The Second Oldest Question

YouTube Videos Draw Attention to Palin’s Faith - NYTimes.com

2008-10-25T13:26:59-07:00

YouTube Videos Draw Attention to Palin’s Faith - NYTimes.com.

Brad, I'm really curious what you make of Sarah Palin.

For myself, I suspect she's an ambitious and savvy person but one who is horrifyingly misguided in her views. She's a person who has no business running with McCain for the vice-presidency. I can only shudder when I imagine her stepping in as our Commander and Chief. If anything was going to usher in the Apocalypse, it would be a Palin presidency.

Einstein Letter on God Sells for $404,000

2008-05-21T16:26:26-07:00

From the grave, Albert Einstein poured gasoline on the culture wars between science and religion this week.

A letter the physicist wrote in 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind, in which he described the Bible as “pretty childish” and scoffed at the notion that the Jews could be a “chosen people,” sold for $404,000 at an auction in London. That was 25 times the presale estimate.

The Associated Press quoted Rupert Powell, the managing director of Bloomsbury Auctions, as describing the unidentified buyer as having “a passion for theoretical physics and all that that entails.” Among the unsuccessful bidders, according to The Guardian newspaper, was Oxford evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, an outspoken atheist.

Brad:

2007-12-18T19:55:19-08:00

Merry Christmas, Jeff.

Brad: I'm done.

2007-10-24T08:23:03-07:00

In every good martial arts movie there is a scene where a warrior is surrounded by other fighters. It would appear at first glance the warrior is doomed. However, he is a wise warrior. He knows his opponents are fools, and so he simply allows there inability to work together to defeat themselves.

Jeff, to your wise judo-like maneuver, I tip my hat. The Christians you have been fighting have so bloodied themselves, we hardly look like our namesake. I am glad we have had this opportunity and I hope this serves only as a stepping stone to us deepening our friendship. You will always be a cherished friend and welcome in my home. I've been reading a book by Lee Strobel called The Case for the Real Jesus. As I read it I find it saying everything I want to say to you, and it says it better than I could. I am going to send you a copy as my final "two cents." I would be open to you giving me an idea of what I might read for your final "two cents."

Jim, Kate, Passionate, I submit to your greater wisdom. I have been wrong. Passionate, was right. My intentions were to usher in the great tribulation with Jeff. I was hoping by our helping disabled children to usher in the age of the Anti-Christ, but you have foiled my plans. Curses! However, I repent. You're right! My biblical interpretation is wrong. Yours is best. However, let's be clear. You are not literalists. You are letterists (Letterism defined: While often ignoring context, historical and cultural setting, and even grammatical structure, letterism takes each word as an isolated truth. A problem with this method is that it fails to take into account the different literary genre, or types, in the Bible. Letterism tends to lead to legalism because of its inability to distinguish between literary types. All passages tend to become equally binding on current believers.) This will be my final missive to you as well for after I am done with this post I am going to pluck out my eye and cut off my hands for they all continue to aid and abet my sinning. Please pick me up and take me to the bunker where we can sit, and wait, and hate until Jesus comes again. While we're there, we can burn copies of Mark Noll's book The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind .

(Note: for anyone interested I submit this article in reference to the nuance of biblical interpretation. In it you will find the most common principles used by biblical scholars all around the world. It's not brain surgery, but it's not idiocy either as some in this conversation have wanted to suggest.)

Jeff: Literalists vs Figuratives

2007-10-23T14:48:59-07:00

Wow,

Our peace agreement has set off quite a tempest in this teapot of ours. No wonder it's so hard to get people to come together when religion is involved. Suddenly we get a tiny glimpse into the complexities involved in Northern Ireland, the genocides in the Balkans, Israel vs Palestine and so many more of those conflicts that plague our earth like cancers.

In our little corner of the global confusion it seems to come down to the Literalists vs the Figuratives.

I'm trying to break this down to illustrate these opposing approaches to interpreting the Bible (see table below).

Brad, I have to say that both Passionate and Kate make a (sick) sense. They accept what the Bible says and don't judge it. You judge the Bible through the human lens. Atheists believe that your ability to judge the Bible is a kind of evidence pointing to the fallacy of God.

They don't twist the Bible through human interpretation to make it more of a palliative. They accept it at face value, mostly; even they resist when the Bible goes off the beam and exhorts humans to kill each other over the beliefs that separate them (at least I hope they do).

Can't you see this more clearly?

They accept the Bible for what it says as the very Word of God.

They don't try to sand off all the rough parts. And, their beliefs lead them quite logically to the conclusions they shared on our blog.
You've rejected these literal Biblical directives and instead have inserted human interpreters between you and your most holy book. You've said that humans (flawed as we are) are more correct than the clearest Biblical directive to the contrary.

