timeimmortal

The possibility exists for some interesting dialogue to emerge when one compares how different passages of the Gospels refer to Mary. And of course, we are a bit limited in our ability to discuss the marriage of Mary and Joseph, hampered as we are by the near-total absence of Joseph from the rest of the Gospel narratives, apart from what we learn of him during the accounts of Jesus‘ birth. And let’s be yet more honest, O Reader: can we, personally and individually, actually recall one word that Joseph has said which was recorded by the authors of the Gospels?

Anyhow, that wasn’t really a relevant comment, so let’s move on to the topic at hand. We’ve looked at the Annunciation to Mary, and we more or less ended that discussion with Luke 1:34, which is a rather pivotal Biblical verse in support of the idea that Mary remained perpetually virginal after bearing Christ. This is, of course, the verse in which she posed the question to the angel, “how can this be?”

We didn’t really move on to the angel’s response, though, did we?

[35] And the angel said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you,
and the power of the Most High will overshadow you;
therefore the child to be born will be called holy,
the Son of God.

The reason that I put this verse in this section of my analysis, rather than in the section pertaining to the Annunciation, is that this verse actually references a concept that can be found in the Old Testament. The concept of being “overshadowed” is a less-commonly used euphemism for sex, but to Jews living 2,000 years ago the word would have had that meaning. It’s a little like how we say people are “sleeping together”, when we really mean that they are doing something else that typically involves a) a bed, and b) not sleeping, at least not at the time.

But more than that, the concept of overshadowing — or, alternatively, spreading a cloak or a wing over someone — would have been understood by the Jews to refer, more specifically, to marital sexual relations, not just to sex in general. Consider Ruth 3:

[7] And when Bo’az had eaten and drunk, and his heart was merry, he went to lie down at the end of the heap of grain. Then she came softly, and uncovered his feet, and lay down.
[8] At midnight the man was startled, and turned over, and behold, a woman lay at his feet!
[9] He said, “Who are you?” And she answered, “I am Ruth, your maidservant; spread your skirt over your maidservant, for you are next of kin.”
[10] And he said, “May you be blessed by the LORD, my daughter; you have made this last kindness greater than the first, in that you have not gone after young men, whether poor or rich.
[11] And now, my daughter, do not fear, I will do for you all that you ask, for all my fellow townsmen know that you are a woman of worth.
[12] And now it is true that I am a near kinsman, yet there is a kinsman nearer than I.
[13] Remain this night, and in the morning, if he will do the part of the next of kin for you, well; let him do it; but if he is not willing to do the part of the next of kin for you, then, as the LORD lives, I will do the part of the next of kin for you. Lie down until the morning.”

The astute Reader will catch the meaning of Ruth’s statement concerning Boaz being “next of kin” (and if not, the Reader should look up Mark 12:18-27, in which Jesus is tested on a curious aspect of marital law in Judaism). Her meaning, in saying what she does, is that she desires Boaz to take her as his wife.

So let’s come back to Mary, overshadowed by the Spirit. The angel’s choice of words is, as I said, no accident, for it communicates a very important truth not only about the conception of Christ, but also concerning Mary’s sexuality as well. In essence, Mary became the spouse of the Holy Spirit — of God — when the Spirit overshadowed her; moreover, having been overshadowed by the Spirit, Joseph was actually forbidden to approach Mary sexually (c.f. Genesis 49:3, 2 Samuel 20:3).

For Joseph to have later had any sexual relationship with Mary which was legitimate and non-sinful in nature according to Mosaic Law (the extant covenant between God and mankind at that time, which both Mary and Joseph would have observed), Mary’s husband would either have had to divorced her or died. And since we know, from Jesus, that divorce is immoral in God’s eyes, and since we likewise know that God is not dead…it only makes sense to conclude that Joseph never approached Mary sexually. Consequently, we are again pointed in the direction of the conclusion that Mary remained perpetually virginal.

Possible Objection #5: but Scripture mentions the brothers and sisters of Jesus! “Jesus’ brothers are mentioned in several Bible verses. Matthew 12:46, Luke 8:19, and Mark 3:31 say that Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see Him. The Bible tells us that Jesus had four brothers: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Matthew 13:55). The Bible also tells us that Jesus had sisters, but they are not named or numbered (Matthew 13:56). In John 7:1-10, His brothers go on to the festival while Jesus stays behind. In Acts 1:14, His brothers and mother are described as praying with the disciples. Later, in Galatians 1:19, it mentions that James was Jesus’ brother. The most natural conclusion of these passages is to interpret that Jesus had actual blood siblings.”

Response to Objection #5: it should be noted that in Hebrew, there aren’t really notions of extended family; even distant relatives will get lumped under the general category of “brothers and sisters” (or “bretheren”, which might be a more accurate translation of the Biblical text).

Possible Objection #6: you silly Catholic! The Gospels were written in Greek, not Hebrew.

Response to Objection #6: quite correct. But the writers of the Gospels were themselves Hebrews, and would have imprinted their cultural biases onto the text they were writing, regardless of the language they were writing in.

Consider: if I am a priest standing before a congregation, and I greet “my brothers and sisters” in English, I am going to greet them in the same way if I switch to French. More importantly, just because I have switched to French does not mean I am in any way obligated to now be more specific in referring to the assembled people according to more precise descriptions of my relationship to them.

