Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?

[1robin]

You win the trifecta. You linked C.S. Lewis and his trilemma. You did read it didn't you? In the article it mentions Bart Erhman adding "legend" to the choices.

But, besides that, let's pretend that Jesus is real and everything it says about them in the Bible is the truth. Then, what does that make Buddha, Krishna, Mohammad, Baha'u'llah, Zoroastor and all the others? Were they liars or lunatics? Were they historical figures or merely legends? Or, a little of both? Oh, and by the way, do you believe in the trinity? 'Cause that would implicate Jesus and the Holy Spirit in all the killings at Jericho and the other places. Really, woman and children? You said you were in the military. Would you listen to your commander if he ordered you to kill every living soul in a city?

1. I have never heard Lewis's concept referred to as a trilemma. Every other human on earth may have, but I have not. I do not even find a dilemma in what Lewis stated. He made it clear the choices resolve themselves.

2. Let's pretend everything the bible says about them is true. Who is them?

3. I can't compare Christ with all those figures in one post. So let me just compare him with no. 2. Muhammad did not claim what Christ claimed. Lewis's clear distinctions arise from the extreme claims Christ made. Muhammad did not say he was "I am". That he was to forgive men's sins. That his name is the only name by which men may be saved. He is still in the grave and Christ is not. Muhammad does not force himself into any one box. Christ does. IMO Muhammad was part liar, part demonically deceived, part opportunistic tyrant, part honest self proclaimed prophet. In short he was simply a man. Christ is a whole different creature. He says he was here from the beginning and everything was made through him. There exists no parallel of self delineating claims in history by a historically reliable figure. There is no neutral or composite position possible with Christ's claims.

4. I do not know why Ehrman's opinion about legend matters. Most scholars (regardless of faith position) think the complexity and early dates of the Gospels do not leave the possibility for legend open. Ehrman while a good scholar seems to contradict himself. Where is room for legend in this statement:

Most of these differences are completely immaterial and insignificant; in fact most of the changes found in our early Christian manuscripts have nothing to do with theology or ideology. Far and away the most changes are the result of mistakes, pure and simple— slips of the pen, accidental omissions, inadvertent additions, misspelled words, blunders of one sort or another when scribes
made intentional changes, sometimes their motives were as pure as the driven snow. And so we must rest content knowing that getting back to the earliest attainable version is the best we can do, whether or not we have reached back to the “original” text. This oldest form of the text is no doubt closely (very closely) related to what the author originally wrote, and so it is the basis for our interpretation of his teaching.
The gentleman that I’m quoting is Bart Ehrman in Misquoting Jesus. [audience laughter]

5. IMO the Trinity is true. It just is not resolvable. I think it easily shown Jesus claims are not consistent with him as mere man, but getting all the way to God is much harder. There are no liabilities either way.

6. I am already on the hook for the killings God has commanded or performed. I have posted exhaustively on this. I have never ran from them.

7. My commanders were not the author of life, were not the moral locus of the universe, did not hold complete sovereignty over everything. However if there is no God what is the difference in wiping out a bunch of biological anomalies versus a few, one sex versus another, one age versus another? It is only because God exists I have an standard higher than my commanders were, by which to justify refusal of an order to exterminate mass lives. Even the categories of good and evil lose most of their meaning unless God exists to ground them in reality. This course of inquiry will doom your view point in the cradle. I would not suggest pursuing it but I hope you do as it is the easiest of arguments to make.

 

[technomage]

Most scholars (regardless of faith position) think the complexity and early dates of the Gospels do not leave the possibility for legend open. Ehrman while a good scholar seems to contradict himself. Where is room for legend in this statement:

Clarification: Most scholars accept that a mythic/nonexistent Jesus is false (an assessment I agree with). That says nothing, however, for the possibility of legendary deeds and statements being accrued to the historical person. Such legends can develop within days or weeks, even in non-mass-media cultures.

 

[1robin]

Clarification: Most scholars accept that a mythic/nonexistent Jesus is false (an assessment I agree with). That says nothing, however, for the possibility of legendary deeds and statements being accrued to the historical person. Such legends can develop within days or weeks, even in non-mass-media cultures.

That is not true. I can even go further than what I claimed. Most NT scholars regardless of faith agree to 4 historical claims among many that emphatically disagree with what you stated.

1. Jesus appeared on the scene with an unprecedented sense of divine authority. (the issue here does not require they agree that he actually had this authority)
2. That he was crucified by Rome, and died.
3. That his tomb was found empty.
4. That many, even among his enemies experienced him personally after his death and claimed such sincerely.


There exists no possible way on Earth a legend as complex and as heavily relied on historical and empirical claims as Christianity within even a 100 years after the fact. To create myth you need to get separation between eyewitnesses and the recording of historical events. All kind of eyewitnesses were still alive when the Gospels were recorded. Not a single contemporary record of any type of "I was there and this did not occur" exists. Your claims and even the latest trends in scholarship are much separated.

 

[technomage]

That is not true. I can even go further than what I claimed. Most NT scholars regardless of faith agree to 4 historical claims among many that emphatically disagree with what you stated.

Your assertion fails, probably because your list of "Most NT scholars" may be somewhat selective. The only two claims that have near-universal assent are:

1. That Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist.
2. That Jesus was crucified by Pilate.

Beyond that, everything is up for grabs, and there is no majority position. (Citations: Jesus Remembered by James D. G. Dunn (2003); Prophet and Teacher: An Introduction to the Historical Jesus by William R. Herzog (4 Jul 2005); Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. Crossan, John Dominic (1995).)

