tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-208967172024-03-07T03:27:38.850-05:00Thoughts from a SandwichGiving Chaos a bad name.DagoodShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comBlogger377125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-10115325764690171632018-02-27T12:18:00.002-05:002018-02-27T12:18:51.710-05:00An Epilogue?I love life!<br />
<br />
It has been some time since posting here; time to play a little catch-up. Since last posting, I have changed jobs, and greatly enjoy my new position, my new law firm, and my new partner. We get along famously-sharing a similar attitude toward the practice of law, while complementing the areas we practice. I am one of those weird people that enjoy going to work. Even on Mondays.<br />
<br />
My children continue to grow. The oldest is getting married this year to a wonderful person, while embarking on her career. The second will be graduating from college next year, and the youngest is completing her second year of college. My wife and I are seeing the Empty Nest right around the corner.<br />
<br />
So….with that thought firmly in mind….we bought a lake house in 2016. In Michigan, the most common place to vacation is "Up North." (Showing my prejudice, there is nothing prettier than Northern Michigan in the Summer. Lakes, hills, sandy beaches, dunes, pines, rivers, falls, pleasant days and cool enough evenings for campfires make for heaven on earth). For some, "Up North" is a ½ hour drive in the northerly direction; for others it is an 8-hour drive. Doesn't matter (although there is quite a bit of debate as to what truly constitutes Up North), as long as one is getting away from the residential property, it qualifies. We ended up with a place 2 hours north-close enough to get there quickly if need be, far enough to feel "away."<br />
<br />
Now we own a place on a lake, with a boat, where we find ourselves every weekend in the summer, and as many as we can manage in the other seasons, travelling north on I-75 to relax, and play and drink and laugh and enjoy being us. New friendships are forming, and wonderful memories are being logged.<br />
<br />
I still regularly play soccer, irregularly run, rarely race and stopped refereeing-it was taking up my weekends. (See above.). I have also taken up board gaming, and enthusiastically play as much as I can.<br />
<br />
And I still review some theistic discussions and websites, although I very, very rarely post, and even then, it quickly fades to nothing. <br />
<br />
In many apologetic debates, we often see the statement, "Why are you posting on a Christian Site? If all you have is to 'live, eat and die'-shouldn't you be spending your time doing so and not bothering us?" Sometimes this is coupled with the complaint that it appears ALL atheists are busy bothering Christians on their websites.<br />
<br />
They are not. I am one of those deconvert atheists who is busy living, eating and dying and enjoying immensely every minute of it. There are quite a few of us. You don't see us-because we are not posting!<br />
<br />
I stopped arguing because I became bored. It was interesting for a while, and I had a huge passion for it. I still miss the people- NinjaBoo, Vinny, Barefoot Bum and He is Sailing-but not the fight. It all became the same thing. "A Tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."<br />
<br />
Look, in my life I get to argue every day. With people who are sometimes at least as brilliant as I, and often even more. And the arguments are fun! But at least we eventually get to an ending point-either the Judge rules for/against us, or we resolve the matter. Eventually we hear, "Your argument prevailed" or "Your argument failed miserably" but there is a finality to it. And we move on to the next project.<br />
<br />
In theistic debate, the same arguments get dredged up, droned on, and then drowned, time and time and time again. "Disciples would die for a lie." "Without objective morality, you cannot call anything evil." "Romans 1:20." "Census at Jesus' Birth." There is never any finality-no winners, no losers, only the constant hum of discord.<br />
<br />
And even that was bearable-until the internet became a cesspool of vicious war where it was no longer sufficient to have the best argument; you MUST call the enemy (and every person who disagrees in the slightest is an enemy), every name conceivable, the worst vermin who ever lived, and the most idiotic person walking the face of the earth.<br />
<br />
It is not enough to disagree-you must destroy. Facebook, twitter, YouTube, forums, blogs. Politics, marriage, Republicans, Democrats, guns, common core, immigrants. I have lost more Facebook friends in the past year than any other time-and I don't even debate on Facebook! My existence and failure to immediately agree with their position was sufficient reason to defriend me.<br />
<br />
So I have moved on from the internet. Still enjoy lurking and keeping up to date. Still read the memes and the pithy snopes-debunked quotes on Facebook or twitter. But I stay out.<br />
<br />
Because this life is wonderful, but precariously precious. Time is that natural resource no matter what we do, we cannot acquire more. I am sure my ears would perk up, or my fingers get to itching upon a debate surrounding the Resurrection of Jesus, but after a few minutes, I quickly recognize my malaise and boredom overcoming any initial interest I had.<br />
<br />
Because the weekend has beer, campfires and water-skiing. My wife has laughter, my kids have sharp witticisms, and my golf clubs are aching to hit a small white ball into some water somewhere. There is a board game to scream about and laugh over.<br />
<br />
There is wonderful, glorious life to fully embrace, that the internet only seeks to slowly steal away with small sips of passing self-gratification, designed to consume as much time as possible to little personal value.<br />
<br />
Why I have disappeared from internet Christian debates? Because I am busy pursuing other interests with my wife, my family, my friends and my life. <br />
DagoodShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-18121566591124201132014-09-08T15:20:00.002-04:002014-09-08T15:20:51.356-04:00A Wifely UpdateA <a href=" http://sandwichesforsale.blogspot.com/2014/05/dear-garya-continuing-conversation.html?showComment=1410126782519#c5497687644033386384">person asked, </a> “I was very interested in your wife's reaction, and wonder if you are at liberty to give an update on what has happened in the intervening years.” Therefore,… one of those “Where are they now?” posts—what has happened with my wife?<br />
<br />
Our situation is probably different than most, so I am unsure how helpful this will be. All I can do is tell the tale. First, there are two things you must know: 1) I am the outgoing one in the relationship and 2) I was the spiritual instigator in the family. Our friendships were (and are) developed through my contacts. I play soccer on a co-ed team; my wife developed friendships with the other female soccer players and joined the team. I started hanging out with a certain group; my wife developed friendships within this group.<br />
<br />
This has been typical throughout our adult lives. ALL my current friends are a complete change-over from my Christian life. My wife still connects with some former Christian friends through Facebook, but we never see them in person. Let alone go out to eat, or a party, or hang out.<br />
<br />
Further I have always been the spiritual motivator. I pushed to go to church, join this program or that, attend an event, etc. My wife was not the pushy one.<br />
<br />
When I deconverted, I was a Sunday School teacher, a Children’s Church leader, on a Committee, and tapped to become a deacon. I was requested to be the College Student Leader. As it would be clearly inappropriate to continue in any of these positions, I resigned and declined them all. <br />
<br />
Additionally, I stopped speaking up in Sunday School—my Christian interaction would be inquisitive, a bit confrontational, but always a search for what was Godly correct. Once I was no longer a Christian, this could easily slide into disruptive and argumentative. Best to keep quiet.<br />
<br />
I went from an out-going, church leader to a silent ghoul. If you ever attended a church, you will immediately recognize what happened next. Rumors abound. Was I mad at someone? Did someone do something to offend me? A Divorce? A crime? Ironically, becoming an atheist was far worse than any rumor could even suspect, and even the worst rumormonger failed to stumble upon it! (As far as I know.)<br />
<br />
We looked for another church to hide in. Our (then) friends attended a large church seemingly safe to disappear. But I could only stand so much. Church is designed to worship a non-existent being. It revolves and is imbued with Christianese at every level. For me, it was like attending a Magic show where I already knew how the magic trick worked.<br />
<br />
Over and over. Week after week. How many times can you see the same Magic trick, where you know the handkerchief is stuffed in a fake thumb, before you just can’t see the same trick anymore? I finally reached a point where I would not go anymore. My wife and I got along better when I stopped attending—less strain and tension when the family went without me.<br />
<br />
But then our friends obtained employment in another country. They went abroad for a few years. My wife had no one at this church. She stopped going.<br />
<br />
And hasn’t gone since. (With the exception of a few Christmas Eve services that I wanted to attend. I still love Christmas Eve services. *shrug* So sue me…)<br />
<br />
The church has utterly failed people in my wife’s position. I struggled with deconverting, but eventually happily reached my current belief system, found new friends and moved one. Yeah for me—everybody be happy for me! But my poor wife has no support system whatsoever. Christians are the least helpful—ranging from “Hmm…I wonder what she did to make him become an atheist?” to “We don’t know what to say, so we don’t say anything at all.”<br />
<br />
Do you know what the difference is between not saying anything because you don’t know what to say and not saying anything because you are deliberately cutting the person out of your relationship? <br />
<br />
No difference; no difference at all.<br />
<br />
Who does my wife turn to? Christians? Not hardly. Non-Christians? They don’t share the same beliefs, let alone understand or empathize with her position. Unsurprisingly, she has fallen into a nominal theist position. Thanks God or offers prayer on Facebook, but has no spiritual support system whatsoever.<br />
<br />
Our kids are less than nominal theists. They all find Church extremely boring and never attend. We have become a family where Sunday is a day for playing together, soccer, running, errands, napping, etc. and God is a general belief not much more than as depicted on Simpsons.<br />
<br />
This is not a surprise.<br />
DagoodShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.com57tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-46847006404706003832014-05-14T13:41:00.002-04:002014-05-14T13:41:57.477-04:00“Dear Gary”…a continuing conversation<a href="http://sandwichesforsale.blogspot.com/2014/05/review-doubting-jesus-resurrection-what.html?showComment=1400082127271#c3447200577972652588">Gary asks: </a><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Dagood: Is it possible that the correct answer to your question, "Would a modern jury be convinced of the evidence for the Resurrection" be... not "yes" or "no", but "depends"?<br />
<br />
If the jury is composed of twelve "Dagood's" then the jury will definitely not find in favor of the Resurrection. However, if the jury is composed of twelve members who reflect the population at large of the United States, I think there would be a very good possibility that they would.<br />
<br />
Why?<br />
<br />
Studies show that 80% of Americans believe that miracles are possible.<br />
<br />
Only if the jury is composed of persons like yourself who believe that miracles are impossible, would they definitely vote "no". </blockquote><br />
When I question, “What would a neutral jury determine?” I mean a <i>neutral</i> jury. A jury who has no stake in the claim; a jury who will not benefit if one side wins, nor be harmed if another side loses. We deal with neutral juries every day.<br />
<br />
The jury doesn’t care whether the crime occurred on Monday or Tuesday or three years ago—they are neutral. They don’t care whether the defendant is alleged to use a knife, a gun or a pointing finger in a coat. If they decide the person is guilty, no juror will spend a single minute behind bars.<br />
<br />
The neutral jury doesn’t care whether plaintiff breached the contract, or defendant did, or both or neither. The jury will not have to pay a single nickel if they award the Plaintiff a million dollars—nor will they receive a single nickel. The very reason they are neutral is their lack of benefit or harm regardless of outcome. Now if a juror is the wife of the Plaintiff, we immediately understand why such a person cannot be neutral. <br />
<br />
Our neutral jury for theological claims doesn’t care whether there is a God or not. Doesn’t care whether it is Allah, G-d, Jesus, or Shiva. Doesn’t care whether there are inspired writings, let alone which writings qualify. They hear the arguments from all sides, with neutrality firmly in place, and make a determination what is more likely, based upon ALL the evidence. Let me reiterate this, as it will become important later—ALL the evidence.<br />
<br />
I understand this is an ideal jury. I have heard the complaints such a jury doesn’t actually exist. So what? We deal with other such ideals without problem. For example, we hold people to a “reasonable person” standard—what a reasonable person would do in a situation. There is no actual reasonable person—we are not reviewing what some guy named “Bob Hendrickson” in Wichita does—this is an ideal. It is the jury thinking through common sense what is considered reasonable, given the various parameters of the situation.<br />
<br />
Given all the information—what we know about Roman culture, and Hebrew Culture, and the First Century Mediterranean honor/shame society, and altered states of conscious, mixed with the language and writings of the time, combined with Christian documentation, archeology, geology, etc.—a jury neutral to the prospect of Jesus’ resurrection would determine it is more likely no resurrection occurred. This was a developed legend arising from disappointed followers of a perceived Messianic figure.<br />
<br />
Your question about 80% of people believing in miracles only highlights how we can obtain neutrality. Why limit it to America? What makes America so special? How about we include the world?<br />
<br />
23% of the world is Muslim. They believe in Miracles. They are not persuaded Jesus rose from the dead. 15% of the World is Hindu. Miracles = yes; Resurrection = no. 7% is Buddhist, 7% “other religions” and 16% non-religious. No miracles, no resurrection. Less than 1% is Jewish. Again yes to Miracles but no to Resurrection.<br />
<br />
32% are Christians, the only possible hope for yes to both miracles and resurrection. <a href="http://www.pewforum.org/2012/12/18/global-religious-landscape-exec/">From here. </a><br />
On that number alone, the resurrection fails to preponderate, as 68% do not find it more likely. But even within Christianity, there is debate as to what constitutes a miracle. Pit a Pentecostal Catholic against a Cessationist; you will come up with a very different miracle list.<br />
<br />
Gary, do you believe a miracle occurred when <a href="http://stuffthatlookslikejesus.com/blog/12/grilled-cheese">Grilled Cheese Jesus </a> appeared? See, you may believe in miracles…but believing in miracles doesn’t mean you believe <i>every</i> miracle. The same way our jury may all believe in miracles, yet still be neutral as to the miracle of Jesus’ resurrection and determine it did not occur.<br />
<br />
Look at it another way. (And I must credit <a href="http://adversusapologetica.wordpress.com/2013/09/09/resurrection-debate-with-nick-peters/">Matthew Ferguson </a> for this hypothetical.) Does your God have the ability to turn me into a giant pickle? I think we both agree if such a God exists, it could. And no matter how we define a miracle, this would qualify. Now, because (as you believe) your God raised Lazarus from the dead, does this make it more likely or less likely that God will turn me into a pickle? It doesn’t! Right? Even believing in God, even believing in a God who performs miracles, does not make a particular miracle more or less likely. Perhaps…just perhaps…one could argue if a God had performed a miracle before it makes it more likely He would do it again, but Jesus’ resurrection and my being turned into a pickle are unique events.<br />
<br />
There are no previous claimed miracles making the Resurrection or my eventual pickledom more or less likely. So our neutral jury, even believing miracles occur may still be neutral toward whether a <i>particular</i> miracle happened.<br />
<br />
I reviewed your current set of blog entries reiterating apologists’ attempts to provide evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus. Alas, they present a much skewed, (sometime downright incorrect) recitation to a favorable audience in assurance the vast, vast majority of Christians will swallow whatever they feed to gratify their own desire to justify rationality within the Christian belief. <br />
<br />
I strongly encourage anyone (and everyone) to go to a motion hearing day in a local court. A day set aside for the Judge to hear numerous Motions on various cases where the litigants hope to compel a decision on a parcel of the case. When the first lawyer talks, they recite the facts, and the law, and one cannot help think, “Wow!—what a great case. That other side is a complete idiot to think they could possibly win.” But then the other side stands up, and informs how the facts were not exactly as portrayed by the first attorney. And the law is not so crystal clear. And then you think, “Hmmm…not so cut-and-dried after all.”<br />
<br />
You begin to realize how we humans (and those arguing vociferously for a position) shade the facts, and put our best position forward, and downplay or outright ignore any opposing situation. This is what your apologists are doing.<br />
<br />
Let’s look at one example—I’ve used this previously.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.lutherwasnotbornagain.com/2014/05/evidence-for-resurrection-of-jesus-part_13.html">”But three days later the tomb was empty.” </a><br />
<a href="http://www.lutherwasnotbornagain.com/2014/05/an-ex-atheist-attorney-tells-why-he.html">”Number one is the empty tomb of Jesus--everybody agreed in the ancient world that the tomb of Jesus was empty. The question is, how did it get empty?” </a><br />
<a href="http://www.lutherwasnotbornagain.com/2014/05/evidence-for-resurrection-of-jesus-of_2250.html">”A hallucination would explain only the post-resurrection appearances; it would not explain the empty tomb,…” </a><br />
<a href="http://www.lutherwasnotbornagain.com/2014/05/evidence-for-resurrection-of-jesus-of_13.html">”The tomb was empty on Easter” </a><br />
<a href="http://www.lutherwasnotbornagain.com/2014/05/evidence-for-resurrection-of-jesus-of.html">”The tomb in which Jesus was buried was discovered empty by a group of women on the Sunday following the crucifixion.” </a><br />
<br />
Okay, okay, okay…I get it! Pretty solid fact the tomb was empty on Sunday, right? Almost every apologist you listed mentioned it, it is highlighted as a fact, how do those skeptics explain THAT!?<br />
