Carmen writes about a cult:
It's adherents called themselves followers of the Way. It was lead by a charismatic leader who was a faith healer and miracle worker who claimed to be of divine origin and who said his words and actions were directed by God. He said he was chosen before the beginning of creation to warn everyone of that generation that the world was about to end. He warned that only those who belonged to his elite group would be saved.
You'll have to click through to find out which cult it is.
More like this
Update, 7:32 PM I have revised portions of the second vignette in response to the first comment below.
Via Josh Rosenau I came across this post from Todd Wood. Wood is an unabashed young-Earth creationist. What makes him considerably more interesting than most YEC's is that he sometimes writes…
One of the points made by Rabbi Slifkin in the article I cited recently is that if you insist on using God as an explanans in the aspects of the world we do not yet understand, that is going to mean a decreasing role for God as we learn more. This is an old point. Wesley Elsberry and I made this…
One more piece of creationist email for you: this one was addressed to me and all of my fraternity of Godless Atheists, which I think means you readers here. Never mind protesting that some of you are Christian—get used to it, to these guys you will never be truly Christian.
Anyway, it's not a very…
But then, you elected this profoundly stupid man to be your governor, so it's all your own fault. I was reading an interview with Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana that was just embarrassingly bad.
To me, the core of the Christian faith is humility, which starts with recognizing that you're as…
Sheesh Tim. I thought stuff like this was more appropriate at PZ's demagogue den...?
Cute, but I'm sure I've read versions of this elsewhere.
I prefer Hitchens who makes the point that if anyone professed to base their whole ethical code and life's design on some utterly counter-intuitive set of assumptions you'd think they were nuts.
All cults are by definition, nutty.
>Because of this friction, and because he divided the world into children of God and children of the devil, and because governments co-opted the religions he inspired, more men, women, and children were tortured and killed in his name than anyone else's in all of history. People of the founder's race were the ones who were persecuted most of all.
*more men, women, and children were tortured and killed in his name than anyone else's in all of history.*
What exactly does it mean to kill in another person's name? Can I dedicate one of my kills to someone else?
> He demanded their obedience in everything they thought,
> Mark 7:21-23 (NIV)
> For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man "unclean".
That is a bit of a stretch. Not being greedy, not being lewd, not slandering people etc. isn't the same thing as demanding obedience to a cult leader.
BPL: Don't. Take. The bait.
Mark, I sense a Web 2.0 opportunity here: A web site where you get to swap your "killing in the name of" dedications.
I haven't murdered anyone yet, but if I ever do, I will be sure to dedicate my first to Tim. It's the least I can do.
Pseudonym,
And perhaps a securitized kill trading scheme?
A kill trading scheme? Can I buy kill offsets, whereby I can kill someone now, guilt-free, if I pay someone to conceive a child at a later date?
I thought it was Al Gore!
I thought trading Sin Offsets was the monopoly of the Catholic Church.
> What exactly does it mean to kill in another person's name? Can I dedicate one of my kills to someone else?
> Posted by: Mark Byrne
Easily:
The Government Made Me Do It (official executioners on death row)
He Drove Me To It (Aggravated assault)
The Devil Made Me Do It (nutter)
In God's Name (nutter)
The Voices In My Head Made Me Do It (an honest nutter)
> He demanded their obedience in everything they thought,
> Mark 7:21-23 (NIV)
Hey! That wasn't me!
The posts about dedicating kills to someone else are very very funny.
Ohhhh mi God!!! I can't say that as I'm one of those mindless cultish christians! I must obey the mystic leader. I must obey the mystic leader. I must.....
Sorry Tim but I don't recognise myself or any of my christian friends and aquaintances in the stuff Carmen wrote (Tim, why don't you wander down to the CASE offices at one of UNSW colleges quiz them and see if they and see if they fit Carmens stereotypes).
I ran through the bible passages Carmen listed and, well, she made the classic, ongoing mistake of ripping them out of context, you know the old, old one, (plus I noticed she used a old english translation, why won't people use contemporay translations when they are trying to knife christianity). We know that sort of thing well here on this site from the way denialists constantly take the same approach to science.
I'm sorry to say it Tim but it looks like Carmen would be as bad as Plimer was at taking on the creationists (What, aren't I supposed to be a creationist because I'm a christian, I mustn't be listening to the mystic leader properly!!!!).
Tim, great work in ripping into denialists, important work but why then switch around 180 degrees intellectually when posting a critique of christianity?
There are many classic misreadings and wrong claims in there, such as: Christians indeed had to leave their families - if they families forced them to choose either-or (as Jesus' mother Mary did, which is the context of that statement). Paul indeed had some disagreements with the Jerusalem church, but they were still on speaking terms, they didn't exactly denounce each other or anything.
But are you sure you want to take your blog down this path? Aren't there others blogs doing it "better" already?
> The posts about dedicating kills to someone else are very very funny.
Hey, no different than the comic strips about arab suicide bombers turning up at the pearly gates to be told "we've run out of virgins".
It's called humour.
Try some.
Mark @11: re "Easily"
To securitize the kill obligations, can you help derive a formula for attributing kills properly in cases where insanity, military orders, lust for power, provocation, and religion were involved in combination of different degrees for different cases?
