Prophecies of Jesus as Messiah? (Part Two)

Demian Farnworth at Fallen and Flawed recently composed a post entitled Who Do These 24 Statements Describe?

His list includes 24 prophecies he believes indicates Jesus as the Messiah.

I wanted to respond point by point to each verse in the comments section of Demian's blog, but after only making my way through two of the 24 verses, I realized that Demian would probably kill me for taking up so much room on a blog comment.

This response will span four parts - during each entry, I will comment on six of the proposed prophecies mentioned in Demian's post. This is part two of four.

Here we go again:

7. Isaiah 50:6 - "I gave My back to those who strike me, and My cheeks to those who pluck out the beard; I did not cover My face from humiliation and spitting."

The version of Isaiah 50:6 from my NIV reads "I offered my back to those who beat me, my cheeks to those who pulled out my beard; I did not hide my face from mocking and spitting."

It seems apparent to me that the figure identified in Isaiah 50 is the author of Isaiah himself, not Jesus. Isaiah 50:4 states that "The Sovereign LORD has given me an instructed tongue, to know the word that sustains the weary."

Furthermore, Isaiah 50:7-9 affirms:

"Because the Sovereign LORD helps me, I will not be disgraced. Therefore, I have set my face like flint, and I know that I will not be put to shame.
He who vindicates me is near. Who then will bring charges against me? Let us face each other! Who is my accuser? Let him confront me!
It is the Sovereign LORD who helps me. Who is he that will condemn me? They will all wear out like a garment; the moths will eat them up."

Is it true that the Gospels portray Jesus as not being disgraced, as not being put to shame, as not being charged or accused? These things may very well be true of Isaiah, but if the Jesus narrative is to remain coherent, these things can absolutely not be true of Jesus.

Because the context of Isaiah 50 implies that the statement is made by Isaiah, and because the statements themselves seem to fit Isaiah well, and not do seem to correspond with the accounts of Jesus from the Gospels, it seems more likely than not that Isaiah 50 is not a genuine prophecy of Jesus.

8. Psalms 22:16 - "They pierced my hands and my feet."

My NIV Bible notes that this chapter is a Psalm of David.

As you may have discerned by now, I have a high level of skepticism for claims of prophecy which originate from David's exclamations, because it seems apparent to me that it is futile for Biblical interpreters to associate a sinful figure such as David with the supposedly sinless Jesus (especially with regards to verses like Hebrews 4:15).

Further, the footnote under this verse in my NIV suggests "Some Hebrew manuscripts, Septuagint and Syriac; most Hebrew manuscripts / like the lion,", rather than "pierced". Also, none of the New Testament writers cite this verse as a reference to Jesus's crucifixion. At best, this verse is highly controversial and ambiguous, and it's not clear at all that it even references a messiah. Once again, I am quite doubtful that this verse is a genuine prophecy of Jesus.

9. Psalms 22:1 - "My God, my God, why have You forsaken me."

As I just wrote immediately above, my NIV Bible notes that this chapter is a Psalm of David.

Do I have to repeat what I just said about my skepticism of conflations of the figures of David and Jesus, while one is portrayed as a sinner and the other is portrayed as sinless? The longer I do this, the more it becomes apparent that the authors of the Gospel are purposely trying to write Jesus into previous texts. What else can I say? There is no specific reference to a messiah in this chapter. For those reasons, it seems clear to me that this passage is not a genuine prophecy of Jesus.

10. Psalms 22:7-8 - "All who see me sneer at me; they separate with the lip, they wag the head, saying, "Commit yourself to the LORD; let Him deliver him; let Him rescue him, because He delights in him.""

Four of these prophecies are from Psalms 22. I understand, you think Psalms 22 is a messianic prophecy.

Clearly, I think this verse is referring to David, as is this entire chapter.

Again, there is no obvious reference to a messiah in this verse or in this chapter. It is ambiguous at best.

