Glenden BrownWhat we have to learn from the Cracker
The Cracker Kerfuffle has drawn some very interesting discussion in the blogosphere. A friend explained to me that many Catholic communities believe that people will steal the consecrated communion wafers to use them in Devil worship. Now, I realize I’m not exactly orthodox in my faith but . . . well, if God is omniscient and omnipotent and the act of blessing the wafers makes them holy and God doesn’t want them desecrated, and if someone steals them to use them in Devil worship, then why wouldn’t an all knowing all powerful God just use the power God granted to consecrate them and then un-consecrate them? All of which does not address the broader point that . . . well, we’re down the rabbit hole here. We’re so afraid that a very probably imaginary deity is going to punish us for not protecting the magic crackers from a very probably imaginary devil. It’s a kind of moebius twist of illogic, turning backwards on itself.
Which brings me to a great comment posted over at Ed Brayton’s place:
Criticism of beliefs = bigotry
Sacred objects = human beings (or maybe sacred objects > human beings)
Personal beliefs and feelings = justification for irrational behaviorThose three equations seem to me to sum up, exhaustively, all the objections to PZ which go beyond “He went to far”. This “controversy” is becoming very tedious, because as far as I can tell the debate is between people who think that the mere act of believing an object is sacred gives you special privileges, and those who don’t.
I’d like to see someone condemn PZ’s claims (beyond merely pointing out the obvious bad manners, which is nothing new with PZ) in terms that don’t presuppose those three false equations. So far, I haven’t. And that applies to Sullivan as well.
I’m getting especially sick of the “You have to understand what this means to Catholics” tripe. That’s like saying, “Because this is ridiculous, you must not ridicule it.” The fact that Catholics put so much meaning and importance in a wafer is exactly what’s being criticized. That’s the whole point of blasphemy.
I think this comment addresses one of the biggest lie in America today - certain people of faith tend to see any criticism of their beliefs as automatically an expression of hatred and bigotry, the more whackadoodle their belief the more likey they are to object. Creationists, for instance, claim that they are the victims of bigotry by actual scientists who refuse to accept religious myth as valid science. A great many conservative Christians claim that public neutrality to faith is the same as anti-Christian bias and persecution, a claim they repeat with special intensity when a religiously pluralistic community objects to using public facilities to attempt to proselytize. A few years ago, PBS aired a documentary on a controversy over prayer in public school somewhere in the South (Alabama I think). In this instance, a Mormon family sued to stop explicitly Baptist prayers being broadcast over the PA system in a public school. After the courts ruled that students could be legally allowed a moment of silence but a public school could not expect all students to pray together the same prayer at the same time, there was the usual public meltdown and outcry about a minority oppressing the majority. In one scene I found striking, a camera panned across the students in front of the school - weeping, mourning, protesting under the mistaken impression that prayer was now banned in their school. (IIRC, the students organized a group that gathered every morning before classes at the flag pole and prayed together, which is constitutional but . . . there’s a symbolism in that should make many of us worry.)
Criticism of irrational or absurd beliefs is not the same as bigotry. Pointing out that is eminently irrational and damaging to send someone death threats because they took a communion wafer out of church is not calling for a suspension of that person’s right to believe taking the wafer out of church is a blasphemous act. The question being begged is exactly why either PZ Myers should be fired or the student in question expelled. Why should a secular, tax supported institution be required to enforce religious obedience?
Granting that it’s bad manners to desecrate religious objects, it’s important to bear in mind that there’s no evidence the student did so, and as yet, PZ Myers has only offered to do so. And on that basis, he’s receiving death threats and there’s an attempt to get him fired. Far too many people of faith seem to have excessively thin skin concerning their faith. Criticism is automatically transmuted into the most vile of attacks on belief. It’s difficult not to see incredible insecurity in such attitudes - the belief that somehow one’s faith is insufficient in the face of the modern world and its challenges.
Ultimately, that insecurity seems to lie at the heart of much of fundamentalism. Karen Armstrong points out that our fundamentalists have more in common with their fundamentalists than either group has in in common with their own moderates and liberals and than their fundamentalists. It’s an interesting insight. All faiths have their own fundamentalists and all the flavors of fundamentalists have arisen in response to changes in their respective societies. Whatever else you might believe about Osama bin Laden, his current radicalism is informed by a profound dislike of the modern world and all it implies. Christian fundamentalism in the US began about a hundred years ago with the publication of a series of pamphlets called The Fundamentals (which is also the modern day source of the term fundamentalism). In the simplest sense, fundamentalism only necessary in a world in which valid sources of authority question the beliefs fundamentalism espouses. To put it another way, you only need to assert the Bible is the literal word of God if someone and/or something has raised a very real challenge to that assertion - otherwise we could all just believe it implicitly.
