Jewish / Judaism : Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan's Anti-Missionary Assertions

In his book, “The Real Messiah? A Jewish Response to Missionaries,” Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan does the very things that he accuses Christians of doing. He offers wrong citations, takes texts out of context to make pretexts for prooftexts and tries very hard to find fault where there is none to be found.

Following are some examples.

One of the most shocking, serious, and disappointing errors is when he states:

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus instructed his followers (Matthew 5:43) “Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, and do good to those who hate you.”
This might have been a fine lesson if Jesus himself lived up to it. But when it came to his own enemies, Jesus declared (Luke 19:27), “Take my enemies, who would not have me rule over them, bring them here, and kill them before me.”1

This error is repeated by Gerald Sigal when he refers to Jesus as,

He who advocates…killing enemies (Luke 19:27) cannot be called a ruler of peace.2

This is a perfect example of just how important it is to check the citations. The text they are referring to in Luke 19:27 begins in v.11 with this statement, “While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable.” It is a man in the parable that said, “Take my enemies…bring them here, and kill them before me.” Jesus said it, but they were not his words.

jewish_judaism_therealmessiah_ajewishresponsetomissionaries_rabbiaryehkaplan-2239778

Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan states that Jesus,

was not so broad minded. When he sent his twelve disciples, he charged them (Matthew 10:5, 6), “Do not take the road to the gentile lands, and do not enter any Samaritan city. Go only to the lost sheep of Israel.”3

Jesus just cannot seem to do right in the eyes of Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan. In this case Jesus is wrong for neglecting the Gentiles but when Jesus tells a parable that favors the Samaritans, Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, again, reacts negatively in stating:

We would expect that after the Cohen and Levite passed up the victim, the story would tell us that the third person was an Israelite, an ordinary Jew. Instead, however, Jesus substitutes a Samaritan, a member of a tribe who had been enemies with the Jews for almost five hundred years.This Samaritan then becomes the example of moral love. The Priest and Levite, who were the religious leaders of the Jews, were thus downgraded, while the hated Samaritan was praised. What Jesus is implying is that every Jew, even a religious leader, is incapable of even a simple act of mercy.

Even in his parable about love, Jesus was not above demonstrating his spite towards the Jewish leaders who rejected him.4

When Jesus begins His ministry and sends His disciples exclusively to the Jews He is said to be discriminating against Gentiles. Later, when He is ready to send His disciples to the Gentiles He is also said to be discriminating, this time, against the Jews. Either way; Jesus appears to be wrong, when He does or does not do that which Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan thinks that He ought.

Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan complains that people think that Leviticus 18:19 is an original teaching of Jesus. On the other hand he says that the Messiah is supposed to teach the Torah to the world. He writes:

(Leviticus 18:19), “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” This commandment is so important that Rabbi Akiva declared that it was the fundamental principles of the Torah. Even though this is openly stated in the Torah, written over a thousand years before Jesus’ birth, many people still think of it as one of Jesus’ teachings.5

The evidence, as admitted by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, is that the Gentile world has learned the Torah from Jesus. The Messiah is supposed to teach the Torah and we find that the Gentile world knows the Torah by the teachings of Jesus. Apparently, in this case Jesus is at fault for doing what the Messiah is expected to do.

Unfortunately, Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan gets downright silly in stating,

Jesus was even able to be vindictive against a tree…Did this innocent tree deserve such cruel punishment?6

Need any response be offered? I had to respond to this issue as it was brought up by another Gentile militant activist atheist Cliff Walker and since I responded to it elsewhere I will merely point you to this essay: Weak Bible Week Poster, part 7 of 7

Pinchas Stolper, who contributed to Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan’s book, wrote,

The Missionaries claim that Jesus fulfilled all the prophecies pertaining to the Messiah.7 [emphasis mine]

This is not only utter falsehood, but also contradicts a large portion of the rest of the book. Many prophecies that Jesus did not fulfill are pointed out in the book, along with admissions that Christianity awaits a Second Coming when Jesus will fulfill those prophecies-thus, there is an internal inconsistency within the pages of “The Real Messiah? A Jewish Response to Missionaries.”

I was corresponding with a Jewish gentleman who recommended that I read Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan’s book so that I could understand that Jesus was not the Messiah. I was more than glad to oblige.

However, I found a book that was quite fallacious and in that sense disappointing and not worthy of the popularity which it has enjoyed in the anti-missionary realm. The above represent mere a few of the many examples that may be pointed out.