<br />
But what…..<i>is</i> that the actual fact?<br />
<br />
Actually, the first written indication we have regarding the tomb being empty is the Gospel according to Mark. Written (by consistent methodology) after 70 CE, at least 40 years after the event. We do not know who wrote Mark, let alone where the person obtained their information. So instead of “The tomb was empty on Sunday” the actual evidence is “At least 40 years after the claimed event, an unknown person repeated what they heard from an unknown person who claimed the tomb was empty on Sunday.”<br />
<br />
So skeptics do not have to answer the question, “How was the tomb empty on Sunday?” but rather, “How did the story of the empty tomb develop 40 years after the event?” As one can see, the actual evidence provides for an easy naturalistic explanation. <br />
<br />
Reading through those blog entries I see error after unfounded claim after lack of evidence after unsubstantiated assertions. Sure it initially looks like strong arguments to those who want to believe it. Alas, once it is questioned, probed or researched, it is discovered to be a cardboard façade held up with tape and string.<br />
DagoodShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.com66tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-70259370661362427322014-05-07T16:21:00.002-04:002014-05-07T16:21:44.989-04:00Review Doubting Jesus’ Resurrection: What happened in the Black Box?Author Kris D. Komarnitsky kindly provided a review copy of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0982552890/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_2?pf_rd_p=1535523722&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0982552807&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=11JSDBRWD1YJEMXZCR35"> Doubting Jesus’ Resurrection: What happened in the Black Box?</a> for my opinion. <br />
<br />
The tl;dr review: A good work, more studied than Strobel’s <a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Case-Christ-Journalists-Investigation/dp/0310209307"> Case for Christ</a> but not as scholarly-driven as Licona’s <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Jesus-New-Historiographical-Approach/dp/0830827196/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1399469396&sr=1-1&keywords=licona+resurrection">The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. </a> Komarnitsky relies upon cognitive dissonance—resolving the conflict of Jesus’ follower’s belief Jesus was the Messiah and the reality of his death—to present the plausible natural resolution for the physical resurrection story’s origin. A good resource responding to many apologists who demand we read this book or that author. If one is looking for a book to utilize in replying, “O.K., I will read and review a book you offer, if you will read and review one I offer,” I would highly recommend this one when discussing the resurrection.<br />
<br />
My fellow bloggers, <a href="http://youcallthisculture.blogspot.com/2014/02/doubting-resurrection.html#comment-form"> VinnyJH57 </a> and <a href="http://adversusapologetica.wordpress.com/2014/04/20/review-of-doubting-jesus-resurrection-what-happened-in-the-black-box/">Matthew Ferguson </a> have also reviewed the book, and I invite you to read their thoughts; I will limit repeating their statements. <br />
<br />
Now a bit more in-depth. The subtitle highlights the focus here—what happened between Jesus’ death and the gospel stories to bring people to believe Jesus physically rose from the dead? Jesus died in 30-33 CE. The Gospels were written, starting in 70 CE or so. Within those 40 years—the proverbial “black box”—the only glimpses we have regarding Christian beliefs are a few words quoted by Paul, giving the barest highlights on Jesus’ resurrection appearances--the tradition cited in 1 Cor. 15. Understandably Komarnitsky focuses on this tradition.<br />
<br />
For me, the greatest value is Komarnitsky’s study regarding 1 Cor. 15:4, “…and he was raised on the third day <i>according to the scriptures</i>…” But what Scripture? And why three days? (Komarnitsky points out other Jewish writings around the 1st Century generally utilized seven as a prophetic figure—not three.) I <a href="http://sandwichesforsale.blogspot.com/2011/02/arguing-for-resurrection.html">struggled </a> with this “three days according to the scripture” concept before. The book makes a strong argument this “three-day” concept was NOT based upon an explicit three day reference to Tanakh scripture, but rather was interwoven with the Jewish concept the body starts to decay after three days, and since Jesus’ body could not reach the point of decay, he must have been raised on or before the third day. Komarnitsky points out Jewish passages in the 2nd and 5th Century confirming the Jewish belief regarding this three-day period.<br />
<br />
Therefore…the argument is made…the tradition is relying upon Psalm 16:10, “For you do not give me up to Sheol, or let your faithful one see the pit.” As the early Christians believed God saved Jesus from the dead, did not let Jesus’ body decay, and the common belief this must be done before the third day, the tradition relies upon Psalm 16:10 to say, “…and he was raised on the third day [before his body could decay, of course] according to Psalmist scripture…”<br />
<br />
Now, one may raise an eyebrow at this argument. How do we necessarily know this was tradition based upon later documents? Doesn’t this seem a bit of stretch? To which I would reply—how long must you keep your tax records? <br />
<br />
I would bet most of you would immediately respond, “7 years,” right? If I recall my tax law class correctly, there are actually two (2) statute of limitations regarding tax law. For innocuous, unintentional mistakes, the IRS can back three (3) years. For fraud, they can go back six years. There is no “seven year statute of limitations” on taxes! (They can only collect for 10 years.) Yet we think—many “know!”—there must be a seven year reason somewhere. Probably came from accountants adding a one-year buffer for safety.<br />
<br />
If anyone 2000 years from now read our actual records, they may never know the commonly held “seven year” tradition. (I have heard it applied to civil cases and criminal cases as well, which also do not necessarily have a seven-year limitation. They vary by action and state.) Yet we hear it over and over. Equally and understandably, there are many traditions we simply do not know about in the First Century, yet may catch glimpses through literature of later periods.<br />
<br />
But the nail in the coffin (in my opinion) is how Peter’s initial sermon in Acts 2:24-31 makes direct reference to this belief and explicit reference to Psalm 16:10:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>”But God raised him from the dead, <b>freeing him from the agony of death, </b>because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him. David said about him:<br />
“‘I saw the Lord always before me.<br />
Because he is at my right hand,<br />
I will not be shaken.<br />
Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices;<br />
my body also will rest in hope,<br />
because you will not abandon me to the realm of the dead,<br />
you will not let your holy one see decay.<br />
You have made known to me the paths of life;<br />
you will fill me with joy in your presence.’<br />
“Fellow Israelites, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. Seeing what was to come, he spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, that <b>he was not abandoned to the realm of the dead, nor did his body see decay. </b>”<br />
</blockquote><br />
Within Peter’s speech, we can see incorporation of Psalm 16:10, and if common belief was decay started after the third day, how Jesus must have been raised by the third day to be effective. Komarnitsky addresses competing claims “according the scripture” would refer to Jonah or Hosea 6:2.<br />
<br />
One critique I would have is how Komarnitsky places a Summary of the Hypothesis at Chapter 6…139 pages into the book. I would have placed it first—let the reader know immediately what the theory provides. Indeed, when recommending this book, I will always suggest the reader start with Chapter 6 (it is exactly 2 pages) to understand what is being proposed, and then go back to page one. <br />
<br />
As an example, when writing briefs I often place a box, with a few lines telling the Judge(s) exactly what is in dispute and what I am arguing. It informs the Judge what she is looking for or what is important. I once had a judge tell me, “While I read your extensive brief, it turns out everything you argued was already in the boxed section.” In the same way—give us the hypothesis first, then flesh out the details!<br />
<br />
Komarnitsky argues Jesus’ followers, firmly convinced he was the Messiah, found it impossible to believe their hopes were dashed by his death. They began to rationalize Jesus was raised to heaven and would shortly return to complete the Messianic mission. They utilized cognitive dissonance to explain away the apparent inconsistency. Peter then had a vision he interpreted as a visitation of Jesus, and others did as well. (Komarnitsky accurately points out the “group-think” of heightened spiritual cohesiveness we see today in Pentecostal gatherings.) Komarnitsky concludes, “As the years and decades passed, the above experiences, beliefs and traditions gave birth to legends like Jesus’ burial in a rock-hewn tomb, that tomb being discovered empty three days later, his corporeal post-mortem appearances to individuals and groups described in the Gospels, and his appearance to over five hundred people mentioned in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians.” Pg. 140.<br />
<br />
To demonstrate cognitive dissonance in action, Komarnitsky goes through numerous examples whereby groups believed the end of the world would occur on a specific date, and when the end failed to materialize, would rationalize away the reason, often finding a new date. We are all familiar with the recent <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Camping">Harold Camping </a> claim the world would end May 21, 2011. When it failed to do so, Camping rationalized it away, obtaining a new date of October, 2011. <br />
<br />
Directly on-point Komarnitsky details the Lubavitch Hassidic Jews who maintained the belief Rebbe Menachem Mendel Schneerson was the long-awaited Messiah, even after Rebbe Schneerson suffered two strokes, was rendered comatose and then died. Many Lubatvichers believe he will be resurrected and return as the Messiah.<br />
<br />
Komarnitsky updated this Second Edition to include a chapter responding to Dr. William Craig and Dr. Licona. In Dr. Licona’s work, “The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach,” he provides historical analysis both in approach to historical method and historical claims surrounding Jesus’ resurrection. Dr. Licona’s final chapter compares varying natural explanations for the Resurrection to his supernatural explanation.<br />
<br />
Likewise, Komarnitsky follows Dr. Licona’s format, comparing his own hypothesis of cognitive dissonance to Dr. Licona’s hypothesis of supernatural intervention, comparing each element: Explanatory Power, Explanatory Scope, Disconfirmation, Ad hocness and Plausibility. Komarnitsky concludes his hypothesis is at least equal (if not better) than Licona’s on the first four factors, leaving the sole factor—plausibility—the determinate. He expresses experience-based doubt God intervenes in a physical way in the world, stating, “Based on this specific background, knowledge, bias and personal experience, Jesus’ resurrection seems <i>far</i> less plausible to me than fallible human beings in a highly charged religious environment falling into a swirl of rare rationalizations, individual hallucinations, scriptural interpretation, designations of authority, religious conversions and legendary growth.” (emphasis in original) Pg. 174<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, I fear he has done a disservice to his hypothesis here, by including the words “to me.” Under this approach, I anticipate a Christian barking up the tree it is dependent on Kris Komarnitsky’s view of God, or his predispositions against miracles, or his own personal experience which is countered by the Christian’s experience of miracles. (Komarnitsky even anticipates such a claim by referencing Licona’s position miracles occur.)<br />
<br />
Rather than let the debate boil down to “what is true for me, based upon my biases is not true for you, based on your biases” I would have appreciated a more extensive attempt to neutralize and remove the bias as much as possible. What would a neutral third party think is more plausible? Not Licona, or Komarnitsky, or me or the local apologist.<br />
For example, as recent as the May/June 2014 Touchstone Magazine, <a href="http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=27-03-035-f#ixzz30sXX6Piw "> Tom Gilson </a> touches upon Komarnitsky’s theory, but responds with a cursory, “It lacks, if I may say so, the ring of plausibility.” Great. A Christian apologist says it isn’t plausible; an agnostic scholar says it is. How do we weigh the actual claim? <br />
<br />
That complaint aside (albeit a fairly large one), I found the material helpful. I learned something (the use of Psalm 16:10), it parallels my own opinion as to what happened—cognitive dissonance—and it offers a reasonable natural explanation for the origin of Christian belief in the Resurrection hypothesis. Rather than spin their wheels addressing whether Jesus actually died (by using the Bible), or claims the Disciples stole the body (by using the Bible), I would hope Christian apologists DagoodShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.com39tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-71825034232093020492014-04-23T13:42:00.002-04:002014-04-23T13:42:36.582-04:00“Dear Gary”I have been <a href="http://sandwichesforsale.blogspot.com/2013/12/are-you-glad-atheism-is-true.html">involved </a> in a conversation with Gary both here (sporadically) and on <a href="http://www.lutherwasnotbornagain.com/">Gary’s Blog </a> He recently made reference to a few items to flesh out.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, to fully understand my response, I need to back up a few paces, and respond to a <a href="http://sandwichesforsale.blogspot.com/2013/12/are-you-glad-atheism-is-true.html?showComment=1397834089746#c3285983846355597766">specific quote: </a><br />
<br />
<b>Gary, </b> “To be honest, I may read the first book but I doubt I'm going to read all the others, but I appreciate you giving them to me. Why won't I read them? I'm afraid.<br />
<br />
The issue is this: I WANT to believe. So the more I read authors who tell me why I shouldn't, the more of that innocent (foolish?) childish faith I grew up with will fade away. I'm afraid of becoming you, Dagood. I don't want to wake up one morning and look in the bathroom mirror, as you did, and realize that I no longer believe; not because I want to stop believing, as you did not want to stop believing, but because the ‘evidence’ has convinced me otherwise.” (emphasis in original)<br />
<br />
Boy…been there; done that. Numerous times throughout my entire deconversion process I longed to just set down the books…and walk away. It was hard from a time standpoint (hours spent reading, thinking, listening, watching.) It was difficult from an effort standpoint (the mental drain of locating sources, determining arguments, reviewing evidence.) It was attacking my faith, my family, my relationships and everything I understood about the world. Who would bother to engage in such masochism? <br />
<br />
But I couldn’t walk away. Because walking away would give in to the very fear you describe, Gary. If I wanted to know truth—be persuaded by what actually is—I should NEVER be afraid of reading. Of scrutiny. Of testing, probing, prying, pinching, prancing, pushing and punching. While truth may not always be able to prove itself, it certainly cannot shy away or avoid inspection. It should welcome it.<br />
<br />
As Paul, said “Test everything; hold on to what is good.” 1 Thess. 5:21<br />
<br />
If I walked away, vowing to never read another word on the subject again, I was acknowledging I no longer wanted to know what was true—I only wanted to believe what I wanted to believe. I would let desire dictate my course; not what actually is.<br />
<br />
And this is contrary to every fiber in my being. I live my life in realism—dealing with what actually is. Almost every single case involves someone wishing they had done something differently. Not driven that night. Not taken that road. Read the contract. Inspected the property. Paid the penalty provision immediately. But they didn’t. And now they come to me, forcing us together to determine what the best course of action is, based upon the situation we are in. We can’t “create” evidence we don’t have. We can’t go back in time and change a course. We must determine a solution with what we have.<br />
<br />
In the same way, as I studied, I recognized I must deal with reality. If God is the Christian God—so be it. If God was a malevolent bastard—equally so be it. Whether God was completely unknowable, partially unknowable, or some theist was spot-on with everything they said about God—so be it. If God was the God of the Protestant Bible, the Catholic Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Koran, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, pantheistic, polytheistic, monotheistic, Republican, Libertarian, Communist, etc.—so be it.<br />
<br />
And if God does not exist—while a reality I was not particularly fond of—then so be it. Whatever Christians say, if it is true, it shouldn’t be afraid of scrutiny. Likewise any other theistic or non-theistic belief. <br />
<br />
Otherwise, how would we ever know we are wrong about something? Of the three (3) books I recommended, two are written by Christians. The other (Shermer is not a Christian), dealt with topics outside Christianity like Holocaust denial and UFO’s. Why should you be afraid to read books written by Christians?<br />
<br />
See, once we eliminate reading non-Christian books out of fear of changing our beliefs--the next, very short step is to stop reading <i>Christian</i> books differing with our position out of fear of changing our beliefs. Then we begin to read only those books completely agreeing with us.<br />
<br />
If we don’t learn differing positions, how will we know whether we are wrong? If all you ever do is read what you agree with, you will never change your mind. <br />
<br />
So now I am asked:<br />
<br />
<b>Gary: </b> “Where do you think you would be today in regards to Christianity if on that day that you came across the atheist blog on the internet, and saw the disturbing discrepancies regarding the death of Judas Iscariot, you had simply told yourself, ‘I don't want to know’, and chose to never again look at an atheist or other blog that questioned the validity of the Bible and the Resurrection?”<br />
<br />
My response is the same as above. I am a realist. I DID stumble across Internet Infidels. I cannot erase the chance happening from my mind. As common vernacular would say, <a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/expresident/21-things-that-cannot-be-unseen">“What has been seen, cannot be unseen.”</a> Or if you prefer old school, “You cannot unring a bell.” <br />
<br />
I cannot even perform a mental exercise of supposing I happened upon IIDB, read a few posts and told myself, “I don’t want to know,” choosing to never look again. It is completely against everything in my personality. It is against my personal philosophy. It is against my nature of being me. Like asking, “What if someone tickled you and you decided to not do anything about it?” I just….couldn’t. I would react. <br />
