Yes, that's right, ladies and gentlemen! Marshall Brain has released yet another silly video on his websites. Thankfully, comments are disabled on YouTube this time...I was beginning to get sick to my stomach from all the, "This video is unbeatable," ramblings. There's no transcript of the video available, so I'll go through each "step" one by one.
Oh wait. First he says, "Hell promises to be a place of eternal torment in a lake of fire." Well, no it doesn't, as I've shown here. Let's get that out of the way right now.
Step One: Love God, Love Your Neighbor
Brain gives a passage from Luke 10, which says:
On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
"What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"
He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"
"You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live."
It's quite easy to misinterpret this verse to mean, "Do good things and you'll get into heaven." However, the Bible is clear that works alone do not save you. So why is this a misinterpretation?
Well, you have to check this whole verse out. The guy Jesus is speaking to is a lawyer, which back in that day was someone who was a scholar of Biblical law. His question is hypocritical: He wants to challenge Jesus. He's no seeker. So he asks, "What must I do to get eternal life?" And, essentially, Jesus asks, "Well what you you know? What do you think, according to the law that you study? What does the Law say?" And he has put the lawyer on the spot. The lawyer knows nobody can keep the entire law. To be justified under the law, you have to be perfect. Notice how the verse then says that the lawyer tries to justify himself. Jesus isn't teaching works. "He is actually teaching that doing good works (law keeping) cannot save anyone, because no one can keep the law perfectly." (Deffinbaugh)
You've gotta look at this stuff in the entire context of Jesus's ministry. Brain has ripped this verse out of the rest of the Bible to try to say that works get you into heaven.
Step Two - Sell Everything You Have
According to Marshall Brain, the next step to enter heaven is to sell everything you have and give it to the poor. He cites Luke 18:18-22:
A certain ruler asked him, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except
God alone. You know the commandments: 'Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.'""All these I have kept since I was a boy," he said. When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." [italicized text was omitted in the video]
So, according to Brain, this verse is a command for everyone in the world to sell everything they have and only then can you have eternal life. What Brain doesn't understand, as most critics don't, is that this is a very specific command, not a general rule. Jesus was talking to a rich, young ruler who's life was his money. He wasn't talking to everyone in the world.
That takes care of that, I suppose.
Step Three: Hate Your Family And Sell Everything
Brain cites Luke 14:26-33:
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.......In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple."
This is typical extremist language that was frequently used in Eastern culture; Jesus is not preaching literal hate. This verse means that we should love Jesus more than our parents, siblings, and our own lives.
There are many other Bible verses, like Genesis 29:30-1, that show this same kind of parallel. First, it says Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah, and then it says that Leah was "hated." One must ask the question, "Did Jacob really hate Leah?" For if he did, she wouldn't be his wife. (Holding)
It's interesting that Brain, under the assumption that this verse meant literal hate then says, "How can you honor your father and mother and hate your father and mother?" Well, this is quite possible. To honor means to obey the commandments of. You can hate someone and obey them at the same time, so I don't see what the issue is here. But, once again, there's no literal hate here. Then, he asks how we can love everyone and hate everyone. Of course, love in the Bible doesn't refer to mushy emotions, but actions. If you love someone, you do things for them, essentially. So again, it's quite possible to "love" and "hate" everyone. Silly questions...
Step Four - Become a Cannibal
Brain cites John 6:53-54 as proof that Christians are supposed to eat flesh and drink blood. He says it sounds, "absolutely grotesque" in his best disgusted voice he can muster. He even entertains the possibility that Jesus is speaking metaphorically, but then says it still sounds like a "Satanic" cult. Right, because all "satanic cults" eat flesh and drink blood.
Well, Jesus was speaking metaphorically, with wine and bread symbolizing blood and flesh.To think otherwise, you have to rip the statement out of the rest of Jesus's ministry.
Step Five - Become Like Children
Finally, something out of Luke. Matthew 18:2-3 says that you must become like little children to enter the Kingdom of God. In a moment of comic genius, he says, "Of course, these would be blood-sucking, flesh-eating little children..." and then offers no explanation, as if the statement in the Bible was an actual rule that stood on its own. In all reality, the very next verse says that whoever humbles himself like children will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
But then he says that Jesus changed his mind when he goes onto...
Step Six - Don't Be Children, Be Born Again
...which should make it clear to you that Brain thinks that the verse about children was said in a physical sense. You really should become a child again. It proves he didn't read the verse in context. But let's address this new argument.
He cites the story of Jesus talking to Nicodemus. Nicodemus is of course confused about how someone can be physically born again. After an explanation, Jesus says: "The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."
This next statement that you're about to read pretty much sums up Marshall Brain's stupidity.
"Let's notice that Jesus is completely wrong here. We do know where the wind comes from and where it's going. Hasn't Jesus ever heard of a wind vane? Doesn't he watch The Weather Channel?"
Umm...Okay. The only thing that was funny about that was your own idiocy. Mentioning either of those would have confused Nicodemus even more and prevented any kind of reasonable discourse from taking place. 
