At Synagogue Pope Tells Two Lies in Two Paragraphs
by Michael A. Hoffman II
Copyright ©2008
Pope Benedict XVI is certainly a prolific liar. During his brief speech at the luxurious New York synagogue he told two lies in the course of two paragraphs. The following is a New York Times transcript of the remarks Pope Benedict XVI made at the Park East Synagogue on April 18, as supplied by the Vatican and checked against delivery:
PARAGRAPH ONE:
"Dear Friends, Shalom! It is with joy that I come here, just a few hours before the celebration of your Pesah, to express my respect and esteem for the Jewish community in New York City. The proximity of this place of worship to my residence gives me the opportunity to greet some of you today. I find it moving to recall that Jesus, as a young boy, heard the words of Scripture and prayed in a place such as this."
LIE #1: "Jesus, as a young boy, heard the words of Scripture and prayed in a place such as this."
TRUTH: "A place like this" (a Talmudic synagogue of the religion of Orthodox Judaism) did not exist when Jesus Christ was a boy. A synagogue contains soferim (scrolls) manuscripts, and books containing the formerly Oral "Traditions of the Elders" committed to writing. The dreadful and fateful substitution of man-made laws for God's law was only institutionalized after the Jewish leadership had the Messiah of Israel crucified. The corruption of their souls resulting from the spectacular evil accruing from this act led to the formation of the new religion of "Judaism" and its basis in the Bible-nullifying Mishnah and Gemara, forming the Talmud of Babylon. As a boy, Jesus was in no such place containing any such dogma.
PARAGRAPH TWO:
"I thank Rabbi Schneier for his words of welcome and I particularly appreciate your kind gift, the spring flowers and the lovely song that the children sang for me. I know that the Jewish community make a valuable contribution to the life of the city, and I encourage all of you to continue building bridges of friendship with all the many different ethnic and religious groups present in your neighborhood. I assure you most especially of my closeness at this time, as you prepare to celebrate the great deeds of the Almighty, and to sing the praises of Him who has worked such wonders for his people. I would ask those of you who are present to pass on my greetings and good wishes to all the members of the Jewish community. Blessed be the name of the Lord!"
LIE #2: "...as you prepare to celebrate the great deeds of the Almighty..."
TRUTH: Judaism's Passover, like Judaism's Noah, Judaism's King David, Judaism's Isaiah etc. etc. is not the Biblical Passover. It is a synthesis of Babylonian superstitions on the part of latter-day Baal priests who worship themselves as greater than God. Pope Benedict does the work of the devil in deliberately giving the impression that Judaism is an Old Testament religion whose holy days give reverence and glory to God. This deceit is intentional on his part since, as a top Catholic scholar in his previous life as Vatican II theologian and cardinal, Pope Benedict is acutely aware of the Talmud and the Talmudic roots of Judaism. But as one of the gang, so to speak, he aids in deceiving the world in the manner in which the rabbis want the world to be deceived.
Fianally, you will note that Benedict concluded his oration with a generic phrase, "Blessed be the name of the Lord!" He dares not actually mention the name of God, not even God as He is named in the Old Testament ("Yahweh"), since the Mishnah superstitiously forbids the pronunciation of Yahweh's name, except once a year. You will also note that Benedict did not dare to say "Praise the Lord Jesus Christ" in that synagogue, since the invocation of the hated name of the Savior of Israel would have had a searing effect on the Pharisees present.
***
Labels: Judaism, Mishnah, Park East synagogue, Pope Benedict XVI, Talmud
posted by Michael A. Hoffman II at 4/18/2008 07:10:00 PM
16 Comments:
Why would the pope do this? What is the motivation for mouthing these absurdities?
