The Atheist’s Redemption
In my last appearance in this space, I wrote erroneously that Christopher Hitchens had favored both Anglo-American wars on Iraq. In fact, he strongly opposed the first one, back in 1991. I remember this so vividly (I was delighted with him at the time) that I can’t understand how I could be so embarrassingly forgetful when I wrote as I did. I owe him an apology, which I cheerfully offer.
Still, I can’t help suspecting that the current war, which he does support, may help explain his newly aggressive atheism. By applauding Bush’s war, a quasi-Trotskyite venture in “global democratic revolution,” Hitch, as his friends call him, has lost a lot of face among his old comrades on the left. Attacking “religion” was the perfect way to recoup. So Michael Kinsley was probably right to praise his book god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything as a shrewd career move.
However, as Dr. Johnson said of Rousseau, “A man who talks nonsense so well must know he is talking nonsense.” Is Hitch (or should we, by analogy with “god,” call him “hitch”?) pulling the public’s leg just a bit? When he speaks of religion as belief in a “celestial dictatorship,” he betrays the Trotskyite reduction of all relations to raw power; surely, he is aware that Christians regard God—or “god,” if you like—as a loving Father, not a gigantic bully. But when he says (on page 114) that Jesus’ very historical existence is “highly questionable,” you have to wonder if he is lying, insane, or just full of hitch.
Can he be serious? The most famous and influential man who ever lived . . . never lived? Can anyone really suppose such a marvelous character was invented? That a few unschooled and inartistic writers could have thought up immortal words suitable to Him? That countless martyrs would endure agonizing death to bear witness to One whose reality was in doubt? Tell us another one, hitch. Better yet, say one thing even your fellow unbelievers will find worthy of Jesus, one thing men will quote a year—or two thousand—from now.
The hitchbook is open to many objections, but one of its oddities is its startling profusion of anachronistic indignations. Why should a materialist get so sore about the supposed evils of war, racism, sexism, bigotry, Nazism, “the” Inquisition (was there only one?), caste systems, and Mel Gibson? Did “religion” cause all of these things, and if so, so what? Why shouldn’t they exist in hitch’s universe? Couldn’t they have evolved on other planets anyway? Isn’t hitch guilty of humanism? If we discovered a Mel Gibson on Mars, why should we care? And why does hitch single out Martin Luther King, Jr., as the only praiseworthy Christian? And why, after renouncing communism, is he so forgiving toward communists, including King’s pals?
And why don’t these obvious questions occur to hitch himself?
One reason I’m a Christian is that Jesus predicted books such as this: He warned us that, just as the world hated Him, it would always hate us, too, and so it does, after 2,000 years.
Another reason is more personal. Life has been so kind to me. It has warped me with blessings. I’ve had a few minor complaints lately, but, as a child, I was so showered with love that I can’t disbelieve in God or believe that He is cruel.
Nor can I take hitch seriously, except as a man who appears to be pitifully indisposed to gratitude. He can imagine “religion” only in what a believer recognizes as its most deformed versions, which prove nothing at all about its normal, lovely, and perfect form: the Catholic Faith. He’s looking for reasons to hate it, while never acknowledging even one of the things that make millions of men love it. If I were an atheist, I might write a book in praise of such a gorgeous illusion.
One of hitch’s sneakiest moves is his attempt to pin the label “totalitarian” on religion. Surely, he knows that the essence of the totalitarian is the utterly arbitrary authority of the ruler, who can switch all the rules at any moment.
No Muslim, Jewish, or Catholic ruler has ever claimed the right to do anything so absurd—to be “above” morality. (The U.S. Supreme Court may do so.) It would defeat the whole purpose of having an unchanging Scripture. At one point, hitch himself even seems to admit this, but he plunges on like a fast-talking salesman who hopes you won’t notice the self-contradiction. Safely “audacious,” he treats communism not as a vicious crime (like those of Mel Gibson) but as an amiable, if slightly regrettable, weakness. After all, it’s one he shared until late in his life, something more than a youthful flirtation. But any sense of guilt he may feel doesn’t make him swerve from his mission, which is not to confess but to accuse.
Hitch accuses Christians of “wish-thinking,” but fails to see how the same charge may apply to atheists who think they may ignore and violate the Ten Commandments with utter impunity. The man who fears he is in danger of damnation, on the other hand, would seem to deserve exemption from any such imputation. Me, I’d rather not spend eternity in Hell.
Joseph Sobran is a syndicated columnist.
This article first appeared in the September 2007 issue of Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture.
Entries(RSS)
I thank Mr. Sobran for this fine column.
To quote from memory Fr. Benedict Groeschel’s statement this summer on Hitchens and the other recent atheist works: “These books are an insult to atheists! I have a good mind to write a defense of atheism myself just to help atheists out!”
With respect to the existence and historicity of Our Lord, I suspect Hitchens has done no research. The only scholars who have doubted the historicity of Jesus are the Hegelian theologian Bruno Bauer (1851), the pastor Albert Kalthoff (1902), the philosopher Arthur Drews (1909), the contemporary publicist Karlheinz Deschner, and the historian Luigi Cascioli. NONE of these men are historical-critical New Testament scholars, or New Testament scholars at all.
NO New Testament scholar has ever doubted the existence of Jesus, however wanting some of their views otherwise may be: neither among the Liberals Protestants Hermann Samuel Reimarus (the 18th C’s most important NT scholar), David Friedrich Strauß (the 19th C’s), Ernest Renan, Adolf von Harnack, nor William Wrede; nor Albert Schweitzer, however much he otherwise depreciated the “Historical Jesus Movement”; nor among the Neo-Orthodox Protestants Joachim Jeremias, Karl Ludwig Schmidt, Martin Dibelius, Ernst Käsemann, not even Rudolf Bultmann; nor the post-Neo-Orthodox school of E. P. Sanders, Nicholas Thomas Wright, nor especially William Lane Craig, nor even the Jesus-Seminar bunch.
If Hitchens has read ANY of these folk, I’ll push a peanut with my nose from Vladivostok to Gibralter and back!
