A friend and I are having an evidence-based discussion about Christianity. I've challenged him to provide evidence. I'll be updating this post for awhile to compile all the information in outline format. I'll create a followup linking to this post when we're done.
I. Claim: Jesus of Nazareth was a real person who lived.
A. The New Testament (NT) says this is so
A. Claim: The NT is a credible source.
1. There are lots of copies of pieces of the NT from the 2nd, 3rd and 4th century AD.
2. The gospels of the NT were written 35-65 years after the alleged events happened.
3. The gospels were not contemporary, they are at best marginally corroborative, only one of them is possibly independent (Mark), and all of them are from biased writers.
B. Evidence #2
C. Evidence #3
II. Claim: Jesus of Nazareth was executed by the Romans.
A. The New Testament (NT) says this is so
A. Claim: The NT is a credible source.
B. Evidence #5
C. Evidence #6
III. Claim: Jesus of Nazareth was resurrected after 3 days.
A. The New Testament (NT) says this is so
A. Claim: The NT is a credible source.
B. Evidence #8
C. Evidence #9
Showing posts with label protestantism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label protestantism. Show all posts
Monday, December 20, 2010
Civil Rights and the Echo Chamber
This weekend, I was trying to engage my mother and sister in polite conversation about current events (politics). I brought up Rand Paul, the senator-elect from Kentucky. I figured they might not have heard about his stance on civil rights. I had listened to an interview with him recently. The discussion had been focusing on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that ended segregation in the south.
For those of you that haven't heard, Rand Paul's position is that no one should discriminate against anyone, that the government should not legally be allowed to discriminate against anyone, but that business owners should have that right. To be clear, Rand Paul thinks that WalMart should have the legal right to hang up a "No Blacks Served" sign. Listening to him, he's not going to say those words on camera. It would be political suicide. When he's asked a question like that, he repeats "I am against discrimination. And I believe that the government should not be involved in any institutional discrimination."
This seemed like such a far right (almost crazy) position that even my family would not support it. Sadly I never got to find out. My mother's been on this kick lately to limit discussions about issues on which we might disagree. Since I'm an atheist Democrat and she's a fundamentalist christian Republican, this covers quite a lot. She mentioned something about how I'm entitled to my opinions, though she thinks many of them are wrong. So I dropped the subject and we spent the meal discussing how tasty the food was (prime rib, mmm).
Flash forward to this morning. On the radio, NPR was discussing the Ugandan "Kill the Gays" Bill. A member of the Ugandan parliament, David Bahati, has authored a bill that will make it a capital crime to be gay. If it is passed into law, people who engage in homosexual touching will be sentenced to life in prison, while repeat offenders will be executed. There are additional provisions in the bill for prison time for those that talk about homosexuality or who know a gay person and don't turn them in.
The connection for me is what I've heard Bahati say in interviews. Here's an excerpt:
"We know that homosexuality is a human right here (in the US) in Uganda, but also we need to appreciate it is not a human right across the world, and certainly in Uganda, we don't take it as a human right. And as we debate this issue, it is important that we do tolerate one another, listen to one another, understand the background of one another, and respect one another. And the background that I come from is that 95% of population does not support homosexuality. We believe that man was created to marry a woman, and that's the purpose for which God created us, the purpose of procreation, and that's the higher purpose that we believe in."
What I hear from Bahati and my mother*: You're entitled to your opinion that homosexuals should have human rights, but I think you're wrong. You won't convince me that this is not the case. I've been instructed by my religious indoctrination to ignore anything you say that might call this into question. You just need to leave me alone. I have a right to be sheltered from public opinion or the pain I am causing those harmed by my political views. Let's tolerate one another, at least those of us who are straight or white or male. You must tolerate (not speak out against) my intolerance (harmful, divisive legislative action).
My mother wants to live in an echo chamber. She doesn't want to have disagreements with people. She doesn't want to hear conflicting points of view. I hate to Godwin, but if you were a Nazi, and all you listened to was Nazi propaganda, how would you find out if you were wrong?
------------------------------
*I don't know what my mother's position is on this particular issue.
