’ve come to see in my own reading of the early Church Fathers, much of the theology of The Didache is rooted in very simple (not simplistic!) things: Love God and love your neighbor; Observe the Eucharist as Christ’s body. I’ve come to see that virtually everything else should be rooted in those things.
And that leads me to my second observation. I’m coming to see, quite frankly, how so much in our lives—our debates, arguments, agendas, etc.—all just amounts to (to paraphrase the Apostle Paul) a whole load of crap. This isn’t a condemnation of what happens in our current society, on social media, etc. It is just an observation and realization that that is really what much of it is. It is so easy to get distracted from the simple, fundamental focus of what lies at the core of the traditional, early Church, Christian teaching, and to let ourselves become consumed with all the fleeting distractions and nonsense in our world today, be it political debates, culture wars, etc.
Now, some of that is inevitable. After all, we Christians live in our society and culture, so we have to deal with it. We have to speak to it. We have to engage with it. We have to realize, though, that will me we will inevitably get some crap on ourselves. In this age of social media, we can just look at what we all post from time to time to see evidence of this. On one hand, we tend to miss it, but on the other hand, it is so blindingly obvious—whenever we start going off and raging about this politician or that legal decision, this comment made by someone on cable news or that guy who just got banned from Twitter because it was deemed offensive. When we start to solely focus on that stuff, its as if we devolve back to monkeys and we start flinging our feces of self-righteousness and anger everywhere. And yes, pretty soon, everyone feels like crap.
I, for one, am getting more and more disgusted by the smell of it all, especially when I find myself doing it, too. And that’s why I’ve loved going through these early Church Fathers and Writings. It is helping me focus more on what I should be focusing on. Hopefully, I’ll continue to get better. Hopefully, we all will.
In any case, I’m going to “push pause” on my Early Church Fathers Series for a bit. I have a few other things in mind I want to write about. Trust me, they’ll be good…and they won’t be crap.
In the bible the character Jesus preached that end times were metaphorically just round the corner.
He go that wrong and the Church and it’s apologists have been doing a hash job ever since trying to cover up / make excuses for that Faux Pas !
In Matthew 24, Jesus tells the disciples the Temple would soon be destroyed. They ask him when it would happen and what would be the sign of his coming at the end of the age. They equated the destruction of the Temple/Christ’s coming with the “end of the age.” There is a whole bunch of things going on in that chapter that most people miss because they’ve been the likes of Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye have so distorted that passage for a whole generation of people.
It boils down to this. In Matthew 24, Jesus tells the disciples that the Temple would be destroyed within a generation–and it was, in AD 70. But at the same time, he tells them quite specifically, in Matthew 24:6, “This must happen, but the end will not happen yet.” Matthew 24 is about the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, not “the end times.” Even in Eusebius’ “History of the Church,” he clearly says that Christians saw that passage as Jesus prophesying about the destruction of the Temple.
Like I said in the post, the “end times,” properly speaking, is the time between Jesus’ ascension and the eventual consummation of the age/new creation. But in Matthew 24, his “coming” is in reference to Daniel 7 (The Son of Man “coming” on the clouds), signifying the Son of Man’s vindication over the enemies of God’s people (in Daniel 7–the beast and the little horn; here in Matthew 24–shockingly the enemies are the Temple establishment).
So, not a faux pas. Rather, really bad reading and exegesis of that passage that has been influenced by the likes of Lindsey and LaHaye.
However, in gMark the character Jesus tells his listeners that some will not taste death before he returns.
So, yes, bit of an ‘oops’ there.
As I mentioned the church was forced to scramble around to find a reason / excuse much like doomsday Christians have a habit of doing on a fairly regular basis when the end turns out not to a nigh as they promise!
Seems that each gospel author… whoever they were … had a different agenda when it came to penning their version of the tale.
Nope. In Mark 8:27-9:1, immediately after Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Christ, Jesus tells his disciples that some of them “would not taste death until they see the Kingdom of God come in power.”
This is where literary competency goes a long way. Just as in any story (or movie), when something potentially ambiguous is said that leads us to question, “What does that mean?”, the first thing you do is to look elsewhere in the story to see if that question is answered. And lo and behold, in Mark 9:2-13, it is answered. Peter, James, and John are taken up a mountain, where they get a glimpse of Jesus in his glory.
So, sorry…no “oops.”
And the rest of your reply (which echoes that of Ehrman) shows how you are allowing the bogus reading of Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye to color your understanding of those passages. That is why I’m not impressed with Ehrman–for all his academic credentials, he simply fails to see that his reading of the Gospels and his understanding of Jesus is completely influenced by the 19th-20th century brand of dispensationalism of Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye. When you try to read the Gospels or understand Jesus through THAT lens, of course nothing will make sense, because dispensationalism is crap.
There are a number of interpretations of this passage, apparenyly. I read somewhere one interpretation is a reference to Daniel,I can’t recall exactly what it was. But Daniel and all the supposed prophecy is all nonsense when it comes to retro -fitting for Christians, so …..
However, the ‘on the nose’ reading is still accepted as a possibility and I don’ t see any evidence to reasonably doubt that the character Jesus, being simply an eschatological / end times itinerant Rabbi would have meant anything other than what he ‘said’.
So the ‘Oops’ factor is still in play.
Oh, and while I don’t hold with everything Ehrman has to say,he still has oodles of street cred. in his field.
You’ve said nothing there. Ehrman’s basic premise (which you are adopting here) is that Jesus was an “apocalyptic/end times rabbi” who expected the end of the world within his lifetime; and when that didn’t happen, his later followers made up a whole bunch of stuff to explain away his obvious failure.
Sorry, that is just wrong on so many levels. It is reading back into the NT texts this modern “end times/dispensationalist view” of Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye. Believe that view if you want, but it is just wrong.
Well, you’ve provided no evidence that would suggest Ehrman is wrong.
So, until that time, I’m inclined to go with scholarly interpretation that is not likely to be reliant on any inkling of faith.
Just as recognising the Exodus tale and Moses as presented in the OT is simply geopolitical fiction and a waste of time trying to read something else into the story, so too is looking for a convoluted answer in what the character Jesus said in gMark rather than the plain, straightforward reading as presented.
Yes, no evidence. I point to the Olivet Discourse, the very discourse scholars like Ehrman point to in order to argue that Jesus was predicting the end of the world, and point out that Jesus is explicitly talking about the destruction of the Temple and explicitly tells the disciples, “But the end won’t happen yet.” And I point to the testimony of the early Church historian Eusebius who explicitly says that what Jesus prophesied in the Olivet Discourse came true and happened when Rome destroyed the Temple: “Anyone who compared our Savior’s words with the rest of the historian’s account of the whole war could not fail to be astonished, and to acknowledge as divine and utterly marvelous the foreknowledge revealed by our Savior’s prediction.”
And you’ll stick with Ehrman’s claim that since what Jesus prophesied in the Olivet Discourse didn’t happen, his later followers made a bunch of stuff up to cover for his failure. More power to ya. You’re not sincerely seeking the truth. You are desperately intent on clinging to an oversimplistic and false caricature of things, just so you can continue to dismiss Christians, Christianity, and the Bible as a bunch of looney tunes.
There are a number of Christian interpretations and as you lot can’t seem to agree then I reiterate, the ‘on the nose’ reading is probably the right one.
Ehrman,among others,agrees, and you repeatedly asserting he is wrong doesn’t make it so.
I LITERALLY quoted a early Church historian say that Christians understood the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 to be proof that what Jesus said in the Olivet Discourse came true–past tense, it HAPPENED–and you’re going to ignore that WRITTEN EVIDENDCE and cling to Ehrman’s claim that the early Christians were trying to cover up the embarrassing failure of Jesus’ prophecy that had NOT come true.
That is amazing. “Here’s evidence that the early Christians saw the Olivet Discourse as having been fulfilled in AD 70!”
“Nope! Ehrman claims otherwise! The Olivet Discourse is just failed Left Behind predictions!”
Amazing.
Amazing! Here we have a early Christian historian telling us exactly what the real deal was and lo and behold Ehrman, and others,assert otherwise.
I wonder why?
Oh, and by any chance at all did this early Christian historian believe, like you, that the character Jesus of Nazareth was resurrected and was Yahweh in human form?
You really can’t see how illogical your take is, can you?
You are always demanding EVIDENCE. So, (1) Here we have in the Olivet Discourse (Mark 13, Matthew 24, Luke 21), Jesus CLEARLY SAYING that the Temple is going to be destroyed; (2) In BOTH Mark and Matthew, the disciples ask him when it was going to happen and when “the end/the consummation of the age” would happen–showing they expected the destruction of the Temple and “the end” to happen at the same time; (3) In BOTH Mark and Matthew, Jesus clearly says the destruction of the Temple would happen soon, BUT “the end” wouldn’t happen yet. All of that IS IN THE TEXT. THAT’S WRITTEN EVDIENCE. In addition, we have Eusebius declare that Christians had always interpreted that passage in the Olivet Discourse to be Jesus’ prediction/prophecy ABOUT THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE. Again, THAT’S WRITTEN EVIDENCE SHOWING HOW CHRISTIANS UNDERSTOOD THAT PASSAGE.
It doesn’t take “faith” to understand what is being communicated in both the Olivet Discourse and Eusebius. That’s what is said in the Olivet Discourse and that is how Christians had understood that passage.
Yet, for some inexplicable reason, Ehrman (and you) ignore all those clear, provable, facts of both texts, and you (and Ehrman) insist (WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE TO BACK YOUR VIEW UP!) that Jesus was REALLY predicting the end of the world–a bogus view promoted by dispensationalists like Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye. YOU are the one putting forth a view based on ABSOLUTELY ZERO EVIDENCE.
But ah! You have an ace in the hole to justify your view! The Christians who interpreted the Olivet Discourse in the way Eusebius relates believed Jesus was resurrected! Therefore, you simply feel you can dismiss anything they say out of hand! Or to put it in a simpler way, you’re saying, “Those Christians believed Jesus resurrected, so we can throw out the actual evidence how they understood the Olivet Discourse, and instead, we can pretend that Jesus was a 20th century dispensationalist student of Tim LaHaye!”
Come on…surely, you have to see how ridiculous that is.
As I pointed out to Lee, proper scholars don’t bother with prophecies.
Furthermore, as it is estimated only a fraction of what is claimed to have been spoken by the character Jesus of Nazareth may be genuine how have you determined this particular discourse is ‘Genuine Jesus’?
The less said about Eusebius and your ‘evidence’ the. better
As we can both be fairly certain that Ehrman and others who agree with his scholarly take are fully aware of the Olivet Discourse, and the ramblings of Eusebius what possible motive could such highly qualified scholars have for doubting the very words of the Messiah hisself?
I wonder ..
That first statement is just nonsensical.
As for the Olivet Discourse, Ehrman obviously thinks it’s genuine, but he interprets it completely wrong.
I see your propensity to want to throw out evidence that challenges your unsupported claims.
So which proper scholars consider ( biblical) prophecy valid historical evidence to determine the veracity of a particular passage?
You are obviously more ah fait with these scholars so just list couple so’s I can research their take.
Has Ehrman asserted he considers this particular passage to be genuine words of Jesus?
I’m not familiar with that much of his work so could you link to where he states it is genuine.
I’m interested to read on what basis he arrives at this conclusion.
Thanks.
I think you need to take some time just to learn what biblical prophecy is and how biblical scholars study it to better understand the historical contexts of those particular times in biblical history in which the prophets lived. Simply put, biblical scholars take it VERY seriously–it is vital to understanding history.
And I don’t know where you get this idea that prophecy is “comfort literature.”
And yes, one of the main texts Ehrman refers to when arguing that Jesus was a “failed apocalyptic prophet” is the Olivet Discourse, which he interprets as (a) Jesus predicting the end of the world, (b) it not happening within a generation, so (c) his later followers made stuff up and changed things around to explain away his obvious failed prophecy. And, as I’ve clearly shown with evidence, that is just a really flimsy and problematic argument that ignores what the text and other early Christian texts actually say, and instead reads into the text a 20th century dispensationalist assumption. It is just really, really bad.
Again, which proper bible scholars take prophecy seriously.
Just a short list of five or six will do. I can follow up on the rest .
Thanks
EVERY proper Bible scholar takes prophecy seriously.
So give so e names of proper scholars.
You don’t value Ehrman so we can discount him.
Give me four non Christian scholars who consider Bible prophecy has any bearing on actual history.
First, I don’t know what scholar is a professed Christian or not. Second, LITERALLY EVERY OT SCHOLAR takes prophecy seriously. Do an Amazon search of any OT prophetic book or the topic of OT Prophets–you’ll see plenty of them.
So you have no idea who are these non Christisn scholars? You can’t identify a single one?
This suggests that the scholars you do know, are aware of, are very likely Christian.
I am going to take it as a given, therefore that non Christian scholars hold bible prophecy in scant regard. Ehrman doesn’t believe it does he?
Can we take it as a given that other non – christian scholars are equally as disdainful?
Seriously, you need to get a better grasp of the issues. You clearly don’t know what you are talking about. You are so caught up in your own loop of problematic assumptions and thinking. Like I said, do a basic search on OT Prophets and Amazon, and you’ll see TONS of scholarly books. What does that tell you? Biblical Scholars take prophecy seriously.
I am sure every Christian scholar takes prophecy seriously. They wouldn’t be Christian otherwise.
But I am only interested in how non Christian scholars regard bible prophecy.
And you can’t name a single non Christian bible scholar? Not even one?
No, EVERY BIBLICAL SCHOLAR takes prophetic literature in the Bible seriously. Stop being childish.
Then you will have to be more clear when you say they – no Christians – take it seriously ,for they surely do not consider it has any veracity.