To create myth you need to get separation between eyewitnesses and the recording of historical events.

False. A current example that is within both of our lifetimes is the body of myth and conspiracy theory that surrounds 9/11. Other examples include the Cargo Cults of the Pacific, the legends surrounding George Washington (some of which developed during his life--he did not confirm them, but often declined to refute them), the cultus that developed around Caesar Augustus and the later emperors, the body of myth and mystique that developed around such phenomena as the Marian apparitions at Lourdes. All of these developed a substantial and involved body of legends within less than a decade of the events (or imagined events) that inspired them, and all of them developed the legend while eyewitnesses were still living.

 

[CG Didymus]

1. I have never heard Lewis's concept referred to as a trilemma.

The article you linked calls it that. The "liar, lunatic, or Lord" question is important, because, guess what, there are people who claim Krishna is God

Krishna’s credentials appear in many Vedic literatures. The Srimad-Bhagavatam in particular clearly and repeatedly states that Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead…
If we study the Vedic literature closely, we find that Krishna is always declared to be the Supreme Personality of Godhead. After listing many incarnations of God, the Srimad- Bhagavatam states that Krishna is the origin of all incarnations and that He alone is the Supreme God (krishnas tu bhagavan svayam). The Brahma-samhita (5.1) states, “Krishna, who is known as Govinda, is the supreme controller. He has an eternal, blissful, spiritual body. He is the origin of all. He has no other origin, for He is the prime cause of all causes.” Krishna is described here as the original controller. His position is unique: There can be only one original controller, and He is God.

So was Krishna a liar, a lunatic or truly the Lord? Or, a legendary figure, or a complete myth?
Everything you say about Jesus, they say about Krishna:

Christ is a whole different creature. He says he was here from the beginning and everything was made through him. There exists no parallel of self delineating claims in history by a historically reliable figure. There is no neutral or composite position possible with Christ's claims.

I do not know why Ehrman's opinion about legend matters.

The legends of our "heroes" of the old west, Billy the Kid, Jesse James, Butch Cassidy, Wild Bill Hickok, Buffalo Bill, and Custer. I even heard that Teddy Roosevelt never went up San Juan hill. The "legends" of Jesus? Hmm, what do you think the non-canonical gospels were? Wouldn't they qualify as "legends"? Especially the infancy gospels. How about the legend of him being born on December 25th? I know none of these you consider early enough, but they still show that people were adding to the "story" or dare I say, legend of Jesus. For me, the gospels themselves weren't that early. You'd think someone would've been following Jesus around and taking notes. And, then compiling them, writing a first draft, getting it edited, then finally getting it published. Oh yeah, they were handwritten by anonymous authors thirty or so years later? All we have is the "tradition" of who wrote them. Hmm, a tradition? Is that similar to a legend?

Most of these differences are completely immaterial and insignificant... And so we must rest content knowing that getting back to the earliest attainable version is the best we can do.

So, still, is the long ending of Mark "gospel" truth?

I am already on the hook for the killings God has commanded or performed. I have posted exhaustively on this. I have never ran from them.

Here again legends comes into play. Could the Hebrew "historian" have told the story the way he wanted it to be rather than how it was? Because, in the real world seas don't part. Walking sticks don't turn into snakes. And, a good God doesn't order killings. But, if I were that historian, I'd add those in the story to make it more... epic. And, then have Charleston Heston play the lead in the movie version.

Even the categories of good and evil lose most of their meaning unless God exists to ground them in reality. This course of inquiry will doom your view point in the cradle. I would not suggest pursuing it but I hope you do as it is the easiest of arguments to make.

What people call God, some mystical, spiritual reality, could be very true. But, that doesn't mean that how you describe God is the correct one. And, considering how many posts you've made, your argument doesn't look to be all that easy to make. But the OP is all about if God is real, then why all the suffering and pain? That is not an easy argument to win.

 

[1robin]

Your assertion fails, probably because your list of "Most NT scholars" may be somewhat selective. The only two claims that have near-universal assent are:

Before I get into your claims. I did not understand your original post as I now do after re-reading. I had thought you were denying a historical Jesus but after review I see you were not. I will defend my claims but they were not exactly what I should have posted. Sorry.

1. That Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist.
2. That Jesus was crucified by Pilate.

You have agreed to one of my propositions and added another to it. The only issue that remains is the validity of the other three.

Here is the classic claim:

That leads me, then, to my first major contention, namely:

(I) There are four historical facts which must be explained by any adequate historical hypothesis:

o Jesus’ burial
o the discovery of his empty tomb
o his post-mortem appearances
o the origin of the disciples’ belief in his resurrection.

Now, let’s look at that first contention more closely. I want to share four facts which are widely accepted by historians today.

Fact #1: After his crucifixion Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in a tomb.

Historians have established this fact on the basis of evidence such as the following:

1. Jesus’ burial is multiply attested in early, independent sources.
2. As a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin that condemned Jesus, Joseph of Arimathea is unlikely to be a Christian invention.

Fact #2: On the Sunday after the crucifixion, Jesus’ tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers.

Among the reasons which have led most scholars to this conclusion are the following:

1. The empty tomb is also multiply attested by independent, early sources.
2. The tomb was discovered empty by women.

Fact #3: On different occasions and under various circumstances different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead.

