True and False Messiahs
by BilboI deleted the open letter to Dembski. It occurred to me that it was the type of thing that would fit in better at UD, instead of at TT. Sorry it took me so long to see that. But Raevmo asked a great question:
Bilbo, how do you know Dr Moon is a false Messiah?
I don't know if the following discussion belongs at TT. If you guys would prefer that I move it to my own blog, I can do that. No offense will be taken.
In chapter 13 of Mark (and chapters 24 of Matthew and 21 of Luke), Jesus tells his disciples that the Temple will be destroyed. They take this as an indication of the end times and ask Jesus when this will happen. The very first thing he tells them is, "Watch out that no one deceives you. Many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am he,' and will deceive many.[v.6]….At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ [Messiah]!' or, 'Look, there he is!' do not believe it. For false Christs [Messiahs] and false prophets will appear and perform signs and miracles to deceive the elect — if that were possible. So be on your guard; I have told you everything ahead of time.[v.21-23]….At that time men will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory." [v.26]
And in Matthew's version we have, "So if anyone tells you, 'There he is, out in the desert,' do not go out; or, 'Here he is, in the inner rooms,' do not believe it. For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man." [24:26-27]
I quoted Mark first, because most New Testament scholars consider it to be the earliest of the four Gospels, with many dating it around 60 to 65 C.E. Some date it as early as 50 C.E. Some date it at 70 C.E. [Most scholars agree that Matthew and Luke wrote their accounts later than Mark's, dating them from 70 to 90 C.E., and it is believed that they largely based their own accounts on Mark's Gospel and also on another source that is referred to as "Q." The Gospel of John is ususally dated 90-95 C.E., and doesn't record Jesus's teaching on the end times.] Since most scholars think Jesus died around 30 C.E., this gives us a time frame of somewhere between 20 to 40 years after his death. That's not that long a time period. For those of you who are old enough, remember back 20 to 40 years to someone you either knew personally, or some famous person, and ask yourself what you can remember about them and what they said. And in the case of Jesus, we almost certainly had people continually preaching and teaching about things Jesus said almost from the time that he died. So when Mark eventually wrote it down, he was writing down things that were generally agreed to have been said by Jesus.
What I find most intriguing about what Jesus is supposed to have said in the passages I quoted, is that he said them at a time when he was not yet a "superstar." There would be no obvious reason to think that anyone would claim anything "in his name" at all. Why should they? If I said, "I come in the name of Joe Schmoe," you would all say, "So what? Who the heck is Joe Schmoe?" If Raevmo told us, "Someday someone will come in my name and claim to be the world's greatest scientist," we would say, "So what? We knew you had a big head, anyway." "No, no. Not me," says Raevmo, "Somebody else." And we would say, "Why would anybody come in your name, claiming to be the world's greatest scientist? Why wouldn't they just use their own name?"
Likewise, we could have said to Jesus, "Why would anyone come in your name, claiming to be the Messiah? Your just a country preacher from the sticks, who's going to be crucified in a few days. Why would anyone even remember you in a few years? And why would anyone want to associate themselves with you?"
So for Jesus to say something like this about himself either indicates that he had a very large ego, or that he had some inkling of the impact he would have on history, and that hundreds and thousands of years later he would be the archetype of the Messiah. He would be the one would-be messiahs would try to identify with, in one way or another, to get people to follow them.
So what is it about Jesus that made him special? Certainly his reputation as a miracle worker. Certainly the claim that he rose from the dead. But I think it's more than that. I think we instinctively trust Jesus. Even if we don't believe he ever performed miracles or rose from the dead. Even if we don't believe that he was the Messiah or the Son of God. There is something about Jesus that we trust. We know that he wasn't out for power. He wasn't out to get rich. He wasn't out to become famous. And I think that's what makes many people vulnerable to false messiahs. People such as Moon come claiming to be Jesus or from Jesus, and there is a desire to believe them.
And I think Jesus knew we would be vulnerable and that this would happen. Which is why it is the first thing he warns us to watch out for. And how will we know that they are false messiahs? Because they want power. Because they want to get rich. Because they want to become famous.
Jesus told us, "Don't worry. If I'm coming back, it'll be as big and as fast as lightning. You won't have time to think about it. Meanwhile, watch out for the pretenders. They're out to use you. They may even perform miracles. But if they claim to be me, or from me, don't believe them."
Many of us think that if anyone ever earned the right to be called the Messiah, it was Jesus. But I know many of you will be thinking, "I don't buy that stuff about Mark being historically accurate. I still think it was all a fairy tale. There probably never was a Jesus, and he certainly wasn't the messiah." Fair enough. But then, if Jesus wasn't the messiah, neither is anyone who claims to be his second coming. So watch out for people like Moon.