Again, I think it is extremely foolish to conflate the figures of a sinful David and a sinless Christ.

For those reasons, it is apparent to me that Psalms 22:7-8 is not a prophecy of Jesus.

11. Psalms 69:21 - "They also gave me gall for my food and for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink."

My NIV notes that this chapter is a Psalm of David.

My objections to conflating the figures of David and Jesus should go without saying by this point, Demian. But here is a great example of why I am so skeptical of such claims:

"You know my folly, O God; my guilt is not hidden from you." - Psalms 69:5

We have already covered this, of course. But I wanted to remind you that it seems a direct contradiction to identify Jesus with a foolish sinner, as the author of this passage is portrayed.

Be honest. Is Jesus supposed to be a sinner? If not, how can this be a valid prophecy?

Furthermore, it is ambiguous and doesn't even specify a direct reference to a messiah. It's about David.

It is apparent to me, once again, that this passage is not a prophecy of Jesus.

12. Psalms 22:14 - "I am poured out like water; and all my bones are out of joint; my heart is like wax; it is melted within me."

Crikey, not another passage from Psalms 22. (In case you haven't noticed by now, a Psalm of David.)

One last time:
1. No specific reference to a messiah is contained in this passage, making it highly ambiguous at best.
2. It's problematic to compare the sinful David and the supposedly sinless Jesus (to say that both figures are the same) because of verses like Hebrews 4:15.

For those reasons, it is apparent that Psalms 22:14 is not a genuine prophecy of Jesus.

Prophecies of Jesus as Messiah? (Part One)

Demian Farnworth at Fallen and Flawed recently composed a post entitled Who Do These 24 Statements Describe?

His list includes 24 prophecies he believes indicate Jesus as the Messiah.

I wanted to respond point by point to each verse in the comments section of Demian's blog, but after only making my way through two of the 24 verses, I realized that Demian would probably kill me for taking up so much room on a blog comment.

This response will span four parts - during each entry, I will comment on six of the proposed prophecies mentioned in Demian's post. This is part one of four.

Here we go:

1. Psalms 69:2 - "Those who hate me with out cause are more than the hairs of my head."

My NIV Bible indicates that this is a psalm of David. I am skeptical of this passage because in verse 5, the writer declares that "You know my folly, O God; my guilt is not hidden from you." So if Christians want to suggest that the figure who is hated without reason and who has enemies without cause is Jesus, then should they also suggest that Jesus is guilty and has committed folly? For those reasons, it does not seem likely that Psalms 69:2 is a prophecy of Jesus.

2. Psalms 2:2 - "The things of the earth take their stand and the rulers take counsel together against the LORD and against His Anointed."

At first, there were elements about this chapter that made me feel that it could be a convincing messianic prophecy, but after performing some comparative analysis on differing versions of the text, I have concluded that this is at best an ambiguous and unclear passage, and not a strong prophecy of Jesus - in fact, it may not even refer to a messianic figure.

Here's the text of Psalms 2 as found in my NIV:

"Why do the nations conspire (footnote: Hebrew; Septuagint rage) and the peoples plot in vain?
The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together against the LORD and against his Anointed One (footnote: Or anointed one).
"Let us break their chains," they say, "and throw off their fetters."
The One enthroned in heaven laughs; the Lord scoffs at them.
Then he rebukes them in his anger and terrifies them in his wrath, saying,
"I have installed my King (footnote: Or king) on Zion, my holy hill."
I will proclaim the decree of the LORD: He said to me, "You are my Son (footnote: Or son; also in verse 12); today I have become your Father (footnote: Or have begotten you.
Ask of me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession.
You will rule them with an iron scepter (footnote: Or will break them with a rod of iron); you will dash them to pieces like pottery."
Therefore, you kings, be wise; be warned, you rulers of the earth.
Serve the LORD with fear and rejoice with trembling.
Kiss the Son, lest he be angry and you be destroyed in your way, for his wrath can flare up in a moment. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