<br />
I believed in Christianity. This was about Christianity. I love discovery. I love learning. I had no fear of a problem; truth can withstand the scrutiny.<br />
<br />
Finally, I must clarify for any possible lurkers... the “disturbing discrepancies” within the Judas Iscariot contradiction were NOT the contradictions themselves. It was the extremely poor methodology being employed in reviewing the various accounts. The Judas story was merely the symptom—the disease was the method of “any possible resolution resolves a contradiction.” Which, in itself, even this method turned out to be a symptom of the invasive underlying disease of poor and inconsistent methodology throughout various tenets of Christianity, including inerreancy, canonicity, inspiration, and historical methodology.<br />
DagoodShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.com176tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-33530445586651491812013-12-12T14:08:00.000-05:002013-12-12T14:11:10.885-05:00Are you glad atheism is true?In my wanderings, I happened across this question:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://hcchristian.wordpress.com/2013/12/11/the-one-question-i-ask-my-atheist-friends/"> Are you glad that atheism is the truth? </a><br />
<br />
I am ambivalent. Truth just….is. Am I glad for the amount of gravity earth has? Well, it would be neat if it was less, because we could jump farther. (Basketball would be different.) But I am not particularly glad or sad or feel any real emotion toward gravity. We work with what is there.<br />
<br />
Are there things about a god existing that would make me glad? I have no idea—it would certainly depend on the god, wouldn’t it? What if it was <a href="http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://cdn1.sbnation.com/imported_assets/1025851/bill4.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.progressiveboink.com/2012/4/21/2912173/calvinhobbes&h=421&w=600&sz=62&tbnid=UoBv2SS9tgiu7M:&tbnh=90&tbnw=128&zoom=1&usg=__MuRWWX3LGdd2-4i91_k0B_GBSdQ=&docid=qlYLDlTydLCAGM&sa=X&ei=1waqUpTuOZH0oASe3YDYDg&ved=0CDUQ9QEwAQ">Calvin? </a> “From utter nothingness comes swirling form! Life begins where once was void. But Calvin is no kind and loving god! He’s one of the old gods! He demands sacrifice!”<br />
<br />
What if it was a benevolent god who gave us whatever we wanted? Or a god who demanded we perform or believe a certain way to please him enough to grant reward? What exactly is this “god” wherein I am to be glad, sad, or mad regarding its existence?<br />
<br />
Of course this question can be easily turned around. Are you glad your particular form of theism is true? (And it is always their particular form—they certainly don’t want another form wherein their god doesn’t exist, right?) And if so, how is it you develop a methodology to determine truth to avoid the inherent bias of your desire? How do you know your theistic view of heaven isn’t something you desire and therefore believe, rather than actual truth?<br />
<br />
But whenever I get on the <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2013/12/the-census-of-caesar-augustus-quirinius.html">topic of methodology</a>, the conversation takes a sharp right turn. <br />
DagoodShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.com25tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-22957434706358359582013-09-10T12:55:00.000-04:002013-09-10T12:55:05.044-04:00Debate ThoughtsOn September 9th, I listened to <a href="http://rs3104.freeconferencecall.com/fcci/cgi-bin/play.mp3/82032220-2.mp3">this debate </a> [mp3 file download] between <a href="http://adversusapologetica.wordpress.com/">Matthew Ferguson </a> and <a href="http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/">Nick Peters. </a> The topic: “Based on the historical evidence, is it more reasonable to believe or doubt Jesus’ resurrection?”<br />
<br />
First some general notes. These two gentlemen are not professional debaters. What a relief! Personally, I am tired of listening to the same Craig or Ehrman repetitions. I have heard Habermas and Carrier and Licona and Hitchens and Turek…enough. I enjoyed the slightly rougher presentations--the not-quite-perfectly-memorized speeches. They were still well-prepared and eloquent…just more man-on-the-street, if you get my meaning. <br />
<br />
Also, it is too easy to “Monday morning quarterback” these types of debates. To critically analyze every nuance and statement after-the-fact, with “You should have said…” or “The correct response was…” After all, the participants are now doing it themselves! [After every significant trial, we look back wishing we said something different, or asked a different question. It still haunts Christopher Darden regarding asking O.J. to try on that glove!] Of course that won’t stop me from Monday morning quarterbacking. *grin*<br />
<br />
I am writing this from my memory and notes taken during the debate. I have not re-listened to it on the mp3 yet. All quotes are therefore paraphrased, and if I incorrectly state something, please attribute my faulty memory.<br />
<br />
The Mechanics.<br />
<br />
This debate was established as a conference call, with a limited number of participants. I had a slightly harder time understanding Mr. Peters. Mr. Ferguson sounded as if he was in-studio, whereas Mr. Peters sounded like a person calling into a radio station. Additionally, Mr. Peters has a slight (southern?) accent—there were times I struggled a bit to recognize the word he was saying, and if I didn’t know the topic as well, or the persons he was referring to, I wouldn’t have known what he was saying.<br />
<br />
The Format.<br />
<br />
There were things I really, really liked about this format, and a few modifications I would make. (Again, this is just personal preference.) The format was as follows:<br />
<br />
1) Ferguson Introduction (2 min.)<br />
2) Peters Introduction (2 min)<br />
<br />
3) Ferguson Opening Statement (15 min.)<br />
4) Peters Opening Statement (15 min.)<br />
<br />
5) Ferguson First Rebuttal (10 min.)<br />
6) Peters First Rebuttal (10 min.)<br />
7) Ferguson Second Rebuttal (10 min.)<br />
8) Peters Second Rebuttal (10 min.)<br />
<br />
9) Ferguson questions Peters (10 min)<br />
10) Peters questions Ferguson (10 min.)<br />
<br />
11) Ferguson Closing Statement (10 min.)<br />
12) Peters Closing Statement (10 min.)<br />
<br />
I liked the initial introduction and think it should be incorporated in more debates. The second rebuttal was unnecessary. They more than adequately covered the necessary material in the first rebuttal. I also felt a bit…rushed…in the opening statement (especially by Mr. Ferguson.) But I <i>greatly</i> enjoyed the questioning back and forth. I think they could have done an opening statement and filled the remainder with questioning and I would have been perfectly pleased in every way.<br />
<br />
So the modifications for next time: 1) Extend the opening statement to 20 minutes. 2) Eliminate the second rebuttal. 3) Reduce the closing statement to 5 – 7 minutes. 4) Extend the questioning period.<br />
<br />
The Debate.<br />
<br />
Introductions. <br />
<br />
Mr. Ferguson emphasized he would be approaching this historically—a critical method limited in its ability to make determinations. The best historical method can do is determine what is more probable. Mr. Peters indicated the resurrection can be established “beyond a reasonable doubt,” that the evidence should be approached with an open mind and the resurrection hypothesis was the “most plausible.”<br />
<br />
Opening Statements. <br />
<br />
Mr. Ferguson indicated the historical method consisted of three items:<br />
<br />
1) Theoretical—history can never be 100% re-duplicated.<br />
2) Limited evidence .<br />
3) Probabilistic. We must weigh the theories as to which is more probable (not merely plausible) with the expected evidence.<br />
<br />
He used the example of whether Julius Caesar shaved the day he was assassinated. As Roman officials shaved regularly, and this was not something generally recorded, it was more probable he did shave than he did not. With no evidence to the contrary, in using the historical method, we would conclude it more reasonable to believe he did.<br />
<br />
Resurrections are extremely improbable, and our initial prior-probability should be they do not occur. The only evidence we have to modify our prior-probability is anonymous records written decades after the event by biased individuals. Mr. Ferguson extrapolated the ever-increasing physical nature of Jesus’ post-mortem body from 1 Cor. 15 to Mark to Matthew to Luke to John. <br />
<br />
Mr. Ferguson provided four (4) alternative hypotheses to explain the Resurrection:<br />
<br />
1) The doctrine was initially a spiritual resurrection.<br />
2) Jesus was buried in either an unknown tomb or a mass grave.<br />
3) The Body was stolen<br />
4) Re-burial by Joseph to another tomb.<br />
<br />
[DagoodS Note: Not sure I would go with Body stolen as much as moved. Notice in Johannine community, it was unremarkable that Jesus’ body was not there. Mary Magdalene asked the gardener where “they” have taken the body. She didn’t start screaming for the guards, or thinking Jesus was resurrected—she took it as matter-of-course the body was moved. Additionally Jesus’ family was likely to bury Jesus in a family tomb in Galilee either by transporting the body itself or after one year and using an ossuary.] <br />
<br />
Mr. Peters follows in Mike Licona’s footsteps, so I anticipated he would approach the topic the same way. He did. There are certain facts conceded by a consensus of scholars—credentialed scholars with Ph.D’s who “don’t have an axe to grind”—regarding Jesus. [DagoodS note: This is the first time I have seen any qualification of Dr. Habermas’ list. I am genuinely curious whether they all have Ph.D’s.] <br />
<br />
Mr. Peters proceeded through the regular minimal facts approach. Jesus was crucified, 1 Cor. 15 was a creed generated within 5 years of the event, James was not a believer, Paul was a skeptic, and the disciples had appearances of a physical Jesus. Mr. Peters cites Ludemann, Ehrman, Licona and Keener. Cites Craig Keener as saying it is miracles preventing people from believing resurrection. States mass hallucinations are not recorded in studies. Jews did not believe in a physical resurrection<br />
<br />
The strongest argument (in my opinion) was the question “Why did Paul do a 180?”<br />
<br />
First Rebuttal.<br />
<br />
Mr. Ferguson questioned why a physiological impossible event (Resurrection of body to immortal body) would be considered “more probable” than what the apologist considered a psychologically impossible event (mass hallucination.) In other words, how can we pick one impossible event as “more probable” than another impossible event? <br />
<br />
Additionally Mr. Ferguson stated Paul’s conversion requires more facts than just resurrection, then opining Paul was unsatisfied with his current belief, had a hallucination, and converted to the belief he was persecuting. He used an example of finding a room devoid of a person and then seeing the person skydiving three years later. I kinda think I understand the analogy, but it was not very clear. <br />
<br />
As for Keener, Mr. Ferguson points out Dr. Keener may record a number of miracles, but never records an instance of a person coming back from the dead, and obtaining an immortal body. Anyone coming back from the dead is only postponing death—not eliminating it. <br />
<br />
Mr. Ferguson noted Josephus indicated Essenes did believe in a spiritual resurrection, leaving behind their current physical bodies. That Jews were not limited to just “physical resurrection” belief. Mr. Ferguson cautioned (more than once) to not treat the First century communities as homogenous. There were multiple beliefs and doctrines. I found this response very damning and wished Mr. Peters would reply and explain how no Jews believed in the physical resurrection in light of this evidence. Alas, Mr. Peters did not.<br />
<br />
Mr. Peters rebutted that resurrection was not resuscitation. (I was not clear why this was important—I thought both participants agreed on this point.) Mr. Peters states the attempts to explain Paul’s conversion as “psycho-history” or performing psychology on historical persons without adequate evidence. <br />
<br />
Further, while Mr. Peters has cited numerous credentialed scholars, Mr. Ferguson hasn’t cited anyone. Mr. Peters contacted Tim McGrew who reviewed Mr. Ferguson’s approach on Bayes’ Theorem and called it “thoroughly confused.”<br />
<br />
Second Rebuttal<br />
<br />
Mr. Ferguson provides a list of scholars he utilized regarding Bayes’ Theorem, as well as other items.<br />
<br />
[DagoodS Note: Initially I found this to be a losing approach. Why play your opponent’s game? However, Mr. Ferguson listed enough scholars; I guess it ended up a dead-lock.<br />
<br />
[Look, I’ve been in a number of trials with experts on both sides. You know we can hire any body with: a) plenty of credentials and b) who will render an opinion in favor of our client. Amazingly the other side can find someone of equal caliber, who astoundingly will opine in favor of their client! We even have a term for it—“Battle of the Experts.” So I have my expert with their charts, graphs, CV, pictures and opinion; the other side has theirs. Unless one side has an outstandingly eloquent expert, jurors ignore both of them. And then do what their common sense and reasonableness wants to do anyway.<br />
<br />
[There is a tendency in Christian apologetics to be enamored with “experts.” “Dr. So-And-So—a non-Christian—concludes this.” “Dr. This-And-That disagrees with you and she has been published in more journals.” “We have this list of names.” There is a tendency in the skeptical community to be more self-reliant (are we more egotistical?). We don’t care if Dr. BigName has 52 letters behind his name—we want to see the underlying data, evidence and arguments. <br />
<br />
[This was a debate on evidence. I (being skeptical) want evidence. Not names…heck, I already know the names. You mention Bayes’ Theorem, a Christian apologist is sure to mention McGrew. Minimal facts—Habermas & Licona. Textual Critcism—Wallace. Guess what? The skeptical community has their Bayes’ Theorem expert—Carrier; their textual critic—Ehrman; their minimal fact expert—pick one. Names do not impress people going through deconversion. We have read them. We want to see how ordinary people—jurors—grapple with the facts themselves. This is where this debate had possibility of strength. <br />
<br />
[I don’t want to compare names—I want to hear the evidences explored! To quote a crude but apt phrase from the movie <i>Taken:</i> “Now is not the time for dick measuring, Stuart!”]<br />
<br />
Mr. Peters second rebuttal was his strongest statement in the debate. He stated Mr. Ferguson’s translation of Greek in 1 Cor. 15 would be flunked by Dr. Licona. (I found this statement petty. Unfortunately such statements have traction in many Christian circles, for the reasons stated above.) He mentioned Craig Keener demonstrating miracles in his book and recommended listeners get the book and do the study themselves.<br />
<br />
He then hit upon the social-sciences commentary [DagoodS Note: see Dr. Bruce Malina*] stating crucifixion was shameful, being a Christian was shameful and there would be no reason, in this society, to become a Christian unless it was true. That the Jews would be cut off from Yahweh.<br />
<br />
*Sigh. After that long diatribe, I’m now citing names. Just call me “Hypocrite.”<br />
<br />
Questioning.<br />
<br />
I have fewer notes here; I sat back and enjoyed the conversation. The key points (remember, I have already heard much of this stuff before, so I was looking for something new and interesting) were in this questioning time.<br />
<br />
Mr. Ferguson: If God turned me into a cucumber, would it be a miracle?<br />
Mr. Peters: Yes.<br />
Mr. Ferguson: Did Dr. Keener record a resurrection in his book on miracles?<br />
Mr. Peters: Not to an immortal body, but there was an instance where rigor mortis set in, the person’s fingers were black, and they tried zapping him one more time, and the person came back.<br />
<br />
Mr. Ferguson: So does the miracle of bringing back a person after rigor mortis make it more probable that God will perform the miracle of turning me into a cucumber?<br />
Mr. Peters: No.<br />
<br />
Mr. Peters questioned what would cause Paul to convert to Christianity unless the resurrection was true. Mr. Ferguson replied Paul was one person, and perhaps Paul was crazy.<br />
<br />
[DagoodS Note: Christian apologists…stay away from Paul’s conversion. It does not help you. <br />
<br />
[People convert for a variety of reasons to a variety of bizarre beliefs. People go from Protestant to Catholic. Christian to Jew. Atheist to Buddhist. And in looking at the beliefs throughout history, there are some very off-beat beliefs that somehow manage to obtain followers. Heaven’s gate, anyone? If 50 years ago someone explained Scientology would be taken seriously, we would have laughed. Yet here we are. The “why” Paul converted is unknown. The “how” is problematic.<br />
<br />
[First, Paul had the minimal facts. <I>And they did not convince him.</i> He knew Jesus was crucified and buried. Heck, he is closer to the evidence than we are—he could see the empty tomb! He could talk to the soldiers who were guarding it, who felt the earthquake, who were bribed to say they fell asleep. He could talk to people who saw the resurrected saints. He could talk to the priests from the trials; see where the temple veil was repaired. He knew the disciples were proclaiming they had seen Jesus. He knew they were willing to be persecuted for it. He knew every single minimal fact plus a great deal more.<br />
<br />
[<i>And Paul was not convinced by them.</i> If Paul—who was far more intimately familiar with the evidence than we could ever hope to be—was not convinced…why should we be convinced today? The only way to convince Paul was for him to receive direct revelation (in Pauls’ words) or a vision (in Luke’s words.) But this was a vision—NOT an encounter with a physically resurrected Jesus.<br />
<br />
[As those who argue with the “wouldn’t die for a lie” approach know—people are willing to die for belief all the time. The strength in the argument is to claim the persons encountered a physically resurrected Jesus. That does not include Paul—he saw Jesus in a vision. While Paul is much closer in time than many Christian martyrs, he is no different in encountering a <i>physically</i> resurrected Jesus than anyone today. Whether Paul saw Jesus in a vision 2 months after Jesus died, or Mary down the street saw Jesus in a vision 1,980 years after he died—BOTH have the same evidentiary value!<br />
<br />
[Further, we often hear that naturalistic presupposition hinders our weighing the evidence. No problem with Paul—he was a theist, immersed in a culture readily believing God interacted through miracles.<br />
<br />
[Paul’s conversion and willingness to suffer persecution has no more evidentiary value than a person converted today and equally willing. Worse, Paul had all the minimal facts (plus more) and was not convinced by the evidence. I do not see how Paul’s conversion helps the Christian apologist.]<br />
<br />
Concluding remarks.<br />
<br />
Each wrapped up their positions. No new information here.<br />
<br />
