Talking with Christians

Recently it was asked: ”Why?” Why do we discuss with Christians?

At the moment, I do it because I enjoy it. I like the discussion; they won’t come here—so my only other choice is to go to them. The reasons have changed over the years since my initial deconversion.

I recall freshly abandoning Christianity and desiring to talk with other Christians regarding what I had discovered. Tried it in real life—epic fail. My main internet spot (iidb) was inundated with other deconverts and non-theists waiting to pounce upon any poor Christian that wandered into the lion’s den. I was one voice among too many—this was not satisfying.

Off I trotted to another forum, and thus began a pattern of discourse continuing to today. I approached it with naiveté. I thought if they only knew what I had discovered—they, too would reconsider their position. No, I didn’t expect them to immediately deconvert upon my appearance or first post. Nor my second or third. I did think they would be as interested as I was to actively engage the conversation and perhaps…just perhaps…realize there were viable and robust reasons Christianity may not be what they thought it was.

It was like discovering a new Mexican restaurant tucked behind the Post Office very few people know about, and despite its 1950’s styling, the cook is so extraordinary, one taste of his food and you could never deign to enter any other Mexican restaurant again.

Of course, I quickly discovered many theists were not as interested in the subject as I was. That it was too hard to discuss with a skeptic. That they had already made up their minds, and were sufficiently satisfied with any justification that might tend to support their conclusion. I discovered other theists that certainly did want to discuss the subject—but only in attack mode. No matter what I said, it must be wrong because of who said it—not the content.

I have continued conversations because of concern with lurkers. I certainly recall during my deconversion process (and have heard similar tales from other deconverts) lurking and lurking and lurking. Reading entire threads, and every link and every link from the link, absorbing the various positions. Ordering recommended books from Amazon or the library, and pouring over them.

Remembering those days, I can’t help wonder who might have wandered into some blog, forum or facebook note I happen to comment on, and they desire to know more about my position. It would be a shame to abandon the blog entry, when the lurker is yearning for more.

One thing I learned—if you go into these conversations with the expectation…no…the NEED…to have the person agree with you—you are doomed for disappointment. Best acclimate to such disappointment or you will have ulcers within weeks.

The other thing I learned is there isn’t one “correct” style. Think you may have been too harsh in your response? Doesn’t matter—I’ve tried nice and it doesn’t make a difference. Think your story is “too emotional?” Doesn’t matter—I’ve tried intellect, cites, books, authors, websites, etc. They still look at me quizzically and proclaim, “You deconverted because of sin.” Or the wrong intellectual reasons.

For me…now…the reasons are pretty simple. If I see a topic interesting to me—I will comment. If the person is not convinced…*shrug*…not my department. If they want to accuse me of some ulterior motive, I may ask once for a method to determine motive—but sheer proclamation doesn’t move me much.

Oh, noes!—some Christian thinks I’m wrong!

I would love to see American become less engrossed with religion. I would love to openly state “I am an atheist” only to elicit the response, “Yeah…so what?” However, after watching the tea-bag party, and the interviews with protestors over the Health Care reform; I see little intellectual pursuit in other areas to determine what is true, let alone in religious fields.

So I discuss because I want to.

Off doing stuff

I’m around. I’ve been discussing over at Tough Questions Answered if you really must know. No need to read through it…the same old routine.

At the moment, I find the discussion enjoyable. Sure, nobody changes their mind. The apologist (and the apologist’s friends) all think they are performing smashingly. The skeptics—likewise. The conversation—the same dance done before and likely to be repeated again.

What can I say—the topic still fascinates me.

What to do with old friends?

Recently there have been a few blog entries by friends about deconverts interacting with Christian friends. The question was poignantly asked, Is it possible [for a deconvert] to have Christian friends and family? Obviously anything is possible, and I am sure there are numerous anecdotal accounts regarding individuals who do nicely, thank you very much.

I haven’t seemed to manage it.

To me, its feels like that summer after your first year of college. You get together with your high school buddies and by evening’s end, realize you have no interest getting together with your high school buddies!

In high school you shared experiences with your classmates—same teachers, same halls. Same inside jokes about Ms. Crabapple. The team losing the semi-finals together. The year ends with graduation, parties, and assurances of being BFF’s (contractually enforced through yearbook signatures.)

Then you go away to college. A whole new set of friends, experiences, and growing up. Coming back, the jokes about Ms. Crabapple seem stale. The lost semi-final forgotten amongst new memories of parties and inter-mural Frisbee golf. How many times can one recount the same thing? Either the relationship continues to grow with new experiences (and new jokes and laughter) or it dies. So you maintain a relationship with a few, and the rest fall off, only to be remembered when bumping into each other at Wal-Mart (“Boy did he lose his hair!”) or Facebook.

I wanted to maintain my relationship with Christian friends and my family. I naively thought it could work. But I started to realize I was having new experiences, new laughs, new inside jokes they couldn’t share.

Me: And then she said…get this…’Evolution is just a theory.’ Bwahahaha. Can you believe it?
Them: [Blank stare.]

(“This one time…at college…we created stair sledding. It was the funniest thing EVER!”
[Blank stare.])

I began to have questions that they not only didn’t share—they didn’t want to share:

Me: Why didn’t Paul seem to know anything about the Jesus of the Gospels?
Them: Look, all I want to know is how to apply Paul’s doctrine to my life.

I don’t want to give the impression my journey is somehow better or more full than theirs. It is just…different. As if we were on a train, and I took a side-track. I’m seeing different scenery, going to different places. They are perfectly happy on their track (seeing things I am not), with their friends, and their scenery and stops. They would love to have me re-join the train, but have no interest in joining my side-track. Their life is complete without it.

With these two divergent courses, relationships will suffer, wither and end. They don’t want me to be friend—they want me to be convert. And, to be honest, how much do I want their friendship if I find myself stifling my curiosity, and censuring my statements around them? What kind of friendship is that?—I could do that with any acquaintance.

Facebook has brought this into sharp focus. Having joined many of my former friends, I get to see status updates and posts:

“We went to the Doctor and received a prescription for Tommy’s sickness. Isn’t God great?”
(Me [to myself]: Griznitmicklemuph…)

“Hey! Here’s a great video about how Einstein bested an atheist professor on the question of God. Einstein was only 2 1/2.”
(Me [to myself]: GrizNITMICKLemuph…)

“Why do those atheists have to put ads on buses?”
(Me [to myself]: GRIZNITMICKLEMOSTICKMON…)

And if I dare respond…carefully couching it in the most innocuous, harmless, questioning tone possible…I hear that AOL voice, “You’ve been defriended!”

So what—I was defriended by plenty long before Facebook developed it. Ha!

I find my laughter, my talks, my relaxation amongst those I can share new experiences together. Time to look back on those former friends with fond memories of good times with a smile, and look forward to new friends and more good times and a grin.

Mary and James

Our discussion regarding Women at the Tomb mentioned two Mary’s, both with sons named James. I thought I would put a place marker here for the Mary’s and James’ in the New Testament.

1. Mary – mother of Jesus. Wife of Joseph. Sister of Mary (2). Mother of James, Joses, Judas, Simon and at least two daughters (Mark 6:3) Born 20-6 BCE (depending on Matthew’s date of 4 BCE for Jesus’ birth, as compared to Luke’s date of 6 CE, and her age), last mention at Upper Room prior to Pentecost. (Acts 1:14) Age at least 43 at time of crucifixion, would have been 83+ for the Temple fall and around time of first Gospel.

I’m sorry. The next bit gets confusing because of the possible names. There are two Mary’s named which could either be the same Mary….or be two different Mary’s. I tried to list both possibilities.

2. Mary* – sister of Mary (1). Wife of Cleophas (John 19:25) Possibly Mother of James the Lesser (9)

3. Mary* – Mother of James the Lesser (9) and Joses (Mark 15:40.) Wife of Alphaeus. (Mark 3:18) Possibly mother of Levi (Mark 2:14). Assuming Levi is Matthew (Matt. 10:3), then possibly mother of Matthew. Saw Crucifixion (Mark 15:40). Visited tomb on Resurrection Sunday. (Mark 16:1; Matt. 28:1) Saw Resurrected Jesus (Matt. 28:9-10) contra, See Gospel of John does not list this Mary at the tomb or seeing Resurrected Jesus.

*I apologize for the confusion here, but due to the plausible overlap of names, there are certain possibilities to discuss. It is argued Cleophas is the Aramaic form of the Greek Alphaeus, and hence these are the same person.

That would make Mary (wife of Cleophas/Alphaeus) both the mother of James the Lesser (9) and Joses, as well as the sister of Mary (1), Mother of Jesus. Do you follow that? Mary (1) (Jesus’ mom) had sons named James(10) and Joses, additionally she had a sister named Mary (2) who also had sons named James(9) and Joses.

It gets worse. Mark’s Gospel records the story of Jesus interacting with a tax collector by the name of Levi, son of Alphaeus. (Mark 2:14) Subsequently, Mark lists Jesus’ disciples, naming one “James, the son of Alphaeus.” (Mark 3:18) This disciple is traditionally called “James the Lesser” (9) to differentiate him from James, (11) the son of Zebedee.

What Mark does not tell us is whether James the Lesser, son of Alphaeus (9) is the same or a brother or even related to Levi, son of Alphaeus. Now is when it gets tricky. Let’s follow this story through the Synoptic Gospels.

Matthew decides to insert his own name, “Matthew” instead of Levi when he recounts the tax collector’s tale. (Matt. 9:9)** He drops “son of Alphaeus” when referring to Levi/Matthew.

