In this episode of Drunk Ex-Pastors Christian, despite his best efforts, continues to be used by God, an arrow in the quiver of the Almighty if you will (this goes for Jason as well, but unlike his agnostic co-host, he is merely indifferent about this rather than annoyed). The DXPs then discuss the film Fifty Shades of Grey and try to determine whether to dislike it because it’s so rapey, or simply because it sucks. Their attention then turns, as it should, to the power of the Big Paleo lobby whose “scientific research” into the “existence” of “dinosaurs” makes them the single greatest threat to our way of life since The Pentavaret itself. The issue of Christian privilege is then discussed (as well as the Fundamentalist martyr complex mocked), but then, seemingly out of nowhere, the DXPs get sidetracked by a debate about hell and the problem of evil during which Christian, once again, reiterates that he doesn’t like hell or heaven. Jason sets forth a little theory he’s been kicking around that he is convinced can eliminate all religious divisions in one fell swoop (if anyone would ever bother to listen to him, of course, which they probably won’t). Christian’s bieber has to do with people who are way too sure of stuff that can’t see or prove, and Jason is biebered by the thorny issue of windshield wipers.
Also, is it us, or right after the intermission when he didn’t know they were recording, did Jason do the most spot-on Darth Vader impression ever?
Podcast #254: TV Theme Songs, Favorite Jobs, and More Audience Q&A
Podcast #116: Irony, Stabbings, and Trusting God
Podcast #322: Death and a Living Wage
Podcast #470: Languishing, Sc-fi, and Taylor Swift
Jason,
I’ve thought of a name for that idea you have been kicking around for the past week or so. You should call it “the worst idea ever” haha!
The premises of “Jasons worst idea ever”:
P1: God is the best story teller
P2: man can not think up a better story than God
C: therefore anything man thinks up that is better than the current understanding of Christianity is probably true.
I would agree with P1 and P2 but deny that 3 is possible. There is no improving the story. The story that was passed down from the apostles is the one true and most beautiful version anyone could think up. Universalism is not an improvement. A world with less free will and no suffering would not be an improvement.
Something from Saint Thomas and then something from Fr. Barron. I hope Christian weighs in on these too!
Saint Thomas: In ST 1:47 and 1:48 Aquinas proposes that in order for God to best manifest His goodness He needed to both create a multitude of beings and also create them with varying degrees of goodness. A single creature that never failed in goodness, according to Aquinas, would not communicate the full greatness of God as well as a multitude of creatures that expressed varying degrees of the good. So then God allows things and people to fail for the greater good of the universe. This is all just another way of saying “so that the story could be the best possible story”. Imagine a book with no drama. No hardship. Something like the book “The Giver” but without the giver! A world of black and white. Perfect obedience and sufficiency. This is clearly a far less interesting story than Tolkiens “Lord of the Rings”. It is precisely the failing of goodness and the struggle between good and evil that make a story bad ass!
To put it another way, imagine looking at a picture of perfect blue. No degrees of color. Nothing on the portrait that fails to be uniform. Just the exact same perfect shade of blue across the board. Something like a word art document when you just take the bucket of paint and turn your whole screen one color. This is just not a very interesting picture. There needs to be some diversity! Some shade, various degrees of color, light, drama, darkness, etc. Imagine our moral choices are like paint being splashed on a canvas. We are slipping and sliding all over the place. In some places we are looking great, and in others we are failing in our goodness horribly. All of this is guided in some way by Gods sovereign plan. But the act of painting doesn’t go on forever! At some point the paint settles (we die) and the masterpiece just is what it is. When the story of humanity is over, we have a diverse painting that is truly beautiful and that will last forever. One that best reflects the goodness and greatness of God. There are different degrees of joy in heaven and various degrees of suffering in hell. Each according to their deeds. We have an everlasting expression of Gods greatness and goodness.
When Christian says he wishes that there was absolutely no suffering, no hell, no failing of goodness whatsoever, he is advocating for the first picture. The lame one. He is not improving the story, but is instead making it worse. On the universalism view, God begins with diversity, failings, drama, love, etc. but then when the paint settles is stuck with perfect, unfailing, boring, blue for all eternity. Is this really an improvement? I don’t think so. The classical orthodox version of reality is by far the best. One without lockstep uniformity. One where our actions are significant and matter. One where we actually have a say in how the picture turns out!
Fr. Barron: In response to the Fry video Fr. Barron made a great analogy. Recall Tolkiens Lord of the Rings trilogy. A massive and really incredible work of art. But now imagine one tiny piece of one single page of the work is torn away and floats in the wind. A stranger picks it up and reads it. He reads:
you take away the food in my stomach,
my neck is red from your chain,
I will never heal again,
I can not feel anything,
I can not remember anything
Imagine that the stranger tosses the snippet in the garbage and thinks to himself “what a dreadful author. So dark and depressing. Why would anyone ever bother writing such a horrible thing”.
