God vs. Us: A Divorce

“I love you.”

Do you remember the first time you ever hear that sentence? Probably not—most likely it was first spoken by a parent or loved one when you were just a baby. It is doubtful you would remember the first 100 times you heard those words. And even if you recall, you didn’t know what it meant at the time.

As you grew, you heard it over and over. Books, plays, movies, real life. Sometimes directed at you—often overheard throughout living. And with the re-telling, the phrase’s significance grew—we understood it meant something. We learned in the second-grade it was a weapon: “Johnnie loves Sally! Johnnie loves Sally!” We learned as teenagers it had consequence, avoiding the “L” word until one’s relationship reached a certain commitment level. We learned it had impact.

Eventually learning it can be a hard word to implement.

Growing up, we understood (even when we didn’t like it) our parents loved us when they punished us. They explained it. They didn’t give us everything we wanted when we wanted it, but there was love. Once we had children of our own, we understood (and hopefully attempted to communicate) we love them when distributing punishment or withholding their demands.

We learned it loving others romantically. It is the reason we cry (or some of us) when the climatic scene finally arrives in the movie: “Because……….I love you!”

Certain phrases are jarring contrasted with “love;” when the wife claims her husband loves her, even though he beats her, we think, “That is wrong!” The boyfriend who stays with a girl after she sleeps around with other guys, claiming he knows she loves him. We shake our head.

All of us, in observing relationships, understand there is a point where we categorize the action as “loving” and where we would claim it is not.

Growing up Christian, we are told, “God Loves you.” We had buttons and bumper stickers; signs and bookmarks. Our No. 1 Hit starts off, “For God so Loved the World…” “Jesus Loves you.” “Jesus Loves the little Children; all the Children of the world.” [Funny, I don’t remember the Holy Spirit doing much loving.] It was the first verse we learned; it was the first song we sung.

It should therefore come with no surprise we reached a point where we thought….well….God loved us. With all that entails within the resounding reverberation and pitch of the word.

Does that mean we thought God would give us whatever we wanted? Of course not—we understood our parents did not, yet still loved. Does that mean we expected to always be happy? Don’t be silly, we understand the commitment of love within a marriage, even though we aren’t always giddy and giggling.
We truly, truly get it—when it comes to love, there would be times God would have to make hard decisions, causing us to not like the results, but we would still be loved. When we were told, “God Loves You”—we didn’t expect an ATM Machine; we expected the word “love” to mean what it means in other similar contexts.

However there is one significant difference. In all our other relationships, we can communicate, with those involved, or with others, to learn, grow and differentiate as to what is love. With God there was only silence. We are left in continual speculation—guessing how this or that conforms to what we understand is love. Sure, others provide their own (conflicting) guesses, but that is all it is—conjecture on the human’s part.

“God, why did my 16 year old son have to die?”
Silence.

“Is it because he had lived long enough, and you wanted him home?”
Silence.

“Was it a testimony to others, giving them a chance to get right with you?”
Silence.

So we grapple and postulate; others giving their own theories, and arrive at some queasy solution. An uneasy restlessness, often wondering if we got it quite right. Always willing to re-evaluate and guess again.

For many deconverts this silence grew into a disconnect; it become more and more difficult to use a word so well understood—“love”—that when applied to God held little-to-no relation to everything we understood the word to mean. A “loving” God would allow ten-year-old boys to be raped by football coaches? And allow it to continue for years because the person involved were people of privilege? That is the BEST a “loving” God could do?

And already I hear some Christian say, “We can’t explain it….but maybe _________” and then provide some poor excuse for God’s absence. If you can’t explain it—shut up. Shut up with your easy explanation of “Why God allows kids to starve in Africa” when your car is strewn with McDonald’s wrappers. Shut up with your theologically overbearing rationalization as to why a “loving God” allows this atrocity or that tragedy because we are too insignificant to understand such a infinite creature.

If that is your excuse, stop saying “God loves you.” Because even you aren’t buying the product.

Over at Black, White and Gray, ,Bradley Wright is doing a series of posts regarding deconversion. (The first is here.) In this recent installment, he discusses an observed reason for deconversion—namely a “God who Failed Deconverts” by not answering prayer.

He states:

I am struck by how much these accounts resonate with sociological theories of human relationships, especially those coming from social exchange theory. This theory describes humans as judging the value of relationships in terms of costs and benefits. One variation of social exchange theory, termed equity theory, holds that people are satisfied with their relationships when they get the rewards that they feel are proportional to the costs that they bear. An inequitable is unstable, and it usually occurs because a person thinks they receive too little for how much they give.

Many of the testimonies given by former Christians described a broken relationship with God as one might talk about a marital divorce. They are emotional, even bitter at times. They contain the language of inequality. The writers did so much for God – praying, attending church, following God – but God did not do enough in return.

As usual with Christians attempting to understand deconversion, (and with genuine respect) Bradley Wright doesn’t get it.

We didn’t gauge God as, “I didn’t get enough for what I put into it.” We realized it made no sense to call God “loving” when the results we saw were nothing but. It is the abused spouse coming to terms that one doesn’t beat one’s wife, and receive approval for being “loving.” They must stop making excuses for the spouse.

In the same way, we came to terms with the fact we were making excuses for God. We, too, were trying to explain away these actions as loving—actions we would never accept the label of “love” in any other relationship. We, too, tried to apologize for God, using weighty meaningless terms, but our own words were now ringing as hollow.

We didn’t abandoned belief in God, because we weren’t getting what we wanted; we came to realize the patent ridiculousness of fitting the word “love” (and a whole host of other words) to a creature we immediately and in complete contradiction, claimed we did not understand. One who was silent when asked. One who allows any human, anywhere to make excuses for it, without support, disapproval or response of any kind.

We realized the true difference between the Christian’s “loving God” without plausible explanation and a God who doesn’t exist. None. No difference at all, except the growing recognition “no God” makes a whole lot more sense than “a loving God who doesn’t act loving, but we assume he IS loving, because any other possibility is too scary to even contemplate.”

It was not a divorce. In a divorce, the other person is still alive. There is still a relationship, an understanding of past love, and the possibility of future love with another.

This is a death. We see now God was never there.

God is gone, not an ex-spouse.

When Doubting, avoid Thinking

I remain on Credo House’s mailing list, receiving notification of C. Michael Patton’s recent blog entry concerning doubt.

What struck me was how the response proposed was one-sided when doubts arise regarding Christianity. The first point, recommended focusing on the Resurrection, rather than minor issues such as inerrancy or evolution vs. creationism. (Curiously, this came across as a concession minor issues were a lost cause.) He states:

Therefore, from a purely intellectual standpoint, I would set down all other studies, including conversations with those who are representing another religion, books about atheism, or the destiny of the unevangelized. Just to focus on this central issue of Christianity. There is so much good stuff out there on this subject, but I would start here and graduate tohere and here . Listen or watch to the debates with William Lane Craig about the historicity of the resurrection.

(I was secretly pleased I guessed the books before clicking on the link. Habermas & Licona’s “Case for the Resurrection” then Licona’s “Historiography of Resurrection” and finally N.T. Wright’s “Resurrection of Jesus.”)

Notice what is missing from the list? Yeah…any skeptical books. Now I will grant you, there are not many non-theists writing on the Resurrection, but even a mention of “The Empty Tomb” or possible Loftus’ work, or Erhman’s concerns would have been interesting. What was more interesting was the suggestion to “set down” conversations “with those who are representing another religion.”

Why? Why, when doubting, must one only look to one side of the issue?

The third point Patton makes solidifies his intentions—he recommended “fellowshipping” (that’s Christianize for “socializing” or “relationshiping.”) He notes:

One normally becomes emotionally predisposed to those of their immediate fellowship. “Following the crowed” is a very effective means of being persuaded of the most unlikely beliefs. In fact, I have often said that if I hung around the flat-earth society members too long (and there is a flat earth society!), I may begin to doubt that the world is round. This is not because the arguments or evidence is persuasive, but simply because of implicit emotional control of belief that such constant fellowship affords.

I believe his concern is for Christians to begin assuming the beliefs of non-Christians because of emotional attachment. Ironically, the very action he fears is the very action he suggests the Christian engage—only hang around flat earth society….er….Christians…and one will become emotionally attached to the arguments one assumes.

I find it very telling skeptics not only encourage fellow skeptics to read non-theist literature, but ALSO theistic literature. I, too, would recommend Licona if one wants to study the Resurrection. I, too, would recommend non-believers engage with Christians, or “fellowship” with them. But I go farther and recommend one also engages and reads people holding to alternate views.