**Yes, I am aware Matthew is not the author, but I am trying to keep this as simple as I can.

Luke goes back to “Levi” when discussing this tax collector (Luke 5:27) and also drops “son of Alphaeus.” If you are totaled confused, it is as follows:

Mark – Levi, son of Alphaeus
Matthew – Matthew
Luke – Levi

Therefore, if one is proposing a resolution that Alphaeus and Cleophas were one and the same, AND Matthew is the same as Levi, AND the Levi/Matthew son of Alphaeus is a brother to James the Lesser (9), this would make:

Mary (1) – mother of Jesus, James (10) and Joses
sister to:
Mary (2 & 3) – mother of James (9), Joses and Matthew.

Jesus would have a mother named Mary (1), an aunt named Mary (2 & 3), a brother named James (10), a cousin named James (9) [also a disciple] and a cousin named Levi/Matthew [also a disciple.] Plus a brother named Joses and a cousin named Joses.

I should note that Bauckham does not believe Alphaeus and Cleophas are the same.

4. Mary Magdalene – At the crucifixion (Mark 15:40; John 19:25) Saw Jesus buried. (Mt. 27:56; Mark 15:47). Visited tomb Resurrection Morning. (Mark 16:1; Mt. 18:1) Saw post-resurrection Jesus. (John 20:11-18) contra, See Mt. 28:9-10 where it implies she saw resurrection Jesus, but this fails to align with John’s Gospel. Only Luke records Jesus removed seven demons from her. (Luke 8:2)

5. Mary of Bethany – sister to Martha, sister to Lazarus. (John 11:1) The woman who anointed Jesus. (John 11:2, see Mark 14:1-9) See also Luke 10:38 – 42 that records the story of a Mary living with her sister Martha. However, there is no mention of Lazarus, and Luke names the place “a certain village;” not Bethany, despite being aware of where Bethany was. Luke 19:29; 24:50. This is possibly two different Mary’s.

6. Mary - mother of John Mark. (Acts. 12:12)

7. Mary - in Rome, worked with Paul. (Rom. 16:6)

8. Intentionally left blank.

9. James the Lesser – son of Alphaeus, son of Mary (3), possibly cousin to James (10). Called “the Lesser” to differentiate from other disciple named James (11). (Mark 3:18; Matthew 10:3; Luke 6:15) Never listed in John. Nothing beyond being in the list of disciples..

10. James the Just – Brother to Jesus. Mother is Mary (1), Aunt is Mary (2) and possibly Aunt is Mary (3). If Aunt is Mary (3) AND Cleophas is same as Alphaeus, would be cousin to James the Lesser (9) (Mark 6:3; Matt. 13:55) I discuss the growing myth within the Tales of James’ martyrdom here. (Luke 8:19; John 7:3-5; Acts 1:14)

Curiously, only Matthew and Mark name him as a brother to Jesus, (See Gal. 1:19). Luke & John indicate interaction between Jesus and “his brothers” but never names any of them. (Luke 8:19; John 7:3-5; Acts 1:14) Also note Acts indicates a “James” as a leader in the church, but does not indicate he is related to Jesus. Traditionally claimed to be the author of the Epistle of James, but does not indicate such in the book. James 1:1. Brother to Jude (Jude 1)?

Listed in the Gospel of Thomas to be the leader of the Church. (Thomas 12)

11. James the son of Zebedee (Mark 3:17) One of the three insider disciples (with Peter and his brother John) Killed by Agrippa I (Acts 12:2) between 41 – 44 C.E. (Note: the Bible calls this king “Herod” whereas his name was “Agrippa.”)

12. James, father of Judas (not Iscariot). Note this particular disciple named “Judas” is not listed in Mark or Matthew but is listed in both Luke and John. (Luke 6:16; John 14:22 ) I discuss the varying the disciples’ name here.


I’m not making any particular argument, this is more reference material. I may add information later, as I come across it.

Perhaps the most fascinating aspect is how difficult it is to narrow down the names. As if the people knew there was a Mary somewhere, and a James, but not quite certain as to who they were in relation to the actual people. Some interesting points:

1. There is no James listed in the Gospel of John. Although the “brothers of Jesus” are referred to, as well as the “sons of Zebedee,” even the other Judas, son of James—the name “James” does not appear.

2. Mary Magdalene is the only Mary listed in all four Gospels. She is not mentioned again.

3. John lists Jesus’ mother’s sister as “Mary”—not Jesus’ mother. Why is it the Johannine community did not know Jesus’ brother’s name, nor Jesus’ mother’s name?

4. Only Luke and John list “Mary and Martha”—although it is possible these were two different Mary’s (and two different Martha’s). (Luke does not record them from Bethany, does not indicate this was the person who anointed Jesus, and does not list Lazarus, her brother.)

5. Although Acts lists a James becoming prominent in the church, it does not list him as Jesus’ brother. (Luke would have had a copy of Mark. Either he must have known the name, OR the name of James being Jesus’ brother was added in a later copy of Mark, after Luke’s copy.)

You may know the argument Gal. 1:19, where Paul says “James, brother of the Lord” was merely a designation of comradeship—not an actual fraternal relationship—just like Christians still call each other “brother” and “sister.” I’m not convinced…yet…but Luke and John not listing “James” when referring to Jesus’ brother is troubling.

…you might be an anti-theist

Apparently there is a poster entitled: Top Ten Signs you are an Unquestioning Christian. I perceive it to be intended as semi-humorous/semi-serious. Along the lines of Jeff Foxworthy’s famous, “You might be a redneck.” A hint of truth amongst the parody.

The Pyromaniacs Blog is responding to each of these. Curiously, they recognize the use of parody (it was from their blogs I saw the Foxworthy angle), yet they decided to address them as literal arguments.

This was all brought to my attention by Stan’s counter of Ten Signs You are an Unquestioning Anti-theist:

10. You cannot recognize the simple, logical, undeniable fact that if there is one, true God, all other gods would be false.

9. You find ultimate value in creatures you are quite sure evolved by chance from a pool of chemicals.

8. You reject any evidence and logic that is contrary to your view because you are a person that only accepts evidence and logic.

7. You make Christian beliefs a matter of ridicule without subjecting other religions or even your own beliefs to the same standards.

6. You are confident that you know more about Christianity than the average "Christian".

5. You are quite sure that science, history, geology, biology, and physics have disproven the existence of God.

4. You have comfort to offer in times of death and suffering even though there is no overarching basis for such comfort.

3. You believe that faith in science is reasonable, but faith in God is believing something when there is no reason to believe it.

2. You are comfortable claiming that life is meaningful when you're convinced that humans are biochemical bags who cease to exist at death.

1. You hold that there is no "Supreme Moral Agent", but affirm that there are moral atrocities that occur and moral values that all of us should have.

I thought of responding to each one, but then I would be as guilty as the Pyromaniacs for taking these literally, when they are given tongue-in-cheek. Yet presumably there is some truth being claimed. And perhaps they are NOT given as a parody, and meant to be firm statements. Can’t tell.

Thoughts?

You’re an atheist because you are ugly

Well. This is a new one on me. I’ve been accused of deconverting because I want to sin, because the devil is tricking me, because I wasn’t a Christian in the first place, etc. This is the first time (that I know) I’ve been accused of becoming an atheist because of my looks!

Detroit has joined the campaign where secular groups hire advertisements on the sides of buses. The Oakland Press wrote an article on it. Three great quotes have come from this article. (The first one was in a comment that has subsequently been removed, but luckily was quoted by another person later.):

Atheists are hilarious. They are just angry virgin nerds who are upset because their mom made them go to church when they were kids. Most atheists grow out of this silly little crusade against mommy and daddy if they are fortunate to touch a girl. But given the fact that there is no such thing as a physically attractive atheist, it is rare to find someone who will put up with one considering their awful personalities

Sorry Kinae, but it's all about sex. As soon as atheists get their v-cards punched they tend to drop the teen angst and stop spouting off about "xtians" and "logic" on the internet. Like I said though, that's pretty rare since as Darwin said, organisms tend to look for mates with desirable traits. Being fat, greasy, smelly acne riddled nerds does not qualify atheists as desirable.

40 million atheists in the USA? That sounds entirely plausible given the high levels of obesity amongst young people and teens in the USA.

Who dares argue against impenetrable logic like that?

Even my kids get it

Need to give a little background. I grew up attending Sunday School, Vacation Bible School, Christian Elementary, etc. Meaning I’ve been well-versed in the Bible [pun intended.] We were often taught lists. The books of the New Testament. The Books of the Old Testament. The 12 Disciples.

And of course…the Ten Commandments. I don’t remember learning the Ten Commandments—in my memory I have always known them. If you ask me what they are, I will rattle them off. I just…know what they are. Hardly think about the reasoning behind their origin.

My two youngest, on the other hand, were not raised in that environment. They know the Ten Commandments exist, and that there are ten…but not what they are. Yesterday they were watching The Prince of Egypt --story of Moses. It starts off, of course, with the Hebrews in slavery and shows scenes of them being beaten, harassed, whipped, and mistreated. As my children love to talk through a movie, their condition was mentioned with comments like, “That was bad, right Dad?” and “Moses is sad because of how his people are being treated.”

Later they had this interesting conversation:

Daughter: When does God give Moses those…things?
Son: What things?
Daughter: Those ten things.
Son: You mean the Ten Commandments?

Daughter: Yes…what are they?
Son: Oh, they’re laws about what we shouldn’t do…like stealing…and killing…
Daughter: And slavery?
Son: Oh yes…and slavery.

How simple. How obvious. They had just watched how bad slavery was for the Hebrews, so if God was going to give a set of rules, surely he would include one against slavery.

The God of the Golden Rule would take the Israelites out of slavery and say, “You didn’t like being slaves, so do unto others what you would have them do to you. Don’t have slaves.”

Right?

Even children get it.