Michael Hoffman has shown us the meaning of Benedict's "love" for "the Jewish people"---which in reality is obsequious flattery rooted in cowardice. The Pope considers himself the successor of Saint Peter, and yet on the day of Pentecost, in c. 33 A.D., St Peter offered Christomachist Jews no such cringing lies, but told them they crucified the Messiah and they needed to repent and be baptized. Any other message to Jews from "the see of Peter" is from the devil. The rabbi told the Pope he and his fellow Jews were "the children of Abraham," thereby spitting in the face of St John the Baptizer, who said they were NOT, since God could raise up children to Abraham from stones. In other words, biological kinship with the Patriarchs of the Old Testament (which no modern Jews can today claim, anyway) is no longer sufficient for salvation, since the Lord Jesus Christ is the only bridge to uniting us with the righteous of the Old Testament, all of whom awaited His Day. Saint Paul, also spat on by the rabbi (while the Pope sat in silent approval, just as he did when the U.N. Secretary General said to him before the representatives of the nations of the world, "Whether we worship one God, many gods, or no God, we must strenghten our faith every day") teaches that Abraham's Seed in whom all the nations would be blessed is the Lord Jesus Christ. The Lord Himself told the unbelieving Jews that they are NOT the children of Abraham, since they were not doing the works of Abraham, which were faith in the Christ Who was to come. Saint John the Theologian tells us that when the Seed of the Promise stood before unbelieving Jews, He told them their father was the devil. (This is why Cardinal Francis George of Chicago calls the Gospel of Saint John "anti Semitic.") Whether the press and the other media know it, Michael Hoffman shows more Christian love for the Jews than do the Popes, since he teaches them the truth about their own demonic traditions, from which they all of them need and many of them desire to be freed. How dare the Pope leave that unholy place (which St John Chrysostomos called a whorehouse) without having offered the Jews the way out of the eternal prison which their rabbis and "sages" have built for them.
Thank you, Mr Hoffman.
Nicholas Candela
Mr. Candela is basing his remarks on Judaism on the Fathers of the Church, which is what Catholics should have been doing all along.
However, it's a manifest exaggeration to say "biological kinship with the Patriarchs of the Old Testament (which no modern Jews can today claim, anyway"...
This is a contradiction of St. Paul and Romans 11. St. John Chrysostom, in his homilies on this chapter, expressly affirms that the Jews will be converted at the end of time.
Everybody here understands the evidence about the Khazars, but things are getting out of hand when Christians become so obsessed with this subject as to deny Scripture itself.
Michael
Nicholas Candela?
Sounds as beleivable as Moshe Lieberman. Where do you come up
with names?
It appears as though "Robert" is claiming that this writer is submitting comments to his own blog under an alias. I am sorry to disappoint you Robert, but the only comments I have ever posted to the "On the Contrary" blog have been rejoinders to someone else's original comment. I have posted all such rejoinders under my own name. Whomever Mr. Nicholas Candela is, he is not this writer.
Michael Hoffman did not use a pseudonym to agree with his own post. Mr Candela is citing the Apostles ("John the Theologian"), Greek Fathers (Chrysostomos, the Golden Mouth) and expressions "Christomachist Jews" in a way that's typical for Greek Orthodox Christians. I am not offended by his criticism of the Judeophile tendency among today's Catholic prelates, but the gentleman was overpolemical by referring to "the See of Peter" in quotes. Rome was the See of Peter for the Greek Fathers as well as the Latins.
It is not an exaggeration to say that no modern Jews can claim biological kinship with the righteous of the Old Testament. (Indeed, they cannot even claim true spiritual kinship, since they reject the Lord Jesus Christ Who alone could grant them this.) All genealogical records were destroyed when the Romans razed the Temple in 70 A.D. Even if, say, Mel Tannenbaum of today were able to prove that he is blood-related to Abraham, this relationship will not save him, since the Lord and Saint John the Baptizer and the Apostles have taught us that only in Christ do we become seeds of Abraham. That Saint John Chrysostomos says a remnant of previously-unbelieving Jews will at the end of this present age accept the Lord Jesus in no way contradicts what I have written.
I not not "obsessed with this subject." I was merely thanking Mr Hoffman for exposing the Christomachist Pope. I referred to "the see of Peter" in quotes because the bishops of Rome are no longer transmitting the teaching of Saint Peter: there is nothing automatic about Apostolic Succession. If you are a bishop you must not only be able to trace your episcopal line to an Apostle, but you must teach as the Apostles taught. When the Orthodox were in communion with Rome, Rome was orthodox. Here is the teaching of the Orthodox Church as expressed in yesterday's Palm Sunday service: the words could have been proclaimed by Saint Peter himself (see the book of ACTS), but they will never be spoken by a modern Pope ever again: Roman Catholicism's Judaizing and syncretism are irreversible.