I felt Mr. Fergusons strongest point was on the cucumber, effectively removing Keener’s miracles as having evidentiary value, with a secondary point regarding the Essenes. Mr. Peter’s strongest point was on Paul’s conversion, with a secondary question regarding why people would convert to Christianity.<br />
<br />
I look forward to these gentlemen discussing again. <br />
DagoodShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-4405275402237785052013-05-15T15:34:00.001-04:002013-05-15T15:34:06.175-04:00Dating of MarkI’ve discussed various positions regarding when Mark’s Gospel was written. The traditional dating method (absent any internal indication or external reference) would be to presume it was written after the last recorded incident. As Mark 13 refers to the sacking of Jerusalem, we date it after 70 CE—the year Jerusalem was besieged and fell.<br />
<br />
In any other instance this is so obvious as to be unnecessary to point out. But we are talking a canonical book from the New Testament…and to many Christian apologists, 70 CE seems too removed from Jesus’ lifetime. Especially as it is the earliest book, making Matthew, Luke and John even later.<br />
<br />
So they claim Mark 13 is a supernatural event, wherein Jesus was accurately predicting Jerusalem’s fall and we are simply predisposed against such a proposition by our philosophical naturalism. I happened across <a href="http://celsus.blog.com/2013/01/19/cliffe-knechtles-stage-routine/">this outstanding blog, </a> (sadly gone MIA) generating some thoughts. The blog author states, “[T]he historians Tacitus (<i>Ann. </i> 6.20), Suetonius (<i>Gal. </i> 4), and Cassius Dio (64.1) all agree that the emperor Tiberius used his knowledge of astrology to predict the future emperor Galba’s reign.”<br />
<br />
[For a very brief background, Tiberius was Caesar during Jesus’ time period, Galba became emperor later in the Year of the Four Emperors (June 68 CE – December 69 CE)]<br />
<br />
We have three (3) independent sources all agreeing Galba’s reign was prophesied.<br />
<br />
Tacitus <a href="http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/tac/a06020.htm">Annals 6.20</a> states, “I must not pass over a prognostication of Tiberius respecting Servius Galba, then consul. Having sent for him and sounded him on various topics, he at last addressed him in Greek to this effect: ‘You too, Galba, will some day have a taste of empire.’ He thus hinted at a brief span of power late in life, on the strength of his acquaintance with the art of astrologers…”<br />
<br />
Suetonius in <a href="http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Galba*.html">Life of Galba 4</a> indicates, “It is well known that when he was still a boy and called to pay his respects to Augustus with others of his age, the emperor pinched his cheek and said in Greek: ‘Thou too, child, wilt have a nibble at this power of mine. Tiberius too, when he heard that Galba was destined to be emperor, but in his old age, said: ‘Well, let him live then, since that does not concern me.’”<br />
<br />
Cassius Dio in <a href="http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/63*.html">Roman History: 64.1 </a> “Thus Galba was declared emperor, just as Tiberius had foretold when he said to him that he also should have a taste of the sovereignty.”<br />
<br />
Of course, no one is claiming Tacitus, Suetonius or Cassius Dio wrote before Galba’s reign—the point I am making is such claimed prophetic predictions written long after the predicted events occurred were part and parcel of the genre. If a Christian says I am predisposed against Christian prophesying, are they equally predisposed against astrological prophesying? Or do they think Tiberius really did predict Galba’s reign?<br />
<br />
The next time I am having a discussion about the dating of Mark, and whether it is my naturalistic predisposition not seeing Mark 13 as a “true” prophecy—I will ask the Christian what their horoscope said today. <br />
<br />
They dare not scoff at astrology, because that would equally be naturalistic predisposition toward skepticism on predictions. <br />
DagoodShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-57638818090033073032013-04-23T09:16:00.001-04:002013-04-23T09:16:20.286-04:00Answering a Question<a href="http://sandwichesforsale.blogspot.com/2013/04/review-myth-of-persecution.html?showComment=1366696116211#c7522002954138889126"> DoOrDoNot </a> asked, “I'm interested in what you would do with this in light of the "die for a lie" argument. Even if Christians weren't systematically persecuted, but had legitimate reason to fear prosecution, wouldn't that still lend some support to the argument?”<br />
<br />
The problem regarding “Die for a Lie” is:<br />
<br />
1) We don’t have enough information; <br />
2) The information we do have tends toward bias; and<br />
3) We fail to understand people’s motivations.<br />
<br />
Remember, this argument is ONLY useful regarding those claiming to see a physically resurrected Jesus, or perhaps those involved in an initial fabrication and/or conspiracy. Everyone agrees people willingly face persecution, torture and martyrdom for something incorrect—a “lie.” Even Christians agree Muslims will blow themselves—dying for “a lie.” Imagine a few scenarios—all very plausible.<br />
<br />
1) Peter (and Paul) have an altered state of consciousness, believe they see Jesus post-mortem and convince others Jesus is still alive. They spread Christianity, are persecuted, and eventually suffer martyrdom. “Die for a Lie” doesn’t work, because they didn’t think it a lie—just like Muslims dying for an incorrect claim, these individuals were dying for what they thought was true (even though it wasn’t.)<br />
<br />
2) Peter and Paul initially teach and believe Jesus was resurrected spiritually in heaven, and it is only later-developed Christianity, after Mark’s Gospel, that the idea of a physically resurrected Jesus is claimed. Again, taught, persecuted and martyrdom. Again, “Die for a Lie” doesn’t work, because they were dying for what they thought was true—even if it wasn’t.<br />
<br />
Let’s try something allowing “die for a lie” to have more force:<br />
<br />
3) Peter (and/or other Disciples) completely make-up the concept of physically resurrected Jesus. They obtain wealth, honor and status as leaders in the church. There is sporadic persecution in certain localized areas against the Church. Unless one can demonstrate the conspirators themselves were in actual danger, “die for a lie” still doesn’t hold sway, because the persons involved didn’t think it would happen to them until too late.<br />
<br />
We should pause at this point and note Paul certain was persecuted and actively pursued. But Paul is a later convert who (even under the best Christian scenario) saw a vision and was converted. He wasn’t part of any initial conspiracy.<br />
<br />
And finally, the best possible chance for “die for a lie”:<br />
<br />
4) Peter (and/or other Disciples) completely make-up the concept of physically resurrected Jesus. They obtain wealth, honor and status as leaders in the church. Active persecution directly against the conspirators putting them in imminent danger. Now they would certainly not “die for a lie,” right? ‘Cause we certainly would not. But are we projecting our 21st Century motivations on 1st Century individuals?<br />
<br />
Dr. Moss raises the interesting example of Achilles. Remember, for these individuals, unless one was a great person of importance, there would be no record of your ever having been alive. No obituaries, no High School yearbooks, no scrapbooks, no pictures, no videos, no Facebook. Nothing. Once dead, you disappeared like your ancestors did, and your descendants would likely do. The only way to be known was to have your reputation remembered. <br />
<br />
Dr. Moss pointed out Achilles had two (2) contradictory prophecies about his life. Either he would live a very, very long time but he would be an unknown person, eventually long forgotten. Or he would gloriously die at a young age, and his reputation would be remembered forever. Achilles chose fame as his means of living forever.<br />
<br />
If given the same choice—what would Peter do? Or the other Disciples? If they believed they would be remembered for a long time….would they willingly die for a lie?<br />
<br />
Instead of creating possible scenarios, look at the facts we have:<br />
<br />
1. At some point in the First Century, individuals began claiming Jesus was resurrected either physically or spiritually post-mortem from crucifixion death.<br />
2. This group—Christians—fought amongst themselves regarding whether to continue Jewish practices. Some did, some claimed they did not.<br />
3. There is no Jewish or secular record of Jewish persecution against Christians.<br />
4. The only record of organized Jewish persecution against Christians is from Christian sources, almost exclusively one (1) book—Acts of the Apostles. A book demonstrating an anti-Jewish bias.<br />
5. The Jewish authorities had their hands full with a variety of competing Jewish claims—Christianity would be one amongst dozens. Not to mention governmental shifts, Roman oppression, and rebellion.<br />
6. Within the first 10 years of its existence, Christianity shifted its focus from converting Jews to converting Gentiles.<br />
<br />
[From this, I would argue there was no organized Jewish persecution, but the readers can draw their own conclusion.]<br />
<br />
7. The Christian leaders (by their own accounts) gained wealth, honor and status within their community.<br />
8. The first Roman persecution—Tacitus’ account of Nero—the Christians were scapegoats. No opportunity to recant, or avoid persecution. Plus this was Rome, not necessarily near the disciples.<br />
9. The second recorded account regarding organized Roman government pursuit of Christians was Pliny the Younger where Christianity is reviewed as a puzzlement. This is too late for “die for a lie” to work.<br />
<br />
So where does “die for lie” even come in? One would have to create a scenario similar to number 4 above that speculatively draws from <i>Christian</i> documents, and ignore the culture, Jewish situation, leaders’ status and complete absence in other historical documents of the times.<br />
DagoodShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.com24tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-15886277378605042212013-04-19T14:28:00.002-04:002013-04-19T14:28:14.565-04:00Review “The Myth of Persecution”History is replete with certain well-known images—George Washington crossing the Delaware, Crusades for a Holy Grail, cities of gold, etc.—and included in our iconography is the concept of Persecuted Christians in Rome. Christians thrown to the lions by cruel Roman governors; Christians secretly meeting in catacombs with symbolic fish markings on walls. Many people envision Christianity constantly, persistently and universally hounded from its very inception until Emperor Constantine sanctioned Christianity in 313 CE.<br />
<br />
Dr. Candida Moss wrote <a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Myth-Persecution-Christians-Martyrdom/dp/0062104527">The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians invented the story of Martyrdom </a> to counter this conception, arguing while Christians were persecuted for short periods (12 total years within this 300 year period), most persecution was localized (not universal) and sporadic (not constant.) Her ambition is clearly stated in the introduction: <br />
<br />
<blockquote>What if Christians weren’t continually persecuted by the Romans? If there had never been an Age of Martyrs, would Christians automatically see themselves as engaged in a war with critics?...The history of Christianity is steeped in the blood of martyrs and set as a battle against good and evil. How would we think about ourselves if that history were not true? The language of martyrdom and persecution is often the language of war. It forces a rupture between ‘us’ and ‘them’ and perpetuates and legitimizes an aggressive posture toward the ‘the other’ and ‘our enemies’ so that we can ‘defend the faith.’ Without this posture and the polarized view of the world upon which it relies, we might—without compromising our religious or political convictions—be able to reach common ground and engage in productive government, and we might focus on real examples of actual suffering and actual oppression.</blockquote><br />
Dr. Moss has the proverbial snowball’s chance in hell of modifying Christianity by intellectual discussion—martyrdom is the tool Christians liberal engage to legitimize their belief. Jesus—the leader of the faith—was wrongfully pursued, beaten and executed for saying the right thing; how much more the poor Christian’s view must be right when the world is seen as howling against it.<br />
<br />
Think I am outrageous?<br />
<br />
Recently one (1) Army reserve officer prepared a presentation regarding discrimination. In a poorly (i.e. internet google search) researched powerpoint slide, she referred to Catholicism and Evangelical Christianity as “Religious Extremism.” Let me emphasize—this was one (1) person with their own presentation. Not Army Reserve documents. Not General Army documents. One person. Yet what does the headline read? <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/5/dod-presentation-classifies-catholics-evangelicals/?page=all">Defense Department Classifies Catholics, Evangelicals as Extremists. </a> That’s right—the entire Defense Department (including Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard) is encompassed in this one (1) person’s single powerpoint slide. A slide immediately removed upon new information.<br />
<br />
And how does the Christian community respond? <a href="http://birdsoftheair.blogspot.com/2013/04/if-you-are-christian.html">This Christian’s comment</a> referencing the article states, “Reading about the Christians in the first 300 years in the Roman Empire, the Romans had a problem. They hated the Christians (called them ‘atheists’), but had difficulty getting rid of them because they were renowned for being well-mannered, obedient, model citizens (except, of course, when it came to idolatry.”<br />
<br />
Yep. One person with a powerpoint? Next thing will be Christians thrown to the lions on the White House Lawn!<br />
<br />
But this shan’t distract us from pressing forward. Dr. Moss essentially tackles the issue from two fronts:<br />
<br />
1) Demonstrates the Martyrdom stories were later myths, developed for particular purpose; and<br />
2) The Romans were “prosecuting,” not “persecuting.”<br />
<br />
I have dealt with the first point extensively and will not address it much more here. Dr. Moss did present some martyr tales later than I normally discuss (I don’t go much beyond Second Century) and pointed out interesting facets. Probably the most important point (unfortunately not presented until the end) was how significant Eusebius is on our understanding of Church History in the first three Centuries. Eusebius, in extolling martyrdom, essentially created the imagery of constant persecution by his own emphasis. <br />
<br />
Almost our entire knowledge regarding the first three centuries of Christianity comes through Eusebius’ writing. Those documents he chose to emphasize—he included. Others he downplayed and even failed to mention entirely. Therefore, we are left with his perception of how Christianity developed through doctrinal bias—not historical accuracy.<br />
<br />
It is the second point—“persecution” vs “prosecution” I want to address at more length. Dr. Moss points out the Christians were not necessarily being persecuted as a group to quash a belief, but instead were primarily being prosecuted under laws that would have been applicable to any group—including Christians—under the Roman Justice system. At the time I read it, I found this a very valid point, and one worth pointing out; I looked forward to doing so in my eventual review.<br />
<br />
However, between reading the book and this writing, I read other reviews (on Amazon and elsewhere) to see how others reacted. I was stunned at how many people bellowed against this notion and were particularly upset. The general response was, “If Rome made Christianity illegal, and then punished it—what is the difference between such a ‘prosecution’ and ‘persecution.’ Isn’t this mincing words? A difference without a distinction?” Perhaps it is my familiarity with the legal system; perhaps my familiarity with certain situations—either way, I understood the difference, and why it is significant.<br />
<br />
Let me start with a modern example before turning to the ancient illustration. In America, we are concerned with discriminating against minorities. As such, we have entered laws (even amended our Constitution), and established departments to handle claimed discrimination. If I open a restaurant and indicate, “White’s Only!”—we have laws to prohibit such behavior. Or only renting to married couples, or refusing Muslims from entering a store, or numerous other examples you can think for yourselves. We are so accustomed to this culture that if we saw a “Whites Only” sign, it would be immediately offensive, even though not long ago such a practice was accepted and even legitimatized. <br />
<br />
Right now, in America, same-sex marriage is entering our culture. And the question being debated is whether sexual orientation is entitled to the same protection as race, religion and marital status. And if it is—can businesses discriminate against sexual orientation? This is a growing concern especially in jurisdictions allowing same-sex marriage. See, for example, this article on a bakery <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/04/aaron-klein-oregon-bakery-owner-lesbian-wedding-cake_n_2615563.html">refusing to provide a wedding cake to a same-sex couple. </a> (with other examples cited within.)<br />
<br />
What is happening here, is that Christians are being <i>prosecuted</i> for violating discrimination laws, not <i>persecuted</i> for being Christian. The law enforcement agency doesn’t care if a store owner has a Christian or non-Christian belief regarding homosexuality—sexual orientation is a protected class under the law and discrimination under the law is a legal violation. Period.<br />
<br />
I understand Christians want to claim they are being “persecuted” under the law—they are claiming their religious beliefs are being infringed upon. But the law itself is not making such a distinction—the law is saying, “The same way you can’t prohibit African-Americans from using your establishment--<i>regardless of your reasons, religious or otherwise</i>--you can’t prohibit homosexuals from using your establishment.” Both are protected classes; both are entitled to freedom from discrimination; both require legal response if discrimination occurs.<br />
<br />
Now, if the US Government passed a law saying, “All Christians must pay a $100 tax for being Christian”—that would be persecution. But saying, “You cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation” and a Christian claims because of their religious beliefs they will not serve homosexuals—that would be prosecution.<br />
<br />
I hope that sufficiently explains the difference. Again, because I am familiar with the legal system, this distinction was obvious to me, and I was surprised certain reviewers did not recognize the differentiation.<br />
<br />
Turning to our ancient Roman culture. Dr. Moss touched on the fact this was a polytheistic culture. Again, we have become a monotheistic culture (in America) and many people do not understand the vast difference between the two. Because theism is now considered monotheistic, there is one and ONLY one God. Either the Catholic depiction of God is correct or the Protestant—not two differing gods. Either God is Yahweh or Allah or Jehovah—but not all three are gods. One person’s god-belief necessarily excludes ALL other god-beliefs.<br />
