O, give me a break...
In part one, I explained how faith and works are related in the Bible, and showed why salvation cannot be dependent on our performance of any particular actions. Works are “symptoms” of salvation, not the cause of it. The fact that good works area always produced in the truly saved is what allows Christians to (with great care) distinguish between the saved and unsaved, at least in a general sense. It also provides a great self-check, which explains why New Testament passages describing the plight of the wicked aren’t indications of works-required salvation, but reminders that true saving faith produces genuine fruits of the spirit.
Here in part two are the original questions, along with my responses. The information contained in part one was originally included in my answer to this questioner.1. Did Martin Luther ridicule the book of James?
2. Why didn't Paul use the specific phrase `faith alone` anywhere in his New Testament writings?
3.Why does James say that a man is not justified by faith alone?
4.Why did Martin Luther want to throw out the book of James from his version of the Bible?
I have been raised Catholic my entire life and have started to ask questions about justification and how it's obtained. I have researched Catholic and Protestant explanations on how one is justified and I have to admit, there are compelling arguments from both sides. I ask that you please view these links; the authors are Catholics who have an impressive knowledge of the Bible and who seem to be able to back up aspects of Catholic teaching with sacred scripture. All I want is an educated Protestant interpretation of these Catholic arguments. I understand that this is not the kind of thing you are used to, but I feel that Jesus wants me to seek answers, and perhaps your interpretation will be some of those answers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wR4dc6dh-0k&feature=related
http://www.chnetwork.org/journals/justification/justify_7.htm
Actually, I am very used to this kind of question. Likewise, I am also used to seeing these kinds of objections raised by Catholic apologists. I don’t know everything about the credentials of the two sources you noted, but I would disagree with calling their knowledge “impressive”. This is especially true in regards to the video series, which was more “long winded” than informative.
With that in mind, let’s consider your questions and your cited sources:
1) Did Martin Luther ridicule the book of James? Not “ridicule” so much as “deride”, or “express exasperation with”. Luther was frustrated by the Catholic tendency to take a few less-clear verses from James, and ignore the more abundant, clear verses regarding works in the rest of the New Testament. As a former Catholic scholar, he was ingrained into the idea that James taught salvation by works, which a more distanced and comprehensive reading of the text does not indicate. Catholicism is dependent on “tradition” (meaning the writings and pronouncements of various church leaders), but Christians in general are not obligated to accept everything some particular person says. That Luther was overly dismissive of James does not mean that he was wrong about everything. That Luther was instrumental in formalizing the Reformation does not mean that non-Catholic Christians must accept everything he ever said.
At this point, it’s also important to note that Luther was not the first person to challenge Catholic teachings. The idea that no one had considered any of these theological ideas until Luther arrived is historically false. Not every group dissenting from Catholicism had the same ideas, but there were many believers who broke away to pursue more scripturally based teachings. Among these were the Donatists and Novatians of the 4th and 5th centuries, the Waldensians of the late 12th century, and the Lollards of the mid 14th century. All of these groups broke away from Catholicism decades or centuries before the Reformation, on the basis of theological disagreements. Some groups, like the Waldensians, held beliefs similar to modern evangelical or fundamentalist Christians.
2) Why did Martin Luther want to throw out the book of James from his version of the Bible? He didn’t, at least not to the extent that he made any actual effort to do so. Despite the quote often parroted by Catholic apologists (including your video citation), Luther didn’t remove James. He was frustrated by it, because of the way Catholic teachers abused it to defend their positions. He certainly didn’t care much for it. Yet it was still a part of his German translation of the texts.
3)Why didn’t Paul use the specific phrase “faith alone” anywhere in his New Testament writings? Why did he have to? The word “trinity” appears nowhere in the entire Bible – not even as a translated term. This does not mean that the Bible does not describe God as triune. Looking at scripture as a whole, and interpreting less clear passages in light of those which are more clear, the idea that faith alone saves is a foundational part of Paul’s writings. Romans 3:28, for example, is Paul’s statement that justification before God is by faith, apart from works. Verse 30 then emphasizes and clarifies this by noting that both the circumcised (Jews) and un-circumcised (non-Jews) would be justified by faith. There are also verses such as Ephesians 2:8-9, where the phrase “through faith…not of works” is awfully close.
Alternatively, one could ask, if Paul intended to mean that faith, rituals, sacraments, and works were all required for salvation, why did he not say so clearly? Or at least suggest it? Why didn’t Paul tell the jailer to repent, be baptized, confess, and be confirmed, etc? Why didn’t Peter tell the crowd at Pentecost to do the same? Why did God take Philip away from the Ethiopian (who required help to understand salvation) immediately after his baptism, instead of letting him explain or administer communion, confession, prayers to dead saints, and so forth? For the Catholic to suggest that faith-alone salvation is not clearly represented in Paul’s writings begs one to notice that salvation on the basis of faith plus works plus rituals is not merely unclear, but totally absent. This is even more the case for other foundational teachings of Catholicism.
4)Why does James say that a man is not justified by faith alone? Because James and Paul are talking about two different kinds of justification (and, actually, two different kinds of faith) in their respective writings. Paul is talking about justification before God, James is partly talking about justification before men. Just as Paul described the fruits of the spirit (Galatians 5:22), James discusses how works are a natural result of saving faith. In other words, both James and Paul are stating that those truly saved will exhibit good works. Neither one is saying that those works produce salvation.
