Question: How many Fundies does it take to change a light bulb?
Answer: NONE. They're all waiting for Jesus to appear and do it for them!
One of the most quoted sayings is "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing". When people only have a small amount, as in vestigial or rudimentary - say from an online bible course or college, there is almost 100% assurance that most of what they churn out will be ignorance. Sure, a grain of verifiable truth may find its way in, often by accident (even a broken clock is correct twice a day) but by and large we can expect bunkum.
In the matter of the Hell myth and citing scripture to "prove" it this especially holds. Mainly because these numskulls don't avail themselves of the background history to the passages they quote, or to the particular way the idioms, phrases, concepts were used, and BY whom! What I will try to do here, is help out a certain pastor who's still struggling - it appears- and hasn't processed anything I've written though he easily copies it. As in this example:
"Brothers and Sisters , it never ceases to amaze me of how ignorant the atheists can be . One ignorant atheist , in a recent blog post wrote :"A true message and genuine one, would get people to anticipate their deaths as something natural and not to be feared. To atheists that means accepting that at death we step into the void, into nothingness. One moment you're alive here and now, experiencing this Earth – irrespective of whatever pain, horrors or travails- the next instant you wink out like a light. NO memory, no recall of what went before, or that you even “died”. It is literally as if you never existed in the first place." ( emphasis mine )
Well , uh...gee whiz , I guess this pompous ass has died and came back to life , huh ? Now , he may accuse us Christians of the same , but we have the documented , historical , eyewitness accounts , of the TRUTH of the BIBLE , GOD'S WORD"
Actually, uh, no...MORON! But when I do attend to any quote or citation in the Bible, I tend to fall back on my textual analysis background - developed at Loyola University, from the most savvy and experienced professors around - the Jesuits! Not a two bit bible online school whose resident morons aren't trained to biblical exegesis. What we find from that, is that the truth of any biblical passage is relative, not absolute. Thus, biblical passages do not simply disclose their actual meanings to honest inquirers, they must be parsed. Only a purblind idiot or ignoramus thinks the Bible came down intact on a golden thread from Heaven. Even IF a God "inspired" the actual words (a mighty big IF) we no longer have the actual, original words to go by. They've already gone through several languages (Aramaic, Greek, Latin, English etc.) and had their fundamental meaning altered each time - as anyone who's ever taken a foreign language knows (I've taken Russian, Latin, German and Spanish). In effect, the pseudo-doctrine of "biblical inspiration" is irrelevant to grasping the truth of the words- especially given that many passages were deliberately altered, others added later, and many lost or simply omitted for the purpose of propaganda as certain ecclesiastical authorities demanded.
In point of fact, contrary to fundie mystagoguery and obscurantism, IF a God truly wanted humans to have his actual words (and by extension meaning and thoughts) he'd have miraculously preserved those words - not allowed the vagaries of language translation, editing and copyist errors to wreak havoc. After all, he's supposed to be "all powerful", right? Now, following this logic, given he didn't even take the damned trouble to meticulously preserve the words (since any moron knows they must be interpreted not taken one for one literally!) then it is also clear he never went to any trouble to inspire them. OR....more likely, no deity exists that would have done so. How hard is this to process? Well, for semi-educated evangelical morons, a lot!
But let's go on to more of his illuminating bible "proof" for experiencing Hell:
He drones on:
"In the TRUE story about Lazarus and the rich man - and YES ! it is a TRUE STORY ! and I'll tell you why . It begins in chapter 16 , verse 19 in the book of Luke and goes through verse 31 . Now , even though it IS used much like a parable , i.e., to teach a particular lesson or to emphasize some principle , it is nevertheless true biblical history . The numerous arguments for this account being a real history are : ( 1 ) Parables are hypothetical illustrations and in ALL of Jesus' other parables , He NEVER names SPECIFIC individuals . Here not only Lazarus is named , but also Abraham ( vss. 22-25 , 29-30 ) and Moses ( vs. 31 ) . ( 2 ) Jesus said "there was a certain rich man”
Here, the dubious pastor doesn't seem to know how Pharisee-early Judaic adoptionist fantasies crept into the text of Luke, because it served the early scribes' agenda. Ordinarily, these freakish incursions and additions might have been ferreted out, but we know why they were not...especially in the corrupt King James Bible (which uses corrupt 12th century mss. of Erasmus).
