Astonishing Admission – Round 2

This is a follow-up to my previous post, An Astonishing Admission. Graeme, who wrote the comment that prompted my earlier post, has not responded to my questions yet. Two Christians have chimed in with answers that were predictable, and revealing.

The first response came from Bob. Regular readers may remember him from a thread we had going here about 15 months ago. This time around, Bob is no happier with Graeme than he was with me:

If people “seemingly” disprove the Bible as the truth from God then they can live a life of sin and dabble in what ever turns them on. If you “seemingly” disprove that Jesus is God then anything goes and there is not Biblical truth at all. You may as well eat , drink, and be merry for tomorrow you may die. What is the sense in even responding to such a site or the claim that Jesus is God if you do not believe it? Graeme , you sometimes bite off your nose to spite your face.

Honestly, what I see you writing , I have found on atheist sites and those of agnostics.

If Jesus is not God then He is the best imposter of all time. If Jesus is not God then I have wasted 26 years in ministry plus more as a Christian. But, I know in whom I have believed. Atheists and agnostics despise hearing or viewing those words. As we have been in the last days since Jesus walked this earth and was resurrected the scenario of doubt and mockery will only continue and the spirit of the age will only get worse. That is found in Scripture but some will ignore it as their freedom of choice but there is a high price to pay.

Bob opens the round by playing the immorality card. He apparently has no idea that people can devise moral systems entirely independently of godly authority, and have been doing so for millenia. His next sentence is mostly nonsensical. “Disproving” (Bob’s word, not mine) that Jesus is God does not mean that “anything goes;” disproving that Jesus is god is only problematic for a religion based on that assumption. Other religions and philosophies do just fine without Jesus as god. Many of them even do just fine without any gods at all. Bob recovers somewhat from that error, though, by noting that, if Jesus is not god, then “there is not Biblical truth at all.” If one interprets most (or all) of the Bible literally, as Bob appears to do, then his conclusion is correct. If one does not read the entire Bible literally, then one can find true, sometimes even wise, ideas within its pages. Every word of the book from cover-to-cover is not literally true, but it does contains some true statements. Bob’s recovery is short-lived, though, as he stumbles again by citing the biblical “eat, drink and be merry” bromide. He apparently can’t comprehend that many godless people live meaningful, fulfilling, even moral, lives.

I don’t take at face value Bob’s assertion that Jesus was either god or the best impostor of all time. Jesus may have been a good impostor, but one may argue that others before or after him have been better. I will concede that, if Jesus was an impostor, then he was a fine exemplar for such latter-day Christian charlatans as Mike Warnke, Peter Popoff, Benny Hinn and scores of others. On the other hand, Jesus could have been mistaken about his identity – in other words, deluded. Or, he could have been mistaken about his mission – not necessarily deluded, but mentally disturbed nonetheless. Or, he could have been fabricated. Bob did get the next bit right, though: If Jesus is not God then I have wasted 26 years in ministry plus more as a Christian. Yes, Bob, that’s correct. Join the club. There are many of us who wasted countless years fussing over Christianity, God, Jesus and such rot. You’re one of us. But, the good news is, it’s not too late to change.

Following true to form, Bob says something sensible, then reverts to nonsense. He does not “know” the one in whom he has “believed.” If Bob “knew” him, he wouldn’t have to “believe” in him. Then, predictably, he closes with a “last days” statement and a thinly veiled warning that people who don’t believe in Jesus will spend eternity in hell.

John takes the next turn:

As Josh McDowell wrote many years ago:
“Jesus is either Lord, Lunatic or Liar”

Graeme and others should remember this.

I prefer to accept that Jesus is Lord. There are any number of reasons for this based on such diverse things as history, miracles performed in Jesus’ name, change seen in lifes of those following Jesus and consistency in the message Jesus brings.

And if I am not correct then what have I lost–nothing but I have lived a good life.

If I chose either lunatic or liar then what have I lost–possibility of eternal life and fellowship with God in Heaven rather than eternal pain and punishment with Satan in Hell.

