In 1856, murmurs of rebellion against the French colonial rule began to spread throughout Algeria. A group of Muslim holy men known as marabouts were able to stir dissent and gain prominence by convincing the local populations that they possessed supernatural powers. The amazing feats of these “god-like” men allowed them to gain considerable influence, which the religious faction planned to use to overthrow their European rulers.
Realizing that something must be done but not wanting to commit more of his exhausted troops to the North African colony, Napoleon III and his Arab Bureau conceived a quirky plan involving “The Father of Modern Magic”, Jean Eugene Robert-Houdin. The conjurer was called out of retirement and sent to Algeria to provide a command performance before a gathering of superstitious Arab chieftains. Setting up in a theater in the capital city of Algiers, the French magician performed astounding stunts – catching a bullet being fired by an audience member, making a young Arab disappear, and with the ingenious use of an electromagnet, stripping the strength of a muscular man who was unable to lift a metal box.
The crowds, certain that they were in the presence of Satan, grew fearful of the French sorcerer. But then Robert-Houdin broke the magician’s cardinal rule: he sent out translators to explain how the tricks were done. The stunned Arabs realized that they had been duped, not only by the Frenchman but by the marabouts. The holy men lost credibility and the revolution was averted.
Throughout history cultural elites like the marabouts have been able to secure their influence by controlling knowledge that is not available to the “common man.” In America that influence has, at least for the past forty years, been wielded by the mainstream media. But the advent of the Internet -- and the blogosphere in particular -- has stripped away the façade that the media possesses specialized information that is unavailable to the masses.
While Dan Rather and the forged memo provided the year’s most significant example of the blogosphere’s power to question the media’s authority, other smaller exposes are constantly heading to the fore. Hugh Hewitt, for example, has been shining a spotlight on a Newsweek article on the birth of Christ. While newsweeklies often use cover stories on God and religion in order to spark sales (in 2003, The Economist's best cover featured the Virgin Mary and Newsweek's best was on "Bush and God”), their coverage is often embarrassingly misguided:
I am not sure into which category Newsweek's hugely silly cover story on Christmas should fall, but that it is a hugely silly, flawed and misleading story cannot be doubted. It is sort of the religion story equivalent of Rathergate, compete with biased experts and a purposefully blinkered reporter.
Start with the piece itself, authored by Jon Meacham. Understand from the start that Meacham isn't a theologian, or a historian. He has a BA from the University of the South, has written a book, belongs to the right clubs in NYC, and that's it. No scholarly credentials, no background in religious studies, just a scribbler. In an area of great controversy and vast learning, such a journalist is at great risk of misunderstanding the lay of the land, or of understanding it, but refusing to report it because to do so would make a cover story less interesting.
The primary problem with Meacham’s article isn’t that it’s unashamedly biased (though it certainly is that) nor even that he “doesn’t know what he doesn’t know.” No, the fatal flaw is in Meacham’s assumption that we don’t know what he doesn’t know. Like many others in the media, Meacham simply believes that he knows more than his audience. Epistemic humility, however, is an essential attribute for all journalists who work and live in what my friend John Coleman calls, “the world of people much smarter than me.”
This is not to say that Meacham (or journalists in general) are not intelligent people. The Newsweek editor appears to be extremely talented and accomplished. But like his colleague Dan Rather, Meacham errs in assuming that his institution’s credibility and prestige imbues him with some form of singular knowledge and insight. His pedantic approach to the nativity story, though, only makes him appear, as Hewitt notes, “hugely silly.”
Biblical scholars such as Mark Roberts and Al Mohler have not only revealed Meacham’s naïve understanding of the material but have done so with remarkable speed. Though the story appears in the December 13th issue, it has already been dissected and scrutinized by dozens, perhaps hundreds, of bloggers. The newsweeklies can hardly get their biased pieces onto newsstands nowadays before they're discredited.
Like the Algerian marabouts, the mainstream media is only able to retain their influence by convincing the populace they possess special skill and knowledge. But as the Internet continues to fills with Robert-Houdin-type debunkers, the media continues to lose credibility, influence, and power. By revealing the secrets of the Arab cultural elite the French magician was able to defuse a revolution. By revealing the secrets of the American media elite, though, the blogosphere may just able to start one.
Related:
2
You have included not a single word regarding what parts of the piece's content were wrong, or even what it was about (though you managed to include a lengthy quote to the effect that a Newsweek reporter is not a professional theologian - hardly a revelation - and to call it "hugely silly" three times without explanation). Perhaps he's biased, perhaps he "believes that he knows more than his audience" (which hopefully any non-fiction writer does when preparing an article); you don't explain what these accusations even refer to, let alone show that they are true. There doesn't seem to be any reason to agree with you, but you seem to think we ought to. It appears that being aggrieved is self-justifying. I don't know if that's a conservative thing or a Christian thing (in my impression it's both), but it's hardly compelling.
posted on 12.15.2004 9:01 AM3
Kevin,
You have included not a single word regarding what parts of the piece's content were wrong, or even what it was about …
True, I didn’t. But this is a blog post, not an essay. One of the things that makes a blog unique is that people can click through and read the actual sources I reference, making it unnecessary to quote the material as if my readers didn’t have access to it. Anyone who reads the article would have no problem understanding why I disagreed with it. (But that really wasn’t the point of my post anyway.)
Perhaps he's biased, perhaps he "believes that he knows more than his audience" (which hopefully any non-fiction writer does when preparing an article); you don't explain what these accusations even refer to, let alone show that they are true.
Again, that’s true. But my post is already 850 words long. Extending the argument further would only test the patience of my audience and ensure that it doesn’t get read. I have to go on the assumption that if anyone is interested enough that they will read the material that I’m discussing. If the article were subtler then I might have to clarify why I disagree with Meacham. But I don’t think that anyone will be scratching their heads and wondering why I thought anything was wrong with it.
There doesn't seem to be any reason to agree with you, but you seem to think we ought to.
One of the key attributes of blogging is that it is akin to a conversation. I’m not writing an essay but adding my thoughts to an ongoing discussion that includes (among others) Hugh Hewitt, Mark Roberts, Al Mohler, and Mr. Meacham. If I had to summarize the statements made by everyone in the conversation before I commented on them it would soon grow rather tedious.
It appears that being aggrieved is self-justifying. I don't know if that's a conservative thing or a Christian thing (in my impression it's both), but it's hardly compelling.
I certainly wouldn’t say that I’m “aggrieved.” More bemused by the “hugely silly” attitude of elitist who really believe that they can write on a topic like the Virgin Birth for an country that is predominately Christian and presume to “set us straight” about what the story is really about.
4
Kevin raises an interesting point. Do I need to go into more detail in my posts? At times I often sketch broad outlines assuming that the reader will fill in the details with their own thoughts. Am I assuming too much? How much should I include and what types of information to my posts generally lack?
posted on 12.15.2004 9:41 AM5
Joe,
Don't worry about Kevin. All he is doing is looking for an excuse to belittle the Gospel and engage in some fun name calling of those oh so backwards and silly Christians. I believe your site is called EVANGELICAL outpost for a reason. If non-evangelicals can't get it boo hoo. A site written for chemists shouldn't have to cover the basics of hydrogen bonding.
posted on 12.15.2004 10:04 AM6
Joe: Having already been familiarized with the article, and the sources quoted by the author (the Jesus Seminar - who are also debunked rather well in Strobel's book "The Case for Christ"), I don't need more detail than you've provided. Plus, I don't think that the intent of your post here was to debunk his claims, but, to merely show a weakness in the MSM. Debunking Meacham's claims would be an entirely different post.
posted on 12.15.2004 10:15 AM7
Emmaus: Plus, I don't think that the intent of your post here was to debunk his claims, but, to merely show a weakness in the MSM. Debunking Meacham's claims would be an entirely different post.
