Edited and improved February 25th, 2008.
P-Dunn's comments are in bold.
What would happen if we get down on our knees and pray to God in this way:
Dear God, almighty, all-powerful, all-loving creator of the universe, we pray to you to cure every case of cancer on this planet tonight. We pray in faith, knowing you will bless us as you describe in Matthew 7:7, Matthew 17:20, Matthew 21:21, Mark 11:24, John 14:12-14, Matthew 18:19 and James 5:15-16. In Jesus' name we pray, Amen.
We pray sincerely, knowing that when God answers this completely heartfelt, unselfish, non-materialistic prayer, it will glorify God and help millions of people in remarkable ways. Well, isn't that nice of you...
Will anything happen? No. And the fact that nothing happens proves to us that God is imaginary. No, all it proves is that you're making a terrible mistake. You're misinterpreting all of those verses to suit your interests. Here's why: Jesus makes specific promises in the Bible about how prayer is supposed to work. Correction: the "promises" Jesus makes are far from how you are interpreting them to be. No Christian, even the most hardcore fundamentalist, would agree with you. Christians understand that Jesus was using dramatic orientation, as was quite common in ancient Semetic peoples. We'll get to that in a moment, since you seems to think otherwise, though. Jesus says in many different places that he and God will answer your prayers. But nowhere does he say that God will answer every possible prayer right now. The fact that those promises are untrue tells us that God is imaginary. We'll see, shall we?
For example, in Matthew 7:7 Jesus says:
Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!
Of course, this has nothing to do with prayer until the very last sentence. This whole passage is about judging others and how you should relate to others, and is ripped completely out of context. The very next verse even cites the Golden Rule, confirming that this isn't about prayer, but how you should act towards others. The last sentence, which has a mild reference to prayer, naturally doesn't ever say that God will give you anything you ask for. Even the term "good gifts" varies from each usage. It's "a term which sometimes referred to prosperity generally, but also 'referred to agricultural produce that the righteous would share with with others." That's certainly a terrible way to start off, isn't it?
In Matthew 17:20 Jesus says:
For truly, I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you.
In Matthew 21:21:
I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done. If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.
How intelligent is it to say that Jesus is literally telling everyone, "Go move mountains at your own beck and call?" Never mind that this would cause unnecessary destruction on the planet, possibly altering the very plates of the earth and causing earthquakes all over the world. "Moving mountains" was an ancient Jewish metaphor for accomplishing what was impossible. This man knows nothing about ancient language. Take a look at this passage from The Syrian Christ by Abraham Rihbany.
A case may be overstated or understated, not necessarily for the purpose of deceiving, but to impress the hearer with the significance or insignificance of it. If a sleeper who has been expected to rise at sunrise should oversleep and need to be awakened, say half an hour or an hour later than the appointed time, he is then aroused with the call, 'Arise, it is noon already...' Of a strong and brave man it is said, 'He can split the earth.' The Syrians suffer from no misunderstanding in such cases. They discern each other's meaning.
(Thanks to JP Holding for pointing me to this passage)
Holding also cites a scholar named Keener, who states that, "Early Jewish teaching did celebrate God's kindness in answering prayer, but rarely promises such universal answers to prayer to all of God's people as the language suggests." There were very few people there that were considered that high up enough to ask for "whatever they wanted," but those people had the sense to ask for whatever God's will was.
However, just for fun, let's assume that Jesus was actually speaking literally when he said, "You can move mountains with faith as small as a mustard seed." Well, then you should also note that that the disciples constantly dissappointed him because of their lack of faith. If even they didn't have faith as large as a mustard seed, what makes you think anyone two thousand years later will? I doubt very seriously that anyone has faith as large as a mustard seed. (2/08)
The message is reiterated Mark 11:24:
Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.
Let's assume that Jesus isn't speaking with dramatic orientation here. Let's assume for one moment that he really is speaking literally...Well then, "believe that you have received it," is key here. You can pray any old prayer, but if you don't believe God will answer it, He won't. If you don't believe the prayer has been answered, then it hasn't. Interesting...
In John chapter 14, verses 12 through 14, Jesus tells all of us just how easy prayer can be:
"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father. Whatever you ask in my name, I will do it, that the Father may be glorified in the Son; if you ask anything in my name, I will do it. t
In Matthew 18:19 Jesus says it again:
Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
This is also ripped out of context. This verse is referring to how you should act with Christians who go astray, not a general instruction on how to pray. Verse 18 refers to binding and loosing, a metaphor in Jesus' day to judicial authority. In fact, the term "anything" here in the original translation, "pragma," is frequently used to refer to judicial authority.
(etc. Skipped a few, because this was getting redundant.)
(11/07) Marshall, Jesus himself sets a requirement for prayer in John chapter 15. Here's what he says
"I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you." - John 15:5-7
So we have to remain in Jesus in order for our prayers to be answered. How do we do that, exactly? The passage says it clearly.
"As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father's commands and remain in his love. I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command. 15I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit—fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name. This is my command: Love each other." - John 15:9-17So what Jesus is saying is that if we want to be able to pray and get whatever we ask consistently, we must obey his commands. What's the supreme command? We must love others with the love that God has for us. If we truly love everyone as Jesus is saying, all of the other commands will be no problem to follow.
Nothing could be simpler or clearer than Jesus' promises about prayer in the Bible. Yet, when we pray to eliminate cancer, nothing happens. The fact that Jesus promises to answer our prayers (even impossible ones) but then fails to do so proves to us that God is imaginary. No, you're just reading it in modern English and assuming it's correct. Jesus didn't promise to answer "even [the] impossible" prayers anywhere. If you would like additional proof, gather a million faithful believers together into a giant prayer circle. Sounds like your Amputees segment...Have them all pray together in Jesus' name that God cures every case of cancer on the planet tomorrow. Pray sincerely, knowing that when God answers this completely heartfelt, unselfish, non-materialistic prayer, it will glorify God and help millions of people in remarkable ways. Now, we certainly have two or more people gathered together, and they have asked in Jesus' name, and we have not one but a million faithful believers who, by definition, have faith and believe. We have fulfilled every one of Jesus' requirements. Will Jesus answer the prayer now? Not if you keep promoting this gumball machine way of praying. It is simply false, no matter what way you look at it. Of course not. Your prayer will go unanswered, in direct defiance to Jesus' promises in the Bible. In fact, if you pray for anything that is impossible, your prayer will always go unanswered. Oh, we'll get to that soon. That is because God is imaginary.
"Understanding the Rationalizations"
If Jesus is God, and if God is perfect, why aren't all these verses true? Was Jesus exagerating? Yes, to some extent. Was he fibbing? Well, only if you take him completely hyper-literally. If Jesus is perfect, why wouldn't he speak the truth? Why doesn't a prayer to cure cancer worldwide tomorrow work? Believers have many different ways to explain why all these verses in the Bible do not work, even if you are praying sincerely, unselfishly and non-materialistically, and even if the answer to your prayer would help millions of people and glorify God in the process. Since when did three turn into "many?" I thought you said we had many different ways of explaining things. Oh, I guess you were using dramatic orientation. Were you fibbing? Why don't you "speak the truth?" They will say things like this:
"You need to understand what Jesus was saying in the context the first century civilization in which he was speaking..." Which is important, because the Bible wasn't written yesterday (and shouldn't be read as such) and many things don't apply to us today.
or: "When Jesus talked about 'moving a mountain', he was speaking metaphorically. When someone says, 'it is raining cats and dogs,' no one takes him literally. Jesus was using a figure of speech rather than speaking literally..." Which is really, really obvious.
or: God is not a thing. He is a being. He has a will. He has desires. He relates to people. He has personality traits. Prayer is a fancy word for talking to God. God, who knows everything, even before we say it, knows the difference between our thoughts and wishes, and when we are actually addressing him. He hears our prayers and responds. His responses are based on his personal decisions. We cannot predict how he will respond to our prayers...
There is no real answer given here, so why would you put it up, Brain?
The problem is, all of these rationalizations miss two important points:
God is supposed to be an all-powerful, all-knowing, perfect being.
The statement, "Nothing will be impossible for you", along with the other Bible verses quoted above, are false. The fact is, lots of things are impossible for you. And you still don't get it...If a perfect being is going to make statements about how prayer works in the Bible, then three things are certain: 1) He would speak clearly, and he did. The disciples understood him perfectly, and they were "primitive" first century men. Why can't you? 2) he would say what he means, and he did, and clarified it in John 15. It was an illustration to prove a point of prayer being powerful and a way for that to happen if we keep his supreme command, and 3) he would speak the truth. And he did. That is what "being perfect" is all about. A perfect, all-knowing God would know that people would be reading the Bible 2,000 years later, and therefore he would not use first-century idioms (he would say what he means). Well, then you would complain that no one in the first century would understand it back then. How is that fair to them? He would know that normal people will be reading the Bible and interpreting it in normal ways, so he would speak in such a way as to avoid mis-interpretation (he would speak clearly). In other words, he would give me special treatment so I could understand everything perfectly with no work necessary. That's just plain childish. Using your line of reasoning, you must also consider 1 Kings 9:26 to be in error since the location where Ezion Geber was located is now several miles away from the water and therefore couldn't be a port. Again, the Bible wasn't written yesterday with you in mind. He would know that when you say, "Nothing will be impossible for you", that what it means is, "Nothing will be impossible for you" and he would make sure that the statement "Nothing will be impossible for you" is accurate (he would speak the truth). So if someone prayed, "God, create a rock so big you can't lift it," he must do it, because nothing, not even things that even are impossible for God due to their logical impossiblity, will be impossible for humans? Or, perhaps, if someone were to pray, "God, kill everyone on the planet except for me," he should be obligated to do it, despite it obviously going against every fiber of God's being? If God says it, it should be true -- otherwise he is not perfect. Unfortunately, the fact is that thousands of things are impossible for you no matter how much you pray, and no one (including Jesus) has ever moved a mountain. And nobody has needed to, because we all realize that it's just an illustration and a metaphor for accomplishing what was difficult. In order to see the truth, you need to accept the fact that all of the above verses are wrong. The fact is, God does not answer prayers. The reason why God does not answer your prayers is simple: God is imaginary. Nope. Let me end with some final reasons why this theory of yours is ludicrous.
1) If the disciples, the ones these verses were spoken to, had interpreted these verses hyperliterally like you, Christianity wouldn't be the same today. The moment they had a prayer unanswered, they would have thought Jesus was a liar and would have lost some of their trust in him. If anything, these verses wouldn't be in the Bible in the first place.
2) There are situations where it's not even possible for God to answer the prayer. Suppose one person prays that the Seahawks wins the Super Bowl, while the other prays that the Steelers would win. Naturally, it's impossible for God to answer both of these prayers. Chances are, he wouldn't even answer any of them, really; to answer these would be a violation of the football players' free will to play.You go over this in Chapter 9 of WWGHA, except despite not realizing this flaw in your logic, you simply call Jesus "a liar." This one simple point is crucial to your argument, but you dismiss it as if it were nothing, repeating your vain misinterpretations over and over again.
