Unbelievably vague mystery

The latest Unbelievable? radio show is a discussion between Mike McHargue (who describes himself as a non-theist Christian) and Ben Watts (an atheist).

What, exactly, is a non-theist Christian? Perhaps it's an atheist who follows the teachings of Christ. Except, presumably, those teachings about God. Definitions aside, you might reasonably ask how someone becomes a non-theist Christian. In the case of Mike McHargue, you'll wait in vain for an explanation — or at least one that make sense. This non-theist Christian has a book to promote, and it would be ill-advised for him to make his position so abundantly clear that reading his book becomes redundant. Both Ben Watts and host Justin Brierley acknowledge that the book is well written, which is good, but I suspect that's as far as it goes. Based on what he did say in response to Ben's and Justin's questions, the book seems likely to be full of woolly mysticism. Mike claims to have found God in the waves on a beach. He agrees that his personal experience isn't evidence that anyone else is likely to accept, but then appears to claim that reason and logic are mired in the “enlightenment view”, and that his personal relationship with God (how does that work for a non-theist?) is “pre-enlightenment” and therefore more … what? … more real?

Here's the relevant blurb from the Unbelievable? website:

Mike McHargue – known as ‘Science Mike’ - was a Christian who lost his faith then found it again through science. He tells his story of coming back to faith through an experience on a beach and how he now puts science and Christian faith together.

Ben Watts is an atheist who grew up with a Christian Faith but lost it after going to university to study science. He engages with Mike on this week’s show.

A civil but unsatisfactory discussion, with many examples of “playing the mystery card”.

Mike's official book-trailer playlist on YouTube is professionally produced but mostly sound-bites — don't expect much insight into his actual position or beliefs. There are, however, words — and some slo-mo striding:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL0-bbd9v3UEiYmYYlBpvhL5QurRxtOiVG&v=KSnnjQTuFYU

My blog is a spiritual springboard?

If you're reading this on a decent-sized monitor you'll see at the top-left a search box and the words "Next Blog»". These are provided by Blogger (this is a Blogger blog). It's been a while since I clicked on the "Next Blog»" link, so today I gave it another go. Or rather, about a dozen goes. I was puzzled to find it linked each time to a blog of distinctly spiritual character — bible quotes, God-talk, prayers, Christianity, even a blog authored by a pastor.

After eight or so of these clicks I lost count, and was about to give up at nearly a dozen when I landed on a page with not a bible quote in sight. But scrolling down I found it was the blog of someone who gives Tarot readings. That, however, was a fluke — another click landed me in the goddy again and I gave up. I assume Blogger is (inappropriately) routing these links based on the content of this blog, and the preponderance of linky-Jesus isn't merely random coincidence.

The link is up there on the left — see if you get the same results.

On another matter, I've attempted a degree of consolidation here, importing some older posts from the blog I had before this one, along with any comments — which is why the Intense Debate sample on the right probably looks a bit haywire. It should settle down after a while, and then Evil Burnee will be super-spiffy and together, all set for 2014.

Christianity as literary criticism

In a Facebook thread about the Sunday Assembly I mentioned (in the most vague and general terms) my concerns about its pseudo-religious components. A link was posted to the transcript of Dave Tomlinson's contribution to one of the Sunday Assembly's events, which expressed the kind of indeterminate non-theology that I find pretty vacuous. I responded on Facebook as follows:

Tomlinson is equivocating. He's using "truth" in the sense of truth that doesn't have to be factually true. This is all very nice and fine — I value "story" greatly myself — but it's no more than literary criticism. How do prayers and miracles relate to the kind of "truth" Tomlinson talks about? What about the bodily resurrection of Christ? Is the Easter story no more than "story", containing the kind of "truth" that doesn't have to be actually true? It's all very wishy-washy, and can be made to mean anything anyone fancies it means.

Harry Potter is true, in the sense Tomlinson means. But it's not factually true. If there's a manual explaining how to perform the spells related in JK Rowling's series, I'm not going to believe the spells actually work unless someone can demonstrate that they do.

