And, here we have a three way cage match of Arrogance, Self-Delusion, and Stupidity. I just can't make up my mind which comes out on top in "Everyone Needs Jesus...Even You." It is a truly pathetic piece of writing from an equally shitty website, Reign Drops. Just the fact that these assholes never seem to notice that virtually every single "argument"* they use only sort of works if they completely ignore everything and anything that contains even a hint of reality. There is no possibility of them accepting that other people actually are capable of thinking for themselves. They are the type of morons that you could demonstrate in person undeniable proof of "x" and if it doesn't fit their beliefs they will refuse to accept or even acknowledge "x."
So, be wary of sites and pieces like this one. Just reading such horrendous tripe can temporarily drop your IQ, or raise your blood pressure a few points.
*Just to clarify, the piece in this instance doesn't actual contain a single argument. It's more of a one direction rant.
Showing posts with label Jesus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jesus. Show all posts
Monday, January 16, 2017
Sunday, November 6, 2016
Tomb of Pandering Bullshit
So begins the start of another silly season. A recent New York Times piece, "Crypt Believed to Be Jesus’ Tomb Opened for First Time in Centuries", is as credulous as it is pandering. The very notion that there is an actual tomb of Christ is a huge assumption based on the flimsiest of "evidence." Even more ridiculous is the idea that the location is known. Three of the four Gospels briefly mention the burial. I do mean briefly. The only physical description given in Matthew (28), Luke (23-24), and John (20) are that it is "hewn from stone." That's the full extent of the descriptive details of Christ's "tomb." Basically, any cutout space in rock within the limits of old Jerusalem could be claimed as the tomb of Christ.
Sunday, October 2, 2016
"...not my Jesus."
I seriously doubt Christians will ever "understand" the most basic trait of Jesus. Jesus is a myth. This is somewhat ironic since it is that trait that has allowed them to play games with the Christ figure all this time. Since there never was a real Jesus every sect and flavor of the Christian faith can easily make whatever claim they want. They shape the Christ into whatever best suits there needs. In some ways this is the greatest asset Christainity has when comes to perpetuating itself.
Posts like Travis Eaves' "That is Not My Jesus" just reinforce what I have long since concluded about most Christians' inability to think critically about their beliefs especially those regarding the Christ figure. The subtitle does a pretty good job exposing his willful ignorance; "The more I get to know Jesus, the less I recognize him in His church today." Like so many before him, Eaves cherry picks passages that fit what he wants to believe and ignores or glosses over the rest. It isn't even remotely possible to "know" Jesus even if you make the huge assumption that he ever existed. Our only "record" of this figure(s) comes from scriptures which do not agree on anything and frequently contradict each other or spiral into incoherent gibberish. There has also never been one "church" and certainly not one that can be directly linked to a non-existent founder.
Sorry Christians, the "my Jesus, your Jesus" game just makes you look like a bunch of childish irrational spoiled brats.
Posts like Travis Eaves' "That is Not My Jesus" just reinforce what I have long since concluded about most Christians' inability to think critically about their beliefs especially those regarding the Christ figure. The subtitle does a pretty good job exposing his willful ignorance; "The more I get to know Jesus, the less I recognize him in His church today." Like so many before him, Eaves cherry picks passages that fit what he wants to believe and ignores or glosses over the rest. It isn't even remotely possible to "know" Jesus even if you make the huge assumption that he ever existed. Our only "record" of this figure(s) comes from scriptures which do not agree on anything and frequently contradict each other or spiral into incoherent gibberish. There has also never been one "church" and certainly not one that can be directly linked to a non-existent founder.
Sorry Christians, the "my Jesus, your Jesus" game just makes you look like a bunch of childish irrational spoiled brats.
Sunday, June 5, 2016
A pacifist mass-murderer
Once again self deluded Christians insist on perpetuating all sorts of delusional characterizations of their favorite fictional character: Jesus. Benjamin Corey's "Was Jesus a Pacifist" claims a rather predictable and foolish answer to his rhetorical title. Nope not even close. Given the multiple passages in which the Christ figure acts in a decidedly violent manner this is a rather weak supposition. When you take into account one of the passages I have frequently referenced, Luke 19:27, it becomes outright absurd. Jesus clearly demands his followers commit mass murder. That would seem to be the antithesis of pacifism. Sorry Christians but the Prince of Peace, as described in various scriptural passages, is not only not a very pleasant individual he's pretty fucking scary. Even if you kiss his ass he has no probably turning on you. Just read how he treats his supposed disciples in a variety of passages throughout the Gospels.
Sunday, March 27, 2016
Subtitle says it all
Longenecker has once again demonstrated what a deceitful hypocritical dumb-ass he truly is. "The Resurrection and the Death of Atheism: Jesus rose from the dead. How's that for evidence that God exists?" is one of his worst pieces, yet. That's pretty bad. If you don't want to waste your time on this idiotic crap just think about the sub-title. It is a pretty good summary of his deficient thinking process.
This arrogant deluded prick has the nerve to claim:
"Atheists like to say, 'Where is the evidence for the existence of God?,' and philosophical arguments aren’t really evidence as such. They work well enough, but they remain abstract head games. I’m hearing the atheists when they say they want evidence, and I’ve asked in response, 'What kind of evidence do you want?' Strangely, they seem stumped by my request."