The fact that the Gospels were written in Greek is likewise meaningless, as far as this objection is concerned. The authors were Hebrews, and would have written as Hebrews, but in Greek. They would have used modes of speaking common to Hebrews, transliterated into Greek. And indeed, the Greek word adelphos, which is the relevant word here, does not always refer to same-womb siblings. Indeed, as Randall notes, the phrase adelphos “can mean same nationality (Acts 3:17; Rom 9:3), any man, or neighbor (Mt 5:22; Lk 10:29), persons with like interests (Mt 5:47), distant descendants of the same parents (Acts 7:23,26; Heb 7:5), persons united by a common calling (Rev 22:9), mankind in general (Mt 25:40; Heb 2:17), the disciples (Mt 28:10; Jn 20:17), [and] all believers (Mt 23:8; Acts 1:15; Rom 1:13; 1 Thess 1:4; Rev 19:10). In other words, just because certain people are referred to as brethren of Jesus, this certainly does not automatically mean that they were His first-degree siblings.”

And in fact, there are other parts of the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ life which further suggest that he had no brothers and sisters by Mary’s womb. Consider, for example, Luke 2:

[41] Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the Passover.

[42] And when he was twelve years old, they went up according to custom;
[43] and when the feast was ended, as they were returning, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. His parents did not know it,
[44] but supposing him to be in the company they went a day’s journey, and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintances;
[45] and when they did not find him, they returned to Jerusalem, seeking him.
[46] After three days they found him in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions;
[47] and all who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers.
[48] And when they saw him they were astonished; and his mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us so? Behold, your father and I have been looking for you anxiously.”
[49] And he said to them, “How is it that you sought me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?”
[50] And they did not understand the saying which he spoke to them.
[51] And he went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was obedient to them; and his mother kept all these things in her heart.

The context here suggests that Jesus was still an only child at age 12. If memory serves, it is commonly held that Jesus was in his mid-30s when he went up to be crucified, so it would stand to reason that if he had had any adult siblings present during portions of his ministry (which, again, the text of the Gospels would seem to imply), then one would expect that there might be early mention of such siblings, that some confirmation would exist that Mary and Joseph had given rise to additional offspring. This is especially true of the Gospel of Luke, which pays closest attention to the Holy Family.

Instead, we hear nothing of it. And coming back to what I noted before, about the objection that some have to the perpetual virginity of Mary based on the difficulty of believing that a Jewish woman 2,000 years ago could have been married and yet remained celibate, I might note that if we accept that objection as being true, we must also think it strange that Jesus had no siblings — at least, none that are mentioned — unto his 12th year of age.

Indeed, it would also appear that the residents of Jesus’ home town of Nazareth had not heard of Mary giving birth to and additional children even when Jesus had reached adulthood and begun His ministry. From Mark 6, we hear of this exchange:

[1] He went away from there and came to his own country; and his disciples followed him.

[2] And on the sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue; and many who heard him were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get all this? What is the wisdom given to him? What mighty works are wrought by his hands!
[3] Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.
[4] And Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.”
[5] And he could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands upon a few sick people and healed them.
[6] And he marveled because of their unbelief.

At first, Mark 6:3 would appear to imply that Jesus has direct familial siblings. But look at the text closely. Jesus is “the” son of Mary and Joseph, not “a” son of Mary and Joseph. We’ve already discussed how “brothers and sisters”, even in Greek, can refer to people of the same town or region, more distant relatives, and other people of familiarity to, but not necessarily directly related to, a person. But what’s really telling is how Jesus is singled out as the son of the Holy Family, not one son out of many.

But what really clinches the argument against Jesus having siblings born out of Mary’s womb is the scene at the foot of the Cross, in the Gospel of John. From John 19, we hear this:

[25]…standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Mag’dalene.

[26] When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!”
[27] Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.

The description of who is assembled at the foot of the Cross is paralleled in Mark 15:

[40] There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salo’me,

[41] who, when he was in Galilee, followed him, and ministered to him; and also many other women who came up with him to Jerusalem.

This is echoed in Matthew 27:

[55] There were also many women there, looking on from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him;

[56] among whom were Mary Mag’dalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zeb’edee.

From John, we learn that Mary (Jesus’ mother) was at the foot of the cross, along with her sister (Clopas’ wife), and Mary Magdalene. From Matthew, we actually don’t hear whether Jesus’ mother is present or not; we see again Mary Madgalene, as well as the mother of the sons of Zebedee (whose name, we learn from Mark, is Salome). And we also see “the other Mary”, the wife of Clopas, who is actually the mother of James and John (who are elsewhere referenced as ‘brothers’ of Jesus).

In other words: the Bible itself confirms that the ’siblings’ of Jesus are actually not direct siblings of his, but rather are children of a sibling of his mother’s. This is also confirmed, for those who know a thing or two about Jewish familial customs, in Jesus’ handing over care of His mother to the beloved disciple. Had she had any extant, living children apart from Christ, they would have been charged with her care. Since, however, Jesus had no blood siblings, He gave care of His mother over to the disciple whom He loved.

Now, the Reader may be beginning to wonder why all this really matters. It’s a fair question, and a part of the answer is given by Christ directly when he gives care of Mary over to John, the beloved. “Behold your mother,” Christ instructs. It turns out that this is not just a commandment given to one man.

Often, when raising opposition to the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity, Christians will insist that we take Scripture at its plain meaning, that we pay attention to the “clear and unambiguous teaching of God’s Word.” The latter sentiment is a good one; the former is not.

How should we approach Scripture, hermeneutically speaking? This could make for a lengthy topic in and of itself, I suppose, and then one I don’t have much time to get into in detail. Most anti-Marian Christians that I have encountered tend to suggest that we employ a firmly literal hermeneutic when interpreting Scripture, and that (as noted above) we take what is written in the Bible at its plain meaning.