In the face of a claim that "the meat of Christianity is the teaching of Jesus and his following through on it to the cross"  — and the implication that miracles and prayer are side-issues — I followed up with this:

I have no problem with learning life-lessons from literature or myth or anything else we might categorise as "story" — and as far as I'm concerned there's nothing in literary criticism that I need to be skeptical about. I am skeptical about miracles and prayer as portrayed by those who say miracles are more than mere interpreted legend — that actual supernatural events took place — and those who say prayer is actual two-way communication between human and supernatural entities, rather than some kind of objectified meditation. I appreciate that there are many gradations of "Christian" — from the inerrantist literalist fundamentalist to the "sea-of-faith" virtual atheist who thinks Christianity is a-nice-idea-shame-it-isn't-true. Each to their own, I say. The kind of Christian I find annoying, however, is one who espouses the metaphorical view when challenged about miracles and prayer, only to claim intimate knowledge of the mind of God when challenged about scriptural morality in the public square.

As usual this is an ongoing thread. Check it out for any further developments.

Cold cases solved by magic? — J. Warner Wallace's Cold Case Christianity

I got the Kindle version of this book for free a few months ago. It's divided broadly into two sections, the first dealing with the techniques of criminal detection, with specific reference to "cold cases" — unsolved crimes (usually murders) where the original witnesses are no longer available, although there is documentary evidence of what they said during the original investigation. Wallace draws parallels between these cold cases and the claims of Christianity where, likewise, the original witnesses to the life of Jesus are no longer available, although there is documentary evidence of what they saw and heard. This is fine as far as it goes, but there is a glaring mismatch in the kind of evidence we should be looking for. Murders are commonplace; resurrections are not. So although being convinced "beyond reasonable doubt" ought to be as sufficient to draw an inference regarding a resurrection as it is regarding a murder, the real question is what counts as "reasonable" in either scenario. The kind of evidence it is reasonable to expect for an event as extraordinary as a resurrection, is a different order of extraordinariness from that for a commonplace murder. From that perspective it appears Wallace is presenting a false equivalence.

It seems sensible enough, however, to use skills honed in the investigation of cold cases and apply them to the historicity of the New Testament, even if the subjects of investigation are not directly equivalent. But there's a nagging doubt that irked me throughout Wallace's anecdotes about cases he's worked: he appears certain that his techniques always produced a correct result — that he always got his man. I can recall no anecdotes in the book about cases where the defence was successful — where the accused was found not guilty. Presumably such cases exist (unless Wallace's skills are 100 per cent "successful"); it would have been interesting to read Wallace's interpretation of why he failed to secure a conviction. Perhaps he would say that the jury got it wrong. This is an important consideration, given that at the beginning of the book he makes much of the investigator's presuppositions and how they can influence the interpretation of evidence.

The presupposition Wallace seems most concerned about when considering evidence for the historicity of Jesus is the skeptic's alleged presupposition against supernaturalism. This concern is often expressed by religious apologists, and one can understand why, but here it appears a bit incongruous. Did Wallace have a presupposition against supernaturalism when working his cold case murders? If not, I'd like to know how he would deal with supernatural claims in witness statements. It's possible — even probable — that no witnesses ever made supernatural claims, so perhaps the question would not have arisen.

There's a reason such a question is likely not to have arisen, and that's because we do not see credible supernatural occurrences in the modern age. Ancient literature may report magical occurrences as if they are all in a day's work. These days, however, not so much. The vast majority of reported modern miracles, when properly investigated, turn out to be not supernatural. It is therefore entirely reasonable to presuppose that supernatural events reported in ancient literature were not, in fact, supernatural.

With regard to the motivations of the apostles, martyred for their beliefs, we must consider the possibility of self-delusion and hysteria. We know from modern studies of cults (religious and otherwise) that group dynamics and psychology can make people behave in very strange ways, including changing their beliefs. This could easily result in a kind of mass delusion about what really happened after the crucifixion. And even if some accounts were written down as early as a mere five years later as Wallace suggests, that's still plenty of time for memory to play some very cruel tricks. Some skeptics contend that the disciples engaged in a conspiracy regarding the resurrection of Jesus. Wallace devotes several pages to the infeasibility of large scale conspiracies without mentioning one obvious fact: large scale conspiracies always fail, except for the successful ones. But it's the successful ones we never hear about.

The second half of the book is an examination of the New Testament text, in an effort to show that as a collection of reports of what actually happened it is reliable, despite apparent contradictions, omissions and barely credible occurrences. This is necessarily compressed, presumably to fit some deep study into a limited word-count, but the compression contributes to a certain air of desperation exhibited in this section of the book. Wallace makes much of the correlations and consistency between various copies of the original autographs, claiming that these show that we can be reasonably sure what those autographs actually said. But as far as I'm aware the copies do not state what generation they are. Even if there are thousands of early copies that say the same thing, we cannot know whether or not they all derive from a very few (now lost) first or second generation copies that all contained the same errors or distortions.

