Posted on 05/01/2011 7:24:18 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode
The squabble between Darwin lobbyists who openly hate religion and those who only quietly disdain it grows ever more personal, bitter and pathetic. On one side, evangelizing New or "Gnu" (ha ha) Atheists like Jerry Coyne and his acolytes at Why Evolution Is True. Dr. Coyne is a biologist who teaches and ostensibly researches at the University of Chicago but has a heck of a lot of free time on his hands for blogging and posting pictures of cute cats.
On the other side, so-called accommodationists like the crowd at the National Center for Science Education, who attack the New Atheists for the political offense of being rude to religious believers and supposedly messing up the alliance between religious and irreligious Darwinists.
I say "supposedly" because there's no evidence any substantial body of opinion is actually being changed on religion or evolution by anything the open haters or the quiet disdainers say. Everyone seems to seriously think they're either going to defeat religion, or merely "creationism," or both by blogging for an audience of fellow Darwinists.
Want to see what I mean? This is all pretty strictly a battle of stinkbugs in a bottle. Try to follow it without getting a headache.
Coyne recently drew excited applause from fellow biologist-atheist-blogger PZ Myers for Coyne's "open letter" (published on his blog) to the NCSE and its British equivalent, the British Centre for Science Education. In the letter, Coyne took umbrage at criticism of the New Atheists, mostly on blogs, emanating from the two accommodationist organizations. He vowed that,
We will continue to answer the misguided attacks [on the New Atheists] by people like Josh Rosenau, Roger Stanyard, and Nick Matzke so long as they keep mounting those attacks.Like the NCSE, the BCSE seeks to pump up Darwin in the public mind without scaring religious people. This guy called Stanyard at the BCSE complains of losing a night's sleep over the nastiness of the rhetoric on Coyne's blog. Coyne in turn complained that Stanyard complained that a blog commenter complained that Nick Matzke, formerly of the NCSE, is like "vermin." Coyne also hit out at blogger Jason Rosenhouse for an "epic"-length blog post complaining of New Atheist "incivility." In the blog, Rosenhouse, who teaches math at James Madison University, wrote an update about how he had revised an insulting comment about the NCSE's Josh Rosenau that he, Rosenhouse, made in a previous version of the post.
That last bit briefly confused me. In occasionally skimming the writings of Jason Rosenhouse and Josh Rosenau in the past, I realized now I had been assuming they were the same person. They are not!
It goes on and on. In the course of his own blog post, Professor Coyne disavowed name-calling and berated Stanyard (remember him? The British guy) for "glomming onto" the Matzke-vermin insult like "white on rice, or Kwok on a Leica." What's a Kwok? Not a what but a who -- John Kwok, presumably a pseudonym, one of the most tirelessly obsessive commenters on Darwinist blog sites. Besides lashing at intelligent design, he often writes of his interest in photographic gear such as a camera by Leica. I have the impression that Kwok irritates even fellow Darwinists.
There's no need to keep all the names straight in your head. I certainly can't. I'm only taking your time, recounting just a small part of one confused exchange, to illustrate the culture of these Darwinists who write so impassionedly about religion, whether for abolishing it or befriending it. Writes Coyne in reply to Stanyard,
I'd suggest, then, that you lay off telling us what to do until you've read about our goals. The fact is that we'll always be fighting creationism until religion goes away, and when it does the fight will be over, as it is in Scandinavia.A skeptic might suggest that turning America into Scandinavia, as far as religion goes, is an outsized goal, more like a delusion, for this group as they sit hunched over their computers shooting intemperate comments back and forth at each other all day. Or in poor Stanyard's case, all night.
There's a feverish, terrarium-like and oxygen-starved quality to this world of online Darwinists and atheists. It could only be sustained by the isolation of the Internet. They don't seem to realize that the public accepts Darwinism to the extent it does -- which is not much -- primarily because of what William James would call the sheer, simple "prestige" that the opinion grants. Arguments and evidence have little to do with it.
The prestige of Darwinism is not going to be affected by how the battle between Jerry Coyne and the NCSE turns out. New Atheist arguments are hobbled by the same isolation from what people think and feel. I have not yet read anything by any of these gentlemen or ladies, whether the open haters or the quiet disdainers, that conveys anything like a real comprehension of religious feeling or thought.
Even as they fight over the most effective way to relate to "religion," the open atheists and the accomodationists speak of an abstraction, a cartoon, that no actual religious person would recognize. No one is going to be persuaded if he doesn't already wish to be persuaded for other personal reasons. No faith is under threat from the likes of Jerry Coyne.
I don't have any axe to grind on what language Jesus spoke but I did find this:
Most Jewish Funerary Inscriptions in GREEK!
