Fundamentalism: It’s Not Just For Theists
Posted in Atheism, Quickies, Religion on | 2 minutes | 43 Comments →
With a slight modification, I wrote the following comment at CSA the other day, and felt it deserves reproduction here. While I intend to develop it as a full post or perhaps even part of a chapter in my book, here’s what we’ve got so far:
…I think deconverted fundamentalists and evangelicals tend to make the most dangerous atheists. Often, the mental weaknesses that led them to dogmatic ways of thinking in the first place persist. These traits then carry over into their newly-embraced “skepticism,” the weaknesses again take the helm, yet, this time, they are actually far worse off because a thin veneer of rationalism masks their dogmatic and irrational tendencies and puffs many up with a false sense of confidence. Consequently, many mistakenly believe that their change of psychological allegiance solved the problem. They’re often less likely to see it, because they still have that “in the tribe” mentality, only now, they fancy themselves in the right tribe. I cannot overemphasize the threat this phenomenon poses to critical thinking and pursuit of truth. Trading one’s cross for a scarlet A accomplishes nothing unless the old habits are shed. [February 14, 2011 at 3:38 pm]
What sayest thou? Doth this ringeth true in thine own experience?
Mike Gantt
says...Sure. Many atheists I have encountered on the web have the enthusiasm I have seen in a person who has just found a new church home that is so much better than the church they left.
It is the need for human group approval that seems to be the common element between their Christian experience and their atheist experience. Thus, the paucity of independent thinking and the courage of individual conviction is the abiding characteristic of such people.
Some Musician
says...I find it rather presumptuous and arrogant for you to make such an assertion. I concede that you may be correct about fundamentalists becoming adamant atheists, but the assertion that our mental facilities are still lacking in rationality is highly contemptuous.
For point of clarification, I am just such one of “those people” of which you are writing about.
Furthermore, in response to the comment, I neither need nor seek approval from anyone and this has always been my character. If theists do not all want to be thought of as the same, then I suggest you stop using such condescending generalizations for atheists.
Mike Gantt
says...Some Musician,
Note that I said “many” not “all” atheists act in groupthink. If you’re one of the atheists for whom that groupthink shoe does not fit, then great.
The reason I thought the comment was worth making and that cl’s post should be affirmed is that atheists seem quite aware that Christians can sometimes act in groupthink, but seem completely unaware of how they themselves do the same.
The best thing for all of us is to do what you say you do, which is to think independently and to follow conscience rather than human affirmation.
dguller
says...As you would say: “Bare assertion”. Any data to back this up?
cl
says...Mike Gantt,
I suspect Some Musician might have been talking to me. :)
Some Musician,
No offense, but you might want to ask yourself why this post had such a strong impact on you.
Really? How is is “presumptuous” if I’m speaking of people I have experience with? How is it “arrogant” for me to note that *OFTEN* [an important qualifier you seem to have missed], this happens?
You say “our,” but, I’ve never even met you, so, why are you including yourself and seemingly all other deconverted atheists in the subset of atheists my post is aimed at? I speak of those deconverted atheists with which I have ample experience to speak on. Further, I ask the reader if this is true in their experience, which unequivocally demonstrates that I’m not asserting any sort of across-the-board rule.
Really? I ask because, I’m writing about a specific strain of atheist: not just the deconverted atheist, but the deconvert whose atheism is really dogmatism coated with a thin veneer of rationality. Is that you? If not, then, you are *NOT* one of the people I’m writing about.
You used “all” in regard to theists, but note that my post is not aimed at all atheists. It’s not even aimed at all deconverted atheists. Furthermore, I noted that this reflects my experience. So, you’re criticism is misplaced, and I suspect that you might be over-reacting because you took the post a little too personally.
dguller,
Certainly. Did you click the link and read the comments from Luke Muehlhauser that prompted mine? Would you like a list of names along with reasons why I think each person fits the bill?
Mike Gantt
says...cl,
I knew Some Musician was primarily addressing you. However, I responded because he wrote at the end:
“Furthermore, in response to the comment…”
Ronin
says...cl,
Perhaps we could use the label of hyper-fundamentalism. I think the term fundamentalism has been tarnished by the ilk you are speaking about here, but I think that some sort solid foundation is necessary to have an effective model. Hence, I am hesitant to not label myself as a fundamentalist, though, I suspect, I should be open to revision in order to be loyal to my “pragmatic” model. I hope what I wrote makes sense…
cl
says...Mike Gantt,
I was just being coy. ;)
Ronin,
I agree. Of course, there’s nothing wrong with adhering to set of fundamental ideas or concepts as a sort of pragmatic rule or means of identification. That’s just plain, non-tarnished fundamentalism. OTOH, precisely because of the tarnishing you allude to, I also see “fundamentalism” as dogmatic rigidity that tends to impede impartial application of critical thinking in those areas that confront the “fundamentalist’s” worldviews. That’s “fundamentalism” as intended in the title of this post.
I’m sure you understood all that beforehand, I”m simply thinking out loud at the moment. :)
apologianick
says...Cl. Did you note how I caught Papalinton in the David Marshall thread on Reppert’s blog cutting and pasting from Wikipedia?
That’s the kind of mindset. Religion is blatantly nonsense to the fundie so no real research is required.
dguller
says...What if someone attempted to make an argument that turned out to be illogical, and when it was pointed out to them that their argument violated the standards of logic, they turned around and called their interlocutor a “logical fundamentalist” who is closed-minded and refusing to consider an alternative viewpoint? Wouldn’t you agree that this person just doesn’t understand how to argue properly?
cl
says...apologianick,
No, I didn’t. I haven’t been paying much attention over there since the Loftus fiasco. I don’t want to overstay my welcome, if you know what I mean. Are you the commenter who goes by “Nick” over there?
dguller,
Yes.
Some Musician
says...“Really? How is is “presumptuous” if I’m speaking of people I have experience with? … You say “our,” but, I’ve never even met you, so, why are you including yourself and seemingly all other deconverted atheists in the subset of atheists my post is aimed at? I speak of those deconverted atheists with which I have ample experience to speak on…Furthermore, I noted that this reflects my experience.”
You never mentioned that this was solely based on your personal experience. The grammar of your post is very poor if this is the case and you would need to make a special point that this is not applicable to all. Furthermore, “often” is hardly enough evidence to show that you were not speaking of “all”, especially when there is an entire paragraph bashing the intellect of deconverted fundamentalists turned atheist. Yes, I take offence when anyone calls into question my intellect due to some bad experiences. I’m sure you would take offense if I started saying Y.E. creationists are stupid because they think the earth is <10,000 years old and they try to mask their ignorance by a "thin veneer of rationalism"
However, I did not see the last couple of questions there, so I do apologize for going on an unfounded tirade. My point in all this was just that I've had many debates where these sweeping generalization have been made and I just lashed out…again, sorry.
apologianick
says...Yep Cl. We’re one and the same. Feel free to shoot me an email.