The Greek word translated “faith” (as with the English word) can have different meanings. In this case, James’ use of the term refers to intellectual assent (or mental knowledge without spiritual trust). Such ‘faith’ is dead, because merely “believing” in the coldest sense is not sufficient for salvation. Keeping this in mind, and reading James 2:19-20, one can see how James’ description of the relationship between faith and works is consistent with that given by Paul.
In regards to the website, note one gigantic side-step made by the author, here:“In saying this, let it be clear to the reader we are not saying St. Paul teaches in Rom. 2 that a man can "earn," (in the strict, legal sense of the word), the reward of eternal life... it is presumed that those who "persist in doing good" and who "seek glory, honor, and incorruption" are doing so under the advocacy of God’s grace and mercy.”
In other words, truly good works are only the product of a saving faith, not a prerequisite for it (Hebrews 11:6). That’s a sensible interpretation, but neither the website author nor other Catholic apologists apply this thought to their work-faith approach in general. The website author has noted, almost by accident, that salvation is something that happens before good works are done, because works cannot earn saving grace. They require it. Paul made that as explicitly clear as can be (Romans 11:6). This idea leaves no room for an attack on the “protestant” view that works are not a part of salvation.
I watched the entire first part of the video series, and the early part of the second. Unfortunately, as you can see, some questions are short in the asking and long in the answering. The entire video series was 10 sections, and I saw enough in the first part to make sensible criticism of it. I’m unfortunately not in a position to watch, analyze, and comprehensively cover 100 minutes of more of the same. The flaws are clear right off the bat.
In a nutshell, the video is lacking in theological, biblical, and philosophical depth. Here are a few comments:
The video mentions mortal and venial sins. These are never separated in the Bible. In fact, one of the sins that the video author calls “venial”, unjustified anger, was likened to murder by Jesus himself (Matthew 5:21-26), in the same passage where He indicated that sins of the mind are as much sins as those of the flesh.
Overall, the major flaw of the video is the behind-the-scenes idea that “protestants” teach that you can behave any way you want and still go to heaven. This is the implication made when the narrator mentions how Luther’s “1000 murders” quote would have been popular with the people. It’s the reason that the narrator thinks that listing verses where good deeds are rewarded or commended somehow refutes faith-only salvation. As shown above, this is not the Biblical teaching, nor is it even a vaguely fair representation of what is taught in Protestant churches. The implication made in the video is not only untrue, but it borders on outright dishonesty.
This assumption is behind the extensive listing of times where the Bible references those who participate in certain sins being barred from heaven, or punished, or good deeds being rewarded, or judged, and so forth. Remember, according to the Bible, good works only come from the saved. From that perspective, indicating that good works are rewarded, or that those who do evil will be condemned, is simply a statement of the results of salvation (or its lack).
For those reasons, the juvenile way in which the video claims that each verse “totally refutes Protestantism” demonstrates a severe lack of understanding.
The narrator says this: “So, the Catholic teaching is that what a person does (works) is a part of whether or not they have justification.” That’s a very slippery way of phrasing it. If the question is whether or not the person “has” justification, then there is no argument. No good works means they have not obtained justification (salvation). However, Catholicism is not presenting works as a sign of salvation, but as a requirement for it.
The narrator mentions confession, and says that it requires a “validly ordained priest”. Question: if a priest is not validly ordained (i.e. he lied, deceived, or somehow violated his position), and a person confesses to him, is that a valid confession? If a Catholic answers, “yes”, then they are admitting that the presence of a human-approved priest is not what makes true confession, but rather the intentions of the confessing sinner. If they say, “no”, then they are teaching that God will eternally punish a person for something they did not do, did not know, and cannot control, despite their sincere and submissive faith, which is antithetical to the entire message of Christ.
The truth or falsehood of Catholic teachings rests on the character and intellect of the scholars making the pronouncements. This is why they claim that the Pope is infallible when making doctrinal statements, to cover themselves against the reverse of this very problem. However, Christians are not obligated to agree with Luther, but only with those things he says or teaches that are spiritually, factually valid. Luther was wrong in some ways about the book of James. That is not a problem for believers, and suggesting otherwise, as the video does, shows the lack of theological / philosophical depth this person has.
Note also, in the James quote by Luther, there is the phrase, “for the Papists embrace it alone and leave out all the rest.” Luther was noting that the rest of scripture pointed in a direction contrary to works-required-salvation, and that the traditional Catholic teaching on the subject was prioritizing a minority of less clear scriptures rather than a majority of clear ones. Nothing in the video or the website lessens the reality of this serious error in interpretation.
Then the narrator claims that protestants are “explaining away” the “clear words of this book (James)”. That statement itself is an apologetic for proof-texting. As shown above, the problem here is the Catholic tendency to put tradition-inspired single verses ahead of objective reading of the Bible as a whole.
The narrator disagrees that a man can be “externally” justified by faith (saved) but still non-sanctified within. The Bible suggests that sanctification is a process that will only be competed in heaven, where we are finally perfected. Sanctification is different than justification (salvation). The video, on the other hand, claims that one must be purely sanctified all the way, or not at all. Where, then, does sin come from? If a person was 100% purely sanctified, they would not sin, because they would be like Christ – tempted, but never failing. By that argument, the narrator would also have to claim that one is either capable of living a sinless life, or they are damned…but this even contradicts the notion of venial sins.
It’s ironic that the narrator emphasizes that “we’re going to take an honest look at what the Bible teaches”. What is presented is textbook proof-texting (interpreting without context to force your view into the verse), and is the reason individual verses are each claimed to be the final word on the subject. Keep this in mind: the narrator is coming from an interpretation colored not by Biblical context, but Catholic traditional context. Catholic teaching does not consider the Bible sufficient as a source of spiritual authority, and Catholic interpretations of many passages depend on non-Biblical writings to defend. That this is not mentioned in the video also borders on deception.
