Dispatches from the Culture Wars

What no steak knives? Oh ye of little faith! -DJ

Posted by: DingoJack | January 4, 2009 9:37 AM

There's an Edward Current video in there somewhere.

Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | January 4, 2009 9:57 AM

"our product wipes out the sin and gets your soul cleaner than ever before ... You'll never have to worry about stains on your soul again."

I guess he's the ShamWow of redemptive deities.

Posted by: Ex-drone | January 4, 2009 10:26 AM

Looks like we (and I unhappily include myself here too) did not manage to keep the pressure up on Obama long enough to have him uninvite Warren. Do you think it is too late? I'm not sure what else to do.

Posted by: vjack | January 4, 2009 10:30 AM

What if it were reversed? What if the Holy Joes were asked to give up their religion for 60 days?

Eight-and-a-half weeks to skip the supernatural explanations for everything, take responsibility for their own lives, actually enjoy sex for a change, realize that they really are moral people and don't need to be threatened with a deep-fried afterlife to act in moral ways, sleep in on Sundays, stop embarrassing themselves by "witnessing" to annoyed strangers, use the would-be tithe money to take the spouse to dinner and a movie, etc.

Bet we end up with more converts than they would.

Posted by: Molly, NYC | January 4, 2009 10:55 AM

Molly,you hit the nail right on the head.

Posted by: Eileen | January 4, 2009 11:13 AM

Molly,
I second Eileen in loving your idea!

Posted by: Mike | January 4, 2009 11:23 AM

I like it better if Falwell and Haggard are switched. Otherwise A+

Posted by: Joshua White | January 4, 2009 11:39 AM

I find it amusing that evangelicals such as Farah are grumbling about the sales-pitch nature of evangelism, when that is essentially all it is.

Posted by: Sadie Morrison | January 4, 2009 11:50 AM

I tried Jesus for a good part of my life since I was raised in a Christian home. So I can say from experience that religion just doesn't work for me.

I had my own "born-again" experience when many years ago it suddenly dawned on me that everything that I had been taught about God, etc., was nothing but a big fat lie.

I have no desire to go back to my old life which was steeped in ignorance and superstition. After having my "born-again" experience I felt a sense of freedom that I had never felt before. It was truly liberating.

Posted by: sheridan | January 4, 2009 12:05 PM

Re Molly's suggestion that Christians try 60 days of rationalism. . .

A somewhat related experiment by me. . . I live in a red state area with lots of fundies and therefore get a periodic dose of proselytization. My response is to start a debate based on reason and evidence, the normal response back is quickly one of admitted ignorance on an intellectual argument supporting their "knowledge" and a plea that I read a book that supposedly refutes all my points, e.g, Strobel's "Case for Christ", McDowell's "Evidence that Demands a Verdict (Which throws every argument in existence in a perfectly incoherent manner at you. It's similar to throwing shit on the wall convinced that if some of it sticks, that must be a good thing. The author appears clueless on which arguments he throws out there are good or not good.), and most recently Philip Yancey's books (several of which I actually enjoyed reading though I would brand Yancey a moral coward to his own reason).

I accept the offer to read their book, as long as they agree to read I book I recommend and that we both report back with a written report with critiques of what we read. Everytime I've kept my end of the bargain (I've been through this about a half-dozen times); everytime the supposedly rational Christian was unable to get past the book cover and first couple of pages (usually the book covers did in them), every time but once.

That person merely claimed in a one sentence "critique" that Bart Ehrman was "confused" because he appeared to know so little relative to the reader. Ehrman is a legitimate historian and therefore will not extend premises beyond what we collectively know via physical evidence. I have strong suspicions that person also never read the book beyond a few pages given they didn't remember Ehrman's excellent reporting on the development of the King James Version when I brought that topic up post-reading assignments.

The response beyond this one exception was always the same, they couldn't stomach reading and considering arguments that challenged their faith. I would argue that is because these people are all delusional and have a very hard, but also a very brittle faith that is no way an intellectual belief, but completely emotional which they do not want to give up. I believe this inability to consider moving beyond belief is primarily because of the social benefits of belonging to a faith-based community in a religious town and the loss of their insurance policy (Pascal's wager).

I do appreciate the reluctance to cut oneself off from their faith-based community - there are advantages, including financial to being part of one. I also believe this approach to religious belief fits in perfectly with Mazlow's hierarchy of needs - most people prefer spending their mental energies on supporting their families, not abstract exercises in metaphysics once the insurance policy has already been purchased.

These experiences always reminds me of the Roman statesman Cicero's comment which I paraphrase, "knowing only one side of an argument means knowing neither side". My response when I point that out is some reference to a fellow church member who once an atheist who came to the Lord intellectually, therefore that refutes their need to do such heavy lifting. This is actually a similar to a popular Rick Warren argument, who like most of these folks, is clearly almost perfectly ignorant regarding rebuttals to his beliefs while claiming otherwise.

Posted by: Michael Heath | January 4, 2009 12:19 PM

Michael Heath, I am impressed. That's a lot of reading. I can never keep my cool with these people long enough to make a deal like that.

Ed, you should have some kind of positive award like PZ's Molly, so I could vote for Michael.

Posted by: Johnny Vector | January 4, 2009 12:37 PM

Molly: I tried atheism for 60 days once and found myself rapidly turning into a homicidal dictator and a Darwinist. It was pretty painful. On the plus side, I did get to invade Poland.

I don't have any problem with what Warren said, If you can't make fun of your own religion, whose can you make fun of (other than Mormons, of course)?

Jesus: He's for ages three and up!

Posted by: kehrsam | January 4, 2009 12:59 PM

Jesus is a product, like the clapper and the chia pet. If people stopped buying him, people like Warren would go out of business and have to get real jobs!

Posted by: Raymond Minton | January 4, 2009 1:18 PM

Yeah, they should have Billy Mays pitching Jesus on TV.

Posted by: Gilipollas Caraculo | January 4, 2009 1:26 PM

"Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

Posted by: Taz | January 4, 2009 2:13 PM

I prefer JesWOW! Soaks up your sins without applying any pressure.

$19.95 for two complete sets, but only if you call within the next 15 minutes. We can't do this all day, you know.

Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | January 4, 2009 2:32 PM

I hear you. I get a similar response from many unbelievers whom I engage.

I have not seen this on the side of the unbelievers nearly as much, frankly they as a rule seem more thoughtful in their consideration and I say this as a Christian.

If you mean non-supernatural, then that just begs the question. If you mean subject to testing, then there are many things that unbelievers believe that are not rational. I cannot "prove" Jesus was born let alone born of a virgin. I can't "prove" hell exists. But unbelievers cannot "prove" multiple universes exist, and they cannot "prove" that time existed before the big bang, or that it didn't. Yet even without such proofs, unbelievers believe many such things about creation. And many different things about politics, philosophy, etc. If rationality is about proving, then mathematics is the only rational human endeavor.

Equating 'hell' with multiple universesis a terrible analogy. We at least have aplausible scenario for the existence of multiple universes and we know our universe does in fact exist. We have nothing at all in regards to hell or heaven for that matter. It's also a false dilemma because unbelievers don't have a set of beliefs they must ascribe to and I suspect many believers think the multiverse is a-ok.

And then entire concept of supernatural is nonrational on it's face. If any of the mentioned items above exist they are firmly natural and hence testable hypothesis. The rest of your statement is really baffling. No one necesarily believes all of ones opinions on politics are the same kind of fact as Asia exists.

In that sense someone can start from any presupposition(s), including the presupposition that God exists and the bible is his revelation, and argue rationally.

Perhaps with an internal logic but not one that has any real meaning. Star Trek and Star Wars have internal logic. Neither is a rational way to think about the world.

Posted by: JimC | January 4, 2009 2:57 PM

JimC

I think perhaps you're overstating the case for what we know.

we know our universe does in fact exist

Do we? There are a lot of views about that. For example. The question of the actual separate existence of what we perceive to exist hasn't, I think, been finally answered.

No one necesarily believes all of ones opinions on politics are the same kind of fact as Asia exists.

Asia exists as a fact? Could you give your reason(s) for saying that? (If it helps, the more usual view is stated in Wikipedia: "Given its size and diversity, Asia--a toponym dating back to classical antiquity--is more a cultural concept incorporating a number of regions and peoples than a homogeneous physical entity.")

While it seems a commonsense idea to say that some specific things exist as discrete items separate from our opinions, and that we know at least some of those things exist, that idea may be a little less defensible than it is common.

Posted by: JuliaL | January 4, 2009 3:52 PM

David Heddle: Regarding my use of the word "rational" and your question regarding such. . .

I use the word rational in a narrow sense where events that we might consider supernatural are not necessarily irrational given my adding the condition of expecting some evidence to support an argument, e.g., existence of a soul, Hell as a possible destination for conscious souls after physical death, Jesus is "the Word" existing "in the Beginning" or his being born of a virgin, are not necessarily irrational beliefs within the context of also looking for the added condition of evidence to support such an argument.

So I do provide space for an apologist to make an argument. However I also subscribe to Sagan's principle that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I've found that orthodox Christians' extraordinary claims are backed not only by zero evidence, but are also extraordinarly irrational.