This is a fact which is virtually universally acknowledged by scholars, for the following reasons:

1. Paul’s list of eyewitnesses to Jesus’ resurrection appearances guarantees that such appearances occurred.
2. The appearance narratives in the Gospels provide multiple, independent attestation of the appearances.

Fact #4: The original disciples suddenly and sincerely came to believe that Jesus was risen from the dead despite their having every predisposition to the contrary.

Think of the situation the disciples faced following Jesus’ crucifixion:

1. Their leader was dead.
2. Jewish beliefs about the afterlife precluded anyone’s rising from the dead to glory and immortality before the general resurrection of the dead at the end of the world.

Read more: Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus? The Craig-Ehrman Debate | Reasonable Faith

Beyond that, everything is up for grabs, and there is no majority position. (Citations: Jesus Remembered by James D. G. Dunn (2003); Prophet and Teacher: An Introduction to the Historical Jesus by William R. Herzog (4 Jul 2005); Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. Crossan, John Dominic (1995).)

The must be a majority position by necessity. I doubt there is a tie on every issue.

False. A current example that is within both of our lifetimes is the body of myth and conspiracy theory that surrounds 9/11. Other examples include the Cargo Cults of the Pacific, the legends surrounding George Washington (some of which developed during his life--he did not confirm them, but often declined to refute them), the cultus that developed around Caesar Augustus and the later emperors, the body of myth and mystique that developed around such phenomena as the Marian apparitions at Lourdes. All of these developed a substantial and involved body of legends within less than a decade of the events (or imagined events) that inspired them, and all of them developed the legend while eyewitnesses were still living.

1. My claim is coupled to the complexity of the narrative. It can't be compared to simplistic claims in a vacuum.
2. My claim was not that individuals cannot hold mythic beliefs early on, but that these beliefs will not be held by most and do not constitute the accepted narrative.
3. There is no widely held belief in the conspiracies of 9/11. The overwhelmingly accepted events involve well established facts. IOW books about the conspiracies are not the standard model as the Gospels are.
4. Cargo cults are based on ignorant conclusions concerning facts held by a very very few people and are again not remotely the accepted standard model for the events. This is not even the same type of claim. For example the claim that the Apostles knew a risen Christ is perfectly knowable to them. The idea that planes were God's is not knowable to the few natives that believed it.
5. I also did not say that details may be inaccurate early on. I said the narrative in general cannot be mythical that early. George Washington was very well understood from early on. There are details that at this time may be questionable. I have never believed that every detail of the Gospels as we have them are true. It is well known that scribes and leaders added some details to the narrative over time (however it includes less than 5% of the whole and are virtually all well known and indicated in all modern bibles). My point was the general narrative. Christ claiming to be the savior, his death, resurrection etc.. are historical not mythical. The same way Washington's lack of hunger for power, general integrity, and leadership ability are not mythical.
7. No story about an apparition is comparable to the Gospels. This is proven by the fact the Gospels are considered historical biographies, not myth officially as a category of literature. I do not think your apparition events are in that category or even close to it. Nor have you shown there is anything mythical about them. Are the appearances you mention supposed to have been the ones seen by thousands in Italy (I think).


You are grossly misunderstanding my claims. Let me clarify. I am claiming the general narratives in the Gospels are not mythical and coupled with the complexity, the heavy reliance on empirical claims, and the know-ability of the claims make myth a terrible conclusion. I am not claiming the entirety of the Gospels are free from embellishment over time. However they are all known and indicated so even that is no problem. I am not claiming that individuals and small percentages of people cannot hold mythical ideas early on, but that they do not comprise the generally accepted narrative of the events. I am not claiming that mythical conclusions arising from true events cannot be held early on. However the Christian doctrine (with few exceptions) is justified by the facts alone, they are not ambiguous interpretations of events. They are directly justified by events alone.

 

[technomage]

Before I get into your claims. I did not understand your original post as I now do after re-reading. I had thought you were denying a historical Jesus but after review I see you were not. I will defend my claims but they were not exactly what I should have posted. Sorry.

When you're getting dog-piled by mythers, yeah, it's easy to assume that a new participant is also of the same stripe. No harm, no foul.

The only issue that remains is the validity of the other three.

Wait, Robin. I am utterly uninterested in the other claims.

Jesus was most likely not buried in a tomb at all, and I highly doubt the existence of Joseph of Arimathea. Claims about his post-death appearances are no more relevant to me than claims about George Washington's cherry tree. This is hardly the only complex accretion of legend around a historical person, and the complexity of the legend is utterly immaterial to the claim that it _is_ legend.

Your arguments are irrelevant. My only interest here is to note that your claim of the "four events" that are accepted by "most NT scholars" is a false claim.

 

[1robin]

The article you linked calls it that. The "liar, lunatic, or Lord" question is important, because, guess what, there are people who claim Krishna is God
So was Krishna a liar, a lunatic or truly the Lord? Or, a legendary figure, or a complete myth?
Everything you say about Jesus, they say about Krishna:

I am certainly not questioning the importance. I do however question the equality between claiming Krishna is Lord and Christ is. That is one unequal equality. Is my claim only valid once I have contended with every other religious figure in history? That is a task too large. However you pick the personage you feel is Christ's closes competitor and I will compare them. Surely Krishna is not the best you have.

The legends of our "heroes" of the old west, Billy the Kid, Jesse James, Butch Cassidy, Wild Bill Hickok, Buffalo Bill, and Custer. I even heard that Teddy Roosevelt never went up San Juan hill.

This is too general. Your making a kitchen sink argument. Pick one person and the specific claims that render the gospels dismissible. I cannot pack three history courses into a post.