The problem with insisting on the use of literal hermeneutics, and with insisting that Scripture be taken at its “plain meaning”, is that nobody really does that with any kind of consistency. Let me put that more plainly: no Christian ever takes Scripture at its plain meaning at every opportunity — indeed, many of us are often guilty of a certain hypocrisy when we insist upon just such an approach. More often than not, what we really mean when we insist on taking things at their plain meaning is: “let us use my interpretation of Scripture; let us take it at what I say its meaning is.”

That’s a rather harsh thing to say, I admit, but let’s consider a few examples. There is not a perfect 1:1 correlation between anti-Marianism and a rejection of e.g. Eucharistic doctrine, but most of the Christians I’ve met who denounce the perpetual virginity of Mary as a flawed Catholic teaching tend to likewise denounce the Eucharist — the real, literal presence of Christ in the bread and wine — as false. And yet, if we take John 6 at its plain meaning, we should have no other choice but to assume that Christ intended for us to receive that which was literally his flesh and blood in our repetition of the Last Supper.

[53] So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
[54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
[55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
[56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

There’s really no two ways about that: if our hermeneutic is to always take Scripture at its most obvious meaning, on a passage-by-passage basis, then we should all be Eucharistic Christians. That we are not all Eucharistic Christians means that we do not always take Scripture at its plain meaning; we only do so when it is convenient to the point we are making.

But let’s take a few more generalized examples, to better illustrate the point. Consider Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 5:

[27]“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’

[28] But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
[29] If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into Hell.
[30] And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.

Taking this passage at its plain meaning, it would be very easy for Christians to justify, say, plucking out the eye of a person caught reading Playboy magazine. Likewise, it would be very easy for Christians to justify lopping off the hands of thieves. And yet, no legal system which as a Judeo-Christian basis to it issues such punishments; moreover, many Christians rightly denounce Islamic countries which do effect such disfiguring punishments upon convicted criminals. Here again, then, we see that we do not always take Scripture at its plain meaning; we only do so out of convenience, when it suits our point to do so.

Similarly, rare indeed is the Christian who takes the Book of Revelation at its plain meaning. The last book of the Bible is full of fantastic imagery and whimsical creatures; it simply cannot be taken at any kind of plain meaning, but is instead widely understood to be a profound metaphor, both for things to come and for things that have already transpired (Revelation is not just an eschatological prophecy; there is strong evidence to suggest that it was also intended as a message of hope to the persecuted churches of the day, using its amazing imagery to describe events happening under the reign of Nero).

In like manner, rare is the Christian who takes James 2:20-24 at its plain meaning — to do so would be to advocate for works-based salvation, which is of course incorrect. Similarly, when Christians look at the Song of Songs, we do not take it at its plain meaning, at least not directly. That book of the Bible mentions God very rarely (you can easily count the instances of His mention in it on one hand, and then probably without using all five digits), and at its most basic meaning is nothing more than page after page of erotic love poetry, a back-and-forth dialogue between two lovers. The most plain meaning at which Christians take that book’s contents is as a powerful image of the love that should bless the marital union of man and woman; more often, however, the Song of Songs is understood as a metaphorical image of the intensity of God’s love for humanity, which Paul tells us is imaged in the marital union (c.f. Ephesians 5:21-33).

To put it plainly, then, and succinctly: no Christian takes Scripture at its plain meaning at every opportunity — were we all to do so, we would all be Eucharistic in our faith practice, and we would lop the hands off of convicted thieves. Taking the plain meaning of what is written in Scripture can be an important hermeneutical step, to be sure, but it is not a valid hermeneutic on its own. Indeed, Paul confirms this when he instructs us to hold to the traditions by which we were taught (2 Thes 2:15), and to trust in the Church — the pillar and bulwark of truth (1 Timothy 3:15) — to reveal the manifold wisdom of God (Ephesians 3:10) according to those traditions.

This, then, begins to point us in new direction by which we should attempt to understand Scripture and its teachings, and it is this direction which I propose to use in the analysis that follows: let us take Scripture at its intended meaning.

Of course, this is a difficult proposition. Living as we do nearly 2,000 years after the authors of the New Testament, and many additional centuries after the authors of the Old Testament, it is impossible for us to fully know the minds, or the intent, of those who wrote the various books of the Bible. We can only see in a mirror dimly, and can know only in part.

But we are not totally blind, either. The Spirit wove its breath and intent through the whole of Scripture (c.f. 2 Timothy 3:16-17), and one truth cannot contradict another. Therefore, it must be the case that there exists a coherency between the teaching of any one particular part of Scripture and the whole of Scripture.

Jesus actually gives us an example of this principle in action, when he met Cleopas and the other disciple on the road to Emmaus (c.f. Luke 24:13-31). He opened the Scriptures to the two men and, beginning with Moses and all the prophets, interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself. He didn’t just enumerate His own teachings, or his own acts, but tied all of those things into the broader picture of history and prophecy, demonstrating the consistency of the whole of Scripture as it pertained to His own life, death, and resurrection.

That’s a lesson for us, in our own attempts to make sense of Scripture and its teachings; it is the model for our own hermeneutics. We should take care to consider each passage and teaching in Scripture in the context of the whole of the Bible. This helps us form an understanding not only of the intent of the authors of any particular part of Scripture (who would, of course, have been mindful of other, pre-existing written texts that eventually became the books of the Bible), but of the intent of the Spirit when and as it inspired them.

So, as we turn now to the formal matter of Mary’s perpetual virginity, let us attempt to take Scripture not at its most plain meaning, but at its intended meaning. To do that, we must first journey into the Old Testament, to help us understand a few things about Judaism, the law of Moses, sex and marriage within that paradigm, and celibacy.

