June 11, 2009

• ElijahDH & "The Virtue of Credulity in the Bible"

  Intro:

  Over on GodlessLiberal's xanga (link), atheist lalalandsucks4ever and Christian theist ElijahDH were having  a discussion on a number of issues.  The lack of convincing evidence for Christianity naturally came up. 

  ---

  ElijahDH was responding to lalalandsucks4ever:

  Seriously though, the Bible actually addresses the very issue of why there isn't more "evidence" to support the scripture.  In the story Jesus tells about a rich man and a poor man named Lazarus (not the same guy who was raised from the dead, just the same name), who die and end up in different places.  When the rich man wanted to go back to warn all his other rich friends who still have a chance to repent, here's how that conversation played out with Abraham: 

  "I beg you, father, to send him to my father’s house— 28 for I have five brothers—so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.' 29 But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.' 30 And he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' 31 He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.'""

  The name "Moses" in there is referring to their Bible at the time, since he wrote the first five books of the bible, it was common to refer to their scripture as Moses.  The Prophets would literally mean prophets- the people preaching God's will.  In the end, Scripture and scriptural preaching is all the evidence that is needed.  (On a side note, I should point out that this is the only story Jesus ever told where he named the people involved, which is strong evidence that it wasn't merely a parable, but an account of what actually happened.)

  Also, you can make fun of the word "irrelevant" as much as you like.  If you continue to pose irrelevant comments and questions (like making fun of the word "irrelevant"), then I'll continue to point it out for what it is.

  ---

  I responded:

  @ElijahDH - Hi there.

  If scientologists tell us that Xenu says we wouldn't believe in scientology even if we had better evidence, I don't think we should believe them.  Religion does not get to tell us what critical thinking is or define for us what realistic human behavior is. This advocacy of credulity may make the Bible more consistent with the lack of evidence, but it's not like that's the best explanation.  The Bible even testifies against itself.  Saint Thomas responded positively to more evidence even though he was denounced for it for the sake of posterity who would not get such evidence as a rule (John 20:29).  Jesus even said certain towns would have repented had he only provided more evidence (Matthew 11:20-24). Way to incriminate yourself, Jesus!  Who needs more repentant sinners anyway?  Gideon asked for some extra evidence, too, and got it (Judges 6: 13-40).  Didn't seem to do him any harm and in fact there was apparently 40 years of peace after that evidential incident (Judges 8:28).  How dare someone want to know the voice in their head is legit before they go slaughter a whole bunch of people because of it, right? Atheist swine!  Are we to believe these folks were the only ones ever that would respond positively, especially in this heavily confused religious world?  This position is astounding especially when your average Christian can likely cite believers they know who often struggle with the lack of evidence. 

  "The Bible says so" is an irrelevant objection.  Self consistency is not the only test of a worldview.

  Ben 

  
  

  ---

  ElijahDH responded:

  @WAR_ON_ERROR - ["The Bible says so" is an irrelevant objection.  Self consistency is not the only test of a worldview.]

  Actually, no, no it's not.  Self consistency is never irrelevant.  It may not be the only test, but it it is a vital one.  

  [Are we to believe these folks were the only ones ever that would respond positively, especially in this heavily confused religious world?]

  You've posed that hypothesis on your own and have responded as though I made that claim.  Good job finding a couple quotes from Jesus, but that doesn't negate what He said in the story or the rich mand and Lazarus (self consistency, remember?).  It was His claim, not mine, that "Moses and the Prophets" are enough.  Anyway, read Psalm 78.  It recaps some of the miracles God performed for His people in desert, and then points out that despite it all, they still sinned and did not believe.  So yeah, some believe with miracles, but most do/would not.

  I never claim to have all the answers, but the Bible does speak on many issues that are commonly overlooked.  It would be rather silly to claim to be a believer in the Bible's account of history and then to not argue from it.

  
  

  ---

  I responded:
  

  @ElijahDH - It is true, I agree, that the Bible addresses many popular objections, and that those objectors typically couldn't tell you what those responses are.  However, that doesn't mean the Bible is giving good answers when it does speak up on a given issue.  Maybe someone doesn't bring up the Fall of Man when questioning why there is evil in the world, but is punishing the animal kingdom and the rest of the human race for the sins of two people really a good answer?  Even other parts of the Bible don't seem to think so (Ezekiel 18:20).  Sounds like a lame excuse to the same ancient question people were asking back then about evil. 

