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
Lorena
October 26, 2010 at 11:41 pm
Great post, Chappie.
I’d like to comment on this line by John, And if I am not correct then what have I lost–nothing but I have lived a good life.
There is no doubt in my mind that many Christians live a good life, but I am certain that John and Bob aren’t part of that group.
The happy Christians don’t bother reading the Bible or preaching or arguing with atheists on-line. In fact, they don’t even bother obeying the Bible and its rules.
desertscope
October 27, 2010 at 1:12 am
Pascal:
If you are not correct, you have tormented homosexuals and other harmless people and denied yourself harmless pleasures in exchange for promises of a non-existent eternity. You spent your one and only life mired in hatred of others, and steeped in self-loathing.
C.S. Lewis:
Sticking with the alliteration is hard. Lord, lunatic, liar, or … leprechaun? It is almost as if Mr. Lewis didn’t bother to consider the possibility that Jesus simply didn’t exist. He probably didn’t. Thumbing through executive summaries of findings of the Jesus Seminar would rock the foundations of most Christians, even though the Jesus Seminar includes many Christians among its scholars.
Postman
October 27, 2010 at 12:17 pm
“You may as well eat , drink, and be merry for tomorrow you may die.”
Gosh… if you don’t believe in illusions, then you might very well make life enjoyable for yourself and others. Urgh! There’s really nothing more immoral than that.
Paul Sunstone
October 27, 2010 at 6:07 pm
John says:“I prefer to accept that Jesus is Lord. There are any number of reasons for this based on such diverse things as…change seen in lifes [sic] of those following Jesus…”
This interests me. Christians — especially fundamentalists, I think — claim that belief or faith in Jesus significantly changes people, or that it significantly changes people’s lives. Yet, I really don’t see much evidence that it does.
Instead, what seems much more common than any lasting change, Chaplain, is for a fundamentalist or other Christian to display a pattern of enthusiastic resolve and dedication to changing their lives followed in a few days by backsliding and possibly by despair. Some of them do that over and over, apparently never learning that mere belief or faith in Jesus is not radically transformative.
For decades, I’ve seen that pattern played out in one Christian or another, Chaplain. The myth that belief or faith in Jesus will radically transform you is a strong one.
I think that myth is like the myth that Christians are persecuted in the United States. So far as I know, those myths are both hollow. There is little or no evidence for either. But it seems they are believed in because it contributes to fundamentalist or Christian identity to believe in them. At least, that’s my guess.
To sum up: I’ve often seen the claim that something about Christianity is radically transformative, and that we ought therefore to believe or have faith in Jesus, but I have never seen that claim hold true in practice. It appears to be a hollow claim.
Paul Sunstone
October 27, 2010 at 6:15 pm
Lord, lunatic, liar — or legend. It seems possible that Jesus existed and that legends of magical powers and events grew up around him. We know that sort of thing commonly happens with certain celebrities and charismatic folks. For instance: It’s said that Elvis has been seen walking around after his death, just as it was said of Jesus that he survived his death.
PhillyChief
October 28, 2010 at 5:13 pm
The lord, lunatic, or liar thing always cracks me up. Would that be a false trichotomy? I like as one of his pieces of evidence “history”. Could we perhaps be a tad more specific?
As for faith changing people’s lives, I’d say that’s true. What else could make someone fly a plane into a building or actively work to thwart science research and education? Oh, and kill your kid. Let’s not forget that one.
As for Christians being persecuted, sure they are, if you look at it from their view. Christianity has enjoyed a place of unwarranted privilege in this country, and ever so slowly those unfair privileges are disappearing. To them, sure, that’s persecution. To everyone else however, it’s a long overdue balancing of the scales (and when those scales will be balanced is still a long way off).
the chaplain
October 28, 2010 at 7:56 pm
Lorena:
What qualifies as “a good life” varies widely from individual to individual. I hope Bob and John find their lives satisfactory, but I’m sure that what’s good for them is not good for me. I doubt that it’s good for you either.
desertscope:
I’m guessing that your name was crossed off the mailing lists of the Pascal and CS Lewis fan clubs some time ago.
Postie:
I don’t think Christians mind people making life enjoyable for others. They do, however, disapprove heartily of people who give themselves pleasure.
Paul:
Some of the nastiest, meanest people I’ve known are professing Christians, and some of the most trustworthy, generous people I’ve known can’t be bothered with religion.
Philly:
Great. Just great. Now all the informal logic textbooks will have to be re-written to include the newly identified False Trichotomy fallacy.