Which Jesus?, Part 3 – The Three Sai Babas and New Age

Sri Sai Baba Of Shirdi: “(This is a translation of a Telugu article that appeared a long time back in the Telugu daily ‘Eenadu’.) It is seventyfive years since the Mahasamadhi of a Great Soul worshipped by millions as an incarnation of Lord Sri Datta – Sri Sai Baba of Shirdi…Sai is not a religious teacher…He urged everyone to search and find the Divinity within themselves… Shirdi is a small village in Kopergaon district of Maharashtra, about 8 km from the river Godavari. The very soil of this village has become sanctified by the contact with Sai’s Feet for 80 years… In the eyes of Sai all the differences of religious, caste, language and community fade away. All bow to Him alike and in their heart of hearts appeal to Him: ‘You are my Mother, My Father, My Beloved, My Knowledge, You are all that I have, O Sai!’…

Sai Baba was born to the fortunate couple Jamuna and Nanda Lal, in the village of Patri on the 28th of September in 1835…Sai, meaning a ‘Great Soul.’” 1

“The Divine in Human Form…Shirdi Sai Baba was an incarnation of God Shiva but most regarded him as a very great saint. Only a few of his closest devotees knew him to be an incarnation. It is difficult to grasp the implications of the Divine in human form. If we accept the Advaitha philosophy that there is One only without a second; nothing but God throughout the manifested universe and beyond, then logically we are in God, God is in us, we ARE God… Really the form of the Avatar is like a focal point wherein this colossal Divine force can contact the human in the tiny knot of energy that is our Earth… But the Avatar is in no way limited by the constriction of bodily confinement because He is one with the source of all… The Avatar appears to be human and we are misled into thinking of him in these terms but the Avatar himself warns us against this error. Sathya Sai Baba once responded to a devotee who asked when he should return for another visit: ‘First understand that you do not need to come back to see this little body,’ he said pointing to himself. Then he added – ‘Find me in your heart.’ In his previous embodiment as Shirdi Sai Baba (1835 – 1918) he made a similar statement to his devotees: ‘Though, I am here bodily, still I know what you do; beyond the seven seas. Go wherever you will, over the wide world, I am with you. My abode is in your heart and I am within you. Always worship Me, Who is seated in your heart, as well as in the hearts of all beings.’ Shirdi Sai Baba… Sathya Sai Baba, who is Shirdi Sai Baba come again, echoes this thought in many of his statements: ‘Wherever you walk, I am there. Whomsoever you contact, I am in that person. I am in each. From each, I will respond. You can see Me in one place and miss Me in another. You cannot escape Me or do anything in secret…

In my present Avatar, I have come armed with the fullness of the power of formless God to correct mankind, raise human consciousness and put people back on the right path of truth, righteousness, peace and love to divinity.” 2

“Baba’s Sayings: ‘If one meditates on Me, repeats My name, sings My deeds, and is thus transformed into Me, his karma is destroyed. I will stay by his side always. I draw my devotee to Me at the time of his death, though he may die a thousand miles away. If one sees me only, always listens to talk related to Me, and constantly repeats ‘Sai, Sai,’ with heart overflowing with devotion, he will reach God. He need not fear or worry for his body and soul. If you make Me the sole object of your thoughts and aims, you will attain paramartha, the Supreme Goal. Look to me with undivided attention; so also I will look to you. The four sadhanas and the six branches of learning are of no use.’ Baba on Himself: ‘Brahman is my father, Maya is my Mother. As they have united I have got this body. I am Parvadigar (God). I live at Shirdi and everywhere. All things are Mine. I gave everything to everyone. All this universe is in Me. All that you see taken together is Myself. He who thinks that Baba is only at Shirdi has totally failed to see Me.’ Other Sayings of Sai Baba: ‘Those who are fortunate and whose demerits have vanished take to my worship.’” 3

“The Way of Worshipping Baba: An integral form of Baba’s worship, with nine important components, is described in Sri Bharadvaja’s book: ‘Sai Baba the Master’. The same is given here with slight modifications. 1. Regular worship of a life-like picture of Baba. 2. A loving study of Baba’s life and actions. 3. Constant mental repetition of Baba’s name…the name can be made to evoke in our mind the spiritual powers that His miracles demonstrate: His omniscience, His omnipotence, His dispassion, His whole-hearted meditation on His Guru, His vigilance over the welfare of His devotees, His transcendence over death etc. 4. Mentally to offer first to Baba anything we eat or drink. 5. Beginning and ending the day with the thought of Baba. 6. Partaking of Baba’s Udi everyday. Udi is the holy ash from the fire originally lit by Baba, and still burning in Shirdi. This Udi is believed to have great curative power and is partaken by those with long-standing ailments. 7. Worship of Baba for an hour every week…As we worship His picture, we remember strongly Baba’s oneness with His picture and feel His immediate presence. 8. Sharing thoughts of Baba with other devotees.