Step Seven - Be Better than Pharisees
This is the same issue as Step One. Jesus is merely saying that to get into heaven by works, you must be perfect, even greater than the Pharisees, who followed all the laws in the OT to the best of their ability. Jesus knows this is impossible, because salvation is NOT by works.
Step Eight - Your Favorite Bible Verse
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
That's where it's at. Salvation by grace, the one step Brain has cited that is consistently repeated throughout the entire New Testament.
Conclusion
I would have bet all the money in my wallet that Brain would follow that last step, as the screen was fading to black, "If you are a normal, intelligent person/adult..."He's said that remark at least six times by now (I haven't been counting, but each time he says it, it gets more annoying). And that's exactly what he did. He's constantly trying to portray Christians as "abnormal."
But let's play along. He says that three things should be obvious right now.
Obvious Thing #1 - I'm Hungry
He says that John 3:16 is only one piece out of an eight piece pizza. Well, that's not accurate, as I've already shown you. He says that the other seven steps have "just as much weight in the Bible," which proves he hasn't read the Bible. That's an absurd lie. None of those other messages are repeated more than a couple of times, and each time they are, it's clear in the context of the passages that they're not general rules. The message of salvation through belief in Jesus is repeated in (I believe) every book in the New Testament, Jewish tradition of belief in a Messiah, prophecy, etc.
Obvious Thing #2 - Jesus Didn't Know What He Was Talking About
"He was making all of this stuff up." Haha. Right. I don't even think I need to address this, because based on what I've already gone over, you don't know what you're talking about.
Obvious Thing #3 - Heaven is a fairy tale
Sorry...Nope. Not based on what you've shown me.
Well, that does it for this video. I wonder what will come next...Perhaps, "The eight steps to becoming a fundamentalist atheist!"
- Read the Bible out of context
- Loudly proclaim you are the normal one and everyone else is abnormal. Cite biased surveys that say atheists are more intelligent than theists to make yourself feel better.
- Get angry over slavery in the Bible, as if it's just like 1700s slavery. (It's not.)
- Get angry at Christians for saying that everyone else's religion is false, but not get angry at yourself for saying everyone's religion is false.
- Think the Last Supper refers to literal cannibalism.
- Believe that Jesus never existed.
- Believe that the trinity is polytheism.
And last, and probably the least...
8. Make websites like GodisImaginary.com
5 comments:
Out of sheer boredom, I've decided to respond yet again to one of your pages. This one seems especially riddled with ad hominem. For a Christian, you don't set a very good moral example. But no one's perfect. I wasn't as thorough last time in my critique, but that was because I had to leave for work in five minutes and time was of the essence.
[b]Yes, that's right, ladies and gentlemen! Marshall Brain has released yet another silly video on his websites. Thankfully, comments are disabled on YouTube this time...I was beginning to get sick to my stomach from all the, "This video is unbeatable," ramblings.[/b]
RDS: Why's that? You don't like it when people like what you don't like? Bit egotistical, but it'll slide.
[b]There's no transcript of the video available, so I'll go through each "step" one by one.[/b]
RDS: I DO have a transcript of this blog, so I'll go through each step line-by-line. By the way, love how you put 'step' in apostrophes, as if the idea that Marshall's argument has steps is questionable.
[b]Oh wait. First he says, 'Hell promises to be a place of eternal torment in a lake of fire.' Well, no it doesn't, as I've shown here. Let's get that out of the way right now.[/b]
RDS: Hell is a place of seperation from God? I've been "seperated from God" since I reached the age of fourteen and started replacing faith with reason. Best decision I've ever made. Doesn't really sound that bad. Should have stuck with the fire, scary stuff. But we'll move on.
Step One: Love God, Love Your Neighbor
[b]Brain gives a passage from Luke 10, which says:[/b]
On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
"What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"
He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"
"You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live."
[b]It's quite easy to misinterpret this verse to mean, "Do good things and you'll get into heaven." However, the Bible is clear that works alone do not save you. So why is this a misinterpretation?
Well, you have to check this whole verse out. The guy Jesus is speaking to is a lawyer, which back in that day was someone who was a scholar of Biblical law. His question is hypocritical: He wants to challenge Jesus. He's no seeker. So he asks, "What must I do to get eternal life?" And, essentially, Jesus asks, "Well what you you know? What do you think, according to the law that you study? What does the Law say?" And he has put the lawyer on the spot. The lawyer knows nobody can keep the entire law. To be justified under the law, you have to be perfect. Notice how the verse then says that the lawyer tries to justify himself. Jesus isn't teaching works. "He is actually teaching that doing good works (law keeping) cannot save anyone, because no one can keep the law perfectly."
