Porphyry, this is a response to your post # 440:
“What do you make of people who, for example, treat First Enoch as Scripture?”
I haven’t studied First Enoch enough to give an informed answer to that question.
“What do you make of people who claim regularly to communicate with the dead?”
If you’re referring to RCC folks praying to Mary or Saint so-and-so, I think it’s one of many creepy practices that the RCC hierarchy/bureaucracy has employed to keep church members bound to the institution. I think it also demonstrates the sociological dynamic in religion, about which we’ve agreed, that causes people to believe in, and practice, things they would never consider if they thought about them and made decisions of conscience as individuals instead of as members of “the biggest, most prestigious fraternity on campus (with commensurately-potent hazing rituals).”
“And what is your impression of people who engage in glossolalia?”
If you are talking about it as depicted in Acts 2 where foreigners are present to report or confirm what the speakers are actually saying, I’ve never witnessed it – nor do I personally know anyone who has ever witnessed it. That said, my lack of personal experience with it, or its infrequency of occurrence, does not prompt me to say that it could not have happened as recorded in Acts 2.
“What do you make of people who believe they can cure people’s physical diseases by laying hands on them or praying over them?”
Basically, same answer as the one I just gave about glossolalia – though I have personally encountered people who said they have participated in or been recipients of such miracles. I do not, however, know how to adjudicate their claims. I have myself many times prayed for a sick person (mainly family members) to get well. Sometimes they have. Does that mean they would not have gotten well without my prayer? I don’t have a way of adjudicating those matters either.
“People who believe those things, and things like them, are not in short supply, and I’ve got plenty of experience with such folk. And based on my experience, I tend, pretty strongly, to think they are deluded.”
Alas, it is true that the world has no shortage of deluded people. But, though I haven’t counted noses for comparison purposes, it seems to me that they can be found as easily among irreligious people as they are among religious ones. Secularism has proven itself, especially in the last ten years, no safe space for rationality.
“I’m open to being proven wrong, but the fact that they are sufficiently numerous to forms groups and churches full of other people who believe the same things doesn’t convince me.”
What I said about deluded individuals above I would say also about deluded groups. In summary, I see no correlation between religion and delusion.
As for your broader comments on the gullible-skeptical spectrum and so on, I likewise see no correlation between religion and gullibility. It’s clearly observable that there are some highly intelligent people who belong to the RCC (Supreme Court justices, university professors teaching in fields other than religion, etc.) Conversely, even in the NT texts, I see skeptical people changing their minds to follow Jesus (Paul and Jesus’ brothers perhaps most notable among them). I myself was quite skeptical of biblical claims during the secular period of my life.
For me, the one issue that is more important to decide than any of the controversial issues you have raised in the post to which I am responding is: What does one think of Jesus the man? More specifically, what does do one with his claims and commands? A person has no way of working that out if he becomes convinced that there was no historical Jesus. Now Bart claims that the mythicists are wrong and that there was a historical Jesus, but he also makes sure people understand that they cannot assume that what they read in the New Testament is something Jesus actually said. For that, they have to get a degree from a seminary committed to modern critical scholarship…or else buy Bart’s books…or else find some version of the Jesus Seminar with its colored beads.
If you are talking about it as depicted in Acts 2 where foreigners are present to report or confirm what the speakers are actually saying, . . .
I’m not; I’m referring to what Paul describes in 1 Cor. 12-14 which is exactly the opposite: “one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit . . . I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. He who prophesies is greater than he who speaks in tongues, unless some one interprets, so that the church may be edified . . . if you in a tongue utter speech that is not intelligible, how will any one know what is said? For you will be speaking into the air. . . . I thank God that I speak in tongues more than you all . . . If, therefore, the whole church assembles and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad? “
Alas, it is true that the world has no shortage of deluded people. But, though I haven’t counted noses for comparison purposes, it seems to me that they can be found as easily among irreligious people as they are among religious ones. Secularism has proven itself, especially in the last ten years, no safe space for rationality.
I’m not mounting some general defense of secularists as a group. I know that there are plenty of secularists who display their own sort of irrationality and prejudice. I am giving reasons that early Christian testimony can’t be accepted uncritically, and indeed ought to be subjected to even greater skepticism than that of, say, a random first century historian who doesn’t make the remarkable sorts of claims the Christians make.
When you start saying you speak to a dead man, I am going to question everything you say, until you give me some bloody good reason to think that you aren’t just another nutter. That holds whether you are a Catholic visionary, a Spiritualist medium, or the apostle Paul.