What is true is that after Schweitzer’s _Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung_ (1906), translated as _The Quest of the Historical Jesus_ (1906), no historical-critical life of Jesus was attempted for almost 90 years, until E. P. Sander’s very recommendable _The Historical Figure of Jesus_ (1993) (with the preliminary work done in his _Jesus and Judaism_ [1985]). Sander’s insists that the following facts are “almost beyond dispute” (p.10):
* Jesus was born c 4 B.C.
* he spend his childhood and early adult years in Nazareth.
* He was baptized by John the Baptist.
* He called disciples.
* He taught in Galilee.
* He preached “the kingdom of God”.
* He went about the A.D. 30 to Jerusalem for Passover.
* He made a disturbance in the Temple area.
* He had a final meal with the disciples.
* He was arrested and interrogated by the High Priest.
* He was executed on the orders of the Roman perfect, Pontius Pilate.
* After his death, his followers saw him (“in what sense is not certain” [p.11]).
* His followers formed a community to await his return and sought to win others to faith in him as God’s Messiah.
To these “almost beyond dispute” I would add as historically probable:
* He was a rabbi in the synagogue of Capernaum.
* He was recognized as a exorcist and healer.
* His preaching of the “kingdom of God” was part of his unique Apocalyptical preaching.
* He taught in proverbs and parables.
* He formed a community of disciples which had a small group of leaders, the Twelve.
* He by and large limited his activity to Jews.
* On the eve of the Passover he instituted a new cultus with a new priesthood and a new sacrifice.
All these statements I would insist are acceptable as historical truth even to religious skeptics (faith makes known more facts). So let’s do Fr. Groeschel’s work for him and help atheists out. Stupid books by stupid men with stupid motives just make atheism appear stupid.
Actually, I thought that major schools of Islam do or did teach that Allah can command even immoral, contradictory things because of his arbitrary, sovereign will. Wasn't that part of the point of the Holy Father's criticism at Regensburg? So wouldn't Allah in this school of thought be totalitarian? Wouldn't the same be true of a Calvinist deity who predestines people to heaven or hell arbitrarily, irrevocably?
"... but fails to see how the same charge may apply to atheists who think they may ignore and violate the Ten Commandments with utter impunity. ..."
Quite some years ago, while on a Great Smokies trail, I chanced to meet the director of a southern fundamentalist "academy of Jesus Christ", a seedy local secondary ed. outfit.
While myself undecided on death penalty (I still am), I was curious where he stood. Oh, he was cheerfully all for it...
I then asked him, how did he reconcile such enthusiasm and joy with the very Fifth Lord's Commandment?
Here was his answer.
According to him, our "You shall not kill" was in grave error, since "in the old Hebrew" it actually said, "Thou shalt not murder".
And since the U.S. government [think W. Bush
] has its power vested in it by God Himself (!!!......), the Director confidently continued, when that divine U.S. government executes someone, it "merely kills" and "does not commit murder"...
Thus, _even_ such basic things that we take to be rock solid as Ten Commandments are "subject to interpretation" by some idiot somewhere to fit his purposes.
'will someone please circumcize my name?!' 'Ok...i'll be your mohel pronounced moil. you are hereby aldiban... oops i work for the pharmaceutical industry, and we are coming out with our penis enlarging hormone...and just wanted to be sure you were a candidate or apt customer. sorry.' 'couldn't you just have made me Aldebanlohoper?' 'No. Sorry. I have my allegiances...or paylords. sorry. at least you're not an atheist.' 'True.'
"I then asked him, how did he reconcile such enthusiasm and joy with the very Fifth Lord’s Commandment?"
Considering that Christians everywhere supported capital punishment until the 19th century, that has to be the most shallow argument for any position on record.
"And since the U.S. government [think W. Bush
] has its power vested in it by God Himself (!!!……), the Director confidently continued, when that divine U.S. government executes someone, it “merely kills” and “does not commit murder”…"
Hey, no fair using the G.O.P. or W. Bush as a caricature for ANY argument.
I have a question for the commenters here.
If I was an atheist and yet respected Christianity for its incredible influence on our affluent Western societies --- ahum... as they once were --- would you still accept me as a fellow paleoconservative?
I respect Christian morality and values. I don't curse, I live by the Ten Commandments and I honor the law.
Or would you say, he's an non-believer, kick him out of the movement.
Thought I'd drop this in for Sobran:
The Egyptian sun god Horus, who predated the Christ character by thousands of years, shares the following in common with Jesus:
Horus was born of the virgin Isis-Meri on December 25th in a cave/manger with his birth being announced by a star in the East and attended by three wise men.
His earthly father was named "Seb" ("Joseph"). Seb is also known as "Geb": "As Horus the Elder he...was believed to be the son of Geb and Nut." Lewis Spence, Ancient Egyptian Myths and Legends, 84.
He was of royal descent.
At age 12, he was a child teacher in the Temple, and at 30, he was baptized, having disappeared for 18 years.
Horus was baptized in the river Eridanus or Iarutana (Jordan) by "Anup the Baptizer" ("John the Baptist"), who was decapitated.
He had 12 disciples, two of whom were his "witnesses" and were named "Anup" and "Aan" (the two "Johns").
He performed miracles, exorcised demons and raised El-Azarus ("El-Osiris"), from the dead.
Horus walked on water.
His personal epithet was "Iusa," the "ever-becoming son" of "Ptah," the "Father." He was thus called "Holy Child."
He delivered a "Sermon on the Mount" and his followers recounted the "Sayings of Iusa."
Horus was transfigured on the Mount.
He was crucified between two thieves, buried for three days in a tomb, and resurrected.
He was also the "Way, the Truth, the Light," "Messiah," "God's Anointed Son," the "Son of Man," the "Good Shepherd," the "Lamb of God," the "Word made flesh," the "Word of Truth," etc.
He was "the Fisher" and was associated with the Fish ("Ichthys"), Lamb and Lion.
He came to fulfill the Law.
Horus was called "the KRST," or "Anointed One."
Like Jesus, "Horus was supposed to reign one thousand years."
Furthermore, inscribed about 3,500 years ago on the walls of the Temple at Luxor were images of the Annunciation, Immaculate Conception, Birth and Adoration of Horus, with Thoth announcing to the Virgin Isis that she will conceive Horus; with Kneph, the "Holy Ghost," impregnating the virgin; and with the infant being attended by three kings, or magi, bearing gifts. In addition, in the catacombs at Rome are pictures of the baby Horus being held by the virgin mother Isis--the original "Madonna and Child."