For those of you that haven't heard, Rand Paul's position is that no one should discriminate against anyone, that the government should not legally be allowed to discriminate against anyone, but that business owners should have that right. To be clear, Rand Paul thinks that WalMart should have the legal right to hang up a "No Blacks Served" sign. Listening to him, he's not going to say those words on camera. It would be political suicide. When he's asked a question like that, he repeats "I am against discrimination. And I believe that the government should not be involved in any institutional discrimination."
This seemed like such a far right (almost crazy) position that even my family would not support it. Sadly I never got to find out. My mother's been on this kick lately to limit discussions about issues on which we might disagree. Since I'm an atheist Democrat and she's a fundamentalist christian Republican, this covers quite a lot. She mentioned something about how I'm entitled to my opinions, though she thinks many of them are wrong. So I dropped the subject and we spent the meal discussing how tasty the food was (prime rib, mmm).
Flash forward to this morning. On the radio, NPR was discussing the Ugandan "Kill the Gays" Bill. A member of the Ugandan parliament, David Bahati, has authored a bill that will make it a capital crime to be gay. If it is passed into law, people who engage in homosexual touching will be sentenced to life in prison, while repeat offenders will be executed. There are additional provisions in the bill for prison time for those that talk about homosexuality or who know a gay person and don't turn them in.
The connection for me is what I've heard Bahati say in interviews. Here's an excerpt:
"We know that homosexuality is a human right here (in the US) in Uganda, but also we need to appreciate it is not a human right across the world, and certainly in Uganda, we don't take it as a human right. And as we debate this issue, it is important that we do tolerate one another, listen to one another, understand the background of one another, and respect one another. And the background that I come from is that 95% of population does not support homosexuality. We believe that man was created to marry a woman, and that's the purpose for which God created us, the purpose of procreation, and that's the higher purpose that we believe in."
What I hear from Bahati and my mother*: You're entitled to your opinion that homosexuals should have human rights, but I think you're wrong. You won't convince me that this is not the case. I've been instructed by my religious indoctrination to ignore anything you say that might call this into question. You just need to leave me alone. I have a right to be sheltered from public opinion or the pain I am causing those harmed by my political views. Let's tolerate one another, at least those of us who are straight or white or male. You must tolerate (not speak out against) my intolerance (harmful, divisive legislative action).
My mother wants to live in an echo chamber. She doesn't want to have disagreements with people. She doesn't want to hear conflicting points of view. I hate to Godwin, but if you were a Nazi, and all you listened to was Nazi propaganda, how would you find out if you were wrong?
------------------------------
*I don't know what my mother's position is on this particular issue.
Friday, December 17, 2010
Protestant Misogyny
This article which I found on a friend's facebook page is a puree of mysoginy and desparate longing for the good old days when men were men, women were pregnant and children followed their father's orders.
The long and short of it is that in a Swiss study they found that children are more likely to follow their father's religion than mother's. The author then proceeds to wax lyrical about how this validates biblical values (men as head of everything) and undermines feminism (and female ministers).
My favorite bit?
"The absentee father, whoever’s “fault” the divorce was and however faithful he might be to his church, is unlikely to spend the brief permitted weekend “quality” time with his child in church. A young lad in my congregation had to choose between his loyalty to the faith and spending Sunday with Dad, now 40 miles away, fishing or playing soccer. Some choice for a lad of eleven: earthly father versus heavenly Father, with all the crossed ties of love and loyalties that choice involves. With that agonizing maturity forced on children by our “failures,” he reasoned that his heavenly Father would understand his absence better than his dad."
Obviously, the boy would have been better with invisible Daddy than with real Daddy.
The long and short of it is that in a Swiss study they found that children are more likely to follow their father's religion than mother's. The author then proceeds to wax lyrical about how this validates biblical values (men as head of everything) and undermines feminism (and female ministers).
My favorite bit?
"The absentee father, whoever’s “fault” the divorce was and however faithful he might be to his church, is unlikely to spend the brief permitted weekend “quality” time with his child in church. A young lad in my congregation had to choose between his loyalty to the faith and spending Sunday with Dad, now 40 miles away, fishing or playing soccer. Some choice for a lad of eleven: earthly father versus heavenly Father, with all the crossed ties of love and loyalties that choice involves. With that agonizing maturity forced on children by our “failures,” he reasoned that his heavenly Father would understand his absence better than his dad."