The "legends" of Jesus? Hmm, what do you think the non-canonical gospels were? Wouldn't they qualify as "legends"? Especially the infancy gospels. How about the legend of him being born on December 25th?

What do you have a question Vulcan cannon? I will have to pick only one representative point from each grouping. There is no early myth about Christ being born on Dec 25th. That was a much later Catholic effort to bring pagans who already had celebrations around that date into the fold. No one is a Christian based on faith in believing Christ was born on Christmas. I do not know anyone who believes that at all. Are you attempting to claim that if any other claim, of any kind, about any one, is wrong then the Bible is to be ignored and rejected? It certainly seems like it.

I know none of these you consider early enough, but they still show that people were adding to the "story" or dare I say, legend of Jesus. For me, the gospels themselves weren't that early. You'd think someone would've been following Jesus around and taking notes. And, then compiling them, writing a first draft, getting it edited, then finally getting it published. Oh yeah, they were handwritten by anonymous authors thirty or so years later? All we have is the "tradition" of who wrote them. Hmm, a tradition? Is that similar to a legend?

The tradition existed from the earliest records. IOW unless a compelling reason exists to ignore them, earlier is always considered better. In this case all the earliest claims are to the same thing (the opposite of what your claiming). Your also stating a very controversial thing as if it is settled. Those who have no axe to grind find no problem with the original traditional authors being accurate, except in a few cases. Hebrews, source material in a few cases, Moses' recording of his death, for example. There is little reservation in the large group of scholars put together for example to create the NIV. There are two main types of tactics employed in positions that people are pre-committed to. I think this post guilty of both.

1. A false amplification of less than significant uncertainty.
and
2. Extremely strict standards employed to dismiss what it is that is not preferred, which are not used in any other area of the persons life.

There is some uncertainty in biblical authorship. It does not rise to the significance of any justification for a lack of confidence in the historicity of what was claimed. If you can narrow down any of these staccato barrages of objections to a one or two we can discuss them in detail. You seem to be intent on overwhelming with volume not quality.

So, still, is the long ending of Mark "gospel" truth?

Everyone is familiar with the endings of Mark. Since the entire history of the endings including dating and sources in volumes of works and in every bible version in what way is this a problem? Not anything central to Christian faith depends on any of the endings of Mark alone. This is a classic over amplification of what is negligible uncertainty to an arbitrary level where plausible denial is possible. Why are you dismissing an entire book based on a very well understood anomaly concerning a tiny fraction of it. I do not reject macro-evolution though I have much better reasons for doing so than you do for Mark. I take it as it is. A merited theory with hurdles left un-surmounted.

Here again legends comes into play. Could the Hebrew "historian" have told the story the way he wanted it to be rather than how it was? Because, in the real world seas don't part. Walking sticks don't turn into snakes. And, a good God doesn't order killings. But, if I were that historian, I'd add those in the story to make it more... epic. And, then have Charleston Heston play the lead in the movie version.

Hebrews is the only NT book where significant doubt about authorship exists. However it is also one of the most textually accurate books in the bible. I think it is over 99% accurate. It is the height of futility to judge what is necessarily an exception by the rule. For example to suggest a lottery will not be won because most people lose. That is incoherent. No Christian I ever met gets doctrine from Hollywood. Miracles are inherent exceptions to natural law. Stating what the natural law is not an argument. In the real world molecules disappear from one point and the information they contained is reassigned to new particles at another point. In what way is that less miraculous? In the real world life only comes from life, the universe requires a cause it does not contain, and there are hundreds of millions of claims to supernatural experience. Yet for your world view to be true every one of these must either have an exception or all be wrong. Which view requires more faith?

What people call God, some mystical, spiritual reality, could be very true. But, that doesn't mean that how you describe God is the correct one. And, considering how many posts you've made, your argument doesn't look to be all that easy to make. But the OP is all about if God is real, then why all the suffering and pain? That is not an easy argument to win.

Faith positions and even much of science and history do not rest upon certainties. Point out uncertainties exist is once again not an argument. Faith actually only has the burden of the absence of defeaters. I raise it to a higher level in claiming it is the best explanation for the evidence. Theologians do not make many certainty claims nor have any certainty burdens. My views concerning God are the best explanation for the evidence, by far. You must show that is not the case, not that uncertainty exists. In fact uncertainty exists in every claim of every type ever made, except one. By your standards you have doomed every fact you think to be true.

 

[1robin]

When you're getting dog-piled by mythers, yeah, it's easy to assume that a new participant is also of the same stripe. No harm, no foul.

Very well.

Wait, Robin. I am utterly uninterested in the other claims.

Then a theological forum is a strange place for you to be. I am not responsible for what you are interested in. I am responsible for defending my faith and my claims.

Jesus was most likely not buried in a tomb at all, and I highly doubt the existence of Joseph of Arimathea. Claims about his post-death appearances are no more relevant to me than claims about George Washington's cherry tree. This is hardly the only complex accretion of legend around a historical person, and the complexity of the legend is utterly immaterial to the claim that it _is_ legend.

In over twenty years of reading apologetics, I have never ever heard anyone of any position cast doubt on Joseph's historicity. There are very few Gospel claims that are equivalent to Washington's cherry tree. However even (as Ehrman admits) if you simply rip out every Gospel claim that has substantial doubts you are still left with far more than enough to justify core doctrine. Just as Washington's core identity is unaffected by cherry tree claims, Christ's mandates remain intact even if significant uncertainties are all rejected.