For comparison purposes, here is the text of Psalms 22 from a Hebrew-English Bible based on the Masoretic Text which I found at mechon-mamre.org:

Why are the nations in an uproar? And why do the peoples mutter in vain?
The kings of the earth stand up, and the rulers take counsel together, {N}
against the LORD, and against His anointed:
'Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.'
He that sitteth in heaven laugheth, the Lord hath them in derision.
Then will He speak unto them in His wrath, and affright them in His sore displeasure:
'Truly it is I that have established My king upon Zion, My holy mountain.'
I will tell of the decree: the LORD said unto me: 'Thou art My son, this day have I begotten thee.
Ask of Me, and I will give the nations for thine inheritance, and the ends of the earth for thy possession.
Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.'
Now therefore, O ye kings, be wise; be admonished, ye judges of the earth.
Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
Do homage in purity, lest He be angry, and ye perish in the way, when suddenly His wrath is kindled. {N}
Happy are all they that take refuge in Him. {P}

In the NIV version, there are several things which give the verse the appearance of referring to a Messiah:

1. The use of the phrase 'Anointed One' as distinct from the LORD.
2. The capitalization of words such as 'Son', 'King', and 'Father'.
3. The use of the phrase 'Kiss the Son' and the reference to taking refuge - this does sound like something that could be a plausible reference to Jesus.

However, in the comparison version of Psalms 22,

1. 'anointed' is used instead of 'Anointed One'.
2. 'king' and 'son' are not capitalized; I have begotten thee is used instead of 'Father'
3. The term 'Do homage in purity' is used instead of the phrase 'Kiss the Son', and the text generally does not seem to refer to taking refuge in a Son, but rather to taking refuge in the LORD generally.

It seems more plausible that 'son' in this chapter refers to King David, or to Israel itself, rather than to Jesus. Especially since verse 6 mentions that the king will be installed on Zion, and Jesus specifically claims that his kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36), it seems most likely that Psalms 2 is not a prophecy of Jesus - though I would certainly like to question whoever oversaw the compilation of the NIV text on their interpretation and rendering of Psalms 2.

3. Psalms 41:9 - "Even my close friend in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted up his heel against me."

My NIV Bible denotes this chapter as a Psalm of David.

Verse 4 of Psalm 4 indicates that the psalmist has "sinned against" God. Once again I ask, do Christians want to associate Jesus with the figure of a Psalm who has openly admitted his sinful behavior? This is in direct contradiction to Christianity's claim that Jesus is without sin. For those reasons, it seems most likely that Psalms 41:9 is not a prophecy of Jesus.

4. Zechariah 13:7 - "Strike the shepherd and the sheep may be scattered."

What exactly is this supposed to be a prophecy of?

In this verse, God says "I will turn my hand against the little ones." What does that have to do with Jesus? Yes, knowing my Bible, I can guess that you're going to say that it's a reference to the apostles fleeing after the crucifixion of Jesus - but to me, that's a definite stretch in this context, because in this verse, it is God himself who is doing the striking and the scattering, and turning his hand against the little ones. This doesn't seem to have much to do with Jesus, and the context of this verse does not fit coherently with the Jesus narrative at all. For these reasons, it seems probable that this verse is not a prophecy of Jesus.

5. Zechariah 11:12-13 - "I said to them, "If it is good in your sight, give me my wages; but if not, never mind!" So they weighted out thirty shekels of silver as my wages. Then the LORD said to me, "Throw it to the potter, that magnificent price at which I was valued by them." So I took the thirty shekels of silver and threw them to the potter in the house of the LORD."

The author of Matthew 27:9-10 references this verse, but attributes it to Jeremiah instead of Zechariah. Oops?

Also, this passage is ambiguous at best. God is depicted here as telling Zechariah to throw the money at a potter; Judas is depicted as giving the money to Caiaphas, who is said to have bought a potters' field. Besides that, this passage says nothing about a messiah. It appears that the author of Matthew tried to make it appear that Jesus fulfilled prophecy, but ended up not only citing the wrong prophet, but mangling the prophecy in the process. For those reasons, it seems doubtful that this passage is a genuine prophecy of Jesus.

