Mark McFall, Part 2
Feedback discussions - Mark McFall, Part 2
----- Original Message -----
From: mark mcfall
To: Steve Locks <Steve Locks>
Sent: 11 January 2000 07:22
Subject: Re: Re:Communication
Steve wrote:
>Thanks for your reply. I appreciate your interest and thank you for your
calm
>approach. It is very easy in religious debates or discussions for tempers
to
>get raised which makes a mess of NGs like alt.christnet and alt.atheism. I
>have seen none of this from you and I commend you for it very much (and I
>commend myself too!)
Mark reply:
Thank you, I have learned heated (hot under the collar) discussions lead no
where. It seems you have learned this to.
Steve wrote:
>I am very pleased to dialogue with you as far as you want to go if you
wish.
>I also was in the "Xtianity" mailing list for a while and found it quite a
>civilised place. Unfortunately I had to leave as my wife said I was
>spending too much time on the computer (I still do!) and we just had a
child,
>but I think the sort of discussion I can have with you may well like be the
>good old days on the Xtianity list that I enjoyed so much.
Mark reply:
I have the problem too, I also have a young daughter and wife that are the
love of my life, and I need to remeber that when I come to check my e-mails
and there are 20 or so that interest me. Family must come first.
Steve wrote:
>No you are quite wrong. I think that if I am to avoid repeating myself you
>need to read my website carefully. I am not asking you to follow the
external
>links and end up reading the whole Internet (!) but you really must read
the
>stuff I have written if you want to know where I stand and some of why I
do.
>Then we can take it from there. It is not a lot of material and you can
>easily read it all in an evening. My own writings are on these following
>links - you don't have to follow any other hyperlinks within them to reach
>any of my stuff, it's all here. I recommend reading them in this order too,
>as it will build the most coherent picture.
>
>http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html
>http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/seek.html
>http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/posts.html
>http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/conversion_asymmetry.html
>http://www.eclipse.co.uk/thoughts/slocks.htm
>http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/feedback/henry_quon.html
>http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/feedback/kevnjoy.html
>http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/feedback/ron_greib.html
>http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/babble.html
Mark reply:
When you used the phrase "separate the Christ from faith from the Christ of
history", it was charectoristic of thier terminalogy and ideas (Jesus
Seminar). My mistake, I had not read your story.
Your story of your deconversion was well written, I felt like I was taking
that journey of your walk with you. There was allot of ground that you
covered, not to mention some of your positions on the Bible. I do not come
from the back ground that you have, and I do not hold to most of the views
of liberal's. I would classify myself as a conservitive (but please do not
make the same mistake I did in stereo typing) evangelical. Your story was
similar to those that I have read on the website "Walk Away".
Steve wrote:
The radicals are not quite so fringe as you may have been told. If you read
the link I gave you previously
http://www.infidels.org/secular_web/feature/1999/edelen03.html you will see
that radical Christians are common in the USA. In Britain where I live there
are many colleges where scholarship points to Christianity not being
supernatural. One such movement that started over here and is now world wide
is the Sea of Faith http://www.sofn.org.uk/
Mark reply:
Well not so fast. I visit some of the Jesus Siminar websites regulary and
they list their scholars, and their is not to many. Let me find their
address for you.....here it is
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~religion/jseminar/jsem.html the website name is
Jesus Siminar Forum (look for their list of Scholars).
I also am a member of the Society of Biblical Literature and I recieve all
kinds of mail for being on this list plus publishers from all different
theological positions. They also distribute a membership directory which
includes the American Academy of Religion, this directory has over 4,000
scholars in it (with their personal e-mail address's that I use regulary for
critique's or comments of articles that I have written), the membership
director does contain those people who are with-in the Jesus Siminar
movement, some of who have been even the president at one time. It is a
common consenses among the members that this is a small group. I speak from
having dialog experience, not what I've been told.
Steve wrote:
>Also you must remember that I and all the ex-Christians I know of have not
>had the anti-supernatural bias you mentioned when we were Christians.
>Although I myself was quite liberal, (I certainly didn't believe the bible
>was inerrant or in Adam and Eve, Noah's ark, Balaam's talking ass etc.) I
>did believe in the incarnation and resurrection, which made me a believer
in
>the supernatural.
Mark reply:
Although I do believe the Bible is as you put it "inerrant", I try not to
use this word in dialog. I do this because the Bible does not use the word,
instead it implies it. Because of this I let the Bible stand on it's own
ground and I let it defend it's self. I do my best to not speak where the
Bible does not speak, and speak where the Bible speaks. The Bible say's that
it is God's word, and because of this I study it with intense interest. The
Bible even says "(Timothy 2:15) Be diligent to present yourself approved to
God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the
word of truth." You may have experienced this when you were a Christian.
The old Adam and Eve story, like I said I do not hold to the liberal view. I
know from visiting website's like your self that the literal Adam and Eve
story is looked at like as a fairy tail and joke. I'm sorry but to contend
that the story of Adam and Eve -- and their fall into a constant state of
sin eventually terminated by death -- is simply a figurative allegory would
contradict the whole of Scripture in a devastating manner. First, if there
was no true fall, then there is no sin and therefore no need of the Savior
(Rom. 5.). The Bible, both in the old and new Testaments, is abundantly
clear that humankind is inherently sinful (Job 15:14; Ps 51:5; 58:3; 130:3;
Prov 20:9; Eccl 7:20,29; 9:3; Isa 53:5; 64:6 Eph 2:1-3; 1 Cor 2:14 etc..).