There are supposedly four instances where it is claimed Jesus Christ was "mentioned" by "historians" who lived at the time he did.
However, all of them fall apart under scrutiny and Jospehus' mentioning of him was almost certainly a latter forgery placed in his work. Tacitus supposed mention of Christ? No one else who read Tacitus at the time ever mentions the book in question, and this was probably "made up" by Martyr.
I still profess Christianity, but I have to admit..................we cannot PROVE Jesus even existed. There is no smoking gun.
It IS interesting the Herod's supposed "killing of the firstborn" was never mentioned by any Roman historian. I mean, HELL, that did take place in a Roman province (would they even have allowed him to do this?), but its never mentioned.
The New Testament mentioned Jesus being met in Jeruslam by pretty much everyone, but how is it no historians at the time or any Romans ever seen fit to even mention his name?
Might want to watch the movie "The God Who Wasn't There" Joe.
Might also want to watch the Google movie "Zeitgeist".
The problem Ive had with apologetics is that the biggest lies Ive ever encountered in Christianity/Atheism debates always come from the Christians and especially the Creationists. Ive encountered alot of CHILDISH arguments from the Atheists however, some just butt-stupid rationales for not believing (i.e. if there was a God, why is there any suffering), but the LIARS are usually the Christians (Bull-CHIT like 3,000 year old dinasaur bones that are hidden by the Smithsonian, etc.).
Still, the Athiests are so smug and put their arguments forth with such thumbs, its hard for me to ever want to conceed they are correct.
To the questioning Christian above:
Don't worry, the mythological "evidence", as well as the so-called documentary cited above, is based upon outdated 19th century pseudo-scholarship. I would check out the fine resources at Tektonics.org as well as the book Reinventing Jesus to reassure your faith.
Atheists seem to me to be bereft of all humility that I can't see them as "following the truth"--they have as much of an agenda as the Fundamentalists. In fact, many of the most devout atheists are former Fundamentalists. Kind of makes you think how one extreme can lead to another...
Adrian,
What is wrong with Fundamentalists? They are just, as their name implies, fighting for the fundamentals of the faith against liberal modernists.
Billy Bob
Please refrain from endorsing websites here. What little I have been able to learn of Tektonics.org suggests it is not at all a reliable or useful source. The "author" is not a scholar and seems to put a pseudo-academic veneer on rather primitive notions of inerrancy. The problem with fundamentalists, by the way, is that few of them can read the New Testament in Greek, and none of them seems to know how to go about deciding what is fundamental and what not. Fundamenalism is a like Straussianism--it permits the wildest speculation and deviations from truth but always in the name of literalism.
MOSES (no less, if that is your real name
) you do not much (common) sense make
BTW, W. Bush ... a Christian? ... http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c368/calougee/handjob.gif
Fundamentalism of the early Machen sort was very unified on what the Fundamentals are. Personally, I don't think inerrancy is a fundamental. One can not believe in it and not jeopardize his immortal soul, but it is an important concept, properly understood.
How has Fundamentalism deviated from fundamental "truth?" It is about maintaining the Truth “once delivered to all the Saints.” Some branches have certainly chased rabbit trails.
I highly suspect that the majority of Greek readers in America learned it in seminary or Bible College. But of course the average Fundamentalist can't read Greek. If that is an indictment of modern education then so be it. Are the English translations of the Bible that bad?
Billy Bob
questioning...,
Horus is the Sun and Moon eyed sky/Sun god with a falcon shaped head. How could anyone pretend that he somehow inspired the Jesus story?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horus
"MOSES (no less, if that is your real name
) you do not much (common) sense make"
If you will pardon the ill temper of my original post, I meant to point out that at no point before 19th century "historical revisionism" became the fashion of the day regarding religion and revolution did Christians--or Jews for that matter--reject capital punishment as immoral or contrary to Divine Law.
And yes, "Moses" is my real surname, of Welsh origin so far as I can tell.
"BTW, W. Bush … a Christian? …"
Actually, I had wanted to mention that previously. I'm glad we're at least on the same page there.
All I meant was that we should not fall into the trap of mean-spirited lefties and journalists who wrongly consider Bush and the G.O.P. to be true indicators of the nature of Christian orthodoxy.
Translations are translations and, if they are given to Greekless Christians, mistakes can be made, and when repeated they give birth to heresies. This problem is complicated by the general modern ignorance of history and literature, which makes the interpretation of texts more difficult. In addition, it is hard for some people to make a proper evaluation of the relationship between the Old and New Testaments, and a literal reading of the former can lead not just to errors on the value of pi but to deep moral and spiritual errors. Many of these problems were thrashed out in the first 5-6 centuries of the Church, by men, often learned sometimes wise and occasionally holy, whose consensus is embodied in various credal statements. But when ignorant and Greekless readers, following a favorite preacher or some whim of their own, strike out on their own, they are almost certainly doomed to error, and before long they are damning their brethren for not knowing the date of Christ's return, playing instrumental music in Church, or drinking wine, as our Lord commanded, as a summoning to mind of his passion. FRUIT OF THE VINE!! They shriek, without ever taking the trouble to work through the Scriptures to see generally what is said about wine.
I do not claim to be a theologian or Church historian, but I have been reading the NT in Greek now for 45 years and read some passages every week regularly. There is hardly a passage where a sound knowledge of the language cannot protect the reader from falling into error, and this includes passages as familiar as the Lord's prayer, which abounds in difficulties. Also, a good case can and has been made that the earliest version of the OT we have complete, the Septuagint Greek version, should be treated with authority.
Finally, this brings us back to the poor Fundamentalist. How is he to judge which teachings are fundamental, which merely useful, and which erroneous. What, in other words, is his authority. He wll say "the Bible," but that is not Christ's answer. I'll stick in a paragraph from a lecture I have given:
Our Lord knew that His disciples would forget some of what he told them and be confused about many things. He did not, as some people imagine, tell them that a book would be put together that would tell them everything. On the contrary, He told them, in his last instructions, that His suffering and death were necessary, because only then could he send them the Holy Ghost, the comforter (“the paraklete”), the Spirit of Truth, who “will guide you into all truth… and show you things to come.” [John 16: 13 ]. This same Holy Ghost “will teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” [John 14: 26]. As time went on, his disciples helped to establish a sacred institution that would serve as the vehicle for the operation of the Holy Ghost, and that institution is the Church. That Church made the selection of Scriptures we call the Bible and not vice versa.
