lurking 5: the will of a benevolent god
I’m more than delighted to have the opportunity to return to the lurking series, courtesy of some charming thoughts found here. Most Christians I’ve personally met tend to prefer a benevolent spin on the god God. But there are a lot of candid online Christians who don’t care how many people or other animals suffer, both in this life and their imagined next one, all at the hands of their invisible creator deity. I’ve hand-picked three particular gems for my discerning readers. Enjoy!
God created animals and made them delicious. PETA is a ridiculously absurd organization whose acronym ought to mean Poorly Educated Tantruming Adolescents.
and
Satan knows precisely how to twist one’s good intentions and turn them into an occasion of sin. At the end of the day, though, both the pro-life liar and the honest abortionist can just as easily find themselves in Hell, and at that point it will no longer matter what one’s intentions were. Satan loves good intentions, and Hell is brimming with people who, in their earthly lives, “meant well.”
and
To advocate for same-sex marriage after Christ himself already said what marriage is, is to stand at odds with the Church that he established…. As for the Church shrinking over this, that’s a good thing. Even Jesus said that many are called, and few are chosen. In the end, it’s not about numbers. As Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen once said by way of paraphrasing St. Augustine, “the truth is always the truth even if no one believes it, and a lie is always a lie even if everyone believes it.” The Church, that is, the real Church, is indeed shrinking and that’s a good thing, for at the end of the day the Lord’s work of separating the sheep from the goats will be made all the easier.
Where do you find these nutters?
LikeLike
All credit to Clare Flourish – she finds the most interesting blogs.
LikeLike
I pop into the tag surfer, http://wordpress.com/#!/read/following/ and look at the tag “homosexuality”. There is a great deal of Christian resentment at being less able to be nasty to us queers. I would find the tag “abortion” too depressing.
LikeLike
Well, I’m at least glad you think i’m one of the most interesting blogs. I suppose that’s better than being vanilla. BTW I’m still waiting for my t-shirt or apron (really want the apron)
LikeLike
I find people who cheerfully promote ideas that hurt other people to be ‘interesting’ (i.e. gobsmackingly ignorant and cruel – how does the human mind develop like this?). I’m stunned you choose to take this as a compliment and also expect reward in the form of cookware.
LikeLike
There’s nothing cruel about promoting holiness, or the fact that God loves all people. You need to calm down and get a sense of humor!
LikeLike
You were promoting that it’s cool for your church leaders to tell groups of young people (some of whom are undoubtedly gay) that if they believe gay people are entitled to get married, they aren’t welcome in the place they’ve been indoctrinated by their whole lives. That’s harmful, and I seriously don’t have a sense of humour about damaging young people, especially at such a sensitive time in their lives.
LikeLike
No, I never said they were not welcome. Come on, be honest. All are welcome at Mass. Marriage is instituted by God for a purpose. There are lots of straight people in the Church who are not married and they are no less welcome. You would do well to truly investigate what people are actually saying rather than making assumptions that suit your purpose.
LikeLike
Forgive my poor interpretations of your words – I read childish delight in their alienation from the bosom of your fine Church:
“At one point during the Q&A, His Excellency is reported to have suggested that those who dissent from Church teaching on the matter should leave the Church and become Protestants.
That’s what is known in hockey as a slapshot. Booyah!!!”
LikeLike
Again, no sense of humor. Look, in suggesting that people leave the Church, Bishop Paprocki is not implying that all are not welcome, they are welcome. But…and here’s the thing, being a member of the Church means being willing to submit one’s self to it’s teachings. If one is not, then it’s silly to pretend that one is Catholic. It’s like saying “I do” in marriage, and then going out and cheating on one’s spouse.