You've gotta look at this stuff in the entire context of Jesus's ministry. Brain has ripped this verse out of the rest of the Bible to try to say that works get you into heaven.[/b]
RDS: And here's where you first missed a point. Marshall wasn't trying to say that it was possible to get into Heaven via good works. He knew, as you do, that it is impossible to keep every law and therefore impossible to gain access to Heaven through the law. This, in fact, strengthened his argument that nobody can get into heaven. If you hadn't missed the subtle irony, you could have noted it in your blog. Nothing against you, I'm sure you just didn't think of it.
Step Two - Sell Everything You Have
[b]According to Marshall Brain, the next step to enter heaven is to sell everything you have and give it to the poor. He cites Luke 18:18-22:[/b]
A certain ruler asked him, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except
God alone. You know the commandments: 'Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.'"
"All these I have kept since I was a boy," he said. When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." [italicized text was omitted in the video]
[b]So, according to Brain, this verse is a command for everyone in the world to sell everything they have and only then can you have eternal life. What Brain doesn't understand, as most critics don't, is that this is a very specific command, not a general rule. Jesus was talking to a rich, young ruler who's life was his money. He wasn't talking to everyone in the world.
That takes care of that, I suppose.[/b]
RDS: Not really. You brushed this step off far too hastily, which does nothing to strengthen your criteria of Marshall's video. "Brain doesn't understand, as most critics don't, is that this is a very specific command, not a general rule." Really? Did we miss something? After the conversation, did Jesus turn to his disciples and mention, "Oh, by the way, that rule only applies to that one specific rich guy and not anyone else." Of course he didn't. He made no distinction and didn't really try to. You're making up excuses for him. I have more to say about this, but I'll get to it in the next step.
Step Three: Hate Your Family And Sell Everything
[b]Brain cites Luke 14:26-33:[/b]
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.......In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple."
[b]This is typical extremist language that was frequently used in Eastern culture; Jesus is not preaching literal hate. This verse means that we should love Jesus more than our parents, siblings, and our own lives.[/b]
RDS: My, Jesus had quite the ego.
[b]There are many other Bible verses, like Genesis 29:30-1, that show this same kind of parallel. First, it says Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah, and then it says that Leah was "hated." One must ask the question, "Did Jacob really hate Leah?" For if he did, she wouldn't be his wife. (Holding)
It's interesting that Brain, under the assumption that this verse meant literal hate then says, "How can you honor your father and mother and hate your father and mother?" Well, this is quite possible. To honor means to obey the commandments of. You can hate someone and obey them at the same time, so I don't see what the issue is here. But, once again, there's no literal hate here. Then, he asks how we can love everyone and hate everyone. Of course, love in the Bible doesn't refer to mushy emotions, but actions. If you love someone, you do things for them, essentially. So again, it's quite possible to "love" and "hate" everyone. Silly questions...[/b]
RDS: Silly questions? There are no stupid questions in life, Patrick. But that's debatable. What I really wanna focus on is the Sell Everything dictum.
Luke 14:26-33:
"In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple."
RDS: You seemed to ignore the repeated assertion that we must sell everything to gain eternal life. I was actually surprised that you made no attempt to rebut it again. This time, Jesus is especially clear as to who the commandment refered to - Any of you. Anyone, anywhere, if they wanna be Jesus' buddy, they have to sell everything. This time it's a broad commandment, and there can be no mistake as to whether Jesus meant this as a commandment to be beheld by everyone, or simply one rich ruler.
Step Four - Become a Cannibal
[b]Brain cites John 6:53-54 as proof that Christians are supposed to eat flesh and drink blood. He says it sounds, "absolutely grotesque" in his best disgusted voice he can muster. He even entertains the possibility that Jesus is speaking metaphorically, but then says it still sounds like a "Satanic" cult. Right, because all "satanic cults" eat flesh and drink blood.
Well, Jesus was speaking metaphorically, with wine and bread symbolizing blood and flesh.To think otherwise, you have to rip the statement out of the rest of Jesus's ministry.[/b]
RDS: This is one I agree with you on, I've spent enough years as a Lutheran (dear god, the boredom of Lutheran sermons) to know that Jesus was speaking metaphorically. I don't believe Marshall had any confusion over this, it just looked like he threw it in there for comedy reasons. I thought it was funny.
Step Five - Become Like Children
[b]Finally, something out of Luke. Matthew 18:2-3 says that you must become like little children to enter the Kingdom of God. In a moment of comic genius, he says, "Of course, these would be blood-sucking, flesh-eating little children..." and then offers no explanation, as if the statement in the Bible was an actual rule that stood on its own. In all reality, the very next verse says that whoever humbles himself like children will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.[/b]
RDS: C'mon, you at least chuckled at that line.