Who are these atheists he is supposedly talking and listening to? Numerous atheists have routinely pointed out what they/we would accept as sound evidence. He then goes on to try to claim that his personal beliefs based on no legitimate evidence is automatically proof. No it isn't. There is no "evidence" for the existence of an historical Jesus let alone the absurd claims about such a figures divinity and miracles. The "resurrection" is proof of only one thing; how gullible people can be.
From start to finish this piece is laced with baseless subjective assertions that rely on myths, stereotypes, misconceptions, and logical fallacies. The level of asinine bullshit is staggering even for Longenecker.
This arrogant deluded prick has the nerve to claim:
"Atheists like to say, 'Where is the evidence for the existence of God?,' and philosophical arguments aren’t really evidence as such. They work well enough, but they remain abstract head games. I’m hearing the atheists when they say they want evidence, and I’ve asked in response, 'What kind of evidence do you want?' Strangely, they seem stumped by my request."
Who are these atheists he is supposedly talking and listening to? Numerous atheists have routinely pointed out what they/we would accept as sound evidence. He then goes on to try to claim that his personal beliefs based on no legitimate evidence is automatically proof. No it isn't. There is no "evidence" for the existence of an historical Jesus let alone the absurd claims about such a figures divinity and miracles. The "resurrection" is proof of only one thing; how gullible people can be.
From start to finish this piece is laced with baseless subjective assertions that rely on myths, stereotypes, misconceptions, and logical fallacies. The level of asinine bullshit is staggering even for Longenecker.
Sunday, March 13, 2016
"Authentic _______(fill in Religion)"
Anytime you come across words like "authentic", "true", or "real" in conjunction with any religion you can assume that what follows will be complete bull shit. A recent post by Roger E. Olson, "Why Authentic Christians Must Oppose the Death Penalty", is no exception. In fact, it's a pretty blatant example. Jesus is not a good figure to go back to when trying to come up with a poster boy for the abolition of the death penalty. There are numerous passages where the Jesus figure shows himself to be temperamental and at times a homicidal asshole. One of my favorite passages in this regard is Luke 19:27
"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."
I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation as to how this could mean anything other than a direct command from Jesus to his followers to round up and massacre all non-followers. Call me crazy, but commanding mass murder seems rather antithetical to abolishing the death penalty.
The truth of the matter is that "real" Christians can pretty much behave any fucking way they want since their religion is so convoluted and contradictory that it can be interpreted in just about anyway the imagination wants. That goes for every religion I've ever come across.
"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."
I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation as to how this could mean anything other than a direct command from Jesus to his followers to round up and massacre all non-followers. Call me crazy, but commanding mass murder seems rather antithetical to abolishing the death penalty.
The truth of the matter is that "real" Christians can pretty much behave any fucking way they want since their religion is so convoluted and contradictory that it can be interpreted in just about anyway the imagination wants. That goes for every religion I've ever come across.
Sunday, February 21, 2016
Ehrman...WTF?!
Ehrman has been steadily destroying his own credibility for the past handful of years. His latest book which is due out anytime seems to be yet another nail in coffin of his once substantial track record of legitimate research. A sample of Jesus Before the Gospels can be found here. Right from the start he writes about assumptions and speculations as if they are factual. This is both sad and pathetic to any one familiar with his earlier work. Many of the "eyewitness" accounts claimed by various apologists to be sound evidence Ehrman had previously revealed to be no such thing. Yet, now on the very first page of his newest book he states: "I am deeply interested in how Jesus was being 'remembered' and 'misremembered' by those who were telling such stories, both those who actually knew him and those who heard stories from others...." Who are these individuals who "actually knew him"? No first hand accounts have ever surfaced let alone any credible ones. From what I read of the sample he never comes back to these supposed eyewitnesses. Ehrman has slowly and tragically morphed into an apologist. He no longer seems capable of separated opinions and personal beliefs from historical evidence. This is incredibly depressing and disheartening.
Saturday, December 26, 2015
A first century Jew
Taryn Flynn gets one thing right in "Jesus Wasn’t White And Here’s Why That Matters." The Jesus figure is generally believed to have been a first century Middle-Eastern Jew. Such a first century Jew would not have looked like a modern Western European white guy. Virtually everything else in the piece is, of course, complete non-sense since it all relies on assumptions and willful ignorance. Not only is there no historical evidence for Jesus existence to begin with even if you could make a case for Jesus existence you then have the problem of deciding on which Jesus was the real one. The scriptures that contain information on the Jesus figure do not agree on any aspect of that figure. They actually seem to describe separate individuals. Or, more accurately, separate perceptions and preferences for a Messiah persona.
Though it is true that the Jesus figure would not have been a white guy it is equally true that the odds that he existed at all are very low. So it may not matter all that much. I understand why Flynn found the need to point out how this white version has been used for despicable purposes but it is not the only variation that has lead to negative consequences.
Though it is true that the Jesus figure would not have been a white guy it is equally true that the odds that he existed at all are very low. So it may not matter all that much. I understand why Flynn found the need to point out how this white version has been used for despicable purposes but it is not the only variation that has lead to negative consequences.
Saturday, December 5, 2015
Unapolegetic Fact-checking
I have one other occasions point out that apologists, especially Christian ones, tend to be willfully ignorant, delusional, stupid, or a combination of the three. A recent post by Justin Steckbauer on the Christian Apologetics Alliance' website does an excellent job confirming this view. "The Facts on Christianity: A Quick Examination" is certainly "quick" but bears no resemblance the rest of its title. Steckbauer fails to provide any facts or even the slightest attempt at examining anything he states. The short piece is especially entertaining since he does a pretty good job destroying his own claims. Of the 5 points he tries to make 3 take the form of rhetorical statements ("Does God exist?", Is the Bible really God's word?", Did Jesus really exist historically?") with the last two being meant as persuasive questions ("But was Jesus Christ really God come to Earth?", "What will you do?").