3) You'll also have to ignore The Lord's Prayer if you're going to pass this off. This prayer clearly tells us to ask for our daily needs, not for a million bucks or a brand new car. In conclusion, your "proof" gives no good reason to stop believing in God. I hope your next 40-some reasons are better than this, but judging by the content on, "Why Won't God Heal Amputees?", it will probably be just a bunch of repetition of this one.
4) You'll have to ignore John 15, which is a very specific qualification on what must be done before you can "ask anything" and have it granted. But you know, if you really did follow that commandment to its full extent, and you were in close with God to that degree, you would know to only ask things that are his will. (11/07)
© Copyright P-Dunn's Apologetics. All rights reserved.
38 comments:
...You're misinterpreting all of those verses to suit your interests....
Right. Just like the thousands of christian sects that can't agree on even the most basic doctrines. Of course, your interpretation is the correct one.
...You can pray any old prayer, but if you don't believe God will answer it, He won't....
Are you telling us that of the the millions of christians who pray for their loved one to have their disease healed, the only percentage that REALLY believe is the same percentage that would have the healing occur by coincidence?
....No, you're just reading it in modern English and assuming it's correct.....
So God failed to make sure his MESSAGE TO MANKIND was correctly translated???
I don't have time to continue, but you can find lot's of interesting discussions at http://www.ex-christian.net
Dan
"Right. Just like the thousands of christian sects that can't agree on even the most basic doctrines. Of course, your interpretation is the correct one."
Dan, I have a challenge for you. Go find me ONE Christian on the face of the earth who interprets the verses saying, "Ask and it will be given to you," to mean that God answers all prayers positively. I promise you that you will not find one, because as Christians, we know that it's not supposed to be taken literally. Your remarks about Christian sects is red and smells like fish...And it's also the Guilt By Association fallacy.
Are you telling us that of the the millions of christians who pray for their loved one to have their disease healed, the only percentage that REALLY believe is the same percentage that would have the healing occur by coincidence?
Notice how before that, I mentioned that this is only the case if the verse really was to be taken literally...However, it's not supposed to. Read what I said before you make straw men.
So God failed to make sure his MESSAGE TO MANKIND was correctly translated???
Note that that's not what I said at all. First, your misinterpreting dictation vs inspiration: God didn't write the Bible, men like Paul did. The doctrine of God dictating the Bible leads to several problems which I'll deal with at your request.
Second, what I meant by this statment is that you shouldn't read the Bible like it's a newspaper. Read the Bible with the proper historical context in mind. Trying to make David seem like a 21st Century American in Bible studies is just as incorrect as making bad assumptions about prayer.
I don't have time to continue, but you can find lot's of interesting discussions at http://www.ex-christian.net
Well, thank you for your response. I'll stick to the TheologyWeb.com forums and Tektonics/Christian-Thinktank, however.
I'll summarize what I think of the entire blog on this first page.
Almost every rebuttal you offer to Marshall's points seems to be a rather disorganized combination of ad hominem attacks, sarcastic quips that never really answer any questions or points, and half-ass antecedotes that seem to serve only as filler. You're often arrogant to the point of making Marshall's arguable egotism seem humble by comparison. You claim that the verses on prayer absolutely cannot be taken hyperliterally but you never explain why not. Most of your counter-arguments are just as repetitive as Marshall's, if not more so, and they never really succesfully counter anything. "Statistically disproving prayer is inherently flawed because there have been many cases in which prayer has been proven to work!" That's a bit like saying that satistically disproving that bad luck is imposed by a black cat crossing your path is flawed because there have been many cases in which bad luck has been found in the victims of jay-walking cats. As Marshall would say, any rational, intelligent person would notice the coincidence.
I suppose I could sum up your entire attempt at rebuking godisimaginary.com with two words, "Nice try." And I'm entirely sincere. It [i]does[/i] look like you put forth intense effort and work into this endeavor of yours, but you ultimately failed to approach any of the points with the same level of intellect that Marshall has. Not the mention the times where you refer to him as an "idiot," among other things. The constant ad hominem just makes the entire blog seem infantile.
-RDS
Hi RDS. Thanks for your input!
Almost every rebuttal you offer to Marshall's points seems to be a rather disorganized combination of ad hominem attacks, sarcastic quips that never really answer any questions or points, and half-ass antecedotes that seem to serve only as filler. You're often arrogant to the point of making Marshall's arguable egotism seem humble by comparison.
And this is a typical non-answer. I wonder if you realize that you saying that I'm resorting to ad hominem and then not actually addressing my arguments is in itself an ad hominem.
You claim that the verses on prayer absolutely cannot be taken hyperliterally but you never explain why not.
Though I'm pretty sure I did explain it at some point, I don't really feel like there's a need to explain it anyway. Since not a single Christian in the world believes that those verses about prayer are literal promises to get anything you want in prayer, it's a strawman of Christianity anyway.
Most of your counter-arguments are just as repetitive as Marshall's, if not more so, and they never really succesfully counter anything.
I think that is because I'm directly responding to every word he says, as I'm sure you noticed. When he repeats himself, I'm therefore forced to repeat myself. I'm not going to just not reply to something in one proof, because I'm not expecting everyone to read the whole thing.
And your point about them "never really countering anything" is up for discussion. You seem to be resorting by ad hominem by not actually addresing my arguments. ;-)
"Statistically disproving prayer is inherently flawed because there have been many cases in which prayer has been proven to work!" That's a bit like saying that satistically disproving that bad luck is imposed by a black cat crossing your path is flawed because there have been many cases in which bad luck has been found in the victims of jay-walking cats. As Marshall would say, any rational, intelligent person would notice the coincidence.
Good point, but I think you missed mine. I reject both kinds of tests: the negative ones and positive ones. I think they miss the point of prayer entirely.
I suppose I could sum up your entire attempt at rebuking godisimaginary.com with two words, "Nice try." And I'm entirely sincere. It [i]does[/i] look like you put forth intense effort and work into this endeavor of yours, but you ultimately failed to approach any of the points with the same level of intellect that Marshall has. Not the mention the times where you refer to him as an "idiot," among other things. The constant ad hominem just makes the entire blog seem infantile.
But you fail to cite many specifics. I realize that this is just an overview comment, but it would help if you actually brought up more things, since you're saying my entire blog fails.
Thanks for the time though...I see you've made another comment that's much more in depth, so we'll see how that goes. That's the kind I like.
The point is that there is zero, none, not any evidence at all hinting that prayer has any impact in any single way. Prayer has zero impact. People who pray talk to themselves.
What happens to make someone a Christian (or part of another cult for that matter) is the chemicals released in your mind during group assembly. Lunatics gather and sing songs and start to feel really good --- they think it is God touching them. Keep in mind that this explanation was made up by people who thought that the world was flat. The world is not flat and that's not God reaching down to you.
The point is that there is zero, none, not any evidence at all hinting that prayer has any impact in any single way. Prayer has zero impact. People who pray talk to themselves.
..."Ladies and gentlemen, that was our resident fundy atheist coming in for his Rant of the Day..."
I guess it's fitting that you say this without actually addressing any of my material. This is about equivalent to me posting a comment on an article by Richard Dawkins that says, "Look. The point is that there is zero, none, not any evidence that evolution is true. God exists."
Let me once again clarify something: there is evidence. No one believes anything without evidence. Where the issue lies is whether it's good evidence. And if you're going to say that there's "zero, none, not any" good evidence that petionary prayer works, you have the burden of proof.
What happens to make someone a Christian (or part of another cult for that matter) is the chemicals released in your mind during group assembly. Lunatics gather and sing songs and start to feel really good --- they think it is God touching them. Keep in mind that this explanation was made up by people who thought that the world was flat. The world is not flat and that's not God reaching down to you.
Yawn. Sounds like someone's bitter over their past and wants to whine about their former Christianity. Spare me.
Of course, I could in turn make the argument that naturalism entails that all of our actions are directly related to chemical reactions in our brain. "If, perhaps, you felt good typing this paragraph up, it's only due to chemicals in your brain, and you're a lunatic, by the way."
I wonder if the knowledge would crush you if you knew that writings about a flat earth were written by pagans before Christians, and all the most prominent heliocentrists who rejected the flat earth theory (Galileo, Copernicus, etc) were Christians. I guess we'll find out, huh?
"...Ladies and gentlemen, that concludes our Rant of the Day. Now we'll be interviewing Ben Witherington..."
I'll be brief, as Dan, RDS, and J have covered much of what I would say as well.
* Overall, a good try at a rebuttal.
* If you use personal attacks you have to make up for them with such strength in other places that they are forgivable or -- better -- understandable. Did you succeed? To me, no. To the others, this also seems to be no.
* Take a look at the footnotes. I don't know if they were there when you posted your original rebuttal.
Keep in mind that repetition is not always inappropriate. It is commonly used as a didactic tool.
Because the audience of the web site includes believers in the Christian God, it is reasonable to think that they may automatically discount or discard many statements made by atheists. Repetition eliminates the chance that such Christians can say "No, they really didn't mean that so I'll forget it since everyone believes in God/prayer/... " when that isn't the case at all.
Finally, because of the tone and style of the rebuttal was not offset by enough insight, I think it's going to be hard to interest anyone to read all of your replies.
Andy
Hi, Andy. You seem like a good guy.
I'll be brief, as Dan, RDS, and J have covered much of what I would say as well.
* Overall, a good try at a rebuttal.
Thank you.
* If you use personal attacks you have to make up for them with such strength in other places that they are forgivable or -- better -- understandable. Did you succeed? To me, no. To the others, this also seems to be no.
It's good to see that someone finally shares my view of sarcasm. I'll only use "personal attacks" if I'm backing them up.
I personally think that I made some serious points that Marshall has yet to address. If it is posited that the verses are hyperbole, not literal promises, then the problem evaporates completely. He's also never answered my point about the Gospel authors.
* Take a look at the footnotes. I don't know if they were there when you posted your original rebuttal.
I did to respond to the footnotes. I went and read them again, just to check. He may have edited them since I responded to them, but it's nothing that I haven't addressed in another place on this blog.
Keep in mind that repetition is not always inappropriate. It is commonly used as a didactic tool.
True, but it does get rather tiresome.
Because the audience of the web site includes believers in the Christian God, it is reasonable to think that they may automatically discount or discard many statements made by atheists. Repetition eliminates the chance that such Christians can say "No, they really didn't mean that so I'll forget it since everyone believes in God/prayer/... " when that isn't the case at all.
I think it's hardly possible for someone to think that "everyone believes in God/prayer" when viewing a website called GodIsImaginary.com. But I suppose you have a point there.
Finally, because of the tone and style of the rebuttal was not offset by enough insight, I think it's going to be hard to interest anyone to read all of your replies.
I'll work on that.
Andy
Patrick.
Thanks for the constructive criticism.
Dan, the rebuttals here for Brian's website are absolutely horrible. He's using your own book to refute you and you're countering by saying the Bible isn't literal? We call that shooting yourself in the foot in modern day English, how do you interpret that?