Oh, I thought it was going to be one of those "Global Warming is a religion" things.
re 16:
Kover=Kmade*(Iauthority+0.35Mauthority-0.5S)
where
Kover = the overall kill value.
kmade = the kills made. Children under 6 count for 3 kills and mothers 2 kills. Get an extra kill for a group rate (over 4)
Iauthority is the authority value for the Instigating member. Major religious figures = 1.0, minor demons ~ 0.3, mere voices = 0.0.
Mauthority is the vale of the mediator between them. 1.0 for direct involvement of the Instigating member, 0.0 for no invlolvement.
S = espoused sanity of murderer. 0.0 = completely sane 1.0 screwball.
Therefore you pay more to transfer a murder to a high religious authority who you want to blame directly. You can reduce the cost by claiming you're insane or making that assumption really easy (foaming at the mouth, etc).
Of course, if no blame then you get to give them some hassle for trying to pass on a murder from an obvious lunatic, which can be used like a tax break for future transfers. It stops someone blaming their next door neighbour, for example.
Sorry, Gaz, I have to comment.
Tim, I'm really sorry to see you taking the blog in this direction. Carmen's editorial is crap, of course, but what's really sad is that you, with your alleged ability to think critically about outlandish claims, take it all at face value. "More people were killed?" Sorry, not even close to true. Stalin and Mao between them killed 140 million people in their officially atheist regimes. Not all the religious wars and crusades in history put together come close to equaling that.
If this is really the direction you're going to take the blog in, you're going to do it ohne mich. But I think it would be really stupid, as well as evil, to officially associate affirming climate science with atheism. You really want to make most of the world your enemy? That's not a smart way to win political battles.
Jeremy: I'm a Christian too, but I thought my joke was quite good also. If I say so myself.
Stu, Jeremy agrees:
>*The posts about dedicating kills to someone else are very very funny.*
Iauthority can also relate to worldly powers:
Pres. of the USA (1.0)
Pres. of Andorra (0.1)
Mother in Law (0.1 if the wife's not watching 2.0 if she is)
etc
Barton, don't you get it? Tim was being clever. See, he said that someone wrote about a cult. All the christians would follow the link, hoping to read about the loonies at the airport or maybe about mormons or something. But, you get to the location and start to read... And then it hits you! The cult is really christianity. And then you decide to change your worldview, because Tim has fooled you into taking a good long look at yourself. It's brilliant, actually. But you had to comment and spoil it all. Now, we're doomed to another 2000 years of war and death and cold pizza.
Mark, I know, hehe! The point being that there's more than one of us who can have a chuckle at this, and/or see the serious point.
Oconnellc, BPL would have been able to tell at the first line that this was about Christianity. And I think he makes some good points; I didn't bother in my post because I knew I'd get flamed, or at least mildly singed. But against my better judgment, here I go plunging in:
Atheist regimes have indeed killed a lot of people. The lesson is that people are people, and are generally bastards no matter what they claim to believe.
Some of the text is taken out of context. This is more of an issue than the occasional archaic translation. Taking quotes out of context is often done unintentionally to save time (people can't be reading huge blocks of text to get one point), but in this case I don't think it's unintentional. The lesson is that you can't just skim something as serious as religion to get the whole idea... and also that quoting out of context is pretty much bad whoever you do it to. Deniers of anthropogenic climate change do it a lot, and most of us agree that it's wrong in that case.
BPL doesn't like to see good science blogs alienate Christians (although this is a mild post, and I don't think it will do any such thing). Pharyngula and a whole host of others do though, and as a science loving Christian it's just highly depressing to see the associate made that Christians are anti-science.
And finally oconnellc, a quick point: if Christians could actually act as Jesus commanded (Commandment 1: love God. Commandment 2: love your neighbour. Who's my neighbour? Everyone, even your enemy), then the war and death would be much less of an issue, and I imagine the cold pizza would then take care of itself.
Proof that there is no God.
I didn't say that I agreed with everything in Carmen's post. I linked to it because she asked me to. As well as being sweet and kind and generally awesome, she is open to having her mind changed and she certainly isn't an atheist.
No, she's worse: a Canadian!
Too obvious. (And too true.)
Stu,
"The lesson is that people are people, and are generally bastards no matter what they claim to believe."
That's a sweeping generalisation. There are good and bad in all people, of faith or not. I happen to belong to the latter group but believe in respecting fellow human beings. I try to live my life accordingly but, as with everyone, I sometimes fail.
I agree, however, that arguing whether atheistic regimes or faith based regimes killed more people is besides the point.
Dave,
fair enough, I was using hyperbole to make an argument. What I should have said is people [i]can[/i] be bastards, or simply blinded by ideology, regardless of their beliefs.
3 Mark Byrne,
Sure. Next time I kill someone, I'll say "I kill you in the name of Mark Byrne. Die, evil one!" (maniacal cackle).
Late at the party again!
Dave Andrews wrote:
The first step is admitting you have a problem.
How does one get sin offsets and how can I be sure sin cap and trade isn't just some scheme to enrich pastors?
OK, I'm not saying Christians are like this today, Christianity has changed. I was just trying to show how it started out. I was also trying to show how different Paul's ideas were from Jesus. I also wanted to show how a religion of such high moral standing was used to kill so many people. I admit that the statement about "more people killed" etc was wrong.
I admire Christianity and wish it was true. That's the whole purpose of my blog. I want people to disagree with what I'm writing to convince me I'm wrong..
Oh- the value of the kills thing IS funny....