Referencing Erasmus, biblical scholar Bart J. Ehrman notes ('Misquoting Jesus', p. 79):
"In his haste to get the job done, Erasmus simply took the Latin Vulgate and translated its text back into Greek, thereby creating some textual readings found today in no surviving Greek manuscript. And this is the edition of the Greek New Testament that for all practical purposes was used by the translators of the King James Bible nearly a century later."
Erasmus, in his haste, also paid no attention to the explicit sources of syncretic later additions, or how used or whether faithful to the putative original storyline. Had he been, then gibberish from Luke 16-30 never would have found its way in - since the Old Testament "god of wrath" would have easily been seen to be incompatible with the 'God of love and mercy" of the New Testament. (e.g. Ehrman, op. cit. p. 284-85)
In league with this, it is a well-known fact from history that the development of the notion of "Hell" and the horrendous tortures within it, arose very plausibly from the exposure - in Ptolemaic and Seleucid times, to certain Greek legends. For example, the Greek "Hades" was very much analogous to the Israelite's "Sheol" - a gray place of negativity. However, a portion of it - "Tartarus" - was reserved for incorrigible, hardened criminals and n'er do wells. (Albeit, no "unbelievers" - this was appended in later permutations by Christian copyists, to exert propaganda pressure). In Tartarus, the Greek imagination literally exhausted itself in conceiving some of the most horrendous and unimaginable tortures - though these were of subtle form, such as Tantalus being kept forever up to his chin in water which instantly whooshed away when he tried to drink it. So he was kept in a permanent state of thirst, much more subtle and worthy of a refined brain than fires.
However, the Pharisees and those of Judea, who'd already beheld the fires of Gehenna (an offal dump outside of Jerusalem where animal carcasses and other waste was burned) decided to add intense fires to the mix of tortures. By the time of the New Testament, this debased concept was fixed, and it is no surprise it crept into assorted passages - but these were Pharisee concepts, peculiarly - and we know how Yeshua felt about them ("whited sepulchres").
Meanwhile, this unconscious pastor blabbers on:
"Now Jesus tells us in verses 23-25 :"And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
Any child in Sunday Bible school can plainly see that the rich guy in hell WAS CONSCIOUS ! Of course , the wicked people DENY the REALITY of hell because they are in a spiritual state of denial that the WICKED WILL GO TO HELL - unless they repent , and receive Jesus Christ as their personal LORD and Savior !"
All of which is horse piddle. Ironically, in all the fundie's hysterical nonsense, he never once references that Abraham "refuses" because there is (by definition from the ancient Greek version of Hades) an impassable gulf between heaven and Hell. Also, note that (according to the "pastor's" quote) Abraham is justifying the presence of Lazarus in heaven and the rich man in Hell without any relation to wickedness and virtue. (The "wickedness" appellations interjected subsequent to the quotation are by the fundie half-assed pastor himself- the words are not found in any original passage).No "sins" of the rich man are recalled or conjured up other than his being rich! (Of course, some fundies insist the sin designating him for Hell isn't being rich but being "selfish". But that is just as dumb. If that were true ninety nine percent of the planet would be condemned to Hell! Besides, the salutary tale concerns rich-hoarding so automatically presumes selfishness!)
If Pastor Perplex is sincere about offering this crap as any evidence of "Hell" then he also needs to confess that, if true, all the money grubbing Republicans and their corporate benefactors are destined for the hot spot!
In terms of textual analysis let's also remind the pastor - since his online bible school didn't- that "Lazarus" isn't meant to be literally identified with the mythic figure who rose from the dead, but as a generic diseased and disenfranchised (of all possessions) person. He is the representation of all the poorest, the diseased beggars, in counterpoint to all the nasty rich people who have it all. A hint is provided by the fact that the abbreviated term "lazar" is synonymous with "leper".
Read much?