Obviously, the boy would have been better with invisible Daddy than with real Daddy.
The Devil Did It!
Fundamentalist Protestantism has this great safety mechanism for shutting down lines of questioning that might lead people to realize how inconsistent and impossible it is. If a good reason to disbelieve is found, or if solid "evidence" for God is shown to be not-so-solid, you can always pull out that old scapegoat, the Devil.
Why does God hurt good people? The Devil did it!
Why are there so many religions that are similar in so many ways to Christianity (I'm looking at you, Mithras)? The Devil did it!
Why is it that the more educated people are, the more likely they are to not believe in God? The Devil did it!
How have scientists found so much evidence for evolution, the origins of life, and big bang cosmology? The Devil did it!
See, the bible is full of admonitions to beware false prophets, antichrists and the deceiver (Satan). Problem is, how do you know which ones are true and which are false? Some Protestants go so far as to say that Satan is running the world. That mainstream media and secular government are both under his thrall. In that case, everything in the world is a carefully orchestrated conspiracy with one super powerful spirit being running the show (a being that can possess people's minds and show them things that aren't there). So, how can you trust anything?
They usually stop at outsiders, though. When someone from another religion says something they dislike, or when a new law is passed that disagrees with a tenet of their religion, that's when the Devil is responsible. But take it to the logical conclusion. If this conspiracy exists, your friends at church could be demons in disguise. Your pastor could be gleefully leading you down the road to hell. Your spouse could be a succubus, sent to tempt you. The bible (and all books) could have been written by the Devil himself.
But the Devil is just a psychological trick. He's designed to be just powerful enough that he can be blamed for anything that isn't part of the status quo. Whoever you are, your teacher is the right one. Any that disagree are all minions of the devil.
Why does God hurt good people? The Devil did it!
Why are there so many religions that are similar in so many ways to Christianity (I'm looking at you, Mithras)? The Devil did it!
Why is it that the more educated people are, the more likely they are to not believe in God? The Devil did it!
How have scientists found so much evidence for evolution, the origins of life, and big bang cosmology? The Devil did it!
See, the bible is full of admonitions to beware false prophets, antichrists and the deceiver (Satan). Problem is, how do you know which ones are true and which are false? Some Protestants go so far as to say that Satan is running the world. That mainstream media and secular government are both under his thrall. In that case, everything in the world is a carefully orchestrated conspiracy with one super powerful spirit being running the show (a being that can possess people's minds and show them things that aren't there). So, how can you trust anything?
They usually stop at outsiders, though. When someone from another religion says something they dislike, or when a new law is passed that disagrees with a tenet of their religion, that's when the Devil is responsible. But take it to the logical conclusion. If this conspiracy exists, your friends at church could be demons in disguise. Your pastor could be gleefully leading you down the road to hell. Your spouse could be a succubus, sent to tempt you. The bible (and all books) could have been written by the Devil himself.
But the Devil is just a psychological trick. He's designed to be just powerful enough that he can be blamed for anything that isn't part of the status quo. Whoever you are, your teacher is the right one. Any that disagree are all minions of the devil.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Comparing the Resurrection Accounts
I don't think it's been established that the gospel accounts are eyewitness testimony. Most of the historical research I've read seems to indicate that they were written decades after the fact by anonymous sources.
But even if you did accept the idea that they were written by contemporaries, all you end up with then is the idea that these four authors have no idea what really happened. They don't know who was there, who they met, where the stone was, or if there was a bloody great earthquake.
I'm working on exacting a confession from a friend of mine that these four accounts contradict each other in very clear ways. You cannot say that any two of them are true, unless you use a new-agey version of "true" that he has been loath to admit.
So are they all "true" in some artistic/poetic sense? Or are they clearly contradictory and therefore at least three of them are fabrications? Which is it?
Matthew 28
1 Now late on the sabbath day, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
2 And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled away the stone, and sat upon it.
3 His appearance was as lightning, and his raiment white as snow:
4 and for fear of him the watchers did quake, and became as dead men.