Christopher
says...” I cannot overemphasize the threat this phenomenon poses to critical thinking and pursuit of truth.”
Do you really think that a majority of ‘deconverts’ don’t start seeking, reading, analyzing, arguing (logically that is) to see reality? If they ‘deconvert’ through critical thinking then why wouldn’t they continue on this path?
GearHedEd
says...For what it’s worth, I’m a lifelong atheist, (although I have a churchgoing background and understand pretty much all of the theological arguments, I was never a “believer), and I can see what cl is pointing out in the OP, and it’s evident: many of the deconverts are extra-zealous in their attacks on Christianity, and spend a lot of their argumentative energies on emotional or vituperative exchanges.
cl can vouch for me being one of the rare ones that actually does use reason and logic.
cl
says...Some Musician,
Recall: “What sayest thou? Doth this ringeth true in thine own experience?” Clear implication: this is true in my experience. You conceded that you missed those questions, so… I submit that my grammar was sufficient.
I didn’t call your intellect into question. I was speaking of my experience, and at the time of this post, you were not part of that.
Why? I make no claim as to how many calendar years have passed since Earth began to exist.
Fair enough. It’s all good my friend, it’s all good. Like I said, I’ve never even met you. I didn’t call your intellect into question, and I, too, share a disdain for sweeping generalizations.
On a lighter note… musical instruments of choice?
Christopher,
I can only speak for those I have experience with, and, in my experience, many seek, read, analyze and argue just enough to confirm their newfound philosophical preferences. This makes them worse off, because they’re now under the impression that they’re slaves to reason.
Confirmation bias is one powerful dissuader of critical thinking. As I alluded to above and in the OP, many seek, read, analyze and argue just enough to confirm their newfound philosophical preferences. Many don’t shed the underlying character traits that made them gravitate towards religious dogmatism in the first place.
GearHedEd,
Thanks GearHedEd. BTW, can I inquire of your moniker? Fond of automobiles? An engineer, perhaps?
Yeah, I can, although… I must admit that whole “you hit him low I’ll hit him high” comment to articulett seemed to be a departure from your norm in that you seemed to directly encourage her emotional illogic. It’s hard for me to respect team politics and party lines in any setting.
That said, since you were never a believer to begin with, I don’t think your strain of atheism is that rare. Make sense?
Some Musician
says...Classical piano :)
On your comment to Christopher regarding confirmation bias, I completely agree. To give an example, since I am a fairly recent ‘deconvert’ I have been struggling with the issue of morality. Because of my fundamentalist upbringing, I always seem to steer towards there being an objective morality. When reading Sam Harris, for instance, it is difficult for me to try and argue with his claims simply because he is arguing for what I want to believe in. Confirmation bias is, indeed, a powerful divisive force.
Christopher
says...I can only speak for those I have experience with, and, in my experience, many seek, read, analyze and argue just enough to confirm their newfound philosophical preferences. This makes them worse off, because they’re now under the impression that they’re slaves to reason.
The phrase ‘slaves to reason’ seems odd. Do you mean that b/c we are irrational beings to begin with that reason is the slave driver whom we must bow down to? Or are you saying that we can use something other than reason to understand the world around us? If so, what would this something be?
Confirmation bias is one powerful dissuader of critical thinking. As I alluded to above and in the OP, many seek, read, analyze and argue just enough to confirm their newfound philosophical preferences. Many don’t shed the underlying character traits that made them gravitate towards religious dogmatism in the first place.
I think you are making a mistake by thinking that the majority knew why they were believers in the first place. I was brought up through Catholicism. Only after critically thinking about what this meant did I stop believing it. Then I classified myself as a Christian and truly began reading the bible. After reading through it (partially due to a born-again friend) I had more questions than I began with. I could not possibly live my life according to tenets I found in the book. It was too confusing and contradictory. But remember: I realized this, I read it, I made my decisions – through the lens of critical thought – not b/c of some ‘fundamentalist atheists.’ Now I do my very best to avoid the confirmation bias you referenced by listening to all arguments and using logic and reason (name of my blog) to make reasoned decisions on what reality is.
By the way, I am new to your blog. What is it that you accept with respect to a deity? You state you are a theist but I would like to know what you mean by this.
Thanks
cl
says...Some Musician,
Nice. While I don’t play much anymore, I’ve got a 12-string acoustic guitar with deep, rich tone. There was a point when I was aspiring to teach myself some classical guitar ala the flamenco school.
I find that this is quite common amongst the deconverted. Did you get the feeling that deconversion left a “moral vacuum” of sorts?
That you can recognize this puts you far ahead of the pack IMHO. Knowing what to look out for is probably more than half the battle, wouldn’t you say?
FWIW, I tend to believe in “objective” morality as well.
Christopher,
I appreciate you sharing some of your journey towards truth.
It was a figure of speech, entirely, and nothing substantial should be inferred from it. That said…
Yes. I believe intuition is equally viable. Of course, both intuition and reason have their strengths and weaknesses. Neither is the right choice in all cases.
That’s just it, though: I’m not assuming that. I’m assuming its converse, that in my experience, most don’t know why they were believers in the first place. Therefore, they don’t know what to look out for, and inadvertently end up carrying the same errors in thinking to their newfound philosophical stance. It appears that like Some Musician, you may be different than those I allude to. If this is the case, I find it refreshing.
I would be interested in even a brief list of examples, when/if time allows. Also, feel free to leave a link to your own blog, as I’d love to check it out.
There have been multiple requests along these lines this past week. I’m working on an “About” page, and should have it up by the end of the upcoming week. The short answer is, I accept the Bible.
Christopher
says...http://logicandreason-dibattista.blogspot.com/
I don’t post all that often, but I would like to change that. Just food for thought from a high school math teacher – nothing like the conversations I have found at sites like this.
I will say 2 things about inconsistencies in the bible.
1. Salvation: Attained through good deeds, faith in Jesus, or both?
In Jesus’ own words (Matthew 25: 31-46, Matthew 19: 16-22, Luke 19: 8-9) the righteous attain it through actions.
John 3:16, Romans 3:28, Ephesians 2:8-9 state faith only.
