The internet community of former Independent Fundamentalist Baptists has been buzzing none stop this week, when news that IFB rock star leader Jack Schaap of First Baptist Church Hammond had been fired.
Churchgoers and students at Hyles-Anderson Bible School had initially been told their pastor of 11 years was on medical leave. A Facebook group called Do Right Hyles-Anderson formed earlier this week has just reported that Schaap is in custody.
Schaap was fired Monday night after admitting he had an improper relationship with a young woman, believed to be underage. It is also believed the teen was transported across state lines to meet up with the 54-year-old Schaap who has two adult children. The Indiana Lake Country Sheriff’s department and FBI are involved in the investigation.
If it is true Schaap was taken into custody tonight, the 15 thousand members of First Baptist may not yet be aware. Over 1 thousand went to a church meeting earlier tonight to learn what was going on.
HAMMOND | A somber crowd of people filed into First Baptist Church’s Wednesday night Bible study service with feelings of hurt and disappointment.
Several church members said they were praying for Pastor Jack Schaap, who was fired from his role as the church’s leader Monday after allegations of an inappropriate relationship with a young girl surfaced.
Most declined to comment prior to the service and said they were praying for the Schaap family.
More than a thousand people filled the church during the Bible study, which was led by the Christian Law Association’s David Gibbs Jr.
Heartfelt “amens” were spoken throughout the crowd as Gibbs vowed to fully investigate the scandal that left many shaking their heads.
He asked anyone who may have any additional information to bring it forward to the church immediately.
Abuse experts and former members are urging people to not go to church authorities but to go directly to police.
It is extremely unusual for leaders in the closed system of Independent Fundamentalist Baptists to take the step of going to authorities with information and issuing a press release.
Church officials told media Wednesday it was unlikely that charges would be filed against Schaap for his involvement with the underage girl.
Church spokesman Eddie Wilson said the girl is 17. The age of consent in Indiana is 16.
“There has been a lot of conjecture regarding the girl in the press,” Wilson said, adding that the girl and her family are church members. He said she isn’t a student at the Schererville-based Hyles-Anderson College, where Schaap was the chancellor until he was relieved of his duties. “We don’t expect charges to be filed against him (with regard to statutory rape).”
Oh. That opinion may be different in the morning. That there would be misconduct isn’t a surprise to people knowledgable about the IFB movement, it was that Hammond First Baptist Church contacted police and fired their superstar.
While news outlets have been all over this story, the best information and background is out on forums and blogs.
Stuff Fundies Like helped get the news out with this post and in it’s forum under Fundy News and World Report. The Fighting Fundamentalist Forum thread Hyles-Anderson College has been going none stop. Conservative Babylon has a concise round up of news reports, online chatter and the scramble by First Baptist Hammond to scrub it’s web presence of anything Schaap.
Columnist Mark Kiesling isn’t hiding his scepticism. Jeri at Blog on the Way who has helped abused IFB men and women says that the unprecedented step of church leadership going to authorities is a CYA move.
And yes, a lot of us are sure that the sudden helpful, transparency policy of FBCH, a church with a history of stalking and harassing child victims of sex abuse and their families, is traceable right back to the Jerry Sandusky and Penn State case.
Please don’t make saints out of the FBCH deacon board. That church has covered a multitude of sins against children and women. Schaap should have been rebuked and expelled long ago.
Jeri doesn’t mince words, which makes sense when going up against the IFB legalistic sub-culture. Blog on the Way is a good place to start if you want to learn about the Independent Fundmentalist Baptist movement.
Update: 24 hours later and no news of an arrest. Interesting the church spokesman said police”the church does not expect there to be charges filed in the incident,” a FB IFB former member says Schaap is in custody according to a police source and police say an investigation is ongoing.
A couple more interesting links – Stuff Fundies Like has the audio of the church meeting up and a sobering explanation of the lawyer brought in by the church; ‘the fixer’. The Wartburg Watch has a video of the 10th anniversary of the Schaaps ministry at First Baptist Church Hammond. Mrs. Schaap speaks at the end of the video, her demeanour and remarks are sad, especially in light of the events in her life the past two weeks. chucklestravels has advice for anyone who has been abused at First Baptist Church Hammond – do not go to church leadership or the lawyer the church brought in, explaining why it is important to go to outside authorities.
The FBI confirmed the agency is investigating – Schaap was interviewed Wednesday.
Brano. I suggest you read the copyright infringement warnings on the carm website.
There is a very important point about the growth of the body of Christ. Most people don’t look at the church in general, as going underground. Many underground churches are out there today. Those churches serving the body of Christ in ways, that can’t be measured by human standards. People from all walks of life who devote time and talent to get God’s message out. His message will continue until God says it’s over.
Words can never pierce a heart has hard as the eyes of God. A God who sees everything. No one will out run God. I would never want to face Him without Jesus.
It can’t be done.
Ben, as for the Bible’s moral standard being polygamy, it seems undebatable in at least parts of the Old Testament. As for the New, I don’t see it in Jesus’ teachings, but in Paul’s – not explicitly, but when women have lesser value, as he taught, such standards as polygamy are fostered.
As for Schaap, I don’t want to see any more of his clips. I saw the “polished shaft,” and another where he denigrates women, to the point where he proves himself a misogynist. Enough.