I’m not going to take the time to teach you what Biblical Studies is and what biblical prophecy is. You are just spouting off on things you don’t really know much about. But trust me EVERY BIBLICAL SCHOLAR takes the biblical prophetic literature seriously.
I have to assume that your idea of “biblical prophecy” is something akin to Nostradamus or some sort of psychic hotline. That’s not what it is.
Then at least have the decency to state / explain the context in which they take it seriously for as I stated, non believers do not afford such biblical nonsense any serious credence.
The OT prophets were real, historical people who spoke about real historical events in their time. That’s why ALL biblical scholars take them seriously. Studying them illuminates history. And that is why the Jews preserved the writings/prophecies of those OT prophets–they were convinced that what the OT prophesied about had come to pass.
Let me illuminate for you just one example: the prophet Nahum. The entirety of the book of Nahum is a prophecy about the coming destruction of Nineveh, the capital of the Assyrian Empire. That destruction came about by the hand of the Babylonian Empire in 612 BC. The prophet Nahum, therefore, obviously prophesied at some point in the 7th century BC. The one clue that helps us further date the book of Nahum is found in 3:8, when Nahum mentions the fall of Thebes, and gives the impression that Thebes was still in ruins at the time of the Nahum’s prophecy. We know Thebes was destroyed in 663 BC, but we also know that it had been rebuilt by Jeremiah’s day, during the reign of King Josiah (640-609 BC). Put those clues together, it would seem that Nahum prophesied about Nineveh’s coming destruction anywhere between 663-640 BC. Many scholars get even more specific, and speculate it was between 655-650 BC.
THAT’S why biblical scholars take the prophetic literature of the Bible seriously.
And yet there are numerous supposed prophecies which are blatant failures. One only has to consider the rubbish of Isaiah 7 :14: you Christians have asserted as being prophecy about the birth of the character Jesus.
In fact I have read there are some Christians who consider the OT as a prophecy of the imminent arrival of the character Jesus of Nazareth.
As for your specific example, would I be way off the mark to suggest there are non Christian scholars who disagree with your interpretation?
As for my specific example, no. That’s pretty much the standard view of Nahum.
I did my PhD Thesis on Isaiah 7:14. Again, you are objecting to an incredibly oversimplistic caricature that just illustrates your overall ignorance of what prophecy is. I’m not trying to be mean–that’s just obvious.
And your response to my reference to 7:14 is simply apologetic waffle that avoids recognising the prophecy was nonsense.
And it wouldn’t take me too long to come up other prophecies that are deemed failures.The one about Tyre comes to mind.
Perhaps it would be best for both of us if we stuck with objective demonstrable l evidence and everything else we put down to your faith?
That way we would probably avoid all these long drawn out back and forths.
No, it just means you don’t know what you’re talking about at all.
Yes, I know that’s what you’d prefer–“Let’s just fall back on my own assumptions that are not rooted in actual biblical scholarship or any actual understanding of Biblical Studies or biblical prophecy. Let’s just stick to, ‘I’m right because I’m an atheist, and you’re wrong because you’re an indoctrinated Christian who believes in ghosts and zombies…blah blah blah.”
No, I’d rather be an adult and actually strive to understand truth and reality. The best way to avoid these long drawn out back and forths is to just show a little humility and admit that you really DO NOT have a solid grasp of Biblical Studies. All you’re doing is spewing ignorant nonsense.
Okay, then ..
7:14 is supposedly a prophecy about the birth of the character Jesus of Nazareth.
This of course is plain nonsense.
If your thesis explained this then your PhD was deserved.
In its original historical context, Isaiah 7:14 is prophecy about the birth of Hezekiah. Look at the context. Isaiah 7-12 is all centered on the events of the Syro-Ephraimite Crisis (circa 745 BC)–King Ahaz of Judah had just come to the throne, and the northern kingdom of Israel and the neighboring country of Aram were planning to team up, invade Judah, depose Ahaz, and set up their own puppet ruler. Ahaz was scared. Isaiah comes to him and basically says, “Don’t worry! Put your trust in YHWH and He won’t let it happen! Ask for any sign you want to confirm that YHWH will do what He has promised.” But Ahaz says, “No thanks! I’m going to call upon the major world empire of Assyria for help!” TO THAT, Isaiah says (beginning in 7:13-14), “You moron! You’re ticking YHWH off! Oh YHWH is going to give you as sign anyway! LOOK! The young woman (Ahaz’s wife) is pregnant! She’s going to give birth to a son and he’ll be called ‘Immanuel’ (God with us). And by the time that kid grows up, Assyria will come in, destroy Israel and Aram, but then will start oppressing Judah!” –All of that has a clear 8th century BC context. The rest of Isaiah 7-12 contains other prophecies of Isaiah during that time–the long and short of them is this: “Ahaz, you’re unfaithfulness to YHWH will bring about Assyrian oppression, but your son, Hezekiah will put his trust in YHWH, and because of that, YHWH will eventually repel Assyria from Judah.”
All of that is what Isaiah prophesied around 745 BC–the northern kingdom of Israel was destroyed in 721 BC, as was Aram, just like he prophesied. And then in 701 BC, Hezekiah rebelled against Assyria and Isaiah 36-39 tells us about that event, where Sennacherib invaded Judah, besieged Jerusalem, but failed to take it–then went back to Assyria. Hence, what Isaiah prophesied in 7-12 is seen as being fulfilled in Isaiah 36-39. That is why the Jews preserved Isaiah’s prophesies–what he prophesied came to pass, and therefore he was considered a true prophet.
When you get to the NT, where Matthew quotes Isaiah 7:14 in reference to the birth of Jesus–he’s not saying that Isaiah uttered a PREDICTION that the Jews just “hung onto” for 750 years until it “came true” with Jesus. He’s pointing to that original event and saying, “Jesus is like Hezekiah, BUT BIGGER. Hezekiah was a faithful king of the Jews through whom God saved them from Assyrian oppression. Jesus is the ultimate faithful king of the Jews through whom God saves humanity from the oppression of sin and death.”
So we are in agreement, the prophecy was directed at Ahaz and had nothing to do with the character Jesus of Nazareth.
Why do you think so many Christians tie themselves in knots to the point of being disingenious to make this about Jesus?
Because Matthew ties it to Jesus. Most are simply ignorant of the original context and therefore don’t understand the full extent of what Matthew is doing.
So the writer of gMatthew was indulging in a form of subterfuge.
In your view to what end?
No….I give up. You are not seriously trying to understand anything.
We know the supposed prophecy had nothing to do with the character Jesus of Nazareth.
It is obvious the anonymous author of gMatthew was trying to assert that Jesus’ birth was foretold and thus he was the expected Messiah.
As this is obviously nonsense then whoever fabricated the tale was simply mistaken or they were indulging in subterfuge.
Which was it?
ARK: In the bible the character Jesus preached that end times were metaphorically just round the corner.
He go that wrong and the Church and it’s apologists have been doing a hash job ever since trying to cover up / make excuses for that Faux Pas !
LEE: This is the same mistake Schweitzer made because he didn’t understand how Jewish apocalyptic actually worked. The good Doctor was right to point out that in all the lives of Jesus prior to his the authors abandoned academic objectivity, ignored Jesus’ socio-historico-religious setting, and each different (mostly Enlightenment) author produced a Jesus which looked surprisingly like himself. However Schweitzer himself did not understand Jewish apocalyptic language such as that used in Mark 13 and Matthew 24 and mistakenly interpreted it literally.
To this day, despite warnings from NT Wright and other scholars, authors still interpret Jewish apocalyptic as if it was talking about the literal end of the space-time universe, rather than actually using figurative language to imbue current historico-political events with their cosmic religious significance.
Nobody REALLY expected the moon to go dark and the stars to fall out of the sky or Jesus as the Son of Man figure from Daniel 7:13 to return to earth literally riding clouds.
Ark Dr. Anderson is right. You’re mixing your metaphors. Mark 13 and Matthew 24 ae very clearly predicting the destruction of the Temple, which a careful reading of the text will show.
Part of what I think was going on is Jesus passing judgment on what he viewed as the corrupt, bankrupt Temple cultus with its priests which rejected or failed to recognize their own Messiah when he came; that’s a big part of the point of Jesus’ overturning the tables of the moneychangers in the Temple Court.
You have to read the various genres of scripture as they were intended to be read by their original authors.
ARK: As I mentioned the church was forced to scramble around to find a reason / excuse much like doomsday Christians have a habit of doing on a fairly regular basis when the end turns out not to a nigh as they promise!
LEE: As Dr. Anderson indicated, we’ve been in “the last days” for 2,000 years now. The sooner Christians like Jenkins and LaHaye understand this the better off the Evangelical church will be.
You cannot continue to make fun of scripture for pushing interpretations that its authors never intended. By all means object to scripture but not to a ridiculous caricature of scripture you try to pass off as the real thing.
Pax.
Lee.
I’ll stick with the on the nose reading if it’s all the same.
Unless you have definitive evidence that says otherwise?
I don’t remember from my reading the 2nd and 3rd century Church being obsessed with the “end times.” That doesn’t really start to happen until the Middle Ages, but the modern Dispensationalist Premillennialism of Lindsey, Jenkins-LaHaye, the Watchtower, et., al. only dates back to John N. Darby in the 1820s thus is the “new kid on the block”; until the early 19th c. nobody had interpreted Revelation and similar texts in that way.
Pax.
Lee.
Yes, I wouldn’t say they obsessed over it. But from time to time they mention “living in the last days.”
Thanks for doing this series, Joel, I’ve benefitted a lot from it!
One question after having reviewed these, and especially regarding the Didache.
It has always seemed to me that, even when I didn’t want to admit it, Scripture strongly teaches the importance of evangelism.
It’s hinted at in the OT, modeled by Jesus, explicitly taught by Him when sending the 12 and 72 out, then given as a commission at the end of all four gospels, and again at the beginning of Acts. Then the only book that really describes the early church’s activities barely mentions anything else. From other things I’ve read, evangelism also seems to have been important in the early church, as evidenced by things like the Letter to Diognetus.
Yet the Didache doesn’t mention it even though it does discuss church leadership, apostleship, teaching, and even prophecy. In addition, it seems few of the other church fathers talked much about it, and if they mention unbelievers at all, it’s generally to issue warnings. Your summary of loving God, loving neighbors, and the importance of the Eucharist, seems accurate, but evangelism is not included.
Any idea why there seems to be such a disconnect, or am I missing something?
Hi Jim,
Well, I think we need to realize that just because the Didache doesn’t have a section about the importance of Evangelism, that doesn’t mean the Christians weren’t evangelizing. I think we should take away from these texts that the early Christians felt that the “best witness” was to live a Christ-like life (one which involved loving God and loving one’s neighbor). Without the life of Christ being demonstrated in the daily lives of his people, any “verbal evangelizing” isn’t going to do much good.
Besides, we should remember that the Didache is really just focusing on two things: (1) Articulating what the “Two Ways” are, and (2) Just explaining some Church practices. I don’t think it was meant to be a comprehensive overview of everything. That being said, I think articulating the “two ways” is a form of evangelism in a way.
Thanks, Joel. It helps to keep in mind the real purpose of the Didache, rather than read too much into it.
ARK: I’ll stick with the on the nose reading if it’s all the same.
LEE: The “on the nose” interpretation fits your preconceived ideas. Wow. I’m shocked. But this is an extremely lazy (and dishonest!) way to do exegesis.
It’s like getting mad at George Orwell and calling *Animal Farm* utter and complete rubbish on the grounds that EVERYONE KNOWS that animals can’t talk.
ARK: Unless you have definitive evidence that says otherwise?
LEE: How about the beginning of Mark chapter 13?
The Destruction of the Temple Foretold
13 As he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher, what large stones and what large buildings!” 2 Then Jesus asked him, “Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left here upon another; all will be thrown down.”
3 When he was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John, and Andrew asked him privately, 4 “Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign that all these things are about to be accomplished?”
Everything which follows in Mark 13 has to do with the destruction of the Temple. That’s the real “on the nose” interpretation.
How much more “definitive” can it be for you?
Pax.
Lee.
Proper scholars don’t ‘do’ prophecy, Lee which is simply comfort literature for those indoctrinated to think it is real.
What does that even mean?
Are you asking why proper scholars don’t ‘do prophecy ‘ or asking about the term I used: “comfort literature”?
ARK: Proper scholars don’t ‘do’ prophecy, Lee which is simply comfort literature for those indoctrinated to think it is real.
LEE: “Proper scholars” should at least be able to read and understand the context of a passage before they pontificate on it. That goes for self-important skeptics as well. ; )
Whether you believe the prophecy of the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple or not is irrelevant to the blatantly obvious fact that both texts are talking about the destruction of the Temple (which DID happen in AD 70) and not the end of the world.
A careful reading of the text is all that’s required. So make fun of Mark 13 and Matt. 24 for having Jesus prophesy the destruction of the Temple if you want but don’t make fun of Jesus for making a prophecy which he never even made (the destruction of the world).
Pax.
Lee.
Bart Ehrman and others consider the end of the world was exactly what the character Jesus of Nazareth was asserting.
I am inclined to lean toward proper scholars who are not encumbered by their religious beliefs / faith.
That’s me.
If you can demonstrate why Ehrman is wrong then go for it.
But it is abundantly clear IN THE VERY PASSAGE scholars like Ehrman discuss that Jesus was talking about the destruction of the Temple, which happened in AD 70. You’re inclined to believe (i.e. put your FAITH) in certain scholars’ assertions that are not based on any evidence. In fact, their assertions directly contradict the evidence.
If it is abundantly clear that the character Jesus was referring to the destruction of the temple when he said: “Some here will not taste death etc etc….” then why would a highly qualified scholar of Ehrman’s standing and others consider he was referring to “end times etc..”?
