Recently, I heard Pastor Mark Driscoll explain how the three facets of Jesus' ministry (Prophet, Priest and King) tend to be over-emphasized depending on your religious leaning. I thought he made excellent points that spoke to virtually everyone who would call themselves a follower of Christ.
Driscoll said that the Fundamentalist Christian tends to emphasize Jesus' role as Prophet and King, but not Priest. Fundamentalists have no problem with a Prophet who proclaims Truth unashamedly or with a King who demands complete loyalty and service, but they find it hard to see Jesus as the Priest who intercedes to the Father on behalf of His children. They lose the love and grace aspects to the person and work of Jesus and it shows in their interactions with others.
He also chastised Evangelical Christians (his term) for focusing on Jesus as Prophet and Priest, but not as King. Just like Fundamentalists, Evangelicals have no problem with Prophet Jesus saying the Truth. However, they also have no problem with Priest Jesus who loves them and reconciles them to the Father. Many Evangelicals do have issues with recognizing Jesus as the King of their individual life, the One who tells them to do things that seem contrary to their personal nature.
Lastly, he pointed out that Liberals tend to accept Jesus as loving Priest and even as the King who dictates to them them the behavioral choices for their lives (even though often the choices they believe to be in line with the KIng's will are diametrically opposed to the choices conservatives believe the same about). However, they are not nearly as comfortable with Jesus as Prophet who boldly and unabashedly holds up the banner of Truth, which often runs contrary to popular opinion.
What do you say about this? I think much of it is a bit over-simplification, but I think the general idea is sound. I would say each group is tempted in the direction that Driscoll mentioned. Obviously, it is not the case for each individual Christian from those various groups, but as a whole those factions of the faith tend to be pulled in the direction he indicated.
[As a personal note: I hate that I have not been able to blog and be a part of the discussion and community here. Coming into seminary, I underestimated the time commitment classes, work and keeping my two boys at home would be. I hope to better manage my time this semester. We'll see … I say that going into every semester.]
"…Christian tends to emphasize Jesus' role as Prophet and King, but not Priest."
These roles are how Christians want to view Jesus. To me, I see his "role" most accuracy described as "teacher" because that's what he actually did.
Cin, here's a question for you: How do you know what Jesus "actually did?"
My point being, that many people go through the New Testament, especially the Gospels, and declare that certain teachings or words of Jesus are entirely believable ("Love your neighbor," Golden Rule, forgiveness, etc.). Yet, they also reject other things Jesus said (teachings on Hell, claims to divinity, etc.) as being totally unbelievable. Not to mention specific actions done by Jesus, especially the miracles.
What gives you confidence that Jesus was teacher or said anything of value, if you do not trust the records we have to be accurate? On what basis can you state that somethings are believable while others are obviously false? It seems you have an a priori assumption about what can and cannot be accepted and you filter Jesus' words through your own filter and believe what suits your own worldview. Am I wrong on that?
It's impossible to "know" what Jesus actually did. You already know my opinion of Jesus. He was just a man. Why do I hold this opinion? Because it's vastly more probable, knowing how the laws of physics work, to view Jesus as a man and not something magical/supernatural. So, viewed in this light, it's very easy to dismiss talk about Hell, miracles, divinity, etc "as being totally unbelievable." At the same time, ("Love your neighbor," Golden Rule, forgiveness, etc.) are moral teachings that are accessible to all of us. Didn't Confucius predate Jesus with the Golden Rule? Yuppers!
"What gives you confidence that Jesus was teacher or said anything of value, if you do not trust the records we have to be accurate?"
Why set up this all or nothing scenario where the records are either completely true or completely false. It's like you're saying if you trust some of it then you should trust all of it. No, I say! It's easy to mix fiction with fact. "A Tale of Two Cities" by Charles Dickens is very accurate from a historical standpoint yet, it's a fictional story.
But see again, here's the problem: you said you view him as a teacher because that's what he actually did. From where do you get your information? If the Bible is trustworthy in what in records in one sense, does it not infer that it might be accurate in those areas that seem questionable.
It has happened numerous times in archeology. Scholars have said the Bible was false in what it recorded, only later to find archeological evidence that lends credence to the record in the Bible.
"Laws of physics" is an interesting phrase that I want to discuss more later on, so I'll leave that alone for now. ;)
Why set up this all or nothing scenario where the records are either completely true or completely false.
I didn't say all or nothing. What I said was, on what basis do you state that some things are true and some things are false? What grounds do you have to dismiss some records as accurate and some as false?
"A Tale of Two Cities" by Charles Dickens is very accurate from a historical standpoint yet, it's a fictional story.
Did I miss it when Dickens claimed "A Tale" was a historically accurate story? There is a big difference between a story that uses historical facts, all the while never maintaining that it is anything but a historically based fiction story, and a book, such as the Gospel of Luke, which maintains from the beginning that it is a carefully researched, accurate historical account of the true story of Jesus.
BTW, good to discuss things with you again.
"… you said you view him as a teacher because that's what he actually did. From where do you get your information?"
Yes, his Sermon on the Mount speech, for example. If you have a different opinion, that's fine but I think it provides a good basis for my opinion of Jesus as a teacher instead of the 3 roles Driscoll mentions.
What was Jesus? What did Jesus do?
Jesus taught. Jesus was a teacher, IMHO.
"If the Bible is trustworthy in what in records in one sense, does it not infer that it might be accurate in those areas that seem questionable."
Aaron, LOL, NO! For example, "If "A Tale of Two Cities" is trustworthy in what in records in one sense (the events surrounding the French Revolution), does it not infer that it might be accurate in those areas that seem questionable."
It's accurate from a historical perspective but that has no bearing what so ever upon the fictional aspects of "A Tale of Two Cities."
"What grounds do you have to dismiss some records as accurate and some as false?"
…already answered in my previous post. Because it's vastly more probable, knowing how the laws of physics work, to view Jesus as a man and not something magical/supernatural. The grounds I have to accept some records as accurate and dismiss others as false are based upon physical reality. If there was a historical book about the life of Napoleon that was confirmed by many other sources in every detail but it also said that Napoleon had the ability to fly, well I'd kind of have to throw that one out the window. You would too. Your grounds? Physical law.
Here is how I see it. Which is more probable? Walking on water or teaching people to turn the other cheek? In my opinion, it's the latter. Christians however, well they have to allow for both. It's not because walking on water makes any sense to them, because it doesn't, it's just what their holy book says. In any other scenario, if a claim was made that walking on water is possible, a Christian would call you a fool and would use the fact that it's physically impossible to do so to support their skepticism. However, Christians get all bent out of shape when someone else subjects their beliefs to the same grounds of physical law that they normally would use themselves! This amuses me to no end. In a way I wish I could attend some of your seminary discussions to bring some of these obvious points up since I don't think Christians can't think like I do… from an outsiders perspective.
"…the Gospel of Luke, which maintains from the beginning that it is a carefully researched, accurate historical account of the true story of Jesus."
I read Luke as "The Tale of Jesus." Just because Luke presents his tale as gospel does not mean it is true. Some parts might be true and some parts might not be. If Charles Dickens had presented his work as non-fiction that would not change the fact that his protagonists were only characters. In fact, had Dickens claimed his characters were based on real people, it would be much tougher to discern the fact from the fiction in his work than in Luke because he doesn't present us with such immense improbabilities.
Good to discuss with you too, Aaron. I hope you are doing well.
So you are allowing that your judgment of the NT record is based solely on your a priori assumption that the miraculous cannot happen. You will allow that Jesus gave the Sermon on the Mount with no evidence from that time period except the NT because in it Jesus does not make statements that you personally find difficult to believe.
You see why I find this odd that you see no issues with simply basing what is and what is not believable based entirely on your own personal assumptions of the record.
In any other scenario, if a claim was made that walking on water is possible, a Christian would call you a fool and would use the fact that it's physically impossible to do so to support their skepticism.
Perhaps this may surprise you, but I agree (partially, obviously) with your assessment here. Too often Christians operate with a secular skeptic worldview until they discuss their faith and then they disregard their previous skepticism.
I would propose that Christians should correct this in two ways. 1) Ask hard questions about their own beliefs. Often times they believe something with no evidence whatsoever, even no biblical evidence. But they simply believe it because someone told them so. (I do what to say that Christians are not the only ones who do this. I would say atheists have some of the same problems.)
2) Christians should not view the world skeptically. You are right that it is entirely irrational to say on one hand that Jesus walked on water, but then say at the same time that walking on water is impossible. Now, a Christian could come to the conclusion that no one on Earth today can walk on water, while still holding to the belief that Jesus did. Those are not contradictory beliefs. But I do think you raise a good point that a prof of mine actually brought up: Christians too often allow their lives to be ruled by skepticism for everything but their own beliefs.
This amuses me to no end. In a way I wish I could attend some of your seminary discussions to bring some of these obvious points up since I don't think Christians can't think like I do… from an outsiders perspective.
You saved yourself there at the end. It was coming across as pretty arrogant. ;)
You'd be surprised at the POV's that are brought up in our classes. As I have already said, I've had to read Hitchens. I wonder how often the reverse happens. I constantly see leftists and/or atheists on college campuses protesting a conservative or Christian speaker. That is not even assigning a book in class.
But I'm sure there is a seminary near where you live and if they are anything like mine, I'm sure they would love for you to come and discuss things and present your perspective, as long as you would allow them to do the same. I can find one for you if you'd like.
Just because Luke presents his tale as gospel does not mean it is true. Some parts might be true and some parts might not be.
Very true. Claims of truth do not automatically equal truth. Even partial truth do not equal entire truth. But it would be absurd to say that a claim of truth, plus partial truth should not lend some credence to the parts that seem questionable.
But again, the question is: how do you determine what is true and what is not? By what standard do you use to rule out certain things? Is that standard based on any analysis of the text itself or on your own a priori bias against certain things?
"So you are allowing that your judgment of the NT record is based solely on your a priori assumption that the miraculous cannot happen."
If you can cite above where I say "impossible" instead of "improbable" I'd be surprised. The fact of the matter is we make the same a priori assumption that miracles and the supernatural are improbable. This assumption is grounded in physical law. We both think the existence of fairies is highly improbable, though not physically impossible, because of physical law. The same goes for walking on water. Yet, when the light this same reasoning is shined upon the Bible, it's no longer improbable? I am being consistent by applying it equally to both.
"You will allow that Jesus gave the Sermon on the Mount with no evidence from that time period except the NT because in it Jesus does not make statements that you personally find difficult to believe."
It's entirely feasible that Jesus was from Nazareth and that he taught people to "turn the other cheek." It is however much much much less probable that he transmuted water into wine. That's what makes some things in the bible more believable than others.
"You see why I find this odd that you see no issues with simply basing what is and what is not believable based entirely on your own personal assumptions of the record."
You mean basing my assumptions upon physical reality? I explained this in great detail already. You normally do the same thing though it's obvious you are not applying this to your own beliefs.
"As I have already said, I've had to read Hitchens."
I don't think you were assigned Hitchens to learn something from him. I think you were assigned Hitchens so that your class could write a paper about how is Hitchens is misguided, misinformed, or generally just arrogant. Is this correct?
"I constantly see leftists and/or atheists on college campuses protesting a conservative or Christian speaker."
Anything comparable with the protests Obama got from Notre Dame or his message to school children? Reality seems to be the opposite of what you constantly see.
But I'm sure there is a seminary near where you live and if they are anything like mine, I'm sure they would love for you to come and discuss things and present your perspective, as long as you would allow them to do the same. I can find one for you if you'd like.
They'd be complete strangers Aaron. I'd feel more comfortable if I knew someone. If they didn't ostracize me because I don't believe what they do, surely they would try to convert me and failing that, would just feel sorrow for another lost soul. I'd have no friends there.
"But it would be absurd to say that a claim of truth, plus partial truth should not lend some credence to the parts that seem questionable."
There is a truism that is apropos here: The most effective lies are the ones that are sprinkled with truth.
"But again, the question is: how do you determine what is true and what is not?"
And once again, I've already answered this. Physical law. If there was a historical book about the life of Napoleon that was confirmed by many other sources in every detail but it also said that Napoleon had the ability to fly, well I'd kind of have to throw that claim out the window. You would too. Your grounds? Physical law.
Yet, when the light this same reasoning is shined upon the Bible, it's no longer improbable? I am being consistent by applying it equally to both.
The miraculous would be by definition rare, but that does not equal improbable. Circumstances are important for evaluating truthfulness of the claims of the miraculous. Someone recording that Napoleon flew would have to explain how that fits with other things we know about him and how that fits with other records of his life.
When he examine the claims for the miraculous around Jesus' life, we see that the miraculous fits with the story: claims of divinity, testimony of his enemies (they blamed his works on demons), testimony of followers, records outside the Bible that mention him as a miracle worker. None of these mean that Jesus did the miracles, but there is obviously much more to investigate with his claims than with a mention of Napoleon flying.
That's what makes some things in the bible more believable than others.
We've discussed actions versus words, but you've yet to demonstrate why one should believe that Jesus taught the Sermon on the Mount, but did not say He was the Son of God. There is nothing miraculous about the claim itself. Based on what evidence do you dismiss Jesus actually saying He was the Son of God, when you take the biblical record, the testimony of his disciples, the fact that the Jews want to crucify Him for something, and the recordings outside of the NT.
I think you were assigned Hitchens so that your class could write a paper about how is Hitchens is misguided, misinformed, or generally just arrogant. Is this correct?
I was given no instructions on how to treat the book, but simply to review it, giving the positives and negatives of it. Now, after reading it, I did (more or less) find Hitchens to be "misguided, misinformed, and generally just arrogant," but that was not the assignment. ;)
Anything comparable with the protests Obama got from Notre Dame or his message to school children? Reality seems to be the opposite of what you constantly see.
I do not really want to rehash those discussions. But I'm not sure I deserved the snark about me not seeing reality. When did I say that conservatives would never protest such a thing?
My point was that in academia the conservative Christian viewpoint is rarely shared in an official standpoint and when it is there are protests simply because they are given the opportunity to bring up their perspective.
At UNC Bart Ehrman teaches numerous classes on the unreliability of Scripture. I wonder how many classes teach the opposite. I wonder how often they have someone come in an official capacity to lecture, even on a one time basis, to do so.
You would be seeing the opposite of reality if you claim that the conservative Christian viewpoint is not constantly criticized and even protested on the average college campus.
I'd feel more comfortable if I knew someone.
Obviously, it would be difficult thing. I just know that you said someone should present your perspective at seminary campuses. They should not ostracize you because you believe differently. I have friends who do not believe the same as me. Would they try to "convert" you? I'm sure they would speak to you about the thing in their life that most excites them. We all do that. More than likely they would want to convince you they were correct, but would you not be trying to do the same?
It wasn't a challenge or a demand or anything. I was just telling you that most evangelical seminaries would love to have someone come on their campus to discuss these issues with you.
There is a truism that is apropos here: The most effective lies are the ones that are sprinkled with truth.
Obviously, but if you tell me two things and the first one is true, I will be more inclined to believe you on the second one. If you tell me two things and the first one is false, should I trust you more because "the most effective lies are the ones that are sprinkled with truth?" That makes no sense.
Reliability and trustworthiness is built upon honest statements. If I speak the truth about one thing that lends credence to other statements. To suggests otherwise is counter to common sense.
… we see that the miraculous fits with the story: claims of divinity, testimony of his enemies (they blamed his works on demons), testimony of followers, records outside the Bible that mention him as a miracle worker. None of these mean that Jesus did the miracles, but there is obviously much more to investigate with his claims than with a mention of Napoleon flying.
None of that really matters. Even if you had all of that, you still wouldn't believe an account that Napoleon had the ability to fly. Common sense would indicate it's an avalanche of BS.
Based on what evidence do you dismiss Jesus actually saying He was the Son of God…
I'm not sure what this has to do with what we are discussing. It's well within the realm of possibility Jesus made this claim. I can make the same claim if I so choose. Highly improbable claims though, I throw those out the window just as Christians would normally do, except when it comes to their own set of miracles.
"…"misguided, misinformed, and generally just arrogant," but that was not the assignment. ;)"
Well at least you gave it a go but the results were sadly predictable. I bet there was not one person in your class who actually took Hitchens seriously. I would venture that they all pretty much came to the same conclusion you did. Had I been there, I would have been able to at least do Hitchens some justice. But I do understand you are at a seminary, where everyone shares a religious viewpoint, so it not likely you will hear a lot of dissent about atheism there.
"You would be seeing the opposite of reality if you claim that the conservative Christian viewpoint is not constantly criticized and even protested on the average college campus."
The vast majority of college students are theists. It's probably more descriptive to say "political right wingers" instead. I recall exit polls from the '08 election showing the more educated a person is, the more likely that voter will vote liberal. I think it's more a criticism of the politics practiced by conservative Christians than it is a criticism of their religion.
"At UNC Bart Ehrman teaches numerous classes on the unreliability of Scripture. I wonder how many classes teach the opposite."