As for God/god wanting to have sex with humans, have you looked into the writings of Zechariah Sitchin? Makes for some real interesting thought/debate. Sitchin (just recently deceased) was a Bible scholar, linguist, and lifelong student/teacher of pre-history, excelling in ancient Sumer. He wrote about many things, including the “sons of God” mating with the “daughters of men” (Genesis 6), putting it in a mind-stretching context that can make for months or even years of study.
The “gods” wanting to mate with humans, resulting in “demigods,” is a theme of much ancient literature. Gilgamesh was part human, part divine. Alexander the Great believed he was born of one human, one divine parent.
Of course, the “virgin birth” fits right in there, if we consider a woman who has not mated with a man, but with a god (or Holy Ghost), a virgin. It seems to me that a virgin birth AND a birth where God is the father, in Christian theology, is uncannily reminiscent of the many pre-Christian myths where there is one human and one divine parent. This persists in the belief (as in the Lord’s Prayer) that God is “Our (own) Father who art in heaven… hallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come (come back for us, please, please…), thy will be done on earth as in heaven (please raise us to your status)… Give us this day our daily bread (as some of the gods taught agriculture, civilization, etc., while others used humans for their own purposes), and forgive us our debts…” – the cries of humans left by their gods/creators on whom they were dependent for their very survival, as infants are on their parents…
If you’re really wanting to pursue this, I highly recommend Sitchin. He doesn’t tie his findings directly to modern Christian theology, but it’s very easy to conclude that the persistent hold Christianity has on global culture is because it resonates with the early, forgotten history of our own human origins, which is in our cells, not our cognition. Each doctrine, distorted but easily recognizable, is traceable to some feature that exists in our actual roots in (pre-)history, as do the aberrations, such as persist today.
I strongly suggest AtheistAtBirth,that you do your homework before you spew about the decline of Christianity,and the likes thereof…..lmao
Know your FACTS dood!
Brano.
I strongly suggest you check with carm as to the warnings posted on their site which specifically prohibit copying their material. Would you suggest I make them aware of your post, or do you prefer to do that duty yourself – dood.
Here is the thing about the rapid growth of xtianity. Many quote this as proving that this religion is the right one, it grows like wildfire, and jesus is coming back to Jerusalem to help the Jews. The end is near. I think this is no longer the consensus out there. If you do not believe me, Brano, you have been living under a rock.
Cancerous growth like First Baptist Church, resulted in the Hyles dynasty where they freely denigrate women, fucked them, and do all manners of evil to them. The senior Hyles used to do that to his secretary, the young David did to 18-19 women of all ages. What a sexual predator, just like the mythological David, a chiefton from the cowtown Zion. Has anyone watch the testimony of Hyle’s daughter Murphy??
Here is my own theory. These churches grow because of men, just like jesus once taught, sabnath is made for men. We should take that line literally. Men wrote these words, and men started and ran this church and the IFB. These are men with alpha male ability, they have strong testosterone running through their blood. That is why they are always ‘testy’ and angry and very difficult to deal with. This testoterone led them to find vulnerable women, damaged women, and submissive women, much like the animals in the wild. A herd of lioness will submit to that one alpha lion. A flock of hens will submit to that one cock. He jumps on them randomly, pull their feathers on their head and do his thing. This is the design and the will of god.
Now is the NT a polygamous society? And in the ancient churches? That is not even a debate. Just read the words of St Paul. He says choose the overseer/bishop, from the leaders that could teach/or apt to teach (KJV), and as the man of one wife. If they were all men of one wives, that line is not necessary. It is deduced then, they are men of many women, concubines, and small sex slaves. This has got to e a problem, that he specifically ask that they find that one man with a visible wife only. What does that tell us? it is the biblical value to be polygamous. I would like to suggest that to the friends of the FRC and Dobson people that this biblical value they are promoting is damaging to the self esteem of the modern women, and it causes them to be subservient to their master. As for the master concept, have you not read the bible in the Deut text where it touches on the divorce. Modern translators lie when they translate the text “when a man sees a women and such that he finds grace in his eyes that he marries her.” This is bullshit. It says that he ‘baalize’ her, or masters her. That literally meant, like the cock who jumps on the hens and do his thing, that this man, becomes the master of this woman, overcame her self, do his thing, and he is her master. Much like Baal of their time, this god is the master of the Canaanites.
Is there anyone out there that has some honesty and brain? I see a lot of sanitization and a lot of chlorex on this manner.
Face it, Branoi dood, read the bible and pray everyday, and it will grow. That ‘it’ I will leave it to your own imagination. But as a humble scholar of the bible, I ask you to read the primary materials first, not secondary, not CARM, not Benny Hinn, not Hyles, or Calvin. Read the biblical hebrew and come up with your own interpretation. You have a brain like I do, you are the one who claims the supernaturalism is true, that god and jesus our lord is coming back to get us (Revelation material), that he blesses the growth of 3rd world country where xtainity is like wildfire. Well, let me bless this thought, know also that if we continued in our consumption of ebery, that this global warming persists, that the rise of sea water and drought continues, these young churches will all die of human caused starvation, or drowning. That I would say, is an act of God. He wills it, that he will kill them because of this anger. Why, I ask? Because the gods must be appeased. In the ancient times, they used to throw the beautiful virgin down the firey pit, or that torrent. It goes back to the gods they worship is a sexual maniac. Hyles and Schaap’s god is also a sexual maniac, just look their lives and wonder why there are no more new virgins that they have sexed/intercoursed in their own church, or on the fornices of their houses, or in the private studies of their church properties. Who knows, why all these young women when into hiding? Is it to fulfill the scriptures that these young women who discovered the empty tomb in the Markan gospel, and they fear, and so they went and hid themselves and not tell anyone about it??