Dan, the rebuttals here for Brian's website are absolutely horrible. He's using your own book to refute you and you're countering by saying the Bible isn't literal? We call that shooting yourself in the foot in modern day English, how do you interpret that?
And here's the hit-and-run skeptic once again, using his typical hurling the elephant tactic and not actually answering anything! How about that, folks!
I'll wait for you to back up any of that. Should be funny.
I've read a number of your refutations, and I must say that I find them unconvincing. Your arguments are frequently disingenuous and misleading; and your repeated reliance on sarcasm and ad hominem attacks (already pointed out by other posters here) doesn't amount to legitimate argument. For now I'll confine my comments to your refutation of proof 1.
You twice assert that WWGHA cites biblical passages "out of context," and thereby wrings some improper or unintended meaning out of the words. Yet in both cases your judgement about what constitutes proper "context," and indeed about the meaning of the passages themselves, is both arbitrary and at variance with standard interpretations.
You claim that Matthew 7:7 is not really about prayer, but rather about judging other people. Yet, as is almost always the case, Jesus' discourse in Matt. 7 is discursive and wandering. The chapter opens with remarks about judgements, but already by Matt. 7:6 the subject has changed. Here we have the famous but obscure lines about throwing pearls before swine. The verses at Matt. 7:7-11 are yet another thematic unit, and they clearly constitute promises that requests made to the heavenly father will be fulfilled. And the fact that your "Golden Rule" occurs in the subsequent verse, Matt. 7:12, does not refute the obvious impression that Matt. 7:7-11 is about prayer.
If you are still confused about how to interpret Matt. 7:7-11, maybe you should consult some standard commentary on the verses. They have long been interpreted as referencing prayer; in fact, many Bible translations reflect this traditional interpretation in their subheadings.
You make a similar mistake when you assert that Matt. 18:19 has been taken out of context and that it is really part of a passage on fraternal correction. Once more, you overlook the plain meaning of the words, the discursive nature of the discourse, and the traditional interpretation of the text. Verses 15-17 are clearly about correcting those who have strayed, verse 18 is probably an indirect reference to the necessity of forgiveness, and verses 19-20 address the efficacy of prayer.
I also think the point you borrow from Rihbany is obfuscatory. Exaggeration is just as much a feature of modern language as it is of ancient discourse. We are, of course, more familiar with our own habits of exaggerating than with those of other periods and cultures, so I accept that there is the potential for confusion. But if Jesus is exaggerating here, where else is he exaggerating? Maybe when Jesus promised to rebuild the temple of his body in three days, he was just exagerrating a little? Maybe the authors of the Gospels exaggerated too, say in their reports about the resurrection? It is inconsistent to interpret as deliberate overstatements only those passages that make falsifiable claims about the availability of divine assistance. Do you at least have a standard for determining where Jesus is speaking literally and where he is speaking figuratively?
Your reasoning is faulty in another respect as well. Today, most Christians look to the Bible for guidance with regard to every aspect of their lives. As a result, they treat the book like a legal document; this is why they provide it with chapter and verse divisions, and why it has accumulated so many glosses, interprations, commentary and related scholarship. Legal texts have received exactly the same historical treatment. And this is only to be expected: entire theological and moral arguments hang on the wording of various passages. Given this state of affairs, it is missing the point to defend Jesus' supposed use of first-century idioms as natural. If we are to posit that Jesus, as God, foresaw that his every utterance would be the subject of millenia of study and scrutiny, we really do have to ask why he didn't speak more clearly and precisely. His moral instruction should at least meet the standards of other early administrative and legislative texts (Justinian comes to mind). He was founding a religion, and yet in the Gospels he looks like a travelling magician giving speeches intended to comfort his poor and oppressed audiences, while spouting various religious and mystical inanities.
As for the three numbered points you include at the end of your discussion:
1) The gospel narratives do not supply us with the disciples' reactions to Jesus' teaching. It is speculation on your part that "Christianity wouldn't be the same today" if they had taken Jesus' promises about prayer literally. Where early Christian interpretations of Jesus' teaching are recorded, we see that these interpretions were in fact literal. Many of Jesus' followers quite clearly thought, for example, that Jesus was going to return within their lifetimes, in accordance with statements that Jesus made in this direction. In your discussion of verses like Matt. 7:7, you speculate about the interpretation of the disciples and then use this to argue about what Jesus meant. Are you also willing to argue that Jesus literally intended to complete the Second Coming in the lifetime of his disciples because contemporaries are reported to have taken this statement literally?
2) You say that "There are situations where it's not even possible for God to answer the prayer." I don't understand where this gets you. The point, clearly made throughout WWGHA, is that Jesus' promise is illogical and impossible.
3) The text known as the Lord's Prayer nowhere says that you cannot ask for "a million bucks or a brand new car." It does encourage us to ask for our daily needs, but it does not stipulate that we should only ask for these things.
Hi, eck. Thanks for the response. Would you happen to be Steven Van Eck, or am I mistaken? If so, then I've read some of your stuff.
I've read a number of your refutations, and I must say that I find them unconvincing.
I'm sorry to hear that.
Your arguments are frequently disingenuous and misleading; and your repeated reliance on sarcasm and ad hominem attacks (already pointed out by other posters here) doesn't amount to legitimate argument.
I will, yet again, point out that an ad hominem attack is not merely an insult, or "sarcasm," but an argument about the person instead of what he's arguing, without actually addressing anything of relevance. I've done no such thing.
For now I'll confine my comments to your refutation of proof 1.
You twice assert that WWGHA cites biblical passages "out of context," and thereby wrings some improper or unintended meaning out of the words. Yet in both cases your judgement about what constitutes proper "context," and indeed about the meaning of the passages themselves, is both arbitrary and at variance with standard interpretations.
Standard interpretations meaning what? The opinion of the general public, who wouldn't know a Biblical commentary if it hit them in the face?
You claim that Matthew 7:7 is not really about prayer, but rather about judging other people. Yet, as is almost always the case, Jesus' discourse in Matt. 7 is discursive and wandering. The chapter opens with remarks about judgements, but already by Matt. 7:6 the subject has changed. Here we have the famous but obscure lines about throwing pearls before swine. The verses at Matt. 7:7-11 are yet another thematic unit, and they clearly constitute promises that requests made to the heavenly father will be fulfilled. And the fact that your "Golden Rule" occurs in the subsequent verse, Matt. 7:12, does not refute the obvious impression that Matt. 7:7-11 is about prayer.
Yet a hint at prayer isn't even mentioned until after Jesus instructs you to give to those around you. And even then, it doesn't guarantee that you will always get a positive answer.
This sort of verse comes with a restriction: if you are "evil" and don't give to those who ask you, then God won't give you anything either. That should directly show that Brain's idea is false.
If you are still confused about how to interpret Matt. 7:7-11, maybe you should consult some standard commentary on the verses. They have long been interpreted as referencing prayer; in fact, many Bible translations reflect this traditional interpretation in their subheadings.
Even so, this verse doesn't support Marshall Brain's belief that "You can ask ANYTHING in prayer, no matter what, and you'll get it." That sort of mantra is not remotely in the verse.
You make a similar mistake when you assert that Matt. 18:19 has been taken out of context and that it is really part of a passage on fraternal correction. Once more, you overlook the plain meaning of the words, the discursive nature of the discourse, and the traditional interpretation of the text. Verses 15-17 are clearly about correcting those who have strayed, verse 18 is probably an indirect reference to the necessity of forgiveness, and verses 19-20 address the efficacy of prayer.
Did you notice the expansion on the previous verse? Verse 19 starts out with the statement, "Again I say unto you," which means it's elaborating on the same point of the previous verses. Thus, whatever verse 19 says is restricted to whatever 18 said.
I also think the point you borrow from Rihbany is obfuscatory. Exaggeration is just as much a feature of modern language as it is of ancient discourse. We are, of course, more familiar with our own habits of exaggerating than with those of other periods and cultures, so I accept that there is the potential for confusion.
If the point you are trying to make is that ancient people are stupid, then that makes you a bigot. It's unwise to go down this road.
But if Jesus is exaggerating here, where else is he exaggerating? Maybe when Jesus promised to rebuild the temple of his body in three days, he was just exagerrating a little?
This is a completely different type of scenario. If the Bible is true here, then Jesus DID do this. He wasn't exaggerating if he really did.
Maybe the authors of the Gospels exaggerated too, say in their reports about the resurrection?
That is to be argued. Saying that one thing is exaggerated means that everything could be exaggerated isn't valid any more than saying that since Jesus spoke in parables, everything he spoke was a parable.
It is inconsistent to interpret as deliberate overstatements only those passages that make falsifiable claims about the availability of divine assistance.
Who says those are the "only" passages that I say are deliberate overstatements? Have you read any of my material on Jesus's statements regarding Hell, by any chance? Do you really think that I interpret his parables as literal, rather than deliberate overstatements as well?
Do you at least have a standard for determining where Jesus is speaking literally and where he is speaking figuratively?
Exegesis and commentary does just fine. I find it informative that no scholar has the opinion that Matthew 18:19 really means you get literally whatever you ask for in prayer, no matter what.
Your reasoning is faulty in another respect as well. Today, most Christians look to the Bible for guidance with regard to every aspect of their lives. As a result, they treat the book like a legal document; this is why they provide it with chapter and verse divisions, and why it has accumulated so many glosses, interprations, commentary and related scholarship. Legal texts have received exactly the same historical treatment. And this is only to be expected: entire theological and moral arguments hang on the wording of various passages.
I'll add that no critical doctrine of Christianity is dependent on any of these verses being hyperliteral.
Given this state of affairs, it is missing the point to defend Jesus' supposed use of first-century idioms as natural. If we are to posit that Jesus, as God, foresaw that his every utterance would be the subject of millenia of study and scrutiny, we really do have to ask why he didn't speak more clearly and precisely.
This argument is incredibly common, and almost everytime I hear it, it becomes more ludicrous to me.
Are you really telling me that because God foresaw an extreme minority of people actually believing that Matthew 17:20 means, "Ask whatever and you'll get it immediately, no questions asked," then he should have put a disclaimer at the bottom? Now that we're on this subject, why isn't there a cure for cancer in the Bible, or why isn't pi written out to the 154th digit? Why doesn't the Bible speak of nuclear weapons, or Adolf Hitler?
It should be very telling to you that the things were not included because they are not needed. We Christians understand my point perfectly fine. Do you care to take up my challenge of finding one Christain who interprets these verses as literally as Marshall does?
His moral instruction should at least meet the standards of other early administrative and legislative texts (Justinian comes to mind).
Out of curiosity, how do you define what is a good moral standard, and by what definition of morality do you say that Jesus's was inferior to anyone elses?
Your suggestion of Justinian is odd, since he didn't live until during the 500s AD.
He was founding a religion, and yet in the Gospels he looks like a travelling magician
Have you ever seen a travelling magician feed 5000 people using a boxed lunch, or raise someone from the dead, or heal a cripple or a blind man?