Bradley, you got a lotta 'splaining to do!

Belief	Literalists	Figuratives
Bible as word of God	The Bible IS the word of God.	The Bible was inspired by the word of God
Bible passage interpretation	There is no need for interpretation; the Bible is already plain and clear.	The Bible wasn't meant to be taken literally. Various humans over the course of history have spent ample time reviewing it and have determined that there are parts which offer literal doctrine and explicit instructions while most passages are figurative and suggestive of ways of being and acting. Plus, the books of the Bible were written for specific peoples with messages specifically for them and of their time
Rules of Thumb	When in doubt, do what the Bible says	When in doubt, defer to human interpretation
Doubt	Doubt comes from Satan	Doubt comes from God. (but why is it there when it comes to God's word?)
Passage Examples: 2 Corinthians 6 says, "14 Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? 15 What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? 16 What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people." 17 "Therefore come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you."	This is clear, unambiguous and straight-forward. Brad is violating a direct command from the Bible by joining Jeff trying to improve the world.	This passage can't be taken literally. To understand the Bible you need human scholars. They say it was meant for a particular time and place and doesn't have literal credence in today's world.

Shoulder to Shoulder

2007-10-19T15:02:41-07:00

We've been talking and want to propose something.

We've been expending a lot of energy and time arguing with each other about religion. Yet we both know that we'll never arrive at a conclusion:

There are no proofs for or against the existence of God (we can't even agree on the rules that would constitute a proof)
Each believes the other is a good person
Community is important

We think it might be time to move forward and find a way that we can take this energy and time we spend fighting each other and use it to better the world.

We're looking for your ideas.

Jeff:

As we continue to debate I keep having this image of Brad and I standing shoulder-to-shoulder drenched by a mounting hurricane sand-bagging a house to protect it from the storm. There is no talk of religion; the storm approaches, so who cares! I don't know why I have this image in my head but there it is. Wouldn't it be better for all of us if we just stood together despite our disagreements and did something for the world.

Brad:

I have been thinking this same thing. We don't have to stop the discussion, but we do have an opportunity here that is profound. Everyone contributing to this blog loves humans. What an amazing opportunity and adventure it would be to take the time, energy, brain-power and resources we have and use it to help others. My friend Jeff is hooked up in a very profound way to what I will simply call a network of creativity. I envision a growing network of something...I just don't know what. I have said elsewhere on the blog and I know Jeff agrees with me that there is no such thing as an insignificant gesture of love.

So folks, our question is this: were we to spend the time we spent today on the blog attacking each other's arguments on something more constructive what would it be?

Ideas:

Set up a micro-grant fund for education. We'll open the fund with $1,000 and then work 50% towards distributing this money to teachers who need it and 50% to increasing the fund amount. We can call it the Second Oldest Question Fund and will report about its progress here on this blog.
Both of us share a love of the arts and know the impact it has on children with special needs. Perhaps we target resourcing an under-funded performing arts program focused on the just such children.
Perhaps there is a way to create not just a social network like Facebook, but a services network where people find a forum for connecting their passions for serving others.
...
...
...

What ideas do you have?

Brad: It's all about Jesus

2007-10-17T08:50:56-07:00

Here's my attempt to answer What's it all about.

Jeff, if there is no God then our argument IS trivial. You and I are simply the product of accidental chemical reactions and our worth only a product of our desire to survive. There is no free will. Your argument is no more rational than mine because even your argument is a product of your desire to thrive. And your desire to thrive is only a product of your chemical reactions set into motion by the previous generation who was only seeking to do the same thing. Even your reaction to the paper you were reading is meaningless. It seems from your world view the care, sympathy, empathy you have toward what's going on in the world, your wife, kids has no meaning other than that which you ascribe it. It's not real outside of your own making. So why get upset by the paper? The victims of violence you read about are nothing more than accidents of nature, and your concern for them only a part of your survival instinct, your hoping it doesn't happen to you.

I'm glad you are convinced Jesus lived. You are wrong, however, that the only evidence for the resurrection is the four Gospels. I would like the chance to present that case. And while Habermas and Craig and the other scholars I will reference do attempt to provide such evidence, I fail to see how their attempts are unethical and a contrivance. They are simply doing what any historian would attempt to do in the case of a proposed ancient event. Both Christian and non-Christians have sought to do so. Your task is simply to look at the evidence they raise and judge for yourself whether it is compelling.

Your analysis of the Gospels, Mark's early authorship, etc. will be addressed, but that is a large undertaking so give me time. You must admit, though, that you are dismissing something which you are assuming rather than something you have studied. Also, can you give me your reference for saying there is more evidence for the Book of Mormon than there is for the Bible?