The PROOF/FACTS are:Christianity is the fastest growing religion in the world.
….and if one calculates future growth,aheeem
I guess that it is just too easy to get off topic and try to hide these facts….
Yes,mr AtheistAtBirth,..etc,You are wrong again!
Brano, this answer is not acceptable. I am looking for a well reasoned – thought provoking answer with quotation to the biblical sources and some hebraic exegesis and some construction of theological thoughts. I am not looking for Alice of the Wonderland. Do you, or do you have a response to my treaties above, where it touches sexuality, morales, and bible translation? Proving coca cola is the fastest growing drinks in the world, is not enough to convince me that I have to buy one. That, I hope makes sense. This note is from your Uncle Ben.
It is very common to hear that Islam is the world’s fastest growing religion. Here is an article on cnn stating this. This case is made by studies (such as one by U.S. Center for World Mission) that show that as a percentage of the whole Islam is growing at a rate of 2.9% and Christianity is growing at a rate of 2.3%. From there it is easy to throw a projection out into the future and show that if the rates of growth remain the same that Islam will surpass Christianity at some point. But this is really not a helpful way to look at things.
In terms of numbers, Christians add more to their numbers every year than Islam. Multiply 2.9% times the total number of Muslims (1.3Billion) and multiply 2.3% times the total number of Christians (2.1 Billion) and you will see that every year Christians add about 11 million more people to our ranks than Islam does.
But what about the rate? Islam is much smaller than Christianity. The smaller you are the less people you need to add every year to grow at a faster rate. If you want to use growth rate as the judge of the fastest growing religion (not adjusted for size) than Islam is nowhere near the fastest growing. Some cult you and I have never heard of is growing at a rate of 100% because Jimmy Joe Cult leader from a suburb of Saginaw just convinced another couple to join him and his wife at their compound in the woods. At that rate, the cult of Jimmy Joe will be the world’s largest religion by far in 100 years!
So what do I expect to happen over the next century? It is very difficult to predict what will happen to birth rates and conversion rates in the future. Islam has higher birth rates in many areas right now but certainly not everywhere. For example, the highest birth rates in the world are in Sub-Saharan Africa where Christianity is much more prevalent than Islam. Further more, Christianity tends to win converts at a much higher rate. So, what is with the lower growth rate in the world today? I would point to Europe. For the last 1000 years Europe was Christendom. That is where the stronghold of the Christian numbers were. But today, many countries in Europe have lost large numbers of adherents. Western Europe is now only 60% self proclaimed Christians. Further more, Europe has incredibly low fertility rates. As a continent, they are well below the replacement rate (2.1) at 1.5 babies per adult female.
And while this situation in Europe may be discouraging, I think this should be a huge encouragement when reflecting on the overall growth of Christianity. Think about it: Christendom collapsed in terms of adherents and birth rate and yet Christianity grew dramatically in the 20th century. It is unlikely that another cultural shakeup like we saw in the 20th century will happen in the 21st. Further more, there are indications that Europe’s slide into secularization may be slowing. From the Wall Street Journal:
After decades of secularization, religion in Europe has slowed its slide toward what had seemed inevitable oblivion. There are even nascent signs of a modest comeback. Most church pews are still empty. But belief in heaven, hell and concepts such as the soul has risen in parts of Europe, especially among the young, according to surveys. Religion, once a dead issue, now figures prominently in public discourse.
And the fertility rates are tied directly to religious fervor. From the European Journal of Population:
By every available measure, American women are more religious than European women. Catholic and Protestant women have notably higher fertility than those not belonging to any denomination in the US and across Europe. In all European regions and in the United States as well as among all denominations the more devout have more children.
So, in places like Europe, you are seeing a slowing of secularization and higher birth rates among the devout Christians. This doesn’t indicate to me that the 20th century slide will continue in the 21st. Further, the rest of the world helped maintain Christian growth in the 20th century and this growth is giving every indication of continuing. The church continues to make unbelievable gains Southeast Asia, Africa and South America.
Amazingly, despite the heavy persecution, Christianity is even making gains in some Islamic nations. Time Magazine reports:
More surprising, though, is the boom in Christianity[in the Islamic nation of Indonesia]…..the number of Asian Christian faithful exploded to 351 million adherents in 2005, up from 101 million in 1970, according to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, based in Washington, D.C.
All of this indicates to me that Christianity is going to continue to be the largest religion and that far from losing this position, it will expand greatly in the 21st century.
Coca-cola??
Brano, if you are going to quote other web sites, you need to reference them. Otherwise, you lose credibility. I just found the information you posted on the following site:
http://religionannarbor.wordpress.com/category/history/
It was published on May 28, 2011.
http://chato.cl/blog/files/religions_world.