This sin, we are taught, is passed on to us through our first parent, Adam
(Rom 5:12-21). Because of this inborn condition, it is impossible for us to
live the perfect life that God demands of those who seek to be acceptable to
Him by their works (James 2:10). Due to our inability to save ourselves, God
chose to become a man (Isa 9:6; Rom 9:5), born of a virgin (Isa 7:14; Luke
1:31-35) in the city of Bethlehem, to live the perfect life that we can
never live and be crucified to atone for the sines of the world. And he then
rose from the dead on the third day in verification of His radical claims
and ministry. So you see, our hope of savation is rooted in a historically
verifiable Messiah (1 Cor 15:1-8), who according to Scripture, is a
descendant of Adam -- The literal first man (Luke 3:38). Furthermore, while
Scripture explicitly declares Jesus of Nazareth to be the one true God (1
John 5:20), this same Jesus affirms that both Adam and Eve were historical
figures when He references the murder of their son Abel (Matt 23:35).
Finally, both Adam and Eve are constantly referred to in Scripture as being
historical persons and not merely legends (Gen 2-5; Duet 32:8; 1 Chron 1:1;
Job 31:33 etc..).
So you see, if you cast aspersions on the historical record surrounding Adam
and Eve, you must also question the inspiration and authority of the Bible,
the genealogical and archaeological accuracy of Scripture, the problem of
sin, Christ's vicarious atonement, salvation by the grace of God alone, and
much more.
I've been laugh at before for holding this view. But you know what, that's
what the Bible teaches.
Steve wrote:
I think that ex-Christians are very honest researchers
>because we have come to a conclusion completely at variance with what we
once
>maintained.
Mark reply:
Are you saying Christians are not equally honest. And what about people who
set out to prove the Bible wrong to end being a believer. Like Simon
Greenleaf of Harvard University recongized as the leading authorty in the
Law's and evidences. He concluded that the Bible is in fact reliable.
Steve wrote:
Not only is the
>Jesus seminar much more sophisticated than your characterisation paints it,
>but the material I read does not take the starting point you criticise the
>Jesus seminar for at all. It is a very different kind of criticism, along
the
>lines of Steven Carr's summaries at
http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/gosp1.htm
>and http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/gosp2.htm If you read them you will get
a
>taste of the sort of difficulties with the claims you made before. This
does
>not rely on an a priori assumption about the impossibility of miracles at
>all. In fact none of the material I read during my deconversion was like
your
>characterisation of the Jesus seminar.
>
Mark reply:
I just disagree with you, are we talking about the same Jesus Simanar (Funk
and Borg etc...)
Steve wrote:
>Ha! I'm sorry but that is just too bizarre! I'm sure you were joking or
else
>the assumption that I should even be able to believe something I don't
>believe is just totally odd. Christians often paint belief as a choice. I
>fail to see the psychological possibility of this other than wilfully
>brainwashing oneself or trying to get hypnotised by Christianity. Surely
you
>don't see this as a way of finding things out?! Would you respond
positively
>to a Muslim or a Hare Krishna suggesting you get on their bike to find out
>that their beliefs are true? I do not think that willing oneself to believe
>things is either virtuous or responsible.
Mark reply:
Yes, not every body gets my jokes, some times I dont either. (smile)
Steve wrote:
>1) I do not think it is either virtuous or responsible to make oneself
>purposively believe things. We should have the decency to examine the
>arguments and test out our ideas. Our ideas about the world should
>only be "working hypotheses" if we are not to be arrogant and claim
>more than we really know.
Mark reply:
I agree.
Steve wrote:
>It is one thing to be a professed atheist, and quite another to be well
read
>before converting to Christianity (or another religion). Was Stroble a
member
>of an atheist organisation before he became a Christian? If he was then he
>was a mirror of the ex-ministers etc. that I have been looking for. If not
>then Stroble is just another Christian apologist. Nobody starts out life as
a
>Christian.
Mark reply:
I don't know if Lee was part of any organization. But one thing I do know
is, that knowbody starts life out as a professed (emphizing the professed)
Athiest.
Steve wrote:
>I didn't have the Internet in the 1980's but I did the same with books and
>friends in real life. Although not unknown, it is unfortunately less common
>for Christians in general to do what you are doing as far as I can gather
>from talking to them, my experience amongst Christians when I was one,
>and from surfing the Internet and reading their apologetics. It is common
>for sites critical of Christianity to link to pro-Christian sites. The
>opposite seems much rarer. There is even Christian software available
>that blocks sites critical of Christianity.
Mark reply:
Stand to Reason website does link to critical website's like Steve Carrs,
there address is http://www.str.org/index.htm . I believe there is a great
need for a ministry to people who have fallen out the back door of churches.
I believe it is my ministry to reach out and bring them back in, if they so
desire and are willing. I am not looking to reconvert you as you are not
looking to deconvert me, the chips may fall where they may.
Steve wrote:
Also if you have a website then please let me
>know. Otherwise if you wish to tell me why you became a Christian and what
>makes you think that your beliefs are valid then I would be pleased to
>discuss that also.