[b]But then he says that Jesus changed his mind when he goes onto...[/b]
Step Six - Don't Be Children, Be Born Again
[b]...which should make it clear to you that Brain thinks that the verse about children was said in a physical sense. You really should become a child again. It proves he didn't read the verse in context. But let's address this new argument.[/b]
RDS: You keep mentioning context, context, context. In almost every one of your counter-arguments it's "he was wrong because he didn't understand the context of what the Bible was refering to in blah blah blah..." But never anywhere in the Bible does it mention, even once, that it should be taken metaphorically. Which is awfully inconvienent, because we're never going to know 100% which parts of it were meant to be taken metaphorically and which ones literally. You'd have thought that God might've looked at the Bible and gone, "Damn. Humans are total idiots, they're never gonna get this. Imagine the confusion. Maybe I should just tell my scribers to write everything literally so people will get the point." Never, not once, does the Bible give you any reason to interpret it any way other than literally. It doesn't tell you to, which should mean that it was never intended to be interpreted any way other than literally. But Christians will look at a nonsensical verse and think, "Okay, that's just stupid. It has to be taken metaphorically or I don't like it." It's the same way with Christians who will look at a horrifying verse, like God ordering the Israelites to commit mass infanticide and genocide, and think, "Okay, well, God was different then. He's much nicer now. He's nicer in the New Testament. Changing testaments really made him an easier guy to get along with." Or even more ridiculous, "Maybe the little babies deserved it." And yes, I have heard an argument like that before from a Christian.
[b]He cites the story of Jesus talking to Nicodemus. Nicodemus is of course confused about how someone can be physically born again. After an explanation, Jesus says: "The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."
This next statement that you're about to read pretty much sums up Marshall Brain's stupidity.[/b]
RDS: There it is, your first ad hominem attack of the page! There's nothing more unprofessional in the art of debate than an ad hominem, and your blog is littered with it. Not to mention the unchristianity of it. You're suppose to be setting the moral example for us heathens.
"Let's notice that Jesus is completely wrong here. We do know where the wind comes from and where it's going. Hasn't Jesus ever heard of a wind vane? Doesn't he watch The Weather Channel?"
[b]Umm...Okay. The only thing that was funny about that was your own idiocy. Mentioning either of those would have confused Nicodemus even more and prevented any kind of reasonable discourse from taking place.[/b]
RDS: Your second ad hominem. Marshall was not idiotic in what he said, he was again applying humor, something you've twice failed to notice when confronted with. Marshall knew what you know; Nicodemus didn't know what the hell a wind vane was and mentioning it would have detracted from the discourse.
Then he says that what Jesus said made no sense. [b]Aww, poor you! Maybe you should read the whole conversation in context![/b]
RDS: You must really detest Marshall. Disagreeing with him is respectful and dignified, as everyone is entitled to an opinion. Patronizing him is infantile and arrogant.
Step Seven - Be Better than Pharisees
[b]This is the same issue as Step One. Jesus is merely saying that to get into heaven by works, you must be perfect, even greater than the Pharisees, who followed all the laws in the OT to the best of their ability. Jesus knows this is impossible, because salvation is NOT by works.[/b]
RDS: I have no disagreement here.
Step Eight - Your Favorite Bible Verse
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
[b]That's where it's at. Salvation by grace, the one step Brain has cited that is consistently repeated throughout the entire New Testament.
Conclusion
I would have bet all the money in my wallet that Brain would follow that last step, as the screen was fading to black, "If you are a normal, intelligent person/adult..."He's said that remark at least six times by now (I haven't been counting, but each time he says it, it gets more annoying).[/b]
RDS: I have to agree with you. While I enjoy Marshall's site and videos and for the most part agree with his conclusions, I disagree with his patronization of Christians and his agenda against religion as a whole. I do not hate religion; I hate fundamentalism. They are often, but not always, one and the same.
[b]And that's exactly what he did. He's constantly trying to portray Christians as "abnormal."[/b]
RDS: Many of them are. Ever heard of the Westboro Baptist Church? But then, you find abnormal people in every sect of our society.
[b]But let's play along. He says that three things should be obvious right now.[/b]
Obvious Thing #1 - I'm Hungry
[b]He says that John 3:16 is only one piece out of an eight piece pizza. Well, that's not accurate, as I've already shown you. He says that the other seven steps have "just as much weight in the Bible," which proves he hasn't read the Bible.[/b]
RDS: Of course he has. As many times as he's cited Bible verses, used scripture to support his points, and as much as he detests the Bible, you know he has read it. To assert otherwise is willful ignorance.
[b]That's an absurd lie.[/b]
RDS: No, it's an arguable point, and a rather weak one at that. But a lie? You exaggerate.
[b]None of those other messages are repeated more than a couple of times, and each time they are, it's clear in the context of the passages that they're not general rules.[/b]
RDS: Clear? You give the clarity with which the scribers wrote far too much credit.
[b]The message of salvation through belief in Jesus is repeated in (I believe) every book in the New Testament, Jewish tradition of belief in a Messiah, prophecy, etc.[/b]
Obvious Thing #2 - Jesus Didn't Know What He Was Talking About
"He was making all of this stuff up." [b]Haha. Right. I don't even think I need to address this, because based on what I've already gone over, you don't know what you're talking about.[/b]
RDS: You haven't demonstrated any more knowledge in any of his talking points than he did. Yours was a slur of ad hominem, patronizing and sarcastic remarks, claiming that all of his points were false because everything he noted was taken out of context (a claim that you made no attempt to prove) and arrogance to the point of being almost childish. If I were a fence-sitter, I'd be moved to atheism just from reading your blatant attacks on Marshall's character rather than his argument.
