RSS 2.0
The Atheist Mama is born again!
By popular request–well, one, anyway, thanks, A. Rip–I have decided to resurrect The Atheist Mama, at least until I have a blog of my own.
To keep the conversations as fresh and original as possible, my first decree as acting Mama is to disallow, disavow, and discourage any invocation of the following: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Salem Witch Trials, and Pascal’s Wager.
Any other hackneyed references or tedious arguments you would add to the list?
–Allen
on May 25th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Yay!!! This is one of my favorite blogs.
on May 26th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
I’m glad, but Allen, whatever happened to freedom of speech?
Happy Memorial Day to all.
on May 26th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
I understand your concern, A. Rip, but as I mentioned, I’m simply trying to keep conversations from digressing into the same old arguments. It may be challenging for some to avoid these references, but my hope is that we all will be forced to think a little more creatively.
–Allen
on May 26th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Allen,
A good point. I’ll login on that!
I call on celticfire to warm us up with something creative.
I hope upward, Stephen, Jim, Mama, et al catch up with us.
I don’t give,
A. Rip
on May 27th, 2008 at 4:22 am
Hi there folks,
Greetings to one and all, and many thanks to Allen.
I’m happy to come on board, as best I can. Not sure I can offer anything too earth-shattering, but I’d like to take part, all the same, if only to keep my own grey matter sharp(er).
I had no specific plans to mention Hitler & Co. anyway, but their exclusion will demand fair play all round. That has to be a good thing - if we can all agree to stick to it! Maybe a system of yellow and red cards would help? (Here in the UK, yellow and red cards are used in football [soccer]. A yellow is a warning, and a red is a sending-off. I’d hate to see anyone sent off though.)
My reading on Sunday (and this might get the ball rolling?) was Luke 14:1-24 - Jesus teaching about the Kingdom to come. One point I found amusing was v v. 1-6, in which the Pharisees were trying (unsuccessfully) to catch Jesus out on points of law. The Pharisees trying to trip the God Man up about God. Not a bad joke, but I doubt if they saw it.
Good wishes, all.
Stephen
on May 27th, 2008 at 8:19 am
I’m going to skate, briefly, on very thin ice here, but with the caveat that I wish no offence to anyone.
With the resurrection of Atheist Mama, do you think it would be reasonable of me to pose the question: Is Christianity here (in the UK) a different kettle of fish to Christianity in the USA?
I mean no offence, and certainly no racism. I am simply curious to know, in the interests of debate, if we are all dealing with the same thing.
For example, here in the UK we frequently see TV broadcasts about American preachers and the like who are, frankly, embarrassing (to me, anyway). I would even go so far as to label quite a few of them just plain nuts. I can therefore fully understand why people would find them irritating. Such types are, thankfully, in a tiny minority here.
Billy Graham comes across as decent and honest, and a man of great integrity. Unfortunately, that can’t always be said of others whose broadcasts make their way across the pond.
I fully appreciate that the TV examples mentioned here probably do not represent mainstream Christianity in the States, but can you see my point? I’m just wondering if we are dealing with the same thing.
Just a thought. No offence intended. Comments welcome.
Stephen
on May 27th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Stephen,
Glad to catch up with you guys again!
You picked a fine passage there in Luke 14. I notice in verse 1: “One Sabbath, when he went to dine at the house of a ruler of the Pharisees, ….4 … Then he took him[the one who had dropsy (edema)] and healed him and sent him away.” Here we find Jesus Christ doing the human- thing of eating in a person’s home And then He did the God- thing of instantaneously healing a person. So who is this Jesus Christ? He is the One through whom God reveals Himself. He is referred to as Son of Man and Son of God. Also the Son of David and God, the Son. So as He walked the earth He was man and He was God. It does not take much faith to come to this conclusion. It can be seen a number of times. Another well known example is in John 11 where He was weeping at a dead friend’s grave and then He called the dead friend out from the dead.
May I also respond to your 2nd post? Christianity should not be judged on anything but the teachings of Christ and the Apostles. If we look at the lives of some of those who claim to be Christians we will be confused. Of course, the lives of individuals is the “skin” of Christianity and therein lies the problem. To solve this problem God might allow horrendous persecution to come upon the Church and “separate the wheat from the tares.” That would be hard to live through, but the Church needs a cleansing! Let Christianity be Christianity!!
Also Stephen could you clarify for me the use of cards as in what you wrote, “Maybe a system of yellow and red cards would help? A yellow is a warning, and a red is a sending-off” is easy enough to follow. I guess I’m wondering who would be the referee.
Thanks Allen for this resurrection!
Best Wishes to all and to all a good night.
upward
on May 27th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
upward wrote:
That referee, upward, would be me.
And by the way, Stephen and upward, you remember the theme of this particular blog, right? You know, “The Atheist Mama?” This isn’t a Christian bible study group!
on May 28th, 2008 at 9:11 am
OK now we got something going! Maybe this blog will become a real blog after all.
So, Ref, what’s it goina be for Stephen and upward- yellow or red?
Hey, don’t we need a card for good behavior? how about pink or blue?
on May 28th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Just watched England v USA on BBC1.
England 2 USA 0
There is something deeply satisfying about watching my beloved England win from where I live, in Scotland.
Sorry, you guys, but you weren’t ever really in it. More worryingly, the lady who sang your national anthem was seriously off tune.
Greetings.
on June 1st, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Allen, Allen! Where are you? The ball seems to be in your court.
Or perhaps in yours, Stephen?
on June 1st, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Still here, Mr. Rip. No cards necessary–just a friendly reminder for our Stephen and upward.
“The ball seems to be in your court?” Is it tennis references now instead of football?
In any case, I get the message. You want me more involved. Will do.