How to Make a Militant Atheist

Julian Baggini (author of A Very Short Introduction to Atheism) defines Militant Atheism to be:

Atheism which is actively hostile to religion I would call militant. To be hostile in this sense requires more than just strong disagreement with religion—it requires something verging on hatred and is characterized by a desire to wipe out all forms of religious beliefs. Militant atheists tend to make one or both of two claims that atheists do not. The first is that religion is demonstrably false or nonsense, and the second is that it is usually or always harmful.

Apparently pointing out the falsity of God-belief within a ritualistic scheme…for an atheist…is somehow…wrong. I am uncertain how one manages to avoid lying if they hold God-belief is incorrect, but must say the opposite; apparently that is one requirement to avoid the label of “militant atheist.”

Secondly, we must be silent as to people flying planes into buildings, or beating your child with a stick or starving a one-year-old to death for not saying “Amen.” We should keep quiet regarding the misogyny, homophobia and intolerance for differing ideas that has historically pervaded religions.

If this is “Militant Atheism”—it would seem the solution is simple: Demonstrate God-based religion is true or show that it is usually beneficial, and there would be no need for militant atheists. *snickers* Good luck with that!

But I don’t want to focus solely on what militant atheism is, nor what it should be, nor whether it shouldn’t be. I wanted to explain why I am…well…I dare say a militant atheist.

There is an oft-told practical joke where an office group picks one particular victim, and for the entire morning, no matter what he says, the people react as if he is being outrageously angry.

Victim: Good Morning!
Prankster1: Easy…calm down, Victim.

Victim shrugs: How’s the coffee?
Prankster2: Hey, don’t yell, simmer down.
Victim: But I’m not yelling.
Prankster2: [backs away] I didn’t mean to get you so upset.

Of course inevitably this becomes self-fulfilling when the Victim really does become angry because no one believes he is not angry, yet he keeps being told he is angry.

Haven’t we entered the same routine?

Christian: Why did you become an atheist?
Me: Because the evidence fails to persuade God exists.
Christian: Nope—because you want to sin.

Me: No—really! I looked at this argument and those proofs and I am not convinced.
Christian: Nope. Sinner.
Me: O.K., then—what sin is it you are claiming I am doing?

Christian: Oh, I don’t know THAT. It must be some secret sin.

Like the victim in our office prank, I am baffled by the opposite reaction to what I am saying. Over and over we hear the same tired canards:

“Evolution is just a theory.”
“Darwin recanted on his death bed.”
“Somebody somewhere once said Hittites didn’t exist, and it turns out they did, so we can’t trust archeology when it fails to support what I want to hear.”
“The fool says there is no God.”

And for every Christian we patiently explain the problem, the next day a new Christian joins in and says, “It must be true ‘cause the Disciples wouldn’t die for a lie.” And we go through it all over again. Only to hear Steven Baldwin say, “If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?”

At some point we must look at the whole system and speak out. Look, if a local school was failing the vast majority of students, we would immediately think, “There is a problem here. Something must be wrong; this situation needs to be addressed.” Yet it is as if those questioning militant atheism proclaim, “Hey! Here is a student who obtained all A’s and here is a student who received a B or two. You cannot incriminate the entire system when we have these few standouts.”

Yes…Yes, I can. The vast majority of Christians I associate with do not study opposing views. They hardly study their own beyond what they learn in Sunday School. They don’t read books on evolution. They don’t read books on Textual Criticism. They don’t read cosmology, archeology, botany, geology… they read Bibles, Bible study guides and books giving advice based on the Bible.

And they sure haven’t read Baggini’s Short Introduction to Atheism.

Is the appropriate approach to be silent in the hopes of an anomalous Christian who has studied evolution? Or should I point out the errors? See, I may appear militant against the vast majority of Christians I interact with, because I respond to the errors given by this majority!

Further, I also see a great deal of harm within religions. When I point out the Pat Robertson’s—I am told, “He doesn’t speak for my belief.” I cringe at tales of cover-ups regarding Priest and Pastor indiscretions. “They aren’t true Christians.” I am horrified by the practice of Sharia Law in many countries. By the infighting between Christians and Hindus and Muslims in India.

Yet I don’t have to listen to the evening news to see the offenses of religions. I watched the back-biting and in-fighting growing up. I saw the use of belief as a weapon to diminish others. Watched terrible behavior excused as “wrestling with sinful nature” if the person is part of the accepted crowd, yet other people demonized for less because they were not.

I’ve watched families, friends and relationships torn apart over religious differences. Where each justifies and rationalizes ostracizing the other. Where the poor are only helped upon receiving the appropriate recriminations. Where the sinner must cry and beg and demonstrate how truly terrible they are to make the Christian feel self-righteous before handing out pittance charity.

If churches are so beneficial—why is it the LAST place people want to go for assistance?

Shouldn’t we be speaking out against such things? We should be addressing the wrongs committed in the name of religion. We must point out the errors in knowledge, the lack of study in those professing to hold truth in the form of a God.

And we are told by many theists, “Oh…that isn’t MY church. That isn’t MY religion. Those aren’t true Christians.” Yet this is exactly the problem. Because they have no means to explain who IS a true Christian, or method to verify which is the correct God, all they can do is cluck their tongue and say, “Tsk, tsk.” They think it’s wrong…sure…but their God is silent as what to do. They don’t want to say they hate it—that language seems so strong in the face of God’s stillness in action.

Blame the atheist for daring to say, “I dislike that. I dislike that a lot! In fact—I hate it.”

I am wrong for being “on the verge of hatred” for these actions? Really? Well…if that makes me a militant atheist, I proudly wear the label.

Women at Empty Tomb

We often hear the criteria of “embarrassment” being utilized when attempting to determine a claim’s historicity. The idea being, if the statement was not general knowledge and embarrassing to the person writing, it is more likely to be historical.

For example, if I wrote an autobiography and admitted cheating during law school, this would have a greater probability of being historical as it is embarrassing and not general knowledge. Obviously what is embarrassing to one person may not be to another. My admitting to an affair would fulfill this criterion, whereas an NBA player’s claim may not. My admitting to voting for Obama may not; if Rush Limbaugh admitted to doing so—it is very likely to be true.

It must be a claim against my self-interest. My profession of you having an affair would not be embarrassing at all. Especially if I did not care for you.

Additionally, a person may be forced to admit something not true, simply because it is already generally assumed or stated, and to disclaim it takes more effort than embracing it. Therefore, we need three criteria for embarrassment:

1) Stated by the person whose self-interest would be harmed;
2) Derogatory or disfavorable to that person or their interests;
3) Not previously made generally known.

We often see Christian scholars utilize this method when defending historicity within the Gospel accounts. I want to focus on one such claim—the women at the empty tomb.

The earliest account we have is Mark 16:1-8:

Now when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, that they might come and anoint Him. Very early in the morning, on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen. And they said among themselves, "Who will roll away the stone from the door of the tomb for us?"

But when they looked up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away--for it was very large. And entering the tomb, they saw a young man clothed in a long white robe sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed. But he said to them, "Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He is risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid Him. But go, tell His disciples--and Peter--that He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him, as He said to you."

So they went out quickly and fled from the tomb, for they trembled and were amazed. And they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

I will let William Lane Craig explain why this fits the embarrassment criterion:

Given the low status of women in Jewish society and their lack of qualification to serve as legal witnesses, the most plausible explanation, in light of the gospels' conviction that the disciples were in Jerusalem over the weekend, why women and not the male disciples were made discoverers of the empty tomb is that the women were in fact the ones who made this discovery. This conclusion is confirmed by the fact that there is no reason why the later Christian church should wish to humiliate its leaders by having them hiding in cowardice in Jerusalem, while the women boldly carry out their last devotions to Jesus' body, unless this were in fact the truth.

In a debate, one might succinctly respond, “Mark enthusiastically embraced role reversals. He had the foreigners Pilate and the Centurion unwittingly recognize who Jesus really was; whereas his own people—the Jews—did not. Mark wrote of Jewish Religious leaders accusing Jesus of being the Messiah—and He was!—whereas his disciples were the ones betraying him to the executioner! Mark would like nothing better than have the lowest in the Jewish society play the greatest honor of discovering the empty tomb.”

There is much more to unpack, but when pressed for time, this concisely states the response.

The first question is whether this would be against the author’s self-interest. This is written by the Gospel of Mark’s author. (I will call him Mark for convenience.) The only possible candidate for an older record is 1 Corinthians 15, and that makes no mention of a tomb, let alone its whereabouts or discovery. This is our first record of occurrence.

You may hear claims there was a pre-Markan source, or this was consistent with oral tradition—but without those sources, we must work with what we have. [We often hear claims the persons writing these accounts would dare not make untruths, because they would be “checked out” by readers, looking to confirm what was said. Nonsense. In 2010, we have amazing resources to check out claims, yet we still receive mass e-mails about dead people removing religious broadcasting and people are too lazy to check out the truth for themselves. Indeed, the only thing access and technology has done is speed myth and legends spreading! Additionally in Galatians 1:6 (50 CE) Paul is concerned about how quickly the people were turning away to “another gospel.” Apparently they were NOT verifying Paul’s statements or fact-checking what was said.]

According to Papias (circa 130 CE), Mark was Peter’s companion, and wrote down what he remembered Peter had said. Unfortunately, Papias does not tell provide a source for this claim, and appears to be defending Mark against attacks as to its authenticity. Scholars have retreated to claiming a Peterine influence at best, rather than Peter being the sole source of the Gospel.

Which raises the interesting issue—was Mark writing FOR Peter, or AGAINST Peter? Many Christians envision an early church that was united in thought, deed and doctrine throughout the First Century. Perhaps a minor difference between immature and mature Christians or how to integrate Jewish practice with gentiles joining this new faction.

However, Paul states in 1 Corinthians1:11-12, less than 20 years after Jesus’ death, “For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe's household, that there are contentions among you. Now I say this, that each of you says, ‘I am of Paul,’ or ‘I am of Apollos,’ or ‘I am of Cephas,’ or ‘I am of Christ.’” Paul is concerned about growing factions, following individuals—this is not the description of a united church body!