So too when you insist to me that there is an unbroken (but apparently not directly attested or verifiable) tradition from the apostolic churches that these writings came from these people, and even Paul (who himself professes to speak in tongues prolifically and encourages the practice among his congregations) tells me these apostolic churches have a problem because they are so keen on speaking gibberish and calling it a spiritual experience that they can’t meet together without it descending into madness, then, yes, I’m going to entertain quite seriously the possibility that that tradition is not reliable and that their judgement may be compromised.
Porphyry, this is my response to your posts # 443 and 444:
The spiritual gift of tongues (glossolalia) referred to in 1 Cor 12-14 was described by Paul as both prophesied by the Old Testament (1 Cor 14:21) and as temporary (1 Cor 13:8). It was language that could be understood by angels (1 Cor 13:1), but could be interpreted to human beings (1 Cor 12:10, 30;14:5, 13, 26-28). If not interpreted, it could be perceived as madness by newcomers to the congregational gathering – a point about which you and Paul share the same judgment (1 Cor 14:23). It had particular meaning for Jews because it would evoke their memory of Isaiah 28:11-12, and thereby indicate that they had been given warning long in advance that the messiah would not be universally welcomed among Jews. Of course, all this would have gone right over the heads of Gentiles, just as it goes over our heads today. There is no reason to believe that this phenomena continued beyond the 1st century. Like other miracles through Jesus and his apostles, such unusual phenomena were intended to highlight the uniqueness of the messianic mission in world history. And that period remains unique to this day for that same reason.
Now, all this is hard to take, I agree – except for one thing. And I’ll use your statement to indicate what that one thing is:
“When you start saying you speak to a dead man…”
That’s the heart of the matter. Did Jesus of Nazareth rise from the dead according to Old Testament prophecies? If he did, then we can take other less unusual things in stride. On the other hand, if he did not arise – and, therefore, if he is not alive right this very minute – then it’s all poppycock.
The difference between believers in the 1st century – and in the 21st – is not that believers are gullible while unbelievers are skeptical. Nor is it that believers are good and unbelievers are bad. On the contrary, all of us are sinners and fall short of the glory of God. What ultimately distinguishes believers from unbelievers is the willingness to stop sinning – that is, the willingness to repent and follow Jesus as Lord. Believers have it and unbelievers don’t. Though people try to make life with Jesus about joining a tribe, it’s not. Rather, it’s all about a personal relationship with a man who lived, died, and rose again. God in the flesh. That’s why I direct people away from church and only toward Jesus and the Bible. But there’s not enough time to explain all that now. Just know that people who don’t want to repent will say that the claims related to Jesus “ought to be subject to even greater skepticism…” That’s because they have to keep suppressing the evidence…because they don’t want to face what a conviction might cost them.
Just know that people who don’t want to repent will say that the claims related to Jesus “ought to be subject to even greater skepticism…” That’s because they have to keep suppressing the evidence…because they don’t want to face what a conviction might cost them.
I have never encountered an apologist that didn’t finally get to this claim. Every other form of argumentation leads to this. Unbelievers are “suppressing the truth in unrighteousness”. Intellectual error springs from spiritual error.
There is no real discussion intended. Just another opportunity to support a previously arrived at faith position.
You could have an interesting philosophical discussion as to the use of the term “move” in this context. If I pick up a brick and walk eight feet in any direction and then set the brick down, I could be said to have “moved” the brick. In what sense has this thread been “moved”? No kidding folks, the philosophy departments all over our glorious land are full of undergraduates having these kinds of discussions.
Is this thread dead, now that Mike has “moved”? (Sorry.)
I was kind of disappointed. Mike is basically an apologist for his religious position. (That is even more clear on his website.) Part of that role is to present oneself as in some sense, “objective”, although it became clearer and clearer that he began with some foundational assumptions beyond critique. I’m not a particularly astute philosopher but examining our underlying assumptions is the best part. Apologists don’t seem to realize how fundamentally dishonest this makes them sound.
When called on it their usual response is to accuse their critic of doing the same thing. Critical scholars do in fact have presuppositions but they are very different from the ones that support religious apology. This was my point with Mike. These ancient writers were doing something very different than what modern critical scholars are doing. Their relationship with the tradition was different.
I was going to respond to Mike at his site – and may still do so – but I see less and less of a point to it. Art for art’s sake?
I don’t know how I feel about how this ended.
I was disappointed by Mike; it was a pretty cheap ending.
On the other hand, I knew all along how he was thinking of me; It was predictable, and I brought attention to that need to vilify those who aren’t convinced by the dogma earlier when I brought up antisemitism. So I certainly feel vindicated on that front.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)