This is exactly what Christian does. He sees a tiny snippet of a vast story, and makes the judgment that the author could have no reason to write such a thing. We just are not in a position to make that call. We don’t have access to the whole story. Which is exactly what God shows Job in the end. Job is complaining and complaining, and God gives him a guided tour of the universe as His response. In other words God tells Job, “you need to remember who is the one telling the story”.
As christians we struggle with the dark parts of life, but we have faith in God that He is good and just. Christian likes to say what a daddy should be like, but has never once discussed what its like to be a child. He is stomping his feet and crying “no fair!” when he doesn’t have all the info needed to make that call. He probably couldn’t understand it even if the info was given. None of us could. That’s what it is to be a child. I think its best for the children to trust in their father. I’ll take the story just the way Dad tells it. He knows best.
Kenneth,
I am curious as to why you think this. Is it simply because universalism is not what the story tells in your understanding of it? Or do you think that universalism would make the story worse, full stop?
Yeah, if Job only knew the whole story: that God let his life be ruined because He had a bet going on with Satan.
I think that universalism makes the story worse full stop. I tried to explain why in my multiparagraph novel above lol the analogy of the colored painting
So let me get this straight… because a square of blue paint all by itself is boring, god should cast billions into hell because that’s more interesting?
Who is that a better story for? I assume if god is trying to tell a story that he’s telling it to someone. Is it the billions being tortured for eternity in hell or the few friends of those billions who are trying to enjoy themselves in heaven. Seems like any reasonable person in either or those scenarios would think it’s a shitty story.
Oh but right, I forgot that god’s ways are not our way… Maybe he’s just telling the story to another god. In the same way that he ruined a man’s life for a bet with Satan, perhaps he’s just showing off what he can do to another god.
Christian,
God desired to create free creatures to love Him. In doing so, He wishes to express His goodness to the maximum possible extent. I don’t know that there are “billions” in hell. No one does. Are you of the opinion that the best story possible involves one single category of perfection continuing on for eternity? A world with robotic goodness continuing on for all time? That story sucks.
It is true that hell is a tragedy. But the only people who are in hell deserve to be so by their own stubborn wishes and desires! God does not delight in the torment of the wicked. They have brought this on themselves. You can’t get over that. I get it. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t a bad ass story just the way it is.
This year there will be teenagers all over the world that will make a bad decision. They will all drink and drive, do drugs, get in fights, have sex, etc. Some of these kids will experience horrible consequences. Teen pregnancy, over doses, killing people by drinking an ld driving. I had a girlfriend that’s serving 50 years for killing 4 people while driving drunk. That’s a tragedy. But IT’S WHAT SHE CHOSE. God has allowed her to fail to better express His goodness, but that does not make Him a guilty party. I’m not losing very much sleep over it. Justice sucks. But we make our own bed
In your story, god creates billions of people. The majority of them go to hell. (“narrow is the way”, “few find it”, etc.). The only way you think that’s a good story is if you just believe it is without understanding how it is. That seems to be what you’ve admitted to.
To anyone who is not willing to just accept by faith that the story must be good somehow, the story sucks.
Kenneth, I have zero problems with temporal consequences for actions or decisions made during this life.
Also, sorry about your girlfriend.
Just wanted to post a quick comment about privilege. In the part when you were discussing the religiosity of previous American presidents, Jason made a comment along the lines of, “even Barack Obama has to say that he’s Christian.” Now, you may have been saying it with tongue firmly in cheek (though it didn’t appear that way) since the comment was made in a nonchalant tone, but when has the faith of any other president ever not been taken at face value? As you yourselves said, when Kennedy was running to be president he had to almost run away from his religion so what, apart from Obama being not white, makes a lot of people (and I wouldn’t even say you guys), question his faith?
you wont find a backdoor….to heaven
Sing along with me!
Greg, I think the “even Obama” comment was in reference to America being almost “post-Christian” now and yet presidents still have to say that they are Christian to be electable.
As for other people, I personally think it’s more that he’s liberal than that’s he’s black. Christianity has become so entwined with the right, that a president that isn’t a Republican has to convince people that’s he’s a Christian. My 2 cents.
Greg,
I think what makes people question his faith is his being a Democrat (I would put Clinton in the same boat). And yes, it is interesting that in 2015 our candidates still have to pay lip-service to Jesus.
Jason,
Sorry you think people don’t listen to you.
