As you may have heard, Bill Maher has made a movie bashing religion that is now out. I have not seen the movie myself (not yet anyway), but several good thinkers and church leaders have. I thought I'd share some of their thoughts and posts.
Dan Kimball wrote the first response I read about it here. Dan says:
The film was really well done, and it went by very fast. Bill Maher is trying to show how "religion" in general is messed up and even very damaging (which it can be). He tries to make his point in a very, very humorous way. But it also was very predictable in what it covered. I have either listened to or read most of the arguments he made in the film, so what was in the film itself wasn't really new information.
But Bill raised good and legitimate questions but he didn't get good answers from the people he interviewed (again, at least how they edited the film). People in the theater laughed (including me) at how the responses generally came across from Christians to his questions.
He does have some criticisms about the film, however.
Although it was a humorous film, and although it raised great questions which need to be asked - it only showed a very one-sided perspective. Thus, to me it was a poor film journalistically as it misrepresented Christianity by only showing the extremes of it.
I also have to say that I found myself in agreement with much of Maher’s commentary. While many Christians seem to feel the need to defend religion – at least the Christian religion – from the sort of criticism Maher raises, I think its imperative for followers of Jesus to side with these sorts of criticisms. For the undeniable truth is that religion – including the Christian religion — is often irrational and extremely dangerous.
Fortunately, the kingdom Jesus inaugurated has got nothing to do with religion. Indeed, Jesus’ main opposition came from the guardians of religion, and religion continues to be a main obstacle to the advancement of his kingdom. (For more on this, see my Repenting of Religion). If Maher’s documentary does anything to help people get free of religion, it’s done humanity and the kingdom a great service, in my opinion.
In critique, Greg says:
First, Religulous is utterly devoid of nuances and objectivity. Maher lumps all religion in the same silly and dangerous bucket while never bothering to tell his audience what he means by the term “religion.” One gets the impression that humanity can be divided up into two well defined groups: on the one side you have rational humane people who have no religious beliefs and who simply want to make the world a better place; on the other side you have irrational misanthropic people who have “religious” beliefs and who inhibit progress and threaten the world.
and later...
This brings me to my second, more specific, criticism. Maher provides absolutely no evidence to support his remarkable claim that the Jesus story is a variation of the Horus myth. To his credit, Maher did interview Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome project, about the Gospels (the only educated “religious” person included in the documentary by the way). But Francis Collins is unfortunately an expert in biology, not biblical history. It’s hardly fair to call on him to give a robust defense of the historicity of the Gospels or refutation of the Horus-Jesus theory. (Yet, for all we know, he provided one that was edited out).
The truth is that there are many compelling reasons to conclude that the Gospels are substantially rooted in history, not legend or myth. Paul Eddy and I provide these reasons and argue against all the major Jesus-legend or Jesus-myth theories in The Jesus Legend (Baker, 2007) and (in a much more popular format) in Lord or Legend? (Baker, 2007). Had Maher seriously interacted with this material his documentary would have been much more informative. But it also would have undermined the objective of the film, which was to entertain audiences by making all religion (including faith in Jesus) look silly and dangerous.
What do you think? Have any of you seen the movie? Other than these two blog reviews (on blogs I read regularly) I haven't heard much about it. Has there been a surge against it by the religious right?
Is the tide of votes among "born again" Christians in America turing toward liberal? George Barna and his "peeps" seem to think so.
In the most recent Barna Update, polls show that if the election was today, born again Christians would favor the Democratic nominee (whoever that would be) 40% to 29% with 28% undecided. This is a shift over previous Presidential Elections, fluctuating from 39% to 35% in favor of the GOP in 1992 to a lopsided 62% to 38% in favor of the GOP in 2004.
What is perhaps more surprising is that 20% support Hilary Clinton to Obama's 18 and Huckabee's 12%. Does that surprise anyone else? "Born agains" favor Hilary over Huckabee almost 2 to 1!
When the field is narrowed to "Evangelicals," the results tend to be more conservative, like you (by that I mean "I") would expect, but the results are still quite different from past years. 40% of Evangelicals say they would support the GOP candidate, while only 11% already plan to vote Republican. The interesting part is that 40% are still undecided. As a comparison, 85% of Evangelicals voted Republican in 2004.
To define the terms better, here is how Barna defines the labels "born again" and "evangelical."
"Born again Christians" are defined as people who said they have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in their life today and who also indicated they believe that when they die they will go to Heaven because they had confessed their sins and had accepted Jesus Christ as their savior. Respondents are not asked to describe themselves as "born again."
"Evangelicals" meet the born again criteria (described above) plus seven other conditions. Those include saying their faith is very important in their life today; believing they have a personal responsibility to share their religious beliefs about Christ with non-Christians; believing that Satan exists; believing that eternal salvation is possible only through grace, not works; believing that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth; asserting that the Bible is accurate in all that it teaches; and describing God as the all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect deity who created the universe and still rules it today. Being classified as an evangelical is not dependent upon church attendance or the denominational affiliation of the church attended. Respondents were not asked to describe themselves as "evangelical."
Assuming this information is valid (which it appears we have little reason to doubt it), here are a few of my observations/questions:
1. How much of this apparent shift is due to a change in substance, versus wanting "a change in scenery" from having a the same Republican in office for 8 years? For example, 2000 "felt" like a Republican year after 8 years of Clinton. 2008 "feels" like a Democratic year after 8 years of Bush. In short, is this trend long term or short term, a shift or a phase?
2. Are the steroetypes about Evangelicals being Republicans breaking down?
3. Why do "born agains" support Hilary over Obama?
4. How much of the apparent shift has to do with lack of "success" in Iraq? (i.e. if the war had gone differently, how might the numbers be different?)
5. In the future, will we look back at 2004 as the height of the political power of Evangelical Christians?
This is an interesting map that I saw a couple of weeks ago (I forgot where I first saw it, so I had to just do a google search. sorry to whoever I ripped this off from). I suppose as we would expect that it seems that the highest percentage of people who describe themselves as "religious" is the midwest. Utah is also very dense. Oregon seems to be one of the least religious places.
Anyway, just thought it was interesting. It is from the year 2000, so a bit dated, but interesting nonetheless. Any profound thoughts in response to this?
There has been no small deal made about the forthcoming release of the movie The Golden Compass, based on the book written by Phillip Pullman. The book as been called an atheist version of The Chronicles of Narnia. The Golden Compass book, the first in the His Dark Materials series, has an anti-Christian message, and reportedly have the lead characters trying to kill God. Pullman has apparently said himself that he was "trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief" in a 2001 interview and "My books are about killing God" in 20031.
There has also been discussion among Christians about whether or not they should support this movie. There has been a wide range of opinion, some saying the movie is "poisoning the world" and calling for a boycott and others say that the reaction is "over nothing." Personally, I think that pop culture boycotts never work. They tend to create a buzz around the product that tends to make it more successful. In addition, I think these movies can be good conversation starters for parents to allow their kids to think through important issues. But, there is a wide range of opinion, and I am no authoritative source on this issue, but those are my personal feelings.
The reason for this article is to not debate the appropriate response by Christians. It is to ask some interesting, but maybe tough questions about the nature of the book/movie's claims.
Before I go any further, let me make it abundantly clear that I have not read any of the books or seen the movie. I am new to this topic, and have only known about this issue for a couple of weeks. My comments are based on listening to others who have read the books and can pass along information. But, at best, my knowledge of the material is second hand.
One of the characters in the book reportedly says this: "Every church is the same: control, destroy, obliterate every good feeling."
As we react to this, I want to consider the approach of Tony Campolo in a book he wrote in the 80's called Partly Right. The book looks at some of the harshest opponents of the Church, like Karl Marx and Friedrich Nietzsche, seeks to understand their points in context, and considers how their critiques might be a valid indictment of a harsh reality. The first step, as mentioned, is to understand. He says this in his preface(pg ix):
Those who would do battle with these cultured despisers of religion should have some idea as to the nature of their arguments. Too often those of us who rant and rage from our pulpits against the materialism of Karl Marx, the sexual preoccupations of Sigmund Freud, and the God-is-dead philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche know almost nothing about these declared enemies of religion.
