My uncle worked in a profession resulting in his testimony being taken on occasion. He didn’t enjoy it, and tended to make it as difficult for the attorneys as possible. Once he was instructed by an attorney to answer a question and ONLY the question being asked, to which he replied, “I cannot.” When asked why, he said, “Because I swore to tell the whole truth, and by just answering that question, it isn’t the whole truth.”
When do we expect full disclosure? When do we expect a person to provide not only the positives, but the weaknesses of their position? When do we rely upon someone entirely and when do we realize we must do some study ourselves?
Imagine the following three situations:
1) A lawyer arguing their position in a court.
We expect this (due to the American adversarial position) to be one-sided. To be biased toward the attorney’s position. No one is shocked, when the opposing counsel has its chance, to discover not ALL the facts were presented by the Plaintiff. Attorneys expect the other side to do their research and present a conflicting argument.
2) A doctor prescribing a treatment.
Here we tend to expect full disclosure. If the doctor is receiving monetary contributions from the company providing the treatment, this would cause us concern. Especially if we discovered 9 out of 10 doctors (who do not receive such compensation) would recommend an alternative treatment.
Would we accept the doctor’s excuse of, “Well, you should have researched this on your own”?
3) A friend who suspects your significant other is having an affair.
Again, we would expect the friend to tell us their suspicions. The friendship would be in jeopardy if they later said, “I only told you what supported the position they were not having an affair. It was up to you to research the rest on your own.”
I have been contemplating the question—to what extent do we expect full disclosure from a theistic apologist? Do we expect it to be one-sided? Or should we expect them to recognize the weaknesses in the claim?
This blog entry about Jericho over at Parchment & Pen is one in a series on archeological discoveries that “support” the biblical accounts. I put “support” in quotations, because this particular discovery causes consternation regarding the Exodus account—namely when it must have occurred.
Originally, the Jericho destruction was dated to 1400 BCE (fitting nicely with the Tanakh), but subsequent work demonstrated the date was actually 1550 BCE (which does not fit so well.) The blog entry author gives some treatment to this controversy, and then relies upon the 1400 BCE date (of course) without much comment.
Causing me to wonder—did the author have a duty to fully disclose both positions? Or do we expect our apologists to act as litigants and only provide their best arguments; leaving it to the opposing position to present any conflicting evidence?
I would submit there are two (2) factors impacting our expectation of full disclosure—importance of the information and intimacy of the relationship.
Think back to our doctor example. If this was medication for a cold—would we be that upset for not receiving full disclosure? Generally not, a cold will resolve with a variety of methods, and one is probably not much different than another. However, if this was chemotherapy, we would be extremely concerned over the doctor’s one-sided presentation. Cancer treatment is more important than cold treatment.
Likewise, if our friend was not completely honest with us when she brought a ringer to play soccer against us with a “Oh, she’s not very good” and they turn out to be fantastic—we again are not as bent out of shape. Soccer is less important than a spouse’s affair.
And, of course, we do not expect the same complete truthfulness from a person who is an enemy, as compared to an acquaintance, as compared to a friend. One is far more hurt if a close friend fails to be fully honest as compared to a co-worker.
Assuming I am correct (and feel free to disagree, providing your own factors)—that it hinges on intimacy and import—why is it apologists so rarely give full disclosure? In the blog entry above, why was the 1400 BCE date assumed, with little attention given to the dating problem?
First, because the facts are not that important to the apologist; conformity in belief is. All the evidence in the world against a global flood is not important to most Christians who hold to it—belief that it occurred is.
How many times have we seen the following conversation:
Apologist: Do you believe the global flood occurred?
Christian: Yes.
Apologist: Great, here are some facts that support it. [ignoring the mountain of evidence that does not.]
Christian: Great. Confirmed my belief.
Apologia is a defense—it has come down to finding something—anything—that can possibly support one’s position, and as long as that bare fact exists (regardless of any other), then one can hold their position. The moon is moving away from the earth? Bam—the world must be young. Ignore any other dating methods, or any problem with Young Earth Creationism—cling to any fact in support of one’s position and believe.
Getting the right belief (regardless of how one gets there) is what is important. Not the support of the position.
Apologists do not give full disclosure, because the important consideration—what one believes—is already firmly in place. Any facts supporting it are merely props—icing on the cake, as it were.
Second, it would appear there is either not a close relationship expected between apologist and reader OR the import of similar belief is so overriding that such intimacy is not a factor. Again, there are situations where we don’t expect full disclosure even from our closest friends.
This one surprised me a bit. Christians, as a general rule, expect themselves to be better. Closer. More friendly. A cohesiveness stronger than heathens. Yes, they still sin amongst themselves, but you are supposed to be able to trust a Christian with your purse—even if you just met them 10 minutes ago.
There is a greater level of intimacy, supposedly, because you both have fish stickers on your car. For me, personally, one of the greatest shocks in deconversion was NOT all the evidence against my Christianity—it was the fact this evidence was either entirely ignored or spectacularly mishandled by those I trusted the most. If all this stuff was out there—why hadn’t I heard it before I was in my late 30’s? More importantly—why hadn’t I heard it presented with full disclosure as to the other person’s position, not strawpeople?
Part of the reason I continue to talk to people going through a faith crisis, or even a deconversion is not to convince to “my side.” I am walking proof that deconversions are personal experiences—you don’t “argue” people into them, nor out of them. The reason I do, is to let them know there are other arguments—there are things they haven’t heard that are good, strong and robust arguments against the classical Christianity they’ve been taught.
If they reject the arguments—fine. At least they have had an opportunity for full and complete disclosure and a chance to make up their own minds on all the available arguments.
Why do apologists not feel the same obligation? Why are they so afraid of acknowledging the real and heady barriers to their own position?
Do they not care?
Friday, September 24, 2010
Friday, September 03, 2010
Fear Not
I enjoy glancing through the comment boxes on news stories. We can see some…interesting (to be polite)…responses. In reading through comments regarding Dr. Hawking and God I noticed a number of Christians using Pascal’s Wager as their proof for God.
The problem with effectively arguing against Pascal’s Wager using reason, is that the Wager itself is not based on reason. It is based on fear. In fact, if you look at the premise, as proposed by Pascal, it explicitly states we cannot use reason to determine whether there is or is not a God, and it comes down to a coin toss. A wager. A bet as to which is the better choice to make in light of the unknown.
Have you ever tried to use reason, logic and observation with fear? How well does that work? Anyone with a child has faced (at least once) the “monster under the bed” or the “monster in the closet.” There is a reason Pixar utilized this fear as a theme in a movie—we are all familiar with it.
And, as a parent, we inevitably first try logic and reason. “See, honey? There is no monster under the bed. The toys you left there [that we told you to pick up!] are in the same position. The dust bunnies haven’t been disturbed. No tracks, no smells, no noises—nothing to demonstrate a monster.”
Of course, a short time later, we hear the screaming again. The Monster has returned. Our logic and reason completely failed. Eventually the exhausted parents give in to the belief, and create an alternative belief to counter the fear. A special stuffed animal that keeps away the monsters. Or a ritual to protect the monsters from coming in.
Yeah, yeah—not the most intellectual responses. We crave sleep; we cave in.
We cannot remove fear by arguing a person out of it; conversely we cannot create fear by arguing a person in to it. While the parent cannot convince the child no such monster exists; likewise the child cannot convince the parent they really should be afraid.
This continues into adulthood. Some people parachute for the thrill; others are terrified. And even though one can be convinced to parachute—the fear will still be there. Those that parachute cannot be convinced to begin fearing it.
Some fear public speaking; others fear never getting married. The list is inexhaustible. And all of those fears, one cannot simply reason them away, or reason oneself into. Your heart still pounds faster when confronted by them, or your heart does not.
Of course, one of the greatest fears is the unknown. Anyone diagnosed with a medical condition of “We don’t know what this is” understands.
And what happens after we die is the greatest unknown of them all.
In books and plays and movies, there are two predominate themes for claims of life after death:
1) There are degrees of pain/pleasure in the after life;
2) What you do in this life will determine what happens in this afterlife.
We don’t want pain; we want pleasure. We want to do the thing that creates the least pain and the most pleasure in life; one would certainly want to do it for the greater pain/pleasure promised in the after life! The problem (and the Achilles Heel of Pascal’s Wager) is that we don’t know what that is.
Is there no afterlife, in which case pain/pleasure is limited to what we do? Is the afterlife dependant on works, so we perform certain acts and refrain from other acts to increase pleasure later? Is it dependent on the correct belief, or ritual or statement?
Some individuals have grasped on to a certain belief to alleviate this unknown. It reduces (but never quite eliminates) the fear. It is their magic bunny, keeping away the monster under the bed.
We cannot argue against Pascal’s Wager—they are convinced of the fear. Nor (and Christians should realize this) can they use this to convince use—we have no such fear.
The problem with effectively arguing against Pascal’s Wager using reason, is that the Wager itself is not based on reason. It is based on fear. In fact, if you look at the premise, as proposed by Pascal, it explicitly states we cannot use reason to determine whether there is or is not a God, and it comes down to a coin toss. A wager. A bet as to which is the better choice to make in light of the unknown.
Have you ever tried to use reason, logic and observation with fear? How well does that work? Anyone with a child has faced (at least once) the “monster under the bed” or the “monster in the closet.” There is a reason Pixar utilized this fear as a theme in a movie—we are all familiar with it.
And, as a parent, we inevitably first try logic and reason. “See, honey? There is no monster under the bed. The toys you left there [that we told you to pick up!] are in the same position. The dust bunnies haven’t been disturbed. No tracks, no smells, no noises—nothing to demonstrate a monster.”
Of course, a short time later, we hear the screaming again. The Monster has returned. Our logic and reason completely failed. Eventually the exhausted parents give in to the belief, and create an alternative belief to counter the fear. A special stuffed animal that keeps away the monsters. Or a ritual to protect the monsters from coming in.
Yeah, yeah—not the most intellectual responses. We crave sleep; we cave in.
We cannot remove fear by arguing a person out of it; conversely we cannot create fear by arguing a person in to it. While the parent cannot convince the child no such monster exists; likewise the child cannot convince the parent they really should be afraid.
This continues into adulthood. Some people parachute for the thrill; others are terrified. And even though one can be convinced to parachute—the fear will still be there. Those that parachute cannot be convinced to begin fearing it.
Some fear public speaking; others fear never getting married. The list is inexhaustible. And all of those fears, one cannot simply reason them away, or reason oneself into. Your heart still pounds faster when confronted by them, or your heart does not.
Of course, one of the greatest fears is the unknown. Anyone diagnosed with a medical condition of “We don’t know what this is” understands.
And what happens after we die is the greatest unknown of them all.
In books and plays and movies, there are two predominate themes for claims of life after death:
1) There are degrees of pain/pleasure in the after life;
2) What you do in this life will determine what happens in this afterlife.
We don’t want pain; we want pleasure. We want to do the thing that creates the least pain and the most pleasure in life; one would certainly want to do it for the greater pain/pleasure promised in the after life! The problem (and the Achilles Heel of Pascal’s Wager) is that we don’t know what that is.
Is there no afterlife, in which case pain/pleasure is limited to what we do? Is the afterlife dependant on works, so we perform certain acts and refrain from other acts to increase pleasure later? Is it dependent on the correct belief, or ritual or statement?
Some individuals have grasped on to a certain belief to alleviate this unknown. It reduces (but never quite eliminates) the fear. It is their magic bunny, keeping away the monster under the bed.
We cannot argue against Pascal’s Wager—they are convinced of the fear. Nor (and Christians should realize this) can they use this to convince use—we have no such fear.
Monday, August 23, 2010
How Old were Jesus’ Disciples?
Life expectancy in the Roman Empire was 35 years of age. According to an author of the time, a person at age 10, expected to live another 35 years.*
Mentally, we tended to think the disciples were roughly the same age as Jesus. 30 years +/- 5 years. (Most Sunday School pictures depict them in that age range.) According to this Chart on Roman Life Expectancy, they would most likely be dead by 53 CE. [If they were younger, say 25 years old, their life expectancy was even less—to 51 CE!]
An alternative Chart indicates if they were 25, their life expectancy would be 57 CE, or at 30, would be 59 CE.
Simply put, by the time Paul started writing his letters, we would expect many of them to be dead. By the time of the Jewish wars, we would expect all of them to be dead.
We don’t often think about life expectancy—we have a terrible tendency to “project” our own life expectancy of 70 years on people of the time.
Yet simply put, even if the Gospels were written in 65 CE—most of the eyewitnesses would be dead by then. A fact of living in that time.
*Edited, thanks to Vinny.
Mentally, we tended to think the disciples were roughly the same age as Jesus. 30 years +/- 5 years. (Most Sunday School pictures depict them in that age range.) According to this Chart on Roman Life Expectancy, they would most likely be dead by 53 CE. [If they were younger, say 25 years old, their life expectancy was even less—to 51 CE!]
An alternative Chart indicates if they were 25, their life expectancy would be 57 CE, or at 30, would be 59 CE.
Simply put, by the time Paul started writing his letters, we would expect many of them to be dead. By the time of the Jewish wars, we would expect all of them to be dead.
We don’t often think about life expectancy—we have a terrible tendency to “project” our own life expectancy of 70 years on people of the time.
Yet simply put, even if the Gospels were written in 65 CE—most of the eyewitnesses would be dead by then. A fact of living in that time.
*Edited, thanks to Vinny.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Why Courtrooms are unkind to claims
In discussing the Walker decision on Proposition 8, I found this quote by Jason Rosenhouse.
It also occurred to me that there are a lot of similarities between this decision and the decision in the Dover evolution case. Hard-core right-wingers live in a fantasy world of their own creation. It is a world in which creationism and ID are legitimate science and evolution is not. It is also a world in which gay couples pose some sort of threat to heterosexual marriage, or are too morally suspect to raise children. When thundered from a stage or a pulpit to a generally supportive audience, such notions play very well. But put them in a forum with rules of evidence and a sober, nonemotional tone, and they crumble. Judge Walker in this case was absolutely scathing towards the defense, just as Judge Jones was in the Dover case. When forced to defend their ideas rationally, the right-wingers always come off looking like fools.
Friday, July 09, 2010
New Atheism
A term bantered about. Over at the Parchment and Pen Blog a writer (utilizing Dr. Mohler) gave seven (7) points that differentiate the “New Atheist” from the “run-of-mill atheist” (her words):
Now, before I deal with each of these seven points, my first broad thought can be brilliantly summed up in two words. “So what?”
Let’s assume—for the moment—there is this “New Atheism” that is somehow different from previous atheisms. Does “New” necessarily mean “incorrect”? The impression given is that atheism (like Christianity) must adhere to some sort of orthodoxy, and therefore the “older” atheism is somehow more correct. Better.
Why? Imagine I told you I obtained a new cell phone. Wouldn’t we want the “newest” available? Would you be impressed if I extolled orthodoxy and bought a bag phone? (And if you even know what a bag phone is—you just dated yourself!)
Or imagine we are presented with new information. Or a new situation. Should I have continued to live like a bachelor after begin married? Was there something inherently bad about the seven (or more) points differentiating “Old run-of-the-mill single me” to “New Married Me”? Of course not!
We live in a changing world. With new ideas, new concepts, new societal impacts, new words…all of which should collide with our previous thinking and perhaps cause us to modify it.
I want “New Atheism” because we know more than last year’s atheists. And next year I want even “Newer Atheism.” If some day we come across some proof or evidence…who knows?...maybe the Newest and Last Atheism would be theism!
Now looking at the points.
1. Celebration of Atheism. Yeah us! How terrible that we dare not be the miserable, hedonistic wretches the theists think we should be. How dare we be…happy. How DARE we be…moral! How dare we…actually admit to being an atheist without a sigh, a tear, a cry for help…
2. A changing and clear direction toward atheism as to Christianity. While I could argue most of that has to do with perspective and locale (and the author notes it is not limited to Christianity)…again…I am left with “so what?” This comes across as Christians whining about “Why are you picking on us?” Because we are atheistic to your God! Does it really matter if we pick one God as compared to another?