For example, I personally find it irrational to believe in the attributes given to the god of the Bible where this very same god who supposedly loves mankind also condemns humans to eternal punishment (Matt 25:46) based on decisions made during a finite life. Decisions where a commitment is required with no supporting empirical evidence to validate the premises upon which one should make such a decision. The old excuse is that our puny minds are not capable of conceiving the mind of God is also irrational which is the common response to my point. I can easily rationalize such a notion is absurd, it's not rational and lacks evidence beyond the assertions of some writers and authors 2000 years ago who couldn't even get their story reconciled on exactly what God's attributes even are.

Posted by: Michael Heath | January 4, 2009 4:23 PM

heddle:

"If rationality is about proving, then mathematics is the only rational human endeavor."

Rationality is most emphatically not about proving. Providing reasonable amounts of evidence would suffice for making a rational argument. I suspect very strongly that you grasp this, being a scientist yourself. Surely you must be aware that all rational conclusions are tentative in nature. Which is why I'm somewhat irritated when you deploy rhetoric like this:

"I cannot "prove" Jesus was born let alone born of a virgin. I can't "prove" hell exists. But unbelievers cannot "prove" multiple universes exist, and they cannot "prove" that time existed before the big bang, or that it didn't. Yet even without such proofs, unbelievers believe many such things about creation."

Ignoring for the moment that rationalists (which is what I take it you mean by the blanket term 'unbelievers') draw provisional conclusions based upon the best evidence available, open in principle to revision, this argument of yours strikes me as a form of tu quoque. Silly things that unbelievers may or may not believe doesn't help your case any.

Posted by: Fortuna | January 4, 2009 4:33 PM

Fortuna ,

Silly things that unbelievers may or may not believe doesn't help your case any.

Of course it does. The bottom line is that everyone believes things based on indemonstrable presuppositions that are indistinguishable from religious beliefs. This is self-evident. On PZ's blog people (both intelligent and rational) will argue about the ethics of animal testing. Why? Because they have different presuppositions about whether or not the cruelty to the animals is ever justifiable. Clearly (for the most part) neither side is irrational. They have, in an integrated sense, the same exact data, the same exact rules of logic, the same intelligence and the same education and yet reach diametrically opposed conclusions. Why? Because one side believes A and that leads them to their conclusions, and other side believes B, very different from A, and that leads them to very different conclusions. For example, A might be, at the risk of over simplifying, something like: "I don't believe it is ever justified to cause harm to an animal just to benefit a human." Can A be proved? No. Not now, not ever. It is only believed with no evidential support. Just like its opposite, B. If these beliefs A and B are qualitatively different from "I believe in God" I do not see how.

Posted by: heddle | January 4, 2009 4:50 PM

Prup: "Particularly the ending -- all of us know some people (hi PZ, Mr. Newdow) who have 'returned the product' but kept the 'free gifts.'"

I kept the "free gifts". They wouldn't take them back.

Now, how do you uninstall an over-active sense of guilt? An automatic, unwanted, internal censor? A tendency towards literalism?

Worse, how do I uninstall cloned programs passed on to my kids?

And I want my years back. And my interrupted education. I wanted to be a microbiologist, goddammit! (Take that, ancient censor!)

Posted by: Susannah | January 4, 2009 5:26 PM

Michael Heath,

I would thoroughly enjoy reading a blog post on your site regarding your agreement with me on my last example and how you are still able to rationalize a loving god with him as judge where a sentence of eternal punishment given your belief the Bible is the inerrant word of God.

I can't write such a post because I don't believe that a "loving God" condemns people to hell, if by "loving God" you mean a God who loves everyone. That is, I do not think God sends anyone he loves to hell, which I agree would be irrational. That is the sense in which I agree with you. We agree, I think, that a rational God could not send people he loves to hell. But we disagree on the solution. I say God doesn't love everyone, and you say (I think) there is no hell.

Posted by: heddle | January 4, 2009 5:35 PM

ConcernedJoe ,

I feel I have faith in NOTHING - that is I accept nothing that is impossible to falsify

Posted by: heddle | January 4, 2009 5:47 PM

Tu coque is one thing but now you're just lying to misrepresent people.

People have never argued on both sides of the animal cruelty argument with equal validity. There are those (mostly relgious) that don't accept the golden rule, but their arguments reduce to racism and are clearly wrong. It is their (your) religion that they think justifies their evil, just as you think it justifies your disingenuous bull.

Posted by: eddie | January 4, 2009 5:58 PM

Heddle stated this reply to a previous comment by me:

I do not think God sends anyone he loves to hell, which I agree would be irrational. That is the sense in which I agree with you. We agree, I think, that a rational God could not send people he loves to hell. But we disagree on the solution. I say God doesn't love everyone, and you say (I think) there is no hell.

You are correct that I don't think a place like Hell exists. I also do not believe in a god who would send anyone to such a place, especially by a god with some of the attributes given to him by the authors and editors of the Bible.

I still think there is a blog post in there. Are you arguing God is incredibly petty when it comes to his allocating his love towards individual humans given the hurdles humans must jump through to meet his terms for us while God fails to provide us with any empirical collective knowledge of him so we don't start from a negative position (irrational proposition lacking evidence)?

Given the Bible defines God as loving all of us in many passages and that God is in fact, love itself (I John 4), when does God stop loving us, when we die if we fail to submit? What verses are you using to support the proposition that God doesn't love those he judges and sends off for eternal punishment?

How can God, who is supposedly love, not love those he condemns if he is love?

Posted by: Michael Heath | January 4, 2009 6:17 PM

JimC,

If something occurs in this world it is not supernatural. Period. If it occurs in this world it is de facto natural.

That is begging the question. If Jesus walked on water, you could have photographed it but you could never have explained it, because it was supernatural. All you are saying is the supernatural doesn't exist. Which of course you are free to believe and state. But it is simply a denial. You shouldn't word it as if you are making a logical argument against the supernatural--you are not. You are simply declaring that it doesn't exist.

Michael Heath,

Given the Bible defines God as loving all of us in many passages

I am sorry--but what verse (let alone many passages) describe God as loving all of us?

How can God, who is supposedly love, not love those he condemns if he is love?

How does God, who is a God of Justice, sometimes dispense non-justice (mercy)? Saying God is something is describing an attribute--it is not required that it be interpreted as you suggest. (And if you want to describe God's attributes, the most important would not be his love but his holiness--it is the only attribute described in the superlative--He is holy, holy, holy.)

given the hurdles humans must jump through to meet his terms

There are no hurdles.

Posted by: heddle | January 4, 2009 6:58 PM

If Jesus walked on water, you could have photographed it but you could never have explained it, because it was supernatural.

Why not? Allegedly 'supernatural' things are explained yearly. Why? Because the supernatural is simply natural things we don't yet understand. If he walked on water his weight displaced some of the water, it was a force in eitherdirection, all measurable by science. Your hand waving wouldn't make this go away.

All you are saying is the supernatural doesn't exist. Which of course you are free to believe and state. But it is simply a denial. You shouldn't word it as if you are making a logical argument against the supernatural--you are not. You are simply declaring that it doesn't exist.

No I'm saying their is no evidence for it existing. It is not a denial. There is no real logical argument for something existing outside of thenatural world while also acting within it. The second 'it' enters this world it becomes natural. There is simply no getting around this. if it occurs here it would be subject to science.

Posted by: JimC | January 4, 2009 7:11 PM

JimC,

Why not? Allegedly 'supernatural' things are explained yearly. Why? Because the supernatural is simply natural things we don't yet understand.

No, I am not talking about scientific mysteries or parlor tricks. Parting the Red Sea is described as a miracle, not a trick. It involves a suspension of the laws of physics, and thus can never be explained by science. You can say it never happened, but you can't say (well you can, but it makes no sense) that it can't happen because anything in this world is by definition natural. Again, that's begging the question.

if it occurs here it would be subject to science.

Again, that just is asserting that the supernatural doesn't exist. It is not an argument against the supernatural.

A miracle would be "subject" to science--that is it could be observed. Just not explained. And not even eveything that is in the natural world has an explanation. It may be, for example, that there is never an explanation for the values of the physical constants.

Posted by: heddle | January 4, 2009 7:29 PM

It involves a suspension of the laws of physics, and thus can never be explained by science. You can say it never happened, but you can't say (well you can, but it makes no sense) that it can't happen because anything in this world is by definition natural.

no, if it actually happened it can be explained by science. It makes perfect sense to say everything that happens in the world is natural because it is! it makes no sense to ascribe a supernatural event in a natural world.

Using your second example, again the water was allegedly pushed up by a natural force. A scientist standing there would have seen measureable events taking place. Anything that caused the wind to blow required energy and as such leaves a trail. Vulnerable to the scientific method.

As such it's natural.

Posted by: jimC | January 4, 2009 7:46 PM

Also:

"The bottom line is that everyone believes things based on indemonstrable presuppositions that are indistinguishable from religious beliefs."

Mmm, really? Like what?