Anything you want to hear from a protestant? As I’ve done, I can offer: Xtian rock, Liberal Protestantism, haven’t dug into <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGee_and_Me!" title="".McGee and Me yet.
I’ll try to finish listening to this soon. Take care.
fixed link
Jason & Christian –
I think you guys are far too charitable. Yes, its’s true that Republicans basically don’t believe that Democrats should ever be in power but nobody was ever forced to release his birth certificate or had his love of America questioned like Obama does. And it all comes down to the color of his skin.
Also, Barack Obama is basically the 21st century version of Dwight Eisenhower, not the great liberal scourge that Republicans believe that he is.
Christian,
In your story, god creates billions of people. The majority of them go to hell. (“narrow is the way”, “few find it”, etc.). The only way you think that’s a good story is if you just believe it is without understanding how it is. That seems to be what you’ve admitted to.
To anyone who is not willing to just accept by faith that the story must be good somehow, the story sucks.
Which is relatively few people. The majority of the world’s population sees no problem with hell. Between Muslims and Christians we are doing just fine in the market place of ideas.
With that being said, I still don’t think you have addressed the metaphor of the painting. Isn’t it true that if you had it your way we would have the lame blue portrait mentioned? Isn’t it better to have diversity? To enjoy freedom, love, hate, and drama? You might think our story is sad…. but NOBODY would ever even pick up your own boring tale.
Once upon a time everyone and everything was flawless in every way. The end…… really epic.
I think that God allowing humans the radical freedom to fail in their goodness and destroy themselves makes for a great story. If “billions” (your number not mine) end up in hell, that will be a very sad part of the story. But it won’t be unjustified and it won’t be a bad universe at the end of the tale.
BONUS COMMENT,
Christians don’t accept that God has good reasons on blind faith. There are numerous arguments for the existence of God that show He is perfect and incapable of wring doing. We hold the two truths in a kind of tension. Why should we need to have all the answers? The arguments for Christianity are so compelling a little mystery here and there isn’t that much of a problem
Greg,
No one has had there love for America questioned more than Obama? I dunno man Bush had it pretty bad…
Bush had his intelligence questioned, not his patriotism.
You’re taking this “narrative” thing too far. This isn’t just a story. It’s the eternal fate of actual people you are talking about. I don’t care how good the “story” is. If you care about the quality or entertainment of the story over the fate of the actual people involved, then you are a sociopath.
Kenneth,
Why not just quote your pope and move on?
Oh yeah, you don’t like Frank. Sorry.
In your story, Kenneth, God loses. He wants everyone to be saved. He wants to reconcile the world to Himself, but He fails.
That’s not a particularly great story, Mate.
Christian,
Bush killed me. I wanted to like him so bad…. but geez he just could not speak.
You’re taking this “narrative” thing too far. This isn’t just a story. It’s the eternal fate of actual people you are talking about.
Yes I understand the stakes in the drama.
I don’t care how good the “story” is. If you care about the quality or entertainment of the story over the fate of the actual people involved, then you are a sociopath.
Why should God be obligated to create a tiny world with only one perfect person in it just because free people would chose to destroy themselves otherwise?
Why should He be forced to not communicate his goodness to the maximum extent?
Why should a Creator be held captive by His own creation?
I would say that the only thing a morally good God would be obligated to do would be to give everyone a genuine chance throughout their lives to be in communion with him…. which is exactly what we all believe.
Except some of us think God continues to hold out His hand to stubborn men and women and will continue to do so for as long as it takes.
Andrew,
This is from the last encyclical that taught on the subject. It takes a very optimistic tone.
With death, our life-choice becomes definitive—our life stands before the judge. Our choice, which in the course of an entire life takes on a certain shape, can have a variety of forms. There can be people who have totally destroyed their desire for truth and readiness to love, people for whom everything has become a lie, people who have lived for hatred and have suppressed all love within themselves. This is a terrifying thought, but alarming profiles of this type can be seen in certain figures of our own history. In such people all would be beyond remedy and the destruction of good would be irrevocable: this is what we mean by the word Hell[37]. On the other hand there can be people who are utterly pure, completely permeated by God, and thus fully open to their neighbours—people for whom communion with God even now gives direction to their entire being and whose journey towards God only brings to fulfilment what they already are[38].
46. Yet we know from experience that neither case is normal in human life. For the great majority of people—we may suppose—there remains in the depths of their being an ultimate interior openness to truth, to love, to God.
This seems to suggest that the great majority will be on their way to purgatory. Although no one can know for sure. I wonder if Christian would find even this view objectionable?