Let’s begin with the Book of Leviticus.

Jeeze…in the week or so since I last checked with Rehmatpedia, the website of Islamist blogger Shaukat Khawja (himself an employee of the nuclear power plant in Pickering, Ontario), it seems that someone has really started taking him to task in his comments forms.

That’s good to see — whoever “Jew” is, he or she doesn’t seem intent on letting Shaukat get away with saying stupid stuff anymore.

Screenshot for posterity — I can’t imagine Shaukat is going to let the comments stand for very long. It’s an interesting discussion on the mandate for religious headdress in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam — and of course, the Islamic hijab ends up worse for wear (ahem) in the comparison.

Note also how Shaukat can’t help but try and make insulting comments about Jews, Israel, and/or Zionism.

Update: Called that one, didn’t I? Not two hours, and he’s deleted the comment by “Jew” which gives an effective rebuttal to his silly claims.

Ah, screenshots are wonderful things.

As much as I realize that Vox Day is being facetious, I feel that I should point out that it’s highly unlikely that Richard Dawkins would ever be hauled before a human rights commission in Canada. Not because he is a foreign national — I’ve no doubt that the commission wouldn’t hesitate to prosecute a case against someone simply because they aren’t a Canadian citizen (I’m half-tempted to file a complaint against Dick Cheney to test this theory) if in fact it fit their agenda — but because, well, it wouldn’t fit their agenda to go after a noted scholar of atheism, especially on behalf of disaffected Christians.

I wonder how long it will be before someone in Canuckistan reports Richard Dawkins to one of these human rights commissions; he has almost surely made far more disparaging remarks about Jews, Christians, and Muslims than Stephen Boissoin ever made about homosexuals or Mark Steyn ever made about Muslims. The whole thing is appalling to anyone who supports human freedom, of course, but it would be extremely ironic to see Dawkins forced to publicly apologize “for his views on Judaism” and refrain from disparaging the religious faithful by a godless secular organization. Perhaps then he might see that connection between atheism and totalitarianism that he just hasn’t been able to locate yet.

The Jewish angle seems more workable, but I still doubt the prospects of succcess; I honestly can’t see such a radical, left-wing organ of the Canadian state as the CHRC (or any provincial HRC, come to think of it) going after a modern champion of secular thought.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

Humanity is a religious species — in all ages of our existence, we have sought after the supernatural and sought to believe. Atheism, ostensibly a simple state of non-belief that more practically seems to take the form of a belief in a universal not, creates something of a vacuum in the human heart that both the design of the human person and millions of years of human experience desires to fill.

The question, then, is what the void gets filled with.

…atheistic fads tend to wane and latch on to some form of “spirituality.” Sometimes that can mean reversion to the Faith. Sometimes it means the embrace of the occult or some form of paganism. Sometime it means embracing one of the Great Religions, such as Judaism, Islam, or Buddhism. But the only way a society remains “atheist” once the fad is past is by force of arms, as in the Soviet Union. And the moment the state cannot enforce it, the culture inhales whatever “spirituality” it can find. That’s why Russia has not only seen a big return to the Faith, but a huge growth of fascination in all manner of National Enquirer twaddle about UFOs, New Age twaddle, horoscopes, divination, and all the rest. atheism tends to achieve not a shiny rationalist society, but a spiritually ignorant (and deeply hungry) population that will latch on to anything in its desperation to fill the God-shaped hole in the heart.

…

Atheistic societies tend to be extremely bloody ones, it’s true. So a step toward theism is better than nothing, and the waning atheist fad is cause for a small celebration. But do remember that nobody involved in the Crucifixion, the persecution of the apostles, and the ancient pagan persecutions of the Church was an atheist. A culture that turns from being strictly materialistic to being a culture of Materialist Magicians is not a culture that is automatically re-Christianizing. Such a turn may be a first step toward Christ, but it can just as easily be a first step toward Moloch. For a materialist who comes to worship the reality of “spirit” is not necessarily worshipping the Lord our God, and Him only. In the words of Lewis’s Ransom, “There’s nothing specially fine about being a Spirit. The Devil is a Spirit.

Atheism will endure, as it has for many ages now. But it will never dominate a free people, and in due course gives way to the spiritual. Falsehood must necessarily give way to truth in the end, or at least to a less severe falsehood.

One wonders, then, just how much darker the woods will have to get before the light from the other side begins to shine in? These are the interesting times of the Chinese curse, methinks — Christians would do well to keep on their toes and, in a manner akin to Scouts, “be prepared.”

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

Islamist blogger Shaukat Khawja really, really doesn’t like Jews — so much so, in fact, that he would rather that Theodor Herzl’s proposal that all Jews convert (or be converted) to Christianity had gone through back in its day.

Got that? A radical Muslim so hates the Jews that he would rather they had all been converted into infidel Christians, instead of being allowed to remain Jews.

And why?

Speaks Shaukat:

The history of the world would have been so peacefully different if the propsed mass Baptism of European Jewry had gone through.

Because clearly, Jews are responsible for all the wars of the world, right?

How much more true would Shaukat’s statement be, I wonder, were it modified to allow for the possibility that Muhammad had been killed in a tribal skirmish just prior to his first “visitation” from whatever demonic entity decided to temporarily assume the identity of Gabriel?

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

Update - the Meltdown: I seem to have touched a nerve, as Shaukat has now done two things. He had begun by demonstrating the maturity I have come to expect from him now, on par with that of a twelve-year-old casting angry aspersions from atop a playground. But following that up, he says a couple of…well, to be honest, his statements are gems in their own right.