Yup.
posted on 12.15.2004 10:20 AM8
Wonderful analogy and exactly right to boot! Your point about journalists and epistemic humility ought to be the required subject of every prospective journalism school graduate's senior essay. Of course, that assumes that j-schoolers are required to do anything so utterly orthodox as write an essay that marshalls everything they've learned in four years of intense study!
posted on 12.15.2004 10:22 AM9
To add to the thread: I think Christians are starting to fight back as can be seen in this article.
posted on 12.15.2004 10:27 AM10
Hmm.. looks like my link didn't work. Let's try that again: here . That's better.
posted on 12.15.2004 10:29 AM11
Joe:
I don't think you're guilty of "assuming too much." You carefully outline your positions most of the time, are quick to respond to any requests for clarification and/or correction, and defend yourself regularly in the comments. You have to write the post you want to write, not the post Kevin wants you to write.
posted on 12.15.2004 10:55 AM12
Uh, reading Mohler's article, I see a lot of ad hominem attack, arguments from authority, but, as expected, no refutations of what was in the Newsweek article, which is pretty tame compared to what they could have said (comparing Jesus Christ to Mithras, for example). Or the doubts that can be cast on Josephus, and thereby Jesus' very alleged existence.
The real issue, I think is this:
If the biblical accounts are merely "cleverly devised myths," Christianity falls and the gospel is null and void.
which is at its core an appeal to fear: if the bible has errors, Mohler (riffing on Paul) says, then you've wasted your time on a foolish thing.
Now, I tend to think that loving your neighbor as yourself, giving to the poor, feeding the naked and clothing the hungry....well, the naked have to be fed and the hungry have to be clothed, too!...uh, feeding the hungry and clothing the naked are inherently good things that have tangible benefits that help, so even that argument, I would reject.
Look, axiomaticaly inerrantists assume the bible is inerrant (and go through some interesting mental gymnastics to maintain this stance).
But what you- and Mohler- seem to be demanding is "religious correctness."
Thankfully, in this instance at least, Newsweek was somewhat honest.
posted on 12.15.2004 11:24 AM13
the mainstream media is only able to retain their influence by convincing the populace they possess special skill and knowledge
This is not limited to the media or marabouts (Interesting anecdote BTW), but is alive and well over the world manifesting itself in many ways. There almost at times seems to be something in human that wants to believe, to be entertained, or dazzled, by something unexpected or inexplicable.
posted on 12.15.2004 11:37 AM14
mumon: "Thankfully, in this instance at least, Newsweek was somewhat honest."
It's interesting, becuase what you appear to be doing here is saying "I read the article, and it agrees with my worldview, so, therefore it must be true." Did you even bother to read an of the refutations by Roberts or Mohler? These two men, who have done genuine scholarly work on the subject quickly rip apart the Newsweek article in short order. I'm more apt to trust a Harvard Theology School Ph.d, and the head of a Theological school over a two-bit journalist with a bone to pick and an obvious agenda.
posted on 12.15.2004 11:45 AM15
And. mumon, before you tread down that tired road of "it agrees with your worldview, how is that any different?" - let me just tell you, you're right.. but, I've examined the evidence for myself, and have decided that the scholarly work on the historicity of this subject is much stronger than any refutation I've seen so far, so, I've chosen to agree with it. My disagreement with you is that you don't seem to have examined the evidence for the historical accuracy of the gospels, and appear to reject the work outright because you don't agree with it.
posted on 12.15.2004 12:01 PM16
Emmaus:
I read Mohler- and as I noted, it was an attack, not a refutation.
These two men, who have done genuine scholarly work...
Argument from authority; see: "I read the article, and it agrees with my worldview, so, therefore it must be true."
My sister has J.D. from Harvard; trust me, it's nothing other than a degree.
posted on 12.15.2004 12:01 PM17
Emmau
I've examined the evidence for myself, and have decided that the scholarly work on the historicity of this subject is much stronger than any refutation...
OK, then please explain why Josephus's collaboration with the Romans against the Jews did not color his history.
posted on 12.15.2004 12:03 PM18
Emmau
My disagreement with you is that you don't seem to have examined the evidence for the historical accuracy of the gospels, and appear to reject the work outright because you don't agree with it.
I have; and the history is quite frankly suspect.
There is no historical verification of:
a) a census in the Roman empire
b) a mass slaughter of newborns and toddlers
to name just 2 items.
And the best evidence shows that the translations of Issaiah 7:14 don't mean "virgin."
There is evidence from the bible itself that Matthew takes scripture out of context.
There is, OTOH, well known parallels between the myth of Mithras and the mythology of Jesus- and Mithras came first.
What this always comes down to is that the inerrantist starts from a position of "inerrancy" and/or "infallibility," and the rest of the discussion is a reply akin to "I've got my fingers in my ears; I'm not listening to you!"
So, you can "believe" whatever you want, but the fact is, in the reality based world, things will be more real.
posted on 12.15.2004 12:08 PM19
Emmau
BTW...
I've examined the evidence for myself, and have decided that the scholarly work on the historicity of this subject is much stronger than any refutation I've seen so far, so, I've chosen to agree with it.
(Emphasis mine.)
If said "evidence" were truly evident, I submit that you really wouldn't have a "choice" to "choose" to agree with it.
You've let the cat out of the bag here.
posted on 12.15.2004 12:17 PM20
Mumon: OK, then please explain why Josephus's collaboration with the Romans against the Jews did not color his history.
No, its up to you to prove that what he says is incorrect with other evidence. Associations and known beliefs of the author may cause the reader to be more wary, but it doesn't automatically make what the author says to be wrong.
BTW, I do think Mohler's article was weak. However, the Mark Roberts one is far better.
mumon: feeding the hungry and clothing the naked are inherently good things that have tangible benefits that help, so even that argument, I would reject.
If we are all just the result of nature, then you can't argue that those things are inherently good. On the contrary, you can argue that such actions have negative consequences.
21
"Throughout history cultural elites like the marabouts have been able to secure their influence by controlling knowledge that is not available to the “common man.” In America that influence has, at least for the past forty years, been wielded by the mainstream media."
You know, you leave out the single largest factor that allows "elites" to control knowledge for the "common man".
It's the stated desire by the "common man" to sit on his ever-growing big fat behind. To stick his short neck into the ground and bury it as fast as possible.
Exactly how is it possible for the "common man" to be misinformed by "elites", when there are multiple libraries in every city and town? Is it possible that most people are simply too lazy to think critically about what they are hearing and reading? Do not blame the shepherd for doing his job if you act like a flock of sheep.
Most Blogs are over-rated (by bloggers of course) as sources of "facts". Most of the time they contain opinions, not facts. What is more, most people only read blogs with views that are similar to their own. So instead of providing fact-checking, they more often provide the classic media echo chamber, where if bloggers parrot the same idea or story enough times it becomes true. Regardless of reality. The "new" media, just like the "new" economy, turns out to be pretty much the same as the old media. It's advantage is is in the speed and convenience of it's grapevine of communication, not in the quality of it's grapes.
posted on 12.15.2004 12:24 PM22
Does anyone know if Christians are the only group of people on the planet that will argue with someone who says that "feeding the hungry and clothing the naked are inherently good things"?
Or is this a typical response from a fundamentalist of any religious stripe?
Note: for what it's worth, Joe, I hope at least that you didn't pay Newsweek any money to read their article.
posted on 12.15.2004 12:29 PM23
Chris Lutz:
No, its up to you to prove that what he says is incorrect with other evidence. Associations and known beliefs of the author may cause the reader to be more wary, but it doesn't automatically make what the author says to be wrong.
Josephus is suspect, which you as much admit here. As he's supplied the only (relatively) contemporary historical evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ (please don't go into "the bible is a history book;" history didn't even exist in the West before the Greeks, and when history appeared, wrapping up history with myth was standard operating procedure), the burden of proof is on inerrantists.
My personal feeling, though is that Jesus probably did exist, but that doesn't mean "therefore every word in the bible is true."
But - and here's the crucial thing- we cannot know with certainty.
If we are all just the result of nature, then you can't argue that those things are inherently good. On the contrary, you can argue that such actions have negative consequences.
No, we can say that this promotes social stability, as the Chinese (who probably really invented history, albeit as a way to figure out how a large society is run) figured out centuries ago.
posted on 12.15.2004 12:37 PM24
Larry, I'm not saying that it isn't an inherently good thing. But, from your worldview, how is it possible that it is inherently good?
posted on 12.15.2004 12:38 PM25
Patrick :
Good comment. This is true regardless of affiliation.
posted on 12.15.2004 12:38 PM26
mumon: No, we can say that this promotes social stability, as the Chinese (who probably really invented history, albeit as a way to figure out how a large society is run) figured out centuries ago.
Well, that means its not inherently good. If a social scientist comes out tomorrow with irrefutable proof and says that feeding the poor and clothing the hungry is an unacceptable burden on society and it is not good for the poor themselves. What would you do then?