3. Explicitly based on scientific argumentation. Again, I could argue this point. Again, I find myself saying, “So what?” What sacred script, what orthodoxy requires atheists to argue from philosophy? Or science? Or _____? Or all aspects? Or none at all? Please, oh please, will someone tell me what I—the atheist—MUST use to make my point in order to qualify as a “run-of-the-mill” atheist?
4. Attack on moderate and liberal Protestantism. Bwahahahahaha…seriously? You were being serious there? Read that again without falling down on the floor. I dare you! This comes from a conservative (Dr. Mohler) who regularly (Oh, I listened to your show, sir) attacked and battled and stabbed and assailed in every way shape and form anything remotely “moderate” or “liberal” within Christianity. And he’s unhappy atheists…er…excuse me…”New Atheists”…are doing it?
What, are we stealing your thunder?
5. Theism is not to be tolerated. Well, this one depends on your definition of “tolerance.” I suspect Christians want more than the New Atheists are giving. Look, we think theism is wrong. As wrong as a geocentric solar system. As wrong as a 6000-year-old, flat earth, global-flood, demon-possessing, Mary-in-a-Grilled-Cheese, geocentric solar system.
Which, like people wearing tin-foil hats to protect themselves from government rays, we would normally laugh off and let live their lives in peace. But Christians don’t stop there. They take these beliefs and discriminate against homosexuals, and attempt to push prayers on those who don’t believe as they do, and demand money (oh the money) and privileges to maintain these beliefs.
At that point I say, “No.” And they cry, “Intolerance.”
6. Theism is seen as harmful to children. Er…yes. Again, we think theism is wrong. Teaching children incorrect things, I believe is harmful. Shouldn’t we teach children correct truths? Of course, I am not mentioning the fear of hell, the shame of sex, the stigma of sexual orientation, the scientific falsehoods….
7. Theism should be eliminated because of all the harm it has brought to humanity. Has this sunk in yet? We think theism is wrong. As in “not true.” Basing actions on incorrect truths has an inherent tendency to do harm. Yes, we can live a happy life on a lie. Even do “less harm” by believing that lie. Most atheists I read hope humanity can actually improve itself without the need of believing something incorrect. Call us foolish optimists.
In the end, I think the biggest problem they have with New Atheism is how vocal it has become. The old atheists (like the token house servant) kept their mouth shut and knew their place. These New Atheists have the audacity to write best-sellers and speak their mind and proudly proclaim “I am an atheist!”
And for that, even though I may not qualify as a “New Atheist,” I am thankful and supportive. They make it easier, even (dare I say?) legitimate, for some of us to also say, “I, too, am an atheist.” Maybe a run-of-the-mill; maybe not. But an atheist all the same.
1. Celebration of Atheism – no sense of mourning as seen in the “Victorian Loss of Faith”.
2. Changed and clear direction of attention – No longer the philosophical rejection of God but a rejection of the God of Christianity specifically. (*I question this one however, as it would seem there are objections to Islam and Judaism as well as polytheistic systems. But I do concede they are the most vocal against Christian Theism.)
3. Explicitly based in scientific argumentation - *Lack of philosophical discussion surrounding the existence of God. Also I would suggest that while a naturalistic framework (i.e a point of view that excludes the supernatural) is assumed they are not stating their’s as a philosophical position.
4. Attack upon moderate and liberal Protestantism - These theological movements are seen as “enablers” of theistic belief . *Which although not stated in the lecture, I have to think it is due to these movements denying foundational truths of Christianity in respects to not only orthodoxy (right belief) but orthopraxy (right practice). This in turn makes Christianity a less bitter pill to swallow to those searching for truth.
5. Belief in God is not to be tolerated – It is no longer a matter of objecting to the persecution of the skeptic or free-thinker or atheist (vying for a voice in the culture only to be persecuted by the Theist) but it is thought that those who do believe in God should not be tolerated in our society – essentially a move away from religious freedom.
6. Theism is seen as harmful to children – teaching a child theistic beliefs is tantamount to child abuse and on the same level as (if not worse than) physical abuse.
and finally…
7. Theism should be eliminated because of all the harm it has brought to humanity. *Theism simply should not be tolerated in any civilized culture. The Crusades, the Inquisition and even modern day terrorism indicate Theism is bad for humanity. It has done more harm than good as we see from history and we’d be better off ridding it from our society altogether. No longer is a “tenant” of Atheism that of merely objecting to theistic systems but rather there is a pressing need to pro-actively eradicate these systems from our culture in toto.
Now, before I deal with each of these seven points, my first broad thought can be brilliantly summed up in two words. “So what?”
Let’s assume—for the moment—there is this “New Atheism” that is somehow different from previous atheisms. Does “New” necessarily mean “incorrect”? The impression given is that atheism (like Christianity) must adhere to some sort of orthodoxy, and therefore the “older” atheism is somehow more correct. Better.
Why? Imagine I told you I obtained a new cell phone. Wouldn’t we want the “newest” available? Would you be impressed if I extolled orthodoxy and bought a bag phone? (And if you even know what a bag phone is—you just dated yourself!)
Or imagine we are presented with new information. Or a new situation. Should I have continued to live like a bachelor after begin married? Was there something inherently bad about the seven (or more) points differentiating “Old run-of-the-mill single me” to “New Married Me”? Of course not!
We live in a changing world. With new ideas, new concepts, new societal impacts, new words…all of which should collide with our previous thinking and perhaps cause us to modify it.
I want “New Atheism” because we know more than last year’s atheists. And next year I want even “Newer Atheism.” If some day we come across some proof or evidence…who knows?...maybe the Newest and Last Atheism would be theism!
Now looking at the points.
1. Celebration of Atheism. Yeah us! How terrible that we dare not be the miserable, hedonistic wretches the theists think we should be. How dare we be…happy. How DARE we be…moral! How dare we…actually admit to being an atheist without a sigh, a tear, a cry for help…
2. A changing and clear direction toward atheism as to Christianity. While I could argue most of that has to do with perspective and locale (and the author notes it is not limited to Christianity)…again…I am left with “so what?” This comes across as Christians whining about “Why are you picking on us?” Because we are atheistic to your God! Does it really matter if we pick one God as compared to another?
3. Explicitly based on scientific argumentation. Again, I could argue this point. Again, I find myself saying, “So what?” What sacred script, what orthodoxy requires atheists to argue from philosophy? Or science? Or _____? Or all aspects? Or none at all? Please, oh please, will someone tell me what I—the atheist—MUST use to make my point in order to qualify as a “run-of-the-mill” atheist?
4. Attack on moderate and liberal Protestantism. Bwahahahahaha…seriously? You were being serious there? Read that again without falling down on the floor. I dare you! This comes from a conservative (Dr. Mohler) who regularly (Oh, I listened to your show, sir) attacked and battled and stabbed and assailed in every way shape and form anything remotely “moderate” or “liberal” within Christianity. And he’s unhappy atheists…er…excuse me…”New Atheists”…are doing it?
What, are we stealing your thunder?
5. Theism is not to be tolerated. Well, this one depends on your definition of “tolerance.” I suspect Christians want more than the New Atheists are giving. Look, we think theism is wrong. As wrong as a geocentric solar system. As wrong as a 6000-year-old, flat earth, global-flood, demon-possessing, Mary-in-a-Grilled-Cheese, geocentric solar system.
Which, like people wearing tin-foil hats to protect themselves from government rays, we would normally laugh off and let live their lives in peace. But Christians don’t stop there. They take these beliefs and discriminate against homosexuals, and attempt to push prayers on those who don’t believe as they do, and demand money (oh the money) and privileges to maintain these beliefs.
At that point I say, “No.” And they cry, “Intolerance.”
6. Theism is seen as harmful to children. Er…yes. Again, we think theism is wrong. Teaching children incorrect things, I believe is harmful. Shouldn’t we teach children correct truths? Of course, I am not mentioning the fear of hell, the shame of sex, the stigma of sexual orientation, the scientific falsehoods….
7. Theism should be eliminated because of all the harm it has brought to humanity. Has this sunk in yet? We think theism is wrong. As in “not true.” Basing actions on incorrect truths has an inherent tendency to do harm. Yes, we can live a happy life on a lie. Even do “less harm” by believing that lie. Most atheists I read hope humanity can actually improve itself without the need of believing something incorrect. Call us foolish optimists.
In the end, I think the biggest problem they have with New Atheism is how vocal it has become. The old atheists (like the token house servant) kept their mouth shut and knew their place. These New Atheists have the audacity to write best-sellers and speak their mind and proudly proclaim “I am an atheist!”
And for that, even though I may not qualify as a “New Atheist,” I am thankful and supportive. They make it easier, even (dare I say?) legitimate, for some of us to also say, “I, too, am an atheist.” Maybe a run-of-the-mill; maybe not. But an atheist all the same.
Friday, July 02, 2010
You MUST be just like Me
You can tell quite a bit about a person with how they relate to others. And how they treat perceived enemies.
When encountering others, in order to obtain a baseline, we initially presume they share similar tastes and interest as we do. We do this to move from the unknown to the known. If I was asking you to meet at a restaurant, I would initially propose restaurants I like. “Do you want to eat at Buffalo Wild Wings?” I would not propose Wendy’s (for example) because I don’t particularly care for their food.
Simply by listening to what restaurants I propose—you would learn what restaurants I like. Obviously, our interaction would provide me information about the other person (“No, I don’t like spicy food”) narrowing our choices and giving me more data.
Or if I was attempting to motivate you, I might first offer money (demonstrating I find money to be a powerful motivating factor) or sex (demonstrating I find sex to be a powerful motivating factor), etc. I often find, in divorce matters, those who accuse others, without any evidence, of infidelity are either contemplating it or engaging in it already. What they accuse others is demonstrative of what they are thinking themselves. “If I want to have an affair,” they are thinking, “presumably the only reason my spouse wants out of the marriage is that they want to have an affair.”
You may be aware the US Supreme Court ruled a Law School can withhold official status to a Christian student organization because the organization discriminated against others based upon religious beliefs and/or sexual orientation. The Christian organization required its members to sign a statement of faith and refrain from sexual activity, specifically homosexual activity. The Law School allowed the group to meet (and even provided facilities) but would not grant it official status due to its exclusivity policy. The Student Organization sued. And lost.
Mike Adams wrote an article in Townhall (H/T toCamels with Hammers) with an intriguing response:
I agree with the general reaction that most Secular groups would welcome Christians joining and would dramatically enjoy the interaction. But that wasn’t what struck me about this article.
It was the presumption that this would be hated by secular groups. That secular groups would fall in disarray, or be traumatized or forced to close up shop due to the “infiltration” of Christians. This says a great deal more about Mr. Adams and Christian organizations than it does about secular.
Apparently he believes if non-theists were allowed to join Christian gatherings, it would be so horrifying the Christian group would eventually fail. That non-theists absolutely, positively must be prevented from entering Christian sacred groups, because even a whiff of such theistic abstinence would cause the entire assemblage to crumble like a house of cards.
Therefore—because he is so terrified of allowing an atheist dare attend or [gasp!] join his Christian group—the secular group must equally be terrified.
One of the scariest—and pitiful—quotes from Mr. Adams: “I do not seek robust debate. I seek power over the godless heathen dissident.” How does one communicate with such a person? It amazed me at the time of my deconversion; it continues to amaze me. How many Christians are simply not interested in hearing alternative positions. They don’t want to know about possible contradictions in the New Testament texts. They don’t want to know scientific studies demonstrating evolution. They don’t want to hear any information, data, evidence, argument, point or iota about anything that in any way contradicts their preciously held belief.
They vehemently do not seek robust debate. They desire one thing only—the elimination of the non-theist. Either through conversion to their belief, OR destruction by judgment. There is no ground to allow the non-theist. (Humorously, they presume the non-theist feels the same way about them, and therefore presume there really is an Evil Atheist Conspiracy bringing all of its resources to bear to prevent them from receiving a tax deduction for their weekly $5 tithe.)
Now it is possible (I don’t know Mike Adams) this was written as satire. The point remains the same, he is still claiming this is his perception of secular groups, based upon his own underpinnings of fear.
Here is the point: There is no gain in discussing with the Mike Adams of the world. And there are a lot of them. We can be aware there are lurkers, wondering what our response would be, and reply appropriately, but for the vast majority they have no desire to have their beliefs pushed or prodded in any way.
And the easiest way to do that is bar the pushers and prodders at the door.
When encountering others, in order to obtain a baseline, we initially presume they share similar tastes and interest as we do. We do this to move from the unknown to the known. If I was asking you to meet at a restaurant, I would initially propose restaurants I like. “Do you want to eat at Buffalo Wild Wings?” I would not propose Wendy’s (for example) because I don’t particularly care for their food.
Simply by listening to what restaurants I propose—you would learn what restaurants I like. Obviously, our interaction would provide me information about the other person (“No, I don’t like spicy food”) narrowing our choices and giving me more data.
Or if I was attempting to motivate you, I might first offer money (demonstrating I find money to be a powerful motivating factor) or sex (demonstrating I find sex to be a powerful motivating factor), etc. I often find, in divorce matters, those who accuse others, without any evidence, of infidelity are either contemplating it or engaging in it already. What they accuse others is demonstrative of what they are thinking themselves. “If I want to have an affair,” they are thinking, “presumably the only reason my spouse wants out of the marriage is that they want to have an affair.”
You may be aware the US Supreme Court ruled a Law School can withhold official status to a Christian student organization because the organization discriminated against others based upon religious beliefs and/or sexual orientation. The Christian organization required its members to sign a statement of faith and refrain from sexual activity, specifically homosexual activity. The Law School allowed the group to meet (and even provided facilities) but would not grant it official status due to its exclusivity policy. The Student Organization sued. And lost.
Mike Adams wrote an article in Townhall (H/T toCamels with Hammers) with an intriguing response:
I can’t stand atheists. And I plan to do something about them. Thankfully, the U.S. Supreme Court has given me a powerful tool to use in my war against the godless. Earlier this week, the Court ruled that a public university may require all student organizations to admit any student as a voting member or officer. The decision applies even to a student who is openly hostile to the group's fundamental beliefs.
So, when I get back to the secular university in August, I plan to round up the students I know who are most hostile to atheism. Then I’m going to get them to help me find atheist-haters willing to join atheist student groups across the South. I plan to use my young fundamentalist Christian warriors to undermine the mission of every group that disagrees with me on the existence of God.
I agree with the general reaction that most Secular groups would welcome Christians joining and would dramatically enjoy the interaction. But that wasn’t what struck me about this article.
It was the presumption that this would be hated by secular groups. That secular groups would fall in disarray, or be traumatized or forced to close up shop due to the “infiltration” of Christians. This says a great deal more about Mr. Adams and Christian organizations than it does about secular.
Apparently he believes if non-theists were allowed to join Christian gatherings, it would be so horrifying the Christian group would eventually fail. That non-theists absolutely, positively must be prevented from entering Christian sacred groups, because even a whiff of such theistic abstinence would cause the entire assemblage to crumble like a house of cards.
Therefore—because he is so terrified of allowing an atheist dare attend or [gasp!] join his Christian group—the secular group must equally be terrified.
One of the scariest—and pitiful—quotes from Mr. Adams: “I do not seek robust debate. I seek power over the godless heathen dissident.” How does one communicate with such a person? It amazed me at the time of my deconversion; it continues to amaze me. How many Christians are simply not interested in hearing alternative positions. They don’t want to know about possible contradictions in the New Testament texts. They don’t want to know scientific studies demonstrating evolution. They don’t want to hear any information, data, evidence, argument, point or iota about anything that in any way contradicts their preciously held belief.
They vehemently do not seek robust debate. They desire one thing only—the elimination of the non-theist. Either through conversion to their belief, OR destruction by judgment. There is no ground to allow the non-theist. (Humorously, they presume the non-theist feels the same way about them, and therefore presume there really is an Evil Atheist Conspiracy bringing all of its resources to bear to prevent them from receiving a tax deduction for their weekly $5 tithe.)
Now it is possible (I don’t know Mike Adams) this was written as satire. The point remains the same, he is still claiming this is his perception of secular groups, based upon his own underpinnings of fear.
Here is the point: There is no gain in discussing with the Mike Adams of the world. And there are a lot of them. We can be aware there are lurkers, wondering what our response would be, and reply appropriately, but for the vast majority they have no desire to have their beliefs pushed or prodded in any way.
