Issue #142-Letters on God's Powers, M. Jako on Str

Biblical Errancy Issue #142-Letters on God's Powers, M. Jako on Strawmanish Stuff, Liberal Christianity, & Spiritual Scam, Internet Atheist Resources, Policy on Quoting BE, PO Stamps Religion on BE, Prometheus Ads Our Book

Nov 10, '08 6:57 AM
by Loren for everyone






Issue No. 142

October 1994

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For a long time we have had a policy of periodically devoting an entire issue to letters from readers. This month's edition marks another addition to that sequence.

DIALOGUE AND DEBATE
Letter #595 from TD of Morgantown, West Virginia
Dear Dennis.
On pages 4-5 of BE #140, you responded to my previous letter, but you seem still to have not comprehended the issue. It could be initially posed as a simple question: what can an omnipotent being do? My answer is: any action whatever. But then the question becomes this: what restrictions must be placed on sequences of words for them to describe actions? I would say that they at least need to express something intelligible. You seem to agree with me that "make he were he if" does not describe any action, but you disagree with me about the words "create a square circle". You say that those words do describe an action, whereas I say they do not.
What about the sequence "make green ideas sleep furiously"? Does that describe an action? You seemed to flounder on that example, in one place suggesting that it expresses no action because it relates concepts that are not associated with one another, but in another place suggesting that it does describe an action, but one which not even an omnipotent being can perform! (You wrote: "Can God create green ideas? ...of course not.") If there is an action there at all, then how is it that an omnipotent being cannot perform it? Some explanation is needed. Here are some other sequences to try out. Can an omnipotent being: •(1) create an if but mountain?
•(2) brightly extricate makeshift brawny flashbacks?
•(3) know carefully that a tree is brightly even?
•(4) state, season, ride, and caution one and the same thing?
•(5) see a book carefully?
•(6) paint the theory of relativity blue?
•(7) make it be 5:00 PM on the sun?
•(8) create an object that is red and not red at the same time?
•(9) create an object that is all red and all green at the same time?

My view is that all of the examples are unintelligible. I would not say (as R.C. Sproul apparently would) that the answer to them is "No". I would say, instead, that there can be no answer because no intelligible question is being asked. And it follows from that that there is no action described in any of them. You said in BE 137-2 that "omnipotence" is an absolutist word that allows no exceptions. So in that case you ought to be able to apply to the above examples and come up with answers to the nine questions. What are your answers to them?
Editor's Response to Letter #595
Dear TD.
With all due respect, you are repeating yourself. All you are doing is adding additional examples to the same point you made with your "make he were he if" illustration. So all I can do is ask you to reread the answer I gave earlier. You say I "have not comprehended the issue" and tended to flounder when I think the floundering lies elsewhere. You say words need to describe actions and "express something intelligible" but immediately reinterpret that to mean "express something possible." Sentences don't have to express something intelligible. All they have to do is "be intelligible." When I ask if God can create a square circle or a two-sided triangle that is clearly referring to an action. Your first, second, third, and fourth examples are unintelligible because the sentence (assuming an omnipotent being is the subject) in which they are contained is itself unintelligible. The problem lies not with the concept being conveyed, because we never get that far. The problem lies with the sentence itself. That's the problem with your "make he were he if" example as well. On the other hand, your seventh, eighth, and ninth examples are intelligible sentences but convey unintelligible concepts. They are like asking God to create a square circle or a two-sided triangle. The sentence is intelligible but the idea conveyed is not. As I said in the 140th issue, you are confusing an unintelligible sentence with an unintelligible concept. The biblical ideas of someone being both God and man simultaneously (the Trinity), predestination directing a free-willed human being, and the emergence of evil in a world created by a perfectly good being are excellent examples of unintelligible Christian concepts that can be put into intelligible sentences. Christians constantly say, for example, "Jesus was God and man simultaneously." According to you that is an unintelligible sentence, on a par with "make he were he if." I disagree. The sentence is intelligible but the concept it is attempting to convey is not. According to you, the sentence "Can God count to infinity?" is unintelligible. Again, I disagree. The sentence is intelligible, while the act or concept is not.

