Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Christ's Reject · 02-01-2006, 06:50 AM

Don't worry, when I find out the first thing I'm doing is looking for a critique on the main infidels site

RUmike · 02-01-2006, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Christ's Reject

I understand that most critical scholars hold this view, but there's an underlying bias there. What I'm saying is that the slaughter of the innocents seems to have been blown out of proportion by skeptics, and I feel that just writing off a valid question is slightly ignorant.

There really is no underlying bias. Almost any critically-thinking person who reads the birth narratives is bound to come to the conclusion that little to no information in them can be considered historically reliable. They agree on virtually nothing, and only serve the purpose of fulfilling prophecy. Therefore, every critically trained historian MUST hold some sort of skepticism that this actually happened.

Sure, it's possible that Herod did indeed slaughter the children of Bethlehem. But we have to ask; why? Because some magi -- apparently completely ignorant of the fact that Herod would have his own heirs to the throne (i.e. Antipas, Archaleus, ...) -- foretold the coming of a Jewish king thanks to the ingenious science of astrology? Come on. This stuff isn't history. Sure, it may have happened, but you can't expect any serious historian to consider it reliable evidence.

Steven Carr · 02-01-2006, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Christ's Reject

Here's a thought that I've not seen mentioned before. Skeptics often say that the slaughter of the innocents should be documented, but how big would bethlehem have been? If the population was around 1500, would there be more than 30 males under 2? I'd imagine greater atrocities have gone unmentioned.

The story does teach an important moral lesson.

If you know that a ruthless tyrant is planning to kill children, warn your own child and let the others look out for themselves. There is no need to try to save them.

Chili · 02-01-2006, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

The story does teach an important moral lesson.

If you know that a ruthless tyrant is planning to kill children, warn your own child and let the others look out for themselves. There is no need to try to save them.

Do soldier boys count as children?

Roland · 02-01-2006, 11:58 PM

Mythology is filled with stories about nervous nelly kings or fathers who attempt to have babies killed when they believe they will grow up to be a threat to their power.

Hell, right off the bat I can think of Cronus and Zeus, Pharaoh and Moses, Laios and Oedipus. Herod and Jesus are just another such pair.

Chili · 02-02-2006, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roland

Mythology is filled with stories about nervous nelly kings or fathers who attempt to have babies killed when they believe they will grow up to be a threat to their power.

And the fact is that no babies were killed except the idols to be worshiped
after rebirth. Luther had one, Hitler had one and we now have 20.000 more and even that does not seem to be enough. They all miss the Mark who paved the way and laid out the mechanics before us.
ETA just go back to Jesus when he was led to the top of the world and was shown all the riches that he could obtain after his divine empowerment. I mean these guys are motivated beyond human standard . . . as if they are on fire to achieve the idol they worship.

Christ's Reject · 02-03-2006, 08:03 AM

I've actually been given links just now, which I'll read shortly. The apologeticist that my minister was talking about is J. Gresham Machen. Does anyone have information on this guy, his apologetics, reliability etc?

Toto · 02-03-2006, 01:09 PM

J Gresham Machen lived from 1881 to 1937. His book Christianity and Liberalism is free online.

From here

Quote:

J. Gresham Machen was a U.S. Presbyterian theologian and one of the most eloquent spokesmen for the evangelical position in the “fundamentalist v liberal�? controversies of the 1920s and 1930s. He fought the good fight against the inroads of liberal theology and the hypocrisy of those Presbyterian ministers who vowed on their ordination to uphold the divine authority of the Word of God in Holy Scripture, and then spent the rest of their lives preaching doctrines contrary to the Word of God.

Wikipedia

Quote:

Despite his conservative theological beliefs, Machen was never able to fully embrace popularist fundamentalism either. His refusal to accept premillennialism and other aspects of Fundamentalist belief was based upon his belief that Reformed Theology was the most biblical form of Christian belief - a theology that was generally missing from Fundamentalism at the time. Moreover, Machen's scholarly work and ability to engage with modernist theology was at odds with Fundamentalism's anti-intellectual attitude.

Mecham differs from the modern Christian apologist who tries to square modern thinking and Christianity - he rejected modernity because it could not be squared with Christianity. This obituary By HL Menken is of interest, as it anticipated many of our debates here about cafeteria Christians (Menken appreciated the fact that Machen opposed prohibition because it was unBiblical) :

Quote:

What caused him to quit the Princeton Theological Seminary and found a seminary of his own was his complete inability, as a theologian, to square the disingenuous evasions of Modernism with the fundamentals of Christian doctrine. He saw clearly that the only effects that could follow diluting and polluting Christianity in the Modernist manner would be its complete abandonment and ruin. Either it was true or it was not true. If, as he believed, it was true, then there could be no compromise with persons who sought to whittle away its essential postulates, however respectable their motives.