I wouldn't want classes about scripture taught at all, unless it's for a religious studies class. If so, then they should not even go into whether it's reliable or not. The truth value of the biblical or Islamic scripture is something for the church, it's not something that I would consider legitimate academics. To teach the opposite, that religious scripture is reliable would be a contradiction to other religious scriptures. To teach that one religions scripture is reliable, say the scripture from the Koran or the Bible, would reduce the course to proselytizing. You wouldn't need a teacher, you'd need a priest, pastor or imam. It would destroy the academic reputation of the school I think. You may as well go to Jerry Falwell University or a Madrasa if you want that kind of a speaker.
"It wasn't a challenge or a demand or anything. I was just telling you that most evangelical seminaries would love to have someone come on their campus to discuss these issues with you."
One of the nice things about online forums is that I can speak my mind freely. I really would feel intimidated, pressured etc. in that setting. If you were in my shoes, wouldn't you be too? I'd be happy to do a written correspondence though.
"Obviously, but if you tell me two things and the first one is true, I will be more inclined to believe you on the second one… If I speak the truth about one thing that lends credence to other statements."
Not at all. It all depends upon what the claims are.
1. There are documented eyewitness reports Napoleon was defeated at Waterloo.
2. There are documented eye witness reports that Napoleon flew over the battlefield like Superman.
I throw number two out the window because it flies (can't resist the pun) in the face of reality. There is an exceedingly high probability the reports and documentation of Bonaparte's flight are erroneous. Christians normally would reasonably come to the exact same conclusion as I despite the veracity of #1 and the documentation. Unfortunately, Christians don't apply this common sense to their own beliefs as they normally would to anything else.
Sorry for the delay, Cin. I'm enjoying the discussion. I've been out of town and busy today. I will get back to you soon. Again, hate that I can't write comments and posts like crazy like I used to, different life situation. But I will get back to you soon – this week.
No problem, Aaron. I think Two or Three is dead now, unfortunately. I'll look forward to your response though.
Unfortunately, I think it is close. I bear a lot of the blame or at least the lack of participating by me did not help to make this a functioning website/community as it had been.
Daniel has said that he intends to, at some point, officially close the site down and direct readers to our individual sites. At that point, I guess I will post any politics and apologetic based writing at my site, which I have been using to post almost strictly writing aimed toward a Christian audience.
Now to your response (I want to try to narrow the focus down on the essentials of our discussion.):
None of that really matters. Even if you had all of that, you still wouldn't believe an account that Napoleon had the ability to fly. Common sense would indicate it's an avalanche of BS.
Actually, it matters a lot … unless you simply have an a priori assumption that the miraculous cannot occur. You have constantly used the term "improbable," but your assumptions are based on the "impossibility" of miracles. If not, additional evidences and testimonies, as in the case of Jesus, would dictate further study than a stray mention of someone in history having the power of flight.
Because, if history was totally different and Napoleon claimed to be the Son of God, had numerous testimonies to miraculous feats, both from his enemies and his followers, and then had a religion develop around his life with his followers claiming that he had been raised from the dead, etc. It would most definitely require me to further investigate a mention of Napoleon during something beyond the normal human experience.
I'm not sure what this has to do with what we are discussing. It's well within the realm of possibility Jesus made this claim.
The point is this: you are right that anyone can make that claim. Many have made that claim, but the vast majority have been deemed as crazy or at least untrustworthy.
When someone claims to be God, that doesn't make them a good teacher. If you came on the site and had some good, intelligent things to say, but you also said you were God. I would not say you were a good teacher. The audacity of your claim would trump other things you said.
I bet there was not one person in your class who actually took Hitchens seriously.
I took him seriously, I just did not agree with his assessment or much of his logic.
I recall exit polls from the '08 election showing the more educated a person is, the more likely that voter will vote liberal.
Causation or correlation? I'm pursuing my Masters, yet am conservative. I know tons of PhD's who are conservative. I know tons of people without a high school degree who would never vote conservative.
But I do think there is a higher percentage of liberals among the educated which I think speaks to how liberal academia is. Liberal academia is hostile to conservative politics, but it is also toward conservative religion.
"Actually, it matters a lot … unless you simply have an a priori assumption that the miraculous (which in this case is Napoleon Bonaparte flying like superman) cannot occur."
Yet, you DO throw the notion of Napoleon's miraculous ability of flight out the window despite any eyewitness reports and documentation. You do so because you realize it's ridiculous. Why is it ridiculous? Because a flying Napoleon goes against what you know about physical reality. It's more likely such reports are a hoax, yes?
"… (If) Napoleon claimed to be the Son of God, had numerous testimonies to miraculous feats, both from his enemies and his followers, and then had a religion develop around his life with his followers claiming that he had been raised from the dead, etc. It would most definitely require me to further investigate a mention of Napoleon during something beyond the normal human experience."
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Christians normally would reasonably come to the exact same conclusion as I despite the veracity of and the documentation of Napoleon's flight. Unfortunately, Christians don't apply this common sense to their own beliefs as they normally would to anything else.
It sounds funny because paraphrasing your quote above: "If Napoleon were Jesus, I would then have to investigate Napoleon's power to fly more closely." You have to smile at that thought too, don't you? Napoleon is NOT Jesus and as I would, you'd throw the notion of Napoleon's ability to fly out the window, despite documentation and eyewitness accounts. You and I do so because we both assume Napoleon's ability to fly is exceedingly improbable if not impossible. I'm not biased though and apply this rationale to other miraculous accounts equally. Aaron, it's clear you are biased toward your own set of miracles and you do not apply the same rationale to your beliefs as you normally would to accounts of miracles outside of the context of your own religion.
"I took him seriously, I just did not agree with his assessment or much of his logic."
Surprise, Surprise! Let me guess, everyone in your class came to the same conclusion. Sounds like you all dismissed Hitchens as someone you can't agree with.
"I'm pursuing my Masters, yet am conservative."
Disclaimer: master's in Christianity. It's like someone born in China getting a master's degree in speaking Chinese.
"…which I think speaks to how liberal academia is."
Well, college professors tend to believe in things like evolution which is a very liberal belief, right?
Liberal academia is hostile to conservative politics, but it is also toward conservative religion.
I think they are just hostile to stupidity.
Ahh Cin, I so missed you insulting my intelligence and denigrating my degree. ;) But let's get to the issues.
I noticed you ignored my point about claims to be the Son of God should cause us to second guess the intelligence and mental sanity of the person claiming that status. Unless of course they are in fact, the Son of God. If you hold that the records we have of Jesus' words are reliable, then it seems odd you would hold him as a good teacher if you do not accept his claim to divinity.
I'm not biased though and apply this rationale to other miraculous accounts equally.
You are consistent, but you are also biased. You consistently do not allow for the miraculous, which makes you biased against the possibility of the miraculous. Again, you keep using "improbable," but you express "impossibility" as you claim that "common sense" dictates dismissal of the supernatural.
Sounds like you all dismissed Hitchens as someone you can't agree with.
Sounds like you would do the same with someone like William Lane Craig or any theist philosopher, except I can call Hitchens intelligent and a good writer. I don't think you can offer those same compliments for someone with whom you disagree.
Disclaimer: master's in Christianity. It's like someone born in China getting a master's degree in speaking Chinese.
I would be insulted if you were speaking from any sense of knowledge, but you are speaking from total ignorance as you have never experienced the academic rigor (or even lack thereof) with my degree program.
I do not have to defend it to you based on those facts, but I will say that most Masters programs are just over 30 hrs of graduate work – mine is over three times that at 96.
It's odd that you used the Chinese master's degree, do you dismiss English speakers who get master's degrees in English. How about the children of scientists pursuing a masters in science? Or are you once again showing your bias against anything religion?
Well, college professors tend to believe in things like evolution which is a very liberal belief, right?
I don't think it is a liberal belief per se. I think many who hold to evolution use it to come to very liberal beliefs. I think it can be a grounds for holding liberal beliefs, but I know numerous conservatives (politically and religiously) who hold to some type of evolution. Well as it comes to that, I don't know anyone who doesn't hold to some type of evolution.
I think they are just hostile to stupidity.
What would you say to someone who constantly results to ad hominem attacks against someone's intelligence, education and academic degrees? Would you find that type of "logic" compelling? Are you attempting to say that anyone who disagrees with liberal academia is stupid? Are you attempting to say that any Christian or one who holds to another religion is stupid? Or are you simply trying to say that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid?
"I so missed you insulting my intelligence and denigrating my degree. ;)"
I'm doing neither. In fact, I think you agree with my assessment. Think of it like this, Chinese man getting Masters in studying Chinese = Christian man getting Masters in studying Christianity. Isn't it true that you study the Bible at your school? Is that a stretch for a Christian? I'm not trying to insult your intelligence, I'm just pointing out the obvious.
"I noticed you ignored my point about claims to be the Son of God should cause us to second guess the intelligence and mental sanity of the person claiming that status."
No, I didn't. You basically said: "What if Napoleon were Jesus." I provided a detailed response.
"If you hold that the records we have of Jesus' words are reliable, then it seems odd you would hold him as a good teacher if you do not accept his claim to divinity."
LOL! I think the records of Confucius' words are reliable. Do you also find it odd that I hold Confucius in high regard as a teacher but would summarily reject any possible claims to divinity attributed to him, just… like… you… would. Because Confucius is not in the Bible, you reject any possible supernatural claims that could be said about him, just like I do. Why? Because it's contrary with what we know about physical reality. However, if Confucius was mentioned in the Bible as having supernatural abilities, ONLY THEN would you pause to consider because only then he would be part of the set of miracles you yourself believe in. But, since Confucius is not part of your religion, any possible supernatural claim about him would get thrown out the window. This is common sense. But, Christians don't apply it to their own beliefs as they normally would to anything else.
"You consistently do not allow for the miraculous…"
Yes, exactly like you don't allow for the miraculous, Aaron. You do the SAME THING. The only difference is that YOU allow for the miraculous ONLY in the context of Christianity; your own set of miracles you believe in. Essentially, you give your own beliefs a free pass while throwing out non-Christian claims of the miraculous out the window. Correct? If you come away with nothing else from this discussion but that realization, I'll be happy.
"Sounds like you would do the same with someone like William Lane Craig…"
I'd be up front and say I don't take Craig seriously. When you say you take Hitchens seriously, that's just a pretense on your part. Though you say you do, you really don't. Oh, BTW Craig is intelligent and a good writer and an excellent debater.
"…do you dismiss English speakers who get master's degrees in English."
My mother was a professor of English Literature before she died. Does that answer your question?
Other than studying dead languages (which is fine), what do those 96 graduate hours consist of? Is it not just more bible study in one capacity or another?
"I don't think it [evolution] is a liberal belief per se."
It's a fact, not a belief. So, it's neither conservative or liberal. It's not even at issue.
"What would you say to someone who constantly results to ad hominem attacks against someone's intelligence, education and academic degrees? "
I'd say that person is wrong. It seems you are taking what I say about religion and the "liberal" academia personally. It seems you want me to call you stupid because that would confirm some of the erroneous notions you might hold, but I telling you you before that I don't think you are stupid. You can confirm this with a search of 2or3.
"Or are you simply trying to say that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid?"
That's a stupid thing to say. Obviously, the answer to that is, no.
I'm doing neither. In fact, I think you agree with my assessment.
And … the inevitable back track. Cin, you can't use words like "stupidity" and then pretend to be shocked that I accuse you of insulting me. I honestly don't care, I find it kinda funny, since as I said you have no real knowledge of my degree program and only base your comments off of your assumptions.
You do not call me stupid and I do not think that you really hold that belief, but you do get frustrated that I do not hold to your argumentation and you do attempt to dismiss my degree. You also use words like "stupidity" in describing the positions of those with whom you disagree.
Did I exaggerate your position for effect with my questions? Obviously, but again you cannot use the terminology you use and then be shocked if someone takes it personally. Again, I'm not upset about it (although to be honest, in the past it did get under my skin), but you should know that for your own personal interaction with Christians and other theists.
I do not agree with your assessment. Is part of our study the Bible? Of course. If you got a Masters in say Shakespeare you would study his writings. That's fairly obvious. I've went through this with you before, but you never seem content to let it go. We study history, languages, philosophy, textual criticism, and numerous other disciplines within academia at large and yes within Christian academia. That is the case for every discipline.
If someone who spoke English said they were getting their Masters in English, and they mentioned they were getting a masters degree would you say, "Disclaimer, it is an English masters," as if there was a difference between an English masters and any other masters. I could have already completed an MBA or other similar masters.
You said your mother was a professor of English literature. Great, I love English Lit. I'm sure she was an extremely talented and intelligent women. It takes a lot to study those hours, get those degrees and then teach others about the knowledge you obtained. Would you want someone making similar comments and disclaimers about her degree or anyone that you worked toward yourself?
However, if Confucius was mentioned in the Bible as having supernatural abilities, ONLY THEN would you pause to consider because only then he would be part of the set of miracles you yourself believe in.
Where did I say that? It would be hypocritical of me to say that the supernatural could only exist within the confines of the Bible. I pause to consider claims of the miraculous when it has other evidences and corroborating circumstances. Even within the Bible, you have records of supernatural events attributed to those who opposed the Jews in the OT and the Christians in the NT.
Here is where the difference comes down: I allow for the supernatural, you do not.
I do accept the miraculous accounts in the Bible, but I also accept the miraculous outside of the Bible. I also hold those accounts in the Bible to be true for various reasons and I'm open to their truthfulness because of my allowance for the supernatural.
But again, I find it odd that you can say someone who made such a bold statement like "I am God" could just be a good teacher. If I said that, you would be well within your rights to think me crazy. If you said that, first I would be excited you finally believed in the divine, then I would think you crazy. ;) Usually people who say those things are locked in a mental home, not glorified as a great moral teacher for the rest of us to follow.
Other than studying dead languages (which is fine), what do those 96 graduate hours consist of? Is it not just more bible study in one capacity or another?
For starters, neither Greek or Hebrew is a dead language. Granted, we study ancient forms of the language, but it's not dead. It would be like studying Chaucer English.
I've went through my academics with you before and I've explain why it makes sense that we would study the Bible for a good portion of our degree program, as your mom studied tons of English Lit for her degree. But it's a bit more than simply "Bible study." I can do that on my own, with my family and friends and in my church (and I do just that), but it is learning for individuals who, just like your mom, have spent years of their lives learning academic disciplines like languages, history, philosophy, etc and have dedicated their lives to teaching others.
But enough about my education … I hope to have a new posts up tomorrow that we can discuss and attempt back-handed insults at each other over. Just kidding.
And … the inevitable back track. Cin, you can't use words like "stupidity" and then pretend to be shocked that I accuse you of insulting me.
First, I don't think I've backtracked at all. Second, the trick for you is that when I say something like "'liberal' academia is hostile to stupidity" you need to differentiate if I mean you personally or if I am speaking in general terms. For example, when I say "creationism is stupid," do you take that as a personal insult? Is it as if I just called you stupid and not creationism?
…but you do get frustrated that I do not hold to your argumentation.
Why would that make me frustrated? I gave up trying to convince you and Seeker of anything years ago. What I try to do now is illuminate arguments in a light in which you'd never see them otherwise. I try to get you to think in ways you normally wouldn't. I think where I do get frustrated is when I say something obvious like, "None of that really matters. Even if you had all of that [documentation], you still wouldn't believe an account that Napoleon had the ability to fly. Common sense would indicate it's an avalanche of BS." You come back with "it matters a lot …" As if you would believe Napoleon flying is something to consider seriously. What is frustrating is that you know that the notion of Napoleon flying around like superman, even well documented, is ridiculous and more likely a hoax. You just refuse to admit it.
"Disclaimer, it is an English masters," as if there was a difference between an English masters and any other masters.
Um, there is a big difference. English students view their subject matter as literature. You view your subject matter as if it was history instead of religious literature, which is what it really is. The disclaimer indicates that you are just going to a glorified Liberty University. If this assumption is wrong, what do they teach you at seminary that they couldn't at Liberty University? Moreover, what you learn at seminary is akin to what Muslims learn at a Madrasa, it's just that they are getting a degree in Islam instead of Christianity. Set me straight about this if you can.
"It would be hypocritical of me to say that the supernatural could only exist within the confines of the Bible. I pause to consider claims of the miraculous when it has other evidences and corroborating circumstances."
Oh, Really?? Give me a few examples outside of a Christian context.
"Usually people who say those things are locked in a mental home, not glorified as a great moral teacher for the rest of us to follow."
Joseph Smith said similar crazy things but he is the founder of a large and growing religion and is viewed as someone to emulate by millions of Americans. Religious kook yes, divine no… unless you think that like Jesus, Joseph Smith's claims have credence?