6. Micah 5:1 - "With a rod they will smite the judge of Israel on the cheek."

My version of Micah 5:1 reads "Marshal your troops, O city of troops (footnote: Or Strengthen your walls, O walled city, for a siege is laid out against us. They will strike Israel's ruler on the cheek with a rod."

What do "a siege is laid out against us" or marshaling troops have to do with Jesus? It seems more likely that this verse refers to an earthly ruler of Israel. Micah 5:4 claims that in the days of the promised ruler Israel "will live securely, for then his greatness will reach to the ends of the earth." Yet as I noted earlier, Jesus is on the record as saying that his kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36), so it seems unlikely that he would marshal troops or prepare for a siege, or restore the kingdom of Israel, as the figure identified in Micah 5:2 is described as doing. For these reasons, again, it seems unlikely that this passage is a genuine prophecy of Jesus. This may be another attempt by the Gospels writers to make it appear that Jesus fulfills prophecy, but is clear that Jesus does not match the figure of the powerful earthly ruler described in Micah 5.

Robespierre: A Lesson in Divine Justice

"Terror is only justice: prompt, severe and inflexible; it is then an emanation of virtue; it is less a distinct principle than a natural consequence of the general principle of democracy, applied to the most pressing wants of the country."

- Maximilien Robespierre

What if I said the following?

"God's righteousness is only justice: prompt, severe and inflexible; it is then an emanation of virtue; it is less a distinct principle than a natural consequence of His righteousness which includes all honesty and virtue, applied perfectly according to His will."

What is the difference between these two statements?

The first statement is widely acknowledged as the creed of a madman. We recognize that abject terror, even in the service of admirable goals, is not at all admirable, but grounds for condemnation and repudiation.

Yet the second statement is widely espoused as a tenet of Christian dogma. What humanity would do, we consider abuse - but when a god does it, it is permissible.

Was Robespierre right to order thousands killed for the interests of the state? Can your God be called good if the result of said God's "righteousness" is the torment of billions?

Robespierre killed for the glory of the state and for himself, and he is labeled a narcissist and a cruel, sick man. Christians claims that their God kills and condemns for His own glory, yet they worship Him.

Divine command morality leads to this state of affairs: history's most notorious villains and the god of the Bible are indistinguishable.

"Considering the Bible and Christianity Without A Prior God Belief Is Meaningless"

"And, I concur; considering the Bible and Christianity without a prior God belief is meaningless."

Commenter MS Quixote raised this point in the midst of a discussion on the blog Daylight Atheism.

I have seen this point raised so many times that I feel it is necessary for me to address this point directly, once and for all, on record.

First, what exactly does it mean to consider the Bible and Christianity?

I state here that I am assuming that what I mean by "considering the Bible and Christianity" is that I am considering whether I believe the spiritual claims are true. If this can be said more precisely, please let me know how I can summarize this in a more accurate way.

I assume that MS Quixote wants to know if the claims of the Bible and Christianity are true, and that he assumes that other people want to know if the claims of the Bible and Christianity are true, and that this is what he means when he says "considering the Bible and Christianity".

I hope I have made correct assumptions in determining what each of us is trying to accomplish when we consider the Bible and Christianity, because those assumptions are fundamental to this exercise.

In the comments section of the original entry by MS Quixote, I noted that Muslims do approach the Bible and Christianity with a prior god belief, but they still have different god beliefs than Christians.

MS Quixote was gracious enough to recognize this, and amended his statement to say that one needs a Christian god belief before considering Christianity and the Bible in a meaningful way. At least, I hope this is what he meant to say, and that I have correctly stated his position.