The second step is having the humility to listen to our opponents and using their outside eyes to try and get better.
A religious group matures and improves only by correcting its flaws, and usually the enemies of that group can help it to see those flaws better than its friends can. The enemies of middle-class religion who are reviewed in this book have provided some of the most brilliant analysis of the failures and weaknesses of our churches and our theology...I hope that by studying the arguments of our enemies we will recognize our sins, confess them, and work to cleanse ourselves of them.
Now, how can we apply that wisdom to The Golden Compass? Obviously the first step is to comment within our knowledge. It is hard to make sweeping, dogmatic statements about a book you have not read or a movie you have not seen. Sure, we can hear reports, but they are out of context. To do this may require a good deal of work. As I mentioned above, I have not read the books or seen the movie, so I have steered clear of saying things about the books that I don't know. I have kept my comments about this in the areas of the way Christians respond to issues like this, parenting, and the nature of pop culture, rather than the content of the books/movie.
The next step, then, is to ask ourselves if the accusation warrants any truth about our failures as a Church. This, too, requires work. We must think through some hard issues, be transparent, and make ourselves vulnerable. To do this is to mature, to avoid the games that the enemy, and by this I mean Satan, would have us wasting our time and energy on, and be willing to learn from a myriad of sources, to admit that others, who we may think are less holy than ourselves, actually have something to teach us.
With that, let's look at this statement made in the book: "Every church is the same: control, destroy, obliterate every good feeling." Please note that this is in the book. I doubt it will be in the movie. I am also not sure even which of the books in the series this appears in or what the context is. I have not done my homework to appropriately evaluate a statement like this. I do think, though, that there are some introspective questions we can ask ourselves in response, even to this isolated statement. It is certainly easy to disagree with and perhaps even get offended by. It is human nature to reactionarily defend a group that you belong to without considering the validity of the attack. But I think that is the wrong approach. Here are some questions we can ask to evaluate ourselves in response to this statement.
1. First, are we guilty of all of our churches being the same? In one sense, churches are very different. They come in all colors, shapes, and sizes. In a general sense, though, there are some threads that are perhaps too common. Almost every church service involves some combination of singing songs, a sermon, prayer, and fellowship. The prayer and fellowship almost have to be present in some form. But would it be too outside the box to explore other worship forms than music and songs? Certainly some churches are doing this, but it is a small minority. And what about sermons? It seems like we could shack things up in the way we communicate. Our imagination is the limit. It just seems like there should be as many different flavors of church as their are people, and the reality is that most churches are pretty generic.
2. Second, is the Church too hung up on controlling, destroying, and obliterating? I'll admit, that when it seems like the Church could do good by focusing on freeing, building up, and repairing, it seems to focus a lot of attention on controlling, destroying, and obliterating. Could we do a better job at this, and does your local church need to?
3. Lastly, does the Church seem to squash good feelings? Do we put the kibosh on fun? Is your local church tightly wound, or free to laugh and have a good time? What would a visitor say if asked that question about your church? I know that I have certainly been guilty of being too serious and failing to relax in the house of God. Why do we do that?
Remember, from an outsider's perspective, perception is reality. If my local church is really coming across as an organisation that controls, destroys, and obliterates good feelings, just like all the others, maybe I need to consider how we can get creative and fix our flaws, that we may be more like the body that is Christ's dream. Perhaps Pullman is partly right.
May we continue to not get defensive, but actually let criticism challenge us to learn and grow. May we look for truth in all forms, and leave or egos and self righteousness behind. And may we always be walking on the path to maturity.
Here is part 3 of this conversation. The conversation picks up assuming you have wathced the video from part 2, so be sure to catch up before you read this one. My comments follow the entries.
I'm afraid I may be a bit of a disappointment for you. I'm not a young earth creationist. I don't think young earth creationism squares at all well with observable facts. Even if you doubt radiometric dating (which I do not), you can go to Greenland and dig up ice cores from the glaciers there where snow has been falling for thousands of years. The snow forms annual layers in the ice, something like the rings of a tree. You can see the layers with the naked eye. and, if you have enough patience, you can count the layers going back 50,000 years. If the earth was created only 6-10 thousand years ago, then God must have made it with a history (much as a novelist gives a backstory to his characters). Such a position is not and cannot be scientific. It supposes that God made the world 6,000 years ago but gave us no evidence that allows us to verify it. Without evidence there is nothing for science to work on. I think the earth is about 5 billion years old. That squares well with the evidence.
By faith I understand that the universe and everything in it was created by God. I do not insist, however, on a particular method for creation. I do not understand Genesis literally any more than I understand Psalm 139:13 as a literal knitting together. David speaks of having been created despite knowing that he was born through natural processes. In the same way, I believe every human being is uniquely created by God by means of natural processes. Science may describe these processes in great detail but cannot provide a clue to their purpose. In a sense, therefore, I have no problem with evolution considered purely as a natural process. It may be the means by which God chooses to create living things.
However, evolution is rarely presented in this pure form. It is almost always part of a broader worldview that is essentially antithetical to Christian beliefs. It is in this context, I think, that Christians, especially fundamentalist Christians, find themselves opposed to evolution. If evolutionists want to persuade Christians instead of marginalizing and alienating them, then they need to lay aside their own antireligious biases and show respect for the Christian beliefs that are NOT in conflict with evolution. Here are some of the problems:
1. The question of origins. While I agree that abiogenesis is not essential to evolution, it almost always accompanies it. If natural processes are all there are (i. e., God did not purposely create life), then life must have arisen from non-living matter. There simply is no alternative. And pushing the problem to another planet is not a solution.
2. The uniqueness of humans. Christian doctrine sees human beings as unique in many respects. They are made in the image of God, meaning that they have a spiritual component that outlasts their physical life. They are capable of good and evil and have fallen from their original innocence, so that their nature is fundamentally flawed. They are incapable of perfection and in need of redemption. Evolution, by contrast, sees human beings as descended from animal ancestors. They are not unique except in terms of their greater capabilities to reason and express complex ideas, build complex structures, and wonder about their own purpose. In a purely natural universe, good and evil have no meaning, and human beings are no more fallen than hummingbirds.
3. Social Darwinism. The impact of Darwinism quickly moved far beyond biological science. It became the justification for repugnant social policies, including racial and ethnic cleansing and eugenics. Though I generally hate arguments that play the Nazi card---want to vilify your opponent? Call him a Nazi, or show that he is associated with Nazis---the fact is that the Nazi concept of the master race owes much of its credibility to social Darwinism. Though social Darwinism has fallen into disrepute, I don't think any positive good ever came of it. (Of course, the notion that we can somehow help evolution along presupposes a goal for evolution that coincides with our own goals).
I found the evolving clocks in the linked video very entertaining. I have a couple of comments. One of the arguments often advanced in favor of evolution is that it works in computer simulations like this one. Years ago I even wrote an evolutionary simulation myself. However, such arguments tend to ignore a basic fact: the entire process is designed to produce a particular outcome. In the case of the evolving clocks, the criterion for survival imposed by the programmer was accuracy in keeping time. So, of course, the solutions converged on accurate clocks. The programmer also had to decide what accuracy could mean in the early stages of the evolution when the 'clocks' were too rudimentary to keep time. These constraints are all imposed from outside the system. Put another way, the existence of a program implies a programmer. I could go on: the existence of a book implies an author; the existence of a painting implies an artist; the existence of a universe implies a creator.
I noted, however, that the transitions from one clock 'species' to another were quite sudden. This I found interesting because it may help explain the abrupt appearance of new species in the fossil record. I'm not saying I find the demonstration convincing, but it is compelling.
Mark responds, and his way of responding is to quote Chip and respond directly to what Chip said. I have italicized his quotes of Chip, but left them in tact for clarity. They follow the color scheme that Chip has had throughout.
I believe every human being is uniquely created by God by means of natural processes... I have no problem with evolution considered purely as a natural process."
I'd say your beliefs are similar to those of theistic evolutionists. This is so refreshing! I'm used to dealing with outright denial. In response I'll say, I have no problem with the belief of evolution as a process that's guided by God. Science is concerned with the natural not the supernatural. Where I tend to balk is when I encounter people who use their faith to suppress sound scientific results while making public policy. Global warming, stem cell research, abstinence only AIDS prevention, for example. In such cases, science should be used to inform policy and put to question ALL assumptions, religion's included.