Can I infer that you mean scientific conjectures like your multiverse example? If so, that's simply an interesting proposition, awaiting further exploration (as I understand it). It's entirely open to revision, and indeed the 'presuppositions' that went into formulating it are as well. I'm no physicist, but I gather the scientific knowledge that could be construed as consistent with the multiverse hypothesis is also hardly 'indemonstrable'.

Or should I infer that you mean political beliefs, such as Ayn Rand's spew? I'd argue those boil down to values, as in my comment above. If you don't think you owe anyone else anything, at rock bottom that's a matter of what you value, or don't, not a matter of fact. 'Oweing' someone is an abstract human concept, not an objective state of being you can appeal to.

Or (and I base this loosely on previous comments of yours) should I infer that you mean something bigger, like naturalism, for instance? My suspicion that the natural world encompasses all there is is a working theory, one supported by the evidence so far, with no strikes against. I can entertain the notion of discarding it if needful, and I have a pretty good idea of the sorts of things that would incline me to do so. That makes it quite easy to distinguish from a religious belief.

Posted by: Fortuna | January 4, 2009 8:15 PM

David Heddle - A Recap:

I asked you to illuminate for me how a god the Bible claims loves mankind yet would create a reality knowing in advance many/most? would be sent by this very same god into eternal punishment based on decisions we made in this physical life. This is in the context that while we both agree there is no evidence of a Hell, we disagree that the god of the Bible creating and sending people to Hell and/or eternal punishment is rational - you believe it is, I don't.

You respond by claiming that God does not love everyone, appearing to strongly infer he doesn't love those that he condemns to eternal punishment, at least that was how I took it. I'm surprised by your answer given past statements by you stating you believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God and my assumption that the Bible claims God loves everyone and is in fact, love. You challenge my assumption there are passages noting God's love for everyone.

My response:

Well my first example of a passage would be John 3:16

For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

I use this passage given its use of the words (in the RSV), "world" and "whoever". Especially given the outcome for believing is eternal life and we will not perish (where "perish" could be considered contradictory to other passages that claim not believing won't cause one to perish but instead suffer eternally, e.g., the aforementioned Matt 25:46).

Romans 5:8 states:

But God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.

and finally, Matthew 5:44 - 46:

44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you salute only your brethren, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

The Matthew passage is a strong inference that God loves everyone by demanding we follow his lead to love the just and the unjust, to "be perfect", this passage and my understanding of it appear perfectly consistent with I John 4 claiming God is love, perfection requires loving everyone just like the passage infers that God loves everyone.

While I'm cognizant of the idea of the different forms of love and how one can argue for that with the first two passages, i.e., it's a love conditional upon our actions and is dedicated only to the elect if you are a Calvinist, it seems contradictory to claim such in light of the text of I John 4 claiming God is love and the Matt 5 text.

So my question remains open according to an earlier answer from you - when did God stop loving these people that the Bible claims he loves so much he supposedly sacrificed Jesus? At the time of their physical death?

There are a bunch of points you made in your last two posts that I would love to challenge, however given the lateness of hour, I'd be happy if you gave me your best shot on just the above question. I realize you believe you've answered it with your "God doesn't love everyone" statement but that is only a partial answer if it still stands. If you remain firm on that premise, than I would still like your response on how God can love mankind in general or at least some of us, create a reality where he knows our decisions in a finite life will cause many/most? of us to suffer eternal punishment, and still be considered "love" (1 John 4). I find that irrational, I would love to see a rebuttal I can respect that is still in disagreement with my point but admittedly rational.

Posted by: Michael Heath | January 4, 2009 9:22 PM

Michael Heath @ 12:19 pm:

I'd love to get a copy of your reading list. I have a born-again dittohead brother who keeps trying to get me to read Ann Coulter's latest. I'd especially like to know which of Bart Ehrman's books you were referring to.

email: joe[underscore]sharp5[at]eku[dot]edu

Ed, how come your blog doesn't assign sequence numbers to posts?

Posted by: A lurker addicted to reading | January 4, 2009 11:31 PM

Michael Heath,

None of these passages demands that God loves everyone.

As for John 3:16--God no doubt loves the world but that does not imply that he loves every person in the world. We use the same manner of speech all the time: Andrew Carnegie so loved Pittsburgh that he built for the city ten free libraries, a museum, and a world-class university. Does that mean he loved every citizen of Pittsburgh?

Romans 5:8 applies to believers.

Matthew 5:44-46 is your best example. Indeed, God does love his enemies--since we all are born enemies of God and yet he saves some out of love. The question is: does he love all his enemies? In context, Matthew 5 is doing what people around here often claim wasn't done--Jesus is tossing out the OT law and replacing it. He repeats the construct: You have heard it said (OT law).. with But I tell you (Christ's law).. In this case, unlike earlier in the chapter, he is not replacing one of the ten commandments but something that must have crept into Jewish thinking (since it appears nowhere in the bible) You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you... He is correcting a false teaching. He is telling them that treating those on the outside (Gentiles for the Jews, unbelievers for Christians) with scorn or contempt, as many Jews apparently did (e.g., the Samaritans) is not acceptable. And that if you are under persecution, pray for those who persecute you (As Paul treated his jailers). It is not a blanket call to treat everyone with the same love you heap upon your loved ones--it is a reminder that all men are created in God's image and should be treated accordingly and all given the benefit of doubt. Like many passages it assumes that the reader will place it in the larger context. There are many counter-examples in the NT that demonstrate that this is not a blanket command for all circumstances--many cases of men evil enough that they no longer have to be given the benefit of the doubt and "loved." Just a bit later in Matthew Jesus tells us not to give what is holy to dogs or place our pearls before swine. Nowhere, but especially in that region of the world, are "dogs" and "swine" terms of endearment for people we love.

While I'm cognizant of the idea of the different forms of love and how one can argue for that with the first two passages, i.e., it's a love conditional upon our actions and is dedicated only to the elect if you are a Calvinist

You have cause and effect backwards. We don't do things (jump through hoops) and then God loves us--it's the reverse. We love him, scripture tells us, because he first loved us. Then we jump through the hoops, after the fact. This scriptural teaching, which connects God's prior love for us to our love for him, strongly suggests that God loves some--since only some come to love God. The logic doesn't demand it, but it seems hardly worth going out of the way to mention that those who love God were first loved by God if God loves everyone. That would make it something like saying "all horses are animals."

So my question remains open according to an earlier answer from you - when did God stop loving these people that the Bible claims he loves so much he supposedly sacrificed Jesus? At the time of their physical death?

I would speculate he never loved them at all but we can at least put a limit on the timeframe. It was not at the time of death, or at some point during their life, but before they were born--and it was not because God looked forward to what they would do:

Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad--in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls--she was told, "The older will serve the younger." Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." (Rom 9:10-13)

Now I would indeed agree that "love" and "hate" may not mean what we mean by love and hate. But nevertheless there is a clear contrast here--God's predisposition toward Jacob (who, ironically was a sneaky moma's boy and not likable) is contrasted sharply with his predisposition toward Esau (ironically a man's man, and quite likable by most accounts) . This is true either in Romans 9, where it is applied to the individuals, or in Malachi, where the same statement is applied to nations.

Posted by: heddle | January 5, 2009 5:55 AM

heddle - your argument in its totality continues to ignore I John 4, God is love, when considering other passages, something I would argue a literalist can not do. When they do consider that passage, I would argue it contradicts the several "hate" passages, one of which you referred to in the Esau story. Again, I understand and anticipated your arguments regarding the John 3:16 and Romans passages, but not if you avoid I John 4, I disagree with your points if one must consider that passage, agree your arguments are solid on those passages when ignoring I John 4.

Your rebuttal of Matthew 5:44 - 46 appears to avoid the central point and the central premise of that passage, regardless of the existence of the I John 4 passage. We are commanded to love our enemies, which claims that is part of being perfect just as God is perfect, strongly inferring God does the same. I understand why such avoidance is necessary for Calvinists, who I respect within the literalist community relative to the others for at least trying to intellectually harmonize all these passages - an impossible task I've never seen accomplished, not even close.

I am aware of the several passages which has God hating some individuals. I purposefully avoided those and was attempting to understand the more general topic regarding whether one can rationally believe that a god who is defined as being love himself, would create a reality where he can predict the future and plans to assign many/most? to eternal punishment for decisions they make in this lifetime, knowing that any rational argument would eventually come up against these contradictory "hate" passages.

I guess to summarize - your point that God selectively loves some and not all is well taken, though I respectfully submit that it contradicts other passages. I find the many contradictions in the Bible regarding God loving and hating does not rationally couple to the idea of a loving god condemning many/most? people to eternal punishment for decisions they make in their finite physical life not to mention how they all contradict other descriptions of God's nature. I find such a god as the one that is described in the Bible as I understand it, and as you describe him, that condemns us to eternal punishment and yet is defined as love itself is an incredibly irrational conception.

That irrationality is compounded when considering such a god relative to what is expected by him for mankind. We have the enormous hurdle of living in a world where it benefits us to be smart, logical, free, independent thinking people, and yet those very qualities exponentially increase the odds of our not accepting the idea of submitting ourselves like slaves and believing in certain theological claims that are not logical and for which there is neither evidence specifically or evidence in general for such events, e.g., submitting to a resurrected god we can't even validate lived on earth as is claimed for him, let alone possessed powers no other being who lived on earth possessed, in a world where such powers have never been validated has even being possible, even for a god.

