To read Dr. William Lane Craig's original post, click on the above title.
Dr. Craig applies a "lightening round" format in which he answers multiple questions. I thought it would interesting to respond to Dr. Craig's post by answering some of the questions as if they had been presented to me! (How would you have answered these questions?)
Note that some of the querries are from students in India for whom English is a second language.
Question 1: Regarding "a new cosmological model developed by Roger Penrose called Conformal Cyclic Cosmology."
The "new" cosmological model you describe seems to be a variation of the oscillating universe theory in which the universe expands and contracts, perhaps endlessly.
Question 2: Regarding "she says that the statue of Jesus and Mary in the catholic church do signify their idol worship . . . "
Many non-Catholic Christians reject claims that the images familiarly used in Catholicism are not idols, but icons. The difference? Idols could be considered literal embodiments of spirits whereas icons merely represent personalities such as Jesus and Mary. Opponents to Catholicism occassionally suggest that the use of icons by Catholics emerged as an adaption of and concession to the polytheism of the Roman empire.
In the 8th and 9th centuries a conflict developed regarding the use of icons by Catholics. Pope Saint Gregory II (d. 731) prompted a long series of armed conflicts when he excomminicated the iconclastic Byzantine emperor Leo III the Isaurian.
Question 3: Regarding "Craig have said 'To have Meaning you need both God and immortality'. Why do we need immortality?"
It is not that immorality is needed for meaning, but that the identity and codification of immorality is essential for humans to co-exist in a civil environment.
The inherent problem with immorality, however, is that it is often an ambigious abstract. The morality that prevailed in Hitler's Germany, for example, is currently viewed as immorality in Western cultures. Humans have sought to personify immorality by concocting mental images of supernatural beings which, in the Christian paradigm, are God, Satan and lesser angels and demons.
Question 4: Regarding "I've been wondering what exactly your views are on evolution"
A common error made by evolutionists is confusing theory with fact. When evolutionary theories are disproved, the entire concept is called into question. Such was the case with Piltdown Man and the notion that Neanderthals were ancestors of humans. What we can confidently observe, however, is that procreation is always a natural and never a supernatural phenomena. That fact tends to corroborate the general theory of evolution.
Question 5: Regarding "Is it valid to formulate an argument [for creationism] from the first law of thermodynamics based on the fact that the law does not allow for energy to be created?"
The first law of thermodynamics expresses the concept that energy can be transformed but not created or destroyed. The inigma lies in the question regarding energy's origin. The human mind, however, seems to have a prolivity for rejecting unknowns, even if that rejection requries the adoption of nonsensical solutions such as supernatural interventionism. Therefore, rather than admit that the origin of energy lies outside our sphere of understanding (see Kant's discussion of phenomena vs noumena), we concoct an absurd scenario to accomodate the unknown.
Question 6: Regarding "I was introduced to Divine Command Theory and the problems it poses for objective morality being grounded solely in God. The atheist with Euthypro's Dilemma can claim God's morality is arbitrary and ultimately subjective. How does a theist work around this . . . ?"
We can understand the question by replacing the chicken and egg with God and morality. Which came first? Or, more accurately, which is the ultimate source? Is something moral because God says it is (Divine Command Theory)? Or are God's moral pronouncements the product of his inablity to be immoral (Euthypro's Dilemma)?
The Divine Command Theory supposes something is moral because God commands it to be so. Euthypro's Dilemma supposes morality is instrisically so -- and therein lies the dilemma. If morality is independent of God, then God could be deemed subjective to morality or, from a moral perspective, unnecessary.
The dilemma disolves when one considers God to be a personification of morality rather than a actual personality. That is to say, God is another term for morality or, reduced to the ridiculous, God is morality; morality is God. It's akin to asking, "Am I alive because I live? Or do I live because I am alive?"
Question 7: Regarding, "What is the difference between Molinism and Open Theism?"
Open Theism, as I understand it, retracts certain historical doctrines relating to the personality of God. Open theists strip away God's attributes of omniscience and omnipotence thus clearing the obstactcle of determinism that conflicts with human free will.