In suggesting an experiment with MS Quixote's line of reasoning, I am providing the following counter-examples for comparison:

"And, I concur; considering the Qu'ran and Islam without a prior belief in Allah is meaningless."

"And, I concur; considering the Book of Mormon without a prior belief in the revelations of Joseph Smith is meaningless."

"And, I concur; considering the Bhagavad-Gita without a prior belief in Krishna is meaningless."

I wonder if MS Quixote would have any objections to these lines of reasoning if he encountered them in a discussion from a fellow theist, albeit one of a different belief system than his own?

If Christianity can be a properly basic belief, then can Hinduism also be a properly basic belief? Can Islam be a properly basic belief? What about Mormonism?

According to the basic tenets of these religions, not all of them can be true. Therefore, if one can say that the followers of all of these religions have properly basic beliefs, one can say that out of a large number of the people who have properly basic beliefs, many of them have properly basic beliefs that are wrong.

I believe that this circumstance should give anyone who defends religious belief with the notion of "properly basic belief" a moment of pause.

If a large number of people who have properly basic beliefs about a subject are wrong, then one should acknowledge that having a properly basic belief alone is not good enough as a standard for one to be confident of one's conclusions about a subject.

The idea that only consideration of Christianity with a prior belief in the Christian god can be meaningful does not account for the way human beings actually believe in things and acquire beliefs about the subject of religion. I have given counter-examples of patterns of belief in other religious belief systems to demonstrate where I believe that this argument is deficient.

Lastly, there are probably many areas where I have said something that is not as precise as it could be, or I have said something which is a mischaracterization or a misinterpretation, or I have not been clear enough in articulating my ideas. I openly acknowledge the possibility of errors, and if someone can identify them, I will gladly revise my statements. I freely admit that I am a relative novice in discussions of religion and philosophy, but I hope to learn as much as possible as I increase in experience and practice, and to continue a civil and productive discussion of belief and knowledge and "life, the universe, and everything".

Old Religion and New Atheism

Sam Harris. Richard Dawkins. Christopher Hitchens. Daniel Dennett.

A surge of criticism of religion's role in society and the nature of religious belief itself has arisen in the last several years.

Many critics have derisively termed the authors of these criticisms and their supports as "New Atheists".

What is the "New Atheism"? And why does anyone care? Is it a category which actually is meaningful and significant, or a rhetorical device used to reinforce pre-existing stereotypes and to shut down conversation about religion and humanity's interactions with religion, especially conversation which condemns religion?

Most people would agree that atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods.

However, this does not mean that there is not greater significance to the recent emphasis by atheists to increase visibility of our existence in the public sphere (of athiests) and also to increase exposure to religious criticism in the public sphere.

To determine why this is significant, let's examine what religion is. How do we define religion through the context of our own lives and in the context of our societies? How is this important, and why should anyone care?

Why should religion be criticized in public societies? Isn't religion just a personal choice, an expression of personal values? Why should atheists criticize other people's personal beliefs? Isn't this cruel and needless stigmatization?

Such an analysis of atheists' criticism of religion is sorely misguided and does not accurately characterize the intricate series of relationships between individuals, societies, and religions.

Religion is more than personal choice; it is more often a societal and even a political construct. Throughout human history, religion has been invoked as one of many ties which bind tribes, polities, and social categories of all kinds. With changes in leadership, have come changes in the religious practices encouraged and incentivized by the state.

As a belief, as a state (or states) of mind, and as a practice, religions are invariably linked with their respective cultures. Religion is not only a political experience, but a cultural one as well.

Without the context of our societies and the groups in which we associate, how would any of us resolve our identities as human beings in this modern age?

Some critics have charged that the "New Atheism" is overly politicized. Religion has always been politicized. Any criticism of religion is essentially a political criticism. Religion is just one more imagined community, constructed in the mold of the nation-state and the social club.

Religion is shot through with power and politicking. The Pope is elected. Ayatollahs control the nation of Iran. The ceremonial head of state in the United Kingdom is also the head of the Anglican church.