At the end of Jesus Camp, two young children wander the streets witnessing to people, asking them, “If you died tomorrow, do you know where you’d go?” When one man basically dismisses them, they comment to each other and the camera, “Oh he was a Muslim. I could tell.” They had no evidence other than his treatment of them and their question as fundamentally unserious, but their assertion provided an acceptable reason for their failure. Fundamentalist attacks on science and modern culture serve the same purpose - they don’t address the actual causes or issues, but they provide a response that satisfies the target audience. Creationism and ID are utterly unscientific, but the main point is to sustain non-scientific certainty in the Bible. Facts are secondary.
Fundamentalism has built a vast apologetics designed to explain away science. As an example, if Catholic theology is accurate, the actual substance of a communion wafer changes once it is blessed. I would love to subject one to rigorous scientific testing - pre and post blessing. I can assert with confidence that such testing would no change in the wafer, a fact that would be easily explained away - it was the scientist’s lack of believe that caused the outcome. God expects us to believe without demanding scientific proof and to test our faith, God frustrates such scientific endeavors. If a priest agreed to such an experiment, he would find his faith (or his lack of faith) blamed for the outcome. For the fundamentalist, disproof of religious claims is too great a risk. For the people who are threatening PZ Myers with getting fired or being killed, they are not responding to his actual words or acts but to the very real challenge he symbolizes. He could, after all, desecrate the host, write dirty words on it with a Sharpie, pee on, use it as a suppository and lightning won’t strike him, he won’t turn into a pillar of salt, he won’t be consumed by the earth. The great threat is that he will mistreat their holy symbol and nothing bad will come of it. It can only make one question the reality of God. And that is the lesson for the rest of us - fundamentalists are fine until something questions their faith then they go on the attack.
July 14th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
One of the classic “Blood Libels” was that Jews needed a consecrated communion wafer and the blood of a Christian child to properly celebrate Passover. The Libel states that the Jews would fry the wafer in a hot pan. The wafer, having become the body of Christ, would feel pain…. I don’t remeber exactly what the blood was for.
Apparently the temporal disconnect didn’t phase them (the events that Passover celebrate happened well before the death of Jesus).
July 15th, 2008 at 8:49 am
Excellent post Glen.
JD, The event that Passover celebrates happened well before the BIRTH of Jesus (who did not really exist)
Glen’s post reflects the collision of religion with science, modernity and pluralistic society.
What does it mean that Judaism has reformed itself over time (note JD is Jew with a pistol) leaving a minority of fundamentalist while Christianity continues to spawn huge fundamentalist communities….if you can call them that.
But, there is a big diff between Jewish and Christian fundamentalists. Orthodox Jews PRACTICE a strict quotidian life with zero breaks from the most careful observance of doctrine, while a Christian Fundamentalist is defined by the name on the church they attend. (I saw a church in Tuscaloosa called “The Unaffiliated Fundamentalist Church”)
It seems sometimes as if Christian Fundamentalists are judged by how literally they SAY they believe SOME PARTS of the Bible.
Imagine being a lifelong Jew (which nearly all are) and watching this whole born-again thing. One day you’re shit, the next day you’re saved and supposed to be taken as seriously as any other religious person.
All religion is dangerous because there is no God, but Christianity in America has become a brand that sells on TV and buys product placement in the political media.
July 15th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Cliff, why do you assert the non-existence of Jesus when Roman historians wrote about him? I know, we’ve gone over this before…
July 15th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Actually, Richard, there is no contemporary accounts of Jesus aside from the scriptural canon. No record of the census which brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem, no record of the crucifixion, nothing outside the scriptures.
Same goes for the Jews prior to the establishment of the ancient state of Israel. No record in Egyptian records of any Hebrews invited into or enslaved in Egypt, no evidence of any wandering in the Arabian Peninsula.