What would you think if I told you to ONLY read what non-theists write, or ONLY associate with non-theists? Does that sound like a person who is confident regarding the strength of their position or one who fears weaknesses would be exposed if someone dares inform themselves?

Bad Law Makes Bad Cases

How are lawyers like nuclear weapons? Because if the other side has one, you have to get your own; once launched they can never be recalled and when they hit the ground, they screw everything up forever.

Michigan, being on the forefront of nothing, has no anti-bullying law. The State Board of Education does provide for a Michigan Anti-Bullying Policy, however, no legislation mandates even a single school district adopt the policy. There have been previous attempts to pass such legislation, all having quietly dropped from sight.

“…that is reasonably perceived as being motivated either by any actual or perceived characteristic, such as race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression; or a mental, physical, or sensory disability or impairment; or by any other distinguishing characteristic.”

However, this year the State Senate has decided to correct this oversight, and yesterday passed Senate Bill 137 mandating each school district implement and enforce a policy on bullying.

Good for us, right? Well…as the saying goes, the two things you should never see getting made are sausages and laws.

I suspect (with no confirmation of any sort, mind you), someone in committee worried that a statement such as “I think being gay is immoral” may be interpreted as bullying, and feared a Student stating a religious conviction would be considered a “bully” for having done so.
Stories such as this: Student expressing their opinion regarding homosexuality being immoral could generate such concern.

Therefore, SB 137 added a clause never seen in any previous submissions of the bill, providing the following exception:

“This section does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil's parent or guardian.”

The (Democrat) minority leader expressed her frustration with the exception. Her statement on video is recorded at the Huffington Post article.

On the one hand, I understand the reason behind the exception. We do not want to temper or quash a student’s freedom of expression. However, the minority leader is precisely correct, by creating this exception, the law opens a HUGE loophole that every single lawyer, even the ones fresh from law school, understand can allow for bullying.

This exception does not protect a person from striking, kicking or beating, but so what? Those actions are criminal anyway, without the necessity of a new law. The concern is (since everyone has experienced it, either by being a bully, by being bullied or observation of bullying) how to prohibit this action. And verbal bullying is what this law is designed to prohibit. (There are provisions regarding using telecommunication devices. You can’t hit someone across Facebook.)

Yet now, if the bully continues to berate the student, “Hey, gaywad. You’re so gay. What’s up, faggot?” They can cite their religious belief and this is merely freedom of expression.

The law literally gives them to provision (and arguably the endorsement) to do so.

This is a bad law. We shall see how the Michigan House addresses it.

UPDATE: Looks like the language will not stay in the bill. Shows what a different world we live in, with the internet causing such an outcry the Michigan Senate Republicans agree to back down on this.

Your Argument is Invalid, Sir

So you ask me to write a contract. After considerable time (and even more considerable cost) I present a 54 page, bound document with embossed paper. It includes every clause imaginable, taking into consideration every contingency; it even includes a section on the Rule Against Perpetuities, Dower, Curtsey and Nuclear War. There are headings and definitions and an index, and, notarized signature lines with triple attestation.

The notice requirements are detailed as to means, time, place, with intricate specificity. Everything anyone could ever hope to be in a contract is included. You are suitably impressed.

However, you see a small section at the very end stating the other party can modify any provision in the contract at any time for any reason--it doesn’t have to be in writing--without any notice to you.

Now how impressed are you? What good are all those sections, clauses and words, if the person can take it all away with a mere thought? Why bother with specific notice requirements as to time, date, means, etc. when the other person can say tomorrow, “Meh. I can change that” or even “I don’t have to send any notice at all.”

Makes the other 53 ¾ pages pretty worthless, doesn’t it? Somehow, I don’t think I will be paid for preparing such a contract!

I noticed a similar approach recently where the Christian apologist makes this long argument, but at the end says, “Unless God convinces you, this argument won’t be persuasive.” So why bother with the argument in the first place?

If your argument won’t convince absent Divine Intervention; what good the argument? If a God decides to get involved, why waste time with the puny humans’ words?

Dr. Clay Jones wrote a blog entry entitled Let’s Connect the Moral Dots for “Good” non-Christians where his stated goal was:

We need to connect these dots for the non-Christians who are adulterous murderers in their hearts but still believe they are good people. If we do, they might recognize their sinful condition and cry out for the grace available through Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross.

Boz correctly pointed out using Bible verses to convince a non-Christian they are really a murderer is probably not the most effective means. Dr. Jones replied “The Holy Spirit does the convicting. We just speak the truth.”

I see. So all that quoting of verses, and words and framing of thoughts was 53 ¾ pages of detail. All of which is irrelevant if the last sentence is, “but none of this matters if the Holy Spirit isn’t interested in giving you the secret handshake.”

This was later reiterated when Vinny questioned the splitting of hairs between the difference of a person refraining from an immoral action for selfish reasons (which according to Dr. Jones was bad) as compared to a person repenting of an immoral action for selfish reasons (which according to Dr. Jones was good.)

And what is the difference between those two persons? Simple—God picked one over the other according to Dr. Jones.

There you have it. All the words, argument, theories, discussions and interactions in the world won’t make a bit of difference.

If God wants you—you get it. If He doesn’t—you are screwed.

This creates an incredible exclusion for the apologist. They never have to fear regarding the quality of their arguments. No matter how bad the claims are made, if we aren’t convinced, it is God’s doing.

Bad Advertising

Humans believe what motivates themselves would motivate others. Therefore, they often advertise a product with what they think is compelling. A man who likes fast cars will advertise the speed a car accelerates. A soccer mother, however, would advertise convenience in carrying multiple children and their paraphernalia. A cost-conscious person focuses on gas mileage; another may point out luxury.

If, however, the person buying is not motivated the same as the seller, no matter how much the seller emphasizes what the seller thinks important…it won’t work.

This point was brought home to me recently when a distant in-law wrote the following on their Facebook:

A teenage girl about 17 had gone to visit some friends one nite & time passed quickly as each shared stories of the past year . She ended up staying longer than planned & had to walk home alone. She wasn't afraid because it was a small town & she lived only a few blocks away . As she walked along under the elm trees Diane asked God to keep her safe from harm or danger . When she reached the alley ............which ... was a short cut to her house she decided to take it. However halfway down the alley she noticed a man standing at the end as though he was waiting for her . She became uneasy & began to pray asking for God's protection . Instantly a comforting feeling of quietness & security wrapped around her . When she reached the end of the alley she walked right passed the man & arrived home safely . The following day she read in the newspaper that a young girl had been raped in the same alley just 20 mins . after she had been there . Feeling overwhelmed by this tragedy & the fact that it could have been her she began to weep . Thanking the Lord for her safety & to help this young woman she decided to go to the police station . She felt she could recognize the man so she told them her story. The police asked her if she would be willing to look at a line up to see if she could identify him . She agreed & immediately pointed out the man she had seen in the alley the night before . When the man was told that he had been identified he immediately broke down & confessed. The officer thanked Diane for her bravery & asked her if there was anything they could do for her . She asked if they would ask the man 1 question . Diane was curious as to why he did not attack her . When the police asked him he answered " Because she wasn't alone , she had two tall men walking on either side of her ." Amazingly whether you believe or not , you're never alone. Did u know that 98% of teenagers will not stand up for God ? God is always there in your heart & loves you no matter what & if you stand up for him he will stand up for you !! I bet 93% of the ppl who read this wont re post

Or course Snopes.com ferrets out how unverifiable this story is.

Normally, I would shrug and think it another Christian meme being spread, but he added an interesting comment. “Why we share our faith.”

Huh?

I can understand why another Christian would be self-righteously pleased with how God protects one of their own—but do they realize what this comes across to a non-Christian?

This is a story about a young girl being raped. There is nothing “wonderful” to share here, nothing uplifting, nothing compelling us non-Christians to cry out, “What a benevolent God!” This story might be half-way interesting if it had Diane call the police, who picked up the guy admitting he was going to rape someone but didn’t. How God intervened to prevent a terrible crime. (Although even that is problematic.)

Instead what this says, if you pray the right prayer and God is happy with it, you won’t get raped. Too bad for the women whose heart isn’t right with Jesus. Or (because Christian females are raped too) doesn’t pray the right prayer.

This doesn’t make non-Christians pause and think, “Hey, there’s a God I want to know more about.” Rather, it poignantly raises the Problem of Evil—a perennial thorn in the Christian’s side.

The story, of course, is fake. Why a Christian thinks it is remotely compelling to a non-Christian is beyond me.

Electing Judges

Most people will only appear before a Judge one or two times in their life. A traffic ticket, minor issue with the landlord. Unsurprisingly, absent those few instances, the judges within the judicial system are completely unknown to the public.