Obvious Thing #3 - Heaven is a fairy tale
[b]Sorry... Nope. Not based on what you've shown me.[/b]
RDS: The statement that Heaven is a fairy tale is a subjective one, considering that you can neither prove nor disprove its existence. I don't believe in it and have been given no real reason to, but I don't fault you for it if you do.
[b]Well, that does it for this video. I wonder what will come next...Perhaps, "The eight steps to becoming a fundamentalist atheist!"
Read the Bible out of context[/b]
RDS: Again, the out-of-context claim that isn't supported anywhere in the Bible. You're beginning to sound like the theologian in Proof #32, though more arrogant. You've already made the argument that, "The Bible doesn't need to make itself clear, 100% of Christians understand the Bible and don't need a theologian to explain anything for them. The Bible is simple if you just think about it." That's obviously not true. I knew people at my old church, both teenagers and older, who would go to their pastor when they didn't understand something about the Bible. They needed help wading through the mistranslations, contradictions, inconsistencies found throughout the book. Especially the atrocities of the OT; they needed the pastor to explain why God ordered the mass infanticide and genocide of innocent people, why God wanted them to stone their disobedient teenagers, and why God was going to kill them if they worked that shift they had scheduled that sunday afternoon. When the pastor didn't always have the concrete answer because he didn't know himself, he made up excuses, like many Christians do, and told them what they wanted to hear.
The Bible has been often critiqued for its anachronistic and contradictory nature. The reason my neighbor can't get her little kid to read the Bible more is because it's difficult, confusing, and at times, horrifying. Even [i]you[/i] have an obscure understanding of it at best; your writing is evident of that. A book being too complex, confusing, contradictory, derrogative, inscrutable, incohesive, unorganized, and incoherent is not the fault of the one reading it; it's the fault of the author(s).
[b]Loudly proclaim you are the normal one and everyone else is abnormal. Cite biased surveys that say atheists are more intelligent than theists to make yourself feel better.
Get angry over slavery in the Bible, as if it's just like 1700s slavery. (It's not.)[/b]
RDS: Not all of the slavery in the Bible was indentured servitude. Israelites killing everyone in a city but the young virgins and keeping the girls for themselves is not indentured servitude.
[b]Get angry at Christians for saying that everyone else's religion is false, but not get angry at yourself for saying everyone's religion is false. [/b]
RDS: I'm not angry at Christians for saying everyone else's religion is false; I entirely agree with them. I believe their religion is false as well, but I'm not angry about it.
[b]Think the Last Supper refers to literal cannibalism.
Believe that Jesus never existed.
Believe that the trinity is polytheism.
And last, and probably the least...
8. Make websites like GodisImaginary.com[/b]
RDS: I laughed a little at the last bit. You made an entire blog devoted to providing rebuttals for Marshall's 50 proofs. That must have been a lot of work to debunk one site. You are, from what I've seen, godisimaginary.com's biggest fan.
-RDS
Out of sheer boredom, I've decided to respond yet again to one of your pages. This one seems especially riddled with ad hominem. For a Christian, you don't set a very good moral example.
Tell that to Jesus. I'm curious...Have you ever read his encounter with the Pharisees?
But no one's perfect. I wasn't as thorough last time in my critique, but that was because I had to leave for work in five minutes and time was of the essence.
You're excused...I definitely know how that goes. :-)
RDS: Why's that? You don't like it when people like what you don't like? Bit egotistical, but it'll slide.
That's not what I mean at all. I don't like it when anyone thinks that something is "unbeatable," especially something as unscholarly as this that HAS been beaten for hundreds of years.
RDS: I DO have a transcript of this blog, so I'll go through each step line-by-line. By the way, love how you put 'step' in apostrophes, as if the idea that Marshall's argument has steps is questionable.
Interesting. I might consider that. But I'll have you know that I and JP Holding of Tektonics.org are collaborating on a parody video of this particular video, so maybe afterwards.
Again, tell that to Marshall. Would you recall in Proof 28 when he puts "believe" in quotation marks as if our belief is questionable?
The reason I put it in quotes is that the steps he uses that are apprently the official way to get into heaven are nonsense, and no Christian believes we must follow any of these. They're a bunch of strawmen, and therefore..."Steps."
RDS: Hell is a place of seperation from God? I've been "seperated from God" since I reached the age of fourteen and started replacing faith with reason. Best decision I've ever made. Doesn't really sound that bad. Should have stuck with the fire, scary stuff. But we'll move on.
You're not nearly as seperated now. If you were in Hell, you would never be able to make any kind of contact with God; you have no chance of salvation. Now, God is quite easily accesible through prayer.