In fact, the New Testament is replete with edicts against those causing divisions. See Rom. 16:17, 1 Cor. 11:18, Jude 19. We must address whether Mark was within a division against Peter.

Mark indicates Jesus changing Simon’s name to Simon Peter or Simon Petras--meaning “rock.” Mark 3: 16. Mark’s first recorded parable recounts is the famous parable of the sower—who throws seed in four spots—the wayside, the stony ground, among thorns, and on good ground. Mark 4:1-9. Jesus later explains (with a note of exasperation towards the disciples) these are descriptions of people who receive the word. 4:13-20.

Follow the description of the seed on stony ground: “Immediately it sprang up, because it had no depth of earth. But when the sun was up, it scorched and because it had no root, it withered away.” (4:5-6). Jesus explains these people, “These likewise are the ones sown on stony ground who, when they hear the word, immediately receive it with gladness; and they have no root in themselves, and so endure only for a time. Afterward, when tribulation or persecution arises for the word's sake, immediately they stumble.” (4:16-17)

This is an apt description of Peter! At the Last Supper, Peter says, “Even if all stumble, I will not.” (14:29) Of course we know Peter ends up denying Jesus once the heat is on, and the Gospel of Mark leaves Peter with a third denial and weeping. (14:72)

Mark writes that Peter correctly identifies Jesus as the Messiah (8:29) yet almost immediately, Jesus rebukes Peter, calling him the equivalent of Satan. (8:32). At the transfiguration, Peter is described as afraid and makes a suggestion Jesus politely ignores. (9:5-6) Jesus asks Peter, James and John to be with Him when he prays in the Garden before His crucifixion, and the three fall asleep. Who does Mark indicate Jesus rebukes for it? Peter (14:37)

Given the choice between whether this is a polemic for or against Peter, a straight-forward reading would be it does not paint a favorable picture of Peter. Even Christians recognize how badly the disciples are portrayed and fashion defenses to explain it.

If we are looking for the simplest explanation, here is the situation:

1) There were factions within the church prior to Mark being written.
2) Mark displays characteristics indicating other influences besides Peter.
3) The disciples—especially Peter—are portrayed extremely poorly

The expedient conclusion is that this is written AGAINST Peter—not in support of Peter. Therefore having someone other than the disciples discover the empty tomb supports the theme of writing against the disciples. It fails the first requirement in that Mark is not supporting the Disciples’ self-interest.

But we can’t stop there. Even assuming the Gospel is written against one Christian faction (the Peterine group), the question can still be raised, “If Mark was making up the tomb discovery, then he would have men make the discovery to bolster the story, rather than use women who were of lower social caste and not used as legal witnesses.” Rather than use the disciples, Mark would have utilized other men.

There is a bit of bait-and-switch happening here. Notice the first clause—the initial premise, “IF Mark was making up the tomb discovery…” The problem I often see, when this is raised, is that the Christian first addresses it as if Mark was making up the story, but then uses Mark as historical fact. No, no, no—if we are going under the presumption Mark is making it up, we must address it as if Mark was making it up!

In other words, the Christian claims, “Why would Mark make up women?” after claiming Pilate did this, and Joseph of Arimathea did that, and the Jewish leaders did this…and so on. The better question is where did history stop and myth come in? If we are looking at Mark making up the women—where else can we look to see if Mark made up part of the story?

Let’s look at an example. Mark records a person, Joseph of Arimathea—a Sanhedrin member—requesting the body of Jesus. Joseph then performs burial rites and places Jesus in a tomb. (Mark 15:43-46)

[A minor excursion here is helpful to demonstrate how myth development is demonstrated in the gospels. In Mark, Joseph is a council member, “waiting for the Kingdom of God” and puts Jesus in a tomb. Matthew removes Joseph’s status as a Sanhedrin member, refers to him as a rich man, but now Joseph has become a disciple of Jesus, and Jesus is laid in Joseph’s personal tomb. (Matthew 27:57-60) Luke reinstates Joseph as a council member, adds he was a “good and just man” as well as indicated Joseph dissented from the conviction of Jesus. Luke states the tomb had never been used. (Luke 23:50-53) John also agrees the tomb has never been used, agrees with Matthew (against Mark and Luke) that Joseph was a disciple of Jesus, and adds Nicodemus as a co-conspirator with Joseph. (John 19:38-41) By the Gospel of Peter Joseph was both a disciple of Jesus and a friend of Pilate. Peter indicates it was Joseph’s tomb, and it was in a Garden named after Joseph! Celtic myth eventually claimed Joseph held the Holy Grail when it collected Jesus’ blood.]

Curiously, Joseph of Arimathea appears for this one part at the end of Act III, and then disappears from the scene. We haven’t heard of him before; we hear nothing of him after. Even when the early church interacts with the council, we hear nothing about Joseph of Arimathea. (Acts 5:34)

Mark also indicates that after Sabbath, women came to the tomb to anoint Jesus with spices. Mary, the mother of James, Mary Magdalene and Salome. (Mark 16:1) Although this was normally done at the burial (John’s Gospel does included it), it is possible to be done again. Note, like Joseph, the women have appeared for the first time by name at the crucifixion (Mark 15:40, 47)

What is more important are the names. In first century Palestine, burials and tombs were family matters. A person would be buried in a family tomb; the family was expected to perform the burial rites. Mark is writing a story of abandonment. Christ has already predicted all will abandon him. (Mark 14:27) Who would be expected to normally bury Jesus? His father, Joseph, and his mother, Mary.

Mark is deliberately emphasizing Jesus’ own family abandoning him in the end. In case we are too thick to get it, he introduces “Joseph of Arimathea” to play the part of Jesus’ father Joseph, and two Mary’s to play the part of Mary, Jesus’ mother. Not convinced? What are the chances Joseph, Jesus’ dad, is unavailable and the name of the person who is available also happens to be named Joseph?

Or that Mary, Jesus’ mother, is not available, and another Mary prepares to perform the rite. A happy coincidence? How far will that coincidence stretch? Mary, the mother of Jesus, has sons named James and Joses. (Mark 6:3) This Mary also has sons named James and Joses. (Mark 15:40) Could Mark make it any more obvious? Like Joseph of Arimathea, Mary(s) appear, act their part and disappear.

Not coincidentally, failing to obey Jesus’ last command to inform the Disciples (Mark 16:7-8), making the abandonment of Jesus complete by all persons.

This is a strong example Mark’s author was deliberately modifying facts…making things up…to make a point. Mark loves to use the unexpected—role reversal. We see this theme replete through Mark.

What better example of this, then the statement, “The first shall be last and the last shall be first”? (Mark 10:31) Again, in case we miss the point, Mark tells the tale regarding the sons of Zebedee desiring a place of honor, and Jesus saying they must be servants first. (Mark 10:37-44) Or the disciples turning away children (considered extremely low status in first century Palestine), and Jesus saying, “No—the children get to see me.” (Mark 10:13-16)

The centurion—a foreigner, not a God-fearing man—is the person who declares Jesus the son of God. (Mark 15:39.) (For even a deeper look at the irony here, it is likely the Centurion was saying this mockingly: “This was the son of God…and I’m the queen of Spain!” Yet he was actually correct. Another level of role reversal—saying the right thing, thinking he was wrong. If you believer I am taking this too far, remember the soldiers clothing Jesus with a purple robe and giving him a crown of thorns. (Mark 15:17) Even Christians agree an ironic statement was being made there.)

The accusation against him from the Romans was that he was “King of the Judeans.” (Mark 15:26) A sign meant to be mocking, but again turns out to be true. Jesus tells his followers to “take up their cross and follow me” (Mark 8:34; 10:31) yet it is a non-follower—Simon of Cyrene—who is compelled to carry the cross. (Mark 15:21) The named “Simon” playing the role of “Simon Peter” is another coincidence…or is it?

Finally, we should consider how Mark treats females. The person receiving the highest praise within Mark (in fact the only person to receive solely praise) is a woman—the woman who anoints Jesus at Bethany. Mark 14:3-9. (Again, note the ironic role reversal that Jesus indicates she will always be remembered, yet her name is not given.)

Mark treats favorably the woman who touches Jesus to heal her blood problem (Mark 5:25-34) and the Greek woman requesting healing for her daughter (Mark 7:25-30)

So this is what we have:

1) An author who enjoys irony and role reversal,
2) An author who treats women favorably,
3) An author manipulating names to make a point, (Joseph/Joseph. Mary/Mary)
4) An author intending to make a specific point. (Complete abandonment.)

Why wouldn’t Mark use females to discover the empty tomb? It makes sense in light of the themes running through this gospel.

The Christian scholars claiming differently are using a modern thought process (“If I were making up the claim, I would do it this way…”) without looking at it in the Gospel writer’s framework.

As Matthew and Luke utilized Mark for their stories regarding women encountering the empty tomb, these are not independent statements and need not be addressed once Mark’s position is clarified. John appears to incorporate Mary Magdalene being at the tomb, perhaps through oral transmission of the story initiated in Mark, but differs greatly on the details.

When Mark is reviewed as 21st Century courtroom testimony, we might wonder why, if he was making it up, he would use woman at the empty tomb. When Mark is reviewed within its own writing, in its own time, we wonder why he would use anyone else.

It is your fault; not God's

Hollywood fails to adequately demonstrate the tension that can exist between a lawyer and a client. Only certain personalities have the propensity and wherewithal to pursue litigation. And if they are willing to sue another person; they are certainly willing to sue me if I screw up their case.

Additionally, the client is firmly convinced regarding the absolute justice of their position, and no judge or jury would ever rule against them. If it does occur, the client looks for a reason why-- the lawyer can be an easy target. They think, “Surely the only way the case was lost was by deliberate legal malfeasance!”

