supernatural trump card
One of my blog muses regularly inspires me with his knowledge of the correct interpretation of the Bible and his use of the supernatural trump card. This fantastic little card is available to all Christians to help them out of sticky situations when discussing their faith, while retaining a modicum of logical dignity.
The Christian deity can be neatly summed up by the following points:
- there is only one god, but there are three gods, one of whom is the son of the one god, and also the physical son of a virgin
- the son of the one god, who is at one with his father god, as a man was divinely inspired by the one god his father, but didn’t know everything that he as the one god knew, because he was a separate son god on earth
- the third god that is part of the one god is an invisible god or the breath of a god, but also a separate god that exists in a state of unity with the father god and the physical son god, as one god.
If none of that really makes any sense to you, you will realise that this is all the result of fabricating one religion on top of an existing religion, while trying desperately to avoid looking like a Roman pantheon of gods, so that control and the illusion of unity of purpose could be maintained.
If you not clear which part of the deity description is illogical, you are using your supernatural trump card: my god is magic and does not need to make sense.
Simply beautiful
LikeLike
Thank you so much! I’m assuming you mean the photo because the words wouldn’t quite merit such an opinion. I really appreciate photo appreciators as they seldom visit my blog, and it’s 50% of my work. 🙂
LikeLike
Mmm. But my whole life is magical, and does not make sense, and if I try to make sense of it or describe it or put it into words I lose some of it.
The real supernatural trump card is John 16:33, though I think there are other verses with a similar burden. “You shall have suffering in the world, but take heart, I have overcome the world.” That is, the more you disparage me, the more I know I am right.
LikeLike
Well exactly. My point wasn’t to suggest the supernatural trump card has no merit, it’s a fact that it exists and provides an explanation for those with faith. What I object to is people trying to make sense out of it.
LikeLike
My other card says: Harry Potter is magic and his nemesis even says: ‘Only I can live forever’. Come to think of it Harry Potter has more pages than the bible, is more readable and it’s not because us muggles can’t see him,doesn’t mean he isn’t real. Now, God, get your wand out!
LikeLike
I guess the difference is that those who testify to having a true relationship with the real world spirit of Harry are few and far between. Although there’s time for that to catch on …
LikeLike
It makes sense (although you have to think hard about it). I’ve written a couple of posts on this. I agree that appeal to mystery-the supernatural trump card-is poor form.
LikeLike
If you have to think hard about and throw some magic in, in doesn’t make sense. I personally think the use of this fine card does not demonstrate poor form – it’s a fact that the god God you believe in is supernatural so there are some things you probably wouldn’t be able to explain using logic or common sense.
LikeLike
No magic required! Most things worth understanding require hard thinking. God is no different.
LikeLike
No magic? What would you call it then, Ben?
LikeLike
If you want to understand, it takes effort. Furthermore, belief is not necessarily required to understand. For example, you could study theology (even without believing in God). You could study it as a system of though. Simply scoffing from the sidelines does very little to demonstrate incoherence.
LikeLike
Then help me to understand this magic that is not magic. I’m all ears….
LikeLike
I’m not sure I follow this. Could you scoff at some atheist facts so that I can understand? Haha, we came from monkeys, how ridiculous! – would that be the equivalent?
LikeLike
Yeah, i didn’t quite understand the scoffing part, either.
LikeLike
I guess that would be the distinction between the “supernatural card” and the “supernatural trump card”.
Supernatural card (good form): “How did Jesus raise from the dead? That’s not scientifically possible.” “It was supernatural.”
Supernatural trump card (bad form): “What basis would God have for requiring a blood sacrifice? I don’t understand the rationale.” “You don’t have to; it’s supernatural!”
See the difference? The former is an honest explanation; the latter is an excuse for not explaining.
LikeLike
What trollop, Whisky. Both examples are equally unsatisfactory…. doubly so considering not a single supernatural event has ever been recorded in human history. If you could cite just one instance when the laws of nature have been befuddled then your position would strengthen some, but until that moment its just all “magic.”
LikeLike
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. You think Christians should try to explain how the resurrection was physically possible?
There’s a difference between evidence and explanation.
LikeLike
I can explain how dragons breathe fire….. that doesn’t make dragons real.
LikeLike
No one said it did.
LikeLike
…as such both your examples are “bad form”
LikeLike
You’re missing the point.
The point is not, “It was supernatural, therefore it happened.”
The point is, “If it happened, it was supernatural.”
The former is an asspull; the second is an accurate statement.