9. Serving the poor and the needy.” 4

Sathya Sai Baba:
“Where is Sathya Sai Baba? Sathya Sai Baba has said to many people that, “Prashanthi Nilayam is not my home; my home is in your heart.” Sai Baba is the God within us, the inner soul of all of us. He is omnipresent, everywhere, at the same time.” 5

“I have come to light the lamp of love in your hearts…to tell you of this universal, unitary faith…Believe that all hearts are motivated by the one and only God; that all faiths glorify the one and only God; that all names in all languages and all forms man can conceive denote the one and only God…Let the different faiths exist, let them flourish, and let the glory of God be sung in all the languages and a variety of tunes. That should be the ideal. Respect the differences between the faiths and recognize them as valid as long as they do not extinguish the flame of unity.” 6

“What is the meaning of Sai Baba? Sai comes from two words: Sa and Ai. Sa means Divine; Ai means Mother and Baba means father. Thus Sai Baba means Divine Mother Father! Who is Sai Baba and where can I see him?
He is God incarnated on God. Nobody can prove that but you have to find it out through your intuition and experiences of what is God and what is not God. Prasanthi Nilayam, Puttarparthi, is where one can find Him.” 7

Prema Sai Baba:
“Prema, that announced third incarnation or avatar or Sai Baba. He will be born in the Indian state of Karnataka after the passing of Sathya Sai Baba at the age of 96. Swami said: ‘Prema Sai, the third avatar, will promote the evangel (gospel) that not only does God reside in everybody, but every-body is God. That is the final wisdom that will allow every man and woman to go to God.’ (San2, 237)” 8

Western Yogi Christopher Hills:
“Christ had trained as a great Siddha yogi with the powers of consciousness of a true initiate.” 9

Shirley Maclaine:
“I am God!” 10

“[Christ] became an adept yogi and mastered complete control over his body and the physical world around him…tried to teach people that they could do the same thing if they got more in touch with their spiritual selves and their own potential power.” 11

“The Council of Nicea altered the Bible…Jesus studied in India… and became an adept Yogi.” 12

“The ancient Hindu vedas claimed that the spoken words I am…set up a vibrational frequency in the body and mind which align the individual with his or her higher self and thus with the God-source. The word God in any language carries the highest vibrational frequency of any word in that language…You can use I am God or I am that I am as Christ often did.” 13

“Understand your divinity and partnership with God….Each indi- vidual is a co-creator with God.” 14

“The identification with the godhead required a place in which people could congregate to collectively experience the regeneration of their connection to the gods. That place became the theater…The audience and the performers could then share in the divinity of each other.” 15

“the basis of the knowledge the extraterrestrials were bringing was both a scientific and a spiritual knowledge of the God-force…The basic lesson the extraterrestrials were bringing was that each human being was a god, never separated from the God-force.” 16

“The concept of an afterlife took on abstract reality when it became codified by the formal religions. Dogma and ritual created both good and bad afterlives – Paradise or Hell – using mankind’s urgent need to believe in something beyond this world as a mechanism through which to amass and exploit power.” 17

Ashtar Command: “The Ashtar Command is the airborne division of the Great Brother/Sisterhood of Light, under the administrative direction of Commander Ashtar and the spiritual guidance of Lord Sananda, know to Earth as Jesus, or the Christ, our Commander-in-Chief. Composed of millions of starships and personnel from many civilizations, we are here to assist Earth and humanity through the current cycle of planetary cleansing and polar realignment…We are the Hosts of Heaven who serve the Most Radiant One (the Christ) in his mission of love. We work in coordination with the legions of Michael, Uriel, Jophiel, Gabriel… A major focus at this time is the activation of the collective Messiah, the 144,000 ascended masters (referred to as Eagles within the Command) who form the Legion of Special Volunteers. These are the star-seeded emissaries from the Office of the Christ…Our mission administers the sacred ordinances of the Lord God Most High and functions through the Elohim, the Councils of Orion, the Great Central Sun hierachy and Order of Melchizedek… We acknowledge that God, the Source, is one omnipresent, eternal life force, universally recognized by many names and forms. We affirm that there is one “only begotten Son of God,” as pure unconditional love extended throughout creation. The Lord God of the highest positive realms of spirit created and extended only love. This Son of God exists as a state of divine consciousness or Chrishood exemplified by divine embodiments such as Jesus, Sanada, Maitreya, Krishna and others. These and all true teachers or avatars represent a multidimensional collective of love-wisdom, focalized and extended through the Office of the Christ. This office, as well as other divine thrones of celestial administration, is anchored by a trinity. Currently the Office of the Christ is held by Lord Jesus, Lord Moses and Lord Elijah. The current planetary christ is Lord Maitreya. These Christed energies are held as well by Lord Kuthumi and others as our cycle progress into the future and the new hierarchy of masters take their places.) Lord Sathva Sai Baba, currently residing in South India, manifests cosmic Christhood and also Father-Mother Godhood as an extremely rare full avatar, known as the Kalkhi Avatar or tenth incarnation of Lord Vishnu. The Christ also manifests as the individualized soul within mankind with the potential of expressing perfect sonship, or Christhood.