Your arguments are irrelevant. My only interest here is to note that your claim of the "four events" that are accepted by "most NT scholars" is a false claim.

If you have no interest in them and obviously did not read my justification for making them then you have no qualifications for claiming what you did here. I simply reject this last claim in totality. I justified all four of my claims. If you are not interested then drop the conclusions.

 

[technomage]

Then a theological forum is a strange place for you to be.

Not really. The topic of theology still fascinates me, both for reasons of pure curiosity and for more fundamental reasons. Specifically _Christian_ theology, however, I find to be erroneous in fact. Even at that, however, there are millions of people who find Christianity to be helpful, and I have no problem with that.

Indeed, a couple of weeks ago, I found myself in counseling a Catholic friend of mine on what she should do for Lent this year. She was planning on just a course of giving up an accustomed luxury--I reminded her that that was not a bad idea, but also encouraged her to consider setting aside part of the day to do at least part of the Rosary. She decided to make a commitment to do a Rosary every day for the 40 days of Lent.

In over twenty years of reading apologetics, I have never ever heard anyone of any position cast doubt on Joseph's historicity.

Probably because you've dealt with apologetics, rather than with scholarship. Nothing wrong with that, per se, but apologetics is the "kiddie pool" of Biblical scholarship.

The identify of Joseph of Arimathea is questionable, at best. Yes, we have two canonical traditions (the Synoptics and the Johanine) that attest to his existence. However, we have three non-canonical traditions--the Gospel of Peter, the Secret Book of James, and the Epistula Apostolorium--that omit any reference of Joseph entirely, and all three suggest a dishonorable burial for Jesus. Now, these sources are problematic for other reasons, but they do show that the historicity of Joseph of Arimathea was not universally accepted within the early Christian community.

There are very few Gospel claims that are equivalent to Washington's cherry tree.

Baldly asserted as such, your statement means little, perhaps nothing. You're not even defining equivalence. And there are passages in the Gospels that are definitely post-death writings placed into the mouth of Jesus--the Olivet Discourse being the most notable.

 

[1robin]

Not really. The topic of theology still fascinates me, both for reasons of pure curiosity and for more fundamental reasons. Specifically _Christian_ theology, however, I find to be erroneous in fact. Even at that, however, there are millions of people who find Christianity to be helpful, and I have no problem with that.

Christianity's claims are not self help recipes. Christianity cannot be reduced to some kind of philosophy. The great central truths it exists to convey are not of that type and the relevance of the bible is not contained in better morals but in the claims of Christ.

Indeed, a couple of weeks ago, I found myself in counseling a Catholic friend of mine on what she should do for Lent this year. She was planning on just a course of giving up an accustomed luxury--I reminded her that that was not a bad idea, but also encouraged her to consider setting aside part of the day to do at least part of the Rosary. She decided to make a commitment to do a Rosary every day for the 40 days of Lent.

I am not a fan of Catholic tradition. Lent sounds harmless but many of them have been the greatest threat to Christianity it has ever faced. What was this claims purpose?

Probably because you've dealt with apologetics, rather than with scholarship. Nothing wrong with that, per se, but apologetics is the "kiddie pool" of Biblical scholarship.

It is a terrible error to suggest they are two separate things, though they certainly can be and at times have been. I spend all my time at the deep end of apologetic scholarship. I study the Aquinas's, Craig's, Zacharias's, Nietzsche's, Leibniz's, Hume's, and Descartes of the world not the Hovind's and Morris's. It is entertaining to hear you say there is nothing wrong with X but X is childish in the same paragraph. I may not have mastered them all but in the relevant subjects scholars do not get any bigger than I study.

The identify of Joseph of Arimathea is questionable, at best. Yes, we have two canonical traditions (the Synoptics and the Johanine) that attest to his existence. However, we have three non-canonical traditions--the Gospel of Peter, the Secret Book of James, and the Epistula Apostolorium--that omit any reference of Joseph entirely, and all three suggest a dishonorable burial for Jesus. Now, these sources are problematic for other reasons, but they do show that the historicity of Joseph of Arimathea was not universally accepted within the early Christian community.

Three unaccepted traditions do not counter two accepted traditions. I am not even sure why you would insist on scholarship and also include these three gospels almost universally considered non-inspired (apocryphal). Sort of like using Nostradamus to counter biblical prophecy. Do you place any authenticity on these non-canonical works? If you did that would at least explain why you used them, but it would not explain why you hold that confidence in them. I do not know of a single text not included in the bible that deserves credibility besides the texts the Catholics include in their bible and TGOT. They deserve very little but the rest, none. You did however explain where you got your ideas from on Joseph, so you technically satisfied my request. It is one thing to suggest there is uncertainty. It is another to make propositions that require that uncertainty to overturn the certainty of canonical texts. I never suggested that certainty exists (textually anyway) for Christianity. I suggest only the Gospels are the best explanation for the evidence.

Baldly asserted as such, your statement means little, perhaps nothing. You're not even defining equivalence. And there are passages in the Gospels that are definitely post-death writings placed into the mouth of Jesus--the Olivet Discourse being the most notable.