Your statement here is rather ignorant. If they had described him like a "traveling magician," then the tales of his miracles would have been filled with lots of embellishment and fanciful description. What we do find is that the non-miraculous events are described with the exact same style as the miraculous.
giving speeches intended to comfort his poor and oppressed audiences,
...Like the Pharisees?
This makes me question how much you've actually read the stories about Jesus. There are many times where he criticizes and condemns people for their sins, which doesn't comfort anyone. Most of his moral advices are nearly impossible to follow..."Be perfect, as your father in Heaven is perfect,"..."Whoever looks at a woman with lust has committed adultery..." None of those would have comforted anyone. It would have given them a terrible realization that nothing THEY could do could get them into heaven.
while spouting various religious and mystical inanities.
...Soundbite. Care to back this up?
As for the three numbered points you include at the end of your discussion:
1) The gospel narratives do not supply us with the disciples' reactions to Jesus' teaching. It is speculation on your part that "Christianity wouldn't be the same today" if they had taken Jesus' promises about prayer literally. Where early Christian interpretations of Jesus' teaching are recorded, we see that these interpretions were in fact literal. Many of Jesus' followers quite clearly thought, for example, that Jesus was going to return within their lifetimes, in accordance with statements that Jesus made in this direction.
Well, what a surprise...He did.
It's called "partial preterism." Look it up, then come back and talk.
In your discussion of verses like Matt. 7:7, you speculate about the interpretation of the disciples and then use this to argue about what Jesus meant. Are you also willing to argue that Jesus literally intended to complete the Second Coming in the lifetime of his disciples because contemporaries are reported to have taken this statement literally?
Once again, partial preterism.
I think you completely missed my point. These statements by Jesus would have been incredibly easy to test. Just one prayer not answered as a "Yes," and Jesus is a liar. You undoubtedly don't believe that God answered all of their prayers, so why do you believe it's even in there at all? The gospel authors certainly didn't want Jesus to look like a liar in their story.
This has nothing to do with Jesus doing something "because" his followers took it literally.
2) You say that "There are situations where it's not even possible for God to answer the prayer." I don't understand where this gets you. The point, clearly made throughout WWGHA, is that Jesus' promise is illogical and impossible.
If Jesus was really God, which Marshall Brain does a terrible job of addressing, then he would certainly be aware of his own capabilities. He would certainly know that he can't answer a prayer to make 2+2=593, for example.
3) The text known as the Lord's Prayer nowhere says that you cannot ask for "a million bucks or a brand new car." It does encourage us to ask for our daily needs, but it does not stipulate that we should only ask for these things.
Yet, when you think about it, this is Jesus telling his believers how to pray. He's setting the standard.
So to go against the standard is to go against what Jesus instructs. That's usually not a good idea for Christians, I suppose.
Dear Patrick Dunnevant,
Presumably you are an apologist, and so presumably you wish to mount convincing arguments. This makes your constant resort to sarcasm and sophistries puzzling.
Examples of ad hominem attacks in your refutations: the author of WWGHA is "hypocritical" (which can have no bearing on the validity of his arguments), "he doesn't know good sources" (which again is irrelevant), etc. But I'm not writing to defend him from your statements; I have no idea who he is. I am writing about your arguments.
When I talk about standard interpretations of the Bible, I mean traditional Christian interpretations. We have the benefit of something approaching 1900 years of scholarship on the New Testament, and not surprisingly most of the verses have come to acquire standard interpretations (even though most of the public may be unaware of this). The two passages we are arguing about, Matt. 7 and Matt. 18, clearly constitute promises about what one can receive in prayer. My point is that these promises are not modified or diminished given the context, and you apparently have nothing to say against that.
You write that Verse 19 starts out with the statement, "Again I say unto you," which means it's elaborating on the same point of the previous verses. Thus, whatever verse 19 says is restricted to whatever 18 said. Of course this must be disingenuous on your part. The several Greek phrases which are rendered with English phrases like "Again I say unto you..." are not strict logical connectors, but are rather used loosely for transitions. Matt. 18:19 does not expand on verse 18 in any conceivable way; there is a thematic shift between the two.
If the point you are trying to make is that ancient people are stupid, then that makes you a bigot. It's unwise to go down this road. I don't really care to take a position on the intelligence of ancient people. The clear purpose of my words is to suggest that your citation of R. is really about differing idiom between languages and cultures.
You still have not elaborated upon your standard for determining which verses are "exaggerations" and which are not. The Bible, I'm sure you can appreciate, is not homogenously true or false, as you seem to suggest. One plausible scenario is that Jesus' promise to rebuild the temple of his body in three days was an exaggeration, which then led the authors of the Gospels to compose fictional resurrection narratives to fulfill it. This is how many ancient narratives are built--piecemeal, in elaboration upon previous suggestions, by many people. I do not say that because one thing is exaggerated everything is; I say that once you open the door to treating falsifiable statements of Jesus as exaggerations, you have to consider the possibility that many of his other statements bear less than their literal meaning. And about Jesus' words regarding hell: most Christians would agree with you that these are figurative (delivered, as they are, in opaque parables), but I think few would agree that they are "overstatements."
You say that you find it informative that no scholar has the opinion that Matthew 18:19 really means you get literally whatever you ask for in prayer, no matter what. What does this inform you about? This circumstance has no bearing on how the language was originally intended. Christian scholars, or at least the more intelligent among them, for obvious reasons seek to avoid literal interpretations of any statement of Jesus that might be falsified. But there is ample room to believe that many of these statements were intended literally.
Are you really telling me that because God foresaw an extreme minority of people actually believing that Matthew 17:20 means, "Ask whatever and you'll get it immediately, no questions asked," then he should have put a disclaimer at the bottom? Sometimes I think you confuse your own beliefs with my own. I would of course expect any vaguely intelligent entity with a knowledge of the future, who foresaw that his statements would be studied religiously and closely interpreted, would not spend so much time speaking figuratively at all. I would expect such a person to say what he means, and to be clear about it; I would not expect him to speak in opaque and (by your own argument) outdated and localized metaphors. I cite Justinian as an example that contemporaries of Jesus could and did use language with far more precision than he did. Though Justinian was a sixth-century emperor, his Corpus Juris Civilis is a compilation of the writings of jurists from throughout Roman history (including the period during which Jesus lived) . So referring to the standards of Justinian is shorthand for the legal standards of the Roman empire. When I talk about "standards," I am not talking about Jesus' supposed "moral standards," but standards of expositive clarity, something many ancient writers achieved without too much effort.
Have you ever seen a travelling magician feed 5000 people using a boxed lunch, or raise someone from the dead, or heal a cripple or a blind man? Of course not. But history is full of examples of people we might call "magicians" who make extraordinary claims for themselves, who never actually demonstrate any supernatural power, and who are subsequently revered as miracle workers by their followers or those with an interest in promoting their cult.
If they had described him like a "traveling magician," then the tales of his miracles would have been filled with lots of embellishment and fanciful description. What we do find is that the non-miraculous events are described with the exact same style as the miraculous. This is all speculation on your part. In fact, if you care to take even a brief look at the vast corpus of hagiographical literature written during the ancient and medieval periods, you will see that accounts of miraculous events take a variety of forms, among them the pseudo-historical, in which miraculous events are related just as historical ones are. The opposite is also true: what look at first to be nothing more than fanciful and embellished accounts turn out to contain quite accurate historical information. Cf. the Illiad and the Odyssey in this regard. The point is, the tone of an account proves absolutely nothing.
Preterism, full or partial, is besides the point, and again I think you are being obfuscatory. The theological position of the preterists was a later attempt to rationalize difficult statements like Matt. 24:34 and Luke 21:32. But your own argument suggests that the interpretation of Jesus' disciples provides clues to Jesus' intended meaning (a point I disagree with, but I am only trying to point out your logical inconsistency). From Paul (whose writings all date before 70), we know that eschatology was the central focus of many early Christian communities; in this they had clearly been inspired by the unambiguous rhetoric of Jesus recorded in Matt. 24 and elsewhere. Does their interpretation show that Jesus' statements in Matt. 24:34 are to be taken literally? If so the preterists look to be in trouble.
And I haven't missed your point; I just disagree that it would have occurred to the disciples to subject Jesus' pronouncements to scientific tests, or that the authors of the Gospels would have eliminated all falsifiable claims attributed in their sources to Jesus, before passing them on to us. Though it seems obvious today, resorting to experimental "tests" was not a practice that seems to have occurred to many people before the Enlightenment. This is why we had to wait until the early modern period to discover that acceleration due to gravity does not vary with respect to the weight of the falling object (an easily tested and falsifiable hypothesis).
With respect to the Lord's Prayer as a "standard," you say: So to go against the standard is to go against what Jesus instructs. I don't think you seriously believe this; Christians pray for many things not included in the standard of the Lord's prayer. If all the material support one may ask for is one's daily bread, how do we explain all the Christian prayers asking for other things? The recovered health of a relative, world peace, a safe trip, and many other standard subjects of Christian prayer also do not figure in the Lord's Prayer. Are these sinful or doomed to go unfulfilled? Maybe this is why studies have failed to show that praying for recovery fails to improve the health of the prayed-for?
I apologize for yet another post, but I wanted to offer some further criticism of your project here, which I think apply to much of Christian apologetics more generally (especially in its more modern form).
Christians, in their attempts to defend their beliefs and evangelize others, frequently display a very off-putting intellectual arrogance and condescension, and your blogged responses are no exception. I suspect that this is because many Christians believe that they have inside, specialized knowledge that their poor deluded opponents are just too ignorant or blinded to understand. You frequently feign the impatience and irritation of a kindergarten teacher trying to explain simple mathematical concepts to schoolchildren.
The very title of your blog, "Brain is ignorant," sets the tone for a discussion that is disappointing for the most part because you underestimate your opponent. You say, for example, that "he repeats himself way too much," that "he talks down to theists" (the pot calling the kettle black indeed), that "he is hypocritical," and poorly informed. In every one of these statements you miss the point. WWGHA cultivates a certain tone common to much textbook literature, in part I am sure for humorous effect; this accounts for nearly all the repetition that you claim is tedious. Like any science textbook (and most religious textbooks, to be honest), WWGHA repeats the same standard phrases over and over again, resorts constantly to a limited set of concepts, and in so doing actually manages to be rather funny (a number of people have told me so).
WWGHA talks down to theists in the same way that most evangelistic rhetoric talks down to the evangelized. Again, this is a carefully cultivated feature of the text. It is not as openly confrontational as your responses, but is nevertheless especially humorous to anyone who has experience with proselytization.
I also believe that the sources used in WWGHA are intentionally limited. The project of the website is clearly to discuss Christian beliefs from the perspective of the Bible itself. When the author does resort to extra-biblical literature, he is careful to stick to the most widely read and widely available texts--hence citations to the Da Vinci Code. Yet this limitation of scope does not do harm to the arguments presented in WWGHA, so I don't see why it troubles you. It is another intentional and cultivated feature of the website. If you want less-limited refutations of Christianity, they're all over the place. WWGHA does something that is rather unique.