Stu says:
Let's put to one side how one defines an atheist regime The question Stu, is the role (if any) that atheism played in the killing. There is simply no evidence at all that atheism, which is not, after all, a philosophical system and take no particular view on matters of dealing in the lives of humans, predisposed a single death.
Religions on the other hand, precisely because these are philosophic systems, lend themselves especially well to killing, expressly on the grounds of adherence to their postulates, and so it is not surprising that we find many instances where this is so and affirmed by texts accepted by the religious authorities of each faith.
Most everyone knows of The Inqusisition but fewer are familiar, for example, with events at
Cajamarca South America in 1532. Spanish adventurer Francisco Pizarro was initiating the process of applying Spanish rule and exploitation on the Inca peoples. Naturally he sought the endosement of his local spiritual leader, one Friar Vicente de Valverde who invited the Inca leader, Atuahalpa to submit himself to the commands of the Christian god and its impenetrable (to him) opus, the Bible. Unsurprisingly, Atuahalpa was unimpressed and swept the Friar's hand carrying the text aside and turfed the Bible.
The Friar was outraged at the insult to the faith and said:
It doesn't get any clearer than that, and what followed was an orgy of massacre of people who at least at that moment did little but resist attempts at being murdered. Thousands were massacred as they were fleeing. And this astonishing victory over superior numbers, the Spaniards attrbuted to the grace of God. ASnd when Pizarro had captured Atuahalpa, he advised him that subjugation and massacre was the ill of the christian god, saying:
While there may well be metaphysically based philosophic systems that have never been adduced by large numbers of people to justify lethal violence these, if they exist at all, are the exception rather than the rule. One need look no further than Sri Lanka, for example to see how that ostensibly most benign and non-violent of all religious systems Buddhism, has been used to found lethal repression.
Fran
Carmen,
"OK, I'm not saying Christians are like this today, Christianity has changed"
I'm arguing from the viewpoint that the intellectual basis of christianity hasn't changed. If you think about it, if it has changed then you are up against a killer of contradiction and then it can't be true.
"I was also trying to show how different Paul's ideas were from Jesus."
Bollocks!
Your cherry picking of verses is not an argument...... prove it to me using context including language (don't forget not written in english).
As to Paul being some sort of mystic leader then I think you gotta explain away all his arguments with characters such as the so called super apostles who were doing the mystic mumbo jumbo. His continued restatement of Christ's gospel narrative was his ammunition against mysticism underlinning christian belief and don't forget how Paul based his concept of freedom on that narrative whereas the mumbo jumboists wanted to get away from what christ said.
"I also wanted to show how a religion of such high moral standing was used to kill so many people. I admit that the statement about "more people killed" etc was wrong"
Thanks for saying that. Isn't one way to answer that by asking the question, 'why did so many people hide behind a social order based on a christian worldview when they wanted to kill people'? Its almost as bad as saying athiesm is a murderous philosophy because Stalin and Beria had so many people murdered. Fran Barlow makes the same mistake in her post. People kill people because of hate etc, blaming it on belief systems is putting your head in the sand.
I'm not going to convince you that christianity is true or not true, but I don't think you have done the work to say it isn't true. Sorry to sound harsh with the above but lets face it is socially fashionable to diss christianity (and much, much safer than dissing islam or socially safe to diss Richard Dawkin's crude arguments). But I have to admit there are some characters running about saying stupid things who bleat about being christian.
I also hate pizza, whether its cold or hot.
Tim:
Sure. She's a sweet, kind, generally awesome, dishonest anti-Christian bigot.
Carmen:
But it didn't start out the way you portrayed it. You deliberately distorted every mention you made of it.
Not very different at all, actually. A lot of what Paul says is echoed in what Jesus says--which you can see if you've actually read the New Testament, rather than just cherry-picked quotes from tendentious atheist web sites.
How about because a regime intent on committing atrocities will always justify them in terms of whatever the popular ideology happens to be? Witch trials in Renaissance Germany, treason trials in Stalinist Russia. Same thing, same reason.
Thank you.
No, you don't. A blog essay like that shows you've already made up your mind. Why would you want anyone to convince you you're "wrong" about a religion you consider unreal, stupid, dishonest, and dangerous? That's like a democrat (small D) saying she'd like someone to convince her that she's wrong about Naziism--That she wants to give it a fair shake. Would you believe her?
BTW Boris,
Thanks for the link to the Mitchell and Webb sketch, it was hilarious.
Fran,
Firstly, defining a truly atheist regime... well, that's pretty easy, since they define themselves as atheist in their manifestos. For example, the communist party that ruled Albania until 1992 officially banned all religious practice. This Albanian regime didn't practice genocide though, it just severely limited freedom and was badly run, like most communist states. Others are less clear-cut, maintaining an illusion of religious freedom, eg. DPRK.
On the surface, you make a good point about the motivation for the atrocities committed by Christian states being explicitly due to religion. The stated aim of the horrible actions of the church such as the one you described was to change people's thinking, willingly or unwillingly, to the same as the church's. They tortured and killed people who did not submit, as per your graphic example.
I put it to you that the atheist states that practiced genocide (eg Stalinist USSR, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge) did exactly the same thing for exactly the same reason; people had to agree with/conform to the state, or they had to go. There were also genocides committed against ethnic or religious groups, by such methods of confiscation of harvests to cause famine.
Oversimplifying these points always leads to misunderstanding, and I'm no authority on these matters (I'm a meteorologist), but it seems to me that the fatal flaw in all cases is lust for power. That Christian teaching has been hijacked, at various points in history, as an excuse to commit such atrocities is very sad indeed.