How many times have you entered the voting booth and not have a clue about any person running for judicial office? Of course…why would you? It will never make a difference to you whether “Smith” or “Jones” becomes the local magistrate…until you are in front of them…

You will then discover Judges have a broad power termed “discretion.” It means, within certain parameters, they can do what they want and there isn’t a damn thing you can do about it. For example, in Michigan we have sentencing guidelines to standardize punishment. Theoretically, one should receive the same sentence whether the crime was committed in Wayne County, Kent County or Ontonagon County. The probation department prepares a report, assigning values depending on actions within the crime (how many victims, was a weapon involved, etc.) and the defendant’s past criminal history.

Once that number is determined, it is plugged into a “grid,” providing the minimum sentence the defendant will serve. The number could be “0 – 12” for example, meaning the minimum sentence imposed by the court will be 0 months to 12 months. (The maximum sentence is always determined by the crime. E.g. “Mayhem” will always result in a maximum sentence of 10 years. MCL 750.397.)

It is possible to have a minimum range as broad as “0 – 36”—meaning the judge has the full discretion to allow the defendant to walk out the courtroom OR put them in prison for 3 years. And no appellate court will set aside either sentence. How would you like one person to have that much control over what you will be doing for the next 3 years?

Or take a monetary case. Even a simple case involving $10,000, the judge can decide to award $0; $5,000; or $10,000 dollars. Think the Plaintiff was probably a little in the wrong? Shave the amount down to $7,500. Think the Defendant should pay something, even if the Plaintiff has no case? Give ‘em $1,000.

Time and again, we walk out of courthouses, and client says, “Where did the Judge come up with THAT number?” I shrug—it is within Judge’s discretion. They wanted a particular result and managed to mangle a way to it.

Now think about a small business in a community. Hospitals getting sued for malpractice and suing to collect bills. A Management company taking numerous tenants to court. These are businesses appearing before the courts dozens, even thousands of times. Not just once.

When the judge is running for re-election, it behooves the business to provide monetary and political support, knowing how many times they will be appearing in the Judge’s court over the next six years.

More important than the business, we lawyers understand how many times we will be appearing in that courtroom. And it is to our benefit to provide monetary and political support to the winning judge. Will we get a murderer off because we put the Judge’s banner in our yard and contributed to her campaign? No. Will we get an extra adjournment if we want it? Very likely.

Needless to say, Judgeships become political creatures. They prevail on three factors: 1) gender (females have a slightly better chance), 2) Name recognition and 3) Advertisement. To get one’s name out (for the recognition) costs money. Often the judge voted in is the one who spends the most. Plain and simple.

What if you felt wronged by a local business and take them to court, only to face a business (who contributed to the judge’s campaign), represented by a lawyer (who contributed to the judge’s campaign)? Would you be concerned? Understand, most judges do not like being reversed on appeal, so they will not deviate too far from the law…but within their discretion, they have a wide variety of options. What are the chances that discretion will bend in your favor?

One can start to see the concern in electing judges. First, we are back to high school; voting the most popular to become Class President, not necessarily the most qualified. Second, the mechanics of election (and re-election) invite political favoritism. Whether we admit it or not.

All this was going through my mind as I read this article on the Iowa Justices who ruled gay marriage was constitutionally protected in Iowa. See, in Iowa, they apparently attempted to reduce the political impact by interviewing and appointing Supreme Court Justices on merit, rather than popularity. To get input from the State Bar as to who was qualified, and question them before even allowing them on the ballot. (In Michigan, any lawyer who as been licensed for 5 years could potentially run and sit on the Michigan Supreme Court. They wouldn’t have to ever be a judge—indeed they wouldn’t have to practice law a single day! Just be licensed.)

Alas, after ruling in favor of gay marriage, the Tea Party targeted these three judges (labeling them….can you guess? Starts with “act” and ends with “ivist.”) and for the first time in their career, they had to respond in a political campaign to defend their positions. Of course, they bungled it, and lost.

The Tea Party declared it a victory—“We showed ‘em!” I see it as a loss to the judicial system. Iowa—you are better served by having qualified persons interviewed and recommended than having John Q. Public picking “Francis O’Brien” because they saw his sign more than his competitors.

Round and Round We Go

Matthew’s Gospel uniquely records a relatively well-known instance regarding resurrection of other persons at the time of Jesus’ resurrection:

Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split, and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many. Matt. 27:51-53 (NKJV)

Dr. Licona, in his recent word, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach deals with these two verses on pp. 548 – 553. (Alas, only p. 553 is available on google books.)

Dr. Licona notes other contemporary authors (Cassius Dio, Josephus, etc.) included miraculous events at the times of great king’s deaths. That it was a common literary device of the time to denote significance. He then concludes Matthew is using a similar literary poetic device when referring to the resurrection of the saints.

The difficulty though, is how to determine what historicity the author(s) were assigning to these claims. If the Roman historians really did think earthquakes happened, stars aligned, swords appeared in the sky, miraculous births occurred—all as signs something important was happening—would Matthew likewise be claiming these signs really did occur?

If the Roman historians were, in essence, making this events up (or at the least doing very little confirmation regarding the claims), is Matthew likewise doing so?

Personally, I see this as a difficulty in consistent methodology when comparing contemporary Roman historians to the Gospel accounts; but what do I know?

This is not the reason I write. Other Christian authors have become disenchanted with Dr. Licona’s position; concerned he has committed apostasy by abandoning inerrancy when claiming these events did not actually, historically happen.

At the beginning of August, 2011 Dr. Geisler wrote an open letter to Dr. Licona concluding, “Indeed, if the principles of your historical approach (of using extra-biblical material as determinative of the meaning of a biblical text) were used consistently on the Bible, then it would undermine orthodoxy by dehistoricizing many crucial passages of the Bible.”

[This presents a huge problem for Dr. Geisler. The Protestant Bible does not include a Hebrew or Greek Lexicon. How does Dr. Geisler propose to determine the meaning of the Greek text, without knowledge as to what the Greek meant? The Bible does not include a history of the Roman world. How does Dr. Geisler propose to date a verse like Luke 3:1 referring to Emperor Tiberius’ reign without outside knowledge as to when Tiberius reigned? No--everyone utilizes extra-biblical material as a determinative of the meaning of a biblical text. We have to, as the Bible is not (nor does it claim to be) a complete authority on every item discussed.

Indeed, Dr. Geisler utilizes extra-biblical material. Here he just doesn’t like the fact the extra-biblical material is uncomfortable with his position.)

Dr. Licona failed to respond. So on August 21, 2011 Dr. Geisler wrote his second open letter to Dr. Licona. He expresses his adamant concern Mike Licona is no longer subscribing to the standards required by ETS (Evangelical Theological Society) and its “standard view of inerrancy” as proclaimed by ICBI (International Council of Biblical Inerrancy.)

Dr. Geisler reiterates, “There is something more important than having a seat at the table of contemporary scholarship; it is putting Lordship over scholarship when necessary.” (emphasis added.)

Dr. Geisler puts his methodology in plain sight: if scholarship disagrees with his interpretation of the Bible--no matter how solid the facts, evidence, argument and proof--he will ignore scholarship to maintain his belief.

On September 8, 2011 Dr. Licona responded with a note on his Facebook page. (As not every one is on Facebook, I linked to Wintery Knight’s blog.)

Of course, Dr. Geisler almost immediately countered with his third installment within this saga, all but calling for Dr. Licona’s removal from the ETS: “The ETS and ICBI framers have drawn a line in the sand, and Licona has clearly stepped over it. Only a clear recantation will reverse the matter and, unfortunately, Licona has not done this. Let's pray that he does.“ (emphasis in original)

JP Holding weighed in on the issue and (I think) accurately summarized the problem:

Geisler's view of Matthew 27: Matthew is reporting history as history.

Licona's view of Matthew 27: Matthew is reporting a poetic device as a poetic device.

Geisler's view of Licona's view of Matthew 27: Matthew is reporting a poetic device as history.

As we have noted, one cannot "dehistoricize" a text that was never intended to be taken as historical. Geisler continues to miss this point and thus continues to misapprehend Licona's views with respect to inerrancy.

“Dr” James White sides with Dr. Geisler (curiously indicating he hasn’t read Dr. Licona’s book) but then takes a pot shot at Dr. Geisler for not responding to one of James White’s problems.

Other Christians are taking one side or the other (in the particular comments within that blog, “Nick” (Dr. Licona’s son-in-law) engages with Christians adhering to Dr. Geisler.)

