Posts
While surfing the net today, I found it interesting to note the priority of subjects listed on the homepage of the American Atheists Website, a site that discusses things like Atheism, Youth and Family, The Courthouse, Coming Out, The Church, Islam and the Koran, The American Atheists Magazine, etc.)
Would you like to guess the order of their list?
Their list by order is as follows:
A WELCOME FROM THE PRESIDENT
THE VISITORS CENTER
WHAT’S NEW - At The American Atheists Web.
THE COURTHOUSE
THE SCHOOLHOUSE
YOUTH AND FAMILY
THE BONE PIT
THE CHURCH
THE PUBLIC SQUARE
COMING OUT
ISLAM AND THE KORAN
STATE WEB SITES
THE SHOPPING CATALOGUE
ATHEISM - Articles about Atheism and Atheists.
MEMBERSHIP
SEARCH - Search through our site!
AMERICAN ATHEISTS FLASH LINE
THE AMERICAN ATHEIST MAGAZINE
CONTACT CONGRESS
NOGOD BLOG
RSS NEWS FEEDS
QUESTION: Shouldn't legitimate belief systems (and interest groups/organizations)not only be able to stand on their beliefs and set those beliefs as the foremost concern? Isn't it interesting that immediately following the basic welcome information, you find the "courthouse", the "schoolhouse", "youth and family", the "church", and "the marketplace" as the first subjects discussed (and in that order), and that it's not until the fourteenth subject in the list that you find the subject of "Atheism", ... and this on an American ATHEISTS website!
Do you think think this is by chance, or design? Do you think their battle is one they first and foremost intend to fight on the level of the mind, or through legislation and indotrination?
Food for thought....
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Food For Thought
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
How about a few definitions first? I'll help them out:
THE COURTHOUSE: Our Sovereign Lawgiver (except in the recent Partial Birth Abortion ruling)
THE SCHOOLHOUSE: Our Place of Worship. We want your kids, like it or not.
YOUTH AND FAMILY: Any group of people living together.
THE CHURCH: Enemy #1
THE PUBLIC SQUARE: Where only our views are allowed to be displayed.
Obviously a top-down system, where Atheism is on top, and everything else follows suit.
??confused??
When I click on it now, it has the order of subjects on the left-hand column alphabetically from “Action Alerts” to “Youth & Fam.” Was their another page I am missing?
One of your contributors is a Pastor. Out of reciprocal curiosity, I went to that church’s home page to see its list of subjects:
Pastor’s Welcome
Church Membership
Service Times
Directions
What we Believe
Church Ministries
Study Resources
Photo Galleries
http://www.brandonpres.com/
Another church is listed in your blog links, so I clicked on it as well. After a bit of searching for a subject’s page for this church, I came across this:
http://www.mbbchurch.com/?page_id=6
Under “Look Around” we have:
Pastor’s Place
Leadership
New Worship Center
Worship
Audio/Visual
Special Events
Sermons
Our Ministries
Kingdom Kids
TLC
Upward
Xtreme Youth
College & Career
About
Contact Us
I am uncertain how to phrase this and not sound rude, but isn’t this a bit petty? If I listed these websites and started bashing Christians for what their churches list as a priority, simply by an order of subjects on a web page…well…would you be convicted by that? Or find that a bit…hmm…not persuasive?
Should I find an order of subjects on web pages to be “food for thought” as well?
dagoods,
??confused??
I BELIEVE YOU ARE... & here's why:
1. While I don't care to speak for all Christian websites, I do know a little about the Brandon website. It's interesting that while you mention the subjects placed on the periphery, you fail either to have noticed or referred to the information centrally located (where the eyes first fall on the page) that says the following:
"A congregation of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) and the Mississippi Valley Presbytery (MVP).
Magnifying Christ in our lives and in our Ministries that God might be glorified and that his people might be made holy!
"Confidently, On the Move,
Making Disciples for Christ!"