Exactly, "Usually". It's as I've been saying all through this discussion, "you give your own beliefs a free pass while throwing out non-Christian claims of the miraculous out the window." "Unfortunately, Christians don't apply this common sense to their own beliefs as they normally would to anything else." This is not a personal attack on you. Muslims do the exact same thing with their religion. They only view the miracles that they believe in as valid and toss out the others. Mormons believe Jesus came to America. They have a lot of "evidence" to support their claim but we both agree it's baloney, right? They even have their own Seminary programs which are very rigorous. It happens all the time.
Set me straight about this if you can.
How about we move past your apparent disdain for my education? There's nothing I can say to you to demonstrate the worthiness of my academic pursuits because it takes place in a religious context.
I will say this, all of the academic panels accredit the school. Many of our professors have their degrees from Ivy League schools, Duke and other similar institutions. I know guys who got PhD's from Cambridge and seminaries and said the seminary was more strenuous academically.
Also, you have yet to demonstrate any real knowledge in this discussion, except assumptions and bias against education that occurs within a religious context.
Oh, Really?? Give me a few examples outside of a Christian context.
We are speaking theoretically here. Again, this all goes back to your rejection of the supernatural and my acceptance of it.
You would have been correct in your assumption that I simply accepted the Bible miracle stories, while expressing skepticism about all others. Your critique of my reasoning would have been of much benefit to me then. However, it was here at seminary in my philosophy class that our professor pointed out that when we disregard the miraculous in virtually every instance except those in the Bible we reveal that we are operating from the skepticism worldview.
However, I must make one thing clear. If I hold that Christianity is true (for whatever reason), it is consistent of me to believe that the miraculous is somehow related to that God. Either He is directly responsible for it or the supernatural entities that oppose Him are responsible for counterfeit miracles that would also be considered supernatural acts.
Now, one can simply say only Christian miracles are true, because Christianity is true. Or one can look at the vast amount of evidences in that field and other fields and say that you have more trust in the Christian miracle stories because of the trustworthiness in other areas.
Religious kook yes, divine no… unless you think that like Jesus, Joseph Smith's claims have credence?
The instance of Smith proves my point. He did not even claim to be divine and I think he was a bit crazy. I see no evidence for their beliefs and find numerous contradictions and fundamental changes in their doctrine over time. So after investigation, I dismiss both Smith's claims and the faith which resulting from them.
If I did not believe Jesus' divinity claim to be true then I would have to believe he was crazy as well. I would not follow him in a religious sense and I could not call him a good teacher.
You will say this is because I do not apply "common sense" to my own beliefs. I would disagree. I would say that I hold to these beliefs after much investigation and internal (and external) debate and discussion. I see overwhelming evidence for my belief in Christianity. You can disagree with my conclusion, but as you do not know my mind you cannot say that I do not put my own beliefs under scrutiny.
"Also, you have yet to demonstrate any real knowledge in this discussion, except assumptions and bias against education that occurs within a religious context."
Set me straight then. Presumably, you think that practicing Mormonism is following a misguided and misconceived version of Christianity. For example, they believe The Book of Mormon to be of divine origin, they Believe Jesus came to the United States, etc. Now, it seems to me that any study of Mormonism, no matter how rigorous, would be a waste of time because Mormonism itself is at best a flawed and at worst a false version of true Christianity. Those who get master degrees in Mormonism are essentially wasting their time because the whole premise of their education itself is flawed, i.e. The Book of Mormon is false not divine no matter how exhaustively it's studied. I think many Christians would agree. Now, I see evangelical seminary in much the same light. The whole premise is flawed despite the rigor and accreditation. If there is any light you can shed to change my perspective, I'd welcome it. However, as you explain, please bear in mind the way YOU feel about master degree programs in false religions such as Mormonism, Islam, Scientology, etc. and that I feel similarly, I just add evangelical to the list.
"However, it was here at seminary in my philosophy class that our professor pointed out that when we disregard the miraculous in virtually every instance except those in the Bible we reveal that we are operating from the skepticism worldview."
Well, fine then. Provide a few examples of miracles you are NOT skeptical about that are outside of a Christian context.
"The instance of Smith proves my point. He did not even claim to be divine…"
He claimed to have a vision from God about some buried plates and the Book of Mormon which is divine according to Mormons.
"I see no evidence for their beliefs and find numerous contradictions and fundamental changes in their doctrine over time."
Exactly. Your defense of Jesus was, "Usually people who say those things are locked in a mental home, not glorified as a great moral teacher for the rest of us to follow." It turns out that Joseph Smith is glorified as a great moral teacher by millions of Americans.
"I would say that I hold to these beliefs after much investigation and internal (and external) debate and discussion."
Would a Mormon say the exact same thing and is a Mormon's religion false/flawed? Now once you have considered how that would sound to you coming from a Mormon then consider how your words sound coming from you to me.
However, as you explain, please bear in mind the way YOU feel about master degree programs in false religions such as Mormonism, Islam, Scientology, etc. and that I feel similarly, I just add evangelical to the list.
You forget that I would add atheistic naturalism that that list, as well. If it is a matter of disagreeing with the philosophical underpinnings of a degree means you add a "disclaimer" to it, then I would add one to virtually all of the science ones that are guided solely by naturalism.
Having said that, I do not think they need to be given a disclaimer. If someone told me they graduated from BYU, I would assume they were Mormon. I would assume I disagree with them over doctrine, but I would not tell them they degree deserves a disclaimer.
Apparently, we disagree on this. You would add disclaimers if you disagree with the philosophical underpinning of the degree program. I would not.
List a few examples of miracles you are NOT skeptical about that are outside of a Christian context.
I said I was speaking theoretically. I'm not sure of specific examples. I'm just saying that I do not automatically discount the supernatural as a legitimate explanation, after careful investigation and ruling out other explanations. I simply allow for an explanation you do not, when the evidence warrants it.
It turns out that Joseph Smith is glorified as a great moral teacher by millions of Americans.
You continue to make my point with Smith. Do you call him a great moral teacher? That's my point.
Jesus is called a great moral teacher by someone like you, who does not believe him to be the Son of God. But we both agree that Smith is crazy.
People who makes claims about divinity, particularly their own, are branded as crazy. We agree on this except for Jesus. You still hold him up as a great moral teacher. Apparently, we agree that there is something difference about Jesus.
Would a Mormon say the exact same thing and is a Mormon's religion false/flawed? Now once you have considered how that would sound to you coming from a Mormon then consider how your words sound coming from you to me.
No, I understand. I'm sure many Mormons would say the same thing. I'm sure you say the same thing. Just as you disagree with both of us, I disagree with both of you.
I'm not sure if you understand that I view your philosophical underpinnings as flawed as you view mine. Those foundations cause us to evaluate and interpret the evidence we see in vastly different ways.
You seem to assume that of the three (me, the Mormon and you) that you are the only one that does not have some type of worldview or philosophy open to critique.
"You forget that I would add atheistic naturalism that that list, as well."
How? There is no such thing as an atheist seminary nor any degree associated with atheism that I'm aware of. They only give masters degrees out for practicing Mormonism, Evangelism, etc.
"I would assume I disagree with them over doctrine, but I would not tell them they degree deserves a disclaimer."
You wouldn't say it, you'd just think it. Remember…
"Presumably, you think that practicing Mormonism is following a misguided and misconceived version of Christianity. For example, they believe The Book of Mormon to be of divine origin, they Believe Jesus came to the United States, etc. Now, it seems to me that any study of Mormonism, no matter how rigorous, would be a waste of time because Mormonism itself is at best a flawed and at worst a false version of true Christianity. Those who get master degrees in Mormonism are essentially wasting their time because the whole premise of their education itself is flawed, i.e. The Book of Mormon is false not divine no matter how exhaustively it's studied. I think many Christians would agree."
If that's wrong, set me straight.
We have similar doubts about the authenticity of Mormon seminary so at least now you can understand the reasoning of someone, who is non-religious, applying the same to your seminary as you do to Mormons.
"I simply allow for an explanation you do not, when the evidence warrants it."
Translation: The evidence will only warrant a miracle if it's Christian. You don't believe in any miracles outside of Christianity and the Bible, right? You could not provide any examples to show otherwise. You said…
"It would be hypocritical of me to say that the supernatural could only exist within the confines of the Bible. I pause to consider claims of the miraculous when it has other evidences and corroborating circumstances."
I agree. It is hypocritical. You SAY that you consider the existence of claims outside the Bible, but you really don't. You are so full of it.
"People who makes claims about divinity, particularly their own, are branded as crazy. We agree on this except for Jesus."
We don't agree. Smith was not branded as crazy and neither was Jesus. They are the founders of an entire religion with millions of devout American followers. Though I don't view Smith as a great moral teacher, there are millions of people who do. Why then is Joseph Smith deemed a great teacher of morals and and not locked up in a mental home for making such ridiculous claims? As you said before, "Usually people who say those things are locked in a mental home, not glorified as a great moral teacher for the rest of us to follow." This particular defense of Jesus is weak. It applies to Joseph Smith who you think is a nut.
"I'm not sure if you understand that I view your philosophical underpinnings as flawed as you view mine."
You only know that I have no belief in supernatural things. I have an absence of belief, not a difference of belief like you have with the Mormon. Now, to call an absence of belief a "philosophical" view is like calling bald a hair color. You disagree with my disbelief. Not with my beliefs. You disagree with me for not believing in what you believe.
How? There is no such thing as an atheist seminary nor any degree associated with atheism that I'm aware of. They only give masters degrees out for practicing Mormonism, Evangelism, etc.
Here is where you misunderstand both my contention about my degree and my contention about atheism. BYU doesn't give out a degree to someone for "practicing Mormonism," neither does my seminary give one out for practicing Christianity, nor would a school with an atheist perspective give one out for practicing atheism.
But what BYU does, as well as my seminary, along with every other school, is educate from a specific worldview. At the present time I do not know of a school that gives out a degree particularly in atheism, but virtually every degree program in liberal academia starts with presumptions about truth and the existence of the supernatural. Most degrees in the social sciences begin with the presupposition that truth is relative and there is no absolute truth. Most degrees in the hard sciences begin with the presupposition that truth can only be discovered experientially and that there is no supernatural.
You wouldn't say it, you'd just think it.
Glad to see you know believe in the supernatural, though I would say that the ability to read minds has less warrant than belief in God. ;)
You quote yourself to prove what I would think, don't you see a problem with that?
I agree that Mormonism is a religion which teaches faulty ideas. I do not agree that someone who obtains a degree from BYU has wasted their time and deserve a disclaimer for their degree.
On that subject, who gets to decide who has to have a disclaimer for their degree? Is it you? Is it those who agree with you? Just curious how one gets that power of judgment over someone else' educational pursuit?
Translation: The evidence will only warrant a miracle if it's Christian. You don't believe in any miracles outside of Christianity and the Bible, right?
There you go with those mind reading powers again.
No, I've already told you that miracles have and can occur outside of a direct Christian experience. The Christian worldview allows for that. Do I know of any specific examples? Not off the top of my head, no. But that doesn't mean I don't believe them to be possible. I could not name you a street in Paris, but that doesn't mean I don't believe one exists.
I do want to add a clarification. If I accept Christianity as true, then when I say that the miraculous exists outside of Christianity, I'm not saying that some other god of another religion did it. Christianity teaches that there are supernatural beings, both good and evil, which sometimes interact with the natural. The miraculous would be caused by one of those two. If Christianity is true, then everything fits within it somehow. Other religions can and do have miraculous things happen, but I would be a polytheists if I thought their "god" did it.
I'm sure you will say that this proves your point that I only believe in "Christian miracles." But I view it a lot like truth, I believe that all truth is God's truth simply because He's the author of the world and of truth. Other religions have things in them that are true, but they still fall under the wide range of God's truth. Because of their presence within other religions, I wouldn't say they were "Christian truths" per se. 2+2=4 is true and therefore part of the way God established the world and part of His truth, but I would not call that a Christian truth. Miracles are part of God's truth, but there are miracles that occur outside the direct Christian experience.
It's a long answer and a complicated issue, so I've probably not explained it very well, but there you go. Parse away.
Smith was not branded as crazy and neither was Jesus.
Yeah, Smith was pretty much branded as crazy during his time. Why do you think the Mormons moved around so much and ended up out in the middle of nowhere in Utah. They kept kicking him out of other states.
And actually in his time, they thought Jesus was demon possessed and all sorts of things. That's why they killed him.
However, there is something different about Jesus that virtually everyone, even those who do not follow him, still regard him as a great teacher even though He was killed for making crazy claims of being God, unless of course they were true.
Mormons hold Joseph Smith in high regard and follow him, but no one else really does and again he didn't even claim to be God.
You only know that I have no belief in supernatural things.
You can play the semantic games that atheists philosophers love to play, but in the real world that's called a belief.
You do not believe in the supernatural, which is, in fact, a believe about the supernatural. An absence of belief is a judgment on the accuracy of the claim. You are making a metaphysical claim in denying the existence of the supernatural. You can have no scientific evidence according to your own theory of scientific knowledge – that science does not speak to the supernatural.
I do have a question for you, would you say you follow the Humian school of thought, that there are only two meaningful propositions: 1) those that are true by definition and 2) those that are empirically verifiable, or do you see yourself more like Kant and saying that there is no one we can really know anything about this world.
You seem to follow Hume's skepticism for the most part in our discussions, but you deserve the chance to self-identify. (Let's not waste time and say that you do not hold to any existing philosophy, unless you have created an entirely new philosophical system. But if you have done that, would you please explain it.)
If you want to continue playing semantic games by refusing to call your philosophical system a "belief," that's fine but just know that philosophy doesn't agree with you. (You should know that I'm not using "belief" as in "I believe something without any justification." I using "belief" as in "These are the things which I believe to be true.")
Looking forward to your response. I may start a new post dealing specifically with the miraculous, since that is basically our point of contention.
OK, for starters as I chastised you for semantics, I used unclear and confusing (short-hand, and technically incorrect) terminology, so I will try to rectify that in this comment. So I apologize for that, thanks for pointing it out. But to the points.
That is correct, Aaron. So, you can't add it to my list of worthless masters degrees from a seminary.
Maybe I can make my point more clear this way: do you feel that a degree from Liberty or some other Christian school deserves a disclaimer for the degrees they give out in English, Journalism, Science, etc? How about a degree in religions from a secular school? I guess the question is: in your opinion, do degrees deserve the disclaimer because of the subject matter or because of the philosophical underpinnings?
Perhaps I was wrong in assuming you were arguing that degrees from Liberty, an evangelical or Mormon seminary needed a disclaimer because they were taught with a philosophy with which you disagreed.
That was my point about degrees which start from philosophical naturalism (better terminology than my sloppy use of "atheism"). I disagree with the philosophic underpinnings of those degrees (just as I do with Mormonism), but I do not believe they should be give disclaimers.
I believe that Mormonism teaches false ideas. I believe that philosophical naturalism teaches false ideas. I do not believe that degrees coming from either perspective deserve to have disclaimers placed on them. I don't view this as being contradictory.
Well, I think it's complementary of you to call atheists philosophers but in reality, they are not philosophers, they just don't believe in gods.
I wasn't calling all atheists philosophers. I was specifying about which type of philosophers I was speaking. The philosophers who do not believe in the supernatural.
No evidence, then no judgement for no judgment can be made without sufficient evidence.
Perhaps you could define evidence for me because we have discussed tons of issues which are evidence toward the supernatural. Now, you may see the evidence as wanting or not see it as compelling, but it is entirely a semantic game to say that there is no evidence for the supernatural.
The cosmological, teleological, religious experience, etc all are evidences for the supernatural. They are not proofs, as I would say there is no philosophical "proof" in the discussion either way. I would say there are evidences on both sides of the discussion much of the evidence is claimed by both sides and the differences come mostly from interpretation of those evidences and the data we have.
If I can pull from another section of your response as what may be your definition of evidence for the supernatural:
Something would need to happen that shouldn't be possible; something that is not just against all odds.
So you are arguing that the supernatural is evidence for supernatural? Do you have to witness the event itself? Hear reliable testimony about it? What type of miraculous event would it have to be? A cancer unexplainably reversing and going into remission when previously it was said to be terminal? A resurrection from the dead? Something appearing from nothing?
I don't deny the existence of the supernatural. Maybe Allah exists.
Then would you describe yourself as agnostic, since an atheist is by definition someone who states that the supernatural does not exists. I think you have referred to yourself in this manner before, but in our conversations here you seem to take the position that the supernatural does not exist.
If you are then agnostic, would you say it is theoretically possible for us to know if the supernatural existed? I suppose, based on your previous answers, would be that God would have to show Himself in order for you to accept His existence. Correct?
You should know that atheists have different personal philosophies. Some have none at all.
Christians also have numerous different personal philosophies. One of the most influential Christians of the past century was an existentialist – Søren Kierkegaard (Have you read any of his work?). I would argue, however, that everyone has a personal philosophy. It would be impossible not to have some type of perspective through which you view the world. Many may have contradictory philosophies or underdeveloped philosophies. Most probably never even think about it, but I would contend that everyone has one.
I'd say that one of my favorite philosopher's is Sarte.