Molinism evokes a contortion of abstracts to accomodate determinism without compomising God's attributes or human free will. The flaw inherent to Molinism is that it places counterfactuals before factuals which is, for lack of a better term, silly.
Was it God's will that Minnonites died in a crash?
I've been there before; hustling down the Interstate 65 south of Louisville. It was there that eleven people lost their lives when a 18-wheeler crossed into the path of the van in which they were riding.
Among the dead are John and Sadie Esh, their children Anna, Rose, Rachel, and Leroy and his wife, Naomi. Also killed was their adopted son from Utah, Jalen. Most, perhaps all, of the victims were deeply religious Mennonites.
Oddly, an AP news report quoted the group's pastor as saying that he "knew almost immediately the Eshes were involved because during a church meeting the night before, family members asked the congregation to pray for their safe travels to Iowa, where they planned to attend a wedding."
God failed to answer their prayer.
Questions come to mind.
First, Why pray?
The fact that God obviously failed to keep a watchful eye over the folks in the van is evidence that prayer is, at best, moot. Religious folks search for answers and, in so doing, concoct a bit of comfort by appealing to the sovereign will of God. Those who perished in the crash were small parts of God's bigger picture. When we get to heaven, we'll understand. Until then, we will continue to walk by faith and not by sight.
There is a better answer. God didn't answer their prayer because God doesn't exist.
Second, Is there any benefit of religion in times of tragedy?
Religion's shroud of denial provides an emotional cushion that allows the human mind to assimilate stress. We imagine that the dearly departed have met a temporal, not terminal, end. We imagine them to be alive and dwelling in the presence of God. Such thoughts are comforting. They are also simply not true.
Third, What happens when we die?
When humans die we resort to the state prior to our existence. Not only does our mind cease to function, but we have no recall of having ever existed. To the deceased, the universe does not merely cease to exist, it is erased. It never did exist. Conscious awareness is lost and will never again be attained.
Such are dreadful, disturbing and unpleasant thoughts; but they are reality. It is no wonder that humans have evolved a mindset that allows us to suppose that the termination of our consciousness is impossible.
The naturalist, then, acquires an acute consciousness of the life's worth. Ever moment of every day is of immense value. Rather than retreating to an obsession of death, the naturalist embraces even the most mundane experience in life as a precious, irretrievable commodity. It is also for this reason that, unlike many of my atheist friends, I am adamantly pro-life.
Among the dead are John and Sadie Esh, their children Anna, Rose, Rachel, and Leroy and his wife, Naomi. Also killed was their adopted son from Utah, Jalen. Most, perhaps all, of the victims were deeply religious Mennonites.
Oddly, an AP news report quoted the group's pastor as saying that he "knew almost immediately the Eshes were involved because during a church meeting the night before, family members asked the congregation to pray for their safe travels to Iowa, where they planned to attend a wedding."
God failed to answer their prayer.
Questions come to mind.
First, Why pray?
The fact that God obviously failed to keep a watchful eye over the folks in the van is evidence that prayer is, at best, moot. Religious folks search for answers and, in so doing, concoct a bit of comfort by appealing to the sovereign will of God. Those who perished in the crash were small parts of God's bigger picture. When we get to heaven, we'll understand. Until then, we will continue to walk by faith and not by sight.
There is a better answer. God didn't answer their prayer because God doesn't exist.
Second, Is there any benefit of religion in times of tragedy?
Religion's shroud of denial provides an emotional cushion that allows the human mind to assimilate stress. We imagine that the dearly departed have met a temporal, not terminal, end. We imagine them to be alive and dwelling in the presence of God. Such thoughts are comforting. They are also simply not true.
Third, What happens when we die?
When humans die we resort to the state prior to our existence. Not only does our mind cease to function, but we have no recall of having ever existed. To the deceased, the universe does not merely cease to exist, it is erased. It never did exist. Conscious awareness is lost and will never again be attained.
Such are dreadful, disturbing and unpleasant thoughts; but they are reality. It is no wonder that humans have evolved a mindset that allows us to suppose that the termination of our consciousness is impossible.
The naturalist, then, acquires an acute consciousness of the life's worth. Ever moment of every day is of immense value. Rather than retreating to an obsession of death, the naturalist embraces even the most mundane experience in life as a precious, irretrievable commodity. It is also for this reason that, unlike many of my atheist friends, I am adamantly pro-life.