<br />
However, first century Mediterranean culture embraced polytheism—there were multiple gods or multiple possibilities of gods. This does not mean every god was accepted—but upon being confronted with a new god, it was inspected and determined whether it was simply a description of some god already in existence, or some new god to embrace. Equally, emperors were commonly deified and considered part of the god pantheon. <br />
<br />
Society’s forturnes were attached to gods, whereby cities would have celebrations combined with sacrifices to their chosen god. If a city worshiped Zeus (for example) on a particular day, or in celebration of games (like the Olympiad), the leaders would kill a cow, sacrifice a portion to Zeus, and the remainder of cow would be a feast for the citizenry. Remember, this was a time of sustenance living—for the poor this was one of the very few times meat would be available as a meal. An emperor giving a feast in his honor, whereby the citizenry would be anticipated to sacrifice to the emperor and then partake in the feast was integrated in the society. As normal as we expect Secret Service around the US President. Part of the culture.<br />
<br />
Further, Roman governments often returned to traditional worship of the gods in order to stabilize the society. If it looked like society was getting out of control, or the wars were not going well, a return to traditions was embraced. (Sidenote—are we so different? After 9/11 how many people bought flags & flagpoles?) Worship of gods was included in this return to tradition.<br />
<br />
The Christians refused to sacrifice to the emperors. This was inexplicable in the Society. “For the Romans, participation in the imperial cult was something that bound the empire together. Much like the pledge of allegiance, it was a communal ritual that solidified social ties between individuals on a local level and disparate regions and groups on an imperial level. In times of political or social instability, the imperial cult became particularly important as a form of steadying the ebb and flow of potential unrest.” (pg. 175)<br />
<br />
Dr. Moss goes on to note even when being tried, the Christian’s response were baffling to the Roman judges, and appeared to lean toward sedition. Not only couldn’t the judge figure out why the Christians wouldn’t participate in normal cultural routines—their answers gave no information and tended toward rebellion. “We ought to obey God, rather than man.” Can you see why a Judge would be concerned?<br />
<br />
This resonated with me on a personal level, because it has been my misfortune to…on occasion…deal with the Michigan Militia in a courtroom. They only adhere to the United States Constitution. Since the Constitution says nothing about having a driver’s license, they don’t need one. Therefore, charging them with “driving without a license” is not a legitimate crime. (And they argue the Prosecutor [absent authority from the Constitution] has no jurisdiction. Not to mention the judge, etc.)<br />
<br />
I once was representing a Michigan Militia fellow and the Judge called the case. Imagine your typical courtroom layout. I started walking through the gate separating the audience from the counsel’s table, holding the gate for my client. (It is called a “bar” and what was originally meant by “passing the bar.” Attorneys once could cross over, non-attorneys could not. Get it?) He stopped.<br />
<br />
Me: C’mon, the judge called the case.<br />
Him: No. I won’t go pass the bar.<br />
Me: Huh?<br />
Him: I know this court does not have any jurisdiction over me, but once I pass the bar, I have agreed to their jurisdiction. I won’t do it. Until I cross that point, there is nothing they can do to me.<br />
<br />
I was baffled. I explained it to the judge. The Judge told my client he could stand behind the bar, sentenced him and the deputy demonstrated exactly how much jurisdiction the court really did have! <br />
<br />
I imagine a similar situation with Roman Judges and Christians. They were refusing to abide by the societal norms (like my client not going before the judge) and the reasons given made no sense to those questioning them (like saying the court would not have jurisdiction until he went pass the bar.)<br />
<br />
Dr. Moss gives numerous examples-- from history and the martyr accounts-- of Christian interactions in trials and why Christians would be prosecuted—not persecuted—under the Roman judicial system. And yes…Christians were killed. Sedition was punishable by death. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/pliny.html">Pliny the Younger’s</a><br />
112 CE letter to the emperor Trajan admirably demonstrates the Roman governor’s puzzlement at Christians and what to do with them:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>I have never participated in trials of Christians. I therefore do not know what offenses it is the practice to punish or investigate, and to what extent. And I have been not a little hesitant as to whether there should be any distinction on account of age or no difference between the very young and the more mature; whether pardon is to be granted for repentance, or, if a man has once been a Christian, it does him no good to have ceased to be one; whether the name itself, even without offenses, or only the offenses associated with the name are to be punished. <br />
<br />
Meanwhile, in the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished. <br />
<br />
Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.</blockquote><br />
Pliny (as typical Roman) attempts to ascertain the matter, has them offer sacrifices to the Emperor, and if they did—they were seen as not a problem. If, however, they refused and continued to refuse after numerous attempts, they were executed for “stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy.” This was prosecution under Roman Law.<br />
<br />
As for the remainder of the book, much of the material (Jewish Persecution, Death of Apostles) I have done quite a bit of study and this was more of a brief review. Obviously for Dr. Moss to keep it at a level people will actually read, she would not include the in-depth information that would put most to sleep.<br />
<br />
I think Dr. Moss has good intention. I think she will ultimately fail—those Christians who want their religion to have birthed in persecution, ripened on Roman crosses and advanced despite Roman lions will (as I saw in other reviews) reject her premises with little thought. For me, the value was in reviewing the Christians from the Roman perspective, while reminiscing of my own history with people unwilling to abide under society’s expected norms.<br />
DagoodShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-18733497318332384102013-04-11T09:29:00.001-04:002013-04-11T09:29:26.705-04:00Thought for the DayInexplicably, I have been recently been fascinated with <br />
<a href="http://sandwichesforsale.blogspot.com/2013/04/wouldnt-die-for-liewont-die.html">J. Warner Wallace </a>, bringing me to converse on <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2013/04/challenge-the-gospels-arent-eyewitness-accounts.html">Stand to Reason’s blog </a>). I was particularly struck by the comments in that blog entry referring to an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence">Argument from Silence </a> (if a historical document would be expected to record an event but does not, the event probably didn’t occur. Think of it this way—because our newspapers record momentous events, and there is no record the Statute of Liberty blew up yesterday, we can reasonably determine the Statute of Liberty did not blow up yesterday.)<br />
<br />
The concern being an argument from silence would be utilized to state, “The canonical gospels do not record their authorship; therefore they were not authored by the claimed individuals.”<br />
<br />
The first comment starts off with, “To make a case from silence on a particular issue, such as they never said they were eye witnesses, seems flimsy at best.” O.K. Not sure I agree we can broadly say all arguments from silence are flimsy, but I understand what this person’s position is. He goes on to say, “We know the book of acts was from 62 A.D 2 years before the martyrdom of Paul and 3 before Peter placing it within the life of eye witnesses.”<br />
<br />
What?! Does he understand this <a href="http://sandwichesforsale.blogspot.com/2011/07/argument-from-silence-on-dating-of-acts.html">dating of Acts of Apostles</a> is explicitly based upon the Argument of Silence? Namely Acts is silent as to Peter and Paul’s death, so it must be prior to 64 CE? The irony is strong in this one—in the first sentence to claim arguments from silence are flimsy, and in the second, utilize an argument from silence!<br />
<br />
However, we see he indicates he is a novice at apologetics, so perhaps we give it a pass. On a brighter note, another Christian apologist recognized this inherently inconsistent approach:<br />
<blockquote>One of the primary methods by which the Gospels are dated is based on the lack of mention of the deaths of Peter and Paul in Acts, along with the lack of any mention of the destruction of Jerusalem. <br />
<br />
On one hand, I agree with this reasoning. It makes sense. But on the other hand, isn't this a classical "argument from silence"? We (as apologists) frequently reject arguments from silence when they are presented by critics of the New Testament. But here we are MAKING an argument from silence in our dating methods! </blockquote><br />
Aha! A bright light of intelligent question! Alas, the next response immediately quashes our hope: “Nathan, I don't think this argument from silence, but a logical inference.” <br />
<br />
Eh….right….a “logical inference” from what? The…uh…silence…maybe?<br />
<br />
I asked, “What is the difference between a ‘logical inference’ from an author’s silence and the Argument from Silence?” but unfortunately, my question was deleted by moderation for being off-topic.<br />
<br />
What hope for Christian apologetics when they don’t even understand or deal with their own rationalizations? <br />
DagoodShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-21689789855869833112013-04-10T15:17:00.000-04:002013-04-10T15:17:18.710-04:00Allusions in CultureAllusions in Culture<br />
<br />
Roger Ebert died. Famously (as you know) reviewing movies with his friend, Gene Siskel wherein each would give a movie a “thumbs up” or a “thumbs down” A good movie would be “two thumbs up.” “Two thumbs up” became part of our vernacular. <br />
<br />
Now, if you asked my opinion of a restaurant, and I said, “two thumbs up!” you understand the meaning—not only do I approve, it was particularly good. <br />
<br />
Imagine most of Siskel & Ebert’s reviews were lost. But we still had numerous copies of <a href="http://www.tv.com/shows/happy-days/">Happy Days </a> and the Fonz giving his famous two thumbs up. <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtdlRlM6iR-t06Rnz2cXdexABroAaCL4AWugs3kk3cXdtEnbtqGiRdp5_UwCiK5dl8agi7F6lA9hsbqgdhz9vb3453EaBW7KKwoBFlYVMjN82wOWpCjO5-WCI85Lo-6BQoqbp4/s1600/HappyDays_Fonz.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtdlRlM6iR-t06Rnz2cXdexABroAaCL4AWugs3kk3cXdtEnbtqGiRdp5_UwCiK5dl8agi7F6lA9hsbqgdhz9vb3453EaBW7KKwoBFlYVMjN82wOWpCjO5-WCI85Lo-6BQoqbp4/s320/HappyDays_Fonz.jpg" /></a> Arguably, later generations could be persuaded “two thumbs up” came from the Fonz. Or Siskel & Ebert stole it from the Fonz. Or they both borrowed it from another source. <br />
<br />
The point being, allusions in culture are difficult to track with precision. Even more so when discussing a culture 1000’s of years in the past, with a different language, society, religion, economic make-up and government. <br />
<br />
I am currently reading <a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Myth-Persecution-Christians-Martyrdom/dp/0062104527">The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians invented the story of Martyrdom </a> and will eventually write a review. <a href="http://youcallthisculture.blogspot.com/2013/03/book-review-myth-of-persecution.html">Vinny </a> and <a href="http://brucegerencser.net/2013/03/the-myth-of-persecution-a-book-review/"> Bruce Gerencser</a> already wrote reviews. The author—Dr. Moss—argues some Christian Martyr myths were derived from allusions to Socrates death, specifically the Martyrdom of Polycarp. She states:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>There’s no doubt that the author of this account [Martyrdom of Polycarp] wants to portray Polycarp as being just like Jesus or, to use religious terminology, an “imitator of Christ.” At the same time, however, there are parallels with other important ancient literary traditions. Both Polycarp and Socrates are described as “noble” and charged with atheism. Neither was willing to persuade others in order to save his life. Socrates took control of this death by requesting the hemlock rather than waiting for it to be administered to him. Polycarp took control of this death by removing his own clothes and standing on the pyre without being nailed to a stake. Both Socrates and Polycarp prayed before dying, and the accounts of their deaths explicitly interpret their deaths as sacrifices. Socrates refers to Asclepius and pours out the hemlock as a libation offering, and Polycarp is described as being like a ram bound for sacrifice. With regard to the image conjured up in the minds of the audience, both men are elderly….Finally, their deaths are described as models for others. </blockquote><br />
I initially thought this a bit too much stretching to make her case. Too speculative. <br />
<br />
Socrates was condemned by his fellow citizens of Athens, Greece, for failing to worship Athenian Gods and for persuading others to follow his philosophy. He was sentenced to death by poison in 399 BCE. Plato gives an account regarding the <a href="http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/world_civ/worldcivreader/world_civ_reader_1/phaedo.html">death of Socrates </a> wherein Socrates takes a bath, dismisses the women, and prepares for death. The jailer apologizes for doing his duty, provides the poison, Socrates drinks (making speeches along the way, of course) and then dies in noble fashion amongst his wailing friends.<br />
<br />
Polycarp (according to the <a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/martyrdompolycarp-hoole.html">Martyrdom of Polycarp </a>) was killed around 150 CE. [It is unclear when the Martyrdom of Polycarp was written. Dr. Moss argues for early 3rd Century, whereas I tend toward middle 2nd. *shrug*] When taken, the soldiers (like Socrates) repented and were regretful for doing their duty. Polycarp also made speeches throughout. However, there are many differences. Polycarp predicted his own death by fire. Miracles surrounded the event such as he was not being consumed by the fire, so a soldier stabbed him in the side and a bird flew out, along with so much blood, the fire was put out! <br />
<br />
There are numerous differences causing one to wonder whether the few similarities were really an allusion to Socrates.<br />
<br />
But…<br />
<br />
We have another story from the same time period--Lucian of Samosata wrote <a href="http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/lucian/peregrinus.htm">The Passing of Peregrinus </a> around 165 – 175 CE. Peregrinus was a cynic philosopher (who embraced Christianity for a time) and decided to establish his own immortal reputation by killing himself at the conclusion of the Olympic Games. Lucian writes a sarcastic tale regarding the entire incident.<br />
<br />
What is interesting, though, is Lucian’s direct reference to Socrates’ death. For example, Lucian noted when imprisoned for Christianity, Peregrinus was called (by Christians), “the new Socrates.” After he died, Peregrinus’ companions stood around the fire—Lucian mocks them, asking if they are waiting for a painter to paint them like the companions of Socrates.<br />
<br />
Clearly Socrates’ death, 500 years previously, still held significance upon the society as a familiar point of reference.<br />
<br />
Upon returning to the city from Peregrinus’ pyre Lucian notes he informed intelligent people what precisely happened, but to “dullards” he made up whatever would suit his recipient’s fancy. Lucian even made up a tale about a vulture flying out of the fire and an earthquake. Humorously, Lucian chances upon a gray-haired fellow who tells Lucian he (the gray-haired man) saw the vulture flying from the fire—Lucian is astounded because the tale had just been made up by Lucian himself!<br />
<br />
Interesting Polycarp had a bird fly up at the time of death, and Lucian did as well. Did the Passing of Peregrinus impact the Martyrdom of Polycarp? Or vice versa? Or were both using symbols lost to us? Or is it a coincidence?<br />
<br />
(Christians may also take note Lucian added an earthquake to the event. One can’t help but wonder about Matthew doing likewise at Jesus’ death. Matt. 27:51)<br />
<br />
As I read the Passing of Peregrinus, I am more firmly convinced the story of Socrates’ death continued to have cultural significance. Too often we treat these tales as black and white—it happened exactly as recorded or it didn’t happen at all. We may not be realizing how many additional details are introduced that would provide substantial insight to the people of that time and culture, and are lost to us now.<br />
DagoodShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-81000549423539348412013-04-02T13:25:00.002-04:002013-04-02T13:25:20.000-04:00“Wouldn’t Die for a Lie”…won’t dieI recently learned of <a href="http://pleaseconvinceme.com/">J. Warner Wallace</a> author of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Cold-Case-Christianity-Homicide-Detective-Investigates/dp/1434704696">Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels </a> As he ostensibly utilizes methodology akin to the legal system…well…you can see why I was intrigued. Alas, it is nothing more than Christian apologetics.<br />
But recently, he offered a video blog entry: <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2013/04/how-do-we-know-the-apostles-died-as-martyrs-video.html">How do we know the Apostles Died as Martyrs. </a> Of course I could not resist. Mr. Wallace indicates he is convinced the Apostles died as martyrs because there is no counter-evidence to the contrary. He points out how defense lawyers offer counter arguments, and opposing factual with differing evidence, yet we have none of that here. On the one hand we have tradition they died as martyrs, but we have no First Century documents (Mr. Wallace points out) saying they lived long lives or were not martyred.<br />
<br />
Curious, I asked a question. “What documents would include such information?” Was there some Jerusalem Journal or Galilean Gazette I did not know about keeping obituaries? Was there some First Century High Priest diary listing out each of the 12 disciple’s deaths as they passed on? Yet what really intrigued me was Mr. Wallace’s insistence on <b>First</b> Century documents.<br />
<br />
See the first writing we have regarding even a possible martyrdom is 1 Clement, traditionally dated to the early 90’s CE. The second writing would be Josephus’ account regarding James, the brother of Jesus, dating to the later 90’s CE. The third possible writing would be Acts of the Apostles, dated after Josephus (in my opinion), making it very late 90’s CE at best. (And in case one wanted to date it earlier, I am including it within the First Century.)<br />
<br />