(stating the church's identity, goals and mission/vision)
And while that's not to say the website is perfect, I also happen to have inside information that both the homepage and site as a whole are currently under new design, and in so, if it were not already clear enough, it will be made clearer that:
"BPC is the body of Christ, rising to become a holy temple in the Lord, in Brandon, for God's glory and gospel" along with the fact that following the great commission, the church is "Confidently, On the Move Making Disciples for Christ."
2. While on the one hand, one might call it petty, (BTW: everyone recognizes this is a tertiary observation vs. a foremost issue/argument), on another level, failing to recognize there's a difference between subjects like the courthouse, the schoolhouse,... and the public square," and "what we believe, church ministries and study resources" could suggest a little more than confusion. However, I don't believe this to be the case with you, for if I'm not mistaken, while you begin by saying "??confused??", the remainder of your post suggests (/reveals) your motive was clearly not confusion, but confusion was simply employed as a pretense for making of an accusation of hipocrisy. Nothing wrong with making such an accusation, but it seems to me the only confusion is that either you've mistaken us as being naive, or this blog as one, like others, which humors and entertains methods of deception to attack underhandedly. I'm not shy of attacks, but prefer to deal straightforwardly.
3. Reference was not being made to the site buttons on the left, but to the much larger letters in "blue" font, just below the press releases and legal updates (centrally positioned on the homepage), subjects which were not alphabetically ordered, but following the general welcomes and information begin with "The Courthouse".
Please note, this response is not intended to run you off, for I deeply value your participation and input (which will keep it real, provide for good discussion, and provide a measure of accountability). But unlike many of the debate boards, I hope we can focus more time on the issues rather than the games.
4. While I do not know you, from the position you've argued, it appears that even beyond this thread, there's confusion as to the Lord of glory and his present reign and authority. If you knew him, you would not only recognize there is much that lies even beyond the simple words and subjects within the battle, but you would accept the words the he gives through which you would find peace, acceptance and eternal joy. My hope is that you come to know these things, but first you must come to know Him.
Swordbearer
I was confused because I was looking at the list of subjects on the side. Now I see that what you were talking about was scrolling down farther on the body of the website.
A little background. I am sure that you have seen or been involved in the traditional Internet argument in the area of theism. We often see two participants begin to talk past each other:
“Atheism is not a legitimate belief.”
”Christian is not a legitimate belief.”
“Is too!”
“Is not!”
“Uh-huh.”
“Uh-uh.”
The conversation is distinguished from the playground fight solely by the amount of vocabulary. Many have barely gotten past: ”I’m rubber; You’re Glue. Bounces off me; Sticks to you.”
In order to avoid such discussions I look for methodology. What is the method or set of criteria a person is using by which they base the claim they are making? In other words, how do we make the determination as to the legitimacy of a belief. Not merely assertions, but a basis by which we can make those arguments (or abandon them.)
And in that constant search for methodology I have discovered something: it is Christianity’s perpetual Achilles Heel. Either they develop a method that is designed for solely the result desired OR they cannot stay consistent within the method proposed. This blog entry is a good example of both.
Method after the fact.
I see people propose a method in order for their own system to prevail. For example, if I told you that the method by which we determine whether evolution is valid is by what the majority of scientists believe. You may suspect that I already know that the vast majority (95%) of scientists believe in evolution, and knowing that is the reason I proposed such a method.
Not surprisingly my “method” comes out with the results that (not coincidently) I desire.
Or, suppose a Christian proposes a method to determine viability of a theistic belief is that it must have God appear in the form of man, die as payment for humankind’s sin, and then be resurrected in order to provide the hope of eternal after-life. I would naturally think that they are deliberately proposing a method in order to validate their own belief.
I read your blog entry, attempting to determine the point of what you were saying. First you mentioned the American Atheist Website, listed topics, and then made the following sentence. I presumed this was the key to the entry:
Swordbearer: Shouldn't legitimate belief systems (and interest groups/organizations)not only be able to stand on their beliefs and set those beliefs as the foremost concern?