I find that so strange that you would define yourself as an existentialist in the mode of Sartre, when you are so passionate about certain causes and calling for intrinsic evidence for statements.
How can you balance the idea that individuals alone can determine what is moral for themselves, with calls for certain political decisions, support for the right to an abortion, the need for embryonic stem cell research, etc.?
If there is nothing that transcends humanity and the morality of every choice is strictly up to the totally free individual, then how can we ever impose any type of moral decision on anyone other than ourselves? How could we refrain from being hypocritical when we tell others that they "ought" to do something? If their individual freedom leads them to do whatever, on what basis can we determine the morality of their choice? Can we say that rape is wrong, in and of itself?
If there are no absolutes to life does that include existentialism and human freedom?
Do you know who said the following?
"I do not feel that I am the product of chance, a speck of dust in the universe, but someone who was expected, prepared, prefigured. In short, a being whom only a Creator could put here: and this idea of a creating hand refers to God."
Sartre said it later in life (published in Nouvel Observateur in 1980), when he was facing death with his body braking down. Odd that he would choose the time in his life when things should seem so meaningless to express his belief that life really did have meaning.
As I said before atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods.
Here is my sloppy terminology. Atheism is not a philosophy per se. It does influence numerous philosophies, especially atheistic naturalism.
Those beliefs, religious and philosophical, are learned later.
So says the existentialist. ;)
There is actually recent evidence published in Paul Bloom's book Descartes' Baby that shows babies actually come pre-installed with "software" so to speak. They seem know things like 1+1=2 and people can move by themselves, but object cannot. They judge these things by the time the baby gazes at something – the longer they stare the more unusual they believe what they are seeing is. If they see someone place two objects behind a screen (one from one side, one from the other), then they expect to see two objects behind the screen. It is really fascinating.
What does that have to do with believing in God as a child? (As an aside, if confirmed, it would blow existentialism out of the water, since we would have our essence before our existence.) We seem to be hardwired with certain morality.
Another study by Ernst Fehr gave four people $20 and told them they could contribute as much or little as possible to the pot. At the end, everyone would receive 40% of the total. If everyone gave everything, the total pot would be $80 and everyone would get $32 making a $12 profit. However, if someone gave nothing and everyone else gave everything. They would get 40% of $60 ($24) plus the $20 they kept, giving them $44. The game between the four was only played once so there was no chance at the cheaters act coming back to haunt him later.
At the end of the game however, people were given the option to spend up to $10 punishing another player. For every $1 the person gave up the punished person would be charged $3. Despite, there being no personal advantage to the punisher (they spend the money and do not get it back, they will never play the game with the punished cheater again), people repeatedly chose to engage in the meaningless punishment – strictly out of a sense of justice. Where does that morality come from?
Numerous studies have recently shown a "God-spot" on our brain or some hard wiring in our brains that make us more likely to believe in God or the supernatural. Many atheistic naturalist jumped on this and argued this proved that man made God and not the other way around. However, it is just as likely philosophically (if not more so) that God hard-wired us to believe in Him, making it easier on our finite human brains to grasp the infinite God. Scientists, atheists and otherwise, today are echoing theologian John Calvin from 400 years ago when he said that there is an awareness in the human mind of divinity.
Apologize for the long post, good discussion topics.
Please see my brief statement in the "New Atheists Heart Old Fundamentalists" thread for a third possibility for spiritual experience. You too sound amazingly alike in your philosophical assumptions.
Aaron, I would enjoy reading your personal blog again. Could you direct me to it?
"…do degrees deserve the disclaimer because of the subject matter or because of the philosophical underpinnings?"
They deserve a disclaimer if they teach what is really a superstition as fact, as academic. For example, learning the that the events surrounding the Book Of Mormon are historical.
"I do not believe they should be give disclaimers…"
Can you provide some examples of why you believe studying the Book of Mormon is worthwhile enough that you don't think it's a waste of time and does not deserve some kind of disclaimer that "Mormonism teaches faulty ideas?"
"The philosophers who do not believe in the supernatural."
One does not need to be a philosopher to have no belief in Santa. This applies to Zeus as well. Also to Allah. And yes, Jehovah too.
"The cosmological, teleological, religious experience, etc all are evidences for the supernatural."
How many times have we gone over this? The teleological argument is also known as the argument from design. Stupid Design A religious experience is more of a personal thing. Joseph Smith had a religious experience but I don't accept that as any sort of evidence.
"So you are arguing that the supernatural is evidence for supernatural?"
Is there something wrong with that? The natural is evidence for natural. If I observe in nature that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, that observation is evidence for a hypothesis/theory specifically, Newton's 3rd law. If I observe a miracle as I have described, that would be evidence for the supernatural in my mind. And, according to you, those kinds of miracles have happened before so I don't think I'm being unreasonable.
"What type of miraculous event would it have to be?"
How about a huge resurrection of people who have been dead a long time? That's the response I had the last time you asked me. :)
"Then would you describe yourself as agnostic, since an atheist is by definition someone who states that the supernatural does not exists."
No, wrong. I defined "atheist" for you earlier as having no belief in gods or god. Here is the dictionary definition for verification…
I meet this definition because I have no god beliefs. Specifically, I'm a weak atheist as opposed to a strong atheist.
"…in our conversations here you seem to take the position that the supernatural does not exist."
I see no evidence for the supernatural, fairies or otherwise. I won't deny it if I see one though. I'd also have to make sure someone didn't slip some LSD in my beer as well. :)
"How can you balance the idea that individuals alone can determine what is moral for themselves…"
I think it's what we all do anyway. Morality changes. Consider this passage…
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
Today, this passage would be considered immoral by most.
"…every choice is strictly up to the totally free individual, then how can we ever impose any type of moral decision on anyone other than ourselves?"
Well, depending upon what our opinion of moral is, it might be wrong to try to impose our view of morality upon someone else. It depends on the situation.
"If their individual freedom leads them to do whatever, on what basis can we determine the morality of their choice? Can we say that rape is wrong, in and of itself?"
We certainly can't use the Bible or the Koran as a basis for morality, right? Take the slavery example I provided above. We as individuals, as a society, and as a species determine what is moral and what is not. I do not think that rape is wrong in and of itself. I think we need people and individuals to determine that rape is wrong.
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)
What kind of lunatic would make a rape victim marry her attacker? Answer: God.
"Sartre said it later in life (published in Nouvel Observateur in 1980), when he was facing death with his body braking down. Odd that he would choose the time in his life when things should seem so meaningless to express his belief that life really did have meaning."
I did a Google on this to see if it was true. Christians did this to Darwin as well.
http://suitableformixedcompany.blogspot.com/2005/05/satre-quote-we-get-context.html
I'm going to assume that you thought what you quoted me was true, Aaron. However, your really should double check your sources when your material sounds spurious. Christians tried to do this with Darwin as well.
"We seem to be hardwired with certain morality."
Yes, genetically hardwired with morality by evolution. Remember, I mentioned Frans de Waal?
"However, it is just as likely philosophically (if not more so) that God hard-wired us to believe in Him, making it easier on our finite human brains to grasp the infinite God."
I definitely believe that we are hardwired by evolution to be superstitious.
Aaron, you never addressed my question. You said, "But that doesn't mean I don't believe them [miracles outside of a Christian context] to be possible. I could not name you a street in Paris, but that doesn't mean I don't believe one exists." You don't have to name a specific miracle that occurred, just provide some examples of miracles that could theoretically occur outside of a Christian context that you theoretically believe ARE possible?
Louis, good to see you again.
Please see my brief statement in the "New Atheists Heart Old Fundamentalists" thread for a third possibility for spiritual experience.
Louis, there are probably millions of possibilities for spiritual experiences. The question is which one is true. That is the important thing to consider.
As for my personal blog. I've just recently re-started blogging there (as with here) and it is a bit different than here as I usually post things more geared to a Christian audience, but you are more than welcome to read and participate as you feel like. You can find it at http://www.thewardrobedoor.com/
Can you provide some examples of why you believe studying the Book of Mormon is worthwhile enough that you don't think it's a waste of time and does not deserve some kind of disclaimer that "Mormonism teaches faulty ideas?"
If the accreditation board reviewed their programs and found them academic enough to certify them, why should I tell them that I think they deserve a disclaimer because I disagree with their teaching?
Again, some goes for the degree programs who operate with a presupposition of atheism. I think they begin at a faulty starting point and therefore the reasoning generated from that point is faulty.
But you know what, I don't get to say that they should have a disclaimer. They worked in an academic environment and achieved whatever level of education they did and that is a credit to them regardless of whether I agree with them or not. It's a shame you cannot do the same.
How many times have we gone over this?
Repeatedly and we will repeatedly go over it because you establish a philosophical burden of proof that is unreachable and you know this, yet you act as if the argumentation is faulty.
The possibility, even probability, of the supernatural can be demonstrated through numerous avenues, but you dismiss all of them out of hand and demand that you personally witness a mass resurrection for your evidence.
We cannot have a philosophical discussion if you are not willing to at least consider philosophical evidence, logical reasoning and historical records.
But you do not demand to personal witness an event to deem it as trustworthy unless it is something to which you an a priori objection. You do not believe in the supernatural, so you will not except evidence for the supernatural (within a reasonable standard), so you will not believe in the supernatural. You are stuck in circular reasoning which makes it impossible to have a legitimate conversation about this topic.
I watched the video you linked and I think it makes my point perfectly. All of the dangerous things in the universe and the Earth make it next to impossible for life. But he forgot one small thing – himself. There is he was alive and well in a room full of other people enjoying that same improbable life which was so unlikely.
Much of what he spoke about, Christians would say those things were not part of the original design – all the natural disasters, the birth defects, etc. No Christian is going to argue that God created the earth in that manner.
Other things he spoke about have to do with trade-offs. It's like asking what is the perfect computer – one with tons of memory, a big screen, great software, able to run the greatest games, fast processing, but one that I can carry in my backpack or even my pocket. Obviously, there is a trade-off between functions.
He spoke of some magical perfect person design out there, that he has no idea how that type of design would function in the world we have. He seems to be getting along just fine with the body and mind that he has. Odd that he brought up human sex organs, since I don't see too many people complaining about that very often!
I'd also have to make sure someone didn't slip some LSD in my beer as well.
You said that as passing joke, but I think it also speaks to your commitment to a thoroughly naturalistic view of life. Even if you personally witnessed a miracle, what makes you think you wouldn't search until you found some other explanation that better suits your assumptions?
I do not think that rape is wrong in and of itself. I think we need people and individuals to determine that rape is wrong.
I don't think you are saying that if you went a country somehow where rape was viewed as acceptable, you would have no problem with someone raping someone you loved. But if the morality is entirely up the individual or the society, how could you condemn the other person?
If I say that I think murder is great or that rape is super. You would hopefully disagree. So we are at an impasse. To what do we appeal to decide between our two positions? Do we take a majority vote? What if the vote somehow goes against you, would you accept those as good?
What kind of lunatic would make a rape victim marry her attacker? Answer: God.
Here is where you disprove your own point. On what basis do you call this lunacy, even if I conceded that your assessment is correct? If their society deemed it to be moral, how can you judge it now? If you honestly believe that morality is determined by the individual and the society, then the most you can say is that you disagree with their choice based on your own personal feelings.
Remember when you said my potential actions in the burning building with a little girl and the petri dish disproved my words? At this point, your potential actions (and actual words) disprove what you say you believe.
When someone cuts you off in traffic or breaks in front of you in line, is the first thing that cross your mind, "Well, that's just their sense of morality. No problem." Or do you say that virtually everyone else, "That's not fair."
When you do something wrong do you tell the other person, "That's my sense of morality. Get over it." Of course not, you either defend your actions as compiling with the sense of morality that you and the other person share or you recognize you were wrong and you apologize for not meeting that standard.
You do not live as if morality is subjective. No does does because it is impossible and impractical.
However, your really should double check your sources when your material sounds spurious. Christians tried to do this with Darwin as well.
I did double check the quote. I went and found the book online ( http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Hope-Now/Jean-Paul-Sartre/e/9780226476315 ). Did you actually look for the quote or just an atheist rebuttal of it? Besides the link you gave didn't disprove the quote, it simply gave a similar one from an earlier time and then said that Sartre went on to say contradictory things. How does that make what I wrote and quoted untrue?
According to Barnes & Noble, many of Sartre's friends were claiming that the quote was untrue until Sartre himself came out and authenticated it. His longtime companion was angry about the book and the quote, so apparently it meant something.
But regardless, you misread me if you think I was saying Sartre "converted." I simply said that it was odd that he questioned the meaning of life at the point in his life.
I would never speculate that he or Darwin or anyone else converted, unless I knew it. I have no idea about Sartre and the end of his life. I hope that he did, but I'm not raising that as an argument. My point is that no matter our philosophy we need life to have meaning. Everything screams that it has meaning. If we try to suppress that, we go against our nature and sometimes that reality comes out at odd times.
Yes, genetically hardwired with morality by evolution.
If we have morality hardwired into us, then it is not up to the individual and we are not free to choose for ourselves our own morality. It cannot be both hardwired and subjective.
I definitely believe that we are hardwired by evolution to be superstitious.
But didn't you say that children were born atheist and only later taught to believe in a God? Again we cannot be both evolutionarily wired to believe in God from birth and also be an atheist, since as you say to be an atheist means you do not believe in a god (although 21% of them don't agree with that, which is … strange.)
You don't have to name a specific miracle that occurred, just provide some examples of miracles that could theoretically occur outside of a Christian context that you theoretically believe ARE possible?
Here is another instance where I used uncareful language. The term "miracle" should be specifically applied to a supernatural act that directs one toward truth about God. With that definition, there can be no possibility of a "miracle" outside of Christianity.
However, there can and is supernatural activities that would mimic the miraculous. But as to specific examples of supernatural acts that could occur outside of Christianity? I would say healings, special knowledge the person would have no way of knowing, among other things.
I hope that answers the question to your satisfaction.
"Can you provide some examples of why you believe studying the Book of Mormon is worthwhile…"
You didn't provide a single example. So, you do think Mormons are wasting their time studying the "historical" events in the Book of Mormon, you just won't say it.
"…and demand that you personally witness a mass resurrection for your evidence."
I don't know why you infer that I've demanded anything. You wanted to know what evidence I'd accept for the supernatural, I politely answered you. Why paint me as if I'm demanding this? According to the Bible, didn't these resurrections happen more than once? What's the big deal?
"We cannot have a philosophical discussion if you are not willing to at least consider philosophical evidence, logical reasoning and historical records."
If a Mormon was trying to convince you about the miracles he believes in, how would this (the quote above) sound to you coming from him? Well, that's what it sounds like from you to me.
"But you do not demand to personal witness an event to deem it as trustworthy unless it is something to which you an a priori objection."
Again with the "demand" characterization? I've made no demands, have I, Aaron? Would you believe reports of Napoleon's ability to fly around like superman or is it something you'd want to witness for yourself? I think you'd be like me in this regard.
"No Christian is going to argue that God created the earth in that manner."
And yet, this is the reality, the universe is a hostile and indifferent place to live in and we could all be dead tomorrow.
"Odd that he brought up human sex organs, since I don't see too many people complaining about that very often!"
An amusement park in the middle of a sewage system. You have to admit, that was funny.
"Even if you personally witnessed a miracle, what makes you think you wouldn't search until you found some other explanation that better suits your assumptions?"
If I wasn't hallucinating and I saw a mass resurrection of long dead people, I'd definitely have to take that as evidence for the supernatural. It would be outside of the natural order of things. I don't know if this is the answer you were hoping for, but it's true.
"If I say that I think murder is great or that rape is super. You would hopefully disagree. So we are at an impasse. To what do we appeal to decide between our two positions?"
Not God. My fellow human beings would be the one's to judge and you'd be ostracized. More than this though, how many people who aren't psychotic truly believe that murder is morally great and rape is morally super?
"On what basis do you call this lunacy, even if I conceded that your assessment is correct?"
Definitely not a supernatural basis. Even though it's God's law for rape victims to marry their attackers, it is evident to us that this is unjust. So much so that it's lunacy. Obviously we don't get our sense of justice from the Old Testament or we'd agree with God about this law. My basis would be my own sense of justice, what is right and what is wrong. This is strongly influenced by an innate sense of empathy. Yes, this is a subjective view, but I think most people share it regarding such a law.
"…then the most you can say is that you disagree with their choice based on your own personal feelings."
Why can't I just say God is wrong to decree rape victims will marry the man who raped them?
"When someone cuts you off in traffic or breaks in front of you in line, is the first thing that cross your mind, "Well, that's just their sense of morality. No problem." Or do you say that virtually everyone else, "That's not fair.""
Naturally, I say that's not fair. Is it not fair because because God decrees cut in line is not fair or is it because I think it's not fair? The morality behind the cutting in line example is certainly tied to social convention and culture.
"…you either defend your actions as compiling with the sense of morality that you and the other person share or you recognize you were wrong and you apologize for not meeting that standard."