I don't understand this at all. So who are the two leaders? I assume one is J.C., but I can't tell which one. Who is the other? Is that Moses? I'm sorry but I haven't spent much time studying religions.
WHT, the other is the apostle Paul. Moses lived well over a thousand years before Jesus, while Paul was probably born around the same time as/slightly after Jesus - hence the mention of things that happened after Jesus died.
BPL, Carmen is honest and she is not an anti-Christian bigot. I know this on account of being married to her for 24 years. If you think she's wrong about something, why not explain why, instead of calling her names?
BPL, I think everyone familiar with your work respects your intellectual honesty -- but you're pushing your own buttons here.
Carmen's blog has 33 posts on religion. I've scanned the lot, and have found a ton of quotes from the NIV and the Jewish Encyclopedia, but no "cherry-picked quotes from tendentious atheist web sites." She is fascinated by the New Testament, and has spent a lot of time exploring and questioning various aspects of Christian doctrine. Heterodox, sure, but hardly a "dishonest anti-Christian bigot."
I found the present example to be a little predictable and not deeply thought out, but that's the mark of a young writer with more energy than experience. Time, and fruitful interchange with more seasoned writers, will cure that. Why don't you try taking her at her word when she says that she admires Christianity and wishes it were true, explain to her why you believe it is true, and see where that takes you?
And, after a screen refresh, I note that Carmen may not be quite as young as I'd assumed. A positive reaction to all that youthful enthusiasm,[1] I assure you!
[1] In every sense.
jre:
Because I know exactly where it would take me--in circles.
That "The Way" post is essentially a copy of something I have seen circulated over and over again for at least the last 20 years. It was answered in detail when it first came out. The only sort of person who could post something like that is someone who only reads one side of that issue (I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt and assuming she just doesn't know about the refutations, rather than knowing about them and posting this garbage anyway). It's EXACTLY the same kind of tactic as the global warming deniers who are still posting that it's the sun, or that global warming stopped in 1998.
I will talk to someone about Christ if I think they are genuinely interested. I will not bother with someone who clearly already has their mind made up on the other side. That kind of post is NOT posted by a disinterested seeker; it's posted by an anti-Christian partisan. Always. Period.
Barton Paul Levenson:
> That kind of post is NOT posted by a disinterested seeker; it's posted by an anti-Christian partisan.
Come on, BPL. Whenever someone says anything slightly unflattering about Christianity or any subset of Christians, you start going all ballistic and assume that everyone's out to get you. Maybe your "anti-Christian partisan" detector is faulty.
> (I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt and assuming she just doesn't know about the refutations, rather than knowing about them and posting this garbage anyway).
How about posting a link to the refutations as a start then?
I agree with The Journal. This aggressive response is unbecoming of you, BPL! Word of advice: engaging with anyone and everyone who seems interested in Christianity, regardless of whether their views are good or bad, will teach you a lot about how the world views it as a religion and as a personal faith. It's interesting. Try it.
BPL,
"Sure. She's a sweet, kind, generally awesome, dishonest anti-Christian bigot."
Whatever happened to 'turning the other cheek'?
"Come on, BPL."
OMG, there's something going wrong here! I am in agreement with a post by bi--IJI
Stu@41
Enver Hoxha's regime probably does qualify as atheist but what was more salient, as you imply was th drive for intellectual conformity. They also banned Greek place names and in what should have been an exercise in self-parody, produced their own list -- a 'Dictionary of People's Place Names'. One suspects that these were autocrats who happened also to be atheists rather than atheists driven by the doctrine to favour autocracy. As with a number of Stalinist regimes, its leader, Enver Hoxha encouraged a personality cult around him, and thius very much speaks to the cultural histopry of the countries from which the most egregious Stalinist regimes of the 20th Century --- Russia, China, "Kampuchea", the DPRK and of course Albania emerged. The worship and deification of great men predated the arrival of Stalinism by a very long way. Interestingly in the case of Albania though, the regime was not merely fanatical about religion, but rather fanatical about breaking down the cultural oppression of women. This resulted in serious advancements in women's legal, educational and social rights and the party did threaten the secular equivalent of fire and brimstone for enemies of its position on women's rights.
Interesting they use the word 'sacred'! I never would.
Yet if one asks a fundamental question -- what circumstances authored the shape of the regiems we have mentioned above, we will not be able to assign religion a secondary place. In Russia, China, Korea, Cambodia and Albania, religion was intimately involved with the ruling elites for hundreds (if not not thousands) of years before the arrival of Stalinism. Stalin learned his autocracy at the knee of Georgian orthodox priests.
Accordingly, one may indirectly attribute much of the bloodshed in these places to religion.
Fran:
"Accordingly, one may indirectly attribute much of the bloodshed in these places to religion."
Is this your intention though? Do you wish to ascribe the bloodshed under secular/atheist regimes to the influence of religion? Or are you merely pointing it out as a logical possibility?
Fran,
What came first................. murder or 'religion'?
Tim,
This post is a good idea, its the mental equivalent of stretching our legs, getting fresh air, patting the dog, etc....... it makes us fresh for the important task of taking on denialists.
However, I don't think Carmen has answered the points I raised.
Stu@53
I'm calling it an inference from context, in the same way that one may infer that the children of Philip Garrido or Joseph Fritzl will probably exhibit a range of pathological behaviour as a result of their imprisonment in the homes of their captors, even though their behaviour now may would not be at the direct instigation of these characters.