In the next article in the same issue of Biblical Archaeological Review, the author, Pieter W. Van Der Horst, points out that no less than 1,600 Jewish epitaphs -- funerary inscriptions -- are extant from ancient Palestine dating from 300 B.C. to 500 A.D. The geographical spread of these inscriptions reveal that Jews were living all over the world at that time, especially the Roman period. In other words, when Jesus' brother James said in Acts 15, "Moses has been preached in every city for generations past and is read in the synagogues on every sabbath" (v.21), he was simply stating the truth. Peter, in his first sermon, enumerates a list of the countries from which Jews came to worship on that first Pentecost of the newly formed Christian Church (Acts 2:9-11).
Van Der Horst goes on:
"One of the most surprising facts about these funerary inscriptions is that most of them are IN GREEK -- approximately 70 percent; about 12 percent are in Latin; and only 18 percent are in Hebrew or Aramaic.
"These figures are even more instructive if we break them down between Palestine and the Diaspora. Naturally in Palestine we would expect more Hebrew and Aramaic and less Greek. This is true, but not to any great extent. Even in Palestine approximately TWO-THIRDS of these inscriptions are in GREEK.
"APPARENTLY FOR A GREAT PART OF THE JEWISH POPULATION THE DAILY LANGUAGE WAS GREEK, EVEN IN PALESTINE. This is impressive testimony to the impact of Hellenistic culture on Jews in their mother country, to say nothing of the Diaspora.
"In Jerusalem itself about 40 PERCENT of the Jewish inscriptions from the first century period (before 70 C.E.) ARE IN GREEK. We may assume that most Jewish Jerusalemites who saw the inscriptions in situ were able to read them" ("Jewish Funerary Inscriptions -- Most Are in Greek," Pieter W. Van Der Horst, BAR, Sept.-Oct.1992, p.48).
These are shocking statements to all who have believed, and taught, that the Jews as a whole were ignorant of Greek during the time of Christ! Obviously, Judea was not a "backwater" and "boorish" part of the Roman Empire, but a most sophisticated and cultivated part. In fact, the Jewish Temple was acknowledged to be the finest building structure throughout the whole Empire! The Jewish people, because of their widespread dispersion in the Empire, for business and commercial purposes, mainly, spoke Greek rather fluently -- and this knowledge and usage of Greek was also common throughout Judea, as this new "funerary inscription" evidence attests!
This really should not be surprising at all. The Greek influence in Judea had grown very significantly since the days of Alexander the Great, circa 330 B.C. By the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, circa 168-165 B.C., Hellenism had become very strong, and many of the high priests had become "Hellenists," leading to the Maccabean revolt. In successive generations, the Greek influence never abated, particularly among the business, commercial and priestly crowd. Many of the priests, being Sadducees, were greatly influenced by Greek culture and contact.
Cordially,
Is there any real law that governs man as such? Or is it all just concocted by The Man under a host of pretexts, generally to legitimize his power while covering his assets? ...
Ironically, the postmodern fellow doesn't believe in moral absolutes, and yet, he presumably believes that it is good to believe this (otherwise, why believe it?). ... ...I don't remember encountering one of these folkers who wasn't even a little superior and sanctimonious about it -- like a chronic troll who frankly considers us "mentally ill" for our belief in a reality that transcends nature. ...
If the postmodern view is correct, then man is an intrinsically sick animal, since virtually all human beings over the past 50,000 years or so have believed in, and tried to maintain contact with, this transcendent reality ...
Conversely, the cult of atheism is a rather new deviation, but it's a little difficult to account for, since it must be parasitic upon the intrinsically sick animal underneath. And how does such a ghost-ridden and demon-haunted being ever give birth to the atheist messiah who shall lead it out of darkness? Why, it's some kind of immaculate conception, or like space beings from planet Nerd to the rescue! ...
I frankly don't know where the atheist gets his model of proper humanness, or how he is able to transcend his own humanness in order to pass judgment upon man.
Actually, I do know: they just make it up. And they usually make it up based upon their feelings, since it is impossible for mere logic to prove anything outside its own initial assumptions, which lie outside the logical system. ....."
Jesus and Nicodemus were Jews. No need for Greek.
“Jesus and Nicodemus were Jews. No need for Greek.”
Between the two of them? Of course not. So?
From kosta50 in post 3273...
In fact the whole John 3:3-4 is suspect because such pun, even if it were, could not have been understood as such by Nicodemus in Aramaic because in Aramaic the word 'from above' and 'again' are not even close. And it's a real stretch to even imply that Jesus used a really strange Greek hyperbole to a member of the Sanhedrin.
So... no such thing as "Born again".