–Allen
on June 2nd, 2008 at 3:38 am
Hi folks.
Still here, but thinking maybe I ought to ease up on the sporting references!
Okay - our preacher at church yesterday was preaching on the great Christian hope of the life to come. (I realise this isn’t a Bible study, but in the interests of discussion and relevant information, his chosen text was 1 Peter Ch. 1.)
Atheists and believers alike, discuss.
Greetings, all.
Stephen
on June 4th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
It is time for one of us to respond to Stephen so here goes.
Parts of 1 Peter 1 are humbling to me. Look at the standard that God sets for us- “but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, 16 since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.’ I don’t know about you but that leaves me out as far as being able to go to heaven is concerned. I fall short of that many times a day. Suppose I could keep the number of my sins down to 3 per day. That would be over 1000 sins a year. So at my age I am guilty of 10’s of 1000’s of sins and that’s just 3 per day! There is no hope for me.
Some think that God grades on the curve. Others think that if their good deeds out weigh their sins they’ll be OK. “Be holy, for I am holy” does not give us a way out. Besides, how many good deeds are needed?
When you pastor was talking about hope was he referring to something with doubt associated with it as in, “I hope my son remembers me on Father’s Day.”?
In my part of the world it is time to go to bed.
Talk to you later.
upward
on June 5th, 2008 at 3:49 am
Hi upward,
Good to hear from you. Many thanks.
I was actually hoping to have heard from others regarding the (inevitably) different points of view on what we might broadly refer to as “the life to come” - which was why I posted a reference to Sunday’s sermon.
I wasn’t really interested in a Bible Study per se, but, rather, a discussion on that theme. The life to come is of course integral to Christian theology (John 3:16, for example), which leads me to wonder what atheists make of the concept.
That was the thrust of my posting —- any takers?
However, to your points, upward - good deeds don’t cut it in terms of salvation, because they are fundamentally flawed and tainted by our human (sinful) nature. That is, we, as human beings, can’t ever present God with a completely pure canvas of Personal Life History, however many good deeds appear on that canvas.
Hence, in classic, mainstream Christian theology, the self-substitution of God, in Christ, as a means (the only means, because there was no other good enough) of redemption and atonement. Were good deeds sufficient for salvation (and they are of course to be applauded and encouraged as altruism, but that’s not what we’re talking about here), then Christ’s death would be made null and void.
As to “hope” - no, this wasn’t “hope” tinged with any element of doubt, as you suggest, but hope as in the Greek eIlpiov - “to anticipate, usually with pleasure”. This Greek word was the one originally used in 1 Peter, but which doesn’t comfortably translate into English. It is not connected with doubt, whereas the English word “hope” has that connotation.
So - eternal life, anyone? The life to come? Or am I to take it we all agree with 1 Peter and John 3:16? (I’m gently teasing - please don’t give me a yellow card.)
Greetings all round, as ever,
Stephen
on June 5th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Stephen,
You answered a lot of basic questions. Thanks.
So eternal life,if understand it correctly, is like a gift [i’m not able to earn it, right] to be received, right? What is it- some sort of Christmas or bday gift? And how does one get it??
Near the end of 1 Peter ! he uses a strange term “born again.” That’s the name of this Blog page. Is there some connection??
Aah! Another day another $-
I am yours truly,
A. Rip
on June 6th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
As an atheist, you might guess, Stephen, I\’m not convinced there is any existence beyond this one, much less an eternal one.
on June 7th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Allen,
May I ask- what sort of evidence would you need? What would convince you of an existence beyond the grave?
Just wondering?
on June 8th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
A fair question, A. Rip.
A colleague once told me she was convinced her deceased father was in heaven because he visited her in a dream and told her so.
This, to me, isn’t very convincing.
One thing that would impress me would be if one of those psychics who claims to be able to communicate with the dearly departed could tell me something about one of my deceased relatives, say, my maternal grandfather, they couldn’t possibly know otherwise. He or she would have to provide very specific information about my grandfather’s life and death, including accurate details about his particular habits and interests. If, for example, the psychic were to relay that my grandfather loves me very much and is in a better place, I wouldn’t be very impressed; but if he or she were to say that my grandfather was born on July 5th, 1898, and died on August 7th, 2002, and my grandfather wants to know if the strawberries from the patch across the road are sweet this year, I would be forced to consider there may be some sort of existence beyond the grave after all.
on June 9th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Hi A. Rip,
I’ll do my best to respond intelligently and reasonably succinctly to your questions!
“Eternal Life” : Classic (mainstream) Christian theology deals with eschatology (’last things’) as ‘the science of the four last things: (1) death, (2) judgement, (3) heaven, and (4) hell’.
This is to do with ‘the immortality of the soul’. Hence, according to Christian theology, we (1) die, we are (2) judged, and thereafter, for eternity (’world without end’) we inhabit either (3) heaven or (4) hell.
Eternal life, then, is inevitable for everyone. The question is where we will each spend it. No-one actually dies, except physically. We all live on. Christians interpret the resurrection of Jesus as evidence of that.
In a nutshell (for reasons of brevity), heaven is the eternal presence of God, and hell is the place where love is not.
Eternal life in heaven, in response to your question, is gained by the sacrificial, atoning death of Christ (the self-substitution of God) - for which, you may care to peruse 1 John, Chapter 4, Verses 9 & 10. This is a free gift - free to us, that is, but which cost Christ his life. Free in that it cannot be earned. It is God reaching down to us, not us reaching up to God.
There is no merit in any of us by which we may earn eternal life by our own efforts. Even our best efforts are tainted, and not acceptable in terms of eternal reward. As the old hymn puts it, “He [Christ] only could unlock the gates of heaven, and let us in…” Hence, Christian terminology such as ’saved’ and ’salvation’.