5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye; for I know that ye seek Jesus, who hath been crucified.
6 He is not here; for he is risen, even as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.
7 And go quickly, and tell his disciples, He is risen from the dead; and lo, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.
8 And they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring his disciples word.
9 And behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and took hold of his feet, and worshipped him.
10 Then saith Jesus unto them, Fear not: go tell my brethren that they depart into Galilee, and there shall they see me.
Who: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary
Earthquake?: Yes
Stone: Rolled away before their eyes
Angel(s): 1 (sitting on the stone outside)
Mark 16
1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices, that they might come and anoint him.
2 And very early on the first day of the week, they come to the tomb when the sun was risen.
3 And they were saying among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the tomb?
4 and looking up, they see that the stone is rolled back: for it was exceeding great.
5 And entering into the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, arrayed in a white robe; and they were amazed.
6 And he saith unto them, Be not amazed: ye seek Jesus, the Nazarene, who hath been crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold, the place where they laid him!
7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, He goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.
8 And they went out, and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them: and they said nothing to any one; for they were afraid.
Who: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome
Earthquake?: No
Stone: Rolled away before they arrive
Angel(s): 1 (disguised as a young man sitting inside the tomb)
Luke 24
1 But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came unto the tomb, bringing the spices which they had prepared.
2 And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb.
3 And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus.
4 And it came to pass, while they were perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel:
5 and as they were affrighted and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead?
6 He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee,
7 saying that the Son of man must be delivered up into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.
8 And they remembered his words,
9 and returned from the tomb, and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest.
10 Now they were Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James: and the other women with them told these things unto the apostles.
Who: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James
Earthquake?: No
Stone: Rolled away before they arrive
Angel(s): 2 (disguised as a two men standing)
John 20
1 Now on the first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, while it was yet dark, unto the tomb, and seeth the stone taken away from the tomb.
2 She runneth therefore, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we know not where they have laid him.
3 Peter therefore went forth, and the other disciple, and they went toward the tomb.
4 And they ran both together: and the other disciple outran Peter, and came first to the tomb;
5 and stooping and looking in, he seeth the linen cloths lying; yet entered he not in.
6 Simon Peter therefore also cometh, following him, and entered into the tomb; and he beholdeth the linen cloths lying,
7 and the napkin, that was upon his head, not lying with the linen cloths, but rolled up in a place by itself.
8 Then entered in therefore the other disciple also, who came first to the tomb, and he saw, and believed.
9 For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise from the dead.
10 So the disciples went away again unto their own home.
11 But Mary was standing without at the tomb weeping: so, as she wept, she stooped and looked into the tomb;
12 and she beholdeth two angels in white sitting, one at the head, and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.
13 And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him.
14 When she had thus said, she turned herself back, and beholdeth Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus.
15 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou hast borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away.
16 Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turneth herself, and saith unto him in Hebrew, Rabboni; which is to say, Teacher.
17 Jesus saith to her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended unto the Father: but go unto my brethren, and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.
18 Mary Magdalene cometh and telleth the disciples, I have seen the Lord; and that he had said these things unto her.
Who: Mary Magdalene (plus Simon Peter and the other disciple whom Jesus loved)
Earthquake?: No
Stone: Rolled away before they arrive
Angel(s): 2 (sitting inside the tomb; plus Jesus in disguise outside)
But even if you did accept the idea that they were written by contemporaries, all you end up with then is the idea that these four authors have no idea what really happened. They don't know who was there, who they met, where the stone was, or if there was a bloody great earthquake.
I'm working on exacting a confession from a friend of mine that these four accounts contradict each other in very clear ways. You cannot say that any two of them are true, unless you use a new-agey version of "true" that he has been loath to admit.
So are they all "true" in some artistic/poetic sense? Or are they clearly contradictory and therefore at least three of them are fabrications? Which is it?
Matthew 28
1 Now late on the sabbath day, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
2 And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled away the stone, and sat upon it.
3 His appearance was as lightning, and his raiment white as snow:
4 and for fear of him the watchers did quake, and became as dead men.
5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye; for I know that ye seek Jesus, who hath been crucified.