What Does It Mean to Have Relationship with God?
Answering Dr. William Lane Craig, Question 152:
What Does It Mean to Have Relationship with God?
Dr. Craig's dissertation on one's relationship with God evokes a number of questions.
1. Which God?
Mormons, Muslims and followers of a host of other theistic religions imagine themselves to have personal relationships with a deity. Followers of each religion is convinced that followers of other religions are delusional. Atheists would agree, except they would add one more deity in which they don't believe.
2. What new person?
According to Dr. Craig, salvation is "about coming into a new relationship and becoming a new person."
During my fifty-year tenure as a fundamentalist Baptist, I observed thousands of Christians who had become "new persons." Granted, religion is a powerful behavior modifier. It compels Christians not to swear and Mormons to swear off caffeine. It is for that reason that 12-step programs often require participants to adopt a deity.
But changed behavior no more provides evidence for God's existence than an effective naughty-and-nice list proves the existence of Santa Claus.
When I was a pastor I often preached on the "sins of the spirit." These sermons were born of the observation that smoke-free, danceless, non-cussing Church folk fancied themselves to be walking in the Spirit. These good behaviors were, in their minds, evidence to that end. I noticed, however, that well-behaved Christians had a tendency to embrace not-so-obvious "sins of the spirit," such as envy, gossip and hatred.
My summation is that walking in the Spirit (Christian paradigm) is akin to a circus dog walking on its hind legs. It's nothing more than learned behavior. In time, the dog returns to all fours.
3. What is a saving relationship with God?
"Getting saved" involves a prayer of acceptance. If one were to subscribe to the Campus Crusade for Christ's recipe for salvation — published as God's Four Spiritual Laws — they would depend on this script: "Lord Jesus, I need You. Thank You for dying on the cross for my sins. I open the door of my life and receive You as my Savior and Lord. Thank You for forgiving my sins and giving me eternal life. Take control of the throne of my life. Make me the kind of person You want me to be."
Without such a "confession of the mouth" salvation is not possible.
Besides the fact that those unable to speak are at a severe spiritual disadvantage is the observation that no such prayer actually exists in the New Testament. The concept of a salvation prayer is the product of deduction. One would think that the script of such a vital component to eternal life would at least be referenced somewhere in the canon. The script, however, isn't in the Scripture. I would challenge any Christian to cite chapter and verse where such a prayer is provided -- or even mentioned.
We would add that various gradations of Christian orthodoxy depend on various salvation formulas. Campbellism, for example, requires baptism. And even then, no one knows for certain of salvation.
Other groups that require baptismal regeneration can't agree on the form of baptism. Dabbing water on one's head constitutes baptism to many, while other require full bodily immersion in a pool of water. Of the full-immersion groups, some insist the candidate for salvation be lowered face-first into the water. Others submerge their candidates three times.
Some pentecostal sects expect converts to speak in a heavenly language; if not for salvation, at least for evidence that salvation has been attained. Many groups require the saved keep themselves saved by good behavior. Others decry that doctrine as heresy; salvation "by works." Some fundamentalist groups insist that folks must make Jesus Lord of their lives to be truly born again. Others are satisfied with "easy believism."
So when Dr. Craig writes of a "saving relationship with God," we should ask, "To which salvation formula or recipe is he referring?"
4. Faith in what?
Dr. Craig acknowledges that "faith" is a multivalent word. Citing Martin Luther he notes that notitia, assensus, and fiducia are each components of saving faith. Unfortunately, none of those terms are mentioned in Campus Crusade's Four Spiritual Laws. That leaves us to wonder if adherents to evangelicalism who unwittingly omitted fiducia from their faith formula are in for a nasty surprise upon their demise.
Even if one managed to get the right kind of faith, as supposed by Dr. Craig and Luther, one has to wonder as to the correct object of that faith. Without hesitation, most would say the object of faith is the "Lord Jesus Christ." But what are we to believe about him? Is it sufficient to believe that God raised Jesus from the dead? Or must one also believe Jesus is God? What intricacies of Jesus are required for faith in him to be valid?