Most Christian apologists would do well to realize that anyone who is bothering to argue with them about the existence of God or the history of the New Testament or any other related topics, probably knows as much about these matters as they do. Christians, in my experience, tend to believe that through years of church attendance and scriptural study they have built up formidable knowledge bases that their opponents don't have access to. They thus deign to inform people like the author of WWGHA about what certain biblical passages "really mean," or what Christians "really believe," as opposed to the supposed misconceptions. This means that they rarely engage arguments rigorously, and rely on simple assertions grounded in their own habits of belief and interpretation. This is unfortunate, because (though you often don't realize it), your opponents are for the most part sincere and thoughtful. It is disappointing that you can't return the favor.
I think you would do better, both in your responses to comments and in your larger project of "proof" refutation, to avoid the condecension, give a little more ground, stop making claims about the general beliefs of Christians, and abandon the sarcasm. I am very well acquainted with the beliefs of Christians, and by all appearances so are the author of WWGHA and the other posters here.
To return again to "proof 1": many Christians clearly do interpret the "prayer" passages cited here literally; there is an entire movement of evangelists, mostly in America, who assert that, with sufficient faith, Christians can have whatever they want through prayer. They tend to take material wealth as an indication of piety. So a literal interpretation of these passages is not as absurd as you claim.
As I read further through your refutation of the proofs, I see that the quality of your argument only declines. You seem to miss the entire point of the "proof 7," which is that Christian beliefs are not supported by any more or any less evidence than other religious beliefs like Mormonism or Islam. You are not a Mormon, presumably because you find the assertions of the religion, together with the available evidence, unconvincing. But your own beliefs are not supported by a body of evidence that is any more substantial. There are Christians who find this point powerful and think a lot about it. Why are you so quick to shrug it off? It almost seems defensive on your part.
I apologize for yet another post, but I wanted to offer some further criticism of your project here, which I think apply to much of Christian apologetics more generally (especially in its more modern form).
No need to apologize.
Christians, in their attempts to defend their beliefs and evangelize others, frequently display a very off-putting intellectual arrogance and condescension, and your blogged responses are no exception.
Atheists, in their attempts to defend their beliefs and evangelize others, frequently do the same thing. But this doesn't make their point, or mine, incorrect.
I suspect that this is because many Christians believe that they have inside, specialized knowledge that their poor deluded opponents are just too ignorant or blinded to understand.
Again, I can't even count the amount of times that an atheist has said this about me. Many atheists seem to think that all Christians are deluded and ignorant. That doesn't make them right, or me wrong.
You frequently feign the impatience and irritation of a kindergarten teacher trying to explain simple mathematical concepts to schoolchildren.
It's not always feigning.
The very title of your blog, "Brain is ignorant," sets the tone for a discussion that is disappointing for the most part because you underestimate your opponent.
Since when is calling someone "ignorant," and insult?
You say, for example, that "he repeats himself way too much," that "he talks down to theists" (the pot calling the kettle black indeed), that "he is hypocritical," and poorly informed. In every one of these statements you miss the point. WWGHA cultivates a certain tone common to much textbook literature, in part I am sure for humorous effect; this accounts for nearly all the repetition that you claim is tedious. Like any science textbook (and most religious textbooks, to be honest), WWGHA repeats the same standard phrases over and over again, resorts constantly to a limited set of concepts,
I don't recall ANY religios textbook, or science textbook, copying verbatim what it said on another page. Yet I can point you to several examples of Brain doing this.
and in so doing actually manages to be rather funny (a number of people have told me so).
People have told you so, huh?
So I guess I should trade new information for humor, then? As long as I'm funny, I can just repeat myself over and over again?
WWGHA talks down to theists in the same way that most evangelistic rhetoric talks down to the evangelized.
What sort of "evangelistic rhetoric" do you speak of? The Way of the Master, for instance, which is one of the biggest and widely used evangelical methods out there, doesn't talk down to anybody. It doesn't accuse them of having a mind disease, or deluding themselves, or any of that.
Again, this is a carefully cultivated feature of the text. It is not as openly confrontational as your responses, but is nevertheless especially humorous to anyone who has experience with proselytization.
Interesting that you mention proselytization, seeing as that's really what GII is in the first place.
I also disagree when you say it's not as openly confrontational. When you have an article that spends a great deal of time trying to say that "Jesus is a jerk," you are automatically confrontational, especially when you do it in as misinformed of a way he did.
I also believe that the sources used in WWGHA are intentionally limited. The project of the website is clearly to discuss Christian beliefs from the perspective of the Bible itself.
Yet when one has such a poor understanding of the Bible, it doesn't look very good on their part.
When the author does resort to extra-biblical literature, he is careful to stick to the most widely read and widely available texts--hence citations to the Da Vinci Code.
But why? Why use something that's fiction, of all things?
Yet this limitation of scope does not do harm to the arguments presented in WWGHA, so I don't see why it troubles you.
Of course it does. He uses The Da Vinci Code to say that Mithraitic beliefs influenced Christianity. Yet real scholars of Mithra disagree. So Brain is using something that's popular, portraying it as accurate, but he doesn't consult anything else to make sure it is accurate.
It is another intentional and cultivated feature of the website. If you want less-limited refutations of Christianity, they're all over the place. WWGHA does something that is rather unique.
Wait, a dumbed-down version written for the average joe who reads The Da Vinci Code is "unique?"
Most Christian apologists would do well to realize that anyone who is bothering to argue with them about the existence of God or the history of the New Testament or any other related topics, probably knows as much about these matters as they do.
This is utter nonsense.
Have you ever been to an atheist forum, by any chance? There are many atheists I've encountered who most likely became atheists because of bad experiences in the church, and the extent of their arguments is something like, "I prayed for a million dollars and God didn't give it to me, therefore he doesn't exist." They are quite clearly more ignorant than many other atheists in the world. So for you to say that anyone who argues the existence of God with apologists is automatically equal in knowledge with the apologists is ridiculous.
Christians, in my experience, tend to believe that through years of church attendance and scriptural study they have built up formidable knowledge bases that their opponents don't have access to.
They do. But that's usually not as effective as reading study guides of the Bible, or attending apologetics conferences, not just church.
They thus deign to inform people like the author of WWGHA about what certain biblical passages "really mean," or what Christians "really believe," as opposed to the supposed misconceptions.
I'm waiting for you to point me to one Christian in the entire world who interprets any of those verses like Brain does. Please.
This means that they rarely engage arguments rigorously, and rely on simple assertions grounded in their own habits of belief and interpretation. This is unfortunate, because (though you often don't realize it), your opponents are for the most part sincere and thoughtful. It is disappointing that you can't return the favor.
I think you would do better, both in your responses to comments and in your larger project of "proof" refutation, to avoid the condecension, give a little more ground, stop making claims about the general beliefs of Christians, and abandon the sarcasm. I am very well acquainted with the beliefs of Christians, and by all appearances so are the author of WWGHA and the other posters here.
To return again to "proof 1": many Christians clearly do interpret the "prayer" passages cited here literally; there is an entire movement of evangelists, mostly in America, who assert that, with sufficient faith, Christians can have whatever they want through prayer. They tend to take material wealth as an indication of piety. So a literal interpretation of these passages is not as absurd as you claim.
There's a distinct difference here, however. Brain says that these verses mean you'll get whatever you want immediately, no matter what. It's not always about "how much faith you have" or any of that stuff. He really thinks this is a literal mandate to ask whatever you want, whenever you want, and you'll get it.
The evangelical groups I've encountered fully recognize that this is not true.
As I read further through your refutation of the proofs, I see that the quality of your argument only declines. You seem to miss the entire point of the "proof 7," which is that Christian beliefs are not supported by any more or any less evidence than other religious beliefs like Mormonism or Islam.
Clearly, this shows your ignorance of these two religions. If you sincerely think that Mormonism and Islam are both supported with equal amounts of evidence as Christianity, then you really haven't researched anything at all.
You are not a Mormon, presumably because you find the assertions of the religion, together with the available evidence, unconvincing.
What available evidence do you speak of? For example, we haven't found any archeological confirmation of ANY of the relics of the supposed kingdom in America. Nothing. Not even one chariot wheel.
But your own beliefs are not supported by a body of evidence that is any more substantial.
Please substantiate this. Really. This should be hilarious.
There are Christians who find this point powerful and think a lot about it.
Good. If a Christian were to really think hard about the statement, "Your religion has no more evidence than Islam," then they would look and see if that's even true. And they would see how laughable that really is.
Why are you so quick to shrug it off? It almost seems defensive on your part.
Because it's completely nonsensical. Here's an article you should check out:
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html
Read it and you'll see some strong historical evidence for Christianity. And you'll also notice that at the bottom, it goes and compares, by coincidence it seems, Mormonism and Islam to see if the same type of evidence also applies. Most of them do not. In this, we see that there is more historical backing for Christianity, at least in these respects, than Islam and Mormonism.
And thus, Marshall's and your point is refuted.
My criticisms of the tone of your blog were not intended to demonstrate that I am right or that you are wrong. They were intended to suggest how you might make your argument more effective, or at least less abrasive.
The precise accuracy of Dan Brown's confused statements about Mithraism is less important than the wider point: Christianity, like any religion, is little more than an agglomeration of various religious and philosophical ideas and influences.
You say I'm waiting for you to point me to one Christian in the entire world who interprets any of those verses like Brain does. Please.
You don't seem to realize that whatever Christians may believe about what Jesus' statements mean has absolutely no bearing on how those statements were originally intended. I am not arguing about what Christians say the Gospel says; I am arguing simply about what it says. I expect the Christian beliefs to be full of rationalizations and thus actually a bad guide for establishing the meaning of passages like Matt. 7:7.
If you sincerely think that Mormonism and Islam are both supported with equal amounts of evidence as Christianity, then you really haven't researched anything at all.
The evidence for Christianity, Mormonism and Islam is indeed equal. In each case there is a text that provides a central religious narrative surrounding a prophet figure. This text also sets out a series of doctrinal points. The content of all three texts is generally assumed to have been revealed by God, but there is no evidence for this. In each case there are contemporaries who claim to have witnessed supernatural confirmations of the validity of these revelations. In each case there are also contemporary and unaffiliated historical accounts; for obvious reasons the coverage in this case is better for Mormonism than for Christianity or Islam. (They are especially thin for early Christianity.) But these accounts really have very little bearing at all on the tenets of the religion in question. And that's about it for positive evidence.
I have looked at the article by Holding on tektonics that is supposed to show "strong historical evidence" for Christianity. It provides no historical evidence at all: not one iota. The entire text is devoted to asserting that Christianity is an "Impossible Faith." That it survives today, Holding argues, and that it is such a shining example of "How Not to Start an Ancient Religion," somehow means that it is true. The supposed "comparisons" with Mormonism, Islam and Mithraism consist almost entirely of assertions that these religions are somehow less "impossible" (or "more survivable," I guess one might say) and thus somehow less likely to be true. That all of these arguments are deeply speculative and subjective need hardly be mentioned. That the perceived "probability" or "impossibility" of a religion has no bearing on whether or not it is true should be obvious. And, finally, "strong historical evidence" doesn't come through speculation about how likely a given religion is to survive, but through discovery and analysis of primary source documents. These documents do not provide anything adding up to "strong historical evidence." That's why people like Holding are reduced to making such peculiar arguments in the first place.