I prefer cherry coke or Dr Pepper!
Here is a collection of particulars, it you will. Enjoy the food for thought.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian
A little Steve Martin if you will
Brano: I get it. It is OK, please your faith. This is a beautiful world and we can all have a place. Just live a good life and try not support abusive practices of any religious organizations. And as for Schaap, if there is a god out there, my curse is on him, he should receive a great share of the blame.
Nice copy and paste brano. You could have at least given the actual author of that piece some credit.
I can’t be sure God DOES NOT exist’: World’s most notorious atheist Richard Dawkins admits he is in fact agnostic
By SUZANNAH HILLS
Professor Richard Dawkins today dismissed his hard-earned reputation as a militant atheist – admitting that he is actually agnostic as he can’t prove God doesn’t exist.
The country’s foremost champion of the Darwinist evolution, who wrote The God Delusion, stunned audience members when he made the confession during a lively debate on the origins of the universe with the Archbishop of Canterbury.
*A Great thinker,A Great mind! Not a Fool,For Sure!
Aheeem
Can anyone help me to see why Schaap chooses to have sex with a 16 yo girl? Is there a logic in this? Could it be that his god is a sexual driven maniac that demands his followers to sex each other?
Can anyone help me to see why the World’s most notorious atheist Richard Dawkins admits he is in fact agnostic,and no longer an atheist?
Both the Lord Jesus Christ and the Lord Ben Chung are upset and very much disgusted by Schaap.
First of all, Richard is not the most notorious atheist, both Hyles and Schaap are. They may profess to believe in the lord jesus christ, but in their action, they have denied the possibility of the Lord Jesus Christ. Hykles had intercourse with his secretary, and David his son our lord also did many many innocent girls and women, and not to be out done, Schaap have many intercourse with his legal wife and publicly masterbate a demonstrate that for all our benefits.
Who is the atheist? It is he whose life and action denied the possibility of the lord jesus christ. In a way, the Lord Ben Chung is a theistic atheist. He denounces the lord jesus christ, and his father god, the crap. But in his real life, the Lord Ben Chung is a wonderful human being, extending a helping hand from time to time, grows veggies and looks after his own chickens and family. Who is the atheist here? I say it is Schaap and Hyles. Brano, if you cheat on your wife and go out to find a prostitute, can you be a good man and still a believer of a rapidly growing xtianity? I think not.
Now, Brano, have you or have you not being an atheist by action?
I would also propose a natural answer to the birth of the lord jesus christ. I think his birth is illegitimate. This is the closest natural answer I can find for this virgin birth.
if you buy the story, he was homeless in his later adult life, “for he had not where to lay his head.” but…he had 12 cronies so at least he was not alone. i am.
Ben Chung, the conclusion you came to about the birth of Jesus is the same one that the Jews had in the Bible.
John 8:41 You are doing the things your own father does.” “We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we have is God himself.”
Some of the Jews had a rumor that Mary was raped by a Roman Soldier, thus the illegitimate remark by the Jews in the verse.
I say all this to say that you have not come up with anything new. Either you believe the Jews or you believe the biblical account. I want to point out that the those who wrote the New Testament gave up their lives because of their proclamation that Christ was raised from the grave.
Dear Pastor, I am only trying my naturalist hat. It looks to me that biblical accounts are filled with miracles and angels, and someone came back from the dead. I do not see that anymore, and it does require a lot of faith. I find these accounts less credible each day, esp. the preachers of these supernatural accounts prey on the weak, and had numerous intercourse and performed child abuse. The more I hear about that, I cannot but also come to a biblical conclusion, that their god is their stomach, and that their christ did not rise from the dead, and they remain hopeless and the scum of the earth. I think I can agree with this biblical passage. And as for gods have children, have you not read that in the beginning, the children of god all shouted with joy? And in another place, it says, we are his children? If so, and as the sacred words of the holy bible testifies that Adam is the son of God and we all descend from such a scum, therefore, we are, by definition, sons of God (no daughters, of course). These sons of God had human intercourse and produced the nephlims, the followers. The myth talks about David had wars on them and cause their extinction.
These are folklores and supernatural tales. They do not work for a modern society. This is no stone age, and we are not going to buy that, but we see the Schaaps and Hyles of the christians and they not only take the money, they rob the soul. Is this biblical? Very much so, if the bible teaches them that they should go forth and be fruitful, they certainly are trying, with multiple partners, which the biblical account does not condemn. Maybe I should start to read and believe the bible again, since the biblical values are polygamous, and polyamorphous. Comments, anyone? At least the women are to wear a covering for the angels’ sake. Amen. St Judes taught that they lust after human daughters. Amen.
Pastor. Please. Learn your history. Those who wrote the new testement lived a century or more after the “disciples”. Where do you people get this stuff? Get an education. Read and learn – then walk away from this cult.
Many ancient historical documents are copies. Not just the biblical. Ancient history is still kept preserved because of those who copied documents. There was no means of printing other than to copy by hand. Yet those with the task to copy, for historical preservation, were the professionals.