6 He is not here; for he is risen, even as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.
7 And go quickly, and tell his disciples, He is risen from the dead; and lo, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.
8 And they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring his disciples word.
9 And behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and took hold of his feet, and worshipped him.
10 Then saith Jesus unto them, Fear not: go tell my brethren that they depart into Galilee, and there shall they see me.
Who: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary
Earthquake?: Yes
Stone: Rolled away before their eyes
Angel(s): 1 (sitting on the stone outside)
Mark 16
1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices, that they might come and anoint him.
2 And very early on the first day of the week, they come to the tomb when the sun was risen.
3 And they were saying among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the tomb?
4 and looking up, they see that the stone is rolled back: for it was exceeding great.
5 And entering into the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, arrayed in a white robe; and they were amazed.
6 And he saith unto them, Be not amazed: ye seek Jesus, the Nazarene, who hath been crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold, the place where they laid him!
7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, He goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.
8 And they went out, and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them: and they said nothing to any one; for they were afraid.
Who: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome
Earthquake?: No
Stone: Rolled away before they arrive
Angel(s): 1 (disguised as a young man sitting inside the tomb)
Luke 24
1 But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came unto the tomb, bringing the spices which they had prepared.
2 And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb.
3 And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus.
4 And it came to pass, while they were perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel:
5 and as they were affrighted and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead?
6 He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee,
7 saying that the Son of man must be delivered up into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.
8 And they remembered his words,
9 and returned from the tomb, and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest.
10 Now they were Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James: and the other women with them told these things unto the apostles.
Who: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James
Earthquake?: No
Stone: Rolled away before they arrive
Angel(s): 2 (disguised as a two men standing)
John 20
1 Now on the first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, while it was yet dark, unto the tomb, and seeth the stone taken away from the tomb.
2 She runneth therefore, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we know not where they have laid him.
3 Peter therefore went forth, and the other disciple, and they went toward the tomb.
4 And they ran both together: and the other disciple outran Peter, and came first to the tomb;
5 and stooping and looking in, he seeth the linen cloths lying; yet entered he not in.
6 Simon Peter therefore also cometh, following him, and entered into the tomb; and he beholdeth the linen cloths lying,
7 and the napkin, that was upon his head, not lying with the linen cloths, but rolled up in a place by itself.
8 Then entered in therefore the other disciple also, who came first to the tomb, and he saw, and believed.
9 For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise from the dead.
10 So the disciples went away again unto their own home.
11 But Mary was standing without at the tomb weeping: so, as she wept, she stooped and looked into the tomb;
12 and she beholdeth two angels in white sitting, one at the head, and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.
13 And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him.
14 When she had thus said, she turned herself back, and beholdeth Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus.
15 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou hast borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away.
16 Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turneth herself, and saith unto him in Hebrew, Rabboni; which is to say, Teacher.
17 Jesus saith to her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended unto the Father: but go unto my brethren, and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.
18 Mary Magdalene cometh and telleth the disciples, I have seen the Lord; and that he had said these things unto her.
Who: Mary Magdalene (plus Simon Peter and the other disciple whom Jesus loved)
Earthquake?: No
Stone: Rolled away before they arrive
Angel(s): 2 (sitting inside the tomb; plus Jesus in disguise outside)
What Omnipotence Really Means
I've noticed a funny thing amongst the literalist Protestants I know. They don't really know what omnipotence means.
Imagine the Protestant God. He's created all the angels, and then one of them rebels against him (his favorite one, too). The angel changes his name from Lucifer to Satan and goes on a rampage, making a nuisance of himself throughout all of time and space. When something bad happens: a disease or a typhoon, Satan's to blame.
Except that he's not. See omnipotence means power without limits. If you want something to happen, it does. If you don't, it doesn't. So nothing would be capable of doing anything against an omnipotent God's will. Anything that happens, God wanted to happen. God caused it all. Gives a whole new meaning to "thy will be done."
God caused Lucifer to fall. God caused Adam and Eve to sin. God caused disease, famine and hurricane. There is no one else to blame if there is an omnipotent God in the mix.