I found two (2) things interesting about these exchanges:

1) If like-minded Christians cannot agree over a few clauses, whether they are historical or not, whether they are inerrant or not, whether to trust scholarship, even what method to utilize to determine these questions—what chance do we non-Christians have of debating “true” Christianity?

We so often hear how skeptics debate straw people, or only take on the fringes, but never battle the core, correct Christianity. Yet here is a simple matter where Christians engage in tremendous battle, and no progress appears as to which (if any) is the “correct” interpretation.

2) I am bemused that Dr. Geisler is as concerned (if not more) Dr. Licona is included in a group—ETS (Evangelical Theological Society)—when Dr. Geisler feels Dr. Licona should be excluded. Geisler wants it clear to the world that Dr. Licona is a heretic.

And wants fellow ETS members to join him in dishonorably discharging Dr. Licona.

Christians are unhappy with atheists; they abhor apostates.

(Edited to Add:

Now Albert Mohler has also joined the fray, on the side of….drum roll, please…..Dr. Geisler.)

When Politeness Fails

Over at Gullible’s Travels D’Ma wrote of a recent conversation with a Sunday School teacher, asking the question almost every deconvert hears in one form or another—“Why don’t you go to Church anymore?”

Eventually, your friends, family and colleagues notice a change. You don’t scream out “Praise Jesus!” when your friends declare good news. You don’t post, “I’ll pray for you” on Facebook in response to bad news. You restrict your involvement in Church….drop out of leadership positions…stop singing in the choir….skip more and more Sunday night services………then more and more Sunday morning services…..

Either they seek you out, or (more likely) bump into you at a local establishment. After the few awkward exchanges—“How’s your spouse?”—the inevitable occurs; “We don’t see you at Church anymore…what’s up?” Like D’Ma, I demurred. “Oh, we were looking for a different direction.” “We started attending a different church.” “Our friends invited us to attend elsewhere.”

All true, mind you. Well…half true. O.K….maybe 1/8th true. The real reason was that I deconverted, and am no longer interested in worshipping a non-existent creature. I am no longer interested wasting my time singing songs with no meaning, reading verses out of context, and hearing sermons pandering to the least common denominator of emotional need.

There is no place for an atheist like me in a church.

At the time, I thought my justification for the half-truths was valid. My wife (understandably) was aghast at the turmoil created, and dreaded any confrontation on the subject. D’Ma mentioned it, but unless you have been imbedded in a church, you may not understand it—there is a gossip train like no other within the Christian community.

Yes, one attended church to worship God. Yes, we attended church to socialize with like-minded people. But we also attended to learn news. Who was divorcing whom? Whose kid was in trouble? Who got sick, lost a job, entered a cult? Alas—most times the news was lackluster at best. Christians generally shared only innocuous difficulties—“hard week at work,” “brother-in-law in car accident,” that sort of thing. Some times we had to look for the news—an ugly hat, a bratty child, a poor disposition.

And in the car, on the way home, spouses would share the news. Oh, the conversations that take place in cars between church parking lots and homes! As children we knew (and certainly as my children know) when the parents talked in very quiet voices on the way home from church—THAT was a conversation worth listening to!

It was rare one got big news—and a deconvert would be big news. Almost on par with an affair. (Sexual sins are more titillating.). Certainly equal with divorce. Better than a kid going to jail. This is news one is busting to share. Of course, it will be done in the politely worded, correct form of a prayer request—to be sure! To just blurt it out would be crass, crude and dangerously close to gossip. To blurt it out, and finish with “…we need to pray for him/her” is not only socially acceptable—it is doing God’s Work!

And (if it even lasted until Sunday), the news would spread quickly. The No. 1 conversation (and this would definitely be one of those “quiet conversations”) would be me. Us. And the question on everyone’s lips would be “Why?” Immediately followed by speculation. All gilded under “Christian concern” you understand.

Our marriage would be dissected. Our past Christian work evaluated. Smug self-praise assumed—“I always thought there was something wrong.” Because Christians presume one only deconverts for immoral purposes, they would find themselves free to fantasize about what my purpose was; indulge in both reckless character assassination AND thoughts normally forbidden.

My wife loathed the thought of this. I have slightly thicker skin, but this still would not be very pleasant. She dreaded it; I demurred. I shrank away with small excuses and polite put-offs.

And it didn’t make a damned bit of difference. We still managed to creep into prayer lists. The few I shared with, shared with others. I was a sermon example; those “in the know” immediately knew who the pastor was talking about. We still lost the friends we thought would stick by us; (hardy har har. Who were we to think our situation would be different?) we still became the outsiders.

And—like all such gossip—newer and juicer tidbits came along, relegating my deconversion to the dustbins of gossip history. With nothing more to feed the story—alas for them, I didn’t divorce my wife or declare my self a Satanist, or do anything exciting at all—it dropped and disappeared.

Leaving behind one musty uneasiness—because I didn’t address my deconversion, they don’t have to. Now when we meet, there is a slight cumbersome undertone where they know I am an atheist, they know I know they know, and yet no one addresses it. It is not so much an elephant remaining in the room, as an elephant that just leaves as we enter. A moment we see it, and then the elephant passes. Leaving us with inane, surface conversation for fear the elephant will thunder back in at any moment.

I continue to do this from politeness. I dislike confrontational Christians; likewise I presume most Christians do not appreciate a confrontational atheist. Like asking the proverbial “How are you doing?”—this isn’t a request to hear the person’s every mental and physical well-being. It is a form of greeting in our culture. In the same way, if a Christian acquaintance sees me in the fruit department at the local grocery store—they aren’t looking for a conversation comparing Matthean priority over Markan priority!

Yet I tire of it. I tire of the polite dance performed, forcing the conversation to the barest depth of relationship. With former acquaintances I welcome the shallow words as means to escape; but with my own family I find it bordering on insane—I am an atheist, time to face up to the fact! Either learn to laugh with it, learn to cry with it, or learn to ignore it—but learn to live with it!

I cannot help but wonder what it would have been like to confront deconversion head-on at the time. (Of course, not having a time machine, my wife could have become furious and I would be writing this as a divorcee right now. We never know.) I wish I could have stated, “I deconverted.” Let them know Sunday School teachers deconvert. Pastors deconvert. People you thought were the greatest spiritual leader you ever personally knew…deconvert.*

*Not that I am remotely claiming I was—I am thinking of other deconverts whose paths I’ve crossed.

Let them know life is NOT polite. It is messy. It is hard. It sometimes involves more than surface greetings and polite non-committals. Things are happening they can either choose to address or choose to ignore—but they ARE happening.

Please understand this is not a primer for what to do when deconverting. Although I mentioned D’Ma, I am absolutely not saying she should announce by billboard any change in beliefs—far from it. I empathize completely with the situation she is in. I would do the same; I DID do the same.

These are the words of a person seven years post-deconversion. A person who has found other friends and other relationships, with a few lingering family interactions and occasional acquaintance encounter. A person who avoided confrontation out of politeness and gained by it………nothing.

Michigan Warrior Dash 2011

Each Warrior Dash is different, with varying obstacles. This description will only fit for my experience.

Our friends have a membership in a camping community, so we reserved a couple cabins for the crew, planning on spending the night before and after. Friday went up and enjoyed a good evening of fishing, fires and general friendship.

Woke up to Eggs, bacon, sausage and pancakes. Saturday proved to be hot (91 degrees) without a cloud for any relief. The Dash sends off runners every 30 minutes—our time was 2:00 p.m. Had two (2) couples, plus me and my son, who just turned 14; the minimum age to run was 14 and his birthday was in June so he was either the youngest or the next to the youngest. Had about 10,000 runners on Saturday, and 9,750 on Sunday.

There were tents to buy merchandise, tents to get food (primarily huge turkey legs) and tents to get beer. The whole thing was extremely well-organized. Got our numbers, timing chips (which also turned out to be the token for free beer), and walked around for a bit, enjoying the other people in costumes.

Considering a band, beer and some testosterone—you might think this was only one step removed from a Hollywood depiction of a biker bar. It was not. Nothing seemed crazy or out of sorts.

The race itself.

It is a 5k (3.1 miles) that normally, with these types of numbers, one would expect the winners to be in the 16:30 range. Our overall winner was 22:30—giving an idea how much time the obstacles added.

We run for about ½ a mile before the first obstacle. This is good because it stretches out the runners. The first is a series of tires/junk cars. I told my son to be careful, either step within the tires or you might trip by trying to walk on the tires.