He starts the first point by stating, correctly, that you do not need absolute proof to reach a reasonable conclusion. He immediately dips into idiocy by trying to use the cosmological argument. Predictably, what follows is a jumble of logical fallacies and double standards. Basically, its the old BS that the universe needs a cause but God doesn't. No attempt at justifying or explaining why God should be exempted. Steckbauer's approach to the Bible is just as feeble. He does make an interesting half-assed attempt at acknowledging what actual scholars have known for quite some time by stating, "But there are over 25,000 whole and partial ancient manuscripts of the Bible, and they all match nearly identically." I don't know what the estimate is currently up to be but the number of fragments that make up the Bible is in the tens of thousands. However, he is blatantly wrong about there being even a single whole manuscript. dating to ancient times. Not one! He further proves what an ill-informed fool by trying to claim, "The Bible when compared with recorded history is 99.7% accurate." Not even close. I would be genuinely shocked if it was .3% accurate since the very few references in the Bible that have any connection to established history tend to be grossly inaccurate. His approach to Jesus is just as false. He mentions but does not reference "historical accounts by witnesses." There are no such accounts. All the earliest information relating to Jesus come from scriptures. There are no historical accounts of Jesus. The earliest historians wrote about Christians not Christ. Most accounts are at best third or fourth hand. You would think if someone wanted to write about "facts" that they might at least spend a few minutes fact-checking.
Apologist really are only good for a laugh. Their "arguments" have not changed in centuries. They have been so thoroughly refuted that there isn't anything more to do beyond satire and ridicule.
He starts the first point by stating, correctly, that you do not need absolute proof to reach a reasonable conclusion. He immediately dips into idiocy by trying to use the cosmological argument. Predictably, what follows is a jumble of logical fallacies and double standards. Basically, its the old BS that the universe needs a cause but God doesn't. No attempt at justifying or explaining why God should be exempted. Steckbauer's approach to the Bible is just as feeble. He does make an interesting half-assed attempt at acknowledging what actual scholars have known for quite some time by stating, "But there are over 25,000 whole and partial ancient manuscripts of the Bible, and they all match nearly identically." I don't know what the estimate is currently up to be but the number of fragments that make up the Bible is in the tens of thousands. However, he is blatantly wrong about there being even a single whole manuscript. dating to ancient times. Not one! He further proves what an ill-informed fool by trying to claim, "The Bible when compared with recorded history is 99.7% accurate." Not even close. I would be genuinely shocked if it was .3% accurate since the very few references in the Bible that have any connection to established history tend to be grossly inaccurate. His approach to Jesus is just as false. He mentions but does not reference "historical accounts by witnesses." There are no such accounts. All the earliest information relating to Jesus come from scriptures. There are no historical accounts of Jesus. The earliest historians wrote about Christians not Christ. Most accounts are at best third or fourth hand. You would think if someone wanted to write about "facts" that they might at least spend a few minutes fact-checking.
Apologist really are only good for a laugh. Their "arguments" have not changed in centuries. They have been so thoroughly refuted that there isn't anything more to do beyond satire and ridicule.
Sunday, September 27, 2015
"5 Things Christians Should Remember This Election Cycle"
I'm pretty sure that Benjamin Corey means well in his September 17th blog post. A few of his points have some merit, though in a superficial and somewhat self-serving manner. However, he fails to note the most important point for any theist to remember during any election cycle.
The United States of America is NOT a theocracy! We live in a democracy. Religion should not be imposed on anyone. All Americans are free to worship or not as they see fit. Religion has no place in public policy. Period. So all his nonsense about Christian standards and criteria is misguided, even arrogant. He seems to think, like far too many Christians, that he really knows the true Jesus and the essence of Christianity.That there even was/is a Jesus or an essential Christianity is in itself a myth.
The United States of America is NOT a theocracy! We live in a democracy. Religion should not be imposed on anyone. All Americans are free to worship or not as they see fit. Religion has no place in public policy. Period. So all his nonsense about Christian standards and criteria is misguided, even arrogant. He seems to think, like far too many Christians, that he really knows the true Jesus and the essence of Christianity.That there even was/is a Jesus or an essential Christianity is in itself a myth.
Sunday, May 3, 2015
....And Jesus wept
....Or did he? Chris Boeskool's HuffPo piece "Saving a Murderer's Life: Who Would Jesus Execute?" is pretty ridiculous. It meanders in and out of all sorts of logical fallacies and disjointed trains of thought that if it weren't for the title it would be easy to lose the main point he seems to be trying to emphasize. Even though I actually agree with a few of the point he makes when he wanders into "non-religious reasons to be against the death penalty" even those are poorly represented and expressed. The whole piece is based entirely on his own narrow interpretation and understanding both theology and the social issues/public policies related to capitol punishment.
Ultimately he comes back to his main objection: his views on what Jesus would do. Of course, he has no clue that what he has expressed is not only an opinion loosely based on other opinions but that it actually has no solid foundation in the scriptures as he assumes it does. I have pointed out over and over that there is no single narrative for the Christ figure and therefore not a single version of Jesus. There are plenty of instances where it is easy to see the Jesus figure not just being okay with executing Tsarnaev but outright demanding it. Anyone care to reread Luke 19:27 and then try claiming Jesus would forgo putting this asshole to death.