. . .

My interest in Dr. Machen while he lived, though it was large, was not personal, for I never had the honor of meeting him. Moreover, the doctrine that he preached seemed to me, and still seems to me, to be excessively dubious. I stand much more chance of being converted to spiritualism, to Christian Science or even to the New Deal than to Calvinism, which occupies a place, in my cabinet of private horrors, but little removed from that of cannibalism. But Dr. Machen had the same clear right to believe in it that I have to disbelieve in it, and though I could not yield to his reasoning I could at least admire, and did greatly admire, his remarkable clarity and cogency as an apologist, allowing him his primary assumptions.

These assumptions were also made, at least in theory, by his opponents, and thereby he had them by the ear. Claiming to be Christians as he was, and of the Calvinish persuasion, they endeavored fatuously to get rid of all the inescapable implications of their position. On the one hand they sought to retain membership in the fellowship of the faithful, but on the other hand they presumed to repeal and reenact with amendments the body of doctrine on which that fellowship rested. In particular, they essayed to overhaul the scriptural authority which lay at the bottom of the whole matter, retaining what coincided with their private notions and rejecting whatever upset them.

Upon this contumacy Dr. Machen fell with loud shouts of alarm. He denied absolutely that anyone had a right to revise and sophisticate Holy Writ. Either it was the Word of God or it was not the Word of God, and if it was, then it was equally authoritative in all its details, and had to be accepted or rejected as a whole. Anyone was free to reject it, but no one was free to mutilate it or to read things into it that were not there. Thus the issue with the Modernists was clearly joined, and Dr. Machen argued them quite out of court, and sent them scurrying back to their literary and sociological Kaffeeklatsche. His operations, to be sure, did not prove that Holy Writ was infallible either as history or as theology, but they at least disposed of those who proposed to read it as they might read a newspaper, believing what they chose and rejecting what they chose.

In his own position there was never the least shadow of inconsistency. When the Prohibition imbecility fell upon the country, and a multitude of theological quacks, including not a few eminent Presbyterians, sought to read support for it into the New Testament, he attacked them with great vigor, and routed them easily. He not only proved that there was nothing in the teachings of Jesus to support so monstrous a folly; he proved abundantly that the known teachings of Jesus were unalterably against it. And having set forth that proof, he refused, as a convinced and honest Christian, to have anything to do with the dry jehad.

This rebellion against a craze that now seems so incredible and so far away was not the chief cause of his break with his ecclesiastical superiors, but it was probably responsible for a large part of their extraordinary dudgeon against him. The Presbyterian Church, like the other evangelical churches, was taken for a dizzy ride by Prohibition. Led into the heresy by fanatics of low mental visibility, it presently found itself cheek by jowl with all sorts of criminals, and fast losing the respect of sensible people. Its bigwigs thus became extremely jumpy on the subject, and resented bitterly every exposure of their lamentable folly.

The fantastic William Jennings Bryan, in his day the country's most distinguished Presbyterian layman, was against Dr. Machen on the issue of Prohibition but with him on the issue of Modernism. But Bryan's support, of course, was of little value or consolation to so intelligent a man. Bryan was a Fundamentalist of the Tennessee or barnyard school. His theological ideas were those of a somewhat backward child of 8, and his defense of Holy Writ at Dayton during the Scopes trial was so ignorant and stupid that it must have given Dr. Machen a great deal of pain. Dr. Machen himself was to Bryan as the Matterhorn is to a wart. His Biblical studies had been wide and deep, and he was familiar with the almost interminable literature of the subject. Moreover, he was an adept theologian, and had a wealth of professional knowledge to support his ideas. Bryan could only bawl.

It is my belief, as a friendly neutral in all such high and ghostly matters, that the body of doctrine known as Modernism is completely incompatible, not only with anything rationally describable as Christianity, but also with anything deserving to pass as religion in general. Religion, if it is to retain any genuine significance, can never be reduced to a series of sweet attitudes, possible to anyone not actually in jail for felony. It is, on the contrary, a corpus of powerful and profound convictions, many of them not open to logical analysis. Its inherent improbabilities are not sources of weakness to it, but of strength. It is potent in a man in proportion as he is willing to reject all overt evidences, and accept its fundamental postulates, however unprovable they may be by secular means, as massive and incontrovertible facts.