27
"a) a census in the Roman empire"
There was one a year or two before: it's generally argued that Mary and Joseph were embroiled in its conclusion. It's a rough spot, but hardly a silver bullet.
"b) a mass slaughter of newborns and toddlers"
The 'mass slaughter' was probably about 20 people, in a time that wasn't too big on the rights of babies and little children. Also, we have many other atrocities of the same ruler recorded, so it doesn't seem uncharacteristic.
"to name just 2 items.
And the best evidence shows that the translations of Issaiah 7:14 don't mean "virgin."
Unfortunately for this argument, the 'error', if it was one-it wasn't thought so at the time-was in the Greek version of the Old Testament, which was almost definetely the version used by the Jews at the time. Thus, I always found this one a little odd. Fact is, the people _at the time_ were expecting a baby born from a virgin, etc.
'There is evidence from the bible itself that Matthew takes scripture out of context.'
...Because he was reinterpreting it in a radical way, a way that centered around Jesus. This is sort of a chicken or the egg argument. If you believe Matthew was inspired you say 'huh, that's what that meant'. If you disagree, you say the opposite.
"There is, OTOH, well known parallels between the myth of Mithras and the mythology of Jesus- and Mithras came first."
Mithras came first, but in many times the written records of his rites and myths-the ones scholars depend on-came after Christianity was popular.
Most of the MIthras argument comes down to the 'eerie' similarity between Jesus' fulfillment of the passover, and Roman Legionnaires bathing in the entrails of eviscerated bulls.
Also, the whole 'forgiving sins' and 'getting to Heaven' comparisons are generally read into the text: followers of Mithras wanted to be demi-gods, not be servants of the authority behind the universe.
"If said "evidence" were truly evident, I submit that you really wouldn't have a "choice" to "choose" to agree with it.
You've let the cat out of the bag here."
Well, unless he has a time machine, he has to choose between two different arguments, based upon which is the more convincing. You think this is a fault somehow?
28
Larry, I'm not saying that it isn't an inherently good thing. But, from your worldview, how is it possible that it is inherently good?
It simply is. Per G.E. Moore, one could simply note that the Good is an atomistic thing not susceptible to further reduction. And if you disagree that helping others is inherently good, you're just a monster. I'd imagine that the response would be something like 'fine, but how would that have stopped something like the rise of fascism in Europe in the 30s?' That's a response that never fails to make me chuckle, since it's kind of funny to imagine a crack team of theologians and moral philosophers unleashed on Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. Yeah, that would have done a lot of good.
The upshot of that is that one needs to recognize the limits of moral discourse; if someone fundamentally doesn't accept some of the axiomatic principles of morality, then reasoning won't do much. Similarly, if someone just doesn't accept the reliability of ancient sources, all of the appeals to Roman censuses and whatnot in the world won't do jack to convince them of the historical truth of the Gospel accounts.
The efficacy of reasoning and discourse requires some shared presuppositions.
posted on 12.15.2004 12:58 PM29
I read the Newsweek article. What occurred to me is that if Meachem is right about his comments of how Matthew and Luke masterfully wove together myth and OT prophesies etc., then Matthew and Luke would be on par with Shakespeare and other literary geniuses. So, really I guess the Bible SHOULD be taught in every school in America. But not as a religious text, rather in literature. Their literary "devices" would put most other authors studied to shame. BTW, it's odd they were so good at fictional writing, since that was not their profession. (tax collector & doctor).
Try reading the Newsweek piece again and imagine they really were fiction writers and you'll see what I mean.
30
David Scott:
There was one a year or two before: it's generally argued that Mary and Joseph were embroiled in its conclusion. It's a rough spot, but hardly a silver bullet.
If you want "total inerrancy," "complete infallibility," all you have to do is show one thing like this.
The 'mass slaughter' was probably about 20 people, in a time that wasn't too big on the rights of babies and little children. Also, we have many other atrocities of the same ruler recorded, so it doesn't seem uncharacteristic.
Herod wasn't a very nice guy, that is historically true, but is there any evidence outside the bible this happened? No.
...Because he was reinterpreting it in a radical way, a way that centered around Jesus. This is sort of a chicken or the egg argument. If you believe Matthew was inspired you say 'huh, that's what that meant'. If you disagree, you say the opposite.
But if you say Matthew was inspired you must therefore throw out the maxim of scripture meaning what it meant to the author of that part of scripture.
(Then you really get into trouble, though when you get to Revelation 22:18ff..., because you're caught saying "black is white.")
Mithras wanted to be demi-gods, not be servants of the authority behind the universe...
Not really much of a difference there, I'd submit.
Well, unless he has a time machine, he has to choose between two different arguments, based upon which is the more convincing. You think this is a fault somehow?
I can go outside and see the green grass- the greenness of the grass is evidence of its being green. It is absurd of me to say "I choose to believe the grass is green," as it would be absurd of you to deny it. In that sense, I have no choice but to assert the evidence of the grass's greenness- look outside (where I am)! It's green!
When somebody says, though that "the evidence is overwhelming" for a religious belief, evidently there is a different standard at work here.
In comparison to green grass, the evidence clearly is - lacking. That's why you need "faith," and why you choose to affirm a belief.
But the minute you say that, you are also saying that the degree of evidence is significantly less than that of the green grass's greenness.
31
Mumon: "When somebody says, though that "the evidence is overwhelming" for a religious belief, evidently there is a different standard at work here.
In comparison to green grass, the evidence clearly is - lacking. That's why you need "faith," and why you choose to affirm a belief.
But the minute you say that, you are also saying that the degree of evidence is significantly less than that of the green grass's greenness."
This is simply and utterly a silly thing to say... you reject all the evidence outright and instead draw your own conclusions. You haven't even made the case that the evidence is "lacking" (in your words). Yet, you say that, based on the lack of evidence, the bible is therefore not a trustworthy source. Based on what?
posted on 12.15.2004 1:14 PM32
David Scott:
I'm going to add somethig else about this faith/evidence issue:
The commenter in question, did not use the words "overwhelming," but "much stronger."
Now to me, the "evidence" goes the other way, so it's clearly a matter of how one sees the material related to the subject.
Chris Lutz:
Well, that means its not inherently good. If a social scientist comes out tomorrow with irrefutable proof and says that feeding the poor and clothing the hungry is an unacceptable burden on society and it is not good for the poor themselves. What would you do then?
Why, I'd still oppose that Republican. ;-)
posted on 12.15.2004 1:14 PM33
Emmaus:
you reject all the evidence outright...
No, I said it's lacking in comparison to the greenness of the grass.
Compared to the "evidence" for the Tenno being a direct descendent of Ameratsu (it's written down! in multiple places!) the evidence is comparable.
And that's a good comparison, I'd say, especially with the increased militancy of the United States of late.
posted on 12.15.2004 1:19 PM34
It is absurd of me to say "I choose to believe the grass is green," as it would be absurd of you to deny it. In that sense, I have no choice but to assert the evidence of the grass's greenness- look outside (where I am)! It's green!
Well, actually, grass is all colors except green, since green grass absorbs all colors but the one(s) that are reflected to you to be perceived as "green". Perceived reality is not always what one thinks it to be, and the Truth is not affected by what we believe it to be or want it to be.
35
So, really I guess the Bible SHOULD be taught in every school in America. But not as a religious text, rather in literature.
First, that'd be great, since so much the bible is so interwoven into the history of western literature. Second, literalists would scream bloody murder at the bible being taught in a lit class rather than a science class. Unless, of course, there's a unit on the 'irreducible complexity' of the metaphors or something.
Heh.
posted on 12.15.2004 1:26 PM36
Gerry:
The absorption of all colors of (visible) light except green makes grass perceptible as green.
Hence the color of grass is green to those of us who see it.
posted on 12.15.2004 1:29 PM37
jpe: The efficacy of reasoning and discourse requires some shared presuppositions.
Okay, if you presuppose that nature is all there is, then how do you come up with an inherent good? If someone determines that feeding the hungry is wrong, how are they wrong? Their nature says that that is the right thing to do. Therefore, the nature of their action is neither good or evil.
posted on 12.15.2004 1:34 PM38
The absorption of all colors of (visible) light except green makes grass perceptible as green.
Hence the color of grass is green to those of us who see it.