2. Morality: How can we ignore the immorality of this deity? (sounds strange to say that a god can be immoral, but why should it not be subject to its laws as well? I may have found my answer in your post to Some Musician – you believe there is objective morality)
I do not act morally because I fear god – I act this way because I choose to. I accept everyone with all of their flaws and have honed my objectivity lens through trial and error in my life. Why should I be subject to eternal punishment just because I choose the “wrong” path to morality?
And speaking of eternal punishment (going off on tangents – one of my flaws), why am I predestined for hell the moment I am conceived? I could not control what my ancestors did – why must I pay for their immorality (if they were at all)?
apologianick
says...Christopher: I will say 2 things about inconsistencies in the bible.
1. Salvation: Attained through good deeds, faith in Jesus, or both?
In Jesus’ own words (Matthew 25: 31-46, Matthew 19: 16-22, Luke 19: 8-9) the righteous attain it through actions.
John 3:16, Romans 3:28, Ephesians 2:8-9 state faith only.
Reply: Semitic Totality Concept. We are saved by a faith that eventually reveals itself in good deeds, the only way such faith can be revealed to the world. Consider this. I am married because my wife and I met in a church one day in the sight of God and men and had a minister officially marry us.
My ring however is the outside sign to the world that I am married and not “Shacking up” as it were.
Christopher: 2. Morality: How can we ignore the immorality of this deity? (sounds strange to say that a god can be immoral, but why should it not be subject to its laws as well? I may have found my answer in your post to Some Musician – you believe there is objective morality)
Reply: Correct. God is not moral. Moral is doing what one ought and God is not subject to having to do anything because there is nothing above Him.
What you really mean to ask is “Is God good?” Well I suppose the only way we can determine that is if we can find out what goodness is. Got any ideas?
Christopher: I do not act morally because I fear god – I act this way because I choose to. I accept everyone with all of their flaws and have honed my objectivity lens through trial and error in my life. Why should I be subject to eternal punishment just because I choose the “wrong” path to morality?
Reply: Christianity is not a path to morality. Christianity is a path to the presence of God and the only thing that will allow you to stand in the presence of a perfect and holy God is perfection on your part.
Even by your own standards, have you been perfect?
Christopher: And speaking of eternal punishment (going off on tangents – one of my flaws), why am I predestined for hell the moment I am conceived? I could not control what my ancestors did – why must I pay for their immorality (if they were at all)?
Reply: Here’s an idea. Trick them all! Become a Christian and you’re no longer predestined for Hell!
dguller
says...apologianick:
If God is not subject to anything other than himself, then why did he agree to bargain with Abraham at Sodom and Gomorrah? It appears that he was responsive to REASONS, at least on that one occasion.
apologianick
says...@dguller:
That does not show subjection. That shows God willing to listen. We believe in the same thing today called prayer. God takes into account our prayers in doing whatever it is He does. He has the freedom to act how He sees fit regardless of how we pray however. God was in no way subject to Abraham and could have said from the start, “No Abraham. I will destroy even if fifty are found there.”
dguller
says...apologianick:
So, God is not limited by anything above him, but he takes into consideration that which is beneath him, i.e. human beings. That seems a bit odd to me, but I suppose it is possible.
My difficulty is that either God adheres to some standard, or he is capricious and arbitrary in his actions. Abraham at Sodom and Gomorrah appealed to the standard of justice and rationality to appeal to God, and God appeared to have sided with Abraham in this matter. Without an appeal to a higher standard, then the Bible passage makes no sense. Abraham did not throw himself on the mercy of God, but REASONED with him based on an underlying set of principles, such as that the innocent should not be punished along with the guilty, i.e. that collateral damage is unjust. As he says, “Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?” (Genesis 18:25).
My other difficulty is which Abraham are believers supposed to emulate? The Abraham that suspends his reason and morality to sacrifice his son, or the Abraham that is willing to debate and argue with God on the basis of reason and morality to save innocent lives?
Christopher
says...Apologianick:
So you agree that I am predestined for hell right from the start? Forget about what we read in the bible – just ask yourself, “For what purpose would god bring his creations into the world in this manner?” Now. if we cannot find the answers in the bible to this question, you must have to use the mental faculties that you believe god gave you to reason this out – unless of course your prayers work and god talks to you. Then you can ask him and get back to me with an answer.
Do not mistake what obviously seems like scarcasm for a real question. (I use scarcasm quite a bit) I really want to know this and never heard an answer from god when I asked.
Christopher
says...Apologianick:
Here’s an idea. Trick them all! Become a Christian and you’re no longer predestined for Hell!
#1: I couldn’t truly become one unless I had better evidence (god would know I was masquerading)
#2: Trick who?
therealadaam
says...cl,
I can say that I have seen this attitude in a lot of people, myself included. It’s just natural, people LOVE an “Us vs. Them” mentality. They love it.
Though I’m not like that anymore, it was just a little bit of bitterness and resentment after my deconversion.
apologianick
says...@dguller:
My difficulty is that either God adheres to some standard, or he is capricious and arbitrary in his actions. Abraham at Sodom and Gomorrah appealed to the standard of justice and rationality to appeal to God, and God appeared to have sided with Abraham in this matter. Without an appeal to a higher standard, then the Bible passage makes no sense. Abraham did not throw himself on the mercy of God, but REASONED with him based on an underlying set of principles, such as that the innocent should not be punished along with the guilty, i.e. that collateral damage is unjust. As he says, “Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?” (Genesis 18:25).
My other difficulty is which Abraham are believers supposed to emulate? The Abraham that suspends his reason and morality to sacrifice his son, or the Abraham that is willing to debate and argue with God on the basis of reason and morality to save innocent lives?
Reply: The first case is a case of Abraham being a mediator which is a classic event shown in the Bible regularly. As for the standard, rather than talking about justice, I think it’s best to start with goodness. What is it?
As for the second, God was seeing if Abraham would believe in the promise. He was promised that through Isaac his offspring would be reckoned. Would he believe that God could raise the dead or not?
apologianick
says...@Christopher:
So you agree that I am predestined for hell right from the start?
Reply: No. I was just accepting it for the sake of argument. I cannot say what you are predestined for if anything as I do not have a clear stance on predestination.
Christopher: Forget about what we read in the bible – just ask yourself, “For what purpose would god bring his creations into the world in this manner?” Now. if we cannot find the answers in the bible to this question, you must have to use the mental faculties that you believe god gave you to reason this out
Reply: Indeed, I believe we have to do this. I don’t think the Bible is meant to answer this question and I have a concern with some atheists who think the Bible contains all the answers or none of the answers. It’s neither.
Consider this as an example. Suppose for the sake of argument that Christianity is true. Well you could know Jesus died on a cross by studying history, but you could not know he died for the sins of the world without revelation. I can know Jesus’s moral teachings are good teachings. I cannot know he taught them unless I have historical record of him doing so. The Bible is not the moral standard. It tells us about morality however and I believe it is true when it speaks on morality.