I did learn something from our exchange so I thank you for the time and energy it took, i.e., a better understanding of how Calvinists understand God when it comes to his being a loving god, which is not so much relative to other denominations.

Posted by: Michael Heath | January 5, 2009 7:39 AM

I didn't ignore the 1 John passage, I dismissed it. It is the weakest of your points. The passage states, Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. There is no way that this can be made to demand "God loves everyone." It states what it states; if you do not love, then you have no possible intersection with God. Even in a hyper-literal sense is does not demand that God loves everyone. God loves--of course--and if you don't love you are not at all like God. That is what the passage states.

We have the enormous hurdle of living in a world where it benefits us to be smart, logical, free, independent thinking people, and yet those very qualities exponentially increase the odds of our not accepting the idea of submitting ourselves like slaves and believing in certain theological claims that are not logical and for which there is neither evidence specifically or evidence in general for such events

Well, there may be some truth (and possibly even biblical support) for the claim that smarter people are less likely to believe in God. However, I can only say that I do not feel like a slave in the sense that I think you are using the term. Is there something you are free to do that I cannot do?

(And of course from a Christian perspective non-Christians are the slaves--they are slaves to the law, whether they acknowledge it or not. We, on the other hand, are freed from the yoke of law.)

Posted by: heddle | January 5, 2009 8:03 AM

A lurker addicted to reading - I'll get back to you on both this thread and email within the next 24 hours regarding a recommended reading list.

Ehrman repeats himself, therefore his latest is often his best because it incorporates most of his previous findings. I always suggest looking at the reader reviews at Amazon, you have to sift through some ideological shitheads, but you'll also find descriptive enough critiques to insure the book fits its intended purpose. Here is the Ehrman book I was referring to: http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060738170/ref=cm_cr-mr-title

Here is my reading list since the mid-2000s: http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/AI9ZL7F6SS3KO/ref=cm_cr_auth/002-8727792-0491231?_encoding=UTF8 . Most of my study of religion occurred in the 70's through the 90s and is therefore not on this list which is why I'll get back you. My review of the Ehrman book is on page 3 of this link.

Posted by: Michael Heath | January 5, 2009 8:09 AM

Michael Heath:

You really are shovelling sand against the tide, trying to argue with heddle. He is a TRUE BELIEVER in all things babbleical (except those annoying passages you quote, obviously). Now that I know that GOD doesn't love everybody I get the whole thing about the Israelis (who used to be the "chosen" people) being allowed to kick the crap out of the Palestinians. GOD has no dog in the fight, so to speak, so why would he give a rat's ass? They're just background animation for heddle's "Greatest Story Ever Told"--and, boy, is it a story.

Posted by: democommie | January 5, 2009 9:09 AM

But wait, if you call now, we'll also throw in a roll of tasteless crackers! They'll save your soul, so call now!

Posted by: Nick | January 5, 2009 10:09 AM

I propose heddle is not a real Christian for the simple fact that he doesn't recognize that God loves everyone and is pure love which is about the only thing I have heard consistently in church(regardless of denomination or sect) since I was 3.

Posted by: Che-Taylor | January 5, 2009 10:50 AM

Democommie - I enjoyed my exchange here with David Heddle. I don't know much about Calvinism beyond studying a couple of their theologians 15+ years ago; I do find their positions more intellectually interesting than the faith I was indoctrinated into growing up (Baptist fundie), where even the leaders like Albert Mohler are morons. I had no expectation I would change Heddle's opinion, I merely wanted to understand his best argument as a Calvinist on how one can create a rational argument that a god created our reality, knows the future, "is love" (which heddle avoids like Bork avoids the 9th amendment), loves mankind (which heddle disputes and I respectfully concede he has a non-literalist argument though I don't agree), provides no rational or empirical reasons to submit to Him but yet punishes us for all eternity if we do not submit to Him by following certain theological claims in the NT, claims that I find are irrational and which have no empirical evidence, and which requires us to use contrary behavior than that which leads to a greater chance of a successful life (making reasonable decisions based on as much evidence as possible).

I don't believe heddle ever did answer the question completely, i.e., how is this rational? He did inform me of the beginning of an argument, i.e., his understanding that God does not love everyone, which I agree can be argued, though I find it to be contradictory to other passages in the Bible, a finding heddle disputes. Because I did not find a complete rebuttal to my entire argument about the irrationality of the Bible's god condemning most/many? for eternal punishment, that would be great to hear from him, I find merely not loving us and that being "just" doesn't even hit the dart board.

Posted by: Michael Heath | January 5, 2009 11:18 AM

(And of course from a Christian perspective non-Christians are the slaves--they are slaves to the law, whether they acknowledge it or not. We, on the other hand, are freed from the yoke of law.)

heddle, could you elaborate a bit on this? Is 'slaves' really the right word? I think what you mean is that a non-Christian is subject to Jesus' law, and the penalties for not following it, as opposed to those saved by Jesus who have had their violations of the law, their sins, forgiven. I don't think 'slaves' is the appropriate word if that's the case, as 'slaves' seems to involve some restriction of action or some 'slavish' devotion to the law, which in this reality doesn't seem to hold for non-Christians; non-Christians should actually be more free than Christians on planet Earth as Jesus' law never figures into the equation for non-Christians. I've heard of non-Christians being slaves to sin, which makes a little more sense. If you're just being metaphorical about the forgiveness and non-forgiveness of sins, I understand what you're saying.

As far as the rationality discussion, doesn't that mean that all religions are (can be) rational; it's purely what pre-suppositions are held by that person and whether they work rationally from them to their religious beliefs? It would seem that we've just shifted the conversation back a step to what pre-suppositions are rational to hold.

Posted by: Spartan | January 5, 2009 11:48 AM

Taz stated:

But according to your [Heddle's] beliefs, this benevolent love called "common grace" doesn't extend to not torturing us for eternity. Sorry, he can't send people to hell and still claim he loves them in any way. I suppose he could have loved them once and changed his mind, but that goes against your concept of the "elect", right?

If you give Heddle his "common grace" argument, a better knockdown of his argument would be that God is in no way just contrary to Heddle's previous claim that God is a god of justice.

It's not rational to create a system knowing in advance many/most? will fail an irrational test in a finite life and therefore suffer eternal punishment and yet still claim that such an entity "is love", does love, and be just - not to mention meeting an even more difficult test, that of having grace (a concept I learned from the Bible and greatly admire). "Is this biblical god a god of justice?" test easily argues that such an entity is incredibly evil given the prescribed punishment.

And no, Heddle's "holy, holy, holy" argument doesn't stand up in terms of justifying eternal punishment of all of the non-elect for decisions made in a finite life. Again, God's the one with all the power and the foreknowledge. In fact, the term holy is thrown around by many fundies, though I won't attribute this to heddle, in a manner where his very holiness is actually a huge weakness, not a strength, even relative to mankind's ability to confront and fight against evil.

Posted by: Michael Heath | January 5, 2009 12:07 PM

Michael Heath,

When throwing about terms like God's foreknowledge, you seem to be doing it at the expense of man's free will. All good Calvinists know that man has free will and he is not being controlled by a puppet master.

As for God being just, I suppose it depends on whether you accept the doctrine of original sin (the fall). I do. So to me, all men are born in rebellion to God, and since God is holy, holy, holy (though not love, love, love) all men deserve eternal punishment. (Aside: I don't know why, because holiness is a most mysterious attribute--but the bible is clear that because of God's holiness, sin (rebellion) carries an everlasting death penalty.)

At any rate God is not justice, justice, justice. For which we are grateful. By grace he freely distributes non-justice (mercy.) But he never dispenses injustice.

Posted by: heddle | January 5, 2009 12:24 PM

heddle and all heddle-ites: here's my brief version (word-smithing right now not necessary for illustration and to make my point)of the bible and rules if I was god

* I am the creator of all in the beginning, I am like omnipotent, etc. etc.

* For those thousands of years from now that think I am just some smart Greek philosopher I give you E=mc2 and a few other gems dem Greeks would not know

* Also I put this on several media versions -- my words herein cannot be lost or destroyed.. they will always pop up somehow someway

* How I created etc. was I established a physics, and "things" under that physics and let it rip. You'll never see when I did this but for all purposes you'll never need to. You will have tons of fun uncovering my little secrets though. I do not want to ruin your fun so I'll not tell you all. None of it is magic. All follows natural rules. But much is mysterious. You all (especially you freethinkers) are going to really have a ball.

* As to rules they are simple. (1) Respect all of my creation including yourself. (2) Use your intelligence and do not constrain yourself with illogical and unnecessary rules. (3) Act unselfishly to the greatest extent possible and survive. (4) Be kind and tolerant. (5) Do not read your prejudices or hangups into my rules also. (5.1) Pleasure is not bad innately. People will be different. Love is great no matter how it comes. Take sex, you'll like it, you'll crave it. Good stuff, all natural. But it has its pitfalls, diseases, hard feelings, etc. BTW same for butter.. but I digress. If you remember rules 1 and 2, you'll figure it out OK.