The narrator claims that Matthew 5:29-30 only makes sense if works are required for salvation. Not true – recall the idea of fruits of the spirit. Many people resist salvation because they know they’ll have to give up their pet sins. Once saved, they all note how easy it was to give them up. That Jesus would warn people that you cannot be too zealous in ridding yourself of sin, even giving up what seems precious or valuable, does not somehow mean good deeds are required to be saved. The narrator goes so far as to say, “By depriving yourself of these things, you will save your soul.” That’s putting words in Jesus’ mouth, and ignoring His overall message.
In regards to Matthew 6:14, this again comes back to the idea of fruits of the spirit. The narrator continues to pervert the spiritual order. He’s claiming that works precede salvation. The Bible teaches the opposite. A person who has truly been saved will have a forgiving and humble heart. Those who do not forgive are not in a state of forgiven-ness. As with James, we see that how a person behaves tells us something about the state of their soul.
Matthew 7:21-23 is essentially the same thing that James says; that true faith produces works, not that works produce salvation. It’s interesting that the narrator brought this passage up, since Jesus is explicitly saying, “I never knew you” in response to a litany of deeds! Once again, we see that faith precedes salvation, while works merely proceed from it. The narrator is attempting to split Christ’s parable into two parts; there is only one. The video makes an ad hoc division between, “only those who do…(therefore works are required)” and “on that day…” This is a false dissection.
Matthew 7:24-27 has little to do with this issue. Jesus is not only speaking of the wisdom of following His teachings on salvation, but also of his commandments in daily life.
Matthew 10:22 has more to do with a disagreement over eternal security than faith. The narrator is now conflating the two. Technically, they are two separate beliefs. This again shows the lack of theological sophistication in the video.
Matthew 12:36 says that every idle word will be accounted for in the day of judgment. Yes, because sin is still sin. Once again, this attack only makes sense if you pretend that the “protestant” view is that saved and unsaved people act exactly alike. Every person will be judged on the basis of their deeds, but those who have been saved will have their sins forgiven.
In fact, this point should be hit a little harder. Let’s use the same approach as the video, but directed towards Catholicism: If every idle word is accounted for, and everything we say or do will be used to judge us, and our works determine our salvation (not our faith), then we’re all condemned, including Catholics. After all, the narrator says that Matthew 12:36 “completely contradicts the idea that works are not a part of justification.” According to the Bible, we all fail that part miserably (Isaiah 64:6; Romans 3:10; 1 John 1:10).
Keeping with the narrator’s style of attack, where does this passage say that faith justifies at all? If we’re going to interpret it the way we have to for his criticism to make sense, then we have to say that Matthew 12:37 implies that works (what we say, specifically) alone are all that matter. We’ll be judged on our words (works), period. If the narrator disagrees, and thinks that we need to look at other scriptures to understand this passage, then perhaps he should do the same with all of his other attacks. This shows an inability to keep his own interpretive method consistent.
The narrator also continually says that each of these verses “totally refutes Protestantism”. This is the hallmark of one who understands the issue far less than they think they do. He’s demonstrating the very problem that causes him to believe in Catholic teachings on works in the first place. That is, that one can approach the Bible with a pre-conceived notion, and jam that contrived idea into every verse. Each verse can then be “interpreted” totally by itself, devoid of the context of other verses, in any way one wants.
As I said, I’ve offered some thoughts and notes on the first part of the video. I scanned through the other nine parts, but this particular venue doesn’t allow me the time to do a thorough analysis of 100-plus minutes of the same basic thing. Hopefully, you can see that the approach being offered is very flawed, both scripturally and philosophically.
The doctrine of faith alone is supported by objective, contextual scholarship in the same way the that doctrine of the Trinity is, though it is much clearer and easier to see. Beyond that, the idea of Catholic scholars criticizing “sola fide” for being unclear is laughable. The Bible makes not the slightest mention of Mary’s sinlessness. One cannot claim that it clearly teaches the seven sacraments, the infallibility of the papacy, that we ought to pray to the dead, and so forth. This is a can of worms that Catholic apologists ought not open up.
June 15, 2009
O, Sola Fide (Part 2)
June 11, 2009
O, Sola Fide (Part 1)
Faith alone, or faith bemoaned?
Earlier this week, I received a series of questions on the issue of justification by faith alone (“sola fide”). The questioner pointed me towards two online sources: a website and a series of YouTube videos. This is an issue that comes up often, and most Catholic responses are based on a few major flaws. The first, and worst, is an assumption that “no works” is identical to “easy believe-ism”; that is, that teaching people that works don’t save you turns them into raging hedonists. The second is a misunderstanding of the relationship between works and faith as described in the Bible. Both of these flaws are then applied, with a healthy does of proof-texting and references to catechisms and councils, in order to defend the idea that you have to do good to be saved.
Part one will feature my general response to the question of sola fide, or “faith alone”.
Salvation by faith versus faith plus works is usually a contention that arises between Catholic and non-Catholic sources. The primary problem with most Catholic responses to this question is a misunderstanding of what the “sola fide” doctrine means. Most who disagree with sola fide seem to think that (or least argue as if) Protestants[1] believe a person who murders, rapes, pillages, blasphemes, and otherwise lives like the Devil will go to heaven as long as they believe in Jesus. This is simply not the truth.