Must go just now, but I’ll be back later, as soon as possible. Just wanted to respond to your first question.
I will of course respond to other postings too, as soon as I can.
Greetings to one and all.
Stephen
on June 9th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Allen,
Actually the outcome in your scenario about the psychic and your grandfather might depend on the ability of the one making the claim to be able to communicate with the dearly departed.The results of failed communication would not tell you anything about the state of you gfather after his death. I was wondering- can you think of anything more reliable?
on June 9th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
A. Rip said:
Not really. How ’bout you?
–Allen
on June 11th, 2008 at 6:57 am
Hello folks,
Eternal Life - An existence beyond this one.
Thanks for all that has been written thus far.
My instinctive response, Allen, to the issue of your being prepared to consider the possibility of life beyone the grave if a psychic could describe important relevant details is to pose a question;
If you would be prepared to take the word of a psychic, why not the word(s) of Jesus, and the relevant information offered in the New Testament?
It’s a question, that’s all. I have no wish to be antagonistic, and I fully respect your views.
I am genuinely curious as to why a psychic might be able to persuade you, whereas it appears Jesus can’t.
on June 11th, 2008 at 7:05 am
Born Again - for A. Rip.
This is (like a lot of Christian jargon and terminology) a phrase that receives a bad press. (It could be argued that it does so deservedly, thanks to the antics of many who profess to be born again but whose conduct suggests otherwise.)
My understanding of the phrase is that it is to do with repentance (towards God and one’s fellow man), and the deliberate decision to live a better life thereafter. A new start, if you like - forgiven, cleaned up and set on one’s way again.
The term is of course from John’s gospel, chapter 3.
The key question is whether or not we acknowledge our need of forgiveness.
Atheists and believers alike will recognise those moments in life when we all need to ask forgiveness of somone. Atheists, though, would not, I imagine, consider any need to ask forgiveness of God…?
on June 11th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Stephen,
Jesus has an open invitation to appear and present his case for the afterlife any time he chooses. As with the professed psychic, if he can provide me with specific details about my grandfather’s life and death, I would consider the possibility of existence beyond the grave.
on June 11th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Hi Allen,
Fair point about Jesus!
It’s probably unlikely to happen, but I couldn’t rule it out. That one is up to Him.
I once met an old time London criminal (and subsequently corresponded with him) who was in his prison cell when Jesus appeared to him. I believe his story, if only because the guy in question changed from being an out-and-out rogue and habitual prisoner to good guy and Christian evangelist, overnight (literally). He was the most unlikely convert you could ever imagine!
What, though, about the New Testament information? How would you regard the weight of evidence of, say, 500 witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus (and, therefore, evidence of life after death) compared to the weight of evidence of a solitary psychic?
I fully appreciate (I hope) your point about information regarding your grandfather (for example). My gentle caution, though, would be that there are spiritual forces at work about which we know little.
Deceiving spirits are (in my opinion) a very real force, and I personally believe they could very easily “speak” through a medium or psychic.
Hand on heart, this is what I honestly feel happens in much of clairvoyance. It might be why the Bible warns against consulting the dead. Counterfeit evidence can be catastrophically misleading.
That’s just my opinion.
Would appreciate your response regarding the N.T.
Greetings to all,
Stephen
on June 11th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Hello Allen, A. Rip, Stephen, et al,
I have fallen behind in this blogg.
Allen, on June 8 you wrote, “…I would be forced to consider there may be some sort of existence beyond the grave after all.” “Forced” catches my attention- as I understand it Jesus Christ does not do any arm twisting or doorbusting. In fact He is shown to be rather gentle as in , “Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.”{Rev. 3: 20} Would you really feel comfortable if God dumped 100% of the evidence on you and left you with no wiggle room. We could have been created as mindless robots programed to do God’s bidding. There would be no fun in that for us or for God.
An illustration-
__________________ [a is 100% of evidence you need]
a
_______________l___ [b is the evidence given]
b c [c is the wiggle room or room for us to exercise
faith]
This is because “And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who seek Him.” {Heb. 11: 6} It pleases God for us to exercise faith- faith in the existence of God, life after death, etc.
Stephen, can you fill us in on some of the evidence that the N.T. is true?
So, Allen what do you think?
on June 11th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
I’m sorry.
I was afraid of that- as my comment was posted my illustration lost its meaning.
I intended for b to be the label on the larger part of the second segment and c to be the label on the small part. Does that help?
Good nite to all.
on June 12th, 2008 at 4:25 am
Hi Folks,
Upward, can I fill you in on evidence that the New Testament is true?
Well, that would probably consume the entire blog, and I have no desire to be that selfish or unreasonable!
I do, however, wish to respond to the question, and one of the best ways of doing so is for me to recommend a (small) book.
I know from past experience here that we are all (reasonably!) intelligent people. Recommending a book is, therefore, my way of complimenting that intelligence, and also offering what I hope is a good answer to the question.
The book I’m recommending - to believers and atheists alike - is called “The New Testament Documents. Are They Reliable?”.
This was written in 1943 by Professor F.F. Bruce, M.A., D.D., F.B.A., who was Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at the University of Manchester (England).
As it happens, the book was published by an American publisher, Wm. B. Eerdmans of Grand Rapids, Michigan.
It’s probably out-of-print now, but might be available on Amazon or Abe Books : ISBN 0-85110-307-3
I can but recommend it - perhaps as holiday reading - but it is not within my powers to force anyone to read it (or believe it)!
Greetings, all.
Stephen
on June 12th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Stephen,
I’m wondering- what does F.B.A. mean when it follows a persons name?