As for your question, it is a good one and I think the closest parallel we have is parents having children. However, I think the first question you have to answer is “Did God do this?” If He did, then you realize that your question is secondary and even if you don’t know the answer, there is one.
Christopher: – unless of course your prayers work and god talks to you. Then you can ask him and get back to me with an answer.
Reply: Based on what you say later, I believe your question is genuine. You really want to know. I’d like to start with dispelling a myth.
I won’t hide this from you at all. I am a Seminary student. I love what I do. I am an ordained minister. I have my own ministry. In all of this, I have not heard the voice of God once. I also don’t expect to. At least, not until I cross over. If He chooses to do so, fine, but knowing my personal bent, I know I would have a propensity to make my experience dominant.
I wonder who it is saying that people should pray for God to tell them an answer. The glory of a king lies in hiding a matter at times. The glory of man lies in finding it out. That’s what should make science fun. It’s finding out the things of God that aren’t known in special revelation. I love my area of philosophy because it’s coming to know Him better. The approach today is a lazy one expecting God to do everything for us.
Here’s my suggestion. Read up. Don’t just read the moderns. I support Craig and Zacharias and others, but don’t limit yourself to them. Read Plato and Aristotle to learn good thinking. Read Augustine and Aquinas to learn from the greatest thinkers the church had. When I go through Aquinas’s Summa Theologica, I am amazed with how many “modern” questions were answered long ago.
Christopher: Do not mistake what obviously seems like scarcasm for a real question. (I use scarcasm quite a bit) I really want to know this and never heard an answer from god when I asked.
Reply: I cannot tell you if you’re predestined. I am not a Calvinist either but I am not an open theist as well. I believe God knows, but he did not cause your sinning. When you get to God’s presence, God won’t hold you accountable for what Adam did. He’ll hold you accountable for what you’ve done.
I also believe a question like this is secondary to if God exists and I do agree that if you are to believe, you need evidence. I would be glad to give you my reasons for belief.
As for who to trick, I simply mean to go against the system. If you think you’re predestined for Hell, then go against the system and convert.
dguller
says...apologianick:
>> Reply: The first case is a case of Abraham being a mediator which is a classic event shown in the Bible regularly. As for the standard, rather than talking about justice, I think it’s best to start with goodness. What is it?
The point remains the same. If human beings are supposed to obey God in all things, and Abraham is the father of faith, then how dare he question God’s decisions, even if it is for the sake of others? By what authority does Abraham question him to begin with, if all authority comes from God?
You cannot have it both ways. Either God is to be obeyed, even when it violates our sense of justice and reason, or his commands can be filtered through our ethical intuitions and reason, in which case we are following reasons and not God.
>> As for the second, God was seeing if Abraham would believe in the promise. He was promised that through Isaac his offspring would be reckoned. Would he believe that God could raise the dead or not?
It is truly amazing that Abraham can see into the mind of God and know what he wants. The bottom line is that he had a vision that commanded him to kill his son. He could have ignored it by thinking along the same lines that worked at Sodom and Gomorrah. “God is just and reasonable, and this command is so horrific that it cannot possibly come from God, and so I will disobey it.” Or, he might have, at least, tried to argue or discuss the matter with God. I mean, if he was willing to do so for strangers in Sodom and Gomorrah, then why not for his own son?
And you can apply your line of thinking even to Sodom and Gomorrah. I mean, could he not have kept silent and believed that God would magically save the innocent in Sodom and Gomorrah?
I’m sorry, but there’s no way out of this contradiction. Either one can challenge and interrogate God when he is on the verge of committing a heinous act, or one must obediently submit to all of his commands, even those that are immoral and unethical. Abraham happens to represent both.
apologianick
says...Dguller: The point remains the same. If human beings are supposed to obey God in all things, and Abraham is the father of faith, then how dare he question God’s decisions, even if it is for the sake of others? By what authority does Abraham question him to begin with, if all authority comes from God?
Reply: Who said he can’t question God? Someone who never doubts or questions God is someone who is not taking their faith seriously. (The only exception I can see to this is Christ for obvious reasons.) Abraham regularly did that and God does allow it. Was he the father of the faithful? Yes. He was also one of the biggest doubters in Scripture.
Dguller: You cannot have it both ways. Either God is to be obeyed, even when it violates our sense of justice and reason, or his commands can be filtered through our ethical intuitions and reason, in which case we are following reasons and not God.
Reply: Have what both ways? There is no command being discussed in the first instance. It’s asking if human input matters at all to the actions of God, and the reality of prayer says yes.
Dguller: It is truly amazing that Abraham can see into the mind of God and know what he wants.
Reply: Not really since he’d been told earlier that “Through Isaac your offspring will be reckoned.” He was just going by what God said.
Dguller: The bottom line is that he had a vision that commanded him to kill his son.
Reply: Vision? Where do you see that?
Dguller:He could have ignored it by thinking along the same lines that worked at Sodom and Gomorrah. “God is just and reasonable, and this command is so horrific that it cannot possibly come from God, and so I will disobey it.” Or, he might have, at least, tried to argue or discuss the matter with God. I mean, if he was willing to do so for strangers in Sodom and Gomorrah, then why not for his own son?
Reply: Who is to say he didn’t? In Hebrew, the word “na” shows up early in the text. It indicates a staggering request made of someone and it is in this case. The text makes it clear that Abraham knew that this was the voice of God and there was no mistaking it. However, the text is also very silent. The story is so important, the writer mentions only the bare details. For instance, Abraham and Isaac travel for a long time to reach the mountain. How much dialogue is recorded? Isaac saying one thing and Abraham answering. The request also was not to murder his son but to sacrifice his son. For this to be a real test, it had to be something incredibly huge that would be borderline to evil even. Of course, the presence of the ram reveals God never intended it to take place. I suppose Abraham did offer several pushbacks, but there is no recording of them. The author only cares about Abraham completing the test in this case.
Dguller: And you can apply your line of thinking even to Sodom and Gomorrah. I mean, could he not have kept silent and believed that God would magically save the innocent in Sodom and Gomorrah?
Reply: Abraham knew God had told him for a reason and Abraham also knew his family was there. God could have cancelled it at any time, but he wanted Israel to know about the role of a mediator.
Dguller: I’m sorry, but there’s no way out of this contradiction. Either one can challenge and interrogate God when he is on the verge of committing a heinous act, or one must obediently submit to all of his commands, even those that are immoral and unethical. Abraham happens to represent both.