If a person approaches the Bible with a prejudice, such as preferring some doctrine over another, they can probably find some verse which, taken out of context, seems to agree with them. They can then claim that their position is “biblical”, and when they come across other verses that seem to contradict them, they can simply point to their one favorite verse and find some twisted re-interpretation. This was the source of Luther’s frustration over Catholic abuse of the book of James. Most of the New Testament, read objectively, indicates that works are not a part of salvation, and that faith alone is required to be saved. This should cause a person who reads the book of James to pause before rushing to claim that it teaches that works are required in order to be saved.
In fact, James says the same thing that the rest of the New Testament does, but he examines it from the perspective of fellow believers. Paul, James, and the other New Testament writers all take the same position on works: Those who are saved will naturally participate in good works, since these are the fruits of the spirit (Galatians 5:22-23; John 14:15). Those who don’t exhibit good works don’t have the spirit and are not saved (Galatians 5:19-21; James 2:26; Hebrews 11:6). This provides a means for other believers to better know who is or is not really saved…with considerable caution (James 2:1-4).
Every time a Catholic apologist references a passage where (they claim) works are mandated for salvation, note this idea: The Bible clearly states that good works are the fruits of a saving relationship with Christ, and that those who are saved will show it in their works. So, to say that only those who do X, Y, or Z will be saved is not to say that doing X, Y, or Z were necessary to their salvation. This applies to most, if not all, of the “works” verses noted in the video.
Consider this analogy: when you have a head cold, you will sneeze. Only those with head colds can stay home from work. Only those who have head colds will really sneeze. So, your doctor can truthfully say all of the following: “all those who sneeze may stay home,” “only those with head colds may stay home,” “it only takes a head cold to keep you at home,” and “sneezing is not required to stay at home.” Naturally, those who really have head colds will sneeze, but it’s not the sneezing that’s important – it’s the head cold. Those who try to “fake” the sneezes will be found out by the doctor and made to go to work. Sneezing does not earn you a day at home – the head cold does. Sneezing is just a sign.
Works and salvation are described in the Bible more or less the same way as sneezing and head colds above. Works are a “symptom” of salvation, not the “condition” that causes it. Faith is required for salvation – and only faith. Once saved, a person will naturally exhibit good works. Those who exhibit truly good works will enter heaven, but not because of the works. The works are a sign of salvation, not the cause of it. Salvation came before the works. When the Bible says that “those who do ABC will not enter” or “those who do DEF will enter”, that has to be considered in scriptural context. That context indicates that good works come from salvation, they do not purchase, earn, buy, or serve as prerequisites for it.
Catholicism, however, teaches that works precede the salvation; that a person cannot be saved without performing those works. Further, Catholicism teaches that to be saved a person must not only perform “good works”, but must participate in very specific rituals (confession, communion, baptism, etc.) administered by a very specific person in order to be saved. That must be considered when interpreting what the Bible has to say about works, as well as any Catholic responses to it. Simply asking the question, “what about all of the rituals and sacraments” diffuses most Catholic objections to faith-alone interpretations of the Bible.
Objections that “faith alone” is not stated clearly enough to suit the preferences of the critic can be met with a similar crack about the trinity. Sola Fide comes out of the text much more simply than the trinity does, and with less philosophizing. That to be expected, of course, since one is actually much more important than the other. The point is that simply because one must actually consider scripture to see a doctrine fully expressed doesn’t mean it’s not expressed at all.
The whole of scripture, viewed in a way that is sensible and objective, points towards faith as the sole requisite for salvation. That faith must be repentant, submissive, and genuine, or course, but it has nothing to do with good deeds or acts of ritual. Good works flow naturally from such faith, and as such are “expected” or even “required” in the sense that those who don’t exhibit them are not saved. But one cannot make up the difference between where they are and where they need to be through good works. You either have saving faith, or you don’t.
Part two will relate the original questions that inspired this post, as well as the resources I was asked to examine.
[1] – I use the term for the sake of consistency, not because I fully endorse the technical meaning of the term. In general use, it means “non-Catholic Christian”, which is fine enough, and not worth climbing over in this context.
May 15, 2009
Crispy Crunchy Locust Legs (Part 2)
Hypothesize…experiment…analyze…publish.
The “four legs” problem (dissected in part one) is not particularly difficult to solve, and this is why it serves as a “red flag” for irrationality. Those who express confidence in this being an “error” are simultaneously expressing some combination of ignorance, prejudice, and a lack of critical thinking. When confronted with the reality of this “error”, it’s not uncommon for truly rational skeptics, or those who are simply repeating the “error” they heard from someone else, to admit that it’s not a mistake. I recently took an opportunity to send up this particular test balloon, to see if those advocating “critical thinking” could actually do as they advised others to.
The experiment happened on a fairly typical anti-Christianity site where non-believers get together to make fun of believers and pat each other on the back. These are not sites conducive to deep discussion – no one there is interested in having their lack of belief challenged. In truth, that’s perfectly fine. Not every site on the internet needs to be an open invitation to argument. I had no intentions of challenging the non-belief of the website’s participants. That would have been pointless, particularly given the style of…“conversation”… being engaged in (or perpetrated) there.
At any rate, one of the non-believers on the site was challenged (pointlessly) to prove something in the Bible wrong. In response, they mentioned the “four legs” canard and went so far as to call it an “easy” mistake, chiding the questioner to use critical thinking. I figured that was a good enough opportunity to see how such critic(s) would respond to some actual critical thinking regarding the issue. The “four legs” issue should be trivial to an atheist or other non-believer. That the Bible is correct on such an obvious and minor detail isn’t the slightest bit threatening to the views of a person who rejects the Bible.