Please be absolutely specific with your answer.
I’ve told you–Ehrman grew up a Fundie Evangelical. He doesn’t realize he is reading Evangelical-Dispensationalist assumptions into the text. That’s why. Plus, he is highly influenced by earlier 20th century scholars who tried to ignore the historical/literary contexts of the Gospels and construct their own version of Jesus as a “failed apocalyptic prophet.” In that respect, Ehrman is just regurgitating stuff that have long been properly critiqued, if not debunked.
He doesn’t realise what he is reading!
Oh my!
So he probably has a dim view of Eusebius also, yes?
Does this hold true for every other qualified scholar that holds a similar view of what the character Jesus apparently said?
Yep…Yep…and Yep–(IMO) any scholars who claims Jesus predicted the end of the world, but was wrong, so his later followers made things up to save face–yes, they all are holding to the same problematic assumptions that Ehrman is holding to.
Yes….in your opinion.
ARK: Amazing! Here we have a early Christian historian telling us exactly what the real deal was and lo and behold Ehrman, and others,assert otherwise.
LEE: I must’ve missed the memo that says that Prof. Ehrman is always right, is 100% totally objective and free of bias, thus can never, ever be wrong.
What would you do without Ehrman to call the shots for you?
Pax.
Lee.
What would you do without Eusebius and other ‘liars for Jesus’?
Grow up a little ,Lee you’re over 50 for goodness’ sake.
ARK: What would you do without Eusebius and other ‘liars for Jesus’?
LEE: You’re not gonna trot out that tired old canard about Eusebius again, are you? I thought we put that one to rest in the Amazon.com religion forums 15 years ago.
ARK: Grow up a little ,Lee you’re over 50 for goodness’ sake.
LEE: These kinds of snarky comments are all you ever make. Just for once I wish you’d make a rational argument we could discuss, but you seem either unwilling or unable.
Pax.
Lee.
Rational argument?
Sure.
There is archaeological evidence that shows us that the Captivity, Exodus and Conquest never happened and that settlement was mostly internal and by and large peaceful.
The bible tale never happened.
Neither did Adam and Eve.
Nor Noah and the Flood.
Evidence refutes each and every one of these tales .
Odd then that the character Jesus of Nazareth refers to Moses as a real person, and it seems he actually believed he was!
Most odd.
The gospels are anonymous.
Very little of their content can be verified with objective evidence, including the tale of the resurrection of the character Jesus of Nazareth.
Is thus enough to be going in with it would you like to examine the blatent interpolation s and forged text?
I’m sorry, you clearly are not well-versed in the area of Biblical Studies.
Really?
Exactly why does one need to understand Bible studies to be able to read a scientific paper on the HGP , or plate tectonics, and sediment deposits or fossils or ANE archaeology that provides evidence which flatly refutes all the above bible claims?
But please,feel free to present the evidence to demonstrate the veracity of the above bible examples.
I am sure your mate Ken Ham would be fascinated
You need to properly understand the Bible if you are going to say anything intelligent about the Bible. I have absolutely no idea where you got the idea I ever said the only way to understand plate tectonics is to be able to understand the Bible. Your comment here makes absolutely no sense.
One does not need to understand Bible genres to present evidence that refutes Adam and Eve, for example
The same applies to the Flood and the Exodus.
The claim is made,the evidence either corroborates or refutes.
Evidence refutes all of the above.
It is as simple as that.
ARK: Rational argument?
Sure.
There is archaeological evidence that shows us that the Captivity, Exodus and Conquest never happened and that settlement was mostly internal and by and large peaceful.
LEE: Care to get specific? Nick Perrin wrote a nice little book on the historicity of the Exodus a few years ago.
ARK: The bible tale never happened.
Neither did Adam and Eve.
Nor Noah and the Flood.
Evidence refutes each and every one of these tales .
LEE: As you should know by now I don’t think Genesis 1-11 was intended to be read as factual history. Doesn’t mean it isn’t true, just not factual history.
ARK: Odd then that the character Jesus of Nazareth refers to Moses as a real person, and it seems he actually believed he was!
Most odd.
ARK: The gospels are anonymous.
LEE: That in itself says noting about their veracity. Just because a work is “anonymous” doesn’t necessarily invalidate it. Besides, we have multiple, independent, early attestation for the traditional authorship of the gospels. And in 2,000 years no other authors have ever been put forward. I find it interesting, if the gospels really were anonymous, that churches across the Roman Empire from Alexandria to Constantinople all ascribe the authorship of the shortest gospel to Mark and the gospel with a prologue to John. You’d expect to see Matthew’s gospel attributed to Phillip or Luke’s gospel attributed to Andrew, but you don’t. We only ever have the traditional attestation of authorship.
ARK: Very little of their content can be verified with objective evidence, including the tale of the resurrection of the character Jesus of Nazareth.
LEE: Because so many of the “incidental” details can be verified, that should give us pause before we write off the rest. The gospels are firmly grounded in real, first century Palestine and reference real people (Caiaphas, Pilate, Gamaliel, John the Baptist), real places (Caesarea Philippi, Bethlehem and Jerusalem) and real events (the martyrdom of John the Baptist by Herod, the Roman occupation of Palestine, Jesus’ crucifixion)
.
ARK: Is thus enough to be going in with it would you like to examine the blatent interpolation s and forged text?
LEE: Personally, I’m willing to discuss any “blatant interpolations” you like. We could start with John 8 and the woman caught in adultery.
Pax.
Lee.
Fascinating. Let’s start here…..
Which part of Noah and the flood do you consider to be true?
Be specific.
Seriously, Ark, you need to bone up on some very basic aspects of Biblical Studies and Biblical Exegesis before you go out and try to argue for things of which you know nothing about.
Really?
You wrote a book refuting the nonsense of the flood.
What evidence did you present?
I wrote a book showing how YECism isn’t biblical, scientific, and has never been held as a fundamental to the faith throughout Church history.
I provided evidence regarding its genre. Once you understand its genre, you realize it isn’t trying to do any science or history in the first place.
But we know the bible isn’t science. And we have evidence that demonstrates this fact.
Understanding hermeneutics won’t make any difference so I fail to see your point.
You don’t have to appeal to science to begin with. That’s the point. You can understand the proper genre of Genesis 1-11 without any reference to science. There is literary evidence that proves that.
Then what is the point you are making?
It is work of fiction. If, however you consider there is a message to be gleaned, then so be it.
But that is the sole preserve of those who consider Yahweh to be real, and based on evidence such belief has no basis in fact.
ARK: Fascinating. Let’s start here…..
Which part of Noah and the flood do you consider to be true?
Be specific.
LEE: I just told you that Genesis 1-11 is not factual history.
Pax.
Lee.
Excellent ! So we agree it didn’t happen
I presume you agree that Adam and Eve is also fiction?
So what evidence have you got that refutes almost the entire archaeological and scholarly consensus, including Rabbis and probably most Jews in general regarding the Exodus tale?
Note: I looked up Perrin and found his book
What was available to read – 17 pages – did not impress and the word evidence did not feature once.
Anyone else you suggest I read?
ARK: Exactly why does one need to understand Bible studies to be able to read a scientific paper on the HGP , or plate tectonics, and sediment deposits or fossils or ANE archaeology that provides evidence which flatly refutes all the above bible claims?
LEE: One needs to have at least a working knowledge of biblical studies in order to interpret ANE texts like Genes 1-11 as they were intended.
You just look silly objecting that science proves there was no literal 6 day creation when the author(s) of Genesis never intended to say that their was.
To use an example I used above, it’s like arguing that you can’t take Orwell’s *Animal Farm* seriously because science has proven that animals can’t talk.
Pax.
Lee.
ARK: Which part of Noah and the flood do you consider to be true?
Be specific.
LEE: Wen the great Swiss theologian Karl Bart was once asked by a lady if he really thought snakes could talk: he answered:
“Madam, it does not matter whether or not the serpent really spoke; all that matters is what the serpent said.”
That’s my point. With Genesis 1-11 there are larger spiritual truths being put forward, which to read the story in a wooden, literal fashion you’ll miss.
Pax.
Lee.
So you acknowledge it is fiction and did not happen.
That we agree on this is all I am concerned with at this point.
ARK: So you acknowledge it is fiction and did not happen.
That we agree on this is all I am concerned with at this point.
LEE:: Ark, you have an incredibly unsophisticated, one-dimensional approach to biblical studies, which is, basically, if it didn’t LITERALLY happen EXACTLY as recorded, then it DIDN’T HAPPEN.
In essence you reason like a fundamentalist. The sad part is that you’re apparently blind to it. That, or, you’ve decided it’s okay to be a fundamentalist as long as it bolsters your atheism.
You’ve gotta stop reading Genesis 1-11 like a 21st c. atheist with a paranoid mistrust of anything which smacks of “religion” and start reading Genesis 1-11 through the eyes of ancient Hebrews. As we’ve argued ad nauseum Genesis 1-11 is not purporting to provide a factual, unbiased, “on the ground” report of actual historical events; it isn’t CNN or even the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. On the contrary, as many ancient stories were crafted to do, it’s aim is to convey important, transcendental, spiritual truths via story, along the way using allegory, metaphor, etc.
If you can’t understand the point Karl Barth was trying to make about the serpent talking then I can’t help you.
It’s like you want to DELIBERATELY misunderstand Christianity in order to bolster your atheistic worldview. That isn’t an example of an open mind, that’s just sad.
Pax.
Lee.
If you consider there is some sort of deeper spiritual meaning to the flood tale then please, enlighten me as to what you think it is.
ARK: If you consider there is some sort of deeper spiritual meaning to the flood tale then please, enlighten me as to what you think it is.
LEE: Like much of Genesis 1-11 the flood narrative functions on several different levels; reading it as straightforward history is missing the forest because of the trees.
The overarching theme of the flood narrative is all about God allowing humans to suffer the consequences of their actions yet not giving up either on humanity or creation itself. The author(s) may have used universal language to point the universality of the human condition.
Authors like Michael Heiser and John Walton do a good job of teasing the layers out of the flood narrative. Dr. Anderson has reviewed a few of their books here.
Pax.
Lee.
So we are in agreement. The flood tale is fiction, likely adapted from the earlier Epic of Gilgamesh but given a different spin to signify yet again Yahweh’s dissatisfaction with his creation …so he decides to teach them a lesson and he anhialates them in a global flood.
Nice!
ARK; So we are in agreement. The flood tale is fiction, likely adapted from the earlier Epic of Gilgamesh but given a different spin to signify yet again Yahweh’s dissatisfaction with his creation …so he decides to teach them a lesson and he anhialates them in a global flood.
LEE: There is evidence of a local flood in that region, just not a worldwide, global, universal flood.
ARK: Nice!
LEE: In the story YHWH DOESN’T destroy everyone, less still the whole of creation. Ultimately we get the new creation which John described (again using figurative language) in Revelation.
The story wasn’t meant as literal history. That’s probably all we agree on.
Pax.
Lee.
I am aware of the theory regarding localised flooding. Evidence supports such a theory.
I am aware Yahweh didn’t anhialate ALL life. I have read the tale,for goodness sake! One incestuous family and all the animals two by two.
Tra la la…
I imagine the lions and tigers were fed the bodies of all those wicked sinners that floated by, Yes?
😄
.
I knew it was just a matter of time before Ark devolved into this kind of petty, petulant, idiocy. And the sad this is he thinks he’s being rather clever.
I’m so sorry…. you think by trying to find some sort of deeper, altruistic meaning to the genocidal yet wholly fictional actions of the wholly fictional megalomaniacal god Yahweh whom you worship will somehow lead to a greater understanding of all the other fictional tales and characters in the bible?
Was this approach also part of your doctoral thesis?
ARK: I’m so sorry…. you think by trying to find some sort of deeper, altruistic meaning to the genocidal yet wholly fictional actions of the wholly fictional megalomaniacal god Yahweh whom you worship will somehow lead to a greater understanding of all the other fictional tales and characters in the bible?
LEE: Statements like this are why it is really hard to take anything you say seriously.
Are you at all capable of making an actual RATIONAL argument? How is this over-the-top sarcasm helpful in any way? It just makes you look silly.
If this is the best the “new atheists” can do, religion has absolutely nothing to worry about.
Pax.
Lee.
Any attempt by you to rationalise the tale of Noah and the global flood and the meglomaniacal, genocidal actions of Yahweh as having a deeper, spiritual meaning is simply indicitive of a troubled mind suffering from religious indoctrination with a somewhat tenuous grasp of reality.
If you are the best mainstream religion has to offer then Ken Ham certainly has nothing to worry about and neither has secular humanism.
Do you like Star Wars, Ark?
Some of the films, yes.Why?
So, you liked it when Luke Skywalker blew up the Death Star, or when Rey and her friends blew up Star Killer base? You viewed both things as a good things in those movies?
I sense you are trying to walk me to a point. Can we skip the childish analogies and get to it already?
Thanks
Why isn’t Ark responding?
I feel like I’m arguing with a 6 year-old. Actually I’d have a more enlightening, productive conversation with a 6 year-old.
If I wasn’t sure before (I was) I am now. You are unable to discuss the subject on anything more than a shallow, surface, childish level. Or maybe it’s just laziness? Regardless, you haven’t really scored any intellectual points for your team.
Secular humanism has nothing to offer anyone because it says that man is all there is, that there’s no purpose to life, we’re all just pretending that life, and human beings, have any real intrinsic worth or value and free will is just a myth. As Richard Dawkins says we’re all just slaves to our DNA. Then we die and death is the end.
Yeah, that sounds awesome. Sign me up for that.
Pax.
Lee.