For those that are following along, this means you have no free will. Protestants will often take the stance that evil exists in the world because of free will; that God is letting humans make choices for themselves. That's a cute idea, but it is logically contradictory with an omnipotent God. If his will can't be gainsaid, then your will means nothing. If you rob a bank, it's because it matches his will. If he chose otherwise, you couldn't do it.
For bonus points, imagine two omnipotent entities duking it out. Who wins? The rules of logic do! And the rules of logic say that they can't both exist. It's like that old paradox "What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?" The answer is that if an unstoppable force exists, there are no immovable objects, and vice versa.
Omnipotence even opposes itself, unfortunately. Try this out: can God become non-omnipotent?
At time T1, God is omnipotent. He knows all and nothing can oppose his will.
At time T2, God will soon lay down his omnipotence. He will cease to know all and things will be able to oppose his will.
At time T3, God is no longer omnipotent. He has ceased to know all and things are able to oppose his will.
Except, T1-God knows things that will happen at T3, and can affect them. Nothing can oppose T1-God's will, not even things at T3. So, even if T3-God were a nonomnipotent entity, T1-God is still in charge. T1-God has not lost anything.
Oh, and please note, we humans are used to opposing ourselves. When we are on a diet, we avoid buying fatty foods to prevent our future self from pigging out on them. As students, if we need to study or do homework, we might go to the library to prevent our future self from being too distracted to get the job done.
But as an omnipotent being, God can't oppose himself. If T1-God and T2-God wanted different things, we'd have the unstoppable-immovable paradox. So God can't change his mind at T2 to decide to lay down his omnipotence. T1-God already planned to become T2-God and T3-God.
So there are two logical problems, with just a single omnipotent being. God can't become non-omnipotent, and God can't change his mind.
Imagine the Protestant God. He's created all the angels, and then one of them rebels against him (his favorite one, too). The angel changes his name from Lucifer to Satan and goes on a rampage, making a nuisance of himself throughout all of time and space. When something bad happens: a disease or a typhoon, Satan's to blame.
Except that he's not. See omnipotence means power without limits. If you want something to happen, it does. If you don't, it doesn't. So nothing would be capable of doing anything against an omnipotent God's will. Anything that happens, God wanted to happen. God caused it all. Gives a whole new meaning to "thy will be done."
God caused Lucifer to fall. God caused Adam and Eve to sin. God caused disease, famine and hurricane. There is no one else to blame if there is an omnipotent God in the mix.
For those that are following along, this means you have no free will. Protestants will often take the stance that evil exists in the world because of free will; that God is letting humans make choices for themselves. That's a cute idea, but it is logically contradictory with an omnipotent God. If his will can't be gainsaid, then your will means nothing. If you rob a bank, it's because it matches his will. If he chose otherwise, you couldn't do it.
For bonus points, imagine two omnipotent entities duking it out. Who wins? The rules of logic do! And the rules of logic say that they can't both exist. It's like that old paradox "What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?" The answer is that if an unstoppable force exists, there are no immovable objects, and vice versa.
Omnipotence even opposes itself, unfortunately. Try this out: can God become non-omnipotent?
At time T1, God is omnipotent. He knows all and nothing can oppose his will.
At time T2, God will soon lay down his omnipotence. He will cease to know all and things will be able to oppose his will.
At time T3, God is no longer omnipotent. He has ceased to know all and things are able to oppose his will.
Except, T1-God knows things that will happen at T3, and can affect them. Nothing can oppose T1-God's will, not even things at T3. So, even if T3-God were a nonomnipotent entity, T1-God is still in charge. T1-God has not lost anything.
Oh, and please note, we humans are used to opposing ourselves. When we are on a diet, we avoid buying fatty foods to prevent our future self from pigging out on them. As students, if we need to study or do homework, we might go to the library to prevent our future self from being too distracted to get the job done.
But as an omnipotent being, God can't oppose himself. If T1-God and T2-God wanted different things, we'd have the unstoppable-immovable paradox. So God can't change his mind at T2 to decide to lay down his omnipotence. T1-God already planned to become T2-God and T3-God.
So there are two logical problems, with just a single omnipotent being. God can't become non-omnipotent, and God can't change his mind.
Those Poor Midianites
A friend sent me this article on why killing the Midianites was OK.