I believe that many Fundamentalists, though wrong on so many of the fundamentals (why is divorce so rampant among Southern Protestants? Why do so many chase after financial success as if a god? Why do they run after preachers who look like Vegas showgirl and dealers? Why are they so eager to lay claim to knowledge and authority they do not possess? ), are sincere in their Faith, but they are misled by pastors who are as ignorant as themselves. So long as they stay out of polemics and concentrate on leading Christian lives, they are a wonderful people, but when they begin to rant against what they do not understand, they revert to the type of the Covenanters, whose arrogance and bigotry did much damage in their day and whose continuing legacy is obscurantism and hate.
Leaving for Washington, gone until Monday.
"Are the English translations of the Bible that bad?" Yep. It's something a a scandal that we don't have an English translation of the Bible as good as what we have for Homer, Virgil, Dante, Goethe. Indeed, the only worse case that I know of is the first English translator of Thomas Mann.
The chief reason for this:
1. Translators of the Bible have a bad habit of putting their doctrinal, sectarian, or ethnic interests before accuracy. Case in point: St. Augustine's misreading of Romans in developing his inheritance view of original sin, and the Evangelicals' NIV.
2. The translator just doesn't have a scholarly knowledge of ancient Hebrew, other Semitic languages, and Koine Greek.
3. The translator just translates another translation or used a poor Greek and Hebrew edition. Luther just translated the Vulgate. The King Jimmy committee used the Vulgate for the OT and the questionable Byzantine Lectionary for the NT. Thus the King Jimmy has whole verses that just aren't in the Nestle-Aland (the standard scholarly Greek NT). Note that the Stuttgartensia is the standard for the OT. The NIV is really just took the RSV and added words to suit its Evangelical theology.
4. The translator just can't write good English.
5. The "translator" just makes up a new text. When Dryden and Pope did their "translations" of Virgil and Homer respectively, almost everyone who would have read Virgil and Homer already knew Latin and Greek, and thus read the original. Thus a "translation" had an entirely different purpose than just to make a foreign work available to English readers. The contemptible "translator" of the _Living Bible_ had no such excuse. Somewhere the Baptist bible journal has a devastating attack on this version -- and these folks are Southern Baptists, and thus not "flaming liberals".
6. The translator is translating for semi-literates and children -- as in the "Good News Bible".
There is hope for the Hebrew Scriptures: That hope is called Robert Alter. Pray that he lives long enough to complete a translation of all the Hebrew Scripture. I see no similar hope for the Greek Scriptures.
Also, a good case can and has been made that the earliest version of the OT we have complete, the Septuagint Greek version, should be treated with authority. Well, St. Jerome didn't think so, himself the last Christian in the West who knew Hebrew until the Renaissance. See his prologue to Genesis. The 4th Session of the Council of Trent, speaking of authority, agreed with him. The Hebrew Scriptures are in Hebrew. And the Masoretic Text and the Dead Sea Scrolls are the earliest Hebrew Scriptures that we've got.
One recent English and French Bible translation, _The Jerusalem Bible_, did use the LXX when the Hebrew was uncertain. Whether this is a good idea is another question.
Come on Sid. The NIV and NASB both had very scholarly committees that translated them. The NIV is a "thought for thought" translation and the NASB is a "word for word" translation. They don't not know what they are doing simply because you don't like the outcome.
What is your concern about the NASB?
And the inherited nature of original sin is clearly taught in the Bible. Why would you disagree with that?
I am curious: what are Mr. Cundiff's thoughts on the Douay-Rheims Bible?
On translations: I do not claim to be a scholar of any repute, and hence I rely upon two millennia of ecclesiastical fathers and traditions to do the interpreting of anything unclear.
Just the thoughts of a semi-literate layman.
Nicholas,
"... I meant to point out that at no point before 19th century “historical revisionism” became the fashion of the day regarding religion and revolution did Christians–or Jews for that matter–reject capital punishment as immoral or contrary to Divine Law. ..."
Of course, you are correctly pointing to a fact of history.
And of course, what "other" people have been (or are) doing, be it in the name of Christianity or not, should not determine one's own beliefs. You are right in referring to "fashion", polite for herd mentality, not faith.
As for American fundamentalists, TJF has accurately described these people in his comment #15 here. (BTW, my own concept of Christianity is exactly the opposite of theirs. Same book, same terms ... uncanny...)
However, the focus of my earlier post was that creepy fundamentalist director's incredible "divinity of the government" claim. He could not possibly be alone in selling this idiocy. That is why it makes me both laugh and shudder today to think of "our" present "Montezuma" and his cabal, hardly Christians by any stretch...
To j.:
The fundamentalist you met in the trail is in fact correct. The Hebrew word in the 5th Commandment which is commonly translated "kill" is "ratsach", and it means "commit murder". If it simply meant "kill", well then the Hebrews sure ended up doing a lot of killing in apparent violation of the commandment, with no indication whatsoever that God was displeased.
Furthermore, per St. Paul in Romans 13:1-7, God has invested the state with the power of the sword. This, of course, is a separate issue from whether or not a particular war is justifiable.
6th Commandment by the way.
The Ten Commandments
by Mark Twain
The Ten Commandments were made for man alone. We should think it strange if they had been made for all the animals.
We should say "Thou shalt not kill" is too general, too sweeping. It includes the field mouse and the butterfly. They can't kill. And it includes the tiger, which can't help it.
It is a case of Temperament and Circumstance again. You can arrange no circumstances that can move the field mouse and the butterfly to kill; their temperaments will ill keep them unaffected by temptations to kill, they can avoid that crime without an effort. But it isn't so with the tiger. Throw a lamb in his way when he is hungry, and his temperament will compel him to kill it.
Butterflies and field mice are common among men; they can't kill, their temperaments make it impossible. There are tigers among men, also. Their temperaments move them to violence, and when Circumstance furnishes the opportunity and the powerful motive, they kill. They can't help it.