J. Warner Wallace was the guest on Unbelievable? yesterday, answering questions from two skeptics. Having made a special effort to finish the book before listening to the programme, I didn't really gain anything extra from hearing the author précis his case, so the programme was a bit disappointing. I remain skeptical of the claims of the New Testament, and continue my presupposition against supernaturalism.

Who needs truth when you have apologetics?

Last week's Unbelievable? aired a talk given by Premier Radio's favourite Christian apologist William Lane Craig, at the 2011 Bethinking conference as part of the Reasonable Faith Tour of the UK.

I understand that this talk was given to Christians, so I was concerned to hear Craig begin by misrepresenting the meaning of secularism. In fact he seemed to base his whole talk on an incorrect premise: that the "secularisation" of Britain was a bad thing because it was based in a naturalistic philosophy that denies God. But secularism is merely the idea that matters of religious belief should be independent of government (and vice versa) — and as such is as beneficial to those who hold religious beliefs as it is to those who don't.

Later on — in what might be classed as an appeal to non-authority — Craig quoted Satan, further damning any credibility he might have otherwise retained in my view. Perhaps he just doesn't see how risible his arguments sound when he plumbs such depths; he seems happy enough blowing his own trumpet about how easily he can fill a hall with an audience. Sure, he's preaching to the converted and trying to inspire them, and I appreciate that a little hyperbole can go a long way.

But Craig shouldn't be let off the hook for playing fast and loose with facts. He describes the Crucifixion as the one historical fact about Jesus of Nazareth that is universally acknowledged among historical critical scholars. This is of course true, so long as your definition of "historical critical scholars" includes only those who acknowledge the Crucifixion as a historical fact.

Craig also seems very fond of referring to "The Church" as if it were a single homogenous entity, when we all know that this couldn't be further from the truth. During the Q & A he was asked about evangelising to Darwinists and postmodernists, and he advised skirting around such issues:

My evangelistic strategy is to set the bar as low as you can; make it as easy as possible to become a Christian. There are very few things you need to believe to be a Christian: you've got to believe that God exists, that Jesus Christ is divine, that he died for your sins and rose from the dead, and that you will be saved by grace, through placing your faith in his atoning death — and really that's about it, you know?

Huh? Is that all?

The final question was about Christ being the "second Adam", and how this could be true if Adam didn't actually exist as a real person. Craig said he affirmed the historical Adam, but for those who don't, the phrase "second Adam" would be purely symbolic. For me, this lackadaisical attitude to facts exemplifies so much of Christian apologetics, and is why I find it utterly unconvincing.

Mythicism and messiahs

Here's yet another aspect of the "mythicism" discussion recently getting attention in the media. National Geographic have a 45-minute TV documentary on their website entitled The First Jesus, examining the proposition that Jesus based his messianic mission on a previous messiah named Simon. The evidence for this idea is an inscription, in ink, on a stone tablet, and rests on the interpretation of an indistinct word with a possibly missing letter. The tablet gets subjected to a series of high-tech tests in order to establish the existence — or not — of the missing letter.

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/videos/the-first-jesus/

(Apologies for autoplay. Click the pause button to stop.)

The conclusion? Well, as might be expected not all participants in the documentary come to the same one. But no matter what evidence is uncovered, there will always be sufficient indeterminacy to allow scholars to continue arguing for their own point of view.

Ehrperson on Unbelievable?

Another Facebook thread repost, this one about Bart Ehrman's recent discussion with Justin Brierley on Unbelievable? regarding "Jesus mythicism".

• 
  

  Helen Marple-Horvat

  So...Ehrperson on Unbelievable. Thoughts?

  · · · Monday at 00:06
• • 
    

    Paul Jenkins Very easy for Ehrman to say Price is wrong when he's not there to back up his statements. I know it was only a small part of the show but Justin lets this happen too often IMHO.
    
    I thought Ehrman skated round Carrier's criticisms without answering them, preferring to moan about the latter's caustic reviewing style. Anyone who's heard Carrier deliver a talk will know that his style is generally mocking and snarky. Complaining that he's "unscholarly" is really evading the issues.