By emphasizing that “atheism” was not until the fourteenth item, I sensed that the list was being viewed as an order of priority.
I read the “method” being proposed from this entry being, “One of the criterion for a belief system to be legitimate, is listing its beliefs at a primary point in its website.”
Was I reading this incorrectly? Were you proposing another method? I truly cannot imagine what it could possibly be…
I think this method came up after the fact. After you read the website, you saw that “atheism” was listed as 14th and decided to raise the question as to why it was not listed first. As if this was somehow demonstrative of this not being a “legitimate belief system.”
I seriously doubt that you were sitting around, contemplating how to legitimize a belief system and thought, “Gee, one good indication is whether they list their goals, beliefs and intentions at a primary point in their website. I wonder what the American Atheists do? Maybe I’ll pop over and have a look.” Lo and behold, a belief system you hold as not legitimate happened to confirm your suspicion. That’s not what happened, is it?
Now this is NOT necessarily indicative of a bad methodology. We may often note anomalies and develop a hypothesis, testing it against other situations to see if it remains constant.
In looking at the Michigan Atheist’s site (http://www.michiganatheists.org/) I see that prominently displayed at the very top is the Statement of Purpose. Does the Michigan Atheists’ organization qualify for this criterion, but American Atheists’ does not? Does that mean a Michigan atheist (under this method) may have a legitimate belief system, whereas an American atheist (under this method) does not?
We should test the method against other situations, bringing me to my second point on methodology:
Method not applied consistently to one’s own belief.
As I pointed out in my last comment, I took this proposed method, “One of the criterion for a belief system to be legitimate, is listing its beliefs at a primary point in its website” and looked at those two websites.
I found it fascinating that you state Brandon is updating their website to make their purpose clearer. Under this method, does that change mean acknowledgement they, too are NOT a legitimate belief system, but are in the process of becoming so by changing their site?
Further, you listed an order of subjects. The only equivalent I could find on Brandon’s webpage was the list of subjects to the left. Yes, I did see the short blurb of information in the middle.
HOWEVER, on the American Atheist website, to the right (prior and beside the links referred to in your blog entry) we see the statement:
Since 1963, AMERICAN ATHEISTS has been the premier organization laboring for the civil liberties of Atheists, and the total, absolute separation of government and religion. It was born out of a court case begun in 1959 by the Murray family which challenged prayer recitation in the public schools. That case – Murray v. Curlett – was a landmark in American jurisprudence on behalf of our First Amendment rights. It began:
"Your petitioners are Atheists, and they define their lifestyle as follows. An Atheist loves himself and his fellow man instead of a god. An Atheist accepts that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth – for all men together to enjoy. An Atheist accepts that he can get no help through prayer, but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and to enjoy it. An Atheist accepts that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment."
You skipped that in your blog entry. I figured I should be skipping the equivalent in Brandon’s website.
Do you see how this method is NOT being applied consistently? According to what I seem to be reading, on the Brandon’s website, I should be looking at the short blurb and NOT the list of subjects. But on the American Atheist site, I should be looking at the list of subjects and NOT the blurb.
Why the difference? If this is the method you are proposing, shouldn’t I attempt to apply it equally to these Church websites?
Or are we now going to say that the problem is that the American Atheists’ website fails because it is to the right as compared to the center? That atheists miss out on being a legitimate belief system by a matter of a few inches! Nuts! In the words of Maxwell Smart: “Missed it by THAT much!” *grin*
(Course I can’t help but note that Martin Bluff on its home page ALSO has the short blurb to the right. http://www.mbbchurch.com/ Sigh. Poor people have to join us atheists as not having a legitimate belief system by a matter of inches.)
In your recent comment, I see a slight shift in methods. You seem to be stating that there is a difference of subjects. O.K. But isn’t that to be expected? Why is the fact that the subjects are different make one legitimate or one not?
