Blog Archives
God: Self-Serving or Narcissistic for Judgment?
The author of this post, who goes by Skinny Sushi, identifies herself as an agnostic. She and her husband were both raised Mormon, but for various reasons have walked away from the church. It seems that her primary reasons have to do with God’s judgment:
And any God who might be out there… wouldn’t he/she/it be rather pleased I’ve lived a good life and been kind to others? There’s just something about the notion of an all powerful being who will punish me for not believing despite the quality of my life that seems a little… self serving? Narcissistic?
In regard to the first point, Paul addressed this in the second chapter of Romans:
For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. (Rom 2:14-16)
So Sushi is right. People who do the Law without the Law are their own Law. No need for any divine intervention there. And, many people are good for goodness sake–without the Law. Read the rest of this entry
The Preexistence of Jesus
I just found Human Jesus Theology, a blog that seems ostensibly Christian, though the theology is a bit skewed. For example, in this post, author Jeffery W. Campbell takes a passage often used to establish the deity and preexistence of Jesus and argue that it does no such thing.
John 8:58 reads, “Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.'” It is Campbell’s argument that this passage doesn’t establish the preexistence of Jesus because the name I AM from Exodus 3:14 isn’t the name of God.
Of course, to make this argument convincing, Campbell has to go to the Septuagint. It should be noted that the Septuagint is not the original language of the Old Testament; the Septuagint was written in Greek, but the Old Testament was written in Hebrew.
Even if this was a convincing argument, Campbell is ignoring other passages that unambiguously establish the preexistence of Jesus. Start with John 1:1-5:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
The “Word” of verse 1 is defined as Jesus in verses 14-18:
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.'”) And from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.
Paul establishes the preexistence of Christ as well. In his letter to the Colossians 1:15-20, the apostle writes of Jesus:
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.
Campbell can argue against one passage, but nothing in the Bible exists in a vacuum apart from everything else. There are numerous verses that establish the preexistence of Christ, which is why it is one of the core tenets of the Christian faith. John 8:53, while important, isn’t the cornerstone upon which the preexistence of Jesus is built.
This is just . . . WOW! (part II)
In a previous post, I criticized Mark of Proud Atheists for this post. Mark listed 14 things that he simply does not adhere to, given his naturalistic worldview. In all cases, I’ve been finding that Mark misunderstands or mischaracterizes Christianity. Today, we continue exposing his errors on points eight through 14, and offer some concluding thoughts. Read the rest of this entry
This is Just . . . WOW! (part I)
Mark from Proud Atheists does it again! He manages to prove his general and willful ignorance of religion even while attempting to mock it. His latest diatribe is a thoughtful post titled “Dear Christians, ‘I Simply Do Not . . . .‘” It’s a fascinating line of crap from start to finish. Let’s see what we can make of it: Read the rest of this entry
Proof #50 is Up!
The first answer, a huge improvement to the original essay from our first site, is up and ready. You may read it here.
The discussion can be found in the forums, right here.
The foundational essays will be tackled next: #1 and #2 (referred to constantly by the author of GII), #7, and #9.
The Case Against “The Case for Christ”
John W. Loftus, who I’ve been spending more time on than I ought to, has recommended a book by Robert Price called The Case Against the Case for Christ.
Obviously, The Case Against the Case for Christ is a chapter-by-chapter refutation of Lee Strobel’s popular The Case for Christ. Strobel’s book was one of my inspirations to enter apologetics ministry, so I’m very interested in Price’s rebuttal. Problem: the book is a little pricey (no pun intended). At $25 via Price’s website, I really can’t afford it. Maybe it will come down, or I’ll be able to find it in the library. (Top Secret is the only book by Price in my local library, so that doesn’t look promising.) Or, maybe my writing career will finally take off and I’ll be able to afford more luxuries. (Yes, right now a book is a luxury. I have a sad life right now.)