That is not so much an assertion than a statement of simple and obvious truths. The apostles were in a position to know much of what they claimed. There were thousands of witnesses to many of the events. They have multiple attestation. Does the cherry tree story have any one of these. That story has been considered mythical from it's inception. I was taught it as a myth in middle school. There are a few passages that are well known to have been added after the fact. As theses are virtually all known and indicated in every major bible version and have exhaustive well known histories they pose no problem. As I have said before if you start by using Ehrman's own numbers and remove all passages that have meaningful errors in them or like Mathew are well known to have been added, you are still left with more than enough to justify core Christian doctrines. Only when you have problems like a complete work produced by one very questionable man, or a work that was strictly controlled like Uthman did with the Quran are those problems lethal. Despite being the most textually accurate work of any kind in ancient history the bible does have errors. However these errors multiply be the same causes that increase reliability. If you have only one text and for example all others burned, you will have fewer errors but far worse reliability. Even adding all of Ehrman's errors you are still left with at least a 95% accuracy rate for an individual bible version. In what way is that a problem at all?

 

[technomage]

Christianity's claims are not self help recipes. Christianity cannot be reduced to some kind of philosophy. The great central truths it exists to convey are not of that type and the relevance of the bible is not contained in better morals but in the claims of Christ.

Oh, I quite agree! That's part of the reason I found Christianity to be false. But _even though it is false_, it has helped a lot of people.

Let's say, just for a moment, that I had the all-time "argument-winning" evidence that Christianity was false. (I don't, but I'm being thoroughly hypothetical here.) Sure, I could go and publish a book, and probably make a lot of money ... but at what cost? How many people would be hurt? How many people would have their lives destroyed by such a revelation? How many would become nihilists, or would succumb to despair, or would simply stop wanting to live? How many people would go back to drinking, or drug use, or would return to the anti-social behaviors they are attempting to stop doing?

Of course, I have no hard numbers to answer that question ... but to my mind, causing that level of heart-wrenching pain to even _one person_ is too much.

Christianity is false. Well, don't feel lonely ... so is Islam. So is Hinduism, Buddhism, and all the rest. If we really want to get down to the nitty-gritty, so is Wicca--and if you haven't already looked at my religion tag, look now. There ARE no "true" religions out there. Every single one was made up ... mostly by people of good intent and sincere goodwill, who honestly (but wrongly) thought they had a hotline to the truth.

I could go through the step-by-step process of how I've figured that out, but why bother? If I intended to persuade you, I already know, before I start, that I would be tilting against a windmill.

So I'm more than content to let you go on in your errors, and for me to go on in my errors.

It is entertaining to hear you say there is nothing wrong with X but X is childish in the same paragraph.

Not "childish"--"kiddie pool." As in shallow, self-enclosed, and unconnected to other areas of study.

The biggest reason I disregard apologetics is that it is based on an a priori conclusion: "my faith is RIGHT, and I have to find ways to argue that it's right." It's hogwash. Have you read Ehrman, or just the people critiquing him?

Have you even looked at archaeology? How about the _actual_ history of Canaan? How do you defend Mosaic law when Moses never existed, and the law codes attributed to him were compiled just before and during the Babylonian Captivity? Do you even know who Israel Finklestein is? How about Kathleen Kenyon? How about John Garstang? Joseph Calloway?

How about linguistics? Did you know that El and Yahweh started out as separate Gods? It's true--El (Elion) created the world, Yahweh was a war god. They were first connected in Ugarit (Canaanite) texts, before the Hebrews separated from the Canaanites and became a separate culture.

Three unaccepted traditions do not counter two accepted traditions.

Not to you, perhaps--but then, you use special pleading to accord your preferred traditions a status beyond criticism.

I am not even sure why you would insist on scholarship and also include these three gospels almost universally considered non-inspired (apocryphal).

Do you realize just how little your claim that some books were "inspired" means to me? I don't ascribe "authenticity" to ANY of them, whether you consider them "inspired" or not. "Authenticity" is not a scholarly criterion.

Robin, your beliefs mean absolutely nothing. Indeed, my beliefs mean every bit as much--which is to say, absolutely nothing. I use the same criteria to evaluate the Bible that I do any other proposed sacred text--indeed, I use the same criteria for non-sacred texts. I look at them in their historical context, and I look at the intended message.

I've investigated just about every text in the Abrahamic tradition (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Baha'i)--not all of the Talmud or all of the Hadith, to be sure, but a significant portion of those, as well. It's all the same--well-meaning writing by people who were, and are, sincere.

Sincerity, however, is not a foolproof protection from error.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

This was brought out many times by Atheists and agnostics, I would like to discuss it with you in a rational and respectful manner. My disclaimer is I am a true 5 point Calvinist and If that is offensive to you,You are free to close the thread now. If I may suggest , we leave out all slander against My God in the process of this discussion, slander being pre-defined as name calling as If he were real and present.Questioning scriptures depiction of God however you interpret is allowed. Example: Is God evil? Fair enough?

Here is my premise,
this is my belief based upon my scriptures.
God not only allows children to die, He has pre-ordained them to die. Hard for us to fathom, granted, but True nevertheless in Scripture. If we say he did not cause it and only allowed it to happen then God would be reacting to free will of man to accomplish their own destruction, thus putting too much power in men and essentially tying God's hands. God ordained for this latest tragedy for his own purposes, we cannot know them, we are not our creator, so The bible tells us we must accept that their is a divine plan and God is in control completely.

So you have asked, where is the comfort in that? Why do religious peoples comfort families of these tragedies with this premise of a God in control? Well let me ask you Atheists would you attempt to comfort these mothers with your precept that there is no God? No heaven and no hell? That their children are reduced to dust as they came? That the man who murdered them who took his life is also Dust and there is no justice for them either? Both parties cease to exist, one guilty, one innocent, both have the same fate in the end.