John opens with C.S. Lewis’ trilemma and mistakenly attributes it to Josh McDowell. Yes, McDowell made quite a big deal of Lewis’ argument in Evidence That Demands a Verdict, which was initially published in 1972, but C.S. Lewis stated the argument a full 20 years earlier, in Mere Christianity. Since I’ve already dealt with the trilemma in my discussion of Bob’s comment, I’ll just note, as I explained above, that the trilemma can easily be expanded to include at least one more possibility: in addition to being either a liar, a lunatic or lord, Jesus could have been a legend.

John goes on with a vague list of what he considers as evidence that supports his belief, then closes with his version of Pascal’s wager.

My initial reaction to these two comments was amusement. As I’ve considered the matter more, though, my amusement has changed to pity. Every time I read their comments, I see two grown men who are trying, and failing, to disguise the fact that at least a portion of their religious belief is based on fear of an ostensibly loving god. What a sorry state of mind that must be is. Instead of laughing at Bob and John, I hope that they’ll one day have the courage to face their fears, unlock the shackles that bind their minds, and live life to its fullest. That’s the greatest hope I can hold out for anyone.

– the chaplain

 

An Astonishing Admission

I came across the comment below while surfing the Internet today. The author wrote this comment in response to a blog post that explained, briefly, how the Church developed its doctrine of Jesus’ divinity. I’ve come across this commenter a number of times over the years. In fact, I once wrote a post in response to a post he wrote. When you read his comment, you’ll see why it astonishes me.

I find it astonishing that a professed Christian will

a) admit that the church “had to come up with” a distinctive theology to set it apart from other religions,
b) acknowledge that the Jesus-myth fits the pattern of myths that preceded it, sometimes by millenia,
c) acknowledge that it took several centuries for the Church to figure out what it believed was going to teach about Jesus,
d) state that Christianity required a divinity of sufficient stature to replace the “divine” Roman emperor as an object of worship,

yet continue to cling to some sort of Christian faith. I honestly cannot fathom his reasons for doing so. On the one hand, he seems to understand that Christian dogma is completely fabricated. On the other hand, he apparently thinks that the religion offers some sort of meaningful- what? philosophical? ethical? spiritual? – foundation for his life. Also, a) and b) above contradict each other. The Church’s response to the need to distinguish itself was … to re-package the same old myths and change the characters’ names (and hope no one noticed?). How was that distinctive?

I submitted the following comment at the site; since I don’t know whether it will be moderated out of existence, I’ll post it here:

Now, I’m curious about two things:

1. Whether my comment will ever see the light of day
2. Whether Graeme will respond to it

I hope both of those things happen, because I really am interested in his answers to my questions. They won’t compel me to re-convert to Christianity, but they will, perhaps, give me some insights into how liberal Christians think.

– the chaplain

 

The War on Halloween

I don’t know whether anyone has fired the opening shots in this year’s installment of the War on Christmas, but I do know that at least one Christian blogger has declared war on Halloween. That’s nothing new. Christians have been declaring war on Halloween for decades. Isn’t it strange that no one at Fox News is upset about it?

I know parents who keep their children home from school every Halloween, or, if Halloween falls on a weekend, on whatever day the schools celebrate the holiday. Their holy, over-protected, living-in-bubbles kids can’t participate in any way in such sin-soaked activities as dressing in costumes (which is a funny position for Salvation Army people to take, when you think about it) and trick-or-treating (again, an odd position for people who, historically, have not been the least bit shy about door-to-door evangelism).

The screen shot below is from the October 17, 2010 post at the blog I linked to above:

The characterization of Halloween as “annual-renewal-of-evil covenant rituals”  is amusing. Do murders, kidnappings and other violent crimes peak on or around Halloween? I have no reason to think so, although Halloween fires cause quite a lot of property damage. Here’s another thought: if Christians object to Halloween because of its historical associations, then shouldn’t they also stop celebrating Christmas and Easter?

Right. That will happen when hell freezes over.

As you can see from the screen shot above, some Salvationists think that Bible-thumping is a great alternative to trick-or-treating. If you think kids knocking on your door begging for candy and apples is annoying (I don’t, but some people may), I bet you’ll be thrilled when they knock on your door and share the four spiritual laws with you. If you want my advice for escaping Halloween Bible-thumpers this year, follow these three simple steps:

1. When your doorbell rings, peek out your window.
2. If you see pint-sized ghosts, goblins, witches and werewolves carrying sacks, it will be safe to open your door.
3. If you see people wearing navy blue uniforms and carrying Bibles, turn off the lights and pretend that nobody’s home.