Ebonmuse
October 28, 2010 at 10:42 pm
And right there, Bob has plainly stated the reason he’s still a Christian. It has nothing to do with history, apologetics or philosophy, and everything to do with the fact that he’s much too deeply invested in Christianity to admit he made a mistake and that he’s spent so much of his life following an illusion. His pride clearly won’t permit it. It’s interesting to see a believer state this so plainly.
Sarge
October 29, 2010 at 8:48 am
In an embarrassed harking back to my school daze (no, it’s spelled correctly)’What everybody else said’!
I’ve often thought that many of the more rabid, devout christians that I’ve run across could have just as much gratification as members of a little theater group with a dynamic director.
They could take a position, enjoy their moment on stage, talk their nonsense, have their drama, and leave it all behind when they walk out the door.
No hypocricy, torturing of logic, or ‘let’s pretend’ needed on the outside. They could get it all out of their system, and everyone could have a good time.
Unfortuneatly, they carry their drama with them, and dispense it on unwilling audiences whether the audience will or no.
If you say the script was unconvinving and the acting stunk, you’re persecuting them (when you’re just not interested).
Postman
October 29, 2010 at 9:36 am
Sarge,
Speaking as an actor, when someone says the acting stinks… that is persecution. Unfortunately, I’ve never had a large enough following to get critics burned at the stake.
the chaplain
October 29, 2010 at 10:09 am
Ebonmuse:
You nailed Bob precisely. I understand how deeply it bruises one’s ego to realize that the cause to which one has dedicated time, money, relationships – everything meaningful in one’s life – is a huge fraud. It’s much easier to keep playing the game one has always played – even if one suspects that the game is rigged – than it is to admit that the game is a farce and withdraw from it.
Sarge:
The only shortcoming I see with your theater idea is that actors realize that they are playing fictional characters on stage and film; they have other real-world lives apart from their theatrical roles and they distinguish between the real and the make-believe without difficulty. Rabid fundogelicals don’t realize that what they think is real-life – gods, angels, demons, rapture, Armageddon, heaven, hell… – is actually fictional. The fiction is their reality.
Postie:
If you have some critics who need burning at the stake, you may want to consider adding your role as Gawd’s Postman to your resume. That should scare away at least a few of the critics.
Sarge
October 30, 2010 at 7:49 am
You are, of course, correct, yet I wonder if one can be more or less taken over by a role one plays? One has read what Gavin MacCleod wrote about his role as ‘The Captain’ on ‘Love Boat’ and how he claoms it changed his life… and I guess he, too, had the born again thing happen.
Any thoughts, Postie? It’s your grits and gravy, you’d know better than most of us.
But I think for a lot of people it is more a badging, an identity, a definition of “all proper men” in a sort of egotistical thing.
In the next couple of weeks I’ll be reporting to oncology and surgery for some things, part of the process of “withdrawal” which we go through, and as I sit in these places, I HEAR things, and often wonder on what level these beliefs actually ARE deeply held.
I have been in situations where people are ‘in exretremis’, and have heard them calling on their deity. There are prayers in the oncology waiting area here and there and they follow the same pattern.
They petition the deity they profess to love, have followed rules for, are looking forward to having their soul rocked in the bosom of Abraham, fear no evil…and yet they cry out, SAVE ME, DON’T LET ME DIE.
Why this request for a deferment of eternal ecstacy if this is something that is so heartfelt? Who’s kidding who?
I admit, I have an aunt who was in tears when my uncle died, she firmly believed in heaven and thought he was there, enjoying himself…
And it grated the shit out of her that he was “enjoying himself” without her there to keep a rather narrowed eye on him to ensure he didn’t have more fun than she thought he should.
Martyrdom is a different category, I think.
the chaplain
October 30, 2010 at 9:42 am
Sarge:
…I wonder if one can be more or less taken over by a role one plays?
That’s an excellent question. When I was a pastor, there were times when I would have doubts about god, Christianity, etc., and wonder whether my faith was as deep as I believed it should be, or if I was just, for the most part, “playing a role” or “living a lifestyle” that was habitual. It was a very uncomfortable state of mind.
Why this request for a deferment of eternal ecstacy if this is something that is so heartfelt?
My guess is that the requests for deferment come from a deep-seated terror of being tried before the throne of grace and found wanting, and consequently being sentenced to eternal torment in hell. Don’t let the christobots fool you when they say shit like, “by grace are you saved, not by works.” They’re working their asses off to escape the wrath of their merciful god.
Tommykey
October 30, 2010 at 11:31 am
Some of the nastiest, meanest people I’ve known are professing Christians
Chaplain, that’s why I would say to people like that “I know your religion isn’t true because any place where I would have to spend an eternity with you can’t possibly be heaven.”