Mark reply:
I do not have a website "Yet". I do have a paper newsletter (12 pages), that
discusses different issues. It is free and my mailing list is growing all
the time. I call it "IN THE WORD" ministries, It is designed to reach people
like your self and provide solid research on difficult topics that challenge
the historic Christian faith. My list is growing all the time.
I have tried to create my own website but I do not have expertise. When I do
finally find a person who knows how to create a website, you will know. I
will attempt to be linked to websites that are similar to yours. And I will
be focusing on ex-Christians.
As for my story, I will have to tell you in another e-mail, it's late and
I'm tired.
Good night.
Mark
P.S. If I demonstrate to you that the NT is one of the most reliable pieces
of literature of antiquity, will you believe?
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Locks <Steve Locks>
To: mark mcfall
Sent: 12 January 2000 01:30
Subject: Re: Re:Communication
Hi Mark,
Thanks for your reply.
I hope our wives and children don't tell us off for all these emails....
You wrote:
<< Well not so fast. I visit some of the Jesus Siminar websites regulary and
they list their scholars, and their is not to many. >>
I don't think you understood my point. My point is that the Jesus seminar
are not the only biblical scholars who do not believe in supernatural
Christianity. I said this because you claimed that radicals are a small
fringe. There is more than one group of radicals, and more countries
to count them in than the USA. You may also add all the
ministers/apologists/theologians etc. who deconvert to the list of biblical
scholars who do not believe in supernatural Christianity.
I said you should read
http://www.infidels.org/secular_web/feature/1999/edelen03.html where you will
see that radical Christians are common in the USA and that they become
radical due to what they learn in Seminary. I repeat that in Britain, where I
live, there are many colleges where scholarship points to Christianity not
being supernatural. One such movement that started over here and is now world
wide is the Sea of Faith http://www.sofn.org.uk/ I also have lists from
organisations from other parts of the world that include ex-professional
Christians. Many atheist/freethought organisations have a significant number
of ex well-churched Christians. What do you say to this? Why do so many
well-churched Christians end up leaving Christianity? I have asked
this quite a few times now.
There is something else that struck me as odd about a point in your
previous email where you were asking if I had been influenced by
the Jesus seminar. You asked:
<< They rule out the possibility of the supernatural from the
beginning, and then they say, "NOW BRING ON THE EVIDENCE ABOUT JESUS".
Steve have you done this? >>
On reflection this doesn't make any sense. How could I, as a Christian at the
time, first rule out the supernatural and then use that to investigate if
Christianity is true? I would have to deconvert before I started my
deconversion!
If the Jesus seminar was a mere crass stripping away of the supernatural
parts to see what is left then why was the conservative apologist I spoke to
on the ex-tian mailing list deconverted by the Jesus seminar and the source
critics of the Pentateuch? Why would any Christian take any notice of a bunch
of people who merely say "the supernatural does not exist, now let's see
what's left of Christianity?" No Christian would have given them a second
thought. Can you see that there must be more to it than this, and just maybe
there is a more sophisticated argument that you may have missed?
Anyway, enough about the Jesus seminar as it had nothing to do with the
evolution of my thought. I still want to know why your belief in the gospels
being eyewitness accounts is not demolished by points such as those made by
Steven Carr at http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/gosp1.htm
and http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/gosp2.htm which, as I said, are a subset
of the information I read during my deconversion.
I am also waiting for answers to many of the other points I have
made in my emails. If you are going to ignore what I write, then I will
eventually loose interest in writing to you after all despite my desire for a
conversation to the end, I'm afraid. We will not get to the bottom of
anything if I am just sending emails into the ether without a response to
these points.
You wrote:
<< The Bible say's that it is God's word, and because of this I study it with
intense interest. >>
Surely you see the circular argument here? I can't be the first person to
point this out to you. Why don't you study all the myriads of other holy
books that claim to be the words of a deity? Special pleading like this is so
common in Christian apologetics.
You wrote that you believe in Adam and Eve and that without it the whole of
Christianity fails since the atonement is contingent on a literal fall and
the people in the bible had this literal belief. I used to be happy with
a mythic interpretation, but later I came to your conclusion and I
understand why creationists and biblical literalists get so upset
about evolution. Indeed Christianity is fatally flawed if the Adam
and Eve thing never happened.
But it is indeed a myth.
Here are some resources for you. I know that creationists can still spend a
lot of time trying to harmonise their beliefs with the world around them, but
you must surely be able to see why the arguments for literal belief in such
events are absurd? Visit these places:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/stumpers.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fabnaq.html
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/9917/evolution/evolve.html
http://www.iup.edu/~rgendron/bi112-a.htmlx
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9094/bbashers.html
and for Noah's Ark read this
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/noahs_ark.html
I have read creationists websites and they are the poorest arguments I have
ever read.
I really do want you to explain how you can justify literal biblical belief
in the face of this evidence. Maybe you should join the talk.origins NG. I am
sorry that I have given you URLs rather than go into all this personally, but
to be so unaware of the findings of science and the crass absurdity of
stories like Adam and Eve and Noah's ark leaves me somewhat bemused. If you
can't see why these stories are not true, then how am I going to be able to
communicate with you? We must live on such different planets. I don't mean
to sound rude here, I'm sorry. It is just that I feel at a loss to know how
to communicate across such a gulf. Nevertheless, I'll try.