I, of course, walked on the tires (faster) and tripped on the very last one. My son found this funny. Another ½ mile run (this is really stretching out the crowd nicely) and our second obstacle. Go though a stretch of water with logs at about waist level. (Chest level for my son.) Now we will run the rest of the race soaked. Makes the shoes heavy.

Had a cargo net stretched horizontally. (Fastest way to do it is roll.) A series of over/unders where you go over a wall, and then under barbed wire. Climb a wall with ropes. This is a video tour of our course, if you interested.

They stretched a series of bungee cords in a number of criss-cross patterns. I found the fastest way was to lift up the bungees, and stoop under all of them. Some of the people stepping over the bungees I was lifting up gave out shouts of “Hey! I’m stepping over that!” I can’t help it if you are doing it the slow way. It is a race…

There were rumors of a “mystery obstacle.” As we run through the woods we hear laughs and shouts ahead. Not sounding good.

Imagine a steep ditch (normally you would go up it, using your hands) Now fill the bottom with about 3 feet of sludge/mud. It was like walking through sewage. Or so I would imagine. Alongside the ditch, there were two mud-covered logs. One would be tempted to go over the logs, to avoid the mud. I watched a number make it about ½ way and then fall in anyway. I told my son to just run through the mud.

(Even though his pace is slower than mine, I ran with him to make sure he could do the obstacles. If I had to do it again, I might not—he was fine.)

Unfortunately, the mud had a number of logs in it, which is why my shins took the beating they did.

The best bit was that at one point the mud dropped to 4 feet deep. My son went in right to his chin.


But now, crawling out, we found the real difficulty. The hill was mud covered and steep. Every step you took forward, you slid back two! There were ropes to use, but too many people, and you still had to crawl up to the rope. This was, by far, the hardest obstacle.

There was a blackout where you crawled for 30 feet in darkness. (HOT!) An up-and-down narrow wooden bridge. Wall climb with rope climb down, and then vertical cargo nets.

Two leaps over fire (small fires, nothing much to worry about.) and the mud pit. The pictures tell the story better than I.

The crowd hung around the mud pit and cheered people on. Generally they liked anything dramatic or unusual. My son came up with a great plan. We went back-to-back, took two steps, did a quick-draw and then fell in as if we shot each other. Hence the way we went in.

Our friends did a leap frog.

Sadly, on Sunday one fellow dove in too deep and became paralyzed from the chest down.

I can’t really tell you how well I did, since I did not run my normal pace. I figured I would normally have run it in about 29:00. (I run 5k in 21:30)

As DoOrDoNot’s husband is doing this, I thought I would give a few suggestions. Take a change of clothes. You will get everything dirty. They had a shoe contribution, we all contributed our shoes. You may not want to keep yours.

Bring flip-flops or sliders for after. Bring a garbage bag to put the clothes you were running in…in. You do not want these to touch anything.

Bring some wipes for your face. They have a rinsing off station, but it is not sufficient. Bring a Q-tip or two. I got dirt out of my ears for the next three days.

Have a blast. You will be addicted. I am already signed up for next year. July 28, 2012 at 1 p.m.

Argument from Silence on Dating of Acts

In dating ancient documents, we attempt to determine a terminus a quo (point after which the document was written) and a terminus ad quem (point before which the document was written.) Absent direct internal dating by the author (“In the third year of Tiberius’ reign” for example), we generally determine the terminus a quo by the last chronological date within the document, and the terminus ad quem by the date the document was referenced and quoted.

For a simplistic example, if the last event in a book was Pearl Harbor and the book was referenced by another author in 1950, we would date the book from 1941 – 1950. Obviously in ancient documents, the ranges tend to be larger.

Utilizing New Testament documents, Mark references the Jewish revolt in Mark 13, so we date the work—the terminus a quo--at the fall of Jerusalem. Being 70 CE. And, for purposes of this blog entry only, we can see Papias referencing a Gospel written by Mark in his writing of 110-140 CE. for our terminus ad quem. Therefore (if this was any other work) we would date Mark 70 – 140 CE and think nothing of it. A scholar who discussed Mark as having been written in 71 CE would be on equal footing as one who indicated 140 CE. (Imagine that!)

It should be noted, though, determining when the Gospels were referenced is not that simple. See Dr. Carrier’s excellent blog entry regarding just how convoluted this can become.

However, for many Christian apologists—they see this as a problem. They want the Gospels to be earlier. “The Earlier, the Better” is their battle cry. The problem being, the Gospels themselves do not indicate when they were written. So we have to analyze it; and simple analysis comes up with dates much too inconvenient.

Matthew copies Mark, but Matthew doesn’t provide us with any information regarding when IT was written. (For example, if Matthew dated its own work to 90 CE, we would then derive a 70 – 90 CE date for Mark. Since Matthew referenced Mark.) Luke also uses Mark. Luke also fails to provide us with any limiting information. So we are still left with this 70 CE – 140 CE (or more) dating for the Gospels.

Mmm….how to get around this? *snaps fingers*

Luke wrote a second book—Acts. (We know it is the second, because in it he refers to his previous book: the Gospel. Acts 1:1-3) If we can date the second Book, then the first book—Gospel of Luke—must come before it. First comes before second. And if we can date the Gospel of Luke, as Luke copies Mark, we can date Mark.

Date Acts to 65 CE, then Luke has a terminus ad quem of 65 CE and Mark would have a terminus ad quem of 65CE. (We can’t know how long it was before one followed the other, or one copied the other, so traditionally we use the same date. Extrapolating “10 years” or “5 years” is merely an apologetic tool, and should be abandoned in light of what historians actually do.)

But…unfortunately…Acts also doesn’t provide any internal dating either. We are left with the same problem as the Gospels. Leaving us the same general dating: 70 – 140 CE.

This is where the Argument from Silence comes in. The apologist attempts to show an event occurred where we know the dating, and if the person fails to list it, presumably the document was written before that date.

For another simplistic example. If we found a document referencing the greatest wars in history, and it failed to list World War II, we would presume—under an Argument of Silence—the document was written before 1941.

Understand an Argument from Silence is NOT a logical fallacy. As we like to say in the legal world, “It goes to weight, not relevance.” It may not be very credible, but it is not, in and of itself, a fallacy.

The apologist generally uses 2 (sometimes 3) events which they indicate MUST have been included in Acts if it was written after those events, and therefore Acts (and Luke and Mark) were written prior to those events:

1) Paul’s death;
2) Jewish revolt; and
3) (sometimes) the outcome of Paul’s trial.

Since these events occurred before 64 CE (so the apologist claims), Acts (and Luke and Mark) must have been written before 64 CE. Giving us a terminus ad quem for all three of 64 CE.

Let’s break down the elements of an Argument from Silence—we need a minimum of two items:

1) What it is the author is silent about; and
2) The purpose of the writing itself.

Take the claim, “Tiger Woods shot a hole-in-one in last week’s Golf Tournament.” (“1” in our list above.) Now I claim it could not possibly have happened, because it is not listed in the magazine I hold in my hand. The magazine is silent; by virtue of the Argument from Silence…didn’t happen.

But what magazine am I holding? If I am holding Cosmopolitan the Argument from Silence is not very strong. Because the nature and purpose of Cosmopolitan has nothing to do with golf scores, whether Tiger Woods did or did not shot a hole-in-one—indeed whether he even played golf that weekend—would not be included within the Magazine.

Obviously, if I am holding Golf Digest then the Argument of Silence has great weight—the nature and purpose of Golf Digest IS to report such things as Tiger Woods shooting a hole-in-one.

Again, we need two things: 1) what fact is claimed missing and 2) whether the document’s purpose would include such a fact.

Continuing with our Tiger Wood’s example, what if our fact was that Tiger Woods defined the new personage that teenage girls found attractive? In that Argument of Silence, whether Cosmopolitan reported it holds greater weight than Golf Digest.

What I often see, in the Argument of Silence from apologists regarding the dating of Acts, is one or both of these elements overlooked. The apologists just keeps repeating, “Acts would have reported Paul’s death if it had happened. Acts would have reported Paul’s death if it had happened. Therefore it was written prior to his death.” Yet the apologist fails to plug Paul’s death in the two essential elements.

The first thing we have to look at. When and how did Paul die? And immediately we have a problem.

The author of 1 Clement (60 -140 CE) knows Paul is dead. He does not say when. He does not say how. Acts of Paul indicates (as tradition) Paul was beheaded under Nero, but Tertullian claims it a forgery. Leaving the apologist in a bit of a quandary—do they rely upon a forgery, because it says what they want to hear? Or do they reject the other items contained in Acts of Paul, because it is a forgery?