"1. The question of origins. While I agree that abiogenesis is not essential to evolution, it almost always accompanies it. If natural processes are all there are (i. e., God did not purposely create life), then life must have arisen from non-living matter. There simply is no alternative."
Well, when you say, "I believe every human being is uniquely created by God by means of natural processes" is it really that great a leap to believe that God created the first microscopic life form through natural processes as well? I guess I still don't see the connection between evolution and abiogenesis. In "The Origin of Species," Darwin hypothesized that all living organisms originated from one or a few common ancestors. I may be mistaken, but I don't recall Darwin ever speculating on how or why this common ancestor came into being. Maybe evolution is getting a bad rap from abiogenesis as you claim, but I think the core objection theists have resides with common ancestry, which is your second point, not abiogenesis.
"2. ...Evolution, by contrast, sees human beings as descended from animal ancestors. They are not unique except in terms of their greater capabilities to reason and express complex ideas, build complex structures, and wonder about their own purpose. In a purely natural universe, good and evil have no meaning, and human beings are no more fallen than hummingbirds."
In fact, evolution views humans as another species of animal; ape to be precise. I don't think there is anything that can be done about alienating Christians when it comes to this. Personally, I have to acknowledge this as a fact. A fact is a fact. It's not that science and evolution have an "anti-religious bias." It's that science and evolution present a fact, a truth about reality, that Christian doctrine has a very difficult time dealing with. Though dealing with the fact that humans are animals is difficult, I don't think it's possible to reasonably deny it. It's not reasonable to deny any fact. If one does, it's denying reality which is the definition of delusion. I'll try to offer some comfort in this quote from British Prime Minister William E. Gladstone (1809-1898)...
"...if pride causes us to deem it an indignity that our race should have proceeded by propagation from an ascending scale of inferior organisms, why should it be a more repulsive idea to have sprung immediately from something less than man in brain and body, than to have been fashioned according to the expression in Genesis (Chap. II., v. 7), "out of the dust of the ground?" There are halls and galleries of introduction in a palace, but none in a cottage; and this arrival of the creative work at its climax through an ever aspiring preparatory series, rather than by transition at a step from the inanimate mold of the earth, may tend to magnify than to lower the creation of man on its physical side."
"3. Social Darwinism. The impact of Darwinism quickly moved far beyond biological science. It became the justification for repugnant social policies, including racial and ethnic cleansing and eugenics."
Much like I don't think it's fair to blame all the misuses of religion upon religion as a whole, I don't think it's fair to blame evolution for it's corruptions either. Evolution, like all solid scientific theories is morally neutral. Evolution explains common ancestry. Atomic theory explains fusion within stars. Is it fair to blame atomic theory itself, or Niels Bohr, for applications like the A-bomb? I'd also point out that eugenics is an ancient concept practiced by the Spartans who would throw any sickly babies off a cliff, the Apothetae, if they didn't meet the Spartan ideal. Life unworthy of life was practiced 2300 years before the Nazis, yet Christians blame Darwin?
"The abandonment of sick, puny and misshapen children by the Spartans was more humanitarian and, in reality, a thousand times more humane than the pitiful madness of our present time where the most sickly subjects are preserved at any price only to be followed by the breeding of a race from degenerates burdened with disease." - Adolf Hitler
"Put another way, the existence of a program implies a programmer. I could go on: the existence of a book implies an author; the existence of a painting implies an artist; the existence of a universe implies a creator."
Again, this is William Paley's old argument rehashed with programs, paintings, and books instead of watches.
The complex inner-workings of a Watch necessitates an intelligent designer. As with a Watch, the complexity of X (a particular organ or organism, the structure of the solar system, life, the entire universe) necessitates a designer. The video went to great pains to show that this does not necessarily follow. It explicitly stated why this analogy is a straw man. Unlike living things, clocks, programs, books, and paintings, don't reproduce, don't mutate, and aren't subject to natural selection. We know that the existence of a program implies a programmer, the existence of a book implies an author, the existence of a painting implies a painter because WE KNOW only people program, write, and paint (exception: elephants can paint like Jackson Pollack and you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference). We DON'T KNOW that the complexity of life implies a supernatural designer. It's just been demonstrated that even something as complex as life happened through evolution. "You may argue that life is more complex than a clock. Any biologist will agree. But remember, you thought the clock [program, book, painting] was complex enough to construct this straw man in the first place. You can't have it both ways."
"However, such arguments tend to ignore a basic fact: the entire process is designed to produce a particular outcome. In the case of the evolving clocks, the criterion for survival imposed by the programmer was accuracy in keeping time. So, of course, the solutions converged on accurate clocks."
In the wild, instead of evolving clocks we'd have evolving organisms. The criterion for survival would be imposed by nature instead of imposed by the programmer. The solutions would converge on things like ability to avoid predators, ability to mate, finding food, etc. instead of solutions that converge on accurate clocks.
I need to interject. At this point, Mark begins referring to an episode of NOVA about Intelligent Design vs. Evolution that was on a few weeks ago and that all three of us watched. The main conversation followeing the video revolved around the arguement of Irreducable Complexity. Mark is responding to the Irreducible Complexity arguement here.
At this point Chip, I wanted to talk about your email regarding the NOVA program, "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on trial." There is a reason Judge John Jones ruled Intelligent Design to be unscientific. In an effort to keep this email at a reasonable length, I beg your indulgence in watching another video which I think directly addresses your comments, and in fact, turns your assertion, "The concept of irreducible complexity is an important one and played a role in criticisms of evolution long before ID" completely on it's head.
The Evolution of Irreducible Complexity (6 minutes)
P.S. I apologize for the music. It's my style but maybe not yours. :)
We are really rolling now, and we have perhaps gotten to our first irreconcilable difference between Chip and Mark: the nature of humanity. Are we more evolved apes? Are we special in a significant way, beyong our resoning capabilities?
In the final part of our look at the web documentary Zeitgeist, we are going to be looking at some of the most audacious claims in the documentary.
The point they are making is that the historical evidence for the existence of a man named Jesus does not exist. The claim is that only four first century historians mention Jesus. Three of them, Suetonius, Tacitus, and Pliny the Younger only mention Christ or Christos, which, since that is a title and not a name, they argue could be a reference to anybody. The fourth reference, and by far the most significant, is made by a Jewish Historian named Flavius Josephus. This is the place where the documentary makes that amazing statement, saying that Josephus has been "proven to be a forgery for hundreds of years." Here is the Josephus quote in question (from Antiquities 18):
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
I studied a lot of Josephus in college. My professors quoted him regularly. I had never heard anything discrediting or even doubting Josephus as a source. Needless to say, I was shocked when I heard this, and had no idea what to say.
Again, here is the response of Dr. Wave Nunnally:
Lastly, they attack the writings of Josephus, saying that he has been "proven to be a forgery for 100's of years." This was completely new to me. Had you heard this before? On what grounds do they discredit him and his writings?
The works of Josephus are accepted as genuine and as legitimate sources for the reconstruction of intertestamental Judaism and NT backgrounds by EVERY expert in the field, whether Jewish, Christian, or non-aligned, and whether conservative, moderate, or liberal. This might well qualify as one of the most absurd statements I have ever heard in my entire career that was supposed to be associated with an "academic" discussion. I can only hope that whoever said it is not allowed to procreate…
An interesting response, to say the least. The response goes to show the difference between the anonymous, nonacademic, unsupported and unreferenced claims made by the creator of the documentary verses many years of study from world renown Colleges and Universities as well as trained professionals in the area of Biblical Studies. This is the initial response you will see a lot from the top experts when presented with some of the outrageous claims floating around today, including books by Michael Baigent in Holy Blood, Holy Grail and The Jesus Papers. There is quite simply a huge difference between good, well researched, respected scholarship and the popular pseudo-scholarship that people like Baigent and the creator of Zeitgeist are furthering.