Now, in your blog entry, you say that American Atheists are not battling in the mind, but in legislation. Yep, they are. Not sure how that makes it a non-legitimate belief system. In fact, this is actually a point against Christianity. (Sorry.)
We don’t have a god on our side. No grand wizard. No awesome Creator. No omnipotence to request. We only have us. Humans. Two hands, 24 hours, 80 years or so. Therefore it ONLY makes sense that we work through human creations to better our position. Human governments. Human courts. Human governors, senators, and congresspeople.
Of course that is why the website focuses on those areas.
But what does a Christian have? They have Truth (with a capital “T”). They have God on their side! A personage that could literally make my very atoms disappear with but a mere glimmer of a passing thought. A Creature that can create a universe. Let’s repeat that—a creature that has created 100 billion galaxies with 100 billion stars in each.
And this awesome, inconceivable, unfathomable creature is on your side! You have his ear, his blessing and his mandate. What an outstanding advantage over me! Yet what do I see Christians doing? Why—there they are petitioning for judges just like me. They want a change in laws, so they are calling their representative. Just like me. They are writing brochures, voting their candidates, and writing to the editor. Just. Like. Me.
There is nothing wrong with that—they are just entitled to do so, like me. But…uh…*cough, cough*…why would they need to? This is like Paris Hilton getting a job washing dishes. Sure, she could use the money just like me…but…uh…daddy’s rich. Seems a lit incongruous.
What I see are Christians that think the Moral Majority has more power than God.
We don’t have that power. So our subjects are different…
Swordbearer, I was not accusing you of hypocrisy. I can’t remember the last time I even used that word. Not at all. What I am saying is that I see an apparent method. I applied it to your own belief. That application would come up with the same results. Both fail this criterion of “legitimate belief system.”
The method is not being used consistently.
More: While I do not know you, from the position you've argued, it appears that even beyond this thread, there's confusion as to the Lord of glory and his present reign and authority.
Who I am is not relevant. The arguments should rise and fall on their own. Whether I am a fellow Christian, a deist, a Catholic, a Hindu or an agnostic.
But if you really want my bona fides:
I was a Baptist fundamentalist Calvinist from salvation at age 5 to age 37. I was a Sunday school teacher, Youth leader, Small group Leader, rare preacher, usher, deacon candidate (rotten timing on that one), cook, janitor and groundskeeper as the occasion warranted.
I attended a Christian elementary, a Christian High School, a Christian College and a Catholic Law School.
During age 38 I deconverted, eventually landing at my current position of strong atheist. I enjoy the discussion surrounding theism. I enjoy discussing with people of a variety of beliefs in this regard. Sadly, I wish that ALL (Agnostics to Zionists) would do better. I see many straw people, many accusations, and a debate that is spiraling out of control. While the Internet has provided an extraordinary opportunity to talk to people who believe very differently, it has also created an atmosphere of anonymity by which we can attack, bruise and smash, all under the banner of “I’m right.”
The only reason I am at this blog at all is because of J.D. I cannot imagine two people having more diametrically opposing views on theism that can still talk as brothers.
I am a guy that thinks you have better arguments than what websites say.
bDagoods,
I appreciate you comments.
I only have time for a quick response, so here goes:
1. You seem to have missed the point in my post. My post deal primarily with the methodology used by the American Atheists (and listed on their site), not the question of whether it is a legitimate belief system or not (a question which certainly can be related, but was not the foremost concern of my post.
2. I believe you are confusing my posts. When you quote me as saying "Shouldn't legitimate belief systems (and interest groups/organizations)not only be able to stand on their beliefs and set those beliefs as the foremost concern?", ... this is from my post on Islam, not on the American Atheists.