It seems you believe all this because it is in the bible. One way to discover
that the bible is mistaken is to become educated in its gross flaws about the
natural world.
You said
<< Are you saying Christians are not equally honest. >>
My point was that ex-Christians must be honest if we have faced such a
radical and often painful readjustment. If we wanted to hide from the world
then we could have avoided skeptical thought. I commended you on your
reading of the other side of the argument, although from what you write
elsewhere it seems your motives are not to find out who is right but to
sharpen your evangelism as you see yourself as a Christian missionary to
prodigal children like myself. That might be slightly less honest than the
quest I was on as a Christian since it is not a quest for truth, but a quest
for Christian converts.
However there is a lot of rather blatant dishonesty amongst some Christians.
Read this lot
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/crs-creed.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-whoppers.html
you wrote:
<< And what about people who set out to prove the Bible wrong
to end being a believer. Like Simon Greenleaf of Harvard University
recongized as the leading authorty in the Law's and evidences. He
concluded that the Bible is in fact reliable. >>
Again, please can I have their credentials in sceptical knowledge before they
became Christians. How does this balance with the large number of ministers,
apologists etc. who convert? You still haven't answered how you think this
can be so.
You wrote:
<< Steve wrote:
Not only is the
>Jesus seminar much more sophisticated than your characterisation paints it,
>but the material I read does not take the starting point you criticise the
>Jesus seminar for at all. It is a very different kind of criticism, along
the
>lines of Steven Carr's summaries at
http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/gosp1.htm
>and http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/gosp2.htm If you read them you will get
a
>taste of the sort of difficulties with the claims you made before. This
does
>not rely on an a priori assumption about the impossibility of miracles at
>all. In fact none of the material I read during my deconversion was like
your
>characterisation of the Jesus seminar.
>
Mark reply:
I just disagree with you, are we talking about the same Jesus Simanar (Funk
and Borg etc...) >>
I'm afraid you misunderstand me. I am saying here that the material that has
gone into the list of influences that convinced me that Christianity is
mistaken, is independent of the Jesus seminar. The Jesus seminar assumptions
that you complained of have nothing to do with
http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/gosp1.htm and
http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/gosp2.htm whereas these writings are like the
material that influenced me. Please reply to the criticisms at these pages as
they are directly relevant to your claim that the NT is reliable and based on
eyewitness accounts. It would be enlightening to see you formally debate Carr
on this since you claim repeatedly that the gospels are reliable historical
eyewitness accounts, using the kind of arguments I have seen demolished (I
gave references).
You said:
<< I don't know if Lee was part of any organization. But one thing I do know
is, that knowbody starts life out as a professed (emphizing the professed)
Athiest. >>
Of course. Do you not think that if he was a past member of an atheist
organisation then he would have said so?
You said:
<< Stand to Reason website does link to critical website's like Steve
Carrs >>
You've missed my point. I said although some Christian sites do link
to sceptical sites, the proportion of Christian sites that do this is a
lot smaller than the converse. Also some Christian organisations actually
block access to sceptical thought. This implies hiding from free debate,
which is behaviour indicative of fear of knowledge. If Christianity was
secure then there would be no need for censorship.
<< I believe there is a great
need for a ministry to people who have fallen out the back door of churches.
I believe it is my ministry to reach out and bring them back in, if they so
desire and are willing. I am not looking to reconvert you as you are not
looking to deconvert me, the chips may fall where they may. >>
Be honest - do you really mean that you are not seeking to convert me? I am
writing to you for primarily the benefit or readers to my website. For this
reason I will stop if you do not address the points I make. Of course, I
think it would be of enormous enrichment to you if you made the discovery
that Christianity was mistaken, but I am not on any particular mission to
deconvert you, other than I do worry for the people you may mislead. I take
it you don't direct people to skeptical argument so they can get a balanced
opinion when you evangelise? You will note in my first email to you that I
gave you a Christian site and some middle of the road sites to read amongst
my references. Also many of the URLs I have given since link to Christian
sites.
<< P.S. If I demonstrate to you that the NT is one of the most reliable
pieces of literature of antiquity, will you believe? >>
See what I mean about my suspicions of your real intentions? Does it make you
uncomfortable to think that I will be in hell while you are enjoying heaven?
Personally I hope to go to hell if there is one, as consciousness of the
moral horror of being in heaven whilst hell exists is a far worse punishment.
Anyway, there is still a misunderstanding here of what I previously wrote.
Why do you ask "If I demonstrate...will you believe?" How is honest belief a
choice? Again, I am repeating my questions to you. If I ever become convinced
that Christianity is true then of course I will believe it to be true. How
can I do anything else other than believe things that
convince me!
Sadly some Christians have said that if Christianity is false, they
didn't want to know. So I ask you a better phrased question: If Christianity
is false, would you like to know that?
As I said, I am primarily writing to you for the benefit or readers to my
website. For this reason I will stop if you do not address the points I
make. Without addressing these points you will not be writing about
the issues that make people leave Christianity. This will also not help
you in your evangelism as ex-Christians will not be interested in
someone who ignores their questions.
I suggest you read back through what we have written to each other so far,
and fill in the gaps. Please take your time and read some of the URLs I have
sent, otherwise I can't see how you are going to maintain my interest, I'm
afraid.
Tough emails, I know, but we both knew it wouldn't be light work discussing
this (we haven't called each other anything rude yet!)