However, just to see the initial response of respected scholars is not enough. We should be able to talk about specifics. In a radio interview, the Creator of Zeitgeist elaborated a bit on his Josephus claim. Here is my paraphrasing of the claim in a question to Dr. Nunnally, followed by his more detailed response:
The claim: Josephus references 13 different Jesuses. The quote we see of this often quoted section about Jesus, talking about him raising from the dead, does not appear until 200 years after the death of Josephus, despite the fact that early Christians, Justin Martyr and others, would have been very interested in referencing this, though we don't know of them mentioning it at all. This section about Jesus was added later. Any further responses to this?
On the antiquities 18 passage, the answer is yes. First, all Josephus scholars acknowledge that SOMETHING was there in the original version of Josephus. This is because there is another passage (20:200) that mentions him without further explanation, which means he must have already introduced him and given sufficient information for his readership to have connected the two passages so the second would be understandable. Again, all Josephus scholars recognize this argument as being legitimate. Second, historically, there have been three different schools of thought about the originality of this passage. The earliest simply took it at face value. With the rise of critical scholarship and more careful analysis of ancient texts, two additional schools of thought emerged. One reconstructed it to read as a very negative statement about Jesus, and the other emended the passage somewhat, but retained the generally favorable tenor of the “original.” Both agreed that the original text had suffered from “creative” Christian scribes in antiquity. The problem was basically laid to rest in 1971 when Israeli scholar Shlomo Pines published an Arabic version of Josephus which followed none of the three earlier schools, but instead provided a “neutral” reading of the Josephus text. The point is, it was there and now we have a legitimate version of it with ancient textual support.
Also, in case you are interested in part two of the documentary, which I have not discussed here, here are two videos that represent both sides of the 9/11 argument. Zeitgeist, as you can imagine, is a bit one sided. These videos are here and here.
Also, a fellow blogger and fellow student of Dr. Nunnally, Nate Watson has written a bit about Zeitgeist as well. Check out his blog My Friend Ivan and the Zeitgeist material here and here.
Lastly, you can purchase the complete works of Josephus from Thomas Nelson Press very cheap. I got it at Barnes and Noble for $17. Here it is on Amazon for $12.73! A very good deal.
In conclusion, I think not only has this experience shown some more good reasons why many of us ascribe to the Christian faith, it has also shown us once again that you cannot believe everything you hear. In addition, I feel that we have a responsibility as followers of Christ to educate ourselves about these issues and be able to have meaningful, informed conversations about them. May we always demand good information, even if it challenges what we believe. May we stand for truth in all circumstances. And, may we love one another while doing it.
In our third look at the online documentary called Zeitgeist where we are responding to the allegations that are brought up in the first third of the movie about Jesus and religion, we will look at the most vicious and serious attacks the the documentary brings against Christianity. Remember, you can watch the movie by clicking here. Also, check in with parts 1 and 2 of this discussion below. Here we go.
The documentary claims that Jesus is a copycat of a number of other religious figures whose stories are remarkably similar, either Horus, or Mithra, or whoever (there are hundreds). In fact, when you list the essential events of Horus' life, who dates to 3000 BC, 3000 years before Jesus, they are very similar to the essential events in Jesus' life. For example:
Horus was
Born on December 25th in a cave/manger with his birth being announced in the east and attended by three wisemen.
He is of royal decent
At age 12, he was a teacher in the temple and baptized at age 30
He had 12 disciples
He did many miracles, including walking on water
He was crucified between two thieves, buried for three days, and resurrected
He was called "The Way, the Truth and the Life," "The Messiah," and "the Word Made flesh" among others
Do these things sound familiar? Yes, they all existed in the life of Jesus. And, if these elements really were in a common astrological, Egyptian mythical religion that predates Christianity by thousands of years, that would be very suspect. This part of the video troubled me more than any other. So, I went to work to find the truth.
The first step was to talk to a friend who is smarter than me. Here is my question and the response of Dr. Wave Nunnally, professor of Theology from Evangel University:
What is your response to the mentioning of, for instance, the Egyptian god Horus, who dates to 3000 BC, and has very much in common with the birth, life and death of Christ? In fact, there seem to be many examples of this; figures whose stories are very similar to that of Jesus, some of which seem to be older. Your thoughts?
As you learned here, there were many dying and rising god myths in the ancient world. In his NT intro, Robert Gundry dismisses any true parallels with the Jesus event by noting that these stories are all about events that supposedly happened in eons past, for which there was no eyewitness testimony. Also, their deaths were not true, but rather ethereal, quasi-deaths. Finally, their dying and rising were actually ways to personify seasons and other forces in nature. None of these things can be said of the death of Jesus, so the "parallels" are more or less over-generalizations that don't really work out when the details are analyzed.
Interesting response. However, it was too general. I wanted specific evidence of the claims being false. So, I kept going, and there seem to be several issues in play.
My first clue to this should have been the first quote that flashes up on the screen of the documentary: "They must find it difficult, those who have taken authority as the truth, rather than truth as the authority." The author of that quote was listed as G. Massey, or Gerald Massey. Massey was an English poet and (supposedly self taught) Egyptologist who was a somewhat famous conspiracy theorist and Christ-myther (this is a label you will probably see again, there seem to be a whole fraternity of these guys, including the makers of Zeitgeist). If you did a quick search of his name on amazon, you would find many of the books he wrote, but the 2 most notable are The Historical Jesus and the Mythical Christ, and Ancient Egypt: The Light of the World. Also notice that though he has been dead for like 100 years, that these books have been re-released recently (because religious conspiracies are so huge right now!).
This is all just background to the point I want to make. Massey is the source used by Acharya S, a female author of the book The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold. She is the source of most Christ-mythers today and the primary source for this documentary, as cited on the sources page. So, if you are following the trail, Zeitgeist uses Acharya S, Acharya S uses Massey. Massey never sites a source. Aparantly Massey made all this up, because we find no evidence of this before him. The lies are passed on and on.
All of these sources and all of these Christ-mythers make the same mistake. As I debunked on this website a few years ago, you have probably heard of the similarities often cited between Abraham Lincoln and JFK. Upon further scrutiny, however, it is pretty easily seen that the similarities they claim that exist are either not spectacular, distortions of the truth, or flat out lies. This is exactly what has happened with the list given on Zeitgeist.
This is a great list, looking at the similarities between Horus and Jesus, as cited by Massey and taken from the Egyptian Book of The Dead (which, by the way, you can find at any Barnes and Noble. But, be warned, it is very weird). Using the website, it is not hard to debunk the list that is above, like so.
Horus was
Born on December 25th in a cave/manger with his birth being announced in the east and attended by three wisemen.
Let’s take this one apart and deal with each separate issue:
Horus’ mother was not a virgin. She was married to Osiris, and there is no reason to suppose she was abstinent after marriage. Horus was, per the story, miraculously conceived. Seth had killed and dismembered Osiris, then Isis put her husband's dead body back together and had intercourse with it. In some versions, she used a hand-made phallus since she wasn't able to find that part of her husband. So while it was a miraculous conception, it was not a virgin birth.
Horus was supposedly born on the last day of the Egyptian month of Khoiak, which corresponds on our calendars to November 15th.
Horus was born in a swamp, not a cave/manger. Acharya's footnotes for this point only make the claim that Jesus was born in a cave, and say nothing about Horus being born in one.
Horus' birth was not announced by a star in the east
There were no “three wise men” at Horus’ birth, or at Jesus’ for that matter (the Bible never gives the number of wise men, and they showed up at Jesus’ home, not at the manger, and probably when Jesus was a year or two old).
Acharya's source for the last two claims appears to be Massey, who says "the Star in the East that arose to announce the birth of the babe (Jesus) was Orion, which is therefore called the star of Horus. That was once the star of the three kings; for the 'three kings' is still a name of three stars in Orion's belt . . . " Massey's apparently getting mixed up, and then the critics are misinterpreting it. Orion is not a star, but a constellation, of which the 'three kings' are a part. And even if there is a specific star called 'the star of Horus', there's no legend stating that it announced Horus' birth (as the critics are claiming) or that the 'three wise men' (the three stars in Orion's belt) attended Horus' birth in any way.