Of course, that probably sounded like nonsense to you, since you don't believe in God, but you're point simply failed.
This is a very silly analogy, but right now, you're "seperated" from your car because you're not in it. If you ever had the desire to drive though, you could just get in. If you're in Hell, your car has been completely destroyed, vaporized in fact, and you therefore cannot rejoin it even if you wanted to.
RDS: And here's where you first missed a point. Marshall wasn't trying to say that it was possible to get into Heaven via good works. He knew, as you do, that it is impossible to keep every law and therefore impossible to gain access to Heaven through the law. This, in fact, strengthened his argument that nobody can get into heaven. If you hadn't missed the subtle irony, you could have noted it in your blog. Nothing against you, I'm sure you just didn't think of it.
But since he used this as one of the supposed steps to getting into heaven, he therefore implied that this view is just as important as, say, salvation by grace. This sort of view shows a distinct lack of understanding of the concept of salvation, and it can only be used one isolates this verse from the rest of Jesus' ministy.
RDS: Not really. You brushed this step off far too hastily, which does nothing to strengthen your criteria of Marshall's video. "Brain doesn't understand, as most critics don't, is that this is a very specific command, not a general rule." Really? Did we miss something? After the conversation, did Jesus turn to his disciples and mention, "Oh, by the way, that rule only applies to that one specific rich guy and not anyone else." Of course he didn't. He made no distinction and didn't really try to. You're making up excuses for him. I have more to say about this, but I'll get to it in the next step.
So because he made no distinction, that automatically means that this was a universal claim for anyone who wishes to be a Christian? Sorry, but that simply doens't work either. If that were so, then why isn't this message repeated whenever Jesus talks about salvation? Jesus did not ask that all people everywhere sell everything to follow him.
Secondly, here's something I didn't mention before. The ruler was told to do this not to go to heaven but to be able to have treasure in heaven. This was a separate issue.
RDS: My, Jesus had quite the ego.
He had every right to make this sort of claim, since he was GOD.
RDS: Silly questions? There are no stupid questions in life, Patrick. But that's debatable. What I really wanna focus on is the Sell Everything dictum.
I could probably name a hundred very silly questions right now, but you're not interested...
Luke 14:26-33:
"In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple."
RDS: You seemed to ignore the repeated assertion that we must sell everything to gain eternal life. I was actually surprised that you made no attempt to rebut it again. This time, Jesus is especially clear as to who the commandment refered to - Any of you. Anyone, anywhere, if they wanna be Jesus' buddy, they have to sell everything. This time it's a broad commandment, and there can be no mistake as to whether Jesus meant this as a commandment to be beheld by everyone, or simply one rich ruler.
Perhaps if you read it in the plain English translation. But this is where exegesis comes in very handy. Holding notes:
"The phrase "gives up" is the same as in Luke 9:61, where a man says he will "say goodbye" to his family. Obviously, the man's family would not cease to be his family when he left them. This leads to a more nuanced exegesis than our subject's "read it like a newspaper" superficial literalism:
Schmidt calls attention to the total context of the parable:
It is possible to understand the parables in a new way by stressing their linguistic connection to the conclusion rather than the phrase "count the cost". The key is the idea of ability. In vv 26, 27, and 33, one is or is not able to be a disciple. In v 31, the king must be able to meet the opposing army. The implication in both parables is that the subjects do not have sufficient resources and that they will be mocked if they begin the task. In v 8, the one who acts on the assumption of the adequacy of his resources (takes the place of honor) will be mocked (told to sit in a lower place). If, however, he begins by renouncing his resources (taking the lower place), he will be a disciple (moved to a place of honor).
The theme is thus not absolute renunciation of wealth, but reliance on one's resources and to giving them up -- and the added concept that by giving up what you call your own, you will be given much more that comes from God: "Humble yourself and you will be exalted: renounce tower and war making and you will escape ridicule; renounce family and possessions and you will be rewarded." Of course this is a concept that has been abused by the modern televangelist who says that the Cadillac he drives has been given to him by God; but that extreme is no reason to posit another extreme as our subject does. Neither Jesus nor his disciples (not even Paul, Phil. 3:8, which our subject also quotes) because of this command threw away all of their clothes and ran around naked; and Paul said he gave up "all things" in spite of the fact that he still was gainfully employed as a tentmaker. The essence of the teaching is no that you have no "possessions" as such, but that what you do "have" is not your own. In essence, you have what you have by the grace of God. This is the interpretation which honors the full context of the command where our subject's supposition of total poverty is a misapprehension."
See here: http://www.tektonics.org/af/ebe21.html#lk1433.
RDS: This is one I agree with you on, I've spent enough years as a Lutheran (dear god, the boredom of Lutheran sermons) to know that Jesus was speaking metaphorically. I don't believe Marshall had any confusion over this, it just looked like he threw it in there for comedy reasons. I thought it was funny.
I'm very glad you agree, since nobody who's "normal and intelligent" thinks it's literal. Though I think he was entirely serious. He has several articles about this passage on his two websites.