To answer Raevmo's question, I know that the Rev. Moon is a false messiah because Jesus said he was. I know Moon is a false messiah because he's out for fame, wealth, and power. If there ever was a messiah, it was Jesus. And if he returns, he said it would be clear as lightning.
August 11th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Bilbo,
One way of reading that is spot-on. Deleting a post is indeed the type of thing that fits in well at UD.
Comment by David Heddle — August 11, 2008 @ 1:04 pm
August 11th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
There is nothing wrong with deleting posts.
Not every thought that crosses our transoms needs to be published.
In this medium, where publishing is so easy and immediate, white water writing one blogger calls it, people will often have second thoughts.
Publishing itself becomes an act of editing and if you change your mind then, by all means, delete a post.
Even peer reviewed scientific journals and researchers repudiate past decisions and, I'm sure, if they could take them back they would.
Comment by Pez — August 11, 2008 @ 1:29 pm
August 11th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Regarding Dembski,
I had to retract something I said in blind defense of Dr. Dembski. The link is here:
http://endogenousretrovirus.bl...
If this is true and Dr. Dembski did use something that wasn't his with no permission, I'm sorry, but that is dishonest.
I hope that is not the case but I've already indirectly accused many Evolutionists professors and such liars and cheats with nothing but what I believed.
How can I accuse them of nothing but dishonesty when in our own camp we have charlatans and con men who sell us stuff so they can live well?
Ed
Comment by lcd — August 11, 2008 @ 1:34 pm
August 11th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Bilbo:
So a Messiah is a bit like porn: you know it when you see it.
I also suspect that Moon is a charlatan. A much more successful one than Dembski.
Comment by Raevmo — August 11, 2008 @ 2:20 pm
August 11th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
So imagine that Rev Moon dies as a largely unknown person and 30 years after his followers write books about his miraculous powers. For whatever reason no other records survive but the writings of his followers. How are we to then judge those claims two thousand years later?
Comment by Todd Berkebile — August 11, 2008 @ 2:36 pm
August 11th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Wow. Look at this. The evolution of Icd's feelings before our very eyes. How pitiful to be no longer able to accuse others of dishonesty. All those charlatans and con men. You must be hanging out at the swamp or donning some strange socks.
Comment by Bradford — August 11, 2008 @ 4:19 pm
August 11th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
lcd is, if nothing else, another fine example of the Poe's Law.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — August 11, 2008 @ 4:46 pm
August 11th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
So Todd I take your response as confirmation of Icd's sock status- at least in your view. Or is your last comment another example of Poe?
Comment by Bradford — August 11, 2008 @ 5:19 pm
August 11th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Well, I've seen genuine creationists as silly and inconsistent as him so Poe's Law applies and I can't tell for sure, but I like to assume other people are smart and for a smart person to act like that they would have to be playing a role as a sock puppet.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — August 11, 2008 @ 6:04 pm
August 11th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Hi Bilbo,
I found your Dembksi letter interesting, but only because it seems so inconsequential to me. As far as I am concerned, what Dembski and Wells do on their weekends is none of my business (as long as it isn't destructive or against the law). I am pretty much only interested in their scientific output. I am rather impressed however that these two can work together, given their religious differences. Perhaps they are serving as a model for peace worldwide and the brotherhood of man.
Comment by William Brookfield — August 11, 2008 @ 6:29 pm
August 11th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Oh, so you mean you aren't interested in them at all?
Comment by Todd Berkebile — August 11, 2008 @ 6:42 pm
August 12th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
If I did wrong by deleting my letter to Dembski, then I apologize for it. It seemed to be the best way to correct something I probably shouldn't have done in the first place. But maybe deleting it was wrong, also, and two wrongs…. I'm trying to learn how to do things the right way, David. If I blew it again, I apologize to you and everybody else.
Comment by Bilbo — August 12, 2008 @ 1:30 pm
August 12th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
First, we have independent records: Josephus mentions Jesus twice. Once gives a description of him and what his followers thought about him. This is often disputed, since it sounds like Josephus believes Jesus rose from the dead. It's probably a case of Christians editing Josephus's comments. But even if we ignore that passage, there is still the passage where Josephus describes the death of James, the brother of Jesus, the so-called Messiah. As far as I know, no one disputes that one.
We also have Tacitus recording Jesus's death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate.
There are one or two others from the first century, but those are the ones I remember off the top of my head.