Reply: I haven’t seen the contradiction yet and I’d urge you to look at the best writings on this story especially from a Jewish perspective.
Of course, today, it’s also seen from a Christian perspective in that YHWH stopped Abraham so his son could live. YHWH spared Abraham’s son and instead gave his own Son up.
dguller
says...Apologianick:
>> Who said he can’t question God? Someone who never doubts or questions God is someone who is not taking their faith seriously. (The only exception I can see to this is Christ for obvious reasons.) Abraham regularly did that and God does allow it. Was he the father of the faithful? Yes. He was also one of the biggest doubters in Scripture.
So, if I believe that an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-merciful deity is commanding me to do something that I find abhorrent, then I can doubt and question it? By what authority? I have heard it often said that God has inscrutable reasons that human beings are not privy to. Why not apply that information to the abhorrent command? After all, if God IS all-powerful, all-knowing and all-merciful, then he knows more than I do, and has my best interests at heart.
Just because Abraham both blindly followed and questioned God at different occasions does not make the two acts consistent. My point is that Abraham WAS acting inconsistently, and that one needs clearer guidelines as to how to interact with the commands of God. Similarly, just because prayer occurs throughout the Bible does not make it consistent with the idea that God already knows what’s best and has given it to us, and so for us to question his judgment by praying for a set of circumstances to disappear has the smell of inconsistency.
>> Have what both ways? There is no command being discussed in the first instance. It’s asking if human input matters at all to the actions of God, and the reality of prayer says yes.
Maybe command was the wrong word, but the point remains that God intended to do something, and Abraham questioned it, even though God is all-knowing and all-just. How do you question someone who is all-knowing and all-just?
>> The text makes it clear that Abraham knew that this was the voice of God and there was no mistaking it.
How did he know that it was the voice of God and not a hallucination? How does one tell the difference. If you met someone who claimed to have heard the voice of God command him to kill his son, then would you support him in his endeavor, or would you call the police?
apologianick
says...Dguller: So, if I believe that an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-merciful deity is commanding me to do something that I find abhorrent, then I can doubt and question it? By what authority?
Reply: You would think God is a tyrant on your view. He’s not. He understands that we don’t know why he does the things he does and he allows us to question. In fact, Abraham had done so more than once. He even laughed at God at one time. We are allowed to question and have our input into things, but the final say-so comes to God Himself.
Dguller: I have heard it often said that God has inscrutable reasons that human beings are not privy to. Why not apply that information to the abhorrent command? After all, if God IS all-powerful, all-knowing and all-merciful, then he knows more than I do, and has my best interests at heart.
Reply: Hey Abraham. I want you to go sacrifice your son, but I want you to know you’re really not going to do it. I’m not going to let you go through with it. I just want you to see how strong your trust is in me, but just act like I didn’t tell you this just now. Okay?
Dguller: Just because Abraham both blindly followed and questioned God at different occasions does not make the two acts consistent. My point is that Abraham WAS acting inconsistently, and that one needs clearer guidelines as to how to interact with the commands of God.
Reply: It’s your assertion he blindly followed. I don’t believe that. I believe the text of Genesis 22 leaves out much dialogue because it wants to get to the main emphasis of the story. After all, Israel identified themselves with this story.
Dguller: Similarly, just because prayer occurs throughout the Bible does not make it consistent with the idea that God already knows what’s best and has given it to us, and so for us to question his judgment by praying for a set of circumstances to disappear has the smell of inconsistency.
Reply: How come? God knows what’s best for us and is acting in advance of our prayers taking them into account for what happens.
Dguller: Maybe command was the wrong word, but the point remains that God intended to do something, and Abraham questioned it, even though God is all-knowing and all-just. How do you question someone who is all-knowing and all-just?
Reply: God. Why are you doing X?
I’ve done it several times. Every Christian has. The problem is not if we question. The problem is if we question and don’t trust in the end.
Dguller: How did he know that it was the voice of God and not a hallucination? How does one tell the difference. If you met someone who claimed to have heard the voice of God command him to kill his son, then would you support him in his endeavor, or would you call the police?
Reply: Ah yes. Take something extraordinary and make it normative. Abraham’s experience is not normative. In fact, God was more often silent in Abraham’s life than he was speaking. How did he know? The text does not say. It just says he knew and considering he’d heard from God before and that God had made his wife pregnant at the age of 90 and had blessed him and protected him that far, I think he knew that voice by now.
I also seriously doubt it was an internal voice.
dguller
says...Apologianick:
>> You would think God is a tyrant on your view. He’s not. He understands that we don’t know why he does the things he does and he allows us to question. In fact, Abraham had done so more than once. He even laughed at God at one time. We are allowed to question and have our input into things, but the final say-so comes to God Himself.
Perhaps I am seeing your responses through the eyes of a fundamentalist. Certainly, I can appreciate liberal believers who can recognize that divine injunctions must be interpreted by human beings through logic, reason and evidence, and modify those injunctions accordingly. Perhaps you are one of these liberal believers who is comfortable with applying sense to Biblical passages, and if you are, then good for you.
I will say this, however. I find the fundamentalist version of faith far more authentic for some reason, which is also why I find it so terrifying. If faith is ultimately about believing in the unseen having a powerful influence upon our lives in ways that we are fundamentally unable to understand, then it requires submitting to divine injunctions and principles even in the face of logic, reason and empirical evidence. Anything less would put divine injunctions below logic, reason and empirical evidence.
If your version of faith is to permit laughing, questioning and doubting God’s judgment, then that must be based upon an individual’s right to put their own perspective in a position of judgment over God’s. That strikes me as extremely paradoxical, and an anathema to real faith, because it puts the finite above the infinite. It would be like me questioning my mechanic’s repair of my automobile while I am totally ignorant of automotive mechanics altogether.
And the fact that we are permitted to judge God’s pronouncements in such a way just exacerbates the paradox, from my perspective, because either you trust in God’s judgment or you do not. If the former, then you have faith, and if the latter, then you have doubt, and there are multiple sayings in the New Testament, at least, that condemn doubt and exalt faith as opposite poles of belief.
>> Hey Abraham. I want you to go sacrifice your son, but I want you to know you’re really not going to do it. I’m not going to let you go through with it. I just want you to see how strong your trust is in me, but just act like I didn’t tell you this just now. Okay?
Fair enough, if that is what happened.
>> How come? God knows what’s best for us and is acting in advance of our prayers taking them into account for what happens.
So, when God changes his mind in response to our prayers, then he is just play-acting? He did not really change his mind, because he always knew that the outcome would be in favor of your prayers? And if the outcome went against your prayers, then you were engaging in a meaningless gesture? I’m not too sure that your formulation helps the case that you are making.