Going back to your cutting in line example, a lot of it IS a social standard. We certainly do get angry when social protocol is violated and most people would agree that violating social protocol carries a very heavy price.
"You do not live as if morality is subjective. No does does because it is impossible and impractical."
I don't subscribe to the all or nothing theory of morality. Clearly some morality is subjective as it changes over time. Some morality does not change though. Some morality is objective like, needless cruelty is wrong. Also, have you ever noticed that the closer a person is to you, a family member or a friend the more reluctant you are to make a moral transgression against them. It's easier to hurt a stranger than it is to hurt a loved one though they should both be equally wrong. Certainly, there is a social aspect at play there as well.
Did you actually look for the quote or just an atheist rebuttal of it?
You think the worst of me. :( Actually Aaron, it was a devout evangelical Christian who researched that quote, not an atheist. If interested, here is proof.
"I simply said that it was odd that he questioned the meaning of life at the point in his life."
Ya, the point is he didn't question. You saw the context and you can see how misleading your quote was. His words were taped and Sarte says this right after…
I agree with the author, Aaron. "It looks as though the 'quote' I ran across does come from a conversation with Satre (taped, no less), but is so severely pruned that it is misleading." Basically, there is a lot to question here and it's not even close to cut and dry.
"If we have morality hardwired into us, then it is not up to the individual and we are not free to choose for ourselves our own morality. It cannot be both hardwired and subjective."
Are we not hardwired, for the most part (sorry Louis), to be attracted the opposite sex? But it is a very subjective thing, is it not? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, no?
"Again we cannot be both evolutionarily wired to believe in God from birth and also be an atheist…"
Don't you think a baby can be hardwired for superstition but only develops superstition later? Until then, technically speaking only, a baby meets the definition of atheist. Correct? We are wired for language yet babies certainly don't speak a language until they've learned one, right?
"However, there can and is supernatural activities that would mimic the miraculous."
Ya, but then that means you don't consider these miracles, "there can be no possibility of a "miracle" outside of Christianity." So, when you say, "It would be hypocritical of me to say that the supernatural could only exist within the confines of the Bible." What exactly do you mean by that?
When I juxtapose your quotes, it sounds like you are saying you'd be a hypocrite for not considering miracles outside of Christianity. Then you say there is no such thing as a miracle outside of Christianity.
But, you've also said, "No, I've already told you that miracles have and can occur outside of a direct Christian experience. The Christian worldview allows for that."
Aaron, What the %^$#…?
PpThis may be heresy to you straights, but some of us are "hardwired" to be attracted to the same sex. This the problem with your spurious search for truth: it's unavoidably colored by your own experiences and
prejudices.
"This may be heresy to you straights, but some of us are "hardwired" to be attracted to the same sex."
We know. That's why I said "for the most part" we are attracted to the opposite sex. Sometimes, people are hardwired to be attracted to the same sex.
"This the problem with your spurious search for truth: it's unavoidably colored by your own experiences and
prejudices."
Perhaps, but this doesn't apply to my statement above if that's what you're basing your comment on.
Sorry for the delay. Rough week: sick kids, semester starting, working beating me up. But regardless here we go.
Louis: Everyone's search for truth is "colored by our own experiences and prejudices," including yours. The first step in trying to see past them is to recognize them. I've repeatedly acknowledged my own biases. Others? Not so much.
Cin, to our conversation:
So, you do think Mormons are wasting their time studying the "historical" events in the Book of Mormon, you just won't say it.
No, I'll say it. Just like I believe studying the origin of life as arising from a "chemical soup" as historical is a waste of time. Again, I have no problem giving my opinion on other worldviews, but I'm not going to ask that their degrees have a disclaimer based on my opinion. That's the difference.
According to the Bible, didn't these resurrections happen more than once? What's the big deal?
I apologize if you feel the word "demand" carried connotations that you did not intend, but my point still remains – it is an unreasonable request to ask to personally witness a mass resurrection in order to even allow for the possibility of the miraculous.
At that point, you are not allowing for the possibility of it to exist, you are recognizing the reality of what you personally witnessed. Can you think of anything beyond the supernatural where you request to personally experience it before you will allow that it is possible? Yes, miracles would be contrary to your present personal experience, but you believe numerous things about the world and other people that you have not personally experienced. You set an improper and unfair burden of proof on the miraculous.
Does the Bible record miracles? Yes. Does it record miracles as common incidents in every phrase of human history? No. They would not be miracles if they were common happenings. In fact, you see miracles bunched around certain periods in history when God is revealing part of Himself to humanity – Creation, Exodus, rise of the OT prophets, Jesus, early Church. There are hundreds of years were the Bible never records one miracle.
Even if you take the extreme of the Young Earth timeline of 6,000 years and the around 300 miracles mentioned in the Bible, that comes out to an average of one every 20 years. But as I said, you see clumps of them and then large gaps of very few, if any, recorded.
But none of that has anything to do with their possibility. They could happen 1 time or 1 million times. It doesn't change the fact that you have an a priori disbelief in the supernatural regardless of how many are recorded or witnessed by others.
If a Mormon was trying to convince you about the miracles he believes in, how would this (the quote above) sound to you coming from him?
I would tell him to present the evidence he has to me because I do not have an a priori disbelief in the supernatural and then we can discuss the evidence he gives.
Would you believe reports of Napoleon's ability to fly around like superman or is it something you'd want to witness for yourself?
In and of themselves, probably not, but I would be open to evidence that a person has to the contrary.
And yet, this is the reality, the universe is a hostile and indifferent place to live in and we could all be dead tomorrow.
Christianity answered this question before atheists asked it. The world is the way it is with cancer and birth defects, earthquakes and tsunamis because of the Fall, which marred a perfect creation.
You say we could all be dead tomorrow. Okay, but I could just as easily say without giving any proof "Jesus could come back." Now what?
We make judgments and evaluations on the evidence we have in front of us. The evidence we have in front of us right now is that despite all those negative things in the universe that make life so unlikely – here we are. Life exists and we have to ask both "How?" and "Why?"
An amusement park in the middle of a sewage system. You have to admit, that was funny.
Sure it was a funny quip, but I don't see him complaining about the use of his sex organs. Overall, they seem to work pretty well. We keep using them with only a few atheists every thinking of complaining about their physical placement. ;)
If I wasn't hallucinating and I saw a mass resurrection of long dead people, I'd definitely have to take that as evidence for the supernatural.
Wow, that's like me saying, "If I died and then nothing happened and just got eaten by worms, I'd definitely have to take that as evidence against the supernatural."
You have such a high standard of even admitting something as evidence no one would ever allow you on a jury, except maybe someone who knows they are guilty and wants a person to reject everything but personally witnessing the defendant commit the crime.
My fellow human beings would be the one's to judge and you'd be ostracized.
What if everyone somehow agreed with me that rape and murder were good moral choices? Would you go along with what society has decided is OK? Society ever pass laws concerning morality that you disagree with? How can you, if morality is simply determined by society?
My basis would be my own sense of justice, what is right and what is wrong.
[To be clear on this point, I'm not admitting your interpretation of the passage is correct. I'm merely using it illustratively.]
But that's the point. All you have to condemn rape is your own personal sense of right and wrong. How is that enough for someone else? Killers have often thought, for whatever reason, they were doing something good when they killed someone. Is there sense of right and wrong, just as "right" as yours that says "murder is wrong?" I don't think it is. I think we judge them based on a standard that exists outside of ourselves and outside of our culture. It's the only way we can truly judge the actions of other people and other cultures as right or wrong. If there is not an all pervasive standard then everything is based on personal feeling and no one can ever be "right" when comparing moral choices.
More than this though, how many people who aren't psychotic truly believe that murder is morally great and rape is morally super?
That's my point. If you truly wanted to argue that morality is subjective you would need to find societies where our vices were virtues and their virtues were our vices.
Sure you can find places where women walk around with their breasts uncovered versus Muslim nations where only the eyes can be seen, but each society still has a sense of decency. They merely demonstrate it differently. This goes to your point of "morality changing." Morality doesn't change, but the way we demonstrate it certainly does. [I suppose I should define what I mean by morality – I do not mean certain laws or rules such as "Do not kill" or "Cutting in line is wrong." I'm speaking of things such as "Human life is valuable and we should act as such" or "Others should be respected by treating them as we would want to be treated."]
Why can't I just say God is wrong to decree rape victims will marry the man who raped them?
Because you have no standard outside of yourself by which to judge God. On what basis, besides your own feelings of right and wrong, do you determine that something God, or anyone else, has done is wrong?
You could say it is wrong because society believes it to be wrong, but I think you have already said that simply because society would accept somethings as moral you would not automatically agree with them. Again, you are going beyond yourself and beyond society to an unspoken standard by which we judge the morality of others. You do not admit the standard exists, so you have no right to use it against others. Fair enough?
You can say you disagree, but you cannot say that an action is "wrong" morally because you have no standing to make such a charge.
Actually Aaron, it was a devout evangelical Christian who researched that quote, not an atheist.
I apologize for the assumption. It was wrong of me to do so.
Basically, there is a lot to question here and it's not even close to cut and dry.
You misunderstand me if you think I disagree with you there. Again, I wasn't saying he converted to anything, but merely that he seemed to be questioning things that he had not questioned until that point. He may have settled back down into his previous worldview, I'm not sure, but I merely pointed out that even Sartre had at least second thoughts about his way of viewing the world. [As an aside, I believe the blog post you linked and I are talking about two different but similar quotes as they mention an interview with someone other than the author of the book I linked to.]
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, no?
Sure to some extent. I'm glad that my wife finds me attractive, while others may not. But there is a huge difference in someone deciding that they like a certain painting or flavor of ice cream versus someone saying that they believe murder is OK and rape is acceptable. Two very different categories because of the hard-wiring of that standard inside of us for those moral choices, but not for art or ice cream.
I could be shocked that anyone would dislike chocolate ice cream and favor vanilla, but I would have to admit that it is simply a matter of taste and people have their own personal preferences. I would never say that someone's choice to murder or rape is just their own personal moral preference.
Until then, technically speaking only, a baby meets the definition of atheist. Correct?
I will quote Richard Dawkins here and say that we should stop labeling children. ;) Actually, I believe for sake of discussion it would be much better if we simply said that any of the terms "atheist" "Christian" etc are best applied to those who can make their own decisions.
Aaron, What the %^$#…?
Sorry, it is my fault for the confusion. I tried to explain how I had used very imprecise and improper language earlier in the discussion.
For a Christian, a miracle can only be thus is it originates from God and testifies about Him. Therefore, no miracles can exists outside of Christianity.
However, there does exist supernatural elements outside of Christianity and these can produce supernatural acts or counterfeit miracles. So numerous religions could point to supernatural acts that occurred within their religious context.
It would be hypocritical of me to say that they could never have anything supernatural happen within their religion, but I could not call it a miracle since it has a very precise definition.
I hope that at least clears up my position, even if you do not completely understand all of it or accept any of it. ;)
"I'm not going to ask that their degrees have a disclaimer based on my opinion."
I'll do it for you. Disclaimer: Mormons, a Master's Degree earned studying the history of Jesus in the Book of Mormon is "flawed." It does not comport with Christian scripture. If this is NOT true Aaron, provide some examples of why studying the Book of Mormon is worthwhile.
"I apologize if you feel the word "demand" carried connotations that you did not intend…"
Well, I'm not making any demands. I didn't use the word.
"…it is an unreasonable request to ask to personally witness a mass resurrection in order to even allow for the possibility of the miraculous."
I already allow for the possibility of the miraculous. Witnessing a mass resurrection would provide evidence that the laws of nature are mutable.
"Can you think of anything beyond the supernatural where you request to personally experience it before you will allow that it is possible?"
Lets start by correcting a a recurring erroneous assumption on your part. I don't need evidence to allow for the possibility of miracles and the supernatural. It takes evidence for me to believe them. Now to your question. Sure, a basketball player who makes 1000 full court shots in a row. That's not supernatural but it's so improbable that I would be skeptical of reports.
"You set an improper and unfair burden of proof on the miraculous."
Actually, it's normal to apply the burden of proof to far fetched claims. If someone said that Napoleon could fly, you wouldn't believe documents saying Napoleon could fly like Superman, you'd want to see it for yourself.
"It doesn't change the fact that you have an a priori disbelief in the supernatural…"
This is actually a misrepresentation of what I think. I do not have an a priori disbelief in the supernatural. I don't have a belief in the supernatural because there is a lack of evidence for the supernatural. What you consider rock solid evidence, your holy scriptures, I find uncompelling and spurious.
"I would tell him to present the evidence he has to me because I do not have an a priori disbelief in the supernatural and then we can discuss the evidence he gives."
I think you DO have an a priori disbelief in the supernatural when it comes to miracles outside of your own religion. You already said, "there can be no possibility of a "miracle" outside of Christianity." You'd just be stringing the poor Mormon along. There is no possibility you'd actually accept his miracles as true. You should tell him so before asking him to present his evidence.
" The world is the way it is with cancer and birth defects, earthquakes and tsunamis because of the Fall, which marred a perfect creation."
This is Christian mythology, another in a long line of creation stories that all cultures have. Can you provide a more plausible explanation?
"You say we could all be dead tomorrow. Okay, but I could just as easily say without giving any proof "Jesus could come back." Now what?"
What is more plausible? Odds are better that I die in a car crash on my way to work tomorrow since the roads are icy than Jesus coming back, right?
"Life exists and we have to ask both "How?" and "Why?""
Agreed, but why assert that it was by magic and not natural?
"Overall, they seem to work pretty well."
Viagra is popular. :)
"Wow, that's like me saying, "If I died and then nothing happened and just got eaten by worms, I'd definitely have to take that as evidence against the supernatural."
LOL! Just a little point of logic here, Aaron. If you died and got eaten by worms you wouldn't be able to take anything as evidence as you would be dead… as in OBLIVION. :)
"You have such a high standard of even admitting something as evidence …"
Not really. It depends upon which miracles. You don't believe in anything supernatural outside of a Christian context because there is insufficient or no evidence for them, just like me. However, I don't play favorites. I treat all evidence for supernatural critters the same way.
"What if everyone somehow agreed with me that rape and murder were good moral choices? Would you go along with what society has decided is OK?"
If I believed otherwise, I'd go against the prevailing morality. I'd speak out though I'd be but a lone voice pitting what I personally believe is right against everyone else. If we were raised as children in such a society to believe that murder and rape were morally good, there is a good chance we'd believe too though our bodies would tell us different.
"Society ever pass laws concerning morality that you disagree with? "
Oh, sure! How about the recent supreme court ruling that allows corporations unlimited monetary contributions to their candidate of choice. Talk about having politicians in your back pocket.
"How can you, if morality is simply determined by society?"
Society influences our morality in many ways, right? You are more conservative than I but we agree on some moral issues and disagree on others.
"All you have to condemn rape is your own personal sense of right and wrong."
Sure. Isn't it so with everyone? Everyone is born with a sense of right and wrong. Do you think it makes a difference if Allah says rape is wrong? Jehovah? Zeus? No. We know, for the most part, that rape and murder are morally wrong. We wouldn't have survived as a species otherwise. Morality predates Jesus by a long way.
"I think we judge them based on a standard that exists outside of ourselves and outside of our culture."
I don't think so. I think we judge them with a combination of objective and subjective morality. In many ways morality is influenced by society. In other ways it's influenced by our genes, and in others by our intellect. God decreed rape victims should marry the rapist who attacked them. That's Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT. Do you disagree with God's law? If so, why? If not, why?
"Because you have no standard outside of yourself by which to judge God."
But I don't even believe in God. So, I just see that this law requires rape victims to marry the rapists who raped them. That's not a just law, is it?
"On what basis, besides your own feelings of right and wrong, do you determine that something God, or anyone else, has done is wrong?"
Well, as I said, I don't have a God belief like you do so I only judge the law itself. There is no other basis but my own and the rest of humanity. If there is no Zeus, Allah, Jehovah, etc., this is true for you and everyone as well.
"Again, you are going beyond yourself and beyond society to an unspoken standard by which we judge the morality of others."
This unspoken standard was developed by an evolutionary process. For the most part, we are hardwired morally. Dr. Frans de Waal has done a lot of research in this area.
"You do not admit the standard exists, so you have no right to use it against others. Fair enough?"
You are mistaken, Aaron. As I said in the previous post, I don't do the all morality is either subjective or objective. It's a combination. I just don't think the objective standard is rooted in Allah, or Zeus, or Jehovah, or Vishnu, etc. It's fairly obvious that a law decreeing rape victims marry their rapists is unjust. You may or may not agree. I would venture most would think it's unjust and that sense of justice is something we share at a very basic human level. It's also influenced and refined further by our society and our intellect until it becomes something we can call our own: something we are responsible for as individuals.
"You can say you disagree, but you cannot say that an action is "wrong" morally because you have no standing to make such a charge."
I do, it's just not based on one of the various gods.