My idea was to start by mentioning the most obvious flaw in the attack: is it really sensible to suggest that a person who ate these insects didn’t know how many legs they had? That alone puts all of the burden of proof on the one making the attack: unless they can prove beyond any doubt that the passage can only be interpreted as in error, then it is unreasonable to call it one.
If needed, I was prepared to drill down into the language, context, and so forth to see if or when this type of skeptic would finally say, “okay, fine. It’s not wrong. This does nothing for my unbelief, but I guess that’s not actually an error.” In theory, a truly rational non-believer ought to be able to look at the evidence, examine the passage, and comfortably admit that it’s not a mistake. Needless to say, this is not what happened.[1]
The first, and most frequent, responder to my challenge went through quite a metamorphosis during the conversation. He started off with typical derision, making strained attempts to force his preferred implication on the English text. In the process, he spilled gallons of ink creating elaborate faux-Christian responses, attempting to be witty, and typing the words LEGS and FEET in all-caps as though net-shouting was going to turn bad arguments into good.
When I noted that there were two separate Hebrew words used, with different anatomical implications, he went for the haymaker, tripped, and fell flat on his face: Now let us re-examine what Medicineman said about the Hebrew word Ke'ra
MM: "The word translated “leg” is ke’ra which can be a more literal “insect-type-leg”.
I see so do you tell me now that the FLOCK [in Leviticus 1:9, also using the word kera’] refers to a FLOCK of LOCUSTS or animals with SEGMENTED LEGS?
We go deeper and deeper into the surreal world of Christian apologetics.
The solution offered just creates more problems. As I said the simplest solution is that the authors of the Bible in their rush to write a work purportedly with God make fallible mistakes in their observations, language and simple logic.
But lets not try to blame too much..... teh modern christian apologist is adamant that since they made such a simple mistake, they couldn't be making a mistake and hence DISTORTS reason, logic as well as language.
I indicated that the definition of the word kera’ could include both the shank bone and the insect leg. He called me a liar. After I confronted him about making such an accusation, he apologized. Then he switched gears.
His new strategy was twofold. On one hand, he would continue to claim that the verse clearly meant a total of four legs, because that’s what his bias-inserted version of the English said.
On the other hand, he tried to suggest that the verse merely stated that these feet were attached to jointed legs. He neglected to explain what purpose there would be in including such a detail. Nor did he recall that the description of the two “jumping” legs is what separated the clean from unclean animals. If this was merely a reminder that bugs have legs attached to their feet, it would have been useless as a means to separate good from bad. Why would it have been written at all?
I noted his arguments’ repeated failures and made the point that it was unwise to treat those who disagree with you as stupid or brainwashed, especially when the one making such accusations is plainly unknowledgeable about the topic. At that point, he passed into the “grumpy” phase where he accused me of attempting to “score points” for daring to judge his approach on the basis of his own words, including comments such as these:Xtianity = stupidity is rewarded by praise
In fact, he accused me of pursuing a “personal vendetta”. This, after I acknowledged his apology and reminded him of my problems with his approach, not his person.
The person who originally brought up the “error” had little else to say, other than calling me a troll for sticking to the evidence. She was content to chip in terms like “buybullnuts” (Bible nuts), claim that she was talking about God, not the person who wrote the passage (huh?) and breathlessly ask the primary commenter when he was going to write a book. That’s not satirical. She actually asked for an autographed copy.
Another “contributor” to the conversation could be fairly described as Sammy Skeptic going through his late-teenage angst period. Armed with a grand total of eight or nine shiny, well-worn pet phrases, a fetish for verbal abuse, and an incredibly fragile ego, he not only laid on the derision, but wanted to expand the topic of conversation to include pretty much the entire known universe. A quick scan through his recent comments uncovered gems like these from some of his other conversations:So now that you get my point, f**k off, you language nazi. And if you don't like it get the f**k out of dodge, you stupid motherf**ker.
[you are] another mental midget Christian…
Characteristically speaking, all you can offer -- being a christian -- is silly superstitions, massive delusion and morbid ignorance.
Now that’s a person ready for an intelligent debate!
I wish I could say that this type of commenter is always a non-believer. Unfortunately, I run into people of all versions of faith or non-faith who act exactly this way. Verbally abusive, preoccupied with mindless caricatures, and absolutely brimming with insecurity.
They open the conversation by packing more irrelevant straw-men into one sentence than some can fit in a paragraph. When their target declines to participate, they declare victory and pile on some more self-stroking insults. They assume beforehand that you can’t possibly have anything worthwhile to say. They simultaneously complain about being disagreed with, and yet demand that you to do so.
It’s nothing more complicated than overcompensation. This kind of person lacks the knowledge or ability to actually discuss that which they so angrily disagree with. So, they work to make actual conversation impossible. Then, they convince themselves that they won, and repeat with the next person. Needless to say, I was content to let this person spin their wheels alone. Why not? Argue with an idiot and it gets hard to tell which is which.
Predictably, this was interpreted as surrender. Several times over, in fact, complete with ostentatious net-laughter (who’s protesting too much, again?) Hey, whatever it takes to protect that eggshell ego, right?
One particular commenter noted the ultimate irrelevancy of the point at hand, and encouraged me to look more deeply into my faith. He warned me that intelligence used to uphold a lie is ultimately wasted. (When I agreed with his assessment, but stated that I obviously disagreed on what “the lie” was, another contributor jumped in with some paranoid, defensive comments as though my agreement was some kind of character slur.)