Aheeem,
J. Angelo Corlett’s The Errors of Atheism is a compelling, nuanced look at why agnosticism may be a more tenable position than atheism. Corlett takes for granted that there exist successful refutations of orthodox Christian theism — in fact, he maintains that the Christian brand of theism is not worthy of the amount of philosophical attention it has received. But he holds that, because atheists focus so much on this “highly problematic” traditional notion of the nature of God, what the atheists are actually doing is refuting “a straw person notion of the nature of God” (p. 92). Because standard atheistic arguments are not applicable to unorthodox theisms, Corlett says, atheists err in claiming victory over theism. Corlett puts on the table a theism that purportedly survives standard atheistic arguments: “hybrid minimalist process-liberationist theology”. But Corlett does not definitively endorse this theology: he holds that there are no strong arguments for (or against) it and hence thinks that one should remain agnostic between atheism and the truth of this theology. He calls this position the “New Agnosticism”.
In outline, the discussion of the book runs as follows. Chapter 1 defines theism, atheism, and agnosticism, and draws distinctions between weak and strong as well as epistemic and ontological variations of these three positions. Chapter 2 discusses various errors of atheism and lays out multiple fallacies commonly committed by atheists. Chapter 3 looks at Dawkins’s specific brand of atheism and concludes the negative argument Corlett puts forth against atheism. Chapter 4 sets the initial stage for the positive portion of Corlett’s argument by listing six desiderata for a New Agnosticism that is resistant to atheism. Chapters 5 and 6 present two aspects of a hybrid, minimalist theism that Corlett believes withstands atheistic attacks. These two chapters draw their essential features from, respectively, process theology and liberation theology. Chapter 7 anticipates and addresses potential objections to the hybrid minimalist theism. Corlett concludes by discussing the significance of his position in the dialogue between atheism and theism, maintaining that his New Agnosticism forces atheists and theists to consider less extreme, and more plausible, positions with respect to the question of the existence of God.
So what are the errors of atheism that the title of Corlett’s book refers to? While Corlett presents various fallacies that atheists ostensibly fall prey to, they boil down to two main errors. First, he says that atheists commit the fallacy of equivocation between atheism and agnosticism. Corlett holds that atheists sometimes define atheism in probabilistic terms, but they are wrong to do so. In fact, according to Corlett, anyone who claims that it is improbable — even highly improbable — that God exists is an agnostic. Corlett says that prominent, self-proclaimed atheists commit this error and misidentify themselves as atheists when they are really agnostics.
The second main error that atheists ostensibly commit is that they treat orthodox Christianity as their most worthy, or sole, opponent. Defeat of orthodox Christianity is then treated as defeat of theism, which Corlett claims is an unwarranted conclusion due to the existence of more plausible, unorthodox theisms.
Regarding the difference between atheism and agnosticism, one might think that this is just a matter of terminology and hence not worthy of any sort of extended philosophical discussion. In fact, this is what we are inclined to think. But Corlett takes the distinction seriously. “Epistemological atheism” is defined by Corlett as the position that “one knows that it is not the case that God exists (weak version), or one knows that it is not the case that God’s existence is even possible or that God can exist (strong version)” (p. 33). And “ontological atheism” is defined as the position that “it is not the case that God exists” (weak version) or “it is not the case that God’s existence is even possible” (strong version). Corlett contrasts this with, for example, the position of a “positive ontological agnostic”, who holds that “it is probable that God exists”, and a “negative ontological agnostic”, who holds that “it is probable that it is not the case that God exists” (p. 32).
This sort of presentation makes it sound as if one has to be subjectively certain that God doesn’t exist to consider oneself an atheist. Indeed, in contrasting ontological agnosticism with ontological atheism, Corlett says that “The ontological agnostic claims that there is insufficient reason to affirm or deny with certitude (at least for the time being and lacking further evidence) either theism or atheism” (p. 32, our emphasis). We think that Corlett is setting an unreasonable standard for atheism (and, by parity, theism) if “knowing that it is not the case that God exists” involves absolute certainty in one’s subjective degree of belief. This requires an atheist to be as certain about the non-existence of God as she is that 2+2=4. While there probably are some atheists who are like that, it seems reasonable to count people as atheists without requiring them to be so dogmatic.
Interestingly, while in Chapter 1 Corlett spends a lot of time justifying his extreme non-probabilistic characterization of atheism, in a footnote in Chapter 2 he presents a more moderate view. First, in the main body of the text he writes: “just as the responsible theist will be a fallibilist, so will the thoughtful atheist”. Then, in the footnote attached to that sentence, he goes on to say:
One way in which atheism expresses its fallibilism is by stating the denial of God’s existence in probabilistic terms, just as the theist might express the existence of God inductively. In this way, there is a certain agnostic tempering of theism and atheism, respectively. Only their infallibilist cousins seem to be quite different from agnosticism. (p. 60)
This sounds right to us, though it does raise the question of how to draw the line between fallibilist atheism and agnosticism. A reasonable position to take is that the distinction is in fact blurred and cannot be articulated non-arbitrarily, but that the distinction does exist. Those who assign a probability of 0 to the hypothesis that God exists are clearly atheists, and those who assign a probability of 0.5 are clearly agnostic, but whether those who assign a probability of, say, 0.25 are atheists or agnostics might be unclear. Perhaps a more fine-grained approach that takes degrees of belief into account is more appropriate than attempting to classify people as strictly atheistic or agnostic. (For some more arguably insightful thoughts on degrees-of-belief-based analyses of agnosticism, see Monton 1998, Hájek 1998, and van Fraassen 1998.)