I thought upward’s illustration was good. I think I understand- If God always gave 100% of the evidence we need to believe His existence then He would be forcing us to accept that fact. So it’s the free will thing, right?
on June 13th, 2008 at 12:32 am
The concept of God not proving His existence because to do so would interfere with free will is one of the weakest arguments for faith I have encountered. The Bible itself, which Stephen and upward are fond of quoting, disproves it; there are many, many examples from the Old as well as New Testament of God proving His existence by personal appearances and/or miracles, and yet I have never heard any Christian complain that this violated the free will of what would have to be thousands of people. It’s only when someone like me demands similar proof that I’m told God doesn’t work that way and I must have faith.
Even more confusing, many Christians quote the Bible when they say that proof of God’s existence is all around us, in His creation, with no faith required. As with so many things in the Bible, one can find support for conflicting and contradictory arguments, which is one reason I find it generally unreliable.
on June 13th, 2008 at 3:19 am
A. Rip,
F.B.A. means Fellow of the British Academy. It’s an honorary award for outstanding literary or academic work.
Allen,
I’ll respond to your valid points when I have a bit more time. (I leave for work in fifteen minutes, so can’t stop just now.)
Please excuse brevity.
Stephen
on June 15th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Stephen, I have F.F. Bruce’s book you mentioned. I had read only parts of it before.
Yes, there are times when b=a [my illustration]. God can certainly do that when He decides to do so.
Allen, you said, “there are many, many examples from the Old as well as New Testament of God proving His existence by personal appearances and/or miracles.” I cannot disagree with that, and the disciple Thomas is an outstanding example. You remember that Thomas said to the others, “Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe.”
Eight days later, his disciples were together again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.” Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.” Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
I think that Thomas’ situation was different from most. Jesus Christ implied that when he said, “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” Compared to the millions and millions of people who who have become Christians my study and observation indicate that those cases like Thomas are in the vast minority.
So Allen, please don’t wait around for a Thomas type of experience. There is reason to think that you won’t get it and your c, like my c, will be > 0.
Stephen, what is your work? [if that is not too personal]
Good evening to all (you too A. Rip)
on June 15th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Don’t worry, upward, I’m not holding my breath.
But isn’t there also something in the Bible about believers drinking deadly poison without any ill effects? If a Christian (or anyone, for that matter) were to do that, I would be very impressed, too.
Any takers?
on June 15th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
Or regrow severed arms or legs or heads. That would be amazing.
on June 16th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Hey Allen,
Here’s one better than the above- jump off a 10- story building!
on June 18th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Hi folks,
My apologies for the delay in getting back to you. Pressures of work… family…football on the telly…the usual excuses…
Anyway, here goes…
Upward, in answer to your question (no, I don’t mind you asking, not at all), I work full-time for The Salvation Army in one of the most deprived areas of the UK, in Scotland. My wife and I run a Salvation Army church and community centre between us, with just over 100 members. This has been my work for the last fourteen years.
Allen, I’d like to respond to the piece of the Bible you refer to (you see, it’s not only me and Upward who are fond of quoting Scripture!), regarding believers drinking poison without any ill effects. I’m assuming you mean Mark Ch. 16 v. 18, but please correct me if I’m wrong.
That verse has, unfortunately, been ridiculed almost out of sight thanks to the naive and irresponsible antics of some (American - no offence intended) fundamentalist Christian groups and sects. I’ve seen TV documentaries of such groups, and they’ve made me want to tear my hair out.
This verse is God’s promise to protect His people in dangerous situations that are outwith their control. It is not a commandment or an encouragement to deliberately put oneself in harm’s way (as the fundamentalist snake-handlers do - I’ve seen the footage). To interpret Mark Ch. 16 v. 18 in that way is to demonstrate the inadvisability of isolating verses of Scripture. As one of my old lecturers used to remind us, “A text out of context is a pretext”!
Please compare this with Acts Ch. 28 vv. 1 - 6. Paul was bitten by a poisonous snake, but the point is, he was not deliberately handling the snake. The snake-bite was an accident. Paul was unharmed.
To intentionally play with fire (or snakes, or poison) and still expect God’s protection is actually contrary to Christ’s teaching (and this is what dismays me about the fundamentalists). Jesus explicitly stated, in Matthew Ch. 4 v. 7, “You shall not tempt God”. To do so is not only foolish, but also a guaranteed way of stepping outside of Scripture and yet still expecting the promises of Scripture to kick in.
More later, as time allows.
Greetings, all,
Stephen
on June 18th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Hi, Allen,
Freewill, and whether or not God imposes Himself upon an individual:
My context for this (my personal belief) is that God is Sovereign. He is Sovereign because He has the right to be so. Allow me, for the purposes of argument, to use that as my foundational plank, even if you disagree.
His Sovereignty, therefore (in my opinion), allows Him the right to intervene in the life of an individual should He choose to do so. I believe He is entitled to that, in a similar manner to the way in which I am entitled to intervene in the lives of my children.
An example of intervention is found in Acts Ch. 9 vv. 1 - 8, in which a Sovereign God clearly leaps (uninvited) into Saul’s life.
There is nothing to suggest that Saul issued an invitation to the Lord to break into his life, yet He clearly did so, by force.
As a Sovereign Being, that is His prerogative. I do not pretend to know why He does that sometimes (as with Saul), and why He does not do that sometimes (as with you), any more than an ant pretends to know why I behave as I do.
Having said that, freewill remains an option that we are at liberty to exercise, whenever and however (and however often) God tries to make contact with us.
(I am defining freewill in this instance as the right to choose to believe or not believe in God.)
For example, the Sanhedrin, in Acts Ch. 7, heard an eloquent sermon from my New Testament namesake, Stephen, yet turned their backs on all that they heard - thus, demonstrably, exercising freewill.
Clearly, they exercised their freewill in such a way that they categorically refused to believe that God was speaking through Stephen, despite His and his best efforts.