This is not something they teach you in law school. You learn it by trial-and-error. You learn it by the client storming in your office, breathing threats and refusing to pay their bill. Each lawyer eventually adapts a means throughout the litigation to reduce this client tension as much as possible.

One lawyer who I worked with on a few cases (friend of the firm) had an approach that was…to say the least…unique. The first time I saw it, I was shocked. Our respective clients were being sued--he represented one defendant; I represented the other. Once his client completed his testimony, he asked his lawyer (as is common), “So how did I do?”

This lawyer let loose a string of obscenities. “That was the WORST testimony I have ever seen. The judge was ready to toss you out of the courtroom. I couldn’t believe you answered those questions that way; didn’t you see me shaking my head? Didn’t you see the look on my face?

“I only hope I can salvage something out of this train wreck you delivered me. Maybe we can hope the judge will give you sympathy for being so stupid.”

Now the client is shaking in his shoes. He’s never testified before; he doesn’t sit through courts day after day. He figures he completely destroyed his own case. I was sitting there thinking, “His testimony wasn’t that bad. Not perfect; only professional witnesses give perfect testimony. It wasn’t the harpooning this lawyer is playing it to be.”

But I understood why this lawyer was doing it. See, if you tell a client their testimony was fantastic and great and wonderful, and eventually lose the case…well…it can’t be the client’s fault, right? They were told by a professional litigator that their testimony was the greatest thing since the invention of the wheel, true? So they start to look for something else being the fault, which can often be the lawyer.

Further, if you win the case, it makes the lawyer look like a hero. They salvaged the wreck handed to them by the client and saved the day. The client ends up thanking the lawyer profusely for rescuing the case.

It makes a win-win for the lawyer. Lose—blame the client. Win—take the credit. The second time I saw this lawyer do the same thing, I was not surprised.

This is symmetrically analogous to how many Christians treat their God and non-believers. It is the non-believer’s fault for not being persuaded there is a God. We’re told we have a bias—our fault. We’re informed we want to sin—our fault. We’re told we ignore evidence, or make it too hard for the theist, or don’t have the right faith—our fault.

We’re told we read the wrong books, or the right books but the wrong way—our fault. Yes, this is mostly done to bolster the prejudices of similarly situated believers. To allow one believer to gloat with his/her fellow believer about how wonderful they are as compared to the non-believer. Yet a minor part is done to guilt the non-believer. Make them think they are doing something “wrong.” To make them look for salvation for screwing this up. Look for help through the believer.

Oh, the Christian may say, “I only want them to find God;” nevertheless, by repeating it directly to the non-theist they hope they get to be a tiny portion of saving the non-theist’s day. A tool obtaining credit for notching up another for Jesus.

Yet think about it…why does a God need the Christian’s help? Why is it the only proofs of God are fallacious arguments based upon flimsy propositions? In fact, if God was readily evident, why do we need all these proofs; wouldn’t one be sufficient? Why must the theist build their case on assumption over assumption?

We agree with the theist a God could easily demonstrate itself. It doesn’t need humans, or subtitles of writings, or vague prophecies twisted into supposed fulfillments. Appear to people and talk with them. Demonstrate a miracle. Performing psychic mind tricks. Win a million dollars through Randi’s challenge. One could think of a myriad ways in which this could be done.

Christians recognize this. They must, because they fashion excuses for why God isn’t doing it. One excuse is that not knowing another person is an integral part of a relationship. Another claims it is Pride, rebellion and it wouldn’t make a difference anyway. There is always the old stand-by: “It would violate our freewill.”

While we could tear into the speculative unsubstantiated nature of these defenses, the reason I bring them up is to point out even the Christian sees this as a problem. They are busy creating conflicting resolutions—they sure must see it as a problem!

So why am I being yelled at? Why am I being told it is my fault when we both see the elephant in the room—that any such God could easily demonstrate itself. Doesn’t God shoulder some of the responsibility?

The more I am yelled at (figuratively speaking, of course), the more I think about that lawyer. Is the Christian covering up for their God-concept’s inadequacies? See, it is much the same win-win situation from the Christian’s standpoint. If I am not convinced—it was my fault; if I am, it is to the believer’s credit…er….*cough, cough*….”God’s credit.”

What method do we use to make determinations about God?

We have been having a discussion with Ten Minas Ministries regarding methodologies, specifically scientific method. It appears to boil down to this: If the theist agrees the scientific method is not able to make supernatural determinations—what method does the theist propose to use instead?

Ten Minas Ministries responded with a comment that needs some unpacking:

I propose that we test a theory. I observed in the past that when Mr. X was exposed to phenomenon A, he responded with reaction 1. So I want to perform an experiment using the scientific method. I expose Mr. X to phenomenon A again, testing to see if yet again he will respond with reaction 1. But low and behold, this time he responds with reaction 2. When I do the experiment again I observe reaction 3.

The scientific method cannot test intelligent agents because an intelligent agent can choose to react differently. That is why the scientific method is ill equipped to test claims of supernatural intelligence like the Christian God. That is why there are other disciplines like sociology, anthropology, psychology, etc. It isn't a cop out. It is a common sense limitation of the scientific method. It was never intended to measure intelligent reactions.

Not a single one of you relies upon the scientific method for every bit of knowledge in your life. Contrary to what the Barefoot Bum said, the scientific method is not simply "the method of drawing conclusions from evidence." Yes, it is one method of drawing conclusions from evidence, but so is philosophy. So is sociology. So is historiography. The scientific method employs experimentation. Therefore, if the question you are investigating is not subject to experimentation the scientific method is useless.

You do not conduct an experiment to decide whether or not it is probable that you will be struck by a car before you cross the street. Yet you certainly "know" that if you step into oncoming traffic you will end up in the hospital or in the grave.

Dagoods says the theist does not propose a method. Yet I just proposed an alternative method in our discussion on my blog. I specifically mentioned utilizing the methodology of philosophy, which involves applying inductive or deductive reasoning to agreed premises.

Sometimes the theist feels like we are banging our heads against the wall. We are told we are not providing a methodology, so we provide a methodology only to hear the atheist repeat the same accusation. We are told that we do not provide any reasons for inserting God but simply arbitrarily assign a "God of the gaps." So we provide our reasons only to have the same accusation repeated over again. We see the atheist repeatedly refusing to accept any methodology other than the scientific method all the while refusing to admit that for the vast majority of knowledge they have arrived at in their lives they did not use the scientific method. Then if we get frustrated by the virtual ignoring of everything we say, the atheist declares triumph by claiming that the theist has no answer for their arguments.

Repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it true. There is little else I can say to respond to your points other than to say that theists have proposed alternative methodologies over and over again. Ignoring them does not make this any less true. The theist repeatedly provides reasons why they fill these gaps with God. Again, ignoring these reasons does not make your argument true.

If we are proposing an “alternate” to the scientific method; I think it important to first know what we mean by “scientific method.” How would you know you took an “alternate route” if you didn’t know what the original route was?

The Barefoot Bum recognized this issue and specifically asked, “What do you think scientists mean by “the scientific method.”?

Wikipedia defines it as: “To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses .“ or “A method of discovering knowledge about the natural world based in making falsifiable predictions (hypotheses), testing them empirically, and developing peer-reviewed theories that best explain the known data. “

Another ‘net resource states, “A process that is the basis for scientific inquiry. The scientific method follows a series of steps: (1) identify a problem you would like to solve, (2) formulate a hypothesis, (3) test the hypothesis, (4) collect and analyze the data, (5) make conclusions.“ Merriam-Webster defines it as, “principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses “ Ten Minas Ministries gave similar definitions here.

We see a common theme running through these descriptions: Testable hypothesis, data observed (at times through experimentation,) and a theory best explaining the known data. It should be noted this is an ongoing process in that the resulting theory becomes the new hypothesis, and new data may require an additional revision (or even complete elimination) of the new hypothesis.

We quickly realize why the scientific method is not utilized by the theist, as by definition supernatural is outside the natural realm, and is therefore untestable, unobservable, and unverifiable by the only means at our disposal—the natural world.

Ten Minas Ministries appears to propose two solutions to the theists’ problems in this regard:

1) Scientific method is insufficient to make determinations when intelligent agents are involved; and

2) Philosophy is an alternative method;

Dealing with the first he uses the example of phenomenon acting on an individual, who may exhibit different reactions. Because of these different reactions, Ten Minas Ministries claims scientific method is unusable. This is not true at all. In fact we use the varying reactions to make statistical determinations, through the scientific method.

Take the phenomenon of my cutting off another car in traffic. Now look at a number of proposed reactions from the driver I cut off:

1. She does nothing.
2. She honks her horn.
3. She gives me the finger.
4. She strikes my car with her own.
5. She gives me a three-week paid vacation to Tahiti.
6. She develops pancreatic cancer.
7. Her car turns into a DeLorean Time machine.
8. She obtains the ability to shoot laser beams from her eyes.

Every single person, in reading this list, makes an assessment as to each reaction’s viability. Why do we immediately eliminate DeLorean’s and laser beams? Because our own observations, other observations we read, any test we perform all results in no DeLorean’s and no laser beams. We may not consciously be using the scientific method—but that is exactly how you immediately eliminate those possibilities.

We can go further. By observing and collecting data, even though horn-honking, finger-giving and car smashing are possibilities, we can make statistical determinations as to the likelihood of each. Yes, an individual CAN decide to smash my car, but my experience, one could say my numerous experiments in this field, indicate this possibility to be so low, I decide to do it anyway.

Curiously, Ten Minas Ministries uses the example of stepping into oncoming traffic, and how we do not experiment this, yet we know we will be seriously injured if we do so. I am not certain what he means that this hasn’t been experimented. We may not have personally done so, but we read and see pictures and video over and over and over demonstrating in the fight between pedestrian and automobile—automobile wins. Every time. I don’t have to personally experiment every claim—I can use the experiments of others.