    Monday at 18:36 ·
  • 
    

    Paul Baird Didn't listen to it. My focus is more on the social impact of Christianity. Aside from the nativity I'm not terribly interested in whether or not Jesus the man existed. The nativity itself is just so wacko and borrows from so many other myths and fables that I do like asking Christians to answer questions about it - to make them think.

    Monday at 18:41 ·
  • 
    

    Paul Jenkins ‎"The nativity itself is just so wacko and borrows from so many other myths and fables..."
    
    Which was one of the points Ehrman attempts to refute.

    Monday at 18:46 ·
  • 
    

    Paul Baird I think once someone comes up with a source for the conversations between the Three Wise Men and Herod or The Shepherds and the Angels then I might take notice.

    Monday at 18:48 ·
  • 
    

    Paul Jenkins But it's in the Bible! (Oops, sorry, already done that bit....)

    Monday at 18:50 ·
  • 
    

    Paul Baird and what was He doing between birth, age 12 and age 30 ?
    
    The Long Running Ancient Levant version of Big Brother ?

    Monday at 18:51 ·
  • 
    

    Paul Baird ‎"It's day 5687, Mary has two nominations, Joseph six and Jesus four. Who will be voted out ? You decide !"

    Monday at 18:53 ·
  • 
    

    Paul Jenkins In the latest (I think) "The Human Bible" Robert Price comments on whether theologians believe the baby Jesus was divinely perfect. I remember reading some commentary about whether the teenage Jesus had "impure thoughts".
    
    Not exactly world-shattering.

    Monday at 18:56 ·
  • 
    

    Fergus Gallagher Just listening to http://strangefrequenciesradio.wordpress.com/2012/08/19/episode-204-david-fitzgerald-speaks-about-jesus-mythicism/
    
    "David Fitzgerald, author of “Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All,” joined us today to talk about Jesus mythicism. If Jesus was so important and performed so many miracles during his lifetime, why was nothing written about him by those who knew him? Could it be that Jesus was just a myth? "
    
    (It's in the 2nd part, sep. mp3)
    

    
    

    Episode 204 – David Fitzgerald speaks about Jesus mythicism

    strangefrequenciesradio.wordpress.com
    

    Episode #204 – David Fitzgerald Welcome back to Strange Frequencies Radio!  Can ...See more

    Monday at 19:01 · ·
  • 
    

    Paul Baird I can believe that after reading some of Glenn Peoples guff.
    
    So many Phds in search of so much irrelevance.

    Monday at 19:01 ·
  • 
    

    Helen Marple-Horvat are you guys all mythicists? Thats crazy if true...I will have to clear off. lol

    Monday at 19:02 ·
  • 
    

    Paul Baird ‎Helen Marple-Horvat - in terms of the Nativity - yes. Unless you have a source for the two conversations that I mentioned, and maybe some idea of what Jesus was up to for 30 years before he began his ministry.
    
    Basing his divinity on 1/11th of his life does not not appear to be sustainable.

    Monday at 19:05 ·
  • 
    

    Paul Jenkins Personally I think it's more likely than not a person or persons by the name of Jesus lived around that time and did things that caught people's attention. So I'm not a mythicist. However, I'm highly suspicious of the Gospel accounts, and of the fact that a large portion of the NT was written by one man with a specific agenda.

    Monday at 19:20 ·
  • 
    

    Fergus Gallagher I put it like this: the central relevant detail about Jesus is whether he rose from the dead ("Jesus-Christ") or not ("Jesus-not-Christ").
    
    I don't think Jesus-Christ existed and who really cares that much about Jesus-not-Christ?

    Monday at 19:24 ·
  • 
    

    Paul Jenkins ‎Fergus, that's a fair point, but mythicists seem to be saying that Jesus-not-Christ didn't exist either. The existence of Jesus-not-Christ, however, seems to be relevant to whether Jesus-Christ existed (as far as believers are concerned).
    
    I'd probably go as far as saying Jesus was a legendary character, but not an out-and-out myth. I think the stories are probably based on some facts. I don't think the character of Jesus was totally made up. It's been suggested he was a composite, which seems likely to me.

    Monday at 19:33 ·
  • 
    

    Fergus Gallagher ‎"The existence of Jesus-not-Christ, however, seems to be relevant to whether Jesus-Christ existed (as far as believers are concerned)."
    