Letter #596 from DM of Pasadena, California
Dear Mr. McKinsey.
I have to agree with TD's final conclusion (Letter #591). Since all triangles have three sides by definition, there can never be such a thing as a two-sided triangle. When we use the word "triangle" in the mathematical sense we are referring to a three-sided figure. Whatever two-sided figure God might create, whether we could comprehend it or not, would not fit our idea of a "triangle."
I would go one step further and say that an all-powerful god could not create a three-sided triangle or a round circle! When we draw a triangle we are not creating a triangle. Rather, we are creating an approximation in graphite or ink of an abstract concept. Being an idealized concept, a triangle is not an object which can be created or destroyed. It has neither substance nor beginning nor end in time or space. Therefore, it makes no sense to speak of a triangle as being created or destroyed....
I enjoyed your handling of Johnson's attempt to explain away a number of Bible contradictions. The contradictions you selected were excellent. You really nailed his hide to the ground!

Editor's Response to Letter #596
Dear DM.
You may agree with TD's conclusion, but your reasoning is different. In simple terms, all you are saying is that God can't do it because it can't be done. I couldn't agree more. You say that "whatever two-sided figure God might create, whether we could comprehend it or not, would not fit our idea of a 'triangle'." Precisely! In other words, God can't make a two-sided triangle. It can't be done, even by a being with alleged unlimited powers. So how could he have totally unlimited powers? How could he be omnipotent, when there are feats even he can't accomplish? I appreciate your compliments regarding Johnson.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Letter #597 from Mickey Jako of 4 Chickering Court, Andover, Mass. 01810
(Mickey is a believer in the philosophy of Thomas Paine (deism) and specializes in making audio tape recordings of his meetings with Christian fundamentalists. What follows are some of his conclusions, based upon numerous encounters--Ed.).

(a name="libxtian">STRAWMANISH STUFF





I think the liberal Christian, in fact I would say, the average Christian, views things like disputing the Noah's ark story as a "strawmanish" endeavor, as somehow a bit spiritually immature or retarded, or foolishly literalist. They would say that surely there are many valuable, instructive myths in the Bible that do not have to be taken as literally true. I tended to think this way myself for many years. But not any more; and here's why.
Christianity, whether fundamentalist or liberal, rests on the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus...believed in the literal truth of the OT accounts! He does not refer to them as mere stories; he refers to them as actual happenings. The flood, in Matt. 24:37-41. Lot's wife turning into salt, in Luke 17:32-33. Jonah and the whale, in Matt. 12:40. I just recently spoke to an astute minister who agreed with me, that Jesus regarded these stories as literally true, because he does not refer to them as "the story of" or "the parable of" but simply straightforwardly as actual occurrences.
Therefore, if Jesus considers these things as actual happenings, and if such accounts can be shown to be literally impossible, then Jesus is not the son of God, and Christianity is not valid. I believe one cannot judge the validity of Xity by selecting parts of only certain teachings of Jesus and probing them for their deep spiritual insight. Instead, you must examine all of what Jesus said, taught, claimed, and supported, and if specific passages do not hold up, in their wisdom, in their morality, in their scientific credibility, or if they are irreconcilable with other passages, then Jesus was not divine, and was not the representative of God as claimed.
I agree with Dennis's approach here. To resolve whether or not Xity is valid, you don't go off meditating on the wonders of love and the brotherhood of man apart from the actual words of the Bible; instead, you examine what the book says, you get down to the verses, you study the specifics of key passages, like examining a crime scene, to determine the truth. I do not think it's strawmanish. I do not think it's letter-of-the-law quibbling. I think it's examining clues to determine the truth.
A 450 foot wooden boat (Noah's Ark) puts the lie to Jesus, because such a vessel could not be seaworthy, according to modern shipbuilding experts, and a divine person would have known that. A divine person would have known the difference between a mythical story and reality, and surely would have taken care to make that distinction clear to his followers.
If Jesus believed in the OT, which he did, the liberal Christian is not justified in overlooking serious contradictions in it, or labeling those issues "strawmanish."
LIBERAL CHRISTIANITY I find the liberal Christian's position to be untenable on other points of principle, also. The liberal will believe there are many paths to God. But Jesus says he is the only way - John 14:6 "No man comes to the Father except through me." Acts 4:12 "Nor is there salvation in any other."
The liberal is tolerant, views intolerance as a definition of evil, and tends to respect the sincere beliefs of other faiths; but Jesus supports, if not identifies with, the nobleman in Luke 19:27, who says, "Bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me."
The liberal regards errors in the Bible as largely irrelevant, but Jesus said in John 10:35 "Scripture cannot be broken." I say you cannot, as a liberal Christian, consider Jesus to be the essential source of divine wisdom, and simultaneously disagree with what he says.