And the easiest way to do that is bar the pushers and prodders at the door.
Thursday, July 01, 2010
Happy Anniversary!
I am sure all are celebrating by bringing out your favorite cassettes and foam headphones. Grabbing a set of new batteries and jogging around the block.
Right?
For as we all know, it has been exactly 31 years since Sony introduced the iconic Walkman. Hail, hail to the mobile player that binds them all.
31 years. It amazes how much has changed in such a short period. In this one corner of consumerism, we watched an evolution from cassettes to CD’s to Mp3 players. (With a side-branch of personal DVD players.) The ubiquitous term “Walkman” (as in “Did you bring a Walkman?” meaning any personal cassette player or CD player) has transformed to “iPod.” Cassettes briefly battled CDs, that only reigned a short time before entering their own battle with digital downloads.
31 years. Teaching us change is inevitable, the only question being how we role with that change. We can expect it. No one (that I know) is proclaiming the benefits of ancient technology as being better; no one is claiming we need to “get back” to Sony’s intentions with its original Walkman. Bring back re-usable batteries and gangly headphones.
We progress, and adapt with the progression. Celebrate it—it is the defining reason our evolved species has made it this far.
As you probably know, vandals painted the words ”Under God with an arrow” on a Billboard in North Carolina that said, “One Nation, Indivisible.” A number of comments under the Yahoo news cite whined about non-theists who wanted to “change” the Pledge.
Didn’t they know the Pledge has been modified a number of times since the original writing in 1891? Short history on the Pledge to the American Flag.
Change happens. It was changed in the 1950’s to add “under God”—we desire to change it back. What is so surprising about that?
I find it fascinating many of the same people who extol what they claim America’s Founders did in establishing American, and how it should never, EVER be changed…are the some ones who fully embrace and adulate the change in the Pledge from the original author. Which is it—do they like change or not?
Right?
For as we all know, it has been exactly 31 years since Sony introduced the iconic Walkman. Hail, hail to the mobile player that binds them all.
31 years. It amazes how much has changed in such a short period. In this one corner of consumerism, we watched an evolution from cassettes to CD’s to Mp3 players. (With a side-branch of personal DVD players.) The ubiquitous term “Walkman” (as in “Did you bring a Walkman?” meaning any personal cassette player or CD player) has transformed to “iPod.” Cassettes briefly battled CDs, that only reigned a short time before entering their own battle with digital downloads.
31 years. Teaching us change is inevitable, the only question being how we role with that change. We can expect it. No one (that I know) is proclaiming the benefits of ancient technology as being better; no one is claiming we need to “get back” to Sony’s intentions with its original Walkman. Bring back re-usable batteries and gangly headphones.
We progress, and adapt with the progression. Celebrate it—it is the defining reason our evolved species has made it this far.
As you probably know, vandals painted the words ”Under God with an arrow” on a Billboard in North Carolina that said, “One Nation, Indivisible.” A number of comments under the Yahoo news cite whined about non-theists who wanted to “change” the Pledge.
Didn’t they know the Pledge has been modified a number of times since the original writing in 1891? Short history on the Pledge to the American Flag.
Change happens. It was changed in the 1950’s to add “under God”—we desire to change it back. What is so surprising about that?
I find it fascinating many of the same people who extol what they claim America’s Founders did in establishing American, and how it should never, EVER be changed…are the some ones who fully embrace and adulate the change in the Pledge from the original author. Which is it—do they like change or not?
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Claims in History
We often see the claim, ”If the New Testament is not reliable history that we can trust, then no ancient history can be trusted.” Understand when the apologist makes the claim, it is a dichotomous hyperbole where either every single fact within the New Testament (including the miracles) must be accepted as fully historical OR not a single fact is true, and therefore all histories of any sort must likewise be false.
There is no consideration for the possible alternative that some facts are historical (Pilate, Herod, even a traveling Rabbi named Jesus) and some are mythological (walking on water, clearing the temple, Slaughter of the Innocents).
There is a simple response to this claim.
Remember this joke?
A man walks up to a beautiful woman and asks, “Would you have sex with me for One million dollars?”
“Yes!” she exclaims.
“How about for $5?” the man replies.
“No way! What kind of woman do you think I am?”
“Ma’am, we’ve already established that. All we’re doing now is negotiating price.”
I feel the same way with this claim. The Christian apologist equally agrees certain documents are not historical regarding Jesus’ sayings and life—all we really are doing is haggling over method.
The Infancy Gospel of James claims Mary, Mother of Jesus, was born out of Immaculate Conception. (No male involved.) Was this historical?
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas records an incident when Jesus, as a child, was bumped by another child. Jesus, of course, miraculously struck the child dead. The parents, understandably vexed, complained to Joseph, whereupon Jesus blinded them. Is this historical?
Josephus records a star in the shape of a sword over Jerusalem before it fell. A comet that lasted a whole year. Mysterious light, a cow giving birth to a lamb, doors opening on their own, strange voices and earthquakes. Were these historical?
Joseph Smith saw Jesus; the Gospel of Philip implies Mary Magdalene was Jesus’ paramour. Historical?
See, at some point every historian—every person—reaches a point of exclaiming, “That is not true. Didn’t happen.” Like the joke…we’ve established some stories (including stories about Jesus) are not historical. All we’re doing now is haggling over method—over how to determine which stories are historical and which are myth.
There is no consideration for the possible alternative that some facts are historical (Pilate, Herod, even a traveling Rabbi named Jesus) and some are mythological (walking on water, clearing the temple, Slaughter of the Innocents).
There is a simple response to this claim.
Remember this joke?
A man walks up to a beautiful woman and asks, “Would you have sex with me for One million dollars?”
“Yes!” she exclaims.
“How about for $5?” the man replies.
“No way! What kind of woman do you think I am?”
“Ma’am, we’ve already established that. All we’re doing now is negotiating price.”
I feel the same way with this claim. The Christian apologist equally agrees certain documents are not historical regarding Jesus’ sayings and life—all we really are doing is haggling over method.
The Infancy Gospel of James claims Mary, Mother of Jesus, was born out of Immaculate Conception. (No male involved.) Was this historical?
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas records an incident when Jesus, as a child, was bumped by another child. Jesus, of course, miraculously struck the child dead. The parents, understandably vexed, complained to Joseph, whereupon Jesus blinded them. Is this historical?
Josephus records a star in the shape of a sword over Jerusalem before it fell. A comet that lasted a whole year. Mysterious light, a cow giving birth to a lamb, doors opening on their own, strange voices and earthquakes. Were these historical?
Joseph Smith saw Jesus; the Gospel of Philip implies Mary Magdalene was Jesus’ paramour. Historical?
See, at some point every historian—every person—reaches a point of exclaiming, “That is not true. Didn’t happen.” Like the joke…we’ve established some stories (including stories about Jesus) are not historical. All we’re doing now is haggling over method—over how to determine which stories are historical and which are myth.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Good Evidence?
The more one studies the New Testament documents and early church history, it seems the less precise statements we can make; the less certainty we have. I like to put up blog entries in manageable sizes, while giving credence to various countering positions. Yet many times I find if I gave voice to every possible position, my footnotes would have footnotes! I would be forced to write, “but consider this…but consider that…but consider this other thing as well.”
For one minor example: my entry on Peter’s death mentioned 1 Clement being written in 95 C.E. I let it go at that…yet if I was more precise I would note the date is uncertain. We utilize 95 C.E. because the book starts off referring to certain calamities happening in Rome, and some scholars presume this refers to the Domitian (Roman Emperor from 81 – 96 CE) persecution of Christians.
However, there are problems with this dating. First, 1 Clement does not indicate what the calamities are, let alone a persecution initiated by the Emperor. Second, we have no contemporary evidence regarding any such persecution by Domitian; primarily relying up Eusebius 200 years later. Third, even Eusebius’ account does not necessarily indicate a persecution against Christianity.
Now (here is where one’s footnotes get footnotes) it should be mentioned Tertullian (writing around 200 CE, or about 100 years later) also refers to a persecution by Domitian, yet indicates it was brief, and the Emperor restored those he had banished. In order to get 1 Clement written during the appropriate time, we would need to place it within this short, undetermined period.
BUT…(see where one gets footnotes on footnotes on footnotes?) Tertullian also mentions that Peter ordained 1 Clement, meaning we would need to determine the date when this occurred to accurately date both Peter’s death and when 1 Clement could have been written.
Unfortunately, it is unclear whether Clement is the second or third Bishop of Rome, after Peter, let alone what date he could have been ordained by Peter, leaving us in yet another debate over when this occurred. (And, might I add, completely destroying the original idea that Peter died under Nero’s reign in 62 – 62 CE!)
Oh, did I mention 1 Clement doesn’t self-identify its own authorship? This is all presuming Clement wrote this book, and now we would need to go off on yet another rabbit trail, explaining when this book traditionally was attributed to Clement! (And dare I mention the Greek word for whether Peter was martyred or not is also in contention? Gasp—another rabbit trail.)
All that (and more) to merely support one line in one blog entry. Dr. Carrier admirably goes through a much longer and similar exercise on the minor issue regarding the last possible date Matthew’s Gospel was written. I recommend the read to demonstrate how broad the possibilities are on even the trivial details.
If you begin any study—be it authorship, or dating, or contents—within this field, you will quickly discover books and books and articles supporting about any position possible. Matthew the disciple was the author of the Gospel. We don’t know who the author was. It was another disciple. It was a Christian. A Jewish Christian. A Hellenized Christian. A Greek. A forgery. It was the first gospel written, the second, the third, the fourth, the fifth, the sixth. It was written in Greek. No Aramaic and then translated into Greek. Written as early as the 30’s CE. As late as the 300’s. Yes, I realize some theories are less probable than others—yet the claims are out there to be explored!
I bring this all out to demonstrate how malleable and indistinct the evidence we have for what events transpired in First Century Palestine. As non-Christians we are often asked, “Well what evidence would you need to believe Jesus was raised from the dead?” (Often in a dismissive tone as if we have placed a standard so high we would only accept it if recorded in video. High-Definition Video. With Danish subtitles.)
The answer is simple: Better evidence than what we have now.
Why must every claim be permeated with possibilities? Even Christians argue amongst themselves as to who wrote what when. As to what the ending of Mark should/could/would be. As to whether this section, paragraph or word was in the original writing. As to what is historical and what is legendary.
How about Matthew starting off, “A Gospel of Matthew, Disciple of Jesus, written in the second year of Nero’s reign”? See how simple that would be to eliminate confusion? How about Paul dating his letters? Or identifying when he was using a secretary?
Yes, I am sure there may still be problems. But at least some could be reduced! Or having the early church fathers indicate when they are quoting from a Gospel. (And the gospels indicate when they are copying from each other.)
What I often see occur, in these discussions, is the Christian apologist having a conclusion and then looking for evidence to support that conclusion. Want 1 Clement to be written in 95 C.E.? Indicate Eusebius and Tertullian wrote on a Domitian persecution, claim 1 Clement is referring to this event and voila—you have a 95 CE date. But if you look at the evidence first--without a pre-ordained conclusion--such dating disintegrates into a range of possibilities.
This is why the exchange breaks down. The Christian apologist thinks the evidence is clear 1 Clement was written 95 C.E. and only a dunderhead could think otherwise; the skeptic reviews all the evidence and remains unconvinced.
What would have been the problem with including authors & dates in these documents? Why is asking what would be normal and standard in any other historical document too much to ask in the supposed greatest historical documents of them all? What is so surprising we skeptics question the viability when we would do so in any other documents with the same lack of precision?
At what point does it become obvious this is a botched human creation?
For one minor example: my entry on Peter’s death mentioned 1 Clement being written in 95 C.E. I let it go at that…yet if I was more precise I would note the date is uncertain. We utilize 95 C.E. because the book starts off referring to certain calamities happening in Rome, and some scholars presume this refers to the Domitian (Roman Emperor from 81 – 96 CE) persecution of Christians.
However, there are problems with this dating. First, 1 Clement does not indicate what the calamities are, let alone a persecution initiated by the Emperor. Second, we have no contemporary evidence regarding any such persecution by Domitian; primarily relying up Eusebius 200 years later. Third, even Eusebius’ account does not necessarily indicate a persecution against Christianity.
Now (here is where one’s footnotes get footnotes) it should be mentioned Tertullian (writing around 200 CE, or about 100 years later) also refers to a persecution by Domitian, yet indicates it was brief, and the Emperor restored those he had banished. In order to get 1 Clement written during the appropriate time, we would need to place it within this short, undetermined period.
BUT…(see where one gets footnotes on footnotes on footnotes?) Tertullian also mentions that Peter ordained 1 Clement, meaning we would need to determine the date when this occurred to accurately date both Peter’s death and when 1 Clement could have been written.
Unfortunately, it is unclear whether Clement is the second or third Bishop of Rome, after Peter, let alone what date he could have been ordained by Peter, leaving us in yet another debate over when this occurred. (And, might I add, completely destroying the original idea that Peter died under Nero’s reign in 62 – 62 CE!)
Oh, did I mention 1 Clement doesn’t self-identify its own authorship? This is all presuming Clement wrote this book, and now we would need to go off on yet another rabbit trail, explaining when this book traditionally was attributed to Clement! (And dare I mention the Greek word for whether Peter was martyred or not is also in contention? Gasp—another rabbit trail.)
All that (and more) to merely support one line in one blog entry. Dr. Carrier admirably goes through a much longer and similar exercise on the minor issue regarding the last possible date Matthew’s Gospel was written. I recommend the read to demonstrate how broad the possibilities are on even the trivial details.
If you begin any study—be it authorship, or dating, or contents—within this field, you will quickly discover books and books and articles supporting about any position possible. Matthew the disciple was the author of the Gospel. We don’t know who the author was. It was another disciple. It was a Christian. A Jewish Christian. A Hellenized Christian. A Greek. A forgery. It was the first gospel written, the second, the third, the fourth, the fifth, the sixth. It was written in Greek. No Aramaic and then translated into Greek. Written as early as the 30’s CE. As late as the 300’s. Yes, I realize some theories are less probable than others—yet the claims are out there to be explored!
I bring this all out to demonstrate how malleable and indistinct the evidence we have for what events transpired in First Century Palestine. As non-Christians we are often asked, “Well what evidence would you need to believe Jesus was raised from the dead?” (Often in a dismissive tone as if we have placed a standard so high we would only accept it if recorded in video. High-Definition Video. With Danish subtitles.)
The answer is simple: Better evidence than what we have now.
Why must every claim be permeated with possibilities? Even Christians argue amongst themselves as to who wrote what when. As to what the ending of Mark should/could/would be. As to whether this section, paragraph or word was in the original writing. As to what is historical and what is legendary.
How about Matthew starting off, “A Gospel of Matthew, Disciple of Jesus, written in the second year of Nero’s reign”? See how simple that would be to eliminate confusion? How about Paul dating his letters? Or identifying when he was using a secretary?
Yes, I am sure there may still be problems. But at least some could be reduced! Or having the early church fathers indicate when they are quoting from a Gospel. (And the gospels indicate when they are copying from each other.)
What I often see occur, in these discussions, is the Christian apologist having a conclusion and then looking for evidence to support that conclusion. Want 1 Clement to be written in 95 C.E.? Indicate Eusebius and Tertullian wrote on a Domitian persecution, claim 1 Clement is referring to this event and voila—you have a 95 CE date. But if you look at the evidence first--without a pre-ordained conclusion--such dating disintegrates into a range of possibilities.
This is why the exchange breaks down. The Christian apologist thinks the evidence is clear 1 Clement was written 95 C.E. and only a dunderhead could think otherwise; the skeptic reviews all the evidence and remains unconvinced.
What would have been the problem with including authors & dates in these documents? Why is asking what would be normal and standard in any other historical document too much to ask in the supposed greatest historical documents of them all? What is so surprising we skeptics question the viability when we would do so in any other documents with the same lack of precision?
At what point does it become obvious this is a botched human creation?
Wednesday, June 09, 2010
1st Corinthians 15 is not a fact
I recently listened to the debate with Dr. Mike Licona and Dr. Richard Carrier on Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? This followed what I call the “Habermas” approach, regarding the Minimal facts position.