    No - they are distinct and incompatible in this formulation.

    Monday at 19:36 ·
  • 
    

    Fergus Gallagher The other way I like to put it is that I think a Jesus existed in a similar way to the way Robin Hood existed - whatever grains of truth there were have been completely lost to us.

    Monday at 19:37 ·
  • 
    

    Paul Jenkins So you're an "almost-mythicist"?

    Monday at 19:43 ·
  • 
    

    Helen Marple-Horvat Lord save me from the stupid! :P

    Monday at 19:44 ·
  • 
    

    Helen Marple-Horvat Its like the mention of even just the name of Jesus and everyone does a
    
    How high can we pee into the sky contest!! x :)

    Monday at 19:45 ·
  • 
    

    Helen Marple-Horvat right....dog...off with...seriously

    Monday at 19:46 ·
  • 
    

    Paul Baird Thanks for sharing Helen Marple-Horvat. I did ask a simple question.

    Monday at 20:13 ·
  • 
    

    Helen Marple-Horvat There was a question? I thought the thread went into BS land ?

    Monday at 20:57 ·
  • 
    

    Paul Baird and that is why the nice kids don't like playing with you.

    Monday at 22:14 · · 1
  • 
    

    Paul Jenkins Myth assist:
    
    http://www.jesusandmo.net/2012/08/22/case/
    

    
    

    Jesus and Mo

    www.jesusandmo.net
    

    Religious satire from holy roomies Jesus & Mohammed in a twice weekly comic strip.

    about an hour ago · ·

"You're a plagiarist!" "Well you're a liar!"

Catching up with Unbelievable? this evening (which means I'm only a week behind) I listened to a debate between Robert Spencer and Adnan Rashid on the subject "Did Muhammad Exist?" I'm not particularly bothered whether he existed or not — I'm more interested in what Muslims believe and why, and what effect those beliefs have on the personal autonomy of individuals.

But as an advert for calm, rational discourse between people of different faiths, this radio programme was, to say the least, unedifying. Outright accusations of plagiarism and lying have no place in such discussions if they are to be at all productive.

The impression I came away with was that the evidence (or lack of it) on either side of the argument is flimsy, with neither participant able or willing to substantiate his claims, and so the discussion descended into name-calling.

Not Unbelievable?'s finest hour.

Download the mp3 audio of the show here (if you must):
http://media.premier.org.uk/unbelievable/8d42bd9a-f9ff-4bf5-b7bb-d96d5c19f526.mp3

Did L. Ron Hubbard take lessons from St. Paul?

And so we come to the end of the penultimate section in Dembski and Licona's Evidence for God. The section entitled The Question of Jesus ends with "Did Paul Invent Christianity?" by Ben Witherington III, and I can't help thinking it's a filler as it doesn't seem to be relevant to any matter of evidence.

Be that as it may, what does Witherington have to say about the idea that Christianity was invented by Paul?

One can say that Paul was a catalyst which helped lead the Jesus movement out of Judaism and into being its own religious group. Paul was not the inventor of Christianity, but in some senses he was its midwife, being most responsible for there being a large number of Gentiles entering this sectarian group and not on the basis of becoming Jews first (i.e. having to keep kosher, be circumcised, keeping the Sabbath) which in turn changed the balance of power in the movement everywhere in the empire except in the Holy Land.

Saying that Paul was in some sense Christianity's midwife seems to be just another way of responding to the question with "Yes." Other passages in this chapter appear to confirm this:

At the end of the day, Paul's view of the Mosaic law and whether it should be imposed on Christians most clearly reveals that Paul understood that being in Christ meant something more and something different from being "in Judaism". This is why in an elaborate argument in Galatians Paul compares the Mosaic law to a child minder or a nanny, who was meant to oversee the people of God until they came of age, but now that Jesus has come they are not under that supervisor any more (see Gal. 4). Paul even goes so far as to say that one of the main reasons Jesus came born under the law was to redeem those under the law out from under its sway (see Gal. 4:5). Those under the law are seen as being in bondage to it, until Christ came and redeemed them. Now this is clearly enough sectarian language, the language of a split-off group from Judaism. Paul insists in Galatians 2:21 that a person could be set right, or kept right with God by the observance of the Mosaic law then "Christ died for nothing." He even urges his converts "every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law" (Gal. 5:3 NIV). This is also why, in a salvation historical argument in 2 Corinthians 3:7-18 he speaks of the Mosaic law, and even the Ten Commandments, as a glorious anachronism, something which was glorious in its day, but which is rapidly becoming obsolete.