Strangely, he also suggested that maybe I was really trying to convince myself, rather than others. It was odd, in his mind, to discuss such a trivial point at such great length. I would have thought he’d see that going both ways. In fact, given the gymnastics the other commenters went through, he would have been better off directing that sentiment towards them.
That, after all, was my ultimate question to this group. Why defend such an overtly silly, clearly impotent, and ultimately trivial attack on the Bible? Doesn’t that make them look irrational, prejudiced, and closed-minded? Why take the attitude that every single word, letter, and phrase in the Bible must be wrong? That’s not rational, or sensible. It’s just bigoted.
It’s exactly the same thing I hate about partisan politics. If the “other party” says the sky is blue, then there’s a fight to the death to say it is green. If “they” say that this bill is good, it msut be opposed. Or, in this case, if the Bible says it, it must be wrong. If the Bible says something correct, then it’s still wrong, because it must be wrong. Four legs gooood…six legs baaaad!
Some people see images of Mary in their toast, and their trees, and their carpet. Some see a UFO in every midnight sky. Some see ghosts in every bump or creak of the house. And, unfortunately, some skeptics see errors in every verse, every line, every letter of the Bible.
The most eye-rolling, predictably inane absurdities came in response to my non-participation in further discussion. I had no chance of convincing anyone, and I had no reason to believe that open-mindedness would ensue – they couldn’t even let go of a trivial point, why expect reason on something with more weight?
And yet, I knew that a polite “no thanks” to debates on deeper issues would be spun as “yeah – we won!” by the kind of insecure posters active on these sites. And, as soon as it was clear I was no longer participating, there was a general sense of high-fiving, patting on the back, juvenile bad-mouthing, and assorted declarations of victory. Shrug.
As of this writing, not a single person commenting on the site had yet admitted that the “four legs” passage is not a mistake. Perhaps they’ve decided as much in their own minds, and won’t use it again…but I doubt it.
The point of what happened seems totally lost on them: they could not engage me rationally on a trivial point; they changed the subject, delivered insults and accusations, and dodged the need to drop the “four legs” question repeatedly. Therefore, I declined to discuss more substantial issues. That’s just common sense. Yet, they seemed unwilling to believe that that my motivations for declining their challenges might be motivated by exactly what I said they were: indifference. Incredibly, those banding together to dodge a simple point of rationality, from the safety of numbers and home-field advantage on a skeptical website, accused me of fearing their scrutiny of my beliefs.
Hence, the practical value of the “red flag” issues. At the least, they can help separate the unaware from the unwilling.
[1] - As usual, I'm not in the habit of posting direct links to hostile sites. Also as usual, I saved a transcript of the conversation [as of 5-14-09 @11:14 PM] so that there's no doubt as to what was said when and by whom. If you'd like to see the madness unfold for yourself, you can copy this URL into your browser: http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2008/03/i-dont-have-enough-faith-to-be.html#disqus_thread and search for the phrase, "The buybull says insects have four legs."
May 8, 2009
Crispy Crunchy Locust Legs (Part 1)
Id' rather count 'em than eat 'em...
I recently encountered of one of the “red flag” criticisms used by some detractors of Christianity. By “red flag”, I mean one of those attacks on the Bible that’s particularly badly reasoned, obviously flawed, and trivial. Using such a claim “red flags” the attacker as someone less than informed at best, unreasonably prejudiced, in all likelihood, and willingly irrational at worst. This particular “red flag” is the claim that the Bible incorrectly notes the number of legs on an insect.
The claim is that Leviticus 11:21, combined with Leviticus 11:23, indicate that insects have four legs. Since insects have six legs, not four, this is supposedly an error. There are two responses, one of which is purely meant to affect the approach to resolution, the second of which shows that there is, in fact, no error.
A super-short answer: the actual Hebrew words describe two different kind of legs: one used more or less for walking/crawling, the other more or less for leaping. The Bible correctly notes that the insects in question have four of the former and two of the latter. When it uses the number “four” it uses the word referring to the crawling legs. The Hebrews simply thought of the crawling legs and the jumping legs as different enough to warrant different terms, much as we might see a difference between a finger and a thumb. Even before, that, it’s silly to think someone who ate locusts wouldn’t know how many legs they had.
First of all, common sense says that a person (Moses, the writer of Leviticus, in this case) who lived around, among, and under threat of these insects on a daily basis, and especially one who ate them on a regular basis, would actually know how many legs those insects had. The idea that a person who ate locusts didn’t realize that they had six legs, not four, strains credulity. This places all of the burden of proof on the one making the attack; it is unreasonable to assume that anyone living in that culture would have made such an overt mistake.
As an analogy, imagine meeting a doctor from some foreign nation. You hold up both hands, and ask him how many fingers he sees. He looks at them and says, “eight”. Do you assume he’s ignorant, blind, or stupid? Or do you assume that his definition of “fingers” does not include “thumbs”? He has plenty of knowledge of what fingers and thumbs are, he can see, and (assuming you aren’t missing something) you’re not a unique example.
If you challenge him, he’ll probably respond like this: “No, you have eight fingers. Each hand has four fingers and one thumb. You have ten digits, but only eight fingers.”
Now, this might be confusing to someone who speaks English. But it’s not wrong. There is no factual disagreement, only a terminology difference. “Fingers” and “thumbs” are two separate things to this doctor, though there is a word that includes fingers AND thumbs (digits). This is an important point (demonstrated later).