" But there is a huge difference in someone deciding that they like a certain painting or flavor of ice cream versus someone saying that they believe murder is OK and rape is acceptable."
My analogy was not in reference to preferences for ice cream or rape, two clearly unrelated things. You said, "If we have morality hardwired into us, then it is not up to the individual and we are not free to choose for ourselves our own morality. It cannot be both hardwired and subjective." My point is that morality CAN BE both hardwired and subjective. We are hardwired, for the most part, to be attracted to the opposite sex. I don't think you can dispute that. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Ergo, it's subjective. I don't think that's in dispute either. Therefore, we can be hardwired for something yet still have it be subjective. We can be hardwired morally, for the most part, against moral transgressions like murder, cruelty, etc. However, this can also be subjective, even socially influenced. Are we not more reluctant, for the most part, to transgress against a close friend or relative than we are against a complete stranger? Although the transgressions should be equally and objectively wrong against anyone, it's subjectively worse when committed against a relative or close friend.
Actually, I believe for sake of discussion it would be much better if we simply said that any of the terms "atheist" "Christian" etc are best applied to those who can make their own decisions.
The point is, one does not have to make a decision to have no god beliefs since they learn those later depending on what part of the world they grow up in. Technically speaking only, you used to be an atheist just as you used to be a mute. As a baby, you didn't use language until you learned to speak your first word. No, I'm not labeling you AS an atheist any more than I'm labeling you as a mute. My hope is that you see what I'm getting at and that it's not passing out labels.
"I hope that at least clears up my position"
Can you at least understand why you sound so hypocritical to any fair minded reader, if not to yourself?
>> "It would be hypocritical of me to say that the supernatural could only exist within the confines of the Bible."
>> "…there can be no possibility of a "miracle" outside of Christianity."
>> "No, I've already told you that miracles have and can occur outside of a direct Christian experience. The Christian worldview allows for that."
You accuse me of not allowing for the miraculous, that I'm not open to them, while at the same time, you don't allow for the miraculous outside of your own religion. The miracles of other religions are really just illusions. They are "counterfeit." Basically, the only real miracles are the miracles you believe in.
Bah! This is one of the few times I've ever been truly disappointed in one of our conversations about religion. I caught you contradicting yourself and now you are being evasive about it instead of just being humble and saying, "Ya, I messed up there. I shouldn't accuse you of not being open to miracles you have no belief in while at the same time I'm not open to miracles I have no belief in." But, no. You can't admit when you are rightly called to task.
You said, "I do not have an a priori disbelief in the supernatural"
You should qualify that and say that you do have an a priori disbelief in the supernatural except for that which falls within a Christian context. Jesus stopped the sun in the middle of the sky and raised the dead, well that's ancient history and a fact! Mohammad rode on a winged horse? Oh, that's clearly not true!
Jeez, Aaron. Seriously?
Cin, if you don't mind I'm going to ignore some of the less fruitful trains of thought we've been having. If you really want me to respond to something, you can ask, but if not I'll take the silence as an agreement to move on to other things.
I don't need evidence to allow for the possibility of miracles and the supernatural. It takes evidence for me to believe them.
Fine. So you are saying that you believe miracles to be possible in our world?
I think you DO have an a priori disbelief in the supernatural when it comes to miracles outside of your own religion.
No. Again, I said that technically speaking a miracle is a specific type of supernatural event. That does not mean I doubt that supernatural events occur outside Christianity, only one type of supernatural event.
This is Christian mythology, another in a long line of creation stories that all cultures have. Can you provide a more plausible explanation?
So, first you say that Christianity cannot explain what you call improper design and then when I explain to you that Christianity answered that question before it was even a question, you say that I have to explain it apart from what you term "Christian mythology."
How am I suppose to provide a Christian answer to the question, when you refuse to accept one from a Christian perspective?
Odds are better that I die in a car crash on my way to work tomorrow since the roads are icy than Jesus coming back, right?
That wasn't your point. You stated that everyone could be dead tomorrow because of how hostile to life you claimed Earth was. You claimed this with no proof whatsoever and with no past experience. The only experience we have is that life is here despite what you claim is a hostile environment.
Agreed, but why assert that it was by magic and not natural?
No one is asserting it happened by "magic," I'm positing that the supernatural is the best possible explanation. Remember that you said you "allow for the possibility of the miraculous" as well.
If you died and got eaten by worms you wouldn't be able to take anything as evidence as you would be dead.
I know that. It was a little joke. I was merely pointing out that to ask for absolute proof is an unfair standard.
If we were raised as children in such a society to believe that murder and rape were morally good, there is a good chance we'd believe too though our bodies would tell us different.
But if we are simply operating off of societal standards, why would our bodies tell us different?
Sure. Isn't it so with everyone? Everyone is born with a sense of right and wrong.
I'm going to try to answer a bunch of the points here together.
When I speak of a moral code or moral standard, I'm not speaking of Biblical commands. We can discuss and analyze those if you'd like, but that's not the point I'm trying to make. Many of those are not applicable to those outside the faith.
If morality is something that is personal or even if it is something that evolution has ingrained in us (though I want to discuss that further), how do we call the actions of someone else objectively wrong? Even if someone chooses to go against those ideals, how are they "objectively wrong?" Where is the standard coming from?
We agree that everyone is born with a sense of right and wrong. Here's my question for you about an evolutionary origin for morality. Evolution has explanatory power for certain impulses particularly survival instincts. Where I see it as having no explanatory power is in the question of judging between impulses.
To borrow from the man in my photo, suppose you heard a man yell for help. You would have two impulses that emerged, both of which could be explained by evolution: the desire to help (the herd instinct) and the desire to stay safe (self-preservation instinct). But then there is a third thing that arises to tell you how you should judge between them.
The third thing cannot simply be another instinct. Just as sheet music tells you what notes to play, but cannot be a note itself, the third thing that helps you judge between instincts cannot be an instinct itself.
Now obviously when we have two instincts, we could simply say that the strongest one would always win. However, it is those times when we most sense that third thing that it seems to be telling us to follow the weaker impulse. Our instinct to stay alive must be fought against is we want to go help someone in danger. We want to stay alive much more than we want to help someone by putting our life in danger.
The third thing cannot simply be one of the instincts we already have because we could simply point to one and say it is right to follow it at all times. But there is no instinct that is always right to engage in, even the good ones we have are to be suppressed at some times and others that may more often be considered "wrong" are to be indulged at times. To get back to the note on a piano analogy, every note is right at some point and wrong at some point.
The third thing, Moral Law or moral standard, is something that directs the instincts to produce a tune (goodness or right conduct). That is the thing which cannot be explained by evolution because it goes beyond the instincts which evolutions purports to explain.
Besides, as I have already said, evolution may explain why we do certain things (instincts), but it cannot explain why humanity considers things to be right or wrong. If it were simply a matter of evolution, as long as we were acting according to an instinct it would be proper. No one could complain if I were out having sex with hundreds of women. I was simply trying to increase my chance of having children and having "better" children. I was simply following that instinct. But we all know that we roll our eyes when some jerk on TV tries to explain away his jerk behavior toward his girlfriend or wife that way. Something within us judges us and others well beyond mere instincts to behave in a certain way.
I don't do the all morality is either subjective or objective. It's a combination.
Depending on how you define morality I would not disagree with that. I would rather say that morality is objective, but our much of our application of that is definitely subjective. I think I gave this illustration before – each society has a morality of modesty, but they are manifest in vastly different ways.
I do [call things "wrong"], it's just not based on one of the various gods.
You continue to assert your ability to call things wrong, but on what do you base that. You've said that morality is objective and subjective, but you've also said that it is determined by the individual, society and evolution. All of those factors could lead to morality being different in different cultures and none would give an individual the right to condemn an action as objectively wrong.
On what basis do you assert your right to call something wrong? You've said what you do not base it on [a deity], but you've not given what you do base it on.
We are hardwired, for the most part, to be attracted to the opposite sex. I don't think you can dispute that. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Ergo, it's subjective.
Again, that's where I make the distinction of application of that morality. We are hard-wired to be attracted to the other sex and within that the application is different for each individual. That's much different than saying morality is hard-wired, but also subjective.
If morality is hard-wired then it transcends culture and is not subject to differing views. I believe this is correct. If it is subjective each individual and society could determine right and wrong for them and no one would have the ability to challenge any other's determination.
I caught you contradicting yourself and now you are being evasive about it instead of just being humble and saying, "Ya, I messed up there…"
I acknowledged I messed up in the usage of my language. I should not have referred to supernatural activities outside of Christianity as a miracle. Here is my position again, I accept the possibility of the supernatural in any situation, but the strictly defined term "miracle," a subset of the supernatural can only by definition occur in Christianity.
Again, so we are clear, I draw a distinction between miracles and the supernatural. All miracles are supernatural, but not all supernatural acts are miracles. It is similar to saying all Californians are Americans, but not all Americans are Californians. There is a definite relationship, but they are not always the same thing.
To say its hypocritical of me to reject the miraculous in other religions would be akin to saying its hypocritical of me to reject other gods outside of Christianity.
Jesus stopped the sun in the middle of the sky and raised the dead, well that's ancient history and a fact! Mohammad rode on a winged horse? Oh, that's clearly not true!
Accepting the truth of some supernatural acts does not require me to believe in every record of such an act. Clearly, many are incorrect in there recording of the event.
Why then do I accept the miraculous in Christianity? That is a much longer question, but I think much of it has to do with built up trust.
As an example, my wife and I have been married for almost 10 years. We have built a lot of trust during those years. Say she told me a story that sounded completely implausible. What should I do? If I simply evaluate the hard evidence, then I must believe my wife is lying to me or somehow deceived. The story she has told me is literally unbelievable, therefore I don't believe her.
However, there is something else at play here – our relationship and my knowledge of her. I know who she is and I know her to be a truthful person, if she is sincerely telling me a story, even if it sounds unlikely, I am entirely justified in believing her and the implausible story because of the outside knowledge I possess. Others that do not know her may reject the story because they don't know her to be trustworthy.
That's how I view much of the miraculous within Christianity. It is rational for me to accept those things as being true, because of the trustworthiness I have found within the worldview. Because of the evidence I understand, because the miraculous makes total sense in a worldview that accepts a supernatural being (why would there not being supernatural acts, if there is a supernatural being?), because of the relationship I have – it all leads me to accept things as being true even if I have not personally witnessed the described acts.
But back to your point of admitting a mistake. I did fumble your question and if we were in a judged debate, I'm sure you would earn the point for that. But my mistake was not hypocrisy, but a poor choice of words and not thinking through the ramifications of that word choice.
"So you are saying that you believe miracles to be possible in our world?"
Yes. I also admit that it is possible that fairies also exist in our world. I think miracles and fairies are equally improbable because both are supernatural. I do not have a bias for one supernatural being or miracle over another.
"How am I suppose to provide a Christian answer to the question, when you refuse to accept one from a Christian perspective?"
Well, when you consider I don't have any supernatural beliefs can you tell me why I should accept that answer from a Christian perspective? I think the story of Adam, Eve, Eden and the serpent is interesting but so is Greek mythology.
You stated that everyone could be dead tomorrow because of how hostile to life you claimed Earth was. You claimed this with no proof whatsoever and with no past experience.
Dinosaurs, anyone? Extinct?
"No one is asserting it happened by "magic. I'm positing that the supernatural is the best possible explanation."
Supernatural = magic. You could equally posit that elves created the universe. Though possible, you agree with me it's highly unlikely.
"But if we are simply operating off of societal standards, why would our bodies tell us different?"
Because we are not simply operating off social standards. Morality is genetic to some degree and social to some degree.
"…how do we call the actions of someone else objectively wrong? Even if someone chooses to go against those ideals, how are they "objectively wrong?" Where is the standard coming from?"
The standard comes from us; as individuals, as a society, as a species. It does not come from beings like Allah, IMHO.
"No one could complain if I were out having sex with hundreds of women. I was simply trying to increase my chance of having children and having "better" children."
On top of the instinct to have sex, which you admit we all share as a species, we put a third thing "that directs the instincts to produce a tune (goodness or right conduct)." This third thing is called reason. It's naturally influenced and refined by our intellect and society. The example you provide of having sex with hundreds of women is your own subjective moral perspective, correct? Your perspective on this stems from a Puritan tradition. There is nothing objectively wrong about having sex with a lot of women. There are many things subjectively wrong with it that are social in nature.
"Besides, as I have already said, evolution may explain why we do certain things (instincts), but it cannot explain why humanity considers things to be right or wrong."
Once you factor intellectual and social concerns in with our gut instincts, it certainly does explain right and wrong. You mentioned moral law. What do you think about God's decree that rape victims should marry their rapists? Do you agree with this or not? Objectively, is this right or is it wrong?
"All of those factors could lead to morality being different in different cultures and none would give an individual the right to condemn an action as objectively wrong."
In what culture has boiling babies for pleasure ever been deemed right? Isn't that objectively wrong since there is no subjective way to justify it? Why wouldn't I be able to condemn this if it's objectively wrong and I'm adhering to an objective moral standard that's grounded into the very genes that make us human? I already know boiling babies for pleasure is wrong, so do I really need the input of supernatural entities like Allah, Jehovah, Zeus, etc? No.
…but you've not given what you do base it on.
To quote you quoting me, "it is determined by the individual, society and evolution." You answered your own question. These are basis of morality and it's a combination of objective and subjective.
"If morality is hard-wired then it transcends culture and is not subject to differing views."
Some morality is hardwired and some isn't; and to varying degrees. I think it is hardwired into mothers that it is morally wrong to kill their own babies. Or, it is morally wrong to commit suicide. This hardwiring is known as maternal instinct and self preservation, correct? Yet despite hardwiring, we have the intellect to override our hardwired morality. There are documented cases of people who have done just that and, committed suicide. There have also been suicide cults. So, even though there is a hard wired resistance to killing one's self, it is NOT true that this resistance transcends culture and it IS subject to the view of individuals.
"If it is subjective each individual and society could determine right and wrong for them and no one would have the ability to challenge any other's determination."
As long as it's sex between consenting adults, what gives anyone the right to judge what is right or wrong for someone else? Does the Bible say that all sexual positions other than "missionary" are wrong? What is objectively wrong about "doggy style" if both people are into it?
"To say its hypocritical of me to reject the miraculous in other religions…"
I'm not the one who said it's hypocritical. You were. Aaron: "It would be hypocritical of me to say that the supernatural could only exist within the confines of the Bible."
"I accept the possibility of the supernatural in any situation, but the strictly defined term "miracle," a subset of the supernatural can only by definition occur in Christianity."
Which means, by your own words, that you are being a hypocrite for accusing me of being closed to miracles I don't believe when you too are closed to miracles, outside of Christianity, that YOU don't believe. It's not a problem with wording. You've been very clear. Clearly, you are being hypocritical about this.
"All miracles are supernatural, but not all supernatural acts are miracles."
Let's test your words. Provide some examples of things that are outside of nature (supernatural) that are not miraculous as well. Let the mental contortions begin in 3.. 2.. 1..
"Why then do I accept the miraculous in Christianity?"
Why? :P Because you are a Christian. That's what Christians do. Why do Hindus accept the miraculous in Hinduism while rejecting the miracles of other religions? Because they are Hindu and they believe their own Hindu stories just like Christians believe Christian stories.
"It is rational for me to accept those things as being true, because of the trustworthiness I have found within the worldview."
So it's rational of Mormons to believe that the Book of Mormon is divine. But it's NOT true even though they trust it is. Perhaps your book isn't divine either even though you trust it is.
"Because of the evidence I understand, because the miraculous makes total sense in a worldview that accepts a supernatural being (why would there not being supernatural acts, if there is a supernatural being?), because of the relationship I have – it all leads me to accept things as being true even if I have not personally witnessed the described acts."
And when a Mormon who is trying to convince you of the "historical" events surrounding the Book of Mormon makes that same argument, it won't make a difference. His argument (your argument), wouldn't convince you that the miracles he believes in are true.
"But my mistake was not hypocrisy, but a poor choice of words and not thinking through the ramifications of that word choice."
Aaron, you were clear even before your clarification. You believe the only true miracles are those within the Christian context. The only real miracles are the ones you believe in. So, when you try to make a point of me not being open to miracles that I don't believe in, you come off as a hypocrite because you clarified you that do the same thing. You are not open to miracles you don't believe in either.
It's not your wording that is problematic. It's what you take me to task for while simultaneously doing the very same thing yourself. Trying to get out of this is like trying to divide by zero. Can't you just admit you shouldn't throw stones at my skepticism when you too exhibit skepticism regarding "miracles" outside of your own context?
I think miracles and fairies are equally improbable because both are supernatural.
I want to make sure I do not make assumptions of what you believe. I want to move past simply trying to create gotcha moments and have a substantive discussion of the important issues we are discussing.
You believe that any and all things considered supernatural are possible, but none are probable. So you would create no distinction between the supernatural that no one believes in (Greek gods) and the supernatural that has followers today? They are all just as possible and just as improbable?