Here are just a handful of previous posts I have written about such interpretations of the various claims about Jesus as a single "historical" figure.
A not so cute WWJD story (10-26-14)
http://www.atheismith.blogspot.com/2014/10/a-not-so-cute-wwjd-story.html
How many assumptions can be squeezed into one title? (9-14-14)
http://www.atheismith.blogspot.com/2014/09/how-many-assumptions-can-be-squeezed.html
What makes it a "taunt"? (4-20-14)
http://www.atheismith.blogspot.com/2014/04/what-makes-it-taunt.html
Which Jesus is More Absurd (2-24-13)
http://www.atheismith.blogspot.com/2013/02/which-jesus-is-more-absurd.html
Jesus is.... amorphous (9-15-12)
http://www.atheismith.blogspot.com/2012/09/jesus-is-amorphous.html
Ultimately he comes back to his main objection: his views on what Jesus would do. Of course, he has no clue that what he has expressed is not only an opinion loosely based on other opinions but that it actually has no solid foundation in the scriptures as he assumes it does. I have pointed out over and over that there is no single narrative for the Christ figure and therefore not a single version of Jesus. There are plenty of instances where it is easy to see the Jesus figure not just being okay with executing Tsarnaev but outright demanding it. Anyone care to reread Luke 19:27 and then try claiming Jesus would forgo putting this asshole to death.
Here are just a handful of previous posts I have written about such interpretations of the various claims about Jesus as a single "historical" figure.
A not so cute WWJD story (10-26-14)
http://www.atheismith.blogspot.com/2014/10/a-not-so-cute-wwjd-story.html
How many assumptions can be squeezed into one title? (9-14-14)
http://www.atheismith.blogspot.com/2014/09/how-many-assumptions-can-be-squeezed.html
What makes it a "taunt"? (4-20-14)
http://www.atheismith.blogspot.com/2014/04/what-makes-it-taunt.html
Which Jesus is More Absurd (2-24-13)
http://www.atheismith.blogspot.com/2013/02/which-jesus-is-more-absurd.html
Jesus is.... amorphous (9-15-12)
http://www.atheismith.blogspot.com/2012/09/jesus-is-amorphous.html
Sunday, October 26, 2014
A not so cute WWJD story
The story that Mick Mooney creates in his piece "WWJD: What Would Jesus Do? Do You Really Want to Know?" is intended to be a cute demonstration of what it means to follow Jesus and how some people misinterpret the real Jesus' central messages. The problem is it isn't cute at all. It is, in fact, as dishonest as it is arrogant and condescending. Mooney passes judgment on the mother in the story as if he actually has definitive knowledge of the Jesus figure. He doesn't. He can't. As I have pointed out so often the only available information about the Christ figure is contradictory and in places incoherent. To make matters worse, there isn't a single verifiable fact about Jesus. Mooney is ridiculing the notion that there can be other valid interpretations of the Jesus narratives without ever considering his own views are as baseless as any others. Apparently, he is among those who don't "really want to know." Then again, there probably isn't actually anything "to know" about Jesus.
An "ordinary" Jesus?
It is true that people find it easier to relate to those individuals who more like them rather than less like them. That does seem to be a part of human nature. So, for marketing/public relations purposes much of what Kevin Emmert writes about in "You Need a More Ordinary Jesus" does make sense. However, it only makes sense in that specific context.
It is rather entertaining that this piece appears on Christianity Today's website. Promoting Jesus as a sort of every-man is not all that new. It is very problematic from a philosophical and theological perspective. This is what amuses me so much. If you think about it critically for more than a minute the innate contradiction of this approach should be blatantly obvious. To virtually any Christian the most import aspect and message of the Jesus figure is the resurrection. Coming back from the dead is about as far from ordinary as you can get. And, through your death and resurrection "saving" all humanity is an equally extraordinary feat.
Accepting all the supernatural elements infused in the Jesus figure is rather preposterous but it is equally foolish to try to trick yourself into believing that stripping out all those elements somehow makes the reputed messiah more palatable to current and/or potential followers. How? Who really expects the guy next-door to be a savior of all humankind? If you are looking for a messiah wouldn't you want a bigger-than-life figure to serve that function?
Sorry Mr. Emmert but a "more ordinary Jesus" is just as alien and untenable as a fully supernatural one.
It is rather entertaining that this piece appears on Christianity Today's website. Promoting Jesus as a sort of every-man is not all that new. It is very problematic from a philosophical and theological perspective. This is what amuses me so much. If you think about it critically for more than a minute the innate contradiction of this approach should be blatantly obvious. To virtually any Christian the most import aspect and message of the Jesus figure is the resurrection. Coming back from the dead is about as far from ordinary as you can get. And, through your death and resurrection "saving" all humanity is an equally extraordinary feat.
Accepting all the supernatural elements infused in the Jesus figure is rather preposterous but it is equally foolish to try to trick yourself into believing that stripping out all those elements somehow makes the reputed messiah more palatable to current and/or potential followers. How? Who really expects the guy next-door to be a savior of all humankind? If you are looking for a messiah wouldn't you want a bigger-than-life figure to serve that function?
Sorry Mr. Emmert but a "more ordinary Jesus" is just as alien and untenable as a fully supernatural one.