You ask re: the Gospels, "Why would you put your faith in something so flimsy?" is a question you're asking based on your assumptions not your scholarship. My reasons will be forthcoming.

RE: the miracles of the other people you have mentioned, I don't know whether they are real or not. The Bible actually indicates that others outside of Christ can, did, will perform miracles. Matthew 24.24 says, "For false messiahs and false prophets will rise up and perform great miraculous signs and wonders so as to deceive, if possible, even God's chosen ones." So their miracle-making is not a big deal to me. My faith in Christ is not based ONLY on the resurrection and the miracles. That said, none of the people you have mentioned claim to be the fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham that through one of Abraham's lineage "all the nations of the world will be blessed" (Genesis 12.3). None of the people you have mentioned claim that one day all people will be gathered before them and pass judgment on them. None of them claim the authority to forgive the sins of the world. The miracles of Jesus, Jeff, are only part of the case for Jesus.

Re: your criticism of the evidence for the resurrection being scant, you are diffusing my argument before I've even given it. It's like we're in a court room. You continue to stand and say, "Objection!" but you haven't yet heard all my case. So...sit down and be patient. I deserve my turn.

Re: me starting over. Jeff, you have given me no reason to start over. There is nothing about your worldview or life or the life of those you esteem that would make me want to give up Christianity. When I seek to love God and others, I find the greatest joy. When I don't, I find sorrow. Why would I want to choose sorrow. In addition, I have a church filled with scientists who know far more than you do about its discipline and they all think you're wrong. Even more so, I have encountered scholars whom you have not encountered, who have done the hard work of studying the ancient texts and in so doing have become believers. They witness to me as well that my joy is well-founded.

You remind me of the type of people C. S. Lewis spoke of. He recalls encountering the great writers and artists of history and being able to appreciate their brilliance, but their brilliance was always a bit hollow when compared to great writers and artists of faith. I agree you can still "love, experience joy and sadness, seek answers to hard questions" without being a Christian, but the lives of atheists I know compared to the Christians I know and esteem always seem a shadow of what they could be in comparison.

While you may not be impressed with the scholars I have brought to your attention (my fault in not well presenting them probably), former atheist now deist Antony Flew is. In an article written by a former student who sat down with Flew to discuss the transformation of his worldview to an acknowledgment of a Creator, Flew believes Habermas, with whom he has debated, has made "the most impressive case for Christian theism on the basis of the New Testament writings." When asked, "Who amazes you the most of the defenders of Christian theism?" Flew replied: "I would have to put Alvin Plantinga pretty high." Flew also said of Richard Swinburne (I've mentioned Swinburne, haven't I?), the Oxford philosophy of religion professor, "There is really no competition to him." And while he yet has not acquiesced to Jesus as Lord, Flew wrote in the journal Philosophia Christi: "The evidence for the Resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion." And he has added the case for an empty tomb is "considerably better than I thought previously."

I hope you see, Jeff, that the scholars whom I reference are not head-in-the-sand academics with no respect outside of Christianity. Very smart people have discovered what I have discovered, and we see no reason to start over.

Further reading:
Thinking Straighter: Why the world's most famous atheist now believes in God
Authority of the Bible
There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind by Antony Flew

The New Testament Documents--Are They Reliable?

Jeff: What's it all about

2007-10-15T22:04:29-07:00

Brad

I'm reading the paper and I just can't escape how trivial our argument is in the scheme of things. You're a nice guy. You seem to believe in the core message of Jesus (Love others...). My quarrel isn't really with people like you. Sure, I think you perpetuate superstition but there are so many other things out there in the world that are far worse than anything you are up to.

Anyway...

Here's the score.

I agree that for all intent and purpose Jesus was really a human being who preached a new form of religion that expanded the notion of a personal relationship with the Jewish God.

I don't need any convincing on that score. Jesus lived.

The real question is: was he really a deity, did his death really wash away the sins of the world, was he resurrected?

As far as I know, the only evidence for his resurrection are the four gospels. There is no extra-biblical evidence. (And I am aghast at your author's bald and unethical attempt to contrive some.)

So, perhaps our next turn is to examine the veracity of the gospels.

As I understand it, of the synoptic gospels, Mark is believed to be the source text for Mathew and Luke (or vice versa, that Mark conflated Mathew and Luke to write Mark). Others believe in the Q document as the second source for Mathew and Luke. What seems clear is that few believe they were written by their namesakes. That there was a lot of copying going on. And, for the 4th, it seems there is quite of bit of disagreement over John -- many believing it was written by the apostle John and many believing it was written around 90-100 by an anonymous non-eye witness.