The collective Messiah consists of those 144,000 ascended masters who accompany the Christ or appointed Messiah on a mission of love. These constitute the true church or body of Christ. This body of divine sonship is not limited to 144,000, but requires that minimum number to leaven and give rise to the loaf of humanity (the ascension) or shift into a new paradigm. The door of grace is open to any who would step forth and choose conscious sonship. (The term son, father and mankind refer not to gender but to the directive spiritual function, punusha, or spirit. Prakrithi, or material creation, refers to the receptive spiritual function know by the terms daughter, mother, goddess, Shakti etc. through which spirit is birthed into form as the son-daughter of God, soul or Christ principal. As there seems to be much controversy regarding these issues, we have wished to bring some light and clarity. We of the Ashtar Command simply refer to the Christ as the Most Radiant One or the Beloved.)” 18

The Bible Tap Initiative

The Bible Tap Initiative is very simply, a manner whereby to seek change via a simple action.
If you are anything like me you are sick and tired of sermonizing. No, not of sermons but of sermonizing.
You know the sort, it is tantamount to a short attention span theater wherein the pastor will say, “Now, our text today is thus and such and it states this and that,” thirty seconds later, “Hey, did you watch the football game last night?,” five minute later, “What the text is telling us is…,” thirty seconds later, “How about that new restaurant that just opened down the street…,” 10 minutes later, “The Greek word here is wait, actually that reminds me of a joke,” 15 minutes later, “And just like Paul, when I was a kid…,” fade into utter confusion, frustration and realize that you just wasted your time.

Now, some people just love 10 minutes of substance peppered with 50 minutes of jokes and anecdotes. Yet, for we who seek to lean the deeper things of God and His word it is all too much.

Note to sermonizing pastors: if I want to hear jokes I can go hear a comedian and if I want to hear your personal anecdotes we can go have tea and have a person chat. But when I attend Christian Bible study worship services: just open the Bible and tell me what is says.

the2bbible2btap2binitiative-9183379

Now, let us no go overboard as there are some anecdotes that are very on point. For example, I learned more theology just by becoming a dad that I have in any other manner. Thus, I could regale you with a few very relevant and elucidating anecdotes. Thus, not all anecdotes are distracting or irrelevant.
Likewise with jokes. For example, take a classic such as stating, “The Sadducees did not believe in the supernatural; that’s why they were sad, you see?” A joke such as this will certainly mean that you will never forget the difference between the Sadducees and Pharisees. Yet, such on point jokes are few and far between.

Note: you may be a sermonizing pastor if in your sermon notes you have, “Should have actually studied the text: tell joke here. Did not bother reading up on the relevant history: insert anecdote here…” and in your calendar of scheduled sermon you have, “Use jokes and anecdotes as filler so as to draw out covering one chapter over 8 months—then go on sabbatical [thinking that it has something to do with observing the Lord’s day] on a cruise ship by getting your congregation to pay your way on a ‘Bible Cruise.’”
Now, draw out covering one chapter over 8 months would actually be fine if it is because the pastor is delving into the historical context, the cultural context, the grammatical context, etymology, cross referencing other texts, etc., etc., etc. But doing it just to make the pastor’s “study” time easier and shorter is simply unacceptable.

Modern Churchianity sermonizing leads the flock out to pasture and yet, the pasture is all but a dried up wasteland with mere patches of grass scattered about here and there. The sheep get a little bite of grass, the word of God, and then have to travel quite a distance, through jokes and anecdotes, until they find the next little bit of grass.
Sure the sheep are starving to death but hey, they are having a good time a laugh a lot while doing it. Is this really that for which 2,000 years of Christians have devoted their lives and given their lives to the point of death? No, rather this is what modern day pop-Churchianity is doing as it focuses more and more on a good ol’ time rather than the good news.

The Bible Tap Initiative is a simple manner whereby to seek to, eventually, get such pastors to, you know, actually do that which they are supposed to do.

Bible Tap refers to just that: tapping your Bible. Simply stated: when the pastor trails off into sermonizing, hold your Bible up and begin tapping it with your finger or writing utensil. And, yes, by the way, in many churches you will have to BYOB: bring your own Bible as they only one they have is in a shelf, in a backroom and covered in dust.

At some point you will likely have to explain to those sitting around you and, hopefully, to the pastor just what you are doing. In fact, you may want to make your pastor and other congregants aware of the The Bible Tap Initiative so as to alert, warn, encourage and get people involved.

The point is not to cause trouble or be a smarty pants: although this is exactly how you will be viewed by most—including the lazy pastor who is used to coasting through sermons.