LikeLike
I’m not even going to give your the room to say “If it happened.” To allow that is to entertain your appeal to the supernatural…. and so i repeat, there hasn’t been a single supernatural event recorded in human history. End of story. That’s it.
LikeLike
Your repeated assertion has nothing to do with the question.
If Jesus came back to life after being crucified and dead for half a week, it was a supernatural event. Do you agree or disagree?
LikeLike
It has everything to do with it. You’re evoking magic, and as no magic has ever been recorded proceeding further into the hypothetical “IF” is ludicrous, to say the least. So, to give you a lifeline here, if you can cite one example of magic ever occurring then I’ll entertain your “If”….
LikeLike
I’m puzzled by your seemingly dogmatic opposition to entertaining a simple hypothetical.
If you saw someone killed, embalmed, and interned, and then saw them alive several days later, would you conclude that it was a supernatural event, or would you insist on a naturalistic explanation? If it was the latter, then I have to be very suspicious of your request for me to cite an “example of magic”….because apparently nothing would ever convince you to abandon your naturalistic presupposition.
LikeLike
I’m puzzled by why your persisting with an “IF” that is beyond all logic and rational human thought. We can easily talk about aliens because we can deduce by numbers alone there probably must be life elsewhere. Add to this the confirmed presence of amino acids in space and the likelihood of life only increases. What you’re entertaining is something that has no basis in reality, at all. Nothing supernatural has ever occurred.
Now seriously, I’ve thrown you a lifeline, so use it. Cite one magical event to have ever occurred and I’ll jump into your hypothetical. Until then this bus isn’t going anywhere.
LikeLike
I’m curious to know what you WOULD accept as evidence of a “magical” event.
LikeLike
What a silly question
LikeLike
It’s a very serious question. You’re the one asking for an example of the supernatural. I’m asking what evidence you would accept. Simple.
Falsifiability is rather important, you know. If you can’t come up with a standard you’d accept, then I’m left with the conclusion that your naturalism is based more in faith than in reason.
In other news, I started watching that Carrier video. Writing a post on it.
LikeLike
Turning my house into the London Philharmonic (playing Barbers Adagio) would be a magical event.
LikeLike
(that piece really hurt my shoulder, bad memories of long, slow bow strokes in a school orchestra that didn’t make sense of the beauty of the piece)
LikeLike
You play? You glorious thing, you!
LikeLike
past tense
LikeLike
Still doing better than me. The soaring tango rhythms haven’t inspired you to tease a string again?
LikeLike
Haha, funny you should mention that, I brought my violin over about two years ago planning to do just that, and didn’t take it out the case once! We’re going back to Scotland next week, and I’m going to have to leave here unattended for a year a two. Poor, neglected instrument that it is …
LikeLike
You’re going back to Scotland for a year or two? What are you, a Deputy Ambassador or something? 😉
LikeLike
Yeah! Me, I’m dead fancy like that. 🙂 No, I’m just someone who refuses to stay put and has a grass-is-greener complex, and my boyfriend doesn’t do argument as good as me.
LikeLike
That poor, poor, poor man 🙂
LikeLike
How weird, that’s what he keeps saying!
LikeLike
Hahahaa!
LikeLike
So if I arranged for the London Philharmonic to fly over and sneak into your house….
Really, what’s the criteria you use?
LikeLike
Don’t be a dick. Snap your fingers and turn my house instantly into the London Philharmonic….. and remove the planet altogether to have them floating in space, being conducted by the Once’ler.
LikeLike
That’s your necessary condition? Tall order, sir. Tall order.
LikeLike
(Maybe if I have a chat with him I could get him to agree to a downgrading – like someone, other than David Copperfield, coming back from the dead. (but probably based on dodgy evidence given 2000 years ago, don’t think that would hold any water!))
LikeLike
Speaking for myself, my naturalism is completely based on faith. Faith that all the evidence for the physical world I see before my eyes is correct, faith that the highly educated scientific community isn’t telling me porkies, and faith that the fact that no-one can prove to me that magic or supernatural exists proves that magic and the supernatural do not exist. Kind of crazy, I know …
LikeLike
Only the last bit. The rest is perfectly reasonable.
What would it take to unseat that faith?
LikeLike
For someone who *understands* magic, you didn’t get John’s idea at all, did you? His house would *be* the orchestra, playing the music. That’s his condition.
I’ll think about it and maybe credit you another post.
LikeLike
I’ll look forward to the post.