Vespers on Sunday Evening, Tone Seven: "O evil and adulterous synagogue, thou hast not kept faith with thine own Lord. Why then dost thou hold fast to the Testament of which thou art not the heir? Why dost thou glory in the Father, since thou hast rejected the Son? Why hast thou not accepted the prophets, who proclaimed the Son?" Matins, Canticle Nine, Tone Four: "O unbelieving and adulterous generation of the Jews, draw near and look upon Him Whom once Isaiah saw (ISAIAH 6:1-9; JOHN 12:41)...See how He weds the New Zion, for she is chaste, and rejects the synagogue that is condemned." Small Compline, Canticle Nine: "Prepare thy priests, O Judaea, make ready thy hands to kill God: for see, He has come to His Passion, meek and silent, our Lamb and Shepherd, Christ the King of Israel...O Judaea, the Master has turned thy feasts into mourning, according to the prophecy (AMOS 8:10), for thou hast murdered God..."
I don't know how to use this On the Contrary thing. Clicking on Anonymous turned out to be a quick way to get my words posted. I identified myself truly. There are plenty of REAL conspiracies to see through: my posts are not one of them.
Nicholas Candela
Indeed we have here several very well educated and articulate individuals. One cannot help but be impressed by the amount of knowledge being shared in a blog like this.
Please keep in mind that I mean absolutely no harm or insult in my next comment. I have never had the opportunity to ask educated theologists this question as it is such a touchy subject. I leave it to the judgment of the moderator of this blog to decide if this is offensive or inappropriate for this arena.
My question is:
Such intelligence can be used for more constructive things. Why do we continue to donate our efforts of research and intelligence to such an obvious fraud? Religion is, and has been since it's dawn, the most popularly used and successful means of controlling people. The powerful have used it to influence those they wish to control since the age of the Egyptians and even earlier in our history. And in all of our hard work in trying to better understand and validate religious scripture and Dogma, we have overlooked the very simple and obvious fact (one of the only facts in the religious discussion, mind you): that every claim and every book and every story in religion has been written by MEN. And in every case, powerful men, who were successful in their plans to control the masses, using hell as a terrible punishment, and heaven as a great reward for doing things their way, thus further facilitating their power. It is a tool of social control. The most effective one ever conceived. More convincing than propaganda, more dominant than armies. The stories are less believable than Alice in Wonderland and Jack and the beanstalk, yet people still think the notion that a man rose from death and ascended into 'heaven' is factual.
So why are such brilliant minds unable to see the obvious. If we motivated that brilliance properly you could see that religion is nothing more than a lie created by powerful men to control other men. And it would take much less time to come to that conclusion than the human race has spent trying to validate religion.
When will we wake up?
Mr Frank:
The Lord Jesus is not only not a fraud, but He is the Truth enfleshed, and all who came before Him are, compared to Him, robbers and thieves (His words). He did not come to bring men and women more religion, to control them (defining "religion" as man-made attempts to pretend to be serving God while keeping Him at arm's length) but to free them from their sins (which obscure their view of Him) and to give them His Divine Life, both in this life and in the next: indeed, His Saints experience this present life as a foretaste of Life Eternal: their knowledge is experiential, unlike yours, which is a mythological deduction you make from not knowing what you are talking about. I do not mean this to insult you: I am saying that you do not know God, yet you confidentally speak of Him out of your not-knowing Him. Foolish, no? The Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church speak of people who have only "an Assyrian intelligence," meaning they use their God-given intellects not to humbly accept the love of God which leads to Life Eternal, but to supposedly explode the "myth" of God and to replace Him with science, sex, information, whatever end-in-itself that can lead only to noetic decrepitude. And yet in this desolate spiritual state you would dare to judge the Scriptures and the Lord Jesus, as if your hackneyed thoughts were the final word on the matter.