For example:

Without going into Biblical treatment of Jews, which quotes contempt coming from Moses, Jesus, and St. Paul - I wonder why Jews were expelled from almost every European country — England topping the list — expulsion of Jews for almost 350 years. Could it be interpreted as a sign of Christians’ love or hatred towards Jews - and for what reasons???

Poor grammar aside, it is interesting that Shaukat chose to mention Moses — the man who, arguably, was the instrument by which God established the foundations of Judaism — as an example of one who has only demonstrated “contempt” for Jews. I suppose a narrow reading of, for example, the Book of Exodus could lead one to think that, since Moses does spend quite a bit of time castigating the Hebrew people for their sinfulness.

But then, the Hebrew people did sinful things in the desert, not the least of which was to build a golden calf and worship it. Humanity as a whole regularly sins, and periodically needs to be corrected, sometimes harshly. Certainly, Jesus and St. Paul both give example of this, as did Moses in his day.

Following Shaukat’s odd statement, though, is a list of dates in history that supposedly demonstrate Christian persecution of Jews. And, to be fair, many of the dates he lists do in fact accurately mention instances of persecution of Jews by Christian religious authorities. Other dates he lists, however, do not belong on the list.
Read the rest of this entry »

From his latest:

Ironically, while the Muslim societies have tolerated their members to study Jewish and Christian beliefs, more than the Jews and Christians will ever study Muslim beliefs — they’re not taught the rich diversity practiced and accepted as a “good sign” by the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) within Islam itself.

The above would probably come as news to the “Muslim society” of Saudi Arabia, in which no Religion save Islam has ever been allowed to erect temples or churches, and in which one can be arrested for merely possessing a Bible.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

Nicholas writes in with a response to…well, to what I assume is this article.

It is an interesting discourse, to be sure.

I agree with you that atheism is a philosophical position that cannot be proved beyond all possible doubt. But it can be proved beyond all reasonable doubt that all the gods so far postulated do not measure up to any reasonable standard of what a god should offer. Almost all of humankind has accordingly rejected Thor and Zeus and Baal and countless others.

If people honestly read the Torah, they are bound to conclude that YHWH is a depressingly human fantasy of a depressingly human god, if anything a nastier tyrant than Stalin. And if they actually read the gospels, they will note that Jesus’s recorded remarks do not contain anything that marks him out as decisively superior to other prophets, or to previous philosophers. (For example, in the Crito dialogue, Plato attributes to Socrates the stance that we should not return evil for evil.)

I’m going to interject at this point, simply because what follows is a shift of topic. Formulating a coherent response is not something I’ll struggle with either way, but it occurs to me that it will be easier for the good Reader if I respond to each charge at the moment it is made, rather than in a large final summation.

First, I observe that with what could be called depressing truth to form, Nicholas assertion that “all the gods so far postulated do not measure up to any reasonable standard of what a god should offer” is not followed up with arguments from evidence or reason in support of it. It may well be that no deity postulated until this point in history satisfies even a reasonable standard of what a god should offer, but Nicholas in no way details any examples of any supposed inadequecies of any particular deity.

Of course, the whole issue of a “reasonable standard” seems laughable to me — precisely what would constitute a reasonable standard for a deity to uphold? Who defines what that standard should be? Indeed, where in the human-deity hierarchy does humanity fall relative to God? Are we even in a position to demand that God conform his actions to what our definition of a “resonable standard” is? It smacks of hubris, and one cannot help but conjure in mind the image of a loinclothed man armed only with a spear criticizing as “destructively inadequate” the quantum torpedos of the USS Enterprise (NCC 1701-E).

It only follows that humanity is in any position to hold God to a “reasonable standard” if, in fact, humanity is “above” or “equal to” God. Of course, if humanity is “above” or “equal to” God, then humanity likewise has no need of God, but that’s beside the point. If, in fact, God is “above” humanity, however, then humanity is in no position to demand God behave according to any human standard since, by definition, the human standard is the inadequate one, and the ways of God superior to it. That’s not to say that we can’t complain, but if we do complain it must be understood that we will be doing so with all the reason and rationalism of a six-year old denied the right to begin watching a fourth hour of television by its parents.

Fundamentally, when I read Nicholas‘ statements above, I am left with the impression that Nicholas is bitter and/or upset with religion in general — his statement equating the Judeo-Christian God with Stalin certainly points to this. Likewise, his dismissal of Jesus’ teachings as nothing new illustrates, I think, a conscious desire to reject something about Christianity. Not that this comes as a surprise, of course. Atheism tends, as a rule, to adopt as its own the prevailing morality of the culture in which the atheist(s) in question reside, minus whatever proscribed activity the atheist(s) desire(s) to engage in (which usually is something to do with sex). I’ve heard all manner of arguments in this direction, from the sort that bemoan the fact that 25-year-old virgins still exist (Hans Machel) to those which argue that marital fidelity is a biological inclination that we need to rise above (Richard Dawkins).

Yes, others may have articulated similar sentiments to those that Christ spoke of, and perhaps that should be clue for us that some truths are universal. But equally, just because truths were articulated by other philosophers independently of Jesus does not mean that the teachings themselves were fully understood (if at all understood) apart from Christ.

