Re: [asa] Grains among the chaff (skimming the 'God Delusion')

From: Merv <mrb22667@kansas.net>
Date: Mon Mar 31 2008 - 07:59:12 EDT

Come on, Michael! The only part of this that may merit a 'yawn', is
probably that theologians have long had answers to it worked out
(whether they be valid or not.) And maybe I'm just being lazy by not
seeking commentaries for information that is no doubt, easy to find, but
I find a better dynamic in play here. Like Iain insinuated, some
assumptions Christians have always wanted to "protect" deserve to be
poked at, and should be. If they are true, then they endure the
poking. If they aren't, then we have no business mixing them in with
what actually is important truth. Since I still hover on various issues
such as what infallibility or inerrant mean, these are live issues for
me. I don't subscribe to blanket literalism either, but I do take
infallibility as an important part of faith. And I wrestle with what
that means sometimes.

It wasn't for naught that I titled the subject "grains among chaff"
---referring to Dawkins' work. Sure, for somebody who claims to follow
evidence, he peppers his work with some embarrassing eye-poppers like
'...if Jesus (or David) ever existed...' but that doesn't mean that
all the other age-old skepticisms he parrots don't deserve an answer.

And as Iain already put it so well, What the heck did any of this
have to do with Darwin!!!!????

--Merv

Michael Roberts wrote:
> Yawn.
>
> There are considerable inconsistencies between events described in
> Darwin's notes and letters and in his own autobiography and many of
> his biographies. (I found a good number on his early life)
>
> Are we to conclude from that that Darwin never lived?
>
> Michael
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Merv <mailto:mrb22667@kansas.net>
> *To:* asa@calvin.edu <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
> *Sent:* Monday, March 31, 2008 6:16 AM
> *Subject:* [asa] Grains among the chaff (skimming the 'God Delusion')
>
> At our public library, finding its two A. McGrath's holdings
> ("D.Delusion & Twilight of Atheism), I also saw Dawkins' "God
> Delusion" (three shiny copies!) right next to them and couldn't
> resist.
>
> Now, after having skimmed it (Dawkins' book) at home looking for
> anything that might be interesting or genuinely insightful, I did
> find one question that provoked me to look into something in
> Scriptures. He finds in the Matthew and Luke accounts of Jesus'
> childhood obviously contradictory accounts regarding childhood
> travels. Here, any such interest as Dawkins may have purported to
> have stops, since to him this is only one more 'incoherence' of
> scripture. But my interest is piqued. Here is what Dawkins'
> said that caught my attention (p. 93) I'll just summarize it.
>
> Dawkins writes to this effect:
>
> ...that Luke has Mary & Joseph living in Nazareth, traveling to
> Bethlehem, fleeing to Egypt, and then returning to Nazareth after
> Herod dies. Whereas Matthew has the family living in Bethlehem
> all along. (I guess D. gets this from Matt 2:19-23 which seem to
> suggest that Nazareth was an unplanned arrival point rather than a
> home returned to.)
> Dawkins also states that Luke's claim about the Roman census,
> which can be independently verified, shows the whole Luke account
> to be a fabrication since the only census that occurred was a
> local one, and was too late for Luke's purposes, being in AD 6
> after Herod's death.
>
> All this made me wonder how theologians have answered (or not
> answered) some of this, or if Dawkins' facts are just plain wrong
> (His other assertions about Scripture that I ran across were light
> weight --- he can pontificate on how, even in the N.T., Jewish
> morality and decency towards 'neighbors' meant only 'fellow Jews'
> with nary a mention of Jesus' teaching of the good Samaritan so
> far as I could find.)
>
> But sorting out the childhood travels of the holy family I find
> more interesting:
> Matthew states that immediately after the magi visit (to the
> /house/ in Bethlehem), the holy family fled to Egypt. So why
> does Luke never mention the flight to Egypt, but makes it sound
> like they return forthwith to Nazareth after the circumcision
> (eighth day) and purification rites in Jerusalem? What are the
> developed answers theologians have given to these over the ages?
>
> I don't raise these questions in the same spirit as Dawkins does
> (indeed, to him they are not questions at all) Unlike him, I am
> actually interested in the truth. So are his challenges actually
> real ones here? I should probably go and review the astronomical
> Star of Bethlehem project again, if I could find it. It seemed
> he had quite a bit to say about some timelines that may have
> answered this.
>
> (I pasted in Dawkin's actual paragraphs on this below for the
> curious.)
>
> --Merv
> p.s. Dave Opderbec, thanks for the A.McGrath suggestion; he
> looks like an excellent author, and I'll be reading his work now too.
>
> p.p.s. (from a 'Pontius Puddle' religious cartoon):
> Said parishioner to Pontius: "How was Sunday school this morning?"
> Replied Pontius: "Great! I scuttled two shallow convictions,
> exposed three misconceptions, and crushed one individual's entire
> belief system!"
> Parting remark of parishioner: "I had no idea religion could be
> such a contact sport!"
>
>
> Actual paragraphs from Dawkins' (er - excuse me) "God Delusion" p. 93
>
> Matthew and Luke handle the problem differently, by deciding that
> Jesus must have been born in Bethlehem after all. But they get
> him there by different routes. Matthew has Mary and Joseph in
> Bethlehem all along, moving to Nazareth only long after the birth
> of Jesus, on their return from Egypt where they fled from King
> Herod and the massacre of the innocents. Luke, by contrast,
> acknowledges that Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth before Jesus
> was born. So how to get them to Bethlehem at the crucial moment,
> in order to fulfill the prophecy? Luke says that, in the time
> when Cyrenius (Quirinius) was governor of Syria, Caesar Augustus
> decreed a census for taxation purposes, and everybody had to go
> 'to his own city'. Joseph was 'of the house and lineage of David'
> and therefore he had to go to the city of David, which is called
> Bethlehem'. That must have seemed like a good solution. Except
> that historically it is complete nonsense, as A.N. Wilson in [...&
> others ...] have pointed out. David ... lived nearly a thousand
> years before Mary and Joseph. Why on earth would the Romans have
> required Joseph to go to the city where a remote ancestor had
> lived a millennium earlier? It is as though I were required to
> specify [...yada yada yada..]
> Dawkins continues in the next paragraph:
> Moreover, Luke screws up his dating by tactlessly mentioning
> events that historians are capable of independently checking.
> There was indeed a census under governor Quirinius - a local
> census, not one decreed by Caesar Augustus for the Empire as a
> whole -- but it happened too late: in AD 6, long after Herod's death.
>
> --end of quote from Dawkins' book.
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Mar 31 07:23:50 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Mar 31 2008 - 07:23:50 EDT