But then we also have the letters of Paul to the churches, which most scholars date in the late 40s to mid-50s. We can glean quite a bit of information about Jesus from them. We can also know that originally Paul persecuted the church for official religious reasons, because of its beliefs about Jesus, which tells us a lot about what the early followers of Jesus thought about him.
We also have the problem of why the early followers of Jesus would continue to teach and preach about their dead leader. There was no incentive for them to do so. They were putting their own lives at risk. Whether or not Jesus actually rose from the dead, his followers believed that he did.
But now to your question:
Would we also know that Moon was one of the richest men in America, who owned a newspaper that printed his view of the world, and that he contributed generously to politicians in order to try to influence their votes? And that he claimed to be the second coming of Jesus?
Comment by Bilbo — August 12, 2008 @ 1:45 pm
August 12th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Bilbo,
It's your post, you can do whatever you want, with no need to apologize. Personally I thought you made a good point, one which I have also tried to make. If ID is science, then by all means work with Wells on science. However, if it is a front in the culture war, then absolutely not. The culture war (which personally I abhor) is something of a ministry effort. As such one should not align oneself with heretics to do what is viewed as a ministry. Instead one should denounce and/or witness to heretics.
Slightly related: UD has been bashing theistic evolutionists recently with veiled comments regarding their “so-called” Christianity. Does anyone else find it ironic that those who refuse to identify the designer as God would feel justified in making disparaging comments regarding the faith of those (the TEs) who are up-front about identifying the “who” behind creation?
Comment by David Heddle — August 12, 2008 @ 1:57 pm
August 12th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Yes, that was the point I was trying to make in my letter. Only you said it much better.
Yes, very ironic. It was this sort of irony that drove me to write the letter.
Comment by Bilbo — August 12, 2008 @ 2:14 pm
August 12th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
And also this.
Comment by Bilbo — August 12, 2008 @ 2:16 pm
August 12th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
David Heddle,
Not necessarily. Personally I'm more than happy to, even as a Catholic, defend many of the philosophical positions taken by protestants, jews, hindus, muslims, buddhists, and otherwise, against scientism, materialism, or rationalism. And I'd also condemn fellow Catholics (or anyone else) for views I think are harmful, or for methods I think are wrong even if they're effective. A culture war doesn't have to be sectarian.
Frankly, I'm dismayed at the recent UD tendency to attack (not criticize, but really, attack) TEs and even open theists - it's odd, considering they've happily boosted the writings of agnostics, buddhists, and otherwise who were pro-ID, which I think is what it really comes down to. If a given group is perceived to be anti-ID, the UD response is to attack them. It's a bad idea, and hard to excuse - even if some TEs have struck at ID on theological grounds, which I imagine is a sore spot.
Anyway, back to vacation for me. By the way, I like your writings, David. I wish you'd keep a more conciliatory tone, though - then again, you seem to work well in that 'tick off everyone' niche.
Comment by nullasalus — August 12, 2008 @ 2:22 pm
August 12th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
But if one is going to form alliances with those of differing beliefs, at least be up front about it. Wells' beliefs are at odds with Dembski's, and with those Dembski is appealing to. Dembski should at least acknowledge that.
Comment by Bilbo — August 12, 2008 @ 2:28 pm
August 12th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Bilbo,
Acknowledge that ID proponents are more than willing to ally with those of differing beliefs? They weren't ashamed of Berlinski's being a secular jew - they repeated it happily. Or Ben Stein's being a practicing jew. They boosted John Davison, and he's a.. a.. well, he's not whatever Dembski is, I can tell you that much. Behe is a Catholic, and his loudest opponent is Ken Miller, another Catholic. They've reported of ID as a concept catching on in muslim countries as well, etc.
When it comes to TEs and others, I think they've made a knee-jerk mistake - responding to hostility with more hostility. This after saying outright that Ken Miller, by their view, is just another ID proponent.
I absolutely think UD (Not sure if this extends to the DI) is not doing a good job of communicating with specifically christian critics. Hell, most of my recent posts there have been defending TEs, or OTs from what I thought were unjustified criticisms (Alan Rhoda himself showed up to assert that, yes, open theists can and some do support ID). I think the problem is that there are multiple types of criticisms of ID: Scientific, philosophical, and theological. When people lob a criticism of type 3, UD tends to attack the theological stances of their attackers in turn. IMHO, bad move.
But the idea that Dembski has to state flatly that he's willing to cooperate with any ID proponent regardless of faith or lack thereof doesn't make sense. Hell, isn't Davescot an agnostic? He was going at it with Christians there over the Darwin-Hitler thing.
Comment by nullasalus — August 12, 2008 @ 3:03 pm
August 13th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
So why not acknowledge that Wells is a member of the Unification Church?