No penal law can deal out justice; it must deal out injustice in every instance. Penal laws have a high value, in that they protect -- in a considerable measure -- the multitude of the gentle-natured from the violent minority.
For a penal law is a Circumstance. It is a warning which intrudes and stays a would-be murderer's hand -- sometimes. Not always, but in many and many a case. It can't stop the real man-tiger; nothing can do that. Slade had 26 deliberate murders on his soul when he finally went to his death on the scaffold. He would kill a man for a trifle; or for nothing. He loved to kill. It was his temperament. He did not make his temperament, God gave it him at his birth. Gave it him and said Thou shalt not kill. It was like saying Thou shalt not eat. Both appetites were given him at birth. He could be obedient and starve both up to a certain point, but that was as far as he could go. Another man could go further; but not Slade.
Holmes, the Chicago monster, inveigled some dozens of men and women into his obscure quarters and privately butchered them. Holmes's inborn nature was such that whenever he had what seemed a reasonably safe opportunity to kill a stranger he couldn't successfully resist the temptation to do it.
Justice was finally meted out to Slade and to Holmes. That is what the newspapers said. It is a common phrase, and a very old one. But it probably isn't true. When a man is hanged for slaying one man that phrase comes into service and we learn that justice was meted out to the slayer. But Holmes slew sixty. There seems to be a discrepancy in this distribution of justice. If Holmes got justice, the other man got 59 times more than justice.
But the phrase is wrong, anyway. The word is the wrong word. Criminal courts do not dispense "justice" -- they can't; they only dispense protections to the community. It is all they can do.
***
1. re my previous post: When the New Testament quotes the OT, it uses the LXX
2. re: 18. The Douay-Rheims Bible is a translation from a translation: Jerome's Vulgate.
3. re 19: not a bad approach. Some of the Fathers tended to over allegoricalize the text. Still, their work nourished the Church.
4. The best interpreter of the text for the development of dogma is the Magisterium. The Bible isn't a work of dogmatic pronouncements (which are made in the language of philosophy (consubstantial, etc.) for accuracy, but a work of preaching, that is, the application of teaching to a situation. The Magisterium uses Scripture as a source to develop dogma.
5. Fundamentalism is a modern and rather recent movement, really getting underway in the 1920s as a reaction to Darwinism, Protestant Liberalism (which had gotten us into World War I), and historical-critical method. The broader movement is called in America the Evangelical church, and has its origins, I think, in the English 17th C. Dissenter church.
6. My complaint with the Fundies is that they have no appreciation for metaphor, symbol, parable, literary features. Whether Jonah really lived in a whale (and "whale" is not the Hebrew word) ignores that the writer, in a very fine short story, is using a literary device to put across a point. BUT, when explicating "this is my body", they suddenly insist that this is just a symbol, and sound like Liberal Protestants. I've also met Fundy's and Evangelicals who are, with respect to the dogma of the Trinity, Modalists.
When exchanging views with the the Fundies, and they are mostly good people, I tell them that what counts in the Bible are "saving truths". Jonah's journey in a whale isn't a saving truth; that The Most High has special tasks for special people and gives them special grace ("charism") to do it IS such a saving truth.
7. My problem with the larger group, the Evangelicals, is their dogma of Penal Substitutional Atonement, taken from Calvin, and based on a faulty use of the Greek "Christ died for us", where "hyper" = "for" is said to mean "in place of us" or "instead of us" or "as a substitute for us"; when "hyper" correctly means "for the sake of us" or "on behalf of us" or (maybe) "as a representative of us". The correct Greek for the "instead of us" is "anti", and is used only once with respect to the Redemption, Mark 10:45. The NT uses mostly "hyper". Sometimes "peri", "dia" and "heneka" are used, but not in soteriological contexts. cf. John McIntyre, _The Shape of Soteriology_ (1992), chap 4. I should add that I've met and read Evangelicals who reject Penal Substitutional Atonement.
I wonder, in fact, if Neo-Calvinism is replacing the Evangelicalism, and that otherwise classic Evangelicalism is morphing into Pentecostalism and Dispensationalism.
8. One final note: The Liberal Protestants got us into World War I. The Catholics had no small role in getting us into Viet-Nam. The Evangelicals -- at least the Dispensationalists -- have played a role in getting us into Iraq.
"The fundamentalist you met in the trail is in fact correct."
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
"The Douay-Rheims Bible is a translation from a translation: Jerome’s Vulgate."
I know that. But in the context of numerous doctoral, Papal and scholarly interpretations, it is surely not abhorrent for a layman to read the Bible in his maternal language.
Mr. Cundiff,
What is your problem with the NASB and the NIV?
I believe when you speak of Fundamentalists and Evangelicals you mostly speak of what you do not know.
If you believe in God the Creator of all, then God can work a miracle. Keeping Jonah alive in the belly of the big fish would be a miracle. Supernatural. Why do some believe in a Creator God, but then suspend belief in the supernatural when it comes to the miracles in the Bible. Is keeping Jonah alive any more difficult than changing water to wine or feeding 5000? BTW, the Bible does not say Jonah remained alive. It is possible he died and was resurrected. This would make the story even more of a type of Christ.
Fundamentalism as it was in the 1920s and before, is not a new movement. It was across denominations and was an attempt to rescue those denominations from the liberals and restore orthodoxy. So it was the liberalism that was new and Fundamentalism was the reaction. It pre-existed the liberalism.
Penal Substitutionary Atonement is not "taken from Calvin." It is taken from the Bible, primarily the writings of Paul. So all those scholars who translated the Bible are wrong, and Mr. Cundiff is correct?
I think any Evangelical who explicitly rejects Penal Substitutionary Atonement would cease to be an Evangelical. Likewise, any Modalist would be ejected from the Fundamentalist/Evangelical community if he was open with his beliefs. Likely, the people who you talked to simply misunderstood what Evangelicals believe.
The only prominent person who you could arguably call Evangelical who flirts with Modalism is T.D. Jakes, who is from a United Pentecostal Church background. But he is very evasive about what he believes because he knows if he was open he would be attacked.
The CCM group Phillips, Craig, and Dean are also from a United Pentecostal background, and many mainstream Evangelicals have shunned them because of it.
What was the purpose of Christ's death on the cross if not to pay the price for our sins?
re 26.