He is of royal decent
This one’s true! But it's not really a comparison to Jesus. When followers speak of Jesus being of 'royal descent', they usually mean His being a descendant of King David, an earthly king. Horus was, according to the myth, descended from heavenly royalty (as Jesus was), being the son of the main god.
At age 12, he was a teacher in the temple and baptized at age 30
He never taught in any temple and was never baptized.
He had 12 disciples
Horus had four disciples (called ‘Heru-Shemsu’). There’s another reference to sixteen followers, and a group of followers called ‘mesnui’ (blacksmiths) who join Horus in battle, but are never numbered. But there’s no reference to twelve followers.
He did many miracles, including walking on water
He did perform miracles, but he did not walk on water.
He was crucified between two thieves, buried for three days, and resurrected.
Horus was never crucified. There’s an unofficial story in which he dies and is cast in pieces into the water, then later fished out by a crocodile at Isis’ request. This unofficial story is the only one in which he dies at all.
He was called "The Way, the Truth and the Life," "The Messiah," and "the Word Made flesh" among others.
The only titles Horus is given are “Great God”, “Chief of the Powers”, “Master of Heaven”, and “Avenger of His Father”. None of the above titles are in any Egyptian mythology.
Upon further scrutiny, it is clear that these supposed similarities are not that at all. Few are true, but those are very general (miracles, royal decent). Some are distortions, and others are flat out lies. If you click the link that compares Jesus and Horus, it gives more comparisons and goes deeper in the explanations. Here is the root site, that goes into more depth about this issue and also tackles the comparisons between Jesus and dozens of other god myths, in which you find the same issues at play. The site is a fantastic source. I think a quick look at it will pretty much settle the Jesus/copycat issue. It has for me.
While I was in the process of researching this and writing about it, I stumbled across Lee Strobel's new book called The Case for the Real Jesus, which is a response to the attacks that have come against Jesus in the past few years through sources like The Da Vinci Code and The Jesus Family Tomb. One of the issues he discusses in the book is the idea that "christian beliefs about Jesus were copied from pagan religions." Strobel addresses this issue very well. He interviews two experts about this issue and they weigh in on the validity of the argument. Perhaps the most revealing quote in this section is by Dr. Michael Licona who states "I know of no highly respected scholar today who suggests that these vague fables are parallels to the resurrection of Jesus. We only hear this claim from the hyper-skeptical community on the Internet and in popular books that are marketed to people who lack the background to analyze the facts critically."The Case for the Real Jesus p163. To be clear, this is exactly what we are dealing with: the highly skeptical community on the Internet as well as a production marketed to the laymen who typically don't have the background to argue with the claims.
If this has not convinced you, grab Strobel's book and read his chapter on this issue. It is very worth the $22 as it deals with a number of other scholarly issues that Christianity is facing today.
One more resource I should mention briefly is this page on the Always Be Ready website. It is simply a list of scholarly quotes that respond to many of the issues in Zeitgeist. It is worth a quick read, and the site as a whole is a good resource to bookmark as well.
This has been a very long post. Perhaps I should have made it two parts. Nonetheless, it is good info. Next time we will look at the documentary's attack of Josephus. Stay tuned!
In the second post about the movie Zeitgeist, a highly skeptical documentary that contains, among other conspiracy theories, that Christianity is a lie, I am going to address address the films claims about astrology. To watch the movie, see the post below. You really should watch it before reading this, otherwise much of what I write about won;t make sense. Here we go.
The video essentially claims that for thousands of years the Egyptians have worshipped the sun and stars, and that all religions that exist today are derivatives of this initial belief system. Keep in mind that the makers of this movie put no stock in astrology. They are merely using it (a ridiculous belief system) to show that Christianity is a ridiculous belief system.
In addition, they claim that the Bible is riddled with astrological claims, saying "this text has more to do with astrology than anything else."
I am still friends with many of my professors from college. Here is the question and response of Dr. Wave Nunnally from Evangel University on this issue:
I'm sure you have heard some of these Astrological theories before (i.e. the idea that the Bible "has more to do with astrology than anything else."). Do you have any general comments?
The doc[umentary] as a whole seems to be poorly conceived. The Bible actually polemicizes against astrology in a number of ways. Moses, for example, describes the sun, mon, and stars as created "signs" that have no life within themselves and are to serve God and man. The writers of the historical books and the prophets denounce Israel's decent into paganism when the worship the "host of heaven." Despite this, authors like Marilyn Hickey and David Wommack have written volumes asserting that the gospel can be found in the stars.
There are several examples they attempt to give of of Christianity copying off of astrology and the bible referring to such, and I will address three of those instances here. Let me say that i am no astrologer or expert in astrology. However, since they are claiming that the bible makes astrological claims, I feel I am educated enough to weigh in on what the Bible does say.
First, they claim about Luke 22:10, "this scripture is by far one of the most revealing of the astrological references." They say "When Jesus is asked where the next passover will be after he is gone" that he replies saying "As you enter the city, a man carrying a pitcher of water will greet you. Follow him to the house that he enters." The documentary claims that this is referring to Aquarius, the man carrying water in the signs of the zodiac, and that Jesus is essentially saying that he (Jesus) is the representation of God in this age, but that a different age is coming, called the Age of Aquarius, in approximately 2100 AD. Keep in mind that the creator does not actually believe Jesus said this (because doesn't believe Jesus ever existed), just that this is what the writers of the bible wanted to communicate. The only problem with this interpretation of Like 22:10 is that this is not the question that the disciples asked Jesus. In fact, there question has nothing to do with the future. In verse 8 Jesus tells them to "Go and make preparations for us to eat the passover." "Where do you want us to prepare for it?" they asked. That is when Jesus tells them to go into the city, find this guy carrying water, and that he would give them a room that is furnished for the passover. Not future, now. Not in the next aeon, but right now. They gave the wrong context (as mentioned before) and it changed the entire meaning of the verse. Not only is it not astrological, but as it is, it cannot even be bent to be astrological. This terns out to be nothing more than bad hermeneutics.
Second, they say that Moses comes to power in the age of Taurus, the bull, but he represents Ares, the ram, and that the exchange on Mt Sinai marks the transition. And, it was because the people were stuck in the previous age is why he was angry about the golden calf, not because they were worshipping a false god. This is again solved if we look at the context. Ex 32:31 shows Moses repenting for the people, saying "oh what a great sin these people have committed! They have made themselves gods of gold." Clearly it is that they are worshipping false God's, and not a mix up of the "ages" that has Moses (and God) so angry. They also attribute the blowing of the shofar (or rams horn) during this time as signs of ares. They don't consider that there are only a handful of instruments available at this time (harp, lyre, tambourine, and shofar etc.). The Israelites are only guilty of using instruments in worship, not of announcing the age of ares the ram.
Third, they claim that Jesus brings about the age of Pisces, the fish. Now, despite the fact that Jesus is oftentimes ministering in areas where there is a lot of coast, where fishing would be a large part of the commerce, and a large percentage of the men would be fisherman, and that the majority of the meat that is clean for Jews to eat is fish (I'm sure none of these could be the reason that fish are mentioned so much in the NT), we know why the fish became the symbol of the early Christian movement. The fish, or ichthys (pronounced ick-thoos) which is the Greek word for fish is an acronym, with each of the letters standing for a word in the phrase "Jesus Christ, Son of God." That is why the symbol of Christianity in the first hundred years and today is the fish, not because we are in the age of Pisces.
Some of these claims in the film are so outlandish that you can nearly laugh them off. If you know anything about the Bible, it is hard not to immediately find where they go wrong. this is just another good time to encourage us all to be diligent students of God's word, and to be intellectually honest and look for proof and evidence. If you except everything on faith, then when a documentary like this comes by, you have no way to answer it. However, if you have studied the history, archeology, and other disciplines that back up Christianity claims, it is not hard to come against these outlandish statements. Faith is good and absolutely necessary. but we don;t believe for no reason. We believe because it make sense, because there is a long line of evidence and experience to lead us to believe the way we do.
Next time I will be diving into the claims that Jesus is a copycat of the pagan religions. Stay tuned!
If you haven't yet seen or heard about the web movie Zeitgeist, you probably will. It came out this summer and is causing a bit of a stir among young people. The word Zeitgeist is a German word meaning "spirit of the age," and the film is essentially trying to get at the primary laws and frauds of our society.