As you can immediately see—the stories themselves did not circulate amongst Christians in writing prior to the very end of the First Century! It seems slightly…unreasonable…to anticipate anyone disputing these tales MUST be within the few years left within the First Century.<br />
<br />
Further, 1 Clement does not explicitly indicate Peter and Paul died martyrs, Josephus does not indicate James’ death had anything to do with Christianity, and Acts only utilizes James, son of Zebedee’s death like a Star Trek Red shirt (as I previously pointed out.) Indeed it was not until the Second Century the martyrdom tales gained their legendary legs and took off with Acts of Peter, Acts of Paul, and Second Apocalypse of James. It wasn’t until the very end of the Second Century, perhaps the beginning of the Third, that Hippolytus gave us the deaths of the other disciples.<br />
<br />
So…we don’t really have obituaries in the First Century. And no one is even saying the disciples died martyrs to provide anyone with the notion of countering the tales.<br />
<br />
What possible documents could Mr. Wallace be referring to? <br />
<br />
We will never know.<br />
DagoodShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-60937020346320174812013-02-26T14:43:00.002-05:002013-02-26T14:43:52.153-05:00Looking for Intelligent DesignI finally took the time to watch <a href="http://www.expelledexposed.com/">Expelled the Movie </a> (thank goodness for Netflix.) I made it halfway through and found myself too bored to continue. Seems like such old news after the initial controversy.<br />
<br />
Supposedly Intelligent Design is a <i>scientific</i> means to explain species development. Now I have a question—if it is, are there college courses giving scientific biological explanations within intelligent design parameters? And what kind of lab experiments are being offered.<br />
<br />
I found a college course at Biola that seemed to be “How to argue for Intelligent Design”—I am looking for an actual, biological course—not a philosophic one.<br />
<br />
One would think, if it was so scientific, the religious colleges would be teaming with such courses by now…right?<br />
DagoodShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-84703033789377550212013-02-22T10:26:00.001-05:002013-02-22T10:26:46.686-05:00Winds of Change?Is scholarly Evangelical Christianity abandoning strict inerrancy? Like the young-earth creationists of old, upon the earth’s age being conclusively determined, are scholars relegating the classic strict confines of inerrancy to a minority position? <br />
<br />
Michigan winters add time to my commute; terrestrial radio does not quite satisfy the entire period. From boredom, I have been downloading various podcasts, debates, lectures, etc. to fill the time. I happened across <a href="https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/cross-examined/id337782458">Frank Turek’s November 30, 2012 Podcast</a> whereby Turek interviews Dr. Mike Licona regarding alleged contradictions within the canonical gospel accounts. My particular sense of humor appreciated Frank Turek—whose sole claim to fame is co-authoring <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Have-Enough-Faith-Atheist/dp/1581345615">I Don’t have enough faith to be an Atheist</a> with Dr. Norman Geisler—was interviewing Dr. Licona regarding inerrancy when Dr. Licona’s most strident critic in this area is Dr. Geisler. I covered this contention <a href="http://sandwichesforsale.blogspot.com/2011/09/round-and-round-we-go.html">before. </a> I was hoping Turek or Dr. Licona would mention the confrontation, but alas…they did not.<br />
<br />
Dr. Licona already has stirred controversy by claiming Matthew’s Zombies (Matt. 27:52) were a poetic device and not precisely historical…it would seem he is coming out with a paper and eventually a book taking it one step further. Dr. Licona is indicating the gospel authors utilized literary devices common at the time in writing Jesus’ biography, and were never intending to write strictly, specifically historical and inerrant works as current inerrantists claim. <br />
<br />
Dr. Licona reviewed the works of another First Century biographer--<a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plutarch/">Plutarch.</a> Because we have numerous works of Plutarch (he was a popular author; many copies were made), we have quite a representative catalog. As Plutarch wrote biographies of different people living at the same time, we can observe his writing about the same event, but from differing perspectives. Plutarch would modify the stories, dependent on the biography. For example, Dr. Licona notes in one Plutarch account regarding the <a href="http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/sallust/chronology.html">Catiline conspiracy, </a> Plutarch indicates the conspirators were arrested on one day, convicted the next and executed on the third. But in another account, Plutarch states the conspirators were arrested, convicted and executed on the same day. This is termed “condensing”--where an author condenses the account for literary reasons.<br />
<br />
Dr. Licona claims a similar condensing when Matthew (Matt. 21:18-22) “condenses” the fig tree cursing into a single day as compared to Mark’s (Mark 11:12-20) two-day period. This isn’t exactly ground-breaking material to me or many other biblical scholars—we have said all along trying to fit the Gospels into a 21st century strictly factual genre as compared to reviewing the documents in the genre of their time is fitting a square peg in a round hole. Problems arise.<br />
<br />
The more interesting discussion (to me) regarded the day Jesus died. According to Matthew, Mark and Luke, Jesus died on Passover day, after the Passover meal. According to John, Jesus died the day before Passover, before the Passover meal. Some may remember <a href="http://sandwichesforsale.blogspot.com/2007/10/im-stumped.html">I discussed this previously.</a><br />
<br />
Dr. Licona indicated Plutarch—in his Julius Caesar biography—modified an event to claim it occurred 8 years after it actually did in order to fit Plutarch’s literary scheme. In the same way (according to Dr. Licona), John “moved” the day of Jesus’ death to coincide with the day of preparation before the Passover. Dr. Licona emphasized if we went back in time with a video camera, we would record Jesus died on Passover just like Matthew, Mark & Luke say. That John was utilizing a literary device--common and accepted at the time--to write Jesus was killed the day before.<br />
<br />
(Further, Dr. Licona goes on to indicate John moved the actual time of Jesus’ death from early morning to mid-day equally for a literary reason to coincide with the timing of the burnt offering. Interesting.)<br />
<br />
Needless to say, <a href="http://normangeisler.net/articles/Bible/Inspiration-Inerrancy/Licona/LiconaAdmitsContradictionsInGospels.htm">Dr. Geisler is unhappy</a> with this approach to the canonical Gospels. <br />
<br />
I can’t help wonder if cracks are starting to appear in the façade. I am seeing Christianity’s fear it is becoming outdated with the former doctrines, and attempting to bolster its position to one not ridiculed by the academics. No longer is biblical creationism espoused—now it is the more scientific sounding, “Intelligent Design.” Not musty books and black ties, but lab coats, and cool videos and thick books filled with scientific data.<br />
<br />
No longer “KJV is good enough for me” but a scholarly world of textual criticism, where passages are debated <I>and discarded</i> based upon scholarly research. Is strict inerrancy the next to fall? Are younger biblical scholars no longer satisfied with “here is some nonsensical, but logically possible explanation” having Jesus do the same thing three or four times? Dr. Licona…it would seem…says, “yes.”<br />
DagoodShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-7575266396244236392013-02-13T15:41:00.002-05:002013-02-13T15:41:59.242-05:00True Christian TestStumbled upon another, “Why is the church losing the young people?” article and came across <a href=" http://marc5solas.wordpress.com/2013/02/08/top-10-reasons-our-kids-leave-church/#comment-310">this comment: </a><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Church is boring to the average adult too. It’s not supposed to be exciting or entertaining; it’s supposed to teach and preach the gospel, so that it can then be shared with the world. If that simple mission doesn’t motivate(excite) someone, then that person’s salvation is suspect. The church is not supposed to motivate; the Holy Spirit does that when He truly indwells. </blockquote><br />
I like this for a “True Christian” test. Simple, effective and easily implemented. Have you ever found Church boring? If so, you are not a true Christian.<br />
<br />
I wonder if there would be any true Christians left?<br />
<br />
DagoodShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-21523151302002884892012-11-05T13:55:00.002-05:002012-11-05T13:55:04.495-05:00Methodology VindicatedAs most who interact with me know…I often focus more on the method one approaches a problem, rather than the problem itself. I utilize the method commonly associated with the American Justice System—providing all the arguments, facts and alternatives to a neutral party who makes the decision what is more likely than not.<br />
<br />
Of course, when it comes to theological discussions, apologists run and scream from this method, primarily because it does undermines their beliefs..<br />
<br />
Once in awhile it is nice to have confirmation as to how viable the method is. <br />
<br />
More than two (2) years ago, I mentioned a California lawsuit where an individual named David Coppedge argued he was originally demoted and eventually terminated because of his belief in Intelligent Design aka Creationism. I wrote <a href="http://sandwichesforsale.blogspot.com/2010/04/duck-walks.html">an initial post </a> regarding the basic facts with a <a href="http://sandwichesforsale.blogspot.com/2010/04/duck-talks.html">follow-up </a> applying the facts as they existed within my method.<br />
<br />
I indicated, utilizing my method, David Coppedge would lose, because he came across as an obnoxious employee and was more likely terminated for that, than for any philosophical scientific disagreement. <a href="http://sandwichesforsale.blogspot.com/2012/03/doing-my-job-by-predicting-outcome.html">Subsequent Facts </a> bolstered my initial impression and further sustained the methodology’s initial determination.<br />
<br />
Well…the Judge <a href=”http://ncse.com/files/20121031_Ruling.pdf">rendered a decision. </a> And with little surprise, it came out exactly as I predicted. To demonstrate just how little apologists understand this method, the Discovery Institute wrote a short <a href="http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/11/tentative_rulin066011.html">article</a> stating, <blockquote>Whatever the judge's ultimate ruling in the case, the evidence remains what it is, and people can (and should) evaluate it for themselves. </blockquote><br />
A neutral party (the judge) did. And found against them. <br />
DagoodShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-87686291405527073612012-10-26T09:22:00.000-04:002012-10-26T09:22:05.741-04:00Where I’ve been—off being disappointed with Christian ApologistsRecently I became more involved in refereeing soccer (for any readers outside America—football.) Each weekend presents 5 or 6 opportunities to referee players at various levels. There are three referees in each game—a “center” referee (the one with the whistle and the cards) and two “assistant referees” (commonly referred to as “AR”’s) who run up and down the touchline (what most people call the “sideline.”)<br />
<br />
As an AR, we are only a few feet from the parents of the players, and therefore hear almost every coaching statement, encouragement and groan…but mostly we are inundated with the complaining:<br />
<br />
“Why don’t you call that, ref?”<br />
“She wasn’t offside!”<br />
“Offside, Ref!!”<br />
“Foul!”<br />
“Hand Ball!”<br />
“Hand Ball!”<br />
“Hand Ball!”<br />
<br />
The two most commonly misunderstood laws—by these parents—are offside and deliberately handling the ball (commonly shortened to “hand ball.”) I won’t go into the technical details of these laws—not important—but it is often very clear the parents don’t have a clue what they are talking about.<br />
<br />
Not every player who appears (to the parents) to be offside actually is. Some players who do not appear to be offside (to the parents) actually are. And not every single time the ball strikes a hand is it a “hand ball.”<br />
<br />
So behind me, I hear a chorus of shouts, “Offside! Offside!” and when I do not raise my flag, immediately hear groans and whines about how I won’t make a call that was obvious to a blind person in a dark room, and I clearly favor the other team and I am the most incompetent referee ever. Doesn’t bother me; I have very thick skin and part of the soccer experience is to hear complaints from coaches and parents. Not only is it home vs. visitor, but there is a bit of coach vs. referee and parents vs. referee as well. At times, I am secretly amused by how wrong (and uninformed) these parents are.<br />
<br />
Which is where I am more likely to get in trouble. See, these are the times I want to explain <i>why</i> it is I am calling their son offside; or why their daughter’s actions constituted a “hand ball” whereas the opposing player’s did not. I want to explain, because in my mind I am thinking they would like to be informed regarding the laws, so they will know better in the future.<br />
<br />
But these parents are not interested in being informed. These parents are not there to learn the laws of the game. The last thing these parents want is game instruction. They want their child’s team to win. Win, win, win! And any call (or lack of call) by the referee standing in the way of winning is the equivalent of a deadly insult. <br />
<br />
I know this because I watch what happens when their own players commit the same actions and the parents are strangely quiet. Ball hits an opposing player’s hand? “Hand ball! Hand ball!” Ball hits own teams’ hand? Not even crickets chirping.<br />
<br />
Last week I was refereeing and the red team’s player collided with the blue team’s player—the red player ended up on the ground. Behind me I heard, “Foul, ref! He just knocked our kid to the GROUND and you aren’t going to call anything?” (There wasn’t any foul.) About two minutes later, a red player tripped a blue player and the blue player ended up on the ground. The center (correctly) whistled for a tripping foul. The exact same parent yells, “Just because they end up on the ground, doesn’t mean there was a foul!” I wanted to laugh out loud—they didn’t even realize their own contradictory statements.<br />
<br />
So at times, I have an initial reaction where I want to explain to the parents why it is the call is being made the way it is…<br />
<br />
Parent: “Offside! She is way past the last defender!”*<br />
Me: [in my mind] “True…but she is not past the ball, and therefore does not meet all the requirements of offside.”<br />
<br />
*I know it is technically the second-to-last defender, but no parent ever shouts this.<br />
<br />
But I wisely keep my mouth shut. Why?—because that parent has no interest whatsoever in why the offside was not being called…all they care about is a perceived infringement going unpunished that could result in their team not winning. My explanation would only inflame them.<br />
<br />
I have the same reaction to Apologists. I am happy to discuss with them, but my approach is unlike their own. I figure they genuinely are interested in a counter-factual, or opposing argument, or even the differing positions from other Christians.<br />
<br />
They are not.<br />
<br />
They are interested in one thing only—to win at all costs. My explanations only inflame them; my arguments are dismissed before being read. My statements ignored through claims of “bias,” my claims discounted because I am an atheist and therefore anything I say MUST be incorrect.<br />
<br />
Once, I did it for the lurkers. Now, I do it because it amuses me much like soccer parents. And before apologists get offended by this statement—you only bring it on yourselves.<br />
DagoodShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.com23tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-55883273694974749482012-08-01T11:05:00.000-04:002012-08-01T11:06:22.069-04:00Warrior Dash 2012Another year; another Warrior Dash.<br />
<br />
Last year it was exciting—we had never done one, we were into running and already had a few races under our belts. This year…not so much. However, the week before, we all began to infuse each other with excitement, looking forward to the “newbies” on the course, and their Facebook lamentations regarding the possibility of death.<br />
<br />
And we finally decided our uniform of choice—ugly shirts. Basically we all went to a thrift shop and bought the ugliest shirt we could find. The winner—a red silk shirt with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogs_Playing_Poker">Dogs Playing Poker </a> on the front and back. Iconic. On Friday Night we went out to eat in our shirts at Bad Brad’s (the best BBQ in Detroit Area.) It was humorous how many people from other tables were wearing shirts that fit right in with ours. <br />
<br />
Next day…off to Mt. Morris, Michigan for the 1 p.m. running. This year the obstacles were very different—harder. Still had the Cargo Net, leap over fire and mud pit crawl at the end. Had the tires/old car and swamp stomp in the middle. But the hardest (for me) was a swim, climb up on raft, swim, climb up on raft, swim. Took the most time.<br />
<br />
Because of the difference in obstacles, it is difficult to gauge whether one improved on their time. Additionally, last year I ran with my son, so I wasn’t running my normal pace. I was three minutes more than I wanted, but I hadn’t expected so much time on the obstacles, either.<br />
<br />
Without further ado…here I am entering the final mud pit (with barbed wire so you had to crawl.) No, I am not going in gracefully; yes I am falling:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwzxTy4Afx9K5atJ4-s_sI2S3e-Jufi7QTkVy2kjdphWonWtKbtU3PReJ1X3A0EPgvpx_dfviFQDT7Bup5QUmlSQc8K8-q640TeuBzmnOfwiakZDbZNGrhHhlwdwA-7t1vDKUq/s1600/011.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="225" width="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwzxTy4Afx9K5atJ4-s_sI2S3e-Jufi7QTkVy2kjdphWonWtKbtU3PReJ1X3A0EPgvpx_dfviFQDT7Bup5QUmlSQc8K8-q640TeuBzmnOfwiakZDbZNGrhHhlwdwA-7t1vDKUq/s320/011.JPG" /></a></div><br />
View of me crawling through mud pit:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOtcha_6Z43olUeVZHe_xu8opYx9tKWPu-YmOulOSAaGoTYIB6OCxEuI9ttvgVWdk4qlD7tzXmZHvLzfRp6VAhKka5vmvss30cHs3DUpbvEwwt9i2h64nmbToRAv6udsrBI4_R/s1600/012.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="128" width="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOtcha_6Z43olUeVZHe_xu8opYx9tKWPu-YmOulOSAaGoTYIB6OCxEuI9ttvgVWdk4qlD7tzXmZHvLzfRp6VAhKka5vmvss30cHs3DUpbvEwwt9i2h64nmbToRAv6udsrBI4_R/s320/012.JPG" /></a></div><br />
And "racing" to the finish line:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNMrGdn95SVvtPWXh2kSEwN-_6mM0Iir-QPHYT2_Ln6uxgo5j7PrQZIwlVKWGrT3D2C5yIRTFdKtruZ056kQL2VJcuEmePTxR4d3uFPgwYFbj_CAjauK_0X3B34QkfjkkA8Gr-/s1600/015.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="173" width="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNMrGdn95SVvtPWXh2kSEwN-_6mM0Iir-QPHYT2_Ln6uxgo5j7PrQZIwlVKWGrT3D2C5yIRTFdKtruZ056kQL2VJcuEmePTxR4d3uFPgwYFbj_CAjauK_0X3B34QkfjkkA8Gr-/s320/015.JPG" /></a></div><br />