Was Saul’s freewill violated?
No.
Saul could have groped his way out of his predicament in Acts Ch. 9, and walked away from Christ altogether (thus, exercising freewill).
He didn’t, but he could have done. There is nothing to suggest he could not have walked away from Jesus.
Equally, Saul (as Paul) was at perfect liberty to abandon the gospel and his ministry at any stage of his life following the Damascus Road encounter.
He didn’t, but he was free to do so.
For example, you and I can look at the world around us, and exercise our freewill to believe in a Creator God, or to refuse to believe.
In that way, you and I, Allen, are living examples of freewill in action. Were there no freewill, you and I would have no choice but to believe exactly the same things about God. Our differences of opinion are evidence of freewill at work.
Freewill exists, and is as alive as we are.
God may or may not appear to an individual (that is entirely up to Him). The fact that He does, sometimes, does not indicate the violation or abolition of freewill. Rather, it indicates His desire to make contact, even though He knows it will probably end up in rejection (for which, read Calvary).
Greetings, as ever.
Stephen
on June 18th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Stephen,
Concerning your comment about the importance of context, I agree completely, so let’s have a look at the verses in question from Mark, Chapter 16, KJV:
The context of this passage is the risen Christ has told his followers to go out into the world to preach the gospel and in His name to do miraculous things, including drinking poison without ill effects, to prove the gospel is true. Christ’s followers are clearly being encouraged to do these things. Unless you wish to argue that this was a one-time deal that applied only to his disciples, your “out-of-context” defense fails.
In your second comment concerning free will, you say that God may choose to prove His existence without affecting our free will, but inexplicably chooses not to most of the time. Your argument is ultimately an appeal to faith, to “The Lord works in mysterious ways,” which is really not much of an argument at all.
on June 19th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Hi Allen, Hi A. Rip,
Please excuse brevity.
I’ll endeavour to respond to your most recent posting, Allen (the one about context in Mark Ch. 16), as soon as possible but for now, please bear with me if I can only respond to earlier postings about regrowing severed arms or heads or jumping off ten-storey buildings.
I’m trying to respond sequentially, lest I inadvertently miss a posting.
A. Rip - I’m not sure how anyone doing such a jump would help anyone, or anything!
Allen - I would courteously refer you to the published accounts of an English evangelist called Smith Wigglesworth, some of which (a minority) are available online.
My best advice would be that you treat yourself (via Amazon et al) to books regarding Smith. Healing miracles attributed to him (he used to belong to The Salvation Army, incidentally) are there for the reading.
Failing that, please allow me to refer you (and others) to the documented accounts of healing miracles attributed to a German evangelist called Reinhard Bonnke.
If you really are interested in healing miracles, as I believe you are, then reading about Smith and Reinhard might be reasonable starting points.
Take or leave the following, as you prefer, but at least credit me with honesty and integrity:
I once prayed for someone, and laid hands on him, and a badly injured ankle was healed instantly, in the presence of at least five (very surprised) witnesses.
Having said that, I’ve prayed for my epileptic brother for years on end, and he is as sick as he ever was.
Allen - do be careful. You are growing awfully fond of quoting the Bible! (Only jesting.)
Greetings, all, as ever.
Stephen
on June 19th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
I’m wondering if Wigglesworth is where we get the term wiggle room?
Just wondering.
on June 20th, 2008 at 9:45 am
This must be something that doesn’t translate across the pond … ?
on June 22nd, 2008 at 8:53 pm
While I don’t doubt your sincerity, Stephen, I’m not quite willing to accept your account of a miraculous healing at face value, as you might expect. It’s very difficult for me to sit here and speculate about what you may have experienced, so I won’t. I do wonder, however, how a god who finds the time to mend an injured ankle can’t be bothered to intervene in vastly more serious and tragic cases of injury and sickness and suffering in the world it presumably created.
on June 24th, 2008 at 4:04 am
Good morning, Allen (well, it’s morning here in the UK!),
Yes, I too wonder that (not least with regard to my epileptic brother).
I have no idea why He doesn’t intervene as you state.
I wish I did have.
More, later.
Greetings, as ever, to all,
Stephen
on June 24th, 2008 at 4:09 am
Allen -
Just a thought (and I stress this is not an accusation):
If Jesus did appear to you one day, is there the possibility that even then, you still might not believe, but that you would pass it off as a dream or the effects of a tired mind, or the consequence of eating strong cheese or drinking too much good wine … ?
I’m just wondering. He did, after all, appear to hundreds of people after He rose from the dead, and the majority still walked away unconvinced.
More, later,
Stephen
on June 28th, 2008 at 11:08 am
Allen,
Concerning the god who can’t be bothered to intervene in more serious cases of injury than a wounded ankle– 1.could there be a motive, yet the motive be hidden? Do we have to know everything concerning why this god does what he does, or can he, in the name of personal & relational contact concern himself with a thing like trust? 2. Is the real issue the injury, or are we missing what is beyond the surface? Did something happen(or is something present) beyond the physical healing that would not have happened in the unhealed other scenarios? 3(related to 2). Do people really want to have the suffering of the world alleviated, and sickness/injury healed, and if not, why should this god intervene? Before you ask ‘who wouldn’t want their suffering alleviated” remember the first question a psychiatrist asks a patient: “do you want to get well?”
Interesting conversation,
Nate
on June 28th, 2008 at 11:29 am
One more response:
Allen, you said “The context of this passage is the risen Christ has told his followers to go out into the world to preach the gospel and in His name to do miraculous things, including drinking poison without ill effects, to prove the gospel is true. Christ’s followers are clearly being encouraged to do these things. Unless you wish to argue that this was a one-time deal that applied only to his disciples, your “out-of-context” defense fails.”