The movie is about 2 hours long and can be seen here. It is divided into three parts. After an intro and overview, Part 1 is titled "The Greatest Story Ever Told" and is about Christianity. The movie makes many outrageous claims that I will discuss further, but is essentially claiming that Christianity and the Bible are based on astrology and that Jesus never existed but was a copycat of many pagan deities and false gods. The 2nd part is titled "The Whole World is a Stage" and focuses on what they call the 9/11 conspiracy; you know, how the government is really responsible for 9/11. The third part is "The Men Behind the Curtain" (or something very close) and is about the Federal Reserve and how the men who control it are bent on world domination.
Now, I am no expert about 9/11 conspiracy theories or the Federal Reserve, so I won't comment any longer on these parts. I do however, know a little bit about the attacks on Christianity in part 1. I have decided to do a four part series on the Christian elements in Zeitgeist and address some of these claims that the creator makes. Before we start, though, you really should watch the movie, at least Part 1, so we are all speaking the same language (click on the link above). It is about a half an hour long and, be warned, there is some profanity. But, what I am going to be discussing will refer to the video, so it is better if you have seen it.
At this point, by way of an introduction to the film, I am going to make some general comments about the Movie as a whole. Here we go.
1. May we keep in mind that this is a conspiracy theory, put out by conspiracy theorists. They have an agenda (both anti-God and anti-government) and they are (apparently) trying to convert people to their side (i.e. making a free web movie to disperse freely and widely). These are important to note because they are obviously not objective sources. Now, to be fair, neither am I. I too believe something strongly and that, at times, can cloud my rational thinking. I too have an agenda; to share my knowledge and relationship with God with others. I must, therefore, be good at thinking critically even if the results are not always what I want. Ultimately we should want truth. So, that is the first thing to remember, that these are not impartial movie makers that decided to tackle this subject. Quite the opposite, in fact. They are radical conspiracy theorists who are dedicated to a belief system that is unfolded in the documentary.
2. This is that the documentary is not very academic and certainly not scholarly. They would like to claim differently, but many of their claims would be laughed at in the presence of scholars. The creator chooses to remain anonymous and we have no reason to belief he has any scholarly credentials. But, the goal of a conspiracy theory is to stir up the laymen, the common man. So, scholarship is not that important. They only need to be convincing enough to convince you and me. Some examples of this is that they do not quote scripture correctly. They never quote more that 1 verse in a row. Apparently context is a peripheral issue for them. There is no meaning without context. When they quote scripture, they either give no context at all, or they paraphrase the preceding context, which they get wrong (more on this later). They also misuse some terms, like "immaculate conception." This is a common mistake, but should not show up in well researched, scholarly work.
3. The scholarship they try to employ in this documentary is what would be described as liberal (this has nothing to do with politics). That is to say that when dating the books of the NT, you can date Paul's writings as early as the 50's, which would be the conservative view and, in my opinion, clearly the most accurate. You can also date Paul's writings as late as 140AD or later, and claim that it was not Paul, but someone else who wrote this as folklore to an existing group called Christians. This is the liberal view. This is convenient to conspiracy theorists because it removes any eyewitnesses from being involved in the writings, and thus discredits the documents.
The are some overarching generalities that are true of most conspiracy theorists. Next time I will dive into the meat of the documentary and challenge some of his claims. If you have seen the movie or watch it soon, post and let me know. I am interested to hear what is being said and what your responses are.
This is an article containing a debate between atheist Sam Harris and pastor Rick Warren. It is a very different animal from the Dawkins/McGrath debate posted previously. Warren takes a much more practical approach than the social/intellectual approach taken by McGrath, which makes sense, since Warren is a Pastor and McGrath an intellectual. Give it a read and let me know what you think.
For the 3rd installment of the series on Richard Dawkins, I will be commenting on Dawkins' debate with former Atheist and current Christian Allister McGrath. It is a two part audio file that you can download here.
There are better thoughts than these in the discussion that follows on the link above, but I will make a few of my own comments.
1. I feel like the participants were arguing apples and oranges
It seemed like they were going to be arguing about the existence of God, which is what Dawkins is primarily concerned about. Dawkins even says at one point that he is concerned with what is true. McGrath seesm to be making complete social arguments. Dawkins, in response, at one point states, "All of that may be true, but it doesn't say anything about the existence of God." Thus, I feel like there was some wheels spinning in the debate.
2. I liked McGrath's question: Does science move us toward atheism or toward theism?
I think this is a million dollar question. Complexity. Order. Design. Irreducibly complex systems. These all seem to me to point towards a creator God. Dawkins certainly disagrees. However, I would agree with Erwin McManus who says that if all truth really is God's truth, and we are crazy if we think it is not, than any true quest for knowledge in any discipline will eventually lead back to God. McGrath holds God as the "best explanation" of the world. I think he makes a great point. From my perspective, God makes much more sense that chance plus time plus nothing.
3. Dawkins makes the very interesting claim the religion is "intellectually impoverishing."
This is a fair statement, and not a low blow, in my opinion. It is up to us as followers of Christ to prove to everyone that we are as interested in investigation as anyone else if not more. Dawkins says that religion "cuts off investigation by providing easy, facile answers to deep and troubling questions like the questions that science tackles." May we not fall guilty of this by casting off exploration with a trite, religious statement. Christians do this far too often. May we thirst for truth in all sectors of life.
I could continue, but I will leave it alone at this. I hope this series on Richard Dawkins was helpful and it inspired thought. Let's keep the conversation going.
In my second edition of looking into the foremost atheist in the world, Richard Dawkins, I take a look at an interview Dawkins did with Paula Zahn. This has a different taste to it, because Zahn is simply interviewing rather than debating (in contrast to the O'Reily interview). You will notice again that Dawkins is a gentleman the entire time. I do have some problems with some things he says, though. My commentary is below.
1. "Not a shred of evidence"
Dawkins claims that he does not believe in the Judeo Christian God because "there is not a shred of evidence in favor of the Judeo Christian God or indeed any other god." I would love to have a chance to sit down and talk with Dawkins, because it would be interesting to hear what he classifies as evidence. I think of Billy Graham's metaphor of the wind, how we cannot see it but we see the effects of it, and wonder of that could be evidence. I wonder if the Bible and the testimony of the first century Christians could be evidence. I suppose it is from a purely scientific standpoint that he rejects these as evidence. It seems weird, though, that he has pretty much written them off without a second thought (though maybe he hasn't). Is that really all there is to it?
Also, he categorizes the Judeo Christian God with Zeus and Thor and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It seems that any thinking human being would see an enormous difference between the Judeo Christian God and this group with which he lumps it in. The difference between the Gospels and other works about characters who do miracles are huge. We have apocryphal writings about Jesus and they are night and day different than the Gospels.
2. "remarkably intolerant of atheists"
Here comes that intolerant word again. This goes back to how do you interpret the word intolerant? The currently used definition is "all views are equally valid." A more accurate definition is "All people are valid, but views are not." I think we would agree that the first definition does not work. Some views are stupid. Some are foolish. Some are dangerous (Nazism). We must be able to disagree on our views without being labeled intolerant. So, if Dawkins is suggesting that Christians are intolerant of atheists because they disregard their views and think them incorrect, than all atheists are intolerant as well. If he is using the second definition, he is suggesting that atheists are treated poorly because they are atheists, that is a serious charge, and sadly, true in some circles. We need to be careful as Christians to treat all people with love, as Christ did.
3. "historic misunderstanding of what atheism is"
I think this is true. The word "atheist" has a negative connotation in Christian circles. I think it sounds angry and hostile. Rather, most atheists are like Dawkins, peaceful people who simply disagree. By the way, the way to win atheists like this for the Lord is not to brow beat and be prejudiced towards them. If they were to experience the transforming love of Christ acted out by a humble believer, it would go a long way (in my opinion).
4. "What's there to be frightened of?"
Joining the last point, I think he makes a true statement here as well. gain, most atheists are nice people who choose not to believe in God. Why should we be scared of dialogue about the things he mentions, the origin of the universe, the cosmos, etc.? We as Christians should welcome conversation like these, and we should be educated enough to entertain these discussions.