Well, when you consider I don't have any supernatural beliefs can you tell me why I should accept that answer from a Christian perspective?
No I understand your point, but when you say that some fact of reality disproves the Christian God (at that point, we are assuming God's existence and saying the evidence argues against that), I should be able to argue, "No, in fact that aspect of reality has been explained by Christianity before atheists were even bringing it up."
As to why you should believe it, well it gets to back to our continuous discussion of what constitutes evidence. Your standard of evidence is beyond what anyone could produce. Yet, you accept other things without such evidence. You believe, based on testimonies of others, that certain cities exists that you've never been to, that events happen in history to which you did not personally witness, etc.
You also I believe, I hope, that you are having this conversation with another individual, another mind, and not some robot, computer program, dream of yours or synthetic Matrix reality. You could never prove that anyone outside of yourself has a mind or that you are not living in an eternal dream state, yet you believe this not to be the case with no real, conclusive evidence.
You place an undue standard on the supernatural that you do not place on other things, which is unfair because you have admitted that the supernatural was possible. It should not require personal eye-witness testimony of an event (resurrection) that has only been recorded as a potential historical event a handful of times to move from possible to probable. Not only have you stated that your standard is personally witnessing a resurrection, you have said that it should be a mass resurrection.
It is impossible to have a philosophical discussion about the supernatural when you do not accept philosophical and rational arguments for it – only personally witnessing it on a massive scale.
To better gauge where you are at on this issue – do you agree with W.K. Clifford when he says that it is wrong, always and everywhere, for anyone to believe anything on insufficient evidence? Or Hitchens when he said that what is claimed without evidence cannot be rejected without evidence? Do you find yourself in agreement with those two statements regarding epistemology?
Dinosaurs, anyone? Extinct?
Did I say a specific type of life? And that again, further illustrates my point. Something caused dinosaurs to die out. Something was so catastrophic that it killed them out rather quickly. Yet here we are still in this super hostile environment living life.
Supernatural = magic.
Not in the least except in your own mind. Magic is a term to describe illusions and tricks. The supernatural is a philosophical term to describe metaphysical issues – things lying beyond the natural realm, which you have agreed is possible. Now people could attribute supernatural acts to something "magical," but they would be using a poor choice of words as I did earlier.
The standard comes from us; as individuals, as a society, as a species.
Then how are things objectively wrong? As you said boiling babies should be seen as objectively wrong, what makes this the case? Simply personal choice, societal choice, evolutionary instincts?
Put it this way, would it be possible for all of those factors to conclude that boiling a baby or raping a small child is a good moral choice? I do not see how they couldn't. What restraining force is there to prevent those three things you cited from determining that choices we find morally repulsive would be smiled upon in another society?
Yet, somehow we still say it's wrong. You've already said you would and do disagree with laws that are passed by society. Somehow something inside you is able to contradict society.
Muslim societies have determined that women should be treated essentially as disposable property of their husband (or male family member). The Nazi society decided that Jews and other groups should be treated as less than humans. Civil War era America decided that black people were not actually people.
Can we judge these as objectively wrong? Not if you simply say that it comes from the individual (that's their individual choice) or society (those cultures were defended those ideas as moral). So you are left with evolutionary forces to explain how those things were objectively wrong.
What about evolution gives it the right to decide what acts are "right" or "wrong?" You have already said that some humans go against the way the normal human is hard-wired. If evolution somehow gave those societies defective morality genes or somehow physiologically they were not inclined to agree with you. How could you tell them what they were doing is wrong? Sheez, many of them used evolution to defend their choices. You would say that they used it improperly, but again, what gives you the power to judge their actions – if morality is simply a matter of the individual, society or evolution.
In what culture has boiling babies for pleasure ever been deemed right? Isn't that objectively wrong since there is no subjective way to justify it?
You are entirely correct. Things are objectively wrong and they transcend culture, the question becomes why is that and what best explains it.
Why wouldn't I be able to condemn this if it's objectively wrong and I'm adhering to an objective moral standard that's grounded into the very genes that make us human?
But how did a moral standard get there? How did that information become part of who we are? Again, I know you can say, "Not some supernatural deity."
How about this, evolution has explanatory power when asking the question how did life develop from "simple" organisms to more complex. But the question of morality shifts and it becomes much harder for those who hold to a purely naturalistic viewpoint to answer (there is a reason why so many ardent naturalists and atheists hold to subjective morality and refuse to acknowledge objective truth or morals).
When we examine evolution, we look back at past choices and how those have determined current life. Morality, in essence, becomes a description of animals conditioned by their environment to act in a certain way to benefit the survival of the species. Isn't that, after all, what evolution is about – survival? Evolution says, "These things benefit the species, so these things should be deemed 'moral.'"
Morality is prescriptive, not descriptive. It tells us what we should do, not what we have done. People and societies often choose to act in a way that is immoral. If it was simply a matter of evolution then those choices could eventually become moral if they enhanced the survival of the species. But morality does not describe what we have done, it describes what we should do when faced with a certain situation.
Or think about this: Why should I not be selfish and simply eat all the food I can and leave none for others? Well, the evolutionist would most likely argue that if you are selfish it hurts others, it hurts the health of the group.
OK, why should I care if I hurt the health of the group? Evolutionist would say, "If the group doesn't survive the species doesn't survive."
Why should I care if the species survives? Well if the species dies out then I die or my descendants die, thus harming my personal self-interest.
So in the end, I should not be selfish because of selfish reasons?
Objective morality cannot be explained by evolution because it is a natural explanation for something that exists outside our genes. I know you say you disagree, but if genes determine morality then no one is responsible for their actions – they are simply following their genes.
If evolution and survival drive our morals, then why do people engage in acts that are self-destructive? If we are nothing beyond what evolution has made us to be, no one should smoke, over eat or commit suicide because we know those acts to hurt our survival chances.
More importantly, evolution could perhaps explain how we discovered those morals, but it could not show how those morals were invented. You can learn math from a teacher but those laws exists outside and beyond that.
There is a reason that consistent evolutionists and naturalists assert that morality is subjective, even though it seems self-evident that it is not. James Rachels wrote in Created From Animals: The Moral Implication of Evolution that mentally handicapped humans, according to Darwinian evolution, could be considered no more than animals. He said they could be "used as non-human animals are used – perhaps as laboratory subjects, or as food." Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer argue that rape is a natural consequence of evolution and that it should be considered like "the leopard's sports and the giraffe's elongated neck."
If only material things exist and morality is merely determined by the factors you list, particularly evolution, then murder and rape are simply the result of chemical reactions in a criminal's brain brought about by natural selection. Moreover, murder and rape cannot be objectively wrong (against a moral standard or law) because there are no objective laws is only chemicals exist.
Does the Bible say that all sexual positions other than "missionary" are wrong? What is objectively wrong about "doggy style" if both people are into it?
This doesn't really speak to our argument, but I wanted to make sure you understood that your assertion has no grounds in Scripture. Nowhere in the Bible does it command a certain sexual position or condemn other positions.
Provide some examples of things that are outside of nature (supernatural) that are not miraculous as well.
I'll ignore the snide comment after and again attempt to move this beyond gotcha quotes with referencing my earlier poorly communicated words and using them against my recently clarified words to demonstrate "hypocrisy."
Noted Christian philosopher Norman Geisler divides "unusual events" into six categories: anomalies, magic, psychosomatic, satanic signs, providence, miracles. Anomalies would be simply freaks of nature. Magic would simply be sleight of hand. Psychosomatic would be mind over matter issues. Satanic signs would be supernatural events that trace their origin to the demonic. Providence would be prearranged events that can be naturally explained but prove extremely serendipitous and may be guided by the supernatural like the fog at Normandy. Miracles would be supernatural events that point back toward God and are to His glory, such as raising the dead.
The final three could be supernatural. The last and second to last would always be supernatural, so there you would have events that qualify as supernatural, yet not miraculous. Again, Scripture records events that are supernatural but are not miraculous because they are not attributed to God.
You say you accept the possibility of the miraculous. You also seem to be applying Humian reasons for why you reject miracles or the supernatural as probable. Would you agree with Hume when he argues that: 1. Natural law is by definition a description of a regular occurrence. 2. A miracle is by definition a rare occurrence. 3. The evidence for the regular is always greater than that for the rare. 4. A wise man always bases his belief on the greater evidence. 5. Therefore, a wise man should never believe in miracles.
I would assume that you would not follow Spinoza who concludes that miracles are impossible because they violate natural laws.
Hopefully you will allow this to stand as my statement instead of referring back to my earlier misstatements and poor word choice. Supernatural events can and do occur in a variety of settings, but the miraculous can only occur within Christianity because they speak strictly to the God of Christianity. Miracles, as Christians define them, could not possibly occur outside of Christianity.
And when a Mormon who is trying to convince you of the "historical" events surrounding the Book of Mormon makes that same argument, it won't make a difference.
You know what? I agree to an extent. What I was demonstrating to you was that I can hold that belief as rational, I was not giving evidence as to why you should believe but rather evidence as to why I believe it. There is a difference between knowing a truth and showing a truth.
When the Mormon and I discuss the evidences we have, we are going to have to appeal to agreed upon sources. He will probably not accept my understanding of the Bible. I will not accept the Book of Mormon. We should then investigate historical claims that could demonstrate if one or the other has been demonstrably verified or supported by evidence. To the Mormon I would point out that DNA evidence has discounted the claims of American Indians being the lost tribes of Israel. I would point out that archeological evidence has not found any thing that supports the claims they made about history.
Can't you just admit you shouldn't throw stones at my skepticism when you too exhibit skepticism regarding "miracles" outside of your own context?
I said it would be hypocritical to be skeptical that the supernatural occurs outside of Christianity and I believe that because the supernatural has occurred outside of Christianity, in that a non-Christian can witness something supernatural that does not point to God.
However, it would be nonsensical to say that anything, supernatural or not, occurs totally outside the Christian worldview. That would be like you saying that you believe things to be reality when you do not believe them to be true. It's not hypocritical to say that I believe my belief system to be true and pervasive.
Aaron, before I begin, please do me a favor and answer this…
What do you think about God's decree that rape victims should marry their rapists? Do you agree with this or not? Objectively, is this right or is it wrong?
I've asked you several times already.
"So you would create no distinction between the supernatural that no one believes in (Greek gods) and the supernatural that has followers today?"
Correct. You are biased toward your own religion so I'll talk about a religion you don't believe in so that way you can see my points clearly. So, correct. I make no distinction between Zeus and Allah who has millions of followers today.
"No I understand your point, but when you say that some fact of reality disproves the Christian God…"
…and when did I say that?
"You believe, based on testimonies of others, that certain cities exists that you've never been to, that events happen in history to which you did not personally witness, etc."
Yes, you do the same thing. You'd want to see for yourself that Muhammad split the moon despite the "historicity" of this event. Since you'd be skeptical about the splitting of the moon, A Muslim would blindly accuse you of having a "standard of evidence beyond what anyone could produce." You should reply to him that splitting the moon seems quite improbable to you so you need more evidence than just his "historical" scriptures. You should also tell him that the existence of Moscow, which I assume you've never been to, is much more probable than the splitting of the moon. It also has better evidence supporting it's existence and therefore you are far more inclined to believe that Moscow exists than Muhammad splitting the moon.
"You also I believe, I hope, that you are having this conversation with another individual, another mind, and not some robot, computer program, dream of yours or synthetic Matrix reality. You could never prove that anyone outside of yourself has a mind or that you are not living in an eternal dream state, yet you believe this not to be the case with no real, conclusive evidence."
Ya, it's called induction. It's a form of reasoning. I have no first hand evidence that you have a heart beating in your chest but I can still reasonably assume that you do. I have no evidence that the sun will come up tomorrow but I can reasonably assume it will. However, I can't reasonably assume that the moon was split.
"You place an undue standard on the supernatural that you do not place on other things, which is unfair because you have admitted that the supernatural was possible."
Sometimes, and this is where I get frustrated sometimes, I have to repeat things to you before you acknowledge them. We've been over this. Earlier you asked, "Can you think of anything beyond the supernatural where you request to personally experience it before you will allow that it is possible?" I answered, "Sure, a basketball player who makes 1000 full court shots in a row. That's not supernatural but it's so improbable that I would be skeptical of reports." I also said "it's normal to apply the burden of proof to far fetched claims." This goes for both natural and supernatural claims. Also, I don't believe I am unduly applying the burden of proof to a claim like splitting the moon or stopping the sun in the sky.
"It is impossible to have a philosophical discussion about the supernatural when you do not accept philosophical and rational arguments for it – only personally witnessing it on a massive scale."
Again, take as an example the miraculous claim that Muhammad split the moon. If a Muslim was trying to convince you about this occurrence with all the documentation and fervor at his disposal, you'd be so skeptical that you'd want to see it or something as grandiose before you'd believe in miracles outside of a Christian context. Heck, you may even say that miracles outside of a Christian context are IMPOSSIBLE. This would effectively put you beyond my level of skepticism since I at least hold that Muhammad splitting the moon is possible though VERY improbable. Same with Jesus stopping the sun in the sky.
"…do you agree with W.K. Clifford when he says that it is wrong, always and everywhere, for anyone to believe anything on insufficient evidence?"
No. Who? Anyway, Clifford needs to account for things we have no evidence for yet still believe. For example, that the sun will rise tomorrow. The Sun and Earth are simply following the laws of physics so we can assign a high probability to this future event, though it's not certain. We can also assume that gravity will still continue to work and we won't float out into space as we sleep. We can't however, assume Muhammad split the moon despite the "evidence."
"Something caused dinosaurs to die out. Something was so catastrophic that it killed them out rather quickly. Yet here we are still in this super hostile environment living life."
Exactly. And we could all die tomorrow, just like the Dino—BOOOOM!! Oh nooo!! Arrrghh!
"Supernatural = magic. Not in the least except in your own mind. Magic is a term to describe illusions and tricks"
It could be in my own mind but it could also be in the dictionary. Did you consider that!?! Ha! From Webster's…
1 a : the use of means (as charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forces
2 a : an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source
You are equivocating if you take my definition of magic to be sleight of hand. Use the context. If I say supernatural = magic, I clearly don't mean the "tricks and illusions" definition. So when I say "supernatural = magic" I am using the word properly.
"As you said boiling babies should be seen as objectively wrong, what makes this the case? Simply personal choice, societal choice, evolutionary instincts?"
No. Hmmmm… Critique my thought process, Aaron. You agree with me that 2 + 2 = 4, correct? And 2 + 2 = 4 would be true even without human beings, correct? But would boiling babies for pleasure still be wrong without human beings? I don't know. Without people it's almost like asking if a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound? The obvious answer is, yes. But when you consider that…
"The production of sound requires 3 things: A source, a medium, and a receiver. The source, through vibrations called "compression" and "rarefraction", creates a series of pressure waves that vary in frequency and amplitude. These pressure waves propagate through various mediums including water, air and solids. The receiver collects and converts these pressure waves into electrical impulses. If you remove any of the 3 requirements for sound, there is no sound." – Wiki
Perhaps it's the same with morality. Humans are a necessary component of morality. No people, no morality.
But, assume the boiling babies for pleasure IS objectively true just like 2 + 2 = 4. Now, what makes 2 + 2 = 4 objectively true is not dependent upon any of the things you mentioned (choice, society, instinct). It's ALSO not dependent upon Allah or any other god(s). Allah can't make 2 + 2 = 5. Right? The objective nature of 2 + 2 = 4 puts it beyond the power of any gods (yours too) to change. So, the answer to your question is none of the above and not God. "What makes this the case?" you ask? It just is. Why does 2 + 2 = 4? Because it just does.
I love trying to piece this stuff together. :)
"…what gives you the power to judge their actions – if morality is simply a matter of the individual, society or evolution."
If all morality was completely subjective, then nothing. If all morality was completely objective then I guess the same thing that gives me the power to judge someone who says that 2 + 2 = 5 is wrong. However, as I've repeated, I think morality is some combination of the two. Morality is so much more mushier than mathematics, don't you agree? Whereas the truth of 2 + 2 = 4 transcends all culture, morality does not, correct?
"There is a reason that consistent evolutionists and naturalists assert that morality is subjective, even though it seems self-evident that it is not."
This is tearing down a straw man and does not represent my view about morality, which you should know by now. I think you view naturalism as synonymous with moral relativism. I think this is a canard. I respectfully ask that you focus on what I've actually presented in this discussion and not some straw man. It's easy to debate a straw man. :)
"I wanted to make sure you understood that your assertion has no grounds in Scripture."
Riddle me this, Batman. How did you get that I made an assertion from a question I asked you? I did hear this from somewhere. Is it a Church doctrine? Puritan? Anyway, you didn't answer my question, "What is objectively wrong about "doggy style" if both people are into it?" Or, is there nothing wrong with this sexual position?
"…so there you would have events that qualify as supernatural, yet not miraculous."