Mr Frank: You share a surname with a notorious Jew whose twisted teachings led to Reform Judaism, a Godless tepid faith in being Jewish. Remember, Mr Frank: the sad fact that you cannot apprehend the things of God is no reflection on God, but on YOU: if you are spiritually blind, you are disabled, and should come to believers to learn what you do not know, not to instruct them on how they too may become blind. Christ says "All who hate Me LOVE DEATH." That is why He came to Earth, to call the dead back to life. Your remarks, no matter how sincere, are as sophomoric as Christopher Hitchens' in his silly book GOD IS NOT GREAT: your words are embarrassing to anyone immersed in the Scriptures. For all your trust in your blindness, there is much that you need to see. Why not wake up to that fact and help yourself to the Heavenly banquet...before the door is closed and you find out for yourelf that the hell you mock is real, simply because the Lord of all the ages taught it? Are my words too exacting? In the words of Saint John of Kronstadt
(+ 1908): "Truth has right to speak this way: Truth reigns." What makes you think your present spiritual blindness will not continue after you die, unless you change direction? Do you not realize that even those among our human race who wind up in hell will know that they are being loved by God? But in this present life they had so hardened their hearts against Him that they will not be able to experience His love as anything other than TORMENT. And that is hell.
I've been alive long enough to know that it is not Christ Who has poisoned man, it is men like Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and their epigones Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, et al., these vaunted great men of history and their modern devotees who have recently appeared among us to set us free from the God of the Bible. (This has been the Jewish agenda since the Pharisees rejected Christ.) I quote the prophet Isaiah: "We writhed, we struggled, but we gave birth to wind."
I will pray for your regeneration in this life. But at some point you've got to help yourself. The Lord desires all men and women to be saved: but He does not wave a magic wand over them and save them if they do not want to be saved.
Wake up, Mr Frank. CHOOSE LIFE.
Nicholas Candela
P.S. You should have written: "...and has been since ITS dawn," not "since it's dawn." It is not too much to ask of a man who passes himself off as a debunker of the Sacred to be conversant with the basic rules of grammar and spelling.
I had the mispleasure to hear this Hoffman speak on the Aluminum Foil Network of Alex Jones on 4/25/08. So, I checked out this website. Man, oh, man what a bunch of evil xenophobic cretins you are. Chief amongst them is Hoffman. Ok, you hate the f'ing jews, that's great. Stop putting all this pseudo-intellectual diarhea around it and trying to rationalize it. You know nothing. You are nothing. Your writings are crap. It's evil crap and you are evil. Stop justifying your hate. Just hate because you hate. Ok? It will be more honest. What an unbelievable bunch of cretins we have here.
I thought Michael on Alex Jones' show was very good. There probably are some irrational 'haters' and there certainly are some crackpots sadly but good researchers who cover 'Jewish' resarch which may include 'Jewish-critical/skeptical' research are not like that, and would I disagree the Anon above on that there is a mindless hate filled rational always trying to be wrapped in intellectualism in Michael Hoffman's case.
It's a very complex and very difficult subject this, and there aren't that many people in the world who are really highly qualified to talk about it but it's a very interesting subject as well, and one that people should be aware of.
You accuse others of promulgating hatred: I suppose your barbarous outburst is an expression of LOVE?
I wrote nothing cretinous (neither did Mr Hoffman). Your bilious and profane words, however, I found cretinous indeed. (By the way, you who call others
cretins: you mispelled diarrhea.) You sound to me like a prison inmate, trapped in the spirit of this present age, your platitudinous ad hominem a pathetic attempt to "do your time in peace," having acclimated to the claustrophobic, stale, airless noetic environment provided you by your warden the devil.
It is very late in the life of a civilzation when its children experience Truth as hatred, and therefore lies as Truth. Nevertheless...
Christ Is Risen! He Is Risen indeed!
Nicholas Candela
Dear Mike Frank,
It is difficult for me to gloss your main question in any other than the following way:
Given the impossibility of religion, hadn't people better spend their time doing something else?
And, put in those terms, yes indeed, given the IMPOSSIBILITY of religion, people would be advised to pursue other endeavors.