Dr. Licona’s reliance solely on 1 Cor. 15:3-8 in his opening statement was slightly surprising. Indeed, he indicated he was deliberately not relying upon any of the Gospels. The only “facts” he used was this small passage. (I put “facts” in quotes for a reason to be revealed shortly.) He then demanded Dr. Carrier provide a counter-factual to explain these “facts” that is more historically plausible than Jesus being resurrected.
A little background, in case the reader is not familiar with this use of 1 Cor. 15. Around 50 C.E., Paul was writing to the church in Corinth regarding certain problems in the church. How to effectively coordinate speaking in tongues, (1 Cor. 14:5-39), what to do with women in the church (1 Cor. 14:34-35), etc. An issue confronted was congregants saying there was no resurrection of the dead. Paul uses Jesus’ resurrection as an example and in doing so, cites a creed Paul had previously personally provided to the Corinthians:
Dr. Licona followed the formulaic Christian apologetic by claiming Jesus died in 30 CE, “most scholars” believe Paul was converted within 3 years and “it is likely” Paul received this information from Peter and James upon visiting Jerusalem after the conversion approximately 3 years later, or 36 CE at the latest. (Acts 9:26-29; Gal. 1:18-19) This formula is designed to make the creed seem very early indeed.
A minor tangent regarding the dating. First, we don’t know when Jesus died, (there is controversy regarding whether he died on a Friday before the Passover, or a Friday that was a Passover, meaning it would be a different year.) Second, we don’t know when Paul was converted. Thirdly, we don’t know who Paul obtained this creed from. Even granting Dr. Licona’s “most scholars” and “it is likely” it is a matter of speculation regarding when Paul received this. And, the earliest Paul could have received it was 40 C.E.; to conform to the chronology required by 2 Cor. 11:32, Gal. 1:17-18 and Acts 9:23-29.
So what is the “fact” we are dealing with? An example for clarification…imagine a criminal trial. The prosecution has presented evidence showing the defendant’s fingerprints on the gun, eyewitness testimony placing the defendant at the scene, and a written confession by the defendant. Now the prosecution puts up their first witness: the Defendant’s mother. She testifies, “My son was with me watching Jeopardy at the time.”
Is the presented “fact” that defendant was watching Jeopardy at the time of the crime? No—a thousand times, No! The fact is: “Defendant’s mother testified defendant was watching Jeopardy at the time.” See the difference?
“Defendant was watching Jeopardy at the time.”
“Defendant’s mother testified defendant was watching Jeopardy at the time.”
If the jury, in our example, convicted the Defendant, we would not demand they come up with an explanation for how the Defendant could possibly be watching Jeopardy at the same time the crime was committed, and demand they come up with a plausible explanation for him crossing town at a commercial break or some other such nonsense. No, what we understand is that the jury sees a plausible explanation for why the Defendant’s mother testified to an alibi defense. She believes her son is innocent (because she is a mother) and has probably confused a day when they did watch television together. This is very plausible.
What bothered me about this debate was how Dr. Licona referred to these appearances in 1 Cor. 15 as “facts” where actuality, the fact is Paul is reporting he heard about these appearances. (Amusingly, this is worse than our situation with the Defendant’s mother. To more closely align it, we would have to state, “The Defendant’s mother heard from unknown persons that the defendant was watching Jeopardy at the time.” I hope you can see how this is even more tenuous a fact.)
Except the last claim--Jesus appearing to Paul (where every indication we have is that was a vision)—the other accounts are hearsay. The easiest and most plausible explanation is that these accounts were made up and passed on to Paul. No resurrection—no miracle—is necessary.
Think about it—creedal Christians are not scratching their heads trying to explain how Joseph Smith chanced upon golden plates buried for centuries. They don’t believe there were any plates in the first place! In a debate with a Mormon, a creedal Christian would not grant the “fact” of the Golden plates’ existence, simply because witnesses claimed to have seen them—they demand proof of the plates themselves.
In the same way, why should we (and why did Dr. Carrier) grant these appearances as having happened (albeit Dr. Carrier gives a possible explanation of group hallucination), simply because Dr. Licona calls them “facts”?
At the debate’s beginning, Dr. Licona gave an example of how a proposed explanation has “explanatory scope” by explaining all the facts at one’s disposal. He relayed an incident in his neighborhood where he heard sirens and emergency vehicles and made one postulation. Upon learning more facts (and learning his first guess was wrong) he made another guess. He went on about learning more facts, making more guesses and each time learning his previous speculation was incorrect.
I am bothered that this was not applied to the present situation. Shouldn’t we look to the other facts? What about the conflicting accounts? Matthew, Luke and John have different orders of appearance. They have females not included in this creed. [Some apologists claim Paul didn’t include females due to their lack of credibility…but I thought he was quoting a creed. Did he modify a creed or did the creed’s authors have something against females?]
The Gospels do not record any appearance to 500. The Gospels do not record an appearance to James—no other canonical book does. And who are the “apostles”? Are they different than the 500 and different than the Twelve?
What about the other accounts not mentioned that conflict with each other? The appearances to Mary Magdalene, the soldiers, whether it was in Galilee or Jerusalem, how long Jesus stayed on earth? In any other historical context we would look at the various accounts and question which (if any) were accurate. Why must we assume 1 Cor. 15 is, and the others are not?
It is also interesting that 1 Cor. 15 indicates Jesus died, was buried and rose again on the third day, “according to the scriptures.” Nothing about Jesus predicting his own resurrection in this—the earliest of creeds! Further, Jesus statements regarding a post-resurrection body (Matthew 25:31-46, Luke 23:43, Matt. 22:30, Mark 12:25, John 11:24-25) were apparently unknown to the Corinthians. How is it possible, a religion founded on the physical resurrection of its leader, could reach a point within 20 years where some followers did not believe in a physical resurrection?
I have no idea why anyone is conceding these appearances are “facts.” As if we have to explain how 500 people saw a physically resurrected Jesus. No…all we have to do is explain how someone claims 500 people saw a physically resurrected Jesus. And the naturalistic explanation (they made it up) is far more plausible and probable than that Jesus DID actually rise from the dead.
Unless the creedal Christian is busy explaining away the amazing coincidence of how Joseph Smith just happened to stumble on those ancient Golden Plates and then manage to lose them…
Dr. Licona’s reliance solely on 1 Cor. 15:3-8 in his opening statement was slightly surprising. Indeed, he indicated he was deliberately not relying upon any of the Gospels. The only “facts” he used was this small passage. (I put “facts” in quotes for a reason to be revealed shortly.) He then demanded Dr. Carrier provide a counter-factual to explain these “facts” that is more historically plausible than Jesus being resurrected.
A little background, in case the reader is not familiar with this use of 1 Cor. 15. Around 50 C.E., Paul was writing to the church in Corinth regarding certain problems in the church. How to effectively coordinate speaking in tongues, (1 Cor. 14:5-39), what to do with women in the church (1 Cor. 14:34-35), etc. An issue confronted was congregants saying there was no resurrection of the dead. Paul uses Jesus’ resurrection as an example and in doing so, cites a creed Paul had previously personally provided to the Corinthians:
For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,
and that He was seen by Cephas,
then by the twelve.
After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep.
After that He was seen by James,
then by all the apostles.
Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time. (1 Cor. 15:3-8)
Dr. Licona followed the formulaic Christian apologetic by claiming Jesus died in 30 CE, “most scholars” believe Paul was converted within 3 years and “it is likely” Paul received this information from Peter and James upon visiting Jerusalem after the conversion approximately 3 years later, or 36 CE at the latest. (Acts 9:26-29; Gal. 1:18-19) This formula is designed to make the creed seem very early indeed.
A minor tangent regarding the dating. First, we don’t know when Jesus died, (there is controversy regarding whether he died on a Friday before the Passover, or a Friday that was a Passover, meaning it would be a different year.) Second, we don’t know when Paul was converted. Thirdly, we don’t know who Paul obtained this creed from. Even granting Dr. Licona’s “most scholars” and “it is likely” it is a matter of speculation regarding when Paul received this. And, the earliest Paul could have received it was 40 C.E.; to conform to the chronology required by 2 Cor. 11:32, Gal. 1:17-18 and Acts 9:23-29.
So what is the “fact” we are dealing with? An example for clarification…imagine a criminal trial. The prosecution has presented evidence showing the defendant’s fingerprints on the gun, eyewitness testimony placing the defendant at the scene, and a written confession by the defendant. Now the prosecution puts up their first witness: the Defendant’s mother. She testifies, “My son was with me watching Jeopardy at the time.”
Is the presented “fact” that defendant was watching Jeopardy at the time of the crime? No—a thousand times, No! The fact is: “Defendant’s mother testified defendant was watching Jeopardy at the time.” See the difference?
“Defendant was watching Jeopardy at the time.”
“Defendant’s mother testified defendant was watching Jeopardy at the time.”
If the jury, in our example, convicted the Defendant, we would not demand they come up with an explanation for how the Defendant could possibly be watching Jeopardy at the same time the crime was committed, and demand they come up with a plausible explanation for him crossing town at a commercial break or some other such nonsense. No, what we understand is that the jury sees a plausible explanation for why the Defendant’s mother testified to an alibi defense. She believes her son is innocent (because she is a mother) and has probably confused a day when they did watch television together. This is very plausible.
What bothered me about this debate was how Dr. Licona referred to these appearances in 1 Cor. 15 as “facts” where actuality, the fact is Paul is reporting he heard about these appearances. (Amusingly, this is worse than our situation with the Defendant’s mother. To more closely align it, we would have to state, “The Defendant’s mother heard from unknown persons that the defendant was watching Jeopardy at the time.” I hope you can see how this is even more tenuous a fact.)
Except the last claim--Jesus appearing to Paul (where every indication we have is that was a vision)—the other accounts are hearsay. The easiest and most plausible explanation is that these accounts were made up and passed on to Paul. No resurrection—no miracle—is necessary.
Think about it—creedal Christians are not scratching their heads trying to explain how Joseph Smith chanced upon golden plates buried for centuries. They don’t believe there were any plates in the first place! In a debate with a Mormon, a creedal Christian would not grant the “fact” of the Golden plates’ existence, simply because witnesses claimed to have seen them—they demand proof of the plates themselves.
In the same way, why should we (and why did Dr. Carrier) grant these appearances as having happened (albeit Dr. Carrier gives a possible explanation of group hallucination), simply because Dr. Licona calls them “facts”?
At the debate’s beginning, Dr. Licona gave an example of how a proposed explanation has “explanatory scope” by explaining all the facts at one’s disposal. He relayed an incident in his neighborhood where he heard sirens and emergency vehicles and made one postulation. Upon learning more facts (and learning his first guess was wrong) he made another guess. He went on about learning more facts, making more guesses and each time learning his previous speculation was incorrect.
I am bothered that this was not applied to the present situation. Shouldn’t we look to the other facts? What about the conflicting accounts? Matthew, Luke and John have different orders of appearance. They have females not included in this creed. [Some apologists claim Paul didn’t include females due to their lack of credibility…but I thought he was quoting a creed. Did he modify a creed or did the creed’s authors have something against females?]
The Gospels do not record any appearance to 500. The Gospels do not record an appearance to James—no other canonical book does. And who are the “apostles”? Are they different than the 500 and different than the Twelve?
What about the other accounts not mentioned that conflict with each other? The appearances to Mary Magdalene, the soldiers, whether it was in Galilee or Jerusalem, how long Jesus stayed on earth? In any other historical context we would look at the various accounts and question which (if any) were accurate. Why must we assume 1 Cor. 15 is, and the others are not?
It is also interesting that 1 Cor. 15 indicates Jesus died, was buried and rose again on the third day, “according to the scriptures.” Nothing about Jesus predicting his own resurrection in this—the earliest of creeds! Further, Jesus statements regarding a post-resurrection body (Matthew 25:31-46, Luke 23:43, Matt. 22:30, Mark 12:25, John 11:24-25) were apparently unknown to the Corinthians. How is it possible, a religion founded on the physical resurrection of its leader, could reach a point within 20 years where some followers did not believe in a physical resurrection?
I have no idea why anyone is conceding these appearances are “facts.” As if we have to explain how 500 people saw a physically resurrected Jesus. No…all we have to do is explain how someone claims 500 people saw a physically resurrected Jesus. And the naturalistic explanation (they made it up) is far more plausible and probable than that Jesus DID actually rise from the dead.
Unless the creedal Christian is busy explaining away the amazing coincidence of how Joseph Smith just happened to stumble on those ancient Golden Plates and then manage to lose them…
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Why Peter had to Die
Ask most Christians how Peter the Disciple died, and they will tell you he was crucified upside down during Nero’s reign, some time in the early 60’s C.E. Ask where they get that information from, and most will have no idea beyond “tradition.” It is curious they reject writings about Jesus generated after 125 C.E. as being “too late;” but accept a tale developed long after that when it comes to the myth of Peter’s martyrdom.
Let’s trace the legend development surrounding Peter’s death.
The last Gospel written (according to most scholars) was John. You may see dates ranging from 60 C.E. to 125 C.E., but most put it around 90-100 C.E. According to John 21:18, Jesus said to Peter: "Most assuredly, I say to you, when you were younger, you girded yourself and walked where you wished; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish.” The author followed up in vs 19, stating, “This He [Jesus] spoke, signifying by what death he [Peter] would glorify God....”
At the time of the writing, the author knows Peter is dead. This doesn’t help us much for three reasons: 1) because the broad range of John’s dating, it does not narrow down when Peter died, 2) because chapter 21 is likely to be incorporated from another writing (Note that John ends quite nicely at the end of Chapter 20, and Chapter 21 seems to be an appendage from another tale*) giving us even less reliability as to dating and 3) because the language is circumspect. This description could fit a variety of deaths, even natural death.
*Perhaps the Gospel of Peter.
Our second clue comes from 2 Peter 1:13 –15 where Peter talks of his imminent death. For those who hold Peter did not write this epistle (such as myself), this indicates it was written after he died. Of course, for those who hold it was written by Peter, they would claim this was written shortly before he expired. Regardless, this letter gives us no clues as to when or where it was written, nor any details regarding Peter’s death.
Our third clue comes from 1 Clement 5:4 which states, “Peter, through unjust envy, endured not one or two but many labors, and at last, having delivered his testimony, departed unto the place of glory due to him.” The author is giving a list of noble examples from his generation, the first of which is Peter. “Delivering his testimony” is also translated
“having suffered martyrdom.”
Again, no details as to when, where, how or why are given. 1 Clement is traditionally dated around 95 C.E.
That’s it. Three documents, dated around 100 C.E. (+/- 10 years or so), all in agreement Peter is dead, none telling any details beyond that brute fact. To find the legend, we must journey along in time.
But first a minor digression for two important documents: The Martyrdom of Polycarp and Acts of Paul.
The Second Century saw numerous Christian writings, as well as the church grow into an established organization. Polycarp was a leader (the Bishop of Smyrna [a city on the coast in modern-day Turkey]) who was martyred around 150 C.E, as described in the Martydom of Polycarp.
According to this writing, Polycarp sees a vision where he prophecies his own death by fire. The leaders capture him and after allowing a two-hour prayer, take him into custody. They threaten Polycarp, cajoling him to recant Christianity. He does not, providing eloquent responses. They attempt to burn him alive, but the fire did not harm him, instead it gave off a pleasant fragrance, like spice. Failing this, an executioner stabbed Polycarp with a dagger, upon which a dove flew out of wound, and so much blood poured out it extinguished the fire!
The Christians preserved Polycarp’s bones.
While not a terribly remarkable book, one thing it DID do was set the standard regarding martyrdom. No longer were the brief descriptions of John or 1 Clement satisfactory. Just as Hollywood demands greater stunts, larger actors and more poignant speeches—martyrdoms now required all the trappings of Polycarp…and more.
In the latter part of the Second Century (150 – 200 C.E.), an unknown author penned the Acts of Paul. (Tertullian says it is a forgery from a priest.) The book covers events regarding a woman named Thecla and her interactions with Paul. For our purposes, we will focus on the attempted executions.