Some good and bad commentaries on Cherubim

I must admit that all commentaries frustrate me as the Christian ones do not satisfy my curiosities as a Jew and the Jewish ones do not satisfy my curiosities as a Christian.

In any case, here are some good and bad points regarding Cherubim.

Chuck Smith:

Isaiah…saw a seraphim, which is probably in the order of the cherubim…he saw the seraphim, who came to the altar of God with a live coal and touched his lips and said, “Now, are you clean”…[John saw] the throne of God and the cherubim about the throne of God, and the worship of God as He sits upon the throne.

Good points overall yet, that seraphim are probably in the order of the cherubim is an assertion. A helpful commentary would be to state that seraphim are probably in the order of the cherubim based on…and what would follow is quotations and citation not just a generic “probably.”

David Guzik:

a. Four living creatures full of eyes: From comparison with Ezekiel 1:4-14 and 10:20-22, we understand these creatures to be cherubim, the spectacular angelic beings who surround the throne of God. Satan was once one of these high angelic beings, according to Ezekiel 28:14.
i. Cherubim were also prominent in design of the tabernacle, particularly in the Most Holy Place (Exodus 25:17-22 and 26:1, 31). The Scriptures show us that the tabernacle is a model of the throne of God, in some manner (Exodus 25:8-9).

Again, good overall and yet cherubim are referred to as being spectacular angelic beings and high angelic beings which is generically asserted. This is actually something that one cannot conclude from the Bible. The fact is that Angels, Cherubim and Seraphim are different categories of being: they look different and have different job functions from each other.

cherub-2484137 Can you imagine such majestic creatures seeing themselves depicted as chubby babies?

Matthew Henry

(2.) By their lion-like courage, their great labour and diligence (in which they resemble the ox), their prudence and discretion becoming men, and their sublime affections and speculations, by which they mount up with wings like eagles towards heaven (v. 7), and these wings full of eyes within, to show that in all their meditations and ministrations they are to act with knowledge, and especially should be well acquainted with themselves and the state of their own souls, and see their own concern in the great doctrines and duties of religion, watching over their own souls as well as the souls of the people.

The point in quoting this is to show how very many commentaries tend to sermonize. These comments are merely the author telling us what he is reading into the text. Even if accurate, the point is that all commentaries are not created equal: some focus on history, some theology, some etymology, etc. and the best would combine various considerations.

Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown

8. about him—Greek, “round about him.” ALFORD connects this with the following sentence: “All round and within (their wings) they are (so two oldest manuscripts, A, B, and Vulgate read) full of eyes.” John’s object is to show that the six wings in each did not interfere with that which he had before declared, namely, that they were “full of eyes before and behind.” The eyes were round the outside of each wing, and up the inside of each when half expanded, and of the part of body in that inward recess…The cherubim here have six wings, like the seraphim in Isa 6:2; whereas the cherubim in Eze 1:6 had four wings each. They are called by the same name, “living creatures.” But whereas in Ezekiel each living creature has all four faces, here the four belong severally one to each.
See on JF & B for Eze 1:6. The four living creatures answer by contrast to the four world powers represented by four beasts. The Fathers identified them with the four Gospels, Matthew the lion, Mark the ox, Luke the man, John the eagle…But here the context best suits the view which regards the four living creatures as representing the redeemed election-Church in its relation of ministering king-priests to God, and ministers of blessing to the redeemed earth, and the nations on it, and the animal creation, in which man stands at the head of all, the lion at the head of wild beasts, the ox at the head of tame beasts, the eagle at the head of birds and of the creatures of the water…In Isa 6:2 we read, “Each had six wings: with twain he covered his face (in reverence, as not presuming to lift up his face to God), with twain he covered his feet (in humility, as not worthy to stand in God’s holy presence), and with twain he did fly [in obedient readiness to do instantly God’s command].”

It is noted that (within Revelation 4) Cherubim have six wings yet in Ezekiel they have four but no attempt is made to deal with this issue—and I cannot blame him as it simply appears to be some form of textual issue.

We are told that “They are called by the same name, ‘living creatures’” but not told whereabouts. Ezekiel refers to them as living creatures and names them Cherubim (see Ezekiel chaps 1 and 10) but John simply refers to them as beasts.

It is stated that “in Ezekiel each living creature has all four faces, here the four belong severally one to each” but this is not necessarily the case as it is too generic. John does only mention one sort of face for each but it appears that this is because only one face of each one’s four is facing him. After all, Ezekiel 1 specifies that, “they turned not when they went; they went every one straight forward…they went every one straight forward…and they turned not when they went…When they went, they went upon their four sides: and they turned not when they went…they went every one straight forward.”

As for the context best suiting the four living creatures representing the redeemed election-Church what then, pray tell, did they represent in Ezekiel? Well, they represent nothing, in a symbolic way, as they are that which they are: living creatures, beasts. This portion also goes off into the sermonizing route.