I am seeing a confusion over the term “experiment”—it is being narrowly defined to include replication of the exact theory proposed. In other words, to experiment whether I will be injured if I walk in front of a speeding car, I must personally do so, rather than view the experiments of others.

I would disagree the scientific method is so narrowly defined to a certain person in a certain situation MUST obtain a certain result, only through experimenting that exact situation. If this is what Ten Minas Ministries is proposing, we are certainly coming at it from two very different foundations.

Continuing in my thread, he uses a few examples that further demonstrate this possible confusion. For example he indicates historical determination is outside scientific method, stating, “We cannot conduct an experiment to determine whether or not Nero truly was emperor of Rome...” I am uncertain what he means by “experimentation.”

Using the scientific method, we look first at the hypothesis: “Nero was Emperor.” We look at the data—historical books, coins, statutes, opposing opinions, world results, etc. We can “experiment” (loosely) by comparing other leaders and other results and see the same consistent results. Other leaders have coins. Other leaders have statutes. Etc. And again, even under this method, new data could cause a change in hypothesis.

Look at this another way. We cannot replicate the Big Bang. Does this mean we are not using the scientific method to determine its existence, because we cannot “experiment” by creating another Big Bang? We cannot experiment with a non-heliocentric solar system by making another solar system. We cannot experiment with making stars go super-nova—does this render such determinations outside scientific method?

Vinny made a similar observation when it comes to history.

I was surprised Ten Minas Ministries differentiated certain fields as being outside scientific method, such as psychology. Actually, there is experimentation and data observation—any person familiar with such things as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) or the whole battery of neuropsychological testing understands the use of scientific method in this field. Granted, it is not as precise or studied as other fields such as chemistry—but that does not remove it entirely from scientific method. Sociology can use experimentation.

There is debate whether Anthropology uses scientific method. Notice though, in that debate is the proposed alternative method is defined and addressed.

What is the proposed alternative method given here? “Philosophy.” Philosophy is the search for knowledge. It may inspect how one goes about that search, or what one utilizes. I am uncertain, though, what is meant by “Philosophy” as a method. I know you may feel as if you are beating your head against a wall, but I am truly stumped by what you mean as “philosophy” as an alternative method.

We seem to be in agreement in definition and understanding regarding “scientific method.” Both your definition and the others I found lay out certain steps that appear pretty clear.

What “steps” are proposed in the method of “philosophy”? It’s like saying, “we use the method of communication” which is really no method at all, merely the only way we can relate an idea to another human. What is the method of “philosophy”—can you describe it in alternative terms to scientific method?

Ten Minas Ministries, I agree whole-heartedly none of us use the scientific method for every bit of information in our lives. We are influenced by culture, upbringing, unique situations, etc.

This is exactly the point of this whole exercise! We recognize our own tendency to, even unknowingly, insert our own bias in determining. We want--we really, really want--that person to be a wonderful spouse, so we overlook and rationalize away the fact he is a convicted wife-beating deadbeat. “He’s changed.” We ignore the statistical evidence against it.

This is why I harp on method. To remove the very problem you identify. If we stick with the method, we can both recognize such bias and remove them from our determination.

I may want the canonical gospels to be historically accurate. I may really, really want it. In recognizing that desire, I realize the bias will impact my study. They may still be historical; they may not. I look for a way to root out such bias by creating a consistent method whereby the possible outcomes are: historical, partly historical, not at all historical or unknown. Only by sticking with the method can I hope to remove my bias—even if (and ESPECIALLY if) the results are not my desire.

I know you feel as if you are beating your head on a wall, but I truly do not see what method you are proposing, in lieu of scientific method. What steps are you saying we take in a “philosophical” method?

What is the Problem with ‘”God of the Gaps?”

Over at Ten Minas Ministries I had a discussion regarding the old complaint of naturalistic bias when skeptics look for solutions. I mentioned the historical incidents where supernatural explanations were given (lightning, season change, disease transmission) as no natural explanation was known at the time, only to have later discovery determine there were natural, non-supernatural explanations.

This generated a response of how theism is not “God-of-the-Gaps” and how naturalism is limiting itself by not looking at all solutions, etc., etc., etc.

It is interesting how the modern theistic apologist disdains “God-of-the-Gaps;” holding their nose with one hand, and holding the argument as far away from them as possible in the other. But in the very next breath, tells us if we have a “gap” in our knowledge, we should consider the possibility of God as a resolution to that gap.

Is it just me, or is that incongruous?

Look, we all draw from a limited number of possible solutions, based upon past study and experience. If I had a fender-bender this morning, and was looking for a solution, I would look first to certain possibilities. I would not consult my astrological chart or horoscope to see its input. I would not consider it a government plot to put location devices on my car at the repair shop. I would not consider it karma for having too rich a dinner the night before.

Why?

Isn’t the answer simple?

Because I am not persuaded by astrology. I am not convinced there is a government conspiracy. I do not believe in karma. I don’t look for solutions in things I am not persuaded exist. It seems perfectly understandable why a person who did believe in astrology would look to their horoscope later, searching for possible meaning regarding a traffic accident. It is one tool in their toolbox of solutions.

Likewise theists believe in a God. Many brands of Christianity believe in a God who is extremely and actively involved in worldly affairs. We know this because they pray to this God to provide healing, and safety (from such accidents) and jobs and family and love and….you get the point. We know this because they thank this God for getting the healing, the safety, the jobs, the family…

“God” is a tool in their toolbox of solutions. One only need a few Christian facebook friends who update their status to see just how much they think this God is part of the world. So why wouldn’t they employ a God-of-the-gaps?

Think about it—the Christian believes in this awesome creator, power, infinite, unique being that makes a universe with a blink of a thought. We don’t have a solution to how non-life developed into life. It seems perfectly reasonable for the theist to reach in their toolbox and find a ready-made tool to solve the immediate problem—God. (And yes, this sets the problem back one step, leaving us with other issues. But to a theist, this solves this issue at the moment.)

Why do bad things happen? To a Christian, they can readily use the tool—“God.” To an astrologist—stars out of sync. To a scientologist—bad thoughts. Each use means they believe exist.

What baffles me is when Christians do not understand why I fail to use such a tool for a solution. Hello….”atheist?” In order for me to look for a supernatural explanation, I must first be convinced there IS a supernatural! Imagine a co-worker telling me, “Oh, I know why you had a car accident—I looked at your horoscope.” Why is that not convincing to me? Why is that not convincing to the Christian? Because neither of us believe astrology!

Christians claim we are limiting our options by not looking for supernatural resolutions. Er…so what? Don’t we all do that? Don’t we all limit our options by removing solutions we do not think exist or think so unlikely as to not be worthy of consideration?

With me, many Christians limit their options by removing homeopathy from their toolbox. They go to an M.D. with me. They remove vaccine-deniers. They remove alien interventions and abductions. They remove ESP, new age candles, horoscopes, feng shui, bad karma, dowsing, magnetic bracelets, bag bomb, and hosts of other crazy possibilities from their solutions.

For the same reasons I remove the tool labeled “God.” Now the Christian gets excited: “Wait a minute—you are limiting possibilities.” Yep.

Why should this be a surprise? Remember—The Christian doesn’t like God-of-the-Gaps. The Christian doesn’t like inserting “supernatural” when a natural solution is not currently known. If they find such a solution repulsive…who am I to argue with ‘em?

DagoodS v The Barefoot Bum

I recently wrote a blog entry discussing oppositional positions in partisan situations. The Barefoot Bum disagreed with me in the comments, as well as his own blog entry here and an additional note on an example here.

There are many points I agree with The Barefoot Bum, some I still do not. I agree we cannot object to an oppositional approach within an adversarial or partisan system—indeed, he is quite correct that is the inherent reason the system is adversarial. It is necessary within the definition.

My point was not that we should “all just get along” and eliminate partisan politics—rather, the point was to avoid maintaining partisan acrimony, solely to maintain an adversarial position. Simply to be able to say, “We are not ‘them.’”

I have written and re-written a response numerous times, and it never quite seems to say the thoughts pounding in my head. Perhaps, in the end, I see this partisanship adopted too readily. Rather than rise above mindless disagreement, and learn why it is we object to the other side’s position, or learn why we support our own, I see too many people concede their arguments to “I disagree because the other side says it.”

All I know is: If you’re for it; I’m against it

We have become a society so blinded by our partisanship; we are slowly coming to a standstill. We spend all our energy preventing our perceived enemies from progressing that we no longer get anything done but debate.

We live in an “us vs. them” world—this isn’t a surprise to anyone. Nor should it be. The survival of one’s species depends on the ability to determine what is “friend” and what is “foe.” We wouldn’t be here if we couldn’t tell the difference between the “us” of friendly animals and the “them” of not friendly animals and sharks. Especially sharks.

Our social make-up results in the desire to associate with similarly situated people. Parents with small children gravitate to having friends who are parents with small children. The clubbing crowd hangs out with other clubbers. And, of course, Republicans with Republicans, Protestants with Protestants, etc.

By virtue of this associate, we create the “us vs. them” scenario. We team up on atheist blogroll to be an “us” of atheists as compared to the “them” of non-atheists. Baptists join Baptists churches to be the Baptist “us” instead of joining the Methodist “them.” There is nothing wrong with this; it is naturally part of who we are as humans. No matter who you are reading this blog, you fall into both an “us” or a “them” category as compared to others reading this blog.

You may be an “us” right hand dominant as compared to a “them” left hand dominant. Or vice versa. (Or some smart aleck who is ambidextrous who is a “them” to all of us who are not.)