I did, however, want to touch on something that Loftus said in his recommendation of Price’s new book, because I’ve heard this from atheists before:
[W]hile Strobel acts like he’s setting out to test the “claims of Christ,” he does no such thing. Strobel is being disingenuous, Price tells us, because “his true intention becomes clear by the choice of people he interviewed: every one of them a conservative apologist!” So Strobel is not uncovering facts as a reporter would do. No, he’s “soliciting opinions he already wants to promote. The irony is that, if anyone in Jesus’ day had actually done what Strobel claims to be doing, seeking out informed authorities to interview, there would be no need for such exercises in apologetical futility.” (p. 12)
The title of the book is The Case for Christ, not The Case for and Against Christ with Balanced Commentary on All Sides of the Issue. The second is lame and wouldn’t have sold millions of copies.
I’ll say this plainly. When you’re arguing for something, you are not obligated to explore what the other side says unless you are doing so to anticipate objections–which you then reject.
If John Loftus was accused of murdering someone, how would he want his case presented by his defense attorney? Would he want:
- Character witnesses that only say what a gnarly dude he is
- Complete refutation of the prosecution’s forensic evidence
- A plausible scenario that explains the prosecution’s case while leaving him completely innocent
Or, do you suppose that Loftus would want:
- Several character witnesses that say he’s awesome, and a couple of girls he dated once in high school then never called back
- Lukewarm treatment of the prosecution’s forensic evidence that admits Loftus could have done it based on this evidence
- A plausible scenario that explains the prosecution’s case while leaving him completely innocent, with the disclaimer that the prosecution’s case is equally credible and perhaps even more plausible
I’m wild guessing here, but I think Loftus would want his laywer to present the first case. Yet he expects Lee Strobel to present the second case. Why?
I’ll say this again: when presenting an argument in favor of something, you are under no obligation to give treatment to alternatives–unless you are anticipating and then rejecting major objections to the case you are attempting to build. That is what Strobel did in The Case for Christ. He is not trying to entertain alternative theories, though as I remember he did try to anticipate objections to his work.
Explaining God to a Two Year Old
Until I attempted to explain the concept of God to my two-year old daughter, Ashleigh, it never occurred to me how complex some of this really is.
I was strapping her in to her car seat to go to church, and she said that we were going to see Mimi and Papa (that is, her grandparents). I said, “No, we’re going to church to see God!” I realized my blunder (Jn 1:18), and hoped that Ashleigh wouldn’t notice.
Of course, she seized the opportunity right away and as we were driving kept saying, “We go to church. See God.”
I finally said, “We can’t actually see God, sweetie. But we can see Jesus! Of course, he isn’t going to be at church. But we will learn about him.”
After considering that statement for a moment, Ashleigh asked, “The bad man get Jesus?”
“Nope,” I said. “Jesus defeated the bad man. For good!”
After a few more minutes, Ashleigh said, “We no see God. God no at church.” Laugh now, and laugh hard, my atheist readers. She’s only two and doesn’t get concepts like “immaterial,” “spirit,” or “omnipresent.” Don’t read too much into her statement.
I said, “No, honey, God is everywhere. We just can’t see him.” She seemed to consider this, but didn’t ask any more questions or make any additional statements related to church or God. Sometime, I need to have a more detailed conversation with her about God and Jesus, but not while I’m trying to concentrate on the road.
Do Christians Read the Bible Anymore?
When I see this:
Many women who dress inappropriately … cause youths to go astray, taint their chastity and incite extramarital sex in society, which increases earthquakes. Calamities are the result of people’s deeds. We have no way but conform to Islam to ward off dangers. (source)
And this:
Television and radio evangelist Pastor John Hagee believes the recent eruption of the volcano in Iceland stems from Britain breaking God’s covenant.
The day after Britain’s Advertising Standards Authority said the Western Wall in Jerusalem could not be used in Israeli tourism ads in Britain because it is considered occupied territory, Hagee said, the volcano erupted, shutting down Britain’s economy in one day.
“That’s coincidence, like the flood was a coincidence. That’s coincidence, like the Red Sea was coincidence. That’s coincidence, like the earthquake and the Resurrection was coincidence,” Hagee told about 3,200 people at Lancaster County Convention Center on Thursday night as part of John Hagee Ministries’ Rally and Prophecy Seminar. (source)
I really wonder about the intelligence and the sanity of the preachers ordained by God to minister to his people. I’ve answered this point before, but only in general terms. Since these two are speaking specifically about disasters, I thought I’d take a look at the words of Jesus regarding a disaster in his day, the fall of the Tower of Siloam.