The first attempt indicates Thecla was sentenced to death by fire. However, when attempted the fire did not burn her (sound like Polycarp?), and a rain appeared, putting out the fire. Now Thecla gets in trouble again, because some fellow lusted after her, and she refuses his advances in order to protect her chastity. (This is a reoccurring theme throughout Acts of Paul how sex is bad, but men were continually lusting after women. This will come up later.)
This time they tried to kill her with beasts. When they set a lioness upon her, the lioness refused to kill her, but rather licked Thecla’s feet. The next occasion of Thecla’s attempted execution by beasts, the same event occurred. Perhaps the same lioness. This time, the leaders fired off a bear, too, but the lioness killed the bear. Then they let fly a lion; but the lioness killed the lion too. The government (not giving up) sent beast after beast, to no avail. Eventually Thecla got bored so she jumped into a tank of water and seals (with freaking laser beams!**). Instead of being killed by seals, a flash of light killed all the seals, leaving Thecla untouched. (Luckily a wall of fire appeared, preventing the crowd from seeing her naked.)
**O.K. no laser beams
One more try is made with bulls tearing her apart, but this also fails. They give up and she lives to a very old age (90.)
Now Acts of Paul takes up Paul’s story. It recounts the tale of leaders setting a lion upon Paul, but the lion refused to kill him, instead lying down at his feet. (Like Thecla’s story.) Other beasts were sent at Paul, and the lion protected him. (Sound familiar?)
Eventually Paul confronts Nero himself, and gives an eloquent speech. Nero orders Paul beheaded. Paul gives another speech, willingly stretches out his head, and is beheaded. Miraculously, milk spurts out. Paul makes two (2) post-death appearances. One to Nero, who is so bothered by it, he frees all the Christians in captivity. Another to the two Centurions, who are converted to Christianity.
In the latter Second Century, we see these glorified martyrdom stories.
Time to return back to Peter, specifically the Acts of Peter written 150 – 200 C.E. Most of what we have in the book revolves around Peter’s confrontation with Simon the Magician. We have various long-winded speeches, a talking dog, a resurrected herring, statute miraculously destroyed by kicking, statute miraculously restored by water, and a contest over who can resurrect the dead. All your typical Second Century wonder-working tales.
Eventually the tale moves to Rome, where Peter convinces four of Agrippa’s concubines to stop having sex with Agrippa***. (Told you sex would come back up.) This causes Agrippa grief. Then Peter convinces Albinus’s (Presumably Procurator of Judea) wife to stop having sex with him.
***You may be thinking this is King Herod Agrippa from Acts of the Apostles, however the timing is wrong, as King Agrippa died in 44 C.E.
Peter then convinced many other women to leave their husbands, to live in a state of chastity to worship God. Understandably—there was trouble! Albinus’ wife warns Peter to flee Rome, but as Peter is fleeing he sees a vision of Jesus.
Peter: Where you going, Jesus?
Jesus: I am going to Rome to be crucified.
Peter: Again?
Jesus: Yep, again.
Peter: Let me go in your place.
So Peter returns to his doom. Agrippa condemns him to be crucified, and Peter asks to be crucified upside down. Peter says he will tell them why, once they do it. Obligingly, the Romans crucify him upside down, and Peter goes into a long litany—basically saying because the first human was born with his head downward, and Peter was a human, it is appropriate that he be crucified in the same position.
Peter dies, and gives two (2) post-death appearances, one to Nero. When Nero learned Peter is killed by Agrippa, Nero is mad (and doesn’t speak to Agrippa for a long time) because Nero wanted to kill Peter. Instead Nero takes his anger out on the other Christians, Peter appears and tells him to stop, so Nero does. (Why does this sound so familiar?)
As a postscript, Tertullian, writing in the beginning of the Third Century (200 – 222 C.E.) proclaims the Acts of Paul as being a forgery, yet indicates Paul is beheaded and Peter was crucified in The Prescription of Heretics. It is unclear where Tertullian obtained the information about Paul, other than a document he claimed was a forgery. It would seem he accepted, at least, the claims of both Acts of Paul and Acts of Peter surrounding their deaths, even knowing at least Acts of Paul was completely made up!
So…
The next time someone tells you, “The Disciples wouldn’t die for a lie” you can reply, “All I know is that Peter died because he was convincing wives not to have sex with their husbands which made the husbands mad, so he ran away; but then he ran into Jesus who was on His way to be crucified again in Rome, so Peter offered to take His place, insisting on being crucified upside down because that is how Cain was born.”
Let’s trace the legend development surrounding Peter’s death.
The last Gospel written (according to most scholars) was John. You may see dates ranging from 60 C.E. to 125 C.E., but most put it around 90-100 C.E. According to John 21:18, Jesus said to Peter: "Most assuredly, I say to you, when you were younger, you girded yourself and walked where you wished; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish.” The author followed up in vs 19, stating, “This He [Jesus] spoke, signifying by what death he [Peter] would glorify God....”
At the time of the writing, the author knows Peter is dead. This doesn’t help us much for three reasons: 1) because the broad range of John’s dating, it does not narrow down when Peter died, 2) because chapter 21 is likely to be incorporated from another writing (Note that John ends quite nicely at the end of Chapter 20, and Chapter 21 seems to be an appendage from another tale*) giving us even less reliability as to dating and 3) because the language is circumspect. This description could fit a variety of deaths, even natural death.
*Perhaps the Gospel of Peter.
Our second clue comes from 2 Peter 1:13 –15 where Peter talks of his imminent death. For those who hold Peter did not write this epistle (such as myself), this indicates it was written after he died. Of course, for those who hold it was written by Peter, they would claim this was written shortly before he expired. Regardless, this letter gives us no clues as to when or where it was written, nor any details regarding Peter’s death.
Our third clue comes from 1 Clement 5:4 which states, “Peter, through unjust envy, endured not one or two but many labors, and at last, having delivered his testimony, departed unto the place of glory due to him.” The author is giving a list of noble examples from his generation, the first of which is Peter. “Delivering his testimony” is also translated
“having suffered martyrdom.”
Again, no details as to when, where, how or why are given. 1 Clement is traditionally dated around 95 C.E.
That’s it. Three documents, dated around 100 C.E. (+/- 10 years or so), all in agreement Peter is dead, none telling any details beyond that brute fact. To find the legend, we must journey along in time.
But first a minor digression for two important documents: The Martyrdom of Polycarp and Acts of Paul.
The Second Century saw numerous Christian writings, as well as the church grow into an established organization. Polycarp was a leader (the Bishop of Smyrna [a city on the coast in modern-day Turkey]) who was martyred around 150 C.E, as described in the Martydom of Polycarp.
According to this writing, Polycarp sees a vision where he prophecies his own death by fire. The leaders capture him and after allowing a two-hour prayer, take him into custody. They threaten Polycarp, cajoling him to recant Christianity. He does not, providing eloquent responses. They attempt to burn him alive, but the fire did not harm him, instead it gave off a pleasant fragrance, like spice. Failing this, an executioner stabbed Polycarp with a dagger, upon which a dove flew out of wound, and so much blood poured out it extinguished the fire!
The Christians preserved Polycarp’s bones.
While not a terribly remarkable book, one thing it DID do was set the standard regarding martyrdom. No longer were the brief descriptions of John or 1 Clement satisfactory. Just as Hollywood demands greater stunts, larger actors and more poignant speeches—martyrdoms now required all the trappings of Polycarp…and more.
In the latter part of the Second Century (150 – 200 C.E.), an unknown author penned the Acts of Paul. (Tertullian says it is a forgery from a priest.) The book covers events regarding a woman named Thecla and her interactions with Paul. For our purposes, we will focus on the attempted executions.
The first attempt indicates Thecla was sentenced to death by fire. However, when attempted the fire did not burn her (sound like Polycarp?), and a rain appeared, putting out the fire. Now Thecla gets in trouble again, because some fellow lusted after her, and she refuses his advances in order to protect her chastity. (This is a reoccurring theme throughout Acts of Paul how sex is bad, but men were continually lusting after women. This will come up later.)
This time they tried to kill her with beasts. When they set a lioness upon her, the lioness refused to kill her, but rather licked Thecla’s feet. The next occasion of Thecla’s attempted execution by beasts, the same event occurred. Perhaps the same lioness. This time, the leaders fired off a bear, too, but the lioness killed the bear. Then they let fly a lion; but the lioness killed the lion too. The government (not giving up) sent beast after beast, to no avail. Eventually Thecla got bored so she jumped into a tank of water and seals (with freaking laser beams!**). Instead of being killed by seals, a flash of light killed all the seals, leaving Thecla untouched. (Luckily a wall of fire appeared, preventing the crowd from seeing her naked.)
**O.K. no laser beams
One more try is made with bulls tearing her apart, but this also fails. They give up and she lives to a very old age (90.)
Now Acts of Paul takes up Paul’s story. It recounts the tale of leaders setting a lion upon Paul, but the lion refused to kill him, instead lying down at his feet. (Like Thecla’s story.) Other beasts were sent at Paul, and the lion protected him. (Sound familiar?)
Eventually Paul confronts Nero himself, and gives an eloquent speech. Nero orders Paul beheaded. Paul gives another speech, willingly stretches out his head, and is beheaded. Miraculously, milk spurts out. Paul makes two (2) post-death appearances. One to Nero, who is so bothered by it, he frees all the Christians in captivity. Another to the two Centurions, who are converted to Christianity.
In the latter Second Century, we see these glorified martyrdom stories.
Time to return back to Peter, specifically the Acts of Peter written 150 – 200 C.E. Most of what we have in the book revolves around Peter’s confrontation with Simon the Magician. We have various long-winded speeches, a talking dog, a resurrected herring, statute miraculously destroyed by kicking, statute miraculously restored by water, and a contest over who can resurrect the dead. All your typical Second Century wonder-working tales.
Eventually the tale moves to Rome, where Peter convinces four of Agrippa’s concubines to stop having sex with Agrippa***. (Told you sex would come back up.) This causes Agrippa grief. Then Peter convinces Albinus’s (Presumably Procurator of Judea) wife to stop having sex with him.
***You may be thinking this is King Herod Agrippa from Acts of the Apostles, however the timing is wrong, as King Agrippa died in 44 C.E.
Peter then convinced many other women to leave their husbands, to live in a state of chastity to worship God. Understandably—there was trouble! Albinus’ wife warns Peter to flee Rome, but as Peter is fleeing he sees a vision of Jesus.
Peter: Where you going, Jesus?
Jesus: I am going to Rome to be crucified.
Peter: Again?
Jesus: Yep, again.
Peter: Let me go in your place.
So Peter returns to his doom. Agrippa condemns him to be crucified, and Peter asks to be crucified upside down. Peter says he will tell them why, once they do it. Obligingly, the Romans crucify him upside down, and Peter goes into a long litany—basically saying because the first human was born with his head downward, and Peter was a human, it is appropriate that he be crucified in the same position.
Peter dies, and gives two (2) post-death appearances, one to Nero. When Nero learned Peter is killed by Agrippa, Nero is mad (and doesn’t speak to Agrippa for a long time) because Nero wanted to kill Peter. Instead Nero takes his anger out on the other Christians, Peter appears and tells him to stop, so Nero does. (Why does this sound so familiar?)
As a postscript, Tertullian, writing in the beginning of the Third Century (200 – 222 C.E.) proclaims the Acts of Paul as being a forgery, yet indicates Paul is beheaded and Peter was crucified in The Prescription of Heretics. It is unclear where Tertullian obtained the information about Paul, other than a document he claimed was a forgery. It would seem he accepted, at least, the claims of both Acts of Paul and Acts of Peter surrounding their deaths, even knowing at least Acts of Paul was completely made up!
So…
The next time someone tells you, “The Disciples wouldn’t die for a lie” you can reply, “All I know is that Peter died because he was convincing wives not to have sex with their husbands which made the husbands mad, so he ran away; but then he ran into Jesus who was on His way to be crucified again in Rome, so Peter offered to take His place, insisting on being crucified upside down because that is how Cain was born.”
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
The Money Quote
Justice Stevens in the dissent:
PDF of the Mojave Desert Cross Supreme Court Decision.
Making a plain, unadorned Latin cross a war memorial does not make the cross secular. It makes the war memorial sectarian.
PDF of the Mojave Desert Cross Supreme Court Decision.
Friday, April 23, 2010
A Duck Talks
We’ve all had them--the co-worker from hell. Perhaps it was the woman who seemed to have an endless supply of children; all selling something for their band trip, or scout troop, or soccer team…Each week brought in a new kiosk where you felt the subtle, yet substantial obligation to purchase yet more cookies or popcorn or candy or stationery or bedazzle kit. Otherwise their miserable little beast will be forever deprived of the awesomeness that is band camp. If only you had bought one more candle…
Or the co-worker you dare not mention certain topics when near-by.
“This problem is pale in comparison to—“
“Palin! Did you say PALIN!! Eww…I hate that woman! Do you know what she said last week? Let me tell you in miniscule detail, and everything that could possibly be wrong with it.”
The boss that brings in their 17-year-old son to “intern” for the summer. The man who wears so much cologne, you rush to the smoker’s break room for “clean air.” The guy who calls in sick most Mondays. And every Friday in the summer.
Because you and I have had such co-workers; we can anticipate most jurors have as well. What would the average juror think regarding the Coppedge lawsuit?
See, this is what I have to think about every time I take a client. Not just what they are saying, and how wonderful the case appears from my client’s perspective—but what will the opposing party claim? What will a neutral determinator—the jury—think is more feasible? This is why I prefer my methodology--not what you “think” or I “feel.” How would a neutral determine based upon all of our arguments?
From the facts I have now—I think the Coppedge case is a loser. Oh sure, it makes great press releases, and sounds wonderful to the choir. They will lap it up. But as a lawyer, representing a client, I would tell them it isn’t worth the effort.
The first amendment (“freedom of speech”) would not sustain a motion to dismiss. The employer was not a state-actor, and employers are allowed to limit employee speech. The only real question is whether Mr. Coppedge was discriminated against for religious beliefs. Assuming his supervisor did claim this promotion of ID amounted to “pushing religion”—the inquiry does not end there. Apparently under California Law religious proselytizing can be limited. The key question is whether the conduct “imposes personally and directly on fellow employees, invading their privacy and criticizing their personal lives.” Chalmers v Tulon Co of Richmond 101 F.3d 1012 (4th Cir. 1996)
[If you think about it, this makes sense. Coppedge is in a supervisory position. If he pushes what appears to be religion on a subordinate, and his superiors take no action, JPL could be sued for religious discrimination by Coppedge’s subordinate! The employer is between a rock and a hard place—do nothing and Coppedge’s underlings could sue. Stop him and he sues.]
We see where the line is drawn—we now can anticipate the arguments from each side. Coppedge will attempt to paint himself as only talking to others after they first talked to him. That he only talked to them after hours, in the most minimal manner possible. That as soon as anyone indicated they were not interested in his ideas, he immediately withdrew and never, ever raised it again.
JLP, the employer will portray Coppedge as being insistent with co-workers, being pushy, repeating ID around everyone regardless of how they felt. That he invaded their privacy. Simply put, they will attempt to portray him as the employee from ID-Hell.
No surprise, even William Becker (Coppedge’s attorney) sees this coming.
Podcast with Coppedge’s attorney. [Warning; it starts to play as soon as you click on it.]
Lovely depiction, and exactly what a lawyer would do—express his client in the best possible light.
But lawsuits don’t end there. They don’t end with mild-mannered David on the stand, and then the jury decides. The employer will also provide proofs.
One thing that would bother me (if I was investigating taking Coppedge’s case) was that human resources did an investigation, interviewed him (where he admitted engaging in these conversations at work) and talked with other employees. According to Plaintiff’s own complaint, human resources found out other employees considered this “pushing religion” and “disruptive” and “unwelcome.” Dangerously close to imposing on co-workers and invading their privacy!
Of course Plaintiff will testify no employee every complained directly to him. What is wrong with that? Think back to YOUR co-worker from hell. Did you complain directly to them? Did you march right up and say, “Enough of the Palin-talk.” Or “Use 1/10 of the cologne, buddy!” Nope, most times you grinned and bore it with your other co-workers. Perhaps subtle (and not-so-subtle) hints were sent. We all can picture:
David Coppedge: Did you see that show on Evolution last night?