These postulates, at least in the Western world, have been challenged in recent years on many grounds, and in consequence there has been a considerable decline in religious belief. There was a time, two or three centuries ago, when the overwhelming majority of educated men were believers, but that is apparently true no longer. Indeed, it is my impression that at least two-thirds of them are now frank skeptics. But it is one thing to reject religion altogether, and quite another thing to try to save it by pumping out of it all its essential substance, leaving it in the equivocal position of a sort of pseudo-science, comparable to graphology, "education," or osteopathy.

That, it seems to me, is what the Modernists have done, no doubt with the best intentions in the world. They have tried to get rid of all the logical difficulties of religion, and yet preserve a generally pious cast of mind. It is a vain enterprise. What they have left, once they have achieved their imprudent scavenging, is hardly more than a row of hollow platitudes, as empty as [of] psychological force and effect as so many nursery rhymes. They may be good people and they may even be contented and happy, but they are no more religious than Dr. Einstein. Religion is something else again--in Henrik Ibsen's phrase, something far more deep-down-diving and mudupbringing, Dr. Machen tried to impress that obvious fact upon his fellow adherents of the Geneva Mohammed. He failed--but he was undoubtedly right.

I note with concern (or amusement?) that Menken's obituary has been reprinted by a Christian Reconstructionist site.

mikem · 02-04-2006, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Christ's Reject

I understand that most critical scholars hold this view, but there's an underlying bias there. What I'm saying is that the slaughter of the innocents seems to have been blown out of proportion by skeptics, and I feel that just writing off a valid question is slightly ignorant.

Have you any skeptical resources at an academic level? I recently lost my faith and would currently consider myself agnostic, but there's alot more depth to the whole debate of Christ's existance than I previously thought. Apologetics seems to have moved on over the last century, and until I'm satisfied that I've done the right thing I'll probably keep asking trivial questions! I'll also add that I have read up on skepticism, and that I've been reading this messageboard without posting for a while.

Here's a point: Did "Matthew" read the Old Testament and then create stories that looked like prophetic fulfilment, or was he writing about historical events that brought to mind particular passages in the Old Testament? On Herod the Great, his cruelty is known from other sources, and it would not have been out of character for him to have acted as he did.

This is a specific example of the general difference between mythicists and those who accept a historical Jesus. The mythicists believe that the gospellers ransack the OT, and any other suitable writings and stories to create the Jesus of the gospel. All they have to do is find parallels and Hey presto! you have shown that Jesus is a literary Frankenstein's monster.

Historicists will consider whether or not there is reason to consider any given incident is historical. Of course, nothing can be demonstrated conclusively, but that is the nature of historical research.

May I recommend to you "The Historical Figure of Jesus" for a good introduction to how a historian goes about recovering the historical core to the life of Jesus, and the issues it involves? It will hopefully inure you to the wilder notions that you will undoubtedly come across in your further researches.

Christ's Reject · 02-06-2006, 12:30 AM

Thanks toto for the quotes. I find it interesting that my minister would recommend his work, but considers himself a methodological naturalist, and a theistic evolutionist. I will definately be having a read of that book online. I'll also say that my (ex?-)denomination is calvinist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikem

Here's a point: Did "Matthew" read the Old Testament and then create stories that looked like prophetic fulfilment, or was he writing about historical events that brought to mind particular passages in the Old Testament? On Herod the Great, his cruelty is known from other sources, and it would not have been out of character for him to have acted as he did.

One seems a helluva lot more likely than the other. Some of the prophecies are even taken out of context! You'd think that Josephus would have picked up on herod killing innocent children...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-01-2006, 06:50 AM	#11
Christ's Reject Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Scotland, UK Posts: 27	Don't worry, when I find out the first thing I'm doing is looking for a critique on the main infidels site

02-01-2006, 11:58 PM	#15
Roland Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: California Posts: 748	Mythology is filled with stories about nervous nelly kings or fathers who attempt to have babies killed when they believe they will grow up to be a threat to their power. Hell, right off the bat I can think of Cronus and Zeus, Pharaoh and Moses, Laios and Oedipus. Herod and Jesus are just another such pair.

02-03-2006, 08:03 AM	#17
Christ's Reject Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Scotland, UK Posts: 27	I've actually been given links just now, which I'll read shortly. The apologeticist that my minister was talking about is J. Gresham Machen. Does anyone have information on this guy, his apologetics, reliability etc?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.