And everything experienced in life is material because the senses cannot perceive what is not material?
posted on 12.15.2004 1:43 PM39
Okay, if you presuppose that nature is all there is, then how do you come up with an inherent good?
I don't have to come up with it; it's always already present to me and discloses moral truths in the form of moral intuition. This isn't evolutionary ethics, mind you, it's good old ethical intuitionism. Where do the intuitions come from? Dunno, and it doesn't really matter for my purposes. What's important is that these intuitions and the universalizable principles derived therefrom guide my action and my judgments of others (hence I judge that the person that kills another is morally wrong).
It's like a mariner and the north star: it doesn't really matter for his purposes whether God made the star or whether it came from some material cause. What counts is that his movements are oriented. I suppose one could ask how I know that my intuitions are correct; and that's a bullet I'll happily bite.
I don't absolutely, positively know the following things (and Kant and the weight of subsequent Western philosophy will concur with me): whether morality is objectively true or false (although I have faith it is); whether God actually exists (although I have faith he does); and whether I am not actually a brain-in-a-vat whose experience of the world is just an electrochemical illusion (although I have faith it isn't).
posted on 12.15.2004 2:00 PM40
gerry:
And everything experienced in life is material because the senses cannot perceive what is not material?
What do you experience that has no material component?
What do you experience as "material," that has no nonmaterial component?
Is this not "obvious?" And therefore, as green as grass?
But you're hitting at a strawman...
As skandhas (i.e., form, feeling, perceptions, impulses, and/or consciousness) regard or 'show up' as in relation to true essential nature, here is neither thought nor volition, nor any of these dharmas which constitute thought, nor any comparing. For and as this reason, skandhas and all dharmas are also unthinkable and uncomparable. These are also immeasurable, as one cannot conceive of a measure of any nor all skandhas, since such a measure cannot itself exist as a consequence of infinitude [and as all dharmas relate to such]. These are also incalculable, as these are beyond any possibility of counting. These are also equal to the unequalled, as all dharmas are space. So do you think, Subhuti, here even exists (as related to space)...any sameness, or counting, or measure, or comparison, or thought, or any dharma which might even constitute thought?
Note: this is experienced and reasoned...the "veracity" of the above text as to who wrote what isn't an issue here...
posted on 12.15.2004 2:01 PM41
I read that article and agree that it was bad. If you want to see something as bad if not worse take a look at Time's story.
posted on 12.15.2004 2:22 PM42
mummon,
Correct me if I am wrong, but your opinion is that anyone who wrote about Jesus *and* believed that Jesus existed has been tainted and, therefore, is an unreliable source.
Anyone who writes out about Joe Carter and believes he exists is suspect. Therefore, he doesn't exist. Only one guy named mummon who was tainted by his hatred of all things Christian, wrote about him. But since he is biased, clearly he can't be trusted anyway...
'nuff said.
posted on 12.15.2004 2:46 PM44
gedi:
But, the degree of evidence for Joe Carter's existence is higher than that for Jesus Christ.
posted on 12.15.2004 2:57 PM45
mumon wrote, "No."
Sure sounds like it. Of all the writers who have written about Jesus, the only one you give any validity to is Josephus, one assumes because he was a Jew rather than Christian.
mumon wrote, "But, the degree of evidence for Joe Carter's existence is higher than that for Jesus Christ."
The possibility that both exist are so high that the difference is negligible.
The degree of evidence that someone would remember Joe Carter in 2000 years is pretty small. No offense, Joe.
posted on 12.15.2004 3:07 PM46
mumon: What evidence, exactly, do you have that Josephus lied? Or for that matter, had any reason to lie? After all, he was a Jew, and had nothing to gain by lying. Actually, he had more to gain by saying that Jesus didn't exist than to say that he did. After all, it would have been better for the Jews if the Messiah hadn't appeared yet (since, I think you'll have to agree - having one man fufill more than 100 of the ancient prophesies predicting the messiah, and having that man call the Jewish religious leaders to the table, and then having those leaders conspire to kill their own messiah, doesn't fair too well for the Jews).
posted on 12.15.2004 3:30 PM47
Emmaus:
Josephus was working for the Romans at around the time of the destruction of the temple or thereafter, to my recollection. Now re-read the last sentence of what you wrote.
posted on 12.15.2004 3:34 PM48
gedi:
Wow, I'm kind of astounded by what you wrote:
Of all the writers who have written about Jesus, the only one you give any validity to is Josephus, one assumes because he was a Jew rather than Christian.
The New Testament writings was not written as a history, but as an evangelical tool.
We're talking about historical evidence, and the only external corroboration outside of the gospels that is a close contemporary is Josephus.
It floors me that you would cry "prejudice" so quickly.
The degree of evidence that someone would remember Joe Carter in 2000 years is pretty small. No offense, Joe.
So, I guess you're also saying Ameratsu exists as well?
Oh, and btw, here is a good link on Josephus...
Flavius Josephus, a Jewish priest and Pharisee, was put in command of the national resistance in Galilee at the time of Israel's revolt against Rome, but was captured at Jotapata; his life was spared when he predicted that Vespasian would become emperor and he agreed to provide his captors with a history of his people. His works are an indispensable source on first century Jewish life and history: explaining, to the Romans, the history of the Jews from Creation to the revolt of A.D.66, the Jewish Wars (explaining the history of the wars from the Maccabean revolt to 66 A.D), the Mesopotamian Jews, and the Contra Apion (defending Judaism against the misstatements of anti-semitic writers from the third century B.C. to Apion).
Clearly as a captive of those nice guys the Romans, Josephus was somewhat constrained in what he would and would not say.
posted on 12.15.2004 3:41 PM49
Emmaus:
...having one man fufill more than 100 of the ancient prophesies...
It really pains me to think that there are people who still make this claim.
I've heard this number inflated to "hundreds" or reduced to dozens.
Have you read any refutations of this point?
Here's the standard refutation:
1. Figure out which prophecies you're really talking about- don't take Josh McDowell's word for it, but go through the bible yourself, with text as close to the original (learn Greek and Hebrew if possible.)
2. Once you've got all 256, 512, 137, or whatever prophecies down, ask yourself the following questions:
i. Could this "prophecy" have been trivially met by anyone? ii. Is this "prophecy" taking some other text out of context, and twisting the orignal intent of the passage? iii. Is there any possiblity that this "fulfillment" was added to the text after the fact?
I have not found anything remotely convincing on this point, and am amazed that this chestnut is still used.
posted on 12.15.2004 3:51 PM50
I think I will quote Robert Price for my last word on this subject...unless somebody can refute him...and not by calling him an infidel, or by assailing him on the basis of the fact that he's a non-Christian:
If you do not believe there is a secret zone of subtle, esoteric meaning in Scripture, placed there (or placed in the mind of the Christian reader) by the Holy Spirit, if you insist that what the Bible says, it can say only by grammatico-historical interpretation, and you are hell-bent on finding Jesus in the Old Testament, you are inevitably going to assume that all of Matthew's Old Testament citations represent the literal, authorial intention of the Old Testament writers. And since any straightforward reading of the Old Testament texts in question makes it apparent that no such reference to Jesus was in view, the appeal to prophecy becomes something quite different from what it was either for Matthew (who sought to prove nothing by it) or for ancient and medieval apologists who had completely lost sight of the historic meaning of the Old Testament texts or were more interested in imaginary "deeper" levels of meaning. Now you had the spectacle of exegetes who insisted on the literal, grammatico-historical meaning of Old Testament text as well as New Testament text-- and had their work cut out for them since the two seldom seemed to agree. This means, in short, that the appeal to prophecy had passed from the offensive to the defensive: to square the Old Testament "prediction" with the New Testament "fulfillment," you had to try to show they agreed despite appearances. In other words, the proof from prophecy had become but another case of harmonizing apparent contradictions in the text.
And harmonized contradictions can never be the basis of appeal for assertions as dubious as they. You cannot get very far appealing to something as evidence which you have just admitted does not look like evidence but may be read that way if you try hard enough.
I'm not telling you what to believe or not, but only from my experience and knowledge that there's not much there there.
posted on 12.15.2004 4:04 PM51
Mumon: "1. Figure out which prophecies you're really talking about- don't take Josh McDowell's word for it, but go through the bible yourself, with text as close to the original (learn Greek and Hebrew if possible.)"