5. How shall we pray?
Once saved, Dr. Craig lends his advice to proper Christian living. That advice includes the admonition to talk to God even if we feel he is not there. The reason? Because we love Him, Dr. Craig explains. It's like talking to one's spouse.
Dr. Craig's analogy is limited. When speaking to one's spouse an interaction occurs through a conversation. A one-way conversation would occur, however, if one's spouse is imaginary.
Dr. Craig concludes his article with a salvation prayer that is different from that provided by Campus Crusade for Christ. He writes, "God, I really need You. I recognize that I am sinful and wretched and in need of Your forgiveness. I believe that Jesus died on the cross to save me from my sins. And right now, in the best way I know how, I open the door of my life and invite you to come in and be my Savior and Lord. Forgive my sins, take the throne of my life, and make me into the kind of person you want me to be. I give myself to you."
Neither are found in the New Testament.
What Does It Mean to Have Relationship with God?
Dr. Craig's dissertation on one's relationship with God evokes a number of questions.
1. Which God?
Mormons, Muslims and followers of a host of other theistic religions imagine themselves to have personal relationships with a deity. Followers of each religion is convinced that followers of other religions are delusional. Atheists would agree, except they would add one more deity in which they don't believe.
2. What new person?
According to Dr. Craig, salvation is "about coming into a new relationship and becoming a new person."
During my fifty-year tenure as a fundamentalist Baptist, I observed thousands of Christians who had become "new persons." Granted, religion is a powerful behavior modifier. It compels Christians not to swear and Mormons to swear off caffeine. It is for that reason that 12-step programs often require participants to adopt a deity.
But changed behavior no more provides evidence for God's existence than an effective naughty-and-nice list proves the existence of Santa Claus.
When I was a pastor I often preached on the "sins of the spirit." These sermons were born of the observation that smoke-free, danceless, non-cussing Church folk fancied themselves to be walking in the Spirit. These good behaviors were, in their minds, evidence to that end. I noticed, however, that well-behaved Christians had a tendency to embrace not-so-obvious "sins of the spirit," such as envy, gossip and hatred.
My summation is that walking in the Spirit (Christian paradigm) is akin to a circus dog walking on its hind legs. It's nothing more than learned behavior. In time, the dog returns to all fours.
3. What is a saving relationship with God?
"Getting saved" involves a prayer of acceptance. If one were to subscribe to the Campus Crusade for Christ's recipe for salvation — published as God's Four Spiritual Laws — they would depend on this script: "Lord Jesus, I need You. Thank You for dying on the cross for my sins. I open the door of my life and receive You as my Savior and Lord. Thank You for forgiving my sins and giving me eternal life. Take control of the throne of my life. Make me the kind of person You want me to be."
Without such a "confession of the mouth" salvation is not possible.
Besides the fact that those unable to speak are at a severe spiritual disadvantage is the observation that no such prayer actually exists in the New Testament. The concept of a salvation prayer is the product of deduction. One would think that the script of such a vital component to eternal life would at least be referenced somewhere in the canon. The script, however, isn't in the Scripture. I would challenge any Christian to cite chapter and verse where such a prayer is provided -- or even mentioned.
We would add that various gradations of Christian orthodoxy depend on various salvation formulas. Campbellism, for example, requires baptism. And even then, no one knows for certain of salvation.
Other groups that require baptismal regeneration can't agree on the form of baptism. Dabbing water on one's head constitutes baptism to many, while other require full bodily immersion in a pool of water. Of the full-immersion groups, some insist the candidate for salvation be lowered face-first into the water. Others submerge their candidates three times.
Some pentecostal sects expect converts to speak in a heavenly language; if not for salvation, at least for evidence that salvation has been attained. Many groups require the saved keep themselves saved by good behavior. Others decry that doctrine as heresy; salvation "by works." Some fundamentalist groups insist that folks must make Jesus Lord of their lives to be truly born again. Others are satisfied with "easy believism."
So when Dr. Craig writes of a "saving relationship with God," we should ask, "To which salvation formula or recipe is he referring?"