Angels in the apocryphal texts of Maccabees

Herein we continued, from part 1, part 2, a series regarding paranormal entities in text generally termed the Apocrypha, Deutero Canonical, Pseudepigrapha, Gnostic Texts, etc. (see my article on the Apocrypha here). The quotations are of those sections within the text that refer to Angels, Cherubim, Seraphim, Devil, Satan, demons, serpent and dragon. The point is not to elucidate these references but to provide relevant partial quotations and citations.

1 Maccabees – after 134 BC to before 63 BC
7:41 When the messengers from the king spoke blasphemy, thy Angel went forth and struck down one hundred and eighty-five thousand of the Assyrians.

2 Maccabees – no earlier than 100 BC to as late as 50 AD 11:6, 22-23 When Maccabeus and his men got word that Lysias was besieging the strongholds, they and all the people, with lamentations and tears, besought the Lord to send a good Angel to save Israel…

And he called upon him in these words: “O Lord, thou didst send thy Angel in the time of Hezekiah king of Judea, and he slew fully a hundred and eighty-five thousand in the camp of Sennacherib. So now, O Sovereign of the heavens, send a good Angel to carry terror and trembling before us.

3 Maccabees – estimations run from 100 BC to between 25-24 BC
6:18 Then the most glorious, almighty, and true God revealed his holy face and opened the heavenly gates, from which two glorious Angels of fearful aspect descended, visible to all but the Jews.

4 Maccabees – between 1st century BC and 1st century AD
4:10 …and while Apollonius was going up with his armed forces to seize the money, Angels on horseback with lightning flashing from their weapons appeared from heaven, instilling in them great fear and trembling.

7:11-12 For just as our father Aaron, armed with the censer, ran through the multitude of the people and conquered the fiery Angel, so the descendant of Aaron, Eleazar, though being consumed by the fire, remained unmoved in his reason.

In the next segment, we will consider Bel and the Dragon, Prayer of Azariah, Song of the Three Holy Children, Susanna aka Shoshana, Letter of Jeremiah aka Epistle of Jeremy, additions to the Book of Esther, and the Book of the All-Virtuous Wisdom of Joshua ben Sira aka Wisdom of Sirach aka Sirach aka Siracides aka Book of Ecclesiasticus.

Atheist philosopher Crispin Sartwell encourages irrational Atheism

“I’m an atheist because I think of the universe as a natural, material system… I’m perfectly sincere and definite

in my belief that there is no God

”
—Philosopher Crispin Sartwell

We continue, from part 1, considering Crispin Sartwell’s “Irrational Atheism – Not believing in God isn’t always based on reasoned arguments—and that’s okay,” The Atlantic, October 11, 2014 AD; God help us, he teaches philosophy at Dickinson College.

Amongst other issue, including that Atheism is an anti-Christian support group which is statistically made up of young, White, males; I noted how being an atheist due to the universe being a natural, material system denotes a misunderstanding, misuse and abuse of science.

We now come to Crispin Sartwell’s encouraging “Irrational Atheism” which is tantamount to referring to “hot molten lava”: by definition molten lava is hot and by definition Atheism is irrational.

Note that he make a conveniently self-serving statement in asserting that “Religious people sometimes try to give proofs of the truth of their faith…But for many people, belief comes before arguments…The arguments are post-hoc rationalizations.” Yet, of course, since for many people, belief comes after arguments thus, the arguments are not post-hoc rationalizations (keep in mind the Romans 1 quote from part 1).

Sartwell admits that “This can be true of atheism as well. For me, it’s what I grew up with. It gets by in my social world, where professions of religious faith would be considered out of place. My non-faith is fundamentally part of how I connect with others and the world.” Note what a cloistered life he lives: 1) he accepts post-hoc rationalizations as proofs of Atheism, 2) he grew up with Atheism, 3) he is surrounded by Atheists, 4) they are involved in such group-think that professions of religious faith are considered out of place and 5) he has essentially turned Atheism into a worldview, “part of how I connect with others and the world.”
See my site’s section on Atheist Child Rearing to see how Atheists admit that they train their children to grow up Atheists (often hiding behind terms such as merely training them in rational thinking).

Crispin Sartwell is honest enough to admit “The idea that the atheist comes to her view of the world through rationality and argumentation, while the believer relies on arbitrary emotional commitments, is false.” He notes that “This accounts for the sense that atheists such as Christopher Hitchens or Dawkins are arrogant” yet, “the sense that atheists such as Christopher Hitchens or Dawkins are arrogant” is accounted for by the fact that they were and are arrogant respectively.
Sartwell point is to point out that “the atheist too, is deciding to believe in conditions of irremediable uncertainty, not merely following out a proof.”