As you consider there is some deeper spiritual meaning to the genocidal actions of your make- believe god, Yahweh, I think we first need to examine the circumstances that led to your inabity to deal with reality to the point you truly believe there is a rational discourse to be had while you uphold such an irrational worldview.
So, what were the circumstances that caused your problem?
Ark, do you like Star Wars?
Pax.
Lee.
Joel has already asked. Are you not following his thread or are you having a minor breakdown?
Again, what were the circumstances that caused your problem?
Ark, do you like Star Wars?
Pax.
Lee.
Are you Ill or is behaving like a moron how you get your jollies off?
You didn’t answer Dr. Anderson’s last question about whether you thought the destruction of the Death Stars and later Star Killer Bases were good things. I’m curious where he’s going with that.
So . . .
Pax.
Lee.
Me too, which is why I asked him to get to the point.
So,what was your problem?
Are you ready to discuss it?
Well, you’ve got to let me know if you think the destruction of the Death Star and Star Killer Base were good things in the contexts of those movies?
That isn’t the point you are trying to make.
This sounds like some sort of moral / ethical thing, am I correct?
If so,make the damn point!
I am perfectly capable of answering the true question you want to ask
Oh, and the reason for my late replies: remember, I live in Johannesburg? The time difference? Understand? I’m sure you can work that out, yes?
Okay, clearly you don’t want to answer. Here’s the point.
If I’ve already said that Genesis 1-11 is not history and that it is ANE myth, then for you to continue to go on about how what an imbecile I am to worship a genocidal deity who would wipe out the whole human race in a flood and then allow only one family to survive–hurray for incest!–that makes about as much sense as me telling you, “How dare you say blowing up Star Killer Base was a good thing! Sure, the New Order was there, and they were bad, but come one, IT WAS A PLANET! Those in the New Order probably HAD FAMILIES living on that planet! What kind of immoral idiot are you for applauding the genocide of an entire planet? Han, Chewy, Rey, and Finn AREN’T heroes! They are mass murderers!”
Get it?
So we agree, the genesis tale of the flood is an ANE myth,a work of fiction.
What was so difficult about that?
Now we have established this fact the question remains, why the need for such an elaborate, revolting crock of ess aitch 1T to make a point about ethics /morals?
Further question:.
At what pointin will you cease believing there is any veracity to this man made Canaanite war god who is claimed to have manifested in human form?
I see you’ve resorted to your childish, petulant ways. No sense trying to have an adult conversation with you.
What is petulant?
You keep trying to tell me genesis is fiction/ ANE myth.
I agree wholeheartedly. It is all nonsense and the god in question, the Canaanite war god, Yahweh, is not only revolting, a genocidal, meglomaniacal monster, but is also a work of fiction, a narrative construct .
Under what circumstances would anyone believe in this god, unless they were wilfuly ignorant or indoctrinated?
Therefore, I fail to see what is the problem?
As we agree on the nature of genesis and Yahweh perhaps you need to clarify exactly what you are trying to establish with this back and forth?
No sense in trying to further clarify with someone who keeps his eyes shut.
Eyes shut?
To what, a man made genocidal deity named Yahweh?
To reality and clear thinking.
You consider believing in Yahweh is rational? Explain!
No…you need, for once in your life, respond to a direct question to you. You explain how evolution is the basis for morality. Petulant, spoiled children throw tantrums when questions are posed to them and, in turn, demand that everyone cater to their needs and their demands.
Sorry…that’s just reality.
Stop being a pedantic tit and type the question in your bloody search bar, for the gods sake.
Jesus H you are exasperating!
No…if you want to spout off on my blog, be enough of a man and back up your spouting with solid reasons and explanations. If you can’t do that, then go away. Stop exposing yourself to be a troll.
Won’t type a dozen words in a search bar simply ‘ ‘cos you know you’ve been backed into a corner.
Tut, tut , Joel.
You know full well what evidence scientists have regarding evolution so why do you want me to quote them for?
This behaviour of yours makes my suggestion about you having a chat with former professional theologians ( Pastors, Priests etc) even more relevant.
Seriously, all snark aside, for the sake of your health.
Grow up, try to be a mature adult, and answer questions posed to you without throwing a tantrum. If you can’t do that, just go away.
Throwing a tantrum? Oh dear…
Read the basics of human evolution, with particular attention to tribal cooperation.
Once you’ve done that …..and understand it…. you’ll have no need to ask me any more questions about evolution and morality.
It has to be said you make some good points about the correct way to interpret Genesis 1 – 11. Only unlike Stanhope, the glaring error you make is by
considering your god,Yahweh and the Holy Spirit(sic) as real rather than simply parts of the whole mythological process.
A bridge too far?
Maybe one day you’ll find the means to cross the gap?
Yes, throwing a tantrum. In any case it is obvious that you are the kind of person who throws out claims and views you’ve read others make, but have never taken the time to truly understand them yourself. Then, when someone asks you to explain your view, you simply can’t, because you don’t understand it yourself. And hence, the tantrum and petty comments.
It is apparent you have a serious issue dealing with the realities of evolution and where your god,Yahweh fits into the picture.
You want to be recognised as one who has intellectual acumen,who understands Genesis ( for example), in the allegorical sense as per say Augustine but not so allegorical ( or heretical ) as the Cathars for example.
So you will gleefully lambaste Ham, and YEC, deride Ehrman, then point to Stanhope or Proven and others who, on the surface at least, seem to agree with your approach but, in the case of Stanhope, you appear reluctant to acknowledge how he has no truck for the belief in Yahweh as your god,or your Holy Spirit.
This type of cognitive dissonance seems to be part and parcel of Christians, even more so with Christian bible scholars.
It is at this point that compartmentalism rides to the rescue.
It is how someone as intelligent as Francis Collins can head the team of the HGP yet still believe in the character Jesus of Nazareth as Yahweh incarnate.
Would his scientific endeavours be diminished in any way were he not a born again believing Christian?
No, of course not. The mere notion is absurd.
And this just leaves the question why?
Why believe in the first place?
So, why do you believe, Joel?
This post was about the Didache. And look at what you’ve rambled on about. Talk about cognitive dissonance. You have absolutely nothing constructive or even interesting to say about the actual topics of any posts I have ever written.
The first half of your post included a discussion on End Days.
My very first comment addressed this issue by referencing gMark and the words supposedly spoken by the character Jesus of Nazareth. Scroll up and read it again.
It was you who decided to put on your boots and took my comment for an extended hike, including making mention of Ehrman and deriding his view.
So, after all you referencing Stanhope and Provan, your incessant carping about how to properly read Genesis as ANE myth and my failure to understand and your attacks on Ken Ham’s YEC, why on earth do you still believe in Yahweh, the central character of Genesis?
Again, you’ve lost all rights to expectations that people answer your questions when you flat-out refuse to answer ANYTHING posed to you.
So, not even a humble apology in recognition of the fact I addressed the topic of the post in my very first comment.
I generally address almost all questions you pose. However, if the comment is asinine, or blatantly disingenuous as with your recent nonsense about evolution and morality. I will likely reply in kind.
Although in that particular case rather than me simply type out / repeat the scientific evidence I suggested you type in the search bar and research for yourself.
Well, seeing as you weren’t happy with this, I will oblige.
https://kids.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frym.2016.00003#:~:text=Morality
You will note that Yahweh does not feature ….. anywhere
As a matter of fact, you did NOT address the OP. You saw “end times” mentioned and immediately veered off in a different direction than the OP.
No, you do not “address almost all questions.” You routinely deflect and then respond with snarky insults.
What you have shared/linked says nothing substantial. Mere assertion that “morality was selected by evolution” is not explanation or proof. Evolution is a BIOLOGICAL theory–you can actually point to chromosomes, genes, fossils, etc. to show it has occurred. To claim that the biological theory of evolution somehow is an explanation for the non-biological concept of MORALITY is simply nonsensical. It is a convenient, yet wholly illogical mental loop. It goes like this: (A) I assume the material world is all there is, (B) Evolution explains the development of life in the material world, (C) Human beings have a sense of morality, (**D**) And since I believe human beings are SOLELY biological creatures, and since they have a sense of morality, THEREFORE “MORALITY” MUST HAVE ITS ROOTS IN BIOLOGY AND EVOLUTION–ergo, I’ll just SAY morality comes about from evolution, because it just must.
Sorry, that doesn’t make sense.
That’s because you are in denial or simply do not understand evolution.
Yet after going to such great lengths to show how Genesis and its central character, Yahweh is ANE myth you are still insisting that ultimately Yahweh and his human incarnation Jesus of Nazareth is responsible. And somehow you think this makes perfect sense?
You really are having trouble with evolution. Just how many hoops are you going to force poor old make-believe Yahweh to jump through before you recognise how irrational your belief is?
Yes, it doesn’t make sense because I am in denial or do not understand evolution. haha….
You are claiming MORALITY and a MORAL SENSE is a product of EVOLUTION. Evolution is about BIOLOGY. How is a moral sense biological? You cannot answer that because you haven’t thought through any of this. You’re just repeating something you’ve read, like a parrot.
I clearly know what biology and evolution are. You are the one flying off into fairyland on a ship of irrationality. lol…
Yes, and these are the findings of numerous studies.
How many links are you prepared to read?
I can provide lots.
However, as you do seem in denial of the evolutionary explanation, perhaps you could provide a couple of links that demonstrate with evidence how humans developed morality?
You are the one claiming a moral sense is rooted in biology. And, as always, you fail to provide any coherent explanation. If you make a claim, back it up with EVIDENCE. Not just assertions and snide remarks.
Evidence? Sure … Once again, how many links must I provide ?
On the face of it, we have only two options. Evolution or Yahweh.
If you can think of another option I’d be interested to hear it.
You need to take some time to do some deeper-level thinking. But please, stop wasting my time.
There are a number of philosophical approaches to this question.
Koukl, for example, attempts to take down human morality being grounded in our evolution, but the paper I read he cleverly avoids inserting Yahweh into the frame of reference.
So I am offering you the opportunity to fill in the blanks that Koukl ( and I’m sure others) did not address.
You have yet to provide any coherent argument or evidence that morality is rooted in biology. Until you can do that, I will assume you are full of crap. Sorry…
I already provided one link and an excerpt.
I’ve offered lots more, all scientifically grounded.
What else do you want?
If you are going to keep throwing up strawmen and hide behind ”Yahweh Did It!” then at least offer evidence to support your belief.
Evolution is fact. Human morality must therefore be part of it.
No, you moron. YOU have made the claim that morality is rooted in biological evolution. I know what evolution is and I accept it. You, though, are making a claim that a biological fact is the source of a non-biological moral sense. And you STILL have not provided any evidence.
Your last statement is the height of utter stupidity. It is circular logic rooted in your own baseless assumptions.
Okay, perhaps I am wrong, I am a moron and have failed to understand the various articles and papers I have read. Quite possible, I suppose. Thank goodness ignorance is curable.
Therefore, if you accept evolution as you claim from what source do you consider human morality is derived?
I did not bring up that topic. YOU DID. And, as of yet, you still have not provided one iota of evidence or logical argument to back up your assertion.
I just acknowledged I could well be in error. Now I’m simply asking you to provide the alternate source of human morality. Are you now going to balk?
No, you have yet to provide ANY EVIDENCE for your assertion. I’m not the one making any assertions about morality. YOU ARE. I don’t have to provide evidence or an alternate theory about a topic I did not bring up or assert. The onus is ON YOU to back up YOUR ASSERTION.
But you can’t and you won’t.
Now who’s being a moron? And who’s talking about obligation?
I have acknowledged my understanding of the topic may well be flawed and thus my assertion also.
Now I am asking you plainly where do you consider humans derive their morality?
“Now who’s being a moron?”
You, obviously. You’ve shown yourself to be a fraud and a troll.
I am under no obligation to pander to your demands for evidence to an assertion I never made or brought up.
Slink away.
You have openly rejected my initisl assertion that morality had its basis in evolution.
I have admitted my understanding could well be wrong.
So where does this leave us?
Yes, there is no obligation for you to provide an alternate theory, but you surely must have one otherwise it would be ridiculous of you to be so openly hostile and dismissive of the assertion morality is part of human evolution.
So, what’s your theory on how we became moral creatures?
I don’t “have a theory.” I’m just stating a fact: Human beings have a sense of morality, and dogs, mice, and apple trees do not.
Well, yes.I agree as well.
Even the possibly incorrect view that humans derived morality via evolution acknowledges this does not include mice etc.
So you scoff at the evolution/ morality theory and although I have not asked you to provide any evidence to the contrary are you truly saying you have no alternate theory / belief?
Am I understanding you correctly on this point?
Yes, I don’t postulate a theory as to “where morality came from” or “how morality came about.” I am only stating the fact that human beings are unique in nature, in that they do, in fact, have a sense of morality.
So would it be fair to say that you do NOT hold with the belief that our morality derives from Yahweh/ Jesus of Nazareth ( ‘God’)?
Is this correct?
ARK: It is all nonsense and the god in question, the Canaanite war god, Yahweh, is not only revolting, a genocidal, meglomaniacal monster, but is also a work of fiction, a narrative construct .
LEE: If the Bible–including Genesis–is fiction, why do you care if it’s “genocidal” or not? The Galactic Empire was genocidal when Tarkin ordered the first Death Star to destroy Alderaan, but I don’t hear you complaining about that.
Besides which, if God doesn’t exist, there’s no Moral Law, thus I’m puzzled as to why atheists always play the Moral Outrage Card when it comes to the Old Testament depictions of God. They don’t believe in any kind of Objective Moral Standard, but then insist that the God they don’t believe in must adhere to the Objective Moral Standard they also don’t believe in. Is this logical? It doesn’t take a Vulcan philosopher to see that it isn’t.