Let’s now turn to the second main error of atheism. Corlett holds that atheists myopically focus on orthodox Christianity and unfairly treat a defeat of that view as a defeat of theism. Corlett says that this is unwarranted because hybrid minimalist process-liberationist theology is more plausible than orthodox Christianity. We agree with Corlett here, to an extent. The philosophy of religion literature that contemporary Western English-speaking atheist philosophers tend to focus on is largely produced by contemporary Western English-speaking philosophers of religion, the majority of whom are Christians. It would be better if variant versions of theism were discussed more often in the contemporary Western English-speaking philosophy of religion debates.
Unfortunately, Corlett does a better job making the general point — that atheists are too often focused on philosophers who endorse orthodox Christianity — than he does getting into the details and pointing out specific errors that specific atheist philosophers have made. There is a section discussing Richard Dawkins, but atheist philosophers could reasonably maintain that Corlett’s focusing on Dawkins is straw-personing atheism.
Moreover, even after reading Corlett we are not convinced that there is a widespread problem in the arguments of atheists here. At least some of the arguments that orthodox Christian philosophers give are actually arguments for theism more generally, without the requirements that the God being argued for is even
Ah! Coke is it! Coke is it!!
Sweet and Dear Susan:
I am afraid that ye have missed the modern scholarship. That ship departs frequently from the dock, that dock is Bart Erhman. Would you please check out the book “Forged” for me? I pay five whole dollars for that act, Uncle Ben
I am delusional, and I am the Lord. I am the Lord Ben Chung! Aheem, ah ha, ah ha, and a man cuts down a tree, and breaks a piece off, and makes and fashions into a god and he worships it, and say, ah ha, thou hast kept me warm. Thus says the atheists from the book of Isaiah. Amen. All our gods are fashioned by us, and we make the best of these. Ah ha, Brano, ah ha, Brano. Atheism is biblical!
Do the experts in ancient history R/O out the copied documents of history? Or is there a doublestandard when it applies to Jesus? You don’t have to answer. It’s obvious to me.
Pethaps obvious to a non- thinking person. Not to scholars.
So, just because one is not a scholar, they can’t think? Or do the scholars think they know it all? Maybe it depends on the scholar.
Dear Susan:
First of all, all sorts of things about the ancients apply to Christian claims, as the claim of Buddha, or Mao. Some figures like Plato, and Socrates are subjected to critical studies just as Jesus, with one notable exception. None of these ancient figures were god figures and presided over the destruction of many cultures and people group. sometimes led to their extinction, as Christianity has in the past.
If you do not believe, the myth of Columbus and his arrival to this new land to bring light and hope this land, and the extinction of the Nauset Indians and the Nantucket Indians by the arrival of the missionaries.
None of these ancients have been that lethal to humanity as the followers of Christ. Now we have the internet access, so we can begin to piece a real time of how many baptist ministers sexually prey on the poor parishioners or what crazy teaching they espouse, like this “Dr.” Schaap who taught that God wants to have intercourse with us and we are the female part of this. Do you seriously think we have vaginas, and female parts in order that God can have his intercourse with us. Does that also mean he has a ‘it’ as well? That this baptist minister-monster taught we should have sex with the word of god. I do not see that much porn material or use it as a sex manual, or is he just plain crazy.
The advent of Christianity pushes the Auca Indians to the brink of extinction, and helps to destroy their homeland and pollute their lands. Just google that for yourself.
My point? When you have an ancient copies of the New Testament, with many mistakes in it, with changes that obvious were made to shore up a doctrine, or the books decided by god’s antichrist, and free excise as the leaders of the new sect developed, pardon me, which is the word of god? And this is not to mention the forgeries done in the name of the apostles and the old testament authors. Can plagiarism be the word of god and it would be inerrant and perfect in every way, without mistakes in it? What about the obvious details that do not match inthe gospels? Can one critically read these and still come to a conclusion that god preserve these for human race and it records enough information that is intended for the salvation of human race? Would it be the simple example of a tale, a lore that became developed and it changes with the audience, and at the time of Roman Emperor, they need to come to a imperial set of books, that they had to excise a few and tried to di as best as they could to come up with some sets of books. At best, it is a good effort to collect these sayings, at the worst, they bear false witnesses about Jesus Christ and God. If you have not learned that no one in modern world believe these in the critical scholars’ world and only the fundamentalists do. But remember., they had the answers before they even began their studies. How can you trust anyone that had their conclusions made up before they write the papers? Any critical scholars in any universities would have told you that, and if you studied under them, your focus on the faith of your childhood would change too. I only ask the question of truth. What is the truth concerning the formation of these texts and what they actually teach. I can no longer defend a position that I once held. These supernatural answers failed me every time. I had to abandon them. When there are sexual predators who are sick and they prey on the weak minds, I have no choice to point out that their religion is false too. In this case, the IFB religion is false when it touches history, humanity, women, and gays. They actively recruit the young blood and prey on their, take their money and energy and finally they find a few sex slaves for their own enjoyment. I sure wish there is a God outthere that would put a stop to this. Instead, I only find courageous human beings trying to do that right thing, trying to defend their neighbours from sexual abuses. That is what I called God. If you have a better God, I will pay real cash for it.