Fact is whatever word Jesus used in Hebrew Nicodemus understood Jesus was saying “again” and wondered how that could be. So “born again” is correct both by John’s Greek translation of Jesus’ words and the context of how Nicodemus responded.
Jesus and Nicodemus were Jews. No need for Greek.
count, thank you for the Act 21:37-40 reference about Paul speaking Greek to a Roman military commander.
I can relate somewhat on an existential level to the observation that Jesus and Nicodemus were Jews - no need for Greek. My wife of 33 years is originally from Poland. She has been here longer than that and speaks the best English of any Polish person I have ever met (except when she under stress, i.e., angry at me about some meaningless, nonsensical, trivial thing or other). Anyway, when we go to her brother's house the conversations are in Polish. No need for English. I don't speak Polish, but they will translate or speak to me in English if I want to participate in the conversation.
The historical information embedded in Acts is fascinating.
Cordially,
Fact you say? Whoever wrote John's Gospel wasn't even there, nor does he claim he was. You are just assuming that Jesus was whispering in "John's " ear as was he was writing.
The Gospel of John is, as we have it, is heavily interpolated (i.e. edited) by someone else and does not always appear in order or even a logical sequence. Even as early as circa AD 250, Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, argued that —based on the vocabulary, thought and style—the Gospel of John had two authors.
The fact is that the Nicodemus' reply makes no sense. Appeals to a translational error John made, as a way of rationalizing this problem away, makes even less sense when one remembers that "John" was writing under "inspiration" and therefore free or error (another presumption), and that therefore he could not have mistranslated.
Jesus' reply in John 3:5 only confirms that he meant from above (i.e. from heaven) and not again: "unless one born of the water and the spirit he cannot enter into he kingdom of God" which is saying somewhat different from John 3:3, but in either case Jesus never says one must be born again.
The other problem, besides Nic's off the wall response, is that the term "kingdom of God" in Judaism means simply Israel! Christians changed this to mean something else. So, as a Jew to a Jew, assuming this conversation ever took place, Jesus was telling Nicodemus that one must be born from above, that is from the water the spirit if he is to enter Israel! Clearly none of this makes any sense if we assume he was talking to Nicodemus in any language.
A scientist observing an empty tomb would simply report an empty tomb.
A scientist observing a body that has been confirmed dead for three days becoming animated and walking away as if nothing happened would report what he saw.
No, you've already improperly discounted eyewitnesses.
Iliad as far as I am concerned.
Brings you right back to the points you've failed to answer - demonstrably empty tomb (which you admit to), multiple visitations of Jesus in contexts not conducive of mass hallucinations like fatima, the hostile witness of the jewish leadership, the day one message of the church
I don't admit to it. I acknowledge that the Bible states it was an empty tomb. Whether it was really or not is anyone's guess. The story of multiple visitations are just that, stores of multiple visitations.
Stories and legends spread very fast, just as Fatima and Medjugorje show, within a receptive audience even in the days of modern information. To the superstitious Greeks, 2000 years, ago such stories were perfectly believable. To this day you have Muslims dying for the belief based on a story that Mohammad received the Koran from that moon-god, word for word. And what about those golden plates Mormons swear were real? How long did that legend take to become "truth"?
getoffmylawn responds: "So... no such thing as "Born again".
The whole John 3:3-4 is suspect? In your dreams. It's backed up in the very next verses.
Jesus To Nicodemus in John 3:6-7
6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 "Do not be amazed that I said to you, `You must be born again.'
Get up to speed:
Behind much of the thought in the Bible lies a "peculiarly Semitic" idea of a "unitive notion of human personality." [Dahl, Resurrection of the Body, 59] This notion combined aspects of the human person that we, in modern times, often speak of as separate entities: Nausea is thought of as a condition of the soul and not the stomach (Num. 21:5); companionship is said to be refreshing to the bowels (Philemon 7); and the fear of God is health to the navel (Prov. 3:8).
This line of thinking can be traced through the Old Testament and into the New Testament (in particular, the concept of the "body of Christ") and rabbinic literature.
Applied to the individual, the Semitic Totality Concept means that "a man's thoughts form one totality with their results in action so that 'thoughts' that result in no action are 'vain'." [ibid, 60] To put it another way, man does not have a body; man is a body, and what we regard as constituent elements of spirit and body were looked upon by the Hebrews as a fundamental unity. Man was not made from dust, but is dust that has, "by the in-breathing of God, acquired the characteristics of self-conscious being."
Thus Paul regards being an unbodied spirit as a form of nakedness (2 Cor. 5). Man is not whole without a body. A man is a totality which embraces "all that a man is and ever shall be."