What this all tells me is that there is far too much controversy over the authorship and credibility of these books (even among Christians) to treat them as evidentiary. I know that when someone seeks to simply copy another work, their aim is not to record the truth but to probably create propaganda.

What strikes me as salient here is that the very foundations of the Christian religion are built on these flimsy scraps of papyrus. Take Sathya Sai Baba for example. Here's a guy who is living today. You or I could hop a plane and go visit him right now. Consider those people who are writing about him at this very moment. Consider the scholars, scientists and debunkers who seek to discredit him (and become believers instead). Consider that even now in this age of information that we can't get a straight answer on whether this guy is really performing miracles, has really raised people from the dead: yet, with all this unfolding today before us, you cling to the belief that those scraps from the gospels are evidence of the resurrection of Jesus. We can't confirm or discredit Sathya Sai Baba but you feel confident that you can attest to the authenticity of the gospels by offering them your life's work.

Could they be evidence? Certainly. But, given everything we know about how believers and fanatics actively distort the truth or are actually blinded by their desire to see what they want, why would you choose to put your faith in something so flimsy?

You find evidence in the gospels? We have much more evidence of that sort in the Book of Mormon but do you really believe the Angel Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith?

Mahatma Gandhi's teacher Paramahansa Yogananda claimed to having witnessed resurrections in his lifetime (as well as performing many miracles himself). Do you believe him? You can probably track down living, corroborating witnesses to these resurrections today. But, instead, you choose to believe in the gospel accounts written 2,000 years ago.

William Branham claimed to raise a boy from the dead. That boy is still alive today. Do you believe this miracle? There is more evidence for it than for the resurrection of Jesus.

David Hogan claims to have personally witnessed 28 resurrections. He is alive today. You can travel and meet him. Do you believe these? Their's is first hand evidence available to you right now.

We can never prove that Jesus was or was not resurrected. You can't prove that I am actually sitting here in Portland tonight as I write this. But if you are going to place your faith in something, if you are going to dedicate your life's work to something, why not choose something that has a little more obvious credibility?

Are you actually afraid to go to hell? Is that what motivates you? You've based your entire life's work on not going to hell and helping others to prevent the same? All based on beliefs that you have poor to no evidence of, and all the while surrounded by massive evidence to the contrary.

Are you actually so joyful at the prospect of an eternity at God's side, and do you actually feel the drive to light that way for others? Is that what motivates you? Yet, you base this belief on so little evidence in the face of so much evidence to the contrary.

You say that science relies on faith just like religion does. Let's assume that is true for a moment. What science has going for it with its "faith" (aka theories) is that they are repeatable, extensible and confirmable. They not provable in the sense you would like. But, we can assume that they are true, that we can take real actions in the real world and confirm their truth. This means that experiments can be performed by people other than the original scientists and yield the same outcomes. Further, theories can lead to or even predict other theories and each can confirm themselves independently. You can build on these. And, yes, sometimes you are building a house of cards and it all comes tumbling down. But then science just starts over.

Brad, maybe it's time for you to start over.

With religion you have one theory: Jesus was resurrected. You have no ability to confirm it. You have no unbiased confirmation of it. You have no clear evidence of it. And everything we know about human nature -- about the human ability to see what we choose, to twist the truth, about fanaticism, about group-think about the behavior of cults, about inattentional blindness... everything calls your scant evidence into question.

So, this leaves me where we began this blog. We can never prove or disprove the existence of God, the resurrection of Jesus, none of it. In life you must examine the evidence you have access to, you must listen to your heart and then you must decide.

And, based on the evidence at hand, based on my "heart", based on the mutually inconsistent yet passionately held contradictory belief systems out there, I conclude that Christianity is bunk. Jesus was just a man. And that all of religion is a waste of time and a diversion from what really matters.

I can still live an ethical life. I can still love, experience joy and sadness, seek answers to hard questions. I still have a strong moral compass. And I can do all that and more and completely reject Jesus.

Brad: Let's rumble!

2007-10-15T19:21:40-07:00

Sorry, Jeff, I thought you'd see why it would end after a discussion of Jesus. If Jesus ain't THE JESUS, then what's the point?

I believe the second half of this match has begun, folks! ;-)

Linda? What makes a good case?

Jeff: Not bowing out, ushered out

2007-10-15T19:13:38-07:00

No, Brad. You declared that this next topic would be our last. I'm completely ready to take you task on the validity of Jesus. But I won't do that as a prescribed concluding argument. You want to keep the blog going until it naturally expires, I'm with you. You want to put a limit on it, I'm done.

So, what's it gonna be?