For starters, just google Erhman’s own testimony, and then try Bruce Gerenscer or John Loftus. The one I like the most, is Lloyd Geering. Maybe you should take biblical hebrew and try to read them yourself.
Actually, I had the pleasure of being tutored 1:1 by a fine pastor, who teaches Hebrew and root meanings. He took a lot of time with me. A good man indeed!
Very well then. We should leave the work of bible scholars to plumbers and grocery clerks shall we? How very sweet. Men and women who devote their entire lives to the study of the bible and it’s origins really scare you don’t they? Who do you suppose Susan is best qualified to make statements on the dating of the books of the bible – a scholar or a stock boy at Canadian Tire?
Hebrew schmebrew! It’s still the same old argument: The bible is true because it says it is true. It’s no argument at all.
Fascinating though, how believers are so intent on proving the reality of bible god even though bible god says he only reveals his truth spiritually and only to those he chooses. Apparently the wisdom of man is foolishness to god anyway. So why the need for so many apologists? If I were to guess, I’d say debating the atheist is merely a smoke screen to detract from the questions you know you all have about why you believe what you believe. Take a chance and dare to find the answers to the questions your pastor doesn’t want you to ask. Remember – truth requires you go beyond what you believe. Cheers!
I learned Hebrew to see what was written. Gradually, over the years, I have learned to disregard the ‘comments’ of the biblical translators. I know they are just as much in the dark, and trying to make sense of the ancient text, to fit their own theological views. Gradually I learn to abandon their theological translation. So let’s take this Psalm 82 and have a go at it. This is done for the benefit of Susan.
KJV/NIV translates the texts this way:
God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
2 How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.
3 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.
4 Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.
5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.
6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations
One small problem, the author of John clearly used these text to prove that Jesus is divine, although he looks/acts human. “You are gods.”
Original text is better translate this way (without theological framework)
God (elohim) takes/stands in God (Al)- Assembly,
In midst of God (elohim), he so judges
Till-when (how long) judge wrong(ly),
And Bear (uphold) (the) face of evil ones – selah.
Judge (justice to) poor, and poor orphan
And (perform/do) righteousness to (the) desperate.
Rescue poor and needy (abion -resonates with elion highest),
And from the hands of evil ones, deliver!
Knoweth not, understandeth no, and In darkness (hoshek genesis word) they walk
So all the foundation of the earth shakes!
I say to you, “God (elohim) You are!
“And Most High (elion)’s sons all of you!”
“Surely, as man (Adam, another genesis word) must die
“And fall as one of (the) commanders.”
Rise (oh) God (elohim), judge the earth,
Such that You to inherit in all nations.
We have a basic word play with Genesis words, darkness, adam and the foundation of the earth from the first chapters of Genesis. The sound/rhyme between sons of the Most High (elion) and the needy (abion). The Elion is a Genesis word. It is also a Canaanite God, he has many sons. ‘Al’ is not used often in the biblical sense, it denotes a Canaanite God, who lives in the highest (Elion), and has a drunken rage. He also has a counsel of his sons.
Here is a perfect example of the biblical writer, drawing on the myths/theology of the Canaanites and taught them into performing justice/judgement, and righteous judgement. It is not about a counsel of regular human commanders/princes. Otherwise, he would have directly named them. It make sense, that this hymn was written during the days when they are polytheistic. And so they have God and gods and it is on the same level, since one God is talking to another God, and they are all God. But a theological translation has to make the differences. It is between God (elohim) and Al/El. But this is when the internal textual problem arises. How do you difference one elohim from another? They are the same, the difference is that this one elohim is more just and righteous from the other elohim(s), and he taunts them todo the same. They are all together in the same counsel.
The context would have been a Genesis context, where the gods/God made the world, separates the light from darkness and laid the foundation. They the counsel of the sons of God, and these are the ones in the biblical myth that had intercourse with human daughters. Who knows. But these Genesis words are invoked not as an accident; the psalmist is well aware of the myth of creation, and the local lores of Canaanite. He does a word play here.
And what happens when a translator translate this, in the context of monotheism, and the restriction of the church? You get s platypus, partly mammal, partly bird, and partly reptile. Why not do justice to the text, have the courage to say what it says?
…..This arrogant nonsense,is like giving an atheist a wrench to fix my computer…lmao
I can’t answer your questions. You already have your own answers. Maybe for you it’s the absolute truth. I don’t know. For me God is revealed in the Bible. The Bible is His story. The minusha, I deal with daily. There is no other book like it. There never will be. I will use my freewill to seek my Jesus. I love to take the steps of faith, knowing I am accountable to Him.
Brano, this translation is mean for Susan since she has some biblical hebrew background. I do not throw the pearls before swines. For you, I recommend coca-cola. Sometimes, I suspect some of our Evangelics are on LSD. None of their theological constructs made any sense.
Susan. If you can’t answer any questions – what are you for? What good are you?