I thank Mr. Outlaw for setting me strait on Evangelicals and Modalism. That said, my experience of Evangelical piety is largely Christo-monist: Almost all prayer seems to be addressed to the 2nd Person, not the 1st, or the 3rd. There are exceptions, and I'm happy to say that I hearing more prayers from Evangelicals addressed to The Father, as the Our Father teaches. All preaching among Evangelicals is almost always about the the atonement and the One who atoned. I except, of course, Pentecostals, who can be accused of "Pneuma-monism", because everything is about the 3rd Person.
Find me one theologian before Calvin that taught Penal Substitution. As for the NT: What was the purpose of Christ’s death on the cross if not to pay the price for our sins?. It is precisely what "for" ("hyper") means in Greek in the NT that the debate is about, as I discussed in my previous post. If "Pay the price" means the Ransom Theory, the that theory has been in trouble since Irenaus found fault with it.
Sorry to gripe, but for all the respect that I have for Evangelicals and Calvinists -- and my respect, especially for their piety, is serious -- I find the idea quite questionable that the Father would have wanted to zap us, and instead had zapped an innocent man, and that such a crime appeases His wrath; the consequence would then be that the Father Himself would need redemption. It also causes a split in the Unity of the Trinity, thus leading to the heretical and caricature view of a vengeful bloodthursty Father demanding the last cent, and a soft, blue-eyed sweet Jesus meek and mild who wouldn't hurt a fly. Perhaps this split explains the Christo-monism that I mentioned above. It certainly explains why many reject Christianity as obnoxious: because they think the Penal Substitution theory of the Redemption is the only one. Maybe Mr. Hitchens, to return to the topic, thinks this too.
I'm finding some Evangelicals, to their credit, also reject this theory: Take a look at James Beilby and Paul Eddy, eds. _The Nature of the Atonement_(2006), a spirited debate between 4 Evangelicals, where the representatives of the Christus Victor theory (a view similar to the Eastern Church's), the Healing theory, and the Sacrifice/Revelation theory strongly refute the representative the Penal Substitution view.
Just as it is a scandal that we lack a good Bible translation, so it is also a scandal that other Christians and esp. Catholics and Eastern Orthodox haven't dealt with the Redemption more thoroughly, and have left the argument to the Evangelicals and Calvinists with their Penal Substitution view -- a view that informed Arminians, Lutherans, even some Evangelicals (as above), and Catholics utterly reject. Rather than state the better view(s) of the Redemption, let me recommend what I have found, in my reading so far, as the best statement of the Catholic view of Meritorious Redemption: William F. Hogan, _Christ's Redemptive Sacrifice_, a bit dated (1963), but good. Also New Catholic Encyclopedia, q.v. "Redemption (In the Bible)," "Redemption (Theology of),""Atonement," "Expiation," "Incarnation," "Sacrifice of the Cross," "Satisfaction of Christ," "Passion of Christ," "Reconciliation with God," "Ransom," "Recapitulation in Christ," "Soteriology," "Resurrection of Christ, 2."
Let me assure all Christians that all their views deserve respect and a respectful hearing. If I have misrepresented the view of some, my apologies. Mr. Sobran's article is a response to why some reject all our views, to the degree that they understand them, and why some would misrepresent all our views.
"Caedmon" (:-)):
... "St. Paul said" ... many things ... who knows in which context, and in which state of mind ... was it merely a manner of speaking, and has he actually "said" it, and who cares... Use some common sense...
A bunch of old men might have been sitting around fire at night two millennia ago, one saying to another, "Did you see what that creep the King did to those poor people?", another replying, "Yeah, true, but what can you do about it? God who gave him the throne gave him the sword, and he uses it, sob...", and the others nodding, "Right you are, mind the power, save your hide..."...
That is exactly what is wrong with you fundamentalists, you cherry-pick an obscure passage, and say, "See? 'Tis in the Bible!" ... Many things "are in the Bible", any Church theologian will tell you that, some contradicting one another, some even morbid, some plain silly, and so on. To quote TJF (comment #15 above):
"... Finally, this brings us back to the poor Fundamentalist. How is he to judge which teachings are fundamental, which merely useful, and which erroneous. What, in other words, is his authority? He will say “the Bible,” but that is not Christ’s answer. ..."
That is why there is The Church, to provide guidance.
(By the way, it is Fifth Commandment, not "sixth": http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/command.htm )
P.S.
“... If it simply meant “kill”, well then the Hebrews sure ended up doing a lot of killing in apparent violation of the commandment, with no indication whatsoever that God was displeased. ...”
Yes, the “Hebrews” did a lot of killing, and God was displeased (what “indication” would you want, a red LED bulb to flash?) - as He is very much now, with the genocidal “state” of “Israel”.
2007/09/19 14:01:41 GMT
Pope 'refused audience for Rice'
By David Willey, BBC News, Rome
Pope Benedict XVI refused a recent request by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to discuss the Middle East and Iraq, Vatican sources say.
The Pope refused a request for an audience during the August holidays.
Senior Vatican sources told the BBC the Pope does not normally receive politicians on his annual holiday at the Castelgandolfo residence near Rome.
But one leading Italian newspaper said it was an evident snub by the Vatican towards the Bush administration.
Christian rights
There are at least two reasons why Pope Benedict may have decided peremptorily against a private meeting with Ms Rice.
First, it was Ms Rice who just before the outbreak of the Iraq war in March 2003 made it clear to a special papal envoy sent from Rome, Cardinal Pio Laghi, that the Bush administration was not interested in the views of the late Pope on the immorality of launching its planned military offensive.
Secondly, the US has responded in a manner considered unacceptable at the Vatican to the protection of the rights of Iraqi Christians under the new Iraqi constitution.
The Bush administration has told the Vatican that as coalition forces have not succeeded in securing the whole territory of Iraq, they are unable to protect non-Muslims.
Instead of meeting the Pope, Ms Rice had to make do with a telephone conversation with the Vatican's number two, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, who was visiting the US during August on other business.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/7002988.stm
Mr. Cundiff,
So I'm supposed to believe that the NIV and NASB, both translated by scholarly committees, are no good because you say so?
Keep in mind that the United Pentecostal Church is Modalist, but not all Pentecostals are.