Sunday, October 5, 2014
Confusing bias for substance
The folks over at Teaching Nonviolent Atonement definitely have problems with reality. I'm all for nonviolence but I take issue with delusions, willful ignorance, double standards, and plain old deceit. Yet another of their Patheos blog posts is chock full of all of the above. The title,"How Christians Reject Jesus: On Trying to Outsmart God", implies a number of things that Adam Erickson not only never establishes but also has no objective way to establish.
When he writes "reject" what he really means is that there are Christians who do not accept his preferred version of the Jesus figure, which is true. It is also true that his views of Jesus are highly subjective, debatable, and unproven. Virtually every paragraph of the piece shows that he is writing solely from his own biased views without any substantive thought. In the very first paragraph he insists, "We take seriously the words of Jesus that we should love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us." No, they do not. The selectively choose which bits of scripture favor their own preferences. There are plenty of passages where Jesus acts in a hostile and violent manner.
Throughout the post Erickson makes similar comments. Among them, "Excuse me for stating the obvious, but Christians are not Biblians. We are Christians. As Christians, we should be putting Jesus first...And Jesus calls us to nonviolence." Problem is that it is not obvious. It in fact is false. If you strip away scripture Jesus literally disappears. As I have on numerous occassions pionted out, Christians to some extant have to take scripture literally if they want to preserve belief in their messiah. I have also on numerous occssions challenged any Christian to come up with a plausible way to reconcile Luke 19:27, ""But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.", with the notion of a peace-loving Jesus. Last I knew dividing people up with a an Us-vs.-Them mentality and then oredering mass murder is the opposite of "nonviolent"
The writing never gets any better. However, it does become a bit more entertaining towards the middle. His observations about wisdom gave me a pretty good chuckle.
"Notice the distinction being made between God’s wisdom and human wisdom. The wisdom of God is the way of nonviolent love in the face of violence that often leads to the cross...Human wisdom, on the other hand, is the wisdom of retributive violence."
There are so many things wrong with this that I can't possibly write about all of them. I'll stick with just a few of the more blatant flaws with Erickson's line of thinking.
It seems to me that even the most devoted theists would have to realize that the only way a flawed human being could perceive "God's wisdom" is through the filter of "human wisdom." So how can you possibly make any "distinction"? And how can you know you aren't completely fucking it up? Then there's that gem about God being non-violent. What?! Even if you discount the whole of the Bible how do you account for human violence. Isn't God suppose to be source of everything? Isn't everything suppose to play out by God's grand design? I also have to marvel at the implication that all human wisdom supposedly leads to "retributive violence." Did Erickson just inadvertently admit that he and everyone else at Teaching Nonviolent Atonement are a bunch of dumb-asses?
Believing in the proto-hippy Jesus is better than the tight-ass obey me or go to hell version but that is still no excuse for blathering on in such a blatantly error laden ignorant way.
When he writes "reject" what he really means is that there are Christians who do not accept his preferred version of the Jesus figure, which is true. It is also true that his views of Jesus are highly subjective, debatable, and unproven. Virtually every paragraph of the piece shows that he is writing solely from his own biased views without any substantive thought. In the very first paragraph he insists, "We take seriously the words of Jesus that we should love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us." No, they do not. The selectively choose which bits of scripture favor their own preferences. There are plenty of passages where Jesus acts in a hostile and violent manner.
Throughout the post Erickson makes similar comments. Among them, "Excuse me for stating the obvious, but Christians are not Biblians. We are Christians. As Christians, we should be putting Jesus first...And Jesus calls us to nonviolence." Problem is that it is not obvious. It in fact is false. If you strip away scripture Jesus literally disappears. As I have on numerous occassions pionted out, Christians to some extant have to take scripture literally if they want to preserve belief in their messiah. I have also on numerous occssions challenged any Christian to come up with a plausible way to reconcile Luke 19:27, ""But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.", with the notion of a peace-loving Jesus. Last I knew dividing people up with a an Us-vs.-Them mentality and then oredering mass murder is the opposite of "nonviolent"
The writing never gets any better. However, it does become a bit more entertaining towards the middle. His observations about wisdom gave me a pretty good chuckle.
"Notice the distinction being made between God’s wisdom and human wisdom. The wisdom of God is the way of nonviolent love in the face of violence that often leads to the cross...Human wisdom, on the other hand, is the wisdom of retributive violence."
There are so many things wrong with this that I can't possibly write about all of them. I'll stick with just a few of the more blatant flaws with Erickson's line of thinking.
It seems to me that even the most devoted theists would have to realize that the only way a flawed human being could perceive "God's wisdom" is through the filter of "human wisdom." So how can you possibly make any "distinction"? And how can you know you aren't completely fucking it up? Then there's that gem about God being non-violent. What?! Even if you discount the whole of the Bible how do you account for human violence. Isn't God suppose to be source of everything? Isn't everything suppose to play out by God's grand design? I also have to marvel at the implication that all human wisdom supposedly leads to "retributive violence." Did Erickson just inadvertently admit that he and everyone else at Teaching Nonviolent Atonement are a bunch of dumb-asses?
Believing in the proto-hippy Jesus is better than the tight-ass obey me or go to hell version but that is still no excuse for blathering on in such a blatantly error laden ignorant way.
Sunday, September 28, 2014
Yup, Everyone gets it wrong (including Amy)
Amy-Jill Levine's recent CNN Belief blog post,"4 teachings from Jesus that everybody gets wrong", was rather entertaining. It is usually somewhat amusing to read theists go another round of linguistic and logical gymnastics but this one was exceptional in that she manages to imply standards that would in effect erase the Bible (both Old and New Testament) entirely. Her arguments were as subjective, ignorant, deluded, and self serving as they were just plain stupid.