>> Ah yes. Take something extraordinary and make it normative. Abraham’s experience is not normative. In fact, God was more often silent in Abraham’s life than he was speaking. How did he know? The text does not say. It just says he knew and considering he’d heard from God before and that God had made his wife pregnant at the age of 90 and had blessed him and protected him that far, I think he knew that voice by now.
First, taking “something extraordinary and make it normative” is what religion does all the time. Why pray for the extraordinary to occur? Because it happened in the past, allegedly, and thus might happen again.
Second, if Abraham is not a model for believers, then why mention the story at all? Who cares if it lacks any relevance to our lives?
Third, auditory hallucinations are not internal thoughts, but external voices that are actually heard by those who are psychotic in a way that is utterly veridical.
Fourth, you are avoiding my question. I take it your avoidance is due to the fact that you would, in fact, call the police on the individual I mentioned, as you should do. If that is true, then why not do it for Abraham? Double standard? And upon what basis?
apologianick
says...Dguller: Perhaps I am seeing your responses through the eyes of a fundamentalist. Certainly, I can appreciate liberal believers who can recognize that divine injunctions must be interpreted by human beings through logic, reason and evidence, and modify those injunctions accordingly. Perhaps you are one of these liberal believers who is comfortable with applying sense to Biblical passages, and if you are, then good for you.
Reply: Actually, no. It’s a fundamentalist who thinks that way. You’re being an example of what CL is talking about. I’m also quite strongly conservative both politically and biblically. Hence, I believe in reason. The great theologians that went before me all believed in reason strongly. I have no qualms about someone who questions God and doubts. In fact, I wish more Christians would do that. Those are the ones taking their faith seriously
Dguller: I will say this, however. I find the fundamentalist version of faith far more authentic for some reason, which is also why I find it so terrifying. If faith is ultimately about believing in the unseen having a powerful influence upon our lives in ways that we are fundamentally unable to understand, then it requires submitting to divine injunctions and principles even in the face of logic, reason and empirical evidence. Anything less would put divine injunctions below logic, reason and empirical evidence.
Reply: That’s because of the view that has been given about religion. Religion is supposedly all about morality and feelings. Faith is defined as blind belief. All entirely false. The divine is logical in fact as He is knowable. Blind belief is never espoused in Scripture.
Dguller: If your version of faith is to permit laughing, questioning and doubting God’s judgment, then that must be based upon an individual’s right to put their own perspective in a position of judgment over God’s. That strikes me as extremely paradoxical, and an anathema to real faith, because it puts the finite above the infinite. It would be like me questioning my mechanic’s repair of my automobile while I am totally ignorant of automotive mechanics altogether.
Reply: If that was what was going on, yes. That is not what is going on. What is going on is a faith seeking understanding. God. Why are you doing this? Why do you want me to do this? Those are questions seeking to know God. It is not “How dare you do this God!” However, if one was feeling that, I would prefer they express it. God knows the heart and it’s no sense hiding it from Him.
Dguller: And the fact that we are permitted to judge God’s pronouncements in such a way just exacerbates the paradox, from my perspective, because either you trust in God’s judgment or you do not. If the former, then you have faith, and if the latter, then you have doubt, and there are multiple sayings in the New Testament, at least, that condemn doubt and exalt faith as opposite poles of belief.
Reply: Not necessarily. It depends on what kind of doubt you have. Consider one of my favorite examples. John the Baptist is about to die and sends his disciples to Jesus to say “Are you the one to come or should we wait for another?” Why did John ask this? Jesus was not doing what the Messiah was expected to do. This is John the Baptist who saw the heavens opened and praised Jesus at his baptism. He had evidence. So what does Jesus do after this event?
He turns to the crowd and praises John the Baptist.
Some doubt is condemned. Some is not. You would have to talk to a Greek scholar about this, but there are several different words translated as doubt. Os Guinness goes into this more in “In Two Minds”
Dguller: Fair enough, if that is what happened.
Reply: But it could not be if it was a test.
Dguller: So, when God changes his mind in response to our prayers, then he is just play-acting? He did not really change his mind, because he always knew that the outcome would be in favor of your prayers? And if the outcome went against your prayers, then you were engaging in a meaningless gesture? I’m not too sure that your formulation helps the case that you are making.
Reply: God doesn’t change His mind. When the Bible says that, it’s using anthropomorphic language so we can understand what is going on. It’s not going to give us a theological treatise in the middle of Exodus on immutability and impassibility.
Dguller: First, taking “something extraordinary and make it normative” is what religion does all the time. Why pray for the extraordinary to occur?
Reply: Because it is extraordinary in fact. I don’t expect to see miracles happen every day. As I told Christopher, I have never heard the voice of God and if I do not hear it until I cross over, I will not be surprised. No. Making the extraordinary normative is what atheists do when they critique religion. Dawkins and others will find the most bizarre Christian they can and make everyone to be that way.
Dguller: Because it happened in the past, allegedly, and thus might happen again.
Reply: It might. It might not. There’s nothing wrong with praying for a miracle. There’s something wrong with demanding one.
Dguller: Second, if Abraham is not a model for believers, then why mention the story at all? Who cares if it lacks any relevance to our lives?
Reply: Who said he wasn’t a model? I just said he wasn’t a perfect model. Only Christ is that. The point with Abraham is when push came to shove, he did trust, and he believed in the power of the resurrection even before there was a resurrection.
The story also is not about the importance to an individual but to a people. Israel defined themselves by this story. The place where Isaac was nearly sacrificed was later where the temple was.
Dguller: Third, auditory hallucinations are not internal thoughts, but external voices that are actually heard by those who are psychotic in a way that is utterly veridical.
Reply: Very well, however, this would be assuming wouldn’t it that Abraham was hallucinating. Because X can be explained in one way does not mean all accounts of X happened that way. How did I get from A to B? Well it’s possible that I drove my car there. Therefore, every time I go from A to B I drove my car there. No. I could walk. I could have someone else drive me. Etc.
Dguller: Fourth, you are avoiding my question. I take it your avoidance is due to the fact that you would, in fact, call the police on the individual I mentioned, as you should do. If that is true, then why not do it for Abraham? Double standard? And upon what basis?
Reply: Today? You bet I would. Why not on Abraham. For one thing, Abraham didn’t share what was going on with anyone so how could I know? Not even Isaac knew what was happening until they got there. The servants didn’t know as well. Chances are I would have called, and I would have been wrong. If God wanted the test to take place, he would have made sure it did anyway.