* I have no punishments or rewards. If you do not follow my simple rules you all create your own hell. Have at it; hope you live simply, use your gifts, enjoy the fruits, act to mitigate the pains, and above all know your destiny and that of your children through the generations is in your hands except when it isn't in your control ... and let me be clear - it is never in mine!!

_______
if there is a god I think he'd say - "that's about right CJ" but that is my opinion. Point is - what is so damn hard about it - I mean conveying a god message. I am no writer - and I know others could do a better job -- but still I bet most quickly got the gist and the essence. My god at least is understandable and sounds rational - yours is mysterious because he is a compilation of many tribal customs, power grabs, phobias, scapegoats, and knowledge bases.

Posted by: ConcernedJoe | January 5, 2009 12:28 PM

heddle -

He does if the love you mean is common grace. He doesn't if the love you mean is the love he has for the elect. In either case, it's independent of whether or not you say he "can't".

Posted by: Taz | January 5, 2009 1:15 PM

There are two forms of liberal theology. One is what you just demonstrated: forget what is in the bible (at least the bad stuff), and just accept God as I'd be, if I were God. That is what you just did. I am just making the observation, not passing judgment.

(The other form of liberal theology is what you would find, for example, at Bob Jones U. There the "liberty" taken with the theology is this: God didn't actually forbid this activity, but I'm sure he would have, if he had just thought about it, so I forbid it on his behalf. That's OK God, you can thank me later.)

I don't think "Liberal Theology" is a valid description for the above. Conservatives are certainly guilty of both, as a well. In fact, I would propose a more accurate description would be "popular theology", if not "mainstream theology", or if we're really honest with ourselves, simply "theology".

Posted by: DaveL | January 5, 2009 1:56 PM

I hear that the Catholics are offering three for the price of one. And the Hindus have got some great bulk discount deals.

Posted by: MH | January 5, 2009 2:34 PM

Ugh. Describing Colmes as Hannity's "antagonist" is like describing Mussolini as Hitler's.

@Kehrsam:
The homicidal dictator thing--you brought that with you. As to the "Darwinist" thing--what exactly is a "Darwinist?" I don't think I've ever met one, and I'm an atheist.

Somehow this "Try Jesus" offer makes me think of "Headstart: Apply directly to the forehead!" or whatever that stuff is. Only in this case it should be "Facepalm: Apply directly to the face!"

Especially when I read teh heddle. The god of the gaps is being rapidly reduced, but his supporters are still squeezing him in there.

Posted by: Metro | January 5, 2009 3:18 PM

What I am trying to say is that for a god who can "established a physics, and "things" under that physics and let it rip" resulting in a universe--walking on water or a virgin birth are small potatoes, but they are the things that get all the bad ink.

Hmmm, I guess I don't find it 'amusing' as much as 'rational'. We have very little information on the cause of our universe, if the word 'cause' even makes sense in that context; it may well be caused by some being, although the chance of it being your or anyone's particular god is, statistically speaking, about nil. Virgin birth and water walking violate what we do know (okay, technically they violate our empirically-justified pre-suppositions), and is theoretically something that could be demonstrated and observed again; the creation of this universe, not so much.

I find it amusing that theists hand-wave away all the other miracles from mythology (that Zeus also had a thing for procreation with mortals) and other religions except their own, even though the similarities between these stories, and more importantly the similarities in the apparent mind-sets of the ancient people who created or passed on these tales, with the early Christians' are apparent. Let alone the question of why a supreme being would want to impregnate someone anyway; if he wanted Jesus to be here and have certain attibutes and powers, why didn't he just front-load that like he did the majority of the rest of the universe?

Posted by: Spartan | January 5, 2009 4:16 PM

If I may respond to this:

"I don't know how to judge if presuppositions are rational. Someone else earlier referred to values and how different values lead people, all behaving rationally, to different conclusions. I agree. The values are the presuppositions. I don't know how to judge their rationality. Is it rational to value animals to the extent that causing them intentional pain is never warranted? Or is it rational to value them only to the extent that their pain is acceptable if it results in new drugs for humans? Who can say?"

Values may be the presuppositions, or they may not be. Beliefs about matters of objective fact may be the presuppositions. Those, I'd imagine you do know how to judge.

Posted by: Fortuna | January 5, 2009 4:47 PM

Recap - I wanted to see if David Heddle could present a rational explanation for Hell and/or eternal punishment using a literalist interpretation of the biblical god and the Bible's passages for who gets punished eternally.

Given we have no empirical evidence for such a god or evidence that death precedes some people going to Hell and/or punished eternally; I defined rationalism in a broad sense (sorry, previously I stated narrow when I meant broad) in order that arguments can be presented that require premises that it's not irrational to believe in a personal, intervening god who can perform what we perceive to be supernatural acts and it's not irrational to believe he would punish us. I also happen to think it's rational to think a personal, intervening god concerned about the affairs of man who punishes us can exist, but the Bible's god if one is a literalist?

In heddle's last post to me, I believe he provides enough arguments to provide a complete answer if you review some of his other premises in this thread. I would argue that his understanding of this god and its relation to any post-death punishment to be allocated out to some humans does not come close to being rational, not even close. I would have been surprised if he had, I've been pondering this for 30+ years and studied it intently for about 17 years (I stopped studying this topic a few years back).

Here is heddle's last post directed at me:

When throwing about terms like God's foreknowledge, you seem to be doing it at the expense of man's free will. All good Calvinists know that man has free will and he is not being controlled by a puppet master.

As for God being just, I suppose it depends on whether you accept the doctrine of original sin (the fall). I do. So to me, all men are born in rebellion to God, and since God is holy, holy, holy (though not love, love, love) all men deserve eternal punishment. (Aside: I don't know why, because holiness is a most mysterious attribute--but the bible is clear that because of God's holiness, sin (rebellion) carries an everlasting death penalty.)

At any rate God is not justice, justice, justice. For which we are grateful. By grace he freely distributes non-justice (mercy.) But he never dispenses injustice.

David,

Regarding your assumption I was giving up free will to define God's foreknowledge: Not at all, never did, never intended for anyone to make such a leap in logic, that thought has never crossed my mind. The Bible clearly describes a god who knows exactly what the future is. Certainly we have free will where you also agree. The weakness in your argument here was nailed by Taz and has been a problem for me for 30+ years.

A god who knows before hand he's going to create a reality which will condemn many/most? to eternal punishment for not making certain decisions can not be a god of justice as you describe him and certainly is not "love" as defined in I John 4 or "loved the world" as described in John 3:16. Like Taz said so well at 1:15 p.m.:

If you condemn someone to eternal torment you must hate them. It's no kind of love, and it's not even indifference. It could just be heaven or oblivion, but he goes out of his way to set up this system that is unnecessarily putative.

Furthermore it is not justice to put those of us alive today in the position of being sinful just because of something Adam and Eve 6500 years ago did. In fact, what they did does not rise to eternal punishment either. I'm not trashing the concept of original sin, certainly we all do wrong. I am trashing any rational argument that such a sin requires eternal punishment for all us except for God's grace.

Your point about holiness is the typical Baptist rebuttal I disparaged in an earlier post. You define holiness as a mystery and an incredible weakness in God where most of us must be punished even when we didn't do anything worth eternal punishment - I certainly have not. If I were this god, and my holiness was a weakness like it is for the Bible's god that prevented me from being exposed to sin, I would certainly not prescribe eternal punishment for those that sinned, just insured a reality where we didn't associate so my holiness weakness did not condemn those that sinned and failed my prescription to punishment infinitely beyond what any rational argument would say is reasonable.

I thought you'd do much better, David. Is it justice for me to spend the rest of my life in prison if my grandpa stole a candy bar 80 years ago and confessed on his deathbed last night? Furthermore, given that God had foreknowledge, he knew he was creating a reality where mankind would eventually sin and his prescription for this sin would not be collectively understood and would require assbackwards thinking to accept such a prescription. No matter how much you stack the odds in our favor of not sinning (say, the more time passes without sinning, the smaller chance we'll sin), at some point someone's going to fuck up, that's because we're human. The author(s)/editor(s) of the Genesis myth nailed their story by having their first humans fuck up, that's because we all do and always have and always will. Such a god who created a reality where he'd eventually punish most of us eternally could best be described as evil, certainly not benevolent, full of grace, or loving in any way, shape or form. If an evil man makes a kind gesture, does that mean he's not evil? No! Even murderers are capable of kind acts, but that doesn't stop them from being murderers.

And the Bible's god does not freely dispense grace. Freely dispensing grace would mean to not punish good people who do not buy into a literal bible and to punish those who were not good less than they deserved just because they got an extremely tricky theological question wrong (especially given the irrationality of the premises and the lack of evidence for how to convert). Instead your god punishes good people to eternal punishment because of his flawed reality, his holiness weakness, and his unwillingness to show a clear path to redemption for those that are rational and expect evidence. Instead, this god dispenses grace only when someone submits themself like a slave beyond all reason with no evidence to support such a leap in faith. That's why we see conversions mostly from children of Christian parents who indoctrinate their children or from the uneducated or more primitive cultures.