It’s not so clear that the disciples are being encouraged to do these things. Don’t mistake indicative for imperative: “this will happen” is not “do this.” The difference, while it might seem minute on paper, is in practicality huge: The disciple is given a new framework for looking at reality, rather than being guilt-tripped or commanded to act a certain way. This frees the disciple to interpret the new paradigm for the situation at hand(i.e. “How in this situation is the love of God(the gospel) more important than my comfort and security?” not “Where can I find some snakes?)”…etc.” Interestingly, the gospel in its purity always follows this framework — indicative, not imperative. But that’s another discussion.
The idea is, in my understanding, that Jesus is telling his followers they are going to end up doing seemingly irrational things, things that the status quo deems impossible or irrational–because the gospel is the bottom line for them, not self-preservation.
Nate
on June 28th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Stephen wrote:
My response:
It is very difficult to predict what my reaction might be–I really have no idea. It would be helpful if there were objective photographic or other physical evidence to support such an appearance, of course.
And you wrote:
While this may be the biblical account, I\’m not ready to concede it was a historical event, obviously.
on June 28th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Hello, Nate:
You wrote:
In other words, “The Lord works in mysterious ways.”
You also wrote:
My response:
I would say yes, most people would like to have suffering alleviated. On what basis would you conclude otherwise?
You also wrote:
It may not be clear to you, but it is to me: Jesus commands his followers to preach the gospel and perform death-defying miracles in His name. It really is tiresome when believers go to such lengths to distort and reinterpret passages in the Bible that they find distasteful or easily falsifiable.
on July 4th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Hi folks,
Firstly, my apologies for taking such an age to respond to things here. Sorry about that. And my thanks for your patience.
Allen, if it’s not too late to return the the subject of handling snakes and drinking poisons, and all those other fun activities for Christian social evenings (I’m kidding - honestly!), I’d like to do so now …
The relevant Bible verses, from Mark Ch. 16, sit as they do smack bang in the gospels. There is a school of thought which claims they don’t rightly belong there (and that school of thought may actually have some merit). However, as there’s no denying those verses do sit where they do, I have no intention of trying to erase them by claiming they are misplaced, and not what Mark originally wrote.
Allen, I think you are, with respect, mistaken when you state that Jesus told His disciples to do “all these things” (the snakes, the poison, etc). The only thing Jesus actually told His disciples to do was to go into all the world and preach the gospel.
The other matters were not instructions, as you infer, but were to be regarded as evidences of authenticity when the gospel was preached internationally.
I would gently refer you to Acts Ch. 8 v. 7, 2:4, 28:3 - 5 and 28:8 as instances when “all these things” were put into practice - with the exception of drinking poison.
I would stress that the disciples were not told to do such things. They were told to preach the gospel “with signs following”. According to Acts, this seems to have happened.
I would also stress that protection was promised, to those in the service of the gospel, should anything such as, for example, a snakebite occur accidentally. (The “testing” of God by embarking upon deliberate snake-handling is foolhardy, and a misunderstanding of Scripture.)
In context, then, these verses appear more relevant. (Likewise, Luke Ch. 10 v. 19 [with a similar note of caution in v. 20]. Likewise, too, the stories of Daniel, and Isaiah Ch. 43 v. 2.)
The context in which the disciples in question were being asked to work was (literally) full of snakes and scorpions. Their bites were very real risks in that part of the world (unlike Scotland, where I preach nowadays!). To be offered protection from common or garden, everyday risks was not an out of place option. Serpents and scorpions were real threats, simply because of the geography of the setting.
With regard to poison, it does little violence to the text to suggest that the venom of a snake was commonly regarded as poison.
It was not uncommon, in Biblical times, for poison to be physically administered (drunk) as an ordeal (please see Numbers Ch. 5). Jesus would have been acutely aware of this practice, and it may have formed part of His thinking. He knew the disciples would encounter serious opposition, and couldn’t therefore rule out the administration of poison as part of that opposition. This was His cultural context.
Finally, please allow me to refer you to a quotation from Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 39): “Justus surnamed Barsabbas, though he drank a deadly poison, suffered no injury, through the grace of the Lord.”
I’m away from home for three weeks now, folks. (Allen - I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting for photographic evidence of Jesus!)
Warm greetings, one and all. Back in three weeks,
Stephen
on July 12th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Stephen,
I really hate to disagree so thoroughly with such an agreeable person, but here goes:
You wrote:
My response:
Casting doubts on the authenticity of these verses now, I see. Can\\\’t blame you, really. I would, too, if I were you. They are very inconvenient, to put it mildly.
You wrote:
My response:
Frankly, this is nonsense. The quote is \\\”They shall take up (emphasis mine) serpents.\\\” Jesus\\\’ disciples are instructed to take up, meaning to pick up, to handle, to hold, potentially poisonous snakes. This is far from an accident in which someone happens to stumble across or step upon a snake and is bitten.
You wrote:
It does great violence, actually. The quote is \\\”and if they drink (emphasis mine) any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them.\\\” Unless you wish to argue that people actually drank snake venom, it\\\’s an interpretation which isn\\\’t supported by the text.
You wrote:
My response:
Any New Testament or extra-biblical support for this particular speculation?
And finally, you wrote:
My response:
Why not? If Jesus ascended bodily, that is physically, into heaven, He should be able to be photographed as easily as any other physical being, should He desire to reveal Himself. Or are you saying that He can be, but doesn\\\’t choose to be, photographed?
Enjoy your holiday,
Allen
on July 17th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Hi Allen,
I’ve managed to borrow a laptop, so thought I would spend a little time here. I’ve been to Wales today, by the way, where I’ve discovered, thanks to bi-lingual signage everywhere, that “Allen” is Welsh for “Exit” ! (No hidden messages or inferences intended, I promise you !)