Your objection to the Penal Substitution theory sounds like the objections I have read and heard from 100 liberals. Funny how you didn’t object to it based on Scripture. I heard Phil Donahue raise the same "bloodthirsty" Father objection. Good company you’re in Mr. Cundiff.
Object to Penal Substitution based on Scripture and we’ll talk. In preacher speak, "Don't refer me to a book, refer to The Book."
Billy Bob
Mr. Outlaw, when not engaged in the old trick of guilt by asserted association, and ignoring my discussion of "hyper" and "anti" in the NT with reference to the Redemption, wishes readers to forget that I base my objection to Penal Substitution on scripture -- GREEK scripture, which is the only kind of NT scripture that here is.
As for the NIV, check its translation of of John 2:11 (which as always should be read in the context of the entire 2nd chapter): "This, the first of his miraculous signs, Jesus performed in Cana of Galilee. He thus revealed his glory, and his disciples put their faith in him."
Compare to my (doubtless clumsy) version from Greek : "This first of his signs did Jesus in Cana of Galilee and manifested his glory, and his disciples believed in(to) him."
Note how the Fundies insisted in sticking in their own theology into the text. The word "miraculous" isn't there. Miracle is a modern concept that developed after the coming of natural science. The Bible considers God the cause of all things, and speaks of "Mighty Deeds" with respect to what WE would call miracles. Note "performed" rather than 'did", suggesting Our Lord to be a huckster magician at the county fair, or in the manner of Simon in Acts 8:9-11. No wonder we have so many atheists! Then "revealed" rather than "manifested", which don't mean the same thing. Then "put their faith" rather than "believed", the former the error of faith (fides, pistis) as "trust" (fiducia), an error reinforced by a view regarding justification that came about 16 centuries later.
Moreover, "sign", "glory", "manifest", and "believe" are key concepts in John's theology, and have a special meaning for him -- all of which ignored by the NIV and it's supposed "scholarly" committee.
In short, a distortion of the text to make it mean what a sectarian group wants it to mean. I've seen the same thing done by the Fundies with "Petros" and "petra" (both Cephas in Aramaic) in Mathew 16: 18, in order to ostensibly obviate any claim of Papal authority. Fundies aren't the only sects who perform such distortions. E. P. Sanders argues that Luther grossly distorted Paul by claiming the Justification by Faith is Paul's main point. It isn't. And Liberal Catholics have done this as well -- especially with liturgical documents.
With friends like these, the Bible doesn't need atheist enemies. What should be done instead is to translate, to read, and present the Bible in its own terms. Then let the Church, or the preacher, apply its teaching to our own circumstances.
Mr. Sobran's issue is atheist objections. When one sees how Christians sometimes present their case, one can sympathize with atheists. Most atheists can only conceive of God as a cross between Casper the Friendly Ghost, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, Merlin, and the Wizard of Oz. No wonder: It's all they've been offered!
I thank Mr. Outlaw again for his remarks on Modalism. I didn't know this about Pentecostals.
Mr. Cundiff,
Like I said, I am supposed to set aside the work of all those scholarly translation committees because you say so?
I don't read Greek. Almost no Bible reader in any primary language does. That is why we have to trust the translators. Are they all in on some big Evangelical plot to subvert the Gospel? Do you also believe that 9/11 was an inside job? (Some of the NIV translators weren't particularly Christian which is why some King James Only types don't like the NIV. Were they in on the plot also?)
The ESV is a good translation and is endorsed by R.C. Sproul. The International Standard Bible is a good translation and is endorsed by Dave Black.
But I don't concede that even if you are right about your objection that that changes anything. “for the sake of us” or “on behalf of us” or (maybe) “as a representative of us” changes things how? The idea is forensic (not so much ransom) and then justification (righteousness) is imputed immediately upon receiving faith. It is not a process.
I don't have time now, but I can bombard you with proof texts. The Catholics are clearly swimming upstream on this.
Do you have a problem with the standard Catholic translation of the Bible?
Billy Bob
I never met a man I didn't like except will rogers? no, I liked him too. I'm johnny one note. all ya need is wuv, wuv...wuv is all ya'need... wuv, wuv, wuv, wuv, ... wuv, wuv... wuv is all ya need.
no i solved that with an interpolation of john's 'god is love' ... the translators forgot the 'also' ... i.e. god is also love.
all ya'need is [justice] and wuv... justice and wuv is all ya'need.
there that should solve everything. thank me later?! wuv, wuv, wuv...& justice.. wuv, wuv, wuv...
you're welcome! think nothing of it... i'll do the thinking, thank you very much!
__________________
One of the refreshing things about coming to this site was and is that the neo-cons with their high-minded gnostic view of themselves (Straussians) with their belief that they have inside knowledge to "correctly" interpret the ancients and well as the moderns is generally scored here. Yet, it would seem that there are those here who approach that neo-con arrogance themselves, claiming that the Greek understanding of "our" scholars is better than the Greek understanding of "your" scholars. I suppose that we should all confess our sin and acknowledge that there is a little neo-con in all of us when things get to the quick.
one extrapolation of my post #34 above - JUSTICE in this world i.e. our dimensional world of height, width, depth & (motion) or Time & inevitably in the human realm concept - is only KNOWN by its abscence. So thus there is just'us...but apparently under God...since we know Justice too in absentia. So thus imperfectly inevitably we then seek to administer JUSTICE here to the best of our ability.
As for the little bit of neo-con in us all alluded to by robert m. peters above there's a little bit inevitably of 'everything' in us all. The Question is one of approximate balance always. Perfect or absolute balance in this world is Not possible though conversely approximate balance is nonetheless Requisite. Neocon = duplicitous or insidious or nefarious Imbalance and thus if there is a little bit of that in us, it's no longer 'neocon'. Their gnosticism is merely the Facade for purposes of deception toward their own ends. They trade on the knowledge of man as inevitably a Conceptual creature and are correct of course in that - but bend it toward their own ends.
I in war would draw my sword and to a man defeat via their deaths every neocon or suffer loss of my life first in battle before that goal was achieved. Believe it or not - in this case today - THAT is the Required approximate balance. I will destroy them. Questions?
_______________________________
Yet we still must speak the truth and fight the good fight and wage the campaigns of our ages.