Regards,
Steve
----------------
Leaving Christianity (hundreds of deconversion stories):
----- Original Message -----
From: mark mcfall
To: Steve Locks <Steve Locks>
Sent: 12 January 2000 09:51
Subject: Re: Re:Communication
Steve wrote:
What do you say to this? Why do so many
>well-churched Christians end up leaving Christianity? I have asked
>this quite a few times now.
Mark wrote:
I can't answer that. I have'nt experienced that. This question seems to be a
question that you must have an answered for. What I do know is, no amount of
evidence is going to substitute for a personal relationship with the Lord.
Without that personal relationship it is only a "said faith". Example: I
know plenty of people who while standing at the alter said "I do", they have
at that moment committed their lives to their wife, they may be married for
years, and then they get a divorce. The question immedietly arrise why? They
have spent years together building a relationship to suddenly part, what
happend? The answer is they slowly failed to Communicate with each other, to
the point that they did not care about each other and fell out of love.
Luckly the living Lord of the Universe does not change, he will always be
there. As far as us, we change, without a relationship with the Lord why
would you stay committed to him.
Steve wrote:
I still want to know why your belief in the gospels
>being eyewitness accounts is not demolished by points such as those made by
>Steven Carr at http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/gosp1.htm
Marks reply: Lets talk about Carr's article, Steve Carr writes:
But were they eyewitnesses?
This raises some interesting questions. Why would an eyewitness like Matthew
need to use ninety percent of somebody else's book? Why would Luke, a
companion of Paul, need to use a written source like Mark? If Luke knew Paul
and Paul knew Peter, and Peter told Paul many stories about Jesus, then Luke
could have written about Jesus from what he himself had heard, rather than
relying on second or third-hand information.
Even if it seems that Matthew and Luke were relying on written third or
fourth hand testimony, all is not lost if Christians can show that Mark was
based on eye-witness testimony. Then the Gospels would be based on
eyewitness reports. Perhaps they had gone through one or two people before
Matthew and Luke retold the stories, but there would still be a connection
between the disciples and the Gospel writers.
Mark reply:
The oldest and probably most significant testimony comes from Papias, who in
about A.D. 125 specifically affirmed that Mark had carefully and accurately
recorded Peter's eywitness observations. In fact, he said Mark 'made no
mistake' and did not include 'any false statement.' And Papias said Matthew
had preserved the teachings of Jesus as well.
Then Irenaeus, writing about A.D. 180, confirmed the traditional authorship.
Let's read Irenaeus for our selves:
"Matthew published his own Gospel among the Hebrews in their own tongue,
when Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel in Rome and founding the
church there. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of
Peter, himself handed down to us in writing the substance of Peter's
preaching. Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the Gospel
preached by his teacher. Then John, the disciple of the Lord, who also
leaned on his breast, himself produced his Gospel while he was living at
Ephesus in Asia". (Irenaeus, Adversus haereses 3.3.4.)
So, in answer to both of you Steve's. If we can have confidence that the
gospels were written by the disciples Matthew and John, by Mark, the
companion of the disciple Peter, and by Luke, the historian, companion of
Paul, we can be assured that the events they record are based on either
direct or indirect eyewitness testimony.
Steve Carr continues his writting:
Was Mark's Gospel based on an eyewitness?
This has always been the traditional Christian view. Eusebius, writing in
the 4th century, quotes Papias, writing in the 2nd century as saying "Mark,
having become Peter's interpreter, wrote down accurately whatever he
remembered of what was said or done by the Lord, however not in order." So
it seems that the evidence that Mark's Gospel was based on Peter's witness
is a quote centuries later, of a lost work, by someone who gives no
arguments or explanation as to why we should assume that he was correct.
But was he correct? Was the author of Mark's Gospel a companion of Peter and
therefore either an Aramaic-speaking Jew from Palestine, or at least someone
who had a good knowledge of Aramaic and Judaism and Palestine?
Marks reply:
It only makes sense if Mark was indeed basing his account on the
recollections of the eyewitness Peter. Peter was among the inner circle of
Jesus and was privy to seeing and hearing things that other disciples
didn't. So it would make sense for Matthew, even though he was an
eyewitness, to rely on Peter's version of events as transmitted through
Mark.
Steve Carr and Steve Locks continues:
and http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/gosp2.htm which, as I said, are a subset
>of the information I read during my deconversion.
Luke's Gospel (Carrs website)
It is generally agreed that the author of Luke was a companion of Paul.
Perhaps he was actually called Luke. If he wasn't, Luke would still be as
good a name as any. Being a companion of Paul, he would have learned all the
things about Jesus that Paul wrote in his letters. Unfortunately, Paul wrote
nothing about the historical Jesus of Nazareth and seemed to care less. Luke
used Mark's Gospel. Unfortunately, Mark's Gospel is not written by someone
close to the eyewitnesses of Jesus. Perhaps Luke interviewed the
eyewitnesses himself?
(Mark short reply: Wrong, Luke used Paul not Mark, as I've demonstrated
above)
If Luke was written after Mark and as even the earliest Christians
acknowledged that Mark was written after Peter's death, then Luke would have
had trouble intervewing eyewitnesses. Besides, Luke knew very little Aramaic
and shows little knowledge of Judaea.