Regarding the explicit statement that Plato attributed something akin to the Golden Rule to Socrates well in advance of Jesus’ life and death, I and others have observed that “[t]his is another sample of Thomas’ second objection at work. It boils down to saying the natural law is knowable to all, so we don’t need to believe that the natural law comes from God. The sleight of hand comes in when “God” is confused with “Religion“. So the atheist routinely speaks as though Christians believe that nobody had ever heard that murder or theft or adulter were bad until Moses “revealed” this and imagines it a great coup to announce that, in fact, people have always known such things are wrong. Apparently, the people who say these things have never read the story of Cain and Abel. If they had, they would know that this was no news flash to ancient Israel. Nor was it a news flash to Paul, whose entire arraignment of the pagans in Romans 1 makes it clear that the natural law is knowable by everybody and that the failure of the pagans (who never heard of the Ten Commandments) to obey the natural law was blameworthy. In fact, no educated believer says the Ten Commandments revealed the natural law. Rather, the point of the Ten Commandments is that they make clear to Israel who is the author of the natural law which humanity has known for time immemorial. It makes clear that the natural law is not a mere artifact of wind and weather which can be ignored when it inconveniences us, but an iron fact of our being put there by the author of our being.

Being ignorant of this elementary fact makes the author ignorant of another elementary fact, that Jesus’s Golden Rule was, in fact, often *not* understood in even the most rudimentary of societies long before it was enunciated by Jesus. That’s because the Golden Rule requires grace in order to be understood, much less lived. Judaism articulated the basic norm that all pagan societies, at their best, could attain: love your neighbor, hate your enemy. It’s the norm we still basically live by today. Jesus’ Golden rule implied love for enemies because it included enemies in the term “neighbor”. It remains, apart from grace, an impossible and (for the worldly) ridiculous standard. The notion that anybody — especially an atheist — would aspire to it is a classic example of the way in which atheists live off Christian capital.”

I agree with you also, Ken, that we all believe many things that we cannot prove. For example, I believe that I have free will to make choices, and even to act on a whim. But I cannot disprove the assertion that an entity with a complete understanding of human psychology could forecast my every choice, including what I thought was a whim.

Gods with all of the attributes frequently claimed for gods, cannot exist. For example, if I am right that I have free will, there cannot be any omniscient god. If on the other hand I am wrong, there cannot be any just god, if it punishes my predictable mistakes.

This is a curious thing for Nicholas to believe, given his atheistic stance. For really, it is only by first invoking a sense of telos that humanity can postulate that it has a will, especially one that is free. Fundamentally, and from a purely empirical standpoint, a human being is just a fleshy outer shell wrapped around a bundle of opportunistic chemical reactions that are partly random and partly a response to outside stimuli. There is no free will in that — these words that I am typing right now are a testament to nothing more than a churning electrochemical reaction taking place within my brain, and series of signals being transmitted through my nervous system. Indeed, my very theism is nothing more than either an expression of something within my genes (and therefore meaningless, and certainly no indicator that I am possessed of a will of any sort) or the result of a response to either a chemical/hormonal reaction within my body or an external stimuli (and therefore, again, meaningless).

Another problem with atheists, I find, is that they tend to be more fundamentalist in their conception of who God must be than even the most rigid, fanatical fundamentalist theists are. Note the sudden transition to strict either/or thinking in Nicholas‘ writing, O Reader — this was a predictable shift on his part. Now, to be fair, historical theology has given him some ammunition to work with, in postulating on the omnipotence of God. But as others have pointed out, “omnipotence” is not the best word to describe the nature and scope of God’s knowledge and power. Better terms would be “volipotence” and “voliscience“.

“The concept of voliscience describes a Creator who knows whatever He wants, whenever He wants, to the extent that the concept of time is even relevant to such a being. Not only does this concept not limit God, but it has the additional benefit of being far more Biblically accurate than the traditional concept of an omniscient God. In fact, if one thinks about the matter for more than five seconds, one quickly realizes that the concept of voliscience is far less limiting than the use of the concept of omniscience has historically proven to be. One might also consider the concept of volipotence to be of some benefit in better conceiving a rationally sound and Scripturally precise nature of the Biblical God, but it’s probably less necessary since the key stumbling point for most Christians and atheists alike here is not related directly to omnipotence per se, but rather their inability to distinguish between the capacity of omnipotence and the action of omniderigence.

The fact that there is no possible logical conflict between voliscience and volipotence only adds to the rational appeal of the concept in my opinion, although I regard the nominal theodictic conflict between omnipotence and omniscience to reflect thinking so shallow as to border on stupidity anyhow.”

Famously, the life cycle of the Ichneumonidae, and much else, such as the facts that almost all life forms on this planet produce more (often hugely more) offspring than survive to maturity, and the doomed young often die in terror and pain, prove that there is no benign and omnipotent god.

Given that the Bible — especially the New Testament — is full of examples of ways in which suffering and death are shaped into pathways by which God’s glory is revealed, and given that some of Jesus’ teachings even go so far as to point out the role that death and dying play in God’s plan for His creation, the charge that any incidences of suffering and/or death in nature somehow disprove the idea of a benign god is specious and inconsequential…as has been discussed on this site a goodly number of times. Nicholas in particular would do well to remember that he’s been “thwumped” on this issue before on this very site.

These facts are consistent with the existence of any number of cruel gods, including C S Lewis’s “cosmic sadist”. They are also consistent with gods who have only limited powers and bungle important things. I am not atheist about such gods, but I choose (I think!) not to believe they exist, because there is no positive evidence for their existence.

I have long maintained, O Reader, that most strains of atheism are, at their core, built up around some manner of positivism, and certainly that has always been the case with Nicholas‘ atheism (as evidenced here). What is interesting is that he is willing to consider his personal opinions about the relative “cruelty” of the function of the natural world as evidence against the existence of the supernatural, and yet is unwilling to consider things like unexplained healings following in lockstep with prayers of intercession to the saints (Padre Pio in particular!) and other attested miracles as evidence in favour of the existence of the supernatural.