But haha...Lutheran sermons. I've been to a few here and there, and they've never enticed me to go back. I'm a Baptist myself.
RDS: You keep mentioning context, context, context. In almost every one of your counter-arguments it's "he was wrong because he didn't understand the context of what the Bible was refering to in blah blah blah..." But never anywhere in the Bible does it mention, even once, that it should be taken metaphorically.
Actually, like I pointed out right before that, the very next verse makes it clear that "become like little children" isn't a literal, physical command as Marshall interpreted it to be, but merely "become humble." I did point out the context, thank you.
Which is awfully inconvienent, because we're never going to know 100% which parts of it were meant to be taken metaphorically and which ones literally.
We'll never know practically anything 100%, but that's beside the point. Scholars have written commentary using exegesis and historical information that allow us to form this opinion. I'm not basing this on nothing, after all.
You'd have thought that God might've looked at the Bible and gone, "Damn. Humans are total idiots, they're never gonna get this. Imagine the confusion. Maybe I should just tell my scribers to write everything literally so people will get the point." Never, not once, does the Bible give you any reason to interpret it any way other than literally.
So you mean Jesus's parables are literal? Songs of Solomon is a literal depiction? Seriously, sometimes things are just obviously metaphors. I don't see why there must be an explicit instruction.
The Bible wasn't written yesterday with you in mind, after all.
It doesn't tell you to, which should mean that it was never intended to be interpreted any way other than literally.
I don't see any reason to believe this. You use hyperbole all the time, I bet, but you most likely don't follow every example with a disclaimer.
But Christians will look at a nonsensical verse and think, "Okay, that's just stupid. It has to be taken metaphorically or I don't like it."
Again, there are scholars who have written commentary saying how we should interpret these things.
It's the same way with Christians who will look at a horrifying verse, like God ordering the Israelites to commit mass infanticide and genocide, and think, "Okay, well, God was different then. He's much nicer now. He's nicer in the New Testament. Changing testaments really made him an easier guy to get along with." Or even more ridiculous, "Maybe the little babies deserved it." And yes, I have heard an argument like that before from a Christian.
This type of argumentation, which is unfortunately frequently used by skeptics, is an argument by outrage, especially with your use of "babies." To argue this sort of thing begs the question of whether they really were innocent to begin with. It would be interesting to see you defend the Canaanites, who God ordered to extricate from the land...I'm sure they were just innocent people...
There it is, your first ad hominem attack of the page! There's nothing more unprofessional in the art of debate than an ad hominem, and your blog is littered with it. Not to mention the unchristianity of it. You're suppose to be setting the moral example for us heathens.
I don't think you understand what an ad hominem really is. It's not merely an insult. This is an ad hominem:
Brain: 1+1=3.
P-Dunn: You're an idiot.
NOT an ad hominem:
Brain: 1+1=3.
P-Dunn: 1+1=2. You're an idiot.
An ad hominem is an insult in place of an argument. It is not an ad hominem if you deal with the argument in question, and I did.
Again, since you think my stern tone is "unchristian" I refer you to Matthew 23. Does Jesus sound all warm and fuzzy here?
RDS: Your second ad hominem. Marshall was not idiotic in what he said, he was again applying humor, something you've twice failed to notice when confronted with. Marshall knew what you know; Nicodemus didn't know what the hell a wind vane was and mentioning it would have detracted from the discourse.
This strikes me as odd. By your standards of determining what is a literary device, if it doesn't give explicit instructions that say, "THIS IS COMEDY," then it must be serious. Right?
After reading through the whole of Marshall's sites, I've seen a lot of stupid comments that were totally serious. This is most likely one of them, since Marshall is so caught up in his 21st century mindset that he thinks "Jesus should have mentioned nuclear proliferation."
RDS: I have to agree with you. While I enjoy Marshall's site and videos and for the most part agree with his conclusions, I disagree with his patronization of Christians and his agenda against religion as a whole. I do not hate religion; I hate fundamentalism. They are often, but not always, one and the same.
Good. Despite there being several definitions of the term, I wouldn't consider myself to be a fundamentalist either.
RDS: Many of them are. Ever heard of the Westboro Baptist Church? But then, you find abnormal people in every sect of our society.
Sorry, but I wouldn't consider 150 people to be "many" in a religion that exceeds a billion people.
RDS: Of course he has. As many times as he's cited Bible verses, used scripture to support his points, and as much as he detests the Bible, you know he has read it. To assert otherwise is willful ignorance.
I'd be willing to bet that the most he's read of the Bible comes from Skeptic's Annotated Bible. If he ever believed what was written in the Bible, he would never have come to that sort of goofy conclusion.
RDS: No, it's an arguable point, and a rather weak one at that. But a lie? You exaggerate.
It's essentially a lie. Who's he trying to convince here? Since no Christian believes that each of these verses he cites are part of a step system of getting into heaven, he's distorting the truth by trying to relay this message to atheists.