THE SPIRITUAL SCAM Christians approach Biblical passages with the PRESUMPTION that divine wisdom underlies them, and then proceed to play fast and loose with what the passage actually says, so that they get something positive out of it, regardless. For example, Jesus can get away with saying you can move mountains (Mark 11:23-24) and Christians marvel at his wisdom and "advanced spirituality," instead of saying, "Man, that's simply not true, that's utopian, that's just rhetoric, you're feeding people's fantasies, you're just selling dreams!"
Of course, if you make that criticism, Christians respond by firing their all-purpose bazooka...their master mental trick: Jesus was speaking figuratively! not literally! FIGURATIVELY!
Oh, I beg to differ. HE MOST CERTAINLY WAS NOT!! Read the passage. If he meant figuratively, he would have given some indication that that's what he meant, saying something like "If there is a mountain IN YOUR HEART, you can move it." The moving mountains comment immediately follows Peter's astonishment at the PHYSICAL, repeat PHYSICAL, miracle of the withered fig tree.
No, I think Jesus and the NT writers were just prone to overblown rhetoric, overstatements, telling people what's exciting to hear. It's promiscuous spirituality, in my opinion. Jesus taught the greatest spiritual idea, regardless of reality--which is not the greatest spiritual idea, only the most temporarily exciting. The greatest spiritual ideas must be rooted in reality.
I'm reminded of one of the Who's songs, a song called "It's Hard." The lyric goes, "any kid can fly, but only a few can land." If you fly with the idea that you can move a mountain by just commanding it to move, you're going to crash. That's not wisdom, that's dumb.
It's so dishonest, all this making excuses for the Bible and Jesus. All this forced figurative interpretation. I'm not the literal-minded dummy that can't grasp the spiritual aspects of passages. I'm very spiritual. I see spiritual aspects, if they're there. The Christian is the dummy who won't read it for what it says. He has a vested psychological interest in positive spin, and in drawing sense out of nonsensical passages. Not me. Not any more. I've studied it long enough and hard enough. There's too much indisputable evidence that Christianity is flawed at its very core.
I think it's one of the most extraordinary intellectual scams of human history, how everyone gives Jesus all this extra credit! Even atheists tend to think of Jesus as at least a good moral teacher. But read the book! Read the passages objectively. Step outside your cultural conditioning. Stop distorting many of his dubious teachings into presumed pearls of wisdom.
Stop making excuses for Jesus, simply because you want or need to believe in an ideal man. Believe in some of the ideals you've seen in Jesus, yes, believe in those ideals, but don't believe in Jesus as that ideal man, because I don't think he was. Jesus as a whole doesn't cut it; only parts of him do.
You can believe, for example, in the spirit of generosity, without believing in Santa Claus. You can believe in love and compassion, without believing in Jesus. Don't tie the reality of a spiritual quality to the reality of a myth describing it. That's immature.
Rejecting Jesus as the Son of God does not mean rejecting some of the good values he espoused, although that is exactly the box Christianity tries to lock you into. Christianity does NOT have a monopoly on good spiritual values, nor is it the source of them.
I say follow the dictates of compassion and common sense. Can anybody who taught and supported the things Jesus did, the things Dennis points out month after month in Biblical Errancy, be a representative of God? I think not. Myself, I take the Thomas Paine position. I believe in a different God, a tolerant God, who is deeply dishonored by those who claim Jesus and the Bible represent him.