Or could it be more comforting that a God in control is with their babies now, that they know no suffering,feel no pain have no more tears and the man that took their life will be punished by a Just and perfect God. Where is the evil in my premise and the lack of evil in yours? I find evil in evildoing going unpunished.I find evil in a life given for no purpose but to die and cease to exist.
What say you?

Honestly...5 point Calvinism has never made a speck of sense to me. Should we stop having children just in case they are predestined to hell? What if I'm predestined to hell? What if you are? Am I being controlled by God right now? Is it really him making me type this?

 

[1robin]

Oh, I quite agree! That's part of the reason I found Christianity to be false. But _even though it is false_, it has helped a lot of people.

So emphatic means false to you. How did you arrive at that equality?

Let's say, just for a moment, that I had the all-time "argument-winning" evidence that Christianity was false. (I don't, but I'm being thoroughly hypothetical here.) Sure, I could go and publish a book, and probably make a lot of money ... but at what cost? How many people would be hurt? How many people would have their lives destroyed by such a revelation? How many would become nihilists, or would succumb to despair, or would simply stop wanting to live? How many people would go back to drinking, or drug use, or would return to the anti-social behaviors they are attempting to stop doing?

As Merlin famously said. When you lie (by commission or omission) you murder some part of the world. If I have truth, I will supply that truth. I will never do so for the purpose of hurting anyone alone, I however believe truth is necessary for advancement, justice, and fulfillment. I would hope you would present any such evidence. I do not want to follow a false God, especially if a true one may exclude me from paradise on that result. I would not even want to follow a comfortable lie instead of a harsh truth. As I and Lewis have said theology is either the greatest of evils if wrong or the greatest of goods if true. I not responsible for what a person does with truth. I am for supplying it.

Of course, I have no hard numbers to answer that question ... but to my mind, causing that level of heart-wrenching pain to even _one person_ is too much.

You cannot ever know the misery versus gain costs of truth. It is always best to supply it unless supplying it would be irrelevant. In this case nothing could be more relevant.

Christianity is false. Well, don't feel lonely ... so is Islam. So is Hinduism, Buddhism, and all the rest. If we really want to get down to the nitty-gritty, so is Wicca--and if you haven't already looked at my religion tag, look now. There ARE no "true" religions out there. Every single one was made up ... mostly by people of good intent and sincere goodwill, who honestly (but wrongly) thought they had a hotline to the truth.

Wow. Now that is one huge claim to knowledge, that inherits the greatest of burdens for proof. Where is that part? The fact is even if true you can't possibly know what you claimed here.

I could go through the step-by-step process of how I've figured that out, but why bother? If I intended to persuade you, I already know, before I start, that I would be tilting against a windmill.

Again a debate forum is a strange place for you.

So I'm more than content to let you go on in your errors, and for me to go on in my errors.

I am not content to let myself or anyone go in any error I know is an error unless requested. You have requested this so I will do so.

Not "childish"--"kiddie pool." As in shallow, self-enclosed, and unconnected to other areas of study.

So that list of scholars is among this. Again, wow.

The biggest reason I disregard apologetics is that it is based on an a priori conclusion: "my faith is RIGHT, and I have to find ways to argue that it's right." It's hogwash. Have you read Ehrman, or just the people critiquing him?

This is a necessarily false equality. Apologetics is the process of defending what is believed to be true.

Have you even looked at archaeology? How about the _actual_ history of Canaan? How do you defend Mosaic law when Moses never existed, and the law codes attributed to him were compiled just before and during the Babylonian Captivity? Do you even know who Israel Finklestein is? How about Kathleen Kenyon? How about John Garstang? Joseph Calloway?

Moses not existing is not the conclusion of archeology. These are not questions they are taunts with question marks at the end. I do not want to participate.

How about linguistics? Did you know that El and Yahweh started out as separate Gods? It's true--El (Elion) created the world, Yahweh was a war god. They were first connected in Ugarit (Canaanite) texts, before the Hebrews separated from the Canaanites and became a separate culture.

I have exhaustively debated this very issue. It can easily found if searched for.

Not to you, perhaps--but then, you use special pleading to accord your preferred traditions a status beyond criticism.

I have never even hinted that my faith is beyond critique. Where did you even cough that up from?

Do you realize just how little your claim that some books were "inspired" means to me? I don't ascribe "authenticity" to ANY of them, whether you consider them "inspired" or not. "Authenticity" is not a scholarly criterion.

That is kind of self explanatory but instead let's use the criteria that went into canonization. That should mean something to you.

Robin, your beliefs mean absolutely nothing. Indeed, my beliefs mean every bit as much--which is to say, absolutely nothing. I use the same criteria to evaluate the Bible that I do any other proposed sacred text--indeed, I use the same criteria for non-sacred texts. I look at them in their historical context, and I look at the intended message.

My beliefs have done more to shape the world than any in history. Even if wrong they mean a great deal. You have even made points that concede that above. Again if your beliefs mean nothing to you, you are in a strange place, but do not categorize my beliefs with yours in order to condemn by association.

I've investigated just about every text in the Abrahamic tradition (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Baha'i)--not all of the Talmud or all of the Hadith, to be sure, but a significant portion of those, as well. It's all the same--well-meaning writing by people who were, and are, sincere.

The test for sincerity is quite severe and most of those you lump in with my faith never ever met them. Quit associating my beliefs with others and judging by the same arbitrary categories.