Seems like Paul appointed himself high priest and went on to define what it is to be a Christian. In what way is this not inventing Christianity?

In the end, one can say that Paul was a shepherd leading God's people in new directions and through uncharted waters to a new promised land where Jew and Gentile would be united in Christ on the very same basis and with the very same discipleship requirements. Though Paul did not call this end result Christianity, he more than any other of the original apostles was responsible for the birthing of the form of community which was to become the early church. Though he did not invent its doctrines or even its ethics, he most consistently applied its truths until a community that comported with these truths emerged.

Notwithstanding that last sentence, the answer to Witherington's question — based on the arguments in this chapter — seems to be "Pretty much."

---

4truth.net:
http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpbbible.aspx?pageid=8589952740

The Road to Hell

"What About Those Who Have Never Heard the Gospel?"

This is the title of chapter 40 of Dembski & Licona's Evidence for God, and once again it's a chapter that seems to be in the wrong section. I'm currently reading the section titled The Question of Jesus, and this chapter should clearly be in the final section, The Question of the Bible — it is, after all, about the Gospel. True, Michael R. Licona is following on from his previous chapter about whether Jesus is the only path to God, but it nevertheless seems out of place.

That said, this chapter reveals more of the quagmire that Christians stir up for themselves when they insist on taking the Bible as written (or inspired) by the all-powerful creator of the universe. The essence of Licona's thesis here is that there are two types of revelation from God: general revelation and special revelation. (Unbidden, an image of God looking remarkably like Albert Einstein springs to mind.) General revelation is a knowledge of God apparent in Creation (with, naturally, a capital 'C'), and special revelation is a knowledge of God made available through the Gospel. If you reject either of these revelations you're damned to Hell.

According to Romans chapter one, God has made some of his invisible attributes known through the world in which we live. The stars, the sun, the moon, the ocean, and many other wonders of nature were not the work of a bull, a horse, a calf, or a man. These are the products of a cosmic designer of immense intelligence. In Romans chapter 2, Paul tells us that God has instilled basic knowledge of his moral laws in our conscience, so that, instinctively, we know that actions such as rape, murder, stealing, and falsehood are immoral. We all are accountable to God for immoral actions we have committed of varying degrees. Theologians refer to this type of knowledge as general revelation. In other words, given our universe and our conscience, we should be aware that a God of some sort exists and that we have failed to live up to his moral law.

I don't accept the notion that "the world in which we live" is the product of "a cosmic designer of immense intelligence". For me, the evidence for such designer simply isn't as compelling as the evidence for the alternative hypothesis — that the world in which we live is the result of natural processes, without the intervention of a supernatural agent. Therefore, according to Licona, I'm damned even if I never encounter the Gospel.

According to Licona, those who do accept the idea of a cosmic designer, but — for whatever reason — believe that the designer is some deity other than Jesus/God fall into one of two categories: those who have never encountered the Gospel, and those who have. The first category are granted salvation by virtue of their honest, blameless ignorance; the second — sorry, you got the wrong god, despite being shown the right one, so to Hell with your sinful soul.

Several times Licona admits that the Bible doesn't have specific answers to particular questions, and resorts to what he calls speculation. This, it appears, is a code-word for what Christians seem to do quite a lot in their "interpretation" of scripture — that is, they simply make stuff up.

Let’s summarize. We’ve faced the difficult questions pertaining to the fate of those who die without ever having heard the gospel as well as that of babies and the mentally handicapped who lack the mental capacity to understand the gospel. Since the Bible does not directly address either of these questions, speculation pertaining to possible solutions is our only course of action. However, we may look at other situations in which God has acted and get a glimpse into his character. We observed two divine principles: (1) God judges us according to our response to the knowledge about him we are given. At minimal, this knowledge consists of the fact that there is a Creator to whom we will stand accountable for our moral failures. (2) God does not hold accountable those who lack the mental capacity to choose between good and evil.

Licona's two divine principles each appear to be fundamentally problematic: (1) that there is a  Creator is not a fact but a Christian presupposition unsupported by compelling evidence, and (2) according to Genesis God does indeed hold accountable those who lack the mental capacity to choose between good and evil. Adam and Eve were specifically denied the knowledge of good and evil, yet according to the story God still held them accountable, to the extent that their "sin" is visited on every single human being since.