Editor's Response to Letter #597
Dear MJ.
I think the conclusions you have drawn based upon many encounters with biblicists are well considered, and for that you are to be complimented. Keep up the good work, and I look forward to the distribution of your audio tapes.
However, I do have a few reservations. First, you say, "I'm very spiritual. I see spiritual aspects, if they're there." The word "spiritual" is a metaphysical term that should be replaced by a more accurate word such as "ideological" or "philosophical." Belief in the spiritual realm is equivalent to saying one believes in spirits, ghosts, devils, demons, and other disembodied entities. I think it would have been wiser to have said you have high ideals or aspirations or ethics or morality. Secondly, you say, "The greatest spiritual ideas must be rooted in reality," "Don't tie the reality of a spiritual quality to the reality of a myth describing it," and "I see spiritual aspects if they're there." The spiritual realm has no reality and, therefore, could not be rooted in anything, especially reality. Third, you say, "...follow the dictates of compassion and common sense." The problem with this advice is that far too many people are doing exactly that. They are following the dictates of compassion, and unfortunately in all too many cases that represents anything but common sense. They need to think critically more and operate by emotion less. Fourth, you refer to the "good values he espoused" and say, "Jesus as a whole doesn't cut it; only parts of him do." I would go even farther by saying that those parts which cut it are far outweighed by those that don't. As our quote from Ruth Green's book showed in last month's issue, the ideals of Jesus are by no means as admirable as is commonly believed. Jesus is not only unqualified to be God incarnate, but doesn't even past muster as an advocate of a proper Weltanschauung. A few platitudes about brotherly love and forgiveness are by no means sufficient to overcome a plethora of escapist, submissive, unrealistic teachings. The negative aspect of Jesus far outweighs the positive. And lastly, by saying Christianity does not have a monopoly on good spiritual values, you are exposing the degree to which you have been subtlely influenced by Christian propaganda. As is true with Jesus, the so-called "good spiritual values" are far outweighed by negative Christian teachings. Christianity not only doesn't have a monopoly on "good spiritual teachings," but the latter aren't even its central thrust.

Letter #598 from JL []of Seattle, Washington
Dear Dennis.
I wanted to share with you and all of your readers some resources that are available on the Internet computer network. There is a wealth of freethought material available to anyone who has Internet access. Some of these resources include: The Usenet newsgroups alt atheism and alt atheism moderated. These newsgroups are sometimes my only escape from the religious mindset so prominent at the Christian university I attend. These newsgroups have prepared documents called FAQs (answers to Frequently Asked Questions) which answer some of the most common arguments used by Christian apologists. There is even a 200+K file devoted just to Josh McDowell's book Evidence That Demands a Verdict. They have also scanned many freethought books, including many that are out of print. All of the newsgroup resources are available via FTP and WWW. The alt atheism web can be accessed via mantis.co.uk/atheism. The alt atheism FTP site can be accessed via ftp.mantis.co.uk. I strongly encourage everyone with Internet access to check out the sites I just mentioned.
A second, and just as impressive, freethought web is also available on the net. It can be accessed via http.//freethought.tamu.edu/freethought/. There are many freethought books available here (including some by Robert Ingersoll), and there isn't too much overlap with the other web mentioned above.
On a different note, those readers who are interested in the subject of evolution can contact the National Center for Science Education at ncse@crl.com.
I have been researching the alleged resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, and have found many valuable documents on-line. These have been very helpful in my research. They have also saved me a lot of money, because I was able to download them for free. Clearly this is a resource that many of your readers will want to take advantage of, if they haven't already. Perhaps other readers know of some other freethought resources available on the Internet? Like Biblical Errancy for example? When is Biblical Errancy going to get on the Internet?