"New atheism" may not be a new message or a new strategy at all. However, the public campaign for increased critical thinking about religion and skepticism is a political fight.

Did the Ayatollahs descend from the heavens? Did Pope Benedict XVI come down from the Mount of Olives? Did Queen Elizabeth II's mother receive frankincense in the manger?

I personally believe that most atheists' criticism of religion is not a criticism of personal expression -- rather, I believe that it is a criticism of the social and political construct, the established order which is modern religion, which is in turn enabled by poor critical thinking and a deficit of skepticism.

Easter - Why Am I Even Mentioning It?

In a few hours, Easter will be celebrated once again by the world's Christians.

This year marks my first Easter when I will not be attending church; it's the first time I've had to look at my calendar to see when it was, or be reminded of the festivities by the signs spread across my campus alerting worshippers to service times and by the chocolate eggs and bunnies sprawled upon the dresser of my nominally Catholic roommate.

I belong to a freethinkers' group and tonight they arranged a showing of "The God Who Wasn't There", and neither was I.

If I am trying to find a new way to (not) celebrate Easter, am I still not celebrating it?

Evolution and the God Hypotheses

Is evolution compatible with religious beliefs?

Perhaps -- it likely depends on the selection of religious belief under consideration.

Is evolution compatible with the existence of an omni-benevolent and all-knowing god?

I believe that it is highly improbable that these two things can coincide, though I cannot eliminate the possibility.

However, there is an intriguing implication for the belief that evolution is guided by a divine hand:

Almost all of the species which have ever lived are now extinct. Does this mean that a hypothetical god has failed? Or is a non-supernatural explanation more plausible?

Would an omni-benevolent god use the mechanism of natural selection to develop the diversity of life? Perhaps there is some utility in this high failure rate, but then one must consider the immense suffering which is implicit in this arrangement.

Competition -- vicious cycles of living and dying brutally -- a state where most animals not able to thrive, but only able to do enough to survive, does not seem like a product of either an all-knowing or an all-loving god.

Let's examine each distinct god hypothesis and decide whether the claims about the nature of gods are consistent with the realities of our existence.

I consider all claims of an interventionary divine being to be a hypothesis: if a god is said to interfere in the natural world, then we cannot simply shrug off difficult questions and deflect criticism with the excuse that such a god is beyond space and time. How can a god which is said to interfere with natural processes be strictly beyond space and time? The claims are not consistent.

Can the existence of gods be proven or disproven? In all likelihood, this is an impossible task. However, I do have every confidence that we can establish the probability or improbability of religious claims.

I believe that the claims of modern religions are extremely improbable in the context of the evidence which we currently have, and therefore I cannot accept them.

David Brooks, Kerosene Firefighter

David Brooks' editorial from April 7th's New York Times simply tries to do too many things.

Brooks is successful when he examines developments in psychology, but he falls on his face when he tries to extrapolate the broader implications he has presented in the first sections of the article.

Brooks is citing research which supports the hypothesis that human beings are not fundamentally rational actors.

He cites psychologist Jonathan Haidt's work, and I am definitely a fan of Haidt. I readily acknowedge Haidt's conclusions, but Brooks' interpretation is essentially a misrepresentation.

I would say I disagree with Brooks' interpretations, but this criticism goes beyond disagreement. Brooks is just wrong -- his assumptions are faulty and his logic is terrible. As if those travesties were not enough, while evaluating the consequences of Haidt's research, he also misses some of the most obvious and some of the most profound conclusions of all.

He attempts to present Haidt's conclusions as an atheist dilemma.

"It challenges the new atheists, who see themselves involved in a war of reason against faith and who have an unwarranted faith in the power of pure reason and in the purity of their own reasoning."

However, from the premise "reasoning comes later and is often guided by the emotions that preceded it", it does not logically follow that a pursuit of "pure reason" is ill-advised or illogical.