If there’s no Moral Law, “genocide” isn’t good or bad, it just “is.” Some people/societies have thought it was good, others bad. But so what? Absent a Moral Law you can’t really call ANY behavior “good” or “evil,” the best you can do is to say that YOU, personally, don’t like said behavior. But again–so what? I don’t like broccoli. But I can’t really call it “evil,” can I?
So if there’s no Moral Standard by which to judge morality that lets God off the hook for the mythical flood. IF you wish to be logically consistent in your atheism.
Pax.
Lee.
While both the bible and Star Wars are by and large works of fiction as far as I am aware there is not a Galactic Empire Holy book where ignorant arseholes claim it is real history and indoctrinate it into children, or grown men who use the Galactic Empire to deem all non believers sinners in need of salvation.
To the Empire’s credit there are no known cases of burning non believers at the stake.
Although one thing the Empire has in common woth Christianity; both have been known to use (the ) force.
LOL… what a load of indoctrinated faith-based bollocks!
The rest of your comment is simply absurd, ignorant drivel.
If you want to understand morality and ethics study evolution and stop behaving like an arse.
What moral code comes from evolution?
If you have to ask then one can conclude you may have a limited understanding of evolution?
Might I suggest you pop over to Jerry Coyne’s blog?
This would be an excellent place to start.
Next question: Why do you NEVER directly answer any question. You’ve suggested that evolution is a source of morality. How so? Why are you afraid to answer that question, or any question, for that matter?
Because the answer is a waste of typing as you are simply being disingenious.
As a rule I don’t mind pandering to your pedantic questions, but right now it’s late and I’ve had a busy day. and tomorrow looks like it will be more of the same.
So, if you want to behave like a twit and ask pointless questions then tonight I’m not your man.
Go see if Jerry will entertain your nonsense.
Next …
But this is and has been you M.O. for the past 2-3 years. You get on here, throw out the exact same talking points and criticisms on your pet issues, regardless of what the original post is.
I spend countless attempts to try and answer your questions. And, if you remember, I even took the time to write a 12-part series on Iain Provan’s book, “The Bible as History,” in response to some of your questions.
Simply put, I’ve bent over backwards trying to answer your questions, and your predictable response has been ratcheting up you petty remarks.
And then when I ask you to explain something you claim, you come back with essentially, “Piss off, I will not condescend to respond to you religious morons!”
Okay, but you’re not fooling anyone. That’s not rational, adult behavior.
On second thoughts, rather than irritate the crap out of Jerry, who probably has better things to do than entertain silly questions type: ‘Did morality develop through evolution’ in the Google search bar. Or whichever search engine you use
You know what a search bar is , yes?
There aren’t that many big words so you should cope just fine. I doubt there is mention of your god though.
The fact that you consistently respond to legitimate questions with ever-devolving petty and childish quips tells me a lot about what kind of person you are. No need for me to articulate what you are making obvious to the world.
That you respond in this manner perfectly illustrates you are simply being disingenious with your asinine questions.
If you are content with worshipping Yahweh and consider a man made god the be all and end all then so be it.
You take Ken Ham to task and yet have the audacity to question me about morality and evolution!
SMH.
The only disingenuous person in this entire thread is you. It borders on narcissism. You project your own disingenuous narcissism on others. It is clearly a defense mechanism.
I think you simply can’t face up to the fact you have been led by the nose over belief in Yahweh, and, like so many Christians, to hide the excruciating feelings of embarassment, hurt, and of having been duped, feel compelled to defend your belief tooth and nail because you believe it’s all you have to cling to.
Perhaps for the sake of your overall health and well being you need to chat with other former Christians, especially professional theologians,pastors etc who had to deal with similar circumstances and find out how they coped. Especially if there are financial implications involved.
I think it is clear you are a very bitter and lonely man. Your obsessive trolling of my blog is really sad. Having a dialogue and conversation includes asking questions, respecting those who give their answers to your questions, and then having the maturity and decency to try to explain your own answers when questions are posed to you.
You don’t do that, though, EVER. Why? Because you clearly are an immature troll.
*Smile* Wife,kids,pets,friends,busy business,staff to organise / look after. So, me bitter and lonely? Er ….no!
But thank you for your concern.
Now I really must turn in.
I have an early start and it’s already past midnight.
Please consider my suggestion regarding having a chat to former professional clergy. I think it would help you a lot.
T’ra
ARK: LOL… what a load of indoctrinated faith-based bollocks!
The rest of your comment is simply absurd, ignorant drivel.
If you want to understand morality and ethics study evolution and stop behaving like an arse.
LEE: More dodging. Do I sense a pattern here?
Evolution is all about the survival of the fittest. That would mean, according to naturalistic, unguided, Darwinian evolution, that the Nazis had every right to execute six million Jews. Because evolution says that whoever is smarter, faster, etc. is who will survive. Evolution doesn’t care about “genocide” or “morality,” or whether something is “good” or “evil.”
For example, “evolution” doesn’t care about whether racism is wrong or not. “Evolution” doesn’t care about fairness or equality or anybody’s “rights.” Because under “evolution” there ARE NO “rights.” Evolution doesn’t care that the antelope’s rights are being violated when the lion eats it (neither does the lion!)
So our evolutionary programming for survival isn’t morality. Morality is what tells me I should ignore my own survival instincts to help a guy who’s drowning. THAT’S Morality.
Morality is my conscience telling me it is objectively wrong of me to cheat on a test.
Nor can you argue that morality is whatever is generally accepted by society. Because then you have to ask, who’s society? What if you have a person who is at the same a member of two or more different societies with vastly different morality? Which society does this person get his moral standards from?
You ONLY get Real, Objective Morality if there’s an Overarching Moral Law which is bigger than Jews OR Nazis and which both are accountable to. Otherwise you have the moral equivalent of “He said/she said.” The Nazis thought genocide was great. The Jews and Allies didn’t. Neither was right. Neither was wrong. Not in any real objective sense.
Pax.
Lee.
Too tiresome. Boring in fact.
If you wish to claim it all hinges on your god, Yahweh, then please, present evidence for it.
ARK: Too tiresome. Boring in fact.
LEE: Kind of like my conversation with you. By this I take it then that you’re unable to address anything I said above?
ARK: If you wish to claim it all hinges on your god, Yahweh, then please, present evidence for it.
LEE: Been there, done that, above. I’m going to find a six year-old to finish this discussion because you’re obviously out of your depth.
Pax.
Lee.
Out of my depth? Hmmm …. Well, I must say that with you it always feel as though I am treading water.
Anyway a tip for free for you.
To save time looking for a six year old, simply address all your future remarks to a mirror.
I feel confident you won’t be disappointed. Furthermore, if you’re careful how you word your remarks you might find that, while in no way sophisticated, the responses you receive will at least approximate the intellectual level of dialogue you are able to cope with.
To quote Admiral James T. Kirk from *Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan,* “I’m laughing at the ‘superior intellect.'” ; )
Pax.
Lee.
DR. ANDERSON: This post was about the Didache. And look at what you’ve rambled on about. Talk about cognitive dissonance. You have absolutely nothing constructive or even interesting to say about the actual topics of any posts I have ever written.
LEE: That was his MO in the Amazon.com Religion Forums 15 years ago. Back then he seemed to think that if he just kept insulting believers and being snarky nobody would actually notice that, for all his bluster to the contrary, he never once made a rational point about anything. I think back then I told him that trying to have a rational discussion with a six year-old would be easier than having one with him.
He demands evidence; so you post reams of evidence which he just blows off without addressing it and then demands more evidence. Then accuses YOU of “cognitive dissonance.”
At least he’s consistent.
Pax.
Lee.
Amazon .com forums?
Perhaps you need to rethink they comment.
‘that comment’
You used to post in those forums, didn’t you? Or are there two people with the screen name “Arkhenaten”?
Pax.
Lee.
I think you may be mistaken.
Really? You never posted in the Amazon forums? I remember (or thought I did) your screen avatar.
I actually saved a couple of quotes from the Amazon.com Religion Forums made by someone calling himself “Akhenaten” from April 24, 2008 on the subject of Gnostic Christianity. This person even had an avatar of a Pharaoh’s mask:
“Gnostic Christianity is a Way of Life based on the original teachings of Jesus Christ. A gnostic is a person who believes that salvation is gained through the acquisition of divine knowledge or gnosis. Gnostic Christians believe that the knowledge necessary for salvation has been revealed through Jesus Christ. . . . .”
Then on August 12, 2008, that same “Akhenaten” posted this, about Gnostic Christianity:
“Sounds Gnostic yes. [The gospel of] John is Gnostic, there’s a huge eastern influence within their writings as well, since I already believe John to be Gnostic I would be more likely to say that sounds buddhist [sic].
“Anyway, within the actual bible I prefer the gospels of John and Mark.
“As eastern I believe it’s about desire, attachment more than the evils of the world of the flesh. Jesus used a harsher language than Gautam [the Buddha] but Guatam spoke to Kings, Jesus spoke to ‘men of the earth’”
Weird.
Pax.
Lee.
Maybe his was “AKHenaten” and yours is “ARKhenaten”?
Pax.
Lee.
Yes. I. have always used my own variant, Arkenaten. I recently shortened it to Ark as it was easier for people to read and respond to.
Sorry, Lee. As much as I am sure you were gleefully hugging yourself over your discovery you can’t use that thread against me.
However, I have to acknowledge how terrier-like you are in pursuit of material to use to
try to mock me.
And Joel calls me obsessive!
*Smile*
You can award yourself the Ron Wyatt, Christian Idiot of the Day badge for Failed Religious Pursuits.
Wear it with pride.
Ark.
Thanks you, Ark. I needed to laugh.
Actually, I think we need a “Paranoid Skeptic of the Year” award, given to that one skeptic who demonstrates a paranoid mistrust of anything even remotely religious, and who thinks that insulting believers while refusing to answer their questions or in any way address their points somehow scores massive points for atheism.
As a nod to the reality that free will is just a myth this trophy would have a bronze or brass figure of Richard Dawkins, merrily dancing a jig to his DNA on top. The inscription on the plaque itself would have a really profound quote, something like: “Religious People are Dummies.” When you push a button it would play Bruno Mars’ “The Lazy Song.”
Pax.
Lee.
As I mentioned to Joel, I generally try to make an effort to address all questions, but when they are disingenuous and asinine I tend to reply in kind.
I do not have a mistrust of everything religious. This is like saying I mistrust the story of Santa Claus.
I have no belief in supernaturally based religious claims simply because no evidence has ever been presented to demonstrate their veracity,
This has underpinned my approach from the first time I encountered religious people on the internet.
In truth, I simply consider religion to be revolting with no genuine redeeming features that cannot be found within secular humanism.
Over the centuries it has been shown to be indirectly as well as directly responsible for some of the most heinous acts imaginable.
The justification of slavery is a perfect example.
Furthermore, there are any number of former Christians and Muslims for example who will offer verifiable evidence of the very real harmful effects they were subject to.
I know of one person who deconverted a long time ago and is still receiving counselling. No doubt there are many more like her.
The YEC sect ACE (Accelerated Christian Education) is a perfect example of what severe Christian indoctrination does to children.
You should read the testimony of a former student, Jonny Scaramanga. I encountered him several tears ago. He was partly responsible for pushing the UK Government to investigate ACE.
When he eventually broke free ( as he termed it) he went on to write a doctoral thesis on ACE and YEC.
In truth, humans have no need for religion.
Which raises the same question I asked Joel.
Why on earth do you believe?
ARK: As I mentioned to Joel, I generally try to make an effort to address all questions, but when they are disingenuous and asinine I tend to reply in kind.
ARK: I do not have a mistrust of everything religious. This is like saying I mistrust the story of Santa Claus.
I have no belief in supernaturally based religious claims simply because no evidence has ever been presented to demonstrate their veracity,
This has underpinned my approach from the first time I encountered religious people on the internet.
In truth, I simply consider religion to be revolting with no genuine redeeming features that cannot be found within secular humanism.
Over the centuries it has been shown to be indirectly as well as directly responsible for some of the most heinous acts imaginable.
LEE: This is hyperbole. By this logic atheism is just as responsible (if not more so) for the wars we’ve seen (the French Revolution; the Russian Revolution; WWII; the Cold War; Vietnam; etc.) .
The truth is that people like to fight and will use any excuse to do so.
ARK: The justification of slavery is a perfect example.
LEE: Who was it that ended slavery in Great Britain and the US? Evangelical Protestant Christians. And it isn’t as if Anglo-Saxon Protestant European society was the first society to ever practice slavery: the Greeks and Romans did it; the Aztecs did it; the Cherokee, Chickasaw and Choctaw did it; various African tribes did it; the Muslimds did it; the Chinese did it; almost no historical society is immune from the taint of slavery.
But atheists never get morally outraged at the Aztecs for practicing slavery.
ARK: Furthermore, there are any number of former Christians and Muslims for example who will offer verifiable evidence of the very real harmful effects they were subject to.
LEE: And I can point to even more “cradle Christians” with the exact OPPOSITE story. Unfortunately abuse is not endemic to religion. Any member of any group could potentially be abused by said group.
Just because some kids are abused by their parents does that mean ALL parents abuse their kids? Of course not!
ARK: I know of one person who deconverted a long time ago and is still receiving counselling. No doubt there are many more like her.
LEE: Again, I can point to just as many, if not more people who had the opposite experience.
ARK: The YEC sect ACE (Accelerated Christian Education) is a perfect example of what severe Christian indoctrination does to children.
LEE: They don’t speak for all Christians.
And don’t forget that it was the Medieval Catholic Church which founded the first universities in Western Europe in the 11th century.
Because, again, Christianity has NEVER asked people to check their brains before they sign up.
ARK: You should read the testimony of a former student, Jonny Scaramanga. I encountered him several tears ago. He was partly responsible for pushing the UK Government to investigate ACE.