The world says that we deserve whatever happens to us; that if we lack money, it is become something we did wrong, such as not thinking "positive thoughts" for example.
We understand that the world hates us for righteousness and that we do not control our fates anymore than we control the whole world.
Everyone has free will to do good or evil. The freedom to do evil means that there will be victims, especially to the enemies of evil -- us here. We must accept Christ as our Saviour, align our will with his, and let God inscribe his word into our hearts.
And we must be active in our faith: confident that our salvation is by his grace, we are free to take big risks to do good works according to his purpose.
The campaign of our age is to defend the men of the West against genocide. God does not want us extinct any more than he wants his creation to blow up before the day of judgement.
Dear Dr. Fleming,
There are Fundamentals and there are Fundamentalists.
Fundamentalism began as a simple effort to keep various denominations in the US orthodox, by holding Christians to simple fundamental doctrines that all orthodox believers could believe in.
Somewhere along the way the fundamentalist movement was mixed up with ahistorical Restorationism, neo-Puritanism, and neo-Ebionitism spawned in the Northeast. That is, many fundalmentalists left the fundamentals.
But not all of them.
Corruption in time infects everything man does. Among other reasons, to show that they were not part of the drifting away from fundamentals, some fundamentalists began calling themselves "evangelicals." But they, too, went astray as they tried to "engage the culture," and now many calling themselves thus are less orthodox than the modernists were when the fundamentals were first formulated a century ago.
"... Fundamentalism began as a simple effort to keep various denominations in the US orthodox, by holding Christians to simple fundamental doctrines that all orthodox believers could believe in. ..."
Not true.
A time line of Church history:
http://saintignatiuschurch.org/timeline.html
***
We knew not whether we were in heaven or on earth, for surely there is no such splendour or beauty anywhere upon earth. We cannot describe it to you: only this we know, that God dwells there among men, and that their service surpasses the worship of all other places. For we cannot forget that beauty.
- Envoys of the Russian Prince Vladimir,
after experiencing the Divine Liturgy at
the Church of the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople
in the year 987.
J:
The timeline to which you link does not include fundamentalism, which dates to 1909.
Also note that "orthodox" in regard to fundamentalism was spelled with a small 'o': no major orthodox movement in the USA in 1909 would have included Eastern Orthodox (big 'O') churches. I think most people reading Chronicles understand that.
Fundamentalism began as an orthodox (small 'o') reaction against the modernist, "liberal," influences called "higher criticism" emanating from theological schools in Germany at that time, which was identified with secular unbelief.
Here is the classic on the fundamentals: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/6528/fundcont.htm I have not studied it myself, but it is an important work on what "fundamentalism" originally meant and where the term came from.
Aside, there is a link of Eastern Orthodoxy with the Reformation in the West. After the fall of Constantinople, thousands of Greek divines fled West from the Muslim hordes. Most of the refugees were still alive when the first names linked to the Reformation reached adulthood. Some writers have put the impetus on the Reformation to their influence, particularly in the renewed interest in Greek scholarship. The Reformers believed they were returning to orthodoxy and many even maintained correspondences with Eastern Orthodox scholars.
PcH,
"... The Reformers believed they were returning to orthodoxy and many even maintained correspondences with Eastern Orthodox scholars. ..."
Can you provide any links to support that? Who were these particular Reformers? It certainly does not include Luther himself: Sola Scriptorum.
PcH,
In fact, your
"... The Reformers believed they were returning to orthodoxy ..."
is meaningless.
Of course, believers in anything always believe that they are "true believers". Thus, if you here use the term "orthodoxy" merely as a synonym for "true belief", this makes your above statement a sheer tautology, i.e., it carries no information.
On the other hand, if you here by "orthodoxy" do mean the belief held by Orthodox Church, then there is no place for word "Reformers": these people were not reformers, but simply followers of Orthodox Church's teachings, i.e., Orthodox Christians.
J:
Read the link re the fundamentals. Note what I said about Eastern Orthodoxy prompting the Reformation in the West
The problem is that Christ did not found a particular organization or set of organizations. All human organization eventually becomes corrupt.
If one is more loyal to an organization or set of organizations than one is to Christ, he may not be a Christian at all.
In the US, true believers in Christ are leaving their old organizations for evangelical churches, continuing Anglican churches, and the Eastern communions now in the West.
ALL Christian groups today have their laundry lists of corruption and heresies. None is exempt.
Reformed Christianity and Eastern Orthodoxy are no exceptions. In general, Christian organizations have faced modernism, liberalism, control by anti-Christian Communist states, venality, cupidity; you name it. Satan has always attacked Christ's Church within and without.
Fundamentalism faces the fate of Ephesus in Revelation 2. Other churches face that of Sardis in chapter 3 -- that of dead orthodoxy. But either of these two is preferable, says John, to Pergamos, Thyatira, and Laodicea.
One of the contributions of the East to the Reformation was that to have an organization as one's first love rather than Christ was idolatry. The East was a confederation of churches whereas the West was headed by one mortal man. The East taught that concentrating and consolidating all church sovereignty in one man in an imperial capital was a usurpation, and against Scripture and inspired Tradition.
Now when I visit a Greek Orthodox Church, I see tracts written by ordained Orthodox priests who are also Reformed evangelicals. The Orthodox Study Bible is produced by the same men. I think that as American churches fall, Eastern churches become more appealing.
But to grow more, the various Eastern communions will need to respect Western culture and not confuse Eastern, human cultures with Holy Tradition. They must also be wary of the error of Sardis.
Just to let you know: the connection between the Egyptian god Horus and Jesus Christ is purely fictional and was contrived by self styled 'egyptologist' Godfrey Higgins (1771- 1834) to try to prove Free Masonary was from ancient times. Unfortunately his writings, along with those of fellow Masons Gerald Massey and Alvin Boyd Kuhn, on the same theme, have taken on a new life with the non-masonic New Agers and conspiracy theorists too.
By the way, did you know that Norman Vincent Peal was a 33rd Degree Mason in a New York Lodge? He endorsed books on contacting the dead, and boasted, in the Masonic 'New Age' magazine, that Marcus Aurelius (who martyred Christians) was the wisest person who ever lived and that he made certain to read his "Meditations" every year. No mention of the Bible at all!