On the other hand, though, I do think these ideas, this worldview, can be dangerous. Living as if there is no God, no ultimate code of right and wrong, no ultimate benefit to right living or morality is dangerous. A generation living this way is scary. It is not the atheists that scare me, or even their ideas, it is the results of their ideas played out practically on a generation who takes them to their logical end. There are no consequences for my actions? Okay, I will do whatever I want. There is no right or wrong, only relative codes of conduct? Okay, then why does it matter what I do or don't do? these are the ideas that are scary, not the people or the discussions.
5. "you don't live this life to the full"
Wow. I believe the exact opposite of what he is saying. What is more negative, a funeral where the dead person and his whole family believe that the person in the casket is no more, they are worm food, never to live again, or that they lived a great long life but are now in heaven where there is no more pain or suffering? It is an eye opener to hear that one of the same reasons we claim religion is better than atheism is the same reason they claim atheism is better. Very interesting.
In conclusion, if there is one thing Dawkins does, it is make us think about some tough questions and concepts. I believe that he is seeking truth, and it is always interesting to get another perspective.
I have been having some fun reading over at the Naked Pastor Blog, which is where I saw this video (below). I am very intrigued by Richard Dawkins and how he thinks. Dawkins is the leading atheist thinker in the world today and wrote the bestselling book The God Delusion. I disagree with much of what he says, including and primarily his world view, which is evolutionary and naturalistic, but he is challenging Christians to think much more deeply than most have and to abandon their pad answers for legitimate, well researched and logical answers.
That being said, I m starting a series of posts inspired by videos of Richard Dawkins to which I will be responding. This first one shows Dawkins being interviewed by Bill O'Reilly on The O'Reilly Factor.
Hoping that you have just seen the video, I am now going to make some comments (time will tell if a theme runs through this series of posts). First, I will discuss O'Reilly. I thought he did a very poor job of representing Christianity in the interview. Here is why.
1. First of all, O'Reilly seemed pampas and condescending. This is seen in a lot of ways, I think, like tone of voice, and how he interrupts Dawkins several times. He uses phrases like "you guys" several times. I think as Christians we need to have respect for everyone and give those with whom we are debating the right to be heard. We certainly expect the same. There is a certain quality that the majority of Christians (perhaps all people) lack, and that is the ability to disagree and debate respectfully. Why does disagreement make us so uncomfortable? Anyway, back to the original point, O'Reilly does not come off well in his demeanor, and it is a stark contrast to Dawkins' demeanor, which is very respectful and humble, willing to answer questions and listen.
2. Secondly, after seeming to argue for truth early on (although quite poorly), O'Reilly seems to take a relativistic standpoint towards the end of the interview. He even uses the phrase "it's true for me." Dawkins rightly comes back and states that truth is truth and what is true for one person is true for everyone. does it strike anyone else as odd that the Christian is the relativist and the atheist is the truth guy?
3. Thirdly, and I'll end on a good note about O'Reilly, I think he had a firm grasp of the founding fathers and their beliefs. He mentions how they wanted faith in Christ and all that comes with it to be the "moderating influence" that will make the country great. I think this is a pretty good argument against Dawkins' theory that Religion is a bane to civilization, though it certainly doesn't settle the issue.
Now, let's examine Dawkins.
1. I completely disagree with what he said about atheists not needing faith. I think that is one of the great mistakes that atheists and secularists make is thinking that they do not have faith. Everyone has faith in something, whether it is evolution or God or Zeus or a Totem Pole etc. It is absurd that he asserts that he doesn't have faith.
2. Dawkins also makes a statement about proof of evolution and the explanations of the mysteries of the universe, saying "We're working on it," presuming that the answers are in the (near?) future. First off, isn't that having faith in science, which negates his statement above? Secondly, after over a century of digging and scientific exploration, we still have not found any transitional fossils, which Darwin himself said we should find millions of if evolution were true, nor have we come any closer to answering the questions of abiogenesis and entropy. Scientists are quick to reference Copernicus and Galileo as examples of this, but I seem to think that these two comparisons are apples and oranges. I think time works more as the enemy of science in this aspect rather than the friend, because the longer we dig and find nothing, the more glaring the evidence against evolution seems to be.
3. Lastly, as alluded to above, it seems as though Dawkins ignores the very reason the founding father started this country, which was religious freedom. I am simply pulling from one line he stated about this, so I may be reaching, in addition to the fact that he is not American, but he seems to have a cloudy view of early American history.
That's all I got. Again, I am thankful for thinkers like Richard Dawkins who force us as Christians to think and figure these issues out for ourselves, rather than sticking to the Sunday School pad answers or retreating to relativism. May we (continue to) be thinkers. May we love Jesus enough to turn over every stone, research well, and do all we can to represent Christ well in the public academic arena. May we not shy away from disagreements, because it is there that we learn and grow.
This is an interesting list I saw over at the Think Christian Blog, which ranks the top 50 reloigious films of all time. For the record, I have only seen 16 of the top 50 (a pitiful 32%), but 5 of the top 10, so I am doing better. Here are some notables with my comments.
6. Babette's Feast A great movie we had to watch in college, but a great story that was very well made and has a pretty big twist at the end. It also has some great old fashioned humor.
10. The Crucible One of the great plays of all time, in my opinion. The story features the great tension between dying with dignity or living with shame.
19. The Name of the Rose A fantastic murder mystery set in a monestary. There is about a 5 minute porn scene in the middle, so fast forward through that.
22. Signs If a religious movie has aliens in it, it has to be great, right?
23. Field of Dreams How is this one religious? Great movie, though.
27. The Greatest Story Ever Told I haven't seen this, but from clips the Jesus in this movie really creaps me out.
34. Jesus Christ Superstar Make fun of me all you want, but I love this movie. A classic that portrays an interesting angle of the classic story.
36. Ikiru Another one I was forced to watch in college but loved, Ikuru is a Japanese film where a man finds out he is dying and then learns to truly live.
A few months ago, I was walking through the series of posts from my favorite Donald Miller book, Searching for God Knows What. Well, I got side tracked and was blogging about other things, but it is time to pick this up again. Here is a quote from chapter 3.
[I]f the gospel of Jesus is just some formula I obey in order to get taken off the naughty list and put on a nice list, then it doesn't meet the deep need of the human condition, it doesn't interact with the great desire of my soul, and it has nothing to do with the hidden (or rather, obvious) language we are all speaking. But if it is more, if it is a story about humanity falling away from the community that named it, and an attempt to bring humanity back to that community, and if it is more than a series of ideas, but rather speaks directly into the basic human need we are feeling, then the gospel of Jesus is the most relevant message in the history of mankind.
Amen, Donald. I think points like this are important. They are what I call mental forks in the road. You can choose to believe this or you can choose to believe that, but here are the implications. A more famous one is saying what C.S Lewis and Josh McDowell have said, where they demand that you can either believe that Jesus was who he said he was or you can believe he was not, but don't call him a great moral teacher if you think he wasn't who he said he was, because great moral teachers don't make the claims the Jesus did. The alternatives make him out to either be a liar or a madman.
What Donald does here is is say if you want to claim the entire Jesus message is merely a religion, a list of "do's and don'ts", and a formula by which to live, fine; just don;t expect anyone to be jumping on board. This is why I think that so many mainline denominational churches see so much fall out when students leave for college. If they have been given a formula that does not connect with their innermost needs, they have no need for it. If we have reduced Jesus to a formula and a lists of "do's and don'ts", we have sold him sadly short.
However, if you believe that the message and gospel of Jesus is something much more, an attempt by the god of the universe to bring his beloved creation back into covenant and relationship with him, then, as Don so eloquently puts it, "then the gospel of Jesus is the most relevant message in the history of mankind."
Donald simply paints the picture of the choices and the outcomes here and leaves the reader to decide, although it is clear in the rest of the book which way he has chosen. May we continue to present the message of Jesus for all it is and resist the temptation to reduce it to a formula.
Here is a great quote by Kierkegaard that I came across in Shane Claiborne's book Irresistible Revolution. My wife and I are leading a team of 9 students to the Philippines for 3 weeks this July and we are reading this book and discussing it as a team (let me know if you would like to get involved by donating to the team). I thought it would be a great quote to share with you all.