I believe in Jesus, but it has nothing to do with the historical record. And we who believe must have the emotional maturity to be willing to accept questions and objective criticism of our faiths (whether it be Jewish, Muslim, Catholic, conventional Protestant, or Mormon) without reflexively labeling it as persecution, bigotry, or otherwise “anti.” Good call, Glenden
July 15th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Cliff - why must you always be on the attack? Weren’t you breast-fed as a child?
I may or may not be a Jew. How would you know? You’ve bolloxed every other attempt to figure out who I am. (No - I’m not in the AF either).
Your description of Orthodox Jews isn’t correct at all. Like any other sect, there are variations. I know an Orthodox Jew that is sure that God will forgive him for eating Tony Roma ribs - because if God didn’t want them to be eaten, he wouldn’t have allowed them to be so delicious. Otherwise, he keeps kosher at home (meat and milk plates, etc.). Your description is as narrow minded as any racial prejudice.
Also, thank you for clarifying that passover came before Jesus. Phew. Who would have thunk it (I mean, the Passover meal being part of the Last Supper and all). Apparently your reading comprehension skills suck as bad as your internet research skills.
In regards to this statement:
Do a little research. Perhaps there aren’t Egyptian records, but there are records, with maps and everything of the journey in and the journey out of Egypt.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:42 am
ALM: “no contemporary accounts of Jesus aside from the scriptural canon.” True enough. But what about the historians I alluded to? Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus, and Thallus all referenced Christ as an actual, historical personage and confirmed some of the details of the Biblical accounts.
You might as well acknowledge the Roman historians, instead of hiding behind the word “contemporary.”
July 15th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Richard,
Have you read any of Lee Strobel’s books?
The Case for Christ was a very well written examination of the evidence surrounding the existence of Jesus Christ.
I haven’t read his other one “The Case for the Real Jesus” I think is the title. I plan on pick that up soon.
July 15th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Bob S.– I can’t say the historical Jesus is a main interest, however I took several ancient history courses at Georgetown University back in the day.
July 15th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Bob, I can’t say I’ve done voluminous studies on Hebraic history. But I’ve taken some classes and read some books. All the maps and histories I’ve seen are solely and solidly from within the Hebraic community. How is that any different from the early histories, records, and maps of Rome as founded by Romulus and Remus? Why should we take the word of founding Hebrew histories any more seriously than founding Roman histories? Particularly when the Hebraic histories claim to have been a big player in the history of Egypt, a nation well known for its record keeping. Why wouldn’t the meticulous Egyptians have record of the plagues, the decimation of their boys, and drowning of one of their kings along with his army? It makes the Hebrew histories dubious from an academic perspective.
RW, I’m not hiding or dodging. Contemporary sources are incredibly important in assessing the historicity of characters. The fact that Suetonius (who is considered unreliable by many Classical historians), Tacitus, and others talk about Jesus several decades after his life in no way verifies his existence, only that people during their time believed in Jesus. Plutarch, for example, wrote about a number of prominent Greek and Roman figures whom we now accept as mythological.
Bottom line: the history of Jesus as contained in the Scriptures (nothing of which was written during Jesus’ life) contains many references to larger world events. There is no corroborative evidence of him or those events in contemporary records. This makes the Christian record of Jesus very questionable, academically speaking.
I want to be absolutely clear that this is no criticism of Judaism or Christianity. After all, I belong to a faith which claims to have several hundred years history of this continent for which there is (despite the determined and wishful efforts of FARMS) absolutely no credible historical evidence whatsoever. I choose to believe based on other, less academic criteria. Frankly, I think that is the point; God wants us to rely on other, more spiritual criteria and not rely on empirical/academic knowledge. We can tell the academics that they are sniffing at the wrong tree, but we shouldn’t criticize them for correctly telling us that their tree is empty.
Of course, those same people cannot honestly claim that Jesus didn’t exist, only that there is no reasonable proof of his existence. You can’t prove a negative, Cliff.
July 15th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Jesus lived for 30-33 years. If you only accept accounts written while he was alive or by people who knew him, then yeah, the Gospels are all there is. Nothing else is extant. That’s not a standard rule for historians, it’s one you made up.
Bear in mind that Jesus Christ, assuming he was a real individual, was not world famous during his lifetime.