Even when the rare intellectual converts, their actual arguments can be torn apart as lacking rationalism and being an emotional commitment (e.g., Francis Collins sees a waterfall and equates that to Jesus is the Christ). In fact the biblical god is about as far from grace as one can get, he creates a world where our ancestors will sin, which he knows prior to his creation will occur, and puts a prescription in place only a minority will follow, therefore we're going to Hell and/or eternal punishment based on how flawed his design of reality is because he also doesn't provide us with an obvious way to Paradise and avoidance of eternal punishment that is both rational and we have all the evidence even the biggest skeptic needs.

David - I do thank you for the effort. But man, not even close to making a rational argument. I was really hoping you would be able to make one. Get rid of the Bible and one could than make a rational argument for a god who punishes, but not one who punishes eternally for such ridiculous reasons as those asserted in the Bible and based on the Bible's God's own massive character flaws and weaknesses. I am not suggesting you do that or anything, I am just suggesting what I think a person needs to do to create a rational argument for a god who punishes.

Personally, I don't believe in a personal, intervening god though I don't believe it's irrational to believe in one. In fact, I would like to believe in one but see no evidence while at the same time seeing a more rational argument with mounting evidence of a universe where no intervening god exists. I certainly think it's logically impossible for the Bible's god to exist and over the years have become convinced that the Bible is probably the worst place to seek God, which is why I stopped studying this stuff a couple of years back, decades after I moved beyond the Christian faith. I've found science to be a much better avenue to experience reality on its terms, not mine or my ancestors' fantasies, and have also confirmed that its limitations to explain the why are not complemented by religion. I pretty much reached the place Einstein did only it took me about 30 years later in life than it took him.

You only validated my position, I have no idea how you overcome all the irrational premises we discovered about Calvin's god in this thread and remain intellectually honest about your faith. I understand how people are emotionally and culturally tied to their faith, but intellectually? I still find it impossible without basing it on irrational notions that don't logically compute as we experienced in this thread.

I'll also concede that your task here, given the restrictions of the Bible's passages, provided you with a massive undertaking I'm convinced is impossible to overcome. My job given I'm not constrained by the Bible, allows me the comfort of looking for that which is both rational and supported by evidence, with no fear of eternal punishment. The evidence argues we live in rational universe and the Bible's prescription for eternal punishment is not rational and also lacks evidence.

Posted by: Michael Heath | January 5, 2009 8:27 PM

Heddle sez: "As for God being just, I suppose it depends on whether you accept the doctrine of original sin (the fall). I do. So to me, all men are born in rebellion to God, and since God is holy, holy, holy (though not love, love, love) all men deserve eternal punishment. (Aside: I don't know why, because holiness is a most mysterious attribute--but the bible is clear that because of God's holiness, sin (rebellion) carries an everlasting death penalty.)

At any rate God is not justice, justice, justice. For which we are grateful. By grace he freely distributes non-justice (mercy.) But he never dispenses injustice."

WTF? Why did I bother with previous post? This man is woo.

Posted by: kamaka | January 5, 2009 9:11 PM

"A lurker addicted to reading" stated to me:

I'd love to get a copy of your reading list. I have a born-again dittohead brother who keeps trying to get me to read Ann Coulter's latest. I'd especially like to know which of Bart Ehrman's books you were referring to.

Well, first, given my record described earlier of being about 0 for around a half-dozen, I'm not sure why anyone would want to foist my recommendations on conservative Christians. But here goes. . .

First off, I think it's imperative we always attack false premises. Therefore, I usually try and insist that my opponent distinguish between his facts and his opinions. Opinions get pretty weak when there are no facts to support them. I would argue that Ehrman's latest books do a great job when it comes to the historicity of New Testament regarding its central points, i.e., the historicity of Jesus Christ and how he came to be described as such by examining the development of the New Testament canon and its books. I suggest reading the reader reviews in Amazon to find the most appropriate book for your brother's arguments, though the later the better, Ehrman builds on his past work. I enjoyed "Misquoting Jesus" which was the last book I read by him.

Jack Miles' biographies on the biblical god are also excellent resources. His OT biography, using the Bible's own passages in chronological order defined not by him but Jewish scholars, shows how the attributes of God radically evolve as the Jewish Culture evolves. Miles own a Pulitzer for this book. Miles is tougher to swallow than Ehrman because he's tougher to dismiss, he primarily doesn't look to what is historical, he merely considers the passages themselves and describes what he sees and how different or contradictory these passages are to what was described in the very same Bible but in an earlier time regarding the nature of God. He does provide some historical context, all of which are excellently sourced. Like Ehrman, he's a great writer and his books are equally interesting to read.

I also would consider three other books, none are convincing like Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus" for example, but they take on the much more aggresive task of attempting to deconstruct false historical assumptions while also putting forth a rational argument biased against against a conservative Christian worldview.

Robert M. Price does an excellent job of deconstructing the Christ myth. I recommend either his 2003 book, "Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: How Reliable Is the Gospel Tradition?" or his later book, "Jesus is Dead". He's very biased and needs to write tighter paragraphs (as do I), but he is honest and presents a wealth of similar "son of god" stories that predate Jesus.

Price is big on discounting stories of one character if we find a similar story told by another person in an earlier period. A good example is his fisking Jesus miraculously helping the fisherman to catch a net full of fish where he also is able to guess they caught 153 fish, sounds silly to argue it really happened given that the Greeks claimed the same story for Pythagoras hundreds of years earlier. He has plenty of virgin birth, "sun god", son of god, miracle stories, and resurrection stories predating the Christ myth that are assigned to older, but competing religions of that time that mimic most of the supernatural claims in the NT (or maybe not competing religions, but whose documents and/or stories were available for lifting to help your argument).

Earl Doherty's "The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ? Challenging the Existence of an Historical Jesus" is a very interesting argument that Paul created the Christ myth and the Jesus story built on that. This is contrary to most scholars believing stories spreading about either one or more wandering teachers (not a Nazarene but a Nazerite?) which was eventually written about in Mark as one person (with a foil - John the Baptist), and subsequently incorporated into the Luke and Matthew gospels where they added the previous myth stories and a collection of sayings (called "Q" or Quelle, which I believe means "source" in German). So while Price deconstructs Jesus done to nothing, Doherty constructs a spiritual Christ created by Paul which lacked a physical Jesus until the gospels and early Church harmonized these documents into one semi-cohesive dogma.

Doherty provides a very strong argument that Paul never imagined a physical manifestation of Jesus living on earth. Doherty assumes in his argument that some editing of Paul's writings, mostly a handful of additions that don't fit anyways, occurred to tie the gospels to Paul, but not many adds were needed. This is a very rational argument to make given the time between the original manuscripts having been written and our earliest copies in our possession which were copied hundred-plus years later than when we suspect or sometimes know the originals were written, providing decades if not a century or two for mischief to harmonize the Canon as it was developed. Kinda like a some proto- David Bartons, the modern day revisionist/propagandist. Ehrman does a great job of reporting how weak the standards of scholarship were in many of the locations scribes were writing, editing, and copying (kind of like Plato writing about Socrates only worse given these scribes and authors paled in comparison to Plato in terms of intelligence and integrity) and therefore why some manuscripts that are younger than others are considered more faithful to the original.

Doherty's biggest challenge is fisking the book of the Acts of the Apostles. I would argue his argument is rational, but not entirely convincing. I still recommend the book because the book does open the reader's mind to reading Paul and Acts in a completely different perspective. One of Doherty's best arguments is his continuing to show Paul's creating arguments out of whole cloth telling his followers to follow his advice while the gospel stories present perfectly appropriate stories quoting Jesus as an authority. Given the biblical claims that Paul was close to the brother of Jesus and some of Jesus' disciples and therefore was intimate with Jesus' life on earth while leading many sects of the early Church and writing his epistles, why didn't Paul use the authority of Jesus' sayings to make his point instead of merely making his own argument? Another example is the almost complete lack of writings by Paul that refer to Jesus' time on earth, kind of astonishing given he's the protagonist who was God living among mortals. Doesn't this imply the gospel writers were writing after Paul and trying to nail down Paul's arguments by putting words into the ultimate authoritarian Jesus' mouth?

Both of the above are not serious theological books, I believe they instead open one's mind to how ridiculous a literal belief in the historicity of the Bible really is, provide a host of evidence supporting such, not to mention how absurd a literalist theology plays out as we saw with Heddle valiantly attempting to perform the impossible.

A great introductory book to a more serious study of Christianity, not for your brother but for anyone, would be Burton Mack's "The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins", which analyzes the sayings of Jesus found in Matthew and Luke and the style of exposition used by what they believe is the authentic Jesus hidden beneath layers of additions by his biographers, their editors and copyists. I liked this book because it not only enhanced my understanding of the historicity of the synoptic gospels, but it showed what a great moral teacher Jesus really was and how challenging and grace-filled his teachings are when you look at what Mack argues is the authentic sayings of Jesus stripped of other minds' agendas and ideas - the complete opposite of Heddle's weak, tyrannical god condemning billions to eternal punishment merely because Eve chose enlightenment which was consistent with the nature supposedly given to her by the creator who condemned her.