Co-worker: [thinking “not again!”] Mmm—mm must have missed it.
David Coppedge: Funny how they never show problems with the theory.
Co-Worker: Gee…look at the time! Time to rotate the coffee filters.
Coppedge walks away thinking, “They didn’t tell me to stop!” The co-worker walks away and thinks, “What a jerk.”
What are the chances the employer will produce such a witness? A co-worker who says it was unwelcome. Remember—they only need one!
Obviously I don’t know—I have absolutely no insight into the employee files at JPL. I know what I would point out. David Coppedge is on the board of Directors for Illustra Media-- the publisher of the very DVD’s he was handing out, including ”Unlocking the Mystery of Life” This is a guy who is interested in Intelligent Design. I would point out the numerous articles David Coppedge has written on ID. I would point out discussions he has had (as I mentioned in my last blog entry) with those opposed to ID.
See, here’s where the neutral party may question the situation. On the one hand we have a Plaintiff who is suing for money and sits there all mild-mannerly, claiming he would never be pushy about his belief. On the other hand, we see a guy who (and he has every right) composes article after article on ID, engages others, and sits on the board that produces the DVD’s he is handing out. As these articles came in evidence—over and over—it will be more difficult for a juror to believe he would walk away from a conversation on ID the instant someone indicated they were not interested.
We have an employer who will very, VERY likely produce at least one employee who will testify Coppedge’s statements were unwelcome, but they did not feel comfortable approaching their supervisor about it. (Too many people investigated the matter and came to that conclusion.) That indicated they took the DVD out of politeness and later threw it away.
And I have jurors who have experienced co-workers from hell.
Yep. Jurors like that.
This lawsuit will serve ID interests, as it is great press release, already stirring up those who believe it in. It will serve the attorney—he gets more advertisement. It will not serve the client—David Coppedge.
Or the co-worker you dare not mention certain topics when near-by.
“This problem is pale in comparison to—“
“Palin! Did you say PALIN!! Eww…I hate that woman! Do you know what she said last week? Let me tell you in miniscule detail, and everything that could possibly be wrong with it.”
The boss that brings in their 17-year-old son to “intern” for the summer. The man who wears so much cologne, you rush to the smoker’s break room for “clean air.” The guy who calls in sick most Mondays. And every Friday in the summer.
Because you and I have had such co-workers; we can anticipate most jurors have as well. What would the average juror think regarding the Coppedge lawsuit?
See, this is what I have to think about every time I take a client. Not just what they are saying, and how wonderful the case appears from my client’s perspective—but what will the opposing party claim? What will a neutral determinator—the jury—think is more feasible? This is why I prefer my methodology--not what you “think” or I “feel.” How would a neutral determine based upon all of our arguments?
From the facts I have now—I think the Coppedge case is a loser. Oh sure, it makes great press releases, and sounds wonderful to the choir. They will lap it up. But as a lawyer, representing a client, I would tell them it isn’t worth the effort.
The first amendment (“freedom of speech”) would not sustain a motion to dismiss. The employer was not a state-actor, and employers are allowed to limit employee speech. The only real question is whether Mr. Coppedge was discriminated against for religious beliefs. Assuming his supervisor did claim this promotion of ID amounted to “pushing religion”—the inquiry does not end there. Apparently under California Law religious proselytizing can be limited. The key question is whether the conduct “imposes personally and directly on fellow employees, invading their privacy and criticizing their personal lives.” Chalmers v Tulon Co of Richmond 101 F.3d 1012 (4th Cir. 1996)
[If you think about it, this makes sense. Coppedge is in a supervisory position. If he pushes what appears to be religion on a subordinate, and his superiors take no action, JPL could be sued for religious discrimination by Coppedge’s subordinate! The employer is between a rock and a hard place—do nothing and Coppedge’s underlings could sue. Stop him and he sues.]
We see where the line is drawn—we now can anticipate the arguments from each side. Coppedge will attempt to paint himself as only talking to others after they first talked to him. That he only talked to them after hours, in the most minimal manner possible. That as soon as anyone indicated they were not interested in his ideas, he immediately withdrew and never, ever raised it again.
JLP, the employer will portray Coppedge as being insistent with co-workers, being pushy, repeating ID around everyone regardless of how they felt. That he invaded their privacy. Simply put, they will attempt to portray him as the employee from ID-Hell.
No surprise, even William Becker (Coppedge’s attorney) sees this coming.
William Becker:… he’s[Coppedge] not pushy and he’s not persistent in his views. He’s a very mild-mannered guy, so any potential claim he was overly-aggressive in the way that he approached people about his interest in intelligent design is not going to be very successful in this case.
…
David never had any other co-worker refuse to take a DVD from him. And David never had a co-worker tell him, ‘Listen. You’re being too pushy, I’m not interested in the subject, please go away.’ If anyone expressed disinterest in the subject, David would walk away.
So this isn’t a case of him being overly persistent or obnoxious in his behavior, when he approached other employees; although that’s the way JPL is expected to argue their position. That it wasn’t based on a viewpoint. That it wasn’t based on discrimination and it wasn’t based on a perception of religious speech; they are going to argue that it was based on David’s mannerisms and his behavior. And if they try to do that I think they will be very unsuccessful when they learn what a mild-mannered guy he is and that he is not the type of person who engaged in that kind of conduct.
Podcast with Coppedge’s attorney. [Warning; it starts to play as soon as you click on it.]
Lovely depiction, and exactly what a lawyer would do—express his client in the best possible light.
But lawsuits don’t end there. They don’t end with mild-mannered David on the stand, and then the jury decides. The employer will also provide proofs.
One thing that would bother me (if I was investigating taking Coppedge’s case) was that human resources did an investigation, interviewed him (where he admitted engaging in these conversations at work) and talked with other employees. According to Plaintiff’s own complaint, human resources found out other employees considered this “pushing religion” and “disruptive” and “unwelcome.” Dangerously close to imposing on co-workers and invading their privacy!
Of course Plaintiff will testify no employee every complained directly to him. What is wrong with that? Think back to YOUR co-worker from hell. Did you complain directly to them? Did you march right up and say, “Enough of the Palin-talk.” Or “Use 1/10 of the cologne, buddy!” Nope, most times you grinned and bore it with your other co-workers. Perhaps subtle (and not-so-subtle) hints were sent. We all can picture:
David Coppedge: Did you see that show on Evolution last night?
Co-worker: [thinking “not again!”] Mmm—mm must have missed it.
David Coppedge: Funny how they never show problems with the theory.
Co-Worker: Gee…look at the time! Time to rotate the coffee filters.
Coppedge walks away thinking, “They didn’t tell me to stop!” The co-worker walks away and thinks, “What a jerk.”
What are the chances the employer will produce such a witness? A co-worker who says it was unwelcome. Remember—they only need one!
Obviously I don’t know—I have absolutely no insight into the employee files at JPL. I know what I would point out. David Coppedge is on the board of Directors for Illustra Media-- the publisher of the very DVD’s he was handing out, including ”Unlocking the Mystery of Life” This is a guy who is interested in Intelligent Design. I would point out the numerous articles David Coppedge has written on ID. I would point out discussions he has had (as I mentioned in my last blog entry) with those opposed to ID.
See, here’s where the neutral party may question the situation. On the one hand we have a Plaintiff who is suing for money and sits there all mild-mannerly, claiming he would never be pushy about his belief. On the other hand, we see a guy who (and he has every right) composes article after article on ID, engages others, and sits on the board that produces the DVD’s he is handing out. As these articles came in evidence—over and over—it will be more difficult for a juror to believe he would walk away from a conversation on ID the instant someone indicated they were not interested.
We have an employer who will very, VERY likely produce at least one employee who will testify Coppedge’s statements were unwelcome, but they did not feel comfortable approaching their supervisor about it. (Too many people investigated the matter and came to that conclusion.) That indicated they took the DVD out of politeness and later threw it away.
And I have jurors who have experienced co-workers from hell.
Barefoot Bum: Having been a manager and executive, I would strong suggest that Coppedge is not being demoted because he's religious, he's being demoted because he's an obnoxious asshole.
Yep. Jurors like that.
This lawsuit will serve ID interests, as it is great press release, already stirring up those who believe it in. It will serve the attorney—he gets more advertisement. It will not serve the client—David Coppedge.
Monday, April 19, 2010
A Duck Walks
I was apprised of the Coppedge Case in which another Intelligent Design (“ID”)proponent claims he was discriminated against in his employment because of his pro-ID support. )H/T to Wintery Knight)
I became fascinated with the delicate steps taken to avoid claiming ID is a religious belief. Let’s look at the background.
David Coppedge runs a blog entitled Creation-evolution headlines focusing on the intelligent design debate. He is the contact for a Creationist Organization He wrote a book entitled ”The World’s Greatest Creation Scientists” He actively engages in disputes over intelligent design, mentioning Jesus. He also is a Systems Administrator at Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a federally-funded NASA laboratory, managed by California Institute of Technology.
The facts (and we are only seeing this from David Coppedge’s perspective) I have taken from the complaint filed in Los Angeles Superior Court. He is a Systems Administrator in Information Technology—in other words he works with their computers. He was placed in a supervisory position over other System Administrators. He freely admits engaging co-workers, after hours, in discussions about ID. He offered them DVD’s, but never forced or coerced anyone to take a DVD.
On March 2, 2009, Coppedge was called into his supervisor’s office, indicating co-workers had complained about Coppedge’s “pushing his religious views on them by discussing ID and offering them DVDs to view.” (Plaintiff’s complaint, paragraph 19) Coppedge agreed he would stop. Within the next few weeks, human resources investigated the situation, interviewed him, and issued a written warning. This resulted in a demotion. The complaint states it succinctly:
He is suing for being discriminated against for his First amendment right, “Freedom of Speech,” as well as being discriminated against for religious beliefs. Not HIS religious beliefs, mind you, but the mistaken religious beliefs of his superiors.
Notice the thin line the IDers must traverse. When talking about ID in Church, or with Christian friends, everyone understands and accepts who the Designer is—it’s God. Jesus. Intelligent Design is a scrumptious tool to prove there is a God. Sure it uses science, and scientific terms-- this is an argument that nature proves there is a God.
But when discussing ID where religion becomes an obstacle—such as teaching it in public schools—the IDer is careful to claim there is no theistic component; they aren’t making any determination as to who or what the intelligent designer is. No, sirree; no way; no how! Nothing religious to see here!
This creates the present situation where Coppedge is left in the position of claiming there is no religious reason, but the other person mistakenly discriminated against him for religious reasons, even though Coppedge holds the religious belief the other person claims he does, so they aren’t really mistaken after all!
Think about it. On Saturday night, Coppedge speaks at a local church about how the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex, and therefore there must be a God. The next day he teaches Sunday School how the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex, and therefore there must be a God. That afternoon, he goes out to eat with friends, discussing how the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex, and therefore there must be a God. On Monday morning, he points out to co-employees and subordinates the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex, and therefore there must be…an…….Intelligent designer.
What is the difference? Who is surprised one naturally assumes the same argument used for God on Saturday, Sunday and every evening is the same used on Monday morning?
Supervisor: Don’t push your religion on co-workers.
Coppedge: I’m not—I am promoting Intelligent Design.
Supervisor: Aren’t you a Christian?
Coppedge: Yes, but that has nothing to do with it.
Supervisor: Do you believe the Intelligent Designer is a God?
Coppedge: Yes, but that has nothing to do with it.
Supervisor: Do you believe the Intelligent Designer is your God?
Coppedge: Yes, but that has nothing to do with it.
So if the Supervisor limits Coppedge’s proselytizing, it is the supervisor’s fault for presuming a Christian would be promoting a Christian religion by using a Christian argument, under a different title—“Intelligent Design.”
I wish IDers’ would come out and say it. They are talking about a God. It is the best candidate. This mincing and dancing around words leaves a bad taste in everyone’s mouth. Admit you are talking about God, take the consequences and move on.
I became fascinated with the delicate steps taken to avoid claiming ID is a religious belief. Let’s look at the background.
David Coppedge runs a blog entitled Creation-evolution headlines focusing on the intelligent design debate. He is the contact for a Creationist Organization He wrote a book entitled ”The World’s Greatest Creation Scientists” He actively engages in disputes over intelligent design, mentioning Jesus. He also is a Systems Administrator at Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a federally-funded NASA laboratory, managed by California Institute of Technology.
The facts (and we are only seeing this from David Coppedge’s perspective) I have taken from the complaint filed in Los Angeles Superior Court. He is a Systems Administrator in Information Technology—in other words he works with their computers. He was placed in a supervisory position over other System Administrators. He freely admits engaging co-workers, after hours, in discussions about ID. He offered them DVD’s, but never forced or coerced anyone to take a DVD.
On March 2, 2009, Coppedge was called into his supervisor’s office, indicating co-workers had complained about Coppedge’s “pushing his religious views on them by discussing ID and offering them DVDs to view.” (Plaintiff’s complaint, paragraph 19) Coppedge agreed he would stop. Within the next few weeks, human resources investigated the situation, interviewed him, and issued a written warning. This resulted in a demotion. The complaint states it succinctly:
Plaintiff was told his discussions with co-workers concerning ID and his distribution of the documentary films on DVD entitled ‘Unlocking the Mystery of Life’ and ‘The Privileged Planet’ amount to ‘pushing religion’ and ‘were unwelcome’ and ‘disruptive.’ Although no one had previously said these things to him, his supervisors informed him ‘a lot of people have been overly nice to you just to move on when you presented the ideas. (Plaintiff’s complaint, paragraph 7)
He is suing for being discriminated against for his First amendment right, “Freedom of Speech,” as well as being discriminated against for religious beliefs. Not HIS religious beliefs, mind you, but the mistaken religious beliefs of his superiors.
Notice the thin line the IDers must traverse. When talking about ID in Church, or with Christian friends, everyone understands and accepts who the Designer is—it’s God. Jesus. Intelligent Design is a scrumptious tool to prove there is a God. Sure it uses science, and scientific terms-- this is an argument that nature proves there is a God.
But when discussing ID where religion becomes an obstacle—such as teaching it in public schools—the IDer is careful to claim there is no theistic component; they aren’t making any determination as to who or what the intelligent designer is. No, sirree; no way; no how! Nothing religious to see here!
This creates the present situation where Coppedge is left in the position of claiming there is no religious reason, but the other person mistakenly discriminated against him for religious reasons, even though Coppedge holds the religious belief the other person claims he does, so they aren’t really mistaken after all!
Think about it. On Saturday night, Coppedge speaks at a local church about how the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex, and therefore there must be a God. The next day he teaches Sunday School how the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex, and therefore there must be a God. That afternoon, he goes out to eat with friends, discussing how the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex, and therefore there must be a God. On Monday morning, he points out to co-employees and subordinates the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex, and therefore there must be…an…….Intelligent designer.
What is the difference? Who is surprised one naturally assumes the same argument used for God on Saturday, Sunday and every evening is the same used on Monday morning?
Supervisor: Don’t push your religion on co-workers.
Coppedge: I’m not—I am promoting Intelligent Design.
Supervisor: Aren’t you a Christian?
Coppedge: Yes, but that has nothing to do with it.
Supervisor: Do you believe the Intelligent Designer is a God?
Coppedge: Yes, but that has nothing to do with it.
Supervisor: Do you believe the Intelligent Designer is your God?
Coppedge: Yes, but that has nothing to do with it.
So if the Supervisor limits Coppedge’s proselytizing, it is the supervisor’s fault for presuming a Christian would be promoting a Christian religion by using a Christian argument, under a different title—“Intelligent Design.”
I wish IDers’ would come out and say it. They are talking about a God. It is the best candidate. This mincing and dancing around words leaves a bad taste in everyone’s mouth. Admit you are talking about God, take the consequences and move on.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
What are you Praying for?
On Lorena’s Blog a person gave an aggress-passive comment ending with, “I have no idea if you’re a Christian or not. Only Christ knows your heart. But I will pray for you and your family.”