But, why grant the impossibility of religion in the first place? I am able to detect three reasons in your text (clarification from you is certainly welcomed).
First: You seem to endorse (something like) the following argument:
1. If a thing is used successfully as a means of population control, then that thing can have no redeeming value (or, alternatively, that thing cannot justifiably be the object of serious inquiry).
2. Religion is used successfully as a means of population control.
3. Therefore, religion can have no redeeming value (or, alternatively, religion cannot justifiably be the object of serious inquiry).
No argument is given by you in support of (anything like) what I have labeled premise 1. Additionally, no documentation is provided for premise 2. Now, first, while there may be, and probably is, very much that needs to be said regarding any potential documentary evidence for something like a premise 2, let me pass this over and merely grant you the truth of 2.
Nevertheless, premise 1 seems to me clearly false. Number one, how a thing is used is, at least in part, a pragmatic matter (that is, it is a matter that is dependent, in part, on the circumstances, needs, desires, etc. of the user). I may choose (hopefully out of some necessary expediency) to use an Oxford Dictionary as a doorstop, for example, regardless of any protests that may be raised by Oxford Press regarding their intention that I use the dictionary to study lexical definitions. But, my use of the dictionary as a doorstop scarcely circumscribes what other purposes, including the publisher's intended purpose, may be accomplished with the object.
Number two, the value a thing has as a means to an end is that thing's instrumental value. And an object might have multiple instrumental values provided that the object can be used to achieve multiple ends; and, furthermore, an object will have multiple instrumental values whenever it is used to achieve multiple ends. My trusty Oxford, e.g., has some instrumental value, chiefly owing to its mass, as a doorstop. But, additionally, the same Oxford will have instrumental value as a dictionary. And, in fact, given Oxford's prestige (deserved or not) the instrumental value of an Oxford as a dictionary is likely very high. But, again, its instrumental value as a dictionary is separate from its instrumental value as a doorstop. It possesses both values (at least potentially) simultaneously.
Number three, some objects have a different sort of value. Some objects, that is, possess intrinsic value - value as ends-in-themselves. And, for the sake of completeness, some objects possess both instrumental and intrinsic value. And, it seems, the defender of religion has at least two ways to go here. In the first place, the defender of religion could maintain that religion has intrinsic value in addition to whatever instrumental value it may have (as a tool of control) to nefarious individuals. If religion does have intrinsic value, though, that sort of value would hardly be devalued on account of some argument against a particular instrumental value (for the two sorts of value are distinct). Alternatively, the defender of religion could simply argue that, in addition to whatever instrumental value it may have (as a tool of control) to nefarious individuals, religion also has instrumental value (as a means of drawing near to God) to individuals who truly seek to relate to God.
We may have a parallel case (to religion) in friendship. Friendship almost certainly has instrumental value, nobly speaking, as a means to happiness. But, ignobly speaking, it may be a means to financial improvement or some other self-serving purpose. However, friendship, again almost certainly, has intrinsic value. But, the ignoble instrumental value does not seem to have any direct bearing on either the noble instrumental value or the intrinsic value. That friendship may be (mis-)used for ignoble purposes is simply irrelevant to an evaluation of other sorts of value that it possesses. One could hold that the same, mutatis mutandis, applies to religion. (Alternatively, we could simply define 'friendship' such that ignoble instrumental uses of it are ruled out. We could take a similar course with respect to religion. But, let me pass over this - perhaps preferable - route as well, if simply for the sake of argument.)
Your second reason seems to be this: "every claim and every book and every story in religion has been written by MEN".
Frankly, I am unsure just how to construe this. On the one hand, you could mean something like the following:
4. Any statement made by humans ("men") cannot provide adequate evidence of the divine.
5. All the evidence that we have for the divine is given by humans.
6. Therefore, none of the evidence that we have for the divine is adequate evidence of the divine.
But, number one, premise 4 is a very strong claim. (It is, in fact, another universal negative: namely, that no 'mere' human statement can provide (adequate) evidence of the divine.) As such, it requires a strong argument. So far, however, no argument whatever has been provided in its support.