My criticisms of the tone of your blog were not intended to demonstrate that I am right or that you are wrong. They were intended to suggest how you might make your argument more effective, or at least less abrasive.
Okay.
The precise accuracy of Dan Brown's confused statements about Mithraism is less important than the wider point: Christianity, like any religion, is little more than an agglomeration of various religious and philosophical ideas and influences.
Please give me an example of this.
You say I'm waiting for you to point me to one Christian in the entire world who interprets any of those verses like Brain does. Please.
You don't seem to realize that whatever Christians may believe about what Jesus' statements mean has absolutely no bearing on how those statements were originally intended. I am not arguing about what Christians say the Gospel says; I am arguing simply about what it says.
And yet, you really dodged my point about how the disciples didn't interpret it in the way you are. You merely pointed to an example of something they did take literally, and I showed you how it was a valid interpretation. Now please address my point.
Show me why they were even included if the authors thought they were literal promises to get anything, ANYTHING, in prayer, despite all the scriptural mandates saying when prayer will be answered and when it won't.
I expect the Christian beliefs to be full of rationalizations and thus actually a bad guide for establishing the meaning of passages like Matt. 7:7.
That's a fine example of poisoning the well. You assume from the outset that Christians are rationalizing. This promises to be a great discussion, knowing that you merely assume that anything I have to say about it is wrong from the outset...*sigh*
It's less of a "rationalization" and more of a "using the interpretaion that actually makes sense in the context of scripture."
The evidence for Christianity, Mormonism and Islam is indeed equal. In each case there is a text that provides a central religious narrative surrounding a prophet figure. This text also sets out a series of doctrinal points. The content of all three texts is generally assumed to have been revealed by God, but there is no evidence for this.
What would you consider to be "evidence" of God's revealing to man?
I hope you don't answer with something like, "Well, if it has the millionth digit of pi, then it's inspired."
In each case there are contemporaries who claim to have witnessed supernatural confirmations of the validity of these revelations.
And it's your contention that all of these are equally false, or have equal amounts of evidence, then?
In each case there are also contemporary and unaffiliated historical accounts; for obvious reasons the coverage in this case is better for Mormonism than for Christianity or Islam. (They are especially thin for early Christianity.) But these accounts really have very little bearing at all on the tenets of the religion in question. And that's about it for positive evidence.
Oh, I see. So basically, the only evidence for Christianity being true is what's written down in the Bible. We have no archeological evidence whatsoever that backs this up, and so therefore, the Biblical Archeological Society is completely wasting its time. We have no secular accounts that back up anything that is written here, (except Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny, Celsus...but those are too late, and therefore wrong!) All the historians who study the ancient creeds that can be dated as early as five years of the time of Christ are also wasting their time...That's not evidence, of course.
Here's a newsflash, Eck...If we have found anything outside of the Bible that backs up the accounts of the Gospels, then that is evidence for the Gospels, and Christianity, being true. You're going to sit here with a straight face and tell me that there's NOTHING outside the Bible that backs it up?
I have looked at the article by Holding on tektonics that is supposed to show "strong historical evidence" for Christianity. It provides no historical evidence at all: not one iota. The entire text is devoted to asserting that Christianity is an "Impossible Faith." That it survives today, Holding argues, and that it is such a shining example of "How Not to Start an Ancient Religion," somehow means that it is true. The supposed "comparisons" with Mormonism, Islam and Mithraism consist almost entirely of assertions that these religions are somehow less "impossible" (or "more survivable," I guess one might say) and thus somehow less likely to be true.
They're actually showing how Islam and Mormonism did not have these obstacles to overcome.
Islam was spread by the sword, as you may know.
That all of these arguments are deeply speculative and subjective need hardly be mentioned.
Yes. Holding is merely speculating about the social context of the Hebrews, their view of shame, and how they lived their lives. He has no historical data to back that up. He's just making subjective judgments about what sounds nice, and putting it in there.
*rolls eyes again*
That the perceived "probability" or "impossibility" of a religion has no bearing on whether or not it is true should be obvious.
Folks, that's a true non-answer right here!
And, finally, "strong historical evidence" doesn't come through speculation about how likely a given religion is to survive, but through discovery and analysis of primary source documents.
You seem to forget that we do have primary source documents.
Of course, you most likely don't believe that the Disciples wrote the Gospels, because that would go against what your worldview tells you. But if you ever care to actually examine the evidence for the authorship of the Gospels, Holding has written an excellent article on the subject, showing that we have more evidence that the Disciples wrote the Gospels than we have for Tacitus writing the Annals.
These documents do not provide anything adding up to "strong historical evidence." That's why people like Holding are reduced to making such peculiar arguments in the first place.
Well, that really counters all the historical oppositions to Christianity. Man, that just throws away all the shame of the crucifixion, all the social obstacles...
You'll be recieving a Screwball Award from him in the future. ;-)
Oh, and by the way, Eck...
It would be great if you could register on TheologyWeb.com and debate me there. There are lots of people to debate with, including Holding if you're interested in squaring off with him on The Impossible Faith.
I just want to be totally clear. You're saying that the book that was inspired by an all-knowing deity can't be taken literally when read in modern English because we have to take everything in the proper context, that of the first century primitives who wrote it. You're also saying that your all-loving God is cool with all the problems and suffering in the world, and doesn't feel obliged to do anything about it, because we're doing it to ourselves. We, who were created by this all-powerful, all-knowing God, are causing all this ourselves, so it's not his job to clean up after us. But he loves us.
I just want to be totally clear. You're saying that the book that was inspired by an all-knowing deity can't be taken literally when read in modern English because we have to take everything in the proper context, that of the first century primitives who wrote it.
No, not exactly.
First of all, being inspired by an all-knowing deity is QUITE different from being literally spoken. Atheists seem to have a common misconception that "inspiration" means "dictation," when that's not at all what is going on here.
Secondly, we can't take it literally because it wasn't meant to be taken literally. I think I've demonstrated this.
You're also saying that your all-loving God is cool with all the problems and suffering in the world,
No, he's not "cool" with it. That's false.
and doesn't feel obliged to do anything about it, because we're doing it to ourselves.
That's not what I said either. What I said is that we can fix the problem ourselves, but we choose not to. He's done his part already.
We, who were created by this all-powerful, all-knowing God, are causing all this ourselves, so it's not his job to clean up after us.
Again, change "causing all this ourselves" to "able to fix all of this ourselves and are told to do it, in fact."
But he loves us.
Sure he does.
(I posted the following comment ages ago. It never appeared; perhaps you're tired of reading these things. But I thought I'd try one more time, just to be sure.)
Patrick:
I fear that I have no interest in registering at TheologyWeb.com. I only began writing to you in the first place because I was interested in what Christian responses to Marshall Brain's arguments might look like. These essays, which I know seem foolish to you, are an attempt to draw out your arguments, because I want to understand them. So if you don't mind I will confine my writing to your blog.
On assuming rationalization: It is not "poisoning the well" to suspect that certain Christian interpretations of certain biblical passages may contain rationalizations. Because most Christians are very personally invested in how these passages are to be interpreted, I prefer not to use their interpretations as a guide. I do not say that they are definitely rationalized, but that they may be, and that I find it a more useful exercise first to ask what objective interpretations a passage might lend itself to, how it has historically been read, and then to compare these to what Christians say about a passage.
And yet, you really dodged my point about how the disciples didn't interpret it in the way you are. You merely pointed to an example of something they did take literally, and I showed you how it was a valid interpretation. Now please address my point.
I did address your point; the post I made never appeared and I suspect it was lost. To summarize what I said earlier: we have no evidence for how the disciples interpreted Matt. 7:7, if indeed Jesus ever preached it to them. So any interpretations based upon what you think their reactions might have been are speculative. I disagree that their reaction would have been to test prayer had they interpreted the sentiment of Matt. 7:7 literally; only with the advent of rationalism did it occur to people that claims about reality were to be systematically tested. This is why we had to wait until relatively recently to discover, for example, that the acceleration of objects due to gravity is not proportional to their mass.
I suspect that we are talking past each other as far as the evidence for Christianity. The historical evidence certainly points to the existence of a man named Jesus. He appears to have been the protege of another, similar desert prophet/mystic named John the Baptist. He collected a number of disciples, impressed crowds with his eloquence, was perhaps held to have magical powers, and was eventually executed by Roman authorities worried about the political and social stability of Judaea. There is, however, no credible evidence for the following: that Jesus was the son of God or in any way divine, that he actually wielded miraculous power or healed anyone (in a medical sense, anyway), or that he rose from the dead. The only texts to make these claims come from within the Christian community and are therefore suspect, to say the least. A portion of these texts were canonized by later Christians (beginning with the councils of Nicaea), resulting in the New Testament. After this process of canonization many of the excluded texts about Jesus were lost because nobody was interested in them anymore. This process, which took place in the third and fourth centuries, is a further reason to suspect the reliability of our Christian evidence. Most of the evidence survives only because it appealed to the beliefs and convictions of Christians living several centuries after the fact. The texts of other Christian traditions like Gnosticism, neither more nor less valid or reliable than our Gospels, have been systematically weeded out. Our picture of early Christianity and what it had to say about Jesus is thus skewed.
The independent historians you refer to do not substantiate any of the supernatural claims made by the Christian evangelistic texts. I do not discount these historians because they are "late"; rather, I think their testimony is very valuable. Josephus makes only brief mention of Jesus; the Testimonium Flavianum is full of later, Christian interpolations. (If I am not mistaken, even "The Case for Christ" accepts that the crucial portions of this passage are later additions: there's really no way around it.) Tacitus tells us merely that the procurator Pontius Pilate executed someone named Christus; he refers to the proto-Christianity of the first century scornfully, as a "superstition." Pliny's letter to Trajan refers to the Christians and mentions that they worship Christ as if he were a God. Again, not surprising. Celsus claims that Jesus was a "man" and similarly heaps scorn upon the Christians (and the Jews). There are other ancient historians who mention the Christians or Christ as well, but they are all similar in one respect: they only substantiate, in vague terms, that Jesus existed and that his followers were Christians. These points are not really in dispute; certainly I accept them. These historians have nothing to say about Jesus' divinity and give us only vague information about what the early Christians actually believed. So they do not substantiate the "religious" portion of the narrative. In fact, a look through all these ancient texts only underlines one crucial point: the only texts making claims for the supernatural powers and origins of Jesus are Christian texts written by true believers. This ought to make us pause.
Archaeology is, sadly, limited to substantiating the non-religious portions of the Christian narrative, and as such it can provide no evidence bearing on the supernatural claims made for Jesus.