First of all, this is just a flat out stupid thing to say. Why in the world should I, someone who is not a theologian, first learn two languages, so that I can go back to reread and reinterpret a text that has been read, translated, reread, retranslated, hundreds of times already by literally dozens of different groups. Makes no sense... I think I'll just go ahead and stick to my study bible, concordances, and other available material on the subject, seeing as how there is a mountain of undisputed text on the subject of the prophesies, thanks very much.
"2. Once you've got all 256, 512, 137, or whatever prophecies down, ask yourself the following questions:
i. Could this "prophecy" have been trivially met by anyone? ii. Is this "prophecy" taking some other text out of context, and twisting the orignal intent of the passage? iii. Is there any possiblity that this "fulfillment" was added to the text after the fact? "
First, I'm not claiming that "some" of this prophesy could be trivially met by anyone. I am asking what the chances are of all of it being met by one individual. Do you know what the mathematical chances of that are?
What evidence do you have that any of the old testament prophesy is taken from "other text"? That's not a claim even a credentialed theologian has made, to my knowledge? Beyond that, what does it matter, anyway? If Jesus met the prophesy, who cares where it came from? I really think this is a non sequitor.
As for the matter of someone adding it, I would ask, for what reason? Most of the old testament is also used by modern day Jews. Are you saying that the Jews now have inserted text into their own scripture showing the Jesus was, in fact, the messiah? Because that would be news I'm sure that Christians the world over would love to hear!
posted on 12.15.2004 4:08 PM52
mumon wrote, "The New Testament writings was not written as a history, but as an evangelical tool."
Anacoluthon. The purpose of a document does not preclude the historicity of information within the document. This information must stand or fall on its own validity. The Gettysburg Address was not written as a history. Yet, somehow, four score and seven years before the writing of it, the nation was founded.
mumon wrote, "We're talking about historical evidence, and the only external corroboration outside of the gospels that is a close contemporary is Josephus."
Alas, we most certainly are not. We are talking about your subjective view of history which immediately dimisses the vast majority of *actual* history.
mumon wrote, "It floors me that you would cry "prejudice" so quickly."
It is just so obvious, that's all.
posted on 12.15.2004 4:08 PM53
Sorry, I missed the other stuff addressed to me.
mumon wrote, "So, I guess you're also saying Ameratsu exists as well?"
The fact that Jesus' existence is well attested has no bearing on Ameratsu.
"Clearly as a captive of those nice guys the Romans, Josephus was somewhat constrained in what he would and would not say."
My favorite professor told me once that whenever anyone who starts a sentence with "clearly", they are inevitably neither clear nor truthful.
I will repeat, no rational individual need base the historicity of Jesus on your rather narrowly selected trustworthy sources. In following your logic, we cannot prove the existence of anyone dead. Clearly, the same illogical steps could be applied to Siddharta.
posted on 12.15.2004 4:23 PM54
""We're talking about historical evidence, and the only external corroboration outside of the gospels that is a close contemporary is Josephus."
What is the limit of historical evidence? I mean, we know for a fact that the Tradition of the Church speaks that Peter was martyred in the Circus Maximus and then buried immediately outside of it, which eventually became the location of the Vatican. And in fact, excavations in 1951 directly underneath the alter in the vatican confirm that there is a tomb of a man from that time period.
Is this sort of evidence, and other physical evidence that follows the circumstances of the Tradition, all irrelevant? If so, why?
55
"Clearly as a captive of those nice guys the Romans, Josephus was somewhat constrained in what he would and would not say."
...and why does that matter? After a cursory search, I found that Josephus died around 100 A.D. Last I checked, the Romans were pagans until Constantine, who made Christianity the official "religion" of the Roman Empire, sometime after 325 A.D. So, with that in mind, why would the Romans pressure Josephus to say anything about Jesus? As far as they were concerned, he was just a rabblerouser who was executed for speaking out against his Jewish keepers. Unless, of course, you're claiming that all of this history is bunk?
posted on 12.15.2004 5:06 PM56
I should note that, merely as a consideration of evidence, were Peter's bones mentioned. Of course, there is varying disagreement about the validity of the bones and whether they're geniune at all. I thought it relevant to examine the limits of considering evidence at all.
57
Mumon,
I'm kinda chuckling watching you go over all these things twice with the good Christians of Little faith (that's right, a small "f") who lurk around here. Good luck!
I don't know from who they picked up their bizarre views about the mountains of evidence which support their faith (small "f") in a resurrected Christ. I would like to know, however, because I suspect it's the same person who feeds them scripts about creationism and other crap.
Chris Lutz asks
" If someone determines that feeding the hungry is wrong, how are they wrong? "
What a moronic question. Similarly, I might ask, if someone determines that you need to drink water in order to survive, how are they right? Yes, I might ask such a question ... if I were a question-begging rube reciting from an asinine script.
Again, I have to wonder: why is it primarly fungelicals who believe that only by virtue of confusing an ancient book for "evidence" can one justify giving a starving person food???? I can't think of a more selfish and arrogant (yet completely bogus) argument.
posted on 12.15.2004 5:14 PM58
Sydeny writes
"Of course, there is varying disagreement about the validity of the bones and whether they're geniune at all."
OH MY GOD HOW DARE YOU IMPLY THAT SOME RELIGIOUS CHRISTIANS WOULD LIE OR DECEIVE OTHERS JUST TO IMPRESS WOULD-BE FOLLOWERS!!!!!!!!!!
posted on 12.15.2004 5:16 PM59
jpe gently taps the nail with a hammer:
"I don't absolutely, positively know the following things (and Kant and the weight of subsequent Western philosophy will concur with me): whether morality is objectively true or false (although I have faith it is); whether God actually exists (although I have faith he does); and whether I am not actually a brain-in-a-vat whose experience of the world is just an electrochemical illusion (although I have faith it isn't)."
posted on 12.15.2004 5:18 PM60
Emmaus:
I am asking what the chances are of all of it being met by one individual. Do you know what the mathematical chances of that are?
And I'm asking you to go through the procedure I outlined above.
What evidence do you have that any of the old testament prophesy is taken from "other text"?
I assume you mean "out of context." Well, my answer to this is simply, "Just ask any rabbi."
Or, if you mean, "added after the fact," what evidence do you have that, say, corroborates a birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, outside of the bible? There simply is none.
As scientists are fond of saying (including myself) "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
As for the matter of someone adding it, I would ask, for what reason?
To propagate the religion.
gedi :
The purpose of a document does not preclude the historicity of information within the document. This information must stand or fall on its own validity. The Gettysburg Address was not written as a history. Yet, somehow, four score and seven years before the writing of it, the nation was founded.
And we know that because we have additional evidence that the USA was founded. But we don't have such evidence for the case at hand.
I will repeat, no rational individual need base the historicity of Jesus on your rather narrowly selected trustworthy sources. In following your logic, we cannot prove the existence of anyone dead.
No, because we have additional evidence.
Clearly, the same illogical steps could be applied to Siddharta.
You most certainly could, but Buddhism doesn't depend on the historical existence of Siddhartha Gautama, but rather on the individual's experience in taking refuge and following the 8-fold path. The whole Buddhist canon might have been enitirely made up (indeed, much of the Mahayana texts can only be read as allegories), and it wouldn't make a difference. Unlike Christianity, Buddhism does not depend for its existence on its scriptures being "true," but rather on the practitioner being "true."
Sydney Carton :
You'll find Christians who would argue that the guy wasn't Peter.
As for me, as I've said, I'm willing to give people the benefit of the doubt as to the historical reality of human beings such as Peter and Jesus, but that does not imply that "therefore everything else in the New Testament" (which one?) is true.
61
Larry Lord:
Good point re: jpe.
I'm kinda chuckling watching you go over all these things twice with the good Christians of Little faith (that's right, a small "f") who lurk around here. Good luck!
I don't know from who they picked up their bizarre views about the mountains of evidence which support their faith (small "f") in a resurrected Christ. I would like to know, however, because I suspect it's the same person who feeds them scripts about creationism and other crap.
I know it's a completely pointless exercise - I've seen this type of thing on the 'net before.
I do not -repeat- do not have any problem with a Christian who believes in a resurrected Jesus. My problem, though, is with those who give these cheap dimestore apologetic arguments when the only argument that really matters is they believe it.
I have had discussions with conservative ministers who admitted quite openly the problems with Matthew, but said the issue comes down to faith.