Marks reply:
This would be correct if it were the case, again Luke used Paul as his
source.
Steve wrote:
>I am also waiting for answers to many of the other points I have
>made in my emails. If you are going to ignore what I write, then I will
>eventually loose interest in writing to you after all despite my desire for
a
>conversation to the end, I'm afraid. We will not get to the bottom of
>anything if I am just sending emails into the ether without a response to
>these points.
Mark reply:
We need to limit, the amount of topics, please be pacific in which one's you
want me to respond to. The amount of material we are covering takes to much
time, in thinking, researching, and typing. I give up on the Jesus Siminar
dialog sense you are not a product of it, and it's not productive.
Steve wrote:
>Here are some resources for you. I know that creationists can still spend a
>lot of time trying to harmonise their beliefs with the world around them,
but
>you must surely be able to see why the arguments for literal belief in such
>events are absurd? Visit these places:
>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/stumpers.html
>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fabnaq.html
>http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/9917/evolution/evolve.html
>http://www.iup.edu/~rgendron/bi112-a.htmlx
>http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9094/bbashers.html
>and for Noah's Ark read this
>http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/noahs_ark.html
>
>I have read creationists websites and they are the poorest arguments I have
>ever read.
>
Mark reply:
I have read in talk origins, I have also been to Dr. Gish's Siminars, and I
have seen him in debates at universities. Let me tell you something, talk
origins can write what ever they want on their particular view of the
evidence, but when It comes to examining the evidence face to face with Dr.
Gish in one on one formant in front of thousands of people at universities,
you start to see holes in the talk origins views.
Steve reply:
>I really do want you to explain how you can justify literal biblical belief
>in the face of this evidence. Maybe you should join the talk.origins NG. I
am
>sorry that I have given you URLs rather than go into all this personally,
but
>to be so unaware of the findings of science and the crass absurdity of
>stories like Adam and Eve and Noah's ark leaves me somewhat bemused. If you
>can't see why these stories are not true, then how am I going to be able to
>communicate with you? We must live on such different planets. I don't mean
>to sound rude here, I'm sorry. It is just that I feel at a loss to know how
>to communicate across such a gulf. Nevertheless, I'll try.
Mark reply:
Thats funny I feel exactly the same in the opposite. How can you hold to
such views in an age of scientific enlightment? We are both looking at the
same evidence with different eyes. Who are you to say that your eyes are
better than mine? Maybe it's because there is nothing to look at, you know
"transitional forms". Huum, there is just no evidence here to look at is
there.
Steve wrote:
><< P.S. If I demonstrate to you that the NT is one of the most reliable
>pieces of literature of antiquity, will you believe? >>
>
>See what I mean about my suspicions of your real intentions? Does it make
you
>uncomfortable to think that I will be in hell while you are enjoying
heaven?
>Personally I hope to go to hell if there is one, as consciousness of the
>moral horror of being in heaven whilst hell exists is a far worse
punishment.
Mark reply:
Interesting way to answer. Just destroy the question. I think you have
fallen prey to what you have accussed me of. Please answer the question yes
or no. If your answer is no, then you don't have a problem with mind, but
with your will. By destroying the question you have demonstrated to me that
your answer is no. In other words don't confuse me with the facts.
Steve wrote:
>Sadly some Christians have said that if Christianity is false, they
>didn't want to know. So I ask you a better phrased question: If
Christianity
>is false, would you like to know that?
Mark reply:
Absolutly Positively Yes. You must be able to demonstrate to me that the
historic Christian faith is false. I have never been afraid of reading
critical material and I'm not going to stop now. I have read age of Reason,
and Why I am not a Christian, ect.. Do you have new evidence something that
I may have missed?
I know I have not cover other areas that you have called me on, but there is
simply to many. We need to have one focus per e-mail. Example: We have
discussed the Jesus Siminar, creation, Adam and Eve, the Gospels, the
historicity of Jesus Christ, early writings etc.. It's to broad, we must
have a focus if we are going to communicate.
So far I see a good starting point for the next e-mail, my last question and
yours. You may proceed to answer my question yes or no and then move on to
demonstrate Christianity is false.
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Locks <Steve Locks>
To: mark mcfall
Sent: 13 January 2000 00:43
Subject: Re: Re:Communication
Dear Mark,
It looks like things are getting tense. Please don't get upset, or feel the
need to answer my emails the next day. I won't think you can't answer if I
don't hear immediately. Maybe you are having dinner with your wife that
evening!
<< Steve wrote:
>What do you say to this? Why do so many
>well-churched Christians end up leaving Christianity? I have asked
>this quite a few times now.
Mark wrote:
I can't answer that. I have'nt experienced that. >>
You don't need to experience it. This is a fact of the world and I have
presented some of the evidence on my website. Thousands of well-churched and
committed Christians leaving Christianity is completely at variance with
Jesus' promise that "all who seek will find." Thus Christianity is false.
Jesus' promises fail.
<< The question immedietly arrise why? They
have spent years together building a relationship to suddenly part, what
happend? The answer is they slowly failed to Communicate with each other, to
the point that they did not care about each other and fell out of love. >>
Why are you writing this if you read
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/seek.html not to mention my
deconversion story on my home page and all the other stories I have
collected? This is not an accurate portrayal at all. I think it may say
something for how you are filtering the sceptical material that you read. The
person who does not communicate is god. Many Christians try ever so hard
to have the relationship you talk of, but one of the partners is completely
silent. Also the vast majority of us do not leave because we "fall out of
love with God" (actually, I have found no stories like that for my website)
but rather because we come to the conclusion that we were believing
something which is not true.