Setting aside for the moment that the whole piece is simply a review of her opinions on specific sets of scripture backed by nothing beyond her own personal preference, the four sections of the post essentially self-destruct almost immediately. In the first part, "The 'Parable of the Prodigal Son'", one of her first objections and supposed proofs that "everyone gets wrong" is incredibly foolish and quite telling. Levine writes, "It is not, however, what first-century Jews would have heard. Jesus’ Jewish audience already knew that their “Father in heaven” was loving, forgiving, and compassionate."
It sounds rather innocuous until you think about what it implies. She seems to be saying that only original/unique messages are worthy of being written down and becoming scripture. Seriously?! Not only does she not establish that all Jews would have been familiar with the messages current theists favor, which is possible, but she never seems to notice that there were numerous cults, sects, and religions around both before and during the first century. Not all of those would fall under the label of Judaism or Christianity. How can she possibly determine the origin of any given concept or teaching given that every faith we are aware of has been built on the faiths that came before them and on their contemporaries. Many of the teachings did overlap and were by no means unique to any one faith.
The scriptures themselves are fairly repetitive on a number of points. If you follow this premise to its logical conclusion the Bible should not exist. Each "Testament" is internally largely redundant. The New Testament is in some ways even worse since it rehashes a number of stories, lessons, and concepts from its predecessor before restating them over and over again. According to Levine's low standards, the New Testament should be viewed as "wrong." That would be somewhat convenient since it negates the foundation of Christianity (she's Jewish) but it also basically destroys her arguments related to Jesus' teachings. She herself has to be "wrong" since her supposed insights are also not original. Even if you could still make the assumption Jesus existed without scripture, which you can't, his teachings are not unique. So why argue about others getting his messages wrong when there are no worthwhile messages or no messages at all to interpret?
Levine not only reinforces this flaw in her writing, she makes a number of similar ones. She clearly thinks she is helping people better understand the true nature of Jesus Christ. I believe she does actually mean well but that doesn't change the fact that it is just as clear that she really doesn't have a clue what she's talking about. She ends her piece by stating, "I am not a Christian, but I hear profound messages in these parables. If I as an outsider can be so moved by Jesus’ stories, surely people who worship him as Lord and Savior can appreciate them even more."
I have to wonder what her definition of "profound" is. I got the distinct impression that she wrote the piece for herself more than anyone else. She seems to need to convince herself of her own interpretations. Perhaps deep down she realizes that it really is completely subjective and devoid of any substance.
Setting aside for the moment that the whole piece is simply a review of her opinions on specific sets of scripture backed by nothing beyond her own personal preference, the four sections of the post essentially self-destruct almost immediately. In the first part, "The 'Parable of the Prodigal Son'", one of her first objections and supposed proofs that "everyone gets wrong" is incredibly foolish and quite telling. Levine writes, "It is not, however, what first-century Jews would have heard. Jesus’ Jewish audience already knew that their “Father in heaven” was loving, forgiving, and compassionate."
It sounds rather innocuous until you think about what it implies. She seems to be saying that only original/unique messages are worthy of being written down and becoming scripture. Seriously?! Not only does she not establish that all Jews would have been familiar with the messages current theists favor, which is possible, but she never seems to notice that there were numerous cults, sects, and religions around both before and during the first century. Not all of those would fall under the label of Judaism or Christianity. How can she possibly determine the origin of any given concept or teaching given that every faith we are aware of has been built on the faiths that came before them and on their contemporaries. Many of the teachings did overlap and were by no means unique to any one faith.
The scriptures themselves are fairly repetitive on a number of points. If you follow this premise to its logical conclusion the Bible should not exist. Each "Testament" is internally largely redundant. The New Testament is in some ways even worse since it rehashes a number of stories, lessons, and concepts from its predecessor before restating them over and over again. According to Levine's low standards, the New Testament should be viewed as "wrong." That would be somewhat convenient since it negates the foundation of Christianity (she's Jewish) but it also basically destroys her arguments related to Jesus' teachings. She herself has to be "wrong" since her supposed insights are also not original. Even if you could still make the assumption Jesus existed without scripture, which you can't, his teachings are not unique. So why argue about others getting his messages wrong when there are no worthwhile messages or no messages at all to interpret?
Levine not only reinforces this flaw in her writing, she makes a number of similar ones. She clearly thinks she is helping people better understand the true nature of Jesus Christ. I believe she does actually mean well but that doesn't change the fact that it is just as clear that she really doesn't have a clue what she's talking about. She ends her piece by stating, "I am not a Christian, but I hear profound messages in these parables. If I as an outsider can be so moved by Jesus’ stories, surely people who worship him as Lord and Savior can appreciate them even more."
I have to wonder what her definition of "profound" is. I got the distinct impression that she wrote the piece for herself more than anyone else. She seems to need to convince herself of her own interpretations. Perhaps deep down she realizes that it really is completely subjective and devoid of any substance.
Sunday, September 14, 2014
How many assumptions can be squeezed into one title?
The title of a recent post by Jonathan Merritt seems to be attempting to answer the question, "how many assumptions can be squeezed into one title?" rather than the one posed in his September 11th "Have evangelicals diluted Jesus’ radical message?"