Membership in the Catholic Church is voluntary. This isn’t the 12th century where the line that separates the Church from the State is murky at best, and Catholicism is the State religion, and to dissent from it is tantamount to high treason punishable by death. If you want to be Catholic, be Catholic. If you don’t, then don’t. It’s totally up to you. What the Bishop is saying, however, is that being Catholic actually means something, there are parameters and if you are not willing to live within those parameters then you need to have the courage and the integrity to seek life elsewhere. It’s not that the Church doesn’t want people, it’s that people don’t want the Church. Okay, that’s fine. But if they don’t want the Church, then why don’t they leave? At some point this boils down to basic integrity and having the courage to live according to one’s convictions. To call one’s self Catholic and yet dissent from Church authority, and seek to undermine it’s teachings at every turn (instead of having the courage to vote with one’s feet and leave) is a supreme act of cowardice. I have far more respect for the person who says “I think what the Church teaches is nonsense, and I’m leaving!” than I do for the one who stays and then whines that the Magisterium doesn’t change to suit one’s own personal desires. It’s time for people grow up.
I applaud the Bishop for his courage and his integrity, and his leadership. God bless him!
LikeLike
Wrong again.
Is there absolutely nothing in the catechism, all thousand pages of it, with which you disagree? Imagine a person who accepts Catholicism, almost all of it, but recognises that God wants God’s church to accept gay people, and marry us? Just, leave? Really?
Just one of the problems with your thinking is that it is simplistic, references to mortal sin or Irenaeus and all. Accept, or reject and leave. Silly.
LikeLike
Clare, (may I call you Clare?), let me ask you a question. Are you a Catholic?
LikeLike
Former Anglican, now Quaker. Come to my blog, and see.
LikeLike
Okay, fair enough. So then I have another question. Why do you care about what the Catholic Church teaches about marriage? What is your goal here? I mean, you’ve invested a lot of time in this discussion already, which began over my remarks about Bishop Paprocki, far more time than it should matter to you since you are not Catholic. Why such an investment in an issue within a Church that is not your own, over a Bishop and a layman (me) in foreign country across an ocean? As for me, I am a Catholic in the Diocese of Springfield and Bishop Paprocki is my bishop. That’s my connection to all this. What’s yours? Why does it matter to you so much what the Catholic Church does? I’m not being snarky, just want to know.
LikeLike
Because what you wrote is entirely evil. Because Paprocki says a wicked and oppressive thing, which directly causes gay people’s mental illness and suicide. Because you exult in it, and then talk lightly of damnation, later referring to this as “humor”.
You, you personally, cause pain and suffering to good people. Your church is an instrument of oppression, and that delights you. “Booyah”.
LikeLike
Oh, Clare… you assume so much. You are judging me in ways I have never done to you. I haven’t called you evil. You have deliberately chosen to filter everything I have said here through the lens of “victimhood.” You’ve romanticized this whole discussion through some kind of personal persecution fantasy, which I suppose you need to do because in the end you just don’t have an argument. Well, I’m not here to victimize you, and if this is how you are going to rationalize things I see no need to continue this conversation, as it stands virtually no chance of bearing any fruit. So, with that I bid you good luck, and God bless…
LikeLike
“Your church is an instrument of oppression, and that delights you.” I think that sums up the tone of his post perfectly. It’s interesting that he’s happy to express things like that but tries to justify it with a sliding scale of ‘you have no sense of humour’, then ‘I didn’t mean it like that’ and finally ‘you’re not arguing properly so I’m off!’. No retraction or clarification on the post though, even though he’s clearly sending a message he claims he doesn’t mean.
LikeLike
Excellent! With that attitude your church would never have changed, and dissent would still be punishable by death. Seriously, what kind of a mindless sheep are you to think that a church that happily killed and tortured heretics cannot have its teachings ‘undermined’? The people that whine from the inside are the people that bring about change. It’s time for you to grow up and see that one church is much like any other church, and they all make mistakes and change their interpretation of the Bible whenever it suits them i.e. to keep up with society’s understanding of decent behaviour.
LikeLike
Calling me a “mindless sheep” does not constitute an argument. Try again.
LikeLike
Excellent! With that attitude your church would never have changed, and dissent would still be punishable by death. Seriously, what kind of a deluded person are you to think that a church that happily killed and tortured heretics cannot have its teachings ‘undermined’? The people that whine from the inside are the people that bring about change. It’s time for you to grow up and see that one church is much like any other church, and they all make mistakes and change their interpretation of the Bible whenever it suits them i.e. to keep up with society’s understanding of decent behaviour.
LikeLike
If one church is much like any church, then why does it matter to you what the Catholic Church does?