Jeremy C@54
Impossible to declare with certainty. Murder is a construct of civilised society with its usages around killing.
Religion in a broad sense almost certainly predated civilised society, but it's hard to say when the first thing that could be called murder arose.
Fran,
Are you implying that those who believe in a religion are under the same kind of oppression as the children of Garrido and Fritzl (either individually, or as a collective society)? If not, I think you may need to reconsider your analogies so not to cause offence. If so, I think we're done talking.
I'm staying out of this one!
Stu@58
Plainly not. That would be an extraordinary generalisation. Relkigion encompasses far too much diversity to found such a claim.
I merely claim that each of us stands on the shoulders of others and is to some extent authored by our context. The first questions and the often the first answers (though not the last) are those provided by our culture and its usages.
Carmen,
Given some of the things being said here, I would like to put my name with those who do not believe you to be anything like a bigot. I myself have had questions similar to the those associated with your post. I have been part of similar debates debates held openly within progressive Christian communities.
And your posting promoted me to learn more about the use of the word "hate". Thanks for the provocation, my late father (a Minister) would have been interested to know that I was inquiring into the translation of Greek and the contextual mean of the word at that time.
Of course, Fran, Garrido was a religious obsessive which you surely knew when you posted.
To be fair Jeff@61, as the article notes, the man was plainly unhinged, probably in part by drug abuse, and his madness was played out in religious form, so I wouldn't assert or imply that religion drove him to act as he did.
You can say that Fran but check out what people who think Garrido is embarrassing True Christians say:
This is how 'normal' 'true christians' respond to a monster ... Maybe they aren't holding children in their backyards but there are more than a few kangaroos bouncing about their top paddocks.
Darwin's Worst Nightmare
True Christianâ¢
After having read and scanned through a few of her other blog posts, I think I'm going to have to say I think you're wrong. This time. Ellipsis...
OK, first of all, Jesus taught that the Law of Moses would last until heaven and earth disappear, and Paul taught that Jesus death cancelled out the Law. That's a fundamental difference right there.
I tried not to take things out of context. However a problem I've had is that Matthew takes a bunch of the Old Testament and quotes it out of context, so if Jesus directly quotes from the Old Testament, I go with that meaning, rather than what Matthew says.
It's easy to prove that something you believe is true. Trying to find killer arguments for the other side guarantees you get to the truth. For instance, if you want to believe in global warming, your research is going to end with the result that global warming exists. Same with the skeptics- before they start out they already know what they want the answer to be. Try and find the absolute best argument for the other side. That's more work but you will learn a lot more.
Oh, I'm not trying to distort things, I try to be fair. For instance for a while I thought Jesus couldn't be the Messiah because he said the second coming would happen in his generation. Then I looked into it and found that in the Old Testament God changes His mind, for instance in the case of Jonah. Jonah said a town was going to be destroyed in 40 days and it wasn't. Jesus compared himself to Jonah, so that answers that argument.
On the other hand, Jesus didn't know about germs, so how could he be God? That's in my post on "demons and personal hygiene".Last week I asked my religious aunt-in-law for help in finding a counterargument.
So I am looking for answers, and I go to primary sources, not what others have come up with.
So Carmen
What's the best argument for belief that Jesus is/was the son of a deity; heaven exists and is open to the faithful, the bible is of divine inspiration etc ..?
Fran,
I know many people who call themselves Christian without believing the bible is of divine inspiration. I know of many who do not believe heaven exists other than in some uniting force between beings. I even know a few who don't believe Jesus is/was the son of a deity.
Granted some Christians would argue that some of the people I describe should not call themselves Christian. But none of these three (above) points are at the heart of what I admire about Christians that I know.
Mark@69
I don't see how you can be a christian and not avow those things. Then again, I've no interest in being christianity's ideological gatekeeper.
There are lots of worthy people who avow christianity. Humans are often ethically and intellectually incoherent, and sometimes the resultd of that incoherence are better than if they were more consistent.
Fran,
In Fact if not in the majority, there are at least a significant minority of Christians who do not believe the bible is of divine inspiration.
The subset who do believe the bible is the literal divine word, get names like 'fundamentalist' or 'literalist'.
My guess is that many of the Christian posters to this site would not be literalists.
That's an interesting claim Mark. I'm yet to meet a self-identifying christian who says otherwise.
I'm not sure that all such people can be called fundamentalists however because that surely entails at least one further step -- declaring that the words can have only their literal (and by implication 'obvious' meaning and are not subject to interpretation, in ways that parallel the claims of so called 'black letter lawyers'.
Fran,
>*I'm yet to meet a self-identifying christian who says otherwise.*
Says otherwise to which statement/point?
Otherwise than that the bible is of divine inspiration.
Oh!
You have now.
Pleased to meet you Fran.
Fran,
Take a squiz at a few [of these](http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1C1GGLS_en-USAU294AU…).
The best argument that Jesus was sent by God would be that he got back to the spirit of the Old Testament, and thus came up with these high ideals for people to follow. These ideals- "Be perfect, like your Father is perfect" and the idea of serving others who are in need, no matter who they were, these ideals can help fight the basic injustices of the world. I think God approved of this religion otherwise it wouldn't have been so successful.
The best argument I have for God existing is because the Laws of Moses seemed to show a knowledge of germs, which they couldn't have known about so many thousands of years ago.