4. Faith in what?
Dr. Craig acknowledges that "faith" is a multivalent word. Citing Martin Luther he notes that notitia, assensus, and fiducia are each components of saving faith. Unfortunately, none of those terms are mentioned in Campus Crusade's Four Spiritual Laws. That leaves us to wonder if adherents to evangelicalism who unwittingly omitted fiducia from their faith formula are in for a nasty surprise upon their demise.
Even if one managed to get the right kind of faith, as supposed by Dr. Craig and Luther, one has to wonder as to the correct object of that faith. Without hesitation, most would say the object of faith is the "Lord Jesus Christ." But what are we to believe about him? Is it sufficient to believe that God raised Jesus from the dead? Or must one also believe Jesus is God? What intricacies of Jesus are required for faith in him to be valid?
5. How shall we pray?
Once saved, Dr. Craig lends his advice to proper Christian living. That advice includes the admonition to talk to God even if we feel he is not there. The reason? Because we love Him, Dr. Craig explains. It's like talking to one's spouse.
Dr. Craig's analogy is limited. When speaking to one's spouse an interaction occurs through a conversation. A one-way conversation would occur, however, if one's spouse is imaginary.
Dr. Craig concludes his article with a salvation prayer that is different from that provided by Campus Crusade for Christ. He writes, "God, I really need You. I recognize that I am sinful and wretched and in need of Your forgiveness. I believe that Jesus died on the cross to save me from my sins. And right now, in the best way I know how, I open the door of my life and invite you to come in and be my Savior and Lord. Forgive my sins, take the throne of my life, and make me into the kind of person you want me to be. I give myself to you."
Neither are found in the New Testament.
Why I deconverted
Why did I deconvert from Christianity?
It depends on whom you ask.
After my deconversion process (it took about three years), those I encountered attempted to explain my experience from their religious perspective. Below are some of their reactions.
One friend bluntly stated that I simply didn't want to live under God's authority. Another decided I had never truly been "saved." Another thought I wanted to live in sin. Many believe my deconversion was an emotional reaction to bad-behaving Christians. Others are certain I harbor bitterness. One friend accused me of arrogance; another took the opposite view: I was coming to terms with feelings of inferiority.
I wonder: Why can't my Christian friends accept the fact that my disbelief in supernaturalism is nothing more than simple logic? Why don't they understand that I disbelieve in the Christian God for the same reason they disbelieve in pagan gods: Supernaturalism is, quite literally, nonsense?
The answer to that question resides in my memory; a time when I was certain God existed. There must be a reason, I supposed, why someone would deny the existence of that which is obvious.
(Mis)Preception of reality
I pointed a friend to a salt shaker on a kitchen table.
For me to deny the existence of the salt shaker is for me to deny reality. Therefore, my friend must search for plausible explanations for my irrational denial. Maybe I had a bad experience with salt shakers? Maybe I want to live a salt-free diet? Maybe I'm insane?
Then I removed the salt shaker.
For my friend to deny the nonexistence of the salt shaker is for him to deny reality. Therefore, I must search for plausible explanation for his irrational denial. Maybe its a cultural impression? Maybe he needs an emotional crutch? Maybe he needs moral guidelines? Maybe he desires a sense of purpose?
Theists view atheists as those who deny perceived existence. Likewise, atheists view theists as those who deny perceived nonexistence.
Fire Walls
In their effort to convince me the salt shaker really exists, Christians often resort to what I call "firewall" arguments. These usually come packaged in short questions that demand an answer. Christians view them as slam-dunk conclusions; a painfully misplaced notion derived from pop apologists. Firewall questions, they believe, cannot be penetrated.
One firewall question asks, "Was Jesus Lord, a lunatic or a liar?" Another is, "What do you do with with Jesus?" Answering the questions produces little. Christians typically respond to answers with wry grins. Then they repeat the question, wholly ignoring the response.
Seed thoughts
A pentecostalist friend approached me in a hardware store parking lot a few weeks ago and, inches from nose, planted a seed thought. He rehearsed the story of Voltaire's office where he denounced the existence of God and, today, houses the American Bible Society. (My friend could not remember Voltaire's name, nor the name of the American Bible Society. I had to help him.) I didn't have the heart to tell my friend that the story is an urban legend that grew from a decades-old misreport. I simply smiled until he went his way shouting another seed thought; something about hell being very hot.