I notice a common curious attribute developing. We view the comparative beliefs on a scale. As if everything bad that happens to “us” weighs us down, tipping the scale up for the “thems.” And, alternatively, anything bad happening to “them” tips the scale in our favor.

Therefore, we support anything bad for “them.” Because it must be beneficial for us, right? And we must oppose anything beneficial for “them.” Because that must be harmful for us, right? And anything those “them” want, must be something they think is beneficial—oppose it! If those “them” don’t want it—support it! It must be beneficial for us.

We spend our time watching the other side, countering their every move. Not because we have a moral mandate, or justified reason; but because we think if they want it/don’t want it—we must demand the opposite. To support “us.”

Slacktivist wrote a great blog entry regarding health care reform. His point, to summarize, was that taxes are actually down, and health care costs are up. Yet your average tea-bagger is screaming to high heaven how terrible their “them” is—how awful Pres. Obama is to America. Yet if you asked these simple questions:

“Do you want taxes lower?”
Tea-bagger: “Yes.”

“Do you want health costs to increase?”
Tea-bagger: “No.”

They would discover they actually support the proposed solution under the current Administration! (I know that is overly simplistic, but on these two points it is bottom line correct.)

See, they don’t think. All they know is their leadership, in the form of media personalities, is whipping them into a frenzy of how the Democrats want to do….something. How the President proposes…something. Because the Democrats and the President is a “them”—they must oppose it! Not for what it is; not for a certain ideology. But because the other side wants it.

I read Sarah Palin’s facebook page. She posts a note, and 1000’s of people file responses. Most are what you would expect. I often read a comment like this, “Boy, Sarah, you sure made the media angry. That shows how right we must be.”

Do you get it? Because the media (“them”) was unhappy, it validates the Palin crowd (“us) position. If the “them” was happy, the “us” must be doing something wrong! Likewise, if the “them” is unhappy, the “us” must be doing something right! We validate our beliefs on how unhappy the other side is!

Using the same logic, a murderer must be doing something right, because their victim is unhappy!

I see this all the time practicing law. All. The. Time. If one side wants Expert A to be chosen; the other side immediately objects. Why? Simply because the enemy—“them”—wants it, so we—“us”—must not. If I propose a former Judge to be a facilitator; the other side immediately rejects him or her. They assume my wanting it necessarily translates to them not.

I could tell countless stories as illustrative; I will tell one on myself.

I represented a woman who was looking for past child support due from an ex-husband. He was claiming he was too poor to have paid support. During the hearing, his attorney approached him with a document. It was a letter, sent by Social Security Administration detailing his reported income for the past ten years. (For non-Americans, we pay taxes from wages into Social Security, and once a year, the SSA sends out a notice indicating how much wages were taxed toward Social Security.)

Because the amounts were minimal, his attorney felt this was support for his being too poor to pay Child support.

His attorney moved for the admission of the letter. I objected. Because he wanted it in; I assumed I (the other side) did not. I knew he had not followed the Rules of Evidence, and could not get it admitted the way. I was right—the judge would not let it in.

The attorney tried to get it in another way. I smugly objected again; he was still doing it incorrectly. Again the judge ruled in my favor.

Look at me: winning because the other side was not getting what it wanted, right? Wrong.

It came time for me to present proofs. One basic element necessary was to demonstrate the ex-husband had received wages--any wages--whether it was $1 or $1,000,000 in the last 10 years. Now…wouldn’t that letter have been just the ticket to do that? Now I was stuck with going through complicated proofs, when all I would have had to do (if I hadn’t been so cocky objecting to that letter!) was point out that they had proved this element for me! The letter that they put into proofs would be sufficient.

I fought what “them” wanted, not because of the content, but simply because I was thinking if “them” wanted it; I must not. Luckily, as an epilogue, I was able to introduce the same information through the ex-husband by using the letter to “refresh” his memory. But it was still an unnecessary, extra step.

A basic rule of objecting is to FIRST ask yourself the question, “Does the evidence I want to prevent help or hurt my case?” Not, “Can I win the objection?” Not, “If the other side wants it, I must not.” I had forgotten this rule.

Certainly there are issues we oppose “them.” I support gay marriage for various reasons, not because the “thems” oppose it. But I often see, in blogs and debates and discussions, people so readily oppose what the other person says…blindly…almost instinctively…without thinking why they oppose it, other than the fact their enemy—“them”—wants it.

Make sure you put a bow on it

I don’t watch TV. One blessing of a conservative Christian up-bringing was the lack of a television. We didn’t get one until I was 21. Now…more than 22 years later…I don’t have the draw or desire I see in others my age that were raised with one.

The other night, I was working on my computer while my wife watched this show--The Bachelor. I have enough familiarity with Americana to know it was out there, and the rough concept. (If you don’t know—it is 15 or so beautiful women vying for the affection of one man, who whittles down the number of women each week until he has narrowed his “choice” of potential partner to one.)

Having never watched the show (or its alter ego The Bachelorette) I found myself watching for about five minutes. It was all I could stand.

Really? This is what counts for entertainment? Apparently it has been on for a number of seasons, so not only did it gain a following, it has enough support to warrant bringing it back again and again.

It consists of pretty women who are looking for fame (let’s be honest) through national exposure. Who must pretend to be enamored with a guy (still being honest) who looks and acts like 100 other guys in their community. Only those other 100 guys aren’t on television. A guy who is “looking for love” but has a television camera on every date, and is provided limos and grand meals, and glorious settings outside the reach of most dating couples.

I couldn’t care less, so I didn’t look it up—but has there been a single couple that worked out as a result of these shows?

As a concession to the numerous action movies my wife sits through with me, on a rare occasion I will watch a romance movie with her. They can all be reduced to one plot theme: “Within the next 120 minutes, the woman will realize the right guy she should be in love with.” (Although infrequently, they kill the guy off, meaning:

1) Negatively: my wife is an emotional wreck for the next hour; and
2) Positively: I never have to watch that movie again! *grin*)

In our entertainment, this is what we have come to like. Kill the bad guy, get the girl and explain the plot within a few hours. Wrap up my fantasy in a nice little box. Dating involves limos and roses and romance. Never flat tires or an ill-advised call from a ex.

This spills over to politics. Vote the right person in, they fix all our problems, we live happily ever after. Go to college—you will get a good job, have a nice income and retire at 65 with an appropriate pension.

We want our lives to be answered and explained in neat little packages.

Problem? Solution.
Issue? Resolution.
Question? Answer.

This is why God-belief is such a fantastic sell. So what if it creates cognitive dissonance, or talks out of both sides of its mouth? So what if it says completely opposite propositions in the same paragraph with a straight face?

It always provides a nice, tidy presentation. Easily embraced; wonderfully respite. It is this reason Craig does so well with Kalaam’s Cosmological argument in debates. Yes, I know he expands out the premise in great length, but the little diddy:

P1: Everything that begins has a cause.
P2: The universe began.
C: The universe has a cause.

is so simplistic, so tight, so packaged that it is easy to see why people succumb to its lack of sophistication. To explain the issues, the question-begging, the science behind why it is wrong takes time and discussion of difficult concepts.

We live in an America that wants the plot explained by the villain. Our culture wants the answer in easily digestible chews, with words no longer than two syllables. Multi-syllabic explanations are for certain categories on Jeopardy.

We want Prince Charming who (like he does in the movies) says just the right thing, or provides flowers at just the right moment. Absent that reality, why not create one in a God who—so it is claimed—always gives the right answer? Even when that answer is horrible, the person would rather believe in the God who gives horrible answers, than the messy solution of no God at all.

How many movies is the hero placed in what looks to be a terrible dilemma? Tied up with ropes over a shark pool? Of course, within the next 20 minutes she or he manages to escape, capture the villain, stop the missile from blowing up the world, and look absolutely stunning throughout. This same expectation from God is equally reassuring. Sure, things look bleak now, but in our simple explanation is the hope God will…eventually…likewise resolve all the pending problems and we wrap it up nicely.

Things like the Haitian earthquake happen. Because an orderly, trim explanation is the most comfortable, people pray God will do…something…and expect He must have some reason for allowing the event to occur. The hero of our movie has some reason for letting a person get killed; we need only wait for the explanation to come in the next hour or so.

For some, like Pat Robertson, they make up a reason to suit their tiny bundle of a God. Others assume some smart person somewhere has figured out an answer to the Problem of Evil, so why should they bother? Their solution is secure without the necessity of thought.

God makes the best Bachelor. He is always romantic, always makes great dates, always is on time, always dresses nice, is always showered, never farts, and always wraps up the show on a happy note.

You’ve been Punked by Pat Robertson

O.K., we all now know whatPat Robertson claims the reason for the 2010 Haitian earthquake—because 100’s of years ago the Haitians made a deal with the devil to be politically autonomous.

As expected, many other Christians immediately follow up with how Rev. Robertson is wrong, and he doesn’t speak for their particular flavor of Christianity.

But is anyone really surprised by this anymore?

It is not as if Christianity has a checks-and-balance system. No Snopes. No method to weed out the “true prophets” from the “false prophets.” Or “true Christians” from “false.” There is one, and only one, requirement for determination of truth—obtain a following.

What if I told you I grabbed a woman from her wheelchair and repeatedly threw her to the ground? That I kicked a woman in the face? That I choked a person; I hit a guy so hard he fell to the ground and lost a tooth? You would consider me a menace, and danger to society.

Remember Todd Bentley? He does it, and because he has a following--his audience laughs! This is the moral thing to do! And yes, many Christians spoke out against Todd Bentley, too.

Yet how many other items have we encountered, where the claim is passed from follower to follower, each assuming it is true? Because so many other have believed it?

How many Christians who criticize Robertson have passed on an e-mail about how the world is secretly persecuting Christians? An e-mail thoroughly debunked by snopes? How many saw this video about Albert Einstein and believed it to be true?