By the title you would have assume: 1. Jesus existed, 2. there is a single interpretation of who the Jesus figure was, 3. that it is possible to know which interpretation of the Jesus figure is accurate/correct, 4. that those who identify as "evangelicals" among Christians are incorrect or inaccurate in their views of Jesus, 5. that there is a clear "message" attached to the Jesus figure, 6. that message is uniquely Jesus, and 7. that message is "radical."
It is possible I may have missed a few assumptions. Even so, that's a lot crammed in one short question. And, yes, they are entirely assumptions. There is no sound evidence to support a single one of the assumptions enumerated. In point of fact, a few of them are refuted by Christians themselves. The overwhelming majority of religious scholars who happen to also be Christians concede that there were any number of itinerant preachers and reformers roaming around the middle east before, during, and after Christ's supposed life-time. Many of them conveyed very similar ideas and practices. John the Baptist, an equally historically suspicious character, is said by many Christians to be a precursor to Christ. According to scripture there were even groups of theists who mistook John for the Messiah.
Then, of course, there's a problem with characterizing Christ's message. I have heard many Christians reference Mark 12:17, "And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.", for a variety of purposes. This is just one of many that I would personally interpret as a very conformist stance. Last I checked conforming to conventional norms is the exact opposite of being a radical. But, once again, this is just one possible interpretation. There can be no definitive views on Christ or Christ's message since the only available information is highly dubious and completely subjective.
Basically, if you adhere to standards of historical research the answer to Merritt's question is no since Jesus did not actually exist and therefore did not have a "message" at all. If you take a theological approach, no discernible standards at all, there can be no answer.
By the title you would have assume: 1. Jesus existed, 2. there is a single interpretation of who the Jesus figure was, 3. that it is possible to know which interpretation of the Jesus figure is accurate/correct, 4. that those who identify as "evangelicals" among Christians are incorrect or inaccurate in their views of Jesus, 5. that there is a clear "message" attached to the Jesus figure, 6. that message is uniquely Jesus, and 7. that message is "radical."
It is possible I may have missed a few assumptions. Even so, that's a lot crammed in one short question. And, yes, they are entirely assumptions. There is no sound evidence to support a single one of the assumptions enumerated. In point of fact, a few of them are refuted by Christians themselves. The overwhelming majority of religious scholars who happen to also be Christians concede that there were any number of itinerant preachers and reformers roaming around the middle east before, during, and after Christ's supposed life-time. Many of them conveyed very similar ideas and practices. John the Baptist, an equally historically suspicious character, is said by many Christians to be a precursor to Christ. According to scripture there were even groups of theists who mistook John for the Messiah.
Then, of course, there's a problem with characterizing Christ's message. I have heard many Christians reference Mark 12:17, "And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.", for a variety of purposes. This is just one of many that I would personally interpret as a very conformist stance. Last I checked conforming to conventional norms is the exact opposite of being a radical. But, once again, this is just one possible interpretation. There can be no definitive views on Christ or Christ's message since the only available information is highly dubious and completely subjective.
Basically, if you adhere to standards of historical research the answer to Merritt's question is no since Jesus did not actually exist and therefore did not have a "message" at all. If you take a theological approach, no discernible standards at all, there can be no answer.
Sunday, August 31, 2014
Listinng things don't make them true
Mark Sandlin's "10 MORE Things Churches Can’t Do While Following Jesus" is complete crap. There isn't a single on on his list that can't be debated. It is true that you can find scriptural passages that support his favored claims but you can also find passages that contradict his views. I have written about this numerous times. The "truth" is that there is not a single Jesus in the the New Testament. There are a variety of personas that get portrayed under the name Jesus. Pick the Jesus you like best and you can find support for that version. There are a handful from Sandlin's list that I find rather entertaining since there are blatant counter-examples.
"3) Turn the poor away....
4) Narrowly define who is and who isn’t a Christian....
5) Define yourself more by what you’re are against than what you support....
9) Love the sinner hate the sin."
A couple passages I've referenced before immediately spring to mind. Mark 14:3-7 is Jesus' cute self centered "fuck you" to the poor that I have commented on previously. If Jesus can decide on a whim to ignore the poor why can't another self-righteous asshole do the same? Then, of course, there's Luke 19:27 where humanity's savior orders his followers to round up all non-followers and slaughter them. That rather short passage seems to kick the shit out of Sandlin's 4,5,9 and most of the other "10 more things..." to boot.
It is really pretty simple. Followers of Jesus can do just about anything they want in Jesus name and justify it with scripture. This might account for why Christianity became and continues to be so wide spread.
"3) Turn the poor away....
4) Narrowly define who is and who isn’t a Christian....
5) Define yourself more by what you’re are against than what you support....
9) Love the sinner hate the sin."
A couple passages I've referenced before immediately spring to mind. Mark 14:3-7 is Jesus' cute self centered "fuck you" to the poor that I have commented on previously. If Jesus can decide on a whim to ignore the poor why can't another self-righteous asshole do the same? Then, of course, there's Luke 19:27 where humanity's savior orders his followers to round up all non-followers and slaughter them. That rather short passage seems to kick the shit out of Sandlin's 4,5,9 and most of the other "10 more things..." to boot.
It is really pretty simple. Followers of Jesus can do just about anything they want in Jesus name and justify it with scripture. This might account for why Christianity became and continues to be so wide spread.