July 15th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Lee Stroebel’s The Case for Christ is a terrible book. His evidence does not support his conclusions. For instance, most mainstream scholars agree the earliest Christian writings were Paul’s letters, followed several decades later by the earliest Gospel - Mark. Stroebel argues this means that the gospel is a completely accurate account since it agrees with Paul, but ignores the fact that the gospel writes knew Pauls’ writings and regarded them as authoritative. Stroebel engages in a number of intellectually dishonest tactics - mainly a series of variations on the “excluded middle.” I don’t remember if he uses this language, but a common fundamentalist formulation about Jesus is Liar Lunatic or Lord - essentially arguing that either Jesus was exactly who the Gospel writers claim he was or he was a liar and all his deluded or he was a crazy person to make those claims. This ignores all kinds of other options, including that Jesus probably didn’t say many things that were attributed to him but he nevertheless was an influential and charismatic figure who attracted a loyal following, which struggled, after his death, to explain his impact on their lives.
As for there being or not being a Jesus, I have no problem with there being a historical person known as Jesus who was an itinerant preacher, teacher and rabble rouser in Roman occupied Judea. Whether that person was “Christ” or “Messiah” is an altogether different matter. Within the context of Roman Judea, the Messiah was understood as a political figure - a latter day King David - who would unite and liberate the Jewish people. After he was executed, Jesus followers began to reinterpret the meaning of his life and his impact on their lives and began to see him in different terms. Two of the Gospels - for instance - have long and contradictory lineage’s for Jesus which attempt to establish him a descendent of David to conform with previously accepted prophecies. Stroebel, for instance, ignores the possibility that the gospel writers were trying to use accepted scripture to give their writings authority and simply tries to make the different accounts agree. I was given the Case for Christ as a gift and I read it out of a sense of obligation. Stroebel’s bad logic, cheap strawmen and penchant for finding what he was looking for made me less of a believer, not more.
That said, I have a friend - a retired professor of religion - who says we need to avoid becoming “fact fundamentalists” - people so enamored of the facticity or lack thereof in the scriptures that we miss the point - that people found something meaningful in the life of Jesus and tried to communicate it with the rest of us. That we don’t need Jesus to be literally risen from the dead to see that something in the experience of knowing him profoundly altered the lives of his followers. John Shelby Spong argues that we need to be mindful of the difference between “true” and “Truth” and that in our faith we encounter the “Truth” that may not be factually true.
What she means by her comment is simple - if we get bogged down in questions of did this happen or not, we can sometimes miss the point. At the same time, I think it’s also a warning to not pretend that what’s in scripture is factual.
I’m reading a book right now “Reinventing the Sacred” by Stuart Kauffman and hope to have some additional insights.
July 15th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Glenden,
What book would you recommend then to study the issue?
I would be interested in seeing how many of the books you recommend find evidence for the historical/gospel Jesus.
July 15th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
That’s quite a post, Glenden. Well written.
July 15th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Come on, Rich. I’m not making up any rules. I’m using standard empirical practices. And I’m not trying to tear down your faith and prove Jesus didn’t exist, because I believe he did. I’m saying that the historic record is sketchy at best, so we can’t claim it shows something which it does not. Glendon’s point is right on; whether or not the conventional Christian canon is literally accurate is far less important than the message behind the canon.
July 15th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Bob - three good ones: John Shelby Spong’s Resurrection: Myth or Reality; Marcus Borg’s Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time and Robert Funk’s Honest to Jesus. Of the three, I think Funk is the most radical in approaching the Biblical Jesus as the construct of later generations. It’s tough reading, but anything by John Dominic Crossan is worth it.
July 15th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
BTW, Christ may not have been world famous, he was certainly a local “celebrity,” and objective investigators would expect that he would show up in other local accounts, as well as in Roman provincial records since he met with Pilate.
July 15th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Pet peeve of mine.
Though true in Logic that you can’t prove a negative - you can prove a negative statement.
First 5X(-1)=-5 equals 5/-5=-1. I just proved a negative.
Also, Cliff could say that he’s not female. It’s relatively easy for him to prove this negative statement.
July 15th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
ALM– I am not taking the existence of Jesus as an historical figure on faith, or based on a single source. But the level of proof you’re demanding is unreasonable.
July 15th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
jd:
Your analysis of logic needs work.
You are confusing positive and negative numbers of mathematics with true and false statements of logic. There is simply no comparison in the context you argue.
Sorry, bud, but your apples done spilled over into oranges this time around.
July 16th, 2008 at 6:03 am
Rich, The first gospel, John I believe was written at least seventies years after the supposed death of Jesus.