We don’t know how Paul died. We don’t know when. How can we say the author of Acts would certainly include Paul’s death, if we don’t even know how and when he died? Would the author have included it if Paul died by shipwreck? By disease? By a knife fight in an alley? By being martyred? By other Christians?

The apologists want to assume Paul died a glorious death, without first doing the hard work of proving how Paul died.

As to the second element, scholars have noted numerous purposes under Acts whereby Paul’s death would not be listed. It is also important to note the author of Acts, at the time of the writing, knows Paul is dead. Acts. 20:25-38.

The outcome of Paul’s trial is equally problematic. Did he win? Did he lose? Did it even happen? Again, if Paul died from disease prior to the trial, this makes perfect sense why it wasn’t listed. Or if he lost. We simply don’t know, and to speculate what happened adds silence upon silence, removing all but a feather’s weight of credibility.

(Sometimes people claim Luke wrote so much about the trial leading up to the ending and he wouldn’t have mentioned it at all if Paul lost. Not true—if Paul lost, that is all the MORE reason to give the long-winded substantiation. In my practice, at times, I ask the question, “Have you been convicted of a felony?” I receive two answers:

1) “No.”
2) “Let me tell you what happened….”

No one says outright, “Yes, I was convicted”—first they want to give an explanation. Like Luke does for Paul.)

Paul’s death and Paul’s trial are extremely weak Arguments from Silence, as we don’t know the underlying facts, let alone why the author would choose or choose not to include it. But that’s not true for the Jewish Revolt. THAT event we DO know about. Why didn’t Acts include it?

Which brings us back to purpose. Why would Acts include it? Acts is about the conflict Early Christians had with the Jewish leaders, an explanation of the missionary work, and a demonstration regarding the continuity between first generation Christians (disciples) and the third-generation Christians (recipients) via the second-generation Christian Paul.

The Jewish Revolt has no bearing on the missionary work, or the doctrinal continuity, and therefore would have no need to be included. The typical reason listed would be to paint the Jews in a bad light under the first purpose listed.

However, we have to look at Acts itself. It discusses Jews vs Christians as compared to Romans vs. Christians, painting the Romans in a positive, receptive light, and the Jews as the belligerent, confrontational type. The entire book deals with Christians interacting with others.

The Jewish revolt had to do with internal Jewish problems (conservative v more modernistic) and Jews vs. Romans. The Revolt had NOTHING to do with Christianity.

I have always been curious, to the people who claim Acts would have mentioned the Jewish Wars if it was written in 90 CE.

Where?

Where would Acts include the Revolt, and how would it work its way into the passage? The book ends in approximately 62 CE—is the apologist claiming the author would have extended the book on to include the events of 70 CE? Why?—there were no Christians involved! The recipients would state, “That is nice and all, but what does it have to do with us?” Absolutely nothing.

Is the apologist stating the authors would have included it a prophetic statement? Luke already did in his first book, copying Mark 13.

Other than the apologist’s compelling need to date Acts early, there is no reason for the revolt to be included. It is outside the purview of the book.

The Argument of Silence is too weak to overturn the basic principles in dating ancient texts.

Close-Minded Me

In another discussion, I was informed:

You are the first skeptic to essentially tell me that his mind is closed to what I have to say, and most of the skeptics have also been very friendly, so I always end up giving them the benefit of the doubt and putting time and effort into answering their questions.

Link

My initial reaction was to respond (due to the generally negative connotation), “Hey, I’m not close-minded. I’m as open as the next person,” but I started thinking about it.

Am I really?

In point of fact, I am close-minded about a number of topics. And is that really all bad?

Take an extreme example—the heliocentric theory of our solar system. The idea the planets (including Earth) rotate around the sun. Although I’ve never been in a spaceship, I have seen the evidence, including the paths of other planets, the sun, the moon, the shadows all pointing to a heliocentric theory.

Indeed, you could say I am quite close-minded regarding the topic. Perhaps, even in my persistently stubborn state on this subject, it would be possible to persuade me different. So I may qualify as only 99.99% close-minded. (If that does qualify.)

BUT, in order to change my position, one would need to present some very compelling argument; doing so immediately, forcefully and with strong evidence. Merely asking a question, such as, “If the Earth orbits the sun, how come we see the sun move across the sky?” will never be sufficient.

As I pondered the concept of close-mindedness, I realized we spent our first 18 (or more) years being taught this very topic. We were given homework assignments, quizzes, tests—all designed to close our mind regarding possible alternatives. “2+2=4” Not “5;” not “giraffe.” We close our minds to water’s chemical composition being “H2O.” To “You’re” being a contraction of “you” and “are” and not possession. The list, as you can see, goes on and on.

The list goes on and on. Yes, there are occasions when we learn new information, and realize what we thought was so certain (and perhaps had closed our minds), may not be reality. Newtonian physics comes to mind.

And that is the word I hinged upon—“new.” I looked up the definitions, to see what the common usage would be when utilizing these terms. Google god came up with:

Open-minded: “Receptive to new and different ideas or the opinions of others.”

Close-minded: “Intolerant of the beliefs and opinions of others; stubbornly unreceptive to new ideas.”

In both definitions, the word “new” sprang at me. Is it “close-minded” to be unreceptive to old ideas?

At one point does one study a topic enough to say, “Unless someone presents something new here, I have made my decision”?

The reason I ask—I have studied Christianity. I am very familiar with the fundamentalist Christian position. I know the arguments, the argument style, even the authors, books and sites they will point to.

And I am unconvinced. Must I hear it again to be “open-minded”? How many times must I hear a proposed resolution to a contradiction in the Bible before I come to the conclusion it is a compilation of human documents? How many times must I hear the excuses…er…”apologetics” for the differences between the God of Tanakh and the God of the New Testament?

Are we not entitled to reach a point of saying, “Look. I’ve studied this. I am unconvinced. Unless you present something new--some bold evidence or intensely compelling argument at the onset--I have no need to re-capitulate (for the 100th time) why I was unpersuaded before”?

So I guess, if one wants to call me close-minded because Presentation Number 101 (presenting nothing new) fails to convince, just like Presentations Number 1 – 100 failed to do so…well…I am fine with that.

Why Apologetics Don’t Convince

In every criminal trial, the defense attorney performs an obligation—presenting a possible scenario creating reasonable doubt their client is guilty.

See, each trial has certain facts. A witness who claims a person matching the Defendant’s description was at the crime. Doctors who testify to the cause of death or injury. Police officers explaining data taken from the scene. Exhibits. Fingerprints. Blood results.

And those facts led the police to arrest the accused as a suspect. Those facts led the prosecutor to authorize charging the crime. Those facts led the magistrate to bind the defendant over for trial. And now those very same facts will be displayed to a group of neutral jurors, who are very likely to equally find the most reasonable conclusion is that the defendant is guilty of the crime.

This is where the defense attorney steps in. She must explain an alternative interpretation to the facts. Just because the Defendant was captured in the video right before the robbery, doesn’t mean he entered the store. Just because the Defendant’s fingerprints are on the gun, doesn’t mean he pulled the trigger. Just because the technician claims the blood results are one thing, doesn’t mean we have to trust them.

The Defense attorney constantly presents “possibilities.” Not probabilities (not their job.) Something…anything…to give the jurors an opportunity to say, “No, maybe there is enough doubt here, we should not convict the Defendant.”

Two things happen; the second sometimes more interesting than the first.

1) Jurors--despite all these “possibilities”--overwhelmingly convict Defendants.

See, the jurors understand the Defense attorney’s job. They understand the inherent bias—unless the attorney has no other choice, everything must be bent toward the scenario whereby the Defendant is not guilty. If someone sees the Defendant arrive at the crime scene at 7 p.m., and another witness sees them leave at 7:30 p.m., Defense counsel will argue the Defendant left at 7:01 and came back at 7:29. That is their job.

“It is possible the Defendant could leave and then come back…” “No one saw them there the entire time…”

Yet jurors realize people rarely are under constant surveillance. That people rarely come onto a scene, leave it immediately, and come back later. While it is certainly a “possibility”—not a probability.

They understand, taking into consideration the other facts, the high likelihood the Defendant arrived at 7 and stayed until 7:30.

In every trial we bob and weave and dance and twist, showing over and over how there is another “possibility” to the prosecutor’s theory. The jurors look with sympathetic eyes and quietly reject the “possibility” for the probability. The fact set conforming to their ordinary life experiences.

“We find the Defendant Guilty.”

2) The second phenomenon is that often Defendants become convinced by their own press. They hear the attorney present these possibilities and the alternatives begin to solidify in their minds. Rather than just “possibilities” they become stronger and strong probabilities. Soon they becomes facts—“It’s not on video, is it?”