"As for the boys they would have died anyway because there would be no one to look after them. Given the option of a slow death from hunger and thirst, clearly God chose the merciful option of a quick death. All the cattle had been taken as booty. Had he allowed them to live among the Israelites they would take revenge later when they became men. If you're going to do the job do it right. The Moabites would probably have used the boys for child sacrifice (by fire) as was their practice."
Either this apologist does not understand the concept of omnipotence, or he doesn't think God has that quality. I can think of several solutions that an omnipotent deity would have the power to effect.
"As for the boys they would have died anyway because there would be no one to look after them. Given the option of a slow death from hunger and thirst, clearly God chose the merciful option of a quick death. All the cattle had been taken as booty. Had he allowed them to live among the Israelites they would take revenge later when they became men. If you're going to do the job do it right. The Moabites would probably have used the boys for child sacrifice (by fire) as was their practice."
Either this apologist does not understand the concept of omnipotence, or he doesn't think God has that quality. I can think of several solutions that an omnipotent deity would have the power to effect.
- Teleport the Midianites to an earth-like planet in another galaxy, sending angels to care for them till they are older.
- Soften the Midianite boys' hearts (like he did to Pharoah, but backwards) so they wouldn't take revenge.
- Send his son thousands of years earlier, bringing the message of salvation to the Midianites before they became a problem.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Growing up Protestant
I wasn't sure where I was going with this one. It ended up being a rambling post about memories from my Protestant childhood.
Here in Bakersfield, you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a fundamentalist Christian. When the dust bowl drove through the Great Plains in the 1930s, dispossessed farmers fled the bible belt along Route 66 to California. A great number of them settled in the San Joaquin Valley and now it's like we have our very own mini-bible belt.
It was for this reason that, born and raised in the nearby small town of Shafter, I never encountered anyone that didn't believe in the god of the Bible. Christian was just what you were. More revealingly, we didn't differentiate between Protestant and Catholic. We were Christian, and they were Catholic. Later in life, I met some Catholics. When I mentioned to my mother and sister that they were Protestant, I would get these polite uncomprehending looks and questions along the lines of "what's that?"
During my teenage years, one of my mother's priorities was that I make sure to only date Christians. And even that wasn't good enough. They needed to be True Christians (TM). Anyone can pretend to be a Christian on Easter. But a True Christian (TM) would proudly proclaim the miracle of Jesus to the checkout girl at the grocery store.
After my parents divorce, when my father decided to start seeing women again, I remember my sister's furious reaction when he brought someone home. I remember waking up to hear my 13-year-old little sister pounding on my father's bedroom door, shouting "there are children in this house!" I'm sure we all find it upsetting to imagine our parents being with each other, let alone some stranger. But this was more than run of the mill ick-factor. She was upset because her delicate child ears had heard two people engaging in premarital relations.
Here in Bakersfield, you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a fundamentalist Christian. When the dust bowl drove through the Great Plains in the 1930s, dispossessed farmers fled the bible belt along Route 66 to California. A great number of them settled in the San Joaquin Valley and now it's like we have our very own mini-bible belt.
It was for this reason that, born and raised in the nearby small town of Shafter, I never encountered anyone that didn't believe in the god of the Bible. Christian was just what you were. More revealingly, we didn't differentiate between Protestant and Catholic. We were Christian, and they were Catholic. Later in life, I met some Catholics. When I mentioned to my mother and sister that they were Protestant, I would get these polite uncomprehending looks and questions along the lines of "what's that?"
During my teenage years, one of my mother's priorities was that I make sure to only date Christians. And even that wasn't good enough. They needed to be True Christians (TM). Anyone can pretend to be a Christian on Easter. But a True Christian (TM) would proudly proclaim the miracle of Jesus to the checkout girl at the grocery store.
After my parents divorce, when my father decided to start seeing women again, I remember my sister's furious reaction when he brought someone home. I remember waking up to hear my 13-year-old little sister pounding on my father's bedroom door, shouting "there are children in this house!" I'm sure we all find it upsetting to imagine our parents being with each other, let alone some stranger. But this was more than run of the mill ick-factor. She was upset because her delicate child ears had heard two people engaging in premarital relations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)