To these folks (and I think you've nailed it yourself) you have to accept the line offered by McDowell and his ilk - and don't even think - like C. S. Lewis did after his conversion- that the bible might have errors, or you'll not be a "true" Christian. Don't - above all- don't- admit to a doubt.
62
Larry,
Reading Comprehension is not your friend. I didn't imply that anyone lied. I merely stated there is dispute over the validity of the bones. That means that there are people who believe the bones are Peter's, or are not, for varying reasons (among which includes the possibility that the "real" bones are yet undiscovered or are lost). No one has to lie in order for there to be a dispute, you know... You really need to get some perspective.
mumon,
Of course the historical reality of the individuals in the NT doesn't confirm that everything happened in them. Duh. You could walk up to me tomorrow and say you were just ressurected from the dead. The fact that you're here and now doesn't prove such a statement, though. You could be a liar. Whether you crack and admit the lie if you're fed to the lions is another matter, though.
The fact that the NT makes an outrageous claim that a man was ressurected after being dead for 3 days should be evidence enough that it's not a normal text like the Gettysburg address. Most men, even 2000 years ago, are rational enough to know that ressurections aren't your everyday thing and that anyone claiming it happened to a person who supposedly was God should be taken skeptically. But I believe it. And so did a lot of others. I can explain my own reasons for belief if you're curious. But I'm not basing my faith in the matter on what Josephus might have said.
63
"To these folks (and I think you've nailed it yourself) you have to accept the line offered by McDowell and his ilk - and don't even think - like C. S. Lewis did after his conversion- that the bible might have errors, or you'll not be a "true" Christian. Don't - above all- don't- admit to a doubt."
One point I should make. I cannot speak for others here, but as a Catholic I'm not a bible-only-literalist kinda guy.
64
jpe,
Does your faith that you're not a brain in a vat have any more validity than a Christian's faith in God?
65
Sydney Carton:
You could walk up to me tomorrow and say you were just ressurected from the dead. The fact that you're here and now doesn't prove such a statement, though. You could be a liar. Whether you crack and admit the lie if you're fed to the lions is another matter, though.
Two words: David Koresh.
Two more words: Joseph Smith...
But I believe it. And so did a lot of others. I can explain my own reasons for belief if you're curious. But I'm not basing my faith in the matter on what Josephus might have said.
You believe it. OK. That should be reason enough, actually, faith being the "evidence of things not seen" and all that.
...as a Catholic I'm not a bible-only-literalist kinda guy...
No, and IMO, that gives you an advantage...after all, the bible-only guys always have to explain why the ecumenical council that came up with the canon was legit, but the other ones, like the Council of Trent, weren't.
OTOH, the Copts and Greek Orthodox have nice retorts there...
posted on 12.15.2004 5:47 PM66
Sydney
"I didn't imply that anyone lied. I merely stated there is dispute over the validity of the bones."
Well, hate to burst your bubble, Sydney but it's obvious that people make up fake stories about relics and miracles all the time for an obvious reason: to rejuvenate the interest of the pleebs, put some donations in the coffers, etc.
Please tell me you are not so naive that you could possibly doubt this fact.
posted on 12.15.2004 5:48 PM67
Larry,
I don't doubt that people lie, often for those reasons. I merely reiterate that my original statement said nothing about lying at all. If you want to assume that a dispute about relics necessarily means one party to the dispute lies, then go ahead and do that. Do you feel better now? Or do you need a hankie?
68
mumon,
I have considered the possibility that the apostles or their secretaries who conveyed the Gospel stories were madmen or fanatical liars. I don't think it's a possibility that carries much weight, because the general tone of the writing suggests otherwise. I don't think they exhibit the emotional characteristics associated with madmen or liars, though. Their writing is, for lack of a better word, too normal.
69
Sydney writes
"I don't doubt that people lie, often for those reasons [i.e., to faciliate religiosity in potential followers]."
Are such people madmen, in your opinion? Or abnormal?
My opinion is that their quite normal human beings, exhibiting average and typical human behavior.
posted on 12.15.2004 6:11 PM70
Larry,
Let me pick up this conversation in about 3 hours. I have a dinner meeting to attend to but I'll be back later on.
In a word: no, they're not necessarily madmen (but they could be). Athiests are closer to madmen than mere liars. Read G.K. Chesterson if you want more insight on that, though. I'll explain when I get back.
71
Sydney Carton:
I have considered the possibility that the apostles or their secretaries who conveyed the Gospel stories were madmen or fanatical liars.... I don't think they exhibit the emotional characteristics associated with madmen or liars, though. Their writing is, for lack of a better word, too normal.
Well, you know, you talk to Mormons today, or Objecvists, or Communists, they're quite normal until you get to that point (whatever it is) that impinges on their ideology/worldview, and they'd be diagnosted as sane.
On the other hand, I do find Paul's writing to be infused with neurosis, frankly speaking.
I don't think that "liar," or "madmen" is actually the correct term for what I'm thinking here.
Somebody can be very closely wedded to a worldview or ideology that is strange, or based on incomplete facts, but still be quite functional. The Mormons are a great example. The Bahai's are another. Deluded? Maybe that's the term but that's still to strong.
My pet theory about the whole event is it is possible to likely was a historical Jesus who was executed, and because of the potential for brouhaha the Romans didn't want the grave to be a rallying point for the Zealots, and disposed of the body. The Romans had a penchant for things like that, salting Carthage and such.
Some disciples found an empty tomb, and tried to resolve the cognitive dissonance, and the rest, as they say, became accepted as a miracle.
So my best estimate is I chalk it up to Roman nastiness and group psychology.
But that's just me.
72
Still, none of these scintillating arguments for or against the existence of God beats the pure joy and delight of a genuine peanut-butter and jelly sandwich. (crusts cut off)
That's enough proof for me.
posted on 12.15.2004 6:33 PM73
Patrick
Now I've heard everything. Crusts off??? Sorry, my friend: the crust remains on, the bread is toasted and you can forget the jelly. And it's got to be real peanut butter: peanuts and salt and that's it. And a big glass of cold cow's milk (2% fat or more).
If you're putting Skippy or Jif on your crustless bread, then you better start prayin' for your immortal soul.
posted on 12.15.2004 6:56 PM74
What do you experience that has no material component?
What do you experience as "material," that has no nonmaterial component?
Is this not "obvious?" And therefore, as green as grass?
But you're hitting at a strawman...
Well, I disagree that I am hitting at a straw man. After all, what you may assert as absolute truth is also equally a straw man, as equal in fact to mine. Your means of measure is as unreliable as any other, is it not? Is this not, in fact, the basis of postmodern reality, morality, and finality?
Ah well, all things contain their own contradiction, and must, in order to be; for without motion matter is nothing, and without contradiction, there is no motion.
Truth is transcendant, beyond the dictates of matter, and that is not a straw man; that is the most solid matter of all.
posted on 12.15.2004 7:33 PM75
On the other hand, I do find Paul's writing to be infused with neurosis, frankly speaking.
Funny, I was just reading an essay that posits Paul as the first schizoanalyst, and an ancestor of Freud, Deleuze, and Lacan.
posted on 12.15.2004 7:48 PM76
Does your faith that you're not a brain in a vat have any more validity than a Christian's faith in God?
I'm a Quinean on these matters, so speaking of validity per se is a category mistake.
posted on 12.15.2004 8:23 PM77
mumon wrote, "I have had discussions with conservative ministers who admitted quite openly the problems with Matthew, but said the issue comes down to faith."
mumon also wrote, "On the other hand, I do find Paul's writing to be infused with neurosis, frankly speaking."
If these conservative ministers believe there to be a problem with Matthew, they are neither conservative nor ministers. I am sorry that you were misinformed about them. Let 'em fly. This is off topic anyway. You are a smart guy, mumon. You can do better than just making general derogatory statements about the Bible without validity. Go into great detail. I am ready to listen.
mumon wrote, "My pet theory about the whole event.. So my best estimate is I chalk it up to Roman nastiness and group psychology. But that's just me."
You contradict, of course, 2000 years of historical critical thought on the subject and the conclusions of men much smarter than you and me. Unlike Buddhism, which you correctly pointed out is not based in historical reality, Christianity is grounded in reality.
posted on 12.15.2004 9:12 PM78
Patrick wrote, "Still, none of these scintillating arguments for or against the existence of God beats the pure joy and delight of a genuine peanut-butter and jelly sandwich. (crusts cut off)"
That's enough proof for me."