When he eventually broke free ( as he termed it) he went on to write a doctoral thesis on ACE and YEC.
In truth, humans have no need for religion.
LEE: Ark, over the past 25 years I have read lots of conversion and deconversion stories. None of them, terrible as some of them are, have been grounds for me to abandon my faith.
I’ll save your last question for below.
Pax.
Lee.
Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. Period.
Great! So a group of Christians finally developed a conscience, Before this happened the US (for example) had a civil war suffering the largest loss of American life of any war previous or future. And while economics was a part, slavery – the Christian right to own another (sub) human being – underpinned it.
So slavery was eventually abolished to be replaced with legalised segregation, and all its associated sickening racism much like Apartheid in my country. I am sure all the ”coloureds” are eternally grateful. Whoopee-do!
Really? You are going to resort to whining to defend your precious Christianity?
I have never encountered this angle about atheists and their lack of moral outrage over Aztecs.
I remember feeling somewhat nauseated after reading about their practice of human sacrifice in a book I received one xmas as a kid. Even had illustrations. Gruesome.
Personally I consider all forms of slavery anathema.
Absolutely correct.
Would you lie to your children and tell them Yahweh /Jesus will send them to Hell if they are naughty or don’t believe? Probably not. But many Christian parents do/have done. And this is what Jesus ”said” ( although he used the word Gehenna.)
Agreed. So please tell me what is the correct form of Christianity? And while you are at it explain why there are over 30,000 denominations/sects and why various branches of the Christian faith have been slaughtering one another for around 1500 years? And this includes two world wars.
Infant and cultural Indoctrination ensures this is not usually a problem. Besides, In Ye Olden Dayes one was likely to end up in a right pickle if one suggested Church doctrine was in error. Maybe even end up on a bonfire.
If you remember ‘The Troubles’ as they were known, in Northern Ireland you might reconsider your statement about checking brains …..
I reiterate; Infant and cultural Indoctrination ensures this is not usually a problem. Obviously that indoctrination has had a greater lasting effect in your case.
Calling it a day. Lots of work stuff tomorrow. Early start.
T’ra.
ARK: Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. Period.
LEE: And that lack of belief NEVER has consequences?
What’s the first thing the Bolsheviks did after the Russian Revolution? Tear down the the churches.
What’s the first thing the French did in the French Revolution? Kill Roman Catholics, esp. religious.
ARK: Great! So a group of Christians finally developed a conscience, Before this happened the US (for example) had a civil war suffering the largest loss of American life of any war previous or future. And while economics was a part, slavery – the Christian right to own another (sub) human being – underpinned it.
So slavery was eventually abolished to be replaced with legalised segregation, and all its associated sickening racism much like Apartheid in my country. I am sure all the ”coloureds” are eternally grateful. Whoopee-do!
LEE: Christians have always had a conscience. Read up on early Christian history and you’ll notice that one of the main reasons Christians constituted approx. 10% of the population by 311 AD is because Christianity elevated the status of women and children and the poor. It argued that abandoning unwanted children (esp. girls) to the elements to die was murder; it argued that women weren’t just the sex objects of men; and it argued that the gladiatorial games were immoral.
ARK: Really? You are going to resort to whining to defend your precious Christianity?
LEE: Not “whining,” just stating the truth. Atheists NEVER hold any people but Christians accountable for slavery, genocide, etc.
ARK: I have never encountered this angle about atheists and their lack of moral outrage over Aztecs.
LEE: Because you’re blind to your own presuppositions and too busy throwing stones at Christians.
ARK: I remember feeling somewhat nauseated after reading about their practice of human sacrifice in a book I received one xmas as a kid. Even had illustrations. Gruesome.
Personally I consider all forms of slavery anathema.
LEE: So do Christians.
ARK: Absolutely correct.
Would you lie to your children and tell them Yahweh /Jesus will send them to Hell if they are naughty or don’t believe? Probably not. But many Christian parents do/have done. And this is what Jesus ”said” ( although he used the word Gehenna.)
LEE: This is not exactly what Jesus said or meant. If you would actually study AUTHENTIC Christianity instead of this ridiculous caricature that almost no Christians really adhere anymore to you would be much better served.
ARK: Agreed. So please tell me what is the correct form of Christianity? And while you are at it explain why there are over 30,000 denominations/sects and why various branches of the Christian faith have been slaughtering one another for around 1500 years? And this includes two world wars.
LEE: When is the last time you actually a Catholic Christian kill a Protestant? Or a Mormon kill a Seventh Day Adventist? Me, I personally haven’t seen any Southern Baptists flying planes into the Vatican lately. I’m betting neither have you.
ARK: Infant and cultural Indoctrination ensures this is not usually a problem. Besides, In Ye Olden Dayes one was likely to end up in a right pickle if one suggested Church doctrine was in error. Maybe even end up on a bonfire.
LEE: This is a very simplistic misunderstanding of the Medieval Church and heresy. But I’ve noticed you aren’t actually interested in facts, just in your caricature.
ARK: If you remember ‘The Troubles’ as they were known, in Northern Ireland you might reconsider your statement about checking brains …..
LEE: The Troubles were largely political and nationalistic. They may have originated out of Catholic/Protestant issues (though not totally) but have long since ceased to be religiously-motivated.
ARK: I reiterate; Infant and cultural Indoctrination ensures this is not usually a problem. Obviously that indoctrination has had a greater lasting effect in your case.
LEE: I don’t really care much what you say. I’m telling you my case was/is different. Why is it so hard for you to understand that 30 years ago I began reading and studying to see whether my faith could withstand a rigorous intellectual scrutiny? I read books by John S. Spong, Robert Funk, Marcus Borg, Bertrand Russell, JD Crossan, David Hume, Thomas Jefferson, et. al. I’ve read Freud, Nietzsche, Thomas Nagel, Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne and Bart Ehrman.
I DO NOT FIND THEIR ARGUMENTS COMPELLING!!!
So please don’t call me “indoctrinated.” Perhaps you believe that if you say it enough times it will become true.
Talk about “cognitive dissonance!”
Pax.
Lee.
That you don’t find their arguments compelling is simply testament to how much you succumbed to indoctrination, cultural or otherwise.
This is a fact, and all religions rely on it.
After all, they can’t ALL be right, now can they, Lee!
But they can all most certainly be wrong!
If your religious beliefs had evidence to support the supernatural claims that are the foundation of Christianity you would not have to rely on faith and these conversations would not likely take place.
Sorry, you are just full of crap. The FACT is that you disdain any Christian who dares disagree with you. If a Christian tells you, “I’ve read opposing arguments and do not find them logically or rationally convincing,” you refuse to respect that. Instead, you have the impulse to demean them and essentially tell them, “No, that’s not right. The reason why you say that is because you are an indoctrinated moron.”
And that attitude says a lot more about you than anyone else.
Oh, I accept they do not find the arguments compelling.
But then you don’ t find Muslim arguments compelling either, and Muslims don’t find your arguments compelling …and Hindus don’t find your arguments compelling and you don’t find Ken Ham’s arguments compelling and so you wrote a book about it …. and so it goes.
Now, why don’t you find Ham’s arguments compelling?
Well, that’s fairly straightforward – because they do not comport with known reality. The reality you and I rely on every day.
And this is why non religious people do not find ANY arguments for faith-based religions compelling – their claims do not comport with known reality.
So the reason Lee does not find the arguments of Coyne etc compelling is because they do not include supernatural claims that are part of his particular religious faith- based beliefs.
No, Coyne’s arguments regarding religion, and specifically Christianity, are just ignorant, ill-informed, and just plain dumb.
Oh, well,I was referring to his scientific work.
I don’t think Lee was specific in his criticism of Coyne and the others,or perhaps I missed it?
That being said it does not address the fact supernaturalism as is present in Christianity ( and other religions) does not comport with known reality.
For this reason among other religio specific ones you felt compelled to take Ken Ham to task yet are unable to draw similar parallels with your own supernatural beliefs.
Again, I would venture the reason is indoctrination. Cultural mostly.
But if you can offer another reason, then please state it.
I take Ken Ham to task because his scientific claims are demonstrably false and his biblical interpretation/exegesis is also demonstrably false.
Exactly! His claims are false.They do not comport with known reality.
And neither does the claimed resurrection of the bible character Jesus of Nazareth.
There is an excellent interview with Steve Paiken on YouTube about Coyne’s book Fact v Faith.
Covers most of your objections.
By the way,do you acknowledge that Yahweh ( ‘God’) is not responsible for human morality? This was left hanging a bit so I just wanted to clear it up.
Most of my objections? I hardly said anything specific about Coyne. As it turns out, I wrote a 12-or-13-part series on “Faith vs. Fact.” If you want my in depth critique of him, read those. Here’s the first post.
http://www.joeledmundanderson.com/faith-vs-fact-by-jerry-coyne-an-extended-book-analysis-part-1/
I didn’t say “God wasn’t responsible for human morality.” There are a host of underlying issues regarding morality that, quite frankly, most people don’t bother to consider. I’m not interested in trying to “explain where it came from.” I’m only interested in pointing out that morality is something unique to human beings. And since morality is a non-material thing that all human beings share to varying degrees, that, right there, points to something we can consider to be “non-material reality.” And that points to the existence of God.
So, in essence you are claiming Yahweh is responsible for human morality.
As there is no evidence for Yahweh then one can only conclude that your belief is simply a faith claim.
Neurologists / biologists and other relevant scientists in this field who have studied this will no doubt disagree with your view.
I am saying there is something wholly unique about human beings that sets them apart from everything else in the natural world–a moral sense/sense of morality. And that “thing” is most definitely NOT a “material thing.” And trying to claim that biological evolution explains human morality is a faith claim in and of itself–and it is a nonsensical claim to boot.
In any case, if you are going to claim that all that exists is materiality, and that there is no non-material reality (i.e. supernatural), then you are left with quite a dilemma, because you have already acknowledged that there IS SOMETHING all human beings share that ISN’T material–a moral sense. Where does that come from? You can try to point to biological evolution to explain it, but that is nonsensical on its face. You can’t point to a biological theory to explain a non-biological reality. If you are honest, you are forced to conclude that there is, in fact, the existence of a non-material reality.
As I wrote. Neurologists and biologists and other relevant scientists will disagree with your take regarding what morality is. And at least they now have evidence that support their findings.
But this is not the core question, which is straightforward: Did human morality arise through evolution?
If not then what are the alternatives?
You say morality points to Yahweh.
First provide evidence of Yahweh then we might be able to consider your proposal
And please don’t immediately come back and call me a moron or make a scathing remark about the science.
Again, I highly doubt you really know what you are claiming.
No, a biological theory cannot account for the existence of a non-biological thing.
Morality is evidence for the existence of God. Human beings are biological creatures that share their biology with everything else in the biological world. Yet this sense of morality is wholly unique to human beings–it does not have its origin in biology. Therefore, the existence of this sense of morality that all human beings share–this non-material reality–points to the existence of something or someone outside the material world that is pressing upon us in this moral way, here in the material world. That’s as far as morality points–to the existence of a “something” outside the material world that affects us through morality in the material world. We are nowhere near being able to extrapolate what or who that “something” is based on this recognition concerning our moral sense. That’s as far as it can take us.
You are asking to prove the existence of a SPECIFIC deity BEFORE you will acknowledge the possibility of any kind of deity–talk about putting the cart before the horse.
Evolution is fact. Therefore morality has to arise in humans as a result of evolution.Some aspects are regarded as innate others are learned.
Research it. There are numerous scientific papers and books.
The only other alternative as far as this dialogue is concerned is we must therefore attribute morality to Yahweh.
On the face of it this is as plausible as saying Shiva gave us morals. Simply preposterous.
If you cannot provide evidence of a deity let alone your god, Yahweh, to support your claim then you have failed to even make a cogent argument.
Nothing else is relevant.
“Evolution is fact. Therefore morality has to arise in humans as a result of evolution.”
Can you seriously NOT SEE your own presuppositional bias in that statement? “Evolution is a fact. Therefore, because of my personal indoctrination and presuppositional bias, when I am faced with something in the material world that is obviously not material, like morality, I’m going to say it comes from evolution anyway, because I have already determined that the material world is all that exists! Therefore, I will say with a straight face, ‘This non-material, non-biological reality can be explained by a biological theory!'” –My goodness, that is simply delusional thinking. Perhaps the poster child of cognitive dissonance.
And again, the Shiva remark–you are putting the cart before the horse. You are purposely being nonsensical in order to deflect from the fact that your proposal (that I am positive you have not really researched, but rather are just repeating like a parrot) is utterly absurd.
And I HAVE made a cogent argument, and you are too indoctrinated in your own anti-supernatural cult-like thinking to realize it.
Seriously, I’m pretty sure I understand evolution a whole lot more than you do. And I’ve read Coyne’s attempt to argue that morality can be explained by evolution, as well as Dawkins’ attempt and Sam Harris’ attempt–they are smoke and mirrors that are completely unconvincing to anyone thinking rationally.
I have no bias against supernaturalism.There is no evidence of supernaturalism.
Ergo no evidence of your god, Yahweh
Evolution is all we have evidence for. It is fact. Period .
Now, start again and try to formulate a rational response.
You can begin by researching neurological mapping and it’s relationship with morality.
Come back when you’ve done a bit if reading.
“I have no bias against supernaturalism.” -hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!
You are just a little gerbil mind, running round and round on your gerbil wheel, aren’t you?
You are completely incapable of engaging in rational dialogue.
And I don’t need to “come back”–this is my freaking blog. You can “come back” when you have something worthwhile to say. Until then, you are just wasting my time.
I have no more bias against supernaturalism than I do against Santa … Or your god,Yahweh
There is NO evidence for any of the above.