I'm willing to change my mind on either of these if someone comes up with a good enough counter argument.
Carmen,
Knowledge of hygiene is not the same as knowledge of germs.
Are you aware of any evidence that Moses knew of germs?
Well there you go Mark ... there's always a first time ... It took 51 years mind you.
I've long supposed that the majority who use the relevant space on the census to declare a christian denomination probably have a non-dogmatic view of the status of the text, and of god and the afterlife and hold their adherence to the faith loosely.
It seems much more likely that those who choose to declare for the faith in conversation would be of more robust and forthright adherence to the pillars of the doctrine, so perhaps that is what informs my own straw poll.
Quite possibly, its not something I bring up regularly.
There is nothing wrong with faith as such (we all cling to our own illusions to cope with life), the problem is organised religion. Not only does history show it to cause massive suffering, it is also a hindrance IMO to a profound relation with the divine. The Catholic church is a prime example of both aspects in that it has systematically been suppressing every mystic tradition from the middle ages onwards.
As soon as you have a large group of people you automatically get hierarchal structures, you get power and power corrupts. Thus Christianity - despite the good intentions of some - has been from the very start a tool to gain political and financial power. The good thing about the bible in this respect is that you can interpret it any way you like.
This hierarchal power dynamic is also responsible for the current capitalist system of unending economic growth (and thus plundering by the elites) with all of its consequences, ie financial bubbles, AGW, ocean acidification, top soil erosion, etc. It's a group thing, in combination with some genetic defect that makes us crave a Master who takes care of us in exchange for our free will and freedom.
Georges Brassens said it best:
Le pluriel ne vaut rien a l'homme et sitôt qu'on
Est plus de quatre on est une bande de cons
Mark,
"I'm not sure that all such people can be called fundamentalists however because that surely entails at least one further step -- declaring that the words can have only their literal (and by implication 'obvious' meaning and are not subject to interpretation, in ways that parallel the claims of so called 'black letter lawyers"
I agree with Fran on this. I'm one of those people who, for want of a better cliche, believe the bible is the word of God or to put it another way, God's conversation with us. But Fran's qualifer is very important, "declaring that the words can have only their literal..... meaning". For example, I think creationism is simply a mis-interpretation of Genesis 1 to 3 and its not about a six day creation (hint, can you find anyone who reads Hebrew who interprets Gen 1 to 3 as a six day creation) yet i still believe its Gods word.
I would say that creationists and those who look at Gen 1 to 3 and conclude it has to be wrong because of we live in an old universe are both making the same mistake in biblical interpretation.
oconnellc: "All the christians would follow the link, hoping to read about the loonies at the airport or maybe about mormons or something."
If they first connected to the internet yesterday, maybe. But this is something this Christian has seen many, many times since he first connected to the web in 95-96 sometime. I even partially fell for it at first, until I started examining some of the claims more closely (after finding out that religioustolerance.org, the site I visited, wasn't nearly as intellectually honest as I'd thought).
Paul and Peter were on "agree to disagree" terms at worst, they adopted the term "christanoi" from their persecutors very quickly - something they'd hardly do if "The Way" had been anything like an established name. More likely that's a straw for people who for various reasons want to draw a thread to Taoism... In short, it's just not a very accurate description.
Tim Lambert: "I linked to it because she asked me to [...] being married to her for 24 years."
OK, you're forgiven ;-)
OK Carmen,
"OK, first of all, Jesus taught that the Law of Moses would last until heaven and earth disappear, and Paul taught that Jesus death cancelled out the Law. That's a fundamental difference right there."
What Paul is arguing is that Jesu's death cancelled out the effect of the law i.e. the OT and NT both teach that the law shows that people can't match up to God's standards, the law demonstrates this, its impossible to keep so something gotta be done as we are all guilty.
No contradiction there, no fundamental difference. Read Romans.
"I tried not to take things out of context. However a problem I've had is that Matthew takes a bunch of the Old Testament and quotes it out of context, so if Jesus directly quotes from the Old Testament, I go with that meaning, rather than what Matthew says"
Give us evidence that the person who wrote Matthew's gospel was quoting things out of context otherwise its just an assertion. Some people say that author was writing to convince fellow Jews that Jesus was the Messiah and his gospel is the most jewish of the four gospels.
What makes you think you know more about the OT and context than this 1st century jew.
As well, don't forget Carmen, when it comes to Paul's writings that Paul/Saul was raised and educated in Tarsus so he was trained in Greek rhetoric so when he begins an argument he puts the question first as a statement appearing to agree with it and then he goes on to trash it completely. This seems to trip up a lot of people reading the stuff he wrote.
"For instance for a while I thought Jesus couldn't be the Messiah because he said the second coming would happen in his generation"
What was the context and what did his words means related to the period it was written in?
"On the other hand, Jesus didn't know about germs, so how could he be God?"
Good grief Carmen! Don't tell me you wrote that line sober?!?
The guy ran around for three years in his ministry and so how would we have a record of everything he said in that time let alone in the previous 30 years, as the last sentence in John's gospel emphasises.
Then there is the other thing, why would would he mention germs? What was the purpose of his ministry and what were the gospel writers trying to bring out such thgat germs would come up.
But you do bring up a bit of mystery in that being both God and man how much did Jesus know or as the writer puts it about Jesus limiting him self. It gets back to what his goal was.