Final Result:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOnHKzcFu9coPe1KFp4A6aPOQZGBGH6Tl9Gmh8t3HRqcr8LyX29mYOMCV4oDPjVQCAsHE8OuOZusjn1S6jigKCzv8wkSXs5DVooB0cYWM63IBYwzcW39LwqLN72ltGItcEjP51/s1600/018.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="320" width="214" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOnHKzcFu9coPe1KFp4A6aPOQZGBGH6Tl9Gmh8t3HRqcr8LyX29mYOMCV4oDPjVQCAsHE8OuOZusjn1S6jigKCzv8wkSXs5DVooB0cYWM63IBYwzcW39LwqLN72ltGItcEjP51/s320/018.JPG" /></a></div><br />
Signed up for next year. This time, the whole family (Wife, two daughters and son) doing it as well.DagoodShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-77455194370435404112012-07-25T13:12:00.001-04:002012-07-25T13:12:57.828-04:00Ethical Questions on VacationSome thoughts on a few situations from this past weekend. <br />
<br />
We were flying home on vacation with a connection in Denver, Colorado. Originally, we had about one (1) hour between flights. However our first flight was delayed—due to weather—for 2 ½ hours. Needless to say we (along with the majority of the plane) missed our connection.<br />
<br />
Off we all trouped to “Customer Service” to obtain a new flight the next morning, and vouchers for dinner, breakfast and a hotel room. The vouchers were “use-it-or-lose-it”; no cash would be returned if the amount wasn’t used. We were allotted up to $60 (for four people) for dinner and $60 for breakfast. Upon finding an airport restaurant, we ordered more than enough food (more than we would normally get) and the total came up to around $40. We then had the following conversation, repeated almost verbatim the next morning at breakfast:<br />
<br />
Cashier: You still have money left…what else do you want?<br />
Me: Nothing, thank you. <br />
Cashier: We don’t give cash back.<br />
Me: Yes, I know. That is enough.<br />
Cashier: You sure you don’t want to order some food to go, or bottles of water, or something?<br />
Me: No, we don’t need it.<br />
<br />
I figured we were delayed for no fault of the airline. It happens. Why “punish” the airline by using up the voucher buying food we didn’t need? The cashier looked at me as if I was crazy. (Of course the restaurant was making money on the MORE things they sell, so it made sense to push me to use the entire voucher.)<br />
<br />
The next morning, due to the early hour, the only airport restaurant open was McDonalds. I saw many of the same passengers from the night before in line—all of us with our vouchers. Now…we had $15 each to spend. I have never spent $15 per person at McDonald’s. Ever. So…again…I ordered what we would normally eat. Again had the same conversation about money left, no cash back, why don’t I order more?, etc.<br />
<br />
The vouchers are “up to” a certain amount…not spend it like money was made on trees. I was a little surprised people felt so obligated to spend the entire amount; I was shocked how people found it odd I didn’t want to spend $60 at McDonalds on four people. The Fat Man next to me proudly grinned, “I spent $14.93,” as I looked over his two (2) bags of food (including 2 cinnamon bites), large coffee, large orange juice and large milk.<br />
<br />
I found it curious.<br />
<br />
Scenario #2—the Fat Man.<br />
<br />
In these situations, a sort of camaraderie develops amongst the victims. In Durango, Colorado, we all commiserated about the flights we would be missing before our take-off. In Denver, we all stood in the same “Customer Service” line. We rode the shuttle to the hotel and back again. We saw each other in the airport the next day.<br />
<br />
“Where you headed?”<br />
“What flight did you get?”<br />
“How much did they give you?”<br />
<br />
We endured the pain together. <br />
<br />
The Fat Man went straight to the front of the line at Customer Service (by-passing about 25 people) and informed them he could not stand in line because of his heart condition, his diabetes and his breathing problems. Further, he informed everyone within hearing range that he was quickly running out of medicine and needed to get home (Atlanta) in order to re-supply. <br />
<br />
It sounded serious.<br />
<br />
He sat down next to my family who were waiting for me to get to the Customer Service Counter. Upon learning we were from Michigan, he piped up how he once lived in Michigan. As the conversation developed, it came out we support Michigan State University.<br />
<br />
Fat Man: Oh, I root for University of Michigan.*<br />
Wife: Did you go there?**<br />
Fat Man: No, I went to a private school in South Carolina.<br />
Wife: Bob Jones University?<br />
Fat Man: [somewhat hesitantly] Yesss…<br />
Wife: Oh, we have a relative who works there.<br />
<br />
*If you lived in Michigan, you would know some of the biggest rivalry is between cheering on MSU as compared to UofM.<br />
**They never do. A common saying is, “MSU fans went to Michigan State; U of M fans went to Wal-Mart.”<br />
<br />
At this point the Fat Man was relieved to find fellow Christians, and began to regale us with tales of his past two weeks missionary work amongst the Navajo Indians, and his previous two weeks at some other place, doing God’s work. Luckily, our situation was resolved at that minute; we were able to break away with (relieved) exclamations of “Well…good luck!”<br />
<br />
Now I was watching these vouchers for the same hotel being handed to passenger after passenger, and wondered if the airline was making reservations as well, or just handing out vouchers. I called the hotel, did not receive a clear answer--so to be safe, I reserved two (2) rooms. (They only had single king-size rooms, and our family was not all going to fit in one (1) king-size bed!) <br />
<br />
We would only be at the hotel for six (6) hours. <br />
<br />
With our rooms assured, we ate leisurely, and caught the airport shuttle to the hotel. In the hotel lobby, there was a ruckus. Even a bit of a snit. A number of our fellow passengers were milling about and the Fat Man was yelling about how “I have a VOUCHER, and I must have a ROOM, and we were promised we could STAY HERE!” The harried clerk said again and again, “I am sorry, people, but all the rooms are booked.”<br />
<br />
Upon seeing us, the Fat Man continued to yell, “Good Luck getting a room, Your ‘VOUCHER’” (he almost spit the word) “is worth NOTHING! They won’t even let me sleep in the Lobby—they said they would call the police!”<br />
<br />
Now at that moment, it seriously crossed my mind to tell the Fat Man to wait, see if our two rooms were being held (they were), and see if we could somehow accommodate to fit all of us in one room (with blankets, roll-aways, whatever) and give the Fat Man the other room. As it turns out, the rooms were large enough, it was certainly feasible. And we were only going to be there a few hours anyway.<br />
<br />
I really, really wanted to say, “Fat Man—you can have one of our rooms. And just know it was an atheist—not a Christian—who charitably gave it up for you.” But then I thought, “This is the type of guy who will go home and entertain his entire congregation with a story about how God provided a hotel room for him (not thinking about all the other passengers who were missing out) and how God has such a sense of humor, He even used an Atheist as the tool to provide for God’s child!”<br />
<br />
And if I didn’t say I was an atheist, he would still tell the story of his “rescue” miraculously provided by God with a small mention of the human involved. Whereas the reality is—one human (me) happened to be a little more pro-active. <br />
<br />
I didn’t give up the room. <br />
<br />
The next day I saw the Fat Man spend $14.93 at McDonalds. <br />
<br />
When I told my wife I felt slightly guilty for not giving up the room for him, she was aghast. “Him?” She told me the Fat Man confessed to her his insurance had lapsed, and that was the reason he was running out of medicine—not the timing of the trip. He gleefully admitted he was using the “running out of Medicine” as a means to get service.<br />
<br />
Yet I still wonder if I should have given the Fat Man the room. <br />
<br />
Not because I am a particularly nice person—I just love the delicious irony it would take an atheist—not a God, not a fellow Christian—to resolve this boorish Fat Man’s problem. Even if he never knew…I would.<br />DagoodShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-7649782232022300542012-07-06T09:53:00.000-04:002012-07-06T09:53:01.666-04:00Strawpeople…Strawpeople EverywhereWe are quite familiar with the strawperson argument—claiming your opponent makes a false statement when it turns out that is not what your opponent is saying at all. For example, making the argument:<br />
<br />
“1) Scientists claim we will some day know everything.<br />
“2) We will never know everything.<br />
“3) Therefore scientists are wrong.<br />
<br />
While a brilliant argument…the problem is that no scientist says we will some day know everything. One has built the strawperson—“Scientists make this claim”—and then burned it down—“the claim is wrong”—to no avail. Looks good; means nothing.<br />
<br />
The issue I am beginning to see in theological debates, is how one can preface a statement, “Some ___ claim ____” and we can eventually find some theist or non-theist who indeed makes such a claim. Therefore, it is not technically a strawperson—the argument simply happens to only address a very small minority. “Some Christians claim we must follow Mosaic law.” “Some Christians hold to geocentric theory.” “Some atheists believe we must all dance naked at midnight on the Summer Solstice.” One could make any claim and eventually manage to scrounge out some person of a particular belief who does hold to such a premise.<br />
<br />
For me, personally, to determine how “strawish” an argument is, I rely upon Google. A very simplistic method—plug in the claimed statement in a search, start reading through results, and determine how prevalent this claim really is. I am disappointed, when discussing with Christians, how often I hear, “Well, this is something a lot of atheists I know tell me in person” yet I find no such claim on the internet. If it was so common to hear…at least a few such items would pop up on-line. I <a href="http://www.toughquestionsanswered.org/2012/01/02/does-quantum-mechanics-invalidate-the-law-of-non-contradiction-part-1/">pointed this out </a> in a comment section and another Christian honestly conceded what was being claimed as “coming up so often” was oddly completely missing from the internet.<br />
<br />
How is it all these atheists or Christians are making these statements in person, yet when we try to narrow them down with any precision on-line, we find nothing? I think it is because the person is <i>hearing</i> something different than is being said.<br />
<br />
In a recent blog entry, <a href="http://www.toughquestionsanswered.org/2012/07/04/do-people-become-atheists-for-only-intellectual-reasons/">”Do people become atheists for Only intellectual reasons?” </a> a statement <a href="http://www.toughquestionsanswered.org/2012/07/04/do-people-become-atheists-for-only-intellectual-reasons/#comment-576113828">was made, </a>”What is funny, is that some who embraced atheism on intellectual grounds, from say thinking that teaching on evolution proves there is no God,…”<br />
<br />
The question was then brought out how many non-theists made the claim, “Evolution proves there is no God.” And whether this statement was a strawperson—are there non-theists who say, “Evolution proves there is no God”?<br />
<br />
Now what do you think I did? Of course…I plugged “Evolution proves there is no god” into Google to see how common this claim was being made. And found (not surprisingly) a few persons who did, indeed say this. We have a <a href="http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101124122625AAKYA1u">Yahoo Question, </a> “Does Evolution Prove there is no God?” where the “best” answer (by votes) responds, “Of course it does,…” However, if we scroll through the other answers provided, a number of people said, “No, these ideas are mutually exclusive.”<br />
<br />
On the other hand <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html">Talk Origins </a> states evolution does not say anything about a god—proof or disproof. If you bothered to pour through the Google results, the primary hits involve Christians who claim scientists allege Evolution proves there is no God (the problem I will focus on it a minute), the secondary hits are non-theists debunking the idea Evolution proves there is no God, and by far, far last place, a few hits regarding people claiming Evolution proves there is no God.<br />
<br />
Is it a strawperson? No. Is it speaking to a miniscule small percentage (less than 1%, I would estimate). Yep.<br />
<br />
So why…if so few non-theists are claiming it…do Christians think non-theists are saying, “Evolution proves there is no God”?<br />
<br />
Simple—because the very core of the Christians’ belief is that their God does not utilize evolution in its creation of this world. If evolution is true—their God is not. So for us to say “Evolution is true” they are <i>hearing</i> “Your God is not.” And since there can only be one God—their own—these Christians translate “Evolution is true” to “There is no God.”<br />
<br />
To demonstrate this in action, notice the comment from Bill Pratt in the <a href="http://www.toughquestionsanswered.org/2012/07/04/do-people-become-atheists-for-only-intellectual-reasons/#comment-577352990">Tough Questions entry: </a> <blockquote>In the God Delusion, he said the following about evolution: "Darwin and his successors have shown how living creatures, with their spectacular statistical improbability and appearance of design, have evolved by slow, gradual degrees from simple beginnings. We can now safely say that the illusion of design in living creatures is just that—an illusion."<br />
<br />
In the context of the book, this statement means that we don't need God to explain how life arose - evolution does that. Since the creation of life has commonly been attributed to God by theists, then the fact of Darwinian evolution is a serious blow to the existence of a God who supposedly created life.</blockquote><br />
I am nodding my head as I read along. “Yep. Dawkins is definitely arguing evolution proves there is no non-evolution-using God.” (sorry for the double negative) But it doesn’t say anything about proving <b>no</b> God exists—just that any such God that did would be utilizing evolution. As <a href="http://www.toughquestionsanswered.org/2012/07/04/do-people-become-atheists-for-only-intellectual-reasons/#comment-578101072">Andrew Ryan </a> wisely responded—our determination of how lightning occurs did not disprove God, it only impinged the lightning-bolt-throwing Zeus God<br />
<br />
See, to us non-theists, we are looking to see if <i>any</I> god exists. Whether it is the Mormon God, the Islam God, the Hindu Gods, the North American Spirits, etc. So for some particular argument, proof or truth to prove “No God Exists” it would have to eliminate every single one of these. Yes, we certainly can eliminate some gods, or some particular characteristics of gods. If one claims God made the world 6,000 years ago, we would certainly say we have proved that particular God does not exist. Or the theist is incorrect about that particular aspect of that God.<br />
<br />
Does the age of the earth prove no God exists? Of course not.<br />
<br />
But the Christian is so certain they have the aspects of their God correct—certain items MUST be true—to argue against it or prove this one detail incorrect causes the entire house of cards to fall. So when we say, “The Bible has errors” if inerrancy is such a key requirement, they hear, “There is no God.” <br />
<br />
“Jesus didn’t bodily rise from the dead.”<br />
Physical resurrections hear “There is no God.”<br />
<br />
“The earth is 4.5 Billion years old.”<br />
YEC’s hear “There is no God.”<br />
<br />
“Evolution is true”<br />
Intelligent Design theorists hear “There is no God.”<br />
<br />
It is this confusion where the non-theist is puzzling, “But I’m not saying there is no God—I am saying your God-concept does not align with reality. Either modify it, or present compelling reasons why.” And all the Christian hears is, “If this part of God is incorrect, then there can be no god whatsoever.”<br />
<br />
I had another similar strawperson discussion over at <a href="http://www.clayjones.net/2012/06/ehrman%E2%80%99s-problem-13%E2%80%94spanking-the-strawman%E2%80%A6-again/">Dr. Clay Jones’ Blog. </a> There, the confusion seems to arise regarding what the Christian was saying and the non-theist (Dr. Ehrman) was hearing, although it is not quite clear.<br />
<br />
We have an obligation to clarify when we are discussing a particular topic: Reality removes or greatly diminishes certain aspects of possible gods. But there is no one line-item, or one proof, or one fact disproving all Gods.<br />
<br />
If the Christian cannot understand that (and I fear most cannot), then we have done our duty and I would move on.<br />DagoodShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-55370956875229880862012-06-14T13:16:00.002-04:002012-06-14T13:16:15.936-04:00The Information Age—Scarier Than you ThinkNo question the internet has provided us far greater access than we could imagine 20 or 30 years ago. Want a recipe for Prime Rib? Google it. You can even <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUQ49SoteE0">find a video </a> giving step-by-step audio-visual instructions. (By the way…I have used this method repeatedly and it works every time. Outstanding.) Need an unusual bolt for a 1978 refrigerator? You can find it (with instructions how to replace it), order it, and even have it delivered overnight if you are willing to pay enough.<br />
<br />
We have answers to technological questions—“why does my computer keep crashing?” We find debates, and answers and practical hints on literally everything from aardvarks to zythepsary. (A brewery—make sure to work it into your vocabulary today.) However, there are two significant problems with this abundance of information:<br />
<br />
1) Some of it is wrong. As we know, one can create a blog or website to justify just about anything--including <a href="http://www.geocentricity.com/">the geocentric theory of the solar system,</a> <a href="http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html">faked moon landing claims, </a> and <a href="http://www.outerworlds.com/likeness/aliens/aliens.html">aliens building the pyramids. </a> Now we may chuckle at the obviousness of websites being wrong, but lest we forget, we even require websites like snopes.com to tell us when website claims are wrong! Have you used Snopes.com? I have. So clearly it is not always evident what is correct or incorrect.<br />
<br />
2) We don’t have the individual expertise to discern what is correct. I will use myself as an example. There are a few things in life I know very well. I am familiar with certain aspects of law. I am comfortable with many biblical claims. I am pretty familiar with running. This past weekend I had an opportunity to visit a horse show—I have never been. I don’t know what the judges were judging, what to look for, what each competition meant, why one person held the reins one way, and another held it another (because of the type of bit in the horses’ mouth, depending on the horses’ age.) I kept asking my friend, “Why are they doing that? What are they looking for? What is important here?” Luckily my friend is knowledgeable, and could inform me.<br />
<br />
Without his expertise I wouldn’t even know what I should have known.<br />
<br />