3. The matter of "who you are" came into play when you introduced the possibility that you were "??confused??".
Your testimony, while it may be persuasive to a degree to some seekers, is common to many other testimonies on infidel sites where atheists (most often strong, though sometimes others as well) attempt to use this type testimony to establish or convey credibility and authority on the issues; however your testimony is also common in another way, in that it provides much concerning the tradtion and experience of religion, but fails to speak of the regeneration that is common to all true believers. God says through the prophet Zechariah of those to whom he will pour out his blessings and victories (not just outward ones, but inward as well) that "They will look on me [Christ], the one wthey have pierced, and they will mourn form him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son." While your testimony speaks of the outward experience that is common to both believers and unbelievers alike (who participate in the outward elements of religion), it lacks the brokenness, belief, and baptism of repentance that must comes to those whom God not only gives mercy and grace, but also accompanies with a spirit of repentance; or as Calvin puts it "God wold not only shew mercy to his people, but also make them sensible of his mercy."
4. You've got a good friend in JD Longmire. I appreciate the fact that in God's love, he is able to relate and share with so well with those of different beliefs.
Swordbearer,
Three quick points from most important to least:
1) Swordbearer: My post deal primarily with the methodology used by the American Atheists (and listed on their site),…
I understood that. I simply applied the same methodology to two (2) Church sites of relative proximity to this blog. They equally failed the same methodology you proposed. (And, likewise, the Michigan Atheist website passed. Presumably other church sites would also pass.)
I wondered whether you would be consistent in this methodology and equally decry the two (2) church sites for doing the exact same thing.
To be brutally honest, I was not surprised when you did not. As I said—the Achilles heel of Christianity. Can’t consistently apply the same method to its own beliefs that it applies to others.
2) More: I believe you are confusing my posts. When you quote me as saying "Shouldn't legitimate belief systems (and interest groups/organizations)not only be able to stand on their beliefs and set those beliefs as the foremost concern?", ... this is from my post on Islam, not on the American Atheists.
Re-read your own blog entry. Right after the big bold word ”QUESTION:”
3) More: Your testimony…
*shrug* You seemed interested. I gave an abbreviated response. I empathize that what you believe requires you to maintain a certain position as to how I did Christianity incorrectly. Humorously, these common responses from Christians keep my feet firmly planted on the ground. They remind me that only a few years ago I would have said the same thing as you do to a person like me.
And Zechariah 12:10 was deliberately retrofitted by the author of the Gospel of John in his/her creation of the anecdote of the spear piercing Jesus side. (Did you realize none of the other Gospel writers noticed this event? Especially the author of Matthew who never met a scripture he couldn’t turn into a prophecy?)
Dagoods,
I. In response to your first comment,
(that you recognized I was dealing with methodology), this is NOT clear from your previous posts, where you begin by categorizing the discussion in the context of other experiences you'd had, such as:
"“Atheism is not a legitimate belief.”
”Christian is not a legitimate belief.”
“Is too!”
“Is not!”
“Uh-huh.”
“Uh-uh.”
You even assert that you thought the opposite when you said:
"In order to avoid such discussions I look for methodology. What is the method or set of criteria a person is using by which they base the claim they are making? In other words, how do we make the determination as to the legitimacy of a belief. Not merely assertions, but a basis by which we can make those arguments (or abandon them.)"
Even when you talk about methodology, you do so in the context of determining legitimacy:
"I see people propose a method in order for their own system to prevail. For example, if I told you that the method by which we determine whether evolution is valid ..."
Even in discussing the Brandon website, you do so in toward the end of an argument of legitimacy:
"I found it fascinating that you state Brandon is updating their website to make their purpose clearer. Under this method, does that change mean acknowledgement they, too are NOT a legitimate belief system, but are in the process of becoming so by changing their site?"
You do the same when you speak of my visiting the American Atheists site:
"I seriously doubt that you were sitting around, contemplating how to legitimize a belief system and thought, “Gee, one good indication is whether they list their goals, beliefs and intentions at a primary point in their website. I wonder what the American Atheists do? Maybe I’ll pop over and have a look.” Lo and behold, a belief system you hold as not legitimate happened to confirm your suspicion. That’s not what happened, is it?"
