Continuing the "Historical Documents! No, Really!" series, we now come to the Book of Acts.

One of the things that lept out at me when I read the Bible cover to cover was how chock full it was of overt supernatural activity, where Yahweh apparently felt neither shyness nor concern for "free will" as he demonstrated his power in ways that could not be confused with natural coincidence. Rivers turned to blood, columns of fire killed blasphemers and Yahweh once gave a speech to the entire nation of Judea (Judges, chapter 1). When I put the Bible down and looked about, the universe couldn't offer a more dramatic contrast with the alternate reality depicted in the Bible. The world we know today is one dominated by natural law, where the most Yahweh can ever seem to accomplish is to appear on a piece of toast.

(Maybe he's just gotten old and feeble or perhaps finally getting laid 2000 years ago caused him to seriously mellow out). Sorry, I digress. Ignore this paragraph.

The Book of Acts takes similar flights of fancy. It goes beyond asserting that Yahweh, Jesus, angels and demons can perform miracles or work magic. Mere mortals can do the same with just enough faith. Such acts of magic include:

1. Speaking in tongues (Acts 2:1-14, 19:6-9)
2. Cause earthquakes (4:31)
3. Cast out demons (5:16, 8:7)
4. See God (7:55)
5. Heal Palsy (9:33-34)
6. Raise the dead (9:36-end)
7. Cause blindness (13:11)
8. Heal a crippled person (14:8-10)
9. Heal the sick (19:11-12. 28:8-9)
10. Survive poisonous snake bite (28:4-5)

Did I mention that these are not angels or Jesus doing these things but mere mortals by the power of their faith? And should I mention all the verses with Yahweh, Jesus, The Holy Spirit or various angels speak to mortals? Or overtly supernaturally act on their behalf?

One more time, it bears repeating, these were the acts of MERE MORTALS

OK, so the Christian has two choices:

1. Believe that such magic is possible for mortals and that angels do get personally involved in real life, in which case you are so loony that there's no point in having a rational conversation with you.

2. Admit that the Book of Acts is kind of fanciful and shouldn't be regarded as a historical document.

And before anyone whines about my "prejudice against the supernatural", all I'm doing is operating by the same rules we all do in every day life. ECREE. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Since you don't lend the same credence to the supernatural claims of other religions, you should understand why I don't let such credence to yours.

And if the book of Acts can't be considered a historical document, then what other books of the bible should be dismissed or viewed as fanciful, as well?

"All of the above," hon.


Meanwhile: Speaking in Tongues

(January 16, 2012 at 7:19 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: OK, so the Christian has two choices:

1. Believe that such magic is possible for mortals and that angels do get personally involved in real life, in which case you are so loony that there's no point in having a rational conversation with you.

2. Admit that the Book of Acts is kind of fanciful and shouldn't be regarded as a historical document.

And before anyone whines about my "prejudice against the supernatural", all I'm doing is operating by the same rules we all do in every day life. ECREE. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Since you don't lend the same credence to the supernatural claims of other religions, you should understand why I don't let such credence to yours.

I was born a Christian but off of religion for the last 45 years or so. I'll have to choose 2, not a historical document. *applause* What do I win?

Seriously, I just noticed that you label yourself an agnostic deist. That makes you a pretty rare bird and interesting as hell. Frankly I don't know why all theists and deists don't likewise claim agnosticism. "Faith" could mean something if it didn't come dressed up as certainty. Why don't more of them admit as you do that they have no more proof than anyone else and nonetheless affirm their intuition/hunch/whatever that there is .. something more. No one could really argue with that so long as you didn't want to go messing with the curriculum in the public schools.

(January 16, 2012 at 7:32 pm)aleialoura Wrote: And if the book of Acts can't be considered a historical document, then what other books of the bible should be dismissed or viewed as fanciful, as well?

Acts is IMHO the most egregious. The Gospels are mostly about the amazing acts of Jesus, a divine being. Granted, they also feature miracles performed by mortals through the power of their faith (most notably Mark 16:17-18) but it's mostly angels, Jesus and Yahweh performing magic.

I will grant that these are also fanciful claims but harder to actively disprove. To assert that mere mortals can work magic is one step beyond asserting the existence of some mysterious divine beings that have just as enigmatically become silent these days.

Deist Palidi Wrote:I will grant that these are also fanciful claims but harder to actively disprove. To assert that mere mortals can work magic is one step beyond asserting the existence of some mysterious divine beings that have just as enigmatically become silent these days.

But DP we have mere mortals performing "magic" everyday in the medical field alone. I am thinking that a clear definition of today's magic may be warranted??

"Magic is only something you don't understand"

Quote:"Magic is only something you don't understand"

Things which they do not understand is a vast category to xtian fuckheads.