LikeLike
“If one church is much like any church, then why does it matter to you what the Catholic Church does?”
If you’re genuinely interested in an answer to this question, it can be found here:
LikeLike
I was lurking round Ark’s earlier and saw your conversation about Prayson’s abortion post. That sort of “a+b = 3, therefore abortion is evil” is nuttier than nut pie!
LikeLike
I’m playing on Praysons blog in another post about good and evil. Feel free to join in. Some nutter called Theologetics is trying to act all smart… It’s kinda funny in a pathetic way.
LikeLike
That bloke is an absolute wanker…though he isn’t because that is a sin and he would go blind.
I read that post where the last comment is from. Sheesh! The gods. Every time one takes a breather and thinks the air is a teensy weensy bit sweeter, up pops one of these dickheads.
Honestly, I sometimes despair for humanity with idiots like this allowed to prey (pray?) on society.
LikeLike
Yeah, this guy thinks he’s funny too, which is weird. Because he’s not.
LikeLike
My brother is a trapper – he was skinning a Marmot when his Saturday morning was interrupted by Jehovah Witnesses knocking at the door. Marmot in hand he opened the door to questioning what he had in his hand. “my cat” he answered. Holy crap! They ran away like something out of a 50s cartoon. Take that PETA!
Have you ever seen clips by darkmatter on youtube? Some are a bit too long, but so funny.
LikeLike
Poor wee marmot! I haven’t seen the darkmatter videos before, seem very funny!
LikeLike
Wingnuts have all crazy ideas about god, all of them are illogical. And if we all are already going to hell, whatever we do or intend to do, what’s the point of believing in god, anyway? Logic dictates it doesn’t matter.
If people say that god is benevolent, then there should be an objective standard to determine the goodness of said god. There this people has first to define such standard, then they should apply it to the universe we live in (and not some fantasy world à la Tolkien), before we can say that god is really benevolent. Of course, this is empiricism, which is not something which rationalistic minded theologians are good at.
LikeLike
I don’t understand why Christians won’t admit that even by the loosest standards of benevolence, the deity depicted in the Old Testament doesn’t fit the description.
LikeLike
If they would admit that, then their whole religion will be torn into pieces, therefore the cannot admit that. Classic example of cognitive dissonance.
LikeLike
When one of them eventually tells us which brand of christianity Jeebus set up, I would want to examine their claims, until then it is all hogwash and noise.
Keep lurking, these are gems
LikeLike
Glad you’re enjoying them! This guy is a Catholic, and believes that his church traces directly back to Jesus. So maybe he can convert you?
LikeLike
The myth of apostolic succession… not to mention the fact that the rcc has been an invention of the Roman Emperor, not jesus. The greatest secret of the rcc, is that they know jesus has never existed, which is why they were really upset by the DVC. If people would doubt about any detail of jesus’ life, they might even doubt his very existence and so the foundation of christianity.
LikeLike
Ah, so I take it this is an example of a logical mind? Jesus never existed. Really?
I’m sorry if that comes across as snarky. I just find it so amazing that such a statement appears among all these comments chastising Christians for their “crazy ideas.”
Becky
LikeLike
The story of jesus is full with contradictions, both internal as external. Many of the things described in the bible about jesus cannot simply be true, because they are in violations with known facts. Further the most important features of jeses, such as virgin birth and resurrection can be found in other myths, which were wide spread in jesus’ time. The writers of the gospels should have known those myths. There’s nothing original about jesus’ story, the most simple explanation is that the gospels are simply a rewriting of ancient mythology. And no evidence for jesus as described in the gospels has ever existed.
The name jesus, or better Jeshua, was a common name in that area, those days. It’s easy to imagine that some guy with that name was a religious leader, and decades after his dead, his followers combined his, probably mediocre, story with elements of all kind of myths of the all the peoples they were familiar with. One might ask why, they wanted to spread their beliefs among those and by incorporating idea from their religions the early christians would have broadened the appeal of their new religion.
The core beliefs of christianity are crazy, because they are illogical, contradictory with each other and reality.