You go on at another point in speaking of methodology and look where you end up:
Swordbearer, I was not accusing you of hypocrisy. I can’t remember the last time I even used that word. Not at all. What I am saying is that I see an apparent method. I applied it to your own belief. That application would come up with the same results. Both fail this criterion of “legitimate belief system.”
The list could go on (I think the point is clear).
Let me conclude this point a few ways:
1. While I think you have good reasoning skills and would make a pretty good debater, I think it's clear that here YOU are the one who is now being inconsistent and changing your story (& plan, etc.) to fit your agenda. This does not surprise me, for in arguing with atheists over the last several years, I've often found that it's the very issue that they accuse Christians of that is the point where they are the most guilty. Neither I, nor anyone else should have been surprised by your response to this.
2. If you can't see there's a difference between the ministry of the Brandon Presbyterian Church, who to my knowledge has not filed a single lawsuit, ever, but rather weekly and daily is seeks to set for the gospel through preaching, teaching, discipleship, apologetics, giving money toward missions, etc., and the American Atheists who are constantly involved in lawsuits, then you need help!
3. While I admit there's often a relationship between methodology and legitimacy (and ultimately, everyone knows that without saying it, this point could be inferred), this was not what I stated nor even intended to be the point of discussion. When I address the legitimacy (or lack thereof in this case!) of their belief, I do not need to look to tertiary issues, there are enough holes in Atheistism itself to drive a truck through.
II. On your second response regarding the quote, I stand corrected on this. (As I stated, I was in a hurry and had to be brief, and did not take the time to look it up).
My point still stands though, if Atheism were a belief system, not only solid in itself, but with effective and persuasive power among the people, then it would not have to look to and lean so heavily upon the courts, but like Christianity, could be promoted by presentation to people, rather than focusing so much on the courts.
III. In regard to your personsal experience and response:
1. I do not not need your empathy. Rather, you need to be reconciled to the Lord, who looks not to those who have looked simply to religion, or who claim to have once walked in the faith, but to those who possess the spirit and truth in their hearts.
2. Regarding Zechariah, not only is your exegesis lacking in that you fail to recognize difference between the gospel of John and the synoptic gospels, but the purpose of John and the reason that he himself states not only in writing his gospel (Jn 20:31)but including this reference (Jn 19:36-37).
Regarding your statement about John retrofitting the reference, had John himself not stated his purpose, your statement might be convincing to people (especially the unlearned today), except for the HUNDREDS of other O.T. prophesies all concerning the Messiah, which Jesus himself fulfilled (which statisticians would say is amazing if not convincing in itself). By the way, your statement about John retrofitting it is "your opinion", which can be contrasted with not only John's own opinion, and that of the church fathers and church history, but of the unity and progressive unveiling of the revelation of the gospel not only throughout Scripture but consistent with the remainder of the Scripture as well. In other words, your opinion and statement fails miserably in the light not only of enlightened exegesis, but of truth itself.
It's funny how you yourself, even point to the myriad of other O.T. references that Matthew referred to as being fulfilled in Christ. I suppose in your opinion, he too was retrofitting all those prophesies. :))
Not only this but your logic fails in that just because Matthew, who does make a large number of direct references and allusions to the Old Testament, doesn't quote this particular verse, does not negate the fact that John can quote it and still be truthful. No where does Matthew state his objective is to relate how ALL of the O.T. applies to Jesus.
Such reasoning as you have demonstrated reveals and is in agreement with what I find so often, and that is that poor exegesis and application often is found to be either the basis behind the beliefs of Atheists, or it is simply employed by Atheists to support their erroneous position.
Swordbearer,
We seem to be in a perpetual state of inability to communicate—you and I.
Apparently, again I missed the point. O.K. Help me out. Three questions:
1) What is it, exactly in this blog entry are you are claiming the homepage of the American Atheists’ website is doing?
2) What is it exactly in this blog entry are you claiming this demonstrates?