There are many good reasons why he titled his article “Irrational Atheism” one of which is his statement that Atheists “offload their beliefs on ‘reason’ or ‘science’ without acknowledging that they are making a bold intellectual commitment about the nature of the universe, and making it with utterly insufficient data.” With this fact in mind, consider what that means for him as he wrote “I’m an atheist because I think of the universe as a natural, material system”: it does away with his Atheism or rather, makes his Atheism irrational.

He asserts that “Religion at its best treats belief as a resolution in the face of doubt.” Now, he does not define “Religion” and thus, I cannot answer directly. However, speaking for the biblical “religion”: “belief” is not “a resolution in the face of doubt” but rather, a resolution based on knowledge (even if that knowledge is incomplete as all of our knowledge of anything is, ultimately, incomplete).
He then admits that Atheism “at its best treats belief as a resolution in the face of doubt” by stating that he “want[s] an atheism that does the same” whereby he is admitting Atheism’s failure to show proof or evidence of its assertions and he calls his “Irrational Atheism” denotes “epistemological courage” (when, epistemological failure is more like it).

crispin20sartwell-6853434

Crispin Sartwell writes that Søren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855 AD) “recommended Christianity”:

…because it constituted a paradox: “The eternal God had appeared in time and died.” That’s not just difficult to explain, he said; it is entirely contradictory. By any reasonable measure it simply cannot be true. But that’s why believing it called for total passion over the course of a lifetime. Christianity was the best thing to believe in part because it was the hardest thing to believe.

Well, it appears that we will have to point something out to Sartwell and Kierkegaard which is that “The eternal God” of the Bible, of Christianity, of Kierkegaard is a Triune being, a Trinity and the fact is that one of the persons which makes up the one God who is the Trinity, “appeared in time and died.” Thus, God did not die rather, one person died and thus, it is not entirely contradictory and not impossible to be true.
Of course, all Atheists are theologians (and very, very dogmatic ones at that: dogmatheism) and so it is, in fact, Sartwell’s theology which claim that it is “entirely contradictory…cannot be true” that ““The eternal God had appeared in time and died.” He does not explain why such should be the case but merely asserts it.

Sartwell is driving at the ultimate of that which has been pointed out by many; that Atheism begs, borrow and steals from the Judeo-Christian worldview theology. So devoid is Atheism of any point at which to even begin building a case for well, anything (as we are the result of a long series of accidents that began when no one caused nothing to explode for no reason and made everything without meaning) that Sartwell will appeal to Christians who, essentially, hold that Christianity is irrational and conclude that Atheists should do likewise with Atheism and get on with it making their irrational claims.

In the next section we will conclude.

Atheist philosopher Crispin Sartwell on the irrational Atheist’s problem of evil

“I’m an atheist because I think of the universe as a natural, material system… I’m perfectly sincere and definite

in my belief that there is no God

”
—Philosopher Crispin Sartwell

We conclude, from part 1 and part 2, considering Crispin Sartwell’s “Irrational Atheism – Not believing in God isn’t always based on reasoned arguments—and that’s okay,” The Atlantic, October 11, 2014 AD; God help us, he teaches philosophy at Dickinson College.

Sartwell quotes William James (1842-1910 AD), philosopher, psychologist and physician, thusly:

Our belief in truth itself, that there is a truth, and that our minds and it are made for each other—what is it but a passionate affirmation of desire, in which our social system backs us up? We want to have a truth; we want to believe that our experiments and studies and discussions must put us in a continually better and better position towards it; and on this line we agree to fight out our thinking lives. But if a … sceptic asks us how we know all this, can our logic find a reply? No! certainly it cannot. It is just one volition against another—we willing to go in for life upon a trust or assumption which he, for his part, does not care to make.

This strikes at the point that according to an Atheists’ typical evolutionary views; life evolves to survive (for some unknown reason) and not necessarily to ascertain empirical truth. Since someone can survive by ascertain empirical truth or just as well by holding to delusions then truth is evolutionarily irrelevant (ultimately speaking). Thus, Atheists employ brains that were haphazardly evolved towards survival and then demand that they have discerned the ultimate truth, Atheism, and that anyone who disagrees is delusionally wrong. Thus, they demand adherence to their concept of truth after merely assuming that truth and our minds are made for each other which is merely a “passionate affirmation of desire.”

When the “sceptic asks us how we know all this” James states that our logic cannot find a reply because, on the sceptic’s own view, “It is just one volition against another” because the sceptic “does not care to make” the “trust or assumption” that truth and our minds are made for each other. Well, in reality they do but do so upon begged, borrowed and stolen premises. Judeo-Christianity holds that truth and our minds are made for each other and, as noted in part 1, premised the scientific method upon this view.