LikeLike
Mordanicus, thanks for your response. In truth, I question your study of this subject. Take, for example, your assertion that the biblical accounts of Jesus “are in violations with known facts.” The truth is, there is very few “known fact” from that period.
Your assertion that the core beliefs of Christianity are crazy because they are illogical reflects your beliefs, not any facts. Christianity is actually quite logical and far from self-contradictory. It does contain hard to believe things though. I’ve never seen anyone walking on water. It would be foolish of me to say that’s not a hard thing to believe–unless you postulate an all powerful God who is in control of the natural elements. Just one example.
Becky
LikeLike
Christianity are crazy because they are illogical reflects your beliefs, not any facts. Christianity is actually quite logical and far from self-contradictory.
This is simply false. The are numerous accounts within the gospels that jesus is contradicting himself. Therefore one cannot say that christianity is logical, unless one redefines logic. Further many parts of the bible are contradicting other parts, and it’s typical for christians to ignore these brute facts.
unless you postulate an all powerful God who is in control of the natural elements
You can postulate anything you want, but it doesn’t make anything true. A postulate is nothing but an assumption, unless you have any evidence you cannot assert the existence of god just by assuming his existence. If I told you that I can fly, you wouldn’t believe (and rightly) just because I say that god gave me that power. Instead you would demand a video on which I can be seen flying.
For more on biblical contradictions, see: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_contradictions
And for more about the historicity of jesus, see: http://www.deism.com/jesusexist.htm
LikeLike
Jesus did say some anomalous things, to be sure–stuff like, the first shall be last and you have to lose your life to find it. But those aren’t contradictions. If you have something specific in mind, I’d be interested to learn what you’re thinking, Mordanicus.
I don’t ignore the parts of the Bible that seem contradictory. I accept them in the same way that Abraham did when God promised him a son, then asked for him back. Abraham could have said, sorry, God, you’re contradicting yourself. Instead, he believed God would do something miraculous. As it turned out, God did something rather ordinary, but He still provided for Abraham and fulfilled both the command and the promise. In other words, the “contradiction” is only there because of our limited understanding.
As far as postulating the existence of God, I don’t do that. I suggest you do that and see if your questions aren’t answered. The atheists I’ve talked to usually postulate that only that which they can physically ascertain is “real.” Never mind that we can’t see love or goodness or hope. Never mind that we can’t see gravity or black holes or sound waves. We see the evidences and are quick to declare those as real and true, but God . . . somehow He is asked to do more.
I can match you website for website and article for article, Mordanicus. I’d rather talk to real people, but I’ll be happy to give you the links if you want to read the articles.
Becky
LikeLike
The atheists I’ve talked to usually postulate that only that which they can physically ascertain is “real.”
This is a strawman and it is a false description. Most atheists have in fact tried to postutalte god, but most of them were not satisfied since it did not solved any problem.
Jesus did say some anomalous things, to be sure–stuff like, the first shall be last and you have to lose your life to find it
Here you are avoiding the issue, by bending the definition of contradiction. It’s true that some statements subscribed to jesus are odd and those are no contradictions. However this is not what I mean with a contradiction: at some point the bible says X and on an other point is says not-X.
We see the evidences and are quick to declare those as real and true, but God . . . somehow He is asked to do more.
I see this as an admission that you believe in god or at least in the bible without any evidence. Therefore it is my impression that you simply want to believe what you believe, regardless of any facts.
LikeLike
Mordanicus, I’ll give you the last word on this. Seems we’re not talking in specifics any more but simply reiterating what we believe. No specific contradictions named, no specific questions that postulating God left unanswered.
I’m sorry my analogy with love or goodness or hope, gravity or black holes or sound waves didn’t clarify that there is just as much evidence for God as there are for these other things that we don’t see.
But here again we seem to be talking past each other: I say there’s evidence and you say there’s not. I’ll leave you with this:
I encourage you to read he entire article from the Religion & Ethics section of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
Becky
LikeLike
Hi Becky, here’s a link to some thinking along those lines:
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/scholars.html
LikeLike
Violetwisp, thanks for the link. I needed the education–not that there are any facts to support this idea, but that there are more people who believe it than I dreamed. It’s sort of like denying the holocaust. From one article on the historicity of Jesus:
The New Testament documents alone would be enough if we were trying to verify the existence of some other person in ancient history. Even those who want to strip away the supernatural elements are left with the documentation of eye witnesses. To discount them for no reason other than “I don’t think they told the truth” or “they must have made it up” is not scholarship.