Secondly, and most importantly, the verses do not say what skeptics claim they do. This is definitely one place in the Bible where translation issues become comprehension issues. Some words are very difficult to translate into other languages, especially when those languages have very different ways of organizing, arranging, or analyzing what is being discussed. In translated English, the verses look like this:KJV: (v.21) Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth…(v.23) But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.
NASB: (v.21)Yet these you may eat among all the winged insects which walk on all fours: those which have above their feet jointed legs with which to jump on the earth...(v.23) But all other winged insects which are four-footed are detestable to you.
There is one phrase, and two relevant words to note. The phrase “go on all four(s)” reads, both in English, and in Hebrew, as a figure of speech. It’s far more literal in Hebrew, which the other two words will clarify. The implication of a crawling movement is there, not a literal indication of four limbs.
The Hebrew word kera’ has two meanings: an insect leg or the shank (shin) bone of a sacrifical animal. Those seem like very different things, but they are somewhat related. Consider that words in English, such as “cleave”, are so context-dependent that they can mean opposite things: “cleave to your wife in marriage, then cleave this log with an axe.” Kera’ sticks to legs, at least.
The Hebrew word regel has a greater number of meanings, but a narrower focus. It generally means a foot, ankle, big toe, or “the extensions from the trunk of the body that touch the ground.” In the specific context given, it means the crawling legs of the insect.
Finally, you can see the difference in phrasing between the KJV and the NASB regarding jointed feet. The NASB uses linguistic context to create a more easily understood phrasing. The KJV makes it less clear what the leaping legs are.
The following re-inserts the Hebrew words, includes quotation marks around the figurative phrase, and makes the jointed feet references braced to show how they are intended to be read:KJV [notations mine]: (v.21) Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that “goeth upon all four”, which have regels above their {kera’s to leap withal upon the earth}…(v.23) But all other flying creeping things, which have four regels, shall be an abomination unto you.
NASB [notations mine]: (v.21)Yet these you may eat among all the winged insects which “walk on all fours”: those which have above their regels {kera’s with which to jump on the earth}...(v.23) But all other winged insects which are four-regeled are detestable to you.
The passage is now much easier to understand. The insects have leaping legs, different from their (four) walking legs, as defined by the Hebrews. The English word “legs” covers both regels and kera’s, like “digits” covers both fingers and thumbs. Saying that these insects have four regels and also kera’ is no different than saying that humans have eight fingers and also thumbs.
Some complain that this is confusing for the modern reader. Well, that’s why “the main things are the plain things and the plain things are the main things”. This was a ceremonial law given to Old Covenant Israel, fulfilled and no longer applicable for Christians. It had to make sense to the people who actually needed to follow it. It would have been absurd for God to phrase the law in a way confusing to those who needed it, for the sake of future generations who would not. And, of course, for anyone who really wants to know, it can be sensibly understood.
No error, no problem. That doesn’t stop some people from using the “four legs” attack, and going to embarrassing lengths to defend it, as part two will show.
May 1, 2009
Centralized Links: My Christian Blogs
One-stop browsing for good Christian blogs...
There's a good place to get quick links to Christian blogs, recently begun at My Christian Blogs. Check it out.
April 29, 2009
Thinking Christian: Evidence (VO)
From subjectivism to a bonfire-class hypocrite...
This post at Tom Gilson’s blog was originally on the concept of evidences, and what counts as such to Christians. It also touched on subjective morality. Most notably, however, this thread shifted gears to hypocritical whining on the part of the loyal opposition. Apparently, they are not being spoken to in sufficiently reverent tones (hence this post appearing with a "Vaunted Opposition" tag).
One commenter in particular, calling himself “The Barefoot Bum”, was so offended at the strident tone of a Christian commenter that he berated Tom for allowing “bullying”. Note that nothing said to Barefoot was offensive, or even insulting. It was strident and probably impolite. Tom made note of this, and the poster in question eased up a bit. Not that that stopped The Barefoot Bum from crying like a pouting child. He insisted that he would never allow such things to be done to a Christian on his blog.
Unfortunately for The Barefoot Bum, I am one of the sizeable number of Christians who follow the spirit as well as the letter of Acts 17:11 and 1 John 4:1. He made a strong claim, so I checked it out. I scanned through his blog, and…
Oops.
As it turns out, The Barefoot Bum’s website[1] is pretty much just a philosophical cesspit. He’s not the most abusive or profane blogger I’ve encountered, but he’s no saint either. In particular, he both instigates and allows a prolific level of insults, ad hominems, and other offensive speech. You can find my summary of his rap sheet using this link (here).
So, claiming that Tom was doing something he would actually be true. Tom Gilson would never allow anyone on his blog to be as insulting, vulgar, or obscene as Barefoot Bum himself routinely is to those who post on his page. He's criticizing another blog owner for allowing aggressive rebuttals, while he himself lewdly insults visitors to his own site.
When I confronted Barefoot with these facts, he lied again, stating that he only insulted ideas, not people. I guess telling someone they are a “f***ing idiot”, or that “my cat is smarter than you” [those are among the more tame phrasings available] slipped his mind. He then admitted that he’s not interested in dialogue with Christians, because he finds it fruitless.
No wonder.
The Barefoot Bum represents a sad subset of modern atheism. Undeniably intelligent, demonstrably perceptive…and a flaming, raging, hypocritical bigot. He insults Christians in the strongest possible terms, wholesale, lies about it, and then pouts when they dare question his opinions. No wonder he’s never gotten far in dialogues with us…he doesn’t want to.