I am genuinely disappointed, with myself, for patently failing to convey the fact that I wasn’t “casting doubts on the authenticity of these verses”. (The irony is that I was trying to do just the opposite!)
I was keen to explain that although these verses are doubted by some (as being part of Mark’s original writings), I was not going to promote that line of thought. My preference was to address the verses square on, as part and parcel of the New Testament, and not avoid them or dilute them. I am very sorry that you feel I was trying to wriggle away from them. That was never my intention, and I can only apologise for inadvertently giving that unfortunate impression.
I am by no means the best apologist the New Testament will ever have, but I would at least always try hard to address verses such as these honestly.
To your point that Mark Ch. 16 refers specifically to the “taking up” (handling) of serpents:
You are of course quite correct to press me on those semantics. I stand by what I have previously written (with my references to Acts, etc), but I would add to all of that a reference to Amos Ch. 5 v. 19. (For context, you may wish to read Amos Ch. 5 from the beginning.)
In the geographical region of Jesus’ time on earth, it was commonplace for snakes to hide within cracks in walls (in order to be hidden and in order to find a cooler location, I think).
Bearing Amos Ch. 5 v. 19 in mind, then, it was also relatively common, in Jesus’ day, for people to be bitten unexpectedly, simply by resting their hand on a wall. (This is the context, although not the only meaning of Amos Ch. 5 v. 19.)
The need, therefore, in practical terms, was for people not only to be resistant to snake-bites (for which, see Paul in Acts, as previously quoted), but to enter homes and literally, physically, remove snakes from their hiding places in nooks and crannies.
My brother emigrates to Australia in August, and he has already been advised that the efficient removal of snakes from one’s home is a dangerous business. Amos Ch. 5 v. 19 would seem to endorse this, hence the “taking up” of serpents.
This is not, I stress, the dangerous and ridiculous snake-handing performed, in the name of Christianity, by some churches. It is nothing of the sort. The “taking up” of Mark Ch. 16 refers to the twin dangers of hidden snakes which should be removed, and the likelihood of a poisonous snake-bite otherwise, and God’s protection throughout (bearing in mind that Jesus’ disciples were called upon to engage in house-to-house visitation).
More, later, but someone else needs the laptop just now! Sorry, but I need to curtail this here.
Greetings, one and all.
Stephen
on August 1st, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Your assertion that people living in the time and place where the gospels were written had much closer daily contact with snakes is beside the point, Stephen.
The verses in question have Jesus saying that those who believe in the gospel would be able to safely handle potentially venomous snakes, which would include ones they found in walls or in their homes.
While I agree that going out and catching snakes to handle during religious services is ill-advised to say the least, there is Biblical support for it. I have also read accounts of these people drinking poison, too; strychnine, if I remember correctly. I don’t recommend that either, but again, they make a good case for it, in my opinion, based on these verses.
So, as I mentioned earlier, unless you wish to argue that this was a “one-time deal” which applied only to a few first-century Christian missionaries and converts, you’re stuck with it.
on August 4th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Hi Allen,
Thank you for waiting so patiently for my response.
You make a valid point that the verses we are discussing belong to Christianity per se, and are not exclusive to a specific moment in time.
Whereas I would maintain that the verses (for obvious reasons) bore much more relevance in their original geographical context than they do in, say, Scotland in 2008, I accept that they are indeed meant for Christians of all eras. I am not aware of an “escape clause” which negates their truth for today!
Their original strong cultural relevance remains, I hope you agree, a valid point, but I do not shirk from the fact that Christians such as me are, as you rightly say, “stuck with it”.
Thus, the question, in 2008, becomes, “what is it I am stuck with?” - the answer to that being, in simplistic terms, the promise of God’s protection in the face of unexpected danger. I would compare this to Psalm 27, for example.
Upon reflection, one caveat I would suggest is worthy of legitimate mention here is that the protection on offer is (probably) God’s protection if the welfare of the mission (i.e.the furtherance of the gospel) is at stake. That, I would contend, is a valid and important caveat, given the original context of the disciples being commissioned for mission.
I do not actually believe that the verses refer to complete and utter ‘blanket’ protection for Christians. That, patently, does not exist, and if it did, it would be unfair and slightly nonsensical.
Whereas the disciples in question could expect miraculous protection insofar as such protection served the purposes of the Kingdom, I do not make a case for anything more than that. I would apply these principles to 2008.
Good to be back. I would welcome your comments, but it might be the case that we have exhausted this particular discussion. What do you think? I’m always happy to consider additional points of view, but I’m reluctant to start going round in circles.
Greetings, as ever,
Stephen
on August 5th, 2008 at 2:54 am
Allen,
Photographic evidence of Jesus (I’m playing catch up on postings):
Believe it, or believe it not, I have a photograph in my possession (I actually own it, so I know this is not hearsay) of a Harvest Festival display taken at a church I used to attend. I took the picture myself.
Nothing remarkable about a photograph of some loaves of bread and a few baskets of fruit …
Except that, in the background, on the wall, there is quite clearly seen the face of a man who looks like we commonly imagine Jesus to have looked.
I hesitate to claim this is actually a photograph of Jesus, but what I do state is that:
~ No-one in the congregation looked remotely like the man in the picture.
~ There was absolutely nothing on the wall at the time. It was a plain wall.
~ To the very best of my knowledge (although I can’t actually rule this out), no-one ever tampered with the photo.
~ The face appears, but minus a body.
To be honest, I have never really known what conclusions to draw. If it is Jesus in the picture, then it is a nice snapshot, but it doesn’t really help me a great deal in my faith. It strengthens it none.
“Faith”, as the writer to the Hebrews put it, “is the evidence of things unseen”. As Salvation Army doctrine puts it (in antiquated, sexist terminology ~ forgive me, ladies), “He that believeth hath the witness in himself”.