Sunday, August 3, 2014
Lots of people
Lots of people; That's the answer to the rhetorical question posed by Trey Lion's "Who Would Jesus Shoot?" I do agree with quite a bit of his commentary but find it rather silly and ignorant to appeal to religion for support. The assholes who oppose even mild gun control/gun regulation are just as religious as those who support such restrictions. It is also the height of self-delusion to turn to the Christ figure on such matters. As I have pointed out there isn't a single Jesus in scripture. At least one version was, according to the New Testament, a tempermental violent bastard. Luke 19:27 is a pretty blatant example:
"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."
Sorry, my initial answer is slightly inaccurate. Jesus would kill all non-Christians. Given that the Christians worldwide number around 2 billion, that means Christ would be just fine with slaughtering around 5 billion people. Somehow I don't think genocide is a good answer for reducing gun violence.
"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."
Sorry, my initial answer is slightly inaccurate. Jesus would kill all non-Christians. Given that the Christians worldwide number around 2 billion, that means Christ would be just fine with slaughtering around 5 billion people. Somehow I don't think genocide is a good answer for reducing gun violence.
Sunday, June 1, 2014
More Jesus related foolishness
I came across a handful of article this past week that just seemed so patently ridiculous even by the low standards of religion. I've picked just two to name; "The miracle of Jesus is not needing a miracle at all" on Examiner.com and "Who, What, Why: What language would Jesus have spoken?" from BBC's blog Magazine Monitor.
Reread those and take a few moments to spot why the titles (the content is actually worse) are so idiotic.
If you strip away the Jesus figures supernatural elements what is left? This, of course, assumes you didn't pick up on the semantic issues. Miracle - miracle = nothing. Without the miracles doesn't that make Jesus just another wandering preacher? The world has always had plenty of them.
Why would the language matter that much? Even after you make the huge assumption that the guy ever existed most of the claims about him would make his preferred language a rather trivial point. It is also problematic since it is an assumption in itself that he would have a favored language or be limited to a specific language(s). Isn't he supposed to be divine? Isn't one of the main points of his preaching to pass on his/God's teaching? If a divine being can't communicate their message effectively how impressive can that being really be?
And theists wonder why non-theists mock and ridicule their beliefs.
Reread those and take a few moments to spot why the titles (the content is actually worse) are so idiotic.
If you strip away the Jesus figures supernatural elements what is left? This, of course, assumes you didn't pick up on the semantic issues. Miracle - miracle = nothing. Without the miracles doesn't that make Jesus just another wandering preacher? The world has always had plenty of them.
Why would the language matter that much? Even after you make the huge assumption that the guy ever existed most of the claims about him would make his preferred language a rather trivial point. It is also problematic since it is an assumption in itself that he would have a favored language or be limited to a specific language(s). Isn't he supposed to be divine? Isn't one of the main points of his preaching to pass on his/God's teaching? If a divine being can't communicate their message effectively how impressive can that being really be?
And theists wonder why non-theists mock and ridicule their beliefs.
Sunday, May 25, 2014
The Bess Mandate
I have to admit that when it comes to social issues Howard Bess tends to reach some of the same conclusions and promotes many of the same causes that I do. He does, however, get there by very different means and frequently tries to enlist the aid of others using what I consider bogus arguments. He definitely favors the proto-hippy version of the Jesus figure. If people are going to make the huge assumption that there ever was a Jesus I prefer this version. That doesn't make it either true or historical.
Bess' piece "Jesus Mandate: Peace and Stewardship" is rather foolish. He insists that the "scholarship" supports his favored views on Jesus without ever really providing any proof. I find it interesting that he doesn't site a single historian or scholarly work on Christian scripture. I have read a great deal on the topic and have failed to notice that there is any sort of consensus among such scholars. So, how can there be a mandate?
Sentences like, "...there is no way we can avoid the clear Bible standard of limitation of private ownership", are completely ludicrous. Given that the "Bible" includes both Old and New Testament his statement is at best an exaggerated conflation. Jesus does not appear in the Old Testament so the statement in relation Jesus is false. Once you get past that problem you run into the fact that the passages that relate to "private ownership" are inconsistent and at times alternately vague and confusing. Then you have all the problems that arise from the fact that the Bible as we know it is a mish-mash of recovered fragments that have multiple translations and are pulled together by speculation and conjecture. There isn't a single "book" of the Bible, Old or New Testament, that can be said to be complete. Whole copies of these scripture simply don't exist anymore and haven't for quite some time.
There can be no "mandate" based on scripture. They are far too subjective and divisive.
Bess' piece "Jesus Mandate: Peace and Stewardship" is rather foolish. He insists that the "scholarship" supports his favored views on Jesus without ever really providing any proof. I find it interesting that he doesn't site a single historian or scholarly work on Christian scripture. I have read a great deal on the topic and have failed to notice that there is any sort of consensus among such scholars. So, how can there be a mandate?
Sentences like, "...there is no way we can avoid the clear Bible standard of limitation of private ownership", are completely ludicrous. Given that the "Bible" includes both Old and New Testament his statement is at best an exaggerated conflation. Jesus does not appear in the Old Testament so the statement in relation Jesus is false. Once you get past that problem you run into the fact that the passages that relate to "private ownership" are inconsistent and at times alternately vague and confusing. Then you have all the problems that arise from the fact that the Bible as we know it is a mish-mash of recovered fragments that have multiple translations and are pulled together by speculation and conjecture. There isn't a single "book" of the Bible, Old or New Testament, that can be said to be complete. Whole copies of these scripture simply don't exist anymore and haven't for quite some time.
There can be no "mandate" based on scripture. They are far too subjective and divisive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)