Trying to build a relationship with a silent and neglectful partner is not
love. Christians jump through hoops for their god and their beliefs,
engineering experiences and emotions whilst the cool reality is that
there is silence at the other end. Christians blame themselves if they feel
something is going wrong in their Christian lives or their heartfelt and
anxious prayers are not answered, rather than blame or question the
existence of the silent god who leaves them to suffer the worst that
life can throw at them. This is exactly how abused and neglected wives
behave regarding their husbands until they either wake up or are helped
to see the relationship for the non-relationship that it is.
<< Luckly the living Lord of the Universe does not change >>
According to the bible God changes quite quickly:
"For I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger forever."
(Jeremiah 3:12)
"Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn forever." (Jeremiah
17:4)
<< he will always be there. >>
Tell me, where was God at Auschwitz? Where was God as people were hung on
barbed wire and shot in the genitals for target practise? Were was God when
the little boy who innocently asked a SS guard if anyone escapes was thrown
to the floor and murdered by having dirt shoved down his throat with
sticks? Where is God when people die in plane crashes, hurricanes, car
crashes, through silly accidents? Where is God when relationships go wrong
through a misunderstanding that a wiser person could have explained and
counselled people through? Where is God now and why isn't he making himself
plain to me? Why isn't he making himself even remotely plausible to me!
<< The oldest and probably most significant testimony comes from Papias,
who in about A.D. 125 specifically affirmed that Mark had carefully and
accurately recorded Peter's eywitness observations. >>
It is irrelevant what some ancient author purportedly claims about a
manuscript when the manuscript in question is shown not to be written by an
eyewitness because the so called eyewitness makes glaring errors about
what his eyes should have seen!
<< So, in answer to both of you Steve's. If we can have confidence
that the gospels were written by the disciples Matthew and John, by
Mark, the companion of the disciple Peter, and by Luke, the historian,
companion of Paul, we can be assured that the events they record
are based on either direct or indirect eyewitness testimony. >>
If I say that King Harold was killed by a bullet in the eye and someone later
writes that I was an eyewitness would you believe that I was one? The fact
that it was impossible for Harold to be killed by a bullet because guns were
not invented should tell you that I was not an eyewitness despite the
authority of the later writer. Likewise the fact that Mark makes glaring
errors about the Jewish world shows that he was not an eyewitness despite a
later ancient writer claiming he was!
Just because the bible claims that it is true or someone else makes that
claim is useless as evidence. As I said, I doubt you would accept this from a
Muslim about their religion. Here's a religion I have just invented - I am
God. How do you know I am God? Because it says so in verse 1 and God wouldn't
lie.
<< (Mark short reply: Wrong, Luke used Paul not Mark, as I've demonstrated
above) >>
How did you demonstrate this? How did Luke use Paul when Paul mentions no
gospel narrative?
<< Mark reply:
We need to limit, the amount of topics, please be pacific in which one's you
want me to respond to. The amount of material we are covering takes to much
time, in thinking, researching, and typing. >>
You don't need to answer each email the very next day. Take your time. Go
through my emails and look for the points you haven't tackled and take them
one at a time.
<< I give up on the Jesus Siminar
dialog sense you are not a product of it, and it's not productive. >>
I agree, the conversation was a red herring.
<< Mark reply:
I have read in talk origins, I have also been to Dr. Gish's Siminars, and I
have seen him in debates at universities. Let me tell you something, talk
origins can write what ever they want on their particular view of the
evidence, but when It comes to examining the evidence face to face with Dr.
Gish in one on one formant in front of thousands of people at universities,
you start to see holes in the talk origins views. >>
What holes? I'd like to hear your ideas on this. I have read a few debates
between creationists and evolutionists and the creationist is always
trounced. Even the creationist websites are desperately ill-informed and
error ridden that I have read. Tell me what the good arguments you have heard
are. If ex-Christians have to swallow creationism in order to be Christians,
because as you said the whole thing fails if the Adam and Eve
story is a fable, then you might as well be preaching that the moon is made
of cheese, I'm afraid, unless you really can squash the mountain of evidence
for the best documented, most compelling and exciting concepts in all of
science. Have you had any successful conversions of ex-Christians?
<< Mark reply:
Thats funny I feel exactly the same in the opposite. How can you hold to
such views in an age of scientific enlightment? We are both looking at the
same evidence with different eyes. Who are you to say that your eyes are
better than mine? Maybe it's because there is nothing to look at, you know
"transitional forms". Huum, there is just no evidence here to look at is
there. >>
So you think "transitional forms" are holes! Why do we have toes, blood
vessels in front of our retinas, and appendices? Why are our bodies covered
in little hairs that stand up uselessly when we are cold? You and I
*are* transitional forms!
Here are some more transitional forms for you: Australopithecus afarensis,
with its apelike palate, its human upright stance, and a cranial capacity
larger than any ape's of the same body size but a full 1000 cc below ours. If
God made each of the half-dozen human species discovered in ancient rocks,
why did he create in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more
modern features - increasing cranial capacity, reduced face and teeth, larger
body size? How does that fit with Adam and Eve?