How do I know it was God who spoke however? Because Isaac’s life was spared by the pronouncement of the Angel of the Lord. I don’t know it before the fact but after it.
dguller
says...apologianick:
>> Hence, I believe in reason. The great theologians that went before me all believed in reason strongly. I have no qualms about someone who questions God and doubts. In fact, I wish more Christians would do that. Those are the ones taking their faith seriously.
So, those who doubt their faith are to be commended by you. That is reassuring.
>> That’s because of the view that has been given about religion. Religion is supposedly all about morality and feelings. Faith is defined as blind belief. All entirely false. The divine is logical in fact as He is knowable. Blind belief is never espoused in Scripture.
First, religion is “all about morality and feelings”, because when it enters the realm of making truth claims about the world and how it works, it becomes unworkable.
Second, you claim that God is knowable. How is he knowable? What methodology do you utilize to differentiate true from false religious claims?
>> If that was what was going on, yes. That is not what is going on. What is going on is a faith seeking understanding. God. Why are you doing this? Why do you want me to do this? Those are questions seeking to know God. It is not “How dare you do this God!” However, if one was feeling that, I would prefer they express it. God knows the heart and it’s no sense hiding it from Him.
I think that is exactly what is going on. Look, if God issues a decree or wills a set of circumstances to occur, then it must be assumed by those who believe that he is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good, that whatever happens must be for the best, because otherwise, God would not have willed it. If there was any other way for things to be in which things would be better, then God would have willed it.
Knowing this, what point is there to doubt God’s judgment when something happens to our disliking? One does not have to raise one’s fists to the heavens in a dramatic gesture, as you implied, but in the very act of doubting or questioning an event’s appropriateness, one also doubts or questions God’s judgment, and requesting a justification. I am actually in favor of this, but a believer should not, because it places human judgment over God’s judgment, which puts the finite over the infinite.
Even Abraham at Sodom and Gomorrah did not question God the way that you imply. He was not seeking to just understand God’s reasons. He was OPPOSED to his judgment and was actively engaging God to change his mind, because he was WRONG. There is no way to whitewash this Biblical event out of the Bible, because it is there, and justifies placing human intellect and morality above God and able to issue judgment upon his actions.
>> God doesn’t change His mind. When the Bible says that, it’s using anthropomorphic language so we can understand what is going on. It’s not going to give us a theological treatise in the middle of Exodus on immutability and impassibility.
First, what criteria do you use to decide when to interpret an event in the Bible as literal or figurative? I would imagine that if a passage was essentially impossible if interpreted literally, and a figurative interpretation was available, then the latter should prevail. Then it comes down to deciding what “impossible” you are talking about – logical or metaphysical impossibility or natural impossibility. The former having to do with the incoherence and senselessness of certain combinations of words and statements, and the latter having to do with a violation of all we understand about how the world works.
Second, what about when the Bible talks about God “knowing”, “loving”, “worrying”, “acting”, “choosing”, and so on? Are these not anthropomorphic concepts that we cannot truly apply to a transcendent being that exists beyond space-time? I mean, ultimately, one cannot have any of those occur without a brain and a body, because those experiences and actions involve bodily sensations that are incoherent without a body to begin with. So, if you really wanted to be consistent, then you would have to say that we cannot say or know anything about God, because he exists beyond our concepts and experiences. And once you admit to this, then how can you justify an entity like this at all?
>> Because it is extraordinary in fact. I don’t expect to see miracles happen every day. As I told Christopher, I have never heard the voice of God and if I do not hear it until I cross over, I will not be surprised. No. Making the extraordinary normative is what atheists do when they critique religion. Dawkins and others will find the most bizarre Christian they can and make everyone to be that way.
You still haven’t answered my point. Something becomes normative once it becomes something that one OUGHT to do. Why do believers pray for miracles? Because they think they ought to do so in order to facilitate the miraculous to occur. Why do they believe that? Because the Bible is full of stories of the miraculous occurring, and people assume that if God did it before, then he can do it again. The Bible and the behavior of believers falsifies your contention.
>> It might. It might not. There’s nothing wrong with praying for a miracle. There’s something wrong with demanding one.
Irrelevant.
>> Who said he wasn’t a model? I just said he wasn’t a perfect model. Only Christ is that. The point with Abraham is when push came to shove, he did trust, and he believed in the power of the resurrection even before there was a resurrection.
I see. So only a “perfect model” can become normative. And if Christ is the only perfect model, then why do believers have to study the rest of the Bible? Just study Jesus and that should be sufficient, no?
>> Today? You bet I would.
Good!
>> Why not on Abraham. For one thing, Abraham didn’t share what was going on with anyone so how could I know? Not even Isaac knew what was happening until they got there. The servants didn’t know as well. Chances are I would have called, and I would have been wrong. If God wanted the test to take place, he would have made sure it did anyway.
I see. So, if someone today heard a voice that they believed was from God commanding them to kill their only son, and they made the attempt without telling anyone, but were foiled at the last minute somehow, then you would have no objection to their behavior?
apologianick
says...Hi dguller. Just wanted to let you know that I am getting ready to head out to work and work late tonight and early tomorrow. It might be a couple of days before I can respond.
cl
says...Christopher,
Interesting blog. I wholeheartedly agree with you regarding the trinity: paste, olive oil and garlic. :)
As for the other stuff… I figured I’d post the relevant verses in full context before getting too into it:
I’ll be back in a little bit to comment on them, and your previous comment.
dguller
says...apologianick:
No problem. Looking forward to speaking with you soon.
cl
says...therealadaam,
Yes, I’m not much a fan of the “us vs. them” mentality, either, although, like you, there was a time in my life when I was more prone to that line of thinking. Like you, I feel much better having shed that line of thinking. Thanks for your candor; glad to see we both saw things for what they were.
apologianick
says...@Dguller:
So, those who doubt their faith are to be commended by you. That is reassuring.
Reply: Of course. I want people to really think seriously about their faith. On the other hand, I also want them to listen and do their part necessary. If I recommend they read a book for instance and they just refuse, then I don’t think they’re addressing their doubt seriously. There’s more than one kind of doubt.
Dguller: First, religion is “all about morality and feelings”, because when it enters the realm of making truth claims about the world and how it works, it becomes unworkable.
Reply: Um. No. I don’t think so. The claim in Scripture is that the world exists by the power of God and I hold that accurate and that has not to do with morality. It claims a man named Jesus existed and one would have to be a fool to deny that today. (Yes. That includes new atheist types who don’t realize historians of all stripes would laugh at them) It does make some claims about morality, but those claims are not true because the Bible makes them. The Bible makes them because they are true.
Dguller: Second, you claim that God is knowable. How is he knowable? What methodology do you utilize to differentiate true from false religious claims?