3) Under this method, how exactly is the American Atheists’ website differentiated from the Brandon, Martin Bluff and Michigan Atheist website?
(And yes, I understand that content of the various sites will be different. In your blog entry you focus on “priority of subjects” and “order of list” and “foremost concern” and “first subjects discussed”—all your words, but my emphasis.
Perhaps a bit of judicious courtesy to recognize why I thought you were focusing on the ORDER of the subjects, in reviewing your own blog entry.)
Swordbearer: I think it's clear that here YOU are the one who is now being inconsistent and changing your story (& plan, etc.) to fit your agenda.
Hey, you’re leading this dance. I’m just trying to follow. It is why I was asking for clarification. I asked if I missed a page (I apparently had.) I asked how the blurb of Brandon was different than the blurb at American Atheists. (No response.) I asked how Michigan Atheists website passed or failed (No response.)
I even told you what I thought the method you proposed and asked if I was correct. Instead of taking the opportunity to explain how I could be incorrect, you informed me that I missed the point, and was confusing your posts. Turns out you hadn’t read your own blog entry!
What I have repeatedly attempted to do is review what you said the American Atheists did at their website, and see how it applies to other websites.
If I did not understand what you were saying, doesn’t at least some, small part rest on your not answering my questions looking for clarification?
More: If you can't see there's a difference between the ministry of the Brandon Presbyterian Church, … and the American Atheists who are constantly involved in lawsuits, then you need help!
Why certainly there is a difference! Is THAT what you were saying—“Look at the CONTENT of the subjects of the American Atheists”? Or were you talking about the ORDER of subjects. If it was just “content” then why do you use the words, “priority” and “order of their list” and “list by order” and “foremost” and “first”?
If it was just content, why ask the key question: Shouldn't legitimate belief systems (and interest groups/organizations)not only be able to stand on their beliefs and set those beliefs as the foremost concern? with emphasis on the “foremost concern”?
If it was just content, why would it matter that “Atheism” was listed Fourteenth? Or Fortieth? Or Four Hundredth?
If it was just content, why not list the order of subjects as they FIRST appear on the American Atheist homepage—that is alphabetical?
If it was just content, why ask the question “Do you think this was by chance, or design?” What is the “this” in that question? Content? Were you asking if the American Atheists listed their content by chance?
If this was just content, why ask whether the battle was “first and foremost” intended to fight on the level of the mind, or through legislation and indoctrination?
If this was just content, why would it matter WHAT the order was? What would have been the “food for thought”?
Swordbearer, could you exercise just a mite of Christian charity on a skeptic, and see how I could have…perhaps…thought you were talking about order and not content?
More: My point still stands though, if Atheism were a belief system, not only solid in itself, but with effective and persuasive power among the people, then it would not have to look to and lean so heavily upon the courts, but like Christianity, could be promoted by presentation to people, rather than focusing so much on the courts.
Ahh…Is this what you are saying? That an effective and persuasive belief system is one that is promoted by presentation to the people rather than focusing so much on the courts? Before I jump in (again) and get into trouble, I better make certain. Is that the method we are now using?
Zechariah Prophecy
He He. Yeah, I knew you couldn’t let that pass. Why not—in for a penny; in for a pound!
What are the odds that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies regarding the Messiah in the Tanakh? I have seen arguments that in order for Jesus to fulfill just eight of the prophecies, it would be the equivalent of picking one silver dollar out of so many silver dollars that the entire state of Texas would be five feet deep with silver dollars. (Albeit I have never seen exactly how those odds were calculated, nor what the specific eight prophecies were.)
Whatever it is, let’s assume that for Jesus to have fulfilled those eight prophecies would be some astronomical number to one. Say 10 billion trillion to 1. Now—what are the odds that someone could make up a story about a person fulfilling those prophecies? Easy—exactly one to one.