Second draft:
God (elohim) stands in God (Al)- Assembly,
In (the) midst of God (elohim), he so judges:
“Till-when (how long) (can you) judge wrong(ly),
And uphold (the) face of evil ones ?”– selah.
“Do Justice (to the) poor, and poor orphan,
And (bring) righteousness to (the) desperate.
“Rescue (the) poor and needy,
And from the hands of evil ones, save (them)!”
They walk without knowledge, nor understanding, in darkness!
So that all the foundation of the earth is shaken!
I say to you, “God, (elohim) You are!
“And Most High (elion)’s sons, all of you!”
“Surely, as Adam, You must die,
“And fall as one of (the) commanders.”
Rise, (oh) God, do justice (on) the earth,
So that You (will) inherit in all nations.
Seems like we’re talking apples and oranges here. TLBC and AAB are leading with the head or intellect, while Susan is leading with her heart. (As for brano, it’s hard to tell.)
Seems to me like the head and heart need to be equally engaged. I kind of choked on your query to Susan, AAB, “…what are you for? What good are you?” until I caught on that you weren’t saying Susan was good for nothing. It sounds like an honest request for Susan to respond to, as we each need to have some sense of purpose, and be able to conceptualize and express our view of just what we are bringing into the world.
Ps. 82 – “Ye are gods” or “God You Are.” Bible-believers are often told to be “godly” or god-like, so why split hairs over the concept when the behavior amounts (or should amount) to the same. What is significant to me in Ps. 82 is from these passages in the King James and repeated by Jesus, or as rendered by Ben,
“And (bring) righteousness to (the) desperate.
“Rescue (the) poor and needy,
And from the hands of evil ones, save (them)!”
There’s so much talk about the institutions, whether the Hyles/Schaap debacle or the PBI stone-walling or any of the rest, because it’s easier to do that, or to talk about beliefs.
Meanwhile what about the “desperate and needy” who need to be rescued from the hands of evil ones. How do we go about that? I guess exposing the evil is at least a beginning, which sends the message to the abused, “It is not your fault. Evil was done to you and we are exposing that. We can’t save you, but if you can grasp that you have the strength of God/god in you, you will be able to heal and move on from this evil. The evil-doing has alienated you from your power to heal yourself. We support you; we do not blame you or turn aside from your pain; we are with you in your quest for healing. You CAN find purpose, meaning and fulfillment in your life beginning where you are right now.” And then support them in their journey.
Society-wide, the abusers have had the upper hand for so long that the emphasis probably needs to stay on them for a while, because focussing on the survivors too easily re-opens their wounds. On personal levels, like Linda is doing, survivors can be helped. Otherwise, Bene D, keep doing what you are doing – exposing the evil for what it is.
Dedicated to Susan:
The religionist of to-day wants the ship of his soul to lie at the wharf of orthodoxy and rot in the sun. He delights to hear the sails of old opinions flap against the masts of old creeds. He loves to see the joints and the sides open and gape in the sun, and it is a kind of bliss for him to repeat again and again: “Do not disturb my opinions. Do not unsettle my mind; I have it all made up, and I want no infidelity. Let me go backward rather than forward.”
- Robert Ingersoll
an obvious example of evil is the religious right’s fixation with less government and the the free market’s ability to govern itself. the spectacular failure of reaganomics and its repeal of the glass-steagall act proved for the umpteenth time the evil of the unfettered human spirit: it will be damned if it is going to pay fair wages and give money to the poor–the very things ps 82 mentions, is 58 and jesus preached repeatedly. and notice, jesus did not tell the rich young ruler to give his assets to the poor, but rather, to liquidate them and give the money to the poor. talk about in-your-face put down of the powers-that-be that value the power of cash. his statement of the worthlessness of money is so in your face your gotta love his rebel-king spirit. if i am a member of some kingdom, it is his where money is trash. somewhere else jesus made the statement, “the poor you have with you always.” folks, we can run but not hide from doing right, especially in a bad economy. how many of us “well enough off” have put our money where our mouth is. when lots of economists are right now pointing out that the wealth disparity of the top 1% rich controlling 26 % of america’s gdp matches that in 1929, how much louder does the gods of ps 82, isaiah 58 and acts 10:38 have to scream at religious right that their worship is misplaced? whoever the gods are, history shows that they have a very short patience with the very rich not distributing their wealth. unjust governments crash and burn within even a single generation. the baby boomers may be alive to see rome burning. and i hope the well off comfortably numb remember the parable of the rich man and lazarus when they see the end of all of their misplaced priorities. the serving of investments is truly the root of all evil. and the giving with as much focus and priority and energy to the poor and needy is truly god.
“If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world.” C.S. Lewis
Just one personal way God reveals Himself to me.
“When you read God’s Word, you must constantly be saying to yourself, ”It is talking to me, and about me.””
Soren Kierkegaard quote
Susan – Oh yes – The argument from desire.
Tried and destroyed long ago. Have you nothing better?
Lewis was known to have said: “creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for these desires exists.” Does he not offer a glaring and confusing juxtaposition where desire and need are inappropriately mingled? Sigmund Freud said, “religion is an illusion and it derives its strength from the fact that it falls in with our instinctual desires.”