Brooks implies that we should combat irrationality with more irrationality.

That's like throwing lighter fluid instead of water on a burning building. It's a recipe for destruction.

Because we have realized that human beings are not rational actors, we should acknowledge the necessity of examining the basis for our decision-making as closely as possible. Because we acknowledge that humans have a propensity to make irrational decisions, then we must do everything we can to constantly reevaluate our own thought processes.

Brooks pontificates that "most people struggle toward goodness, not as a means, but as an end in itself". And what ends may we use to achieve goodness? Reason.

Much of organized religion is a stumbling block in this pursuit, which is one of the most important claims of the writings of Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris.

People often make bad decisions precisely because emotion circumvents reasoning, and this is why reason is critically important to improving the quality of human life.

Pope Benedict XVI advised Africans that use of condoms increases AIDS. Because of this poorly reasoned, emotionally-stoked advice, people will die. People will die because the man formerly known as Joseph Ratzinger failed to properly examine the scientific and medical evidence, and instead relied on his intuitions to arrive at an important decision.

People will die because of this irrational advice. It won't be because Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins waged a war of "pure reason".

It is not when reason is overwhelmed by emotion that reason is unwarranted. Rather, it is just when people do not operate primarily by reason that a faith in reason is most warranted.

David Brooks, the kerosene firefighter, has it exactly backwards.

Is God Deceiving Us? Evolution and Sound Decision-Making

Alvin Plantinga asks how we can have confidence in our conclusions if we reach them via a brain that is hardwired not for truth, but for survival purposes.

However, if our brains are not hardwired for truth, then what are they hardwired for? Are they hardwired for deception?

Humans are notoriously susceptible to both optical illusions and hypnosis.

If Plantinga is willing to admit that our brains are not hardwired for truth, then what is he acknowledging about the feasibility of a designer? Were our brains purposely set in motion to be deceived?

What is the best explanation? Would a benevolent god really have hardwired our brains for survival but not truth -- deception but not reality?

The god of the Bible may want our attention, our loyalty, our love, and our devotion, but such a god does not want us to perceive it clearly, if Christian and other theistic claims are to be accepted.

This would imply that any such god is either indifferent or malevolent.

If human beings are not wired for sound decision-making, then who could blame Adam or Eve for their transgresion in the Genesis story? Who could blame Lot's wife for looking back at the burning city? If human beings were intentionally wired for deception, then we are really the victims of the divine, if the apologists' claims are to be accepted.

A God who does not want human beings to see the truth is the inevitable result of this line of reasoning, and clearly possesses unacceptable consequences for many commonly-held religious beliefs.

Under this scenario, the Biblical god would be every bit as guilty of deception as Satan himself.

When Possibility Is Not Enough

It has been suggested that, having laughed at Christopher Columbus and Thomas Edison, we should not laugh at those who assert the possibility of the supernatural, because their claims may also be confirmed at some point in the future.

However, this vague notion of possibility is not enough to establish credibility for most religious claims, especially when the argument is not even fully honest.

There is a basic contradiction in this line of thinking: we must keep our minds open to all possibilities of future supernatural discovery, while simultaneously limiting our menu of choices to a select few ancient tribal narratives.

Because we know less than we may in the future, we should turn to those who knew far less than we do now? That's quite an absurd and confusing position to hold.

I hope that those who would assert this argument would not let themselves become entrenched in any specific supernatural position just because of cultural and traditional biases.

Can those who claim to be open-minded, who exhort others to be open-minded to the possibility of the supernatural, actually be open-minded in practice as they are in preaching?

It's possible.

Believing in Belief

I have interacted with many evangelical Christians over Internet blogs and forums. One common claim I have heard is that I was never really a Christian.

If you have read my story on this blog, you'll recall that I was raised as a Christian and deconverted because I decided that the evidence for its validity was severely lacking.

But was I an actual Christian? At first, this question annoyed me greatly. I believed that this claim was nonsensical and absurd at best, and that it was a stinging personal insult and rebuke at its worst.