I am aware my family and (at one time—who knows if they continue) friends prayed for me as well. What, specifically, are they praying will happen? I understand how, in asking God to heal someone, even though you may not understand the specifics, the person is asking God to reach in the body, remove the cancerous cells, and miraculously replace the damaged tissue. Or if asking for employment—that God would “nudge” the resume to the right person at the right moment.
I equally understand how prayer is self-soothing. It helps one cope with a dying relative, or divorce without necessarily granting the desired wish. I’ve heard plenty apologetic defenses to the failure of prayer being God wanting prayer to affect the praying person—not the prayee.
But what could one possibly pray for a deconvert with any specificity?
Are they praying the deconvert gains knowledge? That God would “nudge” a certain book or article their way? If so, the person hopelessly does not understand deconversion. It isn’t “one thing.” It isn’t some silver bullet, that if only someone could give an explanation how the two accounts of Judas’ death could line up, we would become card-carrying Christians again.
Further, the deconvert often has far more knowledge than the Christian praying for them! Clearly more knowledge, even in the Christian’s paradigm, is not necessary for salvation—it wasn’t necessary for that person to be saved! How many times have we heard, “Have you read Strobel? Or Craig? Or Boyd? Or _____” and we say, “Yep.” If you are praying the deconvert needs more knowledge, you are wasting your time.
I’ve had people tell me they think Satan is deceiving me. Are they praying God will make Satan stop? How many times does one need to say that? At 100 prayers, does God finally say, “O.K., I guess they are serious that they want Satan to stop.” [A side-note to those interested in time-theory surrounding God. If God is outside time, it is often claimed all times are the “same” to Him. In other words, he sees our chronological time at the same moment. Our yesterday is the same to Him as our today and the same as our tomorrow. He sees 1000 B.C.E. at the same exact instant he sees 2010 C.E. If this was true, wouldn’t it also be true any prayer would be heard both at the same time as the instance the event requested is occurring AND all prayers would be heard simultaneously to God? Therefore, praying to God for the same thing twice is unnecessary.]
And if prayer is designed to make the praying person fell better, how does that work when it comes to knowledge? Are they supposed to feel better they know less than I do? Are they supposed to feel better that Satan is deceiving me and not them?
Are they praying God will reveal himself to me? How? What--Specifically--are they asking God to do? Curiously, we are criticized for asking God to reveal himself, as that would be selfish. But it is fine for the Christian to do so?
Are they praying we would be influenced by our friends? After abandoning us? (The irony is too rich in that one. Best leave it with a chuckle.)
I suspect the prayer consists of something like, “Please help DagoodS become a Christian.” An innocuous, non-specific generalism about as useful as, “Please help the starving children of the world, by making them feel full.” The children will still starve…
I am aware my family and (at one time—who knows if they continue) friends prayed for me as well. What, specifically, are they praying will happen? I understand how, in asking God to heal someone, even though you may not understand the specifics, the person is asking God to reach in the body, remove the cancerous cells, and miraculously replace the damaged tissue. Or if asking for employment—that God would “nudge” the resume to the right person at the right moment.
I equally understand how prayer is self-soothing. It helps one cope with a dying relative, or divorce without necessarily granting the desired wish. I’ve heard plenty apologetic defenses to the failure of prayer being God wanting prayer to affect the praying person—not the prayee.
But what could one possibly pray for a deconvert with any specificity?
Are they praying the deconvert gains knowledge? That God would “nudge” a certain book or article their way? If so, the person hopelessly does not understand deconversion. It isn’t “one thing.” It isn’t some silver bullet, that if only someone could give an explanation how the two accounts of Judas’ death could line up, we would become card-carrying Christians again.
Further, the deconvert often has far more knowledge than the Christian praying for them! Clearly more knowledge, even in the Christian’s paradigm, is not necessary for salvation—it wasn’t necessary for that person to be saved! How many times have we heard, “Have you read Strobel? Or Craig? Or Boyd? Or _____” and we say, “Yep.” If you are praying the deconvert needs more knowledge, you are wasting your time.
I’ve had people tell me they think Satan is deceiving me. Are they praying God will make Satan stop? How many times does one need to say that? At 100 prayers, does God finally say, “O.K., I guess they are serious that they want Satan to stop.” [A side-note to those interested in time-theory surrounding God. If God is outside time, it is often claimed all times are the “same” to Him. In other words, he sees our chronological time at the same moment. Our yesterday is the same to Him as our today and the same as our tomorrow. He sees 1000 B.C.E. at the same exact instant he sees 2010 C.E. If this was true, wouldn’t it also be true any prayer would be heard both at the same time as the instance the event requested is occurring AND all prayers would be heard simultaneously to God? Therefore, praying to God for the same thing twice is unnecessary.]
And if prayer is designed to make the praying person fell better, how does that work when it comes to knowledge? Are they supposed to feel better they know less than I do? Are they supposed to feel better that Satan is deceiving me and not them?
Are they praying God will reveal himself to me? How? What--Specifically--are they asking God to do? Curiously, we are criticized for asking God to reveal himself, as that would be selfish. But it is fine for the Christian to do so?
Are they praying we would be influenced by our friends? After abandoning us? (The irony is too rich in that one. Best leave it with a chuckle.)
I suspect the prayer consists of something like, “Please help DagoodS become a Christian.” An innocuous, non-specific generalism about as useful as, “Please help the starving children of the world, by making them feel full.” The children will still starve…
Thursday, April 08, 2010
Anti-Supernatural Bias
Recently I monitored one conversation and was engaged in another where the term “anti-supernatural bias” came up. It generally works as follows:
Christian: Here is a whole bunch of evidence for a miracle.
Non-theist: I am not convinced because of this, that, these and those.
Christian: You don’t believe because you have anti-supernatural bias.
(You can see its use here, here, and here at other popular Christian apologetic sites.)
This comes across as a whiney excuse for either lack of evidence, lack of persuasion or both.
Look, here is a simple fact in life. I don’t care what you believe—there is a person who holds a dissimilar position. Whether the field is politics, or economics or medicine or theism or food or countless other areas; there is a person who has “anti-your-position bias.” They believe differently than you. While sometimes it may be an area they haven’t investigated; other times the person has investigated as well as (and maybe more completely) than you and came to a contrasting conclusion.
I couldn’t imagine complaining to an opposing counsel, “Aw…you have a bias toward interpreting the facts favorably for your client and against my position.” Really? That would come as a surprise to…anyone? My job—my obligation—is to present the facts, evidence and argument so strongly to opposing counsel they recognize the danger of going forward and therefore become motivated to settle.
Or imagine a political debate where each side grouses how the other side has “anti-me” bias! We want to hear facts; we want argument. We don’t want to hear how the Republican candidate has “anti-Democrat” bias…I think we already know that! Let’s move on; let’s see the strength of the arguments!
Secondly, I am an atheist and a naturalist. Telling me I have a bias for natural explanations is about as informative as telling a bachelor they aren’t married. Kinda goes with the term “bachelor.” The reason I AM an atheist is for the lack of evidence of a God. The reason I AM a naturalist is because of the lack of evidence for the supernatural. If I thought the evidence sustained for supernatural intervention—I wouldn’t be an atheist! Telling me I have such a bias is patently ridiculous in light of my atheism.
Guess what? I have anti-alien bias. And anti-astrology bias. And anti-crystals-heal bias, anti-yeti bias, and anti-9/11-conspiracy bias. Why? Because I am not persuaded aliens, astrology, healing crystals, yetis and 9/11 conspiracy theories exist. If you want to remove my bias—give me convincing proof on these things.
If you want me to get over my “anti-supernatural bias”—present sustaining proof. Yes, it may be the proof does not persuade me, but persuades others. Perhaps I am blinded by my secret desire to snort cocaine off a prostitute’s butt. Live with it. Because when you retreat to “you atheists have anti-supernatural bias” it comes across as if even you don’t think the evidence is persuasive enough unless you already believe in the supernatural.
Further, having “supernatural bias” isn’t even enough. Protestants are not convinced of Catholic miracles (Fatima), even though Protestants certainly believe in the supernatural. Christians are not convinced of Hindu miracles, even though Christians believe in the supernatural. Jews aren’t persuaded by Christian claims; Christians by Muslim claims; even Christians question other Christian claims. See, it isn’t just bias against supernatural; the apologist is bemoaning the other person’s anti-apologist’s supernatural bias. They can’t even convince others who already believe a God interacts—why would they be surprised they can’t convince me with the same evidence I’ve heard before?
It sounds as if the person is saying, “No fair, no fair, no fair, no fair! If you don’t already believe supernatural interaction occurs exactly how I say it must occur—I can’t convince you with the paltry evidence and measly arguments at my disposal.” Doesn’t say much for the evidence, eh?
Lose the whine. Give it your best shot with the evidence and arguments you have, and if they aren’t persuasive...live with it. Whimpering about the other person’s bias makes you sound like your God didn't give you enough to work with.
Christian: Here is a whole bunch of evidence for a miracle.
Non-theist: I am not convinced because of this, that, these and those.
Christian: You don’t believe because you have anti-supernatural bias.
(You can see its use here, here, and here at other popular Christian apologetic sites.)
This comes across as a whiney excuse for either lack of evidence, lack of persuasion or both.
Look, here is a simple fact in life. I don’t care what you believe—there is a person who holds a dissimilar position. Whether the field is politics, or economics or medicine or theism or food or countless other areas; there is a person who has “anti-your-position bias.” They believe differently than you. While sometimes it may be an area they haven’t investigated; other times the person has investigated as well as (and maybe more completely) than you and came to a contrasting conclusion.
I couldn’t imagine complaining to an opposing counsel, “Aw…you have a bias toward interpreting the facts favorably for your client and against my position.” Really? That would come as a surprise to…anyone? My job—my obligation—is to present the facts, evidence and argument so strongly to opposing counsel they recognize the danger of going forward and therefore become motivated to settle.
Or imagine a political debate where each side grouses how the other side has “anti-me” bias! We want to hear facts; we want argument. We don’t want to hear how the Republican candidate has “anti-Democrat” bias…I think we already know that! Let’s move on; let’s see the strength of the arguments!
Secondly, I am an atheist and a naturalist. Telling me I have a bias for natural explanations is about as informative as telling a bachelor they aren’t married. Kinda goes with the term “bachelor.” The reason I AM an atheist is for the lack of evidence of a God. The reason I AM a naturalist is because of the lack of evidence for the supernatural. If I thought the evidence sustained for supernatural intervention—I wouldn’t be an atheist! Telling me I have such a bias is patently ridiculous in light of my atheism.
Guess what? I have anti-alien bias. And anti-astrology bias. And anti-crystals-heal bias, anti-yeti bias, and anti-9/11-conspiracy bias. Why? Because I am not persuaded aliens, astrology, healing crystals, yetis and 9/11 conspiracy theories exist. If you want to remove my bias—give me convincing proof on these things.
If you want me to get over my “anti-supernatural bias”—present sustaining proof. Yes, it may be the proof does not persuade me, but persuades others. Perhaps I am blinded by my secret desire to snort cocaine off a prostitute’s butt. Live with it. Because when you retreat to “you atheists have anti-supernatural bias” it comes across as if even you don’t think the evidence is persuasive enough unless you already believe in the supernatural.
Further, having “supernatural bias” isn’t even enough. Protestants are not convinced of Catholic miracles (Fatima), even though Protestants certainly believe in the supernatural. Christians are not convinced of Hindu miracles, even though Christians believe in the supernatural. Jews aren’t persuaded by Christian claims; Christians by Muslim claims; even Christians question other Christian claims. See, it isn’t just bias against supernatural; the apologist is bemoaning the other person’s anti-apologist’s supernatural bias. They can’t even convince others who already believe a God interacts—why would they be surprised they can’t convince me with the same evidence I’ve heard before?
It sounds as if the person is saying, “No fair, no fair, no fair, no fair! If you don’t already believe supernatural interaction occurs exactly how I say it must occur—I can’t convince you with the paltry evidence and measly arguments at my disposal.” Doesn’t say much for the evidence, eh?
Lose the whine. Give it your best shot with the evidence and arguments you have, and if they aren’t persuasive...live with it. Whimpering about the other person’s bias makes you sound like your God didn't give you enough to work with.
Thursday, April 01, 2010
We Kept Score
Each summer we attended Vacation Bible School. We kept score. You received a point for attendance, a point for bringing your Bible, a point for bringing someone, a point for learning your verse…and so on. The final night, there was a big pile of prizes and the person with the highest points got to pick the first prize (invariably a white pseudo-leather Bible), the next highest took their turn and so on. The poor loser with one or two points was left getting a snake balloon animal.
In AWANA we got trophies and badges and pins for performing activities. We went to AWANA Olympics (like Special Olympics for Christians) where points were kept.
We went to Bible camp where each cabin competed against the other.
(The first time I ever went to Bible camp was when I was 12 or 13. Camp Barakel. No friends went with me. The only person I knew was my brother, who ended up being in a completely different camp, so I only saw him once during the whole week. Not having any friends, I was shunted to THAT cabin. The one for all the lonely, nerdy losers-- the prequel to Revenge of the Nerds.
We were the Black Donkeys. This meant a leather string tied around our neck with a plastic…black…donkey. Our camp counselor (still in college, but “adult” to us) pointed out on the first day that his cabin had won the camp championship every week so far, and he intended to keep up the tradition. God help him…
We played baseball. We sucked. We had swimming competitions. Many of us drowned. We played Basketball. The counselor wept. There wasn’t a competition we weren’t beaten, pummeled and skunked. By mid-week we couldn’t have won the championship if the rest of the camp caught chorea and the plague.
We broke our counselor. One night the camp director appeared and indicated he would be staying with us while the counselor got a few days rest. We didn’t know what happened, but in our 12-year old minds we suspected he had snapped. Carted off to the looney bin. As it turns out, he was able to return for the championship ceremony.
Turns out the big winners got….[drum roll please]….a watermelon. wow. Even we nerds realized that was pretty lame.
The very last day, our counselor took our donkeys back. Because these were leather strings, knotted, and immersed in water a few times—the only realistic way to get them off was to cut the leather. I still vividly remember the counselor’s face as he approached my neck with what looked like a 12 inch Bowie knife and all I could think was, “He’s gonna cut my throat for costing him his watermelon!”)
Getting older, we still kept score. We counted attendance. We counted offerings. We even counted cars in the parking lot! We kept track of building funds with thermometer posters.
But most importantly, we kept Moral Score.
Yeah…yeah…we talked and preached and teached about Christianity being different because it is the only religion in the world that did not require salvation by works—yet boy did we watch each other’s works. If you smoke or drank or didn’t attend church regularly enough…your score was knocked down. You weren’t earning points; they were probably even being deducted! But if you didn’t masturbate (even though you were tempted), or didn’t have sex (even though you were really tempted), or went to church or helped pick up after Sunday School—then you earned Moral Scores.
One never spoke of Moral Scores. This wasn’t said out loud. We simply gravitated to those with similar scores. If drinking alcohol didn’t deduct points—you hung out with people who drank alcohol. They couldn’t take points from you; you couldn’t from them.
We rarely spoke regarding heaven’s particulars (it would be gauche) but the general idea was that we were ALL getting in—some of us would have bigger mansions. Larger crowns. Better parking. Because our Moral Score was higher. We knew there would be judgment seat. That there would be cries of “Why didn’t we do better?” If you had a higher Moral Score, there would be less crying. Lower score—worse housing.
We knew Mother Theresa and Billy Graham were going to have HUGE houses—indoor pools and ambrosia fountains in the bedrooms. We didn’t plan to ascertain those Moral Scores. That guy who was saved at the last minute…well…he might not have a huge Moral Score, but he didn’t get any deductions either. Nice suburban house with a carport.
The fellow who cursed and swore and had extra-marital affairs? If he made it in…(what is heaven coming to if those riff-raff make it?)…the best he would get is a single-wide in Heaven’s trailer park. Really…it’s what he’s used to anyway, right?
The wonderful thing about being saved by Grace is that you don’t have to do anything to be saved. The terrible thing is that without keeping score—how do we know who is the better Christian?
In AWANA we got trophies and badges and pins for performing activities. We went to AWANA Olympics (like Special Olympics for Christians) where points were kept.
We went to Bible camp where each cabin competed against the other.