The Defendants begin to think their case is pretty good. Real solid. They could win this thing! Their relatives in the galley are impressed with the lawyer cross-examining the police officer. The technician admitting they are not 100% certain—there is room for error. The fact all these “holes” are seemingly punched in the prosecutor’s case.

Besides, O.J. heard “Not Guilty” because of that glove. Every movie (except To Kill a Mockingbird) has the Defendant acquitted in a triumphant Perry Mason twist.

Defendants begin to believe the “possibilities” are sufficient. They are not.

“We find the Defendant Guilty.”

I find this same attitude amongst Christian apologetics. As if “possibilities” of alternative interpretations fitting the Christian’s desired conclusion are sufficient to overcome the overwhelming probability to the contrary. (How many times have we seen “possibilities” offered as a response to contradictions?)

And, likewise, Christian apologists believe their own press. They begin to think these “possibilities” are substantial enough to overcome the probabilities.

We completed a discussion regarding the old chestnut of Jesus predicting the parousia within the lifetime of the listeners, and how it did not occur. Anete Acker did an admirable job, playing the part of the Defense Attorney/Christian apologist, giving about the best answer she could.

But in the end, it is just like the Defense. All those “possibilities” do not sustain over the more obvious probabilities; whether Jesus actually said it or someone put those words in his mouth—they were incorrect.

Apologetics do not convince, because we non-believers look to probabilities, not possibilities. We understand the Christian apologist (just like Defense counsel) will bob and weave and twist the scraps of facts we have to conform to their necessary interpretation. We are not bound by such doctrinal or theological limitations.

We don’t care whether it was recorded Jesus predicted something and it was correct or not. We have no purchase in this game.

Thus we are not convinced, any more than jurors are.

Can’t Argue with this Logic

The proof Satan exists is that he has deceived you into thinking he doesn’t exist.

QED

What the Large Print Giveth; the Small Print Taketh Away

Obviously, one week (and a few thousand years) later—no Rapture has been forthcoming.

I smiled at all those “true believers” who smugly smacked down Rev. Camping’s predictions with the gloating scorn, “Ha! No one knows the hour of Jesus’ coming. Who was Harold Camping to proclaim such a thing?” Stabbing out Matthew 24:36 like a weapon.

Yet curiously, many of those same people—just like Harold Camping—believe the Rapture will occur. And many of those same people—just like Harold Camping—declare it could happen this very afternoon. And those same people—just like Harold Camping—urge you to “get right with God” or else you could be too late, ‘cause it could happen today. (Why is there is always a hint of gleeful revenge when we say, “No” as they look forward to showing US who was correct?)

Aren’t these same people committing the same error, albeit with slightly less precision? They know it could happen today. Yet, ironically, by such knowledge, seem to have eliminated today as a possibility, pursuant to their own Bible verse.

Has Jesus been waiting around for 2000 years for people to stop remembering he is coming back?

I wonder if he regrets putting that clause in the contract….

Ripple Effect

The United States was developed under an interesting, mutli-faceted balancing act. Not only the famous Checks-and-Balance within the three branches of the Federal Government, but balancing individual states sovereignty while maintaining the country’s unity.

One such concern was to have states recognize other state’s judgments and decrees, thus the framers included the Full Faith and Credit Clause within the United States Constitution—each State must give “full faith and credit” to the other States’ public acts, records and Judicial proceedings.

This has been so fully implemented; we hardly think anything of it. We don’t stop at the Ohio border to get a new Driver’s license, registration on our vehicle or insurance. We understand our Michigan License is valid in any of the other 49 States. Even if we may not meet the requirements of the other states to have a Driver’s license!

Part of my work includes “domesticating Judgments”—filing and enforcing judgments from other States against Michigan residents. Whether the rights or benefits under that judgment would be available in Michigan is irrelevant—if the judgment is valid under Oregon Law, we domesticate it here and enforce it just as if Oregon Law was in effect on the Judgment.

So everyone was happy enforcing other State’s decrees (with few hiccups) until…

Same Sex Marriage.

See, we even recognized marriages from other States. Even through Michigan does not have Common Law Marriage—if someone was married in such a fashion elsewhere—we recognized them as married here. If a person did not meet the age requirement here, but did where they were married—they were still just as married.

Anyone who has moved from one state to another knows they did not have to re-perform a marriage ceremony under the new State’s requirements. The new State recognized the old State’s marriage decree.

But this would mean…if two fellows were married in Massachusetts…under the Full, Faith, and Credit Clause…Michigan would have to recognize the marriage! Once one state had same sex marriage—all the states would!

Panicking, U.S. Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act indicating, in spite of the U.S. Constitution, no state would have to recognize the same sex marriage of another. Thus avoiding the perceived issue.

The U.S. Supreme Court has been too timid to take up the problem whether the Defense of Marriage Act violates the Constitution.
Occasionally problems will go away if ignored. This is not one of them. If your ankle hurts for a few hours after running—you can probably ignore it. After a few weeks—time to get medical attention.

The problem of recognizing same sex marriage will not go away. It will not be ignored.

’The question of how a state defines the institution of marriage must be decided by the people and their representatives, not activist judges,’ said Hiram Sasser, director of litigation for Liberty Institute.

Texas Supreme Court may decide conflicting Same Sex Divorce Cases.

Unfortunately for Mr. Sasser, it is not that simple. States ARE allowed to define (through their people and representatives) the institution of marriage. But States are part of a Union. Which operates under the United States Constitution. Which clearly states, regardless how an individual State defines marriage—it must give full faith and credit to other States’ legally instituted marriage.

Now States such as Texas are wrestling with whether they can divorce such couples—even if they can’t get married in Texas. What about same sex couples who adopt children, move to Texas, and then divorce?

We are infamous for putting our heads in the sand and ignoring issues. Ironically, while ignoring them, lives move on, and people search for solutions in the legal system. When the legal system (that CANNOT ignore the problem) does provide a solution, half the populace (the ones ignoring the problem until that very moment) cry out, “Activist Judges!”

Here, as there are conflicting opinions, we probably could get both halves to make the same battle cry.

It is time this is brought to head. Tell your friends, “I am for/against gay marriage. And here is why.” Tell your congresspeople. Tell it in your votes.

This state of limbo, where the legal system is left to wrestling out solutions will not last.

While I give a nod to President Obama’s no longer utilizing the argument the Defense of Marriage Act is constitutional (while he still enforces its implementation), I want it overturned. Trashed. Either repealed or declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court (unlikely given the current make-up.)

Journey’s Beginning

Apparently Blogger Ate Yesterday's post. Which was:

Last month, I was reading Dr. Dale Allison’s Constructing Jesus--another learned treatise explaining a scholar’s conclusions what we can or cannot know regarding Jesus.

And in the middle of a re-read paragraph, it struck me…

I don’t care.

(Don’t blame Dr. Allison—this work is as fine as any other. Makes some good points, and qualifies what we cannot know.)

I found myself having to forcibly re-engage (with reluctance) each time I picked up the book. Not because of the writing style, or the method of argumentation; I realized I am no longer interested in the topic itself.

It seems each author desires to paint Jesus in some light—and not just any old light, but something slightly “new” and “different” and captivating to the recipients. He was eschatological! He was philosophical! He was Jewish! He didn’t exist!

And with each approach, the scholars triumphantly extol a “new” revelation to the readers—the Gospel of Thomas holds the “true Jesus.” The Gospels give hints as to their eyewitness underpinning. Paul didn’t know Jesus. The Gospel of John was first—look to it for the “real Jesus.” The Gospel of Mark was first—look to it for the “real Jesus.” The Gospel of Matthew was first—look to it for the “real Jesus.”

Anywhere from inspecting each Greek word as if it dripped from Heaven itself, utterly packed with wholesome “trueness,” to looking at the general gist to looking at none of it at all! I think if we gathered every word some scholar held to be “true” when it comes to Jesus, it would include every word written in the first two centuries. And if we excluded every word some other scholar held to be false, we would have nothing left.

Take your pick—the piles are plentiful for the taking.

Then, even amongst those who agree on the excluded/included words, we are left with interpretation. Was he the Son of God? The Messiah? A traveling Rabbi? Did he preach love, hate, justice, mercy, all and none? Should we follow the Law? Or have we triumphed over it?

Would Jesus vote for Gay Marriage?

If Jesus called out certain Religious leaders, as he did the Pharisees, who would it be? (Having heard the polemic raised time and time again, I can answer confidently what every “True Christian” would reply: “Not me!”)

In the end, most people create the Jesus they want. Utilizing (and dismissing) whatever texts and/or interpretations are necessary to get there.