(January 16, 2012 at 8:11 pm)whateverist Wrote: Seriously, I just noticed that you label yourself an agnostic deist. That makes you a pretty rare bird and interesting as hell. Frankly I don't know why all theists and deists don't likewise claim agnosticism. "Faith" could mean something if it didn't come dressed up as certainty. Why don't more of them admit as you do that they have no more proof than anyone else and nonetheless affirm their intuition/hunch/whatever that there is .. something more. No one could really argue with that so long as you didn't want to go messing with the curriculum in the public schools.

I've posted before on this forum that I have the mind of a skeptic and the heart of a believer (meaning an strongly instinctive conviction that I can't seem to shake and yet also can't rationally justify). Deism is the truce my mind has made with these instincts. Maybe I'm deluded. Maybe my instincts are on to something. It's all the same anyway as long as you acknowledge we live in a natural universe, whether or not there's any enigmatic mind behind its cause.

Lucent, a Christian apologist once asked what's the difference between his Christian beliefs and those of the deist. The difference is simple: it stops with me. I don't tell anyone what to think. I only try to be thought provoking. The universe is yours to make sense of as your mind sees fit.

It's not the belief in a god that is the problem for Islamo-Christianity. It's the belief in a Hell to "save" people from. So long as they really believe that Hell is a place where you really go if you haven't been "saved", there's no way this faith can co-exist peacefully with the rest of the world.

(January 16, 2012 at 8:34 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:"Magic is only something you don't understand"

Things which they do not understand is a vast category to xtian fuckheads.

Got it in one there Min. Just thinking a bit further... IF magic, magicians and charlatans are to be avoided by xtians as it is then in today's' world they cannot not HELP but "sin" every bloody minute of every day of their lives. And that is just them BEING religious.

(January 16, 2012 at 7:19 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Continuing the "Historical Documents! No, Really!" series, we now come to the Book of Acts.



OK, so the Christian has two choices:

1. Believe that such magic is possible for mortals and that angels do get personally involved in real life, in which case you are so loony that there's no point in having a rational conversation with you.

2. Admit that the Book of Acts is kind of fanciful and shouldn't be regarded as a historical document.

And before anyone whines about my "prejudice against the supernatural", all I'm doing is operating by the same rules we all do in every day life. ECREE. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Since you don't lend the same credence to the supernatural claims of other religions, you should understand why I don't let such credence to yours.

Hello. This message comes from Robert Bumbalough. I'm a strong or positive Atheist. The God of Classical Theism cannot exist. It is impossible. Please don't think I'm acting hateful due to my comments. I see problems with both the offered choices and the proffered pre-rebuttal.

Number one would be more appropriately worded if it directly invited the Bible inerrantist to step outside. Why taunt if the goal is to engage in reasoned dialogue? Getting Bible inerrantists to accept and own number two is a laudable goal. However, since evangelical and fundamentalist faiths function as Shibboleths guarding doorways into particular societies enmeshed in a cultural matrix roughly identified by religious acolytes-practitioners as Western Civilization, their cultural inertia will prompt them to recoil in horror from the raw suggestion of number two.

DeistPaladin's invocation of Sagan's extraordinary claims principle comes close to John Loftus' Outsider Test for Faith . The reader of Loftus' blog will notice how Christian believers who are Bible inerrantists will dodge the OTF and deny they have any responsibility to avoid employing a double epistemic standard, viz-a-vie comparison against other religious faiths, with a set of excuses that reduce to a) Christianity is the foundation of Western Civilization and the Renascence, and thus is self validating because Western Civilization is self validating; and b) that the inner witness of the Holy Spirit makes evangelical-fundamentalist-Bible inerrantist belief properly basic alleviating any need for evidentiary support. Using (a) and (b) to side step Sagan, they go on their merry, snarky way hurling passive aggressive smears at those pesky atheist folk. To get envangelical Bible inerrantist types, to accept option Two their defenses (a) and (b) would have to be undermined. I'm not qualified to undertake (a), but there is a strategy to accomplish (b).

I've recently read Prices "The Case Against The Case For Christ". On pages 181-184 Price presents a thorough refutation of C.S. Lewis' famous Trilemma argument. Evangelicals love the Trilemma. However, it presupposes the Heresy of Apollinaris of Laodicea. (Jesus had a human body, human soul, but had the Divine Mind Of the Logos Son.) Heresy is a serious Sin in Christian religions. Millions of Bible inerrantist, evangelical Christians have used the "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic" rejoinder without any conviction of guilt due to the Sin of Heresy via the alleged Holy Spirit. Neither did C.S. Lewis when he authored it. This in and of itself is strong evidence there is not any higher power at work in the lives of these people. Pointing out this as well as other alleged Sinful presuppositions in the thinking of Bible inerrantist, evangelical Christians seems to be a way to attack (b) as is the work of modern Neuro Science showing that all feelings a person experiences are the result of brain activity. Well, FWIW, that's what I think, and I've bored the reader for too long.

None of what I have just typed was intended as any sort of ad hominem or appeal to authority. If it comes off that way, I apologize. I generally like everyone I meet and tend to think the best of them. Many thanks to the reader and best wishes too.