(The first time I ever went to Bible camp was when I was 12 or 13. Camp Barakel. No friends went with me. The only person I knew was my brother, who ended up being in a completely different camp, so I only saw him once during the whole week. Not having any friends, I was shunted to THAT cabin. The one for all the lonely, nerdy losers-- the prequel to Revenge of the Nerds.
We were the Black Donkeys. This meant a leather string tied around our neck with a plastic…black…donkey. Our camp counselor (still in college, but “adult” to us) pointed out on the first day that his cabin had won the camp championship every week so far, and he intended to keep up the tradition. God help him…
We played baseball. We sucked. We had swimming competitions. Many of us drowned. We played Basketball. The counselor wept. There wasn’t a competition we weren’t beaten, pummeled and skunked. By mid-week we couldn’t have won the championship if the rest of the camp caught chorea and the plague.
We broke our counselor. One night the camp director appeared and indicated he would be staying with us while the counselor got a few days rest. We didn’t know what happened, but in our 12-year old minds we suspected he had snapped. Carted off to the looney bin. As it turns out, he was able to return for the championship ceremony.
Turns out the big winners got….[drum roll please]….a watermelon. wow. Even we nerds realized that was pretty lame.
The very last day, our counselor took our donkeys back. Because these were leather strings, knotted, and immersed in water a few times—the only realistic way to get them off was to cut the leather. I still vividly remember the counselor’s face as he approached my neck with what looked like a 12 inch Bowie knife and all I could think was, “He’s gonna cut my throat for costing him his watermelon!”)
Getting older, we still kept score. We counted attendance. We counted offerings. We even counted cars in the parking lot! We kept track of building funds with thermometer posters.
But most importantly, we kept Moral Score.
Yeah…yeah…we talked and preached and teached about Christianity being different because it is the only religion in the world that did not require salvation by works—yet boy did we watch each other’s works. If you smoke or drank or didn’t attend church regularly enough…your score was knocked down. You weren’t earning points; they were probably even being deducted! But if you didn’t masturbate (even though you were tempted), or didn’t have sex (even though you were really tempted), or went to church or helped pick up after Sunday School—then you earned Moral Scores.
One never spoke of Moral Scores. This wasn’t said out loud. We simply gravitated to those with similar scores. If drinking alcohol didn’t deduct points—you hung out with people who drank alcohol. They couldn’t take points from you; you couldn’t from them.
We rarely spoke regarding heaven’s particulars (it would be gauche) but the general idea was that we were ALL getting in—some of us would have bigger mansions. Larger crowns. Better parking. Because our Moral Score was higher. We knew there would be judgment seat. That there would be cries of “Why didn’t we do better?” If you had a higher Moral Score, there would be less crying. Lower score—worse housing.
We knew Mother Theresa and Billy Graham were going to have HUGE houses—indoor pools and ambrosia fountains in the bedrooms. We didn’t plan to ascertain those Moral Scores. That guy who was saved at the last minute…well…he might not have a huge Moral Score, but he didn’t get any deductions either. Nice suburban house with a carport.
The fellow who cursed and swore and had extra-marital affairs? If he made it in…(what is heaven coming to if those riff-raff make it?)…the best he would get is a single-wide in Heaven’s trailer park. Really…it’s what he’s used to anyway, right?
The wonderful thing about being saved by Grace is that you don’t have to do anything to be saved. The terrible thing is that without keeping score—how do we know who is the better Christian?
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Talking with Christians
Recently it was asked: ”Why?” Why do we discuss with Christians?
At the moment, I do it because I enjoy it. I like the discussion; they won’t come here—so my only other choice is to go to them. The reasons have changed over the years since my initial deconversion.
I recall freshly abandoning Christianity and desiring to talk with other Christians regarding what I had discovered. Tried it in real life—epic fail. My main internet spot (iidb) was inundated with other deconverts and non-theists waiting to pounce upon any poor Christian that wandered into the lion’s den. I was one voice among too many—this was not satisfying.
Off I trotted to another forum, and thus began a pattern of discourse continuing to today. I approached it with naiveté. I thought if they only knew what I had discovered—they, too would reconsider their position. No, I didn’t expect them to immediately deconvert upon my appearance or first post. Nor my second or third. I did think they would be as interested as I was to actively engage the conversation and perhaps…just perhaps…realize there were viable and robust reasons Christianity may not be what they thought it was.
It was like discovering a new Mexican restaurant tucked behind the Post Office very few people know about, and despite its 1950’s styling, the cook is so extraordinary, one taste of his food and you could never deign to enter any other Mexican restaurant again.
Of course, I quickly discovered many theists were not as interested in the subject as I was. That it was too hard to discuss with a skeptic. That they had already made up their minds, and were sufficiently satisfied with any justification that might tend to support their conclusion. I discovered other theists that certainly did want to discuss the subject—but only in attack mode. No matter what I said, it must be wrong because of who said it—not the content.
I have continued conversations because of concern with lurkers. I certainly recall during my deconversion process (and have heard similar tales from other deconverts) lurking and lurking and lurking. Reading entire threads, and every link and every link from the link, absorbing the various positions. Ordering recommended books from Amazon or the library, and pouring over them.
Remembering those days, I can’t help wonder who might have wandered into some blog, forum or facebook note I happen to comment on, and they desire to know more about my position. It would be a shame to abandon the blog entry, when the lurker is yearning for more.
One thing I learned—if you go into these conversations with the expectation…no…the NEED…to have the person agree with you—you are doomed for disappointment. Best acclimate to such disappointment or you will have ulcers within weeks.
The other thing I learned is there isn’t one “correct” style. Think you may have been too harsh in your response? Doesn’t matter—I’ve tried nice and it doesn’t make a difference. Think your story is “too emotional?” Doesn’t matter—I’ve tried intellect, cites, books, authors, websites, etc. They still look at me quizzically and proclaim, “You deconverted because of sin.” Or the wrong intellectual reasons.
For me…now…the reasons are pretty simple. If I see a topic interesting to me—I will comment. If the person is not convinced…*shrug*…not my department. If they want to accuse me of some ulterior motive, I may ask once for a method to determine motive—but sheer proclamation doesn’t move me much.
Oh, noes!—some Christian thinks I’m wrong!
I would love to see American become less engrossed with religion. I would love to openly state “I am an atheist” only to elicit the response, “Yeah…so what?” However, after watching the tea-bag party, and the interviews with protestors over the Health Care reform; I see little intellectual pursuit in other areas to determine what is true, let alone in religious fields.
So I discuss because I want to.
At the moment, I do it because I enjoy it. I like the discussion; they won’t come here—so my only other choice is to go to them. The reasons have changed over the years since my initial deconversion.
I recall freshly abandoning Christianity and desiring to talk with other Christians regarding what I had discovered. Tried it in real life—epic fail. My main internet spot (iidb) was inundated with other deconverts and non-theists waiting to pounce upon any poor Christian that wandered into the lion’s den. I was one voice among too many—this was not satisfying.
Off I trotted to another forum, and thus began a pattern of discourse continuing to today. I approached it with naiveté. I thought if they only knew what I had discovered—they, too would reconsider their position. No, I didn’t expect them to immediately deconvert upon my appearance or first post. Nor my second or third. I did think they would be as interested as I was to actively engage the conversation and perhaps…just perhaps…realize there were viable and robust reasons Christianity may not be what they thought it was.
It was like discovering a new Mexican restaurant tucked behind the Post Office very few people know about, and despite its 1950’s styling, the cook is so extraordinary, one taste of his food and you could never deign to enter any other Mexican restaurant again.
Of course, I quickly discovered many theists were not as interested in the subject as I was. That it was too hard to discuss with a skeptic. That they had already made up their minds, and were sufficiently satisfied with any justification that might tend to support their conclusion. I discovered other theists that certainly did want to discuss the subject—but only in attack mode. No matter what I said, it must be wrong because of who said it—not the content.
I have continued conversations because of concern with lurkers. I certainly recall during my deconversion process (and have heard similar tales from other deconverts) lurking and lurking and lurking. Reading entire threads, and every link and every link from the link, absorbing the various positions. Ordering recommended books from Amazon or the library, and pouring over them.
Remembering those days, I can’t help wonder who might have wandered into some blog, forum or facebook note I happen to comment on, and they desire to know more about my position. It would be a shame to abandon the blog entry, when the lurker is yearning for more.
One thing I learned—if you go into these conversations with the expectation…no…the NEED…to have the person agree with you—you are doomed for disappointment. Best acclimate to such disappointment or you will have ulcers within weeks.
The other thing I learned is there isn’t one “correct” style. Think you may have been too harsh in your response? Doesn’t matter—I’ve tried nice and it doesn’t make a difference. Think your story is “too emotional?” Doesn’t matter—I’ve tried intellect, cites, books, authors, websites, etc. They still look at me quizzically and proclaim, “You deconverted because of sin.” Or the wrong intellectual reasons.
For me…now…the reasons are pretty simple. If I see a topic interesting to me—I will comment. If the person is not convinced…*shrug*…not my department. If they want to accuse me of some ulterior motive, I may ask once for a method to determine motive—but sheer proclamation doesn’t move me much.
Oh, noes!—some Christian thinks I’m wrong!
I would love to see American become less engrossed with religion. I would love to openly state “I am an atheist” only to elicit the response, “Yeah…so what?” However, after watching the tea-bag party, and the interviews with protestors over the Health Care reform; I see little intellectual pursuit in other areas to determine what is true, let alone in religious fields.
So I discuss because I want to.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Off doing stuff
I’m around. I’ve been discussing over at Tough Questions Answered if you really must know. No need to read through it…the same old routine.
At the moment, I find the discussion enjoyable. Sure, nobody changes their mind. The apologist (and the apologist’s friends) all think they are performing smashingly. The skeptics—likewise. The conversation—the same dance done before and likely to be repeated again.
What can I say—the topic still fascinates me.
At the moment, I find the discussion enjoyable. Sure, nobody changes their mind. The apologist (and the apologist’s friends) all think they are performing smashingly. The skeptics—likewise. The conversation—the same dance done before and likely to be repeated again.
What can I say—the topic still fascinates me.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
What to do with old friends?
Recently there have been a few blog entries by friends about deconverts interacting with Christian friends. The question was poignantly asked, Is it possible [for a deconvert] to have Christian friends and family? Obviously anything is possible, and I am sure there are numerous anecdotal accounts regarding individuals who do nicely, thank you very much.
I haven’t seemed to manage it.
To me, its feels like that summer after your first year of college. You get together with your high school buddies and by evening’s end, realize you have no interest getting together with your high school buddies!
In high school you shared experiences with your classmates—same teachers, same halls. Same inside jokes about Ms. Crabapple. The team losing the semi-finals together. The year ends with graduation, parties, and assurances of being BFF’s (contractually enforced through yearbook signatures.)
Then you go away to college. A whole new set of friends, experiences, and growing up. Coming back, the jokes about Ms. Crabapple seem stale. The lost semi-final forgotten amongst new memories of parties and inter-mural Frisbee golf. How many times can one recount the same thing? Either the relationship continues to grow with new experiences (and new jokes and laughter) or it dies. So you maintain a relationship with a few, and the rest fall off, only to be remembered when bumping into each other at Wal-Mart (“Boy did he lose his hair!”) or Facebook.
I wanted to maintain my relationship with Christian friends and my family. I naively thought it could work. But I started to realize I was having new experiences, new laughs, new inside jokes they couldn’t share.
Me: And then she said…get this…’Evolution is just a theory.’ Bwahahaha. Can you believe it?
Them: [Blank stare.]
(“This one time…at college…we created stair sledding. It was the funniest thing EVER!”
[Blank stare.])
I began to have questions that they not only didn’t share—they didn’t want to share:
Me: Why didn’t Paul seem to know anything about the Jesus of the Gospels?
Them: Look, all I want to know is how to apply Paul’s doctrine to my life.
I don’t want to give the impression my journey is somehow better or more full than theirs. It is just…different. As if we were on a train, and I took a side-track. I’m seeing different scenery, going to different places. They are perfectly happy on their track (seeing things I am not), with their friends, and their scenery and stops. They would love to have me re-join the train, but have no interest in joining my side-track. Their life is complete without it.
With these two divergent courses, relationships will suffer, wither and end. They don’t want me to be friend—they want me to be convert. And, to be honest, how much do I want their friendship if I find myself stifling my curiosity, and censuring my statements around them? What kind of friendship is that?—I could do that with any acquaintance.
Facebook has brought this into sharp focus. Having joined many of my former friends, I get to see status updates and posts:
“We went to the Doctor and received a prescription for Tommy’s sickness. Isn’t God great?”
(Me [to myself]: Griznitmicklemuph…)
“Hey! Here’s a great video about how Einstein bested an atheist professor on the question of God. Einstein was only 2 1/2.”
(Me [to myself]: GrizNITMICKLemuph…)
“Why do those atheists have to put ads on buses?”
(Me [to myself]: GRIZNITMICKLEMOSTICKMON…)
And if I dare respond…carefully couching it in the most innocuous, harmless, questioning tone possible…I hear that AOL voice, “You’ve been defriended!”
So what—I was defriended by plenty long before Facebook developed it. Ha!
I find my laughter, my talks, my relaxation amongst those I can share new experiences together. Time to look back on those former friends with fond memories of good times with a smile, and look forward to new friends and more good times and a grin.
I haven’t seemed to manage it.
To me, its feels like that summer after your first year of college. You get together with your high school buddies and by evening’s end, realize you have no interest getting together with your high school buddies!
In high school you shared experiences with your classmates—same teachers, same halls. Same inside jokes about Ms. Crabapple. The team losing the semi-finals together. The year ends with graduation, parties, and assurances of being BFF’s (contractually enforced through yearbook signatures.)
Then you go away to college. A whole new set of friends, experiences, and growing up. Coming back, the jokes about Ms. Crabapple seem stale. The lost semi-final forgotten amongst new memories of parties and inter-mural Frisbee golf. How many times can one recount the same thing? Either the relationship continues to grow with new experiences (and new jokes and laughter) or it dies. So you maintain a relationship with a few, and the rest fall off, only to be remembered when bumping into each other at Wal-Mart (“Boy did he lose his hair!”) or Facebook.
I wanted to maintain my relationship with Christian friends and my family. I naively thought it could work. But I started to realize I was having new experiences, new laughs, new inside jokes they couldn’t share.
Me: And then she said…get this…’Evolution is just a theory.’ Bwahahaha. Can you believe it?
Them: [Blank stare.]
(“This one time…at college…we created stair sledding. It was the funniest thing EVER!”
[Blank stare.])
I began to have questions that they not only didn’t share—they didn’t want to share:
Me: Why didn’t Paul seem to know anything about the Jesus of the Gospels?
Them: Look, all I want to know is how to apply Paul’s doctrine to my life.
I don’t want to give the impression my journey is somehow better or more full than theirs. It is just…different. As if we were on a train, and I took a side-track. I’m seeing different scenery, going to different places. They are perfectly happy on their track (seeing things I am not), with their friends, and their scenery and stops. They would love to have me re-join the train, but have no interest in joining my side-track. Their life is complete without it.
With these two divergent courses, relationships will suffer, wither and end. They don’t want me to be friend—they want me to be convert. And, to be honest, how much do I want their friendship if I find myself stifling my curiosity, and censuring my statements around them? What kind of friendship is that?—I could do that with any acquaintance.
Facebook has brought this into sharp focus. Having joined many of my former friends, I get to see status updates and posts:
“We went to the Doctor and received a prescription for Tommy’s sickness. Isn’t God great?”
(Me [to myself]: Griznitmicklemuph…)
“Hey! Here’s a great video about how Einstein bested an atheist professor on the question of God. Einstein was only 2 1/2.”
(Me [to myself]: GrizNITMICKLemuph…)
“Why do those atheists have to put ads on buses?”
(Me [to myself]: GRIZNITMICKLEMOSTICKMON…)
And if I dare respond…carefully couching it in the most innocuous, harmless, questioning tone possible…I hear that AOL voice, “You’ve been defriended!”
So what—I was defriended by plenty long before Facebook developed it. Ha!
I find my laughter, my talks, my relaxation amongst those I can share new experiences together. Time to look back on those former friends with fond memories of good times with a smile, and look forward to new friends and more good times and a grin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