Kenneth,
I’m still listening to this pod. If you want me to give my opinion of Christian’s views, I appreciate a good agnostic apologetic when I find them. My opinion is the theodicy approach is a bit hackneyed. I’m more used to atheists request that I give them evidence. I don’t have enough information about Christian to form an opinion of the man. I’m sure he enjoys the interaction with you though, and doesn’t need any more of my comments. Sorry about your ex-girlfriend.
I’m out.
PS
Jason just mentioned “the voice of a God.” Around the 1:00:00 mark. Doing my best to finish this up (See Jason, I listen. SEE?!?!?)
Peace.
Andrew,
I’m sure Christian is as frustrated with our conversations as I am! Haha its like we are both looking at the same dress and he says white and gold while I see black and blue. At some point, all we can do is call each other crazy and move on 🙂
Still a fun listen, even if the topic of hell has now been beaten to death.
Everyone knows it’s white and gold. 😉
Love the response to Jay’s question about the problem of Evil. I noticed some of the situations in which the response was framed were man-made. I think a more interesting question arises when you analyze evil that exists solely in nature (plague, disease, natural disasters, etc).
Also a follow up question, something I’ve always wondered:
* Does free will exist in Heaven? Can Heaven exist without it? Will we be peacefully content, happy vegetables in the sky?
Zach,
One could hold that God via His middle knowledge knew exactly which persons, if saved and glorified in heaven, would freely persevere in grace, even though they would retain the freedom to sin. It’s not that they have a different nature than others; it’s just that this is how they would freely choose. God has chosen to create a world in which all the saved are precisely such persons. Hence, everyone in heaven will freely persevere. They could fall away but they just won’t. Interestingly, creating a world like this could involve God’s having to put up with a lot of otherwise undesirable features of the world, such as vast amounts of natural and moral evil. Perhaps only in a world like that would all those who come freely to know God and His salvation be a person who would freely persevere in heaven. This view would have obvious relevance to the problem of evil.
Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/can-people-in-heaven-sin#ixzz3TTJnvV6J
It’s all really conjecture, but there is some kind of transformation that occurs. I think it will involve what Paul describes as being tested by fire.
Purely speculation, but I think that in a moment, we will see all that we have done both good and bad, how the good things affected others, how the bad things caused pain and made the world a worse place to live in. We will perfectly understand the consequences of our actions and inaction. And everyone will understand how their sin hurt us. It is in the sense that I think even Christians will be repaid according to their deeds.
And I think we will see the sacrifice of Christ in a new light. In the light of letting our hurt and pain rest at the cross. Letting God ‘bear’ our sins and the sins committed against us..
And in that moment of perfect understanding, we’ll make a choice and we will continue to make a choice to reject that path and embrace unity, harmony, peace and love.
I think the remembrance of the pain we bore and inflicted on others (and the pain Christ endured) will make the choice to sin and bring back that misery seem to be an impossible one to us.
I realize that this has nothing to do with the current thread and typical religious bantering that we have come to expect from the self proclaimed ‘enlightened ones’. All the same, I did want to make a comment on something that was brought up at the beginning of your podcast for no other reason than my name being dropped in regards to a conversation I recently had with a friend in Costa Rica.
I have been following your podcast since episode 3, after getting turned onto ‘Heavy for the Vintage’ through mutual social channels. It should go without saying that I don’t agree with everything that you say or the opinions that you guys have, but this is what challenges me and individual. For me, the most controversial discussion that you have had thus far is when you guys talked about going on a cruise, as those who go on cruises can often be categorized in a class of individuals that I seldom relate with.
Naturally, my name was the last thing I thought that I would ever hear mentioned; even if it was just in passing. Over the past decade I have tried to check out of the system. I live a minimalist life with my family at the end of the dirt road in a third world country. These days I generally try to keep my opinions to my self as I find that the more I learn, the more I realize that I do not know. This does not stop me from studying or searching for truth, it does stop me from generating a dogmatic opinion about anything. As time passes I realize that I tend to relate more with the late Terrance Mckenna when he said, “My technique is don’t believe anything. If you believe in something, you are automatically precluded from believing its opposite.”
I have always been turned off by those who do not challenge their own belief system. I suppose that this is what draws me to your conversations to begin with. I know that I don’t have to agree with you, this does not mean that I can’t sit back and admire your attempt to navigate through these strange waters. We all have blindfolds on, and some of us are even deaf and hogtied. Understanding this dilemma presents a bit of freedom, knowing that no one knows for certain what lies ahead. This does not mean that we are unable to look behind us and learn from our past. If fundamentalists would take a moment to research their dogmas and interpretations they would likely find that they are more akin to be a puppet for a blood thirsty Neocon than any sort of representative of their proclaimed Christ.