Additionally, though, the presupposition seems question begging as it stands. For, if it turns out, say, that God - as the Bible describes Him - exists (and I take it that for all we know it might turn out this way) then it's the case that the Bible's testimony about the existence of God is adequate evidence about Him. Likewise, if it turns out that, say, Christ literally resurrected in the manner that the Bible, on a straightforward reading, seems to indicate, then it likewise turns out that the Bible provides adequate evidence that Christ resurrected. Obviously, my example turns on the defensibility of the Bible as a reliable historical text. If there is some sweeping objection to the Bible itself, please produce the objection.
Surely, it is no objection to say that the Bible 'was written by humans'. Who else, after all, would have written it? I take it as (nearly) axiomatic (on earth, anyway) that: If x was written, then x was written by humans. I do not see this as any sort of objection.
Perhaps the alleged objection is based on the (mistaken) view that Christians need to hold that the Bible was 'written by God' - whatever that means - and that asserting the contrary undermines the Christian position. But, such a crass view is not part of historic Christian orthodoxy and asserting the contrary does not damage the Christian position (in part, because you have not explained how 'written by God' and 'written by humans' are mutually exclusive). But, in fact, the dominant Christian view IS that human beings wrote the Bible (under God's 'inspiration'). Explicating the doctrine of inspiration, I fear, would take us somewhat afield, here. The doctrine of inspiration plausibly is not adequately captured by the phrase 'written by God'. If you have some specific concern, here, however, mention what that concern is precisely.
Let me note the following in passing: It is quite likely, on historical grounds, to take two examples, that Matthew and Peter were both martyred (the latter, possibly, by being crucified in an inverted position). Thus, the 'power' of these two contributors to the Bible (who were also members of The Twelve original disciples) amounted to the inability to escape horrible death sentences. Since, it is not credible to believe that these men could have known, in advance, that Christianity would eventually become the 'official Roman religion', it is suspicious (at best) to insist that they maintained their advocacy of Christianity in the face of death merely in order to enshrine themselves in the future Church's martyrology. The Disciples of Christ simply were not "powerful men".
Additionally, I deny premise 5. Number one, some theologians have maintained that one can come to know certain things about God from the marks that God has left for us in the Creation. This "general revelation" is, on any straightforward explication of it, not "human sourced". Additionally, and perhaps more importantly for traditional religious belief, evidence for God may be had in what is called "special revelation". (I say "may be had" in order to give a nod to a subtle issue that is here implicated: namely, whether special revelation is properly conceived of as evidence FOR God at all. Again, I wish to leave this matter aside presently.)
Now I need to raise an issue that perhaps should have been the sole focus of my response. (But, I am incurably prolix.) And the issue is this: Does God exist? If "God exists" is even possibly true, then "possibly, God exists" must be true. Thus, we have the following dilemma:
Either it is possible that God exists or else it is impossible that God exists.
Now, unless, Mike, you have some positive argument to the effect that God's existence is impossible, I offer the following argument in support of the possibility of God's existence.
7: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
8: The Universe began to exist.
9: Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Let me suffice, for our purposes here, to call premise 7 intuitively appealing. Let the widespread acceptance of the Big Bang (BB) Theory in cosmology be my evidence for premise 8.
Furthermore, let me SKETCH a development of the argument this way:
By "universe" let us mean "the sum total of all the physical particles, forces, and relations (as well as whatever other non-physical entities are epiphenomena of, supervene upon, or exist in conjoined duality with all the physical particles, forces and relations) and whatever laws govern their interaction". What sort of causes (in general terms) might there be which are sufficient to explain the universe's beginning to exist? Three sorts come to mind. One: there could be some scientific explanation; i.e., there could be some physical explanation in terms of some law, some appeal to a physical/impersonal cause, etc. that explains the BB. Two: there could be some essential explanation - i.e., the universe's existence might be necessitated. Three: there could be some personal explanation - i.e., the universe's existence might be explicable in terms of the powers, intentions, etc. of some agent.