If you follow these steps consistently, you should be able to sit back and enjoy an entertaining, gospel-free Halloween.

– the chaplain

UPDATE: I discovered, via Maureen, that Jack Chick has a series of anti-Halloween tracts that he believes are suitable for handing out to trick-or-treaters. They are divided into age-appropriate categories (little children; older kids and teens) and they all warn kids of the dangers of dying without Jesus and going to hell. Jeez Louise! Is this guy serious? Or is he just laughing all the way to the bank by scaring the hell out of people?

 

Forget the Trinity – America Has 4 (Or More) Gods!

In a new book entitled, America’s Four Gods, Professors Paul Froese and Christopher Bader, of Baylor University, contend that American conceptions of their god tend to fall into four distinct types: authoritarian, benevolent, critical and distant. The clip below, which aired on ABC last week, provides a nice overview of the authors’ position:

USA Today also ran an interesting item detailing the relationships between these four views of a god and particular political positions. The charts below illustrate these differences quite well.

Issue: Homosexuality

Issue: Poverty

Issue: Natural Disasters

Issue: USA’s Military & Economic Strength

And, last but not least, this pie chart shows how many Americans fall into each of the four categories, and even includes a 5% slice for atheists and agnostics:

Well, I’ll be-

Do you see anything missing from the pie chart?

I do.

While I’m pleased that Froese and Bader acknowledged the atheist/agnostic presence in the USA, I’m disappointed that this chart – and the entire study, presumably – excluded Buddhists, Hindus, Wiccans and a host of other religious believers. That omission leads me to suspect that these two scholars undertook this study with some seriously flawed assumptions about the religious make-up of the USA; they apparently acted as if the only choices available were the Abrahamic god or no god. If that’s the case, then this book is a glaring example of the Christian privilege (with grudging acknowledgment of Judaism and Islam) that pervades the USA. Even worse, if I’m right and these authors did not account in any way for other religions besides the Abrahamic ones, then they have seriously underestimated the number of gods (and goddesses) in America.

Damn.

Now they’ll have to go back to the beginning and start counting all over again.

– the chaplain

 

Good News from Gallup

Gallup released the following information several months ago. I was familiar with the first finding, but I didn’t know about the second one. The first graph below indicates that about 16% of Americans don’t identify with any religion. This continues an upward trend away from religious identification that has been tracked in recent decades. I think I’ve cited this stat in the past few months, either in a post (or two) or some comments around the atheosphere.

The second graph reports a finding that I find very interesting: 28% of Americans believe that religion is old-fashioned and outdated.

I’ll begin by noting my assumption that this 28% figure is comprised of the 16% of non-religious-identifiers, plus 12% of others (I’ll call them the 12%ers). Since I don’t have enough information about the poll to find out for sure, I’ll go with that conservative assumption for this post (a more liberal assumption would be that the 28% figure consists of people who are not included in the 16% who aren’t religious; I’d love it if that were the case, but I won’t assume it simply because it’s my preference – I have a hunch that the conservative assumption is more likely to be correct). My question for the 12%ers is this, if religion is old-fashioned and outdated, why do you continue to identify with it at all? Are there specific features of religion that you find irrelevant, but others that continue to make religion attractive to you? If so, what are these features, and why do they repel or appeal to you? I can guess what some of the features are in each category, but I’d like to hear from others who have some thoughts about this topic. In the meantime, I’m content (for this weekend only!) to know that more than 1/4 of Americans don’t really take religion – or some aspects of it, at least – very seriously.

– the chaplain

UPDATE: The Gallup post I linked to above reports that “trends on an additional Gallup question indicate that there has in fact been a slight uptick in the percentage of Americans who say religion is not very important in their daily lives — from a range of 11% to 14% through most of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s to 19% over the past two years.” It appears that some of the 28% who think that religion is outdated/old-fashioned still consider it to be somewhat important in their daily lives. I’d be very interested in knowing why they feel/think that, as it strikes me as an inconsistency in thought.