Reply: I would prefer when dialoguing with an unbeliever to start with reason. What may we know about God just by observing the natural world? We cannot know everything but we can know some things. If something contradicts logic, such as violating the Law of Non-contradiction, it cannot be true.
Naturally, I also accept Scripture as I think its main role is to tell us what we could not find out for ourselves. Suppose Christianity is true for sake of this point. History could tell me that Jesus was crucified, as it does. Studying history however could not tell me he was crucified for the sins of the world.
Dguller: I think that is exactly what is going on. Look, if God issues a decree or wills a set of circumstances to occur, then it must be assumed by those who believe that he is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good, that whatever happens must be for the best, because otherwise, God would not have willed it. If there was any other way for things to be in which things would be better, then God would have willed it.
Reply: Correct. The doubt is not in that He is doing that for our good, but one just seeks to know how that will work. One seeks understanding.
Dguller: Knowing this, what point is there to doubt God’s judgment when something happens to our disliking? One does not have to raise one’s fists to the heavens in a dramatic gesture, as you implied, but in the very act of doubting or questioning an event’s appropriateness, one also doubts or questions God’s judgment, and requesting a justification. I am actually in favor of this, but a believer should not, because it places human judgment over God’s judgment, which puts the finite over the infinite.
Reply: Not at all. If one receives a command contrary to the way God would normally act, then it is fine to ask and in fact, I believe this is the purpose of miracles. One can know God is acting then. Scripture never condemns this. Remember that Job was questioned by God strongly, but who did God say had spoken wrongly about him? Eliphaz and his two friends.
Dguller: Even Abraham at Sodom and Gomorrah did not question God the way that you imply. He was not seeking to just understand God’s reasons. He was OPPOSED to his judgment and was actively engaging God to change his mind, because he was WRONG. There is no way to whitewash this Biblical event out of the Bible, because it is there, and justifies placing human intellect and morality above God and able to issue judgment upon his actions.
Reply: Because God was wrong? No. That’s something read into the text. God was inviting Abraham to be a mediator for the people.
God was setting up how things would be for people of the covenant. He knew what He would do, but He also wanted His people to know that they could come to Him. He wants them to know that intercession is allowable. This was the way business was also done in the ANE.
Dguller: First, what criteria do you use to decide when to interpret an event in the Bible as literal or figurative? I would imagine that if a passage was essentially impossible if interpreted literally, and a figurative interpretation was available, then the latter should prevail. Then it comes down to deciding what “impossible” you are talking about – logical or metaphysical impossibility or natural impossibility. The former having to do with the incoherence and senselessness of certain combinations of words and statements, and the latter having to do with a violation of all we understand about how the world works.
Reply: It would depend on the text. For instance, I do not consider miracles an impossibility. That does not mean that every story is ipso facto literal. As for metaphysical, I consider God changing His mind an impossibility because He is omniscient and I realize that this is how the Bible speaks, much as when it speaks of the body parts of God.
Dguller: Second, what about when the Bible talks about God “knowing”, “loving”, “worrying”, “acting”, “choosing”, and so on? Are these not anthropomorphic concepts that we cannot truly apply to a transcendent being that exists beyond space-time? I mean, ultimately, one cannot have any of those occur without a brain and a body, because those experiences and actions involve bodily sensations that are incoherent without a body to begin with. So, if you really wanted to be consistent, then you would have to say that we cannot say or know anything about God, because he exists beyond our concepts and experiences. And once you admit to this, then how can you justify an entity like this at all?
Reply: You say you have to have a body and a brain. Can you demonstrate this? To do so, you would need to show that creatures without a body and brain are incapable of these things. I do not think that is possible. I accept angels exist that can do these kinds of things. I do believe that the way that God and angels do things is different even when it’s the same activity however. I don’t see God knowing as anthropomorphic since He is omniscient and in fact, I see Him as the most active of all since He is pure actuality. Again, it all depends on the term in question. There’s not a blanket statement for all of them.
Dguller: You still haven’t answered my point. Something becomes normative once it becomes something that one OUGHT to do. Why do believers pray for miracles? Because they think they ought to do so in order to facilitate the miraculous to occur. Why do they believe that? Because the Bible is full of stories of the miraculous occurring, and people assume that if God did it before, then he can do it again. The Bible and the behavior of believers falsifies your contention.
Reply: Yes. He can do it again, but He’s not required to do it again. Acting otherwise is saying He can’t do it. The Bible however is full of these stories supposedly because they are the unusual stories.You would not find, “On such and such day as Elijah was walking through town, he sneezed.” No one would care about that. If it said “He raised a dead man to life” well people would care about that.
Chronologically, these events were rare in the life of Israel. Only three major periods in their history had regular miracles. The Exodus, Elijah and Elisha, and the time of Christ.
Dguller: Irrelevant.
Reply: Entirely relevant.
Dguller: I see. So only a “perfect model” can become normative. And if Christ is the only perfect model, then why do believers have to study the rest of the Bible? Just study Jesus and that should be sufficient, no?
Reply: No. Their lives are inspirations for us also in that imperfect people were used in great ways. When a behavior done by someone who we are to esteem is wrong, it is pointed out. No one reads David’s story and thinks “God will bless me if I have an affair, kill the husband, and marry the wife.”
Dguller: I see. So, if someone today heard a voice that they believed was from God commanding them to kill their only son, and they made the attempt without telling anyone, but were foiled at the last minute somehow, then you would have no objection to their behavior?
Barring clear intervention by God, I certainly would. Why do I treat Abraham differently? Because this was not an isolated incident in his life. He’d already seen miraculous events in his life such as his wife becoming pregnant at 90 and the testimony of others that he was a prophet. God had already spoken to him in verifiable ways.
Again also, we can be sure Abraham questioned God highly in the matter. Genesis 22 is very limited in what it tells us.
TruthOverfaith
says...When will there be a post explaining why an ancient myth whose main doctrine is soaked in the sickening, savage,revolting,disgusting idea of animal and human blood sacrifice is not the most embarrassing bit of lunacy ever concocted by the human mind?
The “blood” of Jesus is referenced more than thirty times in the New Testament. You won’t find love,kindness or compassion mentioned that many times. Or commands to treat women equally or condemn slavery.
But don’t forget the blood!!!
Christian doctrine is pure Cro-Magnon nonsense. And if there is some kind of Cosmic mind floating around somewhere s/he must surely be disappointed in the ludicrous portrayal of him/her/it that Christianity and other asinine religions have painted.
apologianick
says...Wow. Someone sure specializes in argument from outrage.
So first off, what part of it is a myth?
Second, can you give the right definition of faith?