RDS: Clear? You give the clarity with which the scribers wrote far too much credit.
I've yet to see you actually post an argument against this. Please do so.
RDS: You haven't demonstrated any more knowledge in any of his talking points than he did. Yours was a slur of ad hominem, patronizing and sarcastic remarks, claiming that all of his points were false because everything he noted was taken out of context (a claim that you made no attempt to prove) and arrogance to the point of being almost childish. If I were a fence-sitter, I'd be moved to atheism just from reading your blatant attacks on Marshall's character rather than his argument.
Well, that tells me a lot about you. If you were a fence sitter who was willing to convert to a particular side because of someone's actions rather than where the evidence is, you're not a very reasonable person.
You repeatedly accuse me of making ad hominem attacks. This is due to your lack of understanding of what an ad hominem is.
You say I don't back my statements up when I say, "It's out of context." Even if that were true, you could always look it up for yourself and see that it IS out of context. But right now, I can point you to several places where I did, in fact, point out his error and the proper context.
RDS: The statement that Heaven is a fairy tale is a subjective one, considering that you can neither prove nor disprove its existence. I don't believe in it and have been given no real reason to, but I don't fault you for it if you do.
I don't have anything to say here, then.
RDS: Again, the out-of-context claim that isn't supported anywhere in the Bible. You're beginning to sound like the theologian in Proof #32, though more arrogant. You've already made the argument that, "The Bible doesn't need to make itself clear, 100% of Christians understand the Bible and don't need a theologian to explain anything for them. The Bible is simple if you just think about it." That's obviously not true.
I don't recall ever saying those words, so please point me to where you apparently quoted me.
I knew people at my old church, both teenagers and older, who would go to their pastor when they didn't understand something about the Bible. They needed help wading through the mistranslations, contradictions, inconsistencies found throughout the book. Especially the atrocities of the OT; they needed the pastor to explain why God ordered the mass infanticide and genocide of innocent people,
...There's that begged question again. Please inform me of this supposed "infanticide and genocide of innocent people" you are repeatedly referring to.
...why God wanted them to stone their disobedient teenagers,
Of course, this issue is extremely complicated. The word you say means "teenager" is an indefinite noun that could mean anyone as old as 40 or so. This is not talking about someone who merely doesn't do his chores, but is in constant rebellion towards authority. But that's for another topic.
and why God was going to kill them if they worked that shift they had scheduled that sunday afternoon.
See here: http://www.tektonics.org/af/ebe19.html.
When the pastor didn't always have the concrete answer because he didn't know himself, he made up excuses, like many Christians do, and told them what they wanted to hear.
I'm sorry to hear that.
The Bible has been often critiqued for its anachronistic and contradictory nature. The reason my neighbor can't get her little kid to read the Bible more is because it's difficult, confusing, and at times, horrifying. Even [i]you[/i] have an obscure understanding of it at best; your writing is evident of that. A book being too complex, confusing, contradictory, derrogative, inscrutable, incohesive, unorganized, and incoherent is not the fault of the one reading it; it's the fault of the author(s).
If we use your definition of an ad hominem, then you just used one in this last paragraph.
Actually, I don't think it's all the fault of the author, assuming what you say is true. If someone hasn't learned physics yet, but reads a physics book, is it the authors' fault for making it too complex and confusing for this person? No. I'd say it would be the readers' fault for either a) assuming that he can just pick it up and read it without any prior knowledge, or b) because he didn't feel like putting forth the necessary effort to understand it. It's EXACTLY the same way with the Bible.
RDS: Not all of the slavery in the Bible was indentured servitude. Israelites killing everyone in a city but the young virgins and keeping the girls for themselves is not indentured servitude.
Which proves my point even more. This is not the author's fault for making it unclear: this is your fault for not doing your research. This wasn't enslavement. These girls were spared and distributed throughout the people, into families. They would eventually be assimilated into Israel families, but from this moment on, they would care for them, feed them, train them, etc. for family life in Palestine.
You really can't read the English translation of a text that's thousands of years old, insert your own interpretations from data that simply isn't there, and assume it means the same as it once did.
RDS: I'm not angry at Christians for saying everyone else's religion is false; I entirely agree with them. I believe their religion is false as well, but I'm not angry about it.
Good to know. You don't meet this criteria, then. ;-)
RDS: I laughed a little at the last bit. You made an entire blog devoted to providing rebuttals for Marshall's 50 proofs. That must have been a lot of work to debunk one site. You are, from what I've seen, godisimaginary.com's biggest fan.
Indeed it was a lot of work. I'd say it was worth it, though.
Again, thanks for your input. It's always good to have discussion. I look foreward to your reply.
~P-Dunn
Step Five - become like children
What was Jesus actually meaning when he said we must recieve the kingdom of heaven like a child
You should do a response to his "proving nobody can get to heaven video."
Ironically, JP Holding over at Tektonics.org wrote me a transcript to be used as a video rebuttal for that video. I just haven't done it.
Post a Comment