As far as arguments of the "impossible faith" sort: they are based on one large unsubstantiated assumption. This is that beliefs that are "true" somehow have an advantage over those that are "untrue," and that this advantage can overcome otherwise unappealing aspects of these beliefs. The corollary to this assumption is that other beliefs which have spread widely but are "untrue" must be somehow inherently appealing. Holding argues from both assumptions, but never explains why we should subscribe to either of them. He cherry-picks points of Christianity that he thinks would have been unappealing to contemporaries, and then compares Mormonism, Islam, and Mithraism on these points and finds all three religions less impossible on each point. If he had asked the opposite question, namely "why was Christianity so successful?", which is the sort of question historians ask, he would have come away with some more interesting answers, and realized that he has grasped a lot of issues from the wrong way around.
I will make an example out of his first "factor": Crucifixion, he argues, becuase it is associated with shame, is an unlikely thing to build a religion around and threfore contributes to the impossibility of Christianity. Obviously there is a certain amount of shame associated with being executed as a criminal; this is as true today as it was in first-century Palestine. But this is a tricky argument: it is just as likely to explain the rapid spread of Christianity as to make it a problem. The crucifixion of Jesus, together with the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70, immediately precipitated widespread proselytization efforts on the part of early Christians. Interestingly, the death of Joseph Smith brought about intense evangelization efforts among early Mormons as well. In fact, we find that whenever the core beliefs of groups of people are violently and suddenly challenged, they do not drop these beliefs but instead rush to convince others of them. This is part of a much-studied psychological phenomenon known as cognitive dissonance, and appears related to the need to convince oneself through the convincing of others. So we see that the crucifixion of Jesus may well explain why the early disciples were so committed to evangelization.
Either you or Holding can label me a "screwball" all you want; but I would be disappointed if this is all you do, because I'm trying to understand what you think, not to provoke insults. Your tendency to retreat into sighs of exasperation and exaggerated and unsubstantiated claims of your opponent's ignorance are not going to convince anybody. If you believe you are right, why not take me seriously and give me honest responses? Sophistry is a reassurance to believers, but utterly pointless to the unconvinced.
E.C.K.
Hey patrick! I actually find your arguments a joy to read because of the tinge of sarcasm in them. I'm not in the right position to pinpoint any flaws in your arguments or what the people before me have posted because I've only recently began to read up on them. I affirm you for the faith you possessed in the rebuttal of many of the arguments directed at Christianity. However, one thing to take note is that humility is key to softening the hardened hearts of people. Direct responses are only going to invite even more retaliation. If the purpose of this web site serves to glorify God and to advance His kingdom, then use it to its fullest potential! Acts 20:18-20.
This is a premature post. I have not had time to review comments or beyond chapter one. However, i will request my comments addressed as I read. This way things do not pile up for me. I am an anti-christian agnostic. I have not created a google account but can be reached at: schwartz-associates@comcast.net
"The very next verse even cites the Golden Rule,"
The golden rule existed way before Christ. Someone need only read Burton Mack. If you are very serious that same person only need to take a course on Egyptology.
"How intelligent is it to say that Jesus is literally telling everyone, "Go move mountains at your own beck and call?""
How intelligent is it to assume the dead rise? Burning bushes talk? An invisible man created the known world ex-nihlo, fish eat people, people turn to salt? How intelligent is it to assume based on faith your god is right and allah is not - how rude.
"Never mind that this would cause unnecessary destruction on the planet, possibly altering the very plates of the earth and causing earthquakes all over the world."
And.... I miss the point...
""Moving mountains" was an ancient Jewish metaphor for accomplishing what was impossible."
Please, in hebrew if possible, as you obviously read the language offer 5 references where this well known and established metaphor has been used. Include as much detail as possible.
"Take a look at this passage from The Syrian Christ by Rihbany."
Abraham Mitrie Rihbany (1869-1944) This is not an ancient source. Have you read the book, I'd suggest you do. I would also suggest looking at and understanding modern scholarship.
"Let's assume that Jesus isn't speaking with dramatic orientation here. Let's assume for one moment that he really is speaking literally...Well then, "believe that you have recieved it," is key here. You can pray any old prayer, but if you don't believe God will answer it, He won't. If you don't believe the prayer has been answered, then it hasn't. Interesting..."
I do not understand this argument? I have known many a good christian who prayed for things until they died and did not get them. I have known many a convinced prayer who believed but did not get.
My daughter is one - by the way.
**"dramatic orientation"
I get what you are doing with that word. Everyone google.com the word, put it in quotes. Then quote it with the words: Science & Jesus. Pay very close attention to all the Jesus hits. Notice how many seem to talk about Brian. Now the same for science. The point here theists think if they borrow terms from science and apply them to theology it makes their argument scientific, give us a break.
"No, you're just reading it in modern English and assuming it's correct"
Your grasp of ancient Hebrew is obviously much better than anyone I have ever met. When reading the bible can you please reference all your resources? I am also interested in reviewing the correct ancient Hebrew - thank you.
"Not if you keep promoting this gumball machine way of praying. It is simply false, no matter what way you look at it"
Obviously Muslims pray incorrectly as do buddhists. This means billions are bad. Can you please provide us with the correct instructions on prayer being sure to quote and reference the instruction manual in ancient hebrew(As this seems so important to you).
"Only if you take it literally, again."
When speaking of the OT & NT what methods are used to decipher which sections are ment to be literal and which not? Why were you blessed with this knowledge and 10s of millions have not been? Speaking of 3rd world countries quite possibly hundreds of millions.
This is a premature post. I have not had time to review comments or beyond chapter one. However, i will request my comments addressed as I read. This way things do not pile up for me.
Well, that's normally how I do things too.
I am an anti-christian agnostic.
Oh great. I can tell this is going to be an objective and fair analysis, seeing as you admit your biased from the start.
I have not created a google account but can be reached at: schwartz-associates@comcast.net
"The very next verse even cites the Golden Rule,"
The golden rule existed way before Christ. Someone need only read Burton Mack. If you are very serious that same person only need to take a course on Egyptology.
Of course, this is totally irrelevant, Mr. Anonymous. Someone else jumped to this conclusion once too. It doesn't matter that the Golden Rule was created before Christ...I already was aware of that. In fact, the reasons we see the same sort of morality throughout culture is because it works.
The point I was trying to make was that since this verse is making a point about morality, we shouldn't decontextualize it so say it means something about prayer. It doesn't matter what morality or who's morality it is. What matters is that the verse is about morality, not prayer. Does that make sense?
"How intelligent is it to say that Jesus is literally telling everyone, "Go move mountains at your own beck and call?""
How intelligent is it to assume the dead rise? Burning bushes talk? An invisible man created the known world ex-nihlo, fish eat people, people turn to salt?
This, Mr. Anonymous, is a bait-and-switch argument. Rather than addressing my question, you go ahead and switch the question around, making it once again completely irrelevant. See, I could turn right around and say, "How intelligent is it to assume that the world was spontaneously created ex-nihilo by nothing whatsoever?" but that would be just as invalid as what you did, and it wouldn't provide reasonable argument.
Please address my original question.
How intelligent is it to assume based on faith your god is right and allah is not - how rude.
I see that you're now delving into plurlism, which sadly isn't a wise decision on your part. But before I get into that, I will touch on a few assumptions that you have that are incorrect.
I'm not "assuming" anything. I believe what I believe because the evidence supports it logically.
I'm not believing anything "based on faith." Well, technically I am, but not the kind of "faith" you're thinking of. When someone says faith to you, you think "blind leap in the dark with something without any evidence." But the kind of faith that I'm talking about, the kind supported by the Biblical pistis, is trust based on evidence. Here's an illustration.
I have faith that when I get on an airplane, I will get safely to my destination. That is not based on blindness. I have trust that the pilot is experienced enough, since it's a major airline, and I trust he's sober enough to fly the plane to his normal capacity. That's faith, and it's no different with Christianity.
Anyway...If Christianity is right, then by definition, Islam is wrong. Christianity says that Jesus rose from the dead after dying on the cross. Islam says that he didn't even die on the cross. These can't both be right at the same time. It doesn't matter how "rude" it is to say that someone else is wrong if they actually are wrong. Either one of us is wrong or we're both wrong, but we can't both be right.
"Never mind that this would cause unnecessary destruction on the planet, possibly altering the very plates of the earth and causing earthquakes all over the world."
And.... I miss the point...
I was pointing out how silly it would be if Jesus' command was actually literal and encouraged.
""Moving mountains" was an ancient Jewish metaphor for accomplishing what was impossible."
Please, in hebrew if possible, as you obviously read the language offer 5 references where this well known and established metaphor has been used. Include as much detail as possible.
Certainly. Give me some time to do some research, and I will provide you with some examples.
"Take a look at this passage from The Syrian Christ by Rihbany."
Abraham Mitrie Rihbany (1869-1944) This is not an ancient source. Have you read the book, I'd suggest you do. I would also suggest looking at and understanding modern scholarship.
I suspect that what you did here was search him on Wikipedia and conclude he must not be a valid source, seeing as there's very little information about him.
It doesn't matter frankly if he's not an ancient source. I was giving him as an authority on ancient life. He was a scholar of New Testament and of the Ancient Near East, and he was from Syria, so he knows what the culture is and was. He's a valid authority in terms of modern scholarship, as his book is still used today.
"Let's assume that Jesus isn't speaking with dramatic orientation here. Let's assume for one moment that he really is speaking literally...Well then, "believe that you have recieved it," is key here. You can pray any old prayer, but if you don't believe God will answer it, He won't. If you don't believe the prayer has been answered, then it hasn't. Interesting..."
I do not understand this argument? I have known many a good christian who prayed for things until they died and did not get them. I have known many a convinced prayer who believed but did not get.
My daughter is one - by the way.
Which is why beforehand I said, "Let's assume that Jesus ISN'T speaking metaphorically."
But if he wasn't, I suppose they weren't convinced enough. ;-)
**"dramatic orientation"
I get what you are doing with that word. Everyone google.com the word, put it in quotes. Then quote it with the words: Science & Jesus. Pay very close attention to all the Jesus hits. Notice how many seem to talk about Brian. Now the same for science. The point here theists think if they borrow terms from science and apply them to theology it makes their argument scientific, give us a break.
I'm sorry Mr. Anonymous, but that really was a poor and lazy argument you just made. First, you admit that you have no understanding whatsoever of what "dramatic orientation" is; it's basically a fancy term for "exaggeration." Then, because you have no understanding, you admit that all you do is Google things and base your understanding on that. This is not valid coming from someone who accuses me of not being in tune with modern scholarship. If you were, you would certainly know what dramatic orientation is.
"No, you're just reading it in modern English and assuming it's correct"
Your grasp of ancient Hebrew is obviously much better than anyone I have ever met. When reading the bible can you please reference all your resources? I am also interested in reviewing the correct ancient Hebrew - thank you.
A good place to start is commentary by scholars of the subject. Try the commentary of Ben Witherington, who is one of the most respected scholars in the field.
You can also try any lexicons you wish. I would recommend here as a start for that.
"Not if you keep promoting this gumball machine way of praying. It is simply false, no matter what way you look at it"
Obviously Muslims pray incorrectly as do buddhists. This means billions are bad.