Now, what about verses 23-25 and the claimed torments visible there? What do we make of that? As usual one of the best insights is provided by Oxford University Biblical Scholar Geza Vermes ('The Authentic Gospel of Jesus', p. 162):
"Luke 16-31 is a Jewish folk tale, rather than a parable. It simply represents a popular representation, propagated by the Pharisees, of how earthly behavior was rewarded and what were the forms of afterlife. The folk tale harkens back to the rabbinic writings of Pesikta Rabbati, which locates (in Abraham's Bosom) the resting place of saintly Jews - such as those martyrs who fell victim to persecution by the Emperor Hadrian after the second war against Rome (123-125 AD). The wicked (Romans) meanwhile are tormented in the netherworld where they can look upward and see Abraham and those with him"
In other words, what the illustrious pastor has merely quoted is a Jewish revenge tale (kind of like an archaic version of the Quentin Tarentino flick 'Inglorious Basterds'- but all text). Who wouldn't want to consign his ultimate enemy - in this case the Romans under Hadrian- to flames after suffering a crushing defeat? But then, ANY child in Bible school, who's seriously done his homework ought to have known this, as opposed to peddling it as yet another stupid scare tactic to try to frighten atheists!
But we have to give the guy a break. He still has only "48 credits" toward his online pastor-bible degree. Maybe by the time he finishes them all he'll be much smarter and more savvy - as opposed to having only a little knowledge. However, I wouldn't make a bet on it at the Bellagio!
Answer: NONE. They're all waiting for Jesus to appear and do it for them!
One of the most quoted sayings is "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing". When people only have a small amount, as in vestigial or rudimentary - say from an online bible course or college, there is almost 100% assurance that most of what they churn out will be ignorance. Sure, a grain of verifiable truth may find its way in, often by accident (even a broken clock is correct twice a day) but by and large we can expect bunkum.
In the matter of the Hell myth and citing scripture to "prove" it this especially holds. Mainly because these numskulls don't avail themselves of the background history to the passages they quote, or to the particular way the idioms, phrases, concepts were used, and BY whom! What I will try to do here, is help out a certain pastor who's still struggling - it appears- and hasn't processed anything I've written though he easily copies it. As in this example:
"Brothers and Sisters , it never ceases to amaze me of how ignorant the atheists can be . One ignorant atheist , in a recent blog post wrote :"A true message and genuine one, would get people to anticipate their deaths as something natural and not to be feared. To atheists that means accepting that at death we step into the void, into nothingness. One moment you're alive here and now, experiencing this Earth – irrespective of whatever pain, horrors or travails- the next instant you wink out like a light. NO memory, no recall of what went before, or that you even “died”. It is literally as if you never existed in the first place." ( emphasis mine )
Well , uh...gee whiz , I guess this pompous ass has died and came back to life , huh ? Now , he may accuse us Christians of the same , but we have the documented , historical , eyewitness accounts , of the TRUTH of the BIBLE , GOD'S WORD"
Actually, uh, no...MORON! But when I do attend to any quote or citation in the Bible, I tend to fall back on my textual analysis background - developed at Loyola University, from the most savvy and experienced professors around - the Jesuits! Not a two bit bible online school whose resident morons aren't trained to biblical exegesis. What we find from that, is that the truth of any biblical passage is relative, not absolute. Thus, biblical passages do not simply disclose their actual meanings to honest inquirers, they must be parsed. Only a purblind idiot or ignoramus thinks the Bible came down intact on a golden thread from Heaven. Even IF a God "inspired" the actual words (a mighty big IF) we no longer have the actual, original words to go by. They've already gone through several languages (Aramaic, Greek, Latin, English etc.) and had their fundamental meaning altered each time - as anyone who's ever taken a foreign language knows (I've taken Russian, Latin, German and Spanish). In effect, the pseudo-doctrine of "biblical inspiration" is irrelevant to grasping the truth of the words- especially given that many passages were deliberately altered, others added later, and many lost or simply omitted for the purpose of propaganda as certain ecclesiastical authorities demanded.
In point of fact, contrary to fundie mystagoguery and obscurantism, IF a God truly wanted humans to have his actual words (and by extension meaning and thoughts) he'd have miraculously preserved those words - not allowed the vagaries of language translation, editing and copyist errors to wreak havoc. After all, he's supposed to be "all powerful", right? Now, following this logic, given he didn't even take the damned trouble to meticulously preserve the words (since any moron knows they must be interpreted not taken one for one literally!) then it is also clear he never went to any trouble to inspire them. OR....more likely, no deity exists that would have done so. How hard is this to process? Well, for semi-educated evangelical morons, a lot!