How many times have we been discussing with Christians and heard, “All the disciples died horrible martyr deaths. They wouldn’t have done that for a lie.” And we know the person hasn’t ever checked out the facts of the claim. We’ve heard Christians tell us how Pharisees were, using only the Bible as their source and no other. We’ve heard Christians tell us how the Canaanites were so evil—without any realization as to how we would know this.

So why is anyone surprised at Pat Robertson? The entire system is infused with “I think…” and “I believe….” And “To me…” and nothing to stop the insidious perpetuation of instilled falsehoods except one thing—if no one follows you, the concept dies.

Pat Robertson has a following. There are people who watch him and believe what he says. (Why would he lie?) To those people, the Haitians did make a deal with the devil—that fact is as historical as Abraham Lincoln being shot. To those people, God is punishing them for that deal—an absolute, certified, 100% fact.

As long as people will listen and support Pat Robertson, he will continue to make outrageous claims. Who will call him out on it? What followers will leave him?

We shouldn’t be surprised. The only thing left is cynical ridicule.

No Angst

I’ve thought of blogs…

I ought to answer a question:
“Where do morals originate?”
Yet all the eloquence aside,
It boils down to “Emotions inside.”

I’ve been listening to iTunes U,
A class on Modern Rhetoric,
It talks of how authors write,
It breaks me free from black and white.

I’m commenting on other blogs
Like The Pugnacious Irishman,
I write and spew and demonstrate,
But little in-road is ever made.

Who cares, really, about some verse?
I find more interest in family,
Rather than bitch about Sarah Palin,
Or disciples die for lie (yet again.)

I started another blog
To continue a conversation
And found--an oft-told report--
A Christian uninterested in retort.

To blog…just to blog… feels shallow.

I am beginning to see, with the Walrus, how the time has come to talk of shoes and ships and sealing wax…of cabbages and kings.

Church is Ruined for me

Having grown up in a Christian environment, it is unsurprising I continue to find comfort in many Christian traditions—including many Christmas trappings. I like Christmas Carols. I say, “Merry Christmas” with abandonment. I find angels and stars and nativity scenes pretty.

One thing I always enjoyed was the Christmas Eve service, where typically one sang Carols by candlelight. I announced plans to attend a former church’s Christmas Eve service, and the rest of the family piled along.

We sang Carols by Candlelight; I joyously joined in. Watched the band play Christmas songs; liked that too. Saw a skit about the innkeeper; I chuckled at the appropriate moments.

But there was something else—something that didn’t exist in my memories of tradition. Too much knowledge; too much information.

When referring to the innkeeper from “No room for them at the inn” (Luke 2:7), my mind, unbidden, immediately thought of how this wasn’t a “hotel” as we envision, but rather a large gathering room at one of Joseph’ family member’s house. How the author of Luke uses the word kata luma rather than a pandocheion (Luke 10:34)—a place for strangers to obtain lodging.

Or when it was mentioned how terrible to be born in a stable, I remembered how animals typically stayed in the same lodging as humans, especially in winter. A running gag involved how exciting the census was, and I had to clamp my lips shut from saying, “Not at all! This census so infuriated the Judeans, it led to the Jewish Revolt and the complete destruction of the Temple!”

This nuance would pop up, or this platitude would be spoken, and each time my mind thought of all the things unstated. Incorrect. Unknown to the vast majority of the audience.

I realized an analogy would be watching a magic show. But a magic show where you already knew how every trick was performed. As much as you would try to enjoy yourself in the moment, your eye couldn’t help but wander to where the magician was palming the handkerchief at just the right moment. You can appreciate the mastering of the trick, yet your mind was anticipating how the box would fold, or when the girl would appear, or how the mirrors were not solid.

In some manner it would be regrettable, because you can’t quite suspend your disbelief to enjoy the magic show for what it is; you know too much. You can’t enjoy it as MAGIC--it is parlor tricks.

I felt the same way. I know what the Pastor was trying to say. I understand the points being made. I understand the rest of the audience “oohhed” and “aahhhed” at the wonderment of magic being displayed before them. Yet it is no longer magic to me.

I still enjoyed the singing. I enjoyed seeing people I haven’t seen in some time. I could see how I would enjoy the socialization of church.

I could do the Christmas Eve service again next year without hesitation. I just cannot re-capture the naivety of the nativity anymore.

Lovin' Franken

If you are from Minnesota; I simply envy you unabashedly.

If you don’t watch the video, here is a synopsis.

Lieberman: Pontificating.
Franken: Your 10 minutes is up.
Lieberman: Can I have unanimous consent for extra time?
Franken: No.

McCann: [huffily] In all my years on the Senate floor, I have NEVER seen such outrage.
Franken: Duly noted. Now move on.


Here is why I love it. First of all, there is a reason for a 10-minute rule. It would be one thing if Lieberman was making some necessary points, and was in the middle of a well-framed argument. But no, he is merely blathering with no proposed solutions. This is the reason for the 10 minute rule! The idea is, “Take your best shot. Make good, strong points. Lose the rhetoric and sophistry. Be prepared.”

Even more importantly, I loved the response to McCann. Notice what McCann does NOT say. He does not list a rule Franken is violating. He does not even indicate what important statements Lieberman was not allowed to say. All he says is, “this is the way we always do it.”

For a “maverick,” you would think he (of all people) would understand, “This is the way we always do it” is not the best justification.

Occasionally, I am faced with similar situations in my practice. I come across attorneys who say, “In all my ___ years of practice I have NEVER seen anyone do that.” To which I love to reply, “Great! Today you get to learn something new! Today you get to do something you have never done before! Isn’t it fun to learn?”

Control of what I say; Control of what I do

A religion (or a religious belief) may have the best of intentions, yet by its very nature and the eagerness of people to follow, it is susceptible to being used as a control device. The “True Christian” defense is often employed to explain this very problem away. To explain why some particular leader manipulated the follower’s beliefs for the leader’s own gains. The defender will proclaim, “They weren’t a ‘True Christian’—they utilized Christianity’s methods, words and means to obtain their own ends.”

Even followers of religious doctrines recognize that in the wrong hands, the very techniques, beliefs, creeds and statements of their religion can look so very similar—yet with vastly different motivations and results.

Simply put, religion is an extremely pragmatic tool—effective to exert control.

Further, even without a nefarious motivation, religions naturally entail control through prescription of values. If a God (master of all time, space, energy, etc.) was interested in establishing a particular religion here on earth, it makes sense there would be a reason to do so. That reason results in exercising limitations and restrictions. The reason is the foundation for establishing the rules and regulations of the religion.

The reason is the justification for implementing direction and controlling the behaviors of the followers. Offer the correct sacrifice; the pleased God rewards. Offer the incorrect sacrifice; the angered God punishes.

By searching and proclaiming the reason a God would bother intervening in the world; one creates the rules to satisfy the reasons. If God intervened to make people happy—the religion explains what the person must do to make the God happy. If God intervened to be worshiped—the religion explains how to worship God. If God intervenes to save humans from themselves—the religion provides the means by which the God does so.

Christianity initiated during times when religious prescription was in full force. The Roman Gods required certain acts and sacrifices. The Jewish God required certain acts and sacrifices. Even the mystic religions had secret rituals.

The first Christian writing we have—1 Thessalonians—continues to follow the typical religions dictates. If you read through the book, you will see the focus on doing--not believing “walk worthy of God.” (2:12) “how you ought to walk and please God.” (4:1) “abstain from sexual immorality.” (4:3) “don’t defraud your brother” (4:6) “lead a quiet life, mind your own business, work with your hands.” (4:11) If you read through the entire book (it doesn’t take very long)—it reads like a list of Do’s and Don’ts of any variety of religions.

In fact, it doesn’t emphasize faith or believing, but rather uses those doctrines as tools of encouragement that the believer will continue to follow the rules.

But something changed. What that was, we can only speculate from piecing together the Christian documents we have and our little knowledge about the First Century Mediterranean. Christianity became a religion of belief. As long as one believed correctly, the actions could be forgivable.

“….if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.” (Rom. 10:9)

What is the inherent problem here? Well…if all one has to do is have a certain belief, this can be easily made, and then there are no more limitations. Heaven is assured whether one acts a certain way or not. Christianity becomes a one-time thought, and then Blessed Assurance.

Paul recognizes this problem, and spends some length in Romans 6 attempting to justify how Christians were dead to sin, and shouldn’t keep on sinning because they no longer should want to, but what Paul doesn’t explain is why.

The result is a muddled balance whereby a person must believe AND that belief must be evidenced by works. (James 2:17-18) For all the claims about Christianity being “different” because it is not a works-based religion, it necessarily integrates works within its belief. (Go back to the top of this blog entry. Remember those “No True Christian” arguments? Was that as a result of what the person said they believed or what works were present? If one claims they were not a “True Christian” because of their works, then Christianity must be a works-based religion.)

Christianity’s retention of Do’s and Don’ts retains religion’s control over the believers. A comment was made in the last blog entry as to reconciling the concept of immediate justification (salvation) yet subsequently disappointing God. Was the act of salvation insufficient to completely satisfy God?

In short: yes.

Therefore, while God may be 90% or 99% or whatever percentage you desire to pick, pleased with one’s choice, there was still that remaining percentage, no matter how small, where you could still disappoint him.

So Christians spend an inordinate amount of time, effort, and funds to avoid that percentage (whatever it may be) chance of making Jesus cry. That small percentage is area the religious focus 99% of their lives.

If one’s own personal belief was enough—what would it matter if Adam and Steve were married? If one’s own personal belief was enough—who cares whether there was a strip club down the street? Or liquor is sold on Sunday? Or people wear certain clothes or say certain prayers or do certain acts?

By their nature, religions control. Christianity (despite its protests otherwise) is no exception.


(Title of Blog credited to Janet Jackson, of course.)