The Matter is quite simple. The Bible is very easy to understand. But we as Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand, we are obliged to act accordingly. Take any words in the New Testament and forget everything except pledging yourself to act accordingly. My God, you will say, if I do that my life will be ruined. How would I ever get on in the world? Herein lies the real place of Christian scholarship. Christian scholarship is the Church's prodigious invention to defend itself against the Bible, to ensure that we can continue to be good Christians without the Bible coming too close. Oh, priceless scholarship, what would we do without you? Dreadful it is to fall into the hands of the living God. Yes, it is even dreadful to be alone with the New Testament."
On Sunday, my pastor made in interesting statement in response to a comment we hear often in today's world, that being the phrase, "I like Jesus, I just don't like the Church/Christians." His response was that people who say that don't really like Jesus. Rather, they like the parody of Jesus that is often portrayed; the soft, cuddly Jesus who just wants to bless everyone and would never ask you to do anything to risk your comfort. How backwards is the general conception of Jesus?
In reality, Jesus asked, correction, demanded that all who would come after him to die. As Bonhoeffer would say, we have created a death-less (or a cross-less) Christianity, which, he would argue, is not Christianity at all. Jesus is offensive. If the people who say they like Jesus, but not Christians knew that Jesus called them to lose everything, family, friends, comfort, wealth etc., to follow him, I doubt they would like him so much. If there is one thing that Jesus threatens, it is selfishness, which automatically offends the selfish.
Now, to be clear, was Jesus loving? Yes, more than any other person ever. Is the church perfect? Absolutely not. Are we as the church responsible for being better witnesses to the world? Absolutely, yes. But can we please stop pretending that Jesus was a human sized kitten?
I was driving home last night from a conference in Eden Prairie (the HNI regional conference, not that you care). I was driving on 494 near the Mall of America when my car inexplicably began to coast. The engine had died. I was in a middle lane, but was luckily able to maneuver to the right side of the road. I checked some things and tried unsuccessfully to get it started. I was discouraged. I think the enemy tries to attack my vehicles. I have only been driving like 8 years and I have totaled 2 cars and had mechanical problems with 3. It's not just me being an idiot or bad diver, either. Something is up.
Anyway, I was waiting ten minutes to try it one more time to ensure it hadn't flooded or anything and I was in prayer, asking God to fix this. Long story short, it didn't start. So, I called for a tow.
The guy was there quickly (less than 10 minutes). In a short time he hooked the car up and we were gone. We began chatting and he turned out to be a very nice guy. His name was Ed. At one point he asked me what I did for a living. I told him I was a Youth Pastor. "Wow! Do you mind if I ask you how you decided to do that?" He asked. So, I shared my testimony with him. He told me that he had gone to church a few times when he was a kid, but his family wasn't really into it and church wasn't a part of his life now. But, he said he hoped that some day he would go back. I told him a bit about the Harbor. I told him about our Alpha course, that it was a practical introduction to the Christian faith where questions could be answered in a non-threatening environment. "That sounds perfect!", he said. He asked a few questions about catholics and other stuff, which I was happy to answer. By this time we were to our destination. I gave him my card and said if he had any more questions or wanted to check out the Harbor or Alpha to give me a call. He said, "You may not believe this, but I do actually plan to check you guys out." I think he meant it, and I hope he does.
It would have been really easy for me to get discouraged about my car crapping out and miss an opportunity to connect with Ed. With about 3 million people in the Twin Cities metro, there would have been almost no other way to get Ed and I to connect without something like this happening. I think that God arranged that meeting. Feel free to think me an over spiritual psycho, but I do. Ed was seeking. He was the right age for me to be able to connect with him. We seem to have the right program to fit with what he needs. I believe God set this up. How many opportunities have I missed in the past because I have been selfish and was not open to what God wanted to do? May we be ambassadors of God's love 24-7. May we, when times get tough, trust that God may have us in the situation because there is something he wants to do, someone he wants to touch. May we make the most of our opportunities to connect with the Eds of this world.
About a week ago I finished rereading one of my favorite books of all time: Searching for God Knows What by Donald Miller. In this book, Miller moves past the non-theological stuff, and becomes a theologian. He retains the non-religious factor, which is great, but it is certainly a different animal from Blue Like Jazz. If you have not yet read it, put it high on your list.
Anywho, the first time I read it was over the summer, during one of the busiest months of my life. I didn't have time to blog about it, as you can imagine, so the second time through, I left note cards in the pages where I wanted to blog. there are about 20 of them, so there will be plenty of stuff on here in the next months about this book. Trust me, it is all good stuff.
In chapter two, Miller is talking about impostors, and he tells a story of meeting Santa Clause as a kid. He goes on to say that he had a view of God that was much like Santa Clause for a long time, and thinks that many people today do too, because it is very convenient. Here are some clips of what he says, along with my commentary.
"I realize grown up people should not think God is like Santa Clause, but you would't believe how perfectly convenient it was for me to subscribe to the idea. The benefits were astounding."
"First: To interact with Santa Clause, I did not have to maintain any sort of intimate relationship. Santa simply slipped into the house, left presents, ate half a cookie, then hit the neighbors'. There was no getting us out of bed in the middle of the night to have sloppy conversations about why I was still wetting the bed."
Isn't it astounding that the majority of the people who would call themselves Christians do not have (perhaps don't even want) a personal relationship with God? I think that most people who are "religious" would fall into this category. However, in scripture we see that God offers himself to us forst and foremost. Relationship is the purpose of everything. Repentance. Forgiveness. Morality. Love. Law. It is all relational and a part of the big relational dynamic. Yet, there are a whole host of people who feel that they are right with God, yet do not have a relationship with him. Perhaps they think it would be too "sloppy." It would violate their intimacy and sense of privacy. They don't want to let anyone in, and certainly not God.
"Second: Santa theology was very black and white; you either made the list or you didn't and if you didn't, it was because you were bad, not because of societal pressures or biochemical distortions or your parents or cable television, but because you were bad. Simple indeed."
This is interesting, because I think there are certain aspects of Christianity that are very black and white (Jesus said "If you love me you will obey my commands"), and others that are incredibly complex. I think the truth lies on both poles. I feel that we must continually boil the message down to the most basic parts (where possible and appropriate), while at the same time acknowledging the complexities and exploring the mystery. I suppose that just like any relationship, it is bound to be complicated. I love my wife; simple. How does that translate into important decisions about our life together; complex.
"Third: He brought presents based on behavior. If you were good, you got a lot of bank. There was a very clear reward system based on the most basic desires of the human heart: Big Wheels, Hot Wheels, Legos. You didn't have to get into the spirit of anything, and there was nothing sentimental that served as the real reason for the season. Everybody knew it was about the toys: cold hard toys."
Wouldn't it be great if the Kingdom of God was based on the American principle of instant gratification. You help an old lady cross the street, you get $500. You read to a blind kid, you get good health for a year. You go to church this Sunday...you get the idea. But it isn't really like that. Relationships generally aren't (that theme keeps coming up). Instant gratification is rarely relevant outside of a marketing context.
"Fourth: Kids who were bad got presents anyway."
Ahh, yes. the old "everyone is included" idea. The problem with this is that it doesn't promote good behavior, nor is it realistic. It would be like saying, "You can be a jerk husband, and you will still have a great and happy marriage." The real world doesn't work that way. We do see Jesus spending time with the sinners, but it was because those people were more real than the hypocrite Pharisees anyway.
To conclude, my goal is twofold: to get you to think and to get you to read this book. Let me know if I do either one.
I saw these funny vids over at the Think Christian Blog. They are spoofs of the PC vs Mac comercials, and they make some neat statements about the religion of Christianity, as opposed to following Christ. Check them out. I think you will enjoy them.
I am a husband, grad student, minister, learner, reader, pop culture fan etc. I was raised in Illinois, went to college (undergrad) in Missouri, and am a transplant to my current home, Minnesota.
"[T]he power of the gospel lay in its ability to be a counter-cultural and revolutionary force--not only a story to believe, but a distinctive way of life." --Mark Scandrette in Soul Graffiti