But let's go on to more of his illuminating bible "proof" for experiencing Hell:
He drones on:
"In the TRUE story about Lazarus and the rich man - and YES ! it is a TRUE STORY ! and I'll tell you why . It begins in chapter 16 , verse 19 in the book of Luke and goes through verse 31 . Now , even though it IS used much like a parable , i.e., to teach a particular lesson or to emphasize some principle , it is nevertheless true biblical history . The numerous arguments for this account being a real history are : ( 1 ) Parables are hypothetical illustrations and in ALL of Jesus' other parables , He NEVER names SPECIFIC individuals . Here not only Lazarus is named , but also Abraham ( vss. 22-25 , 29-30 ) and Moses ( vs. 31 ) . ( 2 ) Jesus said "there was a certain rich man”
Here, the dubious pastor doesn't seem to know how Pharisee-early Judaic adoptionist fantasies crept into the text of Luke, because it served the early scribes' agenda. Ordinarily, these freakish incursions and additions might have been ferreted out, but we know why they were not...especially in the corrupt King James Bible (which uses corrupt 12th century mss. of Erasmus).
Referencing Erasmus, biblical scholar Bart J. Ehrman notes ('Misquoting Jesus', p. 79):
"In his haste to get the job done, Erasmus simply took the Latin Vulgate and translated its text back into Greek, thereby creating some textual readings found today in no surviving Greek manuscript. And this is the edition of the Greek New Testament that for all practical purposes was used by the translators of the King James Bible nearly a century later."
Erasmus, in his haste, also paid no attention to the explicit sources of syncretic later additions, or how used or whether faithful to the putative original storyline. Had he been, then gibberish from Luke 16-30 never would have found its way in - since the Old Testament "god of wrath" would have easily been seen to be incompatible with the 'God of love and mercy" of the New Testament. (e.g. Ehrman, op. cit. p. 284-85)
In league with this, it is a well-known fact from history that the development of the notion of "Hell" and the horrendous tortures within it, arose very plausibly from the exposure - in Ptolemaic and Seleucid times, to certain Greek legends. For example, the Greek "Hades" was very much analogous to the Israelite's "Sheol" - a gray place of negativity. However, a portion of it - "Tartarus" - was reserved for incorrigible, hardened criminals and n'er do wells. (Albeit, no "unbelievers" - this was appended in later permutations by Christian copyists, to exert propaganda pressure). In Tartarus, the Greek imagination literally exhausted itself in conceiving some of the most horrendous and unimaginable tortures - though these were of subtle form, such as Tantalus being kept forever up to his chin in water which instantly whooshed away when he tried to drink it. So he was kept in a permanent state of thirst, much more subtle and worthy of a refined brain than fires.
However, the Pharisees and those of Judea, who'd already beheld the fires of Gehenna (an offal dump outside of Jerusalem where animal carcasses and other waste was burned) decided to add intense fires to the mix of tortures. By the time of the New Testament, this debased concept was fixed, and it is no surprise it crept into assorted passages - but these were Pharisee concepts, peculiarly - and we know how Yeshua felt about them ("whited sepulchres").
Meanwhile, this unconscious pastor blabbers on:
"Now Jesus tells us in verses 23-25 :"And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
Any child in Sunday Bible school can plainly see that the rich guy in hell WAS CONSCIOUS ! Of course , the wicked people DENY the REALITY of hell because they are in a spiritual state of denial that the WICKED WILL GO TO HELL - unless they repent , and receive Jesus Christ as their personal LORD and Savior !"
All of which is horse piddle. Ironically, in all the fundie's hysterical nonsense, he never once references that Abraham "refuses" because there is (by definition from the ancient Greek version of Hades) an impassable gulf between heaven and Hell. Also, note that (according to the "pastor's" quote) Abraham is justifying the presence of Lazarus in heaven and the rich man in Hell without any relation to wickedness and virtue. (The "wickedness" appellations interjected subsequent to the quotation are by the fundie half-assed pastor himself- the words are not found in any original passage).No "sins" of the rich man are recalled or conjured up other than his being rich! (Of course, some fundies insist the sin designating him for Hell isn't being rich but being "selfish". But that is just as dumb. If that were true ninety nine percent of the planet would be condemned to Hell! Besides, the salutary tale concerns rich-hoarding so automatically presumes selfishness!)
If Pastor Perplex is sincere about offering this crap as any evidence of "Hell" then he also needs to confess that, if true, all the money grubbing Republicans and their corporate benefactors are destined for the hot spot!