Crusts off?? Clearly, people who cut the crusts off their sandwiches are not members of my church. God ordained sandwiches to have crusts. Anybody who would think of removing the crusts has no respect for God or His laws. Let me find that quote from Leviticus about crusts, hold on...
:)
It is so refreshing to see you posted without referencing sexuality, Patrick. God bless you!
posted on 12.15.2004 9:18 PM79
Interesting posts. It sure seems that this discussion has spun quite far from the original Newsweek discussion, though. A few parties here with quite different views, apparently, not all understanding each other, with ad hominem attitudes moving just below the surface.
I would like to add that the Gospels were written for the edification of those who already believed. This is why it took so long for them to be written; there were already thousands and thousands of Christians by the time Matthew and Luke penned their gospels. Their intent was to preserve the teaching of the apostles and the oral traditions once folks realized that the end of time was going to come after the end of the apostles' lives. This undeniable fact (scholars argue about dates, but not THAT much) must inform any discussion about the "reliability" of the Scriptures considered as we would consider a Newseek article.
Further, in the environment of Matthew's day, people knew the OT oral traditions as well. He could not easily fabricate prophecies by quoting obscure texts and re-defining them--he would be booed off the stage if he did. I remember reading about early church listeners shouting down a reader of the scriptures because he changed a word or two. They were listening, but a number of them knew what to expect. They weren't going to tolerate any change.
The primary case for Christianity was always the resurrection, and the historiography of 1 Corinthians 15 is pretty air tight. Studies of the growth of myth in manuscripts (verifiable in histories and hagiographies of secular figures like the caesars) pretty well disprove the notion that Paul made this stuff up. Otherwise, how could he appeal to 500 living witnesses to the events?
This discussion thread seems to prove the original thesis about Meacham's article. There are many points of view out there, many legitimately held, and worthy of debate. Why did Meacham only quote one camp? And how can we take Newsweek seriously when it does this and sells the product as unbiased coverage for the marginally interested reader? A fair article would have even been more interesting--as this thread has been.
posted on 12.15.2004 9:24 PM80
"As scientists are fond of saying (including myself) "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.""
Is that anywhere close to belief in a process that has no beginning and is even said to not need a beginning for it to be true?
In case that's too subtile, I'm referring to evolutionary theory, where things evolve from "something", but there isn't a clue of an explanation of where "something" came from to evolve.
In 1953 Stanley Miller began trying to replicate conditions that would give rise to, not life, but just non-racemic amino acids. 50 years later, we are no farther along in that quest than we were before.
The Murchison meter was shown to have the same racemic ratio for amino acids as what we expect on earth, thereby dashing the hopes for panspermia (of course, panspermia just shifts the same problem to somewhere other than earth).
I would be happy to see any evidence of the validity of abiogenesis and it wouldn't even have to "extraordinary".
posted on 12.15.2004 10:04 PM81
Further, in the environment of Matthew's day, people knew the OT oral traditions as well. He could not easily fabricate prophecies by quoting obscure texts and re-defining them--he would be booed off the stage if he did. I remember reading about early church listeners shouting down a reader of the scriptures because he changed a word or two. They were listening, but a number of them knew what to expect. They weren't going to tolerate any change.Matthew doesn't "fabricate" prophecies; like any good midrash-er, he proof-texts, finding the pattern in the fabric. The problem is that the texts support the pattern only in the most oblique, hermeneutically twisted fashion. It's classic eisegesis, reading back into the text. posted on 12.15.2004 10:54 PM
82
mumon,
Let me give you a little assistance.
"Evidence for a common origin for Life on Earth
# DNA and RNA are apparantly the 'universal' basis for all life on Earth.
# Only 20 [known] amino acids are used in all living things on Earth. L-amino acids exclusively are used in all living things on Earth.
# ATP* is the 'universal' energy used in all living cells.
# Fermentation is the first step in ALL metabolism.
# Highly efficient oxygen-burning represents a 'last' step in aerobic organisms."
That comes from this site (what's the format for getting links to show up as links?) http://www.resa.net/nasa/origins_life.htm#stanley
I suppose you noticed that this evidence could just as easily be applied to intelligent design? In fact, those levo rotatory amino acids lend more credence to design than to some evolutionary scheme. Especially since there isn't a natural occuring abiotic process for synthesis of stereo isomers that are exclusively levo rotatory.
Now, to the issue at hand. You choose to believe an evolutionary scheme that has absolutely no evidence, so where do you get off rejecting evidence that had more than just a few eye witnesses?
The Bible isn't a book. It's 66 books and they had many different human authors using at least 3 different languages, Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.
The Dead Sea Scrolls prove pretty conclusively there wasn't any redaction in the Masoretic Text, commonly known as the Old Testament (OT). The incident between Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch pretty well demonstrates the concept of salvation coming through the use of the OT, which was used exclusively by the church for about 20 years. As such, I would have grave reservations about your comment about asking the Rabbis about the christocentric nature of the OT.
A read of "JOSEPHUS' WRITINGS - FLAVIUS VS. APION BK. 1 - A" might help you a little with inaccuracies of secular ancient history.
posted on 12.15.2004 11:21 PM83
jpe,
Perhaps before engaging in theological discussions, you should figure out if you exist first. I don't want to waste my time debating things with a person who believes in nothing and anything.
posted on 12.15.2004 11:35 PM84
gerry:
This is not very comprehensible what you wrote, frankly. It seems like for some reason you think there's a button called "absolute truth" and if someone hits it it's a bad thing.
But I've other concerns...more, ah, immediate...
gedi:
If these conservative ministers believe there to be a problem with Matthew, they are neither conservative nor ministers.
He's one of the reasons I have respect for conservative Christians. And believe me, that's saying something.
It seems you define "religious correctness" as "fundamentalist, inerrantist." One may be conservative (or liberal) in their outlook and not be a fundamentalist or inerrantist. So what?
As I noted above, St. C.S. Lewis - the patron of Evangelicals was neither a fundamentalist nor an inerrantist. He had problems with the biblical text. So, might as well...
You contradict, of course, 2000 years of historical critical thought on the subject and the conclusions of men much smarter than you and me. Unlike Buddhism, which you correctly pointed out is not based in historical reality, Christianity is grounded in reality.
OK, read this very, very, carefully: Buddhism is based on the experience - and hence historical reality- of every practitioner of Buddhism.
This is not because, as in Christianity, we claim to have a relationship with a deity we can't prove. We don't base our practice on grandiose claims of a dubiously constructed text. We don't worship a deity who came to earth as a human as we read from the contradictory claims of texts that were used to evangelize overwhelmingly illiterate people, expropriate their land, and subjugate them for service of the King, the Emperor, the President of the United States, the Reich, and what not. Although, I should in fairness point out, that there have always been folks that have abused things, and Buddhism is not without exception. But it does have a better track record than Christianity in terms of the behavior of its adherents and proponents throughout history.
posted on 12.16.2004 6:17 AM
85
Sydney: Perhaps before engaging in theological discussions, you should figure out if you exist first.
Heh. Touche! The brain-in-vat was in reference to a different line of discussion. It's like Ghostbusters: cross those lines, and only bad things happen.
posted on 12.16.2004 6:23 AM86
galloworth:
Further, in the environment of Matthew's day, people knew the OT oral traditions as well. He could not easily fabricate prophecies by quoting obscure texts and re-defining them--he would be booed off the stage if he did. I remember reading about early church listeners shouting down a reader of the scriptures because he changed a word or two. They were listening, but a number of them knew what to expect. They weren't going to tolerate any change.
By the time Matthew was written, Christianity had already more ascendant amongst gentiles than Jews.
Moreover, I would say the degree of knowledge would vary greatly.
Paul5388
You're not making much sense here:
1. "Intelligent Design" isn't science, and has nothing to do with this discussion.
2. There are evolutionary evidences and explanations for whatever facts you wrote there, please see any good biology text.
3. Nobody was talking about changes in texts (though that is present in a couple of places) but whether NT text had added fictional components to make certain "prophecies" come out right.
I would have grave reservations about your comment about asking the Rabbis about the christocentric nature of the OT.
Well, that makes perfect sense, because an objective reading of torah would indicate that the "christocentric" nature of the torah isn't. The Messiah, was a temporal ruler, who was quite the nationalist, ...uh, I better not go there...
posted on 12.16.2004 6:29 AM87
gedi:
Oh, and don't use the "much smarter than you or me" line, please?