Likewise, I am not very educated when it comes to evolution. At times, I will see an anti-evolutionist claim, and be tempted to engage in debate. What is my first inclination? Why…to google the question, of course! A simple tactic: type in the question, start reading through the string of links, find one opposing your opponent’s claim, and copy-and-paste a response (giving proper citation, obviously.) Voila—instant response. However, as we all know, I am not really discerning whether the evolution claim is correct—I don’t know enough about the topic to make a determination! I am just looking for an opposing view.*<br />
<br />
*I should note this is different than finding an opposing view and replying with, “I found this website here that claims differently—can you explain how you would respond to it?” That is legitimate inquiry.<br />
<br />
Often I have made claims on a biblical questions, and been opposed. When I type in their response, in quotes, in google, I find precisely where they obtained the information, and find an inaccurate, incomplete and inadequate website. I realize the person didn’t have a clue how to respond, so they just “borrowed” from someone else, assuming it was accurate. When it was not.<br />
<br />
O.K., none of this new to my readers as just by being here, you have been engaged on the internet long enough to know (and give your own countless examples) these two glaringly evident points. So what? Recognized common internet happenings; as ubiquitous as trolling, spam and porn. <br />
<br />
For a moment, think about an issue extremely important to you. Imagine being involved where a governmental entity will make a decision on this issue. You present your position, the other side presents their own, and you counter. You engage in this arduous process over years, making numerous appearances, reviewing each position’s facts and claims; countering as best you can. Finally the day comes when a decision will be made…and the governmental entity says, “I googled the question and found a website.” A website never presented and given a chance to respond. A website that could be incorrect. A website helping make one of the most pivotal questions in your life. And you learn of it for the first time, <b>in the decision being made!</b><br />
<br />
This is happening in the <a href="http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/06/google-making-supreme-court-stupid/53514/#">United States Supreme Court. </a> (Not to mention other appellate courts across the country.) You can download <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2009904#captchaSection">Supreme Court Fact Finding </a> for free. The author reviewed decisions since 2000, looking for situations where the Court engaged in fact-finding outside of the briefs submitted. He found numerous instances where the court relied upon websites (indeed, Justice Breyer is extremely forthright in indicating his use of the internet, with citations) to support their particular positions.<br />
<br />
Websites never mentioned, briefed, or responded to in any of the pleadings before the court. Not at the trial level, the Circuit level, or in any of the participant’s briefs. You have argued a case before the U.S. Supreme Court, and first learn it is relying upon (in part) a website you have never heard mentioned until the decision itself.<br />
<br />
Our Judicial system is inherently designed to be adversarial—we expect and even demand an opposing view question the position. Our court rules are designed upon this foundation, giving guidance how we interact with the opposing side. Our rules of evidence anticipate the other side limiting what facts we present; the judge does not yell out, “Objection!”—it is opposing counsel’s obligation to do so. Our procedures are forged around and adversarial system—defendants are allowed to respond to plaintiffs; plaintiffs then rebut defendant’s claims.<br />
<br />
We expect and anticipate the judges to not be informed about the topic. It is our job to present the evidence and make arguments TO inform them, using witnesses and experts in the field. Oh, one may occasionally come across a judge who happens to be familiar with a topic because of their life experiences, but the system itself does not anticipate this. It presumes the judge knows nothing and is ONLY informed through admissible evidence.<br />
<br />
Could you imagine holding a court case and then the judge making a ruling, “Yeah, I talked to my neighbor who appears to know quite a bit on this subject, so I will defer to her opinion.” Or arguing <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District">Kitzmiller </a> and hearing the judge say when rendering his opinion, “Last night I went on CreationismIsCool.com and they had some interesting things to say.”**<br />
<br />
**Bit off-topic, but Judge Jones is oft criticized for copying portions of a party’s brief in his opinion. This is quite common. Indeed, if the court is agreeing with that party, there is every reason to do so. <br />
<br />
Yet as information becomes more available via the internet, the Supreme Court is deriving more information from its own google search <br />
<br />
We want our judges (especially at the Supreme Court level) to be as informed as possible. We want them to utilize resources. But the question has become—how much is too much? The author of the law article speculates the terrifying scenario where a litigant deliberately creates a biased website on an issue in the hopes the Court will find it on the Google search.<br />
<br />
There really isn’t an easy solution to this problem. Perhaps the most we can do is be ever-vigilant in pointing out missteps and errors on-line. To continue to direct people to Snopes.com, alternative statistics, and counter-arguments.<br />
<br />
Who knows…a Supreme Court Justice may be reading that article later…<br />DagoodShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-32723252386377291952012-06-07T11:34:00.000-04:002012-06-07T11:35:16.810-04:00The English Language is Older than you thoughtBecause <a href="http://birdsoftheair.blogspot.com/">the blog </a> is moderated, I don’t comment on it, but <a href="http://birdsoftheair.blogspot.com/2012/06/definition-of-marriage.html">this comment </a> is simply too much to ignore:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><b>Vaughn Ohlman: </b>…That is why I, as you know, don't use words such as 'single' or 'homosexual'; preferring the Biblical words 'unmarried' and 'sodomite'.</blockquote><br />
Does Mr. Ohlman realize not a single word of the Bible was written in English? If he wants to use “biblical” words—I suggest talking in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek as appropriate. Anything else would be……well….…just……not………biblical.<br />
<br />DagoodShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.com18tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-80029456795312769372012-05-04T11:59:00.001-04:002012-05-04T11:59:02.649-04:00Myth Methodology: How do we determine what is myth? Part OneDr. Bart Ehrman recently published <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Did-Jesus-Exist-Historical-Argument/dp/0062204602/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1336138050&sr=1-1">Did Jesus Exist?”</a> causing a stir amongst the internets. For a sampling, you can review <a href="http://youcallthisculture.blogspot.com/search/label/Bart%20Ehrman">Vinny’s current blog entries </a> or <a href="http://philochristos.blogspot.com/2012/04/bart-ehrman-and-richard-carrier.html">Sam’s blog. </a> Both provide numerous links to other articles, likewise providing more links.<br />
<br />
More words have been written <i>about</i> Dr. Ehrman’s book than are <i>in</i> Dr. Ehrman’s book.<br />
<br />
My joining the scrum would only add to the cacophony…but as I review the issues, more and more I am in agreement with Dr. Carrier’s <a href="http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/255">forthright assessment: </a> “…the biggest thing I discovered is that every expert who is a specialist in methodology has concluded, one and all, that the methods now used in Jesus studies are also totally fucked.”<br />
<br />
In the spirit of <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/top25-quotes.htm">the 20 anniversary of Rodney King’s famous quote,</a> “Can we all get along?” I will start with where we agree. Every person who has studied claimed historical accounts regarding Jesus falls into one of only two (2) categories:<br />
<br />
1) Everything written about Jesus’ actions on earth are fictional;<br />
2) Some of the things written about Jesus’ actions on earth are fictional.<br />
<br />
Notice the universal agreement? Everyone agrees at least some things about Jesus were made up. (We must be careful to not limit our review to canonical works.) We all agree there is myth* surrounding Jesus; we all demark at least some stories as, “No…that didn’t historically happen.”<br />
<br />
*There is discussion regarding the difference between “legend” (exaggerated stories regarding a living person, like George Washington chopping down a cherry tree) and “myth” (stories regarding a non-historical person like Hercules’ task.) Vernacular Jesus studies have resulted in this becoming “myth” v “historical” so I will continue to use “myth” even for those stories about an actual 1st Century travelling Messianic apocalyptic preacher.<br />
<br />
Since we are <i>already doing it,</i> the next question we have to ask is how?—What method are we using to eliminate [at least] some stories from contention? And, the next step, if we continue to utilize that method, would it eliminate all stories from contention?<br />
<br />
I submit the primary method being used—not that we like to admit it—is familiarization; we have become so indoctrinated with cultural Jesus stories those more familiar are called “historical” and those less familiar are deemed “myth.” Take this simple test, or give it to your friends, and think about your initial reaction:<br />
<br />
Myth or Fact: Did Jesus say:<br />
<br />
1. “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.”<br />
2. “No one can enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he ties up the strong man. Then he can rob the house.”<br />
3: “Don't lie, and don't do what you hate, because all things are disclosed before heaven. After all, there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed, and there is nothing covered up that will remain undisclosed.”**<br />
<br />
The first one shines out as “Oh, that is a Jesus statement” even though textual criticism has demonstrated it a later addition. The next two are more difficult, right? Why? Because <i>we are deliberately looking for “Jesus-like” statements!</i> Did you catch yourself thinking, “Hmm…is this something Jesus would say?” If so, you are using familiarity as a method.<br />
<br />
Myth or Fact: Did Jesus:<br />
<br />
4. Appear to Paul on the road to Damascus.<br />
5. Appear to Peter on the road from Rome.<br />
6. Amazes Teacher with knowledge of Greek alphabet.<br />
7. Amaze Jewish Teachers with his answers.<br />
8. Travel to Egypt as a child.<br />
9. Travel to India as a child.**<br />
<br />
Like a quiz in Cosmopolitan, we easily pick out the “correct” answers by recognizing the story. Ask the average person on the street about Jesus. Ask about specifics. You will get “born in a stable,” (although no stable is mentioned!) “walk on water,” “the Lord’s Prayer,” “Crucified, cave resurrected,” and “Pilate washing his hands.” Jesus is so familiar in our society, we <a href="http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushvsjesus.htm">use his sayings in political cartoons </a> and everyone immediately recognizes who that Jesus is—and the humor in the cartoon. We recognize his <a href="http://spiritlessons.com/Documents/Jesus_Pictures/Jesus_Christ_Pictures.htm">face </a> even though he could have looked like <a href="http://www.awesomestories.com/images/user/3b3d682fdd.jpg">Flavius Josephus </a> or <a href="http://www.techimo.com/forum/attachments/debateimo-politics-religion-controversy/22895d1259869154-there-3-good-arguments-jesus-black-maybe-not-jesus_bbc.jpg">this reconstruction. </a><br />
<br />
After living in our society for any time we “know” what Jesus is supposed to look like, we “know” what Jesus is supposed to say (“Yeah poor people! Boo dogmatic religious leaders.”), we “know” what he is supposed to do. Like a song we have listened to over and over, upon hearing someone strike the wrong note we immediately cringe, squirm and cry out, “No—that note is wrong!”<br />
<br />
But what if we have always listened to a version of the song with a wrong note, and we happen to be hearing the <i>correct</i> note for the first time? Like asking, <a href="http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120111104201AAKN5xA">”Why do all those old bands keep copying Glee songs?”</a> We have reached the point where we eliminate dissimilar as being incorrect, and therefore non-historical.<br />
<br />
We have bought our own sales pitch.<br />
<br />
Lest you think this is limited to “person-on-the-street” the point was driven home rather forcefully recently when Dr. Ehrman <a href="http://ehrmanblog.org/the-text-of-the-new-testament-are-the-textual-traditions-of-other-ancient-works-relevant/"> indicated James, the leader of the church was identified as Jesus Brother in Acts of the Apostles.</a> Upon questioning, Dr. Ehrman correctly retracted the statement, but why would he even state it in the first place? Because, I submit, he is already familiar with James the leader being the same as James the brother of Jesus, and relying on that familiarity simply assumed Acts stated such.<br />
<br />
Alas, he doubled-down by then embracing the familiarity as proof they are one and the same.<br />
<br />
We all seem to agree there is myth-making when it comes to Jesus. We likewise (I hope) agree this commonly used method of familiarity is a poor means to determine historicity. Next time I will look at other possible methods to look for myth-making.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
**1. John 8:7 (not in the earliest manuscripts)<br />
2. Mark 3:27<br />
3. <a href="http://users.misericordia.edu//davies/thomas/Trans.htm">Gospel of Thomas </a> 6<br />
4. Acts 9:3<br />
5. <a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/actspeter.html">Acts of Peter </a> 35<br />
6. <a href="http://www.tonyburke.ca/infancy-gospel-of-thomas/the-childhood-of-the-saviour-infancy-gospel-of-thomas-a-new-translation/">Infancy Gospel of Thomas </a> 5:8-10<br />
7. Luke 2:47<br />
8. Matt 2:14-15.<br />
9. <a href="http://reluctant-messenger.com/issa.htm">Life of St. Issa</a>--the lost years of Jesus’ childhood.<br />DagoodShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-67275446572457657042012-04-05T11:17:00.000-04:002012-04-05T11:17:26.009-04:00Losing the Fear of HellRecently I was asked how I lost my fear of hell; how I came to be ambivalent about the topic. Obviously there is no one-size-fits-all solution to this problem—I can only relate what happened to me. Repetition. Repeated inability to maintain belief in the supernatural consequently causing me to apply the same method to the afterlife and realizing there isn’t one.<br />
<br />
I was raised Calvinist where the oft-heard phrase was “Once saved; always saved.” Once you became a Christian, no matter what you did, no matter what happened—your salvation was assured. <b>BUT</b> (and this was a huge asterisk to the whole doctrine) there were people who seemed to have converted, but subsequently did not live like Christians. We wrote those people off to “not being saved in the first place.” <br />
<br />
Meaning you are assured of your salvation, unless you aren’t. Real helpful, right? Since one was never quite certain the original salvation took hold. (Worse, there were testimonies from people who claimed they made a salvation prayer as a child, but later realized it was insufficient, and became Christians later in life. Here was irrefutable proof, just because you said the right thing, you may not have made it in yet!)<br />
<br />
Having now deconverted--I hear the same accusation made by Calvinists acquaintances; informing me I wasn’t saved in the first place. Looks like my childhood worry was well-placed, eh?!<br />
<br />
Further, we believed in the Rapture, so a great test of one’s salvation would be the day where 100’s of millions of people (including everyone I knew) disappeared. If you were left standing here…well…there you go! Not-saved. I can still recall moments in stores, being separated from my mother for longer than expected, and thinking, “The Rapture happened, and I was Left Behind*”<br />
<br />
*Yes, those where the exact words we thought, and yes, they were always capitalized. There was always a doctrinal question whether a person who thought they were saved could get another chance after the Rapture…it was heavily intoned one could not. One would live (at best) another 7 years and be doomed to hell, knowing all 7 years that hell was coming.<br />
<br />
Or I would come home from school, and unexpectedly no one was home. I remember calling friends and their parents, figuring if no one answered, I was Left Behind.<br />
<br />
How do you talk someone out of fear? You can tell me all day long about the safety of parachutes and sky diving and statistics regarding incidents, and procedures and anything you want. I would be scared and staining my shorts jumping from a plane. You don’t “talk” someone out of fear.<br />
<br />
I recall my first jury trial. I was nervous, sweating, scared. How do I present my case to a jury? How do I object? What do I wear; where do I stand; how loud do I speak? Now, I look forward to jury trials. <br />
<br />
Why? What is the difference? Simple—repetition. After doing them over and over, I have learned the answers to those questions. I know what to expect. Are there still surprises and new experiences? Sure…but having had other surprises and new experiences, one learns how to adapt.<br />
<br />
I imagine if I jumped out of a plane a coupla hundred times, I won’t have the fear. Maybe…<br />
<br />
But how does one “repeat” the opposite of an in-grained belief? I was raised in a Christian home, I said the right prayer, I lived a Christian life. And each Sunday I was assured I was saved…<b>”BUT”</b>…and each Sunday it was reiterated there were those who were not. And while debates may rage as to who was in heaven; Hell’s citizenship was certain: Hitler, Nietzsche, Darwin and atheists. <br />
<br />
Upon initial deconversion, I was still fearful of Hell. Actually, that is not quite accurate. I was more fearful I had lost Heaven. We had been taught there was this sublime place where one can eat and not get fat. More importantly, one can see those who had passed on before—grandparents, parents, siblings, children and friends. Even more importantly, justice would be dispensed—wrongs righted; rewards delivered. And most important of all (to me) knowledge would be provided. We would finally get theology correct.<br />
<br />
And now Heaven…didn’t…….exist. The more I lost belief in Heaven (it really is a fantasy if you think about it), the same I lost belief in Hell. One does not exist without the other. <br />
<br />
I enjoy life just as much—even more—without the worry about getting the afterlife correct. I have my hands full getting this one right. Sure there are moments where I find a twinge of regret we only have a few years. The idea of Heaven is a fun fantasy. But then I shake my head and deal with the reality we have. A world desperately in need of human compassion without the easy relinquishing of responsibility by claiming some god will swoop in and solve all our problems.DagoodShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.com22