However, I have now realized that the answer to this question is not entirely black and white. Of course, that conclusion alone should not surprise me. Few things in our existence are entirely black and white.

What shocked me is the realization that I may not have been an actual Christian before I deconverted.

I am trying to remember what exactly it was that I believed in during this time. Did I believe in a higher power? Did I believe in the Bible? Did I believe in the community of my church congregation? Did I believe in the power of faith or belief itself?

Why do these questions matter? These questions are critically important because they attempt to define what Christianity is, and in doing so attempt to determine what exactly it means to be a Christian (or to be a religious person of any persuasion) in today's environment.

I did believe in a higher power. I prayed to my God before meal times and before I fell asleep at night and while I was in church services. Did I believe in the Bible? Yes and no. I had not read all of it. I believed that some of its claims were figurative and that some were literal. I don't think this made me any less of a Christian. I viewed the creation story in Genesis as figurative while acknowledging the reality of evolution, though I fully embraced its claims about Jesus and his supposed sacrifice for humanity. I believed in the eternal existence of heaven and hell, though I had no idea who would end up in each place (I had not made up my mind about universalism or other approaches, but I knew that the Bible said that Jesus was the only way, and I could never get past that reality).

However, as much as I believed in the technicalities of Christian dogma, I also believed strongly in its pragmatic aspects. I believed in the power of faith. I had faith in my government and my society and my family and my friends -- and in God. I also believed in the power of the community in my church. I knew that they were basically good people. I saw my church as a positive influence in my life and as a positive influence in my community.

A nagging question pervades my thoughts: did I really believe in Christianity or did I believe in being Christian? Did I have a belief or did I believe in having a belief? Was I part of a belief community or was I a believer? I don't know the answer.

I don't know if I really was a Christian before I deconverted.

However, if I was not really a Christian, than most of the people in America who proclaim Christianity as their religion probably are not Christians, either. Of course, this assumes that there is an objective definition of what a Christian is, which is probably not accurate.

The major question is this: what do you believe in?

Do you believe in belief? Do you believe in community? Do you believe in faith? Do you believe in charity? Do you believe in good works?

Do you believe in Christianity because it provides an outlet for your other beliefs which you already have, or do you believe in it because you are a sincere follower, you've thought about it at length, and you really do believe that its claims are accurate?

It appears that many people in the world practice Christianity not because they have extensively researched the issues and determined that it is better than all the other religions and spiritual traditions in the world, but because it provides a framework for their other beliefs about themselves and the world which they have adopted from society and family and tradition.

And of course, the same thing is more than likely true for Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and practically every other religious tradition on the planet.

I am tired of asking and answering "what" questions about religion. Now I am much more fascinated with the "why" questions. Why do people believe? Why do individuals believe a certain way?

Was I ever a Christian? Maybe not. Is anyone ever a Christian? Maybe not. Have you ever been a Christian? Maybe not.

Do you believe in a book? Do you believe in a revelation? Do you believe in belief?

Religions often try to be none of these things and all of these things at the same time, for everyone. The whole process of examining religion just confirms my opinion that the religions of our world are human-originated social constructs and not divine manifestations.

Natural Selection and the Haber Process

The Haber process is responsible for the synthetic mass production of ammonia.

The ammonia is used to make nitrogen fertilizers, which play a critical role in feeding about one third of Earth's population.

The ammonia from the Haber process is also used to make ammunition. Germany used the Haber process during WWI to do this. Some have speculated that Germany could not have waged WWI (or waged it for as long as it did) without the benefit of the Haber process.

So this technology is simultaneously responsible for preserving the lives of over a billion people...and could ultimately be responsible for the deaths of just as many?

Natural selection is comparable to the Haber process. It has led to us, for instance. However, almost all of the species that have ever existed are extinct.

Would an all-knowing, all-loving, all-good god use this kind of mechanism to bring us into existence?