I DO have a bias against PEOPLE who claim otherwise and make unfounded truth claims.
Neurological mapping.
Go read up on it and how scientists link it with aspects of morality.
Then try to work out how we developed from small groups of Savannah dwelling hominids to the large brained,upright walking humans we are.
Contemplate the process that required us to cooperate as a species to develop beyond those small groups.
Think about empathy, for one thing.
Now the big question:
At what point in this entire process does your god, Yahweh feature?
“I have no more bias against supernaturalism than I do against Santa”–it is utterly amazing to me that you cannot see how that very comment reveals your bias. It’s like a knee jerk reaction with you. To IMMEDIATELY belittle any notion of the supernatural with “Santa Claus” reveals that you ARE, in fact, so biased that you can’t even see it. It’s immediate, casual dismissal and mockery–quite a nice way to avoid any intellectual curiosity or honest investigation.
Again, all you can do is parrot things of which you know nothing about. Your argumentation is operating at such an elementary level, it rises to nothing more than ignorant caricatures. Natural sciences like biology can show where animal instincts come from and how they develop. Instincts are not the same thing as morality. We don’t see a lion kill an antelope and think it has done anything “wrong.” We might see a lion kill another lion–we still don’t accuse it of doing something “immoral.” We say, “That’s what animals do.” Yet, when a human being kills another human being in cold blood, or sleeps with another man’s wife, we say that’s immoral. WHY IS THAT? If human beings are nothing more than a different species of biological animal, then there is NO REASON to even bring “morality” into the picture. Yet it IS THERE ALL THE TIME in regard to human beings, and not with any other animals.
And yet you have the parrot-like audacity to just repeat, “It’s evolution that accounts for morality.” Again, get off your gerbil wheel of illogical philosophical naturalism and try to think rationally.
I specifically pointed out the areas you need to research to apprise yourself of what scientists have discovered regarding neurology and morality You didn’t even bother to address this .
You accuse me of mockery and dismissal yet call me a moron and won’t even bother to read a scientific paper to educate yourself.
I explain where I have bias in this area – toward individuals who champion supernaturalism without having the integrity to provide a single piece of evidence yet you STILL accuse me of bias towards the things rather than people.
All human traits begin with evolution and have developed from this point, be they biological, or cultural.There is no evidence of anything else.
Your god nor any deity features anywhere in this evolutionary development other than as a cultural expression.
We are animals, a product of evolution and we continue to evolve. And this includes our morality.
It is unfortunate you refuse to acknowledge this fact.
I can imagine how frustrated you got regarding that fool Ken Ham to the point you decided to write a book.
I have no literary inclinations in this regard and scientists have already covered the area of evolution and morality in far greater depth than I could possibly do, and this includes evidence.
If you haven’t seen this then you really should take the time to watch.
https://youtu.be/sazo1J4Zsj4
Thank you. I’ve watched it. All I’ll say that if you are convinced by that nonsensical drivel, there is no sense in talking with you. Coyne might know evolutionary theory, but his take on Christianity and the Bible is so dreadfully idiotic–mind-numbingly idiotic. Take the time to read my book analysis series on Coyne’s book.
http://www.joeledmundanderson.com/faith-vs-fact-by-jerry-coyne-an-extended-book-analysis-part-1/
http://www.joeledmundanderson.com/faith-vs-fact-by-jerry-coyne-an-extended-book-analysis-part-2-whats-the-problem-galileo-and-john-scopes/
http://www.joeledmundanderson.com/faith-vs-fact-by-jerry-coyne-an-extended-book-analysis-part-3-liberals-accommodationists-the-negation-of-the-metaphysical-i-and-a-whole-lot-of-yecist-tactics/
http://www.joeledmundanderson.com/faith-vs-fact-by-jerry-coyne-an-extended-book-analysis-part-4-methods-assumptions-and-a-whole-bunch-of-literary-ignorance/
http://www.joeledmundanderson.com/faith-vs-fact-by-jerry-coyne-an-extended-book-analysis-part-5-coyne-takes-on-aquinas-faith-and-tertullian-and-gets-everything-wrong/
http://www.joeledmundanderson.com/faith-vs-fact-by-jerry-coyne-an-extended-book-analysis-part-6-finishing-up-chapter-2-religious-conflation-and-philosophical-naturalism/
http://www.joeledmundanderson.com/faith-vs-fact-by-jerry-coyne-an-extended-book-analysis-part-7-syncretistic-accommodationists-are-bad-says-both-coyne-and-ham/
http://www.joeledmundanderson.com/faith-vs-fact-by-jerry-coyne-an-extended-book-analysis-part-8-what-would-convince-coyne-of-christianity-and-why-he-hates-theistic-evolution/
http://www.joeledmundanderson.com/faith-vs-fact-by-jerry-coyne-an-extended-book-analysis-part-9-morality-and-other-ways-of-knowing-not-so-says-coyne/
http://www.joeledmundanderson.com/faith-vs-fact-by-jerry-coyne-part-10-scientism-what-a-canard-and-yes-science-really-can-disprove-god-or-so-coyne-says/
http://www.joeledmundanderson.com/faith-vs-fact-by-jerry-coyne-an-extended-book-analysis-part-11-how-coyne-misses-basic-historical-facts-and-instead-appeals-to-the-jesus-mythicist-richard-carrier/
http://www.joeledmundanderson.com/faith-vs-fact-by-jerry-coyne-an-extended-book-analysis-part-12-coynes-part-in-the-culture-war/
http://www.joeledmundanderson.com/faith-vs-fact-by-jerry-coyne-an-extended-book-analysis-part-13-this-is-the-end-if-i-were-an-atheist/
Yes, he does. It is fact.
His analysis of science and religion are spot on and he showed evidence to demonstrate this fact.
You might not LIKE his take on religion but nothing he said was drivel, even though you may not agree with the evidence, and he covered this as well.
He mentioned the Templeton Foundation Prayer experiment example which I have always considered a Silver Bullet where the utter failure to demonstrate the efficacy of prayer is concerned.
Yet Christians STILL find a way to brush this off!
I will read your review, Joel, but it’ll take time.
However, if you have evidence that refutes any of the claims he made in the lecture /presentation then perhaps you could provide a brief synopsis here?
He’s a philosophical moron. No, it isn’t a matter of me “not liking” his take on religion. I know more than he does on the topic, and specifically about Christianity and Biblical Studies–and I can conclusively say he proves himself an imbecile on those topics.
Case in point–the so-called “silver bullet” you admire. The very premise is based on an absurd caricature of what prayer even is. You’ve taken the “version” of prayer spouted by televangelist con-men and have stupidly assumed that THEIR CON is what the Christian notion of prayer actually is.
Coyne’s entire lecture is too horrible to even start to pick apart. I wrote 13 posts on his book, of which his lecture is based. The entire thing was infantile. It didn’t offend me “as a Christian.” It offended me as a rational human being. Yes, I can’t stress this enough–I found it utterly laughable and horrible. The intellectual equivalent of him coming out on stage and defecating in front of everyone. Not impressive AT ALL. lol…
There you go with the moron insult again. He is a scientist and he demonstrated with evidence the reasons why the US is still stuck in ‘god belief’.
The Templeton Prayer Experiment was the largest of its kind and was an abject failure.
‘Whosoever asks in my name etc etc ad nauseum illustrates perfectly that your god is a fraud … or at least those who claim he espoused such garbage are frauds.
I can’t help it if the typical US Christian is portrayed as a hare-brained evangelist who punctuates every sentence with y’all and thank you Jesus.
That is the fault of Christians!
You can’t agree on what you believe or what is the right sect, so don’t get your underpants in a knot when you are depicted as blinkered, close-minded hicks. Have a word with your Publicity department!
And remember, you believe the character Jesus of Nazareth rose bodily from the tomb, so when it comes to idiotic supernatural beliefs and religious caricatures you cling to the real doozy.
Coyne took down Gould, Collins and every claim that religion and science are compatible. He even told you the name for those who claim they are compatible – Accommodationists.
That you resort such puerility in this latest comment rather than offer a shred of evidence to refute Coyne’s presentation tells me his observations are spot on.
(1) No, when it comes to philosophy, he’s a moron, and he’s putting it on full display.
(2) Okay, you are choosing to ride with the idiotic misrepresentation of prayer put forth by the likes of Kenneth Copeland and Benny Hinn–have at it.
(3) More throwing out stereotypes for the purpose of ridicule.
(4) Yes, I do believe Jesus rose physically from the dead.
(5) Coyne didn’t take down anyone. He threw out caricatures and really pathetic arguments that amount to nothing more than infantile confirmation bias.
(6) If someone is a flatulating butthead, it’s best to just cut to the chase. Again, if you are convinced by such nonsensical drivel, that’s on you. When you (and he) don’t understand the thing your ridiculing, it just shows an incredible amount of intellectual laziness on your part. I know what I’m talking about when it comes to critiquing the New Atheist movement. I’ve actually taken the time to read their books and do extensive reviews of them. Coyne’s arguments are weak, oversimplistic drivel aimed at insipid, infantile caricatures of “religion.” He’s too stupid to even realize that there are vast differences between the claims and aims of the various religions. To him and his uncritical “critique” of “religion,” there just “all the same!” Sorry, anyone who says that is a complete idiot, pure and simple.
You really have some serious issue on full display here, don’t you?
Let me refresh for you. Irrespective of whether you despise his approach, the evidence Coyne presented is solid.
He demonstrated why Gould was wrong, why the HGP showed Adam and Eve is nonsense and this included Original Sin, which dismisses the view of Augustine and Aquinas.
And he showed how the likes of Collins deals with the evidence. Basically by not dealing with it. Accommodationism.
The science is solid. The evidence irrefutable.
Evolution is fact.
Religion cannot offer a single piece of evidence to demonstrate otherwise.
And neither can you.
And this is the reason why everything else you espouse is likely to be considered suspect.
There is no evidence for supernaturalism.
No, it isn’t. All he is proven is that there are some Christians who are opposed to evolution. His fundamental thesis that “evolution and atheism are best friends” and that “evolution and ‘religion’ are incompatible” is actually refuted by his admission that there are many CHRISTIANS who are scientists and who accept evolution. GIVEN THAT EVIDENCE that contradicts his argument, he then DISMISSES IT by essentially saying, “Well, THOSE Christians are just suffering from cognitive dissonance.” Sorry, that is a load of crap.
Coyne (and you) have no clue about issues regarding Adam and Eve and “original sin.” You are throwing up a 3rd grade understanding of those things as an object of your ridicule and are saying, “See? The ‘evidence’ shows that 3rd grade view to be false!” Congratulations.
Yes, evolution is a fact. And yes, scientists like Collins and Miller say it’s a fact. They’re not trying to show that “religion” refutes it. What are you smoking?
You clearly don’t even have any clear idea what you even mean by “supernaturalism.” I remember asking you last year to spell out what kind of evidence you’d accept for Jesus’ resurrection, and you spent weeks refusing to answer the question. I don’t think you ever did. You, like so many others, are just parroting the really bad arguments Coyne and his gang are throwing out there without every taking the time to critically examine them. You simply repeat the words but clearly don’t really understand them.
They and you only accept evolution with provisos – Francis Collins and his fellow believers at bio logos for example – These provisos he listed and then gave you the term – Accommodationism.
More condescension.
Feel free to write a single paragraph explanation.
I understand supernaturalism for what it is, or rather what it isn’t
It is pathetic you asking what sort of evidence I would accept when there is NO EVIDENCE of supernaturalism, and no evidence of the resurrection of the character Jesus of Nazareth – none whatsoever – no matter how you wish to describe it.
In context you are being disingenuous for we both know what we mean.
God Did IT.
And for this there is no evidence, and never has been.
Your continual condescension is merely a defensive tactic to hide the fact you are dancing on quicksand.
You don’t like Coyne or the New Atheists. I get it.
You think they caricature Christianity and you consider you have the ‘Right Belief’.
Well, sorry to burst your bubble. Catholics disagree, so do the vast majority of US Christians and every one of an evangelical persuasion.
Coyne made his point.
And the evidence he presented supports this and demonstrates why.
Provide evidence that your god rose from the dead and is in any way responsible for evolution and you might have a case.
Until then, you might as well be are having a tantrum over flying broomsticks.
The fact that you are saying Coyne has produced conclusive “evidence” explains why you are constantly decrying that there is no “evidence” for various things in the Bible. Apparently, what you mean by “evidence” is “incoherent and infantile caricatures that act as my confirmation bias.” Yes, I see the confusion now…lol.
Again, your own particular tantrum over evidence for the resurrection betrays your little gerbil wheel of illogical nonsense. You initially ask, “What’s your evidence for Jesus’ resurrection?” After various attempts to provide you with evidence, you respond with, “No, that’s not evidence! Give me EVIDENCE!” So I ask, “What kind of evidence would you find convincing?” In reply, you say, “There IS NO EVIDENCE FOR IT! There is no evidence for supernaturalism! I don’t care what you say!”
That is, by definition, being disingenuous. You are “asking” for something that you have already decided doesn’t exist. No matter what the reply is, you have already determined that you will dismiss it because YOU ALREADY KNOW there is no evidence.
In any case, as I have shown repeatedly in my thirteen posts on “Faith vs. Fact,” there are a host of illogical consistencies and horrible examples of really bad argumentation in Coyne’s book. You can cling to those arguments as if they are your “atheistic gospel,” but in reality, you are the one clinging to irrational arguments and indoctrination.
Hahahaha….that’s amazing to see cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias engaging is such an exquisite tango!
No matter. If you care to read my complete critique of Coyne’s book, feel free to do so.
I am busy reading it. Up to chapter 3.
Your review is often as simplistic as you accuse him of being about your religion.