I really didn’t know what it meant to be a North American, until I spent time outside of North America. I learned that I, along with many North Americans, live in a bubble with a limited understanding of what goes on in the world around us. Many of us, like fundamentalists, follow the pied piper with no clear idea of where we are going or what we have done to get there.
I do think your podcast could be used as a tool to strengthen these so-called believers whether that was your intention or not. Unfortunately so many of them lack the ability to critically think, or understand anything out side of what they have been programmed to believe. Instead they generally result to name calling, dropping the heretic bomb, Anti-Semite or any other words that immediately kill a conversation.
Needless to say, I am not ashamed of being a North American, just like I am not ashamed to believe in Christ, I am just a little more aware and opened minded as to what these things mean to me and those around us.
Troof, Ricky. Preach it.
Just started listening to you guys this week. I’m only two podcasts deep – this one and #33 but I like what I am hearing so far, so thanks for doing what you do. Both of you eerily remind me of one of my youth pastors I was really close with in my high school youth group. However, he never got the boot like you guys, so he’s still probably staunchly preaching the “truth” of five-point Calvinism instead of fostering and promoting intellectual discussion over tasty beverages #TULIP4life. It’s a damn shame because he’s a cool dude.
Anyway, I think it was Jason that said in this podcast that anything supernatural in the bible should probably not be taken literally (i.e. the book of Revelation). Where does that leave you in terms of the validity of the biblical/christian claim of Jesus’ physical resurrection and pretty much everything that happened in the old testament? How do christians discern between what should be taken literally and what shouldn’t be taken literally? It’s seems like you should be all in or not.
You may have covered this in a podcast I haven’t listened to yet, so sorry if I’m rehashing old stuff. Cheers.
Hey Mike,
Thanks for the comment, and glad you found DXP! (Actually, you did not choose us, we chose you. . . .)
I don’t remember saying that anything supernatural in the Bible should not be taken literally, but then, maybe I did (who knows?). I certainly think something like the book of Revelation is not intended to be taken literally, but I wouldn’t say the same of the resurrection accounts. So a “all in or not” approach fails to do justice to the different genres of writing that the Bible includes.
My take, anyway.
I’m listening to the Count of Monte Cristo (unabridged) on audio right now and it’s amazing. The reader does a great job with the French and Italian pronunciations though his mouth sounds dry sometimes lol. It’s only like 47 hours.
I haven’t read it in about 10 years. I think it’s time to revisit it again soon. Maybe I’ll do it the way you’re doing it so that I know how everything is supposed to be pronounced. 🙂
Now that’s something I can get on board with. Christian, once I’m finished you can pay me in twenties. . . .
Hah! Unconditionally chosen I hope.
Thanks for the response, Jason. Where do you draw the line though? How can the different literary genres of the bible determine what supernatural events are to be taken figuratively and which ones are literal/actually happened? If you take portions of the bible figuratively based on what literary genre it is in how can you deduce that it is any more true or the inerrant word of god than the Iliad or the odyssey?
I don’t think the New Testament “eye witness” accounts (resurrection, water into wine, fish and bread, lazarus, etc) can truly be considered eyewitness accounts from an objective historical perspective. They’re the result of years of oral tradition passed down like a game of telephone. I guess like the movie “big fish”.
I guess what I’m trying to say is from a ‘merrican perspecitve, how the hell can Christians know how to correctly interpret the bible, a 2000 year old document, when the majority of them can’t get the history of their 240 year old country straight.
Note: In the spirit of the podcast and my predestined election by DXP, I have been drinking since my last comment.
I love Big Fish.
Sit down with your favorite scotch and watch it alone. If your eyes are dry at the end, we probably can’t hang out.
Mike,
With the kind of tack you are taking with Jason, I would recommend you speak to an ordained minister of the gospel. Or, you can find the Q&A feature on the website of the church I am ordained as a deacon in. If you ask the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, they usually get back relatively quickly (within a few weeks) and if your question is good, they post it and the answer for all the wide world to see, for as long as the interweb servers keep running.
There’s some voice mailer either on this episode or the one before that is ordained a jedi or something too, you could always go that route.
Peace.
Hey AB,
I appreciate the suggestion. I really don’t know what kind of tack I was even taking with Jason. Something he said (at least I think he said it) popped out at me so I figured I would ask about him about it. I was honestly just curious about his perspective from a Catholic standpoint.
I’ve been down the rabbit hole with several of your tribe in the past (heavily involved in RUF during my college days), so I respectfully decline to engage. Take it easy.
Mike,
No worries, I realize I butted in to your convo with Jason. Thanks for the resposne.