Lectures
There is a component of the human mind that convinces us that truth is generated by a volume of verbiage. That truth is somehow enhanced by volume of decibels. Christians, therefore, seem to believe that by reciting whatever apologetic diatribe they think is most convincing at a decibel level designed to minimize contradictory verbiage will establish truth. I would like to tell them it doesn't but, sadly, I can't get a word in edgewise.
What to do
Though I readily admit I harbor a love for debate, I learned early that attempting to reason with my Christian friends was futile. What's more, I have no urge to evangelize anyone into naturalism. If they are content believing in the supernatural, why would I want to stop them?
It depends on whom you ask.
After my deconversion process (it took about three years), those I encountered attempted to explain my experience from their religious perspective. Below are some of their reactions.
One friend bluntly stated that I simply didn't want to live under God's authority. Another decided I had never truly been "saved." Another thought I wanted to live in sin. Many believe my deconversion was an emotional reaction to bad-behaving Christians. Others are certain I harbor bitterness. One friend accused me of arrogance; another took the opposite view: I was coming to terms with feelings of inferiority.
I wonder: Why can't my Christian friends accept the fact that my disbelief in supernaturalism is nothing more than simple logic? Why don't they understand that I disbelieve in the Christian God for the same reason they disbelieve in pagan gods: Supernaturalism is, quite literally, nonsense?
The answer to that question resides in my memory; a time when I was certain God existed. There must be a reason, I supposed, why someone would deny the existence of that which is obvious.
(Mis)Preception of reality
I pointed a friend to a salt shaker on a kitchen table.
For me to deny the existence of the salt shaker is for me to deny reality. Therefore, my friend must search for plausible explanations for my irrational denial. Maybe I had a bad experience with salt shakers? Maybe I want to live a salt-free diet? Maybe I'm insane?
Then I removed the salt shaker.
For my friend to deny the nonexistence of the salt shaker is for him to deny reality. Therefore, I must search for plausible explanation for his irrational denial. Maybe its a cultural impression? Maybe he needs an emotional crutch? Maybe he needs moral guidelines? Maybe he desires a sense of purpose?
Theists view atheists as those who deny perceived existence. Likewise, atheists view theists as those who deny perceived nonexistence.
Fire Walls
In their effort to convince me the salt shaker really exists, Christians often resort to what I call "firewall" arguments. These usually come packaged in short questions that demand an answer. Christians view them as slam-dunk conclusions; a painfully misplaced notion derived from pop apologists. Firewall questions, they believe, cannot be penetrated.
One firewall question asks, "Was Jesus Lord, a lunatic or a liar?" Another is, "What do you do with with Jesus?" Answering the questions produces little. Christians typically respond to answers with wry grins. Then they repeat the question, wholly ignoring the response.
Seed thoughts
A pentecostalist friend approached me in a hardware store parking lot a few weeks ago and, inches from nose, planted a seed thought. He rehearsed the story of Voltaire's office where he denounced the existence of God and, today, houses the American Bible Society. (My friend could not remember Voltaire's name, nor the name of the American Bible Society. I had to help him.) I didn't have the heart to tell my friend that the story is an urban legend that grew from a decades-old misreport. I simply smiled until he went his way shouting another seed thought; something about hell being very hot.
Lectures
There is a component of the human mind that convinces us that truth is generated by a volume of verbiage. That truth is somehow enhanced by volume of decibels. Christians, therefore, seem to believe that by reciting whatever apologetic diatribe they think is most convincing at a decibel level designed to minimize contradictory verbiage will establish truth. I would like to tell them it doesn't but, sadly, I can't get a word in edgewise.
What to do
Though I readily admit I harbor a love for debate, I learned early that attempting to reason with my Christian friends was futile. What's more, I have no urge to evangelize anyone into naturalism. If they are content believing in the supernatural, why would I want to stop them?
Bogus martydom stories
The resurrection story must be true, we are told. Why would the disciples and early church fathers allow themselves to tortured and killed if they knew the resurrection never occurred?