  What I also find silly is to argue from what is indistinguishable from self consistent credulity in the context of a room full of doubting Thomases.  Self consistency is irrelevant if your worldview can't pass a simple outsider test and the passages you point to demonstrate that Christianity virtually by design isn't meant to pass an outsider test.  Does that not seem like a red flag to you at all?  Possibly at least a yellow flag?  I don't know about you, but I think people are much more likely to show up at a bake sale if they believe it is real.  They may not like the bread, but they're unlikely to doubt its very existence.  The question still remains why we should take the hearsay of a religion over common sense? 

  I should also point out that the Lazarus story is self refuting since the rich man obviously changed his mind when he was presented with the real evidence of hell.  Moses and the Prophets were not enough.  The Exodus story is indistinguishable from an official contrived excuse to conveniently demonize unbelief for future generations.  Two Jews out of a few million manage to figure out God is in charge after all those miracles?  People are dumb, but are they that dumb?  I suppose you are committed to that opinion, but why should we partake as well?  If only we had that lone jar of manna (Exodus 16:31-35) as proof of God's historical providence.  Fantastic ancient story + jar of old bread = probably true by the Bible's standards.  *Eek*  Is it any wonder why the long boring story of Israel recorded in the OT is way too much about God's people ping ponging back and forth from their invisible deity to inanimate objects (i.e. wood and stone idols)?  Maybe it was a cry for evidential help?  hehe  The NT simply continues the dubious theme of "evidence schmevidence" with unbelievably dull disciples (Mark 6:30-38, 6:51-52, 7:18, 8:1-4, 8:15-21, 9:10), the self refuting story of Lazarus and the rich man, and the story of doubting Thomas as prime examples.  I mean no offense, but it is really hard to understand how someone can advocate such positions with any kind of intellectual integrity.  It seems to me that a rational person should expect this kind of "internal consistency" from false belief systems.  I guess that's just my opinion, though.

  Ben  

  ---

  ElijahDH responded:

  @WAR_ON_ERROR -

  [Self consistency is irrelevant if your worldview can't pass a simple outsider test and the passages you point to demonstrate that Christianity virtually by design isn't meant to pass an outsider test. ]

  Hmm...as much as I'm sure this will be used against me - I must concede that Christianity, is, by nature of design, definitely not intended to pass an outsider test.

  To clarify, I am a firm believer in the doctrine of Election (but am not quite a full-fledged Calvinist).  I suspect you already know the implications or know where to find them, so I won't waste time explaining the doctrine itself.  The Total Depravity of Man (capitalized to refer to the doctrine) is such that we are all - including Christians - quite incapable of fully grasping or accepting Christianty on our own.  I mean, seriously, a guy gets crucified on a Cross?  That's repulsing, not endearing, right?  That's actually the whole the point, and it's why scripture says God chooses to use what is foolish in order to shame the wisdom of man.  The Gospel is such that people are only saved by grace, because even their faith is a mercy gift from God.

  I'd respond to more of your good points, but I'd hate to lose another long comment to the lightning outside.    ...That, and I should be working ;-b

  
  

  ---

  I responded:

  @ElijahDH - At least you are honest, but it does seem to make the pretensions of a debate or even discussion rather meaningless if it's just based on divine existential gift giving.  What are all the answers to tough questions going to mean if God is just going to magically make you believe the core of it even if you haven't a clue about how any of it plays out?  Shouldn't you just be praying for us rather than engaging in conversation?  Maybe you just enjoy the abuse.  haha  Sinner!

  Ben

  
  

  ---

  ElijahDH responded:

  @WAR_ON_ERROR - If you could see things from my perspective, you'd be startled by how close to accurate your assessment is. ;-]

  ---

  I responded:

  @ElijahDH - :D

  
  

  ---

  Outro:

  Maybe I can see things from the Christian perspective.  Insidious.  haha

  Ben

  • 10:42 pm
  • 24 Comments