I went to an RUF once back in my college days as well, wasn’t impressed, didn’t go back.
Take care.
Hey Mike,
Part of it comes down to authorial intent. Questions like, “Was John intending to describe literal locusts with lions’ heads?”; “Was Matthew intending to convey a literal bodily resurrection?”; “Was Moses intending to describe 6 24-hour creation days?” are important to tackle. In the same way that it’s irresponsible to treat as metaphorical that which was written as history, so it’s irresponsible to do the opposite and treat metaphor as literal history.
And of course, having a Church that can, when necessary, speak to this issue with divine authority would help. . . .
I have never really understood this argument. We know that Jesus’ companions, as well as Paul, wrote what they considered to be actual accounts of things that happened, and they did so in a context in which their accounts were easily disprovable (Paul himself says, “Look, lots of people who saw the risen Christ are still alive today, go ask them”).
Or is it that these things happened so long ago from our perspective today? If that’s the case, then any biography written today about someone who has recently died can be discredited in a millennium or two simply because it’s old. And that is not playing fair with history.
Andrew, no big deal man.
Jason,
Thanks for indulging me with a response. I used to share your positions on these matters, but it just doesn’t add up for me anymore for various reasons. Anyway, yall keep doing what you do. Thanks.
Well, it’s more like a biography being written about someone 50 years after they died with almost nothing written about them previously at a time when there are no cameras or video or written accounts of any type of the subject, and the book goes on to claim that the person performed amazing miracles, healed people, and rose from the dead.
Christian,
Once a supernaturalist, then Jonah and the big fish no longer becomes something of shame to have belief in. In fact, I look for the opportunity to be mocked by the naturalists – I believe it is in this that they are showing how uncomfortable they are in their belief that this life is all there is. Something inside each and every one of us, I believe, doesn’t buy into that premise, lock, stock, and barrel.
Andrew, your argument falls apart at numerous places. First, just because you believe in the supernatural, that doesn’t mean that you believe every supernatural story, does it? I referred to the miracles written about Jesus decades after he was alive and you start telling me that it’s not silly if you believe in the supernatural. If I started telling you about some man in a small town in Africa who did a bunch of miracles 40 years ago, do you automatically believe it because, hey, you believe in the supernatural? Do you believe in stigmata because you also believe in the supernatural? Second, believing in the supernatural, or that this life is not all there is, doesn’t even begin to prove Christianity. I’m tired of Christians doing everything they can to prove that there is a creator, as if that is somehow going to prove that the Bible is true.
That’s weird.
Christian,
Who’s arguing?
No.
I never said what I believe is not silly.
No and no.
Who said I was here to prove anything?
I hear you, Christian.
Then I should probably re-phrase, or maybe I’m just weird. I’ll tell you what I’m kind of tired of – speaking and being overlooked. I hope that doesn’t make me a creepy stalker.
Anything in particular you want to ask me?
Christian,
Imagine you never left the faith. How many more mockeries do you think you would have endured instead of what you endure because you abandoned? I’m not a victim. But at some point, this stuff kind of becomes a kind of game. That’s what I mean “I look to be mocked.” Maybe it’s weird, and I get that as a Christian, I get many privelages. But there are disadvantages that I perceive for maintaining my stance.
Make sense?
Enduring mockery and looking for opportunities to be mocked are two completely different things.
But it got you to respond.
When you said you wouldn’t die for your faith, I thought of William Wallace, “every man dies, not every man truly lives.”
I think that was this episode. I lose track eventually.
Peace.
Ha. I was just watching Braveheart a few minutes ago. One of my favorite lines in a movie ever, and I’m pretty sure we’ve referenced it in a few episodes…and will again. 🙂
Reading a book on Luther, and trying to avoid posting more comments. Take care man.
Christian,
Well, it’s more like a biography being written about someone 50 years after they died with almost nothingwritten about them previously at a time when there are no cameras or video or written accounts of any type of the subject, and the book goes on to claim that the person performed amazing miracles, healed people, and rose from the dead.
Your time line is mistaken. For example, the story of Jesus’s suffering and death, commonly called the Passion Story, was probably not originally written by Mark. Rather Mark used a source (Q) for this narrative. Since Mark is the earliest gospel, his source must be even earlier. In fact, Rudolf Pesch, a German expert on Mark, says the Passion source must go back to at least AD 37, just seven years after Jesus’s death.
Or again, Paul in his letters hands on information concerning Jesus about his teaching, his Last Supper, his betrayal, crucifixion, burial, and resurrection appearances. Paul’s letters were written even before the gospels, and some of his information, for example, what he passes on in his first letter to the Corinthian church about the resurrection appearances, has been dated to within five years after Jesus’s death.