But, quickly, any scientific explanation would appeal to a particle, force, relation, or law and, since ex hypothesi, the sum of all particles, forces, relations, and laws are precisely what require explaining there are no particles, forces, relations, or laws left over (so to speak) to ground our explanation. So, we cannot have a scientific explanation. But, additionally, the universe seems not to be the sort of things that exists essentially. For, of every particle, force, relation, and law it seems conceivable that it might not have existed. But, then, no particle, force, relation, or law plausibly exists necessarily (since whatever exists necessarily could not possibly fail to have existed). Thus, it seems, the universe plausibly has no essential explanation. This only leaves us with the possibility that the universe has a personal explanation. And, plausibly, the prime candidate for this external-to-the-universe personal cause is none other than God.
Let me, for the sake of space, leave the matter there (as unfortunate as that is). And, let me remind the reader of this: The above SKETCH of an account was designed to show merely that it is POSSIBLE that God exists. I think, then, that as long as the above account is plausible, it need not be 'perfect' to do the job I want it to do: namely, license the belief that "possibly, God exists" is true.
But, if "possibly, God exists" is true, surely, it is difficult to deny the following:
10. Possibly, God exists such that God is able to reveal himself to human beings (whether through general or special revelation or both).
But, again, if it is even POSSIBLE that a God exists who is able to engage in revelatory activities, then antecedent denial of the possibility of religion is reckless.
Or, to put it differently, religion is only "impossible" if either (i.) God does not exist or (ii.) God exists but either (a.) exists such that he does not or (b.) cannot reveal himself or he can or does reveal himself but (c.) humans cannot or (d.) will not acknowledge the revelation.
This gets us into deep theological waters here. But suffice it to say, first, that you have not remotely argued that God does not exist. (And, above, I have sketched one argument to the effect that God does exist.) And, second, you have not remotely argued anything with respect to God's revelatory capability or human beings' receptive capabilities. And, hence, your implicit claim that religion is impossible is ill grounded.
Finally, your third reason: "The stories are less believable than Alice in Wonderland and Jack and the beanstalk..."
Let me draw this overly lengthy post to a close with this simple question: Are the "stories" you have in mind (presumably, chiefly, the accounts of the Resurrection) "less believable" etc., etc. because of an antecedent presumption of atheism or for some other reason? For, short of a good reason to think that atheism is true, I fail to pass the same verdict on the Resurrection accounts.
For an explanation to count as a viable option (let alone the best) any event, e, that is appealed to must be possible. In the case of the Christian claim: 'God raised Jesus from the dead', then, it must be true that 'possibly, God raised Jesus from the dead.'
This, in fact, is where many people have difficulty. We must distinguish two different objections. It is one thing to object that, given the evidence the Christian hypothesis is explanatorily inferior to some other hypothesis (for example, that the disciple stole the body). It is, though, quite another matter to claim that, regardless of the evidence, the Christian hypothesis simply CANNOT BE correct (perhaps, i.e., because one has an anti-supernatural bias and/or is an atheist, etc.).
In order, therefore, to give some account of the truth of 'possibly, God raised Christ from the dead', I submit the following analysis.
When we say that something is probable (or improbable) we always make at least implicit reference to some available evidence E (where E could be a conjunction of indefinitely many discreet evidences). We never say that 'it is probable that x' independently of any evidence whatever. At least implicitly, a statement such as 'it is probable that x' always abbreviates a statement such as 'it is probable that x given E'. Moreover, evidence (E) is never evaluated in a vacuum, so to speak. People always have background assumptions, call them A, that inform the evaluation of E. So, again, when we say that 'it is probable that x given E' we mean (again, at least implicitly) that 'it is probable that x given E and given A'. In other words, we evaluate the probability of x on the basis of x's likelihood given our evidence and our background assumptions.
Given all of this, it is clear that, for an atheist, the Christian claim will translate into this assessment:
What is the probability that God raised Christ from the dead given all of the evidence (which we need not spell out here) and given that God doesn't exist (the latter statement being the atheist's peculiar background assumption)?
But, clearly, if asked to compute the probability that God did something after assuming as given that there is no God, we can only return a probability of zero.