It is a lot more condescending though.
Cognitive dissonance would be present if you had evidence to demonstrate your claims and I dismissed them.
Accommodationism is what the likes of Francis Collins – and you by the sound of it – indulge in.
You both believe in evolution but consider Yahweh is in some way involved.
I thought it amusing that many of Collins’ fellow evangelist Christians rejected his invitation regarding science and faith.
Okay, so I don’t misrepresent your view please outlay it here.
Let me help;
In what specific way do you consider Yahweh was / is involved in evolution?
I haven’t rejected any of your evidence as you haven’t presented any. So, I reiterate. Present your evidence.
You don’t think Coyne’s take on Galileo and Scopes was just a bit misleading? You don’t think my larger context of those two events is rather crucial to know?
You claimed Coyne said Galileo was tortured by the inquisition and thrown in prison.
What I have read was that he was held under house arrest after refusing to recant.
I would like you to quote the passage where Coyne asserts Galileo was tortured etc for me as I haven’t read the book.
And please remember I have asked you to lay out specifically what part in evolution you consider Yahweh plays.
You haven’t read the book. Huh…
God doesn’t do a certain “part” of evolution. No one at BioLogos is claiming that. Evolution is the means of creation.
There are many books I haven’t read.
Again please quote the passage Coyne asserts Galileo was tortured by the inquisition and thrown in prison.
Thanks,.
Let me rephrase.
Do you consider Yahweh was / is involved in evolution in any way?
Theistic evolution, for example?
God is involved in evolution like he is involved in photosynthesis and gravity. Get it?
Thank you. You have clarified your belief.
Have you evidence for this belief or is it simply a faith claim?
And the quoted passage, please?
By the way, hopefully you read all 13 posts, but in the final one, I speculate what my views on things would be if I were an atheist. Needless to say, if I were an atheist, I’d be much more of a rational and level-headed atheist than the likes of Coyne or Dawkins. If I was an atheist, I would be utterly embarrassed by them.
As I am sure there are many Christians who are embarrassed by the way you conduct yourself.
I doubt it.
You wrote a damn book about an entire group of them for the gods’ sake!
ARK: That you don’t find their arguments compelling is simply testament to how much you succumbed to indoctrination, cultural or otherwise.
This is a fact, and all religions rely on it.
LEE: Repeatedly saying this won’t magically make it true. In fact, making such ridiculous statements just makes you look increasingly foolish, like you’re out of your depth.
You are apparently not able to actually address any of the arguments I’ve made but instead make ditzy comments like the one above.
That I don’t find the skeptics’ arguments compelling means exactly what it says.
ARK: After all, they can’t ALL be right, now can they, Lee!
But they can all most certainly be wrong!
LEE: No, they most certainly can’t all be right.
ARK: If your religious beliefs had evidence to support the supernatural claims that are the foundation of Christianity you would not have to rely on faith and these conversations would not likely take place.
LEE: You take lots of things on faith, every day of your life.
Pax.
Lee.
Then I suggest you present evidence to demonstrate the veracity of your religious claims. You can start with evidence for Yahweh.
ARK: Which raises the same question I asked Joel.
Why on earth do you believe?
LEE: Because atheistic secular humanism cannot provide the answers to certain basic, fundamental questions of existence, such as Why are we here? Is there a God? Is there a Moral Law?
The idea that science can answer all of our questions is called “Scientism” and is false. Science can’t address any of the questions of the meaning and purpose of life. Science can’t tell us why there’s something rather than nothing. Science can’t tell us whether red is a prettier color than blue or whether Jethro Tull is a better band than Yes. Science can tell me how to kill, but not whether killing is right or wrong.
Atheistic, secular humanism insists than mankind is all there is, that free will is a myth, and death is the end. Yet NO secular humanist I’ve ever met (and I’ve known a few) actually lives as if they believe any of that. They all PRETEND that life has meaning and that there are categories of right/wrong despite the fact that you only get Objective Morality if there’s a God.
For example, if you, as a secular humanist argue that things such as racism, sexism, homophobia, or destroying the environment are morally wrong, on what/by whose authority do you make that assertion? If “right” and “wrong” are subjective, relative, WHO says what’s “right” and what’s “wrong”?
Basically, atheistic secular humanism demands that people live a lie; because to embrace it logically, fully and consistently would push the suicide rate through the roof.
Christianity admits that evil is real and is awful, but also that good is real and beautiful. Christianity tells me what the purpose of life is. It tells me why there’s something rather than nothing. It doesn’t and never has asked me to stop thinking critically.
I could go on but I’ll stop now.
Pax.
Lee.
Oh, religion provides lots of answers, but it has never produced a scrap of evidence to verify a single claim.
Therefore, if you are a child and have been indoctrinated then it is likely going to be difficult to throw off the shackles of these beliefs.
No. Evidence shows that morality is a product of evolution and culture.
Scientism is a term used by Christians such as you as a pejorative.
As far as I am concerned we define our own meaning and purpose. What evidence do you have that tells you otherwise?
Yes are a better band especially after Trevor Rabin joined. That said, my favourite Yes album is still Fragile.
What a very silly and churlish thing to write.
If you want liars look to Christians. Seriously, how many of them do you know that are ‘Christ -like’ in their daily lives?
In this regard, Christians are are some of the worst hypocrites one is likely to encounter.
Except this is exactly what you do. The term is Accommodationism and it’s what people like you employ to prevent cognitive dissonance.
ARK: Lee: The idea that science can answer all of our questions is called “Scientism”
Scientism is a term used by Christians such as you as a pejorative.
LEE: So Merriam-Webster is Christian? Because here’s their definition of “scientism”:
an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)
ARK: Basically, atheistic secular humanism demands that people live a lie;
What a very silly and churlish thing to write.
If you want liars look to Christians. Seriously, how many of them do you know that are ‘Christ -like’ in their daily lives?
In this regard, Christians are are some of the worst hypocrites one is likely to encounter.
LEE: All of this is yet more proof that you really have no idea what I’m talking about.
Pax.
Lee.
You believe in a man made deity.Exactly how is one supposed to have an idea of what you are talking about and extend to you this courtesy when even YOU don’t know what the hell you are talking about?
ARK: So the reason Lee does not find the arguments of Coyne etc compelling is because they do not include supernatural claims that are part of his particular religious faith- based beliefs.
LEE: Again, with the attempted mind-reading.
For the hundredth time, I do not find their arguments compelling because their arguments against organized religion are superficial, juvenile and emotion-based. I mean, Dawkins spends half of *The God Delusion* ranting about the evils of religion and the other half of the book making really weak arguments for atheism.
But the chief reason that I do not find atheism a compelling world-view is because it demands that I live a lie. It tells me that since God doesn’t exist, neither does objective morality, nor truth, in any meaningful sense, as the quotes below from notable atheistic humantistic scientists demonstrate:
“Our highly developed brains, after all, were not evolved under the pressure of discovering scientific truths but only to enable us to be clever enough to survive.” – Francis Crick
“Sometimes you are more likely to survive and propagate if you believe a falsehood than if you believe the truth.” – Eric Baum
“Our brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth. Sometimes the truth is adaptive, but sometimes it is not.” – Stephen Pinker
“Human beings in their thinking, feeling, and acting, are not free but are as causally bound as the stars in their motions.” – Albert Einstein
Yet as literary critic Leon Weinsettler asks, “If reason is a product of natural selection, then how much confidence can we have in a rational argument for natural selection? Evolutionary biology cannot invoke the power of reason even as it destroys it.”
Eric Baum argues that his genes “build me believing in free will. . . .Yet it [a belief in free will] is still wrong.”
Richard Dawkins, the poster boy for the New Atheists also admits that all of this causes an inconsistency, nevertheless says, “But it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with, otherwise life would be intolerable.”
In other words, God doesn’t exist, and life has no meaning, but we must *pretend* as if life does have meaning, and may even be “built” by our genes to believe this falsehood.
Thus, being an atheist demands that I live a lie. That’s a very big reason I don’t find atheism compelling.
Pax.
Lee.
Nope. The only lie is what you have been Indoctrinated with regarding Yahweh. And now that you are aware that Yahweh is simply a man made Cannanite deity adopted and adapted by the Israelites and later a minor Jewish sect which morphed into Christianity,you have the choice to accept the evidence which demonstrates these facts or continue with the delusion that you are made in the image of that god, created a sinner and require salvation from the human incarnation of Yahweh, Jesus of Nazareth to ensure you are given eternal life to spend it in Heaven .
LEE: Yada, yada, yada.
Ark, none of what you said above actually addresses anything I actually wrote. You must’ve typed a million words by now but haven’t said anything rational or coherent. Honestly, you sound like someone so desperate to cling to his atheism that he won’t even try to to be openminded.
If you aren’t capable of making a counter-argument please just say so and stop wasting everyone’s time.
Are you inept or simply lazy? Neither is scoring atheism any points.
If this is the best you can do nobody’s faith is in danger.
Pax.
Lee.
There is nothing to ‘cling’ to . Atheism is a LACK of belief. I would have thought even you were able to grasp this simple concept by now.
When the belief in Yahweh and supernaturalism as a result of indoctrination underpins your worldview of what possible benefit to either of us will addressing your points have? As you have failed at every turn to present evidence to support your faith based claims, which simply do not comport with known reality
you will inevitably reject anything and everything that challenges this view. Coyne even pointed out this fact.
Good Lord, Ark, just stop. You are neck-deep in confirmation bias and self-imposed indoctrination. This has been your M.O. for the past 2-3 years. No one is fooled. When you routinely and consistently REFUSE to address any questions or arguments aimed your way, and only respond with, “I won’t answer because you’re being disingenuous,” no one is going to take you seriously. Stop being a troll. Try to be a mature adult. Or else, just go away.
Why you are replying on Lee’s behalf is a bit odd
Anyway, let’s try to clear up point by contentious point re-examine your review and what seems to be an important issue regarding Coyne’s book
I have asked before but I’ll ask again.
Define the official Christian position on faith.
and …
explain what is the (official) aim of religion.
After 2-3 years of refusing to answer ANYTHING posed to you, you no longer have the right to continue asking questions. It is a fool’s errand to try to appease a troll.
You continue to repeat this canard which is blatantly untrue.
You have merely dismissed every point I addressed until I simply got fed up with your disengenuity.
It is risible that you would write such a pedantic review over so many posts that practically no one bothered to read or interact with and now you expect me to read the whole tedious tomb and address every single point of the entire series!
What narcissistic arrogance!
And now when I go back to the first post and do you the courtesy of reading it again and seek clarification on the very first point of the post you add to your previous insult of ”moron”+ by calling me a troll.
Perhaps if you were an entertaining writer instead of an asinine hack it might be fun.
The one commenter, Jim hit the nail on the head regarding your poor representation and interpretation of Coyne’s position and you simply dismissed him.
You are as bad as the most entrenched fundamentalist.
And now you are exhibiting all the traits of a coward once more by not laying out the foundation for your faith or the objective f religion.
Honesty and integrity are qualities that must be simply words in a dictionary as far as you are concerned.
Haha…so predictable. Ignorant, arrogant, and predictably petulant and insulting. You applaud when Coyne calls Christians’ arguments “crap,” yet then claim to be so offended when I use the word “moron.”
Nobody is fooled by you. A self-indoctrinated parrot of a narcissist.
Go troll someone else.
I am not offended in the least. Sticks and stones and all that.
If you want to behave like a Dick that’s fine by me.
I merely point out that rather than address the question/s you once again resort to insult.
In his astute comment Jim demonstrated your abject failure in understanding Coyne and your dishonesty in the way you try to portray him.
You won’t address the question of faith because you know it won’t tally with your own personal interpretation and certainly won’t come close to the description in (the anonymous text of) Hebrews.
ARK: Define the official Christian position on faith.
and …
explain what is the (official) aim of religion.
LEE: We have. Repeatedly. Ad nauseum.
Every time we do you tell us you don’t accept that definition and then demand another.
It takes a lot to try my patience but you’re getting there. Maybe that’s your strategy? To refuse to engage in any meaningful way with us and slowly, inexorably wear us down until we concede in disgust?
You were obviously not on your school’s debate team.
Pax.
Lee.
Really? Then point to one comment or post that expressly covers these topics without meandering off on yet another tedious monologue.
Just so you can continue to vigorously and enthusiastically flog that dead horse? No thanks. I know how arguing with children works and arguing with you is like arguing with a child.
Arguing with a child is actually not as frustrating because they’re not mature enough to know any better.
You are. Or should be.
So, no thanks.
Pax.
Lee.
It’s the same as asking you to present evidence for your faith based claims.
You insist you already have but when asked to indicate where this evidence is posted you refuse.
This suggests you have simply forgotten or are lying.
I really can’t make up my mind which is the right answer to this.
Hahaha…a few years ago I wrote an ENTIRE SERIES about the evidence for the OT….I wrote it specifically AT YOUR REQUEST.
So stop with your crap about how I don’t answer your questions, you petulant, stinking piece of crap.
@ Joelly
Can’t find the series on evidence for the OT you wrote just for me.
Be a sweetheart and post a link.
I might even say sorry.
You read it, commented on it, and (as usual) dismissed it. From here on out, your comments must be allowed by me before they can be seen.
http://www.joeledmundanderson.com/a-biblical-history-of-israel-by-iain-provan-an-extended-book-analysis-part-1-is-biblical-history-dead/
ARK: It’s the same as asking you to present evidence for your faith based claims.
You insist you already have but when asked to indicate where this evidence is posted you refuse.
This suggests you have simply forgotten or are lying.
I really can’t make up my mind which is the right answer to this.
LEE: Based on your repeated responses such as this I can’t make up my mind whether or not you’re a robot.. . .
Nope! Robot!
Pax.
Lee.