They have the prophecies. All they have to do is make up the story. Simple as pie. The key to this question is NOT whether a gospel recorded some fellow as fulfilling some prophecy—the question is whether the gospel is historically accurate. If the author was making up (or as I said, “retrofitting”) facts in order to claim that some prophecy or another was fulfilled, the “astronomical odds” of some person fulfilling that prophecy is reduced to exactly one to one. Make up a fact; plug it in. Nothing astonishing about that at all.
Now, that is not entirely true across the board. There were some prophecies about the Messiah that simply making up the facts would not suffice. For example, the fact that the entire world would worship YHWH or that peace would come to Israel. Sure, the authors could claim that Jesus did that, but it was obviously not true.
Thus the reason why the really BIG prophecies, the ones that the Jews still anticipate were not claimed to be fulfilled by Jesus. The reason the “Second Coming” became necessary—to claim the prophecies that cannot be explained away by elements of a story have not happened yet.
And yes, I (as well as numerous Bible scholars) see the author of Matthew “retrofitting” prophecies to the story of Jesus. The mis-translation of “virgin” birth. The Slaughter of the Innocents. The Mosaic comparison of coming out of Egypt. The author even pulls some out of the air! (“He will be called a Nazarene.”) Not to mention the famous gaff of Jesus riding two animals at the Triumphal entry. All of these are not easily explained away.
But let’s look at this particular prophecy fulfillment. I agree with you that a primary intent of the author was to claim that Jesus was the Son of God. Unfortunately, this doesn’t help your position. You see, this means the author had a bias toward that proposition. They were not neutral. They were not a skeptic. They were deliberately going out of their way to prove that Jesus was deity.
(And yes, I am aware of the difference between John and the Synoptics. This is one of them. Mark had Messianic Secrecy. John has Jesus openly proclaiming “I am” to the point of being almost stoned. Twice.)
So on the one hand we have an author that desires to demonstrate Jesus was the Son of God. Flatly states that intention.
Now let’s look at the spearing. Mark doesn’t have it. Matthew, copying Mark, adds details. Doesn’t have it. (I suspect you ride with the traditional authorship of Matthew being the disciple Levi. If so, then the author would have seen the Thomas situation of the actual spear mark. Yet no comment.) Luke, copying Mark, adds details. Doesn’t have it.
Now, does that necessarily mean it is not true? Of course not. But it raises suspicion when no one else makes mention of it. It raises greater suspicion in Matthew’s case, when he would be so prone to mentioning a fulfilled prophecy. Like saying my wife went to a party and saw Brad Pitt, but failed to mention it! Conspicuous by its absence.
Zechariah 12 is an oracle about the Day of the Lord. The day that Jerusalem rebounds their enemies and prevails. And Jerusalem will mourn because they had not turned back to YHWH sooner. The “piercing” of Zechariah 12:10 is of poetic nature, not prophetic.
That, of course, does not deter the author of John. What we see is an author that desires to paint Jesus as deity, is aware of Zechariah 12:10, (by almost quoting it verbatim. The author changes “me” to “him”) and uses that as a support for claiming Jesus was fulfilling prophecy!
The author has a bias, uses a passage that was not prophetic about the Messiah, declares it as prophecy and creates a story to fit the prophecy. Neat little package. If it was true…
And yes, Swordbearer, that is my opinion. Based upon numerous facts and arguments, not the least of which being firmly convinced the author was not an eyewitness to anything Jesus did. There are some who agree, some who disagree with me. That’s what makes horse races…
I am sure your saying “it really happened” to the Christians that read this blog who already believe it happened is convincing. ‘Course convincing those already convinced is not all that difficulty. Could you convince a neutral person, though? Could you stay consistent in your accepting this gospel as truth as compared to other claims of truth? Much tougher row to hoe.
The question is this—what are the facts/arguments that the author was recording actual history and what are the facts/arguments that the author was making up a tale in order to claim a fulfilled prophecy? Which set is more persuasive to an objective, neutral party?
Post a Comment