Applied to the role of works following faith, this means that there can be no decision without corresponding action, for the total person will inevitably reflect a choice that is made. Thought and action are so linked under the Semitic Totality paradigm that Clark warns us [An Approach to the Theology of the Sacraments, 10]:
The Hebraic view of man as an animated body and its refusal to make any clear-cut division into soul and body militates against the making of so radical a distinction between material and spiritual, ceremonial and ethical effects.
Thus, what we would consider separate actions of conversion, confession, and obedience in the form of works would be considered by the Hebrews to be an act in totality. "Both the act and the meaning of the act mattered -- the two formed for the first Christians an indivisible unity. ......."
because "John" was wiring under (presumed) inspiration and could not make a an error.
I conclude by Nicodemus' response that he certainly understood Jesus to be speaking about a second birth
Verse 3 and 5 show that there is nothing to indicate that a man must be born the second time. It simply says unless or except.
The conclusion Kosta makes that John made it all up is proved wrong simply because he would have done a better job of creative writing
That argument falls through simply by the fact that even as early as AD 250 Church officials thought John's Gospel was written by two authors (Dinoysius of Alexandria, a bishop), and modern scholarship clearly shows that john's Gospel is heavily interpolated and edited by someone else, and is full of non-sequential interpolations.
Could you be more specific, i.e. in context?
The differences between John and the Synoptics are brought to light with closer study, especially of relevant social science factors. John's historicity cannot be questioned on the basis of any such differences.
Well, at least we agree that Christianity is an invention. At least we agree on something. :)
All your "Why would God..." questions should be directed at Him
Why? God doesn't answer questions directly. He uses mortal "prophets" and preachers and self-styled God's mouthpieces, so I direct my questions to them.
I do not condemn anyone, but Jesus sure made it clear that whoever rejects him, rejects God and those who believe in him will not be condemned.
How do I know that's what Jesus said? Did he write that or did some mere mortal you never met, 2000 years ago?
Your railings against why he did things the way he did and not according to how you would have done things only shows a person whose heart is set against truth and controlled by pride.
If God gave us reason he gave us reason so we would understand and know things, not just react to things, i.e. not merely accept things blindly. Otherwise your reason is for naught.
That is why God says he HATES pride. But, hey, as long as you can put off faith you can still hope you will be granted a consolation prize, right?
I am not prideful. I claim no knowledge from "above' or "vertically" or via some special divine tractor beam. I am asking those who do and they tell me I am prideful for asking! Your own Bible says that those who believe have the "mind of Christ". Why is it pride if I ask why?
Sure they were because they were part of the Septuagint, Greek language Old Testament, which do not appear among the Hebrew books. You are now reaching for the straws.
And your argument for this is a link which indicates that the definition/description for Israel contains the words God and Kingdom? Yeah that does fit your typical logical argument. But let me give you a hint, your conclusion is a non sequitur. Secondly you have never even acknowledged that Peter uses "ἀναγεννάω" BORN AGAIN.
The Romans didn't play -- when they killed you, they did it right. So, the whipping etc. would have half-killed this guy, followed by dragging a heavy log around would have exhausted him nearly to death, finally he gets nailed and hung by his hands, cutting off his breath
Even before he gets stabbed you know this guy is a gonner
The Romans aren't going to let this job go away half-done. I'm pretty sure he was dead
3 days later the same guy is hale and hearty walking around showing the wounds. No way can someone go through that and be ok some days later.
To the superstitious Greeks, 2000 years, ago such stories were perfectly believable -- not really, the Greeks at that time, like the Romans were already sceptical of their gods and they already knew of many stories of folks rising from the dead even earlier deity myths, so to them this was nothing new. A sceptical Greek would have said "ok, a Judean rose from the dead? big deal..." -- not "Ok, this guy must be God"
The visitations etc, if they were just stories, then why wasn't this the first attack point for the Jews? They could have said "Show me your proof. This is just a fairy tale", instead they had to reach to their scriptures to say that this was not correct in their opinions.
If this was a story or a legend then there is no reason for the Greeks to follow this especially when they had already heard or had such elements already in their religion.
You know I came to be an agnostic by doing the same thing you did, but perhaps I did a better job (sorry, my "pride" is showing), because I wans't looking for something out of a need to find it, but out of a quest to get to the bottom of things I didn't understand. Funny how motivation leads people to different destinations.
For one, first I discovered that disciplines such as what is "proper" fasting were invented by bishops, and not God, and then I discovered that the Bible is not the pristine edition made in heaven; then I discovered that Christians can't figure out which books constitute the Bible, and that even those who can agree (more or less) on what is the Bible can't agree what the Bible says, and are ready to kill each other (literally) over it, etc.
Your "invention" is more along the lines of Caesar's Messiah
Here's the "invention" boatbums is talking about.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.