Thus, we must address the issue of background assumptions. In order for the Christian hypothesis to be judged 'best', it must be that the hypothesis is allowed into the pool of possible explanations. And, in order for it to be allowed into the pool, the Christian hypothesis must be at least possible.
Simply disallowing the hypothesis is not the same thing as showing that some other hypothesis is superior. It is merely to refuse to evaluate the Christian hypothesis by appealing (implicitly or explicitly) to a background assumption that (at least purports to) preclude the possibility of the Christian explanation.
So, for the sake of completeness, let me note two background assumptions (widely believed) which might pose a special problem for the Christian hypothesis.
First, atheists who assume that there is no god incorporate an assumption that is problematic for the Christian hypothesis. Second, (non-traditional) theists who hold, e.g., that God is not personal (e.g., pantheists), also have an assumption that is problematic for the Christian's proposed explanation.
But, if this is the objection, I have already made gestures toward addressing it. See, again, the above (the sketch of) an argument to the conclusion that a personal God exists.
If the issue is not background assumptions, then we will simply have to get into a discussion of the particular texts themselves. But, I cannot go on typing forever. Hopefully, something that I have written will spark further positive discussion somewhere.
Sincerely,
Matthew J Bell
My statement was not designed in any way to offend anyone. It was designed to spark conversation, and that it did. I think it is safe to say that Mr Bell's response is the kind of conversation I was aiming to start. He offered real, thoughtful ideas in defense of his point of view.
In rebuttal to Mr Candela:
I simply stated my belief that religion was created by men to control other men. I did not insult you for your beliefs. I simply challenged them. You, on the other hand, insulted me for mine. In doing so you have displayed detest for anyone who dares denounce your beliefs. You could not have been more reflective of the God that the Bible and Christianity depicts. Kind of like the notion that if you don't do what God tells you he will send you to Hell. If I have anything to say in objection to the Bible I MUST be a hell-born heathen and should be condemned. And by the way, does that sound like a divine being?? SPITE is a HUMAN characteristic, and if this God you speak of is so much BETTER than man, wouldn't he be above spite? If this God LOVED man, why would he give us free will and then punish us for using it?? Why would he set a trap for us if he loved us so? These are human characteristics, best described as FLAWS. So, is God full of flaws?? If you don't pray you will go to hell. If you don't participate in communion you will go to hell. Allow me to put this more generally; if you don't participate in the man-made religious institutions of this world God will send you to hell. Institutions that seek wealth and power and offer little in return with the exception of pointless traditional activities (like Christmas - the largest generator of commercial spending in any year) and a sweet little pat on the back to make you feel good because your going to heaven for participating in today's sermon. Sounds more and more like men controlling men to me.
It seems rather apparent to me that you are the only one with hate in this conversation. I never stated or even gave indication of any hatefulness.
I did not ask you for a whimsical preach session or to quote sermons and scripture. Though I can understand how, for people like you, any and every conversation is seen as an opportunity to preach.
Your attempt to make me look stupid or uneducated by pointing out a typo is a bold indication of your immaturity. You made typos too, Sir. It is not my intent to try to degrade others by pointing out their errors. I am an adult.
You suggested to me that I wake up. I suggest to you that you grow up.
In conclusion, I never meant for this to turn into a negative conversation, so if we can just put such things aside and further discuss this subject matter with positive, or at least benign, responses, that would be wonderful.
Mike Frank
Mr Frank:
You did not "simply state your belief": you called people cretins, and you mindlessly used profanity to show that you yourself are not a cretin. And yet you dishonestly insist that "it is not my intention to degrade others." You're already in hell, and the benignity you are seeking from believers you should first extend to God. You bury me under an avalanche of impieties and yet expect me to what---lie to you about what you've done?
Your fear of God is not the last word on God. And that you try to control the way I choose to respond means YOU are the one who is trying to control men.
Wake up or do not wake up, CHRIST IS RISEN.
N.C.
We are closing this particular post to further comments. We thank everyone who has contributed, however the remarks are beginning to drift away from the subject (the pope and the synagogue) into an extended exchange of very personal polemics on the general subject of Christianity.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home