Sincerity, however, is not a foolproof protection from error.

Quote anything I have ever said that suggested it was. It is simply one test among thousands that help weed out other theologies and help validate mine. Let me add a note as to the meaningfulness of my faith.

"The character of Jesus has not only been the highest pattern of virtue, but the strongest incentive to its practice, and has exerted so deep an influence, that it may be truly said, that the simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and to soften mankind, than all the disquisitions of philosophers and than all the exhortations of moralists."
William Lecky One of Britain’s greatest secular historians.

He was the meekest and lowliest of all the sons of men, yet he spoke of coming on the clouds of heaven with the glory of God. He was so austere that evil spirits and demons cried out in terror at his coming, yet he was so genial and winsome and approachable that the children loved to play with him, and the little ones nestled in his arms. His presence at the innocent gaiety of a village wedding was like the presence of sunshine. No one was half so compassionate to sinners, yet no one ever spoke such red hot scorching words about sin. A bruised reed he would not break, his whole life was love, yet on one occasion he demanded of the Pharisees how they ever expected to escape the damnation of hell. He was a dreamer of dreams and a seer of visions, yet for sheer stark realism He has all of our stark realists soundly beaten. He was a servant of all, washing the disciples feet, yet masterfully He strode into the temple, and the hucksters and moneychangers fell over one another to get away from the mad rush and the fire they saw blazing in His eyes.
He saved others, yet at the last Himself He did not save. There is nothing in history like the union of contrasts which confronts us in the gospels. The mystery of Jesus is the mystery of divine personality.
Scottish Theologian James Stuart


You can relegate the above, Greenleaf, Lord Lyndhurst, Aquinas, Hume and the rest to the kiddy pool and condemn them if you want but do not expect that effort to do any favors for your credibility.

 

[1robin]

Honestly...5 point Calvinism has never made a speck of sense to me. Should we stop having children just in case they are predestined to hell? What if I'm predestined to hell? What if you are? Am I being controlled by God right now? Is it really him making me type this?

Election-ism is stupid. So is determinism.

 

[InChrist]

Election-ism is stupid. So is determinism.

And I think non-biblical too.

 

[1robin]

And I think non-biblical too.

Agreed.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Election-ism is stupid. So is determinism.

You forgot biblical literalism.

 

[InChrist]

You forgot biblical literalism.

But I don't think he forgot proper biblical hermeneutics.

 

[technomage]

So emphatic means false to you.

I make no connection between how emphatically an argument is phrased and whether or not it is true or false. Doing so is a classic fallacy--what specific fallacy depends on what rhetorical tools are used to mark emphasis. Precisely where did you get the idea that I equate the two?

As Merlin famously said. When you lie (by commission or omission) you murder some part of the world.

Merlin? Are you quoting a television show or something? I fear the reference is lost on me, as I do not watch television. The only references to Merlin I am likely to get are from the Arthurian literature, and it's been a while since I read anything like that.

You cannot ever know the misery versus gain costs of truth.

Having once been Christian, and having gone through the loss of my own faith, I do know the misery.

Wow. Now that is one huge claim to knowledge, that inherits the greatest of burdens for proof. Where is that part?

If I were attempting to persuade you of the truth of my statement, I would have a burden of proof. I am not engaging in an epistemic dispute, in part because you and I would be unable to agree on a standard of evidence.

This is a necessarily false equality. Apologetics is the process of defending what is believed to be true.

Definition 1: "The process of defending what is believed to be true."
Definition 2: "My faith is RIGHT, and I have to find ways to argue that it's right."

Tell me, Robin, what precisely is the difference?

Moses not existing is not the conclusion of archeology.

Obviously, you know nothing of archaeology. Yes, the Patriarchal Age, the sojourn in Egypt, the Exodus, the Conquest, and the United Monarchy ... all of these most certainly are rejected in archaeology as ever having occurred. The first few paragraphs of the Wikipedia article explain the position of archaeological and historical scholarship regarding the Exodus.

I have exhaustively debated this very issue. It can easily found if searched for.

And that, Robin, is the difference between apologetics and scholarship.

Apologetics only refers to scholars who agree with their stated position. Scholarship--real scholarship--must address ALL of the available evidence, including the inconvenient evidence that may not support your presuppositions.

Apologetics dare not change its conclusions. Scholarship must be willing to change its conclusions if more data comes in.

Apologetics is the defense of an a priori belief. Scholarship is the search for facts.

I have never even hinted that my faith is beyond critique. Where did you even cough that up from?

By your engaging in apologetics. In this particular case, you suggest that the Synoptics and Johanine literature are inherently trustworthy, while non-canonical works are, ab initio, unworthy of consideration in comparison.

That is kind of self explanatory but instead let's use the criteria that went into canonization. That should mean something to you.

It means not a damn thing. The process of compiling the canon means nothing more to me than than the process of compiling the Qur'an.

My beliefs have done more to shape the world than any in history. Even if wrong they mean a great deal. You have even made points that concede that above. Again if your beliefs mean nothing to you, you are in a strange place, but do not categorize my beliefs with yours in order to condemn by association.

Ah, but you misunderstand me. I do not mean that beliefs are without impact upon the world, or upon our lives as individuals. I mean that beliefs do not help determine the factuality of arguments.

The test for sincerity is quite severe and most of those you lump in with my faith never ever met them. Quit associating my beliefs with others and judging by the same arbitrary categories.

With all due respects, I shall use the criteria I choose. My choice of criteria is not for you to decide.