In terms of textual analysis let's also remind the pastor - since his online bible school didn't- that "Lazarus" isn't meant to be literally identified with the mythic figure who rose from the dead, but as a generic diseased and disenfranchised (of all possessions) person. He is the representation of all the poorest, the diseased beggars, in counterpoint to all the nasty rich people who have it all. A hint is provided by the fact that the abbreviated term "lazar" is synonymous with "leper".
Read much?
Now, what about verses 23-25 and the claimed torments visible there? What do we make of that? As usual one of the best insights is provided by Oxford University Biblical Scholar Geza Vermes ('The Authentic Gospel of Jesus', p. 162):
"Luke 16-31 is a Jewish folk tale, rather than a parable. It simply represents a popular representation, propagated by the Pharisees, of how earthly behavior was rewarded and what were the forms of afterlife. The folk tale harkens back to the rabbinic writings of Pesikta Rabbati, which locates (in Abraham's Bosom) the resting place of saintly Jews - such as those martyrs who fell victim to persecution by the Emperor Hadrian after the second war against Rome (123-125 AD). The wicked (Romans) meanwhile are tormented in the netherworld where they can look upward and see Abraham and those with him"
In other words, what the illustrious pastor has merely quoted is a Jewish revenge tale (kind of like an archaic version of the Quentin Tarentino flick 'Inglorious Basterds'- but all text). Who wouldn't want to consign his ultimate enemy - in this case the Romans under Hadrian- to flames after suffering a crushing defeat? But then, ANY child in Bible school, who's seriously done his homework ought to have known this, as opposed to peddling it as yet another stupid scare tactic to try to frighten atheists!
But we have to give the guy a break. He still has only "48 credits" toward his online pastor-bible degree. Maybe by the time he finishes them all he'll be much smarter and more savvy - as opposed to having only a little knowledge. However, I wouldn't make a bet on it at the Bellagio!
2 comments:
From the Fundie :
"Well , uh...gee whiz , I guess this pompous ass has died and came back to life , huh ?"
Actually, this pompous ass doesn't know anything. The accumulated evidence shows NO ocnsciousness can exist apart from the brain. This is so easily demonstrated it borders on the self-evident!
Just go in for a surgery and be put under by general anesthesia. The effect is one's consciousness is disabled and not there. You don't even dream! This is because the anesthesia has disabled the regions of the brain in which consciousness exists. It doesn't exist in any 'soul'.
So, what you ought to have also informed him here is that the existing evidence is on YOUR side, not his. Until he can prove or demonstrate that consciousness exists apart from the brain, as opposed to misquoting bible passages he's the one on thin ice.
Your point is totally valid and also obeys the Occam's Razor rule which states the simplest hypothesis of any two is most likely the correct one.
In this case, the simplest is that we don't survive death - meaning our consciousness expires when our brain and EEG waves do.(Which is why most hospitals regard brain death, no EEG activity, as the best sign of death)
Only fantasists or delusionals or clueless believers think otherwise.
janidebar wrote:
Your point is totally valid and also obeys the Occam's Razor rule which states the simplest hypothesis of any two is most likely the correct one.
In this case, the simplest is that we don't survive death - meaning our consciousness expires when our brain and EEG waves do.(Which is why most hospitals regard brain death, no EEG activity, as the best sign of death)
--
Thanks for making that very salient point! In my haste to discuss the textual analysis aspects I'd totally left it off the radar - but it is perhaps the most germane.
All posits of consciousness ending at death, as you note, conform to the simplest hypothesis: the consciousness inheres in the brain. When the brain dies, consciousness expires.
If the fundies have an alternate theory they can demonstrate they need to put it up. ("Soul" as a source of consciousness doesn't work because we know the brain alone is the basis, as you pointed out to do with anesthesia)
So, in the end it looks like he's hoinst on two petards and he will surely be the one surprised to find nothing there when he kicks off. (Of course, when one kicks off so does any memory of what went before so there can't be any retrospective reality checks).
Btw, recall in my Materialist Model of Mind I *did* leave open the possibility of a deBroglie-wave based consciousness at death - wherein all de Broglie waves formerly associated with matter in the body disperse. But this is not an individual consciousness but a more amorphous one - since obviously the B-waves would mix with all others from all the previous 100 billion odd dead humans.
But hey! Maybe that is better than nothing! (Though I still suspect the zero conscious state more likely)
Post a Comment