And my life is so full right now. I am running more than I ever have before (deciding for some inexplicable reason I will do a half-marathon this fall.) My son is in two (2) soccer teams and track, guaranteeing a practice and/or game every day. (Not to mention my own soccer.) My daughter continues to need assistance with schoolwork. My house enjoys creating work with drippy faucets, leaky roofs or peeling paint.

Adding on spring time projects outside, a family that would like to spend a little time together, an interest in a charitable project and friends who are inviting….

…just no time to care about what sandals the “true Jesus” would have worn. Or whether Nazareth existed enough to allow him to be from there at the time.

Equally my reasons to study the topic are waning. Arguing with apologists has become tedious. Sure, at one time it was fun, to cry havoc and let slip the dogs of argumentation. Never to convince the apologist, of course. They will staunchly hold to their belief even when their claims have blown up so completely the ashes will have nothing to do with them.

Always for the lurker. Always to let the non-talkative watcher know the tricks being pulled, the strawmen being created, the errors ignored.

Now the apologists come here no more. I can manage a comment or two on their sites and blogs, but then I am ignored. A new topic quickly brought up to bury the lingering questions that need not be addressed if not seen.

I ache for people struggling with their beliefs—verging on deconversion. Yet I find, even with my empathy, so little to say. I realize (having been there) they desperately desire to maintain some theism; some faith in a higher being. I have no words to encourage that hope. (I AM an atheist after all.) I hope they find truth. And hey, if they find a great argument for God, I hope they share it.

But how can I, a non-believer, in good conscience say, “Gee, I really hope Christianity in some form, or theism in another form work out for you”? So under the adage, “If you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all” I either maintain silence or attempt to convey my empathy without compromising what I am convinced is true.

I understand I should up-in-arms over the Christian invasion into the politics of America. Somehow I doubt my blog has changed enough minds to see Gay Marriage legalized more than it was before.

And finally, the people I am chumming with don’t talk about Christianity; they don’t swim in it. Frankly, I don’t know (and don’t care) what their particular religious beliefs are. Without feeding the idea—the idea dies.

Where do I go from here? Anywhere I want! The world is wide open. I still find the topic interesting enough to lurk on my own, so I review my blogroll as need be.

I originally titled this blog entry “Journey’s End.” Now written, I see that as completely incorrect and have changed the title to the more appropriate.

Journey Beginning

Last month, I was reading Dr. Dale Allison’s Constructing Jesus--another learned treatise explaining a scholar’s conclusions what we can or cannot know regarding Jesus.

And in the middle of a re-read paragraph, it struck me…

I don’t care.

(Don’t blame Dr. Allison—this work is as fine as any other. Makes some good points, and qualifies what we cannot know.)

I found myself having to forcibly re-engage (with reluctance) each time I picked up the book. Not because of the writing style, or the method of argumentation; I realized I am no longer interested in the topic itself.

It seems each author desires to paint Jesus in some light—and not just any old light, but something slightly “new” and “different” and captivating to the recipients. He was eschatological! He was philosophical! He was Jewish! He didn’t exist!

And with each approach, the scholars triumphantly extol a “new” revelation to the readers—the Gospel of Thomas holds the “true Jesus.” The Gospels give hints as to their eyewitness underpinning. Paul didn’t know Jesus. The Gospel of John was first—look to it for the “real Jesus.” The Gospel of Mark was first—look to it for the “real Jesus.” The Gospel of Matthew was first—look to it for the “real Jesus.”

Anywhere from inspecting each Greek word as if it dripped from Heaven itself, utterly packed with wholesome “trueness,” to looking at the general gist to looking at none of it at all! I think if we gathered every word some scholar held to be “true” when it comes to Jesus, it would include every word written in the first two centuries. And if we excluded every word some other scholar held to be false, we would have nothing left.

Take your pick—the piles are plentiful for the taking.

Then, even amongst those who agree on the excluded/included words, we are left with interpretation. Was he the Son of God? The Messiah? A traveling Rabbi? Did he preach love, hate, justice, mercy, all and none? Should we follow the Law? Or have we triumphed over it?

Would Jesus vote for Gay Marriage?

If Jesus called out certain Religious leaders, as he did the Pharisees, who would it be? (Having heard the polemic raised time and time again, I can answer confidently what every “True Christian” would reply: “Not me!”)

In the end, most people create the Jesus they want. Utilizing (and dismissing) whatever texts and/or interpretations are necessary to get there.

And my life is so full right now. I am running more than I ever have before (deciding for some inexplicable reason I will do a half-marathon this fall.) My son is in two (2) soccer teams and track, guaranteeing a practice and/or game every day. (Not to mention my own soccer.) My daughter continues to need assistance with schoolwork. My house enjoys creating work with drippy faucets, leaky roofs or peeling paint.

Adding on spring time projects outside, a family that would like to spend a little time together, an interest in a charitable project and friends who are inviting….

…just no time to care about what sandals the “true Jesus” would have worn. Or whether Nazareth existed enough to allow him to be from there at the time.

Equally my reasons to study the topic are waning. Arguing with apologists has become tedious. Sure, at one time it was fun, to cry havoc and let slip the dogs of argumentation. Never to convince the apologist, of course. They will staunchly hold to their belief even when their claims have blown up so completely the ashes will have nothing to do with them.

Always for the lurker. Always to let the non-talkative watcher know the tricks being pulled, the strawmen being created, the errors ignored.

Now the apologists come here no more. I can manage a comment or two on their sites and blogs, but then I am ignored. A new topic quickly brought up to bury the lingering questions that need not be addressed if not seen.

I ache for people struggling with their beliefs—verging on deconversion. Yet I find, even with my empathy, so little to say. I realize (having been there) they desperately desire to maintain some theism; some faith in a higher being. I have no words to encourage that hope. (I AM an atheist after all.) I hope they find truth. And hey, if they find a great argument for God, I hope they share it.

But how can I, a non-believer, in good conscience say, “Gee, I really hope Christianity in some form, or theism in another form work out for you”? So under the adage, “If you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all” I either maintain silence or attempt to convey my empathy without compromising what I am convinced is true.

I understand I should up-in-arms over the Christian invasion into the politics of America. Somehow I doubt my blog has changed enough minds to see Gay Marriage legalized more than it was before.

And finally, the people I am chumming with don’t talk about Christianity; they don’t swim in it. Frankly, I don’t know (and don’t care) what their particular religious beliefs are. Without feeding the idea—the idea dies.

Where do I go from here? Anywhere I want! The world is wide open. I still find the topic interesting enough to lurk on my own, so I review my blogroll as need be.

I originally titled this blog entry “Journey’s End.” Now written, I see that as completely incorrect and have changed the title to the more appropriate.

Gospels as Histories, iTunes U. Part Four

After listening to the final lecture, I was left with the same puzzlements carried throughout the first three—what exactly is the point here, and what method are we using? However, after reflection I may have stumbled on a possible solution. (How’s that for being definitive? *grin*)

Dr. Bauckham focused the final lecture on current trends in historiography, indicating the current emphasis is on “micro-history.” The history of minor persons. The life of a baker in the 16th century sort of thing. Rather than focus on the elite, or focus on monumental characters such as military, political or social leaders and the masses’ reactions to them—the concept to see what the “common person” experience was during the time in question.

An example he utilized was the Syro-Phonecian woman in Mark 7:24-30. Although (again) the methodology was muddled in that the story was about her interaction with the Messiah, son of God, Savior of the World. She enters, performs her small part, and then exits. Not exactly sure how that was her “micro-history.”

Dr. Bauckham also mentioned the numerous pericopes, each giving their own little “micro-history” if you will.

I found the fourth lecture dry, and uninformative.

It struck me…eventually…what he may have been doing.

It would seem he was going through current trends in historiography—“history from below” and “micro-history”—and determining how the Gospels would fit within such determinations. Odd considering he started off with a qualifier regarding the use of modern techniques on ancient works, and the first lecture attempting to pigeon-hole the Gospels in ancient genres.

I find this of questionable significance. Much like my arguing the Gospels should be in the “800’s” for literature under the Dewey Decimal Classification rather than the “200’s” for religion. Or the “900’s” for history. Do you see how meaningless that is? The Gospels are what the Gospels are—the fact we have subsequently developed a library system so one can find books does NOT mean the books MUST fit the category. Placing the Bible in the Fiction section of your local bookstore does not make it fiction.

In the same way, utilizing current historical methods does not make the Bible “history from below” or “micro-history.”

The titles of this lecture looked interesting. In the end, the lectures themselves failed to deliver, in my opinion.