Comment by Bilbo — August 13, 2008 @ 1:27 pm
August 13th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Bilbo,
I don't get what you're asking. They don't seem to be denying or covering up Wells' membership. They may not be aggressively advertising it, but that seems to be the case for most. What's Michael Egnor? Casey Luskin? I have no idea, myself. Behe is a Catholic, and that much I know because his spat with Ken Miller has rolled over into Church teaching issues. Dembski I believe is a baptist, but considering he's also picked up a theology degree, I'm not surprised he addresses topics that are explicitly religious as well as scientific.
Let me repeat: I think the moves at UD regarding TEs, Open Theists, and others are negative and short-sighted. I have a lot to complain about when it comes to how ID is presented by many of its own proponents. But I don't think it's any more necessary for Dembski to distance himself from Wells' faith than from any other faith. If you're arguing that the UD attacks on other people's theologies is a mistake and conflates ID with religion too much, I agree. On the other hand, what's there to say about ID opponents like Ken Miller, Michel Heller, and otherwise who attack ID on the same grounds?
Comment by nullasalus — August 13, 2008 @ 1:50 pm
August 13th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Dembski has explicitly stated that his purpose in pursuing ID is evangelically religious. Wells' belief that Moon is the messiah are completely contrary to Dembski's and Dembski's Christian audience. As I've pointed out, Jesus told us people like Moon were false messiahs. Dembski's Christian audience would consider Moon to be a greater threat to their faith than Darwin. That is why Dembski avoids and will continue to avoid mentioning Wells' beliefs. He knows that his Christian audience would find it abhorrent.
Comment by Bilbo — August 13, 2008 @ 2:09 pm
August 13th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Bilbo, I share your views about the false messiah but if the world's most morally repugnant individual were to produce empirical evidence for a scientific notion I think the world would pay attention to the evidence associated with the individual even if they rightly repudiate his morals.
I think Dembski is a sincere individual who believes that a wedge strategy had been in place long before the DI came into existence. It's current standard bearers have different identities from their ideological forefathers but the drumbeat associating science with materialism and atheism persists.
Comment by Bradford — August 13, 2008 @ 2:18 pm
August 13th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Hi, Bilbo. I admit some confusion per your position in regards to ID and religion due to your recent postings. You said to nullasalus:
Dembski's "purpose" in advocating ID is explicitly religious? I'm not saying I don't believe you, but I haven't followed the whole Wedge thing closely, having always considered it a statement of the possibilities for imposing theocratic designs onto a specifically non-theocratic pastime - science. Since I don't expect that to ever happen, it was of minimal interest.
IOW, the Wedge described a corruption of the teleological approach to biological evolution, the exact flip-side to the atheistic corruption of biological evolution to argue that it obviates atheism. I've always considered real science to be purposefully 'above' these sort of ideological corruptions, even if it does fall prey to misguided 'orthodoxies' on occasion. Fact of the matter being that the intelligently designed human endeavor we call 'science' is not theology (or a-theology) and was never intended to be those things.
If Dembski really wanted to evangelize his version of intelligent design *AS* theology, he could start a blog for that specific purpose. Why, he could raise some money and start and fund a whole research community of scientists who believe exactly as he does about science being theology, and reject participation by anyone whose theology doesn't pass his muster. But I don't see that he's done that with UD, nor do I see that the DI has done that either.
At least, not if they're accepting input and avenues of research toward an ID paradigm crafted by practicing or apostate Methodists, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, agnostics and/or atheists. Or even Moonies.
Meanwhile, you participate here at TT, not at UD (didn't you get banned by their chief agnostic power-monger?). I checked this place out rather thoroughly before I signed on - I wanted no overt (or 'secret', as in Wedginess) sponsorship or heavy-handed moderation from the DI or any of its minions. Wanted to know I could call things as I see 'em without having to clear my opinions with any Cardinals of the Faith first. I was repeatedly assured that there's no connection, that this forum is in fact independent.
UD may well NOT be so independent. But it's certainly not censoring the input or ideas of ID supporting scientists who don't happen to belong to the SBC. I'd think that's a good thing. Your personal religious misgivings aside, of course.
Alas, so much threatiness, so little time. Everybody's frightened of what they cannot control, and right now the Big Scary is change. This poor, abused world is changing very fast whether we like it or not. Such things happen historically, people either get used to it or they spend their lives cowering in corners or slaughtering others to prevent things from changing. They always change anyway, so that's certainly a waste! I see quite a bit of that sort of reaction on both sides of these debates and it never ceases to amaze me. What ever happened to "Home of the Brave?"