Really, it’s remarkable that thinking people reach such unfounded conclusions.
Becky
LikeLike
Thanks Becky. I don’t actually know much about this, as the existence, or not, of a historical character Jesus doesn’t affect my view of Christianity. However, I am interested in the list you give and wondered if you have links/names for the Roman writings and early antagonists of Christianity, as I was unaware there were any other contemporary references.
LikeLike
I understand that, Violetwisp. You don’t believe there is a God, so it doesn’t matter to you if Jesus existed or not. In your thinking he might have, but what does it matter. If he did exist and claimed to be God, then he was either lying or crazy.
Here is one link. You’ll find the names under “Secular Evidence (Commentary)”: http://thedevineevidence.com/jesus_history.html
Becky
LikeLike
Becky, I find it interesting that you dismiss some scholars that there is no evidence to support their claims then go ahead and make claims that support your side of belief while in an earlier response you wrote
so which is it?
On the list you have given as evidence that converge to support the historical reality of the founder of the christian religion. I will deal with them one at a time but first I’ll make a general comment. Christianity was the handiwork of Paul or whoever it is wrote the Pauline letters. Your supposed christ did not write anything, did not teach anything new and there is hardly evidence that he lived other than the NT stories.
1. the NT documents- they get some place names correct but they are neither eyewitness reports or biographical information. They can’t qualify as evidence, besides they contradict each in several instances on the details of Jesus life.
2. ancient Jewish sources- please name them.
3. Roman writings- who are these you are referring to
4. early antagonists of christianity- how does this act as proof of anything. There are and still are antagonists of Joseph Smith, so we can deduce it is true he received revelation on gold plates?
5 & 6 Please provide a link
7. the impact of christianity in history- i hope this was a joke. So Mohammed is real and Islam is true because it has had an impact in history of the Arabs or what is your reasoning at this point?
LikeLike
Makagutu, “almost no primary documents” doesn’t mean there are none. The few in existence include some that mention Pontius Pilate, for example, and Herod and of course Caesar Augustus–all consistent with the Biblical record and not in contradiction as Mordanicus claimed.
You’re mistaken about Paul being the founder of Christianity. If you read the New Testament you’ll discover that Peter and James were the most prominent in the first church in Jerusalem. The books dealing with Jesus’s life, record that Jesus explained the “law and the prophets” to his core group of followers, i.e. He explained the Jewish scriptures, as they pertained to Him. In other words, the things that Peter preached and wrote, he got from Jesus. So when he said in his first letter that Jesus was the cornerstone, rejected by men but chosen by God, he was quoting from the Jewish writings. I could give you other illustrations, but suffice it to say, the idea that Paul was on some sort of personal crusade that he invented doesn’t square with the facts.
Jewish sources: start with Josephus.
Roman: Pliny, Tacitus
I tend to agree with you that the “early antagonists” is a weak argument. I don’t see it as proof, but obviously the scholar I quoted thought so. I didn’t book mark the article that quoted him. I’ll see if I can find it again. I found this:
There are others listed: Lucian, Porphyry of Tyre
The list of early Christian theologians is quite long. Start with Polycarp, Tertullian, Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch.
And the art in the catacombs? I thought that was a given, like the Pyramids of Egypt. But here:
The impact argument is based on the first (possibly 4 million) Christians dying rather than recanting, which commonly isn’t the way people act for something they know to be untrue, and that Christianity continued to grow and spread and influence society no matter what the Romans or Jews or Greeks did to try and stop it.
In your comparison with Mohammad, you switched the argument, I believe, from whether or not Jesus existed to whether or not He is who He claimed to be, whether or not Christianity is true. The impact argument speaks to the historicity of Jesus but not to the truth claims.