"The best argument that Jesus was sent by God would be that he got back to the spirit of the Old Testament, and thus came up with these high ideals for people to follow. These ideals- "Be perfect, like your Father is perfect" and the idea of serving others who are in need, no matter who they were, these ideals can help fight the basic injustices of the world. I think God approved of this religion otherwise it wouldn't have been so successful"
My conclusion about what point the OT makes is that no matter what we do we fail these high ideals and that you can't get to God, even religion doesn't work (perhaps you could say the OT is anti religion). So something else has to happen and it was god who did the work of bringing us to him.
Carmen, can I give you three words when looking at things like the bible.
They are:
Context, context and the third one is context.
We never ignore context when looking at other writings or literature but why do people suddenly do ti with the bible?
Couple of comments on things that caught my eye:
First, please note that the claim "Bible is of divine inspiration" and the claim "Bible is literal divine word" are not the same claim. When I was a Christian (as I was for many years) I would have said that the Bible is divinely inspired in the sense that God has overseen the writing of it and ensured that it's accurate enough to meet the purpose He intended for it, but I would also have said that this purpose doesn't require it to be accurate in every detail. I might have used the breath analogy to say that when you blow air, you control its general direction but not the precise motion of every nitrogen molecule, and that likewise to say that the Bible is God-breathed needn't imply that every single word was selected by God.
Jeremy C asks, "Give us evidence that the person who wrote Matthew's gospel was quoting things out of context." But surely it's perverse to think that "Out of Egypt I have called my son" originally referred to anything other than the Exodus of Israel? The following quotes are taken from William Barclay's commentary on Matthew's gospel, and bear in mind that Barclay was a Christian writer writing for a Christian audience, and that his books are commonly found on the shelves of mainstream preachers. Barclay, then, did not see Matthew's textual looseness as a serious problem for the Christian faith, though for my part I think it's more of a problem than he lets on.
At one point, Barclay writes: "We shall see, again and again, that this is typical of Matthew's use of the Old Testament. He is prepared to use as a prophecy about Jesus any text at all which can be made verbally to fit, even though originally it had nothing to do with the question in hand, and was never meant to have anything to do with it. Matthew knew that almost the only way to convince the Jews that Jesus was the promised Anointed One of God was to prove that he was the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy. And in his eagerness to do that he finds prophecies in the Old Testament where no prophecies were ever meant."
At another point, he writes: "Here Matthew cites a prophecy: 'He shall be called a Nazarene'; and here Matthew has set us an insoluble problem, for there is no such text in the Old Testament. In fact Nazareth is never mentioned in the Old Testament. No one has ever satisfactorily solved the problem of what part of the Old Testament Matthew has in mind. The ancient writers liked puns and plays on words. It has been suggested tat Matthew is playing on the words of Isaiah in Isaiah 11:1: 'There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots.' The word for branch is nezer; and it is just possible that Matthew is playing on the word Nazarene and the word Nezer; and that he is saying at one and the same time that Jesus was from Nazareth and that Jesus was the nezer, the promised Branch from the stock of Jesse, the descendant of David, the promised Annointed King of God."
(Note: I have posted to Carmen's blog using my OpenID name "outerhoard", for anyone trying to keep track of who's who. Barclay's commentaries are also my primary source for the points I raised there, FWIW.)
Well, I no longer feel welcome on Deltoid. I won't be back.
Have a nice day.
Ummmmm Adrian,
How have you shown that the writer of matthew's gospel has taken stuff out of the OT (and perhaps other non canical jewish texts from the same period) out of context beyond quoting Barclay? William Barclay took a liberal line e.g. he didn't believe in the virgin birth etc. So you might expect a particular line to come out of him no matter what book of the bible he is writing about. Do other commentators agree with him? He did call himself a liberal evangelical which in the 1950's to 1970's meant a particular theological stance so you could expect him to say that the writer of matthew's gospel ripped things out of context because that followed his presuppositions when coming to the text. To echo Carmen in an earlier post Barclay got the answers he was looking for
A theological and philosophical question. If God did inspire the bible does that leave room for mistakes? Would that say that God is not soverign or indeed instead, perversely, prove that he is soverign?
BPL, stop spitting the dummy, you're just being silly. God is big enough and ugly enough to look after himself.
"Well, I no longer feel welcome on Deltoid. I won't be back.
Have a nice day
" - BPL
Aarrgghhhhh!!!!!!!!!!
BPL, I agree this isn't exactly what one expects to find on Deltoid, but I think it's safe to assume it's a first and last event.
Don't take your bat and ball and go home over one post.
BPL:
I agree.
BPL is a lion for the truth in matters climatic.
Believers and unbelievers alike have been delighted to have him on their side when the state of the planet is discussed, and his absence will be sharply felt.
I'd hoped that he could find some way to take Carmen's post as offered in good faith, but that may not be in the cards.
So, if it's OK with everyone, can we move the theological discussion over to Carmen's blog, and get back to business?
Gaz@89
It is regrettable that BPL takes this attitude becuase when he's not talking religion he makes very good sense and has much of value to contribute to the issues of key concern here.
It does seem though -- and we saw this in the Easterbook topic -- that this is for him a hot button issue that he takes very personally and which provokes rage. Apparently, this side of self-censorship, he can't cope personally.
If his adherence to his theology makes it hard for him to tolerate this place, then this raises a paradox. It does seem odd that someone who implies that his doctrine gives him peace is saddled with what to most every thoughtful person would appear a psychological burden.