It’s not exactly a rational way of looking at the world, discarding the evidence one doesn’t like and improperly using as evidence that which is, on closer examination, not really evidence in support of one’s point at all. That things like predation, diseases, and often-lethal environmental pressures exist in the world tells us nothing about the intentions of any hypothetical creator; they merely tell us that within creation there are several extant hierarchies and concrete realities. Bigger animals and smaller animals exist, and some bigger animals eat some of the smaller ones. Different environmental forms exist, and sometimes environmental changes or events can have devastating results because — let’s be honest — any time there’s any sort of dynamism on a scale as large as the crust of a planet, there is bound to be the potential for a dramatic release of energy.

And to it all, we can honestly say: so what? Nature is designed by something way beyond human comprehension to begin with; should it be any kind of surprise, then, that we do not always understand the ways and means with which it operates?

You can call this sort of atheism a religion if you like, but it’s rather an eccentric use of the word. In the usual use, I think, religions always include elements of the supernatural, and of ritual. Even a stripped-down version of Buddhism includes mystical elements such as the denial of the self. And, as far as I know, all forms of modern Buddhism as actually practised include rituals. Tibetan lamaism includes all manner of weird spirits and deities.

This is mostly true, although it serves to note that many atheists — Sam Harris being perhaps one of the more prominent — draw upon Buddhism as an example of an “atheist” religion (Harris himself practices some “rituals” — including, but not limited to, meditation — of the Buddhist religion). And at any rate, certain forms of Taoism are almost completely free of supernatural concepts, unless one counts the concept of “peace” as supernatural.

As to whether the “denial of the self” can be counted as “mystical,” I leave up to the reader. Self-denial in various forms infuses many aspects of secular culture (dieting, for an easy example) without seeming to stray into the realm of mysticism, after all.

In contrast, I don’t admit to worshipping anything. I accept modus ponens because it works. I accept the evidence of randomised double-blind trials of drugs, because they have given us drugs which work. But I don’t sing hymns to modus ponens or the smallpox vaccine, or make them burnt offerings.

Employing a touch of Nicholas‘ logic in reverse, I observe that many drugs can and do produce all manner of rather horrifying side effects, including (in some cases) death. Clearly we can posit, then, non-benign (if not outright cruel) intent on the part of pharmaceutical researchers?

Yes, I’m being facetious.

Nicholas is correct in that he does not admit to worshipping anything, and indeed he probably does not ritualize even those things which he does worship. But my contention is that we all worship something — even sex or money — and this contention stands. When I posed a set of questions in the article I linked to at the beginning of this posting, Nicholas responded thusly:

1. What do I feel entitled to? The rights set out in the European Convention of Human Rights.
2. Why? Because this convention is largely common sense, and has been incorporated into the law of the country I live in.
3. Why am I so angry/sad/bitter? What makes you think I am any of these?
4. If I had to, how would I define happiness? Aristotelian eudaimonia, laced with Epicurean pleasure in hugs, snow, and music.

I observe a sense that the law, and in particular human rights legislation, is sacrosanct. After all, the first question asked what Nicholas felt entitled to, and the fact that he answered it as he did is instructive.

If we honestly think about it, we as human beings are entitled to nothing, whether God exists or not. This is especially true if we assume God does not exist, because at that point all we can claim to be entitled to is what we can hold on to until someone stronger, faster, or otherwise “bigger” comes to take it away from us. Appeals to common sense hold little sway in face of the “cruel” laws by which nature operates…and equally, not everyone recognizes things held to be commonly sensible.

But Nicholas feels entitled to these human rights all the same. At the same time, he has in the past argued that an entire category of human beings — the unborn — do not necessarily deserve the same comprehensive protection of their human rights. But for Nicholas, his being protected by those and other legal conventions is sacrosanct. It is his entitlement.

So I leave it here to the Reader: what, exactly, does Nicholas worship, even if not in a way that involves formal ritual?

Interesting compare and contrast — while Pope Benedict XVI made a point of visiting a Jewish synagogue to bring a message of “Shalom,” former U.S. president Jimmy Carter met with the leader of Hamas, as well as several other Islamic terror group leaders.

Who, one wonders, really cares for the welfare — physical and spiritual — of the Jews?

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

It’s a long one, but worth the read as it dismantles, one by one, Islamic claims about Judaism and Christianity.

I’ve always been fascinated by atheism, or rather by secularism in general. Not in a “sign me up” sense of the word, but in the sense of regarding them as a curiousity of sorts. I can understand that person could believe that there is no God, no spiritual dimension to our existence, but what I cannot understand — what fascinates me — is the smug self-assurance, the 100% conviction of empirical correctness, the arrogant dismissal of those who do believe in something supernatural as under-educated and ignorant, or delusional, or in need of an emotional crutch. I’m not saying that believers aren’t 100% convinced of the correctness of their position — many are. But I am saying that what fascinates me about atheism as a belief system is that it arrogantly dismisses every other belief system as a child’s fairy tale, a coping mechanism, at the same time refusing to acknowledge its own nature.

Because what is atheism, and indeed what is secularism, if not a belief system unto itself, one that worships as deity such things as the individual person, or government, or science?

I was visiting Meta Religion, another of those websites devoted to promoting understanding between all the varied and often eclectic faith systems of the world. Unlike Religious Tolerance.org, however, I found that some of the articles on Meta Religion were somewhat meaningful. In particular, I was impressed by their inclusion of articles by Ian Barbour, one of the leading proponents of dialogue between faith and science today.