Here’s the question I’m really interested in. What would you accept as sufficient evidence for a supernatural event at some point in history, such as the resurrection?
LikeLike
Honestly, you’re the best!
LikeLike
Besides, what about me? I’m a highly educated member of the scientific community. =P
LikeLike
Aww, yes you are PeW! And don’t let anyone tell you anything different.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Let me rephrase: show me the “magical” event you’re talking about
LikeLike
“If you saw someone killed, embalmed, and interned, and then saw them alive several days later, would you conclude that it was a supernatural event, or would you insist on a naturalistic explanation?”
Oh my bejesus god Pew!! What on earth are you thinking?? Even I, with my predisposition to want to see supernatural, would definitely under all circumstances look for a natural explanation! If there is no evidence to suggest that this is possible and every time anything remotely similar has happened an explanation has been found, why would you imagine it was supernatural? Are you at least familiar with the work of David Copperfield?? I bet he could do that no problem – would you expect me to abandon my naturalistic presupposition?
Apart from that, you can perhaps help me with my recollection that the first person to see Jesus thought he was a gardener. Magically forgotten what he looked like or mistaken identity?
LikeLike
Of course we would look for a supernatural explanation. But I didn’t ask if you’d look for it; I asked if you’d insist on it.
What WOULD be fair evidence?
In re: Jesus….bad lighting?
LikeLike
And if I’m really evoking magic, as opposed to invoking it….please, tell me where! I’ve got to see this. 🙂
LikeLike
Yes, i realised the mistake after hitting post 😦
LikeLike
What I figured. 😉 Just too good to pass up though.
LikeLike
Or in other words:
god sacrificed himself
to himself
to save humanity from himself
The logic is tight
LikeLike
I didn’t even get to that bit, which is a shame. Maybe a follow up post based your work is required ….
LikeLike
Politely titled: The madness of the god, God
LikeLike
This is disappointing. I was hoping you would address the points I had asked you about.
I would only be playing the “supernatural trump card” if I was trying to end the discussion. Asking questions is rather the opposite of that.
And “correct interpretation” is really a misnomer. I don’t claim interpretation.
LikeLike
Asking questions is often referred to as ‘vicious circle’ or ‘going nowhere’. Please don’t think that your questions always take the discussion to a new or valid place. 🙂
If you don’t want to claim it’s *your* interpretation, can I say “with his correct understanding of the Bible”?
(You must have been a little bit flattered that I consider you a muse. 🙂 )
LikeLike
I don’t ask insincere questions. At least, not to you. I sometimes let myself have a little fun with Ark, though.
Does “historical-contextual approach to determining a document’s original meaning” work? =P
Yes, a little flattered.
LikeLike
“historical-contextual approach to determining a document’s original meaning with the supposition that this will lead to the ‘correct’ understanding of the words” (i.e. *your* interpretation)
LikeLike
No, with the supposition that this will determine a document’s original meaning.
LikeLike
I’m a flying squirrel. Those who don’t believe this just don’t understand me.
LikeLike
Well, if you can present some evidence, I’m open to having faith in your words …
LikeLike
I agree with you critical analysis of the Christian God; which is an invention of Paul; Jesus did not present that concept.
LikeLike
Well said Violet. Love that photo! It’s stunning! Great shot! 😀
LikeLike
Pingback: Atheists read this | Clare Flourish
Hi Violetwisp,
I haven’t read the comments, so my apologies if I’m repeating what others have said.
All three of your points are predicated on the assumption that Trinitarian Christians believe that there are three Gods which are one God, which would be an explicit contradiction. This is incorrect: the doctrine of the Trinity is not that there are three Gods that are one God, but rather that there is one God that is three persons.
“the son of the one god, who is at one with his father god, as a man was divinely inspired by the one god his father, but didn’t know everything that he as the one god knew, because he was a separate son god on earth”
The claim is not that the Son was a “separate god” but that the second person of the Trinity was one person with two natures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Chalcedon
No “supernatural trump card” is necessary: the doctrine of the Trinity is simply nothing like the caricature you present here.
Regards,
Cale.
LikeLike
Pingback: lacking love | violetwisp
I’ve read it through.
Ye gods …
And I still think that the sweet naive Mary fell for a couple of smooth talking door-to-door pedlars; and when she became with bump had to think fast but luckily for her Joseph was even more naive than she.
But I often ponder, did their ‘son’ ever use naughty words when he missed the nail and thumped his thumb instead? (Carpentry … not a job for meek and mild sissies, I tells ya!)
LikeLike