We have fantastic historical information on the life of Jesus. I woukd love for you to treat the texts like you would any other historical source. Even without assuming biblical inerrancy, we still have an impressive case for the ressurection.
Kenneth,
Imagine you are Jewish and don’t believe in the resurrection.
You would still be a supernaturalist.
I think all we have to do is show that Christian makes more of a leap being a naturalist than we are for believing there is more to life than the material. I haven’t proved Christianity, but maybe I left a pebble in his shoe, which is really all we need to do.
Right?
What needs to be considered as well is the fact that immediately after the disappearance of Jesus he was being worshiped and proclaimed as risen, which would explain why, when a few decades later books were written saying these things, it raised no eyebrows.
Andrew,
I think that these guys have an easy time attacking biblical inerrancy. It’s part of their whole “the Internet has made me smarter” routine. They have a much harder time disputing the historical evidence for the ressurection of Christ. That’s the pebble to place. Especially if they aren’t defacto naturalists.
Yeah, I’ve argued for WCF 1 over online exchanges since 2009, among my fellow prots.
Peace.
Man oh man Kenneth, your condescension is nauseating and all too typical of christian apologists. You boil down critical thinking and legit rational questioning of christian tenets to some Internet fad.
Starting to question my beliefs and my eventual apostasy was not something I took or take lightly. It is hard man. But at the end of the day I cant in good conscience continue to believe something that logically doesn’t make sense when all the available objective evidence that we have at this time is taken into consideration. Im not trying to be a martyr or overly altruistic here, I’m just asking questions and the “truths” and answers christian apologist provide fall flat.
So next time you are imparting your divinely inspired wisdom maybe take a second to consider where everybody else in the convo is coming from and not belittle them. Kthnxby.
Mike,
The Internet thing was a quip from one of our prior conversations. You’ll get it when you catch up on the podcasts.
This is simply untrue. Here are the kinds of things historians look for:
The gospels fail every one of these tests. Just because the church named the gospels “Matthew”, “Mark”, “Luke”, etc doesn’t mean they were written by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. They were written anonymously by intelligent Greek speakers a minimum of 35-40 years (for Mark) and 50-55 years (for Matthew and Luke) after Jesus’ death. So the earliest account you have of the resurrection is at least 35 years after the event. (Not a single other “account” exists before then. Not a single one!) The earliest reference you have to a resurrection is Paul, twenty years after the event, and he wasn’t an eye witness. So where did the stories come from? Oral traditions, of course. Followers telling stories to people to try to convert them. Now you’re dealing with a 35 year game of telephone where the operators are benefited by the stories being embellished. No wonder there are so many discrepancies between the gospels. (i.e. what day and time did Jesus die? Did Jesus carry his cross the entire way? Did both robbers mock Jesus or did only one mock him? Did the curtain rip in half before or after Jesus died? Who went to the tomb on the third day? Was the stone rolled away before they got to the tomb or not? What did they see in the tomb? What were they told to tell the disciples? Stay in Jerusalem or go to Galilee? Did the women tell anyone or were they silent? Did the disciples never leave Jerusalem or did they go to Galilee? All discrepancies!) Are you seriously trying to tell me that these are reliable historical documents? They are not contemporary with the events they’re describing, they are not disinterested, and they are not consistent.
Some guy says there was probably another source (Q) that went back to 37AD? That’s convenient. Where is it? It’s kind of required in order for you to use it for historical evidence, don’t you think? Do you not see how much you’re reaching? As far as Q having a passion narrative, where is the evidence for that? Matthew, Mark, and Luke are the exact same in many places, but differ on the passion narrative. The easiest way to determine what may have been in Q, if it existed and Matthew and Luke weren’t simply copying Mark, is to see where they agree, not where they disagree. This makes Q, at best, if it existed, a book of saying from Jesus. The only way to prove that Q had a passion narrative would be if more than one of Matthew, Mark, or Luke used it…and they didn’t. So all you have about Q is speculation, at best.