For some odd reason, Sartwell follows this by writing, “By not believing in God, I keep faith with the world’s indifference. I love its beauty. I hate its suffering.” But why is “the world’s indifference” or his supposition of “the world’s indifference” that upon which he premises his “faith” (faitheism) and why “not believing in God” based on the supposed “world’s indifference” or, for that matter, what does he mean by world; the planet, its peoples, what?

crispin20sartwell-3941190

In part 1, I noted that Romans 1 notes that since “that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them” and that “the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made” it is a fact that “when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.”
Now, Sartwell asserts that “It is possible, I think, to find a material world as inspiring as a spiritual world.” And Romans goes on to state that they “changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things…changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator.” This is exactly what Sartwell is doing as he “changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image” of the “material world” in rejection of the “spiritual world.”

I wrote much about this Atheist form of Paganism in Atheism spirituality and more evidence is provided by Crispin Sartwell who quotes Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862 AD), philosopher, naturalist, historian, etc.:

What is it to be admitted to a museum, to see a myriad of particular things, compared with being shown some star’s surface, some hard matter in its home! I stand in awe of my body, this matter to which I am bound has become so strange to me … Think of our life in nature—daily to be shown matter, to come in contact with it—rocks, trees, wind on our cheeks! the solid earth! the actual world! Contact! Contact! Who are we? where are we?

In short, “corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.” Sartwell then writes, “Many people, from Lucretius and Spinoza to Darwin and Muir, have expressed this sense of wonder or ravishment at material nature and their own embeddedness within it.” You see, they replace awe in God with awe in nature. Conversely, the Judeo-Christian view is that nature’s beauty reflects God’s beauty and its horror reflects the fall into sin.

Recall that Crispin Sartwell noted that “I grew up with” Atheism and empathetically note that he writes, “Genuinely bad things have happened to me in my life: One of my brothers was murdered; another committed suicide. I’ve experienced addiction and mental illness. And I, like you, have watched horrors unfold all over the globe. I don’t—I can’t—believe this to be best of all possible worlds. I think there is genuinely unredeemed, pointless pain. Some of it is mine.”
In referring to and criticizing the “best of all possible worlds” he is referring to polymath and philosopher Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716 AD) who philosophized about such matters in his “Essays on the Goodness of God, the Freedom of Man and the Origin of Evil” (William Lane Craig’s The Difference Between Possible and Feasible Worlds may be of interest). Besides being theologians, you will note that Atheists long for heaven as this is most certainly not the “best of all possible worlds” (granting Sartwell’s context) but is a fallen one.
It is also important to note that his claim that “there is genuinely unredeemed, pointless pain” is merely asserted, merely something “I think,” and not something that he proved or for which he argued, see this video for why this is a problem for him logically:

He then reiterates that he keeps “faith with the world’s indifference” and thinks that its love, beauty and suffering “are perfectly real, because I experience them both, all the time” even whilst, incidentally, asserting that our brains and truth are not made for each other. Thus, how could he even know that his “experience” of love, beauty and suffering are real and how does he even define love, beauty and suffering in the first place? After all, are not his thoughts mere fallible interpretations of bio chemical neural reactions occurring within the haphazardly evolved gray matter of a temporarily and accidentally existing bio organism sitting atop a spinning rock orbiting an average star in the backwaters of a temporarily and accidentally existing universe?

Finally, he positively affirms God’s non-existence, “I’m perfectly sincere and definite in my belief that there is no God.” Now, he can take the “Irrational Atheist” route and merely state that he can merely state that “there is no God” and do so upon an irrational premise. However, firstly, this undermines his entire claim to knowledge in the first place. Secondly, he must be called to prove God’s non-existence. Now, for those who have fallen for the “you can’t prove a negative” claim; note that he actually claims to know it, to possess positive knowledge and it is the lack of ability to prove that God does not exist, even whilst claiming to know that He does not, which brought about the fallback position from Atheism which is Agnosticism or that which neo-Atheists like to state as merely lacking a belief in god(s) (this, by the way, won Sartwell a spot on my list of celebrity New Atheists who positively affirm God’s non-existence).

He concludes by writing

I can see that there could be comfort in believing otherwise, believing that all the suffering and death makes sense, that everyone gets what they deserve, and that existence works out in the end.
But to believe that would be to betray my actual experiences, and even without the aid of reasoned arguments, that’s reason enough not to believe.

Thus, ultimately, his claim to know that God does not exist is based on the problem of evil and his claim to know, for a fact, that “all the suffering and death” does not make “sense, that everyone” does not get “what they deserve, and that existence” does not work “out in the end.” In other words, he claims to know things that he does not know such as that his own “own extremely limited experience,” as he put it, results in him somehow knowing that the suffering, death, etc. is arbitrary without, by the way, telling us why suffering, death, etc. are wrong, bad, evil, etc.