Moon isn't a threat to Christianity any more than any other false messiah or wayward circuit rider ever was. Neither is Charlie Darwin (who has been certifiably dead for more than a century). Cults come and go, as do cult leaders. Cult followers are a dime a dozen, always have been. They may grow up eventually or they may drink the purple Kool Aid and end up fertilizing the soil sooner than they otherwise would have. People can be wrong if that's what they choose to be. No skin off your or my teeth.
Heresy is cheap, as are false messiahs (just ask the Jews). I don't see that anybody's personal theological beliefs have anything whatsoever to do with whether or not life is intelligently designed. Maybe if science and society at large ever get to the point of accepting that life is intelligently designed, arguments about who and what designed it will matter. That's still just interpretation-to-metaphysics, and is as scientifically vacuous as arguments about Copenhagen versus Many Worlds.
If science ever accepts that life displays signs of intelligent design, you (and Dembski, and Wells, and everybody else) are free to preach that ID somehow 'proves' your personal theology to be Absolute Truth. That won't magically turn theology into science, nor will it ensure that the forever game of dueling metaphysics will go away. It will continue as it always has, with all free people believing as they choose to believe no matter what.
Some things never change.
Comment by Joy — August 13, 2008 @ 3:03 pm
August 13th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Well, Dembski did say that ID is just the gospel of John rewritten in sciency language.
Comment by steve — August 13, 2008 @ 7:55 pm
August 13th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Indeed. Several of the torture instruments christians used to use on scientists can be said to resemble wedges.
Comment by steve — August 13, 2008 @ 9:27 pm
August 13th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
You're confusing wedges with wedgies. If you study those irreligious Stalinist torturers, Maoist torturers or those from Pol Pot's killing fields, you might learn the difference.
Comment by Bradford — August 13, 2008 @ 9:49 pm
August 14th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Dembski's motive is to help non-believers become believers and to strengthen the faith of believers, especially of his particular faith. We all have different motives for things we do, so I don't have an objection to that. But then Dembski attacks Darwin as the messiah of a secular religion, and O'Leary keeps attacking Theistic Evolutionists as being irrational fideists, and one of their other bloggers attacked Theistic Evolutionists as committing heresy. In that context, the least Dembski could do would be to come clean about his co-author Jonathan Wells. Not doing so represents a blatant duplicity that is just boggling my mind. I can't take the irony! Aaaahhhhhhh!
Comment by Bilbo — August 14, 2008 @ 11:25 am
August 14th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Oh…and Dembski didn't just say Darwin was the unintended messiah of a secular religion. He said Darwin intended to be the messiah of a secular religion. Where? When? How? did Darwin come close to saying or
doigndoing anything like that? And does that mean anyone who thinks Darwin got it right is participating in a secular religion? And if Dembski is going to attack Darwin as a false messiah, could he at least mention something about Moon?Comment by Bilbo — August 14, 2008 @ 11:35 am
August 14th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Calm down Bilbo! That Dembski quote is mere rhetoric. It doesn't look like a quote you could use to discern the motive of Dr. Dembski.
Comment by samsen — August 14, 2008 @ 11:48 am
August 14th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
But the Reverend Moon owns The Washington Times and has quite a bit of financial power. Maybe Dr D. doesn't want to upset such a powerful "ally"?
Comment by Alan Fox — August 14, 2008 @ 1:24 pm
August 15th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Now your buying into my "delusional" suspicions, Alan. Samsen, I hope you're right, and that it is just rhetoric. But when you combine it with the other threads at UD on Theistic Evolutionists, and the movie Expelled, that makes it appear that only Nazis and rabid atheists are Darwinists, are you sure it's just rhetoric?
Comment by Bilbo — August 15, 2008 @ 3:02 pm
August 16th, 2008 at 5:21 am
It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you. What else but money runs US politics?
Comment by Alan Fox — August 16, 2008 @ 5:21 am
August 16th, 2008 at 6:44 am
Hi Bilbo,
I don't follow UD much (prefer TT). In your prior post, when I read though the quote the impression I got was that Dembski is engaged in "extreme rhetoric mode" just like Dawkins does some times. I tend to not take such quotes seriously. Do you have a link to the quote? My reaction was based on the quote alone so if you give me a link, I can read through it.
Comment by samsen — August 16, 2008 @ 6:44 am
August 16th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Alan Fox:
Coming from Europe no less. What accounts for the tepid European response to Russia's invasion of Georgia? It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that Russia is a major supplier of oil would it? Follow the money trail indeed.
Comment by Bradford — August 16, 2008 @ 1:08 pm
August 16th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Could we just say that money seems to world politics?
Comment by Bilbo — August 16, 2008 @ 2:05 pm