Keep up with the contortions, because we're still waiting for some examples. I try to provide examples in my answers for clarity. Why do you give me all this mealy mouthed gunk in your replies? For example you said, "Scripture records events that are supernatural but are not miraculous because they are not attributed to God." Well, that kind of begs the question, if these miracles are NOT attributable to God then who are they attributable to? Whoever it is, they must have supernatural powers by definition. Keep in mind that a true miracle is something that can't normally happen like the sun stopping in the sky, resurrections, splitting the moon, regrowth of amputated limbs, virgin births, walking on water, etc. Seeing the image of Jesus on a piece of toast is not a true miracle. Oh, and BTW, you neglected to mention any real supernatural events scripture records that are not considered miraculous.
"You also seem to be applying Humian reasons for why you reject miracles or the supernatural as probable."
I agree with #1 and the conclusion. I don't think I agree with #2 as the word "rare" implies that a miracle happened at least once. I think the probability is low that one real miracle has ever occurred. I don't know about #3 either as the sun often rises yet there is no hard evidence that it will rise again. I don't know about #4 because sometimes there is no hard evidence available to base a belief on. For example, the belief that gravity won't shut off and we all float awaaaaayyy…
Hopefully you will allow this to stand as my statement instead of referring back to my earlier misstatements and poor word choice. Supernatural events can and do occur in a variety of settings, but the miraculous can only occur within Christianity because they speak strictly to the God of Christianity. Miracles, as Christians define them, could not possibly occur outside of Christianity.
All right. Based on that statement, please provide examples of real supernatural events outside of a Christian context. I do hold you to these words though, "It would be hypocritical of me to say that the supernatural could only exist within the confines of the Bible." The reason is because you are absolutely correct about that.
"To the Mormon I would point out that DNA evidence has discounted the claims of American Indians being the lost tribes of Israel."
That evidence won't make a difference either. The Mormon would be happy to provide DNA evidence to the contrary. Or, they will just deny. I've experienced this mental dissonance from believers first hand. No matter what you do, it will be useless. For example, there are creationists who believe the Earth is 6,000 years old because that's the sum of years from the genealogies in scripture beginning with Adam and Eve. I've shown these people videos of tree rings totaling more than 11,000 years. They STILL don't accept it despite simple and totally observable evidence. Evidence even a child would understand. They even agree that 1 tree ring equals a year. But they say that it's just God's way of testing their faith when I present them with the facts. That's not rational. It's delusional.
"…a non-Christian can witness something supernatural that does not point to God."
By sheer coincidence, I happen to be a non-Christian. What truly supernatural event do you think I can witness that does not point to the God you believe in?
"It's not hypocritical to say that I believe my belief system to be true and pervasive."
No one said that. You actually said, "I said it would be hypocritical to be skeptical that the supernatural occurs outside of Christianity" Let's just put that to the test. Please provide some examples of legitimate supernatural occurrences outside of Christianity that you are NOT skeptical about.
Cin, may I make a suggestion? We have two vastly different topics going in this thread (miracles & morality). As we delve further into this, our comments get longer and longer. Could we divide these two into other threads?
We can keep one here and I can put up a post on the other or I can write two new posts and we can move our conversation there. Or we can simply keep everything here, but I would much rather the comments be able to focus on one of those two huge issues. However, I will leave it up to you.
Sure, but let me first tie the morality part to the original topic of this thread, the role of Jesus as prophet, priest and king. As I said at the beginning, Mark Driscoll didn't give credit to Jesus as a teacher of morals. Case in point, there is a story of Jesus coming upon a scene where a prostitute was about to be stoned and he says something like, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." What is he appealing to? He is appealing to people's individual sense of morality. The people in the crowd drop their stones, according to the story, after they realize that they are not "without sin" and they would be HYPOCRITES if they stoned this woman. This is what is known as a "teachable moment." When Jesus made this moral appeal, he didn't do so as a prophet, priest or king. I think Jesus was a teacher here and if this story is indicative of the way Jesus behaved, then "teacher" was his main role.
I also note that Jesus left it up to each and every individual to make a moral decision as to whether or not he/she would be a hypocrite for casting stones.
So, to tie this in with some of our discussion, don't cast stones at other people for being skeptical when you yourself share much of the same skepticism about supernatural beings. If there are 10,0000 gods that atheists are skeptical about, that means there are 9,999 gods that Muslims and Christians are skeptical about. That also means we agree on 99.99 of gods. It's just that Muslims and Christians don't judge that .01 percent by the same standards as the other 99.99%. Between a claim like splitting the moon or stopping the sun in the middle of the sky… Muslims think the former is a matter of history but are skeptical of the latter while Christians think the latter is a matter of history but are skeptical of the former. Since I hold no religious bias (non-religious), I'm skeptical of both of these claims for common sense indicates they are both quite far fetched. I think if Muslims applied their common sense to the splitting of the moon they'd conclude that it's very improbable. The same goes for Christians stopping the sun in the sky.
Okay, Aaron. Thanks for letting me have my say here. I'll comment on both of the new threads.
Cin, I'll answer all of your points on miracles and morality in the new threads. You don't have to thank me for having your say, I appreciate the chance for the discussions. But I'll respond to your point about Driscoll here.
You misunderstand his, and my, point if you believe us to be ignoring Jesus as a teacher, which he obviously was. The point is that the spiritual roles of Jesus (prophet, priest and king) tend to be emphasized differently by each group of Christians.
I do have a point of objection to make. You said this:
What is he appealing to? He is appealing to people's individual sense of morality.
What do you base this on? Even if you do not accept an objective morality derived from religion, the audience Jesus was speaking to certainly did. He was not appealing to some subjective, individual morality. He was appealing to their knowledge of Old Testament law and also His own teachings on the subject. He was reminding them that they had also disobeyed the law which they were using to accuse this woman (notably they ignored the man involved).
Jesus' point here was His point through out His life – all people violate God's law and they need forgiveness for this. Since the One offended is the Origin of this law, only God can grant that forgiveness, which is what Jesus does at the end of the story you cited. He asks the woman where the people who condemned her were at. After she sees that no one is left to condemn her. Jesus tells her that He does not condemn her either and then instructs her to go and sin no more.
Yes, Jesus is a teacher, but He is also God as only God can offer forgiveness for violating His law. To only refer to Jesus as a teacher is worse than simply calling Obama a former state representative. Sure, he is that, but he is much more than that as well. Sure, Jesus is a teacher, but that only speaks to a small portion of who He really is.
"He was not appealing to some subjective, individual morality."
I think it's clear Jesus is doing just that. "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." He didn't say, don't stone her because it's wrong to do so. That would have been an appeal to an objective morality. Instead, he basically dared them to throw stones. Jesus left it up to each and every individual to make a moral decision as to whether or not he/she would be a hypocrite for casting stones. No one wanted to be a hypocrite. That's why they dropped their stones. It was out of self interest that they did so, not because it was objectively right or wrong.
"He was appealing to their knowledge of Old Testament law and also His own teachings on the subject."
If Jesus was appealing to the knowledge of Old Testament law then they would have stoned her for adultery since that's what the law was. I think that the reason Jesus prevented them from stoning her was because he believed only he had the right to condemn or forgive the woman.
"He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." He didn't say, don't stone her because it's wrong to do so.
What do you think the word "sin" means and more importantly what do you think the word "sin" meant when Jesus used it?
The only context for "sin" that Jewish people had in the New Testament era is the Old Testament. The concept of individual morality is so far removed from their thought process at that time that it is impossible for you to read that back into Jesus' words and their thoughts.
If you were to create a similar parable in our day, you could argue that the appeal is to their own sense of morality. That would be an acceptable cultural understanding for our time. It is not one for first century Jerusalem.
Read the entire passage in John 8, who is it that brings the woman to Jesus? It is the Pharisees and teachers of the law. Do you think it is at all possible that those who spent their entire life concerned with the law and their own expansions of it, who challenged everyone to live by the standards they established and condemned anyone who did not, would have any other concept of the term "sin?"
You pointed out yourself that the OT law speaks of stoning those caught in adultery. That is what the Pharisees said when they brought the women. The entire story is filled with the idea of the law and the concept of grace.
They were trying to trap Jesus, as the text said. OT law said to stone those caught in adultery (again I wonder what happened to the man in the situation). However, Israel was not a free country. They did not have the authority to condemn anyone to death (note how the Jewish leaders had to go to Roman ruler Pilate to have Jesus crucified).
Much like their question about paying taxes (which provoked the "render unto Caesar" quote) the Pharisees are trying to cause Jesus to either alienate the Jewish people or anger the Roman rulers. Being Jesus, he managed to balance it all – uphold God's standard, demonstrate God's love, hold to God's time table of His own death penalty.
No one wanted to be a hypocrite. That's why they dropped their stones.
Jesus certainly did call people hypocrites or refer to actions as hypocritical. That is not in dispute.
Seeing that nothing in the record gives us the motivations for their walking away, it is difficult to read into it exactly why they left. Obviously, something about the situation brought conviction to them about their actions. Many wonder about what Jesus was writing in the dirt (noteworthy as the only time the Bible ever records Jesus writing anything) and they say perhaps he wrote down the sins, according to the OT, of the Pharisees. But we simply do not know.
If Jesus was appealing to the knowledge of Old Testament law then they would have stoned her for adultery since that's what the law was.
He said, "He who is without sin cast the first stone." This comes immediately after they speak about what the OT law says about her sin (which Jesus recognizes as such). Again, the important thing to understand the meaning of the text in question is not so much our own ideas, but the ideas, concepts and thought patterns of the individuals in the text.
I think that the reason Jesus prevented them from stoning her was because he believed only he had the right to condemn or forgive the woman.
On this we can agree. Jesus, being God, had that right and the Pharisees were not seeking to do justice. They were seeking to use the mistake of this young woman to harm Jesus. They were not viewing her as anything but a tool or prop, much as the man involved in the adultery (which again the Pharisees were not concerned with) apparently viewed her, as he was nowhere to be seen to defend her.
One also has to wonder exactly how it was that the Pharisees admittedly caught this woman in the act. Were they involved in setting it up? Were they out trolling around at crazy hours peeking through windows? Were they following around women thought to be promiscuous? Seems more likely than not that they were involved in some type of sin during their quest to catch this woman and trap Jesus.
"The concept of individual morality is so far removed from their thought process at that time that it is impossible for you to read that back into Jesus' words and their thoughts."
It's obvious we ALL have individual morality, Aaron. Pharisees 2000 years ago are no exception. It's part of being human. The tool that Jesus brilliantly used to get his way in this matter was shame. He shamed the Pharisees into not casting any stones. He didn't make an appeal to any objective morality at all. He didn't say don't stone her because it's wrong to do so. He appealed to the Pharisees as individuals. Any one of them could have decided to throw stones if they chose to. Jesus didn't even issue a command. He left it up to them how they would act.
"Seeing that nothing in the record gives us the motivations for their walking away, it is difficult to read into it exactly why they left. "
When Jesus utters one sentence, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her" and then they all drop their stones, it's clear as day why they did so. It's because they didn't want to be hypocrites. They didn't want to be sinners throwing stones at someone for sinning. Perhaps some or all of them were also guilty of sins that were punishable by being stoned. It was pure self interest on their part and from reading the text, I'm pretty sure Jesus knew a lot about the nature of the Pharisees to manipulate them. I'd love to get a second opinion about my reading because, even though you don't agree, you haven't come up with any reasonable alternatives.
Hehe, to me they sound a lot like the people on Wall Street. If only Obama could deal with them that effectively. Unfortunately, today's Pharisees call the shots.
"On this we can agree." [that according to the story, Jesus believed he had the right to condemn or forgive the adulteress]
I'm sorry Aaron, but this doesn't count as a genuine miracle. Though, it's close to a mass resurrection or turning water into wine. :)
I'd like to hear your response to the longer post before we get sidetracked by Pharisees.
Jesus didn't even issue a command. He left it up to them how they would act.
Yes, but you ignored my larger point about what "sin" meant in their context. You may believe that everyone possesses individual morality, but I can assure you the Pharisees did not. Their entire system of morality came from the OT law and their interpretation of it.
At the beginning of this discussion we talked about the benefits of pursuing a degree in the field of religion. This is one of those benefits – you study the time period in which the Bible was written. You learn about the sects and people that make up the stories. You learn how to read the Scripture and best understand it from the perspective of the writer. I'm not saying that I'm write just because I'm in seminary. Obviously, I can be as wrong as anyone else, but I have learned tools to help me better understand the text.
I'd love to get a second opinion about my reading because, even though you don't agree, you haven't come up with any reasonable alternatives.
I'm not sure what you don't find reasonable about my explanation of the text. The only context a Jew in first century Jerusalem would have for the word "sin" is the Old Testament. We have to understand the situation in the proper context of its setting.
I'm sorry Aaron, but this doesn't count as a genuine miracle.
You misunderstand if you think I was asserting this as a miracle. While Christians through the ages will certainly attest to the miraculous nature of being freed from the punishment of sin through Christ's forgiveness, I would not posit it as a miracle in the context we were discussing.
I'd like to hear your response to the longer post before we get sidetracked by Pharisees.
I attempted to answer many of your questions about miracles in the form of a new post. Hopefully tomorrow after my test I can go back and answer the questions on the miraculous that you asked that I did not address in the post.
I'm also working on a post about morality and its origin where we can further discuss those issues. Look for that tomorrow or Tuesday as well.
"Yes, but you ignored my larger point about what "sin" meant in their context."
Kind of a moot point since we all have an individual sense of morality.
"You may believe that everyone possesses individual morality, but I can assure you the Pharisees did not."
I thought the Pharisees were human beings.
"You misunderstand if you think I was asserting this as a miracle."
And you completely misunderstood a joke. I'll explain, no problem. Think of it like this. If we agree on something, that's almost a miracle. Do you understand now? Never mind.
Kind of a moot point since we all have an individual sense of morality.
It's not a moot point. It is the point. You are reading your own ideas back into that time period, which is very easy to do. I catch myself doing it often.
When did the concept of individual morality divorced from a collective/religious grounding develop, as an idea to explain our sense of morality? Whenever it developed, even if you believe it to be a fact, it was not understood or recognized at that time. Which leads to the next point.
I thought the Pharisees were human beings.
You misunderstand my point here (much the way I misunderstood your joke ;) which was funny by the way). I'm not arguing here that the Pharisees did not possess an "individual morality." I'm stating that the Pharisees did not share your belief in an individual morality, hence their trying to judge everyone else by their standard – their interpretation of the OT law.
To say that the Pharisees and Jesus were arguing and referencing an individual sense of morality would be like trying to say that if Jesus mentioned survival they were discussing an evolutionary idea.
Even if you believe an idea to be true, you cannot read it back into ancient times and different contexts and say they were using it as a frame of reference. It even would be wrong to assign that concept to a discussion between say Daniel and myself because we do not accept that as being the case so we would not be using it to discuss moral choices.
"I'm stating that the Pharisees did not share your belief in an individual morality…"
Ya, they had their own sense of morality that's different than mine. They had different ideas of what sin meant and they judged everyone else by that standard. That's very cool. Very nice. They could obviously be shamed though, right? If some had cast stones, they would still be called hypocrites. So, your point is moot. I don't see why it matters or even how it pertains at all to anything I've said.
They could obviously be shamed though, right? If some had cast stones, they would still be called hypocrites. So, your point is moot. I don't see why it matters or even how it pertains at all to anything I've said.
My point wasn't that they could not be shamed and would not be hypocrites. My point was you asserting that Jesus was appealing to something, subjective, individual morality, which did not exist in the minds of anyone in the story. My point is that we have to understand on what standard would they have been shamed and considered hypocrites. It could not be individual subjective morality. It had to be sin, according to the OT law.
This is my conjecture, but it is based on the historical reality of the day. I'm not sure the Pharisees actually ever intended to stone the woman. They knew that the Roman government alone had the power to condemn someone to death. If they had stoned the woman, the Romans would have come down on them and disrupted the set up that they had established and enjoyed. They simply wanted to try to use the Roman government and the OT law as a vice with which to squeeze Jesus into violating one or the other.
This discussion has little to do with the miraculous discussions, but it does have everything to do with the topic of the post.
If you want to continue the miraculous discussion, you can do so under the new post on miracles. I moved your points from here over there in a comment and responded (besides the responses I gave in the post itself). I apologize for the delay, this has been a busy week: a test, a paper and two quizzes.
My point was you asserting that Jesus was appealing to something, subjective, individual morality, which did not exist in the minds of anyone in the story.
Doesn't matter. They are human beings. They have an individual sense of morality. (I'm not arguing here that the Pharisees did not possess an "individual morality." – Aaron) Jesus obviously appealed to that and each had to make a choice whether or not to cast stones. They decided not to because they didn't want to be hypocrites. They didn't want to be sinners throwing stones at someone for sinning. Perhaps some or all of them were also guilty of sins that were punishable by being stoned. It was pure self interest on their part.