If one of those "much smarter" people can't make a good case to this lowly Ph.D., well, maybe they're not as smart as you imagined.
posted on 12.16.2004 6:33 AM88
mumon wrote, "OK, read this very, very, carefully: Buddhism is based on the experience - and hence historical reality- of every practitioner of Buddhism."
Schizophrenic paranoia is based on experience. Alien encounters are based on experience. I don't think people generally see either of these phenomena grounded in reality. Christianity has simply written down history and worshipped the God who has acted throughout our history. You can see the difference, I am sure.
mumon wrote, "Oh, and don't use the "much smarter than you or me" line, please?
If one of those "much smarter" people can't make a good case to this lowly Ph.D., well, maybe they're not as smart as you imagined."
Read Augustine's City of God. He is a good starter read from one of those "smarter people than you and me". Check back in when you are done. I have asked you to state your concerns about the Bible. You have thrown out more disparaging remarks about the Bible and Christianity in the most general of terms. This is arguing your point from silence. Thus endeth the lesson master Ph.D. student.
"I should in fairness point out, that there have always been folks that have abused things, and Buddhism is not without exception. But it does have a better track record than Christianity in terms of the behavior of its adherents and proponents throughout history."
More baseless conjecture not grounded in reality. The non-Buddhist people of Tamil Nadu, Sri Lanka, and Tibet would disagree vehemently.
I am open to discussing real concerns which might make up the fabric of your subjectively general negative opinions about Christianity. However, until such time as you are ready to share it, this conversation is not going anywhere.
Many blessing on your phd and God bless, mumon.
posted on 12.16.2004 7:57 AM89
Mumon:
By the time Matthew was written, Christianity had already more ascendant amongst gentiles than Jews.
1. Even among liberal scholars it is generally acknowledged that Matthew was written to the Jewish portion of believers.
2. It only takes a few voices to bring something down. Have you forgotten the emperor's new clothes? Further, many early gentiles became interested in Christianity because they admired Jewish monotheism and ethics. Jewish believers would have disproportionate influence, especially on matters of OT interpretation.
3. My main point was, anyway, that Meacham left out any evidence of these discussions. His is either the hit piece that Hewitt claims it to be or he is patronizing to his readers to the point of misanthropy.
90
Great piece. Keep up the good work. I shall read more...much more.
posted on 12.16.2004 10:00 AM91
"The newsweeklies can hardly get their biased pieces onto newsstands nowadays before they're discredited."
This seems to have become a national past time amongst bloggers, but then the newsweeklies figuratively hand the bloggers a loaded machine gun with every ignorant, biased paragraph they publish. I have been fantasizing about this for the past 20 to 30 years -- I'm so very glad it's finally here.
posted on 12.16.2004 10:04 AM92
mumon,
Because you say ID isn't science we are supposed to believe you? I would say it is every bit as much "science" as the outrageous speculations generated by the scientific community.
Biology is the study of life. Stereo isomers are chemicals. Therefore, we are talking chemistry, not biology and it would be helpful if you addressed the proper area of study in order to get the proper perspective of the subject matter.
The quote I responded to certainly seemed to be germane to the issue of evidence, and the lack thereof, when discussing the belief system known as "evolutionary theory". You have been trying to point out the lack of evidence for historically acknowledged figures and yet don't seem to apply the same criteria to your "pet" theories.
I suppose it should also be pointed out that PhD's aren't necessarily intelligent, nor do they necessarily have any higher degree of comprehension, of subject matter outside their field, than a layman.
posted on 12.16.2004 10:12 AM93
"..the mainstream media is only able to retain their influence by convincing the populace they possess special skill and knowledge. But as the Internet continues to fills with Robert-Houdin-type debunkers, the media continues to lose credibility, influence, and power."
I wonder, Joe, if the reactionary nature of blogging will at some point become a hindrance rather than a help. Currently the paradigm seems to be thus:
mainstream releases a silly editorial passed off as news (Rathergate, Time/Newsweek Nativity story)
bloggers react to the story, debunking them.
I am thankful that finally somebody is debunking the mainstream media's biased opinions. Yet, because of the reactionary nature of the blogosphere's content, the blogging community is still dependent upon the shamans of mainstream media for the *blogosphere's* information. As such, they still control the conversation (and generate revenue in the process). Will the blogging community make the switch from being reactionary to independently pushing news and editorials, or is this beyond the scope of blogdom?
posted on 12.16.2004 10:21 AM94
Paul5388 :
Why don't you learn what science is? Don't take my word for it.
If you don't understand why chemistry might figure into biology, you might want to consult texts on both.
You're probably completely unaware that the "barrier" for all medical students is organic chemistry. Know what "organic" means?
But your thread seems to be somewhat out of place.
gedi :
The denial of experience is closely related to depression, substance abuse, and other mental illnesses.
To denigrate your own experience is, if I were to use the terms of your religion, to mock the giver of that experience.
Read Augustine's City of God.
I've read City of God multiple times, and frankly, Bertrand Russell was right: guys like Augustine were busy making this theology while the Roman Empire was collapsing. Augustine had not a word to say about the real issues related to Rome's fall.
You've got to be kidding me.
I have asked you to state your concerns about the Bible. You have thrown out more disparaging remarks about the Bible and Christianity in the most general of terms. This is arguing your point from silence. Thus endeth the lesson master Ph.D. student.
This is the "I've got my fingers in my ears" response I was predicting: clearly I've already stated that Matthew misquotes scripture, Paul's writings are infused with neurosis.
If you wanted me to get into the bible, I could go further:
1. Which one? The Western Aposotolic-succession bible used by the Roman Catholics? The heretical Protestant bible? The Greek Orthodox bible? The Coptic bible?
2. The bible's morality is quite abhorent, and its use as an "infallible, inerrant" text by clergy is clearly unethical, since there is an inherent conflict of interest in positing a moral code that privileges clergy.
3. I could get into all the genocide stuff, but, I don't want to see your response. I've seen fundamentalists respond to that before, and frankly, it's repugnant. Genocide is genocide, and regardless of what god you use to justify it, it's still repugnant.
95
mumon wrote, "To denigrate your own experience is, if I were to use the terms of your religion, to mock the giver of that experience."
I never denigrated my personal experience. Experience not bound by historical fact is hallucination. My experience is grounded in the historical claims of Christianity.
mumon wrote, "Augustine had not a word to say about the real issues related to Rome's fall."
You are dodging the point. Augustine makes a very good case for Christianity. One of his many emphases is the historical reality of Jesus.
mumon wrote, "Matthew misquotes scripture, Paul's writings are infused with neurosis. If you wanted me to get into the bible.."
Please do.
mumon wrote, "Which one?"
Whichever you like. I am able to speak on all of the above.
mumon wrote, "The bible's morality is quite abhorent..since there is an inherent conflict of interest in positing a moral code that privileges clergy."
Be specific, please.
mumon wrote, "I could get into all the genocide stuff, but, I don't want to see your response."
If you like. You, however, have tossed out everything but the kitchen sink in your avoidance of the historical Jesus.
posted on 12.16.2004 10:46 AM96
Interesting how you point out the MSM uses articles on Christianity to boost sales of magazines. I learned long ago that these articles are ALWAYS ignorant and biased anti-Christian tripe, so I stopped buying. You'ld think we Christians would have learned our lesson by now and would avoid spending our money and getting burned each year, but I guess the statistics show we haven't.
posted on 12.16.2004 10:55 AM97
"I learned long ago that these articles are ALWAYS ignorant and biased anti-Christian tripe, so I stopped buying."
Ironically, I agree that they are always ignorant, but I always detected a pro-religion bias. In any event, they aren't worth the time spent reading them. That's time that could be spent reading the Evangelical Outpost!!!!
posted on 12.16.2004 12:03 PM98
Larry,
That's time that could be spent reading the Evangelical Outpost!!!!
That's the most substantive, useful, praiseworthy, agreeable, and intelligent comment I think you've ever made. ; )
posted on 12.16.2004 12:10 PM99
gedi:
I'm not dodging anything, actually, you asked about the bible, which for some reason seemed to be important to you, and then you accused me of "dodging" the "historical Jesus."
BTW, can you tell me what the book of Clement is about, since you are able to speak on the Coptic bible?