My own take on this "problem" is that it isn't a problem at all, but merely one more part of the obfuscation necessary in attempting to resolve something that doesn't make sense in the first place.

---

4truth.net:
http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpbjesus.aspx?pageid=8589952889

The entire Christian faith is a gigantic lie

"We will be examining the history and beliefs of the major religious movements of the world; but let me say at the outset, we will begin with the pre-supposition that everyone of them is a legitimate expression of the cultural, social, psychological, and existential experience of its adherents. Though they may differ in external and formal statements of doctrine and practice, they all express a similar essence of the awe and mystery in life and the universe. Furthermore, we will assume that each of the founders of the religions were all, in their various ways, expressing similar and universal moral and spiritual concepts. Thus, we will assume they are all equal in their authority and revelational validity."

This — shock horror — was what greeted a 19-year-old Southern Baptist when he enrolled in a comparative religion class at his university, as related by Tal Davis in "Is Jesus Superior to All Other Religious Leaders?" — Chapter 38 of Dembski & Licona's Evidence for God. The student, however, was undeterred by this unexpected revelation and went on to convince himself (it took several months) that "all religions were not equal and that Jesus Christ was and is superior to the founders of the other major religions of the world. His conclusion was based on five lines of truth."

So let's go through these five lines of truth:

1. Jesus Christ is the only major world religion founder who had no beginning in time or space.

The evidence for this assertion consists of a slew of Bible quotes — so it boils down to Jesus had no beginning because it says so in the Bible. (Even if it were true, I fail to see the link between timelessness and superiority. It sounds like an extreme example of the argument from tradition.)

2. Jesus Christ is the only major world religion founder who came into the world as He did.

This is all about the virgin birth, which (as above) happened because it's reported in the Bible. Moreover, Davis claims this is unique to Jesus. Presumably Krishna, Buddha, Marduk and Huitzilopochtli don't count because their births were not exactly like that of Jesus (though each could be described as unique). Mithra beats them all of course, as he was born from a rock, which, you know, rocks. (Again we have an inexplicable link between superiority and being some kind of freak of nature.)

3. Jesus Christ is the only major world religion founder who lived a perfect and sinless life.

There's a bit of a problem here, deriving from the Euthyphro dilemma. It's very easy to claim that your deity is sinless if you define everything he does as good. If goodness is his very nature, it's impossible for him to have sinned, because sin is defined specifically to exclude anything he is reported to have done.

4. Jesus Christ is the only major world religion founder who died as a sacrificial atonement for the sins of humanity.

Lots of religious leaders die. If your religious leader dies a particularly humiliating death it can be somewhat deflating to the high hopes of the movement. Disappointed followers will desert in droves unless you can think of something to lift their spirits and convince them prospects aren't as bleak as they appear. Transforming an ignominious death into the potential saving of the whole of humanity is the kind of public relations coup that should — if you can pull it off — do the trick.

5. Jesus Christ is the only major world religion founder who rose from the dead to demonstrate His power and authority.

Given the success of number 4, this one should be a doddle.

The student in question apparently took several months to investigate all this, but I assume that's how long it took him to read the whole of the Bible (he had, I expect, other classes). But it comes down to one simple principle: Jesus is superior to all other religious leaders because it says so in the Bible.

Muslims, however, believe the Qur'an is superior to the Bible because the Qur'an came after the Bible. No doubt Jews believe the Old Testament is superior to the New Testament because the Old Testament came before the New Testament. These arguments are individually bullet-proof because they are completely self-contained — anything that contradicts them also confirms them, just as evidence against a conspiracy theory automatically (in the mind of a conspiracy theorist) confirms the conspiracy theory as true.

Christianity does not stand or fall on its moral principles or depth of mystical experience. If that were true, then it would be no better than any other religion in the world, and Jesus Christ would be only another great religious or moral teacher. No, Christianity stands or falls entirely on the person and work of one man: Jesus Christ. Either He was who He claimed to be, the Lord of the Universe, who came to earth as man, lived a sinless life, died on the cross as an atonement for our sins, and rose again from the dead, or the entire Christian faith is a gigantic lie.

Thanks for making it so clear.

---

4truth.net:
http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpbjesus.aspx?pageid=8589952893