There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.” (Lk 13:1-5)
It is often the temptation of us ordinary mortals to try to attribute some sort of meaning to the meaningless. But it isn’t always the case, bibically or otherwise, that a disaster leading to death or destruction of a country’s economy is the result of sin. Look at Job; he was righteous in God’s eyes, yet God allowed tragedy after tragedy to befall the poor guy.
Jesus, who would have been in a position to know why God allowed that tower to collapse and kill those 18 people, didn’t ruminate on the sin of those people. Instead, he called his hearers to repentance, asking them if they thought that they were somehow better than those who were caught in the disaster.
Of course they aren’t. No one is better than anyone else; we all are sinners (Rom 3:23).
Instead of being arrogant and acting as if he knows better than Jesus why a particular disaster befell the U.K., perhaps Hagee should follow in Jesus’ footsteps more closely. Use this event to highlight God’s impartiality: “Do you suppose that those caught in the volcanic eruption were worse sinners than you? Repent, or you too will perish.”
What is Going on Here?
In a previous post, I highlighted some hilarity from my spam folder. It looks like I got some more. A user calling himself “names of jesus” posted a link to this website, which apparently can’t decide if it is a skeptic site, or an Evangelical site.
It opens thus:
There were at smallest amount three historical characters with similar names who lived in Galilee in the earliest century, whose lives were pasted together by the Apostles to create the mythical Jesus Christ. The names were |like to Yessu, Yessui, and Yeshuah. One was indeed crucified by the Romans, but he was merely a common criminal. One in truth had disciples, but he was stoned to death by his own people for heresy. The third was the son of Mary of Nazareth, the result of her adulterous relationship with a Roman soldier called Pantheras. So, no Virgin Mary, and no real Jesus Christ.
I’m thinking skeptic site. Then, after listing many of the names of Jesus from both Old and New Testaments, it continues:
My name and who I am does not matter. I am only a sinner saved by the grace of God and I just want to tell you that Jesus Christ loves you. God loves you, no matter what evils you have done. You and I both deserve to go to hell because of our sins, but He sent His only begotten Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, to bleed, suffer, and die on an old cursed tree for your sins. Jesus died on the cross of Calvary for you. Satan(the devil) hates you and wants your soul to burn in the lake of fire forever. Satan wants you to stay in bondage to your sins, but Jesus came to save your soul. He wants to be your Saviour and Lord.
What?? I thought this site was a skeptic site. Above, it just said there was no historical Jesus. Who, then, has saved the webmaster’s soul?
He then continues with a plea to the reader to give his life to Christ. Well, if Christ doesn’t exist, why would anyone do that? If this is a skpetic site, then it is a clear example of Poe’s Law (much like Landover Baptist Church). If it is an Evangelical site, then the introduction undercuts the conclusion and they need to rethink what message they’re trying to convey.
For now, I call Poe’s Law.
Irony
On the radio, DJs record and play things from various media outlets for their sign on/sign off routines, usually without telling us where it came from. One DJ in my hometown would play a favorite quote of mine: “Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes.” I have no idea where it came from, but it was the first thing I thought of when I read this:
Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers. It tells people to go out and stick their noses in other people’s business. I live by the golden rule: Treat others as you’d want them to treat you. The religious right wants to tell people how to live.
This would be from the great philosopher Jesse “The Body” Ventura. It was quoted in Playboy‘s Novemeber 1999 issue. I’m relaying the quote from here, not from the original source. Just in case my wife reads this, I want that to be perfectly clear!
Anyway, Ventura’s statement pretty much tips the irony meter. I’m glad he lives by the Golden Rule, but the Golden Rule’s source is religious. The most common phrasing of the rule comes from the King James Version of the Bible (Mt 7:12)! It may not have originated with Jesus, but Jesus did make it famous.
Way to not let religion guide your life!
Back Rome Again 