That would be a credible argument if we knew that the disciples and early church fathers were truly martyred. In fact, we don't know how the early church leaders died. We only have accounts based on biased church tradition. And those traditions are highly suspect.
History ranges from vague to mute regarding the deaths of the original apostles. Church tradition, of course, fills the gap with sordid tales of painful executions. Even John, the lone disciple who tradition claims died of natural causes, was boiled alive in an attempt to destroy him. He was rescued by angels, it appears.
Consider, for example, the excerpt from an account of the martyrdom of Polycarp:
"When he had...finished his prayer, the men in charge of the fire lit the fire. And as a mighty flame blazed up, we saw a miracle....The fire...completely surrounded the body of the martyr; and it was there in the middle, not like flesh burning, but like bread baking or like gold and silver being refined in a furnace. For we also perceived a very fragrant odor, as if it were the scent of incense or some other precious spice." [source]
An account of the martyrdom of Ignatius is blunt: ". . . he was thus cast to the wild beasts close, beside the temple." It would seem believable until one considers the writer augments the story with tales of Ignatius appearing to his mourners after his death: ". . . .some of us saw the blessed Ignatius suddenly standing by us and embracing us, while others beheld him again praying for us, and others still saw him dropping with sweat, as if he had just come from his great labour, and standing by the Lord."1
Or consider the ministry of the apostle, Bartholomew. I know of no early extra-biblical acta recording his life and certainly not his death. The earliest is the Historia Certaminis Apostolici, a work once ascribed to the fourth-century Bishop of Babylon but later determined to be a tenth-century composition.
Accounts of the apostles' martyrdom are suspect for several reasons: First, in some instances reports of the apostles' deaths conflict. Second, it seems unlikely that no two of the apostles suffered identical deaths. Third, supernatural events surrounding martyrdom stories diminish their credibility. Fourth, the sensational elements of the apostles' deaths suggest they were exaggerated if not wholly concocted. Fifth, reliable historical documentation is virtually nonexistent.
• Matthew was killed by a sword (or axed with a halberd).
• Mark was dragged to death by horses.
• Peter was crucified upside down.
• James was tossed to his death from a Temple pinnacle.
• James the Greater had his head lopped off.
• Bartholomew (aka Nathanael) was flayed to death with a whip.
• Andrew was crucified on an x-shaped cross.
• Thomas was stabbed by a spear then burned in an oven.
• Jude was shot with arrows.
• Philip was crucified.
• Matthias was stoned and beheaded.
The conclusion is that martyrdom of early Christians is historical fact and it is possible that some, perhaps all, of the apostles were executed for their faith. There is, however, no conclusive evidence that any of the apostles died as martyrs allowing the possibility that some, perhaps all, of the apostles were not executed for their faith.
1. A. Cleveland Coxe, Ante-Nicene Fathers: Volume 1: The Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus [1885] [source]
--- aka David Stone, March 2, 2010
That would be a credible argument if we knew that the disciples and early church fathers were truly martyred. In fact, we don't know how the early church leaders died. We only have accounts based on biased church tradition. And those traditions are highly suspect.
History ranges from vague to mute regarding the deaths of the original apostles. Church tradition, of course, fills the gap with sordid tales of painful executions. Even John, the lone disciple who tradition claims died of natural causes, was boiled alive in an attempt to destroy him. He was rescued by angels, it appears.
Consider, for example, the excerpt from an account of the martyrdom of Polycarp:
"When he had...finished his prayer, the men in charge of the fire lit the fire. And as a mighty flame blazed up, we saw a miracle....The fire...completely surrounded the body of the martyr; and it was there in the middle, not like flesh burning, but like bread baking or like gold and silver being refined in a furnace. For we also perceived a very fragrant odor, as if it were the scent of incense or some other precious spice." [source]
An account of the martyrdom of Ignatius is blunt: ". . . he was thus cast to the wild beasts close, beside the temple." It would seem believable until one considers the writer augments the story with tales of Ignatius appearing to his mourners after his death: ". . . .some of us saw the blessed Ignatius suddenly standing by us and embracing us, while others beheld him again praying for us, and others still saw him dropping with sweat, as if he had just come from his great labour, and standing by the Lord."1
Or consider the ministry of the apostle, Bartholomew. I know of no early extra-biblical acta recording his life and certainly not his death. The earliest is the Historia Certaminis Apostolici, a work once ascribed to the fourth-century Bishop of Babylon but later determined to be a tenth-century composition.