However, Meta Religion showed many of the same biases that Religious Tolerance.org shares with the modern atheist/secularist. If you bother to browse all the non-Christian faith descriptions on the website, you’ll find links to transcriptions of their holy texts, analysis of their beliefs, and a generally open-minded view of even the more bizarre belief systems in the world. But if you flip over to the Christian faith description, you’ll find something else. The analysis, the transcribed holy books, and even some lesser-known books (Gospel of Thomas, the Dead Sea Scrolls, etc.) can still be found, but also included is a section of “anti-Christian” articles.

When I saw that, I immediately clicked back to the description of Islam, and then to that of Buddhism, then of Judaism, and then randomly through other belief systems from there. In no other place, for no other religion, did I find articles of refutation and harsh criticism. In no other place did I find links to articles proclaiming that religion evolved as a comforting response to stress. In no other place did I find links to atheist literature. In no other place did I find links to the holy texts of other religions and discussions of the ‘parallels’ that exist. In no other place did I find links to lists of Biblical ‘contradictions’.

And that got me thinking.

In years of debating in web forums, in years of discussions with friends who are atheist, or at least secular humanist ‘agnostics’ (which is different from atheism…how?), it has become clear to me that the average atheist does not reject all concepts of God, despite claiming to. Instead, the rejection is almost exclusively that of the Christian God, and it seems to me that the majority of an argumentative atheist’s energies are directed into refuting Christian beliefs almost exclusively. Which I find interesting, to say the least — for a group that prides itself on its ability for logical and rational analysis, atheists seem only too willing to conflate all religions into Christianity, or a distorted perception thereof.

And at the core of it, the arguments aren’t even that well thought-out. Take my one friend’s quick criticism of the Bible: that it was written by a bunch of old men. Well, granted that most of the authors were male. Were they senior citizens at the time it was written? Some of them probably were older, but others were probably quite young. We really can’t say with any certainty — not that this minor factual error seems to be an obstacle to my friend’s hasty condemnation.

Take the other favourite condemnation of Religion, Christianity in particular: that religion is an evolved response to external emotional/psychological stress and worry, that it is a coping mechanism to deal especially with the problem of death. As an argument, this might have some merit, but there is a converse argument that has equal merit that most secularists are unwilling to discuss. Is it not possible that, as the pinnacle of evolution on Earth that humanity seems to be, we have evolved in such a way that our minds and hearts, our psycholgical and emotional selves, are ‘tuned in’ to God in a way that no other animal can enjoy? Is it not possible that God has used the process of evolution to create at last a being that He is able, in a small but powerful way, to actually communicate with? Is it not possible that an understanding of God, an ability to perceive the works of and perceive the call of purpose from God, is the ultimate outcome of neurological evolution? Perhaps the believers are not the ignoramuses after all, but the more evolved among us after all. Jesus taught that the meek shall inherit the Earth — perhaps this is the victory of the simple, the mundane, over the intellectual secular elite.

At this point, those of you of the atheist/secular persuasion are probably scoffing, and you’d be right to challenge me to produce evidence of such an evolution, or evidence of God more preferably, and of course I cannot provide either. I am, first, a man of faith, and though I believe that God is real and that He sent His only son Jesus to die for my sins, I will be the first to tell you that I cannot prove to you that any of that is true. I have personally experienced the touch of God, and in my own life my faith has made many positive changes and differences, and helped me to hold on to things long after anyone else would have been inclined to let go. But this is anecdotal, and nothing you would, or should, believe as empirical evidence.

But if, o reader, you think that my lack of evidence for God is proof that there is no God, think again. The scientific method dictates differently. A lack of evidence does not correspond to a disproof. It only means you haven’t yet found the evidence — you haven’t looked under the right rock. If you want to prove there is no God, you cannot point to a lack of proof on my part, but must instead produce proof of your own (cognizant, I would hope, of the fact that it is harder to prove a negation) to show that there is no God. Otherwise, any atheist/secularist statement you make falls on my ears as a statement not of fact, but as a statement of faith.

Atheists/secularists will tell you that they do not believe in God, but that in and of itself is not an atheistic statement. A Wiccan might easily make the same claim, but nobody would accuse a Wiccan of not believing in something supernatural. Likewise, a Hindu might make the claim, for Hindu is not a monotheistic religion…but nobody would accuse a Hindu of not believing in other gods.

No, an atheist instead believes there is no God. And it is a belief, because like me they can present no empirical evidence to support their claim. In many respects, it is more than just a belief or a faith — it is a religion. Ever visit an atheist website, or tripped over a militant atheist in a web-forum? There is not just a belief there — there is a vested interest in proselytization there. And a strong anti-Christian focus. If you asked me if I’d ever met an atheist who was openly critical of Allah, I would have to answer you “no”.

I realize that throughout its history, the Church has caused a number of problems, and been involved in some despicable practices. But if you think about it, that’s all in the Bible. We as humans are not perfect — we screw up from time to time. That’s what sin is. Usually it’s greed, or lust, or a desire for power and control, that has led Church officials and members into scandal and worse. Where I think many people make a great logical error is equating that with an evil underpinning of the religion itself. But ultimately, that’s not what it’s about. Yes, religious people make mistakes and commit sins. That means that (surprise!) religions are composed of people with the same human flaws and weaknesses that afflict the non-religious! It categorically does not mean that the religion itself is flawed, or evil, or sinful.

So if you’re an atheist, be consistent — denounce all religions with equal fervor. Or denounce none — just do as you ask Christians to do and keep your beliefs to yourself.

And to Meta Religions, I would just like to express my disappointment. Again, be consistent — if you’re going to publish denunciations of religion alongside the links to pro-Christian articles and transcriptions of our holy texts, please also publish those denunciations alongside the analysis of other religions. Or better still, put them in an Atheism section of the site.