Mack, like most legitimate Christian scholars, hypothesizes that these sayings come from a lost document of sayings. They analyze these common sayings in hopes of stripping them down to what they hope are the actual sayings of Jesus himself. While we have no evidence for a historical Jesus, I would personally like to believe that what most scholars consider the essential Q layer (Q1) to be the actual words of Jesus.

Comparing these words to much of what's left shows genius swimming in shit - an observation similar to one made by Thomas Jefferson where he used reason alone to strip the NT down to a more accurate historical presentation. Mack of course stands on the shoulders of about 150 years of serious scholarship and therefore presents a much more compelling argument for Jesus than Jefferson's Bible. The Q1's Jesus would never describe women as subservient to men because Eve allegedly sinned first and they are therefore inferior, nothing idiotic like that is left after stripping down to sayings that are consisent in thought, though much that is radical and near impossible to follow is left - this Jesus is a most challenging moral teacher not prone to asking for simple submission to a logically perplex theological question like heddle's Jesus but instead demanding much of out us in terms of works.

Mack also introduces many non-college educated Christians to the fact that Jesus used a Greek cynic approach to getting more difficult points driven home. I spent decades in fundie Baptist churches and never once heard any conception of how Jesus mimiced Greek thought in a manner consistent with how The Beatles constructed songs like Buddy Holly. How can you understand the Rolling Stones if you don't also understand the earlier Chuck Berry and Muddy Waters? You can't, and this book starts the serious student on the path to discovery of maybe not an historical Jesus, but at least the first conceptions of him.

Posted by: Michael Heath | January 5, 2009 10:29 PM

Man, wow. I read all that stuff. bible verses and metaphysics and all.

I just can't get past the courtier's reply aspect of it all. All the discussion from heddle is under the basic assumption (faith) that God exists. No matter what you do with the bible, how you quote it, how you choose to interpret it, or how you choose one religion over the others, it all presumes that there is some sky daddy there.

Completely without evidence. Hundreds of thousands of people, every single day ask for a sign, some hard evidence and it does not come, no amputees grow back a limb, no one gets turned into a frog, Music doesnt get played in by lightning Nothing seemingly impossible happens. The only time it happens is in old, unverified stories written decades after they supposedly happened, or documented placebo, or sheer numbers of people (a million people visit a shrine and one of them feels better afterwards), or personal anecdotes that no one else experiences.

Even the dumb argument about multiple universes... at least we have one universe as evidence for more, how many bits of heaven or hell do we have to extrapolate that they exist? No one says that there definitely are multiple universes, unlike the religious who say "there definitely is a god". Its a completely obtuse argument to try to relate the two.

I'll start paying attention to all that religious stuff when some real evidence shows up. And sorry, even then, I would like to make sure that there arent more gods (why in the world would there be only one? there isnt one of anything else), and even if there is only one, that the god of the bible is the right one and that the muslims dont have it right. and then even if the christians have it right, which brand?

Its a long road.

Posted by: techskeptic | January 6, 2009 1:12 AM

ConcernedJoe, techskeptic & Michael Heath:

You will all be going to hell (as will I) if you're wrong! Do you want to take that chance? Well, of course we do! Whichever of us gets there first will get a tee time at the Lake of Fire CC? Hey, if people can have a fantasy wherein "hell" exists, I can have a fantasy wherein it's got great golf (and I don't shoot a 165/18!).

Posted by: demcommie | January 6, 2009 8:34 AM

techskeptic:

heddle said:

"No you wouldn't. You'll start paying attention to it if God regenerates you. Before that, you not only will not but you can not. That is, before that you (or anyone else) lacks the moral ability to seek God."

But of course, once that happens you won't have the physical ability to warn the rest of us. Please don't forget about arranging for that tee time.

Posted by: democommie | January 6, 2009 12:32 PM

No you wouldn't. You'll start paying attention to it if God regenerates you. Before that, you not only will not but you can not. That is, before that you (or anyone else) lacks the moral ability to seek God.

You realize, of course, that this is nothing more than the essentially content-free "You can't see the auras/fairies/ghosts unless you believe in them first" argument.

Except, of course, that it has tacked onto it the gratuitous insult of calling everyone who doesn't believe "morally degenerate" - an offense it then tries to soothe by saying "but it's not your fault, you just can't help it."

Epistemological vacuity, gratuitous insult of the "Out Group", and condescension to boot. What more could you ask for out of a religion?

Posted by: DaveL | January 6, 2009 1:33 PM

Assuming Heddle doesn't know techskeptic personally, how can Heddle make an absolute claim that techskeptic will not and can not pay attention to "religious stuff" unless God does something magical to techskeptic? He can't.

Evangelical Christians do this all the time: when you've blown away all their arguments and made it clear that following their script won't convince you, they write you off and say you can't possibly understand The Truth because their God hasn't given you the "grace" or whatever to understand it. (And BTW, the assertion is contrary to Christian doctrine, at least as I've heard it: anyone, anytime, can see truth and repent of his/her sins and ASK God to "regenerate" them, and God will then do so. God's intervention comes AFTER the human choice to admit the truth; it does not cause or enable said choice, which is always possible for everyone.)

Man, when you consider all the agnostic and non-Christian religious scholars out there, the mind is boggled by Heddle's claim stated in absolute terms.

I agree. Quite frankly, I think he's knowingly lying -- he's argued with intelligent and rational people, both theistic and nontheistic, both here and on Panda's Thumb, long enough to know that atheists do indeed have informed and rational arguments for rejection of belief in gods -- arguments which he's sometimes explicitly admitted he can't refute.

Posted by: Raging Bee | January 6, 2009 2:58 PM

And BTW, the assertion is contrary to Christian doctrine, at least as I've heard it: anyone, anytime, can see truth and repent of his/her sins and ASK God to "regenerate" them, and God will then do so. God's intervention comes AFTER the human choice to admit the truth; it does not cause or enable said choice, which is always possible for everyone.

Actually, Heddle (if you'll pardon my speaking for you) has made it quite clear he adheres to Calvinist theology, which in a nutshell holds that human beings are incapable of coming to God on their own. It further holds that God chooses individuals to bring into his grace without precondition, and that those chosen cannot resist nor ever renounce that grace.

I'll let you judge the fucked-upedness of that.

Posted by: DaveL | January 6, 2009 4:55 PM

No one seeks God. No one. (Rom. 3:10)

heddle, I just had a look at Rom. 3:10; and guess what -- it does NOT say that "no one seeks God," nor does it say anything like that. I'm not sure exactly what it IS trying to say -- aside from the "all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" bit, it all sounds like a lot of incoherent self-righteous nonsense; but it definitely does not back up your assertion. So you just made an assertion that is a) not supported by the Bible verse you cite, and b) flatly contradictory to a reality of human nature that I -- and many others -- have been observing all our lives. Based on what I've seen so far, your theology appears to be made entirely of nonsense and falsehoods.

I'll let you judge the fucked-upedness of that.

Done.

Posted by: Raging Bee | January 6, 2009 5:14 PM

Why are people trying to argue with Heddle? It just strikes me as a waste of time and a thoroughly futile enterprise.

Posted by: Sadie Morrison | January 6, 2009 5:19 PM

And my experience refutes Calvinism which claim to speak for everyone. I have sought and continue to seek God regardless of what others think, and I have not been regenerated nor is it a mere academic exercise. I have not fooled by demons, nor is it a masquerade. I did happen to become convinced several years ago that searching for God in the Bible was a futile, irrational exercise, but that's just me.

This reminds me of some Christians claiming others are not Christians, in spite of the fact they can't validate their arguments with evidence nor even with a rational argument, yet they still make absolute claims. This reminds me of the many people I associated with over the Holidays who are all convinced our President-elect is not a Christian and a goodly amount are still convinced he's a Muslim. I kept my mouth shut and was grateful that at least alcohol was served while I took another big drink.

BTW, the relevant verse is Rom. 3:11, not verse 10.

Posted by: Michael Heath | January 6, 2009 5:23 PM

Okay, it's Rom. 3:11. And it flatly contradicts observable reality. Reality of God's creation vs. one Bible verse? Reality wins.

Posted by: Raging Bee | January 6, 2009 5:31 PM

And of course the doctrine doesn't say you or anyone else can't repent whenever you want of your own free will and choose God--in fact it states you must do that. It just also states that you will not want to repent unless you are regenerated.

Moving it back a step then, heddle, is it then assumed that God has chosen who to regenerate based somehow on how an individual uses (or 'will use' from God's perspective before time) their free will? If not, then I think there's a problem. I assume you believe the following to be true: you cannot choose God unless he first regenerates you and if God regenerates you will choose God. Do you not see how that conflicts with free will? I assume at the very least free will means the ability to choose or not choose God. I have not been regenerated by God, so accepting your rules, I cannot choose God whenever I want. Everyone cannot choose God; God has already determined who he will regenerate and the non-elect, by definition, cannot choose God.

The only out I see to this is that God foresaw what would unfold and how we would each use our free will, based on that he chose the elect, and then regenerated them when the time came. This introduces the quirk of God foreseeing what he himself would do. If that's not the case, I think one of your quoted sentences needs more clarification since on the surface the logic fails.