Aggravating, yes, but also sad. Sad, but true. True, but not my problem. As of this posting, he hasn’t yet approved a comment I left on his blog where he continued to complain about Gilson’s handling of the situation. Nor has he responded further to my incontrovertible evidence of his participation in abusive speech, his instigation of it, and his lying about it.
I presume he’s crawled back into his outhouse so that he can throw feces in peace. Good riddance.
[1] - I have a personal preference not to link directly to hostile sites, let alone ones as vapidly obscene as his. If you want to find the site, it's not hard to Google.
Thinking Christian: The Atheist Ethicist
Plus Euthyphro, definitions, and diversions...
I participated in a recent discussion at Tom Gilson’s Thinking Christian. This began as a response to Alonzo Fyfe, the self-titled Atheist Ethicist, and his incredibly self-serving definition of the word “faith”. From there, the topic drifted to the Euthyphro Dilemma and how Christians define the concept of “good”.
The discussion regarding how to define faith was both important and interesting. Once it moved to other topics, it was still interesting, but a lot more obscure.
One of the more interesting commenters was “faithlessgod”, who seems quite sensitive to having his own ideas laid out in applied form. Every time I gave him an example of how his views could cause problems, I was accused of using rhetoric. Tom noted the same problem…for a person who (elsewhere) claims such credentials in philosophy, he’s got a convenient habit of misunderstanding arguments he doesn’t agree with (which you can see in the comments).
The Euthyphro topic is one deserving of more than a summary from me, though you can get a rough flavor for it just scanning the linked thread. I’d like to present a more thorough look at it, and plan to do so soon.
April 22, 2009
Evidence of the Exodus
Synchronize sundials in 3...2...1...
I’ve been asked more than once recently about a supposed lack of archaeological evidence supporting the Exodus. Specifically, that Egyptian records and artifacts don't seem to support the presence and evacuation of such a large number of people, or such dire circumstances. For some, this is a major stumbling block. For others it’s more of a puzzle. In any event, there actually is archeological evidence supporting what Exodus says, but there is a (resolvable) problem with dates. With all of the archaeological evidence supporting much of the Old and New Testaments, a person should be willing to give the Bible the benefit of the doubt in places where the evidence is harder to find. Even if they don’t, this is not an issue that should pose a major concern. Still, this is a problem with a definite solution.
At times, people have asked for “proof” that the Exodus really happened. As far as physical “proof” goes, I always respond that we have to be careful with terms. “Historical proof” is sort of an oxymoron, like “jumbo shrimp”, or “open secret”. You can’t “prove” historical events the way you can physical laws or mathematical equations, of course. You also can’t escape the necessity of interpretation and the fog of time. So, we have to take the right historical approach. The best we can reasonably expect is evidence that supports the Biblical account.
The number one problem in regards to this issue is how to align Egyptian histories with those of other cultures. There is good reason to believe that traditional history uses the wrong dating system when aligning the Bible with Egyptian chronology, a kind of mistake which has happened before. Ancient Egyptians were chaotic in their approach to dating events, and some rulers who actually ruled simultaneously are recorded as ruling in succession (one after the other). Hebrew history and Assyrian history, however, line up very well and can be used to make better sense of Egyptian histories. When this is done, the placement of Hebrews moves to a different dynasty – and in that dynasty, there is ample evidence to support Exodus.
In a nutshell, this would be like saying, “there are no Native American histories saying Lewis and Clark explored in 1803.” Of course, if there are Native American records saying they explored in 1823, then it’s just a question of which historical timeline is better “aligned”. That’s more or less the case with Egyptian history and the Exodus. There actually are records supporting it, but we probably have to correct our understanding of the Egyptian timeline to make it chronologically fit the records of other cultures.
Traditional placement of Exodus would anchor it the 18th dynasty. Lining up recorded events in Egypt with external, harmonized sources actually places Hebrews in Egypt in the 12th dynasty. Archaeologists such as Rosalie David and Flinders Petrie have uncovered ample evidence that Hebrews were enslaved in Egypt during that time.
That specific details about the Exodus are not directly mentioned in Egyptian histories shouldn’t be surprising. Modern history has an emphasis on objectivity and the recording of minute details. Ancient history, especially when it was related to the legacy of a ruling family, was not necessarily so objective. In other words, we can’t expect to find direct mention of an episode that so clearly showed the weakness of Egyptian religion and the limited power of the Pharaoh. What we can expect to find, and do find, are pieces of secondary evidence.
With a little care, we can see that this evidence is substantial, and it supports the presence of a large Hebrew workforce, concurrent with plagues, which left in a hurry and whose Pharaoh was succeeded by his brother, not his son. This evidence is in the form of discovered artifacts, inscriptions, and other pieces of physical evidence. Comparing these to the Bible gives good reasons to believe that, once again, what the scriptures say happened actually happened.
Evidence from that time includes the following:
It should also be noted that, over the last fifteen or so decades, the Bible has proven to be one of the most accurate historical documents ever written. If the evidence supporting Exodus isn’t sufficient for someone to accept now, chances are that more will be found before long. If not, then there is still the support given everything else in the OT to give good reasons to trust what the Bible says.
This kind of issue is a good example of why the Bible should be given the benefit of the doubt in regards to archaeology. Every time someone has claimed the Bible to be historically flawed, it has eventually been proven correct. With such an outstanding track record for accuracy, we have good reasons to trust the Bible when other evidence has not yet been found. As it turns out, the story of the Exodus needs no such assumptions.
Posts