By way of comparison, I'm on the far left and an atheist. We far left atheists have no choice but to reconcile being in the world with constant baiting and abuse for all manner of alleged ethical failings, and yet those of us who have worked through our ideas can respond with a degree of equanimity and acceptance of the perspectives of others. Unlike christians, we don't get the luxury of a large, warm and welcoming community to exist in. We either have to hide ourselves away from mainstream people and their ideas in sect-like existence or cop abuse. The former course never appealed and was inherently paradoxical for anyone wanting to foster human progress so we leftist atheists who want to be relevant and not go nuts have had to put the work into working out the apparent conflict between the world as it is and our own Weltanschauung(en).
Similarly, if BPL's christianity can't get him to a place where he can play nicely with those he'd normally feel he needed to respect, then perhaps it's his doctrine that is flawed and he ought to re-examine it, however robust its other claims might appear to be.
Well, Fran, I also think BPL's doctrine is flawed, but not because it hasn't turned him into a saint, and I don't think this is a venue likely to result in fruitful discussion of such things (see above).
I agree with jre - how about moving this discussion onto a more appropriate site, eg Carmen's.
BPL, if you don't return, thanks for your knowledge and insight.
This sort of thing isn't why I come to Deltoid. And Tim, I think it was an error of judgement to expose someone with who you have a close personal relationship to the sometimes vicious criticism we indulge in here, since you can't plausibly moderate in an unbiased manner. But it's your blog.
With respect, Gaz, I didn't suggest that the test of the doctrine was its ability to author saintliness. I don't believe in sainthood and I can't see how any doctrine could author such a thing. A doctrine is more like a favourite set of clothes or perhaps one of those phrasebooks you use for visiting unfamiliar places. At worst, it doesn't make doing what you need to do harder and hopefully it helps you to get what you need from any setting where you happen to be.
But if the phrasebook is like that one in that famous Monty Python Skit then you need something better. You wouldn't appear dressed for scuba diving at a formal dinner or decide to read Umberto Eco's Il pendolo di Foucault at your 8-year-old's party and if stuff didn't work out when you tried it, how should one explain it?
BTW, Tim, I also agree it was a touch unwise to offer up your partner's blog as you did. While I wasn't offended, and would have felt free to say so if I had been, it does have the potential to create a rather undesirable set of consequences, as can be seen when BPL, went ad hom. What do you do then? What does he do? Is everyone supposed to take sides, and if so, on what basis?
At the very least you should have kept at arms' length -- perhaps adding it to the blogroll without commentary.
Long time reader, 1st time commentator.
BPL, I'm an atheist and enjoy your excellent contribution to this blog very much. I'd be extremely sad if it ceased.
Take care.
BPL, put me down as another who will miss your invaluable contributions to this blog.
I hope you will reconsider your decision.
Here's the quote on "I called my son out of Egypt" You can see it's not about Jesus it's about Israel
Hosea 11
God's Love for Israel
1 "When Israel was a child, I loved him,
and out of Egypt I called my son.
2 But the more I [a] called Israel,
the further they went from me. [b]
They sacrificed to the Baals
and they burned incense to images.
3 It was I who taught Ephraim to walk,
taking them by the arms;
but they did not realize
it was I who healed them.
4 I led them with cords of human kindness,
with ties of love;
I lifted the yoke from their neck
and bent down to feed them.
5 "Will they not return to Egypt
and will not Assyria rule over them
because they refuse to repent?
6 Swords will flash in their cities,
will destroy the bars of their gates
and put an end to their plans.
7 My people are determined to turn from me.
Even if they call to the Most High,
he will by no means exalt them.
There's the quote about Rachel crying for her children because they are dead. If you look it up in the Old Testament, it turn out she is crying because they are in EXILE. If you want more examples just go to the post "Did the Old Testament really prophesy Jesus"
I don't understand why BPL deserted you. One post, that's different from the kind that is usually posted, and he's off?
As for the question, do I think Moses knew about germs- of course he didn't that's the point!
He also didn't know about the worms in pigs and why their meat is so dangerous to eat, he also didn't know that milk products interfere with the absorption of iron in meats. To the Israelites these were nonsensical teachings. They were even nonsensical to Jesus because his followers didn't wash their hands before they eat. He said that was just a silly man-made rule so they didn't have to obey it. But because of that, they got sick. That's in my blog post about germs and personal hygiene. That's why I think the rules were of divine origin.
ending this thread's ok with me.
Carmne,
I'm not sure why you are posting those last verses. Perhaps its time this post goes offline. If you are still interested perhaps we can continue this by email. I'm happy for Tim to pass my email across to you.
I'd be more inclined to refer to you as highly valued than merely welcome. I don't quite get why you're taking this as personally as you are, but all I can really say is I wish very much that you don't go away.
Hi Jeremy
Sure- I'd love to. You seem to know a lot. But my aim isn't to win an argument, it's to get at the truth. Asking me if I was drunk when I wrote something isn't really going to help right? So let's keep things nice and calm. I'll assume you have good reasons for believing what you do, and I need you to be able to assume that I also have good reasons for believing what I do. I do not write things lightly. I check and double check and I especially try and come up with counter arguments before I publish any post. I do like your theosophical and philosophical questions. Anyway, this comment thread is closing down now, so tell me if you still want to e-mail by posting on my blog. If you do I'll give you my e-mail there.
cheers
carmen