Sarge
October 30, 2010 at 7:36 pm
In oncology most of us know we aren’t going to really get better, it’s a holding action at best until the next onslaught, and yet, a lot of folks walk out doing everything but singing “ta-ra-ra-boom-de-aye” because they are ‘cured’…until a couple of years later it’s some other form of ‘Big C’ that’s back, and you see them, year by year, rejoicing that “god is good’, and ‘there have been advances’… but they don’t examine their own history, they don’t regard it as a predictor of what’s in the future.
“My guess is that the requests for deferment come from a deep-seated terror of being tried before the throne of grace and found wanting, and consequently being sentenced to eternal torment in hell. Don’t let the christobots fool you when they say shit like, “by grace are you saved, not by works.” They’re working their asses off to escape the wrath of their merciful god.”
I agree with you on that. But I also wonder if they are hearing that still, small voice which is saying, “It’s bullshit and you know it. There isn’t anything once the last breath is gone, if you didn’t do it, have it, or enjoy it by now, it’s tough shit. You’re just the same as road kill, but you have an expensive box to lay in”.
Little kids who don’t want the lights to go out, yearning for the lighted room full of toys where the lights and TV are always on.
As a reenactor, I have read about Lee, and your justice thing has the real ring of authority.
The young man brought before him who was literally shaking in fear.
Lee says he has nothing to fear, from Lee he would only recieve justice.
Young man says that’s what had him shaken, the certain knowledge that certain justice awaited him.
Didn’t Shakespeare say something about if we all got the justice we deserved we’d all be in biiiiiig trouble?
ereador
October 30, 2010 at 9:23 pm
It’s still a dichotomy: He is either divine or a (flawed) human of some type. Obviously, as other comments have pointed out, this is a fallacy.
I like legend, because it can mean either that the extraordinary claims about him are made up, or that he himself was made up — a true dichotomy about the word.
Or really, for all I care, it could be loofa, referring to the main activity of his church. Everybody knows alliteration makes things true, right?
the chaplain
November 1, 2010 at 10:54 am
ereador:
The dichotomy thing is good news for textbook authors. Like you, I prefer “legend” – if one must stick with Lewis’ alliteration scheme. I know several pastors who seem to think that alliteration makes things true. One guy won’t even preach on a particular topic or Bible passage if he can’t figure out a way to alliterate his points. Talk about being gimmicky.
PhillyChief
November 1, 2010 at 11:14 am
I’m assuming that in order to force a dichotomy you’d have to call the option of him being a fictional character as “human of some type”. Personally, I find that misleading as I certainly wouldn’t call Pip or Heathcliff humans of some type, I’d call them fictional characters.
It may seem like success to have people move from thinking of Jesus as a god to just a man, but as we’ve seen that’s still enough of a crutch for people to hold on to and keep certain delusions afloat. The possibility of him being purely a fictional character is very possible.
My guess is that most fear that presenting such an option would force the wavering believer back to the fold, whereas the non-divine option might be more palatable. That’s possible, but you’re still just watering down their booze rather than actually getting them off the sauce.
Postman
November 1, 2010 at 2:25 pm
Sarge,
That’s an interesting question, about being taken over by a role. I’d say, as far as religion goes, it’s probably fairly common. That’s a role you’re obliged to play 24/7, so I wouldn’t be surprised to find that pastors and spies have a tough time keeping clear what is real and what’s not. Especially for religious roles, since they’re often playing something that they want to be.
For run-of-the-mill actors, it’s not so hard because we’re always aware that it’s just a role, and not reality. That said, though, it’s common for us to finish a role and find ourselves stuck with verbal and physical “tics” that we took on. Sometimes it can be psychologically trying, also. I played a deeply disturbed young man in “The Boys Next Door” once and had to spend a bit of quiet, coming-down time alone every night after a scene in which all of his psychological defenses break down at once.
So, the short answer is, “A bit, but more so for people who actively delude themselves.”
Sarge
November 2, 2010 at 7:21 pm
Thanks for the special insight.
OneSmallStep
November 5, 2010 at 1:34 pm
In regards to the “lived a good life and thus lost nothing” comment … the problem with that is how often do we see Christians say that they are supposed to expect horrible suffering in this life, because of the rewards in the next one? If anything, they *aren’t* supposed to have a good life in this world, because Satan owns this world and Satan hates God, and thus will target all Christians. I mean, aren’t they supposed to live a life of persecution?
What about those who are Christians in countries were it’s illegal? If they’re believing in something that means they get tortured and imprisoned for life, then yes, they’ve lost a huge amount if there’s no Christian afterlife.
the chaplain
November 6, 2010 at 1:05 pm
OSS:
You raised some really good points in your comment. I’m sure John’s answer would be completely incoherent and inadequate.