Becky
LikeLike
Becky,
The few in existence include some that mention Pontius Pilate, for example, and Herod and of course Caesar Augustus–all consistent with the Biblical record and not in contradiction as Mordanicus claimed.>/i>
Some of the accounts might be consistent with biblical records. However, you are willfully ignoring those records which are in clear contradiction with the bible. What I was talking about is not mentions of jesus himself or his followers, but the mention of certain events described in the gospels for which there either no external records or the existing records are in contradiction with the bible.
LikeLike
Hey Becky, thanks for your response.
Let us see, about the law, Jesus is said to have said I have not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. In essence am saying here that he didn’t come to teach anything new. Paul writes most of the letters to the early churches and I hope you also know that the corpus of Pauline letters form the oldest writings of the NT and such that your claim about Peter and James is neither here nor there. I would be willing to read any of these documents that you claim mention C. Augustus, Pilate and are not in contradiction to the bible story. How does the claim that Paul was on a personal crusade not suffice with the facts?
Have you read any criticisms of the text said to have been written by Josephus?
You say Celsus writing in 179 CE questioned the divinity of Jesus but not of his existence? What does this prove? He obviously wasn’t a contemporary of the said Jesus and if he had heard anything about christ it was second order sources, besides by this time in Rome the christ narrative had already done several rounds.
You name christian theologians as evidence for existence of christ? And all these people are writing several years after the alleged event. None is a contemporary.
The existence of graves or hiding place doesn’t mean that christ existed, on the contrary it only means that these fringe group of believers were under threat from the religions of the day and had to seek refuge somewhere.
You seem to be unaware of the many people who take part in suicide bombs believing that the narrative they have been told is true. To say people died for a belief doesn’t make the belief true. You know what they say about those who write history? It is always written by the victors. Don’t read much into it.
I didn’t switch the arguments. The comparison with Mo deals with all the issues about the christian narrative. Did Mo exist, did he speak to god or allah, did Jesus exist and was he what he claimed he was? Tell where did I twist the argument?
LikeLike
Not sure I’m tracking all your points, makagutu. I do know I disagree with your conclusion concerning Paul.
First, he clearly submitted to the authority of James and the other apostles (the leaders of the first church in Jerusalem)–you can see this in a number of places in the book of Acts.
In addition, Peter wrote this of Paul:
Clearly, Peter equated what Paul wrote with “the other Scriptures.” In addition, when you compare what Peter wrote or Jude or John or the other New Testament writers, you see that there is no inconsistency with what Paul wrote.
Paul also linked himself with the other apostles on numerous occasions, specifically mentioning that the risen Jesus appeared to him, as He had to the other apostles.
The idea that Paul started something different from what Jesus taught or what the other church leaders taught does not square with the text.
There are many people more knowledgeable than I when it comes to this discussion about the various sources and the arguments about their accuracy. Here are some articles that discuss the criticisms “The irreligious assault on the historicity of Jesus,” “Refuting the myth that Jesus never existed,” “The Historicity of Jesus Christ: Did He Really Exist?”
What I find interesting is that the eyewitness accounts–those recorded in the Bible–are discounted as unreliable, and the theologians’ writings in the next generation removed are discounted because they aren’t eyewitnesses. Clearly those who want to disbelief the evidence will disbelieve the evidence.
You mentioned suicide bombers as an argument to counter the fact that millions of early Christians died rather than recant their faith. The difference is that if Jesus never existed, those people would be dying with the full knowledge that their Christ was not a real person. Whereas suicide bombers know Mohamed existed and are dying because of the teaching of their clerics. Christians dying for a Jesus who never existed would be closer to the idea of millions of people dying for Santa Claus.
What I meant about you changing the argument in the last point was that you added this: “and was he what he claimed he was?” The points I listed were not in support of his claim to be God but simply in support of the fact of his existence. Consequently, his impact on history, regardless of the truth or non-truth of his claims, supports the fact of his being a real person who lived during a particular time and place in history.
Anyway, I won’t take up any more of your time, makagutu, and will also give you the last say on the topic. I’ve appreciated this discussion–quite interesting.
Becky
LikeLike
If it’s such a “secret” how is it you claim to know it?
LikeLike
Good question. It’s just a hypothesis. It might explain why the vatican was upset.
LikeLike
Having been brought up catholic sold those stories and managed to quit, he would be setting himself up for failure.
LikeLike