Accounts of the apostles' martyrdom are suspect for several reasons: First, in some instances reports of the apostles' deaths conflict. Second, it seems unlikely that no two of the apostles suffered identical deaths. Third, supernatural events surrounding martyrdom stories diminish their credibility. Fourth, the sensational elements of the apostles' deaths suggest they were exaggerated if not wholly concocted. Fifth, reliable historical documentation is virtually nonexistent.
• Matthew was killed by a sword (or axed with a halberd).
• Mark was dragged to death by horses.
• Peter was crucified upside down.
• James was tossed to his death from a Temple pinnacle.
• James the Greater had his head lopped off.
• Bartholomew (aka Nathanael) was flayed to death with a whip.
• Andrew was crucified on an x-shaped cross.
• Thomas was stabbed by a spear then burned in an oven.
• Jude was shot with arrows.
• Philip was crucified.
• Matthias was stoned and beheaded.
The conclusion is that martyrdom of early Christians is historical fact and it is possible that some, perhaps all, of the apostles were executed for their faith. There is, however, no conclusive evidence that any of the apostles died as martyrs allowing the possibility that some, perhaps all, of the apostles were not executed for their faith.
1. A. Cleveland Coxe, Ante-Nicene Fathers: Volume 1: The Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus [1885] [source]
--- aka David Stone, March 2, 2010
A question for Christians
I'd like you to focus on one word: Verifiable.
Then, I would like to ask you a question; a question that will be predicated by the following observation.
A few weeks ago I was working in my home office where I could overhear my wife's excited chatter on the phone with a church friend. When the conversation ended, she came to my office to announce a miraculous event: Alan, a middle-aged church member, had been cured of cancer. "There was not a spot left." It was a clear and obvious miracle.
While I share the enthusiasm for Alan's sustained recovery, I wonder about Charlie; an elderly member of the same church who is suffering from terminal cancer. I wonder why God's providence denies Charlie and thousands of others remission from their disease. I also wonder if Alan's remission could have a natural explanation. And I wonder why God never heals amputees.
My question for Christians is this: Have you every witnessed or experienced anything supernatural that was verifiable. Again, the focus is on the word, verifiable.
Most Christians eagerly share their encounters with supernatural intervention from God. They frequently begin with their salvation experience. They may continue to rehearse a lifetime filled with specific instances of God's intervention -- none of which are verifiable. In their minds, however, their perceived experiences validate their belief in God.
A few years ago I heard the dynamic testimony of an older man who reminisced about his life and how, in hindsight, he could see the indelible hand of God throughout. Those experiences validated his faith. He was a Mormon.
-- aka David Stone, March 1, 2010
Then, I would like to ask you a question; a question that will be predicated by the following observation.
A few weeks ago I was working in my home office where I could overhear my wife's excited chatter on the phone with a church friend. When the conversation ended, she came to my office to announce a miraculous event: Alan, a middle-aged church member, had been cured of cancer. "There was not a spot left." It was a clear and obvious miracle.
While I share the enthusiasm for Alan's sustained recovery, I wonder about Charlie; an elderly member of the same church who is suffering from terminal cancer. I wonder why God's providence denies Charlie and thousands of others remission from their disease. I also wonder if Alan's remission could have a natural explanation. And I wonder why God never heals amputees.
My question for Christians is this: Have you every witnessed or experienced anything supernatural that was verifiable. Again, the focus is on the word, verifiable.
Most Christians eagerly share their encounters with supernatural intervention from God. They frequently begin with their salvation experience. They may continue to rehearse a lifetime filled with specific instances of God's intervention -- none of which are verifiable. In their minds, however, their perceived experiences validate their belief in God.
A few years ago I heard the dynamic testimony of an older man who reminisced about his life and how, in hindsight, he could see the indelible hand of God throughout. Those experiences validated his faith. He was a Mormon.
-- aka David Stone, March 1, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)