If it isn’t Jesus, then I sure don’t know who it is! No-one to whom I have ever shown the photograph has been able to rule anything (or anyone) out, nor anything (or anyone) in.
Maybe, then (although I doubt it), Jesus will appear to you in a photograph after all!
Incidentally ~ Allen, and everyone else ~ may I gently recommend a book called ‘The Heavenly Man’ - The remarkable true story of Chinese Christian Brother Yun, ISBN 1-85424-597-X.
Not only does it shed an interesting light on the (ongoing) persecution of Christians in China, it provides a fascinating insight into matters such as faith and belief.
Greetings, one and all,
Stephen
on August 7th, 2008 at 8:13 am
Hey Stephen,
Why don’t you go over to friendlyatheist,com. Those guys need a loooooot of help!
Best wishes,
A.Rip
on August 7th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Hi A. Rip,
Thank you for your encouragement.
I’ll certainly check out friendlyatheist.com but I do not claim to be able to give anyone any “help” ! (I believe in Someone who can, but that’s certainly not me personally.)
Thing is, I guess we all need a lot of help, in one way or another.
Thanks, and greetings,
Stephen
on August 11th, 2008 at 4:50 am
One and all,
The following was reproduced in Salvationist (the weekly newspaper of The Salvation Army here in the UK) dated 9th August 2008.
It is taken from The Tablet, which is (I think) a Roman Catholic newspaper here in the UK.
I produce here exactly what was printed, F.Y.I. and discussion.
Former atheist philosopher accuses author of bigotry.
One of the world’s once most renowned atheist philosophers, Antony Flew, has launched a fierce attack on the bestselling author of The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins, branding him a ’secularist bigot’. Professor Flew, 85, has been at the centre of an intellectual tug-of-war over the past few years following the publication of his book, There Is A God: How The World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. In the book he writes that he has become persuaded by scientific evidence and philosophical argument of the existence of a ‘divine intelligence’…[Flew writes]: ‘the fault of Dawkins as an academic was his scandalous and apparently deliberate refusal to present the doctrine which he appears to think he has refuted, in its strongest form.’ He goes on to say that Dawkins’ book contains numerous references to Albert Einstein to bolster his arguments for atheism but fails to mention Einstein’s belief in a divine intelligence. Flew says this is evidence of Dawkins’ ‘insincerity of academic purpose’.
Greetings, as ever.
on August 21st, 2008 at 2:56 am
Hi folks,
I realise this might well be old news to some of you, but I’ve found Cassandra! She is at large promoting atheism on another website, which explains that she was too busy to maintain Atheist Mama.
I personally don’t actually believe her, because she is now doing there pretty much what she was doing here, so I can’t understand how being too busy was / is an issue.
However, it’s good to have located her, and, most importantly, to know that she is well. That’s really all that matters.
Just thought I’d let you know.
Greetings, all. (No response to my post about Professor Flew?)
Stephen
on August 22nd, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Finding Cassandra isn’t old news to me, Stephen!
Where exactly did you find her? She has never responded to any attempt I made to contact her.
on August 25th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Hi Allen,
Cassandra never responded to me, either.
The annoying thing is, I’ve lost her again. So sorry.
I’ll dig around and see if she appears. If she does, I’ll let you (all) know.
Greetings,
Stephen
on August 25th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Might be worth a try at:
http://www.myspace.com/theatheistmama
or:
MySpace.com
Stephen
on September 15th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Is there anybody there?
on September 16th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
I’m here, Stephen, and I did visit the myspace page you listed above. I must admit I really don’t understand why she has abadoned the site she started.
Be that as it may, I have a proposal for you. Since you seem to be the only regular commenter around here, and I seem to be the only poster, why don’t we simply dedicate this site to our conversations?
If you agree, you may decide the topic of our next thread in your response.
I will post it, and offer my response. We may continue the conversation as long as we like. At some point, I will pick the topic of the next post, you will reply, and so on. Others may join in if they wish, of course.
Let me know what you think.
Allen
on September 17th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Hi Allen,
Really good to hear from you.
I don’t really get it with Cassandra either. It’s a pity. However, that’s up to her, and I daresay she has her own good reasons.
I’m certainly up for what you suggest. Thank you for doing so.
As a starter for discussion, then;
Would I be correct in assuming you do not believe in the existence of life after death?
If so, would I be correct in assuming that you do not, therefore, believe in any sort of eternal judgement? (Let’s say - if there is no God, there is no Judge.)
If my assumptions are correct, is it not hugely, wholly and utterly unfair that evil deeds remain unpunished and un-judged?
I appreciate the element of a tormented conscience in this debate, and the benefits of a clear conscience, but if Judgement does not exist (because there exists no Judge), haven’t the unrepentant evildoers got off, as free as can be?
Good to hear from you.
Greetings, as ever.
on November 7th, 2008 at 10:09 am
If Athiest do not believe in God, the son, the Holy Spirit, Heaven. Why do you try so hard to push some one out you say does not exist? All I can say, for the Athiest working so hard to push out what you say is this unexistant God. You must be doubting yourselves, or you would not be offended, upset, or anything else for some one you do not believe in. We as Christians living in what is suppose to be a free country have the right to believe, aknowledge, praise, discuss, etc. our God. For those of you who are unbelievers, If you’re right, (which I do not beleive you are) you would have nothing to lose. When Jesus returns to take his people home, You have “everything to lose. How sad unbelivers can not give this God that has nothing but peace,happiness, eternal blessings, complete goodness to offer. What are you so afraid of?
on November 7th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Thank you, Trena, for illustrating so vividly the hackneyed arguments atheists like myself find so tedious.