I'm not really sure what this has to do with anything, but I suspect that you are one again moving towards the pluralism argument.
If Christians are praying to the right God, then by definition, Muslims and Buddhists are praying to the wrong one. It's as simple as that, and it's logically inescapable.
That doesn't make them "bad" however. It just makes them "wrong." Certainly you would concieve that you are wrong on certain things, and so would I. But that doesn't make us bad people, it just makes us people.
Can you please provide us with the correct instructions on prayer being sure to quote and reference the instruction manual in ancient hebrew(As this seems so important to you).
Try the Lord's Prayer, which is literally Jesus's instruction on how to pray. Notice that it doesn't really concern itself with asking for anything that doesn't first suit God's will, or asking for things that will only promote yourself.
But as you're interested in the original language, here it is:
Πάτερ ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς•
ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου•
ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου•
γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου, ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς•
τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δὸς ἡμῖν σήμερον•
καὶ ἄφες ἡμῖν τὰ ὀφειλήματα ἡμῶν,
ὡς καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀφίεμεν τοῖς ὀφειλέταις ἡμῶν•
καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν,
ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ.
[Ὅτι σοῦ ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία καὶ ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. ἀμήν.]
"Only if you take it literally, again."
When speaking of the OT & NT what methods are used to decipher which sections are ment to be literal and which not?
This is a common question that's easier than you think it is.
The main tool that is used to discern the literal from the non-literal is something called "research" and something called "exegesis." We exegete the passage from it's original language, we compare it to other manuscripts having similar meaning, and we then research the linguistics and the societal factors to see if it is literal.
This is what scholars of New Testament and Old Testament do, and many of them have written commentaries on the subject.
Why were you blessed with this knowledge and 10s of millions have not been? Speaking of 3rd world countries quite possibly hundreds of millions.
Because "10s of millions" or "hundreds of millions" of people aren't willing to put forth the effort of going to a bookstore and reading a commentary.
Most people don't need to, however. As I said, I haven't found a single Christian who interprets the verses in question like Brain does. Not one.
Mr. Anonymous,
I have a few examples for you of that particular metaphor being used by ancient Jews. A friend from over here helped me out on this one.
A scholar named Keener has given us several references for this. Note that rabbis usually used this metaphor for labor in the Torah. If you don't know who these people are, you can look them up on www.jewishencyclopedia.com.
Abot de Rabbi Nathan - 6A, 12, 29B
Berakot - 63B
Sanhedrin - 24A
Happy researching.
Well, I stumbled on a different one (I think Proof 3) and then started from the beginning.
I'm just rolling with laughter at all your comments in this one. You sit there and tell us what we already know; now go tell the Christians that the Bible is a big metaphorical work of human-interpreted art. They're the ones who claim you can literally move mountains, heal people, etc., so forth.
I know, I was one of them. Why? Because I grew up amongst them and that's all I knew. The Bible was literally the word of God, every word of it, because God wouldn't allow mortal man to screw it up.
Every argument you have is either wrong (I didn't see any on this proof), or you're preaching to the choir (so to speak. . . lol).
Patrick, I will freely admit that I didn't bother reading your refutation because it is late and I felt that other commenters had already criticized it well enough (especially ECK, who I am inclined to agree with).
I would just like to point out 2 things:
1.
"Oh great. I can tell this is going to be an objective and fair analysis, seeing as you admit your biased from the start." -your comment in response to an anonymous commenter
I hardly see how this is a fault. We all have our biases (you should know this as well as anyone), and since this is the case, is it not better to admit that you have them?
2. Islam was spread by the sword.
And Christianity wasn't? I invite you to investigate the Teutonic Crusade against pagan Lithuania, Livonia, etc. among many others.
If you're assuming that because a religion was spread through conquest, it must be inferior, then Mormonism, Scientology, etc. should be the ultimate religions as they fought no battles!
Patrick, I will freely admit that I didn't bother reading your refutation because it is late and I felt that other commenters had already criticized it well enough (especially ECK, who I am inclined to agree with).
How could you know if commenters criticized it "well enough" if you haven't even read it?
I would just like to point out 2 things:
1.
"Oh great. I can tell this is going to be an objective and fair analysis, seeing as you admit your biased from the start." -your comment in response to an anonymous commenter
I hardly see how this is a fault. We all have our biases (you should know this as well as anyone), and since this is the case, is it not better to admit that you have them?
And yet, when someone openly admits that they are anti-Christian, hostile to Christian viewpoints, then they are admitting themselves to be more biased than the usual.
2. Islam was spread by the sword.
And Christianity wasn't? I invite you to investigate the Teutonic Crusade against pagan Lithuania, Livonia, etc. among many others.
I don't really see your point. All of those took place hundreds years after Christianity had taken a prominent place in society, after it had spread without killing or taking over cities, but instead went through years of execution of its members and public ridicule.
If you're assuming that because a religion was spread through conquest, it must be inferior, then Mormonism, Scientology, etc. should be the ultimate religions as they fought no battles!
I'm saying that if a religion has to kill people and conquer cities in order to get off the ground, they are lacking in something else: convincing power.
But, after all, that doesn't mean it's not true. And that doesn't mean those other religions are true because they didn't fight battles. That would be fallacious logic, wouldn't it now?
..im not much on speaches so i will make this really short...
I want to thank you for these posts pat as i find them enjoyable to read and has a bunch of wisdom. even though there appears to be a lot of opposition against you i pray that you dont stop with what your doing.
your brother in Christ,
Dave
Thanks, Dave. It means a lot.
forgot to mention... Jesus did promis that everyones prayers will be answered, though one of the requirements is that when you pray for something that its not a "i want this and if you dont give it to me i hate you" type of thing.. whenever Jesus mentioned how to pray he always said something like "let your will be done, not mine" (i know its a paraphrase but thats in essence what he said in "the lord's prayer" and as far as answering goes, he only has 3 answers, yes, no, and wait. so if you dont get a yes right away than hes either saying no or wait.
Dave
All prayers are answered, just not necessarily the way you want them. God will give you what is good for you.
Hello. Firstly, I would like to congratulate you on this. I REALLY needed these answered because my faith has been extremely rocky and Brain's statements nearly killed it until I came across this. You make excellent points and I see you work VERY hard to make sure everything is answered. Again congrats.
I do have some questions though.
1. You say that we have to believe something would happen in order for it to actually happen.
How do you know we don't believe something will happen. For example when I was a kid I had a sick Guinea pig. I prayed to God to make it better and I was quite convinced it would. So it was quite traumatic for me when it died. This contradicts what you said about prayers being answered on God's will not ours. Another counter-example is this. I was swamped with tests and homework for the next day and there was no way I could get it all done. It was winter and the weather report said there was a slight chance of snow for the next day although they weren't expecting much. I prayed to God for a snow day not really believing anything would happen. So to my pleasant surprise school was cancelled the next day.
2.Yes, Jesus words were written with a first century viewpoint. But I fail to see why they couldn't both understand it perfectly back then AND today. If it was inspired then why coudn't we BOTH understand it equally.
3. Again if the Bible was inspired by God shouldn't it be completely clear what is metaphoric and what is literal. I still find it weird that God would make his word so difficult to understand or us leaving out books or having unnecessary books in the Bible.
I look forward to you response.
Your friend.
Hi, Anonymous. I'm glad you enjoyed reading it, and I'm happy to answer your questions.
1. You say that we have to believe something would happen in order for it to actually happen.
Well, not exactly. I was merely analyzing the verse itself. Since Marshall Brain tends to take a very literal interpretation of the Bible, I was merely going by what the scripture says, and using his interperative method to reach it's conclusion.
Brain seems to think that the Bible says you can ask anything, regardless of what your faith is like, and get it. But he says so, even citing verses that say you have to believe you've received it, or love one another, etc etc, with qualifications that he doesn't seem to realize. Even if you do interpret the scripture hyperliterally, you shouldn't come to his conclusion. That's what I was trying to demonstrate.
2.Yes, Jesus words were written with a first century viewpoint. But I fail to see why they couldn't both understand it perfectly back then AND today. If it was inspired then why coudn't we BOTH understand it equally.
Before you think so, however, think about how much our society has progressed in two thousand years. Think of how much our society has progressed in one hundred years. Twenty years. Five years. Now, add on another two thousand years from now. How much do you think we will have progressed in two thousand years, given how much we've progressed since the turn of the century alone?
Now, imagine that you have in your possession (for the sake of argument) a document written two thousand years in the future. At this point, everything will have changed. The terminology will be much different. New slang terms will have emerged. They'll be referring to all sorts of world events and technology that you can't even dream of. Do you think that you will be able to understand this document?
3. Again if the Bible was inspired by God shouldn't it be completely clear what is metaphoric and what is literal. I still find it weird that God would make his word so difficult to understand or us leaving out books or having unnecessary books in the Bible.
I'm not sure I understand this sort of argument. Do you believe there should be an addendum after every verse stating [LITERAL] or [METAPHORICAL]? I don't see why such a method is necessary.
I don't see that the Bible is really that difficult to understand, proving one puts in the necessary research and effort to understand it. Merely reading it and slapping an interpretation on it (as Marshall Brain does) is one thing, but reading exegesis and commentary, examining the ancient language, and comparing it to other works of literature is another thing. Since the Bible is an ancient document, we must treat it like we would an ancient document. Do you understand what I'm trying to say?
Thanks for reading, and I'm glad I could help you in your faith. Here are some other websites that encouraged mine:
http://www.tektonics.org
http://www.christian-thinktank.com
I don't know about anyone else, but most of the atheists I know are willing to admit they're wrong and convert to religion if given proof, that they accept, that god is real. (In most cases if he just appears to them physically, even for a few minutes in their lifetime and absolutely nothing else). Yet all people of faith (of all religions) I know are NEVER willing to accept that they might be wrong.
This is a good refutal of a preposterous argument. I disagree with many of the stuff you say on this blog, but this page actually makes sense, along with a few others.
Why, oh why, are intelligent people trying to use rational discussion to counter this tripe?
It is patently obvious that the author of this blog is an individual who is not interested in a rational discussion.
His constant resort to sarcasm and condescencion, his indifference to the detail presented by his atheistic protagonists, means that he should really just be ignored - it's not worth wasting any time countering his flimsy argumentation. Really it's just like shooting ducks in a barrel, for goodness sake. That some very sincere and well-meaning people have wasted considerable time putting together carefully constructed responses to this bilge would be laughable if it weren't so tragic... the fact is that the arguments speak for themselves, they don't merit any response - any person of average intelligence will see that Marshall Brain's is using impartial reason and logic whereas this nonsense is nothing but the response one would expect from a cornered hardline bible-toting fundamentalist.
Man, I thought you were talking about the original atheistic essay for a second. Almost everything you said can easily be applied to Brain, perhaps more so than it can be for me.
Why on earth did you waste ten minutes making a comment if you thought it was wasteful?
Typical. Don't address the points I've made, just make vague comments.
Try again.
Post a Comment