As far as having an impressive historical case for the resurrection, I’d like to quote Ehrman: “What historians do is try to establish what most probably happened in the past. You can’t prove the past. You can only give evidence for the past, and some evidence is more certain than other evidence. All a historian can do is show what most probably happened. What are miracles? Miracles, by definition, are the least probable occurrence of an event. If a miracle was not least probable, it wouldn’t be a miracle. …Historians don’t have [the same luxury as scientists]. They can only establish on the basis of surviving evidence what probably happened in the past, and by definition, miracles are the least probable occurrence or else they’re not a miracle. This creates a dilemma for a historian and is the reason why historians cannot prove that Jesus was raised from the dead. Historians by their very nature establish what most probably happened in the past, but a miracle by it’s definition is the least probable occurrence in the past. The least probable occurrence cannot be most probable. This is the problem with the resurrection. Even if it happened, it defies imagination and cannot be accepted as a historically proven event. If you believe in the resurrection, it is for theological reasons. The resurrection is a theological assertion about what god did to Jesus. It is not and it cannot be based on historical proof.” (Emphasis mine)
In other words, feel free to believe in the resurrection for theological reasons, but you’re not going to be able to convince me, using history, that the least probable event is the most probable historical event.
Lastly, damn you for making me do actual research and present evidence of something I believe! 😉
Christian,
Quite the comment – that’s more what I am used to from Atheist leaning folk. Kudos.
By the way, what I believe just so happens to not be the characteristic silly, but I’m not surprised you would say,
.
Atheists and agnostics indeed go straight to the heart of the matter as you did here – “who is Jesus?”
It seems to me you’ve put some thought into these matters, but I won’t make you think anymore about such things by writing more. As mike said above, there’s a malaise for people who must put up with people who believe as I do.
Take care.
Christian,
Shizam!
Haha! I (predictably) disagree. Let’s look at your critique
I don’t see any reason to doubt the traditions of the early church. Who would know the author better than the very people who received the letters? I have already listed two sources that exist before Mark.
1. The premarkan passion story
2. The letters of the apostle Paul
Paul may not have been at Calvary but he WAS an eye witness to the resurrected Christ. He was one of numerous people who had some kind of “experience” of Jesus as the risen Lord. His incredible conversion and testimony can not be swept under the rug. Whats more, his letters speak of repeating what had already been “received”. Meaning his account had already been wide spread even before his pen touched ink.
You might say that this only represents a 5-15 year game of telephone but i disagree. The Jewish oral tradition was absolutely incredible. These people to great care to orally preserve important information and transmit it accurately. Plus, what exactly were these “operators” gaining by the stories being embellished? A nice, horrible, and grisly death? Enjoying the reputation of being the guy who denied Christ three times? Or falling asleep as he sweat blood? Being the guys who constantly lost faith and couldn’t understand what was going on? The apostles are hardly portrayed as super heroes. I don’t see much gain for them in the so called embellishment.
You are playing with loaded dice! On the one hand you demand no variation in the stories. But on the other hand, If the gospels were perfectly harmonious, the authors would be accused by historians of collusion! No two eye witnesses give precisely the same retelling. Historians look for “structural” consistency not consistency in an absolute sense. In fact, they are very skeptical of two accounts that are in perfect harmony. Just as a judge would be skeptical if two supposed eye witnesses went before a jury and told the exact same story without a single variation. The gospels are considered reliable precisely because of these variations.
Whoops! I made an error here. The source was not Q. The “premarkan source” is distinct from both Q and M. However, it is not just “some guy” who believes there was a premarkan source. This is believed to be the case by the vast majority of NT scholarship. Pesch gives an early dating, but most know that Mark was using a pre-existing source when writing the passion story in his gospel.
A person can rationally believe in the resurrection on the basis of the evidence even if the historian is blocked by a methodological restriction from postulating the existence of God. Therefore, even if Ehrman is right about the limits of the historian,(and I dont think he is) it is of no bearing to the truth nor to rational belief.
This brings up an interesting point, because even if Ehrman is right and the resurrection is extremely improbable due to its miraculous nature, the resurrection is clearly much more likely if God’s existence is more likely. If the theist can develop a strong natural theology and demonstrate the likelihood of God’s existence, then the initial implausibility of the resurrection is reduced greatly. You have already admitted that there are “many great arguments for the existence of God”, which leaves you in a pretty awkward spot. The resurrection hypothesis is the best explanation of the 4 most uncontested facts in any of the gospels
1. After his crucifixion, Jesus was buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea.
2. On the Sunday following the crucifixion, Jesus’ tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers.
3. On multiple occasions and under various circumstances, different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead
4. The original disciples believed that Jesus was risen from the dead despite their having every predisposition to the contrary.
If Bart wants to say that a historian is not allowed to grant a miracle, because a historian is not allowed to speak to the existence of God etc. thats fine. But we are not historians. We are just honest, regular guys, looking for the truth. We dont have the professional hangups that bart struggles with.
I am very impressed! Kudos!
Christian, I must protest! There is great mexican food in Budapest!
Next time you guys come to Budapest, i will take you out for a Budapest-mexican-food-tour!
Don’t take it personally. We don’t have good Mexican food here in Seattle either. 🙂