Posted by: Spartan | January 6, 2009 7:25 PM

RagingBee,

There's your problem: your lack of experience with real people leads you to think of us as no better than inanimate toys that God manipulates every step of the way. That's a pretty insulting thing to say about any part of God's creation, don't you think? What puts you in a position where you can belittle Creation like that?

Yes, make assumptions about my experience in life, about which you know less than nothing, and draw conclusions there from. And I'm the one who has trouble arguing rationally?

Posted by: heddle | January 7, 2009 2:37 AM

heddle said:

And of course the doctrine doesn't say you or anyone else can't repent whenever you want of your own free will and choose God--in fact it states you must do that. It just also states that you will not want to repent unless you are regenerated. As Paul described the logical chain in Romans 8:

29For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

You will note that God does it all. The only thing man ever contributes to his salvation is his sin.

and

Your solution, of God looking ahead and basing the elect on who will respond positively to the gospel, the so-called foreknowledge view, renders the terms "elect" and "predestined" as used in the bible meaningless. But more than that, Paul anticipates the question in Roman's 9, and more or less demolishes it with his "potter and the pot" metaphor. Not to mention the "vessels of honor, vessels of wrath.

So, we can only be saved if god regenerates us and makes us want to repent and choose him, and otherwise, we will go to hell? And god decides this before we're born?

Then the only reason anyone goes to hell is because god decides that that person will go to hell. And since you've said that he doesn't base his decision on knowledge of a person's future acts, you've elliminated any actual reason for punishment that god could possibly have at the time he's made the decision, except for original sin, but EVERYONE is supposedly born with that, so it doesn't really mean much.

He doesn't have to send anyone to hell, if he's really all-powerful. The only conclusion I can draw is that your god simply enjoys torturing people. Why else would he ensure that so many people were born into the world predestined for eternal torment? Such a god may exist. But he is an evil god, not worthy of the slightest bit of love or even the smallest glimmer of respect. This god can't possibly be just, because eternal damnation is wholly unjust and can't possibly be loving (or be love) because only the most sadistic being in the Universe could cause so much suffering for no reason.

Posted by: Vic Viper | January 7, 2009 6:32 AM

Was Spock more Vulcan than human really? I mean look at episodes 4 and 9, clearly he shows emotions a Vulcan could never show. Now some say, and they use as authority episode 7 as justification, that Spock's mother was really part Vulcan too so he had to be more Vulcan, but most scholars of Vulcan physiology dispute that possibility that others infer from that episode.

That is my opinion of the conversations above (many of them). Holy Giove - guys in the rational camp aside from the esoteric interest in the subject as an exercise in interpreting literary works and spawned opinions you must be like me be rolling on the floor.

And let me say a thing about the definition of rational as I see it. Rationality does not rest solely on the strength of the coherency of sentences or use of scholarly references and knowledge.

Rationality has as an objective some decision end game. Thought even in the abstract does. If I contemplate rationally the workings of a hive of bees, totally abstractly and for no seemingly tangible reason, I still if I am labeling it rational thought have some notion (some form) of "deciding how a hive works" as my underlying reason for the exercise.

All rational thought must end in some form of decision, even if it is "I cannot figure it out." To make decisions you must have some notion of related decision criteria and a value system for weighting against the criteria. Rational thinking requires rational decision making (criteria, weight system, value assignments) part and parcel to it.

Decision criteria to be rational must be something that can in some fashion tested / measured. If I say the sturdiness of the car door is more important to sales, than the chrome around the headlights, I give the former more weight, and then assign values against that criteria for each car being evaluated (say in design). I may be wrong in my judgments but I am rational. And what makes me rational is that not only is the criteria related to the subject but also can be tested and adjusted (all aspects of it). Down the road I may learn that the chrome is more important to a certain class of consumers and adjust values accordingly.

Arguments (discussions and/or internal evaluations) re: god stuff is NOT rational - no matter how scholarly - no matter how well turned in the sentences -- if it doesn't have part and parcel to it a rational decision making process and criteria.

You can have a rational discussions about Spock and Vulcan Philosophy and Physiology. As long as your end game is deciding what the writers were saying. You can measure that really (number of words, supporting draft versions, letters, interviews with colleagues or authors, etc.) and adjust weights given new data etc. However you cannot ever be rational if your end game is to say "here is what SPOCK meant" or "here is what SPOCK is." Spock is not testable or measurable outside the imagination of the authors. Sorry you die hard Trekies he AIN'T!! And I think you all get what I am saying.

Posted by: ConcernedJoe | January 7, 2009 8:02 AM

Whoops, my equivalency is :
1) You can (do action) anytime
2> You cannot (do action) unless I (do different action) first

Posted by: Spartan | January 7, 2009 9:17 AM

Spartan - good point and -- I am ROFL :-) tks

Posted by: ConcernedJoe | January 7, 2009 9:24 AM

Heddle can blither about predestination all he wants; but even without knowing him personally, I think it's pretty safe to say that at the most important level -- the level of his actual thinking and day-to-day decisions -- he really doesn't believe any of it himself. I have no doubt that if one were to observe him (and his fellow Christian determinists) in their daily actions, one would see people acting as if they had free will, and their choices had real and unavoidable effects on their lives, both spiritual and material. (For one thing, if he really believes that God alone chooses who will seek and find him, why is he bothering to offer his opinions on this or any other forum?)

I think that if one were to observe heddle's actions, one would find only further proof that his theology is nothing but word-salad, with absolutely no real practical connection to the real world. He knows how useless, irrelevant and downright insane it is, and that's why a) he never defends its underlying assumptions when we question them; and b) he never applies it in his own life.

Posted by: Raging Bee | January 7, 2009 10:35 AM

Spartan: perhaps I misspoke a bit when I mentioned heddle's "underlying assumptions." The main problem I have with heddle is that he simply spouts out his beliefs based solely on the wording of certain Bible verses, then completely ignores fundamental questions arising from his interpretation, questions that mostly center around issues of common sense and absurd conclusions. Several respondents, myself included, have pointed out to heddle that his interpretations depict an absurd, hypocritical, schizophrenic, abusive, and downright deranged God; and he completely ignored all of those objections. And no, repeatedly saying "The Bible tells us so!" is not an adequate attempt to address an objection, especially when "the Bible tells us" something we can easily observe to be false (i.e., "no one seeks God"); it is nothing more than a dodge. I'm not a Christian, but I have met many wise and compassionate Christians; and their interpretation of the Bible is guided, not only by Bible verses, but by real-world experiences, both their own and others', and by their own spiritual voices and insights. And they have absolutely no problem with disregarding parts of the Bible that clearly are not applicable in real-world situations. If it doesn't make sense, or leads to an absurd or counterproductive conclusion, they simply move on to another part of the Bible that they find more helpful.

Furthermore, I stand by my assertion that heddle, on a practical level, really does not believe his own deterministic nonsense. If he goes out of his way to learn things he considers important, and makes choices with the belief that he will have to answer for them, then, at some level of his mind, he actually believes he has some free will. At the very least, he assumes this and bases his real-world reasoning on that assumption -- contrary to his Bible-based determinism. He's sort of like an airhead who pretends to believe the Universe isn't really real, but acknowledges that reality every time he avoids an oncoming truck or other physical danger.

Posted by: Raging Bee | January 7, 2009 12:11 PM

Bee and Joe, I agree with a lot of what you're saying. The only error, if I can call it that, is that you seem to both making assumptions, and to some extent they are reasonable, about what Christians must believe. Bee, you seem to be saying what they must believe given 'Bible-based determinism' or predestination and the repercussions thereof, and Joe seems to be making assumptions about what 'prayer' means to Christians and whether it should result in divine intervention. I'm not saying your deductions and inferences aren't necessarily reasonable or valid, but given the subject that we're talking about and it's allowance for the supernatural and interpretation, a lot of bets are off concerning what a specific person believes.

Just an observation, and personally I found heddle's post about free will on his site to be mainly gymnastics in a vain attempt to keep the Bible 'inerrant' (talk about 'words have meanings', yeesh), but this was what I was alluding to with what I've learned from him concerning making assumptions about what 'Christians' believe, because I've made that mistake. Yes, it's frustrating when the roots of these suppositions or counter-arguments are glossed over or unanswered, but I just count that as an argument won.

Posted by: Spartan | January 7, 2009 1:20 PM

I've never - I mean NEVER experienced any sane, thinking, knowledgeable, psychological and emotionally sound, free acting person act like they really believe their own god stuff when the chips are down and substantial things were in the balance.

I have -- but then, their "God stuff," both Christian and non-Christian, was a lot saner and more sensible than heddle's.

Posted by: Raging Bee | January 7, 2009 4:05 PM

Typing in haste makes for big incoherency

"for the 40 virgins - not [NOW] that is faith in action"

Posted by: ConcernedJoe | January 7, 2009 4:47 PM

Bee - we are on same page ... you said it all "ut whose belief didn't stop them from doing the actual things necessary to get what they were praying for. " .. that is my point... I thing I am not artitculate enough to make -- but I hear yours -- thanks

Posted by: ConcernedJoe | January 7, 2009 6:53 PM