Editor's Response to Letter #598
Dear JL,
Your letter was included within BE because many people use Internet. Personally I haven't gotten around to using this vital means of communication, but hope to do so someday. I'm juggling so many balls now that one more could put me under. But we intend to enter this arena eventually.

Letter #599 from DR of La Mesa, California
Dear Dennis.
I appreciate the information you publish in Biblical Errancy, and have found it to be quite useful and informative. I would be interested in obtaining all of the back issues of your publication.... I find it easiest to read and utilize materials when they are stored electronically, as I can do rapid searches for key words rather than flip through hundreds of pages looking for the example. Do you offer the back issues of Biblical Errancy on disk, perhaps in ASCII format? If so, what is the cost involved? I also operate a computer bulletin board here in La Mesa, entitled Dante's Inferno, and host several discussion echoes on religion and biblical errancy. What is your position on my quoting from Biblical Errancy articles to support my positions? When I have quoted from other publications in the past, credit is always given, as are references listed in the article or book. However, different publishers have differing preferences on how this is handled. The Skeptical Review, for instance, permits posting of entire articles and distribution of their publication via the electronic media, as long as their address is always listed at the bottom of the article. Thanks again for publishing Biblical Errancy, and I look forward to receiving your response to this letter.

Editor's Response to Letter #599
Dear DR.
The publisher of Skeptical Review and I have similar policies. Please feel free to quote from BE at will, as long as the source is properly identified. We don't offer anything on disc, although we may do so later.

Letter #600 from HM of Bellbrook, Ohio
...in case you have not yet been informed, your latest newsletter was stamped by the post office with two PRAY FOR PEACE messages. It's up to you, but this is something that should be looked into. You might demand that you be permitted to watch the postal clerk stamp the copies. What's more, the religious message was stamped twice, right across the printing on the back page.
This nation "under God" is becoming increasingly intolerant and belligerent toward non-Christians....

Editor's Response to Letter #600
Dear HM.
Other people sent letters mentioning the postal stamp as well. As far as I am aware, the post office is a governmental agency, which has no business promoting a religious concept. In no way did I authorize or approve my literature being used to carry a message with which I am in complete disagreement. We are again faced with a blatant violation of the separation of state and church. If the message had said WORK FOR PEACE I would not object. But prayer is a debilitating mental exercise in which no one should ever be asked to participate. It makes one vulnerable to outside forces which are often inimical to one's interests, promotes sloth and laziness, advances a negative self-image, creates low self-esteem, fosters a belief in gaining something for nothing, generates escape rather than involvement, and activates reliance upon miraculous rather than this-worldly solutions to one's problems. Realistically, putting this message on our periodical is like putting IN GOD WE TRUST on our coins. It's completely unconstitutional, although little can be done. I can think of many slogans Christians would not like to see placed on churches or Bibles; yet they have no hesitation about slapping propaganda on our property.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDITOR'S NOTE: FINALLY IT'S HERE, IT MADE IT, IT HAS ARRIVED.
Mark JANUARY 1995 on your calendar. The latest catalogue issued by PROMETHEUS BOOKS has the following ad on page 17. We encourage everyone to purchase a copy of our encyclopedia and interest others in doing the same. We need the money. No, seriously. It should be an excellent reference book, providing a wealth of readily-accessible anti-biblical information and documentation. It should also be of great assistance in furthering our cause, and could very well act as an incentive for the publication of additional writings. The essence of 12 years of BE commentaries has been compressed into 24 poignant chapters, crammed with citations and potent polemics. In order to purchase the book be sure to contact Prometheus rather than us. You might want to contact them at their 800 phone number in order to obtain their latest catalogue.