The Romans were probably writing about an allegory to Mythracism.
July 16th, 2008 at 8:26 am
Cliff– The gospels were written between 65 and 100 AD. John’s was the last of the four canonical gospels. Historians have determined that Jesus was born in 4 BC and lived 30-33 years. So the first gospel, Mark, might have been written 36 years after Jesus died.
If you meant to imply that none of the gospels could have been written by contemporaries of Jesus, that’s not necessarily true.
July 16th, 2008 at 9:54 am
Albert - your reading comprehension sucks. Re-read my post. Specifically the second sentence.
(friggin’ engineers….)
July 16th, 2008 at 10:18 am
jd:
Precisely my point! The so-called “negative statement” you provide is, in fact, a positive statement, and one known by many a second grade arithmetic student.
Maybe you should just stick to wildcatting.
July 16th, 2008 at 10:26 am
What a riot. JD Berger arguing with Albert O. over basic math.
Keep it up JD, you’re going down in flames….
July 16th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Richard, I’m not demanding any proof at all. My belief isn’t based on that. I’m simply stating that from an objective, empirical standpoint, there is no conclusive evidence or even substantial body of corroboratoin by which to state his human existence as a fact, let alone the Gospels as literal truth. Which really speaks to the original point of the post.
July 16th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Thank you Albert for agreeing that your reading comprehension sucks.
Uh…Cliff? Would you like to buy a clue?
July 16th, 2008 at 11:03 am
jd:
I suggest before you make yourself look more foolish than already that you consult with a fifth grader on the subject of arithmetic and logic.
Really, dude, this is not rocket science!
July 16th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Albert - you might want to recheck your ability to comprehend simple sentences. Even the compound sentence is taught in 4th grade, isn’t it?
But really, I understand.
Lawyer+Engineer=GOD.
No?
Two professional schools where they surgically remove your sense of humor and humility.
July 16th, 2008 at 11:23 am
jd:
Ok. May I assume with your now resort to hyperbole, obfuscation and ad hominem that you concede your comment was nothing but apples and oranges?
Maybe it’s time for you to show some good old fashioned gun-slinger humility.
PS. I do agree that one cannot generally prove a negative; it’s just your analysis that is off track.
July 16th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Albert? Are you suggesting that Cliff couldn’t prove this statement?
Note that I’ve excluded arguments in logic, here and previously.
I’ve simply shown that using empirical evidence, we can prove that Cliff is not a girl. Thus, I’ve proven that the negative statement “Cliff is not a girl” is true.
You can’t prove a negative, as a blanket statement, is thus false.
Tada!
July 16th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
jd:
My original criticism of your comment followed from your statement to the effect:
I stated that you are incorrect, you did not prove a negative; in fact, you proved a positive - i.e., that 1 = 1.
But as stated earlier, I agree that the statement “you cannot prove a negative” is generally, by itself, false; excepting, however, under circumstances where it is most often used - e.g., God exists because you cannot show evidence to the contrary.
July 16th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Best line I’ve read about the whole Cracker Nonissue:
July 16th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Gotcha.
Glen - that’s what happens when you screw with people’s imaginary friends. I don’t recommend it.
July 17th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Hey Glendon, did you imagine it otherwise?
The madness wallows just below humanities’ surface, ad a little persecution, a bit of ridicule, and before long there will be burning at the stake, or something like it.
Proves up the point, that an armed society is a polite society. Nobody goes to far over the top when they know the “victim” is capable of returning the favor.
July 17th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
And in the beginning there was the Cracker
and it was white.
Whole wheat had not yet passed unto the consciousness of the sinner.
He bringeth flour, water, and soda together to form the holy biscuit.
So revered is crackers power, that it is imbued with body of the savior himself.
He then maketh the ingredients unto dough, lie them down in a pan,
and then anneal them through trial by fire, to yield the holy wafer.
Lo, through the process of virgin oven birth, cracker, hot and steaming
is brought forth into the world, to yield its doughy creation and message
upon the wanting and waiting masses…
and its name was Polly, and yes, it wants of cracker.
All yield before the profane cracker, fit for birds, and bird brains. Works well in soup.
Amen.
July 18th, 2008 at 8:15 am
Popcorn works just as well, by the handful, but only if ingested in the ‘proper’ spirit.
Finally, All these years, I thought, ‘cracker’ referred to anyone who was less than 10% of the negroid persuasion.