Surely you also know about Eohippus (correct name "Hyracotherium") they were
little horse like animals no larger than a terrier. They had moderately long,
slender limbs with only 4 toes in the forefoot and 3 in the hindfoot, all
equipped with hooves. The molars had low, rounded cusps and the premolars
were simple. They disappeared from the fossil record in the Eocene where we
start to see a slightly different animals, the Orohippus and Epihippus. They
are known only for minor advances from the Hyracotherium, such as the
development of a molar configuration in two premolars. Then in the
Oligocene three toed horses appear in the fossil record. Mesohippus,
Miohippus and others. More transitional jaw development - all of the
premolars were similar to the molars, low-crowned but rigid. Then we see
larger horses with teeth further developed for grazing, changing the pattern
of the crests on the surface and increasing their grinding efficiency. The
teeth also became high crowned which would have given them a good
grinding surface. Then cement came to supplement the dentine and
enamel forming the teeth of the earlier types, and provided additional
material to resist abrasion.
I hope you can see that evolution is a well documented fact with transitional
forms. This does not fit with the creationism and hence the Adam and Eve
thing did not happen and Christianity is false. You said that you wanted to
know if Christianity is false. There are many ways to show it to you, and you
do not have to spend all your life trying to find historical evidence that
God has not made very compelling. There is enough evidence already
here to show you that you are making a mistake.
You wrote
<< P.S. If I demonstrate to you that the NT is one of the most reliable
pieces of literature of antiquity, will you believe? >>
In response to this question and in conjunction with your previous statement
about not wanting to convert me I replied:
<<See what I mean about my suspicions of your real intentions? Does it make
you uncomfortable to think that I will be in hell while you are enjoying
heaven?
Personally I hope to go to hell if there is one, as consciousness of the
moral horror of being in heaven whilst hell exists is a far worse
punishment. >>
You replied to this:
<< Interesting way to answer. Just destroy the question. I think you have
fallen prey to what you have accussed me of. Please answer the question yes
or no. If your answer is no, then you don't have a problem with mind, but
with your will. By destroying the question you have demonstrated to me that
your answer is no. In other words don't confuse me with the facts. >>
It looks like I've got you very angry now. I don't know why you think I've
"destroyed the question" when I went on to say:
<< If I ever become convinced that Christianity is true then of course
I will believe it to be true. How can I do anything else other than
believe things that convince me! >>
That is a direct and positive yes answer to your question. I'm sorry I got
you riled. We both knew this would be tough and I fully intend to speak
plainly. You don't need to take it personally as I am criticising an idea,
not you personally who I hardly know. I was also trying to make a serious
point about the immorality of Christian theology of hell. I felt there was a
tie in with something you wrote at the time, but maybe the link was weak and
so it just looked like I was being unfair. I apologise.
I asked in return:
<< If Christianity is false, would you like to know that? >>
Mark reply:
<< Absolutly Positively Yes. You must be able to demonstrate to me that the
historic Christian faith is false. I have never been afraid of reading
critical material and I'm not going to stop now. I have read age of Reason,
and Why I am not a Christian, ect.. Do you have new evidence something that
I may have missed? >>
Good, I do keep commending you on your wide reading of the other side of the
argument and I'm not being sarcastic when I say so. I think that you actually
already have enough evidence but there is be something else going on here
that is about more than just evidence. When I deconverted the moments
just before and just after deconversion did not see me with different
knowledge, just different perceptions based on what I already knew.
Deconverting is like solving a complex puzzle. You can have all the facts
in front of you for a long time before they click into place. You must
remember too that we are rich psychological animals and you will have
a complex, heavily invested Christian past. It is unlikely that you will be
able to appreciate the evidence straight away. This is a very common
deconversion experience, and some people never do deconvert, just
as some never see the solution to the jigsaw in front of them. This
experience is not confined to religious matters, but it is usually
more complex in something as emotional and heavily invested as religion.
<< I know I have not cover other areas that you have called me on, but there
is simply to many. We need to have one focus per e-mail. >>
Unless you have anything burning about what I have written in this email, I
suggest we discuss Adam and Eve next, since you said that Christianity
stands or falls on this one.
<< So far I see a good starting point for the next e-mail, my last question
and yours. You may proceed to answer my question yes or no and then
move on to demonstrate Christianity is false. >>
It was not too clear what you meant here, but if you mean "would you become a
Christian if the evidence convinced you" then the answer is of course yes, it
can be no other. Also if Christianity is true, then I want to know that. I
want to know as much about the real world as can be known.
As for demonstrating that Christianity is false, I think I have already shown
that evolution (with transitional forms) is a fact of the world. I could
write much more on this if you are not convinced. This shows that the
Adam and Eve story did not happen and hence Christianity is false. I
have also shown that the theology of Jesus knocking on the door and
that we only have to open it is false through my stories from so many
well-churched and sincere Christians. This also shows a central
claim of Christianity to be false. I cannot say "will you now deconvert"
as it is not up to your conscious will to decide which is true, but rather
subject to how you perceive what I write, which I can not predict with any
certainty.
Take it easy - be direct, but don't let me upset you.
Regards,
Steve
----------------
Leaving Christianity (hundreds of deconversion stories):
Continued... This conversation is temporarily concluded here where things got even hotter!